Sustainable Scuba Diving: Exploring Conscious Underwater Impacts as Influenced by Perception in Puerto Galera, Philippines and Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of A s San Francisco State University 3k In partial fulfillment of 2oiS the requirements for the Degree •\> 53

Master of Arts

In

Geography

by

Katherine A. Dicker

San Francisco, California

Fall 2015 Copyright by Katherine A. Dicker 2015 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Sustainable Scuba Diving: Exploring Conscious Underwater

Impact as Influenced by Perception in Puerto Galera, Philippines and Tulamben, Bali,

Indonesia by Katherine A. Dicker and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree

Master of Arts in Geography at San Francisco State University.

Courtney Donovan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor

Ellen Hines, Ph.D. Professor SUSTAINABLE SCUBA DIVING: EXPLORING CONSCIOUS UNDERWATER IMPACTS AS INFLUENCED BY PERCEPTION IN PUERTO GALERA, PHILIPPINES AND TULAMBEN, BALI, INDONESIA

Katherine A. Dicker San Francisco, California 2015

At travel destinations from the Philippines to Indonesia, coral reefs are impacted by scuba diving. Prior research has quantified this degradation and suggested mitigations. This paper explores divers’ own perceptions of what influences and shapes their underwater environmental ethics and behavior. Underwater observational surveys, interviews and landscape observational surveys conducted (in Puerto Galara, Philippines, and Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia) are triangulated to assess situational factors that reduce or increase underwater impacts.

This study found that 36% of divers’ environmental behavior is affected by external site- specific factors, which account for variations in underwater behavior. As reported, the most impactful influences to scuba divers’ conscious impacts are strong ethics taught in open water training and additional scuba classes, along with the ongoing influence of scuba role models.

The newly acquired eco-conscious behavior is sustained by dive professionals and peers who reinforce the initial ethics. These findings concur with researchers who advocate greater education for dive guides, professionals and divers as a means to reduce scuba- attributed reef degradation.

I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.

Chair, Thesis Committee Date PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The vibrant beauty of the Coral Triangle led me to extensively explore the region. During my many scuba diving adventures throughout the Triangle, I witnessed divers touching the reef, collecting shells, harassing organisms, and inflicting damage to the living corals (with their hands and fins). It saddened me to watch this largely unchecked destruction to the environment which I came to love. Thus, I dedicate my master’s thesis to the preservation of my beloved underwater landscape and its marine inhabitants.

A sincere and well deserved thanks to my academic advisors, to family and friends who continue to support this academic endeavor throughout the lengthy process to completion.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Table...... vi

List of Figures...... ix

List of Appendices...... x

CHAPTER 1: Introduction...... 1

Human-Environmental Interactions...... 3

Perception of Impact...... 4

The Value of Coral Reefs...... 5

SCUBA Diving and Coral Reefs...... 7

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review...... 13

Environmental Movement in Geography...... 13

Human Ecology and Cultural Ecology...... 14

Political Ecology...... 15

Natural Hazards...... 15

Human Impact on the Environment...... 16

Physical Damage to Reefs...... 18

Human Variables...... 21

Diverging Ideas...... 23

Management Strategies...... 23

Carrying Capacity...... 23

Limiting the Path...... 25

Scuba Divers Perception...... 26 CHAPTER 3: Theoretical Framework 28

Grounded Theory...... 28

Environmental Psychology...... 29

CHAPTER 4: Methodology...... 32

Research Site Location Change...... 32

Underwater Participatory Observation Surveys...... 35

Semi-Structured Interviews...... 36

Landscape Observation Surveys...... 37

Bias and Limitations...... 38

Underwater Survey...... 39

Interviews...... 39

Landscape Survey...... 40

CHAPTER 5: Results and Discussion...... 42

Empirical A - Underwater Surveys...... 42

Empirical B - Semi-Structured Interviews...... 45

Divers Stated Level of Interaction with the Underwater Environment 47

Does behavior vary with location?...... 50

Origin of Environmental Ethics...... 52

Do interactions with the underwater environment change with time and experience?...... 54

Empirical C - Landscape Observational Surveys...... 57

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion...... 60

Reference...... 64

Appendices...... 73

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1: Underwater Surveys...... 43 Table 2: Semi Structured Interview Responses...... 56

viiii LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1: Map of the Coral Triangle Region...... 2

Figure 2: Locator Map for Dive Site...... 2

Figure 3: Core Topics and Interaction of Nature-SocietyGeography ...... 4

Figure 4: PADI Global Certification and Membership Statistics...... 8

Figure 5: PADI Global Certification and Member Statistics...... 9

Figure 6: Scuba Diver Impact in Puerto Galara Philippines...... 10

Figure 7: Scuba Diver Impact in Puerto Galera Philippines...... 11

Figure 8: Scuba Diver with Camera, Puerto Galera, Philippines...... 22

Figure 9: Conceptual Framework of Environmental Psychology...... 30

Figure 10: Pureto Galera Locator Map...... 34

Figure 11: Tulamben Locator Map...... 35

Figure 12: Contact per Diver Observed Graph...... 44

Figure 13: Comparison of Contacts by Site...... 45

Figure 14: Participants Level of Dive Experience Graph...... 46

Figure 15: Participants Level of Dive Experience by Site...... 47

Figure 16: Level of Divers Interaction with the Environment Graph...... 50

Figure 17: Variables Affecting Divers’ Behavior at Various Destinations Graph....52

Figure 18: Origin of Diver’s Conservation Ethics Chart...... 54

Figure 19: Observational Landscape Survey Chart...... 59 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix------Page

Appendix A: Coded Analysis from Semi-Structured Interviews...... 73

Appendix B: Semi Structured Survey Questions...... 74

Appendix C: Results from Landscape Analysis...... 76

x 1

Sustainable Scuba Diving: Exploring Conscious Underwater Impacts as Influenced by Perception in Puerto Galera, Philippines and Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia.

Chapter 1: Introduction:

The Coral Triangle (Figure 1) includes the waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and Solomon Islands. Named for its diversity of coral, The Coral Triangle boasts the highest marine biological diversity in the world (CRED in the Coral Triangle n.d.).

During my extensive travels in the region, I noticed that the behavior of scuba divers appeared to vary geographically. In diving destinations such as Lembeh Straights (Sulawesi, Indonesia), divers seemed comfortable poking, prodding, and harassing exotic marine life for photo opportunities (Figure 2). In other dive areas, such as a remote island in the Philippines called Apo Island, divers appeared more conscientious of their impact. Locations where divers and guides appeared more environmentally conscious appeared to have more pristine reefs. This difference in behavior and environment, which I casually observed, begged the question: What factors influence divers to vary their underwater environmental behavior?

Inspired by anecdotal evidence, this thesis aims to answer the questions: Does perception of the environment affect the impacts of recreational scuba divers on coral reefs and the marine environment? Do scuba divers vary their interactions with reef and marine life based on local environmental conservation ethics? And if so, what factors affect this spatially varied behavior? 2

FIG. 1 - The Coral Triangle region, a marine area located in the western Pacific Ocean.

Puerto PA RAC EL Galera VlLAND |J[»aNang 4 'islands Philippines Nakhon flpfll > VIETNAM ;kok ( CAMBODIA HPhwojMtri ('t/nay. ut(#f ftacol iMtitd STBATLY ISLAND? ,-mgkhla Zamboanga{ Lem be h Bandar Seri Begaw an Straits ,AYSIA KEPUIAUAN Sulawesi lu m p u r ^ NATVSA jffiSsa

Samarinda

Sumatra Palembang^ Cttvai

Ambo» Batkii Sea

ticnpa! Tulamben, Bali CAST TIMOR

FIG. 2 - Locator map for dive sites discussed in this thesis; Tulamben, Bali, Puerto Galera Philippines and Lembeh Straits, Sulawesi. 3

Human-Environmental Interactions

The ongoing exploration of society’s interactions with nature accounts for a large body of academic literature. In 2010, geographer Karl S. Zimmerer organized 175 nature-society publications, which appeared in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers between 1911 and 2010, into six interconnected categories (Figure 3) (Zimmerer, 2010). My thesis topic and intent aligns with one of Zimmerers’ categories: Coupled Human- Environment Interactions. This body of work strives to help readers understand the complexity of human- interactions in relation to the environment and focuses on the potential for environmental conservation and sustainable use.

Existing research addressing the impact of scuba tourists on reefs can be organized with Zimmerers’ model. Studies such as “Scuba diver behavior and the management of diving impacts on Coral reefs” (Barker and Roberts, 2004) and “Impacts of Recreational Divers on Palauan Coral Reefs and Options for Management” (Poonian, et al., 2010) align with Zimmerers’ “Scientific Concepts and Environmental Management.” in that they explore divers’ impacts and propose environment management.

Geographic researchers have addressed human degradation to coral reef by scuba divers primarily through Zimmerers’ “Coupled Human Environment Interactions.” Moreover, geographic research has quantified hazardous impact by divers to reefs, isolating factors to help reduce impacts and protect the environment. They have explored the human- environment relationship with an aim of quantifying impacts, suggesting mitigations and evolving towards sustainable use (Dearden, et al., 2006; Dearden, et al., 2007; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997, 2001). 4

FIG. 3 - “Core topics and Intersection of Nature-Society Geography (1990-2010)” (Karl S. Zimmerer, 2010).

Perception of Impact

Few studies within geography or other academic fields have explored divers’ perception of their own impact to coral reefs, to search for effective ways to reduce this damage (Dearden, et al., 2007; Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Medio, et, al., 1997; Worachananant, et al., 2008). Researchers will commonly quantify damage inflicted by divers to reef or record the amount of damaged coral in order to demonstrate severity of divers impact (Guzner, et al., 2010; Tratalos and Austin, 2001). Similar research often suggests management plans without considering divers’ perception of their environment as a significant factor in impact rates (Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Poonian, et al., 2010; Zakkai and Chadwisck-Furman, 2001). To fill the literature gap, this study will use an inductive approach to explore geographic variation of the environmental perception- behavior relationship by scuba divers. In this sense, the study will strive to discover if the environmental behavior of divers is influenced by site specific factors. Using a post- positivistic approach, it is anticipated that situational factors influencing pro 5

environmental behavior will be revealed by participants during the interview process. After examining the environmental behaviors of divers, this study will explore what mitigations divers perceive as most effective in reducing their own impacts on the underwater environment.

The research is situated at two dive locations: Puerto Galera, Philippines, and Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia. Both locations were selected due to a high volume of diverse, international scuba tourists.

The Value of Coral Reefs

Throughout the world, scuba divers are attracted to coral reefs, one of the earth’s most spectacular and varied marine ecosystems. The reefs are renowned for their beauty, diversity of marine life, and the abundance of materials and services they supply to humans. Predominately situated in tropical waters of developing countries, coral reefs provide an important source of food and income to millions of people (Munro, 1996). Reefs sustain large human populations with livelihoods by providing sustenance, construction materials, and tourist resources (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Likewise, tourists travel the world over to enjoy recreation and leisure opportunities offered by the reef and tropical environment (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Thus, the ongoing health of coral reefs is critically important for the goods and services they provide to maritime tropical and subtropical nations (Hughes, 2003).

While coral reefs remain the ocean’s most diverse shallow water ecosystems, vital for millions of people, they are in sharp decline due to natural and anthropogenic disturbances (Gardner, et al., 2003; Hughes, 2003; Richmond, 1993). In 2004 it was estimated that 30% of the Earth’s coral reefs had been severely damaged, and it is estimated that by 2030, nearly 60% may be lost (Wilkinson, 2004). Subsequent reports studying the Caribbean Coral reefs during 1970-2012 challenged these early estimates suggesting more than a 50% decline in living coral in the region (Jackson, et al., 2014). The Status of Reefs in the Pacific, assessed in 2011, revealed reefs in this region to be in far better condition than in the rest of the world. The report estimated that the world has lost a total of 19% of its productive reefs, 15% more is under immediate threat of loss. While 52% reefs are assessed at low risk, the other 48% was assessed at risk (Chin, et al., 2011). While large scale estimates of risk are under observation and subject to change, the frequency, scale of disturbances, and human impacts on coral reefs are increasing to the extent that reefs are now globally threatened (Hughes, 2003; Wilson, et al., 2006). 6

Despite the apparent value coral reefs provide to humans, the global degradation and decline of coral reefs can be linked to a wide range of anthropogenic stresses. In particular, over-exploitation and habit degradation are two major contributors to global environmental change (Wilson, et. al., 2006). Intensive overfishing is a widely accepted example of over-exploitation which adversely affects the local ecosystem (Dearden, 2006). There is widespread evidence of fish population depletion due to intensive over fishing (Barker and Roberts, 2004; Roberts 1995; Richmond, 1993; Wilkinson, 1996). Other forms of habitat degradation include temperature change (Dearden, 2006), chemicals (Negri et al., 2002), and sewage (Bell, 1992; Koop et al., 2001). Pollution, and sedimentation resulting from human development (Barker and Roberts, 2004; Roberts 1995, Richmond, 1993; Wilkinson, 1996) lead to decreased growth and survival rates of coral and other species of the reef ecosystem (Barker and Roberts, 2004). Thus depletion of coral results in an overall decline in fish abundance (Wilson et al., 2006). Marine degradation due to human impact and the resulting decline of coral reef ecosystem is an important environmental issue (Gardner, et al., 2003; Munday, et al., 2008; Rogers and Cox, 2003).

According to multiple experts and environmental advocates, there is an urgent need for protective action (Harriott, et al., 1997; Hasler and Ott, 2008; Poonian, et al., 2010; Zakai and Chadwich-Furman, 2001). Economic alternatives to replace resources gained by damaging extractive practices on coral reefs will mitigate some of the damage (Birkeland 1997). The development of tourism has been considered a low impact alternative for coral reef use, compared to extractive practice such as commercial fishing (Sala, et al., 2013; Talge, 1993). Tourism provides financial benefits to local communities and may offer incentives for reef preservation (Hawkins, 1999). Protective measures are attractive when the aesthetic value of a reef has more economic value to local communities than the extractive value (Dearden, et al., 2007).

Increased tourism has the potential to provide the greatest substitute revenue in reef environments, so it is perceived as a viable option to replace more damaging practices and activities (Hawkins, et al., 1999; Lamb, et al., 2014). However, evidence has demonstrated that while tourism may be less impactful than other uses, over time it significantly increases damage to the reef (Lamb, et al., 2014; Medio, et al., 1997; Rouphael and Ingllis, 1997).

An increase in tourism may stress localized reef ecosystems, degrading the immediate reef environment. As tourism expands, concern exists that it may contribute to the overall degradation of coral reefs (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Economic gains from reef tourism are 7

significant. For example, revenue can range from US $2 million per year for the small Caribbean island of Saba (Fernandes, et al.,1999) to US $682 million reaped in 1991- 1992 from tourism on the Great Barrier Reef Australia (Driml, 1994). This magnitude of profit can inspire ongoing development in the tropical environment. Underlying this expanding tourism and many of the other impacts to the reef environment is “the reality that immediate returns from destructive activities often outweigh the long-term benefits of reef protection” (Dearden, 2006, page 1).

As tourism expands it is crucial to protect the reef environment from the increasing number of visitors, so that the reefs will continue to offer a lower impact economic incentive (Bellwood, et al., 2004). If impact continues and the aesthetic value of the reef further degrades, it will potentially attract less revenue (Dearden, et al., 2006). Thus, it will offer less incentive as an alternative to the more damaging revenue practices such as overfishing and use of destructive fishing methods (Augustine, et al., 2015; Dearden, et al., 2006).

Many recreational enthusiasts rely on the reef environment. User groups who enjoy the beauty of the reefs but also put pressure on the ecosystems can potentially be enlisted to aid in its protection (Dearden, et al., 2006). One such popular tourist recreation activity, with the potential for both impact and preservation incentive, is scuba diving (Dearden, et al., 2006).

SCUBA Diving and Coral Reefs

The vibrant coral reefs of Southeast Asia attract a great number of scuba divers seeking spectacular underwater landscapes. The Coral Triangle is of special interest, as it is the center of marine biodiversity for many species, such as coral and reef-associated fish (Allen, 2008). Regional surveys have confirmed the extent of reef degradation at various scuba destinations in the Coral Triangle. These studies have established the need for protective measures (Wilkinson, 2004).

The environmental threat to coral reefs from recreational scuba diving may appear minor when compared to impacts from climate change, overharvesting, and pollution (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). However, the growing popularity of scuba diving is suggested by steady increases in the annual number of scuba certifications issued by The Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), the world’s largest dive training organization. 8

PADI commenced operations in 1967 and by the end of 2013 had issued a combined total of over 22 million dive licenses. Figure 4 represents total entry level and continuing education diving certification for all PADI divers offices combined. Each diver may have multiple certifications. Between 2000 and 2006 PADI trained over 3.8 million new divers. Figure 5 is a graph of the total entry level and continuing education diving certifications for all PADI Offices combined. PADI is only one of many recreational scuba training organizations such as SSI, SDI, NAUI and many others, therefore, it is difficult to assess the total number of worldwide divers or total annual days spent diving. In 1996, Davis and Tisdell speculated that as the number of diver’s increases, concentrations of divers will put recreation sites under higher levels of stress (Davis and Tisdell, 1996). PADI Worldwide Diving Certifications History 1967-2013

Certifications Cumulative Growth Certifications Cumulative Growth Year Per Year Certifications Percentage Year Per Year Certifications Percentage 1967-70 47.572 1992 529.463 4.366,763 20.2% 1971 36.490 84,062 1993 564,672 4,931,435 6.6% 1972 51.842 135,904 42.1% 1994 625,487 5.556.922 10.8% 1973 •0.120 I 196.024 16.0% 1995 680,263 6,237,185 8.8% 1974 49,834 245,858 -17.1% 1996 717.973 6,955,158 5.5% 1975 61.244 307.102 22.9% 1997 743,763 7,698.921 3.6% 1976 66.609 373,711 8.8% 1998 775,735 8,474.656 4.3% 1977 69.771 443,482 4.7% 1999 799,696 9^74,352 3,1% 1978 86.187 529.669 23.5% 2000 852.702 10.127.054 6.6% 1979 95*193 624.862 10.4% 2001 907.171 11,034,225 6.4% 1980 107.404 732 266 12.8% 2002 896,977 11,931,202 4.1% 1981 124,365 856.631 15.8% 2003 907.722 12.838.924 1.2% 1982 141.429 998,060 13.7% 2004* 954.049 13,792,973 5 1% 1983 168.778 1,166.838 19.3% 2005 927,529 14,720,502 -2.8% 1984 203.001 1.369.839 20.3% 2006 936.579 15.657,081 1.0% 1985 240.384 1,610.223 18.4% 2007 952,716 16.609.797 1.7% 1986 277,378 1.887.601 15.4% 2008** 952.097 17,561,894 •0.1% 1987 315,468 2.203.069 13.7% 2009** 897,401 18,459.295 •5.7% 1988 350.000 2,553.069 10.9% 2010 923,571 19.382,866 2.9% 1989 387,767 2.940,836 10.8% 2011 930.941 20,313.807 08% 1990 440.418 3,381.254 13.6% 2012 945.107 21.258.914 1.5% 1991 456.046 3,837,300 3.5% 2013 936,149 22.195.063 -0 9%

FIG. 4 - PADI Global Certification & Membership Statistics from 1967-2013 [Source: PADI]. 9

PADI Worldwide Certification Trend 1971-2013

1000Q00

FIG.5 - PADI Global Certification & Membership Statistics from 1971-2013. [Source: PADI]

This increased scuba diving traffic has resulted in higher impact to sensitive compromised reef environments. Environmental damage (such as the breaking of coral, physical interaction with marine life and dropping of boat anchors by dive boats) causes avoidable damage to fragile reef communities (Hunt, 2013). Specifically, scuba divers inflict direct damage on reef through contact with their body, fins and other equipment (Hawkins, et al., 1999; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). For example, divers will kick, trample, grasp, sit and stand on marine organisms. Figure 6 and 7 are examples of this harassment by divers to the marine environment. Figure 6 shows a diver, who has picked up a crinoid and is prodding it to swim. Figure 7 is an image of a diver kicking coral 10

while photographing marine life. Contact with the bottom suspends sediment, which may also contribute to a decline of coral growth and changes in coral distribution (Roberts, 1995). There is evidence that over time, frequent collisions of divers’ feet, hands, body and equipment (with reef) in high traffic areas of the coral reef can cause significant localized impact to sensitive marine organisms (Garrrabou et al., 1998; Hawkins et al., 1999).

FfG. 6 - Scuba diver in the Puerto Galera, Philippines disturbing a crinoid for a photo opportunity (Dicker, 2010). 11

FIG. 7 - Diver in Puerto Galera, Philippines accidently kicking coral and marine life with fins (Dicker, 2010).

Some dive sites that are subject to high volumes of scuba divers have shown higher rates of breakage to corals and significantly lower coral cover (Hastier and Ott, 2008;). Reduction of coral leads to an overall decline in fish populations (Hastier and Ott, 2008). In addition, repeated damage by divers to coral colonies increases susceptibility to predation and the frequency of coral disease (Guzner et al., 2010; Zakai and Chadwick- Furman, 2002). The extent of this damage is often directly related to the number of divers who visit (Baker and Roberts, 2004; Hawkins et al., 1999).

As the number of divers increases, concern exists that that those who enjoy the recreation of scuba and the underwater aquatic realm are contributing to its degradation. Thus, this research is dedicated to identifying site specific factors that positively influence both diver’s perceptions and also their interaction with the environment, as well as identifying any key factors contributing to conscious impact.

It is my hope that the discovery of these influences will inform existing conservation programs and provide clear guidelines for grass root efforts to militate the damage to the fragile reef environment inflicted by scuba divers.

This thesis will examine literature associated with human-environment interactions, and reef impact by scuba divers. I will discuss the theoretical framework employed in this thesis, analyze original field data results, and summarize the main findings. 12

Chapter two will review academic literature related to recreational scuba divers’ impact and mitigation on coral reefs around the world. It will summarize research that spans from early environmental work to more recent studies of coral damage by scuba divers and proposed mitigation plans. 13

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

The birth of the environmental movement is commonly attributed to Rachael Carson’s (1962) best-selling book, “Silent Spring.” It was instrumental in introducing human impact on the environment to the general public. She illuminated negative effects of the insecticide DDT, and its relationship to the declining bird population (Carson, 1962). Over the next half century, many academic disciplines have built upon Carson’s research to further investigate the human-environment relationship.

Environmental Movement in Geography

In Geography, human-environment research began with W. M. Davis, an instructor of Physical Geography at Harvard University during the late 1800’s (Harden, 2012). Even though much of Davis’ research centered on geomorphology and landforms, he is credited with helping expand the once predominately earth science focus of academic geography, to include nature-society relationships.

“Let it be here agreed that the whole content of geography is the study of the relationship of the earth and its inhabitants. We thus see two prime divisions of the subject. One includes the physical environment of life; the other all those responses which life has made to the environment” (Davis, 1902).

Davis’ writings from 1902 expressed his understanding of the importance of the human- environment relationship to the academic study of Geography.

The subfield of human-environment geography research evolved through frameworks such as, environmental determinism, human ecology, cultural ecology, political ecology, natural hazards, and human impact on the environment (Harden, 2012). In the late 19th century and early 20th century, academic focus on evolution lead to the framing of human-environmental questions in geography through environmental determinism (Harden, 2012). The framework views environmental factors as the cause and evolution of society and human culture as the response (Harden, 2012). An early environmental determinist, W. M. Davis explored the relationship between human culture and physical adaptations to existing natural landscape, resources and environmental conditions (Davis, 1898). Furthering the idea, leading theorists Ellen Churchill Semple and Ellensworth Huntington promoted environmental determinism in the North America (Harden, 2012). In 1911, Geographer Ellen Churchill Semple published her second book Influences o f Geographic Environment in which she claimed that humans are a product of the earth’s surface. She introduced the theory that climate and environment are the main causes of a 14

person’s behavior and therefore of the cultures that arise from human behavior (Semple, 1911). In his book Civilization and Climate, Ellsworth Huntington described energy from the climate as the determining fact of human accomplishments. Civilization in his view, thrives only where allowed by climate (Huntington, 1922).The belief that nature was responsible for social and human characterizes was criticized for a number of reasons, such as promoting stereotypes, and justifying racism (Harden, 2012). Seeking a deeper understanding of the human-environment relationship geographers continue to explore the relationship between humans and environments through frameworks paralleling the work of environmental determinists (Harden, 2012). Even as environmental determinism continued to frame geographic inquiry, it was challenged by other leading geographers (Harden, 2012).

Opposing determinism, human ecology, cultural ecology and political ecology became popular for framing human-environmental relationship in geography and other academic disciplines. The term “human ecology” was published in the “Sanitation in Daily Life” by Ellen Swallow Richards, where it was defined there as the study of the surroundings of human beings and the effects they produce on the humans lives. Features of environment are natural (such as climate) and artificial products of human activity” (Richards, 1907). In his 1923 publication Geography as Human Ecology, Barrows made a strong case for human ecology as the unifying framework of geography. He encouraged the study of human adjustment to the environment rather than the environment’s influence on humans and human culture (Barrows, 1923). Sauer believed the cultural landscape is not created by nature alone, but by the relationship between culture and nature (Sauer, 1925). Sauer’s work evolved to focus on human impacts to the natural environment and concern for the sustainability of agriculture production (Harden, 2012; Sauer, 1956).

Human Ecology and Cultural Ecology

Human ecology and cultural ecology are closely related. They vary in that human ecology explores systems of bidirectional interaction, influences and change in human- environment relationships, while cultural ecology focuses on adaptive practices and behaviors that have co-evolved between humans and their environments (Zimmerer, 2013).

Cultural ecology demonstrates the utility of geography to understand and solve nature- society problems such as desertification, famine, carrying capacity, tropical deforestation, and population dynamics, land use/resource management (Turner, 1989). Influences such as adaptation, sustainability and degradation influenced concepts of human and cultural 15

ecology into rapidly expanding sub fields such as political ecology, and global change science (Zimmerer, 2013). Cultural ecology explorers the process by which a society adapts to their environment, while academics frame research with political ecology to investigate how political and economic structures explain human-environment interactions and environmental degradation in the developing world (Bryant, 1998).

Political Ecology

The origins of political ecology as a research approach emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Often, 2004). Branching from cultural ecology and development studies, it gained traction in the 1980’s within the field of geography (Brannstrom, 2013). Although a popular framework in geography, scholars in political ecology are drawn from many academic disciplines. The framework explorers power relations and political conflict over ecological distribution and the social struggles for the resources of nature (Leff, 2012). The subfield understands environmental change as a result of power relationships which causes highly variable access to resources.

Understanding environmental degradation became a central goal of political ecology in the 1980’s (Often, 2004). For example, in 1989 Duraiappah’s work explored the correlation between poverty and environmental degradation, suggesting that if policy makers want to address environmental issues then they must first address poverty (Duraiappah, 1989). Piers Blaikie, an expert in rural development and resources, described the framework as the multiscale analysis of environmental degradation from a political economy perspective (Brannstrom, 2013).

While political ecology has drawn much from cultural ecology, it has largely eclipsed cultural ecology as a form of analysis (Walker, 2005). Political ecology explores social and physical origins such as the decision making of environment, land users and managers and their relationship to degradation such as soil erosion, deforestation and flooding. Political ecology takes into account both science and social science (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987).

Natural Hazards

Sharing a common human-environment theme, natural hazards is a rich framework for understanding natural conditions and their effect on humans and societies. Geographers strive to gain a better understanding of hazardous natural events and to characterize and understand human vulnerabilities and responses to them (Burton, et al., 1978; Harden, 2012). For example, The Environment as a Hazard, analyzed various natural hazard 16

events and human agencies, responses, vulnerabilities and involvement (Burton, et al., 1978) and Tobin explored sustainability and resiliency of communities to natural hazard in Florida in relation to hazard planning (Tobin, 1999). Within this sub group, natural forces are seen as independent forces acting on individuals, human societies and landscapes.

Often research questions center on rapid and extreme onset events, but concepts such as resilience, adaptation, and mitigation often are used to study gradual-onset hazards such as drought, land degradation and climate change (Harden, 2012). Natural hazard research is not exclusive to geographers and is benefited by contributions from both physical sciences and social scientists.

Human Impact on the Environment

In the last several decades it is common for geographers to explore how human activities directly and indirectly changes physical, biological, hydrological and chemical aspects of environments. Framed as human impact on environment, researchers build on knowledge of how anthropomorphic activity changes the environment (Harden, 2012). A main goal is to emphasize the need to understand human impacts so that undesired human changes can be reduced, mitigated or stopped.

Research interests span over a wide range of academic disciplines encompassing topics such as environmental quality, water supply, climate change, food scarcity, and biodiversity balances (Carson, 1962; Goudie, 2013; Thomas et al., 1956; Turner et al., 1990; Vitousek et al., 1997). One specific topic of research that aligns with this framework is the ongoing issue of human impact to the fragile reef environment.

Human impacts to the coral reef environment are addressed by geographers and researchers in academic fields such as Environmental and Natural Systems Management, Marine Science, Geography, and others. A common theme used by Researchers in Environmental and Natural Systems Management focuses on sustainable manage of damage to reefs by recreational scuba divers (Davis and Tisdell, 1996; Uyarra, 2009; Worachananant, 2008). Marine and biological scientists explore similar topics of reducing impact through mitigations such as limiting the diver carrying capacity in a particular dive area to reduce impact (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Hawkins and Roberts, 1991; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2000) and the effectiveness of pre dive briefings focused on conservation (Barker and Roberts, 2004). Some marine and biological scientists conduct impact surveys, to assess physical damage by divers to the reef (Guzner, et al., 2010; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Medio, et al., 1996; Rodgers and Cox, 2002). 17

Geographers expanded the surveys of coral breakage to include spatial distribution of the damage. Topographies such as sloping reef (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997) and distance from the divers’ point of entry (Rouphael and Inglis, 2002) are observed for variation divers’ impact. Some geographers seek to understand variables influencing damaging or protective behavior, such as divers’ specialties (Dearden, 2007; Rouphael, Inglis, 2001;) and divers’ perception (Dearden, 2007).

Research about human’s physical impact to the reef environment questioned the impact snorkelers and collectors caused from trampling back in the 1970’s. Surveys were designed to assess coral breakage (Kay and Lidde, 1989; Rodgers and Cox, 2002; Woodland and Hopper, 1977). Paralleling the study of trampling, researchers explored the disruption recreational scuba diving imposes to the reef ecosystem and seeks to identify effective mitigation and management approaches to encourage the sustainability of the scuba recreation (Barker and Roberts, 2004; Medio, et al., 1996; Roupahael and Inglis, 1997). Moreover, research that assesses degradation to reefs seeks to determine if scuba divers are indeed inflicting significant damage to the reef environment and if this impact contributes a significant threat to the overall health of the reef (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2001).

Since the early 1990’s researchers across different fields have sought to quantify divers’ impact on fragile reef environments and propose effective mitigations (Poonian, et al., 2010; Woorachananant, et al., 2008). Damage is commonly surveyed by underwater observations to record diver’s physical contact with the reef. Both Woorachananant and Poonian observed divers and recorded dive accessories that may impact rate. At the same time, they have investigated various proposed methods of impact mitigation and conservation in high volume scuba areas such as limiting the number of scuba visitors per year (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2000), restricting diver access to fragile regions and reinforcing environmental education (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Krieger and Chadwick, 2012), continuous supervision by dive leaders (Barker and Roberts, 2003) and limiting the path of access (Hawkins and Roberts, 1993). Today, much of the ongoing research is aimed at quantifying impact and associated degradation of the reef ecosystems, proposing and assessing effective management approaches, and exploring various mitigation efforts (Guzner et al., 2010; Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Poonian, 2010).

Research that explores coral reef impacts by scuba divers can be divided into two categories. The first investigates physical damage inflicted from increased impacts to the reef ecosystem; the biological impact such as damaged coral and disturbed aquatic life 18

(Guzner, et al., 2010; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Medio, et al., 1996; Rodgers and Cox, 2002). Frequently research designs compare more highly impacted areas with control groups that received significantly fewer divers. Direct impact studies involve actual underwater observation of scuba divers’ interaction with the marine environment are often viewed in relation to variables such as the impact of photographers versus non photographers (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001) or actual GPS spatial tracking of the highest impact areas (Meyers and Holland, 2008).

The second area of coral reef research addresses impact and conservation from a human perspective. In particular, this area of research investigates variables responsible for impact and proposing options for lower impact sustainable scuba tourism management. As an example, studies involving experimental manipulations have focused on topics such as coral growth and resiliency in relation to human trampling (Hawkins, et al., 2005; Rodgers and Cox, 2003; Rouphael and Inglis, 2002), artificial reefs attracting divers to relieve pressure on natural reefs (Leesworth, et al., 2006), and the effects of pre dive education and briefings (Medio, et al., 1997). Both research categories strive to generate data which will influence effective mitigation strategy for sustainable scuba tourist management.

Physical Damage to Reefs

Initially much of the research on coral reef was conducted to assess degradation to the environment due to increased usage and human contact (Guzner, et al., 2010; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Medio, et al., 1996; Rodgers and Cox, 2002). Some of the earliest work involving coral reef tourism and the precipitating degradation of reefs, focused on human trampling. An early work in this field was published in 1977 and explored damage caused by walking and collecting on the fragile reef environment. It indicated that this type of human interaction with reefs is a detriment to its continued natural state (Woodland, 1977).

Snorkelers and other tourists often trample, touch, brush, kick and grasp pieces of coral. Much of the research on the impact of snorkeling to coral reefs assess this destruction, the extent of breakage, and variations in growth patterns attributed to impact inflicted by the trampling of visitors (Kay and Lidde 1989; Rodgers and Cox, 2003; S. Plathong, et al., 2000). For example, Kay and Lidde observed 18 months of variation caused by impacts on a portion of the Great Barrier Reef that was frequently trampled. They observed an increase in the area of unoccupied substrate and of transitional rubble in regions which were exposed to anthropomorphic impact. Branching corals were reduced on the fragile 19

margin of the reef flat; the resilient center was noted as experiencing less impact. In conclusion, they noted that reef walking did indeed have an effect on the more vulnerable parts of the reef and proposed that reef walkers should be directed towards the less fragile structure of the reef (Hawkins and Roberts, 1993).

The relationship between other underwater recreation and the reef environment has also been investigated. Scuba divers were found to cause significant physical damage to coral reefs (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Hawkins et al., 1999; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Researchers have observed anthropomorphic impact such as broken and abraded live coral, decreases in percentage of coral cover, variations in types of coral assemblages, increases in the percentage of dead or diseased coral and decreased survivor rates of transplanted coral, in areas which are subjected to a high volume of scuba tourism.

Physical impacts to reefs by scuba divers are commonly assessed through observational surveys. Researchers typically count the number of physical contacts scuba divers have with their environment. While all interactions are typically recorded, contact does not necessarily equate breakage. Some surveys record damaging versus non harmful contact, accidental impact vs. purposeful interaction. They observe the reef environment for overall impact and investigate various contributing factors (Harriott, et al., 1997; Hasler and Ott, 2008; Meyers and Holland, 2008; Poonian, et al., 2010; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; Rouphael & Ingles, 2001 Worachananant et al., 2008;).

Some variables have been investigated as potential explanations for higher and lower impact to areas, including bottom topography, number of divers visiting a specific area per year, and diver’s range of access, specifically to aggregates of fragile coral types.

Variations in impact related to bottom topography, at sites, were investigated to help understand scuba divers impact to reefs and how best to reduce it (Hawkins and Roberts, 1991; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). One researcher recorded scuba diver impact in relation to bottom topography and composition. Six dive sites of varied topography within the Great Barrier Reef of Australia were observed for physical diver contact and damage. Reef sites with steep and gentle slopes as well as near-horizontal planes were sampled. Damage and breakage ranged significantly between the sites, but type of coral, as opposed to bottom topography, explained the overall risk of breakage and resulting damage (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). In Dahab, South Sinai Egypt, another survey was conducted along various topographies (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Varying topographic reliefs did not appear to affect impact, but the relative amount of broken coral colonies was more abundant at sites with higher visitation (Hasler and Ott, 2008). While bottom topography didn’t appear to account for varied impact, the number of visitations and types of coral did.

Dive sites with high visitation have been observed, to assess if greater numbers of dives equates more impact. Several studies observed areas without scuba divers or with low level of scuba tourism as a control area in order to establish a baseline comparison for sites with higher scuba traffic. In one example Tratalos and Austin conducted video surveys on the Grand Cayman Island to assess biodiversity variations found in both high and low scuba areas (Tratalos and Austin, 2001). They observed three high and three low use areas at various distances from a mooring buoy. Findings revealed several factors that affected the quantity of dead coral: distance from buoy and diver number. Fluctuations in coral and fish species were assessed between reserves which were not dived and sites which are visited by 6,000 divers per year (Hawkins, et al., 1999). The comparison suggested that 6,000 divers per year registered relatively minor direct physical damage, compared to the higher use areas. Broken and abraded live corals at highly frequented sites in Egypt Sharm el Sheikh registered significantly more damaged coral colonies, loose fragments of live coral, partially dead and abraded coral at heavily used areas (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992). When observed over 12 month period, site which experienced the heaviest diving also accumulated the most damage.

Not all forms of coral are equally susceptible to damage caused by humans. Specifically the fragile structure of branching coral is particularly vulnerable to breakage when disrupted or impacted by humans (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Rouphael and Ingles, 2002; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Researchers have concluded that fragile branching coral suffers the highest mechanical damage from scuba impact. One such research endeavor observed underwater topography to assess if impact from scuba divers fluctuated with variations in terrain (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). Terrain did not appear to influence impact. Variations in impact were attributed to the morphological composition of benthic assemblages; all breakages observed were sustained by branching corals (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). Another researcher observed branching corals surrounded by loose detached broken pieces of live coral. One study recorded 171 broken hard coral colonies within the designated study site, 168 of these were branching. (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992). While branching coral experienced the greatest breakage, less damage was notated in massive coral colonies than those composed of branching morphology (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). 21

The percentage of branching coral coverage due to diver disruption appears to vary depending on site, topography and number of visitations resulting in an unclear relation to scuba impact. However, it is widely accepted that branching colonies are the corals most frequently broken by scuba divers (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Thus, reefs with high proportions of branching colonies are highly vulnerable to damage inflicted by scuba diving (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997).

Human Variables

Much research focuses on physical variables and biological damage related to scuba diving; however, without addressing human elements the picture is incomplete. Factors such as chosen underwater recreation, gender, nationality, experience and level of scuba education, have been indicated to potentially influence the rate of impact (Barker and Roberts, 2004; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001)

Photographers are often object oriented and have been observed to cause greater impact. (Poonian, et al., 2010; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001;). Figure 8 is an example of such behavior; the photographer was observed balancing by touching the landscape to stabilize for a clear picture. To test the observation, in one study, disposable cameras were distributed to a sample group. Divers with cameras caused more damage on average than those without cameras (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001). 22

FIG. 8 - Scuba diver with a camera lying on the bottom to take photos. Puerto Galera, Philippines. (Dicker, 2010)

Beyond photography, impact ranged by variables. Several researchers designed case studies to understand what may influence or reduce underwater impact. For example, one study conducted on a liveaboard1 in the Southern Red Sea, recorded variables such as experience level, underwater current, reef topography, drift or boat dive, photographer, gender and nationality (Thompson, 2004). They correlated this data with number of impacts and resulting damage (Thompson, 2004). Of significance were the findings that nationality and gender played a role in the number of interactions and breaks (Thompson, 2004.

Less experienced divers are often challenged with in-water control. Divers range from the newly certified Open Water diver to those with many levels of certification and years of experience. Researchers have questioned if exposure to more or less training affected damage inflicted on the coral reef environment. Findings suggested those with less training imposed greater risk of impact (Dearden, et al., 2006; Worachananant et al., 2008).

1 A dive boat in which divers sleep on board is commonly termed a “liveaboard.” Divers often live on the boat for prolonged periods such as a week or two. This permits SCUBA access to dive sites that are often out of range for shore based dive operations. 23

Diverging Ideas

Diverging but similar ideas have emerged from the diverse body of literature which investigates impacts of recreational divers on coral reef systems. One school of thought suggests that the presence of scuba divers does indeed alter the natural reef environment to a significant degree (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Hawkins, et al.,1999; Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Tratalos and Austin, 2001; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002;;). A second school claims that that recreational diving in lower use areas causes a relatively minor disruption to the environment (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Rouphael and Inglis, 2002). A third suggests that the majority of damage to coral reefs by scuba divers occurs when the reef is first open to scuba divers (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Rouphael and Ingles, 2002) After the initial period where fragile coral, more vulnerable to disruption, is broken, is believed that the remaining coral may be more resilient to future impact (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Rouphael and Ingles, 2002;).

Management Strategies

Divers are attracted to pristine dive sites with intact marine environments that are rich in biodiversity. However, as the volume of divers’ increases, impacts increase and the environmental degradation has been recorded. It has been suggested that the resulting decline in the coral environment would attract a less specialized and discriminating diver who may inflict further damage to sensitive environments (Dearden, et al., 2007). Ultimately, this cycle could steadily degrade the environment, possibly to the point where fewer divers return to the damaged area and the local tourist industry declines (Dearden, et al., 2007). To that extent there has been much discussion regarding the sustainable management of scuba divers.

Carrying Capacity

Amount of degradation to the reef environment by scuba divers has been demonstrated to be in direct relation to the number of scuba divers who pass through the region (Hassler and Ott, 2008; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Studies have quantified the threshold of scuba tourism which defines the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is established by the level of impact that is acceptable. To this extent, several researchers have focused on investigating carrying capacity in relation to impact and sustainable management of coral reefs (Davis and Tisdell, 1996).

These studies often compare areas with lower visitation to those with higher visitation assessing overall damage in relation number of scuba diver. For example Hawkins’ 24

research in the Caribbean suggested that with a maximum use 6,000 per site results in a greater decline of massive corals, and an increase in branching corals at the dive site (Hawkins, et al., 1999). In the Northern Red Sea researchers observed about 9% of the coral damaged at sites with around 4,000 visits per year, when visitations reached 8,000, more than twice the damage was observed (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Another of the world’s most popular dive sites is Dahab, South Sinai Egypt which receives approximately 30,000 divers per year (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Benthic communities and damage to corals between higher and lower scuba traffic sites in the Red Sea were compared (Hasler and Ott, 2008). Regions which experienced high volume of scuba tourism experienced a significantly higher level of broken and damaged coral and a significant decline in coral cover.

At the popular, but comparatively less frequented sites situated within Bonaire’s Marine Park (a popular island for SCUBA which is situated just north of Caracas Venezuela, light and heavy use areas were compared. Damage from 6,000 divers who visit the park per year varied depending on popularity of site. The damage was reported as relatively minor at this volume of use (approximately 1:40 colonies). Slightly more loose fragments of living and abraded coral and a significantly higher number of partially dead colonies of coral were reported at the heavily used sites (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992).

These studies all suggest that higher volume of diving increases negative impact to the environment. Some researchers have suggested that limiting the number of scuba divers per site to approximately 5,000 per year will reduce degradation of the coral reef environment to ecologically sustainable limits (Hawkins et al., 1999; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002).

High levels of visitation by scuba divers to coral reefs have been suggested to cause non- sustainable impact to the fragile coral reef environment. Researchers have proposed several management strategies to mitigate the resulting damage and move towards a sustainable scuba recreation. Controlling the number of annual visits to fragile dive sites by establishing a carrying capacity and limiting visitation of divers to dive sites, is considered by many to be an effective approach to reduce harmful levels of impact. (Harriott, et al., 1997; Hasler and Ott, 2008; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). 25

Limiting the Path

Mechanical damage inflicted on reefs by scuba divers causes biological and aesthetic damage to coral. The resulting abrasions and breakage have been indicated to potentially increase vulnerability to coral disease and predation (Guzner et al., 2010; Hawkins, et al., 1999).

Containing and controlling the path of damage has been proposed by some researchers. For example, training areas often see higher impact as it requires time and experience for open water divers to gain enough proficiency to avoid contact with the environment. An ecologically sustainable dive plan would confine training classes to areas with sandy bottoms, void of fragile reef to damage, (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Zakai and Chadwick- Furman, 2002). Another suggestion for containing the damage is to require all divers be led by guides who theoretically can monitor and reduce the destruction (Harriott, et al., 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Reduction of access to fragile communities is suggested an effective mitigation. One unique impact study was conducted in Hawaii, the researcher shadowed snorkelers and divers around coral reefs while towing a GPS to detect the commonly used path of highest impact. Participants were observed for physical contact and damage to reef. Recommendations were made to control movement of divers to reduce future impact (Meyers and Holland, 2008).

Some researchers have urged dive guides, instructors and divers to engage in more extensive environmental education. (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Rouphael and Inglis 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Greater awareness of ecological sustainability, sensitive organisms, and preservation of the aesthetic environment is necessary to help mitigate the current damage. Increased education in marine conservation has been indicated to promote divers personal commitment towards pro-environmental behavior.

Diversion has also been indicated as a potentially effective preservation tactic. Artificial reef structures such as sunken ships, rock and metal structures encrusted in marine growth attract scuba divers interest. Several researchers suggest that the promotion and construction of artificial reefs will relieve tourist pressure on natural coral reefs (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Leeworthy, et al., 2006; Nicholas, 2013; Stolk and Markwell, 2007 Wilhelmsson, et al., 1998; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002).

Researchers have concluded that accidental impact due to poor dive skills causes damage to reefs. Reduction of resulting damage can be achieved through dive education to improve buoyancy and dive skills, and greater environmental awareness to gain the control needed to avoid a contact with reefs (Hasler and Ott, 2008). 26

Scuba Divers’ Perception

Most of the research that explores perception in relation to reef impact is deductive and attempts to prove or disprove a theory. For example: investigating if the impact from scuba divers is higher closer to the entrance to the dive as opposed to farther away (Hasler and Ott, 2008), or if diving briefs may have an influence on overall divers impact (Worachananant, et al., 2008). Few researchers have launched exploratory investigations into scuba divers perception of their environment, their actions and what factors they feel are the greatest influences on their interaction with the environment.

Several researchers have embraced the notion of exploring diver’s perception of their own damage to the environment and how this perception influences behavior. For example, one study in Phuket Thailand compared how divers’ perceptions of environmental impact changed after witnessing damage inflicted by divers during land- based trips. It was compared to perception changes experienced by those diving off a live-aboard excursion (Dearden, et al., 2007). The research concluded that participants who observed damage were more likely to perceive diving as a negative impact and engage in reef conservation projects, while those who observed no damage view their interaction with the environment in a more favorable light (Dearden, et al., 2007).

Situational influences on diver’s impact are the topic of several investigations. Medio noted a distinction between voluntary and involuntary interaction (Medio, et al., 1997). Accidental contact due to poor diving skill is a direct result of training while conscious impact is the choice of the diver which appears to be reduced by local efforts. Voluntary contact with living corals virtually disappeared after a single pre dive briefing, but the involuntary contact was not significantly altered (Worachananant, et al., 2008).

Some studies suggest that divers can reduce impact by becoming aware of their potential damage to the fragile reef environment (Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Worachananant, et al., 2008). One study compared damage by divers exposed to a pre-dive briefing to those who received no briefing. The results suggested a significant decrease in damage can be achieved through situational influence. Without briefing 97% of the divers caused damage to coral; however, the damage was reduced to 66% after the briefings (Worachananant, et al, 2008). Another investigator observed similar statistics: 97% of those without briefings compared to 52% of those who were briefed inflicted damage on the coral. (Medio, et al., 1997). Medio explored environmental impact and perception variations due to locally initiated conservation efforts (Medio 1997). However, Medio’s research was focused on the effect of pre-dive briefings and did not survey additional 27

factors that may contribute to divers environmental. Awareness of environment though dive briefs has been indicated as effective in reducing impact.

The collective body of work investigating human impact on environment and more specifically damage by scuba divers to the fragile reef environment suggests that scuba diving does degrade the reef (to an arguable extent) and reduce its aesthetic value. Recent literature demonstrates that researchers are seeking to understand scuba divers’ impact on coral reef systems in order to aid the development of effective environmental policy (Guzner et al., 2010; Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Poonian, 2010). Tourist impact management strategies are necessary to mitigate the degradation. Employing strategies such as limiting visitation to a carrying capacity threshold, pre dive briefings and education have proven to be effective management tools. Aligning with human impact on environment, my framework triangulates with grounded theory and environmental psychology.

Much discussion has already situated this study in a human-environmental research context; therefore, chapter three discusses the framing of this research as grounded theory and environmental psychology. 28

CHAPTER 3: Theoretical Framework

Grounded Theory and Environmental Psychology frame this research (Barr, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Hobson, 2006; Steg and Vlek, 2009). Rather than rely on the traditional hypothesis and testing structure, this research is organized and analyzed using Grounded Theory. This qualitative idiographic approach allows divers’ voices to identify the factors which have influenced their conservation ethics and thus interaction with their environment.

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory was developed by Glasser and Strauss in their seminal work of 1967. It employs a post positivistic approach, relying on casual observations to inspire the research focus. The technique explains the process beyond researching and verifying specific facts, to generate explanations directly from the data collected (Strauss and Corbin, 1997). Rather than investigating research questions that are developed by the researcher, Grounded Theory avoids searching for answers to specific questions. Instead, results are derived from data collected and are often illustrated with direct examples from the research subjects. Specific yet flexible guidelines for the procurement and analyzing of quantitative data are the benchmarks of Grounded Theory. The unstructured approach to research inquiry results in theories which are literally grounded in the data themselves, rather than in ideas originating with the researcher (Charmaz, 2006). By eliminating some of the bias introduced by the researcher in traditional research design, new and unique findings can emerge directly from the inquiry. The unstructured research approach fosters the collection of data from a unique perspective, that permits questions and patterns to emerge from empirical observations and data collection.

To that extent, informal conversations, experiences and observations I had while scuba diving throughout SE Asia inspired this thesis research. During a several year period I logged over 150 recreational dives on extended trips to the region. These thoughts inspired me to conduct several informal unstructured pilot interviews with local San Francisco divers. Findings suggested that a diver’s perception of their underwater environment can influence how they interact with the fragile aquatic landscape. Preliminary observation poses the questions: What influences divers’ perceptions of their environment? Specifically, do site specific situational differences influence divers’ interactions and/or impacts? 29

Environmental Psychology

Prior to the investigation and writing process, literature from environmental psychology was consulted to inform the research design. In 2006 Hobson theorized that human geography researchers addressing environmental concerns would benefit from triangulating ideas drawn from environmental psychology (Hobson, 2006). Hobson suggested that researchers exploring responses to environmental issues could utilize environmental psychology to help influence or map out conceptual relationships (Hobson, 2006).

A significant volume of environmental psychology research literature is devoted to understanding people’s thought processes about environmental issues, their concern for environmental problems and the connection between environmental attitudes and proactive behavior (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Within this literature, environmental psychologists rely on behavior models to identify variables which influence environmental decisions. Geographer Stewart Barr inquired about the prediction of waste management behavior and suggested that environmental values, situational characteristics and psychological factors coalesce to influence human environmental behavior (Barr, 2007). He found complex and wide reaching factors to influence environmental decision making. Figure 8 identifies many factors that combine in the decision making process, such as psychological and situational variables, socio-demographics, subjective norms, citizenship, behavioral context, etc. (Barr, 2007).

Barr explained that environmental values are underlying beliefs held towards the physical environment (Barr, 2007). These values involve the relationship between nature and culture or environment and humans. For example: pro-environmentalism is often seen in individuals who are closer to the natural world, open to change and more altruistic (Barr, 2007). Environmental values combine with many situational characteristics and psychological factors to determine how humans treat the environment.

Of importance to this research are situational characteristics including contextual factors that persuade positive environmental behavior. Contextual factors, depicted in Figure 8 such as Behavior Experience include dynamics that influence behavior through gaining awareness and knowledge about the environmental problem. Additionally prior personal experience with similar pro-active behavior (such as volunteer programs) have been found affective contributing to pro-environmental choices (Barr, 2007)

Psychological factors play an integral role in influencing environmental interaction. Several psychological variables identified in Figure 9 are relevant to this research. 30

Subjective norms; if a critical mass of people establish a norm, it influences others behavior towards pro-environmentalism. If humans are aware of an environmental threat to endanger their environment, participants are more incline towards pro-environmental choices. Individuals are more apt to engage in new behavior if they feel they can make a difference with their action (Self efficiency) and they feel the behavior has a tangible effect (Response efficiency) (Barr, 2007).

Conceptual Framework of Environmental Behavior

Behavioral context Socio-demographics Behavioral experience Knowledge Enablers Disablers

Motivators Barriers

Intrinsic Subjective Environmental Altruism motivation norms threat

Response Self Logistics Citizenship cfhcacy efficacy

FIG. 9 - Conceptual Framework of Environmental Psychology which incorporates a wide range of variables to explain and predict environmental behavior (Barr, 2007).

Existing research focused on impacts to reefs by scuba divers, suggests situational variables influence diver’s conscious under water interactions and over-all impact to the fragile reef environment (Medio, et al., 1997; Worachananant, et al., 2008). Thus to limit the scope of inquiry, this geographic inquiry will focus on psychological variables, influenced by site specific factors, and situational variables as potential indicators for effective mitigation of damage to reefs.

The environmental psychology situational influence to environmental problems has been noted by several academics. One researcher suggested that both personal and situational 31

variables interact to determine environmental behavior (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). Another stated that environmental behavior is a result of the interaction between relative values of personal variables and the situation (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). In some cases, situational variables strongly influenced pro environmental thinking, while commitment or moral obligation outweighed these variables in other cases (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). It is suggested that ultimately, the extent of conflict between personal and situational variables influences the way people interact with the environment (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). These attitudes are not solely developed through prior education, as situational variables do play an important role in influencing action and behavior (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). Thus, it is established that situational variables can and do influence how humans interact with their natural environment.

The relevance of situational influence to diver’s impact on reefs was discussed earlier in this thesis. Researchers have demonstrated that divers can reduce impact by becoming aware of their potential impact to the fragile reef environment. For example, several researchers compared damage inflicted to reefs and the environment by divers exposed to a pre dive briefing compared to damage inflicted by those who were not (Medio, 1997; Worachananant et al., 2008). Environmental psychology models suggest a complex array of social cultural and psychological factors contributing to people’s pro environmental choices. Of these, situational influences have partial influence in environmental decisions.

Addressing the problem of environmental impact by scuba divers to coral reefs using Grounded Theory informed by environmental psychology, existing research occupied with scuba divers and reef conservation suggests that situational influences can have a significant effect on diver’s behavior. These outside influences can alter a diver’s perception of the environment and in turn, this perceptual change can influence their behavior towards the environment to an extent worthy of investigation.

Integrating grounded theory and environmental psychology, Chapter four will detail quantitative and qualitative methods which were enlisted in my research inquiry to obtain original data. 32

CHAPTER 4: Methodology

Research Site Location Change

The original research sites were both located in the Philippines. They were selected based on two very diverse settings, and level of underwater impact due to local environmental ethics. Puerto Galera (Figure 10) is a popular tourist destination, and combines scuba diving with a vibrant night life of partying and girl bars. Apo Island boasts conservation oriented scuba, and is home to one of the world’s oldest marine protected areas (Russ and Alcala, 1999).

After spending five weeks in Puerto Galera, the tourism died off. This was the shoulder season, and a slow economy made it necessary to resituate the second study site. The original plan erroneously assumed that during this slow down, visiting divers would have less to keep them occupied, thus be more inclined to spend time answering surveys. Unfortunately, it was challenging to find participants willing to answer surveys. The small isolated island of Apo did not promise an abundance of participants. Thus, I received approval from the IRB board to change locations to Bali, Indonesia; a more popular dive destination at that time of year.

Tulamben (Figure 11) appeared a good alternative site as the shore diving is well known in Bali for drawing many divers. Prior to this research, I had visited Tulamben several times. During the weeks I lived and dove at the site, I observed a large diverse international population of divers arriving daily from various parts of the island for shore dives. While not specifically eco-conscious like Apo Island, Tulamben promised an abundance of diverse research participants.

Unfortunately this change in location decreased the distinct difference noticed from one dive area to another. For example, in Puerto Galara (Sabang Beach), discos and girl bars dominate, while the environment in Apo is quite the opposite. Trails lead through the small village of Apo Island, pasts dirt floored hand built huts and people cooking over traditional coconut husk fires. Influenced by scientists and conservationists who established the marine protected area, the predominate dive shop on the island, holds strong environmental ethics and is an economic source for the village. Thus on Apo, dive guides, operators and many locals have been educated in the value of protecting the natural environment from impact.

Several years before this study I visited Apo Island for vacation diving. During the dive one of the divers collected a pretty uninhabited shell and carried it back to their 33

bungalow. Later in the day a guide stopped by and said, “I’m sorry mam but we must return this shell to the ocean. Preserving our environment for other divers to enjoy protects the future for my children.” The guide was clear that the economic future of the village depended on the immediate protection of the reef. The coral appeared beautiful with little sign of impact. Conversely, at Puerto Galera I experienced much broken coral and little discussion about protecting the environment.

Changing the study site to Tulamben assured that I would interact with a sufficient number of survey participants. The main dive attraction, the USS Liberty wreck, is easily accessed by shore. The coast is lined with resorts and a public dive park. Daily, a large variety of divers are driven to the public dive park from various shops around the island of Bali. The village of Tulamben is small, has few amenities (a few restaurants, and a very small local store) beyond the dive shops and resorts. The dive park consists of a parking lot, restroom, a few local indoor stands selling food, drivers and porters sitting around on the dirt or cement, a few walking vendors and a dirt path to the rocky beach. Guides accompany most divers at the dive park, and the distance to town and busy dive schedule, assures few of these divers explore town beyond the dive park. The public entry park and simple main street of Tulamben offer little in terms of purposeful visual impressions to divers visiting the dive park. As anticipated, it did offer a large selection of participants.

One of my original research interests was to explore if messages embedded in the landscape or environment, such as conservation posters or educational readings, influenced diver’s interaction with the underwater landscape. The new location did not offer images for comparison to Puerto Galera, but did provide a population of divers to survey who had very diverse travel experience.

During the interviews, some divers were able to share experiences from diving in eco- conscious locations, such as with certain operators in the Red Sea. I believe these experiences helped accomplish the original intent of research design to obtain data from various locations.

To investigate the influence of impacts, this research design employs a multi-tiered approach. It triangulates data collected through semi-structured interviews of scuba diving tourists, participatory observation underwater surveys of site-specific variations in conscious impact to reefs, and landscape observation surveys recording visual images presented to divers. Underwater surveys of diver’s impact, interviews with visiting scuba divers and landscape observation surveys were approved by the IRB process and later 34

conducted in the field. Data was collected from two geographic locations: Puerto Galera, Philippines, and Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia.

In 2010 I traveled to popular international dive destinations in both regions. Between August-October 2010 I spent five weeks engaged in research in Puerto Galera, Philippines, and three weeks in Tulamben, Bali Indonesia. Both sites are international scuba diving destinations attracting a large and diverse population of divers from many countries. Puerto Galera, Philippines is a boat diving destination situated in a larger town infamous for night life and prostitution. The USS Liberty wreck in Tulamben Bali is easily accessed from shore. Several local dive shops are situated in the small village of Tulamben, on the quite north east coast of Bali, Indonesia. It’s a day trip destination for many visiting divers that are transported by vehicle from nearby tourist towns. Katanga

Mciw «

I'vg&nia*1 «

Mount Ta q jyta y { San Pablo

|t*aS J Bat&ngas MKMTB

FIG. 10 - Locator Map for Puerto Galera, Philippines 35

Menjangan»)sfand Singaraja Pemuteran Lovina

Kintamarvi iTulamben West Bali Mount* Batukaru Moortt

Central Baii SesaMh

Medewr Beach Sang!:*

Klii«^kur>g mdniasa Tabanan

SOufp Bali Nusa C fq : r Lembongan Seminyal^ le^iar Nusa g w iuu Ceningsn Nusa Penkfa J*mbaran

yiuwatu

FIG. 11 - Locator map for Tulamben Bali Indonesia.

Underwater Participatory Observation Surveys

The underwater participatory observation surveys were conducted while diving, to quantify actual conscious impact by divers and thus the potential for reduced damage. Underwater observation participants were selected through convenience and snowball sampling, based on the organization of dive partners on the boat and researcher’s proximity to divers when diving. Divers’ behavior was casually observed without awareness of the participant, to avoid introducing bias. Each survey started when divers appeared in control and were not in contact with the environment. The number of purposeful contacts divers made with underwater structure was recorded. The divers were not aware of the nature of the survey to assure natural behavior. Attempts were made for diversity, avoiding age, gender and length of diving to avoid introducing bias. In total, 52 divers were observed for seven minute intervals. The casual nature of the survey, purposefully, did not appear to disturb natural interaction or create any disturbance beyond a normal dive. 36

Researchers have conducted similar underwater surveys with observations intervals ranging from 7-10 minutes (Krieger and Chatwick, 2013; Medio, et al.; 1997; Poonian, et al., 2010; Worachananant, et al., 2008). Due to the nature of my sites and situation, I opted to align with Medio’s survey methods and observe underwater contacts for seven minute time segments (Medio, et al.; 1997). The number of purposeful interactions with marine life and environment was recorded (Appendix A) and graphed.

Observed impact data had the possibility of being influenced by site specific situational variables, thus it was recorded and analyzed separately and data was compared to the other location. The two research locations were graphed separately and together. A comparative graph between the two research locations was generated.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Thirty interview participants were selected casually through convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Ten were conducted in the Philippines and 20 in Bali Indonesia. In the Philippines, the dive shop, Asia Divers, granted permission to approach their scuba clients for potential interview candidates. I also approached random divers from other dive shops encountered in the area. My request for interviews was met with several reactions: some were not interested in the time imposition while on holidays, several inquired deeper into the subject matter and were uncomfortable discussing interactions with underwater environment while others were eager to help contribute to the research. The semi-structured questions provided the opportunity for divers to offer their own experiences and perspectives and sometimes suggestions to the research. As noted in the IRB proposal, no demographic data were recorded. Correlating findings based on age, nationality, gender, etc. is beyond the scope of this investigation. I did record levels of dive experience.

Semi-structured interviews (Appendix B) were held at a location and time of the participants’ convenience. Interviews ranged from 10 to 60 minutes in length. The interview questions assessed scuba training history, underwater interests, level of physical interaction with marine environment, and conservation participation. Interview questions were designed to understand how these ideas and behaviors were formed, how the ideas impacted the underwater behavior and what influenced any change in environmental behavior over time. The study investigated if situation variables at various scuba locations influenced fluctuations in diver’s conscious environmental behavior, and what factors were perceived as most influential in accounting for underwater behavior variations. 37

Qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews was recorded by a digital audio recorder. The data was transcribed on site and later analyzed using open and selective coding from Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1997) (Appendix C). This technique allows organizational categories to emerge from the data itself. To preserve anonymity of participants, each interview was represented by a number (ranging from 1-10 and 15-35), rather than by name. Participants’ responses to each category were recorded and analyzed. The questions assessed general scuba experience and perceptions from a combined career of diving. Some quotes may apply directly to site specific experiences, but much of the data collected relates to general scuba experience and knowledge and thus will be analyzed together without site comparison.

Landscape Observation Surveys

Landscape observation surveys were employed to assess site specific images that may influence underwater impact. Qualitative observation techniques are discussed in many qualitative research books. One such book is Observational Techniques (Adler and Alder 1994). Observation studies have great value when triangulated with other research techniques to cross check data (Adler and Adler, 1994). In my research, the landscape observation study simply observes images and impressions a diver may encounter when diving the region. For example, some dive areas promote ecotourism and conservation, others do not.

The landscape surveys were conducted at both Puerto Galera and Tulamben to observe images and impressions in the landscape. For observation, I followed the obvious path through town which most divers would take. This was observed by the location of dive shops and the dive site, the general flow of foot traffic and location of most shops and amenities. During these transect observations; I recorded any visual image presented on the landscape orally with a recorder. Every sign, notice, and print image was observed and recorded. The data was entered and coded using grounded theory. Patterns emerged from the data.

Results from Puerto Galera Philippines, which is a high traffic site, and Tulamben, Bali, were compared. Survey results were analyzed using grounded coding and graphs generated by Excel. 38

Bias and Limitations

Underwater Survey

Both accidental and conscious impacts were frequently observed during the underwater impact surveys. Some accidental impacts to reefs were generated by divers with poor diving technique and/or buoyancy control (largely caused by abbreviated training). Similar to what researchers have observed, often these divers descend through the water column crashing down on the coral before obtaining control of their buoyancy (Tratalos and Austin, 2001). While diving they are sometimes unaware that their fins are touching and breaking bits of coral (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Walters and Samways, 2001). Purposeful impact involves conscious interaction with marine life. In Southeast Asia, for example, I have seen divers poking coral or marine life with metal sticks to observe the animal’s behavior. It’s common for divers to jam the same sticks into coral, to balance and maintain position, in order to compensate for lack of dive skills. Divers often play with creatures, touch items or even grab live coral to rest or maintain balance. Many of these incidents potentially result in damage to fragile organisms.

Most existing studies address all scuba impacts, whether inflicted by an erratic fin when out of control or purposefully imposed to test an organism’s reactions, as a similar phenomenon (Krieger, et al., 2013; Poonian, et al., 2010; Worachananant, et al., 2008;). However, sharing a similar view to Medio, I feel accidental and purposeful underwater contacts should be recorded separately (Medio, 1997). Mitigation of the two impacts varies substantially, as conscious impact is a personal choice and thus more easily deterred. As previously mentioned, lack of skill and buoyancy control can be solved by more extensive training. I believe that a distinction between the two impacts is necessary to assess effectiveness of existing mitigation efforts and develop future environmental policy.

During the underwater surveys, casual observations and convenience survey technique may account for some of the anomalies of data in the underwater surveys. For example, the high number of contacts reported at Seraya (Table 1), occurred when photographers attempted to stabilize themselves in strong current to take pictures of very small marine life. Photographers grabbed rocks, pushed rods into the sand and employed various impactful techniques to attempt to take a focused photograph. Although significant attempts were made to eliminate bias and dive with a variety of shops, the greater number of divers reporting zero contact recorded in the Philippines may be attributed to the high standard of environmental ethics imparted by instructors at a dive shop that I dove with 39

and observed. It was common for divers to be trained by the shop returning regularly for dives. Instructors at this shop impressed upon their students the importance of no impact diving and modeled this teaching. There were other shops that did not employ such conscious education. These details are outside the scope of this research, but worthy of further investigation.

Conscious efforts were made to access a diverse population during the underwater survey. While participants were selected through convenience sampling, I was careful not to select by age, gender or nationality or personal connection. However, some ethnically centered Asian resorts in Puerto Galera, did not appear to allow outside divers on boats. The resort guests and guides spoke little or no English and there did not appear to be a dive shop or boat open to divers outside of the resort. In an effort to solve this issue, one night a friend and I carried enough gas for two hours of diving. We kicked way out from shore and waited underwater at a very popular night diving site to observe boat divers and obtain a random sample of divers (Large groups of divers from a variety of dive shops passed by which helped balance any survey bias).

While the bias towards certain shops was reduced, it was not eliminated. A large group appeared during the night survey exhibiting constant contact with the ground, reef etc. They were chasing fish, doing mid water flips, wrestling on the sand and reef, clawing coral for photo opportunities and huddling cross-legged in piles of divers on both coral and sand. The contact was so astounding and severe, a survey of accurate interaction count was impossible.

Casual conversation, with several dive masters and instructors in town suggested that dives staying at certain resorts inflicted some of the greatest impact. It is impossible to determine the origin of the group observed; however, the observations suggest that impact rate may vary by shop and cultural norms. Thus, surveys I obtained through several shops may not represent a true picture of the average impact in the region without including data from some of the closed resorts. The observation was beyond the scope of my inquiry but begs for future investigation.

Interviews

It was anticipated that 15 surveys would be conducted in the Philippines and 15 at the alternative study site in Indonesia. Due to challenges accessing survey participants in Puerto Galera and the abundance of participants in Indonesia, 10 surveys were completed in the Philippines and 20 in Indonesia. During the survey portion, convenience and snowball sampling has the potential to introduce gender, age, economic, and cultural bias. 40

Convenience sampling could potentially introduce a stronger representation of people I naturally connect with, such as English speakers, similar age range, possibly gender, etc. Snowball sampling relies on the survey participant, to introduce more participants to the study. Newly recruited participants are often within the original person’s peer group. This can introduce an imbalance in culture representation, age or even gender bias to the findings. By consciously approaching a widely diverse population, informal attempts were made to access a broad range of perspectives.

Interview subjects were approached with respect and asked if they would be willing to participate in a survey to discuss their relationship with the underwater environment when diving. Several refused to participate, due to not wanting to discuss the topic. Informed consents were reviewed and signed before the interviews commenced. Environmental interaction is a sensitive subject for many divers in the region. The only way to obtain a true understanding of the divers’ impact might be to observe the diver underwater prior to an interview, then discuss what was observed. I did not engage in this process, as deception would necessarily be involved.

Landscape Surveys

The landscape surveys conducted at both Puerto Galera and Tulamben to observe images and impressions in the landscape. In Puerto Galara I observed a crowded walk space traveling between the main dive shops, bars, restaurants, amenities. In Tulamben there is only one main path leading from the parking lot to the dive site.

The tourist region of Puerto Galera is very densely populated with tourist amenities. Dive shops and boats line the beach, the main path, which traverses just inside the dive shops and tourist amenities, parallels the beach. If diving at one of the many beach dive shops, the diver will most likely walk a portion or perhaps this entire path. It’s extremely crowded, with bars, markets, vendors, dive shops and many tourists. There are many dive shops in Puerto Galera, each with different staff. Due to the large number of dive facilities, an exhaustive survey of each shop is beyond the scope of this research project.

In Puerto Galera the most popular path was surveyed, but there are variations in the path a diver may take to access their particular hotel/dive shop or resort. This variation may affect the outcome of the observation survey.

It is my experience that individual shops create their own culture. This survey was to simply gain awareness of general images rather than detailed observation. Therefore, I believe to truly assess influential images and messages each diver is exposed to within 41

individual resorts and shops, an extensive survey of both environment and diver education and diver briefings is required. Thus, with so many different dive shops, it would take a more exhaustive survey to adequately assess the images to which each diver is exposed.

Employing these methodologies, qualitative and quantitate data for the underwater survey, semi-structured interviews and landscape observation survey is recorded and analyzed in Chapter 5. 42

CHAPTER 5: Results and Discussion

Empirical A - Underwater Surveys

Underwater surveys were conducted to quantify the number of intentional interactions divers have with their environment. Impact can be divided into two categories: the first is lack of training and the second is conscious choice to interact with organisms and the underwater environment. The intentional impact represents damage that potentially can be mitigated by situational factors mentioned by environmental psychologists (Barr, 2007). Table 1 details the date, dive location and number of contact observed per participant.

To observe this impact I conducted underwater surveys on fifty two divers at various sites within the study sites. Contact rates ranged from zero to 18 interactions during the seven minute observation period. The graph visually represents the number of contacts per diver observed. The Y axis represents the number of divers and the X axis the number of contacts with reef per diver. While some divers inflicted zero purposeful interactions, the highest observed was 18 contacts in 7 minutes (Figure 12). Divers with cameras tended to have a higher interaction rate. 29 divers (over 55%) did not interact with the environment during the observed time. Muck divers (a form of diving aimed at spotting small marine life) with cameras, swimming into current attempting to stabilize the cameras for photos, were observed with very high contact rates of up to 15-18 times per 7 minute observation period. 45% of the divers observed demonstrated conscious interaction with the environment. 43

Table 1 - Represents the number of conscious interactions each diver observed had with the underwater environment during a 7 minute observation period. Conscious contact is defined by touching, kicking grabbing, and any other purposeful types of contact with both marine organisms and the underwater environment. Data was collected from Puerto Galara Philippines and Tulamben Bali Indonesia dive areas.

7 Minute Underwater Surveys Date Location u of Contacts

29-Aug Puerto Galera 7 S-Sep Puerto Galera 7 S-Seo Puerto Galera 1 10-Sep Puerto Galera 4 10-Sep Puerto Galera 1 13-Sep Puerto Galera 0 13-Sep Puerto Galera 0 20-Sep Puerto Galera 0 20-Sep Puerto Galera 0 20-Sep Puerto Galera 0 20-Sep Puerto Galera 0 22-Sep Puerto Galera 0 22-Sep Puerto Galera c 22-Sep Puerto Galera c 22-Sep Puerto Galera c 25-Seo Puerto Galera 0 25-Sep Puerto Galera 0 25-Sep Puerto Galera c 25-Sep Puerto Galera 0 25-Sep Puerto Galera : 25-Sep Puerto Galera i 25-Sep Puerto Galera 4 25-Sep Puerto Galera 6 25-Sep Puerto Galera 8 25-Sep Puerto Galera 8 8-Oct Tulamben 0 8-Oct Tulamben 0 8-Oct Tulamben 0 8-Oct Tulamben 1 8-Oct Tulamben 3 S-Oc: Tu ai . - - 3 8-Oct Tulamben 5 9-Oc: Serya 15 9-Oct Serya 18 11-Oct Tulamben 0 11-Oct Tulamben 0 11-Oct Tulamben 0 11-Oct Tulamben 0 11-Oct Tulamben 0 11-Oct Tulamben 0 12-Oct Tulamben 0 12-Oct Tulamben 0 12-Oct Tulamben 0 12-Oct Tulamben 0 12-Oct T- i 12-Oct Tulamben 1 12-Oct Tulamben 1 12-Oct Tulamben 1 12-Oct Tulamben 2 12-Oct Tulamben 2 12-Oct Tulamben 3 12-Oct Tulamben 4 44

35

30

S2 25 >v £ 20 0 1| 15 Z 10

5 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 18 Number of Contacts

FIG. 12 - Total contacts for all divers observed. Y axis represents the number of divers who inflicted damage. X axis represents the number of contacts each diver inflicted during a seven minute survey.

These data were sorted into data sets, representing participant responses at the two study sites. Divers observed in the Philippines were comparted to those surveyed in Indonesia. The Y axis represents the number of divers who inflicted damage. The X axis represents the number of contacts each diver inflicted during the survey (Figure 13). A range of underwater contact appears fairly consistent in both countries, suggesting that a diverse sample of the diving population was achieved. Both locations had fairly high levels of divers who were observed to not inflict any damage (Bali 13 divers and Philippines 16 divers).

It should be noted that the highest impact was observed at dive site near Tulamben that attracts photographers seeking to capture images of very small macro marine life (15 and 18 incidents per 7 minutes). 45

16

I Puerto Galera I Tulamben

I IL ■ ■ ■ I i ■ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 18 Number of Contacts

FIG. 13 - Comparison of contacts by divers observed in the Philippines vs. Bali Indonesia.

Empirical B - Semi Structured Interviews

The interview component of this research project was conducted in person. Thirty interviews ranging from 10 minutes to an hour in length were completed over the research period. Semi-structured survey questions collected data such as diver experience level, self-reported level of interaction with underwater environment, perception of others underwater interaction, and prior conservation education.

The flexible nature of the semi-structured interviews allowed divers to share personal experience that influenced their underwater interactions and aligned with environmental psychology. Using grounded theory, findings and patterns emerged from the data.

61% of the divers interviewed fell into a (0-50 dive) beginner category. 23% had logged (50-150 dives) intermediate status. 16% had logged over 150 dives and for this study will be considered experienced (Figure 14). A comparative graph of dive experience was generated for the two dive sites (Figure 15). 80% of the participants at Tulamben had less than 50 dives, while only 30% were classified as beginners in Puerto Galera. A much higher percentage of divers interviewed in Puerto Galera were experienced and had over 150 dives, 50% compared to 0% in Tulamben. 46

The semi structured interview format was aimed to understand the conscious impact divers have on their environment, the origin of their environmental ethics and situational factors which affect variations in the impact. Detailed coding is recorded in Appendix A.

I have summarized the participants dive experience level before progressing with their impact and perception. Next, divers were asked to self-report their comfort with interacting with the underwater environment.

Beginner Diver (0-50 dives)

Intermediate Diver (50-150 dives)

Experienced Diver (150+ dives)

FIG. 14 - The pie chart compares the level of dive experience 2 of participants surveyed.

2 These categories are established for comparison. They are not intended to create official distinctions, as the terms have many interpretations. For example, in some regions a diver with as few as 40 dives may be considered “experienced” and in other areas 500-1,000 logged dives could be considered “experienced.” 47

Puerto Galera ■ Tulamben

80%

50%

20% 20%

0%

Beginner Diver Intermediate Diver Experienced Diver (0-50 dives) (50-150 dives) (150+ dives)

FIG. 15- The bar graph compares participants dive experience level for the two different survey sites.

Diver’s Stated Level of Interaction with the Underwater Environment

First, it is necessary to look at the prevalence of impact. The majority of divers who were surveyed claimed to engage in mild interaction with the natural environment. This often included behavior they perceived as “non-harmful,” such as moving water towards marine life to test its reaction or touching an animal or a rock they perceived to be harmless. A smaller percent of divers reported more extreme perspectives of abstaining from all underwater contact with marine life and structure. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some felt interaction was acceptable.

Figure 16 is a comparison by dive site, between diver’s levels of comfort in interacting with the underwater environment. Both sites showed even distribution between those who felt comfortable interacting with the environment and those who were against all contact with organisms or bottom structure. The majority of divers favored “mild interaction” at both sites. In Tulamben mild interaction was acceptable to 62% of the divers, while 80% of the Puerto Galera divers surveyed felt comfortable with this level of contact. Data from Tulamben displayed a larger variation between those who were comfortable with contact and those who avoided it. 19% favorited contact, while 19% were against it. The opposing perspectives showed less variation in Puerto Galera, where 10% of the divers felt comfortable with interaction and 10% avoided contact. 48

16% of the collective divers interviewed from both sites purported to have no interaction with the underwater environment or marine life while diving. Aligning with Stuart Barr’s environmental psychology model, their pro-conservation environmental values were influenced by both situational and psychological variables (Barr, 2007).

While a relatively low number of participants claimed to avoid all interaction with reefs, the majority of divers interacted at a mild level. For example, for many participants interactions included the act of moving water to test the reaction of marine life such as fish and Christmas tree worms, and stabilizing self with fingers touching rock. One diver claimed to have minimal interaction, “sometimes you find a large anemone and want to look at it, and maybe you swish a bit of water to move it over.” The diver continued to explain minimal impact: “Sometimes I steady myself by putting my finger on the reef or shine a light at something, or put a finger under a flounder to move it so others can see.” Another diver claimed to “play with the little clown fish, and grab rocks.” “If a fish comes up to nibble me, I will play with them. A couple of times I sent a puff of water at them to see what they would do.” “I sometimes waive a hand to frighten a Christmas tree worm into retreating back into its hole.” One participant stated: “Twice... I had to shake my stick to make the animal move so the guide sees it.” All of these divers believed their interactions to be low impact and non-harmful. Several were asked how they knew that their actions were not causing harm. They concluded that they were not positive, and should probably become more educated about the organisms sensitivity to interactions with humans.

Several participants justified their interaction through various reasons: “I just touch the corrals on current dives.” This is an action is often taught by guides and perceived acceptable due to the need for self-preservation. Another remarked, “I take my stick and touch the thing to show the guide something he can’t see.” Using a stick to excite organisms is a common practice by guides in that region. The behavior is mimicked by divers who perceive it as acceptable. “Sometimes I hold to stabilize myself for macro photography.” The need to stabilize oneself for picture-taking by touching the bottom may be a common and somewhat tolerated practice but still imposes impact and is avoidable. “I touch starfish and that sort of stuff but never actually touch anything consciously at least.” It is a common perception to see some organisms as less fragile than others. When the divers were asked how they know which organism is fragile, they often say they have watched guides actions but have no concrete knowledge. “I try not to touch, but I play with the jellyfish and in the past an instructor has handed me a sea urchin. We picked up a sea cucumber, a big hermit crab, but we don’t really play with stuff.” Actions by authority figures are sometimes perceived as non-harmful. The 49

perception of what is impacted by touch is often formed by instructors and guides and rarely verified by the diver.

The tendency towards only engaging in perceived non-harmful interaction appeared in the data. It included interactions with objects and living organisms believed to not cause disturbance or harm. Interactions with inanimate objects such as a rock or shell were commonly perceived as acceptable, while interface with living marine life, perceived as fragile (such as a nudibranchs), and was considered to be unacceptable. While many participants showed some level of respect to underwater marine life, six participants clearly stated that they are comfortable touching sand or rock, but not coral and living organisms. It was a common perception that rock and sand was devoid of fragile marine life, however, small fragile organisms can exist on both and sustain damage from human contact.

Touching marine life such as sea cucumbers and jellyfish was perceived by some participants as non-harmful; often this perception was due to mimicking “acceptable” behavior of scuba guides and instructors. Feeding fish was another impact perceived by some to be acceptable and extremely distasteful to others. “I took bread down today... the fish went bizerk. I sprinkled sand in the water and pretended like it was food. I was surrounded by a wall of fish and that was wonderful.” Others felt that providing unnatural food to marine life was an unnatural impact. Most divers who interacted with the environment embraced some degree of environmental ethical belief, discerning perceived harmful from non-harmful behavior. 50

■ Puerto Galera ■ Tulamben

80%

No Interaction Mild Interaction Interaction

FIG. 16 - Level of diver interactions with the underwater environment.

Does behavior vary with location?

Changes in individual divers’ environmental behavior, due to location, was crucial to understanding how situational factors influence an individual’s behavior. What inspired the change? Of those surveyed, 38% of the participants reported to consciously vary their own underwater behavior and impact in relation to situational/contextual variables including conservation talks, signs at dive site, influence from dive shop, ethics reinforced by guides and on site skills tests (Figure 17).

Aligning with Barr’s category of characteristics which influence environmental behavior, this study identifies key situational elements that influence diver’s perception of site- specific environments and thus dissuade diver’s impact. Factors that were reported to alter interaction include dive master/guides behavior, local diver’s attitude towards the environment, local laws/fees and fear for personal safety in a new and unfamiliar environment.

Some participants clearly articulated that environmental values and behavior fluctuation were based on psychological and situational influences. Their underwater ethics adjust regionally to mimic social norms established by local dive guides. For example, one participant claimed that acceptable environmental interaction “is dependent upon what is 51

acceptable to where you are.” Another replied “Well, normally if there was a dive master I’d sorta go off their lead,” responded a participant. The way they interact with the environment to an extent does affect how I interact. I obviously have my own ideas, but you do blend into your environment.” Another psychological factor that influenced visiting divers was local respect or disregard for the environment. If on a preserve, a reverent local attitude inspired the same in visiting divers. However, if locals disregarded the environment, then visiting divers felt less compelled to preserve the abused environment. For example, one diver stated, “A lot of people do harmful things to the environment. You probably would think along the lines of - what’s the point of me doing it different if you are somewhere like the Philippines, where there is a lot of spearfishing, a lot of pollution, a lot of damaging practices to the reef.” One survey participant demonstrated his conservation ethics varying by site in this quote: “You would be very, very careful in the Red Sea. It would be very, very frowned upon if you trod on a piece of coral. But if you compare it to say here, where, I mean your average Philippine can go out with his spear gun and take whatever he wants - I suppose you don’t want to piss anyone off. You don’t want to be unpopular. So possibly I would make more of an effort in places where damaging coral was very frowned upon.” Thus, regional social norm towards the marine environment was indicated to influence diver’s perception of and behavior towards the underwater environment.

Situational variables can affect participants whose behavior varied from site to site; they claimed to adhere to regional standards of acceptability that dive masters established at a particular site through education and action. Several divers believed that dive masters were familiar with the local marine life and thus qualified to educate about what constitutes damaging and non-damaging behavior. When participants were asked if they trusted dive masters to be adequately informed, several divers paused and acknowledged that they should probably research in greater depth before blindly trusting the dive guide.

One diver disclosed a large difference in attitude and behavior between two of his local dive sites situated within several miles of each other. He perceived marine organisms at the preserve to have more value than the same organisms in an adjacent unprotected site. Thus he felt it unnecessary to uphold the same level of low impact diving at the second site. His attitude at the unprotected site was: “Looks like I’m not going to hurt anything over there.” His dual-perception was formed through education imparted by authority figures and interpretive displays and lack thereof. Thus perception of environment influenced by both education and social norms in over 30% of the divers surveyed was demonstrated to vary by region. This reported variation presents the exciting possibility of future opportunity for effective mitigation of impact. 52

FIG. 17 - Variables affecting diver’s behavior variations underwater at various dive destinations

Origin of Environmental Ethics

Diver’s response to the origin of their conservation views varied (Figure 18). The results resembled the complexity of environmental psychology models. These models depict pro environmental behavior, a product of many influences such as ethics instilled during childhood, impactful education, and knowledge imparted during scuba training have also been demonstrated to shape divers overall acceptability of interaction with the environment. My specific interest is what external or situational factors influence scuba divers perception of the environment in a way meaningful enough to reduce impact. 43% of the survey participants claimed their perception of the underwater environment was swayed by instructors within classes and subsequently enforced by guides and instructors. Instructors were noted to employ various educational approaches to influence diver’s perception of their environment. For example, a diver who believed in zero interactions, shared the impact of professional dive guides influence. “My guides were very strict and conscious of preserving the environment telling me not to touch anything.”

Thus, information presented by instructor’s appeared effective in reducing and eliminating underwater impact. Another diver shared that his open water instructor pointed out the damage from people and dynamite fishing as part of the education. 53

Witnessing the physical damage made a lasting impression on his perception of the fragility of our reef system. Several participants engaged in meaningful educational presentations and volunteer activities. Beach and underwater clean ups, conservation experiences with turtles and seeing reef destruction inspired pro-environment behavior.

Direct or indirect, dive guides behavior was indicated to influence scuba divers underwater interaction. One participant shared, “I think dive shops and places do influence people’s behavior. If everyone is very disciplined. 1 do it. But in Thailand they are more relaxed and I follow.” Dive guides are in a leadership role, thus this survey indicates they have great power and responsibility to influence divers underwater environmental ethics. While other factors played roles in modifying underwater damage inflicted by scuba divers, it was noted that impactful education was the most influential.

Many divers claimed that their respect for the environment came from situational factors such as education imparted by guides and scuba instructors. Some researchers agree that impactful environmental education and briefings coupled with supervision from dive guides effectively reduces diver impact (Barker and Roberts 2004; Hasler and Ott, 2008; Medio et al, 1996).

In addition to situational factors, psychological factors such as social norms and a sense of belonging reportedly were important influence in developing divers’ underwater environmental ethics. One participant reported that a guide in Red Sea evoked a sense of belonging by telling the participant; “we are one big dive community and we shouldn’t be doing this, we should be protecting the environment.” The participant claimed that they “played with my ego a bit - now I’m part of a big family, more protecting than destroying and exploiting.” Through psychological factors the perception of the underwater environment, to some participants, was seen as fragile and in need of protection.

While this study found that various psychological and situational variables influenced divers’ interaction with the underwater environment. Meaningful education during initial scuba training, in conjunction with ongoing support of these ethics by scuba role models, accounted for the majority of the total impactful influence of underwater conservation ethics. 54

■ Conservation Images/talks

■ Signs at dive sites/boats

■ Dive shops Influence

■ Ethics taught in OW/or other scuba classes ■ Ethics reinforced by guides

■ Test skills before diving

■ Personal Ethics

■ Trash clean up's

Fearful of danger in the enviroment

FIG. 18 - Origin of diver’s conservation ethics.

Do interactions with the underwater environment change with time and experience?

Findings from the study suggest that pro-environmental behavior influenced by the initial scuba instructor may transition to higher impact with time and experience. Since the majority of the survey participants were divers with less than 50 dives, this progression in diving experience and underwater comfort may account for greater impact rate in the future than appears in this research. The survey revealed that a number of divers believe that their ethics towards interacting with the underwater environment will change over time and with greater experience. The main findings of this survey are summarized in Table 2 and detailed responses per participant are displayed in Appendix A.

Several divers claimed that situational forces, such as more experienced instructors, dive masters and peers, will demonstrate which organisms will not sustain harm if touched and which will be impacted from human interactions. For example, one participant who had 55

only logged ten dives stated, “In open water, when I got certified they taught me not to touch or annoy animals. I think my attitude changes base on what the guides are doing. Well I didn’t do as much interacting so far, but if the guides do it then it’s probably ok.” This response indicates that with time the participant may change the interactions underwater. Another diver claimed to not interact at present, but stated: “My father told me always not to touch things underwater, but he touches with a stick. So once you get more experience and know what to touch and not touch, then yes, I will interact.” In this case gaining experience from a “knowledgeable” mentor will allow participants to interact with marine organisms. Another interview depicted a similar feeling: “My Japanese scuba teacher was very big on the idea that you don’t touch something. I noticed the guides here just dusting the sand off something that’s lurking on the sea bed.” The participant was asked, “If you saw a sting ray buried in the sand, would you dust it off?” The participant replied: “I don’t know. Probably, because I’d liked to see the sting ray fly, so yes.” Each of these participants demonstrated a transition to greater impact based on external situational factors.

Ongoing impactful environmental education appeared to have positive influence. One participant acknowledged, “I met one of the guys who said he likes to play with things but they are way more advanced.” The statement implies that some newer divers’ look up to “advanced” divers’ as being more knowledgeable about “safe” environmental interactions. The participant was asked: “So over time you feel you will know what you can touch or not touch and make your own decisions?” Participant: “Yeah, as long as I know I’m not hurting it, because we went to some of the awareness presentations about turtles and how bad it was to touch a turtle and that kind of stuff. As long as I know I’m not actually killing it by touching it.” This response suggests that impactful education programs which clearly illuminate the impact of human interactions on organisms may be able to counter some of the higher impact norms influenced by peer behavior.

Visual images have the potential of promoting pro environmental action. The next section will discuss the landscape survey conducted at both research sites. Table 2 -The combined responses from the Semi-structured interviews conducted Tulamben and Puerto Galera recorded in the table below.

Semi-Structured Interview Responses Interaction Level with Environment # divers No Interaction 5 Mild Interaction 21 Interaction 5

Acceptibility of Interaction Interaction is no t acceptible 8 Non Harmful interaction acceptible 21 Harmful Interaction unacceptible 13 Percieved damage evokes anger/action 11 Dislikes seeing guides interact 10

Behavior Variation with Location Behavior varies with enviroment 11 Guides Influence Behavior 10 Copy other guides behavior 9 Why Protect if locals are damaging 2 Local laws/fees 1

Origin of Conservation Ethics Conservation Images/talks 4 Signs at dive sites/boats 4 Dive shops 1 Ethics taught in OW /or other scuba classes 23 Ethics reinforced by guides 7 Test skills before diving 1 Personal Ethics 8 Trash clean up's 1 Fearful of danger in the enviroment 4

Interaction Ethic Change Interaction changed overtime? 9 Other divers influenced ethics 4 Guides/Inst behavior encourages interaction 10 57

Empirical C - Landscape Analysis

The participation observation landscape survey component of this research was designed to assess if various contextual or external visual images and messages in the landscape may sway environmental behavior. The influence of pre-dive briefs has been addressed in their effectiveness to reduce impact to the marine environment by studies where impact rates were assessed with and without pre dive briefings (Medio, 1997; Worachananant et al, 2008). However, the relative effect of visual external conservation efforts on the reduction of coral impact has not been a significant topic of inquiry. Environmental psychology accounts for this visual mitigation efforts as effective in certain situations, and with certain personality types (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000). Initially, two very different study sites were selected to survey: Puerto Galera, Philippines, and Apo Island, Philippines. Due to circumstances beyond my control, explained in the discussion section, I switched venues from a well-known eco conscious island in the Philippines, to a popular day site on the north shore of Bali Indonesia.

The alternative dive site in Bali was situated in the small town of Tulamben, where divers access the US S Liberty wreck by shore and public-access park. The landscape survey did not reveal any images that may have influenced behavior underwater. Images perceivable to visiting divers at the small public access park consisted of a few very basic local places to purchase lunch, unpaved foot trails, a parking lot and a single flyer advertising custom made wet suits. The impression in Tulamben was of a small traditional town, natural, native and with little commercial development. In comparison, Puerto Galera was a busy Asian town, with bars, many scuba centers, loud and full of images promoting businesses.

A landscape survey was recorded in Puerto Galera, a high impact scuba area notorious for scuba, lady bars, drinking and high impact scuba diving. 168 impressions were recorded. Results were analyzed and analyzed in Figure 19 and Appendix D. I believe it worthwhile to share the results from the observation survey, but unfortunately it is not possible to achieve the ultimate goal of generating a comparative study between the two distinctly different dive sites.

The landscape survey followed a trajectory through Puerto Galera that many scuba divers frequent. Images, signs, and physical impressions were recorded by voice using a digital recorder. In total, 169 images were recorded and subsequently sorted into eleven categories using grounded coding. Scuba diving images comprised 40% of the total impressions recorded, and bars and food equaled 32%. Images promoting conservation 58

accounted for 3% of the survey. Of these, one organization encouraging shark conservation appeared closed. In an area of high impact, this survey suggested that while guides and instructors in individual dive shops may have made efforts towards reducing divers’ impact, few efforts were being made to present external visual conservation messages.

Images have the opportunity to help promote pro environmental behavior. Situational characteristics that influence positive underwater behavior can be introduced through education imparting concrete knowledge and personal experiences such as volunteer opportunities. Images can also influence pro environmental psychological factors through defining local social norms that are environmentally focused, engaging diver in altruistic motives, and imparting a sense of belonging for positive environmental choices. The landscape survey suggested that neither dive site offered a significant number of images to influence divers towards pro environmental behavior.

Triangulating research data from the three studies provides a multi-dimensional analysis of the research problem. Chapter 6 synthesizes empirical findings to draw conclusions responding to my original thesis questions. 59

Communication 5%

Tourist Services

8% Fitness 2%

Conservation 3%

Retail 6%

FIG. 19 - Landscape Observation Survey results from Puerto Galera Philippines are depicted below. The pie chart illustrates image categories emerging from coded data collected during the landscape survey. 60

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion

Impacted reef can damage the local economy. Aesthetically pleasing dive sites attract tourist dollars and support the local economies (Dearden, et al., 2006). This alternative revenue offers financial incentive to protect marine resources from extraction, overharvesting, and destructive practices such as dynamite fishing. If the environment degrades and tourism declines, the economic incentive to preserve the resources may no longer be attractive enough to protect against the more damaging practices. Therefore, it is crucial to mitigate against the negative human impact on reefs by scuba divers before the growth of the recreational dive industry leads to escalating damage, declining reef ecosystems and declining aesthetic appeal of the reef environment.

Little research (in the discipline of geography, or other academic fields focused the impact of divers on coral reefs) has addressed divers’ own perception of the damage they inflict to the reefs and what they perceive effective in reducing their damage (Dearden, et al., 2007; Krieger and Chadwick, 2013; Medio, et, al., 1997; Worachananant, et al., 2008). There is little understanding of divers’ themselves, their management preferences, and how preferences relate to conservation goals (Sorice, et al., 2007). The bulk of present research assesses divers’ reaction to various mitigation tactics, or simply to their environmental impact. Little is known of divers’ perception of their underwater environment and how that influences their underwater interactions.

Most research on the subject takes a positivistic approach, simply attempting to define what is actually causing the impact and impose mitigations (Guzner, et al., 2010; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Medio, et al., 1996; Rodgers and Cox, 2002). Commonly proposed regulations to reduce impact include limiting the number of divers who visit a particular site, restricting the path of divers, establishing pre-dive briefings, matching divers’ skill to the appropriately fragile or resilient environment, etc. Little research has been conducted which is aimed at understanding how site specific external factors form, influence, maintain and affect behavior over time.

Hobson suggested that environmental psychology could help organize and inform geographic inquiry (Hobson, 2006). Simply analyzing the relationship between situational influences and landscape interaction does not provide a full understanding of the complexity of the relationship between divers and the reef environment. For example, it is a mistake to assume that all divers’ interactions recorded in this study, will respond the same to new situations. However, based on my findings, it is possible that many of their impacts will be reduced or eliminated by similar influences. It is crucial to consider 61

that this is not certain as the environmental psychology indicates that the psychological process involved in pro-environmental action is complex and not one-dimensional. In alignment with Stewart Barr’s work, the process to develop environmental ethics involves many factors from cultural and childhood values to personal knowledge. However, there is much to suggest in both environmental psychology literature (from prior researchers and in this study as well) that contextual/external factors can and do reduce the conscious interactions, and thus will potentially reduce underwater impact (Medio, 1997).

Environmental psychology has discovered roots of pro-environmental decisions to be complex, however, it demonstrates that situation influences can, and do, influence these decisions, resulting in positive, and eco-friendly actions. Rather than impose management strategies to police divers, this research aims to discover the root causes and effective solutions to the conscious reef impact problem.

Data from the interviews, underwater, and landscape surveys was triangulated to answer the research questions: A) Does perception of the environment affect scuba divers’ impact of coral reefs and the marine environment? B) Do scuba divers vary their interaction with reef and marine life based on local environmental conservation ethics? C) If so, what affects this spatial behavior variation?

This study suggests that the answer to A and B is: yes. A certain percentage of the dive population’s environmental behavior appears affected by external site-specific factors. Of those surveyed, 36% of the participants reported to consciously vary their own underwater behavior and impact in relation to situational/contextual variables. Factors such as the locals disregard for the environment, and a mandatory conservation fee paid by divers, also played into reducing divers’ underwater interaction. While other mitigations are impactful, the influence of guides, instructors and peers accounted for a significant variation in the impact variation between sites.

The largest single factor directly influencing scuba divers underwater conscious impact in this study included the strong ethics taught in open water training and other scuba classes. Clearly, the newly acquired eco-conscious behavior is sustained by role models reinforcing the initial ethics. Role models also have the ability to degrade original strong ethics with subsequent attitude and behavior which promotes harmful underwater interactions.

According to the findings of this research, efforts to mitigate impact by scuba divers should first and foremost concentrate on influencing instructors, dive masters and role 62

models to demonstrate and promote zero physical interaction with the underwater environment.

It is important to note that most divers who interacted with the underwater environment embraced some degree of environmental ethical belief (discerning perceived harmful from non-harmful behavior). Dive guides, instructors and role models function as a main source of information regarding acceptability of underwater interactions. Thus, my conclusion aligns with the findings of several studies. I concur, exposing dive guides, instructors and divers to more extensive environmental education will help change behavior and reduce conscious impact (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Ong, and Musa 2011; Pepe, 2010; Rouphael and Inglis 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002).

Are my two sites representative of divers’ overall perspective and behavior? Would different sites offer new insight? For future research it would be interesting to compare these findings to a similar study situated between several very different dive areas.

Each dive shop and its employees have their own attitude in regards to diving practices and ethics, and these directly influence the divers. At a single dive destination such as Puerto Galera, one shop will promote conservation and low impact while the neighboring shop attracts divers who are less discriminating. From casual observation, it is hard to tell if a shops’ atmosphere influences this behavior or if divers are attracted towards shops which align with their personal ethics and comfort. Thus, this is another topic that may be worthy of future investigation.

Another approach to the same research problem would include field testing the findings from this thesis. A similar study could be conducted in one dive region, and then mitigations suggested by this research could be implemented in a particular shop. A subsequent study could reveal effectiveness of the findings in this thesis.

Rather than manage divers, limit their scope of exploration and access to fragile areas, I feel it important to let scuba divers voice be heard in the discussion of how best to manage the underwater impact issue. Much impact can be mitigated by more extensive training and better in-water awareness and skill. However, conscious impact and interaction with the environment is a choice and a decision made by each diver.

It is my intent that the isolation of variables influencing pro-environmental behavior in this thesis will aid in developing policy to mitigate divers’ underwater destruction. In turn, these policies will reduce impact to the coral reef environment that I love. Factors identified in this research will be helpful to reduce the greater problem of scuba diver’s 63

damage on the world’s fragile reef systems. My hope is for the findings of this work to inform future researchers and influence environmental management strategy, especially at a grass root level. 64

References

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. Handbook of qualitative research, 1, 377-392.

Allen, G. R. (2008). Conservation hotspots of biodiversity and endemism for Indo-Pacific coral reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(5), 541- 556

Augustine, S., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2015). Are changing diver characteristics important for coral reef conservation? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2574

Barker, N. H. L., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). Scuba diver behavior and the management of diving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 481-489.

Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435-473. doi: 10.1177/0013916505283421

Barrows, H. H. (1923). Geography as human ecology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 13(1), 1-14.

Bell, P. R. F. (1992). Eutrophication and coral reefs—some examples in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Water Research, 26(5), 553-568. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043- 1354(92)90228-V

Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., & Nystrom, M. (2004). Confronting the coral reef crisis. [Article], Nature, 429(6994), 827-833. doi: 10.1038/nature02691

Birkeland, C. (1997). Life and death of coral reefs: Springer.

Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Methuen.

Brannstrom, Christian. "Political Ecology." Oxford Bibliographies. N.p., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 1 July 2015.

Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1978). The environment as hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carson, R. (1967). Silent Spring. Greenwich (Connecticut: Fawcett. 65

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis: Sage Publications Limited.

Chin, A., Lison de Loma, T., Reytar, K., Planes, S., Gerhardt, K., Clua, E., .and Wilkinson, C. (2011). Status of coral reefs of the Pacific and outlook: 2011.

Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions, environment and behavior, 32(6), 832-848. doi: 10.1177/00139160021972829

"CRED in the Coral Triangle: Building Capacity for Application of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management." NOAA PIFSC -. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2015. .

Davis, W.M. (1898). “Physical Geography.” Boston, New York, Chicago, London: Ginn & Company

Davis, William Morris. (1902). "Systematic geography." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 235-259.

Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1996). Economic management of recreational scuba diving and the environment. Journal of Environmental Management, 48(3), 229-248.

Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Rollins, R. (2006). Implications for coral reef conservation of diver specialization. Environmental Conservation, 33(04), 353-363.

Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Rollins, R. (2007). Perceptions of diving impacts and implications for reef conservation. Coastal Management, 35(2/3), 305-317.

Driml, S. (1994). Protection for profit: economic and financial values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and other protected areas: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

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.

Duraiappah, A. K. (1998). Poverty and environmental degradation: a review and analysis of the nexus. World development, 26(12), 2169-2179. 66

Fernandes, L., Ridgley, M., & Van’t Hof, T. (1999). Multiple criteria analysis integrates economic, ecological and social objectives for coral reef managers. Coral Reefs, 18(4), 393-402.

Gardner, T. A., Cote, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A., & Watkinson, A. R. (2003). Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science, 301(5635), 958-960. doi: 10.1126/science. 1086050

Garrabou, J., Sala, E., Areas, A., & Zabala, M. (1998). The impact of diving on rocky sublittoral communities: A case study of a bryozoan population. Conservation Biology, 12(2), 302-312. doi: 10.1111/j. 1523-1739.1998.96417.x

Gross, M. (2004). Human geography and ecological sociology. Social Science History, 28(4), 575-605.

Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goudie, A. S. (2013). The human impact on the natural environment: past, present, and future. John Wiley & Sons.

Guzner, B., Novplansky, A., Shalit, O., & Chadwick, N. E. (2010). Indirect impacts of recreational scuba diving: patterns of growth and predation in branching stony corals. Bulletin of Marine Science, 86(3), 727-742.

Harden, C. P. (2012). Framing and reframing questions of human-environment interactions (Vol. 102, pp. 737-747): Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Harriott, V. J., Davis, D., & Simon, A. B. (1997). Recreational diving and its impact in marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio, 26(3), 173-179.

Hasler, H., & Ott, J. A. (2008). Diving down the reefs? Intensive diving tourism threatens the reefs of the northern Red Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(10), 1788-1794. doi: 10.1016/j .marpolbul.2008.06.002

Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1992). Effects of recreational SCUBA diving on fore­ reef slope communities of coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 62(3), 171-178. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(92)91045-t 67

Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1993). Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs: trampling on reef-flat communities. [Article]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30(1), 25-30.

Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Kooistra, D., Buchan, K., & White, S. (2005). Sustainability of scuba diving tourism on coral reefs of Saba. [Article]. Coastal Management, 33(4), 373-387. doi: 10.1080/08920750500217518

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.

Hobson, K. (2006). Environmental psychology and the geographies of ethical and sustainable consumption: aligning, triangulating, challenging? [Article]. Area, 38(3), 292-300. doi: 10.111 l/j,1475-4762.2006.00669.x

Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R , Folke, C.,... Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of Coral Reefs. [Article], Science, 301(5635), 929-933.

Hunt, C. V., Harvey, J. J., Miller, A., Johnson, V., & Phongsuwan, N. (2013). The Green Fins approach for monitoring and promoting environmentally sustainable scuba diving operations in South East Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 78, 35-44.

Huntington, E. (1922). Civilization and Climate. Yale University Press.

Jackson, J., Donovan, M., Cramer, K., & Lam, V. (2014). Status and trends of Caribbean coral reefs: 1970-2012. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

Kay, A. M., & Liddle, M. J. (1989). Impact of human trampling in different zones of a coral reef flat. Environmental Management, 13(4), 509-520. doi: 10.1007/bf01867685

Koop, K., Booth, D., Broadbent, A., Brodie, J.', Bucher, D., Capone, D.,... Yellowlees, D. (2001). ENCORE: The effect of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs. Synthesis of Results and Conclusions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(2), 91-120. doi: 10.1016/s0025- 326x(00)00181-8

Krieger, J., & Chadwick, N. (2013). Recreational diving impacts and the use of pre-dive briefings as a management strategy on Florida coral reefs. [Article]. Journal of Coastal Conservation (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 17(1), 179-189. doi: 10.1007/sl 1852-012-0229-9 68

Krieger, J., & Chadwick, N. (2013). Recreational diving impacts and the use of pre-dive briefings as a management strategy on Florida coral reefs. [Article]. Journal of Coastal Conservation (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 17(1), 179-189. doi: 10.1007/s 11852-012-0229-9

Lamb, J. B., True, J. D., Piromvaragom, S., & Willis, B. L. (2014). Scuba diving damage and intensity of tourist activities increases coral disease prevalence. Biological Conservation, 178, 88-96.

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.

Leff, E. (2012), Political Ecology: A Latin American perspective, in culture, civilization and human society, [Eds. UNESCO-EOLSS Joint Committee], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK

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.

Meyer, C., & Holland, K. (2008). Spatial dynamics and substrate impacts of recreational snorkelers and SCUBA divers in Hawaiian Marine Protected Areas. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 12(4), 209-216.

Munro, J. L. (1996). The scope of tropical reef fisheries and their management. In Reef fisheries (pp. 1-14). Springer Netherland.

Munday, P. L., Jones, G. P., Pratchett, M. S., & Williams, A. J. (2008). Climate change and the future for coral reef fishes. Fish and Fisheries, 9(3), 261-285. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-2979.2008.00281.x

Musa, G., Seng, W. T., Thirumoorthi, T., & Abessi, M. (2011). The influence of scuba divers' personality, experience, and demographic profile on their underwater behavior. Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(1), 1-14. doi: 10.3727/154427310x12826772784757

Negri, A. P., Smith, L. D., Webster, N. S., & Heyward, A. J. (2002). Understanding ship- grounding impacts on a coral reef: potential effects of anti-foulant paint contamination on coral recruitment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(2), 111-117. doi: http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/S0025-326X(01)00128-X

Neumann, R. (2014). Making political ecology. Routledge. 69

Nichols, R. S. (2013). Effectiveness of artificial reefs as alternative dive sites to reduce diving pressure on natural coral reefs, a case study of Koh Tao, Thailand. University of Cumbria.

Offen, K. H. (2004). Historical political ecology: an introduction. Historical Geography, 32, 19-42.

Ong, T. F., & Musa, G. (2011). An examination of recreational divers' underwater behavior by attitude-behavior theories. Current issues in Tourism, 14(8), 779-795.

Pepe, S. (2010). Caution Divers Below! A case for enhanced environmental education and policies to raises awareness of sustainable scuba diving. Masters Degree, Empire State College of New York.

Plathong, S., Inglis, G. J., & Huber, M. E. (2000). Effects of self-guided snorkeling trails on corals in a tropical marine park

Poonian, C., Davis, P. Z. R., & McNaughton, C. K. (2010). Impacts of Recreational Divers on Palauan Coral Reefs and Options for Management. [Article]. Pacific Science, 64(4), 557-565. doi: 10.2984/64.4.557

Porter, P. W. (1978). Geography as Human Ecology A Decade of Progress in a Quarter Century. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(1), 15-39.

Richards, E. H. 1842-1911. (1919). Sanitation in daily life. Boston: Whitcomb & Barrows.

Richmond, R. H. (1993). Coral Reefs: Present Problems and Future Concerns Resulting from Anthropogenic Disturbance. American Zoologist, 33(6), 524-536. doi: 10.1093/icb/33.6.524

Roberts, C. M. (1995). Effects of fishing on the ecosystem structure of coral reefs. Conservation Biology, 9(5), 988-995.

Rodgers, K. S., & Cox, E. F. (2003). The effects of trampling on Hawaiian corals along a gradient of human use. Biological Conservation, 112(3), 383-389.

Rogers, C. S. (1990). Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine ecology progress series. Oldendorf, 62(1), 185-202. 70

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (1997). Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving at sites with different reef topographies. Biological Conservation, 82(3), 329-336. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(97)00047-5

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. doi: 10.1016/s0006- 3207(01)00032-5

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2002). Increased spatial and temporal variability in Coral damage caused by recreational scuba diving. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 427- 440. doi: doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0427:ISATVI]2.0.CO;2Sauer, C. O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California press.

Russ, G. R., & Alcala, A. C. (1999). Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs, 18(4), 307-319.

Sala, E., Costello, C., Dougherty, D., Heal, G., Kelleher, K., Murray, J. H .,... & Sumaila, R. (2013). A general business model for marine reserves. PloS one, 8(4), e58799.

Sauer, C. O. (1956). The agency of man on the earth. University of Chicago Press.

Sorice, M. G., Chi-Ok, O., & Ditton, R. B. (2007). Managing scuba divers to meet ecological goals for coral reef conservation. [Article]. AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(4), 316-322.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. doi: 10.1016/j .jenvp.2008.10.004

Semple, E. C. (1911). Influences of Geographic Environment, on the Basis of Ratzel's System of Anthropo-geography. H. Holt.

Stolk, P., Markwell, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (2007). Artificial reefs as recreational scuba diving resources: a critical review of research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 31077-108231-350.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice: Sage Publications, Incoiporated. 71

Szuster, B. W., Needham, M. D., & McClure, B. P. (2011). Scuba diver perceptions and evaluations of crowding underwater. Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(3-4), 153-165.

Talge, H., (1993), Impact of recreational divers on scleractinian coral at Loo Key, Florida. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium 2,

Thomas, W. L. (1956). Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago, London, 10-13.

Thompson, D. (2004). Take only pictures and leave only bubbles: A study of the impact of live-a-board divers on the coral reefs of the Southern Red Sea. Master’s Degree, University of Wales Bangor.

Tobin, G. A. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning?. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 13-25.

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.

Turner, B. L. (1988). The earth as transformed by human action. The Professional Geographer, 40(3), 340-341.

Turner, B. L. (1989). The Specialist-Synthesis Approach to the Revival of Geography: The Case of Cultural Ecology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79(1), 88-100.

Uyarra, M. C., Watkinson, A. R., & Cote, I. M. (2009). Managing dive tourism for the sustainable use of coral reefs: validating diver perceptions of attractive site features. Environmental Management, 43(1), 1-16.

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.

Walker, P. A. (2005). Political ecology: where is the ecology. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), 73-82.

Walters, R. D. M., & Samways, M. J. (2001). Sustainable dive ecotourism on a South African coral reef. Biodiversity & Conservation, 10(12), 2167-2179. doi: 10.1023/a: 1013197926580 72

Wilhelmsson, D., Ohman, M. C., Stahl, H., & Shlesinger, Y. (1998). Artificial reefs and dive tourism in Eilat, Israel. Ambio, 764-766.

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. (2004). Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004: Summary: Australian Institute of Marine Science Townsville.

Wilson, S. K., Graham, N. A. J., Pratchettz, M. S., Jonesz, G. P., & Polunin, N. V. C. (2006). Multiple disturbances and the global degradation of coral reefs: are reef fishes at risk or resilient? Global Change Biology, 12(11), 2220-2234.

Woodland, D. J., & Hooper, J. N. A. (1977). The effect of human trampling on coral reefs. Biological Conservation, 11(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(77)90020-9

Worachananant, S., Carter, R. W., Hockings, M., & Reopanichkul, P. (2008). Managing the impacts of SCUBA divers on Thailand's coral reefs. [Article]. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 645-663.

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. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00181-1

Zimmerer, K. S. (2010). Retrospective on Nature-Society Geography: Tracing

Zimmerer, Karl S. "Cultural Ecology and Human Ecology." Oxford Bibliographies. N.p., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 June 2015. 73

Appendix A

Coded Analysis from the Semi-Structured Interviews Interviews with Scuba Divers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Experience Level Beginner Diver 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Intermediate Diver 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Experienced Diver 1 1 1 1 1 5

Motive for Diving Nature/science 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Tranquility 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Foreign Environment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Freedom 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Challenge/Adventure/Exploration 1 1 2 Hunting/Fishing 1 1

Interaction Level with Environment No Interaction 1 1 1 1 1 5 Mild Interaction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Interaction 1 1 1 1 1 5

Acceptibility of Interaction Interaction is not acceptible 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Non Harmful interaction acceptible 1 11 1 1 11 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Harmful Interaction unacceptible 1 1 1 111 1 1 11111 13 Perdeved damage evokes anger/action 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Dislikes seeing guides interact 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Acceptibility of Accidental Damage Accidental/damage is wrong 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 11 1111111127 Accidental/purposeful is justified if needed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15

Behavior Variation with Location Behavior varies with enviroment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Guides Influence Behavior 1111 11 11 11 10 If other's behavior is percieved as harmless 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Why Protect if locals are damaging 1 1 2 Local laws/fees 1 1

Origin of Conservation Ethics Conservation Images/talks 1 1 1 1 4 Signs at dive sites/boats 1 1 1 1 4 Dive shops 1 1 Ethics taught in OW/or other scuba classes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 Ethics reinforced by guides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Test skills before diving 1 1 Personal Ethics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Trash clean up's 1 1 Fearful of danger in the enviroment 1 1 1 1 4

Interaction Ethic Change Interaction changed overtime? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 other divers influenced ethics 1 1 1 1 4 Guides/Inst behavior encourages interaction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Environmental Activism Donates to Conservation Organisation? M 1ffiftl II 1 T 1TT 11 j i JLli il.1 L i m u 1 = 74

Appendix B

Semi-Structured Survey Questions

Sustainable SCUBA? Exploring Conscious Underwater Impact as Influenced by Eco- Perception of Apo Island and Puerto Galera, Philippines

1) Are you 18 years or older?

2) Are you a scuba diver?

a) What agency certified you?

b) Years diving?

c) Number of dives?

d) What is your highest training level?

e) Where were you certified?

f) What motivates you to dive?

3) What is your favorite aspect of being underwater?

4) What are some of your favorite dive sites?

5) When you are diving do you interact with marine life or environment?

a) Is the interaction purposeful?

b) Is it accidental? How does this make you feel?

6) Does your interaction with the marine area vary between dive sites? Why? In what

ways?

7) Have you noticed guides interacting with the environment? How does this make you

feel? Does it affect your behavior?

8) How do you feel when you if you see other divers interact with the underwater

environment? 75

9) Have you come in contact with marine conservation ideas while diving (such as low

impact diving)? Where? What type of ideas, how were they presented? How did that

affect your interaction with that particular site?

10) Has your interaction with marine life changed over time? Why?

11) Are you a member of any marine conservation organizations?

12) Do you participate in, or do you have interest in participating in any local or

international conservation activities? 76

Appendix C

Results from the Observational Landscape Analysis in Puerto Galera Philippines

Bar Food Retail Scuba Conserve Religious Fitness Services Communication Accomodations Shells/Coral Buddhas face 1 Shop of beach clothes & wood carvings 1 Internet with web cam 1 Out of the Blue Bar and Restraunt 1 Sea Riders Dive shop -the backpacker choice - 1 Dive Rite 1 1 hour dive 1 Padi courses at very affordable prices 1 Classic Blue Folk House Bar/Restaurant 1 Full Moon-Coldest Beer in Town 1 The European Dive Center of Danish Management 1 Club Mabuhay Welcome all Padi Courses 1 Havana Moon Convenience Store 1 For Sale: Fresh Dressed Chicken 1 Nitrox/Padi 1 Padi Gold Palm Resort 1 Club Mabuhay 1 Discover Scuba Diving 1 Padi Courses 1 EANX 1 Underwater Photography 1 Private Video 1 Blue Cove Diver 1 Special Dive Package - Inquire 1 Jungle Gym 1 Ferry Rates 1 Jermomies Lodge 1 Book Store 1 Videos 1 Buffet and Breakfast 1 Bacon and Sausage and Cold Cuts 1 IDAP College 1 El Galion 1 Dive Supply Shop Asia Divers Padi Career Development Center Beginners to Instructors The Best DiverTraining Facility in the Philippines Bubble Maker-Hey Kids Ask for this Class Today! Vendor stands selling sea shell and coral (red) and pearls 1 Dried fish and inflated puffer fish hanging off of strings 1 Open bar, looking out at the beach 1 Raffael's Bar 1 Vacant Room: beach front 1 Tessie and Phillip’s Lodge 1 Bar with TV and BEER Shark 1 1 Dive Shop 1 Rebreather friendly shop with many young hip guys 1 RJ Divers Asian Writing 1 Songs of Joy -Bar and Restaurant PADI 1 Hemingways Bistro restaurant (finest cuisine) 1 Mountain Handicrafts 1 G M s Internet Cafe - Asian cartoon movie posters 1 Atlantis 1 Frontier Scuba Divers 1 Diver Adventure Starts at Angelyns 1 1 Fresh Seafood Always at Angelyns 1 Scuba tanks/swimming pool 1 Bakery 1 77

Bar Food Retail Scuba Conserve Religious Fitness Services Communication Accomodations Shells/Coral Internet Cafe 1 Megladon Poster 1 Seafood restaurant 1 South Sea Divers 1 Puerto Galera shooting range: sexy women shooting guns 1 Atlas Dive Resort 1 Florescent Night Diving at Atlas 1 Seafood and Meat - BBQspare ribs 1 Asian Fusion Cuisine 1 Bondi Bar and Seafood Restaurant 1 Beauty Shop 1 Cell phone shop I Little grocery store 1 Dive shop 1 1 Philidelphia Food 1 Natural Bom Divers 1 Big Apple dive Resort 1 Fun Run forCause 1 Mountain Bikes-All bikers welcome parts/services 1 1 Scuba shops 1 Packed Lunch or Beach BBQ Options 1 Underwater Video/Nitrox Options 1 Big Apple Curry House - Exotic Indian Dishes 1 Big Apple Sports Bar-very loud 1 Coctails -Sex on the Beach/Jello Shots 1 TV BarWings/Burgers-many guys 1 Curry House 1 Retail Dive Shop 1 Shooters Bar 1 Big Apple Resort 1 Dune Buggy 1 Paint Ball 1 Travel images/travel agency 1 Puerto Galera Divers Cafe 1 Maximum Pizza 1 Red Coral Trading Variety Store 1 Vacant Room 1 Load Your Cell Phone % Fast Internet i Travel/Tour 1 Exotic Travel Pictures 1 Seamstress 1 CellPhones i Beauty Salon 1 Deli Market/Meat Shop 1 Classy Lounge 1 Hemingway Bistro 1 Martini Bar 1 1 Accommodations for rent 1 Martini bar: grab and go 1 Korean grocery store 1 i Disco Pool Bar (girls) 1 Broadway Disco (girls) 1 We Relax Bar (girl) 1 Restaurant 1 Dive Resort 1 Cappuccino Bar 1 Venice Disco 1 78

Bar Food Retail Scuba Conserve Religious Fitness Services Communication Accomodations Shells/Coral Adventure Disco 1 Dry Goods Store 1 Beer 1 Turkish Food 1 Korean Food 1 Bakery and Deli Shop 1 Chinese Restaurant 1 Sabang Disco 1 Village Disco 1 1 Castillos Restaurant 1 Castillos Grocery 1 Massage 1 Essence Body Spa and Massage 1 Club Mabuhay Sabang 1 Marine Scuba Dive Dojo Sabang beach Technical/Recreational Project Aw are 1 Specialty M ixed A ir W reck Deep Dive Naturalist M ultilevel Photography Aware Diver 1 Peak Performance Semiclosed Rebreather Padi Classes Technical Classes National association of Rebreather trainers Cave D iver Advanced Diver IANDT Advanced Nitrox CCR Club Mermaid - PADI Mermaid Diver Dive Resort Captain Gregs Dive Resort Dangerous divers (image of spear guy and knife) Image Divers sticking th e ir head into a fish m outh Reef Protection Squad (wrecks been there...leave it there) 1 You know you are... when fish start offering you candy Marine Divers (ghost pipe fish on the sign) Red Coral Resort Sabang Beach (palm trees) 1 Big Apple Sports Bar (open 24 hours) 1 Baccardi Rum 1 M ore sea shells fo r sale 1 1 Shark Savers-Philippines (dosed) 1 Natural Born Divers: Going Down is What we do Best 1 Cafe 1 Dive Shop-Dolphin 1 Tocos (higher dass lounge) 1 Total 24 32 10 71 5 1 3 15 9 5 3