See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267395396
Proceedings of the 5th International Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress:
Balancing Marine Tourism, Development and Sustainability
Book · September 2007
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3614.7204
CITATION
READS
1
3,515
1 author:
Michael Lück
Freelance
320 PUBLICATIONS 2,453 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Lück on 28 October 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Proceedings of the 5th International
Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress
Balancing Marine Tourism, Development and
Sustainability
11-15 September 2007
Auckland, New Zealand
Edited by
Michael Lück
Alice Gräupl
Jan Auyong
Marc L. Miller
Mark B. Orams
Proceedings of the 5th International Coastal & Marine
Tourism Congress:
Balancing Marine Tourism, Development and Sustainability
11-15 September, 2007
Auckland, New Zealand
Edited by
Michael Lück
Alice Gräupl
Jan Auyong
Marc L. Miller
Mark Orams
Published by the School of Hospitality & Tourism
and the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute
AUT University
Auckland, New Zealand
Additonal copies can be ordered from
School of Hospitality & Tourism
Private Bag 92006
Auckland, 1020
New Zealand
Proceedings of the 5th International Coastal & Marine Tourism
Congress: Balancing Marine Tourism, Development and Sustainability
Published by:
School of Hospitality & Tourism
and
New Zealand Tourism Research Institute
AUT University
Private Bag 92006
Auckland, 1020
New Zealand
For information visit our websites:
School of Hospitality & Tourism:
http://www.aut.ac.nz/schools/hospitality_and_tourism/
New Zealand Tourism Research Institute:
http://nztri.aut.ac.nz/triweb/pages/index.php
Copyright © 2007, Michael Lück, Alice Gräupl, Jan Auyong, Marc L. Miller, Mark
B. Orams
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publishers.
The content of the papers in these proceedings are the respective authors’ opinion, and
do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors and/or the publishers.
ISBN 978-1-877314-66-7
CMT’07 logo design: Kevin Ong Kah Yong, Singapore
Printed and bound by Printsprint in Auckland, New Zealand
Contents
Conference Programme................................................................................................
Editors’ Preface
Michael Lück, Alice Gräupl, Jan Auyong, Marc L. Miller & Mark B. Orams...............
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................
International Steering Committee...............................................................................
Conference Welcome
Jan Auyong......................................................................................................................
Keynote Addresses
Ignorance of insight? An integrated and adaptive model for the long term sustainable
management of tourist interactions with marine wildlife
James Higham........................................................................................................................
The leap of faith: Will ethics in tourism go gently (or rage) into that good night?
David A. Fennell .............................................................................................................
Developing Lifeguard Services for Tourist Resorts: Legal, Training and Quality
Service Considerations
Jeff Wilks.........................................................................................................................
Extreme marines: the rise of high risk marine tourism
Mark B. Orams................................................................................................................
Ludic challenges of coastal and marine tourism
Marc L. Miller.................................................................................................................
Conference Papers
Theme 1: Marine Wildlife Tourism
Origin and development of whalewatching in the state of Aragua, Venezuela:
Laying the groundwork for sustainability
Jaime Bolaños-Jiménez, Auristela Villarroel-Marin, E.C.M. Parsons &
Naomi A. Rose.................................................................................................................
When and where? The whale-watching industry and the future
Rochelle Constantine & Lars Bejder ..............................................................................
Dusky Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) occurrence patterns near Kaikoura,
New Zealand: Observations from tour boats 1995-2006
Adrian Dahood, Bernd Würsig, Zach Vernon, Ian Bradshaw, Dennis Buurman &
Lynette Buurman.............................................................................................................
‘Jaws or Jawsome’? Exploring the shark-diving experience
John Dobson ...................................................................................................................
Marine wildlife tourism opportunities in Baja California
Sara M. Earhart, Maile C. Sullivan & Marc L. Miller...................................................
The sustainabale development of the whale watching industry: A case study approach
Sophia Foley & Marian Binkley .....................................................................................
Speaking from Experience: Whale and Dolphin Watching Boats as Venues for
Marine Conservation Education
Paul Forestell & Gegory Kaufman.................................................................................
The growth of whale and dolphin watching tourism in Oceania
Lydia Gibson, Simon O’Connor & Tania Duratovic......................................................
Grunion Greeters in California: Beach Spawning Fish, Coastal Stewardship,
Management and Ecotourism
Karen Martin, Andrew Staines, Melissa Studer, Chris Stivers, Cassadie Moravek,
Phillip Johnson & Jennifer Flannery .............................................................................
Dolphin watch tourism: A cross-case comparison of two differing examples of
sustainable practices and pro-environmental outcomes
Gayle Mayes & Harold Richins......................................................................................
Watching endangered orcas: The role of communication in balancing marine
tourism and sustainability
Tema Milstein..................................................................................................................
Sustainable versus Unsustainable dolphin tourism in the Caribbean: A case study
in the Dominican Republic
E.C.M. Parsons & Naomi A. Rose ..................................................................................
A wildlife tourism auditing framework…can we build it?
Kate Rodger, David Newsome & Amanda Smith............................................................
Adaptive Management for a Recovering Humpback Whale Population in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park
Sarah Salmon & Kirstin Dobbs ......................................................................................
Meeting Flipper in the wild: Managing swim with dolphin tourism in Australia
Heather Zeppel................................................................................................................
Theme 2: Marine Protected Areas
Quantifying community perceptions of marine environments for Marine Protected
Area planning: When is the Reef too crowded?
Barbara Bollard-Breen & Daniel Breen ........................................................................
Tourism as basis for sustainable development in protected coastal areas?
Svein Frisvoll & Katrina Rønningen ..............................................................................
The law and policy regulating marine parks in the Asia Pacific – de legere ferenda
Mary George...................................................................................................................
Quantifying community perceptions of marine environments for Marine Protected
Area planning: When is the Reef too crowded?
Nina Hall & Jim Sillitoe .................................................................................................
Impacts of the 2004 Tsunami Disaster on Thailand’s Marine Park Tourism: What
Did We Learn?
Somrudee (Meprasert) Jitpraphai1 & James W. Good ..................................................
Tourism in the marine national park of Gujarat
Prabha Ranade ...............................................................................................................
Theme 3: The Cruise Ship Industry
Cruise Ship Tourism Research: A Critical Review
Brigid Casey....................................................................................................................
Protecting paradise: Minimizing the downside of cruise tourism
Ross A. Klein...................................................................................................................
The socio-economic impacts of cruise tourism: A case study of Croatian
destinations
Zrinka Marusic, Sinisa Horak & Renata Tomljenovic ...................................................
Development of a supply chain model for the cruise industry
Funda Yercan & Frank Bates .........................................................................................
Theme 4: Coral Reefs and Scuba Diving/Snorkeling
Keeping and I (and 1.9 million others) on the reef: The sustainability of tourism
on the Great Barrier Reef
Alexandra Coghlan & Bruce Prideaux...........................................................................
Fishers, divers, scientists, lawyers, and Marine Protected Areas: The U.S.
experience in protecting coral reefs
Robin Kundis Craig ........................................................................................................
Why Dive? And Why Here? A study of recreational diver enjoyment at a Fijian
eco-tourist resort
Clare Fitzsimmons ..........................................................................................................
Upgrading to a better model - a new style of planning in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park
Sally Peut & Peter McGinnity ........................................................................................
Keeping the Great Barrier Reef Great – The development of an innovative
sustainable tourism partnership
Lorelle Schluter, Sally Peut & Lisha Mulqueeny............................................................
Loose lips and sinking ships: Analysing the role of intergovernmental relations
in the creation of artificial reefs for sustainable scuba diving tourism in Australia
Paul Stolk ........................................................................................................................
Theme 5: Guides, Interpretation and Education
The role and presence of a guide: Preliminary findings from swim with seal
programmes and land-based seal viewing in New Zealand
Laura Boren, Neil Gemmell & Kerry Barton .................................................................
Educating visitors to the Pacific coast of Washington State: Information
dissemination and marine management
Rachel More Gregg.........................................................................................................
Designing and Assessing Marine Educational Signage with a Marine Environmental
Philosophy: Pilot Studies in Puget Sound, Washington State
Katrina A. Lassiter & Marc L. Miller.............................................................................
Whale watching tour guides: Communicating conservation effectively
Sheila E. Peake ...............................................................................................................
Environmental education on Rangitoto Island: What do visitors learn from
Auckland’s Marine volcano?
Christian Wittlich............................................................................................................
Marine wildlife tourism: Education and conservation benefits
Heather Zeppel & Sue Muloin ........................................................................................
Theme 6: Marine Adventure and Sports Tourism
Dropping in: A case study approach to understanding the socio-economic impact
of recreational surfing and its value to the tourism industry
Neil Lazarow, Marc L. Miller & Boyd Blackwell...........................................................
Family Sailing in the Archipelago Sea, between Finland and Sweden
Ole Rud Nielsen ..............................................................................................................
A geography of charter boat operators in New Zealand
Hamish G. Rennie & Jill Thomson .................................................................................
Theme 7: Marine Festivals, Events, and Heritage
Coastal and Marine Heritage for Tourism: Examples from the North Atlantic
Carl Cater & Erlet Cater................................................................................................
Interest in “virtual” and “real” shrimp related experiences among coastal and shrimp
festival tourists in South Carolina, USA
Laura W. Jodice & William C. Norman .........................................................................
Salt and maritime heritage in the Canary Islands
Juan Manuel Santana-Pérez .................................................................................................
Environmental impacts and indicators for marine-based sporting events
Vikki Schaffer, David Foster & Meredith Lawley ..........................................................
Theme 8: Coastal and Island Tourism
Developing a Strategic Tourism Plan for Northeast Iceland: Highlands, Whales
and the Yulelads
John Hull.........................................................................................................................
The role of physical planning in linking disaster risk reduction to the Development
Process: Coastal Tourism Reconstruction in Grand Anse, Grenada
Roché Mahon ..................................................................................................................
At the crossroads: Island tourism in Malaysia
Badarussin Mohamed & Azizi Bahauddin......................................................................
Linking beach recreation to weather conditions. A case study in Zandvoort,
Netherlands
Alvaro Moreno, Bas Amelung & Lorena Santamarta ....................................................
Responisble environmental practices in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, Philippines
John C. Gray...................................................................................................................
An integrated coastal management strategy for a proposed marine tourism
conservation estate at Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa
Peter B. Myles.................................................................................................................
Obstacles to the Adaptive Management of Coastal and Marine Tourism Destinations
Anna Palliser ..................................................................................................................
Sexual harassment: Not just a coastal problem
Jill Poulston ....................................................................................................................
Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to tourism activity: The
case of Lanzarote Island
Roberto Rendeiro Martín-Cejas .....................................................................................
Evaporating the Essence: Towards an Understanding of sub-Antarctic Visitation
Eric J. Shelton ................................................................................................................
Impacts of the Proposed Red-Dead Canal on Sustainable Tourism Development
at the Dead Sea
Edith M. Szivas................................................................................................................
Theme 9: Research, Sciences, and Marine Tourism
Meeting obligations under the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations 1992
(MMPR) when scientific knowledge is limited
Laura Allum ....................................................................................................................
Unifying ecological and social sciences into a management framework for
wildlife based tourism: A case study of feeding stingrays as a marine tourism
attraction in the Cayman islands
Christina A.D. Semeniuk, Wolfgang Haider & Kristina D. Rothley ..............................
Development of marine research tourism in Australia
Peter Wood......................................................................................................................
Poster Abstracts
Using fuzzy AHP to develop evaluation criteria for multifunctional development
of fishing harbors
Chung-Ling Chen............................................................................................................
Proposal for the preservation and rational use of the salt mines from Eastern
Venezuela
Montserrat Esteve & C. Romero
Tourism representations of rurality and ‘trail by space’ in Norwegian rural
communities
Svein Frisvoll ..................................................................................................................
Disappearing Hector’s and Maui dolphins – the last chance to see them?
Jacqueline Geurts ...........................................................................................................
Are we loving our whales to death? Ensuring the sustainability of a growing
whale-watch industry
Maryrose Gulesserian, Megan Kessler, Luciana Möller & Rob Harcourt ....................
Variation in the Acoustic & Behavioural Responses of Inshore Bottlenose
Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) to Different types of vessels
Elizabeth R. Hawkins ......................................................................................................
Responses of Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori) to vessel
Activity in Akaroa, NZ
Emmanuelle Martinez, Dianne H. Brunton & Mark B. Orams ......................................
The value of threatened species to tourism in New Zealand
Mark N.H. Seabrook-Davison, Dianne H. Brunton & Mark B. Orams..........................
Tourism affects the behavioural budget of common dolphins (Delphinus sp.)
in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand
Karen A Stockin, David Lusseau, Vicky Binedell, Nicky Wiseman & Mark Orams.......
Workshop Presentation Abstracts
Workshop I: Seafood Tourism and Aquaculture
Northern Coastal Inspiration: Chefs Sharing Culinary Traditions Across the Northern
Periphery
John Hull.........................................................................................................................
Introduction to seafood tourism
Laura W. Jodice & William C. Norman .........................................................................
Workshop II: Interpretation and Education in the Marine Environment
Marine Interpretation and Marine Guides ~ how can we make a difference?
Deborah Benham ............................................................................................................
Guiding Effectively: experience, knowledge and decision making to reduce tourist
impact on New Zealand
Laura Boren ....................................................................................................................
Citizen Scientists as Docents Impact Policy
Karen Martin ..................................................................................................................
Guiding and the Challenges of Incorporating a Model for Creating Cognitive
Dissonance in the Visitor
Jonathon Spring ..............................................................................................................
How to capture and captivate tourists to make them care, comprehend and change
Caroline Thalund ............................................................................................................
Interpretation of Marine Research
Peter Wood......................................................................................................................
AUT University is a leading institute for hospitality and tourism studies in New
Zealand. The School of Hospitality and Tourism is the largest School of its
kind in the country and is situated in the heart of downtown Auckland.
Hospitality and Tourism is seen as a strategic strength for the university and
there is an array of pre-degree, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes
on offer.
Programmes Offered
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Master of International Hospitality Management, incorporating
Postgraduate Diploma of International Hospitality Management
Master of Professional Hospitality Studies
Master of Tourism Studies, incorporating Postgraduate Diploma of
Tourism Studies
Bachelor of International Hospitality Management
Bachelor of International Hospitality Management and Bachelor of
Business Conjoint
Bachelor of Tourism Studies
Diploma in Culinary Arts
Diploma in Event Management
Diploma in Hospitality Management
Diploma in Patisserie
Diploma in Travel and Tourism
Certificate in Hospitality and Tourism
Certificate in Practical Patisserie
For further information on programmes offered, please telephone AUT
Contact Centre:
Level 2, WH Building
AUT University corner of Mayoral Drive and Wellesley Street, Auckland
Tel: 0800 AUT UNI (0800 AUT 288 864
Email: courseinfo@aut.ac.nz
i
ii
4:30pm - 5:30pm
4:00pm - 4:30pm
2:30pm - 4:00pm
1:00pm - 2:30pm
12:15pm - 1:00pm
Official Conference Opening
Juan Manuel Santana Pérez (University of Las
Palmas of Gran Canaria, Spain)
Coastal & marine heritage for tourism:
Examples from the North Atlantic
Carl Cater (Griffith University, Australia) & Erlet
Cater (University of Reading, UK)
Salt and maritime heritage in the Canary
Islands
Session: Marine Heritage and Tourism
Sustainable versus unsustainable dolphin
tourism in the Caribbean: A case study in the
Dominican Republic
E.C.M. Parsons (George Mason University, USA)
& Naomi A. Rose (Humane Society International,
USA)
Adaptive management for a recovering
humpback whale population in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park
Sarah Salmon & Kirstin Dobbs (Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority)
Gale Mayes & Harold Richins (University of the
Sunshine Coast, Australia)
Sustainable practices and pro-environmental
outcomes from watching dolphins
Session: Marine Wildlife Tourism:
Whales & Dolphins I
Lunch
Session: Marine Adventure & Sports
Tourism I
Session: Marine Protected Areas I
Quantifying values: a sampling methodology
assessing the impacts of Victoria's marine
protected areas
Nina Hall & Jim Sillitoe (University of Ballarat,
Australia)
Dropping in: A case study approach to
understanding the socio-economic impact of
recreatonal surfing
Neil Lazarow (The Australian National University,
Australia), Marc L. Miller (University of
Washington, USA), Boyd Blackwell (Australian
Maritime College, Australia), Stephen Dovers &
Ian J. White (The Australian National University,
Australia)
Interest in "virtual" and "real" shrimp related
experiences among coastal and shrimp
festival tourists
Laura W. Jodice and William C. Norman
(Clemson University, USA)
Environmental impacts and indicators for
marine-based sporting events
Vikki Schaffer, David Foster & Meredith Lawley
(University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia)
Session: Events & Festivals
Manuela Britto Taboada & Leo Ximenes Cabral
Duta (University of New England, Australia)
Evaporating the Essence: Towards an
understanding of sub-Antarctic visitation
Shelton, Eric (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Why dive? And why here? A study of
recreational diver enjoyment at a Fijian ecotourist resort
Clare Fitzsimmons (Newcastle University, UK)
Session: Marine Adventure & Sports
Tourism II
Afternoon Tea
Prabha Ranade (ICFAI Business School, India)
Ole Rud Nielsen (Åbo Akademi University,
Finland)
Azizi Bahauddin & Badaruddin Mohamed
(Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia)
Challenges for initiating tourism in a remote
village in Atauro Island, East-Timor
Family Sailing in the Archipelago Sea, between Tourism in the marine national park of Gujarat,
Finland and Sweden
India
At the crossroads: island tourism in Malaysia
Unsustainable development and tourism
Ecological footprint analysis of transport for
A geography of charter boat operators in New
practices deteriorates the water and soil
tourism: the case of Lanzarote island
Zealand
quality of marine protected areas
Roberto Rendeiro Martin-Cejas (University of Las Hamish Rennie (Lincoln University, New Zealand) M. Maruf Hossain (University of Chittagong,
Palmas of Gran Canaria, Spain)
& Jill Thomson (Electic Energy, New Zealand)
Bangladesh), M.M. Islam (University of Tromsø,
Norway), M.ZH. Islam & D. Sultana (University of
Chittagong, Bangladesh)
Session: Island Tourism
Dr Jan Auyong, Oregon State University, Founder of the Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress
The Hon. Damien O'Connor, Minster of Tourism
Derek McCormack, Vice Chancellor AUT University
Keynote Address: Professor James Higham (University of Otago, New Zealand): Ignorance of insight? An integrated and adaptive model for the long term sustainable management of tourist interactions with
marine wildlife
11:30am - 12:15pm
Registration
Registration
Welcome Reception
Powhiri (incl. Morning Tea) at the Marae
Wednesday 12 September 2007
Tuesday 11 September 2007
9:00am - 11:00am
From 8:30am
7:00pm - 9:00pm
5:30pm - 7:00pm
Conference Programme
5th International Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress
iii
7:30pm - 11:00pm
4:00pm - 5:30pm
2:30pm - 4:00pm
1:00pm - 2:30pm
Lunch
Heather Zeppel & Sue Muloin (James Cook
University, Australia)
Ross A. Klein (Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Canada)
Sheila Peake (University of the Sunshine Coast,
Australia)
Development of a supply chain model for the
cruise industry
Impacts of the proposed Red-Dead Sea canal
on sustainable tourism development at the
Dead Sea
Edith M. Szivas (University of Surrey, UK)
Behnaz Aminzadeh (University of Tehran, Iran)
Hull, John (AUT University, New Zealand)
Developing a Strategic Plan for North-east
Iceland: Highlands, Whales, and the Yulelads
Poster Session (incl. Afternoon Tea)
Conference Dinner (incl. Best Paper Awards and Book Launch)
Educating visitors to the Pacific coast of
Washington State: Marine tourism
management
Rachel More Gregg (University of Washington,
USA)
Session: Marine Wildlife Tourism:
Sharks, Turtles, Seals, and more
Deborah Benham (WDCS, UK)
Caroline Thalund (University of Southern
Denmark, Denmark)
Peter Wood (James Cook University, Australia)
Jonathon Spring (AUT University, New Zealand)
Laura Boren (University of Canterbury, New
Zealand)
Kate Rodger & David Newsome (Murdoch
University, Australia)
A wildlife auditing framework…can we build it?
Laura Boren, Neil J. Gemmell (University of
Canterbury, New Zealand) & Kerry J. Barton
(Landcare Research, New Zealand)
Calling all guides: the influence of a guide on
swim-with-seal programs and land-based
viewing
John Dobson (University of Wales, UK)
"Jaws or Jawsome?" An exploration of the
shark-diving experience"
Sara M. Earhart, Maile C. Sullivan & Marc L. Miller
(University of Washington, USA)
Sustainable strategies for the conservation of Marine wildlife tourism: Opportunities in Baja
California, Mexico
inner-city river valleys
Session: Sustainability &
Conservation
Practical Demonstration: Seafood
Alan Brown Glenys Casci Lindsay Neill
Graeme Coates (New Zealand Seafood and
Aquaculture Trail)
John Hull (AUT University, New Zealand)
Speakers:
Karen Martin (Pepperdine University, USA)
Speakers:
Workshop: Interpretation in the Marine
Environment
Laura Jodice (Clemson University, USA)
Workshop: Seafood Tourism
A strategy for marine environmental education The studies of sustainable tourism
of tourists and residents: design and
development of marine tourism resources in
assessment of signage in Island and Jefferson China
Counties, Puget Sound, Washington State
Funda Yercan (Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey) & Katrina Lassiter & Marc L. Miller (University of
Yan Zhang (Kumamoto University, Japan &
Frank Bates (Izmir University of Economics,
Washington, USA)
Zhejiang Gongshang University, China) &
Turkey)
Kazuhisa Iki (Kumamoto University, Japan)
Zrinka Marusic, Sinisa Horak & Renata
Tomljenovic (Institute for Tourism, Croatia)
The socio-economic impacts of cruise
Tour guides: Communicating conservation
tourism: A case study of Croatian destinations effectively
Marine wildlife tours: Education and
conservation benefits
Session: Education & Interpretation
Protecting paradise: Managing the downside
of cruise tourism
Session: The Cruise Ship Industry
Lydia Gibson (Interntional Fund for Animal
Welfare, Australia), Simon O'Connor
(Economists@Large & Associates, Australia) &
Tania Duratovic (International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Australia)
Trends in Dusky dolphin occurrence patterns
near Kaikoura, NZ: Oberservations from tour Cruise ship tourism research: A critical review
boats 1995-2006
Brigid Casey (Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand)
Adrian Dahood, Bernd Würsig, Zach Vernon
(Texas A&M University, USA), Ian Bradshaw,
Dennis Buurman & Lynette Buurman (Encounter
Kaikoura, New Zealand)
The growth of whale and dolphin watching
tourism in Oceanania
Speaking from experience: Whale and dolphin
watching boats as venues for marine
conservation education
Paul Forestell (Pacific Whale Foundation and
Long Island University) & Gregory Kaufman
(Pacific Whale Foundation)
Watching endangered orcas: The role of
communication in balancing marine tourism
and sustainability
Tema Milstein (University of Washington, USA)
Session: Marine Wildife Tourism:
Whales & Dolphins II
Keeping the Great Barrier Reef great - the
Quantifying of community perceptions of
development of an innovative sustainable
marine environments for MPA planning: When
tourism partnership
is the sea too crowded?
Barbara Bollard-Breen (AUT University, New
Lorelle Schluter, Sally Peut (Great Barrier Reef
Zealand) & Daniel Breen (Department of
Marine Park Authority, Australia) & Lisha
Conservation, New Zealand)
Mulqueeny (Tourism and Recreation Group,
Australia)
Fishers, Divers, Scientists, Lawyers, and
Tourism as basis for sustainable development
MPAs: The U.S. Experience in Protecting Coral
in protected coastal areas?
Reefs
Svein Frisvoll & Katrina Rønningen (Centre for
Robin Kundis Craig (Florida State University,
Rural Research, Norway)
USA)
Environmental index of hospitality at the
Brazilian coast: the case of second residence
tourism balneability impacts
Davis G. Sansolo & Ivan Bursztyn (Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Somrudee (Meprasert) Jitpraphai (Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand) and James W. Good
(Oregon State University, USA)
Paul Stolk (University of Newcastle, Australia)
Alvaro Moreno (Maastricht University, The
Netherlands)
Loose lips and sinking ships: The influence of
Impacts of the 2004 Tsunami disaster on
intergovernmental politics in the creation of
Thailand's marine park tourism: What did we
artificial reefs for sustainable scuba diving
learn?
tourism in australia.
Linking Beach Recreation to Weather
Conditions. A Case Study in Zandvoort,
Netherlands
The law and policy regulating marine parks in
Asia-Pacific
Mary George (University of Malaya, Malysia)
Session: Marine Protected Areas II
Keeping an I (and one million others) on the
reef
Alexandra Coghlan & Bruce Prideaux (James
Cook University, Australia)
Session: Coral Reefs and Tourism
Investigation of Chabahar region potential as
a Geo Park
Alireza R. Salehipour (Marine Geology
Management - Geological Survey, Iran)
Session: Coastal Tourism
Morning Tea
11:00am - 1:00pm
10:30am - 11:00am
Registration
Keynote Address: Professor David A. Fennell (Brock University, Canada): The leap of faith: Will ethics in tourism go gently (or rage) into that good night?
Keynote Address: Professor Jeff Wilks (Surf Live Saving, Australia): Developing lifeguard services for tourist resorts: legal, training and quality considerations
Thursday 13 September 2007
9:00am - 10:30am
From 8:30am
iv
Saturday 15 September 2007
Tours 6, 7 & 8: Tiritiri Matangi Island (8:20am)
Tour 3: Kelly Tarlton's Antarctic Encounter and
Underwater World behind the scenes tour
Peter Myles (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University, South Africa)
Sophia Foley & Marian Binkley (Dalhousie
University, Canada)
Tours 1 & 2: New Zealand National Maritime
Museum (incl. Harbour Cruise)
An integrated coastal management strategy for
a marine tourism conservation estate at
Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa
The Sustainable Development of the Whale
Watching Industry: A Case Study Approach
see individual field
Tour 5: Dolphin & Whale Safari (10:30am)
trip
3:30pm -
2:30pm - 3:00pm
1:00pm - 2:30pm
Tour 9: Goat Island Marine Reserve and The
Leigh Marine Laboratory (8:30am)
Optional Field Trips
Tour 4: Guided Maritime Heritage Walk
Optional Field Trips
Lunch
Conference Closing
Responsible environmental practices: Puerto
Princesa, Palawan, Philippines
John Gray (John Gray's SeaCanoe, Thailand)
Christian Wittlich (University of Auckland, New
Zealand)
When and where? The whale-watch industry
and the future
Rochelle Constantine (University of Auckland,
New Zealand) & Lars Bejder (Murdoch University,
Australia)
Upgrading to a better model: a new style of
planning in the Great Barrier Reef
Sally Peut & Peter McGinnity (Great Barrier
Marine Park Authority, Australia)
Session: Research, Sciences and
Marine Tourism
Tour 10: Guided Maritime Heritage Walk
(10:00am)
Jill Poulston (AUT University, New Zealand)
Sexual harrassment: not just a coastal
problem!
Development of Marine Research Tourism
across Australia
Peter Wood (James Cook University, Australia)
Christina A.D. Semeniuk, Wolfgang Haider &
Christina D. Rothley (Simon Fraser University,
Canada)
Unifying ecological & social sciences into a
management framework for marine tourism
Laura Allum (Department of Conservation, New
Zealand)
Environmental Education on Rangitoto Island: Meeting obligations under the Marine Mammal
What do visitors learn from Auckland's marine Protection Regulations (MMPR) 1992 when
scientific knowledge is limited
volcano?
Grunion greeters in California: Beach
spawning fish, coastal stewardship, and
ecotourism
Karen Martin, Melissa Studer, Chris Stivers &
Brad Cupp (Pepperdine University and
Grunion.org, USA)
The role of physical planning in linking
disaster risk reduction to the development
process: Coastal tourism reconstruction in
Grand Anse, Grenada
Roche Mahon (The University of the West Indies,
Trinidad & Tobago)
Session: Marine Ecotourism
Origin and development of whalewatching in
Obstacles to the adaptive management of
state of Aragua, Venezuela: Laying the
coastal and marine tourism destinations
groundwork for sustainability
Jaime Bolanos-Jimenez (Sociedad Ecológica
Anna Palliser (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Venezolana Vida Marina, Venezuela), Auristela
Villarroel-Marín (Sociedad Ecológica Venezolana
Vida Marina, Venezuela), E.C.M. Parsons
(George Mason University, USA) & Naomi A.
Rose (Humane Society International, USA)
Heather Zeppel (James Cook University,
Australia)
Meeting Flipper in the wild: Managing swim
with dolphin tourism in Australia
Session: Planning & Development
Morning Tea
Session: Marine Wildife Tourism:
Whales & Dolphins III
10:30am - 11:00am
11:00am - 1:00pm
Keynote Address: Dr. Mark B. Orams (Sir Peter Blake Trust, New Zealand): Extreme marines: the rise of high risk marine tourism
Keynote Address: Professor Marc L. Miller (University of Washington, USA): Ludic challenges of coastal and marine tourism
Registration
Friday 14 September 2007
9:00am - 10:30am
From 8:30am
The New Zealand Tourism Research Institute (NZTRI) is a non-profit academic
organisation that provides innovative research of value to industry, community, and
policy-makers.
Based at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), NZTRI brings together experts in the tourism and
hospitality arena. Our goal is to develop timely and innovative research solutions for the tourism
industry and those who depend on it. Our focus is on helping to develop a profitable and sustainable
industry which provides tangible benefits for business, residents and visitors.
We foster and utilise the research
skills of PhD students, Masters
students, and international interns
from a range of nations including:
Vietnam, Italy, France, Mexico, The
Netherlands, Canada, Norway and
the Pacific.
NZTRI provides:
=
=
=
=
=
Innovative research into ways that
tourism can benefit the community and
business.
Tools to empower businesses and
communities to plan for their future.
Webraising so that the locals have a say on
how their part of the world is presented.
Advice on the impacts of tourism on
society, the economy, and culture.
International partnerships and alliances
which enable a wide pool of knowledge
and resources to be brought into a project
as required.
Our clients are diverse and range from national and
local government bodies, to community groups.
Some of our past and current clients include:
EU Proinvest Programme
Parks Canada
South Pacific Tourism Organisation
New Zealand Department of Labour
New Zealand Trade & Enterprise
New Zealand Department of Conservation
The North Shore/Manukau/Auckland City Councils
Destination Lake Taupo
Western Southland Promotions Society
Research Programme Areas & Associate
Directors:
=
Coastal & Marine Tourism (Dr Michael Lück)
=
Event Tourism (Dr Geoff Dickson)
=
Indigenous Tourism (Dr Hamish Bremner)
=
Pacific Islands Tourism (Dr Semisi Taumoepeau)
=
Tourism & Community Development (Dr John Hull)
=
Tourism & Technology (Dr Ulrich Speidel)
=
Tourism Marketing (Dr Ken Hyde)
Please do not hesitate to contact us to
discuss how we can assist you.
NZTRI
Dr Simon Milne - Director
Ph (64 9) 921 9245
simon.milne@aut.ac.nz
www.nztri.org
Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142
v
Editors’ Preface
In 1990, the first Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was convened in
Honolulu, Hawaii as a response to a growing need to bridge economic development
and the conservation of coastal resources and ecosystems. The event brought together
a truly diverse set of stakeholders including government tourism officials,
policymakers, and regulators; scientists, scholars, and students of many persuasions;
tourism industry experts including large-scale developers and small-scale
entrepreneurs; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations, and
environmental and other special interest advocates; and also interested citizens.
CMT’90 was an exciting event because it involved those who endorsed tourism, those
who were more skeptical, and those with mixed feelings. One result of CMT’90 was a
general recognition that coastal and marine tourism was too important—and too
controversial—to go unexamined. Participants at CMT’90 realized the remedy lay in
sustained study by a wide range of disciplines as well as a disciplined application of
that information.
CMT’90 provided a solid foundation for the World Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism held again in Honolulu 1996. Many who attended CMT’96 had
participated in the first congress and were particularly eager to share their new
experiences and insights. Papers and animated discussions at CMT’96 revealed that
the challenges of achieving sustainability were indeed substantial. There was also
widespread acceptance of the pressing need to address coastal and marine tourism
growth issues. Participants showed great interest in understanding how the tourism
agendas of governments, industries, and NGOs and other special interest
organizations were shaped.
In 1999, the International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism shifted
to Vancouver, British Columbia. This event helped practitioners to understand how
coastal and marine tourism issues at higher latitudes can both resemble and be
different from those in the tropics. CMT’99 focused less on the ends of achieving
sustainable development, but rather more on the means. The theme of CMT’99—
“Choices, Responsibilities, and Practices”—reflected this orientation.
In 2005, the International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was
convened in Çeşme, Turkey. Papers and presentations continued explorations of
sustainable development questions. The event had as main purposes the enhancement
of scientific quality of tourism studies, and a better understanding of business aspects
of coastal and marine tourism.
This 5th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress promises to be
another success in a fine series of events. As before, participants from many walks of
life—and from many cultures and nations—will project many new and provocative
points of view. As the papers submitted for these Proceedings show, government and
industry practitioners, researchers, educators, students, and publics remain vitally
interested in the taking advantage of opportunities and resolving problems having to
do with coastal and marine tourism.
We editors very much hope that you will enjoy and benefit from this volume
and that you will attend the next congress. We all have much to learn from one
another as we collectively continue to examine and shape coastal and marine tourism
outcomes.
Michael Lück, Conference Chair
Alice Graeupl
Jan Auyong
vi
Marc L. Miller
Mark B. Orams
Acknowledgements
A large conference like the 5th International Coastal & Marine Tourism
Congress can only be successful with the help of a large number of individuals and
organisations. Many of them helped in various capacities and ways, from small
favours to extensive amounts of work, from organisation to logistics, to financial and
in-kind sponsorship.
I would like to thank the Organising Committee for their endless endeavours
in making this conference a success. They are Alice Gräupl, Nathaniel Dobbin,
Roberto Altobelli, Viviena Schaaf, Carolyn Nodder and Suzanne Histen (AUT
University), Marc L. Miller (University of Washington), Jan Auyong (Oregon State
University), Mark Orams (Sir Peter Blake Trust), and Helen McConachie (Tourism
Auckland).
The International Steering Committee did an outstanding job in reviewing the
refereed papers for this conference in a short period of time, despite many of them not
being able to attend the conference. The names of these reviewers are on page iv.
I am indebted for the unconditional and outstanding support from Linda
O’Neill (Head of School, School of Hospitality of Tourism), Simon Milne (Director,
New Zealand Tourism Research Institute), Rob Allen (Dean, Faculty of Applied
Humanities), Daphne Flett and Elizabeth Roberts (Associate Heads of School, School
of Hospitality of Tourism), and Nancy McIntyre (School Manager, School of
Hospitality of Tourism) – all at AUT University.
In addition to the above, the following individuals are great organisers and
helped us in many ways: Deborah Benham (WDCS), Laura Jodice (Clemson
University), Lindsay Neill and Glenys Casci (both AUT) were of great help
organising the two workshops. Jonathon Spring and Mark Seabrook (Supporters of
Tiritiri Matangi) were invaluable with organising the field trip to Tiritiri Matangi.
Hamish Bremner and the Tangata Whenua at AUT’s Marae welcomed us to the
Marae with a powhiri.
Sincere and heartfelt thanks go to The Hon. Damien O’Connor (Minister of
Tourism), Jan Auyong (Oregon State University), Derek McCormack (Vice
Chancellor, AUT), James Higham (University of Otago), David Fennell (Brock
University), Jeff Wilks (Surf Live Saving Australia), Mark Orams (Sir Peter Blake
Trust), and Marc L. Miller (University of Washington) for their openening and
keynote presentations.
Of course, no conference won’t happen without the delegates who are
presenting and attending, many of which traveled very long distances to the most
beautiful end of the world – many thanks to all of you!
We experienced great support from a number of sponsors, either financially,
in-kind, or by offering reduced fares for field trips or pre- and post conference travel
for delegates. These are: Auckland Walks, Butterworth Heineman, CABI, Channel
View Publications, Cognizant Communication Corporation, Dolphin & Whale Safari,
Encounter Kaikoura, Great Sights New Zealand Bus Tours, International Antarctic
Centre, Kawau Cat, Kelly Tarlton’s, Kevin Ong, Leigh Marine Laboratory, Neil
Gussey Photographer, New Society Publishers, New Zealand National Maritime
Museum, New Zealand Tourism Research Institute, Nobilo Wines, Otago
Campervans, Prabha Ranade, Printsprint, Rendezvous Hotel, Rydges Hotel, Sealord,
vii
Editors’ Preface
In 1990, the first Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was convened in
Honolulu, Hawaii as a response to a growing need to bridge economic development
and the conservation of coastal resources and ecosystems. The event brought together
a truly diverse set of stakeholders including government tourism officials,
policymakers, and regulators; scientists, scholars, and students of many persuasions;
tourism industry experts including large-scale developers and small-scale
entrepreneurs; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations, and
environmental and other special interest advocates; and also interested citizens.
CMT’90 was an exciting event because it involved those who endorsed tourism, those
who were more skeptical, and those with mixed feelings. One result of CMT’90 was a
general recognition that coastal and marine tourism was too important—and too
controversial—to go unexamined. Participants at CMT’90 realized the remedy lay in
sustained study by a wide range of disciplines as well as a disciplined application of
that information.
CMT’90 provided a solid foundation for the World Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism held again in Honolulu 1996. Many who attended CMT’96 had
participated in the first congress and were particularly eager to share their new
experiences and insights. Papers and animated discussions at CMT’96 revealed that
the challenges of achieving sustainability were indeed substantial. There was also
widespread acceptance of the pressing need to address coastal and marine tourism
growth issues. Participants showed great interest in understanding how the tourism
agendas of governments, industries, and NGOs and other special interest
organizations were shaped.
In 1999, the International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism shifted
to Vancouver, British Columbia. This event helped practitioners to understand how
coastal and marine tourism issues at higher latitudes can both resemble and be
different from those in the tropics. CMT’99 focused less on the ends of achieving
sustainable development, but rather more on the means. The theme of CMT’99—
“Choices, Responsibilities, and Practices”—reflected this orientation.
In 2005, the International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was
convened in Çeşme, Turkey. Papers and presentations continued explorations of
sustainable development questions. The event had as main purposes the enhancement
of scientific quality of tourism studies, and a better understanding of business aspects
of coastal and marine tourism.
This 5th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress promises to be
another success in a fine series of events. As before, participants from many walks of
life—and from many cultures and nations—will project many new and provocative
points of view. As the papers submitted for these Proceedings show, government and
industry practitioners, researchers, educators, students, and publics remain vitally
interested in the taking advantage of opportunities and resolving problems having to
do with coastal and marine tourism.
We editors very much hope that you will enjoy and benefit from this volume
and that you will attend the next congress. We all have much to learn from one
another as we collectively continue to examine and shape coastal and marine tourism
outcomes.
Michael Lück, Conference Chair
Alice Graeupl
Jan Auyong
viii
Marc L. Miller
Mark B. Orams
INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE
Thomas
Lars
Barbara
Hamish
Richard
Anna
Erlet
Rochelle
Peter
Phil
John
David
Larry
Claire
David
Brian
Michael
John
Ross
Cory
Brent
David
Pat
Kevin
Gayle
Bob
Simon
Damian
Sue
Ghazali
David
Jean-Paul
Chris
Naomi
Eric
Kathy
Carolyn
Emma
Stephen
Heather
Bauer
Bejder
Breen
Bremner
Butler
Carr
Cater
Constantine
Corkeron
Dearden
Dobson
Duval
Dwyer
Ellis
Fennell
Garrod
Hall
Hull
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Murdoch University
AUT University
AUT University
University of Strathclyde
University of Otago
University of Reading
University of Auckland
Independent Scholar
University of Victoria
University of Wales, Cardiff
University of Otago
University of New South Wales
Tourism Tasmania
Brock University
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
University of Canterbury
AUT University
Memorial University of
Klein
Newfoundland
Kulczycki University of Alberta
Lovelock University of Otago
Lusseau
Dalhousie University
University of Northern British
Maher
Columbia
Markwell University of Newcastle
Mayes
University of the Sunshine Coast
McKercher Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Milne
AUT University
Morgan
Monash University
Muloin
Independent Scholar
Musa
University Malaya
Newsome Murdoch University
Jean-Paul Orsini & Associates
Orsini
Environmental Consultancy
Parsons
George Mason University
Rose
Humane Society International
Shelton
University of Otago
Slater
AUT University
Staines
Monash University
Stewart
University of Calgary
Sutton
James Cook University
Zeppel
James Cook University
iv
Hong Kong
Australia
New Zealand
New Zealand
United Kingdom
New Zealand
United Kingdom
New Zealand
USA
Canada
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Australia
Australia
Canada
United Kingdom
New Zealand
New Zealand
Canada
Canada
New Zealand
Canada
Canada
Australia
Australia
Hong Kong
New Zealand
Australia
Australia
Malaysia
Australia
Australia
USA
USA
New Zealand
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
Australia
Australia
Conference Welcome
Dr. Jan Auyong (Oregon State University, USA)
A warm Aloha and Kia Ora to the delegates of the 2007
International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. It
is rather astonishing to be here 17 years after the first
Congress was held in 1990 in Honolulu, Hawaii.
The Sea Grant network, led by Hawaii Sea Grant,
originally conceived the Congress on Coastal and Marine
Tourism in response to the growing need of Pacific islands
and states to bridge economic development and
conservation of coastal resources. What Sea Grant had not anticipated was the broad,
interdisciplinary appeal of this concept to individuals and entities around the world.
While the first Congress targeted the Pacific Basin, we ultimately hosted delegates
from locations as far away as the United Kingdom and Africa. The interactions alone
were important attributes of the Congress. Participants had felt isolated in what many
claimed was a lonely effort. However, the Congress provided an opportunity for
people to share ideas, learn new tactics, and build a network of colleagues. What we
also learned from the participants of the first Congress was that the mixed record of
coastal and marine tourism required immediate as well as sustained study by a wide
range of disciplines and a persistent application of that information. Delegates
pledged to to look for methods to bridge conservation and development.
Based upon the feedback from the first Congress, the organizers strove to
devise a second Congress that would examine opportunities and strategies for
sustainability in coastal tourism. We hoped that discussions would help operationalize
what was meant by the term “sustainability.” Ultimately, delegates felt that
application of this concept should be based upon the integration of resource
management and local economic development. The discussions indicated that we still
had a long way to go towards coastal tourism sustainability but lessons had been
learned. Delegates concluded that coastal and marine tourism growth must be
addressed through collaborative efforts by governments, industry, nonprofits and
academia.
Partners for the third CMT, which was held in 1999 in Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, included the university based Sea Grant College Program
network, the nonprofit Oceans Blue Foundation, and the governmental Tourism
Vancouver. This joint venture focused attention not so much on ends, but rather on
the means of achieving more sustainable development and activities. The congress
focused on analytical tools and concepts, evaluation tools and methods, planning
procedures particularly those examining the implications for coastal communities and
cultures.
As with the 2005 venue in Turkey, the Congress organizers expect to continue
collaborations with both domestic and international individuals and organizations to
focus attention on coastal and marine tourism activities and developments. It appears
that “Balancing Marine Tourism, Development, and Sustainability" remains a viable
theme for research and education to today. The 2007 venue in New Zealand will
continue the tradition begun in Hawaii all those years ago and will broaden our view
of the environments and activities involved in coastal and marine tourism. I look
forward to continuing my education and sharing ideas with colleagues from around
the globe.
x
Keynote Addresses
1
IGNORANCE OF INSIGHT? AN INTEGRATED
AND ADAPTIVE MODEL FOR THE LONG TERM
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TOURIST
INTERACTIONS WITH MARINE WILDLIFE
Professor James Higham
University of Otago, New Zealand
Abstract
Interactions between tourists and wild animal populations are associated with a range of
potential impacts that are not well understood and consequently even less well
managed. Duffus and Dearden (1990) argue that understanding tourist interactions with
wildlife requires scientific insights into three key elements of the wildlife tourism
phenomenon; focal animals, sites users and the wider ecology of the animal population.
This presentation argues the case for adopting scientific approaches to understanding
tourist interactions with wild animals. This is a requirement for the development of
integrated and adaptive management models of long term sustainability. Three studies
are reviewed, briefly, as they relate to Duffus and Dearden’s tripartite, as follows:
1. Focal animals: Albatrosses at Taiaroa Head (Higham, 1998)
2. Site users: Whale watchers in the San Juan Islands (Finkler & Higham, 2004)
3. Ecology: Whaling and whale watching (Higham and Lusseau, 2007)
In considering the inability of conservation managers to act upon research in both the
natural and social sciences to date, the seminar concludes with consideration of the
elements that may form an integrated and adaptive model for long term sustainable
management of tourist interactions with wild animals.
References:
Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1990) Non-consumptive wildlife oriented recreation. A
conceptual; framework. Biological Conservation. 53:213-231.
Finkler, W. & Higham, J.E.S. (2004). The human dimensions of whale watching: An
analysis based on viewing platforms. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(1): 103-117.
Higham, J.E.S. & Lusseau, D. (2007). Urgent need for empirical research into whaling
and whale-watching. Conservation Biology 21(2): 554-558.
2
THE LEAP OF FAITH: WILL ETHICS IN TOURISM
GO GENTLY (or RAGE) INTO THAT GOOD
NIGHT?
Professor David A. Fennell
Brock University, Canada
Abstract
Trivers’ (1971) theory of reciprocal altruism, emerging from animal behaviour
studies, is premised on the belief that human social behaviour is said to have evolved
in relatively small, stable communities where groups of people had opportunities to
forge cooperative relationships over time through repeated interaction. The more time
we have to engage in altruistic acts—acts that are returned in kind— the better chance
for individuals and groups to set up longer term cooperative relationships.
Cooperation of this sort can be challenged in tourism because of limited interactions
based on restricted periods of time, with implications at the micro scale (tourist-host
interactions) and at the macro scale (collective interactions within the region as a
whole). Despite these challenges, ethics and trust have emerged from reciprocal
altruism as mechanisms that induce both short-term and long-term cooperative
relationships for mutual benefit. Implications of these relationships are discussed in
the context of generating ways to improve cooperation, through ethical action, for the
tourism industry as a whole.
3
DEVELOPING LIFEGUARD SERVICES FOR
TOURIST RESORTS: LEGAL, TRAINING AND
QUALITY SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
Dr Jeff Wilks
Surf Life Saving Australia
Abstract
In an increasingly competitive market for international guests, resorts in the Asia
Pacific region are constantly challenged to differentiate their products and to provide
quality service. One the 10 dimensions of service quality identified internationally is
Security – defined as ‘freedom from danger, risk or doubt’.
Safety and security have become very important for tourism operators and
international visitor destinations post September 11 and SARS, especially water
safety following the Asian Tsunami in 2004. Drowning remains a leading cause of
injury death among international tourists across destinations, and a significant factor
in escalating public liability insurance premiums.
Most hotels and resorts in the Asia Pacific region have swimming pools, and many
directly access beaches, lagoons or other open water environments. Organizations like
the Federation of Tour Operators (UK) recognize the legal and practical
responsibilities tourism groups have for guest water safety. In addition to the EU
Directive on Package Holidays extending legal responsibilities to Asia Pacific
businesses that have direct dealings with EU package organizers, recent Australian
cases show an interest by the courts in how hotels have incorporated risk management
practices for water safety into their operations.
Quality service in the area of guest water safety now means more than just providing
brochures or relying on static signage to disclaim responsibility. Having trained
professional lifeguards on duty is a viable and very positive initiative for tourist
resorts. As outlined in a recent report by accounting firm Ernst & Young, the cost of
having a trained and qualified lifeguard service is not prohibitive; while the risks
associated with not having a water safety service can be substantial.
This presentation will describe the training and accreditation of lifeguards in
Australia, their role in working with the tourism industry, and the risk management
benefits for resorts in adopting best practice water safety measures to safeguard their
guests. The cost/benefit discussion will include legal, insurance and quality service
considerations for engaging trained and qualified lifeguards. Opportunities for
program development by Asia Pacific resorts will be examined. A training and
accreditation program undertaken by a resort in Fiji will be used as a case study.
4
EXTREME MARINES: THE RISE OF HIGH RISK
MARINE TOURISM
Dr. Mark B. Orams
Sir Peter Blake Trust, New Zealand
Abstract
From solo around the world yacht races to trans-Atlantic rowing races, the past two
decades has seen a major increase in the number of events and participants that utilise
the sea as the host for their adventures. These activities deliberately set out to place
participants at high risk of injury or death and yet this seems to be one of the major
drawcards for those entering. This seems counter intuitive, why would tourists
deliberately choose to place themselves in a situation where such extreme risks exist?
The answer lies in a deeper understanding of the human psyche and an examination of
the benefits associated with challenge, adventure and facing adversity. The growth of
such ‘extreme marines’ may be correlated with the increasingly sedentary and urban
life-styles of the developed world and a fundamental need to reconnect with the
natural aspects of marine environments and the challenges they provide. What seems
certain is that these kinds of activities and tourists will continue to increase.
5
LUDIC CHALLENGES OF COASTAL AND
MARINE TOURISM
Professor Marc L. Miller
University of Washington, USA
Keywords: globalization, sustainable development, play, education
INTRODUCTION
In a small but remarkable book—Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in
Culture—which appeared with a Dutch edition in 1938, a German edition in 1944,
and finally an English edition in 1950, historian Johan Huizinga (1872-1945)
introduced the thesis that it is the substantial facility to engage in play which has
allowed humankind to develop civilizations. Several of Huizinga’s insights having to
do with the influence of play [Latin: ludus] in helping people to reach their human
potential are expressed in the following:
•
“[Play] is an activity which proceeds within certain limits of time and space, in
a visible order, according to rules freely accepted, and outside the sphere of
necessity or material utility. The play-mood is one of rapture and enthusiasm,
and is sacred or festive in accordance with the occasion. A feeling of
exaltation and tension accompanies the action, mirth and relaxation follow”
(Huizinga, 1950:132).
•
“We play and we know that we play, so we must be more than merely rational
beings, for play is irrational” (Huizinga, 1950:4).
Writing in the 1930s and 1940s, Huizinga was of the opinion that members of
Western society were steadily losing their ability to play:
“More and more the sad conclusion forces itself upon us that the
play-element in culture has been on the wane since the 18th century
when it was in full flower” (Huizinga, 1950:206).
Today, however, there would seem to be strong recreational and touristic evidence
that this trend has been reversed. And ludic trends in coastal and marine environments
especially seem to bear this out. Coastal and marine tourism amenities allow for the
play-element in culture to find expression. Miller & Ditton (1986a:11) have argued
that ultimately it is the pursuit of recreational, educational, and instrumental contrast
6
that draws tourists to the coastal zone. In the best of times, this ritual quest allows
tourists (and often also those on the scene who have face-to-face interactions with
tourists) to have the positive transcendental experiences that Csikszentmihalyi (1990)
terms “flow.” This is play of the highest quality.
To say that the world is rapidly getting smaller—or flatter—is not a revelation for
practitioners of coastal and marine tourism. Tourism brokers in government, business,
and also those who work with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit
entities have for some time been alert to the potency of the human urge to travel.
Consider, for example, several tourism statistics:
•
The World Tourism Organization has measured the number of international
tourist arrivals at 763 million for 2004 and its Tourism 2020 Vision has
estimated that this figure will exceed 1.56 billion by the year 2020 (WTO,
2005).
•
Cruise industry statistics show that world demand reached 8.7 million
passengers in 1999 and it is believed that North American and European
demand will surpass 12 million passengers by the end of 2010 (WTTC et al.,
2002).
•
In the 1990 to 2000 period changes in the US coastal economy revealed a shift
from goods to services. The tourism and recreation component changed
dramatically in terms of establishments, employment, wages, and nominal
gross state product (Golgan, 2003).
These figures underscore the power of the human imagination to facilitate tourism. In
the realm of business and economic development, this has occurred with rather
spectacular advances in the technologies of transportation and accommodation, and
amenity and attraction design. Equally impressive innovations have diffused in the
design of tourism services, and in marketing and promotion strategies. In the realm of
environmental protection, NGOs and governments—and in many instances,
developers as well—are increasingly taking responsibility for the quality of coastal
ecosystems and habitats as evidenced by the surge in the number marine reserves,
sanctuaries, parks and other protected areas.
With this background, the body of this paper notes the rise of the field of coastal and
marine tourism, discusses globalization as a major driver shaping coastal and marine
tourism, and reaffirms the appropriateness of sustainable development as the
overarching coastal tourism ideal. Ludic challenges facing tourism analysts and
practitioners on three fronts are highlighted. A conclusion stresses the need to
augment coastal and marine tourism regulation with forms of education and
communication.
THE STUDY
Rise of the Field of Coastal and Marine Tourism
Over the last several decades, there has been great growth in academic and
practitioner attention to tourism. Advanced university classes in coastal and marine
tourism are found in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and the United States,
among other nations. The multidisciplinary specialty of marine tourism has its origins
7
in the 1980s (see, Miller & Ditton, 1986b and Ditton & Miller, 1986). Since that time,
an impressive number of volumes focusing on marine tourism have emerged (cf.,
Edwards, 1988; Wong, 1993; Conlin & Baum, 1995; Hall & Johnston, 1995; Hall &
Page, 1996; Lockhart & Drakakis-Smith, 1997; Libosada, 1998; Masters, 1998;
Orams, 1999, Apostolopoulos & Gayle, 2002; Butcher, 2003; Boissevain, J. & T.
Selwyn, 2004; Bramwell, 2004; Pattullo, 2005; and Higham, & Lück, in press). In
2004, the field was strengthened with the birth of its own journal—Tourism in Marine
Environments.
In 1990, the first Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was held in Honolulu.
CMT90 was followed by the World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism
(Honolulu, 1996), the International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism
(Vancouver, British Columbia, 1999), the International Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism (Çeúme, Turkey, 2005), and finally this 5th International Coastal and
Marine Tourism Congress.
Taken together, these publications and events have established coastal and marine
tourism as a bona fide field of inquiry.
Globalization
In conjunction with human population expansion and global environmental change
(encompassing climate change and biodiversity change) marine tourism dynamics are
shaped by multifaceted globalization. Robertson (1992:8) has written that:
“[g]lobalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the
world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a
whole.”
Steger (2003:-9) regards globalization as a set of social processes (with economic,
political, cultural, and ideological dimensions) which act together “to transform our
present social condition into one of globality.” More specifically:
“[g]lobalization refers to a multidimensional set of social processes
that create, multiply, stretch, and intensify worldwide social
interdependencies and exchanges while at the same time fostering in
people a growing awareness of deepening connections between the
local and the distant (Steger, 2003:13)
Nederveen Pieterse (2004:16-17, emphasis in original) defines globalization in the
following way:
“Globalization is an objective, empirical process of increasing
economic and political connectivity, a subjective process unfolding in
consciousness as the collective awareness of growing global
interconnectedness, and a host of specific globalizing projects that seek
to shape global conditions.”
These observers stress that globalization has significance both as sets of objective and
subjective conditions. In short, globalization is measured by what people can see and
conclude as “true” about reality, and also by what they evaluate as “good” or “bad.”
8
Sustainable Development
That coastal and marine tourism should be attuned to the ideal of sustainable
development is not debatable. The most widely circulated definition of sustainable
development is that found in The Brundtland Report.
“[Sustainable development is] the ability to make development
sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987:8).
As Kates et al. (2005:20; emphasis added) point out, this definition is adequate to the
contemporary situation:
“Despite …creative ambiguity and openness to interpretation,
sustainable development has evolved a core set of guiding principles
and values, based on the Brundtland Commission’s standard definition
to meet the needs, now and in the future, for human, economic, and
social development within the restraints of the life support systems of
the planet. … [There is] near universal agreement that sustainability is
a worthwhile value and goal—a powerful feature in diverse and
conflicted social contexts.”
Ludic Challenges on Three Fronts
Coastal and marine tourism systems can be seen to have sociologies with three kinds
of actors: 1) tourism brokers in the public sector, the private sector, and the NGO
sector; 2) tourism locals; and 3) tourists (Miller and Auyong, 1991, 1998; Miller and
Hadley, 2005).
In managing tourism systems in accordance with the sustainable development ideal,
two overarching questions of quality arise:
1. The Impact Question: What is the quality (or, significance, or value, or
meaning, or importance) of tourism for a) the marine or coastal ecosystem
and its components, and b) the citizenry of the area and humankind at
large?
The impact question—which may be framed as concerning “Optimum Visitation”-- is
answered with an analytical agenda that resembles that of quantitative fishery and
tourism management. It is also is informed by multidisciplinary human dimensions
research, education, and advice.
2. The Design Question: What is the best way to create a quality biological,
social, and technological environment that fosters personal growth and
responsible environmental conduct through coastal and marine tourism?
The design question concerns notions of “Optimum Experience,” and quality of
landscape, restoration, architecture, and education. This question is answered with an
9
analytical agenda that requires a combination of natural science and human
dimensions expertise.
With this orientation, coastal and marine tourism analysts and practitioners face three
interlocking ludic challenges:
For analyses of TOURISTS:
x
Ludic Challenge No. 1: How can we understand the behavior, motivations,
feelings, and knowledge of those who travel?
For analyses of BROKERS:
x
Ludic Challenge No. 2: How can we understand the decisions and goals of
those in government, industry, and in NGOs who influence with management
policies, regulations, and campaigns the nature of coastal recreation and
tourism?
For analyses of LOCALS:
x
Ludic Challenge No. 3: How can we understand the behavior, motivations,
feelings, and knowledge of residents who engage in coastal recreation and
who witness tourism development?
CONCLUSION
The most traditional tool employed to achieve sustainable development in coastal and
marine tourism settings has been regulation. When tourism regulations are enforced,
the environment stands to be protected and humans are also able to engage in touristic
activities in a safe manner.
A second but underutilized tool for the control of human conduct is that of marine
environmental education, taken here to include outreach, non-traditional (outside the
classroom) teaching and instruction, and advisory work. When education is successful
the marine environment and people are protected as with regulation. However, with
education the very lives of people can be enhanced. Indeed, with education,
Huizinga’s play-element can be fully engaged and brokers, locals, and tourists all
stand to become more interesting and more responsible persons.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to express gratitude to former and continuing graduate students
in the School of Marine Affairs at the University of Washington for providing many
insights to the effective study of coastal and marine tourism. These colleagues include
Sara Earhart, Rachel Gregg, Katie Lassiter, Morgan Schneidler, and Maile Sullivan.
In addition, special thanks are to be extended to Micha Lück for all he has done to
make this 5th International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism a success.
10
REFERENCES
Apostolopoulos, Y. & Gayle, D.J. (Eds.) (2002). Island Tourism and Sustainable
Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences. London:
Praeger.
Boissevain, J. & T. Selwyn (Eds.) (2004). Contesting the Foreshore: Tourism,
Society, and Politics on the Coast. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Butcher, J. (2003). The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand … and Saving the World?
London: Routledge.
Bramwell, B. (Ed.) (2004). Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable
Development in Southern Europe. Sydney: Channel View Publications.
Conlin, M. V. & Baum, T. (Eds.) (1995). Island Tourism: Management Principles
and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Ditton, R. & Miller, M.L. (Eds.) (1986). Leisure in the Coastal Zone Part II. (Theme
Issue). Leisure Sciences 8:3.
Edwards, F. (Ed.) (1988). Environmentally Sound Tourism in the Caribbean. Calgary,
Alberta: The University of Calgary Press.
Golgan, C.S. (2003). Living Near and Making a Living From the Nation’s Coasts
and Oceans. Appendix C. [Prepared for the US Commission on Ocean Policy],
National
Oceans
Economic
Project.
(October).
http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/append_c.pdf
Hall, C.M. & Johnston, M.E. (Eds.) (1995) Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and
Antarctic Regions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hall, C.M. & Page, S.J. (Eds.) (1996) Tourism in the Pacific: Issues and Cases.
London: International Thomson Business Press.
Higham, J. & Lück, M. (Eds.) (in press). Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management:
Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences. Oxford: CABI Publishing.
Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston:
The Beacon Press.
Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M. & Leiserowitz, A. (2005). What is Sustainable
Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment: Science
and Policy for Sustainable Development 47:3:8-21.
Libosada, C. M., Jr. (1998). Ecotourism in the Philippines. Makiti City, Philippines:
Bookmark, Inc.
Lockhart, D.G., & Drakakis-Smith (Eds.) (1997). Island Tourism: Trends and
Prospects. London: Pinter, London.
Masters, D. (1998). Marine Wildlife Tourism: Developing a Quality Approach in the
Highlands and Islands. [Report] Inverness, Scotland: Tourism and
Environment Initiative and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Miller, M.L. & Auyong, J. (1991) Coastal zone tourism: A potent force Affecting
Environment and Society. Marine Policy 15, 75-99.
Miller, M.L. & Auyong, J. (1998). Remarks on Tourism Terminologies: Anti-tourism,
Mass Tourism, and Alternative Tourism. In M.L. Miller & J. Auyong, (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism:
Experiences in Management and Development. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant
Program and the School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington and
Oregon Sea Grant Program, Oregon State University. (pp. 1-24).
11
Miller, M.L & Ditton, R. (1986a). Travel, Tourism, and Marine Affairs. Coastal Zone
Management Journal 14:1/2:1-19.
Miller, M.L & Ditton, R. (Eds.) (1986b). Leisure in the Coastal Zone: Part I. (Theme
Issue). Coastal Zone Management Journal 14:1/2.
Miller, M.L. & Hadley, N.H. (2005). Tourism and Coastal Development. In M.L.
Schwartz, (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer. (pp. 1002-1009).
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2004). Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Orams, M.B. (1999). Marine Tourism: Development and Management. New York:
Routledge.
Pattullo, P. (2005). Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean (2nd edition).
London: Latin American Bureau.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Steger, M.B. (2003). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wong, P.P. (Ed.) (1993). Tourism vs. Environment: The Case for Coastal Areas.
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.
New York: Oxford University Press.
World Tourism Organization (2005). Tourism Highlights: 2005 Edition.
http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/menu.html
World Travel and Tourism Council, International Hotel & Restaurant Association,
International Federation of Tour Operators, International Council of Cruise
Lines, and United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). Industry as a
Partner
in
Sustainable
Development:
Tourism.
[report]
http://www.cruising.org/industry/unep.pdf
12
13
CONFERENCE PAPERS
Theme 1: Marine Wildlife Tourism
Theme 2: Marine Protected Areas
Theme 3: The Cruise Ship Industry
Theme 4: Coral Reefs and Scuba Diving/Snorkeling
Theme 5: Guides, Interpretation and Education
Theme 6: Marine Adventure and Sports Tourism
Theme 7: Marine Festivals, Events, and Heritage
Theme 8: Coastal and Island Tourism
Theme 9: Research, Sciences, and Marine Tourism
Poster Abstracts
Workshop Presentation Abstracts
14
Theme 1
Marine Wildlife Tourism
15
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WHALEWATCHING IN THE
STATE OF ARAGUA, VENEZUELA: LAYING THE
GROUNDWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY
(Working Paper)
Jaime Bolaños-Jiménez 1 Auristela Villarroel-Marin1,2 E.C.M. Parsons3 Naomi A.
Rose4
1
Sociedad Ecológica Venezolana Vida Marina (Sea Vida), A.P. 162, Cagua, Estado
Aragua, Venezuela 2122. e-mail: sea_vida@yahoo.es
2
Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador (UPEL), Instituto Universitario
Rafael Alberto Escobar Lara, Av. Las Delicias, Departamento de Biología, Maracay,
Estado Aragua, Venezuela.
3
Department of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax,
VA 22030, USA. e-mail: ecm-parsons@earthlink.net
4
Humane Society International, 700 Professional Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20879,
USA. e-mail: NRose@hsi.org
ABSTRACT
Whalewatching potential in Venezuelan waters is considered to be “moderate to
considerable” by experts. Since 2001, the local non-governmental organization
(NGO) Sociedad Ecológica Venezolana Vida Marina (Sea Vida) has been promoting
responsible whalewatching in the “Municipio Ocumare de la Costa de Oro”, State of
Aragua. Here, we review the origin and development of whalewatching in Ocumare
de la Costa de Oro, as detailed below. 1) Scientific research. Research effort dates
back to 1996-1998, when researchers of the Ministry of Environment evaluated the
status of cetacean populations in this area. Since 2000-2001, research efforts have
been accomplished by Sea Vida’s teams and independent researchers. Target species
include Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus)
dolphins and Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni). The encounter rate with cetaceans
is approximately 70%. 2) Regulatory framework. No specific regulations exist in
Venezuela for whalewatching. Currently, a proposal presented by Sea Vida for
the enactment of regulations at the national level is being reviewed by the MINAMB.
3) Participation and development of local communities. Local stakeholders
participating in these efforts include business owners, naturalist guides, fishermen,
educators, community leaders, and governmental agencies. 4) Building of
capabilities. Since 2003, six training courses on whalewatching and ecological
aspects of local cetaceans have been organized by Sea Vida, with support from
national and international organizations. 5) Environmental education. Activities to
increase awareness include talks and ecological activities in local schools. To date,
more than 300 children and their teachers have participated in awareness raising
activities. 6) Code of conduct. In the absence of a regulatory framework, a voluntary
code of conduct is being negotiated between Sea Vida and stakeholders. On the basis
of these accomplishments and other guidelines, progress is being made to promote the
development of sustainable whalewatching in Ocumare de la Costa de Oro.
Keywords: Responsible whalewatching, State of Aragua, Venezuela, Guidelines,
Sustainable Tourism
16
INTRODUCTION
Tourism has grown rapidly over the last 50 years. It is now considered to be the
world’s largest industry, contributing over 10% of world gross domestic product and
employing more than 10% of the global workforce (Bruce et al., 2001). Ecotourism is
reputed to be the fastest-growing sector of the world tourism industry, with growth
estimates ranging between 10 and 30% per annum (Garrod et al. 2001; Bruce et al.,
2001). There is no overall estimate of the value of marine tourism (Hoyt, 2005).
Nevertheless, it has been estimated that at least “10.1 million people are now going
whale watching a year spending 1.253 billion USD” (p. 6. in Hoyt, 2001).
As whalewatching (WW) has grown, concerns about the welfare of natural
populations have increased (IFAW et al., 1995; Orams, 2000; Whitt & Read 2006).
Since 1996, a number of guidelines and regulations have been established in order to
ensure the industry’s sustainability (see, for example, IWC, 1997; Carlson, 2007;
Parsons et al., 2006). For the purpose of this paper, “sustainability” is defined as
...“the characteristic of development that allows for the fulfillment of society needs of
the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations”
(Brundtland Commission, 1987).
Recently, Hoyt (2001, 2005, 2007) introduced the term “high quality whalewatching”
which could arguably be equated with “sustainable whale watching” or “sustainable
marine ecotourism”. Accordingly, Hoyt (2007) provides a number of practical tasks
of what needs to be done to ensure the succesful development of such “high quality
whalewatching”. Parsons et al. (2006) similarly outline definitions and criteria for
“whale ecotourism” that include efforts to minimize environmental impacts, as well as
impacts on targeted species, contributions to conservation and whale research by
operators, compliance with local whale-watching codes of conduct and regulations,
and benefits -financial or in kind- to local communities.
In the case of Venezuela, it is also necessary to consider that the framework for the
policies for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity was established in
the document National Strategy on Biological Diversity and its Action Plan
(ENDBPA) published by the National Office of Biological Diversity (ONDB) of the
Ministry of the Environment (now known as MINAMB)(MARN 2001).
Interest in conservation of and research on cetaceans in Venezuela has increased
remarkably during the last decade. In particular, research efforts related to field
research and dolphin-watching have been pursued to evaluate the current status of
cetaceans off the coast of Aragua (Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 1998; González-Fernández,
2000; Bolaños-Jiménez & Villarroel-Marín, 2003; Silva-Hernández, 2007) and the
interactions between dolphin groups and small boats (Herrera-Trujillo, 2007). All of
these projects setup the foundation for the orderly development and monitoring of
whalewatching. Also, in the Mochima National Park, in northeastern Venezuela,
attempts have been made to gather biological and ecological information on local
cetaceans (Bolaños-Jiménez & Villarroel-Marín, 2005; Balladares et al., 2006) and
the socio-economic impact of undergoing dolphin-watching operations, as well as the
perceptions of tourists regarding the quality of the dolphin-watching experience
(Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 2007).
17
In this paper, we present a review of the way WW has evolved in the municipality of
Ocumare de la Costa de Oro, State of Aragua, in the central coast of Venezuela. The
specific objectives are to:
1. Review the scientific background on biological and ecological information on
cetaceans off the coast of the State of Aragua;
2. Update this scientific background on the basis of the results of occasional field
surveys made between 2000-2007 (Bolaños-Jiménez & Villarroel-Marín,
unpublished data);
3. Review the legal and regulatory framework applicable to protection of
cetaceans;
4. Review and analyze the origin and development of whalewatching in the State
of Aragua, in the context of compliance with international and national
guidelines and regulations; and
5. Present some precautionary guidelines for regulation of whalewatching,
tailored to local conditions.
THE STUDY
Study area. “Ocumare de la Costa de Oro” is located in north-western Aragua, in the
central coast of Venezuela (Figure 1), covering appproximately 25 km of the
coastline. Three fishermen villages –La Boca de Ocumare, Bahía de Cata and
Cuyagua- are in a good position here to offer WW. During weekends, commercial
trips to tourists are routinely offered by fishermen to Catica Beach and La Ciénaga.
aboard small boats powered with outboard engines. These boats are known locally as
“peñeros” and average 9m in length. All of the survey effort was made aboard
peñeros.
Scientific background
Research efforts in the Ocumare de la Costa region date back to 1996-1998 (BolañosJiménez et al., 1998; González-Fernández, 2000). Those preliminary surveys found
the presence of Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose (Tursiops
truncatus) dolphins and Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni), with an encounter rate
of approximately 70%, measured as “days with encounters over total days of field
trips” (Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 1998; González-Fernández, 2000). Dolphins were
present in the area throughout the year and whales were found only during OctoberFebruary (Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 1998; González-Fernández, 2000). Also, between
the years 1996-1998, a recognized juvenile Atlantic spotted dolphin (JBJ-SF-03) was
photographed and videotaped at least on three occasions (Bolaños-Jiménez et al.,
1998; González-Fernández, 2000).
18
Figure 1. Study area. State of Aragua, central coast of Venezuela.
In 2001, on the basis of these results, the local environmental non-governmental
organization (NGO) “Sociedad Ecológica Venezolana Vida Marina (Sea Vida) started
a process to increase awareness of local cetaceans and promote whalewatching as an
alternative for local sustainable development (Bolaños-Jiménez & Villarroel-Marín
2003, 2006; Villarroel-Marín et al., 2005).
Scientific update
33 occasional surveys were made between June 2000 and April 2007, totalling 79.9 hs
of research effort (range: 04-4 hgs, average: 2.5 hs per survery ± s.d. 0.9). In a general
sense, it is the same methodology previously used in the region by Bolaños-Jiménez
19
et al. (1998) and González-Fernández (2000). Basic information, recorded by at least
2-3 observers, included group size and composition, presence of calves and juveniles,
sea condition and inter-species interactions. During this time, forty-two cetacean
sightings were recorded and the main results are detailed below.
The Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) is the most common and abundant
species found in the region. Of 33 dolphin sightings, this species accounted for 52% including a single sighting of a group mixed with bottlenose dolphins. Group size
ranged from 5-500 individuals (mean= 126± S.D. 137). Calves and juveniles were
seen troughout the year. A newborn with fetal folds was photographed in September
2005, indicating at least one birth in the region. Photographic recaptures of individual
JBJ-SF-03 (Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 1998; González-Fernández, 2000) were made on
1998 and 2000, suggesting some degree of site fidelity between years. To date, this
seems to be the only case of long-term site fidelity confirmed for cetaceans in
Venezuelan waters. This individual is easily recognizable because of a snout and
mandible malformation, diagnosed as a probable case of fibrous osteodystrophia (see
acknowledgements). Recently, Herrera-Trujillo (2007) and Silva-Hernández (2007)
recorded photographic recaptures of several other dolphins, with re-sighting incidents
separated by a few days to several months, reinforcing the idea of residency of at least
a proportion of the population.
The common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) accounted for 33% of the
sightings. Group size ranged from 4 to 30 individuals (mean= 14.7 ± S.D.12.3).
Calves and/or juveniles have been recorded during March, June, November, and
December. Mixed aggregations with Stenella frontalis was reported only one
ocassion. Recently, Herrera-Trujillo (2007) and Silva-Hernández (2007) found some
level of differentiation in habitat preference for these two species in the region, with
bottlenose dolphins preferring coastal waters over the 100 m isobath, and Atlantic
spotted dolphins preferring deeper waters around the 200 m contour.
Moreover, during this study, unidentified large whales (Balaenoptera sp.) were seen
only during one day (November 15, 2000). Six sightings recorded that day were
probably of 1-2 individuals. The only balaenopterid whale positively identified and
recorded in this area has been the Bryde’s whale (González-Fernández, 2000;
Herrera-Trujillo, 2007; Silva-Hernández, 2007). These whales are found between
October-February and these results are consistent with claims made by local
fishermen regarding seasonality in the whale presence in the region`s coastal waters
(Bolaños-Jiménez et al., 1998, González-Fernández, 2000). Herrera-Trujillo (2007)
and Silva-Hernández (2007) confirmed the presence of such whales in this region
between October-March and, on the basis of interviews with fishermen, postulated
that abundance of whales is high during May, but the whales can be found in offshore,
deeper areas.
Regulatory framework
Despite the existence of a legal and regulatory framework to protect wildlife and
biological diversity, there are no specific regulations for whalewatching in Venezuela.
Nevertheless, three main Acts and two Presidential Decrees deal with protection of
cetaceans and other wildlife and compliance with all of them is important for
responsible management of whalewatching.
20
Ley de Protección a la Fauna Silvestre (LPFS, Wildlife Protection Act). A civil act
passed in 1970 to protect wildlife, including cetaceans and other marine mammals.
Ley Penal del Ambiente (LPA, Criminal Environmental Act). A criminal act that
makes it a felony to take (kill, injure, or capture) cetaceans.
Ley de Diversidad Biológica (LDB, Biological Diversity Act). This law sets up the
foundation for the National Strategy on Biological Diversity and its Action Plan
(ENDBPA) produced in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This
plan was released in 2001 (MARN, 2001).
In addition, Presidential Decree 1485 forbids the take of species considered to be
“vulnerable” and Presidental Decree 1486 designates great whales (Bryde`s whale, B.
edeni, fin whale, B. physalus and humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae) and
sperm whales (Physeter catodon = P. macrocephalus) as “Endangered” (at great risk
of extinction).
Currently, a proposal presented by Sea Vida in 2004, and renewed in 2005, for
the enactment of specific regulations for whalewatching at the national level, is being
reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment (See Table 1).
Participation and development of local communities
Sea Vida started efforts to promote whalewatching in 2001 only on the basis of
research projects and results. In 2004 -in compliance with the Strategic Lines of the
ENDBPA- efforts were initiated to try to involve local communities in a more active
way. Currently, local stakeholders participating in these efforts include business
owners, naturalist guides, fishermen, educators, community leaders, students and
governmental agencies. The current strategy promoted by the MCT, Fundacite Aragua
and Sea Vida includes a series of activities designed to increase empowerment of
local stakeholders at an economic, psychological, social and political level (see
Garrod et al., 2003).
Capacity building
Since 2003, six training courses about whalewatching, ecological aspects of local
cetaceans, and the design of sustainable projects have been organized by Sea Vida,
with support from local, national and international organizations. These courses have
been attended by at least 130 people -mostly locals- including entrepreneurs, business
owners, educators, fishermen, students, and tourism and environmental authority
representatives. Topics taught include general aspects of responsible whalewatching,
biology and ecology of the cetaceans found in the region, species identification, legal
aspects, criteria for sustainability, sighting protocols, as well as human relationships
and leadership.
Environmental education
Activities to increase environmental awareness include ecological talks and activities
in five local elementary and high schools. To date, more than 300 students and their
teachers have participated in these activities (Bolaños-Jiménez and Villarroel-Marín,
2006; Villarroel-Marín and Bolaños-Jiménez, 2007; see also Hoyt, 2007). Additional
awareness activities included the design and printing of brochures and posters,
designed jointly with community members, that promote responsible whalewatching.
21
Code of conduct
To date, national environmental authorities have failed to provide specific regulations
for whalewatching. Though regulations are essential, it has been found that –in some
places of the world- the codes of conduct provide valuable guidelines when
regulations are absent or in the process of being enacted as law (p.13 in Hoyt, 2007).
In the present case, and as a short term feasible, and precautionary, alternative, a
voluntary code of conduct is being promoted and negotiated by Sea Vida and
stakeholders in order to try to ensure good environmental and commercial practices
are followed.
Compliance with national and international development guidelines and standards
As can be seen in Table 1, the development of whalewatching in Aragua is currently
in accordance with several guidelines and proposals for the sustainable and
responsible whalewatching practices such as IWC (1997), MARN (2001), Hoyt
(2001, 2005, 2007), Parsons et al. (2006) and Sea Vida`s premises 2001-2007.
Proposed guidelines for management of the activity
During 2006, no more than 15-20 commercial trips were made by small local
operators (Bolaños-Jiménez and Villarroel-Marín, unpubl. data). Currently, due to the
active participation of the MCT and Fundacite Aragua, it is expected that -in the short
term- the local communities and operators will be in a more favourable position to
offer WW at a commercial level. On the other hand, it must be noted that support
from scientific authorities will be paramount to increase awareness regarding the need
to provide the legal framework for regulating WW on the part of environmental and
tourism authorities. Remarkably in this case local stakeholders agree that no
whalewatching could have occurred without scientific research as the main foundation
for the program. As a precautionary measure, suggested interim whalewatching
guidelines are listed below:
1. Whalewatching operators and stakeholders should attend short courses on
whale and dolphin biology, behaviour and conservation and sustainable
whalewatching development.
2. Whalewatching operations should provide both educational materials to
tourists and assist with research and monitoring of the whale and dolphin
population. As a minimum, every commercial trip should include a local host
to provide educational and local natural history information and allow an
onboard researcher.
3. A maximum of three boats should be authorized to operate commercial
whalewatching in the area.
4. Authorized boats should allocate appropriate space for a research team and
their equipment.
5. There should be “rest period” of one or two days a week during which there is
no whalewatching activity, to allow the dolphins to have some period of time
undisturbed.
6. Authorised whalewatching operators must use and comply with any codes of
conduct or regulations required of them, and comply with required educational
programs.
7. Encounters with dolphins should not last more than 30 min.
22
8. Advertising campaigns for dolphin-watching activities should be based on
marketing studies and including data from questionnaire surveys of tourists.
9. For safety reasons, for both human beings and cetaceans, no in-water activities
should be permitted, except for scientific research.
10. According to Constitutional requirements, detailed regulations must be
negotiated jointly between local and national authorities, stakeholders and
NGOs.
11. The Code of Conduct should be validated by environmental authorities and
appropriate experts.
CONCLUSION
Because of compliance with most national and international guidelines and standards
and on the basis of scientific research efforts, progress is being made promoting the
sustainable development of a whalewatching industry in Ocumare de la Costa de Oro,
on the State of Aragua’s coast. At present, this development is occurring, moreover,
with a high level of appropriate oversight. The experience gained during this process
has potential application in search for sustainability of commercial whalewatching
operations in the Mochima National Park and other regions of Venezuela.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Field activities were performed because of funding and/or in-kind support from Mrs.
Ana María González, Auyantetours, the Cámara de Comercio, Turismo y Producción
del Municipio Ocumare de la Costa de Oro, Cetacean Society International (CSI),
Club La Begoña, Fondo Iniciativa de Especies Amenazadas (IEA Fund: Provita,
International Conservation Venezuela, the British Embassy, Fundación Polar and
The Wildlife Trust), Fundacite Aragua, The Humane Society International (HSI),
Ministerio del Poder Popular para Ciencia y Tecnología (MppCT), Posada Coral
Beach, Posada Rancho don Juan, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
(WDCS) and the World Society for Protection of Animals (WSPA). Oswaldo Castro,
José Cata, John Montes, Omar Plate, Gregorio Villegas and local teachers and
fishermen of Cumboto, La Boca, Cata, El Playón and Cuyagua, shared his knowledge
and skills. Víctor Bermúdez (UCV) reviewed the videos and made the diagnosis of
individual JBJ-SF-O3. Rodrigo Lazo provided maps of the region. This manuscript
was greatly improved because of comments by Reinaldo Arellano, Dagmar Fertl,
Gregorio Villegas and two anonymous reviewers. Research activities were performed
under letter of authorization ONDB-MINAMB 01-11-0143.
REFERENCES
Balladares, C., Cova, L. J. & Morales, J. (2006) Avistamiento de cetáceos al
occidente del Estado Sucre. Oficina Nacional de Diversidad Biológica (ONDB),
Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAMB), Caracas. (Power Point Presentation).
23
Beach, D.W. & Weinrich, M.T. (1989) Watching the whales: is an educational
adventure for humans turning out to be another threat for endangered species?
Oceanus, 32(1), 84-88.
Bolaños-Jiménez, J. & Villarroel-Marín, A.J. (2003) A shore-based survey for
cetaceans in the central coast of Venezuela: implication for the development of a
community-based whalewatching industry. In: Abstracts, 15th Biennial
Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Greensboro, NC, USA, 14-19
December 2003, p.19.
Bolaños-Jiménez, J. & Villarroel-Marín, A.J. (2005) Scientific knowledge as the basis
for the sustainability of dolphinwatching in the Mochima National Park,
northeastern Venezuela. In: Abstracts, 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, San Diego, California, December 12-16, 2005, p. 38.
Bolaños-Jiménez, J. & Villarroel-Marín, A.J. (2006) Festival Turístico de las
Toninas: Un proyecto de investigación-acción en Educación Ambiental para la
Conservación de cetáceos en las costas del estado Aragua. Informe final
Programa de Becas Fondo IEA, Provita.
Bolaños-Jiménez, J.; Campo; & y González-Fernández, M. (1998) Determinación del
estado actual de los cetáceos de las costas del Estado Aragua. Serie Informes
Técnicos, resultados de la etapa I. Dirección General de Fauna, Ministerio del
Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales. Caracas, Venezuela.
Bolaños-Jiménez, J., Herrera, O.L., Panza R. & Villarroel-Marín, A.J. (2007)
Preliminary assessment of marketing-related aspects on dolphin-watching in the
Mochima National Park, northeastern Venezuela. Paper presented to the
Scientific Committee at the 59th Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, 7 - 18 May 2007, Anchorage, Alaska. SC59/WW29.
Brundtland Commission (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bruce, D., Hoctor Z., Garrod, B. & Wilson, J. (2001) Genuine sustainable marine
ecotourism in the UE Atlantic Area. A blueprint for responsible marketing. META
Project 2001. Bristol, UK: University of the West of England [Available from
http://www.tourism-research.org/sustainable.pdf]
Carlson, C. 2007. A review of whale watch guidelines and regulations around the
world. 2007 Version. [Available from
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/conservation/WWREGSApril1207.pdf]
Garrod, B. (2003) Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism:
a revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1):33-53.
Garrod, B., Wilson, J. & Bruce, D. (2001) Planning for Marine Ecotourism in the EU
Atlantic Area. Good Practice Guide. META Project 2001. Bristol: University of
the West of England. [Available from
http://www.tourismresearch.org/planning.pdf]
González-Fernández, M. (2000) Determinación del estado actual de los cetáceos de
las costas del Estado Aragua. Serie Informes Técnicos, resultados de la etapa II.
Dirección General de Fauna. Ministerio del Ambiente y de los Recursos
Naturales. Caracas, Venezuela.
Herrera-Trujillo, O. 2007. Efecto de la presencia de peñeros a motor sobre el
comportamiento del delfín manchado del Atlántico (Stenella frontalis) y el delfín
nariz de botella (Tursiops truncatus) en la costa del Estado Aragua. Tesis de
Grado, Lic. Biología, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas.
24
Hoyt E. (2001) Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and
expanding socioeconomic benefits. Yarmouth Port, MA, USA: International Fund
for Animal Welfare.
Hoyt, E. (2005) Sustainable ecotourism on Atlantic islands, with special reference to
whale watching, marine protected areas and sanctuaries for cetaceans.
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 105B (3), 141–154.
Hoyt, E. (2007) A blueprint for dolphin and whalewatching development.
Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Humane Society International. [Available from
http://web.mac.com/erich.hoyt/iWeb/www.erichhoyt.com/More%20Info_files/Dol
phinWhaleManualENG_01_07.pdf]
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Tethys Research Institution &
Europe Conservation (1995) Report of the workshop on the scientific aspects of
managing whale watching. Montecastello di Vibio, Italy, 30th March – 4th April
1995. Crowborough, UK: International Fund for Animal Welfare.
International Whaling Commission (1997) Report of the working group on
whalewatching. Report of the International Whaling Commission 48, 249-253.
MARN (2001) Estrategia Nacional sobre Diversidad Biológica y su Plan de Acción.
Caracas: Oficina Nacional de Diversidad Biológica (ONDB), Ministerio del
Ambiente (MINAMB).
Orams, M.B. (2000) Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all
about? Tourism Management, 21(6), 561–569.
Parsons, E.C.M., Fortuna, C.M., Ritter, F., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., Weinrich,
M., Williams, R., & Panigada, S. (2006) Glossary of whalewatching terms.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8(Suppl.), 249–251
Silva-Hernández, M.G. (2007) Abundancia y distribución de los cetáceos presentes
en la costa del Estado Aragua. Graduate Thesis, Caracas: Universidad Central de
Venezuela,
Villarroel-Marín, A.J. & Bolaños-Jiménez, J. (2007) Una experiencia de
Investigación-Acción con niños y adolescentes para la conservación y uso
sustentable de los delfines de la costa de Aragua. Proceedings of the “I Encuentro
Internacional de Educación Infantil”, Universidad Pedagógica Experimental
Libertador (UPEL), Centro de Investigación en Educación Infantil (CIEDIN),
Maracay, Junio 16-17 de 2007 (in Spanish).
Whit, A.D. & Read, A.J. (2006) Assessing compliance to guidelines by dolphinwatching operators in Clearwater, Florida, USA. Tourism in Marine
Environments, 3(2), 117-130.
25
26
Manage the
development of
whalewatching to
minimize the risk of
adverse impacts
Design, maintain and
operate platforms to
minimize the risk of
adverse effects on
cetaceans, including
acoustic disturbance
Allow cetaceans to
control the nature and
duration of
‘interactions’
INTERNATIONAL
WHALING
COMMISSION
PRINCIPLES
(IWC, 1997)
Educational input and
output
Scientific input and
output
Attention to
conservation
HIGH QUALITY
WHALEWATCHING
(Hoyt, 2001, 2005,
2007)
To incorporate knowledge of
biological diversity in formal
and informal educational
processes and training of
human resources.
To promote the knowledge,
conservation and sustainable
use of marine, coastal and
island biological diversity.
To know, to value, and to
disseminate (information on)
biological diversity
To promote in situ
conservation
To promote the sustainable
use of biological diversity
STRATEGIC LINES
NATIONAL STRATEGY
ON BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY AND ITS
ACTION PLAN
(MARN, 2001)
Environmental
education and public
awareness
Scientific research
and monitoring
SEA VIDA´S
PREMISES
(2001-2007)
Providing appropriate,
accurate and detailed
interpretative/educational
materials or activities for
their clientele about the
cetaceans viewed and
their habitats
Co-operating with
research groups and
other scientists and
research projects
Allowing vessels to be
used by scientists as
platforms of opportunity
Actively assist with the
conservation of the
resource
WHALE
ECOTOURISM
(Parsons et al., 2006)
Undergoing efforts being
performed
Undergoing efforts being
performed.
Scientific research should be
required via regulations
Undergoing efforts being
performed
REMARKS FOR
WHALEWATCHING IN
THE STATE OF ARAGUA
Table 1. Compliance of whalewatching in the State of Aragua, Venezuela with whalewatching development
guidelines and standards.
27
Good, long-term
financial management
Enhancement of other
benefits
Reduction of the costs
of whalewatching
Focus on people (local
and visitors) and
community relations
To establish programs of
tourism utilization of
ecosystems with minimal
negative impact, respecting
the carrying capacity of these
ecosystems
To prevent, to mitigate, and to
control the environmental
impact of human activities on
biological diversity, with
emphasis on economic
activities
To ensure and promote
participation of society in the
management of biological
diversity
Update of the
regulatory
framework and
government
authorization for tour
operators and
naturalist guides
A voluntary code of
conduct negotiated
with stakeholders
Participation and
development of local
communities
Adhere to
whalewatching
regulations or an
appropriate set of
guidelines, in no specific
regulations are available
for the area
Provide some benefits
for the host community
within which the
company operates. Such
benefits could include a
policy of preferential
employment of local
people, selling local
handicrafts, or
supporting (either
financially or in kind)
local community-based
conservation, education,
cultural or social projects
or activities.
Minimizing their
environmental impact
(such as reducing
emissions or disposing of
refuge appropriately)
Required
Required
Undergoing efforts being
performed
More effort is needed for
enactment of the Code of
Conduct and release of
regulations at national and
local levels
Undergoing efforts being
performed
WHEN AND WHERE? THE WHALE-WATCH INDUSTRY AND
THE FUTURE
(Working Paper)
Rochelle Constantine1 and Lars Bejder2
School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
2
Centre for Fish and Fisheries Research, Murdoch University,
South Street, Murdoch 6150, Western Australia
r.constantine@auckland.ac.nz
L.Bejder@murdoch.edu.au
1
Keywords: Whale-watch, tourism, anthropogenic impact, management
A GLOBAL INDUSTRY
Whale-watching (commercial tours to interact with whales, dolphins and porpoises in
the wild) is a rapidly growing industry throughout the world. Internationally this
industry is worth in excess of US$1 billion and businesses are developing in the
majority of coastal nations throughout the world (Hoyt, 2001). In some places, e.g.,
New Zealand and Australia this industry is growing faster than overall rates of
tourism (IFAW, 2004; 2005), and in others is still growing unchecked, e.g., Taiwan.
The social and economic benefits are substantial but unfortunately management of
this industry still ranges from complex and difficult to implement, to inadequate, or
indeed completely lacking despite commercial whale-watching having been engaged
in for over fifty years.
Initially, little attention was paid to the potential impacts of commercial whalewatching tours but recently, concerns over the potential for detrimental consequences
to targeted animals have been raised (e.g., IWC, 1996; 2007; Samuels et al., 2003;
Corkeron, 2004). Repeated disruptions to behaviours such as socialising, foraging and
resting have been speculated to result in deleterious effects on reproductive success,
health, ranging patterns and availability of preferred habitat. Recent research has now
revealed that dolphin-watching can cause biologically significant impacts on targeted
communities, primarily by displacing dolphins from critical habitats and reducing
their reproductive success (Lusseau, 2005; Bejder 2005; Bejder et al., 2006). There
are distinct differences between the effects of whale watching on non-migratory
coastal populations of whales or dolphins, and those on the migratory populations of
primarily great whales. Coastal, resident populations of dolphins are likely to be
exposed to year-round, daily dolphin-watching or swim-with-dolphin tours.
Seasonally resident populations of whales, such as grey and humpback whales on
their breeding grounds, are exposed to lower levels of annual exposure to tourism but
are vulnerable as they are engaged in calving and mating. In some cases, e.g., South
Africa and Australia, terrestrial whale-watching of animals passing close to shore is
an innovative way to remove the issue of anthropogenic disturbance.
28
MANAGEMENT
Even though detrimental effects have been shown, there is still strong support from
governments, non-goverment organisations and agencies, such as the International
Whaling Commission (IWC), for the sustainable development of whale-watching that
minimises the risk of adverse impacts (IWC, 2006). With this in mind, we suggest it is
time for greater recognition of the impacts of whale-watch activities and call for a
revised and more stringent management approach to ensure genuine long-term
sustainability (Constantine and Bejder, In Press). Management options vary from the
informal, such as codes of conduct and guidelines, to legally binding regulations and
legislation. Legislation is only as good as the enforcement and, for even the most of
wealthy nations (such as New Zealand and the USA) it can be expensive and time
consuming on the regulatory body. Without enforcement legislation does not work
(e.g., Constantine, 2001; Scarpaci et al., 2003; Constantine et al., 2004; Lusseau,
2003; 2005). We acknowledge that there is no simple solution that fits all whalewatch industries and that countries and local regions must decide what best fits them.
There are a number of development models that emerging whale watch industries can
investigate to avoid the pitfalls of a short-sighted business approach. The use of
Marine Protected Areas and Marine Mammal Sanctuaries have been suggested, no-go
areas for commercial operators, interaction time restrictions and controls on the
number of operators or trips can be very effective.
THE FUTURE
So what should the whale watch industry of the future look like? There is enough
scientific evidence to know that we should act to mitigate harassment and disturbance.
In 2007, the IWC announced the initiation of the LAWE (Large-scale Whalewatching Experiment) which aims to understand the interaction between whalewatching and other anthropogenic disturbances and ecological factors by creating
models of established and establishing industries. This represents a further step to
helping managers integrate the complex factors that influence cetacean behaviour and
habitat use.
Recent recognition by some managers of the effects of whale-watching represents a
paradigmatic shift in attitudes towards this industry. Calls for the burden of proof to
be shifted onto the industry and managers to demonstrate sustainability (Mangel et al.,
1996) will hopefully allow the industry to grow cautiously. Currently many whalewatch industries throughout the world are being managed without using either the
precautionary principle or adaptive management whereby all stakeholders are
involved in industry growth. Therefore, the long-term welfare of many populations of
whales, dolphins and porpoises do not have the protection they require (Corkeron,
2004).
29
REFERENCES
Bejder, L. (2005) Linking short- and long-term effects of nature-based tourism on
cetaceans. PhD Thesis, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Gales, N., Mann, J., Connor, R., Heithaus,
M., Watson-Capps, J., Flaherty, C. and Krützen, M. (2006a) Decline in relative
abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conservation
Biology 20, 1791-1798.
Constantine, R. (2001) Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) due to long-term exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism.
Marine Mammal Science 17, 689-702.
Constantine, R. and Bejder, L. Managing the whale-and dolphin-watch industry: Time
for a paradigm shift. . In: Higham, J. and Lück, M. (eds) Marine Wildlife and
Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences. CABI
Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK.
Constantine, R. Brunton, D.H. and Baker, C.S. (2003) Effects of tourism on
behavioural ecology if bottlenose dolphins of northeastern New Zealand. DoC
Science Internal Series 153, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H. and Dennis, T. (2004) Dolphin-watching tour boats
change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological
Conservation 117, 299-307.
Corkeron, P.J. (2004) Whale watching, iconography, and marine conservation.
Conservation Biology 18, 847-849.
Hoyt, E. (2001) Whale watching 2000: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures,
and expanding socioeconomic benefits. Report to the International Fund for
Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, U.S.A.
IWC. (1996) Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission
Meeting 48.
IWC. (2006) Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission
Meeting 58.
IWC. (2007) Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission
Meeting 59.
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare). (2004) The growth of whale
watching tourism in Australia. A report for IFAW – the International Fund for
Animal Welfare.
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare). (2005) The growth of the New
Zealand whale watching industry. A report for IFAW – the International Fund for
Animal Welfare.
Lusseau, D. (2003) Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins:
Using Markov chains to model anthropogenic impacts. Conservation Biology 17,
1785-1793.
Lusseau, D. (2005) Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops spp., in
Milford Sounds, New Zealand, is related to boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 295, 265-272.
Lusseau, D. and Higham J.E.S. (2004) Managing the impacts of dolphin-based
tourism through the definition of critical habitats: the case of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sounds, New Zealand. Tourism Management 25, 657667.
30
Mangel, M., Talbot, L.M., Meffe, G.K., Agardy, M.T., et al. (1996) Principles for the
conservation of wild living resources. Ecological Applications 6, 338-362.
Samuels, A., Bejder, L., Constantine, R. and Heinrich, S. (2003) Swimming with wild
cetaceans, with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. In: Gales, N.,
Hindell, M. and Kirkwood, R. (eds) Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and
Management Issues. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 277-303.
Scarpaci, C., Nugedoga, D. and Corkeron, P. (2003) Compliance with regulations by
“swim-with-dolphins” operations in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia.
Environmental Management 31, 342-347.
31
DUSKY DOLPHIN (LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS)
OCCURRENCE PATTERNS NEAR KAIKOURA, NEW
ZEALAND: OBSERVATIONS FROM TOUR BOATS 1995-2006
(Working Paper)
Adrian Dahood and Bernd Würsig
Texas A&M University, Marine Mammal Research Program
4700 Ave U Building 303, Galveston TX 77551, USA
adahood@neo.tamu.edu and wursigb@tamug.edu
Zach Vernon
Texas A&M University, Ecosystem Science and Management
College Station, TX 77843, USA
zach.vernon@gmail.com
Ian Bradshaw, Dennis Buurman, and Lynette Buurman
Encounter Kaikoura
96 Esplanade, Kaikoura, NZ
ian@dolphin.co.nz, dennis@dolphin.co.nz, and lynette@dolphin.co.nz
Keywords: Dolphin-watching, GIS, Environmental Factors, Distribution
INTRODUCTION
Dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus), also termed “duskies”, are small, coastal
to meso-pelagic dolphins found in New Zealand’s near-shore waters (B. Würsig et al.,
1997). In Kaikoura, New Zealand, duskies are both ecologically and economically
important. As upper level predators capable of consuming large amounts of prey,
dolphins may influence ecosystem function (Kenney et al., 1997). Their year-round
presence and acrobatic displays have allowed a dolphin tourism industry to develop
and prosper (Barr & Slooten, 1999). Conservationists and tour operators alike have a
vested interest in duskies continuing to thrive in Kaikoura.
New Zealand’s Department of Conservation lists “…to better understand…key
habitat requirements” as an objective for dusky dolphin management (Suisted &
Neale, 2004). Marine mammal habitat use patterns are commonly related to abiotic
factors such as bottom depth (Bräger, Harraway & Manly, 2003; Yen et al., 2004),
distance from shore (Elwen & Best, 2004; Parra, Schick, & Corkeron, 2006), and sea
surface temperature (Neumann, 2001). It is believed that these factors may directly
influence habitat selection or serve as a proxy for prey availability measures
(Neumann, 2001; B. Würsig & M. Würsig, 1980).
Since October 1995, Encounter Kaikoura skippers have been recording data regarding
dusky group numbers and locations. This dataset represents the longest continuous
record of duskies in Kaikoura. It provides a unique opportunity to examine the effect
of abiotic factors on dusky dolphin long-term occurrence patterns, as documented by
a tour operator. The authors test the hypotheses that duskies have seasonally specific
preferences for depth, distance to Kaikoura submarine canyon edge, and distance to
shore. Further, they test whether duskies’ summer occurrence patterns are consistent
between 1995-2000 and 2001-2006.
32
STUDY
Methods
Encounter Kaikoura, a major dolphin tour operator in Kaikoura, has been collecting
GPS coordinates for dolphin groups visited during tours since October 1995. They
are permitted to visit a roughly 2,800 km2 area surrounding Kaikoura, which includes
roughly 90 km of coastline and some of the Kaikoura submarine canyon. When the
inherent biases of non-systematic sampling are accounted for, data collected on tour
boats can be useful in describing species occurrence patterns (Hauser et al., 2006;
Neumann, 2001).
The Encounter Kaikoura data describe the first group of dolphins encountered each
tour. Boats typically leave the South Bay harbor, in the middle of the permitted area,
and head south until dolphins are found. This dataset is therefore a measure of
closeness to the commercial on-shore boat harbor during tour times and not a fair
indication of location of all dolphin groups in the Kaikoura area. From October 1995
to November 2006, there are more than 5,000 useable sighting records spread
unevenly across years and seasons.
The sighting records were analyzed using ArcGIS 9.1, Arcview 3.3, and SPSS 13.
All spatial data were projected to the New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection
2000 using a shapefile of the NZ coastline (Eagle Technology, Wellington, NZ). Data
were grouped by season across the twelve year period, defining winter as June 1August 31, spring as September 1- November 30, summer as December 1- February
29, and fall as March 1- May 31.
Analyses proceeded in two different phases. First, depth and distance-to-feature
measurements were associated with each point. Depth was calculated by applying the
Topogrid command in ArcInfo to bathymetry polylines distributed by New Zealand’s
Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to create a continuous model of
depth at 30m resolution. The Nearest Features extension for ArcView 3.3 (Jenness,
2004) calculated distance-to-feature variables. The 150m isobath poly line, the
average depth of the continental shelf break (Garrison, 1999), represented the canyon
edge and access to deep water prey preferred by duskies in Kaikoura (Benoit-Bird, B.
Würsig & McFadden, 2004; Cipriano, 1992). Seasonal means for each factor were
calculated and the distributions compared using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
test in SPSS 13.0 (SPSS, 2004). In the second phase areas most often occupied by
duskies were compared using the Animal Movement Extension 2.0 for Arcview 3.3
(Hooge & Eichenlaub, 2000) to create 95% Kernel Home Range (KHR) probability
polygons. KHR polygons were generated for each season and for summers grouped
by year, 1995-2000 and 2001-20006.
Results
Mean depth was deepest during winter (411 m) and spring (386m) and shallowest
during summer (131 m) and fall (165 m). Distance to the canyon edge was farthest
during summer (1.58 km) and fall (1.23 km) and nearest during spring (0.23 km) and
winter (0.60km). Distance to shore was farthest for winter (6.32 km) and spring (4.51)
occurrences and nearest for summer (1.82 km) and fall (2.14 km) occurrences.
Kruskal-Wallis tests comparing seasonal distributions were significant for all three
factors: depth (Ȥ2=1379, p<0.000, df=3), distance to shore (Ȥ2=1792, p<0.000, df=3),
33
and distance to canyon edge (Ȥ2=1039, p<0.000, df=3). Duskies exhibited seasonal
preferences for all three abiotic factors. On average, at all times of year duskies were
closer to the canyon than shore.
KHR analyses show seasonal differences in shape and total area of the 95%
probability polygons. Winter 95% KHR occupied the largest area (668.41km2) while
summer occupied the smallest (115.31 km2). Total areas enclosed by 95% KHRs
representing summers 1995-2000 (129.99km2), 2001-06 (114.69 km2) are
comparable, but summer 1995-2000 95% KHR was further south than later years.
All polygons included the Kaikoura Canyon head.
Discussion
While there is annual variability, duskies exhibit clear seasonal occurrence patterns.
These patterns are evident in depth, distance from shore, distance to the canyon, and
95% KHR. In summer, sightings occur in a relatively small area close to shore and
associated with the Kaikoura Canyon head. In winter, sightings are spread throughout
a larger portion of the study area, are farther offshore, and are frequently associated
with the canyon axis. Fall and spring show intermediate patterns. Seasonal
occurrences could be influenced by prey availability (Cipriano, 1992; B. Würsig & M.
Würsig, 1980), predator attendance patterns (Heithaus & Dill, 2006), or factors not
captured in this dataset.
Dusky bathymetric and distance-to-shore preferences may reflect a strategy to
maximize access to prey. In Kaikoura, duskies feed at night on the Deep Scattering
Layer, a community of fish and invertebrates associated with deep water, as it rises to
the surface (Benoit-Bird et al., 2004; Cipriano, 1992). If prey influences dusky
occurrence patterns, duskies should have a strong association with deep water year
round. During all seasons, on average, duskies were found closer to deep water than
to shore and all 95% KHR overlap with the Kaikoura canyon head. Further, the
duskies’ shift offshore in the winter may reflect changing patterns of prey availability
(Cipriano, 1992). Studies of fish communities roughly 150 km southwest of
Kaikoura, reveal a winter shift offshore into deeper water for many species, including
the arrow squid Nototodarus sloanii (Beentjes et al., 2002), an important dusky prey
(Cipriano, 1992). In the winter, duskies may be following the squid and other prey
offshore.
The level of predation risk from killer whales (Orcinus orca) may influence duskies’
occurrence patterns. It is believed that shallow, near-shore waters may provide refuge
from predators (Constantine et al., 1998; B. Würsig & M. Würsig, 1980). When killer
whales are present, duskies often swim rapidly towards shore and continue alongshore
(Cipriano, 1992; Weir, 2007). Of 138 killer whale sightings recorded by Encounter
Kaikoura skippers, 97 are reported in summer and fall (December-May) when duskies
are found closest to shore. Duskies may be choosing habitat to minimize detection or
capture by predators rather than solely matching patterns of prey availability, a pattern
which has been documented in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Australia
(Heithaus and Dill 2006).
Alternatively, the seasonal change in occurrence patterns may be influenced by
changes in dolphin demographics not captured in these data. Summer groups contain
calves and exhibit predictable activity and onshore/offshore movement patterns. The
34
sheltered waters of Goose Bay, near the Kaikoura Canyon head, are important to
nursery groups (Weir 2007). On a daily basis, moms may balance the need for
protected waters for their calves, and access to deep-water food for themselves.
Winter groups contain no calves and may value habitat features differently.
KHR analyses illustrated that dolphins were found further south in summers of 19952000 than in later years. During the late 1990’s it was speculated that increased
tourism pressure might be causing the dolphins to shift south away from port. Since
that time, tourism has not decreased, but duskies' preferred summer habitat has moved
north. Currently, there is no strong explanation for these changes other than inter
annual variation, potentially related to changes in prey habitat use and abundance.
CONCLUSION
The Encounter Kaikoura dataset describes strong seasonal patterns that are consistent
across years, despite interannual variation. Seasonal preferences for water depth and
distance to shore may reflect a strategy to maximize access to deep water prey while
balancing the need for near-shore predation refuges. Further investigations of prey
patterns, predator patterns, human disturbance, and other factors are needed to clarify
interannual and seasonal patterns.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, X. Ben Wu, Encounter Kaikoura skippers, Emily Kane, Ben Burrows,
Danielle Greenhow, and Rónán Hickey.
REFERENCES
Barr, K., & Slooten, E. (1999). Effects of tourism on dusky dolphins at Kaikoura.
Conservation Advisory Science notes no. 229, Department of Conservation
Wellington.
Beentjes, M. P., Bull, B., Hurst, R. J., & Bagley, N. W. (2002). Demersal fish
assemblages along the continental shelf and upper slope of the east coast of the
South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, 36(1), 197-223.
Benoit-Bird, K. J., Würsig, B., & McFadden, C. J. (2004). Dusky dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus obscurus) foraging in two different habitats: active acoustic
detection of dolphins and their prey. Marine Mammal Science, 20(2), 215-231.
Bräger, S., Harraway, J. A., & Manly, B. F. J. (2003). Habitat selection in a coastal
dolphin species (Cephalorhynchus hectori). Marine Biology, 143(2), 233-244.
Cipriano, F. (1992). Behavior and occurrence patterns, feeding ecology, and life
history of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off Kaikoura, New Zealand.
Unpublished Ph.D, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona, USA.
Constantine, R., Visser, I., Buurman, D., Buurman, R., & McFadden, B. (1998).
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation on dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus
obscurus) in Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 14(2), 324-330.
35
Elwen, S. H., & Best, P. B. (2004). Environmental factors influencing the distribution
of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) on the south coast of South Africa
I: broad scale patterns. Marine Mammal Science, 20(3), 567-582.
Garrison, T. (1999). Oceanography: an invitation to marine science (Third ed.).
Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Hauser, D. D. W., VanBlaricom, G. R., Holmes, E. E., & Osborne, R. W. (2006).
Evaluating the use of whalewatch data in determining killer whale (Orcinus orca)
distribution patterns. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8(3), 273281.
Heithaus, M. R., & Dill, L. M. (2006). Does tiger shark predation risk influence
foraging habitat use by bottlenose dolphins at multiple spatial scales? Oikos,
114(2), 257-264.
Hooge, P. N., & Eichenlaub, B. (2000). Animal Movement Extension to Arcview ver.
2.0. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Science Center- Biological Science Office,
U.S. Geological Survey.
Kenney, R. D., Scott, G. P., Thompson, T. J., & Winn, H. E. (1997). Estimates of prey
consumption and trophic impacts of cetaceans in the USA northeast continental
shelf ecosystem. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 22, 155-171.
Neumann, D. R. (2001). Seasonal movements of short-beaked common dolphins
(Delphinus delphis) in the north-western Bay of Plenty, New Zealand: influence
of sea surface temperature and El Nino/La Nina. New Zealand Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research, 35(2), 371-374.
Parra, G., Schick, R., & Corkeron, P. (2006). Spatial distribution and environmental
correlates of Australian snub-fin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Ecography,
29(3), 396-406.
SPSS. (2004). SPSS Base 13.0 for Windows User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Suisted, R., & Neale, D. (2004). Department of Conservation marine mammal action
plan 2005-2010. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Weir, J. S. (2007). Dusky dolphin nursery groups off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Würsig, B., Cipriano, F., Slooten, E., Constantine, R., Barr, K., & Yin, S. (1997).
Dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off New Zealand: status of present
knowledge. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 47, 715-722.
Würsig, B., & Würsig, M. (1980). Behavior and ecology of the dusky dolphin,
Lagenorhynchus obscurus, in the south Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin, 77(4), 871-890.
Yen, P. P. W., Sydeman, W. J., & Hyrenbach, K. D. (2004). Marine bird and cetacean
associations with bathymetric habitats and shallow-water topographies:
implications for trophic transfer and conservation. Journal of Marine Systems,
50(1-2), 79-99.
36
‘JAWS OR JAWESOME?’ EXPLORING THE SHARK-DIVING
EXPERIENCE
(Full Paper)
John Dobson
Cardiff School of Management
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff.
jdobson@uwic.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Shark-based tourism is a rapidly growing aspect of the marine-wildlife-tourism sector,
but has yet to be subject to intense academic scrutiny. This paper adopts a
constructionist approach in analysing eight participants’ experiences of encountering
sharks in the wild. The results of the study highlight that, the sharks appeal for
participants in the study appears much deeper than just providing an adrenaline rush,
with elements of aesthetics and rarity being important factors of the experience.
Analysis of participants interviews also highlighted that encountering sharks in the
wild can generate significant feelings of aliveness and awe, which are characteristic of
Maslow’s (1962) concept of peak experience. Experiencing the shark close up in its
natural environment was also found to be a key aspect of the encounter. The
experience also had the ability to generate cognitive dissonance within some
participants’ which challenged their more stereotypical view of sharks.
Keywords: Tourist experience, sharks, wildlife tourism
INTRODUCTION
Edward Wilson (1984) proposed, through his notion of biophillia, that humans have
an innate need to have contact with, and feel close to, nature. Contact with animals is
just one mechanism through which humans are able to achieve this need and gain
psycho-physiological benefits (Bentrupperbäumber, 2005). The psychological
benefits that can be generated through contact with nature and, more specifically,
animals have been well documented (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan, 2001). However,
Schanzel and McIntosh (2000) identify that there has been relatively little research
carried out from a wildlife-tourism perspective. They identify that such a focus is
imperative in order to allow understanding of ‘how the nature of the experiences
provided at wildlife viewing attractions can create an enjoyable and meaningful
encounter for visitors’ (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000: p37). These meaningful
encounters can then generate psychological benefits such as stress reduction and have
the potential to trigger peak experiences.
The term peak experience has been a much debated topic in academic literature,
especially in terms of its definitional boundaries, who is able to achieve peak
experience, how often, what can trigger them and the effect they can have on the
person (Wuthnow, 1978, DeMares and Krycka, 1998). Maslow (1962) defined peak
experiences as ‘moments of great awe, intense happiness, even rapture, ecstasy or
bliss’ (p 9) and Goswami (1993, cited by DeMares and Krycka , 1998) described them
37
as ‘an experience of the transpersonal self because the persona of the experiencer is
not dominant’ and ‘is the most common means of experiencing transcendental
consciousness’ (p. 161). Peak experiences therefore cannot be commanded by an
individual but can be triggered by external stimuli, of which animals are thought to be
one. Individuals who achieve peak experience often feel unification with the world,
feelings of aliveness, have moments of intense concentration, and can feel free from
the burdens of time, fear and negativity (Lipscombe, 1999; Hefferon and Ollis, 2006).
The experience can also be characterised by a person gaining revelatory insights about
the world (Maslow, 1970).
Shackley (1996) notes the relevance of wildlife tourism as a potential trigger of peak
experiences as they can create ‘existential moments that induce a heightened sense of
being alive and make visitors happier, more confident and less stressed’ (p. 57). There
is a small but growing literature based on examining the relevance of peak experience
to tourism and in particular, wildlife tourism (Curtin, 2006; DeMares and Krycka ,
1998) and adventure-based tourism (Lipscombe, 1999). DeMares and Krycka (1998)
identified that contact with cetaceans was able to trigger peak experiences in their
respondents. They highlighted five key themes as being characteristic of cetaceantriggered peak experiences (these characteristics are summarised in Table 1), which
they proposed could be universal to all wild-animal-triggered peak experiences.
Curtin’s (2006) phenomenological study of tourists’ recollections of swimming with
dolphins also found evidence of peak experience among her respondents, although
significantly, these were primarily in respondents who had swum with captive
dolphins. As with DeMares and Krycka’s (1998) study, a sense of connection and
communication between human and cetacean was a significant element in Curtin’s
(2006) findings. Her study, however, added an extra dimension to this concept
through the recognition of the role touch can have as a way connecting to animals.
Table 1: Key characterizations of wild-animal triggered peak experiences (based on
experiences with cetaceans (after DeMares and Krycka, 1998)).
Characterizations
Harmony
Connectedness
Intention
Aliveness
Reciprocity of process
Meaning
The significance of animal’s relationship to each other and
the environment. Concept of oneness
Sense of destiny. Heightened connection to self.
Animal presents itself for benefit of humans. Interpretation
is dependent on humans
Experience of awe, elation, deep joy or unconditional love.
A pleasurable fear may grip the human.
Eye contact is prominent and highly significant in the
experience and is not interpreted as threatening.
The aim of this study is to examine the nature of the shark diving experience,
especially in terms of the appeal sharks have as wildlife attractions and the feelings
generated by participants through close contact with sharks in their natural
environment. Shark tourism is a rapidly-expanding aspect of the marine-wildlifewatching industry. Carwardine and Watterson (2002) identify 267 individual locations
38
in 43 different countries around the world where tourists can have a shark encounter
at some point during the year and it is estimated that over 500,000 people pay to dive
with sharks in the wild every year (Topelko and Dearden, 2005). It can also be a very
controversial activity incorporating anthropocentric concerns relating to fears over
human safety and biocentric concerns relating to possible impacts on the sharks and
the wider ecosystem (Dobson et al., 2005). However, this form of marine-wildlife
tourism has yet to receive the same level of academic scrutiny as cetacean-watching.
In order to be able to manage the growth of shark-based tourism in a sustainable
manner and in a way that helps ensure client satisfaction research needs to be
completed that examines the appeal of the shark as a wildlife tourism attraction and
what experiential benefits participants derive from close contact with sharks in the
wild.
THE STUDY
Research Design
Fatemi (2004) describes peak experience research as descriptive and exploratory.
Therefore in order to fully understand the ability of shark-based tourism to generate
peak experiences in participants, this study is situated within the constructionist
paradigm (which acknowledges that reality is socially constructed and that multiple
realities exist (Burr, 2005)) and adopts a phenomenological approach to data
collection and analysis (Van Manen, 1990; Moustakas, 1994). The adoption of
phenomenological research methods is slowly becoming more orthodox within
research focusing on the lived experiences of tourists (Suvantola, 2002; DeMares and
Krycka , 1998; Curtin, 2006).
Purposive and snowball sampling methods (Burns, 2000) were utilised to select nine
participants to take part in this study. The utilisation of a small number of participants
is common in constructionist-based studies as the aim is to gain depth of meaning of
individual interpretations. Therefore, this type of study does not allow for the
formulation of generalisations as can be achieved with large-scale positivistic-based
quantitative studies. The most important aspect is to provide an in-depth analysis of
meaning and highlight interesting issues, rather than examining the statistical
relationship between the experiences of large numbers of people (Suvantola, 2002;
Curtin, 2006).
Participants were chosen on the basis that they had undertaken at least one sharkdiving tour in the last two years. The participants ranged in the number of tours that
they had undertaken, species encountered (although all had experienced a Great White
shark in the wild) and their diving skills (in terms of SCUBA qualification). All
participants’ names were changed to ensure anonymity. Steven, Ellen, Matt and Peter
were all experienced SCUBA divers who had undertaken a range of shark dives in a
variety of locations globally. Bruce had gained his SCUBA qualification the previous
year and had undertaken four shark dives since gaining his qualification. Lorraine,
Martin and Chrissy were not qualified SCUBA divers and had only experienced
sharks on snorkel tours and/or organised cage-dives. The sample is considered robust
as it encompasses participants with a wide range of experiences and skill levels
(Curtin, 2006). Each participant took part in an in-depth semi-structured interview
that lasted between 1 and 2 hours. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then
39
analysed, with data being reduced into themes that related to key aspects of the sharkdiving experience. The comparison of emerging themes was an ongoing process so
that they could be incorporated into later interviews to examine their relevance to
other individuals (Jordan and Gibson, 2004). In line with Decrop’s (2004) notion of
trustworthiness member checks were carried out through inviting participants to
review their interview transcripts and subsequent interpretation and make any
comments and changes that they felt necessary.
The results and discussion of this study are presented simultaneously and quotations
have been used in an attempt to give voice to the participants (Jordan and Gibson,
2004). This also provides the reader of this article an opportunity to interpret the data
and draw their own, quite possibly different, conclusions (Delcop, 2004). The results
and discussion section is broken down into five areas that reflect the appeal of sharks
and the key elements of shark encounters that relate to peak experience:
x
x
x
x
x
Shark Appeal
Aliveness, Awe and Reverence of the Experience
Proximity and Connection
Seeing the Shark (Awareness of the Absolute / Loss of Fear)
The Desire to Repeat (Evidence of Flow (autoletic) Experiences)
Shark Appeal
The term ‘wildlife icon’ has been used to describe why certain species are more
popular with tourists than others (Tremblay, 2002; Smith et al., 2006). These icons
tend to possess charismatic properties, such as intelligence, cuteness or
approachability. With marine-wildlife tourism specific focus has centred on the
appeal of cetaceans (Bullbeck, 2005; Corkeron, 2006; Curtin, 2006). Curtin (2006)
identifies that dolphins’ perceived intelligence, approachability, perceived nonaggressiveness and aesthetic beauty are key attributes in making them popular with
wildlife tourists. Conversely, species that are perceived as un-human and dangerous
(such as sharks and crocodiles) may be considered as being unattractive to tourists
(Woods, 2000). However, these potentially-dangerous species do have an appeal, for
adventurous types of tourists, related to the danger that they may pose (Ryan, 1998;
Ryan and Harvey, 2000; Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001) and sharks in particular can
be appealing as a form of eco-adventure tourism (Dobson et al., 2005).
The perception that the shark presented a significant danger and that this produced
fear, apprehension and an adrenaline rush was a significant factor in respondents who
were experiencing this type of activity for the first time, as illustrated by Lorraine’s
comment: ‘It was an amazing adrenaline rush to see the White shark.’ However, for
those participants who had dived with sharks on repeated occasions an adrenaline rush
was a less of a factor and only appeared to be of any significance when diving with
potentially-dangerous sharks.
‘I do get an adrenaline rush but it’s not as much as I did before, although I did when
we were being circled by those Tigers’ (Peter)
‘I don’t get an adrenaline rush from seeing reef sharks or something like that but you
do get a bit when it’s something big.’ (Matt).
40
‘An adrenaline rush is not a major thing anymore, if you see one of the biggies like a
Tiger or Oceanic White Tip then yes it comes into it. But for me it’s the experience,
the wicked colours you see. You see these big top apex predators swimming around,
ruling the reef, they are just so graceful and they’re amazing looking things, its more
that than the kind of adrenaline rush.’ (Steven)
For these participants the appeal of sharks seems to go beyond just providing an
adrenaline rush, particularly for those who have repeatedly dived with sharks. Both
Kellert (1996) and Tremblay (2002) acknowledged that the attraction of popular
wildlife species can be partly attributed to their aesthetic appeal. Curtin’s (2006) study
of tourists’ recollections of swimming with dolphins highlighted an aesthetic beauty
as being a critical factor in the attractiveness of dolphins. This is also a factor
highlighted by participants in this study. Words such as graceful, agile and beautiful
were attributed not only to the Whale shark, but also to the Great White, Tiger,
Hammerhead, Blue, Thresher and reef sharks. One particular aesthetic factor, size, is
considered to be an important factor in determining preferred species for wildlife
tourists, evident in the popularity of charismatic mega fauna such as whales and
elephants (Bentrupperbäumber, 2005). The attractiveness of size has resonance with
some of the descriptions given by those who had encountered both the Whale shark
and the Great White: ‘It was such an honour to see the apex predator of the ocean, its
immense size and power’ (Steven). ‘I wanted to swim with the Whale shark as it is the
biggest fish in the sea’ (Chrissy). However, size does not always appear to matter.
Matt discussed the appeal of smaller species, such as cat sharks, as they offer a
challenge: ‘I do like diving with the smaller species as well … cat sharks are really
cool as you have to work hard to find them amongst the kelp.’
Unique physical features were also highlighted as being reasons for wishing to see
specific species. Both the Thresher and Hammerhead have very distinctive features
(overlarge tail and eye (Thresher) and distinctive shaped head (Hammerhead)).
‘There’s something special about the Thresher, a bit different, it has this amazingly
long tail, bigger than the rest of its body. …its eye is amazing, it looks a bit alien, a
bit like it’s going to pop out of its head.’ (Matt).
‘I wanted to see the Hammerhead purely for the shape of its head. It represents the
ultimate in evolution, and it’s unique in the animal world.’ (Peter)
Good visibility, often an important prerequisite for a good dive experience, was not
such an important aspect for several participants in this study where poor visibility
actually appeared to add to the mystic of the encounter.
‘When you were in the cage you couldn’t see much, only about 3 or 4 metres in front
of you. But then the shark would suddenly appear out of nowhere and glide past you.’
(Chrissy)
‘The visibility on the Thresher dive wasn’t great and I was a bit worried as to how
much we were going to see. … the Thresher then suddenly appeared out of the gloom
gliding majestically in from the open ocean.’ (Ellen)
The potential threats to sharks long term survival was an attraction for some
participants, complementing comments by Shackley (1996) and Reynolds and
41
Braithwaite (2001) who identify that rare and endangered species have a particular
appeal to wildlife tourists. Endangered species status generated a sense of needing to
have these experiences now while it was still possible. This theme was prominent
when Steven discussed his experience of swimming with a Whale shark: ‘they are
quite rare now, there are only a few places in the world that you can swim with them,
so I kind of wanted to do it before it was too late.’ Both Chrissy and Lorraine
highlighted that they wanted to do a cage-dive with Great White sharks while they
were in South Africa as they considered it an endangered species and ‘wanted to see
one before it was gone’ (Chrissy).
Aliveness, Awe and Reverence of the Experience
Aspects of what DeMares and Krycka (1998) termed aliveness, and Maslow’s related
element of awe and reverence, was a common theme when most participants
described their experience. Awesome, fantastic, amazing, magical and sensational
were common adjectives used to describe feelings generated by the experience.
Bruce described his sense of amazement during his first-ever shark encounter in
Barbados; these feelings were generated despite it being only the briefest of
encounters: ‘All of a sudden we saw these black tips, … it was fantastic, a real bonus.
… it was an amazing experience …I was buzzing for the next two nights it was the
talk of the town among our group.’ Peter also experienced sensations of awe and
elation when he was surrounded by a shoal of Great Hammerhead’s whilst diving in
Mozambique. ‘We were in the middle of this big school, it was absolutely fantastic,
that was really amazing, one of the best experiences of my life’
Ellen identified that she always had a sense of anticipation before diving in the hope
of seeing something significant that would generate these kinds of feelings ‘To see a
really big shark is awesome. You have this anticipation before you go in and if you
are lucky enough to see one it is “Woah! That is fantastic!”
For Matt the feelings of elation and awe were particularly prominent when the target
species was difficult to find, as he described diving with Thresher sharks. This is a
particularly difficult species to find and significant effort is required (i.e. extensive
travel, high costs, repeat dives etc.) in order to generate this encounter. However,
there appears to be a heightened sense of elation when these sharks are finally
encountered.
We didn’t see a Thresher on our first dive or second and I think it was mid way
through the third dive that this Thresher came straight past us. Then all of a sudden
these other very big Threshers came in very close. That was a really exhilarating
especially after all the effort that we put in to being there and trying to generate that
moment, it was truly special … something I will remember for the rest of my life.’
However, none of the experiences described by participants appeared to achieve the
same heightened sense of aliveness as those found by DeMares and Krycka (1998).
Some of their respondents reported feelings of love and even acceptance of death
when describing experiences with cetaceans. Perhaps this difference is due to the
perceptual differences between shark and cetacean held in Western societies; it is
acceptable to talk about loving a whale or dolphin but not a shark. However, although
love was not a term used by any participant in this study, a number did identify that
42
their encounters had enabled them to generate feelings of much greater respect for the
shark as a living creature.
Proximity and Connection
A number of authors have discussed the importance of getting close to animals as an
essential part of any wildlife experience (Shackley, 1996; Schazel and McIntosh,
2000; Curtin, 2006). This is a theme that is pertinent to this study as all participants
made reference to the fact that being close to the shark was particularly memorable.
Two specific examples of this came from Chrissy: ‘I got so close to it, much closer
than I thought I would’, and Ellen: ‘The Tigers came in really close, they must have
been only 4 or 5 metres away that was special.’ The fact that these encounters took
place in the sharks’ natural environment made the encounters more significant: ‘you
are not in an aquarium staring at them through Perspex, you are in their domain,
sharing their water’ (Matt).
Both DeMares and Krycka (1998) and Curtin (2006) identified connection as being a
significant element in the generation of peak experiences. In both studies making eye
contact with cetaceans was a seen as a profound element of the experience. However,
only Bruce and Chrissy attributed any significance to eye contact in this study, when
discussing diving with Great White sharks. For both, eye contact did not provide the
same connection as found by Curtin (2006) or DeMares and Krycka (1998) . Indeed,
although both appeared to search for some form of contact neither consider any was
made. Bruce described the eye of the shark as ‘soulless’ and ‘like looking into a black
hole.’ Chrissy also found eye contact with the shark to be non-communicative ‘I
looked into its eye but found nothing, it is just black.’
Ellen, Peter and Martin had a sense that the sharks were aware of their presence and
that they were being subjects of the shark’s ‘gaze.’ ‘When the Tigers were circling us,
they were checking us out, seeing who we were and what we were doing.’ Martin also
had the sense that the shark was aware of his presence whilst he was diving in a cage.
‘The shark came by very slowly and quite close to the cage, I was sure that he was
looking at me as much as I was looking at him.’
Touch is recognised as being a primary way in which humans can interact and gain a
better understanding of their environment (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998) and is
especially relevant in wildlife tourism where it can be an important way of allowing
tourists to connect with target species (Shackley, 1996). Many zoos allow visitors to
touch smaller species in ‘petting’ areas, and aquaria often allow visitors to interact
with species via ‘touch pools.’
Only Bruce actually touched a shark, which he regarded as an important aspect of his
encounter. A primary motivation for carrying out this action was generated by a
childhood memory of reading a particular passage in the book Jaws (Benchley, 1974)
where Matt Hooper, one of the main protagonists, reached out and touched the shark.
He stated:
‘I leant out of the cage and touched it. There was a passage in Jaws where Matt
Hooper, Richard Dreyfuss’s character, reaches out and touches the shark. That
passage kind of stayed with me and it is something that I wanted to do.’
43
For Bruce touching the shark was also an important way for him to enhance his
experience and also validate knowledge that he had developed about the shark.
‘I just wanted to make it tangible really, really take something tactile away from the
experience other than something that is just visual. It certainly gave me more of an
experience by being able to feel its skin, I had heard that a shark’s skin felt like
sandpaper and I wanted to feel it for myself .’
No other participant attempted to touch a shark. For some it was considered unethical
to touch a wild animal, others considered it too dangerous and in the case of
swimming with Whale sharks, there was an awareness of it being prohibited by a code
of conduct.
Seeing the shark
The ability of the media to shape people’s attitudes toward a wide range of
phenomena has been widely acknowledged in academic literature (McCombs and
Shaw, 1972; Cook et al, 1983; Roberts and Doob, 1990). This is especially true in
relation to the way the media can help shape humans attitudes towards animals, as
Bentrupperbäumber (2005) states: ‘the way people build up their knowledge of
wildlife through media representation … will strongly influence their expectation of
and response to future wild encounters’ (p.98). Both Morey (2002) and Dobson
(2006) identify the negative stereotypes of sharks projected by various media. Film,
newspapers, magazines and art all have the ability to influence attitudes towards
sharks. All except one participant identified that they held negative pre-conceived
notions of sharks prior to their first wild encounter; with the media playing a central
role in helping to shape such negative attitudes. Several of the respondents who were
in their 30s and 40s identified watching ‘Jaws’ as children as being significant in
shaping particularly negative views of sharks.
Steven recalls: ‘I remember watching Jaws when I was about 5 or 6 in my friend’s
basement. Because we lived in a town called Amityville we immediately assumed that
it was Amity and we were scared to go to the beach. I couldn’t even swim in a pool at
the beach club. I was absolutely terrified and literally thought every shark should be a
dead shark; that was the only good thing that could happen to them.’
Both Martin and Ellen considered Jaws as a significant factor in shaping their views
of sharks: ‘…the Jaws thing, you know, that kind of encapsulated my view of sharks;
monstrous man-eaters.’ (Martin) ‘I think films kind of put a negative image in my
head, I watched Jaws when I was younger and that really scared me.’ (Ellen).
However, watching Jaws appeared to have a more positive impact for Matt as it was
key to igniting his interest in sharks: ‘Jaws really sparked my interest in sharks, it
really fascinated me at the time and my interest went from there really, I have got
loads of books and videos on them that I have collected since I was a kid.’
Chrissy, Lorraine and Peter all acknowledged that the wider media was also important
in helping shape their views of sharks. As Peter stated ‘The documentary films and the
newspapers, it could be all down to that, it’s portrayed as a hardcore horrible fish.’
One of the benefits put forward by proponents of shark-based tourism is its ability to
break down the traditional ‘Jaws’ stereotype and allow people to see the sharks in
44
their natural environment first hand (Dobson, 2004). Psychological theory supports
this notion that through exposing individuals to stimuli it can result in the
enhancement of their attitudes towards it (Cassidy 1997; Zajonic 1968). Previous
studies by Beaumont (2001) and Gray (1985) have related this to tourism in the
natural environment finding that exposing tourists to the natural environment can help
engender a positive conservation ethic within them. All participants highlighted that
their first encounter with sharks in their natural environment had a significant impact
on their perception of them. Both Martin’s and Chrissy’s perceptions of the Great
White shark were challenged while cage-diving in South Africa:
‘I was really nervous before I got into the cage, but once I saw it swim by and not
appear to pay any attention to me or the cage I did relax and really enjoyed the
experience … that really surprised me as I thought it would come in and have a go at
the cage. It’s not the monster you see on TV.’ (Martin)
‘… I was really exhilarated when I got out of the cage to have been that close to the
Great White was just fantastic it wasn’t at all how I thought it would be. I always
thought that it would be much more raar! The shark was so graceful in the water and
wasn’t interested in me at all. It wasn’t Jaws it was jawsome.’ (Chrissy).
Those who had dived with sharks on a number of occasions also felt that their
attitudes had changed: ‘they are not what you see in the movies and when you see
them in the wild you get this great appreciation of them. … they are not Jaws,
rampant mindless killers.’ (Steven). For Matt and Steven they also felt that they acted
as ambassadors for the shark by talking positively to people about them whenever
they discussed their experiences.
It is interesting to note that this attitude change appears to have taken place for some
with little structured interpretation as several of those who felt that the experience had
impacted on their attitude towards sharks felt that the educational content of their trips
was poor. Chrissy stated: ‘I don’t recall being told much about the shark by any of the
crew.’ Martin also made reference to a lack of interpretation in his recollection ‘I
didn’t really learn anything, it wasn’t very educational.’ Ellen, Steven and Matt all
highlighted that scuba diving tours can lack an educational aspect ‘The tours I have
been on are more about going out and seeing the shark, you do kind of chat about
sharks with others in the party, but there has never been much structured information
given. I suppose that it is hard to give information as you basically go out, get ready,
and jump in.’ (Steven.)
It can be argued that through their shark encounters the participants have experienced
what Maslow described as an ‘awareness of the absolute’ and a ‘loss of fear’ (two key
characteristics of the peak experience described by Maslow (Lipscombe, 1999)). The
feelings of aliveness that have been generated through the opportunity to share the
sharks’ natural environment have created cognitive dissonance within the participants
that has challenged the stereotypical views of sharks projected through the media.
This has then allowed participants to ‘see’ the absolute truth about sharks.
This attitude change was not universal as Lorraine’s experience appeared to help
reinforce some of her negatively held stereotypes: ‘I was in the cage and the shark
came directly at me, it hit the cage right in front of me and started biting it. I was sure
45
it was trying to get me and I kept thinking that the cage is going to give way any
minute. I could see all of its teeth and I really thought it wanted to eat me.’
The Desire to Repeat (Evidence of Flow (autoletic) Experiences)
There were a number of additional elements related to Maslow’s concept of peak
experience that were present in the discussions of those who had encountered sharks
in the wild on a number of different occasions but were absent from those who had
only encountered sharks either for the first time or had done so a very limited number
of times. Those discussing repeat experiences highlighted various moments of high
concentration, a loss of time and effortlessness during their encounters:
‘… you kind of lose track of time’ (Steven); ‘I find that I tend to become engrossed in
the experience of watching the sharks trying to observe every minute detail of their
behaviour. … I couldn’t really tell you how long the experience lasted a few minutes
perhaps before they were gone again but I couldn’t say’ (Matt).
This was echoed by Ellen ‘I do find myself doing things automatically while watching
the sharks controlling buoyancy etc. I find myself just focusing on the shark as much
as possible.’
However, Peter appears to be more cautious when diving and does not allow himself
to fully let go: ‘I wouldn’t say that I get totally engrossed, scuba diving is dangerous
and you do need to be aware of your surroundings and what you are doing, however
there are very brief moments when you can’t help getting a bit lost in the experience.’
Shackley (1996) notes that peak experiences generated through wildlife tourism can
result in participants wishing to repeat experiences and that they can become
addictive. Csikszentmihalyi (1991) expanded on the notion of the peak experience
when generating his own theory of autotelic or flow experiences. Flow experiences
share many of the same characteristics as peak experiences and can be defined as ‘a
psychological state, based on concrete feedback, which acts as a reward in that it
produces continuing behaviour in the absence of other (extrinsic) rewards’
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). The role of intrinsic motivation as a key generator in
creating the desire to repeat an activity is therefore a central feature of flow
experiences; people engage in an activity purely for sheer enjoyment.
The desire to repeat the shark-diving experience appeared to be intrinsically
motivated among those who had dived repeatedly with sharks: ‘I just like to see them,
I find them really interesting’ (Steven); ‘every time I see them it just makes me feel
good’ (Ellen). Matt, Steven and Peter also identified a personal desire to see as many
sharks as possible. Both Matt and Steven referred to a mental checklist that they tick
off when they see a new species; while Peter observed that he had seen ‘about thirty
different species of shark, there are something like four hundred so plenty more to
see.’
Extrinsic motivation was much less evident; although several participants identified
that the reaction that people had to their photographs gave them a good feeling. Bruce
who had only completed relatively few shark dives acknowledged extrinsic
motivation as an explanatory factor in his desire to dive with sharks ‘…I get kudos
from my mates … and it’s great with the girls.’
46
CONCLUSION
Sharks are increasingly being utilised as a marine wildlife attraction, with the industry
experiencing significant growth in recent years. However, to date, shark-based
tourism has attracted relatively little academic interest when compared to that of
cetacean watching. This paper has aimed to begin to explore the appeal of sharks and
has identified that their ability to provide an adrenaline rush, although a significant
factor for some participants in this study, was not the only determining factor in why
they wanted to see sharks in the wild (particularly for those who repeat the
experience). Various aspects of aesthetics (i.e. size, physical features etc.) and their
perceived rarity were also important factors in contributing to the overall appeal of
sharks.
Elements of Maslow’s concept of peak experience were evident in participants’
descriptions of their experiences in diving with sharks. The experience certainly
generated moments of awe and aliveness and was therefore similar in terms of those
feelings found by DeMares and Krycka’s (1998) and Curtin’s (2006) studies of
cetaceans. However, participants stopped short of expressing a feeling of love, which
was found in some who had experiences with cetaceans, and was replaced by the term
respect. As with the previous studies of wildlife tourism proximity to the animal was
an important aspect in the experience although a sense of connection through eye
contact (with white sharks) was not evident.
Sharks have been the subject of negative stereotyping in western culture, often being
portrayed as ruthless man-eaters. Respondents in this study largely identified that their
experiences of diving with sharks in the wild had impacted on their perception of the
shark and that the elements of the peak experience mentioned above was significant in
helping to achieve this. Many had held negative perceptions which they identified had
been largely generated through the media prior to their experience. However, these
negative images were broken down (despite some recollections that structured
interpretation about the sharks was limited) when they observed the shark and its
behaviour first hand. This appears to indicate that there is potential for people’s
attitudes towards sharks to be enhanced through exposing tourists to them in their
natural environment.
REFERENCES
Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the Conservation Ethic: Recruiting the
Uninitiated or Preaching to the Converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (4),
317-341.
Benchley, P. (1974). Jaws. Pan, London.
Bentrupperbäumber, J. (2005). Human Dimension of Wildlife Interactions. In:
Newsome, D., Dowling, R. and Moore, S. (2005) Wildlife Tourism. Channel View
Publications, Clevedon, UK, pp. 82 – 112.
Bulbeck, C. (2005). Facing the Wild: Ecotourism, Conservation and Animal
Encounters. Earthscan, London.
Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods. Sage Publications, London
Burr, V. (2005). Social Constructionism. Second Edition. Routledge, London.
47
Carwardine, M. and Watterson, K. (2002). The Shark Watcher’s Handbook. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Cassidy, T. (1997). Environmental Psychology: Behaviour and Experience in
Context. Psychology Press, Hove.
Cook, F.L., Tyler, T.R., Goetz, E.G.,Gordon, M.T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R. and
Molotch, H.L. (1983). Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest
Group Leaders, Policy Makers and Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly 47, 16 – 35.
Corkeron, P.J. (2006). How Shall We Watch Whales. In: Lavigne, D. M. (ed.) (2006)
In Pursuit of Ecological Sustainability. IFAW, Guelph, Canada, pp. 161 – 170.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience Harper
Perennial, New York
Curtin, S. (2006). Swimming with Dolphins: a Phenomenological Exploration of
Tourist Recollections. International Journal of Tourism Research 8, 301 – 315.
Decrop, A. (2004). Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research. In: Phillimore, J.
and Goodson, L. (eds.) (2004) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,
Epistemologies and Methodologies. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 156 – 169.
DeMares, R. and Krycka, K. (1998). Wild animal triggered peak experiences:
transpersonal aspects. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. 30 (2), 161 –
177.
Dobson, J. (2004). The Potential for Wildlife Tourism to Contribute Towards
Elasmobranch Conservation: A Case Study of the South African Cage Diving
Industry. Paper presented at the European Elasmobrach Society meeting, London
Zoological Society, October 2004.
Dobson, J., Jones, E and Botterill, D. (2005). Exploitation or Conservation: Can
Wildlife Tourism Help Conserve Vulnerable and Endangered Species?
Interdisciplinary Environmental Review 7 (2), 1 – 13.
Dobson, J. (2006). Sharks, Wildlife Tourism and State Regulation. Tourism in Marine
Environments 3, 25-34.
Fatemi, J. (2004). An exploratory study of peak experience and other positive human
experiences and writing. Unpublished PhD thesis, Texas A&M Univeristy.
Gray, D.B. (1985). Ecological Beliefs and Behaviours: Assessment and Change.
Greenwood Press, Westport.
Hefferon, K.M. and Ollis, S. (2006). ‘Just clicks’: an interpretive phenomenological
analysis of professional dancers’ experience of flow. Research in Dance
Education 7 (2), 141 – 159.
Jordan, F. and Gibson H. (2004). Let your data do the talking: researching the solo
travel experiences of British and American women. In: Phillimore, J. and
Goodson, L. (eds.) (2004) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,
Epistemologies and Methodologies. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 215 – 235.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (3), 169 – 182.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The Nature of the View from Home. Environment and Behavior
33 (4), 507 – 542.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of Biological Life: Biological Diversity and Human
Society. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Lipscombe, N. (1999). The Relevance of the peak experience to continued skydiving
participation: a qualitative approach to assessing motivations. Leisure Studies 18,
267 – 288.
48
Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. Sage Publications, London.
Maslow, A. (1962). Lessons from the peak experience. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology 2 (Spring) 9 – 18.
Maslow, A. (1970). Religions, values and peak experiences. Penguin, New York.
McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2), 176 – 187.
Morey, S. (2002). The Shark in Modern Culture: Beauty and the Beast. Journal of
Undergraduate Research 4 (1),
www.clas.ufl.edu/jur/200209/papers/paper_morey.html (accessed on 7 September
2005).
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, USA.
Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife
tourism. Tourism Management 22 (1), 31 – 42.
Roberts, J.V. and Doob A.N. (1990). News media influences on public views of
sentencing. Law and Human Behavior. 14 (5), 451 – 468.
Ryan, C. (1998). Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attractions. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 6 (4), 314-327.
Ryan, C. and Harvey, K. (2000). Who Likes Saltwater Crocodiles? Analysing Sociodemographics of Those Viewing Tourist Wildlife Attractions Based on Saltwater
Crocodiles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (5), 426-433.
Schanzel, H.A. and McIntosh, A.J. (2000). An insight into the personal and emotive
context of wildlife viewing at the Penguin Place, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (1), 36 – 53.
Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife Tourism. International Thomson Business Press,
London, UK.
Smith, A., Newsome, D., Lee, D. and Stoeckl, N. (2006). The Role of Wildlife
Tourism as Major Tourist Attractions. Case Studies: Monkey Mia dolphins and
Hervey Bay whale watching. CRC Sustainable Tourism Technical Report.
Suvantola, J. (2002). Tourist’s Experience of Place. Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Chippenham, UK.
Topelko, K. N. and Dearden, P. (2005). The Shark Watching industry and its Potential
Contribution to Shark Conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 4 (2), 108 – 128.
Tremblay, P. (2002). Tourism Wildlife Icons: Attractions or Marketing Symbols?
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 9, 164 – 181.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience. The Althouse Press, Ontario,
Canada.
Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophillia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the Beast: preferences for animals in Australia. Journal
of Tourism Studies 11 (2), 25 – 35.
Wuthnow, R. (1978). Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology 18 (3), 59 – 77.
Zajonic, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and
Psychology 9, 1-29.
49
MARINE WILDLIFE TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES IN BAJA
CALIFORNIA
(Working Paper)
Sara M. Earhart, Maile C. Sullivan, and Marc L. Miller
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington
3707 Brooklyn Avenue NE, Seattle, WA USA 98105
searhart@u.washington.edu; mailesul@u.washington.edu;
mlmiller@u.washington.edu
Keywords: iconic species; nature tourism corridors; whale watching; sea turtles
INTRODUCTION
Marine Wildlife Tourism
In recent years, marine wildlife tourism has come of age and has become a topic of
importance to policy makers, scientific researchers, and diverse publics. Broadly
defined, marine wildlife tourism refers to tourism in which marine animals (including
species of insects, fish, invertebrates, reptiles, and mammals) and plants—and to a
certain degree, the abiotic habitats in which they are found—are touristic amenities
appreciated by tourists precisely for their beauty and non-instrumental value. Marine
wildlife tourism takes place in regions that include the open ocean and coastlines
together with their associated bays, harbors, inlets, and estuaries. Marine wildlife
tourism is illustrated by the viewing of whales, dolphins, seals, sea otters, and other
marine mammals; fish; seabirds; seaweeds, kelp, sponges, and corals; as well as crabs,
sea urchins, and starfish. Marine wildlife tourism understood in this way is
characterized by the tourists’ relatively passive and unobtrusive observation of nature,
and does not involve the hunting, harvesting, or capture and retention of marine life
(Miller, in press). Orams (2002) has pointed out that marine wildlife can be witnessed
in many ways. Thus, marine creatures are found not only in the wild, but also are
variously maintained in marine protected areas, sea-pens, oceanariums, aquariums,
and zoos. In this paper, however, the focus of interest concerns marine wildlife in
Baja California as it exists in situ.
As a non-consumptive activity, marine wildlife tourism overlaps with many other
forms of tourism such as ecotourism (Kusler, 1991, Kaae and Miller, 1993, Miller,
1993, Liu, 1994, Shackley, 1996, Fennell, 1999, and Honey, 1999), geotourism,
wildlife tourism (Higgenbottom, 2004, Newsome et al., 2005,), environmental
tourism, nature tourism (Whelan, 1991, Deng, et al., 2002, Waitt et al., 2003,
UNEP/CMS, 2006, Högmander and Leivo, 2004, Nyaupane et al., 2004, Wallace et
al., 1995, Hall and Boyd, 2005), science tourism , volunteer tourism (for example, in
which tourists assist in oil-spill clean-ups), and activism tourism (for example, in
which tourists make a political statement by objecting with their presence to the
commercial harvest of marine mammals).
Marine wildlife tourism systems involve interactions between people and place in
marine and coastal environments. Marine wildlife tourism systems can be seen to
have sociologies with three kinds of actors: 1) tourism brokers in the public sector, in
50
the private sector, and also in non-governmental organizations (NGO), 2) tourism
locals, and 3) tourists (Miller and Auyong, 1991, 1991, 1998, Miller et al., 2002;
Miller & Hadley, 2005).
In this paper, we take the position that marine wildlife tourism when responsibly
designed and managed can be beneficial not only to tourists and tourism businesses,
but also to marine wildlife species and ecosystems.
THE STUDY
Description of Baja California and Surrounding Waters
The Baja California Peninsula is located in the furthest west extension of Mexico and
is comprised of the states of Baja California and Baja California Sur. This unique
peninsula is the product of intricate tectonic movements throughout geologic history.
The climate throughout the Baja peninsula varies by region, and by season. The two
distinctly different seas that sandwich the Baja peninsula are fundamental drivers of
the climactic conditions throughout the region.
Both the geographic and climactic features of the Baja Peninsula shape a mosaic of
ecological regions. Marine ecosystems in Baja California and Baja California Sur
demonstrate exceptional biodiversity as well – with approximately 4,500 known
invertebrate species, large numbers of fish species, and 35 species of marine
mammals, the Sea of Cortez, and the Southern coast of North America boast as some
of the most biologically diverse marine regions in the world. Marine ecosystems
found throughout the peninsula include: mangrove swamps, coastal lagoons, coral
reefs, and subtidal substrates, shallow and deep-sea basins, and hydrothermal vents
(Carvajal et al., 2004).
There are several protected areas throughout the Baja Peninsula that aim to preserve
the rich levels of biodiversity found in the varying ecoregions throughout both states.
The Vizcaíno Desert Biosphere Reserve is notable in terms of size, as well as the
Valle de Los Cirios National park – together they cover approximately 5,000,000
hectares (Parkswatch, 2007; Cody et al., 2002)
History of Tourism in Baja California
Tourism in Baja can be separated into four major phases throughout history. The type
of tourists, their intent for travel and the nature of the visit once in the area define
these phases. The first touristic phase in Baja California began in the 16th century,
with the arrival of the Spanish, the areas’ first “business tourists.” The second period
of tourism in the Baja Peninsula began in the first half of the 20th century, with the
“discovery” of Baja California by American tourists. These tourists can be divided
into two groups: the “hedonists” and the “adventurists.” The ‘hedonists” traveled to
Tijuana and the border towns during the American Prohibition to seek out alcohol and
gambling, while the “adventurists” traveled further beyond the border to seek out
solitude and natural curiosities. Examples of famous Baja “adventurists” include
Ernest Hemingway, Zane Grey and John Steinbeck. The third phase of tourism in the
region began with the construction of the Transpeninsular Highway, which made
possible a new era of tourism in Baja California that would encourage Americans to
move past the border towns of Tijuana, Rosarito Beach, and Ensenada into the largely
51
uninhabited and undeveloped middle region of the peninsula. Additionally, the
Mexican tourism department, FONATUR, established six tourism corridors to focus
development in the area. Finally, the last phase extends from the late 1970’s into the
present. This period is characterized by increasing visitation, development, and
diversification of tourism activities, including the rise of wildlife tourism as a
specialty.
Marine Wildlife Tourism Assessment
a. Amenity Assessment
In ecology, keystone species are those species of such functional importance that
their future is a signal of the future of the system as a whole. In the context of
tourism, an iconic species is a species which has the potential to determine the
future or demand of tourism in an area. An iconic species can also be a species
that is representative of an area or one in which a visitor associates with a given
place.
This paper identifies significant wildlife tourism opportunities in Baja’s governmental
touristic corridors, and further establishes additional nature corridors of which the
authors felt deserved recognition for their potential wildlife tourism opportunities
(Figure 1). These areas rely directly on marine wildlife and more notably on the
following iconic species that we have identified (Table 1):
Figure 1: Map of Tourism Corridors in Baja California
52
Table 1. Marine Wildlife Amenities in Baja California
Primary Coastal Tourism Corridors
I **
II – Ensenada
Wildlife
California gray whales*; California
sea lions; harbor seals; seabirds;
Rocky kelp forest (diving);
Tropical coral reefs*; sea turtles*;
manta rays*; sea lions; hammerhead
sharks; marlin; California gray
whales*
Tropical coral reefs*; sea lions;
California gray whales*; other whale
species (humpback, fin, blue, pilot,
orca and sperm whales); seabirds;
hammerhead sharks*
Tropical rocky reefs; seabirds; sea
lions; seals; other whale species
(humpback, fin, blue; orca and sperm
whales); dolphins; sea turtles*
Rocky tide pools; sea birds; vaquita*;
sea lions; grunions
III – Los Cabos
IV – La Paz
V – Loreto
VI – Upper Gulf
Nature Tourism Corridors
A – Guerrero Negro
California gray whales*; northern
elephant seals; sea lions; sea turtles*;
California gray whales*; seabirds; sea
lions; sea turtles*
California gray whales*; orcas, other
whale species (humpback whales,
pilot whales, and blue whales); sea
turtles*
Coral* and rocky reefs; manta rays*;
sea turtles*; whale sharks*;
hammerhead sharks*; bat rays; sea
lions
Rocky reef
Sea turtles*; sea birds; whale sharks*;
other whale species (fin and killer
whales)
B – Laguna San Ignacio
C – Bahía Magdalena
D – Cabo Pulmo
E – Bahía de la Concepción
F – Bahía de Los Angeles
*Indicates iconic species for Baja Mexico
** Region I as determined by the Mexican Government is not a coastal region and has
thus been excluded from this paper.
53
Broker Assessment
Private sector brokers, public sector brokers and NGO brokers possess the greatest
power to shape touristic outcomes (Cheong & Miller, 1999). Within Baja, brokers
have had both positive and negative interactions with one another. For example, in the
area of Laguna San Ignacio, whale watching guides are working along with ProNatura
(an environmental NGO) to ensure lasting protection of important whale breeding
lagoons. Alternatively, environmental NGO’s are working to inhibit a large-scale
tourism development project called the Escalera Náutica or “Nautical Steps” proposed
by the Mexican tourism agency, FONATUR in joint venture with private developers.
Generally speaking, marine wildlife tourism seems to be unfolding in a reasonably
sustainable way in Laguna San Ignacio, Bahía Los Angeles, and Cabo Pulmo, due to
positive partnerships between brokers. Contrastingly, we find social and
environmental tensions building in Los Cabos, Ensenada, and Loreto relative to
negative broker interactions. This pattern indicates that there is more pressure in
highly trafficked areas, and less pressure in the more rural, less visited regions.
CONCLUSION
Looking toward the future, we must consider that tourism within Baja is ever
changing and that new emerging pressures will constantly arise as the field develops.
Changing demographics and increased industry input will likely act as a significant
driver of development in tourist corridors, as will expansion into previously
undeveloped areas. Just as pressure can be felt from the desire to develop the
coastlines of Baja, there exists a significant pressure to conserve these same resources.
The interface between brokers that support industry growth and development and
those who are more conservation driven will ultimately determine the outcome of
which direction marine wildlife tourism takes in Baja California.
REFERENCES
Barkenbus, Jack. (1974). The Trans-Peninsular Highway: A New Era for Baja
California
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 16(3) 259-273.
Beltran, David Jimenez. (2004). The Aqua Caliente Story: Remembering Mexico’s
Legendary Racetrack. Lexington, KY: Blood-Horse Publications.
Berger, Dina. (2006). The Development of Mexico’s Tourism Industry: Pyramids by
Day, Martinis by Night. New York: Palgrave Macmillin Publishing.
Bonifaz de Novelo, Maria Eugenia. (1983). The Hotel Riviera del Pacifica: Social,
Civic and Cultural Center of Ensenada. The Journal of San Diego History, 29 (2).
Cannon, Ray. (1966). The Sea of Cortez. Menlo Park, CA: Lane Magazine & Book
Publishing.
Cartron, J., Ceballos, G, & Felger, R. (2005). Biodiversity, Ecosystems and
Conservation in Northern Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cody, M., Moran, R., Rebman, J. & Thomson, H. IN: Case, T., Cody, M., and
Ezcurra, E. (eds.) (2002). A New Island Biogeography of the Sea of Cortez.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clampet, J. (2006). The Rough Guide to Baja California. New York: Rough Guides.
Clavijero, Francisco Javier (Author) & Felix Jay (Translator). (2002). Historia De LA
54
Antigua O Baja California/History of Ancient and Lower California: A New
Translation from the Spanish Text. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Cooke, Edward. (1979). English Privateers at Cabo San Lucas: The Descriptive
Accounts of Puerto Seguro. Los Angeles: Dawson’s Book Shop.
Cummings, Joe. (2004). Moon Handbooks Baja. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel
Publishing.
Ezcurra, E. (1998). Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Baja
California: An Overview. Briefing Paper. Biodiversity Research Center of the
Californias, San Diego Natural History Museum, prepared for San Diego
Dialogue’s Forum Fronterizo policy luncheon series: The San Diego UnionTribune.
Deng, J., King, B., & Bauer, T. (2002). Evaluating natural attractions for tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2), 422-438.
Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An Introduction. London: Routledege.
Carvajal, M., E. Ezcurra, & A. Robles. IN: Glover, L. and Earle, S. (2004). Defying
Ocean’s End: An Agenda for Action. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hall, C.M. and Boyd, S. (eds.) (2005). Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas:
Development or Disaster? Buffalo, New York: Channel View Publications.
Higgenbottom, K. (ed.) (2004). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management, and
Planning. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.
http://www.crctourism.com.au/CRCServer/page.aspx?page_id=42 (accessed 20
March 2007).
Högmander, J. and Leivo, A. (2004). General principles for sustainable nature tourism
in protected areas administered by Metsähallitus, Finland. Working Papers of the
Finnish Forest Research Institute 2.
www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2004/mwp002.htm (accessed 19 March
2007).
Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise?
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Institute for National Statistical Geographic Information, 2007. El INEGI en su
Entidad Baja California [Estadisticas por tema]. http://www.inegi.gob.mx.
Accessed 7/17/07
Kaae, B.C. & Miller, M.L. (1993). Coastal and marine ecotourism: A formula for
sustainable development?" TRENDS 30:2:35-41.
Kusler, J. A. (ed.) (1991). Ecotourism and Resource Conservation: A Collection of
Papers (2 Vols.). New York: State Wetlands Managers, Inc.
Krutch, Joseph Wood. (1996). The Forgotten Peninsula: A Naturalist in Baja
California. The University of Arizona Press.
Liu, J.C. (1994). Pacific Islands Ecotourism: A Public Policy and Planning Guide
(The Ecotourism Planning Kit). University of Hawaii, Honolulu: The Pacific
Business Center Program.
Miller, M.L. & Auyong, J. (1991a). Tourism in the coastal zone: Portents, Problems,
and Possibilities. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J (eds) Proceedings of the 1990
Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism: A Symposium and Workshop on
Balancing Conservation and Economic Development (2 Vols.). National Coastal
Resources and Development Institute, Newport, Oregon, pp. 1-8.
Miller, M.L. & Auyong, J. (1991b). Coastal zone tourism: A potent force affecting
environment and society. Marine Policy 15, 75-99.
Miller, M.L. (ed.) (1993). Ecotourism in Marine and Coastal Areas. Ocean and
Coastal Management 20 (special issue).
55
Miller, M.L. (in press). “Marine Wildlife Tourism Management: Mandates and
Protected Area Challenges,” in Marine Wildlife Tourism, (J. Higham and M.
Lück, eds.). Oxford: CABI Publishing.
Miller, M.L. & Auyong, J. (1998). Remarks on tourism terminologies: Anti-tourism,
mass tourism, and alternative tourism. In: Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. (eds.)
Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism:
Experiences in Management and Development. Washington Sea Grant Program
and the School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington and Oregon Sea
Grant Program, Oregon State University, pp. 1-24.
Miller, M.L., Auyong, J. & Hadley, N.P. (2002). Sustainable coastal tourism. In:
Miller, M.L., Auyong, J. and Hadley, N.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1999
International Symposium on Coastal and Marine Tourism: Balancing Tourism
and Conservation. Washington Sea Grant Program and School of Marine Affairs,
University of Washington; Oregon Sea Grant College Program, Oregon State
University; and Oceans Blue Foundation. Seattle, Washington. pp. 3-20.
Miller, M.L. & Hadley, N.H. (2005). Tourism and coastal development. In: Schwartz,
M.L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Coastal Science. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 1002-1009.
Newsome, D., Dowling, R.K., & Moore, S.A. (2005). Wildlife Tourism. New York:
Channel View Publications, Buffalo.
Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, D.B., & Graefe, A.R. (2004). Nature tourism constraints: A
cross-activity comparison. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 540-555.
Orams, M.B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourist attraction: A review of issues and
impacts. Tourism Management 23, 281-193.
Palmerlee, Danny. (2005). The Lonely Planet Guide to Baja and Los Cabos. Oakland:
Lonely Planet Publications.
Parkswatch. (2007). Strengthening Parks to Safeguard Biodiversity: Mexico –
Country Information [Table of Protected Areas].
http://www.parkswatch.org/patables/tablamex_eng.php. Accessed 7/30/07.
Pauly, Thomas. (2004). Zane Grey: His Life, His Adventures, His Women. Board of
Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Peterson, Walt. (1998). The Baja Adventure Book. Berkeley: Wilderness Press.
Ramano-Lax, Andromeda. (2002). Searching for Steinbeck’s Sea of Cortez: A
Makeshift Expedition Along Baja’s Desert Coast. Seattle: Sasquatch Books.
Roberts, N. (1989). Baja California Plant Field Guide. La Jolla, CA: Natural History
Publishing Company
Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo. (1992). Triumphs and Tragedy: A History of the Mexican
People. New York. W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Sea of Cortez Expedition and Education Project. www.seaofcortez.org. Accessed July
20 2007.
Sedler, Kathy. (1890). An Illustrated History of Southern California. Chicago: The
Lewis Publishing Company.
Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Steinbeck, John. (1941). The Log From the Sea of Cortez. New York: Penguin
Publishing.
Tershy, B.R., Bourillon, L., and Barnes, J. (1999). A Survey of Ecotourism on Islands
in Northwestern Mexico. Environmental Conservation. 26(3), 212-217.
The World Factbook, 2007. Guide to Country Profiles – Mexico.
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-facbook/geos/mx.html. Accessed
7/21/07
56
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariat of the
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) (2006). Wildlife
Watching and Tourism: A Study on the Benefits and Risks of a Growing Tourism
Activity and Its Impacts on Species. UNEP/CMP Secretariat, Bonn.
Waitt, G., Lane, R. & Head, L. (2003). The boundaries of nature tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 30 (3) 523-545.
Wallace, D.R., Holing, D. & Methvin, S. (1995). Nature Travel: A Nature Company
Guide. Time-Life Books, New York, New York.
Weaver, D. B. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (2) 439-455.
Whelan, T. (ed.) (1991). Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Williams, Jack & Patty Williams. (1998). The Magnificent Peninsula: The
Comprehensive Guidebook To Mexico’s Baja California. Redding: H.J.
Publications.
57
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHALE
WATCHING INDUSTRY: A CASE STUDY APPROACH
(Working Paper)
Sophia Foley
Marie Affairs Program (2005-2006)
Dalhousie University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
SophiaFoley@dal.ca
Marian Binkley
Dean, Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Marian.Binkley@dal.ca
Keywords: Marine Mammal, whale watching, marine tourism, community, code of
conduct.
INTRODUCTION
Whale watching, part of the global tourist industry, has become an essential
component of the socio-economic base of many coastal communities (Garrod &
Fennel, 2004). In 1983 coastal communities in twelve countries pursued whale
watching as a tourist activity (Hoyt, 1996 in Orams, 2000:561) and by 2000 that
figure has grown to over two hundred and ninety-five communities in eighty-seven
countries around the world, generating approximately $1 billion US dollars each year
(Hoyt, 2000). Although the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has deemed
whale watching a non-consumptive, sustainable use of whales, there is still
widespread concern about the effects the industry has on the natural biological needs
of marine mammals (Orams, 2000:561).
This paper explores how one community of whale-watching tour operators in
Southwest Nova Scotia, Canada, attempted to self-regulate the fast growing whalewatching industry of the Bay of Fundy by using a code of ethics. Specifically the tour
operators in the Bay of Fundy, now rely on codes of conduct to effectively manage
the industry for the socio-economic and environmental sustainable development of
whale watching. With the increase tourist demand for whale-watching tours,
operators, as well as marine managers, recognize that intervention is needed to protect
the whales from possible harassment and exclusion from critical habitats. This paper
will examine “How can codes of conduct mitigate the potential harmful impacts of
the whale watching industry on marine mammals, while maintaining the authentic
experience desired by the tourist, as well as fulfilling the expectations and needs of
the tour operators.”
58
THE STUDY
This investigation comprises of two parts: a background literature review, and indepth taped semi-structured and open-ended interviews with seven Digby region tour
operators. First, an extensive and critically analyzed literature review revealed
potential effects that whale watching has on the bio-physical needs of the marine
mammals. In addition, a review of the current regulations for whale watching in
Canada is presented with a comparative review of seven codes of conduct found
throughout Canada; following this, a specific look and critique of the code of ethics
used in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia is provided. This data was then coupled with
the interview material and existing code of conduct regulations to create and conclude
with a new code of conduct reflective of modern scientific knowledge and local
ecological knowledge.
Although there has been relatively few studies on the impacts whale watching has on
marine mammals, and even fewer studies on the socio-economic aspects of the
industry itself there is a multitude of management plans and tools in place to prevent
the potential harmful impacts the industry may have on the whales as a precautionary
measure (Hoyt, 2000). There is evidence that persistent disturbance of whale
watching boats can have short-term impacts on cetaceans (Lien, 2001). The question
is if these short-term impacts can have long-term consequences (Corkeron, 2004:847)
as disturbances can exclude whales and dolphins from critical habitats and preventing
the animals from feeding, breeding and nursing to name a few (Blane & Jaakson,
1995; Lien, 2001; Erbe, 2002; Williams et al., 2002ab; Lusseau, 2003; Heckel et al.,
2001 and Scheidat et al., 2004).
Some countries, such as New Zealand in co-operation with tour operators have
introduced a system of permits and zoning to better control whale watching as an
industry (Lusseau, 2003). On the other hand, Canadian tour operators among
themselves or in association with governmental organizations or non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) have introduced and imposed codes of conduct (or ethics) in
the various hot spots for whale watching in Canada. Codes are voluntary but set up
guidelines for tour boat operators on how to best conduct the boat tours in the
presence of whales. Both systems of codes and zones/permits are becoming common
tools for the whale-watching industry.
Codes of conduct in Canada are relatively similar throughout the country although
created independently in each whale watching community. Codes include provisions
for minimal approach distances by aircraft, cruise ships and tour boats. (Johnstone
Strait Killer Whale Interpretive Centre Society, 2006; Tobin, 2006). There are also
provisions for length of stay, type of approach to the animals, speed and direction, and
exiting strategies. In Digby, Nova Scotia, some of the tour operators have signed onto
a code of conduct with similar provisions for the Bay of Fundy region. In this
capacity, tour operators are taking into their own hands the sustainable development
of the industry. However, not all the tour operators in Digby have signed onto the
code.
The collaborative building of codes of conduct provide a foundation to tour operators
to communicate with their competitors on the sustainable development and
management concerns of the whale watching industry (Gjerdalen & Watkins, 2000).
59
To exert best environmentally sound practices on the water, codes of conduct
exemplify the precautionary approach (Heckel et al., 2001:235) to resource
management. The precautionary approach “urges caution when making decisions
about systems that are not well understood” (Heckel et al., 2001:235). By following
codes of conduct, the industry imposes on themselves restrictions that prevent or
reduce harm to the marine mammals. In this capacity, they are preventing harm to
their key species of interest until more research is available on the impacts of whale
watching. In situations where there is lack or little marine mammal management and
protection, tour operators become the most important steward for the cetaceans. In
accordance, they too start to educate the public about the importance of conserving
whales and the trend of conservation can continue to future generations and
neighbouring communities.
In the interviews with the Digby region tour operators on their thoughts and opinions
of codes of conduct, three general themes were brought up: First, the tour operators
express the most concern with any changes to the code that might impinge on tourist
satisfaction. Second, tour operators were concerned with providing tourists an
authentic experience. Most of the tour operators agree that tourists expect to get
‘close,’ it would be very difficult to change any aspect of the code that involves
distances from the whales and even potentially the length of time spent with the
whales. And lastly, the creation of the code was a community effort and proudly so.
Therefore, any changes to the code would have to come upon by group collaboration
and not solely from outside influences. The interviews revealed that it is easier to sell
any changes to the code of ethics as improvements to self regulation over any other
factor. Although the tour operators recognize that there is a need for sustainable
development of the industry, tour operators will buy into a code when the benefit
shows more results directly for the tour operator instead of for the benefit of the
whales or tourists.
Despite outside pressure, the undertaking of the responsible management of the
environment by the Digby community should be commended. The gathering of
competitors for the good of the environment and the sustainable development of the
industry is not an easy task to take on. Noting this, the code of ethics for the Bay of
Fundy has not been revised since its implementation. As scientific knowledge has
progressed since that time, the code of ethics for the Bay of Fundy runs the risk of
becoming obsolete, which could result in governmental intervention being necessary.
If the tour operators in the Bay of Fundy want to avoid outside regulation they need to
modify the code to be in conjunction with the current scientific studies, explicitly state
implicit boat handling procedures and as well as keep in tune with the majority of
codes of conduct across the country as much as possible. However, the code must also
keep the ideals that it currently holds, such as living up to the tourist expectations and
providing ground rules for vessel behaviour out on the ocean and remain a creation of
the community without governmental intervention.
CONCLUSION
Although implicit in tour operators’ boat handling operations, it is recommended that
the following actions should be explicated stated in an amended code of ethics: ban
leapfrogging manoeuvres and to keep the speed of boats to less then ten kilometres
60
per hour within 400 meters of a sighted whale. While not enacted upon by operators
or stated in the code of ethics, additional recommendations include: Boats should
spend no more than 20 minutes in the vicinity of the same individual whale and
managers should institute protected areas in all popular whale watching areas so that
the cetaceans have areas of no-disturbance feeding areas to escape to if need be. The
recommendations proposed take into account the opinions of the tour operators in the
region. The amendments to the present code of ethics in the Bay of Fundy can be a
vital step in the future protection of marine mammals in Canada while continuing to
provide an authentic tourism experience for visitors as well as achieve the
expectations and needs of tour operators of the region.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the whale watching tour operators who took the time
to sit down with us and share their knowledge. We are indebted to them as for without
their participation, this paper would have not been possible.
REFERENCES
Blane, J., & Jaakson, R. (1995). The impact of ecotourism boats on the St. Lawrence
Beluga whales. Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 267-269.
Corkeron, P. (2004). Whale watching, iconography, and marine conservation.
Conservation Biology, 18(3), 847-849.
Erbe, C. (2002). Underwater noise of whale watching boats and potential effects on
killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine
Mammal Science, 18(2), 394-418.
Garrod, B., & Fennell, D. (2004). An analysis of whalewatching codes of conduct.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 334-352.
Gjerdalen, G., & Watkins, P. (2000). An evaluation of the utility of a whale watching
code of conduct. Tourism Recreation Research, 25(2), 27-37.
Heckel, G., Reilly, S., Sumich, J., & Espejel, I. (2001). The influence of
whalewatching on the behaviour of migrating gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus) in Todos Santos Bay and surrounding waters, Baja California,
Mexico. Journal of Cetacean research and Management, 3(3), 227-237.
Hoyt, E. (2000). Whale-watching 2000: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures,
and expanding economic impacts. Crowborough, UK: International Fund for
Animal Welfare.
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Interpretive Centre Society (JSKWICS). (2006). Whale
watching guidelines. Telegraph Cove, B.C: Killer Whale Center, 2pp.
Lien, J. (2001). The conservation basis for the regulation of whale watching in
Canada by the department of Fisheries and Oceans: A precautionary approach.
Canadian Technical report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2363, 1- 24.
Lusseau, D. (2003). Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins:
Using Markov chains to model anthropogenic impacts. Conservation Biology,
17(6), 1785-1793.
Orams, M. (2000). Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all
about? Tourism Management, 21, 561-569.
61
Scheidat, M., Castro, C., Gonzalez, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Behavioural responses
of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whalewatching boats near
Isla de la Plata, Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 6(1), 63-68.
Tobin, D. (2006). Fundy whales: Code of Ethics. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from
http://new-brunswick.net/new-brunswick/whales/ethics.html.
Williams, R., Trites, A., & Bain, D. (2002a). Behavioural responses of killer whales
(Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and
experimental approaches. Journal of Zoological Society of London, 256, 255270.
Williams, R., Bain, D., Ford, J., &Trites, A. (2002b). Behavioural responses of male
killer whales to a ‘leapfrogging’ vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 4(3),305-310.
62
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE:
WHALE AND DOLPHIN WATCHING BOATS AS VENUES FOR
MARINE CONSERVATION EDUCATION
(Working Paper)
Paul Forestell
Pacific Whale Foundation, 300 Maalaea Rd., Wailukui, HI USA 96793
Long Island University, 720 Northern Blvd., Brookville, NY USA 11548
paul.forestell@liu.edu
Gregory Kaufman
Pacific Whale Foundation, 300 Maalaea Rd., Wailuku, HI USA 96793
gregk@pacificwhale.org
The Pacific Whale Foundation is a non-profit marine research, education and
conservation organization that was founded in Maui, Hawaii in 1980. Results of our
field research in Hawaii, Australia and Ecuador have been published in dozens of
journal articles, government reports and conference proceedings. The organization’s
findings have helped promote marine mammal conservation through new legislation
to regulate human activities, the development of protected areas, and heightened
public awareness of the status of marine mammal populations. Throughout its
existence the primary source of funding for its programs has come from whale
watching. Since 1986 the Foundation has operated its own fleet of vessels in Maui,
and collaborated with operators in a number of international settings. Currently there
are 7 vessels engaged in a variety of marine tourism ventures on Maui, catering to
approximately 150,000 passengers each year. All profits realized from these activities
go directly to support the research, education and conservation initiatives of the
organization.
As leaders in the development of responsible whale watching, Pacific Whale
Foundation has been acutely aware of the ever-changing nature of the relationship
between humans and marine mammals over the past three decades. A rapid increase
in venues promoting whale and dolphin watching excursions (Hoyt, 2002) has given
rise to increased concerns about potential damage to vulnerable marine mammal
populations (Gales et al., 2003). There is increasing evidence that a range of human
activities, including marine tourism excursions, can alter the behavior of many
species. In response to such evidence efforts have been taken in a number of areas
around the world to put regulations in place with a view to controlling human
behavior in the presence of marine mammals (Carlson, 2004).
The need to take whatever steps possible to prevent damage to threatened and/or
recovering species is recognized and appreciated. Nonetheless, as has been argued
elsewhere (Forestell, in press; Krauss & Rolland, 2007), the focus on protecting
whales and dolphins by legislative control of excursions to view them in the wild is a
well-intentioned but relatively futile endeavor. Simply put, whale and dolphin
watching is not the major source of threat to wildlife – it is not even in the top five.
Controlling commercial boat operators will do little to offset the depredations of toxic
63
run-off, noise pollution, fisheries by-catch, ship-strikes, depletion of prey species,
habitat destruction or global warming. The environment and the species within it are
less threatened by whale and dolphin watching boats than by the daily activities of the
10 million people who pay to go on the boats each year. Pacific Whale Foundation’s
philosophy is that re-shaping the behavior of the 10 million watchers is of far more
importance than regulating the activity of a few thousand operators. And its
involvement in whale watching over the past three decades has been driven by the
belief that operators must accept a major share of the responsibility for re-shaping that
behavior.
The importance of educating tourists is certainly not a new concept. Much has been
done in the interests of education in a wide variety of tourism settings. Educators,
government agencies and researchers have all promoted educational initiatives in
various marine tourism settings. A failure to fully consider the contextual demands of
educating the public, however, has limited the success of many programs (Hamm &
Krumpe, 1996). Success ultimately depends upon the development of an “ecology of
interpretation” that values and understands the convergence of unique elements in a
whale watching episode: the operator, the whale watcher, and the whale. And it is the
operator who is in the best position to take the lead in planning how to re-shape the
behavior of the whale watcher in the context of the journey to see the whale.
An effective education program requires an understanding of how learning occurs.
Pacific Whale Foundation’s marine conservation and education programs are based
on three fundamental principles derived from learning theory (c.f. Powell et al.,
2005):
modeling is an effective way to shape desired behaviors in others;
reinforcement increases the frequency of desired behaviors;
opportunity to engage in desired behavior is a necessary part of the learning
cycle.
Over time, these three principles have been imbedded in all aspects of the
organization’s business model, including operations, staff development, and guest
services. As a result, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to enhance the
educational and conservation impact of its programs.
Operations: Boat-based programs are operated on a daily basis by modeling the
conservation behaviors we hope our passengers will emulate.
Pacific Whale Foundation has developed a fleet of state of the art, whale friendly,
environmentally sound vessels that have purpose-built hulls; low emission, high
performance engines fuelled with blended biodiesel; protective devices around the
propellers; and high-quality PA systems. An innovative solar- and wind-powered
vessel is currently in the design stage, and it is slated to come on-line in 2008.
All vessels are fitted with low-flow toilets. The organization operates its own pump
out truck (powered by 100% biodiesel), so no waste is discharged at sea.
All plates, cups, utensils and napkins are biodegradable and compostable. They are
fabricated from sugar cane, corn and potatoes.
64
Only seafood that has been harvested with sustainable techniques is served on-board,
and a Seafood Watch card is distributed to each passenger.
Staff Development: It is considered of high importance that the Captains, crew
members and naturalists view the vessels as floating classrooms where guests can be
inspired to protect the environment and its species. It is also recognized that employee
efforts to improve their own knowledge and engage in environmentally sound
behaviors must be appropriately reinforced.
All staff are required to attend a variety of regularly scheduled workshops and
training sessions to keep abreast of the latest information about marine mammals and
the ocean environment. Attendance is considered part of their salaried responsibilities,
so they are paid to learn. Promotion and salary increases are in part determined by the
quality of participation in such events.
Pacific Whale Foundation employees who use public transportation to and from work
are reimbursed up to one third the travel cost.
Pacific Whale Foundation employees who purchase a hybrid vehicle are awarded
$1,000 towards the down payment.
Staff are invited to serve on a range of committees that help set company policies and
procedures and plan new initiatives.
Guest Services: Guests are provided on-board programs that highlight best practices
in the environment, as well as follow up opportunities to actually put some of those
practices to work.
Education programs are developed in-house, based on research conducted by Pacific
Whale Foundation scientists, or in collaboration with researchers from other
organizations. Pacific Whale Foundation Naturalists are trained in the latest available
scientific information, as well as in the most effective interpretive techniques. Vessel
design and program presentation ensure that all guests are able to hear, meet and
interact with naturalists throughout the excursion.
All vessel programs (dolphin, whale and turtle watching; snorkeling; marine cultural
history excursions; sunset cruises) demonstrate and promote environmentally sound
practices.
In collaboration with county and state agencies, Pacific Whale Foundation operates
the “Volunteers on Vacation” program, which allows guests to spend part of their
vacation time volunteering with any of a number of local environmental groups.
These follow-up experiences help reinforce new behaviors that help protect the
environment.
Pacific Whale Foundation is unique in developing a broad, holistic approach to
marine tourism. It doesn’t just deliver educational programs; it develops, tests, and
improves them. It doesn’t just promote environmentally sound behavior; it practices it
every day. It doesn’t just tell guests what they should do to improve the environment;
it gives them the opportunity to carry out some of those actions. The organization has
65
daily access to and control of floating, real-life laboratories for experimenting with
new approaches to environmentally sound marine tourism. With more than 150
employees, a fleet of modern vessels, and access to thousands of visitors each year,
the Foundation is also a significant part of the community and the local economy.
It has been neither easy nor inexpensive to put these practices into effect. It has been
learned, sometimes through bitter experience and costly leaps of faith, that much of
what passes for environmental education is empty platitude. Recommendations about
how to present interpretive programs; regulations about how to operate around marine
species; advice on environmental best practices – these often come from educators,
scientists, government agencies or NGO’s who have little or no appreciation for the
logistical, personal, economic or safety considerations of running a marine tourism
business. By incorporating educators, scientists and environmentalists into the
enterprise, Pacific Whale Foundation is perhaps better positioned than most to provide
effective programs for the public.
The fundamental lesson learned over more than a quarter century of bringing humans
and whales together is that experience matters. Operators, no matter how small or
large, are in an ideal position to re-shape the attitudes and behaviors of the millions of
people taken out on the ocean each year. They need to be given more encouragement
and resources to take advantage of that opportunity. Operators generally view their
effort as a business enterprise first and foremost. The consequent drive to maximize
short-term profit then threatens to overshadow long-term concern about the
environment, and leads to activities that lead those outside the industry to clamor for
regulatory controls (Forestell and Kaufman, 1996). Pacific Whale Foundation has
demonstrated that it is possible for operators to work with researchers, educators and
conservationists to become a critical part of the solution rather than a continuing part
of the problem. For such a model to work, however, those working with operators
have to be cognizant of the practicalities of dealing with the public in a dynamic and
challenging environment.
REFERENCES
Carlson, C. (2004). A Review of Whale Watching Guidelines and Regulations around
the World. Report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare: Yarmouth Port,
MA.
Forestell, P.H. (In Press). Conservation by legislation: The sound of one hand
clapping. In: J. Higham and M. Lück (eds) Marine Wildlife and Tourism
Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences. CABI: Oxford, UK
Forestell, P.H., & Kaufman, G.D. (1996). The development of whalewatching in
Hawaii and its application as a model for growth and development of the industry
elsewhere. In K. Colgan (ed) Encounters With Whales ‘95. Australian Nature
Conservation Agency: Canberra, Australia, pp. 53-65.
Gales, N., Hindell, M., & Kirkwood, R. (2003). Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism
and Management Issues. CSIRO: Collingwood, VIC, Australia.
Hamm, S.H. & Krumpe, E.E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for
nonformal environmental education – A theoretical framework for interpreters,
Journal of Interpretation Research, 1, 11-23.
66
Hoyt, E. (2002). Whale watching. In: W. Perrin, B. Würsig & H.G.M. Thewisson
(eds) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 1305-1310). Academic Press: San
Diego, CA.
Kraus, S.D., & Rolland, R.M. (2007). The Urban Whale. Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Powell, R.A., Symbaluk, D.G., & MacDonald, S.E. (2005). Introduction to Learning
and Behavior. Wadsworth/Thompson Learning: Belmont, CA.
67
THE GROWTH OF WHALE AND DOLPHIN WATCHING TOURISM IN
OCEANIA
(Working Paper)
Lydia Gibson (1); Simon O’Connor (2); Tania Duratovic (1)
(1) International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW); (2) Economists@Large &
Associates
(1) IFAW, 8 Belmore Street, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010, Australia; (2)
Economists@Large & Associates, PO Box 256, Noble Park, VIC, 3146, Australia
lgibson@ifaw.org; simon@ecolage.com; tduratovic@ifaw.org;
dkindleysides@ifaw.org
Keywords: whale watching; socio-economic; Oceania
INTRODUCTION
The Oceania Region is home to a high diversity of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and
porpoises). It contains critical breeding, calving and feeding grounds and migratory
pathways for many species. Historically, the region was a focus for whaling from the
late 1700s. Many species were hunted to the brink of extinction and are recognised
internationally as still threatened today (IUCN 2006). Nevertheless, the presence of
populations of cetaceans has led to the development of whale and dolphin watching
tourism industries over the last 10-15 years. Cetaceans are now increasingly an
important element of the region’s economy.
In 2001, a report by Eric Hoyt (the ‘Hoyt Report’), commissioned by the International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), provided a global assessment of whale watching
tourism expenditures and participant numbers. The report assessed several countries
and territories in the Pacific Islands region as well as Australia and New Zealand. It
showed that whale watching had become a US$1 billion industry attracting more than
9 million participants in 87 countries and territories around the world (Hoyt 2001).
Whale watching industries have subsequently developed in other Pacific Island
countries and territories not included in the Hoyt assessment and have since expanded
across Australia as well.
Subsequently, IFAW has commissioned a number of other studies that have focused
on growth of whale watching within the Oceania Region, including the Pacific
Islands, Australia and New Zealand. This region wide review of the status of whale
watching was seen as a valuable tool to further support the development of
responsible whale and dolphin watching tourism and to support regional initiatives
promoting the conservation of these species.
METHODOLOGY
Data for the studies discussed below were obtained through desktop research, direct
contact with regional tourism centres, researchers, universities, non-government
68
organisations and States and Territory and Federal government, operators involved in
marine based tourism, and visitors.
For the purposes of this paper, ‘whale watching’ refers to viewing activities of any
cetacean species from land, sea or air. This includes dolphin and porpoise watching
activities where they occur in a non-caged, ‘wild’ environment.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: A GROWING INDUSTRY WITH GROWING
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Australia & New Zealand
The Australian and New Zealand whale watching industries have demonstrated
remarkable growth since the Hoyt Report. The report estimated that in 1998 there
were 734,962 land and sea based whale watchers in Australia generating A$76.8
million (US$56.2 million at the time) in total expenditures for the Australian economy
and in New Zealand, the report estimated that there were 230,000 land and sea based
whale watchers generating NZ$90.8 million (US$48.7 million).
In 2003, Australians and tourists made more than 1.6 million visits to watch whales.
This is more than double the estimate in the Hoyt Report. This growth translates into
an annual average percentage growth of 15% over the 5 years between 1998 and
2003. This compares extremely favourably with the domestic tourism market which
shows an average annual growth rate of 0.06% during the same period (IFAW 2004).
In 2004, New Zealanders and international visitors made more than 425,000 visits to
watch whales and dolphins, nearly doubling the 1998 estimate. As an average, this
translates to 11% per annum. This is higher than the 8% international inbound visitor
growth rate (IFAW 2005).
Pacific Islands region
In 2005, more than 110,000 tourists and Pacific Islanders made visits to watch whales
and dolphins - a ten-fold increase on the previous figure of 10,300 in 1998 (see table
below). As an average, this translates to 45% growth per annum since 1998. This
extraordinary rate of growth outshines the region’s own above average inbound
tourism growth of 7.3% on an average annual basis from 2000 to 2004 (IFAW 2006).
The countries that have experienced the strongest annual average growth rates include
French Polynesia and Guam. Countries with well established industries in 1998, such
as New Caledonia and Tonga, have also continued to experience sustained growth.
As a result of this strong growth in whale watching in the Pacific Islands region, the
industry is experiencing a rapid increase in sales with significant benefits to tourism
expenditure in the region. Direct expenditure on whale and dolphin tourism has had a
fifteen-fold increase over the seven year period from USD $500,000 in 1998 to over
USD $7.5 million in 2005. The average ticket price for undertaking whale watching in
the Pacific Islands region was USD $76 in 2005 (IFAW 2006).
In 2005, estimated total expenditure (direct plus indirect expenditure) on whale
watching tourism was over USD $21 million for the region, up from USD $1.2
69
million in 1998. Guam, having the largest dolphin watching industry in the region,
generated USD $16 million of total expenditure, demonstrating the potential of
cetacean based tourism to other Pacific Island states (IFAW 2006).
For the period studied, the industry has also expanded its geographical presence
across the region. In 1998, whale and dolphin operations were reported in nine
countries in the region. This study found some form of whale and/or dolphin watching
in fourteen of the twenty-two countries assessed for the year 2005. Countries with
new whale watching industries since 1998 include Papua New Guinea, Samoa and
Solomon Islands (IFAW 2006).
Year
Average
Countries annual
Numbers
with whale growth in
of Whale
watch
whale
Watchers
operations watchers
(1998 – 2005)
1998
10,309
9
NA
2005
110,746
14
45%
Estimated Direct
Estimated
Value of whale
Total Value of the
watching
ustry
industry
USD $500,000
USD $1,185,000
USD $7,525,500 USD $21,012,000
The potential of the whale watching industry in the region
There is no indication that the industry does not have potential to continue this strong
growth trajectory, although this is heavily dependent on the growth of international
tourist arrivals to the region, particularly in the Pacific Islands region. For a majority
of countries in the South Pacific where whale watching was reported, it is
predominantly international tourists participating as opposed to domestic tourists.
With forecasted continued tourism growth, it is likely that this growth trend in whale
watching will continue (IFAW 2006).
Beyond inbound international tourists, key constraints to further development of
whale watching are the abundance of cetaceans (both whales and dolphins) and
therefore availability of viewing opportunities, tourist accessibility difficulties due to
high travel costs to certain parts of the region and irregularity of travel options, and a
lack of available marine-based tourism operators. In countries where there is a strong
tourism market, but low whale watching numbers, this primarily relates to an
inconsistency of cetacean sightings due to low cetacean abundance levels in local
waters or to a lack of information regarding the presence and abundance of cetacean
populations in particular areas.
It is likely that due to the geographic remoteness of the region, particularly in relation
to the Pacific Islands countries, whale watching will continue to grow on the back of
an existing tourism industry. Therefore, the growth of tourism, as well as cetacean
abundance, is a precursor to a successful whale watching industry in the region.
70
An investment in the region’s future: protecting cetaceans
If the industry is to continue to grow, and such growth is to be sustainable, the studies
identified that there are challenges that need to be addressed. These include
improving knowledge about the presence of marine species in some countries to assist
in tourism development in appropriate areas; the need for research to be undertaken to
review the sustainability of whale watch operations in countries where marine
mammal populations may be experiencing significant pressure from a high numbers
of tourism operators; and the need for more detailed studies of mature whale watching
destinations to give a clearer idea of what is a sustainable level of growth and what
‘carrying capacity’ for whale watching might be.
With the industry is growing at such a fast rate across the region, the studies
concluded that for a healthy whale watching industry, cetaceans must be protected in
the territorial waters of the region. Protection should also be extended outside the
region to those migratory species (particularly humpback whales) that are the basis of
the industry in parts of the region.
As whale watch industries grow, so too does the need to manage the industry to
protect the populations of whales and dolphins upon which the industries rely. The
development of national and regional whale and dolphin watching guidelines and
regulations will be important to ensuring that future growth of the industry is
sustainable and that cetacean populations - and the long term interests of the industry
– are protected.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF WHALE
AND DOLPHIN WATCHING IN THE REGION
The studies identified a number of issues that should be considered in order to
promote the sustainable development of the whale and dolphin watching industry in
the region:
x
Undertaking an assessment of the effectiveness of existing whale and dolphin
watching guidelines, regulations, licensing schemes and enforcement capability.
x
The development of region-wide guidelines for responsible whale and dolphin
watching.
x
The development of national whale and dolphin watching regulations, including
provision for appropriate management measures such as approach distances and
licensing schemes and management plans.
x
Conducting whale watching operator training and certification programs
nationally.
x
Holding a regional capacity building workshop on the development of whale and
dolphin watching.
71
x
Conducting research into the abundance an distribution of cetaceans in the Pacific
region in order to establish an estimated carrying capacity of whale watching
operators in specific areas
The implementation of two key regional marine mammal conservation initiatives (the
SPREP (Secretariat for the Pacific Region Environment Programme) ‘Whale and
Dolphin Action Plan’ and the CMS (Convention on Migratory Species) Memorandum
of Understand on the ‘Conservation of cetaceans and their habitats in the Pacific
Islands region’) provide excellent opportunity for addressing these issues.
REFERENCES
Hoyt, E (2001) Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide Tourism numbers, expenditures
and expanding socio-economic benefits. The International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA.
IFAW (2004) The Growth of Whale Watching Tourism in Australia. The International
Fund for Animal Welfare, Sydney, Australia.
IFAW (2005) The Growth of the New Zealand Whale Watching Industry. The
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Sydney, Australia.
IFAW (2006) Pacific Islands Whale Watch Tourism: 2005 – A Region Wide Review
of Activity. Unpublished.
IUCN (2006) 2006 IUCN Red List of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
72
GRUNION GREETERS IN CALIFORNIA:
BEACH SPAWNING FISH, COASTAL STEWARDSHIP,
BEACH MANAGEMENT AND ECOTOURISM
(Full Paper)
Karen Martin1,3,4, Andrew Staines2,3, Melissa Studer3, Chris Stivers1,3,
Cassadie Moravek1,3, Phillip Johnson1,3, Jennifer Flannery1,3
1
Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263-4321 USA
2
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Castle Business Park, Stirling, FK9 4TR
UK
3
Grunion Greeters,24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263USA
4
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Marine Biology Research Division, 9700
Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093-0210 USA
kmartin@pepperdine.edu (to whom correspondence should be addressed);
andrew_staines@yahoo.com; melissastuder@san.rr.com;
chris.stivers@pepperdine.edu; clmorave@pepperdine.edu;
phillip.b.johnson@pepperdine.edu; jaflannery@aol.com
ABSTRACT
Ideally, marine ecotourism includes stewardship that enhances the survival and
management of the species observed. In California a marine fish endemic to our coast
makes spectacular midnight spawning runs onto sandy beaches, turning the strand
silver beneath the moon and stars. The California grunion Leuresthes tenuis appears
briefly in the middle of the night following high tides, a few times per month. While
many people have heard of the grunion, relatively few have seen their spawning runs,
including long-term residents. Grunion runs cease or fail if noise or disturbance is too
great. However the sight of a large run is unforgettable. Thousands of people attend
sponsored public programs hoping to see the grunion each year, and thousands more
attempt to find grunion on their own. We developed a method for training citizen
scientist observers to report on spawning runs throughout the grunion habitat range.
Our citizen scientists act as guides for other beach-goers, indicating appropriate
behavior as well as pointing out predators such as night herons and sharks. Their
relatives and friends time their long-distance visits to coincide with grunion schedule.
Over the past 6 years our citizen scientists have identified numerous beaches that have
grunion, and we are working with state and national fisheries groups to develop a
species management plan. With the assistance of this network we are able to advise
local beach managers on maintenance, beach cleaning, and sand replenishment as
well as coastal construction and river outlet maintenance. These activities impact
grunion because the embryos incubate buried on shore for about 2 weeks, until
washed out by the next high tides. In collaboration with aquariums and environmental
groups we do educational outreach in San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Orange
County, Santa Barbara, and the San Francisco Bay area. Although we encounter many
challenges, this form of stewardship not only provides opportunities for people to see
73
and interact with charismatic wildlife in beautiful settings, but also increases the
scientific knowledge needed to protect our natural heritage.
Keywords: beach, management, ecotourism, grunion, resource
INTRODUCTION
Marine ecotourism seeks to combine healthy recreational use of the oceanic
environment with stewardship of natural resources (Lück & Kirstges, 2003), along
with a bit of adventure or an opportunity to glimpse something truly unique and rare.
For the visitor on an individual level, this creates memories and shared delight along
with increased awareness of resources. On a larger scale, ecotourism may have
profound impacts on the host location and its residents, and may change not only how
the environment is managed but also how it is perceived, in ways that enhance the
ecological resilience and health of the system (Huybers & Bennett, 2002).
The sandy beaches of southern California attract hundreds of millions of visitors and
billions of recreational dollars every year. Situated along one of the most urban and
highly developed coastlines on Earth, these beaches are heavily impacted by human
activities, not just on the site but from many miles upstream in coastal watersheds.
Urban runoff, sewage pollution, and all kinds of rubbish flow onto beaches during
storms or after breaks in ancient pipelines. Concerns over the health of swimmers and
surfers and the cleanliness of beaches resulted in state voters approving a $73 million
Clean Beach Initiative (Sudol & Ambrose, 2002). These funds are devoted to
improving water quality for human health and safety at swimming and surfing
beaches statewide.
To please recreational users, beach grooming is done by raking the sand with tractors
and heavy equipment. Grooming removes millions of tons of unsightly trash along
with natural debris of wrack and decaying kelp, and is clearly beneficial in
maintaining a clean appearance on heavily used beaches. However grooming
dramatically alters the biology of these beaches (Llewellyn & Shackley, 1996). The
substrate sand and all its contents are frequently disturbed and relocated, and animals
and plants of one tidal height or substrate depth are moved to places that are
inhospitable to their survival (Schoeman et al., 2000). The natural wrack provides
nutrient subsidies for an intricate food web of invertebrates, shore birds, and
microorganisms (Dugan et al., 2000). Dunes are knocked down, wrack and kelp are
removed, and artificial berms are built up in locations where they would not form
naturally in order to protect buildings and structures from storm surges. In some
cases the beaches have been treated like giant sandboxes or Zen gardens to be raked
and reshaped for visual uniformity.
74
Erosion
and
Flooding
HAZARDS
PLAYGROUNDS
Recreational Use
a) TRADITIONAL BEACH MANAGEMENT
NATURAL
SYSTEMS
Changes due to
Human Use
Changes due to
Management
Biophysical
Information
Resources
and Hazards
Use Information, Patterns and Structure
SOCIOCULTURAL
SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Management Controls on Usage
b) PROGRESSIVE BEACH MANAGEMENT
Figure 1. A) Traditional beach management is concerned with human recreation and
safety, based on Bird (1996). B) Progressive beach management, from James (2000).
Traditional beach management emphasizes protection of human health and safety for
recreational activities (Figure 1a, Bird, 1996). As important as these are, the focus
solely on human needs is a limited approach to beach management. Efforts can and
should be made to restore ecological features and promote the health of natural
resources even in these heavily used areas. The natural resources themselves are
attractive to tourists and residents, to the extent that they may often be the reason that
a trip is taken to a particular place (Jennings, 2007). Progressive beach management
incorporates conservation of natural resources, ecological sensitivity, and biophysical
75
processes of the sandy beach habitat along with human health concerns (Figure 1b,
James, 2000).
THE STUDY
A major concern for beach management is the idea that a choice must be made
between conservation and attractiveness to tourists. The impression of many people
was that shoreline wrack is useless, ugly and smelly. Beaches in southern California
are major tourist attractions lined by businesses including restaurants, hotels,
boutiques, and sports equipment stores. However the beaches are ecosystems as well,
home to many intriguing and appealing animals and plants (McLachlan & Brown,
2006).
One natural resource unique to California beaches is the grunion, a charismatic
marine fish that makes spawning runs onto shore. Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) emerge
from surf waves by the hundreds or thousands to bury their eggs above the water line,
just after high tides of the full or new moons (Figure 2). Watching the grunion appear
out of the waves at their feet is a cultural tradition in California, and often on warm
midsummer nights the beaches hold more people than fish. Because of their
vulnerability while out of water, grunion are a managed as a recreational fishery,
protected since 1927 from overharvesting. A closed season permits no take in April
and May, and gear restrictions provide that grunion may only be caught with bare
hands during open season (Gregory, 2002). Grunion are prey for numerous other
organisms that may also be seen during their spawning runs, including halibut and
guitarfish, and shorebirds such as great blue herons and night herons (Griem &
Martin, 1997).
After a run, the adults return to the ocean but the embryos remain tucked under the
sand throughout incubation, waiting to be washed out by the next high tide. However,
in the past little attention has been paid to protecting the grunion eggs from sand
disturbance. While buried, the cryptic eggs are unseen but vulnerable to predation,
vehicular traffic, and other forms of sand disturbance including beach grooming and
sand replenishment (Lawrenz-Miller, 1991).
Figure 2: Grunion
provide family fun
for many
Californians. Photo
by Jennifer
Flannery.
76
In the summer of 2001 in the city of San Diego, citizen activists expressed the fear
that grunion no longer existed in their waters or spawned on their beaches due to loss
of eggs by aggressive beach grooming over many decades (Perry, 2001). When this
issue came to the attention of the City Council, all beach grooming was completely
suspended and large piles of beach wrack and kelp were left to rot on the beaches
(Perry, 2001). Many shoreline businesses complained about the appearance and the
smell. It is unlikely that actual tourism declined during these few months, but strong
negative opinions were expressed. To address the issue, the City formed a blue
ribbon panel to examine the effects of beach grooming on incubating grunion eggs.
This panel initiated partnerships between the city Parks Department, the Birch
Aquarium at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and an environmentalist group,
Project Pacific, creating a groundswell of positive publicity and instant credibility. In
addition the panel was joined by representatives from the US National Marine
Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and several scientists
with expertise in beach biology. Funds were provided by the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Association, the US National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and
California Sea Grant College.
At the beginning of the study, no one knew whether the grunion still ran on San Diego
beaches, or where they would appear. Grunion are notoriously difficult to monitor
using traditional fisheries methods. They are rarely caught in trawls and do not take
an angler’s hook. Their midnight spawning runs are highly variable in size and take
place under cover of darkness, within about two hours after the highest tides, only a
few nights a month. It is impossible to observe much beach area under these
conditions with a small research team. Therefore, of necessity a network of citizen
scientist volunteers was developed to monitor grunion along miles of beaches. They
were dubbed the Grunion Greeters.
The habitat range of the grunion is a long, narrow distribution along the coast of
California, mainly south of Pt. Conception (Martin et al., 2004). Later efforts were
extended to encompass the entire habitat range of the grunion, in hopes of identifying
beaches where grunion spawn and to assess the total population. In addition the intent
was to influence beach management practices on a large scale. Complicating matters,
in California beach management is a patchwork of state, county, city, and private
agencies (Crowder et al., 2006). Grooming equipment, practices, and maintenance
schedules differ in each area. Along many areas of the coast, houses and parking lots
extend into the upper intertidal zone. Although the intertidal and subtidal zones are
publicly owned by the State of California (California Coastal Commission, 1997),
property above the mean high tide line may be privately held, often by individual
homeowners with significant financial resources.
Even if grunion spawning could be verified in any particular place, it was not known
how local managers would respond to suggestions for change. However, as more
local volunteers became involved in observing the grunion in any given area, and
grunion beaches were identified, the hypothesis was that beach managers would
respond by modifying their management practices to be more ecologically sensitive
Methods: In 2002, the first year of the Grunion Greeter program, volunteers were
trained to observe grunion runs. Five miles of beaches in the City of San Diego were
divided into 10 areas for monitoring. People came to the training workshop at the
Birch Aquarium from many surrounding areas as well as the city itself. Through the
77
course of the first year, over 200 unique volunteers were involved. Outreach included
efforts to educate volunteers and the press on the ecological role of beach wrack.
Volunteer Grunion Greeters came from all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers,
biologists, chemists, secretaries, students, retired people, military personnel, teachers,
software experts, and entertainers. Although many were long-term California
residents, at least half of them had never previously seen the grunion run. Volunteer
Greeters received training, a packet of educational materials, access to a passwordprotected section of the project’s internet web site, and some inexpensive but
attractive gifts, such as pens, penlights, travel bags, t-shirts, or beach towels. The
experience of the runs seemed to be a reward itself, and Greeters took great pride in
sharing their experiences in the program and with their friends. Communication with
Greeters was frequent and personal by e-mail, and many submitted photographs along
with their data. They were encouraged to telephone reports and urgent messages to
the toll-free Grunion Hot Line, 1-877-GRUNION (Martin et al., 2006a).
The California Department of Fish and Game publishes a schedule of tides with
predicted grunion runs every year, but does not indicate any expected differences
(Spratt, 1986). Because grunion runs are highly variable in strength across locations
on a given night, or in any specific location from one night to the next, the monitoring
schedule used in this study was developed to coincide with the specific dates and
times that larger grunion runs were most likely to occur.
The success of the effort depended on the reliability of the information provided by
the Greeters. Written materials explained the protocol for observing the fish and
avoiding interfering with a run. Specific instructions were given for reporting
observations and data via an interactive questionnaire on the internet after each run.
The rubric for observations included an estimation of the size of the run according to
the Walker Scale, from 0 to 5 (Martin et al., 2006b). A W-0 means no fish, or only a
few. A W-5 means fish covering the shoreline several individuals deep. The normal
run is typically a W-2 (dozens of fish in several places at once, hundreds of fish on
shore at a time) or a W-3 (thousands of fish on shore at one time in several locations).
Greeters assessed the intensity of the run and reported the duration and the location on
the beach.
The scientific team was able to follow up on many reports of spawning runs by going
to collect eggs afterwards. To ground truth the reports, buried egg clutches were
sought in the areas and in the densities reported by the Greeters. Large runs resulted
in numerous clutches in the sand and were readily verified (Martin et al., 2006b).
The internet web site www.Grunion.Org served as a data acquisition portal and also
as a way of disseminating information about the current conditions and concerns
regarding the grunion. Posts included Greeter reports, photographs, video, and news
articles. When the volunteers were actively monitoring, every run series was updated.
The site was frequently accessed by the public, scientists, and educators for
information about this charismatic species as well.
The success of the program in 2002 prompted the continuation of volunteer Grunion
Greeters in 2003. Two more beaches in San Diego County and two in Los Angeles
County were added. The dearth of historical population data for this species inspired
the expansion of the program to additional beaches and to Orange and Santa Barbara
78
Counties in 2004. In each new location, representatives of local environmental
organizations or aquariums agreed to host Grunion Greeter workshops. In 2005,
beaches at the northern edge of the grunion habitat range were added in Monterey,
Alameda, San Francisco, and Marin Counties.
In each new location, efforts were made to partner with a local environmental agency,
a public aquarium, or some similar entity. For example, in Los Angeles County the
partners are an environmental agency, Heal The Bay, and three public aquaria: Santa
Monica Pier Aquarium, Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, and Cabrillo Marine
Aquarium in San Pedro. The Surfrider Foundation and the Ocean Institute are partners
in Orange County; in Santa Barbara the partners are the Santa Barbara Channel
Keepers, the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum, and Ty Warner Sea Center.
These partnerships provided local sources of volunteers and established positive
relationships with the press and the public. As a bonus, the Grunion Greeters became
a recruiting tool, in turn providing new members for these organizations (Rodgers,
2005). Over time larger agencies also participated, including the California State
Parks, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal
Commission, the California Coastal Coalition, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
as well as the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
As the project developed, careful attention was taken to maintain the professional
aspect of the volunteer monitoring effort. Volunteer Grunion Greeters were required
to attend one training workshop each year, and to report in a specific protocol via the
designated data acquisition format on the web. Because of the inherent risk in the
activities of monitoring, volunteers must be over 18 years old, and all volunteers
signed a waiver. Grunion run late at night at beach locations that are dark and remote,
and project participants act individually, without direct supervision. Although many
requests from youth groups and elementary and secondary educators were received,
the project was not deemed appropriate for young students. It is clear that a program
for younger students is desirable and could be developed, but it was not a priority and
it would have taken away valuable time and effort to accommodate the needs of
younger participants. On the other hand trained Greeters were encouraged to take
along their own children or students, under their own auspices, and many did.
A similar outreach for beach workers also developed as time went on, starting with
the beach maintenance staff in San Diego, led by Beach Manager Dennis Simmons.
Research from the Grunion Greeter project showed that raking the sand for beach
grooming in the intertidal zone is lethal to developing grunion eggs (Martin et al.,
2006b). A new method for maintaining beaches during grunion spawning season,
called the Grunion Grooming Protocol, modified and refined a policy that had
previously been in place (Parks and Recreation Department, 1960). Grunion eggs
incubating in the sand are protected during the grunion spawning season when
operators avoid taking vehicles into the intertidal zone (Martin et al., 2006b). To
indicate the correct area on the beach, a line of wrack may be left in place after a
spawning run, or a standardized buffer area can be left untouched (Figure 3).
Grooming shoreward of this line, although it undoubtedly has some ecological effects,
does not harm the grunion eggs.
79
Figure 3:. The Grunion
Grooming Protocol avoids
grooming the intertidal zone and
permits grooming of the
shoreward beach. This protects
incubating grunion eggs. Photo
by Karen Martin.
Results: All beaches monitored in 2002, the first year, held runs, and grunion ran on
all parts of each beach at one time or another during the season. Over the years
beaches in new areas have been chosen carefully so that at least some grunion runs
occur on all of the beaches that are regularly monitored. When expanding into new
areas, extensive inquiries identified the beaches where grunion had been seen in the
past in order to maximize the probability of success for the volunteers. Although
there is no guarantee of success on a given night or location, every Greeter has seen
the grunion on a beach at least once during the project. Every year, approximately
30% of the workshop attendees returned as experienced Grunion Greeters.
In 2006, ten workshops were held for Grunion Greeters along the coast of California,
and over 600 unique individuals were involved. That year, 35 “official” beaches were
observed for five run series and people monitored additional beaches on an occasional
basis. Over these five years, the number of volunteer Grunion Greeters and the
reports of monitored runs steadily increased (Figure 4).
Number
800
600
Reports
400
Volunteers
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Figure 4: Trained volunteer Grunion Greeters and data reports increased over time.
Grunion Greeter volunteers became docents for the grunion, explaining the grunion
runs, predators, and aspects of beach biology to other beach-goers (Rodgers, 2005).
Many Grunion Greeters encouraged enforcement of regulations to protect the grunion.
Although protective regulations for the grunion have been in place since 1927, they
are rarely enforced because of the difficulty and expense of having wardens patrol
beaches late at night. Without any official enforcement status, Grunion Greeters were
80
proactive in educating people and their passionate protectiveness of “their” grunion
encouraged compliance with surprising effectiveness.
Grunion Greeters also brought up management issues and concerns with their local
governments, including beach grooming, sand replenishment, and responses to red
tides and fuel spills. As more volunteers joined the Grunion Greeters, they spread out
onto more beach sites. They became protective of this unique and charismatic
species, and they expressed their concerns locally. The beach managers and field
operators responded by looking for more information, and by examining their
management practices.
A large and varied group of agencies are involved in managing California beaches,
making coordinated communication difficult (Crowder et al., 2006). In the past there
was no common organization for beach workers or beach managers in California. In
2004, when the decision was made to extend Grunion Greeter efforts into additional
coastal areas of California, additional outreach was directed to beach managers and
field operators throughout the state. Mr. Simmons provided contact information he
had developed by word of mouth and conversation at trade shows. Beach managers
and field operators from multiple agencies were invited to the first workshop for
beach professionals to discuss issues of common concern, including the Grunion
Grooming Protocol and information about beach wildlife and ecology. A total of 12
people from 4 different agencies attended the first workshop at Pepperdine University,
initiating the Working Group for Ecologically Sensitive Beach Maintenance. The
Working Group developed a statement of purpose (Figure 5) that promotes attention
to habitat and wildlife conservation.
“Working Group for Beach Maintenance in Ecologically Sensitive Areas”
Statement of Purpose
We affirm a commitment to:
™ Meet on a regular basis.
™ Communicate with one another on topics of mutual interest.
™ Recognize both recreational and ecological values in the sandy
beach habitat.
™ Seek “best practices” methodologies for maintenance and
management activities on beaches.
™ Disseminate relevant ecological information from scientific
studies
Figure 5: Mission statement developed by the Working Group for Ecologically
Sensitive Beach Maintenance, indicating movement toward Progressive Beach
Management.
Information about the Working Group spread mostly by e-mail and word of mouth,
but also through news media (Rodgers, 2007). In 2007, the fourth Working Group
winter workshop, 40 people attended from 38 different coastal agencies. Over 100
people have joined the distribution list (Figure 6). Meeting speakers have included
81
biologists, a geologist from the state Sediment Management Program,
environmentalists, and a manager from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat
Branch. The number of beach professionals involved in the Working Group for
Ecologically Sensitive Beach Maintenance is significantly positively correlated with
the number of beaches that have volunteer Grunion Greeters (Spearman Rank
Correlation, Rho = 0.991, p = 0.01).
Figure 6: The number of individuals and agencies involved in managing and
maintaining beaches that are part of the Working Group for Ecologically Sensitive
Beach Management has increased every year.
120
Number
100
80
Beach Professionals
60
Agencies
40
20
0
year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
CONCLUSIONS
Developing guidelines for beach management that are appropriate for both
recreational use and habitat protection is a necessary challenge (McKenna et al.
2000). Part of the process includes changing people’s perceptions of what a clean,
healthy beach should look like. Leaving some wrack on the beach benefits a hidden
food web under the sand that nourishes migrating shorebirds and nesting sea birds
(Dugan et al., 2003).
The reward for this accommodation in California is a
spectacular opportunity for ecotourism found nowhere else on earth: the mysterious
moonlit mating ritual of a unique endemic species that makes the shoreline come alive
with silver (Figure 7).
82
Figure 7: Experiencing the grunion run. Photo by Jennifer Flannery.
In this example, local ecological concerns lead to significant, long term changes in
beach management practices across a large area within only a few years. Key factors
included a vulnerable, beautiful, charismatic species as a rallying point (Figure 8),
open-mindedness of beach managers and operators about maintenance protocols,
cooperation between many different government and non-government agencies, and a
citizenry willing to volunteer time and effort to increase scientific knowledge and to
implement change at a grassroots level. Suggested modifications in beach
management have been made voluntarily without regulatory pressure, but now many
of these modifications are being codified by regulatory agencies at various levels of
government, and sandy beaches have been identified as Essential Fish Habitat for the
grunion under the Magnussen-Stevens Act.
Figure 8: A pair of
California grunion
spawning on a sandy
beach. Photo by
William Hootkins.
Progressive Beach Management is a process involving communication, education,
outreach, practical methods, and cooperation between many stakeholders. Finding
83
new ways to appreciate the subtleties of the beach ecosystem can be done on any
seashore. More must be done, but this example shows one way to move towards this
goal.
At the start of the Grunion Greeter program, some people expressed anger and dismay
about the kelp and wrack building up on shore. However, now, the outreach and
education have been so effective that people more frequently express worry about the
negative effects of kelp removal when they see beach grooming in summer.
Fortunately, now, when they speak with the beach workers, they receive a
knowledgeable ecological explanation for the work that is done.
Local concerns, individuals, and groups formed the nucleus of a change in perception
of the beach, from a sterile sandbox to a living, complex ecosystem. Although
working with trained volunteer observers was a necessity because of financial
constraints and the biology of this particular species, it provided serendipitous results
in encouraging rapid shifts in behavior and almost immediate improvement in habitat,
as well as positive attitudes about beaches and wildlife, across a wide spectrum of
beach management agencies. With the help and data from Grunion Greeter
volunteers, modifications in beach grooming practices have been implemented that
improve the habitat for this animal and others in its environment, protecting its early
life stages as it incubates on shore. In the past six years this effort has spread from
one city near the border of the state to the entire coast of California, and the grunion
spawning sites have been protected throughout their habitat range. Now that’s
progressive beach management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to project partners: City of San Diego, Birch Aquarium at Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Southwest
Wetlands Interpretive Association, City of Imperial Beach, City of Oceanside,
Surfrider Foundation, County of Orange, Ocean Institute at Dana Point, Orange
County Coastal Coalition, City of Newport Beach, City of San Clemente, City of
Laguna Beach, City of Huntington Beach, Ventura Coastal Coalition, Ormond Beach
Task Force, Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, Heal The Bay, Santa Monica Pier Aquarium,
Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors,
Santa Barbara Channel Keepers, Santa Barbara Natural History Museum/ Ty Warner
Sea Center, City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, Port of Oakland, East
Bay Regional Parks District, Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuary, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore, Lawson’s Landing,
California Department of Fish and Game, California State Parks, California Coastal
Commission, California Coastal Coalition, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
hundreds of Grunion Greeters. Special thanks to Dennis Simmons, Jeff Graham,
Richard Rosenblatt, Michael Schaadt, Doug Martin, Brad Cupp, and Pat Gallagher.
This work was supported by NOAA Grants # NA04OAR4170038 and NA06RG0142,
California Sea Grant College Program Project # R/CZ-195, through NOAA’s
National Sea Grant College Program, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, and also by US
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Geographic Society, and Pepperdine
University.
84
REFERENCES
Bird, E. C. F. (1996). Beach Management. London: J. Wiley and Sons.
California Coastal Commission, State of California (1997). Coastal Access Guide (5th
ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Crowder, L. B., Osherenko, G., Young, O.R., Airamé, S., Norse, E. A., Baron, N.,
Day, J.C., Douvere, F., Ehler, C. N., Halpern, B. S., Langdon, S. J., McLeod, K.
L., Ogden, J. C., Peach, R. E., Rosenberg, A. A., & Wilson, J. A. (2006).
Resolving Mismatches in U.S. Ocean Governance. Science 313: 617-618.
Dugan, J. E., Hubbard, D. M., Engle, J. M., Martin, D. L., Richards, D. M., Davis, G.
E., Lafferty, K. D., & Ambrose, R. F. (2000). Macrofauna Communities of
Exposed Sandy Beaches on the Southern California Mainland and Channel
Islands. In D. Browne (Ed.), Fifth California Islands Symposium, Outer
Continental Shelf Study (pp. 339-346). Camarillo, CA: Minerals Management
Service (99-0038).
Dugan, J. E., Hubbard, D. M., McCrary, M. D. & Pierson, M. O. (2003). The
Response of Macrofauna Communities and Shorebirds to Macrophyte Wrack
Subsidies on Exposed Sandy Beaches of Southern California. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 58S: 133-148.
Gregory, P. A. (2002). Grunion. In W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E. J.
Larson (Eds.), Status of California Fisheries (pp. 246-247). Davis: University of
California Press.
Griem, J. N., & Martin, K. L. M. 1997. Predatory Birds are Present on the Beach
Before and During California Grunion Runs. American Zoologist 37: 82A.
Huybers, T., & Bennett, J. (2002).
Environmental Management and the
Competetiveness of Nature-Based Tourism Destinations. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
James, J. J. R. (2000). From Beaches to Beach Environments: Linking the Ecology,
Human-Use and Management of Beaches in Australia. Ocean and Coastal
Management 43: 495-514.
Jennings, G. (2007). Water-Based Tourism, Sport, Leisure, and Recreation
Experiences. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lawrenz-Miller, S. (1991). Grunion Spawning Versus Beach Nourishment: Nursery
or Burial Ground? Proceedings, 7th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
Management. Coastal Zone ’91. 3: 2197-2208.
Llewellyn, P. G., & Shackley, S. E. (1996). The Effects of Mechanical BeachCleaning on Invertebrate Populations. British Wildlife 7: 147-155.
Lück, M., & Kirstges, T. (2003). Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies:
Perspectives and Constraints. Clevedon, Buffalo: Channel View Publications.
Martin, K. L., Johnson, P. B., Moravek, C., Ashley, R., & Matsumoto, J. (2006a).
Citizen Scientists Assess Populations of an Elusive, Charismatic Fish. Integrative
and Comparative Biology 45: 1038.
Martin, K., Speer-Blank, T., Pommerening, R., Flannery, J., & Carpenter, K. (2006b).
Does Beach Grooming Harm Grunion Eggs? Shore & Beach 74: 17-22.
Martin, K. L. M., Van Winkle, R. C., Drais, J. E., & Lakisic, H. (2004). Beach
Spawning Fishes, Terrestrial Eggs, and Air Breathing. Physiological and
Biochemical Zoology 77: 750-759.
McKenna, J., MacLeod, M., Power, J. & Cooper, A. (2000). Rural Beach
Management: A Good Practice Guide. Belfast: The Universities Press.
85
McLachlan, A., & Brown, A. (2006). The Ecology of Sandy Shores (2nd ed.). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Parks and Recreation Department (1960). Maintenance Program for Beach Facilities.
Internal document approved by Office of Administrative Management,
Department of Public Works, City of San Diego, California.
Perry, T. (2001). San Diego Hatches Plan to Protect Grunion Spawning Sites at
Beaches. Los Angeles Times, July 22, B10.
Rodgers, T. (2005). Citizen Scientists a Valuable Species. San Diego UnionTribune, April 13.
Rodgers, T. (2007). Sharing the Shoreline: Beach Grooming Stirs Ecological
Controversy. San Diego Union-Tribune, February 7.
Schoeman, D. S., McLachlan, A., & Dugan, J. E. (2000). Lessons from a Disturbance
Experiment in the Intertidal Zone of an Exposed Sandy Beach. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 50: 869-884.
Spratt, J. D. (1986). The Amazing Grunion. Marine Resource Leaflet No. 3, Calif.
Dept. of Fish and Game.
Sudol, M. F. & Ambrose, R. F. (2002). The Clean Water Act and Habitat
Replacement: Evaluation of Mitigation Sites in Orange County, California.
Environmental Management 30: 727-734.
86
DOLPHIN WATCH TOURISM:
A CROSS-CASE COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERING
EXAMPLES OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND PROENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
(Full Paper)
Gayle Mayes
School of Management, Faculty of Business
University of the Sunshine Coast
Locked Bag #4, Maroochydore D.C., Maroochydore, 4558.
Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia.
gmayes@usc.edu.au
Harold Richins
School of Travel Industry Management
University of Hawaii
2560 Campus Road
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 96822
ABSTRACT
This study compares the management practices and education/interpretation programs
of two differing dolphin watch commercial operators in Nelson Bay, New South
Wales, which is promoted as the Dolphin Capital of Australia. The major objective of
the study was to measure and evaluate the post-experience effectiveness of the
education/interpretation components on enhancing the self-reported proenvironmental attitudes, beliefs, intended behaviors and intended actions of
participants of the two differing commercial operations. A questionnaire was
administered to participants immediately after their dolphin watch cruises. The most
important feature of the experience for all participants was the opportunity to see wild
dolphins behaving naturally in their natural habitat. Although the interaction
management practices and content of the education and interpretation messages
differed aboard the two vessels, no significant differences occurred between cases in
the influence on visitors’ intended pro-environmental actions. Significant differences
did occur between samples with self-reported influences on the strength of support for
the conservation of marine wildlife and also for the conservation of dolphins. The
effectiveness and influence of the dolphin watch cruises on pro-environmental
attitudes, beliefs, intended behaviors and actions of participants appears to be related
to two factors: the quality of the interpretive message and the intensity of the
interaction experience.
Keywords: dolphin watching; education; interpretation; pro-environmental behaviors
and actions
87
INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of marine wildlife tourism and increasing demands for varied
interaction opportunities have been associated with negative impacts and in some
cases, major risks to the wildlife and their marine environment (Shackley, 1996;
Samuels, Bejder & Heinrich, 2000; Bejder & Samuels, 2003; Garrod & Wilson,
2003). These negative impacts obviously need to be decreased in order to create a
more sustainable and better managed marine wildlife tourism industry. Genuine
marine wildlife ecotourism and the implementation of research-based, effective, and
long-term interaction management policies, regulations, and practices are promoted as
possible solutions. Additional solutions and strategies include balancing of statutory
and voluntary approaches to interaction management; active interpretation and
education programs; offering high quality, safe experiences; and responsible operators
working in partnerships with government (Curtin, 2003; CRIGS, 2001).
Best practices in marine wildlife ecotourism commit operators to responsible
management and to positively influence marine wildlife visitor behavior through
education and interpretation - specifically the visitors of dolphin interaction activities,
who are seen as stakeholders and active partners in sustainable marine tourism
(Diamantis, 2004, p. 70). However, self-regulation and the implementation of
voluntary codes of conduct by operators may not always be strong enough to maintain
best practices in cetacean encounters (Carlson, 2000; Allen, 2006), especially if
management conflicts exist (Garrod and Fennell, 2004, p. 69). In most cases in
sustainable marine wildlife management, the focus involves visitor education and
management of negative impacts by the operators and visitors rather than
management of the wildlife (Moscardo & Saltzer, 2004; Priskin, 2003; Bramwell &
Lane, 2003; Cole, 1993; Orams, 1996; Hammitt & Cole, 1998).
Studies by Orams (1994, 1995, 1996, 1997) have shown that education and
interpretation can assist in reducing the negative impacts of marine tourism (1993),
and enhance participants’ pro-environmental behavior in the long term. Higham and
Carr (2002) suggested “that ecotourism visitor experiences may be an effective means
of influencing visitor environmental values and behaviors” (p.291). Their results also
suggested that interpretation programs can foster “behavioral change relating to
domestic lifestyle that may contribute to the long-term benefit of the environment”
(p.279). Moscardo, Pearce, Green & O’Leary (2001, p. 41) suggested that “exposure
to species in combination with some form of interpretation is associated with
increased support for conservation of both the target species and wildlife in general”.
More recent research by Bejder and Samuels appears less convincing. They reported
that “...it is open for debate as to whether the effects on cetaceans are negligible and
whether tourists actually achieve heightened appreciation of the environment that is
long lasting” (p. 229). Further investigation is therefore required to support the notion
of achieving pro-environmental attitudinal and behavioral change through effective
wildlife interaction and interpretation experiences. This need has been progressed
through this study of self-regulated voluntary codes of conduct, management
practices, and the education/interpretation programs developed by the dolphin watch
operators in Port Stephens, a coastal region in Australia.
88
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CETACEAN WATCHING IN PORT STEPHENS
Port Stephens was named by Captain James Cook in May, 1770. Since the time of
first European contact, the region has been used by mariners, agriculturalists, timbergetters, fishermen, shipbuilders, admirals (established as the first location of the
Pacific Fleet during World War II), industrialists, conservationists and more recently
tourists. Port Stephens was also considered at one time as a location for a major
maritime military port, a railway port, and finally became a tourist destination. The
Port Stephens local government area of 979 square kilometres has a population of
approximately 63,000 and is located approximately 150 km north of Sydney (see
Figure 1). Port Stephens Bay covers over 15% of the total area of the local
government area (100 square km) and is three times the size of Sydney Harbour. The
area is considered one of the most pristine coastal areas within three hours of Sydney
and has mild winters and sub-tropical summers.
Figure 1: Location of Port Stephens and the main town of Nelson Bay
Source: www.kookaburralodge.com/map_port_stephens.htm
Port Stephens and environs offers the residents, short term visitors, and an increasing
number of domestic and international holiday makers, a variety of marine and coastal
recreation activities, including cetacean (dolphin and whale) watching. An estimated
three to four thousand humpback whales migrate annually along the Australian
coastline, traveling through the waters of Nelson Bay between May and November,
while up to 200 resident near-shore and off-shore bottlenose dolphins inhabit the area
on a year-round basis (Allen & Moller, 1999). The area has become a popular holiday
destination for Sydney residents due to its natural environment, the marine wildlife
attractions, and close proximity to one of the largest cities in Australia.
The migrating whales and resident dolphins can be seen from either the shore or the
decks of any one of the 13 dolphin watch cruise operations. In the absence of a system
of licensing for dolphin watch operators, and clear and specific state regulations on
marine mammal tourism, the Port Stephens Commercial Dolphin Watch Association
89
(PSCDWA) was created as a forum of most dolphin watch boats in Nelson Bay. Its
objective has been to promote the welfare of local Port Stephens bottlenose dolphins.
By the mid 1990s the PSCDWA developed and operated under a self-regulated code
of dolphin watching conduct. By 2006, eight of the thirteen vessels operated within
the PSCDWA. Additional methods of environmental self-management have included
the certification through Ecotourism Australia’s accreditation and/or certification
programs. Four of the dolphin and whale watch vessels in Port Stephens have
ecotourism accreditation in 2007.
In the state of New South Wales, 320,000 visitors watched whales and dolphins
aboard vessels in 2004, while land-based viewing attracted almost twice that number
at 617,000 viewers. This amounted to over one-third of the total the Cetacean
watching industry expenditure in Australia for the year. Within the region of Port
Stephens in New South Wales, over 250,000 Cetacean watchers contributed an
estimated $55.5 million through total tourism expenditures. This includes 7.9 million
in direct expenditures on the Cetacean watching experience with the rest in indirect
tourism expenditures. These figures in the Port Stephens region are close to 60% of
the total contribution in New South Wales due to Cetacean viewing (IFAW, 2004).
THE STUDY
Two related topics were under investigation in this study. The first topic involved the
content and quality of the education/interpretation programs that two ecotourism
accredited operators from the self-regulated Port Stephens Dolphin Watch
Association delivered as part of their visitor experiences. The second topic under
investigation was the assessment and cross-case comparison of the impacts of the
interaction experience on participants’ overall satisfaction; knowledge; proenvironmental attitudes and beliefs; and intended pro-environmental behaviors and
actions. The main differences between the two purposively chosen operators are: the
designs of the boat-based platforms used for the dolphin watching, and the quality and
content of the information on board the two vessels. This study compares elaborates
on these differences and the self-reported impacts of the differing visitor experiences
on the satisfaction, knowledge and pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and
actions of participants.
RESEARCH METHODS
This study is one part of a larger project involving three matched pairs of differing
modes of dolphin tourism: feeding dolphins from shore, swimming with dolphins
from boats and watching dolphins from boat-based platforms. A cross-case research
design and the case study protocol recommended by Yin (2003) were used as the
framework and model for the study. Convergence of data was achieved by using more
than one source for data collection.
Primary data was gathered by observation and with two instruments designed for the
study: a visitor questionnaire and an interaction observation sheet. The visitor
questionnaire consisted predominantly of Likert attitude scales. The structured
observation sheet was designed for gathering data on the content of the
education/interpretation component as part of the dolphin interaction experience. Each
90
time a particular item, message, or piece of relevant information was given by the
manager, this was recorded in the appropriate place on the instrument.
At the end of each cruise, the interaction manager or captain of the vessels advised
visitors that a researcher would be administering a short questionnaire. Every second
or third adult was approached by the researcher or assistants to ask for participation in
the study. If an adult declined to participate, the very next adult was approached. A
sealed box for confidential posting of questionnaires was left in a designated place for
participants or questionnaires were left on tables to be collected, or returned to the
investigator. A total of 186 completed questionnaires was collected, 92 from one
vessel and 94 from the other.
Descriptive statistics which included (1) frequency distributions, (2) graphical
presentations of data and (3) summary statistics (Graziano & Raulin, 2000) were used
in the cross-case comparisons. Chi-square and correlated t-test analysis were also used
where a significant difference appeared between the matched pair of cases.
Comparison of the design of the two vessels
The photos and descriptions of the two participating craft, Moonshadow V and
Imagine, used as the platforms for viewing the wild dolphins, obviously differed
considerably in hull and deck design, shape, size, elevation, carrying capacity, top
speed, engine noise and vibrations, types of fuels used, main mode of propulsion
(wind or engine), and the potential impacts of the craft on the dolphins and their
marine environment. Table 1 compares the designs of the two craft.
Descriptions of the visitor experiences
Imagine: The experience and interaction management aboard Imagine was informal,
personalised and friendly. Care was taken to inform participants that the dolphins
were wild and would therefore not perform ‘tricks’ or behave like captive ‘Seaworld’
dolphins. Natural wild dolphin behaviours such as feeding, socializing, parenting, and
playing in the bay area were set as the visitor expectation. During the voyage, the
skipper remained at the helm and gave an informal, informative, and spontaneous
interpretive commentary through a microphone. During the cruise, the two other crew
interacted and mingled with the passengers on the deck, assisted in the information
sharing and spotting of the dolphins, and served passengers the refreshments that were
provided below decks.
The commentary on board the vessel initially covered the state interaction guidelines
and the pivotal role of the skipper and crew in the development of the Port Stephens
self-regulated local dolphin watching industry, and their own local interaction
management guidelines. Information with an educative and conservation focus was
given throughout the voyage on a wide range of topics. A dorsal fin photo
identification booklet on the dolphins in the bay was readily available for participants
to look through in the covered area below Imagine’s deck. A variety of books and
information brochures on whales and dolphins were on display on the saloon tables,
while a brochure with donation and application forms for two conservation
organizations were displayed on the drinks and bar bench.
91
Table 1: Comparison of the boat-based viewing platforms
IMAGINE
MOONSHADOW ‘V’
LENGTH: 16 metres
LENGTH: 26 metres
Ocean sailing catamaran
Supercat or multi-hull catamaran
Purpose designed by its owners with input from
numerous experts as a model for ecotourism
Promoted as the largest and most luxurious vessel in
Port Stephens and Newcastle
A wrap-around single level deck
Three levels: a main deck, a cocktail deck and an open
sundeck
Deck is just one metre above the water
Lower deck is 2.5 metres above the water, top deck is
6.5m above water
360 degree dolphin viewing
360 degree dolphin viewing
Licensed and constructed to sail with 48 persons
offshore, and 60 persons in protected or inshore waters
Licensed to carry up to 300 passengers
Shaded open deck area for 40 seats
Open sundecks for all-weather viewing
Saloon with table seating for 20, a licensed bar, library
and BBQ area
Luxury lounges and restaurant on the lower and middle
decks
People with disabilities, babies in prams, and the very
young
Air conditioning and heating, two fully licensed bars,
& a dance floor
Bowsprit net and side-mounted boom net
Spacious bow viewing deck and rear-mounted boom net
Uses environmentally friendly bio diesel and sail power
Uses diesel
Most highly ecotourism accredited dolphin cruise in
Nelson Bay
Ecotourism accredited
Equipped with microphone only
Equipped with microphone and advanced technology,
underwater video cameras & TV, and a hydrophone
Sources: Contact Imagine Cruises Port Stephens NSW, Moonshadow Vessels – Features of the Moonshadow
Vessels
The skipper discussed and adhered to the regulation distance from the dolphins, and
demonstrated how the motorised craft was managed on the water to ensure that the
dolphins were neither harassed nor chased at any stage by their own craft or other
operators who were in close proximity watching the same pod of dolphins. The
behaviours of the several pods of dolphins encountered by Imagine were identified
and described as travelling, hunting and feeding, or socialising, mating and playing.
92
The engine was cut whilst watching the dolphins and when under sail, allowing a
quiet approach to the dolphins. The staff of Imagine Cruises gave a frequent message
that they were active environmentalists, members of local, national and international
conservation organizations, and committed personally and professionally to the
preservation of dolphins and whales and the marine environment. Their promotional
literature gave and reinforced the same pro-environmental message. Suggestions were
made to the visitors during and at the finish of the voyage about memberships with
appropriate organizations and their role in the conservation of dolphins and the marine
environment. The Imagine captains and crew discussed their leading role in cooperative research with institutions and the assistance that they gave to research and
conservation of the dolphins and the marine environment. The Imagine participants
heard more about conservation-themed topics and were given a ‘Call to conservation
action’ along with suggestions on ways in which they could assist in conservation of
the dolphins and their marine environment. Imagine participants were able to sit in
the bow net and view the dolphins bow riding the vessel from directly above. Visitors
had access to all areas of the single viewing deck which is lower to the water than the
lowest Moonshadow V first level deck (see Table 2).
Moonshadow V: The focus and approach to the visitor experience by the
Moonshadow V vessel staff were to offer the largest and most luxurious vessels in
Port Stephens and Newcastle and ensure that participants have a memorable and
comfortable cruise. Fine wine and dining are a marketing point of difference for these
cruises. Dolphin sightings during cruises were guaranteed, and the crew was
promoted as being friendly and dedicated, and able to deliver a comfortable and
memorable cruise for everyone, including any groups with special needs.
The captain of Moonshadow V presented an entertaining and less spontaneous
commentary than the skipper from Imagine. The number of topics, detail, and depth
of coverage in the commentary was less compared to Imagine, and no mention was
made of marine or environmental conservation issues or actions. The Moonshadow V
commentary content was minimal, information-based and entertaining. Only three of
the 10 selected example topics in Table 2 were covered or discussed to some degree
during the Moonshadow V dolphin watch cruise, while Imagine participants received
information during the commentary on all areas listed.
The skipper often called the attention of the visitors to the TV screens in the lounges
when dolphins could be seen with the underwater camera as they played close to the
hull and rode the bow wave of the vessel. The skipper had a TV monitor in the
wheelhouse and a sound system to relay the underwater sounds of the dolphins
transmitted through an underwater hydrophone attached to the hull of the vessel.
93
Table 2: Comparison of interpretation and information content on board each vessel
Interpretation and content areas
Imagine
Moonshadow V
1
A "call to conservation action"
Yes
NO
2
Education about a wide number of interesting dolphin-related topics
Yes
Yes
3
Names and contact information on conservation organizations which offer
(wildlife) conservation opportunities to be involved with
Yes
NO
4
"A take home conservation message" to participants
Yes
NO
5
Suggestions of a variety of conservation behaviours, actions, and practices to b
involved in after the visit, at community & individual levels
Yes
NO
6
Human activities and the impacts on dolphins
Yes
NO
7
Whale and dolphin stranding and rescue of dolphins & whales
Yes
NO
8
Information on dolphin biology and ecology
Yes
Yes
9
The way in which their business is contributing to research, the conservation of
the dolphins, and the marine environment
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
10 Identification of individual dolphins
RESULTS
The descriptive results are reported first, followed by the factors of importance to
visitors in visiting the area and participating in the dolphin watch cruises. Levels of
Overall Satisfaction and specific factors of visitor satisfaction are also presented,
followed by participants' perceived changes in their attitudes, and feelings and beliefs
towards dolphins and marine wildlife generally. Participants’ responses to questions
about the influence that the dolphin-human interaction experience had on their
knowledge and pro-environmental thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and intended behaviours
and actions are the main areas of focus for this project and presented last.
Visitor demographics: No significant differences occurred between samples for
gender, age, highest education level attained, mode of travel or return visitation.
Gender and age: The combined number of respondents of the boat-based dolphin
watching samples was 195, with 99 participants from Imagine and 96 from
Moonshadow V. Overall, 118 respondents were female (60.5%) and 77 were male
(39.5%, N=195). Most respondents fell in the 31 to 50 years cohort (47.7%), with
33% in the 18-30 years cohort, and 19.3% in the 51 years and older cohort (N=197).
Education level: The highest education levels reached by respondents, ranged from
25.8% who completed high school, 10.8% completed TAFE or equivalent, 23.7%
completed University or Bachelor Degree, 11.3% completed Some University Studies,
and 24.7 % completed Postgraduate studies (N=194). Almost half (48.4%) of the
total number of respondents (N=194) had therefore achieved a university degree or
higher.
Mode of travel: Only 5% of all respondents (N=197) were part of a tour group, and
less than 1% (0.5%) of the sample was travelling alone. Table 3 shows with whom
participants shared the dolphin watch cruise experience. Family and friends (96.5%,
N=197) was the largest cohort of the six given categories.
94
Return visitation: Of the 203 respondents, only 21.2% were return visitors. A high
proportion (40.9%, N=203) of the combined sample had visited other dolphin-human
interaction sites. Almost 20% (19.6%, N=203) of the total sample had been to a
captive dolphin site, while 17.1% had been on another dolphin watch activity, and a
further 3.0% had experienced an activity that was a combination of feeding, watching,
and/or swimming with dolphins.
Country and Australian state of residence: Differences occurred between the two
dolphin watch samples when asked about their Australian State and country of
residence (p< 0.05). Just over 80% (81.8%) of Moonshadow V’s visitors were from
intra-state, compared to Imagine with 58.9% intra-state visitors. Differences occurred
between samples with numbers of visitors from interstate (p<0.05, N=172). Imagine
had 4.3% of Victorian visitors and 3.2% from Queensland, whilst Moonshadow V had
no visitors from either state. Although 23.0% (N=200), of the combined sample were
from outside Australia, 31.4% of Imagine’s sample was comprised of international
visitors compared to Moonshadow V, with only 14.3%. The majority of overseas
visitors were from Europe and the United Kingdom (15.3%, N=206), with a further
3.5% from Canada and United States of America combined.
Visitor motivation factors
Importance of various features when participating in the dolphin watch activity:
Responses to Extremely important and Very important were aggregated for these eight
items. The most important item for the combined sample was the Opportunity to see
dolphins (91.6%, N=202), followed by Seeing dolphins in their natural habitat
(90.5%, N=201), and third, Seeing dolphins behave naturally (88.5%, N=200). The
least important feature was Seeing large numbers of dolphins (57.4%, N=202), and
only slightly more important was Interesting information about dolphins (70.2%,
N=201).
The visitors on the Imagine tour appeared more concerned about the quality of the
experience and the education components, and gave higher importance to having
Interesting information about dolphins and Knowledgeable guides and/or staff. The
Moonshadow V visitors were more concerned with the three aspects of actually
watching the dolphins, namely: Seeing dolphins, Seeing large numbers of dolphins,
and Seeing the dolphins easily.
Visitor knowledge and interest in dolphin topics: Participants rated their levels of
knowledge about dolphins before and after the cruises on a ten-point scale, with zero
as No knowledge, and 10 as Extremely knowledgeable. Before the experience, the
highest number of preferences (22.2%, N=203) occurred in the 5 out of 10 score.
After the experience, the highest number of responses (23.8%, N=202), was recorded
for 7 out of 10. Therefore a positive shift occurred in self-reported level of knowledge
across the entire sample.
In the second part of this section, participants were asked to show their level of
interest on a five point scale for each of the 16 given topics about dolphins. No
differences occurred between cases in any item. High levels of interest were reported
in the two conservation topics. In fact, Information on how to conserve the dolphins’
95
environment (78.7%, N=197) was the topic of most interest, Intelligence of dolphins
was rated second (73.0, N=200) while Information on how to conserve dolphins
(80.0%, N=196) was ranked third, Strange characteristics of dolphins was fourth
(75.0%, N=199), and Dolphins and their place in the ecosystem (75.2, N=198) was
fifth. Relationships of dolphins with Indigenous people, was the item of least interest
to the entire sample.
Visitor satisfaction levels
Overall Satisfaction: On the ten-point scale, 86.1%, (N=186) of the combined sample
felt that their overall level of satisfaction with the experience was a 7 out of 10 or
above. One-fifth of the total sample (20.4%, N=186) felt that their experience was a
10/10 rating. Only 3.3% of Imagine visitors rated their Overall satisfaction as 5 or
less out of 10, while 8.5% (N=94), of Moonshadow V visitors scored their experience
as 5 or less on the 10-point scale. A significant difference occurred between cases for
the Overall satisfaction level (p<0.05, N=186). Almost 74% (73.8%) of Imagine
participants rated their Overall satisfaction between 7/10 and 10/10, with almost a
third (30%, N=92) of their participants rating their Overall satisfaction level as a
10/10. Comparatively, only 12% of Moonshadow V participants rated their Overall
satisfaction at a 10/10, with almost 40% (37.2%, N=94) at 8/10.
Visitor satisfaction levels with specific factors: Scores for Highly satisfied and Very
satisfied categories were aggregated in this section. The three sub-factors that visitors
were most satisfied with were The interaction rules and practices, (89.4%, N=198),
The health of the dolphins (87.3%, N=196), and The natural behavior of the dolphins
(87%, N=200). Visitors expressed their lowest satisfaction level with The number of
other craft in the area (47.1%, N=195). Significant differences occurred between
samples for four items, with the participants of the Imagine cruises reporting higher
levels of satisfaction for each item below:
x Number of dolphins
(p=0.001, N=201)
x Unobstructed views from the boat (p=0.002, N=201)
x Ability to see dolphins in the water (p=0.003, N=198)
x Natural behaviour of the dolphins (p=0.030, N=200)
Visitor satisfaction with the interaction information: Because of the importance and
relevance of this set of items to the focus of study, responses to all questions in this
section are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Levels of satisfaction with the dolphin watch interaction information
P value
P< 0.05
Imagine
High +
Very high
%ages
Moonshadow V
High +
Very high
%ages
Total
High +
Very high
%ages
Satisfaction with the interaction
information
N
Level of interest of the information given
200
78.2
68.7
73.5
Information given before the interaction
201
66.7
52.6
59.7
Information given during the interaction
200
84.2
68.6
76.5
Information given after the interaction
198
71
63.3
67.1
About how to help conserve the dolphins
196
54.1
50
52
About how to help conserve the dolphin’s
environment
197
45.5
42.8
44.2
0.012
96
All dolphin watch participants experienced the highest level of satisfaction with The
information given during the interaction (76.5%, N=200). The second highest level of
satisfaction (73.5%, N=200) was recorded with The level of interest of the
information, while The information provided after the interaction, was the third most
satisfying item (67.1%, N=198). The lowest levels of satisfaction were experienced
with How to help conserve the dolphin’s marine environment, and How to help
conserve dolphins. Imagine participants expressed higher levels of satisfaction than
Moonshadow V participants with the information on all of the interaction information
items. However, only one significant difference occurred in the cross-case
comparison, namely Information given during the interaction (p=0.012, N=200).
Twice as many Moonshadow V participants (28.3%) were Moderately satisfied with
this item than Imagine participants (12.9%), while almost twice as many Imagine
participants (40.6%) were Highly satisfied with this item than the Moonshadow V
participants (24.2%). Imagine participants were therefore more satisfied with this
important and relevant item.
Visitor intended involvement in conservation behaviours and actions
This next section reports on the results of another item associated with a focus of this
study, namely, the influence of the dolphin watch experience on the intended proenvironmental behaviors and actions of participants. (See Table 4). Although the
design of two dolphin watching vessels, the experiences, and the content of the
education and interpretation messages differed considerably, no significant
differences occurred between samples in this section.
For the combined sample, higher levels of intention to act pro-environmentally were
recorded with the given list of activities which required less outlay and/or
commitment in terms of time, effort, and/or money. Lower levels of perceived
influence as a direct result of the dolphin experience were reported with the proenvironmental activities and actions requiring greater effort, time and/or financial
outlay, and/or commitment.
Table 4 Influence of the experience on visitors’ intended pro-environmental actions
environmental actions
Intended Pro-
Moderate
%age
High
%age
Very
High
%age
Total
%age
N
1
Remove harmful litter from our oceans
19.4
28.3
31.9
79.6
191
2
Tell others of the need to care for our ocean & animals
29.2
25.5
24.0
78.7
192
3
Decrease the amount of personal water pollution
22.1
28.4
25.8
76.9
190
4
Assist in the protection of dolphins where possible
26.0
28.6
21.9
76.5
192
5
Remove harmful litter from our beaches
23.8
27.5
23.3
74.6
189
6
Donate money to an environmental organization
37.5
16.7
5.7
59.9
192
7
Become more involved in conservation issues
33.7
18.1
5.7
57.5
193
8
Assist with a mammal stranding operation
29.1
9.5
10.6
49.2
189
9
Donate time to assist with wildlife conservation
31.4
10.5
6.8
48.7
191
10
Join a wildlife /dolphin conservation organization
28.8
10.5
6.3
45.6
191
97
Visitor feelings and attitudes towards conservation: Participants were asked to report
on the perceived influence that the interaction experience had on their strength of
feelings and levels of support for conservation generally, and four pro-environmental
attitudinal sub-factors. Strong, positive increases in the strength of participants’ level
of support towards conservation programs and culture were reported across each item
in this section (see Table 5). Interestingly, higher percentages of responses occurred
on all combined scores for the Moonshadow V participants, compared to Imagine
participants (see Table 5).
Significant differences occurred across the two cases for two of these five proenvironmental items, namely Strength of support for conservation of dolphins, and
Support conservation of marine wildlife (see Table 5). In both instances, a greater
number of Imagine responses occurred in the Neutral and Strongly agree categories,
while a higher number of Moonshadow V participants felt more Strongly towards
these statements.
Table 5 Influence on visitor feelings and attitudes towards conservation
p value
p< .05
p=.04
p=.03
Influence on strength of feelings towards
conservation
Imagine
Agree +
strongly agree
%age
Moonshadow V
Agree +
strongly agree
%age
Total
Agree +
strongly agree
%age
Support conservation of the marine environment
76
83.9
79.9
189
Support conservation of marine wildlife
72.9
85
78.8
189
Help conserve the marine environment
73.5
83
78.1
192
Support conservation of dolphins
68.7
73.9
76.2
189
Assist with marine conservation programs
46.9
62.8
54.7
190
N
DISCUSSION
Moonshadow V offered a mass-tourism dolphin watch experience for approximately
300 visitors aboard a vessel that offered a less intense, more distant and more
technologically reliant visual and oral interaction. The associated commentary was
characterised by a high entertainment, low level of interpretation quality and content.
Imagine offered a more genuine ecotourism experience aboard an environmentally
friendly, purpose-designed craft and an informal, more intimate encounter which gave
visitors a closer and more intense interaction with the dolphins, with a high quality
interpretation program and strong conservation messages.
Although the designs of the two boat-based platforms, the content and quality of the
education/interpretation messages, and the overall visitor experiences differed
considerably, no significant differences were detected between the visitor
demographics (age, gender, highest education levels, mode of travel and return
visitation) of the two samples. Differences between samples were detected for
visitors’ countries of residence, with twice as many Imagine respondents visiting from
overseas.
One item not investigated was information about existing pro-environmental attitudes,
beliefs, behaviours and actions of participants prior to the experience. Differences
98
may have existed in the existing pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and
actions, and the skipper of Imagine may have been preaching to the already proenvironmentally converted. A second potential limitation of the study design may be
the administration of just a single post-test questionnaire. This was addressed by
designing questions that asked respondents to reflect on their experience and indicate
their perceived impacts and effects of the experience.
The most important reasons for dolphin watch participants go on these tours are to see
and experience dolphins, behaving naturally in their natural environment. Participants
regarded the Educational or learning experience as the lowest priority, and
Interesting information about dolphins was also of comparatively low importance in
their initial decision making process to participate in the dolphin watch tour. Although
the overall level of satisfaction was very high with 71% rating it between 8 and 10 out
of 10, the differing designs of the vessels and the large numbers of visitors and
crowding at the guard rails may be the reasons behind significantly more participants
from Imagine being more Satisfied and Highly satisfied than Moonshadow V
participants with the following interaction items:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Number of dolphins
Unobstructed views of the dolphins
Ability to see dolphins in the water
Seeing dolphins clearly
Natural behavior of the dolphins, and
Information given during the interaction.
Respondents from both cases reported that having an educational/learning experience
was the least important motivational factor in deciding to participate, however
Imagine participants were significantly more concerned than Moonshadow V
participants about having interesting information and knowledgeable guides. The selfreported levels of knowledge about dolphins positively increased for the combined
sample. Although the difference between samples was not significant, Imagine
participants reported greater increases in knowledge about dolphins than
Moonshadow V. Although participants of the combined sample did not indicate that
an educational or learning experience was of High or Very high importance to them in
their initial decision making process to participate in the activity, visitors regarded
conservation-based information about dolphins and the marine environment as the
third and most interesting topics respectively, when asked to choose from the 16 given
topics of most interest about dolphins.
A major focus of the study was the contribution of the interaction experiences to the
sustainability of the dolphin watch industry and the dolphins’ marine environment by
enhancing the pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, intended behaviours and intended
actions of the dolphin cruise participants. Two sets of questions addressed this central
focus. Participants of the combined sample reported that Moderate, High and Very
high positive influences occurred in direct response to the experience in these two
main areas:
x The intention of visitors to become involved in pro-environmental activities
(behaviours and actions)
99
x The strength of participants’ feelings and attitudes towards conservation
(attitudes)
Even though a considerable eco-performance gap between the two experiences was
observed and recorded, visitors’ responses across the two cases were similar for all
except two of the 15 given pro-environmental ABBA items in these two main areas:
Strength of support for conservation of dolphins, and Strength of support for
conservation of marine wildlife. The fact that Imagine participants reported feeling
more strongly for both items as a direct result of their dolphin watch cruise than
Moonshadow V participants suggests that the high quality interpretive experience was
more effective in eliciting this response – a desirable outcome for enhancing
sustainability of the industry.
CONCLUSION
The results of the study indicate that the size, shape, design of the craft, and
associated carrying capacity of the boat-based dolphin viewing platform influence
visitor satisfaction levels. Visitors want primarily to watch wild dolphins behaving
naturally in their natural marine environment. To be able to satisfy this need, visitors
want and need an un-crowded, boat-based, viewing platform which can bring the
participants as close as possible to the dolphins, offering close, clear, open, and
unobstructed views of the dolphins. According to the results of this study, the tours on
board the multi-story 300 person capacity vessel did not deliver on those needs and
fell short of those priority visitor expectations.
Technology can be harnessed for tourism purposes to offer products and services
items that can enhance, value-add, and even compensate for the perception of
crowding and the inability of visitors to see the dolphins up close and clearly.
Technological innovations such as real time information given over a high quality
sound system/microphone; underwater cameras capturing and projecting images of
dolphins swimming beside the ships hull on screens in comfortable lounges;
underwater hydrophones; water immersed boom nets; skilled and knowledgeable
education/interpretation officers; and high quality educational or written materials
such as books, music, videos, and brochures or pamphlets can supplement and even
replace seeing dolphins in the wild while participants are on the cruise.
It appears that the affirmative side of the debate has been supported by several results
of this study. Tourists do achieve heightened appreciation of the environment and
experience pro-environmental attitudinal and/or behaviour change as a result of selfregulated, yet considerably different marine wildlife experiences. However, the
highest positive influences on intended pro-environmental actions and support for
conservation as a concept and set of practices, occurred for responses where least
effort and commitment in terms of time, energy, and money were required on the part
of the participants, namely:
o Support for conservation of the environment (attitude)
o Remove harmful litter from our oceans (intended action)
o Support for conservation of the marine wildlife (attitude)
100
o Tell others about the need to care for our oceans and marine animals
(intended action)
o Decrease the amount of personal water pollution (intended action).
This trend and associated results parallel those of the pilot study conducted by the
researcher (Mayes, Dyer & Richins, 2004) involving a matched pair of shore-based
dolphin feeding operators in Australia. The results of this boat-based study also
parallel the research on, and observations of, environmental concerns and
conservation effort by Schultz & Oskamp (1996).
The fact that significant differences in responses between samples occurred for
Strength of support for conservation of marine wildlife and conservation of dolphins,
suggests that the Imagine dolphin interaction experience was more effective because
it had a greater impact in enhancing pro-environmental attitudes and associated
feelings of their visitors.
Finally, both self-regulated operators at Port Stephens have developed responsible
management practices which include education and interpretation programs, but the
content, quality, and effects on visitors of the two programs differ, regardless of selfregulation and ecotourism accreditation. This study has shown that these differing
dolphin watch cruises have enhanced intended visitor pro-environmental behaviors
and actions to varying levels as an immediate result of the experience. For genuinely
sustainable marine wildlife tourism to occur however, maximizing the positive
impacts on the humans is only one part of the overall strategy. Minimizing the
negative impacts of the operators on the dolphins and the marine environment is
another contributing strategy in enhancing the health of the dolphins and their marine
environment, thus building a more sustainable dolphin watching industry. The
example set by the environmentally friendly, purpose-built design of the Imagine
vessel, that uses sail power and organic bio-diesel fuels, needs serious consideration
when councils are deliberating over extending existing permits or granting new
permits to wildlife tourism operators. Sustainable wildlife tourism depends on
responsible actions and practices by all stakeholders in the tourism system (Newsome,
Moore & Dowling, 2001), especially the commercial tourism operators who provide
the experience for the wildlife visitors.
REFERENCES
Allen, S. (2006). Short-term effects of dolphin watching in Port Stephens, NSW.
National Whale and Dolphin Research Conference, Adelaide. S.A. Feb 21/22
Allen, S. J. & Moller, L. M. (1999). Port Stephens bottlenose dolphin population
survey. Unpublished Report to NSW-NPWS, Hunter District
Bejder, L. & Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating the effects of nature-based tourism on
cetaceans. Marine mammals and humans: Towards a sustainable balance. Ed:
N. Gales, M. Hindell, & R. Kirkwood. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO
Publishing.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (Editors) (2003). Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships:
Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
(Paperback Edition)
101
Carlson, C. (2004). A review of whale watch guidelines and regulations around the
world IFAW.
[www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/WWregsApril03.pdf] (accessed 12th
June, 2005)
Cole, D.N. (1993). Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation.
In D.S. Smith & P.C. Hallmund (Eds.), Ecology of greenways: design and
function of linear conservation areas. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of
Minnesota Press.
Contact Imagine Cruises Port Stephens NSW (Online)
[www.imaginecruises.com.au/contact.html] (accessed 12th June, 2005)
CRIGS (Centre for Research, Innovation and Graduate Studies). (2001) META Project. Planning for marine ecotourism in the Atlantic area: good practice
guidance. Bristol, England: University of West England
Curtin, S. (2003). Whale-watching in Kaikura: Sustainable destination development?
Journal of Ecotourism, 2(3), 173-195.
Diamantis, D. (2004). Ecotourism: Management and Assessment. London, England:
Thomson Learning.
Daily Cruises and Tours Available (online) [www.imaginecruises.com.au/cruisestours/index.html] (accessed 12th June, 2005)
Garrod, B. & Fennell D.A. (2004). An Analysis of Whale Watching Codes of
Conduct. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 334-352.
Garrod, B. & Wilson, J.C. (2003). Aspects of Tourism 7: Marine Ecotourism - Issues
and Experiences. Aspects of Tourism Series. C. Cooper, M. Hall, T. Dallen
(Eds.), Church Point, Australia: Footprint Books.
Graziano, A.M., & Raulin, M.L. (2000). Research Methods (3rd Ed.) London:
Addison, Wesley, Longman/Pearson Education.
Hammitt, W.E. & Cole, D.N. (1998) Wildland Recreation Ecology and Management,
(2nd Ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Higham, J.E.S. & Carr, A. (2002). Ecotourism visitor experiences in Aotearoa/New
Zealand: challenging the environmental values of visitors in pursuit of proenvironmental behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 10(4), 277-294
IFAW, (2004). International Fund for Animal Welfare. The Growth of Whale
Watching in Sydney 2003–2004.
Mayes, G., Dyer, P. & Richins, H.R. (2004). Dolphin-human interaction: Changing
pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and intended actions of
participants through management and interpretation programs. Annals of Leisure
Research, 7(1), 35-53
Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., Green, D. & O'Leary, J.T. (2001). Understanding coastal
and marine tourism demand from three European markets: Implications for the
future of ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 212-227.
Moscardo, G. & Saltzer, R. (2005). Understanding Tourism Wildlife Interactions,
CRC Sustainable Tourism, Pty. Ltd., Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Moonshadow Vessels – Features of the Moonshadow Vessels (Online)
[www.moonshadow.com.au/midac/reception.pl?UEPage=9&Page=UE1&Sourc
e] (accessed 12th June, 2005)
Newsome, D., Moore, S.A. & Dowling, R. (2001). Aspects of Tourism 4: Natural
Area Tourism - Ecology, Impacts and Management. C. Cooper & M. Hall
(Eds.), Aspects of Tourism Series. Clevedon, England: Channel View
Publications.
102
Orams, M.B. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction
between tourists and wildlife. Australian Journal of Environmental Education,
10, 22-34
Orams, M. B. (1995). Using interpretation to manage nature-based tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 4(2), 81-93.
Orams, M.B. (1996). Managing interaction between wild dolphins and tourists at a
dolphin feeding program, Tangalooma, Australia. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis.
Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning, School of Marine Science.
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Orams, M.B. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn
tourists into 'Greenies'? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 295306.
Papin, Y. (2002). Port Stephens' Bottlenose Dolphins. A handbook for commercial
skippers, crew, boat users, and dolphin enthusiasts. A guide to approaching,
watching and interpretation of dolphins in Port Stephens, NSW. Nelson Bay,
Port Stephens, NSW.
PSCDWA (2002). Dolphin Capital of Australia, The Port Stephens Commercial
Dolphin Watch Association
Priskin, J. (2003) Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-based
recreation. Environmental Management, 32(2), 189-204.
Welcome to Moonshadow Cruises Online! (Online)
[www.moonshadow.com.au/index1.shtml] (accessed 12th June, 2005)
Samuels, A., Bejder, L. & Heinrich, S. (2000). A review of the literature pertaining to
swimming with wild dolphins. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: Marine Mammal
Commission.
Schultz, P.W & Ozkamp, S. (1996). Effort as a moderator of the Attitude-Behaviour
Relationship: General
environmental concern and recycling. Social
Psychology Quarterly. 59(4), 375-383
Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd Ed.). Applied
Social Research Method Series. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
103
WATCHING ENDANGERED ORCAS: THE ROLE OF
COMMUNICATION IN BALANCING MARINE TOURISM AND
SUSTAINABILITY
(Full Paper)
Tema Milstein
University of New Mexico
Dept of Communication and Journalism
MSC03 2240
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001
USA
tema@unm.edu
Keywords: Communication, orca, whale watching, Canada, United States
INTRODUCTION
This ethnographic study examines ways that human communication intersects with
marine tourism to generate or transform sustainable perceptions and practices. The
case study is the highest concentration of whale watching in the world, located in the
transboundaried Pacific Canadian and American waters and largely focused on three
pods of orca whales recently granted endangered status by both governments. The
case provides an intensive microcosm of human-nature relations in transformation. In
the past 50 years, this particular group of cetaceans has undergone major shifts in
relation to human perception and praxis. Since the 1950s, these orcas have
perceptually transformed from dangerous villains to be targeted for military bombing
practice, to marine park performers to be captured for paying audiences, to an
environmental symbol to be sought out in the wild and heeded as the pulse of oceanic
health. This shift from bombing target to environmental icon is explained, in part, by
the rise of a tourist industry that provides a wider public access to the whales. At the
same time, the tourism industry is now contested as introducing risks to the whales
(Bain et al., 2006). Within this disputed space, study participants, who included
marine tourism operators, naturalists, tourists, government officials, scientists, and
whale advocates, negotiated meanings of sustainability in various ways, attempting to
discursively situate both whale-human environmental balance and proper tourismbased behavior. This paper investigates two notions that arose from the ethnographic
data collected: the notion that whales “kind of speak for themselves” and the notion of
whales as icons.
STUDY
The study’s ontological lens is the concept of communication as a mediating force of
human-nature relations (Carbaugh, 2007; Cox, 2007). This study is part of a larger
conversation within environmental communication and interdisciplinary circles. In
104
this conversation, a central objective is to interrogate how communication as a
cultural text mediates the human relationship with nature. The study of
communication as a mediating force allows for a culturally informed lens on humannature relations, or a way to explore communication as a culturally constitutive force
when it comes to nature. This approach follows theories that assert humans produce,
reproduce, and resist both perceptions and praxis of realities through communication
(Fairclough, 2003; Stibbe, 2001). As such, this line of questioning acknowledges the
role of power in the human-nature relationship in that humans have the opportunity to
frame nature to evoke certain meanings, and that these meanings, in turn, inform both
sustainable and unsustainable understandings and material practices. In addition, the
use of the term “mediate” opens up exploration to processes beyond human discourse.
In this way, a look at how communication mediates human-nature relations includes a
study of not only the human communicative processes, but also the communicative
aspects of nature. Thus, exploring the mediating role of communication allows for an
exploration of environmental co-presence, of humans and nature in forms of
conversation. This nature-inclusive view addresses concerns in the environmental
communication field that a pure scholarly focus on human discourse can sometimes
serve to ignore or obfuscate nature’s voice and agency, reproducing views of nature as
mute and as a non-participant, and paving the way for unsustainable perceptions and
practices.
The study’s epistemological approach is to explore this question through ethnographic
investigation of everyday discourse in a site of intentional human interactions with
wild nature. Data collection took place during three years (2005-2007) of tourist
season on-site ethnographic fieldwork on water via participant observation on several
tourism companies’ whale watch boats and on a whale watch monitoring boat, and on
land at public whale watch shore sites on the United States’ San Juan Island. Analysis
was based on more than 1,000, typed fieldnote pages of discourse collected during
participant observation with people who ranged from intricately involved with area
whale watch tourism through employment or advocacy to briefly involved as tourists.
In addition to this core data, discourse was analyzed from public meetings, interviews,
and site-specific cultural texts.
While multiple themes emerged during analysis, the themes investigated in this paper
include the claim that endangered orca whales “kind of speak for themselves” during
whale watch tourism experiences and the cultural metaphorical positioning of orcas as
cultural and ecological icons. Examples of participants’ communication are
interspersed with interpretation and analysis to illustrate these themes. These findings
are put in conversation with the concept of mediation as an exploration of both how
“the verbal is instrumental in knowing nature” and “how nature ‘speaks’” (Milburn
interview with Donal Carbaugh, 2007, p. 1) to investigate how these particular
practices of communication might inform issues of nature tourism and sustainability.
Whales “Kind of Speak for Themselves”
On one whale watch boat, on the way back to shore after seeing some of the area
orcas, a tourist visiting from Virginia with his family remarked that he and his wife
had chosen to take their family on a whale watch trip because they were
environmentally aware people and they wanted to expose their kids “to cool,
interesting things in nature. Things they might not be able to see later.”
105
Tourist: “We knew our kids would be interested in nature once they saw the whales.
You can’t help but be entranced by the whales. Those are things that kind of speak for
themselves.”
The participant offers a claim that the wild whales, by their very communicative
presence, had an ability to interest people not only in whales (“You can’t help but be
entranced by the whales”), but also “in nature.” This section focuses on this notion
that whales “kind of speak for themselves.” This notion is identified as a central
underlying claim of marine tourism in the site. Sub-themes generated under this claim
include whales bringing people in touch with nature, whales making people want to
protect them, and whales influencing people to learn about them and their ecosystem.
In Touch
One of the more unique tourist participants was presently a government official who
used to be a member of Greenpeace and was involved in starting the original whale
watch boat activity in the area as a way to interest people in protecting whales and to
raise money for Greenpeace activities. A couple decades past those Greenpeace days,
he was on a whale watch tour with his family. It had been several years since he last
had been whale watching. He explained how he felt about his experience that day.
Tourist: “There’s nothing like when you see people react when they see those
animals. Seeing the joy and excitement, it really does seem to bring people in touch
with the natural world just to see something so magnificent.”
The speaker characterized his observations of the other tourists observing the whales,
expressing the notion that the wild whales’ presence brought people “in touch with
the natural world.” This participant appeared to confirm his original notion in
Greenpeace years before that the experience of whale watching would shift human
perceptions: The whales, in a sense, touch the tourists (“the joy and excitement”), and
the tourists, in turn, feel more in touch with the natural world.
Another tourist, after seeing wild orcas on his first whale watch trip, credited the orcas
with bringing him in touch with the natural world in a particular way.
Tourist: “To have the ocean as your environment – the whales remind me there are
beings, there are animals, that can do that.”
In this example, the speaker credited the whales with reminding him that the ocean
can be one’s habitat. He stated this knowledge in an embodied and personal sense: “to
have the ocean as your environment.” In particular, he situated “the whales” as
reminding him “there are beings, there are animals, that can do that.” In this way, he
situated the whales as subjects (first as “beings,” then as “animals”) who had the
agency to put him in touch with the ocean as habitat.
To Protect
A second sub-theme generated from observations is that of the whales evoking a
desire in visitors to work for environmental protection. This notion of whales’ moving
people to protect whales was expressed largely by those working in and around the
whale watch industry and not by tourists themselves. A naturalist spoke about her
goals on the tours.
106
Naturalist: “I want the tourists to attach to them; it’s important. Because when there’s
an oil spill here or we have global warming, I want them to vote to protect these
whales and everything that matters to them.”
A docent closed his talk with tourists at a public shore-based whale watch site by
expressing his hope.
Docent: “I hope you’ll leave with a real passion in helping these whales in years to
come, whether through voting or your pocketbook, so that we keep these whales here,
so they’re here when your grandchildren and their grandchildren come back. There’s
only 89 and there could be an oil spill.”
Both these whale watch insiders connected tourists’ possible sense of attachment to
the orcas after seeing them in the wild to a desire to protect the whales and their
ecosystem. The naturalist stated, “I want the tourists to attach to them, it’s important”
and the docent stated, “I hope you’ll leave with a real passion in helping these
whales.” In this sense, both participants expressed the notion that by forming a
connection with the whales through whale watching, tourists would also form a desire
to protect the orcas. The naturalist’s statement invoked biocentric and ecocentric
discourses, relying on visitors’ desires to protect the orcas for the orcas’ and the
ecosystem’s sake (“to protect these whales and everything that matters to them”)
while the docent’s statement invoked a more anthropocentric discourse, relying on
visitors’ desires to protect the whales for future human generations’ sake (“so they’re
here when your grandchildren and their grandchildren come back”).
To Learn
The final sub-theme involves a claim that the whales inspired in onlookers a desire to
learn. This claim was expressed in a number of ways. This social researcher spoke to
one orca researcher about this study’s observations that the whale watch industry
often spoke of tourists developing an attachment to the wild whales during their visits,
and that this attachment was often connected to a claim about a whale-inspired desire
to protect the whales and their environment.
The whale researcher responded: “You mean, how these guys are converting people?
You know people can be dismissive of this – ‘Oh, everyone’s into the charismatic
megafauna.’ But the reality is that most of the time this is what gets people hooked
and they start to learn everything else related to them, and their ecosystems.”
Here, the whale researcher characterized the whales as what “hooks” people and what
leads people to “start to learn everything else related to them, and their ecosystems.”
He implied that the orcas “are converting” people into those who learn and care about
whales and their ecosystems.
Another participant provided a personal example of this phenomenon: “When I first
came here to the islands, I saw the orcas and I was like, ‘Oh!,’ I fell in love. I wanted
to learn as much about them as I could.”
This participant arrived on the island several years earlier with no naturalist training
or experience, took a marine naturalist class after encountering the orcas, and became
107
a naturalist on a whale watch boat and, later, an employee at the San Juan Island
Whale Museum.
Another study participant, a tourist who lived in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, described
the effect of seeing orcas for the first time on a whale watch boat tour this way:
“It was after seeing the orcas last time that I started learning about the orcas. It was
sort of cliché when I saw them – they were jumping around. There were so many of
them and they came up to the boat. It was so cool. Then I did a lot of research on
them.”
Here, the speaker described her whale watch tour experience as involving whales who
were active and even interactive (“they came up to the boat”). In this way, she
characterized her interest as being sparked not just by the whales’ visible presence,
but also by their dynamic and at times possibly interactive presence.
These speakers, again representing a range of study participants, each expressed a
connection between whale watch tourism and whales inspiring in tourists a desire to
want to learn more about whales, and, in some, to learn about their ecosystems, as
well.
A Tentative Central Tenet of Nature Tourism
This notion of whales that “kind of speak for themselves” reflects a central tenet of
the case study’s whale watch tourism industry, as well as a key tenet of much wildlife,
nature, and ecotourism endeavors: That people exposed to certain living elements or
places in nature will feel a connection, that this connection will lead them to want to
learn about, and, in turn, to protect that animal, plant, or place, and its ecosystem. This
notion of charismatic aspects of nature kind of speaking for themselves is not merely
a notion, it is a core belief and justification that underlies the educational mission of
much nature tourism.
Some study participants, however, discussed this belief with a certain tentativeness.
One park ranger spoke of people’s love for the whales they watched from shore on
San Juan Island: “The idea is that if they love it, hopefully they’ll protect it.”
A whale watch tour company owner and captain said: “I think showing the whales
helps. I hope it helps.”
These more cautious expressions of whales kind of speaking for themselves
characterized the tenet as less of a fact and as more of an “idea,” one that was based
on “hope.” The tenet was further challenged by whale advocates and some local
participants in the community. These challengers spoke of the claim being overused
or perhaps an empty one. Here’s one local couple who were also whale advocates:
Him: “I forget, do we like whale watching?”
Her: “Well, many people are tremendously touched by the experience and feel more
connected to the environment from it –”
Him: “That drum’s been banged; that’s overdone. Is that really true? Do people really
feel changed or are we just harassing the whales? It’s a business.”
108
One whale researcher discussed the plausibility of this tenet and its use as a
justification for the whale watch industry, but did so with a tentativeness based on her
own experience of connecting with and caring about whales.
Researcher: “I guess you never know who you are going to touch. You could have the
next Jacque Cousteau on board for one of those tours and seeing these magnificent
creatures could be the spark he needs. I didn’t need that though as a kid.”
One U.S. whale advocate characterized an issue he saw standing in the way of whales
evoking a desire in people to learn about and protect not only whales but also their
ecosystems.
Whale advocate: “The New Age community views the whale as a symbol of a
doorway to deeper comprehension of nature, as our link with nature. They view every
part of nature this way: grass, butterflies. But whales are an easier doorway. However,
whales end up becoming the entirety, not just the doorway, but the entirety that the
doorway opens up to. In whale watching on these boats, there’ll be the person who
stays under the whole time and doesn’t want to see the seal or the water and comes up
only to see the orca, then goes back down again. They confuse the messenger with the
message.”
In this case, the speaker characterized the whales speaking as the “messenger” and
“symbol of a doorway” and as “our link with nature” and “a deeper comprehension of
nature.” However, the speaker expressed the notion that, for many, the whale becomes
the entire message instead of the messenger – instead of evoking a connection with
nature, they are heard as truly only speaking for themselves. The speaker also invoked
New Age discourse, much as many of the above speakers indirectly invoked
ecotourism discourse, revealing that these interpersonal statements circulate within
larger cultural discourses about whales and nature connection and protection,
informing and being informed by them.
Orcas as Ecological and Cultural Icon
The notion of orcas as icon ties in closely with the above theme. Similarly,
participants asserted that the iconic positioning of the orcas led to people knowing
about them, to taking part in whale watch tourism, and to a resultant interest in
endangered orca and ecosystem recovery. This icon theme, however, did not position
the whales themselves as having the communicative or energetic power to connect
people with nature. Instead, this theme positioned the orcas more as metaphoric
representations of the human relationship with nature.
As one Canadian whale advocate put it: “The orcas are these precious markers. We
are realizing, it is rising in our consciousness, that we are destroying our environment.
And we realize the orcas will disappear. They represent our waking awareness of
disappearing and destroying nature, of our subduing culture.”
Here, the speaker situated the orcas as icon as both markers of ecological balance, in
this case especially the imbalance brought into being by humans, and also as
representations of a budding ecological awareness within humans connected directly
to broader human cultural relations with nature.
109
In addition, the metaphoric positioning of the orcas as icon was characterized as
mediating people’s understandings and experiences of the actual orcas, as well as
governmental policies of protection toward the orcas. Here are two examples that
illustrate these characterizations.
After an American boat monitor answered a private boater’s basic question about the
whales, which was “What kind of whales are these?,” this researcher commented that
it was unusual in her observations that private boaters did not know they were seeing
orcas. Usually, at a baseline, private boaters in the area knew how orcas looked
compared to other whales.
Whale watch monitor: “Yeah, people are usually at least a little knowledgeable. They
are the Washington state marine mammal and they’re in the media constantly,
especially more so in the last three or four years since they were first listed as
depleted under the Endangered Species Act.”
In this example, the monitor expressed the notion that the orcas’ iconic status serves
to bring them into people’s awareness. The participant characterized the orcas’ status
as an official state icon, and as endangered marine mammals featured in the media, as
making them an entity of whom “people are usually at least a little knowledgeable.”
In another example, a Washington state government official at an international
scientific and governmental symposium on the area’s endangered wild orcas,
positioned the orcas’ regional level iconic status as a primary drive for state
governmental interest in the whales’ protection.
Official: “I’m going to explain the role and interests of the state in orca recovery: First
of all, of course, they’re a Northwest icon.”
In this case, the speaker situated the official iconic status of the orca as serving to
inform “the role and interests of the state in orca recovery.” The official went on to
also discuss the importance of the orcas as apex predators in the region and to explain
that, with the “conservation of killer whales as an apex predator, we are likely to
benefit multiple species in the area in which we live.” Iconic status, here, appeared to
represent a multi-valanced human-whale connection, including both a cultural iconic
status in which the state and region are in a sense symbolized by the whales, and
therefore beholden to them, and an ecological iconic status in which the protection of
the orcas as an “apex predator” is “likely to benefit multiple species in the area in
which we live,” leading to sustainable policy.
The iconic representations of the whales in the examples thus far appear to be
mutually beneficial for the human-nature relationship. They affirm situations in which
human cultural and ecological consciousness, knowledge, and recovery are connected
to the whales’ presence and well being. Similar to whales kind of speaking for
themselves, however, participants expressed the notion that the iconic status of whales
could also mediate human-nature relations that were not mutually beneficial, ones in
which people miss “the whole story,” as one whale watch captain put it.
Captain: “I think the whales, like all the wild animals we get to see here, are
fascinating. Because of their size, their impact, they’re an obvious focus. But the
110
seabirds and the sea lions are all amazing and really really interesting. So, actually
when we don’t have orcas available, I think people get to see a lot more of what
actually goes on in the islands. When the whales are here, they’re seeing what they
want to see, the whales, but they’re missing the whole story.”
The whale watch captain, in this case, expressed the notion that the “obvious focus”
on the orcas could create a sort of tunnel vision instead of a wider, more ecologically
connected vision that also involved “seabirds and the sea lions” or “a lot more of what
actually goes on in the islands.” Much like the critique by a participant in the previous
section in which the whale may be interpreted as the message instead of the
messenger, and may serve to stand in the way of people perceiving or experiencing a
link with or a wider comprehension of nature, here, the captain expressed the notion
that a blindered focus on the iconic orcas could serve to distract people from a more
interconnected, or perhaps more ecologically encompassing vision.
CONCLUSION
In a recent interview, environmental communication scholar Donal Carbaugh
explained how, in the formulation of questions about communication and humannature relations, the concept of mediation allows for an exploration of how “people
come to know their worlds through various media of communication.” Such a lens,
Carbaugh explained, allows for an investigation of both how “the verbal is
instrumental in knowing nature” and “how nature ‘speaks’” without privileging one
such view over another (Milburn interview with Donal Carbaugh, 2007, p. 1). In
framing the line of questioning in terms of ways that communication mediates humannature relations and notions of sustainability in this particular marine tourism site, this
study of communication and whale watching attempts both not to privilege one view
over the other and to be receptive to both views in conversation.
Participants in this site constructed certain notions via their verbal communication
about how whale watching connected to notions of sustainable human-nature relations
and at the same time conveyed notions about “how nature ‘speaks’” in the notion that
endangered wild whales “kind of speak for themselves,” bringing people in touch
with nature, as well as inspiring people to learn about them and protect them. Some
participants only tentatively posed the notion that whales “kind of speak for
themselves” in ways that are decoded by their human listeners as sustainable. Others
disputed whether this tentative notion was enough to condone a whale-based
commercial tourism industry.
Carbaugh and Boromisza-Habashi (2005) provide a name that this study appends to
the meaningfulness many experience when they see whales in the wild. They name
this meaningfulness “an expressive co-existence with nature, albeit one of an unnamable kind” (p. 12). They typify expressive co-existence as moments with nature
that fill one with awe and inspiration, moments that are transcendent and adamantly
real, if in some ways ineffable. Perhaps participants characterized whales as kind of
speaking for themselves in some part to acknowledge expressive co-existence in a
discursive form, in that many viewers felt moved by the whales and more in touch
with nature, and perhaps some were also subsequently moved to act in sustainable
ways that involved learning more about and working to protect the whales and their
111
ecosystem. Again, however, tentativeness was invoked with this claim, in that some
participants framed the claim as an “idea” and as a “hope” rather than as a fact.
The views of the verbal as instrumental and nature as speaking also overlapped in
participants’ iconic positioning of the orcas as culturally and ecologically metaphoric
of the human relationship with nature. Here, the orcas in their ecological positioning
as apex predator and in their cultural positioning as icons, served for participants as
“precious markers” of a human-nature relationship that implicated a human culture
centered around the practice of “subduing” nature. Thus, orcas were characterized as,
in a sense, speaking from their position as an apex predator in an ailing ocean and the
verbal was instrumental in knowing nature by the symbolic positioning of orcas not
only as ecological but also as cultural metaphors. This iconic status, put into
communicative practice, was characterized by participants as both positive for
human-nature relations, for instance in serving to inform governmental policy toward
the orcas’ environmental protection, and as negative, in serving to obscure whale
watch tourists’ views of wider ecological relationships.
This study’s goal was to explore communication as a mediating force of humannature relations. The specific aim was to explore this question through ethnographic
attention to everyday communication in a much sought after site of marine tourism to
see how certain notions circulated and produced in communication connected whale
watch tourism to issues of sustainability. The presented findings indicate that those
whom some participants viewed as most effectively communicatively mediating
sustainable human-nature relations were, in fact, not the humans, but were the whales
who they asserted both “kind of speak for themselves” and served as iconic
representations of nature’s inextricable interconnectedness with humans. Many
participants used their own experiences to support the claims that whales did “speak
for themselves,” leading people to want to learn about them, to protect them, and to
become more in touch with nature. This claim, a central tenet of this case study’s
transnational whale watch tourism industry, as well as of much marine and nature
tourism endeavors, is also however one that remains to be adequately tested on site.
This qualitative research in part points to the need for future research that adequately
tests this tenet. If this tenet continues to be used as a justification for marine tourism
that in some cases has been shown to negatively impact the endangered whales and
other wildlife (Bain et al., 2006; Bejder & Samuels, 2003), the tenet indeed must be
tested.
In addition, in both themes of whales speaking for themselves and whales as icons,
insider participants offered metacommunicative cautions. In particular, participants
cautioned against people mistaking the messenger for the message, or missing the
nature for the whale. Here, notions and messages of ecological sustainability linked
with marine tourism were characterized by speakers as at times blocked by the human
receiver, such as when tourists’ blindered focus on whales could lead to them
“missing the whole story.” In this way, mediation of notions of sustainability within
whale watch tourism appeared to be human-nature transactional – whales may speak
for themselves and through their iconic status, but what the human listener hears in
many ways appears to be listener and situation dependent.
112
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I’d like to thank Soundwatch Boater Education Program Director Kari Koski for
introducing me to this realm of human-nature relations, as well as orca researcher
Debbie Giles for her input on the effects of boat-based tourism on whales and
wildlife. I would also like to thank those who participated in this study. As they must
remain anonymous due to Human Subjects guidelines, I cannot mention by name or
organization the innumerable generous people who allowed me to participate in and
observe their communication. However, I can thank in general the whale watch
company owners and operators, naturalists, tourists, whale advocates, researchers, and
all others who remain unidentified as individuals in this work but who were
exceedingly giving and helpful as individuals in the course of this research. Finally, I
want to express my appreciation for the kind generosity of Don and Katy Peek, who
provided me, my husband, and our dog with a home and sanctuary during field
research.
REFERENCES
Bain, D. E., Smith, J. C., Williams, R., & Lusseau, D. (2006). Effects of Vessels on
Behavior of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus spp). In NMFS (Ed.)
(Vol. Contract Report N. AB133F03S0959 and AB133F04CN0040).
Bejder, L., & Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating the Effects of Nature-Based Tourism on
Cetaceans. In N. Gales, M. Hindell & R. Kirkwood (Eds.), Marine Mammals:
Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues (pp. 229-256). Collingwood,
Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
Carbaugh, D. (2007). Quoting, “the Environment”: Touchstones on Earth.
Environmental Communication: A Journal of Culture and Nature, 1(1), 64-73.
Carbaugh, D., & Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2005). Discourse beyond language: Cultural
rhetoric, revelatory insight, and nature, Rhetoric Culture 3 Conference.
Johannes-Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “Crisis Disciplines”: Does Environmental Communication
Have an Ethical Duty? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Culture
and Nature, 1(1), 5-20.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
London: Routledge.
Milburn interview with Donal Carbaugh, T. (2007). Donal Carbaugh. Ecologue,
Winter, 1-2.
Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power, and the social construction of animals. Society
and animals, 9(2), 145-161.
113
SUSTAINABLE VERSUS UNSUSTAINABLE DOLPHIN
TOURISM IN THE CARIBBEAN: A CASE STUDY IN THE
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
(FULL PAPER)
E.C.M. Parsons
George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 USA
ecm-parsons@earthlink.net
Naomi A. Rose
Humane Society International, 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 USA
nrose@hsi.org
ABSTRACT
Recent events in the Dominican Republic highlight sustainable and unsustainable
dolphin tourism. In 2000, a dolphinarium located in Punta Cana captured eight
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins from the country’s southeastern waters. This capture
violated both domestic and international law. No scientific evaluation had been
conducted prior to the capture to determine whether such a take was sustainable.
As a result of this incident, a multi-disciplinary project was initiated called El
Proyecto Amigos de los Delfines (the Friends of the Dolphin Project). Dolphin
surveys are being conducted and a photographic catalogue of individual dolphins has
been created. This will make further illegal captures difficult. Another goal of the
project is to promote sustainable dolphin watching. The project has developed a
dolphin watching code of conduct; initiated a dolphin watching training program for
boat operators; and held several workshops to educate stakeholders regarding dolphin
biology and sustainable tourism.
In late 2004, a dolphinarium in Puerto Plata attempted to import Indo-Pacific
bottlenose dolphins from Mexico, which had been originally captured under
controversial circumstances in the Solomon Islands. This facility displays dolphins
from Cuba; Cuba has allowed live captures of bottlenose dolphins for over a decade
without completing a population assessment. These captures have been criticized by
international bodies (including the International Whaling Commission and the World
Conservation Union). The Dominican government prohibited dolphin imports in
2006, partly as a result of this concern. Finally, in 2007 the Punta Cana dolphinarium
petitioned the government to allow the import of 12 dolphins from the drive fishery in
Taiji, Japan.
The goal in the Caribbean and elsewhere must be to prioritize the management of
these two dolphin tourism sectors – sustainable dolphin watching versus unsustainable
live captures.
Keywords: Caribbean, Live captures, bottlenose dolphin, sustainability
114
INTRODUCTION
The greater Caribbean region has a large and diverse population of marine mammals,
with 35 species reported from the region (Ward & Moscrop, 1999). Seventeen of
these are dolphin species (members of the family Delphinidae, in the order Cetacea,
which includes all whales, dolphins, and porpoises), occupying both pelagic and
coastal habitats. As a result of a diverse cetacean fauna, whalewatching is an
important economic activity in many Caribbean countries, in particular in coastal
areas of countries such as the Dominican Republic (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002)
The Dominican Republic is situated on the island of Hispaniola, the second largest
island in the Caribbean. It has an international reputation for marine conservation,
with several marine protected areas having been designated, including the
Silver/Navidad Bank marine sanctuary for humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) (Hoyt, 2004). Tourism is an important industry in the Dominican
Republic, with over 2.2 million tourist arrivals in 1998 (Hoyt, 2001), a major sector of
which is whalewatching. Total whalewatching revenue, primarily from humpback
whalewatching tours, has been estimated to be worth US$5.2 million in 1998 (Hoyt,
2001). The locations for whalewatching in the Dominican Republic are the offshore
humpback whale breeding grounds at Silver Bank, and the coastal area of Samaná
Bay, both in the north.
Although whalewatching targeting humpback whales has been a major economic
activity in the Dominican Republic for many years, tourism based on small cetaceans
has not received similar attention. The existence of wild populations of dolphins in the
Dominican Republic has been known since Christopher Columbus’s day. He noted
sightings of dolphins in the coastal waters off the island of Hispaniola, but they have
attracted little attention in terms of research or tourism until recently. In particular, in
the southeastern waters of the Dominican Republic, in the coastal areas of Isla Saona
and the Parque Nacional del Este (Eastern National Park, one of the Dominican
Republic’s protected areas), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are regularly
sighted, and dolphin watching is an important, but relatively undeveloped, activity for
many small-scale boat operators. However, in August 2002, Manatí Park, a
Dominican dolphinarium, captured eight bottlenose dolphins from these waters,
which resulted in a major controversy.
CASE STUDY: THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Live dolphin captures: an illegal act
The bottlenose dolphin capture took place with the assistance of local people from the
coastal town of La Romana. Villagers who assisted with the capture stated that
representatives of Manatí Park had initially told them they were looking for dolphins
to conduct a research project, not to capture them for public display. The capture of
these animals by Manatí Park was illegal under Dominican law (Article 175, National
Law #64-00), which has prohibited captures of cetaceans in Dominican waters since it
was passed on 18 August 2000 (Parsons et al., 2007).
115
The captures were arguably also illegal under the regional agreement known as the
Cartagena Convention (Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region) and its SPAW Protocol (Protocol
Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife). The Dominican Republic is a
signatory to this agreement. The SPAW Protocol lists all cetaceans in the greater
Caribbean region as threatened or endangered under Annex II (Parsons et al., 2007).
This listing prohibits the capture and commercial exploitation of cetaceans, including
bottlenose dolphins, specifically under Articles 5(2)(d), 5(2)(j), 10(3)(a), and
11(1)(b)(i) (Parsons et al., 2007).
Dolphins have been taken previously from Dominican waters; for example, two were
taken from northern waters in 1995 (before the passage of National Law #64-00)
under a government issued permit. There are indications that other undocumented live
captures may also have occurred (R. Sellares, personal communication).
Live dolphin captures: an unsustainable activity
At the time of the 2002 live captures, no scientific evaluation had been carried out on
dolphins inhabiting any area of the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the number of
animals in the population, their distribution, their movements, their health status, their
social and stock structure or indeed any scientific data required to ascertain
sustainability of the catches were absent. Thus, the live captures were performed
without any consideration as to whether these catches would deplete this population.
There has been considerable concern expressed about the impact of unregulated live
captures on cetacean populations, particularly in developing countries. For example,
the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for the
World’s Cetaceans (Reeves et al., 2003) states that:
As a general principle, dolphins should not be captured or removed from a
wild population unless that specific population has been assessed… (p. 17)
Moreover, Reeves et al. (2003) state that there should be no removals unless they are
carried out sustainably, without causing negative impacts to the targeted population.
They also state that live captures for captive display or research are, for all intents and
purposes:
…equivalent to incidental or deliberate killing, as the animals…are no
longer available to help maintain their populations... [and] live-capture can
become a serious threat to local cetacean populations. (p. 17)
The Dominican Government recently established a commission to evaluate the status
of these captured dolphins. However, Manatí Park refused to allow members of the
commission access to the animals (A. Whaley and I. Bonnelly, personal
communication).
Ironically, despite conducting arguably illegal, unsustainable and unethical activities,
Manatí Park advertises itself as a conservation body. On the ‘Nature education and
conservation’ page of its website (http://www.manatipark.com/eng/naturaleza.htm), it
states that:
116
Manatí Park, in collaboration with various National and International
Institutions, develops educational, research and reproduction programs on
the autochthonous species of the Dominican Republic that are in danger of
extinction: iguanas, caimans, flamingos, tropical birds, snakes, sea lions,
parrots…
It should be noted that the Californian sea lions (Zalophus californianus) being
exhibited are not endangered and are not native to the Dominican Republic, or even
the Atlantic Ocean (Heath, 2002).
The response: El Proyecto Amigos de Los Delfines
These illegal captures and the concern over this historic dolphin population led to
meetings of conservation groups, scientists, lawyers and local community
organizations. In December 2002, a forum to discuss the issue was held, involving
both local and international stakeholders. In turn, this led to a workshop in June 2003,
where a multi-organizational, multi-national, and collaborative dolphin conservation
project was initiated (Parsons et al., 2007): ‘El Proyecto Amigos de los Delfines’ or
‘the Friends of the Dolphin Project’ (the Amigos Project).
The Amigos Project consists of a unique collaboration of volunteers, with both
Dominican and international members. The parties collaborating on the project
include academic bodies (e.g., Academía de Ciencias - National Academy of
Sciences, Fundación Dominicana de Estudios Marinos (FUNDEMAR), George
Mason University (USA), the University Marine Biological Station Millport (UK)),
officials from Dominican Republic governmental departments (e.g., Subsecretaría de
Areas Protegidas y Biodiversidad, Subsecretaría de Recursos Costeros y Marinos),
both Dominican and international environmental and animal welfare nongovernmental organisations (e.g., Humane Society International, Patronato Amigos
De Los Animales, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, World Society for the
Protection of Animals), local community groups (e.g., Fundación para el Desarrollo
de Bayahibe) and tourism bodies (e.g., Asociación de Hoteles Romana-Bayahibe).
To date, funding for the Amigos Project has been provided by Humane Society
International, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, WDCS (Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society), Cetacean Society International, The Nature
Conservancy, the U.S. White Water to Blue Water program and, most recently,
through a major grant from the World Development Bank.
The project has scientific, educational and tourism-related aims and objectives.
Scientifically, the Amigos Project aims to investigate the dolphin population targeted
by the 2002 captures. This research seeks to assess the number of dolphins inhabiting
the coastal waters of the Parque Nacional del Este and adjacent areas, determine
whether these animals are resident or transient, investigate patterns of dolphin habitat
use, and eventually identify areas of critical habitat. Moreover, the research will
ultimately seek to assess the impact of tourism boat traffic on dolphins in the region
and identify other anthropogenic and natural causes of disturbance, injury, and
mortality to dolphins.
117
The results of this research program will do much to promote dolphin conservation
efforts in the Dominican Republic. For example, after an assessment of the population
has been completed, the sustainability and impact of the illegal removals of dolphins
by Manatí Park can be determined. As a primary output of the research, a catalogue of
individual dolphin photographs has been produced. This catalogue can help to ensure
that any animals that are subsequently captured from this region of the Dominican
Republic can be identified, even if these animals are illegally exported to other
countries. In addition, by identifying habitat critical to the dolphins, theoretically there
could be an assessment of whether the designation of a Marine Protected Area or
Marine Reserve would aid the conservation of the dolphins.
Whaley et al. (2006) reported on some of the results of the research conducted so far.
Between June 2004 and April 2006, 381 hours of dolphin surveys were undertaken in
the waters off the village of Bayahibe and the Parque Nacional del Este, on the
southeastern coast of the Dominican Republic. This is the first time that dedicated
dolphin surveys have been conducted in this area. In the Parque Nacional del Este, six
species of cetaceans were identified: bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins
(Stenella frontalis), Pan-tropical spotted dolphins (S. attenuata), humpback whales,
short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) and sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus). The two main species were the bottlenose dolphin and the Atlantic
spotted dolphin, which appear to be resident year round in the area, with several of the
same animals being sighted repeatedly in the area (Whaley et al., 2006).
Bottlenose dolphin group sizes ranged from 8 to 33 (mean 14.11 ± 8.05 SD) and
Atlantic spotted dolphin group sizes from 8 to 36 (mean 17.33 ± 12.12 SD) (Whaley
et al., 2006). Calves of both species were seen throughout the year, indicating that the
area is used for breeding, but with no particular season for reproduction (Whaley et
al., 2006). Humpback whales, with calves, also were recorded in the area between
January and March. Prior to these surveys, it was thought that humpback whales only
occurred in the northern waters of the Dominican Republic, notably in Samaná Bay
(Whaley et al., 2007).
The main area where dolphins were sighted was the western opening of the Catuano
Canal, an area of water between the mainland and Isla Saona. Sixty percent of all
dolphin sightings were in this area, indicating that this is an important habitat for the
dolphins (Whaley et al., 2006). However, this is also an area through which many tour
boats pass on the way to Isla Saona, suggesting tourism may already be having a
negative impact on this dolphin population. Therefore, reducing the impacts of
tourism and promoting the sustainability of dolphin-related tourism are additional
goals of the Amigos Project.
The Amigos Project and dolphin ecotourism
The promotion of sustainable tourism, or more correctly ‘dolphin ecotourism’, in the
coastal waters of Bayahibe and the Parque Nacional del Este is an important
component of the Amigos Project. A single definition of dolphin ecotourism has not
been universally accepted, however. In general, the term ‘ecotourism’ is often
misused, including by Dominican tourism authorities, and is often applied to any
tourism activity that involves wild animals or wild places. However, it is generally
argued that true ecotourism activities result in benefits – financial, social and
118
educational – to the host community; do not unduly impact the animals or
environment involved; are fully sustainable; and aid in the long-term conservation of
the resource (see e.g., International Ecotourism Society; www.ecotourism.org). The
International Whaling Commission (IWC), the internationally recognized competent
authority for the management and conservation of whales, has defined ‘whale (and
dolphin) ecotourism’ as including several key features, as follows (cited in Parsons et
al., 2006):
Conserves the fauna and flora of the whalewatching area
The Amigos Project will aim to achieve this by:
ƒ Scientific monitoring of the Bayahibe dolphin population;
ƒ Involving tourist boats, fishermen, scuba divers and other marine
environment users as part of the Amigos Project, and enlisting these users
to collect information on the dolphins. To achieve this, sightings forms and
cetacean identification sheets have been distributed to local users; and
ƒ Assessing and evaluating non-tourism threats to the dolphins and
determining the cumulative impacts that may affect the health of the
dolphin population.
Minimizes impacts on marine mammals and to the environment
The Amigos Project will seek to achieve this by:
ƒ Investigating other forms of dolphin tourism that would make use of, but
not disturb or have an impact on, dolphins. For example, it will evaluate
the potential for land-based viewing stations so tourists can observe
dolphins without the impacts that boat-based tours might bring; and
ƒ Initiating an inventory of marine tourism activity, such as the number of
boats, routes taken, tourist profiles, and whether tourism activity is
conducted in important dolphin habitats. A key aim is to investigate the
environmental carrying capacity of the region with respect to tourism.
Provides high quality education
The Amigos Project will:
ƒ Initiate a baseline survey to determine general awareness of dolphin and
marine conservation. Survey target groups will include tour operators,
hotel workers, boat operators, tourists and local inhabitants. This will
provide vital information on areas and groups where education efforts need
to be targeted; and
ƒ Will write review papers and booklets on:
- The history of marine mammals in the Dominican Republic;
- The history of whale conservation and law/management in the
Dominican Republic; and
- A checklist of marine mammals occurring in Dominican waters and
their distribution.
These review documents will be used to provide educational materials and a training
and best practice workshop program for tour operators, government officials and
tourism bodies in the region. Dolphin awareness training talks will also be developed
for boat operators, fisherman, scuba divers, and local communities. The training
program’s presentations and outputs will be aimed at different levels, ranging from a
basic level to a near ‘expert’ level. The program will also:
119
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Develop talks and presentations for tourists staying in Bayahibe;
Provide a dolphin and local marine awareness course for hotel workers and
employees;
Develop a dolphin awareness program for the wider Bayahibe community;
and
Develop a school visit program.
Eventually a dolphin education centre may be established in the community.
Gives benefits to the local community
To evaluate possible community benefits, the Amigos Project will prepare a report
and presentations that assess the potential for indirect community benefits of dolphin
ecotourism. These benefits might include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increased employment;
Tourists who are more likely to stay in and spend more in local facilities;
More environmentally and culturally sensitive tourists;
Increased opportunities for local dolphin themed arts, crafts and cultural
activities;
Increased education (about the marine environment) for local businesses;
and
An improved environment and a better infrastructure for locals.
After a five-year period, a survey will be conducted to evaluate which, if any, of these
benefits have actually been accrued by the community as the result of dolphin
ecotourism. The ultimate goals of the project are to facilitate the development of
sustainable dolphin watching (ecotourism) in Bayahibe and the Parque Nacional del
Este and to improve the long-term economy of the area.
In January 2004, the project began its first training courses. In Santo Domingo, a short
course on whale and dolphin biology and conservation was held, with a second course
in Bayahibe on basic dolphin biology, the impacts of boat traffic, and ways to
approach dolphins to minimize disturbance. This was followed by two short
workshops and meetings to further promote responsible boating. In January 2006, a
longer biology and conservation course was conducted at the Autonomous University
of Santo Domingo, for both local university students and government officials
working in marine protected areas in the Dominican Republic.
The Amigos Project has great potential both to strengthen dolphin conservation and to
develop non-consumptive, sustainable dolphin tourism in the Dominican Republic.
Consumptive dolphin tourism-related activities in the country, such as the illegal
capture of bottlenose dolphins for captive display, are in stark contrast to this
conservation program.
Sustainable versus unsustainable dolphin watching
Although cetacean watching activities are often considered relatively benign, they can
have significant impacts on cetacean populations. For example, several mortalities
have been recorded as the result of collisions with whalewatching vessels (Laist et al.,
120
2001). Numerous studies have also reported changes in natural behaviour and habitat
use as the result of exposure to cetacean watching activities (for reviews of such
studies, see Bejder & Samuels (2004) and Orams (2004)). However, extrapolating the
biological significance of these often subtle behavioural changes, typically recorded
during studies of short duration, is often difficult (Corkeron, 2005). In a rare example
of a long-term study on the impacts of commercial dolphin watching on a resident
population, Bejder et al. (2006) found that one vessel had no impacts on the
population’s birth rate or distribution, but changes in these parameters were seen with
the addition of only one other vessel. Thus biologically significant impacts can occur
with only a small number of cetacean watching vessels present, but identifying these
impacts may take considerable investment of time and resources (Orams, 2004;
Corkeron, 2005).
One goal of the Amigos Project is to avoid unrestrained growth of a dolphin watching
industry in the Dominican Republic; other regions have seen rapid and unregulated
growth in numbers of cetacean watching vessels and tourists, with no or limited
baseline research or monitoring of impacts (see e.g., IWC 2007a). The Amigos
Project has an ongoing monitoring regime to research dolphin abundance, behaviour
and habitat use, and would be in a position to provide advice to managers on the
nature and impacts of dolphin watching activity. As yet, there are no data to suggest
that dolphin watching in any Caribbean nation is actually sustainable, as the
appropriate monitoring has not been carried out. An aim of the Amigos Project is to
remedy this situation.
Attempted import of Solomon Islands dolphins
Another Dominican dolphinarium, Ocean World, operates in Puerto Plata, on the
north coast. This facility made an attempt in late 2004 to import Indo-Pacific
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) from Mexico. These dolphins had originally
been captured under highly controversial circumstances in the Solomon Islands in
2003. In this latter capture, foreign investors had commissioned local fishermen to
capture dolphins from the island nation’s coastal waters, with at least 94 animals
being placed in makeshift sea pens. It is unknown exactly how many animals were
injured or killed in the capture process, but anecdotal accounts suggest at least nine
dolphins died.
On 21 July 2003, 28 of these dolphins were transported to a dolphinarium in Cancun,
Mexico, where one of the dolphins died within a week of the transfer. The exporting
of these dolphins to Mexico in the first place was legally suspect, as Mexico is a
signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), the treaty that controls the international trade of wildlife
and plants. Bottlenose dolphins are listed under Appendix II; i.e., these animals are
considered by CITES to be vulnerable and may be affected by international trade.
However, regulated trade is allowed for Appendix II species (under Article IV of the
convention) if the capture or killing is accompanied by an official statement, called a
‘non-detriment finding’ (NDF), from the exporting country. The purpose of NDFs is
to confirm that the removal of the animals from the wild was sustainable and had no
adverse impact on the species. Given this purpose, CITES Parties have agreed that
NDFs should be based on sound scientific information. Because it is a CITES
signatory, Mexico is bound by the convention’s terms, whether trading with a fellow
121
signatory or not (the Solomon Islands was not a Party to CITES at the time of this
trade).
However, as there had been no cetacean surveys conducted in the waters of the
Solomon Islands, the number of animals inhabiting this area was completely unknown
at the time of the capture. It could be, for example, that the capture involved the
majority of the coastal T. aduncus population of the Solomon Islands, leaving behind
too few animals to maintain the population. Clearly the capture could not be
categorized as sustainable or ‘non-detrimental’ to the wild population.
The lack of a sustainability assessment was confirmed when the IUCN sent a team
from its Cetacean and Veterinary Specialist Groups to visit the Solomon Islands in
September 2003 to investigate the issue (Ross et al., 2003). The team determined that:
No scientific assessment of the population-level effects of the removals of
bottlenose dolphins in the Solomon Islands was undertaken in advance of the
recent live-capture operations. Without any reliable data on numbers and
population structure of bottlenose dolphins in this region, it is impossible to
make a credible judgment about the impacts of this level of exploitation.
Until such data are available, a non-detriment finding necessary under
CITES Article IV is not possible.
Therefore CITES Parties should not issue permits to import dolphins from
the Solomon Islands. Unfortunately, this episode of live-capture was
undertaken with little or no serious investment in assessing the conservation
implications for the affected dolphin population(s). (p. 7)
By allowing an import of these dolphins, the Dominican Republic would have
effectively endorsed this unsustainable capture and, perhaps more seriously, violated
its obligations under CITES.
Imports of Cuban dolphins
Ocean World displays dolphins from Cuba. Live captures of bottlenose dolphins from
Cuban waters have occurred for over a decade without any scientific assessment of
the population. Van Waerebeek et al. (2006) reported on 238 known international
exports of bottlenose dolphins from Cuba between 1986 and 2004. Of these exports,
60% were to facilities in the Caribbean and Latin America, with the remainder to
Canada, Europe and Israel. Moreover, an unknown and undocumented number of
animals were taken for Cuban (domestic) dolphinariums. Van Waerebeek and his
colleagues stated that these captures cannot be considered sustainable due to a lack of
information on the abundance, status or stock structure of dolphins in Cuban coastal
waters and recommended the termination of all international exports of Cuban
dolphins. These concerns were echoed at the IWC meeting in 2006 when the report of
the IWC Scientific Committee noted that Cuban dolphins “may be taken from a
coastal stock and there are no data to assess the sustainability of these takes” (IWC,
2007a, p. 49). It further recognized that small coastal populations of dolphins were
potentially being threatened by unregulated live captures in Cuba and other Caribbean
countries (IWC, 2007a).
122
The IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group has also expressed similar concerns about live
captures of dolphins in Cuban coastal waters for display facilities in Latin America
(Reeves et al., 2003), stating that:
Local dolphin populations may become depleted if the captures are localized
and the numbers taken are high, if young females are selected for, and/or if
documentation and regulation of these fisheries is inadequate. (p. 72)
The government of the Dominican Republic prohibited dolphin imports in the autumn
of 2006, partly as a result of international concern over the sustainability of Cuban
live captures (I. Bonnelly, personal communication).
Attempted imports of Taiji drive fishery dolphins
In early 2007, Manatí Park announced that it would petition the government to allow
the import of 12 dolphins from the drive fishery in Taiji, Japan. In Japanese drive
fisheries, small cetaceans are herded into bays, where the animals are slaughtered.
Approximately 2,000 small cetaceans have been taken in Japanese drive fisheries
annually in recent years (Vail et al., 2006), but catches have reached 10,000-20,000
animals per year in the past (Kishiro & Kasuya, 1993; Kasuya, 1999). However, not
all the cetaceans are butchered; representatives from several Asian dolphinariums
often accompany these drives and choose animals from amongst those trapped to set
aside for captive display. Most of these animals are purchased by Japanese
dolphinariums, but there has been considerable international trade, with animals being
exported to places such as Hong Kong (Reeves et al., 1994), Taiwan, mainland China,
Korea, the Philippines, Palau (Vail et al., 2006), and even the United States (prior to
1993). Drive-caught cetaceans were regularly imported into the United States during
the 1970s and 1980s by U.S. public display facilities and also the U.S. military (Vail
et al., 2006). In 1993, Marine World Africa USA (California) and the Indianapolis
Zoo submitted a permit application to import drive-caught dolphins to the United
States, but the permit, although initially granted, was eventually revoked (Vail et al.,
2006) when it was concluded that one of the permit conditions (i.e., method of
capture, which was purse seine net) was violated.
It is unlikely that the drive fisheries in Japan are sustainable, as no recent research has
been done to ascertain population numbers before drives are conducted. The last
major small cetacean population evaluation was published well over a decade ago
(Miyashita, 1993). In fact, in the 1980s, due to a marked decline in striped dolphin
(Stenella coeruleoalba) abundance and catches (Kishiro & Kasuya, 1993; Kasuya,
1999), the focus of Japanese drive fisheries shifted from striped dolphins to other
species such as Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), killer whales (Orcinus orca),
pantropical spotted dolphins (S. attenuata), and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.).
The international concern over the unsustainability of, and inhumane methods used in,
Japanese drive fisheries is illustrated by a resolution that was recently introduced in
the U.S. Senate (Lautenberg et al., 2005). Despite the ban on imports, there is still a
possibility that the Dominican government will allow Manatí Park to bring in drive
fishery dolphins; however, as noted earlier, it would be difficult for Japan to issue a
valid CITES NDF for these animals.
123
CONCLUSION
The IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group noted that: “All too often, entrepreneurs take
advantage of lax (or non-existent) regulations in small island states or less-developed
countries, catching animals from populations that are already under pressure…”
(Reeves et al., 2003, p. 17). This has certainly been the case in the Dominican
Republic. Laws to protect coastal dolphin populations are strong in this Caribbean
nation, but there is a lack of understanding or knowledge of these laws and often an
inability or lack of will to enforce them among conservation authorities. In fact, under
National Law #64-00, the exhibition of any species protected under the law, such as
bottlenose dolphins, is prohibited. Therefore, the establishment of any new captive
dolphin facilities would theoretically be illegal. Despite this, a new dolphinarium was
recently built and opened in Punta Cana. This dolphinarium, Dolphin Island
(http://www.dolphinislandpark.com), belongs to the same company that owns Manatí
Park and allows tourists to swim with dolphins kept in sea pens.
Illegal catches and trade in dolphins in the Caribbean have garnered international
attention, with the IWC Scientific Committee’s Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans
noting the following (IWC, 2007b):
The sub-committee heard several anecdotal accounts of animals being
transferred illegally between dolphinaria in different countries in the region,
and concerns were expressed that animals may be being supplied illegally
and undeclared from some countries to replace animals that have died in
captivity. (p. 303)
Specifically regarding captures of bottlenose dolphins, the sub-committee recognized
the threat that live captures posed to small coastal populations (cited in IWC, 2007b,
p. 311) and also “noted an almost complete lack of abundance data for bottlenose
dolphins [in the Caribbean region] against which to measure the sustainability of live
capture removals” (IWC, 2007b, p. 303). The sub-committee further emphasized the
importance of collaborative research and conservation programs (such as the Amigos
Project) in helping to assess such sustainability issues.
The situation in the Dominican Republic is representative of unsustainable practices
by the dolphin display industry in the Caribbean and Latin America. However,
paradoxically the Dominican Republic has taken a leadership position in developing
sustainable dolphin watching, along with Peru, Costa Rica, and other countries. In
Peru, a collaborative effort among government agencies (both Peruvian and U.S.,
through a free trade agreement), non-governmental organizations, researchers, and
community stakeholders has been undertaken to devise a National Strategy to develop
sustainable cetacean watching. The goal is to offer a viable economic alternative to
dolphin hunting, which is illegal in Peru, but nevertheless occurs with sufficient
regularity to create a conservation concern (Rose, 2007). As in the Dominican
Republic, Peru also has a dolphinarium. Costa Rica, which has strict cetacean
watching regulations, has recently passed legislation prohibiting the capture of
dolphins and their display in dolphinariums. This occurred after a proposal to build a
dolphinarium created considerable controversy in the country (P. Cubero-Pardo,
personal communication).
124
The goal in this region must be to prioritize which sector of dolphin tourism should be
developed: dolphin ecotourism (non-consumptive), or captive dolphin display
facilities (consumptive). Although research to assess the impacts and sustainability of
dolphin watching in the Caribbean is limited as yet, dolphin ecotourism practices are
more likely to be sustainable than live captures, and ethically more satisfactory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on a draft of this
paper. We also wish to thank Idelisa Bonnelly de Calventi, Todd McConchie, Rita
Sellares, Susan Sherwin, Allan Whaley, and other participants and members of El
Proyecto Amigos de los Delfines.
REFERENCES
Bejder, L. & Samuels, A. (2004). Evaluating the effects of nature-based tourism on
cetaceans. In N. Gales, M. Hindell, R. Kirkwood (Eds.), Marine Mammals:
Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues (pp. 229-256). Collingwood, Victoria:
CSIRO Publishing.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Gales, N., Mann, J., Connor, R., Heithaus,
M., Watson-Capps, J., Flaherty, C., & Kürtzen, M. (2006). Decline in relative
abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conservation
Biology, 20(6), 1791–1798.
Corkeron, P.J. (2004). Whale watching, iconography, and marine conservation.
Conservation Biology, 18(3), 847-849.
Heath, C. (2002). Californian, Galapagos and Japanese sea lions, Zalophus
californianus, Z. wollebaeki, and Z. japonicus. In W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig &
J.G.M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 180-186). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale-watching 2000: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures,
and Expanding Socioeconomic Benefits. Crowborough, UK: International Fund
for Animal Welfare.
Hoyt, E. (2004). Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises.
London: Earthscan.
Hoyt, E. & Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002). A review of whale-watching and whaling with
applications for the Caribbean. Coastal Management, 30(4), 381-399.
International Whaling Commission (2007a). Report of the Scientific Committee.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9 (Suppl.), 1-73.
International Whaling Commission (2007b). Report of the Sub-Committee on Small
Cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9 (Suppl.), 297-325.
Kasuya, T. (1999). Review of the biology and exploitation of striped dolphins in
Japan. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 1(1), 81-100.
Kishiro, T. & Kasuya, T. (1993). Review of Japanese dolphin drive fisheries and their
status. Report of the International Whaling Commission, 43, 439-452.
Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., & Podesta, M. (2001).
Collisions between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), 35-75.
125
Lautenberg, F., Levin, Sarbanes, C.P., & Lieberman, J. (2005). Expressing the sense
of the Senate to condemn the inhumane and unnecessary slaughter of small
cetaceans, including Dall's porpoise, the bottlenose dolphin, Risso's dolphin, false
killer whales, pilot whales, the striped dolphin, and the spotted dolphin in certain
nations. Resolution presented to the 109th CONGRESS.1st Session. 6 April 2005.
S. RES. 99.
Miyashita, T. (1993). Abundance of dolphin stocks in the western North Pacific taken
by the Japanese Drive Fishery. Report of the International Whaling Commission,
43, 417-437.
Orams, M. (2004). Why dolphins may get ulcers: considering the impacts of cetaceanbased tourism in New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(1), 17-28.
Parsons, E.C.M., Bonnelly de Calventi, I., Whaley, A., Rose, N.A. & Sherwin, S.
(2007). A note on illegal captures of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in
the Dominican Republic. International Journal of Wildlife Law and Policy, 10(3),
in press.
Parsons, E.C.M., Fortuna, C.M., Ritter, F., Rose, N.A., Simmonds, M.P., Weinrich,
M., Williams, R. & Panigada S. (2006). Glossary of whalewatching terms.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8 (Suppl.), 249-251.
Reeves, R.R., DeMaster, D.P., Hill, C.L. & Leatherwood, S. (1994). Survivorship of
odontocete cetaceans at Ocean Park, Hong Kong, 1974-1994. Asian Marine
Biology, 11, 107-124
Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Crespo, E.A. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2003).
Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales. 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for the
World’s Cetaceans. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Rose, N.A. (2007). Development of sustainable cetacean watching in Peru. Paper
presented to the Scientific Committee at the 59th Meeting of the International
Whaling Commission, 7-18 May 2007, Alaska, USA. SC/59/WW5.
Ross, G., Gulland, F., Gales, N., Brownell, R., & Reeves, R. (2003). Report of a factfinding visit to the Solomon Islands, 9-12 September 2003. Report produced by the
IUCN Cetacean and Veterinary Specialist Groups [Available from
http://www.iucn-vsg.org/Solomons%20Report%20VSG-CSG.pdf].
Vail, C., Risch, D. & Williamson, C. (2006). Driven by Demand: Dolphin Drive
Hunts in Japan and the Involvement of the Aquarium Industry. Chippenham, UK:
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
Van Waerebeek, K., Sequeira, M., Williamson, C., Sanino, G.P., Gallego, P. &
Carmo, P. (2006). Live-captures of common bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops
truncatus, and unassessed bycatch in Cuban waters: evidence of sustainability
found wanting. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 5(1), 39-48.
Ward, N. & Moscrop, A. (1999). Marine mammals of the wider Caribbean region: a
review of their conservation status. Report presented to the Fourth Meeting of the
Interim Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) to the Protocol
Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider
Caribbean Region, Havana, Cuba, 3-6 August 1999. UNEP (WATER)/CAR
WG.22/INF.7.
Whaley, A.R., Parsons, E.C.M., Sellares, R., & Bonnelly de Calventi, I. (2006).
Dolphin ecology and behaviour in the southeastern waters of the Dominican
Republic: preliminary observations. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee
at the 58th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 26 May–6 June
2006, St. Kitts & Nevis. SC/58/SM12.
126
Whaley, A.R. Wright, A.J., Bonnelly de Calventi, I., & Parsons, E.C.M. (2007).
Humpback whale sightings in southern waters of the Dominican Republic lead
to proactive conservation measures. Journal of the Marine Biological Association
2: Biodiversity Records, 5751, 4pp.
127
A WILDLIFE TOURISM AUDITING FRAMEWORK …CAN WE
BUILD IT?
(Working Paper)
Kate Rodger, David Newsome & Amanda Smith
Murdoch University,
Environmental Science
South Street, Murdoch, Perth, WA
K.Rodger@murdoch.edu.au
D.Newsome@murdoch.edu.au
A.Smith@murdoch.edu.au
Keywords: human-wildlife interactions, impacts, management
INTRODUCTION
Growth in the wildlife tourism industry has been phenomenal in recent years
(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998; Higginbottom, 2004) with an increasing focus on tourism
centered on free-ranging wildlife. In Australia tourism based in the marine
environment, including observing and interacting with coastal and marine wildlife, is
increasing in popularity. The future potential for increased growth in marine tourism
is dependent upon the abundance and diversity of Australia’s marine wildlife (Birtles
et al., 2001). Moreover, the advancement of wildlife tourism is reliant on its
sustainable base (Newsome et al., 2005). Negative impacts are a potential threat to
sustainability and often difficult to assess. This is because in many cases little is
known about the animals or their environment (Green & Higginbottom, 2001; Rodger
& Calver, 2005; Rodger & Moore, 2004). With the rapid growth in marine tourism
the potential for impacts for both biophysical and social needs to be recognised
(O'Neill et al., 2004).
Successful wildlife tourism has to meet the needs of tourists and host regions while
simultaneously protecting the wildlife, their environment, and social and economic
values. To achieve this there is a need to identify the impacts caused by wildlife
tourists so that threats to sustainability are not overlooked or gradually develop over
time. Problems associated with wildlife tourism include stress caused by close contact
with wildlife, risk of injury to humans, overfeeding, pollution, habitat alteration and
the alteration of natural behaviour (Newsome et al., 2005). Wildlife tourism
operations can be well established and managed, experience an evolving pattern of
visitation, see changes in visitor profile and be in the process of an emerging
attraction (Higginbottom, 2004; Newsome et al., 2005). The quality and effectiveness
of management may also vary according to location, staffing, funding and in relation
to the application of recommendations arising from the results of wildlife tourism
research (Smith & Newsome, 2005; Smith et al., 2005). For example, in the case of
emerging and yet unmanaged, wildlife tourism as discussed by Lewis & Newsome
(2003) and Newsome et al. (2004). These studies identified overfeeding, feeding the
wrong foods, ignorant behaviour of visitors, pollution and risk of injury to humans as
management issues. Analysis of stakeholder perspectives revealed the need for more
128
information, visitor concerns for the health of the rays and visitor safety and support
for formal management presence. Given the results of these studies and the variable
nature of wildlife tourism operations the need arises for a formal auditing and
monitoring framework that can identify problems and the need for management.
The need for a sustainable wildlife tourism auditing framework is borne out by the
fact that marine wildlife tourism is increasing in popularity, occurs in many different
situations and involves many different species. Further justification also centres on the
dearth of key performance indicator development and in most cases virtually no
evaluation takes place at present. Information is needed on the behavioural and
ecological impacts on wildlife as well as and social impacts surrounding the tourism
operations to achieve long-term sustainable wildlife tourism enterprises. In particular
there are concerns with poor product quality and lack of systematic application of
appropriate impact management and monitoring of wildlife tourism enterprises
(Higginbottom, 2004; Newsome et al., 2005). This project will apply knowledge
acquired through our current understanding of wildlife tourism systems and involve
additional research at selected locations to produce a simple, yet reliable methodology
to audit wildlife tourism enterprises. The approach taken will comprise an assessment
of visitor satisfaction and expectations in order to identify the key areas of
product/service improvement, evaluate the effectiveness of impact mitigation
strategies and also evaluate the application of key performance indicators for
monitoring systems.
WHAT DO WE AUDIT?
The major aim of this research is to develop an auditing framework for marine
wildlife tourism resources in Western Australia that can be used by tour operators and
managers. The framework will thus aim to have ecological, operational, and social
components. The ecological component will include 1. site assessment - access and
facilities; site condition; and assessment of habitat quality and 2. wildlife impact
assessment focusing on wildlife responses (specific methods according to species
involved) and analysis of impacts from differing viewing platforms.
The operational component of the framework will aim to assess the processes that
may affect tourism operations including policy, legislation and licensing;
accessibility; infrastructure; seasonality (number of customers/visitors over the year –
eg concentrated into a couple of months or more evenly spread); and reliability of
wildlife. The social component aims to include visitor expectation; product/service
preferences; visitation profile and visitor activities; and analysis of tour operator and
visitor behaviour as a reflection of effective management/interpretive strategies.
To conduct a wildlife audit indicators for each component are needed. These
indicators need to take into account a variety of different factors and will act as a
checklist for managers and operators. Environmental factors that need to be
considered for the framework for their capacity in influencing the nature and degree
of potential impacts on wildlife include: animal behaviour – including questions to
audit their reproduction (how often do they breed?; where do they breed?), interaction
(are they a social animal or are they territorial?), sensitivity (some species may be
more sensitive to disturbance than others) and foraging requirements (does the
129
human-wildlife interaction affect or impact on their foraging requirements?)
(Newsome et al., 2005). The viewing platform used for the wildlife-tourism
interaction need to be identified and modes of access and their implications need to be
considered as well as environmental sensitivity (potential wildlife habitat damage e.g.
coral reefs more susceptible to damage than open water).
To assess the operational and social components of the wildlife tourism experience at
this stage it is thought such indicators will focus on frequency of visits (how many
visits each day); visitor pressures (large groups versus small groups of visitors each
day); group structure (young groups versus older; education/green levels); supervised
versus unsupervised attractions; visitor compliance (do the visitors comply with
operators, rangers, signs etc); nature and level of interpretation delivered; level of
interaction with wildlife including whether feeding/touching of wildlife takes place;
purpose of visit (incidental interaction versus planned) management in place or not;
suitable legislation and policy development (including licensing conditions); and
visitor expectations (marketing material; did the experience match their preconceived
ideas).
BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES
This project will result in a simple, yet reliable methodology to assess marine wildlife
tourism interactions at an indicative ecological, operational and social level. To be
successfully applied the auditing framework is reliant on a certain level of background
knowledge to fully achieve its potential. For the ecological component background
information and knowledge is necessary in areas including basic wildlife biology and
known behavioural responses of marine species. For the social component the basic
characteristics of visitors including demographics and expectations are required. For
many of the major marine human-wildlife interactions this information is available.
The marine wildlife auditing framework presents several opportunities for formalising
important aspects of the marine wildlife tourism industry. It is proposed that the
sustainable wildlife audit framework will act to inform policy and management
resulting in improved protection of wildlife. By the development of an auditing
framework current and new marine wildlife tourism operations can be assessed. The
framework can also assist in the approvals process for marine wildlife interaction
plans and permits by highlighting potential issues that managers and operators need to
be aware of. Furthermore, the framework can contribute to the development of
standards for accreditation and the provision of modular course options for the
certification of wildlife tourism operations and tour guiding. Overall the auditing
framework will contribute to a more sustainable marine wildlife tourism industry.
REFERENCES
Birtles, A., Valentine, P., & Curnock, M. (2001). Tourism Based on Free-Ranging
Marine Wildlife (Research Report No. 11). Gold Coast, Queensland: STCRC.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1998). Introduction. In K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood & D.
Engeldrum (Eds.), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners & Managers (Vol. 2, pp.
7-10). Vermont, USA: The Ecotourism Society.
130
Green, R., & Higginbottom, K. (2001). The Effects of Non-Consumptive Wildlife
Tourism in Free-Ranging Wildlife. Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.
Higginbottom, K. (Ed.). (2004). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and
Planning. Altona, Victoria: Common Ground Publishing.
Lewis, A., & Newsome, D. (2003). Planning for Stingray Tourism at Hamelin Bay,
Western Australia: the Importance of Stakeholder Perspectives. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 331-346.
Newsome, D., Dowling, R., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Wildlife Tourism. Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Newsome, D., Lewis, A., & Moncrieff, D. (2004). Impacts and Risks Associated with
Developing, but Unsupervised, Stingray Tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western
Australia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 305-323.
O'Neill, F., Barnard, S., & Lee, D. (2004). Best Practice and Interpretation in
Tourist/Wildlife Encounters: A Wild Dolphin Swim Tour Example. Gold Coast,
Queensland: STCRC.
Rodger, K., & Calver, M. (2005). Natural Science and Wildlife Tourism. In D.
Newsome, S. A. Moore & R. Dowling (Eds.), Wildlife Tourism. Clevedon, UK:
Channel View Publications.
Rodger, K., & Moore, S. A. (2004). Bringing Science to Wildlife Tourism: The
Influence of Managers' and Scientists' Perceptions. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(1),
1-19.
Smith, A., & Newsome, D. (2005). Research into the Factors Leading to the
Management of Impact Creep. Gold Coast, Queensland: STCRC.
Smith, A., Newsome, D., Lee, D., & Stoeckl, N. (2005). The Role of Wildlife Icons as
Major Tourist Attractions: Case Studies - Monkey Mia Dolphins and Hervey
Bay Whale Watching Gold Coast, Queensland: STCRC.
131
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FOR A RECOVERING HUMPBACK
WHALE POPULATION IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE
PARK
(Full Paper)
Sarah Salmon and Kirstin Dobbs
Species Conservation Unit
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
PO Box 1379, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia
s.salmon@gbrmpa.gov.au, k.dobbs@gbrmpa.gov.au
ABSTRACT
Within Australia a moratorium on commercial whaling came into effect in 1978. As a
result of this protection the Group E humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
population, which migrates along the east coast of Australia, is now increasing by
about 10 percent annually. Management strategies implemented in the 1990s to
protect humpback whales must now take into consideration a population of
approximately 9000 individuals. The need for adaptive management is highlighted in
the management of vessel-based tourism around whales in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park.
In 2006 there were approximately 840 permitted tourism operators with 85%
operating in the Cairns and Whitsundays Areas. Humpback whale watching is one
activity that can be undertaken, however it is usually incidental to other tourism
activities due to the unreliable sightings of humpback whales during their winter
migration. In response to the increasing humpback whale population and the lack of
dedicated whale watching effort, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
recently reviewed its whale watching policy to streamline management arrangements
while ensuring conservation outcomes for humpback whales. The key changes
included:
- implementation of reef-wide regulations relating to vessel, aircraft and swimmer
interactions with whales and dolphins
- removal of limits on the number of whale watching permissions
- future development of a dedicated whale watching activity that requires tourism
operators to be appropriately certified as high standard
- future identification of Species Conservation (Whale Protection) Special
Management Areas where whale watching cannot occur and an increased vessel
approach distance exists for all vessels.
Keywords: Great Barrier Reef, whale watching, humpback whale, tourism,
management
132
INTRODUCTION
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Marine Park) covers an area of approximately
344,400 km2 (Figure 1) and includes one of the most complex and biologically
diverse ecosystems in the world. The Marine Park spans 14 degrees of latitude from
the tip of Cape York Peninsula to just north of Bundaberg along the east coast of
Australia. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981
for its outstanding universal natural values with humpback whales specifically
mentioned in the nomination document (GBRMPA, 1981).
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) was established under the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to manage the Marine Park and provide for
its long-term protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment through its care and
development. One of the objectives of the GBRMPA is to protect the natural qualities
of the Marine Park while still providing for reasonable use of the area, with minimal
regulation of and interference in human activities.
The protection of marine mammals in the Marine Park is achieved through
appropriate management of human activities that may impact upon them. The Species
Conservation Unit together with the Tourism and Recreation Group at the GBRMPA
aims for ecologically sustainable tourism use of the Marine Park, which includes
whale watching related tourism.
The GBRMPA is also mindful of the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples and whales in the Marine Park, which has not been well
documented. However it is known that the whale, known as ‘Mugga Mugga’, is the
spiritual totem of the Woppaburra Traditional Owners in the Keppel Island region of
the Marine Park, near Rockhampton. Given this importance it is essential that
Indigenous rights and interests be considered in the management of human activities
that may impact upon whales in the Marine Park.
The Policy on Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park was originally approved by the Marine Park Authority Board in February 2000
with an addendum concerning management of swimming-with-whales activities
approved in March 2000. In response to the increasing humpback whale population
and the lack of dedicated whale watching effort, the GBRMPA reviewed this policy
document in 2006 to streamline management arrangements while ensuring
conservation outcomes for humpback whales. The resultant Operational Policy on
Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was
approved in April 2007.
133
Figure 1. Map of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
134
HUMPBACK WHALE
Many of the approximately thirty species of whales and dolphins that occur in the Marine
Park are thought to spend at least part of each year outside of the Marine Park boundary.
The most commonly sighted whale, the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is
found in the Marine Park between May and September each year. Humpback whales
migrate annually from their summer feeding grounds in the Southern Ocean to the
warmer waters of the Marine Park in winter to breed (Paterson & Paterson, 1989).
The Australian east coast population of humpback whales is now recovering following
severe depletion by industrial shore-based commercial whaling and illegal pelagic
whaling in the Southern Ocean during the 1960s (Yablokov, 1994; Mikhalev, 2000).
Bannister and Headley (2001) estimated the pre-whaling Group E population to be
approximately 26,000 whales. The 2004 absolute abundance estimate for the Australian
east coast humpback whale population is 7,090 + 660 (95% CI) whales with an annual
rate of population increase of 10.6% + 0.5% (95% CI) (Noad et al., 2006). This rate of
increase is believed to be near the theoretical reproductive limit for humpback whales
(Bannister & Hedley, 2001).
The GBRMPA currently considers humpback whales a high priority species for
management, as this species is a focus for incidental and dedicated whale watching
activities in the Marine Park. Of particular concern in the Marine Park are possible
adverse effects on pregnant females and cows with young calves. Reproduction is known
to impose high energetic costs on pregnant and lactating female whales and they may
therefore be more vulnerable to disturbance and other adverse impacts (GBRMPA,
2007).
To date, the Marine Park is not known to support predictable congregations of humpback
whales, such as are found in Hervey Bay in south-east Queensland. However, as the
humpback whale population increases it is expected that animals will again use
historically important areas within the Marine Park.
An increasing Australian east coast humpback whale population combined with the
growing human coastal population and their use of the Marine Park means there is an
increasing likelihood of interactions between humpback whales and people in the Marine
Park. As such, it was considered appropriate to review the management arrangements for
whale watching activities in the Marine Park.
TOURISM
Tourism is one of the principal activities conducted in the Marine Park and it is valued at
$4.2 billion annually (GBRMPA, 2004). In 2006 approximately 840 tourism operators
comprising 1500 tourism vessels were permitted to operate in the Marine Park. The
majority of tourism occurs in less than 10% of the Marine Park and is focussed in the
Cairns and Whitsundays Areas (Figure 1) (GBRMPA, 2003).
135
Tourism operators undertake a variety of activities in the Marine Park including scenic
cruises, island and reef trips, snorkelling and diving activities, glass bottom boat tours,
passenger transfers and marine thrill rides. Trips vary in length from a few hours to a
number of weeks and can be dedicated to specific sites within or roving over large
portions of the Marine Park. Wildlife viewing, such as whale watching activities, is a
growing feature of tourism in the area (Stokes et al., 2001) as it is throughout the world
(IFAW, 2004).
In 2006 33 tourism operators were permitted to conduct whale watching activities in the
Marine Park. These permits were further restricted by area with nine permitted to whale
watch in the Cairns Area and 34 permitted to whale watch in the Whitsundays Area.
There were no limits on the number of tourist programs able to conduct whale watching
activities in the Far Northern or Townsville/Whitsundays Management Areas (excluding
the Whitsundays Area) of the Marine Park. Whale watching was not permitted in the
Mackay/Capricorn Management Area of the Marine Park as a precautionary measure and
consistent with the Management program for the conservation of whales and dolphins in
Queensland 1997-2001. This Queensland Government policy was in place to give
humpback whales a break from intensive whale watching that occurs in Hervey Bay. The
term ‘whale watching activity’ is defined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Regulations 1983 as ‘an activity conducted for the purpose of enabling tourists to observe
cetaceans, including using a vessel or aircraft to find cetaceans for that purpose’.
Over the last decade, whale watching in the Marine Park has typically been an incidental
activity, with very few tourism operators ever undertaking the activity in a dedicated
manner. In fact, not one tourism operator in the Marine Park operates their business
solely for the purpose of conducting whale watching tours. In the Whitsundays Area one
tourism operator conducts a few dedicated whale watching tours each week during the
peak of the whale season (July and August) but also continues to operate their primary
trips visiting islands and the reef.
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
There are over 20 Australian and State Government agencies involved in the management
of activities that occur in the Great Barrier Reef (Lucas et al., 1997). Management of the
Marine Park occurs through a system of integrated management administered by the
GBRMPA. The primary tools used to reduce potential impacts on humpback whales are
regulations and education. In addition, permits, Plans of Management and operational
policy have been developed to ensure that human interaction with whales and dolphins
occurs in an ecologically sustainable manner (Stokes et al., 2001). Management of whale
watching activities in the Marine Park primarily focuses on the behaviour of all vessels
(commercial and recreational), aircraft and swimmers when a whale is incidentally
encountered. Each tool is briefly described below in the context of management of whale
watching activities.
136
Zoning Plan
The primary tool for protecting and preserving the Marine Park is zoning (Stokes et al.,
2001). The objective of zoning plans is to protect and conserve identified values (natural,
cultural, heritage and scientific) of an area, while allowing for reasonable use of that area
(Stokes et al., 2001). Zoning protects the variety of habitats within the Marine Park by
designating representative samples of habitat into different zones. Each zone type allows
different activities to occur within them (Figure 2). These range from the least restrictive
‘General Use’ zone where extractive activities such as trawling can occur, through to a
‘Preservation’ zone where all entry is prohibited without the written permission from the
GBRMPA. Whale watching activities can be conducted in all zones except ‘Preservation’
zones. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 also requires all tourism
operators to be permitted and each tourist program permit states the activities that can be
conducted by the permittee and the locations where the activities can occur.
Figure 2. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Activity Matrix
137
Plans of Management
Plans of Management are generally prepared for intensively used, or particularly
vulnerable groups of islands and reefs, and for the conservation of protected species or
ecological communities. Plans of Management complement zoning by addressing issues
specific to an area, species or community in greater detail than can be accomplished by
the broader reef-wide zoning plans. The Cairns Area and Whitsundays Plans of
Management complement the zoning plan by addressing issues of high tourism use
specific to these areas in the Marine Park. Prior to April 2007, a limit existed on the
number of tourist program permissions endorsed to conduct whale watching activities in
the Cairns and Whitsundays Areas (9 and 34 respectively).
The Whitsundays Plan of Management also contains additional provisions for protecting
whales within the legislatively declared Whale Protection Area. The Whale Protection
Area prohibits whale watching activities and the approach distance of all vessels to
whales is increased from 100 metres to 300 metres. The Whale Protection Area was
designated to protect adult and calf humpback whales that use the sheltered waters
around the Whitsundays islands (GBRMPA 1998).
Protected Species Regulations
All whales and dolphins are protected species under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Regulations 1983 and the written permission from the GBRMPA is required to ‘take’
such a species. Take includes removing, gathering, catching, capturing, killing,
destroying, dredging for, raising, carrying away, bringing ashore, interfering with and
obtaining. A policy on Managing Activities That Includes the Direct Take of a Protected
Species from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was implemented in 2005. All permit
assessment and environmental impact management processes also consider impacts on
the conservation of the natural values of an area, including whales and dolphins.
National Guidelines
The Australian National Guidelines on Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005 (the National
Guidelines) contain detailed and comprehensive recommendations for vessel, aircraft and
swimmer approach distances to whales and dolphins, operating procedures for vessels
when close to whales and dolphins and many other aspects of whale and dolphin
watching (DEH, 2005). The National Guidelines are intended to apply to both
commercial and recreational whale watching activities, and to minimise harmful impacts
on whale and dolphin populations while ensuring opportunities for watching and
interacting with while whales and dolphins can be sustained (DEH, 2005). The National
Guidelines provide a framework that allows people to interact with whales and dolphins
in a way that minimises harm to the animals.
Permits
Whale watching that occurs incidentally in the Marine Park no longer requires (as of
April 2007) the listing of the activity on the permission from the GBRMPA if conducted
in accordance with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 relating to
interactions with cetaceans. Previously this was not the case and any tourism operator
wanting to deviate their vessel to observe a whale did require the listing of the activity on
138
the permission from the GBRMPA. The streamlining of this requirement ensures that all
vessel users of the Marine Park must behave in the same appropriate manner around
whales, and that is in accordance with the regulations relating to interactions with
cetaceans.
Responsible Reef Practices
As part of the GBRMPA’s Onboard - The Tourism Operator’s Handbook for the Great
Barrier Reef responsible reef practices for whale watching have been developed.
Responsible reef practices synthesise voluntary guidelines and legal requirements
detailing environmentally responsible behaviour. The adoption of responsible reef
practices by tourism operators means that there is less need for regulation of activities.
Responsible reef practices are conveyed to the tourism industry via an Onboard website
(www.gbrmpa.gov.au), annual Get Onboard industry workshops and the provision of a
CD and hard copy of the Onboard - The Tourism Operator’s Handbook for the Great
Barrier Reef to all tourism operators.
Adaptive management
Effective and sustainable management of wildlife based tourism activities requires a
flexible review process of management strategies that is able to incorporate the views of
stakeholders, new biological information about the species of interest and the known or
potential impacts upon them from human-related activities (Johnson, 1999; Riley et al.,
2003). Adaptive management uses management strategies as experiments to investigate
the responses of a natural system as people’s behaviour within it changes (Lee, 1999).
This information is then used by natural resource managers to refine management
strategies. Key components of adaptive management include stakeholder engagement,
education, transparency of information, dissemination of potentially negative impacts
identified through monitoring, development and evaluation of sustainability indicators
and the ability to reverse management decisions (Johnson, 1999).
The Operational Policy on Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park (operational policy) was approved in April 2007 following a review of the
2000 policy document. The purpose of the operational policy is to provide a framework
for the conservation of whales and dolphins by partnering with reef users and managing
their activities within the Marine Park (GBRMPA, 2007). The operational policy
implements the GBRMPA’s obligations under the National Guidelines and the
Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010.
The issues covered by the operational policy include: priority species, populations and
individual animals; information priorities; educational programs and codes of practice;
management of vessels and aircraft; tourism and management of other human activities
(e.g. Defence activities, bather safety) (GBRMPA, 2007). The consideration of these
issues, combined with the other management tools already implemented in the Marine
Park (e.g. Plans of Management, reef-wide regulations, permits, responsible reef
practices) aim to minimise impacts on individual whales. The International Whale
Commission (IWC) recommends that preventing disruption of critical life history
139
processes at the individual level is one way to prevent population level impacts on
humpback whales (IWC, 2004).
Stakeholder engagement was an important component of the development of the
operational policy. In the initial stages of the review process meetings and
teleconferences were held with relevant Queensland Environmental Protection
Agency/Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff and Marine Parks staff that are
involved with the day-to-day management of the Marine Park. Feedback was also sought
at this stage from the relevant Local Marine Advisory Committees that consist of
representative community members and Reef Advisory Committees that consist of
representative experts. The draft operational policy was available for formal public
comment for a period of eight weeks.
A number of changes to the management of whale watching activities were introduced as
a result of the review. The main reason for these changes is the steady increase of the
Australian east coast humpback whale population combined with the growing human
coastal population and their use of the Marine Park, leading to an increased likelihood of
interactions between humpback whales and vessels. For successful management of whale
watching activities managers should aim for no unacceptable adverse change in
population dynamics such as reproduction or mortality or impede natural patterns of
habitat use or activity, including feeding, resting and reproduction (IWC, 2004).
Regulations versus Permit Limits
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 were amended in 2006 to
implement the National Guidelines (DEH, 2005) and are considered best practice
standard for all interactions with whales and dolphins. As whale watching activities in the
Marine Park are currently incidental, it was considered appropriate to remove the limits
on the number of permissions for whale watching activities in the Cairns and
Whitsundays Areas and instead manage interactions between whales and vessels, aircraft
and swimmers through regulations. This ensures consistent management of recreational
and tourism industry stakeholders.
If issues arise between the tourism industry and whales in the Marine Park, the GBRMPA
can introduce further limits (e.g. more strict vessel approach distances) through
regulatory amendment, permit conditions or identification of Special Management Areas.
Special Management Areas
Some of the possible impacts on humpback whales from vessels include disruption of
important behaviour, displacement from or avoidance of important habitat, stress, injury,
reduced breeding success and mortality (Orams, 2004; Scheidat et al., 2004). Effective
conservation of humpback whales requires protection of important areas, as is the case
with most species (Corkeron, 2004; Parsons et al., 2006). For humpback whales,
important areas could include feeding, mating or calving areas and migratory pathways.
Animals may be particularly sensitive to human activities occurring in important areas as
these may serve important needs not readily met in other areas. Research to identify the
important areas to humpback whales in the Marine Park is currently lacking.
140
The whole of the Marine Park is though to be an important area for the breeding and
calving of humpback whales (DEW, 2005), but other than the Whitsundays Whale
Protection Area core habitat within the Marine Park has not yet been identified. Within
both the northern and southern humpback whale migratory pathways along the east coast
of Australia there are many whale watching opportunities, including in New South
Whales (e.g. Cape Byron) and Queensland (e.g. Hervey Bay, Moreton Bay, the
Whitsundays and Cairns). It is possible that an individual humpback whale could be
subject to whale watching on a number of occasions during its journey. This would be of
particular concern considering that humpback whales travelling to and from the Marine
Park will include pregnant females and mothers with young calves. Possible continuous
exposure to whale watching of individual humpback whales in the Marine Park will not
be permitted to develop, and as a precautionary approach whales will be provided with
some refuges from the impacts generated by whale watching.
Important habitats for humpback whales are likely to be managed through regulations as
Species Conservation (Whale Protection) Special Management Areas. It is anticipated
that as the humpback whale population increases, areas of the Marine Park historically
used by these animals for breeding, calving and resting will be identified. Within these
Special Management Areas it is likely that no whale watching activities will be allowed
to occur and the vessel approach distance will be further restricted to 300 metres (rather
than 100 metres). Other provisions, such as permanent or seasonal restrictions on some
human activities may also be implemented after public consultation to ensure the
conservation and orderly and proper management of humpback whales in the Marine
Park.
Dedicated Whale Watching Activity
To be implemented in the future, dedicated whale watching activities are intended to be
reserved for appropriately certified high standard operators. Certification will ensure that
tourism operators conducting dedicated whale watching activities are of a high standard,
are providing quality interpretation to passengers and operating in accordance with best
practice standards when offering such an exceptional experience. Dedicated whale
watching activities may include, amongst other things, the advertising of whale watching
and the use of a spotter aircraft to locate whales for the purpose of watching the animals.
The GBRMPA will implement dedicated whale watching once demand for such a
program exists in the Marine Park. Presently, whale watching is an incidental activity for
most tourism operators in the Marine Park.
A grace period of two years from the time the operational policy was approved will allow
tourism operators with the whale watching activity on their permits to become
appropriately certified and recognised as high standard by the GBRMPA. The details of
the dedicated whale watching activity will be developed by the Tourism and Recreation
Group in consultation with the Species Conservation Unit, the Department of the
Environment and Water Resources, the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency,
researchers and the marine tourism industry.
141
As whale watching has not previously been permitted to occur in the Mackay/Capricorn
Management Area of the Marine Park dedicated whale watching will only be
implemented in this area once potential Species Conservation (Whale Protection) Special
Management Areas have been identified.
Monitoring Program
A cost effective monitoring program will be developed to ensure that any increase in
whale watching activities is ecologically sustainable. Monitoring may include analysis of
information from whale sighting sheets submitted by tourism operators conducting whale
watching activities, knowledge of the spatial and temporal distribution of humpback
whales and identification of important areas (e.g. resting, mating, calving) in the Marine
Park.
Education
An annual Whale Watching Education Strategy informs Reef users of their obligations
should they encounter a whale when out in the Marine Park. Tools used to promote the
regulations and other responsible reef practices include posters displayed in Community
Access Points, flyers distributed with zoning maps, stickers distributed at boat and fishing
shows, media releases and interviews, presentations to the tourism industry and emails to
tourism operators who are subscribed to a whale-e-news listserver.
CONCLUSION
Stokes et al. (2001) state that tourism in the Marine Park is managed along four
pathways:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Strategic planning to establish a clear direction for managing marine tourism
Direct management to establish well defined enforceable and effective
management controls to protect the values of the Marine Park
Self regulation by the industry to encourage, assist and promote
environmentally responsible and professional presentation of the Great Barrier
Reef within the tourism industry
Active partnerships to encourage the industry and other stakeholders to be
active partners in Marine Park management.
The implementation of the Policy on Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA, 2000) and the recently reviewed operational policy
(GBRMPA, 2007) draw upon best available scientific information, and where this is
lacking suitable application of the precautionary principle. Important stakeholder input
from relevant government agencies, the tourism industry, researchers and the general
public through 11 Local Marine Advisory Committees along the coast of the Marine Park
was also sought. This sound basis provides a framework for the conservation of whales
and dolphins in the Marine Park.
142
Implementing appropriate management actions for a recovering protected species
population is not a scenario commonly encountered by marine protected area managers
around the world. As such, in an effort to adapt management arrangements in a timely
manner a priority for the Species Conservation Unit is the identification of areas in the
Marine Park, through monitoring, research and public consultation that are considered
important habitat for humpback whales or require special management of human related
impacts on humpback whales. In the future, the Tourism and Recreation Group will
design and implement the dedicated whale watching activity. This approach allows
adaptive management for the recovering Australian east coast humpback whale
population.
The GBRMPA will develop performance indicators, where possible and when required,
to assess the effectiveness of conservation and management actions relating to whales
and dolphins in the Marine Park. Support will also be given, where possible, to the
gathering of high priority research information about humpback whales, including
improving understanding of the species, identifying important habitat and assessing
threats to humpback whales and ways to mitigate those threats.
If required, the GBRMPA will develop, review and amend regulations relating to
interactions with whales and dolphins in the Marine Park to ensure they are simple and
enforceable. Amendments could include limits on the duration of whale watching
encounters, activity free hours of the day and limits on the number of dedicated whale
watching permittees. In an effort to reduce the risk of boat strike and to minimise noise
speed controls could also be implemented at greater distances from humpback whales
such as occurs in Hervey Bay, Queensland (EPA, 2004).
REFERENCES
Bannister, J.L. & Hedley, S.L. (2001). Southern Hemisphere Group IV humpback
whales: their status from recent aerial surveys. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum,
47(2), 587-598.
Corkeron, P.J. (2004). Whale watching, iconography, and marine conservation.
Conservation Biology, 18(3), 847-849.
DEH, Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005). Australian National
Guidelines on Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005, The Australian Government
Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra ACT.
DEW, Department of the Environment and Water Resources (2005). Humpback Whale
Recovery Plan 2005-2010, The Australian Government Department of the
Environment and Water Resources, Canberra ACT.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Marine Parks (Great Sandy) Zoning
Plan 2006, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, Queensland.
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1981). Nomination of the Great
Barrier Reef by the Commonwealth of Australia for inclusion in the World Heritage
List, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
143
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1998). Whitsundays Plan of
Management, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2000). Policy Document on the
Conservation of Whales and Dolphins in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2000,
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2003). Management Status:
Tourism & Recreation. In State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2004). Management Status:
Tourism & Recreation, State of the Great Barrier Reef Report,
(http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/sotr/latest_updates/t
ourec).
GBRMPA, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2007). Operational Policy on
Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
IFAW, The International Fund for Animal Welfare (2004). From Whalers to Whale
Watchers - the growth of whale watching tourism in Australia, A report for IFAW.
IWC, International Whaling Commission (2004). Report of the Workshop on the Science
for Sustainable Whalewatching, International Whaling Commission, Cape Town,
South Africa.
Johnson, B. L. (1999). The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for
resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology, 3(2), 8.
Lee, K. N. (1999). Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology, 3(2), 3.
Lucas, P.H.C., Webb, T., Valentine, P.S. & Marsh, H. (1997). The Outstanding Universal
Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland.
Mikhalev, Y.A. (2000). Biological characteristics of humpbacks taken in Antarctic Area
V by the whaling fleets Slava and Sovietskaya Ukraina. Paper SC/52/IA12 presented
to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2003 (unpublished). 18 pages.
Noad, M.J., Paton, D. & Cato, D.H. (2006). Absolute and relative abundance estimates of
Australian east coast humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Paper
SC/A06/HW27 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2007 (unpublished).
15 pages.
Orams, M. (2004). Why dolphins may get ulcers: Considering the impacts of cetaceanbased tourism in New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(1), 17-28.
Parsons, E.C.M., Lewandowski, J. & Lück, M. (2006). Recent advances in whalewatching research:2004-2005. Tourism in Marine Environments, 2(2), 119-132.
Paterson, R. & Paterson, P. (1989). The status of the recovering stock of humpback
whales Megaptera novaeangliae in east Australian waters. Biological Conservation,
47, 33-48.
Riley, S.J., Siemer, W.F., Decker, D.J., Carpenter, L.H., Organ, J.F., & Berchielli, L.T.
(2003). Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative Approach to Wildlife
Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 81-95.
Scheidat, M., Castro, C., González, J. & Williams, R. (2004). Behavioural responses of
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whalewatching boats near Isla de la
144
Plata, Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 6(1), 63-68.
Stokes, T., Dobbs, K. & Recchia, C. (2001). Management of marine mammal tours on the
Great Barrier Reef. Australian Mammalogy, 24, 39-49.
Yablokov, A.V. (1994). Validity of whaling data. Nature, 367, 108.
145
MEETING FLIPPER IN THE WILD:
MANAGING SWIM WITH DOLPHIN TOURISM IN AUSTRALIA
(Full Paper)
Heather Zeppel
Centre for Tropical Tourism and Hospitality, James Cook University Cairns
PO Box 6811, Cairns, Qld, 4870, Australia
Email: Heather.Zeppel@jcu.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Between 1998 and 2003 cetacean tourism in Australia expanded at a rate of 15 percent
per annum (IFAW, 2004). Bottlenose dolphins are the primary target species for
commercial dolphin tourism in Australia. This includes dolphin-watching boat trips,
swim with wild dolphin tours and habituated wild dolphin-feeding programs. Specific
groups of resident bottlenose dolphins in areas such as Shark Bay, Bunbury and
Rockingham Bay (WA), Port Philip Bay (Vic), Port Stephens, Jervis Bay and Forster
(NSW), Moreton Bay (Qld), Baird Bay and Adelaide (SA) have frequent encounters with
boats or swimmers. The Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching
2005 specify legal standards and best practice guidelines for cetacean interaction.
However there are still variations between different government jurisdictions and also the
practices of dolphin tour operators. This paper focuses on commercial swim with wild
dolphin tours in Australia. These tours have varied modes of in-water encounters with
wild dolphins, from free swimming, mermaid lines, boom nets, and the use of motorised
water scooters. The impacts on wild dolphins of these different types of swim tours, has
not been examined. Commercial practices that are contrary to national or state guidelines
for dolphins include operators breaching approach distances and times, the direction of
approach and swim time. This paper examines the guidelines and practices of swim with
dolphin tours, and makes some key recommendations for management of wild dolphin
tourism.
Keywords: Swim-with-dolphins, Australia, national guidelines, tourism impacts
INTRODUCTION
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) are the primary target species for commercial dolphin
tourism in Australia. This includes dolphin-watching boat tours, swim-with-dolphins
tours and habituated wild dolphin-feeding programs at Monkey Mia and Bunbury (WA)
and at Tangalooma Resort (Qld). Specific groups of resident bottlenose dolphins in areas
such as Monkey Mia, Shark Bay, Bunbury and Rockingham Bay (WA), Port Philip Bay
146
(Vic), Port Stephens, Jervis Bay and Forster (NSW), Moreton Bay (Qld) and Adelaide
(SA) have frequent tourism encounters. This paper focuses on commercial swim with
wild dolphin tours in Australia. These tours have varied modes of in-water encounters
with wild dolphins, from free swimming, mermaid lines, boom nets, linked human chains
and the use of motorised water scooters. The impacts on wild dolphins of these different
types of swim tours, has not been examined. This paper reviews the guidelines and
practices of swim-with-dolphin tour operators in Australia and makes some key
recommendations for sustainable management of wild dolphin tourism. Information is
derived from academic studies about the impacts of boats and/or swimmers on dolphins
in Port Philip Bay and Port Stephens, media articles about dolphin tourism and the
websites of dolphin tour operators, where there is no research on dolphins and other
information is not available. Comparison is made with dolphin watching activities and
the impacts of swim-with-dolphin tours in New Zealand.
DOLPHIN SPECIES IN AUSTRALIA
There are 45 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises (i.e. cetaceans) found in
Australian waters and all are protected species under Federal and state legislation. There
are 14 dolphin species with the most frequently encountered species in coastal waters
around Australia including the Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops spp.), Common dolphin
(Delphinus spp.), Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin
(Sousa chinensis), and the Australian snub-fin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) recently
identified as a separate species from the Irrawaddy dolphin of Southeast Asia. Visitors at
Tin Can Bay (Qld) feed two habituated Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, although
government approval has not been granted to this site (Garbett & Garbett, 1997; Green,
2005; Mayes, 1999; Stone, 2006). These dolphin species are part of the Delphinidae
family group of oceanic dolphins that includes 26 dolphins and 6 toothed whales
(Dolphin Planet, nd). In addition, there are two recognised species of Bottlenose
dolphins, the resident or inshore Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) and the coastal or
offshore Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Commercial operators of dolphin
watch boat tours and swim with wild dolphin tours in Australia mainly interact with
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp., both forms) and groups of Common dolphins
(Delphinus spp.) further offshore. In New Zealand, commercial wild dolphin tours focus
on Bottlenose dolphins in the Bay of Islands, Marlborough Sounds and Fiordland; Dusky
dolphins at Kaikoura; Common dolphins; and endemic Hector’s dolphins at Porpoise Bay
and Akaroa (Orams, 2004).
DOLPHIN TOURISM IN AUSTRALIA
Between 1998 and 2003 cetacean tourism in Australia expanded at a rate of 15 percent
per annum (IFAW, 2004). Most of this growth in whale watch and dolphin watch tours
has occurred along the east coast and west coast of Australia (Orams, 1997). Dolphin
watch and dolphin swim tours focus on specific groups of bottlenose dolphins in areas
such as Shark Bay, Bunbury and Rockingham Bay (WA), Port Philip Bay (Vic), Port
147
Stephens, Jervis Bay and Forster (NSW), Moreton Bay (Qld), Adelaide and Baird Bay
(SA). Port Stephens, three hours north of Sydney, is marketed as the ‘Dolphin Watch
Capital of Australia.’ It claims to be the busiest dolphin-watching port in the southern
hemisphere, with 10 to 15 cruise boats and 250,000 tourists annually generating $20
million from dolphin-related tourism (Clarke, 2005). This area became part of the Port
Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park in March 2007, with a new management plan and
sanctuary zones designated within Port Stephens Bay. At Port Philip Bay, near
Melbourne, dolphin swims began in 1986 to raise funds for dolphin research and 15,000
tourists a year now go on dolphin tours (Ingleton, 2001; Jarvis, 2000; Weir, 2000). Three
boat tours operate from Sorrento: Polperro Dolphin Swims (2005), Moonraker Dolphin
Swims, and Nepean Cruises, and one from Queenscliff: Sea All Dolphin Swims. Permits
were required since 1997 with five dolphin swim licenses and three for dolphin watching
(Scarpaci, Dayanthi & Corkeron, 2003). In 2002, the wildlife act was amended to declare
a specific area of Port Philip Bay as a ‘whale swim tour area’, with a maximum of four
dolphin-watching/swimming permits, held for two years (Doolan, 2002; DSE, 2005a,b).
The feeding of wild dolphins is banned in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales,
and New Zealand. In Western Australia, supervised dolphin feeding sessions take place
from the beach at Monkey Mia and at Bunbury. Swimming, boating and pets are banned
at the Monkey Mia dolphin interaction area (Smith & Charles, 2006). The Dolphin
Discovery Centre at Bunbury attracts about 60,000 visitors a year. The Centre has
interpretive displays; supervised dolphin feeding and visitors can float with dolphins in
the beach interaction zone (DDC, 2005; Kerr, 1998; O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a,b).
Dolphin swim tours also operate at Bunbury, Rockingham Bay and in Mandurah (19992004), all south of Perth. In Queensland, regular dolphin feeding sessions have been held
since 1992 at Tin Can Bay, three hours north of Brisbane, and at Tangalooma Resort on
Moreton Island. From 1992-2000, visitors swam with the Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins at uncontrolled feeding sessions (Garbett & Garbett, 1997). At Tangalooma
Wild Dolphin Resort (2006), visitors cannot touch or swim with the dolphins at the
nightly feeding session supervised by rangers (Orams, 1994, 1995; Orams & Hill, 1998).
Feeding or swimming with wild dolphins is not allowed in the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park and Moreton Bay Marine Park (DE, 1997) but a dolphin was fed from a Reef fishing
boat in a TV news story. Boat tours of Moreton Bay focus on seeing dolphins, dugongs,
whales, turtles and seabirds, along with snorkelling on Flinders Reef and at boat wrecks.
There are no licensed dolphin watch boat tours on the Great Barrier Reef, with dolphins
seen incidentally on reef trips (GBRMPA, 2000; Stokes, Dobbs & Recchia, 2002).
In South Australia, dolphin swim boat tours began in January 2002 out of Adelaide.
Another dolphin swim tour operator is located at Baird Bay on the western side of the
Eyre Peninsula. Resident bottlenose dolphins also live in the Port River in Adelaide. This
small group of urban dolphins has been affected by deaths from various illnesses, injuries
from boat propellers and deliberate shooting. In 2005, the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary
was declared on the Barker inlet of the Port River to protect these dolphins. In southern
Tasmania, Bruny Island Charters view dolphins, fur seals, penguins and other seabirds. In
New Zealand, dolphin watching and swimming tours developed at several locations since
the late 1980s. By June 2001, there were 75 permits issued for commercial dolphin tours,
148
with 14% of international visitors to New Zealand joining dolphin swimming or watching
tours (Orams, 2004). Key locations for swim with dolphin tours include the Bay of
Islands (Bottlenose dolphins), Bay of Plenty and Coromandel Peninsula (Common
dolphins) in the North Island, and Kaikoura (Dusky dolphins) and Akaroa Harbour
(Hector’s dolphins) in the South Island (Constantine & Yin, 2003; Luck, 2003; Cloke &
Perkins, 2005).
NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR DOLPHIN SWIM TOURS
Australian national guidelines for cetacean observation were developed in 2000 with
these guidelines for whale and dolphin watching revised in 2005. Only authorised tour
operators are allowed to swim or dive with wild dolphins. The guidelines for swimming
with dolphins set approach distances for boats (50m) and swimmers (30m), stipulate
movements and boat speeds around dolphins, ban swimming with calves and also while
dolphins are resting or feeding (see Table 1). The Australian National Guidelines for
Cetacean Observation 2000 stated do not swim with a foetal fold calf and prohibited the
use of SCUBA or HOOKAH equipment. The Australian National Guidelines for Whale
and Dolphin Watching 2005 (DEH, 2005) do not allow swimming with a dolphin calf
less than half the length of the mother but includes divers with SCUBA or hookah diving
gear along with swimmers and snorkellers. All personal motorised watercraft (e.g. jet skis
and underwater scooters) were also prohibited from use. Other areas have amended their
regulations for cetacean interaction to follow the provisions set in the Australian national
guidelines (2000 and 2005), most recently in 2006 for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(GBRMPA, 2006, 2007a,b; Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 2006) and in
New South Wales (NP&WS, 2006). States have also developed their own specific
legislation and guidelines for cetacean encounters. No wild dolphin swim tours are
allowed in Queensland. In New South Wales, Bottlenose dolphins and Common dolphins
were excluded from 2002 fauna protection laws but included in 2006 marine mammal
regulations. Guidelines for dolphin operators in Port Stephens and Jervis Bay specify a
30m-approach distance. In Victoria, the Wildlife (Whales) (Amendment) Regulations
2004 specify approach distances of 30m for swimmers and surfboarders, 50m for boats
and 100m for motorised swimming aids (e.g. underwater scooters). Dolphin swim tours
in Port Philip can have a maximum of 10 swimmers and 20 minutes with one pod and up
to four approaches. Boats must also stay 100m away from foetal-fold calves. In New
Zealand, wild dolphin tourism is regulated by the Marine Mammals Protection
Regulations 1992, with dolphin permits issued by the Department of Conservation.
149
Table 1: Australian national guidelines for swim-with-dolphin tours
______________________________________________________________________________________
Swimming and Diving#
Tier 1: National Standards
Swimming, snorkelling or diving with dolphins is prohibited, except for an authorised swim program or
for scientific or educational purposes.
*Swimmers, snorkellers and divers should not enter the water closer than 50m to a dolphin, and should
not approach closer than 30m to any animal.
*If approached by a dolphin move slowly to avoid startling the animal and do not attempt to touch it or
swim towards it.
Swimming and Diving#
Tier 2: Additional Management Considerations
*Vessels should not actively tow swimmers, nor place swimmers directly in the path of dolphin(s),
nor with dolphin calves or pods containing calves (a calf less than half the length of the mother)
*In the water do not disturb, chase or block the path of a dolphin.
*Attempts at swimming with dolphins should stop if the animals show signs of disturbance.
*Specific issues in developing or reviewing dolphin swimming operations:
Limits on the numbers of vessels and/or swimmers; Maximum watching time with a pod per day;
Establish no approach times (e.g. dolphins feeding, resting); Temporal or spatial exclusion zones;
Distance of swimmers to dolphins, & Use of mermaid lines or boom nets.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: Tier 2 = Additional Management Considerations (State/Territory) (Regulations, permits, licenses & management plans)
#Includes swimmers, snorkellers and divers with SCUBA or hookah diving gear.
Source: Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005
SWIM WITH WILD DOLPHIN TOURS
Swim with wild dolphin tours in Australia focus exclusively on in-water encounters with
Bottlenose dolphins. Dolphin swimming boat tours operate at Rockingham, Bunbury and
Mandurah (WA), Forster and Port Stephens (NSW), three in Port Philip Bay (Vic) and at
Adelaide and Baird Bay (SA) (see Table3). These swim with dolphin tours began in 1986
at Port Philip Bay, the early 1990s at Port Stephens, Forster, Baird Bay and Rockingham
Bay; in 1999 at Bunbury and Mandurah; and at Adelaide in 2002. The only approved
shore-based in-water encounter with wild dolphins is floating in the beach interaction
zone at the Dolphin Discovery Centre in Bunbury (WA). The habituated dolphin feeding
sites of Monkey Mia, Tangalooma and Tin Can Bay either do not allow or discourage
visitors from swimming with dolphins. Visitors stand in water up to their ankle, knee or
thigh but do not swim with dolphins. Swim with wild dolphin tours are not allowed in
Queensland. Permits are required for commercial dolphin tours from state government
environmental agencies since the late 1990s, with specific national guidelines for
cetacean interactions since 2000. Visitors from eight to 86 years old have swum with
dolphins (Greenwood, 2004). The minimum age for swimmers varies from eight years
(Adelaide, Bunbury) to 12 years (Baird Bay) up to 15 years (Forster). In Port Philip Bay
there is a maximum of 10 swimmers in the water at one time and a maximum of 20
minutes interaction with one pod. The swim operator at Forster only allows one person at
a time in the water. At Bunbury, the dolphin swim tour takes 10 swimmers with a
maximum of 60 minutes in-water time (O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a,b; DDC, 2005).
Some of the dolphin swim tours only operate for 8-9 months, excluding the colder winter
period (e.g. Rockingham Bay, Bunbury & Baird Bay) but most operate year-round.
Visitors can also swim with captive bottlenose dolphins at Sea World (Gold Coast, Qld)
and the Pet Porpoise Pool (Coffs Harbour, NSW) but these are not included.
150
TYPES OF IN-WATER ENCOUNTERS WITH DOLPHINS
There are varied modes of in-water encounters with wild dolphins on these boat tours
from free swimming, mermaid lines, boom nets, linked human chains and the use of
motorised water scooters (Table 2). The recommended boat approach is parallel or sideon rather than directly in front of a pod of dolphins. Free swimming is where groups of
swimmers enter the ocean near dolphins. Swimmers usually wear a wetsuit, mask and
snorkel. Free swimming is the method used at Mandurah, Bunbury and Baird Bay (no
fins), before 1995 in Port Philip Bay and by one operator at Port Stephens. Mermaid lines
or snorkel lines are ropes attached to the rear of a vessel, about 15 metres long with floats
attached, which swimmers hold onto at all times while watching dolphins either above or
below the water. Dolphin swim operators at Port Philip Bay (since 1995), Bunbury,
Forster and Adelaide use mermaid lines. Usually several people hold onto one mermaid
or flotation line, though the boat operator at Forster (NSW) has one person at a time
holding onto this line. These mermaid lines are placed in the water near dolphins and
removed before the boat moves on to another pod. In Bunbury swimmers hold onto the
line and are towed slowly behind the boat. Snorkel lines made swimmers feel safer,
required less swimming effort, were more fun and ‘good for the dolphins’ but others felt
restricted by the lines (O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a). Mermaid lines are compulsory in
Port Philip Bay to protect dolphins and also for swimmer safety. At least one operator in
Port Philip would prefer free swimming with dolphins rather than using mermaid lines
(DSE, 2004). At Port Stephens, tourists sit inside rope boom nets in the water and
attached at the rear as the boat moves along. Boom netting is more of a recreational
water-based activity than a method of interacting with dolphins. Some tourists also sit on
rope bow nets at the front of a vessel to observe and be close to bow riding dolphins
below. An interesting method of interacting with wild dolphins is used by Rockingham
Dolphins. Staff use underwater scooters and tow swimmers along near the dolphins. The
swimmers hold onto a waist belt while being towed along or float at the surface in chains.
There is a maximum of three teams in the water at one time and six people in each chain
(Waites, 2004). One person who worked on dolphin boats noted to the author that
scooters were used by staff to ‘herd’ or move dolphins closer to the surface for tourists to
observe and interact with. The 2005 national guidelines for cetacean interaction prohibit
the use of personal motorised craft such as underwater scooters in dolphin watching. One
dolphin swim operator in Port Philip Bay previously used scooters. In 2004, private water
scooters were restricted to 100m while tour boats could approach dolphins to 50m.
151
Table 2: Dolphins habituated to ‘swim with dolphins’ boat tours
______________________________________________________________________________________
Location
Affected dolphins
Type of dolphin interaction
Guidelines
______________________________________________________________________________________
SW operator since early 1990s
Rockingham, WA 120-150-180 resident swimmers towed using underwater
c. 30 swimmers per day
dolphins, some
motor scooter & float in linked chains
known individuals
max. 3 teams in water at once
(Logo, Boomerang)
1 SW tour a day, Sept-May
Mandurah, WA
80-100 resident
free swim
seasonal SW operator 1999-2004
dolphins, some
max. 8 tourists, 1 trip per day
known individuals
seasonal SW operator since 1999
Bunbury, WA
50 resident dolphins mermaid line (boat)
Nov. to April, 1 tour a day
100/150 dolphins,
float with dolphins in Beach Zone
5-6 regular dolphins
max. 10 swimmers, min. age of 8
known individuals
max. 60 mins. in-water time
(Iruka, Sharkie)
also SW provisioned dolphins
Port Stephens,
NSW
Forster, NSW
100-160 coastal
sit in boom nets, free swim (1)
dolphins, c.50%
resident, c.50%
involved in DW tours
resident & oceanic
mermaid line
bottlenose dolphins,
common dolphins
Port Philip Bay,
VIC
80-100 resident
dolphins, 50
dolphins interact
with tour boats,
6 key dolphins
mermaid lines (since 1995)
free swim (prior to 1995)
Adelaide, SA
resident bottlenose mermaid line
& common dolphins,
100 coastal dolphins
2 known dolphins
(Jade, Mohawk)
since 1991, voluntary code
max. 2 boats/30 mins. pod
Marine Park zoning in 2007
since 1990s, 1 person at a time
take turns, min. age of 15
SW from 1986,operator code 1995
state licensing since 1997
max. 10 swimmers, 20 minutes
max. 4 approaches per SW tour
c.50% compliance in 2001
SW operator since Jan. 2002
max. 20 mins with 1 pod
min. age of 8 (up to 86!)
use electronic shark shields
mask & snorkel only (no fins)
min. age of 12
no sunscreen/chemicals
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Baird Bay, SA
resident dolphins
free swim
Notes: SW = Swim with, in-water encounters by tourists with wild dolphins, DW = Dolphin watching boat, All bottlenose dolphins.
SW provisioned dolphins occasional & discouraged at Monkey Mia; SW provisioned dolphins prohibited at Tangalooma.
Other dolphin watching (DW) boat tours operate in Jervis Bay, NSW, Shark Bay WA, Moreton Bay QLD & Tasmania.
Moreton Bay Marine Park (Qld) & Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (QLD) prohibit feeding & swimming with dolphins.
Source: Based on Samuels, Bejder, Constantine and Heinrich, 2003 [SW dolphin operators in Forster & Baird Bay are new additions]
IMPACTS ON DOLPHINS
The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans (Bannister, Kemper & Warneke, 1996)
highlighted potential impacts on wild Bottlenose dolphins from the growth in dolphin
tourism (i.e. dolphin watching, dolphin swim tours & dolphin feeding). Key research
studies identify and evaluate the impacts of cetacean tourism (i.e. boats, swimmers) on
wild dolphins (Allen, 2005, 2006; Bejder & Samuels, 2003; Higham & Lusseau, 2004;
Lemon et al., 2006; Ross, 2006; Samuels et al., 2003; Scarpaci et al., 2003, 2004).
152
IMPACTS OF DOLPHIN WATCH BOATS
In Australia, research on the biological impacts of tour boats on wild dolphin behaviours
has mainly been conducted in Port Philip Bay, Victoria (Doolan, 2002; DRI, 2005; Hale
2002: Jarvis, 2000; Jarvis & Ingleton, 2001; Scarpaci et al., 2000, 2003, 2004) Port
Stephens NSW (Allen, 2003, 2005, 2006; Allen in Clarke, 2005; Allen in Dasey, 2006;
Griffiths in Clarke, 2005); Jervis Bay NSW (Lemon et al., 2006; SHIMS, 2006), and at
Shark Bay WA (Bejder et al, 2006; Bejder in Dasey, 2006). This research found
increased avoidance behaviour by dolphins around tour boats (e.g. deep dive, changing
direction), increased whistling, dispersal from key habitats, decreased resting, increased
milling or travelling, decrease in dolphin playing, mating and socialising, pods splitting
into subgroups, displacement of mothers and calves and reduced dolphin births and
survival (see Table 3). Other recreational boaters, jet skiers and canoeists also harassed
dolphins by going too close or crossing through pods.
These impacts on wild dolphin behaviours were mainly observed in high-use areas with
four or more dolphin watch operators such as Port Stephens and Port Philip Bay. The
studies highlight the cumulative impacts of increased boat activity on dolphins (Allen,
2004, 205, 2006; Hale, 2002; Scarpaci et al, 2003, 2004). One dolphin cruise operator at
Port Stephens left the industry in 2003, concerned about the negative impacts of
commercial boats on dolphins. The main dolphin watching area in Port Stephens was an
area where dolphin mothers would congregate in summer with 12 to 15 new calves but
this was no longer the case (Clarke, 2005). Increased competition, especially in summer,
also reduced operator’s compliance with a voluntary code of conduct for dolphin
watching in Port Stephens (Allen, 2003). Another study found 86% of commercial tour
operators went closer than 50m to dolphins (Hawkins & Gartside, 2004). Research in
areas with two dolphin watch boats such as Jervis Bay and Shark Bay also found
dolphins avoiding boats, milling, dispersal into other areas and lower births. At Shark
Bay these impacts on dolphins occurred within four years of a second dolphin cruise
operator that started in 1998 (Bejder et al, 2006). Research studies in New Zealand have
also identified similar impacts on wild dolphins by tour boats or swimmers at Mercury
Bay (Neumann & Orams, 2006), Kaikoura, Doubtful Sound (Fiordland), Porpoise Bay
and Akaroa Harbour (Constantine et al., 2003, 2004; Nicols et al., 2001; Orams, 2004,
2005).
153
Table 3: Impacts of boats and swimmers on wild dolphins
______________________________________________________________________________________
Location
Affected dolphins & Biological impacts on dolphins
______________________________________________________________________________________
Rockingham, WA
120-150 resident dolphins, some known individuals, 1 SW operator
Underwater scooters ‘herd’ dolphins near surface; boat near swimmers (Waites,
2004)
Bunbury, WA
50 resident dolphins, 100/150 dolphins in Koombana Bay, 1 SW operator
Dolphins avoid floating mermaid lines in water (O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a)
Shark Bay, WA
150-200 resident dolphins, 1 (1993) 2 (1998) 1 (2007) DW cruise operators
15% decrease, reduced dolphin births & survival rate (Bejder in Dasey, 2006)
Loss of 1 in 7 dolphins, shift in habitat use to non-tour areas (Bejder et al, 2006)
Port Stephens, NSW 100-160/200 coastal dolphins, c.50%resident, c.50% involved in DW tours
9 permanent & 6 occasional tour boat operators; 250,000 tourists a year
Decrease in resting behaviour, splitting into subgroups (Allen, 2005; Clarke, 2005)
Displaced mothers & calves from dolphin watching area, less interaction & decrease
in dolphin playing, mating & socialising (Griffiths in Clarke, 2005)
Changes to dolphin movement patterns, behaviour & social grouping, exclusion from
preferred habitat etc (Allen, 2003, 2005; Allen in Dasey, 2006)
Increase in travel and milling by dolphin pods affected by boats; decreased
foraging, resting and socialising by dolphin schools (Allen, 2005, 2006)
Jervis Bay, NSW
60-80 resident dolphins, 120 with transient dolphins, 2 DW tour operators
Dolphin behaviour changed from travelling to milling, & changed their direction
away from an oncoming boat beyond 30m (Lemon et al., 2006; SHIMS, 2006)
Port Philip Bay, VIC 80-100 resident dolphins, many known individuals, 3 SW/1 DW tour operators
(pre-1995) Boats herding dolphins close to the shore, people grabbing dolphins &
trying
to ride or climb onto their backs, 1 dolphin approaches boat as a decoy while rest of
pod
swims away, chased by powerboats & jet skis, harassment by boats, dorsal fin of
dolphin
calf cut in half by boat propeller; dolphins avoiding boats, fewer dolphins around,
harder
to swim with dolphins, increased dolphin whistling near tour boats (Jarvis &
Ingleton,
2001; Doolan, 2002; Hale 2002: Higginbottom, 2002; Scarpaci et al., 2000, 2003,
2004)
Increased avoidance behaviour by dolphins around boats (deep dive, changing
direction)
Adelaide, SA
2006)
resident dolphins, some known individuals, 1 SW operator (Temptation Sailing,
Electronic field from shark shield deterrent has no effect on dolphin interaction
_____________________________________________________________________
154
IMPACTS OF DOLPHIN SWIM TOURS
Research about the impacts of wild dolphin swim tours on dolphins has been conducted
for Bunbury (O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a) and Port Philip Bay (Scarpaci et al., 2000,
2003, 2004). At Bunbury, the use of mermaid lines such as their placement in the water,
distributing swimmers, towing and retrieval increased avoidance behaviour by dolphins
(O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a). To dolphins, these mermaid lines may resemble a
hazard like fishing nets in the water. At Rockingham Bay, one observer also noted that
staff used motorised underwater scooters to ‘herd’ dolphins closer to the surface for
tourists to interact with. At Baird Bay South Australia there is a 50% in-water encounter
rate with wild dolphins and swimmers are not allowed to use sunscreen or chemicals. In
Adelaide, a ‘Shark Shield’ device at the end of the mermaid line creates an electrical field
to protect swimmers from sharks. According to the boat operators, this electronic shark
device has not affected dolphin interactions, with an average swim with dolphin time of
50 minutes with five pods. The dolphins also swam underneath and within one metre of
swimmers holding onto a flotation line (Greenwood, 2004; Temptation Sailing, 2007).
In Port Philip Bay, research about the impacts of boats and swimmers on wild dolphins
began in 1996 (Weir, Dunn, Bell & Chatfield, 1996). Boats herded dolphins closer to the
shore for tourist swims in shallower water, while some people grabbed dolphins and tried
to ride or climb onto their backs (Jarvis & Ingleton, 2001). Whale regulations in 1998
prohibited tour boats from conducting dolphin swims within 200m of the shore (Jarvis &
Ingleton, 2001). New regulations in 2004 though prohibit dolphin swimming only within
100m of the low tide mark (DSE, 2004). In 1996, 40% of 440 dolphin swims in Port
Philip were unsuccessful; while in 2001 the average dolphin interaction time was 35
minutes. In the peak summer season boats interact with dolphins every 90 seconds with
two to three dolphin trips per day by each operator (Weir, 2000; Samuels et al, 2003).
Scarpaci et al (2003, 2004) recorded a decrease in average total swim time from 32
minutes to 26 minutes from 1998/00 to 2002/03, an average time of 4.15 minutes
between approaches to dolphins and an average of three minutes for individual swims.
Staff on two dolphin swim boats stated that it was getting harder to have a good swim
tour and fewer dolphins could be found to interact with (Jarvis & Ingleton, 2001). In New
Zealand, bottlenose dolphins in the Bay of Islands also increasingly avoided boats and
swimmers as tourism activity expanded (Constantine, 2001). Dusky dolphins at Kaikoura
whistled more when swimmers entered the ocean water nearby, while Common dolphins
interacted with swimmers only two minutes, stayed at a distance of more than three
metres and mainly interacted in larger groups over 50 dolphins (Neumann & Orams,
2006). Recreational swimmers at Porpoise Bay also displaced Hector’s dolphins from a
preferred area with dolphins bunching in tighter groups (Bejder, Dawson & Harraway,
1999; Orams, 2004).
Compliance with permits for dolphin swims
In Port Philip Bay, dolphin swim tours can have a maximum of 10 swimmers in the
water, 20 minutes with one dolphin or pod (within 100m) and up to four approaches per
tour or eight per day. New regulations in 2004 allow operators to reposition their boats
155
with empty mermaid lines in the water and with no time limits on the lines left in the
water, previously set at a maximum of 20 minutes at one time in 1998 (DSE, 2004). In
2001, there was an average of 50% compliance by operators with dolphin interaction
guidelines (Samuels et al., 2003). According to Scarpaci et al (2003) the compliance level
in 1998-2000 with four key permit conditions was: No swimming with foetal fold calves
(69%); parallel or side-on approach type (64%); swim time (39%); and time spent in
proximity to dolphins (38%). A review of dolphin swim tours in Port Philip Bay
recommended further restrictions on proximity of boats to dolphins and a maximum of 10
people participating in a dolphin swim (Hale, 2002). A follow-up study of 16 dolphin
swim trips in 2002/03 evaluated 149 boat approaches and 25 swims with dolphins.
Results from 1998-2000 were also compared with 2002-2003 (Scarpaci et al., 2004). It
found a decrease in compliance with dolphin swim permit conditions such as parallel
boat approach (53%, n=79) and an increase in illegal boat approaches (i.e. direct or ‘J’
hook turns) from 36% to 47%. There was a slight increase in compliance with dolphin
swim time from 39% to 42% but a decrease of 9% in compliance with proximity times
within 100m of dolphins. However there was 100% compliance with the maximum of 10
swimmers at one time with an average of 6 people swimming with dolphins (Scarpaci et
al, 2004). Compliance with dolphin swim permit conditions has not been evaluated at
other sites in Australia. At the Bay of Islands in New Zealand, bottlenose dolphins mainly
avoided swimmers that entered the water directly in the path of travelling pods or in the
middle of a group of milling dolphins, rather than side-on (Constantine, 2001). In
Doubtful Sound, only 34% of 373 dolphin-boat interactions complied with approach
guidelines of the Marine Mammals Protection Act (Lusseau, 2003; Lusseau & Higham,
2004).
MANAGING DOLPHIN SWIM TOURISM
The Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005 identified
specific issues in developing or reviewing dolphin swimming operations. These are:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Limits on the numbers of vessels and/or swimmers
Maximum watching time with a pod per day (individual and cumulative)
Establishment of no approach times (e.g. dolphins feeding, resting)
Need for temporal or spatial exclusion zones
Distance of swimmers to animals
Use of mermaid lines or boom nets (DEH, 2005).
Swim with wild dolphin tourism in Australia is managed with a range of regulatory,
physical, economic and educational strategies (see Table 4). The Australian National
Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005 set standards for approach distances
(50m boats, 30m swimmers), vessel movements, time periods, placement of vessels and
swimmers and guidelines for dolphin swim encounters. Exceptions include the use of
motorised underwater scooters in dolphin swim tours at Rockingham Bay, not allowed in
the national guidelines, and a 30m minimum boat approach distance in NSW. Swimming
156
Table 4: Management strategies for swim with wild dolphin tourism
______________________________________________________________________________________
Strategy
Management of dolphin swim tourism
______________________________________________________________________________________
SWIM WITH DOLPHIN TOURS
Regulatory#
Standards set in the Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005
Swimmers to not enter the water closer than 50m & not approach closer than 30m to a dolphin
Vessels to not actively tow swimmers, nor place swimmers directly in the path of dolphin(s),
nor with dolphin calves or pods containing calves (less than half the length of the mother)
No approach while dolphins are resting or feeding, have calves or are disturbed by swimmers
Sanctuary areas for dolphins e.g. Ticonderoga Bay (Port Philip Bay); 200m minimum approach.
Physical
Tourists hold onto floating mermaid lines, form linked human chains, or sit/lie in boom nets
Personal motorised watercraft (e.g. jet skis and underwater scooters*) are prohibited
Mask & snorkel only, float in dolphin interaction zone (Bunbury, WA), shark shield pod (SA)
Parallel or side on approach strategy to dolphins by boats and swimmers
Economic
Higher fees charged for swim with dolphin tours, portion of fee used for dolphin research^
Permit fees paid by commercial swim with dolphin tour operators
Educational
Dolphin interpretation to visitors on the boat, dolphin books, fact sheets, charts & brochures
Seminars by dolphin researchers for swim with dolphin tour operators & local residents
Voluntary codes of conduct by dolphin watch association (Port Stephens)/operators (Port Philip)
Agency education about dolphin guidelines and permit conditions for commercial operators
________________________________________________________________________
Notes: #Includes swimmers, snorkellers & divers with SCUBA or hookah diving gear.
*Underwater scooters used by guides on swim with dolphin tours in Rockingham Bay (WA)
^DREAM-Dolphin Research, Education & Management Fund (Port Stephens, NSW), DRI-Dolphin Research Institute
(Port Philip, VIC), Adelaide Coastal Dolphin Research (SA)
SW provisioned dolphins prohibited at Tangalooma, Tin Can Bay (Qld), & Monkey Mia (WA)
No wild dolphin swim tours allowed in Queensland; 3 in Victoria, 2 in WA, 2 in SA, 1 in NSW.
Sources: Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005; Samuels, Bejder, Constantine & Heinrich, 2003
with wild dolphins is prohibited in Queensland and at dolphin provisioning sites. State
legislation is mainly based on national guidelines for whale and dolphin watching. In
Victoria, specific regulations apply to dolphin swimming and dolphin watching in Port
Philip Bay while in New South Wales there has been minimal regulation of commercial
dolphin tourism at Port Stephens. There is limited or inconsistent enforcement of current
regulations for wild dolphin tourism. Physical strategies include the use of floating
mermaid lines by dolphin swim operators in Port Philip Bay, Adelaide and Forster. Two
dolphin swim operators in Bunbury and Baird Bay use the free swim method, the latter
not using fins. All states recommend the parallel or side-on approach strategy by boats to
wild dolphins. Economic strategies include charging higher fees for a wild dolphin swim
tour, usually double the dolphin-watching fee, with a small portion of the tour fee funding
dolphin research in Port Philip Bay, Port Stephens and Adelaide. Educational strategies
include dolphin interpretation onboard boats or at visitor centres. Dolphin operators have
promoted voluntary codes of conduct in Port Philip Bay and Port Stephens, though with
limited success. Government agencies also educate commercial operators about dolphin
watching or swimming guidelines. In New Zealand, a similar range of regulatory,
157
economic and educational strategies are used to manage wild dolphin tourism (Orams,
2004). The side-on approach strategy to dolphins is adopted, however, mermaid lines and
underwater scooters are not used on dolphin swim tours.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The UN International Year of the Dolphin 2007 aims to raise awareness of wild dolphins
and human impacts that threaten dolphins. Management of dolphin tourism in Australia
ranges from voluntary operator codes to national guidelines and strict legislative
regulation of dolphin watching, swimming and feeding programs. The Australian
National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005 specify legal standards and
best practice guidelines for cetacean interaction (Lee & O’Neill, 2000). However there
are still variations between different government jurisdictions and also the practices of
dolphin tour operators (Harcourt, 2004; Kearnan, 2005). The national guidelines ban
underwater scooters; but at Rockingham Dolphins (2007) staff tow swimmers along
using these devices (Waites, 2004). National guidelines also specify a minimum boat
approach distance of 50m from dolphins but at Port Stephens and Jervis Bay the
minimum approach is 30 metres. Other commercial practices that are contrary to national
cetacean guidelines and/or state regulations for dolphins include operators breaching
approach distances and times, the direction of approach and swim time (Scarpaci et al.,
2003, 2004). Dolphin operators have promoted voluntary codes of conduct in Port Philip
Bay and Port Stephens since the mid-1990s, though with limited success in the peak
summer season, entry of new operators and increased competition (Allen, 2003). Dolphin
tourism has been regulated in Port Philip Bay since 1997 while Port Stephens is now part
of the Great Lakes-Port Stephens Marine Park with new dolphin sanctuary zones
effective from March 2007. In Port Philip Bay, despite revised dolphin interaction
guidelines in 2002, compliance by operators with most dolphin swim permit conditions
did not improve. The exception was full compliance with the maximum of 10 swimmers
at one time in the water with dolphins. The other breaches in boat approaches, swim
times and time spent in proximity to dolphins are mainly to satisfy visitor expectations of
close encounters with wild dolphins (Scarpaci et al, 2004). At other sites in Australia with
a sole dolphin tour operator (e.g. Adelaide, Baird Bay, Forster, Bunbury & Rockingham
Bay), compliance with dolphin swim permit conditions has not been evaluated.
There are varied modes of in-water encounters with wild dolphins from flotation or
mermaid lines that swimmers hold on to behind a boat; free swimming; and the use of
motorised water scooters by one operator. Boom nets are also used in Port Stephens. The
impacts on wild dolphins of these different types of swim encounter methods, has not
been examined. Anecdotal accounts suggest that dolphins at Bunbury would not swim
under floating mermaid lines; scooters are used to herd dolphins closer to the surface at
Rockingham Bay; and an electronic shark shield device does not affect dolphin
interactions off Adelaide. Both dolphin watch tour boats and dolphin swim tours had
negative impacts on dolphins and increased dolphin avoidance behaviours. These
cumulative impacts on dolphins were most evident in high-use areas such as Port
Stephens and Port Philip Bay with four or more commercial dolphin operators. Two boat
158
operators at Shark Bay also increased the impacts on resident bottlenose dolphins, with
only one permit to be offered by the West Australian government in 2007 (Bejder et al.,
2006; The Australian, 2006). At Port Philip Bay, by 2003 there was a decrease in average
total swim time from 32 to 26 minutes, four minutes between approaches to dolphins and
three minutes for individual swims (Scarpaci et al., 2004). A survey at Bunbury found
tourists watching dolphins from a boat saw more dolphins and were more satisfied than
those swimming with dolphins. Swimmers (n=223) were unhappy with visibility
underwater (37%, 3m at best), cold water and weather (30%) and lack of proximity to
dolphins (17%) with half of those of came within 5 metres stating this was still too distant
(O’Neill, Barnard & Lee, 2004a). The proximity, number of dolphins and length of time
that tourists need to swim with wild dolphins to be satisfied has not been studied. Nor has
tourist and operator preferences for the type of in-water dolphin encounter method such
as mermaid lines, free swimming, underwater scooters and boom nets.
CONCLUSIONS
Bottlenose dolphins are the primary target species for commercial dolphin tourism in
Australia. This includes dolphin-watching boat tours, swim-with wild dolphins and three
habituated wild dolphin-feeding programs. Specific groups of resident bottlenose
dolphins in areas such as Shark Bay, Bunbury and Rockingham Bay (WA), Port Philip
Bay (Vic), Port Stephens, Jervis Bay and Forster (NSW), Moreton Bay (Qld), Adelaide
and Baird Bay (SA) have frequent encounters with tour boats and/or swimmers. The
sustainability of wild dolphin tourism in Australia depends on consistent application of
national cetacean guidelines in all states such as the 50m minimum boat approach
distance, no swimming with calves and a side-on approach. The impacts on wild dolphins
of different types of swim tours, needs to be examined. The revision or rewriting of some
dolphin interaction regulations (e.g. maximum of 10 swimmers in the water at one time)
and government consultation along with education may also improve compliance by
dolphin tour operators (Scarpaci et al, 2004). State regulations for dolphin swimming and
dolphin watching activities need to be enforced, with penalties for breaches by
commercial operators and by recreational visitors. Sanctuary zones, setting daily
interaction times and reducing the number of operators/boats around pods would help to
reduce impacts on dolphins. Promoting alternative marine activities such as snorkelling
with fish (e.g. Moreton Bay) or seals (e.g. Philip Bay, Baird Bay), water sports (e.g.
boom netting, Port Stephens) and seeing other marine life (e.g. seabirds, turtles) broadens
the emphasis away from just swimming with wild dolphins, which is not allowed in
Queensland. It may also reduce potential visitor dissatisfaction with the brevity, distance
or method of swimming with wild dolphins and number of other boats in the vicinity.
Ongoing research about the impacts of tourism on the behaviour of wild dolphins should
also underpin relevant management strategies, regulations and guidelines. This is
required for longer-term sustainability of resident dolphins and dolphin-based tourism in
Australia.
159
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the reviewers of this paper; their comments improved the final version.
REFERENCES
Allen, S. (2003). Citizen Science Toolbox Case Study: Participant Observation (Port
Stephens dolphin tourism, NSW).
https://www3.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/admin/getfile.php?id=70
Allen, S. (2004). Draft Port Stephens Dolphin Management Plan In: Conserving Whales
and Dolphins in Australian Waters: National Research Partnerships Workshop,
Ballina, NSW 2-4 May. http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/ballina-workshop2004/pubs/allen.pdf
Allen, S. J. (2005). Management of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) exposed to
tourism in Port Stephens, NSW, Australia. MSc thesis, Macquarie University.
Allen, S. (2006). Short term effects of dolphin watching in Port Stephens, NSW. National
Whale and Dolphin Research Conference Presentations. Adelaide 21-22 February
2006.
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/conference/presentations.html
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/conference/pubs/ww-allen.pdf
Australian, The (2006). Dolphin watching harms animals. The Australian, 14 May.
Marine and Coastal Community Network.
http://www.mccn.org.au/article.php/id/1200
Baird Bay Charters (2005). Bottlenose dolphin – Tursiops truncatus.
http://www.bairdbay.com/activities/dolphins.htm
Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M., & Warneke, R.M. (1996). Bottlenose dolphin. In: The
Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia.
September
1996.
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/cetaceans-actionplan/whaleap5g.html
Bejder, L., Dawson, S.M., & Harraway, J.A. (1999). Responses by Hector’s dolphins to
boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 15,
738-750.
Bejder, L., & Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating impacts of nature based tourism on
cetaceans. In N. Gales, M. Hindell & R. Kirkwood (Eds.), Marine Mammals:
Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues (pp. 229-256). Collingwood: CSIRO.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., &Gales, N. (2006). Interpreting short-term
behavioural responses to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal
Behaviour 72 (5), 1149-1158.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Gales, N., Mann, J., Connor, R., Heithaus, M.,
Watson-Capps, J., Flaherty, C., & Krutzen, M. (2006). Decline in relative abundance
of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conservation Biology 20(6),
1791-1799.
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/conference/pubs/wwgales.pdf
160
Clarke, S. (2005). Tourism pressures dolphin populations. The 7.30 Report, Broadcast
31/01/2005. ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1293278.htm
Cloke, P., & Perkins, H.C. (2005). Cetacean performance and tourism in Kaikoura, New
Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23 (6), 903-924.
Constantine, R. (1999). Effects of Tourism on Marine Mammals in New Zealand. Science
for
Conservation Report no. 106. New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Constantine, R. (2001). Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) due to long-term exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism.
Marine Mammal Science 17(4), 689-702.
Constantine, R., & Yin, S. (2003). Swimming with dolphins in New Zealand. In T.
Frohoff & B. Peterson (Eds.), Between Species (pp. 257-263). San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H., & Baker, C.S. (2003). Effects of Tourism on Behavioural
Ecology of Bottlenose Dolphins of North-eastern New Zealand. DOC Science Internal
Series no. 153. New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H., & Dennis, T. (2004). Dolphin-watching tour boats
change
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation 117(3),
299-307.
Dasey, D. (2006). Dolphin lovers may harm animals they flock to see. Sydney Morning
Herald, 1 Jan. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dolphin-lovers-may-harmanimals-they-flock-to- see/2005/12/31/1135915724902.html
Department of Environment (DE) (1997). Conservation and Management of Whales and
Dolphins in Queensland 1997-2001. EPA.
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications?id=524
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2005a). Whale and Dolphin
Watching in Victoria. Recreation and Tourism. DSE.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenrt.nsf/LinkView/6556E39DB4FEC4ABCA256C
91007FE716BB5357677D1317A6CA25725D001DD8F2
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2005b). Notice of Preparation of
Regulatory Impact Statement: Wildlife (Whales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/dsencor.nsf/LinkView/AEF99C90DE509941CA256E
8B001A5218547415DF0723E4AECA256E8B001C4E93
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005). Australian National
Guidelines for
Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005. DEH.
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/whale-watching-guidelines2005.html
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2006). Watching whales and dolphins
safely. DEH. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/whale-watchingsafely.html
Dive Forster (nd). Swimming with the Dolphins Cruises – with Dive Forster at
Fishermans
Wharf. http://www.diveforster.com.au/dolphins/dolphinWatch.html
Dolphin Discovery Centre (DDC) (2005). Activities.
http://dolphins.mysouthwest.com.au/Activities
161
Dolphin Research Institute (DRI) (2005). Working to protect dolphins. Dolphin Research
Institute. http://www.dolphinresearch.org.au/working.php
Doolan, B. (2002). Dolphin tourism in Port Philip Bay – research, co-operation and
sustainability. Parks and Leisure Australia 5(3), 7-8.
Garbett, P., & Garbett, D. (1997). Some aspects of interactions between Indo-Pacific
humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and humans at Tin Can Bay, Queensland,
Australia. Australian
Whale Conservation Society, Brisbane.
http://www.whales.org.au/published/garbett/index.html
Great Barrier Reef Marine Mark Authority (GBRMPA) (2000). Whale and Dolphin
Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Species Conservation Team,
Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage Group. Townsville: GBRMPA.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Mark Authority (GBRMPA) (2007a). Operational Policy on
Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Amended
13 April 2007.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/20132/whale__dolphin_opera
tional_policy_mpa.pdf
Great Barrier Reef Marine Mark Authority (GBRMPA) (2007b). Whale and dolphin
conservation policy for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/misc_pub/whale_dol
phin
Great Barrier Reef Marine Mark Authority (GBRMPA) (2007c). Whale & dolphin
watching
regulations.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/natural_values/whales_
dolphins/whale_and_dolphin_watching_regulations
Green, G. (2005). State spies on dolphin feeders. The Courier-Mail, 5 October, pp. 1-2.
Greenwood, R. (2004). Come in and play. The Advertiser, 4 December, p. 22.
Hale, P. (2002). Interactions Between Vessels and Dolphins in Port Philip Bay. Victorian
Department of Natural Resources and Environment. September 2002.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/index.htm
Harcourt, R. (2004). Tourism and cetaceans: A threatening process? In: Conserving
Whales and Dolphins in Australian Waters: National Research Partnerships
Workshop, Ballina, NSW 2-4 May.
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/ballina-workshop-2004/pubs/harcourt.pdf
Hawkins, L., & Gartside, D. (2004). Influence of short and long term vessel activities on
the
acoustic communications of inshore bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.). In:
Conserving
Whales and Dolphins in Australian Waters: National Research Partnerships
Workshop,
Ballina, NSW 2-4 May. http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/ballina-workshop2004/pubs/hawkins.pdf
Higham, J., & Lusseau, D. (2004). Ecological impacts and management of tourist
engagements with marine mammals. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of
Ecotourism (pp. 171-186). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
162
Ingleton, S. (2001). Dolphin Mania. Video. Northcote, Victoria: Singing Nomads
Productions.
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) (2004) From Whalers to Whale
Watchers: The Growth of Whale Watching Tourism in Australia. Economists @
Large & Associates, Report to IFAW.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/whale_watching_au/pdf/Final%20report.p
df
Jarvis, C.H. (2000). If Descartes Swam with Dolphins: The Framing and Consumption of
Marine Animals in Contemporary Australian Tourism. PhD Thesis, Department of
Geography and Environmental Studies, The University of Melbourne.
Jarvis, C., & Ingleton, S. (2001). Dolphin Mania: A Study Guide. Australian Screen
Education 28, 70-78. http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1122990.htm
Kearnan, D. (2005). The Flipper Factor: An Assessment of the Management Issues for
Dolphin Tourism in Australia and New Zealand. Master of Tourism. James Cook
University, Cairns.
Kerr, L. (1998). Product development: The Dolphin Discovery Centre. In: B. Weir, S.
McArthur and A. Crabtree (eds.) Developing Ecotourism into the Millennium:
Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia National Conference 1998
(pp. 106-108). Brisbane: Ecotourism Association of Australia.
Lee, D., & O’Neill, F. (2000). Best practice dolphin tourism interaction management.
Touristics 16(1), 16-18.
Lemon, M., Lynch, T.P., Cato, D.H., & Harcourt, R.G. (2006) Response of traveling
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) to experimental approaches by a powerboat
in Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation, 127(4), 363372.
Luck, M. (2003). Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation – but do
tourists want to be educated? Ocean & Coastal Management 46(9), 943-956.
Lusseau, D. (2003). Male and female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. have different
strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 257, 267-274.
Lusseau, D., & Higham, J.E.S (2004). Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism
through the definition of critical habitats: The case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
spp.) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Tourism Management 25, 657-667.
Mayes, G. (1999). The management of dolphin-human interaction at Tin Can Bay. In:
Australia-The World’s Natural Theme Park: Proceedings of the Ecotourism
Association of Australia 1999 Conference (pp. 134-137). Brisbane: Ecotourism
Association of Australia.
Minister for the Environment and Heritage (2006). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority Amendment Regulations 2006 (No.1) (SLI No. 132 of 2006).
Commonwealth of Australia.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg_es/gbrmpar20061n132o2006556.html
Moller, L.M., Allen, S.J., & Harcourt, R.G. (2002). Group characteristics, site fidelity
and seasonal abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops aduncus in Jervis Bay and
Port Stephens, southeastern Australia. Australian Mammalogy 24(1), 11-21.
163
Neumann, D.R., & Orams, M.B. (2006). Impacts of ecotourism on short-beaked common
dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in Mercury Bay, New Zealand. Aquatic Mammals,
32(1), 1-9.
Nicols, C., Stone, G., Hutt, A., Brown, J., & Yoshinanaga, A. (201). Observations of
interactions between Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori) boats and people
at Akaroa Harbour, New Zealand. Science for Conservation 178. NZ: Department of
Conservation.
NSW NP&WS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2006). Approaching whales and
dolphins in NSW.
http://www3.environment.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/content/whale_regulation
O’Neill, F., Barnard, S., & Lee, D. (2004a). Best Practice and Interpretation in
Tourist/Wildlife Encounters: A Wild Dolphin Swim Tour Example. Gold Coast: CRC
Sustainable Tourism.
O’Neill, F., Barnard, S., & Lee, D. (2004b). Best Practice Guidelines for Dolphin Swim
Tour Operators: A Dolphin Discovery Centre Example. Industry Manual. Gold Coast:
Sustainable Tourism CRC.
Orams, M.B. (1994). Tourism and marine wildlife: The wild dolphins of Tangalooma.
Anthrozoos 7(2), 195-201.
Orams, M.B. (1995). Development and management of a feeding program for wild
bottlenose dolphins at Tangalooma, Australia. Aquatic Mammals, 21(2): 137-147.
Orams, M.B. (1997). Historical accounts of human-dolphin interaction and recent
developments in wild dolphin based tourism in Australasia. Tourism Management 18,
317-326.
Orams, M. (2004). Why dolphins may get ulcers: Considering the impacts of cetaceanbased tourism in New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments 1(1), 17-28.
Orams, M. (2005). Dolphins, whales and ecotourism in New Zealand: What are the
impacts and how should the industry be managed? In C.M. Hall & S. Boyd (Eds.),
Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? (pp. 231-245).
Clevedon: Channel View.
Orams, M.B. and Hill, G.J.E. (1998). Controlling the ecotourist in a wild dolphin feeding
program: Is education the answer? Journal of Environmental Education 29, 33-38.
Polperro Dolphin Swims (2005). Polperro Dolphin Swims.
http://www.polperro.com.au/about.html
Rockingham Dolphins (2007). The History. http://www.dolphins.com.au/History.html
Ross, G.J.B. (2006). Impact of ecotourism on cetaceans. In: Review of the Conservation
Status of Australia’s Smaller Whales and Dolphins. Australian Department of the
Environment & Heritage.
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/conservation-smaller-whalesdolphins.html
Samuels, A., Bejder, L. Constantine, R., & Heinrich, S. (2003). Swimming with wild
cetaceans, with a special focus on the southern hemisphere. In N. Gales, M. Hindell
& R. Kirkwood Eds.), Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues
(pp. 277-303). CSIRO, Collingwood.
http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lb/Samuels%20Bejder%20et%20al%202003.pdf
164
Scarpaci, C., Bigger, S.W., Corkeron, P.J., & Nugegoda, D. (2000). Bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) increase whistling in the presence of “swim-with-dolphin” tour
operations. Journal of Cetacean Research and Education 2(3), 183-186.
Scarpaci, C., Dayanthi, N., & Corkeron, P. (2003). Compliance with regulations by
“swim with dolphins” operations in Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia.
Environmental Management 31(3), 342-347.
Scarpaci, C., Dayanthi, N., & Corkeron, P. (2004). No detectable improvement in
compliance to regulations by “swim-with-dolphin” operators in Port Philip Bay,
Victoria, Australia. Tourism in Marine Environments 1 (1), 41-48.
Smith, A., & Charles, D. (2006). Monkey Mia dolphin viewing - how is it going to be
managed? In: Conference Program: The 2nd Australian Wildlife Tourism Conference,
13-15 August 2006. Promaco Conventions, Canning Bridge, WA, p. 70.
Stokes, T., Dobbs, K., & Recchia, C. (2002). Management of marine mammal tours on
the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Mammalogy 24(1), 39-49.
Stone, A. (2006). Popular pair call in for breakfast. The New Zealand Herald, 22
November 2006.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10411418
Sydney Harbour Institute of Marine Sciences (SHIMS) (2006). Human impacts on
bottlenose
dolphins. SHIMS. http://www.shims.org.au/research/dolphinsmu.cfm
Tangalooma Wild Dolphin Resort (2006). Dolphin Care Program. Dolphin Web.
http://www.tangalooma.com/dolphinweb/dolphincare.asp
Temptation Sailing (2007). Swim with wild dolphins or just watch. Temptation Sailing.
http://www.dolphinboat.com.au/dolphinswim.htm
Waites, J. (2004). Dolphin swimming world wide review: Western Australia. Temptation
Sailing. http://www.dolphinboat.com.au/worldwide/wa1.htm
Weir, J. (2000). Tourists can leave heavy footprints: Managing dolphin-based
ecotourism. In M. Prideaux & M. Bossley, Lethal Waters: The Assault on our
Marine Mammals. Special Habitat Supplement. Habitat Australia (Australian
Conservation Foundation) April 2000.
Weir, J., Dunn, W., Bell, A., & Chatfield, B. (1996). An Investigation Into the Impact of
‘Dolphin-Swim Eco-tours’ in Southern Port Philip Bay. Report to the Department of
Tourism. Hastings, Victoria: Dolphin Research Institute.
http://www.dolphinresearch.org.au/publications.php
165
Providers of Digital & Offset Print Solutions
PRE-PRESS
Graphic Design and Desktop Publishing
Media Copying / CD Duplication
PRINT
Black & White / Colour Digital Copying & Printing
Wide Format Printing for Colour Posters, and
Black & White Plan Printing
FINISHING
Document & Book Binding
Collating, Creasing & Folding Services
PRINT MANAGEMENT AND PUBLISHING
Visit our website to find more about our Services and
the innovation occurring in Digital Print
www.printsprint.co.nz
166
Theme 2
Marine Protected Areas
167
QUANTIFYING COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF MARINE
ENVIRONMENTS FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREA PLANNING:
WHEN IS THE REEF TOO CROWDED?
Barbara Bollard-Breen1 & Daniel Breen2
1
Faculty of Applied Sciences, AUT University
Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand
2
Department of Conservation, Private Bag 68908, Newton, New Zealand
bbreen@aut.ac.nz, dbreen@doc.govt.nz
ABSTRACT
To allow for reasonable use in a multiple use marine protected area, it is important to
understand relationships between stakeholder values at different sites and their
perceptions of crowding and other impacts. The study therefore compares the perceptions
of individuals involved in tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, scientific
research, boating, yachting and other activities with values estimated from the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park management and scientific databases.
Surveys of regular reef users indicated that different activities were targeted at specific
areas according to a combination of values which could be statistically analysed and
mapped across the region. Respondents considered that current levels of use were too
high for many locations in the Cairns Sector. They preferred to see fewer people and
vessels, but were more concerned by the number of vessels than the number of people.
Acceptable levels of use varied widely depending on the location. At established tourism
destinations and major recreational fishing sites, responses indicated that a large number
of vessels (20-100) and people (100-1000) could be tolerated. At areas visited only
rarely, only low levels of use were acceptable. This suggests that there may be shifts in
perceptions at sites that become used more frequently.
The results have implications for management as reef use continues to increase and
extend to other locations. Results from the survey were used to assess management
settings to limit the level and type of activity in different areas. The techniques used have
since been valuable in helping to plan for sustainable marine use in other regions in
Australia and might be usefully employed elsewhere.
Keywords: Marine Protected Areas, crowding, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Limits
of Use
INTRODUCTION
168
Over 90% of human activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) are
concentrated within the 1% of reefs located in the Cairns Area (GBRMPA, 1998). This
region supports important tourism and fishing industries, recreation, indigenous hunting,
scientific research and intrinsic ecological values recognized by its World Heritage status.
Within the region, the level of human activity ranges from high use areas around
population centres and ports, to areas of infrequent use and other areas of virtual
wilderness. The types of activity are diverse and place a range of different pressures on
reef resources. There is also much potential for conflict among competing uses and types
of management.
If opportunities for tourism, recreation and business are to be effectively managed, it is
important to understand how regular reef users are influenced by changes in the
environment and how they perceive and value the natural and social environments. This
paper describes one component of a survey conducted to obtain information from regular
reef users on how they perceived social conditions on reefs in the Cairns Sector of the
Marine Park.
THE STUDY
Study Area
The study was conducted in the Cairns Sector of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(Figure 1). The area contains over 160 reefs and covers approximately 3,600,000
hectares (GBRMPA 1998). Most locations are within close proximity to major ports and
the Cairns International Airport and easily accessed by a rapidly growing tourism
industry and increasing resident population.
169
Figure 1: The Cairns Planning Area within the Cairns Sector of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park (GBRMPA 1998)
SURVEY METHODS
The subjects targeted for this survey included residents of the region who regularly used
reefs in the Cairns Sector of the Marine Park for recreation, commercial tourism,
scientific research and recreational and commercial fishing. The survey was conducted
between August and December 1995, in conjunction with the Public Consultation stage
170
of the Cairns Plan of Management. . Surveys were advertised through local radio stations
and newspapers and distributed at at over 20 public meetings and through advisory
groups, boat shows, dive festivals, marinas, diving and tackle shops and mailed to
commercial fishing, tourism or research license. As an incentive, all respondents who
returned surveys were entered in a lottery for a free restaurant dinner for two. In most
cases, surveys were returned by mail in a prepaid envelope.
The ethics approval for the survey that was granted by the James Cook University Ethics
Committee did not permit the survey to be distributed to Indigenous groups and the
GBRMPA also considered that this survey was not an appropriate means of gathering
information from Indigenous communities, so such groups were not surveyed.
Two mailed reminders were sent to all participants except for those participants who
received surveys at the boat shows. Participants at the boat shows were not required to
give their return address because of the limited amount of time available for contact.
As a readily available contact list of all reef users in the park did not exist and
participation was voluntary, the survey aimed to notify and encourage as many
respondents as possible by extensively promoting and distributing the survey through
many avenues. Although the aim was to provide a reasonably representative sample of
regular reef users, the methods were effectively a convenience sample, with some
limitations on interpretation of the results. The probability of all types of reef users’
receiving and responding to such a survey is unknown and thus this sample may not be
representative of the full range of users. In particular, Indigenous traditional users were
not sampled at all due to the reasons described previously.
ANALYSES
To allow for reasonable levels of use in the Cairns Sector, it is important to understand
the relationship between actual levels of use, perceived levels of use and crowding. With
such an understanding, it might be possible to identify a benchmark for socially
acceptable levels of use and thus assist the Authority in developing appropriate strategies
to manage use. The survey was divided into three sections. This paper reports on the
third section which aimed to describe the social conditions of different reef sites, identify
levels of unacceptable use and determine crowding norms using based on a set of
standard questions proposed by Donnelly et al. (1992). These questions were modified to
suit the social conditions encountered while visiting coral reefs and to also estimate the
respondents' level of experience in the marine park.
Information on actual levels of tourism use was provided by the GBRMP through the
Environmental Management Charge (EMC) database. Since 1993 tourism vessels have
been required to lodge a quarterly return to the GBRMPA, including information
collected on daily numbers of crew, numbers of passengers and trip destination of vessels
operating in the GBRMP. For comparison with the survey of regular reef users,
information on the total number of visitors to each reef during the financial year 1995 1996 (i.e. 1 July 1995 to 31 June 1996) was used. This period corresponded with the
administration of the survey of regular reef users (July 1995 - October 1995).
171
Bivariate correlations using Spearman's-rho were used to compare the survey
respondents' perceptions of crowding with the actual levels of tourism use for the
financial year 1995/1996 (GBRMPA EMC Database, planning staff, pers comm. 1996).
Data from all of the survey responses were averaged for each reef before the analysis.
Outliers and extreme values, as identified by boxplots of the averaged data, were
removed before the calculation of correlation coefficients. Data from reefs where there
were missing EMC data or missing responses for perception of crowding were excluded
from the analyses.
RESULTS
Respondents
In total, of the 2000 surveys distributed, 463 were returned. Five of the returned surveys
were not completed and thus not used in the analyses. This represented an overall return
rate of 23%, which is considered reasonable for mail back surveys from reef users of the
GBRMP (Shafer and Benzaken, 1998).
Most of the respondents were regular reef users. Seventy four percent of the respondents
visited the marine park at least once a month and 54% had over 10 years of experience in
the reef region. Seventy-three percent of respondents had visited more than 10 reefs in
the marine park and 78% usually visited a new reef site every 6 months or so.
Cairns was the most popular port of departure amongst the survey participants (47%),
followed by Port Douglas (18%) and Lizard Island (5%). Most respondents (80%)
traveled between 10 and 100km from their port of departure to visit their reef sites.
Vessels used to reach reef sites tended to be less than 12m long (52%), had a cruising
speed of under 15 knots (52%) and usually carried up to 10 passengers (76%). Over half
of the respondents owned the vessel they used to visit the reef (53%). Fifty-two percent
were the people who made the decision about which sites would be visited during a
particular trip. Most respondents (58%) considered they had more than 10 reef sites
available to choose from in the Cairns Sector for their type of reef use.
Eighty-two percent of the respondents were male and 48% were between 35 and 50 years
old. Although few of the respondents had any formal training in reef ecology, most
(55%) rated their knowledge of ecological processes in the GBRMP from good to
excellent.
Social Conditions
In order to describe the social conditions at reef sites, people were asked about their
preferred levels of use. Although most respondents often saw other groups of reef users
at their sites (86.5%), they would have preferred to see fewer people and vessels (86.6%).
Forty four percent of the respondents considered that the actions of others actually
decreased their enjoyment of the resource.
The frequency distribution of scores for perceived levels of crowding was different for
reefs at different shelf positions (Pearson Chi-Square = 38.2, df = 12, p = 0.000). Inshore
reefs were considered to be less crowded than offshore and midshelf reef sites. At most
172
sites across all shelf positions (83%), respondents indicated that their enjoyment of the
area was seldom enhanced by the presence of others.
On average, respondents noted that people usually anchored or moored within 20 to 100
m of each other at all reef locations. Most respondents indicated that the variable
"current anchor distance" was the preferred distance between vessels (71%). Vessels
tended to anchor or moor less than 50m apart inshore (57%) and up to several km apart
offshore (62%).
On average, three other vessels were regularly seen by respondents during their visits to a
reef (Table 1). However, five respondents reported instances when over 100 vessels were
observed at Lizard Island, Upolu Cay, Tongue Reef. While this phenomenon is rare, the
presence of such a large number of vessels at these locations continues to be of concern
to both the Marine Park managers and tourism operators, as they have not assessed the
impacts of such a large number of vessels at these locations (GBRMPA planning staff,
pers. comm. 2006).
Respondents were also asked to specify an acceptable level of use for their sites (Table
1). The mean response was that five vessels was the maximum number that would be
acceptable at the respondents’ preferred locations. Respondents did, however, consider
that some locations could sustain a larger number of vessels than others. Reefs where it
was considered acceptable for the maximum number of vessels to range from 20 to 100
included Sudbury Reef, Elford Reef, Fitzroy Island, Green Island, Rudder Reef, Low
Islets, High Island, Upolu Cay, Tongue Reef, Opal Reef, Frankland Islands, Arlington
Reef and Lizard Island. These locations are mainly off Cairns and Port Douglas and are
largely associated with tourism operations and major recreational fishing sites.
On average, the presence of 34 other people was considered the maximum respondents
would tolerate before their experience became unacceptable (Table 1). However, the
standard error for this question was large, with responses ranging from no additional
people to 1000 at some locations. Those locations where respondents could tolerate up to
1000 additional people were mainly located off Cairns and were also well known tourist
destinations. These sites included: Moore Reef, Green Island, Michaelmas Cay, Norman
Reef, Agincourt Reefs, Low Islets, Upolu Cay, Hastings Reef, Fitzroy Island, Arlington
Reef and Lizard Island.
In general, respondents were less concerned with the number of people than the number
of vessels at their reef sites. Over 50% of the respondents considered that the number of
people did not matter to their reef experience, while over 70% felt that the number of
vessels did influence their experience (Table 1).
173
Table 1: Respondents perceptions of the social conditions at their reef sites
Social Condition
Mean
SE
Upper
Limit
% "does not matter”
responses
How many vessels are usually anchored or
moored within sight of you at any one time?
3.4
0.16
99
19.2
What is the maximum number of vessels
that you have seen using these sites?
8.4
0.36
99
11.5
5.1
0.24
99
26.0
34.0
3.2
1000
52.1
At these sites, what is an acceptable number
of vessels to have within sight of you at any
one time?
At these sites, what is an acceptable number
of people to have within sight of you at any
one time?
Comparisons between levels of tourism use and the perception of crowding
In order to understand the relationship between actual and perceived levels of use,
correlation analyses using Spearman's rho were performed to compare the total number
of tourists at permitted tourism reef sites in the Cairns Sector for the financial year
1995/96 (GBRMPA EMC Database, planning staff, pers comm. 1996) and perceived
levels of use and crowding at the same reef sites. Results of these analyses are displayed
in Table 2.
174
Table 2: Bivariate correlation analyses using Spearman’s Rho comparing the survey
respondents mean perception of crowding per reef (seven survey questions) and the sum
total of tourism visitations per reef from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996. (N=63)
SURVEY QUESTION
How often is your enjoyment of these reef sites decreased by the actions of
other groups of reef users?
Spearman’s
RHO
0.399**
How often is your enjoyment of these reef sites enhanced by the actions of
other groups of reef users?
0.356**
How often do you see another vessel?
0.440**
How often would you prefer to see another vessel?
0.344**
How close do other groups of reef users normally moor or anchor to you?
-0.286*
What is the minimum distance that you prefer for another vessel to be
anchored or moored from you?
-0.082
At these sites, what is an acceptable number of vessels to have within sight
of you at anyone time? Please indicate the highest number you would
tolerate before your reef experience becomes unpleasant.
What is an acceptable number of people to have within sight of you at
anyone time? Please indicate the highest number you would tolerate
before your reef experience becomes unpleasant.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
0.149
0.807**
Table 2 demonstrates the significant relationships between the survey respondents’
perception of existing use and levels of crowding at reef sites and the actual levels of
tourism use. The strongest correlation existed between the actual levels of tourism use
and the acceptable number of people in sighting distance of the respondent (Table 2).
Larger numbers of people were more acceptable to the survey respondents at sites that
historically had high numbers of tourists.
The likelihood of seeing others and of having either increased or decreased enjoyment of
the reef experience increased significantly with more tourists. For example, some of the
survey respondents preferred to see more people at reefs that traditionally have high
numbers of visitors. With an increased number of people at a given reef location, the
perceived distance between anchorages decreased.
DISCUSSION
The sample of people surveyed provided a group of highly experienced, knowledgeable,
motivated and concerned reef users. Environmental perception, particularly perception of
resource quality, is influenced by an individual's knowledge of the environment (Fenton
and Reser 1988). Repeated experience in an environment develops finer-tuned perceptual
175
skills that allows humans to detect certain information. Hammitt (1981) showed that
familiarity with natural areas influences environmental preferences. In essence, a more
experienced visitor tends to be more sensitive toward the particular features of the place
they regularly visit (Mugica and De Lucio 1996).
Is the reef too crowded?
In outdoor recreation research, crowding can be defined as the point where use density
becomes unacceptable. Most of the research on crowding has focussed on terrestrial
parks, where researchers have found that group size (Lime 1972), type of group (e.g.
Inglis et al. 1999) and mode of travel (Stankey 1973, 1980) affect the definition of
crowding and acceptable levels of use.
In addition, a person’s level of experience also affects their definition of crowding,
through either a refinement of tastes or by exposure to lower density conditions as a
result of earlier participation (Manning 1985). More experienced users are more sensitive
to higher use densities. Inglis et al. (1999) found that past recreational experience in the
GBRMP was related to visitors' use level preferences.
In this survey, the respondents considered that the current levels of use were too high for
most locations in the Cairns Sector of the GBRMP. They would have preferred to see
fewer people and vessels while visiting their favoured reef sites (Table 1). Other studies
have found that preferred use levels are generally lower than maximum tolerable
conditions (summarised in Manning et al. 1999).
When asked to determine an acceptable level of use for their sites, the respondents
identified a wide range amongst the various reef locations (Table 1). Inglis et al. (1999)
also found a wide range of personal crowding norms within four groups of people
surveyed about perceived crowding on the GBR. In essence, there is diversity in the use
settings preferred by different visitors to the marine park and it is the management
agencies’ challenge to provide for these different settings within the boundaries of their
park through various management instruments.
Those reefs where respondents considered they could tolerate a large number of vessels
(20-100) and people (100-1000) were reefs that were currently well known tourism
destinations and major recreational fishing sites (Breen 2006). This result suggests that
survey respondents may have experienced a product shift with regard to these high use
locations during the past decade. Product shift is a cognitive ability to adapt to adverse
conditions (such as increased use) whereby visitors change their definitions of recreation
experiences (Shelby et al. 1988, Shindler and Shelby 1995). In essence, the respondents
may be able to cope with the increased use of certain reef sites in the Cairns Sector from
tourism operators and recreational fishers by changing their standards to correspond with
the area’s changing condition (Shelby and Herberlein 1986). Shafer et al. (1998) also
proposed that reef visitors with more experience may have "shifted" their perception
regarding an acceptable number of people to better match the current social conditions on
the reef. This finding has wide implications for further increases in reef use over the next
decade or so. Future studies should investigate the possibility of a continuing product
shift with regard to high use sections of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
176
In addition, Pauly et al., (1998), Pauly (2001) and Jackson (2001) warn that while
monitoring change in marine systems it is important to be aware of the issue of “shifting
baselines”. Pauly (2001) states
“each generation accepts the species composition and stock size they first observe as a
natural baseline from which to evaluate change. This ignores the fact that this baseline
may already represent a disturbed state. The resource then continues to decline, but the
next generation resets their baseline to this newly disturbed state. The result is a gradual
accommodation of the creeping disappearance of resource species and inappropriate
reference points….”
As in other terrestrial and marine studies on crowding (e.g. Manning 1985, Inglis et al.
1999), most respondents had measurable preferences for the number of vessels and
people they found acceptable at their reef sites. However, respondents were more
concerned with the number of vessels at reef sites than with the number of people (Table
1). This result suggests that vessels are more of a visual impact at reef locations than
people per se and as such require appropriate limits of access. In addition, the results
suggest that the number of vessels observed at a given reef location may be a more
appropriate indicator of social impact in the Cairns Sector of the GBRMP than the
number of people. In the current Cairns Area Plan of Management, the settings are
determined primarily by the number of people on a vessel and not by the number of
vessels at a given location (GBRMPA 1998, 2005b).
CONCLUSIONS
While results of the survey indicated that current levels of use were perceived as too high
for most locations in the Cairns Sector, there was a wide range of acceptable levels of use
amongst the various reef locations.
Reefs that were currently well known tourist locations and major recreational sites were
locations where respondents could cope with large numbers of vessels and people. It is
possible that the respondents may have shifted their requirements to better match the
current conditions.
Respondents were more concerned with the number of vessels at reef locations than with
the number of people. Vessels may constitute a greater visual impact at reef locations
than people per se and as such require limits of access. In addition, the number of vessels
observed at a reef location could be a more appropriate indicator of social impacts than
the number of people per vessel. Current management practices however, restrict the
number of people and not the number of vessels at locations within the Cairns Sector of
the Marine Park. In light of the findings of this study, these restrictions need to be
reviewed.
The techniques used in this study have also been valuable in helping to plan for
sustainable marine use in other regions in Australia and might be usefully employed
elsewhere.
177
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank staff at the Environmental Studies Department at James
Cook University, Townsville, Australia for their assistance with this project. Thanks to
the CRC Reef Research Centre Ltd for financial and logistical support. We would also
like to thank the staff of Reef Biosearch, Quicksilver Connections, Undersea Explorer,
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Environment
Protection Agency for assisting with the administration of the survey and providing
valuable data and experiences.
REFERENCES
Breen, B. (2006) Integrating social and biophysical data to develop and evaluate marine
protected area planning at a local scale: The 1998 Cairns Area Plan of Management
as a case study. PhD Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville, QLD Australia.
Donnelly, M., Vaske, J.J. and Shelby, B. (1992) Measuring backcountry standards in
visitor surveys. In: Shelby, B., Stankey, G. and Shindler, B., (Eds.) Defining
Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standards in Wilderness Management - A Workshop
Proceedings., Portland, OR, USA: USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report
PNW-305.
Fenton, D.M. and Reser, J.P. (1988) The assessment of landscape quality: an integrative
approach. In: Nassar, J.L., (Ed.) Environmental aesthetics: theory, research and
applications, pp. 108-119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1998) Cairns Area Plan of Management,
Townsville, QLD Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2005b) Cairns Area Plan of Management Reprint as in Force November 2005 Includes Amendment No. 1 2005. Townsville,
QLD Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Hammitt, W.E. (1981) The familiarity-preference component of on-site recreational
experiences. Leisure Sciences 4, 177-193.
Inglis, G., Johnson, V.I. and Ponte, F. (1999) Crowding norms in marine settings: A case
study of snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Management 24(3),
369-381.
Jackson, J.B.C. (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293, 629-638.
Lime, D.W. (1972) Large groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area - their numbers,
characteristics and impact. Research Note NC - 142. St. Paul MN, USA: USDA
Forest Service.
Manning, R.E. (1985) Crowding norms in backcountry settings: a review and synthesis.
Journal of Leisure Research 17(2), 75-89.
Manning, R.E., Valliere, W.A., Wang, B. and Jacobi, C. (1999) Crowding norms:
alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences 21, 97-115.
Mugica, M. and De Lucio, J.V. (1996) The role of on-site experience on landscape
preferences. A case study at Donana National Park (Spain). Journal of
Environmental Management 47, 229-239.
178
Pauly, D. (2001) Importance of the historical dimension in policy and management of
natural resource systems. In: Proceedings of INCO-DEV International Workshop on
Information Systems for Policy and Technical Support in Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Los Banos, Philippines. ACP-Fisheries Research Report, European Commission.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. and Torres, F. (1998) Fishing down
marine food webs. Science 279, 860
Shafer, C.S., Inglis, G.J., Johnson, V.Y. and Marshall, N.A. (1998) Visitor experiences
and perceived conditions on day trips to the Great Barrier Reef, Townsville QLD:
CRC Reef Research Centre.
Shafer, C.S. and Benzaken, D. (1998) User perceptions about marine wilderness on
Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Coastal Management 26(2), 79-91
Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreational Settings.
Corvalis: Oregon State University Press.
Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J. and Harris, R. (1988) User standards for ecological impacts at
wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research 20, 245-256.
Shindler, B. and Shelby, B. (1995) Product shift in recreation settings: findings and
implications from panel research. Leisure Sciences 17, 91-107.
Stankey, G.H. (1973) Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper Int - 42
Stankey, G.H. (1980) Wilderness carrying capacity: management and research progress
in United States. Landscape research 5(3), 6-11.
179
TOURISM AS BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PROTECTED
COASTAL AREAS?
(Working Paper)
Svein Frisvoll & Katrina Rønningen
Centre for Rural Research
University centre Dragvoll, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
Svein.Frisvoll@rural.no
Keywords: Tourism, rural development, conservation, sustainability, integrated coastal
management
INTRODUCTION
The restructuring of coastal economies in the wake of modernisation has had crucial
consequences for settlement, employment and the way in which natural resources are
utilised. Johnsen (2003) points to a dramatic reduction in the number of people working
in Norwegian fishing industry, while the Norwegian fish-farming industry has become a
subject to an internationalised corporate industry (Frisvoll, 2003). In addressing this, the
Government has cited tourism as a growth area, in order to compensate for employment
and economic losses due to restructuring of primary industries (White paper no. 19
(2004-2005)). While there are a number of international studies (e.g. Oracion et al., 2005;
Leyva et al., 2006), there is a shortage of research on how tourism may affect Norwegian
coastal communities.
Another important driver for coastal change is the increased ambition level for
conservation designations. Previously, Norway’s conservation focus has been on
mainland’s upland areas. Now, resource management has turned towards a more
integrated approach combining both resource use and protection (White paper no. 43
(1998-1999)), coinciding with the Government’s work towards protecting large parts of
the coastal zone and sea.
This paper focuses on local sustainability aspects of tourism as a development strategy in
a remote Norwegian coastal area where the economic and societal restructuring processes
have had profound effects. Further, conservation designations have influenced the area
both practically and psychologically. The paper is based on data from the ongoing CoastScenes project, considering the sustainability consequences of different scenarios.
TOURISM AND SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Tourism may create economic development and demand through capital flow and
investments, which in turn may lead to spin-offs in other sectors (Sharpley 2002). In
tourism literature, tourism as a development strategy is mostly discussed within the
180
framework of ‘North/ South’ (c.f. Sharpley & Telfer, 2002). But tourism and travel is
often raised as a redemption for marginalised western rural areas as well (Telfer, 2002;
White paper no 21 (2005-2006)). However, travel and tourism may have a number of
negative environmental, socio-economic and social consequences (see e.g. Wang, 1999;
Boyne, 2003 for reviews).
Study area: The Froan archipelago
The Froan archipelago off the Trøndelag coast, Norway (see figure 1), 3-4 hours boat ride
from the nearest city of Trondheim, 1 hour from the municipality centre of Frøya, is
situated in the midst of rich fishing grounds. Due to shallow waters and currents, the
archipelago has been attractive for coastal fisheries for centuries, and more recently for
fish-farming. In 1979, Froan was designated a wildlife conservation area, and large parts
became either a nature reserve or a landscape protection area, and is currently Norway’s
largest protected marine area. In 1996, it was designated a Ramsar-area. Major nature
conservation interests are related to sea birds and seals, as well as to the size and
remoteness of the area itself. Froan also contains highly prioritised cultural heritage and
environments.
In 1960, approximately 400 people lived on the islands. Today, only 55 people live there
permanently. A few still live as fishermen and sheep farmers, partly in combination with
other activities. Some are trying to develop new businesses, including tourism. A
significant number are retired or dependant of social welfare. A small, but very important
local school is in operation. Local internal conflicts going generations back as well as
conflicts related to conservation/use are also important characteristics of this fragile
community.
The cynical response is why worry about tourism development or any kind of economic
development within this community. Why not let it wither and leave Froan for the nature
conservation interests? However, apart from the general rights of all Norwegian
communities on public services and welfare, the conservation interests are dependant
upon human presence; landscape conservation and cultural heritage interests are linked to
the long and extreme history of human survival, the remains of heath land and the built
environment; the latter are also important bird habitats.
Human presence is dependant upon business development. Developing seasonal home
tourism, which is becoming important for many other Norwegian coastal areas, into an
important economic foundation seems negligible partly due to the area’s sheer
remoteness. On the other hand, the area’s potential for eco-/geotourism has not been fully
explored. Local initiatives have been small-scale, limited and based upon ad-hoc trips
into the conservation area.
A management plan has not yet been agreed upon, partly because of disagreement
between local stakeholders, regional and national authorities (advocating pro-use) and
regional environmental agencies (advocating no-use). This stalemate, in combination
with the shortcomings of local municipality plans as well as time-limited dispensations
for fish-farming, hamper local initiatives and adds to the insecurity for the future.
181
Figure 1. Map of the study area
The many contradictions of sustainability
The major theoretical and practical challenges are linked to the issue of sustainability; in
addition to the ‘traditional’ aspects of environmental sustainability (World Commission,
1987), economic and socio-cultural parameters (Bjørkhaug, 2006; Soliva et al., in press)
are crucial.
Firstly, conservation authorities would prefer to maintain Froan as pristine nature.
However, a number of the area’s conservation qualities actually depend upon continued
182
use; several of the protected bird species depend upon grazed land, and grazing and
burning are required for maintaining the threatened remains of heath land. Local
settlement is also recognized as to some degree ensuring supervision of the area. As such,
local activity and settlement needs to be sustained. Cultural heritage officials point out
the importance of continued settlement for maintaining the historical resource use
continuity of the area. Informants from the tourism industry stress the importance of
island settlement in order to maintain Froan’s authenticity as fishing communities.
Secondly, primary industries are in decline. Alternative income is needed to sustain
settlement and land use practices that contribute to the maintenance and conservation.
Fish-farming and tourism represent employment opportunities for locals. However, due
to the regulatory requirements in Froan, fish-farming is not an alternative to rely on.
Thus, to locals conservation is seen as threatening economic sustainability of traditional
industries, and only to a limited degree the potential of the conservation designation as an
asset for tourism development is recognised.
Another relevant issue here is whether the tourist traffic inside the protected area should
be managed (i.e. following designated routes only), or whether that would increase the
total traffic. Another concern is whether eco-tourism or wild-life tourism would
concentrate traffic around areas of greatest conservation significance, thus compromising
the very asset needing conservation.
In terms of economic sustainability, one needs to ask who may benefit: locals or
externally owned enterprises. Do local communities mainly provide scenery without any
returns in local economy? To what degree (and how) do new and old businesses
undermine or supplement each other? The lack of tourism related formal competence or
practical skills, is yet another hindrance, as is the lack of investors motivated by Froan.
Social sustainability relates to the wellbeing of a local community, including power
relations and local informal institutional systems. Tourism development in Froan has the
potential to alter the established power balance within the area. This may lead to more
social tensions and strengthened conflicts within the community. But improved social
sustainability may also be an outcome. Local internal conflicts may fade due to the influx
of incomers with diverse backgrounds, including educational, social and/or economic
capital to set up tourism businesses. However, people moving in for ‘post-modern’
reasons (i.e. lifestyle, scenery, quietness, spaciousness etc.) instead of ‘modern’ reasons
(i.e. closeness to fishing grounds etc.) could lead to tensions (Halfacree, 2007). A change
in informal and formal relations and power structures seem necessary in order to generate
development.
CONCLUSION
Different types of tourism will have different potential to succeed in Froan. The use of
the island’s second homes is getting rarer, while ecotourism or high-end geo-tourism may
183
not have fulfilled its potential yet. However, the latter implies substantial investment in
infrastructure. So far the capital necessary for these has remained out of reach.
If tourism is to be a basis for sustainable development in protected coastal areas, such as
Froan, this study suggests that: The integrated coastal management must be precisely that
- integrated; the various authorities and planning institutions need to agree upon what
should be allowed or not, and possibly develop or utilise existent conservation
management schemes in combination with coastal development strategies. Arriving at a
mutual understanding of what the protected values are and how they are best protected
and sustained, are of uttermost importance. But in the case area, stakeholders have not
managed through the 28 year long process that has followed the conservation designation
to reach common ground. One step towards consensus may be to use scenario techniques
(see Soliva et al. in press), getting stakeholders together in order to discuss and evaluate
consequences of different local development trajectories. It is also necessary to increase
the status of ‘world-views’ stressing the interlinked relationship between local ecosystem
and historical and current anthropogenic factors within the biological expert-knowledge
driven management system, as well as increasing local knowledge about conservation
needs and economic opportunities in a post-productivist economy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research is funded by the Norwegian Research Council (2007-2009). Thanks to PhDcandidate Carol Richards for comments and langue editing.
REFERENCES
Boyne, S. (2003). New Directions in Rural Tourism Impact Research. In D. Hall, L.
Roberts & M. Mitchell (Eds.), New Directions in Rural Tourism (pp. 19-37).
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bjørkhaug, H. (2006). Sustainable agriculture in the Norwegian farmers’ context:
Exploring farming habitus and practice on the Norwegian agricultural field. The
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability,
2, 123-131.
Frisvoll, S. (2003). Beslutningsprosesser i havbruket – lokale eieres valg i møte med
globale og lokale forhold. Report 7/03. Trondheim: Centre for Rural Research.
Halfacree, K. (2007). Trial by space for a `radical rural': Introducing alternative localities,
representations and lives. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 125-141.
Johnsen, J. P. (2003). Fiskeren som forsvant? En studie av avfolkning, overbefolkning og
endringsprosesser i norsk fiskerinæring. Dr. scient thesis Norwegian Collage of
Fisheries Science. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
Leyva, C., L. Espejel, A. Escofet & S. H. Bullock (2006). Coastal landscape
fragmentation by tourism development: Impacts and conservation alternatives.
Natural Areas Journal, 26, 117-125.
184
Oracion, E. G., M. L. Miller & P. Christie (2005). Marine protected areas for whom?
Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 48, 393-410.
Sharpley, R. (2002). Tourism: A Vehicle for Development? In R. Sharpley & D. J. Telfer
(Eds.): Tourism and Development. Concepts and Issues (pp. 11- 34). Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Sharpley, R. & D. J. Telfer. (2002). Tourism and Development. Concepts and Issues.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Soliva, R., K. Rønningen, I. Bella, P. Bezak, T. Cooper, B. E. Flø, B., P. Marty, C. Potter
(in press). Envisioning upland futures: Stakeholder responses to scenarios for
Europe’s mountain landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies, forthcoming.
Telfer, D. J. (2002). Tourism and Regional Development Issues. In R. Sharpley & D. J.
Telfer (Eds.): Tourism and Development. Concepts and Issues (pp. 112–148).
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26, 349-370.
White paper no 43 (1998-1999). Bruk og vern i kystsona. Oslo: Ministry of Environment.
White paper no 19 (2004-2005): Marin næringsutvikling. Den blå åker. Oslo: Ministry of
Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.
White paper no 21 (2005-2006). Hjarte for heile landet- Om distrikts- og
regionalpolitikken. Oslo: Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
185
THE LAW AND POLICY REGULATING MARINE PARKS
IN THE ASIA PACIFIC-DE LEGE FERENDA
(Full Paper)
Mary George
Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia
Email: maryg@um.edu.my
ABSTRACT:
There is no comprehensive international treaty, a lex specialis, governing the protection and
preservation of marine parks. The Municipal Marine Parks Law and Policy is a subset of the
National Oceans Law and Policy framework.
International legal rules have not defined a ‘Marine Park’, and not offer adequate protection
of data on marine scientific research. This area is not sufficiently covered under Part XIII of
the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).
Besides the above-mentioned areas, marine parks also need legislative protection for (1) the
reefs and endangered species within and the in the surroiunding areas; (2) the intellectual
property rights of the stakeholders including marine research scientists; (3) the fundamental
human right to livelihood of small-scale and artisanal fishers; and (4) the rights of
government to strategically take advantage of the marine parks in the promotion of tourism.
However, this paper only addresses the following areas of law:
x Definition of the term “Marine Park”
x Data protection and marine scientific research/product
x Consolidated biodiversity lists; and
x An additional forty-six legal considerations.
x
The paper concludes by offering a definition of ‘Marine Park’ and stresses the need for a
balance between biodiversity research and intellectual property rights. It also offers an
insightful forty-six additional legal points for consideration in the preparation of a marine
parks law and policy framework within the National Ocean Law and Policy structure. Finally
a draft of an act is appendixed to the paper.
Keywords: Marine park, marine scientific research/product, biodiversity, and ocean law and
policy framework
186
INTRODUCTION
A National Ocean Law and Policy framework of which marine parks forms a subset
could deal with current as well as future directions, de lege ferenda, based upon the
international treaties, protocols, codes, guidelines and resolutions of international
organizations that states have accepted as law. Future laws, de lege ferenda, should
therefore take into account the obligations and expectations incurred and raised by the
coastal state by adherence to international treaties, protocols and resolutions and the
endorsement given to non-binding norms and their role at the national level. Such a law
and policy framework should address all the current maritime, economic and atmospheric
issues impinging upon the seas and oceans surrounding the coastal state. The issues
relate, amongst others, to land-based sources of pollution, World Trade Organisation
(WTO) and Intellectual property rights and the WTO and environmental trade disputes,
eco-tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, marine parks, threatened, endangered and
endemic species, global warming and dumping, maritime terrorism and piracy, tsunamis,
monitoring systems, and most importantly facilitation of the co-ordination of different
interest groups. Customary international law dictates and customary fishery practices of
the local community or indigenous populations also need to be taken into account for an
integrated national oceans law and policy framework. Some questions in this regard
would be: are there ‘Fundamental Concepts and Measures for the Promotion of Ocean
Development’ in the state or ‘Long-term Perspectives on Fundamental Concepts and
Measures for Ocean Development’? It would be equally pertinent to assess whether
certain principles have been expressed as prime guidelines of ocean development as
follows:
i. Ocean development must contribute to the social development of the coastal state.
ii. Ocean development must contribute to the long-term economic development of the
coastal state.
iii. Ocean development is to be pursued in the national interest in conformity with
international interests.
iv. Ocean development must contribute to the interests of the international
community.
v. The influence of non-binding international norms upon the coastal state’s national
ocean policy.
One of the main reasons why we have laws regulating interactions and activities in the
first place is to exercise control over people and their conduct followed by the licensing
of activities with regard to the resources, both living and non-living, in that area. This
need for law is the need to control prejudicial, biased and distorted usage of the area and
its resources. In this sense, law has to be moral and image-based. There are three sets of
laws to consider: first, the body of international law and second, the body of municipal
law, with the third being the subsidiary regulations and guidelines within municipal law
that have been drawn up by the concerned Ministries. The concerned Ministry has to
adopt a national environmental policy and the laws have to be crafted around that policy
to attain the objectives that have been set out. Another area worthy of exploration for the
coastal state is the use of the doctrine of ‘public trust’ which is a mechanism that subjects
a particular area as a coastal state’s ‘commons’ and proscribes private ownership.
187
Together with a principle such as the precautionary principle, it could form the basis of a
sound environmental policy for a coastal state.
The marine parks regime co-exists with other regimes such as the oil and gas, cables and
pipelines, traditional, customary and other commercial fishing rights, freedom of navigation
and security and sovereignty of the coastal state for the suppression of maritime terrorism, to
name a few other competing uses. The term “marine environmental law” is a mixture of the
general principles of public international law, international environmental law, the 1982 Law
of the Sea Convention (LOSC) and the treaties and resolutions of the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO). By a process of harmonization of the laws and policies in the AsiaPacific, particularly in areas of overlapping maritime zones, it is hoped that the marine
environmental framework will support the various competing uses of the seas. The
fundamental rights of the fishers as stake holders will only be mentioned in passing as this
topic was discussed elsewhere. In the same vein, sustainable coastal and Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM) tourism are not discussed here.
Definition:
The term ‘marine park’ has not been defined in any of the rules of international law such
as under the general principles of public international law, or under general principles of
international environmental law comprising, amongst others, the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), or under the 1982 LOSC or in the treaties and
resolutions of the IMO. Article 22 (2) of the CBD states that so far as the marine
environment is concerned, its provisions have to be read consistently with the rights and
obligations of States under the 1982 LOSC. The only time the term ‘reefs’ are mentioned
in the 1982 LOSC are in relation to baselines fringing reefs in Articles 6, and 47(7) and
drying reefs in Articles 47(1) and (7). The IMO Resolutions are on special areas and
specially sensitive sea areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and more recently the
extension of the resolution to the Torres Strait which has proved contentious upon
implementation. Neither the 1982 LOSC nor the CBD 1992 define a ‘marine park’.
However, CBD 1992 provides a definition of related terms such as ‘biological diversity’,
‘biological resources’, ‘in-situ’ and ‘ex-situ resources’ and ‘conservation’, ‘ecosystem’,
‘habitat’, ‘protected area’ and ‘sustainable use’.
The definition of a marine park is important as the law should know the geographical
coordinates of the area under consideration, that is, what to legislate for and where to
geographically site the subject-matter, the problems within the marine park that need
special protection, whether the marine parks may be amalgamated and the period of time
that the marine parks need protection for. The geographical coordinates of siting of the
marine park is in turn dependent upon the system of baselines that the coastal state
adopts. Other issues relate to the adoption of an ICZM by the coastal state and whether
the marine parks under consideration are already treated under different administrativejurisdictional competencies and ecological regimes in which case then there should not be
any gaps, inconsistencies and overlapps between these and other regimes. The locus is
also important under the Constitution of states for different authorities have powers over
different maritime and coastal areas leading to an internal conflict of jurisdiction within a
state.
188
The definition of a marine park has to capture the rich relationship between the
zooxanthellae and the animals in legal language such that the rights-duties based regime
can afford the necessary protection. If we take the example of the Malaysian marine
parks, 40 islands as at 2006 along the coast have been gazetted as marine parks and some
of them fall within one and two nautical miles of the sea. (UNEP/GEF SCS Project 2006
at 5 and 6). However, many of these marine parks are archipelagoes and offshore islands
and their surrounding waters require further scrutiny before laws can be adopted. Islands
need to fulfill the test laid down under the 1982 LOSC and then their outer boundaries
established in relation to the state’s baselines.
The Malaysian Department of Marine Parks have now prepared CD roms as part of their
educational measures at conservation that explain to the public that there are more than
4,000 species of fish, that is 1/5 of the world’s fish live here and four out of the seven
turtle species of the world are found here. These tropical waters have the most prolific
coral system with more than 500 species of hard corals. No wonder then it is said to be
the heart of biodiversity!! As corals are the backbone of a reef they need special
protection from developments on land and coastal erosion and hard engineering. At site
issues include man-inflicted problems such as coral stealing, unsustainable fishing
practices such as bombing corals and disused nets being thrown away at random at sea
which in turn choke the turtles that eat them in the belief that they are jelly fish. We are
also told that the seagrass beds need to be protected and well-maintained as turtles foray
in these grassy meadows. So it quite clear to the legislators, that the fragile reef including
seagrass meadows need protection from within and beyond including control of man’s
destructive ways both on land and in the adjacent areas of the sea surrounding the marine
parks. Legislation must not only strive to protect the vulnerable species but also must
reflect the respect that we need to accord. The life in the marine park is dependent upon
the life in the mangroves, a terrestrial and aquatic system where oxygen is low in this
inter-tidal zone. As the maze of roots sustain both fish and fry that live and multiply
before they migrate to the coral reefs, legislators would need to protect these areas too.
They would also need to know the period for which particular classes of reefs need to be
protected and for such a protection, it is important to know the life span of a reef. The
right to seek a livelihood from these parks also needs to be addressed and zoning
techniques need to be adopted. Though far from comprehensive and pro-poor small-scale
/artisanal fisher in nature, the Malaysian Marine Parks Order 1994 within the regime of
the Fisheries Act 1985 makes it an offence to harm the corals with a fine of RM20,000/or two years imprisonment or both. (Sarala and Edward, 1994), (East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia, Coral Cay Conservation 2000), (Simon, James and Peter, 2003) (Pulau Redang
and Pulau Payar Reports, Coral Cay 2005) and (Pulau Perhentian Coral Cay, 2006).
Such information may compel the law and policy researcher to adopt a comprehensive
approach to the definition of the term ‘marine parks’ and to provide for regulation of
activities on land and at sea and the inter-face between the two. The precautionary
principle and a total integrated eco-system approach balancing the rights of the
stakeholders by zoning the areas within its ecological and social carrying capacity would
be necessary. (Coral Cay, Pulau Redang at 2). This could mean that the existing
189
administrative and institutional structure may need to be re-organised with no
overlapping jurisdictional issues between the Federal and state governments.
Special legislation such as those from Australia may prove instructional here. The Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 of Australia balances several competing uses such as
tourism, education, navigation, fishing and conservation. On paper, the Act seems fine.
Likewise, The Marine Parks Act 1982 of Queensland, Australia is an Act that provides for
the setting apart of tidal lands and tidal waters as marine parks and for related purposes.
Section 10 A provides that the Act applies both within and outside Queensland to the full
extent of the extra-territorial legislative power of the Parliament. Sections 15 and 16 provide
for the constituents of marine parks and the declaration of marine parks. The constituent of a
marine park also includes tidal waters within the area, tidal land within the area and the
subsoil beneath such tidal land, to a depth below the surface as specified in the regulation and
all marine products within the area. The Governor in Council has been given the
discretionary power to regulate, set apart and declare an area of tidal waters or tidal land to
be a marine park. A good example of legislation dealing with conflicting uses and
institutional challenges is also seen in the Marine Parks Act 1997, No 64 of New South
Wales, Australia. Part 2 which deals with sections 6 to 14 A provides for the effect of
declaration of a marine park area upon aquatic reserves, land reserved or dedicated for public
use, aquaculture, land leases, compulsory acquisition of land and consent of owners. In the
same vein, Division 4 under Miscellaneous in section 20H provides for the removal of
wrecked vessels and other property from marine parks.
Based on the above considerations, a possible legal definition of a marine park could read
as follows:
“A marine park is a park that comprises the inter-tidal zones if any, and natural
appurtenances if any, the sea-bed, subsoil, all geological, geomorphological and
ecological formations both living and non-living including the water-column and the
airspace above the water column that has both living and non-living organisms in it
according to the geographic coordinates established by the state in whose waters the
marine park is found.”
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The provisions of Part XIII (Articles 238-265) of the 1982 LOSC on Marine Scientific
Research (MSR) have been described as one of the most sensitive topics at UNCLOS III.
This Part was limited in its application for it did not apply to the territorial sea, on the
seabed or out to sea where it was not related to the marine environment. Simply put, this
part did not apply to MSR covered by satellites, (Daniel, 2005). It only covers MSR in
the EEZ and on the continental shelf, (Daniel, 2005). The term ‘MSR’ has not been
defined either, (Daniel, 2005). Andrianov and Danilenko echo similar dissatisfaction for
they point out that there is a lack of clarity in this context with regards to four issues,
namely: (i) the meaning of peaceful purposes; (ii) preservation of the marine
environment; (iii) exploitation of living and non-living resources; (iv) access to data
190
issues whereby the LOSC hoped to advance MSR by facilitating the exchange and
interpretation of raw data. MSR is crucial as the right in Article 56(1) (a) in the LOSC is
matched by the responsibility in Article 61.
According to Daniel, MSR is any form of scientific investigation, that is, fundamental or
applied concerned with the marine environment, (Daniel, 2005). Soons is of the view that
applied scientific activity directed for a commercial purpose could also qualify as MSR
and therefore subject to Part XIII, (Soons, 1986). It is possible to abuse MSR as when
states exceed their stock quota as happened in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases or when
it is used for espionage and intelligence missions or for economic gain, (Soons, 1986).
Montserrat Gorina Ysern summed it up as follows:
“The current international regime for MSR under UNCLOS [LOSC] does not deal
with proprietary title over MSR data results. Results made available to the public
often lead to developments in terms of marine products and processes which
require protection as an Intellectual Property Right. Such rights are regulated by
private agreements rather than under international regulation. Article 241
[LOSC] states that MSR “shall not constitute the legal basis for any claim to any
part of the marine environment or its resources.”
Montserrat has argued that claims relating to intellectual property rights would constitute
a claim under Article 241.
The background to the provisions of the 1982 LOSC shows that the current regime which
tilts in favour of the coastal state as opposed to the researching state had its origins in
Article 5(1) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf Convention which
provided that:
“The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural
resources must not…result in any interference with fundamental oceanographic or
other scientific research carried out with the intention of open publication”
The factors that warranted further clarification were that (1) research on the sea-bed and
subsoil required consent of the coastal state; (2) research in the superjacent waters was
free;(3) fundamental research was to be free, that is, carried out for a purely scientific
purpose and (4) applied research, that is, applied in economic activities was subject to the
consent of the coastal state. These were all linked to the exploitation of the continental
shelf.
For Article 5(8) of the Convention continued:
“…the coastal state shall not normally withhold its consent if the request is
submitted by a qualified institution with a view to purely scientific research into
the physical or biological characteristics of the continental shelf…”
191
Coastal states opposed the idea of differentiating the two types of research. At The Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the delegate from Spain summed the
position up as follows:
“The distinction between the two types of research is blurred, and ocean data
obtained by fundamental research could be used for commercial or military
purposes.
…The distinction made between ‘fundamental research’ on the continental shelf
and ‘exploration’ of the shelf in Article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the
Continental Shelf would no longer be necessary. National practice appears
already to have obliterated the distinction in that national legislation requires prior
authorization by the coastal state in both cases”. (de Marffy in Dupuy and Vignes,
at 1130).
This fear between the coastal state and the researching state was summed up by the
Colombian representative as follows:
“It fears the insidious infiltration of scientific neo-colonialism and the
monopolization by some Powers of scientific achievements, in the development
of which all peoples have cooperated for innumerable generations and which is
therefore their common heritage.” (de Marffy in Dupuy and Vignes, at 1131)
The third approach was the zonal approach where the nature of the zone would govern
the research that was carried out. Under this approach, research in the territorial sea
would require prior consent. This provision is now found in Article 245 of the 1982
LOSC. In the EEZ regime, the stance taken by developing and developed states toward
marine scientific research was different. With the exception of the living and non-living
resources of the EEZ, developed states considered the EEZ regime as a high seas zone.
The developing states considered the EEZ as a non-high seas zone where they had certain
rights. The researching states on the other hand preferred the Article 5(1), a regime of
notification to govern fundamental research and Article 5(8) which dealt with a very
flexible regime of consent for the applied research. Coastal states favoured a single all
encompassing regime of consent without distinctions as in Articles 5(1) and (8). Debates
were also entered into the types of consent that could be given by the coastal state to the
researching state. Then there was the issue of tacit consent and implied consent,
withholding consent, qualified consent, and express prior consent for the research activity
carried out on the territorial sea, the EEZ, and the continental shelf. It was the Castaneida
Compromise that saved the day for it recognized that the coastal state enjoyed “sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources, whether living or non-living(article 56)(1) (a). in the same way that the coastal
state had jurisdiction with regard to marine scientific research. These provisions are now
found in Articles 246 and 245, 1982 LOSC. The expression “in normal circumstances” is
said to be a concession to the researching state in order to attenuate the powers conferred
on the coastal states and it is agreed that the element of subjectivity that it introduces
could be dangerous in the event of disputes. (de Marffy in Dupuy and Vignes, at 1138).
Similarly, the requirement that research be conducted for “peaceful purposes” was
192
another aspect of the delicate compromise. (de Marffy in Dupuy and Vignes, at 1138).
The general principles for the conduct of marine scientific research are found in Article
240, 1982 LOSC. Article 246 paragraphs (5) and (6) hold a balance between qualified
consent and discretion to conduct research respectively. The main provisions on the
subject are now found in Articles 245 to 265 and Article 297 of the 1982 LOSC.
Scientists were annoyed that they had yielded more vital power to the coastal states. (de
Marffy in Dupuy and Vignes, at 1140). Other important provisions relate to the duty to
cooperate as found in Articles 242, 243 and 244, 1982 LOSC .
At the other end of the scale were the researching states like the United States that wanted
scientific research to be independent and not interfered with and conducted in a manner
with a view to open publication for the benefit of all.
A lack of consolidated biodiversity lists of the seas of the Asia-Pacific and re-evaluation
of Annex 1 of the 1982 LOSC poses additional challenges for the law and policy
researcher. When the Reports on Coral Reefs and Eco-systems in Malaysia are examined
one finds that the list of species within the areas researched is long. All these reports
together with the threats need to be compiled in a national database such that they can be
adequately protected. When these reports are prepared by foreign experts, the issue of
intellectual property rights in them also arise. At the sub-regional and regional levels, the
law and policy must address the issue relating to knowledge and intellectual property
rights between the researcher and the researched state. Montserrat has identified four
rules that have to be borne in mind which are that Article 241 LOSC offers no legal basis
of protection, it is effective through negotiations between states; Article 249(2) LOSC is
used heavily by the coastal state to restrict publication of the MSR data by the
researchers; these Article have a similar effect to Article 15, CBD 1992; Articles 10
(compilation of data), 39 (confidential information/trade secrets), and 27 (patentable
subject-matter of TRIPS) may also have a considerable impact on certain MSR data,
samples and results.
As far as the CBD 92 is concerned, the only reference to scientific research is in Article
15 (6) which provides that “Each Contracting Party shall endeavour to develop and carry
out scientific research based on genetic resources provided by other Contracting Parties
with the full participation of, and where possible in, such Contracting Parties” and
paragraph (7) which provides that “Each Contracting Party shall take legislative,
administrative or policy measures, as appropriate, and in accordance with Articles 16 and
19 and, where necessary, through the financial mechanism established by Articles 20 and
21 with the aim of sharing in a fair and equitable way the results of research and
development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic
resources with the Contracting Party providing such resources. Such sharing shall be
upon mutually agreed terms”.
Unlike the 1982 LOSC, Articles 16, 17 and 18 of CBD seem to encourage technology
transfer to developing states. Article 16 requires each Contracting Party when
interpreting the term ‘technology’ to include biotechnology, access to and transfer of
technology as these are essential elements for the attainment of the objectives of the
193
Convention. States are also required to access and transfer to other Contracting Parties
technologies that are relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity. The access to and transfer of technology to developing countries is to be
provided and/or facilitated under fair and most favourable terms, including on
concessional and preferential terms. More importantly, the Article state that “in the case
of technology subject to patents and other intellectual property rights, such access and
transfer shall be provided on terms which recognize and are consistent with the adequate
and effective protection of intellectual property rights”. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 then go
onto provide that the state shall take appropriate legislative, administrative and policy
measures in that regard “with the aim that the private sector facilitates access to, joint
development and transfer of technology referred to in paragraph 1 above for the benefit
of both governmental institutions and the private sector of developing countries…”
Paragraph 5 provides that:
“States that recognize that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an
influence on the implementation of this Convention, and are required to cooperate in
this regard subject to national legislation and international law in order to ensure that
such rights are supportive of and do not run counter to its objectives”.
Article 17 focuses on exchange of information “from all publicly available sources,
relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into
account the special needs of developing countries and includes exchange of results of
technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and
surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as
such and in combination with the technologies” and where feasible includes repatriation
of information. The requirement in Article 18 is that States must exchange results of
technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and
surveying programmes, specialized knowledge, indigenous and traditional knowledge as
such and in combination with the technologies referred to earlier.
NATIONAL OCEAN LAW AND POLICY FRAMEWORK: 46 AREAS
For the adoption of an integrated national ocean law and policy framework, of which
marine parks forms a subset, there are forty-six additional areas of law that need to be
examined. These range from an examination and analysis of all municipal laws and
policies at the national level relating to different subject-matter which impinge upon
marine parks including issues related to hard-engineering. Germane to these
considerations, it is necessary to state the environmental policy of the state followed by a
guarantee of the fundamental rights of the coastal populations to pursue their livelihood.
A national ocean law and policy framework has two basic objectives of which the first is
to analyse all the gaps, inconsistencies and overlaps within the national and subsidiary
level framework, and to list and analyse the current laws and policies regulating marine
parks in the coastal state and those which have an indirect impact upon the marine parks
and consequently upon the government of the coastal state, referred to as lex lata .
194
The second objective is to pave the direction for the future laws and policy as found in
the draft international treaties, protocols, resolutions and the role of other non-binding
norms at the international level and its application into domestic law, referred to as de
lege ferenda.
I. Issues relating to lex lata:
1. Issues relating to lex lata that have a direct and an indirect impact upon the
marine environment;
2. To adopt an environmental formula in the protection and preservation of the
marine environment;
3. To adopt a code on the protection of the dignity and human rights of coastal
populations and indigenous islanders - land tenure, local communities, livelihood,
alternate forms of livelihood and compensation issues;
4. To analyse all laws related to baselines, the territorial sea and contiguous zone;
5. To analyse all laws related to shipping including warships and other government
ships operated for non-commercial purposes and their presence during training
near the marine parks;
6. To analyse the laws for marine parks when situated in straits used for
international navigation as opposed to territorial sea states;
7. To analyse the laws related to the exclusive economic zone which have an impact
on the marine parks;
8. To analyse the laws related to fisheries;
9. To analyse the laws related to infrastructure development and sea installations;
10. To analyse all laws related to tourism and recreational uses;
11. To analyse all laws related to soil and ecology, geology and geomorphology of
the seabed and subsoil;
12. To analyse the laws related to land pollution;
13. To analyse all laws related to marine pollution;
14. To analyse the laws related to Integrated Coastal Zone Management;
15. To analyse all laws related to biodiversity
-biodiversity monitoring and marine bio-technology
-marine ranching and mariculture
-ecological restoration in coastal zone
-coastal disaster prevention research and management
-ocean policy research
-coastal management research
-marine environment risk assessment (toxicology)
-ocean energy utilization
-marine transportation and safety
-ocean circulation, climate change and ocean eco-environment research;
16. To analyse all laws related to international maritime terrorism that directly
impinge upon the marine parks within territorial sea, straits waters, archipelagic
waters, contiguous zone and EEZ/EFZ waters;
195
17. To analyse the implications of the Nuclear Weapons Case on maritime terrorism
in the context of maritime safety;
18. To analyse the current national legislative developments related to maritime
terrorism;
19. To analyse all laws related to decommissioning of offshore oil and gas
installations which have a direct and an indirect effect on the marine parks;
20. To analyse the relevant case law on each of the above topics besides the statutory
provisions and bye-laws and other regulations and guidelines;
21. To analyse the laws related to marine scientific research and its relationship to
marine parks; and
22. To analyse the public trust doctrine and the fiduciary obligations of the Federal
Government towards the State Governments and the Federal and State
Governments towards the citizens of the coastal state.
II. Issues de lege ferenda relate to, inter alia,
(1) land-based sources of pollution, (2) shipping, (3) marine pollution, (4) WTO and
intellectual property rights and WTO and environmental trade disputes, (5) ecotourism, (6) sustainable development, maximum yield, total allowable catch, (7)
fisheries and aquaculture, (8) marine parks, (9) threatened, endangered and endemic
species, (10) global warming and the London Convention, (11) maritime terrorism,
(12) piracy, (13) tsunamis, (14) monitoring systems,
(15) facilitation of the co-ordination of different interest groups.
(16) the role of ocean development in the social development of the coastal state.
(17) ocean development and the long-term economic development of the coastal state.
(18) ocean development in the national interest which is in conformity with
international interests.
(19) ocean development in the interests of the international community.
(20) Priorities within the policy
When drafting any policy for the lawful government of a nation, one should have explicit
prioritization of the list of projects to be accomplished so that there is a start and a finish
to that policy for the period under review. One should be able to spot the problem areas,
the technical criteria and economic cost factors, costs benefit analysis based on the best
information available. Issues relating to economics and law are inseparable. Questions
on hard to compare alternatives such as what do we tackle and how, what laws are
appropriate and ‘in place’, what has been the investment of the federal and state
government and the non-governmental organizations in the projects identified so far are
equally pressing on the mind of the policy drafter. Likewise, questions relating to
institutional rigidities such as the number of institutions involved, clash of their
institutional priorities and the role of international agencies also come to mind.
Following from this, it is also incumbent on the government to examine political issues,
election manifesto promises to the people and address issues such as “who benefits” and
“has the project increased the welfare in the country”. Furthermore, the government has
to undertake several steps to end “conflicts”, resource depletion, check malnutrition,
prevent communicable diseases amongst species, improve upon the income of the
196
islanders and alleviate their suffering from hunger. Focusing on the international plane,
the government has to examine the international treaties and other bilateral and
multilateral treaties that have been signed and ratified so far, such as the Climate Change
Convention, the Biological Diversity Convention and the Cartagena Protocol to
inventorise its international obligations on sustainable development as agreed to at the
Rio Summit and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
(21) Cost-benefit analysis
In addition to the above list, the policy-maker has to give a brief overview of the
dimensions of the challenge and identify between one and five practicable opportunities
to address the challenge, make an extensive overview of the cost benefit analysis in the
literature and apply it to the different opportunities. Besides, the policy should also have
considered other opponent and proponent papers. It would be in the interest of the
government to identify all the marine park challenges and appoint economists to write
papers with opportunities within each, such that by the end of the exercise the coastal
state can convene a group of eminent economists to evaluate the evidence and produce a
prioritized list to show where the government would get the most for its marine park
investments: where the duty to protect and preserve the marine parks is balanced against
the human rights of the coastal populations.
(22) The relevant Ministry ought to be apprised of regimes of liability and compensation
for marine pollution in general and are directed to all coastal states, strait states,
archipelagic states, user states, flag states and port states in their dealings with marine
parks.
(23) The relevant Ministry ought to be apprised of state liability in the protection and
preservation of the marine environment.
(24) A National Centre has to be set up to act as the focal point in all matters relating to
research, field-work, publications and database.
CONCLUSION
A national law and policy framework for marine parks is but a subset of the national
ocean law and policy framework. Such a lex specialis ought to incorporate the
precautionary principle as its basis. The role of international law and of treaties and their
reception into domestic law are reflected in these additional 46 points.. Issues relating to
marine scientific research ought to be legally protected in the event of adverse usage and
eventual loss of claim. Even, national issues such as the import and export of species or
parts of species by researchers need to be looked into and ethical issues have to be
considered. At the state to state level, allocation of the researched knowledge of science
and of law between and amongst the coastal states, the researching states and the third
states irrespective of the differences between fundamental and applied research ought to
be settled by International and National Laws on Intellectual Property. Transfer and
access of technology and of biotechnology, exchange of information and technical and
scientific cooperation in favour of developing coastal states are unclear in the 1982
LOSC. Article 15 of CBD 92 on Access to Genetic Resources reflects public
197
international law in that, it vests sovereignty over genetic resources within the state and
authorizes states to determine access to genetic resources according to national legislation
that reflect the mutuality of these agreements on a prior informed consent basis.
However, restrictions that run counter to the objectives of the Convention are not to be
imposed. The standard and level of care that a state ought to demonstrate in the
protection and preservation of the marine parks is found in the customary international
law principles of Part XII of the 1982 LOSC, in the IMO Conventions and Resolutions
and in the CBD 1992. Though only mentioned and not explored further in this paper,
where regional or sub-regional measures need to be adopted for overlapping zones, then
perhaps the Mediterranean model may be considered based on the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Mr AB Rahim Gor Yaman, Head of the Marine Parks
Section, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Malaysia for
providing all the Reports discussed herein.
REFERENCE LIST:
Marine Park Island Management Conceptual Plan for Peninsular Malaysia 1994 prepared
by Sarala Aikanathan and Edward Wong Fai Hung Report produced under Project
MYS 256/93 July 1994;
Marine Report of Coral Reef Ecosystem Resources Assessment Studies, Pulau Perhentian
prepared by Simon Harding, James Comley and Peter Raines, September 2003. This
project was undertaken under the initiative of the Marine Park Section of the
Malaysian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment;
Pulau Redang Coral Reef Ecosystem Resources Assessment Studies Report 2005
prepared by Coral Cay Conservation Ltd for the marine Park Section, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment;
Pulau Payar Coral Reef Ecosystem Resources Assessment Studies Report 2005 prepared
by Coral Cay Conservation Ltd.
Status Report on the Coral Reefs of the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia 2000 prepared
by Coral Cay Conservation Ltd for the Marine Parks Section of the Department of
Fisheries Malaysia;
Terrestrial Ecosystem Resources Assessment Studies Pulau Perhentian 2006, Malaysia
Reefs and Islands Conservation Project by Coral Cay Conservation Ltd for the
Marine Park Section (as mentioned above); UNEP/GEF SCS Project National Coral
Reefs and Coral Reef Report Malaysia 2006.
Andrianov and Danilenko, Legal Regime of MSR according to UNCLOS: prospects. IN
Montserrat Gorina-Ysern 2003, ASIL Insights: Legal Issues Raised by Profitable
Biotechnology
Development
through
MSR,
see
http:www.asil.org/insights/insigh116.htm, 7 May 2007.
198
Annick de Marffy “Chapter 20: Marine Scientific Research” 1991 IN Dupuy R.J. and
Vignes D. (Eds), A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, Vol 2 (Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff)
Churchill RR and Lowe AV, 1999, The Law of the Sea, (3rd Edn), (Manchester: MUP).
Daniel Tim (of Kendal Freeman), ABLOS Conference, Monaco, 10-12 October 2005
Montserrat Gorina-Ysern 2003, ASIL Insights: Legal Issues Raised by Profitable
Biotechnology
Development
through
MSR,
see
http:www.asil.org/insights/insigh116.htm, 7 May 2007.
Preamble to the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the
Mediterranean and the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea
Against Pollution, 1976
Soons A, 1986, Marine Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea,
Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) (International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea, Case Nos 3 and 4) (1999)
APPENDIX
Legislation de lege ferenda
Name of Act
The Marine Parks Law [and Policy] Act OR
The Marine Parks Act
Preamble
-Recapitulating ratified international conventions, protocols, codes,
-Recalling the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Flora and Fauna,
-Recalling Intellectual Property Rights of commercialized samples of coastal states of
origin,
-Recalling the provisions of the 1992 CBD, and other private and bilateral agreements
concluded between researcher and coastal states,
-Underscoring the rights to use and sell pharmaceutical marine products if advantageous
as per the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and under the relevant provisions of
the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreements (TRIPS)
-Recapitulating resolutions of international intergovernmental organizations that the state
voted for or agreed to or participated in;
-Recapitulating the Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management principle,
-Subscribing to the sustainable development principle as the state participated in;
-Subscribing to Chapter 17 of Agenda 21;
Long title of the Act
Scope of application of the Act
199
Substantive matters
This Act should contain a definition of the terms ‘marine park’, ‘baselines’, ‘internal
waters’, ‘territorial sea’, ‘straits used for international navigation’, ‘archipelagic waters’,
‘continental shelf’, ‘contiguous zone’, ‘the exclusive economic zone’, ‘international
navigation rights – innocent passage, transit passage, archipelagic sea lanes passage, and
freedom of high seas navigation’, ‘submerged land and tidal lands’, ‘mangrove and
coastal forests,’ ‘fisheries and related terms in fisheries’, ‘marine environment’, ‘marine
scientific research’, ‘export of samples’, ‘marine product’, ‘intellectual property rights in
marine products and biotechnology’, ‘compilation of data’, ‘confidential information /
trade secrets’, ‘patentable subject-matter under TRIPS,’ ‘meaning of peaceful purposes’,
‘preservation of marine environment’, ‘exploitation of living and non-living resources’,
and ‘access to data’, ‘resources’, ‘present and potential resources’ , ‘environmental
impact assessment’, ‘Federal register of marine parks’, ‘marine park rangers’, ‘wrecks
and artefacts’, ‘public trust doctrine’, ‘condominium jurisdiction’…
Cross-reference
The Act should cross-reference to all other municipal legislation at this point where the
above definitions overlap with them.
Public trust doctrine
Public trust doctrine – rights, duties and benefits
Location and amalgamation
The location of all the marine parks have to be determined together with the necessary
criteria for amalgamation should such a need arise.
Zoning purposes and consistency with local land laws
Conservation and management including indigenous customary practices, recreational,
ecological, archaeological, and palaentological significance, historical, scientific, marine
scientific research, educational, aesthetic qualities, tourism – long term protection, vital
habitats and other features, right to livelihood of coastal small-scale and artisanal fishers,
special areas, specially protected sensitive areas, condominium jurisdiction of
overlapping areas
Rights and concomitant duties of stakeholders and costs
Infringement of the Act, prohibited activities and enforcement and theories of
punishment
Institutions and jurisdiction – overlapping, lack of, conflicting Federal, state and
local governments and agencies
Time frame for periodic evaluation
Appendix to Act – to cover the health and biodiversity including the plants, animals and
invertebrates; list of threatened and endangered species, common and overlapping species
in areas of condominium jurisdiction, and unique species.
200
QUANTIFYING COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF MARINE
ENVIRONMENTS FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREA PLANNING:
WHEN IS THE REEF TOO CROWDED?
(Full Paper)
Nina Hall & Jim Sillitoe
University of Ballarat
P.O. Box 663, Mt Helen Drive, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia
n.hall@ballarat.edu.au; j.sillitoe@ballarat.edu.au
ABSTRACT
To allow for reasonable use in a multiple use marine protected area, it is important to
understand relationships between stakeholder values at different sites and their
perceptions of crowding and other impacts. The study therefore compares the perceptions
of individuals involved in tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, scientific
research, boating, yachting and other activities with values estimated from the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park management and scientific databases.
Surveys of regular reef users indicated that different activities were targeted at specific
areas according to a combination of values which could be statistically analysed and
mapped across the region. Respondents considered that current levels of use were too
high for many locations in the Cairns Sector. They preferred to see fewer people and
vessels, but were more concerned by the number of vessels than the number of people.
Acceptable levels of use varied widely depending on the location. At established tourism
destinations and major recreational fishing sites, responses indicated that a large number
of vessels (20-100) and people (100-1000) could be tolerated. At areas visited only
rarely, only low levels of use were acceptable. This suggests that there may be shifts in
perceptions at sites that become used more frequently.
The results have implications for management as reef use continues to increase and
extend to other locations. Results from the survey were used to assess management
settings to limit the level and type of activity in different areas. The techniques used have
since been valuable in helping to plan for sustainable marine use in other regions in
Australia and might be usefully employed elsewhere.
Keywords: Marine Protected Areas, crowding, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Limits
of Use
201
INTRODUCTION
Over 90% of human activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) are
concentrated within the 1% of reefs located in the Cairns Area (GBRMPA, 1998). This
region supports important tourism and fishing industries, recreation, indigenous hunting,
scientific research and intrinsic ecological values recognized by its World Heritage status.
Within the region, the level of human activity ranges from high use areas around
population centres and ports, to areas of infrequent use and other areas of virtual
wilderness. The types of activity are diverse and place a range of different pressures on
reef resources. There is also much potential for conflict among competing uses and types
of management.
If opportunities for tourism, recreation and business are to be effectively managed, it is
important to understand how regular reef users are influenced by changes in the
environment and how they perceive and value the natural and social environments. This
paper describes one component of a survey conducted to obtain information from regular
reef users on how they perceived social conditions on reefs in the Cairns Sector of the
Marine Park.
THE STUDY
Study Area
The study was conducted in the Cairns Sector of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(Figure 1). The area contains over 160 reefs and covers approximately 3,600,000
hectares (GBRMPA 1998). Most locations are within close proximity to major ports and
the Cairns International Airport and easily accessed by a rapidly growing tourism
industry and increasing resident population.
202
Figure 1: The Cairns Planning Area within the Cairns Sector of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park (GBRMPA 1998)
SURVEY METHODS
The subjects targeted for this survey included residents of the region who regularly used
reefs in the Cairns Sector of the Marine Park for recreation, commercial tourism,
scientific research and recreational and commercial fishing. The survey was conducted
between August and December 1995, in conjunction with the Public Consultation stage
203
of the Cairns Plan of Management. . Surveys were advertised through local radio stations
and newspapers and distributed at at over 20 public meetings and through advisory
groups, boat shows, dive festivals, marinas, diving and tackle shops and mailed to
commercial fishing, tourism or research license. As an incentive, all respondents who
returned surveys were entered in a lottery for a free restaurant dinner for two. In most
cases, surveys were returned by mail in a prepaid envelope.
The ethics approval for the survey that was granted by the James Cook University Ethics
Committee did not permit the survey to be distributed to Indigenous groups and the
GBRMPA also considered that this survey was not an appropriate means of gathering
information from Indigenous communities, so such groups were not surveyed.
Two mailed reminders were sent to all participants except for those participants who
received surveys at the boat shows. Participants at the boat shows were not required to
give their return address because of the limited amount of time available for contact.
As a readily available contact list of all reef users in the park did not exist and
participation was voluntary, the survey aimed to notify and encourage as many
respondents as possible by extensively promoting and distributing the survey through
many avenues. Although the aim was to provide a reasonably representative sample of
regular reef users, the methods were effectively a convenience sample, with some
limitations on interpretation of the results. The probability of all types of reef users’
receiving and responding to such a survey is unknown and thus this sample may not be
representative of the full range of users. In particular, Indigenous traditional users were
not sampled at all due to the reasons described previously.
ANALYSES
To allow for reasonable levels of use in the Cairns Sector, it is important to understand
the relationship between actual levels of use, perceived levels of use and crowding. With
such an understanding, it might be possible to identify a benchmark for socially
acceptable levels of use and thus assist the Authority in developing appropriate strategies
to manage use. The survey was divided into three sections. This paper reports on the
third section which aimed to describe the social conditions of different reef sites, identify
levels of unacceptable use and determine crowding norms using based on a set of
standard questions proposed by Donnelly et al. (1992). These questions were modified to
suit the social conditions encountered while visiting coral reefs and to also estimate the
respondents' level of experience in the marine park.
Information on actual levels of tourism use was provided by the GBRMP through the
Environmental Management Charge (EMC) database. Since 1993 tourism vessels have
been required to lodge a quarterly return to the GBRMPA, including information
collected on daily numbers of crew, numbers of passengers and trip destination of vessels
operating in the GBRMP. For comparison with the survey of regular reef users,
information on the total number of visitors to each reef during the financial year 1995 1996 (i.e. 1 July 1995 to 31 June 1996) was used. This period corresponded with the
administration of the survey of regular reef users (July 1995 - October 1995).
204
Bivariate correlations using Spearman's-rho were used to compare the survey
respondents' perceptions of crowding with the actual levels of tourism use for the
financial year 1995/1996 (GBRMPA EMC Database, planning staff, pers comm. 1996).
Data from all of the survey responses were averaged for each reef before the analysis.
Outliers and extreme values, as identified by boxplots of the averaged data, were
removed before the calculation of correlation coefficients. Data from reefs where there
were missing EMC data or missing responses for perception of crowding were excluded
from the analyses.
RESULTS
Respondents
In total, of the 2000 surveys distributed, 463 were returned. Five of the returned surveys
were not completed and thus not used in the analyses. This represented an overall return
rate of 23%, which is considered reasonable for mail back surveys from reef users of the
GBRMP (Shafer and Benzaken, 1998).
Most of the respondents were regular reef users. Seventy four percent of the respondents
visited the marine park at least once a month and 54% had over 10 years of experience in
the reef region. Seventy-three percent of respondents had visited more than 10 reefs in
the marine park and 78% usually visited a new reef site every 6 months or so.
Cairns was the most popular port of departure amongst the survey participants (47%),
followed by Port Douglas (18%) and Lizard Island (5%). Most respondents (80%)
traveled between 10 and 100km from their port of departure to visit their reef sites.
Vessels used to reach reef sites tended to be less than 12m long (52%), had a cruising
speed of under 15 knots (52%) and usually carried up to 10 passengers (76%). Over half
of the respondents owned the vessel they used to visit the reef (53%). Fifty-two percent
were the people who made the decision about which sites would be visited during a
particular trip. Most respondents (58%) considered they had more than 10 reef sites
available to choose from in the Cairns Sector for their type of reef use.
Eighty-two percent of the respondents were male and 48% were between 35 and 50 years
old. Although few of the respondents had any formal training in reef ecology, most
(55%) rated their knowledge of ecological processes in the GBRMP from good to
excellent.
Social Conditions
In order to describe the social conditions at reef sites, people were asked about their
preferred levels of use. Although most respondents often saw other groups of reef users
at their sites (86.5%), they would have preferred to see fewer people and vessels (86.6%).
Forty four percent of the respondents considered that the actions of others actually
decreased their enjoyment of the resource.
The frequency distribution of scores for perceived levels of crowding was different for
reefs at different shelf positions (Pearson Chi-Square = 38.2, df = 12, p = 0.000). Inshore
reefs were considered to be less crowded than offshore and midshelf reef sites. At most
205
sites across all shelf positions (83%), respondents indicated that their enjoyment of the
area was seldom enhanced by the presence of others.
On average, respondents noted that people usually anchored or moored within 20 to 100
m of each other at all reef locations. Most respondents indicated that the variable
"current anchor distance" was the preferred distance between vessels (71%). Vessels
tended to anchor or moor less than 50m apart inshore (57%) and up to several km apart
offshore (62%).
On average, three other vessels were regularly seen by respondents during their visits to a
reef (Table 1). However, five respondents reported instances when over 100 vessels were
observed at Lizard Island, Upolu Cay, Tongue Reef. While this phenomenon is rare, the
presence of such a large number of vessels at these locations continues to be of concern
to both the Marine Park managers and tourism operators, as they have not assessed the
impacts of such a large number of vessels at these locations (GBRMPA planning staff,
pers. comm. 2006).
Respondents were also asked to specify an acceptable level of use for their sites (Table
1). The mean response was that five vessels was the maximum number that would be
acceptable at the respondents’ preferred locations. Respondents did, however, consider
that some locations could sustain a larger number of vessels than others. Reefs where it
was considered acceptable for the maximum number of vessels to range from 20 to 100
included Sudbury Reef, Elford Reef, Fitzroy Island, Green Island, Rudder Reef, Low
Islets, High Island, Upolu Cay, Tongue Reef, Opal Reef, Frankland Islands, Arlington
Reef and Lizard Island. These locations are mainly off Cairns and Port Douglas and are
largely associated with tourism operations and major recreational fishing sites.
On average, the presence of 34 other people was considered the maximum respondents
would tolerate before their experience became unacceptable (Table 1). However, the
standard error for this question was large, with responses ranging from no additional
people to 1000 at some locations. Those locations where respondents could tolerate up to
1000 additional people were mainly located off Cairns and were also well known tourist
destinations. These sites included: Moore Reef, Green Island, Michaelmas Cay, Norman
Reef, Agincourt Reefs, Low Islets, Upolu Cay, Hastings Reef, Fitzroy Island, Arlington
Reef and Lizard Island.
In general, respondents were less concerned with the number of people than the number
of vessels at their reef sites. Over 50% of the respondents considered that the number of
people did not matter to their reef experience, while over 70% felt that the number of
vessels did influence their experience (Table 1).
206
Table 1: Respondents perceptions of the social conditions at their reef sites
Social Condition
Mean
SE
Upper
Limit
% "does not matter”
responses
How many vessels are usually anchored or
moored within sight of you at any one time?
3.4
0.16
99
19.2
What is the maximum number of vessels
that you have seen using these sites?
8.4
0.36
99
11.5
5.1
0.24
99
26.0
34.0
3.2
1000
52.1
At these sites, what is an acceptable number
of vessels to have within sight of you at any
one time?
At these sites, what is an acceptable number
of people to have within sight of you at any
one time?
Comparisons between levels of tourism use and the perception of crowding
In order to understand the relationship between actual and perceived levels of use,
correlation analyses using Spearman's rho were performed to compare the total number
of tourists at permitted tourism reef sites in the Cairns Sector for the financial year
1995/96 (GBRMPA EMC Database, planning staff, pers comm. 1996) and perceived
levels of use and crowding at the same reef sites. Results of these analyses are displayed
in Table 2.
207
Table 2: Bivariate correlation analyses using Spearman’s Rho comparing the survey
respondents mean perception of crowding per reef (seven survey questions) and the sum
total of tourism visitations per reef from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996. (N=63)
SURVEY QUESTION
How often is your enjoyment of these reef sites decreased by the actions of
other groups of reef users?
Spearman’s
RHO
0.399**
How often is your enjoyment of these reef sites enhanced by the actions of
other groups of reef users?
0.356**
How often do you see another vessel?
0.440**
How often would you prefer to see another vessel?
0.344**
How close do other groups of reef users normally moor or anchor to you?
-0.286*
What is the minimum distance that you prefer for another vessel to be
anchored or moored from you?
-0.082
At these sites, what is an acceptable number of vessels to have within sight
of you at anyone time? Please indicate the highest number you would
tolerate before your reef experience becomes unpleasant.
What is an acceptable number of people to have within sight of you at
anyone time? Please indicate the highest number you would tolerate
before your reef experience becomes unpleasant.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
0.149
0.807**
Table 2 demonstrates the significant relationships between the survey respondents’
perception of existing use and levels of crowding at reef sites and the actual levels of
tourism use. The strongest correlation existed between the actual levels of tourism use
and the acceptable number of people in sighting distance of the respondent (Table 2).
Larger numbers of people were more acceptable to the survey respondents at sites that
historically had high numbers of tourists.
The likelihood of seeing others and of having either increased or decreased enjoyment of
the reef experience increased significantly with more tourists. For example, some of the
survey respondents preferred to see more people at reefs that traditionally have high
numbers of visitors. With an increased number of people at a given reef location, the
perceived distance between anchorages decreased.
DISCUSSION
The sample of people surveyed provided a group of highly experienced, knowledgeable,
motivated and concerned reef users. Environmental perception, particularly perception of
resource quality, is influenced by an individual's knowledge of the environment (Fenton
and Reser 1988). Repeated experience in an environment develops finer-tuned perceptual
skills that allows humans to detect certain information. Hammitt (1981) showed that
208
familiarity with natural areas influences environmental preferences. In essence, a more
experienced visitor tends to be more sensitive toward the particular features of the place
they regularly visit (Mugica and De Lucio 1996).
Is the reef too crowded?
In outdoor recreation research, crowding can be defined as the point where use density
becomes unacceptable. Most of the research on crowding has focussed on terrestrial
parks, where researchers have found that group size (Lime 1972), type of group (e.g.
Inglis et al. 1999) and mode of travel (Stankey 1973, 1980) affect the definition of
crowding and acceptable levels of use.
In addition, a person’s level of experience also affects their definition of crowding,
through either a refinement of tastes or by exposure to lower density conditions as a
result of earlier participation (Manning 1985). More experienced users are more sensitive
to higher use densities. Inglis et al. (1999) found that past recreational experience in the
GBRMP was related to visitors' use level preferences.
In this survey, the respondents considered that the current levels of use were too high for
most locations in the Cairns Sector of the GBRMP. They would have preferred to see
fewer people and vessels while visiting their favoured reef sites (Table 1). Other studies
have found that preferred use levels are generally lower than maximum tolerable
conditions (summarised in Manning et al. 1999).
When asked to determine an acceptable level of use for their sites, the respondents
identified a wide range amongst the various reef locations (Table 1). Inglis et al. (1999)
also found a wide range of personal crowding norms within four groups of people
surveyed about perceived crowding on the GBR. In essence, there is diversity in the use
settings preferred by different visitors to the marine park and it is the management
agencies’ challenge to provide for these different settings within the boundaries of their
park through various management instruments.
Those reefs where respondents considered they could tolerate a large number of vessels
(20-100) and people (100-1000) were reefs that were currently well known tourism
destinations and major recreational fishing sites (Breen 2006). This result suggests that
survey respondents may have experienced a product shift with regard to these high use
locations during the past decade. Product shift is a cognitive ability to adapt to adverse
conditions (such as increased use) whereby visitors change their definitions of recreation
experiences (Shelby et al. 1988, Shindler and Shelby 1995). In essence, the respondents
may be able to cope with the increased use of certain reef sites in the Cairns Sector from
tourism operators and recreational fishers by changing their standards to correspond with
the area’s changing condition (Shelby and Herberlein 1986). Shafer et al. (1998) also
proposed that reef visitors with more experience may have "shifted" their perception
regarding an acceptable number of people to better match the current social conditions on
the reef. This finding has wide implications for further increases in reef use over the next
decade or so. Future studies should investigate the possibility of a continuing product
shift with regard to high use sections of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
In addition, Pauly et al., (1998), Pauly (2001) and Jackson (2001) warn that while
monitoring change in marine systems it is important to be aware of the issue of “shifting
baselines”. Pauly (2001) states
209
“each generation accepts the species composition and stock size they first observe as a
natural baseline from which to evaluate change. This ignores the fact that this baseline
may already represent a disturbed state. The resource then continues to decline, but the
next generation resets their baseline to this newly disturbed state. The result is a gradual
accommodation of the creeping disappearance of resource species and inappropriate
reference points….”
As in other terrestrial and marine studies on crowding (e.g. Manning 1985, Inglis et al.
1999), most respondents had measurable preferences for the number of vessels and
people they found acceptable at their reef sites. However, respondents were more
concerned with the number of vessels at reef sites than with the number of people (Table
1). This result suggests that vessels are more of a visual impact at reef locations than
people per se and as such require appropriate limits of access. In addition, the results
suggest that the number of vessels observed at a given reef location may be a more
appropriate indicator of social impact in the Cairns Sector of the GBRMP than the
number of people. In the current Cairns Area Plan of Management, the settings are
determined primarily by the number of people on a vessel and not by the number of
vessels at a given location (GBRMPA 1998, 2005b).
CONCLUSIONS
While results of the survey indicated that current levels of use were perceived as too high
for most locations in the Cairns Sector, there was a wide range of acceptable levels of use
amongst the various reef locations.
Reefs that were currently well known tourist locations and major recreational sites were
locations where respondents could cope with large numbers of vessels and people. It is
possible that the respondents may have shifted their requirements to better match the
current conditions.
Respondents were more concerned with the number of vessels at reef locations than with
the number of people. Vessels may constitute a greater visual impact at reef locations
than people per se and as such require limits of access. In addition, the number of vessels
observed at a reef location could be a more appropriate indicator of social impacts than
the number of people per vessel. Current management practices however, restrict the
number of people and not the number of vessels at locations within the Cairns Sector of
the Marine Park. In light of the findings of this study, these restrictions need to be
reviewed.
The techniques used in this study have also been valuable in helping to plan for
sustainable marine use in other regions in Australia and might be usefully employed
elsewhere.
210
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the panel of external experts for their views with regards to
attributes and the independent referees for their professional opinion and excellent
advice.
REFERENCES
Breen, B. (2006) Integrating social and biophysical data to develop and evaluate marine
protected area planning at a local scale: The 1998 Cairns Area Plan of
Management as a case study. PhD Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville,
QLD Australia.
Donnelly, M., Vaske, J.J. and Shelby, B. (1992) Measuring backcountry standards in
visitor surveys. In: Shelby, B., Stankey, G. and Shindler, B., (Eds.) Defining
Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standards in Wilderness Management - A
Workshop Proceedings., Portland, OR, USA: USDA Forest Service, General
Technical Report PNW-305.
Fenton, D.M. and Reser, J.P. (1988) The assessment of landscape quality: an integrative
approach. In: Nassar, J.L., (Ed.) Environmental aesthetics: theory, research and
applications, pp. 108-119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1998) Cairns Area Plan of Management,
Townsville, QLD Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2005b) Cairns Area Plan of Management Reprint as in Force November 2005 Includes Amendment No. 1 2005.
Townsville, QLD Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Hammitt, W.E. (1981) The familiarity-preference component of on-site recreational
experiences. Leisure Sciences 4, 177-193.
Inglis, G., Johnson, V.I. and Ponte, F. (1999) Crowding norms in marine settings: A case
study of snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Management
24(3), 369-381.
Jackson, J.B.C. (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293, 629-638.
Lime, D.W. (1972) Large groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area - their numbers,
characteristics and impact. Research Note NC - 142. St. Paul MN, USA: USDA
Forest Service.
Manning, R.E. (1985) Crowding norms in backcountry settings: a review and synthesis.
Journal of Leisure Research 17(2), 75-89.
Manning, R.E., Valliere, W.A., Wang, B. and Jacobi, C. (1999) Crowding norms:
alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences 21, 97-115.
Mugica, M. and De Lucio, J.V. (1996) The role of on-site experience on landscape
preferences. A case study at Donana National Park (Spain). Journal of
Environmental Management 47, 229-239.
Pauly, D. (2001) Importance of the historical dimension in policy and management of
natural resource systems. In: Proceedings of INCO-DEV International Workshop
on Information Systems for Policy and Technical Support in Fisheries and
Aquaculture. Los Banos, Philippines. ACP-Fisheries Research Report, European
211
Commission.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. and Torres, F. (1998) Fishing down
marine food webs. Science 279, 860
Shafer, C.S., Inglis, G.J., Johnson, V.Y. and Marshall, N.A. (1998) Visitor experiences
and perceived conditions on day trips to the Great Barrier Reef, Townsville
QLD: CRC Reef Research Centre.
Shafer, C.S. and Benzaken, D. (1998) User perceptions about marine wilderness on
Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Coastal Management 26(2), 79-91
Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreational Settings.
Corvalis: Oregon State University Press.
Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J. and Harris, R. (1988) User standards for ecological impacts at
wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research 20, 245-256.
Shindler, B. and Shelby, B. (1995) Product shift in recreation settings: findings and
implications from panel research. Leisure Sciences 17, 91-107.
Stankey, G.H. (1973) Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper Int - 42
Stankey, G.H. (1980) Wilderness carrying capacity: management and research progress
in United States. Landscape research 5(3), 6-11.
212
IMPACTS OF THE 2004 TSUNAMI DISASTER ON THAILAND’S
MARINE PARK TOURISM: WHAT DID WE LEARN?
(Working Paper)
Somrudee (Meprasert) Jitpraphai1 and James W. Good2
Marine Science Department, Chulalongkorn University, THAILAND
2
Marine Resource Management Program, Oregon State University, USA
Email: somdeem@yahoo.com
1
Keywords: Tsunami, Disaster, Thailand, Marine Park, Tourism
INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes and tsunamis are powerful forces that cause significant loss of life and
property as proved by the Magnitude 9.0 Sumatra Earthquake and subsequent Indian
Ocean tsunami on December 26th, 2004. Lacking any form of tsunami preparedness,
mitigation, and warning systems, the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean suffered
severe loss of human life, economic infrastructure, and natural resources. Approximately
250,000 lives were lost. Millions of people were relocated and are still struggling to reestablish their homes and recover their livelihoods. Overall property damage exceeded
$10 billion US (UNEP 2005).
In Thailand, the tsunami hit the Andaman Coast and the waves reached as high as 10.6
meters in some areas along this coast (DPRI 2005). The country’s famous coastal areas
for sun- and sea-seeking tourists were severely ruined. Economic shockwaves were felt
throughout Thailand’s tourism industry which generates revenue (classified in service
sectors) that is 46.7% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (CIA 2005).
Although lumping tourism revenue into service sector makes tourism hard to assess
impacts on the coast, it does play major role in the national GDP. In a year after the
disaster (FY2005 to 2006), Thailand’s GDP generated by the service sectors dropped to
45.2% (CIA 2007). Consequently, Thai are significantly interested in gathering
information about how natural disaster impacts affect the tourism sector and how best to
foster recovery.
The unprecedented damage also created a demand, especially among marine park
managers and hazard mitigation professionals, for impact analysis of major coastal
hazards on marine park natural resources and ecosystems. This analysis is imperative
given the strong linkage of marine parks, and their rich assortment of ecosystem services,
to coastal community social and economic well-being, particularly with regard to park
tourism. This relationship was examined for marine national parks (MNPs) along
Thailand’s Andaman coast in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami.
213
METHODOLOGY
The impact analysis involved a case study focused on four principal issues: the impacts of
the tsunami on marine parks and how these affected the tourism economy; the recovery
efforts undertaken and their effectiveness; other actions that, if taken, might have
improved preparedness and made recovery efforts more effective; and how marine parks
might be made more resilient to natural disasters in the future.
The principal method used to examine these issues was a Delphi expert opinion process.
The experts were selected using a ‘snowball’ process based on criteria that identified
them as representatives of the expert community rather than randomly-picked individuals
from a large domain. This process is thus different from a random-sample selection
process used in public opinion polls. In other words, these experts were not a
representative sample of the whole population.
The 20 experts came from six professions that were involved in the tsunami recovery
efforts, including (1) academic researchers, (2) marine and coastal resource managers, (3)
marine national park managers, (4) non-government organization staff, (5) tourism
promoters and managers, and (6) tour operators. The different fields and affiliations of
these experts assured good range of perspectives regarding the 2004 tsunami.
The information given by the panel was supplemented by field investigations, interviews,
and spatial data collection and analysis in four marine parks with different degrees of
tsunami impact (Department of Marine and Coastal Resources 2005). These MNPs
included 1) Ao Phang Nga, 2) Hat Nopharat Thara – Mu Ko Phi Phi, 3) Mu Ko Surins,
and 4) Laem Son (Figure 1).
214
Figure 1. Locations of the four marine national park study sites.
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
The experts identified a variety of tsunami impacts, response and recovery in MNPs and
classified them into four categories: (1) natural resources and ecosystems, (2) built
environment, (3) business community, and (4) social systems and human safety. These
tsunami impacts were also grouped into two impact categories based on sequence and
time frame:
1) direct or primary impacts --- physical damage that happens when tsunamis
sweep across coastal areas and attack coastlines and structures,
2) indirect or secondary impacts --- damage that are more distant from the event
in both time and succession and may continue for many years (Heinz Center
2000).
215
According to the panelists, tsunami impacts on natural resources and ecosystems
included changes in nearshore bathymetry and topography, impacts on mangrove,
seagrass, and coral reef habitats, and intrusion of seawater into freshwater supplies.
Impacts on the built environment were mostly direct including destroyed park offices and
visitor facilities, damaged trails, and contaminated potable water wells. The impacts on
business community were identified as all aspects of business damage that were not part
of the built environment—loss of trained employees, customer records, and other tools of
the trade. Some of these were direct impacts, but most were indirect impacts. Impacts on
social systems and human safety were identified here as loss of life, psychological
trauma, loss of employment, and individual and family stress.
Among all four categories, direct and indirect tsunami impacts to the business community
were judged to have the most significant negative effects on tourism. However, the direct
impacts of the tsunami on the built environment and associated infrastructure where also
significant. Impacts on social, health and safety and natural resources and ecosystems
also negatively affected park tourism, but to a lesser degree. Recovery actions taken to
rebuild infrastructure and park-serving facilities inside and outside park boundaries were
judged most effective at restoring park tourism operations; tourism recovery actions
associated with natural resources, the business community, and social systems were
judged to be only moderately effective.
Numerous barriers and constraints, some natural, but most human-caused, to marine park
tourism recovery were identified. These included a harsh monsoon season and the
isolation and extent of destruction of remote MNPs. Constraints were also related to
trauma and fear, as well as superstitions, which led to many skilled workers leaving the
area. Constraints included uneven and sometimes redundant aid distribution; the lack of
skilled aid personnel; fragmentation of relief efforts among competing agencies and
NGOs; undue focus on who gets credit among aid-providers; bureaucratic delays and
paperwork; and outright favoritism and corruption.
Additionally, the findings revealed that direct and indirect impacts affect MNPs
differently. Three of the four parks examined here had significant direct tsunami impacts.
Laem Son and Mu Ko Surin MNPs facilities and natural attractions were severely
damaged, resulting in a more than 80 percent reduction in visitors for FY 2005
(Department of Marine and Coastal Resources 2005; NPWPCD 2005). Ao Phang Nga
MNP, on the other hand, did not sustain any direct tsunami impacts, yet visits also
declined more than one-third there, suggesting a negative “halo effect” from damage in
the surrounding area and in other parks. On the other hand, Mu Ko Surin MNP is a park
that benefited from its low intensity development and high degree of remoteness.
Although its facilities were heavily damaged, minor amounts of man-made debris was
found on its beaches and seafloor surrounding the islands. In contrast, at Hat Nopharat
Thara – Mu Ko Phi Phi MNP, which has extensive private development in areas adjacent
to the park, direct wave impacts were high, as were indirect debris-related damage on
land and in the water. These kinds of differences suggest that MNP hazard vulnerability
216
assessments need to examine potential impacts from sources both inside and outside park
boundaries.
CONCLUSION
This study compiled an idealized set of preparedness, response, and recovery actions that
proved useful for integration with other existing hazard vulnerability assessment models
(see Wood et al 2002; NOAA 1999) in designing MNP hazard preparedness planning
and mitigation guidelines. The process of designing the guidelines, which involved
stakeholder participation, will help marine parks and nearby communities evaluate their
vulnerability, set priorities for mitigation and preparedness, and become more resilient to
hazards in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Sincere thanks go to the Geosciences Department, Oregon State University for providing
grant money for field work. Thanks also to the Division of Research Development and
Promotion, Chulalongkorn University for providing Grants for Development of New
Faculty Staff for a paper presentation.
REFERENCE LIST
CIA (Central Intelligent Agency). 2005. Thailand fact sheet.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html (accessed September
29, 2005).
CIA. 2007. The World Factbook—Thailand.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html (accessed April 18,
2007)
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources. 2005. Rapid impact assessment of the
tsunami on marine resources. Phuket, Thailand: Phuket Marine Biological Center.
(in Thai)
DPRI (Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Research Center for Disaster Reduction
Systems, Kyoto University). 2005. The December 26, 2004 Sumatra Earthquake
Tsunami: Tsunami field survey around Phuket, Thailand.
http://www.drs.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/sumatra/thailand/phuket_survey_e.html
(accessed June 1, 2005).
Heinz Center (The) (The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment). 2000. The hidden costs of coastal hazards: implications for risk
assessment and mitigation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
National Park, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation Department (NPWPCD). 2005. Tourism
statistics in national parks. http://www.dnp.go.th/NPRD/develop/Stat_Tourist.asp
(accessed September 25, 2005).
217
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Coastal Services Center.
1999. Community vulnerability assessment tool: New Hanover County, North
Carolina. NOAA/CSC/99044-CD. CD-ROM. Charleston, SC.: NOAA Coastal
Services Center.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2005. After the tsunami: rapid
environmental assessment. Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.
Wood, N.J., Good, J.W. and Goodwin, R.F. 2002. Vulnerability assessment of a port and
harbor community to earthquake and tsunami hazards: integrating technical expert
and stakeholder input. Natural Hazards Review (November): 148-157.
218
TOURISM IN MARINE NATIONAL PARK OF GUJARAT
(Full Paper)
Prabha Ranade
ICFAI Business School, Ahmedabad
ICFAI House, NR GNFC Info Tower, SG Rd, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, 380054, India
Ps_ranade@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park (Gujarat) is located on the west coast of India.
This park and marine sanctuary are spread over 42 islands in the Gulf. The International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) have included this park
as category II area in the list of National Parks of the world published by them. It is a
unique habitat of bio diversity and abounds in a variety of marine wealth, corals and
mangroves. The diverse ecosystem in the national park provides reproduction ground for
a variety of marine life forms including green sea turtles. The park also attracts 30 species
of migratory birds. Eight varieties of shark are identified around MNP. They migrate to
Gujarat coast for breeding. Through save the whale shark campaign, a potential for whale
tourism has been created along the Gujarat coast.
This paper examines the development of tourism in Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park.
This national park has a rich potential to develop as a leading spot for eco- tourism. The
area plays a significant role in scientific research study and nature education programme.
Lack of infrastructure facilities is the main reason why this park is not able to attract
visitors. The constraints in its development are identified and measures to develop this
area for sustainable tourism are suggested. If tourism in the Gulf of Kutch MNP is
combined with whale watching, turtle tours, beach tourism, bird watching and wildlife
tourism (lion safari) in nearby sanctuaries, the coastal region of Gujarat will be
immensely benefited economically.
Keywords: Tourism, Marine National Park, Biodiversity, Mangroves, Corals
INTRODUCTION
The coastal zone of a country provides a variety of avenues for its economic
development. Systematic and well planned exploitation of marine resources contribute to
boost up the economy. Well protected sea shores help to create healthy marine
environment and provide better source for the development of tourism and related
activities in the area. Tourism is a major contributing factor to socio-economic
development of the coastal region, directly benefiting the local people. The uncontrolled
human activities along the coastal zones and also in high seas have greater impact on the
219
marine environment. Deteriorating conditions of the ocean waters cause extensive
damage to marine life. The importance of conserving the marine biodiversity and
maintaining the balance of ecosystem through effective regulatory enforcement and
management of the marine environment have been recognized all over the world. For
various reasons the coastal zones are preferred for industrial establishment. The industrial
waste and other discharges can cause major damage to marine life and environment.
Conservation of marine life and supporting ecosystem are important for developing
sustainable marine ecotourism, which is of late, picking up world over. The tourists
nowadays are attracted more towards nature and prefer to visit wild life, bird sanctuaries
and marine parks which provide clean environment and proximity with nature. Australia,
New Zealand and the Atlantic island regions are known for growing ecotourism.
However, in India ecotourism is still in its infancy and marine tourism/tourism in MNP is
yet to be developed.
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
Marine National Park (MNP) or Marine Protected Area (MPA) is established to protect,
preserve and sustainably manage species and ecosystems of special value. The MPA is a
means of conserving valuable marine habitats and returning marine ecosystem to
healthier states. The world community realized that coastal zones where the precious
marine life exists, should be declared as protected and placed under the control of
administrative authority for protection of marine life and its supporting systemand further
developing for promoting tourism. The main impetus for MPA came after the World
Congress on National Parks in 1962. A follow up meeting in 1982 called for the
incorporation of marine, coastal and freshwater sites into the worldwide network of
protected areas (WWF-UK, 2005). The World Conservation Union defines MPA as “any
area of the inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain together with its overlying water and associated
flora, fauna, historical and cultural features which have been reserved by law or other
effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” The World
Commission on Protected Area (WCPA), a commission of the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) takes care of the Marine Protected Areas. Many marine parks throughout
the world are set up as strict preservation areas (look but don’t take) that do not allow any
extractive activities such as fishing and collecting. There is a network of MPA in the
Atlantic, some to protect cetaceans, others to help manage whale watching and marine
tourism. Apart from the objective of conservation of marine biodiversity, the
establishment of marine parks takes into consideration public enjoyment and appreciation
of the natural resources also. The establishment of a marine protected area with control of
regulatory authority is one of the most valuable ways to promote and manage successful
wildlife ecotourism. Tourism in MNP is almost exclusively “nature based.” There are
about one hundred MPAs world over. It is estimated that MPAs occupy less than one per
cent of the total area of the seas. The National Parks and wildlife reserves occupy about 6
p.c. of the world’s surface area.
OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND OF STUDY
220
The present paper attempts to provide an overview of MNP of Gujarat and to explore the
role of tourism in MNP in the Indian context. The issues threatening the marine cosystem
of this park, the constraints in tourism development and some of the management issues
relevant for eco-development of the park are highlighted and action plan for enhancing
the tourism experience is given. There are few studies on this area in India. This study
contributes to tourism and MNP studies of a less explored area, having a vast potential of
developing for whale watching and is expected to create awareness of conservation of
marine environment in an upcoming/developing area in India. The research reveals that
marine tourism industry plays a key role in maintaining the health of the marine parks.
MPAs where fishing and other human activities are restricted or prohibited play a key
role to conserve habitats and populations. MPAs provide a powerful convincing method
for marketing the marine environment (Hoyt, 2005). These observations and experiences
have been verified in the context of MNP of Gujarat.
PROTECTED AREAS /MNPS IN INDIA
India has 93 National Parks and 485 sanctuaries specialized for protecting various forms
of wild life, occupying 4.58 % of the geographical area. This list includes MNPs also.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has
included all these parks as Category II area in the list of important national parks of the
world published by them. Category II means protected area managed mainly for
ecosystem protection and recreation. In spite of a very long coastline of over 7500 kms of
the Indian Ocean, there are only 5 notified MNPs in India, namely, Gulf of Kutch
(Gujarat), Mahatma Gandhi and Rani Jhansi NP (A&N islands), Bhitarkanika (Orissa),
Gulf of Mannar (Tamil Nadu). Gujarat has the largest area of land under PAs (17,244 sq.
kms).
GULF OF KUTCH MARINE NATIONAL PARK
This MNP is situated in the inter-tidal zone of the Gulf of Kutch in the Arabian Sea on
the west coast of India. The park area extends to nearly 150 km along the coast of
Jamnagar in Gujarat state. The protected area of MNP includes an archipelago of 42
islands. The average temperature ranges from a minimum of 6 degrees C. in winter (Dec
–Jan.) to a maximum of 40 degrees C. in summer (May). October to March is the best
season to visit this park. This Marine National Park and sanctuary are the first in the
country to be notified. As per the first notification dated 12-08-80 the area of the
sanctuary was approximately 221 sq. km. As per the second notification dated 20-07-82 it
was extended to 237 km. As per the forest department an area of 162.89 sq. km is
declared as MNP and an area of 457.92sq. km has been declared as a marine sanctuary.
The MNP&S area includes reserve forests (12.82sq. km), unclassed forest (347.90sq. km)
and territorial waters of the Government of India (98.20 sq. km) (Nambiar, 2000).
The office of MNP located in the office complex of State Forest Department has visitor
information centre, a model room and a museum. The model room displays the prototype
of MNP with audio visual aids. The museum displays a huge skeleton of a whale shark
221
found along the nearby coast and the specimen of other marine species/ corals found in
the park.
Figure 1: Map of Gujarat
222
Figure 2: Marine National Park (India)
Legal protection
In India the Forest Department is involved in the management of Protected Areas. This
MNP and the marine inter-tidal zone of the Gulf of Kutch have been covered under the
Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Act. The officer in charge of its administration is
Range Forest Officer, having an independent office at Jamnagar, under the jurisdiction of
Conservator of Forests, Gujarat State. Grazing of livestock is not permitted. The Forest
Department controls and prevents grazing and harvesting of fuel wood by patrolling the
area. It also undertakes programmes of regeneration of mangroves through plantations.
The Gujarat Maritime Board has jurisdiction over 398 sq. km. within the protected area
that has been notified for maritime activity under the Port Act in 1980 prior to the
notification of MNP in 1980.
Protection of sea based bio-diversity in India is covered under the provisions of Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 as amended subsequently. Several important marine species are
listed in Schedule I, II & IV of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Coastal Regulation
Zone Notification 1991, Biological Diversity Act 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules,
2004 are also in force, to regulate access to our biological resources, including sea based
bio resources.
Topographic features of the MNP
The Gulf of Kutch is a unique geographical region of the Indian Ocean with tidal
interface. The mudflats within the inter tidal zone of the protected area comprises nearly
two- thirds of the total area of the park. This is an ideal mangrove territory. The low tide
223
mudflat area is the home of sea algae and several other marine creatures and birds. The
sandy beaches make up an ecosystem distinct from mudflats. The beaches provide shelter
to birds and marine creatures from the tide. Other topographic features of the Gulf are
reefs, estuaries, salt marshes and rocky cliffs. The coastal water of Gulf of Kutch is
blessed with a system of coral reefs. The Gulf of Kutch area being shallow, has outcrops
on which corals grow.
ECOSYSTEM IN MNP
Mr. Hornell, an expert British biologist who surveyed the Okhamandal (Gujarat) coast in
1905 stated that “he has never seen before such a rich marine biota in such a confined
place.” This MNP has been classed as one of the “Unique and Rich” biodiversity areas of
Gujarat (GEC, 1996) because of the variety of living resources, and rare species. The
Jamnagar coasts are exploited for pearl fishing and still support population of pearl oyster
.(Khati, 1998). This marine ecosystem differs from the forest ecosystem because sea
water inundates the intertidal zone every day. Any change in the quality of the sea water
has a direct impact on the ecosystem. The distinctive and remarkably diverse ecosystem
within the marine park provides an ideal platform for development of marine tourism.
Marine flora
Marine flora in this park consists of mangroves and sea grasses. A well stacked mangrove
vegetation is found in pockets along the creeks within the mudflats. About 58 km of
dense mangrove forest is observed on 20 islands of the park. Other islands have
mangrove area more than 100 hectares each. The commonly found mangrove species are
Avicennia marina, Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriops tagal. The mangroves are observed to
be in good condition. Mangrove forests provide a variety of habitats and ecological niche
for numerous species of wildlife. Mangrove areas support an interconnected food web
which directly sustains the fisheries.
Besides mangrove and associated flora, over 120 species of marine algae, sea weeds, and
molluscs are found in the Gulf of Kutch. Some of the attractive varieties of sea weeds are
Caulerpa verticellata, Valonia and Acetabularia. Some of the varieties have become
nearly extinct. They offer life saving food and shelter to the diverse biota and are
responsible for the clarity and diversity of life in the Gulf of Kutch. They act as buffers
between mangroves and corals. Certain sea grass species in MNP support unique
endangered fauna like dugong, and the beautiful fish like sea horse. A variety of grass
and shrubs are grown on the sand dunes. They are interspersed with Salvadora species
and Cyperus species. Mangrove has a potential of contributing significantly to the
development of the coastal region in multiple ways. With proper planning, much of the
area under dense mangroves in Gujarat can be developed for ecotourism (Hirway 2004).
Coral reefs
Coral reefs are one of the world’s biggest tourist attractions. Reefs provide habitat for
other animals (sea life). High species diversity and very high rates of biological
productivity make coral reefs unique. Coral reefs offer not just visual beauty, they
224
provide a number of economic benefits, including dive tourism. The 33 of total 42 islands
in the Gulf support fringing reefs. Coral reefs form an isolated set of reef structure. Up to
56 species of corals (44 hard and 12 soft) have been documented from this area. National
Institute of Oceanography (NIO, Goa) has recorded 37 species of corals under 24 genera
as hermatypes. Coral growth is confined to inter tidal regions and shallow banks, to areas
of strong tidal action. It is found to be patchy and stretches up to Mundra and Pirotan
islands. Some of the reef areas on Pagar, Borea, Pirotan and Goose Bets islands support
good colonies of live corals.
Fauna
This marine park is the home of wild buffaloes, Asiatic wild dogs, wild pigs, common
otters. It has a rich variety of fishes and avifauna. Various institutions and research
scholars have listed about 180 species of fish including 8 species of shark and 200
different types of sponges, 27 species of prawns, 30 species of crabs, more than 200
species of mollusks, over 12 species of echinoderms, 5 species of annelids. 108 species of
brown, green and red algae are observed. A wide variety of jelly fishes, sea anemones,
worms, barnacles, lobsters, snails, mussels, oysters, shells, octopus, sea horses, sea
urchins, sea snakes and the finless porpoise are found. The park has recorded the
presence of Dugongs, porpoise and rare species called Bonellia which belong to the
category of Phylum echiuroidea. Ikedosoma pirotanensis is unique to the Gulf of Kutch.
The Sea Turtles
The islands of the Gulf are visited by three types of endangered species of sea turtles to
nest every summer: Green sea turtle, Olive ridley turtle and Leather back turtle.
Migratory sea turtles depend on sea grass, which is available in the Gulf. Green turtles
migrate from the coast of Brazil to Indian coast. They breed along the Gulf of Kutch and
on the sea shore of Saurashtra.. Nesting occurs throughout the year in several breeding
sites. A hatchery is maintained at Madhupur near Porbunder and also near Okha and
Dwarka.
Whales and dolphins
Dolphins are frequently seen in the major creeks in the Gulf of Kutch. To see them along
the side of the boat remains an exciting and rewarding experience. The Whale sharks are
seen near the Gujarat coast between March and May every year. Eight varieties of small
sharks were encountered in the Gulf of Kutch (Singh, 2001). Whale sharks undertake
huge migrations from Australia, Mexico, South Africa and breed in tropical waters of the
Indian Ocean.
Bird life
Mangrove forests with their pop-up roots growing from trunks and branches provide
excellent habitat for water and shore birds. In addition, scrub forest / thorn forest found
along the rocky stretches of the Gujarat coastline and on the higher areas of the islands
support a rich variety of birdlife which breed and nest here. About 94 species of water
225
birds and 78 species of terrestrial birds are observed. During monsoon, 30 different
species of migratory birds make their homes in the mangrove forests.
MNP ON THE PORTAL OF GUJARAT TOURISM
Gujarat Tourism website is available in regional and foreign languages like Gujarati,
Hindi, English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German. The information about MNP along
with photographs is included under Wildlife section of the Gujarat Tourism portal. It
gives information about the accommodation in Jamnagar and its transport connections.
About 300 km west of Ahmedabad, it is well connected by air, rail and road to Mumbai.
In addition to Forest Rest House and a Circuit House, Jamnagar has a number of private
hotels and guest houses, which provide reasonably good accommodation at affordable
rates. The boats to visit MNP depart from Bedi port, 5 km from Jamnagar. On the portal
Bedi port is simply an attractive sea side picnic spot offering good fishing facilities. For
the benefits and convenience of visitors the available information needs to be
supplemented with more information about how to reach this park from Jamnagar/ Bedi
port with suitable timings. MNP is not included in any package tours organized by
Gujarat Tourism or any other tour operators, Indian or foreign, operating in India. Even
the agencies specializing in Wildlife tours, e.g. Naturetrek (UK ) do not include this park
in their wildlife tours in India. This is probably because of the non availability or lack of
infrastructure facilities and lack of publicity or promotion of this MNP as a tourist
destination. This is also reflected in the visitors’ statistics. It is interesting to note that
tourism attracts approximately 1.9 million visitors each year to the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park in Australia.(Hassall, 2006). On this background, the number of tourists
visiting this Marine Park is less. Even small number of domestic and foreign tourists is
fluctuating. In contrast to mass tourism, this is special interest tourism.
Table 1: No of visitors to the Gulf of Kutch MNP
Year
Indian
Foreign
1995-96
2052
48
1996-97
2622
52
1997-98
3317
28
1998-99
3858
34
1999-2000
6026
2
2000-01
5728
5
2001-02
3345
0
2002-03
8154
3
2003-04
7922
7
2004-05
5235
31
2005-06
2677
39
Source: Range Forest Office, Marine National Park, Jamnagar
Total
2100
2674
3345
3892
6028
5733
3345
8157
7929
5266
2716
The statistics reveals that this place is yet to come in the focus of tourist attraction and no
special efforts have been made to attract visitors to this park during the last decade. .
However, it has been in the focus of scientific research. The information broacher on
226
Marine National Park published by the forest department states that “these islands are not
for merry making, but a place for observing and studying the marine life.” A survey of
National Parks of India (Mehta, 1991) reports that four research projects were completed
on MNP of Gujarat in 1981 and 1983 which were undertaken for biological and
ecological studies. Some facilities for research were reported to be available, but no
research staff was deputed. Special/ subsidized accommodation for research was also
reported to be available.
VISITING MARINE NATIONAL PARK, JAMNAGAR
Jamnagar “The Jewel of Kathiawad”, Gujarat’s leading tourists destination, is a gateway
to MNP. Depending on the changing tidal timing, which is a governing factor to reach
MNP, two to three nights halt at Jamnagar is necessary. The visitors are required to
obtain prior permits for going to this Park. The permits are issued by the Range Forest
Officer, Marine National Park, Jamnagar on working days during office hours. The entry
fee of Rs 30/- per adult and Rs,10 per child up to 12 years of age is charged to domestic
visitors and US $ 5 to foreign visitors. Video and photography is permitted on payment of
fee for the equipments. Music system of any kind is not permitted in the park area. The
licensed and motorized country boats are required to be hired in advance by the visitors
and the schedule of visit is finalized in consultation with the boatman. Fifth to tenth days
of the lunar fortnight are ideal for visit to these islands, as on these days boats are able to
depart at about 7 to 8 in the morning, and come back by night. A light house and a two
room rest house have been constructed at Pirotan Island. Only the maintenance staff of
the light house and a guide from forest department occasionally stay overnight at the
island. There is no adequate accommodation/shelter and waste disposal facilities on most
of these islands. The tourists are required to carry with them a pair of shoes, drinking
water, pack lunch, dry cell torch and other necessities. Plastic bags are prohibited.
Watching marine life at Pirotan
Pirotan is one of the 42 islands of MNP known for its fringing coral reefs. This island can
be approached from Sikka, Rozi Bunder, Navabunder and Bedibunder by boats. It is 22
nautical miles from Bedi port and from here it takes about one and a half hours to reach
by mechanized boat. There is no infrastructure for alighting or anchoring at Pirotan. The
boat is anchored at a suitable location, which in the option of the boatman is safe for
alighting. The visitors have to board the boat in the evening for return journey before the
water level starts rising with the tide. It is a very thrilling and unforgettable experience
while sailing through the water channels between the islands and observing the Mangrove
forest with variety of birds resting on the branches. The cool breeze and total darkness of
the night pierced by the passing lights on adjoining ports and islands captivate the tourists
in return journey.
The extent of this island varies from 300.54 ha to 1111.60 ha during high and low tides.
This is the only island in the world where corals can be observed without a dive and
simply by wading through the water. (Pirotan Island- a brochure issued by Gujarat
Tourism) Because of its typical geographical location on inter tidal zone, the water
227
level of the sea surrounding the islands is always fluctuating with the tides. The walking
tour for watching marine life around Pirotan starts with a guide of the Forest Department
when the tidal water starts receding. The water is crystal clear. The visitors have to
wade through knee deep water on the rocky and muddy sea bed for about two hours in
bright sunlight. The local guide moves the loose coral rocks and points out the variety of
sponges, algae, sea cucumber thriving along it or resting below the rocks. Watching
puffer fish, octopus, star fish and other marine creatures in this tour is most enjoyable and
thrilling experience. Pirotal and its adjoining islands are the core area of MNP. The dives
conducted here in 1999 revealed that “the bottom was full of luxuriant vegetation, live
and colourful corals with associated fauna. The bottom looked like an underwater garden
teeming with life.” (Sen Gupta, 1999)
ACTION PLAN FOR PROMOTING TOURISM IN MNP
Visitors are attracted to MNP for watching a variety of marine creatures moving freely in
the water in their natural habitats. It is a different world of marine life under water. It has
been very correctly observed that “In a majority of protected areas in India, tourism is
low either due to the fact that these places are unknown to all but the avid of wildlife
lovers, or because of a complete absence of facilities for tourists.” (Hirway, 2004) The
islands of MNP are in natural state, with no infrastructure facilities or modern
development. To attract an increasing number of visitors to this park, provisioning of
basic infrastructure is a very important and essential requirement. Basic amenities such as
hotels, shelters have to be developed at selected places. Steps should be taken to
overcome the obstacle of lack of infrastructure. Adequate attention should be given to
infrastructure planning and development as well as management of tourists. There is a lot
of scope to boost and improve tourism in this MNP. Only the government’s policies in
exploiting the state’s natural assets in promoting tourism markets can bring increasing
number of tourists to this unique Marine National Park.
The procedure for obtaining permits for visit to Park may be simplified. It may be
possible for issuing the permits at Bedi port itself at the time of departure. This will
certainly relieve the visitors from trouble of going exclusively for getting the permits
issued in advance from the Forest office in Jamnagar.
Bedi port is mainly used for goods handling. The facilities at Bedi port may have to be
up-graded for handling the visitors to MNP. A waiting room along with toilets and small
canteen for refreshments will certainly add to the comforts of the tourists visiting MNP
Jamnagar.
A visit to any island of the Park by boats depends on the timings of tides which is a
major constraint. Possibility of use of helicopters or lightweight and wide bottom boats
capable of sailing in shallow water may have to be explored by the experts in the
respective field.
The country boats operating for these visits must be fitted with better and modern
engines. Proper sitting arrangement may be provided with safety jackets. Communication
facilities with boatman in case of emergency will make the sailing safe and enjoyable.
The Marine museum located in the premises of Range Forest Office of MNP should be
included in the list of important places to see in Jamnagar on the portal of Gujarat
228
Tourism and in all tourists guide books. The museum and model room remains normally
locked and are opened only at the request of curious visitors who go there to get the
permit issued.
At Pirotan, when the tidal waters recede, the flat shore around the island with shallow
water extending for couple of kilometers, enables the visitors to wade through the knee
deep water to have a very close look at the marine species. Wading through waters should
be conducted in small and organized groups, which will facilitate the visitor with better
look at the species and without causing any physical injuries to the creatures.
Operating specially designed glass bottom boats, if feasible, may avoid wading through
the waters by visitors. However, it may call for synchronization with the time of tide. To
take visitors to watch the marine species and bring them back to the same boat for return
calls for organized efforts and planning. But the troubles taken will certainly reduce
discomfort to visitors and eliminate the injuries to the marine species likely to be caused
while wading through the waters. This will directly help the protection and conservation
of marine life.
Scuba diving in consultation with the National Institute of Oceanography (Goa) can be
introduced in areas where the coral reefs exist at a depth of 5 to 10 meters, so that
interested tourists would be able to enjoy the view of corals. Dixon and Sherman (1990)
observed that “Divers travel and are willing to pay a premium for environmental quality.
MNP are all important attractions.”
A status survey of the coral reefs of Gulf of Kutch was undertaken by the Gujarat
Ecology Commission (1999) in association with the National Institute of Oceanography,
Goa. Such marine research expeditions involving NGOs associated with environmental
studies to monitor the status of coral reefs, health of marine life and the condition of
mangrove forests in the area will help in protecting marine environment and bio diversity
of the region. Such proposition will involve major capital investment, but in long run, it
will lead to better environmental conditions.
The possibility of introducing whale watching, turtle tours (nesting, hatching) dugong
and dolphin tours in MNP during the proper season should be explored.
Though such propositions could involve major capital investment, in the long run, they
could help protection of marine life and would bring substantial revenue including
foreign exchange from increasing number of domestic and foreign tourists to this park.
POTENTIAL FOR WHALE TOURISM ALONG GUJARAT COAST
Protecting whale sharks has attracted global attention. Eco-tourism replaced the slaughter
of whales to whale watching tourism. Increasing numbers of tourists are willing to pay to
obtain their sightings. Whale watching is a lucrative business in several countries having
thriving coastal tourism industries. In the Atlantic island areas 1.7 million people a year
go whale watching. "The direct economic benefits of whale watching in Australia add up
to almost $30 million per year, while the indirect economic benefits are close to $300
million.” (DEH, 2004).Whale watching can be a profitable and sustainable industry in
Gujarat too. It is estimated that about 1200 of them migrate across the Indian Ocean to
229
the Gujarat coast from East Africa for breeding every year. Mithapur near MNP along the
Saurashtra coast is the breeding area of whale shark. As per official figures, every year
prior to 2001, over 150 whale sharks were poached along the Gujarat coast. About one
thousand whale sharks were slaughtered by Gujarat's fishermen between 1990 and 2001.
(The Economic Times, 19 May, 2007) Poaching of whale shark has reduced after the
Government of India banned its trade and fishing in May 2001. In an effort to create
awareness about the whales in villages along the Gujarat coast, International Fund for
Animal Welfare (IFAW), Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), the Forest Department of
Gujarat along with corporate houses together launched 'Save Whale Sharks Campaign' on
January 20, 2004. It included a poster campaign, street plays and major awareness drive.
The religious leader and the 'ambassador for the whale shark' Morarji Bapu advocated
that “these sharks come to Gujarat coast to breed and so we are their parents. The people
should therefore aim to protect these sharks as their children". The campaign gave the
people of Gujarat a feeling of pride for whale shark. The whale shark “Vhali” has been
adopted as a mascot by the towns of Porbandar, Diu, Dwarka, Okha and Veraval along
the Saurashtra coastline and people have pledged their support to protect it. The State
Government announced that “Kartik Amavasya” (New Moon day as per Hindu calendar
in October) will be celebrated as whale shark day. (The Times of India, Ahmedabad, 1902-07) It is through the general awareness among the locals about this fish, a potential for
whale tourism has been created in Gujarat. This is an unexplored area of ecotourism in
India. Through whale tourism, local fishermen can be involved to take visitors for whale
watching expeditions. Whale shark boat trips and swim with whale shark tours can be
planned. This will help to attract wildlife enthusiasts and earn substantial income from
new tourism products. At present there are no such trips.
PERSPECTIVE PLANNING FOR TOURISM IN GUJARAT
Gujarat state has a rich coastal legacy. The longest coastline among the maritime states
of the country, a large continental shelf of 165,000 sq. km with two gulfs and the largest
area of coastal wetlands among all states of the country provide unique advantage to
Gujarat. (Fig. 2) However, tourism has not picked up in this region in spite of its rich
resource base. Though Gir forest, the only stronghold of Asiatic Lions, is the centre of
attraction of wildlife enthusiasts, the nearby MNP does not figure in their travel itinerary.
Developing Coastal and wildlife tourism circuits
Gujarat Tourism can introduce and promote an exclusive wildlife tour circuit in Gujarat
to visit Gir forest (lion safari), Wild Ass Sanctuary at Kutch, Khijadia Bird sanctuary near
Jamnagar, MNP and whale watching. (Fig 2) Beaches of Gujarat are blessed with natural
beauty. The water is good for swimming. A unique aspect of Gujarat coast is the presence
of royal palaces along the coastlines. Chorwad is one of the well known beach palace
resort. The imposing palace was the royal summer retreat of the Nawabs of Junagarh. The
lovely expanse of beach before it made Chorwad unique. Ahmedpur Mandvi, one of the
best sea beaches in the country, is located about 100 km away from Somnath and Gir.
Diu Island nearby just a few minutes offshore from the mainland of Gujarat “has retained
the feel of an island in the Mediterranean”. MNP is in close proximity to Chorwad beach,
230
religious places like Dwarka and Somnath on Saurashtra coast, Mount Girnar and the Gir
National Park. In the western part of Gujarat, a tourist circuit covering the above religious
places, wildlife tourism and coastal (beach tourism) can be profitably combined and
developed. In order to facilitate visitors to these areas coordination among various
agencies should be established and infrastructural facilities should be provided. Whale
sharks along with Asiatic lions should become the twin pride of Gujarat.
As per the latest newspaper report (The Economic Times, 29 May 2007) Gujarat
government is now set to cash in on the 1678 km coastline, is in the process of
conducting feasibility study to assess the viability of operating cruise liners. The Gujarat
Maritime Board has identified Mundra, Porbundar, Pipavav and Muldwarka ports where
jetties can be developed for direct berthing of cruise liners. Mandvi beach will be
developed as a “Special Entertainment Zone” and will enjoy the privileges allowed to
Special economic Zones. Private entrepreneurs will be asked to develop the area. (The
Times of India, Ahmedabad, 3 July 2007).
Combining tourism with nature education
This MNP is playing a significant role in scientific research study and nature education
programme and provides a useful educational experience to nearby areas. It has been
observed that the students of Jamnagar and nearby schools and college take keen interest
in the study of marine life of MNP and the Forest Officials guide them in their activities
like holding exhibitions and organizing field trips. In a bid to boost tourism in the State,
the Gujarat Government has proposed to set up interpretation centres at a number of
protected areas. The sites where new facilities are being put up include among others, the
Pirotan Island of MNP and the Khijadia Bird Sanctuary near Jamnagar. The centres will
provide detailed information to tourists about wildlife, birds, reptiles and bio-diversity of
these sites through various mediums such as audio-visuals, posters, films, threedimensional models of birds/animals and pamphlets. These centres will also guide
tourists to visit other places of interest. Other facilities such as drinking water, sanitation,
reception centres and accommodation will also be created. (PA Updates, 2007)
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS: TOURISM AND CONSERVATION
The coastal areas of Gulf of Kutch are witnessing tremendous boost in industrial
development with the construction of new ports, jetties, salt and cement industries, crude
oil terminals and refineries, gas plants, etc. With India’s new policy of economic
liberalization and globalization, more developments are in the pipeline. Utmost care
should be taken to ensure that safe distance is maintained from MPA, and it is fully
protected from wastes/effluents and industrial pollution. The project implementing
authorities in this area are required to be very careful while carrying out dredging, mining
or reclaiming and ensure that no damage is caused to the coral reefs and ecosystem.
Conservation and protection of the environment of the surrounding areas will have to be
given priority consideration.
The National Committee on wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs constituted by the
Government of India has identified mangroves and coral reefs in the Gulf of Kutch for
231
intensive conservation and development. Gulf of Kutch MNP is an ideal place for
developing ecotourism. While promoting tourism in the MNP it has to be ensured that the
marine ecosystem and marine resources are not adversely affected or over-exploited.
Excessive or inappropriate tourist activities can constitute a major stress factor for
ecosystem and a serious disturbance to marine life. Effective management is essential for
maintaining and improving the ecosystem within the MPA. The policies have to be
designed to be compatible with the philosophy of sustainable ecotourism to promote both
economy and ecology The park authorities have to develop an image as a provider of a
particular or special kind of recreation and visitor satisfaction. With the development on
suggested lines, a visit to MNP of Gujarat would be a memorable experience of an
uncommon tourism product and a significant contribution to Indian tourism industry.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, Sujata, (2006) Sentinel of the sea,
http://www.tata.com/0_our_commitment/community_initiatives/articles/20060329_sh
ark_blue.htm
Ahmad, Ainul Raihan Hj,(2003), Integrating tourism management into biodiversity
conservation in marine protected areas,
http://www.mima.gov.my/mima/htmls/papers/pdf/ainul/bio-d-mpa.pdf
Balmford, Andrew and others,(2004) The worldwide costs of marine protected areas,
PNAS published online, www.pnas.org/#otherarticles
Biological Diversity of Gujarat- Current Knowledge, (1996) Gujarat Ecology
Commission, Vadodara.
DEH, (2004)http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2004/mr26may04.html.
Dixon, John A.and Paul B. Sherman,(1990), Economics of Protected Areas: A new look
at benefits and costs, Earthscan Publications, London.
Gujarat Tourism (2007) website-http://www.gujarattourism.com
http://www.gujarattourism.com/destination/jamnagar/index.html
http://www.gujarattourism.com/destination/wildlife/marine1.html
Hassall, Judy and others, (2006), Framework and partnerships: Ensuring sustainable
marine tourism in the Great barrier Reef, Victorian Coastal Council
http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/coasttocoastproceedings/HASSALL_Judy_paper.pdf
Hirway, Indira and S. Goswami ( 2004), Valuation of mangroves in Gujarat, A study
sponsored by Gujarat Ecology Commission, Vadodara, Centre for Development
Alternatives, Ahmedabad.
Hoyt, Erich,(2005) Sustainable ecotourism on Atlantic islandswith special reference to
whale watching, marine protected areas and sanctuaries for cetaceans, Proceedings of
the Royal Irish academy, Vol. 105B, No 3, 141-154.
IUCN South Asia -http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/region/sasia/sasia.html
-http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/theme/science.html
-http://www.iucn .org/dbtw-wpd/html/PAs- contribute
poverty/Protected%20areas%20and%20poverty.html
Kalpavriksh, (2007), Protected Area Updates, XIII, 1, Feb 2007, www.kalpavriksh.org
Khati, Anand S., (1998) National Parks of India, Pelican Creations International, Noida.
232
Kutty, Roshni & Ashish Kothari, (2001) Protected areas in India; a profile, Kalpavriksh,
Pune.
Lodhia, Shital, (2005), Application of remote sensing technique for mapping the salt
affected areas in coastal areas: a case of Gujarat, Indian Journal of Regional Science,
37, 2.pp. 122-129.
Mehta, Raman, Shekhar Singh, Ashish Kothari, (1991), India’s National Parks: a
Management Profile, Environmental Studies Division, Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi.
Morling, Paul, (2004),The Economics of marine protected areas in the high seas, Ocean
Stewardship, 21, 4, 49-50, http://www.georgewright.org/214morling.pdf
Nambiar, Prithi,(2000), The Report on the Marine National Park and Sanctuary,
Jamnagar, Gujarat. Centre for Environment Education, Ahmedabad. Prepared under
the auspices of the National Biodiversity Alliance and sponsored by Rajiv Gandhi
Foundation, New Delhi.
Sen Gupta, R. and Geetanjali Deshmukhe (1999), Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Kachchh,
Prepared for Gujarat Ecology Commission, Vadodara.
Sharma, Diwakar and Deepa Gavali, (2006) Protected areas in Gujarat: prospects and
perspectives, The Indian Forester, 132(10),1292-1302.
Singh, H. S. (2001). Natural Heritage of Gujarat (Forests and Wildlife), GEER
Foundation, Gandhinagar.
WWF, UK, (2005), An overview of Marine Protected Areas in the UK, A briefing paper ,
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/ma_overviewukmpa.pdf
End note: All websites were accessed during March- June 2007.
233
234
Theme 3
The Cruise Ship Industry
235
CRUISE SHIP TOURISM RESEARCH: A CRITICAL REVIEW
(Working Paper)
Brigid Casey
Otago Polytechnic
Dunedin, New Zealand
brigid@tekotago.ac.nz
Keywords: cruise, tourism, research methods
INTRODUCTION
This working paper provides a critical review of the cruise research recently published in
peer-reviewed, tourism-related, academic journals. It examines the dominant themes and
research methods in this literature and draws inferences about the current state of cruise
research. Barriers to successful research in this field are discussed and areas identified
where further research may be useful to stakeholders in the industry.
Studies included were identified from research databases and bibliographies covering
journals, books, industry documents and reports. This selection gives a good
representation of the academic research published between 2000 and 2007.
THEMES
A recurrent theme in the literature is the overall lack of research considering the size and
growth of the cruise phenomenon. Lester and Weedon (2004, p.40) express the concern
put forward by many authors that “…for an industry that has demonstrated such
‘explosive growth’, the literature regarding it is ‘surprisingly small’ (Wood, 2000, p. 347)
and somewhat limited in its scope (Liburd, 2001).”
While the geographic distribution of cruise tourism is world-wide, it is concentrated in
the Caribbean and this is reflected in the literature (Lester & Weedon, 2004; Henthorne,
2000; Petrick, 2004; Wood, 2000; Johnson, 2006). Other geographical areas include the
USA (Gabe, Lynch & McConnon, 2006; Dev, 2006; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Petrick,
Tonner & Quinn, 2006), Pacific Islands (Douglas and Douglas, 2004), Singapore
(Ahmed, Johnson, Ling, Fang & Hui, 2002), Central America (Jaakson, 2004; Seidl,
Gilliano, & Pratt, 2007; Boxill, 2003), the UK (Gibson & Bentley, 2006) and Australia
(Miller & Grazer, 2002). Some other research is of a predominately theoretical nature and
not geographically located (e.g. Wie, 2005).
While the scope of cruise research is limited there are a variety of themes represented in
the literature, including: spending patterns of passengers (Henthorne, 2000; Douglas &
Douglas, 2004), consumer evaluations of cruise line brands (Ahmed et al., 2002, Marti,
236
2005) and quality (Petrick, 2004); spatial implications and the tourist bubble (Jaakson,
2004); cruise tourism as an indicator of globalisation (Wood, 2000; Weaver, 2005), and
the role of oligopolies (Wie, 2005). Economic, social and environmental impacts are also
a focus of recent research (e.g. Johnson, 2006, Boxill, 2003).
The dominant theme in the academic literature, however, relates to outbreaks of
contagious diseases on cruise ships. This topic is reported primarily in medical, rather
than tourism, journals and outside the focus of this review. Illness is a well documented
risk associated with cruising. Klein (2005) lists 151 outbreaks between 2002 and 2005.
Other risks to passengers and the environment are regularly reported in the media,
including: fire, mechanical problems, collision, grounding, fuel leaks, extreme waves, ice
bergs and piracy. These risks are occasionally discussed in the academic literature (e.g.
Weaver, 2005).
The economic impact of tourism is a fruitful area of research and this theme is central to
several publications (Douglas and Douglas, 2004; Henthorne, 2000). In particular, the
intention of cruise passengers to return is considered a potential benefit for destinations
and this has received attention (Gabe et. al. 2006).
The potential environmental impacts of the cruise industry include the effects of
unregulated pollution and the impact of infrastructure development and high numbers of
tourists on remote destinations. Johnson (2002) examines strategies aimed at reducing
impacts and emphasises the need for stakeholders to work co-operatively to reduce them.
The broad findings of the studies examined could benefit a wide range of stakeholders.
These include: other researchers and theorists (Wood, 2000, Weaver, 2005; Jaakson,
2004); investors (Wie, 2005); planners and policy makers (Ray, 2003; Gibson & Bentley,
2006); cruise line managers (Petrick, 2004; Petrick et. al., 2006); itinerary planners
(Miller & Grazer, 2002); cruise line marketers (Lynn, 2006; Dev, 2006; Ahmed et al.,
2002; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Marti, 2005); on-shore vendors and local tour operators
(Henthorne, 2000; Douglas and Douglas, 2004, Yarnal, 2005); and host communities
(Gibson & Bentley, 2006).
RESEARCH METHODS
Cruise ships are considered by some authors to be ideal research laboratories (Wood,
2000; Lynn, 2006). However, relatively few reported studies, especially those using
empirical methods, have been conducted on-board vessels. Researchers have found cruise
lines reluctant to allow independent research on their ships (Gibson, 2006) and have
largely relied on observation and informal communication to make assessments of
passenger and crew behaviour. The reason for this may be quite simple; it may not be in
the best interests of the cruise lines to allow independent researchers on-board. When
passengers are studied on-board cruise ships it is often by participant observation, with or
without the consent of the cruise line and subjects. However, when passengers are the
237
unit of analysis they are more likely to be studied on-shore, using either qualitative or
quantitative methods.
Besides passengers, other units of analysis adopted in the research included cruise lines,
cruise ships, ports-of-call and documents. Academics studying cruise tourism have
benefited enormously from the thorough, on-going examination of the industry by Ross
Klein, the author of several books (Klein, 2002, 2005). There have also been a small
number of other studies of cruise tourism that have been particularly influential
including: Teye and Leclerc (1998) on service satisfaction; and Dwyer and Forsyth
(1998) on economic impacts. Documents published by the dominant industry association,
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), are well represented in the articles
examined for this review. However, it is noted that few academic studies discuss industry
or researcher bias. Indeed, discussion of issues relating to validity is notably absent from
many studies.
DISCUSSION
Tourism researchers have been criticised for being reluctant to engage with tourists as
subjects and resorting, instead, to documents and secondary data (Seaton, 2002). Indeed,
there are few studies that have the passenger as the unit of analysis and surprisingly little
is known about the motivations, intentions, behaviour and satisfaction of passengers.
“Given the possibilities of real-life observation in tourism research, it is surprising that
there have been comparatively few participant observational studies of tourists…”
(Seaton, 2002, p.9) While ethnographic research is not always widely accepted, it may be
the most reliable way of exploring questions relating to consumer motivation and
behaviour, such as: why do passengers choose to stay on-board rather than disembark at
ports-of-call? (Anecdotally, up to 50% of passengers are choosing to stay on-board at
some ports-of-call). Unobtrusive qualitative methods such as participant observation may
be effective in answering such questions but without the co-operation and consent of
cruise lines this research is unlikely to be approved by ethics committees.
Academic institutions may have concerns about how information is gathered from an
ethical viewpoint. While business researchers may be comfortable with methods used to
gather competitor intelligence (Rittenburg, Valentine, & Faircloth, 2006); ethics
committee members with backgrounds, say, in the health sciences may consider these
methods to be espionage, sleuthing, or spying, and ethically unacceptable.
Ethnographic research adopting qualitative methods should ideally be augmented with
quantitative research, such as surveys, which are not feasible on-board ships without the
co-operation of cruise lines. It is not so much the reluctance of researchers, therefore, as
the difficulties getting access to passengers on-board ships that may prevent robust
research.
Fortunately some of these problems may be diminishing due to technology: e.g., the
popularity of blogging, as well as email or web-based surveys which are making it easier
to access geographically dispersed participants.
238
While the cruise industry is considered to have reached a mature phase, the research is
arguably in its infancy. There are many issues relating to the poorly developed theoretical
foundations and methods adopted by researchers. Many studies are purely descriptive
with a narrow focus and the exploratory methods adopted have inevitable researcher bias.
In many cases it would be difficult to replicate studies and compare results because
sample selection and methods are not well reported. Overall, the body of research would
benefit from more verification and hypothesis testing using empirical evidence. Where
researchers adopt quantitative methods, the statistical analysis is often simplistic. The
time dimension, considered important in experiential fields such as tourism, is notably
absent; with few exceptions (e.g. Henthorne, 2000), the studies examined were conducted
over a short time frame.
A range of topics has been addressed by the research to date but many aspects of cruise
tourism remain under-researched or absent. For example, estimates are made of the
economic benefits relying largely on figures from CLIA. Little is known about the true
costs and, consequently, the net benefits. Also little is known about the distribution of
benefits and costs. Without primary research it is not possible to make reliable estimates
of economic impacts.
Another gap is studies of cruise ship employees. This is likely to be due to the difficulties
in gaining access to participants, along with the multi-national nature of the workforce.
CONCLUSION
The cruise industry incorporates numerous tourism sectors including: attractions,
hospitality, transportation, packaged tours, retail, leisure services, recreation and
entertainment. There are multiple stakeholder relationships to be considered, including:
industry participants, consumers, host communities, service providers, government and
local bodies, as well as the environment. When considering the cruise tourism research
agenda we need to adopt a more integrated and collaborative approach. However, “lack
of co-ordination and cohesion between different stakeholders within tourism is a familiar
topic” (Lester & Weeden, 2004, p.40). This criticism could be equally true of cruise
tourism researchers. Examples of studies that explicitly linked ideas and findings to
previous research are very rare. Much research needs to be undertaken to complement
that available from the cruise line industry which should be treated with caution.
In summary, cruise industry research offers many challenges and opportunities with
numerous useful topics waiting to be explored and explained.
239
REFERENCES
Ahmed, Z., Johnson, J., Ling, C., Fang, T., & Hui A. (2002). Country of Origin and
Brand Effects on Consumers’ Evaluations of Cruise Lines. International Marketing
Review, 19 (2/3), 279-302.
Boxill, I. (2003). Towards an Alternative Tourism for Belize. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(3), 147-150
De La Vina, L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic Regression Analysis of Cruise Vacation
Market Potential: Demographic and Trip Attribute Perception Factors. Journal of
Travel Research, 39(4), 406-410.
Dev, C. (2006). Carnival Cruise Lines: Charting a New Brand Course. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, August, 301-308.
Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (2004). Cruise Ship Passenger Spending Patterns in Pacific
Island Ports. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(4), 251-261.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic Significance of Cruise Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(2), 393-415.
Gabe, T., Lynch, C., & McConnon, J. (2006). Likelihood of Cruise Ship Passenger
Return to a Visited Port: The Case of Bar Harbor, Maine. Journal of Travel Research,
44(3), 281-287.
Gibson, P. (2006). Cruise Operations Management. Oxford: Elsevier/ButterworthHeineman.
Gibson, P., & Bentley, M. (2006). A Study of Impacts – Cruise Tourism and the South
West of England. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 20(2/3), 63-77.
Henthorne, T. (2000). An Analysis of Expenditures by Cruise Ship Passengers in
Jamaica. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 246-250.
Jaakson, R. (2004), Beyond the Tourist Bubble? Cruise Ship Passengers in Port. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31(1), 44-60.
Johnson, D. (2006). Providing Ecotourism Excursions for Cruise Passengers. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(1), 43-54.
Klein, R. (2002). Cruise Ship Blues: the Underside of the Cruise Industry. Cabriola Is:
New Society Publishing.
Klein, R. (2005). The New Pirates of the Seven Seas. Cabriola Is: New Society
Publishing.
Lester, J., & Weedon, C. (2004). Stakeholders, the Natural Environment and the Future
of Caribbean Cruise Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 3950.
Marti, B. (2005). Cruise Line Logo Recognition. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 18(1), 25-32.
Miller, A., & Grazer, W. (2002). The North American Cruise Market and Australian
Tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(3), 221-229.
Petrick, J. (2004). The Roles of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise
Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Travel Research. 42, 397-407.
Petrick, J., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006). The Utilization of Critical Incident
Technique to Examine Cruise Passengers’ Repurchase Intentions. Journal of Travel
Research, 44(3), 273-280.
240
Rittenburg, T., Valentine, S. & Faircloth, J. (2006). An Ethical Decision-Making
Framework for Competitor Intelligence Gathering. Journal of Business Ethics, 70,
235-245.
Seaton, A. (2002). Observing Conducted Tours: The Ethnographic Context in Tourist
Research. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 309-319.
Seidl, A., Guilliano, F., & Pratt, L. (2007). Cruising for Colones: Cruise Tourism
Economics in Costa Rica. Tourism Economics, 13(1), 67-85.
Teye, V., & Leclerc, D. (1998). Product and Service Delivery Satisfaction Among North
Amercian Cruise Passengers. Tourism Management, 19(2), 153-160.
Weaver, A. (2005). The McDonaldization Thesis and Cruise Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research. 22(2), 346-366.
Wie, B-W. (2005). A Dynamic Game Model of Strategic Capacity Investment in the
Cruise Line Industry. Tourism Management, 26(2), 203-217.
Wood, R. (2000). Caribbean Cruise Tourism: Globalization at Sea. Annals of Tourism
Research. 27(2), 345-370.
Yarnal, C., & Kerstetter, D. (2005). Casting Off: An Exploration of Cruise Ship Space,
Group Tour Behaviour, and Social Interaction. Journal of Travel Research. 43, 368379.
241
PROTECTING PARADISE: MINIMIZING THE DOWNSIDE
OF CRUISE TOURISM
(Full Paper)
Ross A. Klein
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John’s College
St. John’s, NL A1C 5S7 CANADA
ross@cruisejunkie.com
ABSTRACT
As the cruise industry grows and expands, port cities increasingly come to view cruise
ships as cash cows and believe industry claims that cruise tourism can be an economic
boom. As a result, many ports spend significant resources on working to attract cruise
ships and their passengers. Unfortunately, their enthusiasm about all of the money to be
made often overshadows an objective view of the industry and they ignore the downside
of cruise tourism, especially related to environmental and economic issues. On the
environmental side there is a tendency to believe what the cruise industry says it does; to
perceive it as “green,” despite empirical data that suggests otherwise. On the economic
side, there is again a tendency to accept, uncritically, cruise industry claims about the
amount of money to be made from ships and their passengers; claims that are often
overblown and inaccurate. Using case examples from different world regions and
countries, this paper illustrates concerns governments and citizens should have when
considering development, expansion, or maintenance of cruise tourism in their
community(ies) and it provides advice on how to build cruise tourism while at the same
time avoiding the most common problems associated with cruise ships and the business
model they follow.
Keywords: cruise tourism, cruise lines, environment, port city, cruise economics
INTRODUCTION
The cruise industry continues as the fastest growing segment of the leisure travel
industry. Its growth is particularly robust in Europe, Asia, South America, Antarctica
and the Arctic, and Australia and New Zealand. Growth in North America remains
strong however the number of ships is not increasing so much as their size and passenger
capacity. Newly-built ships deployed in North America replace older ships that are then
redeployed in growing markets where passengers are more tolerant of ships that by North
Americans tastes are old or worn out. An example of this pattern is Australia where P&O
Australia’s trouble-plagued 1984-built Pacific Sky was replaced by two “new” ships in
2005: Carnival Cruise Lines’ 1982-built Tropical which became CostaTropicale in 2001
242
before being moved to Australia and renamed Pacific Star; and Carnival Cruise Lines’
1986-built Jubilee which was renamed Pacific Sun. Pacific Sky had been inherited by
Princess Cruises when it took over Sitmar Cruises and was deployed in Australia when
P&O Australia was begun; it was sold to Pullmantur Cruises and now sails as Sky
Wonder.
As the world cruise industry expands, port cities are increasingly interested in attracting
cruise ships and their cargo of day visitors. Many communities get lost in the glamour of
a cruise ship and in the excitement of becoming a cruise destination. Their focus tends to
be on the positive; ignoring or dismissing unattractive and cognitively-dissonant realities.
For example, port cities are mesmerized by all the money they believe will be made and
tend to see cruise ships not just as cash cows, but as environmentally responsible and as
safe. They ignore or dismiss the experience of mature cruise destinations that often
complain about environmental degradation associated with cruise ships and the industry’s
unwillingness to take responsibility for the mess left in its wake; about the degree of
economic exploitation of local merchants and service providers; and about the frequency
of onboard crime (e.g., sexual assaults, disappearances under mysterious circumstances),
illness outbreaks, and accidents at sea. While proponents often label the cruise ship as a
resort at sea, some critics label them as a Holiday Inn with lifeboats.
This presentation will not attempt to resolve these competing views of the cruise industry.
However, drawing on the experience of port cities, governments, and nongovernmental
organizations, it will identify and discuss local efforts to confront and manage the
downside of cruise tourism. Based on discussion of cases involving protection of
environmental and economic interests, the presentation concludes with advice to ports
and governments on how best to minimize cruise tourism’s downside. The advice is
equally useful and relevant to ports/governments already engaged with the cruise industry
as to those in early phases of attempting to attract a cruise ship and/or establishing a
hoped-for long term relationship.
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT
The cruise industry effectively projects an image of environmental responsibility and of
being environmentally “green.” Their spokespeople often say, “we sail to some of the
most pristine areas of the world … why would we pollute those areas on which our
income depends.” It is an excellent question, especially if viewed in light of the fact that
the world’s three major cruise corporations, comprising 90 percent of the world market,
are each convicted felons; in some cases having multiple felony convictions. They
cumulatively have paid fines of almost $100 million in the decade between 1992 and
2002 (see www.cruisejunkie.com/envirofines.html).
Sensitivity about the cruise industry’s environmental practices reached a high point in
1999 after Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited (RCCL) plead guilty for the second time in
two years to dozens of incidents in which it discharged into the oceans, ports, and
sensitive wildlife habitats: oily bilge water that bypassed oily water separators, hazardous
243
chemicals including perchlorethylene (dry cleaning fluid), silver nitrate (photofinishing
chemicals), and solvents from the print shop. The company paid fines of $27 million
through US Federal courts and $3.5 million in Alaska state courts (see Klein, 2002).
Following the 1999 plea agreement, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno commented:
Royal Caribbean used our nation’s waters as its dumping ground, even as it promoted
itself as an environmentally ‘green’ company…[and] to make matters worse, the
company routinely falsified the ships’ logs – so much so that its own employees referred
to the logs with a Norwegian term meaning fairy tale book…[T]his case will sound like a
foghorn throughout the maritime industry (US Department of Justice, 1999).
The other major players in the industry, Carnival Corporation and Norwegian Cruise
Line, each paid multi-million dollar fines in 2002. These are in addition to other
prosecutions and investigations undertaken, including in local jurisdictions.
Cruise lines responded to disclosures of less-than-respectable environmental practices by
redoubling public relations work and by increasing visible programs designed to make
passengers feel and believe the industry was environmentally responsible – a form of
corporate “greenwashing” (see Klein, 2005). At the same time, the disclosures leant
increased support for the efforts of several environmental nongovernmental organizations
and gave local organizations and groups data that could be used in efforts to manage what
they already perceived as a problem but on which there was a dearth of factual
information.
National Efforts to Protect the Environment
Several national environmental nongovernmental organizations engaged in work to
protect the marine environment from cruise ships (for a fuller discussion see Klein,
2007). The most visible are Bluewater Network, Oceans Blue Foundation, Campaign to
Safeguard America’s Waters, The Ocean Conservancy, and Oceana. They worked
cooperatively toward introduction of the Clean Cruise Ship Act in the US Congress (in
2004 and 2005; the Act is due to be reintroduced in 2007). Otherwise, though related,
each has its own focus.
Bluewater Network, founded in 1996 and merged with Friends of the Earth in 2006, has
mainly worked on local issues in San Francisco and on progressive environmental
legislation in the State of California. It has also engaged in litigation to force
governments to enforce regulations and rules for environmental protection.
Vancouver-based Oceans Blue Foundation (OBF), also founded in 1996, had an ecocertification program for cruise ships as one of its major projects. The organization
closed its doors in 2003 after losing most of its funding following publication in October
2002 of Blowing the Whistle and the Case for Cruise Ship Certification. The report
confronted contradictions between industry claims and practices; the industry retaliated
by exerting significant pressure on those who funded OBF.
Campaign to Safeguard America’s Waters was established in the late 1990s, largely in
response to disclosures of discharges by cruise ships into Alaska’s waters. The
244
organization’s work focuses on US clean water legislation and on initiatives to protect
Alaska’s marine environment.
The Ocean Conservancy, formerly known as the Centre for Marine Conservation, became
directly immersed in cruise industry issues with release in May 2002 of Cruise Control: A
Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment. Royal Caribbean Cruises
Limited criticised the report and withdrew two years left of funding ($300,000) through
its Ocean Fund for an Ocean Conservancy project. The Ocean Conservancy has local
offices that have been particularly active in Key West and Monterey Bay.
Oceana, established in 2001, merged with the American Oceans Campaign in 2002. It
identified cruise ship pollution as one key area of interest and undertook a cruise ship
campaign in early 2003. Similar to Oceans Blue Foundation, Oceana began by
collaborating with the cruise industry – in its case engaging in discussions with RCCL
and calling for a commitment to upgrade wastewater treatment systems. The campaign
ended in May 2004 after Royal Caribbean announced it would install these systems on all
its ships by 2008, but it also said that the decision was independent of Oceana’s
campaign. Given the weakness of Oceana’s campaign, the cruise line’s claim may be
accurate.
While these industry critics worked to change industry practices, the cruise industry
allied its own partners and initiatives to counter claims about its negative environmental
practices. RCCL in 1996 established its Ocean Fund – a granting organization that
provides millions of dollars to environmentally-oriented organizations, though none of
these organizations engage in activity that questions or challenges cruise industry
practices. The Ocean Fund, along with the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL),
has also funded partnerships. A good example is initiatives undertaken by Conservation
International (CI) with full cruise industry funding. These initiatives, like other instances
in which green-sounding organizations are bought and paid for, are directed at public
opinion with claims about the “greenness” and environmentally responsibility of the
cruise industry. The ICCL-CI partnership also refocused attention by minimizing the
impact of cruise ships and elevating to greater importance environmental effects of
farming and other on-land practices (Klein, 2005). The message is simple: why worry
about a little bit of pollution in the vast seas when there is so much more being produced
on land which ultimately ends up in the ocean. The tactic is a little like children on the
playground saying, “it isn’t us, its them.”
Local Efforts Have Greater Success
The cruise industry has had greater difficulty dealing with local efforts for environmental
protection, however even here its use of partners and friends has been somewhat
successful in minimizing the impact of local initiatives. But there are exceptions. In Key
West, a community-based organization (Last Stand, which is closely affiliated with
Liveable Oldtown) used the courts to force an independent evaluation of the quality of
life (i.e., economic, environmental, social, etc). The cruise industry was able to delay
implementation of the court’s ruling, and it influenced local planning around the quality
245
of life study, but in the end the study supported many critics’ claims and led to changes in
local practices around cruise tourism (Klein, 2007).
In Monterey, California, a coalition of groups (including Ocean Conservancy, Save Our
Shores, and Friends of the Sea Otter) worked to protect the coastal Marine Sanctuary
from discharges from cruise ships. In addition to broad community education campaigns,
they sought and received commitments from cruise ships visiting Monterrey in 2002 that
they would not discharge in the Sanctuary. But shortly after a public lecture by an
environmental critic, where in the context of a question an industry spokesperson claimed
the virtues of cruise ship’s environmental responsibility, it was learned that the company
for which the spokesperson was Vice President had in fact discharged in the Sanctuary in
violation of its promise. The company’s response to local outrage was to state, “we
didn’t violate the law, we only broke our word.” The event, and duplicitous statements
by a corporate vice president, did more to solidify local solidarity about concern and
distrust of the industry than anything a critic could say or do. The company, Crystal
Cruises, was banned from Monterey for 15 years; the ship (which was transferred to the
parent company, NYK Cruises, and renamed Asuka II) is banned in perpetuity (Klein,
2003).
In Gold Coast, Australia, a broad-based coalition of business and environmental interests
named Save Our Spit worked to prevent construction of a cruise terminal. The efforts
were based largely on environmental concerns, but also included concern about overblown expectations for income from cruise tourism and displacement of an already
thriving tourism industry. A two year fight included public rallies, community education
campaigns, and lobbying of state and federal governments. Success appeared elusive, but
an election call led to the main election campaign period coinciding with an alreadyplanned major event. An international expert was brought in for press conferences and
media work, and a planned rally was expected to attract more than 5,000 people. Two
days after the media blitz began, and a day before the rally, the Queensland Government
announced it was cancelling plans for the cruise terminal.
On the Hawaiian island of Moloka’i, local efforts were successful in preventing cruise
ships from making the island a port of call. A local organization (Hui Hoopakele Aina)
challenged plans for cruise ship port calls in 2002 by taking the State to court over its
failure to undertake a full environmental impact assessment. It also met the first ships
planning to stop with a crowd of local residents on the pier holding placards and chanting
that the passengers were not welcome. The first two calls were cancelled in the face of
this public display. Future calls were also cancelled – some “in the know” suggest there
was a negotiated settlement between the State and industry in order to make the lawsuit
and demonstrations go away (Klein, 2005).
The impact of local efforts has been more modest in other locales. Local groups in
several U.S. states (e.g., Maine, Hawai’i, Washington, California, Alaska) have positively
impacted state laws and regulations, but often less significantly than they would like.
The cruise industry is able to influence policy through its generous financial support of
political campaigns and politicians in states on which it depends (money funnelled
246
through political action committees, coordinated contributions by corporate executives,
and contributions from the ICCL’s Community Pride Fund, its Cruise Industry
Community Fund, and its Cruise Industry Charitable Foundation), through visible actions
that directly benefit politicians and which raise the industry’s public stature, and through
active use of lobbyists (see Klein, 2005).
It Needs to Be Codified in Law
With distrust of industry behaviour, many environmental organizations advocate
legislated regulations. The cruise industry on the other hand suggests that it is fully
trustworthy and that voluntary guidelines or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is
more than adequate for dealing with environmental concerns. These arrangements,
which often do not have mechanisms for monitoring cruise ship behaviour or for
enforcement and fines, have questionable environmental effectiveness and economic
efficiency (Klein, 2003a). The Paris-based Organization of Economic Co-operation and
Development notes there are few cases where voluntary approaches have improved the
environment beyond a business-as-usual baseline (OECD, 2003).
Voluntary arrangements or MOUs have been used in Florida, Washington State, and
Canada. An MOU was also in place in Hawai’i from 2003 – 2005, but the industry
withdrew from the more stringent terms of the voluntary agreement and instead chose to
follow less strict legislation for which it lobbied. It justified its decision by saying it was
too confusing for ships to know which to follow – an MOU that restricted discharges to
beyond 4 miles from the low water mark (14 miles out, in some areas) or the
straightforward 3 mile limit contained in legislation.
MOUs, unfortunately don’t stop violations. Both Washington State and Hawai’i, through
careful scrutiny of ship logs, identified multiple failures to comply with promises made
through MOUs. And the industry’s own data indicates that despite a voluntary
arrangement with Canada, discharges continued near and in Marine Protected Areas (see
OCTA, 2006:Figure 16).
While the experience with MOUs suggests that laws are needed, there are similarly long
lists of violations where laws apply. Perhaps the most egregious is a case that came to
light in late-2006. The Sunshine Coast Daily reported on November 13 that taxi drivers
in Vanuatu had gone on strike, refusing to transport passengers from P&O Australia’s
Pacific Star and forcing them to walk 5 km to town, after it was learned that government
is investigating the illegal dumping of 500,000 litres of oil on the island. Apparently
deep holes were dug, lined with thin plastic, and then filled with oil and raw sewage. The
site is within 1 kilometre of a village and school, and is just above a river used for
drinking, washing, and swimming. The motivation for the illegal dumping was that it
would cost US$30,000 to appropriately dispose of the waste at approved facilities in the
region whereas dumping illegally cost less than $200. The company faced a potential
fine of $35 million, but after meetings with Government officials it apologized and
agreed to clean up the mess in order to avoid any fines or penalties.
247
The Case of Alaska
After years of having cruise ships discharge in its waters, Alaska was pushed toward
action following the 1999 plea agreement in which Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited
admitted to discharging oil and hazardous chemicals in its waters. The State imposed
$3.5 million in fines (on top of Federal fines) on the cruise line – the fine had been
reduced from $6.5 million by the judge, who complemented the cruise line for paying so
promptly – and a political groundswell grew which led to the Alaska Cruise Ship
Initiative. The initiative began with meetings between the State, Coast Guard,
Environmental Protection Agency, cruise industry, and environmental groups. The goal
was to discuss the activities and operations of cruise ships with a view toward an
assessment of possible environmental issues. When it was realized there was little
technical data to support industry claims, a scheme was developed for sampling
wastewater from cruise ships and for monitoring air emissions. Participation in the
scheme was voluntary. Thirteen of 24 ships refused to participate, choosing to go beyond
twelve miles to dump raw sewage without monitoring and without limitations (Klein,
2002).
The results of monitoring during the summer of 2000 were, in the words of Alaska’s
governor, “disgusting and disgraceful.” Seventy-nine of 80 ships’ effluent had levels of
fecal coliform or total suspended solids that would be illegal on land – up to 100,000
times the federal standard. This was true of both black water and gray water (Knowles,
2000). As well, all samples indicated that “conventional pollutants” were part of the
wastewater. According to the Juneau port commander for the Coast Guard, the results
were so extreme that it might be necessary to consider possible design flaws and capacity
issues with the Coast Guard-approved treatment systems (McAllister, 2000).
Monitoring of air emissions also gave reason for concern. The Environmental Protection
Agency had cited six cruise ship companies (involving thirteen ships) for air pollution
violations in the 1999 season. The situation had not improved. In August 2000, state
investigators charged seven companies (Holland America Line, Princess Cruises,
Celebrity Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line, Carnival Cruise Line, and World Explorer
Cruise Line, and Crystal Cruises) for eleven violations of state smoke-opacity standards
when their ships were docked in Juneau between mid-July and mid-August (see
http://www.cruisejunkie.com/alaskafines.html).
Based on the results of monitoring during the summer of 2000, Alaska Governor
Tony Knowles introduced in March 2001 legislation designed to strengthen state
monitoring of the cruise industry’s waste disposal practices. The legislation would
enforce state clean air and water standards for cruise ships. It would also create a fee of
one dollar per passenger to pay for pollution monitoring programs, inspections, and
enforcement by state officials. Despite industry opposition and lobbying, the legislation
passed and became law 1 July 2001.
The law was not more stringent than current U.S. law regarding the disposal of sewage or
pollution from smokestack emissions. What it provided was: A verified program of
sampling, testing, and reporting of wastewater and air discharges; Enforceable standards
248
for what cruise ships may discharge in Alaska waters; and Payment by the cruise ship
industry of the costs of the program.
Alaska became the first state with the authority to inspect ships, prosecute violators, and
regulate air pollution, trash disposal and hazardous waste handling as well as sewage
(Klein, 2006).
PROTECTING ECONOMIC INTERESTS
It isn’t only on environmental issues that Alaska has taken a lead. In 1999 voters in
Juneau, with a seventy percent majority, approved a five-dollar head tax for each cruise
passenger landing in the city. The tax was the first time any intermediate port in a U.S.
state had imposed such a fee (Lloyd’s List, 1999). Holland America Line retaliated with
an announcement that it would withdraw much of its support to local charities. Al
Parrish, a company vice president reportedly said, “If the community doesn’t really want
us there, if that’s really truly what they’re telling us, then we need to reassess what we’re
doing” (Rosen, 2000).
A successful citizen-based ballot initiative in August 2006 endorsed additional
environmental provisions (specifically an Ocean Ranger program that would place
environmental observers on all ships sailing to/from Alaska), but also addressed some
key economic issues. Most notable, the Cruise Ship Ballot Initiative instituted a $50 head
tax on every cruise passenger to/from Alaska (the money to be used by ports for
infrastructure and other affiliated costs) and required cruise lines to disclose financial
relationships with shore excursion providers and local shops and stores. These
provisions, some of which are being challenged in court, were motivated by concern
about the degree to which cruise lines were generating income at local expense.
Specifically, there was interest in validating claims that stores were “kicking back” as
much as 40 percent of receipts to the cruise ships from which patrons came; and there
was concern with the degree to which cruise ships held back monies paid by passengers
for shore excursions – estimates running between 50 and 66 percent. These progressive
measures were vigorously opposed by the cruise industry, which in Alaska owns a
substantial segment of the infrastructure used for tours and shore excursions.
Alaska’s success is not mirrored in other locales. The Caribbean Tourism Organization
(CTO) has several times entertained a passenger levy on those arriving by cruise ships.
In 2003, the cruise industry became aware that a $20 per passenger fee was under
discussion well before it was fully circulated to all CTO member states. Through the
Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA), the industry lobbied against the levy and
made rounds in the Caribbean. It aggressively argued its position to governments and
private sector suppliers which had the effect, as pointed out by the CTO’s Secretary
General, of short-circuiting and undermining a full discussion of the plan by the members
of the CTO (Klein, 2005). Despite lots of media attention and publicity, the passenger
levy did not succeed. An editorial in a Bahamian newspaper observed: The cruise line
officials’ opposition to the levy tax, their scare tactics, empty pretensions and vain
249
posturing, suggest that in their dealings with the Caribbean they are operating with an
unsophisticated colonialist mentality. Their thinking seems rooted in the premise that
Caribbean countries are here to serve metropolitan needs and that the islands exist
primarily to provide a market for them to extract wealth and repatriate the profits, while
they contribute very little to the regional development. (Boyce, 2003)
The FCCA’s success was based on exploiting divisions in the Caribbean and
demonstrating the adage “divide and conquer;’ not on its artful use of persuasion.
As already indicated, Key West had some success in its court-based challenge which led
to a Quality of Life Study (see Murray, 2005) assessing environmental, economic, and
social impacts of cruise tourism. One of the greatest concerns on the economic side was
that cruise passengers, because of the excessive numbers, were displacing traditional
visitors who would stay at a hotel for a week or two and patronize local eateries, bars,
and stores. As cruise tourism grew, business in the local hospitality industry increasingly
suffered. This pattern is not unique to Key West. However, each locale has its own
breaking point. Most Caribbean islands have their most prized beaches overrun by cruise
day-trippers who at times displace and interrupt the solitude of week-long visitors who
have much greater economic impact.
Some locations even provide incentives to cruise passengers that are not available to
those staying at hotels. During a visit to Saint Martin in April 2007, this writer found that
Euros (the local currency) had less purchasing power than cruise passengers carrying US
dollars. Their dollars were accepted at par to the Euro which meant that a visitor staying
at a hotel, dining in restaurants, and using the local currency was penalized by 35 percent.
It is perverse when a tourist destination penalizes those who spend the most and who
have the greatest economic impact, and encourages the mobbing and crowding brought
by cruise passengers looking for a bargain on t-shirts and postcards. The message to
land-based tourists is clear: come back on a cruise ship for a couple of hours and we’ll
treat you better.
Cruising Cash Cows
The cruise industry is adept at producing a perception among ports that a cruise ship is a
cash cow. Port cities come to believe that if they, too, could attract a cruise ship all of
their economic woes would be solved. Passengers will leave behind scads of money,
store shelves will continually need to be restocked, and local tour providers will be busier
than they ever dreamed, rolling in money all the way to the bank. Port cities spend huge
sums to sell themselves to cruise industry executives, and they devote large amounts of
borrowed money to build cruise terminals and piers in order to keep the cruise industry
happy. Campbell River in British Columbia is an excellent example. After spending
millions of dollars on a new a terminal and pier (at the cost of foregoing other capital
improvements), and even more on a tourist village, the town learned that the large ships
(2000 passengers and more) they were courting, which initially said they’d come, found
the approach to the harbour difficult. They would instead go to other nearby British
Columbia ports. The town will need to be content with smaller ships (i.e., pocket cruise
250
ships with less than 200 passengers and moderate-sized ships with less than 1000
passengers) than they planned for and on which they based their expenditures.
The belief in cruise ships as cash cows (see Klein, 2005a) is based on industry claims that
each and every cruise passenger spends (on average) more than US$100 per port call;
each crew members is assumed to spend $50 - $60 (for a critique and analysis of studies
producing the figures see Klein, 2005; Klein 2003). That means that a ship with 4,000
passengers and 1,500 crew members is presumed to yield close to a half million dollars in
revenue. But these figures focus on the gross amount supposedly spent. They do not
make adjustments for the holdback by the cruise ship for shore excursions sold onboard,
for the fees paid to cruise lines by local shops, or for variations that may impact the level
of spending. Victoria, British Columbia, which uses the industry’s figures to estimate
annual economic impact, makes no adjustments; including for the fact that many ships
arrive at 17:00 or 18:00 (5:00 or 6:00 PM) and leave at midnight – it is the last night of
the cruise: passengers are packing, they are having their last onboard meal and saying
goodbye to friends and staff, and their time ashore is severely limited. Their spending
doesn’t come close to industry claims.
Talking with store and restaurant owners gives a starkly different impression than that
given by port and cruise line officials. While the latter talk about tens of millions of
dollars being generated for the local economy, the owners of outlets who supposedly see
this income talk of little being spent. Cruise passengers come into their stores, look
around, and buy a trinket, postcard, or t-shirt. Not big ticket items. Restaurants sell
snacks, but rarely full meals; why would they given that the cruise passenger has already
paid for his/her meals onboard. This reality is reflected in a May 2007 article from the
newspaper in Cartagena, Spain which states: Shop owners in Cartagena are complaining
that the arrival of cruise ships in the town does not mean the arrival of much money.
Yesterday the ‘Thompson Destiny’ was in port for six hours with 1,600 tourists on board,
but the President of the Federation of the Small and Medium Businessman, Pedro
Miralles, said that taking a sample of five shops in the town centre, total sales to the
tourists amounted to no more than 39 €. One of the shop owners complained that 17
tourists came in, but he did not sell a thing. (h.b, 2007)
The disparity in industry claims versus local realities is clearly seen by comparing two
studies in the State of Washington. A cruise industry study paid for by ICCL claims it
generated in the state of Washington in 2003: $530 million in direct purchases,
employment for 14,869 people, and wages in excess of $588 million (BREA, 2004). A
study prepared for the Port of Seattle, covering the same year and the same area, reports
significantly lower figures – the industry spent $124 million in direct purchases
(accounting for $39 million in local wages and salaries), created directly and indirectly
1072 jobs, and through purchases from local businesses generated $3.8 million in state
and local taxes (Martin, 2004). Similar disparities exist in other locales. Ports that rely
on industry figures are likely to find themselves in the same position as the Port of Seattle
– in sum it loses money on cruise tourism.
251
Who Controls the Terminal?
The cruise industry traditionally has relied on port communities for provision of a cruise
terminal. As ports began to increase their user-fees, and as some balked at making huge
investments that could not be recouped through fees, the cruise lines began developing
schemes whereby they would build and own the terminals which they used. A good
example is an August 2001 agreement between Carnival Corporation, RCCL, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands in which the cruise lines agreed to increase the number of passengers
brought to the US Virgin Islands during the off-season between May and September –
over five years, a 15 percent annual increase on St. Croix and a 10 percent annual
increase on St. Thomas. In return, the government agreed to allow Carnival Corporation
and Royal Caribbean to jointly develop port facilities at St. Thomas’s Crown Bay (Klein,
2006a).
The two companies agreed to invest $31 million to enlarge a two-berth pier so it could
accommodate each line’s newest mega ships. They also planned to improve 7.5 acres of
adjacent land into an area offering taxis and tour dispatch, and to include 90,000 square
feet of retail, restaurant, and amphitheatre space. Five thousand square feet would be
reserved for local vendors and include an attraction themed on the islands’ sugar cane
heritage, a rum distillery, and a terminal to accommodate home porting of smaller ships.
(Morris, 2001c)
In return for their investment, Carnival and RCCL would enjoy priority berthing for a 30year period, retain 75 percent of the head tax charged passengers, and receive a
percentage of revenue from the retail operations. Passenger port charges would pay for
the investment needed for the project, and profit would generate from retail operations at
the terminal. (Morris, 2001b).
The project was approved by the legislature, despite opposition. It appeared on track until
March 13, 2002 when the Governor announced the agreement was cancelled. He stated
that although the agreement “has many merits, I believe it is important that the Virgin
Islands maintain full control of its harbour and harbour development” (Morris, 2002). It
is hard to know whether this is why ports from Barbados to St. Maarten had rejected
similar arrangements (Morris, 2001a).
The Crown Bay project continued without the cruise lines, after the Port Authority
reimbursed them $900,000 in preliminary costs. Virtually all cruise ships stopped visiting
St. Croix following collapse of the Crown Bay deal, though the cruise lines say it is
because of “isolated criminal incidents” (see Seatrade, 2002). There were 2,000 cruise
passengers in all of 2004, and in 2005 an expected total of 10,000 (Mannes, 2004). These
numbers do not include Royal Caribbean’s announcement in November 2004 that ships
visiting St. Thomas will dock in St. Croix for a six-hour overnight refueling stop from the
HOVENSA oil refinery (see Canadian Press, 2004; Joy, 2004); passengers will not
disembark. In contrast, St. Croix welcomed 154 ships carrying approximately 230,000
passengers in 2000 (Klein, 2005).
252
This move toward terminal ownership has played out in other locations. In the
Caribbean, the industry has arrangements in Belize (where one terminal is owned by
Royal Caribbean; the other is owned by Carnival Corporation), Turks and Caicos, and
Honduras; terminals in these and other locations such as Cozumel are owned outright by
a cruise corporation. Elsewhere, Carnival owns the terminal in Long Beach, California;
Costa paid one-third of the construction cost for a terminal in Savona, Italy in return for a
22-year operating lease; a Carnival/Costa-Royal Caribbean partnership holds the
concession for the cruise terminal at Civitavecchia (Rome); and Royal Caribbean
opportunistically invested $25 million in the terminal at Kusadasi, Turkey in return for a
30 year concession (Jaques and Brown, 2004). There are many other examples. Royal
Caribbean says it’s investment in ports “is based on a variety of circumstances: high
volume utilization; inadequate facilities; ports’ inability to perform; opportunities for
privatization; strategic or competitive advantage and operating cost control” (Seatrade,
2004). The incentives for these arrangements are usually economic and focus on the
cruise line’s bottom line; not benefits to the port. This introduces an obvious downside to
cruise tourism for ports desiring to have their port infrastructure funded by cruise tourism
– now, instead of making money from others they will pay to use their own port facilities.
Playing Off Ports
The position in which ports find themselves is made even more difficult as more and
more port cities jump on the cruise tourism bandwagon. In the 1990s, there were two
major cruise ports in British Columbia: Vancouver and Victoria; today there are six or
seven vying for the same business. The same scenario is played out, in varying degree on
both coasts of North America, and in many European countries where there is the same
enthusiastic belief that cruise tourism is a solution to economic woes and the need for
economic development. Few port cities or national governments appear to realize the
basic economic laws of supply and demand. As the number of ports (often in close
proximity) balloons, the value of each diminishes and the cruise industry wins. There is a
glut of supply, and cruise lines not only shop around for the best deal but play ports off
one another. This may be seen in bargaining for lower port fees and in demands for more
benefits to be included in fees (Klein, 2005a).
Of greater concern, perhaps, is the ability of cruise ships to shift from one port one year
to another the next. They are able use the threat or promise to move to drive the best deal
for themselves and likely the most marginal deal for the port city. They effectively place
ports in competition with one another, and the ports get drawn into the game. The mayor
of Nanaimo, British Columbia took exception with this statement when it was made in
2005. He insisted that his town was not in competition with Campbell River, Victoria,
Prince Rupert, Port Alberni or Vancouver; he knew that after a cruise ship visited each it
would return to Nanaimo because it was the best. And so it goes – each port believes it is
better, and each is confident that it has the upper hand over the industry. They fail to
recognize that for passengers and cruise ships most ports are indistinguishable and
interchangeable. The passengers are on the ship for a cruise and will go where the ship
takes them. The ship’s decision of where to stop is mainly economic – where can they
generate the greatest profit in the least amount of time. Where port and ship interests
253
converge, the port can benefit in a big way. Otherwise, the port is at the mercy of the
industry.
MINIMIZING THE DOWNSIDE
This discussion has identified a number of salient concerns – economic and
environmental – for port cities and governments seeking to develop or expand cruise
tourism. These concerns provide insight that may be used by ports to maximize the
benefit from cruise tourism and to minimize cruise tourism’s downside.
On the environmental side, it is easy for ports to become complacent and to trust the
word of the cruise lines. The argument that they visit the most pristine areas of the world
so of course have an interest in being environmentally responsible is compelling. But
historical behaviour patterns suggest their rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. Ports have an
interest in, and responsibility to, protect the environment on which it and the country’s
citizens depend. There is clear need for ports to use common sense and to realize that the
cruise industry is like any other corporate citizen. They are in business to make money.
If environmental regulations permit discharges that ultimately save them money, why
wouldn’t they take advantage?
The solution to the problem is clear. Local ports and governments need to be proactive in
promulgating legislation to control the behaviour of cruise ships and to protect the long
term health and welfare of the ocean, land, and air on which people depend. Given the
demonstrated futility of voluntary arrangements, the legislation needs to be clear, strict,
and enforceable. Enforcement means, like in Alaska, a system of monitoring. There also
needs to be significant penalties for non-compliance. Simply making something illegal
and charging a fine may not be sufficient, especially if the industry can view fines as a
cost to doing business. This appears to be the view held toward the U.S. where tens of
millions in fines had greater impact on producing public relations campaigns than on
behaviour change. This isn’t to suggest that there hasn’t been some change in behaviour.
However, the changes are not consistent with the will underlying prosecutions and fines,
and the behaviour change appears to take place where legislation is the strictest. Old
behaviour patterns continue where legislation is absent.
On the economic side, ports need to again remember that this is business. They want to
make money and the cruise line also wants to make money. If the cruise line can get a
better deal from a port it can increase its income and the port is likely to see its income
diminish. Ports need to continually keep in mind that the cruise industry is already
making lots of money – Carnival Corporation alone earned more than $2.25 billion net
profit in each of the past two years, and they pay virtually no corporate income tax – and
they need to ensure that they and their merchants get their fair share. Achieving a fair
share has several elements.
First, ports need to maintain a high level of self esteem. As in any business relationship
and negotiation, the party perceived to be weaker, or the part perceived to want an
254
agreement more, is already disadvantaged. Rather than chasing the cruise industry and
begging for their business, ports should step back and remember that without them a
cruise ship has no place to stop and passengers will stop cruising. Ports need to
recognize their value to the cruise industry and extract payment and income that is
consistent with their value.
British Columbia, for example, is in an enviable position because a cruise ship sailing
between Alaska and Seattle MUST include a British Columbia port in its itinerary in
order to comply with U.S. cabotage laws. The province is the only supplier available in
this case, and should be able to drive the price for use of its ports. But instead, the British
Columbia ports compete with one another, undercut one another, and give the cruise
ships a relatively inexpensive product for the service they provide. Ports outside British
Columbia have their own unique value. They need to recognize this, approach the
industry with confidence, and maintain a bottom line that provides fair and equitable
return.
Second, ports need to gather their own independent data about economic impact. They
shouldn’t trust the cruise industry’s figures and claims. If industry claims were accurate,
then there would be no reason why the cruise line wouldn’t guarantee to a port that level
of income. But none will take that bold of a step because they know their numbers are
generated by smoke and mirrors. Ports should survey passengers and crew members as
they return to a ship and query about precisely what they bought and spent while ashore.
They should also receive from each ship the actual number and percentage of passengers
and crew members who came ashore in the port. If one is going to extrapolate from the
survey data generated, then be sure to be working with accurate and reliable numbers.
Finally, ports need to avoid the trap of assessing gross passenger spending and instead
focus on measuring net spending – the amount of money actually left behind by visitors
delivered by cruise ship. There is no point coming up with spending figures when as
much as 50 percent of that amount may never even be seen by local merchants and tour
providers.
Cruise tourism can be a boom to many port cities; it can be a scourge on others. Ports
and their residents need to measure both sides of the equation, generate accurate
intelligence about economic and environmental impacts, and make decisions that
maximize the service of their interests. If this benefits the cruise industry as well, that is
fine. But ports shouldn’t place themselves in positions where they lose money in the
short term based on hopes for a windfall in the future. They shouldn’t endanger landbased tourism which generates considerably more income by embracing cruise tourism.
And they need to maintain a sense of confidence and strength in dealing with the cruise
industry. This is business and in business one negotiates hard and one is willing to admit
to themselves when a deal being presented is not in their own short-term and/or long term
best interest.
255
REFERENCES
Boyce, Hayden. (2003) Cruise Liners Seeking to Divide and Rule the Caribbean,” Nassau
Guardian,
October
23.
<www.thenassauguardian.com/editorial/331774417855056.php> (Accessed October
24, 2004)
Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA). (2004) The Contribution of the
North American Cruise Industry to the US Economy in 2003, Arlington, VA:
International Council of Cruise Lines.
Canadian Press. (2004) Royal Caribbean to Stop in St. Croix for Overnight Refueling,
Canadian
Press,
November
9.
<www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=d007c919-29df-4c74b7bd-68416690e0c5> (Accessed November 10, 2004)
h.b. (2007) Liners Leave Little in Cartagena, Typically Spanish, May 10.
<www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_10395.shtml> (Accessed May 10,
2007)
Jaques, Bob and Mary Bond. (2004) Italian Ports: New Trend Afoot, Seatrade Cruise
Review, September, 87-91.
Joy, Patrick. (2004) Tourism Touts Plans for Tempting Passengers in Frederiksted,
Virgin
Islands
Daily
News,
November
16.
<www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_home?id=776494>
(Accessed
November 16, 2004)
Klein, Ross A. (2007) The Politics of Environmental Activism: A Case Study of the
Cruise Industry and Environmental Movement, Sociological Research Online 12:2
(March). <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/klein.html> (Accessed May 2, 2007)
Klein, Ross A. (2006) Troubled Seas: Social Activism and the Cruise Industry, Cruise
Ship Tourism (ed. Ross K. Dowling), pp. 377-388, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.
Klein, Ross A. (2006a) Turning Water Into Money: The Economics of the Cruise
Industry, Cruise Ship Tourism (ed. Ross K. Dowling), pp. 261-270, Oxfordshire, UK:
CABI.
Klein, Ross A. (2005) Cruise Ship Squeeze: The New Pirates of the Seven Seas, Gabriola
Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Klein, Ross A. (2005a) Playing Off the Ports: BC and the Cruise Tourism Industry,
Vancouver:
Canadian
Centre
for
Policy
Alternatives.
<www.cruisejunkie.com/ccpa3.html> (Accessed May 2, 2007)
Klein, Ross A. (2003) Charting a Course: The Cruise Industry, the Government of
Canada, and Purposeful Development, Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives. <www.cruisejunkie.com/ccpa2.html> (Accessed May 2, 2007)
Klein, Ross A. (2003a) The Cruise Industry and Environmental History and Practice: Is a
Memorandum of Understanding Effective for Protecting the Environment, San
Francisco:
Bluewater
Network.
<www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_ss_kleinrep.pdf> (Accessed May 2, 2007)
Klein, Ross A. (2002) Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry, Gabriola
Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
256
Knowles, Tony. (2000) Knowles Steps Up Pressure On Congress For Action On Cruise
Ship Discharges, Press Release #00252, Office of the Governor, October 6, 2000
<www.gov.state.ak.us/press/00252.html>
Lloyd’s List. (1999) Lines May Fight Legality of Juneau Passenger Levy, Lloyd’s List,
October 8, p. 5
Mannes, Tanya. (2004) Winter Will Usher in Small Boost in Cruise Passengers, Virgin
Islands
Daily
News,
October
10.
<www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article?id=7607770> (Accessed October
10, 2004)
Martin, John C. Associates. (2004) The Economic Impacts of the 2003 Cruise Season at
the Port of Seattle, April 13. (Unpublished Report)
McAllister, Bill.(2000) A Big Violation on Wastewater: Some Ship Readings 100,000
Times Allowed Amount, Juneau Empire, August 27. <www.juneauempire.com>
(Accessed August 28, 2000)
Morris, Molly. (2001a) WICO Chief: Crown Bay Idea Rejected Elsewhere, St. Thomas
Source, December 17. <www.onepaper.com/stthomasvi/> (Accessed December 20,
2001)
Morris, Molly. (2001b) VIPA, WICO, Chamber Share Views on Crown Bay, St. Thomas
Source, December 17. <http://www.onesource.com/stthomasvi/> (Accessed
December 20, 2001)
Morris, Molly. (2001c) VIPA Agrees to Crown Bay Dock Expansion, St. Thomas
Source, August 15. <www.onesource.com/stthomasvi/> (Accessed August 20, 2001)
Morris, Molly. (2002c) Turnbull Halts Cruise Lines-Crown Bay Deal, St. Thomas
Source, March 13. <www.onepaper.com/stthomasvi/> (Accessed March 17, 2002)
Murray, Thomas C. & Associates. (2005) The Impacts of the Cruise Ship Industry On
The Quality Of Life
in Key West, April 8. (Unpublished report delivered to the City of Key West, June 22,
2005)
OCTA. (2006) Science Panel Recommendations to the International Council of Cruise
Lines (ICCL), Washington, DC: Conservation International.
OECD.
(2003) Voluntary Approaches to Environmental Policy: Effectiveness,
Efficiency, and Usage in Policy Mixes, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Rosen, Yereth. (2000) Alaska Officials Plan Crackdown on Cruise Ships, Reuters News
Service, February 22.
Seatrade. (2002) “Carnival hopes for return to St. Croix,” Seatrade Insider, August 23,
2002. <www.cruise-community.com/ShowStory.asp?ID=2404> (Accessed August
23, 2002)
Seatrade. (2004) Changing Face of Lines’ Investment in Ports, Seatrade Insider, June 7.
<www.cruise-community.com> (Accessed June 7, 2004)
US Department of Justice. (1999) Royal Caribbean to Pay Record $18 Million Criminal
Fine for Dumping Oil and Hazardous Chemicals, Making False Statements, U.S.
Department of Justice Press Release, July 21.
257
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE TOURISM: A CASE
STUDY OF CROATIAN DESTINATIONS
(Full Paper)
Zrinka Marusic, Sinisa Horak, Renata Tomljenovic
Institute for Tourism
Vrhovec 5, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
zrinka.marusic@iztzg.hr, sinisa.horak@iztzg.hr, renata.tomljenovic@iztzg.hr
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research was to estimate the economic, promotional and socio-cultural
impact of cruise tourism to Croatian destinations, as with its anticipated growth worldwide and, especially, in the Mediterranean, it is becoming an increasingly important issue
in terms of appropriate planning of cruising tourism on the local level. The study reported
here included the survey of cruise ship passengers and crew members in order to estimate
their on-land expenditure, survey of hotel guests aimed to estimate the impact of cruise
experience on repeat, land-based, visits and survey of local residents aimed to estimate
the socio-cultural impact of cruise ship tourism. The study found that, in terms of the
passenger and crew related expenditure, cruise passengers were relatively good spenders.
They spent between 34 and 82 Euro, depending on the port of call. In terms of the value
of cruising upon the return visit to a destination, the survey revealed that only between
1.5 and 3% of cruise passengers who visited Croatian destinations in the 2000-2006
period have returned in 2006 as the land-based visitors. In destinations with frequent
cruise ship calls the negative impact on destination attractiveness is already present.
Land-based tourists were disliking seeing cruisers/cruise passengers in destination (23%),
and were complaining of the noise generated by the cruise ships. Finally, residents were
also reporting the adverse impact of cruisers and their passengers relating mostly to the
excessive crowdedness created in the short time. However, they still supported cruise
tourism albeit advocating an urgent need to improve the traffic and visitor flow
management. With an understanding of the economic value of the cruise industry and the
range of the impact that it creates on the land-based tourists and residents community, the
results are very important for drafting the strategic direction for the cruise tourism
development already under way in Croatia.
Keywords: cruising, Croatia, socio-economic impact, repeat visit
INTRODUCTION
Cruise tourism is growing rapidly world-wide. Demand for cruise tourism has increased
50% in a seven-year period from 1989 to 1996, followed by the same increase in a fouryear period from 1996 to 2000 (UNWTO, 2003). It is estimated that there were about 16
258
million passengers on cruise ships in 2006, which is about two and half times more than
in 1995 (Dowling, 2006). The similar trend is expected in the future and Passenger
Shipping Association (2006) forecasts 20 million passengers on cruise ships in 2011.
This world wide trend is also evidenced in Europe in terms of, both, demand and supply.
Europeans represented 23% of all cruise ship passengers in 2005, compared to 17% ten
years ago (G.P.Wild International Limited and Business Research & Economic Advisors,
2007). Europe also represents second main cruising destination – it holds 24% market
share, following the 57% market share by North and Central America (Dowling, 2006).
Europeans prefer cruising in Europe, and especially Mediterranean – 60% of all
Europeans have chosen Mediterranean as cruising destination in 2005, resulting in almost
2 million cruise ship passengers from Europe (European Cruise Council, 2006). It is
forecasted that demand for the European, and especially Mediterranean destinations, will
exceed the world-average (Fosci, 2006; Robbins, 2006). Such increasing demand is
followed by increased supply – not only the majority of cruise lines operate in Europe,
but the mega ships are increasingly featured on the European scene. For example, in
Mediterranean, since 1996, the average size of cruise ships has increased by 70%
(G.P.Wild International Limited and Business Research & Economic Advisors, 2007).
Similarly, Croatia, an already popular Mediterranean tourism destination, has also
witnessed a high growth in cruise tourism demand over the last several years.
Furthermore, it is forecasted that the increase in demand will put further pressure on the
Croatian ports and tourism destinations as cruise companies are continuously searching
for new destinations and itineraries (Cruise Passenger, 2005; Chesworth, 2006; Wood,
2000). With this new and high growing demand, an issue of cruise tourism planning
becomes increasingly important for Croatian destinations eager to develop cruise tourism.
In fact, many Croatian coastal destinations, of which city of Dubrovnik in particular, are
already the ‘must see’ ports for many Mediterranean cruise liners. However, this
popularity is mostly demand driven, in the sense that the Croatian ports, as well as the
Croatian official tourism promotion, have done very little to systematically attract the
cruise companies to the Croatian shores. Likewise, while many Croatian ports are
expanding, or planning to expand in the near-by future, their port capacities to be able to
receive more and larger cruise ships, these plans are also a reaction to the increased
demand, rather than the well planned development course. Furthermore, the Croatian
cruise industry is also hampered by fragmentation and the lack of cooperation between
stakeholders, with the cruise tourism being mostly the responsibility of the port
authorities. The stakeholders have started to realise that such an approach is not
sustainable not only from the standpoint of cruise tourism, but also from the standpoint of
the overall tourism development and destination communities that have to cope with its
consequences. In such circumstances, it has become apparent to the industry leaders that
cruise tourism should be developed through the well planned and managed process.
However, for the quality planning, there was a complete lack of data based on which
decision could be made. The discussions on cruise tourism in this country were limited to
the sporadic newspaper reports and interviews with port authorities, local tourism boards
and local governments or tourism service providers, with mostly adverse media coverage.
259
The cruisers and its passengers were accused of low spending and causing
pollution/congestions. At the opposite end, there were several strong advocates of the
cruise industry growth, whose arguments mostly related to the high promotional value
that the cruise tourism generates for the entire country. In both cases, the arguments were
mostly rhetorical.
To overcome the lack of quality indicators on which to make cruise tourism development
decisions, a research agenda was charted and a series of surveys conducted as a first step
in formulating strategic directions for the sustainable development of Croatian cruise
tourism. This paper, in particular, reports on the economic and socio-cultural impacts that
cruise tourism demand is already exerting upon Croatian destinations’ land-based tourists
and residential population. The aim of the research reported here was to estimate the
impact of cruise tourism on Croatian cruise destinations by estimating the economic
impacts from cruise related expenditures, the promotional value of the cruise visits in
terms of repeat land-based visits and reaction to cruisers and cruise ship passengers by
land-based tourists and local, residential population.
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE TOURISM: LITERATURE
OVERVIEW
Economic impact
Estimating the economic contribution of cruise ship visits is not an easy task and various
approaches and methods are proposed in the literature on the topic. Dwyer, Douglas and
Livaic (2004) developed a framework for assessing the economic significance of cruise
tourism that involves six major steps: to determine the scope of the analysis, to classify
the types of expenditures associated with cruise tourism, to estimate the injection of
expenditure associated with each of different categories, to estimate different taxes and
charges component of gross cruise-related tourism expenditure, to apply multipliers to
estimate economic impacts of cruise tourism, and finally, to estimate the real costs and
benefits associated with cruise tourism. Dwyer and Forsyth (1998) stressed the
importance of differentiating between impacts and net benefits of cruise tourism. They
explored possible sources of divergence between expenditure and costs. Klein (2003a)
also argued that hidden costs of cruise shipping should be taken into account in a costbenefit analysis of cruising tourism. Moloney (2005) applied an input-output method to
measure overall impact of cruising tourism for Port of Cork. He defined the overall
impact as a sum of direct impacts arising from total expenditure on the purchase of goods
and services by cruise ship passengers and crew, the indirect impacts that occur when
local suppliers in receipt of expenditure purchase goods and services that results in
further production and employment in the country and the induced impacts that refer to
the additional consumer spending as a result of income generated by direct and indirect
impacts. Applying this method, Moloney (2005) found that the indirect contributions for
Port of Cork almost reached the direct ones.
Given the lack of relevant data needed for estimating total costs and benefits of cruise
tourism, and given the importance of cruise-related expenditures as a factor that primarily
260
determine the economic impact of cruise tourism on the local economy, the majority of
studies dealing with the economic contribution of cruise tourism focused primarily on
cruise-related expenditures only. The majority of those studies deal with ports in the
USA, Canada, Australia and Northern Europe (BREA, 2005; ICCL, 2003; Loper, 2005;
Bradley & Tramell, 2006; Chesworth, 2006; Robins, 2006; FCCA, 2006; Fanning &
James, 2006). The only available research focused on ports in the Mediterranean is the
one from 1994 (Sirius-CCI, 1995) that estimated cruise-related expenditure in three
French ports. According to that study, passenger expenditure ranged from 52 Euro in
Nice to 119 Euro in Cannes.
Apart from direct and indirect spending, it has often been stressed, especially by the
cruise industry, that the value of destination promotion should also be acknowledged,
manifested by cruise passengers making repeat visit to a destination visited while on
cruise as well as through the positive word of mouth (McKenzie Wilson Network
Partnership Group, 2004). To date, no research was reported that would assess the extent
of such impacts. One of the few studies conducted by the Florida-Caribbean Cruise
Association (FCCA, 2001) found that about 52% of visitors expressed either high or very
high likelihood of returning to a port destination as land-based visitors. Klein (2003b)
quoted some assessment where the likelihood of a repeat, land-based, visit ranges from 8
to 56% although being aware of the fact that the data on the proportion of cruise
passengers actually returning to a destination does not exist. Chesworth (2006) quoted the
Cruise Line Industry Association research where 52% of passengers have repeated the
cruise, what suggests that cruise passengers prefer such type of experience over the land
based tourism. If this is the case, then the power of cruise visit to generate repeat, landbased, visits is questionable. She, furthermore, quoted some 29% of cruise passengers
stating that they will return to a destination visited while on cruise, as well as further 44%
stated that it is highly likely. In addition to the lack of relevant research on this topic,
methodology used in those few reported studies is also highly questionable. These studies
are mostly based on the expressed intentions to return rather than on the observed
behaviour and actual conversion. The exception is the American Express survey referred
to by Klein (2003b), where 29% of stationary, first time visitors to Caribbean have, prior
to that, visited Caribbean on a cruise.
Social impact
With the increased number of cruise calls and their size, as well as owing to a mounting
competition among ports, development of port infrastructure necessitates heavy public
investment and public support which is important for such developments (Sheridan and
Teal, 2006). Public support is also necessary when hosting cruise passengers and their
crew as, owning to their number, concentration in usually the most attractive area of the
port of call and the short stay. Apart from residents, land-based tourists also need to cope
with a sudden flood of cruise passengers and compete with them for destination
attractions, services and infrastructure. As is the case with the economic (including
promotional) impact of cruise tourism, the social impact of cruise passengers on host
communities and land-based tourists has not been systematically researched. The scant
evidence indicates that the conflict between cruise passengers and the other two groups
might be a reality. The cruise ships are increasingly unpopular among residents of
261
Alaska, who have voted in cruise passenger tax, turned down proposal to improve port
infrastructure or openly declared that the cruise ship tourism is incompatible with their
lifestyle (Klein 2006; Ringer 2006; Voght & Jun, 2004). There are also sporadic reports
of the conflict between cruise passengers and land-based visitors. For example, in
Bahamas, resort guests lodged complaints against cruise passengers for spoiling the peace
and tranquility of the islands and threatening not to come back if this practice continues
(Foulkes, 2006).
The possibility of the social conflict between residents, land-based tourists and cruise
ship passengers is theoretically grounded in the research on social impacts of tourism in
general. The most consistent findings from a large number of studies on social impacts of
tourism are those that residents perceive, both, positive and negative impacts of tourism.
The extent to which they will be able or willing to tolerate some adverse impacts of
tourism depends on the extent to which they derive direct or indirect economic benefits
from tourism activity, and the amount of disturbance that they experience in their daily
routine. This is mediated by the stage of tourism development and resident-visitor ratio.
Usually, where there is a long tradition of tourism few residents are unaware of its
economic value. Subsequently, they are more ready to accept the notion that collective
benefits supersede their individual interest (Faulkner and Tideswell, 1996). However,
when the intensity of tourism activity becomes such that residents are unable to cope,
then the irritation or even antagonism might occur (Doxey, 1975). Where the pressure of
cruise passengers is experienced on a daily base and over an extended period, the issue of
their ability to adjust and cope becomes extremely important.
CONTEXT: ABOUT THE STUDY AREA
In Croatia, tourism is already well developed. In terms of current demand, Croatia
recorded over ten millions registered tourist arrivals and about 50 millions overnights in
commercial accommodation facilities in 2006 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007a).
In terms of the actual cruise tourism demand, as illustrated in Figure 1, over the last five
years (2002-2006) the number of cruise ship calls as well as the number of cruise ship
passengers in Croatian coastal destinations has more than doubled. In 2006, counting
only those registered in their first port of call in Croatian sea territory, there were 565
cruise ship visits and almost 600,000 cruise passengers (Central Bureau of Statistics,
2007b). If data on cruise ship tourism from all ports of call is taken into account, number
of cruise ship visits amounted to 1,200, with 729,000 cruise ship passengers in twenty or
so destinations along the coast (Institute for Tourism, 2007). The overwhelming majority
of those passengers are in transit since, at present, none of the Croatian ports are home
ports for any of the cruise ships.
262
Figure 1. Croatia's main ports of call - distribution of cruise ship passengers in 2006
Source: Port Authorities' data on cruise ship passengers in 2006.
About 48% of all cruise ships and 82% of passengers have visited Dubrovnik (Figure 1).
This is hardly surprising in the light of the fact that, in 2005, Dubrovnik was seventh
most popular Mediterranean cruise destination. According to Dowling’s (2006)
classification by ship size, the majority of cruise ships in 2006 (64%) were small (200 to
500 passengers) and boutique ships (less than 200 passengers), while about a quarter
(24%) were large cruisers (more that 1,000 passengers). Distribution of passengers based
on the ship size is, of course, almost the opposite. About one third (74%) of passengers
were on large cruisers, while 14% of all cruise passengers were on small or boutique
ships.
Most destinations along the Croatian coast or islands are small, tightly built
Mediterranean towns under the significant pressures from land-based tourism demand,
concentrated mostly during the two peak summer months. Cruise ships and their visitors,
who are also the most frequent in this peak summer season, create an additional demand
that destinations have difficulties in coping with.
263
METHODS
To meet the objectives of the proposed research, three studies have been conducted: a) an
on-land expenditure study of the cruise ship passengers/crews: b) a study of hotel guests
in order to estimate the impact of cruise experience on the repeat land-based visit to a
destination and their reaction to the cruise ships and cruise ship passengers/crew
members in destinations, and c) the impact of cruise ship and cruise ship passengers/crew
members in destinations on the residential population.
The expenditure study of the cruise ship passengers/crews
To estimate passenger and crew related on-land expenditure in ports of call a randomsample survey of 1,659 passengers and crew members was conducted between June and
September 2006 in four major Croatian ports of call (Dubrovnik, Korcula, Split and
Zadar), accounting for 98% of all Croatian cruise ship passengers. Both passengers and
crew members that disembarked in the ports were interviewed prior to returning to the
ship. In total, passengers and crew members from 120 ships (42 different cruise liners)
were interviewed.
Stratified random sample was designed based on the cruise ship visiting plans for four
ports of call. Strata were defined by a) port, b) cruise ship capacity in terms of the
number of passengers and c) type of cruise ship visitor (passenger/crew member). The
number of crew members in the sample was between 15 and 20% of passengers. Such
proportion was estimated based on the passenger/crew ratio which is between 2 and 2.5
to 1 and on the UNWTO (2003) estimate that a third of crew takes advantage of a port of
call to disembark. Sample size of each stratum was proportional to the number of
passengers. Respondents were randomly selected within each strata by interviewing
every 30th, 20th or 10th passenger/crew disembarking depending on cruise ship capacity.
All survey results were weighted by 2006 actual data on number of passengers in the
period June - September 2006 supplied by port authorities. The weighting was done
within strata defined by port and cruise ship capacity.
Survey consisted mostly of close ended questions divided in four sections: sociodemographic profile of cruise ship visitors, activities in destinations, satisfaction with
tourism products and services and expenditures in destinations. The expenditure items
included both on-land expenditure as well as expenditure for shore excursions paid on
board. The price charged on board for such excursions could be more than twice higher
than the price charged by the on-land agency and the difference is retained by the cruise
company (Klein, 2003a; Klein, 2006; Robbins, 2006). Therefore, in order to estimate the
amount that remains within a given destination (port of call or its surroundings), the total
amount paid have to be adjusted for the amount that goes to the cruise line and/or its
concessionaire. Based on the information obtained from the travel agencies supplying onground tour service and the average price of excursion paid by passengers on-board, it
was estimated that the cruise company retains, on average, 60% of the on-board
excursion/trip price, while the local tour operator receives 40% of that amount.
Therefore, the price that the respondent stated for the excursion paid on-board was
lowered by, on average, 60%.
264
To test the difference in average expenditures between sub samples t-test and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum or Kruskal-Wallis test were used. Chi-square test was
used to test the difference between distributions. P-value of 0.05 and less was considered
as the evidence of a statistical significance.
The study of hotel guests concerning the impact of cruise experience on the repeat landbased visit and their reaction to cruise ships and cruise ship passengers
The survey aimed to estimate the likelihood of repeat visit and the impact of cruise ships
and their passengers on the perceived destination attractiveness by land-based tourists
was conducted in late summer 2006, on a sample of 2,900 hotel guests in 24 hotels. The
target population for this study were all tourists from the countries of Western Europe
and non-European countries staying in upper quality hotels (3, 4 and 5 star). The
population definition was based, firstly, on the fact that those geographical markets are
the most important markets for the Mediterranean cruises, including those that operate in
the Croatian Adriatic (Institute for Tourism, 2007) and, secondly, on an assumption that
the cruise passengers will, in repeat, land based visit to a destination, choose hotels of the
higher standards.
Survey was conducted in 11 destinations visited, to a larger or lesser degree, by cruisers
and which, at the same time, are the most popular Croatian tourism destinations, based on
an assumption that cruise passengers will, if deciding on a return visit, make a choice
among the more popular destinations where the best hotels in Croatia are situated. A
modified mail survey was used to collect information. Questionnaires, available in five
languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian) and designed for self-completion,
were administered through hotel personnel and the response rate of 27% was obtained.
The approach used to estimate the rate of return of land-based visits was based on the
observed behaviour, i.e. ‘have you...’ rather that the stated behaviour, i.e. ‘would you...’.
In addition, the questionnaire administered included several questions pertaining to hotelguest reaction to cruise tourism. The impact measures related to, both, the presence of
cruisers in the ports as well as the presence of cruise ship passengers/crew members. A
five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 for extremely negative impact to 5 for
extremely positive impact was used.
The study on impact of cruise ship and cruise ship passengers on the residential
population
Finally, resident survey was conducted in Dubrovnik where, as already discussed, the
majority of cruise ship visits in Croatia are realized. The 300 sampled households were
randomly selected from telephone directory and data were collected via the phone
interviews on a set of close-ended questions. The survey was conducted in September
2006. At this time, the shoulder season starts for the land-based tourists, while it is still
the high peak of demand of cruise calls, with at least one cruise call daily. The survey
instrument, developed based on the instruments used in tourism social impact research
and in-depth interviews with locals, consisted of several sections including reaction to
tourism in general and cruise tourism in particular, residents involvement in tourism,
residential proximity to the foci of tourism activity and overall coping strategies used to
265
deal with crowding. More detailed methodology of this study is reported in Tomljenovic,
Marusic & Horak (2007).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Cruise-related expenditures
Although, in Europe, the most frequent passengers on cruise ships are residents of United
Kingdom (UK) (European Cruise Council, 2006), customers on cruisers that visit
Croatian ports were mostly from Italy (28%), USA (18%) and Spain (18%), followed by
those from UK (8%), France (8%) and Germany (4%). Cruise passengers were, on
average, 44 years old. In contrast to the average age, where there was no significant
difference in comparison to the land-based and yachting tourists (the two most important
segments for Croatia; t-test, p-value>0.05 for both comparisons), the cruise passengers
differed according to their familiarity with Croatia (Institute for Tourism, 2005a, 2005b).
For 73% of passengers it was their first visit to Croatia, in contrast to 14% of land-based
and 11% of yachting tourists (chi-square test, p-value<0.0001 for both comparisons).
On average, excluding the cruise company commission for organized excursion/trips,
cruise ship passengers and crew members spend 39 Euro per person per day while onground visit, of which 7 Euro or 18% was spent on the organized excursions. The larges
amount, 19 Euro (49%) was spent on shopping, followed by food and beverages (10 Euro
or 26%) and other expenses such as local transport or tickets. While passengers spent
about 41 Euro on average, the crew members spending amounted to 29 Euro on average
per person per day (Table 1).
Table 1. Cruise ship passengers and crew members on-land expenditures in Croatian
ports of call in 2006
Average on-land expenditure per cruise ship passenger/crew member
Expenditure item
TOTAL
Shore excursions (adjusted
for the cruise company
commission)
Local transportation within
port of call
Tickets and admission fees
Food and beverages in
restaurants and cafes
Shopping
Other
Total
(n=1,592)
std.
mean
%
error
(€)
(€)
39.48
0.85 100.0
Cruise ship passengers
(n=1,283)
std.
mean
%
error
(€)
(€)
41.44
0.97 100.0
Crew members
(n=309)
std.
mean
%
error
(€)
(€)
29.31
1.45 100.0
7.12
0.29
18.0
8.28
0.33
20.0
1.07
0.22
3.7
1.36
0.10
3.4
1.52
0.12
3.7
0.58
0.16
2.0
1.16
0.09
2.9
1.35
0.10
3.3
0.19
0.10
0.6
10.08
0.28
25.5
9.45
0.30
22.8
13.38
0.73
45.6
19.25
0.51
0.65
0.07
48.8
1.3
20.36
0.49
0.75
0.08
49.1
1.2
13.43
0.66
1.06
0.18
45.8
2.3
Note: The total sample size was 1,659 questionnaires. The analysis of the expenditure
items was done on 1,592 correctly filled out questionnaires.
266
However, there were statistically significant differences (Wilcoxon rank sum test, pvalue<0.0001) in spending between ports included in the survey, ranging from 34 to 82
Euro on average (Table 2), as well as based on the ship size and length of stay.
Destinations where cruisers have a shorter length of stay, such as in Dubrovnik (4.9 hours
on average with standard error of 0.1 hour) or Korcula – the Marco Polo’s birthplace (5.0
hours on average with standard error of 0.2), recorded lower expenditure on average (37
and 34 Euro, respectively). The expenditure was noticeable higher in Split (71 Euro) and
Zadar (82 Euro) – both large residential cities with well developed retail and restaurant
sector and surrounded by 5 national and nature parks attracting, in principle, smaller and
boutique ships that stay longer, although not statistically significant (the mean length of
stay was 7.5 and 5.1 hours with standard errors of 0.18 and 0.17 hours in Split and Zadar,
respectively). The total amount spent during on-ground visit also differed according to
passengers’ nationality. The best spenders were passengers from UK (51 Euro per person
on average with standard error of 2.76 Euro), USA (49 Euro on average with standard
error of 2.04 Euro) and France (46 Euro on average with standard error of 2.58 Euro).
Table 2. Cruise ship passengers/crew on-land expenditures in Croatia in 2006 by port of
calls
Average on-land expenditure per
passenger/crew
Port of call
mean
std. error
n
(€)
(€)
1,592
39.48
0.85
TOTAL
871
36.65
1.08
Dubrovnik
248
34.11
1.86
Korcula
247
70.51
1.95
Split
226
82.16
3.51
Zadar
To make an accurate estimate of direct income generated by cruise passengers and crew
on ground expenditure, it is also necessary to estimate the proportion of passengers and
crew that are disembarking in the port of call. This proportion varies and, based on the
data reported in the literature, can be anything between 15 and 100% in case of
passengers (Pulsipher & Holderfield, 2006; Robbins, 2006), and about one to two-thirds
of crew members given that part of them have to stay on board (UNWTO, 2003). Based
on the interviews with representatives of the port management authorities, ship agents
and travel agents organizing on-ground tours, the proportion of passengers that disembark
in Croatian ports is estimated to about 70 to 80% on average. Based on the assessment of
the average cruise passenger and crew expenditure in Croatian ports as well as on the
assessment of the proportion of passengers and crews that disembark in the port of call,
the total direct income generated from their expenditure is estimated to amount to 25 to
28 million Euro. Adding to that amount the income generated by the ports from ships
handling charges, the average direct economic income generated by cruise industry
amounts to 29 to 32 million Euro (Table 3).
267
Table 3. Total cruise-related expenditures in Croatia in 2006
Type of cruise-related expenditure
€
Income from on-ground passenger and crew
25 to 28 millions
expenditure
Income from port charges
1.16 to 1.31 millions
Income from port taxes
2.6 millions
Income from fees for maintenance of
162,000
waterways
TOTAL
29 to 32 millions
The amount of total income varies greatly between ports. The highest is, of course, in
Dubrovnik where it amounts between 21 to 23 million Euro, followed by Split with 3 to
3.5 million, Korcula and Zadar with about 1 million each.
Repeat visits
This part reports on the survey of hotel guest. The sample consisted of 22% of UK
residents, 16% of Italians, 15% of French and 13% of Germans. About 15% were from
non-European countries. The average respondent was 44 years old, with almost 50%
between 26 and 45 years of age. The large majority (80%) had completed tertiary
education and reported above average income. One quarter reported the average
household income to be higher than 6,000 Euro.
Of the surveyed hotel guest, 27% have participated in at least one international cruise
holiday while 7% has, while on the cruise holiday, visited a destination in Croatia. To
estimate the influence of cruise experience on a repeated, land-based visit, a conservative
approach was adopted, by taking into account only a) those that have visited Croatia for
the first time on a cruise trip and then b) only those for whom the visit made while on
cruise was very important or decisive in making the repeat, land-based visit. According to
this approach, only 4.5% of all surveyed hotel guests have visited Croatia for the first
time while on the cruise holidays, while for 2.7% of the surveyed hotel guests that cruise
experience was of very important or even decisive influence in deciding to return to
Croatia as the land-based, repeat visitors. Applying this estimate on the hotel population
in eleven destinations for 2006, 13,600 tourists have arrived to Croatia prompted by the
cruise experience.
The question is now of estimating the total number of visitors that have visited Croatia in
2006 motivated by experiencing it while on cruise. For that purpose, a number of
assumptions have to be made. Firstly, the question is whether the cruise visitors, when
visiting the country as the land-based tourists, will choose one of destinations visited
while on the cruise (usually the most attractive and popular parts of the coast) or the
lesser known destinations. Second question is whether it is likely that they will choose
the hotel for their accommodation, or perhaps some other type of accommodation such as
private apartment/house or camping site. As there is a complete lack of information that
would give answer to these two questions, for the purpose of this study the following
assumptions were made. In regard to the destination choice, if 2.7% of hotel guests in the
268
most popular destinations have experienced the country first while cruising and, because
of that experience, returned to these destinations as the hotel guests, it was assumed that
about 1.3% will be a reasonable proportion of hotel guests in all other destination that
have visited Croatia while cruising and because of that returned as land based visitors.
Regarding the assumption related to the accommodation preference, given the higher
socio-economic profile of the cruise passengers, it was reasonable to assume that such
visitors would prefer hotels over other types of accommodation on their repeated, landbased visits. With these two assumptions, the total amount of tourists that were in Croatia
in 2006, motivated by experiencing Croatia for the first time while on the cruise is about
30,000. However, the caution should be exercised here as this estimate was made on the
assumptions that repeat visits prompted by the cruise experience are less likely in the
lesser popular/known destinations, as well as that there are not such visitors in the other
type of accommodation establishments (i.e. camping, private accommodation). Certainly,
a study that would include all destinations and types of accommodation would be useful.
Finally, taking into account that a) about 2 million cruise ship passengers visited Croatia
in the post 2000 year period and b) that the majority (85%) of those hotel guests who
returned to Croatia as land-based visitors because of their cruising experience were on the
cruise in Croatia after 2000, it is estimated that 1.5% of those were making repeat landbased visit in 2006 as a consequence of their Croatian cruise experience. Even if the
impact of cruising on the repeat land-based visit in destinations that were not included in
the survey is assumed the same as in the destinations that were included in the survey, the
estimated proportion of cruise passengers making repeat, land-based visit is not more
than 3% of total number of cruise passengers over the last six years.
The impact of cruise tourism on resident population and land-based tourists
In destinations with frequent cruise ship calls the negative impact on destination
attractiveness is already present – almost a quarter of hotel guests in Dubrovnik have
expressed the negative attitude towards the large number of cruise ship passengers being
present within the town and slightly over 10% of them did not like seeing cruisers in
Dubrovnik, considering them to be ‘visual pollutants’ (Figure 2). The negative impact of
cruise ships on destination attractiveness was higher in smaller destinations and related,
both, to the ambient impact - disliking seeing cruisers in destination, and environmental
impact - mostly referring to the noise generated by the cruise ships.
Finally, reaction of residents to the cruise ships and cruise ship passengers revealed that
residents are experiencing the adverse impact caused mostly by the excessive
crowdedness that the cruise ship passengers create in the short period of time. As the
result, for example, more than 50% of Dubrovnik’s residents reported experiencing daily
crowd-related impacts and, consequently, reporting change in their daily routine to cope
with this. However, they still supported cruise tourism albeit advocating an urgent need
to improve the traffic and visitor flow management in the city (Tomljenovic, Marusic &
Horak, 2007).
269
Figure 2. Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2006
-
-
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The aim of this research was to estimate economic, promotional and socio-cultural
impact of cruise tourism to Croatian destinations, as with its anticipated fast rate of
growth world-wide and, especially in the Mediterranean, it is becoming an increasingly
important issue for further approach to cruising tourism development in Croatia.
Firstly, the research has reveal the actual on-ground expenditure of cruise-ship passengers
visiting Croatian destinations that has, up till now, been mostly speculative and rooted in
the belief that these passengers are poor spenders. According to the results, in comparison
with on-land tourists who spend about 49 Euro per day (Institute for Tourism, 2005a) and
yachting tourists whose expenditure amounts to 72 Euro per day (Institute for Tourism,
2005b), cruise passengers are not bad spenders. However, sizeable differences in
expenditure based on port exists, ranging from 1 to 2.5 times, indicating that there is a
real possibility to improve expenditure at certain ports what would also reflect in the
increased total income generated from cruise tourism. Although there is not compatible
research in Mediterranean to compare cruise passenger on-ground spending, apart from
that conducted in 1994 (Robbins, 2006; Sirius-CCI, 1995), the findings of this study
support those of the studies elsewhere that found the amount of spending varies between
ports, excluding the expenditure in home ports. In Croatian cruise ports, the amount of
expenditure is dependent on the passenger characteristics, their on-ground activities and,
at the same time, on the range of products and services that a destination offers to these
visitors. Therefore, it is advocated that each cruise destination conducts its own economic
impact study rather than been reliant on the results obtained elsewhere.
The study has also contributed to better understanding of the promotional value of cruise
tourism, especially in stimulating repeat, land-based visits. While, in the literature,
various approaches to measuring such impact are reported, the cautious approach was
270
taken here by measuring the observed, rather than the stated behaviour. When measured
in such a way, the effect of experiencing destination while on cruise and then, later on,
visit it again as the land-based tourist, is small. Only between 1.5 and 3% of the number
of cruise passengers who visited Croatian destinations in the 2000-2006 period, have
returned in 2006 as the land-based visitors. However, to assess the total effect of repeat
visits, the method of recording observed behaviour should be applied in a continuous
research. Taking into account that Croatia is a relatively new cruise destination, it can be
supposed that the number of return land-based visits would be somewhat higher in the
future.
Finally, the study contributed to better understanding of social impact of cruise tourism.
What is clear from this research is that hotel guests and local population are already
experiencing the adverse impact of the cruise ships and their passengers what, on the one
hand, undermines the destination attractiveness for the first group, and the quality of life
for the second. Both, in the long term, might lead to a decline in hotel guest numbers and
it is, therefore, of the uppermost importance that the appropriate visitor management
practice is put in place. Furthermore, the population should also be regularly informed
about benefits of cruising tourism to ensure that the benefits overweight some of the
possible negative impacts that they have to cope with at the personal level.
Based on the results obtained through the series of research reported here, it can be
concluded that the cruise tourism should be welcomed economic activity that brings
several benefits to port destinations: 1) it increase income for local service providers, thus
insuring positive economic and employment benefits, 2) it contributes to the promotion
of individual destinations and Croatia in general, as the national structure of cruise
passengers differ significantly from the other type of tourists in Croatia and spreads the
word of mouth to the new or emerging markets, and 3) the positive cruise passengers
experiences influence the repeat land-based visits to Croatia.
However, the fast growing demand for cruise tourism reflecting in the increased pressure
on Croatian ports, is already meeting with resistance from the local population and landbased visitors in destinations that experience the largest volume/concentration of cruisers
and cruise passengers, such as in Dubrovnik and Korcula, due to visual pollution and the
crowd-related problems that cruisers and cruise passengers create. For that reasons, the
results reported here stress an urgent need to manage and plan better for cruise tourism,
rather than allow the uncontrolled development as it has been the case in Croatia up to
now. In principle, small towns and cities that dot the Adriatic, are limited in the number
of cruise passengers that they can accommodate, and that arrive on the top of large
number of land-based tourists, excursionist in addition to local residents, especially
during the peak summer season. Therefore, it is likely that, in the certain time of the year,
some destinations will have to put a limit to the number of cruisers that they can receive,
in order to ensure its long term sustainability. On the other hand, it is likely that some
destinations will not be able to capitalize on this growing demand, for various reasons.
Thus, apart from planning the cruise tourism at the national level, it is also important that
it is planned for every cruise port individually and results such as these obtained here
provide a base-line data for all levels of planning.
271
The studies reported here have certain limitations as some other important issues are not
dealt with. This, in particularly, relate to the environmental impact of cruise tourism and
the hidden costs that it creates. According to Butt (2007), cruise ships represent less than
1% of the global merchant fleet but at the same time they are responsible for 25% of all
waste generated by merchant vessels that put pressure on the environment, particularly
for home ports and ports of call and increase community services. The next step would
be, therefore, to investigate the environmental costs associated with the international
cruise tourism in order to fully understand the benefits generated by cruise tourism.
REFERENCES
Bradley, M.B., & Tramell, F. (2006). The Sources and Magnitude of the Economic
Impact on a Local Economy from Cruise Activities: Evidence from Port Canaveral,
Florida. In R.K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship tourism (pp. 280–289). Oxfordshire:
CAB International.
Business Research and Economic Advisors, BREA (2005.) The Contribution of the North
American Cruise Industry to the U.S. Economy in 2004. August 2005. Retrieved
February 2006 from http://www.iccl.org/resources/2004_economic_study.pdf
Butt, N. (2007). The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of
call: A study of Southampton. Marine Policy. In press
(doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.002).
Central Bureau of Statistics (2007a). Tourism – cumulative data (January – December
2006). First release No. 4.4.2/11. Zagreb: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2007b). Foreign vessels on cruise in the Republic of Croatia,
2006. First release No. 4.4.9/8. Zagreb: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Chesworth, N. (2006). The Cruise Industry and Atlantic Canada: A Case Study. In R.K.
Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship tourism (pp. 160–169). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
Cruise Passenger (2005). Cruising: New trends in cruising, Edge Publishing group,
August 29th 2005. Retrieved October 2006 from
http://travel.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=59261
Dowling, R.K. (2006). The Cruising Industry. In R.K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise Ship
Tourism (pp. 3–17). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
Doxey, G.V. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: methodology and
research inference. The Travel Research Association Conference no. 6, San Diego,
CA, USA.
Dwyer, L., & Douglas, N., & Livaic, Z. (2004). Estimating the Economic Contribution of
a Cruise Ship Visit. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(1), 5-16.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic Significance of Cruise Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(2), 393-415.
European Cruise Council (2006.). Statistics 2005. 24th March 2006. Retrieved December
2006 from http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/pdfs/2005stats.pdf
Fanning, C., & James, J. (2006). When One Size Doesn’t Fit All. In R.K. Dowling (Ed.),
Cruise ship tourism (pp. 86-94). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
272
Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1996). Gold Coast residents’ attitudes towards tourism:
The influence of involvement in tourism, residential proximity and period of
residents. In Prosser, G. (Ed.), Tourism and hospitality research: Australian and
international perspective. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
FCCA (2006). Cruise Industry Overview – 2006. Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association,
Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/overview2006.pdf.
FCCA (2001). Caribbean Cruise Conference & Trade Show in Aruba, October 2001,
Press Release, Retrieved February 2006 from http://www.fcca.com/PressReleases/01conferencewrapup.html.
Fosci, P.L. (2006.). The Cruising Market. 5th European Tourism Forum. 16 - 17
November 2006, Limassol (Cyprus).
Foulkes, A. (2006). The impact of cruise ships on small Bahamian islands. Retrieved
December 2006 from www.bahampudnit.com/2006/05/the_impact_of_c.thml.
G.P.Wild International Limited and Business Research & Economic Advisors (2007).
Contribution of cruise tourism to the economies of Europe. Cruise Europe &
MedCruise, February 2007.
Institute for Tourism (2005a). Attitudes and Expenditures of Tourists in Croatia in 2004.
Zagreb: Institute for Tourism.
Institute for Tourism (2005b). Attitudes and Expenditures of Yachting Tourists in Croatia
in 2004. Zagreb: Institute for Tourism.
Institute for Tourism (2007). Attitudes and Expenditures of Cruise-ship passengers and
crew members in Croatia in 2006. Zagreb: Institute for Tourism.
International Council of Cruise Lines, ICCL (2003). The cruise industry – 2002 economic
summary. Retrieved February 2006 from
http://www.iccl.org/resources/economicstudies.cfm
Klein, R. (2006). Turning Water into Money: The Economics of the Cruise Industry. In
R.K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship tourism (pp. 261–269). Oxfordshire: CABI
International.
Klein, R. (2003a). Cruising – Out of Control: The Cruise Industry, the Environment,
Workers, and the Maritimes. Halifax: Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.
Klein, R. (2003b). Charting a Course: The Cruise Industry, the Government of Canada,
and Purposeful Development. Halifax: Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.
Loper, C. (2005). Overview of the socio-economic impacts of cruise tourism.
Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,
July 17 to 21, 2005.
McKenzie Wilson Network Partnership Group (2004). Cruise Tourism in the North East
of England.
Moloney, R. (2005). The economic contribution of the Port of Cork's cruise ship business
to Ireland – An input-output analysis. Business Briefing: Global Cruise 2004.
Retrieved October 2006 from www.bbriefings.com/cdps/cditemcfm?NID=858.
Passenger Shipping Association (2006). Discover Cruises - Annual cruise review. May
2006. Retrieved December 2006 from http://www.discover-cruises.co.uk/
Pulsipher, L.M., & Holderfield, L.C. (2006). Cruise Tourism in the Eastern Caribbean:
An Anachronism in the Post-colonial Era? In R.K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship
tourism (pp. 299–314). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
273
Ringer, G. (2006). Cruising north to Alaska: The new ‘Gold Rush? In R.K. Dowling
(Ed.), Cruise ship tourism (pp. 270–279). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
Robbins, D. (2006). Cruise Ship in the UK and North European Market: Development
Opportunity or Illusion for UK Ports? In R.K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship tourism
(pp. 363–376). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
Sheridan, L., & Teal, G. (2006). Fantasy and reality: Tourist and local experiences of
cruise ship tourism in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. In R.K. Dowling (Ed.),
Cruise ship tourism (pp. 315 – 326). Oxfordshire: CABI International.
Sirius-CCI (1995), Profil et Depenses des Croisieristes venant dans les ports de Cote
d'Azur, Direction des Ports et des Centres Routiers, Nice.
Tomljenovic, R., & Marusic, Z., & Horak, S. (2007). Cruisers: Passengers dreams,
destination hopes or nightmare. In Dimanache, F. (Ed.), International Conference on
Tourism, Mobility and Technology: Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research
Association Europe (pp. 432-441). Sophia Antipolis: Center for Tourism
Management – CERAM Business School.
UNWTO (2003). Worldwide cruise ship activity report. Madrid: United Nations World
Tourist Organization.
Vogt, C.A., & Jun, S.H. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourist market segments and
tourism development in Valdez, Alaska: A comparison of residents’ perceptions of
tourist impacts on the economy and quality of life. In: Bricker, K. (Ed) Proceedings
of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 404-411). Gen. Tech.
Rep. NE-326. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station.
Wood, R. (2000). Caribbean cruise tourism: globalisation at sea. Annals of Tourism
Research 27(2), 345-370.
274
DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPPLY CHAIN MODEL FOR THE
CRUISE INDUSTRY
(Full Paper)
Funda YERCAN* and Frank BATES**
Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology, Inciralti, Izmir,
Turkey;
Adjunct Faculty, Izmir University of Economics, Department of Logistics Management
Sakarya Caddesi 156, Balcova 35330 Izmir, Turkey
funda.yercan@deu.edu.tr
**
Izmir University of Economics, Department of Logistics Management
Sakarya Caddesi 156, Balcova 35330 Izmir, Turkey
frank.bates@ieu.edu.tr
*
ABSTRACT
In parallel to recent developments in the cruise industry in the world, it could be noted
that long have declarations of joint interests and comradeship between non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) – such as Chambers of Commerce – and port city businesses at
speech-giving events prompted applause and enthusiasm, with calls for continuing
pursuits to identify further opportunities for the promotion of closer and productive
relationships between the NGOs as suppliers of tourism customers for their port business
customers as the recipients of the ‘production’ (tourism generation) capabilities of
qualified prospects for businesses.
By taking into consideration the rapid and increasing developments both in the number of
vessels and on-board services provided by the cruise companies and operators positioning
in the supply side of the cruise industry, very few study have been made in terms of
academic research. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap and concentrates mainly on
the development of a supply chain model for the cruise industry by also analyzing one of
the developing cruise ports, the Port of Izmir in Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. A
service supply chain model is developed to illustrate connections between the Port City –
Izmir, with businesses, Izmir Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Izmir, the cruise service
operations to the port and cruise passengers. Consequently, perceptions and attitudes of
cruise passengers arriving the Port of Izmir and receiving services in the city, i.e. touring,
shopping, dining, site seeing etc are measured by applying surveys through
questionnaires and are analyzed by using the Multidimensional Scaling Technique based
on the study of comparative behaviors. With this focus, the relationship and ‘work
togetherness’ between Izmir Chamber of Commerce, the cruise operators and the Port of
Izmir, are considered to be motivated mutually and to lead benefits and supports for the
cruise industry contributing to the economy of the City of Izmir.
Key Words: Supply Chain Concepts,
Governmental Organizations, Turkey.
Cruise
275
Industry,
Port
Business,
Non-
INTRODUCTION
A cruise ship or a cruise liner is a passenger ship used for pleasure voyages, where the
voyage itself and the ship’s entertainments are considered an essential part of the
experience. This type of vessel is considered as a hybrid between a ship and a 5-star
hotel, and cruise ships are also known as giant floating luxury hotels employing
thousands of crew members performing duties and taking job positions identical or very
similar to jobs at 5-star hotels or resorts.
Cruising has become a major part of the tourism industry with millions of passengers
chosing to go vacations on cruise ships. The industry’s rapid growth has been clear, and
according to this growth, a number of newly built ships start to serve worldwide, and
particularly cater to North American clients and European clients each year. Cruise ships
mostly operate on a set round-about courses whereas ocean liners by actually doing
ocean-crossing voyages.
In addition to the rapid developments in the cruise industry in recent years, the year 2007
has also continued to raise the bar with more innovative facilities and services on both
new and refurbished cruise vessels. The range of enriched programs and high quality
services provided to reach higher levels of customer satisfaction has been increasing from
one year to another. Total number of cruise vessels has also been increasing with the
improvements and increases in the on-board facilities and services.
In parallel to this aspect, joint interests between the business environment and nongovernmental organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce or Chambers of Shipping
etc. have been paying more attention to the recently developing industries in their local
markets. Similar situation has been taking place in the City of Izmir in Turkey locating in
the Eastern Mediterranean. Some recently made subsidies and marketing efforts provided
by the Chamber of Commerce in Izmir have played crucial impacts upon the increases in
the total number of cruise vessels arriving to the Port of Izmir as a destination for some
cruise lines.
The following section reviews the recent developments in the cruise industry in the world
including the developments in the Mediterranean market. Supply chain concept and its
connections with industries together with its content are briefly covered in the next
section. Then, a Supply Chain Model for the cruise industry is developed and applied to
the Port of Izmir. The Port is analyzed in terms of this model to illustrate connections
between the Port City with businesses, Chamber of Commerce, the Port, cruise service
operations and cruise passengers. Finally, perceptions and attitudes of cruise passengers
arriving to the Port of Izmir are measured by analyzing the applied survey questionnaires
in the analysis section. The results of the analysis are given and discussed in the same
section. Related strategies are discussed for a better development and improvement of the
port facilities and for more contribution to the local economy.
276
THE CRUISE INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD
Developments in the Cruise Industry
The cruise industry has been considered as one of the most rapidly growing industries in
the shipping industry in the world. Just for the last four years, all leading cruise lines have
doubled their fleets and total number of employees. Many new cruise companies have
been trying to increase their shares from the cruise market explosion. With all the cruise
ships currently under construction, the cruise ship jobs are also expected to triple by the
end of year 2007.
Cruising by boat has been a lifestyle that involves living for extended time on a boat
while traveling from place to another place for pleasure. Cruising generally refers to trips
of a few days or more, and can extend to around-the-world voyages. Many cruisers are
‘long term travelers’ and travel for more than a few times. Some people even take a year
or two off from work and school for long trips, and the chance to experience cruising
lifestyle for a certain period of time.
A great deal of excitement has been generating since the last decade in the cruise industry
in the world. Rapid developments have been experienced by the industry operators in
order to meet the increasing demand in the market. The year 2007 has also continued to
raise the bar with more innovative facilities and services on both new and refurbished
cruise vessels. The range of enriched programs and high quality services provided to
reach higher levels of customer satisfaction has been increasing from one year to another.
Total number of cruise vessels has also been increasing with the improvements and
increases in the on-board facilities and services. There exist a number of factors that
show the growth of the industry and these could be listed as:
-
continued growth of year-by-year total passenger volume,
an increasing range of cruise types,
increased affordability of cruises in many key markets,
introduction of ever-larger cruise ships with more passenger facilities,
continued interest for global leisure activities and traveling,
the changing image of cruises,
increasing economic wealth in many countries, such as the Asian countries,
passenger profile also including less-than middle aged educated passengers
with a good life standard.
The cruise ship industry has averaged approximately 8.4% growth per year over the last
two decades. Since 1970, the total number of people taking a cruise has increased by
more than 1,000%. In North America, the increase has been fivehold from 1.4 million
passengers
to
almost
7
million
(www.oceana.org/uploads/!Cruise_Line_Industry&Cruisers.pdf). With this annual
growth, the cruise industry has increased at almost twice the rate of tourism overall. A
record number of people – 8.5 million passengers, took cruising worldwide in 1997. The
North American market, which also includes the Caribbean market, is the dominant one,
277
and this market reached a record of 5 million cruise passengers in the same year
(www.lighthouse-foundation.org/eng/forum/index2.html). Worldwide in 1999, the
number of cruise passengers reached 9.5 million, 1.7 million of the Europeans, and the
market evolved with an annual rate close to 12%.
There are currently more than 200 cruise ships carrying more than 10 million passengers,
nearly 12.1 million, to approximately 350 cruise ports and terminals around the globe
each year (FCCA, 2007). Rapid increases in the cruise passengers worldwide are listed as
below in Table 1. 17 million passengers are forecasted to be cruising by the year 2010
according to the cruise analyst Tony Peisley in his latest research ‘Global Changes in the
Cruise Industry: 2003-2010’. Data in Table 1, as the most accurate data, are gathered
from a variety of sources, such as CLIA, FCCA and ECC, as recognized cruise related
associations. Furthermore, Cruise Lines International Association – CLIA figures and
data cannot be neglected because of the reason that CLIA has also been defined by the
International Maritime Organization – IMO (2007) as the representor of the passenger
shipping industry.
Table 1. Total number of cruise passengers in the world (millions)
Year
Total number of
cruisepassengers
1990
4.5
1997
8.5
1999
9.5
2000
8.0
2001
8.4
2002
9.2
2003
9.5
2004
10.6
2005
11.5
2006
12.1
2010
17 (forecasted)
Sources: www.iccl.org; www.virtual-asia.com; www.oceana.org; www.calestia.co.uk;
FCCA, 2006; Ebersold, 2004.
As also emphasized here, approximately 8.4% of an annual increase is seen in the cruise
industry worldwide. To meet this demand, new orders of cruise ships continue each year.
With these facts, each year, the size of the launching cruise vessels becomes larger and
larger. For example, the largest cruise vessel was less than 100,000 grosstons 10 years
ago; however, there are currently more than 30 cruise vessels more than this tonnage, and
some of them much over. There are 20 more cruise vessels scheduled to be launched to
the seas in the forthcoming three years, and in late 2009, the era of the post 200,000
grosstons cruise ships will begin (www.cruiseshipping.net).
278
For example, 100 new vessels, which is a record number, either have entered or will enter
the market between 2000 and 2010 with seven vessels launching in 2006 and nine
scheduled to be launched in 2007, in particular (Dale, 2007). The luxury cruise vessels
continue to attract large numbers of travelers, who are also looking for different
destinations to travel in addition to the huge number of existing ports all over the world.
Since the beginning of 2007, 40 cruise vessels are either under construction or on order
for deliveries through 2011 with an estimated building value of approximately $ 25
billion (www.cruiseindustrynews.com).
The cruise market has been strong throughout the world, and particularly in the U.S.A.
and U.K. The worldwide cruise industry is valued approximately at over $ 15 billion a
year, with the North American market contributing approximately $ 11 billion, the U.K. $
1.4 billion and the rest of the world $ 2.9 billion (www.cruise-informationcenter.com/cruise_industry_overview.htm).
The Mediterranean Cruise Market and Turkey
The Mediterranean cruise market has been the second largest market following the
Caribbean market by having an annual 15% of growth. This market started to take the
attentions of the cruisers with the Barcelona Olympics, which took place in the beginning
of the 1990s. Mostly North Americans experienced flight+Olympic game tickets+cruise
packages and have experienced cruise voyages for a few days or a week. The
Mediterranean market share was a total of approximately 1.5 million passengers in 2004
with 16 cruise companies operating 42 cruise vessels and having a total of approximately
500 voyages in a year. The market includes port calls from the Western Mediterranean in
Spain, The Baleric Islands of Spain, South France, Monaco, Italy, and Malta to the
Eastern Mediterranean in Croatia, Greece, and Turkey.
Some ports in Turkey, such as Port of Istanbul located on the Bosphorus between the
Aegean Sea to the Northeastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, Port of Kusadasi on
the Aeagean Sea to the western of the country, and Port of Antalya on the Mediterranean
Sea to the southern of the country have been popular for a while because of historical
places. Port of Kusadasi has been one of the leading cruise destinations in the country by
serving for more than 300,000 cruise passengers per year. In addition to these ports, Port
of Izmir, which has a crucial role in the foreign trades of Turkey, has started to position
as also a cruise destination for some cruise operators in the Mediterranean market, in
particular.
As one of the fastest growing industries in the world, the cruise industry will start to face
some challenges in the forthcoming years. Supply has been growing at double-digit
levels, while, demand has been keeping its growth at a single-digit level
(www.pwc.com). As cruise supply grows, fewer ports will be in a position to
accommodate the cruise line, given the demands on infrastructure. In parallel to this,
cruise passengers have started to be looking for new destinations in different parts of the
world. Therefore, Port of Izmir in the City of Izmir on the western coast of Turkey with
279
an incredible historical background will be filling this gap for cruise lines. With this point
of view, the Port has already started to take the attentions of Costa Cruises of Italy and
Mediterranean Shipping Company – MSC, both Mediterranean based companies.
THE MODEL DEVELOPMENT: THE SUPPLY CHAIN MODEL
Connections between the Cruise Industry and Non-Governmental Organizations –
Chambers of Commerce
By taking into consideration the rapid and increasing developments both in the number of
vessels and on-board services provided by the cruise owners and operators positioning in
the supply side of the cruise industry, very few studies have been made in terms of
academic research. Therefore, this study also focuses on the development of a supply
chain model for the cruise industry by also analyzing one of the developing cruise ports,
the Port of Izmir in Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean.
With the tourist – here as cruise passenger, being considered as the ‘fruit’ of the NonGovernmental Organization network process, there may be reason to be concerned about
the perception by the Non-Governmental Organization – here as the Chambers of
Commerce community, about their role, realistically, to engage in productive tourism
development processes that will promote tourism customers for the port business.
Izmir Chamber of Commerce, a Non-Governmental Organization, has recently started to
take an important role in promoting the Port of Izmir as a developing cruise destination.
The Chamber has been paying the passenger port fees and taxes to the Port of Izmir since
2004 on behalf of each cruise passenger in order to encourage cruise operators to arrive
to Izmir and to publicise the City of Izmir within its competitors in the region. The City
of Izmir having a history going back to the Neolithic ages in the 5,000 B.C., has been
famous with its ancient port in Ephesus. The relocatd city port is one of the leading
container, ro-ro/ferry, general cargo ports in the country. Efforts have been taking place
in the city to attract the attentions to place a growth in the cruise services to this area.
With the contribution of the Chamber of Commerce, total number of cruise passengers
arriving to the Port of Izmir increased to 64,120 by 49 cruise vessels in 2005, 184,610 by
90 cruises in 2006, and expected to be more than 250,000 in 2007 according to the
scheduled 130 cruise vessels (Port of Izmir Reports, 2007). Tables 2 and 3 illustrate total
number of cruise vessels and total number of passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir,
respectively.
280
Table 2. Total number of cruise vessels arriving to the Port of Izmir
Total number of cruise vessels - Port of Izmir
140
120
100
total cruise 80
vessels
60
40
20
0
130
90
49
32
8
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
years
Table 3. Total number of cruise passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir
Total number of cruise passengers - Port of Izmir
300000
300000
250000
184610
200000
total
150000
passengers
100000
50000
77000
64120
16000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
years
As also illustrated in both Tables 2 and 3, there has recently been a distinctive attention to
the Port of Izmir by the cruise operators in the Mediterranean market. Both total number
of cruise vessels calling the Port and total number of cruise passengers arriving to this
destination have been considerable. It should be noted that 2007 figures are forecasted
numbers by taking into consideration the total number of vessels and passengers arriving
to the Port in the first half of the year.
The Model
The supply chain spans both the most basic and the most complex of disciplines,
including business management, information technology, advanced science applications,
geo-political and all of those network features that incorporate the needs of the chain
network which include the survival, well-being, prosperity and continuation of the
operation.
The decision to deploy the supply chain concept to reinforce the cruising process in an
interdisciplinary environment may take the form of a model. This process will be
effective when new information and feedback can be brought into this strategy to
encourage enlightenment and understanding to assess the real value of the supply chain,
281
then the value can be based on inputs and outputs and this supply chain concept can be a
good model (Singh, 2005).
Being able to arrive at more effective decision-making in the global business
environment requires an extensive recognition of the overall big picture. Specifically, the
supply chain sets the pathway that views the wide array of relationships, as they are.
With this visibility, the organizational and technical issues may be investigated with each
other. Here in Turkey, there has been a budding and growing interest in the concept of
supply chains as they have been brought to the forefront to examine relationships having
to do with policy, business, management, technology, science, politics and law and social
determinants. It is important to engage onto the correct path by making the right
decisions on the investment of our time and in our efforts, in the selection of certain
activities for achieving the desired outcomes; this will require leadership to accept,
develop, implement and operate those strategies for the greater good of the nation.
There would appear to be movement for the concept of supply chains to be included in
the planning sessions for the study of relationships between the chains’ members. In
order for it to be effective to study synergism between members, it must recognize
opportunities so that understanding and the sharing of values can be articulated to assure
a “best practices” approach (Carroll, et.al., 2005a; Carroll, et.al., 2005b). In order to
understand and participate in these evaluation processes, it may involve the concepts of
the supply chain and may prove to be integral to an understanding of the global industrial.
This research comes at a time when planners are willing to promote methods that will
breed resourcefulness, independence, initiative, risk-taking and collaboration (Guzdial
and Kehoe, 2001).
Within the concept and framework of the collaboration, planning, forecasting and
replenishment (CPFR) model, the supply chain is illustrated in Figure 1, which allows a
look at current movements and trend developments in general.
As the supply chain concept is deployed, the interrelationships between and amongst
leisure activity providers, cruise companies, local authorities i.e. ports, Chambers,
research institutions in the supply side, the role of the partners, the facilitating agents
(enablers) and the users (cruise passengers), as portrayed in Figure 2. The subsequent
flows of ideas, the research results and resource planning, the ‘fit’ of the model
influencing the contribution from the collaborating facilitators/players that influences the
returns to the members, and subsequently to the chain network; ultimately the model
encourages the simultaneous degrees of flexibility that will lead to breakthrough ideas
and new trends (Carroll, et.al., 2005a).
Because the supply chain model tends to demonstrate the working manner by which
suppliers, producers, and customers all operate, it may be time to explore the connection
between port businesses and Non-Governmental Organizations/Chambers of Commerce
institutions and the extent of the perception that the entities are productively engaged in a
mutually rewarding and accommodating relationship. Therefore, this figure illustrates a
supply chain model with its actors for use in an interdisciplinary environment.
282
Figure 1. CPFR View
The Supply Chain
Source: Adapted from http://www.cpfr.org/ProcessModel.html
Figure 2. Supply Chain Model for an Interdisciplinary Environment
Supply Chain Model For Use In An
Interdisciplinary Environment
Who are our Partners?
Design Partners
Forecast
Requirements
Buy Side
Entreneurship
Suppliers
Industry Research
Cruise
Nucleus Firm
Industry
Enabler
Facilitators
Side
Credit
Regulatory
Compliance
Chambers
Retailers
Museums
Distributors
& Resellers
Breakthrough
Trends - Ideas
Enablers
AGENTS
Payment &
Resources
Service
of
Other Corporations
Entertainment
Customers
USERS
Contract
Sector-Based
Planning
Manufacturers
Product
Management
Side
Implementers
Sell Side
Research
&
Manufacturers
Development
Suppliers INPUT
RESOURCES
Partners
PARTNERS
Providers
Sharing
Clearing
Providers
Risk
Replenishment WebManagement
Enablement
Providers
Logistics Providers
What do we need?
Commerce
Collaboration
What will we grow?
Source: Adapted from http://www.cpfr.org; Porter, 1980.
283
Further deployment for the adaptation of the supply chain model can be illustrated in
Figure 3 as the service supply chain orientation for the industry and Non-Governmental
Organizations, here Chambers of Commerce in this research. With this exposure to the
role that supply chain concepts – namely CPFR – play in globalization today, an
understanding of relationships between ports, Chambers of Commerce, the business
environment and passengers may be enhanced and better understood.
A service supply chain model is developed to illustrate the connections between the Port
City – Izmir with businesses, Izmir Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Izmir, the cruise
service operations to the Port, and cruise passengers. The process includes the following
steps as,
-
-
cruise passengers embark on board of the vessel at the port as one of the
transportation nodes, where passenger embarkation/disembarkation take place
similar to cargo loading/unloading services,
receive services, which are processed on board of vessels, including
amenities, attractions etc, and
disembark at the next port completing the first stage of the process of service
provisions, which could be considered as the inbound logistics services of this
supply chain.
After the disembarkation at the Port, outbound logistics services start with a number of
new services such as city tours, attractions, shopping, dining etc leading the cruise
passengers become the customers of the city businesses. In the case of this study, Izmir
Chamber of Commerce positions at this stage of the supply chain by adopting a role of
encouraging services as a supplier between the transportation nodes – here as the Port of
Izmir, and the city business. In addition to these, a new stage of service provision process
starts just after the cruise passengers embark on board of the cruise vessel until they
disembark at another port. A series of this stage continues until the whole cruise service
is completed at the final port of the journey (Yercan, 2006).
Izmir Chamber of Commerce, by recently adopting the role of encouraging cruise
services, will have the opportunity to benefit in the long run with more publicized City of
Izmir attracting more tourists to travel to the city and more enterpreneurs inveting
businesses in the city. This relationship and “work togetherness” will provide
opportunities to lead to benefits and supports for the cruise industry contributing to the
economy of the City of Izmir. The illustration in Figure 3 represents a good example of
the “work togetherness” between cruise operators, ports, and Chambers of Commerce.
Furthermore, strategic alliances between cruise companies and Non-Governmental
Organizations/ Chambers of Commerce can bring about the adaptation to supply chains
and may also provide an additional strategic approach to successful performance with
greater contribution to local economies (Roberts, 2003).
284
Figure 3. Supply Chain Model for the Cruise Industry and Connections between the
Sector and the Chamber of Commerce
Connection between Cruise Line Sector and NGOsChambers of Commerce – What the Service Supply
Chain Concept Tells Us
Service Supply Chain Orientation for Industry & NGOs-Chambers of Commerce
Cooperative
Development
Instruction
Strategies
New
Processing
New
Approaches
City Plans
Integrated
Solutions
Personnel
Training
NGOs - Chambers
New
Materials
Key Process
Improvement
Globalized Business
Infrastructure
Alternative
Channels
Supply Chain
Responsiveness
Ports & Tourism
New
Applications
Promotional
& Marketing
Approaches
Cost to
Perform
Attractions
Global
Environment
Commerce & Industry Relations
Tourism Development
Placement Efficiency & Goal Setting
Develop Itineraries
Internships & Relationship Building
Service Supply Chain Oriented
Synergistic Network
White-Space
Development
Implementation
Relationship Building & Development
Source: Adapted from http://www.cpfr.org; Porter, 1980.
RESEARCH AND THE ANALYSIS
Research Method
This section of the study concentrates on the measurement of comparative positioning of
cruise passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir and mapping their perceptions on the Port
and the area in order for the Port to develop further strategies for this destination.
Multivariate data analysis is used in this study as the most appropriate analysis and it
involves the partitioning, identification, measurement and prediction of the degree of
relationship of different characteristics, either among themselves or among multiple
combinations of variables (Hair, et.al., 1998). Multidimensional scaling (MDS)
technique of the multivariate data analysis is used to identify the similarities or
dissimilarities of a set of variables among different perceptions of passengers. This
technique, also known as perceptual mapping, allows exploring the criteria or key
dimensions underlying perceptions or evaluations of people or institutions, i.e., the cruise
285
passengers in this study, about similarities or dissimilarities among various
characteristics, i.e., a number of characteristics, perceptions, and expectations that these
passengers have over the Port of Izmir and the City of Izmir in this study.
A specific computer program is used to make the analysis using Multidimensional
Scaling technique in the study. The MDPREF (MultiDimensional PREFerence) program
of the MDS(X) Series of MDS computer program is used to analyze data, calculate
correlations between characteristics as emphasized on the survey questionnaire and to
illustrate the results of the analysis in graphic form, which is the perceptual mapping of
similarities or dissimilarities between these characteristics.
Data required for this analysis is collected through a questionnaire survey with 15
questions based on either a 3-point or 5-point-Likert scale including both quantifiable and
non-quantifiable variables. Questionnaires were distributed to the passengers as soon as
they disembark from the cruise vessel and arrive to the passenger terminal at the Port of
Izmir. This survey was conducted by the Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology,
Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir, Turkey with the contributions of the Administration of
the Port of Izmir, and also Izmir Chamber of Commerce.
Major characteristics represented on the questionnaire and questions asked to the
passengers mainly cover the country of residence, range of age, range of annual family
income, attitude and frequency in taking trips to foreign countries, attitude toward
cruising, perceptions on destination and local area, and satisfaction of expectations from
destination port.
Perceptions of cruise passengers have continuously been measured since 2005 by
applying the questionnaire survey to 500 passengers each week each month in the peak
season – including the months of June, July, August, and September. An average of
approximately 150 passengers responded the survey each time. In 2007, similar survey
started to be applied in the month of May and similarly 4 surveys were conducted. As a
result, total number of respondents aggregated to a number of 3142 by a total of 20
surveys since 2005. According to the answers on the questionnaires, a considerable
number were exactly the same with each other, and therefore, these results were averaged
together during the application process into the computer program during the analysis.
Responses of passengers were evaluated by 15 variables on the questionnaires mainly
representing their perceptions on the port and the city in order to lead for the positioning
in the market. Thus, input data for the application consists of a set of data, here a matrix,
in which rows are considered as subjects representing variables as characteristics of
passengers and columns are considered as stimuli representing the cruise passengers.
Research Findings and Results
Comparative positioning of cruise passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir and their
perceptions are illustrated by the 2-dimensional perceptual map in Figure 3, which is
generated by the output program of the MDPREF program of the MDS(X) computer
286
program. Major dimensions are calculated by the program as ‘Passenger profiles’ and
‘Passenger Satisfaction’.
The results of the analysis illustrated by Figure 3 are summarized as follows:
- Perceptions of a total of 3142 passengers were received through a questionnaire survey
at the passenger terminal at the Port of Izmir since 2005 until the end of May 2007.
- A simplified total of 60 respondents with averages of the whole respondents were put
into the analysis.
- The respondents position as points on the MDPREF (MultiDimensional PREFerance)
map of the MDS technique generated by the MDS(X) Software.
- The characteristics of the respondents position as vectors on the MDPREF
(MultiDimensional PREFerance) map of the MDS technique generated by the MDS(X)
Software.
- Either the respondents or the characteristics positioning close to each other on the
MDPREF Map represent similar characteristics while, on the contrary, positioning away
from each other representing dissimilarities with each other.
- More representatives from the age group more than 40 and having an annual income
between € 25,000 and € 50,000 have been arriving to the Port of Izmir.
- An average spending of the passengers in the city of Izmir has been approximately €
100. There have also been spendings either more than or less than € 100; however, these
have been considered as minor.
- Almost all of the passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir have been thinking that staying
one more day would be better.
- Passenger terminal at the Port of Izmir has been satisfactory for most of the passengers.
- Majority of the passengers have been stating that they would be glad to take a cruise to
another place in Turkey.
- Almost all of the passengers have been emphasizing that they will recommend others to
take a cruise to Izmir.
287
Figure 3. Comparative Positioning of Cruise Passengers Arriving to the Port of
Izmir in Turkey
CRUISE INDUSTRY- PASSENGER PERCEPTIONS SURVEY
CONFIGURATION OF SUBJECTS AND STIMULI
DIMENSION 2 PLOTTED AGAINST DIMENSION 1
MDS FULL SET
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 *
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
.+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+.
!
!
!
!
1.10 !
!
1.06 !
!
1.01 !
positioning
!
0.96 !
expectations
!
0.91 !
!
0.86 !
age
spending
!
0.82 !
!
0.77 !
frequency
!
0.72 !
!
0.67 !
!
0.62 !
!
0.58 !
terminal satisfaction
!
0.53 !
income
!
0.48 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
xx xxxx
!
PASSENGER !
xx xxx xxxxx xxxx
!
!
xxx xxx xxx xx xxx xxx xx
!
SATISFACTION!
xxx xxx xxx
!
!
xx
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
+
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
.+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+....+.
-1.20-1.08-0.96-0.84-0.72-0.60-0.48-0.36-0.24-0.12
* 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.84 0.96 1.08 1.20
PASSENGER PROFILE
POINTS x EPRESENT PASSENGER PERCEPTIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There have been rapid developments in the cruise industry worldwide. Number of vessels
and on-board services provided by the cruise companies and operators positioning in the
supply side of the cruise industry have been increasing rapidly since the last decade and
very few studies have been made in terms of academic research. Therefore, this study
aims to fill this gap and concentrates mainly on the development of a supply chain model
for the cruise industry.
The supply chain concept is used to evaluate the relationship between the cruise industry
and the chambers of commerce as non-governmental institutions. Supply chain
management model is an opportunity to gain proficiency in the needs and operation of
each player in the chain (Alexander and Gupta, 2004). Multinational and globalized
cruise shipping industry has been growing rapidly since the last decade in variations,
frequency and size, yet research shows that many operators have not yet tried to use
supply chain-oriented measurements in terms of being a player within the chain.
Understanding of the cruise operators and chambers of commerce as members of the
chain offer a number of advantages, as reflected above.
288
This study focuses mainly on the development of a supply chain model for the cruise
industry by also analyzing one of the developing cruise ports, the Port of Izmir in Turkey
in the Eastern Mediterranean. A service supply chain model is developed to illustrate
connections between the Port City – Izmir, with businesses, Izmir Chamber of
Commerce, the Port of Izmir, the cruise service operations to the port and cruise
passengers. Consequently, perceptions and attitudes of cruise passengers arriving the Port
of Izmir and receiving services in the city, i.e. touring, shopping, dining, site seeing etc
are measured by applying surveys through questionnaires and are analyzed by using the
Multidimensional Scaling Technique based on the study of comparative behaviors.
Multidimensional scaling technique of multivariate analysis is used to identify, analyze
and illustrate the positioning of the cruise passengers. With this focus, strategies are
developed for both industry and Chamber of Commerce representatives for better and
improved collaborations and relationships between each other. As a result, the
relationship and ‘work togetherness’ between Izmir Chamber of Commerce, the cruise
operators and the Port of Izmir, are considered to be motivated mutually and to lead
benefits. With this perspective, a clear result has been found out with ‘working
togetherness’ bringing more synergy to the local area as also retrieved from the
perceptions of the cruise passengers through questionnaire surveys since 2005. In
addition to these benefits, economic contribution to the local area cannot be neglected
and this part of the study can be a topic of a further study area.
Finally, opportunities provided by Izmir Chamber of Commerce for more businesses in
the City of Izmir and for more encouragement of the cruise operators to see the Port of
Izmir as a destination play important roles in the development of the cruise market in the
area.
Industry representatives think that Chambers of Commerce have vital
responsibility; Chamber of Commerce representatives see themselves as a bridge in the
provision of more business potential and connections between the cruise operators and
the city. In addition, majority of the cruise passengers arriving to the Port of Izmir have
been satisfied by almost anything in the city and almost all of them have been glad to
visit the destination. Contribution of the passengers to the local economy has also been
considered as crucial. As a final conclusion, it can be stated that objectives of the study
are complied and relationship between different actors in this study, i.e. cruise service
providers,
passengers,
local
authorities,
the
port,
Non-Governmental
Organizations/Chamber of Commerce, and research institutions, is defined through the
supply chain model. At this point, the researchers find that there exists some rationale for
positing that the supply chain may serve as a model for evaluating a beneficial
relationship between Industry and Chambers of Commerce for serving and contributing
more to the local economy in a certain market.
289
REFERENCES
Alexander, S.M. and Gupta, M. (2004). “A study of the impact of CPFR on Supply chain
performance”. Logistics and distribution Institute (LoDI), Louisville, KY.
Carroll, J.M., M.B. Rosson, D. Dunlap, and P. Isenhour (2005a). “Frameworks for
Sharing Teaching Practices”. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 162-175.
Carroll, J.M., C.W. Choo, M.B. Rosson, D. Dunlap, D.R. Isenhour, P.L. Kerr and M.B.
Rosen (2005b). “Knowledge management support for teachers” Educational
Technology & Society, 51 (4), 42-64.
Dale, T. (2007). “Poised for a Record Year”. World Cruise Industry Review. 1, pp.6.
Ebersold, W. B. (2004). “Cruise Industry in Figures”, Business Briefing: Global Cruise
2004, U.S. Maritime Administration – MARAD’s Office of Statistical and Economic
Analysis. pp.15-16.
Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association – FCCA (2007). Cruise Industry Overview-2007.
Florida, U.S.A.
uzdial, M.R. and C. Kehoe (2001). Beyond Adoption to Invention: Teacher-Created
Collaborative Activities in Higher Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10
(3), 265-279.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tutham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis. 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
International Maritime Organization – IMO (2007). Adoption of Proposed Amendments
to the Convention on Passenger Shipping. FAL 34/4/2, 19/01/2007.
Port of Izmir Reports. (2007) Izmir, Turkey.
Porter, M.E. (1980). “Porter’s Five-Forces Model”. Competitive Strategy. Free Press,
New York.
Roberts, J. S., 2003. “The buzz about supply chain”. Inside Supply Management. Institute
for Supply Management, 2055 E. Centennial Circle, Tempe, AZ
Singh, H. (2005). Framed!: Solve an intriguing mystery and master how to make smart
choices. Oxford University Press, New York.
Yercan, F. (2006). Passenger Transportation Systems. Unpublished course notes,
Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Websites:
www.calestia.co.uk/wexas/p3_bycruiseliner.htm
www.cpfr.org Mission Statement
www.cruise-information-center.com/cruise_industry_overview.htm
www.cruiseindustrynews.com
www.cruiseshipping.net
www.iccl.org/resources/2002EconomicStudySummary.pdf
www.lighthouse-foundation.org/eng/forum/index2.html
www.oceana.org/uploads/!Cruise_Line_Industry&Cruisers.pdf
www.pwc.com
www.virtual-asia.com/atd/news.htm
290
Channel View Publications
Are proud to be sponsors of the
5th Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress
Our forthcoming books include:
MANAGING COASTAL TOURISM RESORTS
A Global Perspective
Edited by Sheela Agarwal (University of Plymouth) & Gareth Shaw (University of Exeter)
This book aims to develop a global perspective on the management issues facing coastal resorts. It does so
by drawing on examples from a range of economies and environments written by key experts. The major
management themes highlighted include the processes of restructuring, attempts to develop sustainable
agendas and environmental issues of developing resorts in sensitive areas.
Hbk ISBN 9781845410735
£54.95 / US$109.95 / CAN$119.95
Pbk ISBN 9781845410728
£24.95 / US$49.95 / CAN$54.95
Ebook ISBN 9781845410742
£54.95 / US$109.95 / CAN$119.95
TOURISM AND TRANSPORT
Modes, Networks and Flows
David Timothy Duval (University of Otago)
This textbook investigates the complex relationship between transport provision and tourism. While
focusing on the various modes and types of transport available, it also discusses the form and extent of
transport networks that tie destinations together and the regulatory environments that dictate transport
flows on an international scale. The environmental implications for transport, including climate change and
emissions, are also featured.
Hbk ISBN 9781845410643
£49.95 / US$99.95 / CAN$119.95
Pbk ISBN 9781845410636
£24.95 / US$49.95 / CAN$54.95
TOURISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Risks and Opportunities
Susanne Becken (Lincoln University) and John E. Hay (JEH Ltd)
The book provides a comprehensive discussion of the latest knowledge in the field of tourism and climate
change. It is aimed at tourism practitioners and those with an academic interest in the fields of tourism
management and climate change mitigation, adaptation and policy.
Hbk ISBN 9781845410674
£59.95 / US$119.95 / CAN$129.95
Pbk ISBN 9781845410667
£24.95 / US$49.95 / CAN$54.95
Ebook ISBN 9781845410681
£59.95 / US$119.95 / CAN$129.95
All of these titles are available from our website
www.channelviewpublications.com at 20% discount!
For further information, please contact:
CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS
Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Rd.
Clevedon, BS21 7HH, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1275 876519 Fax: +44 (0) 1275 871673
Email: info@channelviewpublications.com
Visit www.channelviewpublications.com for
secure credit card ordering at 20% discount.
291
Theme 4
Coral Reefs and
Scuba Diving/Snorkeling
292
KEEPING AN I (AND 1.9 MILLION OTHERS) ON THE REEF:
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF TOURISM ON THE
GREAT BARRIER REEF
(Full Paper)
Alexandra Coghlan & Bruce Prideaux
Centre for Tropical Tourism and Hospitality Research
James Cook University
Alexandra.coghlan@jcu.edu.au, Bruce.prideaux@jcu.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Marketed internationally as an iconic tourism experience, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
(GBR) faces a range of issues similar to those faced by coral reefs in other parts of the
world. According to the Reef’s management authority (GRBMPA), 1.9 million tourists
visit the reef annually, using a range of operators offering different products catering to
different markets. Management of the tourism industry is based on a zoning system, that
requires natural and social science input. Data on visitor experiences and satisfaction has
been collected in the past under CRC Reef research, and more recently a new long term
reporting system of reef tourist visitation funded under the Marine and Tropical Sciences
Research Facility (MTSRF) through the Australian Federal Government. The
sustainability of this industry is believed to be influenced by a range of natural (climate
change, crown-of –thorns, etc) and social (rising cost of fuel, changing travel patters,
emerging markets) issues. In this paper, these issues are reviewed, before analyzing the
reef tourism experience within the context of these issues; data are collected on sociodemographics, travel behaviour, motivations, activities on the reef, previous reef tourism
experience, satisfaction (best and worst experiences) and expectations. The results may
then be compared over time with the emerging social and environmental issues and
threats to determine their effect on the sustainability of reef tourism. Finally some of the
solutions and strategies available to tourism operators are discussed in the light of the
arguments presented in this paper.
Keywords: reef tourism, Great Barrier Reef
INTRODUCTION
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is arguably one of the iconic tourism destinations in the
world. Listed as World Heritage Area in 1981 and included as one of the seven wonders
of the world, it’s status as a must-see destination has recently been confirmed by World
Tourism and Travel Council when it was voted “best destination” as part of the Tourism
for Tomorrow awards in May 2007 (WTTC, 2007). According to the Great Barrier Reef
293
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA, 2007), the management agency responsibility for one
of Australia’s most important natural assets, the tourism industry that has developed
around the marine park welcomes 1.9 million tourists each year, and is worth
approximately $AU 5 billion, and supports up to 50,000 jobs along the Queensland coast.
The importance of the Reef to tourism in Tropical North Queensland has been reinforced
by numerous studies which suggest that seeing the Great Barrier is one of the most
important motivations for visiting the region (Prideaux et al., 2006). However, whilst
they are extremely visually appealing and attractive to tourists, reefs also tend to be rather
fragile ecosystems that can suffer as a result of changing environmental conditions
(Marshall and Schuttenberg, 2006). In order to ensure the suitability and sustainability of
this industry in the face of a dynamic social and natural context, a mid-term monitoring
program has been established that identifies key drivers and trends in reef tourism on the
GBR. The aim of this paper is to describe this monitoring program, its uses and the
research results that are particularly relevant to management, industry and tourists
themselves.
THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF REEF TOURISM
Tourism on the GBR is managed through a zoning and permit system that allows for a
range of activities in specifically zoned areas. As part of their permits, commercial
operators are required to collect an Environmental Management Charge from all visitors
to the GBR Marine Park. Currently the charge is $AU5 per passenger and the revenue
raised is used to fund Marine Park management including education, ranger patrols,
policy development, and to support research into tourism on the reef. As a byproduct of
the charge, information is available on the number of visitors carried by the operator each
day and the locations visited, providing a good picture of visitation rates through the
different areas of the GBR (GRBMPA, 2007).
Current commercial tourism activities on the GBR include (i) day trips on large
catamarans to reef pontoons, (ii) a range of day trips to reef sites on a variety of different
types of boats, (iii) day trips to islands, (iv) island resorts, (v) island camping, (vi) one
day dive trips, (vii) live-aboard dive trips, (viii) longer cruises, (ix) live-aboard sailing
(Moscardo at al., 2003). Activities offered to tourists once they reach the reef include
swimming, glass bottom boat tours, semi-submersible boat tour, SCUBA diving (as
certified divers, trainee divers or introductory divers), reef viewing through viewing
platforms and underwater observatories that are located on a number of pontoons and
islands, visiting a range of coral islands, participating in guided/adventure snorkels,
independent snorkeling, helmet diving and in a limited number of areas fishing. In
addition, scenic flights using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, and sea kayak ventures
are available and appear to be growing in popularity (pers. obs).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Given the role that reef tourism has in the North Queensland tourism industry, it is
apparent that ongoing research into a range of issues is required. This includes
294
understanding current forms of reef tourism, the popularity of different activities and the
impacts of these experiences. The GBR, in parallel with other reefs worldwide, continues
to face increasing anthropogenic and natural pressures. Most research into the reef has
had a specific scientific focus with a smaller social science focus emerging in the last two
decades. The research suggests that the Reef may be significantly impacted upon by the
year 2030. One of the main threats facing the GBR is lowered biodiversity through loss
of coral and associated changes in reef ecology. Rising sea temperatures through climate
change has been blamed for coral bleaching events, when corals become increasing
vulnerable to damage by light or increases in water temperature. Based upon predictions
of global warming rates, bleaching events are set to increase in frequency and intensity.
Events as severe as the 1998 event will become commonplace within twenty years and
bleaching events will occur annually in most tropical oceans by the end of the next 30-50
years (Wilkinson, 2002).
In addition to coral bleaching, the GBR has experienced several outbreaks of crown-ofthorns starfish, Acanthaster planci. This is a large starfish which feeds on corals by
extruding its stomach out onto the coral to digest the living tissue layer. Areas of coral
that have been attacked by crown-of-thorns starfish are easily recognizable as dead, white
coral in the middle of otherwise healthy coral. Breakouts of the starfish have become
more common on the Great Barrier Reef and may be linked to increased development and
eutrophication (CRC Reef, 2003). Another significant threat to coral reefs is human
expansion and development. In particular the increasing levels of freshwater run-off and
the high sediment and pollution loads from cleared land that these may carry are a
growing problem. The sediment loads and increased nutrients in the water (causing
eutrophication of the water), decreases in the amounts of light reaching corals may cause
bleaching and speed up the growth rate of competing organisms, such as sponges and
algae. There have also been suggestions that climate change will lead to increasingly
frequent strong tropical cyclones in the Tropical North Queensland region (Watson et al.,
2001) the implications of which will be discussed in the light of the results presented in
this paper.
Compared to natural science, social science has only recently begun to attract substantial
research funding. In particular the Cooperative Research Centre for the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area (CRC Reef) first established in 1994 to provide research to
support reef management has provided funding for social science research with a strong
tourism emphasis. A review by Moscardo et al. (2003) identified a range of tourism
research on the GBR including studies into the economic contribution and other direct
uses of the reef to the regional economy (Driml & Common, 1996); the environmental
impacts of tourism (Dinsdale & Harriot, 2004; Harriott, 2002; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997;
Roberts & Harriott, 1994); investigations of reef experiences at certain sites (Ormsby &
Shafer, 1999); perceptions of ideal and actual coral reefs (Fenton et al, 1997); evaluation
of reef pontoons (Moscardo, 2001) and patterns of reef tourism (Moscardo, 1999;
Moscardo and Woods, 1998; Moscardo et al., 2003). Other research has addressed issues
that include: marketing and promotion of marine tourism (Burns & Murphy, 1998;
Greenwood, 2000); an examination of the limits of acceptable change and crowding
impacts for snorkellers and divers (Roman, Dearden & Rollins, 2007; Inglis, Johnson and
295
Ponte, 1999), the role of interpretation and information in reef tourism (Fenton, Young &
Johnson, 1997; Green, 1997; Moscardo, Green & Greenwood, 2001; Moscardo Woods &
Pearce, 1997; Moscardo, 1998, 1999, 2002; Plathong, Inglis & Huber, 2000) and research
directed towards understanding the needs of different markets (Greenwood & Moscardo,
1999; Greenwood, 2000; Kim & Lee, 1998, 2000; Moscardo, Pearce, Green & O’Leary,
2001).
Most of the research outlined above has been based on short-term studies that were not
followed up over time to identify emerging trends and drivers. Moreover, data has not
been centralised and in many cases is not easily accessible for follow-up research. Little
of the work identified above has been directed towards the possible impacts of the future
dangers that have been identified in the natural science research. Based on research in
other regions, a decline in reef health can be expected to translate into a decline in visitor
numbers and serious impacts on regional economies. It is now apparent that there is an
urgent need to develop a more rigorous methodology for undertaking social science
research that incorporates the findings of natural science and is directed towards
identifying possible impacts of these events on visitor patterns and experiences.
To develop a capacity for undertaking long term monitoring of visitor patterns and to
identify trends, drivers and threats it is apparent that a baseline needs to be established.
Using this methodology it then becomes possible to build a research framework that can
inform on a range of issues including lifecycle patterns of reef tourism, changing
markets, competing destinations, sustainable experiences (perceived damage,
interpretation), and service quality analyses.
In response to these issues and the need for specific tourism focused research the CRC
Reef sponsored a range of research projects in the period 1994 to 2006. Following the
cessation of the CRC Reef in 2006 the Federal Government, through the Department of
Environment and Water (formally the Department of Environment and Heritage)
established the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) to develop a
comprehensive social science research program that included tourism research. The
tourism program was funded for a four year basis to examine a range of issues including
examination of sustainable uses and management of marine resources (Program 4.8), and
within this program an analysis of recreational and tourism use and impact on the GBR
for managing sustainable tourism (Program 4.8.6).
The project identifies trends of annual visitor use patterns of the Great Barrier Reef, as
well as the drivers of these patterns. Within the trends, the research identifies the supply
and demand patterns, who is coming to the reef, what they are doing and where are they
going, and within the drivers, the research examine both external factors such as
destination image (pull factors), competition from other destinations, economic climate,
health of the reef, etc. and internal factors, motivations (push factors), time and financial
constraints, experience, expectations and satisfaction. The data collected includes sociodemographic variables, travel patterns, motivations, activities on the reef, previous reef
tourism experience, satisfaction and expectations, best and worst experiences. This
information then enables analyses of the types of tourist that come to the reef (nature-
296
based, mass, eco-tourist, etc), the correlates of satisfaction, the factors that affect
experience and a descriptive analysis of GBR tourism experiences.
OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY
This paper describes the reef tourism monitoring program and its uses. Specifically, the
paper describes the methodology used to collect useful information on visitor trends and
drivers on the GBR; reviews the research results that are particularly relevant to reef
tourism stakeholders and highlights some of the issues that will determine the structure of
future tourism patterns on the GBR. These results are then used to discuss some of
adaptive strategies that can be applied by industry and management to light of the issues
facing reef tourism on the GBR.
To identify drivers and trends of reef tourism a thorough literature review was first
undertaken, followed by discussions with key researchers and research providers and
meetings with key stakeholders (such as GBRMPA, regional tourism bodies, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Australian Marine Tourism Operators
Association, AMPTO). Follow up meetings were held with AMPTO to discuss potential
survey distribution methodologies and design a pilot survey based on existing research
and stakeholder needs. Due to funding constraints, surveys are distributed by boat crews,
not paid survey staff. In exchange for this contribution, boat operators are given a
confidential report on the findings of the surveys distributed on their boat.
The pilot survey was reviewed by an external researcher and comments taken into
consideration. In preparation for the launch of the survey program, several fieldtrips were
undertaken to observe the distribution of the survey to identify any potential distribution
issues and to obtain feedback from both crew and passengers. At the same time,
participant observation techniques were used to identify and illustrate some of the key
elements of reef tourism that contribute towards quality reef tours. The pilot survey was
tested over a two week period in October 2006 and involved five operators in the Cairns
region. After refinements were made to the survey distribution commenced in the first
week of November 2006. The final survey is provided in Appendix A.
The survey is currently distributed by 11 operators across four regions (Port Douglas,
Cairns, Townsville and Airlie Beach). The diversity of operators and locations ensures
that nearly all the activities that are offered on the reef are represented, including pontoon
trips, helicopter tours, all SCUBA diving activities (intro/resort, certified and training),
helmet dives, snorkel tours, viewing chambers, semi-submersible tours, glass bottom boat
tours, sailing and visiting the islands. The activities that are not represented include
fishing, stays at islands resorts, and the dedicated diving liveaboard operations such as
those offered by members of the Cod Hole and Ribbon Reefs Association (CHARROA).
This enables the researchers to be reasonably confident that most types of reef experience
are represented and the replication of similar types of operations within and between
different regions allows for some comparative analyses to be carried out.
297
There are however several limitations to this approach. The first is that survey
distribution and collection is entirely dependent on boat crews, which creates the
potential for surveys to be misplaced or forgotten amongst other crew duties, and may
lead to concerns over the randomization of sampling, both in terms of respondents and
conditions under which distribution occurs (rough/calm seas, no or lots sunshine,
poor/good water clarity). Whilst boat crews have been asked to maximize sampling
randomization (e.g. asking the crews to approach every fourth table on the larger boats,
or every third seated person on the smaller boats, on set days of the month), it cannot
always be guaranteed that staff, particularly new or casual staff, are following these
instructions. The issue of randomization can also, to some extent, be addressed through
large sample sizes, built up through time.
Additionally, some specific markets might not have been captured, e.g. many operators,
such as Great Adventures, market their product specifically to the Asian markets, and
whilst the survey is being translated into Japanese it is not distributed in that language.
Furthermore, some operators have expressed concern that as the survey is only
(currently) available in English, there is a strong bias towards Anglophone respondents.
Again, this is a limitation of the methodology as boat crew cannot be expected to carry
and distribute surveys in a range of languages, as well as issues of time, financial and
human resources in terms of back-translation of open-ended questions. These limitations
are acknowledged within the context of the research, and it is noted that whilst general
trends may be recognizable and extrapolated, data represent only the respondents that
completed the survey (as is the case in much research).
STAKEHOLDER RELEVANT RESEARCH RESULTS
As the research progresses, and the total sample size increases, certain trends of reef
tourism start to emerge. The results presented represent the first five months of data
collection (N = 1000 surveys). Not all the results of the research will be presented here,
as they are all available as public goods at the RRRC website (www.rrrc.org.au). Instead
some of the more pertinent results that directly affect reef tourism management and
development are presented.
One of the first points that can be made is that there has been relatively little change in
the socio-demographics of visitors to the GBR over the last few years. Table 1
summarizes some of the similarities between Moscardo et al.’s results published in 2003
and the results of this research. There has been little change in visitor origin (including
the proportion of domestic visitors), ages, travel parties, and proportion of repeat visitors,
representing a relatively stable market for the GBR. In addition, this research has
highlighted the large proportion of locals that use commercial operators to visit the reef,
often in the company of visiting friends and relatives.
298
Table 1: Comparison of current respondents’ profiles to Moscardo’s results in 2003.
Characteristic
Moscardo 2003
Prideaux & Coghlan 2006/7
Origin
39% Domestic
30% were domestic tourists,
Internationals mainly from
and 65% of internationals
UK/Ireland & North America
were from UK/Ireland &
North America
Age
30% 21-30 years old
34.5% 20-29 years old
Repeat visitation
69% first visit
75% first visit
Travel Party
34% couple, 25% family,
36.5% couple, 14.2% family
Information sources
39% Friends & Family
39% friends and relatives
Satisfaction scores
8.6, 81% scored 8 or over
8.35, 79.5% scored 8 or over
Recommendation rates 73% recommend it
91% recommend it
Perhaps as a result of this VFR market segment, it would appear that the social aspects of
the trip are equally as important as natural aspects, such as the health of the coral. This is
reflected in the responses to satisfaction influences (28.5% of responses to satisfaction
influences concerned the social environment, whilst 17% of responses concerned the
natural environment). In fact, it would appear that when asked what they had done during
their reef trip, just over a quarter (28%) of respondents mentioned viewing marine
wildlife as one of their activities (begging the question what did the remaining 72% see
during the trip?), and frequently the marine wildlife that stood out in people’s minds were
starfish and sea cucumbers, possibly as these animals are often presented to novice divers
and snorkelers to handle as part of their reef experience. Other animals that are sometime
mentioned in these cases are turtles and dolphins, whilst corals, fish, sharks and general
marine life are mentioned by 26% of respondents as a best experience.
Another interesting point is that the level of staff knowledge of the marine environment
and the interpretation offered on board is not frequently mentioned by respondents (4.5%
of respondents). This would appear to be the case despite the substantial investment in
interpretation programs by management and some operators in interpretive packages,
often leading to very sophisticated interpretive experiences. This result is reinforced by
participant observation of visitors during the “marine biologist’s talk” or GBR video,
often only attended by 25% or less of the total number of passengers on board, and
conversations with visitors who often have to be heavily prompted to discuss their
evaluations of the interpretation available or what they have learnt that day. Moreover,
only 50% of respondents had noticed whether their operator was eco-certified, and only
one respondent mentioned eco-certification as the reason that they chose that to travel
with a given operator.
Other points that are highlighted by the results is that visitor price sensitivity is not high
as one might believe; only 16% of respondents gave price as a reason for choosing their
operator. According to the industry, however, price sensitivity might be represented
instead by recommendation by agents, who will often only recommend a tour that they
can sell based on its cheaper price. There is a general feeling that price sensitivity is
higher than represented in the results, although 85% of respondents do feel that they got
value for money on their reef trip. Moreover, since Moscardo et al.’s last study in 2003,
299
there appears to have been an increase in the number of respondents who would
recommend the trip to others, whilst there has also been a decrease in overall satisfaction
score from 8.6/10 to 8.35 /10.
In terms of destination image, the results suggest that the GBR may actually be more of a
snorkeling destination than a diving destination (remembering the limitations of the
sample). Whilst 40% of respondents say that they planned to dive during their trip to the
reef, only 29% actually dived that day. This may be accounted for by a variety of
different reasons, e.g. medical constraints or the additional cost of diving, but is also
reinforced by the proportion of certified divers, and uncertified divers with no previous
experience (43% and 28% respectively), the relative inexperience of certified divers
(median number of dives was two), and a content analysis of diving magazines that often
suggest that the GBR is a good snorkeling or trainee diver destination. When examining
the comments of more experienced divers and tourists who had visited other reefs, there
appears to be a general consensus that the GBR does not stand out as particularly better
reef than any other reef around the world (although respondents are not asked to qualify
the terms “better”, “same” or “worse”) (39.5% comparisons suggested that the GBR is
the same as other reefs, 26.5% suggest that GBR is better and 22% suggest that GBR is
worse).
One last point that needs to be mentioned in the results is the role of seasickness. This
research has highlighted that seasickness and sea state/weather is one of the key factors
that determines satisfaction on the reef; e.g. when describing their worst experience of the
day, “my wife was sea sick and no relief was available onboard the boat i.e. sea sick
pills” or “people getting sick all over the place. Looked like a hospital when at dock”. It
is results such as this that will have important implications when discussing the future of
GBR reef tourism and some of the issues that it faces. One of the aims of this research is
to investigate the impact of a range of drivers of visitor satisfaction and expectations.
These include water quality, global warming, etc. To explore these issues, the survey has
a capacity to examine the impact of issues previously identified. The first stage of this has
been to examine water quality. The paper now highlights some of these issues to be
investigated in more detail over the next three years, in the light of the results presented
above.
SOME OF THE ISSUES FACING REEF TOURISM ON THE GBR
The GBR’s management agency, GBRMPA, is recognized internationally as a leading
reef management agency, in particular for its reef tourism initiatives. It, along with the
Australian Government, have also made significant advances in regulating fishing (both
commercial and recreational) through the rezoning of the GRB Marine Park. However, it
may be argued that as a nature-based tourism industry in a tropical, cyclone-prone marine
environment, situated off-shore in a location that is relatively geographically isolated
from major international tourism markets, reef tourism on the GBR will have to adapt to
some emerging issues over the coming years.
300
As mentioned in the introduction, the GBR is believed to be facing a number of threats
that will influence the future of the reef tourism industry. These are discussed in this
section, before moving onto some strategies that might be applied by operators and
managers to mitigate the effect of these threats. The threats themselves have been
grouped into those that occur within the region and lend themselves to local management
strategies, and those that fall outside the region and are more dependent on adaptive
strategies by local industry.
One of the first major threats associated with the reefs in general is loss of biodiversity.
As discussed in the introduction, reefs have already been subjected to two major
bleaching events, the first in 1998 and the second in 2002, which reduced much of the
live coral cover at various reef sites around the world (Marshall & Schuttenberg, 2006).
Placed within a context of reef tourism, this is important for several reasons. Firstly,
previous research suggests that live coral cover is a direct correlate with snorkeler
satisfaction in Thailand (Roman et al., 2007). It may be that loss of coral cover will lead
to lower visitor satisfaction. In the results shown here, it would appear that the quality of
the marine life, though still important, was the not the only major influence on
satisfaction, and instead was one of a suite of influences that also included the
professionalism of the staff, the comfort of the boat, the food offered on boat, and sharing
the experience with other visitors. Whilst these results may be an artefact of different
measurement techniques (in this case, respondents were not directly asked to comment
upon the health of the reef and its effect upon satisfaction), it could also be argued that
the time budget of a GBR trip is generally considerably different to most other reef
tourism products with up to six hours of an eight or nine hour excursion being spent on
board the vessel and not in the water.
A second very important consequence of biodiversity loss is public perception of coral
reefs, soon to be highlighted with the International Year of the Reef in 2008. Media
coverage of this topic suggests that tourists will soon be faced with an aesthetically less
pleasing reef and recommends that tourists visit the Reef before it dies. As the results of
the IPCC report on climate change were leaked in January 2007, coral reef health became
a hot topic in the media with a series of articles on the limited life expectancy of coral
reefs. An example is Cosmos’ (Salt, 2006) article with its “couldn’t find Nemo” catch
phrase that places the GBR among the top 10 attractions to visit before it is destroyed by
climate change. Other magazines such as Qantas’ Australian Way, also ran articles on
what is being done to protect the reef before it is too late (Southgate, 2007). Whilst no
empirical evidence has been collected yet, there is a concern within the industry and
management (pers. comm.) that this media coverage is influencing visitation patterns on
the reef, e.g. increasing rates of visitation in the short tem and a potential decrease in the
long-term.
Another result of climate change is the increasing severity of storms expected in tropical
areas such as North Queensland. Again, the impacts of these are manifold. For instance,
more severe storms can cause large corals to break apart and scatter fragments about the
reefs. After the storm, these slow growing corals might easily be overgrown by quicker
growing algae. In addition, these storms generally bring heavy rain which increases
301
runoff and sedimentation, possibly smothering the reefs (CSIRO, 2007), and again
lowering biodiversity with similar results to those described in the previous paragraphs.
Also, it was noted in the results that seasickness plays a very important role in visitor
satisfaction. An increase in storms and rough seas can be expected to have a detrimental
effect on visitor experiences, and may in extreme cases shorten the season that is suitable
for long-distance travel to reefs in exposed seas.
Alongside the direct environmental and ecological effects of climate change, other
impacts might be felt by the tourism industry. For instance, it was noted that many
respondents are from Europe and North America (Table 1). There has been a
considerable push amongst certain sectors of society in these nations to reduce carbon
footprints of travel by minimizing long-haul flights (Guardian, 2007). Some of these
source markets, which according to Moscardo et al. (2003) are also the repeat reef
visitors may choose to visit reefs closer to home (Caribbean and Red Sea) which were
found to compare favourably with the GBR (50% say that the Caribbean is the same or
better and 73% say that the Red Sea is the same or better) or alternatively, may choose to
visit the GBR only once “before it is too late”. One implication of this is a changing
structure of visitor markets to the GBR and TNQ. Tourism Tropical North Queensland
(TTNQ) has suggested the Chinese and Indian markets may become important markets in
the near future. These markets will have different travel patterns (usually package tours),
different demands and certainly have different attitudes towards the natural environment
and environmental interpretation than TNQ’s traditional markets. In this case, it is not
unimaginable to envisage a move away from nature-based tourism to some form of mass
tourism, with nature as a backdrop.
In parallel to shifting visitor markets to the GBR, a rapid analysis of travel and diving
magazines, as well as diving websites reveals the emergence of new reef tourism
destinations, with the rise of certain South East Asian destinations such as Cambodia and
Papua New Guinea, South Pacific islands, such as Vanuatu, or Hawaii’s Midway Atoll
reefs in the world’s largest marine park, and even alternative destinations within
Australia such as the rising profile of Ningaloo Reef Marine Park as the longest fringing
reef in the world, and the associated number of backpackers visiting that region of
Western Australia.
Other issues whose importance is reinforced by the results of this research are the
increasing cost of fuel that is already having an impact on the cost of visiting the reef
through operator fuel levies. Whilst the price sensitivity of respondents was moderately
low, increasing tour prices may act as a deterrent to certain visitors. This can be
monitored over the coming years. Finally, respondents also mentioned the comfort of the
boats as an important factor. Whilst this is an important factor to the respondents, some
operators suggest that the industry is witnessing an ageing of existing infrastructure, such
as boats and pontoons, with decreasing profit margins to reinvest into infrastructure, such
as refurbishing boats, upgrading engines, investing in stabilizers and so forth (industry,
pers. comm.).
302
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this paper was to present a medium-term monitoring program of reef tourism
on the GBR, and illustrate how some of the issues emerging out of the natural sciences
(and other issues such as rising cost of fuel) affect the GBR’s reef tourism industry and
its sustainability using visitor data. The results presented paint a complex picture that
does not always correspond to results emerging out of other reef tourism industries. For
instance, the importance of the social elements of the trip as well as comfort, cost and
infrastructure were highlighted here and it was suggested that the role of ecotourism,
interpretation and reef health may not be as clear as in other reef tourism industries.
Results such as these offer industry and management a wide scope of adaptive strategies
that can be used to ensure the long-term viability of this reef tourism industry.
For instance, although reef tourism on the GBR is a form of nature-based tourism, the
social component seems to be highly important, with an emphasis on staff (friendliness,
helpfulness and professionalism), comfort and sharing the experience with others. This
can be used to the industry’s advantage in situations where the declining health of the
reef may otherwise negatively impact on satisfaction. Other solutions include
diversifying to include other aspects of marine environment. Most other reef destinations
will include whale or dolphin watching in their experience, as well as turtles and sharks
(pers. obs.). The economic value of these species can be very high. In the GBR, some
operators are taking advantage of this by promoting dwarf minke whale or shark tours.
Alternative activities are also important in other destinations, such as Hawaii, the Canary
Islands, Western Australia and Malaysia including kayaking tours, parasailing, small boat
sailing, scenic or sunset cruises, etc. These could be effectively incorporated into a
marine tourism industry in Tropical North Queensland.
Other adaptive solutions include boat upgrades, as many newer boats are investing in
stabilizers, and all boats now offer seasickness tablets on sale on board. Engine upgrades
may also be an option for some operators, and may become a necessity as controls on
carbon emissions become more stringent. Additionally, there have been some initiatives,
by e.g. CSIRO to investigate carbon offsetting programs to markets that are more
sensitive to their carbon footprints whilst on holidays.
In addition, we are witnessing some areas of specialization where some operators target
specific markets that may demand a high level of reef interpretation, or some operators
market to mass tourists who are less concerned with the condition of the reef, preferring
to meet other demands such as affiliation and fun. Many operators fall in between,
however, with tourists who want to see a healthy reef, but have little need of high levels
of interpretation. As reef health decreases, these operators may need to rely more on
interpretation of the reef to provide a quality experience.
In addition, a range of technical solutions, such as shade cloths that limit light penetration
and help to minimize the bleaching (Marshall & Schuttenberg, 2006), crown-of-thorns
eradication programs, reef balls to create artificial reefs and so forth have all been
suggested as ways of protecting the health of the reef. These solutions fall within the
scope of natural scientists and management. However, a medium-term monitoring
303
program such as this will be able to track changes in visitor trends, needs and satisfaction
and allow managers and industry to promote the sustainability of reef tourism on the
GBR in the face of a dynamic natural and social environment facing uncertain changes in
the next few years.
REFERENCES
Burns, D & Murphy, L. (1998). An Analysis of the promotion of marine tourism in far
North Queensland, Australia. In: Laws, E., Faulkner, B and Moscardo, G (eds.).
Embracing and managing change in tourism: international case studies. London:
Routledge. Pp. 415-430.
CRC Reef (2003). Crown-of-Thorns Starfish on the Great Barrier Reef: Current state of
knowledge.
CRC
Reef;
Townsville.
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/COTS_web_Nov2003.pdf
(accessed June 2007)
CSRIO (2007). http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2t8.html (accessed June 2007)
Dinsdale, E.A. & Harriott, V.J. (2004). Assessing anchor damage on coral reefs: a case
study in the selection of environmental indicators. Environmental Management,
33,126-139.
Driml, S. & Common, M. 1996. “Ecological Economics Criteria for Sustainable Tourism:
Application to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas,
Australia, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(1), 3–16.
Fenton, D.M., Young, M. & Johnson, V.Y. (1997). Representing the Great Barrier Reef
to tourists; implications for tourism experience and evaluation of coral reef
environments. Leisure Science 20: 177.
GBRMPA
(2007)
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/tourism/management/gbr_visitation/
numbers (accessed June 2007)
Green, D. (1997). The development and evaluation of activity schedules for tourists on
one-day commercial reef trips. CRC Reef Technical Report No. 18. CRC Reef
Research Centre, Townsville.
Greenwood, T. (2000). Asian coastal and marine tourists: a market of opportunities. In:
Chon, K. (ed.). Proceedings of the 4th biennial conference. Tourism in southeast asia
and indo-china; development, marketing, sustainability. 24-26 June 2000. Chiang
Mai, Thailand, Siam University, Bangkok.
Greenwood, T. & Moscardo, G. (1999). Australian and North American coastal and
marine tourists: what do they want? In: Saxena, N. (ed.) Recent Advances in marine
science and technology 98. PACON International, Seoul, Korea. Korea Ocean
Research and Development Institute, Seoul, pp. 253-260.
Harriot, V.J. (2002). Marine Tourism Impacts and their Management on the Great
Barrier Reef. CRC Reef Technical Report No. 46. CRC Reef Research Centre,
Townsville.
Inglis, G.J., Johnson, V.I. & Ponte, F. (1999). Crowding norms in marine settings: a case
study of snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Management, 24, 369381.
304
Kim, E. and Lee, D. (1998). Japanese Tourists’ attitudes towards natural environments in
North Queensland region – reef experience. The role of tourism: national and
regional perspectives (series A), conference proceedings of the fourth Asia Pacific
Tourism Association conference. 18-21 August 1998. Pusan, Korea. Pp. 331-344.
Kim, E. and Lee, D. (2000) Japanese tourists’ experience of the natural environments in
North Queensland region: Great Barrier Reef Experience. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 9, 93-113.
Moscardo G, Saltzer R, Galletly A, Burke A, & Hildebrandt A. (2003). Changing
patterns of reef tourism. CRC Reef Technical Report No. 49. CRC Reef Research
Centre, Townsville.
Moscardo G. (2001). Visitor evaluations of built tourist facilities: pontoons on the Great
Barrier Reef. Journal of Tourism Studies, 12, 28 - 38.
Moscardo, G. (1998). Enhancing marine interpretation through better understanding
visitors. In M.L. Millar & J. Auyong, (eds.). Experiences in management and
development: Proceedings of the 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine
Tourism (pp. 342-345). Seattle, WA. Washington Sea Grant Program and School of
Marine Affairs, University of Washington and Oregon Sea Grant college Program,
Oregon State University.
Moscardo, G. (1999). Supporting ecologically sustainable tourism on the Great Barrier
Reef: The importance of visitor research. In Bureau of Tourism Research, Tourism &
Hospitality: delighting the senses, 1999, Part One. Proceedings of the Ninth
Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research conference, CAUTHE, 10-13 Feb,
Adelaide, South Australia (pp. 236-253). Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
Moscardo, G. (2002). Don’t know, don’t care: the importance of information for visitors
to the Great Barrier Reef. In E. Laws (ed.) Tourism Marketing. London: Continuum.
Moscardo, G. & Woods, B. (1998). Travel Patterns of Coastal and Marine Tourists: an
Australian Case. In fourth Asia Pacific Tourism Association conference ProceedingsThe role of tourism: national and regional perspectives series B (pp. 269-276).
Pusan, Korea; Asia Pacific Tourism Association.
Moscardo, G., Green, D. & Greenwood, T. (2001). How great is the Great Barrier Reef?
Tourists’ knowledge and understanding of the World Heritage Status of the Great
Barrier Reef. Tourism Recreation Research, 26, 19-25.
Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., Green, D. & O’Leary, J.T. (2001). Understanding coastal and
marine tourism demand from three European markets: implications for the future of
ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9, 212-227.
Moscardo, G., Woods, B. & Pearce, P.L. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of pictorial
symbols in reef visitor education. CRC Reef Technical Report No. 49. CRC Reef
Research Centre, Townsville, 30pp.
Ormsby, J.M., & Shafer, S. (1999). Visitor experiences, values and images of Whitehaven
Bay: An assessment of perceived conditions. Research Publication No. 62.
Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Plathong, S., Inglis, G.J. & Huber, M.E. (2000). Effects of self-guided snorkelling trails
on coral reefs in a tropical marine park. Conservation Biology, 14, 1821-1830.
Prideaux, B., Falco-Mammone, F. & Thompson, M. (2006). Backpacking in the tropics:
a review of the backpacker market in Cairns and their travel patterns within
Australia. James Cook University, Cairns.
305
Roberts, L. & V. J. Harriott (1994). Recreational SCUBA diving and its potential for
environmental impact in a marine reserve. Recent Advances in Marine Science and
Technology 1994. Q. Bellwood, H. Choat & N. Saxena. Townsville, Pacon
International: 695-704.
Roman, G.S.J., Dearden, P. & Rollins, R. (2007). Application of Zoning and “Limits of
Acceptable Change” to Manage Snorkelling Tourism. Environmental Management,
39, 819-830.
Rouphael, A. B. and G. J. Inglis (1997). "Impacts of Recreational SCUBA diving at sites
with different reef topographies." Biological Conservation, 82, 329-336.
Salt, D. (2006/07). Last Chance to See! Cosmos, 12, 49-63.
Southgate, L. (2007). How we keep the reef great. The Australian Way. Qantas inflight
magazine, January 2007.
The Guardian (24 January 2007). It’s carbon judgement day.
Watson, R.T. and core writing team, eds. (2001). 3rd Assessment Report of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.
www.ipcc.ch/pub/syreng.htm
Wilkinson, C. (2002). Status of the coral reefs of the world. Australian Institute of Marine
Science, Townsville, Australia.
World
Travel
and
Tourism
Council
(2007).
www.wttc.org/.../Press/Press_Releases_2007/2007_Tourism_for_Tomorrow_Award
s_Winners_Announced/index.php (accessed June 2007)
306
FISHERS, DIVERS, SCIENTISTS, LAWYERS, AND MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS:
THE U.S. EXPERIENCE IN PROTECTING CORAL REEFS
(Full Paper)
Robin Kundis Craig
Florida State University College of Law
425 West Jefferson St., Tallahassee, FL 32306-1601 USA
rcraig@law.fsu.edu
ABSTRACT
Coral reef-based tourism in the seven states and territorial jurisdictions of the United
States that have reef provides significant economic benefits to the United States that
exceed those of reef-based commercial and recreational fisheries. This tourism industry
demands healthy coral reef ecosystems. While U.S. coral reefs are subject to a number of
anthropogenic stressors, the one that has created the most political and legal opposition to
coral reef protection – while simultaneously impairing the very biodiversity that makes
coral reefs attractive to tourists – is fishing. One solution is increased use of coral reef
marine protected areas (MPAs), a solution that could simultaneously improve reef-based
fisheries.
U.S. law and policy provides a number of legal mechanisms for creating MPAs but
contains no clear policy in favor of coral reef preservation and protection. As a result,
conflicts between fishing interests, on the one hand, and tourism and scientific interests,
on the other, have stalled coral reef MPA designations at the federal level. However,
despite a de facto legal preference for fishing, a tension between fishing promotion and
coral reef ecosystem protection has been emerging in U.S. law and policy, indicating that
modification of U.S. federal law is necessary to promote coral reef ecosystem
preservation and restoration.
Keywords: law, coral, MPA, marine reserve, United States
INTRODUCTION
Coral reefs are some of the most valuable ecosystems on the planet, “provid[ing]
ecosystem goods and services worth more than $375 billion to the global economy each
year” (Pandolfi, 2005; CRTF, 2000). Many of these benefits derive from tourism (Stone,
2007).
In the United States, and not including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, there are
about 17,000 square kilometers of coral reefs off the coasts of Hawaii, Florida, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
307
Northern Mariana Islands (CRTF, 2000). Over 90% of these reefs are found in the
United States’ Western Pacific holdings (CRTF, 2000), but most tourism occurs in
Hawaii, Florida, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These reefs provide great tourism value (CRTF, 2000). In 2002, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that “annual expenditures are at
least $17.5 billion from the 45 million tourists that are attracted to U.S. coral reefs”
(Turgeon, 2002). In 2007, NOAA more specifically reported over $300 million in annual
tourism-related economic benefit in the Main Hawaiian Islands and “$4.4 billion in local
sales, almost $2 billion in local income, and 71,300 full- and part-time jobs” in southern
Florida, (Puglise & Kelty, 2007). Even in American Samoa, where tourism is limited,
coral reefs provide approximately $5 million in annual economic value (Puglise & Kelty,
2007). Thus, protection of its coral reefs is in the United States’ economic best interests.
PROTECTING CORAL REEFS IN THE UNITED STATES
Introduction
Coral reefs are some of the most biologically diverse ecosystems, second only to tropical
rainforests (Stone, 2007). This biodiversity – the infinite variety of color and form –
makes healthy coral reef ecosystems attractive to tourists.
This biodiversity also makes reefs productive fishing grounds, but overfishing often
renders fishing and tourism competing uses of coral reef ecosystems (Pandolfi, 2005;
Craig, 2003; Jackson, 2001; Roberts & Hawkins, 2000). Indeed, a five-year survey of
over 1,100 coral reefs worldwide concluded that “overfishing has affected 95 percent” of
those reefs (Bridges, 2002). Given this conflict with fishing, ensuring the continued
health of a U.S. coral reef ecosystem, and hence the health of the tourism industry that
depends upon it, requires legal protections, such as the establishment of marine protected
areas (MPAs) (Pandolfi, 2005). Such legal protection is especially necessary because the
reefs that most tourists visit, those off the coasts of the Main Hawaiian Islands and
Florida, are also significantly degraded (Pandolfi, 2005).
MPAs are location-based legal protections for marine ecosystems –the ocean equivalent
of terrestrial national and state parks. The most protective MPAs are marine reserves.
Marine reserves generally prohibit all extractive uses of the marine ecosystem, including
fishing (Roberts & Hawkins, 2000). Some marine reserves prohibit all access except for
scientific research, but most tourism-related marine reserves allow non-extractive
recreational uses such as snorkeling, diving, and boating.
MPAs should be a win-win solution for both the tourism and fishing industries. In the
United States, “[o]ver 50% of all federally managed fisheries depend on coral reefs for
part of their life cycle” (CRTF, 2000). Research has demonstrated that MPAs and marine
reserves that are scientifically chosen to protect important fish habitats, such as breeding
grounds or nurseries, can be quite effective in increasing both the numbers and size of
308
targeted species of fish (POC, 2003; Craig, 2003; Craig, 2002; Roberts & Hawkins,
2000). With regard to coral reefs, “efforts to limit fishing and human activity have paid
dividends in healthier reefs and revived local fisheries” (Stone, 2007).
In the United States, the value of MPAs to coral reef tourism is obvious. For example,
residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands have initiated a Reef Ranger Project to protect and
restore the islands’ coral reefs (USVI DOT, 2007a). In addition, the territory’s
Department of Tourism touts the protected areas of Buck Island National Reef
Monument, the Virgin Islands National Park, and Cinnamon Bay National Park (USVI
DOT, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d).
Nevertheless, establishing coral reef MPAs and especially no-take marine reserves
remains a highly contested process in the United States. In 2000, “[t]he annual dockside
value of commercial U.S. fisheries from coral reefs [was] over $100 million,” while
“[t]he annual value of reef-dependent recreational fisheries probably exceeds $100
million per year” (CRTF, 2000). While these figures are less than the values of U.S.
coral reef tourism, both fishing industries are active politically, and in general they have
opposed new coral reef marine reserves. For example, conflicts with fishers both
hampered and finally limited the establishment of marine reserves in the Florida Keys
(Craig, 2003). Even more indefensibly, a handful of fishers stalled full protection for the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands’ coral reefs for half a decade (Craig, 2003).
Despite these conflicts, the policies and laws underlying coral reef protection in the
United States remain relatively unexamined, despite the fact that the lack of clear legal
priority and a plethora of statutory mandates – sometimes conflicting – inhibit full
promotion of coral reef tourism. This patchwork of legal authority also divides
management of U.S. coral reefs among several federal agencies and the “state, territorial,
and commonwealth government agencies in Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands” (Puglise & Kelty, 2007).
Federal Agency Process: The National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, known as the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, allows NOAA to designate “any discrete area of the
marine environment” as a national marine sanctuary if NOAA finds that: (1) the area is of
special national significance; (2) the area needs protection; and (3) the area is manageable
(NMSA, 1972, § 1433(a)). Once designation is final, no one can use or remove sanctuary
resources except in accordance with federal law. Thus, the 13 U.S. national marine
sanctuaries are MPAs.
However, historically, very few national marine sanctuaries have included marine
reserves because the National Marine Sanctuaries Act emphatically encourages multiple
uses of these areas. Nevertheless, some marine reserve experimentation is beginning.
The Dry Tortugas Ecological Reserve in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
established to protect coral reefs, is probably the most famous example (Craig, 2003).
309
Even so, it is questionable whether the National Marine Sanctuaries Act provides the
most effective legal mechanism to protect U.S. coral reef ecosystems. The designation
process is long and arduous, and both of the two most recent coral reef sanctuary
proposals – the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and what was supposed to
become the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) National Marine Sanctuary – failed
to complete the Act’s processes, largely because of conflicts with fishers (Craig, 2003).
Congress eventually created the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary through special
legislation (FKNMSPA, 1990), while President Bush created the NWHI as a Marine
National Monument under the Antiquities Act (Bush, 2006).
Federal Agency Process: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes “[a]
national program for the conservation and management of the fisheries resources in the
United States” in order “to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished fish stocks, to
insure conservation, and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery resources”
(MSA, 1976, § 2(a)(6)). Moreover, when Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act
through the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, it incorporated both a precautionary approach
to and a sustainable development goal for the country’s fisheries management (SFA,
1996, § 102).
Pursuant to the 1996 amendments, the regional Fisheries Management Councils have
begun to experiment with an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, including the
use of zoning and MPAs. With respect to coral ecosystems, for example, on June 28,
2006, NOAA used its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to amend five fishery
management plans for Alaska fisheries to prohibit trawling in 370,000 square miles of
Alaska waters (NOAA, 2006b). This regulation effectively created two MPAs – a
320,000-square-mile area in the Aleutian Islands and a 50,000-square-mile area in the
Gulf of Alaska – to protect Alaska’s cold-water coral gardens, one of the rarest marine
ecosystems in the world.
Nevertheless, the emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is on the allowance of fishing.
As a result, no-take marine reserves generated pursuant to its authority remain rare.
Federal Agency Process: The Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) seeks “to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species
and threatened species” (ESA, 1973, §2(b)). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
NOAA list species for protection under the Act if a review of five factors, using “the best
scientific and commercial data available,” reveals that those species are threatened with
extinction (endangered) or likely to become threatened with extinction (threatened)
(ESA, 1973, §§ 3(6), (20), 4(a), (b)). At the same time, the listing agency is supposed to
310
designate “critical habitat” for the species – habitat that is essential to the species’
conservation and recovery (ESA, 1973, § 4(a)). Listing under the Act generally entitles a
species to two sets of protections: requirements that federal agencies conserve the species
and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species
(ESA, 1973, § 7), and general prohibitions on the take of or commercial trade in that
species (ESA, 1973, § 9).
Since 1973, the ESA has been used far more often to protect terrestrial and fresh water
species than marine species. However, on May 9, 2006, NOAA listed two species of
coral – elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) – as
threatened species under the Act (NOAA, 2006a).
However, because NOAA considered the Acropora species to be threatened rather than
endangered, NOAA could limit the protections available to the corals. NOAA declared
that the ESA’s general prohibitions on take and commercial trade did not apply to the
corals, and it did not promulgate regulations to substitute special protections for the two
species (NOAA, 2006a). Nor did NOAA establish critical habitat for the two coral
species, concluding that “[t]he designation of critical habitat is not determinable at this
time due to the extremely complex biological and physical requirements of these two
Acroporid species” (NOAA, 2006a). As a result, the only protections that the Acropora
corals currently receive as a result of the ESA are the requirements that apply to federal
agencies. Actions by individuals, local governments, and state governments with respect
to the corals cannot violate the Act.
Given these limitations, and in Florida in particular, the ESA listing of the Acropora
corals gives little additional protection to the Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem not
already accomplished through the establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. More generally, despite its nominal goal to protect ecosystems, the ESA has
rarely embraced a broader ecosystem focus (Adler, 2007).
Direct Congressional Action: Specific Legislation
Despite the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Congress remains free to establish federal
coral reef MPAs and marine reserves through direct legislation. The Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, which Congress established in 1990 through the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA, 1990), is the most prominent
example of such direct congressional protection. In that Act, Congress prohibited tanker
vessel traffic and mineral, oil, and gas exploration and development within the Sanctuary.
However, it left fishing regulation to NOAA.
311
Figure 2. Zoning in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Source: NOAA
graphic).
In drafting the management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA
gave establishment of a marine zoning plan the highest priority – the first such extensive
use of marine zoning in a national marine sanctuary. The final management plan for the
Sanctuary (Fig. 2), adopted in 1997, uses both marine zoning and marine reserves to
protect sanctuary resources (NOAA, 1997a; NOAA, 1997b). However, largely as a result
of conflicts with fishers (Craig, 2003), “only 6% of the Sanctuary is zoned no take, and
these zones are not strategically located. . . . Florida’s reefs are well over halfway
toward ecological extinction” (Pandolfi, 2005).
Blending of Presidential and Congressional Action: The Spur of Executive Orders
U.S. Presidents have long protected coral reefs through the use of executive orders.
Executive orders are a very weak form of law. Essentially, they are directives from the
President to the federal executive agencies, and subsequent Presidents are free to
eliminate or change these orders at will. However, executive orders can inspire the U.S.
Congress to enact more permanent legal protections.
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) present one example of a coral reef
ecosystem that has benefited repeatedly from this interplay between the President and
Congress. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt reserved all of the NWHI except
Midway “for the use of the Department of Agriculture as a preserve and breeding ground
for native birds” (Roosevelt, 1909). Building on this order, Congress created the
312
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and in 1988 Congress extended the Refuge’s
protections to the area’s coral reefs and the marine life found in and around them.
The designation of the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve came about through a
similar blending of congressional and presidential action. In November 2000, Congress
authorized President Clinton, in consultation with the Governor of Hawaii, to “designate
any Northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reef or coral reef ecosystem as a coral reef
reserve to be managed by the Secretary of Commerce” (NMSAA, 2000). President
Clinton exercised this authority in December 2000 (Clinton, 2000b), establishing the
NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, which set aside an area that protected 70% of
U.S. coral reefs. The executive order also proposed the use of marine zoning, including
the establishment of marine reserves (“Reserve Preservation Areas”) (Clinton, 2000b).
Finally, the order capped all fishing (Clinton, 200b).
However, Congress did not permanently eliminate other sources of legal authority that
could apply in the NWHI, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In addition, Congress
demanded “adequate review and comment” before the Reserve Preservation Areas could
become permanent. After seven public hearings on the executive order’s proposal,
however, President Clinton was able to issue the final NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem
Reserve Executive Order on January 18, 2001 (Clinton, 2001), three days before he left
office.
Direct Presidential Action: The Antiquities Act
The Antiquities Act is very short. Under it, “[t]he President of the United States is
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States
to be national monuments” (AA, 1906, § 2). While use of the Antiquities Act has had a
predominantly terrestrial focus, Presidents have also repeatedly used it to create marinerelated national monuments that function as MPAs, including to protect coral reefs. For
example, the Buck Island Reef National Monument in the U.S. Virgin Islands was
created through the Antiquities Act.
Most recently, on June 15, 2006, President Bush finally resolved the procedural
nightmare encountered in protecting the NWHI by using the Antiquities Act to create the
NWHI Marine National Monument (Bush, 2006), since renamed the
PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument. This monument protects almost
140,000 square nautical miles of ocean around the long chain of islands stretching north
and west of Kauai (Fig. 2). The monument is now the largest MPA in the world,
protecting the largest and arguably most pristine remote coral reef ecosystem in the
world.
313
Figure 2. The PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument (Source: NOAA
graphic).
President Bush’s proclamation establishing the monument is very protective of the coral
reef ecosystem. All commercial fishing is to be phased out over five years (Bush, 2006).
Moreover, even recreational snorkeling and diving are prohibited in the Special
Preservation Areas and Midway Atoll Special Management Area (Bush, 2006). Thus,
effectively, most of the PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument is or will
become a marine reserve, the largest such reserve on the planet.
State MPA Authority and Coral Reef Protection
Under U.S. law, coastal states and territories generally manage the first three nautical
miles of ocean off their coasts (SLA, 1953, § 3) and hence have the ability to establish
their own MPAs. In February 2007, NOAA concluded that all seven of the United States
jurisdictions that “have abundant coral reef ecosystems within their state and territorial
waters” – American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands – “have recognized that
to successfully conserve coral reef ecosystems, ecologically important reef areas need to
be identified and managed distinctively within the broader marine environment. As a
result, each of these jurisdictions has formally acknowledged that marine protected areas
(MPAs) are an important coral reef management tool and have taken measures to
officially incorporate this tool into their local marine resource management regimes”
(Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe, 2007).
314
NOAA’s report identified 207 MPAs in the seven coral reef jurisdictions. Florida has
established the most coral reef MPAs (82), followed by Hawaii (39), Puerto Rico (35),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (24), American Samoa (14), the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (8), and Guam (5) (Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe, 2007). Over threequarters of these MPAs “are multiple use areas that allow some level of extractive
activity throughout the entire site. The remaining 49 MPAs include no-take areas in
which the harvesting of marine resources is prohibited” (Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe,
2007). “Approximately 45 percent of the no-take sites are located in the AtlanticCaribbean region”; the rest are in the Pacific Ocean states and territories (WusinichMendez & Trappe, 2007). Hawaii has established the most no-take MPAs (12), followed
by Florida and American Samoa (10 each), Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (6
each), the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (4) and Guam (1) (WusinichMendez & Trappe, 2007). Over half of Guam’s, American Samoa’s, and Hawaii’s coral
reef MPAs focus on sustainable production, while over 90% of Florida’s and Puerto
Rico’s MPAs emphasize the reefs’ natural heritage values (Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe,
2007). The U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
have the greatest percentages of MPAs designated to protect cultural heritage values,
although both also have significant percentages of natural heritage sites (WusinichMendez & Trappe, 2007). About 40% of the coral reef MPAs protect fish spawning
areas, while 80% protect habitat for endangered and threatened species, not including the
Acropora corals, which were listed as threatened species after the report’s authors
compiled their information (Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe, 2007).
THE PROBLEM OF LEGAL PRIORITY: PROTECTION OF FISHING VS.
PROTECTION OF MARINE BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS
Tourism vs. Fishing
While the tourism value of the United States’ coral reef ecosystems is threatened by a
number of stressors (Puglise & Kelty, 2007; Pandolfi, 2005), the most important source
of political conflict over protecting coral reefs has been from fishing interests (Craig,
2003). This political conflict between fishers, on the one hand, and the diving and
snorkeling tourism industries and scientists, on the other, raises significant questions
regarding the best legal tool for protecting coral reef ecosystems and their tourism
benefits, yet no law or policy in the United States currently resolves that conflict. As a
result, fishing has enjoyed a de facto legal priority in coral reef protection law.
Nevertheless, tensions regarding that de facto priority have been emerging since the late
1990s as the United States has explicitly sought to protect coral reefs and to improve its
national ocean policies and laws.
The Tension in Coral Reef-Specific Laws and Policies in the United States
The explicit drive to protect coral reefs and an emphasis on MPAs arose most directly
from executive orders that President William J. Clinton issued near the end of his
presidency. On June 11, 1998, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13089,
315
which requires (President Bush has maintained the order) all federal agencies to protect
coral reefs (Clinton, 1998; Craig, 2000). In addition, the order created the U.S. Coral
Reef Task Force, which issued its final National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs in
March 2000 (CRTF, 2000). The main goal of the Action Plan was “an interconnected
system of coral reef Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that would regulate use of the coral
reef ecosystems of the United States through marine zoning, based on accurate mapping
and cutting-edge scientific research,” including a goal of setting aside 20% of the existing
coral reef MPAs as no-take fisheries reserves (also referred to as “marine wilderness
areas”) (CRTF, 2000; Craig, 2000). In addition, the Action Plan emphasized “that
scientific uncertainty shall not prevent taking precautionary measures as appropriate to
protect coral reefs” (CRTF, 2000; Craig, 2000). Additional presidential support for the
Coral Reef Task Force’s coral reef MPA goals came in May 2000, when President
Clinton issued his MPA Executive Order in order to “creat[e] the framework for a
national system of marine protected areas” (Clinton, 2000a).
Congress also showed some support for coral reef MPAs when it passed the Coral Reef
Conservation Act on December 23, 2000, although Congress simultaneously put into
tension the United States’ priorities with respect to coral reefs. At one level, the new Act
ratified the existence of the Coral Reef Task Force and its National Action Plan. For
example, the purposes of the Act are, in part, “to preserve, sustain, and restore the
condition of coral reef ecosystems” and “to promote the wise management and
sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems to benefit local communities and the Nation”
(CRCA, 2000, § 201(1)). Moreover, the Act requires a National Coral Reef Action
Strategy, which must discuss “conservation, including . . . the use of marine protected
areas” (CRCA, 2000, § 202(b)(8)).
However, the Coral Reef Conservation Act also subordinated coral reef protection and
the creation of coral reef MPAs – which would help promote tourism – to other U.S.
ocean policies, including fishing. First, the Act assigned the National Coral Reef Action
Strategy to the Secretary of Commerce, not the Coral Reef Task Force, although
consultation with the Task Force was encouraged (CRCA, 2000, § 202). Second, while
the Secretary of Commerce was to address MPAs, the discussion in the National Strategy
was to focus on “how the use of marine protected areas to serve as replenishment zones
will be developed consistent with local practices and traditions” (CRCA, 2000, §
202(b)(8)). Third, while the Secretary of Commerce “may conduct activities to conserve
coral reefs and coral reef ecosystems,” those conservation activities must be consistent
with the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (CRCA,
2000, § 206(a)). Finally, to emphasize the subordination of coral reef protection to
fisheries management, the Act’s definition of “conservation” stresses that coral reef MPA
development must be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (CRCA, 2000, §
209(2)).
The Tension in the Ocean Commissions’ Recommendations for the Future
This tension between the preservation of coral reef ecosystems for biodiversity and
associated tourism purposes and the promotion of fishing interests has continued despite
316
the declining condition of coral reefs worldwide and in the United States (Stone, 2007;
Pandolfi, 2005). In the beginning years of the George W. Bush Administration, two
commissions, the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
reviewed the United States’ national ocean policies. Both commissions concluded that
overfishing was a serious problem for U.S. marine ecosystems – including coral reefs –
and recommended policy and legal changes to address overfishing. Nevertheless, the
contrasting rhetoric of the two reports again reveals a tension regarding the priority of
MPAs and marine reserves for future law and policy.
The Pew Oceans Commission issued its report, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a
Course for Sea Change, in May 2003. As the report’s title suggests, this commission
focused on U.S. living marine resources. The Pew Commission took a strong
stewardship-based approach to improving the regulation of these resources. For example,
it concluded that “[w]e need to restore depleted populations of fish and other marine
wildlife because they are essential components of marine ecosystems and because they
are essential to the economies of coastal communities” (POC, 2003). Moreover,
problems with U.S. ocean governance include “its focus on exploitation of ocean
resources with too little regard for environmental consequences” and its focus “on
individual species as opposed to the larger ecosystems that produce and nurture all life in
the sea” (POC, 2003). To correct these problems, “[o]ur society needs an ethic of
stewardship and responsibility toward the oceans and their inhabitants” (POC, 2003).
As a result, marine reserves were a critical component of the Pew Commission’s
recommendations for the future. The commission pointed out that “[w]hile 4.6 percent of
the land area of the United States is preserved as wilderness, the area of ocean under U.S.
jurisdiction that is protected in marine reserves is a small fraction of one percent” (POC,
2003). Its recommendation for marine reserves in very much in line with its overall
vision of U.S. ocean policy: “Congress should enact legislation mandating the
establishment of a national system of marine reserves to protect marine ecosystems,
preserve our national ocean treasures, and create a legacy for our children” (POC, 2003).
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued its report – An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century – in September 2004. While the U.S. Commission more explicitly connected
fishing policy to coral reef protection than did the Pew Commission, it also implicitly
highlighted the tension between coral reef tourism and commercial fishing by
emphasizing that “approximately one-half of all federally managed commercial fish
species depend on coral reefs for at least part of their life cycle” (USCOP, 2004).
Moreover, “[i]n the U.S. waters of the south Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean,
two-thirds of reef fish species are overfished” (USCOP, 2004). In other words, coral
reefs were important to the U.S. Commission primarily for their value to fishing.
Consistent with this connecting of fishing and coral reefs, and in contrast to the Pew
Commission, the U.S. Commission was far more focused on the continued extractive use
of coral reef ecosystems than on their long-term preservation. First, the U.S.
Commission less enthusiastically embraced the idea of marine reserves, recommending
only that the United States “develop national goals and guidelines leading to a uniform
317
process for the effective design, implementation, and evaluation of marine protected
areas” (USCOP, 2004). Similarly, with respect to coral reef ecosystems in particular,
while the U.S. Commission recommended that “Congress should establish a Coral
Protection and Management Act that enhances research, protection, management, and
restoration of coral ecosystems,” it also emphasized that NOAA “should develop national
standards – and promote adoption of international standards – to ensure that coral reef
resources are harvested in a sustainable manner” (USCOP, 2004 (emphasis added)).
CONCLUSIONS
Coral reef ecosystems and the tourism interests they support continue to suffer in the
United States from fragmented laws and policies that privilege fishing interests at the
expense of more extensive no-take marine reserves, despite the demonstrated economic
value of coral reef tourism and despite the potential for MPAs and marine reserves to
benefit both tourism and fishing interests. The variety of legal vehicles for establishing
MPAs – and the different policy goals they implement – gives credence to concerns that
both the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy raised
regarding the uncoordinated patchwork of laws and regulatory programs that govern the
nation’s oceans (POC, 2003; USCOP, 2004). However, differences in these regulatory
regimes and their effectiveness in establishing coral reef MPAs can also suggest
improvements in the law that might better effectuate sustainable use of the nation’s
marine fisheries.
NOAA’s 2007 report on coral reef MPAs suggests that the states and territories most
directly affected by coral reef tourism and coral reef fishing understand the value of coral
reef MPAs and marine reserves. Moreover, these coral reef jurisdictions established 71%
of their 207 coral reef MPAs to protect and/or study the coral reefs themselves, and 78%
of their MPAs established ecosystem-scale protections; in contrast, less than 25% “were
established to support the continued extraction of renewable living resources” (WusinichMendez & Trappe, 2007).
However, vesting full regulatory authority in these state and territorial governments is an
unsatisfactory solution. Not all parts of coral reef ecosystems lie within state waters, as is
evident in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Moreover, as the NOAA report indicates,
states and territories have limited resources to establish coral reef MPAs and marine
reserves, to draft management plans, and to effectively enforce those management plans
and public use restrictions (Wusinich-Mendez & Trappe, 2007). In addition, the federal
government retains the legal authority to preempt state law in coastal waters; for
example, the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows federal regulators to take over fisheries
management in state waters if state action “will substantially and adversely affect” a
federal fishery management plan for a fishery that occurs in both state and federal waters
(MSA, 1976, § 306(b)). Therefore, without some federal law prioritization, there is no
guarantee that state and territorial coral reef MPAs and marine reserves will be respected
if federal interests conflict.
318
Finally, the tourism and other benefits of coral reefs accrue more broadly than to just the
seven coastal states and territories with coral reefs. This spreading of benefits indicates
that a more protective national policy to support and finance protection of coral reef
ecosystems and the tourism they support is warranted, especially in light of potential
additional benefits to nationally important commercial and recreational fisheries.
Therefore, Congress should enact a national ocean policy that prioritizes coral reef
ecosystem MPAs and marine reserves.
At the federal level, direct action by either Congress or the President has been more
effective in establishing coral reef ecosystem-based MPAs, as is demonstrated in the
establishment the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the
PapahƗnaumokuƗkea (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) Marine National Monument.
Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that considerable public process and debate
preceded the establishment of both of these MPAs and contributed to their final
effectiveness and public acceptance. As a result, the processes of establishing these
two coral reef ecosystem MPAs suggest that a combination of federal agency public
process, probably resulting in an agency recommendation, and presidential or
congressional final decision may be the most effective means of legally protecting the
United States’ coral reef ecosystems and their associated tourism.
REFERENCES
Adler, R.W. (2007). Restoring Colorado River Ecosystems: A Troubled Sense of
Immensity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Antiquities Act (Act of June 8, 1906) (AA) (1906). 34 Stat. 225, §2 (codified at 16 U.S.C.
§ 431).
Bridges, A (2002). World’s Coral Reefs in Serious Decline: Overfishing Worsens
Situation.
http://production.enn.com/news/wirestories/2002/08/08272002/s_4269.asp.
Bush, G.W. (2006). Proclamation No. 8031: Establishment of the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. 71 Fed. Reg. 36,443
Clinton, W. (2001). Executive Order No. 13,196: Final Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. 66 Fed. Reg. 7,395.
Clinton, W. (2000a). Executive Order No. 13,158: Marine Protected Areas. 65 Fed.
Reg. 34,909.
Clinton, W. (2000b). Executive Order No. 13,178: Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. 65 Fed. Reg. 76,903.
Clinton, W. (1998). Executive Order No. 13,089: Coral Reef Protection. 63 Fed. Reg.
32,701.
Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (CRCA) (2000). Pub. L. No. 106-562, 114 Stat.
2800 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 6401-6409).
Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) (2000). The National Action Plan to Conserve Coral
Reefs. Washington, D.C.: Coral Reef Task Force.
319
Craig, R.K. (2003). Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and
Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii. McGeorge Law Review, 34(2),
155-266.
Craig, R.K. (2002). Taking the Long View of Ocean Ecosystems: Historical Science,
Marine Restoration, and the Oceans Act of 2000. Ecology Law Quarterly, 29(4),
649-705.
Craig, R.K. (2000). The Coral Reef Task Force: Protecting the Environment Through
Executive Order. Environmental Law Reporter, 30(5), 10343-10364.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (1973). Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544).
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Protection Act (FKNMSPA) (1990). Pub. L.
No. 101-605, 104 Stat. 3089 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1433).
Jackson, J.B.C., M. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque,
R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B.
Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, &
R.R. Warner (2001). Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal
Ecosystems. Science, 293, 629-638.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSA) (1976).
Pub. L.No. 94-265, 90 Stat. 331 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882).
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (1969). Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat.
852 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4370f).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2007). The United States Is An Ocean
Nation.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/docs/12a_USCOP_EEZ_map_3.
pdf.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972) (NMSA) (1972). Pub. L. No. 92-532, Title III, 86 Stat.
1061 (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1445c-1).
National Marine Sanctuary Amendments Act of 2000 (NMSAA) (2000). Pub. L. No.
106-513, 114 Stat. 2381.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007). Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2006a). Endangered and
Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn
Coral. 71 Fed. Reg. 26,852.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2006b). Fisheries of the
Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop
Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of
Alaska. 71 Fed. Reg. 36,694.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1997a). Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary Final Regulations. 62 Fed. Reg. 4578.
National Oceanic & Atmopheric Administration (NOAA) (1997b). Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary Final Regulations. 62 Fed. Reg. 32,154.
Pandolfi, J.M., J.B.C. Jackson, N. Baron, R.H. Bradbury, H.M. Guzman, T.P. Hughes,
C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, J.C. Ogden, H.P. Possingham, & E. Sala (2005). Are U.S.
Coral Reefs on the Slippery Slope to Slime? Science, 307, 1725-1726.
320
Pew Oceans Commission (POC) (2003). America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course
for Sea Change. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.
Puglise, K.A., & R. Kelty, eds. (2007). NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Research Plan for
Fiscal Years 2007 to 2011. Silver Spirng, MD: NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Program.
Reagan, R. (1983). Proclamation No. 5030: Exclusive Economic Zone of the United
States of America. 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605.
Roberts, C.M., & J.P. Hawkins (2000). Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide.
Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund Endangered Seas Campaign & York, UK:
Environment Department, University of York.
Roosevelt, T. (1909). Executive Order No. 1019.
Stone, R. (2007). A World Without Corals? Science, 316, 678-681.
Submerged Lands Act (SLA) (1953). 67 Stat. 29 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315).
Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (1996). Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559.
Tewell, L. (2000). Oceans Act Allows Public Input. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 16,
2000, C5.
Turgeon, D.D., R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney,
B.D. Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. Matos, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers,
Z. Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E.
Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L. Hunter, R.S. Brainard, P. Craig, R.H. Richond, G.
Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J.
Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde (2002). The
State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated
States. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/ National Ocean Service/ National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science.
United States Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) (2004). Final Report: An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy.
United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism (USVI DOT) (2007a). Nature &
Wildlife. http://www.usvitourism.vi/en/home/vi_nature_wildlife.html.
United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism (USVI DOT) (2007b). Buck Island.
http://www.usvitourism.vi/en/stcroix/sc_Visitor_Favorites.html?visit=buck.
United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism (USVI DOT) (2007c). Virgin
Islands National Park.
http://www.usvitourism.vi/en/stjohn/sj_Visitor_Favorites.html?visit=park.
United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism (USVI DOT) (2007d). Cinnamon
Bay. http://www.usvitourism.vi/en/stjohn/sj_Visitor_Favorites.html?visit=cinna.
Wusinish-Mendez, D. & C. Trappe, eds. (2007). Report on the Status of Marine
Protected Areas in Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States, Volume I: Marine
Protected Areas Managed by U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths. Silver
Spring, MD: NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program.
321
WHY DIVE? AND WHY HERE?
A STUDY OF RECREATIONAL DIVER ENJOYMENT AT A
FIJIAN ECO-TOURIST RESORT
(Full Paper)
Clare Fitzsimmons
Newcastle University, School of Marine Science and Technology
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
clare.fitzsimmons@newcastle.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
A considerable challenge to coastal managers in tourism settings is to provide visitor
opportunities to observe pristine coral reef systems, while simultaneously protecting them
from tourist impacts. Most dive-area management strategies are designed around the
concept of restricting numbers of visitors, in a variety of ways, or diverting their attention
from pristine areas, to ‘sacrificial’ sites, such as artificial reefs. For this to be
economically and socially effective, as well as ecologically successful, further
information is required, indicating to what level such policies are acceptable to divers.
Insight into the relative importance of a variety of attributes preferred by dive tourists,
and trade-offs acceptable to divers, are required. Established interviewing and attitude
assessment techniques were used to identify which pristine coral reef area attributes and
associated resort facilities, most greatly contributed to eco-tourist enjoyment at a Fijian
dive resort. No significant increases in diver enjoyment were detected at sites
representing ‘pristine reef’, compared to more degraded inner lagoon sites. Additionally,
managerial and social factors were found to contribute significantly more to tourists’
overall trip enjoyment than ecological and environmental factors, and quality of the
diving experience. Initial indications are that diver satisfaction can be achieved with less
than pristine reefs, and site substitution policies should be accepted by divers.
Management strategies attempting to offset degraded dive attributes by enhancing
alternative aspects of the holiday environment are also likely to succeed. Effective
implementation of policies based on these results, has the potential to result in more
efficient economic exploitation of reef resources, minimal economic loss and increased
dive industry sustainability.
Keywords: Coral Reefs; Scuba Diving; Impacts; Enjoyment; Management
INTRODUCTION
Coral reefs are subject to a wide range of natural and anthropogenic pressures, effecting
local diversity and the abundance of marine organisms (Chabanet et al., 2005; Hodgson,
1999; Nystrom, Folke, & Moberg, 2000). Many of the economic and social benefits they
322
offer to local populations depend upon these attributes, while human activities that cause
reef degradation generate economic costs by interfering with the quality and availability
of goods and services provided (Hodgson, 1999; White, Vogt, & Arin, 2000; Wilkinson,
1996; Wilkinson et al., 1999). Recreational scuba diving is a particularly popular reef
activity, generally perceived by coastal managers as having relatively low environmental
impact and the potential to generate large amounts of revenue, providing an economic
alternative for nations previously reliant upon extractive practices (Hawkins et al., 1999;
Rouphael & Inglis, 2002; Tongson & Dygico, 2004). Recreational diving by tourists on
coral reefs has increased greatly during the past few decades, due to large numbers of
divers being trained, and increased interest in and access to remote coral reef areas
(Davis, Harriott, MacNamara, Roberts, & Austin, 1995; Harriott, Davis, & Banks, 1997).
However, many studies now show that dive-tourism causes significant damage to reefs
(Allison, 1996; Barker & Roberts, 2004; Davis et al., 1995; Harriott et al., 1997; Hawkins
& Roberts, 1992; Hawkins et al., 1999; Medio, Ormond, & Pearson, 1997; Rouphael &
Inglis, 1997, 2001, 2002; Salm, 1986; Saphier & Hoffmann, 2005; Schleyer & Tomalin,
2000; Tratalos & Austin, 2001; Walters & Samways, 2001; Zakai & Chadwick-Furman,
2002) and concerns are being voiced that dive-tourism is not as benign as once believed.
Heavily-dived sites may have diver visitation rates approaching the limit of ecological
sustainability (Harriott et al., 1997). To ensure long-term viability, it is important that
tourist use is kept below damaging levels.
Dive-area management strategies, have designed interventions around the concept of
restricting numbers of visitors, in a variety of ways, or diverting attention from pristine,
to ‘sacrificial’ sites, such as artificial reefs (Claudet & Pelletier, 2004; Ramos, Santos,
Whitmarsh, & Monteiro, 2006; Van Treeck & Schuhmacher, 1998). For this to be
economically and socially effective, as well as exhibiting success at an ecological level,
further information is required on the nature of the diving tourist market, indicating to
what level such policies are acceptable to divers. It has been argued that a popular dive
site does not always require pristine conditions or biological diversity (Davis et al., 1995;
Harriott, 2002). This opens up the possibility of the promotion of less-sensitive dive sites,
and the creation of artificial attractions (Van Treeck & Schuhmacher, 1998), which could
reduce the environmental impact of recreational diving (Davis et al., 1995). Currently the
likely effectiveness of such proposals has not been assessed, but it has been indicated that
social factors such as the number of people on the trip and site infrastructure may be
more significant than the ecological attributes of the site (Shafer & Inglis, 2000, Uyarra et
al., 2005), which has profound implications for conventional dive area management.
To effectively protect coral reefs from negative impacts associated with scuba diving,
without sustaining local economic loss, managers need to understand the extent to which
divers support management strategies (M.G. Sorice, Oh, & Ditton, 2005). Insight into the
relative importance of a variety of attributes preferred by dive tourists and the trade-offs
divers are willing to make, should inform this understanding (Rudd, 2001; Rudd &
Tupper, 2002). However, until recently relatively little research has demonstrated the
demands of the dive tourist market for specific reef resources. Relevant work to-date is
summarised in Table 1, below.
323
Table 1: Review of Previous Studies (respective attribute ranking in terms of relative
importance to dive tourists is indicated in brackets, where available)
Diving Tourist Preference Studies
Previous Work
Jamaica (Williams &
Polunin, 2000)
Variety of Fish (1)
Barbados (Uyarra et al., Bonaire (Uyarra et al.,
2005)
2005)
Clear Water (1)
Coral diversity (1)
Presence of other animals
Corals (1)
Coral cover (2)
Average grouper size
Fish (3)
Abundance of Fish (2)
Reef Attributes
Turks and Caicos (Rudd, Great Barrier Reef (GBR),
2001; Rudd & Tupper, Australia (Shafer & Inglis,
2002)
2000)
Variety of Corals (3)
Coral health (3)
Grouper abundance
Other Large Animals (4)
Fish diversity (4)
Spiny Lobster abundance
Unusual Fish (5)
Fish abundance (5)
Average spiny lobster size
Turtles (7)
Environmental Factors
Warm Temperatures (2)
Social and Economic
Factors
Low health risk (3)
Weather (4)
Other People (6)
Size of the dive group
Staff (2)
Price of the dive
Infrastructure (5)
Based on a short study conducted in Fiji in early 2006, at an eco-tourist resort on
Kadavu., this paper presents work which begins to address existing research gaps in these
areas. It aims to offer a better understanding of why people dive, and the factors that
inform their choice of dive site, and dive holiday destination. A predictive understanding
of the ways in which divers are likely to respond to new policies should result in more
effective implementation. It may allow managers to develop new dive sites and distribute
diving to more areas (Davis & Tisdell, 1996). This is likely to result in more efficient
economic exploitation of reef resources, minimal economic loss, and increased
sustainability of the dive industry (Davis & Tisdell, 1996).
STUDY
Study Aims
The aims of this study were; to determine attributes of pristine coral reef areas and
associated resort facilities that most greatly contribute to the enjoyment of tourists on
diving holidays, and using this as a basis, to identify management options most likely to
be effective for the optimisation of both diver enjoyment and sustainable reef use. To
achieve this, the following objectives were set: (1) to determine which attributes of the
diving experience make the greatest contributions to diver enjoyment, (2) to assess the
contribution a variety of underwater experiences make to different divers enjoyment in a
pristine setting, and (3) to establish the relative importance of different environmental,
social and managerial factors to divers at a remote eco-resort.
The requirements of tourists for more pristine reef experiences were assessed,
augmenting the knowledge gained by previous studies in more degraded areas (Uyarra et
al., 2005; Williams & Polunin, 2000). Based upon this, predictions of the likely
effectiveness (in terms of optimised diver enjoyment and ecosystem protection) of
management measures are made. The ultimate purpose of the study was to propose
324
specific management strategies for the dive industry, to limit the direct negative impacts
upon reefs of expansion into remote regions, previously protected and maintained due to
their inaccessibility.
Study Site
The study was conducted at an eco-tourist resort in Fiji, on the island of Kadavu (Figure
1). The level of demand for remote resort eco-tourism is rising globally, and Fiji is well
placed to offer pristine reef environments to the growing dive tourist market (Littler,
Littler, Brooks, & Koven, 1997; Morrison & Naqasima, 1999). The lack of sandy beaches
means that diving, snorkelling, surfing and fishing are the foremost tourist attractions.
Underwater, the area remains unspoilt, due to the small numbers of dive tourists. Pristine
dive sites of this nature are becoming increasingly rare globally. However, more resorts
are diversifying their business towards the diver tourist market, and the potential for
damage exists (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Dixon, Fallon, & Van't Hof, 1993). This poses a
threat to the dive industry locally, which relies upon reef resource preservation, in its
most pristine state, for success.
Data Collection
The main study methods involved well established social science techniques of
questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude assessment (Oppenheim, 2003; Shafer &
Inglis, 2000; M.G. Sorice et al., 2005; Uyarra et al., 2005). Multivariate statistics, proven
in both ecological and social studies, were used to visualise and interpret the full
complexity of the data gathered (Anderson, Connell et al., 2005; Anderson, Diebel,
Blom, & Landers, 2005; Hill et al., 2005). A three stage approach to data collection was
adopted.
Stage1: Semi-structured, self-administered e-mail questionnaires, including six freeresponse questions, explored the range of factors involved in diving enjoyment and
motivation experienced by tropical divers (defined as those who had completed >20 dives
in tropical waters). Study participants (n=236), were obtained using a snowball sampling
method, a common type of purposive sampling in which selected informants are asked to
give the names of other key informants in the same stakeholder group. This was repeated
until the final respondents have no connection with the original contacts (Bunce,
Townsley, Pomeroy, & Pollnac, 2000; M. G. Sorice, Shafer, & Ditton, 2006). Starting
from clients of UK based tropical diving tour operators participants from 14 countries
were eventually identified. N-Vivo software was used to analyse responses and allowed
compilation of an initial picture of diver preferences from a broad sample of individuals
from different sectors of the tourist dive market. A typology of dive experience (e.g.
common preferences for diving conditions; locations; characteristics of favourite dives,
such as topography and ecology; and ancillary enjoyment factors) was developed based
on clusters apparent in these qualitative results. These are not fully presented in this paper
but were used as a basis for the design of questionnaires and survey instruments for
Matava Resort.
325
Fiji Islands, South Pacific
Fiji Islands, South Pacific
Study Site:
Matava Resort
Figure 1: Maps of the South Pacific, Fiji Islands and the South-West of Kadavu Island,
showing the location of Matava Resort, the Great Astrolabe Reef, and the 17
Dive Sites Visited During the Study Period.
Stage 2: Using this typology as a basis a very simple instrument was designed to elicit
dive specific enjoyment data. All divers n=81 at the resort were asked to complete a short
survey on the dive boat immediately following a dive. This was self-administered and
was composed solely of the scaling of 25 identified enjoyment factors. Respondents
marked a simple non-numbered Likert scale, indicating how much each of the 25
attributes, contributed to their enjoyment of that dive. The 17 sites were split into 3
groups based on location. Sites 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17 (Figure 1) were outer-reef sites
326
and were characterised by 3 independent observers as displaying attributes associated
with pristine reef; high coral cover and diversity, increased numbers, sizes and diversity
of fish and extreme water clarity. Sites 2, 5, 7, 11, and 16 were inner lagoon dives
exhibiting the increased amounts of damaged coral, lower diversity of coral and fish
species, and reduced water clarity associated with more degraded areas. The remaining
dives 8, 10, 12 14 took place in channels running through the reef, displaying both
degraded and pristine characteristics at different points and being defined by their high
currents and challenging diving conditions. Surveys were not conducted following
channel dives, as they were only available to experienced divers. All divers was surveyed
once, having been randomly assigned to a survey at an inner-lagoon (n=34) or outer-reef
(n=47) site.
Stage 3: Informal interviews alongside a semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire
were completed by all divers (n=81) who visited the resort during the study period. These
were completed at the end of each divers stay. Basic demographic data was gathered,
with additional Likert scale data describing overall aspects of the holiday experience and
textual data in the form of answers to free-response questions and interview transcripts.
This data was analysed using NVivo software, but the results not presented in this paper.
Questions related to the influence of social, cultural and managerial conditions on the
trip, as well as biological and physical components similar to those in the dive scaling
exercise (fish, coral, large marine fauna, weather and underwater conditions). Items also
reflected previous work on benefits that are commonly associated with nature-based
experiences, including: being close to nature, and socialising with others (Shafer &
Inglis, 2000), to enable comparisons between factors. The study sought to identify
whether the effects of social and managerial factors had a significant impact on
enjoyment, in comparison to the ecological resources of the resort.
Results: Attributes Identified at the Dive Site
Basic ranked lists of diver enjoyment attributes were produced. Non-numbered Likert
Scales were measured and attributes scored from -5 ‘detracted from enjoyment’ to +5
‘enhanced enjoyment’.
327
Ranked Attributes by Mean
Sensation of being underwater
Charismatic Species
Sharing Enjoyment with others
A good buddy to dive with
Numbers of Divers
Topography of site
Big Fish
Numbers of fish
Variety of Experiences on the dive
High coral cover
Diversity of Fish Species
Diversity of Corals
Comfort, facilities, refreshments
Good visibility
New Species
Equipment
Rare Species
Warm Water
Water Depth
Above Water Conditions
Dive Times
Small or Cryptic Species
Currents
Personal Diving Skills
Photography
Mean
3.62
3.49
3.44
3.15
3.07
3.00
2.85
2.84
2.64
2.39
2.35
2.26
2.04
1.94
1.75
1.55
1.51
1.41
1.41
1.38
1.32
1.25
0.95
0.33
0.10
Ranked Attributes by Variance
Above Water Conditions
Warm Water
Good visibility
Currents
Dive Times
New Species
Big Fish
Numbers of fish
Rare Species
Numbers of Divers
Equipment
Topography of site
Comfort, facilities, refreshments
Personal Diving Skills
A good buddy to dive with
Small or Cryptic Species
Water Depth
Diversity of Fish Species
Variety of Experiences on the dive
Diversity of Corals
Charismatic Species
High coral cover
Sharing Enjoyment with others
Sensation of being underwater
Photography
Variance
7.20
5.33
4.38
4.16
3.89
3.85
3.39
3.31
3.28
3.22
3.03
2.97
2.66
2.55
2.44
2.41
2.39
2.35
2.20
2.11
2.05
1.80
1.35
1.21
1.01
StDev
2.68
2.31
2.09
2.04
1.97
1.96
1.84
1.82
1.81
1.79
1.74
1.72
1.63
1.60
1.56
1.55
1.54
1.53
1.48
1.45
1.43
1.34
1.16
1.10
1.00
Ratings for each attribute frequently clustered around the extreme positive end and the
neutral part of the scale. A ranked list of mean responses, simply, illustrates the attributes
from which the divers generally derived the most enjoyment, while a ranked list of the
variance in responses, highlights factors that can have the greatest impact upon
enjoyment as conditions change, or where diver opinions vary most (as shown above).
Other than for the environmental variables, it is important to note that divers were
generally reluctant to acknowledge that attributes had detracted from their enjoyment.
These results broadly indicate a high profile for social considerations amongst the divers.
Sharing enjoyment, a good buddy and numbers of divers all ranked highly, sharing
enjoyment being significantly more highly ranked than the nearest ‘fish attribute’
(p”0.038). Topography and variety were the most highly ranked of the physical dive site
attributes. Charismatic species, big fish and numbers of fish, were all significantly more
highly ranked than other marine life factors, with p-values compared to the nearest ‘coral
attribute’, of ”0.000, ”0.002 and ”0.015, respectively.
Statistical techniques such as cluster analysis and Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)
were undertaken based on hierarchical clustering of similarities by dive attributes, and
visualised by overlaying cluster contours at significant levels of similarity (Hill et al.,
2005). Initially, differences between the types of dive were explored, however, no
discernable difference in diver enjoyment was apparent at either inner or outer reef sites
(Figure 2), and no significant differences in tourist enjoyment could be detected (MannWhitney, 1-tailed, p”0.7802). Suspected spatial autocorrelation was discounted following
calculation of Moran’s I (I=0.027, p=0.035) which offered only very slight evidence of
328
positive spatial autocorrelation, significant at the 95 per cent level. Differences in
enjoyment between dive attributes, independently of site type were then explored (Figure
3).
Figure 2 (LEFT): Cluster Analysis of
Similarities by Inner (degraded) or Outer
(pristine) Reef within Diver Enjoyment Data.
Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS) Plot shown
with cluster contours overlaid at 90 and 95%
similarity.
Dive Times
D
iv
H ersi
ig
ty
h
co of
Co
ra
lc
ov rals
er
e
div
e
h
t
on
es
c
ers
en
Small or Cryptic Species
Div
eri
f
p
o
x
s
ber f site
fE
y o Numaphy o
t
New Species
e
ri
ogr
Rare Species
Va
Top
Sensation of being underwater
Photography
Comfort, facilities, Numbers of fish
Sharing Enjoyment with others
refreshments
Di
Big Fish
ver
Charismatic Species
sit
yo
A good buddy to dive with
f
Water Depth
Fis
Personal Diving Skills
hS
Equipment
pec
ies
Currents
Good visibility
Similarity
60
80
85
Warm Water
Above Water Conditions Sea State, Weather..etc..
Figure 3 (ABOVE): Cluster Analysis of Similarities within Diver Enjoyment Data.
Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS) Plot shown with cluster contours overlaid at 60, 80
and 85% similarity.
329
Principal components analysis (PCA) in the PRIMER package was further used
(Anderson, Connell et al., 2005; Anderson, Diebel et al., 2005), to provide an indication
of the potential increase in tourist enjoyment that each identified cluster may have. Factor
analysis, by principle components reduced responses on the 25 enjoyment scores to four
coherent factors, which can be directly compared. These are broadly summarised as
Environmental Conditions (Factor 1, 9 items), Diversity (Factor 2, 7 items), Social
Enjoyment (Factor 3, 10 items) and Personal Satisfaction (Factor 4, 8 items), accounting
for 30.9, 18.0, 15.2 and 12.9% of the variance respectively.
Table 2: Loadings of 25 Attributes on principle components factors explaining to diving
enjoyment. Loadings <0.3 were rejected. Attributes in bold script are considered
to characterise the relevant factor.
Dive Enjoyment Attributes
Good visibility
Warm Water
Equipment
Water Depth
Above Water Conditions
Currents
High coral cover
Diversity of Corals
Small or Cryptic Species
Diversity of Fish Species
New Species
Topography of site
Sharing Enjoyment with others
Numbers of Divers
Variety of Experiences
Sensation of being underwater
Big Fish
Dive Times
Charismatic Species
Photography
A good buddy to dive with
Rare Species
Personal Diving Skills
Numbers of fish
Comfort, facilities, refreshments
Factor1
Environmental Conditions
Loading
Mean
SD
1.94
2.09
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.72
0.67
0.58
0.55
0.34
1.41
1.55
1.41
1.38
0.95
2.35
2.85
Factor2
Diversity
Loading
Mean
2.31
1.74
1.54
2.68
2.04
1.53
0.38
2.39
2.26
1.25
2.35
1.75
3.00
-0.87
-0.87
-0.70
-0.68
-0.66
-0.54
2.84
3.49
1.82
1.38
SD
-0.50
3.00
1.72
1.43
-0.73
-0.68
-0.68
-0.64
-0.61
-0.60
-0.31
3.44
3.07
2.64
3.62
2.85
1.32
3.49
1.16
1.79
1.48
1.10
1.84
1.97
1.43
-0.42
2.84
Factor4
Personal Satisfaction
Loading
Mean
1.82
0.34
0.95
2.04
0.44
1.25
1.55
0.34
1.75
1.96
-0.61
-0.59
0.55
-0.52
-0.52
0.10
3.15
1.51
0.33
2.84
1.00
1.56
1.81
1.60
1.82
Pairwise comparisons of each of the four factors were then conducted (Mann-Whitney, 1tailed, p”0.05), to identify whether the differences in mean contributions of
environmental conditions, diversity, social enjoyment and personal satisfaction, to
increased overall diver enjoyment were significant (Table 3, below). Significant
differences were found to exist between all the factors, social enjoyment contributing
significantly more, to overall diver enjoyment, than diversity, environmental conditions
and personal satisfaction.
330
SD
2.68
1.34
1.45
1.55
1.53
1.96
1.72
1.84
0.31
0.30
Principle Components
Factor3
Social Enjoyment
SD
Loading
Mean
Table 3: Significant differences between contributions of Environmental, Ecological
Social and Personal Factors, to increased diver enjoyment at the dive site.
Relative contribution to increased diver enjoyment and associated significance
Factor
Social Enjoyment
Mean
Enjoyment
Score (SD)
2.77 (0.81)
Significance
>
2.35 (0.74)
0.001
Factor 3
Environmental
Conditions
Diversity
p-value
>
1.85 (0.68)
0.000
Factor 2
p-value
Personal Satisfaction
>
1.49 (1.09)
0.010
Factor 1
p-value
Factor 4
Additional examination of diver characteristics revealed no significant relationships
between nationality or diving qualification level, but some differences between novice
and experienced divers were apparent (Figure 4). Differences between enjoyment derived
from the discrete attributes were then tested (Mann-Whitney, 1-tailed, p”0.05), and
significant differences found between the groups. Novice diver enjoyment factors were
significantly more influenced by equipment and personal diving skills, while experienced
divers derived significantly more enjoyment from ecological/diversity aspects associated
with pristine reef environments. The enjoyment of the experienced group was also significantly
more influenced by social aspects (see Table 4).
Figure 4 (LEFT): Cluster Analysis of
Similarities between Experienced
(>100 dives) and Novice (”100dives)
divers within Diver Enjoyment Data.
MDS Plot shown with 90 and 95%
similarity cluster contours overlaid.
331
Attribute
Table 4 (RIGHT):
Significant differences
between the contribution of
different dive attributes to
the enjoyment of Novice
and Experienced Divers.
Enjoyment Score
Above Water Conditions
no significant difference
Dive Times
no significant difference
Water Depth
no significant difference
Currents
no significant difference
Good visibility
p-value
no significant difference
Warm Water
Experienced Divers
<
Intermediate and Novice
0.033
Sensation of being underwater
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Topography of site
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Big Fish
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.001
Numbers of fish
no significant difference
Diversity of Fish Species
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.012
High coral cover
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Diversity of Corals
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.004
New Species
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.032
Rare Species
no significant difference
Small or Cryptic Species
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Charismatic Species
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Variety of Experiences
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.001
A good buddy to dive with
no significant difference
Numbers of Divers
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.000
Sharing Enjoyment with others
Experienced Divers
>
Intermediate and Novice
0.015
Comfort, facilities, refreshments
Personal Diving Skills
no significant difference
no significant difference
Equipment
Experienced Divers
<
Intermediate and Novice
0.043
Photography
Experienced Divers
<
Intermediate and Novice
0.040
Total Enjoyment
no significant difference
Results: The Overall Holiday Experience
The same statistical methods were employed in the analysis of data collected during the
informal leaving interviews and questionnaires. Basic ranked lists of factors contributing
to ‘whole trip’ enjoyment of dive-tourists, were again produced. Likert Scales covered -3
‘detracted from enjoyment’ to +3 ‘enhanced enjoyment’, the scale being chosen to match
an existing satisfaction survey employed by the resort, minimising any additional
administrative burden on either the resort or their visitors.
332
Ranked List
Staff
Being close to nature
Quality/quantity of coral
Quality of Service
Experiencing Fijian culture
Food
The Company (other guests)
Numbers of Fish
Quality of Accommodation
Quality of dive guiding/instruction
Encounters with large reef creatures
Size of fish
Weather Conditions
Underwater conditions
by Mean
2.68
2.62
2.57
2.51
2.46
2.38
2.35
2.27
2.24
2.03
1.95
1.73
1.51
1.14
Ranked List
Weather Conditions
Underwater conditions
Encounters with large reef creatures
Size of fish
Quality of dive guiding/instruction
Numbers of Fish
Experiencing Fijian culture
Quality of Accommodation
The Company (other guests)
Food
Quality of Service
Being close to nature
Quality/quantity of coral
Staff
By Variance
2.53
1.95
1.44
1.15
1.14
1.09
0.87
0.69
0.68
0.63
0.42
0.41
0.36
0.34
StDev
1.59
1.40
1.20
1.07
1.07
1.04
0.93
0.83
0.82
0.79
0.65
0.64
0.60
0.58
Analysis of MDS plots (Figure 5) revealed marked similarity (>95%) between all
attributes. However, environmental factors were most distinct, due to their variability.
Dive attributes were largely dispersed within the next level of similarity, but all the resort
management aspects, such as quality of service, accommodation and food were tightly
clustered, and appear to have been uniformly important to tourists’ enjoyment of their
trip. Cultural and social aspects also clustered in close proximity. In this case, quality of
coral is associated with the managerial cluster, and appears to have been more highly
rated overall than the ‘fish attributes’. The aggregate groupings of factors that tourists
considered to be most important to their holiday enjoyment, appear to centre around
managerial and cultural conditions at the resort.
Similarit
Encounters with large
reef creatures
80
90
95
Quality of dive guiding
Underwater conditions
(currents / visibility)
Quality of Accommodation
Food
Size of fish
Numbers of Fish
Quality of Service
Experiencing Fijian culture
Staff
Quality/quantity of coral
Being close to nature
The Company (other guests)
Weather Conditions
Figure 5: Cluster Analysis of Similarities within the Overall Trip Enjoyment. A Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Plot is shown with cluster contours overlaid at 85,
90 and 95% similarity levels.
333
Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of scores relating to overall trip enjoyment reduced
responses, from 14, to four main factors. These can be broadly summarised as Managerial
Factors (Factor 1, 6 items), Ecological and Environmental (Factor 2, 4 items), Sharing
Enjoyment of Nature (Factor 3, 5 items) and Quality of Dive Experience (Factor 4, 4
items), accounting for 38.3, 21.4, 12.6 and 10.7% of the variance respectively. MannWhitney tests were then used to confirm the significance of observed differences (median
differences, 1-tailed, p”0.05). Managerial and social (sharing enjoyment of nature)
factors were found to contribute significantly more to tourist enjoyment than ecological
and environmental factors, and the overall quality of the diving experience (Table 5).
This model explains 83% of the variation in the data.
Table 5: Significant differences between contributions of Managerial, Social, Ecological
and Dive Related Factors, to overall trip enjoyment
Relative contribution to increased overall trip enjoyment and associated significance
Factor
Managerial factors
Mean
Enjoyment
Score (SD)
2.38 (0.23)
Significance
Sharing Enjoyment of
Nature
~
2.35 (0.36)
0.599
Factor 1
p-value
Ecological and
Environmental
>
1.66 (0.47)
0.000
Factor 3
p-value
Quality of Diving
Experience
~
1.66 (0.41)
0.948
Factor 2
p-value
Factor 4
Preliminary research into basic diver preferences has provided an overview of attributes
appreciated by divers, both on dives, and as components of their overall dive holiday
experience.
DISCUSSION
Basic diver preferences for Marine Life: Results broadly mirror previous findings
regarding diver preferences for marine life, confirming the overall importance of
ecological attributes (Table 1). Charismatic species, big fish and numbers of fish, were all
significantly more highly ranked than other marine life factors, including coral attributes.
These attributes appeared to be integral to dive enjoyment, appearing as part of every
component in the PCA. This reflects work conducted in the Caribbean (Uyarra et al.,
2005; Williams & Polunin, 2000), partly addressing concerns raised by these authors,
over the representative nature of Caribbean tourists (Williams & Polunin, 2000). Initial
indications are that tourists choosing to visit remote, relatively pristine areas of reef have
similar preferences and requirements. Though fish attributes scored highly in the postdive assessment, coral seems to exert a greater influence on overall trip enjoyment. This
parallels previous work on GBR snorkellers (Shafer & Inglis, 2000). This contradiction
may be explained by the contribution of snorkelling, as well as diving, to overall trip
enjoyment of most of the eco-tourists (89% also snorkelled during their stay). Coral
attributes dominated fish-life at the local snorkelling sites, which may retrospectively
have swayed tourists overall enjoyment towards these attributes.
334
In terms of management and implementation, preferences for fish-life would confirm the
potential of MPAs, with their ability to attract more fish (Williams & Polunin, 2000), as
successful mechanisms to ensure higher diver satisfaction. ‘Fish Aggregation Devices’
such as artificial wrecks and reefs could also fulfil this role (Brock, 1994; Leeworthy,
Maher, & Stone, 2006; Van Treeck & Schuhmacher, 1998), but given indications of high
diver preference for ‘natural’ experiences, indicated here and in previous studies (Ramos
et al., 2006; Shafer & Inglis, 2000), it seems less likely that unnatural substitutes will be
accepted, certainly by the types of divers that seek out remote eco-resort locations.
Environmental variables impacting enjoyment: Also consistent with other studies, warm
temperatures, clear waters and above water conditions (Davis & Tisdell, 1996; Dixon et
al., 1993; Uyarra et al., 2005; Wilkinson, 1996) have the biggest impact on diver
enjoyment in terms of their variability. This was the one area where divers were willing
to acknowledge attributes detracting from their enjoyment. Changing above water
conditions and visibility dramatically impacted diver enjoyment for most divers, while
some divers really enjoyed diving in currents, some actively disliked the experience,
leading to high variation in the data. Management options in these areas are limited, but
the success of substituting exposed sites for more sheltered locations in rough weather is
well acknowledged, and indications are that this is appreciated by tourists (Shafer &
Inglis, 2000). Less variation in enjoyment results due to the physical ‘sensation of being
underwater’, enjoyment seeming to be common amongst divers. Many visitors indicated
that they were happy just to be in the water scuba diving or snorkelling, indicating a
certain level of innate enjoyment. This has been observed to be an important factor in
other studies (Davis & Tisdell, 1996).
Dive substitution as a policy for protection, predicting successful management strategies:
In terms of dive-area management strategies, most interventions are designed around the
concept of restricting numbers, and diverting visitor attention from pristine areas to
‘sacrificial’ sites (Claudet & Pelletier, 2004; Ramos et al., 2006; Van Treeck &
Schuhmacher, 1998). The most frequently made suggestions for site substitution are
based around two main assumptions. Firstly, that alternative sites of a less
sensitive/diverse nature, can be used as substitutes for pristine areas, without severe
detriment to general diver satisfaction. Secondly, that novice divers, who generally cause
more damage (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Walters & Samways,
2001), will be satisfied with dives of lower diversity than experienced divers, and
therefore training sites can be located in less pristine areas. The study investigated these
assumptions.
Pristine vs. Degraded Sites: Using inner-lagoon and outer-reef dives as analogues for
degraded and pristine sites, no significant difference in eco-tourist dive enjoyment could
be determined. Major enjoyment factors were not connected to attributes associated
solely with pristine reef, but are available from a far more diverse range of sites. The
most valued attributes of a site were most frequently big fish, warm water, good visibility
and varied topography, indicating that these should also be sought out in any site used as
a substitute. Therefore, indications are that it should still be possible to satisfy divers with
less than pristine reefs, and a successful general policy of site substitution could be
335
implemented if other diver preferences are considered. However, only limited diversity in
diving experience was available at the resort, as all the dives sites were relatively healthy
and displayed little damage. To obtain a complete picture of the dive market, further
work is required to complement this in a range of other settings and involving different
diver stakeholder groups.
Reef topography and coral morphology in particular have been observed to greatly
influence diver behaviour and interaction with the site underwater (Schleyer & Tomalin,
2000; Walters & Samways, 2001). Small reefs with a complex topography and fragile
corals appearing to receive the most damage, whereas simple topographies where divers
can disperse over a larger area, such as a patch reef are impacted to a lesser extent. Since
no perceptible decrease in enjoyment regarding topography could be detected,
substitution for sites of less susceptibility would be expected to succeed and simple
management measures of this kind should be considered.
Differing Experience Levels: Secondly, significant differences between enjoyment
derived by divers of different experience were found, between groups of
novice/intermediate (”100 dives) and experienced divers (>100 dives). Novice diver
enjoyment factors were significantly more influenced by equipment and personal diving
skills, while experienced divers derived significantly more enjoyment from the
ecological/diversity aspects associated with pristine reef environments, and were more
heavily influenced by social aspects. Results demonstrated that novice enjoyment is
generally less connected to ecological variables than that of experienced divers,
indicating that a policy of substituting pristine or protected reef sites for novice divers
would probably be successful. Qualitative work also suggests that novice divers would
appreciate less fragile sites at which to develop their skills, without the need for concern
over causing environmental damage. Such facilities may even have the potential to
enhance the dive market. However, significant market share may be expected to be lost,
by areas attempting to substitute dives for those of lesser ecological diversity, for more
advanced divers. As seen above, however, it should still be possible to satisfy
experienced divers with less than pristine reefs, if the fish life is diverse and abundant,
the topography is diverse and the visibility generally good.
Overall Trip Enjoyment, relative influences of managerial, social, cultural and
ecological factors: Previous work has indicated that though coral and fish, did increase
the enjoyment of most visitors, social factors such as the number of people on the trip and
site infrastructure may be more significant (Rudd & Tupper, 2002; Rudd, Tupper,
Folmer, & van Kooten, 2003; Shafer & Inglis, 2000; Uyarra et al., 2005), with profound
implications for dive area management. However, while this has been observed in a
mass-tourism environment, this has not previously been tested in other market sectors,
such as the eco-tourist environment. It may be assumed that dive tourists visit locations,
such as Kadavu, in search if pristine reef experiences that they cannot discover
elsewhere. If this is the case then substituting alternative dive sites may damage overall
tourist trip satisfaction. However, even in basic ranking studies of dive enjoyment, results
broadly indicated a high profile for social considerations amongst the divers. Sharing
enjoyment, was significantly more highly ranked than the nearest ‘fish attribute’,
336
indicating that the ecological variables were not driving dive enjoyment, in agreement
with previous studies (Shafer & Inglis, 2000; Uyarra et al., 2005). Factor analysis also
indicated that social considerations contributed significantly more to dive enjoyment,
than diversity, environmental conditions and personal satisfaction. This was even more
marked in the case of tourists overall enjoyment of their trip. Aggregate groupings of
factors that tourists considered to be most important to their holiday enjoyment, centred
around managerial and cultural conditions at the resort. These contributed significantly
more to tourist enjoyment than ecological and environmental factors, and the overall
quality of the diving experience (Table 5). All resort management aspects, such as quality
of service, accommodation and food appeared to have been uniformly important to
tourists’ enjoyment of their trip, and socio-cultural aspects were closely linked to these
(Figure 5).
By inference, if the diving components are of lesser importance, the possibility exists for
the industry to substitute enhanced quality of service and cultural components for pristine
reef experiences to ensure overall tourist satisfaction remains the same. The possibility of
success using this approach would seem to be supported by the data presented here.
Indications are that operators can focus development effort on these aspects of the
holiday experience, contributing to the sustainability of reef use and maintain diving
industry assets for the future, without risk of severe detriment to tourist enjoyment or
jeopardising their business. General management strategies attempting to offset degraded
dive enjoyment by enhancing alternative aspects of the holiday environment are likely to
be successful. This may have particular significance in areas already perceived to be
degraded, as it should remain possible to attract diving tourists and retain economic
inputs to assist area regeneration.
CONCLUSIONS
The aims of the study were to determine attributes of pristine coral reef areas and
associated resort facilities that most greatly contribute to the enjoyment of tourists on
diving holidays, and identify effective management options for the optimisation of both
diver enjoyment and resource sustainability. Matava Resort provided an ideal location to
study this in a contrasting tourist population to those previously considered (Shafer &
Inglis, 2000; Uyarra et al., 2005; Williams & Polunin, 2000). However, though the
intimate resort setting ensured high quality input from all participants (100% response
rate for all surveys), results would be improved by consideration of a larger population.
In addition, the pristine, relatively homogeneous nature of the area restricted the ability of
the study to detect the true range of enjoyment diversity believed to exist in the current
diving market. Dive areas with more diverse selections of dive sites may better allow
discrimination of site differences and prediction of more detailed trade-offs acceptable to
divers. Despite this the study demonstrated considerable potential for management of
divers through selection of sites less susceptible to damage or more suitable for the
experience levels of the divers concerned, even amongst diver groups such as ecotourists, who might be expected to exert the highest demand for pristine experiences.
Results confirm previous suggestions that a popular dive site does not always require
337
pristine conditions or biological diversity (Davis et al., 1995; Harriott, 2002), indicating
the viability of the promotion of less-sensitive dive sites, which could reduce the
environmental impact of recreational diving (Davis et al., 1995). There is considerable
scope for the effective design of optimised dive trip itineraries based on this. However,
further work is required to identify the exact nature of acceptable alternatives for
different market sectors.
Research into the natural preferences of divers and the primary factors that contribute to
dive holiday enjoyment will help coastal managers understand the nature of the
community, providing a basis for the prediction of likely responses to new policies. This
study has significantly contributed to this understanding, in an area relatively little
studied to-date (Table 1). This information is critical to ensure diver satisfaction is gained
from alternative sites and itineraries, and to achieve optimal balancing of site use between
dive market and ecological drivers. The end result of lost diver satisfaction could be the
move away from restrictive areas, with divers choosing locations with less stringent
policies and lost revenue for dive operators, MPA fees and the local economy. Armed
with such information, managers can begin to make informed decisions, optimising
revenue gained and diver satisfaction, while minimising damage. This could result in
more effective implementation, with minimal economic loss.
Results suggest that although the pristine reefs may attract divers to an area, key
determinants of holiday enjoyment are actually more generic, focusing on key quality
standards, such as service, staff, food and quality of accommodation. The implications of
this for area management are profound. In terms of the maximisation of revenue,
degraded areas should still be able to be marketed effectively focusing on other aspects of
the experience, while pristine areas need not be promoted or dived as frequently, if at all,
if tourist enjoyment is not significantly enhanced. Studies in the Caribbean show
environmental features influencing destination choice coinciding with those promoted
heavily by the tourist industry (Uyarra et al., 2005). Similarly, results here could indicate,
that it is actually the dive operators, who are driving demand for pristine reef experiences
through marketing, and if this were regulated, tourist satisfaction could as easily be
ensured, with little loss of revenue, by diving lesser sites in terms of ecological
significance.
The implications of these results are highly significant for the dive industry. True
requirements of tourists for pristine reef experiences do not appear to be as significant as
generally assumed. It should, therefore, be possible to manage successfully by
substituting use of the most pristine reefs for other sites, and enhancing services.
Provided other managerial and socio-cultural interests remain high, initial indications are
that the likelihood of success is high. This work takes an initial step towards a predictive
understanding of how divers are likely to respond to new policies. However, a
complexity in the balance of tourist preferences, between ecological, social and
environmental factors is indicated, which warrants further extensive investigation. To
protect coral reefs from negative impacts associated with scuba diving, managers still
need to better understand the extent to which divers support management strategies,
though the insight gained here into the relative importance of a variety of dive holiday
338
attributes should inform this understanding. This has the potential to promote more
efficient economic exploitation of reef resources, minimise local economic loss and
increase dive industry sustainability (Davis & Tisdell, 1996).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special funding gratefully received from Professor Polunin and Dr Stead at Newcastle
University. Thanks to Richard, Jeannie and Adrian, Matava Resort’s owners, divemaster
Joe and all guests/staff who enthusiastically supported the project. Special Thanks to
Abigail Hine for her contacts, organisation and amazing company in-field.
REFERENCE LIST
Allison, W. R. (1996). Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldive Islands. Coral
Reefs, 15(4), 215-218.
Anderson, M. J., Connell, S. D., Gillanders, B. M., Diebel, C. E., Blom, W. M., Saunders,
J. E., et al. (2005). Relationships between taxonomic resolution and spatial scales of
multivariate variation. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74(4), 636-646.
Anderson, M. J., Diebel, C. E., Blom, W. M., & Landers, T. J. (2005). Consistency and
variation in kelp holdfast assemblages: Spatial patterns of biodiversity for the major
phyla at different taxonomic resolutions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 320(1), 35-56.
Barker, N. H. L., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). Scuba diver behaviour and the management of
diving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 481-489.
Brock, R. E. (1994). Beyond Fisheries Enhancement - Artificial Reefs and Ecotourism.
Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(2-3), 1181-1188.
Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., & Pollnac, R. (2000). Socioeconomic Manual For
Coral Reef Management.: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
Chabanet, P., Adjeroud, M., Andrefouet, S., Bozec, Y. M., Ferraris, J., Garcia-Charton, J.
A., et al. (2005). Human-induced physical disturbances and their indicators on coral
reef habitats: A multi-scale approach. Aquatic Living Resources, 18(3), 215-230.
Claudet, J., & Pelletier, D. (2004). Marine protected areas and artificial reefs: A review of
the interactions between management and scientific studies. Aquatic Living
Resources, 17(2), 129-138.
Davis, D., Harriott, V. J., MacNamara, C., Roberts, L., & Austin, S. (1995). Conflicts in a
marine protected area: Scuba divers, economics, ecology, and management in Julian
Rocks Aquatic Reserve. Australian Parks and Recreation(Autumn), 29-35.
Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in
marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 26(1), 19-40.
Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1996). Economic Management of Recreational Scuba Diving
and the Environment. Journal of Environmental Management, 48, 229–248.
Dixon, J. A., Fallon, S. L., & Van't Hof, T. (1993). Meeting ecological and economic
goals: Marine Parks in the Caribbean. Ambio, 22(2-3).
Harriott, V. J. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier
Reef. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville., CRC Reef Research Centre Technical
Report No 46.
339
Harriott, V. J., Davis, D., & Banks, S. A. (1997). Recreational diving and its impact in
marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio, 26(3), 173-179.
Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1992). Effects of Recreational Scuba Diving on ForeReef Slope Communities of Coral Reefs. Biological Conservation, 62(3), 171-178.
Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Van't Hof, T., de Meyer, K., Tratalos, J., & Aldam, C.
(1999). Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities.
Conservation Biology, 13(4), 888-897.
Hill, J. E., Hemmingsen, S. M., Goldade, B. G., Dumonceaux, T. J., Klassen, J., Zijlstra,
R. T., et al. (2005). Comparison of ileum microflora of pigs fed corn-, wheat-, or
barley-based diets by chaperonin-60 sequencing and quantitative PCR. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 71(2), 867-875.
Hodgson, G. (1999). A global assessment of human effects on coral reefs. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 38(5), 345-355.
Leeworthy, V. R., Maher, T., & Stone, E. A. (2006). Can artificial reefs alter user
pressure on adjacent natural reefs? Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(1), 29-38.
Littler, M. M., Littler, D. S., Brooks, B. L., & Koven, J. F. (1997). A unique coral reef
formation discovered on the Great Astrolabe Reef, Fiji. Coral Reefs, 16(1), 51-54.
Medio, D., Ormond, R. F. G., & Pearson, M. (1997). Effect of briefings on rates of
damage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation, 79(1), 91-95.
Morrison, R. J., & Naqasima, M. R. (1999). Fiji's Great Astrolabe Lagoon: baseline study
and management issues for a pristine marine environment. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 42(6-7), 617-636.
Nystrom, M., Folke, C., & Moberg, F. (2000). Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a
human-dominated environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 413-417.
Oppenheim, A. N. (2003). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement
(2nd ed.): Continuum.
Ramos, J., Santos, M. N., Whitmarsh, D., & Monteiro, C. C. (2006). The usefulness of
the analytic hierarchy process for understanding reef diving choices: A case study.
Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(1), 213-219.
Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (1997). Impacts of recreational scuba diving at sites with
different reef topographies. Biological Conservation, 82(3), 329-336.
Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2001). "Take only photographs and leave only
footprints"?: An experimental study of the impacts of underwater photographers on
coral reef dive sites. Biological Conservation, 100(3), 281-287.
Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2002). Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral
damage caused by recreational scuba diving. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 427440.
Rudd, M. A. (2001). The non-extractive economic value of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus,
in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Environmental Conservation, 28(3), 226-234.
Rudd, M. A., & Tupper, M. H. (2002). The impact of Nassau grouper size and abundance
on scuba diver site selection and MPA economics. Coastal Management, 30(2), 133151.
Rudd, M. A., Tupper, M. H., Folmer, H., & van Kooten, G. C. (2003). Policy analysis for
tropical marine reserves: challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries, 4(1), 65-85.
Salm, R. V. (1986). Coral reefs and tourist carrying capacity: the Indian Ocean
experience. UNEP Industry and Environment, 9(11-13).
340
Saphier, A. D., & Hoffmann, T. C. (2005). Forecasting models to quantify three
anthropogenic stresses on coral reefs from marine recreation: Anchor damage, diver
contact and copper emission from antifouling paint. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 51(57), 590-598.
Schleyer, M. H., & Tomalin, B. J. (2000). Damage on South African coral reefs and an
assessment of their sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries approach. Bulletin of
Marine Science, 67(3), 1025-1042.
Shafer, C. S., & Inglis, G. J. (2000). Influence of social, biophysical, and managerial
conditions on tourism experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area. Environmental Management, 26(1), 73-87.
Sorice, M. G., Oh, C., & Ditton, R. B. (2005). Using a stated preference choice model to
understand scuba diver preferences for coral reef conservation. In Proceedings of the
57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, St. Petersburg, FL, U.S.A., November 812, in press.
Sorice, M. G., Shafer, C. S., & Ditton, R. B. (2006). Managing endangered species within
the use preservation paradox: The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) as
a tourism attraction. Environmental Management, 37(1), 69-83.
Tongson, E., & Dygico, M. (2004). User fee system for marine ecotourism: The
Tubbataha Reef experience. Coastal Management, 32(1), 17-23.
Tratalos, J. A., & Austin, T. J. (2001). Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coral
communities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman. Biological Conservation,
102(1), 67-75.
Uyarra, M. C., Cote, I. M., Gill, J. A., Tinch, R. R. T., Viner, D., & Watkinson, A. R.
(2005). Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental features:
Implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environmental
Conservation, 32(1), 11-19.
Van Treeck, P., & Schuhmacher, H. (1998). Mass diving tourism - A new dimension
calls for new management approaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37(8-12), 499-504.
Walters, R. D. M., & Samways, M. J. (2001). Sustainable dive ecotourism on a South
African coral reef. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(12), 2167-2179.
White, A. T., Vogt, H. P., & Arin, T. (2000). Philippine coral reefs under threat: The
economic losses caused by reef destruction. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(7), 598605.
Wilkinson, C. R. (1996). Global change and coral reefs: Impacts on reefs, economies and
human cultures. Global Change Biology, 2(6), 547-558.
Wilkinson, C. R., Linden, O., Cesar, H., Hodgson, G., Rubens, J., & Strong, A. E. (1999).
Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral mortality in the Indian Ocean:
An ENSO impact and a warning of future change? Ambio, 28(2), 188-196.
Williams, I. D., & Polunin, N. V. C. (2000). Differences between protected and
unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists.
Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 382-391.
Zakai, D., & Chadwick-Furman, N. E. (2002). Impacts of intensive recreational diving on
reef corals at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Biological Conservation, 105(2), 179-187.
341
UPGRADING TO A BETTER MODEL - A NEW STYLE OF
PLANNING IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK
(Working Paper)
Sally Peut and Peter McGinnity
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
PO Box 1379, Townsville, Queensland, AUSTRALIA, 4810, www.gbrmpa.gov.au
s.peut@gbrmpa.gov.au and p.mcginnity@gbrmpa.gov.au
Keywords: Great Barrier Reef, Marine Park Management, Marine Tourism, Adaptive
Planning.
INTRODUCTION
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) stretches more than 2,300km along the
northeast coast of Australia. It is one of the richest, most complex and diverse
ecosystems in the world and is undoubtedly an international icon (GBRMPA, 2007) The
Great Barrier Reef is also the earth’s largest World Heritage Area.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) is the Commonwealth
Government agency responsible for managing the GBRMP. The goal of the Authority is,
‘to provide for the protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier
Reef in perpetuity through the care and development of the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park’ (GBRMPA, 2007).
STUDY
Management and Use of the Marine Park
The GBRMP is a multiple-use park, primarily managed through a reef-wide statutory
zoning plan. The Zoning Plan, like a town planning scheme, defines what activities can
occur in which area, both to protect the marine environment and to separate potentially
conflicting activities.
In addition to the protection of representative areas of biodiversity, the Zoning Plan also
provides for the protection of other areas of high conservation values by assigning
protective zoning to a range of habitats.
Whilst 33% of the GBRMP is ‘marine national park’ or ‘no-take’ it still supports a
variety of uses. These uses include – commercial shipping, motorised water sports,
research, Traditional Use, commercial and recreational fishing, and of course tourism.
342
In 2005 there were approximately 820 tourism operators, using about 1500 vessels and
aircraft and attracting 1.9 million visitors to the Great Barrier Reef (Hassall, et. al. 2005).
Whilst tourism continues to be the largest commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef
Region (includes adjacent land based catchment areas), generating over $5.1 billion per
annum within the Australian economy, there is increasing recreational growth reflective
of the coastal seachange chapter and inland mining boom.
Plans of Management complement zoning by addressing issues specific to an area,
species or community in greater detail. These Plans have been prepared to offer more
specific management in areas of the GBRMP that are heavily used or particularly
vulnerable. They provide protection for vulnerable species and ecologically significant
communities and intensively manage use of these areas.
Site plans provide planning frameworks to address more localised issues relating to
individual reefs or bays. There are a range of reasons that trigger the need to develop
such a site plan including: multiple permit applications for moorings in a single bay,
change in use patterns or simply to document what management arrangements apply in
that area.
Managing tourism in high use areas using statutory plans
There are four Plans of Management in place within the GBRMP, two of which manage
tourism in high use areas – they are the Cairns Area Plan of Management and the
Whitsundays Plan of Management. Together, these areas form only 6% of the total area
of the GBRMP – however they account for over 85% of tourism in the GBRMP! This
creates a significant management task for the Authority.
Plans of Management are statutory management plans that comprise two parts, Part 1 the
guiding policy and Part 2 the enforcement provisions. They give greater guidance to
activities that can be undertaken in the area above that of the Zoning Plan. The plans
apply to all users of the area, but mainly manage tourism activities.
A case study example is a site offshore Cairns, called Michaelmas Cay. Under the
Zoning Plan it is a Marine National Park (green) Zone which allows no extractive
activities but does allow tourism to occur. The Cairns Area Plan of Management gives
guidance on the vessel size and number of people that can access the waters surrounding
the Cay; classifies it as a Sensitive Location due to its significance as a bird nesting site;
and has vessel speed limits and minimum aircraft flight heights.
Both the Cairns and Whitsundays Plans were introduced in 1998. Since then, they have
been regularly fine tuned to respond to the changing needs of a dynamic tourism industry.
Now that they have been in place for nearly 10 years there are a number of strengths and
weaknesses that are evident – see Table 1.
343
Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses of Plans of Management
Strengths of Plans of Management
Key values of the areas are identified and
strategies are in place to protect these
identified values
Consistent decision making
Certainty/security for tourism operators
Use limits identified and supported by
regulation
Can’t change without public consultation
(min 1 month)
Weaknesses of Plans of Management
Relatively inflexible – prescriptive and
lengthy process to amend
Set of rules with little explanation of
rationale for decisions
Legally drafted
The Cairns Area & Whitsundays Plans of Management are appropriate for these very
intensively used areas, given the range of issues that require management direction and the
need to provide holistic guidance to permit delegates. Outside of these areas, the Authority
has found alternate management options.
The Upgraded model
A more adaptive management framework has been developed to respond to pressures as they
arise in other areas of the GBRMP. The new planning framework:
x
x
x
x
x
Identifies the main issue/s and provides a management response/outcome
specific to the problem. This short/sharp approach also allows attention to be
spread across the entire reef.
Introduces trigger limits as opposed to inflexible regulatory limits. Often as
managers we are questioned as to how we came up with an actual number for how
many operators are appropriate for an area or how many moorings can be
installed in an area before it affects the values and amenity of the site. For
example who says that it should be 4 operators as opposed to 6? A limit is still
determined in consultation with users of the area and any changes to this limit
also involve engagement with the relevant community.
Web-based statement of intent that provides a clear statement to all users.
This document summarises the management arrangements for the site in a user
friendly format rather than a regulatory one.
All relevant management information is centrally located in the one
document. Rather than developing interpretive material specific for that
management plan, time is spent collating all relevant management arrangements
for the site and/or the particular user, for example an aircraft operator, cruise ship
or a recreational fisherman.
Community comments can be provided at any time, rather than only during
formal public comment periods.
344
This approach facilitates responsive and consistent decision making for the area, provides
certainty to users, and it also includes a continued emphasis on community engagement.
To view an example go to:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/site_management/fitzroy_sma
CONCLUSION
Fundamental components of planning separate conflicting uses, maintain special values,
provide opportunity spectra (often based on amenity and similar social parameters),
consult all sectors of the community and need to provide specific policy and legislation
(Skeat, et. al. 2000).
Whilst a holistic approach implemented through statutory plans does have its advantages,
two constant deficiencies have been the time and resources required to put them in place
and the length of time required to modify them. The challenge has been to develop simple
and time efficient responses to localised marine park management issues as they arise.
The new planning system developed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is
responsive to increasing local issues within the broad framework provided by the reef
wide Zoning Plan. It involves a high level of community engagement, above that of
statutory requirements and communicates management arrangements in a transparent,
web based format.
REFERENCES
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2007). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority website www.gbrmpa.gov.au
Judy Hassall, Hilary Skeat, Adam Smith & Lisha Mulqueeny. (2005). Frameworks and
partnerships: Ensuring sustainable marine tourism in the Great Barrier Reef.
Presented at: Coast to Coast Conference, Melbourne 2006.
Skeat, A., Smith, A., Baldwin, J., Robinson, M., McGinnity, P. and Nankivel, B. (2000).
Planning, environmental impact management and compliance on the Great Barrier
Reef. Presented at: 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27
October 2000.
345
KEEPING THE GREAT BARRIER REEF GREAT – THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE SUSTAINABLE
TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
Lorelle Schluter1, Sally Peut1 & Lisha Mulqueeny2
1
Great Barrier Marine Park Authority
2
Tourism and Recreation Group
Townsville, Queensland, Australia
l.schluter@gbrmpa.gov.au
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), an Australian Government
statutory authority, is charged with managing the Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest
UNESCO-recognised World Heritage Area and one of the world's most recognisable
tourism icons. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (the Marine Park) welcomes nearly 2
million tourists and 4.9 million recreational visitors each year.
The Marine Park tourism industry is based on the iconic status of the Great Barrier Reef.
The future well-being of both the Marine Park and the tourism industry are inextricably
linked - a healthy Marine Park tourism industry will always need a healthy Great Barrier
Reef to present to its visitors.
The increasing realisation of this interdependence has led to the development of a strong
and active partnership between the GBRMPA and the Marine Park tourism industry. This
partnership directly helps achieve a well-managed and sustainable industry as well as
significantly improving environmental, cultural and business outcomes in the Marine
Park.
This presentation will provide an overview of the innovative marine tourism partnership
philosophy and programs which led to the Great Barrier Reef being awarded the World
Travel and Tourism Council’s prestigious Destination Award in the 2007 Tourism for
Tomorrow Awards announced in Portugal on Friday 11 May.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Sustainable Tourism Partnership significantly
contributes to conservation and management of the Marine Park and ensures a high
standard tourism product for Reef visitors. The Marine Park tourism industry helps the
GBRMPA meet its World Heritage obligation to present the Great Barrier Reef and
actively contributes to the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In return,
the GBRMPA provides a well-managed resource, a commercially responsive
management regime, research that is of value to tourism and a say in park management.
The main tourism partnership programs are:
346
x
The High Standard Tourism Program which encourages tourism operators to
achieve high standards and rewards those that do. In an Australian first, the
GBRMPA has recognised the ECO Certification Program operated by
Ecotourism Australia. Ecotourism or Advanced Ecotourism certified operators
receive benefits from the GBRMPA including the opportunity for a longer-term
operating permit, listing on the GBRMPA website and showcasing at national
and international trade events.
x
The Great Barrier Reef Tourism Staff Training Course, which is a modulebased training program developed by the GBRMPA in consultation with the
Marine Park tourism industry to inform and update tourism staff on
fundamental Reef management, ecology and interpretation. The modules,
supported by a training kit, help tourism staff to achieve practical work-based
outcomes such as developing a short interpretive talk to introduce guests to the
Great Barrier Reef.
x
The Eyes and Ears Incident Reporting Program, encourages operators and crew
to report suspected incidents to the GBRMPA. This program recognises that as
tourism operators are regularly out on the water they can significantly improve
the effectiveness of the GBRMPA’s compliance and enforcement measures by
actively reporting suspected incidents.
x
Partnership monitoring programs, where tourism operators voluntarily monitor
sites they visit and report observations to the GBRMPA and researchers.
Examples include: BleachWatch, where operators provide comprehensive
reports to map the extent and intensity of coral bleaching; Eye on the Reef,
where a selection of operators have taken weekly observations at their sites over
the last 11 years, providing a solid baseline of information for researchers; and
the Whale Sightings Programme, where operators supply information about
whales in the Marine Park. Operators are also playing an increasing role in the
newly introduced Reef Water Quality Monitoring Programme.
x
The comprehensive website, Onboard – The Tourism Operator’s Handbook for
the Great Barrier Reef, describes in easy-to-read detail everything an operator
needs to know to operate in the Marine Park. Designed specifically for the
tourism industry, the website covers topics such as permits, the Environmental
Management Charge, management arrangements in different areas, and how to
achieve high standards. It was developed in cooperation with the industry, with
the final product comprehensively tested by 60 operators.
x
A ongoing series of Get Onboard Industry Training Workshops undertaken in
key regional centres tailored specifically for operators and crew. Workshops are
based on the information provided on the Onboard website.
347
x
A set of internationally recognised Responsible Reef Practices jointly
developed by the GBRMPA and the tourism industry which address 28 key
tourism activities from anchoring to whale-watching.
x
Dedicated GBRMPA Industry Liaison Officers who communicate regularly
with operators, advising them of management requirements and future
proposals, while at the same time keeping the GBRMPA up-to-date with
developments in the industry.
x
The Tourism and Recreation Reef Advisory Committee (TRRAC); a senior
level committee that provides the GBRMPA with regular advice on the
management of tourism in the Marine Park. A Framework for the Sustainable
Use and Management of Tourism and Recreation in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park provided by the TRRAC helps guide tourism management
decisions in the Marine Park. The TRRAC also identify emerging issues such as
the effects of climate change and fostering Indigenous participation in tourism
and its management.
Although these programs all work towards keeping the Great Barrier Reef great, the most
fundamental innovative element in the Great Barrier Reef Sustainable Tourism
Partnership is the partnership itself. The GBRMPA and the marine tourism industry are
leading the way in working together for the benefit of both the Marine Park and the
tourism industry. Rarely in protected area management have the interconnections and
commonalities between the protected area and its tourism industry been made so explicit
and employed to such good effect for both parties.
348
LOOSE LIPS AND SINKING SHIPS: ANALYSING THE ROLE OF
INTERGOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN THE CREATION OF
ARTIFICIAL REEFS FOR SUSTAINABLE SCUBA DIVING
TOURISM IN AUSTRALIA
(Full Paper)
Paul Stolk
School of Economics, Politics and Tourism
The University of Newcastle
Australia
paul.stolk@newcastle.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Governments have the capacity to influence tourism development through a number of
means. Direct investment in tourism resources by government is one strategy which is
frequently used in order to stimulate economic activity and diversify the local industrial
base. In Australia, the local, state and national levels of government are often obliged to
collaborate in tourism projects. Intergovernmental relations therefore play a vital role in
the delivery of successful, sustainable tourism outcome, particularly if the parties holding
office at each level advocate opposing political ideologies. This paper considers the
degree of influence that intergovernmental politics has on tourism decision-making in
Australia. Discussion focuses on a case study of artificial reefs that were created from
decommissioned Royal Australian Navy vessels and ‘gifted’ by the Commonwealth
Government to five States in order to promote scuba diving tourism – formerly known as
the HMAS Swan, Perth, Hobart, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. In particular, the
paper uses the circumstances surrounding the transfer and scuttling the HMAS Brisbane
to highlight the capricious political relationship that exists between federal and state
governments in Australia. Intergovernmental politics, it is argued, can play an important
role in the sustainability of government-initiated tourism projects.
Keywords: artificial reefs, intergovernmental relations, scuba diving, tourism, politics
INTRODUCTION
Governments are recognized as key stakeholders in the delivery of artificial reef projects
(Pickering et al., 1998). Like natural reefs, artificial reefs are public resources and the
investment in and maintenance of public resources is a major responsibility of
government (Johns et al., 2001). An artificial reef can be defined as any man-made
structure colonised by plant and animal communities resembling those of a naturallyoccurring reef (Storrie et al., 2003). Under this definition, artificial reefs are formed
intentionally (e.g. by scuttling a vessel) or unintentionally (e.g. through the construction
349
of a bridge or pier). The oldest and most geographically widespread use of artificial reefs
is to assist with the commercial and recreational harvest of fishes and marine
invertebrates (Milon, 1989; Seaman & Jensen, 2000). However in recent years nonconsumptive use of artificial reefs, such as scuba diving and submarine tours, has grown
in popularity.
Brock (1994) demonstrated that non-consumptive use of artificial reefs - like recreational
scuba diving - is both economically and environmentally advantageous when compared
with consumptive, harvest-based use. Brock also concluded that multiple-use of a single
artificial reef resource by consumptive fishing and non-consumptive ‘ecotourism’ (i.e.
diving and other forms of underwater observation) was not sustainable as the former is
predicated on the removal of underwater attractions (i.e. marine fauna and flora) that
facilitate the latter. Subsequently a number of scuba diving-specific artificial reefs have
been developed in locations around the world. Several studies have noted that divers
prefer sunken vessels as a reef-building material (Milon 1989; Ditton and Baker 1999;
Ditton et al., 2002); thus many new artificial reefs designed for scuba diving have drawn
on large ex-navy vessels. Examples of such reefs are found in Canada, the United States
of America, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Spain. Along with
providing a focus for scuba diving activity, these ship-based artificial reefs are promoted
as legitimate tourism attractions that augment local economies with diving-related
expenditure and enhance regional employment opportunities. Artificial reefs capable of
facilitating tourism are increasingly viewed by governments as valuable resources. Yet
the use of artificial reefs to promote tourism remains something of a novel concept –
formal policies and plans for artificial reef-based tourism are rare. The USA, for example,
is one of the few nations to implement a formal plan for artificial reef development
(under the National Fisheries Enhancement Act 1994); however the focus of the plan is
on improving recreational and commercial fishing opportunities, not tourism (Stone,
1985).
As Hall (2000a:9) pointed out, most governments regardless of ideology view tourism as
a ‘good thing’ and thus tourism has become an “integral part of the machinery of
government”. The role of government in tourism policy and planning has been specific
focus for a number of researchers (see Hall and Jenkins 1995, Elliot 1997 and Hall
2000a) and provides a theoretical framework for this paper. Of particular relevance are
the works of Hall (2000a) and Bramwell and Lane (2000) who examined the techniques
and implications of coordination, collaboration & partnerships for governments involved
in tourism policy and planning. Vertical coordination – where coordination involves
different levels of government (see Hall 2000b) – is pertinent to Australia where a federal
system of government is used. Common critiques of federal systems of governance
suggest inter-government coordination is uncommon, with federalism more likely to
impede tourism policy development than facilitate it (see Lickorish et al. 1991, Hall and
Jenkins 1995). Overlapping jurisdictions, administrative complexity and duplication of
effort are some of the frequent criticisms of federal governance systems (Wiltshire, 1986;
Wanna et al., 1992). Indeed, as Williams and Shaw observed, “the study of [tourism]
policy formation is made more complex because the aims of the local state may diverge
from those of the central state” (1998:230). Dredge and Jenkins (2003) argued that these
350
types of assessment are so ingrained there has been a tendency by academics to view
federalism as more of a problem than an asset. However because the tourism industry is,
as Richter (1989:2) a “highly political phenomenon” the influence of political ideologies
and power relationships may also impinge on the efficacy of tourism policy in a federal
system. Altinay and Bowen (2006) claimed that “tourism researchers have long ignored
or neglected the political dimension in the allocation of resources, the generation of
policy, and the politics of development” (p.944)
The aim of this paper is to examine how inter-government relations and politics can
impact upon the establishment of marine tourism resources. A case study approach is
used to focus on recent artificial reef developments for scuba diving tourism in Australia.
In particular the ex-HMAS Brisbane project is reviewed to critique the role of politics,
interest groups and inter-government relations in the development of a resource for
sustainable tourism and recreation.
THE CASE STUDY
Method
This case study of the Brisbane artificial reef is linked to a larger postgraduate research
project conducted by the author in Australia. The case study draws on qualitative data
collected during interviews and documentary analysis completed for postgraduate
research. In total eleven semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour duration
were conducted with scuba diving operators and government representatives at four sites
in Australia during 2005 and 2006. All interviews were recorded and carefully analysed
to identify relevant themes (Miles and Huberman 1994). Only the three interviews
relating to the Brisbane were used for this case study. The three interviewees have been
given the pseudonyms Stan, Nick and Robert. At the time of interview, Stan was an
employee of the Queensland Environment Protection Agency (QEPA) and he was
heavily involved in the planning and development of the Brisbane artificial reef. Both
Nick and Robert owned scuba diving businesses based on the Sunshine Coast and were
licensed to conduct dive tours to the Brisbane site.
Documents from a variety of sources were also scrutinized as part of the postgraduate
project; including Parliamentary debates (Hansard), ministerial media statements and
related, publicly-available documents such as codes of practice and newspaper articles.
For the case study a number of documents were obtained using keyword searches in
electronic Hansard records for both the Commonwealth and Queensland parliaments. All
Hansard records and ministerial media statements containing reference to the keyword
Brisbane were sorted according to theme and composition, with 3 basic classifications
used. Hansard records were either procedural (such as first readings of legislative bills),
informative (answering questions on notice) or opinionated (political speeches). Each
Hansard type contributed to the compilation of a rich narrative for the Brisbane artificial
reef project. Acquisition and analysis of publicly available information, such as the
QEPA website (www.epa.qld.gov.au) and QEPA reports The Brisbane Wreck to Reef,
One Year On and Public Benefit Test for a proposed conservation park for the ex-HMAS
351
Brisbane were used to develop a deeper appreciation of all aspects of the Brisbane
project.
Background
In Australia, most artificial reefs were deployed between 1966 and 1986 to enhance the
recreational diving or angling experience (Coutin 2001). Kerr (1992) suggests artificial
reefs have been a matter traditionally addressed by state fisheries agencies or similar
departments to attract important recreational fish species. The deliberate sinking of the
HMAS Swan off Western Australia in 1997, however, marked the beginning of new
approach to artificial reef management in Australia (Dowling and Nichol 2001). The
Swan artificial reef project involved representatives from all three tiers of Australia’s
federal system of government (Commonwealth, State and Local governments) working
collaboratively with each other and key stakeholders to establish a resource for scuba
diving.. In ensuing years similar artificial reef developments followed, so that by May
2007 four ex-Royal Australian Navy (RAN) vessels had been established as artificial
reefs in Australia; the HMAS Swan (sunk 1997) and HMAS Perth (sunk 1999) in
Western Australia, the HMAS Hobart (sunk 2001) in South Australia and the HMAS
Brisbane (sunk 2005) in Queensland, see Figure 1 for locations. Some basic details of the
transformation of these ships into diveable artificial reefs is provided by Table 1. A
further two vessels, the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, have been gifted to
Victoria and New South Wales respectively and are due to be sunk in coming years. All
six vessels have been transferred from the Commonwealth to the states using a similar
process requiring a degree of collaboration between different levels of government. In
practical terms this has involved the Commonwealth convening the decommissioning of
the vessel from navy service and announcing its upcoming availability. Interested states
have been required to lodge ‘bids’ for the vessel, with the Commonwealth making a
discretionary decision to determine the successful ‘bidder’. The demonstrable pattern of
the Commonwealth gifting vessels to states in this manner suggests a considered or
planned policy approach to encourage artificial reef development for tourism and
recreational use. In actuality there is no formal or public articulation of such a policy by
the Commonwealth, making it problematic to ascertain not only stakeholder roles and
responsibilities but the justification for important decisions such as why one state or
locale was preferred over another.
352
Table 1 Details of the ex-RAN vessels sunk as artificial reefs in Australia (as at August
2007)
Vessel
Host Town & State
Swan
Dunsborough
Western Australia
Perth
Albany
Western Australia
Hobart
Normanville
South Australia
Brisbane
Mooloolaba
Queensland
Year Gifted
Date Sunk
State Government in Office
1996
14 December 1997
Liberal Party (LP)
Premier:
Richard Court (1993-2001)
1999
24 November 2001
Liberal Party (LP)
Premier:
Richard Court (1993-2001)
2000
3 November 2002
Liberal Party (LP)
Premiers:
John Olsen (1996-2001)
Rob Kerin (2001-2002)
2001
31 July 2005
Australian Labor Party (ALP)
Premier:
Peter Beattie (1998 - present )
Note: All vessels have been handed-over under the John Howard-led Coalition Commonwealth Government that came
to power in 1996.
Considering the lack of formal government policy in this area it is not surprising that
states have employed a variety of approaches to manage the artificial reef transformation
process. For example, in Western Australia the Swan and Perth projects were initially
coordinated by the Western Australian Tourism Commission (WATC), who later
relinquished ongoing management of both ships. In the case of the Swan the hand-over
was made to a local community group while the Perth was passed directly to the City of
Albany Council. In South Australia the tourism authority, the South Australian Tourism
Commission (SATC), was also given supervision of an artificial reef project (for the
Hobart) – however unlike the WATC, the SATC has retained a management role over
the reef. Queensland relied on a different approach, assigning the QEPA to coordinate the
Brisbane project. Like the SATC, QEPA has retained management control of the site.
Plate 1 depicts the Brisbane prior to sinking off the Sunshine Coast.
353
Figure 1 Map of Australia showing approximate sinking locations of ex-RAN vessels for
artificial reefs
Plate 1: The ex-HMAS Brisbane moments before being scuttled off Mooloolaba,
Queensland (Source: Nigel Marsh)
354
Overall, the procedures followed to convert Swan, Perth, and Hobart from RAN ships to
diving-specific artificial reefs encountered few problems at an inter-government level.
This is apparent from the minimal political debate appearing in records from
Commonwealth parliament and from the parliaments of Western Australia and South
Australia. Unfortunately the same claim cannot be made for the Brisbane. A number of
issues arose during the Commonwealth-State hand-over process that sparked protracted
disagreement between the Labor Party-led Queensland Government and Coalition-led
Commonwealth Government. Intergovernmental relations became strained and the issues
in contest became convoluted, with the matter taking so long to resolve that the duration
of the project more than doubled that of its predecessors, as shown in Table 1. The
matters central to the Commonwealth-Queensland government disagreement are explored
in more detail.
The HMAS Brisbane: One Ship, Two Governments and Four Years of Political Polemics
Three issues significantly obstructed the transfer of the Brisbane within a reasonable
timeframe. These issues concerned (i) expenditure associated with preparing the vessel
for sinking; (ii) ongoing costs associated with public liability; and (iii) the location of
where in Queensland the Brisbane should be sunk. Each issue attracted parliamentary
debate within and between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. The
following paragraphs draw on the content of Hansard, QEPA documents and the
experience of the three interviewees to explore in more detail key aspects of the project’s
delivery.
The first issue to trouble the Brisbane emerged almost immediately following the official
‘gift’ announcement by the Commonwealth. On Friday 17th August 2001 Mr Bruce Scott,
the Commonwealth Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, announced the
decommissioning of the former Guided Missile Destroyer HMAS Brisbane and gifting of
the ship to the state of Queensland. While the Commonwealth was eager to test the
viability of using the ship as a “floating memorial”, Mr Scott remarked that should this
option prove too costly the ship would be “sunk as a recreational dive wreck off the
Sunshine Coast as originally proposed by the Queensland Premier” (Scott, 17 August
2001). Within a week Minister Scott had released another media statement criticizing
Queensland’s Premier Peter Beattie for “trying to pass on the costs associated with
establishing the HMAS Brisbane as a tourism project for Queensland”. According to the
media statement, previous costs associated with vessel preparation and relocation for the
Swan, Perth and Hobart had been met by their respective state governments (Scott, 24th
August 2001). It was implied that the costs for the Brisbane should be met by the
Queensland Government. However Premier Beattie refused to accept this responsibility.
In his opinion the Commonwealth was accountable for costs associated with naval
decommissioning and preparation as dive wreck. The Brisbane was decommissioned as
planned in October 2001 and Premier Beattie accepted – in principle – the
Commonwealth’s offer to sink the Brisbane as a dive wreck. More than six months later,
however, accountability for decommissioning costs remained an unresolved issue. The
opening decommissioning budget of $1 million set by Commonwealth Defence Minister
Peter Reith was considered inadequate by the Queensland government.
355
The stalemate between governments was broken by Peter Slipper, the Liberal Party
Member for Fisher (a Commonwealth electorate on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast). Mr
Slipper met with Minister Reith and composed up a new budget. Mr Slipper told
Commonwealth Parliament that “initially it was going to cost $1 million and then the cost
grew to $3 million. So the federal Howard government found $3 million to sink the ship
off the Sunshine Coast.” (Slipper, 5th June 2002: 3234). The $3 million financed towage,
preparation and sinking of the ex-HMAS Brisbane – expenses that Mr Slipper noted were
normally taken up by state governments. According to Stan (the QEPA interviewee), one
of the main reasons that Queensland was even offered the vessel stemmed from the
intense lobbying directed to Peter Slipper by a group known as SCARG – the Sunshine
Coast Artificial Reef Group. Robert, one of the local dive operators interviewed and a
member of SCARG, recalled that the group started out informally and “were just putting
a paper together, an expression of interest, of having some sort of a ship to dive on”.
After the Brisbane was made available by the Commonwealth Government, tourism
representatives from the Queensland Government made contact with SCARG to initiate
dialogue on securing the Brisbane for the region. Robert suggested “it all started from
there”. Nick, the other local dive operator interviewed, noticed the widespread support
the group received from the Sunshine Coast community: “…you had people who were
non-divers behind the project and driving it the whole time to get the wreck here”. Yet
even with the costs issue seemingly settled Premier Beattie remained defiant, declaring
several days later before Queensland Parliament: “…the federal government is giving a
gift. You do not send a gift with huge bill attached – not at my parties, anyway” (Beattie,
20th June 2002: 2046).
The second issue to trouble the Brisbane project involved annual public liability
insurance. Public liability insurance was identified as an ongoing expense to Queensland
if the Brisbane was to be used as a recreational dive site (Beattie, 20th June 2002: 2046).
The cost was projected as $250,000 per annum as long as the ship continued to function
as a dive site. According to a report in Queensland’s Courier Mail newspaper (Marsh 6th
December 2002), the insurance problem could be traced to private boat owners seeking to
dive the Brisbane but not in possession of public liability insurance. Commercial dive
charters licensed to operate on the Brisbane would have their own public liability
insurance and therefore were not a concern. Yet again, Premier Beattie was reluctant to
pay future costs or liabilities associated with the ship. The transfer of the ship stalled once
more, this time for more than six months.
It was during this phase of the project that Stan, the QEPA representative, became
involved with the Brisbane. Stan was a key figure in the coordination of the Brisbane
hulk into an artificial reef supporting dive tourism. His comments suggest that – at least
at one point in time – the Queensland Government was prepared to forgo the entire
process and give up the Brisbane:
The official position though from the state was that it [the problem] was
substantial liability issues and insurance issues that were considered to be
intractable. But with a caveat from the feds [Commonwealth Government] about
how it was going to come over and all that…the state said ‘we can’t comply with
356
this and no we don’t want it’. And literally there was a semi-formal decision made
back in…whenever it was! But there was a decision made that we are not going to
proceed with it and Queensland is not going to have its ship. Within the space of
ten days that decision was reversed, and with much fanfare it was announced that
it had been signed off.
Premier Beattie issued a media statement on the 3rd of February 2003 announcing the
insurance cost had been resolved to an amount “many times less than the original offer”,
based on an agreement with the State Government Insurance Fund (Beattie, 25th February
2003: 29). While this positive result was a significant outcome for the project, a third
issue threatened future progress.
Dispute over where the vessel should be sunk was also an ongoing point of disagreement
between governments. This argument can be grouped into two stages, with the first stage
actually predating the initial gifting announcement. As described earlier, the Sunshine
Coast was initially announced as the preferred location to sink the ship. Member for
Fisher Peter Slipper claimed responsibility for the selection of the Sunshine Coast,
suggesting to Commonwealth Parliament that his representations to Minister Reith and
Minister Scott were “the only reason” the Brisbane was set to be sunk off the Sunshine
Coast and “not simply given to the Queensland Government for Premier Beattie to
allocate as some sort of reward to his Labor mates.” (Slipper, 22nd August 2001:30042).
However on the 8 November 2001 the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland
Parliament tabled letters showing Premier Beattie had also advocated the Sunshine Coast
to the Commonwealth as the area to sink the Brisbane. The letters to both the Prime
Minister and the Minister for Defence in April 2001 (pre-dating the official gift
announcement from the Commonwealth to Queensland), spoke of “an exciting tourism
proposal for the Sunshine Coast” and “securing the HMAS Brisbane on behalf of the
Sunshine Coast community”. In the face of such evidence Premier Beattie confessed
before Queensland Parliament that he did send the letters to the Commonwealth making a
case for the Sunshine Coast. Yet despite this admission he still chose to describe the
decision to sink the Brisbane on the Sunshine Coast as a “secret deal…some slimy little
deal” brokered by Peter Reith and Peter Slipper (Beattie, 8th November 2001:3588).
A year later, in 2002, Premier Beattie told Queensland Parliament of the confusion
surrounding the Brisbane’s final location. In Beattie’s opinion, the site decision-making
process had been “undercut” by the Commonwealth’s announcement. Mr Beattie stated
that a number of alternative locations had been put forward “quite publicly” prior to the
announcement of the Sunshine Coast as the preferred area. The locations considered
included Moreton Bay, Hervey Bay, Townsville and the Whitsundays. According to Mr
Beattie, the merits of these other locations were not able to be fully considered because of
the actions of the Commonwealth government.
The state government was in the process of assessing all the alternatives when the
federal government, through a backbencher – Peter Slipper – made a unilateral
announcement detailing the exact location off the Sunshine Coast as the preferred
357
location for the sinking. In other words, the federal government undercut what we
were doing. I stress: there was no consultation with the state government on this
announcement and it occurred in the run-down to the last federal election. In other
words, it was political opportunism.
(Beattie, 20th June 2002: 2045)
In fact Peter Slipper’s own words in 2004 confirm that political imperatives were a strong
influence in the choice of the Sunshine Coast as the location for the Brisbane. He
admitted the Sunshine Coast had been promised the vessel as part of a commitment given
by the Commonwealth Government before the 2001 election (Slipper, 1st March 2004).
During his interview Stan (the QEPA representative) also revealed that around this time
the hand-over of the Brisbane was complicated by the emergence of a rival group within
Queensland who called for the ship to be sunk in Moreton Bay (near the City of
Brisbane). This development is not evident from any of the government documents or
parliamentary records. Stan described the relationship between the late-arriving group
and the established SCARG lobby as a “very testy process” full of “mud” and “public
stoushing”. As a SCARG member Robert confirmed that he became heavily involved as
the ‘Moreton Bay group’ sought to discredit the Sunshine Coast as a suitable site for the
Brisbane. Robert’s comments reveal the extent of the tug-of-war between the two groups.
He recalled that things became so serious he needed to take time away from his scuba
diving business to “counteract the negativity that was coming from that area and try to
reassure the people from the government that this was the place for it to go”. The threat
of the Moreton Bay group eventually dissipated, but in reflecting on the events Robert
sincerely believed that politics and political party affiliation played a role in the
difficulties that arose:
Look I’ve got nothing – no proof, just my own observations and assessment – but
I do think the fact that we [the Sunshine Coast] had a Federal Liberal area and a
State Labor area made it very difficult to come to arrangements and agreements.
The push from the Brisbane area was both Federal and State Labor areas. So I
think once our Premier realized that that was the case, that’s when he got a little
bit…he slowed up on the deal a bit and things stagnated quite a bit. He started to
listen to the people down there and unfortunately he was getting fed some
misinformation from the people that started the push down there – from a dive
shop down in that area. It just clouded the waters to such a point where
Queensland almost lost the ship because they created so much nervousness within
the State Labor government that they were almost ready to pull the pin on the
whole deal.
Robert’s observations are further evidence that many of the obstacles faced by the
Brisbane stemmed from a dysfunctional Commonwealth-State relationship – perhaps a
result of differing political ideologies. Robert was the only interviewee to explicitly offer
an opinion on the matter. His position as a member of the SCARG lobby perhaps gave
him particular insights not available to the other two stakeholders interviewed.
358
The second stage of the location-based dispute began after the Sunshine Coast had been
settled on as the Brisbane’s new home. The debate related to specific sinking sites for the
Brisbane off the Sunshine Coast. The Commonwealth’s stated site (off Point Cartwright)
was identified as being too close to a commercial shipping lane. Written correspondence
about this issue from the SunROC organization (representing local governments of the
City of Caloundra and Shires of Noosa and Maroochy) to Commonwealth Defence
Minister Robert Hill was tabled in Queensland Parliament by Labor Member for Kawana
Chris Cummins in September 2003 (Cummins, 9th September 2003: 3289). The SunROC
letter urged Minister Hill to agree to an alternative site proposed by the Queensland
Government, and also expressed concern over the amount of time being taken to settle
the matter and sink the Brisbane. After one month without response, Mr Cummins wrote
to Mal Brough, Member for Longman – a Commonwealth Electorate also covering part
of the Sunshine Coast and newly appointed Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence.
In his letter Cummins spoke of Premier Beattie’s disappointment at the “ineffectual
representations thus far of Peter Slipper MP in finalizing this valuable Sunshine Coast
project” and requested Mal Brough use his capacity as a federal government minister to
“bring to a climax the HMAS Brisbane saga” (Cummins, 7th Oct 2003: 3967).
By the 1st of March 2004, almost 3 years since the initial gifting announcement, the
Brisbane remained at dock in Sydney awaiting transfer to Queensland. In a
Commonwealth House of Representatives speech that day the Member for Fisher Peter
Slipper vilified the Queensland Government and Premier Beattie for not signing the Deed
of Gift for the ship. Mr Slipper remarked that the site-related problems could be traced
back to Premier Beattie’s department who, as far back as 2000, “recommended the Point
Cartwright site as the preferred site ahead of the announcement of the location by the
then Federal Defence Minister Peter Reith” (Slipper, 1st March 2004: 25434). Premier
Beattie put an end to the dispute by officially declaring on the 25th of May 2004 that he
had signed the Deed of Gift and secured the Brisbane for Queensland. Mr Beattie stated
the “location problem” had been fixed. A site 2.9 nautical miles east of Mudjimba Island
had been settled on and this patch of seabed became the Brisbane’s final resting place
when sunk on the 31 July 2005. A detailed map of the Brisbane site is shown at Figure 1,
including details of the conservation park established to regulate use.
359
Figure 2: Map of the ex-HMAS Brisbane conservation park.
Source: www.epa.qld.gov.au (accessed 23/05/2007)
360
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The case study has shown that the Brisbane artificial reef project became an overly
complex political contest, incited adversarial Commonwealth-State relations, involved
large time delays in the transfer of the ship and evoked much uncertainty within
stakeholders. These problems threatened the viability of the entire artificial reef
development. However they also forced a deeper consideration of aspects of the project
that might otherwise have been less rigorously tested. If matters such as the insurance
costs and vessel preparation costs were not disputed by the Queensland Government then
divers, operators and the local Sunshine Coast community might have inherited the
Brisbane with ongoing expenses to be accounted for. Similarly the arguments over the
sinking site encouraged a more thorough analysis of potential locations from the
Queensland Government and key stakeholders. This is not implying the difficulties
encountered were a welcome experience, but rather that some level of conflict within
collaborative tourism ventures can actually have a healthy impact on the final outcome
(see Bramwell and Lane 2000).
Understanding why the Brisbane incurred such difficulties and delay is perhaps a more
pertinent issue, especially considering the ease with which the three other ex-navy ship
projects were carried out. The most logical attribution relates to political ideology, or
more pointedly the differing political party affiliations held by the levels of government
involved in coordinating the project. With the Swan, Perth and Hobart projects the State
and Commonwealth Governments involved ideologically aligned parties – a LiberalNational Party Coalition Government for the Commonwealth and a Liberal Party
Government for Western Australia and South Australia. The Brisbane project was the
first time the Coalition Commonwealth Government was obliged to work in partnership
with an Australian Labor Party-led State Government. The Sunshine Coast region also
featured a Labor Party representative (Chris Cummins) at state level and a Liberal Party
representative (Peter Slipper) at Commonwealth level. Getting these two individuals to
work toward a common goal to benefit their electorate proved difficult. The result was
public conflict rather than any collaboration of sorts, with the Queensland Premier almost
opting to abandon the Brisbane entirely.
Under a federal system of governance, intergovernmental involvement in the deployment
of large-scale artificial reefs for scuba diving tourism calls for the ‘cooperative ideal’
discussed by Dredge and Jenkins (2003) to be operationalised. Politics, and the power
struggle associated within all political processes, can work to undermine any cooperative
governance ideal. This paper has demonstrated how party-based politics and key political
figures have the potential to obstruct the delivery of government-led tourism initiatives
where different levels of government are involved. However the paper has also indicated
that such obstruction is not a negative outcome if it improves the robustness of planning
and management processes and does not prevent the tourism initiative from proceeding
unless warranted. Indeed the circumstances of the Brisbane case study suggest that a
struggle for power between key political actors can be advantageous to the overall
sustainability of a tourism project. The public dialectic process engaged in by politicians
under a federal system may well be a ‘slow-moving battleground’ through which policies
are tested and re-tested, but if this process generates stronger outcomes as an end result
361
then there is merit in its application. As Hall and Macarthur (1998) noted, some conflict
within the policy process can be productive in formulating new ideas or strategies for
dealing with problems. Scuba diving-specific artificial reefs have also been shown by this
case study to be tourism resources capable of attracting substantial government
investment. Future research in the area investigated by this study should to consider the
role that political affiliation has on the implementation of tourism policy in federal
government systems, most notably where vertical relations, i.e. between the different
levels of government, are required to facilitate sustainable tourism.
REFERENCES
Altinay, D. and Bowen, D. (2006) Politics and Tourism Interface. Annals of Tourism
Research 33 (4), 939-956.
Beattie, P.D. (2001) Privilege: HMAS Brisbane. Legislative Assembly Hansard,
Queensland Parliament, 8 November: 3588.
Beattie, P. D. (2002) HMAS Brisbane. Questions Without Notice, Legislative Assembly
Hansard, Queensland Parliament, 20 June: 2045-2046.
Beattie, P. D. (2003) HMAS Brisbane. Questions Without Notice, Legislative Assembly
Hansard, Queensland Parliament, 25 February: 29.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Collaboration and Partnerships in Tourism Planning.
In B.Bramwell and B.Lane (eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics,
Practice and Sustainability (pp.1-17) Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Brock, R. E. (1994) Beyond Fisheries Enhancement: Artificial reefs and Ecotourism.
Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2-3), 1181-1188.
Coutin, P. C. (2001) Artificial Reefs - Applications in Victoria from a Literature Review.
Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Queenscliff.
Cummins, C. (2003) Marine Parks Amendment Bill. Legislative Assembly Hansard,
Queensland Parliament, 9 September: 3289-3290.
Cummins, C. (2003) Tourism Services Bill. Legislative Assembly Hansard, Queensland
Parliament, 7 October: 3696-3697.
Ditton, R. B. and Baker, T. L. (1999) Demographics, Attitudes, Management Preferences
and Economic Impacts of Sport Divers Using Artificial Reefs in Offshore Waters.
Human Dimensions of Fisheries Lab: Texas A&M University.
Ditton, R. B., Osburn, H. R., Baker, T.L. and Thailing, C.E. (2002) Demographics,
Attitudes, and Reef Management Practices of Sport Divers in Offshore Texas Waters.
ICES Journal of Marine Science 59, s186-s191.
Dowling, R. K. and Nichol, J. (2001) The HMAS Swan Artificial Dive Reef. Annals of
Tourism Research 28 (1), 226-229.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. (2003) Federal-State Relations and Tourism Public Policy,
New South Wales, Australia. Current Issues in Tourism. 6(5) 415-443.
Elliot, J. (1997) Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management. London: Routledge.
Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. M. (1995) Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge.
Hall, C.M. (2000a) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
362
Hall, C.M. (2000b) Rethinking Collaboration and Partnership: A Public Policy
Perspective. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane, (eds) Tourism Collaboration and
Partnerships. (pp. 143-159) Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Hall, C.M. and Macarthur, S. (1998) Integrated Heritage Management. London:
Stationery Office.
Johns, G.M., Leeworthy, V.R., Bell, F.W., and Bonn, M.A. (2001) Socioeconomic Study
of Reefs in South East Florida. Final Report: Hazen and Sawyer P.C.
Kerr, S.B. (1992) Artificial Reefs in Australia: Their Construction, Location and
Function. Bureau of Rural Resources Working Paper No. WP/8/92. Bureau of Rural
Resources, Canberra.
Lickorish, L.J., Jefferson, A.., Bodlendler, J. and Jenkins, C.L. (1991) Developing
Tourism Destinations: Policies and Perspectives. Harlow: Longman.
Marsh, N (2002) What has happened to the Brisbane? The Courier Mail 6 December.
Miles, B. and Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Milon, J. W. (1989) Artificial Marine Habitat Characteristics and Participation Behavior
by Sport Anglers and Divers. Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 853-862.
Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D. and Jensen, A. (1998) Artificial Reefs as a Tool to Aid
Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems: Investigating the Potential. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 37 (8-12), 505-514.
Richter, L.K. (1989) The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honululu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Scott, B. (2001) HMAS Brisbane, A Capital Gift for Queensland. Media Release:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, 17 August.
Scott, B. (2001) Footbridge/Lang Park get Preference over War Veteran. Media Release:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, 24 August.
Seaman, W. and Jensen, A. C. (2000) Purposes and practices of artificial reef evaluation.
In W. Seaman (ed.) Artificial Reef Evaluation with Application to Natural Marine
Habitats. Boca Raton: CRC Press
Slipper, P. (2001) HMAS Brisbane. House of Representatives Main Committee,
Australian Parliamentary Hansard, 22 August: 30041-30042.
Slipper, P. (2002) Fisher Electorate: HMAS Brisbane. House of Representatives Main
Committee, Australian Parliamentary Hansard, 5 June: 3233-3234.
Slipper, P. (2004) Fisher Electorate: Former HMAS Brisbane. House of Representatives
Greivance Debate, Australian Parliamentary Hansard, 1March: 25433-25436.
Stone, R.B. (1985) History of Artificial Reef Use in the United States. In F.M. D’Itri
(Ed.) Artificial Reefs – Marine and Freshwater Applications (pp 3-12). Michigan:
Lewis Publishers Inc.
Storrie, A., Morrison, S. and Morrison, P. (2003) Beneath Busselton Jetty. Kensington:
Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Wanna, J., O’Faircheallaigh, C. and Weller, P. (1992) Public Sector Management in
Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. (1988) Tourism Policies in a Changing Economic
Environment. In A.M.Williams & G. Shaw (Eds.) Tourism and Economic
Development: Western European Experiences (pp. 230-239). London: Belhaven
Press.
363
Wiltshire, K. (1986) Intergovernmental Relations and Planning. Brisbane: University of
Queensland Press.
364
Theme 5
Guides, Interpretation and Education
365
THE ROLE AND PRESENCE OF A GUIDE: PRELIMINARY
FINDINGS FROM SWIM WITH SEAL PROGRAMMES AND LANDBASED SEAL VIEWING IN NEW ZEALAND
(Full Paper)
1
Laura Boren1*, Neil Gemmell1, Kerry Barton2
School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, 2Landcare Research, Nelson
1
Private Bag 4800 Christchurch, 2 16 Paru Paru Rd. Nelson
*
Address for correspondence: 44 Crescent St. Richmond, Nelson 7020
Laura Boren: seals_n_sealions@yahoo.co.nz
Neil Gemmell: neil.gemmell@canterbury.ac.nz
Kerry Barton: bartonk@landcareresearch.co.nz
ABSTRACT
Marine mammal tourism is increasing world-wide and pinnipeds are increasingly a target
of guided tourism ventures, in the form of “walk” and “swim-with” seal programs. This
paper aimed to quantify the response of seals to commercial seal-swim operations and
guided walks; compare responses of seals to guided versus unguided tours; and determine
what human behaviours were more likely to elicit an avoidance response from the seals.
Both guided and unguided commercial seal-swims, as well as freedom/independent
swims were monitored in Abel Tasman National Park, and Kaikoura, located in the South
Island of New Zealand in the 2000/2001 austral summer. The behaviours of seals
approached during seal swims were monitored from kayak or land-based platforms. Seal
behaviour in response to a guided walk on the Kaikoura Peninsula was also monitored;
landing is not permitted on Tonga Island so land-based approaches were not observed
there. Commercial seal-swims elicited fewer avoidance responses than independent
swimmers, however, no significant differences were found between seal-swim
companies. The benefit of having a guide present on guided walks to view seals was
considerable with 15% fewer seals responding to the guided walk than independent landbased tourist approaches. Key factors that influence seal responses to tourist approaches
include group size; seals responded significantly more to groups of 7–9 tourists, than to
tour groups of smaller size. The data presented here highlights some key factors that
influence seal responses to tourist approaches, and also shows that the presence of a
guide significantly reduces the amount of avoidance responses from seals. As the
popularity of seal tours increases this information will be useful in establishing guidelines
to effectively manage encounters with positive outcomes for both animals and tourists.
Keywords: Marine mammal, pinniped tourism, seal swimming, guided walk,
independent tourists
366
INTRODUCTION
Pinniped tourism
Eco-tourism is a major source of income for many small communities around the world
and New Zealand is no different. For example, the South Island town of Kaikoura thrives
on its marine tourism with tourists spending approximately NZ$28-36 million (direct
spending and flow-on) annually by 1998 with an estimated future increase of NZ$4.4
million direct spending per year (Butcher, Fairweather, & Simmons, 1998). Visitor
numbers by 1998 were estimated at approximately 873,000 tourists per year with an
expected increase of 14% per annum (Simmons, Horn, & Fairweather, 1998). More
recently, the Kaikoura peninsula was named one of the top three visitor destinations in
New Zealand, attracting around one million tourists in 2002 (Experience Kaikoura,
October 2003). With tourist visitation expected to double between 2006 and 2016, the
Ministry of Tourism has allocated a grant of $1.85 million to Kaikoura District Council
towards upgrading the community’s infrastructure for tourism (KDC, 2006).
Pinniped-based eco-tourism alone earns an estimated US$12,590,910 annually in the
Southern Hemisphere, with New Zealand accounting for US$1,038,000 (Kirkwood et al.
2003). Increasing levels of cetacean and pinniped tourism in the Southern hemisphere
and on a world-wide scale has instigated the need for scientific studies into the impacts of
tourism on the target species (Kirkwood et al., 2003; Bejder & Samuels, 2003). While
studies on the impacts of tourism on pinnipeds, especially otariids in New Zealand are
few (Boren, 2001), three consecutive studies have investigated different aspects of the
impacts of tourism on A. forsteri in Kaikoura. Barton et al. (1998) focused on the effects
of land-based tourism in Kaikoura and found that seals were changing their behaviour in
response to tourists and recommended increasing the minimum approach distance for
foot traffic from 5 to 10 m. Following this, Boren, Gemmell, & Barton (2002)
investigated both land and sea based tourism, including kayaks and motorboats at a
selection of tourist visited and non-visited colonies. The research found that sea-based
approaches elicited fewer avoidance responses than land-based and seals with high tourist
visitation were showing signs of habituation, but approaches were still causing seals to
change their behaviour. New minimum approach distances were recommended and now,
foot, kayak or boat approaches must remain 20 m from the seals and not enter a breeding
colony, swimmers must not approach within 10 m. A follow-up report for Lincoln
University looked into the possibility of modelling the impact of tourists on seals at the
Kaikoura peninsula, based on the number of tourists present (Hughey & Ward, 2002;
Report prepared for FRST, April 2004). No correlation was found between the number of
tourists present and the response of seals, most likely due to the noise inherent in natural
behaviour and the potential for habituation at this site. Although we know that tourism is
causing seals to modify their behaviour, and that this may affect their ability to conserve
energy, we do not know the long-term ramifications of tourist disturbance (Boren, 2001).
In Australia, the number of studies on the impacts of tourism on pinnipeds has been
similarly limited. Shaughnessy, Nicholls, & Briggs (1999) investigated the impact of
boats on A. forsteri at Montague Island, New South Wales. Observations of seal reactions
367
to boats were carried out from the boat as well as from land over the course of one year.
There were four recognisable colonies in this study all of which showed signs of
habituation although seals at one colony were more likely to flee during the spring
months when densities were higher (>32 seals ashore) and more young individuals were
present. In this scenario the probability of seals resting as the boat approached closer
dropped steeply from 60% at 100 m to near 20% at 20 m (Shaughnessy, Nicholls, &
Briggs, 1999).
A few recent studies have investigated the impact of tourism on Australian sea lions
(Neophoca cinerea), including a study on the perceptions of sea lion viewing by tourists
(Orsini & Newsome, 2005), and another study on the interactions of tourists and sea lions
at Carnac Island Nature Reserve (Orsini, Shaughnessy, & Newsome, 2006). The first
study found that the level of visitor satisfaction was high, and although most tourists felt
that their presence did not adversely affect the sea lions 78% of the respondents reported
seeing other tourists disturbing the animals (Orsini & Newsome, 2005). The second study
investigated the response of sea lions to human presence (Orsini, Shaughnessy, &
Newsome, 2006). It highlighted two types of impacts of humans upon sea lions; an
increased state of awareness or vigilance that was different from the sea lions’ behaviour
profile when tourists were absent; and an actual impact resulting from direct disturbance
by visitors. A direct disturbance typically resulted from approaching to within 2.5m of a
sea lion or ‘inappropriate’ human activity whereby tourists were trying to induce an
‘active’ response. The end result involved sea lions retreating, leaving the beach or
displaying aggressive behaviour (Orsini, Shaughnessy, & Newsome, 2006).
Preliminary findings of a study of tourism impacts on N. cinerea at Seal Bay, Kangaroo
Island, found no differences in the levels of activity, or aggressive behaviour of female
Australian sea lions between visited and non-visited beaches (Arianna-Lovasz pers.
comm.). However, while there appeared to be no difference in sea lion density between
visited and non-visited beaches during the breeding season, outside of that season,
preliminary results suggested that there could be significantly more sea lions on the beach
with human disturbance, possibly reflecting a decrease in sea lion abundance at the
visited beach during breeding season.
Currently the only other study on the interactions between pinnipeds and tourists on
swim-with programs was carried out in Baird Bay of South Australia. Martinez (2003)
reported that while Australian sea lions on the beach appeared to react to loud noises
from the tourists or the tour operator’s boat by looking up, sitting up or moving further up
the beach, individual animals did not appear to make significant behavioural
modifications when boats and swimmers were present. A key finding of concern
highlighted in this study was the result of a questionnaire filled out by tourists after the
swim. The survey suggested that the tourists did not gain any new knowledge of the
target species, and a priori attitudes towards sea lions and conservation were not affected
by the experience (Martinez, 2003).
In attempting to define “eco-tourism” three common elements were found world-wide
which suggest that eco-tourism is a positive force for conservation, benefits the host
368
community, and raises awareness of local environments and cultures (Edwards,
McLaughlin & Ham, 2001). Therefore, the presence of a guide ought to minimise the
impact on the target environment or species while increasing the conservation value of
the tour, despite there being little published information on the effectiveness of guides
conveying these messages (Armstrong & Weiler, 2002). Generally speaking, guides play
an important role in eco-tourism in that they should communicate the significance of the
environment, promote minimal impact practices, ensure sustainability of the
environment, and motivate tourists to consider their own lives in relation to larger
ecological or cultural concerns (Black, Ham, & Weiler, 2001).
Objectives
Due to concerns about potential behavioural changes of seals and the impact tourism may
have on an animal’s ability to carry on with biologically necessary behaviours the
objectives of this study were to; quantify the response of seals to commercial seal swim
operations and guided walks, to compare the responses of seals to guided vs. unguided
(independent) tours and, to determine which behaviours are more likely to elicit a
response from the seals.
STUDY POPULATIONS
The Kaikoura Region
The Kaikoura coastline is an important habitat for marine animals due to the Kaikoura
Canyon and associated upwelling approximately 2 km off the coast (Garner, 1953; Lewis
& Barnes, 1999). Along the coastline there are three main areas used by seals: Ohau
Point, Kaikoura Peninsula and Barney’s Rock (Figure 1). Out of ten tour operators that
are permitted to view seals along the Kaikoura coast, five specifically target fur seal
colonies on, or adjacent to, the Kaikoura Peninsula (Kirkwood et al., 2003). Seal
swimming is permitted around the Kaikoura Peninsula, and, at the time of this study, one
operator also included Barney’s Rock (10 km south of Kaikoura). From interviews with
tour operators it was determined that between them seals around Kaikoura could
potentially be visited 247 times in a week excluding helicopter and aeroplane viewing,
which do not have a limit on the number of trips they make. At the same time it is also
possible for tourists to view seals at many sites around the peninsula from land without
being part of an organised tour.
On the Kaikoura Peninsula, seals are found at both breeding and non-breeding sites. Seals
breed on Lynch’s Reef and haul-out on the tidal platform, offshore rocks, a small reef
located at Rhino’s Horn and one at Shark’s Tooth, and, during high tides, on the edges of
the car park (Figure 1). Fur seals hauled out on the tidal platform and car park region
(usually bulls and sub-adult males) are easily accessible to tourists and, at low tide, it is
possible to walk out to the breeding area. Three seal swims operate around Lynch’s
Reef, Rhino’s Horn and Shark’s Tooth, they can each take three swims a day at
approximately 0930, 1330 and 1530 and these swims run for approximately 1 hour. Two
369
of these swims are land-based, both of which provide a guide in the water with the
tourists, the other is a boat-based swim, which occasionally provides a guide in the water
with the tourists. All three swims have a group limit of 10 swimmers total (if no guide is
in the water) or 10 swimmers per guide if a guide is present in the water.
Figure 1: Map of New Zealand showing the locations of Abel Tasman National
Park and the Kaikoura coast. Inset shows detail for Kaikoura.
Tonga Island, Abel Tasman National Park
Tonga Island is one of the five largest islands in Abel Tasman National Park, located
northwest of Nelson (Figure 1). The park attracts over 200,000 people annually, many of
whom take part in the sea based tourist operations (Boren, Gemmell, & Barton, 2002).
370
Seals have been breeding on Tonga Island since approximately 1988 (Taylor et al., 1995)
and the island is a popular site for viewing seals by kayak and boat. Tonga Island is
triangular in shape with the East side being most exposed. The West side of Tonga Island
is more sheltered and there are substantially more rocks above high tide, housing many
more seals (40-130 seals visible). This side typically received the greatest amount of boat
traffic. At the time of the study, there were eight kayak companies, which offered both
guided and independent rentals, four water taxis, one ferry, one charter boat and one seal
swim that regularly view and interact with the seals at Tonga Island. The seal swims run
once a day from approximately 10:30 to 11:30am. A guide is always in the water with the
swimmers, and the operation is limited to 10 swimmers per guide in the water with
usually one to two guides per tour.
OBSERVATION OF SEAL SWIMS
Seal swims were observed at both Tonga Island and Kaikoura to assess the response of
seals to people in the water, and the role of the guide in managing the encounter. At
Tonga Island seal swims were observed from a kayak using binoculars, the observer
would stay near the seal swim boat so as not to interfere with the swim. This method of
observation was used as opposed to observation from land because of the difficulty in
landing and viewing from the island. All swims at Kaikoura were observed using a
spotting scope and binoculars from the top of the Peninsula. For each swim observed data
collection included the response of seal(s) in the water within 20 m of the swimmers and
on land adjacent to swimmers using instantaneous scans (Altmann, 1974) carried out
every minute. Interactions were scored as one of the following (Constantine & Baker,
1999; Boren, Gemmell, & Barton 2002):
x
x
x
x
An ‘Interaction’ was any curious or non-aggressive movement of the seal towards
the stimulus.
A ‘Neutral’ response occurred when the seal showed no apparent change in
behaviour, which does not include any biological changes; meaning that from
observation of the animals’ behaviour, there was no apparent change.
A ‘Change in Behaviour’ included seals looking at the stimulus, sitting up and
becoming alert or any other time that the seals’ behaviour prior to the stimulus
changed that were not interactive or avoidance responses.
‘Avoidance/Aggression’ was a dramatic change in behaviour, which included
entering the water, moving away from the stimulus, a vocalisation, a charge or
threat.
Also recorded were approach types (land or boat), presence or absence of a guide in the
water, group size, date, time, weather and sea conditions, the seal swim company, total
number of passengers and swimmers in the water and any other relevant notes, e.g.
human behaviours eliciting responses from seals.
Rough sea conditions around Kaikoura made boat based trips rare in the 2000/01 summer
season and consequently only three swims run by ‘Company C’ were monitored.
371
GUIDED WALK
A guided seal walk at Lynch’s Reef, Kaikoura was run during the summer of 2000-2001
on a trial basis under a temporary permit from the New Zealand Department of
Conservation (DOC). Observations were made on this walk where the distance between
the group and the closest seal was recorded along with the response of the seal(s) being
approached. Animal responses were ranked according to the same definitions as for
swims. The data were used to compare percentage of seals responding to approaches at
different distances and to approaches by different group sizes.
TOURIST APPROACHES
The same data collection protocol was followed for all unguided (independent) tourist
approaches (i.e. boat, person, or kayaks in the vicinity of seal/s) as they occurred. Of
specific interest, were walkers approaching by land, and swimmers attempting to interact
with seals. This data was used to compare guided vs. independent walkers and to assess
the role of the guide in managing the encounters; i.e. did the presence of the guide
decrease or increase the likelihood of seals changing their behaviour in the presence of
walkers?
DATA ANALYSIS
Seal swim data were tested for normality using a One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
(SPSS). Any behavioural responses which were not normal were arc-sine transformed
before performing a one-way ANOVA (SPSS) (Dytham, 1999). Guided seal walks were
analysed via Chi-squared tests of independence. Group size was broken into four
categories: 1-3 tourists, 4-6 tourists, 7-9 tourists and 10 or more tourists. The category
‘10 or more’ was chosen because DOC uses 10 passengers as an upper limit of group size
for other tour operators viewing seals, but currently imposes no maximum limit on
guided walks. All guided approaches that followed DOC guidelines (approaches either
greater than or equal to 10 m, and that did not enter the breeding colony, n=315) were
compared to all independent tourists around the Kaikoura Peninsula who also followed
the DOC guidelines (n=117) using a Chi-squared test of independence.
RESULTS
Seal swim companies
Figure 2 addresses the impact of four seal swim operations on seals in the water. The
majority of seals showed no apparent response (64.4% +/- 5.6%), followed by those
exhibiting an interactive response (23.7% +/- 4.5%) and a few seals showed an avoidance
response (5.8% +/- 2.3%). Although it looks as though ‘Company C’ elicited very
different responses from the seals, its impact shows a high standard error, resulting from
372
a great variability between the three swim opportunities. Based on the present data there
was no significant difference between companies on their effects on seal behaviour
(Interaction F=0.133, p=0.940, Neutral F=2.135, p=0.117, and Avoidance F=1.042,
p=0.389). To test the effect of group size on seal responses, guided swims with eight or
fewer passengers were compared to those with greater than eight, and no significant
difference in responses of seals were detected (Ȥ2 = 0.168, p = 0.919).
Co.A:
Co.B:
Co.C:
Co.D:
Percentage of Seals To Respond
100%
80%
n=618 observations,
n=397 observations,
n=299 observations,
n=395 observations,
13 swims
10 swims
3 swims
5 swims
Company A
Company B
Company C
Company D
60%
40%
20%
0%
Interaction
Neutral
Behavioural Response
Avoidance
Figure 2: Responses of seals to various swim-with-seal companies
Guided versus independent seal swims
In general, seals (on land or in the water) responded less (more neutral responses) and
exhibited less avoidance responses to swimmers during a company seal swim (Table 1).
Seal responses to independent swimmers showed the opposite trend with 72.4% of seals
in the water (n = 29) and 78.6% of seals on land (n = 42) displaying avoidance
behaviours towards the swimmers, indicating that independent swimmers caused seals to
alter behaviour more often than commercial seal swims. These differences in behaviour
were found to be significantly via Chi-squared test of independence (in water Ȥ2 = 377, p
< 0.0001; on land Ȥ2 = 118, p < 0.0001). Seals on land were never observed ‘interacting’
with the swimmers.
373
Table 1: Response of seals on land and in water to commercial and independent
swimmers
Response
Interaction Neutral
Avoidance
in Water
23.9%
72.5%
3.6%
Company A
25.2%
69.2%
5.6%
Company B
14.7%
28.6%
23.3%
Company C
25.7%
52.1%
2.2%
Company D
0.0%
27.6%
Independent
72.4%
Swims
Response
Interaction Neutral
Avoidance
on Land
0.0%
82.7%
17.3%
Company A
0.0%
65.4%
34.6%
Company B
0.0%
59.3%
40.7%
Company C
0.0%
74.0%
26.0%
Company D
0.0%
21.4%
Independent
78.6%
Swims
Guided walk
Increasingly more seals responded the closer the approach with nearly 40% of all seals
approached, responding to approaches within 10 m (n = 327, Ȥ2 = 14, 0.025 < p < 0.05)
(Figure 3a).
The response rate of seals to all group sizes was greater than 20%; however, the greatest
response was seen for group sizes of 7-9 people (Figure 3b). It was expected that this
trend would continue into the category for 10 or more tourists, but with only two trips in
this size category resulting in a smaller number of seals approached, no definite
conclusion can be made. Statistically, there was a significant difference in seal responses
dependent on group size (Ȥ2 = 16, 0.01 < p < 0.025) with more seals changing behaviour
and avoiding groups of 7-9 tourists. As the occurrence of groups sized ‘10 or more’ was
rare observations of seal behaviour in response to larger groups are purely anecdotal.
Guided versus independent walkers on land
Seals responded to guided walkers in 38.1% of encounters observed compared to 53%
during independent walker approaches (Figure 3c). This difference was statistically
significant (Ȥ2 = 8, 0.025 < p < 0.05) and suggests that the presence of a guide reduces the
likelihood of seals altering their behaviour in response to land-based tourist approaches.
374
Seals Responding (%)
60%
50%
40%
n=12
n=16
30%
n=81
20%
n=73
10%
0%
0-10
a)
10-20
20-30
>30m
Seals Responding (%)
Distance (m)
n=32
60%
50%
n=82
n=19
40%
30%
n=21
20%
10%
0%
1-3
b)
4-6
7-9
Number of Passengers
Seals Responding (%)
60%
c)
n=117
50%
40%
n= 315
30%
20%
10%
0%
Guided
Unguided
375
>=10
Figure 3 (previous page): Proportion of seals responding to land-based approaches of a
guided walk based on a) distance, b) group size, and c) in comparison with unguided
land-based approaches that complied with Department of Conservation guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Seal avoidance responses resulted from specific swimmer behaviours such as moving
closer than the recommended 10 m to the rocks, splashing seals, standing up in shallow
water or landing on rocks, encircling or chasing seals that are in the water, and attempting
to touch the seals. Independent swims commonly exhibited many of these behaviours and
while some of these behaviours were occasionally seen in the organised swims, the guide
quickly stopped them. A potential variable to attempt to quantify a guide’s influence
might have been the number of times the guide corrected inappropriate behaviour.
However, as many tours operators have pointed out in interviews, inappropriate
behaviour from tourists are likely to be influenced by a number of variables including
culture, age, attitudes towards seals, rendering the number of times a guide corrects
inappropriate behaviour meaningless. The lack of difference in seal response to guided
seal swims of different group sizes also supports the idea that guides were influential in
minimising their effect on seal behaviour, even with groups of up to 12 passengers. On
the other hand, all independent swims observed except one, had four or fewer passengers,
but still elicited high avoidance behaviour in the seals.
Observed guided walks indicated that significantly more seals changed behaviour or
avoided groups of 7-9 tourists. This may be due to the fact that as the group size
increased, the tour guides control over the group decreased. For example, walkers would
wander off to a group of seals on their own, often approaching too close. Another
confounding problem was that when group size was greater than ten, independent
walkers would join and follow the tour. This also led to a decrease in the tour guide’s
control of the group. The results of observations of ‘Company C’ further illustrate that
the level of control a guide has over a group makes a significant difference in how seals
respond to swimmers; when the guide was in the water they were far more effective at
controlling the encounters between seals and swimmers than when the guide was the boat
operator, observing from on board. On the other hand, ‘Company A’ always provided a
guide in the water and the boat operator also closely monitored the behaviour of the
tourists resulting in seals exhibiting very low levels of avoidance behaviours in the water
(3.6%) and on land (17.3%) during these tours.
The presence of a guide during seal walks decreased the chance of a seal changing
behaviour or showing an avoidance response by as much as 15% (See Figure 3c),
suggesting that guided walks are a successful way of controlling and reducing the
detrimental effects of land-based tourist approaches to seals, provided guidelines are
adhered to that help maintain a guides ability to control the group. Also, guided trips are
typically staggered, so the seals normally have an hour or more between trips, which may
decrease the likelihood of short-term habituation (Boren 2001).
376
Some human behaviours lessened the level of avoidance response by seals. These were:
moving between different places throughout the swim to relieve pressure from one group
of seals, and providing seals with an escape route so that they have the option to interact.
This is similar to what was found in swim-with-dolphin programmes in the Bay of
Islands (Constantine & Baker, 1999) where providing animals with the option to interact
was more likely to result in interactions rather than forcing the animals to interact.
The ‘success’ of a swim can be defined in different ways, which are not always
complementary. Tourists seek levels of ‘high interactions’, while for the seals ‘low
avoidance’ indicates a more positive outcome. The success of a swim for both humans
and seals may be influenced by a number of factors including: air and sea temperature,
sea conditions, water clarity, time in the reproductive cycle of the seals, prior exposure of
the seals to tourists and behaviour of the tourists (Boren, Gemmell, & Barton, 2002). For
example, ‘Company A’ runs swims as early as November while the other companies wait
until December and these swims early in the breeding season often resulted in low
interactions and high neutral responses because the seals in the water were mainly bulls
moving between territories (Boren, 2001).
How an animal is approached (by boat or on land) may alter a seal’s behaviour. The
impact of approach type is not detailed here as it was part of a larger study, collected over
multiple years and including other locations (Boren, 2001). However, once the swimmers
are in the water they may alter the behaviour of seals in the water around them, as well as
the seals on the rocks. Animal behaviour cannot easily be predicted and, despite our best
efforts, we can rarely predict the response of a seal to particular stimuli (Barton et al.,
1998). The most important task ahead is to try to better understand how specific factors
affect the variability of animal behaviour. Such information would not only help alleviate
unnecessary stress on the animals, but may prove beneficial to eco-tourism if it could
lead to enhanced interactions between humans and seals.
CONCLUSION
Tourism may be beneficial in boosting conservation efforts by educating the public about
the current issues relating to conservation (Edington & Edington, 1986; WTO, 1992;
Barton et al., 1998; Young, 1998, Black, Ham, & Weiler, 2001, Armstrong & Weiler,
2002). This is especially relevant as an important role of a guide includes a briefing
before the swim/walk and/or a guided commentary. This method of spreading awareness
has the potential to be very successful; however, the tourism industry needs to be
managed in a way that provides a safe environment for both tourist and the target species.
It should be a goal of the tourism and conservation industries to minimise the amount of
avoidance interactions. Behaviours such as throwing things at seals, chasing them,
surrounding them and trying to pet them should be prevented. These behaviours are not
the norm, but they have been observed (Boren, 2001) and a good percentage of these
more invasive encounters may result from people’s lack of concern and are beyond the
control of regulating bodies. Given the results of the present study and the influence of a
guide, the frequency of these more direct disturbances may be reduced through an
377
increase in the educational and interpretive material available to tourists at the seal
colonies or on seal viewing trips. Similarly, Orsini & Newsome (2005) found through a
visitor survey that tourists, who were satisfied with their viewing of Australian sea lions
on Carnac Island, were in favour of an increase in the amount of information provided on
the sea lions.
To manage seal tourism in a sustainable manner, it is in the best interests of the tour
operators to have as little impact as possible (Beach & Weinrich, 1989). Operators rely
on the seals being easily accessible, and if tourist interactions reached a point where it
was energetically too expensive for the seals to remain at that site then they may move
out of the area. The fact that fur seals are highly site faithful may limit the chance of this
happening (Bradshaw, Thompson, Davis, & Lalas, 1999; Boren, 2001). Instead, seals
have shown evidence of habituation to approaches by humans (Boren, Gemmell &
Barton, 2002); however, there still exists the potential for long term impacts of tourism
on breeding success and survival of the target species that still warrants further
monitoring.
Seal swim ventures, like other marine animal ‘swim-with’ programs, consider a swim
successful if the target animal comes close to and interacts with the swimmers
(Constantine & Baker, 1999; Chambers, G. pers. comm., 2000; and Stanford, D., pers.
comm., 2000). The increased success of these ventures relies on the high interactions
with the target species. In this study, the seal swims elicited more interactive responses
from the seals and the fewest occurrences of avoidance than reported for other approach
types to the same study populations (Boren, Gemmell, & Barton, 2002). Specific
behaviours on the swimmer’s part such as; splashing, chasing, and encircling the seals,
were observed to elicit avoidance responses from the seals. However, minimising the
occurrence of these behaviours by a knowledgeable guide helps to maintain the success
of seal swimming operations and minimise the overall impact of these ventures, which
was also supported by the observed reduced levels of seal avoidance to land-based
approaches during a guided walk.
It is a common belief that eco-tour guides are important for conveying conservation goals
to the public while minimising the impacts of eco-tours on the visited environment
(Armstrong & Weiler, 2002). The current study demonstrates that guides have been
effective in reducing the impact of human visitation on New Zealand fur seals in the
Kaikoura and Abel Tasman regions. Recommendations to management bodies therefore
include supporting the development of quality interpretation for tour guides and
independent tourists, and further monitoring of the effectiveness of such interpretation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the field assistants who helped collect data on
seal swims; Rachel Johnston, Katrina Hale, Stacie Lilley, and Robert Boren; the tour
companies who assisted in the monitoring process, Seal Swim Kaikoura, Dive Kaikoura,
Topspot Seal Swim, Abel Tasman Seal Swim, and Tony’s Life on the Reef guided walk.
The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) provided logistical and financial
378
assistance as did the Whale and Dolphin Adoption Project. Research was carried out
under Department of Conservation Permit: Per/10/2002/01.
REFERENCES
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour 48,
227-65.
Armstrong, E. Kate and Weiler, B. (2002) Getting the message across: an analysis of
messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism 1 (2),
104-121.
Barton, K., Booth, K., Ward, J., Simmons, D.G., & Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Tourist and New
Zealand fur seal interactions along the Kaikoura Coast. Tourism Research and Education
Centre Report No. 9 Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
Beach, D.W., & Weinrich, M.T. (1989) Watching the whales: Is an educational adventure for
humans turning out to be another threat for endangered species? Oceanus 32(1), 84-88.
Bejder, L., & Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating the effects of nature-based tourism on
cetaceans. In N. Gales, M. Hindell & R. Kirkwood. (Eds.), Marine Mammals: fisheries,
tourism, and management issues. (pp. 229-256). Collingwood, VIC, Australia: CSIRO.
Black, R., Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2001). Ecotour guide training in less developed
countries: some preliminary research findings. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(2),
147-156.
Boren, L. J. (2001). Assessing the impact of tourism on New Zealand fur seals
(Arctocephalus forsteri). MSc Thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Canterbury:
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Boren, L. J., Gemmell, N. J., & Barton, K. J. (2002). Tourist disturbance on New Zealand fur
seals, Arctocephalus forsteri. Australian Mammalogy 24, 85-96.
Bradshaw, C.J.A., Thompson, C.M., Davis, L.S., & Lalas, C. (1999) Pup density related to
terrestrial habitat use by New Zealand Fur Seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77, 15791586.
Butcher, G., Fairweather, J., & Simmons, D. (1998). The Economic Impact of Tourism on
Kaikoura. Tourism Research and Education Centre Report No. 8, Lincoln, New Zealand:
Lincoln University.
Constantine, R., & Baker, S. (1999) Monitoring the commercial swim with dolphin
operations in the Bay of Islands. Department of Conservation Science for Conservation
No. 56. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Dytham, C. (1999) Choosing and using statistics: a biological guide. Blackwell Science:
Oxford, UK.
Edington, J.M., & Edington, M.A. (1986) Ecology, Recreation and Tourism. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 34-50.
Edwards, S., McLaughlin, W.J., & Ham, S.H. (2001) A regional look at ecotourism
policy in the Americas. In D. Fennell and R. Dowling (eds) Ecotourism: Policy and
Strategy Issues. Wallingford: CAB International.
Garner, D.M. (1953) Physical characteristics of inshore waters between Cook Strait and
Banks Peninsula, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology Section
B. 35, 239-246.
379
Hughey, K. F., & Ward, J. (2002). Sustainable Management of Natural Assests Used for
Tourism in New Zealand. Lincoln University Report 55, Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln
University.
Kaikoura District Council (KDC). (2006). Kaikoura Today: what issues are we facing?
Kaikoura District Council Long Term Council Community Plan 2006-2016. pp. 12-26.
Kaikoura, New Zealand: KDC. Available online, retrieved 3/June/2007:
www.kaikoura.govt.nz/docs/Council%20Documents/Annual%20Plans%20and%20Repor
ts/ltccp_kaikoura_today.pdf
Kirkwood, R., Boren, L., Shaughnessy, P., Szteren, D., Mawson, P., Huckstadt, L., Hofmeyr,
G., Oosthuizen, H., Schiavini, A., Campagna, C., & Berris, M. (2003). Pinniped-focused
tourism in the Southern hemisphere: a review of the industry. In N. Gales, M. Hindell and
R. Kirkwood. (Eds.), Marine Mammals: fisheries, tourism, and management issues. (pp.
257-276). Collingwood, VIC, Australia: CSIRO.
Lewis, K., and Barnes, P.M. (1999) Kaikoura Canyon, New Zealand: active conduit from
near-shore sediment zones to trench-axis channel. National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research 162(1), 39-69.
Martinez, A. (2003) Swimming with sea lions: friend or foe? Impacts of tourism on
Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea, at Baird Bay, S.A. BSc Honours Thesis. Flinders
University of South Australia: Adelaide, South Australia.
Orsini, J.P., Shaughnessy, P.D., & Newsome, D. (2006) Impacts of Human Visitors on
Australian Sea Lions (Neophoca cinerea) at Carnac Island, Western Australia:
Implications for Tourism Management. Tourism in Marine Environments 3(2), 101-115.
Orsini J.-P. and D. Newsome (2005) Human perceptions of hauled out Australian sea
lions (Neophoca cinerea) and implications for management: a case study from Carnac
Island, Western Australia. Tourism in Marine Environments 2,23-37.
Shaughnessy, P.D., Nicholls, A.O., & Briggs, S.V. (1999) Interactions between tourists and
wildlife at Montague Island: fur seals, little penguins and crested terns. A report to New
South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO Wildlife
and Ecology.
Simmons, D.G., Horn, C., & Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Summertime visitors to Kaikoura:
characteristics, attractions and activities. Tourism Research and Education Centre Report
No. 3. Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
Taylor, R.H., Barton, K.J., Wilson, P.R., Thomas, B.W., & Karl, B.K. (1995) Population
status and breeding of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) in the Nelsonnorthern Marlborough region, 1991-1994. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 29, 223-234.
World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (1992) Guidelines: development of national parks and
protected areas for tourism. Tourism and the environment. World Tourism Organisation
UNEP-IE/PAC Tech Report No. 13.
Young, K. (1998) Seal Watching in the UK and Republic of Ireland. East Sussex, UK:
International Fund for Animal Welfare.
380
EDUCATING VISITORS TO THE PACIFIC COAST OF
WASHINGTON STATE: INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AND
MARINE TOURISM MANAGEMENT
(Working Paper)
Rachel More Gregg
University of Washington
School of Marine Affairs
3707 Brooklyn Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105
rachelmoregregg@yahoo.com
Keywords: education, tourism management, Washington State
INTRODUCTION
The Pacific coastal strip of Washington State is home to some of the most culturally and
environmentally sensitive areas in the world that are of global, national, state, tribal, and
local significance. The region also hosts a variety of marine and coastal recreational
opportunities for both domestic and international visitors. Recreational activities, in
conjunction with natural processes, make the marine and coastal environment susceptible
to degradation at a wide range of scales to which management professionals (or brokers)
must respond. This study focuses on a small-scale response to improper visitor use and
impact – the dissemination of educational information about environmentally responsible
behaviors.
The impacts of tourist activities can range widely and include noise, air and water
pollution, habitat disturbance, soil erosion and c