Multiple-Use Zoning and Tourism in Marine Protected Areas: A Case Study of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand
George S.J. Roman B.Sc. (Hons.), University of British Columbia, 2001
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in the Department of Geography,
* University of Victoria
O George S.J. Roman, 2004 University of Victoria
All rights resewed. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ABSTRACT
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can function to meet conservation, tourism, and fisheries objectives. However, effective MPA planning and management is often constrained by limited institutional capacity, a lack of data, and a lack of knowledge integration. If MPAs are to be useful tools for marine resource management, integrated management plans based on applied research must be designed and documented. The goal of this study was to reduce conflicts between tourism and conservation at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand, by drafting a multiple-use zoning plan. Two studies were conducted to provide the basis for the draft zoning plan. The first study, a coral reef field survey, assessed differences among sites for four criteria: trampling vulnerability, coral life form diversity, coral reef sizes, and suitability for restoring degraded branching Acropora spp. corals (which are threatened throughout much of their range and provide important habitat for many species). The second study administered a survey in four languages to 275 respondents taking part in organized snorkelling tours, and assessed visitor satisfaction, differences in perceptions between subgroups of people, and "Limits of Acceptable Change" (LAC) for social and biophysical indicators of high-quality snorkelling experiences. Six key management recommendations were derived from the coral reef field study and the visitor survey. First of all, a Conservation Zone with tourism and fisheries strictly prohibited should be designated at a site with high vulnerability to trampling, high coral life form diversity, the largest coral reef size, and suitable areas for restoring Acropora spp.. Second, a Restoration Zone, with tourism and fisheries strictly prohibited, should be designated at a heavily degraded site with large amounts of dead Acropora spp.. Third, Tourism Zones should be established and promoted for intensive snorkelling at two sites deep enough to prevent snorkellers from trampling corals, yet shallow enough to permit people floating on the surface to view coral reefs. Fourth, all other snorkelling and diving sites should be designated as Ecotourism Zones managed for more peaceful settings, characterized by fewer people (LAC: 30 people max.), fewer boats (LAC: two boats max.), and smaller boats. Ecotourism Zones are likely to be particularly important for satisfying European and North American tourists, who were shown to be more sensitive to crowding than most Thai visitors. Fifth, the following LAC standards for coral conditions should be applied within both Ecotourism and Tourism Zones: (i) proportion of dead corals<40%, (ii) patches of dead corals<25 m2. Finally, 'no-take' zones should be enforced with both Ecotourism Zones and Tourism Zones, in order to contribute towards conservation and restoration objectives, reduce visitor exposure to fishing gear, enhance visitor safety, enhance fish community aesthetics, and improve satisfaction among visitors with a lot of previous experience snorkelling. This draft zoning plan should be combined with visitor education and nature interpretation programs, fisheries considerations, and improved management of coastal tourism development and aquaculture. Extensive public review is also required, and co-management and adaptive management approaches should be taken during plan implementation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF FIGURES ix LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF APPENDICES xi LIST OF ACRONYMS xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. CORAL REEFS, MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AND TOURISM 1 1.2. CASE STUDIES: MPA ZONING AND TOURISM 4 1.2.1. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, AUSTRALIA 4 1.2.2. BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA 6 1.2.3. MAPUTALAND 1 ST.LUCIA MARINE RESERVES, SOUTH AFRICA-7 1.3. MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND 8 1.4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND THESIS OUTLINE 18
CHAPTER 2: ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION 19 2.1 : LITERATURE REVIEW 19 2.1.1. IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL TRAMPLING ON CORAL REEFS 19 2.1.2. CORAL REEF DEGRADATION AND TOURIST TRAMPLING: SCAPEGOAT OR IMPORTANT IMPACT? 2 1 2.1.3 : MANAGING TRAMPLING IMPACTS ON CORAL REEFS 23 2.1.4. ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION: ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA 25 2.1.4.1. TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY 25 2.1.4.2. DIVERSITY 26 2.1.4.3. CORAL REEF AREA 27 2.1.4.4. HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR A CROPORA SPP. 27 2.1.4.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 3 0 2.2. METHODS 31 2.2.1. GENERAL SITE SURVEYS 3 1 2.2.2. THE LINE INTERCEPT TRANSECT (LIT) TECHNIQUE 3 1 2.2.3. DATA COLLECTION AT KOH CHANG 32 2.2.4. DATA PROCESSING AND DATA ANALYSIS 35 2.2.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 3 6 2.3. RESULTS 37 2.3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 37 2.3.2. RESULTS: TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY 40 2.3.3. RESULTS: CORAL MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 4 1 2.3.4. RESULTS: CORAL REEF AREA 43 2.3.5. RESULTS: SUITABILITY FOR RESTORATION OF ACROPORA SPP.44 2.3.6. RESULTS: MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 46 2.4. DISCUSSION 47 2.4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION ZONES 47 2.4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORATION 47 2.4.4. BENEFITS OF THE CORAL REEF FIELD SURVEY 49 2.4.5. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 49 2.5. CONCLUSIONS 52 vii
CHAPTER 3: ZONING CORAL REEFS TO MANAGE VISITOR EXPERIENCES 53 3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW 53 3.1.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 53 3.1.1.1. BIOPHYSICAL SETTING PREFERENCES 54 3.1.1.2. SOCIAL SETTING PREFERENCES 5 5 3.1.1.3. MANAGERIAL SETTING PREFERENCES 5 6 3.1.2. VISITOR DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING 57 3.1.3. MPA ZONING AND VISITOR MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS 58 3.1.3.1 : MARINE RESOURCE OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (MROS)59 3.1.3 -2:LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC) 6 1 3.2: METHODS 64 3.2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN 64 3.2.2. SAMPLING DESIGN 65 3.2.3. DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS 6 8 3.3. RESULTS 70 3.3.1. DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 70 3.3.2. MULTIVARIATE TEST FOR 'OVERALL SATISFACTION' 77 3.3.3. EFFECT OF EXPERIENCE LEVEL 77 3.3.4. EFFECT OF SITE LOCATION 80 3.3.5. CORALS: VISITOR PERCEPTIONS VS. MEASURED CONDITIONS 82 3.3.6. CROWDING: VISITOR PERCEPTIONS VS. MEASURED CONDITIONS-85 3.3.7. EFFECT OF NATIONALITYICULTURE 8 7 3.4. DISCUSSION 89 3.4.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION, THE "TOURIST AREA CYCLE OF EVOLUTION", AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING 89 3.4.2. ENHANCING VISITOR SATISFACTION 90 3.4.3. CORAL CONDITIONS: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING 91 3.4.4. CROWDING: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING 93 3.4.5. MROS, LAC, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING AND ZONING AT KOH CHANG 94 3.5.6. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 96 3.5.6.1. FISH COMMUNITIES 96 3.5.6.2. BEACHES AND UNINHABITED ISLANDS 97 3.5.6.3. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS: POTENTIAL AND PITFALLS98 3.5.6.4. EQUITY IN THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF MPA TOURISM?-99 3.5.7. BENEFITS OF THE VISITOR SURVEY 99 3.5.8. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 99 3.5. CONCLUSIONS 101 . . . Vlll
CHAPTER 4: SYNTHESIS & CONCLUSIONS 103 4.1. A DRAFT MULTIPLE-USE CORAL REEF ZONING PLAN FOR THE MU KOHCHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND 103 4.1.1. ZONING TO ACHIEVE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES 103 4.1.2. ZONING TO ACHIEVE TOURISM OBJECTIVES 108 4.2. NATURE INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR EDUCATION 110 4.3. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 112 4.3.1. CONTRIBUTIONS 112 4.3.2. LIMITATIONS 115 4.4. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PLANNING 116 4.4.1. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 116 4.4.2. LAND-BASED THREATS 118 4.4.3. PUBLIC REVIEW OF PLANS 119 4.4.4. CO-MANAGEMENT 120 4.5. CONCLUSIONS 121
5.0. REFERENCES 123 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Maputaland MPA: Coral Reef Habitat Mapping and Zoning 7 Figure 1.2 Map of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 9 Figure 1.3 Map of hard coral genera diversity in Southeast Asia 10 Figure 1.4 OCESD Zoning Plan for Tourism Development at Koh Chang 17
Figure 2.1 Vulnerability of different coral morphologies to trampling 2 1 Figure 2.2 A model for managing trampling impacts on coral reefs 25 Figure 2.3 Dead Acropora spp. at Koh Chang 29 Figure 2.4 Relationship between ecological criteria, protection priorities, and MPA zoning 30 Figure 2.5 Schematic diagram of a transect 32 Figure 2.6 Composition of benthic communities at each reef 38 Figure 2.7 Mean proportional cover of hard corals at each reef 4 1 Figure 2.8 Mean coral morphological diversity (mH7)at each reef 42 Figure 2.9 Mean coral morphological diversity (rnH7)within each region 43 Figure 2.10 Mean proportional cover of dead branching Acropora spp. at each reef 45
Figure 3.1 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system 62 Figure 3.2 Action Grid : Importance (Ql) vs. Satisfaction (Q2) 75
Figure 4.1 Mangroves destroyed by road construction near Khlong Phrao 119 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 New draft zoning plan, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 5 Table 1.2 Thailand's National Coral Reef Strategy: zoning policy 15
Table 2.1 Natural vs. diver-induced damage inflicted on coral reef benthos in South Africa 21 Table 2.2 Major declines of Acropora spp., based on paleoecological and ecological data 29 Table 2.3 Life form categories and codes 33 Table 2.4 Intensity of sampling at reefs surveyed by Line Intercept Transect 35 Table 2.5 Taxonomic identification of corals at Koh Chang 39 Table 2.6 Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis 46 Table 3.1 The Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) 60 Table 3.2 Sampling intensity within regions and sites, and roving vs non-roving tours by location 69 Table 3.3 Description of the sample: visitor characteristics 69 Table 3.4 Responses for Overall Satisfaction (Q3), Intention to Return (413)' & Intention to Recommend (414) 7 1 Table 3.5 Responses to Q1: importance of biophysical features 72 Table 3.6 Responses to 42: satisfaction with biophysical features 73 Table 3.7 Ranking of problem conditions (44) 76 Table 3.8 Amount of previous experience snorkelling (Q5) 76 Table 3.9 Multiple-factor ANOVA for Overall Satisfaction (43) 7 8 Table 3.10 Influence of experience level on visitor responses 79 Table 3.11 ANOVA: Influence of site location on satisfaction scores (42) 8 1 Table 3.12a Coral mortality: visitor perceptions (Q4D) vs. measured conditions 82 Table 3.12b Coral diversity: visitor perceptions (Q2G) vs. measured conditions 83 Table 3.12~ Coral conditions: visitor perceptions (Q2D) vs. measured conditions 84 Table 3.13 Crowding: visitor perceptions (Q4E) vs. measured number of other snorkellers 86 Table 3.14 Visitor perceptions of crowding: effects of nationality 88 Table 3.15 Effect of culture on Intention to Return (Q13) and Intention to Recommend (414) 88
Table 4.1 Coral reef zoning policy recommendations for the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 106 Table 4.2 Contributions of the draft zoning plan towards agency mandates 114 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Estimated number of people per year taking day-trip snorkelling tours in the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 142
APPENDIX B Estimated number of logged SCUBA dives in the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park 143
APPENDIX C Publications on the effects of physical trampling on coral reef ecosystems 144
APPENDIX D Sample Line Intercept Transect data sheet 146
APPENDIX E Line Intercept Transect (LIT) data sampling strategy 147
APPENDIX F Formulae for calculating site morphological diversity (mH') and Coral Mortality Index (CMI) 149
APPENDIX G LIT sata summaries 150
APPENDIX H Visitor survey questionnaire and response summaries 15 1
APPENDIX I Structure of the visitor sample: exploratory statistical analyses 162
APPENDIX J Derivation of Experience Categories 168 xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIMS-Australian Institute of Marine Science ANOVA-Analysis of Variance CIDA-Canadian International Development Agency CMI-Coral Mortality Index GBRMP-Great Barrier Reef Marine Park GBRMPA-Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GLM-General Linear Model GPS-Global Positioning System HSD-Honest Significant Difference (Tukey post-hoc test in ANOVA) IUCN-International Union for the Conservation of Nature / World Conservation Union IPAG-Importance-Performance Action Grid ISAG-Importance-Satisfaction Action Grid LAC-Limit of Acceptable Change LIT-Line Intercept Transect mH'-Shannon-Weaver Coral Morphological Diversity Index MCA-Multi-Criteria Analysis MKCNMP-Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park (Thailand) MNRE-Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (Thailand) MPA-Marine Protected Area MROS-Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum MTS-Ministry of Tourism & Sports (Thailand) NCRS-National Coral Reef Strategy (Thailand) OCESD-Office of the Committee on Economic & Social Development (Thailand) OEPP-Office of Environmental Protection and Policy (Thailand) ONEB-Office of the National Environment Board (Thailand) PEMSEA-Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia PP-'Protection Priority' ROS-Recreation Opportunity Spectrum RFD-(former) Royal Forest Department (Thailand) RTN-Royal Thai Navy SCUBA-Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SPSS-Statistical Package for Social Sciences TAT-(former) Tourism Authority of Thailand UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization WBD-White Band Disease WCED-World Commission on Environment and Development WTO-World Tourism Organization ... Xlll
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Philip Dearden, for providing useful feedback and comments, and financial and logistical support. Thanks also to the SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), and PAD1 'Project Aware7, for helping to fund my field research. Many thanks to Dr. Rick Rollins: your eager and tireless editing and review has been much appreciated. Thanks also to my other thesis committee members, Dr. Rosaline Canessa and Dr. John Nelson, and to the external examiner, Dr. Tom Reimchen, for providing thoughtful suggestions. I also owe much gratitude to my two enthusiastic volunteer field assistants, Josh Malt and Rocky Lis. Thanks are also due to Dr. Surachet and Dr. Dachanee at Kasetsart University, for helpful advice, and for allowing me access to their facilities. Thanks also to Sitthichai, Mu, and other staff at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, especially for providing me with the research vessel. Thanks to Choomjet for help with the bureaucracy of research permits, and to staff at the former Royal Forest Department headquarters, the Office of Environmental Protection and Policy, and the Royal Thai Navy, as well as Dr. Thammasak Yeemin, Chinorost Booncherm, and Kanjana, for pointing me towards many useful papers, charts, and advice. Thanks to Ole for Figure 1.2. Thanks also to Marut, Jip, Kathy, Adrian, and Jay, for help with translations. Without the support of family and friends, I probably would have never completed this thesis. I owe much gratitude to Dawn, for making me laugh and for convincing me that my efforts were not useless during my darkest days of thesis frustrations and doubts. Thanks also to Mike, Jay, Mike, and John, for not allowing me to forget my roots as my life took me through four continents. Thanks to Kecia, Brian, and April, for giving a homeless man a temporary place to stay in Victoria. Many thanks also to my parents, as well as Irene, Susan, Domenic, and Lucie. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. CORAL REEFS, MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AND TOURISM Described as 'rainforests of the sea', coral reefs are incredibly diverse, highly productive ecosystems that provide habitat to hundreds of thousands of species worldwide (Karlson 1999, Nybakken 2000). The global 'hotspot' for coral reef biodiversity is centred around Indonesia and the Phillipinnes in Southeast Asia (Roberts 2002). Coral reefs in this region also provide a wide array of ecosystem goods and services, including food, employment, tourism, recreational and aesthetic values, shoreline protection, and pharmaceuticals, with total values estimated to be as high as US$1.5 trillion (Ruitenbeek and Cartier 2000, Burke et al. 2002). Unfortunately, coral reefs are highly threatened by overfishing, destructive fishing practices (e.g.. : bombs, cyanide, muro-arni, etc.), global change (e.g. : bleaching, reduced calcification rates, sea level rise), pollution, disease, tourism, and interactions between multiple stressors (Wilkinson 1998, Hughes et al. 2003, Pandolfi et al. 2003, Bellwood et al. 2004). Reefs in Southeast Asia are under a particularly high degree of threat, with recent estimates indicating that 11% of coral reefs have already been destroyed, 48% are in 'critical' condition, and 80% could 'collapse' within the next 20 years (Burke et al. 2002, PEMSEA 2002). The establishment and effective management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can function as a key action to conserve coral reefs and their associated values (Salm et al. 2000, Lubchenco et al. 2003, Pandolfi et al. 2003). MPAs include "any area of inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been resewed by legislation to protect part or all of the enclosed environment", and can range from strict 'no-take' reserves to biosphere reserves zoned for multiple uses (IUCN, 1988; Kelleher, 1999). However, despite the fact that many MPAs have been legislated around the world, and in Southeast Asia in particular (UP-MSI et al. 2002), the majority of these are simply 'paper parks' which fail to meet their management objectives (Alder 1996, Burke et al. 2002). Although management failures in MPAs stem primarily from ineffective institutions and inadequate community support for restricting fishing (Alder 1996, McClanahan 1999b, Walmsley and White 2003), in many MPAs, tourism is also a significant source of coral reef degradation. Negative environmental impacts of coral reef tourism can include (ESCAP 1995, Nowlis et al. 1997, Wong 1998, UNEP 2003, Mumby et al. 2004): Physical impacts, due to anchoring, trampling on corals, destruction of linked habitats such as mangroves, etc. Pollution, caused by sewage disposal, litter, sediment mobilization due to construction, sunscreen, etc. Depletion of resources (i.e.: groupers, snappers, shells, etc.) due to tourist demand.
Conversely, meeting conservation objectives with environmental regulations can negatively impact the tourism industry, due to restrictions on development, reduced profitability of tourism, reduced visitor satisfaction, and reduced employment. Yet, despite the potential for these negative conflicts, under certain conditions, the relationship between tourism and conservation can take the form of a positive symbiosis (Budowski 1976). Potential symbiotic relationships between coral reef conservation and tourism include: Conservation can maintain or increase the aesthetic quality of tourism attractions; therefore, conservation can often enhance visitor satisfaction and increase the long-term economic competitiveness of tourism destinations (Mihalic 2000, Huybers and Bennett 2003);
0 Tourism can provide alternative livelihoods to coastal fishing communities, thus providing economic incentives for conservation, and helping to reduce dependence on fisheries for meeting local subsistence and developmental needs (Brandon 1996, Gilman 1997, Brown 2002); Tourism can increase the ecological awareness of visitors; this can function to galvanize public support for protected areas and conservation, pollution control and environmental legislation, and can promote behaviour and lifestyles changes, such as reduced consumption, increased recycling, consumer demand for certified "green" products, and stimulating participation in environmental stewardship initiatives (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Stem and Dietz 1994, Orams 1999, Driver and Bruns 2001);
0 Tourism can contribute directly towards local conservation initiatives, through financial contributions or volunteer labour of visitors (Ziffer 1989, Dharmaratne et al. 2000, Driver and Bruns 2001). Therefore, a major challenge that MPA managers should strive to achieve is to minimize negative conflicts between tourism and conservation, while maximizing the positive symbioses. Meeting this challenge requires careful planning and management, based on specific objectives, and case-specific, well-focused, and effective management tools. Although there is no simple panacea for achieving this, multiple-use zoning has emerged as a key tool for meeting multiple management objectives and integrating several perspectives related to tourism and conservation in MPAs (Agardy 1993, Laffoley 1995, Salm et al. 2000). MPA zoning plans subdivide a managed area into two or more sub-areas, define classes of activities, and specify which activities are permitted and prohibited within each delineated area (Kenchington and Kelleher 1995). Many protected area managers rely heavily on zoning. For example, Parks Canada uses zoning as the primary tool to accommodate a range of visitors, whilst striving to maintain the ecological integrity of Canada's National Parks (Parks Canada 1994). In MPAs, multiple-use zoning is often the chief tool for integrating a variety of perspectives and meeting multiple objectives pertaining to conservation, tourism, and fisheries (Agardy 1993, Dugan and Davis 1993, Russ and Alcala 1999, Gladstone 2000, Villa et al. 2002, GBRMPA 2003a). Carefully designed MPA zoning plans can protect ecological integrity and sensitive natural areas, ensure sustainable exploitation of marine resources, separate conflicting uses, buffer ecosystems against impacts originating in adjacent areas, and provide a range of diverse tourism and recreation opportunities (Laffoley, 1995; Salm et al., 2000; GBRMPA, 2001a). Coral reefs are particularly good candidates for zoning, due to their clear boundaries and relatively tight within-reef ecological links (Agardy 2000). With respect to tourism, MPA zoning plans can restrict access to environmentally sensitive areas, redirect visitors to sites that are less vulnerable, and provide distinct social settings in different zones to meet the expectations of a diverse range of visitors (Orams 1999). Formulating an MPA zoning plan should follow a participatory planning process, consisting of 5 steps (Kelleher 1999): (1) initial information gathering and preparation, (2) public participation or consultation prior to preparation of a plan, (3) preparation of a draft plan, (4) public participation and consultation to review the draft plan, and (5) finalization of the plan. During step (I), numerous types of information categories should be gathered. Biophysical data on oceanography, water quality, habitats, dispersal ecology of biota, coral community dynamics, species diversity, and minimum critical sizes for conservation zones are all useful types of information. Socioeconomic data on fisheries, tourism, rural development, and community-based management should also be collected. However, in practice, due to the large amount of data needed, zoning plans will always be a work in progress that should to be continually reassessed and readjusted over time, based on the principles of adaptive management (Walters 1986, Ludwig et al. 1993).
1.2. CASE STUDIES: MPA ZONING'AND TOURISM Each MPA must design its own zoning plans, based on the unique contextual elements of local ecosystems, human resource use patterns, and institutions. This section describes how researchers and administrators in three case study MPAs have used zoning as a strategy to manage coral reef tourism.
1.2.1. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK, AUSTRALIA SOURCES: (Kenchington 1989, Craik 1992, GBRMPA 1992, Craik 1996, AMSA 2003, WWF 2003, GBRMPA 2003a, GBRMPA 2003b, GBRMPA 2003c, GBRMPA 2003d)
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site off the coast of Queensland, Australia. It encompasses over 344,000 km2, including the largest system of coral reefs in the world (The Great Barrier Reef), as well as inshore waters on the continental shelf, and oceanic areas of the Coral Sea. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975 contains regulations which guide the establishment and ongoing management of the GBRMP, including the development of zoning plans. Information on ecology, oceanography, stakeholder needs, and accessibility are used to design zoning plans within several administrative sections of the park. Although zoning plans for the MPA focus primarily on managing and controlling extractive resource use, issues pertaining to tourism are also included. Tourism is a significant activity on the Great Barrier Reef and an important economic sector. In 2002, 1.6 million tourists entered the GBRMP, contributing over AUD$4 billion in benefits to the regional economy. Although the majority of tourists visited sites which constitute less than 5% of the MPA, certain reefs received over 80,000 visitors per year, resulting in conflicts between conservation and tourism at popular sites (Valentine et al. 1997). The multiple- use zoning plans are intended to provide a range of tourism and recreational opportunities in the GBRMP, while minimizing tourism's impacts on the marine environment. Zoning in the GBRMP follows an extensive participatory and consultative planning methodology. Currently (late 2003), the entire GBRMP is being rezoned, and preliminary plans are under review after consultations with stakeholders and the public. The new Draft Zoning Plan calls for 7 basic zoning categories, including: General Use Zones, Habitat Protection Zones, Conservation Park Zones, Buffer Zones, Scientific Research Zones, Marine National Park Zones, and Preservation Zones. Table 1.1 summarizes policies attached to each type of zone.
Table 1.1 New Draft Zoning Plan, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Source: GBRMP, 2003J3
Although the majority of reefs in the GBRMP remain open to tourism, Preservation Zones prohibit virtually all access, including tourism (Table 1.I), to keep these areas in a natural state, undisturbed by human activities. Permits for access to Preservation Zones are issued only in the case of research which cannot be conducted elsewhere. For all other zones, although tourism and recreation is permitted (Table 1.1), any commercial outfit offering guided tours must obtain permits. This policy helps to ensure standard codes of practice and to facilitate the development of environmental education programs (Table 1.I). At the scale of individual islands or patch reefs, site-specific zoning plans are often put in place to minimize visitor impacts on coral reefs and address conflicts between different user types. The GBRMPA has also designated Remote Natural Area 1 No Structure Subzones, where no pontoons or permanent mooring facilities are allowed, and all motorised water sports are prohibited. These zones provide opportunities for quiet appreciation and enjoyment of nature within areas unaltered by infrastructure or facilities.
1.2.2. BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA SOURCE: Salm et al. (2000) Zoning was used as the primary management tool to meet both tourism and conservation objectives in the Bunaken National Marine Park, Indonesia. In the early 1980s, coral reefs in the MPA were surveyed to determine which were best suited for either tourism or conservation. Several criteria for both tourism and conservation values were developed, and for each criterion, reefs were assigned scores. The 'tourism value' of each reef was based upon aesthetics, safety, accessibility, and fishing activity. The 'conservation value' of each reef was based upon habitat variety, unique coral habitat, coral cover, coral diversity, and intactness. Conservation Zones were defined around coral reefs with the highest 'conservation values,' while Tourism Zones were defined around coral reefs with the highest 'tourism values'. At sites with intermediate scores, the zoning plan suggested a low level of tourism, combined with conservation. Since the implementation of this original zoning plan, it was recognized that the needs of local peoples had been overlooked, which had resulted in incursions into Conservation Zones and resource extraction from these areas. To help address these problems, the entire park was rezoned in 1991, and local villagers and fishermen participated in the planning process to ensure that their resource needs could be met by the plan. In addition, to enhance the capacity for enforcement, Conservation Zones were smaller, and were placed closer to villages so that communities themselves could effectively monitor areas and enforce regulations. This participatory technique fostered a sense of ownership over the planning process among local communities, which, in turn, greatly enhanced the effectiveness of the zoning plan. 1.2.3. MAPUTALAND/ST.LUCIA MARINE RESERVES, SOUTH AFRICA (Source: Riegl and Riegl (I 996))
Riegl & Riegl (1996) suggested that coral reef habitat sensitivity be used as the basis for zoning to mitigate the impacts of dive tourism in the Maputaland / St.Lucia Marine Reserves, South Africa. Surveys mapped coral community structure in different parts of the MPA, and cluster analysis identified 5 basic habitat types: reefs dominated by Montipora spp., reefs dominated by branching Acropora spp., reefs dominated by sponges (phylum: Porifera), and reefs dominated by soft corals (order: Alcyonacea). Combining this data with oceanographic information on source/sink reefs, they suggested that a habitats dominated by sensitive Acropora spp. at '4-Mile Reef should be designated as a restricted area, with no access for tourism (Fig. 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Maputaland MPA: Coral Reef Habitat Mapping and Zoning (Source: Riegl & Riegl, 1996) (note: source did not include a scale) 1.3. MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK, THAILAND The island of Koh Chang (102'22' E, 11'59' N), Trad Province, Thailand, is situated in the Gulf of Thailand about 8 km from the mainland, close to the Cambodian border (Fig. 1.2). The island is roughly 30 km long and 14 krn wide, and is the second largest island in Thailand after Phuket (RFD 1996). The climate is tropical monsoonal. Total annual rainfall is estimated at over 4700 rnm per year, 90% of which falls from May to October during the southwest monsoon (Thai Meteorological Department 2003). The geology of the area consists of granitic rock and mountain peaks, the highest of which is Khao Yai at 743m elevation. Mountain slopes are covered with dense, mostly undisturbed Tropical Evergreen forest; low-lying coastal areas consist of Beach Forest, and Mangrove Forest in areas of brackish water (RFD 1996). The Koh Chang archipelago consists of the main island of Koh Chang, as well as Koh Maak, Koh Kood, and over 52 surrounding smaller islands (Fig.l.2). The official boundaries of the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park (MKCNMP) encompass over 650 km2, including a protected terrestrial component that includes Koh Chang and over 40 smaller islands, and 494 km2 of marine habitats, all protected by legislation as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) since 1982 (RFD 1996) (Fig. 1.2). Marine 'seascape ecology' in the area consists of a complex 3-dimensional array of coral reef, mangrove, seagrass, mudflat, and sandy, rocky and pelagic habitats, all linked by oceanographic currents and mobile organisms. Marine species diversity in the area is relatively high. Fish diversity in the Gulf of Thailand is approximately 323 species in 59 families, and scleractinian coral diversity is roughly 90 species (Satapoomin 2002). Biogeographic patterns of coral genera diversity show that Thailand is close to the world's 'hotspot' for scleractinian coral diversity, which is centred around the Philippines and Indonesia (Veron 1986) (Fig.l.3). Many other marine taxa also reach peak diversity values in the region. For example, there are an estimated 20 species of seagrass, 125 species of shrimp, and 38 species of sea snakes in Southeast Asia (Chou 1997, PEMSEA 2002). Figure 1.2 Map of Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand. Arrows in the detailed insets indicate day-trip snorkelling sites. The dotted line delineates the official boundary of the MPA. Courtesy: Ole Heggen Coral reefs inside the MKCNMP total approximately 75 km in length and 5 km2 in area (Department of Fisheries 1999). Reefs which surround the main island of Koh Chang are generally in poor condition, due to natural conditions of high freshwater runoff, as well as pollution, bleaching, fishing, and tourism. Shallow (2-5 m depth) fringing reefs surrounding the northern and eastern aspects of smaller islands in the archpelago are in better condition (Department of Fisheries 1999). Due to exposure to the southwest monsoon, southern and western aspects of islands are mainly rocky with sparse coral communities (Phongsuwan 2000). There are also several underwater pinnacles in the area where reef depth drops to 15m or more.
Figure 1.3 Map of hard coral genera diversity in southeast Asia. Lines indicate biogeographic boundaries for coral genera # (Modzjiedfrom Veron (1986)).
Most of the local inhabitants of Koh Chang have been traditional fishermen, and subsistence and commercial fishing in the area remains common (Lunn 2003). Several shrimp farms now exist in the southeast district of Koh Chang and at Haad Kai Bae. However, monitoring has not yet shown any marine water quality problems due to aquaculture (OEPP 2001). Comprehensive information on the collection of shells for the ornamental trade and tropical fishes for the aquarium trade is lacking (UP-MSI et al. 2002). Although these activities do not appear to be widespread, there have been reports of illegal dynamite fishing, fishing with toxic chemicals, and aquarium fish collection on coral reefs in Trad Province, including the Koh Chang archipelago (Yeemin et al. 1999a). Fishing or by-catch of endangered species, including turtle, dolphin, dugong, and shark, also may be occurring, but information is unavailable (UP- MSI et al. 2002). A major recent change in marine resource use is that fish, shellfish, and invertebrates can now be sold directly to restaurants serving extensive tourist markets on the islands of Koh Chang, Koh Maak, Koh Kood, and resorts on the smaller islands. Tourism activity in the area is relatively intense and growing rapidly. Often described as a tropical island paradise for the Bangkok-weary and foreign tourists, more than 400,000 tourists visited the island in 2002, and these numbers are growing rapidly (Anonymous 2003). Visitors to the island have fuelled a boom in the tourism industry, and a mushrooming of tourism infrastructure. Bungalows, hotels, shops, restaurants, banks, bars, and tour agencies have sprouted all over the prime waterfront beach areas on the western side of the island. At the end of 2002, there were an estimated 92 hotel and bungalow operations offering over 2200 rooms on Koh Chang (Koh Chang guide map 2002, Anonymous 2003). Including tourism operations on Koh Maak, Koh Kradad, and Koh Kuud (which lie just outside the MPA), there are over 120 tourist accommodation businesses offering over 2900 rooms in the area (Koh Chang guide map 2002, Anonymous 2003). These numbers have more than tripled over the period 1999-2002 (Anonymous 2003). Although many resorts are currently owned and operated by local people, extensive land speculation and international investments in the construction and planning of luxury hotels and resorts has occurred. One of the world's major investors in tourism and property, Sun City Group, has been active in the region (Waewklaihong 2002). The domestic tourism market at Koh Chang accounts for over half of all visitors, with the international market making up the remainder (OCESD 2002). Visitation by Asian tourists, especially from China, is predicted to grow rapidly in the near future (OCESD 2002). Tourists access Koh Chang either by ferry from one of three piers near Laem Ngop town on the mainland. Transport to the pier is either direct from Bangkok via private vehicle or minibus (4-6 hours), via shared taxi from Trad City to Laem Ngop (20 minutes), or via shuttle from the brand new Trad airport (30 minutes), which began operations in June 2003 and offers direct flights from Bangkok International Airport (Bangkok Airways 2003). Longer-term plans are to establish direct air links with Cambodia and possibly southern Thailand and Malaysia (OCESD, 2002). All industries related to tourism, including construction, restaurant, retail, transportation, and tours, currently dominate the economic and social landscape of Koh Chang. Environmental impacts resulting from tourism developments are readily observable in many locations. Mangrove clearing, the withdrawal of water supplies directly from streams within park land, seawall construction at inappropriate locations, road construction impacting forests and lagoons, aesthetic deterioration due to insensitive infrastructure design and increased road traffic, and untreated sewage disposal into the ocean are all apparent. Water shortages and garbage pileups have also been problems (Anonymous 2003). Tourism developments are located primarily within the narrow zone of private lands along the western shoreline of Koh Chang, encompassing Haad Sai Khao (Whlte Sand Beach), Khlong Phrao Beach, Kai Bae Beach, Haad Tha Naam (Lonely Beach), and Bang Bao (Fig.l.2). These private lands are embedded within National Park territories, and officially consist of areas occupied by local inhabitants when the protected area was designated in 1982. In several areas, people have illegally encroached on park land, and some of these have been charged with trespassing (Wangvipula 2003). However, powerful, influential people appear to be beyond such laws: one influential figure filled a public canal and sold it to a major investor (Susanpoolthong and Hutasingh 2002). Another landowner transformed a public canal into a private lagoon, reclaimed part of the sea, and destroyed mangroves, yet he still operates his resort and there have been no legal proceedings against him, despite two warnings from National Park officials (Susanpoolthong and Hutasingh 2002). These incidents seem to indicate that skyrocketing land values and a lingering problem of corruption in Thailand (Lambsdorff 2003) seem to be combining in undesirable ways at Koh Chang. As a result, whether the original boundaries of the protected area have been maintained is questionable. Lending strength to such an impression is the fact that in the past, Trad's provincial governor called for law changes to allow park development, due to worries that investors won't come to the island (Waewklaihong 1998). Marine tourism and recreation in the MKCNMP is highly seasonal, due to rough seas and stormy weather from May to October during the southwest monsoon. Most marine tourism occurs during November to April. Besides swimming near the developed tourist beaches, marine tourism consists mainly of organized snorkelling tours, as well as small amounts of SCUBA diving, sea kayaking, and hook-and-line recreational fishing for barracuda and grouper. 'Snuba' is not yet being offered in the area. Snorkelling trips in the MPA are popular with both Thais and foreigners. Principal sites visited by these tours are shown in Fig. 1.2. Many sites in the Central and Northern parts of the MPA are close to the developed tourist beaches on the western side of Koh Chang, while the southern area is accessed either from Koh Maak (which is also developing rapidly), or by longer full-day trips from Koh Chang. The most popular coral reef for snorkelling tours is Koh Yuak in the Central area (Fig.l.2) (Appendix A), due mainly to its high accessibility from the developed beaches of Khlong Phrao and Haad Sai Khao. During peak holiday periods, over 170 tourists have been observed at Koh Yuak (Appendix A). The total number of people snorkelling and SCUBA diving in the MPA remains uncertain (S. Seeresongsaeng, personal communication, 2003). However, based on personal observations and semi-stmctured interviews with tour operators, rough extrapolations place the current number of day-trip snorkellers in the MPA at approximately 30,000 per year (see Appendix A), and the total number of dives per year at just under 9,000 (Appendix B). Assuming these dives are spread evenly across the ten major dive sites, on average there are less than 1000 dives per year at each dive site in the MPA. As there are up to 20 or more dive sites in the MPA, at most sites the true number of dives is probably even lower. Tourism in the MPA has damaged coral reefs due to anchoring of tour boats, as well as snorkeller and diver trampling impacts (Dept. of Fisheries 1999) (see Chapter 2). Installation of mooring buoys throughout the MPA has mostly solved the problem of anchor damage*.However, visitor trampling impacts essentially remain unmanaged in the MPA. Tourism is allowed to occur anywhere in the MPA, and no formal nature interpretation or visitor education programs are in place. For the foreseeable future, intensive tourism development at Koh Chang is likely to proceed (Taemsamran 2002, Samabuddhi 2002a, Sarnabuddhi 2002b). For example, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (now amalgamated into the new Ministry of Tourism and Sports) has stated that the number of visitors per year to Koh Chang should be doubled fiom 400,000 to 800,000 (Anonymous, 2003). Yet, there are many tourism plans and policies at Koh Chang that aim to avoid some of the negative ecological and social impacts that have accompanied tourism development at other coastal areas of Thailand (Cohen 1996, Sarnabuddhi 2002b). First of all, the area is officially designated as a Marine National Park, and is officially managed according to the National Parks Act of 1961, which states that National Parks are to be preserved in their natural state for the public's education and enjoyment (UPI-MSI et al., 2002). More specific mandates of the park include (Chettamart and Emphandhu 2002, RFD 2002): to preserve and protect coastal and marine ecosystems and biological resources; to provide education, research, recreation, and tourism opportunities in a sustainable fashion; and to undertake and utilize research to update management plans for each National Park.
* Although the theft of the valuable mooring buoy ropes by fishermen remains a nuisance. Another important policy for coral reefs in Thailand is the National Coral Reef Strategy (NCRS), which was approved by cabinet in 1992 (Yeemin et al. 2001), and includes a zoning policy (Table 1.2). The NCRS provides a solid legislative basis for multiple-use zoning of coral reefs, including an emphasis on tourism management. However, at Koh Chang the zoning process has still not been formally and systematically applied (S. Seereesongsaeng, personal communication). Another publication relevant to tourism at Koh Chang is: "A Study to Determine the
Pattern of Marine Ecotourism Management " (TISTR 1998). This study provided specific recommendations for the Koh Chang archipelago, which was ranked as the third highest priority nationwide as a marketable ecotourism destination (TISTR, 1998). Key recommendations in the report included: ecotourism should create awareness among all concerned parties of the need to conserve marine ecosystems; ecotourism zone; should be demarcated at tourism destinations; tourism routes should be set up; the boundaries of selected areas for ecotourism-specific purposes should be identified clearly; standards should be designated to classify tourism resources for ecotourism purposes; ecological investigations should be carried out before zoning; and ecotourism strategies should consider resource profile, necessity for conservation, level of development, and policies of concerned agencies.
Another very important planning document was commissioned by the Office of the Committee on Economic and Social Development (OCESD), which formulated a vision for the development of Koh Chang, within the context of Thailand's overall tourism product. This report emphasized that Koh Chang7s development should use the opportunity of a relatively undeveloped, highly attractive group of islands to create a new tourism product, based on different target markets (OCESD 2002). The optimal development concept formulated was a strategy of attracting a high-end niche market of exclusive resort tourism, combined with ecotourism activities based on the maintenance of high-quality marine and terrestrial environments. Table 1.2 Thailand's National Coral Reef Strategy: zoning policy (Source: ONEB (1993)) Coral Reef Zoning Designation I TourismlLeisure Zones I 0 (A) (B) -Eco- Criterion General Tourism tourism (D) -Use Zones Zones Conservation Zones Zones 1. Collection of shells Control Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Collection of other marine life (except for research) Control Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
3. Use of fishing gear that does Control Prohibited Prohibited ' Prohibited not damage coral reef habitats 4. Sustainable harvest of fish Control Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 5. Licenses for mining, oil, or natural gas exploration within 3 Control Control Control Prohibited km of coral reefs 6. Scientific research Control Control Control Control 7. Mooring of boats within 3m of coral reef Control Control Control Control 8. Operation of shipping lines, passenger boats, or leisure boats Control Control Control Prohibited (i.e.: jet-ski, hovercraft boats) 9. Tourist visitation numbers within carrying capacity 10. Pipes (refuse, water supply, rain water) within approximately 1 km of coral reef 11. Hotel within 5 km of coral reef Control Control Prohibited Prohibited 12. Tourism activities (i.e.: banana boat, parasailing) Control Control Control Prohibited 13. Seawalking Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 14. Benign tourism activities (i.e.: glass-bottomed boats) Control Control Control Prohibited
Specific strategic benefits of the plan identified in the OCESD report included: allowing Thailand to improve its image as a high quality tourism destination; helping to diversify the tourism attractions of south-east Thailand, notably by forming a contrast with mass tourism activities in Pattaya; helping to attract new tourism markets likely to grow significantly in the future; providing a pilot case to apply to other regions where upgrading of the tourism product is required; helping to preserve the natural environment, which is appreciated by the local people and tourists; avoiding "swamping" of what is a relatively small local population by large numbers of tourists; helping to develop a range of higher quality skills in Thai people, rather than those required under generalist forms of tourism; helping to integrate, preserve, and enhance the viability of traditional ways of life through tourism.
The overall development plan can be summarized by the zoning scheme in Fig. 1.4. Contrary to the marine ecotourism report (TISTR, 1998), the study acknowledged that Koh Chang is developing (and will be developed) in such a manner that it is unrealistic to expect it to be mainly an ecotourism attraction. Rather, they suggest that ecotourism will be an activity that occurs only duringpart of the visitor's stay, as opposed to being the main focus of their visit (OCESD, 2002). On the other hand, the authors of this report are relatively loose with the term 'ecotourism', and there are no clearly articulated mechanisms for how the version of 'ecotourism7 they promote will contribute to conservation or enhanced ecological understanding. Although there is a vague reference to the 'carrying capacity7 concept, the discussion is limited to: (i) social carrying capacity, such as the distribution of tourist flows and the number of people on beaches, (ii) water supply aspects, and (iii) physical carrying capacity for marine transportation. In particular, within the 'blue ecotourism' zones (Fig.l.4), there are no specific plans or policies for minimizing environmental impacts, meeting the needs and demands of marine ecotourists, enhancing the ecological understanding of visitors, or involving tourists in conservation efforts. Finally, it should be mentioned that in 2002, the Thai government designated Koh Chang as a 'special administrative zone' by royal decree, to be governed by a committee, the 'special administrative body' (Hutasingh and Susanpoolthong 2002, Susanpoolthong 2002). The main purpose of this committee is to enable discussion and co-operation between government agencies, to manage development of the Koh Chang archipelago. Members of the committee have experience in law, administration, tourism, and the conservation of natural resources and the environment (Susanpoolthong, 2002).
1.4. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY AND THESIS OUTLINE The goal of this study is to draft a coral reef zoning plan for the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, to manage snorkelling tours in a manner that can meet multiple objectives related to conservation and tourism. More specific objectives include:
0 to draft a coral reef zoning plan that reduces the environmental impacts of tourism on coral reefs in the MPA, in order to meet conservation objectives; to draft a coral reef zoning plan that meets visitor needs and provides satisfying visitor experiences in the MPA, in order to sustain or increase the socioeconomic benefits derived from coral reef tourism; to draft a coral reef zoning plan that is compatible with existing laws, policies, and decrees in the study area. The focus on snorkelling tours is justified by the predominance of this activity in the study area (>3O7000/year;See Appendix A), and the likelihood that snorkelling in the MPA is likely to grow significantly in the near future, especially as domestic tourism increases. The thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 has provided a broad theoretical background to the topic of coral reef conservation and tourism management in MPAs. Chapter 2, "Zoning Coral Reefs for Conservation", is based on ecological / conservation biology perspectives. It describes the coral reef field survey conducted in the study area, and uses the results to recommend strategies for reducing the impacts of marine tourism. Chapter 3, "Zoning Coral Reefs to Manage Visitor Experiences", describes the visitor survey conducted in the study area, and combines the results with the Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) and the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) visitor management frameworks, to recommend management strategies for enhancing the quality of visitor experiences. Chapter 4, "Integration, Synthesis, & Conclusions" integrates and synthesizes the main findings from the preceding chapters. A user-friendly multiple-use coral reef zoning plan is summarized, followed by a discussion of how the study fits in with broader themes in resource management. CHAPTER 2: ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1. IMPACTS OF PHYSICAL TRAMPLING ON CORAL REEFS Snorkelling and scuba diving almost always results in some physical damage to corals, due to people who stand, fin, kick, kneel, grasp, or collide with corals (hereafter collectively referred to as 'trampling7). Measured rates of scuba diver trampling have ranged from mean values of 0.09 contactslminute (Barker and Roberts 2004), to 0.33 contactslminute (Talge 1992), to as high as 4 contacts/minute (Harriott et al. 1997). Trampling of corals by snorkellers may be even more common, and is especially damaging when snorkellers stand directly upon corals (Rogers et al. 1988, Allison 1996). In recent years, over 20 publications have shown that trampling impacts result in negative impacts on coral reef ecosystems (Appendix C). Direct impacts of trampling on corals include mortality, fracturing, and tissue damage (Liddle and Kay 1987, Rodgers et al. 2003). Trampling can also increase the vulnerability of corals to infectious diseases and parasites, by removing protective layers of mucous (Benson et al., 1978). In addition, tourists can resuspend sediments into the water column, causing considerable stress to corals (Neil 1990). Over time, trampling often results in measurable changes to coral reef ecosystems, including higher proportions of broken and damaged corals (Riegl and Velimirov 1991, Hawkins and Roberts 1992, Allison 1996, Plathong et al. 2000, Tratalos and Austin 2001, Zakai and Chadwick-Funnan 2002, Rodgers et al. 2003), slower coral growth rates (Meesters et al. 1994, Rodgers et al. 2003), increased algal overgrowth (Riegl and Velimirov 1991), and smaller average sizes of coral colonies (Hawkins and Roberts 1993). A recent study in Hawaii showed a clear increase in coral mortality across sites with low, medium, and high recreational use, with 0% survivorship of corals at the high-use site after visitation by 200,000 snorkellers, waders, swimmers, and surfers over a period of 8 months (Rodgers and Cox 2003). Certain types of corals are more vulnerable to trampling than others. Trampling experiments (Woodland and Hooper 1977, Liddle and Kay 1987), laboratory studies measuring skeletal compression strength (Liddle and Kay 1987, Marshall 2000, Rodgers et al. 2003), and field studies assessing the trampling impacts of snorkelling and diving (Allison 1996, Plathong et al. 2000, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000, Walters and Samways 2001, Zakai and Chadwick-Funnan 2002) all indicate that branching corals are less resistant to trampling, whereas massive, plate- like, digitate, or submassive growth forms are more resistant. In addition, soft corals tend to be less vulnerable to trampling than either massive or branching corals (Riegl and Riegl 1996, Plathong et al, 2000, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000, Tratalos and Austin 2001), and encrusting corals tend to be the least vulnerable (Riegl and Riegl 1996, Schleyer and Tomalin 2000). A particularly useful study of diver trampling impacts was conducted by Schleyer & Tomalin (2000), who quantified the amount of both 'natural damage' and 'diver damage7 on South African coral reefs. Sources of damage were determined by forensic evidence collected from damaged corals, combined with direct observations of diver trampling incidents. Results of the study are shown in Table 2.1. Divers clearly caused a disproportionate amount of damage to branching corals. Conversely, natural sources of damage tended to affect soft corals most often. Massive corals, plate corals, and encrusting corals all registered low proportions of total diver damage, and showed similar proportions of naturally-induced damage compared to diver-induced damage. This study strongly supports the idea that soft corals and encrusting corals are most resistant to trampling damage, and that branching corals are the least resistant. However, it is possible that branching corals, though less resistant to trampling, may nonetheless be more resilient, due to asexual reproduction by fragmentation (Highsmith, 1982; Nybakken, 2000) and high growth rates (Shim 1966, Kobayashi 1984). Yet coral fragments broken off by trampling are usually too small to survive or reproduce (Liddle and Kay 1987, Allison 1996, Riegl and Riegl 1996), and intensive recreational use can inflict injuries at a rate which exceeds the regeneration capacity of branching corals (Plathong et al. 2000, Rouphael and Inglis 2002). Taken together, the existing evidence indicates that branching corals are most vulnerable to physical trampling impacts. The trend of increasing vulnerability to trampling across different coral life forms is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Only one study has suggested a relationship between coral morphology and trampling different from that found by others. Hawkins et al. (1999) noted a decline in the abundance of massive corals at dived sites, and a slight increase (8%) in the proportion of branching corals over the same time period. However, their data also indicated a slight increase of branching corals at undived sites as well (2%), and despite the apparent statistically significant difference between dived vs. undived sites, nowhere does their data support the hypothesis that diving pressure caused the increase in branching corals over time (Hawkins et al., 1999). Therefore, although this study does suggest that massive corals are also vulnerable to trampling impacts, especially over longer time frames, it does not contradict the general rule that branching corals seem to be most vulnerable to trampling. Table 2.1 Natural vs. diver-induced damage inflicted on coral reef benthos in South Africa. Based on: Schleyer and Tomalin (2000) Morphological Category of Organism TYPE OF Hard Corals Soft DAMAGE - Encrusting Branching Massive Plate Corals Tunicates Sponges Natural 3% 39% 9% 3% 40% 0% 7% Diver Damage 0% 83% 7% 4% 7% 0% 0% Unknown Causes 1% 37% 3% 28% 27% 2% 2%
MASSIVE, SUBMASSIVE, BRANCHING FOLIOSE, SOFT ENCRUSTING CORALS TABLE & CORALS CORALS MUSHROOM CORALS
INCREASING VULNERABILITY TO TRAMPLING IMPACTS
Figure 2.1 Vulnerability of different coral morphologies to trampling
2.1.2. CORAL REEF DEGRADATION AND TOURIST TRAMPLING: SCAPEGOAT OR IMPORTANT IMPACT? It is common for tourism stakeholders to protest that the trampling of corals by tourists is blamed as a 'scapegoat' for coral reef damage (Richardson 1994). It is true that coral reefs face a wide array of threats, such as destructive fishing practices, overfishing and trophic level depletions, overharvesting of corals and shells, pollution (i.e.: eutrophication, sedimentation from coastal development), destruction of mangroves which provide nursery grounds for many reef fish, crown-of-thorns starfish infestations, diseases, coral bleaching due to El Nino and possibly climate change, and reduced calcification in response to increased C02concentrations (UNESCO 1985, Wilkinson 1998, Salrn et al. 2000, McClanahan 2002, Hughes et al. 2003, Bellwood et al. 2004). However, simply because coral reefs face such a wide array of threats, this does not imply that trampling impacts are unimportant and should not be a concern. Although corals can recover and mortality can be low when sufficient recovery time is allowed after trampling impacts, daily visits to sites can result in multiple, repeated trampling impacts over relatively short time periods. Short time frames between trampling events do not seem to provide sufficient time for recovery, implying that trampling is often a chronic stress to corals (Rouphael and Inglis 2002, Rodgers et al. 2003). Chronic impacts contrast strongly with natural sources of damage, such as hurricanes. Although hurricanes can be devastating to coral communities, these are relatively rare 'pulse' impacts. Thus, based on their evolutionary and natural histories, corals are more likely to be adapted to rare pulse impacts than to the chronic stress associated with repeated trampling events (Bythell et al. 2000, Rouphael and Inglis 2002). In fact, experimental evidence shows that chronic impacts can impede the recovery of coral reefs from natural disasters, even in cases where the chronic stress does not have a detectable effect on coral mortality (Hawkins et al. 1999, Hughes and Connell 1999, Oren et al. 2001). These perspectives are consistent with state-of-the-art ecological models, which show that synergistic, cumulative impacts on coral reefs due to multiple stressors are the most difficult to study, model, and understand, and yet, it is these cumulative impacts that are probably the most significant threat to coral reefs over the long term (Connell 1997a, Connell et al. 1997b, Hughes and Connell 1999). Dynamic ecological models that consider thermodynamics and chaos theory indicate that coral reefs are often resilient up to a point, but once critical threshold boundaries are crossed, 'bifurcations' in the system cause ecosystems to 'flip' into alternative stable states, with the potential for catastrophic changes, species extinctions, and losses of ecosystem hctions and services (Knowlton 1992, Levin 1998, Scheffer et al. 2001, Van Nes and Scheffer 2003). For example, most Jamaican reefs were once diverse, productive coral reef ecosystems. Yet the cumulative effects of overfishing, mass mortality of sea urchins (Diadema spp.) by disease, hurricanes, and pollution from land runoff caused a catastrophic "phase shift" on Jamaican coral reefs during the 1980s. After the phase shift, Jamaican reefs have been characterized by relatively few species, high algal cover, and low fish biomass, and appear to be "locked" into this degraded state (Hughes 1994). Considering the complex, synergistic, and cumulative nature of impacts on coral reefs, any particular impact could be "the straw that breaks the camel's back" which causes a phase shift to an alternate state (Knowlton 1992). Therefore, there is enough scientific evidence that snorkelling and scuba diving causes negative impacts on coral reefs. Efforts should now proceed in developing and implementing effective management strategies to minimize the impacts of snorkelling and scuba diving on coral reefs. 2.1.3. MANAGING TRAMPLING IMPACTS ON CORAL REEFS The concept of 'ecological carrying capacity' has garnered a significant deal of attention from researchers and resource managers considering the problem of trampling on corals (Dixon et al. 1993, Hawkins and Roberts 1996, Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002). The 'carrying capacity' concept originated within ecology (Krebs 1994) and range management (Maduram l972), and has often been used in terrestrial recreation research (Lime and Stankey 1971, Lindberg et al. 1997). In a marine recreation context, the ecological carrying capacity of coral reefs has been defined as the maximum number of skin divers a coral reef can support without resulting in ecological degradation (Hawkins and Roberts 1996, Jameson et al. 1999). Several researchers have estimated carrying capacities of coral reefs for scuba diving. Dixon et al. (1993) used data on coral cover, species diversity, and diving intensity at Bonaire Marine Park in the Caribbean, to estimate an ecological carrying capacity of 4000-6000 divers per site per year. Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) used extensive ecological data to estimate a carrying capacity of 5000 dives per year for coral reefs in Israel. Hawkins & Roberts (1 996) used data from three sites to graph the relationship between damaged coral and the number of dives per year, and concluded that there was an apparent 'carrying capacity' of 5000-6000 dives per site per year (yet this conclusion was perhaps premature considering the nature of their data). Although the carrying capacity concept has considerable appeal for MPA managers, and seems to be a convenient way to achieve both economic and ecological objectives (Dixon et al., 1993), there are several conceptual problems embedded in the approach. First of all, the area of coral reef across which people disperse should have a major effect on carrying capacity values. The studies mentioned above did not incorporate into carrying capacity models the area over which people disperse, and without doing so, comparisons of sites in different regions is problematic. Secondly, existing studies estimating scuba dive carrying capacities of reefs have contrasted coral communities at long-established dive sites with those at undived reefs (Dixon et al. 1993; Hawkins & Roberts 1996; Hawkins et al., 1999; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002). Without combining this approach with baseline studies on reef community structure and ongoing monitoring, these studies cannot account for biogeographic differences between reefs, and cannot control for other impacts that may have occurred since the onset of diving, such as anchoring or fishing (Rouphael & Inglis 2002). Thirdly, and perhaps most important, damage does occur at use levels under 5000 diveslyear. Moreover, this damage is not necessarily negligible, as there is no scientific benchmark which defines when damage begins to significantly affect coral reef ecosystems (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002). In fact, Kay and Liddle (1989) have shown that the first few trampling events cause a disproportionate amount of damage per individual. Similarly, Plathong et al. (2000) found that the amount of broken and damaged corals accumulated rapidly at newly opened snorkelling sites, yet damage levels tended to gradually stabilize over time. Moreover, as reviewed in section 2.1.2., any impact can potentially cause ecosystems to shift into alternate stability domains (Knowlton 1992). Finally, there are some major practical management problems involved with implementing a carrying capacity policy. For example, allocating and rationing use quotas in an equitable manner is often a major problem (McCool 1990). In addition, in MPAs where boats access sites from many different directions, enforcing use quotas can be very difficult to achieve. This is especially the case in tropical developing nations, where resources available to enforce regulations are often scarce. Due to these conceptual limitations, a 'carrying capacity' management strategy relies on a somewhat oversimplified model. In addition, limiting use based on 'carrying capacity7may not be the most effective use of time, effort, and resources. An alternative approach could be to focus on 'desired conditions', and to direct efforts towards achieving outputs (conditions), as opposed to focusing on inputs (visitor numbers) (Lindberg and McCool 1998). In MPAs, an ecologically desirable 'output condition' is a minimum amount of damage inflicted by tourists. The rate of damage inflicted by tourists depends on several variables other than the number of people, including the behaviour of visitors, and the biophysical features of sites (Fig. 2.2). The behaviour of tourists visiting coral reefs can be influenced by detailed nature interpretation programs, or by tour guide 'intervention'. Medio et al. (1997) found that detailed briefings on coral ecology, including instructions on how to avoid contact with coral, positively influenced diver behaviour to reduce trampling. However, Barker and Roberts (2004) found that a short one-sentence briefing instructing divers to avoid contact with corals was ineffective at reducing trampling. On the other hand, training dive guides to 'intervene' whenever visitors damaged coral through careless or unskilfid behaviour did effectively reduce trampling (Barker and Roberts, 2004). Zoning based on site vulnerability is another strategy for minimizing trampling impacts on coral reefs (Fig. 2.2). Management I Strategies Variable II I Restrict Numbers Under k Number of Visitors 'Carrying u Capacity'
I Education k Trampling Impacts Behaviour on Intervention of Visitors Coral Reefs Of Guides
Zoning
Figure 2.2 A model for managing trampling impacts on coral reefs.
2.1.4. ZONING CORAL REEFS FOR CONSERVATION: ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA Several ecological criteria should be used to inform MPA zoning decisions. The four main criteria used in this study are outlined below.
-2.1.4.1. TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY In the case of snorkelling, estimating a site's vulnerability to trampling should consider, first and foremost, the depth of the water. Reefs deep enough to prevent snorkellers floating on the surface from trampling reefs are ideal (e.g.: water depth >3m). The composition of coral communities is also an important factor influencing a reefs vulnerability to trampling (Figure 2.1). By prohibiting tourism at sensitive sites and promoting tourism at sites that are less vulnerable, MPA managers can reduce trampling impacts. Trampling vulnerability also depends on proportional live coral cover, as reefs with higher abiotic cover will in most cases be less vulnerable to trampling. In fact, some studies use live cover assessments to prioritize coral reefs for conservation planning (DeVantier et al. 1998); however, live cover assessments are not particularly useful on their own, as reefs with a high proportion of living cover often contain mono-specific stands of corals with low spatial complexity and relatively poor fish habitat (Roberts and Ormond 1987, Aronson and Precht 1995, Edinger and Risk 2000). Therefore, this study did not use live coral cover as a separate criterion for informing MPA zoning, although it does form part of the evaluation, due to the relationship between trampling vulnerability and live coral cover. 2.1.4.2.DIVERSITY Species diversity and the presence of rare or endemic species should be key considerations when evaluating coral reefs for conservation planning (Done 1995, Salm et al. 2000, Beger et al. 2003). Unfortunately, obtaining reliable estimates for these complex variables can be a long, arduous task. Yet certain taxonomic groups can sometimes function as surrogate 'indicators7 of more complex patterns of biodiversity at large (Pearson and Cassola 1992, Gaston and Williams 1993, Gaston 1996a). This approach is valid if a specific taxonomic group attains high diversity in areas coinciding with areas where one or more other taxonomic groups also attain(s) high diversity, which is also known as "congruency" (Gaston, 1996a). Unfortunately, studies on a variety of taxa at a range of spatial scales have generally shown congruency to be weak to moderately positive, and strong statistical relationships are very rare (Gaston 1996a, Gaston 199610). However, congruency can be quite high in cases where two groups of taxa have strong functional ecological linkages with one another and share the same particular habitat (Beccaloni and Gaston 1995, Gaston 1996a). This is precisely the case when considering the relationship between corals and fish in coral reef ecosystems, where corals shape the habitat of reef fish, and provide food for corallivorous fish (Nybakken 2000). Indeed, extensive empirical evidence from the Indo-Pacific region has shown a strong correlation between fish and coral species diversity (Hughes et al. 2002). Therefore, high congruency between coral and fish species seems to be a general rule, and coral species diversity can therefore act as an indicator of reef fish species diversity. Unfortunately, identifying corals to species level is a difficult task which requires specialized taxonomic knowledge, and sophisticated, detailed sampling schemes, including the examination of tissue specimens under microscopes. On the other hand, identifying coral morphologies is relatively simple (English et al., 1997). This provides the intriguing possibility that the morphological diversity of corals could be used as an indicator of coral species diversity and reef fish species diversity. Three types of evidence support this approach. Firstly, the morphological diversity of corals accounts for a significant fraction of coral species diversity (Edinger and Risk 2000, Veron and Stafford-Smith 2002). Secondly, coral morphological diversity has a direct influence on fish species diversity due to its influence on substrate complexity (Luckhurst and Luckhurst 1978, Roberts and Orrnond 1987, Grigg 1994, Friedlander et al. 2003). Finally, fish species diversity and coral species diversity are highly correlated with one another throughout the Indo-Pacific (Hughes et al., 2002). It is true that a multitude of other factors will affect the diversity of coral reef fishes, including fishing pressure (McClanahan 1999a), disturbance history (Hughes 1989), and species interactions such as competition and predation (Sale 1991). Yet, it is reasonable to assume that the morphological diversity of corals can act as a valuable indicator of coral reef biodiversity.
2.1.4.3. CORAL REEF AREA Larger reefs tend to contain greater habitat diversity, greater species diversity, and greater population sizes (Salm 1984, Salm et al. 2000). Therefore, larger core coral reef Conservation Zones are more likely to conserve biodiversity.
2.1.4.4.HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR A CROPORA SPP. On geological time scales, an unprecedented decline of corals in the genus Acropora has been observed in many different parts of the world (Table 2.2) (Jackson et al. 2001). In fact, branching Acropora spp. are now candidates for listing under the United States' Endangered Species Act (Precht et al. 2004). Threats to Acropora spp. include white band disease (WBD), hurricanes and typhoons, infestations by crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), pollution, tourism, and perhaps most importantly, 'bleaching' (Miller et al. 2002, Ninio and Meekan 2002, Precht et al. 2004). Bleaching is caused by the loss or reduction of endosymbiotic algae (zooxanthellae dinoflagellates) from coral tissues, and is a typical response of tropical symbiotic corals to environmental stress, including high temperature (Fitt et al. 2001). Because it is the pigments of zooxanthellae which provide corals with their vivid colours, corals usually turn white after bleaching. Bleaching inevitably results in decreased host tissue biomass, and often results in significant coral mortality (Glynn 1993). Acropora spp. corals tend to be more vulnerable to bleaching than other corals (Baird and Marshall 2002, Riegl2002, McClanahan 2004). In the Gulf of Thailand, branching Acropora spp. corals have undergone widespread declines, particularly in response to the severe bleaching events which occurred during the El Nino event of 1998 (Boonprakob and Chankong 2000). Within Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, branching Acropora spp. assemblages have been degraded by the combined effects of bleaching, anchor damage, and trampling damage (Dr. T. Yeemin, personal communication; Department of Fisheries, 1999). In the past, many reef habitats in MPA had been dominated by branching Acropora formosa and nobilis, but today, these are mostly rubble fields of dead coral (Fig. 2.3). The decline of branching corals is of particular concern due to the important roles they often play in coral reef ecosystems. A study in the Marshall Islands found that fish species strongly associated with branching corals included butterfly fish (Chaetodontidae), wrasses (Labridae), gobies (Gobiidae), puffer fish (Tetraodontidae), damselfish (Pomacentridae), velvet fish (Caracanthidae), and filefish (Oxyrnonocanthus longirostri) (Hiatt and Straburg 1960, Nybakken 2000). Studies on the Great Barrier Reef have shown strong associations between Acropora spp. and many species of small shrimp, crab, and fishes, with approximately 20 species of obligate associates (Patton 1994). Thus, a decrease or loss of branching corals eliminates critical habitat for many species. According to the competitive exclusion principle, over time this will tend to result in the extirpation of species at a competitive disadvantage in the newly shared niche space (Glasser and Price 1982, Glasser and Price 1988). Alternatively, competition for shared niche space could result in niche differentiation between species, and lower population sizes more vulnerable to future stress. Field evidence supports these theoretical models. In Hawaiian MPAs, coral reefs with higher proportions of branching corals were shown to have greater fish species diversity and greater fish abundance (Friedlander et al. 2003). At the Surin Islands in the Andaman Sea of Thailand, the proportion of branching Acropora spp. on coral reefs was strongly correlated with fish species diversity (Theberge 2002). Therefore, restoring branching corals is important not only to conserve Acropora spp., but also to conserve fish species. A strong case can therefore be made in support of restoring Acropora spp. at Koh Chang. Research in Indonesia has shown that the relative abundance of Acropora spp. is strongly related to both geographic position and environmental conditions (Wallace, 1999). At Koh Chang, regions where Acropora spp. previously dominated the benthos obviously contained suitable habitat for these species in the past; therefore, one can assume that Acropora spp. are likely to recolonize these areas over time. Although there still remains considerable scientific uncertainty on whether predictable patterns of succession occur within coral reef ecosystems (Hughes, 1989; Nybakken, 2000), two long-term scientific studies in Guam Guam (Colgan 1987), and Heron Island, Australia (Connell 1997a, Connell et al. 1997b), have indeed tracked coral community composition after disturbances to show predictable, orderly changes over time. Therefore, reefs which previously contained branching Acropora spp. contain suitable habitat for these species, and are good candidates for restoration. In summary, areas containing suitable habitat for restoration of Acropora spp. should be conferred with a higher relative 'protection priority'. Moreover, because branching corals are highly vulnerable to trampling, reefs with branching Acropora spp. should not be reopened to tourism once successfully restored.
Table 2.2 Major declines of Acropora spp., based on paleoecological and ecological data. (Source: Jackso, ?t al, 2001) Time of Baseline (Years Proxy / before Baseline Recent Location Indicator present) Estimate Estimate Trend % of sites with Caribbean A. palrnata 80% of 15% of post- 5.3-fold Sea dominant decrease % of sites with Caribbean A. cewicornis 100% loss Sea dominant Pleistocene sites I sites Standardized Bahamas abundance of 12-fold A. cewicornis decrease Relative Belize abundance of A. cewicornis A. cewicornis 100% loss A. cewicornis dominant absent Moreton Bay, Acropora Dominated reefs Only one small Decrease Australia dominance throughout bay Acropora reef
Figure 2.3 Dead Acropora spp. at Koh Chang (Photo: George Roman) 2.1.4.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS The four ecological criteria described above must somehow be combined to inform MPA zoning decisions. This decision-making problem can be based on a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) (Korhonen et al. 1992, Drechsler and Burgman 2004). Figure 2.4 illustrates how the four ecological criteria outlined above are linked with one another within a MCA framework to inform MPA zoning. The four criteria are combined within a MCA to assign overall 'protection priority' scores to each site. Based on 'protection priority' rankings, each reef is then assigned to one of the three main zoning categories defined by Thailand's National Coral Reef Strategy: Conservation Zones, Ecotourism Zones, or Tourism Zones (ONEB 1993).
Criterion #4: ECOLOGICAL Suitability for Restoring A cropora spp.
( Diversity I Criterion #3: I Coral Reef Area I
I MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS I
Figure 2.4 Relationship between ecological criteria, protection priorities, and MPA zoning 2.2. METHODS 2.2.1. GENERAL SITE SURVEYS 'General site surveys' were conducted by intensively surveying the reef at each site and assessing reef benthos in a qualitative manner. This was accomplished by snorkelling in S-shaped curves across all parts of the reef, including the reef flat and reef crest, while taking notes on underwater dive slates on factors such as underwater topography, coral species composition, distinctive patches of habitat differing from the rest of the reef, relative cover of live corals and dead corals, unique reef features, and any fish or other organisms seen (English et al. 1997). Distances between two parallel lines in the survey path were always less than 30 m apart, and most were less than 10 m. This task was feasible because all coral reefs surveyed were relatively small (40ha). Coral reef areas were obtained from the Department of Fisheries (1999).
2.2.2. THE LINE INTERCEPT TRANSECT (LIT) TECHNIQUE Quantitative data on coral community composition were collected using the Australian Institute of Marine Science's (AIMS) Line Intercept Transect (LIT) technique (English et al., 1997). This method estimates the cover of a group of objects in a specified area by calculating the fraction of the length of a line intercepted by the various objects. The method describes the reef community using 'lifeform' categories based on structural attributes of the benthos (Table 2.3). The LIT technique allows useful information to be collected by people with relatively limited experience identifying coral reef benthos. It is reliable, efficient, and provides detailed information on spatial patterns that can be used to compare the coral community composition at different sites (Bradbury et al. 1986, Reichelt et al. 1986). The LIT method does not require a large amount of equipment, and is relatively simple to conduct. At shallow coral reefs, the only equipment required is snorkelling gear, a fibreglass measuring tape, dive slates and/or underwater paper, clipboards, and pencils (English et al., 1997). The LIT procedure begins by firmly attaching one end of the measure tape to a suitable anchor point in the vicinity (e.g.: coral heads, rocks, rubble, etc.). The tape is then unrolled tightly over the reef in a straight line, following the depth contour as closely as possible. Care is taken so that the tape remains close to the substratum (0-15 cm). The tape is then carefully pushed in between coral crevices to prevent excessive movement due to waves and currents. The observer records the start location of the transect onto the data sheet using a GPS (Garrnin GPS 12X was employed in this study). Ambient parameters (weather conditions, wind, etc.) are also recorded on the data sheet. An example of a blank LIT data sheet is provided in Appendix D. Once the measure tape has been laid out, the observer slowly moves along the transect, and records onto the data sheet the code representing the lifeform category of the benthos encountered under the tape, and the initial metric transition point between different lifeform categories, rounded to the nearest centimetre (Fig. 2.5). Along a transect (XY), a number of transition points (T) will be recorded for each lifeform category (Fig. 2.5). The difference between transition points represents the length (L) of each lifeforrn category intersected by the transect (Fig. 2.5). The total length of each transect occupied by one lifefonn category is the sum of all individual lengths (L) which belong to a given life form category. When possible, more detailed taxonomic identification of corals to genera or species level was performed using the Field Guide for Indo-Paczjk Coral Reefs (Allen and Steene 1994). Taxonomic identification of coral species was corroborated with several other sources, including CORAL ID: An Electronic Key to the Scleractinian Corals of the World (Veron and Stafford-Smith 2002), the Thai Department of Fisheries' (1999) Coral Reef Maps in Thai Waters, and through consultations with Dr. Tharnrnasak Yeemin (a marine biologist at Rarnkharnhaeng University).
Ben
= iiiedom 1 = %Ifm 2 = Mefm1 1 8Helm 2 - INetcml1 ~1 lilafm2 = lifrtboml4
Figure 2.5 Schematic diagram of a transect. Transition points (T) indicated for each lifeform crossed by a transect (XY). (Source: English et al., 1997).
2.2.3. DATA COLLECTION AT KOH CHANG All sites were surveyed with general site surveys at least once prior to the collection of LIT data. LIT data were collected only at shallow coral reef snorkelling sites visited regularly by snorkelling tours. Many shallow reefs in the park that currently remain unvisited by tour boats due to dangerous currents, private resorts (e.g.: Koh Lao-Ya, Koh Ngam), poor access, poor underwater visibility, or heavy damage remained unsurveyed. LIT data were collected from a total of 14 shallow reefs in the MPA. Three deeper snorkelling destinations were also included in the analysis, but remained unsurveyed by LIT. These three deeper sites consist of rocky coastlines dropping steeply down to coral reef communities at approximately 3-5m, which are deep enough to preclude snorkeller trampling impacts, yet shallow enough to permit snorkellers on the surface to view marine life.
Table 2.3 Life form categories and codes (Adapted from: English et al. (1997)) Category Of Coral Code Notes / Remarks Dead Coral DC Recently dead, white to dirty white Dead Coral with Algae DCA Coral is still standing, skeletal structure can still be seen Branching Acropora ACB At least secondary branching present (e.g.: A. formosa) Table Acropora ACT Horizontal flattened plates (e.g.: A. hyacinthus) Encrusting CE Major portion attached to substratum as a laminar plate Coral attached at one or more points, leaf-like or plate-like Foliose CF in appearance (e.g: Montipora aequituberculata) Solid boulder or mound Massive CM (e.g.: Porites spp., Platygyra spp.) Tends to form small columns, knobs or wedges- (e.g:.- Submassive CSM Psammocora digitata) Mushroom CMR Solitary, free-living corals of the Fungia Soft Coral SC Soft bodied corals Sponges SP Zoanthids ZO e.g: Platythoa, Protopalythoa Ascidians, anemones, gorgonians, giant clams, sea urchins, Others OT etc. Anemones I ANM I Sand S Rubble R Unconsolidated fragments of coral Recently dead, white to dirty white, dead branching Dead Branching DC Acropora spp. corals, either still standing, or rubble Acropora (ACB) obvi&ly composed of branching corals- Dead Branching DCA Recently dead, white to dirty white, dead branching- Acropora with ~Gae (ACB) ~cro~oja,covered in algae - Rock RCK Water WA Fissures deeper than 50 cm
At each reef surveyed by LIT, several 20 meter replicate transects were performed at each site (n=2 to n=5, depending on the ease of access), for a total of 47 transects sampling over 900 meters of reef substrate. According to the explicit recommendations found in English et al. (1997), transect locations were not purely random at the scale of reefs (1-10 ha at Koh Chang), but instead were chosen systematically to be 'representative' of the reef community as a whole. However, to decrease potential observer bias, precise start locations of transects at finer scales (1-10 metres), were chosen 'blindly', by swimming or floating face up for a haphazard period of time before turning over to face the reef and begin the transect. Each transect ran parallel to the reef crest, and no transects overlapped with other transect lines (English et al., 1997). Data collection always took place during low tide, to facilitate placement of the measure tape, identification of life form categories, and notation of metric intercept points. Start points of transects were marked using a Garmin GPS 12X, and headings were determined by placing the GPS unit in a waterproof ~~ua~ac~~case and swimming alongside the transect line. Unfortunately, the waterproof case broke part way through the research, so for many sites it was necessary to simply estimate the transect heading based on landforms, the position of the sun, and the time of day. GPS locations of transect start points, headings of transect lines, and dates of data collection are summarized in Appendix E. For each transect, the research assistant helped secure the measure tape on the substrate and maintained the tape in a relatively straight line while the main researcher recorded the LIT data onto dive slates or underwater paper fastened to a clipboard. However, data collection for three transects were completed by research assistants. Observer bias for these three transects were minimized by regular training and discussion of lifeforms, and by checking the consistency of coral morphology labelling between observers. English et al. (1 997) suggest that five replicate transects should be performed at each site. However, an exact definition of the scale that constitutes a "site" is lacking, other than indicating that sites are nested within regions, and regions are approximately at the scale of 20 km (p.312). Therefore, this suggestion is open to some interpretation. Of course, more replication is always better statistically, and every effort was made to have as many replicates as possible. However, time and logistical constraints limited the amount of sampling that could be undertaken, and the execution of an ideal sampling strategy with a large amount of replicates at each site was difficult. Generally, the area of coral reef at each site was used as a rough guide for the number of replicate transects, as summarized in Table 2.4. Note that reefs in the southern area of the MPA were sampled less intensively, due to access and safety problems. Table 2.4 Intensity of sampling at reefs surveyed by Line Intercept Transect. See Fig. 1.2 for locations of sites & regions. Coral reef areas obtained from the Department of Fisheries (1999). Average Region -# of Densitv of within the replicate Coral Reef Sampling SITE MPA transects Area (h9 Jhaltransect) Koh Chang Noi North 4 5.4 1.4 Koh Ma Pring North 3 1.2 0.4 ALL NORTHERN SITES North 7 6.6 0.9 Koh Suwan Rock Central 3 <1 <0.3 Koh Suwan (E.) Central 4 3.6 0.9 Koh Suwan Gully Central 2 <1 <0.2 Koh Rom Central 5 2.2 0.4 Koh Yuak Central 5 3.7 0.7 Koh Pli Central 5 2.2 0.4 Koh Man Nok Central 4 3.0 0.8 ALL CENTRAL SITES Central 28 14.7 0.5 Koh Thong Lang South 2 2.6 1.3 Koh Kra South 2 5.1 2.5 Koh Thian South 2 1.6 0.8 ALL SOUTHERN SITES South 6 9.3 1.5 Hin Sam Sao Central 2 da da Hin Rap Central 2 da da ALL OUTER ROCKS Outer SITES Rocks 4 n/a n/a ALL SITES All 45 30.4 0.7
2.2.4. DATA PROCESSING AND DATA ANALYSIS At the end of each day, collected LIT data were entered into a laptop computer using Microsoft Excel XP spreadsheet software. Data entires were checked and verified at least once after entry into the computer. For each transect, the proportional cover of each life form was calculated according to the formula: Percent cover (life form 4 = (total length of (life form 4) / length of transect) x 100%. (English et al., 1997). Similar calculations were also performed for each reef by pooling data from replicate transects (Appendix G provides data summaries). In a few cases, the transect tape was suspended >50 cm above the reef (e.g.: due to small crevasses), meaning that the life form code WA (water) had to be recorded due to the inability to accurately view life form intercepts. For these cases, the centimetre totals for 'WA' were subtracted from the transect length when calculating proportional covers of life forms (English et al., 1997). Because coral reefs are natural geographical units with easily discernible boundaries, data analysis and zoning recommendations were conducted at the reef level to facilitate comprehension and compliance with plans among reef users. However, two sites surveyed by LIT were excluded from the analysis and zoning recommendations. Koh Suwan Rock was excluded due primarily to its extremely small size and limited tourist activity, and Koh Wai was excluded due to low sampling intensity, and private land ownership, which means that the MPA authority would have difficulties implementing access restrictions to this area. For each reef, standard deviations and standard errors were calculated for the proportional cover of each life form category (Appendix G). Morphological diversities of reefs were estimated using the Shannon-Weaver entropy statistic (mH') (Shannon and Weaver 1949). This statistic integrates the number of different morphological life form categories at the site, as well as the evenness of spread across the different morphological categories (Roberts and Ormond 1987, Hunter 1996). The coral mortality index (CMI) was also calculated based on averages across transects for each reef (Gomez et al. 1994). Mathematical formulas for mH' and CMI are shown in Appendix F. After these preliminary calculations, data were transferred into SPSS 10.0 for further statistical analyses. To determine differences in trampling vulnerability between sites, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) compared differences in the proportional cover of life form categories of interest. Prior to significance testing, variables were screened for normality (Kolmogorov- Smirnov Z test; alphac0.05) and homogeneity of variances (Levene statistic; alpha<0.05), and were square root transformed (Zar, 1999).Square root transformed data were screened for the assumption of homogeneity of variances across reefs (Levene statistic; alpha<0.05). For variables violating assumptions, Dunnett's T3 test was used for post-hoc comparisons, as this test is robust for non-homogenous variances.
2.2.5. MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS To assign relative 'protection priorities' to reefs for the purpose of MPA zoning, a Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) was performed (Fig.2.4). The four criteria used in the MCA were: coral morphological diversity (mH7), vulnerability to trampling, coral reef area, and suitability of habitat for branching Acropora spp.. The first three criteria were judged as equally important in determining 'protection priority7. Therefore, each of these should be assigned an equal weight in the MCA. Assigning a weighting to the fourth criterion-the suitability of reef habitats for restoring Acropora spp.-was more difficult. Restoring Acropora spp. is certainly an important management objective; however, restoration should not occur exclusively within Conservation Zones, but rather should occur throughout the MPA. Moreover, the primary objective of Conservation Zones should be conservation, not the restoration of degraded reefs. Based on these considerations, the fourth criterion was assigned a weighting three times less important than the other three criteria in the MCA. For each individual criterion, values based on observed measurements were standardized or rescaled to fall within the range 0 to 1, where higher values represented higher 'protection priorities'. Values for each criterion were standardized with equations that divided estimated measurements at each reef for vulnerability (criterion #I), diversity (criterion #2), area (criterion #3), and habitat suitability for Acropora spp. (criterion #4) by the maximum observed mean value across all reefs. Thus, the reef with the highest value for each individual criterion would receive a standardized value of 1. For example, for criterion #2 (diversity), values were standardized by dividing the mean mH' value for each reef by the maximum observed mean mH' value. The formula for calculating overall 'Protection Priority' scores at each site was as follows: PPscore=O. 3x(mH1(stand.))+O. 3x(VULN(stand.)) +O. 3x(AREA(stand.))+O. Ix(Acropora habitat (stand.)). For each criterion, standard deviations for measured mean values were propagated through the analysis, so that the final 'protection priority' score for each reef consisted of both a score based on estimated means, as well as a range encompassing a maximum and minimum score.
2.3: RESULTS 2.3.1: GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Table 2.5 summarizes all benthic life form categories encountered in LIT surveys, as well as all taxonomic identifications of benthic organisms. Notably, all branching coral communities in the MPA were highly degraded. Some branching coral colonies remain standing, but coral tissue is typically non-living and stark white due to the absence of symbiotic zooxanthellae, and filamentous algal overgrowth often covered the dead corals. No live branching Acropora spp. colonies intersected any transects, indicating extremely low cover of these corals. However, general site surveys did find several live branching Acropora spp., usually at the same sites containing dead branching corals. Typically, these colonies were very small, indicating that they had recently recruited onto reefs. Pooled transects at the reef level showed different coral community types at different sites. Figure 2.6 summarizes the average proportions of life form categories across different reefs. Appendix G provides a full summary of the LIT data. IAbiotic (Rock, Sand, etc.)
IDead Branching Acropora spp.
BDead Corals (Other than Acropora spp.)
Bother (Zoanthids, Anemones, Urchins, etc.)
ISoft & Encrusting Corals
OHard Corals
Reef
Figure 2.6 Composition of benthc communities at each reef. Massive, submassive, table, foliose, and mushroom corals were grouped together as 'Hard Corals', as these were deemed equally vulnerable to trampling (Fig 2.1). Refer to Fig. 1.2 for site locations. Table 2.5 'I rtonomic identification of corals at Koh Chang. Life Form Morphological Category JEnglish et al., 1997) Common Names Latin Names Hump Coral, Mountain Coral Porites lutea, Porites spp.- - Double-Star Coral I Diuloastrea heliouora Anemone Corals Goniopora spp. Symphyllia spp.; Leptoria spp.; Brain Corals Platygyra spp. Star Coral (& others) Favia spp. Honeycomb Coral Goniastrea spp. Bean Coral Euphyllia spp. Cauliflower Coral Pocillopora spp. Wart Coral I Pocillopora spp. Anemone Corals 1 Goniouora SDD... CSM Moon Coral / Pineapple Coral Favites spp. Star Coral Favia spp. Cat's Paw Coral Stylophora pistillata ? I Porites SDD. L L Lettuce Corals Pectinia spp.; Pachyseris spp. Foliose Corals Montipora spp. I Acropora spp. (hyacinthus? ACT Table Coral latistella? d&tifera?) CE Encrusting Corals Many species CMR Mushroom Corals Fungia spp. Cabbage Leather Coral Sinularia spp. Mushroom Leather Coral Lobophytum spp. Lobed Leather Coral Sarcophyton spp. Sea Whips Juncella fragilis Staghorn Coral Acropora formosa ACB Pink Tipped Staghorn Coral Acropora nobilis Bottlebrush Coral Acropora elseyi Phylum Cnidaria, Family ZOA ? I Zoanthidae Sea Urchins Diadema setosum 3iant Clams Tridacna spp. Sea Cucumbers Holothuria spp. Phylum Porifera (e.g: Haliclona Sponges spp., Clathria basil&a) 3hristmas Tree Worms Spirobranchus giganteus hemones Mostly Stichodactyla gigantea 2.3.2: RESULTS: TRAMPLING VULNERABILITY Water depth was considered to have the greatest influence on the vulnerability of reefs to trampling. The three deeper reefs (Laem Chang Noi, Koh Yak, and Koh Nok) were assigned the 'lowest' vulnerability to trampling. For all other reefs, differences in trampling vulnerability due to coral community composition were examined with statistical analyses. Cover of hard corals-which are relatively vulnerable to trampling (Fig.2.1)-differed from site to site (Fig 2.7; one-way ANOVA; dF41; F=2.460; p=0.022). Yet, due to the low sample size, post hoc tests showed significant differences in hard coral cover for only the following pairs of sites: Koh Chang Noi and Hin Sam Sao (p=0.032), Koh Chang Noi and Koh Yuak (p=0.01 l), and Hin Rap and Koh Yuak (p=0.015). It should, however, be stated that due to the low sample size, the nature of the LIT data, and the complexity of reef environments (i.e.: habitats are patchy at multiple spatial scales and vary continuously), it is virtually certain that embedded within these pairwise comparisons are many Type I1 statistical errors (Ho of no difference accepted, when in fact Ho is false). To discriminate between reef vulnerability at a higher level of detail than that provided by ANOVA, it was assumed based on general site surveys that all large differences in means in Figure 2.8 did in fact represent true differences in hard coral cover between sites. For example, it is a safe assumption that hard coral cover was highest at Koh Chang Noi (mean=67%) and Koh Suwan Gully (mean=52%), and lowest at Koh Yuak (mean=14%). However, it is difficult to judge whether sites within the range of 20%-40% hard coral cover do in fact differ from one another or not, due primarily to the low sample size. As a result, the Hoof no difference between these sites should be accepted, despite the possibility of Type I1 error. It should be noted that Koh Thong Lang was shown to contain the highest proportion of both soft coral cover (18.5k7.8 %; one-way ANOVA; df=41; F=9.223; p<0.005) and encrusting coral cover (12.5*6.2%; one-way ANOVA; df=41; F=2.481; p=0.021). One could hypothesize that this site may be less vulnerable to tourist trampling, ifthis site also contains a significantly lower cover of vulnerable hard corals compared to other sites (acknowledging the strong possibility of Type I1 error; Fig. 2.7). However, this must remain speculative due to the acceptance of Ho in the pairwise post-hoc ANOVA comparisons described above. Site
Figure 2.7 Mean proportional cover of hard corals at each reef. Order of sites based on geographic location (Fig. 1.2). Error bars show standard deviations. Large within-reef habitat differences result in very high standard deviations for many reefs.
2.3.3: RESULTS: CORAL MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Morphological diversities of reefs (mH') are displayed in Fig.2.8. Distributions of mH' values satisfied assumptions for normality and homogeneity of variances. One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in mH' between reefs (dF13; F=4.918; p<0.0005). Post-hoc Tukey HSD tests showed that morphological diversity at Koh Thong Lang was significantly higher than at Koh Chang Noi (p=0.047), Koh Suwan Gully (p=0.003), and Koh Rom (p=0.008), and that all three southern sites (Koh Thong Lang, Koh Kra, and Koh Thian) had significantly higher mH' values compared to Koh Rom, Koh Suwan Gully, and Koh Chang Noi. No other painvise comparisons were statistically significant (p<0.05). Koh Koh Ma Hin Sam Hin IRap Koh Koh Koh Rom Koh Yuak Koh Pli Koh Man Koh Koh Kra Koh Chang Pring Sao Suwan Suwan Nok Thong Thian Noi (E.) Gully Lang Site
Figure 2.8 Mean coral morphological diversity (mH7)at each reef. Error bars show standard deviations. Order of sites based on geographic location (Fig. 1.2).
Morphological diversity values differed even more prominently when transects were pooled at the regional scale (df=41; F=9.921; p<0.0005) (Fig.2.9). Scheffe post-hoc comparisons showed that southern reefs, as a group, were more diverse than reefs in the northern (p=0.013) or central ('<0.0005) sections of the MPA (Fig.2.9). Koh Nok and Koh Yak were assumed to have a morphological diversity similar to the southern reefs surveyed by LIT (Koh Thong Lang, Koh Kra, Koh Thian). This was corroborated by the general site surveys at Koh Nok and Koh Yak, which indicated that these two sites were characterized by wide range of coral morphology types. General site surveys also indicated that morphological diversity at Laem Chang Noi was similar to Koh Mapring. Northern Central Southern Region
Figure 2.9 Mean coral morphological diversity (rnH') within each region. Locations for each region are shown in Fig. 1.2. Error bars show standard deviations.
2.3.4: RESULTS: CORAL REEF AREA Koh Thian and Koh Kra are in close proximity to one another, and can be considered to be a single continuous reef community (Dept. of Fisheries, 1999). When combined, these two sites had the largest coral reef area (6.7 ha), followed by Koh Chang Noi (5.4 ha), Koh Nok (4.7 ha), Koh Yuak (3.7 ha), Koh Suwan (3.6 ha), Koh Man Nok (3.0 ha), Koh Thong Lang (2.6 ha), Koh Pli and Koh Rom (2.2 ha), and lastly, Koh Yak and Koh Mapring (1.2 ha). Areas of coral reef for Hin Sam Sao, Hin Rap, Koh Suwan Gully, were unavailable, but these are expected to be relatively small (0.5-1.0 ha). 2.3.5: RESULTS: SUITABILITY FOR RESTORING ACROPORA SPP. Both general site surveys and LIT data indicated that dead branching Acropora spp. throughout the MPA tended to be located at shallow depths in areas protected from wave action. This observation is consistent with coral reef zonation patterns in the Caribbean, where branching Acropora spp. were often dominant at 0-5 metres depth in wave-protected environments (prior to the recent widespread degradation) (Geister 1977). Moreover, the general site surveys indicated that live branching Acropora spp. were found almost exclusively at sites containing dead branching corals. This supports the earlier theoretical argument that suitable habitat for Acropora spp. would be found on reefs where these species had once been prominent (section 2.1.4.4.).
Figure 2.10 summarizes the proportion of dead Acropora spp. at different sites. Initial ANOVA tests showed no statistical differences between different sites for dead branching coral cover, despite the apparently high mean cover at Koh Yuak (Fig.2.10). This result occurred due to distinct habitat zonation within Koh Yuak, which resulted in a large standard error for the mean for Koh Yuak as a whole. However, when transect data collected at Koh Yuak from the reef crest (n=2) and the reef flat (n=3) were separated in the analysis, subsequent ANOVA tests were capable of unmasking differences among sites in the proportion of dead branching corals (one- way ANOVA; dg41; F=2.142; p=0.042). Dunnett's T3 post-hoc tests showed that Koh Yuak (reef flat) contained significantly higher amounts of dead branching coral compared to all other sites except Koh Thian (p<0.01) (Fig.2.10). Koh Yuak clearly contains a large amount of suitable habitat for branching Acropora spp.. However, this site is heavily degraded. Moreover, it is possible that Koh Yuak is being exposed to increased sedimentation due to construction activities and the destruction of mangroves at Haad Kai Bae, Khlong Phrao, Chai Chet, and other parts of Koh Chang. Increased sedimentation near areas of development can be highly destructive to coral reefs (Nowlis et al., 1997; Wong, 1998). Therefore, successful restoration of coral communities at this site may prove to be very difficult. Therefore, Koh Yuak was classified as 'requires major restoration initiatives '.
Koh Thian, Koh Ma Pring, Koh Suwan, Koh Rom, Koh Pli, Koh Man Nok, and Koh Kra all contained some suitable habitat for branching Acropora spp. (Fig.2.10). Therefore, these sites were classified as 'suitablefor restoration '. Koh Yak and Koh Nok (the deeper sites in the south) contained small amounts of live Acropora spp. at depth, and no dead Acropora spp.. Therefore, these two sites were classified as 'no restoration required'. All remaining sites, which did not contain evidence of suitable habitat for Acropora spp., were classified as 'unsuitable for restoration'.
Koh Koh Ma Hin Hin Rap Koh Koh Koh Koh Koh Koh Koh Pli Koh Koh Koh Kra Koh Chang Pring Sam Suwan Suwan Rom Yuak Yuak- Yuak- Man Thong Thian Noi Sao (E.) Gully reef flat reef Nok Lang crest Site
Figure 2.10 Mean proportional cover of dead branching Acropora spp. at each reef. Order based on geographic location (Fig. 1.2). Error bars show standard deviations. 2.3.6: RESULTS: MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS The three deeper sites were not subjected to the full MCA. These three reefs were simply considered to have the lowest overall 'protection priority', as it was impossible for snorkellers on the surface to trample the substrate at these sites (water depth > 3 m at spring low tide). Results of the MCA for all other sites are summarized in Table 2.6. The highest overall 'protection priority' was assigned to Koh KraIKoh Thian. This site scored highly across all four criteria, including highest morphological diversity, a relatively high vulnerability to trampling, and the largest coral reef area. Koh Thian also contains an area with suitable habitat for restoring branching Acropora spp. No other sites scored highly across all four ecological criteria (Table 2.6).
Table 2.6 Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis. PP Acropora scTim AREA Habitat (Based on SITE (stand.) (stand.) means) Koh Kral 0.40% Koh Thian 0.15 0.37 1.OO 0.78 0.82 0.60-0.99 1St Koh 0.44* 1.00% 0.00% Chang Noi 0.12 0.14 0.8 1 0 0.67 0.59-0.75 2"d Koh 1.00% 0.41% 0.00% Thong Lang 0.13 0.21 0.39 0 0.55 0.45-0.62 3rd Koh Suwan (E.) 0.76h 0.39% 0.35* 0.10 0.15 0.54 0.44 0.54 0.41-0.64 4" Koh Man Nok 0.70* 0.49% 0.06* 0.09 0.20 0.45 0.05 0.50 0.40-0.58 5" Koh Yuak 0.43* 0.21k 1.OO% 0.24 0.21 0.55 0.74 0.46 0.24-0.58 6" Koh Ma Pring 0.351t 0.51% 0.17* 0.07 0.3 1 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.23-0.54 7" Koh Pli 0.49% 0.47* 0.17* 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.38 0.40 0.17-0.62 8" Koh Rom 0.71% 0.32* 0.45* 0.14 0.26 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.23-0.50 9" Hin Sam Sao 0.62h 0.46% 0.00% 0.13 0.15 0.07 0 0.35 0.26-0.43 10" Hin Rap 0.15h 0.78% 0.00% 0.01 0.03 0.07 0 0.30 0.27-0.34 1lth pp Koh Suwan 0.36% 0.58% 0.00% Gully 0.11 0.00 0.07 0 0.30 0.29-0.3 1 11" 2.4: DISCUSSION 2.4.1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSERVATION ZONES The MPA authority has expressed interest in establishing a single coral reef Conservation Zone (S. Seereesongsaeng, personal communitication). If only one site will be designated a Conservation Zone, the optimal location for this zone is at Koh Kra / Koh Thian (Table 2.6). This reef contains relatively high biodiversity values (as indicated by high morphological diversity and high coral reef area), is highly vulnerable to trampling impacts, and contains suitable habitat for restoring branching Acropora spp.. Access to this zone should be prohibited, except for restoration programs, monitoring, or ecological research. The park rangers stationed at Koh Rang could easily demarcate this zone with buoys and enforce access restrictions. If additional resources are available and the political will can be mustered, it is strongly recommended that other reefs in the MPA with relatively high protection priorities (Table 2.6) should also be designated as Conservation Zones. The three deeper sites (Laem Chang Noi, Koh Yak, & Koh Nok) were assigned the lowest overall 'protection priority'. These sites have the greatest potential to accommodate snorkellers without deteriorating over time due to trampling impacts, and should be designated as Tourism Zones and promoted for use by snorkelling tours. However, to avoid other impacts of marine tourism (i.e.: human disturbance, pollution), a risk-averse strategy could be to designate only two of these sites as Tourism Zones, one in the Northern part of the MPA (Laem Chang Noi), and one in the Southern part of the MPA (Koh Yak). The third deeper site (Koh Nok), should be designated as an Ecotourism Zone. Remaining sites not designated as Conservation Zones, as well as all SCUBA diving sites in the MPA, should also be designated as Ecotourism Zones. All Ecotourism Zones should be managed with restrictions on use combined with incentives, to achieve the objective of minimal visitor impacts (Chapters 3 & 4). The boundaries of Tourism Zones and Ecotourism Zones would probably not be demarcated physically, but rather would be based on policy andlor legislation. To spread this information to relevant stakeholders, colourful maps and brochures clearly indicating the location and management policies for each type of zone should be used.
2.4.2: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORATION Restoration programs for Acropora spp. should take place at several locations in the MPA. However, the highest priority for restoration should be given to the suggested 'Conservation Zone'. In particular, the area in the vicinity of the northeastern comer of Koh Thian should be restored. The removal of human trampling and fishing impacts from this area will assist with passive or active restoration of these ecologically important corals. If resources are available, designating the heavily degraded fringing reef at Koh Yuak as a Restoration Zone is an additional management option. Regardless of whether passive or active approaches for restoration are taken, sites targeted for restoration should first reduce human impacts by prohibiting tourism and fishing (Maragos 1992, Rodgers et al. 2003). Conversely, if access to sites undergoing restoration remains open, tourist trampling, as well as small-scale fisheries, would be likely to expose corals to chronic, repeated disturbances, which can undermine restoration efforts (Maragos 1992, Rouphael and Inglis 2002). Moreover, if the restoration of branching Acropora spp. proves successful, access should remain prohibited to prevent these vulnerable corals from being trampled. Natural recruitment is an effective way to passively restore coral communities in Thailand, provided there are sufficient sources of planktonic larvae settling onto the reef (Yeemin 1995). However, it remains unclear whether sufficient quantities of Acropora spp. larvae are reaching Koh Chang to enable natural restoration to occur. Even if sufficient amounts of larvae are reaching degraded sites, areas with suitable habitat for branching Acropora spp. may be locked into an alternate stability domain due to an ecological phase shift, which would require active restoration (Scheffer et al. 2001, Moberg and Ronnback 2003, Van Nes and Scheffer 2003). The Marine Biodiversity Research Group at Rarnkharnhaeng University has expressed interest in setting up restoration programs (Dr. T. Yeernin, personal communication). Depending on the amount of fimding available, restoration programs could either settle planula in laboratory aquaria, rear them to a minimum size, and transplant corals onto reefs (Raymundo et al. 1999), introduce artificial substrates to encourage higher coral recruitment and survival (Thongtham and Chansang 1999), or remove fleshy benthic algae from the reef substrate (Maragos 1992). This should be combined with the enforcement of 'no take' zones, to increase the amount of herbivorous fish feeding on benthic algae (Maragos 1992), and to restore depleted upper trophic level predatory reef fish (i.e.: groupers, snappers, etc.) (Bellwood et al. 2004). Those involved with restoration should be informed that previous studies indicate that full recovery of heavily damaged reefs can take 15 to 50 years or more (Grigg and Maragos 1974, Maragos 1992). In addition, coral recruitment rates in the Gulf of Thailand are abnormally low compared to other regions of the world, due to the direction of major ocean currents, a shortage of larval supply, relatively heavy sedimentation onto reefs, and the grazing activities of both Diadema setosum and damselfish (Yeernin et al. 1999a). 2.4.3: BENEFITS OF THE CORAL REEF FIELD SURVEY The biophysical data collected and analyzed in this study were targeted to inform key information needs to improve MPA management policies. The time and money spent collecting and analyzing data were relatively cost-effective, and the results can be used to improve marine tourism management in the MPA by decreasing physical trampling impacts. The LIT method provides a quantitative, scientific basis for MPA zoning recommendations. In Thailand, the collection of LIT data in MPAs is rare, and to the best knowledge of the researcher, has not yet been conducted in the study area. When the LIT method is used by Thai researchers, comparisons of coral cover across sites is often done 'artificially', without conducting statistical analyses (Sudara et al. 1991). Because this study conducted statistical analyses of the LIT data, it can express greater confidence that observed differences among sites are real. The data collected is valuable and can be made available to resource managers, local communities, and academics to inform MPA planning.
2.5.4: RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH There are many areas where further research could be used to enhance data, advance the status of scientific knowledge, and improve upon the methodology used by this study. Several key avenues for further research and monitoring are highlighted below. First of all, greater sampling intensity of LIT transects would be desirable, in order to increase statistical power and enable more detailed, comprehensive analyses. In particular, more LIT replicates should have been conducted at all sites in the southern area of the park. In addition, although the majority of sites unsampled by LIT seem to be unsuitable for snorkelling due to strong currents or heavily damaged reefs, and it is likely the case that tour boats are avoiding these areas for these reasons, LIT data should also be collected at reefs that might be suitable for tourism but are not yet visited by tours, to address any future changes in tourism patterns. Secondly, LIT data should be obtained from dive sites as well, to enable these to be zoned in addition to snorkelling sites. Although diving is not yet widespread and is therefore not yet a significant priority for management in the area (Appendices A&B), diving could become more of a problem in the future. Third, this study has emphasized the mitigation of physical trampling impacts, whereas some other impacts of tourism (pollution, coastal development, anchoring, and human disturbance) are not dealt with in a detailed manner. Management strategies for mitigating the environmental impacts of pollution and coastal development are discussed further in chapter 4. In the case of anchoring, local initiatives for installing mooring buoys have been relatively successful, and this management strategy is likely to continue to occur in the future. Potential impacts related to human disturbance requires further research, as human disturbance could affect fish energetics and ecosystem dynamics (Frid and Dill 2002), and Theberge (2002) found that the presence of snorkellers at coral reefs affected fish behaviour. However, Hawkins et al. (1999) found no significant differences in the composition of fish communities at coral reefs with different degrees of diving pressure. Thus, the existing evidence suggests that the disturbance of reef fish by tourists causes only minor impacts on coral reef ecosystems, and should therefore be a lower priority for management than trampling, pollution, or coastal development. Fourth, the Department of Fisheries (1 999) has not provided estimates of coral reef areas at all sites examined by this study, and has not provided error estimates based on the methodologies they used. This data gap could be improved by remote sensing techniques based on satellite images capable of accurately defining coral reef spectral signatures. These include France's SPOT (Andrefouet and Payri 2000), and NASA's Landsat TM (Ahmad and Neil 1994). Fifth, more detailed taxonomic research at Koh Chang could be conducted to validate the approach of using coral morphological diversity (mH') as an indicator of coral reef biodiversity. Such research programs could also collect data to enable more systematic conservation planning based on coral species diversity, fish species diversity, important spawning grounds, fish microhabitat preferences, and the occurrence of rare or endemic species (DeVantier et al. 1998, Beger et al. 2003). For example, research could undertake a 'hotspot' analysis based on sites with maximum counts of species, or 'complementarity7 analysis, based on multiple sites for conservation in a sequence that maximizes the richness increment at each successive step (Vane- Wright et al. 1991). These approaches should be combined with a functional, dynamic perspectives that incorporates factors such as ocean currents at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Gaines et al. 2003). More detailed data sets could also be used to demonstrate that the protection of a single coral reef is unlikely to protect all species (Prendergast et al. 1999). Combined, these studies might demonstrate that the best precautionary strategy for conserving coral reefs at Koh Chang requires networks of linked Conservation Zones in several areas of the MPA. Sixth, it has been assumed that branching Acropora spp. communities should re-establish themselves, if physical and ecological processes remain relatively constant (section 2.1.4.4). However, ecological processes are often dynamic, and the composition, shape, and location of reefs can change over periods as short as a few decades (Brown 1997, Hubbard 1997). In particular, the ecological roles played by disturbance and competition depend heavily on the timing and chronology of events (Hughes 1989). Thus, although mapping site habitat differences provides a valuable 'snapshot' of coral reef landscape ecological patterns, longer-term monitoring plans are required to address potential management implications due to changes in patterns over time. Finally, this study has tended to place a high emphasis placed on the resistance of corals (immediate breakage) in estimating vulnerability to trampling, whereas the resilience of corals (rates of recovery over time) (Pimm 1991) receives a much less detailed treatment. The same problem is common in the marine recreation literature: although the resistance of corals to trampling has been well studied and well documented (Appendix C; Figure 2.1), complications arising from resistance vs. resilience are generally not adequately addressed in the literature. As such, the current state of knowledge only provides static, short-term perspectives on trampling impacts, as opposed to dynamic, long-term outlooks. For example, although branching corals are most vulnerable to trampling (Fig.2.1), branching Acropora spp. rely primarily on dispersive larvae for reproduction, which results in high connectivity between metapopulations (Smith 1992), and a greater capacity for recolonizing denuded substrate (Harrison et al. 1984). Branching Acropora corals also tend to grow quickly (Shim 1966, Kobayashi 1984). On the other hand, branching Acropora spp. have been heavily degraded in the Gulf of Thailand as well as many other parts of the world (Table 2.2). Moreover, frequent trampling is a chronic stress which can prevent recovery over time (Rouphael & Inglis, 2002; Rodgers & Cox, 2003). Therefore, an emphasis on the resistance of corals to trampling seems justified. Better resolution of the resistance/resilience issue requires detailed long-term research and monitoring to specifically examine the long-term resilience of different coral species to trampling. This type of research would ideally combine both marine biology and physical oceanographic research, based on the specific ecological context of particular regions. Marine biology research could focus on determining the timing of coral mass spawning events, typical survival and recruitment rates for coral larvae of different species, factors influencing recruitment rates of coral larvae onto reefs, and post-settlement mortality of corals due to competition and predation (Pearson 1981, Roberts 1997, Hughes and Connell 1999, Miller and Mundy 2003). Determining the degree of gene flow between populations could also provide insights into the degree of connectivity between different areas (Ayre & Hughes, 2000). Oceanographic research could focus on the speed and direction of ocean currents (tidal, seasonal, upwelling, etc.), as well as interactions between these factors and the geographic orientations of coral reef systems (Roberts, 1997; Hughes et al., 2002; Gaines et al., 2003). In the Gulf of Thailand, some basic oceanographic information has been documented. The Wyrtki (1 961) model, shows circulation in the Gulf of Thailand to be weak and clockwise (anticyclonic) from May to September, and counter-clockwise (cyclonic) from October to January. However, several variations of this circulation model exist, and no single one is yet widely accepted (Hungspreungs et al. 2000). Furthermore, large-scale regional oceanographic models say little about localized currents, and in fact, little is known about local oceanography around Koh Chang (Kean 2001). It is known that there is a diurnal tidal regime, with tidal range typically under 2m (Siripong 1985, RTN 2003), but local oceanography around Koh Chang is complicated, there are many uncertainties, and hrther research is required (Booncherm 1999, Kean 2001).
2.6: CONCLUSIONS Zoning is a promising management tool for decreasing recreational trampling ihpacts on coral reefs. This study conducted quantitative surveys of coral community structure at snorkelling sites in the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, and made use of four indices to assess which reefs should be protected from tourism, and which reefs are most suitable for intensive tourism. The analysis suggests that the ideal location for establishing a Conservation Zone is at Koh Kra / Koh Thian. Access to this zone should be restricted to scientific research andlor restoration programs. Extending this Conservation Zone to encompass Koh Thong Lang is strongly recommended. The feasibility of designating several additional Conservation Zones within different areas should also be examined. The National Coral Reef Strategy and the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park provide the appropriate institutional infrastructure required for designating Conservation Zones and enforcing access restrictions. Two of the slightly deeper snorkelling sites (Laem Chang Noi & Koh Yak) should be designated as Tourism Zones and promoted for intensive use by snorkelling tours. All other reefs used by snorkelling and scuba diving tours should be designated as Ecotourism Zones, to be managed with a combination of regulations, information, and incentives that will encourage low use and minimal visitor impacts on coral reefs. Finally, restoring branching Acropora spp. communities throughout the MPA should be a high priority. Active restoration projects for achieving this should be examined in detail. CHAPTER 3: ZONING CORAL REEFS TO MANAGE VISITOR EXPERIENCES
3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Snorkelling and SCUBA diving are rapidly growing segments of coral reef tourism, and often, these activities occur within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). However, the relationship between tourism and conservation in MPAs is tenuous, requiring carekl visitor management to promote synergies and minimize conflicts (Chapter 1). Visitor surveys are increasingly recognized as a key component in the design of effective visitor management plans in protected areas (Stankey 1989, Moscardo 1999, Orams 1999, Reynolds and Braithwaite 2001). Visitor surveys can be used to identify user conflicts, problem conditions, perceptions of management actions, and visitor satisfaction. Achieving visitor satisfaction is an additional important goal within MPAs, due to a range of social, economic, and environmental benefits. First of all, maximizing visitor satisfaction can increase the long-term economic sustainability of tourism destinations (Mihalic 2000, Bigne et al. 2001, Huybers and Bennett 2003). In turn, an economically sustainable tourism destination can stimulate local and regional economic growth, provide employment, reduce poverty, and reduce fishing pressure to meet marine conservation objectives (Dixon et al. 1993, Gilman 1997, Butler 2000, Driver and Bruns 2001, Carter 2003). In contrast, if tourism experiences are unsatisfactory, tourists can be displaced, regional investments in the tourism industry can depreciate rapidly, and employment from tourism can decline (Shelby et al., 1988; Dixon et al., 1993; Pearson & Shehata, 1998)*. Arguably, some of the greatest benefits of tourism in MPAs is the potential for increasing ecological awareness, conservation, stewardship, public involvement in marine environmental issues, and protected areas financing (Ziffer 1989, Stern and Dietz 1994, Orams 1999, Dharmaratne et al. 2000, Driver and Bruns 2001). Clearly, the provision of quality, satisfactory experiences to MPA visitors is an important management objective for a wide array of reasons, and must therefore be considered along with conservation objectives. Yet "quality" and "satisfaction" are subjective terms that are notoriously difficult to define. What constitutes a "quality" recreational experience? What types of interactions between people and natural environments induce "satisfaction"? Is it possible to
* A more thorough discussion of the complications arising due to the displacement of certain types of visitors is found in section 4.2.2.2 provide satisfying experiences to all MPA visitors? Answering these questions requires an analysis of the motivational factors that drive people to participate in recreation, combined with an understanding of how visitors perceive key elements of the places they visit (Graefe and Vaske 1987). Social scientists studying recreation have employed the "behavioural approach" to model this problem. The behavioural approach proposes that people engage in specific activities in specific settings, to obtain a group of sociological benefits that are known, expected, and valued (Driver and Tocher 1970, Manning 1999). Recreational engagements are determined by motivational factors which cause people to engage in certain activities ("push" factors) (Dam 1981, Mannell and Kleiber 1997, Rollins and Robinson 2002), as well as the characteristics of settings which cause people to preferentially select certain settings over others ("pull" factors) (Mannell 1999, Rollins and Robinson 2002). Moreover, individuals assess the outcomes of their recreational experiences, based on both immediate satisfaction, and long-term psychological benefits. This tends to create a feedback loop, where a person's motivations and setting preferences are adjusted based on past experiences, which in turn influences their choice of recreational activities and settings in the future. Satisfaction with an experience tends to increase the likelihood that an individual will participate in the activity again at the same location in the future (Mannell 1999, Rollins and Robinson 2002). Conversely, lack of satisfaction tends to result in modification of behaviour, or withdrawal from the activity altogether. This study focuses on the types of setting preferences which 'pull7 people to participate in snorkelling or diving tours in tropical MPAs. These can be classified into three types: biophysical, social, and managerial.
3.1.1.1 BIOPHYSICAL SETTING PREFERENCES A substantial amount of research exists on the biophysical setting preferences of dive tourists, and it is expected that snorkellers will share many attitudes with divers (Inglis et al. 1999, Shafer and Inglis 2000). Some researchers have mused that "many divers seek destinations with warm, clear waters, regardless of what there is to see" (Hawkins and Roberts 1994). However, research at many diving destinations has not supported this notion. Dive tourism destinations typically become popular due to the presence of unique or high-quality biological andlor geophysical attractions (Pendleton 1994, Shivlani and Suman 2000, Mundet and Ribera 2001). In Honduras, coral cover and topographical complexity (caves, tunnels, drop-offs) positively influenced tourist demand for dive sites (Pendleton 1994). In the Phuket region of Thailand, surveys indicated that the most important natural features that "pulled" visitors to participate in scuba diving were: 'Variety and Amount of Marine Life' (ranked 1" of 16 options by 3 1% of respondents), 'Clear, Unpolluted Dive Sites' (ranked 1" by 17%), 'Undamaged Dive Sites' (13%), and "Whale Sharks" (12%). In contrast, "Good Underwater Visibility" was ranked first by only 7% of divers, and "Warm Water7'by only 1% (Bennett 2002). In Jamaica, surveys of dive tourists indicated high preferences for attributes related to fishes and other large animals, and lower preferences for attributes related to reef structure and benthos (Williams and Polunin 2000). In the Florida Keys, surveys of dive operators showed that 77% of all dives took place at reefs located within the 26 zones designated as part of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), presumably because protection from fishing enhanced the aesthetics of reefs (Shivlani and Suman 2000). Several surveys have specifically examined snorkelling in MPAs. Shafer & Inglis (2000) conducted detailed surveys of day-trip snorkellers on the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), and found that all items related to 'coral' and 'fish' strongly enhanced visitor satisfaction, with 'types of fish', 'sizes of corals', and 'total amount of coral' influencing visitor satisfaction most. In addition, tourists visiting two or three different reefs during a single trip ('roving' tours) tended to be most satisfied with 'fish' and 'coral' compared to those who only visited one reef, presumably because roving tours exposed visitors to a wider variety of habitats and organisms (Shafer and Inglis 2000). However, the study concluded that "more research is needed to determine how damaged coral is perceived" (Shafer & Inglis, 2000; p.83). Tourist perceptions of damaged coral have been examined by several other researchers. One study on the Great Barrier Reef showed that tourists viewing higher quality coral were more satisfied (Vanclay 1988) (p.71). Visitor surveys from the Seychelles, Kenya, and Zanzibar have indicated that higher amounts of dead coral decreased the quality of recreational experiences, and decreased the willingness of tourists to pay extra money to visit reefs (Cesar 2003). Additional aspects of marine environments strongly influencing visitor perceptions of aesthetics include the amount and size of boats (Manning et al. 1996b), and the presence of litter (Roggenbuck et al. 1993, Noe et al. 1997).
3.1.1.2. SOCIAL SETTING PREFERENCES Research focusing on social setting preferences of park visitors spans over three decades (Heberlein and Shelby 1977, Manning 2000). The concept of "crowding" is typically invoked in such research. Crowding can be defined as "a subjective construct of how perceived use levels interfere with a desired goal of the visitor'' (Manning 1999). Researchers have often hypothesized that crowding should be positively correlated with the number of other people, and that the relationship between the number of encounters and overall experience quality or satisfaction should be negative* (Heberlein and Shelby 1977, Donnelly et al. 2000, Manning 2000). A recent study attempted to define acceptable norms for the number of snorkellers at off- shore pontoons on the Great Barrier Reef (Inglis et al. 1999). People were shown photographs depicting several scenes with various densities of snorkellers in both 'above water' and 'underwater' settings, and were asked to rate the acceptability of each scene on a numeric scale. Respondents tended to rate scenes with higher numbers of snorkellers as less acceptable (Inglis et al. 1999). In addition, most respondents indicated that less than 22 snorkellers was acceptable for above-water images, whereas fewer than six snorkellers per image was acceptable for below- water images. These values corresponded to absolute densities of approximately 0.8 to 3 snorkellers per 64 m2 grid cell. Although it is arguable whether such results are applicable to the 'real-life' situation actually encountered in natural settings, it does provide usehl information that can help inform decision-making for MPA managers. The degree of "crowding" in natural settings also depends on the behaviour of others, group sizes encountered, and activity types (Hammitt and Cole 1998, Manning 1999). Research in the United States has shown that littering and shouting are judged by most Americans as unacceptable behaviour in a park setting (Donnelly et al. 2000, Heywood and Murdock 2002). Research on the Great Barrier Reef has shown that group sizes encountered can have a major impact on visitor perceptions of crowding (Shafer and Inglis 2000). Moreover, certain types of recreational activities inherently conflict with one another (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). Activity types that are likely to conflict with snorkelling and diving include fishing and spearfishing (Bunce et al. 1999, Salm et al. 2000), jet-skiing, and landing seaplanes (Craik 1992). By prohibiting these activities within zones intended for marine nature tourism, MPA managers can eliminate these conflicts, prevent negative visitor evaluations, and ensure visitor safety.
3.1.1.3. MANAGERIAL SETTING PREFERENCES Safety, the provision of information, and the amount and type of facilities and infrastructure can all be classified as "managerial" settings. Within MPAs, tour guides should ideally be involved with all three of these. Guides should be responsible for educating tourists on boat safety, providing personal flotation devices (PFDs), and warning tourists about hazards associated with snorkelling and diving (i.e.: sea urchins, ocean currents, etc.).
-- * However, the relationship between encounters and crowding have generally been weak (Manning, 1999; Manning, 2003), a problem which is discussed further in later sections. Tour guides should also supply information on coral reef ecology, and any historical and cultural notes of interest, in order to endow the area with more "meaning" and enhance the quality of visitor experiences (Nettekoven 1979, Holloway 1982). Ecological interpretation should also help to encourage a type of "ecotourism" that truly enhances environmental awareness and changes personal attitudes towards the environment, while minimizing visitor impacts on the environment (Orams, 1995). Providing detailed educational briefings on coral reef ecology before tourists enter the water can also influence visitor behaviour to reduce visitor trampling impacts on corals (Medio et al., 1997). The amount of facilities and infi-astructureat snorkelling and diving sites is related to the type of boats used by tour guides. Although floating pontoons or docks can be allowed at reefs with very high tourist use, these should generally be discouraged within MPAs in order to maintain a more "natural" environment. In addition, mooring buoys should be provided at all sites receiving tourists, in order to prevent anchor damage and facilitate moorage. Finally, buoys can be used to enhance safety for weak swimmers. However, because these influence perceptions of aesthetics at coral reefs (Inglis et al., 1999), these should generally only be provided at highly developed beaches, near extensive tourism infrastructure.
3.1.2. VISITOR DIVERSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING In terrestrial environments, it has long been acknowledged that there is no such thing as an "average" park visitor (Shafer 1969). Visitors to marine parks are no exception to this rule. Individuals often vary considerably in the biophysical, social, and managerial settings perceived as desirable within MPAs (Kenchington 1993, Inglis et al. 1999, Shafer and Inglis 2000). Visitor research can address this by segmenting visitors into distinct groups, and identifying differences among groups in perceived desirable settings (Stankey et al. 1985, Shelby et al. 1996). MPA managers can use this information to provide different settings within different zones, in a way that matches different visitor types as best as possible, while meshing this with the overall management objectives for the area (Shafer and Inglis 2000). Common dimensions along which park visitors are segmented include the amount of experience with an activity (Schreyer et al. 1984, McFarlane et al. 1998), "specialization" or "intensity of involvement" (Bryan 1977, Bryan 2000, Scott and Shafer 2001), ethnicity or culture (Kaplan and Talbot 1988, Virdin and Schreyer 1988, Sasidharan 2002), and gender (Virdin and Schreyer 1988, Jackson and Henderson 1995). Experience level can have a significant influence on attitudes, behaviour, standards of environmental quality, and preferences for different types of settings (Virdin and Schreyer 1988, Vaske et al. 1996, Burton 1998). For example, in natural settings with significant evidence of environmental degradation, Burton (1998) found that less experienced nature tourists were more satisfied with their experience, whereas 'dedicated' nature tourists with greater amounts of experience were less satisfied. Inglis et al. (1999) found significant differences in perceptions of crowding among snorkellers with different amounts of experience. Experienced snorkellers were more likely to view higher densities of people negatively than snorkellers with less experience, and experienced snorkellers showed the strongest preference for the complete absence of hurnan- made structures and other people (Inglis et al., 1999). Building on the idea that experience influences recreational preferences and attitudes is the 'specialization' concept, which can be defined as the level of involvement or attachment to a specific recreational activity (Bryan 2000, Scott and Shafer 2001). Specialization was conceived as a developmental process, where people tend to progress towards higher stages of involvement the longer they participate in a leisure activity (Bryan, 2000; Scott & Shafer, 2001). Other studies have segmented populations into specialization categories using factors such as past experience and participation (Schreyer et al. 1984), and participation, equipment, skill, and centrality to lifestyle (Miller and Graefe 2000). Specialists often develop higher standards of environmental quality in recreational settings (Virdin and Schreyer 1988, McFarlane et al. 1998). For example, Bennett (2002) found that specialized dive tourists in the Phuket area were less satisfied with many environmental and managerial aspects of their diving experiences. Ethnicity and culture can also affect individual preferences for different environmental settings (Kaplan and Talbot 1988, Virdin and Schreyer 1988, Sasidharan 2002). For example, several studies indicate that African Americans tend to prefer outdoor recreation settings with higher amounts of infrastructure and facilities compared to white Americans (Kaplan & Talbot, 1988; Virden & Walker, 1999; Manning, 2000). Finally, gender can influence visitor preferences for outdoor recreation settings (Virdin & Walker, 1999; Manning, 2000). For example, research has shown that males are more sensitive to crowding in marine environments than females (Inglis et al., 1999).
3.1.3. MPA ZONING AND VISITOR MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS This section explains how management frameworks such as the Marine Resource Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) and Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) can be used to organize information related to visitor diversity, and to facilitate the integration of such considerations into MPA zoning. 3.1.3.1. MARINE RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (MROS) Several setting characteristics can vary from site to site in a MPA, including: the degree of accessibility, the amount of social interaction, the presence and amount of human-made physical structures, the amount of anthropogenic impacts, proximity to the shoreline, and the amount and type of management regimentation (Clarke and Stankey 1979, Orams 1999). In addition, different visitor types often seek different biophysical, social, and managerial settings (section 3.2.1). In coastal and marine environments, MROS has been developed as a planning framework to integrate these considerations into zoning (Orams, 1999). MROS is based upon a similar framework, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a tool developed for terrestrial recreation management which has been widely applied since its inception (Clark & Stankey, 1979; Orams, 1999). The MROS system can be used as an analytical tool to provide a diverse range of settings to park visitors. MROS categorizes marine environments into five classes, based on five main characteristics which can vary from site to site (Table 4.1). The central notion is that the provision of a range of alternative MROS 'classes' in different zones can supply functional variation in experiences, to meet the recreational needs and aspirations of a diverse range of people (Clarke and Stankey 1979, Knopf 1990, Orams 1999). The classification of natural environments for tourism and recreation can also be based on different 'types' of environments, such as forests, beaches, or coral reefs (Russell and Snodgrass 1987, Virdin and Schreyer 1988). Ideally, the full range of ROS settings should be provided for each 'type' of environment. The MROS system does not imply that every MPA should provide all five MROS classes. Additional factors should also be taken into consideration, such as mandates for conservation and 'sustainable tourism', and the regional supply and demand of MROS settings. It should also be kept in mind that the MROS model, though useful for planning purposes, is somewhat simplistic and does not always accurately represent reality. In many cases, the relationship between accessibility, the number of people at sites, and the amount of human impacts are not likely to be as direct as the model suggests. Indeed, empirical research examining the ROS concept in terrestrial environments has shown that there are often complex, multiple, nonlinear relationships among biophysical and social settings in natural environments (Heywood et al. 1991). Table 3.1 The Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS). (Adaptedfrom: Orams (1 99! MROS Classes CLASS I I CLASS111 I CLASS N CLASS V Easily accessible Accessible accessible Semi-remote Remote -Much social -Frequent -Some -Peace and interaction contact with contact with quiet -Closeness to with others others others -Close to nature -High nature -Self- amount of -Occasional sufficiency services and contact with -Solitude support others -Usually crowded -Many -Human -Few human -Evidence of -Isolated human structures1 structures some human -''PristineV influences influences close by I activity (e.g: -Few human and are visible some are mooring structures structures and close by visible buoys) and -Lower influences quality of the natural environment -Close to -Intertidal -100 metres -Isolated -Uninhabited urbanized zones to 100 to 1 km coasts coastal areas areas metres offshore -1 to 50 km > 50 kms -Beaches and offshore offshore offshore intertidal area
-Sunbathing -Swimming -Usually -Some scuba -Offshore -People -Snorkelling boat-based diving sailing watching -Fishing -Sailing -Some -Live-aboard -Swimming -Jet-skiing -Fishing snorkelling offshore -Eating -Non- -Snorkelling -Submarining fishing -Sightseeing powered -Scuba -Powerboat -Remote boating Diving (offshore coast sea- -Surfing equipped) kayaking -Para-sailing -Sailing- -Windsurfing Larger sailboats 3.1.3.2. THE LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC) PLANNING SYSTEM Although the MROS system provides a good conceptual model for planning tourism in MPAs, managers often require more specific, measurable objectives tied to each zone or MROS class (Schomaker 1984). They also require a practical planning system that can accommodate what are often conflicting goals, conflicting value systems, and high degrees of scientific uncertainty (McCool and Stankey 2003). The "Limits of Acceptable Change" (LAC) planning framework has proved useful for dealing with these problems (Stankey et al. 1985, Cole and McCool 1998). The LAC system can facilitate policy formulation in the face of uncertainty, in order to maintain biophysical or social conditions within 'acceptable' ranges (McCool, 1990; Cole & McCool, 1998). The LAC framework builds on the MROSROS concept by choosing "indicators", and specifying "standards" for these indicators (Stankey et al., 1985). In MPAs, indicators can include factors such as "the amount of dead coral", or "the number of other people encountered". Standards are the quantitative LAC values associated with each indicator. The full implementation of the LAC planning procedure is based on nine chronological steps (Stankey et al., 1985) (Fig. 3.1). At a broader conceptual level, the LAC approach is an iterative process that involves setting objectives, inventorying conditions to determine if objectives are being met, changing management strategies when objectives are not being met, and monitoring to assess whether objectives are met on an ongoing basis (Hammitt and Cole 1998, McCool and Cole 1998)*. The MROS concept is integrated into the LAC approach, by specifying different standards within different zones (steps 2 & 6 in Fig. 3.1). For example, for an indicator based on the amount of people encountered, a more remote opportunity class (e.g.: MROS Class IV) would specify a lower LAC value compared to a more accessible opportunity class (e.g.: MROS Class 11). The process of selecting indicators and setting LAC standards often uses a participatory approach, where managers, researchers, park visitors, tour operators, representatives of local communities, and other relevant stakeholders attempt to choose indicators and specify best- practices LAC standards for each indicator (Ahn et al. 2002, Sorice et al. 2004). The LAC concept is a superior alternative to the 'carrying capacity' notion (Chapter 2), for several reasons. It incorporates the dynamic nature of human-environment interactions, it
* Recently, a number of experts agreed that the Visitor Impact Management (VIM) and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERF') visitor management frameworks, although differing in terminology and step sequences, are conceptually identical to the LAC framework (McCool & Cole, 1998). reflects the fundamental uncertainties involved in measuring resource impacts, and it acknowledges that in practice many park use decisions are based on human values as opposed to objective evidence of what constitutes an 'impact'. The best LAC indicators are measurable, reliable, cost-effective, significant, sensitive, efficient, and responsive to management (Harnmitt and Cole 1998). However, meeting all of these conditions is often difficult due to multiple factors of complexity and uncertainty. As a result, the application of the LAC concept requires an "adaptive management" approach informed by the best available scientific knowledge, incorporating the precautionary principle, and requiring ongoing monitoring and adjustments (Ludwig et al. 1993).
Figure 3.1 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system. Source: Stankey et al. (1985)
Selected indicators and LAC values should represent fundamental changes in either ecological processes or the nature of visitor experiences. The ideal scenario occurs when LAC standards defined by all stakeholder groups converge. In particular, if park visitor perceptions coincide with 'real' ecological impacts documented by research, achieving the dual goals of visitor satisfaction and conservation of biodiversity can be greatly facilitated. Unfortunately, the process of tourism development often causes a shift in the LAC standards of tourists visiting an area, such that resource impacts become increasingly acceptable as tourism development occurs (Duffus and Dearden 1990). These ideas can be clarified with the concept of a "tourist area cycle of evolution" (Butler 1980). Butler (1980) proposes that as the number of visitors to a location increases, tourism progresses through several distinct evolutionary stages. In the early stages of tourism development, tourists are characterized by small groups of adventuresome, exploratory, 'specialized' tourists, who often have heard about specific cultural or natural attractions by word of mouth. There is typically a lower level of development at these destinations, and the range of recreational opportunities present are typically skewed towards the more remote, less developed opportunity classes (higher numbers in Table 3.1). As the cycle progresses into the next stage, tourism's dependence on natural attractions tends to progressively decrease, and tourists are provided with increasingly more synthetic recreational experiences that often require the development of concomitant facilities (Butler, 1980; Kenchington, 1993). The increased amount of development often changes the range of recreational opportunities available towards MROS classes that are more 'developed7 (lower numbers in Table 3.1). Despite such changes, visitation typically experiences continued growth, and destinations continue to develop, while the evaluative standards of tourists often re-adjust through the processes of 'displacement7 and 'product shift' (Shelby et al. 1988, Duffus and Dearden 1990, Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992). 'Displacement' occurs when the type of tourists visiting an area shifts over time (Shelby et al. 1988, Brunson and Shelby 1993). 'Product shift' occurs when visitors cognitively adapt to changed conditions by changing their standards and definitions of what constitutes a 'quality' recreational experience (Kuentzel and Heberlein 1992, Shindler and Shelby 1995). During latter stages of tourism development, the rate of increase in the number of tourists typically declines and slowly levels out. During these 'mature' phases, tourists are increasingly dominated by institutionalized 'mass tourists' or 'generalists' who prefer a high level of facilities and services (Butler, 1980; Duffus & Dearden, 1990). Fundamental changes to biophysical and social setting factors results in an increasingly skewed distribution of ROS / MROS opportunity settings, often to the extent that only opportunity classes I and I1 remain (Table 3.1). At this point in time, the area no longer meets expected standards of quality for 'specialized', adventuresome tourists, and as a result, these people are usually 'displaced7 to other destinations. At the most mature stages of development, visitation often declines as more appealing destination areas are 'discovered7 and older destinations have difficulties competing with newer ones. Although sustained or increased visitation can also occur during this phase, typically this requires the extensive development of synthetic, man-made attractions that cater to visitor types preferring higher levels of infrastructure and development (Butler, 1980). Butler's model emphasizes how market forces can often drive tourism developments into the inherently unstable tourist cycle of evolution described above. In addition, Butler refers to "overwhelming evidence" that the pattern is consistent (Butler, 1980; p.6). This sweeping statement suggests that the 'tourist area cycle of evolution' is a trap which cannot be avoided. However, such a perspective disregards the possibility that effective tools for planning, managing, and regulating the tourism industry could prevent destination areas fi-om falling into the trap that Butler describes. Zoning is a specific tool that can help plan, manage, and regulate tourism developments to prevent the process of tourism development from causing irreversible shifts in the range of recreational opportunity classes (Table 3.1). In fact, in and around MPAs, agency policies for conservation and "sustainable" tourism (e.g.: Table 1.2) create a strong need for carefully crafted management plans which avoid the "tourist cycle of evolution" and its negative consequences, such as the disappearance of distinct recreational opportunities (Dustin and McAvoy 1982, Dearden 1989).
3.2. METHODS 3.2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN A questionnaire booklet was used as the survey instrument (Appendix H). Prior to the production of the questionnaire, the researcher carried out incognito participant observation on snorkelling tours, followed by pre-testing of pilot surveys (Veal 1997). These preliminary studies helped to optimize the design of survey questions to facilitate comprehension and reduce the amoung ot time needed to complete the questionnaire (Veal, 1997). The survey was kept brief and simple to minimize the refusal rate and maximize the reliability of responses (Fowler 1993, Salant and Dillman 1995, Veal 1997). The short length of the questionnaire also interfered minimally with the visitor's enjoyment of their tour. The layout and presentation of the questionnaire was designed to stimulate interest (by appearing attractive and appealing), to establish legitimacy (by appearing professional and tidy), and to facilitate comprehension and completion (by being simple and straightforward). A brief introductory paragraph was also written to convey the legitimacy and purpose of the survey (Jackson 1988). Each word was chosen carefblly, to avoid ambiguity or confusion. Closed format of questions was used as much as possible, as these offer a cognitively easier task (Hall and Roggenbuck 2002), and elicit higher response rates (Veal 1997). To accommodate the range of national and international tourists at Koh Chang, the survey was translated from English into Thai, German, and French. Translation from English to Thai was completed by staff at the Interlanguage Translation Center, 501 Samsen Rd., Dusit, Bangkok. Translation from English to German was completed by Katarina Ganz (a Swiss Ph.D. student of Geography). Translation from English to French was completed by the researcher. The accuracy and consistency of all translations was verified by third parties trained in university level writing in both English and the language of translation. Questions in the survey were intended to collect baseline information on visitor satisfaction, and the influence of various biophysical, social, and managerial setting attributes on visitor experiences (Appendix H). More specific research questions examined by the survey included: 1) How satisfied are visitors with snorkelling tours in the MPA? (Q3); 2) Why are visitors satisfied or dissatisfied with their snorkelling tour? More specifically: a) How satisfied are visitors with the natural features encountered (Q2), and with those natural features of highest importance to visitors (Ql)? b) What are the major problem conditions experienced (biophysical, social, & managerial) (Q4)? c) How did site location affect visitor responses? d) How did visitor experience level affect visitor responses (Q5)? e) How did visitor nationality affect visitor responses (Q16)? 3) How do visitor perceptions of problem conditions compare with conditions measured in the field, for both: a) Coral mortality (Q2D & Q4D) and coral morphological diversity (Q2G)? b) Number of other people (Q4E)? 4) How can the results inform MPA zoning, in a way that is consistent with the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (MROS) visitor management frameworks?
3.2.2. SAMPLING DESIGN Questionnaires were typically administered directly at snorkelling sites, either on the beach or directly on board tour boats, with the exception of surveys collected from the "Southern" area of the park (Fig 1.I), which were always administered on the tour boat during the return trip to Koh Chang. Snorkelling sites were accessed and monitored using a small boat. Water-proof plastic cases were used to store and organize questionnaires on board the boat. Data collection occurred from January 28 and March 16, 2003. Sampling only occurred on days with reasonably good weather, as most tours are cancelled when weather conditions are poor. Questionnaires were administered at all coral reefs in the MPA visited regularly by snorkelling tours. Survey booklets were distributed at Koh Chang Noi, Laem Chang Noi, Koh Mapring, Koh Yuak, Koh Man Nok, and the Southern sites (Fig. 1.2). Although some snorkelling tours occasionally visit Hin Sam Sao, Hin Rap, Koh Pli, and Koh Suwan, these trips are rare; therefore, questionnaires were not administered at these sites. To maximize the reliability of responses, questionnaires were administered immediately after visitors had snorkelled at the site. The questionnaire was delivered face-to-face, because personal contact with respondents tends to maximize response rates (Jackson, 1988). To introduce the survey to snorkellers, individuals were approached by the researcher, and the survey was described verbally in either English, French, or disjointed Thai (e.g.: "sawat di khrapW="good day". . . "sabaii di reu"="how are you?', . .. "pom samruat"="I survey". . . "mahavidyalai"=c'university77.. . "pakarang"="coral". . ... "kawrunaa"="please"). Many Thai people were confused by this speech, but this confusion inevitably cleared up once they read the title and front page of the survey booklet in Thai script. If the approached individual was not proficient in English, Thai, German, or French, they were not able to complete the survey. If approached individuals declined to complete the survey for any reason, this was noted by the researcher. Clipboards and pens were given to those agreeing to complete the questionnaire (hereafter called "respondents"). The researcher was present nearby respondents as they completed questionnaires in case of any misunderstandings or questions on the part of the respondents. During completion of questionnaires, respondents were encouraged to ask the researcher to clarify the intent or meaning of the questions. However, most respondents did not have any enquiries. In several cases, it was obvious that the respondent was not reading the questions, in which case a mark was placed on these surveys and they were subsequently excluded from data analysis. While respondents were filling out the survey, the researcher would typically count the number of people present at the site, as well as the number of people on the respondent's boat (if possible), and the number of boats at the site. This information was then recorded in a notebook. Upon return of the booklet by respondents, these notes were copied onto the last page of the survey booklet, along with the date, time, and site location. There was no way to ensure that sampling was 100% statistically random. Therefore, the sample is most accurately described as a convenience sample guided by five specific steps, to ensure the sampling effort was as random as possible under the circumstances. (1) Individuals were approached regardless of their ethnicity, physical characteristics, behaviour, age, or gender; Surveys were administered in proportion to the number of tourists at the site; hence, more questionnaires were distributed if more tourists were present; Sampling intensity was higher on Saturdays and Sundays, because more people were snorkelling on the weekends (especially Thai people); Within each area of the park, efforts were made to sample equal proportions of people during weekends compared to weekdays, to obtain a representative sample of the population as a whole across sites; When clusters of people (>4) were seen travelling together, surveys were not distributed to several individuals in the same group (in addition to achieving greater randomness of the sample, this also helped eliminate potential sampling biases introduced from people copying answers from one another). One limitation of the sampling strategy was that there was no way to guarantee that sampling intensity would be representative of the snorkeller population in the MPA as a whole. As a result, the sample may be biased with respect to sampling intensity at different sites in the MPA (Table 3.2). The distribution of collected questionnaires across study sites is shown in Table 3.2. Over half (57%) of the questionnaires were obtained from Koh Yuak (Central area), while seventy questionnaires (25%) were obtained from sites in the Northern area, and thirty nine (14%) were obtained from sites in the Southern area. Table 3.2 also illustrates, for each site, the proportion of visitors who were on roving tours visiting multiple sites. This is important to highlight, because Shafer & Inglis (2000) found that this variable strongly influenced visitor satisfaction with coral reef features on the Great Barrier Reef. Of 313 individuals approached, 18 (6%) were unable to complete the survey due to language barriers, including Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, and Czech tourists. An additional 15 individuals (5%) refused to complete the questionnaire. A total of 89% of those asked to participate were able and willing to complete the questionnaire. Of 280 surveys returned, 5 (1.8%) were rejected as unusable because they were either entirely blank, or the respondent had obviously not read the questions while filling out the questionnaire. The final sample size was 275 completed and usable questionnaires. Visitor characteristics of the sample, including nationality, gender, and age, are shown in Table 3.3. Almost half of the sample consisted of Thai citizens. The rest were foreign tourists, primarily from Western Europe (33%), followed by the United States (6.5%) and Canada (4.7%). Other countries represented included Australia, South Afr-ica, Japan, the Czech Republic, Hungary, New Zealand, China, Hong Kong, Iran, and Israel. Full statistical frequencies of the nationalities of respondents are shown in Appendix H. 3.2.3. DATA PROCESSING AND DATA ANALYSIS All completed and usable questionnaires were assigned an identification number which was noted on the cover of each booklet. Collected data were entered into the computer using SPSS 10.0 software, typically on the same day that data had been collected. The first variable in SPSS (id#) represented the identification number on the front of each completed questionnaire. All non-response cases for individual questions were left uncoded as blanks in the data matrix, and were excluded from statistical summaries and analyses. Numerical responses for Q2 (Satisfaction) were recoded from '1 '-'5' (as appearing in the survey), to '-2'-'+2' (to better convey the bi-directional nature of the satisfaction measure). Numerical responses for Q4 (Problem Conditions) were recoded from '1-3' to '0-2' in order to represent the response 'Not A Problem At All' as '0'. Numerical dummy variables were derived to represent site location, the area of the park (North, Central, or southern), the nationality of the respondent ('nationality'), and whether or not the tour visited two or more sites (roving / non- roving). For 'nationality', only two categories were included in data analysis: Thais, and Caucasian foreigners (including all those from European countries, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Afiica). East Asian tourists were a distinct third group, but the sample size for this group was too small to enable any meaningful analysis. Dummy variables were also used to code for ranges of the number people at sites. The variable representing "number of people at the site" was recoded into the following categories: 1= '1-15 snorkellers', 2= '20-35 snorkellers', 3= '40-65 snorkellers', 4='75-90 snorkellers', 5='Over 100 snorkellers' (1 6-1 9, 36-39, 66-74, and 91 -99 were deliberately excluded because frequencies for these ranges were all '0'). The variable representing the number of people on the boats was recoded into the following categories: 1= '1-8 people', 2= '9-12 people', 3= '20-35 people', 4= '45+ people' (13-19 & 36-44 were deliberately excluded because frequencies for these ranges were all '0'). Intervals were not arbitrary, but were chosen in such a manner that interval breaks occurred near values with very small observed frequencies in the sample (For a visual display of this, see Figures I1 -13 in Appendix I). Table 3.2 Sampling intensity within regions and sites, wing to s by location Roving or Non-Roving? ' Roving N JPreviously pzof Visited Other Region Site total) - Sites) Site Only) Koh Chang 9 6 Noi (40%) 9 Koh Mapring (27%) Northern Laem Chang Noi Northern Sites (Grouped) Koh Man Nok
Central Koh Yuak Central Sites (Grouped) Southern Sites (Koh Rang, Koh Thong Lang, Koh Kra, Koh Nok, Koh Yak)
Total *Surveys distributed during the return trip to Koh Chang 'percentages represent proportion of total N for each row
Table 3.3 Description of the sample: visitor characteristics Variable Response -n -% Thai 135 49% The nature of the sample was explored by examining frequency distributions for visitor characteristics, site characteristics, and the date and time of data collection. In addition, to familiarize the researcher with the structure of the sample, crosstabs comparisons, Pearson Chi- square tests, and partial correlations were used to test for any significant relationships between independent variables in the data set (See Appendix I for results). Next, the database was queried to provide descriptive frequency distributions of visitor responses (Appendix H). To analyze the relationship between visitor ratings of 'importance' (Ql) and 'satisfaction' (Q2), an Importance-SatisfactionAction Grid (ISAG) was plotted (Martilla and James 1977, Huan et al. 2002). The data set was then analyzed in more detailed ways to help answer several of the specific research questions. This included a multivariate analysis of factors influencing 'overall satisfaction', and more specific post hoc tests examining the influence of experience level and site location on the variability of visitor responses. Next, visitor perceptions of coral conditions were compared with actual condition of corals measured in the field, and visitor perceptions of crowding were compared with the number of others present at snorkelling sites at the time of the survey.
3.3. RESULTS 3.3.1. DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Complete results of the visitor survey are shown in Appendix H. Overall satisfaction (43) is the most crucial indicator of the quality of visitor experiences. Results (Table 3.4) indicated that the majority of visitors were 'satisfied' with their snorkelling tour. However, only 21% of all respondents were 'Very Satisfied' with their tour, while 8% of all respondents were either 'unsatisfied' or 'very unsatisfied', and over 20% were 'neither satisfied nor dissatisfied' or worse (Table 3.4). Higher Overall Satisfaction (43) also tended to result in a higher intention to return (Q13) and a higher intention to recommend the destination to others (Q14) (Cronbax-alpha statistic=0.7913; Table 3.4). Notably, a crosstabs comparison showed that, for those visitors who were 'very satisfied' (Q3), 100% said they would recommend snorkelling at Koh Chang to friends and associates (Q 14). Mean responses for Q1 indicated that the three most important biophysical features for visitors were "Clear water", "Fish", and "Coral". However, most visitors attached a relatively high degree of importance to most of the items listed in Q1 (Table 3.5). Responses for 42 indicated that for most natural features listed, the majority of respondents were either 'somewhat satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the conditions encountered (Table 3.6).
Table 3.4 Responses for Overall Satisfaction (Q3), Intention to Return (Q13), & Intention to Recommend (Q14).
I I 03: Overall Satisfaction 0: Neither --1: Satisfied -1: -2: Vew Somewhat -Nor Somewhat 2: Very Mean * Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied &&. 28 6 15 3 6 133 57 0.89 * 275 (1 1%) (2%) (6%) (1 3%) (48%) (21%) 0.91 013: Intention to Snorkel Again at Koh Chang Missing -NO -YES 5 43 227 275 1 (3%) 1 (16%) (82%) 014: Intention to Recommend Snorkelling at Koh Chang to Others Missing -NO -YES 6 39 230
Reliability Analyis: 03,013, & 014 Cronbax-Alpha=0.79
An Importance-Performance Action Grid (IPAG) (Martilla & James, 1977; Huan et al., 2002) was used to summarize visitor responses to both Q1 and Q2 (Figure 3.2). IPAGs plot the mean importance rating of each feature against the corresponding mean satisfaction rating. The grid is then divided into quadrants to indicate which elements of the tourism experience require prioritization for management attention (Huan et al., 2002). The four quadrants are usually labelled as follows: upper right='Keep Up The Good Work7, lower right='Possible Overkill', upper left='Concentrate Here7, and lower left='Low Priority' (Martilla and James 1977, Oh 2001). In this case, 'Possible Overkill' was grouped together with 'Keep Up the Good Work', in order to reflect that from a conservation-based perspective, the possible management interpretation of 'Possible Overkill' could lead to complacency and resource degradation. Crosshairs that determine the area for each quadrant are usually based on mean values for each scale, or median response values for 'importance' and 'satisfaction7. In this study, the horizontal crosshair ('importance') was based on the median response value for all importance scores in Q1 (median=4). The location of the vertical crosshair (for 'satisfaction') was chosen to emphasize the fact that exceeding visitor expectations is desirable to maximize customer satisfaction and market retention (Oh, 2001). Therefore, an importance score of 'l=somewhat satisfied' was chosen for the vertical crosshair. The grid was then modified by subdividing the upper left quadrant into 'Major Areas of Concern' (mean satisfaction score <0.5) and 'Minor Areas of Concern' (mean satisfaction score > 0.5) (Fig. 3.2).
Table 3.5 Responses to Q1: importance of biophysical features. IMPORTANCE RATING*"
1 2 3 4 5 MEAN * RANK* M S.D. 1st Cl:zEWater 27: 0.4% 0.7% 5.5% 18.7% 74.7% 4.67M.65 2nd Fish 272 0% 0.7% 3.7% 29.8% 65.8% 4.61H.60 3rd Coral 273 0% 1.8% 7.0% 26.4% 64.8% 4.54k0.71 Variety of Fish 4th Types 271 0.4% 1.5% 10.0% 35.4% 52.8% 4.39&0.76 Variety of Colours 5th 269 0.4% 1.1% 15.2% 29.4% 53.9% 4.35H.80 A Large Number of Fish 6th 271 1.1% 1.1% 17.3% 33.2% 48.3% 4.29*0.79 Variety of Shapes 7th 269 0.4% 1.9% 19.0% 30.5% 48.3% 4.25k0.85 8th Sandy Beaches 272 2.2% 6.6% 17.6% 37.1% 36.4% 3.99*1.00 Underwater Rock 9th Formations 270 3.0% 10.4% 28.5% 30.4% 27.8% '3.70-+1.08 Uninhabited 10th Islands 271 4.1% 12.5% 27.3% 33.2% 22.9% 3.58*1.10 Rocky 11th coastlines 270 8.1% 21.1% 28.9% 28.5% 13.3% 3.18h1.15 *Rank based on mean response value **Values indicate the percentage of valid responses for each individual item, where ' 1'='not important at all', 2='slightly important', 3='moderately important', 4='very important', 5='extremely important'
All three items related to coral were identified as 'Major Areas of Concern' (Fig. 3.2). Corals were rated as 'extremely important' (Ql) by 65% of visitors (Table 3.5). However, only 50% of visitors were satisfied*with corals, only 43 % of visitors were satisfied*with the 'Variety of Coral Shapes', and only 39% of visitors were satisfied* with the 'Variety of Coral Colours' (Table 3.6; Fig. 3.2).
*'satisfied' visitors includes both '1 '= 'somewhat satisfied' & '2'='very satisfied' Table 3.6 Responses to Q2: satisfaction with biophysical features. SATISFACTION RATING*" MEAN i~ RANK -ITEM -N S.D. n/a -2 -1 0 1 2 - 1st Clear Water 274 0% 1.5% 10.2% 17.8% 28.7% 41.5% 0.99+1.07 Sandy 0.9310.95 2nd Beaches 267 1.1% 1.5% 5.9% 21.9% 38.5% 31.1% 3rd Fish 269 1.5% 0.7% 8.1% 23.8% 34.4% 31.5% 0.89h0.97 Uninhabited 4th Islands 258 3.0% 0.8% 8.3% 36.1% 27.8% 24.1% 0.68+0.97
5th Coastlines 263 2.6% 1.5% 7.4% 33.7% 37% 17.8% 0.6410.92 Large Number of Fish 264 1.9% 3.7% 13.4% 25.3% 29.4% 26.4% 0.6311.13 6th Variety of Fish Types 27 0% 3.7% 11.8% 26.2% 34.3% 24.0% 0.63h1.08 8th Coral 262 0.8% 6.1% 20.2% 22.9% 29.4% 21.4% 0.40+1.20 Underwater 9th Formations 238 5.9% 3.6% 10.7% 38.7% 29.6% 11.5% 0.3710.97 Variety of loth Coral Shapes 252 1.9% 7.0% 19.1% 28.8% 28.4% 14.8% 0.25+1.15 Variety of 1lth Colours 244 4.3% 7.9% 22.8% 26.0% 24.8% 14.2% 0.1511.18 *Rank based on mean response value **Values indicate the percentage of valid responses for each individual item, where 'n/a'='did not see','-2'='very unsatisfied', '-1 '='somewhat unsatisfied', '07='neutral', ' 1'='somewhat satisfied', '2'='very satisfied'
All three items related to fish were identified as 'Minor Areas of Concern' (Fig.3.2). 'Fish' were rated as 'extremely important' (Ql) by two thirds (66%) of visitors (Table 3.5). Although the majority (66%) of respondents were satisfied* with 'Fish', only 32% were 'very satisfied', while 33% were not satisfiedt. Satisfaction scores were even lower when considering more specific aspects of fish communities. For the number of fish seen (Q2I), only 26% of visitors were 'very satisfied', while 42% were not satisfiedt (Table 3.6). For the diversity of fish seen (Q2H), only 24% were 'very satisfied', while 42% were not satisfiedt (Table 3.6).
'Not satisfied' includes: '-2'= 'very unsatisfied' & '-17='somewhatunsatisfied', & '09='neithersatisfied. nor dissatisfied' Therefore, it appears that for a significant proportion of visitors, fish communities are also a 'Major Area of Concern', which should be considered by MPA managers. The clarity of water (Q2L) was also identified as a 'Minor Area of Concern7 (Fig. 3.2). 'Clear Water' was ranked as the most important biophysical feature for visitors (Table 3.5). However, approximately 30% were not satisfiedt with the clarity of the water (Table 3.6), and because most of these people indicated that clear water was 'very important', this is a 'Major Area of Concern' for this subgroup of the visitor population. Natural features considered to have a 'low priority' for management attention included 'Sandy Beaches7, 'Uninhabited Islands', 'Rocky Coastlines', and 'Underwater Rock Formations', all of which fell into the lower left quadrant of the grid. However, because 'Sandy Beaches' was very close to the horizontal crosshair, this item may also be an area of minor concern. To examine this question further, responses to Q2C were analyzed in greater detail by considering the specific subgroup of respondents that scored 'Sandy Beaches' as either 'somewhat important' or 'extremely important' in Q1. The analysis revealed that only 1% of this subgroup were 'very unsatisfied' with 'Sandy Beaches' (Q2C), and only 6% were 'somewhat unsatisfied' (mean satisfaction with 'Sandy Beaches7 for this subgroup was 1.1 * 1.0). Therefore, it appears that the classification of 'Sandy Beaches' as a 'low priority' was justified. Notably, none of the natural features fell into the area of 'Keep Up the Good Work'. Visitor perceptions of the severity of various problems encountered on their tour are summarized in Table 3.7. The most common problem that visitors experienced during their tour were: 'Dead or Unhealthy Coral', followed by 'Garbage On Beaches', 'Garbage in the Ocean', 'Fishing Gear on the Seafloor', 'Tour Staff Did Not Provide Enough Information', and 'Too Many Other Snorkellers' (Table 3.7). The seven response intervals in Q5 (Amount of Previous Experience Snorkelling) were simplified into three intervals: 'Novices', 'Intermediates', and 'Experienced Snorkellers'. Decisions on which intervals best represented these three segments were not arbitrary, but rather were based on ancillary data published by Inglis et a1 (1 999) (See Appendix J). The classification of respondents placed 21 5 snorkellers (79%) into the "Novice" category, 39 snorkellers (14%) into the "Intermediate" category, and 18 snorkellers (7%) into the "Experienced Snorkeller" category (Table 3.8).
Table 3.7 Ranking of problem conditions (44). Rank based on mean response value, 'O'= 'Not a Problem At All', '1 '='A Slight Problem', '2'='A MajorProblemY. Percent of '2=A Small Problem' MEAN * s.D.~ + '3=A Major Rank* ID# Problem Condition (N) Problem' A large amount of 1.31zt0.74 1" Q4D dead or unhealthy coral (N=267) 83% Amount of garbage 1.1Ozt0.76 2nd Q4B on beaches (N=270) 76% Amount of garbage 0.91zt0.78 3rd Q4A in the ocean (N=269) 65% Amount of fishing gear 4~ Q4C (nets, traps, lines) 0.78k0.80 55% on the seafloor (N=269) Tour staff did not provide 0.76*0.72 5' Q41 enough information (N=259) 59% 0.6250.68 6' Q4E Too many other snorkellers (N=269) 5 1% Tour staff were 0.59k0.75 Q4J not helpful (N=259) 43% 0.5750.76 7" Q4H Safety on the boat (N=265) 41% 0.53zt0.73 Q4K Sea Conditions were rough (N=268) 38% Weather conditions were 0.52zt0.73 Q4L uncomfortable (N=271) 38% 0.46zt0.63 8' Q4F Too many people on the boat (N=263) 39% 0.34zt0.57 9th Q4G Length of the boat trip (N=264) 29%
Table 3.8 Amount of previous experience snorkelling (Q5) I Number of 1 Previous Experience I -Times Catego Totals In Each Experience Novice NOVICE: Novice
EXPERT: Expert 18 (6.6%) 3.3.2. MULTIVARIATE TEST FOR 'OVERALL SATISFACTION' To provide an overview of factors affecting 'Overall Satisfaction' (Q3), a multiple factor ANOVA was conducted, with site location, 'roving'/'single site' tours, experience level, nationality, gender, and the number of other people as the independent variables. Due to low statistical power using individual sites, sites were grouped by region for for the 'Northern' and 'Southern' regions, as the majority of snorkelling tours typically visited several sites within these regions (Fig.l.2; Table 3.2). However, sites in the 'Central' region were not grouped, as the majority of snorkelling tours visited only Koh Yuak. Surveys collected from Koh Man Nok in the 'Central' region, were excluded due to the low sample size (n=8). Results indicated that 'Overall Satisfaction' (43) was significantly influenced by site location and experience level (Table 3.9). Post hoc tests showed that visitors to Koh Yuak tended to be less satisfied than visitors to the Northern or Southern regions, and that Novices tended to be more satisfied than Intermediate or Experienced Snorkellers (Table 3.9). Due to the non-significant difference between Intermediate and Experienced Snorkellers, Intermediate Snorkellers were grouped with Experienced Snorkellers for further analyses.
3.3.3. EFFECT OF EXPERIENCE LEVEL As a group, IntermediateExperienced Snorkellers were less satisfied overall (43) than Novice Snorkellers (Table 3.10). Novice Snorkellers were also more likely to recommend snorkelling at Koh Chang to others (Q 14). To determine more specific reasons for these differences, ANOVA tests were run for all items in Q2 & Q4. IntermediateIExperienced Snorkellers were less satisfied with fish (Q2E), the number of fish (Q2I), the clarity of water (Q2L), and the variety of coral colours (Q2F), and were also more likely to perceive dead or unhealthy coral as a problem (Table 3.10). Therefore, enhancing satisfaction for more experienced groups seems to require improvements in the aesthetic quality of fish communities (particularly the number of fish), as well as improvements in water quality and coral conditions. Yet, because experience level did not affect visitor responses to Q2D (Satisfaction With Coral), or Q4E & Q4F (number of other people), it seems that visitors with different levels of experience have similar norms for what constitutes 'acceptable' coral conditions and 'acceptable' numbers of other people. Although Q4D responses indicated lower standards of 'acceptable' coral mortality among Novices, the lack of similar differences for Q2D, and the lack of interaction effects for experience level X site location for Q4D made it difficult to quantify this difference. Table 3.9 Multiple-factor ANOVA for Overall Satisfaction (Q3). Levene's test supported the H, that the error variance for overall satisfaction was .. , A A equal -across groups (F=1.306, dfl=33, df2=187, p=0.138). 26 specific interaction effects were examined, and a p-value adjustment was necessary to avoid inflated Type I error. The Bonferroni adjustment (Bonferroni 1936) calls for dividing alpha by 26, but this would be radically over-conservative. Therefore, division of the p value by two was chosen, resulting in an alpha significance level of 0.025 for the null hypothesis of no interaction. All interactions were insignificant. Mean values were 'adjusted' for covariates, based on modified population marginal means. '~enotesstatistically significa~ results (p<0.05). MULTIPLE FAC' PAIRWISE COMPARISONS (SCHEFFE POST HOC) Factor Adiusted Standard Means for Error of Pairwise results Site 'Overall Adiusted -Mean ~ofrtion N Satisfaction' Mean Pair Difference Sig. Site Location Northern- Northern 48 0.906 0.148 Koh Yuak 0.433 0.016' Koh Yuak- Koh Yuak 132 0.474 0.99 Southern -0.806 ~0.0005~ Northern- Southern 1 35 1 1.280 0.176 Southern -0.373 1 1 Adiusted 1 standard I P airwise results Error of Ex~erienceI 1 I Adjusted 7ZT-l -Level I -N I Satisfaction' 1 Mean Pair I Difference I Experience Level Novice- I Novice 168 1.005 0.088 Intermediate 0.49 8 Intermediate- Intermediate 34 0.507 0.161 Experienced 0.507 Novice- Experienced 13 0.000 0.248 Experienced 1.005 Gender # of People Nationalitv Table 3.10 Influence of experience level on visitor responses. Only questions with statistically significant results are shown in the table. For the multi-factor ANOVA, both 'experience level' and 'site location' were included in the model to correct for covariation between these two factors (Table 18; Appendix I). Alpha significance level for Q4D was adjusted downwards to 0.025 to account for distortions in the ANOVA model caused by only 3 response categories. 'Intermediates' and 'Experts' were grouped together due to low sample size and non-significant differences in post hoc tests when using three experience categories.
ANOVA+ Adiusted Satisfaction Score Score (Marginal Marfinal Experience (Mean i Mean Mean -Item Cateporv -N S.E.) h S.E.) Difference F sig. Overall Novice 193 1.0050.06 1.16h0.07 Satisfaction Intern./ 0.55 10.490 0.001 (43) Expert 52 0.48rt0.12 0.61rt0.14 Variety of Novice 188 0.27rt0.09 0.38rtO.11 Coral Interm.1 0.53 5.527 0.020 Colours Expert 53 -0.21rt0.16 -0.15rt0.20
I Novice 1 21 1 1 0.9950.06 1 1.09h0.09 1 I Fish Intern./ 0.83 18.948 (Q2E) Expert 55 0.49rt0.15 0.26*0. 17 Number of Novice 205 0.7250.08 0.80rt0.10 Fish Intern./ 0.85 15.744 (QI) Expert 56 0.30h0.16 -0.05*0. 19 Clear Novice 214 1.00i0.06 1.19i0.09 Water Intern./ 0.84 17.820 (Q2L) Expert 57 0.48i0.12 0.35rt0.18
Adiusted Problem Score Score (Marginal Marginal Experience mean Mean Mean Problem Category -N -+ S.E.) i S.E.) Difference F sig. Dead or Unhealthy Novice Coral Intern./ (Q4W I Intention to Return & Intention to Recommend (013 & 0141 Svmmetric 414: Experience Responses Phi test htention to Category -N YES NO Phi sig. -ecommend Novice 2 11 188 (89%) 23 (1 1%) to others 1ntern.1 0.204 0.001 I Expert 1 56 1 40 (71%) 16 (29%) 3.3.4. EFFECT OF SITE LOCATION Visitors to Koh Yuak tended to have lowest Overall Satisfaction (43) (Table 3.9). To determine specific reasons for why this was so, ANOVA tests were run for responses to all items in Q2. Results revealed that visitors to Koh Yuak tended to have lowest satisfaction with coral (Q2D), visitors to Northern sites showed higher levels of satisfaction, and visitors to Southern sites were most satisfied with coral (Table 3.1 1). Visitors to the Southern sites were also most satisfied with the Variety of Coral Shapes (Q2G), Uninhabited Islands (Q2A), and Rocky Coastlines (Q2B) (Table 3.1 1). Moreover, visitors who snorkelled at Southern sites were more satisfied with the Variety of Coral Colours (Q2F) than those who had snorkelled at Koh Yuak. Notably, visitors to Koh Yuak were least satisfied with Coral (Q2D) and least satisfied overall (Q3), which strengthens the notion that improving coral conditions should be a high priority to improve the overall visitor experience. Moreover, it appears that redirecting visitor use from Koh Yuak to the deeper sites in the North (Laem Chang Noi) and South (Koh Yak & Koh Nok) of the MPA would achieve greater visitor satisfaction, as these sites are more aesthetically pleasing and more resilient to recreational use by snorkellers (Chapter 2). Southern sites in appeared to be particularly aesthetically pleasing to visitors, not only for 'Coral' and the 'Variety of Coral Shapes', but also for 'Uninhabited Islands' and 'Rocky Coastlines'. However, differences in aesthetics between Northern vs. Southern sites did not seem to translate into significant differences in overall satisfaction (Q3), although further sampling is required to conclude on this (Table 3.9). In any case, it is clear that both Northern sites and Southern sites provided superior visitor experiences than those available at Koh Yuak, and that coral conditions played a large role in this. lame 3.11 muu vn: mnuence 01 sire location on sarisIacrion scores (vL). Only features with statistically significant ANOVA results are shown in the table. Dunnett's T3 post-hoc tests were performed for all features which did not meet the assumption of homogeneous variances (p<0.05), and Scheffe post-hoc tests were performed for all features that met the assumption of homogeneous variances (p>0.05). Notably, visitors to Laem Chang Noi, the more resilient deeper site in the Northern region, :ated a mean tisfaction with coral (Q2D) of 1.19 * 0.25 (n=16). ANOVA Results Adiusted Satisfaction -Score I Pairwise Com~arisonshost hoc tests**) Score marginal Mean Pair Item Site(s1 k S.D.) n DiEnce S& - 5k S.E.) w I - I I Q2A: Northern Northern-Southern -0.59 Table 3.12a Coral mortality: visitor perceptions (Q4D) vs. measured conditions. 'Northern' for these tests includes Koh Chang Noi & Koh Ma Pring. Laem Chang Noi was excluded from the table because biophysical data from this site were unavailable. ANOVA tested for significant differences between sites (Southern, Northern & Koh Yuak) in either coral conditions or visitor responses to Q4D (individual columns). Responses to Q4D were adjusted to account for the effects of experience level. -Coral Q4D: Problem: Mortalitv 'A Large Amount of Dead or Unhealthy Coral': Index - % of Q4D % of Q4D (CMI) ~diusted~ Responses= Responses SITE {Mean* LOCAT~ON Responses 'I-A Small '2-A Maior S.D.) (Mean * S.E.) Problem' Problem' SOUTHERN 0.504Z0.19 24 5 (s) (MEDIUM) 0.97*0.14 (63%) (13%) NORTHERN' 0.504Z0.27 28 21 (N) (MEDIUM) 1.22h0.12 (35%) (40%) KOH YUAK 0.84*0.15 48 87 (KY) (HIGH) 1.50*0.07 (31%) (57%) I Scheffe I Dunnett T3 I post hoc : post hoc: Pairwise S One explanation is that the values for mean coral mortality at Northern or Southern sites, which were based on the transect samples, were slightly inaccurate representations of coral conditions within the region as a whole. A second explanation is that differences in responses to Q4D for Northern vs. Southern sites were statistical anomalies, which in fact is supported by the non-significant difference between mean response values in the ANOVA test (Table 3.12a). A third alternative is that the different responses were caused by different patterns of spatial variability for coral mortality. There were several large contiguous patches of dead coral in the Northern region, whereas dead patches of coral tended to be smaller in the Southern region, as shown by the higher standard deviation for CMI at Northern sites (Table 3.12a & 4.12b). Therefore, many visitors snorkelling at Northern sites were exposed to relatively large patches of dead coral, whereas visitors snorkelling at Southern sites tended to be exposed to smaller patches of dead coral interspersed with living coral. This suggests that, to ensure positive visitor experiences, patches of dead coral should be relatively small. Using the collected data, it is difficult to quantify how small 'relatively small' should be; however, a realistic LAC standard could be that dead coral patches should not exceed 25 m2. Table 3.12b Coral Diversity: Visitor Perceptions (Q2G) vs. Measured Conditions. 'Northern' for these tests includes Koh Chang Noi & Koh Ma Pring. Laem Chang Noi was excluded from the table because biophysical data from this site were unavailable. ANOVA tested for significant differences between sites (Southern, Northern & Koh Yuak) in either coral conditions or visitor responses to Q2G (individual columns). Responses to Q2G were adjusted to account for the effects of experience level. Q2G: Satisfaction With Coral Diversity Index 'Variety of Coral Shapes': SITE (mH') Adiusted" Responses LOE~ON /Mean* S.D.) {Mean* S.E.) SOUTHERN 2.1 2*0.28 (s) (HIGH) 0.75%0.23 NORTHERN^ I .I 6ko.36 (N) (LOW) 0.21%0.19 KOH YUAK 0.98k0.55 (KY) (Low) -0.09k0.12 AN OVA" F 11.279 5.177 P 0.001 0.006 Scheffe Scheffe post hoc : post hoc : Pairwise S>KY SKY Comparisons (p=o.002) (p=o.002) The diversity of coral shapes also appeared to have a major influence on visitor responses to Q2G ('Variety of Coral Shapes') and Q2D ('Coral'). Visitors to Southern sites, which had a higher diversity of coral shapes (mH7=2.I2kO.28), tended to be most satisfied with the 'Variety of Coral Shapes' (Q2G; Table 3.12b). However, estimating an LAC value for mH' seems inappropriate, as the diversity of coral shapes depends on many ecological and biogeographical factors, and has not been linked directly to trampling impacts. Nevertheless, a higher diversity of coral shapes appeared to positively influence visitor satisfaction. Table 3.12~ Coral Conditions: Visitor Perceptions (Q2D) vs. Measured Conditions. 'Northern' for these tests includes Koh Chang Noi & Koh Ma Pring. Laem Chang Noi was excluded from the table because biophysical data from this site were unavailable; however, satisfaction with coral (Q2D) at Laem Chang Noi was 1.19 & 0.25 (n=16), which was significantly different from Koh Yuak (p=0.005). ANOVA tested for significant differences between sites (Southern, Northern & Koh Yuak) in either coral conditions or visitor responses to Q2D (individual columns).Responses to Q2D were adjusted to account for the effects of experience levc -Q2D: Coral Mortality Coral Diversity Satisfaction With 'Coral': Index ~diusted~ SITE (mH') Responses LOEON- /Mean* S.D.) SOUTHERN 2.1 2hO.28 (S) (MEDIUM) (HIGH) 1.06*0.24 NORTHERN^ 0.50*0.27 1.I 6hO.36 (N) (MEDIUM) KOH YUAK 0.84*0.15 (KY) (HIGH) L 0.001 <0.0005 Scheffe Scheffe Dunnett T3 post hoc : post hoc : post hoc: Pairwise S 3.3.6: CROWDING: VISITOR PERCEPTIONS VS. MEASURED CONDITIONS This section analyzes the effects of the number of other people on visitor perceptions of crowding. Crowding is understood here as a measure of how perceived use levels interfered with a desired goal of the visitor (Manning, 1999). Responses to Q4E ('Too Many Other People7)were interpreted as follows: those indicating that the number of others was 'not a problem at all' did not feel crowded at all, those indicating that the number of others was 'a minor problem' felt slightly crowded, and those indicating that the number of others was 'a major problem' felt very crowded. Visitor perceptions of crowding were strongly correlated with the number of other snorkellers (Spearman's rho=0.291, ~~=4.798,p<0.0005). Furthermore, an examination of specific ranges of people that could potentially vary within different zones-based on the LAC and MROS frameworks-showed that the majority of visitors exposed to sites containing ' 1-15 snorkellers7or '20-35 snorkellers7did not feel crowded at all (63% and 59%, respectively) (Table 3.13a)*. In contrast, among visitors exposed to '40-65 snorkellers', 59% felt slightly crowded and 16% felt very crowded. This suggests that an LAC limit for the number of others at 'Ecotourism Zones' could be set at approximately 30-35 snorkellers. Table 3.13a Crowding: visitor perceptions (Q4E) vs. measured number of other snorkellers. Ranges were chosen based on plausible differences between different zones under management policies. The following ranges were excluded purposefully, as these numbers of were never observed during data collection: 16-19,36-39 and 9 1-149 (See Amendix.. 1). Visitors Not Visitors Visitors Feeling Feeling Feeling: Very Number Crowded Slightls Crowded -of -At All Crowded (Q4E=A Mean Other JQ4E=Not A JQ4E=A Small Maior Response N Problem At All) Problem) Problem) Va1uekS.E. 60 3 8 20 2 (1 00%) (64%) (33%) (3%) 0.40W.07 68 40 2 1 7 (1 00%) (59%) (3 1%) (1 0%) 0.5 1*0.08 74 18 44 12 (1 00%) (24%) (59%) (1 6%) 0.92k0.07 22 12 7 3 F P Pairwise Comparisons (Scheffe post-hod Response Pair (Number of difference 6.704 <0.0005 Other Snorkellers) Mean&S.E. P (1 -1 5)-(40-65) -0.52*0. 11 <0.0005 (1 -1 5)-(150-180) -0.41a.15 0.047 (20-35)-(40-65) -0.4OW. 11 0.004 Table 3.13b Crowding: Visitor Perceptions (Q4E) vs. Measured Number of Other Snorkellers. The range 35-39 was excluded purposefully, as these numbers of people- - were never observed during data collection-(see ~~~endixI) ANOVA Q4E Response Summary N (Mean*S.E) F P 1-35 snorkellers 128 0.46*0.06 40+ snorkellers 123 0.84*0.06 21.17 <0.0005 Interestingly, visitors exposed to very high densities of people tended to feel less crowded than those exposed to '40-65 snorkellers' (Table 3.13a), which indicates that crowded sites were occupied by visitors who did not mind higher densities of people. This suggests that it may be unnecessary for MPA managers to designate LAC standards for the number of others within Tourism Zones. There are several possible reasons why certain types of people may have been less susceptible to crowding. Those participating in tours during holidays and weekends may have expected higher numbers of people, those who are more sensitive to crowding may have waited for a less busy day before purchasing a snorkelling tour as a 'coping7 strategy, or cultural differences in perceptions of crowding may have been responsible. The effect of culture on perceptions of crowding is examined in greater detail in the following section. 3.3.7: EFFECTS OF NATIONALITYICULTURE Thais tended to rate all items in Q4 as more of a problem than Caucasians. This observation was formalized by a Chi-square test based on pooled responses to all items in Q4, which showed a strong tendency for Thais to rate problem conditions in Q4 as much higher (n=3193, Chi square>100, p<0.000005). Therefore, some sort of cultural or language bias (i.e.: semantic associations) apparently caused Thais to circle higher numbers in Q4. However, two notable exceptions to this rule were for Q4E ('Too Many Other Snorkellers7), and Q4F ('Too Many People on the Boat'). For these items, Thais tended to rate these as less of a problem compared to other items listed in Q4, whereas Caucasian foreigners tended to rate these items as more of a problem compared to other items in Q4. This suggests that, on average, Caucasian foreigners are more sensitive to crowding than Thais. A multiple factor ANOVA confirmed this finding, by showing a significant interaction effect between the number of other people and nationality/culture (Table 3.14). Perceptions of crowding among foreigners increased significantly when comparing sites containing over 40 people to sites with less than 35 people; however perceptions of crowding among Thais increased only marginally and non- significantly when comparing these two different categories. Therefore, Thais, on average, are less sensitive to crowding than Caucasian foreigners. An additional important effect of culture were observed differences in responses to 413 and 414. Caucasian foreigners were less likely to return to the destination for snorkelling, and much less likely to recommend snorkelling at Koh Chang to others (Table 3.15). Table 3.14 Visitor perceptions of crowding: effects of nationality/culture. Average Caucasian responses differed significantly when exposed to different amount of -people. - Note that absolute values of numerical responses of Thais vs. Caucasian foreigners should not be compared, due to the language/cultural bias in responses. Interaction Effect: #Of People X CULTURAL GROUP Nationality CAUCASIAN THAIS FOREIGNERS NUMBER -Q4E -Q4E OF Response Response PE~PLE -N JMeanS.D.1 -N JMeankS.D.1 -F e 1-35 52 0.69*0.70 72 0.28M.48 40+ 74 0.81M.63 48 0.90M.72 Within-Cultural Grow ANOVA: Effects of # of People 2.325 0.013 -F 0.977 3 1.722 e 0.325 0.000 Table 3.15 Effect of culture on Intention to Return (413) & Intention to Recommend (414). 013: Intention to Return Symmetric Cultural Responses Phi test Group N YES NO Phi sic. Q13: 119 14 Intention to Thais 133 (89%) (1 1%) 0.146 0.017 Caucasian 104 28 I foreigners 132 (79%) (2 1%) 014: Intention to Recommend Svmmetric 414: Cultural Responses Phi test Intention to Group N yEs NO Phi sia recommend 127 6 to others Thais 133 (96%) (5%) 0.291 <0.0005 Caucasian 98 3 3 foreigners 131 (75%) (25%) 3.4. DISCUSSION 3.4.1. VISITOR SATISFACTION, THE 'TOURIST AREA CYCLE OF EVOLUTION', AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING Although the majority (54%) of respondents were 'Satisfied' with their snorkelling tour, only 23% of those surveyed indicated that they were 'Very Satisfied', and a significant proportion (23%) indicated that they were not satisfied (Table 3.4). For an area aspiring to be a world-class marine tourism destination, this provides ample room for improving visitor satisfaction. In addition, Overall Satisfaction was strongly related to the respondent's intention to snorkel at Koh Chang again (Q13), as well as their intention to recommend snorkelling at Koh Chang to friends and associates (414) (Table 3.4). This emphasizes the importance of ensuring visitor satisfaction, to sustain the demand for marine tourism and recreation and enhance the long-term viability of marine nature tour enterprises at Koh Chang. Several other tourism researchers have also warned that if visitor experiences are unsatisfactory, tourists can be displaced and regional investments in the tourism industry can rapidly depreciate (Dixon et al., 1993; Pearson & Shehata, 1998). Unfortunately, these grand generalizations must confi-ont the reality of the 'tourist area cycle of evolution' (section 3.1.3.2). If tourists who place a high value on environmental quality are increasingly replaced by 'generalist' tourists favouring developed facilities, shopping, and entertainment, profits from tourism might actually increase despite environmental degradation. This is particularly so if higher tourist volumes can be accommodated when the area is in more developed stages. However, there are many reasons why such a 'tourist area cycle of evolution' should be avoided at Koh Chang. This is reflected in numerous policy and planning documents, including the mandate for conservation and 'sustainable' tourism (Chettamart & Empandhu, 2001), and the 'Koh Chang development concept', which states that the maintenance of a high quality marine environment is required to attract new tourism markets likely to grow significantly in the hture, to diversify the tourism attractions of south-east Thailand, to preserve the natural environment, and to develop a greater range of skills than those required under generalist forms of tourism (OCESD, 2002). These policy goals should be incorporated within all facets of tourism development and MPA planning and management at Koh Chang. Responses of visitors with different levels of experience can provide insights into whether a 'tourist cycle of evolution' is occurring at Koh Chang. Results of the visitor survey indicated that, on average, snorkellers with more experience were less satisfied than Novices, and less likely to recommend snorkelling to others (Tables 3.1 1 & 3.12). Therefore, a tentative conclusion can be drawn that, to some extent, specialized, experienced snorkellers are being driven away in favour of more generalist tourists, and that international word of mouth is probably spreading that Koh Chang is not a good place for marine ecotourism. The spread of such information can gradually undermine the 'Koh Chang development concept' by discouraging visits by 'specialized' tourists genuinely interested in marine ecotourism. As more 'generalist' forms of tourism visit the area, this would tend to encourage the construction of more facilities to cater to the tastes of these tourists, which would tend to create a positive feedback loop that increasingly encourages the construction of more facilities and infrastructure. Considering the nature of the visitor response data, it is important not to extrapolate too much, but when it comes to snorkelling tours in the MPA, the data do show some evidence of a "cycle of evolution" taking place. What implications from this can be drawn to improve the planning and management of tourism at Koh Chang? Clearly, efforts to encourage forms of tourism compatible with the 'Koh Chang development concept' (OCESD 2002), and the status of the surrounding region as a National Park require strengthening, and efforts to discourage mass tourism require renewed emphasis. A key component of such a strategy would be to improve satisfaction of tourists on marine nature tours, and, more specifically, to improve satisfaction for snorkellers and scuba divers with higher levels of experience. 3.4.2. ENHANCING VISITOR SATISFACTION To examine what can be done to enhance visitor satisfaction on snorkelling tours, a useful starting point is to examine 'problem conditions' frequently encountered by visitors on snorkelling tours (Q4). Identified problems included, in descending order of importance: dead corals, garbage on beaches, garbage in the ocean, lack of information provided by tour staff, discardedlbroken fishing gear on the seafloor, and crowding (Table 3.7). The presence of garbage should be viewed as a major problem at any site in the MPA. Snorkellers encountering beer bottles, plastic oil containers, old sneakers, candy wrappers, or car tires obviously judge site conditions negatively. Visitors also tend to perceive active or derelict fishing gear negatively. As well as being an aesthetic problem, marine litter and derelict fishing gear can also threaten fish and wildlife through entanglement, ghost fishing, and ingestion (Gregory, 1999). The problem of litter could be dealt with by clean-up programs involving local communities and tour operators*, combined with improved waste collection programs, and education programs targeting root causes by changing the behaviour of those responsible for littering (fishermen, villagers, and tourists). In the case of derelict fishing gear, effectively separating fishing zones from tourism zones through zoning and enforcement would lower the incidence of tourist exposure to fishing gear. The 'lack of information provided by tour staff could be improved in concert with tourist education initiatives. The design and dissemination of information could involve partnerships between MPA staff, tour guides, and academics (Chapter 4; section 4.3). There are several ways that MPA zoning could contribute towards reducing visitor exposure to dead corals (Q4D), and reducing visitor perceptions of crowding (Q4E & Q4F). These are discussed in further detail below. 3.4.3. CORALS: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING Damaged coral in the MPA significantly detracted from visitor experiences (Table 3.7), coral conditions were highlighted as the area most in need of management attention (Fig. 3.2), and coral conditions had a major influence on visitor satisfaction. To help ensure quality visitor experiences, the following 'Limits of Acceptable Change' for coral conditions were suggested: (1) CMI<0.40, (2) patches of dead coral <25 m2. Applying these standards to reefs in the MPA would help not only to ensure quality visitor experiences, but also to protect and restore reefs from damage inflicted by tourism or other impacts. If LAC standards are exceeded, reefs could be closed to tourism, and restoration options could be examined. However, it should be noted that the strict application of the LAC model towards the management of coral reefs may be unrealistic, not only because restoration programs are often expensive, but also because there may be natural sources of variability in coral mortality causing reefs to fluctuate below specified LAC standards for certain periods of time. It could be said that coral reef ecology is more complex than a simple LAC guideline purports to encompass. Nonetheless, the survey does indicate that visitor experiences will deteriorate if coral conditions degrade past the suggested LAC values, regardless of the ultimate source of fluctuations in coral conditions. The a priori expectation that snorkellers with more experience would have higher standards of quality for coral conditions was only weakly supported (Section 3.3.3). Therefore, establishing higher LAC standards for coral conditions within certain zones to cater to visitors * One such clean-up program occurred at Bang Bao fishing village in March 2003, and involved National Park staff, members of the Royal Thai Navy, and local community members. with more experience, does not appear to be justified. However, it would clearly be beneficial to send experienced visitors to the higher quality sites in the 'Southern' region of the MPA. Yet results indicate that most visitors are badly uninformed when choosing which site to visit, and in fact, based on the sample, those with more experience tend to choose the most degraded sites, while no 'Experienced Snorkellers' were found at the high-quality sites in the 'Southern7 region (Appendix I; Table IS). Improving the flow of information to visitors on what is available in different parts of the MPA could help to reverse this negative trend. Sites in the Southern region of the MPA tended to meet or come close to the LAC standards specified above (Appendix G), and therefore have the greatest potential for providing high-quality visitor experiences. Southern sites also tended to have more diverse coral communities, which seems to be appreciated by visitors (Table 3.12b). Moreover, there are two deeper sites in the Southern region, Koh Yak and Koh Nok, which are highly resilient to use by snorkelling tours. Therefore, designating one of these sites as a 'Tourism zone7*seems to be a win-win zoning solution that would decrease visitor impacts and simultaneously increase visitor satisfaction. Moreover, due to water depth at these sites, high numbers of snorkellers will not cause coral conditions to degrade below LAC standards, and therefore visitor experiences will not deteriorate over time (See Chapter 2). Sites in the Northern region of the MPA come close to meeting the first LAC standard for coral conditions, but tend to fail with respect to the second LAC standard. Therefore, restoration of the large patches of dead corals in this region should be undertaken. However, it appears that the deeper, resilient site in the North (Laem Chang Noi) provided more satisfying visitor experiences than the other two sites (Koh Chang Noi & Koh Ma Pring) (Tables 4.12a-4.13~).In fact, coral conditions at this site seem to meet specified LAC standards for coral conditions. Therefore, the resilient site at Laem Chang Noi should also be promoted as a 'Tourism Zone'. In the Central region, the coral reef at Koh Yuak obviously comes nowhere near to meeting either of the specified LAC standards for coral conditions. This may justify closure of this reef to snorkelling tours. In contrast, Koh Man Nok appears to have a greater potential to provide satisfying visitor experiences, and should be designated as an Ecotourism Zone. All suggested Ecotourism Zones should be managed carefully to ensure that LAC standards for coral conditions are not surpassed due to trampling. This may require some form of restrictions on the annual number of visitors allowed access to these sites. A potential guideline * Although there are two deeper resilient sites in the South of the MPA, it was recommended that only one be established as a 'Tourism Zone', to prevent minor impacts related to human disturbance of fish and pollution by sunscreen (See Chapter 3). could be to maintain use levels under 5000 visits per year, the carrying capacity of coral reefs for scuba diving estimated by Dixon et al. (1993), Zakai et al. (2002), and Hawkins et al. (1996). To reduce the intensity of use within Ecotourism Zones, one option could be to restrict access to small long tail boats carrying only small numbers of people, and to use a licensing system limiting the number of small tour boats allowed to visit each site per year. This strategy could be applied towards both snorkelling sites, and scuba dive sites as well. 3.4.4. CROWDING: LAC STANDARDS AND MPA ZONING 'Overall satisfaction7(43) was not influenced negatively by the number of others (Table 3.9). However, such results are not surprising in light of similar results from other studies. For example, Shafer et al. (1998) found that at sites containing very high densities of snorkellers, 78% of those who were surveyed were not influenced negatively by the number of other people. Indeed, research across a wide range of environments has shown consistently that the impacts of the number of other people on the overall quality of outdoor recreation experiences have been either weak or nonexistent (Kuss et al. 1990, Manning 1999, Stewart and Cole 2003)*. This occurs despite the fact that visitor responses to digital modified photographs support the notion that perceptions of crowding increase as a visitor's 'norm' is exceeded (Inglis et al. 1999, Vaske and Donnelly 2002, Needham 2004). On the other hand, this does not imply that the number of other people does not affect visitor experiences. In the study by Shafer & Inglis (2000), snorkellers assigned the largest proportion of negative responses to 'number of other snorkellers'. In the study by Shafer et al. (1998), the 22% of respondents who were negatively affected by crowding should be a concern for management. Tyranny of the majority should not be the rule when deciding on the types of recreational opportunities that should be provided. Visitor responses indicated that most people did not feel crowded if there were fewer than 35 people at the site. However, there was also an apparent 'threshold' of roughly 35-40 people, beyond whch many people began to feel crowded (Tables 4.13a7 4.13b). In addition, Caucasian foreigners, on average, were more susceptible to crowding than Thais. Given the importance of the international tourism market, ensuring that foreigners who seek less crowded, more 'natural' settings are actually able to experience such conditions on their trip would be highly desirable. One management implication of this is that Ecotourism Zones in the MPA should provide a more remote, peaceful experience, with fewer people, less evidence of human activity, and fewer human structures. In contrast, designating and promoting only two sites as Tourism Zones is likely to result in very high densities of people at these sites, especially during holidays. * 'Coping' and 'displacement' are two key processes that are likely to be behind this trend (section 4.2.5). A suggested LAC to apply towards Ecotourism Zones is that the number of people should not exceed 30. Two simple policies could be implemented to achieve this. Firstly, only small boats would be permitted within Ecotourism Zones. Most of the small longtail boats used for snorkelling tours have a physical carrying capacity of around 12-15 people anyhow (this is reflected in Appendix I, Fig. 13). Secondly, the maximum number of small boats allowed within Ecotourism Zones could be set at 2. This could be achieved by placing 2 mooring buoys at each Ecotourism Zone, combined with a policy stating that if these mooring buoys are occupied, boats should divert to the Tourism Zones. The possibility of charging higher prices for access to Ecotourism Zones should also be explored. By informing tourists on the character of existing opportunity settings within Tourism Zones and Ecotourism Zones, visitors could either choose the appropriate tow, or employ a trial- and-error process to discover which settings best suit their needs and preferences (Clarke & Stankey, 1979). Repeat visitors could then choose smaller tours visiting 'Ecotourism Zones' if they felt crowded during previous visits. This notion is supported by research at the Great Barrier Reef, which showed that snorkellers who chose to make return visits on larger operations were much less likely than first-time visitors to feel less crowded by high numbers of people (Shafer et al. 1998). 3.4.5. MROS, LAC, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MPA PLANNING AND ZONING AT KOH CHANG This section integrates the main findings of the previous sections with zoning considerations that incorporate the LAC and MROS frameworks. For the purposes of this study, the MROS concept (Table 3.1) should be adapted to be consistent with the zoning categories outlined by the National Coral Reef Strategy (Table 1.2), and the MPA's categorization as a National Park managed for ecosystem protection and recreation. To illustrate how the MROS can be applied towards coral reef zoning in the MPA, it is useful to describe the relative availability and distribution of existing recreational opportunity classes in the area. A description of how current settings match those in the MROS model can be provided based on the researcher's familiarity with the area. MROS Class I is located predominantly along the developed beaches of the western side of the main island of Koh Chang and Koh Maak (Fig.l.2). These areas are highly accessible, contain relatively high numbers of people most of the time, are close to many human structures and services, and provide opportunities for sunbathing, swimming, eating, sightseeing, and people-watching. Typical recreational opportunities in these areas require only three basic natural features: sea, sun, and sand. Furthermore, because coral reefs are generally not present in these areas due to the large amount of freshwater runoff and accompanying sediments during the monsoon season, these areas are generally not of interest for a coral reef zoning plan. However, this type of opportunity class now dominates the beaches of Koh Chang, and is also common in many coastal areas of Thailand. Therefore, to provide a greater diversity of recreational opportunities to tourists, managers should aim to maintain some beaches with characteristics that define them as a separate opportunity class in the MROS spectrum. For example, beaches located on uninhabited islands several kilometres offshore (Class N in Table 3.1) present a very different opportunity class setting compared to beaches located directly adjacent to developed tourism infrastructure and roads (Class I in Table 3.1). MROS Class I1 is predominantly located directly offshore fiom the main island of Koh Chang, including areas in the intertidal zone, and the island of Koh Man Nai (Fig.l.2). These areas are accessible without boats, are relatively close to human structures and services, and provide people with opportunities for swimming, snorkelling, fishing, non-powered boating (e.g.: kayaking), surfing, para-sailing, and windsurfing. Because of the ease of access, contact with other people remains fairly common in such areas. Some fringing coral reefs are found in these areas; however, these are typically of poor quality and are covered by algae. Several possible explanations for this poor condition include: natural effects of fieshwater runoff and sedimentation onto reefs during the monsoon, nutrient enrichment/eutrophication caused by sewage or shrimp fms, increased sedimentation caused by construction, and impacts caused by tourism and recreation. Coral reefs located within these areas will likely be "Tourism Zones" by default, as there is little opportunity to prevent people from accessing these areas. At Koh Man Nai, there is the potential for maybe a boardwalk/dock/pontoon to prevent people who walk across from trampling the fringing reef. This would also tend to encourage day trips to visit this island and thus draw people away from the reef communities at Koh Yuak. MROS Classes I11 and N are located at the less accessible offshore islands. However, there is currently no distinction between these two opportunity classes at Koh Chang. It is important to note that the MROS assumption of a linear relationship between accessibility, numbers of people, and human impacts is simplistic and incorrect at Koh Chang. Despite the fact that reefs in the 'Southern' area are less accessible than sites in other regions of the MPA, large boats containing large numbers of people are accessing this area. In fact, sites in the 'Southern' area tended to be more crowded than sites in the 'Northern' area of the MPA (See Appendix A). Furthermore, in the case of the deeper reefs, a larger number of snorkellers does not imply a greater degree of impacts. The results of the visitor survey suggest that zoning the offshore fringing coral reefs in the MPA as either Tourism Zones or Ecotourism Zones is warranted not only from the viewpoint of reducing visitor impacts, but also to enhance visitor experiences. By ensuring key setting conditions differ between these two types of zones, the structure of recreational opportunities in the MPA can be reconfigured to provide greater variation in the types of experiences available to visitors (Knopf, 1990). How should settings between these two types of zones differ? Based on the visitor survey, a suggested 'Limit of Acceptable Change' is that the number of people within Ecotourism Zones should not exceed 30 people. Ensuring this LAC limit is not exceeded will probably require rules specifying smaller boat sizes (e.g.: long tail boats only), smaller group sizes (maximum of 12-15 people on boats), and a lower number of boats in 'Ecotourism Zones' (maximum 2 boats at a time). In this way, Ecotourism Zones would provide a more remote, peaceful experience, with fewer people, less evidence of human activity, and less human structures. In contrast, Tourism Zones would have a higher degree of contact with other people, higher evidence of human activities, larger boats, and a greater number of boats. However, to provide a safe environment for nature appreciation, both motorized sports (i.e.: jet skiing) and fishing should be prohibited within both Tourism Zones and Ecotourism Zones. The results of the visitor survey also indicated that coral conditions should be of reasonably high quality within both Ecotourism Zones and Tourism Zones. Suggested LAC standards are as follows: (1) CMR0.40, (2) Patches of dead coral <25 m2. MROS Class V is presently found along the remote eastern side of Koh Kuud (Fig. 1.4). Although this area falls outside the National Marine Park's jurisdictional boundaries, the OCESD development plan for the archipelago suggests that this area be designated as a 'Wilderness Coast' (Fig.l.4). This area should be managed to provide experiences characterized by solitude, self-sufficiency, and isolation. Although this area is currently outside the boundaries of the MPA, it should remain completely undeveloped and inaccessible, no human structures should be present or visible, and there should be as little human influence on the environment as possible. 3.4.6. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.4.6.1.FISH COMMUNITIES Snorkellers with more experience tended to be less satisfied with 'Fish' and the 'Number of Fish'. This may have occurred because experienced visitors compared the fish communities at Koh Chang to their previous experiences at other destinations (i.e.: Similan & Surin Islands, Great Barrier Reef, etc.). Although data on coral reef fish communities were not collected by this study, coral reef fish communities at Koh Chang are not expected to be as interesting as these higher-profile destinations, due to natural biogeographic patterns (Satapoomin 2002) and overfishing in the Gulf of Thailand (Suvapepun 1991, Chotiyaputta et al. 2002). Specifically at Koh Chang, there are active fisheries in and around the MPA, although these tend to be small- scale and, for the most part, not focused on coral reefs (Lunn, 2003). On paper, the entire MPA is a 'no-take' zone, but the enforcement of this regulation is problematic. Indeed, many local fishers rely on marine resources in the MPA, and the political ecology of implementing 'no-take' zones presents difficult problems (Lunn, 2003). However, if the economic benefits of tourism in the MPA can flow to coral reef fishers, this would provide strong incentives to establish 'no-take' zones at coral reefs being used for tourism. Achieving 'no-take' zones within Tourism Zones and Ecotourism Zones would help not only to reduce the exposure of tourists to fishing traps and derelict fishing gear, but over time it would also tend to lead to higher numbers of fish, larger fish, and more diverse fish communities (McClanahan et al., 1999; Halpern & Warner, 2002; Walmsley & White, 2003), which could be significant tourism attractions, particularly for those tourists with more experience. 3.4.6.2. BEACHES AND UNINHABITED ISLANDS The majority of respondents indicated that that they desired an opportunity to visit beaches and uninhabited islands during their snorkelling tour. Therefore, it is recommended that snorkelling tours should include a stop on a sandy beach as well as an uninhabited island. One policy implication of this is that all small offshore islands in the MPA should remain undeveloped. Furthermore, the survey indicated that uninhabited islands in the 'Southern' region of the MPA were perceived to be of higher quality (Table 3.1 1). Therefore, plans to develop tourist facilities on Koh Rang (S. Seereesongsaeng, personal communication) should be curbed. There are more than enough beaches with developed facilities on the other islands in the archipelago, and it appears that the undeveloped beaches on Koh Rang and its immediate vicinity offer special recreational opportunities for visitors to Koh Chang. Beaches and uninhabited islands are located within all three areas of the MPA that are destinations for snorkelling tours, and this should remain so into the future. In the case of the 'Central' area of the MPA, the only high-quality sandy beach on an uninhabited island is at Koh Yuak, which in fact seems to act as a 'magnet' which encourages high visitation. Yet, for most visitors, the poor quality of corals at Koh Yuak seem to outweigh any benefits obtained from the beach. As a result, discouraging snorkelling at this site seems desirable, not only from the viewpoint of visitor satisfaction, but also from a conservation perspective, to facilitate the restoration of this site (Chapter 2). Therefore, diverting tours accessing Koh Yuak to the more resilient Laem Chang Noi in the Northern area, and Koh Yak and Koh Nok in the Southern area seems desirable (Fig 1.I). Visits to Laem Chang Noi for snorkelling could be complemented by visits to beaches on Koh Chang Noi, Koh Ma Pring, or the north side of the peninsula of Laem Chang Noi. Alternatively, if tourists continue to visit Koh Yuak, they could be instructed to enjoy the beach, but to refrain from snorkelling because the reef is damaged, ugly, and is undergoing restoration. Zoning areas as Tourism or Ecotourism could also be applied towards offshore beaches used by snorkelling tours. In both the Northern and Southern regions of the MPA, one or two beaches could be designated as Tourism Zones, accessed by larger boats and more people, and another one or two could be designated as Ecotourism Zones, to be accessed by only a small number of long tail boats. 3.4.6.3. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS: POTENTIAL AND PITFALLS Charging a price premium for access to Ecotourism Zones or Southern sites are potential economic instruments for discouraging tourist overuse of certain sites, in order to prevent ecological degradation. When planned carefully, user fees could also fimction to generate revenue for conservation activities, or for the restoration of coral, fish (i.e.: groupers), and wildlife populations (i.e.: marine mammals). Charging the Marine National Park entry fee for marine tours at Koh Chang has been done sporadically in the past. When this occurs, tour boats are approached directly on site and tourists are charged the National Park entry fee. However, many tour operators at Koh Chang distrust the MPA authorities, and remain unconvinced that collected park fees are used in a way that contributes towards conservation (personal communications). In addition, the current institutional system requires collected park revenues to be pooled centrally at the Marine National Parks Division headquarters in Bangkok. This system often does not provide enough incentives for local investment in conservation, and tends to arouse suspicion that collected funds are being used in inappropriate ways. Other research has shown that the amount visitors to MPAs in the Maldives are willing to pay increases substantially when collected fees are retained locally within the park, rather than being routed through the central government (Price 1998). Unless these problems are resolved, charging park entry fees to the MPA at Koh Chang does not seem to be a good way to achieve conservation benefits. It is also recommended that foreigners are not charged a higher fee, as research at Mu Koh Phi Phi has indicated that, despite the fact that foreigners are usually wealthier and can afford to pay more, many foreigners feel unwelcome or sense a certain degree of discrimination when they are charged higher fees (Seenprachawong 2001). In fact, wealthy Japanese or Chinese visitors are often charged the regular price for Thai citizens, whereas 'farang' (Caucasians) are always charged the higher price. 3.4.6.3. EQUITY IN THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF MPA TOURISM? Tourism should function to provide alternative employment opportunities, in ways defined and desired by local community members themselves. If planned carefully, this could provide not only local economic and developmental opportunities, but could also provide conservation benefits and enhance the long-term sustainability of local fisheries. On the other hand, the distribution of economic benefits from conservation-development programs tends to be unequal, as local elites often capture most of the benefits (Berkes 2004). However, in the case of snorkelling tours at Koh Chang, most owners of boats are local members of fishing communities. Therefore, maintaining local ownership and management of tours could help to ensure that the economic benefits of tourism in the MPA end up in local pockets, and not in those of outsiders or government. It could also be argued that if local tour operators can secure rights to run tours within the MPA, and are given guarantees that they will not be displaced by flashier tourism boats in the future, this may provide strong incentives to tour operators themselves to ensure appropriate conservation measures are taken, such as zoning and visitor education programs. 3.4.7. BENEFITS OF THE VISITOR SURVEY The visitor survey determined priorities for improving the quality of visitor experiences, and helped to set standards for key indicators of high-quality tourism experiences. The effects of experience level, culture, and measured field conditions on visitor perceptions and attitudes were also analyzed and linked to MPA zoning, the 'Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum' (MROS), 'Limits of Acceptable Change' (LAC), and Butler's tourism cycle, to provide practical management recommendations to reduce visitor impacts on reefs and improve visitor satisfaction. In summary, the visitor survey has provided useful technical details for meeting specific objectives related to tourism at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand. 3.4.8. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Veal (1997) cautions that surveys are not always conducive to careful, thoughtful responses, and that respondents often exaggerate, understate their answers, or provide answers they believe will please the interviewer. Some have also argued that measuring visitor satisfaction is subjective and relative, and that precise measurement is doubtful (Manning 1999). Another problem is that different types of people can interpret questions in very different ways. Factors related to language or culture can compound this problem even further. For example, there is no reason to expect that Thais should rate the items in Q4 (problem conditions) as more of a problem than Caucasian foreigners, yet they have done so consistently. Veal (1997) points out that researchers must simply live with the limitations inherent to visitor surveys, while hoping that inaccuracies are insignificant, and that some of them cancel each other out. The survey also implicitly assumed that meeting visitor needs will have spin-off benefits that will benefit local communities as well. However, obtaining more feedback and information from local community stakeholders is necessary to conclude on whether this is true. Some efforts were made by the researcher to inform and involve communities during the process of research. For example, while surveying visitors, discussions were conducted with boat captains and tour guides. In addition, a presentation was given and a short questionnaire was distributed at a meeting of tourism stakeholders organized by the provincial government of Trad in December, 2002. Unfortunately, those invited to this meeting were not a representative cross-section of all those with a stake in tourism development, and the translation of the questionnaire by National Park staff unfortunately contained significant mistakes and could not be analyzed (e.g.: 'fines' was accidentally translated to Thai as 'fins'). Perhaps one of the greatest limitations is that for many of those surveyed, a snorkelling tour was just one of many activities at Koh Chang, and in many cases the trip was probably unplanned. As a result, if snorkelling experiences are unsatisfactory, this may have minimal impacts on the economic viability of tourism at Koh Chang as a whole. For example, the price of beer could be more important (Cesar, 2003). Therefore, the role of visitor satisfaction and environmental quality in maintaining the economic sustainability and long-term competitiveness of the tourism destination may not be as strong as suggested. However, there would nevertheless be high consequences if tourism were to decline, which warrants a precautionary approach. In addition, although snorkelling tours are now the primary marine tourism activity in the MPA and were the focus of this study, scuba dive tourism appears to be growing rapidly, and may become more of a management issue in the future. Therefore, similar surveys for dive tourism at Koh Chang may have been useful. The comparison of visitor perceptions with actual conditions measured in the field seems to be a useful technique for defining LAC standards for both coral conditions and the number of other people. Using similar techniques to better understand visitor perceptions of fish communities might also prove useful. Similar research in other regions could yield interesting insights. However, the suggested LAC values for coral conditions are not 100% objective. These LAC guidelines should be viewed more like hypotheses based on scoping of the visitor survey data, which, though useful to managers, still comprise major uncertainties and require a more detailed analysis. A potential avenue for resolving this could be to dicuss the guidelines with marine biologists and local managers, or to subject them to more rigorous empirical tests. Further research on perceptions of coral conditions could focus on determining specifically how coral mortality, the patchiness of coral mortality at several different scales, and coral diversity affects the quality of visitor experiences. More detailed analyses of whether visitors with different amounts of experience perceive coral conditions differently should also be used to further examine the findings of this study that people perceive coral conditions in similar ways regardless of their experience level. Further research on perceptions of crowding could explicitly compare the approach taken here with the use of digital photographs depicting different settings (Manning et al. 1996a, Inglis et al. 1999). The approach taken here seems to be more objective, as it better represents conditions actually experienced by visitors, as opposed to symbolic representations based on images. However, the approach with digital photographs is more of a "controlled" manipulation of conditions. Further studies are required to conclude on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method. As is the case for most research, in retrospect several things could have been done differently to improve the study. First of all, increased sampling of the Northern and/or Southern sites would have enabled more specific tests based on individual sites, as opposed to sites grouped by region. Secondly, it would have been useful to measure the effects of boat sizes and the number of boats on visitor perceptions, to provide a better empirical basis to justify the recommended limits on boat sizes and the number of boats in Ecotourism Zones. 3.5. CONCLUSIONS A survey was designed, implemented, and analyzed to obtain data on the attitudes and preferences of visitors on guided snorkelling tours in the Koh Chang National Marine Park. The results indicate that visitors with more experience were less satisfied and less likely to recommend the destination to others. Thus, a 'tourist area cycle of evolution' is likely taking place, and experienced visitor typologies could be gradually displaced by more generalist tourists. Three recommended actions to help reverse this trend are: (1) ensure experienced visitors take trips to the Southern sites, which are more aesthetically pleasing, (2) restore coral communities where large dead patches occur, and (3) enhance reef fish and coral communities by establishing 'no-take7 zones in areas important to reef-based tourism. Coral conditions had a major influence on overall visitor satisfaction. Establishing the following LAC standards for coral conditions would help to ensure quality visitor experiences: (1) CMI<0.40, (2) patches of dead coral <25 m2. Further studies could focus on confirming or refining these general guidelines. Designating and promoting Laem Chang Noi and Koh Yak as Tourism Zones would help not only reduce visitor impacts due to the resilience of these sites, but will also improve visitor satisfaction. Foreign tourists (presently dominated by Europeans and North Americans) tended to be more sensitive to crowding than Thais. Therefore, ensuring visitor satisfaction for foreign tourists, as well as for certain subgroups of Thais, requires careful management of social settings to prevent crowding. Therefore, Ecotourism Zones should be managed for lower numbers of people and more peaceful social settings. A suggested LAC guideline for the number of people within Ecotourism Zones was suggested at less than 30 people. This could be achieved by allowing a maximum of only two small longtail boats at a time within snorkelling sites, combined with higher price premiums for these sites. Many visitors also expressed a desire for more information provided by tour staff. Partnerships involving MPA staff, tour guides, and academics could help to design meaningful visitor education and nature interpretation programs. CHAPTER 4: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS Synthesis is always more difficult to achieve than reduction -E. 0. Wilson Make things as simple as possible-but no simpler -Albert Einstein 4.1. A DRAFT MULTIPLE-USE CORAL REEF ZONING PLAN FOR THE MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK Although there are no simple blueprints for how to create an effective MPA management plan, multiple-use zoning has emerged as a central management tool (Hatcher 1999, Kelleher 1999). MPA zoning plans should function to meet multiple objectives related to conservation, tourism and recreation, and fisheries. However, achieving effective multiple-use MPA zoning plans requires applied research in the natural sciences, as well as the social sciences. This study combines research from the natural sciences (biogeography & marine ecology) and the social sciences (tourismlrecreation studies). Both of these sources of information were used to draft a coral reef zoning plan for the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park (MKCNMP), Thailand. Snorkelling tours were chosen as the focus of the research and management recommendations, due to the predominance of this tourism activity in the MPA (Appendices A & B). Although a thorough treatment of fisheries objectives is beyond the scope of this thesis, ancillary data based on the research of Lunn (2003) were also used to make management recommendations regarding fisheries (See Section 4.5.1 for details). The process has culminated in a draft MPA zoning plan for the MKCNMP. The draft zoning plan is summarized in Table 4.1, and includes, for each zone type, recommended locations for designating each type of zone within the MPA, chief policy objectives attached to each zone, specific tools for implementing these policies, and potential indicators that could be monitored over time to determine the effectiveness of management measures. 4.1.1. ZONING TO ACHIEVE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES The conservation andlor restoration of populations, species, habitats, and ecosystem structure and function are important MPA conservation objectives. Applied research in the ecological sciences (Chapter 3) focused on how MPA zoning could help meet these objectives for coral reefs at Koh Chang. Shallow coral communities in the MPA were sampled by LIT transects, and four criteria were examined to derive 'protection priorities' of different reefs: coral morphological diversity, site vulnerability to visitor trampling, and suitability for the restoration of Acropora spp. habitats. Coral reef area was considered as the fourth criterion, as an indicator of biodiversitylconservation value. The optimal site for establishing a coral reef Conservation Zone in the MPA is at Koh KraKoh Thian, which scored highly for all four criteria. The possibility of expanding the Conservation Zone to encompass the near by Koh Thong Long should also be explored. Suggested policies for the Conservation Zone would be 'no access' for tourism and recreation, and 'no take' for fisheries. Access would only be allowed for scientific research, monitoring, and restoration projects. The first step that should be taken to achieve this is the provision of information to tour operators, locals, fishermen, tourists, and the media, clearly describing the purpose of the Conservation Zone, and its proposed boundaries. Next, park rangers at the Koh Rang station should mark the boundaries of the Conservation Zone with buoys. After this, the zone should be frequently monitored, with penalties enforced for violations of access regulations. To facilitate restoration of degraded patches of coral in this zone, active restoration programs should be undertaken by university researchers (e.g.: Dr. T. Yeemin at Ramkhamhaeng University) or other agencies, in partnership with MPA staff. Indicators that could be monitored to determine the effectiveness of management actions might include coral cover, recruitment or recovery of Acropora spp., and fish (i.e..: fish species diversity, size or weight classes for certain fish species, population/metapopulation numbers, etc.). Designating a coral reef Restoration Zone at Koh Yuak is an option that should also be explored further. Given that this site is already heavily degraded, the chief objective would be restoration, not conservation. Rules and regulations for this zone would be similar to those applied for the Conservation Zone. Reefs most resilient to trampling by snorkellers should be designated and promoted as Tourism Zones, which would achieve conservation benefits by diverting snorkelling tours away from less resilient sites. Disseminating information encouraging snorkelling tours to access Tourism Zones could be an effective non-regulatory strategy. The three most resilient sites in the MPA consist of coral reefs at approximately 3-5m depth, which are deep enough to preclude trampling by snorkellers, yet shallow enough to permit people floating on the surface to view marine life. It is recommended that two of these sites (Laem Chang Noi and Koh Yak), should be designated as Tourism Zones. However, the third resilient site &oh Nok), was not recommended as a Tourism Zone for two reasons. Firstly, it was deemed unnecessary to promote two Tourism Zones in the Southern part of the MPA. Secondly, reducing visitor use at Koh Nok could reduce minor visitor impacts due to the disturbance of fish, pollution from sunscreen or tour boats, etc. Reefs more vulnerable to trampling by snorkellers should be designated as Ecotourism Zones. The number of visits to Ecotourism Zones should be set in such a manner that the risks of negative ecological impacts are minimized. Estimating acceptable levels of use could be based on a carrying capacity model, or alternatively, a 'Limit of Acceptable Change' (LAC) model specifying that coral conditions should not deteriorate past acceptable standards. Regulatory restrictions to meet conservation objectives in these zones might include limits on boat sizes, group sizes, and the number of boats. Requiring tour operators to obtain licenses as 'ecotourism operators' to be allowed entry to Ecotourism Zones could also prove effective for discouraging use, and would also allow managers to better keep track of the number of visits. Charging higher user fees for Ecotourism Zones should also be should be explored, as it can be an effective way to reduce use levels (Davis and Tisdell 1996). By restricting use within Ecotourism Zones and promoting Tourism Zones, MPA managers would reduce visitation to Ecotourism Zones and concentrate use within Tourism Zones. SCUBA diving sites in the MPA should also be designated as Ecotourism Zones, to be managed with nature interpretation programs and tour guide intervention strategies (Section 4.3). Additional restrictive management strategies such as use limits may also be required, especially if dive tourism experiences significant growth in the future. Table 4.1 Coral reef zonin olicy recommendati IS for the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park. POTENTIAL ZONE RECOMMENDED OBJECTIVES INDICATORS TO TYPE LOCATIONS OF THE ZONE POLICY POLICY TOOLS MONITOR -- c I(a) provide information to tour 1. NO ACCESS operators, locals, fishermen, tourists, media, etc. -coral cover 2. "NO-TAKE" MARINE (b) demarcate the Conservation Zone Conservation Koh Kra & i. Conservation -recovery of Acropora RESERVE with buoys (Koh Rang rangers) Koh Thian SPP. (& Koh Thong 3. ACTIVE OR (c) enforce penalties if boats enter the Lang ?) ii. Restoration PASSIVE zone - fish communities (e.g.: diversity, RESTORATION (d) encourage university researchers sizeslweight, population to establish restoration programs in abundance, etc.) -- partnership with park staff (a) provide information to tour operators, locals, fishermen, tourists, 1. NO ACCESS media, etc. -coral cover 2. "NO-TAKE" (b) demarcate the Restoration Zone MARINE with buoys (Koh Chang rangers) i. Restoration RESERVE -recovery of dcropora Restoration Koh Yuak (c) enforce penalties if boats enter the SPP. (Optional) ii.Conservation 3. ACTIVE OR zone - fish communities PASSIVE (d) encourage university researchers RESTORATION to establish restoration programs in -partnership with park staff Table 4. cont.) Coral reef zoning olicy recommendations for the Mu Koh Chan National Marine Park. POTENTIAL INDICATORS TO ZONE RECOMMENDED MONITOR TYPE 7-7LOCATIONS POLICY POTENTIAL POLICY TOOLS & LAC GUIDELINES i. Conservation i:a) provide information to tour operators, -coral mortality: 1. PROMOTE .ocals, fishermen, tourists, the media, etc. LAC: CMI-4.40 ii. Nature RECREATION & no dead patches >25 rn2 :b) ensure mooring buoys are available Appreciation & -Acropora spp. Tourism Laem Chang Noi, Recreation Koh Yak 2. 'WO TAKE" :c) providefree nature interpretation training -water quality MARINE :o tour guides -fish communities iii.Tourism & RESERVES -visitor satisfaction :d) enforce penalties if regulations are broken Economic 1. LIMIT ACCESS (a) provide information to tour operators, -number of people: Koh Chang Noi, TO SMALL locals, fishermen, tourists, & the media LAG35people Koh Ma Pring, i. Conservation LICENSED Hin Sam Sao, 'ECOTOWSM (b) limit access to small boats who are -number of boats: ' licensed 'ecotourism' operator Hin Rap, ii. Nature OPERATORS LAC=2 boats Koh Suwan, Appreciation & Koh Rom, Koh Pli, 2. MAXIMUM OF (c) limit access to 2 boats at a time -coral mortality: Recreation Koh Man Nok, TWO BOATS (d) provide free ecotourism licensing LAC: CMI= 0.40 & no deadpatches >25 in2 Koh Thong Lang, ALLOWED AT A programs to local tour operators Ecotourism Koh Nok, iii. Tourism & TIME -Acropora spp. Koh Khlum, Economic (e) ensure visitation does not degrade coral -fish communities All dive sites Revenue 3. 'WO TAKE" conditions past LAC limits (excluding Koh MARINE -water quality KraKoh Thian) RESERVES (0 enforce penalties if regulations are broken -visitor satisfaction (9) charve higher i~serfee< fnr arcens. . . 1. ENSURE (a) ensure gear types and fishing methods - populations of target Koh Mai Si Lek, i. Sustainable FISHERIES ARE have minimal impacts on habitats and non- species General Koh Mai Si Yai, Small-Scale SUSTAINABLE target species Koh Bai Tang, -populations of non-target Use Reef Fisheries 2. KEEP AREAS Koh Salak, & (b) ensure harvesting of target species is species (Optional) FREE FROM other reefs unused by TOURISM within maximum sustainable yield or safe tourism biological limits -coral communities Although the official policy for the MPA is that the entire area is a 'no-take7 marine reserve, this has proved difficult to enforce, and also could be perceived as somewhat unfair to local fishing communities (Lunn 2003). However, because extractive fisheries negatively impact coral reef conservation objectives (McClanahan 1999a, Halpern and Warner 2002, Walmsley and White 2003), it is recommended that 'no-take' marine reserves should be enforced at as many coral reefs in the MPA as possible. However, if enforcing 'no-take7 zones for all coral reefs in the MPA is not feasible, General Use Zones could allow some extractive fisheries, subject to special management regulations (i.e.: catch limits, seasonal restrictions, gear restrictions, etc.). However, 'no-take7 marine reserves should be enforced for all Ecotourism Zones and Tourism Zones, as well as the Conservation Zone. In summary, implementing the zoning policies described above would help to fulfill the MPA7sconservation mandate. 4.1.2. ZONING TO ACHIEVE TOURISM OBJECTIVES Basic goals related to tourismlrecreation include the provision of satisfying visitor experiences, maintaining a range of diverse recreational opportunities, ensuring host communities benefit from tourism rather than being negatively impacted, and sustaining the profitability of tourism industries. Applied visitor research (Chapter 4) focused on meeting these objectives for snorkelling tours in the MPA. Snorkelling tours were chosen as the focus of research due to the dominance of this activity in the MPA (Appendix A). Research questions focused on gauging visitor satisfaction, determining specific reasons for visitor satisfaction/dissatisfaction, ensuring quality visitor experiences by specifying LAC standards for two key indicators of visitor experiences (coral conditions & the number of other people), and ensuring that the draft MPA zoning plan could function to meet a range of visitor needs and preferences. A critical recommendation was that designating and promoting Laem Chang Noi and Koh Yak as Tourism Zones would not only reduce visitor impacts, but would also tend to improve visitor satisfaction, as these sites were perceived as aesthetically pleasing by visitors. Promoting these sites would also help to accommodate increased visitation in the future, without a concomitant increase in visitor impacts. Results also indicated that establishing the following 'Limits of Acceptable Change7 (LAC) for coral conditions would help to ensure quality visitor experiences: (1) Coral Mortality Index<0.40, (2) Patches of Dead Coral <25 m2. Another critical recommendation was that Ecotourism Zones should aim to contain lower numbers of people in order to accommodate visitors desiring more peaceful settings. Results indicate that this is particularly important for ensuring satisfaction of the foreign tourist market. The suggested 'LAC' for the number of people within Ecotourism Zones was set at 35 people. This value was derived from data suggesting that perceptions of crowding, particularly among foreign visitors, increased considerably when snorkelling sites contained over 35 people. Two relatively simple regulations could be implemented to ensure that this LAC value is not exceeded within Ecotourism Zones: allowing only small longtail boats within Ecotourism Zones, and allowing a maximum of only two boats at a time. A licensing system would also be desirable, where access to the Ecotourism Zones would be restricted to licensed 'ecotourism operators'. This could also be coordinated with tour guide training programs aimed at increasing the delivery of visitor education and nature interpretation programs (Section 4.3). Notably, all regions of the MPA would leave some reefs open to tourist access in the draft zoning plan. By emphasizing this to tourism stakeholders, this should help to gain support for and compliance with zoning policies which restrict tourism. For example, in the Southern region of the park, Koh Thong Lang, Koh Yak, and Koh Nok would all remain accessible to tour boats, despite the fact that Koh KraKoh Thian would be placed off-limits to tourism. The results of the visitor survey also suggest that a 'tourist area cycle of evolution' is occurring at Koh Chang, whereby 'generalist' tourists may increasingly displace 'specialist' tourists more interested in experiencing marine environments. This is likely to be detrimental to both local ecology and the tourism "image" of Koh Chang. Three recommended actions to help reverse this trend are: (1) ensure experienced visitors take trips to the Southern sites, which are more aesthetically pleasing, (2) restore coral communities where large dead patches occur, and (3) enhance reef fish and coral communities by establishing 'no-take' zones in areas important to reef-based tourism. When protected from fishing, there is a high likelihood that the aesthetic quality of sites will increase over time, due to higher coral cover, lower coral mortality, and greater abundance and diversity of reef fish (McClanahan et al., 1999; Halpern & Warner, 2002; Walmsley & White, 2003). Effectively excluding fishing from these zones would also help to reduce the exposure of visitors to active or derelict fishing gear. In s~~~l~llary,implementing the suggested zoning plan will help to maximize visitor satisfaction, and create a profitable, competitive, and sustainable tourism destination. 4.2. NATURE INTERPRETATION AND VISITOR EDUCATION It is strongly recommended that detailed nature interpretation programs be implemented for all snorkelling and SCUBA diving tours in the MPA, as this can result in a significant reduction in trampling impacts (Medio et al. 1997). However, new research indicates that a short briefing instructing divers to avoid contact with corals is far less effective at reducing degenerative diver behaviour than more in-depth briefings on coral reef ecology (Barker and Roberts 2004). Therefore, visitor education programs should be as detailed as possible to reduce trampling of coral reefs. On deeper psychological levels, nature interpretation can function to increase ecological awareness and change attitudes or beliefs, and can even shape social norms and promote lifestyle choices that reduce environmental impacts (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Stern and Dietz 1994, Orams 1999). For example, at the regional scale, increased awareness of the impacts of pollution (i.e.: sewage disposal, shrimp pond effluent, sediments from construction) could lead tourists and locals to demand higher standards of waste treatment and higher standards of environmental planning and regulations for aquaculture and tourism development. At the global scale, increased awareness of the links between coral reefs and global change, including coral bleaching in response to global warming (Hughes et al. 2003), reduced calcification due to increased C02and ocean acidification (Kleypas et al. 1999), impacts due to sea level rise (Pittock 1999), and interactions among these factors, could function to increase political pressure and promote local initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to reducing trampling impacts, nature interpretation programs can also improve visitor satisfaction by providing richer, more enjoyable experiences (Weiler and Davis 1993, Orams 1995). Indeed, many visitors on snorkelling tours in the MPA indicated a preference for more information to be provided by tour staff (Chapter 4). Ideally, information should be delivered personally by certified nature tourism guides. It is recommended that certification programs for marine tour guides be developed, and each tour boat should be required to have a certified tour guide on board. Certification programs should train guides in nature interpretation skills, and instruct them on how to effectively provide snorkellers and SCUBA divers briefings that build a greater understanding and appreciation of coral reef ecology, trampling impacts, and how visitors should behave to decrease the likelihood of accidental trampling on corals. Tour guide certification programs could be carried out by private tourism organizations in partnership with the MPA authorities, especially if agencies are reluctant to invest directly in interpretation themselves due to high costs or low feasibility. It would be desirable to provide these to tour boat operators free of charge, to encourage them to participate, and to build trust between the MPA authority and local tour operators. If language barriers prove to be a significant challenge, an alternative approach could be to distribute colourful interpretational brochures to people on board tour boats. These brochures should definitely be available in English and Thai. Translation into German, Japanese, Chinese, and French should also be considered. The Coral Reef Alliance's Coral Friendly Snorkelling Guidelines (CRA 2003) could be used as the starting point for developing such materials. The possibility of creating a marine ecology education centre andlor aquarium on Koh Chang should also be examined. Establishing snorkelling trails with underwater signs are also an option. Incentives encouraging marine tour staff to become certified as nature tourism guides should also be provided by authorities. For example, the MPA authority could state that licences are needed to operate tours in the MPA, but could stipulate that free licenses will be distributed to all those certified as marine nature tourism guides. The MPA authorities could then offer tour guide certification programs free of charge to those interested in participating. Such a program would also have the added benefit of building trust and understanding between tour operators and MPA staff. Ideally, nature guide training programs should place a high focus on teaching effective communication skills, emphasizing appropriate normative behaviour to reduce visitor trampling, and teaching visitors about marine ecology. It may also be possible to implement a two-pronged marine tour guide certification strategy, with short 'general marine tourism guide' training for those larger tours accessing Tourism Zones, and more extensive 'marine ecotourism guide' training programs, targeting smaller tours accessing Ecotourism Zones. Nature interpretation programs should also be offered in both Thai and English. If possible, programs in German, French, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese should also be available. Arguably, another issue that merits consideration in nature interpretation programs is to focus on recruiting people towards a conservation ethic, as opposed to 'preaching to the converted' (Beaumont 2001). Interestingly, because marine nature tourism at Koh Chang is typically only one component of the visitor experience (OCESD 2002), this could provide ample opportunities for educating people who do not already have pro-environment attitudes. In summary, visitor education and nature interpretation programs at Koh Chang would help to reduce conflicts and promote symbiosis between tourism and conservation, and would encourage a type of "ecotourism" that enhances ecological awareness and changes personal attitudes towards the environment, while minimizing visitor impacts on the environment (Orams 1995). 4.3. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 4.3.1. CONTRIBUTIONS A significant challenge in environmental planning and resource management is the integration of natural science with social science and human values. Experience shows that in cases where environmental planning is based on the natural sciences only, this can result in myopic or unrealistic policy recommendations (Inskeep 1987, McClanahan 1999b). On the other hand, environmental planning which focuses on social science dimensions often lacks a sufficiently rigorous scientific basis (Rayner 1996, McCool and Stankey 2003). Therefore, environmental planning and coral reef management in particular requires the integration of several different perspectives (Risk, 1999; Hatcher, 1999). In this study, geography has provided the necessary freedom for combining relevant literature sources and studies within both the natural and social sciences, and to apply these different perspectives towards the problem of tourism management in a Thai MPA. Research in the natural sciences focused on how to minimize the amount of ecological damage inflicted on coral reefs by tourists in the MPA. Research in the social sciences focused on how to ensure visitor satisfaction on snorkelling tours in the MPA. Both studies emphasized the use of theory and empirical evidence to contribute towards these objectives. The overall result is a good example of how two very different lines of enquiry can complement one another, and a good example of how geographic enquiry can accommodate both of these perspectives. Given the limited resources at the disposal of the researcher, the collection of information on both natural resources and tourist perceptions has provided a strong interdisciplinary basis for the zoning recommendations that have been made. Another significant challenge faced by coral reef management is to ensure that research findings provide tangible benefits to the managementlpolicy interface (Risk 1999). Environmental research should help provide approximate answers to interesting questions with policy implications, as opposed to precise answers to trivial questions (Holling 2000). Both studies have contributed towards practical recommendations in the form of a multiple-use MPA zoning plan. The draft zoning plan (Table 4.1) provides practical recommendations on how to improve MPA management practices to meet multiple objectives, and is relatively simple and user-friendly. The draft zoning plan also converges with official plans, policies, and decrees of various Thai government agencies, as summarized in Table 3.2. This should help ensure that the zoning plan is understood, considered, and applied by authorities and local communities in Thailand. The approaches taken in this study also seem more comprehensive than simply defining a recreational 'carrying capacity' for coral reefs. Managers of MPAs are interested in achieving desirable output conditions (i.e.: conservation of coral and fish, high visitor satisfaction, etc.), regardless of how these output conditions are achieved (e.g.: zoning, education, economic instruments, regulations limiting use, etc.). Although 'carrying capacity' can be useful as a broad guideline, it is not an objective scientific concept, and it omits major uncertainties and key variables (Chapter 2). Unfortunately, publications citing numerical carrying capacities (Hawkins and Roberts 1996, Zakai and Chadwick-Furman 2002) can mislead readers into a belief that these values are scientifically objective and transferable across different sites (Lindberg et al. 1997). As an example of how this can propagate wrong-headed ideas, Davis & Tisdell (1996) have written that MPA managers should encourage divers to use lesser-dived sites in preference to sites currently favoured-a management practice that in many cases would degrade pristine sites and homogenize recreational opportunity settings! Instead of focusing on defining a carrying capacity purporting to meet multiple objectives, this study placed a much higher emphasis on how the context of individual sites matters in determining appropriate use levels, and combined the coral reef field survey and visitor survey to craft a multiple-use zoning plan that could help to meet both conservation and tourism objectives. In addition, the conceptual basis of zoning to meet tourism objectives was strengthened by the 'Marine Recreation Opportunity Spectrum' (MROS) and 'Limits of Acceptable Change' (LAC) theoretical frameworks, wherein indicators and standards of quality for visitor experiences were estimated for both Ecotourism Zones and Tourism Zones (Table 4.1). With respect to Butler's tourism cycle (Butler 1980) and the Duffus-Dearden model wherein generalists replace specialists and LAC standards decline over time (Duffus and Dearden 1990), the data in this study does not strongly support these models. However, experienced snorkellers did tend to have higher standards of quality for reef fish communities, water clarity, and potentially for coral conditions as well (although results were inconclusive for the latter). Experienced visitors also tended to be less satisfied with their snorkelling tour and less likely to recommend the destination to others. This suggests that, to some extent, the replacement of specialized tourists by generalist tourists is likely occurring at Koh Chang, and the LAC standards of visitors are likely to gradually erode over time. To halt this process, zoning and the application of the MROS and LAC concepts could be key (Table 4.1). This study also emphasized the important roles of detailed visitor education and nature interpretation programs for reducing environmental impacts. Finally, the combination of non- regulatory and regulatory strategies that have been suggested for implementing zoning and visitor education are likely to be less invasive and less controversial than management interventions aimed at ensuring each site receives a given number of visits each year. Table 4.2 Contributions of the draft zoning. ~lantowards aeencv mandates THAI GOVERNMENT AGENCY MANDATES sI sI MinistrvMarine Parks of Natural Division Resources & Environment Met ByPlans? Suaested Conserve coral reefs YES Provide "sustainable" recreation, tourism, education, and research opportunities YES MNRE: National Coral Reef Stratern Designate coral reefs into one of four management zones: Conservation, Ecotourism, Tourism, and General Use YES Ministrv of Tourism & Sports Maximize the growth potential of marine-based ecotourism YES 0 Preserve the resource base on which ecotourism depends YES 0 Demarcate ecotourism zones YES Set UD tour routes I YES Designate standards for classifying tourism resources to develop ecotourism YES Marine ecotourism should emphasize the development of ecological understanding among tourists YES Office of the Committee on Social & Economic Development Develop the island for a high-end niche market of exclusive resort tourism combined with ecotourism YES Maintain a high quality marine environment YES Koh Chang Committee for the Special Administrative Zone Manage tourism development at Koh Chang YES This study has also contributed towards practical and theoretical aspects of meeting the goal of 'sustainable' tourism, including environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainability (Haider and Johnston 1992, Butler 1993, Hall and Lew 1998, McCool 2004). Although it is acknowledged that it is practically impossible to accurately predict sustainability in advance (Costanza and Patten 1995), the management options provided by this thesis would strongly increase the likelihood that tourism at Koh Chang will be sustainable. Criteria for environmental sustainability could be met by reducing the environmental impacts of tourism, increasing the ecological awareness of visitors, and using tourism livelihoods as a tool to decrease fishing pressure in the area. Criteria for economic sustainability could be met by improving visitor satisfaction, maintaining tourism's viability as an industry, and increasing the long-term competitiveness of the tourism destination. Criteria for social sustainability could be met by ensuring local needs are explicitly considered in the plan, and by ensuring that local fishers benefit directly fiom marine tourism. 4.3.2. LIMITATIONS The zoning plan recommended that snorkelling tours in the MPA be concentrated within Tourism Zones, where the bathyrnetry drops directly down to reef communities at 3 m depth. Unfortunately, many MPAs will simply not contain sites with these features, whereas, in MPAs where dive tourism is prominent, water depth is not really a factor in determining the amount of physical trampling impacts at different sites. This may limit the transferability of this zoning 'solution' to other MPAs. Therefore, 'carrying capacity' models will likely continue to play an important role in visitor management strategies for other MPAs, despite their limitations, although these should always be combined with other strategies, such as influencing visitor behaviour and influencing use patterns based on the vulnerability of different habitats. Significant limitations are also embedded in the approach of conducting two different research programs simultaneously. Dividing attention between the two studies negatively impacted the comprehensiveness of each individual study. If only one study had been conducted, greater focus could have been placed on ensuring comprehensive literature reviews, devising and pre-testing methodologies, carrying out more intensive sampling, conducting more statistical analyses, and allocating more time to the write-up process. In addition, the research conducted at Koh Chang targeted a fairly limited portion of the biophysical environment (coral communities at snorkelling sites), and a fairly limited component of tourism at Koh Chang (visitor satisfaction on snorkelling tours). As a result, the draft zoning plan is not a panacea for all of the issues in the MPA at Koh Chang. Ideally, a complete zoning plan would also integrate more data on fisheries, land-based tourism development, oceanography, dispersal ecology, long-term coral reef community dynamics, seagrass communities, mangroves, rural development, economics, scuba dive tourism, and integrated coastal zone management. If detailed information on all of these factors had been readily available, the draft MPA zoning plan may have been completely different. Yet, good information on all these factors is unlikely to be present during MPA planning phases, and gaps in information should not be used as excuses to postpone planning and management actions (Ludwig et al. 1993). Future improvements in knowledge can be incorporated into periodic management plan reviews. 4.4. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Many types of research and many planning initiatives could be undertaken at Koh Chang in the near fitwe to improve coral reef management. However, there are four key topics that should have a high priority in future research and planning: (i) fisheries management, (ii) improving the management of land-based threats, (iii) public review of plans, and (iv) encouraging co-management of the MPA. 4.4.1. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Reef-based fisheries in the MPA tend to conflict with conservation and tourism objectives, and ideally, 'no-take' zoning regulations should be implemented at Conservation Zones, Tourism Zones, and Ecotourism Zones. If carefully planned, 'no-take' reserves could also be useful for meeting fisheries management objectives, particularly for complex multi-species tropical fisheries (Hilborn et al. 2004). However, in spite of the official designation of the entire MPA at Koh Chang as a 'no-take' marine reserve, enforcing this rule is problematic, particularly because small-scale fisheries in the MPA provide local communities with employment, income, and nutritious food sources. On the other hand, reef-based fisheries in the MPA seem to be relatively minor (Lunn 2003), which could facilitate zoning regulations restricting fishing around coral reefs in the MPA. In any case, the management of small-scale fisheries at Koh Chang is a contentious, difficult management issue. A thorough treatment of fisheries management within multiple-use MPA zoning is beyond the scope of this thesis, and should be the focus of further research and planning at Koh Chang. Nonetheless, four broad suggestions concerning fisheries and coral reef management at Koh Chang can be made. First of all, coral reef fisheries within the MPA should be prohibited for as many areas as possible, particularly because groupers and snappers, the main target species at coral reefs around Koh Chang, are highly vulnerable to fishing pressure and cannot sustain high levels of exploitation (Lunn, 2003). Encouraging fishers to focus on invertebrates such as squid and shrimp could be an effective non-regulatory strategy to help achieve this (Lunn, 2003). However, enforcing 'no-take' restrictions at so many reefs is likely to be difficult to achieve in practice, and some fishermen will no doubt oppose an outright ban of coral reef fisheries in the MPA. For these reasons, it may be desirable to establish General Use Zones at all coral reefs in the MPA not currently used for diving and snorkelling. These areas could remain open to reef-based fisheries, to meet the needs and demands of local fishing communities. This proposal could be crucial for gaining the support of fishermen, so that "no-take" marine reserves could be established at all other coral reefs (Ecotourism, Tourism, and Conservation Zones). However, General Use Zones should be managed to ensure a sustainable harvest of target species, minimal impacts on non-target species, and restoration of depleted populations, through regulations such as catch limits, seasonal restrictions, gear restrictions, etc.. In addition, only members of local communities with reasonable claims to fishing rights in the area should be allowed to fish in these zones. However, some limited recreational hook-and-line fisheries could also be required if demanded by certain stakeholders. Third, local fishing communities should be granted some form of rights to ensure that they are both involved with and benefit from tourism in the MPA. Most of the boats currently used for marine tours are owned by members of local fishing communities. Owners of these boats should be provided with guarantees that they will not be displaced by 'flashier' tourism boats in the future. This could help to ensure that tourism provides alternative sources of employment and income to Koh Chang's coastal fishing communities, in order to compensate fishers for lost access to coral reef fishing grounds in MPA zoning regulations, and to assist coastal communities to deal with lost income and employment in the wake of overfishing and stock depletions (Chettamart and Emphandhu 2002). Ensuring that the economic benefits of tourism accrue to local fishers could even allow livelihoods to drive conservation (Brown 2002), thereby providing strong incentives directly to tour operators themselves to ensure that appropriate conservation measures are taken. Fourth, there are many potential benefits of 'no-take' marine reserves for meeting fisheries management objectives in the MPA, and these should be explored further. Potential benefits to fisheries include rebuilding depleted stocks (i.e.: groupers), buffering against uncertainties in ecosystem models, reducing variance in yields, protecting sensitive habitats, life stages, or non-target species, and increasing yields through the spillover of fish andor larvae from "no-take" zones into fishing zones (Pitcher 2001, Gel1 and Roberts 2003, Hilborn et al. 2004). However, there are also many potential and actual problems that could be caused by 'no- take' marine reserves, including impacts from spatial shifts in effort, hardships to fishing communities (including reduced yields), and high policing and enforcement costs (Carter 2003, Hilborn et al. 2004). Unfortunately, despite the fact that protection fiom fishing clearly results in greater abundance and sizes of fishes (Halpern and Warner 2002), empirical evidence showing that marine reserves increase fisheries yields and provide net positive benefits to fisheries objectives has been sparse (Willis et al. 2003, Hilborn et al. 2004). To help address these uncertainties, it might be possible to design a research and monitoring program at Koh Chang, using the principles of adaptive management (Walters 1986). A lot of care and thought would need to be put towards the design of such a research program, with sufficient consideration given to which variables should be monitored (e.g.: fish species diversity, coral cover, standing stock biomass and fisheries yields for specific target species), which management treatments to apply (e.g.: 'no-take' strictly enforced over the whole reef, 'no- take' strictly enforced over % of the reef, open access fishery, restricted access fishery, etc.), replicates (e.g.: apply each management treatment to 4 different sites, replicate in time as well), experimental controls (e.g.: control for natural variability between sites, different reef sizes, different habitat types, ensure that enforcement of management treatments is effective, etc.), and careful selection of what constitutes a 'significant' effect due to management (e.g.: the approach of (Edgar and Barrett 1997) that a 100% increase in density as a minimum threshold for claiming the existence of a 'reserve effect'). This is simply a brainstorming proposal. It is up to local management authorities and communities to decide whether such programs will be feasible, and whether coral reef fisheries in the MPA merit the level of focus, attention, and fhding required to establish such programs. Ensuring that all of the above recommendations are implemented will likely require improved coordination and communication among MPA staff, Thai Department of Fisheries officials, and local communities. 4.4.2. LAND-BASED THREATS Mangroves have been shown to provide important nursery habitats to young reef fish, which can significantly increase the biomass, abundance, and diversity of reef fish communities in linked habitats (Mumby et al. 2004). Unfortunately, clearing of mangroves for tourism developments has been a problem at Koh Chang, especially in the vicinity of Chai Chet and Khlong Phrao. One resort owner not only cleared mangroves on National Park land, but also changed the flow of a public lagoon. Moreover, a road constructed directly behind Khlong Phrao has caused die-off of mangroves, presumably due to reduced tidal exchange (Figure 4.1). Clearing of mangroves must be punished severely. Pollution originating from activities on land also poses threats to coral reefs in the MPA. Ensuring effective sewage treatment and waste collection and disposal is crucial, and although progress is being made in this regard, there is still room for improvement. Other possible sources of pollution include the mobilization of sediments as a result of construction activities, and shrimp aquaculture effluents originating in the southeast of the island and at Haad Kai Bae. More attention should be paid towards improved monitoring and control of these pollution sources, andlor improving the understanding of the impacts of pollution on resources and ecosystems in the MPA. All construction and land-based development activities in the archipelago must be monitored to conform with strict codes of environmental standards, so that excess sediments, sewage, and other pollutants do not enter the MPA and degrade coral reefs. Figure 4.1 Photo: mangroves destroyed by road construction near Khlong Phrao 4.4.3. PUBLIC REVIEW OF PLANS The information provided by this study provides a necessary first step in the process of creating an MPA zoning plan. The visitor survey also served the function of obtaining information from some "stakeholders", including Thai visitors, foreign tourists, and, to a lesser extent, Thai locals. However, prior to implementing regulations in the MPA, several rounds of meetings and negotiations should seek input and consensus fiom other stakeholders, including tour staff, tourism associations, environmental groups, scientists, representatives of fishermen from each village, and members of Thai society who are interested in the fate of Koh Chang's environment. To ensure this occurs, the following steps should be taken (adapted from Kelleher, 1999): public consultation and review of the proposed plan; preparation of an officially endorsed draft plan; public consultation and review of the officially endorsed draft plan; finalization and implementation of the plan. These activities should be integrated with existing planning initiatives at Koh Chang. Ensuring that the full range of stakeholder groups participate in the public review process should help to ensure that all values and view points are addressed in the final plan. Compromises or conflict resolution may be required during this process. 4.4.4. CO-MANAGEMENT Practical experiences with MPAs indicate that local communities must be involved in planning and management efforts, especially in countries affected by corruption, limited state budgets, and patchy law enforcement (Salm et al., 2000). A promising institutional model for MPAs is 'co-management', or the effective sharing of power and management responsibilities between governments and local community stakeholders (Berkes et al. 1991, Rudd et al. 2003). Co-management approaches to MPA management have proven to be effective in many developing countries in Southeast Asia. For example, in the Bunaken National Marine Park, Indonesia, involving local stakeholders in the planning and day-to-day enforcement of multiple- use zoning and other plans has been critically important to achieve effective MPA management (Salm et al. 2000). In the Philippines, community support for regulations, direct participation of communities in decision-making and management, and continuing advice from implementing organizations and government agencies have all been shown to be critical factors for establishing effective MPAs (Pollnac et al. 2001, Walmsley and White 2003). In summary, a co-management institutional model is an effective way to avoid "paper parks" and achieve MPA management objectives. Planning and management of the MPA at Koh Chang should draw from these experiences, to encourage co-management approaches when implementing zoning regulations, visitor education programs, and other management measures. The public review process (Section 4.5.3) can function as a useful first step in this endeavour, by instilling a sense of "ownership" over the MPA management plan among local community stakeholders, and by ensuring that the plan is perceived as legitimate and fair by local people (Stankey et al. 1984, Gilman 1997). If the process can effectively create social norms or peer pressure to conform to regulations, this would provide strong incentives for following regulations. For example, those caught breaking regulations would 'lose face'. Involving tour guides and fishermen directly to help enforce regulations is also desirable. 4.5. CONCLUSIONS Coral reefs are threatened by global change, pollution, fisheries, and tourism development. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one tool for conserving the ecological structure and function of coral reefs, and preventing the loss of related ecosystem goods and services. However, most MPAs to date have been 'paper parks' which fail to meet their objectives. If MPAs are to be an effective tool for conserving coral reefs in the 21" century, functional management plans must be crafted, implemented, and documented. Achieving this requires a synthesis of natural science with social science, a fusion of precautionary 'protectionist7 ideals with considerations of local community needs, and a balance between academic rigour and the provision of practical recommendations to managers in the field. This study was based on concurrent research programs in the natural sciences and the social sciences at the Mu Koh Chang National Marine Park, Thailand. Results were used to draft an MPA zoning plan. The MPA could meet coral reef conservation objectives by: Establishing and prohibiting access to a Conservation Zone at Koh Kra 1 Koh Thian, which contains both high biodiversity values, and is highly vulnerable to trampling; Restoring Acropora spp. habitats in the MPA; Enforcing 'no take7 marine reserves for as many coral reefs as possible, but focusing on achieving this first for the Conservation, Ecotourism, & Tourism Zones; Providing alternative livelihoods to local communities through marine nature tourism, to reduce the need for extractive fisheries, and to provide direct incentives for conservation; Concentrating tourism activities around reefs least vulnerable to snorkeller trampling impacts, by designating and promoting these sites as Tourism Zones; Discouraging tourist access to reefs more vulnerable to visitor trampling impacts, by designating these as Ecotourism Zones and enforcing access restrictions; Ensuring coral conditions do not degrade past 'Limits Acceptable Change' guidelines (CMI=0.40 AND no dead patches > 25 m2)*; Ensuring effective solid waste management & litter clean-up programs; The MPA could meet tourism objectives by: Allowing reasonable access to Tourism Zones & Ecotourism Zones; *~lthou~hLAC guidelines for coral conditions are based on human values and visitor perceptions, these guidelines would also provide some conservation benefits. Enforcing 'no take' marine reserves at Ecotourism & Tourism Zones, to increase the aesthetic quality of coral reef visited by tourists; Ensuring coral conditions do not degrade past 'Limits Acceptable Change' guidelines (CMI=0.40 & no dead patches > 25 m2); Providing a diversity of recreational opportunity settings at snorkelling sites, including: o Tourism Zones characterized by higher numbers of people and more boats, o Ecotourism Zones characterized by: (i) no more than 30 people, (ii) no more than 2 boats; Providing information on the nature and character of biophysical and social settings at different sites in the MPA; Ensuring effective solid waste management & clean-up programs, to reduce visitor exposure to litter in the MPA; Providing interesting and informative visitor education and nature interpretation programs; Meeting all of the above criteria, to ensure quality visitor experiences in the MPA, sustain the demand for marine nature tourism, create a positive tourism 'image' for Koh Chang, and ensure that tourists are not displaced to other destinations over time (especially those with more experience). Fisheries objectives in the MPA could be met by: Relieving fishing pressure by providing alternative livelihood opportunities in tourism; Encouraging fishers to focus on invertebrates such as squid and shrimp, and discouraging reef-based fisheries; Allowing reasonable access, subject to appropriate management regulations (catch limits, seasonal restrictions, gear restrictions, etc.), within reefs designated as General Use Zones. In addition, to prevent pollution and habitat destruction, increased attention should be paid towards coastal tourism development and shrimp aquaculture in the area. All management actions should be implemented based on co-management partnerships between government agencies and local communities. 5. REFERENCES Agardy, T. 1993. Accomodating Ecotourism in Multiple Use Planning of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 20: 219-239. -. 2000. Information Needs for Marine Protected Areas: Scientific and Societal. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 875-888. Ahmad, W., and D. Neil. 1994. An evaluation of Landsat Thematic Mapper digital data for discriminating coral reef zonation: Heron Reef (GBR). International Journal of Remote Sensing 15: 2583-2597. Ahn, B., B. Lee, and C. Shafer. 2002. Operationalizing sustainability in regional tourism planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change framework. Tourism Management 23 : 1- 15. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs Alder, J. 1996. Have Tropical Marine Protected Areas Worked? An Initial Analysis of Their Success. Coastal Management 24: 97-1 14. Allen, G., and R. Steene. 1994. Indo-PaczJic Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research, Singapore.pp.378 Allison, W. 1996. Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldive islands. Coral Reefs 15: 215-218. AMSA 2003. Proposed Zoning Plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-AMSA Submission. Australian Marine Sciences Association. pp.Page 22 AMSA Bulletin 163 July 2003. http://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/AMSA-Submission- ProposedGBRZoninnPlan-Aun03.pdf. Date accessed: Sept.8,2003. Andrefouet, S., and C. Payri. 2000. Scaling-up carbon and carbonate metablism of coral reefs using in-situ data and remote sensing. Coral Reefs 19: 259-269. Anonymous. 2003. Island under construction. The Bangkok Post. April 13, 2003. Available online: http://search.banakokpost.co.th/bkknews.query.asp. Aronson, R., and W. Precht. 1995. Landscape patterns of reef coral diversity: a test of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 192: 1-14. Baird, A., and P. Marshall. 2002. Mortality, growth, and reproduction in scleractinian corals following bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 237: 133-141. Barker, N., and C. Roberts. 2004. Scuba diver behaviour and the management of diving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation 120: 48 1-489. Beaumont, N. 2001. Ecotourism and the Conservation Ethic: Recruiting the Uninitiated or Preaching to the Converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9: 342-3 55. Beccaloni, G., and K. Gaston. 1995. Predicting the species richness of neotropical forest butterflies: Ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) as indicators. Biological Conservation 71 : 77-86. Beger, M., G. Jones, and P. Munday. 2003. Conservation of coral reef biodiversity: a comparison of reserve selection procedures for corals and fishes. Biological Conservation 1 11 : 53-62. Bellwood, D., T. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nystrom. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429: 827-833. Bennett, M. 2002. Scuba Diving Tourism in Phuket, Thailand: Pursuing Sustainability. M.A.Thesis. Dept. of Geography, Victoria, British Columbia. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621-630. Berkes, F., P. George, and R. Preston. 1991. The evolution of the theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18: 12-18. Bigne, J., M. Sanchez, and J. Sanchez. 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tourism Management 22: 607-616. Bonferroni, C. 1936. Calcolo delle assicurazioni su gruppi di teste. Studii in onore del prof. S.O. Carboni. 1st Sup. Sci. Econ. Comm. Firenze (Roma) 8: 1-62. Boonchenn, C. 1999. The seasonal cycle of residualflows and the tidal currents in the Gulfof Thailand by using the long-term observed data from the SEA WATCH Thailand Program. M.Sc.Thesis. Department of Ocean Science, University of Wales, Bangor., University of Wales. Boonprakob, R., and A. Chankong. 2000. Occurrence of Coral Bleaching in the Gulf of Thailand in 1998. Pages E2, p.373. Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia. Bradbury, R., Y. Loya, R. Reichelt, and W. Williams. 1986. Patterns in the structural typology of benthic communities on two coral reefs of the central Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 4: 161 - 167. Brandon, K. 1996. Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues. The World Bank. Washington, D.C., USA. pp.56 Brown, B. 1997. Disturbances to reefs in recent times. Pages 43-67 in C. Birkeland, ed. Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman & Hall, New York.pp.43-67 Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168: 6-17. Brunson, M., and B. Shelby. 1993. Recreation Substitutability-A Research Agenda. Leisure Sciences 15: 67-74. Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9: 174-1 87. -. 2000. Recreation specialization revisited. Journal of Leisure Research 3 1: 18-21. Budowski, G. 1976. Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3: 27-3 1. Bunce, L., K. Gustavson, K. Williams, and M. Miller. 1999. The human side of reef management: a case study analysis of the socioeconomic framework of Montego Bay Marine Park. Coral Reefs 18: 369-380. Burke, L., L. Selig, and M. Spalding 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute & UNEP-WCMC. Washington, DC & Cambridge, UK. Burton, R. 1998. Maintaining the Quality of Ecotourism: Ecotour Operators' Responses to Tourism Growth. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6: 117-142. Butler, R. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution-implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer 24: 5- 12. -. 1993. Tourism-an evolutionary perspective. Pages 27-43 in J. Nelson, R. Butler, and G. Wall, eds. Tourism and Sustainable Development Monitoring, Planning, and Managing. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.pp.27-43 -. 2000. Tourism and national parks: issues and implications in R. Butler and S. Boyd, eds. Tourism and nationalparks in the twenty-first century. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England Bythell, J., Z. Hillis-Starr, and C. Rogers. 2000. Local variability but landscape stability in coral reef communities following repeated hurricane impacts. Marine Ecology Progress Series 204: 93- 100. Carter, D. 2003. Protected areas in marine resource management: another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 439-456. Cesar, H. 2003. Coral Bleaching in Indian Ocean States in 1998: Socio-Economic Assessment of Reef Based Tourism. Pages 18-19 in C. Wilkinson, A. Green, J. Almany, and S. Dionne, eds. Monitoring Coral ReefMarine Protected Areas: A Practical Guide on How Monitoring Can Support Effective Management of MPAs. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) & IUCN Marine Pr0gram.p~.18-1 9 Chettamart, S., and D. Emphandhu. 2002. Experience with Coastal and Marine Protected Area Planning and Management in Thailand. Pages 113- 136 in P. Dearden, ed. Environmental Protection and Rural Development in Thailand: Challenges and Opportunities. White Lotus, Bangk0k.p~.113-1 36 Chotiyaputta, C., P. Nootrnorn, and K. Jirapunpipat. 2002. Review of cephalopod fishery production and long term changes in fish communities in the Gulf of Thailand. Bulletin ofMarine Science 7 1: 223-23 8. Chou, L. 1997. The Status of Southeast Asian Coral Reefs. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama. Clarke, R., and G. Stankey 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A framework for planning, management, and research. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98. Cohen, E. 1996. "Unspoilt and Enchanting": Island Tourism in Southern Thailand in Cohen, ed. Thai Tourism: Hill Tribes, Islands, and Open-Ended Prostitution. White Lotus Co., Ltd., Bangkok Cole, D., and S. McCool. 1998. Limits of Acceptable Change and Natural Resources Planning: When is LAC Useful, When is it Not? in S. McCool and D. Cole, eds. Proceedings-Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning processes: progress and future directions. May 20-22, Missoula, MT, USA. General Technical Report INT-GTR-3 71. Ogden, Utah. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. http://leopold.wilderness.net/con fivorWlimits. htm Colgan, M. 1987. Coral reef recovery on Guam (Micronesia) after catastrophic predation by Acanthaster planci. Ecology 68: 1592- 1605. Connell, J. 1997a. Disturbance and recovery of coral assemblages. Coral Reefs S 16: S101-S113. Connell, J., T. Hughes, and C. Wallace. 1997b. A 30-year study of coral abundance, recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecological Monographs 67: 461 -488. Costanza, R., and B. Patten. 1995. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics 15: 193-196. CRA. 2003. Coral Friendly Snorkeling Guidelines. Coral Reef Alliance. Craik, W. 1992. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Its establishment, development, and current status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25. -. 1996. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia: A Model for Regional Management. Natural Areas Journal 16: 344-352. Dam, G. 198 1. Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 187- 2 19. Davis, D., and C. Tisdell. 1996. Economic management of recreational scuba diving and the environment. Journal of Environmental Management 48: 229-248. Dearden, P. 1989. Wilderness and Our Common Future. Natural Resources Journal 29: 205-22 1. Dept.- of - Fisheries. 1999. Coral ReefMaps in Thai Waters. Fisheries Resources Management Project, Bangkok, Thailand.pp.284 + 198 DeVantier, L., G. De'Ath, T. Done, and E. Turak. 1998. Ecological assessment of a complex natural system: a case study from the Great Barrier Reef. Ecological Applications 8: 480-496. Dharmaratne, G., F. Sang, and L. Walling. 2000. Tourism potentials for financing protected areas. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 590-610. Dixon, J., L. Scura, and T. Van'tHof. 1993. Meeting ecological and economic goals- marine parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22: 117-125. Done, T. 1995. Ecological criteria for evaluating coral reefs and their implications for managers and researchers. Coral Reefs 14: 183- 192. Donnelly, M., J. Vaske, D. Whitakker, and B. Shelby. 2000. Toward an understanding of norm prevalance: A comparative analysis of 20 years of research. Environmental Management 25: 403-41 4. Drechsler, M., and M. Burgrnan. 2004. Combining population viability analysis with decision analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 115- 139. Driver, B., and D. Bruns. 2001. Concepts and Uses of the Benefits Approach to Leisure. Pages 349-369 in E. Jackson and T. Burton, eds. Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania.pp.349-369 Driver, B., and S. Tocher. 1970. Toward a Behavioral Interpretation of Recreational Engagements, With Implications for Planning. Pages 9-3 1 in B. Driver, ed. Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.pp.9-31 Duffus, D., and P. Dearden. 1990. Nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation-a conceptual framework. Biological Conservation 53: 213-23 1. Dugan, J. E., and G. E. Davis. 1993. Applications of marine harvest refugia to coastal fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 2029-2042. Dustin, D., and L. McAvoy. 1982. The decline and fall of quality recreation opportunities and environments. Environmental Ethics 4: 49-57. Edgar, G., and N. Barrett. 1997. Short term monitoring of biotic change in Tasmanian marine reserves. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 21 3: 261 - 279. Edinger, E., and M. Risk. 2000. Reef classification by coral morphology predicts coral reef conservation value. Biological Conservation 92: 1-13. English, S., C. Wilkinson, and V. Baker. 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources, 2nd Edition. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), Townsville, Australia ESCAP 1995. Guidelines on Environmentally Sound Development of Coastal Tourism. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations. New York. Fitt, W., B. Brown, M. Warner, and R. Dunne. 2001. Coral bleaching: interpretation of thermal tolerance limits and thermal thresholds in tropical corals. Coral Reefs 20: 51-65. Fowler, F. 1993. Survey Research Methods-2nd Edition. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, California Frid, A., and L. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6: 11. Friedlander, A., E. Brown, P. Jokiel, W. Smith, and K. Rodgers. 2003. Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago. Coral Reefs 22: 291 -305. Gaines, S., B. Gaylord, and J. Largier. 2003. Avoiding Current Oversights in Marine Reserve Design. Ecological Applications 13: S32-S46. Gaston, K. 1996a. Biodiversity-Congruence. Progress in Physical Geography 20: 105- 112. -. 1996b. Spatial covariance in the species richness of higher taxa in M. Hochberg, M. Clobert, and R. Barbault, eds. The genesis and maintenance of biological diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Gaston, K., and P. Williams. 1993. Mapping the world's species-the higher taxon approach. Biodiversity Letters 1: 2-8. GBRMPA 1992. Basis for Zoning: The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Cairns Section and the Cairns Marine Park, 1992. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. - 2003a. Zoning. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia.http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp site/management/zoning.html. Date accessed: Sept.5,2003. - 2003b. Tourism on the Great Barrier ReeJ: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia. http://www.gbrmpa.nov.au/corp sitekey issues/tourism/tourism on gbr.htm1. Date accessed: Sept. 5,2003. - 2003c. Draft Zoning Plan. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia. http://www.reefed.edu.au/rap/overview/drazonplan.html. Date accessed: Sept. 6,2003. - 2003d. The Representative Areas Program: Downloadable Documents. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia. htt~://www.reefed.edu.au/ra~/docs/.Date accessed: Sept. 9,2003. Geister, J. 1977. The influence of wave exposure on the ecological zonation of caribbean coral reefs. Pages 1:23-29. Proceedings of the 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium. Gell, F., and C. Roberts. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448-455. Gilman, E. 1997. Community Based and Multiple Purpose Protected Areas: A Model to Select and Manage Protected Areas with Lessons from the Pacific Islands. Coastal Management 25: 59-9 1. Gladstone, W. 2000. The ecological and social basis for management of a Red Sea marine protected area. Ocean & Coastal Management 43 : 1015- 1032. Glasser, J., and H. Price. 1982. Niche theory: new insights from an old paradigm. Journal of Theoretical Biology 99: 437-460. -. 1988. Evaluating expectations deduced from explicit hypotheses about mechanisms of competition. Oikos 5 1: 57-70. Glynn, P. 1993. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12: 1- 17. Gomez, E., P. Alino, H. Yap, and W. Licuanan. 1994. A review of the status of Philippine reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 29. Graefe, A., and J. Vaske. 1987. A framework for managing quality in the tourist experience. Annals of Tourism Research 14: 390-405. Grigg, R. 1994. Effects of sewage discharge, fishing pressure, and habitat complexity on coral ecosystems and reef fishes in Hawaii. Marine Ecology Progress Series 103: 25-34. Grigg, R., and J. Maragos. 1974. Recolonization of hermatypic corals on lava1 flows in Hawaii. Ecology 55: 387-394. Haider, W., and M. Johnston. 1992. Tourism and community development. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 580-583. Hall, C., and A. Lew. 1998. Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Hall, T., and J. Roggenbuck. 2002. Response format effects in questions about norms: Implications for the reliability and validity of the normative approach. Leisure Sciences 24: 325-337. Halpern, B., and R. Warner. 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and long lasting effects. Ecological Letters 5: 36 1-6. Hammitt, W., and D. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation-Ecology and Management-2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.pp.361 Harriott, V., D. David, and S. Banks. 1997. Recreational diving and its impact in marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio 26: 173-179. Harrison, P., R. Babcock, G. Bull, J. Oliver, C. Wallace, and B. Willis. 1984. Mass spawning in tropical reef corals. Science 223: 1186-1 189. Hatcher, B. 1999. Varieties of science for coral reef management. Coral Reefs 18: 305- 306. Hawkins, J., and C. Roberts. 1992. Effects of recreational scuba diving on fore-reef slope communities of coral reefs. Biological Conservation 62: 171 - 178. -. 1993. Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs: trampling on reef-flat communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 30: 25-30. -. 1994. The growth of coastal tourism in the Red Sea : present and future effects on coral reefs. Ambio 23: 503-508. -. 1996. Estimating the Canying Capacity of Coral Reefs for Scuba Diving. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium. University of York, York, UK., Panama. Hawkins, J., C. Roberts, T. Van'tHof, K. deMeyer, J. Tratalos, and C. Aldam. 1999. Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology 13: 888-897. Heberlein, and B. Shelby. 1977. Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: a reply to Greist. Journal of Leisure Research 9: 142-148. Heywood, J., J. Christenson, and G. Stankey. 1991. The relationship between biophysical and social setting factors in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Leisure Sciences 13: 239-246. Heywood, J., and W. Murdock. 2002. Social norms in recreation: Searching for the behaviour-condition link. Leisure Sciences 24: 283-295. Hiatt, R., and D. Straburg. 1960. Ecological relationships of the fish fauna on coral reefs of the Marshall Islands. Ecological Monographs 30: 65-127. Hilborn, R., K. Stokes, J. Maguire, T. Smith, L. W. Botsford, M. Mangel, J. Orensanz, A. Parma, J. Rice, J. Bell, K. L. Cochrane, S. Garcia, S. J. Hall, G. P. Kirkwood, K. Sainsbury, G. Stefansson, and C. Walters. 2004. When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 197-205. Holling, C. 2000. Theories for Sustainable Futures. Conservation Ecology 4: 7-1 1. Holloway, J. 1982. The guided tour: a sociological approach. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 137-148. Hum, T., J. Beaman, and L. Shelby. 2002. Using Action Grids in Tourism Management. Tourism Management 7: 61-77. Hubbard, D. 1997. Reefs as dynamic systems in C. Birkeland, ed. Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman & Hall, New York Hughes, T. 1989. Community structure and diversity of coral reefs: the role of history. Ecology 70: 275-279. -. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265: 1547-155 1. Hughes, T., A. Baird, D. Bellwood, M. Card, S. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, 0. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S. Palumbi, J. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 30: 929-933. Hughes, T., D. Bellwood, and S. Connolly. 2002. Biodiversity hotspots, centres of endemicity, and the conservation of coral reefs. Ecology Letters 5: 775-784. Hughes, T., and J. Connell. 1999. Multiple stressors on coral reefs: a long-term perspective. Limnology & Oceanography 44: 932-940. Hungspreungs, M., W. Utoomprurkporn, and C. Nitithamyong. 2000. The Gulf of Thailand. Pages 297-308 in C. Sheppard, ed. Seas at the Millenium: An Environmental Evaluation. Elsevier Science.pp.297-308 Hunter, M. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA, USA Hutasingh, O., and S. Susanpoolthong. 2002. Special zone move backed by cabinet. The Bangkok Post. 23 June, 2002. Available online: http://search.bangkokpost. co. th/bkknews/quew. asp Huybers, T., and J. Bennett. 2003. Environmental management and the competitiveness of nature-based tourism destinations. Environmental and Resource Economics 24: 213-233. Inglis, G., V. Johnson, and F. Ponte. 1999. Crowding norms in marine settings: a case study of snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Management 24: 369-381. Inskeep, E. 1987. Environmental Planning for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 14: 118-135. Jackson, E., and K. Henderson. 1995. Gender-based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 17: 3 1-51. Jackson, J., M. Kirby, W. Berger, K. Bjorndal, L. Botsford, B. Bourque, R. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. Estes, T. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. Lange, H. Lenihan, J. Pandolfi, C. Peterson, R. Steneck, M. Tegner, and R. Warner. 2001. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science 293: 629- 637. Jackson, W. 1988. Research Methods: Rules for Survey Design and Analysis. Prentice- Hall Canada Inc., Scarborough, Ontario Jacob, G., and R. Schreyer. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12: 368-3 80. Jameson, S., M. Ammar, E. Saadealla, H. Mostafa, and B. Riegl. 1999. A coral damage index and its application to diving sites in the Egyptian Red Sea. Coral Reefs 18: 333-339. Kaplan, R., and J. Talbot. 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning 15: 107-1 17. Karlson, R. 1999. Dynamics of coastal communities. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston Kay, A., and M. Liddle. 1989. Impact of Human Trampling in Different Zones of a Coral Reef Flat. Environmental Management 13: 509-520. Kean, G. 2001. Development of Hydrodynamic Modelling in the Gulf of Thailand by using SEAWATCH Data. Pages 74-97. Seminar on "The Seawatch Programmes in Asian Countries".pp.74-97 Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelinesfor Marine Protected Areas. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK Kenchington, R. 1989. Zoning Fringing Reefs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Townsville, Queensland, Australia, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. -. 1993. Tourism in Coastal and Marine Environments-A Recreational Perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management 19: 1- 16. Kenchington, R., and G. Kelleher. 1995. Making a Management Plan. Pages 85-1 18 in S. Gubbay, ed. Marine Protected Areas: principles and techniquesfor management. Chapman & Hall, London.pp.85-118 Kleypas, J., R. Buddemeier, D. Archer, J. Gattuso, C. Langdon, and B. Opdyke. 1999. Geochemical consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on coral reefs. Science 284: 1 18-120. Knopf, R. 1990. People and Protected Natural Environments: Emerging Research Concerns. Towards Sewing Visitors and Managing Our Resources: Proceedings of a North American Workshop on Visitor Management in Parks and Protected Areas. Feb. 14-1 7, 1989, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Pp.107-117 Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and Multiple Stable States in Coral Reef Community Dynamics. American Zoologist 32: 674-682. Kobayashi, A. 1984. Regeneration and regrowth of fragmented colonies of the hermatypic corals Acropora formosa and Acropora nasuta. Galaxea 3: 13-23. Korhonen, P., H. Moskowitz, and J. Wallenius. 1992. Multiple criteria decision support-a review. European Journal of Operational Research 63 : 361-375. Krebs, C. 1994. Ecology-4th edition. Harper-Collins College Publishers Kuentzel, W., and T. Heberlein. 1992. Cognitive and behavioural adaptations to perceived crowding: a panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Research 24: 3 77-393. Kuss, F., A. Graefe, and J. Vaske 1990. Visitor Impact management: A review of research. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association. Laffoley, D. 1995. Techniques for managing marine protected areas: zoning. Pages 103- 118 in S. Gubbay, ed. Marine protected areas: principles and techniquesfor management. Chapman and Hall, London.pp. 103-1 1 8 Lambsdorff, J. 2003.2002 Corruption Perceptions Index. In: Global Corruption Report 2003, pp. 262-265. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.ora/about ti/annual rep/ar 2003/annual report 2003.pdf Levin, S. 1998. Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems. Ecosystems 1: 43 1-436. Liddle, M., and A. Kay. 1987. Resistance, Survival and Recovery of Trampled Corals on the Great Barrier Reef. Biological Conservation 42: 1-18. Lime, D., and G. Stankey. 1971. Carrying capacity: maintaining outdoor recreation quality. Recreation: symposium proceedings, Syracuse, NY, Otc. 12-14, 1971, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Lindberg, K., and S. McCool. 1998. A critique of environmental carrying capacity as a means of managing the effects of tourism development. Environmental Consewation 25: 291 -291. Lindberg, K., S. McCool, and G. Stankey. 1997. Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism Research 24: 461 -5. Lubchenco, J., S. Palumbi, S. Gaines, and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: The emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S3- S7. Luckhurst, B., and K. Luckhurst. 1978. Analysis of the influence of substrate variables on coral reef communities. Marine Biology 49: 3 17-323. Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons From History. Science 260: 17,36. Lunn, K. 2003. Small-Scale Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas: A Case Study of KO Chang Marine National Park, Thailand. M.Sc.Thesis. Geography, University of Victoria. Maduram, G. 1972. Range Management. Alberta Forest Service. Edmonton. Mannell, R. 1999. 'Leisure Experience and Satisfaction'. Pages 235-252 in E. Jackson and T. Burton, eds. Understanding Leisure and Recreation: Mapping the Past, Charting the Future. Venture Publishing, Stage College, Pennsylania.pp.235-252 Mannell, R., and D. Kleiber. 1997. A Social Psychology of Leisure. Venture Publishing., State College, Pennsylvania Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction- 2nd edition. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon -. 2000. Coming of Age: History and Trends in Outdoor Recreation Research. Pages 12 1-130 in W. Garner and D. Lime, eds. Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. CAB1 Publishing, New York, NY.pp. 121-1 30 Manning, R., D. Johnson, and M. VandeKamp. 1996b. Norm congruence among tour boat passengers to Glacier National Park. Leisure Sciences 18: 125-141. Manning, R., D. Lime, W. Freimund, and D. Pitt. 1996a. Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18: 39- 59. Maragos, J. 1992. Restoring Coral Reefs with Emphasis on Pacific Reefs. Pages 141-22 1 in G. Thayer, ed. Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment. Maryland Sea Grant Book, College Park, MD.pp. 141-22 1 Marshall, P. 2000. Skeletal damage in reef corals: relating resistance to colony morphology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 200: 177-189. Martilla, J., and J. James. 1977. Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing 41 : 77-79. McClanahan, T. 1999a. The effects of marine parks and fishing on coral reefs of northern Tanzania. Biological Conservation 89: 161 - 182. -. 1999b. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 18: 321-325. -. 2002. The near future of coral reefs. Environmental Conservation 29: 460-483. -. 2004. The relationship between bleaching and mortality of common corals. Marine Biology 144: 1239-1245. McCool, S. 1990. Limits of Acceptable Change: Some Principles. Pages 195-199. Towards Serving Visitors and Managing Our Resources: Proceedings of a North American Workshop on Visitor Management in Parks and Protected Areas, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Feb. 14-17, 1989. - 2004. Devils, Details and Dilemmas in the Search for Sustainable Tourism. Paper presented at the University of Maine, April 8, 2004. Available online: http://www.forestw.umt.edu/~ersonnel/Faculty/smmcool.Date Accessed: May 31, 2004. McCool, S., and D. Cole 1998. Proceedings-Limits ofAcceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR. McCool, S., and G. Stankey. 2003. Advancing the Dialogue of Visitor Management: Expanding Beyond the Culture of Technical Control. Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The George Wright Society Biennial Conference, San Diego, California, April 14-1 8,2003. McFarlane, B., P. Boxall, and D. Watson. 1998. Past Experience and Behavioral Choice Among Wilderness Users. Journal of Leisure Research 30: 195-213. Medio, D., R. Ormond, and M. Pearson. 1997. Effect of briefings on rates of damage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation 79: 9 1- 105. Meesters, E., M. Noordeloos, and R. Bak. 1994. Damage and regeneration: links to growth in the reef-building coral Montastrea annularis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 119-128. Mihalic, T. 2000. Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management 2 1: 65-78. Miller, C., and A. Graefe. 2000. Degree and range of specialization across related hunting activities. Leisure Sciences 22: 195-204. Miller, K., and C. Mundy. 2003. Rapid settlement in broadcast spawning corals: implications for larval dispersal. Coral Reefs 22: 99-106. Miller, M., A. Bourque, and J. Bohnsack. 2002. An analysis of the loss of acroporid corals at Looe Key, Florida, USA: 1983-2000. Coral Reefs 21 : 179-182. Moberg, F., and P. Ronnback. 2003. Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration. Ocean & Coastal Management 46: 27- 46. Moscardo, G. 1999. Supporting Ecologically Sustainable Tourism on the Great Barrier Reef: The Importance of Visitor Research. 1999 CAUTHE National Research Conference, 236-253. Mumby, P., A. Edwards, J. Arias-Gonzalez, K. Lindeman, P. Blackwell, A. Gall, M. Gorczynska, A. Harborne, C. Pescod, H. Renken, C.Wabnitz, and G. Llewellyn. 2004. Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427: 533-536. Mundet, L., and L. Ribera. 2001. Characteristics of divers at a Spanish resort. Tourism Management 22: 501-5 10. Needham, M. 2004. The 'Other' Season at Ski Hills: Applying the Limits ofAcceptable Change (LAC) to a Study of Summer Alpine Recreation On and Adjacent to Whistler Mountain, B. C. M.A.Thesis. Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria. Neil, D. 1990. Potential for coral stress due to sediment resuspension and deposition by reef walkers. Biological Conservation 52: 22 1-227. Nettekoven, L. 1979. Mechanisms of Cultural Interaction. Pages 135- 145 in E. deKadt, ed. Tourism: Passport to Development? Oxford University Press, New York.pp.135-145 Nickerson-Tietze, D. 2000. Scientific characterization and monitoring: its application to Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Malaysia. Ecological Applications 10: 386-396. Ninio, R., and M. Meekan. 2002. Spatial patterns in benthic communities and the dynamics of a mosaic ecosystem on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs 21: 95-103. Noe, F., W. Hammitt, and R. Bixler. 1997. Park User Perceptions of Resource and Use Impacts Under Varied Situations in Three National Parks. Journal of Environmental Management 49: 323-336. Nowlis, J., C. Roberts, A. Smith, and E. Sirilia. 1997. Human-enhanced impacts of a tropical storm on nearshore coral reefs. Ambio 26: 51 5-521. Nybakken, J. 2000. Marine biology: an ecological approach. Pearson Benjarnin- Cummings, San Francisco OCESD 2002. Conceptual Plan for the Development and Management of Koh Chang. Office of the Committee on Economic and Social Development, Asian Engineering Consultants, Tara Consultants, Mahanakon Consultants. OEPP 2001. Marine Coastal Waters in the Gulfof Thailand and Andaman Sea. Office of Environmental Protection and Policy (OEPP), Pollution Control Department, Water Quality Management Division. Oh, H. 2001. Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management 22: 61 7-627. ONEB 1993. A National Coral Reef Strategy for nailand. Volume 2: Policies and Action Plan. Office of the National Environment Board, Thailand, University of Rhode Island, and US Agency for International Development. Bangkok, Thailand. pp.76 Orams, M. 1995. Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism. Tourism Management 16: 3-8. -. 1999. Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts, and Management. Routledge, London Oren, U., Y. Benayahu, H. Lubinevsky, and Y. Loya. 2001. Colony integration during regeneration in the stony coral Favia favus. Ecology 82: 802-813. Pandolfi, J., R. Bradbury, E. Sala, T. Hughes, K. Bjorndal, R. Cooke, D. McArdle, L. McClenachan, M. Newrnan, G. Paredes, R. Warner, and J. Jackson. 2003. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301 : 955- 958. Parks- Canada 1994. Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Parks Canada. Ottawa. Patton, W. 1994. Distribution and ecology of animals associated with branching corals (Acropora spp.) from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science 55. Pearson, D., and F. Cassola. 1992. World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidea): indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology 6: 376-391. Pearson, R. 1981. Review: Recovery and Recolonization of Coral Reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 4: 105-122. PEMSEA 2002. Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia. http://~emsea.or~envirostrate~y/iune2002/3contents.h&l.Dates Accessed: August 5, 16 & 19,2003. Pendleton, L. 1994. Environmental Quality and Recreation Demand in a Caribbean Coral Reef. Coastal Management 22: 399-404. Phongsuwan, N. 2000. Coral Reefs in Thailand. Pages 302-303 in C. Sheppard, ed. Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Elsevier Science.pp.302-303 Pimrn, S. 1991. The balance of nature? Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.pp.434 Pitcher, T. 2001. Fisheries managed to rebuild ecosystems? Reconstructing the past to salvage the future. Ecological Applications 11 : 601-61 7. Pittock, B. 1999. Coral reefs and environmental change: Adaptation to what? American Zoologist 10: 10-29. Plathong, S., G. Inglis, and M. Huber. 2000. Effects of self-guided snorkelling trails on corals in a tropical marine park. Conservation Biology 14: 1821 - 1833. Pollnac, R., B. Crawford, and M. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 44: 683-71 0. Precht, W., M. Robbart, and R. Aronson. 2004. The potential listing ofAcropora species under the US Endangered Species Act. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49: 534-536. Prendergast, J., R. Quinn, and J. Lawton. 1999. The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biology 13: 484-492. Price. 1998. Recreational Use of Coral Reefs in the Maldives and Caribbean. Pages 242- 260 in E. Millner-Gulland and R. Mace, eds. Conservation of Biological Resources. Blackwell Science, Oxford.pp.242-260 Raymundo, L., A. Maypa, and M. Luchavez. 1999. Coral seeding as a technology for recovering degraded coral reefs in the Philippines. Pages 8 1-93. Proceedings of an International Workshop on the Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems. Phuket Marine Biological Center, Department of Fisheries, Thailand, 19-24 January 1998.pp.81-93 Rayner, J. 1996. Implementing sustainability in west coast forests: CORE and FEMAT as Experiments in Process. Journal of Canadian Studies 3 1: 82-1 01. Reichelt, R., Y. Loya, and R. Bradbury. 1986. Patterns in the use of space by benthic communities on two coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 5: 73-79. Reynolds, P., and D. Braithwaite. 2001. Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management 22: 3 1-42. RFD 1996. Mu KO Chang National Park. Royal Forest Department. Bangkok. pp.2 - 2002. Handbook of Marine National Park Tourism. Royal Forest Department. Bangkok, Thailand. pp.2 1 Richardson, D. 1994. Coral Reef Destruction: Is Scuba Diving Destined to be the Scapegoat? The Undersea Journal Third Quarter. Riegl, B. 2002. Effects of the 1996 and 1998 positive sea-surface temperature anomalies on corals, coral diseases and fish in the Arabian Gulf (Dubai, UAE). Marine Biology 140: 29-40. Riegl, B., and A. Riegl. 1996. Studies on coral community structure and damage as a basis for zoning marine reserves. Biological Conservation 77: 269-277. Riegl, B., and Velimirov. 1991. How many damaged corals in Red Sea reef systems? A quantitative survey. Hydrobiologia 2 1612 17: 249-256. Risk, M. 1999. Paradise lost: how marine science failed the world's coral reefs. Marine & Freshwater Research 50: 83 1-837. Roberts, C. 1997. Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science 278: 1454-1457. -. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295: 1280-1284. Roberts, C., and R. Ormond. 1987. Habitat complexity and coral reef fish diversity and abundance on Red Sea fringing reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 41 : 1-8. Rodgers, K., and E. Cox. 2003. The effects of trampling on Hawaiian corals along a gradient of human use. Biological Conservation 112: 383-389. Rodgers, K., E. Cox, and C. Newston. 2003. Effects of Mechanical Fracturing and Experimental Trampling on Hawaiian Corals. Environmental Management 3 1: 377-384. Rogers, C., L. McLain, and E. Zullo. 1988. Damage to coral reefs in Virgin Islands National Park and Biosphere Reserve from recreational activities. Pages 2:405- 41 0. Proceedings of the Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium. Roggenbuck, J., D. Williams, and A. Watson. 1993. Defining Acceptable Conditions in Wilderness. Environmental Management 17: 187- 197. Rollins, R., and D. Robinson. 2002. Social Science, Conservation, and Protected Areas. Pages 117-147 in P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management-2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, 0ntario.p~.117-147 Rouphael, A., and G. Inglis. 1997. Impacts of Recreational Scuba Diving at Sites with Different Reef Topographies. Biological Conservation 82: 329-336. -. 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: 28 1-287. -. 2002. Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage caused by recreational scuba diving. Ecological Applications 12: 427-440. RTN 2003. Tide Tables: Thai Waters. Mae Nam Chaophraya-gulf of Thailand. Hydrographic Department, Royal Thai Navy. Bangkok, Thailand. Rudd, M., M. Tupper, H. Folmer, and G. van Kooten. 2003. Policy analysis for tropical marine reserves: challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries 4: 65-85. Ruitenbeek, J., and C. Cartier. 2000. Blue Pricing of Undersea Treasures-Use of Environmental Economics Research for Coral Reef Management in South East Asia. Pages C1: 187. Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia. Russ, G., and A. Alcala. 1999. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18: 307-3 19. Russell, J., and J. Snodgrass. 1987. Emotion and the environment. Pages 245-280 in D. Stokols and I. Altman, eds. Handbook of environmental psychology. John Wiley, New York.pp.245-280 Salant, P., and D. Dillman. 1995. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley, Toronto Sale, P. e. 1991. The ecology offishes on coral reefs. Academic Press, New York.pp.754 Salm, R. 1984. Ecological boundaries for coral reef reserves: principles and guidelines. Environmental Conservation 11 : 7- 13. Salm, R., J. Clark, and E. Sirilia. 2000. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guidefor Planners and Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Samabuddhi, K. 2002a. Grand tourism plan might be unrealistic, Plodprasop says. The Bangkok Post -. 2002b. Rush to boost tourism puts island in peril, say scientists. The Bangkok Post. 28 November, 2002. Available online: http://search.bangkobost. co. th/bkknews/quew.asp Sasidharan, V. 2002. Special Issue Introduction: Understanding Recreation and the Environment within the Context of Culture. Leisure Sciences 24: 1-11. Satapoomin, U. 2002. Comparative Study of the Reef Fish Fauna in Thai Waters: The Gulfof Thailand vs. The Andaman Sea. Phuket Marine Biological Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Technical paper no. 1. pp.41 Scheffer, M., C. Carpenter, J. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 41 3: 591-596. Schleyer, M., and B. Tomalin. 2000. Damage on South Afi-ican coral reefs and an assessment of their sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries approach. Bulletin of Marine Science 67: 1025-1042. Schomaker, J. 1984. Writing quantifiable river recreation management objectives. In: Proceedings, National River Recreation Symposium. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Pages 249-253. Schreyer, R., D. Lime, and D. Williams. 1984. Characterizing the Influence of Past Experience on Recreation Behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 16: 34-50. Scott, D., and C. Shafer. 2001. Recreational Specialization: A Critical Look at the Construct. Journal of Leisure Research 33 : 3 19-343. Seenprachawong, U. 2001. An economic analysis of coral reefs in the Andaman Sea of Thailand. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). IDRC, SIDA & CIDA. pp.5 Shafer, C., and G. Inglis. 2000. Influence of Social, Biophysical, and Managerial Conditions on Tourism Experiences Within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Environmental Management 26: 73-87. Shafer, C., G. Inglis, V. Johnson, and N. Marshall 1998. User experiences andperceived conditions of day use tourism on the Great Barrier Reej Towards a limits of acceptable change approach to planning and management. Technical Report No.21 CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. pp.73 Shafer, E. 1969. The average camper who doesn't exist. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-142, Northeast For. Exp. Stn. Upper Darby, PA. pp.27 Shannon, C., and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL Shelby, B., N. Bregenzer, and R. Johnson. 1988. Displacement and product shift- empirical evidence from Oregon rivers. Journal of Leisure Research 20: 274-288. Shelby, B., J. Vaske, and M. Donnelly. 1996. Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure Sciences 18 : 103 - 123. Shindler, B., and B. Shelby. 1995. Product Shift in Recreation Settings: Findings and Implications fi-om Panel Research. Leisure Sciences 17: 9 1- 107. Shim, E. 1966. Coral growth rate, an environmental indicator. Journal of Paleontology 40: 233-240. Shivlani, M., and D. Suman. 2000. Dive operator use patterns in the designated no-take zones of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management 25: 647-659. Siripong, A. 1985. The Hydrography of the South China Sea and the Gulfof Thailand: Waves, Tides and Currents. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). PP. 253 PP. Smith, S. 1992. Patterns of Coral Recruitment and Post-settlement Mortality on Bermuda's Reefs: Comparisons to Caribbean and Pacific Reefs. ~m&ican Zoologist 32: 663-673. Sorice, M., C. Shafer, and D. Scott. 2004. Managing endangered species within the uselpreservation paradox: Understanding and defining harassment of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Coastal Management 3 1: 3 19-338. Stankey, G. 1989. Linking Parks to People: The Key to Effective Management. Society & Natural Resources 2: 245-250. Stankey, G., D. Cole, R. Lucas, M. Petersen, and S. Frissell 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. USDA. Forest Sewice General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Stankey, G., S. McCool, and G. Stokes. 1984. Limits of Acceptable Change: A New Framework for Managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Western Wildlands 10: 33-3 7; Retrieved from: http://www.forestrv.umt.eddacademics/courses/Recm485/Articles/stankev%2Oan d%2Oothers.pdf, April 13,2004. Stern, P., and T. Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. Journal of Social Issues 50: 65-84. Stewart, W., and D. Cole. 2003. Number of Encounters and Experience Quality in Grand Canyon Backcountry: Consistently Negative and Weak Relationships. Journal of Leisure Research 33: 106-120. Sudara, S., T. Thamrongnawasawat, and C. Sookchanuluk. 1991. Artificial Classification of Coral Communities in the Gulf of Thailand. Pages 347-362 in A. Alcala, ed. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Living Resources in Coastal Areas, Manila. University of the Philippines, Manila. Susanpoolthong, S. 2002. Agency running island gets wide powers. The Bangkok Post. 22 June, 2002. httu://search.banakokpost. co. th/bkknews/quevy. asp Susanpoolthong, S., and 0. Hutasingh. 2002. Investors rush to evade tight curbs. The Bangkok Post Suvapepun, S. 1991. Long-Term Ecological Changes in the Gulf of Thailand. Marine Pollution Bulletin 23 : 2 13-2 17. Taemsamran, J. 2002. The calm before the storm: Who will control the exploitation of tourism development? The Bangkok Post.February 21,2002. Available online: http://~earch.ban&okpost.co.th/bkknews/query.asp Talge, H. 1992. Impact of recreational divers on scleractinian corals at Looe Key, Florida. Pages 2: 1077-1082. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium. Thai- Meteorological Department 2003. Climate for Tourism / Climatic Tables: Trad. httu://w.tmd.ao.th/uroaram/tour show detail ea.phu. Theberge, M. 2002. Monitoring Marine Protected Areas in Thailand: Reef Fish, Whale Sharks and Divers. M.Sc.Thesis. Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria. Thongtham, N., and H. Chansang. 1999. Influence of surface complexity on coral recruitment at Maiton Island, Phuket, Thailand. Pages 93-101. Proceedings of an International Workshop on the Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems. Phuket Marine Biological Center, Department of Fisheries, Thailand, 19-24 January 1998.pp.93-101 TISTR 1998. Final Report Summary: A Study to Determine the Pattern of Marine Ecotourism Management. Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research. Submitted to: Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), June 1998. Tratalos, J., and T. Austin. 2001. Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coral communities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman. Biological Conservation 102: 67-75. UNEP. 2003. UNEP Principles on Implementation of Sustainable Tourism. United Nations Environment Programme. UNESCO 1985. Human induced damage to coral reefs: Results of a Regional UNESCO (COMAR) workshop with advanced training, Diponegro University, Jepara and National Institute of Oceanology, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 1985. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. pp. 180 UP-MSI, ABC, ARCBC, DENR, and ASEAN 2002. Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia. ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources. Los Banos, Philippines. pp. 142 (+lo maps) Valentine, P., D. Newling, and D. Wachenfeld 1997. The estimation of visitor use from GBRMPA data returns. Technical Report #14. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. Van Nes, E., and M. Scheffer. 2003. Alternative attractors may boost uncertainty and sensitivity in ecological models. Ecological Modelling 159: 117-124. Vanclay, F. 1988. Touristperceptions of the Great Barrier ReeJ: Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Institute of Applied Environmental Research, GrifJith University, Australia. Vane-Wright, R., C. Hurnphries, and P. Williams. 1991. What to protect?-systematics and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55: 235-254. Vaske, J., R. Beman, R. Stanley, and M. Grenier. 1996. Importance-Performance and Segmentation: Where do we go fiom here? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5: 225-240. Vaske, J., and M. Donnelly. 2002. Generalizing the encounter-norm-crowding relationship. Leisure Sciences 24: 255-269. Veal, A. 1997. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide-2nd edition. Pitman Publishing, Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management Veron, J. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. Angus & Robertson, Sydney, Australia.pp.644 Veron, J., and M. Stafford-Smith. 2002. CORAL ID: An Electronic Key to the Scleractinian Corals of the World-Release I. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Villa, F., L. Tunesi, and T. Agardy. 2002. Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria analysis: the case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conservation Biology 16: 5 15-526. Virdin, R., and R. Schreyer. 1988. Recreation Specialization as an Indicator of Environmental Preference. Environment and Behavior 20: 721 -739. Waewklaihong, J. 1998. Governor calls for law change to allow park development. The Bangkok Post. Availabel online: http:http://search.bangkobost. co. th/bkknews/querv.asp. Date accessed: Sept. 15, 2003 -. 2002. SunCity Group among investors sizing up tourism opportunities. The Bangkok Post. Available online: http://search. bangkobost.co. th/bkknews/query.asp. Date accessed: Sept. 15, 2003 Walmsley, S., and A. White. 2003. Influence of social, management, and enforcement factors on the long-term ecological effects of marine sanctuaries. Environmental Conservation 30: 388-407. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McMillan Publishing, New York Walters, R., and M. Samways. 2001. Sustainable dive ecotourism on a South African coral reef. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 2 167-2179. Wangvipula, R. 2003. Developers encroach on forest, shoreline. The Bangkok Post. Friday, May 9, 2003. Available online: http://search. bangkobost.co. th/bkknews/query.asp. Date accessed: Sept. 15, 2003 Weiler, B., and D. Davis. 1993. An exploratory investigation into the roles of the nature- based tour leader. Tourism Management 14: 91 -8. Wilkinson, C. 1998. Status of coral reefs of the world: 1998. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). Williams, I., and N. Polunin. 2000. Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental Conservation 27: 382-391. Willis, T., R. Millar, R. Babcock, and N. Tolimieri. 2003. Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves: putting Descartes before des horse? Environmental Conservation 30: 97- 103. Wong, P. 1998. Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia: relevance and lessons for coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management 38: 89-109. Woodland, D., and J. Hooper. 1977. The effect of human trampling on coral reefs. Biological Conservation 11 : 1-4. WWF 2003. Great Barrier Reef Campaign. Draft Zoning Plan-Submission to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 21st July 2003. World Wildlife Fund Australia. http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/WWFDZPSubmission.pdf Date accessed: Sept.8,2003. Yeemin, T. 1995. Coral Recruitment: The Proper Way for Coral Reef Rehabilitation. Pages 87-91 in M. Zaki, M. Terazaki, M. Arnbak, and M. Shahreza, eds. JSPS- VCC Joint Seminar on Marine Science. Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.pp.87-91 Yeemin, T., N. Ruengsawang, and J. Buaruand. 2001. Coral Reef Management Strategy Policies in Thailand: Lessons Learnt for a Decade. 5th International Conference on the Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas, Kobe & Awaji Island, Japan. Abstract: htt~://www.emecs.or.i~/emecs2001/abstracts/~azre/5/5- 233.htm. Yeemin, T., N. Ruengsawang, and S. Sudara. 1999a. Coral reef ecosystem in Thailand. Pages 30-41 in C. Koh, ed. Proceedings of the 1st Korea-Thailand Joint Workshop on Comparison of Coastal Environment, Seoul, South Korea. Zakai, D., and N. Chadwick-Furman. 2002. Impacts of intensive recreational diving on reef corals at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Biological Conservation 105: 179-187. Ziffer, K. 1989. Ecotourism: the Uneasy Alliance. Conservation International and Ernst & Young. Washington, D.C. APPENDIX A: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER YEAR TAKING DAY-TRIP SNORKELLING TOURS IN THE MU KOH CHANG NATIONAL MARINE PARK TABLE A1 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS (HEAD COUNTS OF SNORKELLERS) -Site -Date Day amlpm max. # of people* Chang Noi & Ma Pring Feb.21, 2003 Friday am 10 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Friday pm 10 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Saturday pm 12 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Saturday pm 30 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Sunday pm 65 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Sunday am 90 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Thursday pm 12 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Sunday pm 12 Chang Noi & Ma Pring Sunday am 14 Koh Man Nok Thursday pm 2 Koh Rang Wednesday full day 25 Koh Rang Sunday full day 90 Koh Rang area Thursday full day 35 Koh Yuak Saturday pm I80 Koh Yuak Monday pm 20 Koh Yuak Tuesday am 45 Koh Yuak Wednesday am 40 Koh Yuak Saturday pm 150 Koh Yuak Thursday pm 20 Koh Yuak Tuesday am 11 Koh Yuak Wednesday am 35 Koh Yuak Wednesday pm 75 Koh Yuak Friday pm 25 Koh Yuak Sunday am 60 Koh Yuak Sunday pm 40 Laem chang NoiW Monday am 6 LaemChangNoiW Saturday am 14 TABLE. . A2 Estimated Number- - .. of Snorkellers-..- ." Per -.Year.r ..---I-.--..----- At Each Site '. ..-..- ... .- I t. - L L L-. _.-iT-l__l1 estimated_____---__ _-_* ; j mean # 1 mean mean #I mean # : visits er ' . ."---. 1--- 111-' #I-.-.---''-- -t--- i e.. ..., ion weekcon week-jon week-?on week- estimated i year (24-week: ' - -- 4! -.i I I ends I ends i visits tourist J--- -.+.."- -- .----.-- .----_ --&: (am).----...v.---"---. 1 (pm) / Per week1~------season) 52 j 30 1 269 6500 --+.--4- L 141 0 58 j A --.r--- - .--I 14-7-"---- 1400 '0,2 i 350 APPENDIX B: Estimated number of logged SCUBA dives in the Mu Koh Chaw National Marine Park Table B1: Estimated Amount of SCUBA Divine in the MPA at Koh Chang, Based on on Semi-Stuctured Interviews With Dive Tour Companies APPENDIX C: Publicati IS on the effects of physical tramplin~on coral rl ' ecosystems. Reference Brief Description of Study Location Followed divers, recording contacts and damage to corals. Assessed the effects of: -a single sentence asking divers to avoid contact with the reef St. Lucia (Barker and Roberts 2004) -intervention of dive leaders in the event of diver contact with the reef -photographers vs. non-photographers -shore dives vs. boat dives (Rodgers and Cox 2003) Measured coral growth, mortality, and Hawaii survivorship'along a gradient of human use (i) Experimental trampling by volunteers (Rodgers et al. 2003) wearing fins (ii) Testing of mechanical skeletal Hawaii compression strength Great Barrier (Rouphael and Inglis 2002) Experimental before-after-controlled-impact Reef, Australia studies, for dived & undived sites (Zakai and Chadwick- Assessed patterns of dive frequency, diver Furman 2002) behaviour, and coral damage on selected reefs Eilat, Red Sea, Israel Followed recreational divers, recording all (Rouphael and Inglis 2001) contacts and damage to corals; examined Great Barrier differences between tourists with and without Xeef, Australia Icameras (Tratalos and Austin 2001) Comparative study of coral communities at sites Cayman r- with high diver use, low diver use, and no use Islands (Walters and Samways Measured reef damage at scuba dive sites, South 200 1) observed diver contacts and damage rates Africa Visual estimates of reef damage and (Schleyer and Tomalin determination of the origin of impacts, based on South Africa direct observations, and forensic evidence Assessment of changes in benthic assemblages Great Barrier (Plathong et al. 2000) after o~ening:snorkelling: trails teef, Australia -Monitoring of: percentage coral cover, species Pulau Pavar. (Nickerson-Tietze 2000) composition, general morphology, and extent of Malaysia damage at heavily used sites Experimental laboratory analysis of the resistance (Marshall 2000) of corals to mechanical stress, examining massive, nla tabular, and various branching growth form types Comparative studies of coral communities at sites (Hawkins et al. 1999) with high diver use, low diver use, and no use Bonaire Rapid,- - intensive surveys of damage at sites with Maldives (Allison 1996) I highs, densities of snorkeilers I Determined the influence of biophysical site Great Barrier (Rouphael and Inglis 1997) characteristics on the frequency of diver-inflicted Reef, Australia damages, Determined rates of damage to corals by scuba (Medio et al. 1997) divers, and assessed environmental education as a Sharm-el- means to reduce impacts Sheikh, Egypt (Harriott et al. 1997) Followed scuba divers and noted impacts Eastern Australia Experimental tissue regeneration experiments (Riegl and Riegl 1996) South Africa Investigated the effects of trampling by scuba (Hawkins and Roberts divers and snorkellers on coral community Sharm-el- 1993) composition Sheikh, Egypt Comparative study of coral communities at sites (Dixon et al. 1993) with different diving intensities Bonaire Followed scuba divers and measured trampling- Looe Key, (Talge 1992) impacts ~lorida- Investigated the effects of trampling by scuba (Hawkins and Roberts divers and snorkellers on coral community Sharm-el- 1992) composition Sheikh, Egypt (Riegl and Velimirov 1991) Comparison of reefs with high and low visitor Eilat, Israel & I frequency I Hurghada, Egypt Long-term and short-term controlled trampling Great Barrier (Kay and Liddle 1989) experiments Reef, Australia Estimated damage to coral reefs associated with (Rogers et al. 1988) snorkelling and boating Virgin Islands (i) Investigated the impact of tourist 'reef walking' on coral communities Great Barrier (Liddle and Kay 1987) (ii) Laboratory trials of mechanical skeletal Reef, Australia compression strength of corals (Woodland and Hooper Experimental trampling of corals by people Great Barrier 1977) wearing footwear Reef, Australia iV) iowozo0b6 -rn iz:~~S.~S.V)$V)$X.$$$V) aya 0 qann :W"O&o irn PI-n n TRANSECT GPS COORDINATES TRANSECT ID DATE TIME JUTM) (start) HEADING KCNTl Feb.08103 2:00 vm 48P 0201087 1345553 290" KCNT4 Feb.09103 2:30 pm 48P 0200598 1346041 300" KMPT 1 Feb.02103 4:30 pm 48P 0200968 1331870 05" KMPT2 Feb. 15/03 4: 10 vm 48P 0200489 1343608 NE KMPT3 Feb. 15/03 450 pm 48P 0200424 1343641 N HSSTl Feb.11103 2:45 pm 48P 0200538 1332761 W HSST2 Feb.24103 12:30 vm 48P 0200078 1333066 W HRNl Feb.24103 3:00 pm 48P 0199446 1338490 NE HRN2 Feb.24103 5:00 pm 48P 0199421 1333850 NE KSRO 1 Jan.28103 3:10 vm 48P 0203897 1332516 360" KSR02 Jan.28103 4:00 pm 48P 0203896 1332525 10" KSR03 Jan.28103 4:30 pm 48P 0203896 1332642 10" KSTl Jan.30103 3:30 vm 48P 0204271 1332065 275" Missing50 m North of KST4 Jan.30103 5:35 pm KST3 285" Missing- 170" KSGTl Feb. 18/03 5:00 pm halfway down west side Missing- 180" KSGT2 Feb. 18/03 5:30 pm halfway down east side KRT 1 Feb.23103 2:00 pm 48P 0203917 1332096 120" KRT2 Feb.23103 2:40 pm 48P 0203919 1332081 120" KRT3 Feb.23103 3:50 pm 48P 0204030 1332060 160" KRT4 Feb.23103 4:25 pm 48P 0204025 1332040 170" KRT5 Feb.23103 5:00 pm 48P 0204015 1332013 190" KYO 1 Jan.29103 3:25 pm 48P 0202348 1330449 30" KYT02 Feb. 10103 1:45 pm 48P 0202389 1330402 40" KYTO3 Feb. 10103 2: 15 pm 48P 0202405 1330371 40" KYT04 Feb. 10103 2:45 pm 48P 0202381 1330438 40" KYTO5 Mar.02103 4:30 pm Missing-7m from shore 10" of N end of beach KPTl Feb. 12/03 2:00 pm 48P 0202106 1330241 E KPT2 Feb. 13/03 4:00 vm 48P 0202193 1330245 340" KPT3 Feb. 13/03 5:00 pm 48P 0202090 1330231 NNE KPT4 Feb. 14/03 3:45 pm 48P 0202170 1330176 10" KPT5 Feb. 14/03 5:00 vm 48P 0202105 1330256 10" APPENDIX E: Line Intercept Transect (LIT) Data Sampling: Stratew (cont. TRANSECT I I GPS COORDINATES I TRANSECT KTLO2 Mar. 13/03 1:00 pm 48P 0217333 1307657 290" KKTO 1 Mar. 13/03 4:00 pm 48P 0216672 1307270 290" KKTO2 Mar. 16/03 1 1:05 am 48P 0216672 1307270 290" Missing-7 m from 30" KTTO 1 Mar. 16/03 11 :35 am shore of NE corner Missing-5 m from S KTT02 Mar. 16/03 1 1:55 am shore of NW corner Missing-50 m W of KWT 1 Mar. 16/03 2:30 pm dock in front of E Missing-Above rocky I KWT2 I Mar.16103 1 3:00 pm I point halfway through I E APPENDIX F: Formulae for Calculating Site Morpholoerical Diversity (mH') & Coral Mortalie Index (CMI) Calculation of Morphological Diversity (mH') mH' (Transecti)=C(-@$(log2 pi)) pi=proportion of reef cover contributed by the ith life form categovy mHJ(Sitei)=(CO=l to nr) mH' (T))/nT nr =the number of transects carried out at sitei Calculation of Coral Mortality Index ICMI) CMI (Transect,)=(dead coral cover) / (live coral cover + dead coral cover) CMI (Sitei)=(CO=I to nr) CMI (I;;))/nT n~ =the number of transects carried out at sitei ?=the jth transect at sitei dcc(T,)= DC+DCA+RUB lcc(Tj)= ACT+CE+CF+CM+CSM+CMR+SC DC=length of T, occupied by 'Dead Corals' (cm) DCA= length of q occupied by 'Dead Corals with Algae' (cm) R UB=length of T, occupied by 'Coral Rubble ' (cm) ACT= length of T, occupied by 'Table Corals' (cm) CE=length of lj occupied by 'Encrusting Corals' (cm) CF= length of T, occupied by 'Foliose Corals' (cm) CM= length of T, occupied by 'Massive Corals' (cm) CSM= length of T, occupied by 'Submassive Corals' (cm) CMR= length of T, occupied by 'Mushroom Corals' (cm) SC= length of Tj occupied by 'Soft Corals' (cm) APPENDIX G: LIT Data Summaries Estimated % Cover (Mean * S.D.) Coral Mortalitv Coral Other -Dead Abiotic Index Mor~holofzical -En- {Zoanthids, Branching (Roc4 (CMI) Diversitv -Hard -Soft crusting Anemones, -Dead Acropora Sand, (Mean i Index (mH') -SITE Corals Corals Corals Urchins) Corals etc.) $.D.) (Mean i S.D.) ~-~~-~~~--All (pooled) 44 32.1*20.5% 1.3W.4% 1.2*1.8% 3.1*5.5% 32.2*19% 14.5&25.9% 13.2*16.7% 0.55M.26 1.32rt0.6_1 ChangNoi 4 66.6&9.6% O.O*O% 0.7*1.4% 2.0*1.6% 29.9*8.7% O.O*O% 0351.0% 0.31M.09 0.99M.27 Ma Pring 3 21.3*17.1% O.O*O% 1.1*1.0% 2.3&1.5% 42.9*21.2% 21.5*36% 11.0&12.7% 0.75M.18 1.61M.32 Hin Sam Sao 2 30.7593% O.O*O% 1.2&0.2% 10.4*11.5% 14.2*16.8% 0.0&0% 55.1*26.6% 0.28M.27 1.40M.30 Hin Rap 2 38.7&0% 0.050% 0.5*0.7% 11.6*8.3% 5.3*2.3% O.O&O% 44.0*11.3% 0.10M.03 0.81M.25 Suwan (E.) 4 27.0513.7% O.O*O% 0.7*0.7% 0.7*0.6% 51.6*20.7% 16.7*21.2% 3.356.7% 0.7233.13 1.72M.23 Man Nok 4 32.9&13.4% O.O*O% 2.5*2.8% 10.5*14.5% 24.8*16.8% 2.8*2.4% 26.5*14.2% 0.41M.18 1.58M.21 Thong Lang 2 26*9.9% 18.5*7.8% 1236.2% 2.650.5% 39.6&0.8% O.O*O.O% 8.0*7.5% 0.56M.10 2.26M.29 Koh Kra 2 46.5*10.4% 1.4*2.0% 2.4*0.3% l.lrtO.O% 34.8*2.5% 1.2*1.7% 12.6513.5% 0.43M.05 2.06M.37 Koh Thian 2 44.3&39.2% 0.5&0.7% 0.6*0.9% 3.4*4.7% 10.0*12.7% 373553.5% 7.9*1.6% 0.52M.42 2.04M.33 Koh Wai 2 40.4*19.2% 0.0&0.0% 0.650.9% l.lh1.6% 25.1*22.8% 32.1545.4% 1.3*1.8% 0.58M.20 1.14M.12 APPENDIX H: VISITOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE & RESPONSE SUMMARIES* SNORKELING AT KOH CHANG MARINE PARK: A SURVEY *All values indicate the percentage of valid responses for each individual question or item This suwey gives you a chance to comment on your experience snorkeling today The results will be used to create plans to maximize visitor enjoyment and minimize visitor impacts to the environment There will be no commercial use of any information and all answers you give will be confidential The survey should take about 5-10 minutes to complete Your opinions are important! Thank you! Snorkeling at Koh Chang Q1. There are many interesting natural features around Koh Chang. For each one listed below, circle the number that shows best how important it is for you to see the feature on your snorkeling trip: NOT AT ALL SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (A) Uninhabited islands 4.1 % 12.5% 27.3% 33.2% 22.9% (N=27 1) (B) Rocky coastlines 8.1 % 21.1% 28.9% 28.5% 13.3% (N=270) (C) Sandy beaches 2.2% 6.6% 17.6% 37.1% 36.4% (N=272) (D) Coral 0% 1.8% 7.0% 26.4% 64.8% (N=273) (E) Fish 0% (N=272) (F) A variety of coral colours 0.4% 1.1% 15.2% 29.4% 53.9% (N=269) (G) A variety of coral shapes 0.4% 1.9% 19.0% 30.5% 48.3% (N=269) (H) A variety of fish types 0.4% 1.5% 10.0% 35.4% 52.8% (N=27 1) (I) A large number of fish 1.1% 1.1% 17.3% 33.2% 48.3% (N=27 1) (J) Sea turtles 4.0% 8.8% 22.1 % 29.4% 35.7% (N=272) (K) Underwater rock formations -3.0% 10.4% 28.5% 30.4% 27.8% (N=270) (L) Clear water 0.4% 0.7% 5.5% 18.7% 74.7% (N=273) Satisfaction With Your Trip Q2. Considering your snorkeling trip today, circle the number that best shows how satisfied you were with the opportunities you had to see each of the following natural features: (Ifyou did not see thefeature on this trip, circle NA= "DID NOT SEE ") VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY DID NOT UNSATISFIED UNSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED SATISFIED SEE (1) (2) (n/4 (A) Uninhabited islands 0.8% 27.8% 24.1% 3.0% (N=258) (B) Rocky coastlines 1.5% 37.0% 17.8% 2.6% (N=263) (C) Sandy beaches 1.5% 38.5% 31.1% 1.1% (N=267) (D) Coral 6.1% 29.4% 2 1.4% 0.8% (N=262) (E) Fish 0.7% 34.4% 31.5% 1.5% (N=269) (F) A variety of coral colours 7.9% 24.8% 14.2% 4.3% (N=244) (G) A variety of coral shapes 7.0% 28.4% 14.8% 1.9% (N=252) (H) A variety of fish types 3.7% 34.3% 24.0% 0% (N=271) (I) A large number of fish 3.7% 29.4% 26.4% 1.9% (N=264) (J) Sea turtles 15.1% 3.9% 3.9% 58.1% (N=227) (K) Underwater rock Formations 3.6% 29.6% 11.5% 5.9% (N=23 8) (L) Clear water 1.5% 28.7% 41.5% 0% (N=274) Q3. Please show how satisfied you were overall with your snorkeling trip today (circle one): (N=247) 1 VERY UNSATISFIED...... 2.4% 2 UNSATISFIED ...... 6.1% 3 NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED ...... 14.6% 4 SATISFIED...... -53.8% 5 VERY SATISFIED...... 23.1% About Your Trip Q4. Listed below are some problems you may or may not have experienced on your trip today. Please show how much of a problem each of the following were for you: NOT A PROBLEM A SMALL A MAJOR AT ALL PROBLEM PROBLEM (A) Amount of garbage in the ocean 35.3% 37.9% 26.8% (N=269) (B) Amount of garbage on beaches 24.1% 42.2% 33.7% (N=270) (C) Amount of fishing gear (nets, traps, lines seen on the seafloor 45.0% 32.0% 23.0% (N=269) (D) A large amount of dead or unhealthy coral 16.9% 33.7% 49.4% (N=267) (E) Too many other snorkelers 49.1% (N=269) (F) Too many people were on the boat 61.2% (N=263) (G) Length of the boat trip was too long 71.2% (N=264) (H) Safety on the boat 59.2% (N=265) (I) Tour staff did not provide enough information 40.9% (N=259) (J) Tour staff were not helpful 57.1% (N=259) (K) Sea conditions were rough 61.6% (N=268) (L) Weather conditions were uncomfortable 61.6% (N=271) Your Snorkeling History Q5. How many times have you snorkeled at a coral reef before?: (N=272) A 0-TODAY WAS MY FIRST TIME 26.5% B 1 TIME BEFORE TODAY 10.3% C 2-10 TIMES BEFORE TODAY 42.3% D 11-20 TIMES BEFORE TODAY 10.3% E 2 1-30 TIMES BEFORE TODAY 1.8% F 3 1-40 TIMES BEFORE TODAY 2.2% F MORE THAN 40 TIMES BEFORE TODAY 6.6% Q6. When was the last time you snorkeled at a coral reef? (N=212) A WITHIN THE PAST MONTH 22.6% B BETWEEN 1 MONTH AND 1 YEAR AGO 27.4% C OVER 1 YEAR AGO 50.0% 47. Of the following snorkeling gear, circle the ones that you own: (N=278) 1 SNORKEL AND MASK 52.1% 2 FINS 15.2% 3 FIELD GUIDE FOR CORAL REEFS 5.2% 4 OTHER (Please state) 6.3% 48. Have you been scuba diving before? (N=270) 1 YES 20% 2 NO 80% Q9 . About how many times have you been scuba diving before? (N=54) Q1O .Do you agree or disagree with the following statements: STRONGLY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE AGREE (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (A) Snorkeling is a very important recreational activity for you ...... 3.0% 9.8% 46.2% (N=266) (B) One of the main reasons you came to Koh Chang was to go snorkeling...... 8.6% (N=268) About Your Holiday Q 1 1. Where are you staying during your trip to this region? (N=273) WHITE SAND BEACH (HAAD SAI KHAO) 28.6% CHAI CHET BEACH 5.5% KHLONG PHRAO BEACH 16.1% KAI BAE BEACH 30.0% LONELY BEACH (HAAD THA NAAM) 9.5% BAI LAAN BEACH 0.7% BANG BAO 0.4% SALAK PHET BAY 0% KHLONG SON BAY 4.4% THAN MAYOM 0% KOH MAAK 0% KOH KIND 0% KOH WAI 0% KOH LAO-YA 0% THE "FLOATING RESORT" 0% YOU ARE NOT SURE 2.6% OTHER(P1ease write name) 412. Have you taken a snorkeling trip at Koh Chang before this visit? (N=272) 1 NEVER, TODAY WAS MY FIRST SNORKELING TRIP AT KOH CHANG 76.5% 2 I'VE BEEN SNORKELING 1 TIME BEFORE AT KOH CHANG 12.9% 3 I'VE TAKEN 2 TO 5 PREVIOUS TRIPS SNORKELING AT KOH CHANG 7.4% 4 I'VE TAKEN MORE THAN 5 PREVIOUS TRIPS SNORKELING AT KOH CHANG -3.3% 413. Would you snorkel at Koh Chang again (circle one)? (N=270) 1 YES 84.1 % 2 NO 15.9% 414. Would you recommend snorkeling at Koh Chang to friends and associates (Circle one)? (N=269) 1 YES 85.5% 2 NO 14.5% Q15. What is the name of the tour company that took you on your snorkeling trip today? (N=275) Aiyapura 1.1% Ao Sapparot Fish 0.7% Boa 0.4% Chang Tour Chai Chet 1.1% Chai Chet Bungalow 0.7% Chang Cliff Beach 1.5% Chang Park Resort 1.4% Chok Dee Resort 0.7% Grandview Resort 1.1% Island Tour (Pratin's boat) 2.5% Kai Bae Hut 6.5% Kai Bae Beach 1.5% Koh Chang Lagoon 0.8% Khlong Phrao Resort 9.1% Koh Chang Resort and Spa 5.4% Koh Chang Tour 0.4% KP Bungalows 0.8% KP Lagoon 0.7% Ma Phrao FishISnorkel 0.7% Magic Resort 2.9% Natee Tour Boat 3.2% Navinta Travel 0.4% Navita Tour 0.4% Ning Tour 1.5% No Tour 0.4% OK Divers 2.2% Rotee 1.1% Sarawat Tour 0.4% Sea View Resort 2.5% Siam Beach 5.8% Suleo Tour 0.4% Thian 0.7% Thum Thida Tour 0.7% N/A (Kayakers) 7.3% Unknown 1 Missing 29.5% About You Q 16. Where are you from? (Please state nationalitv) (N=275) Australia 1.1% Austria 0.7% Belgium 0.4% Canada 4.7% China 0.4% Czech Republic 0.4% Denmark 2.5% France 1.8% Germany 7.6% Holland 2.9% Hong Kong 0.4% HungWJ 0.4% Iran 0.4% Israel 0.4% Italy 1.1% Japan 1.1% Norway 1.8% New Zealand 0.4% South Africa 1.1% Sweden 2.9% Switzerland 1.4% Thailand 49.5% United Kingdom 10.5% United States 6.2% Q 17. What is your age (circle one)? (N=272) 1 16-18 YEARS 1.5% 2 18-25 YEARS 25.0% 3 26-35 YEARS 38.2% 4 36-45 YEARS 21 .O% 5 46-55 YEARS 11.8% 6 56-65 YEARS 2.6% 7 OVER 65 YEARS 0% 418. What is your sex (circle one)? (N=273) 1 MALE 49.1 % 2 FEMALE 50.5% 419. If you have any Wher comments, please use the space provided (N= 44) (Englishpreferred ifpossib1e.r) APPENDIX I: Structure of The Visitor Sample: Exploratorv Statistical Analvses The data set collected from the visitor survey contains multiple independent variables, including culture, experience level, site location, rovinglnon-roving tours, and the number of people at the site. If each of these independent variables were random with respect to one another, univariate tests for the effects of individual independent variables on dependent variables (visitor responses) would always be valid. However, if relationships exist between the independent variables, univariate statistical tests could lead to misleading conclusions that are an artefact of the data structure as opposed to real differences explained by a single factor or independent variable. As a result, conducting and interpreting statistical tests should be based on a thorough analysis of any existing relationships between independent variables in a data set. The purpose of this appendix is to describe in detail the sampling structure, as well as to conduct significance tests for any significant relationships between independent variables in the collected data set. Tables I1 -110 and Figures I1 -13 describe significant results obtained from several types of statistical analyses, which can be summarized as follows 1) In the 'Southern' region, the sample contained more foreign tourists than Thai citizens (Table 11) Table 11: Crosstabs: Culture X Area Culture -Area Thai citizen I Foreign Tourist -Total Northern 40 (15%) 32 (12%) 72 (26%) Central 86 (3 1%) 78 (28%) 164 (60%) Southern 9 (33%) 30 (1 1%) 39 (14%) Total 135 (49%) 140 (51%) 275 (100%) Pearson Chi-square=l 1.058, df=2, p=0.004 *% values are based on the total (N=275) 2a) In the 'Southern' region, all visitors surveyed were on 'roving' tours (Table 12) 2b) In the 'Northern' region, 'roving' tours were more common than in the 'Central' region (Table 12). Table 12: Crosstabs: RovindNon-Roving Tours X Area Tour Type -Area Multiple Sites Single Site -Total Northern 50 (19%) 16 (6%) 66 (25%) Central 23 (9%) 138 (52%) 161 (61 %) Southern 39 (15%) 0 39 (15%) Total 112 (42%) 154 (58%) 266 (1 00%) Pearson Chi-square=124.438, df=2, p<0.0005 *% values are based on the total (N=266) 3) The number of Thai people in the sample was proportionally lower for the category "1-8 people", proportionally much higher for the category "9-12 people", and approximately equal in the category "20-35". These statistics are largely a result of the large influx of Thai people on the weekends. In addition, the largest boat (41+ people) consisted only of Thai people on a corporate weekend getaway organized by a Bangkok insurance company (Table 13). Table 13: Crosstabs: Number of People on the Boat X Culture # of People Culture 1-1-8 - 20-35 people 41+ people -Total Thai I (23%) ( (14%) 1 (11%) 1 (3%) 1 (50%) Caucasian 69 4 25 98 Foreigner (5 8%) (2%) (12%) 0 (48%) Other 3 1 4 Foreigner (3%) 0 (2%) 0 (2 %) 119 32 49 6 206 Total (1 00%) (1 00%) (1 00%) (1 00%) (1 00%) Cramer's V (symmetric)=0.382, p<0.0005; eta (nominal x interval; Culture=dependent)=0.382 *% values are based on the total (N=206) 4) The proportion of foreigners in the sample tended to be higher when lower numbers of people were at the site, and conversely the proportion of Thai people at the site was higher when there were more people at sites. This signal was strongest for the category '40-65 people' (Table 14). Again, this can be explained by the influx of Thai people on the weekends. Table 14: Crosstabs: Number of People at the Site X Culture # of People 1-15 20-35 -40-65 75-90 Over 100 Culture - - Total 26 29 47 12 17 131 Thai (42%) (41%) (63%) (55%) (6 1%) (5 1%) Caucasian 35 38 2 8 10 10 121 Foreigner (57%) (54%) (37%) (45%) (39%) (49%) Other Foreigner 4 1 5 (Asian, Arab, etc.) 0 (6%) 0 0 (4%) (2%) Total 61 7 1 75 22 28 257 (100%) (100%) (1 00%) (100% (1 00%) (1 00%) Cramer' s V (symmetric)= 0.196, p=0.042; eta (nominal x interval; Culture=dependent)=O. 196 *% values are based on the total (N=257) 5) 'Number of people' at sites tended to be highest in the 'Central' area, within , middle ranges in the 'Southern' area, and lowest in the Northern area of the MPA (Table 15). Table 15: Crosstabs: Number of People at the Site X Area # of people Area - -1-15 I -20-35 1 40-65 1 -75-90 1 Over 100 - I I Northern 36 (14%) 8 (3%) 9 (4%) 7 (3%) 0 60 (23%) Central 25 (10%) 47 (1 8%) 51(20%) 7 (3%) 28 (1 1%) 158 (61%) Southern 0 16(6%) 15(6%) 8(3%) 0 39 (15%) Total 61(24%) 71(28%) 75 22 28 (1 1%) 257 (100%) Cramer's V (symmetric)=0.390, p<0.0005; eta (nominal x interval; # people=dependent)=0.397 *% values are based on the total (N=257) 6) Foreign tourists were more likely to be experienced snorkellers compared to Thai citizens (Table 16) Table 16: Crosstabs: Culture X Experience Culture Experience Category -Thai Foreign -Total citizen Tourist Novice ( Table 17: Crosstabs: Gender X Experience Gender Experience Category Male Female Total Novice (< 10 times snorkelling before) 96(36%) 117(43%) 214 Intermediate (1 1-40 times snorkelling before) 21 (8%) 18 (7%) 39 Experienced (40+ times snorkelling before) 16 (6%) 2(1%) 18(7%) Total 133(49%) 137(51%) 270 Pearson Chi-square=13.443, df=4, p=0.009 *% values are based on the total (N=270) 8) Crosstabs for Region X Experience (Table IS), as well as a more detailed crosstabs that separated these results into layers based on culture (Table I9), are shown below. Notably, there was an absence of 'Experienced snorkellers' in the sample from the 'Southern' region. Although this might be a statistically spurious trend, there were no 'experienced snorkellers' in the population sampled from the 'Southern' region, despite an 'expected count' of '3' (Table 19). Table IS: Crosstabs: Region X Experience Region Experience Category South Central North Total Novice (< 10 times snorkelling before) 130 (60%) 57 (27%) 28 (13%) 215 Intermediate (1 1-40 times snorkelling before) 23 (59%) 7 (18%) 9 (23%) 39 Experienced (40+ times snorkelling before) O(O%) 6(33%) 12(67%) 18 Total ( 153 (56%) 1 70(26%) ( 49(18%) 1 272 Pearson Chi-square=6.575, de4, p=0.160 *% values are based on totals for each row Table 19: Crosstabs: Region X Experience X Culture Region Experience Culture Category Southern Central Northern -Total Novice 7 (6%) 76 (63%) 38 (31%) 121(100%) Thai Intermediate 1 (1 1%) 7 (78%) 1 (11%) 9 (100%) Experienced 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 3 (100%) Pearson Chi-square=2.035, df=4, p=O. 729 Novice 21 (22%) 54 (57%) 19 (20%) 94 (I 00%) Foreigner Intermediate 8 (27%) 16 (53%) 6 (20%) 30 (1 00%) Experienced 0 (0%) I 10(67%) 1 5 (33%) I 15 (100%) Pearson Chi-square=5.098, df=4, p=0.2 77 9) The histograms portrayed in Figures 11-13 illustrate several additional characteristics of the sample, including frequencies within the sample of the number of people measured at the site, the number of people on the respondent's boat, and the number of boats at the site. Std. Dev = 48.13 Man = 53.0 N = 257.00 0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 20.0 60.0 100.0 140.0 180.0 # of People Fipure 11: Histogram: Number of ~norkellers* * See also Appendix A, which shows data on the number of people at different sites in the MPA Std. Dev = 10.61 Mean = 11.4 N = 206.00 # of People Figure 12: Histogram: Number of People on the Respondent's Boat Std. Dev = 3.35 Mean = 5.1 N = 230.00 # of Boats Figure 13: Histo~ram:Number of Other Boats 10) Finally, partial correlations showed that the number of people at the site was strongly correlated with the number of people on the respondent's boat (~0.648, p<0.0005, controlling for # of boats), and strongly correlated with the number of boats at the site (~0.584,p<0.0005, controlling for # of people on respondent's boat). Thus, a policy aimed at controlling the number of people at a site should influence both the number of people on board boats (which is a strong function of the size of the boat), and the total number of boats. APPENDIX J: Derivation of Experience Categories The most important component of 'specialization' was considered to be the amount of previous experience snorkelling (Q5) (Table 3.8). Additional measures of specialization in the survey included: equipment ownership (Q7A, Q7B, & Q7C), and psychological factors (QIOA & QlOB) (See Appendix H). However, exploratory data analysis showed that these additional measures were not strongly correlated with experience, and the inclusion of these variables to define specialization groupings tended to obfuscate the analysis. The large number of missing values for both 47 and Q10 provided further justification for classifying visitors along a specialization continuum based solely on the amount of previous experience snorkelling (Q5). Data published in Inglis et al. (1999) were used to group the data in Q5 into a smaller subset of intervals. The data published by Inglis et al. (1999), as well as the interpretation of specialization categories, are shown in table 11. 'Experienced recreationists' in Inglis et al's (1999) study belonged to a dive club in Australia. One can assume that these people consisted mostly of 'Experienced Snorkellers' who are familiar with recreation at coral reefs. However, it is likely that the category also contained significant proportions of 'Intermediates' who are not fully developed along the specialization continuum. 'Locals' were randomly selected citizens of the state of Queensland residing near the Great Barrier Reef. This category likely contained the full range of specialization categories; however, it is likely that the category comprised a large proportion of 'Novices' unfamiliar with snorkelling, and significant amounts of both 'Intermediates' and 'Experienced snorkellers'. 'Tourists' were international tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef. This category probably comprised a mix of people at various levels along a specialization continuum; however, it is likely that the majority of tourists in this category were 'Novices', whereas significant proportions were 'Intermediates', and only small numbers could be considered as 'Experienced snorkellers'. Finally, 'novices' were students enrolled in a recreation course at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. One can assume that this category represents true 'novices' unfamiliar with snorkelling; however, several members of this group might belong to other specialization categories. For all four categories in table 11, standard deviations are very high. Because it is impossible to have a negative value for the amount of experience, the data is strongly right skewed, with several extreme values that increased the overall mean for each group. In other words, the median for experience within each group falls well below the mean. Because approximately 68% of the data values in a normal distribution fall within one standard deviation above and below the mean, it can be assumed that, due to the highly right skewed distribution, much less than 16%*of the people within each of the four groups had snorkelled more than the sum of the mean and the standard deviation for each group. There were two "informed decisions" that could be made based on the ancillary data provided by Inglis et al. (1999). The first informed decision was that only snorkellers who had snorkelled 41+ times would be assigned to the 'Experienced Snorkeller" category. This decision was based on a hypothetical classification of individuals in Inglis et al's (1999) study, as all 'novices' would definitely have been excluded (except for the extreme outliers who might actually be 'experienced snorkellers'), most 'tourists' would have been excluded (except for outliers who are likely 'experienced snorkellers' anyways), a significant proportion of 'locals' would have been included (which concurs with the fact that a significant proportion of this group are likely to be 'experienced snorkellers'), and a large proportion of the 'experienced recreationists' would have been included (which concurs with the fact that the majority of this group are in fact experienced snorkellers). The second informed decision was to assign all those within the range of '1 1 to 40 times snorkelling before' into the 'Intermediate' category. This was partly based on the fact that the vast majority of 'novices' in Inglis et al's (1999) dataset had snorkelled less than 10 times before in the past (mean=3, s.d.=7), so these would have all been excluded from the 'Intermediate' category in this classification scheme. An additional justification for this was the observation that only 2.2% of respondents had snorkelled '31-40 times' before, and only 1.8% of respondents had snorkelled '21-30 times' (Table 3.8)' which would have resulted in very low sample sizes for these two categories. Table J1: Amount of Experience Snorkelling for Different Groups of People JSource: Experienced Recreationists Locals Tourists Novices (N=3 1) (N=57) (N=50) (N= 100) Times snorkelling on coral reef 42 +/- 93 3 +/- 7 (N, mean +/- SD) Mostly Mostly 'Novices', Mostly Many 'Novices', Small Interpretation 'Experienced 'Novices', Several Amounts of Snorkellers' & 'Intermediates' 'Intermediates' 'Intermediates' Some & 'Experienced & 'Experienced & 'Intermediates' Snorkellers' Snorkellers' 'Experienced Snorkellers'