The detrimental environmental effects of the touristic sport of scuba diving Essay Example

into the environmental impact of the recreational sport have demonstrated a strong positive correlation between the number of dives and the level of damage to coral communities and conditions at numerous sites around the world (Hassler & Ott, 2008).As a result of the numerous pieces of research from around the world (e.

g. Thailand, Australia, and South Africa), various insightful conclusions have been reached regarding the effect of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs. Harriott et al (2007) found that nearly all divers cause minor damage to corals and other marine biology during a dive. Hassler & Ott (2008) claim that the majority of this damage, however, is inadvertent and Van Treek & Schuhmacher (1999) found that it mainly takes place at sites with higher volumes of divers.Barker & Roberts (2004) carried out a study in which they observed 353 divers in St Lucia during their dives in order to be able to quantify the levels of damage caused and investigate possible preventative measures.

They found that divers usually make direct contact with coral communities by kicking the reef substrate with their flippers, however a smaller percentage of direct contact was also made through "touching and holding with hands". While direct contact with the corals can have serious implications, Barker & Roberts (2004) did note that not all contact leads to enduring damage.According to their research, less than 5% of contacts cause major, permanent damage (for example, coral breakage), and only around half triggered the "re-suspension of sediment", whereas nearly 80% resulted in minor damage (e. g. touches or scrapes).

Despite the fact that these statistics demonstrate a reasonably low amount of 'major damage', the

recreational sport of scuba diving can still, ultimately, prove to be unsustainable if sites welcome a number of divers that surpasses their carrying capacities, as this can result in the regenerative capacity of corals in such locations being exceeded by the levels of damage caused.There exists some debate over the carrying capacity of the various kinds of reefs for recreational scuba diving, and also over the notion of potential 'thresholds' above which diving is unsustainable in the long run (Rouphael & Inglis, 1997). According to Jameson et al (1999), diver carrying capacity is typically shown as a maximum quantity of dives per year in any given location, and demonstrates the quantity of dives that a location can sustainably support with no degradation.This is an extremely useful tool for coral reef management. Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) carried out a study at Eliat in order to determine the impacts of diving tourism.

These coral reefs in the Red Sea are some of the most frequented diving sites in the world, with over a quarter of a million dives per year on less than 12 kilometres of coast. According to their research, carrying capacities of reefs for recreational diving are dependent on a number of different factors that change from site to site.These include the existence of vulnerable species of organisms (Schleyer & Tomalin, 2000), the environmental awareness and technical ability of those participating in the dives (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997), and the existence of additional "anthropogenic stressors" that damage the coral reefs (Hawkins & Roberts, 1997). Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) discovered that at Eliat, sites such as the Japanese Gardens that limit diver access to approximately 4000

dives each year, boast moderately low coral damage rates.Conversely, sites such as the Lighthouse that permit over 8000 dives each year demonstrate coral damage rates of over twice that of the sites mentioned before. From this, it was concluded that a site allowing more than 5000 dives each year will face significant increases in the percentage of damaged corals, and therefore recommended that, given the present standards of diver education and training at Eliat, a threshold of 5000 to 6000 dives each year be installed.

This approximated carrying capacity for reefs is comparable to those suggested by Harriott et al (1997) for Australia, Hawkins and Roberts (1997) for Egypt, and Schleyer and Tomalin (2000) for South Africa. Despite this recommended threshold, Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) found that certain dive sites in Israel carry out more than 30,000 dives per year, leading to approximately 66% of coral colonies being damaged by divers.Similar circumstances exist in certain Marine Parks in the Cayman Islands, whose reefs welcome more than 350,000 divers each year (Tratalos & Austin, 2001). Evidently, even though only a small percentage of these divers may cause a small amount of damage, the cumulative effect can be substantial (Davenport & Davenport, 2006). It is clear that numerous diving locations across the world are experiencing extreme over usage, however the problem is that enforcing a threshold of dives per year at these sites, in order to protect and preserve the environment, is incredibly problematic.This is mainly due to the fact the diving tourism offers a significant portion of income for many developing countries; such as the 11km2 Saba in the Caribbean which generates approximately US$2,000,000 from diving tourism

(Fernandes, 1995).

Although it is apparent that the tourists partaking in recreational scuba diving are one of the main sources of damage to the coral reefs, it is also possible to argue that they may also be the key to reef preservation.Medio et al (1997) attempted to demonstrate this theory by carrying out a study in Ras Mohammed National Park (Sharm el Sheikh, Sinai, Egypt) that examined the impacts of environmental education sessions on the level of damage to corals by recreational scuba divers. Divers were given extensive briefings regarding the potential negative environmental impacts of diving, and informed on which parts of the reef they could come into contact with and which they should not.They found that one 45 minute educational session can help decrease the number of contacts per diver by just over 70%, and simultaneously increase the percentage of intentional contacts ( predominantly aimed at "non-living substrates") to approximately 65%.

Consequently, the number of contacts with living (in contrast to non-living) can be decreased by over 80% per diver.While the results of this research provide a positive outlook on the notion that it is possible to render diving tourism sustainable, it is high unlikely that diving tour operators will be prepared to carry out such in-depth environmental awareness sessions for each tourist group they receive due to various constraints (mainly time). It is also important to recognise that even if divers were to undergo such environmental awareness briefings, it would not necessarily guarantee that all divers would be able to adequately follow the guidelines given to them.Barker & Roberts (2004) carried out additional research on this topic, in which they examined the

effect of "a one-sentence inclusion in a regular dive brie? ng" completed by local dive operators that requested that divers refrain from intentionally coming into contact with the corals.

Their results illustrated that this did not have any effect on the behaviour of the divers on either boat or shore outings. They did, however, find that dive leader intervention can reduce contact rates by more than half.Furthermore, through interviews with dive tourists at St. Lucia, they were able to demonstrate that they actually welcomed the guides' interventions as they had a desire to protect the reef.

These studies highlight the fact that diver supervision coupled with environmental education sessions are two methods that can be implemented to help move the diving tourism industry towards a more sustainable future. Raising tourists' awareness helps them better understand the delicate environmental situation in such areas, and can therefore lead to them internalising the notion of conservation.Therefore, it can be concluded that these techniques permit countries to secure the economic benefits from diving tourism in a more sustainable fashion. Zakai & Chadwick-Furman (2002), as a result of their findings at Eliat, suggested two main reasons for the excessive levels of "diver-damaged corals".

Firstly, the majority of outings involve the schooling of inexperienced divers; and secondly, a large number of certified divers have inadequate underwater proficiencies.Therefore, it is possible to argue that improving the training standards could drastically decrease the amount of damage to the coral communities at any given reef. A problem arises, however, as a result of the high levels of competition within the tourism industry and the typically short duration of many tourists' vacations. This pressures dive

operators to enable the diving experience as quickly as possible, with as few regulations as possible.

As mentioned above though, Barker ; Roberts (2004) found that valued and respected the necessity for such procedures.Another way in which the degradation of the reefs can be minimised is through the creation of artificial reefs that, in time, are able to become part of existing reefs (Wilhelmsson et al, 1998). Van Treeck and Schumacher (1999) agree with this concept, suggesting that not all recreational diving necessarily needs coral reefs and that alternative 3D structures will suffice as substitutes. They claim that this is a possible solution to manage the conflict between the economic and environmental sides of diving tourism.As well as offering inexperienced divers a location at which they can master their underwater skills, such sites would provide a much needed release on the currently oversaturated dive locations, allowing certain countries that are dependent on the income from diving tourism to maintain the economic gains from the industry, at the same time as ensuring the conservation of their respective local marine environments. The measures discussed above all offer solutions to the unsustainability of diving tourism, however they all require a certain amount of capital in order to be implemented.

This can prove to be problematic as governments, particularly in developing nations, will often elect to allocate scarce resources elsewhere. In other words, environmental preservation is regularly viewed as a lower priority than other economic or political issues. A study by Depondt ; Green (2006) shows that Marine Protected Areas around the world are being insufficiently preserved and managed as a result of a lack of funding. Their paper discusses

the concept of "user fee systems", by which tourists contribute financially towards the preservation of the dive sites that they frequent.It could be suggested that as well as creating the opportunity to raise income for the environmental conservation of such sites, raising the price would also reduce the quantity of tourists diving at each location, thus providing a solution to the problem of oversubscription.

The results from Depondt ; Greens' research showed that in South East Asia only 60 out of a total of 433 Marine Protected Areas are presently operating "user fee systems", and in the Caribbean the proportion is even lower with only 17 out of 60 electing to undertake such measures.They also established that the current sums being charged (anywhere from US$1 - 10) were insufficient to cover the environmental costs inflicted by recreational divers. Furthermore, the rates are not standardized, demonstrating a complete absence of regulation at a national level. Schumann et al (2008) found that tourists would be prepared to pay significantly higher fees (over three times more) than those currently required, and moreover, that they would be willing to pay a price that is contingent on the dive quality characteristics (for example, reef quality and fish species variety).These findings clearly highlight the significant un-tapped economic benefits of well-managed "user fee systems".

One of the main issues surrounding this area is that often, the income received through such systems is not invested back into the maintenance and preservation of the park itself. "In Apo Island, an economic analysis revealed that only 3% of gross revenues derived from park fees and donations were reinvested in MPA protection, maintenance, and management" (Cadiz

and Calumpong, 2000).Knowing this, it would be understandable for visiting tourists and the local diving tourism industries alike to be against the prospect of "user fee systems", however Depondt & Green (2006) established that both would gladly accept the introduction of such systems, so long as the revenues were guaranteed to be put back into preservation strategies. The Bonaire Marine Park in the Netherlands is an example of where "user fee systems" are being successfully implemented and managed so as to assure that a large percentage of revenue received from the fees is directed back towards the protection and maintenance of the local natural environment.

Terk & Knowlton (2010) discuss the difficulties, such as administrative costs, that arise in trying to employ and regulate such systems, and could eventually lead to them failing. They suggest that there is a need for an administrative organisation which is responsible for the regulation and collection of user fees, and also for redirecting the revenue back into suitable preservation procedures. This could be combined with the standardised system for user fees put forward by Schumann et al (2008), in which the size of the fee charged is relative to the dive quality characteristics experienced by the tourists.This would ensure that more fragile and rare dive sites would receive a larger income to cover their proportionately higher maintenance and preservation costs, rendering scuba diving more sustainable in such areas. Thailand is an example of a region that has already managed to successfully integrate "user fee systems" into its Marine Protected Areas. However, they have also been able to implement a tier system in which locals are only required to pay a

fraction of the price paid by visitors (Tapsuwan & Asafu-Adjaye, 2008).

To summarize, it is clear that there are a number of factors contributing to the degradation of reefs at locations around the globe which, in turn, is rendering diving tourism unsustainable. There are a large number of dive sites that are exceeding their carrying capacity buy a significant margin which is problematic as, evidently, the more divers there are enjoying the sites, the more probable it is that damage will be incurred.In addition, as discussed by Zakai & Chadwick-Furman (2002), many divers visiting the sites often have insufficient skill or experience, and are often unaware of the negative consequences that their interactions with the marine environment can have. Finally, the management of diving sites is often very ineffective, which allows the two issues mentioned above to persist.

However, it is important to recognise that if carried out in a cultured and well-ordered fashion, dive tourism has the potential to be extremely valuable to both the relative local economies and marine environments alike.Cooper et al (2008) discuss several paths to follow in order to achieve sustainable tourism. Firstly, they suggest placing restrictions on any prospective development of tourism at the given location. With regard to diving tourism, this can be achieved through the introduction of "user fee systems" which indirectly limits the volume of divers at each site while, at the same time, generating revenue that can be invested into protection and preservation programmes.Secondly, Cooper et al (2008) suggest altering the conduct of the stakeholders.

Again with regard to diving tourism, it is possible to change the tourists' behaviour by raising their understanding and awareness of

the environment around them (through briefings such as those discussed earlier), and also by diligent supervision during the dives. Finally, they recommend substituting any existing unsustainable products for those which are sustainable.Artificial reefs or other underwater 3D structures could be used as sustainable substitutes to natural reefs as they provide divers with a lifelike environment in which they are able to learn and develop their skills without damaging living substrata, and also they will aid in relieving pressure on over-subscribed sites. These various techniques above would all contribute to the development of a more sustainable diving tourism industry, however this could only be achieved with the equal support and participation of all the relevant stakeholders within the industry: governments, tourists, and dive operators alike.