Multiple-Use Zoning and Tourism in Marine Protected Areas:
A
Case Study of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park,
Thailand
George S.J. Roman
B.Sc. (Hons.), University of British Columbia, 2001
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Geography,
University of Victoria *
O George S.J. Roman, 2004
University of Victoria
All rights resewed. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
ABSTRACT
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can function to meet conservation, tourism, and fisheries objectives. However, effective MPA planning and management is often constrained by limited institutional capacity, a lack of data, and a lack of knowledge integration. If MPAs are to be useful tools for marine resource management, integrated management plans based on applied research must be designed and documented.
The goal of this study was to reduce conflicts between tourism and conservation at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand, by drafting a multiple-use zoning plan. Two studies were conducted to provide the basis for the draft zoning plan. The first study, a coral reef field survey, assessed differences among sites for four criteria: trampling vulnerability, coral life form diversity, coral reef sizes, and suitability for restoring degraded branching Acropora spp. corals (which are threatened throughout much of their range and provide important habitat for many species). The second study administered a survey in four languages to 275 respondents taking part in organized snorkelling tours, and assessed visitor satisfaction, differences in perceptions between subgroups of people, and "Limits of Acceptable Change" (LAC) for social and biophysical indicators of high-quality snorkelling experiences.
Six key management recommendations were derived from the coral reef field study and the visitor survey. First of all, a Conservation Zone with tourism and fisheries strictly prohibited should be designated at a site with high vulnerability to trampling, high coral life form diversity, the largest coral reef size, and suitable areas for restoring Acropora spp.. Second, a Restoration Zone, with tourism and fisheries strictly prohibited, should be designated at a heavily degraded site with large amounts of dead Acropora spp.. Third, Tourism Zones should be established and promoted for intensive snorkelling at two sites deep enough to prevent snorkellers from trampling corals, yet shallow enough to permit people floating on the surface to view coral reefs. Fourth, all other snorkelling and diving sites should be designated as Ecotourism Zones managed for more peaceful settings, characterized by fewer people (LAC: 30 people max.), fewer boats (LAC: two boats max.), and smaller boats. Ecotourism Zones are likely to be particularly important for satisfying European and North American tourists, who were shown to be more sensitive to crowding than most Thai visitors. Fifth, the following LAC standards for coral conditions should be applied within both Ecotourism and Tourism Zones: (i) proportion of dead corals<40%, (ii) patches of dead corals<25 m2. Finally, 'no-take' zones should be enforced w i t h both Ecotourism Zones and Tourism Zones, in order to contribute towards conservation and restoration objectives, reduce visitor exposure to fishing gear, enhance visitor safety, enhance fish
community aesthetics, and improve satisfaction among visitors with a lot of previous experience snorkelling.
This draft zoning plan should be combined with visitor education and nature interpretation programs, fisheries considerations, and improved management of coastal tourism development and aquaculture. Extensive public review is also required, and co-management and adaptive management approaches should be taken during plan implementation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST OF TABLES
x
LIST OF APPENDICES xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. CORAL REEFS, MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AND TOURISM 1 1.2. CASE STUDIES: MPA ZONING AND TOURISM 4 1.2.1. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, AUSTRALIA 4
1.2.2. BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA 6
1.2.3. MAPUTALAND 1 ST.LUCIA MARINE RESERVES, SOUTH AFRICA-7 1.3. MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND 8 1.4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND THESIS OUTLINE 18
CHAPTER 2: ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION 19
2.1 : LITERATURE REVIEW 19
2.1.1. IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL TRAMPLING ON CORAL REEFS 19 2.1.2. CORAL REEF DEGRADATION AND TOURIST TRAMPLING:
SCAPEGOAT OR IMPORTANT IMPACT? 2 1
2.1.3 : MANAGING TRAMPLING IMPACTS ON CORAL REEFS 23 2.1.4. ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION:
ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA 25
2.1.4.1. TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY 25
2.1.4.2. DIVERSITY 26
2.1.4.3. CORAL REEF AREA 27
2.1.4.4. HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR A CROPORA SPP. 27
2.1.4.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 3 0
2.2. METHODS 31
2.2.1. GENERAL SITE SURVEYS 3 1
2.2.2. THE LINE INTERCEPT TRANSECT (LIT) TECHNIQUE 3 1
2.2.3. DATA COLLECTION AT KOH CHANG 32
2.2.4. DATA PROCESSING AND DATA ANALYSIS 35
2.2.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 3 6
2.3. RESULTS 37
2.3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 37
2.3.2. RESULTS: TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY 40
2.3.3. RESULTS: CORAL MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 4 1
2.3.4. RESULTS: CORAL REEF AREA 43
2.3.5. RESULTS: SUITABILITY FOR RESTORATION OF ACROPORA S P P . 4 4
2.3.6. RESULTS: MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 46
2.4. DISCUSSION 47
2.4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION ZONES 47
2.4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORATION 47
2.4.4. BENEFITS OF THE CORAL REEF FIELD SURVEY 49 2.4.5. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH 49
vii
CHAPTER 3: ZONING CORAL REEFS TO MANAGE VISITOR EXPERIENCES 53
3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW 53
3.1.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 53
3.1.1.1. BIOPHYSICAL SETTING PREFERENCES 54
3.1.1.2. SOCIAL SETTING PREFERENCES 5 5
3.1.1.3. MANAGERIAL SETTING PREFERENCES 5 6
3.1.2. VISITOR DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING 5 7 3.1.3. MPA ZONING AND VISITOR MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS 5 8 3.1.3.1 : MARINE RESOURCE OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM ( M R O S ) 5 9 3.1.3 -2: LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC) 6 1
3.2: METHODS 64
3.2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN 64
3.2.2. SAMPLING DESIGN 65
3.2.3. DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS 6 8
3.3. RESULTS 70
3.3.1. DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 70
3.3.2. MULTIVARIATE TEST FOR 'OVERALL SATISFACTION' 77
3.3.3. EFFECT OF EXPERIENCE LEVEL 77
3.3.4. EFFECT OF SITE LOCATION 80
3.3.5. CORALS: VISITOR PERCEPTIONS VS. MEASURED CONDITIONS 82 3.3.6. CROWDING: VISITOR PERCEPTIONS VS. MEASURED CONDITIONS-85
3.3.7. EFFECT OF NATIONALITYICULTURE 8 7
3.4. DISCUSSION 89
3.4.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION, THE "TOURIST AREA CYCLE
OF EVOLUTION", AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING 8 9
3.4.2. ENHANCING VISITOR SATISFACTION 90
3.4.3. CORAL CONDITIONS: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING 91
3.4.4. CROWDING: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING 93
3.4.5. MROS, LAC, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING
AND
ZONING AT KOH CHANG 94
3.5.6. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 96
3.5.6.1. FISH COMMUNITIES 96
3.5.6.2. BEACHES AND UNINHABITED ISLANDS 97
3.5.6.3. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS: POTENTIAL AND P I T F A L L S 9 8 3.5.6.4. EQUITY IN THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF MPA TOURISM?-99
3.5.7. BENEFITS OF THE VISITOR SURVEY 99
3.5.8. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 99
. . .
VlllCHAPTER 4: SYNTHESIS & CONCLUSIONS 103
4.1. A DRAFT MULTIPLE-USE CORAL REEF ZONING PLAN FOR THE
MU KOHCHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND 103
4.1.1. ZONING TO ACHIEVE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES 103
4.1.2. ZONING TO ACHIEVE TOURISM OBJECTIVES 108
4.2. NATURE INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR EDUCATION 110
4.3. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 112
4.3.1. CONTRIBUTIONS 112
4.3.2. LIMITATIONS 115
4.4. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PLANNING 116
4.4.1. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 116
4.4.2. LAND-BASED THREATS 118
4.4.3. PUBLIC REVIEW OF PLANS 119
4.4.4. CO-MANAGEMENT 120
4.5. CONCLUSIONS 121
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 4.1Maputaland MPA: Coral Reef Habitat Mapping and Zoning 7
Map of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 9
Map of hard coral genera diversity in Southeast Asia 10 OCESD Zoning Plan for Tourism Development at Koh Chang 17 Vulnerability of different coral morphologies to trampling 2 1 A model for managing trampling impacts on coral reefs 25
Dead Acropora spp. at Koh Chang 29
Relationship between ecological criteria, protection priorities,
and MPA zoning 3 0
Schematic diagram of a transect 32
Composition of benthic communities at each reef 38 Mean proportional cover of hard corals at each reef 4 1 Mean coral morphological diversity (mH7) at each reef 42 Mean coral morphological diversity (rnH7) within each region 43 Mean proportional cover of dead branching Acropora spp. at each reef 45 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system 62 Action Grid : Importance (Ql) vs. Satisfaction (Q2) 75 Mangroves destroyed by road construction near Khlong Phrao 119
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12a Table 3.12b Table 3 . 1 2 ~ Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15 Table 4.1 Table 4.2New draft zoning plan, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 5 Thailand's National Coral Reef Strategy: zoning policy 15 Natural vs. diver-induced damage inflicted on coral reef benthos
in South Africa 21
Major declines of Acropora spp.,
based on paleoecological and ecological data 29
Life form categories and codes 3 3
Intensity of sampling at reefs surveyed by Line Intercept Transect 35 Taxonomic identification of corals at Koh Chang 3 9
Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis 46
The Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) 60 Sampling intensity within regions and sites,
and roving vs non-roving tours by location 69 Description of the sample: visitor characteristics 69 Responses for Overall Satisfaction (Q3),
Intention to Return (413)' & Intention to Recommend (414) 7 1 Responses to Q1: importance of biophysical features 72 Responses to 42: satisfaction with biophysical features 73
Ranking of problem conditions (44) 76
Amount of previous experience snorkelling (Q5) 76 Multiple-factor ANOVA for Overall Satisfaction (43) 7 8 Influence of experience level on visitor responses 79 ANOVA: Influence of site location on satisfaction scores (42) 8 1 Coral mortality: visitor perceptions (Q4D) vs. measured conditions 82 Coral diversity: visitor perceptions (Q2G) vs. measured conditions 8 3 Coral conditions: visitor perceptions (Q2D) vs. measured conditions 84 Crowding: visitor perceptions (Q4E) vs.
measured number of other snorkellers 8 6
Visitor perceptions of crowding: effects of nationality 8 8 Effect of culture on Intention to Return (Q1 3) and
Intention to Recommend (414) 88
Coral reef zoning policy recommendations for the
Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 106
LIST
OF
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX JEstimated number of people per year taking day-trip snorkelling
tours in the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 142 Estimated number of logged SCUBA dives in the
Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 143
Publications on the effects of physical trampling on
coral reef ecosystems 144
Sample Line Intercept Transect data sheet 146 Line Intercept Transect (LIT) data sampling strategy 147 Formulae for calculating site morphological diversity (mH')
and Coral Mortality Index (CMI) 149
LIT sata summaries 150
Visitor survey questionnaire and response summaries 15 1 Structure of the visitor sample: exploratory statistical analyses 162
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIMS-Australian Institute of Marine ScienceANOVA-Analysis of Variance
CIDA-Canadian International Development Agency CMI-Coral Mortality Index
GBRMP-Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
GBRMPA-Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GLM-General Linear Model
GPS-Global Positioning System
HSD-Honest Significant Difference (Tukey post-hoc test in ANOVA)
IUCN-International Union for the Conservation of Nature / World Conservation Union IPAG-Importance-Performance Action Grid
ISAG-Importance-Satisfaction Action Grid LAC-Limit of Acceptable Change
LIT-Line Intercept Transect
mH'-Shannon-Weaver Coral Morphological Diversity Index MCA-Multi-Criteria Analysis
MKCNMP-Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park (Thailand) MNRE-Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (Thailand) MPA-Marine Protected Area
MROS-Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum MTS-Ministry of Tourism & Sports (Thailand) NCRS-National Coral Reef Strategy (Thailand)
OCESD-Office of the Committee on Economic & Social Development (Thailand) OEPP-Office of Environmental Protection and Policy (Thailand)
ONEB-Office of the National Environment Board (Thailand)
PEMSEA-Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia PP-'Protection Priority'
ROS-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
RFD-(former) Royal Forest Department (Thailand) RTN-Royal Thai Navy
SCUBA-Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SPSS-Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TAT-(former) Tourism Authority of Thailand UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization WBD-White Band Disease
WCED-World Commission on Environment and Development WTO-World Tourism Organization
...
X l l l
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Philip Dearden, for providing useful feedback and comments, and financial and logistical support. Thanks also to the SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), and PAD1 'Project Aware7, for helping to fund my field research. Many thanks to Dr. Rick Rollins: your eager and tireless editing and review has been much appreciated. Thanks also to my other thesis committee members, Dr. Rosaline Canessa and Dr. John Nelson, and to the external examiner, Dr. Tom Reimchen, for providing thoughtful suggestions. I also owe much gratitude to my two enthusiastic volunteer field assistants, Josh Malt and Rocky Lis. Thanks are also due to Dr. Surachet and Dr. Dachanee at Kasetsart University, for helpful advice, and for allowing me access to their facilities. Thanks also to Sitthichai, Mu, and other staff at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, especially for providing me with the research vessel. Thanks to Choomjet for help with the bureaucracy of research permits, and to staff at the former Royal Forest Department headquarters, the Office of Environmental Protection and Policy, and the Royal Thai Navy, as well as Dr. Thammasak Yeemin, Chinorost Booncherm, and Kanjana, for pointing me towards many useful papers, charts, and advice. Thanks to Ole for Figure 1.2. Thanks also to Marut, Jip, Kathy, Adrian, and Jay, for help with translations.
Without the support of family and friends, I probably would have never completed this thesis. I owe much gratitude to Dawn, for making me laugh and for convincing me that my efforts were not useless during my darkest days of thesis frustrations and doubts. Thanks also to Mike, Jay, Mike, and John, for not allowing me to forget my roots as my life took me through four continents. Thanks to Kecia, Brian, and April, for giving a homeless man a temporary place to stay in Victoria. Many thanks also to my parents, as well as Irene, Susan, Domenic, and Lucie.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. CORAL REEFS,
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AND TOURISM
Described as 'rainforests of the sea', coral reefs are incredibly diverse, highly productive ecosystems that provide habitat to hundreds of thousands of species worldwide (Karlson 1999, Nybakken 2000). The global 'hotspot' for coral reef biodiversity is centred around Indonesia and the Phillipinnes in Southeast Asia (Roberts 2002). Coral reefs in this region also provide a wide array of ecosystem goods and services, including food, employment, tourism, recreational and aesthetic values, shoreline protection, and pharmaceuticals, with total values estimated to be as high as US$1.5 trillion (Ruitenbeek and Cartier 2000, Burke et al. 2002).
Unfortunately, coral reefs are highly threatened by overfishing, destructive fishing practices (e.g.. : bombs, cyanide, muro-arni, etc.), global change (e. g. : bleaching, reduced calcification rates, sea level rise), pollution, disease, tourism, and interactions between multiple stressors (Wilkinson 1998, Hughes et al. 2003, Pandolfi et al. 2003, Bellwood et al. 2004). Reefs in Southeast Asia are under a particularly high degree of threat, with recent estimates indicating that 11% of coral reefs have already been destroyed, 48% are in 'critical' condition, and 80% could 'collapse' within the next 20 years (Burke et al. 2002, PEMSEA 2002).
The establishment and effective management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can function as a key action to conserve coral reefs and their associated values (Salm et al. 2000, Lubchenco et al. 2003, Pandolfi et al. 2003). MPAs include "any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been resewed by legislation to protect part or all of the enclosed environment", and can range from strict 'no-take' reserves to biosphere reserves zoned for multiple uses (IUCN, 1988; Kelleher, 1999). However, despite the fact that many MPAs have been legislated around the world, and in Southeast Asia in particular (UP-MSI et al. 2002), the majority of these are simply 'paper parks' which fail to meet their management objectives (Alder
1996, Burke et al. 2002).
Although management failures in MPAs stem primarily from ineffective institutions and inadequate community support for restricting fishing (Alder 1996, McClanahan 1999b, Walmsley and White 2003), in many MPAs, tourism is also a significant source of coral reef degradation.
Negative environmental impacts of coral reef tourism can include (ESCAP 1995, Nowlis et al. 1997, Wong 1998, UNEP 2003, Mumby et al. 2004):
Physical impacts, due to anchoring, trampling on corals, destruction of linked habitats such as mangroves, etc.
Pollution, caused by sewage disposal, litter, sediment mobilization due to construction, sunscreen, etc.
Depletion of resources (i.e.: groupers, snappers, shells, etc.) due to tourist demand.
Conversely, meeting conservation objectives with environmental regulations can negatively impact the tourism industry, due to restrictions on development, reduced profitability of tourism, reduced visitor satisfaction, and reduced employment.
Yet, despite the potential for these negative conflicts, under certain conditions, the relationship between tourism and conservation can take the form of a positive symbiosis (Budowski 1976). Potential symbiotic relationships between coral reef conservation and tourism include:
Conservation can maintain or increase the aesthetic quality of tourism attractions; therefore, conservation can often enhance visitor satisfaction and increase the long-term economic competitiveness of tourism destinations (Mihalic 2000, Huybers and Bennett 2003);
0 Tourism can provide alternative livelihoods to coastal fishing communities, thus
providing economic incentives for conservation, and helping to reduce dependence on fisheries for meeting local subsistence and developmental needs (Brandon 1996, Gilman 1997, Brown 2002);
Tourism can increase the ecological awareness of visitors; this can function to galvanize public support for protected areas and conservation, pollution control and environmental legislation, and can promote behaviour and lifestyles changes, such as reduced consumption, increased recycling, consumer demand for certified "green" products, and stimulating participation in environmental stewardship initiatives (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Stem and Dietz 1994, Orams 1999, Driver and Bruns 2001);
0 Tourism can contribute directly towards local conservation initiatives, through financial contributions or volunteer labour of visitors (Ziffer 1989, Dharmaratne et al. 2000, Driver and Bruns 2001).
Therefore, a major challenge that MPA managers should strive to achieve is to minimize negative conflicts between tourism and conservation, while maximizing the positive symbioses. Meeting this challenge requires careful planning and management, based on specific objectives, and case-specific, well-focused, and effective management tools.
Although there is no simple panacea for achieving this, multiple-use zoning has emerged as a key tool for meeting multiple management objectives and integrating several perspectives related to tourism and conservation in MPAs (Agardy 1993, Laffoley 1995, Salm et al. 2000). MPA zoning plans subdivide a managed area into two or more sub-areas, define classes of activities, and specify which activities are permitted and prohibited within each delineated area (Kenchington and Kelleher 1995).
Many protected area managers rely heavily on zoning. For example, Parks Canada uses zoning as the primary tool to accommodate a range of visitors, whilst striving to maintain the ecological integrity of Canada's National Parks (Parks Canada 1994). In MPAs, multiple-use zoning is often the chief tool for integrating a variety of perspectives and meeting multiple objectives pertaining to conservation, tourism, and fisheries (Agardy 1993, Dugan and Davis 1993, Russ and Alcala 1999, Gladstone 2000, Villa et al. 2002, GBRMPA 2003a). Carefully designed MPA zoning plans can protect ecological integrity and sensitive natural areas, ensure sustainable exploitation of marine resources, separate conflicting uses, buffer ecosystems against impacts originating in adjacent areas, and provide a range of diverse tourism and recreation opportunities (Laffoley, 1995; Salm et al., 2000; GBRMPA, 2001 a). Coral reefs are particularly good candidates for zoning, due to their clear boundaries and relatively tight within-reef ecological links (Agardy 2000). With respect to tourism, MPA zoning plans can restrict access to environmentally sensitive areas, redirect visitors to sites that are less vulnerable, and provide distinct social settings in different zones to meet the expectations of a diverse range of visitors (Orams 1 999).
Formulating an MPA zoning plan should follow a participatory planning process, consisting of 5 steps (Kelleher 1999): (1) initial information gathering and preparation, (2) public participation or consultation prior to preparation of a plan, (3) preparation of a draft plan, (4) public participation and consultation to review the draft plan, and (5) finalization of the plan.
During step (I), numerous types of information categories should be gathered. Biophysical data on oceanography, water quality, habitats, dispersal ecology of biota, coral community dynamics, species diversity, and minimum critical sizes for conservation zones are all useful types of information. Socioeconomic data on fisheries, tourism, rural development, and community-based management should also be collected. However, in practice, due to the large
amount of data needed, zoning plans will always be a work in progress that should to be continually reassessed and readjusted over time, based on the principles of adaptive management (Walters 1986, Ludwig et al. 1993).
1.2. CASE STUDIES: MPA ZONING'AND TOURISM
Each MPA must design its own zoning plans, based on the unique contextual elements of local ecosystems, human resource use patterns, and institutions. This section describes how researchers and administrators in three case study MPAs have used zoning as a strategy to manage coral reef tourism.
1.2.1. GREAT BARRIER REEF
MARINE PARK, AUSTRALIA
SOURCES: (Kenchington 1989, Craik 1992, GBRMPA 1992, Craik 1996, AMSA 2003, WWF 2003, GBRMPA 2003a, GBRMPA 2003b, GBRMPA 2003c, GBRMPA 2003d)
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site off the coast of Queensland, Australia. It encompasses over 344,000 km2, including the largest system of coral reefs in the world (The Great Barrier Reef), as well as inshore waters on the continental shelf, and oceanic areas of the Coral Sea.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975 contains regulations which guide the establishment and ongoing management of the GBRMP, including the development of zoning plans. Information on ecology, oceanography, stakeholder needs, and accessibility are used to design zoning plans within several administrative sections of the park. Although zoning plans for the MPA focus primarily on managing and controlling extractive resource use, issues pertaining to tourism are also included.
Tourism is a significant activity on the Great Barrier Reef and an important economic sector. In 2002, 1.6 million tourists entered the GBRMP, contributing over AUD$4 billion in benefits to the regional economy. Although the majority of tourists visited sites which constitute less than 5% of the MPA, certain reefs received over 80,000 visitors per year, resulting in conflicts between conservation and tourism at popular sites (Valentine et al. 1997). The multiple- use zoning plans are intended to provide a range of tourism and recreational opportunities in the GBRMP, while minimizing tourism's impacts on the marine environment.
Zoning in the GBRMP follows an extensive participatory and consultative planning methodology. Currently (late 2003), the entire GBRMP is being rezoned, and preliminary plans are under review after consultations with stakeholders and the public. The new Draft Zoning Plan
calls for 7 basic zoning categories, including: General Use Zones, Habitat Protection Zones, Conservation Park Zones, Buffer Zones, Scientific Research Zones, Marine National Park Zones, and Preservation Zones. Table 1.1 summarizes policies attached to each type of zone.
Table 1.1 New Draft Zoning Plan, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(Source: GBRMP, 2003J3
Although the majority of reefs in the GBRMP remain open to tourism, Preservation Zones prohibit virtually all access, including tourism (Table 1 .I), to keep these areas in a natural state, undisturbed by human activities. Permits for access to Preservation Zones are issued only in the case of research which cannot be conducted elsewhere. For all other zones, although tourism and recreation is permitted (Table 1.1), any commercial outfit offering guided tours must obtain permits. This policy helps to ensure standard codes of practice and to facilitate the development of environmental education programs (Table 1 .I). At the scale of individual islands or patch reefs, site-specific zoning plans are often put in place to minimize visitor impacts on coral reefs and address conflicts between different user types.
The GBRMPA has also designated Remote Natural Area 1 No Structure Subzones, where no pontoons or permanent mooring facilities are allowed, and all motorised water sports are prohibited. These zones provide opportunities for quiet appreciation and enjoyment of nature within areas unaltered by infrastructure or facilities.
1.2.2. BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA
SOURCE: Salm et al. (2000)
Zoning was used as the primary management tool to meet both tourism and conservation objectives in the Bunaken National Marine Park, Indonesia. In the early 1980s, coral reefs in the MPA were surveyed to determine which were best suited for either tourism or conservation. Several criteria for both tourism and conservation values were developed, and for each criterion, reefs were assigned scores. The 'tourism value' of each reef was based upon aesthetics, safety, accessibility, and fishing activity. The 'conservation value' of each reef was based upon habitat variety, unique coral habitat, coral cover, coral diversity, and intactness. Conservation Zones were defined around coral reefs with the highest 'conservation values,' while Tourism Zones were defined around coral reefs with the highest 'tourism values'. At sites with intermediate scores, the zoning plan suggested a low level of tourism, combined with conservation.
Since the implementation of this original zoning plan, it was recognized that the needs of local peoples had been overlooked, which had resulted in incursions into Conservation Zones and resource extraction from these areas. To help address these problems, the entire park was rezoned in 1991, and local villagers and fishermen participated in the planning process to ensure that their resource needs could be met by the plan. In addition, to enhance the capacity for enforcement, Conservation Zones were smaller, and were placed closer to villages so that communities themselves could effectively monitor areas and enforce regulations. This participatory technique fostered a sense of ownership over the planning process among local communities, which, in turn, greatly enhanced the effectiveness of the zoning plan.
1.2.3.
MAPUTALAND/ST.LUCIA MARINE RESERVES, SOUTH AFRICA
(Source: Riegl and Riegl (I 996))Riegl & Riegl (1996) suggested that coral reef habitat sensitivity be used as the basis for zoning to mitigate the impacts of dive tourism in the Maputaland / St.Lucia Marine Reserves, South Africa. Surveys mapped coral community structure in different parts of the MPA, and cluster analysis identified 5 basic habitat types: reefs dominated by Montipora spp., reefs dominated by branching Acropora spp., reefs dominated by sponges (phylum: Porifera), and reefs dominated by soft corals (order: Alcyonacea). Combining this data with oceanographic information on source/sink reefs, they suggested that a habitats dominated by sensitive Acropora spp. at '4-Mile Reef should be designated as a restricted area, with no access for tourism (Fig. 1.1).
Figure 1.1
Maputaland MPA: Coral Reef Habitat Mapping and Zoning
1.3.
MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND
The island of Koh Chang (102'22' E, 11'59'
N),
Trad Province, Thailand, is situated in the Gulf of Thailand about 8 km from the mainland, close to the Cambodian border (Fig. 1.2). The island is roughly 30 km long and 14krn
wide, and is the second largest island in Thailand after Phuket (RFD 1996). The climate is tropical monsoonal. Total annual rainfall is estimated at over 4700 rnm per year, 90% of which falls from May to October during the southwest monsoon (Thai Meteorological Department 2003). The geology of the area consists of granitic rock and mountain peaks, the highest of which is Khao Yai at 743m elevation. Mountain slopes are covered with dense, mostly undisturbed Tropical Evergreen forest; low-lying coastal areas consist of Beach Forest, and Mangrove Forest in areas of brackish water (RFD 1996).The Koh Chang archipelago consists of the main island of Koh Chang, as well as Koh Maak, Koh Kood, and over 52 surrounding smaller islands (Fig.l.2). The official boundaries of the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park (MKCNMP) encompass over 650 km2, including a protected terrestrial component that includes Koh Chang and over 40 smaller islands, and 494 km2 of marine habitats, all protected by legislation as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) since 1982 (RFD 1996) (Fig. 1.2). Marine 'seascape ecology' in the area consists of a complex 3-dimensional array of coral reef, mangrove, seagrass, mudflat, and sandy, rocky and pelagic habitats, all linked by oceanographic currents and mobile organisms.
Marine species diversity in the area is relatively high. Fish diversity in the Gulf of Thailand is approximately 323 species in 59 families, and scleractinian coral diversity is roughly 90 species (Satapoomin 2002). Biogeographic patterns of coral genera diversity show that Thailand is close to the world's 'hotspot' for scleractinian coral diversity, which is centred around the Philippines and Indonesia (Veron 1986) (Fig.l.3). Many other marine taxa also reach peak diversity values in the region. For example, there are an estimated 20 species of seagrass, 125 species of shrimp, and 38 species of sea snakes in Southeast Asia (Chou 1997, PEMSEA 2002).
Figure 1.2 Map of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand. Arrows in the detailed insets indicate day-trip snorkelling sites. The dotted line delineates the official boundary of the MPA.
Coral reefs inside the MKCNMP total approximately 75
km
in length and 5 km2 in area (Department of Fisheries 1999). Reefs which surround the main island of Koh Chang are generally in poor condition, due to natural conditions of high freshwater runoff, as well as pollution, bleaching, fishing, and tourism. Shallow (2-5 m depth) fringing reefs surrounding the northern and eastern aspects of smaller islands in the archpelago are in better condition (Department of Fisheries 1999). Due to exposure to the southwest monsoon, southern and western aspects of islands are mainly rocky with sparse coral communities (Phongsuwan 2000). There are also several underwater pinnacles in the area where reef depth drops to 15m or more.Figure 1.3 Map of hard coral genera diversity in southeast Asia. Lines indicate biogeographic boundaries for coral genera #
(Modzjied from Veron (1 986)).
Most of the local inhabitants of Koh Chang have been traditional fishermen, and subsistence and commercial fishing in the area remains common (Lunn 2003). Several shrimp farms now exist in the southeast district of Koh Chang and at Haad Kai Bae. However, monitoring has not yet shown any marine water quality problems due to aquaculture (OEPP 2001).
Comprehensive information on the collection of shells for the ornamental trade and tropical fishes for the aquarium trade is lacking (UP-MSI et al. 2002). Although these activities do not appear to be widespread, there have been reports of illegal dynamite fishing, fishing with
toxic chemicals, and aquarium fish collection on coral reefs in Trad Province, including the Koh Chang archipelago (Yeemin et al. 1999a). Fishing or by-catch of endangered species, including turtle, dolphin, dugong, and shark, also may be occurring, but information is unavailable (UP- MSI et al. 2002).
A major recent change in marine resource use is that fish, shellfish, and invertebrates can now be sold directly to restaurants serving extensive tourist markets on the islands of Koh Chang, Koh Maak, Koh Kood, and resorts on the smaller islands.
Tourism activity in the area is relatively intense and growing rapidly. Often described as a tropical island paradise for the Bangkok-weary and foreign tourists, more than 400,000 tourists visited the island in 2002, and these numbers are growing rapidly (Anonymous 2003). Visitors to the island have fuelled a boom in the tourism industry, and a mushrooming of tourism infrastructure. Bungalows, hotels, shops, restaurants, banks, bars, and tour agencies have sprouted all over the prime waterfront beach areas on the western side of the island. At the end of 2002, there were an estimated 92 hotel and bungalow operations offering over 2200 rooms on Koh Chang (Koh Chang guide map 2002, Anonymous 2003). Including tourism operations on Koh Maak, Koh Kradad, and Koh Kuud (which lie just outside the MPA), there are over 120 tourist accommodation businesses offering over 2900 rooms in the area (Koh Chang guide map 2002, Anonymous 2003). These numbers have more than tripled over the period 1999-2002 (Anonymous 2003). Although many resorts are currently owned and operated by local people, extensive land speculation and international investments in the construction and planning of luxury hotels and resorts has occurred. One of the world's major investors in tourism and property, Sun City Group, has been active in the region (Waewklaihong 2002).
The domestic tourism market at Koh Chang accounts for over half of all visitors, with the international market making up the remainder (OCESD 2002). Visitation by Asian tourists, especially from China, is predicted to grow rapidly in the near future (OCESD 2002).
Tourists access Koh Chang either by ferry from one of three piers near Laem Ngop town on the mainland. Transport to the pier is either direct from Bangkok via private vehicle or minibus (4-6 hours), via shared taxi from Trad City to Laem Ngop (20 minutes), or via shuttle from the brand new Trad airport (30 minutes), which began operations in June 2003 and offers direct flights from Bangkok International Airport (Bangkok Airways 2003). Longer-term plans are to establish direct air links with Cambodia and possibly southern Thailand and Malaysia (OCESD, 2002).
All industries related to tourism, including construction, restaurant, retail, transportation, and tours, currently dominate the economic and social landscape of Koh Chang. Environmental
impacts resulting from tourism developments are readily observable in many locations. Mangrove clearing, the withdrawal of water supplies directly from streams within park land, seawall construction at inappropriate locations, road construction impacting forests and lagoons, aesthetic deterioration due to insensitive infrastructure design and increased road traffic, and untreated sewage disposal into the ocean are all apparent. Water shortages and garbage pileups have also been problems (Anonymous 2003).
Tourism developments are located primarily within the narrow zone of private lands along the western shoreline of Koh Chang, encompassing Haad Sai Khao (Whlte Sand Beach), Khlong Phrao Beach, Kai Bae Beach, Haad Tha Naam (Lonely Beach), and Bang Bao (Fig.l.2). These private lands are embedded within National Park territories, and officially consist of areas occupied by local inhabitants when the protected area was designated in 1982. In several areas, people have illegally encroached on park land, and some of these have been charged with trespassing (Wangvipula 2003). However, powerful, influential people appear to be beyond such laws: one influential figure filled a public canal and sold it to a major investor (Susanpoolthong and Hutasingh 2002). Another landowner transformed a public canal into a private lagoon, reclaimed part of the sea, and destroyed mangroves, yet he still operates his resort and there have been no legal proceedings against him, despite two warnings from National Park officials (Susanpoolthong and Hutasingh 2002). These incidents seem to indicate that skyrocketing land values and a lingering problem of corruption in Thailand (Lambsdorff 2003) seem to be combining in undesirable ways at Koh Chang. As a result, whether the original boundaries of the protected area have been maintained is questionable. Lending strength to such an impression is the fact that in the past, Trad's provincial governor called for law changes to allow park development, due to worries that investors won't come to the island (Waewklaihong 1998).
Marine tourism and recreation in the MKCNMP is highly seasonal, due to rough seas and stormy weather from May to October during the southwest monsoon. Most marine tourism occurs during November to April. Besides swimming near the developed tourist beaches, marine tourism consists mainly of organized snorkelling tours, as well as small amounts of SCUBA diving, sea kayaking, and hook-and-line recreational fishing for barracuda and grouper. 'Snuba' is not yet being offered in the area.
Snorkelling trips in the MPA are popular with both Thais and foreigners. Principal sites visited by these tours are shown in Fig. 1.2. Many sites in the Central and Northern parts of the MPA are close to the developed tourist beaches on the western side of Koh Chang, while the southern area is accessed either from Koh Maak (which is also developing rapidly), or by longer full-day trips from Koh Chang. The most popular coral reef for snorkelling tours is Koh Yuak in
the Central area (Fig.l.2) (Appendix A), due mainly to its high accessibility from the developed beaches of Khlong Phrao and Haad Sai Khao. During peak holiday periods, over 170 tourists have been observed at Koh Yuak (Appendix A).
The total number of people snorkelling and SCUBA diving in the MPA remains uncertain (S. Seeresongsaeng, personal communication, 2003). However, based on personal observations and semi-stmctured interviews with tour operators, rough extrapolations place the current number of day-trip snorkellers in the MPA at approximately 30,000 per year (see Appendix A), and the total number of dives per year at just under 9,000 (Appendix B). Assuming these dives are spread evenly across the ten major dive sites, on average there are less than 1000 dives per year at each dive site in the MPA. As there are up to 20 or more dive sites in the MPA, at most sites the true number of dives is probably even lower.
Tourism in the MPA has damaged coral reefs due to anchoring of tour boats, as well as snorkeller and diver trampling impacts (Dept. of Fisheries 1999) (see Chapter 2). Installation of mooring buoys throughout the MPA has mostly solved the problem of anchor damage*. However, visitor trampling impacts essentially remain unmanaged in the MPA. Tourism is allowed to occur anywhere in the MPA, and no formal nature interpretation or visitor education programs are in place.
For the foreseeable future, intensive tourism development at Koh Chang is likely to proceed (Taemsamran 2002, Samabuddhi 2002a, Sarnabuddhi 2002b). For example, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (now amalgamated into the new Ministry of Tourism and Sports) has stated that the number of visitors per year to Koh Chang should be doubled fiom 400,000 to 800,000 (Anonymous, 2003). Yet, there are many tourism plans and policies at Koh Chang that aim to avoid some of the negative ecological and social impacts that have accompanied tourism development at other coastal areas of Thailand (Cohen 1996, Sarnabuddhi 2002b).
First of all, the area is officially designated as a Marine National Park, and is officially managed according to the National Parks Act of 1961, which states that National Parks are to be preserved in their natural state for the public's education and enjoyment (UPI-MSI et al., 2002).
More specific mandates of the park include (Chettamart and Emphandhu 2002, RFD 2002): to preserve and protect coastal and marine ecosystems and biological resources;
to provide education, research, recreation, and tourism opportunities in a sustainable fashion; and
to undertake and utilize research to update management plans for each National Park.
Another important policy for coral reefs in Thailand is the National Coral Reef Strategy (NCRS), which was approved by cabinet in 1992 (Yeemin et al. 2001), and includes a zoning policy (Table 1.2). The NCRS provides a solid legislative basis for multiple-use zoning of coral reefs, including an emphasis on tourism management. However, at Koh Chang the zoning process has still not been formally and systematically applied (S. Seereesongsaeng, personal communication).
Another publication relevant to tourism at Koh Chang is: "A Study to Determine the Pattern of Marine Ecotourism Management " (TISTR 1998). This study provided specific
recommendations for the Koh Chang archipelago, which was ranked as the third highest priority nationwide as a marketable ecotourism destination (TISTR, 1998). Key recommendations in the report included:
ecotourism should create awareness among all concerned parties of the need to conserve marine ecosystems;
ecotourism zone; should be demarcated at tourism destinations; tourism routes should be set up;
the boundaries of selected areas for ecotourism-specific purposes should be identified clearly;
standards should be designated to classify tourism resources for ecotourism purposes; ecological investigations should be carried out before zoning; and
ecotourism strategies should consider resource profile, necessity for conservation, level of development, and policies of concerned agencies.
Another very important planning document was commissioned by the Office of the Committee on Economic and Social Development (OCESD), which formulated a vision for the development of Koh Chang, within the context of Thailand's overall tourism product. This report emphasized that Koh Chang7s development should use the opportunity of a relatively undeveloped, highly attractive group of islands to create a new tourism product, based on different target markets (OCESD 2002). The optimal development concept formulated was a strategy of attracting a high-end niche market of exclusive resort tourism, combined with ecotourism activities based on the maintenance of high-quality marine and terrestrial environments.
Table 1.2 Thailand's National Coral Reef Strategy: zoning policy (Source: ONEB (1993))
Coral Reef Zoning Designation
I
TourismlLeisure ZonesI
Criterion (A) General Use-
1. Collection of shells 2. Collection of other marine(B)
Tourism Zones
life (except for research) 3. Use of fishing gear that does
Zones Control
not damage coral reef habitats 4. Sustainable harvest of fish 5. Licenses for mining, oil, or natural gas exploration within 3
0
-
Eco- tourism Zones Control Control km of coral reefs 6. Scientific research 7. Mooring of boats within(i.e.: jet-ski, hovercraft boats) 9. Tourist visitation numbers
(D) Conservation Prohibited Control Control 3m of coral reef
8. Operation of shipping lines, passenger boats, or leisure boats
within carrying capacity 10. Pipes (refuse, water supply,
Prohibited Prohibited
Control
rain water) within
approximately 1 km of coral reef Prohibited Prohibited Control Control Control
1 1. Hotel within 5 km of coral
Zones Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited ' Control Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Control Control Control Prohibited Prohibited Control reef
12. Tourism activities (i.e.:
Specific strategic benefits of the plan identified in the OCESD report included: Control Control
Control
banana boat, parasailing) 1 3. Seawalking
14. Benign tourism activities (i.e.: glass-bottomed boats)
allowing Thailand to improve its image as a high quality tourism destination; Control Prohibited
Control
helping to diversify the tourism attractions of south-east Thailand, notably by forming a Control
Prohibited Control
contrast with mass tourism activities in Pattaya; Control
helping to attract new tourism markets likely to grow significantly in the future; Control
Prohibited Control
providing a pilot case to apply to other regions where upgrading of the tourism product is Prohibited required; Prohibited Control Prohibited Control Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
helping to preserve the natural environment, which is appreciated by the local people and tourists;
avoiding "swamping" of what is a relatively small local population by large numbers of tourists;
helping to develop a range of higher quality skills in Thai people, rather than those required under generalist forms of tourism;
helping to integrate, preserve, and enhance the viability of traditional ways of life through tourism.
The overall development plan can be summarized by the zoning scheme in Fig. 1.4. Contrary to the marine ecotourism report (TISTR, 1998), the study acknowledged that Koh Chang is developing (and will be developed) in such a manner that it is unrealistic to expect it to be mainly
an ecotourism attraction. Rather, they suggest that ecotourism will be an activity that occurs only duringpart of the visitor's stay, as opposed to being the main focus of their visit (OCESD, 2002).
On the other hand, the authors of this report are relatively loose with the term 'ecotourism', and there are no clearly articulated mechanisms for how the version of 'ecotourism7 they promote will contribute to conservation or enhanced ecological understanding. Although there is a vague reference to the 'carrying capacity7 concept, the discussion is limited to: (i) social carrying capacity, such as the distribution of tourist flows and the number of people on beaches, (ii) water supply aspects, and (iii) physical carrying capacity for marine transportation. In particular, within the 'blue ecotourism' zones (Fig.l.4), there are no specific plans or policies for minimizing environmental impacts, meeting the needs and demands of marine ecotourists, enhancing the ecological understanding of visitors, or involving tourists in conservation efforts.
Finally, it should be mentioned that in 2002, the Thai government designated Koh Chang as a 'special administrative zone' by royal decree, to be governed by a committee, the 'special administrative body' (Hutasingh and Susanpoolthong 2002, Susanpoolthong 2002). The main purpose of this committee is to enable discussion and co-operation between government agencies, to manage development of the Koh Chang archipelago. Members of the committee have experience in law, administration, tourism, and the conservation of natural resources and the environment (Susanpoolthong, 2002).
1.4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND THESIS OUTLINE
The goal of this study is to draft a coral reef zoning plan for the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, to manage snorkelling tours in a manner that can meet multiple objectives related to conservation and tourism.
More specific objectives include:
0 to draft a coral reef zoning plan that reduces the environmental impacts of tourism on
coral reefs in the MPA, in order to meet conservation objectives;
to draft a coral reef zoning plan that meets visitor needs and provides satisfying visitor experiences in the MPA, in order to sustain or increase the socioeconomic benefits derived from coral reef tourism;
to draft a coral reef zoning plan that is compatible with existing laws, policies, and decrees in the study area.
The focus on snorkelling tours is justified by the predominance of this activity in the study area (>3O7000/year; See Appendix A), and the likelihood that snorkelling in the MPA is likely to grow significantly in the near future, especially as domestic tourism increases.
The thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 has provided a broad theoretical background to the topic of coral reef conservation and tourism management in MPAs. Chapter 2,
"Zoning Coral Reefs for Conservation", is based on ecological / conservation biology perspectives. It describes the coral reef field survey conducted in the study area, and uses the results to recommend strategies for reducing the impacts of marine tourism. Chapter 3, "Zoning Coral Reefs to Manage Visitor Experiences", describes the visitor survey conducted in the study area, and combines the results with the Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) and the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) visitor management frameworks, to recommend management strategies for enhancing the quality of visitor experiences.
Chapter 4, "Integration, Synthesis, & Conclusions" integrates and synthesizes the main findings from the preceding chapters. A user-friendly multiple-use coral reef zoning plan is summarized, followed by a discussion of how the study fits in with broader themes in resource management.
CHAPTER 2: ZONING CORAL REEFS
FOR CONSERVATION
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1. IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL TRAMPLING ON CORAL REEFS
Snorkelling and scuba diving almost always results in some physical damage to corals, due to people who stand, fin, kick, kneel, grasp, or collide with corals (hereafter collectively referred to as 'trampling7). Measured rates of scuba diver trampling have ranged from mean values of 0.09 contactslminute (Barker and Roberts 2004), to 0.33 contactslminute (Talge 1992), to as high as 4 contacts/minute (Harriott et al. 1997). Trampling of corals by snorkellers may be even more common, and is especially damaging when snorkellers stand directly upon corals (Rogers et al. 1988, Allison 1996).
In recent years, over 20 publications have shown that trampling impacts result in negative impacts on coral reef ecosystems (Appendix C). Direct impacts of trampling on corals include mortality, fracturing, and tissue damage (Liddle and Kay 1987, Rodgers et al. 2003). Trampling can also increase the vulnerability of corals to infectious diseases and parasites, by removing protective layers of mucous (Benson et al., 1978). In addition, tourists can resuspend sediments into the water column, causing considerable stress to corals (Neil 1990). Over time, trampling often results in measurable changes to coral reef ecosystems, including higher proportions of broken and damaged corals (Riegl and Velimirov 1991, Hawkins and Roberts 1992, Allison 1996, Plathong et al. 2000, Tratalos and Austin 2001, Zakai and Chadwick-Funnan 2002, Rodgers et al. 2003), slower coral growth rates (Meesters et al. 1994, Rodgers et al. 2003), increased algal overgrowth (Riegl and Velimirov 1991), and smaller average sizes of coral colonies (Hawkins and Roberts 1993). A recent study in Hawaii showed a clear increase in coral mortality across sites with low, medium, and high recreational use, with 0% survivorship of corals at the high-use site after visitation by 200,000 snorkellers, waders, swimmers, and surfers over a period of 8 months (Rodgers and Cox 2003).
Certain types of corals are more vulnerable to trampling than others. Trampling experiments (Woodland and Hooper 1977, Liddle and Kay 1987), laboratory studies measuring skeletal compression strength (Liddle and Kay 1987, Marshall 2000, Rodgers et al. 2003), and field studies assessing the trampling impacts of snorkelling and diving (Allison 1996, Plathong et al. 2000, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000, Walters and Samways 2001, Zakai and Chadwick-Funnan 2002) all indicate that branching corals are less resistant to trampling, whereas massive, plate-
like, digitate, or submassive growth forms are more resistant. In addition, soft corals tend to be less vulnerable to trampling than either massive or branching corals (Riegl and Riegl 1996, Plathong et al, 2000, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000, Tratalos and Austin 2001), and encrusting corals tend to be the least vulnerable (Riegl and Riegl 1996, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000).
A particularly useful study of diver trampling impacts was conducted by Schleyer & Tomalin (2000), who quantified the amount of both 'natural damage' and 'diver damage7 on South African coral reefs. Sources of damage were determined by forensic evidence collected from damaged corals, combined with direct observations of diver trampling incidents. Results of the study are shown in Table 2.1. Divers clearly caused a disproportionate amount of damage to branching corals. Conversely, natural sources of damage tended to affect soft corals most often. Massive corals, plate corals, and encrusting corals all registered low proportions of total diver damage, and showed similar proportions of naturally-induced damage compared to diver-induced damage. This study strongly supports the idea that soft corals and encrusting corals are most resistant to trampling damage, and that branching corals are the least resistant.
However, it is possible that branching corals, though less resistant to trampling, may nonetheless be more resilient, due to asexual reproduction by fragmentation (Highsmith, 1982; Nybakken, 2000) and high growth rates (Shim 1966, Kobayashi 1984). Yet coral fragments broken off by trampling are usually too small to survive or reproduce (Liddle and Kay 1987, Allison 1996, Riegl and Riegl 1996), and intensive recreational use can inflict injuries at a rate which exceeds the regeneration capacity of branching corals (Plathong et al. 2000, Rouphael and Inglis 2002). Taken together, the existing evidence indicates that branching corals are most vulnerable to physical trampling impacts. The trend of increasing vulnerability to trampling across different coral life forms is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Only one study has suggested a relationship between coral morphology and trampling different from that found by others. Hawkins et al. (1999) noted a decline in the abundance of massive corals at dived sites, and a slight increase (8%) in the proportion of branching corals over the same time period. However, their data also indicated a slight increase of branching corals at undived sites as well (2%), and despite the apparent statistically significant difference between dived vs. undived sites, nowhere does their data support the hypothesis that diving pressure caused the increase in branching corals over time (Hawkins et al., 1999). Therefore, although this study does suggest that massive corals are also vulnerable to trampling impacts, especially over longer time frames, it does not contradict the general rule that branching corals seem to be most vulnerable to trampling.
Table 2.1 Natural vs. diver-induced damage inflicted on coral reef benthos in South Africa. Based on: Schleyer and Tomalin (2000)
Morphological Category of Organism
BRANCHING CORALS TYPE OF DAMAGE Natural Diver Damage Unknown Causes MASSIVE, SUBMASSIVE, FOLIOSE, TABLE & MUSHROOM CORALS SOFT CORALS ENCRUSTING CORALS Sponges 7% 0% 2%
INCREASING VULNERABILITY TO TRAMPLING IMPACTS Tunicates
0% 0% 2%
Figure 2.1 Vulnerability of different coral morphologies to trampling Soft
-
Corals
40% 7% 27% Hard Corals2.1.2. CORAL REEF DEGRADATION AND TOURIST TRAMPLING:
SCAPEGOAT OR IMPORTANT IMPACT?
It is common for tourism stakeholders to protest that the trampling of corals by tourists is blamed as a 'scapegoat' for coral reef damage (Richardson 1994). It is true that coral reefs face a wide array of threats, such as destructive fishing practices, overfishing and trophic level depletions, overharvesting of corals and shells, pollution (i.e.: eutrophication, sedimentation from coastal development), destruction of mangroves which provide nursery grounds for many reef fish, crown-of-thorns starfish infestations, diseases, coral bleaching due to El Nino and possibly climate change, and reduced calcification in response to increased C02 concentrations (UNESCO 1985, Wilkinson 1998, Salrn et al. 2000, McClanahan 2002, Hughes et al. 2003, Bellwood et al. 2004).
However, simply because coral reefs face such a wide array of threats, this does not imply that trampling impacts are unimportant and should not be a concern. Although corals can
Plate 3% 4% 28% Massive 9% 7% 3% Encrusting 3% 0% 1% Branching 39% 83% 37%
recover and mortality can be low when sufficient recovery time is allowed after trampling impacts, daily visits to sites can result in multiple, repeated trampling impacts over relatively short time periods. Short time frames between trampling events do not seem to provide sufficient time for recovery, implying that trampling is often a chronic stress to corals (Rouphael and Inglis 2002, Rodgers et al. 2003). Chronic impacts contrast strongly with natural sources of damage, such as hurricanes. Although hurricanes can be devastating to coral communities, these are relatively rare 'pulse' impacts. Thus, based on their evolutionary and natural histories, corals are more likely to be adapted to rare pulse impacts than to the chronic stress associated with repeated trampling events (Bythell et al. 2000, Rouphael and Inglis 2002). In fact, experimental evidence shows that chronic impacts can impede the recovery of coral reefs from natural disasters, even in cases where the chronic stress does not have a detectable effect on coral mortality (Hawkins et al. 1999, Hughes and Connell 1999, Oren et al. 2001).
These perspectives are consistent with state-of-the-art ecological models, which show that synergistic, cumulative impacts on coral reefs due to multiple stressors are the most difficult to study, model, and understand, and yet, it is these cumulative impacts that are probably the most significant threat to coral reefs over the long term (Connell 1997a, Connell et al. 1997b, Hughes and Connell 1999). Dynamic ecological models that consider thermodynamics and chaos theory indicate that coral reefs are often resilient up to a point, but once critical threshold boundaries are crossed, 'bifurcations' in the system cause ecosystems to 'flip' into alternative stable states, with the potential for catastrophic changes, species extinctions, and losses of ecosystem h c t i o n s and services (Knowlton 1992, Levin 1998, Scheffer et al. 2001, Van Nes and Scheffer 2003). For example, most Jamaican reefs were once diverse, productive coral reef ecosystems. Yet the cumulative effects of overfishing, mass mortality of sea urchins (Diadema spp.) by disease, hurricanes, and pollution from land runoff caused a catastrophic "phase shift" on Jamaican coral reefs during the 1980s. After the phase shift, Jamaican reefs have been characterized by relatively few species, high algal cover, and low fish biomass, and appear to be "locked" into this degraded state (Hughes 1 994).
Considering the complex, synergistic, and cumulative nature of impacts on coral reefs, any particular impact could be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" which causes a phase shift to an alternate state (Knowlton 1992). Therefore, there is enough scientific evidence that snorkelling and scuba diving causes negative impacts on coral reefs. Efforts should now proceed in developing and implementing effective management strategies to minimize the impacts of snorkelling and scuba diving on coral reefs.
2.1.3. MANAGING TRAMPLING IMPACTS ON CORAL REEFS
The concept of 'ecological carrying capacity' has garnered a significant deal of attention from researchers and resource managers considering the problem of trampling on corals (Dixon et al. 1993, Hawkins and Roberts 1996, Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002). The 'carrying capacity' concept originated within ecology (Krebs 1994) and range management (Maduram l972), and has often been used in terrestrial recreation research (Lime and Stankey 1971, Lindberg et al. 1997). In a marine recreation context, the ecological carrying capacity of coral reefs has been defined as the maximum number of skin divers a coral reef can support without resulting in ecological degradation (Hawkins and Roberts 1996, Jameson et al. 1999).
Several researchers have estimated carrying capacities of coral reefs for scuba diving. Dixon et al. (1993) used data on coral cover, species diversity, and diving intensity at Bonaire Marine Park in the Caribbean, to estimate an ecological carrying capacity of 4000-6000 divers per site per year. Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) used extensive ecological data to estimate a carrying capacity of 5000 dives per year for coral reefs in Israel. Hawkins & Roberts (1 996) used data from three sites to graph the relationship between damaged coral and the number of dives per year, and concluded that there was an apparent 'carrying capacity' of 5000-6000 dives per site per year (yet this conclusion was perhaps premature considering the nature of their data). Although the carrying capacity concept has considerable appeal for MPA managers, and seems to be a convenient way to achieve both economic and ecological objectives (Dixon et al., 1993), there are several conceptual problems embedded in the approach.
First of all, the area of coral reef across which people disperse should have a major effect on carrying capacity values. The studies mentioned above did not incorporate into carrying capacity models the area over which people disperse, and without doing so, comparisons of sites in different regions is problematic.
Secondly, existing studies estimating scuba dive carrying capacities of reefs have contrasted coral communities at long-established dive sites with those at undived reefs (Dixon et al. 1993; Hawkins & Roberts 1996; Hawkins et al., 1999; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002).
Without combining this approach with baseline studies on reef community structure and ongoing monitoring, these studies cannot account for biogeographic differences between reefs, and cannot control for other impacts that may have occurred since the onset of diving, such as anchoring or fishing (Rouphael & Inglis 2002).
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, damage does occur at use levels under 5000 diveslyear. Moreover, this damage is not necessarily negligible, as there is no scientific benchmark which defines when damage begins to significantly affect coral reef ecosystems
(Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002). In fact, Kay and Liddle (1989) have shown that the first few trampling events cause a disproportionate amount of damage per individual. Similarly, Plathong et al. (2000) found that the amount of broken and damaged corals accumulated rapidly at newly opened snorkelling sites, yet damage levels tended to gradually stabilize over time. Moreover, as reviewed in section 2.1.2., any impact can potentially cause ecosystems to shift into alternate stability domains (Knowlton 1992).
Finally, there are some major practical management problems involved with implementing a carrying capacity policy. For example, allocating and rationing use quotas in an equitable manner is often a major problem (McCool 1990). In addition, in MPAs where boats access sites from many different directions, enforcing use quotas can be very difficult to achieve. This is especially the case in tropical developing nations, where resources available to enforce regulations are often scarce.
Due to these conceptual limitations, a 'carrying capacity' management strategy relies on a somewhat oversimplified model. In addition, limiting use based on 'carrying capacity7 may not be the most effective use of time, effort, and resources. An alternative approach could be to focus on 'desired conditions', and to direct efforts towards achieving outputs (conditions), as opposed to focusing on inputs (visitor numbers) (Lindberg and McCool 1998). In MPAs, an ecologically desirable 'output condition' is a minimum amount of damage inflicted by tourists. The rate of damage inflicted by tourists depends on several variables other than the number of people, including the behaviour of visitors, and the biophysical features of sites (Fig. 2.2).
The behaviour of tourists visiting coral reefs can be influenced by detailed nature interpretation programs, or by tour guide 'intervention'. Medio et al. (1997) found that detailed
briefings on coral ecology, including instructions on how to avoid contact with coral, positively influenced diver behaviour to reduce trampling. However, Barker and Roberts (2004) found that a
short one-sentence briefing instructing divers to avoid contact with corals was ineffective at reducing trampling. On the other hand, training dive guides to 'intervene' whenever visitors damaged coral through careless or unskilfid behaviour did effectively reduce trampling (Barker and Roberts, 2004).
Zoning based on site vulnerability is another strategy for minimizing trampling impacts on coral reefs (Fig. 2.2).
