Please do not remove this page

SCUBA-diver impacts and management strategies for subtropical marine protected areas

Hammerton, Zan https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/delivery/61SCU_INST:ResearchRepository/1266958040002368?l#1367465550002368

Hammerton, Z. (2014). SCUBA-diver impacts and management strategies for subtropical marine protected areas [Southern Cross University]. https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991012820955902368/61SCU_INST:Research Repository

Southern Cross University Research Portal: https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/search?vid=61SCU_INST:ResearchRepository [email protected] Open Downloaded On 2021/10/02 09:32:36 +1000

Please do not remove this page SCUBA-Diver Impacts and Management Strategies for Subtropical Marine Protected Areas.

ZAN HAMMERTON

Bachelor of Applied Science (Marine Science and Management) (Honours)

A thesis submitted to the School of Environment, Science and Engineering in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY September 2014

DECLARATION

I certify that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge

and belief, original, except as acknowledged in the text, and that the material

has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any

other university. I acknowledge that I have read and understood the

University's rules, requirements, procedures and policy relating to my higher

degree research award and to my thesis. I certify that I have complied with

the rules, requirements, procedures and policy of the University.

Print Name: Zan Hammerton

Signature:…………………………………………

Date: ………………………………………………

ii

ABSTRACT

The impacts of SCUBA-divers on tropical reefs have been widely studied. However, there have been few studies evaluating the effects of on subtropical reefs. Subtropical reefs are ecotonal habitats that support unique biodiversity and attract all levels of SCUBA-divers. Repetitive contact by divers or their equipment is a principal mechanism for chronic impact on benthic life forms. Six hundred recreational SCUBA-divers were observed for this study, in two subtropical marine parks in northern New South Wales, Australia.

In the first stage of this study a combination of in-water observational research and post- dive questionnaires were used to determine the variables that contributed most significantly to the number of contacts divers made with the benthos. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the variables that correlate with the frequency of diver contacts with biota. Of the 17 variables tested, nine were found to be significant contributors to increased diver contacts. These were the number of days since a diver’s last dive, certification location, awareness and understanding of marine park zoning, dive site selection, the use of photographic equipment, total dives to date and diving depth.

The next stage focused on comparing the severity of visible acute impacts made by 400 recreational SCUBA-divers at six subtropical dive sites. These data were statistically modelled to determine which types of diver contact create the most severe impact, and the taxa and habitat types that are most at risk of severe forms of diver impact. Diver fins contributed most medium and high-level impact with reef biota. Corals were the most sensitive benthic taxon to contact damage. Habitat complexity was found to influence the severity of impact. These results suggest that improving , and propulsion techniques, and awareness of their actual contact and the need to care, especially in coral-rich trench-type habitats, are priorities.

Awareness and subsequent behaviour can potentially be modified by pre-dive information and in-water reinforcement of the need to avoid contact. Two levels of intervention over and above the standard were tested to determine effectiveness in reducing SCUBA-diver contact: 1) pre-dive briefing with specific reference to minimising benthic contact; and 2) direct underwater intervention at the time of first contact. Both intervention levels significantly reduced the subsequent number of contacts made by divers. In-water intervention was most effective, but may be unwarranted in low-risk habitats or with low-

iii risk divers. The dive brief approach is an extension of existing health and safety practices. The final stage tested the effectiveness of Low Impact Diver (LID) training on 61 certified SCUBA-divers, to assess if specific education and training could provide divers with the skill-base to avoid or reduce contact with the reef. Students completed a single pre-training dive, in which a set of tasks were completed which could be used as a baseline for comparison with a similar post-training dive. Regardless of an individual diver’s certification, or experience level, LID training was shown to significantly reduce contact with the benthos during subsequent dives.

Due to the international scope of the SCUBA-diving industry and diver impacts being a global issue, the multi-faceted research outcomes presented within this thesis may be applied to many other tropical and subtropical diving locations. Applying management strategies that reduce diver contacts will ultimately enhance the experience for divers, provide greater protection to benthic taxa and aid in the development of SCUBA diving becoming more ecologically sustainable.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis is a product of field research conducted at Julian Rocks in Cape Byron Marine Park and Solitary Islands Marine Park both located in northern New South Wales, Australia. It was conducted through the Marine Ecology Research Centre; the National Marine Science Centre and the School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore New South Wales Australia.

Firstly, many thanks to my principle supervisor, Dr Daniel Bucher for on-going guidance, support, sound boarding of ideas/issues and valuable thesis feedback. Huge thanks also to my partner, family and friends for their on-going love, support and patience. I dedicate this thesis to my mother who passed away suddenly in 2006 and my father who passed away in 2013. Thanks also to Dr Stephen Smith (co-supervisor) for thesis feedback and suggestions.

I would also like to thank Dr Andrew Carroll and Dr Steven Dalton for assistance with in situ diver observations at Solitary Islands Marine Park and Dr Mateus Baronio for assisting with in situ diver observations during the low impact diver (LID) course training sessions at Julian Rocks.

Thanks also to Byron Bay Dive Centre, Byron Bay and Jetty Dive, Coffs Harbour, for supporting the research being conducted, by providing me with access to their customers. This research was funded through Cape Byron Marine Park Authority, Southern Cross University, and the New South Wales Catchment Management Authority.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………….…..ii ABSTRACT.…………………..……………………………………………………...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………...……………………………………………………v TABLE OF CONTENTS.………….…………………………………………………...vi LIST OF FIGURES….....……………………………………………………………….ix LIST OF TABLES….………………………………………………………………….xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………...………………….xiv

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION…………...... 15 1.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESEARCHER TO THE FIELD……………...…17 1.2 BACKGROUND – RECREATIONAL SCUBA DIVING…………………….18 1.3 DIVER IMPACT ON TROPICAL BENTHOS………………………………..18 1.4 SUBTROPICAL REEFS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE ………………….21 1.5 DIVER IMPACTS ON SUBTROPICAL AND TEMPERATE REEF ECOLOGY……………………………………………………………………..23 1.6 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ………………………….26 1.6.1 Carrying Capacity Approach (CCA) ………………………………….26 1.6.2 Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) ………………………………….27 1.6.3 Percentile Approach ………………………………………………….28 1.7 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO LIMITING DIVER IMPACTS...……....29 1.7.1 Dive Marshals ………………………………………………….29 1.7.2 Diver Education ………………………………………………….30 1.7.3 Dive Site Rating System ………………………………………….31 1.8 THE AUSTRALIAN DIVING INDUSTRY ………………………………….31 1.9 SCUBA DIVING AS ECOTOURISM ………………………………….32 1.8.1 Eco Certification – Australia ………………………………………….34 1.10 THESIS AIMS …………………………………………………………………36

CHAPTER 2: GENERAL METHODS ………………………………………….39 2.1 STUDY LOCATIONS ………………………………………………….39 2.2 DIVING SITES ………………………………………………………….39 2.2.1 Cape Byron Marine Park ………………………………………….39 2.2.2 Solitary Islands Marine Park ………………………………………….42 2.3 PARTICIPANT SELECTION ………………………………………….46 2.3.1 Ethics Statement ………………………...……………………………..47 2.4 IN-WATER SURVEY AND QUESTIONNAIRE METHODS ………….47 2.4.1 Pilot Study …………………………...………………………………...47 2.4.2 Data Collection ………………………………...………………………48 2.4.3 Definition of Categories for Type of Impact ………………………….50

vi CHAPTER 3: DETERMINING THE DRIVERS OF SCUBA-DIVER CONTACTS USING LOG LINEAR REGRESSION AND MIXED MODEL ………………….52 3.1 ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………….52 3.2 INTRODUCTION ....………………………………………………………….52 3.3 METHODS .………………………………………………………………….55 3.3.1 Ethics Statement .……..………………………………………………55 3.3.2 Data Collection ……………………………...…………………….....55 3.3.3 Statistical Analysis ..……………………………..………………….56 3.4 RESULTS ...………………………………………………………………….58 3.4.1 Variables Contributing to Diver Contacts ……………………….…...58 3.4.2 Actual Versus Perceived Number of Contacts …….…………….…….64 3.5 DISCUSSION.....…..…..……………………………………………………….66 3.6 CONCLUSION……...…………………………………………………………71

CHAPTER 4: MODELLING RISKS TO HABITAT FROM SCUBA-DIVER CONTACTS – SUBTROPICAL BENTHIC COMMUNITIES ……..………..….68 4.1 ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………68 4.2 INTRODUCTION ……….…………………………………………………….68 4.3 METHODS ………………………………………………………………….…71 4.3.1 Quantifying Benthic Cover ………….……………………...…...……..71 4.3.2 Data Collection - Explanatory Variables …………………...………….72 4.3.3 Statistical Analysis...…………………………………………..……….74 4.4 RESULTS ………………………………………………….………………..…77 4.4.1 Site-Level and Habitat Risk ……………………………...……….…...79 4.4.2 Habitat Effects …………………………...……………….…………81 4.4.3 Effect of Contact Type ……………………………………….………..84 4.4.4 Effect of Benthic Organism …………………………………...... ….88 4.5 DISCUSSION ………………………………………….………………………91

CHAPTER 5: TESTING LEVELS OF INTERVENTION FOR REDUCING SCUBA-DIVER IMPACT WITHIN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ………...101 5.1 ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………….…..101 5.2 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………...101 5.3 METHODS …………………...…………………………………………....103 5.3.1 Site Selection ……………………...………………………………....103 5.3.2 Application of Levels of Intervention ……………………...………....104 5.3.3 Data Analyses …………………………………...…………………....105 5.4 RESULTS ………………………………………...……………………....106 5.5 DISCUSSION ……………………………………………...………………....113

CHAPTER 6: CAN LOW IMPACT REDUCE SCUBA- DIVER IMPACTS ………………………………………………………………...117 6.1 ABSTRACT...………………………………………………………….……..117 6.2 INTRODUCTION…..…………………………………………………….…..117

vii 6.3 METHODS ………………………………………………………………...122 6.3.1 Participant Demographics……………………………...……………...124 6.3.2 Statistical Analysis….……………………………….……...………...127 6.4 RESULTS ………………………………………………………………...128 6.4.1 Change in the Number of Contacts ………………………………...129 6.4.2 Testing Demographic Variables – Contacts.……………………….…131 6.4.3 Change in Accuracy of Students’ Self-Assessed Number of Contacts.133 6.4.4 Change in Accuracy of Students’ Self-Assessed Trim…………….....137 6.4.5 Student Self-Assessment of Skill-Base Improvement …………...…...142 6.5 DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………...143 6.6 CONCLUSION………………………………...……………………………..147

CHAPTER 7: GENERAL DISCUSSION ………………………………….……...148 TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF DIVER CONTACT – SUBTROPICAL REEFS …..149 RISK TO HABITAT …………………………………………………………………151 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ……………………………………………………152 CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………….……………….155 LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………………..158 APPENDIX A: Post Dive Questionnaire ……………………………..…….………..179 APPENDIX B1 and B2: Pre-and-post training LID questionnaire…..……….………181 APPENDIX C: Mean benthic percentage cover ……………..……………………….184

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Subtropical habitats with prominent and well-established locations…………………….……………………………..…………………….24

Figure 1.2: Ecotourism Australia Logos and Standards ……………………….…35

Figure 1.3: Flow chart, showing stages of the research……………………………..…38

Figure 2.1: Research locations of Cape Byron and Solitary Islands Marine Parks .…40

Figure 2.2: Locations of prominent diving sites, Julian Rocks (CBMP) ….….…….…41

Figure 2.3: Locations of prominent diving sites at south Solitary Island (SIMP)…...... 43

Figure 2.4: Locations of prominent diving sites at Split Solitary Island (SIMP) ……..44

Figure 2.5: Locations of prominent diving sites at north Solitary Island (SIMP) ..…...45

Figure 3.1: The comparison between actual number of contacts and diver estimated contacts ………………………………………………………...…65

Figure 4.1: Flow chart - source to impact ……………………………………………..81

Figure 4.2: Total severe impact score by type of contact ……………………………..82

Figure 4.3: Rate of contacts per dive per 15-minutes………………………………….84

Figure 4.4: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of hard coral ……………………………………………………..….86

Figure 4.5: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Ascidiacea ……………………………………………………………………86

Figure 4.6: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Sponge ………………………………………………………………………..87

Figure 4.7: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Algae ……………………………………………………………………..…..87

Figure 4.8: Mean number of severe contacts for each contact type …………………..88

Figure 4.9: Typical fin contact …………………...…………………..…….………….89

ix

Figure 4.10: Torn sponge (Spirastrella montiformis) ………………….…………..….90

Figure 4.11: Fragmented hard coral (Pocillopora damicornis) ……………………….90

Figure 4.12: The proportion of total contacts …………………………………………91

Figure 4.13: Mean number of severe contacts for each benthic taxa………………….93

Figure 4.14: The proportions (medium and high) impact to benthic taxa …..……...…94

Figure 4.15a and 4.15b: Tomaculopsis herbertiana ….………………………………98

Figure 5.1: Distribution of the percentage of divers and contact types across CBMP and SIMP ……………………………………………………………………..107

Figure 5.2: Distribution of contacts for each diver (Location) …………………………………………………….……………….………………….107

Figure 5.3: Distribution of contacts for each diver (Level of intervention) ………………………………………………………………………...………………108

Figure 5.4: Distribution of contacts for photographers and non-photographers …...... 110

Figure 5.5: The nature of the photography/level of intervention interaction …………………………………………………………………………………….…..112

Figures 6.1a and 6.1b: Diver with poor trim and using the ‘scissor kick’; Diver with correct trim using a ‘frog kick’ technique ………………………….…...121

Figure 6.2: Change in the number of actual contacts from pre-to-post LID training...129

Figure 6.3: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against certification level…………………………………………………….138

Figure 6.4: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against gender ………………………………………………………………..139

Figure 6.5: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against age group ………………………………………………………….…140

Figure 6.6: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against number of years diving since certification …………..………………141

Figure 6.7: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against total number of dives to date …………..……………..……………...142

x Figure 7.1: Decision tree for applied level of intervention ……………….……..…155

xi List of Tables

Table 2.1: Outcome, categorical and numerical variables ………………………….…49

Table 2.2: Categories and coding for diver contact observations …………………..…50

Table 3.1: Summary statistics for number of accidental and intentional contacts …….58

Table 3.2: Summaries of categorical explanatory variables …………………………..59

Table 3.3: Summaries of numerical explanatory variables ……………………………60

Table 3.4: Summary of rate ratio estimates from the ‘best’ model of the number of contacts ………………………………………………………………………..….…63

Table 3.5: Summary statistics for the number of contacts versus contact awareness …………………………………………………………….………..66 Table 4.1: Coding and sites ……………………………………………………………76

Table 4.2: Contact type (part of body or equipment) ………………………………….73

Table 4.3: Benthic organisms contacted ………………………………………………77

Table 4.4: Type of impact ...... …...78

Table 4.5: Habitat characterisation …………………………………………………....78

Table 4.6: Number of contacts based on habitat type……..………………..……….....83

Table 4.7: Number of contacts based on location ……………...…..…………………83

Table 4.8: Rate of severe contacts per site …………………………………………….81

Table 4.9: Proportions of contact types with 95% Confidence Intervals ……...…...…92

Table 4.10: Proportions of benthic taxa with 95% Confidence Intervals ……...……...95

Table 4.11: Potential total number of severe impacts ………………………………....97

Table 5.1: Results of the Schierer-Ray-Hare extension of the Kruskall-Wallis tests for level of intervention and location ………………………….………...…………...109

Table 5.2: Pairwise comparisons (Connover-Iman test) for the number of contacts in each of the three levels of intervention …………………………………..109

Table 5.3: Results of the Schierer-Ray-Hare extension of the Kruskall-Wallis tests for level of intervention and ‘Photo’ …………………………………………………111

Table 6.1: Categorical demographic summary of participants …………………..…..125

Table 6.2: Numerical demographic variable summaries ………………....….………125

xii Table 6.3: Assessment rankings – buoyancy and trim……………………………….126

Table 6.4: Assessment rankings – student assessment – reef contact………………...126

Table 6.5: Student self-assessment – effectiveness of LID training……………...…..126

Table 6.6: P-values for the effect of each of the demographic variables…….………131

Table 6.7: The estimated mean change in number of contacts for each Certification level……………….…………………………………………………………………..131

Table 6.8: The estimated mean change in number of contacts for each Age range….132

Table 6.9: Likelihood ratio test P-values from logistic regression models for the effect of each of the demographic variables on the change in accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts ……………………….……….……...... 133

Table 6.10: Odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals, relative to the Open water category, from the logistic regression model of Certification level on the change in accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct ……………………………………………..…………136

Table 6.11: Odds ratio estimate and 95% confidence interval from the logistic regression model of Total dives to date on the change in accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct …………………………………………………………………………….………...... 136

Table 6.12: Likelihood ratio test P-values from logistic regression models for the effect of each of the demographic variables on the change in accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts…………………………………………………………..137

xiii List of abbreviations used within this thesis

AAS – Alternate air source BSAC – British Sub Aqua Club CBMP – Cape Byron Marine Park CCA – Carrying Capacity Approach CI – Confidence Intervals CMAS - La Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques GBRMPA – Marine Park Area MPA – Marine Protected Area NAUI – National Association of Underwater Instructors NSW – New South Wales LAC – Limits of Acceptable Change LID – SIMP – Solitary Islands Marine Park SCUBA – Self Contained Underwater Apparatus SSI – SCUBA Schools International SZ - Sanctuary Zone PADI – Professional Association of Diving Instructors

xiv Chapter 1

General Introduction

In recent decades considerable efforts have been directed worldwide to establishing marine protected areas (MPAs). Such areas are now commonly used as management tools for conserving biodiversity and assisting in the resource management of coastal and ocean environments - ranging from intertidal zones to deep-sea trenches.

The specific purpose is to provide a means of protecting genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity (Ward et al. 1999). MPAs also assist in preserving sites of cultural significance. This is facilitated through the implementation of zoning specific areas within the MPA to provide an appropriate level of protection for a range of species and habitats.

Within multiple-use MPAs, zoning offers the opportunity to maximise conservation benefits by spatially separating activities that pose different degrees/types of threats, including those, such as tourism, that may provide benefits (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005). Zoning also offers the opportunity for some conservation objectives to be achieved within zones of protection lower than high-protection, such as where specific uses can be demonstrated to pose insignificant risk to a conservation feature (Fernandes et al. 2005). Properly designed and managed MPAs play important roles in conserving representative samples of biological diversity and associated ecosystems (Agardy et al. 2003) protecting critical sites for reproduction and growth of a range of species.

Importantly, protecting sites with minimal direct human impact may facilitate recovery from other stresses such as increased ocean . This in turn protects settlement and growth areas for marine species so as to provide spillover addition in adjacent areas (Hilborn et al 2004). In this way MPAs provide a range of benefits for fisheries, local economies; arresting and possibly reversing the global and local decline in fish populations and productivity by protecting critical breeding, nursery and feeding habits (Botsford et al. 2009).

MPAs provide focal points for education in marine ecosystems, in addition providing sites for nature-based recreation and tourism. MPAs are important in providing undisturbed control sites serving as baselines for scientific research and for design and evaluation of management of other marine areas, which in turn provides broad benefits as sites for reference in long- term research.

15

MPA management typically relies on using a combination of management tools; including spatial tools like zoning plans or plans of management. Temporal tools like seasonal closures for key spawning periods or for the seasonal presence of a threatened species. Legislative tools like regulations; and/or permits, along with various management approaches such as education, impact assessment, monitoring, partnerships and enforcement may also be applied. Such approaches are used to regulate access, and to control and/or mitigate impacts associated with activities such as, recreation, tourism, fisheries or shipping or to address , such as declining water quality or climate change (Alder et al. 2002; Himes, 2007; Baker et al. 2008; Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno, 2010).

Throughout the 20th century, SCUBA diving was generally viewed as an activity with relatively few environmental impacts (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Roberts and Harriott, 1994; Hall, 2001). As a consequence it is one of the few activities allowed in most marine protected areas with the highest level of statutory protection (e.g. NSW Marine Parks Authority, n.d; GBRMPA, n,d). Since the 1970s, diving has been transformed from an elite activity, restricted to those who could afford the equipment, to a more accessible and highly visible recreational activity targeting and marketed to the widest possible range of demographics. With this increase in accessibility and popularity, what was once considered a benign low-impact activity, has now been shown to have significant flow-on effects to reef systems globally (Davis et al., 1995; Townsend, 2008).

Most of the research into diver impacts has focused on tropical habitats, but some subtropical sites can be among the most intensively dived habitats in the world (Roberts and Harriott, 1994). Subtropical reefs are in a transition zone between coral-dominated tropical reefs and macroalgal-dominated temperate rocky reefs and they can support a diverse mix of organisms from both regions combined with a range of endemic subtropical species (Harrison and Booth, 2007). There is therefore a need to extend studies of diver impacts into these habitats.

Currently specific diver industry strategies are directed towards operators, rather than individual divers. It is important to note that this is not the case for other MPA users, such as recreational fishing. Therefore marine protected area managers need to play a more active role in promoting more sustainable use of recreational diving sites to individual divers.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the rates, patterns and significance of diver contact with the benthic communities, and to investigate the relative importance of different demographic parameters in the diving population in determining the number of contacts

16 (Chapter 3); to assess the level of diver impact based on contact or habitat type (Chapter 4); to test methods for reducing the number of contacts without limiting the number of diver visits to a site, firstly through direct intervention (Chapter 5); and then, to test the effectiveness of management strategies such as further education and training for modifying diver behaviour (Chapter 6).

1.1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESEARCHER TO THE FIELD

It is noted that the PhD researcher is a PADI Instructor who has logged over 5000 hours underwater over a twenty-five year period (with twelve years experience training divers across all levels of certification). As an Instructor, the researcher has trained thousands of SCUBA-divers over these years, across a wide range of age demographics and backgrounds (from 13 – 75 year olds).

In addition, the Candidate is a ADAS Level 1 commercial qualified diver; a Founding Member and the Dive Coordinator of the Byron Underwater Research Group (BURG) since 2005, a role which entails training, assessing and supervising all survey work and which has been government funded for research and conservation work. The researcher also co- ordinated the Southern Cross University Dive Club for twelve years, also training student divers and leading local and interstate dive club underwater expeditions.

The researcher is a widely experienced diver – having dived in ten countries and has had the opportunity to observe SCUBA-divers underwater in a range of environments from the cold temperate wrecks in the far north of Scotland, to the fresh water caves of the Yucatan (Mexico), and the tropical coral reefs of the Indo-Pacific region. This combination of background experiences and insights in the diving industry has also informed thesis selection and direction, but is most pertinent to the ability of the researcher to assess and observe underwater behaviour of divers.

1.2 BACKGROUND – RECREATIONAL SCUBA DIVING

The most recent statistics from the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) indicate that over 23 million divers have been certified worldwide since the 1960s (PADI 2014) with SCUBA Schools International (SSI) showing an additional 2.4 million divers (pers. comm. SSI Australia 2012). (Note, that the numbers presented here illustrate the qualitative rise in popularity of SCUBA diving and are not meant as a precise estimate of

17 current diver activity). Current statistics from the three other internationally recognised certifying agencies: British Sub Aqua Club (BSAC), National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) and the World Underwater Federation (La Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques or CMAS) are not generally accessible (Buckley, 2004; Carter, 2008b). Although a high percentage of certified divers only dive whilst on holidays in tropical environments, an equally large percentage of divers still regularly dive close to home in cooler environments (Milazzo et al., 2002; Uyarra et al. 2005; Gossling et al. 2008; Luna et al. 2009).

Over the last two decades a growing body of evidence has shown that numerous unsustainable biological and aesthetic impacts of recreational diving do occur, particularly, at more popular sites with high intensity of recreational diving (Roberts and Harriott, 1994; Gossling, 2002; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Gardner et al., 2003; Uyarra and Coté, 2007). To date, impact studies on recreational SCUBA diving on tropical coral reefs have received the greatest research focus, such as the Caribbean (Hawkins et al., 1999; Tratalos and Austin, 2001; Gardiner et al., 2003), The Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997), Florida Keys, USA (Shivlani and Suman, 2000) the Red Sea, Egypt (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Zakai and Chawick-Furman, 2002) and Thailand (Worachananant et al., 2008).

1.3 DIVER IMPACT ON TROPICAL BENTHOS Tropical coral reefs provide highly popular resources for dive tourism (Goodwin, 1996; McClanahan, 1999; Uyarra et al., 2009). These reefs typically occur between the latitudes of 20° N and 25° S (Veron, 2002; Spalding et al., 2001). Dominant sessile benthic species include hard corals (Order Scleractinia), soft corals and sea fans (Order ) and sponges (Phylum Porifera) (Veron 1995). The general perception within the international diving community is that these locations provide highly desirable dive experiences on visually spectacular reefs, with warm water, good water visibility and, sheltered conditions allowing for predictable accessibility (Tierney and Tierney, 2006; Jackson, 2013).

The majority of these divers only dive occasionally, preferring to dive when on holidays in tropical regions (Garrod, 2008). Due to the sporadic nature of their SCUBA diving patterns, these divers often lack confidence and buoyancy skills (Davis et al., 1995; Dearden et al., 2007). Hence the amount of contact being made with the reef is potentially greater at such destinations. Tropical coral reefs in popular tourist areas are some of the most frequently dived reefs in the world (Riegl and Riegl, 1996; Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Hawkins and Roberts, 1993; Jameson et al., 1999). Therefore a broad range of research has been

18 conducted on diver impacts at tropical reef locations, with the majority of this research being completed between the 1990’s to early 2000’s.

Studies conducted on the Great Barrier Reef (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; 2001) found that 15% of divers damaged or broke corals, with divers’ fins being the main cause (95%) of all damage. Underwater photographers were more likely to cause damage than divers not using photographic equipment. A study on the level of diver impact based on 3 reef topographies (steep slope, gently sloping, and near-horizontal reef benthos) saw no correlation with a particular topography and level of diver impact (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). However, on a smaller scale, morphological composition of the benthos was more important, with branching and erect morphologies being more prone to damage than encrusting and massive forms (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992; Uyarra and Côté, 2007).

Comparative research on dived and non-dived reefs in the Caribbean reveal SCUBA diving activities are having a significant impact in areas of high visitation, with hard corals being the most significantly affected. Tratalos and Austin (2001) reported that corals directly adjacent to vessel moorings showed a greater number of breaks and abrasions, whereas, coral health and percentage cover directly away from dive moorings was significantly higher. This study observed that large groups of divers tend to make considerable contact with the reef at the start of the dive before establishing . Whilst branching corals tend to sustain significant percentage of breaks at sites of high diving activity (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; Garrabou et al., 1998), the fast rate of growth at some reefs in the Caribbean has meant an 8.2% increase in cover in heavily dived areas, at the expense of slower growing corals (Roberts et al., 2002). Hawkins et al., (1999) suggested that diver- induced abrasion and tissue loss in corals may facilitate transmission of disease. Diseased corals constituted a larger proportion of coral population at more heavily-dived sites at Byron Bay (Bucher et al., 2007).

In addition to the visible effects, research on coral communities has suggested diver presence can contribute to the spread of coral disease through transference (via a diver) from one coral contact to another, included both white and black band disease (Harriott et al., 1997). Hall (2001) found that damaged corals are also more likely to be infected by pathogens or other invading organisms and have a higher risk of mortality than undamaged colonies. Hawkins et al., (2002) documented a significant shift from massive to branching coral dominance at heavily dived sites in the Caribbean and suggested that the presence of coral disease was

19 directly related to diver-inflicted lesions on slow growing massive corals (Endean and Cameron, 1990).

The majority of research conducted on the effects of divers on tropical coral reefs, has focused on either potential impact by the number of contacts divers have made with a reef, or broad surveys of coral exposed to different levels of diver visitation (Salm, 1986; Dixon et al., 1993; Hale and Olsen, 1993; Broome and Valentine, 1995; Rouphael and Inglis., 1997). These studies showed reduced coral cover on heavily dived sites (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002) and a change in coral structure, with more resilient corals becoming dominant (Hawkins et al., 1999; Hughes et al. 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). Over time scales of several years the major outcome is a loss of species diversity. Globally this suggests that coral reefs in heavily dived locations may be less likely to recover from annual storm events or outbreaks of disease due to the additional constant stressing by poorly managed recreational diving activity (Wilson et al., 2006).

With close proximity to Europe, the Red Sea is known to be one of the most heavily dived locations in the world, supporting one of the highest densities of resorts and vessels (Hawkins and Roberts, 1994; Medio et al.1997; Zakia et al. 2002; Hasler and Ott, 2008). Reefs in Eilat, Israel (Northern Red Sea) attract immense diving , with as many as 300,000 divers annually (Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002; Rinkevich, 2005). Due to the extremely high volumes of tourism at such locations, impacts on fish and coral reef communities have been widely researched (Hawkins and Roberts, 1994; Rouphael and Inglis, 2002; Burak et al., 2004; Van Treeck et al., 2008; Uyarra et al., 2009). This SCUBA activity has produced significant anthropogenic pressure, with evidence of significant decline in the condition of these coral communities, through the direct effects of diver contacts with the benthos. Research by Zakia and Chadwick-Furman (2002) showed that the current level of diving at the most heavily used sites in Eilat was unsustainable. These reefs received up to 300,000 dives annually and the study estimated > 400,000 instances of direct contacts to coral occur annually. The most heavily dived sites, in which the percentage cover of branching corals is high, showed 100% of all coral breakages were diver-related.

With the exception of the Great Barrier Reef, coral reefs globally are predominately located along coastlines of less developed nations (McClanahan, 1999). The cost of living in these countries is well below that of developed nations, making them a target for tourist divers seeking ‘affordable’ tourism destinations (Hawkins and Khan, 1998; Hall 2001; Echtner and Prasad, 2003).

20 1.4 SUBTROPICAL REEFS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE

Subtropical reefs have been characterised as important transition zones between tropical coral reefs and temperate macro-algal dominated rocky reefs (Harriott et al., 1999). These reefs are influenced by both tropical and temperate currents, creating highly variable environments (Suthers et al., 2011). Species diversity is high due to endemism and the overlapping of species at range edges (Beger et al., 2014). However the extent, distribution and structure of these marginal habitats are poorly understood (Beger et al., 2011).

Due to a worldwide decline in tropical coral reefs from over-exploitation and climate change (Pandolfi et al., 2011), it has been suggested by Veron et al., (2009) that subtropical habitats could in the future provide critical habitat for tropical species that are no longer able to survive in tropical latitudes due to global warming and ocean acidification. Gibson et al., (2009) states that subtropical zones could potentially provide environmental ‘stepping stones’ for a range of species during climate-driven range shifts, making subtropical zones high conservation priorities (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2010; Beger et al., 2014).

Depending on large-scale ocean currents, subtropical reefs occur between 25° and 30° latitude north and south. Although the percentage cover by hard corals may be locally high, growth rates are insufficient to accumulate calcium carbonate (Harriott and Banks, 2002), so they are not classified as coral reefs per se (Kingsford et al., 1991). Subtropical coral communities form patchy habitats (Richardson et al., 1997), colonies tend to form low-relief veneers encrusting rock substrata (Veron, 1995). Harriott and Banks (2002) found that coral species richness declined with increasing latitude and coral diversity and abundance reduced as the benthos became more dominated by macroalgae, soft corals and other sessile invertebrates such as ascidians, sponges and barnacles (Harriott et al., 1994; Schleyer et al., 2008). Subtropical reefs can also support habitats typical of temperate rocky reefs, which are more dominated by macroalgae such as kelp, although the density and height of the kelp is often reduced (Harriott, 1999). The range of habitats and food resources provided by such a diverse benthic community allows subtropical reefs to support high biodiversity of motile invertebrates and fishes (Watson et al. 2007).

Harriott and Banks (2002) found that within Australian subtropical communities, scleractinian corals can be found at, or close to, their southern range limit, whilst Ecklonia radiata kelp inhabits its northern limit. With the East Australia Current bringing tropical water to offshore areas and wind-driven cooler currents close to shore, there is also an inshore-to-offshore gradient with inshore reefs supporting algae-dominated habitat and

21 offshore sites supporting more corals (Beger et al. 2014; Malcolm et al. 2011). Sites on the leeward side of offshore islands provide suitable habitat for branching corals. However, high wave action on exposed and shallow inshore sites favours encrusting forms (Beger et al., 2014).

More remote subtropical island communities (e.g. Lord Howe Island, Australia) have limited and patchy gene flow and recruitment (Swearer et al. 2002), which, coupled with seasonal storm events (Friedlander et al., 2005), places natural focus of pressure on reef ecology. Temperature dynamics also play an important role in marginal communities. Lower mean and minimum sea surface , as well as temperature changes over relatively short temporal scales (Guinotte et al., 2003; Malcolm et al., 2011), may limit the settlement of organisms (Nozawa and Harrison, 2007; Schleyer et al., 2008), or the establishment of viable populations (Figueira and Booth, 2010). For example, the proportion of tropical and temperate species in subtropical fish communities varies seasonally, with recruitment of tropical species in summer, and the subsequent demise of some species in winter (Booth et al., 2007; Hammerton, 2007).

Growth and regeneration rates of sessile benthic species are limited by many intrinsic (individual-dependent) and extrinsic (environment dependent) factors (Schiel and Taylor, 1999; Eckrich and Holmquist, 2000; Roff et al., 2003). Generally, the greater the surface area of a sessile organism, the more vulnerable the colony/ is to disturbance and damage. Specifically, smaller, older sponges and corals with less morphological complexity, show less regeneration capability than larger complex species (Bell and Barnes, 2003; Duckworth, 2003). In addition, branching and erect growth forms are more prone to damage than encrusting growth forms (Au et al. 2014). The lower the growth rates and therefore potentially lower lesion-healing ability in corals close to their environmental limits (Bak and Meesters, 1999) may make this component of subtropical communities more susceptible to diver damage that their tropical counterparts.

Sponges are a key component of sub-tropical and temperate reefs, but there has been inadequate research determining the impacts of diver activities on these organisms (Bell and Barnes, 2003b). Sponges are also an important structural element of some Caribbean reefs where impacts on large barrel sponges from diver contact have been demonstrated (Wulff, 2006). Importantly, age-dependent regeneration from injury shows that juvenile sponges may be less able to recover due to energy being focused on growth processes rather than repair processes (Addessi, 1994; Duckworth, 2003).

22 Subtropical and temperate reefs are therefore similar to tropical reefs, in that the principal habitat-forming taxa can be damaged by diver contact, resulting in loss of structural diversity. The taxa themselves are different and so will be their relative ability to regenerate, making taxa from one region are not necessarily transferable to another. The lower growth rates and therefore potentially lower lesion-healing ability in corals close to their environmental limits (Meesters et al., 1997), may make subtropical communities more susceptible to diver damage that their tropical counterparts.

Damage to benthic communities is known to affect biological processes, including both normal and repair growth (Ward et al. 1995; Bak and Meesters, 1999) and reproduction (Maltby, 1999). Such impacts can affect the ability of the organism to respond to other environmental stressors such as storm damage, flood runoff, or warm water events. In addition, trophic cascades may result in impacts on fish populations (Hawkins et al., 1999). This may present a clear conflict between environmental protection, resource usage and the desires of MPA stakeholders.

1.5 DIVER IMPACTS ON SUBTROPICAL AND TEMPERATE REEF ECOLOGY

Major portions of active recreational divers reside in the subtropical/temperate climates of North America, Australia, Europe, Japan and New Zealand (PADI 2010). The principal subtropical diving locations (Figure 1.1) including Lord Howe Island (Australia), southern Japan, the east and west coasts of Australia, South Africa and the west coast of Mexico (Baja California Sur), are therefore closer to the population centres of recreational divers than tropical locations. In addition, the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) at 0° latitude are a unique region due to cold currents and equatorial that makes them biologically subtropical (Houvenaghel, 1978).

Divers from these countries tend to access local reefs or travel to neighbouring countries to dive. Many of these subtropical reefs are located within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). These reefs provide important refuges for numerous endemic, vulnerable and threatened species, with some of these species, including sharks and manta ray, are considered major drawcards for recreational divers.

23

Figure 1.1: Subtropical habitats with prominent and well-established recreational diving locations (listed) (Adapted from Beger et al., 2014).

Significant data gaps exist in research which focuses on diver impacts on subtropical and temperate reef communities. Generally, because there is a perception that these reefs have a low vulnerability, when compared to coral reefs in that sessile species inhabiting these subtropical/temperate reefs are not considered as much exposed to diver impact (Lloret et al., 2006).

Diver impacts on benthic communities can occur in a number of ways including direct harvesting or collecting for food or souvenirs, damage and stress from direct contact with the benthos, sediment disturbance or the transmission of pathogens. Eckrich and Holmquist (2000) stated that, as well as individual populations, overall community structure may also be affected. The features of the benthic topography can be significantly altered through both direct and indirect effects by physical injury to or removal of key organisms by SCUBA- divers. Henry et al., (2005) showed that recovery rates of benthic sponges damaged by SCUBA-divers are largely determined by the extent of repeated damage sustained and the age of an organism. The sensitivity, survival and recovery of these habitats from SCUBA- diver disturbance, is an essential consideration for managers of subtropical marine environments. The majority of diver impact studies at subtropical/temperate latitudes have been conducted in the Mediterranean (Sala et al., 1996; Badalamenti, 2000; Milazzo et al., 2002). More recently, studies have been conducted in Hong Kong (Chung et al. 2013) and in subtropical reefs of Japan (Toyoshima and Nadaoka, 2015).

24 Sala et al., (2006) used Pentapora fascialis (a colonial bryozoan) as an indicator species to determine the abrasive effects of heavy diving activity in dived and un-dived sites at the Medes Islands Protected Area in Spain (north western Mediterranean). This study found that not only was there a significant decrease in density, but colony height and diameter were also significantly reduced and that the coralligenous (calcifying) community as a whole was impacted.

A study off the north-eastern coast of Spain by Garrabou et al., (1998) also examined the effects of SCUBA diving on P. fasialis in a previously un-dived area within a marine reserve. The installation of a diving buoy saw a 60-fold increase in diver related impact, with more detailed analysis revealing a 50% decrease in colony density of P.this species only one year after the start of diving disturbance, with a significant loss of large colonies. This study concluded that sessile organisms with fragile calcareous or corneous skeletons were not well adapted to constant and intense disturbances from SCUBA diving.

In order to limit the extent of diver impacts on sensitive organisms, the management approach of some MPAs in the Mediterranean has been to completely prohibit SCUBA diving, or restrict diving activity to reefs at the edge of the MPA (Lloret et al., 2006). An alternative approach by Di Franco et al., (2008), proposed a vulnerability index model for the management of diver impact along specific diving trails. This ‘bottom up’ approach is in contrast to more common management strategies using a the ‘top down’ approach models that set limits on the number of divers. The later model identified benthic species that can be potentially affected, and evaluated their vulnerability prior to determining a sustainable number of divers visiting the MPA, or the amount of damage they may cause. The main objective of this study was ultimately to create a series of diver trails to direct divers away from the more sensitive and vulnerable benthic organisms.

A study on the subtropical reefs near Hong Kong by Chung, Au & Qiu (2013) recorded similar impacts to those on tropical coral reefs and found poor buoyancy control to be a primary reason for inexperienced diver contacts, whereas experienced divers using photographic equipment tended towards higher contact rates than those not using equipment. Photographers were also found to have higher rates of contact and reef damage by Roberts and Harriott (1994) in eastern Australia.

Toyoshima and Nadaoka (2015) investigated the rate of divers’ contacts on the reefs in the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. This study showed that 91% of divers made some form of contact with reef benthos, with 7% resulting in coral skeletal breakage. Divers’ fins were the main

25 method for causing coral breakages. Contacts rates were higher for divers using cameras, in particularly those with poor buoyancy control. This study found that poor buoyancy control was strongly correlated with contact rates.

Although diver impact studies on subtropical and temperate reefs elsewhere in the world have been the subject of some research, subtropical sites in Australia offer SCUBA diving year round and are more intensively dived than most tropical coral reefs (Harriott et al. 1999). At such locations, corals, kelp and other organisms may be close to their natural environmental tolerance with reduced recruitment and growth (Harriott et al., 1999) and may be therefore more sensitive to additional impacts from SCUBA-divers and therefore warrant further studies.

1.6 CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Various broad based approaches to the management of diver impacts have been used. All attempt to define the number of divers and types of activities that can be supported without unacceptable change to the habitat and/or particular species.

1.6.1 Carrying Capacity Approach (CCA)

The CCA model estimates sustainable numbers of dives on a given reef, with the purpose of being able to accommodate diver-based tourism without adverse and irreversible impact on the ecosystem in question. Throughout the 1990s, this approach was heavily advocated for use within MPAs (Dixon et al., 1993; Broome and Valentine, 1995; Davis and Tisdell, 1995; Hawkins and Roberts, 1997; Jameson et al., 1999; Estrada et al. 2004). The theory behind this model was that environmental disturbance is maintained at a level that could be repaired by ecological processes. If the capacity is exceeded (typically expressed in terms of divers per site per year), significant and possibly irreversible damage to reef ecology will result (McCool and Lime, 2001; Coma et al., 2004). Research within MPAs shows that implementing a single unbiased level of use that is capable of maintaining the condition of the resource in question is unrealistic (McCool and Lime, 2001; Farrell and Marion, 2002).

A range of limiting factors exists when using the CCA model for managing diver impacts, most importantly that the intensity of SCUBA diving which occurs at a particular site is not a reliable prediction of diver impact. Diver behaviour for example varies based on experience (Harriott et al., 1997), whether a camera is being used (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001), diver specialisation or attitude (Dearden, 2006), and ocean conditions (visibility or

26 water temperature) (Webb, 1984). The physical and ecological attributes of each dive site can also influence the level of contact, for example reef topography, depth, or surge. The CCA needs therefore to be determined based on individual dive sites (Salm, 1986; Price, 1999; McCool et al., 2001; Farrell et al., 2002;) and include consideration of spatial and temporal variation in environmental factors (e.g. storm damage) and seasonal- based comfort levels of divers at each site. Considering that many diving locations are within highly dynamic coastal and marine zones, developing a predictive model would be questionable without long-term baseline data. Additionally, a detailed understanding of what influences diver behaviour is necessary. An example is water temperature, which relates to the comfort level of divers’; training, which is ’s level of competency to cope with varied diving situations such as ocean current; dive site topography such as, narrow trenches or caves versus open boulder field reef; purpose of the dive (passive swimming versus ); in situ dive management, which includes whether the dive is a highly directed guided tour, or a self-directed tour dive.

Farrell and Marion (2002) view the CCA model as limiting because it places too much emphasis on purely limiting tourist numbers when other more refined management strategies could be implemented to greater effect. Their suggested alternative is the Limits of Acceptable Change model (Stankey, 1985).

1.6.2 Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

The Limits of Acceptable Change model (LAC) is based on an acceptable level of ecological change within a protected area (Stankey, 1985). This model is determined by the specific management objectives for each site within a protected area, quantitative limits are defined and the necessary management actions are implemented to ensure ecological change beyond these standards is avoided. A baseline must be established and resource condition monitored to ensure change does not exceed the specific LAC model limit for the chosen site.. Oliver (1995) criticised this model based on major procedural weaknesses. Specifically, the limited understanding of natural variation in the reef ecosystem structure and function, coupled with how the system responds to anthropogenic activities. On-going monitoring studies to ensure baselines are maintained can be costly or unaffordable at locations within small MPAs, or MPAs in developing nations. LAC was developed especially for natural areas relatively undisturbed by anthropogenic impact; however at sites with a long history of diving tourism the present baseline may already represent a seriously impacted ecosystem making this approach limiting in scope.

27 Management of diving in Piccaninnie and Ewans Ponds at Mount Gambier, South Australia, illustrate examples of a combination of CCA and LAC. The ‘condition’ of the ponds is monitored in terms of aquatic vegetation cover and the ponds have been closed to divers in the past to enable recovery of vegetation. Diver numbers are limited (CCA) through a permit system.

The essential differences between the CCA and LAC approaches are that the CCA model is based on estimating sustainable visitor numbers, while the focus of LAC is based on the ecological change of a site. The major impediment to the CCA model is that it assumes every visitor will contribute the same level of impact. With regard to SCUBA diving, individual levels of impact vary greatly from diver to diver. The LAC approach can only be used at sites where the pre-impact condition is known or can be compared with non- impacted control locations.

1.6.3 Percentile Approach

Rouphael and Hanafy (2007) proposed ‘the percentile approach’, specifically for use on coral reefs. This is a percentile-trigger based approach adapted from the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council to assess water quality (ANZECC, 2001a, 2001b). This approach avoids the use of a ‘fixed default value of resource condition’, and acknowledges ‘the need for multiple reference sites rather than a single reference site’. Trigger values are established immediately, without the standard required two-year waiting period used for water quality assessment (Wooldridge, 2009). This strategy simultaneously monitors the abundance of injured corals between dived and non-dived sites where permanent moorings are utilised. Similarly to the LAC approach, the focus is on measuring the change in condition of coral assemblages as opposed to the level of diving activity. Rouphael and Hanafy (2007), emphasis this approach is useful for providing early warnings of ‘detrimental change of coral assemblages’. Management action is taken if the median abundance of coral injuries equals or exceeds the 80th percentile of coral injuries at reference sites. This is a variation of the Control Chart Approach to environmental monitoring (Anderson and Thompson, 2004), where limits are set on the basis of long-term mean, with limits determined quantitatively by comparison with the background variability.

There are four major limitations with this management framework. (1) If the baseline and limits have not been established before impact and coral is already heavily degraded, starting conditions may have already exceeded acceptable limits. (2) Where permanent moorings have not been established for vessels to anchor, damage occurs across the reef. Permanent

28 mooring can direct impact away from sensitive areas (3) Damage is possible from non-diver anthropogenic sources, which means that unacceptable deviations from reference may not be attributable to divers (4) If breakage is very low or zero in the control sites then the trigger value may be set at an impractical and ecologically insignificant level.

1.7 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR LIMITING DIVER IMPACTS

Research by Barker and Roberts (2004) tested the effects of briefings on diver behaviour. During the usual briefing one specific instruction was incorporated with divers being asked to “avoid all contact with the reef”. This statement was found to have no significant impact in reducing diver contact with the reef. The same study also tested intervention. Divers who were allowed to contact the reef did so three times more than those who were subject to dive guide intervention. This study demonstrated the effectiveness of diver leader intervention as a significant means to reducing diver contact with coral. Of interest was that most divers surveyed after the dive stated that they appreciated the intervention of the dive guide and did not want to intentionally damage the reef (Barker and Roberts, 2004). This was in contrast to Medio et al (1997), who found that extended pre-dive briefing that educated divers as to the value of not touching the reef produced a significant reduction in subsequent contacts to less than 1 per 10 minute observation period without further in-water intervention.

1.7.1 Dive marshals

In 2012, Julian Hyde, the General Manager of , Malaysia, placed a call out for information and awareness of the use of dive marshals to supervise divers underwater, with twenty anecdotal replies were received from geographically diverse countries - Africa, Belize, the Caribbean, Mexico, Red Sea and South East Asia (Coral list archives, 2012). Only six noted the successful use of dive marshals with the authority to remove divers from the water who did not comply with the ‘no touch, no take’ policies. The remaining replies stated no such management strategy was applied, but that it was a good idea. One respondent from Fiji noted that dive guides can be more reckless than guests, possibly due to their over- confidence and familiarity with the locations in question. Another respondent noted that dive guides mentioned no touching but this was rarely enforced once underwater. This is a common occurrence (pers. obs.), particularly in countries where dive guides rely on tips from tourists. In Belize, a fee is collected from each diver to cover the cost of the marshal; operators also ban divers and support guides who report poor behaviour (pers. comm. Julian Hyde, 2013). In Papua New Guinea it is common practice for dive guides to physically

29 handle sessile benthic invertebrates such as echinoderms, to search for small marine invertebrates (crabs, shrimp, seahorses) for the purpose of allowing a photographer to have better access. Species are regularly moved out into the open, or to a more photographically favourable location (pers. obs., 2013), potentially making them more prone to predation. In addition, sea fans and soft corals are physically handled and combed through in the search for photogenic marine life (Uyarra and Côté, 2007).

1.7.2 Diver Education

Environmental education and interpretation has been viewed as a way to reduce diver impacts; however its tested effectiveness has presented mixed results. Medio et al., (1997) found that a 45-min pre-dive briefing which included information on reef biology, the role of marine protected areas, the damage caused to the reef by diver contacts, and a follow up in- water demonstration, resulted in divers making fewer contacts during the subsequent dives. During the briefing, divers were shown living and non-living substrate, to illustrate areas of the reef which could be touched. However this assumes a pre-existing level of marine taxa knowledge and that all divers could identify the difference between reef substrate subsequently whilst diving. This also gives a mixed message about contact with the reef (possibly suggesting that some contacts are acceptable). For most dive companies, particularly those located within high turnover tourist areas, briefings typically last 10-15 minutes. Asking visitors who will be only spending 30-40mins underwater, to be present for a 50 minute briefing, may be impractical, as visitors have limited time at the destination. The amount of diver turnover may create a limiting factor to the economics of the dive business. An educational brief longer than the simple statement of Baker and Roberts and the extended ‘lesson’ of Medio et al might be almost as effective but less time-consuming.

Essentially, by providing education alone, behaviour is not necessarily changed (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Townsend, 2003). Instead, communicating environmental education that is then followed up with experiential learning gives the individual the opportunity to put the education into practice (Gentry, 1990). All of the major agencies offer continuing education specialty training courses. These provide a means for individuals to increase environmental knowledge whilst gaining important in-water skills and recognised qualifications. The limiting factor to this is the voluntary nature of enrolling in such education programs, the time lapse between initial date of SCUBA training and engaging in these courses to enhance, or update skills and knowledge and the economic cost of the courses, which may prevent participation (pers. obs.).

30 The most common cause of reef contact reported from tropical dive sites is from divers’ fins (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002; Barker and Roberts, 2004). This is primarily the result of poor buoyancy control (Harriott et al., 1997). Divers often lack the appropriate skill base to comply with requests to stay off the reef. Specialty training in low impact diving which provides advanced training in buoyancy, horizontal trim and streamlining would be beneficial for providing recreational divers with further education and enhancement of the necessary skill base. Improved skills and confidence underwater would enable individuals to comply with the ‘no touch’ policy promoted in many diving locations and required in MPA sanctuary zones. Benefits to diving professionals and the industry exist also, through the up-skilling of staff and the economic benefits of providing courses that may be marketed to all divers. Educational programs would benefit from being formulated between MPAs and the recreational diving industry; such site-based interpretive programmes could present a viable intervention strategy.

1.7.3 Dive site rating system

Greater supervision of divers by dive leaders has been shown to have a significant impact on reducing contact with the reef, and reducing interference with fish and sharks (Barker and Roberts 2004; Barker et al. 2011). Planned dive tour routes can also avoid sensitive habitats like narrow trenches and caves, which are more susceptible to diver contacts (Shivlani and Suman, 2000). When guides avoid such areas, they greatly assist in lowering diver impact at specific locations (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). Popular diving locations could be rated based on a sensitivity index, as in the Mediterranean (Di Franco et al., 2009) and only accessible to divers with appropriate experience and training. The Cave Divers Association of Australia system of rating caves and divers (CDAA, 2014) is an example of this approach (albeit for diver safety reasons rather than environment impact).

The Australian industry also provides for an alternative model in which the abundance of sensitive biota (vegetation and algae cover) has provided trigger values to managers for temporal changes of popular dive sites to allow time for recovery (CDAA, 2013).

1.8 THE AUSTRALIAN DIVING INDUSTRY

The Australian recreational diving industry is worth an estimated $1 billion from international visitors and $547 million from Australian divers (Tourism Queensland, 2012). With this substantial input into the Australian economy and the industry expanding to meet

31 the growing needs of tourism, a new range of strategies is required to manage diver impacts into the future. A relatively small minority of divers access offshore reefs unescorted. For most areas, charter operators are the conduit between the recreational diver and the reef. A high level of responsibility is placed upon dive companies to assist with maintaining the ecological integrity of dive sites on which their business relies. This can easily be facilitated through implementation of best-practice protocols and by promoting low impact diving. The economic realities of operating diving as a commercial enterprise for a small business means that customer satisfaction is important to future business. Word of mouth is important within the recreational dive industry, with divers regularly exchanging information about recent dives, dive locations and dive-boat operators (Dive-Oz forum, 1998-2014). Providing the most enjoyable experience (from the point of view of the visiting diver) is paramount to dive businesses. This can lead to situations where the information provided during the pre-dive briefings ‘to stay off the reef’ is not followed up with underwater intervention or post-dive ‘debriefing’ (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001). While there is an expectation that all dive guides will lead by example and refrain from physically handling marine life, or leaning against the reef to point out areas of interest (Hawkins et al., 1999). Problematic contacts such as picking up/touching of marine species such as starfish, mollusc, shark or turtle by industry professionals/dive guides to show visiting divers, or to get the species to react for photography are regrettably observed to take place on a regular basis (Cater, 2008a). Accidental contacts could be due to fatigue, whilst intentional contacts can occur from a sense of familiarity with a dive site (Merchant, 2011). When dive leaders interact with marine species inappropriately, a confusing message is communicated to divers on a recreational dive outing. Such actions also serve to invalidate the pre-dive briefing. An integrated approach to manage diver impacts is therefore required, whereby a consultation process with all stakeholders is facilitated, so that integrated mechanisms will be available to educate and promote compliance throughout the industry and the general diving community.

1.9 SCUBA DIVING AS ECOTOURISM

According to The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), ecotourism is defined as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well- being of local people” (TIES, 1990). Ecotourism is differentiated from ‘nature tourism’ (any activity of simply visiting and enjoying nature), as ecotourism actively benefits the environment and local economies (Weaver, 2005).

32 TIES defines the principles of ecotourism as a focus on uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. This means that those who implement and participate in ecotourism activities should minimise impact; build environmental and cultural awareness and respect, provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts, provide direct financial benefits for conservation, provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people and raise sensitivity to a host countries' political, environmental and social climate. An active approach to environmentally aware practises (recycling, energy efficiency, water reuse), whilst consciously avoiding, or eliminating environmentally damaging practises and maintaining ‘ecological integrity’ is key (Lee and Moscardo, 2003).

When the term ‘eco’ is applied without the above ethics and practices, this is known as ‘green-washing’, a term that was coined in 1986 by Jay Westervelt (Lane, 2013). Green washing is a marketing tool used by a range of companies/operators within many industries to provide an ‘eco-brand’ logo/stamp of approval for a range of products and services to the public (Ramus and Montiel, 2005). Issues with the lack of external auditing with respect to some ‘green washing’ logos have subsequently arisen. In some situations, the term ‘ecotourism’ has been applied to activities ranging from recreational angling (Zwirn et al., 2005 in Weaver and Lawton), to trophy hunting (Hovelli et al., 2006), in Weaver and Lawton (2007), activities that may not be ecologically sustainable, environmentally friendly or have a wildlife conservation focus (Lindsey et al. 2007). For industries whose business is directly connected to and dependent upon the environment, such as diving tourism, the use of eco-labels and green washing has the double-edged problem of not only being confusing for the end user, but also may cover diving practises that are not best practise in relation to the environment (Delmas and Cuerel Burbano, 2011). The potential problems are magnified when recreational diving takes place within MPAs (Milazzo et al., 2002) where operating in a marine park can itself be used as a form of green-washing. This is despite clear indications that diving activities within MPAs can fit the criteria to be officially certified and regularly externally audited as ‘ecotourist’ ventures (Walters and Samways, 2001).

To determine whether a venture represents genuine ecotourism, or is instead a ‘green washed’ operation (Medina, 2005; Self et al. 2010) a series of questions regarding sustainable practices, policies, local community engagement, environmental impacts and educational programs can be asked, including but not limited to:

1) What sustainable practices do they engage in?

33 2) What are their policies concerning restricting visitor numbers, recycling and storing water, being energy self-sufficient, reducing and disposing of waste?

3) Do they offer interpretive guiding and other educational opportunities?

4) Do they purchase carbon offsets?

5) Do they hire local employees?

6) Are tours operations locally owned?

7) What is its environmental policy?

8) What do they do to protect native wildlife and flora?

9) Does it practice “leave no trace” on the trail?

10) Are there educational programs to inform the visitors about the area, its wildlife (how close you can get), the culture and history?

11) Does it provide financial support for local conservation, vegetation, etc.?

12) Is there cooperation with the management agency (e.g. National Parks and Wildlife Service) and/or the local council?

1.9.1 Eco Certification - Australia

Australia currently has an Eco Certification Program for tourism operations, that, is claimed to be the “world’s first” (Ecotourism Australia, 2013) and is now being marketed internationally. It is stated to be a “globally recognized brand that assists travellers to choose and experience a genuine and authentic tour...”.

It is of interest that in the definition adopted by Ecotourism Australia, economic benefits to local communities does not appear as one of the stated objectives, nor reference to best practice principles, in contrast to the international definition of ecotourism as clearly outlined by TIES and in the Mohonk Agreement (2000).

In 2000, to counter the problems that were arising with respect to ‘ecotourism’, a ‘framework and principles for the certification of sustainable and ecotourism’ was agreed at the conclusion of an international workshop on ‘Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism Certification’ convened by the Institute for Policy Studies, in Mohonk Mountain House, New York; this subsequently became known as the “Mohonk Agreement’ (Honey and Rome, 2000). The significance of the Mohonk Agreement lay in the recognition that tourism certification needed to be tailored to specific geographic locations and tourism industries, but

34 that there were also key shared concerns to enable a sustainable universal certification to be developed and maintained. The United Nations declared 2002 the ‘International Year of Ecotourism’ (IYE), and in that same year, the specialised peer-reviewed Journal of Ecotourism was also established (Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Following these trends, many countries began developing national principles for the conduct of ecotourism (Buckley, 2009).

The Ecotourism Australia certification includes a level one (Nature Tourism) rating. Such operations involve tourism in natural areas that leave minimal impact on the environment. In light of the level of impact occurring within popular diving sites, many SCUBA charter companies would not meet this criterion. Of interest is that the “Nature Tourism” certification, falls outside of the internationally established definition of ‘ecotourism’. The issue here is that the logo is almost identical (with only minor wording change (Figure 1.2) to more pro-active certification levels. Therefore to a casual observer may confuse a “Nature Tourist” operator for a certified “Advanced Ecotourism” venture. By comparison based on the principles and criteria within the Mohonk Agreement, the level three “Advanced Ecotourism” certification is the only certification level that would completely meet the criteria of ecotourism. The level 3 (Advanced Ecotourism) is defined as providing Australia's leading and most innovative ecotourism products, providing an opportunity to learn about the environment with an operator who is committed to achieving best practice when using resources wisely, contributing to the conservation of the environment and helping local communities.

Figure 1.2: Ecotourism Australia Logos and Standards (Ecotourism.org, 2013)

When viewed in terms of the TIES and the Mohonk Agreement, the level one “Nature Tourism” brand appears not to meet any international standards of ecotourism and due to this, could be interpreted as an officially sanctioned form of green washing.

35 Also of concern, is that to commence certification of a business or tourism venture, requires only a “50% nature based focus” and agreement to four very generic principles. For a small annual fee, businesses can easily receive the Ecotourism Australia certification logo. As stated on the online certification page: “Accreditation is very affordable and not all that difficult.” There also does not appear to be any external pre-certification checks of tourism ventures as it is a ‘self-assessment model’ and the initial audit of the business can take place up to twelve months after certification. (http://www.ecotourism.org.au/open_pdf.asp, Accessed April 21st, 2013; July 6th, 2014). Therefore, as logos and eco-tourist branding may be misleading, the challenges and onus is still placed upon consumers to identify ‘genuine’ eco-tourist ventures.

Currently 48 operators are certified at “Advanced Ecotourism” level by Ecotourism Australia under the “Snorkelling/Diving” listing. The dive centres within both Cape Byron Marine Park and Solitary Islands Marine Park do not advertise as eco-tourism operators, nor currently have ecotourism certification.

SCUBA diving is often promoted as a low-impact, eco-tourism activity with numerous dive operators now using the suffix ‘Eco’ (Eco Divers, 2010-2014; Eco Dive, 2012-2013; Eco Dive Services, 2013). Some dive companies make a genuine effort to earn this status, by promoting environmental programs such as the PADI Project Aware (Project AWARE Foundation, 2013), sponsoring a conservation organisation, purchasing carbon offset credits, or running reef clean-up activities and diver education on low-impact diving practises. The majority of commercial dive operators state they do want to preserve the reefs they dive (pers. comm), however this ideology may not be easily practised when groups of paying divers descend upon the reef. Without a real need to change in practices, green-washing within the diving industry will continue to occur. However, if the industry wants to continue the reputation as a low-impact tourism activity it will need to adopt strategies that genuinely reduce impact. Assistance with selecting available options for reducing impact with minimal interference and short-term profitability may be useful to the industry.

1.10 THESIS AIMS

The initial phase of this research documented the current frequency and intensity of diver contacts occurring on subtropical reefs of Northern New South Wales. Understanding the underlying causes of SCUBA-diver contact with sensitive benthic organisms is critical for the development of targeted strategies management of diver impact and for developing

36 policy that allows the marine tourism industry to maintain or expand current levels of recreational diving practices.

The characteristics dive locations and divers that contribute most to damaging contacts were investigated to provide the basis for targeted management options. The effectiveness of targeted pre-dive briefings and in-water interventions in reducing diver contacts will be tested. Finally a Low Impact Diver (LID) training course will be developed and tested for its effectiveness in modifying diver behaviour to reduce the impacts of recreational diving on sensitive benthic habitats.

Stage 1 entailed in-water observational research (recording type and impact) and post-dive questions (appendix A) of 400 SCUBA divers. The focus of this stage was to identify which variables (i.e. experience, training, use of photographic equipment) correlate with diver contacts on reef benthos. In addition, the data collected at Stage 1, provided the basis for further statistical analysis in Stage 2.

Stage 2, identified the type of diver contacts creating severe impact and which taxa and habitat type are most at risk.

Stage 3, focused on management strategies, specifically testing levels of intervention and ways to reduce benthic contacts made by recreational divers. 400 divers surveyed within stage 1 were included within the stage 3 study, with an additional 200 divers surveyed at level 3 intervention.

Finally Stage 4, focused firstly on developing and securing international accreditation for a low impact diver training course; then tested an additional 61 certified on the effectiveness of low impact diver training on reducing diver contacts regardless of certification and experience level.

37

Figure 1.3: Flow chart, showing stages of the research.

38 Chapter 2

General Methods

2.1 STUDY LOCATIONS

The data were collected at two locations on the subtropical east coast of Australia (Figure 2.1): at Cape Byron Marine Park (CBMP) and Solitary Islands Marine Park (SIMP). At CBMP all diving was conducted at sites around a single island, Julian Rocks. SIMP includes several islands at different distances from the shore. Positioned within the Tweed-Moreton bioregion, the study locations are within a tropical-temperate overlap zone and support a broad and diverse range of marine species (Zann, 2000; MPA, 2003). The distance between these two marine parks is approximately 250km. Benthic community structure varies between the diving sites. CBMP sites are algal dominated reefs, with substantial percentages of Ascidiacea, Porifera and Scleractinia. SIMP reefs used in this study are dominated by scleractinan corals with lower percentages of algae, Ascidiacea and Porifera.

These locations were selected due to their proximity to prominent tourist destinations (Byron Bay and Coffs Harbour). The Byron Shire has a local population of approximately 30,000 people (2006 census) whilst the annual tourist population is in the range of 1.75 million (Byron Shire Council ‘Tourism Management Plan Annual Report 2011 – 2012). Over 75% of participants surveyed were on holidays from overseas or Australia. Both locations were prominent diving destination prior to MPA zoning (Deacon and Deacon, 1986).

2.2 DIVING SITES 2.2.1 Cape Byron Marine Park (CBMP)

Julian Rocks (28°36’48’’S; 153°37’38’’E) is located approximately three nautical miles off the coast of Cape Byron on the north coast of New South Wales (Figure 2.1), within Cape Byron Marine Park (CBMP), which was established in 2002. Julian Rocks is one of the oldest rock formations in northern NSW, dating from the Devonian period, approximately 300 million years ago (Copeland and Phillips, 1994). It offers a prime location for the recreational diving industry, being listed among the top ten national dive sites (Byron 1998). Whilst the total area of the marine park is approximately 22,000 hectares, recreational SCUBA diving is limited to sites directly adjacent to Julian Rocks, with diving occasionally being undertaken at deeper and less protected reefs to the north east. Due to very low

39 visitation rates, these deeper reefs (>25m) were not included in this study. The four most popular dive sites at Julian Rocks (The Nursery, The Needles, Hugo’s Trench and The ) are within a designated sanctuary zone (Figure 2.2). The depth at all sites ranges between 6 – 26m.

Figure 2.1: Research locations of Cape Byron and Solitary Islands Marine Parks.

40

Figure 2.2: Locations of prominent dive sites, Julian Rocks (CBMP) (Adapted from Google maps).

CBMP is located within the Eastern Biogeographic Overlap Zone, where warm water from the northern latitudes of the Coral Sea converges with temperate waters from the south. Surface temperature ranges between 19-26℃, sub-surface temperatures at diving sites range from 17℃ in spring to 26℃ over the summer months. The tidal range is from 2 meters; water visibility is highly variable throughout the year with dramatic changes possible from one day to the next (pers. obs.), due to the strong near-shore influence of the East Australian Current (EAC). Water temperature has been recorded to fluctuate by 1-5℃ in a single day (Baronio and Bucher 2008; Malcolm et al., 2011) with high thermal stratification over the summer season (Hammerton, 2007). The main driver of variability is the seasonal and short term fluctuations of major currents that influence the area, particularly the East Australian Current (Malcolm et al., 2011), as well as major rainfall events and localised upwelling (CBMP, 2003; Suthers et al., 2011). The sanctuary zone of Julian Rocks forbids the removal, injuring

41 or disturbance of all material (living and non-living) by all methods within a 500metre radius. The collection or destroying of marine fauna and flora is prohibited.

Benthic morphology ranges from boulders of metamorphic rock, sand trenches to high-and low-relief rocky reef, which support a diverse range of coralline algae, sponges, species of hard coral (with the most abundant species being Pocillopora damicornis, Goneastrea australensis and Turbinaria spp.), soft coral (especially Dendronephthya, Sarcophyton and Sinularia spp.) and ascidians (Harriott et al., 1999; CBMP, 2003). Over 650 species of fish have been observed (Hammerton, 2007; Malcolm et al., 2007). The park provides important habitat for numerous endemic species including the broad-banded anemonefish (Amphiprion latezonatus) and the splendid hawkfish (Cirrhitus splendens). Rare species include black coral (Antipathes grandis), the Ballina angelfish, (Chaetodontoplus ballinae) and one algae (Tomaculopsis herbertiana). A range of protected fish species have been recorded from the park, including the Black cod (Epinephelus spp.) and the Bleekers devil fish (Paraplesiops bleekeri). Threatened or endangered species at this site include the grey nurse shark (Carcharius taurus), the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), while vulnerable species include the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). During the summer season, the leopard shark (Stegostoma fasciatum) is seen frequently. In addition, many important commercial and recreational fishes are present, including tailor (Pomatomus saltatrix), bream (Acanthopagrus australis), sand whiting (Sillago ciliate), dusky flathead (Platycephalus fuscus) and mulloway (Argyosomus hololepidotus).

2.2.2 Solitary Islands Marine Park (SIMP)

Established in 1998, the Solitary Islands Marine Park (SIMP) includes five large islands, with diving sites within the park extending from Pimpernel Rock in the north (29° 41.873’ S, 153° 23.865’ E) to the inshore reefs associated with Split Solitary Island (SSI) (30° 14.430’ S, 153° 10.632’ E) in the south of the marine park. This study focused on sites which are the most accessible to dive operators from Coffs Harbour, have high levels of visitation, and fall within the SIMP sanctuary zones and include: South Solitary Island (Figure 2.3), Split Solitary Island (Figure 2.4) and North Solitary Island (Figure 2.5).

42

Figure 2.3: Locations of prominent diving sites at south Solitary Island, SIMP. (Adapted from Google maps).

43

Figure 2.4: Locations of prominent diving sites at Split Solitary Island, SIMP. (Adapted from Google maps).

The geology of the area comprises large, medium and small metamorphic rock with many sand gutters extending seaward from the low water mark of the island. Inshore reefs are dominated by macroalgae, however, the benthic composition of offshore island reefs (more exposed to the East Australian Current) comprises of up to 50.9% coral cover, with 90 scleractinian species identified (Harriott et al., 1994). Dominant coral taxa identified at the offshore reefs include Turbinaria, Acropora and several Faviid genera (Harriott et al., 1994). Unlike corals found in tropical latitudes which form limestone reefs, these corals grow on rocky substratum. Ascidians, soft corals and sponges are less abundant than at Julian Rocks. However, within the shallow reaches of these sites solitary ascidians dominate high wave energy exposed rock platforms (Smith and Edgar, 1999). At some sites the rock is covered by barnacles and coralline algae, which may be a result of the abundance of urchins, particularly Tripneustes gratilla (Dalton et al., 2011). Grey nurse sharks are frequently observed throughout the year (particularly during the cooler months) to the north and north-

44 east of SSI, with numbers increasing during their winter aggregation (Hammerton, 2007; Lynch et al. 2013). Mixed assemblages of brown algae (Phaeophyta) are widespread in areas of consolidated sediments and mixed cobble/reef/sand. Anemone Bay at North Solitary Island (Figure 2.6) is dominated by host sea anemones particularly the bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) (Smith, 1995), with hard corals dispersed throughout the area (Dalton et al., 2011). The depth across all study sites ranges between 7 – 35m.

Figure 2.5: Locations of prominent diving sites at north Solitary Island, SIMP. (Adapted from Google maps).

45 All sites surveyed for this thesis were within sanctuary zones, a status that provides total protection of marine , plants and their habitats. Activities that involve harming any animal, plant or habitat are prohibited.

2.3 PARTICIPANT SELECTION SCUBA diving is a prominent marine tourism activity within both CBMP and SIMP actively promoted to domestic and international visitors (VisitNSW, 2014). The subtropical climate provides warm and humid conditions through the summer and autumn months, with slightly (by approximately 3–5°C) cooler temperatures during winter and spring. These MPAs are adjacent to the regional towns of Byron Bay and Coffs Harbour, which are both supported by predominantly tourism-based economies (Byron Shire Council, 2002). Byron Bay, the Coffs coast and surrounding regional towns receive over 5 million visitors annually (VisitNSW, 2014). Davis and Harriott (1996) estimated that divers visiting Byron Bay contributed an average of $2.8 million annually to the local economy. Three commercial dive companies (with a total of six vessels) operate within CBMP, whilst four companies (each with a vessel) provide access to dive sites within SIMP.

To ensure that the study included a representative sample of the diving communities of CBMP and SIMP, divers across both locations were selected from the first three names listed on the dive company register for a particular dive in question. At no time were any divers specifically targeted. Surveying continued until the demographic category (i.e. age, experience, use of camera) with the lowest abundance had sufficient numbers for analysis. The more common categories were not avoided at any stage, so the sampling remained random. A total of 650 divers were involved in this study. At both locations only one site is typically accessed per dive trip. This is usually based on ocean conditions and therefore site accessibility.

46 2.3.1 Ethics statement

Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee approval (ECN-08-160) required that all potential participants were informed by the researcher of the nature of the study at the outset; they then had the option to agree, or decline to be part of the study. In order to minimise the potential for prior knowledge to influence diver behaviour, divers were told only that “research was being conducted into SCUBA-diver behaviour with regards to diver interaction with subtropical reefs”. Participants were not aware of the specific data being collected, so this would have had minimal influence on their behaviour. The data collected presents diver contacts similar to studies conducted in tropical waters without the divers’ consent. Less than 1% of potential participants declined to participate: therefore, the sample is considered to be representative of people participating in recreational diving on the subtropical reefs of northern New South Wales (NSW). Given the divers prior knowledge of in-water observation and informed consent to participate in the research prior to the dive commencing, it may be expected that divers might be more careful that usual in these circumstances, so any measures of contact frequency are more likely to be an underestimate. Research was conducted in four stages, with the results of each stage used to develop the methodology and inform the focus for the next. Stage 1, documented and tested 17 variables to identify which significantly correlated with the frequency of diver contacts with reef biota. Stage 2, documented and ranked diver contacts and assessed which taxa/habitats are most at risk to severe impacts. Stage 3, tested levels of intervention to determine which intervention significantly reduced benthic contacts. Stage 4, focused on the development and testing of a Low Impact Diver training course to provide certified divers with the necessary skills to reduce contacts.

2.4 IN-WATER SURVEY AND QUESTIONNAIRE METHODS

2.4.1 Pilot study The initial pilot study (n = 50 divers) was conducted within CBMP and provided a scoping assessment for the main studies. The methodology of Harriott and Roberts (1994) was adapted and tested to determine the appropriate parameters for the in-water observational research for Chapters 3 and 5 and to test the survey questionnaire (Appendix 1). Opportunistic post-impact sampling was incorporated into preliminary investigations to document typical diver contacts and damage on sessile benthic organisms. This informed the research focus for Stage 2 (Chapter 4).

47 In-water survey of diver behaviour were developed from the pilot study as a standardised method for application in chapters 3 and 4. The same observation methods were used to examine the impacts of management strategies in chapters 5 and 6.

Individual divers were followed underwater for a 15 minute time period, the number of contacts, the part of the diver’s body or equipment that made the contact, the type of benthic organisms contacted and what was the consequence of the contact to the organism were all recorded.

2.4.2 Data collection

A total of 20 variables were observed and recorded during this study (Table 2.1) for statistical analysis, including type and impact (Table 2.2) of contact occurring, location of data collection, diver demographics (age, experience, gender, use of camera) and awareness of marine park status, depth, temperature and visibility (Table 3.3). Diver experience was rated on the number of dives each participant undertook annually rather than a total accumulated dives, hours or years since certification.

48 Table 2.1: Outcome, categorical and numerical variables collected from individual divers.

Outcome variables (3) Number of accidental contacts Number of intentional contacts Total number of contacts Categorical explanatory variables (12) Survey location (2 categories), Gender (2 categories) , Certification level (6 categories), Certification location (3 categories), Amount of diving per year (5 categories), Number of days since last dive (9 categories), Photographer (2 categories), Awareness of Marine Protected Area (MPA) zoning (2 categories), Selection of Marine Protected Area (MPA) dive (5 categories), Awareness of No-take Zone (Sanctuary Zone) status (2 categories), Understanding of the meaning of No-take Zone (Sanctuary Zone) (2 categories), Contact awareness (3 categories). Numerical explanatory variables (5) Total dives to date, Years diving, Depth (in metres), Temperature (in degrees Celsius), Visibility (in metres).

49 Table 2.2: Categories and coding for diver contact observations

Benthos Code Contact type Code Actiniaria (anemone) An Camera Cam Ascidiacea Asc Dangling equipment DE Bare rock BR Elbow Elb Bryozoa Bry Fin F Cirripedia (barnacle) Barn Hand H Corallimorpharia C Knee Kn Echinoderm (sea, feather star, urchin) Ech Regulator R Hard coral HC Submerged Pressure Gauge SPG Macro Algae MA Tank T Mollusc Mo Type of impact Code Polycheata Poly Abrasion Ab Rubble Rub Break Br Soft coral SC Crush Cr Sponge Sp Dislodge D Fragmented F Mucus release MR No visible impact Nil Suspended sediment SS Tear T

2.4.3 Definition of categories for type of impact

‘Abrasion’ was recorded when a diver made contact with the benthos and a visible process of scraping or wearing had occurred. ‘Break’ was recorded for organisms, where a single piece was observed to be broken from the parent organism. ‘Fragmented’ was recorded for all other organisms where multiple sections of the organism had been fragmented. ‘Crush’ was recorded when a diver placed pressure on an organism which resulted in its profile being compressed. ‘Dislodgement’ was recorded when a sessile organism was dislodged from the benthos which it had previously occupied. ‘Mucus release’ was recorded when a contact occurred in which a secretion could be visibly seen extending from the organism post contact. ‘Tear was recorded for an organism that had been visibly ripped, split, or cut during diver contact. Contact with sand was not recorded, because divers (particularly those in training) are encouraged to adjust buoyancy away from living substratum. Bare substratum was very rare, as most rocks were covered in algae. Benthic contacts that resulted in no visible impact were recorded as ‘no impact’.

50 After the dive, all participants were required to complete a 15-minute questionnaire (Appendix A), which included information about: demographics (gender, age range); diving experience (location of original certification, years diving, date of last dive, dives completed within the last 12 months), the use of photographic equipment, history of diving within the CBMP/SIMP (e.g. if it was the diver’s first dive within the marine park), awareness of the protective status of the dive sites, the applicability of regulations to diving and the importance of MPA status in selecting the diving location.

51 Chapter 3

Determining the variables that influence SCUBA-diver contact using logistic regression analysis

Prelude:

This chapter will be submitted as a manuscript to The Journal of Sustainable Tourism, in accordance with the SCU policy on ‘Thesis Incorporating Publications’. As such it is presented with its own abstract and there will be necessarily some repetition in the introduction and methods. Acknowledgments and references have been incorporated into the general sections of the thesis.

3.1 ABSTRACT

Understanding the underlying causes of SCUBA-diver contact with sensitive benthic organisms is critical for designing targeted strategies to address and manage diver impacts. For the marine tourism industry to maintain or expand current levels of recreational diving practices, ecologically sustainable management of dive sites is required. This study surveyed 400 SCUBA-divers engaged in recreational diving in the subtropical reefs off eastern Australia. A combination of in-water observational research was conducted, with post-dive questionnaires. Multiple linear regression techniques were employed to identify the variables that correlate with the frequency of diver contacts with reef biota. Of the 17 variables tested, nine were found to be significantly related to contact frequency. These were: the number of days since a divers last dive, location of original certification, awareness of marine park zoning, use of photographic equipment, total number of dives logged and diving depth of the surveyed dive. These results show that while a diver’s long-term and recent experience play a role, awareness of marine park regulations and some unidentified differences in prior training (related to location) are also important, suggesting that education and training may provide viable alternatives to capping diver numbers at sensitive locations.

3.2 INTRODUCTION

High levels of recreational SCUBA diving activity can adversely affect reef communities through direct contact by the divers and their equipment with sensitive benthic organisms (Sala et al., 1996). As dive tourism increases, heavily dived sites within a marine protected area (MPA) will be at risk of having the biodiversity values for which they received protected status compromised. Diver contacts can be accidental, or intentional, and the reasons divers make contact with the reef are complex and diverse. There are a specific

52 number of factors however that have been demonstrated to contribute to the frequency and intensity of diver contacts. These include, the level of training (Harriott et al., 1997), the type of diving activity, such as training dives, or photography, (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001), weighting and trim (Hammerton, 2011), or the topography of the dive site (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). Few studies have attempted to rank the relative importance of these and other possible contributing factors.

It might be expected that a diver’s certification and experience level would influence the number of contacts made with the reef. Hence, divers with higher levels of training should have the skill-base to refrain from intentional contacts. Roberts and Harriott (1994) suggested that divers with than less 100 dives logged tended to cause higher numbers of contacts. However, a later study over a larger geographical area (Harriott el al., 1997) found no such relationship. Whilst some divers may be highly qualified, they might currently only dive once, or twice a year. Less qualified divers, who dive on a fortnightly or monthly basis, might in fact be more comfortable in the water (Dimmock, 2009) due to recent dive experience. Likewise, experience measured as the total number of accumulated dives may not be indicative of recent experience, especially in older divers.

Use of photographic equipment has been demonstrated as a factor in increased diver contacts, particularly by male divers, who are more highly represented in this group (Medio et al., 1997; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Uyarra and Côté, 2007). Increased levels of impacts also occur when small and well-camouflaged species are the target subject of underwater photographers (Uyarra et al., 2009). Worachananant et al., (2008) also found that gender influenced the rate of damage on reefs in Thailand. In this case female divers were observed to cause more damage on the reef than male divers in this location.

Location plays an important role in attracting divers, with those that offer iconic species such as Grey nurse, Leopard sharks or Turtles being specifically targeted by tourists (Uyarra et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2010). Internationally, SCUBA diving is the major form of commercial use for many MPAs (Davis and Tisdell, 1995; Stoeckl et al., 2010). Such sites are identified within the recreational diving community as highly desirable locations, offering high biodiversity and the opportunity to swim with species not commonly found outside of the MPA (Ince, 2011; Hammerton et al., 2012).

Significant MPA managerial resources are typically directed to informing park users about the regulations and zoning plans in place (NSW marine parks, 2009), while other education programs aim to engender public understanding and support for the role of MPAs

53 (GBRMPA, 2011). The assumption is that users who understand and support the principles of park management will be more inclined to behave in such a way as to minimise their impact on the biota. Knowledge of MPA zoning in a dive location may indicate a general environmental awareness on the part of the diver, and their readiness to accept that their underwater actions during dives may have environmental consequences. This group of divers are also more likely to have engaged previously in environmentally responsible diving practices (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).

Awareness is the first requirement for self-adjustment (Jensen, 2002). In addition, behaviour and behavioural intentions (Corraliza and Berenguer, 2000) rely on an individual’s attitude towards and perception of their behaviour, on the likely outcomes of such behaviour (Dearden et al. 2007; De Groot and Steg, 2007). Behaviour modifications may only occur when a tourist is aware of their actions and consequences. The majority of diver contacts are accidental (Harriett et al., 1997), so divers may not be aware they are making contact with the benthos. Roberts and Harriott (1994) found that divers tended to underestimate the number of contacts they made. If an individual does not relate their diving practices to potentially having an impact on the reef, then they will subsequently see no reason to change behaviour, especially if they perceive an experiential experience such as swimming through a narrow passage as an ultimately benign activities.

Two common discussion points amongst divers are the water temperature and visibility of the dive location. To date, diver impact studies have not assessed these variables against the number of contacts. These two environmental variables were included within the current research model, to ascertain if they contributed to an increase in diver contacts. Lower visibility can reduce a diver’s perspective and spatial awareness (Sykes, 1994) and increase stress levels (Anegg et al., 2002). Cooler water temperatures similarly can reduce a diver’s comfort level and amplify the effects of (Sykes, 1994; Germonpré, 2006). Both variables can in turn shift a divers’ focus from instructions provided during a pre-dive briefing or training to more instinctive and reactive behaviours.

This study aimed to define some of the variables that influence SCUBA-diver contacts. Regression analysis was used to model contacts in relation to an inclusive set of variables based on demographics, diver awareness and perception of MPA zoning, environmental conditions, and photographic equipment use. The focus of this study was to ascertain which of these variables have the greatest influence on high-frequency diver contact. Such data

54 could then be used to predict the relative value of education, or training programs, or limitation of access to sensitive areas by, for example, less qualified divers.

3.3 METHODS

3.3.1 Ethics Statement

This study was conducted under Southern Cross University’s Human Research Ethics Committee approval ECN-08-160, which required ‘informed consent’ of all participants. In order to minimise the potential for prior knowledge to influencing diver behaviour, divers were told only, “research was being conducted into SCUBA-diver behaviour with regards to diver impacts on subtropical reefs”. Divers were then included in the study only if they agreed to participate. Given the divers prior knowledge that in-water observation would be taking place and their informed consent to participate in the research prior to the dive commencing, it may be expected that divers might be more careful that usual in these circumstances during the subsequent dive. This means that any measures of contact frequency recorded here are more likely to be an underestimate of what would happen under completely natural circumstances.

3.3.2 Data collection

This study was conducted at the Cape Byron and Solitary Islands Marine Parks (see Chapter 2). Data were collected from 400 SCUBA-divers by in-water observation and via post-dive questionnaires. Divers were randomly sampled from local and visiting individuals. Each participant was monitored once underwater for a period of 15 minutes, using a modified version of the techniques used by Roberts and Harriott (1994). This study assessed intentional and accidental contacts (sensu Roberts and Harriott, 1994). Intentional contacts result from deliberate action and are potentially (but not always) less damaging, as the diver can select an area (i.e. non-living benthos such as bare rock or sand) to contact and control the of contact. Accidental contacts can range from the bumping of untethered gauges along the bottom, to hard fin contacts, or rapid grasps to hold position in strong surge.

After the dive, participants completed a written questionnaire (Appendix A), which included questions assessing demographic parameters such as current diving experience and training and questions assessing awareness and perceptions of the dive they had just completed. Divers’ understanding of marine park zoning status of the site was also assessed. The post- dive questionnaire included both fixed choice (yes/no) and open-ended questions; these were later coded for statistical analysis.

55 Three environmental variables were also recorded during each in-water observational survey. Underwater visibility was measured with the use of a Secchi disk: ocean temperature and diving depth, were recorded with a Vyper .

3.3.3 Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22, IBM Corp. 2013) was used for all data coding and figures, and Generalized Statistical Package (GenStat, version 16, VSN International) was used to explore the relationships between 17 variables and to test the set of explanatory variables that best models the total number of contacts occurring. A log linear regression with an estimated dispersion parameter (an over-dispersed Poisson model) was used. An ‘over-dispersed’ model was required because the variance of the counts was greater than the mean. This approach models the total number of diver contacts against all variables, to ascertain which variables contributed most significantly to divers making contact. The Poisson distribution is one of the most widely used distributions in statistical applications, and is particularly used to analyse count and rate data (Bolker et al., 2009). Poisson regression is part of a class of generalized linear models (GLM). This models the log of the counts, since counts are usually skewed and so cannot be modelled using a normal linear model. It uses natural log as the link function and models the expected value of response variable. The natural log in the model ensures that the predicted values of response variable will never be negative. The response variable in Poisson regression is assumed to follow a Poisson distribution (Hall, 2000). One requirement of the Poisson distribution is that the mean equals the variance. In practice, however, count data often exhibits over-dispersion. Over-dispersion occurs when the variance is significantly larger than the mean. Over- dispersion can cause under-estimation of standard errors, which consequently leads to increased probability of Type I errors in statistical tests of significance (Consul and Famoye, 1992; Famoye, 1993). Since over-dispersion of the data was present, a modelling estimation method called quasi-likelihood estimation was used to re-scale the relationship between the mean and the variance. The dispersion (or ‘scale’) parameter, which is usually assumed to be 1, was around 6.5 in the log linear regression model presented. In order to narrow down the set of explanatory variables to a sub-set that best models the observed patterns in the data, the variable choice method used was ‘all subsets’; i.e. looking at every possible combination and picking the ‘best’ was used. This considers all the possible combination of variables to model the outcome. The best model was chosen based on the AIC value. AIC is Akaike’s Information Criterion (Akaike, 1974), a useful criterion for comparing models.

56 AIC = 2k – 2In(L) where k is the number of parameters in the model, L is the maximized value of the likelihood function for the model.

The AIC is used here because it has a penalty for fitting extra variables (Akaike, 2011), and so pays attention to the principle of parsimony (analogous to the adjusted measure in linear regression). The principle of parsimony refers to the process of modelling being simplified, meaning that the model had as few parameters as possible, a variable was only retained in the model if it caused a significant increase in deviance when it was removed from the model. It can be used to compare designs that are not nested.

In general, models with smaller AIC values are preferred. It may be that there are one or more models whose AIC values are quite close to the smallest. In these cases, a principle of parsimony is often used. The “best” model is not the model with the smallest AIC value, but rather the simplest model with an AIC value that is no more than two larger than the smallest AIC (Akaike, 2011). The principle of parsimony was used to select the best model for the number of contacts given the set of 17 possible explanatory variables. An all-subsets log linear regression runs all possible models using complete cases only (599 cases in this study).

57 3.4 RESULTS

From the 400 participants observed, a total of 2,974 contacts occurred with reef biota, with an average of 8 contacts per 15-minute observation period. Accidental contacts constituted 71% of all contacts recorded (n = 1948); with a total of n = 1026 intentional contacts recorded (Table 3.1). The majority of diver’s surveyed held open water and advanced open water certifications, those who completed ≤10 dives annually were categorised as novice divers. Table 3.1 shows the mean, median, standard deviation (S.D.) and sample size (n) for the numbers of intentional and accidental contacts in a 15-minute observation period.

Table 3.1: Summary statistics for number of accidental and intentional contacts (n = 400 divers).

Mean Median S.D.

Number of accidental contacts 5 3 6

Number of intentional contacts 3 0 6

Total number of contacts 8 3 12

3.4.1 Variables contributing to diver contact

A summary of the twelve categorical explanatory variables are provided in Table 3.2 and the five numerical explanatory variables are provided in Table 3.3.

Both survey locations used in this study are located offshore from popular tourist destinations. Of the 400 divers surveyed, 39.75% were domestic Australian tourists, 29.50% were from overseas and the remainder (30.75%) were local residents of the neighbouring Shires. The gender balance presented (Table 3.2) is typical of studies related to SCUBA divers (Roberts and Harriott, 1994; Worachananant et al. 2008). Results based on visibility were removed from table 3.2 due to small sample size of divers surveyed at < 6m.

58 Table 3.2: Summaries of categorical explanatory variables.

Factor Levels of factor Count Percent Gender Female 139 34.8 Male 261 65.3 Survey location CBMP 300 75.0 SIMP 100 25.0 Certification level Discover SCUBA 34 8.5 Open Water 152 38.0 Advanced Open Water 94 23.5 47 11.8 39 9.8 Instructor 34 8.5 Certification location Overseas 118 29.5 Australia 159 39.8 Local (Northern, New South Wales) 123 30.8 Experience level based on Novice (≤ 10 dives annually) 238 59.5 amount of diving per year Intermediate (11 - ≤ 30) 49 12.3 Experienced (31 - ≤ 50) 44 11.0 Very experienced (51+) 50 12.5 Working professional (100 +) 19 4.8 Number of days since Today 16 4.0 last dive 7 or less 121 30.3 8 to 30 63 15.8 31 to 90 81 20.3 91 to 180 40 10.0 181 to 365 30 7.5 366 to 730 (1 – 2 years) 23 5.8 731 and over 26 6.5 Aware of MPA zoning No awareness of MPA status 37 9.3 Acknowledged diving within an MPA 363 90.8 Diver rated the importance Not important 117 29.3 of MPA status when Slightly important 22 5.5 selecting a dive location Neutral 100 25.0 Important 73 18.3 Very important 88 22.0 Aware SZ status No awareness SZ status 131 32.8 Understood they dived within a SZ 269 67.3 Understanding the Misunderstanding SZ status 221 55.3 meaning of SZ Understood SZ status 179 44.8 Photographer Non UW photographer 292 73.0 Photographer 108 27.0 Contact awareness Less than 5 contacts 305 76.3 between 5 and 9 contacts 68 17.0 10 or greater contacts 27 6.8

59 Table 3.3: Summaries of numerical explanatory variables (n = 400 divers)

Mean Median S.D.

Total dives to date 213 31 551

Years diving 7 3 9

Depth (m) 15 15 3 Temperature (°C) 22 22 2

Visibility (m) 13 12 5

Of the divers surveyed, most held an Advanced Open Water, lesser level or no certification, i.e. were engaged in a discovery SCUBA diving experience. Over half of all certified divers were ranked as novice divers (completing less than 10 dives per year). Whilst some divers may have been certified for many years, their total dives to date were low. For example one diver surveyed had been diving for 30 years, but had only logged 33 dives. This meant that for this diver, the average amount of diving completed annually since certification was >1, and was therefore assigned to the novice category. For 70.25% of divers their last dive was between 2 to 90 days prior to this experiment. Whilst 18.25% of divers recorded professional level certification, of these only 27 (7%) were currently working full or part-time within the dive industry and therefore logging 100+ dives annually.

The combination of explanatory variables that best explained the number of contacts is provided in Table 3.4, along with their estimated rate ratios. Each estimated rate ratio for contact occurring is calculated after adjusting for all other variables in the model. Note that to be included in the ‘best’ model each variable had to be statistically significant, the P-value being less than or equal to 0.05 in the presence of all other variables. Explanatory variables that were not included in this model may have had smaller effects which could not be detected by the test, but do not necessarily have ‘no effect’ on the number of contacts. Likewise, some of the variables that were chosen for the ‘best’ model may still have relatively small effects, but the sample size was large enough to detect them.

For each explanatory variable: the rate ratio, the 95% confidence interval and P-value are provided. Confidence intervals are an important parameter used in specifying statistical significance, determining the precision of the estimates and presenting the range within which the true effects lie. The interpretation is slightly different depending on whether the explanatory variable is categorical, or numerical. One of the advantages of confidence

60 intervals over traditional hypothesis testing is the additional information that they provide. The upper and lower bounds of the interval give information on how big or small the true effect might plausibly be. If the confidence interval is narrow, capturing only a small range of effect sizes, we can be quite confident that any effects far from this range have been ruled out by the study. Due to the size of the sample in this study being quite large (n = 400), the estimate of the true effect is quite precise. Another way of expressing this is to note that the study has reasonable ‘power’ to detect an effect. If the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio is wide, then this tells us that the estimate is not very precise. If the interval contains 1 then we cannot be confident about the direction of the relationship (and if this is the case, then the P-value will also be above 0.05).

From the seventeen variables modelled (Table 3.4), nine were found to have a significant influence on the number of contacts divers made with reef biota. For each categorical variable there is a reference category for which all other categories of that variable are compared. The category chosen as the reference category is somewhat arbitrary and is usually chosen as the ‘lowest’ category of the variable (if one naturally exists). The order of the categories does not change the overall test for that variable; only the rate ratios would change. For the purposes of interpretation, the reference category has been chosen as the category with the lowest number of contacts (except when the variable has a natural category ordering, such as for Number of days since last dive).

The rate ratio for a categorical variable is the ratio of the counts of a given category against its reference category. For example, the variable Number of days since last dive has eight categories and therefore seven comparisons with the reference category, which is Today. The rate ratio for the comparison between Today and 731 or more is 1.81. This means that the average number of contacts for divers who had not dived for 731 days or more is 1.81 times more than the reference category (Today). If a rate ratio estimate is below 1 then that category has fewer contacts that the reference category. If a rate ratio is below 1 for a numerical variable then this means that the number of contacts decreases for every unit increase (or 10 or 100 units, where specified in Table 3.4) in the explanatory variable, i.e. it has a negative relationship with the number of contacts. The rate ratio is 0.73 for Depth per 10 metres, which means than when the depth increases by 10 metres, the number of contacts changes at a rate of 0.73, i.e. is 27% lower.

Recent diving experience had a significant effect on the frequency of benthic contacts. In addition to the above example, divers who had not dived for between 6-12 months to a year,

61 made 42% more contacts than divers who had dived in the past 24 hours. Divers who had not dived for >12 months, made 51% more contacts.

The variable Certification Location has three categories and therefore two comparisons with the reference category, which is Overseas. The rate ratio for the comparison between Australia and Overseas is 1.54. This means that the average number of contacts for divers certified in Australia is 1.54 times more than the Overseas category. Divers who were certified within Australia and were on holiday at the study location were found to make 54% more contacts than divers visiting from overseas. Divers, who were locally trained, made 13% more contacts than those trained overseas.

Diver awareness of marine park and sanctuary zone (SZ) status and an understanding of the meaning of sanctuary zoning had a significant influence over the number of contact occurring with the benthos. Divers who stated in the post-dive questionnaire that they were aware of the sites’ zoning status, made significantly less contact with the benthos. Divers who understood that the ‘no take’ status of the site applied to all users and not just the fishing community, were also found to make significantly fewer contacts.

62 Table 3.4: Summary of rate ratio estimates from the ‘best’ model of the number of contacts.

Rate ratio Reference category Category Estimate 95% CI P-value Categorical variables Number of days (Overall P-value <0.001) since last dive Today 7 or less 0.84 (0.56, 1.21) 0.354 8 to 30 0.85 (0.50, 1.39) 0.509 31 to 90 1.34 (0.75, 1.82) 0.551 91 to 180 1.17 (0.75, 1.73) 0.529 181 to 365 1.42 (0.84, 2.34) 0.217 366 to 730 1.73 (0.91, 2.28) 0.137 730 or more 1.81 (1.49, 2.41) 0.033 Certification location (Overall P-value <0.009) Overseas Local 1.13 (0.82, 1.42) 0.418 Australia 1.54 (1.15, 1.72) 0.002 Awareness of MPA zoning Aware Unaware 1.71 (1.26, 2.14) <0.001 Awareness of SZ status Aware Unaware 1.89 (1.56, 2.32) 0.023 Understanding the meaning of SZ Understood status No Understanding 1.49 (1.26, 2.14) <0.001 MPA dive site (Overall P-value <0.016) Selection Very important Important 0.81 (0.56, 1.21) 0.354 Neutral 0.94 (0.50, 1.39) 0.514 Slightly important 1.52 (1.25, 1.69) 0.012 Not important 1.74 (1.32, 2.09) 0.003 Use of photographic equipment Non photographer Photographer 1.45 (1.19, 1.79) <0.001 Numerical variables Total dives to date per 1000 units 1.35 (1.23, 1.49) <0.001 Depth per 10 meters 0.7 (0.56, 0.92) 0.015

63 The variable MPA dive site selection has five categories and therefore four comparisons with the reference category. Divers who ranked a dive site having MPA status as ‘not important’ when selecting a location to dive, averaged 74% more contacts than divers who ranked this variable as ‘Very important’. Overall, divers who on the post-dive questionnaire rated ‘Important’, or ‘Very important’ when selecting a diving site based on MPA status made fewer contacts than divers who stated that the diving site status was ‘Not important’, or ‘Slightly important’ when selecting a diving site.

There was a strong correlation between the use of underwater photographic equipment (camera or video) during dives and diver impacts. Underwater photographers averaged 45% more contacts compared to non-photographers (Table 3.4). Individuals, who in the post-dive questionnaire recorded the greatest number of Total dives to date, contributed to the highest number of contacts. Within this group, 15.5% divers stated they had logged ≥300 dives,, with some individuals being certified for 15 to 44 years prior. A significant positive correlation between length of time since a diver’s certification and number of contacts occurring was also demonstrated.

3.4.2 Actual versus perceived number of contacts

At the end of the dive participants were asked to estimate the number of contacts they had made with the reef. This categorical variable, Contact awareness, was used to assess whether participants could accurately estimate their actual number of contacts (Figure 3.1). Although this variable did not significantly correlate with the number of contacts in the overall model it is included here because it highlights the possible importance of management responses that target a small number of individuals who have a disproportionately larger number of impacts. The asterisks in Figure 3.1 are individuals who thought they had fewer than five contacts but actually had more than 20, or more than 1 contact per minute of dive time.

64

Figure 3.1: The comparison between actual number of contacts and diver-estimated contacts. In this boxplot, the vertical line inside each box is the median value. The 25 circles depict ‘outliers’ and asterisk depict ‘extreme outliers’ (when compared to the rest of its Contact awareness group).

Diver perception of the number of contacts made with the reef can be significantly different to actual contacts. In this study, 305 participants (76.25%) stated that they had made fewer than 5 contacts within the 15-minute assessment period. In reality 206 of the 400 divers surveyed were recorded with fewer than 5 contacts. Only 27 (6.75%) divers stated that they made over 10 contacts, when in fact 114 divers (28.5%) were recorded with this level of contact. Diver awareness of their individual contact is an important variable to measure given that the majority of divers, who made the highest level of contact, significantly underestimated their actual level of contact. Equally, a large number of divers who had few contacts actually over-estimated, their contact awareness; this could be partially because divers’ estimated over the entire dive, as opposed to the 15 min time-frame in which they were observed. Whilst on average participants were accurate, those who made the greatest amount of contact more often underestimated, whilst those to made the least tended to overestimate, this shows less contact awareness within these two categories.

Table 3.5 is presented to complement Figure 3.1. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the median is provided to give an estimate of the precision of the median estimate. It was

65 calculated using the bootstrapping method, which is suitable for calculating confidence intervals of parameters with unknown distributions (i.e. we do not know if the median is normally distributed or not). The median is used due to the skewness of the number of contacts.

On average, participants were quite accurate in estimating their number of contacts. Between 5 and 9 contacts and 10 or greater contacts had a very similar median number of contacts. These two categories also had wider confidence intervals around their medians compared to the Less than 5 contacts group (particularly the 10 or greater contacts group), due to the smaller number of participants who selected these two categories in addition to the greater difficulty in accurately assessing a larger number of contacts.

Table 3.5: Summary statistics for the Number of contacts versus Contact awareness

Number of contacts

Contact awareness Median 95% CI for the median n = divers Less than 5 contacts 3 (0, 5) 305 Between 5 and 9 contacts 10 (6, 12) 68 10 or greater contacts 12 (2, 19) 27

3.5 DISCUSSION

For many divers the sport of recreational SCUBA diving only occurs during annual holidays. This means their comfort and familiarity with the dive experience is diminished (Dimmock, 2009). This in turn determines an increase in benthic contacts and potential diver impacts (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992).

The aims and objectives of this study were to define some of the variables that influence SCUBA-diver contact with reef benthos. Regression analysis was applied to model contacts in relation to an inclusive set of variables (17) based on demographics, diver awareness and perception of MPA zoning, environmental conditions, and photographic equipment use. From these outcomes determine which variables had the greatest influence on high- frequency diver contact. Such data could then be used to predict the relative value of education, or training programs, or limitation of access to sensitive areas by, for example, less qualified divers or greater supervision for underwater photographers.

66 This study found that divers who had been absent from diving for more than six months, made significantly more contact with the benthos. Refresher sessions are currently optional for divers who have not dived for more than a year. This current research suggests a benefit to the reef benthos could result from management options that limit access to particularly sensitive areas (see Chapter 4) to divers with no recent experience or a requirement for a refresher training session with the dive operator. There are examples internationally of premium dive locations such as the Red Sea, Egypt and Heron Island, Australia, where divers have to do a ‘qualifying’ dive prior to open water dives, either on a shallower house reef, or a refresher pool session.

The requirement to complete a refresher session has three important benefits: firstly it provides the diver with the opportunity to improve their comfort level, due to re- familiarisation with equipment, and underwater techniques (swimming, breathing and practicing basic recreational diving skills), which in turn gives the opportunity to assist the diver in fine-tuning buoyancy and trim skills. Secondly, a supervised ocean dive gives the opportunity for in-water assistance aimed at reducing contacts with reef biota should they occur. Finally, post-dive feedback, with potential for marketing continuing education courses, benefits both the diver and the dive centre.

Divers who were certified within Australia generally whilst on holiday, made the highest number of contacts, with local Australian divers making slightly fewer. Divers certified overseas (in general these were overseas tourists rather than Australians who had trained overseas while on holiday) made the least number of contacts. This is an interesting result, considering the diversity of international tourists visiting these destinations, for which English may not have been their first language. Some overseas divers commented during the post-dive questionnaire that MPAs they had visited internationally had very strict regulations regarding reef contact, for example the Red Sea, or Mediterranean. Possibly due to prior familiarity with the ‘no touch’ policy from such destinations, international divers generally were very supportive of MPA status and selected the destination for diving based on such status. This suggests that nation-wide education needs to be targeted more towards Australian-based divers.

Overall, divers using photographic or video equipment, made a higher percentage of contacts, in particular intentional contacts such as intentionally grasping the reef to steady themselves to take a photograph.. An example in this category was a diver who made 53 intentional contacts (from a total of 71), within the 15 minute observation period. Only 6%

67 of photographer group recorded no contact, and were typically inexperienced divers taking reef-wide photos using ‘point-and-shoot’ compact cameras. Divers with semi-professional equipment tended to work close to the substratum, taking photographs of macro topics (pers. obs.) resulting in higher levels of intentional contact. The use of photographic equipment in relation to diver impacts will be detailed further in Chapter 5.

Education can play a pivotal role in profoundly modifying individual diver behaviour underwater (Medio et al., 1997). Recreational divers often select diving locations with MPA status for annual holiday destinations (Green & Donnelly, 2003). For some, this brief holiday experience may be the only diving they participate in. This lack of continuous practice contributes to reduced awareness and altered perception of actual diving ability, and has been seen to contribute to greater levels of diver impact (Tratalos and Austin, 2001; Musa, 2002).

The results of this study suggests that information provided to divers prior to diving within a MPA sanctuary zone (SZ) could play an important role in providing the individual diver with the rationale for a ‘no touch, no take’ policy. A decrease in diver contact is apparent between divers who stated awareness and understanding of MPA status and those who did not. This study highlights an issue within the New South Wales recreational diving industry that many divers did not understand that sanctuary status actually applies to SCUBA-divers. The common misunderstanding is that this rule solely applies to the commercial or recreational fishing communities. Of interest was that divers who stated they were not influenced by MPA status when selecting a diving location, generally made higher levels of contact. This suggests that divers who select MPA locations to dive, already have an awareness and sense of responsibility in regard to their conduct on the reef (Petrosillo et al., 2007), and make a greater effort to reduce contact with the reef. Overall, divers who had increased awareness of the conservation value of MPAs tended to demonstrate better diving practises. Therefore, testing the success of targeted education within the NSW diving community would be advantageous. To test this further, trials were undertaken, in which awareness campaigns could be launched at some marine parks and tested against control sites for the effectiveness of increased awareness on reducing contact rates.

MPAs usually offer the opportunity to dive with iconic species such as sharks, rays and turtles, as well as more abundant and larger fish and colourful invertebrates such as nudibranchs, flatworms and sessile colonial animals such as coral, sponges and ascidians. Such sites therefore attract underwater photographers of all skill levels who were generally

68 found to make significantly more contacts than non-photographers, which is consistent with other studies (Medio et al., 1997; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Uyarra and Côté, 2007). This highlights the need for further education and the potential benefits of low impact diver training for all photographers. This research also raises concerns regarding the use of MPA sanctuary zones for photographic competitions. Divers compete against each other for prizes based on the best photo, or video. In this situation, image quality is paramount (Piper, 2014) and is therefore very common practice for divers to use the reef to stabilise themselves. The high volume of dive contestants over a short period of time has been seen to increase the risk of diver impacts during such events (pers. obs.).

As depth increases so do the nitrogen levels in a diver’s body. Depending on the depth this may result in mild to extreme nitrogen narcosis (Baddeley et al., 1968; Petri, 2003), a state that presents itself as either euphoria or confusion, with reduced coordination and problem- solving ability similar to that of alcohol intoxication. Like the effects of alcohol, the symptoms of nitrogen narcosis are gradual and not immediately apparent to the diver and may also cause perceptual narrowing, which produces a reduction in awareness (Monteiro et al., 1996; Sheldrake and Pollock, 2012). It might be expected therefore that benthic contacts would increase with depth, but divers surveyed in this study actually made fewer contacts with each 10m increase in diving depth. A reason for this could be that deeper water has lower surge currents, which may reduce the need to stabilise position by holding on to the reef, and deep sites might attract more able divers (as deep sites require a higher SCUBA certification). Deep sites also require fewer adjustments to buoyancy during the course of the dive as small changes of depth at shallow sites causes an exponentially large change in air space volume and therefore buoyancy issues (PADI, 2004).

Whilst underwater visibility was not found to have a significant overall correlation on individual diver contacts, some trends were noted within the few divers followed during very lowest visibilities (< 6 metres). In these circumstances contact with the benthos was greater, probably because divers swam closer to the bottom to be able to see animals and to navigation. Typically there is lower visibility present in subtropical locations during winter when cold-water upwelling occurs (Barton, 1998). Therefore divers are managing the feelings of cold water, which causes distraction and reduced comfort levels (Dimmock and Wilson, 2009) as well as dealing with the effects of low visibility. Future studies are needed to ascertain if underwater visibility is a variable that significantly influences diver contacts.

69 The results of this study highlight a strong link between divers’ attitudes and awareness and their behaviour in regard to avoiding damaging contact with the reef. It remains to be demonstrated that by educating and training divers to affect their attitudes and awareness that you can subsequently change their behaviour. The majority of divers, and especially those who made the highest number of contacts, underestimated their actual level of contact. Accidental contacts with fins were typically recorded by divers who were unaware of their level of contact with the reef benthos. The primary cause of this type of contact is poor buoyancy (Robert and Harriott, 1994) and trim. This suggests that the greatest improvement in reducing benthic contacts is to be gained by encouraging further training especially for divers identified as having poor buoyancy and trim. Recent experience is a more important factor in a diver’s ability to avoid damaging contacts with the reef than their level of training or total accumulated dive time, so management of sensitive areas might be most effective if access is restricted to divers with recent experience rather than a particular level of training.

The three-dimensional presents the diver with a range of factors that can alter or impair physiological behaviour, cognitive perception and function (Stanley and Scott, 1995). This includes physiological and environmental factors such as cold, nitrogen narcosis, and , ocean currents, poor visibility and psychological factors like altered perception, isolation, nervousness, claustrophobia, tunnel vision (Hobbs and Kneller, 2009). Whilst an individual on the surface appears to clearly comprehend the pre-dive instructions or recommendations, once underwater a range of factors and variables may contribute to an individual’s behaviour, potentially resulting in numerous accidental and intentional contacts occurring with the benthos. Factors such as temperature, ocean currents and visibility can affect the skill level or impair the judgement of even experienced divers to varying degrees (Stanley and Scott, 1995;). Divers with poor skill and lack of experience struggle under normal circumstances (Colvard and Colvard, 2003). Unlike terrestrial protected areas where visitation behaviour can be reinforced through signage, boardwalks and park rangers, these markers are usually absent from underwater habitats. This makes the methods needed to manage diver impacts within MPAs vastly different from the terrestrial models used to control human movement and impacts within protected areas.

Identifying the variables that drive the physical contacts individual SCUBA-divers make with reef biota can assist in the development of targeted best practice protocols and educational strategies. Such information is also important in determining accessibility to sensitive reef locations, targeting pre-dive briefings and determining the level of in-water supervision.

70

3.6 CONCLUSION

To ensure that subtropical reefs in high conservation areas are not subjected to long-term anthropogenic impacts all stakeholders need to take a proactive role in maintaining the reef as an important resource. Tourist experiences determine repeat business and some operators consider that inhibiting what an individual can do on a reef will lessen the experience or seem too intrusive. However, a reef in poor condition will have the same negative effect on the business (Leujak & Ormond, 2007; Uyarra et al. 2009).

This study has shown that subtropical reefs, like tropical coral dives sites, are vulnerable to diver impacts. However, we have also demonstrated that dive charter operators can effectively contribute to a reduction of impacts on intensively dived sites by emphasising the no-contact policy during pre-dive briefings. Where individual divers continue to make contact with reef habitat, in-water reinforcement of the no-contact message can produce a further significant reduction in the level of impact. Both measures can reduce the need for park managers to limit the number of divers visiting a site and assist in maintaining the ecological integrity of subtropical marine protected areas. A small proportion of divers that contact the benthos very frequently and photographers are high-priority groups for targeted management strategies. Many of the unintentional contacts could be avoided by provided additional training in buoyancy, trim and low impact diving techniques. Intentional contacts require a change in the divers’ attitude though education or the more intensive option of in- water intervention. Applying these strategies would ultimately enhance the experience for divers; provide greater protection to benthic taxa and aid in the development of SCUBA diving becoming a more ecologically sustainable tourism activity.

71 Chapter 4

Modelling risks to habitats from SCUBA-diver contacts – subtropical benthic communities.

Prelude:

This chapter will be submitted as a manuscript to The Journal of Sustainable Tourism, in accordance with the SCU policy on ‘Thesis Incorporating Publications’. As such it is presented with its own abstract and there will be necessarily some repetition in the introduction and methods. Acknowledgments and references have been incorporated into the general sections of the thesis.

4.1 ABSTRACT

Subtropical reefs provide critical habitat for a range of tropical, subtropical and temperate biota, including many endemic species. To date, studies predicting the level of risk to benthic habitats from SCUBA diving activities are limited. This study used a general linear modelling approach to determine which types of contact present the greatest risk to habitat and which benthic taxa are most susceptible to more severe levels of impact. Habitat complexity was found to influence the overall severity of impact. Whilst percentage cover of hard corals is generally lower than in the tropics, these taxa sustained disproportionally higher levels of medium and high impact. Divers’ fins contributed to the greatest amount of medium and high-level impact on reef biota. The prevalence of fin contacts suggests that improved training in correct trim, buoyancy and propulsion techniques would be valuable. The findings of this work inform targeted directions for future management strategies to reduce diver impacts.

4.2 INTRODUCTION

Subtropical waters are highly important ecotones, located between the tropical and temperate bioregions (Watson et al., 2007; Beger et al., 2014). Reefs in the transition zone are characterized by their high species diversity (Vroom and Braun, 2010) and high proportion of endemic, threatened and rare species (Harriott et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999; van der Meer et al., 2012). Globally, subtropical reefs face numerous natural and anthropogenic stresses (Glynn, 1994). Whilst naturally occurring storm events are difficult to manage, reefs have evolved to endure such events and storms play an important role in disturbance regimes that influence biodiversity (Thrush and Dayton, 2002). However, when natural disturbances are combined with chronic anthropogenic disturbance, the recovery processes of a reef may

72 be significantly affected (Chabanet et al., 2005). It has been suggested that in future climate change scenarios, subtropical reefs may provide critical refuge for a range of tropical species (Beger et al., 2011; Beger et al., 2014). Therefore the management of human-induced impacts on subtropical reefs needs high priority as a research focus.

Benthic community structure is a fundamental biological property of any reef (Smith et al. 2009). The ecological integrity of the whole reef system can be influenced by reef diversity. Repetitive small-scale physical disturbances throughout a region, or an island, can generate large-scale level disturbance whilst continued disturbance of habitat can reduce reef resilience (Hughes et al., 2003; West and Salm, 2003; Chabanet et al., 2005; Diaz-Pulido et al. 2009; Steneck et al., 2009). Depending on the intensity and duration of the stress, the initial community, or colony structure, such disturbance can make reefs more susceptible to current and future climate change (Beger et al., 2014). Disturbances to individual reef organisms can influence the abundance and diversity of many structural species (coral, sponge, and ascidian) that play a critical role in reef dynamics (Wilson et al., 2006). If the species in question have low percentage cover, continued levels of human-induced stress can reduce abundance, larval dispersal (Cowen and Sponaugle, 2009), connectivity with nearby sites, and ecological resilience (West and Salm, 2003; Steneck et al., 2009; Hughes et al. 2010). Chabanet et al (2005) suggest that discrete chronic and low-level perturbations may cause more damage to reefs in the long-term than discrete and highly destructive events, due to the fact that the former do not allow sufficient time for recovery.

SCUBA-diver impacts resulting from direct physical contact with the reef benthos tend to be chronic rather than infrequent events. Intensive recreational SCUBA diving therefore causes cumulative stress events (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Since SCUBA diving has only been in existence since the 1960s, it is highly unlikely that individual organisms have evolved to deal with such events (Hawkins and Robert, 1993). Whilst direct diver contact may not create total or partial mortality, the organism may be weakened and therefore be more susceptible to pathogens (Nyström et al., 2000; Bruno et al., 2007), or have reduced reproduction potential due to directing energy into tissue repair (Nugues and Roberts, 2003). Therefore, diver disturbance can potentially have significant consequences for community structures, especially in areas with high cover of more sensitive organisms.

The management of SCUBA-diver impacts on subtropical reefs is complex, particularly when the reefs are located within marine protected area sanctuary zones. Such sites are often renowned for their high species abundance and diversity within the international diving

73 community (Harriott et al., 1997), or for the presence of iconic and rare species (Dobson, 2007), not reliably found elsewhere. In addition, often well-established diving industries have existed prior to the implementation of zoning. Marine park managers, have the difficult task of sustaining the ecological integrity of the sites in question, whilst allowing continued access to recreational diving and the diving industry in general.

The subtropical reefs off Australia’s east coast support a unique and highly diverse mix of tropical, subtropical and temperate species (Harriott et al., 1999). Fish abundance and diversity is high (Hammerton, 2007; Malcolm et al., 2007). Sessile organisms include algae, corals, anemones, bryozoans, ascidians, molluscs and sponges (Harriott and Banks, 2002). The topography of benthic habitats within the subtropical reefs of northern New South Wales is highly structured, providing refuges for both predators and prey (Purcell et al. 2005).

For managers of subtropical marine protected areas (MPAs), in which high levels of recreational SCUBA diving activity occur, strategies to reduce diver contacts with the reef are urgently required. Depending on training and experience (Harriott et al., 1997), the majority of the diving community will make some form of physical contact with the reef during a dive (Barker and Roberts, 2004). Such repeated contact can involve abrasion, breakage, dislodgement, or tissue tearing, and induce mucus release. Depending on the severity, benthic habitats can be impacted beyond their natural rate of repair (Sala et al., 1996).

Risk modelling is a useful tool for evaluating and predicting potential or actual risk. To date, modelling risk has been applied to fisheries management (Hobday et al., 2011), forecasting for human-contact on coral using simulation models (Saphier and Hoffmann, 2005), long- term ecosystem responses to marine pollution incidents (Peterson et al., 2003) and water quality assessments (Reckhow, 1994). Causes and types of risk need to firstly be identified, and then likelihoods, consequences and significance need to be determined. Risk model outputs provide valuable decision tools, whereby outputs can be interpreted and control measures applied to support natural resource management (Halpern et al. 2007; Pollino et al., 2007).

The aim of this study was to determine which site characteristics (benthic taxa and reef complexity) are primarily associated with risk from diver impact. The study used risk modelling to assess the relationship between the type and frequency of diver contacts, and level of impact, to predict which popular diving sites and benthic organisms are most at risk

74 from diver impacts with marine park sanctuary zones in northern NSW. While the work was conducted at a regional scale, a broader objective was to develop an approach that can be applied to all subtropical reefs globally. The specific questions intended to define this approach were: which type of diver contact causes the most severe impact?; and which benthic organisms are at the highest risk of being affected?

4.3 METHODS

The direct contacts (type/organism/impact) on reef benthos, by 400 recreational SCUBA- divers, across six dive sites (3 x CBMP/3x SIMP) were assessed.

4.3.1 Quantifying benthic cover

The Linear Point Intercept (LPI) method was used to assess the percentage cover of larger errant benthic macro-invertebrate (echinoderms, polychaetes) and sessile epifauna taxa (hard/soft coral, sponges, ascidians), across the main swimming paths frequented by recreational divers. LPI is considered a time-efficient and rigorous methodology (Hill and Wilkinson, 2004) of sampling for quantifying the percentage cover of benthic communities. Transects measuring 20 m were randomly laid within the general dive location, using fibreglass measuring tapes. These were distributed across depth zones and habitat types within those areas primarily accessed by recreational divers. The researcher swam slowly along the transect line, recording on water proof paper the benthos encountered under the tape at 0.5 meter intervals. To remove bias or parallax error (parallax error occurs when the line of sight is not perpendicular to the object being measured, in this case marine benthos), a plumb line made from small lead sinker attached to a fishing line was used to determine the benthos directly below the line at the point interval and benthic organisms were identified to a benthic category group (Table 4.3). Only organisms recorded at more than a single point were included in the analysis.

4.3.2 Data collection - Explanatory variables

Data on diver contacts were collected as per Chapter three. Each participant was surveyed once underwater, recording the number of contacts made with each type of benthic organism, and what part of their body or equipment the contact was made with and the type of impact that occurred. After a contact was observed, the damage to individual benthic organisms was assessed and recorded on a waterproof slate (Chapter 2, Figure 2.1). Data

75 included the site where the impact was recorded (Table 4.1), the type of contact occurring with the benthos (Table 4.2); the benthic organism with which the contact was made (Table 4.3) and the type of impact which occurred (Tables 4.4). Each of the six dive sites was characterised as ‘Low Relief Reef’, ‘Mixed Reef’ or ‘High Relief Reef’. High Relief Reef is typically a deep trench with high vertical walls, overhangs, caves or swim-throughs. Mixed Reefs had open gutters with sloping walls or large boulders, while Low Relief reefs were flat reef or low boulder fields with shallow channels that divers tend to swim over rather than through, site complexity characterisation (Table 4.5).

Site-level

Table 4.1: Coding and sites.

Site Number of recorded dives Hugo's Trench 54 Needles 89 Nursery 159 Split Solitary 21 South Solitary – North West 46 South Solitary Island – South West 38

76 Contact-level

Table 4.2: Contact type (part of body or equipment).

Contact type Camera Fin Hand Knee Regulator SPG Tank Dangling equipment Elbow

Table 4.3: Benthic organisms contacted.

Benthic organism Actiniaria (anemone) Algae Ascidiacea Bryozoa Cirripedia (barnacle) Corallimorpharia Echinoderm (sea urchin, feather star) Hard coral Mollusc Polycheata Soft coral Sponge N.B. Grey rows refer to benthic organisms that did not record any contacts.

77 Table 4.4: Type of impact.

Impact type Ranking Break High Fragmented High Tear High Abrasion Medium Crush Medium Dislodge Medium Mucus release Medium No visible impacts Low

Table 4.5: Habitat characterisation

Topography Site Low relief reef The Nursery Low relief reef South Solitary Island – South West Mixed reef The Needles Mixed reef Split Solitary High relief reef Hugo's Trench High relief reef South Solitary Island – North West

4.3.3 Statistical analysis

To analyse the risk to benthic habitat receptors caused by SCUBA-divers, Minitab (Minitab Inc. version 16) was used for graphing and site-level summary of the severe contact rates based on a 95% confidence interval. Data were aggregated to the site level, so the total number of severe contacts, total number of dives, and the percentage cover for each benthic organism were calculated for each site. Since sites had a wide-ranging total number of dives, it was necessary to convert the number of severe contacts to a rate of severe contacts (i.e. per dive). Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc. version 9.2) was used for modelling at the contact-level (contact type and benthic taxa). A Negative Binomial Linear model, which is an extension to the Poisson model, was used for both contact type and the risk to benthic organism models. This model was selected due to an over-inflation of zero values. There are two primary assumptions for linear regression models (Preacher et al., 2006). The first is that the residuals (or leftover variability after modelling) are normally distributed. The second is

78 that the residuals have constant variance over the whole model range (i.e. is just as precise at both ends of the scale) (Ridout et al., 2001). However, within this study, this was not the case. The distribution of the residuals was very right-skewed and the variance of the residuals would increase with increasing counts. Generalised linear models use an inbuilt transformation of the outcome, called the link function, to model the data. In the Negative Binomial model, the link function is the log transformation, i.e. log (µ) = β0 + β1x1 + … +

βkxk where µ is the mean function, also known as the expected value of Y. Therefore, the log of the expected value of Y can be modelled linearly, as in linear regression (Preacher et al., 2006). This transformation also ensures that the predicted values cannot be negative. For a standard count model (i.e. Poisson), the mean and variance of counts should be equal. A Negative Binomial model can handle modelling better than an over-dispersed Poisson (which would be fine with a small amount of over-dispersion) (Gardner et al., 1995). However, for this data set, zero-inflation was present. Zero-inflation occurred because we were counting every time a diver makes a ‘severe’ contact with a benthic organism, but also every time the diver contacted the benthos but did not cause severe damage i.e. a low impact contact is also counted as ‘not a severe contact’. For example, if diver 1 makes a ‘severe’ contact with one Sponge and two Molluscs, then they did not make a ‘severe’ contact with any of the other eight types of benthic taxa, so there will be 8 zeros for that diver. Since it was rare for an individual diver to make contact with all ten benthic taxa, there are a lot of zeros in the data file leading to a zero-inflated count of contacts.

The Negative Binomial model and the Poisson model are exactly the same as one another when the mean and variance are truly equal (Gardner et al., 1995). The Negative Binomial model uses the same log-link function as the Poisson, so interpretation of the model results is the same. However the assumption of equal mean and variance is relaxed and therefore the model is a better fit for this count data (where the variance = 2.8, and the mean = 0.4) because the estimated standard errors are more accurate (Gray, 2005). Contact-level refers to modelling within-dive, because each diver can make a contact with multiple benthic organisms or with multiple contact types.

Risk models inherently allow forecasting of events and their impacts. This is a useful tool for evaluating and predicting potential or actual risk. To date, modelling risk has been applied to fisheries management identified, and then likelihoods, consequences and significance need to be determined. Risk model outputs provide valuable decision tools, whereby outputs can be interpreted and control measures applied to support natural resource management (Pollino

79 et al., 2007). Risk modelling works by performing statistical simulations to assess risk by building models for any factor that has inherent uncertainty. Analysis combines the effects of variables at different levels into a single model, while accounting for the interdependence among observations. Calculations can occur over and over, each time using a different set of random values from the probability functions. Depending upon the number of uncertainties and the ranges specified for them, a simulation could involve thousands or tens of thousands of recalculations before the final model is presented.

The main steps used for building the model were firstly to identify the types of impact divers make on reef biota, and then assign a ranking for each type of impact as either low, medium or high. There were two main outcomes - the severity of impact and the number of contacts. The severity of the contact was designated Low, Medium or High impact: a Low impact contact was one that left no visible impact; a Medium contact was an abrasion, crush, dislodgement, or that induced mucus release or suspended sediment, and a High contact was a break, fragmentation or tear to a benthic organism.

Due to ‘Low impact’ contacts having no visible impact, these were excluded from the model (as this model focused on detectable impacts). Within the model a Medium impact contact was assigned a of 0.5 and a High contact a weight of 1. Therefore, a score of three contacts could be made up of three High impact contacts or six Medium impact contacts, or some combination of the two. This score is referred to as the number of ‘severe contacts’. These numerical impact scores are used within the model instead of the categorical variables presented in Table 2.1.

Using a Negative Binomial linear model, the risk to 10 benthic types (effect of contact type) were analysed, where at least one contact had been made, therefore for every dive there were 90 rows (10 benthic types x 9 Contact types). This totalled 35,450 rows to give 36,630 rows of data (90 for each of the 400 dives). To analyse the effect of contact type, the data were aggregated to give the total number of severe contacts per contact type for each dive, resulting in 3,663 rows. A generalized linear model was used as this is appropriate since the variable of interest, ‘contact type’, was measured at the lowest level of the hierarchy: the contact-level. The model included the variables Site ID (six) and Contact type (nine).

To consider whether sites are more susceptible to severe contact, simple linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between benthic percentage cover and severe contacts.

80 Firstly, Site-level analysis summaries for the rate of severe contact are presented. Then the effect of benthic percentage cover is assessed using linear regression models. A negative binomial linear model was used for both the contact type and benthic organism models. Flow-charts of risk provides the structure for targeting management actions (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Flow chart - source to impact.

4.4 RESULTS

The 400 divers were observed to make a total of 2.974 contacts, of which 1,956 resulted in visible impact to benthic organisms. Of the divers observed, 48% were at the low relief reef sites; with 24% at the mixed reef complexes and 27% at the high relief reefs. Macroalgae (Chlorophyta, Heterokontophyta and Rhodophyta) were the most contacted benthic taxa (Figure 4.4). Macroalgae are a substantial element of the benthic cover at dive sites in this study (particularly sites adjacent to Julian Rocks), with percentage cover ranging from 7 to 39% (Appendix B).

Hard coral received the second highest amount of contact. Benthic percentage cover of corals ranges from 8 to 60.5% at the study sites. Non-coral sessile invertebrates combined (ascidiacea, barnacles and sponges) received the third highest amount of contacts. This combined percentage cover ranges between 12.25 and 27%.

81 1200

1000

800

600

400 Number of contacts

200

0

Figure 4.2: Total severe impact score by type of contact.

Data on contact type shows that ‘Low’ impact contacts were the most commonly recorded (Figure 4.2). However, this is not to say that no impact occurred, just that no visible impact could be detected. Abrasion was the most common form of contact that caused a visible impact. This occurred primarily from divers dragging their fins across an organism. Abrasion to hard corals (Turbinaria sp or Goniastea australensis) and breaks (Pocillopora damicornis) were the most frequent type of impact. The most commonly recorded impact on solitary ascidians was mucus release after contact with Cnemidocarpa stolonifera and Herdmania momus. The most common impacts for echinoderms (in particular feather stars such as Cenolia trichoptera), were firstly fragmentation, then dislodgement. This impact is where one or more of the feather star’s long branched arms would be broken off, due to either a diver’s fin strike, or the organism would often get attached to a diver’s or neoprene glove, should they brush past, or touch the reef. The most common impact to the sponges (Spirastrella montiformis) and compound ascidians (Polyandrocarpa colemani) was abrasion and/or crushing, with occasional tearing occurring from divers grabbing the organism during periods of high surge events (Chapter 2). Fin contacts with barnacles that resulted in impact, often caused dislodgement.

Based on the topographical complexity of sites, High relief reefs received the greatest number of medium and high contacts (Table 4.6). ‘The nursery’ (low relief reef) received the

82 greatest number of contacts overall. This was due to the majority of recreational dives at CBMP occurring at ‘The Nursery’. Hence the higher proportion of divers observed at this site. High relief habitat site, (Hugo’s trench and SS North West) received the second greatest number of contacts (Table 4.7).

Table 4.6: Number of contacts based on habitat type

Count

Impact

Low Medium High Total

Habitat type Low relief reef 507 (37%) 488 (36%) 375 (27%) 1370

Mixed reef 260 (38%) 254 (56%) 179 (26%) 693

High relief reef 329 (34%) 376 (62%) 273 (28%) 978 Total 1096 1118 827 3041

Table 4.7: Number of contacts based on location

Count

Impact

Low Medium High Total

Site Hugo's trench 140 (29%) 152 197 (40%) 489

The needles 204 (45%) 96 155 (34%) 455

The nursery 382 (38%) 321 310 (31%) 1013

Split solitary 56 (24%) 158 24 (10%) 238

SS North west 189 (39%) 224 76 (16%) 489

SS South west 125 (35%) 167 65 (18%) 357 Total 1096 1118 827 3041

4.4.1 Site-level and habitat risk

The rates of contact by site for each level of impact before converting to a weighted severity score are presented in Figure 4.3. Overall, sites within CBMP scored greater rates of high level impacts than sites at SIMP. Site 1 (Hugo’s Trench, CBMP) has the highest rate of High impact contacts (3.6). High impact contacts also comprised the largest proportion of all contacts at this site whereas they were the lowest proportion at all other sites. Sites within SIMP scored the highest rate of medium impacts. Site 4 (Split Solitary, SIMP) has the

83 highest rate of Medium impact contact (7.5) and the highest total number of contacts, although it also had the lowest number of ‘High’ impact contacts of any site.

Site ID

1 Impact Low Med 2 High

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rate of contacts (per dive)

Figure 4.3: Rate of contacts per 15-minutes, by impact level and site (ordered by site ID). Site 1 – Hugo’s trench; 2 The needles; 3 - The nursery; 4 - Split Solitary; 5 South Solitary (north-west); South Solitary (south-west).

The proportions of severity categories are significantly different between sites, meaning that certain sites are at higher risk of severe diver impact (Figure 4.3). Of interest is that site 3, the nursery (CBMP), which has the highest level of diver visitation, shows a very close ranking across all levels of impact, with low impact being the most prominent form of impact at this site.

If ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ impact contacts are pooled with a weighting factor as ‘Severe’ impacts (Table 4.8), site 1 (Hugo’s Trench, CBMP) had the highest rate of severe contacts with a rate of 5.1 severe contacts per dive (CI = 4.5-5.7%), closely followed by site 4 (Split Solitary, SIMP) with a rate of 4.9 (CI = 4.0, 5.9). Site 2 (The Needles, CBMP) had the lowest rate with 2.3 severe contacts per dive, (CI = 2.0 – 2.6).

84 Table 4.8: Rate of severe contacts per site, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

Site ID Site name Rate 95% CI

1 Hugo's Trench 5.065 (4.451, 5.679)

2 Needles 2.281 (1.963, 2.599)

3 Nursery 2.994 (2.723, 3.265)

4 Split Solitary 4.881 (3.875, 5.887)

5 South Solitary – North West 4.054 (3.456, 4.652)

6 South Solitary Island – South West 3.934 (3.282, 4.586)

4.4.2 Habitat effects

Based on the correlations between benthic percentage cover and the rate of severe contacts, a positive trend for hard coral (Figure 4.4) and algae (Figure 4.5) is evident. This suggests that sites with higher percentage cover (>30%) of these taxa would be more susceptible to severe impacts. As hard coral cover at all sites within SIMP is >30% (Appendix 2.1), this location would potentially be more likely to receive severe contacts. In comparison, sites at Julian Rocks (CBMP), have high percentages of algae (Appendix 2.1).

Correlation analysis was conducted to determine whether benthic percentage cover influenced the rate of severe contacts. To consider whether the habitat of a site (higher percentages of sensitive organisms), is related to the rate of severe contacts, a comparison of the rate of severe contacts per dive with the percentage cover of benthic organisms was made. As coral percentage cover increases, the rate of severe contact also increases (Figure 4.4). High relief reef sites with relatively low percentage cover of ascidiacea received the greatest number of contacts (Figure 4.5). High relief reef sites with relativity low percentages of sponge cover still received high rates of severe contact (Figure 4.6). Algae occurring at low relief and mixed reef sites received the highest rate of severe contacts (Figure 4.7).

85 Rate of severe contacts (per dive)

5

4

3

2

1

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 Hard coral percentage cover

Figure 4.4: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Hard coral, with linear fit (P -value = 0.169).

Rate of severe contacts (per dive)

5

4

3

2

1

0

5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 Ascidiacea percentage cover

Figure 4.5: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Ascidiacea, with linear fit (P-value = 0.187).

86 Rate of severe contacts (per dive)

5

4

3

2

1

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sponge percentage cover

Figure 4.6: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Sponge, with linear fit (P-value = 0.250).

Rate of severe contacts (per dive)

5

4

3

2

1

0

0 10 20 30 40 Algae percentage cover

Figure 4.7: Relationship between the rate of severe contacts and the percentage cover of Algae, with linear fit (P-value = 0.341).

87 4.4.3 Effect of contact type

Overall, a strong contact type effect (P-value < 0.001) is present; a summary of the contact type effects (Figure 4.8), shows that Fins had the highest number of severe contacts per dive, with an average of 2.9 (95% CI: 2.3 to 3.6). The remaining body areas or equipment components had fewer than 0.3 severe contacts per dive.

Contact type Fin

Hand

Knee

SPG

Dangling equipment

Camera

Elbow

Tank

Regulator

0 1 2 3 4 Mean no. of severe contacts per dive

Figure 4.8: Mean number of severe contacts for each contact type, as estimated by modelling (ordered by mean severity). Bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

88

Figure 4.9: Typical fin contact, whereby a diver at Julian Rocks uses the reef to stabilise against. © Zan Hammerton (2012).

Knee contact presents the next significant proportion of medium and high impact contact, with 81% of all divers kneeling on the benthos resulting in a medium or high impact. This type of contact is common with divers using photographic equipment and divers in training completing skills often whilst kneeling on the benthos. Whilst hand contact was the second most common form of contact, only 30% of this type of contact resulted in a medium or high level impact (Figure 4.10), hence the lower proportion ranking. Divers often use their hands to stabilise upon the reef, particularly when viewing cryptic organisms, photographing, or pushing away from the reef. Regulators produced no high level impact and only 2 medium level impacts.

89

Figure 4.10: Torn sponge (Spirastrella montiformis) (left) caused by a diver’s hand grabbing on to the organism during water surge in a narrow trench. © Zan Hammerton (2012).

Figure 4.11: Fragmented hard coral (Pocillopora damicornis), caused by a photographers fins (see page. 85) stabilising upon the reef. © Zan Hammerton (2012).

90 The proportions of medium and high impacts are presented below to determine if significant change occurs between contact types and the data points (Figures 4.12 and Table 4.9) represent the proportions of medium and high impact contacts to total contacts (low + med + high impact) respectively. Of all Fin contacts, 76% contributed to proportions of medium (abrasion, crush, dislodge, mucus release) and high impact (break, fragmentation or tear) contact, with only 24% of total contacts being rated as a low impact contact i.e. no visible impact..

Contact type n Impact Camera 21 Med Dangling equipment 49 High

Elbow 23

Fin 1902

Hand 717

Knee 148

Regulator 3

SPG 165

Tank 15

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Proportion of total contacts

Figure 4.12: The proportion of total contacts, with proportion denominator represented on the right hand Y axis.

The size of the denominator dictates the precision of the proportion estimate (Table 4.9). For example, the proportion of Medium impact contacts for Fin is 0.41 with n = 1902, whereas for Regulator, the proportion is 0.67 with n = 3. The 95% CI for Fin proportion is very narrow (0.38, 0.43) and therefore a more precise estimate of effect, whereas Regulator proportion is wide (0.09, 0.99).

91 Table 4.9: Proportions of contact types with 95% confidence intervals.

Contact type Total contacts Impact Contacts Proportion 95% CI Med 15 0.71 0.48, 0.89 Camera 21 High 3 0.14 0.03, 0.36 Dangling Med 33 0.67 0.52, 0.80 49 equipment High 6 0.12 0.05, 0.25 Med 16 0.7 0.47, 0.87 Elbow 23 High 2 0.09 0.01, 0.28 Med 774 0.41 0.38, 0.43 Fin 1902 High 675 0.35 0.33, 0.38 Med 136 0.19 0.16, 0.22 Hand 717 High 77 0.11 0.09, 0.13 Med 73 0.49 0.41, 0.58 Knee 148 High 47 0.32 0.24, 0.40 Med 2 0.67 0.09, 0.99 Regulator 3 High 0 0 0.00, 0.63 Med 69 0.42 0.34, 0.50 SPG 165 High 13 0.08 0.04, 0.13 Med 12 0.8 0.52, 0.96 Tank 15 High 3 0.2 0.04, 0.48

4.4.4 Effect of benthic organism

There was a strong benthic organism effect (P-value < 0.001) after accounting for the other variables in the model. The mean was 0.34 with a 1.9 variance. This is due to zero-inflation. The benthic group that received the most severe contacts on average per dive was algae with 1.5 severe contacts (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.8), followed by hard coral with 0.9 severe contacts on average per dive (95% CI: 0.7 to 1.1) (Figure 4.13).

92 Benthic organism Algae

Hard coral

Ascidiacea

Echinoderm

Sponge

Cirripedia

Soft coral

Actiniaria

Corallimorpharia

Bryozoa

0 1 2 3 4 Mean no. of severe contacts per dive

Figure 4.13: Mean number of severe contacts per dive for each benthic taxa, as estimated by modelling (ordered by mean severity). Bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

To assess which benthic taxa are most susceptible to diver impacts, data points were used to represent the frequency proportions for Medium and high impact contacts to benthic organisms, low + med + high impact (Figure 4.14 and Table 4.10).

93 Benthic organism n Impact Actiniaria 31 Med Algae 1505 High Ascidiacea 325

Bryozoa 6

Cirripedia 128 Corallimorpharia 7 Echinoderm 134

Hard coral 703

Soft coral 58

Sponge 146

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Proportion of total contacts

Figure 4.14: The proportions of impact to benthic taxa, with proportion denominator represented on the right hand Y axis.

Algae were the most contacted benthic taxa, with an overall 42% of total contact resulting in either medium or high level impact. Typically diver fin contacts resulted in 39% high level impact and, this tended to fragment pieces from the parent organism, it is given a high impact rating. In contrast, overall, 94% of all hard coral contact resulted in visible impact, with 69% resulting in a medium (usually abrasion) and 25% high (usually breakage). 88% of contacts with Echinoderms resulted in medium to high level impact, dislodgment from the benthos and/or fragmentation of one or more arms being a common occurrence. 84% of contact with Ascidiacea and 81.5% of contact with sponges resulted in medium impacts, usually abrasion or crushing.

94 Table 4.10: Proportions of benthic taxa with 95% confidence intervals.

Total Benthic organism Impact Proportion 95% CI contacts Contacts Med 28 0.9 0.74, 0.98 Actiniaria 31 High 0 0 0.00, 0.09 Med 43 0.03 0.02, 0.04 Algae 1505 High 591 0.39 0.37, 0.42 Med 274 0.84 0.80, 0.88 Ascidiacea 325 High 5 0.02 0.01, 0.04 Med 4 0.67 0.22, 0.96 Bryozoa 6 High 0 0 0.00, 0.39 Med 41 0.32 0.24, 0.41 Cirripedia 128 High 6 0.05 0.02, 0.10 Med 5 0.71 0.29, 0.96 Corallimorpharia 7 High 1 0.14 0.00, 0.58 Med 75 0.56 0.47, 0.65 Echinoderm 134 High 44 0.33 0.25, 0.41 Med 491 0.7 0.66, 0.73 Hard coral 703 High 174 0.25 0.22, 0.28 Med 50 0.86 0.75, 0.94 Soft coral 58 High 0 0 0.00, 0.05 Med 119 0.82 0.74, 0.87 Sponge 146 High 5 0.03 0.01, 0.08

4.5 DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was to determine which site characteristics (benthic taxa and reef complexity) are primarily associated with severe risk from diver impact. Risk assessments focused on the relationship between the type and frequency of diver contacts, and level of impact, to predict which popular diving sites and benthic organisms are most at risk from diver impacts with marine park sanctuary zones in northern NSW.

There is a difference between the sensitively of damage and the probability of damage. On average low relief reefs are used by less experienced divers therefore the number of severe impacts was greater. Divers accessing high relief reef are generally more experienced. Complex habitat in this case is shear walls or trenches; this is a major difference between subtropical and tropical reefs, where complex biological structure can occur on relatively flat substratum e.g. Acropora staghorn coral thickets.

95 Sites with more complex habitat’ recorded higher numbers of contacts per diver and more severe impacts overall, suggesting that the morphological composition of benthic habitat’ influences diver contact. Less favourable ocean conditions, i.e. current and surge could also play a role, by altering an individual diver’s level of comfort. Results from this study showed that sites with medium to high relief trench habitat, particularly those with narrow sections, are more prone to higher rates of severe impact. This also includes caves, overhangs and swim-throughs. Sites with more open reef complex, predominantly boulder field, patchy habitat with large areas of sand and mixed reef in contrast showed a reduced rate of high- level impacts. Other studies on the level of diver impact based on three reef topographies (steep slope, gently sloping, and near-horizontal reef benthos), conducted on the Great Barrier Reef however saw no correlation with a particular topography and level of diver impact (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). Importantly and for the sake of comparisons this study only accessed reef slope as opposed to closed habitat (i.e. reef with caves and overhangs). Rouphael and Inglis, 1997 reported that on a smaller scale, morphological composition of the benthos was more important. Branching and erect morphologies tend to be more prone to damage than encrusting and massive forms (Hawkins and Roberts, 1992) and Zakai and Chadwick-Furman (2002) found that cave habitats sustained the highest percentage of damage to branching corals suggesting that trench habitats and sites with higher percentages of more sensitive branching benthic taxa are at greater risk of severe levels of impact from divers. The dominant topography of Hugo’s trench (CBMP) is trench habitat and certain sections of the main diver swimming path within the trench are very narrow (< 1.5m across), meaning that divers will inevitably make some form of contact, with in particular, high impact contacts with organisms on the sides of the trench wall. Importantly, divers will often swim into a trench and search for more cryptic marine life under ledges, which results in increased contact.

The greatest number of contacts was recorded at the ‘The nursery’ CBMP, due to the site having the highest of moorings (4), and consistently the majority of recreational divers who begin their dive at this site, therefore this contributes to the high visitation rates. Also, due to the sites shallow (<13m) and mostly protected reef, this is the primary site where learn to dive courses are conducted.

Whilst the mean number of severe contacts per dive appears small, an estimated 20,000 individual divers visit Julian Rocks annually, with 12,000 estimated to visit SIMP. Multiplying individual severe contacts too the most commonly impacted organisms, by the

96 number of potential divers accessing each site annually provides an indication of potential impact (Table 4.11) occurring with the current level of management.

Table 4.11: Potential total number of severe impacts (annually) based on current visitation estimates.

Organism CBMP SIMP Algae 30,000 18,000 Hard coral 18,000 10,800 Ascidian 8,000 4,800 Echinoderm 6,000 3,600 Sponge 6,000 3,600 Soft coral 2,000 1,200

Repetitive anthropogenic activities which cause continued habitat disturbance have been well documented to also cause ecosystem-wide effects (Thrush et al., 1998; Hiddink et al., 2006). As numerous studies have detailed the unsustainable impacts occurring to tropical coral reefs from recreational SCUBA diving (Chapter 1), the importance of similar pattens of impact on subtropical reefs cannot be under estimated. Whilst generally corals are not the dominant taxa at subtropical reefs, high percentage cover may still exist, as well as high abundances of alga, porifera, ascidiacea and motile invertebrates like Echinoderms. A range of physical and biological mechanisms drive subtropical benthic reef community composition, including herbivory, eutrophication, hydrodynamics and sedimentation (Hoey et al., 2011). More generally, subtropical reef systems naturally contain expansive populations of algae (Birrell et al., 2008), with corals usually only occurring in localised areas (Harriott and Banks, 2002). This is due to high percentages (>60%) of macroalgae limiting the recruitment, growth, or persistence of scleractinian corals (Hughes et al., 2007).

Whilst subtropical reefs present a lower benthic percentage cover by hard corals, this study found that this taxa was still highly susceptible to high level impact, supporting that the presence of coral increases the risk of high level impact. Contact with coral typically results in either the removal of the outer tissue layer or breakage resulting in the damaged tissue becoming infected by pathogens, making recovery slow and increasing overall mortality (Hall, 2001). Of interest rare black coral trees (Antipathes grandis) were present within the trench habitats of CBMP (CBMP, 2003).

97 A total of 64 species of algae have been identified within CBMP, including the rare Tomaculopsis herbertiana (Figures 4.15a and 4.15b) which is only found in New South Wales, at Hugo’s Trench (Millar, 2003). Within SIMP, a total of 119 species of macroalgae were identified, including the critically endangered species Nereia lophocladia.

Figure 4.15a and 4.16b: Tomaculopsis herbertiana (left); close up of Tomaculopsis herbertiana (Right) © Sascha Hofmann (2013).

As many macroalgae species extend above the reef line, divers are often unaware of the severe contacts occurring, resulting in fragmentation from the parent organism. Whilst encrusting forms i.e. coralline algae, tend to be more resilient; divers repeatedly mistake it for rock. Vroom et al (2006) make the point, that algae play an equal, if not more important role on reefs than coral, as they (Macroaglae) provide important sources of food and habitat for a range of fish, molluscs and invertebrates; however they are also highly susceptible to a range of anthropogenic impacts, including diver impact. Although diver impact studies on motile benthic organisms such as Echinoderms are absent; this study has observed divers’ fins often result in fragmentation of one or more arms.

Due to the high percentage cover, this study found Algae to be the most contacted taxa, particularly at sites adjacent to Julian Rocks (CBMP). Severe impacts to algae may inhibit growth and are therefore similar to grazing of algae by fish species, which in turn contributes to the resilience of hard corals (Birrell et al., 2008). Algae are constantly opportunistic in that they rapidly colonise available space (Nystrom et al., 2000), resulting in shading of potential coral colonisation sites (Hughes et al., 2007). It is therefore generally accepted that benthic algae have predominantly negative effects on the potential settlement or recruitment of corals (Hughes et al. 2010). At sites where corals are also highly susceptible to severe

98 impacts, algae can affect coral recovery by outcompeting coral population replenishment. The algal assemblage of a site can therefore affect the suitability of the habitat for coral replenishment (Heyward and Negri, 1999).

Divers fins are the most prominent cause for contact with marine organisms and whilst numerous international studies have detailed such evidence (Harriott et al., 1997; Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002), divers are often unaware their fins are making contact with the benthos. Whilst the impact of a single diver contact may be minor, the cumulative effects from significant levels of contact sustained at sites of high level diving activity can cause short and long-term impacts on reef ecology. The disproportionate amount of severe contacts caused by diver fins presents evidence that management should target correct buoyancy control, trim and alternative propulsion techniques, especially at sites with high topographic complexity and coral cover. With the acceptance that the primary cause of diver contact is a result of poor skill base and lack of in-water supervision, applying in-water intervention is highly likely to facilitate a reduction in contacts and assist in raising awareness to individual divers who are frequently making this type of contact. Whilst all the major SCUBA associations include training in buoyancy control, basic training and adequate proficiency in trim and low-impact propulsion techniques clearly remain inadequate. Due to this, many divers lack the necessary skill to refrain from making contact with their fins. This clearly highlights the need for diver education and training to address this form of contact, through targeted low impact diver training.

Without any form of additional education or amendments to diver training, impacts will continue to occur, with narrow trench or cave habitats presenting the greatest ongoing risk to benthic taxa. One management intervention appears to be greater supervision of divers by dive leaders, which has been shown to have a significant impact on reducing contact with the reef (Barker and Roberts, 2004). In addition, planning dive tour routes to avoid sensitive habitats such as narrow trenches and caves can also significantly reduce contacts (Shivlani and Suman, 2000), all more susceptible to diver impact.

Management strategies could therefore include, planning dive tour routes to avoid sensitive habitats, this could become part of a requirement to access dive sites within marine parks, and also presented as an eco-tourism best practice protocol. Further introducing a rating system based on the complexity and sensitivity of the reef combined with the divers’ level of skill, would also reduce diver impacts. Rating popular diving locations based on a sensitivity index and making such sites only accessible to divers based on proficiency in low impact

99 diving practise would also reduce diver impacts. In addition with divers familiar with certification based restrictions, open water divers, for example are restricted to depths of 18 metres and above, whereas divers wanting to explore fresh water caves require cave certification. Access to certain shipwrecks is also determined by the diver holding the necessary wreck speciality certification. Introducing a rating system based on the complexity and sensitivity of the reef would provide another avenue of management, and be applied from tropical to temperate reefs within marine parks. Introductory level divers could be restricted to patchy reef complexes, which have large sand areas, so that such divers could practice buoyancy and trim whilst viewing the reef from the edges. This would provide motivation and incentive for those interested in exploring the reef away from the sand to continue training to the appropriate level. More advanced divers who have mastered buoyancy and trim and are capable of adjusting swimming position frequently to avoid contact could have access to sites of higher complexity (e.g. trench habitat and high relief reefs) or those with sensitive benthos (e.g. coral and sponge dominated habitat). Certification and experience level rated sites would be established based on a model of relative risk, based on benthic percentage cover of sensitive organisms and reef complexity.

Sites of high complexity (e.g. cave, narrow trenches, overhangs) or in states of high competition combined with sensitive benthic taxa (e.g. algae, ascidian, coral, echinoderm,and sponges) are most at risk of severe impact. Fin contacts are the greatest threat to such habitats, however management options exist that can limit damage. The methods utilised within this study can be applied to reefs internationally, and used to determine which sites are most at risk to severe impacts from diver visitation. The model presented here proposes that individual dive sites can be evaluated based on their vulnerability to diver impacts. Additionally, individual diver’s experience and certification level can be used to determine sustainable access to sites in question. The main objective for modelling the relative risk of popular diving locations is to direct divers away from sensitive and vulnerable benthic habitats. This was developed to assist MPA managers in limiting diver impacts at sites of high visitation. The main limitation of this study was not having long-term data on the recovery rates of specific taxa, such data would have enabled resilience to be modelled. Future studies into habitat/diver impacts and management strategies of dive impacts should consider incorporating such data.

100 Chapter 5

Testing levels of intervention for reducing SCUBA-diver impact within marine protected areas

Prelude:

This chapter will be submitted as a manuscript to The Journal of Ecotourism, in accordance with the SCU policy on ‘Thesis Incorporating Publications’. As such it is presented with its own abstract and there will be necessarily some repetition in the introduction and methods. Acknowledgments and references have been incorporated into the general sections of the thesis.

5.1 ABSTRACT

Subtropical rocky reefs are ecotonal habitats that support unique biodiversity and attract all levels of SCUBA-divers. Compared to tropical reefs, there have been few studies evaluating the effects of SCUBA diving on these communities. Cape Byron and Solitary Islands marine parks in northern New South Wales include some of the most intensively dived sites in Australia, outside of the Great Barrier Reef. Most diving sites are located within sanctuary zones that offer the highest level of protection. Contact by the diver or their equipment, is a principal mechanism for chronic impact on benthic life forms. To reduce such impact, managers could take the unpopular option of limiting access, thereby alienating some of the parks strongest supporters, or could attempt to influence diver behaviour to reduce the cumulative impact of high visitation rates. This study tested two levels of intervention over the standard dive briefing to determine their effectiveness for reducing SCUBA-diver contact: (1) targeted pre-dive briefing with specific reference to minimising benthic contact; and (2) direct underwater reinforcement at the time of first contact. Both intervention levels significantly reduced the number of contacts made by divers. This indicates that the ecological integrity of dive sites can be maintained, and the carrying capacity of sites can be extended, with well-considered and relatively brief intervention.

5.2 INTRODUCTION

Rapid growth has occurred in the marine tourism industry in recent decades (Millar, 1993; Hall, 2001; Burak et al. 2004). The sport of diving using self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) has shifted from an elite adventure sport to an activity marketed widely to the broader tourism community (Carter, 2008a). The growth in potential clients now

101 supports a more stable and extensive charter sector, providing greater access to a broader range of diving sites (Dignam, 1990; PADI, Cesar, 2003; Garrod, 2008). With this increase in SCUBA diving activity, a proportional increase in diver impacts is also occurring at many popular sites, often within marine protected areas (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002; Hasler and Ott, 2008). The combination of general marine tourism development and the more intensive pressures of recreational diving at sites where higher of recreational divers exist, contribute significantly to both ecological and aesthetic degradation of many popular reefs (Roberts and Harriott, 1994; Rouphael and Inglis, 1997; Hasler and Ott, 2008). The majority of diver impact research has focused on tropical coral reefs including the Caribbean Sea (Gardner et al., 2003; Burke and Maidens, 2004; Hawkins et al., 2005; Tratalos and Austin, 2007); the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997); Florida Keys, USA (Shivlani and Suman, 2000) the Red Sea, Egypt (Hawkins and Roberts,1992; Hawkins and Roberts, 1994; Prior et al., 1995; Jameson et al., 1999; Zakai and Chawick-Furman, 2002; Rinkevich, 2005); Thailand (Worachananant et al., 2008); and Malaysia (Musa, 2002). However studies on the impacts of dive tourism on subtropical reefs are few (Harriott et al.,1997; Roberts and Harriott, 1994). At these locations, coral communities are growing near their environmental limits and may be even more sensitive to impacts than those on tropical reefs (Beger et al., 2011).

Marine tourism is often quantified by the economic benefits to stakeholders and the experiential value that tourists place on SCUBA diving (Driml and Common, 1995; Ngazy, 2004; Asafu-Adjaye and Tapsuwan, 2008). In addition, recreational divers are specifically drawn to locations that have marine protected area status (Buckley, 2006). In that their perception is that such locations are more likely to provide a unique experience with species and reefs that are of high conservation value and may not be found elsewhere (Shafer and Inglis, 2000; Williams et al., 2000; Rudd and Tupper, 2002). The aspiration of meeting both ecological and economic goals within marine protected areas (MPAs) is a challenge.

In order for marine protected areas to maintain biological integrity whilst still providing access and economic benefit to the dive tourism industry, interventions that provide long- term sustainable use of reef communities may need to be applied. The Carrying Capacity Approach (CCA) to management of visitation to natural sites (Davis and Tisdell, 1995), assumes that each site has an innate ability to restore damage and that visitation rates should therefore be limited to ensure that the level of damage remains within sustainable limits. The CCA also recognises that there are social thresholds of amenity value that can also be exceeded, but these may only be reached after ecological ones have been exceeded (Davis

102 and Harriott, 1996; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Protected areas often support well- established diving economies, attracted by the same biological elements that stimulated the MPA’s establishment in the first place (often driven by pressure from divers), such as high biodiversity, or significant populations of iconic species such as sharks, rays, turtles, schooling fish, or photogenic benthic species (Uyarra et al. 2009). Remedial measures that reduce the number of divers could therefore meet with strong opposition, reducing community support for the MPA and enforceability of regulations, and resulting in economic loss to the local community. Ecological carrying capacity can be increased through strategies to reduce the impacts of individual users so that the same level of impact is caused by higher visitation rates (Dixon, 1993). Quantifying ecological thresholds is a major challenge to CCA, but the theory highlights the economic and ecological values of impact minimisation at high visitation rates. Modification of diver behaviour to minimise impacts can potentially be achieved through specific pre-dive briefings and effective in-water reinforcement of low- impact messages. Depending on the site and access characteristics, pre-dive briefings may be conducted at various times before entering the water but the message may be forgotten by the time the dive begins, so in some areas, in-water reinforcement is applied. In-water intervention is often shunned by dive operators because of the objection from divers of unwelcome intrusion into their dive experience. However, Barker and Roberts (1994) demonstrated that better control of some divers’ behaviour would have improved the diving experience for other divers in the group, and Townsend (2000) found that divers take cues on how to behave underwater from how their guides conduct themselves.

This study tested two levels of intervention above the standard dive brief to determine the most effective way to reduce the physical contact (and potential impact) made by individual divers on subtropical reefs. Targeted pre-dive briefings that highlight the need to minimise contact with the reef were used to see if the briefing remained effective once the dive commenced. In-water reinforcement (e.g. reprimanding divers who contacted the reef) was applied in addition to the briefing to see if this further increased the effectiveness of the no- contact message.

5.3 METHODS

5.3.1 Site selection

The regional towns adjacent to the study sites (Byron Bay and Coffs Harbour) have largely tourism-based economies (Braithwaite and Braithwaite, 2003; Lawrence, 2005) and supported dive tourism decades before establishment of the marine parks.

103 These study locations were selected because they provided homogenous samples and have been prominent diving destinations for over two decades. In 1994 Julian Rocks was estimated to support more than 25,000 dives (Roberts and Harriott, 1994), which exceeded dive intensities at popular sites on the Great Barrier Reef (Davis et al., 1995). Most of the diving is concentrated in a few small sites adjacent to each other and to the island. Dive operators who access SIMP from Coffs Harbour focus the majority of diving at South Solitary Island, which has nine dive sites, with occasional trips to Split Solitary and South West Solitary islands. Other operators use the more northern sites from Arrawarra, approximately 35km to the north of Coffs Harbour.

The reefs in both parks support highly diverse marine habitats and represent a unique transition zone between tropical and warm-temperate ecosystems with tropical, subtropical and temperate marine species coexisting amongst a mosaic of habitat types (Harriott et al., 1999; Hammerton et al., 2012). The majority of diving sites within the CBMP and SIMP are in designated ‘Sanctuary Zones’, zoning which provides the highest level of protection for marine organisms and their habitats (Smith et al., 2010). Sanctuary zones only allow passive low impact activities such as snorkelling, scuba diving or kayaking and exclude any extractive activities such as commercial or recreational fishing. Recreational divers target these specific locations because of the presence of various iconic species such as the grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus), leopard shark (Stegostoma fasciatum), large serranids (Epinephelus spp.) and the regular occurrence of many small colourful species targeted by underwater photographers such as the ornate ghost pipefish ( paradoxus) and other syngnathiform fishes, flatworms and nudibranchs (Barker et al., 2011; Rudd and Tupper, 2002).

5.3.2 Application of levels of intervention

This study was conducted under Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee approval ECN-08-160, which required ‘informed consent’ of all participants. In order to minimise the potential for prior knowledge to influence the behaviour of the divers, they were told only that “research was being conducted into SCUBA-diver behaviour”. Divers were then included in the study only if they agreed to participate. Whilst it may be expected that some divers might be generally more careful than usual in these circumstances,

104 divers remained unaware of the types of behaviour being recorded or the treatment groups that were being applied, so any difference between treatment groups would not be influenced by the prior knowledge. In addition,, many participants lacked the necessary skill to significantly modify their behaviour or forgot they were being observed shortly after the dive commenced.

Prior to the dive participants were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups.

Level 1 (Control, no intervention) – non-standardised dive briefing - divers were not provided with any additional information regarding the significance and conservation status of the dive site they were visiting or techniques to minimise negative impacts:

Level 2 – (Targeted dive brief) - Divers were informed they would be diving in a MPA sanctuary zone, and about the significance and conservation status of the dive site. The importance of not making any contact with the benthos was emphasised: and

Level 3 – (In-water reinforcement) - In addition to the Level 2 briefing, divers were informed that if they made any contact with the reef they would be reminded to not make contact with the reef by being shown a water proof slate which read ‘Please keep off the reef’.

Divers were monitored (one (researcher) for each (recreational diver) for a period of 15 minutes during each dive. The observer swam behind the dive group recording on a water proof slate all benthic contact made by a diver’s body or equipment (Table 2.1). This included the number and type of contacts made (using a protocol adapted from that of Roberts and Harriott, 1994), and if photographic equipment was being used by the diver. Contact with sand was not recorded. Depending upon diver experience, a charter dive can last for up to 50 minutes, allowing for up to 3 divers to be monitored per dive.

5.3.3 Data analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Macintosh (IBM, 2012, version 22). A two-way Schierer-Ray-Hare modification (Scheirer et al., 1976) of the Kruskall-Wallis test (SRH test) was applied to rank-transformed data, comparing the number of contacts between location (CBMP/SIMP) and Level (1 – standard briefing, 2 – targeted briefing, or 3 – in- water reinforcement) and the interaction between the two. If the location effect was non- significant, the effect of whether or not a diver was using photographic equipment (either stills or video) and its interaction with the level of intervention, were tested with data across

105 pooled across both locations. The factors in this two-way SRH test were ‘Photo’ (Yes/No) and ‘Level of Intervention’ (1, 2, 3).

Where the SRH tests detected a significant effect for treatments with more than two levels (e.g. Level of Intervention), a Connover-Iman pair-wise comparison was performed. This is the Fischer least significance difference test (Fischer LSD) performed on rank-transformed data (Conover, 1999).

5.4 RESULTS

The 600 SCUBA-divers sampled were randomly selected from among customers of commercial diving charter operators CBMP (450) and SIMP (150). Divers made a total of 3179 contacts. Divers from all experience levels were surveyed within each level of the three levels of intervention. This included first time divers through to highly experienced instructors. The water visibility across the sites ranged from 8 to 20 metres. The majority of contacts with marine life were made by divers’ fins (Figure 5.1). Uncontrolled fin contact frequently resulted in breaks or abrasions to hard corals, sponges, ascidians and the dislodgement of other invertebrates. Minor abrasions were also a common result of contact with the benthos. Intentional contacts (whereby a diver uses their body or equipment to stabilize themselves against the reef) included divers touching the substrate with their hands, and stabilising themselves on the reef with hands or legs. This type of contact was very common among photographers. After fin contact, unsecured submerged pressure gauges constituted the second highest number of accidental contacts.

106

Figure 5.1: Distribution of the percentage of divers and contact types across CBMP and SIMP.

On average divers at SIMP made more contacts, 6.44 contacts per 15 minutes ± 10.45, than those surveyed at CBMP 4.99 ± 7.94. (Figure 5.2) and both levels of intervention reduced the number of contacts at both sites (Figure 5.3). On average divers using photographic equipment made higher levels of contact (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.2: Distribution of contacts for each diver during a 15-minute observation period at each location.. The boxes displays the interquartile range (the top of the box represents the 75th percentile; the bottom of the box presents the 25th percentile). The median (50th percentile) is indicated by the horizontal line within each box. Error bars

107 represent the highest and lowest values that are not outlines or extreme values. Outliers (values that are between 1.5. and 3 times the interquartile range) and extreme values (values that are more than 3 times the interquartile range) are represented by circles and stars, respectively..

Figure 5.3: Distribution of contacts for each diver during a 15-minute observation period at each level of intervention. The boxes displays the interquartile range (the top of the box represents the 75th percentile; the bottom of the box presents the 25th percentile). The median (50th percentile) is indicated by the horizontal line within each box. Error bars represent the highest and lowest values that are not outlines or extreme values. Outliers (values that are between 1.5. and 3 times the interquartile range) and extreme values (values that are more than 3 times the interquartile range) are represented by circles and stars, respectively..

The Schierer-Ray-Hare test (Table 5.1) of the total number of contacts showed a significant effect of intervention level, but no location effect and no significant interaction, indicating that the influence of intervention was similar across the two locations. Data from CBMP and SIMP were therefore pooled for subsequent analyses. All three levels of intervention are

108 significantly different from each other (Table 5.2): the targeted briefing (Level 2 intervention) had a significant effect over the control, and in-water reinforcement (Level 3 intervention) had a significantly greater effect than the target briefing alone.

Table 5.1: Results of the Schierer-Ray-Hare extension of the Kruskall-Wallis tests for level of intervention and location.

H Factor MS df P (MSn/MStotal)

Level of intervention 1562389.1 104.85 2 0.000

2572.8 0.13 1 0.718

Level*Location 16547.8 1.05 2 0.592

Total 118063.849 600

Table 5.2: Pairwise comparisons (Connover-Iman test) for the number of contacts in each of the three levels of intervention.

(I) Level of intervention (J) Level of intervention Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Control Pre-dive briefing 84.35000* 14.637227 0.000

In-water reinforcement 196.72750* 14.637227 0.000

Pre-dive briefing Control -84.35000* 14.637227 0.000

In-water reinforcement 112.37750* 14.637227 0.000

In situ Control -196.72750* 14.637227 0.000

Pre-dive briefing -112.37750* 14.637227 0.000

109 Divers’ fins made a large majority of contacts with marine life. Uncontrolled fin contact frequently resulted in breaks or abrasions to hard corals, sponges, ascidians and the dislodgement of other invertebrates. Minor abrasions were also a common result of contact with the benthos. Intentional contacts (whereby a diver consciously users their body or equipment to stabilise themselves against the reef) included divers touching the substrate with their hands, and stabilising themselves on the reef with hands or legs. This type of contact was very common among photographers. After fin contact, submerged pressure gauges constituted the second highest number of accidental contacts.

Overall photographers made more contacts with the benthos than non-photographers (Figure 3). Divers who used photographic equipment and received only the standard pre-dive briefing (14.67 ± 12.28, n = 57) or the targeted pre-dive briefing (6.31 ± 5.17, n = 51), were found to make more contacts than divers not using photographic equipment (control: 8.88 ± 11.42, n = 143, pre-dive briefing: 3.85 ± 5.74, n = 149). Divers receiving the in-water reinforcement intervention were reduced to very low numbers of contact regardless of whether they were photographers or not.

Figure 5.4: Distribution of contacts for photographers and non-photographers during a 15-minute observation period.

110 The two-way Scheirer-Ray-Hare test of the factors ‘photography’ and ‘level of intervention’ (Table 5.3) showed a significantly higher number of contacts among photographers and a significant interaction with level of intervention. As each level of intervention was applied, a significant reduction occurred (Figure 5.3) in the number of contacts for both photographers and non-photographers. The significant interaction is due to the similarly very low number of contacts in both groups when in-water reinforcement was applied, while the significant difference between photographers and non-photographers applied to the control and targeted briefing groups. Therefore the significant difference between photographers and non- photographers only applies to the control group and the targeted pre-dive briefing groups.

Table 5.3: Results of the Schierer-Ray-Hare extension of the Kruskall-Wallis tests for level of intervention and ‘Photo’ (whether or not the diver was using photographic equipment).

Factor H df P

(SSn/Mstotal)

Level of intervention 69.89 2 0.000

Photo 13.08 1 0.000 level*photo 7.58 2 0.022

111 500

450

400

350

no photos 300 photos

250 Rank of Number of Contacts

200

150 1 2 3 Levels of Intervention

Figure 5.5: The nature of the photography/level of intervention interaction. Each additional level of intervention produced a lower number of contacts in both photographers and non-photographers. Photographers had much higher numbers of contacts than non-photographers except when in-water reinforcement of the ‘no contact’ message was applied and both groups had similar and low numbers of contacts with the benthos.

5.5 DISCUSSION

Achieving a balance between ecological management and recreational activities within marine protected areas is a complex endeavour. Where high levels of dive tourism exist there is a clear need to protect the integrity of the marine ecosystem, whilst maintaining the recreational experience. However, there are many sites with high levels of diver visitation where significant and unsustainable biological and aesthetic impacts are still occurring (Parsons and Thurs, 2008; Schuhmann et al., 2008; Rinkevich, 2005).

Subtropical and temperate reef systems have prominent appeal to SCUBA-divers (Di Franco et al., 2008; Walters and Samways, 2001; Sala et al., 1996; Roberts and Harriott, 1994) and make up a significant part of the industry resource. Divers have a preference for reefs that are within marine protected areas, in particular where fish diversity

112 and abundance is high and large species such as sharks and turtles are present (Barker et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2000). Divers also seek out cryptic marine life, for example syngnathids or nudibranchs. Uyarra and Coté, (2007) found that when divers viewed cryptic species which are closely associated with the substratum, divers made more contact with the benthos and for longer periods, which creates significant repeated damage within a localised area. This study found the same behaviour contributed to greater benthic contacts and was particularly the case when dive guides pointed out cryptic organisms on the reef and the group of divers approached for a closer look. Also, when photographers, (particularly those using macro lenses), were lining up to take a photograph - most divers were observed to use their hands and/or fins to push away from the reef and re-establish buoyancy.

This study tested the effectiveness of preventative intervention as a means of reducing diver contacts and therefore the need for post-damage management, or limitation of diver numbers. Dive participants exhibited a broad range of behaviours, across all levels of intervention and this resulted in both controlled and un-controlled contacts. Studies that monitor SCUBA-diver behaviour, specifically the number of contacts made with the reef, are usually conducted without the knowledge of the diver. However, due to the ‘informed consent’ requirements of the human research ethics committee approval required for this study (Section 2.3.1), all divers had some idea that their behaviour was being monitored. Divers could therefore be considered to be on their ‘best behaviour’ in the study. This may have been a contributing factor to the much lower number of contacts in the control group (average = 9.5 contacts, n = 450 (CBMP); average = 13.9 contacts SIMP, n = 150) compared to Roberts and Harriott’s (1994) study at Julian Rocks (average = 35 contacts, n = 30) in which divers were not informed of the study until after the dive. This makes further improvements of targeted dive briefings and in-water reinforcement all the more significant.

Due to differences in timing of the pre-dive briefings between the two locations, it was anticipated that some inter-locational differences may have occurred. At CBMP, full dive briefings are given in the shop before driving to the boat-launching ramp and may occur up to an hour before divers enter the water, with an additional short, on-site reinforcement being provided once the boat is moored. In contrast, at SIMP, divers are fully briefed on the boat 5- 10 minutes prior to entering the water. However, differences in diver contacts based on location were not found to be significant, although the mean at SIMP was, unexpectedly, slightly higher that at CBMP. This result suggests that targeted pre-dive briefings can be effective in a wide range of dive sites.

113 Roberts and Harriott, (1994) used the terms ‘controlled' and ‘uncontrolled' contacts, under the assumption that intentional contacts would be applied as to cause less damage. However, this study observed that many intentional contacts were exerted with little control, so the two terms are not completely equivalent. Intentional contacts have the potential to be consciously avoided by the diver without additional skills, but perhaps with a change in attitude, whereas accidental contacts generally require improved diving techniques and greater awareness on the part of the diver.

The majority of divers who made unintentional contacts stated in post-dive discussions that they were completely unaware of their contacts, particularly when it was their fins making the contact. One reason why fin contacts are so prevalent is that standard diver training focuses on the ‘scissor’ kick. This, coupled with poor trim (usually a result of overweighting and compensation by air in the buoyancy compensation device), and swimming within a metre of the reef, directs both the divers’ fins and the surge of water that they generate towards the reef. In this regard, Level 3 intervention proved to be most effective in not only reducing contacts, but also by providing an important opportunity for raising individual diver awareness, through giving them the opportunity to correct both their buoyancy and swimming position (trim) in situ. In addition, contacts that were voluntary were substantially reduced when Level 3 intervention was applied.

Whilst some studies have reported that less experienced/beginner divers create the most impact (Roberts and Harriott, 1994; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002), this study found that many experienced divers, and instructors (who were pointing out cryptic organisms) contacted the bottom almost as often as introductory divers. In fact, most open water divers who were well supervised in-water by the made fewer contacts than more experienced divers (including divemasters) who were diving unsupervised due to their level of certification. The relative importance of the individual divers’ experience, training, gender and other factors are contributors to the average frequency of contact.

Comparison between photographers and non-photographers given standard or targeted briefings showed that on average some photographers made a greater number of intentional contacts, primarily with their hands and to a lesser extent, their knees. This is due to the divers using the reef to stabilise upon whilst taking a photograph. Many divers lacked the necessary skill, or were photographing in areas of high surge, to be able to hover over their subject without contacting the reef. Both levels of intervention significantly reduced contacts in both photographers and non-photographers. In-water reinforcement was optimal for the

114 greatest reduction in the number of contacts for all divers across both study locations, although the effect was less on photographers than non-photographers, presumably because some photographers chose to ignore the message and continued to use intentional contacts.

The effect of a targeted briefing over the standard briefing was significant and similar for all groups of divers studied at both locations. While this is the least intrusive intervention to an individual’s dive experience and costs no more to deliver that the standard briefing, this study showed that 37% divers ignored or forgot this briefing once in the water. However, when followed through with in-water reinforcement, diver contacts were further significantly reduced, with only 7% of divers continuing to make contact after the initial in-water intervention. Whilst more experienced divers, in particular experienced photographers, may reject the intrusion into their in-water experience, the focus here is on reducing diver impact, whilst not reducing the number of divers who can visit the site. The majority of divers who were reprimanded during their dive for making contact with the reef, stated post-dive that they accepted that their behaviour required modification. Divers preferred to be informed that they were damaging the reef, as opposed to being left alone.

Ultimately it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to maintain and protect reef resources globally, in particular, those reefs within marine protected area sanctuary zones. To ensure reefs in high conservation areas are not subjected to long-term anthropogenic impacts, all stakeholders need to take a proactive role in maintaining the reef as an important resource. Tourist experiences determine repeat business and some operators have the perception that inhibiting individual activities on a reef will lessen the experience or seem too intrusive. However, a reef in poor condition will have the same negative effect on the business (Leujak and Ormond, 2007; Uyarra et al., 2009).

Dive charter operators can effectively reduce the impact on intensively dived sites by emphasising a no-contact policy during pre-dive briefings. Where unacceptable impacts continue to occur, in-water reinforcement of the no-contact message can produce a further significant reduction in the level of impact. Both measures can reduce the need for park managers to limit the number of divers visiting a site. Dive charter operators need to be more proactive in promoting low impact diving behaviour; this can be facilitated by selecting sites away from sensitive habitat.

This study has shown that subtropical reefs, like tropical coral dives sites, are vulnerable to diver impacts. However, we have also demonstrated that dive charter operators can effectively contribute to a reduction of impacts on intensively dived sites by emphasising the

115 no-contact policy during pre-dive briefings. Where individual divers continue to make contact with reef habitat, in-water reinforcement of the no-contact message can produce a further significant reduction in the level of impact. Both measures can reduce the need for park managers to limit the number of divers visiting a site and assist in maintaining the ecological integrity of subtropical marine protected areas. A small proportion of divers that contact the benthos very frequently and photographers are high-priority groups for targeted management strategies. Many of the unintentional contacts could be avoided by provided additional training in buoyancy, trim and low impact diving techniques. Intentional contacts require a change in the divers’ attitude though education or the more intensive option of in- water intervention. Applying these strategies would ultimately enhance the experience for divers; provide greater protection to benthic taxa and aid in the development of SCUBA diving becoming a more ecologically sustainable tourism activity

116 Chapter 6

Can low impact diver training reduce SCUBA-diver impact?

Prelude:

This chapter will be submitted to The Journal of Tourism in the Marine Environment, in accordance with the SCU policy on ‘Thesis Incorporating Publications’. As such it is presented with its own abstract and there will be necessarily some repetition in the introduction and methods. Acknowledgments and references have been incorporated into the general sections of the thesis.

6.1 ABSTRACT During an average reef visit, SCUBA-divers will make a range of accidental and intentional contacts with the benthos. Reefs that have high levels of diving tourism can therefore be subjected to major impacts. Whilst a range of strategies currently exist to reduce diver contacts, including pre-dive briefing and carrying capacity approaches, significant impacts still occur. This study tested the effectiveness of Low Impact Diver (LID) training on 61 certified SCUBA-divers, by assessing if specific training could provide divers with the skill- base to avoid or significantly reduce contact with the reef, regardless of their certification or experience level. Students completed a single pre-training dive, in which a set of tasks was completed to the best of their current ability and which could be used as a baseline for comparison with a similar post-completion dive. Regardless of an individual diver’s certification or experience level, LID training was shown to significantly reduce contact with the benthos during subsequent dives. This study demonstrated a clear deficiency in entry- level diver training and showed that divers from all experience levels are able to learn and apply LID techniques. Importantly, the study presents evidence that LID techniques provide a viable management strategy for reducing diver impacts globally.

6.2 INTRODUCTION

The importance of environmental education within the tourism sector has been well established (Orams, 1999; Buckley, 2006; Palmer, 2002; Madin and Fenton, 2004). Such education is particularly crucial for destinations accommodating high tourist visitation, including marine protected areas. SCUBA-divers are drawn to areas of high conservation value (Barker and Roberts, 2007), due to the perceived biodiversity and the opportunity to

117 encounter species not commonly found elsewhere. With the increase in accessibility and popularity of SCUBA-diving, what was once considered a benign low-impact activity, has now been shown to have significant flow-on effects to reef systems globally (Davis et al., 1995; Townsend, 2008).

Research into the effectiveness of environmental conservation education within the marine tourism sector, has shown that engaging in interpretive and/or skill–based education can improve an individual’s overall tourism experience (Thapa et al.2006; Powell and Ham, 2008). Through enriching the knowledge and interest of individual participants, environmental awareness can be raised (Madin and Fenton, 2004; Zeppel and Muloin, 2008; Ballantyne et al. 2011). For example, research studies into diver impacts have presented evidence that pre-dive briefings can reduce the amount of diver contacts occurring upon marine benthos (Medio, et al. 1997; Townsend, 2000). However, this is not the case for all destinations or divers, where information provided during the briefings was largely ignored (Luna and Perez, 2009; Worachananant et al. 2008) and where additional in-water intervention was required to reduce contacts (Hammerton and Bucher, 2015). In some instances divers’ lack of compliance with instructions to avoid contacts with the reef is due to lacking the diving skill-base. In this case, continuing diver education training has an important role to play in the management of diver impacts globally (Thapa et al. 2006; Hasler and Ott, 2008; Luna and Perez, 2009).

Targeted, skill-based environmental education provides pro-active ways to achieve more sustainable outcomes; it promotes and teaches skills through direct action that empower the individual toward ecological responsibility (Tilbury, 1995; Monroe, 2003). Effective integration of new sources of information and skills within experiential learning are therefore a positive way forward to minimise present and future diver impacts on marine sessile communities.

While ‘Learn to SCUBA dive’ training programs provide avenues for skill-based environmental education, the primary focus of learn to dive courses is on safety for the diver in training; education in environmental impacts caused by dive tourism and thorough training to reduce diver contacts is less prioritised. This is an area of diver education that needs to be reconsidered, particularly when contextualised against the background of research-based evidence of growing environmental impacts caused by SCUBA-divers at

118 destinations with high levels of tourist activity (Walter and Samways, 2001; Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002; Dearden et al. 2007; Worachananant et al. 2008; Hammerton and Bucher, 2015).

Research into SCUBA-diver motivations (Cottrell and Meisel, 2004; Lindgren et al. 2008; Hammerton et al. 2011; Lucrezi et al. 2013) show that education involving the learning of new skills plays an important role in raising greater environmental knowledge. This in turn, supports divers to behave in more appropriate and responsible ways (Hungerford and Volk, 1990) whilst underwater.

A typical recreational SCUBA diving experience will last for approximately 45–50 minutes, during which time divers may make a range of intentional and accidental contacts with the benthos (Harriott et al., 1997). Strategies to reduce diver contacts at a given site include: limiting the number of divers (Davis and Tisdell, 1995); broad-based education focused on reef conservation; detailed pre-dive briefings where divers are informed of the reason why contact is detrimental to the reef; or dive ‘marshals’ actively intercepting divers during their dive to reinforce the need for minimal contact (Medio et al., 1997; Barker and Roberts, 2004). Whilst these strategies are effective to some extent, the more direct interventions are expensive to implement (i.e. extra staff are needed) and for some divers this may seem too invasive to their recreational experience (Hasler and Ott, 2008). As recreational diving increases in accessibility and popularity, long-term environmental impacts from SCUBA diving activities will continue to escalate and place additional strain on reef communities.

The factors that determine the extent to which an individual diver makes contact with the reef are broad (Chapter 3), but include technical proficiency in buoyancy control, trim (the angle of the body to the horizontal during forward motion), propulsion technique (use of arms and kicking pattern) and correct weighting. Whilst these three skills are essential to SCUBA diving, over the last four decades, introductory SCUBA-diver training in open water courses have only focused on buoyancy control (Clark, 2006; PADI, 2013; SSI, 2014). Buoyancy control is the art of hovering neutrally buoyant above the reef (controlling a stable position in the water with the use of a buoyancy compensating device (BCD) and breathing control). This is a skill that many divers find hard to master (McCafferty and Douglas, 2011; Sawatzky, 2012; Menduno, 2013; Lippmann, 2014). Trim, is the degree to which a diver maintains a horizontal position when swimming. Poor trim usually results from

119 overweighting, which has been identified as a major contributing factor in diver fatalities (Edmonds, Walker & Scott, 1997). Overweighting is common practice within the recreational diving industry. Instructors will often add more weight to a student to ensure they can kneel on the bottom of the pool for skill training. This is particularly true for nervous or anxious students who are breathing heavily and cannot settle. During open water training, divers are overweighted, “to get down” to the bottom of the dive site. The perception is that this practice makes instruction much easier. At depth the additional air needed in the BCD to counter the extra weight causes the front half of the diver’s body to sit higher in the water than the weighted lower half. Due to their overweighting during training, divers often continue to dive over weighted. Failure to learn buoyancy control, without applying the over-weighting technique, is an ongoing problem and means that divers’ fins are directed towards the benthic substrate. In addition, the primary propulsion technique taught in open water courses is the scissor kick (Figure 6.1a). This type of propulsion is a vertical kick that also projects the fins toward the reef. The scissor kick is generally considered the most intuitive and energy-efficient method and is therefore preferred for entry-level courses (PADI, 2014). Alternative propulsion methods such as the frog kick (Figure 6.1b), are taught in cave or courses where minimal sediment disturbance is prioritised (PADI, 2013; CDAA, 2014; GUE, 2014). The combination of inadequate trim and the use of the scissor kick contribute to fins being the most common cause of accidental contact and damage to the reef, often without the diver being aware of the contact (Harriott et al., 1997; Zakai & Chadwick-Furman, 2002). Based on formal and informal diver and dive trainer interviews (unpublished data) it appears that high percentages of recreational divers (including instructors) do not under understand the term ‘trim’ and cannot apply this skill in their own diving practice, or when teaching.

120

Figures 6.1a and 6.1b: Diver with poor trim and using the ‘scissor kick’ (above); Diver with correct trim using a ‘frog kick’ technique (below).

The two major providers of entry-level recreational SCUBA training in Australia are the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) and Scuba Schools International (SSI). Entry level training is generally referred to as Open Water training as the majority of recreational SCUBA diving in Australia is in marine environments. Such training includes

121 four ocean dives, which are usually completed over two days. Prior to December 2013, the PADI Open Water course focused on buoyancy control, but from December 2013, training standards have included trim (PADI, 2013). In the SSI open water course, students are only required to demonstrate buoyancy control (SSI, 2014). Apart from the scissor or flutter kick, training in various propulsion techniques is not part of the PADI or SSI open water courses. Whilst both agencies have guidelines for proper weighting, overweighting of divers in training by individual instructors still occurs (pers. obs.). There is no independent auditing of the degree to which training standards are followed. When commercial pressures limit the time available for training individual students and basic skills that enhance student safety naturally take priority over more advanced skills that reduce environmental impacts. For environmental management in diver education to be effective, it should create awareness of diver impact issues, and provide divers with practical skills in not only buoyancy, but also trim, stream-lining and propulsion techniques. At present training in low impact diving techniques is voluntary, however a suggested management strategy within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) would be to make this level of training mandatory for all staff. This form of diver education would be a welcome management strategy, when compared with restricting access to divinsites with high levels of visitation. Studies into diver behaviour have shown education to be a productive mechanism in reducing reef contacts and raising awareness (Medio et al., 1997; Townsend, 2003; Camp and Fraser, 2012). To date, studies that assess the direct effects of internationally accredited continuing education programs on levels of diver contact with the reef are absent. This study tested if individual diver’s skill base and awareness could be improved and modified regardless of certification level, through participation in an accredited continuing education LID techniques course.

6.3 METHODS

This study assessed the role of Low Impact Diver (LID) training on 61 certified SCUBA- divers. A formal LID course was specifically developed (Hammerton, 2011) for the study and was accredited with the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) in 2011.

The course is aimed at certified divers regardless of experience level and involved two days of training including: classroom theory, as well as pool and ocean sessions. The theoretical and practical emphasis of the course is on training divers in buoyancy, stream-lining (the diver and equipment configuration), trim skills and propulsion techniques not taught in standard recreational open water diving courses. The full curriculum (Hammerton, 2011) is

122 copyrighted and only available to specialty instructors recognised by PADI Asia Pacific. For students to receive certification as a Low Impact Diver (LID), satisfactory performance of each skill must be demonstrated within both confined (pool) and open water environments.

All participants undertook a single pre-training dive, in which a set of tasks that replicated typical diving patterns were completed to the best of the students’ current ability and which could be used as a baseline for comparison with a similar dive after completion of the LID course training. During both dives each diver was required to swim above the reef and stop at 5-metre intervals to observe or document (photograph/record) various marine organisms. A temporary 30-metre fibreglass tape measure was installed (to provide a standardised point of reference) at a depth of approximately 10-metre. The contacts of each participant was recorded in a single pre-training dive, after LID training was complete, a post-training dive recorded the number of contact made with the benthos.

In-water assessment of buoyancy and trim skills were conducted by Z Hammerton as the course instructor. An additional observer (Dr Mateus Baronio, Southern Cross University) independently recorded the number of contacts participants made with the reef for the pre- and-post training dives. A rapid assessment technique was used to estimate and categorise the trim of a diver, where zero degrees equalled improvement and ≥45 degrees or more equalled no improvement. To remove any confounding effect due to task familiarity with the exercises conducted, underwater transects from pre-and-post training dives were conducted at different sites. Pre-and-post training, divers were asked to rank their awareness of buoyancy and trim using a six point Likert scale (Likert, 1932; Allen and Seaman, 2007), and rate their contact awareness to one of three categories (<5; between 5 to 10; >10 contacts). On completion of the course, divers were asked to rate their improvement based on a four-point scale ranking (No improvement; Slight improvement; Noticeable improvement or Substantial improvement).

Classroom and pool training were conducted at Byron Bay Dive Centre, in Byron Bay New South Wales Australia: ocean dives were conducted at The Nursery, Julian Rocks Cape Byron Marine Park. This study was conducted under approval ECN-08-160 from Southern Cross University’s Human Research Ethics Committee and required ‘informed consent’ of all participants.

Pre-training questionaries were administered and collected prior to the first classroom training session. The second questionnaire was administered at the completion of the Low

123 Impact Diver specialty course. All students were aware that they were being observed and that their contacts pre-and-post training were being recorded. The researcher therefore acknowledges that divers may have modified their behaviour to some extent, or may have been more conscious to not make contact with the reef.

While it would have been desirable to include a control group who did not complete the LID training but were also assessed in the pre and post-training dive task, to account for reduced contacts due to simple task familiarity, it was not possible to recruit a group with similar demographics to the test group. There was no evidence of reduced contacts in the second half of the assessment dives, so the role of task familiarity is assumed to be negligible.

6.3.1 Participant demographics

Participants across all levels of certification, dive experience and age ranges were included in the LID training (Table 6.1). Summaries of the five demographic variables used in both ANOVA and logistic regression analysis are provided in tables 6.1 (categorical variables) and 6.2 (numerical variables).

124 Table 6.1: Categorical demographic summary of participants

Count Percent Certification level Open water 16 26.2% Advanced open water 22 36.1% Rescue 9 14.8% Divemaster 10 16.4% Instructor 4 6.6% Gender Female 25 41.0% Male 36 59.0% Age range Under 18 2 3.3% 18 - 25 14 23.0% 26 - 34 10 16.4% 35 - 44 21 34.4% 45 - 54 8 13.1% 55+ 6 9.8%

Table 6.2: Numerical demographic variable summary of particpants.

Mean Median Standard Deviation

Years diving since certification 9.6 5.0 10.1

Total dives to date 264 72 578

For the purposes of modelling (to increase the number in each category), Divemaster and Instructors (professional levels), were combined for Certification level; for age range the Under 18 and 18 – 25 groups were combined to give an Under 25 group, and the 45 – 54 and 55+ groups were combined to make a 45+ group.

125 6.3.3 Outcome variables for participant self-assessment.

The assessments of buoyancy and trim, by both the student and the instructor pre-and-post training, were rated on the following six-point scale:

Table 6.3: Assessment rankings for buoyancy and trim control. Ranking Buoyancy and trim

1 Don't know (only for student assessment)

2 No control

3 Poor control

4 Good control

5 Very good control

6 Total control

For the students’ self-assessment of the number of contacts with the reef, recorded pre-and- post training, there were four options:

Table 6.4: Assessment rankings for student self-assessment of reef contact.

Ranking Contact assessment 1 No contact 2 Less than 5 contacts 3 5 to 9 contacts 4 10 or more contacts

Students self-assessed their level of dive skill improvement post-training and recorded their result in one of four categories:

Table 6.5: Student self-assessment rankings for the effectiveness of LID training.

Ranking Assessment for skill improvement 1 No improvement 2 Slight improvement 3 Noticeable improvement 4 Substantial improvement

126 6.3.2 Statistical analysis Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22) was used for all data coding and analysis. Firstly, a paired sample t-test was conducted to compare individual participant contacts with the reef from pre-training to post-training. Due to normal data distribution, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was then performed to determine which demographic variables significantly influenced diver contacts, pre-training (with the number of contacts student divers made prior to the nay application of any training as a covariate). The outcome was the change in the number of actual contacts from pre-to-post LID training, with the number of contacts pre-training always in the model to allow for different starting points. Each of the five demographic variables was added into the model separately to test for significance.

A second analysis was performed on student self-assessment of buoyancy, trim and contact awareness, due to the dependent (outcome) variables having more than two categories (section 6.4.2), a multinomial logistic regression predictive analysis was performed to model participant accuracy, or awareness of contacts made with the benthos and accuracy of self- assessment with regard to buoyancy and trim.

Multinomial logistic regression is a simple extension of binary logistic regression that allows for more than two categories of the dependent variable (Menard, 1995). The independent variables (Tables 6.1 and 6.2) are modelled to assess the influence over an individual’s accuracy, and therefore self-awareness of potential impacts with reef biota. Logistic regression uses probability theory and does not assume linearity of the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent, and does not require normally distributed variables (Garson, 2014).

The ‘change in accuracy’ of a student’s self-assessment can be defined in many ways. For example, an ‘improvement’ could refer to whether the student’s self-assessment was incorrect pre-training (i.e. the student gave a different response than the instructor’s assessment) and became correct post training. Or an ‘improvement’ could refer to a student self-assessing closer to, but not necessarily equal to, the instructor’s assessment, on the six- point scale (Section 6.4.3). To see how the accuracy changed from pre-to-post LID training, and code the change in accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts as a binary variable, a student could either have improved, or stayed correct; or worsened, or stayed the same if initially incorrect. An improvement is defined as being closer to the correct response post-training compared to pre-training, on the six-point scale. This could mean that pre-

127 training the student was two categories away from the correct answer, e.g. responded Less than five contacts when the correct response was ten or more contacts; and post-training responded at most one category away from the correct response. Note that, for example, ‘stayed the same’ only refers to the accuracy at which the student self-assessed, and does not mean that there was no change in the number of contacts.

Overall improvement from LID training was quantified in terms of accuracy of self- assessment, and also in terms of the greatest improvement in number of contacts. Whilst the latter is simple to rank, being a simple difference measure, choosing a method to quantify accuracy rating is less obvious. Accuracy of self-assessment was summarised by summing the number of improved categories for each of the number of contacts, buoyancy and trim. For the purpose of this summary, the actual number of category changes was used, meaning that the ‘Don’t knows’ for trim are classed as one category below ‘No control’. If a student improved their accuracy from pre-to-post LID training by five categories (section 6.4.3), when compared to the instructor’s assessment, over the three assessment areas (buoyancy, trim and contact awareness), this could mean that the diver improved by three categories for the number of contacts, or stayed the same for buoyancy and improved by two categories for trim.

6.4 Results Participants (61) completed a single pre-training dive, in which a set of tasks were completed to the best of their current ability and which could be replicated for comparison, post completion of the LID course.

Students’ diving skill, in terms of buoyancy and trim, and the number of contacts with the reef, were self-assessed pre-and-post training (these skills were also assessed by the instructor). Additionally, students self-assessed their level of dive skill improvement post training.

The key questions were:

1) How does the number of contacts change from pre-to-post LID training?

2) How does the accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts change from pre- to-post LID training?

128 3) How does the accuracy of the students’ self-assessed buoyancy change from pre-to-post LID training?

4) How does the accuracy of the students’ self-assessed trim change from pre-to-post LID training?

For each question, analysis was conducted to determine if any of the demographic variables (Certification level, Gender, Age range, Year diving since certification, Total dives to date) were related to any change.

6.4.1 Change in the number of contacts from pre-to-post training

There was a significant difference in diver contacts from pre-training (M=5.590, SD= 5.2069) to post-training (M=0.7049, SD=1.0383); t (60) = 8.38, p = < 0.00001. Individual participant pre-training contacts ranged from 0 to 18, with post-training contacts ranging from 0 to 4 contacts (per 15 minutes observation). From the pre-training dive, only 32% of divers surveyed were able to complete all tasks making < 2 contacts. Post-training 83% of LID-trained divers completed all tasks with < 2 contacts. Of this 59% made zero contact.

18

16

14

12

10

8 Pre-contacts

6 Post-contacts

Total number of contacts Total 4

2

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 Individual diver contacts

Figure 6.2: Change in the number of individual contacts from pre-to-post LID training.

Distribution of the change in the number of contacts (Figure 6.2) shows that for the majority of participants their number of contacts reduced substantially, with only two (3.3%)

129 worsening. Note that these two students had no contacts pre-training and had only one contact post-training. The ten students who did not change were the remaining students with no contacts pre-training.

Low Impact Diver training was found to be highly effective in reducing the number of contacts divers made with the reef, with 96.7% of those who participated in the study achieving a substantial reduction in the number of contacts made from pre-to-post training. The remaining 3.3% of participants, whose contact actually increased post training, made no contacts pre-training and only a single accidental contact (from dangling equipment), post- training. Of particular interest was that divers with the lowest certification level (open water and advanced open water) achieved the greatest reduction, most likely due to having a higher baseline, therefore more scope for improvement. In addition, many of these divers had not dived for over 6 - 12 months, which may have contributed to the high pre-training contacts. Overall, participants who made the most contact pre-training showed the greatest reduction in contacts post-training, demonstrating the effectiveness of low impact diver training for reducing contacts from of all ranges of demographics and certification levels. Due to the low mean for contacts made during post-training, with no individual making more than four contacts during the post-training dive, it is expected that any factor that had a significant effect on the number of pre-dive contacts will therefore have an equally significant effect on the effectiveness of LID training

130 6.4.2 Testing demographic variables – contacts pre-to-post training Participant demographics for Certification level (P = 0.009), Age (P = 0.002) and Total dives to date (P = 0.003) were seen to significantly influence the number of pre-training contacts made and therefore the size of post-training reduction (Table 6.6).

Table 6.6: P-values for the effect of each of the demographic variables after accounting for the number of contacts pre training, on the change of the number of contacts.

Variable P - value Certification level 0.009 Gender 0.561 Age range 0.002 Years diving since certification 0.076 Total dives to date 0.003

The mean change in number of contacts for each Certification level (Table 6.7), the mean change in number of contacts for each Age range (Table 6.8), including the effects and their respective 95% confidence intervals for each of the two variables are presented.

Table 6.7: The estimated mean change in number of contacts for each Certification level, after accounting for the number of contacts pre training, with standard error and 95% confidence interval. 95% Confidence Interval

Certification level Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Open water -6.17 0.20 -6.57 -5.76 Advanced open water -5.38 0.18 -5.73 -5.03 Rescue -5.14 0.27 -5.68 -4.60 Divemaster/Instructor -5.63 0.22 -6.07 -5.19

131 Table 6.8: The estimated mean change in number of contacts for each Age range, after accounting for the number of contacts pre training, with standard error and 95% confidence interval.

95% Confidence Interval Age Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Under 25 -5.95 0.20 -6.34 -5.56 26 - 34 -6.03 0.25 -6.53 -5.54 35 - 44 -5.61 0.17 -5.95 -5.26 45+ -4.91 0.22 -5.34 -4.48

Of the 61 participants, 38% would be classed as experienced divers, having recorded on the pre-training questionnaire, over 100 dives logged. Of interest was regardless of age, participants who recorded ≥ 100 logged dives, on average, made a greater number of contacts pre-training (M=7.3913, SD=5.3575) and post-training (M=0.7826, SD=1.0852), when compared to less experienced participants (<100 Total dives to date), who on average made less contacts pre-training (M=5.6578, SD=5.9968) and post-training (M=0.6578, SD=1.0072). Of the divers who are classed as experienced, 29% where diving professionals (Divermasters, or Instructors) who for some, had been working within the industry for over ten years.

Participants who recorded ≥ 500 logged dives, made the highest number of contacts pre-and- post training. This demographic included diving professionals who had been working within the industry for over 20 years.

Gender (P = 0.561) and Years diving since certification (P = 0.076) were found to have no significant effect. Unexpectedly, divers who had been certified for the longest period of time, recorded higher pre-training contact and subsequent improvement. Overall, divers with lowest certification (open water) and the highest certification levels (Divemaster/Instructor) showed the greatest improvement from pre-to-post training.

132 6.4.3 Change in accuracy of students’ self-assessed number of contacts from pre-to-post training.

In terms of student accuracy of self-assessed number of contacts, 32 (52.5%) improved or stayed correct, and the remaining 29 (47.5%) worsened, or stayed the same, if initially incorrect. No students self-assessed as ‘Don’t know’. Logistic regression was used to model the outcome of the change in the accuracy of students’ self-assessed number of contacts when using the above binary definition, in terms of demographic variables. The test for each demographic variable (Table 6.6) shows that there is evidence of an effect of Certification level, and an effect of Total dives to date on the change in accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts from pre-to-post training.

In addition to the assessment of actual contacts pre-to-post training, improvement resulting from participating in LID training was quantified via participants’ accuracy of self- assessment. LID training improved contact awareness in 52.5% of participants. This result shows that almost half of study participants had poor awareness of their individual contact with the benthos prior to participating in LID training.

Table 6.9: Likelihood ratio test P-values from logistic regression models for the effect of each of the demographic variables on the change in accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts.

Variable P - value Certification level 0.048 Gender 0.644 Age range 0.398 Years diving since certification 0.268 Total dives to date 0.015

Total dives to date and student certification level were found to have an effect on contact awareness levels. Whilst open water divers showed the greatest improvement in reducing contact from pre to post-training, they were found to have the lowest level of accuracy when self-assessing their level of contact with the reef. Self-assessment of contacts showed greater accuracy in all other certification levels, with professional level participants

133 (Divemaster/Instructor) providing the most accurate self-assessment. Whilst these divers made some of the highest levels of pre-training contact, they showed greater awareness in their self-assessment. Participants who had the greatest Total dives to date were also found to provide a more accurate self-assessment of contacts, although these two factors are likely to co-vary. Self-assessment of buoyancy control proved to be the most accurately presented with 82% of participants improving their accuracy. The remaining 18% who ‘stayed the same’, or ‘worsened’, in self-assessment of buoyancy control, were found to be open water divers who had not dived for over 12 months. Demographic variables had no statically significant effect on self-assessment of buoyancy control.

Student self-assessment of trim was also tested. However an issue arose here because high percentages of divers are unaware what the term ‘trim’ refers to: 54.1% of participants recorded the response ‘Don’t Know’ including 43% of diving professionals. As previously stated trim is a skill not taught in standard open water courses, therefore many divers have no awareness of it. Post-training, no divers recorded ‘Don’t Know’, showing that LID training enabled these divers to become aware of trim as an important diving skill.

Gender was not shown to have a significant effect on trim awareness, however slightly more females stated pre-training ‘Don’t Know’. Based on the age range 35 - 44, 84% stated ‘Don’t Know’; interestingly, of participants aged 45+ only 25% stated ‘Don’t Know’. During the course some of these divers stated that they only guessed what the ‘term’ (i.e. trim) meant based on flying (i.e. keeping wings even on a plane in the air, hence keeping your body even/parallel) and had not actually ever heard the term mentioned in diver training. Post- training the 26 - 34 age range recorded the most accurate self-assessment for trim.

The number of Years diving since certification was not found to have a statistically significant effect of self-assessment of trim. In terms of accuracy of self-assessment, the two participants who benefited most from the LID training were firstly an instructor aged 35 - 44, who had logged 2000 dives and secondly, an in the same age range, who had only logged 15 dives, the same open water diver was also found to have benefitted the most in regards to change in the number of contacts pre-to-post training.

The logistic regression model is based on the probability, in this case of the accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct. More precisely, the

134 outcome is modelled as the log of the odds of the accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct. The parameter of most interest in logistic regression models is the odds ratio. Odds ratios describe the odds of accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct in one category relative to another.

When the explanatory variable is categorical, the odds ratio describes the ratio of the odds of being classed as improving, or staying correct, in terms of the accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts, for a particular level of a categorical variable relative to a reference category. Which category is selected as the reference category does not affect the overall test statistic. Only the resulting odds ratios are affected, as they represent the effect of each level of the categorical variable, in relation to the reference level. For the categorical explanatory variable Certification level, the reference category was ‘Open water’, as this is the lowest level in terms of certification, as well as the category with the lowest change in accuracy.

When the odds ratios are greater than one, the odds of improving or staying correct are higher in the other categories than they are in the Open water category. The estimated odds ratios for the effect of Certification level are provided (Table 6.7). Given that all the odds ratios here are greater than one, the odds of improving, or staying correct are higher in all categories, when compared to the Open water category. The odds ratios also increase with increasing certification level. Note however that these estimates have wide 95% confidence intervals, and only the odds ratio between Divemaster/Instructor and Open water is statistically significantly above one (7.50).

135 Table 6.10: Odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals, relative to the Open water category, from the logistic regression model of Certification level on the change in accuracy of the students’ self-assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct.

Odds Ratio relative to Open Water

Estimate 95% Confidence Interval

Advanced open water 3.60 (0.88, 14.73)

Rescue 6.00 (1.00, 35.91)

Divemaster/Instructor 7.50 (1.48, 37.91)

Since Total dives to date is a numerical variable, the odds ratio reported in Table 6.8 is interpreted in terms of the relative odds for a one point increase in the value of Total dives to date. If the odds ratio is greater than one, the odds of improving, or staying correct increase as Total dives to date increases. For this particular variable, a one unit increase is a very small amount. If, for instance, we consider an increase of 100 total dives to date, the odds ratio is 1.21 (with 95% confidence interval (0.95, 1.55)). For example, the odds of improving, or staying correct for those with 200 total dives to date are estimated to be 1.21 times higher than the odds for those with 100 total dives to date.

Table 6.11: Odds ratio estimate and 95% confidence interval from the logistic regression model of Total dives to date on the change in accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts improving, or staying correct. Odds Ratio Estimate 95% Confidence Interval Total dives to date 1.002 (0.999, 1.004)

Change in accuracy of students’ self-assessed buoyancy Using the same definition of a change in accuracy of self-assessment for buoyancy as for number of contacts gives a binary outcome with the two categories: • improved or stayed correct, or • worsened or stayed the same if initially incorrect.

136 Of the 61 students, 50 (82.0%) improved or stayed correct in terms of their accuracy of self- assessed buoyancy, and the remaining 11 (18.0%) worsened, or stayed the same if initially incorrect. No students self-assessed as ‘Don’t know’.

As before, a logistic regression model was fitted for each explanatory variable with the binary buoyancy outcome. Note that having only 11 students worsen, or stay the same means that there is less information in the outcome in order to be able to detect effects for the demographic variables, particularly for those categorical variables with four levels i.e. Certification level and Age range. The P-values from each of these logistic regression models are provided in Table 6.9 None of the P-values are very small, suggesting little evidence of an effect for any of the demographic variables on the change in accuracy of self- assessment for buoyancy.

Table 6.12 Likelihood ratio test P-values from logistic regression models for the effect of each of the demographic variables on the change in accuracy of the students’ self- assessed number of contacts.

Variable P - value

Certification level 0.437

Gender 0.74 Age range 0.521

Years diving since certification 0.48

Total dives to date 0.781

6.4.4 Change in accuracy of students’ self-assessed trim The method outlined in section 6.3 was also applied to the students’ self-assessment of trim. However there was a problem with using this method for trim, because 33 (54.1%) students recorded ‘Don’t know’ for trim self-assessment pre-LID training. These students could not assess their trim because they simply did not understand the meaning of the word ‘trim’. No students recorded ‘Don’t know’ post-training.

To perform the analyses using the same method as above ignores awareness, or lack of, pre- training. It also results in very few students categorised as stayed the same or worsened,

137 whether the ‘Don’t knows’ are all classed as improving or classed as being one category away from No control. To analyse those that did, versus did not know, what trim was pre- training does not answer the question of improved accuracy. To analyse only those that did not record ‘Don’t know’ pre-training would reduce the sample size substantially.

Therefore, only descriptive analyses were conducted on this variable. Figures 6.3 to 6.6 show the relationship between each demographic variable and the change in accuracy of students’ self-assessed trim, where ‘don’t know’ pre-training is separated from the improved and not improved categories. Since all students who ‘didn’t know’ pre-training did go on to make a self-assessment post-training, it could be considered that they ‘became aware’ of trim, rather than improved accuracy of trim self-assessment per se. Of all the certification levels, Rescue had the highest percentage who improved, or stayed correct (n = 7; 77.8%), whereas the Advanced open water group had the lowest percentage (n = 5; 22.7%) (Figure 6.3). This is because the highest percentage of students in the Advanced open water group answered ‘Don’t know’ pre-training. All certification levels had between 4.5% and 11.1% of their group stay the same or worsen.

Figure 6.3: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against certification level. Percentages shown are within a certification level.

138

Females and males were very close in all categories of the change in self-assessment of trim (Figure 6.4). Only a slightly higher percentage of females (n = 2; 8%) stayed the same, or worsened than males (n = 2; 5.6%).

Figure 6.4: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against gender. Percentages shown are within gender.

Based on age range, the 35 – 44 age-group had the highest percentage of students who self- assessed as ‘Don’t know’ pre-training (n = 18; 85.7%), and the lowest percentage who improved, or stayed correct (n = 2; 9.5%) (Figure 6.5). The highest percentage of students who stayed the same or worsened was the 45+ age group, with two out of the 14 students in this age group (14.3%). No students in the 26 – 34 age-group stayed the same, or worsened.

139

Figure 6.5: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against age group. Percentages shown are within an age group.

Little differences exist between the change in student self-assessment of trim categories in terms of number of years diving since certification (Figure 6.6). The only two students with a very high number of years (40 and 48 years) fell into the improved or stayed correct category (and actually, did improve).

140

Figure 6.6: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against number of years diving since certification.

No relationship between Total dives to date and the change in student self-assessment of trim categories exist (Figure 6.7). Three out of the four students with more than 1,000 dives to date were categorised as improved, or stayed correct, with the remaining student staying the same.

141

Figure 6.7: Change in the student self-assessment of trim from pre-to-post LID training against total number of dives to date.

6.4.5 Student self-assessment of skill-base improvement post-LID training Students rated their level of dive skill improvement post-LID training (Student rated LID training) on a four point scale (section 6.4.3). In this cohort, all students rated themselves as having either a Noticeable improvement (n = 23; 37.7%) or a Substantial improvement (n = 38; 62.3%).

142 6.5 DISCUSSION

As evident from this and other studies, many divers lack the necessary skills to comply with requests to avoid contact with the reef benthos (Harriott et al. 1997; van Treeck and Schuhmacher, 1999; Anderson and Loomis, 2011; Toyoshima and Nadaoka, 2015). This is particularly true divers of using photographic equipment, who regularly stabilise themselves against the reef whilst taking photos and/or filming underwater (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Uyarra and Côté, 2007; Hammerton and Bucher, 2015). Many scholarly studies have recorded and reported the issue of diver contacts (Harriott et al. 1997; Medio et al. 1997; Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002; Barker and Roberts, 2004; Di Franco et al. 2009; Camp and Fraser, 2011; Chung et al. 2013). Such studies have also proposed a range of strategies to manage diver impacts. However globally the issue of diver impacts still continues to occur.

Previously no studies have addressed the problem through a combined theoretical and practical–based educational medium. The study presented here suggests that diver education is a viable management strategy to address the issue. Diver education will also rectify the cause of divers not being able to comply with requests to refrain from making contact with the reef, due to lack of skill base. This study assessed if additional training beyond the standard pre-dive education briefing, or buoyancy control training, could be applied as a management strategy regardless of a diver’s certification level, experience, or the location (reef) in which they were diving.

The benefits of divers completing LID training included significant reductions in overall contact with benthic organisms; this was achieved by increasing the individual’s awareness through theoretical and practical education. This included, combined training in precise buoyancy control, trim, stream-lining, appropriate lead weighting (and weight positioning) and propulsion techniques. The direct benefits to participants from the acquisition of these practical skills; included a more efficient swimming position underwater. This increased the individual’s in-water comfort, which in turn, lead to, reduced air consumption. An understanding of the importance of appropriate weighting to avoid fins being directed towards the reef, and training in more advanced and efficient propulsion techniques contributed to participants avoiding contact with the reef. In addition, participant awareness of actual contacts occurring whilst underwater was increased. This is important, as lack of awareness is a common catalyst for diver contacts occurring (Medio et al, 1997; Barker and

143 Roberts, 2004; Hammerton and Bucher, 2015). Participant self-assessment of buoyancy, trim and an increase in awareness of actual contacts occurring was heightened for participants who completed the course, in particular diving professionals (Divemaster and Instructors). Another important benefit of LID training was that the skills provided assisted underwater photographers in reducing their impacts, by providing training to photograph underwater without needing the use the reef benthos for stabilisation. This was an important outcome of this research, as many studies into diver impacts present evidence that underwater photographers record high levels of contact with the benthos. The targeted practical skills provided within the LID course successfully provided training to allow photographers (who are often the more experienced divers) the ability to modify their behaviour, enabling a significant reduction in contacts and a more relaxed, comfortable dive and longer dive.

This study highlighted clear deficiencies in recreational diver training. Reasons for this may include time constraints (Instructors only having time to focus upon basic instruction in buoyancy control); large class sizes (not allowing for individualised training); current diving professionals (Instructors and Divemasters) not having proficiency in trim and knowledge of low impact propulsion techniques. Though previously certified to international standards (PADI, SSI, BSAC), 83% of divers who completed LID training achieved significant post- training reduction in contact with sessile benthic organisms, of this 59% made zero contact.. This study demonstrated that after only two full days of training, divers from all ranges of certification and experience levels were able to learn and apply LID skills to improve their diving practice and reduce contact with reef benthos and potential impacts. To date, such skills have usually been considered within diver training organisations to be more advanced, and as such these diving techniques and are only provided within cave, or technical diver training curricula. This study presents evidence that such skills can be applied to all certified divers. Whilst education in the form of pre-dive briefings and in-water intervention (Hammerton and Bucher, 2015) plays an important role in reducing diver impacts (Chapter 5), this top-down approach is not always economically viable. Medio et al (1997) found that divers who received a 45 minute pre-dive briefing covering reef biology, diver contacts and the role of MPAs, made fewer impacts. However, the majority of dive companies operating within high-turnover tourist locations do not have the time or expertise to provide such pre- dive briefings. Many divers have been found to lack the necessary skills to avoid making contact with the reef, or are unaware they are doing so (Harriott et al., 1997; Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). This can be particularly true of underwater photographers, or

144 divers who have not dived for over 12 months (Chapter 3). In addition, dive practices such as overweighting directly promote poor trim leading to divers being unaware of the accidental contacts that they are making with the reef.

Studies into diver impacts have generally concluded that less experienced divers tend to make the highest level of contact (Walters and Samways, 2001; Barker and Roberts, 2004). Pre-LID training, the current study also found this to be the case. Open water training sets the foundation for a diver’s future behaviour underwater. Practices such as overweighting and not teaching the key diving techniques of trim and low impact propulsion within the established international recreational SCUBA diving programs from commencement of dive training, establishes poor technique from the onset. Even for the first professional certification level (e.g. Divemaster), the specific skills of trim and LID propulsion techniques are not included in the current curriculum (PADI, 2014). The behaviour of divers in marine environments will depend on the theoretical and practical training they receive and when they are diving, the level of control and intervention from diving guides. Diving instructors and divemasters are central in the education process and supervision of diving operations, however such diving professionals may lack the necessary skills to teach, promote and apply LID techniques.

This is important as these diving professionals are often employed to guide groups of divers on tours of the reef, or provide assistance to instructors teaching learn to dive or continuing education courses. Within the general diving community, Divemasters also have an important role to play in role-modelling to less experienced divers. This includes how to approach a reef in a way that assists in conserving the environment. Divers who were trained decades ago recorded the highest number of contacts pre-and-post training. This suggests that targeting LID training to this demographic will have the greatest effect in reducing diver contacts on benthic communities.

Improving an individual’s SCUBA diving skill base, through targeted training in buoyancy, trim and LID propulsion techniques, enables divers to comply with the requests to not make contact with the benthos. By significantly reducing contacts by divers engaged in typical underwater activities, such intervention via LID training provides long-term strategies for reducing diver impact on reef biota.

For education to be of benefit, an understanding of the awareness and demographics of the students (certification level, experience, gender, and age range) being educated is important

145 for targeting training. Assessing the level to which SCUBA-divers are aware of the amount of contact made with the reef, and their accuracy and awareness in terms of their diving skills provides important data for understanding why impact with the benthos still occurs even with the current education programs in place.

Understanding which certification, experience levels and age ranges benefit most from LID training allows campaigns to reduce diver impacts to be more specifically targeted. Assessing which demographics of divers within the recreational diving industry will benefit most from LID training, is important for targeting best practice protocols and education on sustainable reef use in general (Ditton and Baker, 1999; Musa et al., 2011).

Divers often state that they are unaware of the number of contacts they make with the reef benthos (Chapter 3), in particular with accidental contacts. Therefore, it was important to test participant self-assessment on their individual number of contacts. By raising awareness of diver impacts through self-assessment this may assist divers to modify their underwater behaviour (Thapa et al., 2005).

In addition, involvement in marine stewardship and citizen science at destinations (Hammerton et al. 2012; Marshall et al., 2012) and access to well-conceived interpretation supports positive attitudes towards conservation values and encourages individuals to become involved within environmental conservation (Powell and Ham. 2008). This can then motivate active and on-going participation within non–government groups working on environmental causes such as beach, underwater or invasive species clean-ups (Fraser et al, 2000, Biggs and Olden, 2011; Kawabe, 2004); citizen science, including fish or coral reef surveys (Pattengill-Semmens and Semmens, 2003; Marshall et al. 2012); or marine species rehabilitation (Ferris and Ferris, 2004; Lewis, and Baudains, 2015). Siemer (2001) asserts that for stewardship education programs to be effective the programs should be designed to influence intentions, action skills and behaviours related to the environmental issue/s at hand. Criticisms of environmental education (O'Donoghue et al. 1991; Saylan and Blumstein, 2011) state that information dissemination can be too passive and may only focus on people who are already involved within the conservation issue. Ultimately, education programs must be available to all stakeholder groups, to ensure tangible broad ranging results from the education resource.

Through completing the LID training, students become more aware of the connection between their diving practises and impacts upon reef biota. Through this, participants learnt

146 first-hand of the importance of maintaining the ecological integrity of the reef. In particular, such training provided encouragement for stewardship of MPA sanctuary zones, by placing the responsibility back on key stakeholders: dive operators, diving instructors, dive leaders and the recreational divers themselves.

6.6 CONCLUSION

This study has presented Low Impact Diver training as an important management strategy to reduce the ongoing issue of diver impacts, particularly when applied to locations which have high levels of diver visitation and ‘no touch, no take’ policies. Beyond the statistical significance of this study, the effectiveness of the LID training was measured by anecdotal participant feedback and in the long term by the number of participants who have successfully completed the LID training and continue to utilise these skills and spread awareness of the need and benefits of the LID course to the broader diving community. Learning outcomes are here defined as the reduction in overall contacts, expanding of personal awareness of position whilst diving, awareness of buoyancy and trim, ability to complete the set tasks whilst making less than three contacts.

The level to which individual diver participant’s knowledge and skill base had changed pre- to-post course and the level to which divers would embrace LID techniques and continue to utilise these skills could be used to augment existing marine protected area best practice protocols. This could lead to implementation of an official LID training standard to be applied to all divers accessing marine parks. This would be similar to the way in which certain wreck dives are managed by the relevant authority: all divers exploring the internal compartments must have a recognised wreck diving qualification before accessing. This principle can be summarised as: divers must have the appropriate training to access the specific dive environment (wreck diving certification to access wrecks; cave diving certification to access caves; certification to access sites >30m. This leads to a broad-based protocol which could be applied nationally and internationally of an envisioned level of formalised LID training as the standard prerequisite to access sensitive marine park sites. Given their role as guides and exemplars of correct behaviour it is recommended that all diving staff working within marine parks should complete formal training in LID techniques. This will help the next generation of divers to be equipped to dive sustainably and reduce further degradation to reef biota from diver contacts.

147 Chapter 7

General Discussion

Due to the international scope of the recreational SCUBA-diving industry and diver impacts being a global issue affecting both tropical and subtropical habitats. The multi-faceted research outcomes presented within this thesis may be applied across all diving locations and be particularly useful to managers of marine protected areas.

Diver impacts are widely studied throughout tropical diving destinations. However, current information on the impacts occurring at subtropical locations have been limited. The significance of this thesis is that it presents multiple avenues for reducing and in some cases preventing diver contact with marine benthos, it is also the largest diver impact study in terms of participant numbers that has been conducted to date. The research has contributed to a understanding of what influences divers to make contact the reef, this is essential for informing policy to reduce diver impact and has implications for the recreational diving industry as a whole, specifically businesses operating within marine protected areas who are not complying with the ‘not touch’ legislation. This study has revealed diver-training inadequacies and provides management , which if implemented globally, would significantly reduce the current level of impact occurring. The lack of specific policy being applied to the recreational diving industry operating within marine protected areas and inadequate compliance from within the industry have perpetuated diver impact both nationally and internationally.

This thesis was presented in four stages. The first stage was an investigation into the extent and patterns of diver impact, by documenting the type and frequency of SCUBA-diver contact occurring within two subtropical marine parks. Logistic Regression Modelling was applied to determine the variables that significantly influence diver contact (Chapter 3). The second stage explored habitat (benthic percentage cover) of sites and assessed the risk of impact from contacts with reef biota, to determine which habitat types are most at risk and which types of diver contact are contributing to the greatest levels of impact on benthic taxa (Chapter 4). The final stages focused on management of diver impacts. The third stage, involved testing two levels of intervention (Chapter 5), beyond the standard recreational dive briefing. The fourth and final stage tested the effectiveness of a newly developed Low Impact Diver course, to modify diver behaviour in order reduce severe diver impacts on benthic taxa (Chapter 6).

148 This research has documented the extent of diver contacts with benthic taxa at two subtropical marine parks in eastern Australia. The average number of contacts per dive is similar to studies conducted within tropical regions and is fewer than the number estimated for one of the parks (CBMP) two decades ago (Roberts and Harriott, 1994). The differences could be due to sampling size (n = 30) of the previous study; differences in the diving visitor demographics and behaviour (less photographers sampled in the 1994 study). The current study was conducted under informed consent. Knowing the factors that tend to increase contact frequency provides the information needed to develop targeted responses (Medio et al., 1997). In Chapter three, the relative importance of these factors was explored.

Whilst contact frequency is one measure of the potential impact of divers, the severity of the impact can vary depending on the type of contact, which in turn can be influenced by site topography and ambient condition. The fragility of benthic organisms (Baker and Roberts, 2004) and their ability to recovery between impacts (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007) will also determine the long-term effect. In Chapter 4, the factors affecting impact severity were examined and the sites rated for risk of severe impact.

Chapters five and six explored management strategies to reduce diver contacts through targeted training and levels of on-site intervention. In Chapter three, it was demonstrated that divers with a greater awareness of marine parks and their own behaviour were less likely to contact the benthos. In Chapter 5 awareness was promoted by specific pre-dive briefings that significantly reduced contacts during the subsequent dive. Further significant reduction in contacts was achieved by in-water intervention, by reminding divers of the need to stay off the reef.

In Chapter three it was demonstrated that most contacts occurred from fins, which suggests that poor buoyancy, trim and propulsion methods were a root cause that could be addressed by targeted training in these techniques. A low impact diving course (Chapter 6) was developed and accredited through one of the international training agencies (PADI). It was shown to be highly effective in reducing diver contact at all experience levels.

7.1 TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF DIVER CONTACT – SUBTROPICAL REEFS

Chapter three presents the primary variables influencing divers to make contact with the benthos, this included the individual’s diving experience and training; awareness and understanding of marine protected area zoning and how this applied to SCUBA diving, use of underwater photographed equipment.

149 In Chapter three it was demonstrated that throughout a 45-minute dive, an individual diver will make an average of 24 contacts. This was similar to contacts on tropical coral reefs (Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002). A total of 2,974 contacts occurred; of these 71% were considered accidental or uncontrolled. Fin contact was the most common form of contact with benthic taxa accounting for 63% of total contacts. Studies on tropical coral reefs have also determined fin contact to be the majority of contact type (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Zakia and Chadwick-Furman, 2002).

The number of days since a diver’s last dive was found to be a significant factor contributing to the rate of contacts occurring with divers who had not dived for over 6 months responsible for 42% more contacts than divers with more recent diving experience. This could justify implementing a protective measure that could be applied to sensitive sites in excluding divers without recent experience. Divers who were trained within Australia and were visiting the survey location made 50% more contacts than divers trained overseas. Within this demographic, 30% recorded an average of >49 contacts per dive. Whilst approximately 50% of this demographic stated they had logged >50 dives to date, recent diving experience was lacking, with 52% being categorised as novice divers (completing <10 annually). Previous research on coral reefs has presented evidence that the less certified and experienced divers tend to make more contact with the benthos (Zakai and Chadwick-Furman, 2002), however this was the contrary within the results of this thesis. The current research shows that divers who had recorded >1000 dives to date, made significantly more contact (p = <0.001) than less experienced divers. This is due to 50% of this demographic using underwater photographic equipment. Divers with >1000 dives logged were found to make higher numbers of contacts on average. Within this group, 57% of all contacts were intentional. Diving professionals were well represented within this group; however, they recorded a lower proportion of intentional contacts (44%), when compared to non-professional divers who had logged >1000 dives.

Divers who identified no awareness of MPA and sanctuary zone status made between 49 – 71 % more contacts than divers who expressed awareness. Diver awareness with regard to marine park zoning is an area that needs urgent attention. Divers who did not acknowledge that they had just completed a dive within a marine park, made 71% more contacts than those who recorded such awareness in the post-dive questionnaire.. Divers who were unaware of the sanctuary zone status of the site made 89% more contacts than those who recorded in the post-dive questionnaire that they had just completed a dive with a marine park/sanctuary zone. Among individuals who identified themselves as Australian

150 recreational divers, 56% believed that sanctuary zone status only applies to the commercial or recreational fishing communities. These divers did not understand that the ‘don’t touch, no take’ policy applies to all marine park users.

As with studies on tropical coral reefs (Rouphael and Inglis, 2001; Uyarra and Coté, 2007), the use of photographic equipment was found to be a significant factor, with a 45% increase in diver contacts occurring. Results from this study showed this to be particularly true for divers using semi-professional equipment and taking macro-photographs. Divers using point and shoot compact cameras tended to make slightly less contact. The current affordability and accessibility to underwater photographic equipment means that more divers are using this equipment, therefore higher numbers of contacts are occurring.

Harriott et al (1997) noted that dive certification is a life-time qualification, requiring no renewal or proof of current diving proficiency. This anomaly is clearly contributing to inadequacies with regard to individual diver skill-base and is one of the underlying reasons for the high levels of the diver impacts currently occurring. Regardless of certification level, divers who had been absent from diving from 6 months to a number of years, contributed between 17 – 80% more contact than divers who had been diving within the last 6 months. This indicates that recent experience or further training before diving in sensitive areas may provide an effective means of substantially reducing the frequency of impact. Such a strategy however requires the identification of sensitive sites.

7.2 RISK TO HABITAT

Subtropical dive locations have several features that distinguish them from tropical reefs where most diver impact studies have been conducted. Foremost among these is the greater diversity (at the phylum level of ) of sessile benthic cover (Vroom and Braun, 2010). Although no longer the numerically dominant group, scleractinian corals are often still common on subtropical reefs and because of their rigid form, often sustain the greater severity of damage. Harriott and Banks (2002) theorised that one of the reasons that subtropical coral do not form reefs is the lower growth rates at higher latitudes. This could also lead to slower rates of repair and regrowth from repeated damage. Therefore the abundance of hard corals was of high importance in determining the risk to a dive site.

In Chapter four data are presented on the types of diver contact that present the greatest risk to habitat and the benthic taxa that are most susceptible to more severe levels of impact. The

151 modelling approach used within the study could be transferred to any habitat type and used to determine the severity of diver impacts.

Results from the study show that severe impacts are more probable at sites with complex reef topography i.e. high relief reef, narrow trench habitat, caves and overhangs, and higher percentages of erect taxa were most at risk to severe diver impacts. The mean rate of severe contact within such habitats is 5.1, per 15 minutes, whereas, for more open reef habitat, severe rates reduced to 2.3 contacts. Algae were the most contacted benthic taxa, with 42% of contacts resulting in medium to high level impact, resulting in fragmentation from the parent organism. Due to the high resilience of most algal taxa over hard corals, impacts to algae could favour hard corals. From the nine types of contact a diver could make with their body or equipment, fin contacts caused 74% of all contacts and overall this resulted in the highest percentage of severe impact, with an average of 2.9 contacts. 88% of all contact with echinoderms resulted in medium to high-level impacts, typically dislodgment from the reef benthos or fragmentation of one or more arms from the parent organism. Regeneration following arm amputation has been well documented (Carnevali et al., 1993) in both the parent organism and individual arm segments (Carnevali et al., 1998) ensuring greater resilience of this taxon.

7.3 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

For marine park authorities, the need for reef conservation and resource preservation needs to be considered in tandem with sustainable tourism practises. To date, management of diver impacts has focused on limiting the numbers of divers accessing sites (Davis and Tisdell, 1995), or preventing diver access within marine parks except for the very edges of the park (Lloret et al., 2006). Additional strategies like the Level of Acceptable Change, or percentile approach require ongoing monitoring and site-specific baseline data, which needs to be acquired prior to recreational diving occurring at the location. For the majority of marine parks this is neither financially nor logistically feasible (Day, 2008). Such locations also typically have pre-existent diving tourism; therefore the present baseline may already represent a seriously impacted ecosystem. In addition, such methods require multiple reference sites, which may not be available in small marine parks.

Greater supervision of divers by dive leaders has been shown to have a significant impact on reducing contact with the reef, and reducing interference with fish and sharks (Barker and

152 Roberts, 2004; Luna and Perez, 2009). Planned dive tour routes can also avoid sensitive habitats like narrow trenches and caves, as these habitats are more susceptible to diver contacts (Shivlani and Suman 2000). When guides avoid such areas, this can greatly assist in lowering diver impact at specific locations. Popular diving locations could be rated based on a sensitivity index and only accessible to divers with appropriate experience and training. Divers are already familiar with certification-based restrictions. For example, open water divers are restricted to depths of less than 18 metres (PADI, 2014); divers wanting to explore caves need a cave certification (CDAA, 2014). Introducing a rating system based on the complexity and sensitivity of the reef combined with the divers’ level of skills, would reduce diver impacts e.g. cave diving classification system (CaveAtlas.com, 2014).

Introductory level divers could be restricted to patchy reef complexes, which have large sandy areas. Inexperienced divers could then practice buoyancy and trim whilst viewing the reef from the edges. This would provide motivation and incentive for those interested in exploring the reef away from the sand to continue training to the appropriate level (Thapa et al., 2006). More advanced divers who have mastered buoyancy and trim and are capable of adjusting swimming position frequently to avoid contact with the benthos could have access to sites of higher complexity (trench habitat and high relief reefs), or those with sensitive benthos (coral and sponge dominated habitat). Certification, experience-level and sites rated suitable for underwater photography could be established using a model of relative risk, based on benthic percentage cover of sensitive organisms and reef complexity.

Studies accessing the use of education to reduce diver contact on tropical reefs have shown that with appropriate pre-dive briefings, significant reductions are possible (Rouphael and Inglis, 1997). However, when divers are requested to refrain from making contact with the benthos, many lack the appropriate skill base to comply with such a request. Therefore specialty training in Low Impact Diving focusing on buoyancy, horizontal trim, streamlining and low impact propulsion techniques would be beneficial for providing recreational divers with education and skills to comply with the ‘no touch’ policy required in many diving locations.

The development and international accreditation of a new diver-training course in Low Impact Diving that is currently accessible to all certified divers, provides an example of how further training can effectively translate the outcomes of this research into practical application. Benefits also exist for diving professionals and the industry, through the up- skilling of staff and the economic benefits of providing courses that may be marketed to all

153 certified divers. Internationally, learn-to-dive programs being conducted within marine parks would benefit from course materials being more focused on the importance of MPAs. Such site-based interpretive programmes present a highly viable intervention strategy. This research showed that regardless of a diver’s certification and experience level, education strategies are valuable ways to significantly reduce diver contact with reef benthos. These include (ranging from least to most successful ways of reducing contact): pre-dive briefings; in-water intervention; and training in low impact diving techniques. This research also highlights the need for Low Impact Diver (LID) techniques to be incorporated into standard ‘learn to dive’ courses, whereby trim and LID propulsion techniques are implemented. This is particularly important for training being conducted within marine park sanctuary zones. In addition, compulsory LID training for all dive professionals working within marine parks could form part of the operating permit. Low Impact Diver training has a critical role to play in providing divers with the necessary skills to swim above a reef without creating impact.

To ensure the sport of diving moves towards a true ecotourism activity, compliance and enforcement of divers to not make contact with the reef needs to be followed through with once underwater. Barker and Roberts, 2004, found that most divers surveyed after a diver impact observation stated that they appreciated the intervention of the dive guide and did not want to intentionally damage the reef. This research showed that some divers who are reprimanded for having too much contact with the reef, often resent being told how to behave underwater and may take their business to another operator who is more lenient. Some members of the diving community are of the view that dive marshals are like an unwelcome ‘big brother’ presence, solely there to interfere with their personal dive experience. However, the aim of this form of intervention is simply to reduce impacts and maintain the reef and ensure that the habitat is not degraded. The majority of divers who consciously select locations based on marine park status feel that it is advantageous to have a dive marshal or guide reminding them to not made contact with the reef, as opposed to having no access to the reef or finding out that the diving quota for the week is full. The economic incentive to maximise diver visitation may take precedence over preservation of the marine environment unless external auditing and certification takes place. Dive tourism may not always be the most sustainable form of tourism for MPAs. The economics of business dictate that operators will only do what is required to operate within MPAs to comply with regulations.

154

Figure 7.1: Decision tree for site sensitivity and management action.

Management of individual diving sites and determining the level of intervention to be applied can be decided through the use of a decision tree (Figure 7.1). The sites habitat type is first determined by the complexity of the reef, the benthic percentage cover, an individual diver’s reason for diving and whether or not they have completed LID training determines the LOI to be applied.

Sites of lower sensitivity can be utilised for training and refresher dives, and less favourable sea conditions. Highly sensitive sites would have greater in-water supervision (level 3), access particularly for photographers may be limited to those who have completed LID training and smaller guide:diver ratios for ensure adequate supervision.

7.4 CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that subtropical reefs are as equally vulnerable to diver impacts as tropical coral reefs. Whilst the previous study (Roberts and Harriett, 1995) showed an average of 35 contacts per dive, this earlier study was conducted under different research conditions than the current results presented in this thesis (the earlier study did not require informed consent prior to data collection). Significantly, twenty years on and even with this current research being conducted under informed consent, diver contacts per dive, have not significantly reduced. This demonstrates the necessity for new management and training strategies for the recreational diving industry. This emphasises the value of implementing Low Impact Diving as a means to significantly reduce diver contacts within marine protected areas.

155 Factors that contribute to higher contact frequency include divers who have not dived for over six months; photographers in particular those trained within Australia and were visiting the location and had not dived for more than six months; divers who recorded no awareness of MPA zoning in the post-dive questionnaire; experienced divers and diving professionals with >1000 dives logged who were using photographic equipment. Sites with high complexity, caves and trenches were more vulnerable to severe impacts. Pre-dive briefings which included the specific instruction for divers to not make any contact with the benthos and which were followed up with in situ intervention and low impact diving education provided significant reductions in diver impacts.

Further research using manipulative experiments would assist in determining the resilience of reef taxa, specifically the recovery rates of individual organisms from the most common forms of contact (fin, hand, knee) and would provide benchmarks for mapping habitat accessibility to a range of diver demographics.

An outcome supported from this research would be to implement Low Impact Diver training as a mandatory licensing requirement for all dive industry staff working within marine parks. This could also be used as a template for rolling out LID training within the dive industry internationally. An additional management strategy that could be implemented is for an official dive site rating system to be developed. Tour routes within sanctuary zones sites could also be planned based on habitat risk analysis. A series of diver trails could be developed and used to direct divers away from sensitive and vulnerable benthic organisms. Applying these strategies would equip individual SCUBA-divers, dive operators and marine park managers with avenues to reduce damage to reef habitat caused from SCUBA-diver visitation. This will ultimately enhance the experience for all divers; provide greater protection to benthic taxa and aid in the development of SCUBA- diving becoming a more ecologically sustainable tourism activity.

Additional research specific limitations were lack of funding/support for longer term (over five years) assessments of recovery rates of individual organisms post impact. This would have assisted risk modelling in chapter 4, however this research could also be better suited to Post-Doctoral research work. This thesis presents the most substantial research of diver impacts within sub-tropical marine protected areas and has added to the broad body of research already conducted globally within tropical locations. This thesis presents a similar story to the impacts occurring within

156 tropical locations and offers highly effective management strategies to reduce diver impacts globally.

The significance and original contribution to knowledge in the field of marine tourism, conservation and education from this research is already providing far-reaching skills and knowledge within the recreational diving community by way of the Low Impact Diving course. As evidenced from this research, human-marine interaction management of SCUBA- divers within marine protected area sanctuary zones is achievable. If all the presented management measures were to be applied globally, this would significantly improve the anthropogenic footprint currently occurring from diving tourism. The current vulnerability of marine ecosystems caused by diving tourism could be shifted to ecologically sound management, ensuring the future of diving tourism.

157 Literature cited

Addessi, L. (1994). Human disturbance and long-term changes on a rocky intertidal community. Ecological Applications, 4: 786-797.

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 19 (6), 716–723.

Akaike, H. (2011). Akaike’s Information Criterion. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (pp. 25-25). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Anderson, M. J., & Thompson, A. A. (2004). Multivariate control charts for ecological andenvironmental monitoring. Ecological Applications. 14(6), 1921-1935.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress. 40(7), 64-65.

Anegg, U., Dietmaier, G., Maier, A., Tomaselli, F., Gabor, S., Kallus, K. W., & Smolle- Jüttner, F. M. (2002). Stress-induced hormonal and mood responses in scuba divers: a field study. Life sciences. 70(23), 2721-2734.

Arin, T., & Kramer, R. A. (2002). Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean & Coastal Management. 45(2), 171-183.

Asafu-Adjaye J., & Tapsuwan, S. (2008). A contingent valuation study of scuba diving benefits: Case study in Mu Ko Similan Marine National Park, Thailand. Tourism Management. 29(6), 1122-1130.

Badalamenti F., Ramos A., Voultsiadou E., Sanchez-Lisazo JL., D’Anna G., Pipitone C., Mas, J., Ruiz Fernandez JA., Whithmarsh D., & Riggio, S. (2000). Cultural and socio- economic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation. 27(2), 1-16.

Baddeley, A.D., de Figueredo, J.W., & Hawkswell, J.W. (1968). Nitrogen narcosis and performance under water. Ergonomics. 11(2), 157-164.

Baker, A. C., Glynn, P. W. & Riegl, B. (2008). Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 80(4), 435-471.

Bak, R. P., & Meesters, E. H. (1999). Population structure as a response of coral communities to global change. American Zoologist, 39(1), 56-65.

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

Barker, S. M., Peddemors, V. M. & Williamson, J. E. (2011). Recreational SCUBA diver interactions with the critically endangered grey nurse shark 'Carchariastaurus'. Pacific Conservation Biology. 16(4), 261.

158 Barton, E. D., Arıstegui, J., Tett, P., Cantón, M., Garcıa-Braun, J., Hernández-León, S., ... & Wild, K. (1998). The transition zone of the Canary Current upwelling region. Progress in . 41(4), 455-504.

Beger, M., Babcock, R., Booth, D. J., Bucher, D., Condie, S. A., Creese, B., Cvitanovic, C., Dalton, S. J., Harrison, P., Hoey, A., Jordan, A., Loder, J., Malcolm, H., Purcell, S.W., Roelfsma, C., Sachs, P., Smith, S.D.A., Sommer, D., Wallace, C.C., Zann, M & Pandolfi, J. M. (2011). Research challenges to improve the management and conservation of subtropical reefs to tackle climate change threats. Ecological Management & Restoration. 12(1), e7-e10.

Beger, M., Sommer, B., Harrison, P. L., Smith, S. D., & Pandolfi, J. M. (2014). Conserving potential coral reef refuges at high latitudes. Diversity and Distributions. 20(3), 245-257.

Bell, P. A., Green, T., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1978). Environmental Psychology. Fort Worth, 4.

Birrell, C. L., McCook, L. J., Willis, B. L., & Diaz-Pulido, G. A. (2008). Effects of benthic algae on the replenishment of corals and the implications for the resilience of coral reefs. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev. 46, 25-63.

Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J. S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in ecology & evolution. 24(3), 127-135.

Booth, D. J., Figueira, W. F., Gregson, M. A., Brown, L., & Beretta, G. (2007). Occurrence of tropical fishes in temperate southeastern Australia: role of the East Australian Current. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 72(1), 102-114.

Braithwaite, R.W., & Braithwaite, R.L. (2003). Riding the wave of tourism and hospitality research: proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education Conference, Coffs Harbour. Lismore: Southern Cross University.

Broome, G., & Valentine, P. (1995). Principles of social impact assessment and its application to managing the Great Barrier Reef (No. 2). CRC Reef Research Centre. Bruno, J. F., Selig, E. R., Casey, K. S., Page, C. A., Willis, B. L., Harvell, C. D., ... & Melendy, A. M. (2007). Thermal stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biology. 5(6), e124.

Bucher, D.J., Hartley, S.L., Dimmock, K & Roberts, L.G. (2007). The sustainability of SCUBA diving at Julian Rocks, Cape Byron Marine Park, New South Wales, Southern Cross University, Report to the NSW Marine Parks Authority.

Buckley, R. 2004. Skilled commercial adventure: The edge of tourism. Pages 37–48 in T. V. Singh, ed. New horizons in tourism: Strange experiences and stranger practices. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure Tourism. Wallingford: CABI publishing.

159 Burke, L. & Maidens, J. (2004) Reefs at risk in the Caribbean. World Resource Institute, Washington, DC.

Burak, S., Dogan E., & Gazioglub. C. (2004). Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal Environmental. Ocean and Coastal Management. 47, 515-527.

Byron Shire Council. (2002). Byron Shire, State of the Environment, 2002, key findings. Byron Shire Council, Mullumbimby. Australia.

Byron, T. (1998). SCUBA divers guide to New South Wales North Coast. Ocean Enterprises. Victoria, Australia.

Byron Shire Council. (2002). Byron Shire, State of the Environment, 2002, key findings. Byron Shire Council, Mullumbimby. Australia.

Camp, E., & Fraser, D. (2012). Influence of conservation education dive briefings as a management tool on the timing and nature of recreational SCUBA diving impacts on coral reefs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 61, 30-37.

Carey, D.I. (1993). Development based on carrying capacity: A strategy for environmental protection. Global Environmental Change. 3, 140-148.

Carnevali, M., Lucca, E., & Bonasoro, F. (1993). Mechanisms of arm regeneration in the feather star Antedon mediterranea: Healing of wound and early stages of development. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 267(3), 299-317.

Carnevali, M. C., Bonasoro, F., Patruno, M., & Thorndyke, M. C. (1998). Cellular and molecular mechanisms of arm regeneration in echinoderms: the potential of arm explants. Development genes and evolution. 208(8), 421-430.

Cater, C. (2008a). Perceptions of and interactions with marine environments: Diving attractions from great whites to pygmy seahorses. In New Frontiers in Marine Tourism: Diving Experiences, Sustainability, Management, Elsevier Oxford. 49-64.

Carter, C. I. (2008b). The life aquatic: Scuba diving and the experiential imperative. Tourism in Marine Environments. 5(4), 233-244.

Cesar, H. (2003). Economic valuation of the coral reefs of Egypt. Report prepared for the MVEunit of EEPP, funded by USAID. Preliminary version, January 2003 (mimeo). Cesar, H. S. J. (2000). Coral reefs: Their functions, threats and economic value. In Cesar, H.S.J. (Ed). Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs.

CDAA 2014 Training. Retrieved from http://www.cavedivers.com.au/training Cave Diver Association of Australia.

Chabanet, P., Adjeroud, M., Andréfouët, S., Bozec, Y. M., Ferraris, J., Garcìa-Charton, J. A., & Schrimm, M. (2005). Human-induced physical disturbances and their indicators on coral reef habitats: A multi-scale approach. Aquatic Living Resources. 18(03), 215-230.

160 Clark, R. A., (2006). SCUBA School International, Open Water Diver instructor manual. Concept Systems, Inc. Colorado, USA. 9th Edition.

Clarke, J. (2002). A synthesis of activity towards the implementation of sustainable tourism: ecotourism in a different context. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 5(3), 232-250.

Colvard, D. F., & Colvard, L. Y. (2003). A study of in recreational scuba divers. Undersea Journal. First Quart. 40-4.

Conover, W.J. (1999). Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd Edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Consul, P. C., & Famoye, F. (1992). Generalized Poisson regression model. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 21(1), 89-109. Cope, R. (2003). The international diving market. Travel and Tourism Analyst. 6, 1-39.

Copeland, C. and Phillips, S. (1994) Draft Julian Rocks Aquatic Reserve Plan of Management 1994-1996. NSW Fisheries.

Coral-List Archives (2012) Coral list archives. Retrieved from coral- [email protected]

Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs and actions. Environment and Behavior. 32, 832–848.

Cottrell, S. P., & Meisel, C. (2004). Predictors of personal responsibility to protect the marine environment among scuba divers. In J. Murdy (ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (Gen. Tech. rep. Ne-317), (pp. 252–261).

Cowen, R. K., & Sponaugle, S. (2009). Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Annual Review of Marine Science. 1, 443-466.

Cribb, A.B. (1960). Records of marine algae from south-eastern Queensland. V. University of Queensland Papers, Department of Botany 4, 3-31, 9 pls.

Dalton, S.J., Carroll, A.C., Hammerton Z. & Hartley S. (2011). Implementation of best practice marine resource use-recreational diving community. Report to the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. National Marine Science Centre, Southern Cross University, 28 pp.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. L. (2006). The impact of tourism and personal leisure transport on coastal environments: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 67(1), 280-292.

Davis, D., & Gartside, D.F. (2000). Challenges for economic policy in sustainable management of marine natural resources. Ecological Economics. 36, 223-236.

Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management. 26,19–40.

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

Davis, D., Harriott, V., MacNamara, C., Roberts, L., & Austin, S. (1995). Conflicts in a marine protected area: scuba divers, economics, ecology and management in Julian Rocks Aquatic Reserve. Australian Parks & Recreation. 31(1), 29-35.

Davis, D., & Harriott, V. J. (1996). Sustainable tourism development or a case of loving a special place to death? Scuba diving in the Julian Rocks Aquatic Reserve, Eastern Australia. Practising Responsible Tourism. International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, 423-43.

Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management. 26(1), 19-40.

Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. A. (1999). Tourist levies and willingness to pay for a whale shark experience. Tourism Economics. 5(2), 161-174.

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

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

Deacon, C., & Deacon, K. (1986). Australia down under. Doubleday Australia Pty Ltd.

De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs infive countries: validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 38, 318–332.

Delmas, M. A., & Cuerel Burbano, V. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review. 54(1), 64.

Diaz-Pulido, G., McCook, L. J., Dove, S., Berkelmans, R., Roff, G., Kline, D. I., ... & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2009). Doom and boom on a resilient reef: climate change, algal overgrowth and coral recovery. PLoS One, 4(4), e5239.

Dicken, M. L., & Hosking, S. G. (2009). Socio-economic aspects of the tiger shark diving industry within the Marine Protected Area, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science. 31(2), 227-232.

Di Franco A., Marchini A., Baiata P., Milazzo M., & Chemello, R. (2008). Developing a scuba Trail vulnerability index (STVI): a case study from a Mediterranean MPA. Biodiversity Conservation. 18(5), 1201-1217.

Dignam, D. (1990). Scuba gaining among mainstream travellers. Tourism and Travel News. 26, 44–45.

Dimmock, K. (2009). Comfort in adventure: The role of comfort, constraints and negotiation in recreational SCUBA diving. PhD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

162 Dimmock, K., & Wilson, E. (2009). Risking comfort? The impact of in-water constraints on recreational scuba diving. Annals of Leisure Research. 12(2), 173-194.

Ditton, D.B., & Baker, T.L. (1999). Demographics, attitudes, management preferences and economic impacts of sport divers using artificial reefs in offshore Texas water.(Report prepared for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept). College Station: Texas A&M University.

Dive-Oz forum 1998-2004. Retrieved from http://www.diveoz.com.au/index.php/forum/index.html Dive-Oz web services.

Dixon, J.A. (1993). Economic Benefits of Marine Protected Areas. Oceanus, Fall, 35-40

Dixon, J.A. & Sherman, P.B. (1991). Economics protected areas. Ambio. 20(2), 68-74.

Dobson, J. (2007). Shark! A new frontier in tourist demand for marine wildlife. Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences. cabi Publishing, Wallingford, 49-65.

Done, T. J. (1992). Phase shifts in coral reef communities and their ecological significance. In The Ecology of and Related Ecosystems (pp. 121-132). Springer Netherlands.

Driml, S. & Common, M. (1995). Economic and financial benefits of tourism in major protected areas. Australian Journal of Environmental Management. 2(2), 19-39.

Driml, S. (1999). Dollar Values and Trends of Major Direct Uses of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Research Publication No. 56. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Duckworth, A. R. (2003). Effect of wound size on the growth and regeneration of two temperate subtidal sponges. Journal of experimental and ecology, 287(2), 139-153.

Dubinsky, Z. V. Y., & Stambler, N. (1996). Marine pollution and coral reefs. Global change biology, 2(6), 511-526.

Dulvy, N. K., Freckleton, R. P., & Polunin, N. V. (2004). Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator removal by exploitation. Ecology letters, 7(5), 410-416.

Dustan, P. & Halas, J.C. (1987). Changes in the reef-coral community of Carysfort Reef, Key Largo, Florida, 1974 to 1982. Coral Reefs. 6, 91-106.

Dustan, P. (1994). Developing methods for assessing coral reef vitality: a tale of two scales. Proc. Colloq. Global aspects of coral reefs: health, and history, pp. 38-45.

Eagles, P.F.J. (2002). Trends in park tourism: economics, finance and management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 10(2), 132-153.

Echtner, C. M., & Prasad, P. (2003). The context of third world tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism research, 30(3), 660-682.

163 Eckrich, C. E.& Holmquist, J. G. (2000). Trampling in a seagrass assemblage: direct effects, response of associated fauna, and the role of substrate characteristics. Marine ecology. Progress series. 201, 199-209.

Eco Dive (Gold Coast, Australia) 2012-2013. Retrieved from http://www.eco-dive.com.au/

Eco-Dive Bali 2013. Retrieved from http://www.ecodivebali.com/

Eco Divers (Thailand) 2010-2014. Retrieved from http://www.ecodivingcentre.com/

Edmonds, C.,Walker, D., & Scott, B., (1989). syndromes with SCUBA. SPUMS Journal. 27(4), 182-190.

Estrada R., Camarena T., McCool S., & Kooistra, D. (2004). Assessing the carrying capacity of MPA’s: how many visitors can your MPA hold? MPA’s News, 6(2).

Famoye, F. (1993). Restricted generalized Poisson regression model. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 22(5), 1335-1354.

Figueira, W. F., & Booth, D. J. (2010). Increasing ocean temperatures allow tropical fishes to survive overwinter in temperate waters. Global Change Biology, 16(2), 506-516.

Friedlander, A., Aeby, G., Brainard, R., Clark, A., DeMartini, E., Godwin, S., ... & Vroom, P. (2005). The state of coral reef ecosystems of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific freely associated states, 73, 263-306.

Fishbein, M. & Azjen, I. (1975) Belief, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Sydney, Australia: Addison-Wesley.

Frissell, S.S. Jr. & Duncan, D.P. (1965). Campsite preferences and deterioration. Journal of Forestry. 63, 256–60.

Frissell, S.S. & Jr Stankey, G.H. (1972). Wilderness Environmental Quality: The Search for Social and Ecological Harmony. Society of American Foresters Annual Conference, Society of American Foresters.

Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological bulletin. 118(3), 392.

Gardner, T.A., Coté , I.M., Gill, J.A., Grant, A., & Watkinson, A.R., 2003. Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science. 301, 958–960.

Garrabou,, J., Sala, E., Arcas, A., & Zabala, M. (1998). The impact of diving on rocky sublittoral communities: a case study of a bryozoan population. Conservation Biology. 12(2), 302-312.

Garrod, B. (2008). Market segments and tourist typologies for diving tourism. In B.

164 Garrod & S. Gössling (eds.), New frontiers in marine tourism: Diving experiences, sustainability, management (pp. 31–49). Amsterdam: elsevier.

Garson, G. D. (2014). Logistic Regression: Binomial and Multinomial. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.

GBRMPA (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/visit-the-reef/responsible-reef- practices/diving-and-snorkelling

Gibson, S.Y., Van der Marel, R.C. & Starzomski, B.M. (2009) Climate change and conservation of leading-edge peripheral populations. Conservation Biology, 23, 1369–1373.

Gentry, J. W. (1990). What is experiential learning. Guide to business gaming and experiential learning. 9-20.

Germonpré, P. (2006). The medical risks of and their control: review article. International SportMed Journal: The Extreme Environment and Sports Medicine: Part 2, 7(1), p-1.

Glynn, P. W. (1994). State of coral reefs in the Galápagos Islands: natural vs anthropogenic impacts. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 29(1), 131-140.

Gray, B. R. (2005). Selecting a distributional assumption for modelling relative densities of benthic macro invertebrates. Ecological Modelling. 185(1), 1-12.

Green, E., & Donnelly, R. (2003). Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean Marine Protected Areas: do the users pay?. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 32(2), 140-144.

Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation. 5: 277-291.

Gössling, S. (2002). Human–environmental relations with tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 29(2), 539-556.

Gössling, S., Lindén, O., Helmersson, J., Liljenberg, J., & Quarm, S. (2008). Diving and global environmental change: a Mauritius case study. New frontiers in marine tourism: Diving experiences, sustainability, management, 67.

GUE, (2014) Education – Diver training. Retrieved from https://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org/training/gue-course-descriptions/technical/tech1

Guinotte, J. M., Orr, J., Cairns, S., Freiwald, A., Morgan, L., & George, R. (2006). Will human-induced changes in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian corals?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(3), 141-146.

Hale, L. Z., & Olsen, S. B. (1993). Coral reef management in Thailand. A step toward integrated coastal management. Oceanus, 36(3), 27-34.

Hall, C. M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?. Ocean & Coastal Management. 44(9), 601-618.

165 Hall, D. B. (2000). Zero-inflated Poisson and binomial regression with random effects: a case study. Biometrics. 56(4), 1030-1039.

Hall, V. R. (2001). The response of Acropora hyacinthus and Montipora tuberculosa to three different types of colony damage: scraping injury, tissue mortality and breakage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 264(2), 209-223.

Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F., & Kappel, C. V. (2007). Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology. 21(5), 1301-1315.

Hammerton, Z. (2007). Spatial and temporal variation in fish assemblages on offshore rocky reefs, Cape Byron Marine Park, northern NSW, Australia. Honours thesis. Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW.

Hammerton, Z. (2011). Low Impact Diving. PADI distinctive specialty course. Professional Association of Diving Instructors. California, United States.

Hammerton, Z., Dimmock, K., Hahn, C., Dalton, S. J., & Smith, S. D (2012). Scuba diving and marine conservation: collaboration at two Australian subtropical destinations. Tourism in Marine Environments. 8(1-2), 1-2.

Hammerton, Z and Bucher D (2015). Levels of Intervention – Reducing SCUBA Diver Impacts within Subtropical Marine Protected Areas. Journal of Ecotourism, (in press): 1-18.

Hammitt, W.E., Cole, D.N (1987) Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York, NY: Wiley.

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

Harriott, V. J. (1999). Coral growth in subtropical eastern Australia. Coral Reefs, 18(3), 281- 291.

Harriott, V. J., Banks, S. A., Mau, R. L., Richardson, D., & Roberts, L. G. (1999). Ecological and conservation significance of the subtidal rocky reef communities of northern New South Wales, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 50(4), 299-306.

Harriott, V. J. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier Reef (No. 46). Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.

Harriott, V. & Banks, S. (2002). Latitudinal variation in coral communities in eastern Australia: a qualitative biophysical model of factors regulating coral reefs. Coral Reefs. 21(1), 83-94.

Harrison, P. L., & Booth, D. J. (2007). Coral reefs: naturally dynamic and increasingly disturbed ecosystems. Marine ecology. 316-377.

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

Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1992). Effects of recreational SCUBA diving on fore-reef slope communities of coral reefs. Biological Conservation. 62(3), 171-178.

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

Hawkins, J.H., & Roberts, C.M. (1994). The growth of coastal tourism in the Red Sea: present and future effects on coral reefs. Ambio. 23, 503–508.

Hawkins, J. P., Roberts, C. M., Van'T Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J., & Aldam, C. (1999). Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology. 13(4), 888-897.

Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., Kooistra, D., Buchan, K., & White, S. (2005). Sustainability of scuba diving tourism on coral reefs of Saba. Coastal Management. 33, 373–387.

Henry, L. A., & Hart, M. (2005). Regeneration from injury and resource allocation in sponges and corals–a review. International review of hydrobiology, 90(2), 125-158.

Heyward, A.J., & Negri, A.P. (1999). Natural inducers for coral larval metamorphosis. Coral Reefs. 18, 273–279.

Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., Queirós, A. M., Duplisea, D. E., & Piet, G. J. (2006). Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 63(4), 721-736.

Hill, J., & Wilkinson, C. L. I. V. E. (2004). Methods for ecological monitoring of coral reefs. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, 117.

Hobbs, M., and W. Kneller. (2009). Effect of nitrogen narcosis on free recall and recognition memory in open water. Journal of undersea and . 36(2), 73-81.

Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R.A., Dowdney.J., Fuller. M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S.P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R., Knuckey, I.A., Ling, S.D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K.L., Sporcic, M., Smith, T., Turnbull, C., Walker, T.I., Wayte, H., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B.S., & Zhou, S. (2011). Ecological for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research. 108(2), 372-384.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck, R. S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., ... & Hatziolos, M. E. (2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318(5857), 1737-1742.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bruno, J. F. (2010). The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science, 328(5985), 1523-1528.

167 Hoey, A. S., Pratchett, M. S., & Cvitanovic, C. (2011). High macroalgal cover and low coral recruitment undermines the potential resilience of the world's southernmost coral reef assemblages. Plos One. 6(10), e25824.

Honey, M., & Rome, A. (2000). Mohonk Agreement. Washington DC: Institute for Policy Studies.

Hooper, J. N. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2002). Small-scale patterns of sponge biodiversity (Porifera) from the Sunshine Coast reefs, eastern Australia. Invertebrate Systematics. 16(4), 637-653.

Houvenaghel, G. T. (1978). Oceanographic conditions in the Galapagos Archipelago and their relationships with life on the islands. In Upwelling ecosystems (pp. 181-200). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B.C., Kleypass, J., Lough, J.M., Marshall, P., Nystrom, M., Palumbi, S.R., Pandolfi, J.M., Rosen, B., & Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science. 301(5635), 929-933.

Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A., Jackson, J. B., Mumby, P. J., & Steneck, R. S. (2010). Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(11), 633-642.

Hughes, T. P., Rodrigues, M. J., Bellwood, D. R., Ceccarelli, D., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., McCook, L., Moltschaniwskyj, N., Pratchett, M.S., Steneck, R.S., & Willis, B. (2007). Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs to climate change. Current Biology. 17(4), 360-365.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The journal of environmental education. 21(3), 8-21.

Ince, T., & Bowen, D. (2011). Consumer satisfaction and services: Insights from dive tourism. The Service Industries Journal. 31(11), 1769-1792.

Jackson, J., (2013). Top dive sites of the world (4th edition). IMM Lifestyle Books.

Jameson, S.C., Ammar, M.S.A., Saadalla, E., Mostafa, H.M., Riegl, B. (1999). A coral damage index and its application to diving sites in the Egyptian Red Sea. Coral Reefs. 18: 333-339.

Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research. 8(3), 325-334.

Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V.R., Bell, F.W. & Bonn, MA (2001). Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Final Report. Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers and Scientists.

168 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research. 8(3), 239-260.

Lane, E. L. (2013). Greenwashing 2.0. Columbia. Journal of Environmental Law. 38, 279.

Lawrence, M. (2005). Unravelling the complexities of tourist destination systems: policy networks and issue cycles in Byron Bay 1988 to 2005. Thesis (PhD)-Southern Cross University, Lismore.

Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (Eds.). (2006). Managing world heritage sites. Routledge.

Lee, W. H., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of sustainable tourism. 13(6), 546-565.

Leujak, W., & Ormond, R. F. (2007). Visitor perceptions and the shifting social carrying capacity of South Sinai’s coral reefs. Environmental Management, 39(4), 472-489.

Leung, Y. & Marion, J.L. (2000). Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In D.N. Cole, S. McCool, W.T. Borrie and J. O’Loughlin (eds) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change: Vol. 5. Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management (pp. 23–48). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Likert, R. (1932). “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psychology, Vol. 140, No. 55.

Lindberg, K., & Halpenny, E. (2001). Protected area visitor fees: overview. Generating revenue through ecotourism for marine protected areas in Belize. A report of the Summit Foundation, International Ecotourism Society and Programme for Belize.

Lippmann, J. (n.d.) The Ups and Downs of Buoyancy Control. , USA. Retrieved from http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/ articles/the_ups_and_downs_of_buoyancy_control

Lloret, J., Marín, A., Marín-Guirao, L., & Francisca Carreño, M. (2006). An alternative approach for managing scuba diving in small marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16(6), 579-591.

Luna, B., Pérez, C. V., & Sánchez-Lizaso, J. L. (2009). Benthic impacts of recreational divers in a Mediterranean Marine Protected Area. ICES Journal of Marine Science:Journal du Conseil. 66(3), 517-523.

Malcolm, H., Lindfield, S., Wraith, J., Lynch, T., & Gladstone, W. (2007). Spatial and temporal variation in reef fish assemblages of marine parks in New South Wales, Australia- baited video observations.

169 Malcolm. HA, Smith, S.D.A. & Jordan, A. (2010a). Using patterns of reef fish assemblages to refine a Habitat Classification System for marine parks in NSW, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 20: 83-92.

Malcolm, H. A., Davies, P. L., Jordan, A., & Smith, S. D. (2011). Variation in sea temperature and the East Australian Current in the Solitary Islands region between 2001– 2008. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 58(5), 616 -627.

McCafferty, M., & Doulas, E. (2011). The importance of Buoyancy control. Alert Diver Online. Retrieved from http://www.alertdiver.com/Buoyancy

McClanahan, T. R. (1999) Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs. 18, 321-325.

McCool, S. F., & Lime, D. W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or useful reality?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 9(5), 372-388.

Medio, D., Ormond, R. F. G., & Pearson, M. (1997). Effect of briefings on rates of damage to corals by scuba divers. Biological Conservation. 79(1), 91-95.

Meesters, E. H., Wesseling, I., & Bak, R. P. (1997). Coral colony tissue damage in six species of reef-building corals: partial mortality in relation with depth and surface area. Journal of sea research. 37(1), 131-144.

Meisel-Lusby, C., & Cottrell, S. (2008). Understanding motivations and expectations of scuba divers. Tourism in Marine Environments. 5(1), 1-14.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Menduno, M., (2013) Mastering Neutral Buoyancy and Trim. Alert diver online. Retrieved from http://www.alertdiver.com/Mastering-Neutral-Buoyancy-and-Trim

Merchant, S. (2011). Negotiating underwater space: the sensorium, the body and the practice of scuba-diving. Tourist Studies. 11(3), 215-234.

Miller MC (1993) The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management. 20(3), 181-199.

Milazzo, M., Chemello, R., Badalamenti, F., Camarda, R., & Riggio, S. (2002). The impact of human recreational activities in marine protected areas: what lessons should be learnt in the Mediterranean sea?. Marine Ecology. 23(s1), 280-290.

Monteiro, M. G., Hernandez, W., Figlie, N. B., Takahashi, E., & Korukian, M. (1996). Comparison between subjective feelings to alcohol and nitrogen narcosis: a pilot study. Alcohol. 13(1), 75-78.

Musa, G. (2002). : a SCUBA-diving paradise: an analysis of tourism impact, diver Satisfaction and tourism. Tourism Geographies. 4(2), 195-209.

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

Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews. 82(4), 591-605.

Ngazy, Z.M. (2004). Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of coral reefs. ICLARM.

Nozawa, Y., & Harrison, P. L. (2007). Effects of elevated temperature on larval settlement and post-settlement survival in scleractinian corals, Acropora solitaryensis and Favites chinensis. Marine Biology, 152(5), 1181-1185.

Nugues, M.M. & Roberts, C.M., 2003, Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 46, 314-323.

Nyström, M., Folke, C., & Moberg, F. (2000). Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated environment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 15(10), 413-417. NSW Marine Parks Authority (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/cod-diving.html

Oliver, J.K., (1995). Is the ‘limits of acceptable change’ concept useful for environmental managers? A case study from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In: Grigg, G.C.; Hale, P.T.; Lunney, D. (eds), Conservation through sustainable use of wildlife, pp. 131–139. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

PADI (2004) PADI adventures in diving. PADI International Inc. (no publisher).

PADI (2014) PADI Instructor manual. PADI International Inc. (no publisher).

PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) (2014) Retrieved from About PADI http://www.padi.com/scuba-diving/about-padi/

Pandolfi, J.M., Connolly, S.R., Marshall, D.J. & Cohen, A.L. (2011) Projecting coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. Science. 333, 418–422.

Parsons, G.R. & Thur, S.M. (2008). Valuing changes in the quality of coral reef ecosystems: A stated preference study of SCUBA diving in the Bonaire National Marine Park. Environmental Resource Economists. 40(4), 593-608.

Peterson, C. H., Rice, S. D., Short, J. W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J. L., Ballachey, B. E., & Irons, D. B. (2003). Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science. 302(5653), 2082-2086.

Petri, N. M. (2003). Change in strategy of solving psychological tests: evidence of nitrogen narcosis in shallow air-diving. UHM. 30(4), 293-302.

Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corliano, M. E., Zaccarelli, N., & Dadamo, M. (2007). Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landscape and Urban Planning. 79(1), 29-37.

171 Piper, G. (2014) The sad truth behind some macro photographer: Underwater bad behaviour. Sport Diver. PADI Diving Society.

Pollino, C. A., Woodberry, O., Nicholson, A., Korb, K., & Hart, B. T. (2007). Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software. 22(8), 1140-1152.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 31(4), 437-448.

Price, D. (1999). Carrying capacity reconsidered. Population and Environment. 21(1), 5-26.

Prior M., Ormond R., Hitchen R., & Wormald, C. (1995). Impact on the natural resources of activity tourism: a case study of diving in Egypt. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 48, 201-209.

Project AWARE Foundation, 2013. Retrieved http://www.projectaware.org/

Purcell, S. W., Dalton, S. J., & Smith, S. D. (2010). Critical Habitats of Selected Threatened Marine Species in Northern NSW. appendices. A National Marine Science Centre report to the Northern Rivers Catchment Managment Authority. National Marine Science Centre, Coffs Harbour, 24.

Quiros, A. L., (2007). Tourist compliance to a Code of Conduct and the resulting effects on whale shark Rhincodon typus behavior in Donsol, Philippines. Fisheries Research. 84(1), 102-108.

Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing?. Business & Society. 44(4), 377-414.

Reckhow, K. H. (1994). Water quality simulation modeling and uncertainty analysis for risk assessment and decision making. Ecological Modelling. 72(1), 1-20.

Richardson, D. L., Harriott, V. J., & Harrison, P. L. (1997). Distribution and abundance of giant sea anemones (Actiniaria) in subtropical eastern Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research. 48(1), 59-66.

Ridout, M., Hinde, J., & DemeAtrio, C. G. (2001). A Score Test for Testing a Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model Against Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial Alternatives. Biometrics. 57(1), 219-223

Ridout, M., Demktrio, C. G. B., & Hinde, J. (1998). Models for count data with many zeros. Invited paper presented at the Nineteenth International Biometric Conference, Capetown, South Africa.

Riegl, B., & Riegl, A. (1996). Studies on coral community structure and damage as a basis for zoning marine reserves. Biological Conservation. 77(2), 269-277.

172 Rinkevich, B. (2005). What do we know about Eilat (Red Sea) reef degradation? A critical examination of the published literature. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 327(2), 183-200.

Roberts, L., & Harriott, V.J. (1994). Recreational scuba diving ant its potential for Environmental impact in a marine reserve. In Recent Advances in Marine Science and Technology, Bellwood O, Choat H, Saxena N (eds). James Cook University of North Queensland: Townville, Australia, 695-704.

Roberts, L., & Harriott, V. J. (1994). Recreational scuba diving and its potential for environmental impact in a marine reserve. Recent advances in marine science and technology, 94, 695-704.

Roberts, C. M., McClean, C. J., Veron, J. E., Hawkins, J. P., Allen, G. R., McAllister, D. E., ... & Werner, T. B. (2002). Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science. 295(5558), 1280-1284.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (1997). Impacts of recreational scuba diving at sites with different reef topographies. Biological conservation. 82(3), 329-336.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2001). “Take only photographs and leave only footprints”?: An experimental study of the impacts of underwater photographers on coral reef dive sites. Biological Conservation. 100(3), 281-287.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2002). Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage caused by recreational scuba diving. Ecological Applications. 12(2), 427-440.

Rouphael, A. B., & Hanafy, M. (2007). An alternative management framework to limit the impact of SCUBA divers on coral assemblages. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 15(1), 91- 103.

Rudd MA., & Tupper MH (2002) The impact of Nassau grouper size and abundance on scuba diver site selection and MPA economics. Coastal Management. 30, 133-151.

Sala E., Garrabou J., & Zabala, M. (1996). Effects of diver frequentation on Mediterranean populations of bryozoans Pentapora fascialis. Marine Biology. 126(3), 451-459.

Salm, R.V. (1986) Coral reefs and tourist carrying capacity: the Indian Ocean experience. UNEP Industry and Environment 1986 JanlFeblMar pp. 11-14. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

Saphier, A. D., & Hoffmann, T. C. (2005). Forecasting models to quantify three anthropogenic stresses on coral reefs from marine recreation: Anchor damage, diver contact and copper emission from antifouling paint. Marine pollution bulletin. 51(5), 590-598

Sawatzky, D., (2012) Buoyancy Control – It’s an inside job. , Diver Magazine online. Retrieved from http://divermag.com/buoyancy-control-it%E2%80%99s- an-inside-job/

Scheirer, C. J., William, S. R. & Hare, N. (1976). The Analysis of ranked Data Derived from Completely Randomized Factorial Designs, Biometrics. 32, 429-434.

173 Schiel, D. R., & Taylor, D. I. (1999). Effects of trampling on a rocky intertidal algal assemblage in southern New Zealand. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 235(2), 213-235.

Schleyer, M.H., Kruger, A. & Celliers, L. (2008). Long-term community changes on a high- latitude coral reef in the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 56, 493–502.

Schuhmann, P., Casey, J., Oxenford, H.A. (2008). The value of coral quality to SCUBA divers in Barbados. Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session number 23.

Shackley, M. (1998). 'Stingray City'-managing the impact of underwater tourism in the Cayman Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 6(4), 328-338.

Shafer, C.S., Inglis, G.J., Johnson, V.Y., & Marshall, N.A. (1998). Visitor experiences and perceived conditions on day trips to the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Reef Technical Report No. 21. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville. 76pp.

Shafer, C.S., & Inglis, G.J. (2000). Influence of social, biophysical, and managerial conditions on tourism experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Environmental Management. 26(2000), pp. 73–87.

Sheldrake, S. J., & Pollock, N. W. (2012). Alcohol and Diving. Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences 31st Scientific Symposium. Dauphin Island, AL.Stanley, J. V., & Scott, C. (1995, October). The effects of the underwater environment on perception, cognition and memory. In OCEANS'95. MTS/IEEE. Challenges of Our Changing Global Environment. Conference Proceedings. (Vol. 3, pp. 1539-1548). IEEE.

Shivlani, M. P., & Suman, D. O. (2000). Dive operator use patterns in the designated no-take zones of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Environmental Management. 25(6), 647-659.

Smith, S. D. A. (1995). Descriptions of marine benthic communities in the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve, northern NSW: progress report, August 1995. Report prepared for NSW Fisheries. August 1995.

Smith, S.D.A., & Edgar, R.J. (1999) ‘Description and comparison of benthic community structure within the Solitary Islands Marine Park’, Report prepared for Environment Australia, Canberra, 67 pp.

Smith, S. D., Rule, M. J., Harrison, M., & Dalton, S. J. (2008). Monitoring the sea change: Preliminary assessment of the conservation value of nearshore reefs, and existing impacts, in a high-growth, coastal region of subtropical eastern

Smith, S. D. A., Dalton, S. J., Harrison, M. A. and Bowling, T. (2009). Long term program to monitor the health of nearshore reefs. Regional evaluation and site selection. A National Marine Science Centre Report to the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. March 2009. 24 pp.

174 Smith, S.D.A., Dalton, S.J. & Purcell, S.W. (2010). Distribution of Threatened and Protected species in marine habitats of the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. Report to the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, National Marine Science Centre, Coffs Harbour.

Smith, K., Scarr, M., & Scarpaci, C. (2010). Grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) diving tourism: tourist compliance and shark behaviour at Fish Rock, Australia. Environmental management. 46(5), 699-710.

Spalding, M.D., Ravilious, C., Green, E.P., (2001) World atlas of coral reefs. In University of California Press, Berkeley: University of California Press. Speed, C. W., Meekan, M. G., Rowat, D., Pierce, S. J., Marshall, A. D., & Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2008). Scarring patterns and relative mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. Journal of Fish Biology. 72(6), 1488-1503.

Spieler, R. E., Gilliam, D. S., & Sherman, R. L. (2001). Artificial substrate and coral reef restoration: what do we need to know to know what we need. Bulletin of Marine Science. 69(2), 1013-1030.

Stankey, H.G., Cole, D., Lucas, R., Peterson, M., & Frissell, S. (1985).The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Ogden, UT: US department of Argiculture.

Stanley, J. V., & Scott, C. (1995). The effects of the underwater environment on perception, cognition and memory. In OCEANS'95. MTS/IEEE. Challenges of Our Changing Global Environment. Conference Proceedings. (Vol. 3, pp. 1539-1548). IEEE.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology. 29(3), 309-317.

Steneck, R. S., Paris, C. B., Arnold, S. N., Ablan-Lagman, M. C., Alcala, A. C., Butler, M. J., McCook, L.J., Russ, G.R., & Sale, P. F. (2009). Thinking and managing outside the box: coalescing connectivity networks to build region-wide resilience in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs. 28(2), 367-378.

Stoeckl, N., Birtles, A., Farr, M., Mangott, A., Curnock, M., & Valentine, P. (2010). Live- aboard dive boats in the Great Barrier Reef: regional economic impact and the relative values of their target marine species. Tourism Economics. 16(4), 995-1018.

Suthers, I. M., Young, J. W., Baird, M. E., Roughan, M., Everett, J. D., Brassington, G. B., & Ridgway, K. (2011). The strengthening East Australian Current, its eddies and biological effects—An introduction and overview. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 58(5), 538-546.

Sykes, J. J. (1994). Medical aspects of scuba diving. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 308(6942), 1483.

175 Swearer, S. E., Shima, J. S., Hellberg, M. E., Thorrold, S. R., Jones, G. P., Robertson, D. R., & Warner, R. R. (2002). Evidence of self-recruitment in demersal marine populations. Bulletin of Marine Science. 70(Supplement 1), 251-271.

Tierney, B., & Tierney, S. (2006). Diving the world: A guide to the world’s coral seas. Footprint books. Australia.

TIES: The International Ecotourism Society (1990) Retrieved from https://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., & Meyer, L. A. (2005). Moderator and mediator effects of scuba diving specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contingency. The Journal of Environmental Education. 37(1), 53-67.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., & Meyer, L. A. (2006). Specialization and marine based environmental behaviors among SCUBA divers. Journal of Leisure Research. 38(4), 601

Thrush, S. F., Hewitt, J. E., Cummings, V. J., Dayton, P. K., Cryer, M., Turner, S. J., ... & Wilkinson, M. R. (1998). Disturbance of the marine benthic habitat by commercial fishing: impacts at the scale of the fishery. Ecological applications. 8(3), 866-879.

Thrush, S. F., & Dayton, P. K. (2002). Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 449-473.

Townsend, C. (2000). The effects of environmental education on the behaviour of SCUBA divers: a case study from the British Virgin Islands. Unpublished master’s thesis. The University of Greenwich. London, England.

Townsend, C. (2003). Marine ecotourism through education: A case study of divers in the British Virgin Islands. Marine ecotourism: Issues and experiences, 163-172.

Townsend, C. (2008). Dive tourism, sustainable tourism, and social responsibility: A growing agenda. New frontiers in marine tourism: Diving experiences, sustainability, management, 140-152.

Tratalos, J. A., & Austin, T. J. (2001). Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coral communities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman. Biological Conservation. 102(1), 67-75.

Underwood, A. J., Kingsford, M. J., & Andrew, N. L. (1991). Patterns in shallow subtidal marine assemblages along the coast of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Ecology, 16(2), 231-249.

Uyarra, M. C., & Côté, I. M. (2007). The quest for cryptic creatures: impacts of species- focused recreational diving on corals. Biological conservation, 136(1), 77-84.

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

176 Van der Meer, M. H., Hobbs, J. P. A., Jones, G. P., & Van Herwerden, L. (2012). Genetic connectivity among and self-replenishment within island populations of a restricted range subtropical reef fish. PloS one. 7(11), e49660.

Van Treeck, P., Schuhmacher, H. (1998). Mass Diving Tourism – A New Dimension Calls for New Management Approaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 37(8-12), 499-504.

Veron, J. E. N. (1995). Corals in space and time: the biogeography and evolution of the Scleractinia. Cornell University Press.

Veron, J. E. N. (2002). New species described in Corals of the World (Vol. 11). Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Veron, J. E. N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lenton, T. M., Lough, J. M., Obura, D. O., Pearce- Kelly, P., ... & Rogers, A. D. (2009). The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of< 350ppm CO2. Marine pollution bulletin, 58(10), 1428-1436.

Vroom, P. S., & Braun, C. L. (2010). Benthic composition of a healthy subtropical reef: baseline species-level cover, with an emphasis on algae, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. PloS one. 5(3), e9733.

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

Ward, T. J., Vanderklift, M. A., Nicholls, A. O., & Kenchington, R. A. (1999). Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological applications. 9(2), 691-698.

Watson, D. L., Harvey, E. S., Kendrick, G. A., Nardi, K., & Anderson, M. J. (2007). Protection from fishing alters the species composition of fish assemblages in a temperate- tropical transition zone. Marine Biology. 152(5), 1197-1206.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management. 28(5), 1168-1179.

Webb, P. (1984). Impaired performance from prolonged mild body cooling. In Underwater Physiology VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Underwater Physiology. Bethesda, Md: Undersea Medical Society (pp. 391-400).

West, J. M., & Salm, R. V. (2003). Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: implications for coral reef conservation and management. Conservation Biology. 17(4), 956-967.

White, A.T., Vogt, H.P., Arin, T. (2000). Philippine coral reefs under threat: The economic losses caused by reef destruction. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(7), 598-605.

White, G. C., & Bennetts, R. E. (1996). Analysis of frequency count data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology, 2549-2557.

177 Williams, I.D., Nicholas, V.C., Polunin, N. (2000). Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental Conservation. 27(4), 382-391.

Wiegers, J.K, Feder, H.M, Mortensen, L.S, Shaw, D.G., Wilson, V.J., Landis, W.G. (1998). A regional multiple-stressor rank-based ecological risk assessment for the fjord of Port Valdez, Alaska. Human Ecological Risk Assessment. 4(5),1125– 73.

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

Wooldridge, S. A. (2009). Water quality and coral bleaching thresholds: Formalising the linkage for the inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 58(5), 745-751.

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

Wulff, J. L. (2006). Rapid diversity and abundance decline in a Caribbean coral reef sponge community. Biological Conservation. 127(2), 167-176.

Zakai, D., & Chadwick-Furman, N. E. (2002). Impacts of intensive recreational diving on reef corals at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Biological Conservation. 105(2), 179-187.

Zann, L. P. (2000). The eastern Australian region: a dynamic tropical/temperate biotone. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 41(1), 188-203.

178 Appendix A: Post-dive survey questionnaires (Chapter 3 + 5)

Southern Cross University wishes to know about your diving experience. Your responses are confidential, used for research purposes only.

1) Gender M F 2) Age Range 18-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55 + (Please circle)

3) What year did you first learn to SCUBA dive? ______4) Location where you first learnt to dive?______

5) Current SCUBA certification level and affiliation? Open Discover scuba Water Advanced Rescue Divemaster Instructor Commercial

PADI SSI NAUI BSAC CMAS ADAS Other

6) Year certified?______

7) When did you last dive?______8) How many dives have you completed this year?______9) Total dives to date?______

10) Was this your first dive in Solitary Islands Marine Park? YES NO (please circle)

If no, how many dives have you made in SIMP? ______

11) What was the main highlight of the dive you just completed? ______

12) Were you aware that you dived within Marine Protected Area today? YES NO (please circle)

13) Are you aware that you dived within a Sanctuary Zone and that this offers the highest protection level within an Australian Marine Protected Area? YES NO (please circle)

14) On a scale of 1-5 (where 5 is very important and 1 is not important), how important is it to you when selecting a dive location that it has MPA status? 1 2 3 4 5 (circle one)

15) Did you use photography/video equipment during your dive? YES NO (please circle)

179

16) How would you rate your physical ‘contact’ with the reef on the dive you just completed?

(less than 5 contacts) (less than 10 contacts) (over 10 contacts) (please circle)

Would you like to be contacted with the results of this research once it is complete?

YES NO

Email address for reporting results ______

Thank you for completing this survey

180 Appendix B.1: Pre-dive survey questionnaire (Chapter 6)

Pre training Low Impact Diving course questionnaire

Southern Cross University wishes to know about your diving experience. Your responses are confidential, used for research purposes only.

1) Gender M F 2) Age Range 18-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55 + (Please circle)

3) What year did you first learn to SCUBA dive? ______4) Location where you first learnt to dive?______

5) Current SCUBA certification level and affiliation? Open Discover scuba Water Advanced Rescue Divemaster Instructor Commercial

PADI SSI NAUI BSAC CMAS ADAS Other

6) Year certified?______

7) When did you last dive?______

8) How many dives have you completed this year?______

9) Total dives to date?______

10) What was your main motivation for enrolling in the Low Impact Diving course?

______

______

11) What does the term ‘Low Impact Diving’ mean to you?

______

______

______

12) How would you rate your current level of competency with regard to buoyancy control? (Please circle)

181 Don’t know No control Poor control Good control Very good control Total control

13) How would you rate your current level of competency with regard to trim control?

Don’t know No control Poor control Good control Very good control Total control

14) How would you rate your level of physical contact with the reef on pre-training dive?

(less than 5 contacts) (less than 10 contacts) (over 10 contacts)

182 Appendix B.2: Post-dive survey questionnaire (Chapter 6)

Post training Low Impact Diving course questionnaire

Now that you have completed the Low Impact Diving course please answer the following questions.

1) What does the term ‘Low Impact Diving mean to you?

______

______

______

2) How would you rate your current level of competency with regard to buoyancy control? (Please circle)

Don’t know No control Poor control Good control Very good control Total control

3) How would you rate your current level of competency with regard to trim control?

Don’t know No control Poor control Good control Very good control Total control

4) How would you rate your level of physical contact with the reef on the pre-training dive?

(less than 5 contacts) (less than 10 contacts) (over 10 contacts)

5) Overall how would you rate the Low Impact Diving course for improving your skills and knowledge?

No improvement Slight improvement Noticeable improvement Substantial improvement

183 Appendix C: Mean benthic percentage cover

The following pie charts show the mean percentage cover of the most accessed diver swimming paths as opposed to the percentage cover of the whole location, which would include higher percentages of sand cover.

Site 1 – Hugo’s Trench (CBMP)

Cirripedia, 1.75% Bryozoa, 0.25%

Porifera, 5.75% Rubble, 21.25% Chlorophyta, 39.50%

Alcyonacea, 1.75%

Sand, 2.95% Scleractinia, 17.75% Bare rock, 1.25% Actiniaria, 0.50% Echinodermeta, 1.30% Ascidiacea, 6%

Site 2 – The Needles (CBMP).

Alcyonacea, Cirripedia, Echinodermeta, 1.25% Actiniaria, 0.75% 2.50% Bare rock, 1% 0.25% Sand, 5.25%

Scleractinia, Chlorophyta, 8.50% 38.50% Porifera, 8%

Rubble, 15.75%

Ascidiacea, 18.25%

184 Site 3 – The Nursery (CBMP)

Alcyonacea , Porifera, 5.50% 4.25% Polycheata, 0.25% Sand, 2.75%

Chlorophyta, Rubble, 14% 36.25%

Bare rock, Scleractinia, 2.50% 12.50% Mollusca, 0.25%

Corallimporphia, Actiniaria, 4% 1% Ascidiacea, 8.75% Echinodermeta, Cirripedia, 3% 5%

Site 4 - Split Solitary Island (SIMP).

Alcyonacea , 1% Porifera, Chlorophyta, 1.25% 6.25% Sand, 2.50% Actiniaria, 0.50% Ascidiacea, 11%

Rubble, 13.25% Bare rock, 4.50%

Scleractinia, 60.50%

185 Site 5 - South Solitary Island (North West) (SIMP).

Echinodermeta, Porifera, 5.25% 12.70%

Alcyonacea, Chlorophyta, 2.25% 14.95% Acniaria, 1.75% Sand, 1.30% Ascidiacea, 10% Rubble, 9.75%

Scleracnia, Bare rock, 35.50% 3.75% Cirripedia, 2.75%

Site 6 - South Solitary Island (South West) (SIMP).

Echinodermeta, Porifera, 2.75% 7% Sand, 2.50% Chlorophyta, 23.25% Rubble, 13.50% Actiniaria, 5.75%

Scleractinia, Bare rock, 6.25% 34.50% Ascidiacea, 4.50%

Bryozoa, 0.50%

186

187