ISLAND-BASED TOURISM: GOVERNANCE AND USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AT THE HOUTMAN ABROLHOS ISLANDS, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Emily Ogier

Bachelor of Arts (Honours)

This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Research) of The University of Western Australia

School of Earth and Environment

April 2013

DECLARATION FOR THESES CONTAINING PUBLISHED WORK AND/OR WORK PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION

The examination of the thesis is an examination of the work of the student. The work must have been substantially conducted by the student during enrolment in the degree.

Where the thesis includes work to which others have contributed, the thesis must include a statement that makes the student‘s contribution clear to the examiners. This may be in the form of a description of the precise contribution of the student to the work presented for examination and/or a statement of the percentage of the work that was done by the student.

In addition, in the case of co-authored publications included in the thesis, each author must give their signed permission for the work to be included. If signatures from all the authors cannot be obtained, the statement detailing the student‘s contribution to the work must be signed by the coordinating supervisor.

Please sign one of the statements below.

1. This thesis does not contain work that I have published, nor work under review for publication.

Student Signature

ABSTRACT

The aim of this thesis is to examine the role of governance in the development of an island-based tourism sector which is sustainable and has a low impact on the local resource base. The propositions were investigated that island-based tourism is significantly dependent upon local natural resources (Baine et al., 2007; Baldacchino, 2010; Buerger et al., 2000; McElroy & Potter, 2006); and that the level of access, use, alteration and consumption of local natural resources by the tourism sector in island settings is a function of the level of knowledge, coordination and policy capacity characterising existing and historical governance arrangements (Baum et al., 2000; Conlin & Baum, 1995; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Hall, 2000; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Lockhart, 1997).

Island-based tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, was selected for investigation as characteristics of the tourism sector and its resource use and impact on those resources were not known. Limited planning and management of the tourism sector had occurred while sustainable development of the sector had been identified as a policy goal and preferred economic development pathway.

Evaluation of tourism governance arrangements at the Houtman Abrolhos determined that the policy promulgation and implementation process has been hampered by minimal information concerning the characteristics of the tourism sector with which to frame the policy problem and select appropriate instruments; limited integration and coordination of agencies with various interrelated management responsibilities; and, the lack of enabling legislation to support regulation, enforcement and evaluation of tourism governance processes.

Examination of the tourism sector determined that visitation levels and participation in non-consumptive ecotourism activities had not increased for the period from 2003-4 to 2005-6 in contrast to global and regional trends in tourism in islands and other comparable settings. The majority of visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos travelled by either commercial charter or private boat and undertook fishing as their primary recreational activity, highlighting the reliance of the sector on activity which is consumptive of marine resources.

Investigation of tourist impacts on terrestrial resources found that substantive loss of vegetated areas and fauna habitat had occurred historically due to the establishment of

extensive unmanaged track networks on those highly visited islands surveyed. However ongoing levels of this type of tourist impact on resource conditions were found to be low for the period from 2004 to 2006. The proximity of the tourist track network to nesting areas of high conservation value seabird and Australian Sea-lion populations was detected and indicated that disturbance to breeding activity of these populations could be inferred.

Linkage of the research themes has supported the conclusion that the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands cannot be described as sustainable, given its reliance on consumptive activities and the level of changes to terrestrial resource conditions which have occurred. The failure to achieve the policy goal of sustainable tourism development is explained by the failure to account for the significant reliance of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos and on this basis to integrate its management with broader natural resource management frameworks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Research Context ...... 3 1.2 The Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia ...... 5 1.3 Research Objectives ...... 8 1.4 Research Structure ...... 9 CHAPTER 2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND TOURISM AT SMALL ISLANDS ...... 11 2.1 Natural Resource Systems ...... 11 2.2 Management Systems ...... 15 2.3 Natural Resource Units and Users ...... 20 2.4 Tourism Resource Units and Users ...... 25 2.5 Research Sites ...... 31 2.6 Summary ...... 31 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 41 3.1 Research Design ...... 43 3.2 Research Techniques ...... 48 3.2.1 Review of literature ...... 48 3.2.2 Tourist Visitation and Activity ...... 50 3.2.3 Tourism Impact Assessment ...... 56 3.2.4 Analysis and Presentation of Results ...... 64 CHAPTER 4 GOVERNANCE ...... 73 4.1 Governance systems ...... 74 4.1.1 Theories of governance ...... 74 4.1.2 Governance arrangements for dependent island territories ...... 78 4.1.3 Governance and policy capacity for island-based tourism ...... 81 4.2 Methods ...... 85 4.3 Results ...... 86 4.3.1 Assignment of responsibility ...... 86 4.3.2 Promulgation of Policy ...... 91 4.3.3 Development of Guidelines and Instruments ...... 95

4.3.4 Policy Implementation ...... 99 4.3.5 Assessment ...... 104 4.3.6 Evaluation ...... 106 4.4 Discussion ...... 108 CHAPTER 5 TOURISM VISITATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 113 5.1 Tourist Visitation, Recreation and Impacts ...... 115 5.2 Tourist Visitation, Recreation and Impacts at the Houtman Abrolhos ...... 119 5.2.1 Tourist Visitation and Recreational Activity...... 119 5.2.2 Impacts ...... 123 5.3 Methods ...... 126 5.4 Results...... 128 5.4.1 Tourist Visitation and Recreation ...... 128 5.4.2 Tourism Impact Assessment ...... 133 5.5 Discussion ...... 167 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 175 6.1 Critique of Research Methods ...... 177 6.1.1 Evaluation of Governance and Tourism Policy Capacity ...... 177 6.1.2 Investigation of Tourist Visitation and Activity...... 178 6.1.3 Assessment of Tourism Impacts...... 180 6.2 Research Findings ...... 183 6.2.1 Governance ...... 184 6.2.2 Tourist Visitation and Activity ...... 186 6.2.3 Tourism Impacts ...... 187 6.3 Recommendations for further study ...... 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 193 APPENDIX A: Postal Survey of Air Charter Operators 2003-4 & 2004-5...... 215 APPENDIX B: Visitor Survey Questionnaire 2004-6 ...... 219 APPENDIX C: Tourist Visitation and Activity Data 2002-3 – 2005-6 ...... 223 APPENDIX D: Island Survey Site and Track Condition Data 2004-6...... 237

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I wish to express my deep gratitude and regard to my initial supervisor, Dr Ian Eliot, for his unfailing support for my independent ways and for his critical guidance which he necessarily provided. I extend thanks to my final supervisor, Dr Julian Clifton, for his time and direction in guiding my thesis to submission. Staff and students at the School of Earth and Environment from whose assistance and friendship I benefited include Professor Matthew Tonts, John Collins and Natasha Pauli.

Formally, I acknowledge the substantive in-kind support I received from the Department of Fisheries Western Australia and the following staff in particular; Greg Ryan, Russell Dyson and Kim Nardi. A portion of this in-kind support was funded by a Coastwest grant for the ‗Community monitoring of visitor impacts at the Abrolhos Islands‘ project, which the Department received in 2003. I also acknowledge the similarly substantive research funding and in-kind support received from the Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee, and the assistance provided by its Chair, Peter Driscoll.

Members of the Friends of the Abrolhos and the western rock lobster fishing industry at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands provided me with boat rides, dinghy access, accommodation, field assistance and friendship. People I particularly wish to thank include: Leonie and Austin Noble, Fred Tucker, Kerrie and Gav Elliott, Lorraine Arnold, Tash and Craig Colliver, and Sam and Tilly Liddon.

Finally and far from least, my enduring thanks to my husband, Graeme Ogier, our little son, Finlay, and to family members Ros, Mike and Jane Stoddart and Kirk Hicks, for their patience and unshakable belief in this researcher.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to examine the role of governance in the development of an island-based tourism sector which is arguably sustainable and has a low impact on the existing resource base. Tourism sectors in uninhabited island settings are nature-based and directly rely on terrestrial and marine common pool resources (Baine et al., 2007; Buerger et al., 2000). Currently there is a conflict of opinion on the status of nature- based tourism in island contexts in terms of its impacts on the natural assets being utilised and on the level of regulation required to mitigate deleterious impacts identified from environments susceptible to change in their use (Baldacchino, 2010; Graci & Dodds, 2010).

In the first instance, island-based tourism is argued to be a sustainable industry that is non-consumptive in its use of natural resources, amenable to conservation mandates and preferable to consumptive industries such as fishing (Kerr, 2005; Schittone, 2001). Conversely, the ―environmentally benign image‖ of the wider marine-based tourism industry (Leung et al., 2001: 22) has been described as a popular myth by Stewart (1993) and by McCool and Moisey (2001: 3) who have contended that the concept of sustainable tourism is vaguely defined and problematic to measure and yet widely used. The level of use of those natural resources accessed by island-based tourism sectors and the subsequent degradation of those resources is argued to be unrecognised, unmanaged and unsustainable in many instances (Abeyratne, 1999; Baine et al., 2007; Conlin & Baum, 1995; Diaz, 2007; Goldsmith et al., 1970; Gossling, 2001; Hall, 2001; Hall & Wouters, 1994; Ingram, 1991; Jackson, 2008; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Lockhart, 1997; Manning et al., 2005; McKee & Tisdell, 1990; Muir & Chester, 1993; Sobhee, 2006; Walker, 1991).

Governance has been identified as a critical driver in directing tourism industry development towards sustainability generally (Eagles et al., 2002; Hall, 2000; Wilson, 2003) and in island settings specifically (Baldacchino, 2010; Graci & Dodds, 2010; McElroy & Potter, 2006). Hence, consideration of island governance is likely to determine the extent to which tourism impacts on the environment on which it is dependent.

The research area investigated included the uninhabited islands of the Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago in Western Australia. The uninhabited islands were selected for consideration because: 1

1. Management and regulation of existing tourism visitation to the islands has been found to be laissez-faire and ad hoc (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). Different governance arrangements regarding tourist visitation are applied to different islands in the Archipelago, both between the inhabited and uninhabited islands and between different uninhabited islands. These arrangements are, in turn, anticipated to influence levels of visitor access to natural resources

2. Western Australian State Government policy supports the further development of a sustainable nature-based tourism sector (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007) as the preferred economic development pathway within a broader multiple use management framework, and thus provides an opportunity to examine the role of policy in driving tourism industry development;

3. The characteristics of the existing tourism sector are not known. Determination of these is likely to indicate the role of governance and policy in the historical development of the sector. Visitation and activity data would contribute to an assessment of existing levels of demand on natural resources associated with the tourism sector.

4. Impacts of tourist visitation and activity on those natural resources used by the tourism sector have not been assessed. The conservation values of those natural resources have been broadly established (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003). Human interactions with the marine environment have been partially investigated as marine resources are already heavily exploited by the commercial fishing sector (Webster et al., 2002a). Hence, an investigation of the likely impacts of tourism activity on island environments is required to inform an assessment of the tourism sector‘s interactions with terrestrial tourism resources.

In order to investigate the research problem three theme areas are examined. First, tourism policy and governance are explored in an island context. The role of governance arrangements and policy processes in determining the interactions and impacts of island-based tourism development in relation to local natural resources is examined. Second, the characteristics of tourism sectors and, in particular, tourist visitation and activity, at uninhabited islands are considered. Tourist activity has been found to be a primary determinant of impact in natural area settings (Farrell & Runyan, 2

1991; Liddle, 1975; Newsome et al., 2002; Stankey et al., 1979). Third, theory and practice concerning threatening processes associated with tourism to the conditions of natural common pool resources in island environments are explored. Each of these theme areas has been identified as significant in contributing to theoretical and applied understandings of sustainable tourism development in island settings (Conlin & Baum, 1995; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Kerr, 2005; Lockhart, 1997; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; McElroy & Potter, 2006).

The uninhabited islands of the Houtman Abrolhos were selected for investigation as tourism and governance processes in these settings are distinct from the inhabited islands. It has been demonstrated from tourism impact studies in other island settings that tourism impacts can be more easily isolated from other human activities in the absence of human habitation (Buerger et al., 2000). Small islands are characterised by the relative high significance of the interface of marine and terrestrial environments and processes. This investigation has focused on terrestrial impacts of tourist activities due to the unique biogeographic characteristics of island terrestrial environments (Trevino et al., 2007) and the availability of generic data regarding impacts of tourism on inshore coastal and marine environments.

1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT

The underlying premise of this thesis is that island-based tourism, particularly as it applies to the uninhabited islands of the Houtman Abrolhos, is not adequately understood in terms of the contribution of development policies and processes, as well as governance arrangements, in determining its dependency and consumptive impact upon natural resources. Limitations identified within current published research include an absence of studies focusing specifically on uninhabited island settings. No thematic integration of tourism policy and development processes, governance and impacts has been undertaken in uninhabited island settings.

The development of nature-based tourism sectors at uninhabited islands is increasingly becoming a preferred economic development policy. Tourism is perceived as an economic activity more compatible with achieving conservation management objectives, due to its lower impact upon local natural resources, than more traditional extractive industries, such as mining, timber and fisheries (Kerr, 2005; Thiele et al., 2005). However, the development of tourism industries has been found to play a

3 significant role as a mechanism of both economic development and environmental change at uninhabited islands (Conlin & Baum, 1995; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Lockhart, 1997). Policy shifts towards tourism as a preferred industry has led to differing demands and impacts on local resources, and to differing requirements for management and governance, with little supporting research.

The role of governance arrangements in managing and regulating the development of island-based tourism has been broadly recognised (Baldacchino, 2006a, 2010; Butler, 1993; Lockhart, 1997). Historically, governance of island-based tourism has entailed allowing access to island locations and permitting tourism-related activities to occur with minimal levels of further intervention. The historical prevalence of the perception that tourism is an environmentally benign industry has resulted in minimal or negligible integration of tourism planning and management with natural resource management and planning frameworks at the governance level in many island and protected natural area settings (Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Hall, 2005; Vallega, 1999b). Contrastingly, it has been argued that the sustainability of tourism sectors in natural areas cannot be assured without governance intervention to regulate the sector‘s access to natural assets (Abeyratne, 1999; Agardy, 1993; Eagles, 2001; Eagles et al., 2002; Leung et al., 2001).

The conservation values of uninhabited islands and vulnerability to disturbance is well- documented (Diamond, 1985a, 1985b; Trevino et al., 2007). The absence of human habitation has largely protected such islands from threats associated with introduced species and loss of habitat. Geographic isolation has commonly led to the presence of unique and endemic fauna and flora, as well as remnant populations of species now extinct on nearby mainlands. Environmental studies dating from the early 1960s have documented impacts of tourism development and activity on specific environmental assets, including impacts upon coastal and marine habitats (Allen, 1992; Carter & Cater, 2007; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Harriott, 2002; Hawkins et al., 1999; McElroy & Potter, 2006; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002); soils and geomorphology (Buerger et al., 2000); wildlife populations (King, 1985; Orsini, 2004; Trevino et al., 2007); local fisheries (Sobhee, 2006); and potable water supplies (Gossling, 2001) in island settings.

The body of literature on recreational impacts of visitors in natural areas has tended to be highly site or resource specific in its investigations, and its application, though valuable, is limited to the local or micro management level. Such research is typically reactive, focused on individual conservation assets (Simpson et al., 2002), and rarely

4 linked to the characteristics of the local tourism sector (Hall, 2007). Extension of such research into integrated assessments of tourism impacts on protected natural area destinations has been undertaken (Buckley, 2003). A further outcome of this work has been the identification of tourism as a resource-based industry (Collins, 1999; McCool et al., 2001; McKercher, 1993). However, the level of change to local natural resource conditions brought about by tourism activities is insufficiently understood in the context of uninhabited islands (Baine et al., 2007; Buerger et al., 2000).

1.2 THE HOUTMAN ABROLHOS ISLANDS, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The Houtman Abrolhos Islands, locally known as the Houtman Abrolhos or Abrolhos Islands, are a group of 122 small low-lying islands lying off the mid west coast of Western Australia in sub-tropical waters (Figure 1.1). The islands are remote, from 40km to 70km offshore, and dispersed across 100km north to south of reef system. The islands are uninhabited with the exception of a 14 week period when 20 of the larger islands are temporarily inhabited by the families and crew of Western Rock Lobster fishers under license arrangements (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998). European contact with the islands commenced in 1629 with the wreck of the Dutch East India Company‘s flagship, the Batavia. From the start of British occupancy of Western Australia guano mining and commercial fishing have been the predominant industrial activities to have occurred at the Houtman Abrolhos (Webster et al., 2002a).

The uninhabited islands are vested as an A-Class Reserve with the Minister for Fisheries for the conservation of flora and fauna, tourism and for purposes associated with the fishing and aquaculture industries. Those activities which are permitted and prohibited under this reserve classification are detailed in Section 2.2. The Department of Fisheries, Western Australia (hereafter referred to as the Department of Fisheries) is primarily responsible for their management as per the Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994). The State Territorial Waters of the Houtman Abrolhos were declared a Fish Habitat Protection Area (FHPA) and vested with the Minister for Fisheries in 1999 (Government of Western Australia, 1999). The implications of this category of marine reserve for both the extraction and conservation of marine resources at the Houtman Abrolhos are further described in Section 2.2. The Houtman Abrolhos has been listed on the Register of the National Estate since 1978. The Batavia Shipwreck Site and Survivors Camp Area has been listed on the National Heritage List under the

5

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (Environmental Protection Authority, 2007). It is a requirement of this listing that approval be granted by the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage prior to any action occurring which could negatively impact upon the values of the site.

The formulation of tourism development policy and resource allocation decision- making processes is the responsibility of the Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee (AIMAC) and the Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. The role of AIMAC is discussed in more detail in sub-section 4.4.1. Prior to 1995, tourism development at the Houtman Abrolhos was ad hoc and unplanned (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). The resultant dearth of information concerning the scale, composition and activities of the existing tourism sector and its impacts upon the conservation values of the Houtman Abrolhos is acknowledged (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998, 2001b). To what extent historically low levels of governance of tourist visitation, and the absence of tourism policies, have contributed to the characteristics of the existing tourism sector has yet to be examined.

Government preference for the future development of the terrestrial and marine environments at the Houtman Abrolhos is shifting from fishing towards tourism (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998, 2001b; Tourism Western Australia, 2006). The policy position of the Department of Fisheries is ―to manage environmentally sustainable nature-based tourism‖ which is consistent with conservation objectives (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 2). However, sufficient knowledge of the characteristics of the existing tourism sector and its use and impact on local natural resources is not available to inform resource management processes (Burbidge et al., 2004; Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Dunlop, 2002; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998; Surman, 2002; Webster et al., 2002a, 2002b). Indeed, whether the tourism sector‘s existing levels of access to marine and terrestrial resources as currently permitted under existing governance arrangements results in significant resource use and degradation is not known.

Tourism development policies contained within Sustainable Tourism Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b) stipulate further permissible tourism developments in addition to supporting existing tourism operations.

6

Figure 1.1 The Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. 7

Tourism development policies contained within Sustainable Tourism Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b) stipulate further permissible tourism developments in addition to supporting existing tourism operations. Whether such policies can achieve tourism development at the Houtman Abrolhos which is consistent with conservation objectives remains to be determined.

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands was therefore undertaken in order to investigate the use and impact on common pool resources by the tourism sector, and to evaluate the role of governance and policy in the development of the sector‘s use of resources. Two propositions in particular are examined:

1. That the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos is significantly dependent upon local common pool resources; and

2. That the level of access, use, alteration and consumption of local natural resources by the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos, currently and historically, is an outcome of the attributes of governance arrangements, and the interactions between tourism and other resource users.

Hence, the objectives of this thesis are to:

1. characterise and evaluate the role of the governance framework at the Houtman Abrolhos in determining the relationship between the tourism sector and local natural resources and compare these to global and regional trends in governance of tourism within island settings;

2. describe the characteristics of the current tourism sector and of the recreational activities undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos in light of local tourism development processes and policies, and compare these to global and regional trends in tourism development within island settings; and

3. determine the types and extent of access, use and impacts of the tourism sector on local natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos and compare these to global and regional trends in tourism impacts within island settings.

8

1.4 RESEARCH STRUCTURE

A multidisciplinary approach was developed to empirically investigate the research problem at the Houtman Abrolhos. To achieve the aims and objectives of this thesis, Chapter 2 provides a descriptive background to the study of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, while Chapter 3 outlines the research design developed and the specific research techniques deployed to investigate the thesis objectives. The global and regional contexts of the major themes of this thesis are examined within each of the following research chapters. In Chapter 4 a review of current research regarding governance theory, tourism policy and island studies is undertaken to characterise and evaluate governance arrangements and tourism policy capacity at uninhabited dependent island territories, using the Houtman Abrolhos as a case study. In Chapter 5 tourist visitation and levels of recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos are investigated in the context of global and regional trends in island-based tourism. The impacts of tourist visitation and recreation on the conditions of terrestrial resources at highly visited sites at the Houtman Abrolhos is then examined. Chapter 6 contains the discussion and final conclusions of this thesis. The thesis chapters are followed by the bibliography and appendices.

9

CHAPTER 2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND TOURISM AT SMALL ISLANDS The Houtman Abrolhos constitutes a complex social-ecological system in which human and environmental systems are linked (Berkes & Folke, 1998). The development of the tourism sector and its demand on natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos has taken place in a particular socioeconomic, political and ecological setting. Issues of tourism development and conservation management at the Houtman Abrolhos have been historically complex and contentious (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Hatcher et al., 1990). In particular, varying levels of access to marine and terrestrial resources between the commercial fishing and tourism sectors has raised issues of equity (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). In addition, the extent of resource use and extraction by all sectors has been challenged in view of conservation policies and management objectives (Hatcher et al., 1990). These issues in turn have highlighted the role of the governance system in influencing the development of the tourism sector through the management of access to natural resources.

Hence, the aim of this chapter is to describe the state of knowledge regarding interactions between tourism, its natural resource base and broader resource use at the Houtman Abrolhos. Drawing on Ostrom‘s general framework for analysing social- ecological systems (McGinnis, 2011; Ostrom, 2007, 2009; Ostrom & Cox, 2010), as well as a review of the body of literature concerning management of natural resources and tourism at small islands, this chapter determines the attributes of the natural resource system, the management system, the resource units, and resource users at the Houtman Abrolhos in relation to tourism. The implications of current interactions between natural resources and tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos for governance and sustainability are then discussed.

2.1 NATURAL RESOURCE SYSTEMS

The islands of the Houtman Abrolhos lie on the western margin of the continental shelf in three distinct groups of raised reef systems separated by deep channels (Figure 1.1). Geomorphologic history and type vary between the three groups (Collins et al., 1997; Collins et al., 1993; Hatcher, 1991; Storr, 1964). Formation of the Houtman Abrolhos reef complex has taken place across three geological periods; the Tertiary; the Pleistocene and the Holocene. Common features are observable across the three groups 11 and include a windward reef, leeward reef and lagoon with a central platform (Collins et al., 1993). The eastern sections of the reef systems contain submerged reef platform with deep depressions known as ―blue holes‖. Marine geomorphological features include: exposed and sheltered reef slope; isolated patch reefs; back reefs; submerged, emergent and dissected limestone platform; static sediment; drowned doline field; complex karst platform; storm rubble field; and mobile sediment sheets (Webster et al. 2002a).

At the Houtman Abrolhos the more recent periods of formation resulted in central reef platforms or islands which are higher than current sea levels (Collins et al., 1997). Five types of islands have been identified according to their morphological and stratigraphic features (Collins et al., 1997: 813-4):

1. high rock islands with limestone pavement surfaces;

2. central platform islands with relict continental surfaces;

3. composite islands comprising cemented and unconsolidated coral rubble;

4. cemented coral-shingle cays; and

5. low coral-shingle and sand cays.

The size of the islands ranges from six square kilometres to a few square meters and elevations reach up to 15 meters above sea level.

The Houtman Abrolhos experiences a Mediterranean-type climate of hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Mean monthly sea-surface temperatures around the islands range between 20°C in September and 23.7°C in March (Pearce, 1997). Annual water temperatures range between 20°C and 25°C. Throughout the year the mean swell height is 1.2m from a predominantly south and west direction. Winter swells reach 6 meters in height. Wind direction is predominantly south east to south west with southerly winds being the most commonly recorded (40%). Maximum wind speeds fall in the range from 50-60 km/h with stronger winds occurring most often in the summer months (Chubb & Nardi, 2003). Summer tropical cyclonic events affect the Houtman Abrolhos once every five years on average. Annual mean rainfall is not known however rainfall data for Geraldton indicates that the annual mean is likely to be no greater than 450mm (Bureau of Meteorology, 2010). Rainfall runoff is considerable and may provide nutrient input to the marine system from guano deposits on the islands (Chubb & Nardi 2003). 12

The Houtman Abrolhos marine environment comprises a complex sub-tropical reef system influenced by the south-flowing Leeuwin Current (Pearce, 1997). The Leeuwin Current is the dominant physical oceanographic event influencing the marine environment at the Houtman Abrolhos (Pearce & Walker, 1991). Its reefs are amongst the highest latitude coral reefs found in the world. The coralline component is a result of the warm waters and associated indo-pacific marine species transported south by the Leeuwin Current (Hatcher, 1991). The islands lie in a biogeographical overlap zone in a temperate to tropical transition known as the West Coast Overlap Zone (Morgan & Wells, 1991). Sub-tropical coralline species compete with local warm temperate algal and seagrass species, resulting in unique assemblages of marine flora (Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group, 1994; Watson et al., 2007; Webster et al., 2002a; Wells, 1997). The diverse coral communities of the Houtman Abrolhos have been described in detail by Collins et al. (1997). Temperate marine plant communities are typical of the west coast region and include kelp beds and seagrass meadows.

Marine fauna species of tropical origin are dominant at the Houtman Abrolhos although many species exist at the most southern extension of their range (Wells, 1997). There are 389 fish species recorded at the Houtman Abrolhos and the majority have a tropical distribution although tropical fish abundances are comparatively low (Hutchins, 1997). In addition to the temperate-tropical mixture of marine fauna, a small number of species endemic to Western Australia are recorded at the Houtman Abrolhos (Wells, 1997). A number of these species are abundant and ecologically important, for example the Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) and the Balchin Groper (Choerodon rubescens). Tidal ponds or lagoons are found on a number of the islands and these support a number of cool temperate molluscan species (Black & Johnson, 1997) and provide breeding and pupping habitat for the Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea) (Gales et al., 1992; 1994). The marine environment of the Houtman Abrolhos has been recognised for its high scientific and conservation value (Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group, 1994; Nardi et al., 2004; Webster et al., 2002a; Wells, 1997).

The terrestrial environments of the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos range from moderately rich assemblages of flora and fauna to sparse and limited biota. The older larger islands retain relics of mainland flora and fauna as well as endemic species and communities. In contrast, islands formed more recently feature accumulations of debris cast up by storms from nearby reefs and support either no vegetation of very low

13 herbfields, grasses and prostate shrubs (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fuller et al., 1994). However, structures of coral shingle and rubble formed by storm surges provide important habitat for seabird and seal breeding activity (Fuller et al., 1994; Storr, 1964).

The terrestrial flora of the Houtman Abrolhos is typical of the coastal flora of the adjacent central west coast region of the state with a number of significant additions associated with island endemism (Harvey et al., 2001). Harvey et al. (2001: 533) recorded 239 species of terrestrial vascular plants from a total of 68 families; 144 were native species, and 95 were introduced/naturalised species. Five types of vegetation communities of special conservation significance have been identified (Harvey et al., 2001: 535). They include: white mangrove (Avicenna marina) communities; salt lake and saltbush flats (Halosarcia spp.); Atriplex cinerea dwarf shrubland; stands of Eucalyptus oraria; and pavement limestone, dunes and consolidated dune vegetation communities. The two latter vegetation communities are located on East Wallabi Island, where the least widely distributed species and the greatest floristic diversity are found as relicts of the island‘s continental origins.

The islands and waters of the Houtman Abrolhos support rich and abundant seabird populations. A mixture of tropical and warm temperate species of seabird fauna have been recorded, including some species not normally found at such high latitudes (Fuller et al., 1994). The presence of tropical seabird species is attributed to the influence of the Leeuwin Current and the abundance of tropical prey species in local waters. Over twenty species breed at the Houtman Abrolhos most commonly in the months of October through to March (Burbidge et al., 2004). The Houtman Abrolhos are recognised as one of Australia‘s most significant seabird breeding areas both in terms of abundance and diversity (Fuller et al., 1994). They support the largest breeding aggregations or colonies in the eastern Indian Ocean of the following species: Wedge- tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus), Little Shearwater (Puffinus assimilis), White- bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Pacific Gull (Larus pacificus), Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), Sooty Tern (Sterna fuscata), Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis), Common Noddy (Anous stolidus), and the endemic sub-species of the Australian Lesser Noddy (Anous tenuirostris melanops), which is listed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) as vulnerable (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004).

14

These terrestrial environments provide habitat for a range of avifauna, heptofauna and mammals. Wedge-tailed Shearwater, Little Shearwater, and White-faced Storm Petrels utilise sandy areas and dunes (typically vegetated with Atriplex) to build burrow nests. The Australian Lesser Noddy builds nests in the white mangrove stands. Common Noddies, and Bridled and Crested Terns establish colonies of nests in vegetation or under rock while Caspian, Roseate, Sooty and Fairy Terns establish colonies of ground nests or ‗scrapes‘ in unvegetated areas (Burbidge & Fuller, 1995).

Twenty-six species of reptiles have been recorded at the Houtman Abrolhos (Storr et al., 1983). Two reptile species are endemic and are listed as priority species; the Abrolhos Dwarf Bearded Dragon (Pogona minor minima) and the Abrolhos Spiny-tailed Skink (Egernia stokesii stokesii) (Storr et al., 1983). Similar levels of endemism and sub- speciation are found in land-based mammal and bird species: the Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes), the Tammar Wallaby (Macropus eugenii), and the Abrolhos Painted-button Quail (Turnix varia scintillans) are all endemic to the Houtman Abrolhos (Harvey et al., 2001; Storr et al., 1986). The small remnant population of Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea) at the Houtman Abrolhos is significant as the species is currently one of the world‘s rarest pinnipeds (Gales et al., 1992).

The high terrestrial conservation values of the Houtman Abrolhos are typical of offshore islands. Biogeographic insularity is associated with high levels of endemism (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). Offshore islands also function as refugia for species threatened in continental habitats. Small island environments have a heightened vulnerability to anthropogenic impacts when compared with continental environments (Trevino et al., 2007). The Houtman Abrolhos are ―an extremely fragile ecosystem... since many of its inhabitants are either at the northern or southern extent of their breeding range‖ and have a limited capacity to tolerate disturbance (Surman, 2002). The vulnerability of the terrestrial conservation values of the Houtman Abrolhos to anthropogenic impacts has not been specifically investigated.

2.2 MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago is managed under a multiple use management system for the purposes of conservation, tourism and fishing. The current management approach is based on the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998,

15

2002). The Department of Fisheries has undertaken to report on the progress of all commercial fisheries against the major objectives of its ESD policy (Fisheries Western Australia, 2002). However ESD reporting has been limited to the Western Rock Lobster fishery (Fletcher et al., 2005) and has not yet been undertaken for other commercial fisheries and natural resource-based sectors, such as tourism, at the Houtman Abrolhos. The Department of Fisheries has recently applied an Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) framework which uses a risk-based approach to management of bioregions including fisheries and aquatic resources (Fletcher et al., 2010). The development and implementation of the Western Australian Government‘s ESD and EBFM framework policies and their implications for the governance of tourism resources at the Houtman Abrolhos is discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.

The main State-based regulatory instruments include the Land Administration Act (1997), the Fish Resources Management Act (1994), and the subsequent Fish Resources Management Regulations (1995). The regulations permit or prohibit access and specific activity in specific areas of the Houtman Abrolhos and thereby manage access and use of natural resources by the various sectors. Spatially designated areas within the Houtman Abrolhos include: marine and terrestrial areas managed for the Western Rock Lobster commercial fishing industry; maritime and terrestrial heritage sites; marine conservation areas; and, public infrastructure facilities. Remaining areas include the uninhabited islands and these are managed according to the general provisions of the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) ‗Part 9 — Abrolhos Islands reserve‘ of the Fish Resources Management Regulations (1995).

The waters surrounding the islands out to three nautical miles from established baselines comprise the State Territorial Waters of the Houtman Abrolhos for management purposes. These waters are part of the specially declared area (Zone A), which was designated for the purposes of the commercial rock lobster fishing industry under the Fish Resources Management Act (1994). The Act enables specific regulations to be enacted to prohibit or regulate: entry; the taking of fish; and any other activity in the designated fishing zone (Government of Western Australia, 1994: Section 113). By this provision the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) are enabled.

Fisheries activity at the Houtman Abrolhos is managed as part of the broader West Coast bioregion in accordance with the provisions of the Fish Resources Management Act (1994) and the Fish Resources Management Regulations (1995). The Western

16

Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) commercial fishery was managed until 2010 using input controls to achieve a total allowable effort system based on pot days. Input controls included: pot numbers; proportional usage rates; gear and seasonal controls; and, zonation. The A Zone fishing season occurs from 15 March to 30 June each year (this period is known as the ‗In-season‘ period). Fishers have been granted access to 20 of the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos for the purposes of constructing and maintaining camps where fishers, crew and families take up temporary residence during the In-season period (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Webster et al., 2002a). Management performance measures include lobster breeding stock levels; by-products; and, interactions with protected species. A quota management system was introduced for the 2010-2011 fishing season (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2010b). Access rights to the fishery have been unitised and made transferable to create an individually transferable quota management system. Although no specific assessment has been undertaken, the changes to management arrangements is likely to have impacts on the numbers of fishing vessels active at the Houtman Abrolhos, the seasonal access of fishers, the recreational activity levels of the resident fishing community, and on fisher-associated visitation (Huddlestone, 2006).

Other significant fisheries at the Houtman Abrolhos include the Abrolhos Islands and Mid West Trawl Fishery, which is based on the catch of Southern Saucer Scallops (Amusium balloti), and the multi-species wetline fishery, which is managed as part of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery. Both fisheries are currently managed using limited entry and input controls, including gear restrictions, seasonal and spatial closures. Fishing vessels operate out of Geraldton as no provisions have been made which permit scallop or wetline fishers access to the islands or marine infrastructure at the Houtman Abrolhos.

Charter and recreational wetline fishing in the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos is currently managed as part of the Mid-West Zone of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery. In contrast to the input management system used to manage the commercial wetline fishery, a combination of input and output controls are used to manage effort and catch by the charter and recreational sectors of this fishery.

Twenty two of the more than 122 islands at the Houtman Abrolhos are identified as ‗inhabited‘ islands for the purposes of the Western Rock Lobster fishing industry (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998). These islands contain camps used by fishers

17 during the Zone A rock lobster fishing season, or In-season period. There are no provisions within the existing regulations which formally identify the status of an island as inhabited or uninhabited, nor prevent the construction of fisher camps on currently uninhabited islands. However the regulations do require fishers holding Zone A licenses to gain approval from the Department prior constructing new camp facilities, and through this approvals process the Department may apply policy relating to land- use planning. Management of the construction and modification of jetties and moorings; unauthorised use of jetties and moorings; camp lease arrangements; building standards and modifications; power; waste disposal; access outside of the In-season; and noise levels is undertaken by the Department of Fisheries in accordance with regulations 74 to 113 in the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995).

Access to waters and land-based facilities on adjacent islands for the purposes of aquaculture activity has been granted and is regulated in accordance with the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) (Fisheries Western Australia, 2000a).

Currently, mining and drilling for gas and petroleum are permitted under the Management Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos System (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998) though these activities are subject to the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority‘s approvals process.

Areas designated for the purposes of conservation include: the Abrolhos Fish Habitat Protection Area; the Abrolhos Islands Reef Observation Areas; the Houtman Abrolhos Islands Reserve; and the Batavia (1629) Shipwreck Site and Survivor‘s Camps Area; the Zeewick (1727) Half Moon Reef shipwreck site.

The State Territorial Waters of the Houtman Abrolhos were declared a Fish Habitat Protection Area (FHPA) in 1999 (Government of Western Australia, 1999). This is the principal mechanism for conserving the marine environment at the Houtman Abrolhos. The Department of Fisheries considers the FHPA to be a category of marine protected area at both the Commonwealth level within the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b), and at the State level (Government of Western Australia, 1997). The level of protection currently afforded the Houtman Abrolhos waters by this designation is equivalent to Category VI: Managed Resource Protected Area, which is a protected area managed mainly for the sustainable multiple use of natural ecosystems (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2005). This designation has enabled the Department of Fisheries to introduce 18 regulations with regard to access to the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos; fishing and eco-tourism operations; and marine infrastructure (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). Specific recreational fishing rules have been enacted for the Houtman Abrolhos FHPA and these include: seasonal fishing closure for Baldchin groper (Choerodon rubescens); reduced bag and possession limit per person of finfish; and a ban on the use of gill nets, long lines, drop lines and set lines (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2010a).

In 1994 four Reef Observation Areas (ROAs) were created within the Houtman Abrolhos waters by the Minister under provisions enabled by the FHPA designation. The ROAs were established to protect resident reef fish from over fishing by commercial and recreational fisheries (Nardi et al., 2004). Within each of the four island groups an area was selected on the basis of the following criteria: a whole reef platform, a discrete benthic habitat, representative good quality reef habitat, popular for recreational use, and suitable for research. The ROAs are effectively fishing exclusion areas where all extraction of fish is prohibited. However the taking of Western Rock Lobster by pot is excluded from this prohibition (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998: 53- 4). The ROAs currently account for approximately 17% of the lagoonal environment of the Houtman Abrolhos waters (Wells & Nardi, 2006: 8). A monitoring program was commenced in 1993 to monitor populations of two heavily targeted reef species. Populations of coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) appear to have increased while the abundance of the more mobile Baldchin groper has not increased since the ROAs were established (Nardi et al., 2004; Watson et al., 2007).

The shipwrecks and associated land sites of the Dutch East India Company vessels, the Batavia (1629) and the Zeewijk (1727), as well as a further five wrecks, are gazetted as ‗Historic Shipwrecks‘ under the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act (1976), and are also protected under the Western Australian Maritime Archaeology Act (1973). Under this legislation it is an offence to damage or take relics from the identified sites, however access is not prohibited. In 2006 an area of the Wallabi Group encompassing the Batavia shipwreck and sites associated survivor‘s encampment was included on the National Heritage List, and is therefore protected under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

Areas specifically designated for the purposes of tourism are currently limited to public infrastructure sites. The airstrip on East Wallabi Island is managed as a public airstrip and is utilised by commercial air charter operators for day tours and transfers. The jetty

19 on East Wallabi Island is the only public jetty within the Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago. Anchorages adjacent to uninhabited islands are managed informally as recreational areas, and limited public moorings are provided (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 43). Uninhabited islands are managed by default for the purposes of both conservation and tourism. Applicable regulations contained in the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) prohibit the entry of all visitors (inclusive of commercial tourists, recreational visitors, fishers, and Visiting Friends and Relatives of fishers) to the reserve during the Off-season period without prior notification being provided to the Department of Fisheries. Further regulations prohibit bringing introduced flora and fauna; domestic pets; firearms; and vehicles into the reserve, and the lighting of open fires (Government of Western Australia, 1995). However these regulations apply to both inhabited and uninhabited islands.

The tourism plan identified a number of areas where development of tourism facilities and activities could occur (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 37). These include land- based overnight facilities at Long Island, Wallabi Group, and Little Roma Island, Easter Group; moored accommodation facilities at Leo Island platform, Easter group; and, tourism activities at East Wallabi and West Wallabi Islands, Wallabi Group. A proposal for a land-based tourism facility at Long Island was approved by both the Department of Fisheries and the Minister for the Environment after undergoing a Public Environmental Review (Environmental Protection Authority Western Australia, 2007; Minister for the Environment Western Australia, 2008). An application to relocate the development to East Wallabi Island has since been approved by the Minister for Fisheries (Driscoll, 2011). Currently these areas identified for tourism development and activity are not subject to any specific regulations or tenure arrangements and have been designated as tourism areas at the policy level only.

2.3 NATURAL RESOURCE UNITS AND USERS

Natural resources are ―assets and flows of goods which are produced by nature rather than being human-made‖ (Markandya et al., 2001: 137). Many natural assets are common pool resources where excluding access to use and exploitation is difficult but not impossible, and where use is both rivalrous and deleterious (Grafton et al., 2004; Marshall, 2005; Ostrom, 1990). Historically, industrial activity at uninhabited islands has been based on extraction and trade of natural common-pool resources, such as fish,

20 mineral deposits and timber (Conlin & Baum, 1995; Lockhart, 1997; McKee & Tisdell, 1990). More recently, sectors such as tourism have increasingly used natural resources in island settings for their non-tradeable values (Section 2.4). This has signalled a new stage in the development profile of uninhabited islands and the subsequent governance of natural resources (Butler, 1993; Kerr, 2005).

Permitted natural resource-based industries at the Houtman Abrolhos include: fisheries; aquaculture; mining and petroleum exploration; and, tourism (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007). Since European settlement of the mid west coast region levels of resource use and extraction have varied between sectors. Historically wetline fishing and phosphate mining were the dominant commercial activities at the Houtman Abrolhos. Currently, rock lobster fishing is the major resource-based industry, in terms of levels of both resource extraction and production value. It has been proposed that the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos is undergoing a period of growth and levels of resource use and value are projected to increase (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 9; Tourism Western Australia, 2010a: 25, 32).

The commercial Western Rock Lobster fishery has been the dominant industrial activity at the Houtman Abrolhos since the late 1940s (Gray, 1999). The species is endemic to the West Coast Overlap Zone and inhabits the continental shelf of the mid west coast of

Australia. In 2008/09 1,339t was caught by the 126 fishing vessels working in the Abrolhos A Zone of the Western Rock Lobster Managed Fishery (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 31). The value of the stock landed from the Abrolhos A Zone in 2008/09 was approximately $33 million (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010). The status of the Western Rock Lobster resource in terms of stock and fishing levels has been found to be acceptable (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010). However, a risk assessment of the fishery has concluded that it is at a ‗Moderate‘ level of risk due to ongoing low levels of puerulus settlement detected since 2006/07 (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 24).

21

2500

2000

1500

Tonnes 1000

500

0 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 Year

Figure 2.1 Annual commercial catch from Zone A of the Western Rock Lobster fishery 2003-4 to 2008-9 (Sources: Fletcher & Head (2006); Fletcher & Santoro (2007, 2008; 2009); Penn et al. (2004, 2005))

Wetline fishing at commercial levels in the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos commenced in the mid 1800s. In the late nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century the wetline fishery was the most significant commercial fishing industry operating in these waters (Webster et al., 2002a). Currently the retained catch in the Mid-West Zone (incorporating the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos) of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery is dominated by Pink Snapper (Pagrus auratus); Dhufish (Glaucosoma herbracium) and Baldchin Groper (Choerodon rubescens). In 2008/09 116 tonnes of fish was landed by the commercial sector in the Mid-West Zone (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 83). The landed value of the fish taken commercially was approximately $1.12 million in 2009 (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 85). Annual levels of catch for the charter and recreational sectors have been collated for the broader West Coast region only and are not reported for the Mid-West Zone. An assessment of finfish catch at the Houtman Abrolhos was conducted in 2006 (Sumner 2008). The annual recreational catch for Dhufish, Pink Snapper and Baldchin Groper in 2006 was estimated to be 3.5, 3.2 and 8.3 tonnes respectively, although catches by Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers were excluded (Sumner, 2008: 11). The annual catch for Dhufish, Pink Snapper and Baldchin Groper in 2006 by charter boat passengers was estimated to be 4.8, 4.1 and 3.5 tonnes respectively (Sumner, 2008: 13). The status of fish stocks for the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery have been

22 assessed as being inadequate or declining and recreational fishing levels or the region are considered to be unacceptably high (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 80).

120

100 Dhufish Pink Snapper 80

60 Tonnes 40

20

0 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 Year

Figure 2.2 Annual commercial catch of Western Dhufish and Pink Snapper from the Mid-West Zone of the West Coastal Demersal Scalefish Fishery 2003-4 to 2007-8 (Sources: Fletcher & Head (2006); Fletcher & Santoro (2007, 2008; 2009); Penn et al. (2004, 2005))

Annuals levels of resource extraction and production value for the Abrolhos Islands and Mid West Trawl fishery have varied significantly across the last decade (Figure 2.3). In 2007/08 1,216t of Southern Saucer Scallops (Amusium balloti) were caught and the landed value of the fishery was $4.7 million in 2007/08 (Fletcher & Santoro, 2009: 39- 43). No scallops were caught in 2009 (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 49). The main area fished is the sandy sea bottom between the various island groups (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007). Stock and fishing levels for this fishery are considered acceptable (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010).

23

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000 Tonnes

2000

1000

0 2004 2005 2006 2006 2008 2009 Year

Figure 2.3 Annual commercial catch of Southern Saucer Scallops, Abrolhos Islands and Mid West Trawl Fishery 2004 - 2009 (Sources: Fletcher & Head (2006); Fletcher & Santoro (2007, 2008; 2009); Penn et al. (2004, 2005))

Aquaculture activity first commenced at a small scale at the Houtman Abrolhos in 1995 (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998). Eight aquaculture licenses have been issued for the farming of black-lipped pearl oysters (Pinctada margaritifera). Approximately 1,000 ha of waters are licensed for peal aquaculture activity, of which only 20% is utilised for the grow out of around 210,000 shell (Webster et al., 2002a). A ninth aquaculture license for a pilot project for sea cage finfish farming has been approved (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Webster et al., 2002a). No specific performance measures have been developed to assess the performance of the aquaculture sector at the Houtman Abrolhos (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010).

Resource extraction at the Houtman Abrolhos has included large-scale phosphate mining. Mining of bird excreta – or ―guano‖ - deposits for its phosphate content commenced on a commercial scale in 1847 when a private company established operations in the Pelsaert Group (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a). Guano mining continued as the dominant resource-based industry at twenty islands of the Houtman Abrolhos until the 1920s. Islands mined of phosphate were stripped bare of vegetation and substrate. The demand for guano ceased when chemically-derived fertilisers began production. However at the end of World War II reduced supplies of phosphate revived demand for guano and the British Phosphate Commission were granted leases on the

24 southern end of Pelsaert Island, where supporting infrastructure and accommodation were built. Mining occurred from 1944 to 1946. Remnants of the infrastructure remain as no rehabilitation efforts were undertaken (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a).

No licenses for mineral or gas exploration within the Abrolhos Islands Fish Habitat Protection Area or A-Class Reserve have been issued. However explorative drilling has occurred (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007).

Assessment of the impact of natural resource extraction on the marine environment of the Houtman Abrolhos has taken place to a limited extent. Webster et al. (2002a) investigated human use impacts on the marine benthic environment arising from commercial fishing, aquaculture, recreational activity and exploration drilling for petroleum. They concluded that commercial fishery uses were the most likely to have the greatest potential impact on benthic habitat at the Houtman Abrolhos. However, they noted that the current level of human use and disturbance to the marine environment ―is likely to be inconsequential when compared to natural damage such as storm events‖ (Webster et al., 2002a: 7-8).

The Department of Fisheries has identified the Houtman Abrolhos as an ecological asset within the West Coast bioregional area through its EBFM assessment process. A risk assessment of fishing related activities in relation to the Houtman Abrolhos is undertaken each year. In the State of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report 2009/10 the marine ecosystem of the Houtman Abrolhos was deemed to be at moderate but not unacceptable risk to the impacts of fisheries related activities including: lobster fishing with pots, and changes to the community structure of fin fish populations due to overfishing. The vulnerability of coral communities to climate change impacts was also noted (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010: 24).

2.4 TOURISM RESOURCE UNITS AND USERS

Tourism is ―a resource industry and natural environmental assets are the very foundation upon which all tourism rests and are usually the most successful in attracting tourists‖ (Liu, 2003: 463). Tourism resources are those assets and flows of goods upon which tourism sector activity is dependent (Hughey et al., 2004; Liu, 2003; Mathieson & Wall, 1983; Tisdell, 1991). Types of tourism resources can be classified by utility: attractions (including natural); supporting infrastructure and superstructure; and, local physical and social settings (Liu, 2003: 464). In the case of nature based tourism in 25 uninhabited island settings, tourism resources are predominantly those local natural resources which attract visitors and provide the biophysical setting, or resource base. Examples of island-based tourism resources include: coral reefs; fish stocks; beaches; and, populations of charismatic fauna (Baine et al., 2007; Baum, 1997; Hall, 2001, 2005; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Tisdell, 1991).

In many instances those natural resources which are utilised for the purposes of island- based tourism, such as fish stocks, are common pool resources and which are accessed by other natural resource users (Tisdell, 1991: 181). Use of natural resources for the purposes of tourism in island settings has changed historically in terms of type of resource, type of use and level of use (Baine et al., 2007; Hall, 2007; Hercock, 1996; Honey, 1999; Jackson, 2008; Liu, 2003). The emergence of non-consumptive ecotourism products in island settings has been supported by governments as a strategy to achieve sustainable tourism development (Kerr, 2005). Globally and regionally, the level of use of tourism resources in island settings is reported to be increasing (Baine et al., 2007; Carter & Cater, 2007; Grubba, 2005; Hall, 2001; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Moscardo et al., 2003).

Islands have been a focus of a broad surge in coastal and marine tourism (Gossling, 2001; Hall, 2001; Stewart, 1993; Thiele et al., 2005; World Travel and Tourism Council, 2007). The growth of island-based tourism as a phenomenon has been attributed by tourism researchers to a number of drivers of tourism development, namely:

1. historical traditions of visitation associated with recreation and natural science (Honey, 1999; Moscardo et al., 2003);

2. demand for nature-based tourism products unique to island settings (Baldacchino, 2006a; Conlin & Baum, 1995; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Lockhart, 1997);

3. developments in transport technology and mobility (Abeyratne, 1999; Butler, 1997; Hall, 2005); and,

4. government preference for tourism development as the primary resource-based industry over more traditional extractive industries (Baine et al., 2007; Kerr, 2005; Stewart, 1993)

26

At the Houtman Abrolhos various natural resources have been identified as tourism attractions (Table 2.1). Whether this is an accurate profile of the resources currently utilised by the tourism sector remains to be established.

A number of preliminary assessments of natural resource use in relation to all human activities at the Houtman Abrolhos have been undertaken (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Harvey et al., 2001; Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group, 1994; Surman, 2002; Tourism Western Australia, 2004, 2006, 2010a; Webster et al., 2002a). However levels of use of tourism resources at the Houtman Abrolhos and associated tourism impacts have not been comprehensively assessed (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Webster et al., 2002b).

Historical reports commissioned by the Abrolhos Islands Consultative Committee (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995) found that the tourism sector has been heavily dependent on fish resources as a major attraction. Furthermore, the early tourism industry was reliant on other natural resource dependent sectors for the provision of access and infrastructure resources. The earliest recorded recreational visits to the Houtman Abrolhos took place in the early 1900s and were by sail boat. Visitor activities included fishing and treasure hunting (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Anon., 1996). Until the post-World War Two period this form of recreational tourism continued and was reported upon in the local media in articles promoting the Houtman Abrolhos as a ‗holiday resort for fishermen‘ (Anon., 1996).

Attempts to supply the market with commercial nature based tourism products at the Houtman Abrolhos began in 1946 with the development of dedicated tourism infrastructure and operations. The operators gained access to buildings vacated by the British Phosphate Commission to construct bungalows for the purposes of a tourist resort on Pelsaert Island. The operation ran until 1951, using fishing boats to transport tourists to and from the islands and to supply other fishing boats with food, bait and fuel (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995).

More recent assessments have identified the increasing use of those natural resources of high conservation value at the Houtman Abrolhos as tourism attractions. A number of investigations of human use of marine resources at the Houtman Abrolhos have been carried out. The Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group (1994: 32) 27 concluded that while the recreational values of the Houtman Abrolhos marine system were potentially significant, they supported only limited tourism use. A ―small recreational fishery‖ was present at the time of investigation however catch levels were unknown.

Webster et al. (2002a) undertook an assessment of the impacts of recreational activity on the marine environment using existing information and the results of interviews with recreational users and charter boat operators. The investigation concluded that the coral reef habitats and associated biota were the most highly used marine resources by recreational visitors. The most popular marine-based activities were fishing, diving and visits to islands however recreational activity at current levels ―is likely to have little physical impact on the Abrolhos marine habitats‖ (Webster et al., 2002a: 7). Issues for consideration included the potential levels of impact on coral reefs associated with high concentrations of recreational diving, anchoring and the impacts of boat hulls. Recreational fishing was identified as a popular activity however as limited information was available, the level of extraction of fisheries resources was not investigated (Webster et al., 2002a: 90-1).

Preliminary assessments of terrestrial resource use by the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos have been undertaken as part of broader investigations of terrestrial resource values and conditions. Harvey et al. (2001: 530-1) identified sites on twenty islands where vegetation has been cleared to construct fishery camps and to establish and maintain airstrips. A network of tracks was also identified as a tourism resource. The authors concluded that tourist activity should be confined to those sites already utilised for the purposes of visitor infrastructure to avoid further impacts to vegetation communities of special conservation interest (Harvey et al., 2001: 537).

28

Table 2.1 Identified tourism resource units at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (Sources: Harvey et al. 2001; Tourism Western Australia 2010a, 2006a; Fisheries Western Australia 2001; Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group 1994; Surman 2002).

RESOURCE HOUTMAN ABROLHOS UNIT

Attractions Natural Coral reefs

Fish

Fish communities

Seabird populations

Terrestrial bird populations

Australian Sea-lions

Whales and dolphins

Tammar wallabies

Surf breaks

Sandy beaches

Anchorages

Cultural Shipwrecks and associated sites of the Batavia (1629) and the Zeewijk (1727)

Black pearl marine farms

Wreck Point Lighthouse

Purpose-built Nil

Infrastructure and East Wallabi Island Airstrip

superstructure East Wallabi Island Public Jetty

Long Island Dive Trail

Public Moorings

Information signage

Pelsaert Island boardwalk

Tracks (informal network)

Physical and Physical Archipelago

social setting Uninhabited islands

Inhabited islands

Social Resident fishing community

29

Surman (2002: 9-11) identified reliable anchorages as a significant tourist resource, in combination with proximity to nearby islands, fishing grounds, diving and surf spots. He also identified seven islands as having potential for use as nature-based tourist destinations based on the presence of seabird colonies; Australian Sea-lions; endemic fauna, flora and land-based avifauna (2002: 24).

An inventory of the land conservation values of the Houtman Abrolhos was conducted in 2003 and concluded that levels and types of use of terrestrial resources were expected to increase in light of anticipated growth in nature-based tourism and increasing visitor access (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003: 1). It was noted that high conservation value features such as endemic fauna, breeding populations of Australian Sea-lions and seabirds, and shipwreck survivor sites were also highly valued as tourist attractions. Managing access to specific islands was therefore recommended to protect resources.

Recent tourism development plans and strategies for the Houtman Abrolhos have focused on the availability of recreational and eco-tourism opportunities which are natural resource-based. The Sustainable Tourism Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 1) cites growing demand for the following tourism resources: coral reef dive sites; fish stocks; seabird populations; and maritime heritage sites. Tourism Western Australia has developed a set of tourism development priorities for Australia‘s Coral Coast region, which includes the Houtman Abrolhos. The report identifies the Houtman Abrolhos as being in the ‗exploration‘ stage of development as a destination targeting marine and eco and nature-based tourism due to the under-developed state of tourism facilities, access and amenities (Tourism Western Australia, 2010a: 25). Identified tourist attractions and resources include coral reefs; fish stocks; surf; and the presence of the rock lobster fishing community. The report concludes that for the Houtman Abrolhos to further develop as a tourism destination, tourism-supporting infrastructure resources need to be developed to enable further access to and use of the natural attractions (Tourism Western Australia, 2010a).

Tourism resources at the Houtman Abrolhos have not been the focus of any dedicated evidence-based investigation (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). Historically, there has been little perceived need for such research given the perceived size, level of resource use and undeveloped state of the tourism sector. As such, the key characteristics of resource use by the tourism sector are not known. This is significant

30 in light of predicted increases in the level of tourist visitation and activity at the Houtman Abrolhos (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Tourism Western Australia, 2010a) and in view of the high conservation value of the natural assets described in Section 2.1.

2.5 RESEARCH SITES

Seven island sites (Table 2.2) were selected for assessment through a series of community stakeholder meetings and consultations as part of a Coastwest project process in late 2003 and early 2004. The criteria for selection included the following site attributes:

 High conservation values;

 Broad representation of vegetation, fauna and geological types;

 Uninhabited by the rock lobster fisher community; and

 Frequent and high levels of visitation, in particular, islands where known anchorage sites are adjacent.

Sites within the larger islands of East Wallabi and Pelsaert were selected and the precise location of the sites was determined by the presence of a track network and a popular anchorage adjacent. Sites were selected from all three island groups (Figure 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). The following islands were selected for assessment: East Wallabi Island (Figure 2.4); Long Island (Figure 2.4); Leos Island (Figure 2.5); Morley Island (Figure 2.5); Wooded Island (Figure 2.5); Pelsaert Island – North Site (Figure 2.6); and, Pelsaert Island – South Site (Figure 2.6).

The presence of specific natural and tourism common pool resources at the seven island sites (Table 2.3) has been established by earlier survey work (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Harvey et al., 2001; Storr, 1964; Storr et al., 1983).

2.6 SUMMARY

The biophysical environment of the Houtman Abrolhos comprises a complex array of interlinked resource systems which are managed for the purposes of tourism, conservation and fishing under a multiple use management system. Identification and assessment of the state of fisheries resources and those natural resources of high

31 conservation value has been undertaken. Contrastingly, only preliminary identification of those natural resources used by the tourism sector has taken place. The condition of terrestrial resources used by the tourism sector has not been formally assessed. Resources utilised by the tourism sector are, in many cases, highly valued fisheries and conservation resources.

Examination of the management rules in use, and the resource units and users generally, has identified the strength of interactions between the commercial rock lobster fishing industry and the tourism sector, both historically and currently. Interaction between the management rules in use and tourism resource units and tourism resource users has been limited.

Examination of the attributes of tourism resource users has highlighted the strong precedence of recreational activity and, in particular, fishing, which has implications for the governance of tourism resources. The role of governance is evident in determining the level and type of access to natural resource systems and units at the Houtman Abrolhos and the subsequent development and management of resource-based sectors, including the tourism industry. Further review of governance at the Houtman Abrolhos is therefore required in order to explicate the processes by which governance determines the resource use characteristics and sustainability of island-based tourism.

32

Table 2.2 Island sites selected for assessment (Sources: Collins et al. 1997, Department of Fisheries 2003, Harvey et al. 2001).

ISLAND SITE SITE LOCATION SITE PARAMETRES Site Area (m²) Maximum elevation GEOLOGY

A.S.L. (m) Latitude Longitude Island Group Island Type EAST WALLABI Wallabi Group 28°25‘38‖ 113°44‘43‖ (NE) 280,000 m² 15 m Central Platform Eolianite ISLAND SITE 28°26‘03‖ 113°44‘26‖ (SE)

28°26‘03‖ 113°44‘59‖ (SW)

28°25‘52‖ 113°44‘05‖ (NW) LONG ISLAND Wallabi Group 28°28‘21‖ 113°46‘22‖ 110,000 m² 2 m Long Island chain Composite

LEO ISLAND Easter Group 28°41‘23‖ 113°51‘37‖ 230,000 m² 2 m Eastern Islands Composite; loose coral shingle and sand dunes (leeward)

MORLEY ISLAND Easter Group 28°44‘48‖ 113°48‘46‖ 120,000 m² 3 m Suomi Island chain Composite; rock, loose (leeward) coral shingle, storm ridges, sand dunes

WOODED ISLAND Easter Group 28°45‘08‖ 113°48‘21‖ 18,000 m² Not known Suomi Island chain Composite; rock, loose coral shingle, storm ridges

PELSAERT ISLAND Pelsaert Group 28°54‘07‖ 114°00‘11‖ (SW) 97,944 m² 3m Pelsaert Island chain Composite – NORTH SITE (leeward) 28°54‘07‖ 114°00‘22‖ (SE)

PELSAERT ISLAND Pelsaert Group 28°58‘03‖ 113°57‘25‖ (NW) 832,713 m² 3 m Pelsaert Island chain Composite, high rock – SOUTH SITE (leeward) platform, loose coral shingle on east side 28°58‘03‖ 113°57‘24‖ (NE)

Table 2.3 Recorded natural and tourism resources of conservation significance at seven island sites at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (Sources: Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fuller et al., 1994; Harvey et al., 2001; Stanbury, 1991; Stanbury, 2000; Storr, 1964; Storr et al., 1983; Surman, 1998).

ISLAND SITE Geological & Flora Vegetation Fauna Avifauna Maritime Heritage Geomorphologic communities

EAST WALLABI Coralline headland of limestone 1. Eucalyptus oraria stand 1. East Wallabi pavement 1. Tammar Wallaby 1. Abrolhos Painted-button Batavia (1629) wells and ISLAND SITE containing marine fossils (the (located adjacent to but not limestone vegetation 2. Bush Rat Quail slaughter sites (located ―Fossil Cliffs‖) inside study site) community adjacent to but not inside 3. Spiny-tailed Skink 2. Brush Bronzewing 2. Acacia didyma 2. East Wallabi study site) 4. Carpet Python 3. Calocephalus tomentellus consolidated dune Internationally significant vegetation community 5. Bearded Dragon maritime heritage values.

LONG ISLAND 1. Lagoons 1. Australian Sea-lions 1. Fairy Terns Batavia (1629) survivors‘ 2. Tidal Ponds 2. Roseate Terns occupation and slaughter site, gallows site of 3. White-bellied Sea-eagle mutineers‘ prison. ‗Medium‘ conservation Internationally significant significance as a sea-bird maritime heritage values. breeding island.

LEO’S ISLAND 1. Lagoons 1. Halosarcia stands 1. Little Shearwater 2. Bridled Tern 3. Crested Tern 4. Sooty Tern 5. Caspian Tern ‗Medium‘ conservation significance as a sea-bird breeding island. MORLEY ISLAND 1. Lagoons 1. Mangrove community 1. Australian Sea-lions 1. Lesser Noddy (Avicennia marina) 2. Bridled Tern 2. Lepidium puberulum 3. Sooty Tern 4. Little Shearwater

ISLAND SITE Geological & Flora Vegetation Fauna Avifauna Maritime Heritage Geomorphologic communities

5. White-faced Storm-petrel 6. Fairy Tern 7. Roseate Tern ‗High‘ conservation significance as a sea-bird breeding island. WOODED ISLAND 1. Lagoons 1. Mangrove community 1. Australian Sea-lions 1. Lesser Noddy (Avicennia marina) 2. Sooty Tern 3. Bridled Tern 4. Roseate Tern 5. Little Shearwater 6. Little Pied Cormorant 7. Pied Cormorant ‗High‘ conservation significance as a sea-bird breeding island. PELSAERT ISLAND – 1. Caspian Tern 1. Shipwreck survivors NORTH SITE 2. Roseate Tern encampment: Marten (1878) and Ben Ledi (1879). 3. Bridled Tern

4. Sooty Tern

5. Fairy Tern 6. Crested Tern ‗High‘ conservation significance as a sea-bird breeding island. PELSAERT ISLAND – 1. Lagoons 1. Atriplex cinerea (dwarf 1. Caspian Tern 1. Visited by survivors of the SOUTH SITE shrubland) 2. Roseate Tern Zeewijk (1727), and artefact and wreckage deposits 2. Mangrove community 3. Bridled Tern (Avicennia marina) remain on site 4. Sooty Tern 2. Temporary encampment 5. Fairy Tern site of shipwreck survivors from the Ocean Queen

ISLAND SITE Geological & Flora Vegetation Fauna Avifauna Maritime Heritage Geomorphologic communities

6. Crested Tern (1842) 7. Lesser Noddy 3. Sites associated with 8. Common Noddy guano mining activities: a stone shelter ; a stone jetty; 9. Wedge-tailed Shearwater and, a railway / tramway ruin 10. Little Shearwater and shaft. 11. White-faced Storm Internationally significant Petrel maritime heritage values. 12.Osprey 13.White-bellies Sea-Eagle ‗High‘ conservation significance as a sea-bird breeding island.

Survey Site

Figure 2.4 Wallabi Group, Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia.

37

Figure 2.5 Easter Group, Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia.

38

Pelsaert Island North Survey Site

Pelsaert Island South Survey Site

Figure 2.6 Pelsaert Group, Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. 39

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS For the purposes of the research undertaken, small and uninhabited island tourism destinations have been conceptualised as linked social-ecological systems. Using this systems approach, tourism use and impact on local natural resources is understood as a function of the characteristics of tourist visitation and activity at a destination which is, in turn, a function of the role of governance arrangements for natural resource management and of the characteristics of local resource systems.

The research undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos is interdisciplinary in design. Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been applied to investigate the relationships and interactions between governance arrangements, tourist visitation and associated environmental change to local natural resources. Research techniques have been drawn from social research methods applied in the fields of political studies, environmental planning and management as well as tourism studies, and from environmental research methods deployed in the fields of recreation studies and ecology.

Rationale for applied research to investigate the effects of visitors on natural areas includes provision of the information to ―ameliorate impacts and assess management effectiveness‖ (Newsome et al., 2002: 260-1) and to develop tourism planning and resource allocation frameworks (Kerr, 2005). Within the field of recreation ecology the concept of a carrying capacity, which Weaver and Lawton (Weaver & Lawton, 2002) define as the level of ―tourism activity that can be accommodated without incurring serious harm to a destination‖, has had a significant influence on the design of techniques to monitor and evaluate levels of visitation and impact at a given site (Sun & Walsh, 1998; Wagar, 1964).

Studies of carrying capacity investigate the relationship between the amount of visitor use and the extent of impacts on recreational values (for example, perceived crowding) and biophysical resources at a particular tourist site to determine visitor use limits. Methods deployed include visitor monitoring techniques (such as on-site surveys and traffic counters), as well as visual research methods (such as visual crowding studies and scenic quality measures) to ascertain visitor perceptions of impacts (Manning, 2007).

The carrying capacity concept has been critiqued for being difficult to apply (McCool & Lime, 2001) and for relying on visitor numbers as the primary variable, resulting in a 41

‗flat‘ and overly-technical conceptualisation of interactions between visitation and local natural resources (Collins, 1999; Eagles, 2001; Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Ormsby et al., 2004). Lindberg et al. (1997: 463) have found that ―the timing, location, type of use, and visitor behaviour all have a much more profound effect on impacts than does use level‖. Moreover, as Buckley (2003: 57) concludes, ―different types of users engaged in different types of activity have different types of impacts in different types of ecosystems‖.

In response to this critique, alternative concepts of visitor-natural area interactions have been developed and applied where the emphasis is on determining acceptable levels of impact (given the benefits accrued) on resources and maintaining the conditions of those resources at desired standards, rather than how much visitor use an area can tolerate (Eagles, 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Stankey et al., 1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) model focuses on what social and ecological values within an area or destination are worthy of protection, what level of alteration in the conditions of those values is acceptable, and then which tourism management tools can provide the level of protection desired. The LAC model was developed by Stankey et al., (1985: iii) from the outset as an applied management framework for ―establishing acceptable and appropriate resource and social conditions in recreation settings‖. The nine stages of the LAC framework are detailed in Table 3.1.

The specificity of local issues and priorities are major determinants of the design of research to investigate visitation and visitor impact for a natural area (Newsome et al., 2002; Stankey et al., 1985). The methodological approach developed to investigate tourist visitation and impacts at the Houtman Abrolhos has been broadly informed by the LAC model. Carrying capacities have not been determined due to the limited access available to the islands outside of the In-season period for the purposes of monitoring site-specific visitor levels, and the lack of capacity to regulate visitor access and use to the numerous, highly distributed small islands within the archipelago. Additional factors influencing the methodological approach taken include the requirement to develop a community-based tourism impact assessment and monitoring program wherein ongoing data collection could be undertaken by members of the local community organisation, Friends of the Abrolhos.

42

Table 3.1 The LAC management framework (Source: Stankey et al., 1985)

STEP ACTIVITY TECHNIQUES 1 Identify area concerns and issues Review of literature Consultation with relevant stakeholders Characterisation of visitation 2 Define and describe recreation Using information collected in Step 1… opportunity classes Qualitative description of the kinds of resource and social conditions acceptable for that class and the type of management activity considered appropriate 3 Select indicators of resource and Criteria that can help guide selection of indicators would social conditions for which include: management is striving 1. The indicator should be capable of being measured in cost- effective ways at acceptable levels of accuracy. 2. The condition of the indicator should reflect some relationship to the amount and/or type of use occurring. 3. Social indicators should be related to user concerns. 4. The condition of the indicator should be, at least potentially, responsive to management control.

Variables and units of analysis for each indicator are also selected.

4 Inventory existing resource and Where available, draw on existing data identified in the review of social conditions literature. Field research techniques as appropriate to measure variables of selected indicators. Analysis of inventory data. 5 Specify standards for resource and Drawing on review of the inventory, and on further consultation with social indicators for each relevant stakeholders… opportunity class Select standards for each indicator which describe an acceptable range of conditions for that resource and which are quantitative (where possible) 6 Identify alternative recreation Review of outputs of Steps 1, 2 and 4 by managers and relevant opportunity class allocations stakeholders Cost-Benefit Analysis Qualitative description and mapping of alternative recreation opportunity class allocations 7 Identify management actions for Comparison and gap analysis of current conditions (step 4) and each alternative standards specified (step 5) for resources to identify where management action is needed and alternatives are to be considered

8 Evaluate and select preferred Consultation with relevant stakeholders alternatives Cost-Benefit Analysis

9 Implement actions and monitor conditions

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

The types of data required to investigate the research objectives of this thesis include qualitative data concerning governance arrangements for tourism at uninhabited island

43 settings; and, quantitative data concerning annual levels of tourist visitation and recreational activity and changes in terrestrial resource conditions attributable to tourist visitation and activity. This research investigation involved four steps. These were to undertake the following:

1. Review of literature;

2. Tourist visitation and activity investigation;

3. Tourism impact assessment; and

4. Analysis and presentation of results.

First, a review of literature was undertaken to identify and evaluate global and regional theory with regard to the research themes; the current state of knowledge with regard to the research themes at the Houtman Abrolhos; and determine methodological practices used to investigate the research themes. On the basis of the literature review the research propositions were developed, historical material was collated, and components of the research design were selected. Theory and practice concerning governance, tourism and tourism impacts in comparable geographic settings was also reviewed as studies specific to tourism sectors at uninhabited islands are limited. Secondary sources of data were also identified for the purposes of the investigation of tourist visitation and the visitor site and impact assessment.

The review of literature provided data (secondary sources) for the description and assessment of the role of governance of island-based tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos. The investigation of governance was constrained by the lack of primary sources of data. In the course of the design of the investigation the primary management agency, the Department of Fisheries, indicated that it would not support conducting key-informant interviews of relevant managers and members of the Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee for this purpose, due to the political sensitivity surrounding assignment of primary management responsibility for the Houtman Abrolhos, broadly, and the developing tourism sector, specifically. In response to the limitations arising from the reliance on secondary sources, the design of the investigation of governance was confined to an assessment using standard content analysis of the presence or otherwise within formal governance structures and processes of pre-conditions deemed

44 critical for the achievement of sustainable tourism development policy at the Houtman Abrolhos.

Second, design of the empirical field components of the investigation of tourist visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos has been drawn from the review of literature in the fields of recreation ecology and tourism studies. Investigations of tourist visitation are deployed to ascertain visitor and activity levels as well as the composition and characteristics of the visitor sector at a given destination or region. Further reasons for investigating tourist visitation include determining whether levels of visitation and activity are causing unacceptable changes in local resource conditions. Application of both the carrying capacity and LAC concepts is reliant on data concerning levels and intensity of tourist visitation and types of recreational activity by tourism segment (Buckley, 2003; Ormsby et al., 2004; Sebastian & McArthur, 1998).

Trends in tourist visitation are investigated using various methods of gathering annual visitation data across a time series or comparing it with a baseline level (Newsome et al., 2002). Such an approach was taken in the design of the investigation of annual levels of visitation and recreational activity by the four segments of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos from 2002-3 to 2005-6. The aim of the research was to determine broadscale levels of visitation and recreational activity in view of the highly distributed locations of the 122 islands and the limited resources available. This is consistent with the LAC model of visitor-local natural resource system interactions, which does not rely on fine scale visitor data but rather on understanding the recreational opportunities available, the social values of the resources being used, and the broader relationship between the characteristics of visitation and the conditions of tourist resources.

The objectives of the investigation of tourist visitation were to determine baseline characteristics of annual visitation and recreational activity and to detect whether predicted trends were supported by significant changes in annual visitation and recreational activity levels. A further objective was to determine whether current characteristics of tourist visitation and activity could be broadly associated with changes in resource conditions at highly visited island sites (Section 3.2.3). A review of historical visitation data was conducted. Visitation data from secondary sources was

45 extracted and analysed. Primary research techniques were then deployed to address knowledge gaps in the investigation of visitation. Techniques were selected from reviews of established visitor monitoring techniques described in the tourism studies and recreation ecology literature (Buckley, 1998; Eagles et al., 2002; Newsome et al., 2002; Ormsby et al., 2004).

Third, design of the empirical components of the investigation of tourist impacts on terrestrial resource conditions has been drawn from the review of recreation ecology literature. As described earlier, research undertaken within this field is concerned with the relationship between recreational activity and resultant changes in local resource conditions, which are conceived of as impacts (Leung et al., 2001). Rouphael and Inglis (2002: 428) described this relationship as follows:

Temporal changes in the severity of impacts associated with recreational activities... are usually conceptualised as a cumulative function of the amount of use that a site receives. Impacts accumulate when the interval between successive disturbances exceeds the rate at which the affected environment can recover.

The design of the investigation of tourism impacts on terrestrial resources at the Houtman Abrolhos was drawn from the LAC framework (Table 3.1) whereby indicators of resource conditions are selected, inventories of baseline resource conditions are undertaken, and conditions are further surveyed and compared with either the baseline or predetermined standards to detect visitor-induced change (Lindberg et al., 1997; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; Ormsby et al., 2004; Stankey et al., 1985). The process of selecting indicators of impact on terrestrial biophysical resource conditions for assessment is described in detail in Section 3.2.3. Primary field research techniques which were designed to measure changes in the specific indicator variables selected were chosen following: firstly, a review of established visitor impact assessment techniques described in the recreation ecology literature (Buckley, 1998, 2003; Newsome et al., 2002; Sun & Walsh, 1998) and; secondly, on the basis of consultation with key stakeholders and partners in the Coastwest project community-based monitoring program (Section 3.2.3).

The tourism impact assessment study was undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos from 2004 to 2006 to determine whether predicted increases in visitation and recreational 46 activity had resulted in a significant alteration in the terrestrial environment. Webster et al. (2002a, 2002b) have previously investigated impacts of tourist recreational activity on marine resource conditions, hence, they were not re- investigated herein. Additionally, direct impacts on wildlife associated with visitation were not considered within the scope of this investigation due to difficulties in selecting and measuring appropriate biological indicators of disturbance (Buckley, 2003; Burbidge et al., 2004; Claridge, 1997; Dunlop, 2002).

A further significant factor influencing the design of this component of the research undertaken and, in particular, the selection of indicators, variables and techniques to measure those indicators, was the requirement to develop a field-based methodology which could be reliably deployed by members of a local community organisation to repeat the data collection as part of a community-based monitoring program. Development of the community-based monitoring program was supported by the 2003 Coastwest project ―Community monitoring of visitor impacts at the Abrolhos Islands‖ in partnership with the Friends of the Abrolhos community organisation. A series of community stakeholder meetings and consultations were held in late 2003 and early 2004 to design the impact assessment and monitoring program.

Following a review of previous environmental surveys undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos, data from secondary sources pertaining to baseline resource conditions as well as historical visitor impacts was extracted. Primary research techniques were developed to monitor changes to biophysical resource conditions attributable to tourist visitation and activity (see Section 3.2.3). Field surveys on the Houtman Abrolhos Islands were specifically designed to assess key indicators of visitor impact to biophysical resource conditions on the uninhabited islands; establish a baseline of those conditions at visited sites, and re-survey those indicators across a period of known visitation.

Fourth, several methods of analysis were deployed to achieve the research objectives associated with the particular component of the research program. Descriptive data pertaining to governance at the Houtman Abrolhos was examined using qualitative content analysis to comparative similarities and dissimilarities between global and regional theory and the case study with regard to the research themes. The results of the tourist visitation investigation were treated to univariate and bivariate statistical

47 analyses to quantify annual levels and trends in visitation and recreational activity. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data generated by the visitor impact assessment was undertaken to generate values for the selected resource condition indicators, and to compare these to successive values collected annually to detect whether significant variations to the condition of natural and tourism resources had occurred.

The broad aim of the analysis was to determine the characteristics of interactions between the social and ecological systems at the Houtman Abrolhos; namely, a historical relationship between policy and governance arrangements and the development of the tourism sector, and a quantifiable relationship between tourism visitation and activity, and alteration of the natural resource base. These results were then used to develop recommendations for further study and discuss the implications of the findings for other uninhabited dependent island territories (Section 6.3).

3.2 RESEARCH TECHNIQUES

3.2.1 Review of literature

The review of literature identified current published research, historical data sources and existing records pertaining to:

1. Governance of dependent island territories and policy processes for island-based tourism;

2. Tourist visitation and activity; and

3. Biophysical resource conditions and historical visitor impact at selected island sites.

First, global and regional investigations of governance of small islands and island-based tourism sectors were identified. Research literature addressing governance in the fields of governance, social-ecological systems, political economy, integrated coastal management, nature-based tourism, and environmental management was also obtained, due to the limited amount of research conducted regarding governance of small and uninhabited islands.

Historical documents, reports, and relevant State legislation and policies regarding governance and management of the Houtman Abrolhos were also identified. Material

48 pertaining to the following governance and policy processes was examined using standard qualitative content analysis techniques (Bernard, 2000; Krippendorff, 2004; McBeth et al., 2007; Welford et al., 1999): assignment of responsibility, promulgation of policy, selection of instruments, implementation, assessment and evaluation.

Second, two sources of secondary visitation data were identified (Table 3.2). The Department of Fisheries maintains a regional notification record system for all boats visiting the Houtman Abrolhos during the off-season period (15th July to 20th February of the following year). Skippers are obliged to submit a notification form that includes the following details: intended itinerary and anchorages, number of passengers, trip departure and return dates, intended recreational activities, and basic vessel identification and safety details. Visitation by both private recreational boats and by commercial charter boats during the off-season period is captured by the Department of Fisheries off-season notification record system. The Department of Fisheries also maintains a statewide logbook record system for all commercial charter boat activity. Aquatic tour (or commercial charter boat) license holders are required to record and submit logbooks that include the following details for each trip: trip departure and return dates, number of passengers, types of recreational activities undertaken (including recreational fish catch) on a daily basis, and location of activities undertaken. Completion and lodgment of the Tour Operator Logbook is mandatory for commercial charter boat operators as a condition of their aquatic tour license. Compliance rates for submitting the Department of Fisheries Off-season Notification Forms are known to be considerably less than 100% as many skippers are either unaware of the legal requirements, or regard the form as voluntary.

Copies of all ‗Off-season Notification Forms‘ submitted to the Department of Fisheries from 15th July 2002 to 20th February 2006 were examined and the following data were retrieved and tabulated for each trip within an off-season period: time of trip (recorded by month), visitation type (private recreational boat or commercial charter boat), number of passengers, intended destinations and anchorages (recorded at the island group scale), and intended types of recreational activities. Data from Tour Operator Logbooks is collated and maintained in tabular form by the Department of Fisheries. Datasets for the years 2002 and 2003, and 2002-3 to 2005-6 inclusive were obtained. In order to protect commercially confidential data, details of individual trips by aquatic tour operators were not provided. The following variables were provided for each year:

49 number of trips, number of operators conducting trips, number of passengers, number of passengers undertaking recreational fishing activities, island group location of recreational fishing activities, and the number of trips conducted by operators holding various types of aquatic tour licenses.

Third, historical data sources pertaining to the conditions and characteristics of terrestrial environments at the selected island sites were reviewed. The following types of biophysical and sociocultural data were extracted from previous surveys of the biophysical resources of the Houtman Abrolhos: geological and geomorphological profiles and classification (Collins et al., 1997); floristic species lists and vegetation maps (Harvey et al., 2001), fauna species lists (Gales et al., 1992; Gales et al., 1994; Storr, 1964; Storr et al., 1983), avifauna species lists and breeding schedules (Fuller et al., 1994; Storr et al., 1986; Surman, 1998), and maritime archaeological sites (Stanbury, 2000). The following types of management-oriented data were extracted: broad-scale threatening processes and pressures associated with visitation (Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, 2005), management of seabird breeding islands (Burbidge et al., 2004; Dunlop, 2002; Surman, 2002), management of archaeological sites (Stanbury, 1991; Western Australian Maritime Museum, 1995); management of invasive exotic plant species (Keighery & Sercombe, 2001), and identification and ranking of significant conservation values of island sites (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003).

3.2.2 Tourist Visitation and Activity Research undertaken into tourist visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands has been developed from standard visitor survey procedures described by Valentine et al. (1997); McArthur and Sebastian (1998); Newsome et al. (2002); Buckley (2003); Ormsby et al. (2004); and, Grubba et al. (2005). These authors employ multiple social research methods to collate visitor data to establish a baseline and the presence of trends in visitation for a protected natural area. Methods of social research used to collect visitor data are commonly selected to target specific visitation types. Annual measurement of the same units of visitation is undertaken to establish a time series sequence with which changing patterns of visitation can be detected (de Vaus, 1995). Webster et al. (2002a) concluded that further research of visitation levels, activities and trends was required following their investigation of human use impacts on the marine environment at the Houtman Abrolhos. The methods they recommended

50 included formalised logbooks for aquatic charter boat operators, aerial surveys to collect data on private recreational boat numbers at peak times, and a comprehensive visitor fee or entry permit regime.

Tourist visitation data for the Houtman Abrolhos was collated from secondary sources (Section 3.2.1) as well as aerial survey boat counts and air charter operator postal surveys to establish a baseline of annual visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos. Annual total numbers of various visitor types were calculated to enable comparison, and to detect any significant changes from 2002-3 to 2005-6. Two measures of visitation have been deployed; trip or flight numbers, and passenger or visitor numbers (Table 3.2). Both measures have differing bearings in the context of planning and managing visitor impacts at protected island sites. Quantifying visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos for the period 2002-3 to 2005-6 has been undertaken by collating both annual total numbers, and annual peaks and lows in numbers, for each visitor type. Annual numbers of Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers have not been investigated. This is due to the use of commercial fishing boats to transport friends and relatives and a lack of records maintained by the air charter operators for ‗non-tourist‘ passengers.

Recreational activity data was collated from secondary sources (Section 3.2.1), air charter operator postal surveys, and visitor survey-questionnaires. Annual levels of recreational activity were extracted for each of the tourism segments. Levels of recreational activity from 2002-3 to 2005-6 were obtained by collating numbers of visiting boats and numbers of visitors intending to or having undertaken various recreational activities from annual datasets and from samples. Types of recreational activities undertaken were categorised as either consumptive or non-consumptive. Recreational activities of Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers have been investigated.

Data pertaining to recreational activity by boat-based visitors at the Houtman Abrolhos was extracted from both secondary sources. On the Off-season Notification Forms skippers identified the intention to undertake one of three types of activity; Fishing, Diving and Surfing or Ecotourism. Annual levels of intended recreational activities by boat-based visitors from 2002-3 to 2005-6 were measured in two ways: firstly; the annual number of trips on which various recreational activities were to be undertaken; and, secondly, the total annual number of passengers on visits where various recreational activities were to be undertaken. The Tour Operator Logbooks required 51 skippers to enter the date and block location when and where passengers undertook the following types of recreational activity: Fishing, Diving and Fishing, Snorkelling and Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Sightseeing, Recreational Diving and Recreational Snorkelling. Both the annual number of trips on which recreational activities of the various types were undertaken, and the annual number of passengers to undertake the various types of activities, was extracted.

Further data obtained from the Tour Operator Logbooks dataset concerned the type of aquatic tour license held by operators of charter boat trips to the Houtman Abrolhos. The types of aquatic tour licenses issued include: Fishing Tour License, Restricted Fishing Tour License and Aquatic Eco Tour License. The type of aquatic tour license has implications for the types of recreational activities passengers on board undertake. The license types were grouped into ‗Consumptive‘ and ‗Non-consumptive‘ license categories according to their bearing on marine resources. Annual levels of visitation and recreational activity undertaken by operators holding the various license categories were extracted.

The following stage of the tourist visitation study was designed to address gaps in the visitor dataset. Knowledge gaps included the following: In-season visitation by private recreational boats, peak-period visitation by private recreational boats and by commercial charter boats, and annual visitation by air charter tourists. A further knowledge gap included In-season recreational activity by air charter tourists, Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers and by private recreational boat-based visitors. Methods of primary research were selected to target these specific deficiencies in the dataset and they included: aerial survey of visiting boats at the peak visitor period, postal survey of air charter tourism operators, and survey-questionnaire of visitors to key visitor sites.

The aerial survey technique was deployed to investigate the numbers and spatial distribution of boats (both commercial charter and private recreational) visiting the Houtman Abrolhos during the In-season period. This sampling regime was designed to capture the annual peak in the total daily number of visiting boats and to identify any annual changes in peak levels. Aerial surveys are recommended as an efficient and effective technique of counting visitor numbers across large marine and remote areas (Newsome et al., 2002: 279-82). The aerial survey technique provides the following

52 methodological advantages for social survey in marine conservation reserves (Grubba et al. 2005: 22):

1. Coverage of large areas,

2. ‗Snap shot‘ type profiles of human activity at given times,

3. Broad scale information of: types, intensity and spatial distribution of human activity, and

4. Repetition at various time frames so as to provide temporal usage patterns and detect changes.

The aerial surveys of boat numbers were conducted on a daily basis across the four days of the Easter holiday period (Good Friday to Easter Monday) in 2004, 2005 and 2006. A known peak-period was selected to capture the annual peak in the total daily number of visiting boats and to identify in any annual changes in peak levels. A flight path was pre-determined that covered all of the four island groups and all known anchorages and key visitor sites. Flights were undertaken at the same time each day, within a three hour bracket. Boat sightings were recorded by hand-held video camera and voice recording. Manual notes were taken by a volunteer research assistant. The video and voice recordings were then reviewed to cross-check the manual sightings records, and to add supplementary visual information such as boat length. Sightings were entered into a database within 12 hours, along with the following data: date and time of sighting, anchorage or body of water and island group, boat type (power or sail), number of tenders, estimated length, and action. The aerial surveys recorded sightings of visiting boats only, and in instances where it could not established whether a boat was a commercial fishing vessel or a visiting boat, video recordings were replayed to Department of Fisheries officers to ascertain the status of the boat, and so to eliminate erroneous inclusion of non-visiting boats.

53

Table 3.2 Social research techniques for investigating visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia.

ANALYTIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVE DATA REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE TECHNIQUE 1. Establish a baseline of annual . Annual numbers of visitors and trips . Review of literature and secondary sources . Univariate analysis visitor numbers and levels of (distribution) . Annual numbers of visitors undertaking various types and . Air charter operator postal survey recreational activity categories of recreational activity . Univariate analysis . Aerial survey of visiting boat numbers (dispersion)

2. Describe the composition of the . Annual numbers of visitors and trips . Review of literature and secondary sources . Univariate analysis tourism sector by visitor type (distribution) . Air charter operator postal survey

3. Describe the proportional levels of . Annual numbers of visitors undertaking various types and . Review of literature and secondary sources . Univariate analysis categories of recreational activity (distribution) recreational activities according to . Visitor survey-questionnaire their category (consumptive; non- . Percentages of sample groups to undertake various types . Air charter operator postal survey consumptive) and categories of recreational activity

4. Determine any substantial changes . Annual numbers of visitors and trips . Review of literature and secondary sources . Univariate analysis in annual visitation and (distribution) . Annual numbers of visitors undertaking various types and . Air charter operator postal survey recreational activity levels from categories of recreational activity . Univariate analysis . Aerial survey of visiting boat numbers 2002 to 2006 (dispersion) . Correlation tests

Table 3.3 Social research conventions for investigating visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia

UNIT OF ANALYSIS UNIT OF MEASUREMENT INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Private recreational . Passenger numbers . Off-season period . Off-season visitation levels boat visitation . Trip/boat numbers . Recreational activity type and . Off-season levels of recreational activity by type and category category Commercial charter . Passenger numbers . Year . Annual visitation levels boat tourism . Trip/boat numbers . Recreational activity category . Annual levels of recreational activity by category . Tourism operator numbers . Aquatic tour license category . Annual levels of visitation by charter boat operators by aquatic tour license category Air charter tourism . Passenger numbers . Year . Annual visitation levels . Trip numbers . Recreational activity type . Annual levels of recreational activity by category

A postal survey of the four air charter operators conducting tourist flights to the Houtman Abrolhos was undertaken in July 2004 and July 2005. The survey contained standardised questions which required operators to provide data from their passenger manifestos and flight booking records for the two financial years, 2003-4 and 2004-5 (Appendix A). The types of data requested included the number of scenic flights, the number of day-tour trips to the Houtman Abrolhos, and the number of passengers on both types of flights. The categories of ‗tourist flight‘ and ‗tourist flight passenger‘ were created to combine both scenic and day-tour flight types. Annual numbers of tourist flights and tourist flight passengers were calculated by combining the results of the survey of the four operators. The survey forms were then destroyed to prevent commercially confidential data from being distributed.

A survey-questionnaire was conducted of groups of visitors to key visitor sites at the Houtman Abrolhos during the In-season period in 2004, 2005 and 2006 to collect quantitative data of visitation and recreational activity by all visitor types, including Visiting Friends and Relatives of fishers. A secondary purpose of the survey- questionnaire was to collect demographic, attitudinal and qualitative data of visitors for management purposes. This data has not been included in this thesis.

The sampling technique targeted sites known to receive high levels of visitation in order to conduct adequate numbers of survey-questionnaires. The survey-questionnaire was undertaken at visitor access sites such as jetties, beaches adjacent to anchorages and track head points. At each site potential respondents were selected opportunistically and purposively. This sampling frame was developed to collect data on the characteristics and recreational activity of specific visitor types, rather than to collate broad-scale visitor numbers. Potential respondent groups were approached and, if consent was granted, asked a series of standardised questions and answers were recorded on a survey-questionnaire form (Appendix B). Specific information obtained included: type of visitor group, and recreational activities undertaken. For each of the In-season periods, approximately 25 survey-questionnaires were completed across eight days. No information that could be used to identify individuals or respondent groups was recorded. The responses were coded and entered into a database by the field researcher within 24 hours of being conducted.

3.2.3 Tourism Impact Assessment

56

No standard methodology has been developed to assess visitor impact at small and uninhabited island sites. Research undertaken of biophysical visitor impacts at the Houtman Abrolhos has been developed from field research techniques described in the field of recreation ecology (Buckley, 2003; Liddle, 1975; Newsome et al., 2002; Ormsby et al., 2004; Smith & Newsome, 2002) and from studies specific to uninhabited islands (Buerger et al., 2000; Manning et al., 2005). Experimental designs have been used by Liddle and Greig-Smith (1975a, 1975b) and Cole (1995a, 1995b) to establish a clear causal link between visitor activity and impact or change in terrestrial environmental conditions. Application of the LAC framework involves surveys of biophysical conditions at visited sites to provide an inventory of the state of the site at a given time. A range of ecological and social variables or indicators are measured ―in the interests of establishing a timed reference point on the environment‖ (Downes, 2002: 116). A baseline of resource conditions is established. Visitor impact survey programs are undertaken to systematically collect data ―over time in order to ascertain the extent of compliance with a predetermined standard or position‖ (Finlayson, 1996: 16) which is derived from the baseline of conditions.

Prior to this research, limited research has been conducted on impacts at visited island sites in the Houtman Abrolhos (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003). Data for the impact assessment study at the Houtman Abrolhos was collated from three sources: a review of historical material; a survey program of island site conditions; and, a survey program of track conditions. Island site and track conditions have been assessed using a set of indicators to establish a baseline of historical levels of impact (Table 3.5). Subsequent annual assessment of indicators has been undertaken to determine whether further impacts or significant alterations in conditions has occurred between 2004 and 2006. The units of analysis were seven island sites.

Selection of the study sites, indicators and variables of tourism impact on biophysical resource conditions was undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholders at a series of workshops and stakeholder consultation meetings held in 2003 and 2004 prior to the field research program commencing. The meetings and workshops were conducted as part of the 2003 Coastwest project ‗Community monitoring of visitor impacts at the Abrolhos Islands‘. The following criteria were developed to select study sites: high levels of visitation; high level of accessibility; and high nature conservation values. Sites were selected in each of the three island groups and from each of the island types

57 identified by Collins and Zhu (1997) at the Houtman Abrolhos to ensure a spatially and geologically representative sample.

The process undertaken to select indicators for the assessment of terrestrial visitor impact at the Houtman Abrolhos commenced with a review of literature to determine threatening processes and likely impacts to resources on small islands. These included disturbance to breeding sea breeding populations (Claridge, 1997), loss of vegetation cover (and hence wildlife habitat) due to trampling and camping (Buerger et al., 2000; Manning et al., 2005), fire (Harvey et al., 2001), and the introduction of invasive exotic flora and fauna (D'Antonio & Dudley, 1995a; Trevino et al., 2007). Potential indicators, variables and techniques for measuring the forms of impacts were then identified through a review of the broader body of literature concerning visitor impact assessment in natural areas (Table 3.4). Ward et al. (1998: 3) identified three types of indicators including: indicators that describe conditions of biophysical features; indicators of severity of stresses on features, and; indicators of change to conditions or stressors.

Key stakeholders who participated in the series of Coastwest project workshops in 2003 and 2004 were provided with the results of the review (Table 3.4). The following criteria were developed for the purpose of determining indicators, variables, and field research techniques to investigate visitor impact at selected island sites at the Houtman Abrolhos:

1. Availability of existing data

2. Related to visitor use

3. Manageable

4. Repeatable

5. Measurable by members of local community organisations with limited or no technical training, and therefore:

a) Not reliant on highly technical measurement instruments (GPS units excepted)

b) Rapid

c) Objective (that is, not perception based)

d) Low cost 58

The selection criteria precluded the measurement of organic matter and soil compaction, the observation of visitor-wildlife interactions, population biology studies, the use of visual and aerial surveys of track conditions, and assessment of changes to vegetation community composition due to the technical skills and instruments required. As a result of the workshop process, two types of indicators were selected for the assessment of impact on biophysical resource conditions at visited sites in the Houtman Abrolhos (Table 3.5). The types selected were indicators of the following attributes:

1. historical levels of visitor impact on terrestrial resource conditions; and

2. quantitative changes in track conditions associated with visitation and recreational activity for the period 2004 to 2006.

The presence of tourist infrastructure and invasive species were selected as indicators of historical impact caused by visitation as they were assumed to indicate loss or disturbance of biophysical resource conditions, including vegetation cover, fauna habitat and adjacent sea bird breeding communities. Changes in track conditions were selected as indicators of tourism impact as it was assumed that trampling by visitors would be the significant cause of changes to track conditions, and other non-touristic variables could therefore be excluded. Consensus amongst key stakeholders involved in the Coastwest project workshops was not reached with regard to the desired standards and limits of acceptable change for the indicators selected. Assessment criteria to determine whether or not visitor impact was indicated were agreed to as a preliminary measure (Table 3.5).

Data was collated from secondary sources, which included generic descriptions of islands and threatening processes, in order to assess indicators of historical visitor impact (Table 3.5 and 3.6). However the data collated did not include any site-specific assessment or measurement of biophysical resource conditions or pressures with reference to visitation and recreational activity. An additional knowledge gap was the rate of impacts of visitation and recreational activity on biophysical resource conditions. Methods of primary field research were deployed to target this deficit in the available dataset and they included: a survey of biophysical resource condition; and survey of track conditions, at the selected study sites (Table 3.6). These techniques were used to

59

Table 3.4 Indicators, variables and primary field techniques for assessing visitor impact on biophysical resource conditions (Sources: Manning, Leung et al. 2005; Newsome, Moore et al. 2002; Sun and Walsh 1998; Stankey and Harvey 1979; Stankey, Cole et al. 1985; Claridge 1997; Buerger, Hill et al. 2000; Buckley 2003; Liddle and Greig-Smith 1975a; 1975b; Cole 1981; Cole 1995a; 1995b)

INDICATOR VARIABLE TECHNIQUE

Loss of vegetation cover . Total area of bare ground associated with tracks, . Aerial photography surveys recreational-use areas and campsites . Track condition surveys (sampling-based surveys, problem-based surveys, or permanent point surveys) . Site surveys (transect method)

Vegetation condition (adjacent to visitor areas) . Relative measure / rating / condition class . Vegetation surveys (quadrant sampling) . Number of trees or plants showing signs of damage . Site survey (radial transect method) . Number of tree stumps

Loss of fauna habitat . Total area of bare ground associated with tracks, . Vegetation surveys (quadrant sampling) recreational-use areas and campsites . Aerial photography surveys

Loss of avifauna habitat . Total area of bare ground associated with tracks, . Vegetation surveys (quadrant sampling) recreational-use areas and campsites . Aerial photography surveys

Disturbance to breeding avifauna colonies . Proximity of visitors to breeding areas . Critical Approach Distances . Population viability . Observation studies of Visitor-wildlife interactions . Fatalities resulting from visitor-wildlife interactions . Site Surveys (radial transect method) . Numbers of flush outs, desertions and nest abandonment . Track condition surveys events

Disturbance to breeding fauna communities . Proximity of visitors to breeding areas . Critical Approach Distances 60

INDICATOR VARIABLE TECHNIQUE . Population viability . Observation studies of Visitor-wildlife interactions . Population studies . Fatalities resulting from visitor-wildlife interactions . Site surveys (radial transect methods) . Track condition surveys

Introduction of invasive species . Number of invasive species . Vegetation surveys (quadrant sampling) . Population density of invasive species . Fauna surveys

Track / track system condition . Length . Soil measurements . Total area of bare ground . Soil compaction tests . Cross-sectional area . Track surveys . Depth . Width . Root exposure . Total length of track/s where severe erosion (defined) is occurring . Mineral soil increase . Percentage of track system length with multiple tracks

Presence of fire pits/rings . Number of pits/rings . Site survey (transect method)

Presence of tourist-related structures (signs, shelters, . Number of structures . Site survey (transect method) interpretation facilities, toilets, boat ramps)

61 redress the lack of quantitative and site-specific data concerning changes to conditions associated with tourist activity.

Survey techniques were used to conduct an assessment of the selected indicators (Table 3.5 and Table 3.6) of historical visitor impacts and changes in track-related impacts on the conditions of biophysical resources at the seven study sites at the Houtman Abrolhos. Site survey methods have been developed and widely deployed to monitor resource conditions at campsites and recreational day-use areas in protected natural areas (Marion & Cole, 1996; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; Newsome et al., 2002), including uninhabited islands (Buerger et al., 2000; Manning et al., 2005). An initial baseline survey of each of the seven study sites was undertaken in 2004. The perimeter of each site was established by walking the circumference of each island. Four sites comprised entire small islands and the remaining three sites comprised selected sections of two large islands, East Wallabi Island and Pelsaert Island. The latitudinal and longitudinal boundaries of the study sites located on these two islands were drawn up to include heavily visited and impacted zones. The perimeter of each site was mapped by recording the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the boundary using a differential hand-held GPS unit (projected at MGA94 and using GDA94 datum). Stainless steel plinths were driven in at each point where boundary lines intersected to further record the perimeter of the sites on East Wallabi and Pelsaert Islands.

The baseline survey of each site in 2004 established the survey method based on a north-south, east-west grid of transects spaced 100 meters apart. The latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the grid points were recorded to enable the survey of the transect lines to be replicated. Each transect line as well as the site perimeter was then systematically surveyed by recording features or attributes (as measures of specific indicators) located within a 50 meter strip either side of the transect line or within the perimeter. Data collected for each attribute included: the related indicator code, measurement or classification of the attribute, and latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. The field data was entered into a database within 24 hours of the surveying. Surveys were repeated for the seven sites in 2005 and 2006 using the same technique to detect changes in resource condition variables that indicated visitor impact, such as the establishment of a new track, in the intervening period. Each site was visited for a minimum of two days of field work each year in the period from 15 April to 30 June of 2004, 2005 and 2006 to generate three annual data sets.

62

Survey techniques were used to collate data on changes to track conditions attributable to visitor use over a three year time period at the Houtman Abrolhos. Survey visitor impact requires the systematic measurement of changes in the conditions of variables selected as indicators of visitor impact over time. Visitor impact survey programs at protected areas characteristically target trail systems or track networks to assess disturbance to vegetation, soils and topography (Buckley, 2003; Liddle & Greig-Smith, 1975a, 1975b; Newsome et al., 2002). Measured changes over time in track network variables, such as track width, are used to indicate physical impact by visitors. A track survey program was undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos to inventory the extent of existing visitor impact as indicated by the physical parameters of the track network at each site, and to monitor changing levels of visitor pressure as indicated by changes in track condition variables (Table 3.5 and 3.6).

An initial survey of tracks was undertaken in 2004 at each of the seven sites at the Houtman Abrolhos. All tracks within a track network and within each study site were surveyed and ascribed a unique identifying code. Three categories of track were identified: those that were formalised by either signage or guidance devices (known as ‗Formal‘ tracks), those that were not, and appeared less consolidated and more like ‗pads‘ (known as ‗Informal‘), and those tracks that skirted the coasts of islands as circumference walks but were in no way well-formed (known as ‗Coastal Routes‘). Each track was categorised and the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the track head and track termination point was recorded using a differential hand-held GPS unit (projected at MGA94 and using GDA94 datum).

A method of sampling variables of track conditions was developed to measure changes in those conditions attributable to visitor use. The indicators of track impact and the associated variables selected for the purposes of the investigation are detailed in Table 3.5. Permanent track survey points were established and recorded along each track at the point where the prevailing track direction diverged by more than +/-10 degrees. Variables were measured at each track point (including the track head and track termination points). The following variables were measured at each track point: width (in centimetres); substrate type; adjacent vegetation type and dominant species; and, adjacent seabird breeding habitat or site (if present). The length of each track was determined by using a tape to measure the distance (in meters) between sequential track points, commencing at the track head and ending at the track termination point, and

63 combining the distances between points. The total area of each track was determined by calculating the area of each section of track by multiplying the width of the track point by the length of the preceding section of track and then combining the sectional areas. Field data was entered into a database within 24 hours of being collected.

All track points were read on an annual basis in 2005 and 2006 between 15 April and 30 June following the end of the peak visitor period (15 March to 14 April) to capture the level of visitor impact prior to any recovery. The track survey program was repeated to detect any significant changes in any of the track condition variables across the three year dataset.

3.2.4 Analysis and Presentation of Results

An analytical framework was developed on the basis of a review of new governance theory and tourism studies to characterise governance and tourism policy processes at dependent island territories (Baldacchino, 2010; Hall, 2000; Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Pierre & Peters, 2000, 2005). The framework comprised the following stages: assignment of responsibility, promulgation of policy, development of guidelines and instruments, policy implementation, policy assessment and evaluation. Pre-conditions of effective governance and policy capacity for sustainable tourism development at dependent island territories were also identified on the basis of this review of literature. Qualitative content analysis of secondary source material was used to characterise the governance system and policy process at the Houtman Abrolhos in light of the analytical framework and to determine to what extent those pre-conditions were present. Strengths and weaknesses of governance arrangements and tourism policy processes at the Houtman Abrolhos were established. In addition, specific processes by which governance and tourism policy determined the resource use characteristics of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos were identified.

The results of the tourist visitation and activity investigation have been analysed using both univariate methods, to determine baseline levels of visitation and recreational activity, and bivariate methods, to determine the presence of temporal trends (Table 3.3). Annual levels of Off-season private recreational boat visitation and activity, and commercial charter boat visitation and activity, were measured by extracting the total number of trips undertaken and the total number of passengers on board for each year from 2002-3 to 2005-6. This method of analysis was also applied to commercial air

64

Table 3.5 Indicators, variables and assessment criteria for measuring visitor impacts at selected island sites at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia

INDICATOR VARIABLE ASSESSMENT CRITERION

Historical Tourism Presence of formal tourist infrastructure Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure 1 or more items Impact (authorised by managing agencies) Presence of informal tourist Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure 1 or more items infrastructure (not authorised by managing agencies) Historical disturbance by fisher industry Number of structures associated with rock lobster 1 or more structures and visitors fishing industry seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity Historical disturbance by guano mining Number of structures associated with guano mining 1 or more structures industry industry historical presence and activity Presence of invasive exotic plant species Number of documented species of invasive exotic 1 or more species listed as a serious threat flora Presence of invasive exotic fauna Number of documented species of invasive exotic 1 or more species listed as a serious threat species fauna Track-related Size of track network Number of tracks in track network 1 or more tracks in network Impact Length of track network Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 1.0m or more in length Proximity of track network to bird Combined length of all track sections located 1.0m or more in length breeding areas immediately adjacent to seabird breeding habitat (m) Area of track network Combined area of all track sections (m²) 1.0m² or more in area Occupancy of island site by the track Combined area of all track sections as a percentage 1% or more of island site area occupied by the track network of the total area of the island site (%) network Other indications of track related impact Number of sites of observed65 landform deterioration Qualitative observation (descriptive)

INDICATOR VARIABLE (unit of measurement) ASSESSMENT CRITERION Changes in Track- Change in size of track network Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004- Increase by 1 or more tracks in size of track network from related Impact 2006 2004 to 2006 Historical change in width of track Percentage of track points to have increased in width 10% or more of all track points within the track network to sections from 2004-2006 (%) have increased significantly (>0.2m) in width from 2004 to 2006 Historical change in width of tracks Number of tracks to have increased in mean width 1 or more tracks to have increased significantly (>0.2m) in from 2004-2006 mean width from 2004 to 2006 Historical change in area of tracks Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 1 or more tracks to have increased >20% of 2004 in track 2004-2006 area from 2004 to 2006

66

Table 3.6 Environmental research techniques for investigating visitor site conditions and visitor impact at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia

DATA COLLECTION RESEARCH OBJECTIVE DATA REQUIRED ANALYTIC TECHNIQUE TECHNIQUE 1. Record site attributes that indicate historical . Presence or absence of indicators of . Review of literature and secondary . Univariate analysis (distribution) impact by visitors at highly visited island sites historical visitor impact sources . Survey of island sites

2. Establish a baseline of conditions of the track . Biophysical parameters of track . Survey of track conditions . Univariate analysis (distribution) network at each island study site conditions . Baseline measurement of indicators of track-related impact

3. Determine whether significant variation is . Annual measurements of indicators of . Annual resurvey of track conditions . Univariate analysis (distribution) occurring in the conditions of the track track-related impact . Univariate analysis (dispersion) network from 2004 to 2006 that is attributable to visitation at each island site

67 charter visitation and activity for the annual periods of 2004-5 and 2005-6. Patterns of peak-period boat visitation were extracted from the aerial survey data. The total daily boat count was treated as nominal data and analysed using univariate methods to determine the comparative distribution of visiting boats across the four days of the Easter holiday period. The results were examined for evidence of temporal change using bivariate methods of analysis. Where trends were anticipated, the data was analysed for linear regression and correlation. If a trend was suggested, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was calculated were applied to test for linear correlation and regression.

The results of the visitor survey-questionnaire for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 were combined to generate a larger sample size of 74 respondent groups. The respondent groups were analysed according to visitation type. For each visitation type the annual numbers of respondent groups to undertake various types of recreational activity were combined to give a total figure for each type of recreational activity. These results were then compared by calculating the proportional or ranked popularity of the various types of recreational activities. The results for the various types of recreational activity were then grouped into the relevant category (consumptive or non-consumptive) and subcategory (ecotourism, marine recreation) of activity. No analysis of temporal changes in the types of recreational activity undertaken by visitors to key island sites during the In-season period was undertaken due to the small size of the annual sample, the non-representative method of sampling, and the brevity of the dataset. Quantitative levels of recreational activity by the air charter tourism segment were extrapolated from the air charter operator surveys in 2004 and 2005 and the visitor survey-questionnaire on the basis that 100% of all air charter trips entail non-consumptive eco tourism activities as a condition of their tourism licenses.

The various recreational activities undertaken by the boat-based and air charter tourist segments were grouped into one of two categories; consumptive (that is, fishing), and non-consumptive or nature-based (that is, snorkelling, swimming, SCUBA diving, sightseeing, wildlife observation, surfing, kite boarding, and ecotourism). This was undertaken to broadly distinguish recreational activities by their level of demand on natural resource at the Houtman Abrolhos. This data was then analysed for temporal changes using the bivariate methods of analysis described previously.

68

The seasonal and spatial distribution of levels of visitation by private recreational boats, commercial charter boats and air charters was measured by extracting the number of trips commencing in each month and the island groups or anchorages visited for each of the annual datasets across the study period. Univariate methods of analysis were then used to provide a characterisation of high and low visitor seasons and concentrations of visits in specific locations. A monthly mean level of visitation was calculated to determine months of highest and lowest levels of visitation by each visitor type. An annual mean level of visitation to each island group or anchorage by each visitor type was calculated to determine and compare the distribution of visitation between island groups.

The results of the assessment of historical visitor impact and changes in track-related impact on the conditions of biophysical resources were analysed using descriptive and univariate methods. The raw field data collected by the site surveys for each island study site at the Houtman Abrolhos was tabulated against the indicators of historical impact by visitors (Table 3.5) to assess the impact on resource conditions of each island site in terms of the threatening processes associated with visitation. An assumed baseline of the conditions that would have existed prior to visitation was developed to provide a basis for comparison, whereby it was assumed that the island sites did not contain formal or informal touristic infrastructure (including tracks) in their pre- visitation state.

Analysis of the results of the track monitoring program at the Houtman Abrolhos has drawn on univariate techniques predominantly. The baseline measurements of track condition variables have been analysed as nominal data and for ratios and for frequency distribution in the case of sample points to produce a mean result for a whole track. The total number of tracks within a track network has been calculated by combining the number of formal and informal tracks and coastal routes. The total length of the track network has been calculated by combining the lengths of all track sections within that network. Similarly, the proximity of the track network to seabird breeding habitat has been calculated by combining the total length of all track sections found to be immediately adjacent to this type of habitat within that network. The total area of each track network has been calculated by combining the areas of all track sections within that network, and this figure has been compared with the total area of the island study site to generate a proportional value to indicate the percentage of the area of the island

69 site to be occupied by the area of the track network. The values for each indicator describing the conditions of the track network at each site have then been compared with predetermined assessment criteria to indicate whether track-related impact has been detected (Table 3.5).

The level of variation in the track condition variables across the three annual datasets was calculated for each site. Variation in the number of tracks within a track network has been determined by comparing the number of tracks detected in each of the three annual surveys. Variation in track point width has been established by comparing the width of each track point for each year of the survey program. Variation between the 2004 and 2005 value and between the 2005 and 2006 value was calculated and then averaged to generate an annual mean rate of variation in track point width. At the track scale the annual variation between individual track point widths was averaged for each year for each track to generate an annual rate of mean variation, which was then averaged again to produce annual mean variation in track width from 2004 to 2006. Variation in track section area and total track network area from 2004 to 2006 was calculated using the same methods. The results for each indicator have been compared with predetermined criteria for the purposes of assessing the measured impact (Table 3.5).

Results were presented in relation to the relevant research themes and objectives (Table 3.7). Anticipated outcomes of the combined research program included determination of the following:

 Level of existing touristic pressure and demand on natural resources and environmental conditions; and

 Contribution of governance arrangements and policy processes in determining the level of touristic pressure and demand on resources and environmental conditions at uninhabited dependent island territories generally and the Houtman Abrolhos specifically.

70

Table 3.7 Organisation of researc

RESULTS RESEARCH ANTICIPATED TECHNIQUE RESULTS CHAPTER THEME OUTCOMES 4 Governance 1. Review of literature  Characteristics of governance  Evaluation of the role of governance arrangements and and Tourism 2. Qualitative content arrangements and tourism policy processes policy capacity in determining the sustainability of the Policy for analysis of key themes at the Houtman Abrolhos tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos specifically, uninhabited  Identification of the presence or absence, and at uninhabited dependent island territories dependent and contribution, of preconditions of generally island governance and tourism policy processes territories which are argued to be critical to the realisation of sustainable tourism development policies at the Houtman Abrolhos 5 Tourist 1. 1. Review of literature Annual levels of visitation and recreational  Determination of annual levels of tourist visitation and visitation and and secondary sources activity by boat-based visitors activity impact assessment at 2. 2. Aerial survey of Peak-period levels of visitation by boat-based  Establishment of changes in composition and levels of small islands visiting boat numbers visitors visitation and activity by the various tourist segments  Establishment of the comparative popularity of 3. 3. Air charter operator Annual levels of visitation by air charter consumptive and non-consumptive (ecotourism) postal survey tourists activities 4. 4. Visitor survey- Percentages of visitors by type undertaking  Determination of the presence or otherwise of trends questionnaire recreational activities towards increasing levels of non-consumptive (ecotourism) nature-based tourism activities.

5. 5. Site assessment Measures of indicators of historical impacts on  Determination of the presence or otherwise of surveys biophysical resource conditions at highly significant historical and existing changes in terrestrial visited sites resource conditions attributable to touristic pressure

6. 6. Track condition Measures of track conditions and significant surveys annual changes in conditions

CHAPTER 4 GOVERNANCE Tourism sectors in uninhabited island settings rely on access to common-pool resources for the purposes of nature-based tourism activities (Stewart 1993; Liu 2003; Graci and Dodds 2010). Public sector involvement is therefore concerned with the governance of access to and use of those resources by the tourism sector. Governments in many island settings have demonstrated a preference for tourism development as a pathway for sustainable use of resources (Wilkinson 1989; Kerr 2005; Baldacchino 2006). Attention has therefore been drawn to the role of governance processes in achieving sustainable tourism development policies in coastal and marine settings. Tourism‘s unsustainable impacts on local environments have largely occurred in the absence of effective governance processes (Hall 2000).

Limited analysis has been undertaken of governance of dependent island territories using recent work identifying new models of governance and analyses of policy processes. Multilevel institutional arrangements and the role of the state and non-state actors in tourism governance and policy development in particular are poorly understood (McKee and Tisdell 1990; Hall and Jenkins 1995; Poetschke 1995; Hall 2000; Bissix and Rees 2001; Gunn 2002; Lane 2006; Carter and Cater 2007; Day 2008; Jackson 2008; Howlett 2009). The aim of this chapter is to examine governance and policy processes concerning tourism and natural resource conservation in dependent island territories by applying insights arising from recent governance theory and by undertaking an empirical case study of the Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago, Western Australia.

Ecologically sustainable development of the tourism sector has been the articulated policy position at the Houtman Abrolhos since 1998 (Fisheries Western Australia 1998). Historically, the tourism sector‘s access to natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos has been described as largely uncontrolled (Abrolhos Islands Task Force 1989; Anon. 1996; Burbidge, Dunlop et al. 2004). Responsibility for development and implementation of tourism policy at the Houtman Abrolhos rests with the lead management agency, the Department of Fisheries. Other concerned State Government bodies include Tourism Western Australia and the Department of Environment and Conservation however they have limited formal involvement in policy development and governance. The Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee (AIMAC) was created in 1995 under Section 42 of the Fish Resources Management Act (1994) to 73 provide advice to the Minister for Fisheries on policy direction and management of the islands and adjoining State Territorial Waters of the Houtman Abrolhos.

Governance of natural resource systems and resource users is understood to comprise the following stages: assignment of responsibility, promulgation of policy, development of guidelines and instruments, policy implementation, policy assessment, and evaluation (Dovers, 2005; Ehler, 2003; Haward & Vince, 2008). Each of these stages is examined with regard to governance of dependent island territories generally, and island-based tourism specifically. Governance processes affecting the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos are then critically assessed in the context of the sector‘s access to and use of natural resources. Policy capacity supporting the current sustainable tourism development policy for the Houtman Abrolhos and the resulting relationship between the tourism sector and its resource base in particular is considered. Specific objectives of the research were:

1. Characterise governance arrangements and, in particular, tourism policy processes by which interactions between tourism sectors and local natural resource systems are determined for dependent, uninhabited island territories, using the Houtman Abrolhos Islands as a case study; 2. Evaluate the preconditions of policy capacity for sustainable tourism development at dependent, uninhabited island territories using the Houtman Abrolhos Islands as a case study.

4.1 GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS

4.1.1 Theories of governance

Recent definitions of governance vary according to where they locate capacity to govern: from processes and outcomes of formal institutions of government, through to definitions wherein capacity of the public sector is diminished in favour of markets or social networks of voluntary action (Pierre and Peters 2005). The traditional model of governance locates full authority in the state, whereby government (comprising bureaucratic hierarchies) constitutes the ―legitimate embodiment of the general will‖ and law and coercion are the primary instruments (Pierre & Peters, 2000: 37). Critique of the traditional state-based hierarchical model of regulation has arisen out of observed failures of traditional state-based governance. This is particularly the case with regard to complex environmental governance across multiple scales and levels, where fragmented 74 governance, at best, and a ―governance vacuum left by absence of state action‖ (Ehler, 2003; Newell et al., 2012: 376), at worst, has been highlighted. The limited effectiveness of the traditional model of governance by State hierarchies has been attributed specifically to a number of factors, including: the constraints applied by the due processes of hierarchical bureaucracies; the selection and implementation of poor policy instruments; overly optimistic perceptions of what the State can do; and, increasing capacity and resources wielded by non-state actors which are not available to the State (Haward & Vince, 2008; Newell et al., 2012; Pierre & Peters, 2000, 2005; Rhodes, 1996, 1997).

Governance is now argued to encompass new models and modes which have arisen to address this ―governance deficit‖ and are based on recognition of the roles and agency of a range of non-state actors and alternative mechanisms, including markets and networks, across multiple scales and levels (Newell et al., 2012: 375). The typology developed by Pattberg and Stripple (2008) identifies governance arrangements by the modes of governance (hierarchical, networks or market) as well as the locus of authority (public/civil, private or hybrid).

Market approaches to governance have arisen out of a reappraisal, informed by neo- classical liberal ideology, of the relationship between the market and the provision of services traditionally undertaken by the State (Haward & Vince, 2008: 14). Such approaches advocate markets as an alternate mode of governance to hierarchies, and the private sector as an alternate locus of authority to the State (Pattberg & Stripple, 2008). Reduction in the capacity of the State and its government hierarchies would remove constraints on market forces and enable effective market-based solutions to be found for public sector problems which the State has been unable to address and, indeed, of which its interventions are a part contributor (Pierre & Peters, 2000: 55).

A shift towards a market-based model of governance is exemplified by institutional reforms to introduce market-based instruments and mechanisms. These include user- pays approaches to government services, private-public partnerships, and the privatisation of state-owned industry and service-providing institutions. In relation to the allocation of resources, market-based instruments introduce ―pricing, as well as dynamics of supply and demand, as a means of allocating access [through] the use of tradeable rights and the creation of quasi-market approaches‖ (Haward & Vince, 2008: 15). Pierre and Peters (2000: 56) have noted that the substantive contribution of market-

75 based theories of governance has been the recognition that the State ―in itself is not the source of economic dynamics and growth…‖. Rather than removal of the power of the State, the insight from market-based approaches is that a ‗steerage‘ role is more fitted, whereby collective action is enabled by strengthened private-public partnerships.

Recognition of the limits of governance by a central actor (namely, the State) and the involvement of multiple non-state actors from both the private and public sphere in governance and in policy development and implementation, in particular, engendered the emergence of policy subsystems and policy community approaches (Richardson & Jordon, 1979). These approaches emphasised the importance of the policy subsystem, which comprises partnerships and networks between the State and a wide array of other state and non-state actors (the policy community).

Community-based approaches to governance identify and legitimate the participation of the attentive public (Pross, 1992) in policy communities and, thereby, in governance. Moves towards greater levels of inclusion of communities in decision making and deliberative processes by the State have mostly been undertaken in recognition of damage critics can do if not engaged (Newell et al., 2012). The key critique mounted by advocates of community-based approaches concerns the manner of selecting which non- state actors participate in decision-making processes under traditional State-based models of governance as this has tended to favour more powerful interests in society (Pierre & Peters, 2000). Further critiques concern the scale of governance systems, the level of deliberation and the stages of decision-making at which it occurs, and the type of participation (symbolic, substantive or direct) undertaken by non-state actors.

Pierres and Peters (2000) note that the critique mounted by community-based approaches is more compelling than the alternative models developed, which have failed to address a number of issues, which include: that problems may not be solved at local levels; that the models assume a common set of values amongst the policy community and struggle with heterogeneity in broader political settings; and, that the selection of who participates in deliberative decision-making remains highly problematic. However, in relation to the governance of common-pool resources, increased support for co-management models of governance has arisen (Ostrom, 1990) wherein such arrangements ―create a socially constructed order (including forms of ‗rights‘) from the recognition of the shared interests and values (reciprocity) among the community defined by these interests‖ (Haward & Vince, 2008: 17). An important

76 contribution of co-management approaches has been to include resource user groups in the definition of community in the context of decision-making for common-pool resources (Haward & Vince, 2008; Ostrom, 1990).

Arising out of this earlier work in policy subsystems and the role of non-government actors, the concept of self-organising networks, which encompass the voluntary and private sectors, has become an established analytical approach to governance. Rhodes et al (1996, 1997) have argued that such networks are now pervasive as governing modes which complement both markets and state hierarchies, and share with these other modes a level of autonomy, coordination and control over the allocation of resources.

Network-based approaches re-define governance as ―an emergent property of interactions rather than the imposition of control from above‖ (Pierre & Peters, 2000: 45). They emphasise governance at multiple and overlapping spheres, levels and scales, as opposed to the traditional hierarchical structure of a single central State which exerts a top-down authority. These approaches vary in the extent to which they advocate marketization and privatisation of natural resource governance, and the re-distribution of authority from the State to private actors or to private-public partnerships and other hybrid forms of authority (Newell et al., 2012: 367). In contrast to community-based approaches, the locus of authority under network modes of governance lies to a much greater degree in networks of sectoral and interest groups (Pierre & Peters, 2000: 178). Further, Pierre and Peters (2000) highlight that such groups and networks lack a legitimate, collective, representative mandate and are also not subject to same levels of accountability and scrutiny as the State.

The State has not been rendered obsolete and remains highly influential in public affairs but its role has been revised and reinterpreted (Pierre and Peters 2000; 2005; Haward and Vince 2008; Newell et al., 2012). Collective problems remain, and particularly so those relating to the governance of social-ecological systems. The critique of the traditional State-based model has highlighted failures of conventional governance. Rather than focus on the ontological issue of governnace failure, Pierre and Peters (2000) argue that the problem needs to be re-framed as one of governability and the capacity of governance systems.

Informed by theories of new governance, Pierre and Peters (2005: 3-5) argue that governance entails four activities: articulating a common set of priorities for society; coherence to ensure consistency and coordination; steerage through the application of 77 policy instruments and implementation strategies; and, accountability. Finding other solutions to collective problems through public-private partnerships which mobilise resources of the State, market and civil domains (Glasbergen, 2011) serves to both reduce the specificity of the State (Pierre & Peters, 2000: 63) at the same time as it augments the functions the State continues to play in coordinating policy development, implementation, compliance and enforcement (Haward & Vince, 2008).

No single model of governance has emerged to replace the traditional State-based model of governance. Newell et al (2012) note that governance arises and changes in response to historical conditions, regionally-specific issues and the interactions between these. State, market, network and community-based models are not mutually exclusive. With regard to common-pool resources, Ostrom (1990: 182) observed that the capacity of governance systems is derived from ―rich mixtures of public and private instrumentalities‖. Indeed, recently theoretical developments have placed less emphasis on the autonomy of State, market and civil domains and more on the interactions and interdependencies between them (Glasbergen, 2011). The success of new multi actor governance approaches appears to be dependent on the types of power and agency held, by whom, and wielded in what way (Newell et al., 2012). Areas where Newell et al. (2012: 374) argue further theorising and empirical analysis is warranted include: the proliferation of new governance arrangements; the processes of delegation of authority and decision-making power to multiple actors, including non-state actors; and, the capacity of different arrangements of actors in terms of their ―resources, reach, mandate, and power‖.

4.1.2 Governance arrangements for dependent island territories

Analyses of governnace of islands has tended to focus on small island developing states (Baldacchino, 2010; Baldacchino & Milne, 2006). Douglas (2006) has argued that non- soverign sub-national island territories face similar problems of governance to small island states, although Lim and Cooper (2009) note that the former typically experience higher levels of political stability and economic affluence. Small and uninhabited offshore islands most frequently fall into the category of non-sovereign sub-national or municipal territories (collectively described hereafter as dependent island territories) and, in the latter case, are assigned little or no jurisdictional authority (Baldacchino, 2010; Baldacchino & Milne, 2006; Kerr, 2005; Watts, 2000). Dependent island territories are characterised by: fragile terrestrial, coastal and marine environments; high

78 levels of natural capital and resources; high levels of exposure to global and regional drivers of change; uneven levels of intra-territorial development; and ―complex and differentiated relationships with and between communities and island governments‖ (Douglas, 2006: 76; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008).

Multiple actors are engaged in governance of dependent island territories. State actors commonly include a sub-national government agency for conservation or resource management to which primary responsibility for a dependent island territory has been assigned through tenure and vesting arrangements. Other secondary State actors may include national, sub-national and municipal government agencies administering their specific jurisdictional or sectoral responsibilities (Amoamo, 2011; Baldacchino & Milne, 2006; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Ingram, 1991: 114) as well as local statutory authorities or corporations established by the State (Errington, 2003).

Examples of the role of single and multiple State actors in the governance of dependent island territories include Carnac and Penguin Islands, Western Australia, which are managed primarily by a sub-national government agency, the Department of Environment and Conservation. (Department of Environment and Conservation Western Australia, 2008; Hercock, 1996; Orsini, 2004). In contrast, the uninhabited islands of the Cocos Keeling Archipelago in Australia‘s Indian Ocean Territories are located within the Pulu Keeling National Park and are managed primarily by a national agency, Parks Australia. Administration of the island group, which includes a number of inhabited islands, is vested with the national agency, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. Service delivery arrangements are in place with sub-national government agencies, including the Western Australian Department of Fisheries, for the management of local fisheries (Australian Government, 1955). At the San Andres Archipelago, Columbia, a regional autonomous corporation has been established and given extensive authority to coordinate management and regulate use of marine and terrestrial resources as well as to direct the natural resource planning processes of relevant national government agencies (Baine et al., 2007).

The array of non-state actors engaged in governance of dependent island territories is increasing although Newell et al., (2012) emphasise that it is the political agency exerted by non-state actors which determines their effectiveness and impact rather than their numbers. Private actors predominantly include resource-based sectoral interests,

79 such as fishing, mining, tourism and forestry industry groups (Kerr, 2005). Civil society actors include: local residential communities; local, national and international environmental non-government organisations (NGOs); and, local, non-profit resource users groups. These actors identify as part of the policy community and their stake in the policy subsystem concerns decision-making which affects livelihoods, civic matters, natural resource access and management arrangements. They are able to deploy, to varying degrees, significant financial and social capital towards steerage of particular aspects of governance (Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Poetschke, 1995; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). The array of non-state actors is illustrated at the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, where private and civil society actors participating formally in the policy community include: the Galapagos Chamber of Tourism; the environmental NGOs network; and sector groups representing commercial fisheries, artisanal fisheries, naturalist guides, and science research institutions (Baine et al., 2007; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Kerr, 2005).

Governance of dependent island territories is inherently complex and multifaceted due to the overlap of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, the presence of high value nature conservation features and exploitable natural resources, and the presence of multiple and potentially conflicting sectoral interests including tourism (Agardy, 1993; Baine et al., 2007; Baldacchino, 2006a; Butler, 1993). Problems of insufficient participation by key actors, integration and coordination by and between multiple actors and multiple levels of governance for dependent island territories have been extensively highlighted (Baine et al., 2007; Baldacchino, 2006a, 2006b; Douglas, 2006; Hall, 2001; Hall & McArthur, 1993; Hall & Wouters, 1994; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Jackson, 2008; Vallega, 1999a; Vallega, 2007). The specific characteristics of dependent island territories call for governance systems which maintain steerage and coherence while engaging a broad range of State and non-state actors operating at multiple levels in policy subsystems.

Multiple modes and instrumentalities have been deployed within governance systems for dependent island territories to address the challenges outlined. The networks of management and responsibilities associated with island territories are demonstrated by a number of cases. The model of governance in place for the uninhabited islands of Australia‘s Great Barrier Reef retains the traditional State-based hierarchical approach, however the organisational structure comprises a number of instrumentalities to

80 formally engage and devolve a degree of authority to multiple State and non-state actors at national, sub-national and local government levels, as well as implement ecosystem- based management (Olsson et al., 2008). These include a Ministerial Advisory Board and Ministerial Council, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and a suite of Advisory Committees for the areas of tourism, fisheries and conservation. All relevant State actors are represented at each level. Furthermore, the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement outlines the roles and responsibilities of relevant Queensland and Australian Government agencies for the purposes of field management and enforcement of the Authority‘s policies (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2009). Pierre and Peters (2000: 125) note that the devolution of State functions to authorities is ―predicated on a high degree of intra-regional institutional and political coordination‖.

A market-based approach utilising a semi-autonomous network of private and civil actors on Indonesia‘s Gili Trawangan Island has been described by Graci and Dodds (2010). Private dive operators have implemented a user-pays system to meet a deficit in environmental governance by the provincial government. Dive operators charge dive tourists a dive tax for each dive or snorkel. The tax revenue is administered by the Gili Trawangan Eco Trust, which comprises a network of private dive operators and local community members, and used to pay local fishers to cease destructive reef fishing practices and to undertake other environmental management activities. A hybrid model of governance involving State and private actors is demonstrated at uninhabited Chumbe Island in the western Indian Ocean. Governance is undertaken through a public-private partnership between the government of Zanzibar, Tanzania, and a private non-for-profit tourism company (Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd) to whom full authority is delegated. Commercial tourism operations fund the management of the privately- owned and operated nature reserve and marine park (Graci & Dodds, 2010).

4.1.3 Governance and policy capacity for island-based tourism

Tourism sectors, encompassing commercial and recreational tourists and activities, are significant users of high quality natural environments in coastal areas and islands. The commercial tourism industry and recreational user groups comprise important private and civil society actors in the governance of these islands, whether formally recognised or not.

81

Tourism policy discourses on sustainability have been directly informed by a number of influential but conflicting narratives concerning tourism and the environment (Hajer, 1995). Tourism has been constructed as: firstly, a benign and ―self-regulating system wherein in it is inherently in the interests of the tourism industry to remedy or mitigate those environmental problems it causes which will degrade the high quality environments which are tourism assets‖; secondly, ―the solution to the environment – development dilemma [wherein] … high quality environments depend upon tourism (particularly ecotourism) for their continued protection‖; and, thirdly, ―an environmental problem comparable to other large-scale economic activities‖ which has a direct impact not only on those high quality environments which are tourism assets but also on ―other resource systems not directly relevant to the tourism economy‖ (Frandberg, 2005: 274).

Many governments ―advocate tourism as a strong option‖ for sustainable island development (Frandberg, 2005: 282). The narratives of tourism as a benign resource- based industry and as a means to support conservation goals for high quality environments through a shift away from or the demise of resource-extraction industries have strongly influenced the development of sustainable tourism development polices in coastal, marine and island settings (Aqorau, 2007; Baldacchino, 2006a, 2006b; Douglas, 2006; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Jackson, 2008; Kerr, 2005; Lim & Cooper, 2009; Wilkinson, 1989). However these narratives have been critiqued on a number of grounds, which include: not taking account of the consumption of resources which tourism in island settings entails (Abeyratne, 1999; Butler, 1993; Gossling, 2001; Hall, 2001; Hall & Higham, 2005) or the direct and indirect impacts of tourism on its own resource base and other resource systems (Douglas, 2006; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 2002; McElroy & Potter, 2006; Trevino et al., 2007); for ―conflating the relationship between tourism and the environment‖ (Frandberg, 2005: 282); and for the lack of rigour and technical precision in the application of the label ―sustainable‖ to island based tourism (Lim and Cooper 2009). Empirical case studies of island-based tourism sectors have highlighted negative impacts of tourism development policies and activities on the conservation of biodiversity and other natural values (Buerger et al., 2000; Burger & Gochfeld, 1993; Hall & McArthur, 1993; Hall & Wouters, 1994; Hill et al., 1995; Manning et al., 2005; Payne et al., 2001; Sanson, 1994; Sobhee, 2006; Trevino et al., 2007).

82

Promulgation of sustainable tourism development policy has become the primary state- based mechanism to align tourism development with conservation management objectives in island settings (Conlin & Baum, 1995; Kerr, 2005; Lockhart, 1997). Traditionally, the role of the State in the tourism production system has been limited to coordination of private tourism actors to enable supply to meet demand, and promotion and marketing of tourism destinations (Britton, 1991). This has fostered the assumption that the role of the State in achieving sustainable tourism development policy is heavily reliant on a market-based shift in demand towards non-consumptive eco-tourism products, which is claimed to be occurring in many island-based tourism destinations (Honey, 1999; Sobhee, 2006).

However the continuing and deleterious impact of tourism activities on conservation values in many island settings has led to the identification of the failure of such policies in a number of cases (Briguglio et al., 1996; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Lim & Cooper, 2009; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 2002; McElroy & Potter, 2006). The claim of increased demand for eco-tourism type products in island and comparable coastal and marine settings has been contested (Hall, 2007; Ormsby et al., 2004), as has the effectiveness of relying on this market-based mechanism to achieve sustainable tourism development (Liu, 2003; Spenceley, 2005). The effectiveness of governance systems and policy processes, in particular, in guiding the development of island-based tourism has been identified as a critical factor in determining interactions between tourism sectors and linked natural resource systems (Harrison, 2007; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Jackson, 2008). The success or failure of sustainable tourism development policies in dependent, uninhabited island territories is a public sector concern. The natural assets which tourism sectors rely upon and potentially over-exploit are common-pool resources. Promotion and marketing of islands as tourism destinations is typically undertaken by publically-funded state tourism agencies (McCool & Moisey, 2001).

In governance literature policy capacity has been linked to, firstly, the ability to make and implement decisions and, secondly, the quality of those decisions such that they address the substance of policy (Haward & Vince, 2008). Peters (1996) defines policy capacity broadly to include policy formulation as well as implementation. Policy capacity for sustainable tourism development in dependent and uninhabited island territories has not been explicitly examined nor defined. Lim and Cooper (2009) have noted that while a number of prescriptive models, frameworks, assessment tools and

83 best practice guidelines have been developed for sustainable island-based tourism these have tended to focus on environmental performance and not encompass governance systems. Similarly, case studies of island-based tourism have predominantly examined the role of governments but not governance (MacLeod & Carrier, 2010). In particular, the delegation of authority and power to multiple state and non-state actors, their participation in the policy subsystem, and the role of networks, markets and hybrid modes of governance have not been examined in depth . There has been limited analysis of governance and tourism policy processes specific to uninhabited islands. Tourism policy discourses concerning islands have been informed by the more extensive investigations of tourism in small island developing states and inhabited dependent island territories. However there are significant knowledge gaps concerning such discourses and processes for uninhabited island settings where the composition of policy communities and the policy subsystem can be expected to differ significantly from those of inhabited islands, as would the goals and objectives of public policies for natural resource protection and utilisation.

Uninhabited dependent island territories are increasingly exposed to global environmental change coupled with growth in demand for island-based tourism products, whilst hosting unique ecological systems of high conservation value. In light of the substantial knowledge gaps identified, further investigation is required to determine how sustainable tourism development policies can be enabled and failure mitigated for uninhabited dependent island territories. A number of pre-conditions have been identified within recent governance and tourism literature which are argued to be critical to effective governance and, in particular, policy capacity for sustainable tourism development in islands. They have been described as follows:

 Delegation of authority which ―capitalises upon the respective strengths and assets of different actor arrangements in terms of their resources, reach, mandate, and power‖ in light of the complex networks of stake holdings, actors and management responsibilities associated with dependent island territories (Baldacchino, 2010; Newell et al., 2012: 374);  Coordination and integration of multiple actors, levels, policy goals and objectives and governance modes across the spheres of tourism promotion and marketing, resource management, and conservation (Ehler, 2003; Ioannides, 2001; Lane, 2006; McCool & Moisey, 2001; Vallega, 1999a; Vallega, 2007);

84

 Substantive inclusion of tourism actors (State and private) and other resource users in the policy subsystem (Graci & Dodds, 2010; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Poetschke, 1995);

 Access to information concerning tourism activity and resource use as well as resource condition, and the availability of policy analytical capacity for evidence-based policy making, including problem framing and the development of tourism and conservation goals, objectives, and performance measures (Elgin et al., 2012; Howlett, 2009; Lim & Cooper, 2009; Olsen et al., 2005; Sanderson, 2002);

 Calibration of policy instruments for sustainable tourism development with policy problems encountered in island territories (Ehler, 2003; Olsson et al., 2008; Pierre & Peters, 2000, 2005);

 Ongoing policy evaluation and instrumental policy learning to ensure the attainment of policy goals and objectives (Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Ehler, 2003; Haward & Vince, 2008; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sanderson, 2002); and

 Legislative frameworks which enable all of the elements listed above (Baldacchino, 2010; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Hall, 2000; Heylings & Bravo, 2007).

How and to what extent each of these pre-conditions contributes to governance and policy capacity enabling sustainable tourism development in uninhabited dependent island territories has not been established. Whether the presence or absence of these pre- conditions can be used to predict policy failure or success has also not been determined. Further examination of these issues is anticipated to provide an indication of governance arrangements and tourism policy processes which maximise policy capacity and sustainable use of local natural resource systems.

4.2 METHODS

Qualitative methods used in this evaluation include a review of literature and content analysis of secondary source material pertaining to governance and tourism policy processes at the Houtman Abrolhos (Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.4). Fields of research from which literature was reviewed included governance theory, tourism policy and planning,

85 island studies, and environmental policy and natural resource management. Secondary source material pertaining to the case study included legislation, management plans, policy documents and periodic public reviews. An analytical framework was developed to characterise governance and tourism policy processes at dependent island territories. The stages were as follows: assignment of responsibility; promulgation of policy (including problem and policy framing); development of guidelines and instruments; policy implementation; policy assessment and evaluation. Each of these stages was examined with regard to their influence on the interactions between tourism and its natural resource base, using the Houtman Abrolhos as an empirical case study.

In addition, a number of properties of governance systems and policy processes are prescribed in the literature as critical pre-conditions of effective governance and tourism policy capacity. To what extent each of these pre-conditions is present within the governance system at the Houtman Abrolhos is determined, and the contribution of each of these pre-conditions is examined with regard to enabling tourism policy capacity and the achievement of sustainable tourism development policy goals for dependent island territories broadly.

4.3 RESULTS

4.3.1 Assignment of responsibility

The islands and waters of the Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia, are a non- sovereign municipal jurisdiction governed under a traditional State-based regulatory model. The Houtman Abrolhos is vested with the State Minister for Fisheries for the multiple purposes of conservation of flora and fauna, tourism, and for purposes associated with the fishing industry, pursuant to the Western Australian Land Administration Act (1997) and the Fish Resources Management Act (1994). Primary authority for governance of the Houtman Abrolhos lies with the State Department of Fisheries. Other levels of government have limited roles under current governance arrangements. The responsibility of the Federal Government of Australia is to ensure that State management agencies comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) and the Historic Shipwrecks Act (1976). No local governments have jurisdictional responsibilities for the Houtman Abrolhos.

86

Multiple government actors have been delegated specific management responsibilities at the Houtman Abrolhos in addition to the Department of Fisheries. These include: the Department of Environment and Conservation, which is responsible for the flora and fauna of the islands and other concerns under the Wildlife Conservation Act (1950); the Environmental Protection Authority, which is responsible for ensuring activities do not contravene the Environmental Protection Act (1986); and the Western Australia Museum, which is responsible for historic shipwrecks and maritime heritage sites in accordance with the Maritime Archaeology Act (1973), as well as documenting fauna species. The roles and responsibilities of the State tourism authority, the Western Australian Tourism Commission (also, and hereafter, referred to as Tourism Western Australia), and the Mid West Regional Development Commission have not been articulated with regard to tourism policy development, planning and promotion for the Houtman Abrolhos.

The Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee (AIMAC) is an actor arrangement comprising multiple government and non-government actors and constitutes the major mechanism for coordination and integration of governance for the Houtman Abrolhos. It was established in 1995 by the Minister for Fisheries under the Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994). AIMAC is a Ministerial Advisory Committee and as such has no statutory authority. Membership of AIMAC includes representatives from the Departments of Fisheries and Environment and Conservation, the Western Australian Museum, Tourism Western Australia, the commercial tourism industry, the Wester Rock Lobster fishing industry, the mid-west community, and local environmental non-government organisations. The role of AIMAC it to inform and advise the Minister on matters relating to policy development, planning and management of the Houtman Abrolhos islands and waters, and to enable an integrated and ‗whole-of-government‘ approach (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998: 30). Specific functions include:

1. develop and maintain consultative processes with other relevant agencies and advisory bodies;

2. review and provide advice to the Minister regarding:

(a) tourism development proposals;

87

(b) management of activities associated with tourism, conservation and fishing; and

(c) development and drafting of management plans.

Governance and tourism policy capacity is argued to require the following pre- conditions: effective delegation of authority to arrangements of actors; coordination and integration of multiple actors, levels and modes of governance, participation of tourism actors through assignment of responsibility, and legislative frameworks which enable the assignment of responsibility as described. Critical analysis of governance arrangements at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands with regard to the delegation of authority and responsibility for sustainable tourism development, and has not been undertaken. Historically, the delegation of authority to govern the islands and waters of the Houtman Abrolhos has been strongly contested (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Hatcher et al., 1990).

Recommendations that a single statutory authority be created to govern the Houtman Abrolhos were made in 1982 by the Geraldton Mid-West Regional Development Committee. The Abrolhos Islands Planning Strategy (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a) recommended changing the tenure of the islands reserve to National Park status to be vested with the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority, changing the tenure of the waters to Aquatic Reserve status to remain vested with the Minister for Fisheries, and creating a governance framework of joint management arrangements between the Departments of Fisheries and Conservation Land Management to be advised by a Ministerial Advisory Committee. The report commented on the complexity of the multiple use and vesting of the Houtman Abrolhos, the ongoing antagonism and conflict between fishing, conservation and tourism interests, and the fragmented and ineffective policy framework which reflected the lack of integration and coordination of governance arrangements (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a: i-ii). It remains unclear whether the creation of a statutory authority is being pursued (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b).

A legislative framework has been established which provides authority to the various State actors for governance of the Houtman Abrolhos. The primary pieces of enabling legislation are the Land Administration Act (1997) and Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994) which assign responsibility for governance of the Houtman Abrolhos to the Minister for Fisheries and by delegation to the Department of Fisheries. 88

The responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Western Australian Museum, as well as the powers of the Minister to create AIMAC and the Abrolhos Islands Fish Habitat Protection Area, are also established by these Acts. The Acts are intended to provide authority to the Minister for Fisheries and by delegation to the Department of Fisheries for policy development and implementation concerning, among other matters, permitted tourism activities and development within the A-Class reserve and Abrolhos Islands Fish Habitat Protection Area to the Department of Fisheries. Conversely, the draft review of the management plan recommended that action be taken to ―clarify existing legislative arrangements (roles and responsibilities)‖, indicating that a level of uncertainty remains regarding legislative roles and responsibilities (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 63).

The need for a coordinated ―whole-of-government‖ approach to governance of the Houtman Abrolhos has been recognised by the Minister for Fisheries and the Department of Fisheries (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998: 21). The Management of the Houtman Abrolhos System (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998: 2) outlined two strategies through which mechanisms for the coordination and integration of governance arrangements would be achieved. These were to:

1. Develop Memoranda of Understanding between the Fisheries WA and other relevant organisations which detail management arrangements and maximise Governmental efficiency through coordination of responsibilities, staff, equipment, vessels and provision of information; and

2. Continue to support and assist AIMAC in order to coordinate all agencies with legislative responsibilities, community groups and individuals to ensure management of the Abrolhos is integrated and in accordance with appropriate legislation.

Assessment of whether implementation of these strategies has promoted integrated and coordinated governance has not been included in the Management of the Houtman Abrolhos System: A Draft Review 2007-2017. Since 1998 no Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of Fisheries and other stakeholder agencies have been developed (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 63). Coordinating and integration measures between State agencies are at the discretion of the Department of Fisheries. 89

AIMAC has continued to be supported and assisted as the primary mechanism delegated the task of integrating and coordinating governance and legislative arrangements across relevant entities. However the absence of legal instruments to mandate and thereby enable a coordinated and integrated approach to governance of the Houtman Abrolhos has limited the scope and function of AIMAC, which in turn has limited the committee‘s capacity to achieve this goal. The legislative provisions by which AIMAC was established do not bind the Minister nor any other State Minister or agency to act on the information or advice provided by AIMAC. The committee‘s advisory role does not extend to policy development for managed fisheries within the Houtman Abrolhos waters, which include recreational and aquatic charter fisheries (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 39). Nor does it extend to the development of tourism promotion policies for the Houtman Abrolhos.

Participation by the tourism sector in governance arrangements for the Houtman Abrolhos is through membership of AIMAC. A position is allocated to a representative of Tourism Western Australia and a local tourism vessel operator. Membership of AIMAC provides Tourism Western Australia and the local tourism sector with the opportunity to contribute to and vote on the information and advice given to the Minister for Fisheries regarding tourism.

The capacity for Tourism Western Australia and local tourism operators to influence tourism development at the Houtman Abrolhos is limited in the absence of any further formal partnerships or mechanisms for participation. The role of Tourism Western Australia is to promote Western Australia as a tourist destination and to enhance the tourism sector‘s infrastructure and product base (Tourism Western Australia, 2008). The Board of Tourism Western Australia comprises representatives of the private tourism sector and its role is to set strategic direction, policy and administer the Western Australian Tourism Commission Act (1983). The Board and commission are responsible to the Minister for Tourism. As such, the Western Australian Tourism Commission has no direct legislative responsibility or authority over the sector‘s access to natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos.

Analysis of the assignment of responsibility for governance and tourism policy at the Houtman Abrolhos has therefore determined that authority has been delegated to a primary government actor with responsibilities and capacity for the management of marine resources. Government actors with capacity for the planning and management of

90 terrestrial resources, natural resource conservation and tourism planning have been assigned very limited responsibility. This analysis has also established that legislation has been enacted which enables the existing traditional model of State-based regulation by a primary State actor, as well as the advisory functions of AIMAC and the specific secondary responsibilities of other State actors. The need for coordination and integration across horizontal levels of State actors has been acknowledge through the establishment of AIMAC. However the authority of AIMAC is constrained to providing advice to the State Minister for Fisheries. Further coordinating and integration measures between State agencies are at the discretion of the Department of Fisheries. Participation by tourism actors (both state and private) is limited to membership of AIMAC and can therefore be described as symbolic in light of the limited capacity of AIMAC to exert authority.

4.3.2 Promulgation of Policy

Tourism policy for the Houtman Abrolhos was developed after the advent of tourism itself (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). The establishment of the tourism sector occurred without any intervention by the State. Recreational boat-based visitation is recorded as early as the 1900s. Commercial charter boat-based tourism commenced in the post World War Two period and relied heavily on the commercial fishing industry for transport and land-based infrastructure. Visitation by relatives and friends of inhabiting Western Rock Lobster fishers also commenced in post World War Two period and been described as a form of ―de facto tourism‖ (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 112).

There is no evidence to indicate that tourism sector growth was an overt policy goal for the Houtman Abrolhos. In the early to mid 1960s two proposals to construct land-based tourism facilities were made. Neither proposal was accepted and in 1965 a Tourism Survey Committee found that there were many impediments to a successful tourism project being established at the Houtman Abrolhos, including the lack of resources and facilities to manage such development, which required resolution before such developments could be supported (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). Air strips constructed on three islands were managed as private airstrips for the purposes of transporting the inhabiting fishing community. During this period local tourism operators claimed that their sector was largely unrecognised and was not being

91 permitted equitable levels of access to the Houtman Abrolhos in comparison to the Western Rock Lobster fishing industry (Anon., 1996).

Recent tourism policy discourses have been informed by a number of drivers, including: public demand for greater access to the Houtman Abrolhos for recreational purposes; tourism industry demand for increased access and opportunity for expansion of the sector; public pressure for stronger protection of the archipelago‘s high value nature conservation assets; and, the implementation of State and regional policies for natural resource management and tourism development (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989a; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Anon., 1996; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998, 2001b).

Multiple policy levels, subsystems and communities are engaged directly or indirectly with tourism policy promulgation for the Houtman Abrolhos. Primary responsibility for tourism policy promulgation is delegated to the Department of Fisheries. Problem and policy framing which informed the development of the current tourism policy was undertaken by AIMAC and drew on public consultation process used in drafting the management plan (1998). Current State policy for tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos is outlined in the tourism plan (2001) and is to:

Manage environmentally-sensitive nature-based tourism which is consistent with protection of the natural and cultural heritage values of the Abrolhos system and provide appropriate managed access to the area for the community (Fisheries Western Australia 2001: 2).

Major objectives of the policy include the following:

 ―manage private recreational tourism in the Abrolhos Islands consistent with the carrying capacity of the environment‖;

 ―manage the development of environmentally sensitive nature-based tourism in the Abrolhos through licensing tourism operators‖;

 ―encourage the development of sustainable and appropriate facilities to support nature-based tourism‖, including land-based as well as moored accommodation facilities (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 22-5).

At a state wide level a number of policies are applicable to tourism sector activity and development at the Houtman Abrolhos. Further development of tourism in protected

92 natural areas is an explicit goal of the Western Australian Government. The Keeping it Real: A Nature Based Tourism Strategy for Western Australia (Western Australian Tourism Commission, 1997: 11) policy document includes the following objectives: ―increase tourism access and infrastructure in protected areas‖ and ―integrate tourism into protected area management‖. Objectives of this policy position include establishing low-impact revenue-raising commercial activity (tourism) to subsidise conservation management, particularly where conservation regimes have replaced revenue-raising extractive sectors. Currently, Tourism Western Australia‘s major policy is to ―accelerate the sustainable growth of tourism for the long term benefit of Western Australia‖ (2004: 5). Mechanisms available to the authority include promotion and marketing of tourism, as well as regional policy and strategy development. The Houtman Abrolhos lies within the authority‘s Coral Coast region. The Australia’s Coral Coast Destination Development Strategy 2004-2014 aimed to drive further expansion of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos by investing the industry development resources of Tourism Western Australia (2004: 12-13; 2006: 19).

At a national level, both regional economic development and sustainability are stated goals of current national tourism policies. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Australian Government, 1992) established the broad policy framework for natural resource-based sectors including tourism and fisheries. The goal of the strategy with regard to tourism is ―to develop and manage the tourism industry in a way which conserves its natural resource and built heritage base and minimises its environmental impacts‖ (Australian Government, 1992). The strategy also obliges fisheries management agencies to adopt an ecosystem-based approach in order to achieve more sustainable management of aquatic resources. The National Long-Term Tourism Strategy (Australian Government, 2009) outlines the long-term policy framework to position the Australian tourism industry as an environmentally and economically sustainable industry. Both strategies have been endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments with the intent that they be reflected in State and regional- level tourism policies.

The State Department of Fisheries has formally committed to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) to guide marine resource management and development (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998, 2001b). Tourism sector activity and development at the Houtman Abrolhos remains subject to the broad policy goal of

93 the State‘s Environmental Protection Authority, which is to prevent, control and abate pollution and environmental harm for the purpose of conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment (Government of Western Australia, 1986).

Policy promulgation for tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos is characterised by complexity and a multiplicity of policy levels, subsystems and communities, although few are formally recognised. It is also characterised by a traditional, hierarchical State- led style of policy promulgation wherein the primary managing agency – the Department of Fisheries – has assigned responsibility for the development of tourism policy.

Further characteristics which are argued to influence tourism policy capacity at the Houtman Abrolhos include the limited extent of integration of policy objectives across sectors, State actors and multiple levels. The current tourism policy explicitly incorporates the Department of Fisheries‘ conservation and natural resource management policy goals for the Houtman Abrolhos. However no integration is evident with Tourism Western Australia‘s policy for tourism development, promotion and marketing, or with those of the Department of Environment and Conservation relating to conservation and natural resource management for the Houtman Abrolhos. Similarly, the policy goals proposed by Tourism Western Australia for further development of the local tourism sector contain no reference to local conservation or resource management policies.

Information and analytical capability used to inform problem framing for tourism policy development at the Houtman Abrolhos has been inadequate. The tourism plan (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b) has not been informed by impact studies or baseline assessments of tourism resource conditions (Webster et al., 2002a: 10). The data available to indicate levels of tourist visitation and activity, and associated impacts on the natural resource base, has been widely acknowledged as insufficient (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Hatcher et al., 1990; Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, 2005; Webster et al., 2002a, 2002b). The tourism plan identifies the growing demand for nature based tourism and the unacceptable levels of tourist impact likely to occur at the Houtman Abrolhos as the major problems to be addressed by tourism policy (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). The tourism plan also acknowledges the inadequacy of the data with which the problem framing and policy

94 formulation process was informed (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 2). Objectives include collecting data on tourist visitation and activity and encouraging management- oriented research on the effects of tourism on the natural attributes of the islands. It is proposed that the results of this research be used to refine management of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 58). This would indicate that current tourism policy for the Houtman Abrolhos, which includes expansion of the sector and construction of tourism facilities, was formulated prior to sufficient information being available to ensure the realisation of policy goals, particularly those of ecologically sustainable development.

The primary mechanisms for inclusion of tourism and other actors in the problem and policy framing processes for the Houtman Abrolhos include membership of AIMAC by representatives of Tourism Western Australia, conservation groups and the broader community, and opportunities to provide comment on drafts of policies and management plans through statutory public consultations processes. Both Tourism Western Australia and local tourism operators were included in the consultation processes which informed the development of the tourism plan. Historically, recognition of the tourism sector as key stakeholders in policy promulgation at the Houtman Abrolhos has been limited (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). Current policy objectives include the incorporation ―of local communities into the decision-making processes for tourism development and management‖ (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 53).

4.3.3 Development of Guidelines and Instruments

Guidelines and instruments for governance of tourism and natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos are described in the management plan (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998) and the tourism plan (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). These outline a range of regulatory and non-regulatory instruments intended to achieve ecologically sustainable development of natural resources as well as protection of high value natural and cultural assets.

Regulatory instruments developed to manage tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos include a limited entry and conditional licensing system for commercial tourism operators and facilities; a visitor entry fee system; setting maximum visitor numbers; seasonal closures of specific sites for conservation purposes a notification system for off season visitation; and a suite of sanctions prohibiting specific practices (Fisheries Western 95

Australia, 1998, 2001b). Non-regulatory instruments include a visitor code of conduct, and resource assessment programs (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Fletcher & Santoro, 2010; Fletcher et al., 2010). Instruments for managing recreational and charter boat fishing are not included in the current tourism management framework for the Houtman Abrolhos.

Calibration of policy guidelines and instruments with policy problems specific to dependent island territories is argued to be critical to enabling effective governance and tourism policy capacity. There has been no assessment or evaluation of the suitability of guidelines and instruments for the management of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos following the release of the tourism plan in 2001 (Section 4.3.5 and 4.3.6). The current tourism management framework is based on a number of input control measures. The effectiveness of these types of instruments in achieving desired resource conditions at tourist destinations has been challenged (Collins, 1999; Eagles, 2001; Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Lindberg et al., 1997; Ormsby et al., 2004). The absence of any outcome-based management measures also raises questions as to whether the most effective instruments have been selected (McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; Olsson et al., 2008). Furthermore, there is little evidence of integration of tourism management guidelines with fisheries management and conservation guidelines affecting tourism activity at the Houtman Abrolhos.

A limited entry approval and licensing system for commercial tourism operators and facilities is one of the key strategies proposed. The tourism plan includes guidelines for a tendering and approvals process for licenses to operate an undisclosed number of commercial charter boat operations; one shore-based tourism operation in each main island group; and one pontoon or moored accommodation facility at the Houtman Abrolhos (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 41). It is not clear whether the same management measure has been applied to limit the number of licensed air charter tourism operations. Assessment procedures and criteria for tourism proposals are detailed in the tourism plan (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 83). However the decision-making process used to determine the maximum number of tourism operating licenses does not appear to have been informed by any evidence-based relationship between levels of resource use and levels of change in resource conditions (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). The proposed licensing system for shore-based and moored tourism facilities does not

96 include provisions to revoke licenses should conditions of local resources not be maintained at minimum standards. Whether these instruments can achieve the policy goal of an environmentally sensitive tourism sector remains to be established.

Further instruments included within the tourism management plan include a visitor entry fee system for the purposes of cost recovery and monitoring of visitor numbers, coupled with setting an upper limit on annual visitor number to the Houtman Abrolhos. The intent of limiting visitor numbers to within a predetermined tourism carrying capacity is to limit impacts on local resources and maximise visitor experiences (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 26). However, doubts have been raised that this instrument is able to achieve the goal of sustainable tourism in comparable marine and protected natural area settings. Level of impact has been more strongly associated with visitor activity, sensitivity of the site, and length of visit than total visitor numbers to a destination (Buckley, 2003). A more targeted zoning approach to managing visitor access is also proposed in the tourism plan in which visitor access to declared high conservation value islands and sites is prohibited (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 26).

Tourism management guidelines for the Houtman Abrolhos include a number of prohibitions and sanctions as outlined in the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995). They comprise prohibition of camping, pets, firearms and the lighting of fires on the islands, as well as use of moorings and jetties maintained by commercial fishers. The regulations also make provision for an Off-season Notification System whereby all visitors are required to notify the Department of Fisheries of details of their intended visit during the period from 15th July to 15th February the following year. This instrument is intended to provide information on visitor levels and activity for the purposes of management. However this instrument and the associated data set is constrained by the reliance on self-reporting by visiting skippers.

The tourism plan also includes the proposal to develop acceptable codes of behaviour to be communicated to visitors. Codes of conduct are non-regulatory instruments which are designed to voluntarily foster minimal impact visitor behaviour by proving information on the values of natural and cultural resources and by recommending activities which have the least impact on resource conditions (Thomas, 2005).

Coordination and integration of guidelines and instruments across multiple sectors, modes and State actors is also considered critical to enabling effective governance and 97 tourism policy capacity. The Wildlife Conservation Act and Regulations (1980) include prohibitions and sanctions intended to conserve native flora and fauna in all areas of Western Australia including the Houtman Abrolhos and are administered by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Incorporation of these regulations into the tourism management guidelines outlined in the tourism plan is not evident.

Guidelines for the management of tourist fishing activity at the Houtman Abrolhos have not been developed. Tourist fishing activity as undertaken by private recreational visitors and passengers on commercial tourism charter boats is managed as a form of recreational fishing by the lead management agency, the Department of Fisheries. This is despite opportunities for recreational fishing being identified as a major tourist attraction and activity within the tourism plan and being promoted by Tourism Western

Australia. Guidelines for the management of recreational and charter boat fishing have been developed separately to the tourism management plan. These include limited entry licensing for commercial tourism charter boats undertaking dedicated fishing charters within the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos (Fisheries Western Australia, 2000b), and a range of input and output controls for private recreational fishers including gear restrictions, minimum size limits, seasonal closures, fishing-exclusion zones, daily catch limits and total possession limits, as well as sanctions, specific to the Houtman Abrolhos (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2010a). There is no evidence to suggest that the cap on the number of fishing tour operator licenses was set using sufficient catch and effort data with which to determine acceptable levels of resource extraction, nor using market-based information to determine the level of demand for commercial fishing charter.

Provisions within the Environmental Protection Act (1986) require that any proposed tourism development at the Houtman Abrolhos likely to have a significant effect on the environment is referred to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment. These guidelines require that any tourism development application undergo one of two formal levels of environmental impact assessment: a Public Environmental Review or an Assessment on Proponent Information. There is no indication that the Environmental Protection Authority‘s guidelines and assessment process has been integrated with the Department of Fisheries‘ guidelines and process for assessing proposals for development of tourism operations and facilities at the Houtman Abrolhos as outlined in the tourism plan (Fisheries Western Australia 2001:75-86).

98

4.3.4 Policy Implementation

Annual review and reporting on the progress or otherwise in implementation of the tourism management plan for the Houtman Abrolhos is a stated policy objective of the current tourism plan (Fisheries Western Australia 2001: 52). However no public reporting on the implementation of current tourism policies for the Houtman Abrolhos has been undertaken (Section 4.3.5). Review of management documents (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007) since the release of the tourism plan in 2001 has found that a number of policies have been implemented (Table 4.1). Additional tourism policies not identified in the tourism plan which are in the process of being implemented include provision for tourism operators to lease land for permitted purposes (namely, commercial tourism activities) within the Abrolhos Islands Lease (Minister for Fisheries Western Australia, 2010). An infrastructure project is also underway to reduce tourism impacts on the coastal environment at Turtle Bay, East Wallabi Island. The Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, in partnership with the Department of Fisheries, the Mid West Development Commission and Batavia Air Charter, is installing marked walkways, a shelter and interpretive signage (Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, 2011).

Policies which directly address the tourism sector‘s access to and impact on local natural resources have not been implemented. They include:

 Collection of tourist visitation data and cost-recovery through the introduction of a visitor entry fee system;

 Management of visitor impacts to within sustainable levels by applying an upper limit to annual visitor numbers, development of land management plans and a zoning scheme restricting visitor access to ecologically sensitive sites; and

 Refinement of management approaches on the basis of best-available information, despite the availability of recent applied research into terrestrial conservation values and effects of tourism activity on the marine environment.

Analysis of the implementation stage of governance of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos suggests that the capacity to implement policies aimed at managing the impact of visitation on terrestrial resource conditions may be constrained by: firstly, the lack of calibration of selected policy instruments with policy goals and existing operational processes; secondly, the lack of legislative provisions and State power to regulate visitor

99 access; thirdly, the limited availability to the State of resources for management and on- ground enforcement (Burbidge et al., 2004); and, fourth, the lack of integration between concerned State actors required to action policies.

Input-based instruments, such as the proposed visitor entry fee system; an upper limit on visitor numbers; and the restriction of visitation to designated sites, have been selected to achieve outcome-based policy goals, such as managing a tourism sector whose activity is compatible with the protection of the natural and cultural values of the Houtman Abrolhos. Reliance on input-based instruments and the absence of output- based instruments has been found to be ineffective in achieving sustainable tourism policy goals in a number of comparable island and protected area settings (Buerger et al., 2000; Carter & Cater, 2007; Ormsby et al., 2004).

100

Table 4.1 Implementation status of current tourism policies at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (Sources: Fisheries Western Australia 1998, 2001; Department of Fisheries Western Australia 2007; Tourism Western Australia 2008, 2010a; Fletcher & Santoro 2010).

RESPONSIBLE POLICY GOAL POLCY OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS AGENCY (INFERRED) INSTRUMENTS Department of Manage environmentally sensitive Manage the development of Limited entry licensing system Implemented Fisheries & AIMAC nature-based tourism which is environmentally sensitive for commercial charter boat consistent with protection of the nature-based tourism in the tourism operators natural and cultural values of the Abrolhos through licensing Abrolhos System and provide tourism operators Approval system for commercial Implemented appropriate managed access to the air charter tourism operators area for the community.

Limited entry licensing system Implemented for one land-based and performance criteria for tourism facility (pending) land-based and moored tourist accommodation facilities at designated sites Department of Collect data on tourist Visitor entry fee system Not implemented Fisheries & AIMAC visitation to inform management Cost-recovery Department of Manage private recreational Upper limit on visitor numbers Not implemented Fisheries & AIMAC in tourism in the Abrolhos conjunction with the Islands consistent with the Closure of designated islands and Not implemented Department of carrying capacity of the sites to visitor access Environment and environment Conservation Land management plans for high Not implemented conservation value islands

RESPONSIBLE POLICY GOAL POLCY OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS AGENCY (INFERRED) INSTRUMENTS Department of Maintain and/or improve Allow use of the East Wallabi Implemented Fisheries & AIMAC visitor access airstrip to approved tourism operators Upgrade the East Wallabi Island Implemented jetty to enable use by commercial charter and private recreational boats Provide public moorings for Implemented commercial charter and private recreational boats

Department of Provide information to Visitor Code of Conduct Implemented Fisheries & AIMAC prospective visitors & foster development of acceptable codes of behaviour Department of Use management-oriented None identified Not implemented Fisheries & AIMAC in research on tourism and the conjunction with the effects of tourism to refine Department of management approaches Environment and Conservation Department of Develop mechanisms and None identified Not implemented Fisheries & AIMAC processes to incorporate local communities into the decision-making processes for tourism development and management

RESPONSIBLE POLICY GOAL POLCY OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS AGENCY (INFERRED) INSTRUMENTS Department of Communicate with Communication plan Not implemented Fisheries & AIMAC stakeholders regarding management practices and developments concerning tourism and seek their advice Department of Provide resources for None identified Not assessable Fisheries implementing the tourism management plan Department of Ensure the Ecologically Sustainable Undertake regular periodic ESD assessment and reporting Not implemented for recreational Fisheries Development (ESD) of all managed fisheries ESD assessments of all for managed fisheries within the and charter fisheries in WA managed fisheries Houtman Abrolhos

Undertake EBFM Risk assessment and status Implemented for the West Coast assessment and reporting at a reporting of regional ecological Bioregion (includes the Houtman bioregional level assets Abrolhos)

Tourism Western Accelerate the sustainable growth of tourism Promotion and marketing of Promotion and marketing Implemented Australia for the long term benefit of Western Australia tourism campaign for ‗Australia‘s Coral Coast‘ region (includes the Houtman Abrolhos) Regional policy and strategy Regional policy and Implemented development strategy for ‗Australia‘s Coral Coast‘

Tourism Western Ensure tourism related needs None identified Not assessable Australia, Department are incorporated into the (revised management plan pending) of Fisheries & AIMAC management plan for the Abrolhos Islands

The current lack of legislative provisions within the Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) to enable visitor access to be restricted has also hampered implementation of tourism management policies. The enforceability of guidelines which restrict visitor access and which require the administration of a visitor entry fee or permit system is also questionable in light of the remoteness and dispersed location of the islands. The Department of Fisheries has acknowledged that current operational capacity, expertise and staffing resources are insufficient to implement the necessary compliance system and specific land management plans (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 25, 43). There has been no reporting of enforcement activity to suggest compliance with existing Abrolhos Islands Regulations (1995) restricting high impact activity at the uninhabited islands. The failure to achieve such policies may also reflect inadequate levels of cooperation and partnership between the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Environment and Conservation, and Tourism Western Australia. This in turn may be attributable to the limited capacity of AIMAC to coordinate and integrate relevant roles and work programs across the concerned State actors. The levels of policy implementation observed may also indicate that tourism planning and management at the Houtman Abrolhos is accorded a lower priority in comparison with fisheries management and conservation.

4.3.5 Assessment

Provisions exist for compliance monitoring and assessment of future tourism facilities at the Houtman Abrolhos. The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority will be required under the Environmental Protection Act (1986) to monitor compliance with the Ministerial Approval Statement issued to Humphrey Land Development regarding the East Wallabi Island Tourism Development at the Houtman Abrolhos (Minister for the Environment Western Australia, 2008). Should development be approved, the licence to operate is conditional on the submission of annual environmental compliance reports to the Authority (Environmental Protection Authority Western Australia, 2007: 53). Independent environmental monitoring of the conditions of sites prior to and after development of tourism facilities to assess subsequent effects of any tourism developments at the Houtman Abrolhos is also required by the Department of Fisheries (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 80). However the tourism development guidelines do not state what level of alteration to local resource conditions would be deemed

104 unacceptable and whether tourism operating licenses would be conditional on environmental performance.

Annual reporting of the status of managed fisheries within the West Coast bioregion of Western Australia is conducted by the Department of Fisheries in accordance with the Fish Resources Management Act (1994) (Fletcher & Santoro, 2010). Recreational and charter fisheries are included in these assessments although assessment and reporting is conducted at a species or fishery level and not for fishing activity within the waters of the Houtman Abrolhos specifically. Reported declines in three key indicator species within the Houtman Abrolhos Fish Habitat Protection Area have been attributed to overfishing (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2008). This has led to changes in management guidelines for commercial, recreational and charter boat fishing. Additional seasonal fishing closures and reduced possession limits have been introduced for the Fish Habitat Protection Area in response. However, despite the probable role of tourism development and activity in contributing to increased recreational and charter boat fishing effort, fisheries policies for the Houtman Abrolhos have been assessed in isolation from tourism policies.

No formal assessment has been undertaken to determine whether tourism development priorities and strategies identified by Tourism Western Australia for the Houtman Abrolhos have been effectively implemented (Tourism Western Australia, 2004, 2006, 2010a). Tourism Western Australia conducts annual reporting of its performance in achieving key policies (Tourism Western Australia, 2010b). However this reporting process does not include assessment of progress against tourism development policies for the Australia‘s Coral Coast region specifically.

Assessment of performance against the objectives of the tourism plan for the Houtman Abrolhos every five years is a stated policy objective (Fisheries Western Australia 2001: 52). Similarly, the management plan (Fisheries Western Australia 1998: 11) contains the policy objective to ―develop a set of performance indicators for measuring the implementation of the plan [and] report on these indicators as part of the annual review process‖. The Management of the Houtman Abrolhos System: A Draft Review 2007 to 2017 (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007) was released for public comment in 2007 however the final review document has not been released (Section 4.3.6). The draft review noted that three major tourism policy objectives had been achieved, namely: the release of the tourism plan; the identification of sites for tourism

105 facility development; and, the finalisation of guidelines and assessment of tourism development proposals (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 39). Implementation of the policy objective to ―manage environmentally sensitive tourism at the Abrolhos Islands through the development of appropriate management methods‖ is reported as ongoing (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 82).

Substantive assessment and public reporting of recent tourism policy and management performance at the Houtman Abrolhos has yet to occur. In the absence of such assessment the sustainability of the tourism sector cannot be determined. The draft review does not make evident whether performance indicators had been developed or used. The limited assessment conducted of tourism policy performance within the draft review is descriptive and refers only to implementation and not to performance or impact of policy interventions (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007: 39). Tourism impact assessment frameworks have been developed and applied in uninhabited island settings (Manning et al., 2005; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998), including the LAC framework(Buerger et al., 2000). However no framework has been applied at the Houtman Abrolhos.

Failure by the Department of Fisheries to adequately assess tourism policy interventions at the Houtman Abrolhos may be attributable to the lack of a statutory requirement for such assessment. In addition, the absence of measurable performance indicators for any tourism policies has impeded rigorous assessment. Existing tourism policies for the Houtman Abrolhos do not specify desired outcomes or limits of acceptable change to conditions of those local natural resources accessed for the purposes of tourism. The lack of routine collection of visitation and environmental data has also precluded any evidence-based assessment of the effects of those tourism policies which have been implemented. It has therefore not been possible to assess whether the major policy goal of managing environmentally sensitive nature-based tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos which is consistent with protection of natural and cultural values and provides appropriate managed access to the community has been achieved.

4.3.6 Evaluation

Tourism governance processes at the Houtman Abrolhos have been the subject of a number of evaluations historically. In 1989 the Abrolhos Islands Task Force released the Abrolhos Islands Planning Strategy. The strategy examined management of tourism and concluded that prior to tourism management plans and effective legislative controls 106 being implemented, development of tourism facilities at the Houtman Abrolhos should not occur. Further recommendations included: installation of permanent moorings for boat-based visitors; permitting commercial charter boat tourism to commence; and, trialling commercial air charter tourism (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b).

The Abrolhos Islands Consultative Council completed a review of the strategies and current implementation status of the Planning Strategy in 1994. In addition, the Council formed the Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Party, which undertook an evaluation of existing tourism policy and released the Final Report on Tourism at the Abrolhos Islands in 1995. The final report recommended that current policy should be revised to enable the development of small-scale nature-based tourism ventures, noting that further research was required to ensure that management guidelines were in place to ensure that development was environmentally sensitive (Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group, 1995). The report also recommended that an interim Management Advisory Committee be established whose members included a representative of the tourism sector, prior to the establishment of an Abrolhos Islands Management Authority. The tourism plan has incorporated the majority of recommendations made by historical evaluations. AIMAC adopted the recommendations outlined in the final report (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b: 11).

No formal evaluation of tourism governance and policy at the Houtman Abrolhos has since been conducted. The final version of the review of the management plan has yet to be released. A review of the tourism plan was to be undertaken in 2006 however no review has commenced (Driscoll, 2011). An internal review of the role of Management Advisory Committees undertaken by the Minister for Fisheries and the Department of Fisheries has recommended that AIMAC be retained but that the committee structure and membership be revised (Driscoll, 2011).

The evaluation stage of tourism governance at the Houtman Abrolhos is substantively impeded by the lack of any legislative provisions requiring periodic evaluation or review. Neither the Fish Resources Management Act (1994) nor the Fish Resources Management Regulations (1995) stipulate the maximum length of time for which a management plan remains in effect. Nor do they require that reviews of governance arrangements and management plans be conducted. Both the current management plan and the tourism plan include policies stating the terms of the plan and the requirement for review however implementation is not a statutory requirement. As previously

107 identified, the development of outcome-based performance measures for the purposes of evaluation has not taken place. Development of such measures is also only a policy goal and not a statutory requirement. Moreover, the lack of research which has been conducted regarding tourist visitation, activity and impact at the Houtman Abrolhos prevents any evidence-based assessment of performance.

Tourism governance arrangements for the Houtman Abrolhos do not include an established process for policy learning and adaptive management in response to the outcomes of evaluation. The lack of periodic assessment and re-evaluation of tourism policy and the tourism plan is likely to have prevented use of the management-oriented research which has been conducted on tourism and the effects of tourism to refine management approaches (Webster et al., 2002a, 2002b).

4.4 DISCUSSION

The extent to which tourism sectors access, use and consume local natural resources in island settings is determined by tourism and resource governance arrangements. Governance arrangements must provide the preconditions upon which a sustainable tourism development policy can be achieved (Graci & Dodds, 2010; Hall, 2000; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; McCool & Moisey, 2001). Characterisation of governance and tourism policy processes at the Houtman Abrolhos was the first objective of the investigation undertaken, which has determined that multiple actors and levels are concerned with governance of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos and this is reflected in the complexity of governance arrangements. Formal authority to govern is held by a single sector-based State actor in keeping with the traditional State-based regulatory model. The mode of governing is primarily hierarchical although the establishment of an advisory committee has provided a mechanism by which networks of private and public actors can inform decision making processes. Market-based approaches are present to the extent that the primary State actor is relying upon a shift in market- preference towards non-consumptive ecotourism products to facilitate achievement of its sustainable tourism development policy. Current governance arrangements have limited effectiveness and tourism policy capacity is constrained by the extent to which critical preconditions are not present. It is therefore argued that current governance arrangements for tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos may not be capable of ensuring the sector‘s access to natural resources is sustainable.

108

This investigation has also achieved the second objective, which was to examine the contribution of each of these preconditions to tourism policy capacity and the achievement of sustainable tourism development policy goals for the Houtman Abrolhos. How and to whom authority has been delegated and responsibility for governance of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos assigned is problematic. The State actor with delegated authority for governance of tourism is the agency responsible for the management of marine resources. State actors with capacity for the planning and management of terrestrial resources, natural resource conservation and tourism planning have been assigned a level of responsibility but very limited authority. Similarly, the advisory committee given responsibility to coordinate and integrate governance has not been accorded any authority beyond an advisory function. The delegation of authority and responsibility for governance of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos has failed to effectively capitalise ―upon the respective strengths and assets of different actor arrangements in terms of their resources, reach, mandate, and power‖ (Newell et al., 2012: 374).

The need for coordination and integration across horizontal levels of State actors is evident and has been acknowledged through the establishment of an advisory committee. However the authority of AIMAC is constrained to providing advice to the State Minister for Fisheries. Further coordinating and integration measures between State agencies are at the discretion of the Department of Fisheries and are subject to limitations associated with administrative capacity. Non-statutory mechanisms to further achieve a whole-of-government approach have not been implemented. Processes for the development of policy and guidelines concerning tourism promotion and industry development, tourism management, natural resource management and conservation remain discrete.

Tourism actors (State and private) and other resource users have not been substantively included in the policy subsystem. Participation is limited to membership of the advisory committee and the opportunity to contribute to periodic public reviews of management plans and legislation. The State actor responsible for tourism development and promotion is without delegated authority or resources to implement policies. The limited participation by and capacity of tourism actors may have prevented coordination of natural resource use strategies.

109

The quality of information used to inform the problem framing process, select appropriate instruments, and enable assessment of policy interventions with regards to tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos is inadequate. The lack of routine capture of data concerning the tourist sector‘s characteristics and utilisation of natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos is a major barrier to the assessment stage of governance. The lack of integration between State actors with expert knowledge in tourism sector characteristics and terrestrial resource conditions and conservation, and those with responsibilities for tourism policy promulgation, is an additional impediment. The existing tourism sector is described as an environmentally sustainable nature-based tourism sector (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007) however there is no information available to support or refute this description which, in turn, has influenced the promulgation of tourism policy and the extent to which access to local natural resources is permitted.

Systematic calibration of tourism policy problems with policy goals, objectives and instruments outlined in the tourism plan has been hampered by the limited expertise and analytical capacity in tourism policy of the State actor with primary management responsibility and the lack of formal coordination with State agencies with expert knowledge in tourism and natural resource conservation. There is no evidence to suggest that the input-control instruments selected to manage levels of tourist visitation will be enforceable nor keep tourist impacts on natural resource conditions at the Houtman Abrolhos to within sustainable levels. Clear and quantifiable objectives and targets for the goal of sustainable development of a tourism sector which is environmentally sensitive have not been developed. The lack of data has hindered the development of indicators of desired resource conditions and sustainable limits to changes in those conditions. Failure to implement policies to assess and evaluate tourism governance processes has prevented review of the efficacy of existing governance arrangements, policy processes and interventions and prevented subsequent policy learning and adaptive management.

Legislation has been the means by which the delegation of authority and assignment of responsibility to State actors for tourism governance at the Houtman Abrolhos has been mandated. Legislative provisions have enabled the existing traditional model of State- based regulation by a primary State actor, as well as the advisory functions of AIMAC and the specific secondary responsibilities of other State actors. Lack of legislative

110 provisions has hampered implementation of major tourism policy goals as well as assessment and evaluation of tourism policy processes and performance. The existing regulatory framework has not yet been amended to enable levels of tourist visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos to be managed nor a visitor access zoning scheme be implemented. These instruments are critical components of the sustainable tourism policy platform. Neither recent assessment of tourism policy implementation and performance nor evaluation of current governance processes has been undertaken. In both cases statutory provisions requiring periodic review are absent.

In undertaking this evaluation of governance and tourism policy capacity at the Houtman Abrolhos, this investigation has also examined the contribution of each of these preconditions to tourism policy capacity and the achievement of sustainable tourism development policy goals for dependent island territories more broadly. This analysis has highlighted that tourism‘s impact on local natural resources in island settings is a complex, collective problem. It established that the preconditions identified in governance, tourism policy and island studies literature account for the significant capacities required to achieve the goals of sustainable tourism policy in uninhabited dependent island territories. In particular, the application of new governance theory to the issue of governance and policy capacity for sustainable tourism development in dependent island territories has reinforced the critique of the traditional state-based regulatory model of governance by a single government actor. It has also indicated that the effective delegation of authority to multiple actors using appropriate mixtures of traditional and alternative governance modes, models and arrangements is in fact critical to the realisation of other preconditions which are argued to enable effective governance and tourism policy capacity in dependent island territories. Research addressing the failure of sustainable tourism development policies in island settings has focused on the need for improved technical, administrative, policy analytical, compliance, enforcement, and legislative capacities (Briguglio et al., 1996; Butler, 1993; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Lim & Cooper, 2009; Manning et al., 2005; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 2002; McElroy & Potter, 2006; Teh & Cabanban, 2007). The evaluation undertaken has found that the success of sustainable tourism development policies is likely to be strongly dependent on the capacity of governance arrangements to harness, steer and coordinate the multiplicity of actors and associated resources and capacities required in the interests of tourism policy capacity.

111

CHAPTER 5 TOURISM VISITATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT Tourism is a significant sector at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands (Section 2.4) which is reliant on the natural resource base of the marine and terrestrial environment (Section 2.3 and 2.4). Hence, the presence or otherwise of significant changes in tourist visitation, recreational activity and terrestrial resource conditions attributable to touristic pressure at the Houtman Abrolhos is examined in this chapter. In particular, the research reported focuses on the terrestrial impacts of tourism on the uninhabited islands because the impacts of recreational activity on the marine environment have been partially investigated by Webster et al. (2002a, 2002b). No equivalent investigation has been conducted of tourist visitation and recreation levels or terrestrial impacts of visitors to island sites and local natural resources within the Houtman Abrolhos Archipelago.

The need for information concerning levels of historical visitation and visitor impact as well as indication of changes in current levels of tourist visitation, recreation and impact at the Houtman Abrolhos has been widely noted (Abrolhos Islands Task Force, 1989b; Burbidge et al., 2004; Burbidge & Fuller, 1995; Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Dunlop, 2002; Fisheries Western Australia, 1998, 2001b). In a strategic inventory of natural resource assets in the Mid West region of Western Australia, the Northern Agricultural Catchment Council (2005: 52) identified island visitation as a process threatening the terrestrial environment and level of species diversity at the Houtman Abrolhos. In particular, direct physical disturbance causing habitat degradation, loss of biota and disturbance to seabird and sea-lion colonies has been identified as a threatening process (Burbidge et al., 2004; Dunlop, 2002).

Conservation of terrestrial resource conditions is also required to ensure the sustainability of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos. The terrestrial environment of the uninhabited islands is a major tourism resource (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Harvey et al., 2001). Identified terrestrial attractions include sea and land bird populations; Tammar wallabies; and Australian Sea-lion breeding areas. Shipwreck survivor‘s camps and the Wreck Point Lighthouse are both cultural attractions. Undisturbed vegetation communities and habitats are biophysical settings which are utilised as a tourism resource (Section 2.4, Table 2.1). The network of informal tracks on uninhabited islands is both an infrastructure resource as well as an

113 indicator of direct physical disturbance attributable to tourist visitation causing loss of vegetation and habitat.

Grounds for managing visitor impacts at uninhabited islands elsewhere include the high conservation values of terrestrial ecosystems and biota; the reliance of nature-based tourism sectors on local terrestrial resources as a form of tourism resource; and, evidence of emerging trends in increasing levels of island visitation and the changing composition of tourism sectors (Hall, 2001; Hall, 2007; Ormsby et al., 2004). In these contexts visitation and visitor impact data directly informs the promulgation, implementation and delivery of sustainable tourism development policies (Lindberg et al., 1997; Olsen et al., 2005). In view of potential development of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos, investigation of the impacts of current levels of visitation to island sites and local tourism resources is required to inform governance processes. At the Houtman Abrolhos the lack of such data has prevented assessment of whether existing levels and types of tourism impact to island sites meet management objectives for both conservation and for the sustainable development of environmentally-sensitive tourism.

Visitor access and recreational activity are the two threatening processes associated with tourism in uninhabited terrestrial areas (Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Newsome et al., 2002). The two broad categories of tourism impacts in such areas which are applicable to island settings are biophysical impacts to vegetation and landforms (Buerger et al., 2000); and, wildlife disturbance (Claridge, 1997). This assessment of tourism impacts at the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos has investigated biophysical impacts and inferred wildlife disturbance due to visitation and recreational activity. The specific objectives of the research were to:

1. Characterise the existing tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos;

2. Determine whether substantial changes in annual visitation and levels of recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos had taken place across the study period, and the implications of any changes with regard to demand for natural resources;

3. Assess the types and extent of historical impact by tourism to the conditions of those natural resource identified as tourism resources at highly visited sites at the Houtman Abrolhos; and

114

4. Assess existing levels of track-related impact by visitors at highly visited sites at the Houtman Abrolhos as indicated by temporal variation in track conditions attributable to visitation from 2004 to 2006.

5.1 TOURIST VISITATION, RECREATION AND IMPACTS

Rationale for assessment of tourism visitation, recreation and impacts at uninhabited islands is based on the significant nature conservation values recorded in such settings; the vulnerability of island environments to visitor disturbance; and, the need to sustain tourism resources. Assessments of tourism impacts in protected natural areas are used to directly inform the development and application of tourism management and impact mitigation frameworks. Tourism is widely perceived to have negative impacts on visited coastal and marine areas (Hall, 2001). Management responses require information on conditions of natural resources and on changes to those conditions induced by visitor access and activity at a site-specific and regional level (Lindberg et al., 1997; Newsome et al., 2002).

Uninhabited islands are valued as potential sanctuaries for the conservation, protection, and recovery of species, habitat diversity and unique ecological processes (Diamond, 1985a; Towns & Ballantine, 1993; Trevino et al., 2007). High levels of species endemism and specialisation of island biota have been attributed to biogeographic isolation (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967). Evolutionary processes occurring in isolation from continental areas are a characteristic feature of island ecosystems.

The ecological vulnerability to human-induced disturbance is an equally significant feature of island environments (Hall & Wouters, 1994; Trevino et al., 2007). The fragility of natural resource conditions of islands in the context of touristic pressure has been recognised by numerous researchers (Abeyratne, 1999; Allen, 1992; Christ et al., 2003; Kerr, 2005; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Vallega, 1999b; Wilkinson, 1989). Characteristics which heighten the vulnerability of islands to touristic pressure include: high levels of touristic demand for access to endemic and charismatic island fauna (Hall & McArthur, 1993; Hall & Wouters, 1994; Honey, 1999); unique and highly dynamic geophysical characteristics (Buerger et al., 2000: 250); unhabituated wildlife (Dunlop, 1996a; Orsini, 2004); small wildlife population sizes due to spatial constraints; low resilience to introduced species; and, limited habitat extents (Trevino et al., 2007).

115

Features of terrestrial environments which have high conservation value and are vulnerable to touristic pressure are commonly those same tourist resources upon which the tourism sector is reliant at islands and comparable coastal settings (Hall, 2001; Muir & Chester, 1993; Priskin, 2001). Failure to limit or mitigate impacts of tourist visitation and activity on local biophysical resource conditions has been associated with declining demand for tourism products at the destination level (Butler, 1980, 1993; Honey, 1999). Sustainable management of tourism resources has therefore become a tourism policy goal in many cases (Section 4.4.2). As previously determined, assessment of the conditions of tourism resources is required for the formulation and review stages of sustainable tourism policies in island settings (Olsen et al., 2005; Ormsby et al., 2004; Teh & Cabanban, 2007).

Few assessments of tourism impacts specific to uninhabited islands have been undertaken. Tourism researchers have tended to draw upon research in comparable coastal, marine and protected natural areas where the literature is more extensive. Applied studies within the field of recreation ecology have generated a considerable body of work on the theme of visitor impact monitoring and management in protected natural areas (Leung et al., 2001; Newsome et al., 2002). Buerger et al. (2000) have critiqued the tendency to apply findings of tourism impact studies conducted on mainland environments to islands, which is problematic given the fragility and particularity of geophysical, biological and ecological processes and conditions of islands.

Factors specific to islands which influence the impacts of recreational tourism include: the highly dynamic geomorphic characteristics and features typical of many islands, such as sand dune systems, tidal ponds and tombolos (Buerger et al., 2000; Gossling, 2001); adaptations to extreme ranges by specialised island biota (Buerger et al., 2000), the presence of species, habitats and ecosystems which are endemic, threatened or specialised (Diamond, 1985a; Eagles, 1984; King, 1985; Muir & Chester, 1993; Orsini, 2004; Sanson, 1994; Trevino et al., 2007); and the likelihood of cumulative impacts wherein touristic impacts are combined with impacts of other users and sectors, such as fisheries, and other threatening processes, such as the effects of climate change (Agardy, 1993; Belle & Bramwell, 2005).

Tourism to uninhabited islands has also been associated with localised on-ground impacts. Threatening processes which have been identified include visitor access and

116 recreational activity (Baine et al., 2007; Buckley, 1999; Buerger et al., 2000; Hill et al., 1995; Manning et al., 2005; Muir & Chester, 1993; Orsini, 2004). Specific visitor activities found to cause localised biophysical impacts to uninhabited islands include: trampling or walking, camping and constructing shelters, lighting campfires, removal of flora and fauna, and waste disposal (Claridge, 1997). Biophysical impacts of visitation and tourist activity on the conditions of terrestrial resources at uninhabited islands include disturbance of: soil substrates and geomorphic features; flora and vegetation communities; and fauna habitat.

The development and use of tracks in undisturbed areas for the purposes of tourist access and activity has a direct impact upon the integrity of soil substrates and geomorphologic features. The rate and severity of erosion and compaction due to trampling have been widely investigated in mainland environments (Arrowsmith & Inbakaran, 2002; Liddle & Greig-Smith, 1975a; Marion & Cole, 1996). Soil substrate type and landform characteristics were found to be significant predictors of resilience to impact in each study. Buerger et al. (2000: 249-50) undertook an investigation of biophysical impacts of visitation on Masonboro Island in the United States. They concluded that small islands have unique and highly dynamic geophysical characteristics, which resulted in rapid annual rates of mitigation of low levels of erosion caused by visitation.

Trampling has been found to have adverse impacts upon vegetation by reducing the diversity of floristic species, the height of vegetation and the percentage cover of a site in mainland environments (Liddle, 1975; Liddle & Greig-Smith, 1975b). Vegetation is affected by direct mechanical impact on plant roots because of soil compaction associated with trampling, and by damage to plant morphology though the variability in tolerance to trampling across vegetation types is considerable (Cole, 1995b). In the context of uninhabited islands, Buerger et al. (2000: 249-50) concluded that the adaptations of the vegetation to extreme ranges resulted in lower resistance to mechanical (visitor) impact and slow rates of mitigation, in contrast to the high capacity for geophysical recovery. Access by visitors to uninhabited islands can introduce other vectors of disturbance to vegetation particularly wildfires and the transportation and distribution of introduced and invasive plant species (D'Antonio & Dudley, 1995b).

The effects of trampling on soil substrate and vegetation have been found to indirectly affect fauna habitat in protected natural areas (Cole & Landres, 1995). Reptiles, land

117 birds and breeding seabirds, mammals and invertebrates use vegetated areas on islands for protection from predation, shelter from exposure, nesting and grazing. At islands of the Great Barrier Reef trampling has been found to denude island sites of vegetation cover, leading to erosion and collapse of seabird breeding burrows (Claridge, 1997; Hill & Rosier, 1989; Hill et al., 1995; Muir & Chester, 1993). Introduced invasive plant species on islands in the Pacific Ocean have replaced native species and eliminated seabird breeding habitat (Trevino et al., 2007).

Tourist visitation may also affect wildlife populations through disturbance of feeding and breeding behaviour (Duffus & Dearden, 1990; HaySmith & Hunt, 1995; Orsini, 2004). Disturbance can be incidental, that is, an outcome of visitor activity not focused on wildlife-interaction such as sightseeing, or intentional whereby individual animals are blatantly approached, fed or harassed (HaySmith & Hunt, 1995). The effect of visitor-wildlife interaction varies between species and according to intensity, frequency and degree of habituation (Burger, 1995; Erwin, 1989). The effects of visitor disturbance on breeding seabirds have been widely investigated in island settings. Disturbance by visitors to seabird breeding islands can lead to desertion by adult birds leading to exposure of eggs or nestlings to extremes of weather and predation, or, at worst, complete abandonment of the nest (Claridge, 1997). These impacts can cause shifts in colony distribution within an island and between islands and delayed breeding schedules, which Muir (1993: 104) has described as forms of ―long-term insidious impacts‖.

Levels of biophysical impact have been found to be positively related to the levels of visitation and recreational use a site receives, however the relationship has been found in many cases to be curvi-linear rather than linear (Cole, 1995a, 1995b; Liddle & Greig- Smith, 1975a, 1975b; Smith & Newsome, 2002). The highest levels of impact occur when a site is first visited as the more sensitive species and substrates are affected, then as use increases, impacts diminish relative to use levels as the site ‗hardens‘ and susceptible species are replaced (Leung et al., 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Manning et al., 2005).

Management responses at the destination level include input-based measures, which aim to regulate visitor behaviour in order to minimise site impact; and outcome-based measures, which focus on maintaining acceptable conditions of tourism resources (Newsome et al., 2002). Emphasis has shifted away from reliance on managing visitor

118 behaviour towards outcome-based management approaches due to the complex association between visitor levels and site impact (Lindberg et al., 1997; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998). There are numerous variables specific to sites which preclude broad generalisations concerning the impacts of recreation in relation to specific levels of visitor use (Hall 2007). These variables include: the type of recreational activity undertaken by visitors (Buckley, 1999); temporal and spatial scales over which a recreational pressure is exerted (Buckley, 2003); the resistance and resilience of a feature to recreational pressure (Arrowsmith & Inbakaran, 2002; Liddle, 1975); the capacity of a feature for recovery or mitigation (Buerger et al., 2000; Cole, 1981), and, the level of historical disturbance to a feature or site by visitors (Liddle, 1975; Lindberg et al., 1997; Marion & Cole, 1996).

The shift in emphasis from input-based to outcome-based management measures has led to a shift in the types of visitor impact assessments undertaken. Current approaches include selection of indicators of natural resource conditions which are impacted by visitation; measurement of those indicators at a site to establish a baseline; and repeat assessments of indicators to determine rates of changes to conditions (Lindberg et al., 1997; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; Newsome et al., 2002; Ormsby et al., 2004). Results are then evaluated against predetermined management standards to establish the significance of impacts and the need for on-ground management response.

5.2 TOURIST VISITATION, RECREATION AND IMPACTS AT THE

HOUTMAN ABROLHOS

5.2.1 Tourist Visitation and Recreational Activity

The existing tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos comprises the following four segments:

1. private boat-based visitation;

2. charter boat-based tourism;

3. air charter tourism; and

4. Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers.

Recreational touristic activities undertaken by visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos are reported to include:

119

 Marine-based activities (recreational fishing, spear fishing, yachting, wind surfing, surfing, SCUBA diving, snorkelling, swimming); and

 Island-based activities (bird watching, island walking, nature photography, visits to historic shipwreck sites).

There has been a perceived increase in annual tourist numbers and levels of activities at the Houtman Abrolhos (Bower, 2004; Chubb & Nardi, 2003) as well as perceived shift away from consumptive recreational activities towards ecotourism and nature-based tourism activities (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001a). Although the primary managing agency, the Department of Fisheries, has acknowledged the unreliable nature of the anecdotal information used, the agency has accepted the trend toward a larger, more diversified and predominantly ecotourism-based visitor sector (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b).

Lack of information on visitation and recreational activity levels at the Houtman Abrolhos is therefore problematic. Numerous physical and cultural barriers exist that have prevented the systematic capture of visitation data at the Houtman Abrolhos including remoteness, the dispersed location of the island groups, reliance on transportation by sea or air, and the high levels of informal visitation associated with the residential rock lobster community.

Annual levels of tourist visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos have not been previously determined. Estimates of annual visitor numbers; including 1,000 charter boat passengers, and 1,500 rock lobster fishers, family and Visiting Friends and Relatives, were first published by the Abrolhos Islands Consultative Council (1989a). Using the records of a prototype safety notification system for private recreational boat visitors, the Department of Fisheries found 28 boats carrying 252 passengers registered trips to the Houtman Abrolhos in 1996 (Fisheries Western Australia, 1998).

Webster et al. (2002a; 2002b) undertook interviews with key stakeholders and a survey of charter boat operators, as well as analysing data extracts from charter boat logbooks, as part of their assessment of the natural and human use impacts on the marine environment at the Houtman Abrolhos. They concluded that in 2001 approximately 15 charter boats operated at the Houtman Abrolhos, approximately 150 charter boat trips were undertaken per year, and the number of passengers was 1,650. Webster et al. (2002b: 91) also concluded that although their numbers are low across the bulk of the

120 fishing season, Visiting Friends and Relatives of fishers increased in visitor numbers to 2000-4000 over the Easter period and constituted a major proportion of visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos. The numbers of visiting private recreational boats was not quantified, and it was reported that acquisition of information about the activities of visitors was difficult due to the dispersed nature and infrequency of their visits (Webster et al., 2002b). Chubb and Nardi (2003) concluded that the combined number of commercial and recreational power vessels visiting the Houtman Abrolhos each year was unlikely to exceed 300 with most activity occurring during the three and a half month rock lobster fishing season.

The recreational activity levels of each of the four types of tourists visiting the Houtman Abrolhos has not been systematically investigated (Webster et al., 2002b). In 1988 the Abrolhos Islands Taskforce (1989a: 12) instigated a small-scale survey of visitors of all boat-based types which found that an array of activities were undertaken, including both consumptive and non-consumptive types of activities. The survey found that 28% of those surveyed came to enjoy the natural environment, 20% came to dive, 17% to fish, 11% to photograph, and 8% to explore the legacy of the wreck of the Batavia.

More recently, recreational activities of private recreational boat-based visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos have been described but not quantified (Surman, 2002). Webster et al. (2002a: 6) observed that the main activities by this segment were fishing, diving and visiting various island. The recreational activities undertaken by commercial air charter tourists have not been determined.

In contrast, the commercial charter boat segment has been previously investigated. In 1996 the Tour Operators Fishing Working Group found that the charter boat fleet operating in the mid west of Western Australia was conducting predominantly ‗mixed‘ activity tours, where both fishing and ‗eco‘ activities were undertaken. The most popular activity was ‗bottom fishing‘, followed by diving activities of which a significant majority involved spearfishing, and hence, were also consumptive (Western Australian Tour Operators Fishing Working Group, 1998: 42-3).

Recreational activity associated with charter boat tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos was further examined by Webster et al. (2002a). Interviews were conducted with eight of the known 15 charter boat operators working at the Houtman Abrolhos. It was concluded that the main recreational activity undertaken by passengers was SCUBA diving, and other activities, such as sightseeing and fishing, were offered as secondary 121 activities. Webster et al. (2002a) also reported that charter visits for the purposes of nature-observation (such as bird watching) or surface water sports (such as surfing) were conducted less frequently. Interviews were also conducted with Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers and Webster et al. (2002a: 6) reported that their activities were mainly fishing, diving and visiting other islands.

In 2006 an assessment of recreational fishing catch and effort at the Houtman Abrolhos was undertaken (Sumner, 2006). The following techniques were used: a creel census, an aerial survey, a phone/diary survey, and a roving survey of boats at moorings, anchorages and jetties, as well as extraction of activity data from the Department of Fisheries Tour Operator Logbook Records. It was concluded that total annual fishing effort by private recreational boat-based visitors was 4,242 fisher days (1,433 boat days). The reported total annual effort for visitors on commercial charter boats was 3,243 fisher days. Recreational fishing effort by the visiting friends and relatives of rock lobster fishers was estimated to be similar to that of commercial charter boat visitors.

As such, there are significant gaps in quantification of annual visitation and recreational activity by all visitor types at the Houtman Abrolhos. Though Webster et al. (2002a; 2002b) and Chubb and Nardi (2003) report annual visitor numbers for the Houtman Abrolhos, the data is neither statistically rigorous nor representative of all four visitor types (Webster et al., 2002b: 102). Similarly, results from previous investigations provide a conflicting account of recreational activity levels and types at the Houtman Abrolhos. It is evident that significant levels of recreational fishing activity occur (Wells & Nardi, 2006), as well as non-consumptive activities. However, the available data does not permit levels of all types of recreational activities for all visitor types to be described and compared. Moreover, substantial knowledge gaps exist, including the activities of air charter tourists. The extent to which levels of recreational activities are consumptive and the extent to which such levels are shifting in accordance with perceived trends towards non-consumptive nature-based tourism and ecotourism remain to be examined.

A more rigorous basis from which to assess the perceived expansion of tourism at the Houtman Abrolhos is therefore required, given the largely informal knowledge base used to claim a significant increase in the size and diversity of the tourism sector

122

(Bower, 2004; Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Tourism Western Australia, 2004, 2006) is untested.

5.2.2 Impacts

The extent of tourism impacts on the terrestrial environments of the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos has not been directly investigated previously (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, 2005; Webster et al., 2002a). Whether visitation and recreational activity have impacted terrestrial resource conditions is to be determined. In addition, whether levels of impact have risen in response to increased levels of visitation and recreational activity, or whether the relationship between levels of use and impact has followed the curvi-linear model (Leung et al., 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Manning et al., 2005), is to be examined.

At the Houtman Abrolhos adverse impacts of tourism activity on the terrestrial environment are perceived to be occurring (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Harvey et al., 2001; Hatcher et al., 1990; Surman, 1998). According to Burbidge et al. (2004) impacts are likely to be already ―significant in localised areas adjacent to popular anchorages.‖ The need for assessment of tourism impacts has been acknowledged (Burbidge et al., 2004; Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). Potential impacts of tourist visitation and activity on the terrestrial environments of the Houtman Abrolhos are regarded as a threat to conservation values (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b; Harvey et al., 2001). However the level of reliance of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos on local natural resources for the purposes of attracting visitors and supporting recreational activity which has been demonstrated (Section 5.3), coupled with the sector‘s predicted growth, suggests that assessment is also required to determine whether current levels of impact on tourism resources are sustainable.

The presence of natural and cultural features of high conservation value on uninhabited islands of the Houtman Abrolhos has been documented (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Harvey et al., 2001). Assets of high conservation value include: endemic, threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna; seabird breeding habitats; Australian Sea-lion breeding habitat; marine fossil sites and vegetation communities associated with continental surfaces, as well as maritime heritage sites (Section 2.1). These assets have been generally identified as tourism 123 resources (Section 2.4) however the presence of specific tourism resources on an island scale has not been identified for management purposes.

The vulnerability of terrestrial environments of the Houtman Abrolhos to human impacts has similarly been documented at a broad scale. Substrate and land form types range from the limestone pavement surfaces, cemented and unconsolidated coral rubble and shingle, which are highly resilient to erosion, to the continental surfaces and the sand dunes, gravels and soils which are less resilient (Collins et al., 1997). The Abrolhos Islands Taskforce (1989a: 4) noted the varying levels of resistance to erosion of the surfaces of the islands:

Dune areas on North, East Wallabi and West Wallabi Islands are highly susceptible to wind erosion. Soil cover is skeletal, covering limestone or coral rubble, or non-existent. On most other islands removal of vegetation cover by man-induced events (trampling, fire) or by natural events (sand blasting, storm damage) can lead to erosion problems.

The vulnerability of populations of breeding seabirds and Australian Sea-lions to visitor disturbance at the Houtman Abrolhos has not been directly investigated. Studies of breeding populations of Australian Sea-lions (Gales et al. 1992; 1994; Orsini 2004) and Bridled Terns (Dunlop, 1996b) at nearby islands on the Western Australian coast have established the presence of negative impacts due to visitor proximity and disturbance. Low level, repetitive disturbance by visitors to hauled-out Australian Sea-lions at Carnac Island, Western Australia, has been found to cause changes in regular behaviour, while high level incidental types of disturbance lead to more aggressive behaviour and a heightened state of vigilance, potentially causing physiological effects and possible abandonment of haul-out sites (Orsini, 2004). Australian Sea-lions breeding cycles have been found to be endogenous and therefore not linked to annual seasons (Gales et al., 1992; Gales et al., 1994). Tourist visitation and activity within or immediately adjacent to seabird breeding areas during nesting periods is believed to elevate the risk of reduced reproductive performance. Visitor disturbance is associated with flushing, desertion and possible abandonment of nests which in turn causes mortalities of nestlings and loss of eggs to predators and to exposure (Burbidge et al. 2004; Surman 2002). Nesting seasons for those species of seabirds which are known to breed at the Houtman Abrolhos have been documented (Table 5.1). Whether visitors are accessing

124 areas adjacent to established seabird breeding areas during nesting seasons remains to be established.

Threatening processes associated with tourist visitation and activity, and potential impacts to terrestrial resource conditions have been identified at a broad scale only (Table 5.2). At least 95 species of introduced vascular plants have been recorded at the Houtman Abrolhos (Harvey et al., 2001: 533) though the main vectors of introduction historically have been industrial and construction activity associated with guano mining and fishing. Two invasive species of particular concern have been investigated: Verbesina enceliodes, or Golden Crown Beard, which was introduced to East Wallabi Island in gravel used to upgrade the airstrip in 1998 to commercial air charter tourism standards, and is toxic to grazing mammals and land birds (Keighery & Sercombe, 2001); and, Bryophyllum delagoense, or Mother of Millions, which was introduced to inhabited islands of the Easter and Wallabi Group, where it has displaced seabird breeding habitat, and from which it can potentially be introduced to uninhabited islands by the Visiting Friends and Relatives of fishers segment (Longman et al., 2000). To what extent these threatening processes are occurring at specific island sites within the Houtman Abrolhos is considered below.

125

Table 5.1 Nesting seasons of breeding seabirds at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. (Sources: Fuller et al., 1994; Surman, 1998)

COMMON NAME SPECIES NESTING SEASONS

Osprey Pandion haliaetus July - November

Wedgetailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus November - April

Pacific gull Larus pacificus August - November

Sooty tern Sterna fuscata October - March

Bridled tern Sterna anaethetus November - April

Fairy tern Sterna nereis October - April

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia August - January

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii November - March

Crested tern Sterna bergii October - January

Whitebellied sea eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster July- November

Little shearwater Puffinus assimilis July- August

Whitefaced storm petrel Pelagodroma marina October - February

Pied cormorant Phalacrocorax varius August - November

Lesser noddy Anous tenuirostris October - November

Common noddy Anous stolidus September - January

5.3 METHODS

Varying research techniques were deployed to investigate visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos by the different segments of the tourism sector for the period of 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Section 3.2.2). Visitor data for the Houtman Abrolhos was collated from five sources: Department of Fisheries Off-season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries Tour Operator Logbook Records, aerial survey boat counts, air charter operator surveys, and visitor survey-questionnaires (Section 3.2.2, Appendices A and B). Tourist visitation data has not been collected for the Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers. Two measures of visitation and recreational activity have been deployed; trip or flight numbers, and passenger or visitor numbers. Annual levels of visitation and recreational activities were collated to establish a baseline and to 126 detect any substantial temporal changes from 2002-3 to 2005-6. The various recreational activities undertaken by tourists were grouped into one of two categories; consumptive (that is, fishing), and non-consumptive or nature-based (that is, snorkelling, swimming, SCUBA diving, sightseeing, wildlife observation, surfing, kite boarding, and ecotourism). This was undertaken to broadly distinguish recreational activities by their level of demand on natural resource at the Houtman Abrolhos. Levels of visitation and recreational activity were analysed by month and by island group and anchorage in order to determine when and where visitation and recreational activity was most concentrated. The tourist visitation and activity data collected is presented in Appendix C.

Description of the biophysical characteristics and the presence of natural and tourism resources of conservation significance at the seven research sites was completed by undertaking a review of literature (Section 2.5, Table 2.2 and Table 2.3). Data was collated from previous surveys of terrestrial resources at the Houtman Abrolhos (Section 3.2.1).

Assessment of tourism impacts at the Houtman Abrolhos was undertaken by surveying the seven research sites in 2004 to measure selected indicators of historical impact (Table 3.4) and to establish a baseline of track conditions (Section 3.2.3). The island surveys were repeated annually in 2005 and 2006 to determine whether significant changes in conditions of terrestrial resources had occurred which were attributable to tourist visitation and activity during that period. Data was collated from two sources: previous surveys of terrestrial resources at the Houtman Abrolhos; and, primary field observations derived from the island surveys (Section 3.2.1). The primary field data is presented in Appendix D.

High levels of boat-based visitation to six of the seven survey sites across the period from 2004 to 2006 have been established by the assessment of annual tourist visitation undertaken and described above. The aerial survey of peak-period boat visitation determined that six of the eleven most highly occupied anchorages are located adjacent to survey sites for the assessment of tourist impact. These include: the East Wallabi Island Survey Site, the Pelsaert Island South and North Survey Sites, Morely Island, Long Island and Wooded Island (Section 5.4.1 and Table XIII, Appendix C).

127

Table 5.2 Threatening processes and potential impacts on tourism resources associated with tourist visitation and activity at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. (Sources: Harvey et al. 2001, Burbidge et al. 2004, Gales et al. 1992, Gales et al. 1994, Keighery & Sercombe 2001, Orsini 2004)

THREATENING PROCESS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TOURISM RESOURCES

Escaped campfires  Loss of vegetation communities  Loss of substrates due to erosion once substrates are exposed  Loss of fauna habitat  Fauna mortalities Trampling  Loss of vegetation communities  Loss of substrates due to erosion once substrates are exposed  Loss of fauna habitat  Collapse of seabird burrows, and resultant mortality or injury to seabirds  Crushing of eggs and nestlings in ground nests, and resultant mortality or injury Visitor proximity to seabird and  Behavioural disturbance of breeding birds which in turn Australian Sea-lion breeding areas causes mortalities of nestlings and loss of eggs to predators and to exposure  Behavioural disturbance to hauled-out Australian Sea-lions which in turn cause physiological affects and possible abandonment of haul-out sites Introduction and inter-island  Toxicity to grazing fauna distribution of exotic flora and fauna  Displacement of endemic flora species and loss of unique species vegetation communities  Displacement of flora species used as fauna habitat Construction of infrastructure  Loss of vegetation communities  Loss of substrates due to erosion once substrates are exposed  Loss of fauna habitat Other forms of disturbance associated  Behavioural disturbance of seabirds birds with tourism transport (including use  Behavioural disturbance of breeding Australian Sea-lions of night lights, and noise pollution)

5.4 RESULTS

5.4.1 Tourist Visitation and Recreation

Results from analysis of the Off-season Notification Records from 2002-3 to 2005-6 indicate significant fluctuations in the total number of reported trips by visiting private recreational boats to the Houtman Abrolhos for each Off-season period. Across the

128 study period the annual mean number of visits to the Houtman Abrolhos by private recreational boats during the Off-season period is 63 while the annual mean number of passengers is 305. No evidence of trends indicating growth or decline in the number of trips by private recreational boats and the number of passengers each Off-season was detected (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Numbers of private recreational boat trips and passengers visiting the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, during the Off-season period from 2002-3 to 2005-6.

Analysis of the Off-season Notification Records established that, on average, 52 boat skippers intended to fish each Off-season period from 2002-3 to 2005-6. In comparison, the mean number of boat skippers intending to undertake diving and surfing activity was 16. The mean number of boat skippers identifying the intention to undertake ecotourism activity trips was 18. The results were further grouped into numbers of trips where consumptive and non-consumptive activity types were to be undertaken. The mean number of non-consumptive nature-based activity trips was found to be 36 boat skippers each Off-season period. The mean annual number of recreational boat skippers intending to undertake fishing across the study period was 52 (Figure 5.2). No temporal trends were detected in the annual numbers or proportions of boats intending to undertake consumptive and non-consumptive activity for the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6.

129

Figure 5.2 Numbers of private recreational boat trips on which skippers intended to undertake fishing (consumptive) and non-fishing (non-consumptive) activities at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, during the Off-season period from 2002-3 to 2005-6.

Results from the 40 groups of private recreational boat-based visitors surveyed at the Houtman Abrolhos during the In-season periods of 2004 to 2006 indicate that participation levels by these respondents were highest for line fishing (88% participation), followed by snorkelling (68%), then swimming (53%), island sight- seeing (45%) and beach walking (43%). Game fishing and spear fishing were undertaken by 33% and 18% respectively of the private recreational boat-based respondent groups.

Scrutiny of the Tour Operator Logbook Records dataset held by the Department of Fisheries revealed noticeable fluctuations in the annual number of commercial charter boat trips to the Houtman Abrolhos across the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Figure 5.3). The mean number of annual commercial charter boat trips across the four year period is 498 and the mean annual number of passengers is 4,805. Annual numbers of commercial charter boat trips and passengers from 2002-3 to 2005-6 were tested for evidence of declining linear trends. No trends were detected for changes in annual numbers of commercial charter boat trips or passengers.

130

Figure 5.3 Annual numbers of commercial charter boat trips and passengers to visit the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6.

From 2002-3 to 2005-6 the mean number of commercial charter boats undertaking fishing activities was 397, and the mean number of passengers on board boats undertaking fishing was 3,766 annually. In contrast, the mean number of commercial charter boats undertaking non-consumptive activities was 101, and the mean number of passengers was 1,039 annually (Figure 5.3). No trends in the numbers of commercial charter boats and of passengers undertaking fishing activities at the Houtman Abrolhos across the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6 were detected.

Results describing the numbers of commercial charter boats operating under various activity license types were also extracted from the Tour Operator Logbook dataset. In 2003-4 26 operators ran tours to the Houtman Abrolhos under Fishing or Restricted Fishing Tour Licenses. In comparison, two operators ran tours under an Aquatic Eco- Tour License. In 2005-6 25 operators ran tours under Fishing or Restricted Fishing Tour Licenses while three operators ran tours under Aquatic Eco-Tour Licenses.

131

Figure 5.4 Numbers of commercial charter boat trips on which fishing and non-fishing activities were undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, annually from 2002-3 to 2005-6.

The results of the aerial surveys from 2004-6 provide a daily profile of visiting boat numbers and boat types across the peak Easter holiday visiting period at the Houtman Abrolhos (Figure 5.5). The greatest daily number of visiting boats recorded was in 2004 at 60 boats. The results offer no indication of either a declining or increasing trend in peak period boat visitation across the study period. The anchorages recording the highest mean daily numbers of visiting boats across the four days from 2004-6 are Turtle Bay, the Guano Jetty, Pigeon Island, northern tip of Pelsaert Island or ‗The Hole‘, and Little Sandy Island or White Bank, Morely Island, Long Island, the ‗Inhabited Islands‘(Pelsaert Group), Roma Island, and Lagoon South (Wallabi Group). On average the distribution of boat sightings is evenly spread between the three island groups across the study period.

For the period from 2003-4 to 2004-5 the mean number of air charter tourism flights is 190 per year, while mean annual number of air charter tourist passengers is 634 (Table IV, Appendix C). The count of tourist flights conducted as part of the survey of air charter tourism operators combines both the Day-tour flight and Scenic (non-landing) flight categories. All Day-tour flights landed on East Wallabi Island, hence 100% of this form of visitation took place in the Wallabi Group. Results from the 13 groups of air charter tourists on Day-Tours surveyed at the Houtman Abrolhos during the In- season periods of 2004, 2005 and 2006 confirmed that this segment undertook non- 132 consumptive activities only. The highest level of participation was in snorkelling activities (100% participation), beach walking (77%), island sight-seeing (77%), terrestrial nature study (23%), swimming (15%) and bird watching (15%).

Figure 5.5 Daily numbers of visiting boats counted by aerial surveys of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, across the Easter period in 2004 to 2006.

Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers accounted for 21 of the 74 respondent groups who were surveyed as part of the visitor survey-questionnaire from 2004 to 2006. Examination of the results reveals that the five most frequently undertaken recreational activities by this segment were line fishing (95% participation), snorkelling (71%), island sight-seeing (48%), beach walking (38%) and swimming (29%).

5.4.2 Tourism Impact Assessment

5.4.2.1 East Wallabi Island Survey Site The East Wallabi Island Site contains identified tourism resources and high conservation value assets including: endemic vegetation communities, reptile and land bird species; sandy beaches and marine fossil cliffs; and, sites associated with the survivors of the Batavia (1629) shipwreck (Table 2.3). The survey of the East Wallabi Island Site (Figure 5.6) found evidence of recent historical impact by visitors to the site as indicated by a currently maintained airstrip (adjacent to but not within the study site), an extensive track network, and the presence of an invasive exotic plant species adjacent 133 to the airstrip and the primary track head (Table 5.3). The assessment determined that the historical development of infrastructure for visitors has resulted in the loss of vegetation cover and habitat. Annual visitation levels have been deemed to be high across the study period due to the proximity of the Turtle Bay anchorage, which was found to host the highest number of visiting boats across the peak visitor seasons of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1) and to the public airstrip (Figure 5.6), from which the commercial air charter segment conducts Day-Tours.

The track surveys established that in 2004 the site contained nine tracks, including one formalised track linking the northern end of the air strip with Turtle Bay (Table 5.3). One new track (EW T10) was detected in 2006, indicating that the track network had increased as a result of visitation. While the total length and area of the track network measured was substantial, the percentage of the total area of the track network to the total area of the East Wallabi Island Site was found to be 0.4%, indicating that the size of the track network does not represent a substantial loss of island vegetation cover and habitat. No sections of the track network lay adjacent to sea bird breeding areas therefore no impact can be inferred. A high number of sites of landform deterioration adjacent to tracks was detected, however whether these are attributable to visitor access has not been determined.

The track survey program detected variation in track width at 30 track points, or 28% of the total number of track points surveyed at the East Wallabi Island Site from 2004 to 2006 (Appendix D). Five track points increased in width, representing 5% of the total sample, which is not significant at a site level. Two tracks varied in total track area (Appendix D). EW T5 was found to have decreased in total track area from 2004 to 2006 by an average annual rate of 33%, while EW T9 was found to have increased in area by 19% from 2005 to 2006, but the average annual rate of increase for 2004 to 2006 was just 4% and therefore negligible. The net change from 2004 to 2006 in the area of total track network was a loss of 2%, which is not deemed to indicate substantial levels of impact.

Overall, the survey program at the East Wallabi Island Site did not find evidence of substantial increase in tourism impact at a site scale for the majority of indicators. However, the development of a new track during the study period infers increased impact of visitation on the site in the form of loss of vegetation cover, fauna habitat and compaction of substrates.

134

Survey Site

Survey site boundary

Main Map Location & Survey Site

Figure 5.6 East Wallabi Island Survey Site.

135

Table 5.3 Assessment of tourism impact, East Wallabi Island Survey Site.

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Airstrip – 1 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Information Signs - 1 Lead lights – 2

Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Rock cairns – 5 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing industry 0 Ogier (2004-6) seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry 0 Stanbury (2000); Ogier historical presence and activity (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 1 species, Verbesina encelioides Keighery and Sercombe (major potential threat, however eradication plan (2001) being implemented)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Goats (eradicated) Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal – 1 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 7 Coastal Route – 1

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 2147.5 m (excludes EW T10) Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately adjacent to 0 m Ogier (2006)

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

seabird breeding habitat (m)

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 1142.4 m² (excludes EW T10) Ogier (2006)

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the total area 0.4% Ogier (2006) of the island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 8 - Dune blowouts on EW T1, T2, T3, T4 & T5; Ogier (2004-6) braiding of EW T1, T4 & T5

Changes in Track- Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 1 – Coastal Route (EW T10) detected in 2006 Ogier (2004-6) related Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 2004-2006 5% Ogier (2004-6) (%)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

5.4.2.2 Long Island Survey Tourism resources previously recorded at Long Island include: lagoons and sandy beaches; Australian Sea-lion and sea bird breeding populations; and, sites associated with the survivors of the Batavia (1629) shipwreck (Table 2.1 and 2.3). Survey of Long Island (Figure 5.7) detected an extensive track network, the presence of two campfire sites and two extant wind shelters constructed from coral shingle, and the presence of a high number of introduced exotic plant species (Table 5.4). The assessment determined that historical levels of visitation have been the dominant cause of recent human-use impact on terrestrial resource conditions at Long Island. The anchorage west of Long Island was found to be the seventh most popular anchorage by visiting boats across the peak visitor seasons of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1).

The survey of track conditions established that there are eight tracks that comprise the track network on Long Island (Table 5.4). The length of the track network found to be adjacent to seabird breeding habitat was 386.9m. Peak periods of visitation by boat- based visitors coincides with the nesting seasons of eight species of seabirds known to breed on Long Island, including: Wedgetailed Shearwater, Roseate Terns, Sooty Terns, Caspian Terns, Osprey, Whitebellied Sea Eagles, Bridled Terns and Crested Terns (Table 5.1 & 2.3), which indicates that disturbance to breeding populations of sea birds by visitors can be inferred. The total area of the track network constituted 0.4% of the total area of the island site, which is not deemed to indicate a substantial level of loss of vegetation cover and habitat.

No increase in the levels of track-related impact was detected between 2004 and 2006. The number of tracks remained unchanged during the study period (Table 5.4). The track survey program recorded significant variability in 10 track points or 2% of the total number of track points, which indicates negligible change in the level of impact. The net change in the total area of the track network from 2004 to 2006 was a decrease of 15% (Appendix D). Therefore no substantial loss of vegetation cover and habitat attributable to visitor use for the period from 2004 to 2006 was detected.

Findings of the survey program established that while areas of seabird breeding habitat present on Long Island are potentially sensitive to degradation due to trampling by visitors, there is no evidence to suggest that levels of visitor impact are increasing, though the potential for disturbance due to visitor-wildlife interactions has been identified.

138

Figure 5.7 Long Island. 139

Table 5.4 Assessment of tourism impact, Long Island.

INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT SOURCE OF ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Impact Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Survey Markers - 2 Ogier (2004-6) Lead lights – 2

Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Campfire sites - 2 Ogier (2004-6) Extant stone shelters - 2 Wooden marker poles - 4

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing industry seasonal 0 Ogier (2004-6) presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry historical 0 Stanbury (2000); Ogier (2004- presence and activity 6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 10 species Harvey et al. (2001)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna 0 Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal - 0 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 8 Coastal Route – 0

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 653.7 m Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately adjacent to 386.9 m Ogier (2006) seabird breeding habitat (m)

INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT SOURCE OF ASSESSMENT

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 405.6 m² Ogier (2006)

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the total area of the 0.4% Ogier (2006) island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Changes in Track-related Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 2004-2006 (%) 2% Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

5.4.2.3 Leo Island Survey Leo Island hosts identified tourism resources and features of high conservation value including lagoons and sandy beaches, and breeding seabird populations (Table 2.1 and 2.3). The survey of Leo Island (Figure 5.8, Table 5.5) found evidence of historical impact associated with visitation including the presence of two extant wind shelters, an extensive track network, and nine introduced plant species. A fisher camp and associated infrastructure was also recorded.

The track survey established the presence of four tracks on Leo Island; two of which (LEI T1 and T2) are used by both visitors and rock lobster fishers (Table 5.5). The length of the track network that is adjacent to sea bird breeding areas was found to 400m, or 71% of the network. Peak periods of visitation by boat-based visitors coincides with the nesting seasons of seven species of seabirds known to breed on Leo Island, including: Whitefaced Storm Petrels, Pacific Gulls, Sooty Terns, Caspian Terns, Osprey, Bridled Terns and Crested Terns (Table 5.1 and Table 2.3), which indicates that disturbance to sea bird breeding activity can be inferred. Those species of seabirds breeding on Leo Island are predominantly species of high conservation value (Table 2.3). The total area of the track network in 2006 was found to occupy 0.1% of the total area of the island, which does not indicate a substantial loss of vegetation cover and habitat to visitor infrastructure. Braiding was found to be occurring along the majority of sections of LEI T1 (Table 5.5).

Changes in the conditions of tracks were detected. The number of tracks did not vary during the study period. Specifically, four of the 46 track points, or 9% of the sample, showed significant variation in track point width and all four decreased in width at an annual rate of 0.2m or greater. One track - LEI T2 - was found to have significantly increased in mean width by an average annual rate of 0.3m from 2004 to 2006 while LEI T3 decreased in total track area from 2005 to 2006 by 24% although the averaged annual rate of decrease in area of this track for 2004 to 2006 was 11%, deeming this variation not significant. The net variation in area of the total track network from 2004 to 2006 was a decrease of 11%, which suggests a high rate of recovery from disturbance (Appendix D).

Overall, the survey of Leo Island identified historical impact on terrestrial resources attributable to both tourist visitation and occupancy by the fishing industry. The track surveys established that a significant length of the total track network lies adjacent to these 142 seabird breeding habitats, indicating the potential for disturbance through visitor-wildlife interactions. The track survey program found no evidence of significant levels of increase in either track point width, mean width or area in those tracks adjacent to seabird breeding areas, suggesting that visitor use of these tracks is not currently physically degrading these habitats. Evidence was found of a significant increase of mean width in one track, and of a significant degree of braiding in another, however as both of these tracks are also used by rock lobster fishers, these impacts cannot be entirely attributed to visitors.

143

Figure 5.8 Leo Island. 144

Table 5.5 Assessment of tourism impact, Leo Island.

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Information Signs – 2 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Rock cairn – 1 Ogier (2004-6) Jetty ruin - 1 Pontoon - 1 Extant wind shelters – 2

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing 6 (plus seasonal use of LEI T1 and T2 for rock Ogier (2004-6) industry seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity lobster fishing purposes)

Number of structures associated with guano mining 0 Stanbury (2000); industry historical presence and activity Ogier (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 9 species Harvey et al. (2001)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Rabbits (eradicated) Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal - 2 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 2 Coastal Route – 0

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 565.1 m Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately 400.0 m Ogier (2006) adjacent to seabird breeding habitat (m)

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 317.7 m² Ogier (2006)

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the 0.1% Ogier (2006) total area of the island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 4 - Section of LEI 4 washed out by sea/tidal surge; Ogier (2004-6) dune blowouts on LEI T1 & T2; braiding of LEI T1

Changes in Track- Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6) related Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 0% Ogier (2004-6) 2004-2006 (%)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 1 (LEI T2) Ogier (2004-6) 2004-2006

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 0 Ogier (2004-6) 2004-2006

5.4.2.4 Morley Island Survey Tourism resources previously identified at Morley Island include: lagoons; sandy beaches; white mangrove communities; and, breeding populations of Australian Sea-lions and seven species of sea bird, including the Australian Lesser Noddy (Table 2.1 and 2.3). Survey of Morley Island determined the presence of historical visitor impact as indicated by an extensive track network, two campfire sites and the presence of ten invasive plant species (Figure 5.9, Table 5.6). The anchorage adjacent to Morely Island was found to be the sixth most utilised anchorage by visiting boats during the peak visitor periods of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1).

The initial survey of the track network on Morley Island found nine tracks (Table 5.6). The total length of the track network to lay adjacent to seabird breeding areas was 149.8m. Peak periods of visitation by boat-based visitors coincides with the nesting seasons of eight species of seabirds known to breed on Morely Island, including: Whitefaced Storm Petrels, Australian Lesser Noddies, Pied Cormorants, Whitebellied Sea Eagles, Pacific Gulls, Bridled Terns and Fairy Terns (Table 5.1 & 2.3), which indicates that disturbance to sea bird breeding activity in these areas can be inferred. The area of the track network comprised 0.1% of the area of the island site, which does not indicate a substantial loss of vegetation cover and habitat to visitor infrastructure.

Subsequent surveys of the track network on Morley Island in 2005 and 2006 detected a high rate of variability in track conditions across the study period (Appendix D). A tenth track (MI T10) was found in 2006 and it was determined to be a coastal route. Ten track points showed substantial variation in width across the study period. In particular, four of these points, or 13% of the total sample, increased in width which indicates a trend at the site level of widening of specific track sections attributable to visitor use. One track (MI T1) was found to have increased in total track area by 25% across the three-year period. A second track (MI T6) sustained a substantial decrease in mean width from 2004 to 2006. The overall net variation in the area of the total track network from 2004 to 2006 for Morley Island was a decline of 2% (Appendix D). These results imply both a high rate of recovery of adjacent vegetation cover and changes in visitor use of the track network across the study period.

147

Indications of substantial historical impact by visitors at Morely Island are few, beyond the existence of a track network and campfire site remains. However the addition of a new track to the track network raises the number of tracks on the island to ten, which is high in the context of the island site‘s relatively small area (Table 5.6). This evidence combined with the recorded increases in track point width, mean width and total track area, and the comparatively high rate of variability in track conditions, indicates a notable level of physical impact due to visitation. The proximity of lengths of track to seabird breeding habitats – particularly those of the Australian Lesser Noddy – also highlights the potential for impact due to visitor-wildlife interaction.

148

Figure 5.9 Morley Island. 149

Table 5.6 Assessment of tourism impact, Morley Island.

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Information Signs – 2 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Wooden marker pole - 2 Ogier (2004-6) Campfire site remains – 2

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing industry 0 Ogier (2004-6) seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry historical 0 Stanbury (2000); Ogier presence and activity (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 10 species Harvey et al. (2001)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Rabbits (eradicated) Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal - 0 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 9 Coastal Route – 1

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 227.9 m (excludes MI T10) Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately adjacent to 149.8 m (excludes MI T10) Ogier (2006) seabird breeding habitat (m)

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 105.9 m² (excludes MI T10) Ogier (2006)

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the total area of 0.1 % Ogier (2006) the island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Changes in Track- Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 1 - Coastal Route (MI T10) Ogier (2004-6) related Impact identified in 2006

Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 2004-2006 13% Ogier (2004-6) (%)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004-2006 1 - MI T1 Ogier (2004-6)

5.4.2.5 Wooded Island Survey Previous studies have determined that Wooded Island hosts the following tourism resources and features of high conservation value: lagoons; white mangrove communities; breeding populations of Australian Sea-lions and seven species of sea birds, including the Australian Lesser Noddy (Table 2.1 and 2.3). Survey of Wooded Island in 2004 detected few indications of historical visitor impact with the exception of one extant wind shelter, an extensive track network, and the presence of eleven introduced plant species (Table 5.7). The anchorage adjacent to Wooded Island was found to be the eleventh most utilised by visiting boats across the peak visitor periods of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1).

The 2004 track condition survey of Wooded Island determined that there are nine tracks in the island‘s track network (Table 5.7). The total length of the network found to run adjacent to seabird breeding habitat was 178.7m. Peak periods of visitation by boat-based visitors coincides with the nesting seasons of twelve species of seabirds known to breed on Wooded Island, including: Whitefaced Storm Petrels, Australian Lesser Noddies, Common Noddies, Pied Cormorants, Whitebellied Sea Eagles, Ospreys, Pacific Gulls, and Bridled, Caspian, Sooty, Roseate and Fairy Terns (Table 5.1 and 2.3), which indicates that disturbance to sea bird breeding activity in these areas can be inferred. The total area of the track network constituted 0.4% of the area of the island site. It is noteworthy that approximately one third of the calculated island area is occupied by the central lagoon, hence the proportion of exposed, dry island surface area that is occupied by the track network could be substantially higher.

The survey program in 2005 and 2006 found that no additional tracks during the study period (Table 5.7). Significant variability in track conditions was detected by the track survey program at 30 of the 53 track points, five of which increased in track point width, representing 9% of the total site sample. Four tracks on Wooded Island varied substantially in either mean width or total track area (Appendix D). Both WI T1 and WI T3 decreased in mean track point width by an annual average of 0.2m from 2004 to 2006. WI T3 was also found to have decreased in area across the study period by an average annual rate of 29%, while WI T4 experienced a similar average annual rate of decrease of 26%. The net change in the area of the total track network from 2004 to 2006 was a loss of 10% (Appendix D).

152

These findings suggest a high rate of recovery of adjacent vegetation cover as well as changes in visitor use of the track network across the study period.

Assessment of Wooded Island found a low level of historical tourism impact, and a measurable decrease in track-related impact across the survey period. However, the proximity of lengths of track to seabird breeding habitats – particularly those of the Australian Lesser Noddy – highlights the potential for impact due to visitor-wildlife interaction.

153

Figure 5.10 Wooded Island. 154

Table 5.7 Assessment of tourism impact, Wooded Island.

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Impact Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Information Sign – Ogier (2004-6) 1

Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Extant stone shelter Ogier (2004-6) – 1

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing industry seasonal 0 Ogier (2004-6) presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry historical presence 0 Stanbury (2000); Ogier and activity (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 11 species Harvey et al. (2001)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Rabbits Harvey et al. (2001) (eradicated)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal – 0 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 9 Coastal Route - 0

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 738.5 m Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately adjacent to seabird 178.7 m Ogier (2006) breeding habitat (m)

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 685.5 m² Ogier (2006)

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the total area of the island 0.4% Ogier (2006) site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Changes in Track-related Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 2004-2006 (%) 9% Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

5.4.2.6 Pelsaert Island North Survey

Tourism resources recorded at the Pelsaert Island North Site include: maritime heritage sites associated with the encampment of survivors from the shipwrecks of the Marten (1878) and Ben Ledi (1879); and breeding populations of six species of sea birds (Table 2.1 and 2.3). Survey of the Pelsaert Island North Site in 2004 found evidence of historical impact by visitors (Table 5.8). Seven extant wind shelters were recorded, as were eight informal mooring stakes used by commercial charter and private recreational boat-based visitors. The anchorage known as ‗The Hole‘ lies adjacent to the site and was found to be the fourth most utilised anchorage by visiting boats during the peak visitor periods of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1).

The initial track survey in 2004 established the presence of two tracks within the Pelsaert Island North Site (Table 5.8). The total length of the track network was 41.2m and the entire length of the network was found to be adjacent to sea bird breeding areas, including two raptor sites. Peak periods of visitation by boat-based visitors coincide with the nesting seasons of seven species of seabirds known to breed on this section of Pelsaert Island, including: Whitebellied Sea Eagles, Bridled, Sooty, Crested, Caspian, Roseate and Fairy Terns (Table 5.1 and 2.3). The total area of the track network occupied 0.01% of the area of the study site, which indicates substantial loss of vegetation cover and habitat due to track formation has not occurred.

Subsequent survey of track conditions in 2005 and 2006 determined that no new tracks were developed during the study period. Variation in track point width was detected at seven of the 15 track points, although only one was found to have increased across the study period. One track (PI N T2) decreased in area from 2004 to 2006 at an average annual rate of 26%. The net variation in the total area of the track network across the study period was a decline of 9%, indicating decreasing levels of track-related impact and high rates of recovery of adjacent vegetation cover (Appendix D).

The survey program established that at Pelsaert Island North substantial levels of historical tourism impact have occurred, although it is noteworthy that the areas where informal tourism infrastructure had been established comprised coral shingle and therefore did not contribute to loss of vegetation cover or habitat. No indication of track-related impacts

157 attributable to visitation was found for the period from 2004 to 2006. However, the proximity of the track network to areas of sea bird breeding activity indicates that disturbance to raptor and sea bird breeding activity in these areas can be inferred.

158

North Survey Site

Survey site boundary

Main Map Location & Survey Site

Figure 5.11 Pelsaert Island North Survey Site. 159

Table 5.8 Assessment of tourism impact, Pelsaert Island North Survey Site.

INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT SOURCE OF ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Impact Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Wooden marker pole - 2 Ogier (2004-6) Extant wind shelter - 7 Mooring stake – 8

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing 0 Ogier (2004-6) industry seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry 0 Stanbury (2000)); Ogier (2004- historical presence and activity 6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Rabbits (eradicated) Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal - 0 Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 2 Coastal Route – 0

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 41.2 m Ogier (2006)

Combined length of all track sections located immediately 41.2 m Ogier (2006) adjacent to seabird breeding habitat (m)

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 12.0 m² Ogier (2006)

INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT SOURCE OF ASSESSMENT

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the total 0.01% Ogier (2006) area of the island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 1 - Dune blowout at PI N Ogier (2004-6) T1

Changes in Track-related Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 2004- 7% Ogier (2004-6) 2006 (%)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 2004- 0 Ogier (2004-6) 2006

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6)

5.4.2.7 Pelsaert Island South Survey

The Pelsaert Island South Site hosts a large number of tourism resources and features of high conservation value identified through previous studies (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2003; Fuller et al., 1994; Stanbury, 1991, 2000). These include: lagoons; sandy beaches; white mangrove stands; breeding populations of Australian Sea- lions and thirteen species of seabirds including the endemic Australian Lesser Noddy; maritime heritage sites associated with the survivors of the wreck of the Zeewijk (1727) and Ocean Queen (1842); and, cultural heritage sites associated with guano mining activity (Table 2.1 and 2.3). Survey of the Pelsaert Island South Site established the presence of indicators of historical visitor impact (Figure 5.12, Table 5.9). These included a stone jetty, a shelter hut and fireplace which were constructed for the purposes of guano mining but have been used and maintained subsequently by recreational boat-based visitors. Formal infrastructure recorded at the site included the Wreck Point Light, a helicopter landing pad and a boardwalk that traversed a narrow section of the island occupied by seabird burrows. An extensive track network was documented. Evidence of historical impact by maritime industries was also detected, including the ruins of a rock lobster camp which was subsequently used as tourist accommodation facility, as well as guano mining shafts, railway routes and unrehabilitated mined areas. Adjacent to the Guano Jetty is a popular anchorage which was found to be the second most utilised by visiting boats during the peak visitor periods of 2004 to 2006 (Section 5.4.1).

The initial site survey located seventeen tracks within the study area, two of which were formalised by interpretive signage and direction to heritage sites (Table 5.9). The boardwalk was not included in the survey of track conditions or track monitoring program. The total length of the track network located adjacent to bird breeding habitat was 320.8m. Peak periods of visitation by boat-based visitors coincides with the nesting seasons of thirteen species of seabirds known to breed on this section of Pelsaert Island, including: Whitefaced Storm Petrels, Australian Lesser Noddies, Common Noddies, Pied Cormorants, Whitebellied Sea Eagles, Ospreys, Pacific Gulls, and Bridled, Caspian, Crested, Sooty, Roseate and Fairy Terns (Table 5.1 and 2.3), which indicates that disturbance to sea bird breeding activity in these areas can be inferred. The percentage of the total area of the site that was found to be occupied by the track network was 0.3%, which is not indicative of

162 substantial track-related loss of vegetation cover and habitat. Indeed, four tracks were found to have followed pre-existing routes established during the guano mining era or for the purposes of maintaining the Wreck Point Light.

Analysis of the results of the track survey program in 2005 and 2006 revealed that no additional tracks were recorded to have developed during the study period (Table 5.9). Fourteen track points varied in width substantially. One track showed a significant increase in mean width from 2004 to 2006 (Appendix D), representing 1% of the total sample which is not considered substantial. Variation in total track area was detected for six tracks. PI S

163

Survey site boundary South Survey Site

Main Map Location & Survey Site

Figure 5.12 Pelsaert Island South Survey Site.

164

Table 5.9 Assessment of tourism impact, Pelsaert Island South Survey Site.

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Historical Tourism Number of items of formal tourist infrastructure Wreck Point Light – 1 Ogier (2004-6) Impact Information signs - 1 Helicopter landing pad - 1 Boardwalk – 1

Number of items of informal tourist infrastructure Wooden marker poles – 3 Ogier (2004-6) Extant stone shelter and fireplace - 1 Stone Jetty (or, the Guano Jetty) – 1

Number of structures associated with rock lobster fishing 1 - Ruins of fishing camp Ogier (2004-6) industry seasonal presence (fisher camps) and activity

Number of structures associated with guano mining industry 4 - Substantial mining activity has removed Stanbury (2000); historical presence and activity substrate from the southern tip of the survey site. Ogier (2004-6)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic flora 20 species, including Lycium ferocissimum Harvey et al. (2001) (identified as serious threat if unmanaged)

Number of documented species of invasive exotic fauna Rabbits (eradicated) Harvey et al. (2001)

Track-related Impact Number of tracks in track network Formal – 2 (not including Boardwalk) Ogier (2004-6) Informal - 13 Coastal Route – 2

Combined length of all tracks within the network (m) 2159.5 m Ogier (2006)

SOURCE OF INDICATOR MEASURE RESULT ASSESSMENT

Combined length of all track sections located immediately 320.8 m Ogier (2006) adjacent to seabird breeding habitat (m)

Combined area of all track sections (m²) 1292.5 m² Ogier (2006)

Combined area of all track sections as a percentage of the 0.3% Ogier (2006) total area of the island site (%)

Number of sites of observed landform deterioration 0 Ogier (2004-6)

Changes in Track- Changes in numbers of tracks in track network 2004-2006 0 Ogier (2004-6) related Impact Percentage of track points to have increased in width from 1% Ogier (2004-6) 2004-2006 (%)

Number of tracks to have increased in mean width from 0 Ogier (2004-6) 2004-2006

Number of tracks to have increased in total area from 2004- 0 Ogier (2004-6) 2006

T2 was the only track to increase in area from 2005 to 2006, however the average annual rate of increase across the three-year study period was 13%. PI S T5 decreased in area from 2004 to 2006 at an average annual rate of 22%. The net variation in the total area of the track network across the study period was a loss of 7% (Appendix D).

The surveys determined that the Pelsaert Island South Site has been substantially impacted by the guano mining industry, fishing activity and tourist visitation historically. The current array of formal and informal tourist infrastructure is concentrated in these pre- disturbed areas. Track-related impacts to the extent of vegetation cover and habitat appear to have decreased across the study period. However a substantial length of the track network lies proximal to seabird breeding areas. There remains the potential for disturbance to seabird breeding habitats and behaviour due to visitor-wildlife interaction.

5.5 DISCUSSION

Tourism has emerged as a significant resource-based sector at the Houtman Abrolhos. However no increase in levels of tourist visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos for the period 2002-3 to 2005-6 has been detected. Interactions between tourism resource users and local resources are predominantly consumptive. No evidence has been found of a shift in the popularity of recreational fishing towards non-consumptive eco tourism-type activities for the same period. Evidence of changes in terrestrial resource conditions attributable to tourist visitation and recreational activity at the Houtman Abrolhos has been detected during the period of 2004 to 2006. Historical levels of tourism impacts at each of the seven sites were substantial. In comparison, levels of changes in resource conditions attributable to tourism which were detected during the three year period from 2004 to 2006 were significantly lower.

The first objective was to characterise the existing tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos. This assessment established that in 2003-4 visitor numbers were at least 6,000. The commercial charter boat segment is the largest contributor to the overall tourism sector (71%) followed by the air charter tourism segment (23%) and the private recreational boat segment (9%). However this numerical baseline is limited by the lack of quantifiable measures of levels of visiting friends and relatives of the rock lobster fishers, and of private recreational boat trips and passengers across the In-season period, as well as their activities. 167

Furthermore, the representativeness of the Department of Fisheries Off-season Notification records remains in doubt as it relies on voluntary submission of trip notifications. More such boats may be undetected by the visitation counts undertaken. The results of analysis of this dataset can only be regarded as representative of the population of private recreational boats who reported visiting the Houtman Abrolhos.

Investigation of recreational activity levels associated with tourist visitation from 2002-3 to 2005-6 has clearly shown that the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos is recreation- based. The existing tourism sector is dominated by consumptive recreational activity. Fishing is the most frequently undertaken activity by all visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos for the period of 2002-3 to 2005-6, with the exception of the air charter tourism segment, where no fishing and only non-consumptive eco tourism-type activities were undertaken. Across the study period 83% of private boat skippers visiting during the Off-season periods intended to fish while 60% intended to undertake non-consumptive eco tourism-type activities. In terms of the commercial charter boat segment, 80% of tours to the Houtman Abrolhos during 2002-3 to 2005-6 were fishing tours, while 20% were non-fishing or eco tourism-type tours. The most frequently undertaken non-consumptive activities include snorkelling, SCUBA diving and swimming, followed by island-based visits.

The second objective was to determine whether substantial changes in annual visitation and levels of recreational activity (and associated demand on local resource systems) at the Houtman Abrolhos had taken place across the study period. The tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos has not experienced an increase in tourist visitation across the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6 despite the presence of identified drivers of island-based tourism development. This result is contrary to both global and regional trends in growth for island-based tourism sectors and to the perceptions of the local managing agency. Comparison of levels of tourist visitation in 2003-4 with historical estimates of visitation does indicate that the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos underwent expansion between the periods of 1988 to 2003-4. Transport capacity is a significant factor influencing tourist visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos. The recent emergence and growth in air charter tours at the Houtman Abrolhos supports this claim. The probable influence of seasonal weather patterns and the availability of safe anchorages may restrict the number of boats to visit the Houtman Abrolhos.

168

No evidence was found of a shift in recreational activities undertaken by tourists visiting the Houtman Abrolhos from fishing to non-consumptive eco tourism-type activities in the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6. This result is contrary to the predictions of the local managing agency. Demand for nature-based and eco tourism-type activities in island settings appears to not be a significant driver influencing the development of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos.

The third objective was to determine the presence of historical impact on terrestrial resource conditions by visitors to island sites at the Houtman Abrolhos. Indicators of historical levels of tourism impact were identified at all of the island sites primarily in the form of a substantial network of tracks (Table 5.10). In total 61 tracks were detected at the seven island sites. The total combined length of these tracks was 6,533m or 6.5 kilometres and the total combined area was approximately 4km². This indicates a loss of the equivalent area of vegetation and fauna habitat due to tourist visitation. Vegetation and fauna communities on the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos have been identified as high value conservation assets as well as tourism resources. Loss of these resources to the extent determined is therefore significant in the context of achieving conservation and sustainable tourism policy objectives.

The type and severity of historical impact not related to track formation was varied across the island sites and this precludes extrapolation at the archipelago scale. The Pelsaert Island South Site was found to have been severely disturbed in localised areas by guano mining activities and the construction of a tourist camp. In contrast the East Wallabi Island Site included an airstrip and the presence of an invasive plant species introduced in materials brought to the site for the purposes of airstrip upgrade (Table 5.10). The consequences of the varying types of historical impact for future management of visitation are specific to island sites.

Where seabird nesting seasons coincided with peak periods of boat-based visitation, the location of tracks immediately adjacent to sea bird breeding areas was used to indicate impact on sea bird breeding activity in the form of visitor – wildlife disturbance and interaction. In total 1,477 m or approximately one and a half kilometres of track were found to lie proximal to areas where seabirds were recorded to nest during peak visitor periods. This represents a substantial area where potential impacts to sea bird nesting 169 habitat and behaviour is anticipated. The twenty or more species of sea bird to breed at the Houtman Abrolhos are recognised as tourism attractions and for their high conservation status. Further long-term monitoring of breeding and feeding behaviours of seabird species and the Australian Sea-lion in response to visitation is required to quantify the levels and effects of visitor disturbance.

The second objective was to assess existing levels of track-related impact by visitors at highly visited sites at the Houtman Abrolhos by measuring temporal variation in track conditions from 2004 to 2006. At the scale of the Houtman Abrolhos archipelago, there is no evidence to suggest that visitation is having an increasing annual impact on the track network. The track survey program found that 4% of the total combined number of track points increased significantly in width across the three year study period from 2004 to 2006. In contrast the combined area occupied by tracks at the seven sites decreased by 14% across the three years. One track was found to have increased in total area at a significant average annual rate, representing 2% of the sample of tracks. The recording of two new tracks during the three year study period provided the only significant indication of additional visitor impact on the track network (Table 5.10).

170

Table 5.10 Summary of key indicators of visitor impact at seven island survey sites Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2004 to 2006.

Historical Visitor Impact Changes to Tourism Resource Conditions

ISLAND SITE Presence of Exotic Length of Track Percentage of the area Increase in number of Number of tracks to Flora/Fauna Network (m) of island site occupied tracks in track network have increased in total by the Track Network from 2004-2006 area from 2004-2006 (%)

East Wallabi Island Yes (1 species listed as 2,147.5 m 0.4% 1 0 Site serious threat)

Long Island Yes 653.7m 0.4% 0 0

Leo’s Island Yes 565.1m 0.1% 0 0

Morley Island Yes 227.9 m 0.1% 1 1

Wooded Island Yes 738.5 m 0.4% 0 0

Pelsaert Island – North No 41.2m 0.01% 0 0 Site

Pelsaert Island – South Yes (1 species listed as 2,159.5m 0.3% 0 0 Site serious threat)

Significant variation was detected in the levels of tourism impact on the track network between the seven island sites. There is indication of declining levels of tourism impact on the track network at three island sites; Long Island, Leo Island and Wooded Island, as demonstrated by the decreasing area of island surface occupied by the track network during the study period. Contrastingly, evidence was found to indicate that the levels of tourism impact on the track network were increasing at two island sites; the East Wallabi Island Site and Morley Island (Table 5.10). This was demonstrated by either the development of a new track or by substantial annual rates of increase in either track point width or total track area across the study period. These varying results have clear implications for site planning and management at specific islands with regard to the effects of tourist visitation and activity.

Possible explanations for the high degree of variability in detected levels of ongoing impacts to the track networks include:

 natural perturbation or variability in track conditions;

 the influence of extraneous variables, including soil substrate type, aspect and relief; and

 changes in spatial distribution of tourist access and recreational activity at the site level.

The influence of these variables on changes to track conditions was not measured. However, the development of two additional tracks represents unequivocal evidence of existing levels of tourism impact.

Site-specific research has established that tourist visitation has impacted terrestrial resources of the Houtman Abrolhos, and that this process has continued across the period from 2004 to 2006. Visitation to the island sites was found to have caused loss of vegetation cover and fauna habitat both historically and across the period from 2004 to 2006 by the development and expansion of track networks. However the overall results for the period of 2004 to 2006 suggest a decline in the use of the track network and associated track-related impacts. Specifically, the rate of track-related impact has increased at two islands and declined at five.

172

Comparison of the levels of historical tourism impact and ongoing tourism impact at the seven island sites suggests that existing levels of tourist visitation and recreational activity are causing comparatively low levels of impact. The proposition that tourist visitation and recreational activity cause the more significant levels of impact when a site is first accessed (Leung et al., 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Manning et al., 2005) would appear to be supported by the research undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos. The variation in conservation values, tourism resources, historical impact and existing levels of tourist visitation and recreational activity between island sites reinforces the need for site-specific tourism planning and management frameworks.

173

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Tourism at uninhabited dependent islands presents a complex, collective problem with regard to use of local natural resources and interactions with other resource systems and conservation values. For the purposes of this research, tourism in uninhabited dependent island territories has been usefully conceptualised as a resource user within a linked, complex social-ecological system (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Ostrom, 2009). Conflicting narratives have influenced tourism policy discourses concerning tourism and the environment (Frandberg, 2005; Hajer, 1995; McCool & Moisey, 2001). The findings of this research support the claims that tourism in uninhabited island settings is significantly dependent on access to local natural resources of high conservation – and therefore, public - value (Baine et al., 2007; Briguglio et al., 1996; Graci & Dodds, 2010), and that tourism activity entails consumption of natural resources and changes to resource conditions which may be unsustainable and exceed limits of acceptable change (Buerger et al., 2000; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998; McElroy & de Albuquerque, 2002; McElroy & Potter, 2006). Considerable research attention has been focused on technical capabilities, resources, tools and formal institutional arrangements required to achieve sustainable tourism policy goals in island settings (Lim & Cooper, 2009; Manning et al., 2005; McArthur & Sebastian, 1998). However, the investigation undertaken has determined that the extent to which tourism sectors alter resource conditions in uninhabited dependent island territories is predominantly an outcome of governance arrangements which have, in turn, determined the level of policy capacity for sustainable tourism development.

Evaluation of governance arrangements and tourism policy processes at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, determined that preconditions identified in current literature as critical to enabling capacity to achieve sustainable tourism development policies were applicable to uninhabited dependent island territories. The seven preconditions identified were either absent or present to a very limited extent for the selected case study. These findings indicated that the policy for sustainable tourism development was unlikely to be achievable. Results of the investigation of tourist visitation and activity and the assessment of tourism impacts on terrestrial resources at the Houtman Abrolhos supported the prediction of policy failure. No evidence was found of a shift towards non-consumptive ecotourism activities. The development of the commercial

175 tourism sector was found to be strongly associated with the locally-based resource extractive industries, such as fisheries. Substantial changes to terrestrial resources conditions at highly visited tourist sites were found to have occurred as result of tourist visitation. These findings support the proposition that there is a significant relationship between governance and policy capacity and the level of consumption and degradation of local natural resources by tourism sectors in uninhabited dependent island settings.

The case study of the Houtman Abrolhos has contributed new insights into the interactions and feedbacks between governance systems, the characteristics of resource users (tourists and the tourism sector), and conditions of resource systems. On the basis of the findings of the evaluation of governance and tourism policy capacity (Chapter 4), and the investigation of tourist visitation and assessment of tourism impact (Chapter 5), it is evident that limited authority has been delegated to those State and non-state actors who have the resources and capacity to apply appropriate tools (for example, tourism impact assessment frameworks) in order to generate data to inform problem framing for sustainable tourism policy, setting of performance measures (including limits of acceptable change) as well as decisions requiring ‗trade offs‘ between tourism and conservation management priorities and values. The lack of comprehensive time series data regarding the environmental performance of tourism activity severely constrains evaluation and subsequent policy learning regarding the performance of current tourism policy and the efficacy of current governance arrangements to optimise resources and capabilities for tourism management.

The investigation has highlighted that the loci of authority, and the modalities by which it is delegated and wielded, are central to the capacity of governing arrangements to realise sustainable tourism development policies in uninhabited dependent island territories, due to the array of actors, levels and networks concerned with governance of tourism and conservation of high value natural resources. Methodological contributions of this research include the findings that visitation levels to uninhabited small islands are difficult to capture due to their often dispersed and remote location, and, similarly, impacts to terrestrial resource conditions which are attributable to tourist visitation are difficult to measure due to the high levels of natural variability of these dynamic environments. While application of techniques to enable a causal and measurable relationship between levels of visitor use and impact on terrestrial resources could be undertaken, the finding that tourism

176 impacts were non-linear and therefore not directly related to levels of visitation provides further evidence to support the application of the limits of acceptable change framework in preference to a tourist carrying capacity approach, as argued in current literature.

6.1 CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS

The design of the investigation was based on established literature within the fields of tourism and governance studies and recreational ecology. Selected techniques were sound and permitted the three major research themes to be investigated. However links between research findings for each of the themes could not be quantified. Levels of impact on terrestrial environments at selected island sites could not be directly attributed to levels of annual visitation as site specific visitation was not investigated. The review of governance established the failure to develop measures of sustainability with reference to the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos. This, in turn, has prevented quantifiable assessment of government performance with regard to this policy goal against levels of tourism impacts detected. Hence links between the research themes has been analytically observed and discussed.

6.1.1 Evaluation of Governance and Tourism Policy Capacity

The investigation of governance and tourism policy capacity drew on secondary sources collated through a review of literature. The material included both current academic literature pertaining to governance, tourism policy and island studies, as well as government material including Acts, policies, management plans and reviews, and public reports pertaining to governance of the Houtman Abrolhos.

This component of the investigation was constrained by the lack of primary sources of data. A proposal to conduct key-informant interviews of relevant individual actors of AIMAC and the State actor with primary management responsibility, the Department of Fisheries, was not supported due to the political sensitivity of the theme under investigation. Limitations arising from the reliance on secondary sources have been acknowledged. The design of the investigation of governance was subsequently confined to a characterisation and evaluation using standard content analysis of the presence or otherwise within formal

177 governance structures and processes of preconditions deemed critical for the achievement of sustainable tourism development policy at the Houtman Abrolhos.

6.1.2 Investigation of Tourist Visitation and Activity

The investigation of tourist visitation and activity at the Houtman Abrolhos for the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6 drew on data collated from both primary and secondary sources. Primary research techniques included aerial survey of visiting boats during the peak tourism season, a postal survey of air charter tourism operators, and a visitor survey- questionnaire at key visitor sites during the peak tourism season. Research techniques were selected to target visitor types. However the research methods selected did not enable comprehensive annual visitation and activity levels to be captured for the whole tourism sector.

Five specific problems in the research methods selected have been identified. First, annual visitation by the Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers was not investigated due to difficulties in obtaining this data. Visitors of this type typically travel to and from the Houtman Abrolhos on commercial fishing vessels or on privately chartered aircraft. Estimates of annual visitation could be obtained by conducting a randomized survey of all rock lobster fisher camps during the In-season period. However without any form of future regulation, such as a visitor entry permit or fee, visitation and activity by this visitor type will remain difficult to measure.

Second, visitation and activity levels by private recreational boats and passengers during the In-season period were not investigated. Off-Season Notification Records do not require these visitors to submit forms prior to visits during the In-season hence no records are maintained for this period. The aerial survey of visiting boats across the four-day Easter holiday period during the In-season was able to establish peak levels of boat-based visitation however this data could not be extrapolated across the 20 week In-season period. Further investigation of visitation levels by this visitor type could be achieved using randomised aerial surveys of all anchorages across the entire In-season period. Introduction of further regulatory measures such as a visitor entry permit or fee system would enable this data to be easily captured.

178

Third, visitation and activity data for both private recreational and commercial charter boats and passengers was extracted from records submitted by skippers. The validity of this data is therefore open to dispute on the basis of industry bias influencing reported visits and activities. Compliance rates for submitting Off-Season Notification Records are unlikely to be 100% and therefore representative of the entire population of visiting private recreational boats. Compliance assessment by the Department of Fisheries of submitted Tour Operator Logbook records against actual commercial charter boat operator activity has not been conducted. Recommendations for further research include randomised aerial surveys of visiting boats and comparison of reported visitation with actual visitation levels.

Fourth, the low level of precision of visitor activity data prevented association with the results of the tourism impact assessments. Activity data extracted from the Off-Season Notification Records captured types of anticipated activity only. The data provided indicative levels of activity only and assumed all passengers on board each boat undertook all activities specified which may not have been the case. In addition, results of the visitor survey-questionnaires provide an indication and comparison of participation rates in various activities undertaken by the types of tourists targeted. However this technique was not able to provide nominal data concerning activity levels. The sample size was too small to extrapolate the findings to whole population of each visitor type. Further research could include a more extensive visitor survey-questionnaire conducted across both the In-season and Off-season period. Similarly, the spatial distribution of boat-based visitation and activity was not established at a fine scale due to the low levels of precision of the data extracted from the secondary sources. Off-Season Notification Records provided the island groups which skippers intended to visit. The Tour Operator Logbook Records provided the fisheries management blocks which skippers reported visiting. Data concerning visitation to specific anchorages or islands was therefore not extractable from either of these datasets. This data could be captured by an extensive visitor survey-questionnaire which targeted these visitor types.

Fifth, the brevity of time series investigated prevented the identification of long-term trends which were statistically significant. This particularly applies to the visitation data for air charter tourism which extended for a two period only. Further annual postal surveys of air charter tourism operators could redress this issue.

179

However, review of the research methods selected to investigate tourist visitation and activity at the Houtman Abrolhos for the period from 2003-4 to 2005-6 has found that the research design was successful in four areas in particular. First, the broad composition of the tourism sector by visitor type for the study period was established by combining the findings of the various research techniques used to target specific types of visitor.

Second, research conducted using the aerial survey technique has enabled peak-period levels of boat-based visitation to specific anchorages to be determined for the first time.

Third, a baseline of levels of visitation by private and commercial charter boat-based visitors and air charter visitors for the period 2003-4 was determined using the research techniques selected. Similarly, a baseline of peak-period levels of boat-based visitation has been determined for the first time. The techniques selected have permitted comparison of baseline levels of annual and seasonal visitation by visitor types and for the sector more broadly with historical levels of visitation at previous periods. Similarly, changes in the composition of the tourism sector have been demonstrated by comparison of results with previous findings. Comparison of the baseline levels with results across the three-year study period has also enabled the presence or absence of any emerging trends in levels of visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos to be detected.

Fourth, a baseline of levels of participation in various recreational activities for the period from 2003-4 was established using the techniques selected. Levels of participation in consumptive and non-consumptive activities were determined, as well as levels of participation by each visitor type targeted by specific research techniques. Comparison of the baseline levels with historical results and with results across the study period has enabled the presence or absence of both historical changes and emerging trends in levels of participation in various recreational activities to be detected. Again, the techniques deployed have permitted analysis of both changes in levels of activity by specific visitor types and changes in levels of participation in consumptive and non-consumptive activities.

6.1.3 Assessment of Tourism Impacts

The assessment of tourism impacts on terrestrial environments at the Houtman Abrolhos drew on historical material as well as annual surveys of selected island sites from 2004 to 2006. The site surveys used standard survey techniques as well as a track survey program

180 to establish a baseline of resource conditions and to measure changes in conditions across the assessment period which were attributable to visitor use. Primary field techniques were selected to target anticipated forms of tourism impact including loss of vegetation cover as indicated by expansion of tracks.

Five specific problems in the research methods selected have been identified. First, the absence of any control sites within the survey design has prevented measurement of rates of natural perturbation and variability in vegetation cover. Possible vectors of natural variation include wind erosion, wildlife grazing and use of tracks, and weather related vegetation loss or growth. Thus the influence of natural variability cannot be discounted and the findings cannot be presumed to be entirely due to tourism impacts. Indicators of tourism impact based on changes in track conditions were selected as it was assumed changes in those conditions could be substantively attributed to tourism impact. Analysis of the results of the track condition survey used a substantial margin of error to allow for undetected levels of natural variability.

Second, varying levels of resilience and recovery of specific vegetation communities to trampling impacts were not accounted for. The influence of this variable on rates of expansion or decrease of track point widths in response to different levels of trampling across the study period is unknown. As such, it has not been possible to establish a relationship between levels of visitor use of tracks and levels of vegetation loss.

Third, soil substrate type was also not accounted for. Soil compaction was not measured due to the technological requirement of a penetronometer to measure bulk density, the time consuming nature of this technique, and the level of skill required by future monitors (members of the non-technically trained stakeholder communities) to repeat the measurements. Similarly, the influence of this variable on rates of expansion or decrease of track point widths in response to different levels of trampling across the study period is unknown. Further monitoring programs of track conditions should include assessment of soil type and measurement of compaction in order to inform management of track infrastructure and impact minimisation.

Fourth, the impact of track use by visitors on breeding seabird populations has only been inferred on the basis of proximity of track locations to breeding areas and the occurrence of

181 peak levels of boat-based visitation during nesting seasons. Techniques to directly monitor and quantify visitor impacts on breeding seabird populations and to establish a relationship between levels of visitor access and impact were not included in the research design due to the considerable level of resources required to implement a robust seabird surveillance and monitoring program. Burbidge et al. (2004) have recommended further research at highly- visited islands as follows:

 measuring background variation in a number of indicators (participation rates, fledging success, recruitment rates) against regional oceanographic variation;

 census of surface nesting birds;

 assessment of participation rates in burrow-nesting birds; and

 assessment of nest site numbers on selected island sites.

Fifth, the brevity of the three year site survey and track monitoring program limited the extent to changes in variables could be detected. The temporal scale at which tourism impacts were occurring may have prevented detection of change given the brevity of the study period. Low levels of track-based impacts which were indicated may well be substantial across a longer time period. The length of the three year survey program also prevented levels of natural variation to be detected and discounted.

The investigation of tourism impacts at the Houtman Abrolhos used research methods which have determined whether measurable changes in selected terrestrial resource conditions have occurred as a result of tourist visitation. Strengths of the research techniques used included five areas in particular. First, the site survey technique permitted existing tourism resources at the seven highly visited sites to be identified, recorded and mapped. In the case of the network of tracks found at each site, the techniques used to survey and monitor track conditions enabled measurement of those parameters most strongly associated with changes to local natural resource conditions, including loss of vegetation cover.

Second, the survey and monitoring techniques used to identify and then map the location and area of the track network at each site permitted the extent to which the historical

182 establishment of the track networks had resulted in a loss of vegetation cover and habitat to be quantified.

Third, a baseline of tourism resource conditions, and track network conditions in particular, was established for the year 2004 using the techniques selected. The advantage of the track sampling design was that it provided precise data on changing conditions at track points and permitted subtle changes to be detected that could be extrapolated to the entire track. Repetition of the survey and monitoring program in 2005 and 2006 determined whether annual visitor use levels were sufficient to substantially increase the area of each track, as well as the total area of the track network from the recorded baseline area, at each site. The site survey techniques deployed annually also permitted the creation of additional tracks to be detected across the assessment period.

Fourth, the techniques used to survey and map tourist resources and the track network in particular enabled the proximity of sensitive seabird breeding areas to visitor access ways and focal points to be quantified. This measure provided an indication of the potential level of disturbance to seasonal seabird breeding activity caused by visitor access and use of tracks during nesting seasons (Dunlop 2002).

6.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The major objectives of this thesis were to: firstly, describe and evaluate the role of governance at the Houtman Abrolhos in determining the relationship between the tourism sector and local natural resources; secondly, describe the characteristics of the current tourism sector; secondly; and, thirdly, determine the types and extent of access, use and impacts of the tourism sector on local natural resources at the Houtman Abrolhos. The findings of the case study of the Houtman Abrolhos indicate that effective governance arrangements and tourism policy capacity are necessary to realise sustainable tourism development policies, which are the primary mechanism used to determine the characteristics of the tourism sector and the relationship between tourism and its local natural resource base. Governance arrangements and tourism policy processes for the Houtman Abrolhos were found to be limited in their effectiveness and capacity by the absence of a number of critical preconditions. Investigation of the tourism sector and the levels of alternation to local natural resources conditions caused by tourism activity found 183 evidence to support the indication of sustainable tourism policy failure. The research undertaken has therefore achieved its objectives and made the following theoretical and empirical contributions to the themes being investigated:

1. Achievement of sustainable tourism development policy goals is likely to be dependent on the effective delegation of authority to arrangements of concerned State and non- state actors in uninhabited dependent island territories; 2. Historical interactions between different types of resource users in uninhabited island settings have a formative influence on the characteristics of tourism sectors and, in particular, on the level of use and alteration of resource conditions by tourism sectors; and 3. The rate at which visitation causes changes to terrestrial resource conditions in uninhabited island settings is non-linear and difficult to attribute directly to visitor numbers. Integrated management of tourism resources and conservation values is more likely to be achieved by identifying desired resource conditions and managing tourism sector development and activity to ensure limits of acceptable change to resource conditions are not exceeded.

6.2.1 Governance This research has developed and applied an analytical framework to characterise and evaluate the capacity of governance and tourism policy processes at uninhabited dependent island territories. Development of the framework drew on theoretical literature and case studies concerning new governance, social-ecological systems, tourism policy and island studies. Stages of tourism governance, including policy development and implementation, were examined. Seven preconditions were identified in current literature as critical to governance and tourism policy capacity, and hence to the success of sustainable tourism development policies promulgated in many island settings (Baldacchino, 2010; Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Ehler, 2003; Elgin et al., 2012; Graci & Dodds, 2010; Hall, 2000; Haward & Vince, 2008; Heylings & Bravo, 2007; Howlett, 2009; Ioannides, 2001; Lane, 2006; Lim & Cooper, 2009; Liu, 2003; McCool & Moisey, 2001; McCool et al., 2001; Newell et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2008; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sanderson, 2002; Vallega, 1999a; Vallega, 2007). Previous analyses have focused on the roles of government specifically, and on inhabited dependent island territories or small island states.

184

The methodological contribution of this research has been the development of an analytical framework for evaluation of governance and tourism policy capacity in uninhabited dependent island settings.

The case study of the Houtman Abrolhos determined that governance systems for uninhabited dependent island territories are distinguished by the absence of local government, and the predominance of State-level actors with multiple policy goals for local natural resources. Natural resource systems in these settings can be the focus of goals for both conservation management and sustainable tourism development policies. The study established that the identified preconditions, and the extent to which they were present, were able to account for the characteristics of the interactions between the tourism sector and local natural resource systems. They were therefore able to account for deficiencies in governance and policy capacity, and for the likely success or failure of sustainable tourism development policies. A governance system and tourism policy process is in place for the Houtman Abrolhos, however limited implementation of policy instruments and no assessment or evaluation of tourism policy or sector performance has been undertaken with regard to the current policy (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007). Each of the preconditions was evident to a very limited extent.

The delegation of authority, in particular, was found to be in itself a critical enabling factor which underscored the presence of the other preconditions. This research suggests that to whom and how authority is delegated has a determining influence on the level of tourism policy capacity and, therefore, the success or failure of sustainable tourism development processes. Analysis of governance arrangements and the delegation of authority at the Houtman Abrolhos revealed that the traditional hierarchical model of governance by a central State actor does not maximise the resources and capacities of multiple State and non-state actors engaged in networks of interest and responsibility for resource governance. Contrary to claims made within the field of tourism studies, the primary driver of sustainable tourism development policy in uninhabited island settings is not increased market demand for ecotourism products (Carter & Cater, 2007; Honey, 1999; Kokkranikal et al., 2003; Lockhart, 1997; Orams, 2003; Sanson, 1994; Wood, 2002). The research undertaken has highlighted the need to reconsider the role of governance arrangements and tourism policy capacity using new insights from governance theory, particularly given the

185 utility of being able to anticipate and mitigate failure of sustainable tourism development policies in uninhabited dependent island territories.

6.2.2 Tourist Visitation and Activity

This investigation of tourist visitation and activity at the Houtman Abrolhos has enabled the characteristics of the current tourism sector and of the recreational activities undertaken at the Houtman Abrolhos to be described. In 2003-4 approximately 6,000 tourists visited the Houtman Abrolhos. In-season visitation by private recreational boats and annual visitation by Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers were not accounted for in these findings. This finding exceeded predicted levels of between 2,000 and 4,000 visitors each year (Fisheries Western Australia, 2001b). The commercial charter boat industry accounted for 86% of the total number of visitors in 2003-4. The air charter industry was the next most significant contributor transporting 9% of visitors. The private recreational boat-based segment accounted for the remaining 5% of visitors.

Levels of tourist visitation to the Houtman Abrolhos have fluctuated significantly across the period from 2002-3 to 2005-6. No evidence was found to indicate that the tourism sector was undergoing growth as measured by annual tourist visitation. Comparison of levels of tourist visitation in 2003-4 with historical estimates of visitation indicates that the tourism sector may have expanded between the periods of 1988 to 2003-4. The level of variability in annual levels of boat-based visitation may be attributable to seasonal weather patterns and transport-related constraints.

The tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos is substantially oriented towards recreational activity. The research found that the majority of recreational activity undertaken from 2002-3 to 2005-6 by all visitors was consumptive with no evidence to suggest a decline in recreational fishing activity by boat-based visitors. In 2003-4 73% of all trips were for the purposes of fishing activities. In comparison, 54% of all trips encompassed or intended to encompass non-consumptive activities. There was no evidence to indicate that non- consumptive activities were increasing in popularity by the boat-based tourism segments. Fishing was the most frequently undertaken activity by both Visiting Friends and Relatives of rock lobster fishers and passengers on private recreational boats visiting during the In- season period. Marine-based recreational activities, including snorkelling and SCUBA

186 diving, were the next most frequently undertaken activities at the Houtman Abrolhos for this period. These findings highlight the tourism sector‘s reliance on local natural resources as tourism resources. In particular they indicate the extent to which the tourism sector‘s use of resources is consumptive and therefore arguably divergent from the current tourism policy goal of environmentally sensitive and sustainable tourism which is consistent with conservation goals for the Houtman Abrolhos.

These research findings are contrary to both global and regional trends in growth for island- based tourism sectors generally and for non-consumptive tourism segments in particular. This lack of growth at the Houtman Abrolhos has occurred despite the presence of drivers identified in tourism studies literature including: strong historical traditions of visitation associated with recreational activity; developments in transport; and, government policies supporting further development of the tourism sector including initiatives to increase the supply of non-consumptive and eco tourism products (Abeyratne, 1999; Butler, 1997; Conlin & Baum, 1995; Hall, 2001; Lockhart, 1997). Reasons for the lack of growth are likely to include: lower than expected levels of demand for nature-based tourism products which are non-consumptive; and, government failure to effectively implement tourism development policy (Benghezal et al., 2000).

In accordance with theories of island-based tourism development and governance, this analysis of the historical development of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos has indicated that recreational visitation has been the precursor to tourism and that transport mechanisms have structured the sector. However, during the earlier phase of the sector‘s development government involvement has been limited and restrictive, indicating that the sector‘s growth did not initially rely on government preference but on demand for recreational fishing opportunity. In further contrast to those drivers of island-based tourism development identified globally and regionally, the development of the tourism sector at the Houtman Abrolhos appears to be strongly linked with the presence and management of the local fishing industry.

6.2.3 Tourism Impacts

The assessment of tourism impacts on selected terrestrial resources at the Houtman Abrolhos determined that impacts associated with track use by visitors were not causing

187 substantial levels of degradation to vegetation communities and fauna habitats, although visitor access historically had caused high levels of impact. This finding was supported by comparable global and regional studies but contrary to local managing agency perceptions. The results of the assessment undertaken indicated that disturbance to seabird breeding habitat and activity due to tourist visitation was potentially significant, as was the net consumptive impact of high levels of recreational and commercial charter boat fishing by tourists.

This investigation has determined the types and extent of access, use and impacts of the tourism sector on local natural resource conditions at the Houtman Abrolhos by establishing historical and existing levels of track-related impact by visitors accessing and recreating at highly-visited island sites. Tourism impacts on terrestrial natural resources have not been previously investigated and were therefore targeted. Vegetated areas support populations of fauna and avifauna hence loss of vegetated areas due to the establishment and expansion of tracks indicated tourism impact on tourism resources and conservation assets at the Houtman Abrolhos. Tourism impacts on marine resources have been previously investigated (Webster et al., 2002a, 2002b). However the investigation of tourist visitation and activity has highlighted that recreational fishing activities are undertaken on the majority of visits (Section 6.2.2), which indicates that the sector has a substantial consumptive impact on fisheries resources.

Historical levels of tourism impact at the seven sites investigated were found to be substantial. Track networks and informal tourist infrastructure were identified at each site. The total combined number of the 61 tracks detected was 6.5 kilometres and the total combined area was approximately 4km². The extent of the track network provides a direct indication of the loss of the equivalent area of vegetation and fauna habitat due to tourist visitation. Approximately 1.5km of the track network assessed as part of this investigation lay adjacent to identified sea bird breeding areas. Visitor use of these track sections during seabird nesting seasons was likely to cause disturbance although this was not directly investigated.

Existing levels of track-related impact by visitors at highly visited sites at the Houtman Abrolhos from 2004 to 2006 were found to be low. Comparison of baseline track conditions in 2004 with conditions in 2006 found no evidence of trend towards track 188 expansion, and the consequential loss of vegetation and fauna habitat, due to visitor use. The detection of two new informal tracks at two sites provided the only unequivocal indication of ongoing visitor impact on terrestrial resource conditions across the study period.

This research has supported the proposition that tourism in uninhabited island settings is an industry which is dependent on local natural resources and which has the capacity to degrade and deplete those resources it uses (Baine et al., 2007; Buerger et al., 2000; Diamond, 1985a; Hall & McArthur, 1993; Hill et al., 1995; Honey, 1999; King, 1985; Muir & Chester, 1993; Sanson, 1994; Trevino et al., 2007). Specifically, the assessment of track-related impact at the Houtman Abrolhos has supported the observation that tourist visitation and recreational activity is non-linear and causes the most significant levels of impact when a site is initially accessed in comparison to impact caused by ongoing use of an established track (Leung et al., 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Manning et al., 2005). This finding reinforces the critique of the visitor carrying capacity model of tourism management, and supports the application of tourism impact management models (for example, the LAC model) which maintain the conditions of tourism resources at desired standards, rather than manage visitation levels as a proxy for managing resources (Eagles, 2001; Lindberg et al., 1997; Stankey et al., 1985).

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Future research concerning tourism and governance of tourism in uninhabited island settings needs to be contextualised in relation to drivers and impacts of global environmental change; namely climate change, and the developing global carbon economy. Uninhabited islands are already exposed to these drivers and impacts, and the rate of exposure is predicted to accelerate across this century (Mimura et al., 2007). Specifically, challenges arising from these global environmental changes include: increased exposure and vulnerability of destinations within social-ecological systems to climate-related and other drivers of change (Mimura et al., 2007); sea level rise causing inundation of low-lying island territories and states and associated threats to sovereignty (Yamamoto & Esteban, 2010); and, reduced tourism mobility (De Freitas, 2005; Hall & Higham, 2005).

189

These challenges heighten the need for effective governance and tourism policy processes for uninhabited dependent island territories which enhance resilience and build the adaptive capacity of the associated social-ecological system and incorporate a precautionary approach (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Hall & Higham, 2005; Yamamoto & Esteban, 2010)

Areas warranting further research at the Houtman Abrolhos specifically include the following:

 Characterise annual visitation by Visiting Friends and Relatives of fishers and visitors on private recreational boats using the following suggested techniques: an extensive visitor survey-questionnaire; aerial surveys of all anchorages across the entire In-season period; and, analysis of records generated by the proposed visitor entry permit system;

 Investigate differences between intended levels (as reported) and actual levels of participation in recreational activities by private recreational boat-based visitors using an extensive visitor survey-questionnaire;

 Investigate the level of demand for consumptive and non-consumptive tourism products at the Houtman Abrolhos amongst visitor to the Mid West region, as well as the level of supply of tourism products and the constraints to further growth perceived by local tourism operators. Suggested techniques include survey and key- informant interviews;

 Establish levels of resilience and recovery of those areas of vegetation and fauna habitat impacted by visitor access and use of the track network (Buerger et al., 2000);

 Establish resource condition objectives and targets for all tourism resources, including those terrestrial and marine resources impacted by tourism. This would enable the limits of acceptable changes to those terrestrial resource conditions to be determined (stage 5 of the LAC management framework, Chapter 3);

 Investigate the impacts on populations of seabirds and Australian Sea-lions of visitor access and disturbance to breeding habitat and breeding behaviour. Specifically, research to establish Critical Approach Distances for those species

190

breeding at the Houtman Abrolhos, as well as longitudinal surveillance monitoring of a range of biophysical, spatial-behavioural and reproductive variables, has been recommended (Burbidge et al., 2004; Dunlop, 2002; Surman, 1998, 2002); and

 Assess the sustainability of annual levels of catch by tourists on both demersal scalefish stocks and reef habitat (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2007; Wells & Nardi, 2006).

Areas warranting further research as required in uninhabited dependent island territories generally include the following:

 Assess the vulnerability of the tourism, recreational fishing and commercial fishing sectors, as well as conservation assets, to climate change;  Analyse benefits and costs of alternative models and modes of tourism governance. Alternatives include: co-management arrangements with commercial charter boat tourism operators; public-private partnerships with resident fishing communities to deliver compliance and enforcement services; and, the use of market-based mechanisms such as quota management systems for fishing by commercial charter boat passengers;  Analysis of the extent to which the characteristics of emerging tourism sectors are determined by the prevailing resource-based industries in other island and comparable coastal settings could be undertaken using comparative historical analysis of a number of case studies.

191

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abeyratne, R. I. R. (1999). Management of the environmental impact of tourism and air transport on small island developing states. Journal of Air Transport Management, 5, 31-37.

Abrolhos Islands Task Force. (1989a). Abrolhos Islands Planning Strategy: Abrolhos Islands Consultative Committee.

Abrolhos Islands Task Force. (1989b). Abrolhos Islands Planning Strategy Final Report 1989. Geraldton: Abrolhos Islands Consultative Committee.

Abrolhos Islands Tourism Working Group. (1995). Final Report on Tourism at the Abrolhos Islands. Geraldton: Abrolhos Islands Consultative Council.

Agardy, M. T. (1993). Accommodating Ecotourism in Multiple Use Planning of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20, 219-239.

Allen, W. (1992). Increased dangers to Caribbean marine ecosystems. Bioscience, 42(5), 330-335.

Amoamo, M. (2011). Remoteness and Myth Making: Tourism Development on Pitcairn Island. Tourism Planning & Development, 8(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1080/21568316.2011.554035

Anon. (1996). Tourism at the Abrolhos Islands: Proposal to the Hon. Norman Moore, Minister for Tourism. Geraldton.

Aqorau, T. (2007). Governance and Development in Solomon Islands. The Journal of Pacific History, 42(2), 247-254.

Arrowsmith, C., & Inbakaran, R. (2002). Estimating environmental resiliency for the Grampians National Parks, Victoria, Australia: a quantitative approach. Tourism Management, 23, 295-309.

Australian Government. (1955). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1995. Australia: Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.

Australian Government. (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Canberra: Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee.

Australian Government. (2009). National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. Canberra.

Baine, M., Howard, M., Kerr, S., Edgar, G., & Toral, V. (2007). Coastal and marine resource management in the Galapagos Islands and the Archipelago of San Andres: Issues, problems and opportunities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50, 148-173.

193

Baldacchino, G. (2006a). Innovative Development Strategies from Non-Sovereign Island Jurisdictions? A Global Review of Economic Policy and Governance practices. World Development, 34(5), 852-867.

Baldacchino, G. (2006b). Managing the hinterland beyond: Two ideal-type strategies of economic development for small island territories. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47(1), 45-60.

Baldacchino, G. (2010). Island enclaves: offshoring strategies, creative governance, and subnational island jurisdictions. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Baldacchino, G., & Milne, D. (2006). Exploring Sub-national Island Jurisdictions: An Editorial Introduction. The Round Table, 95(386), 487-502.

Baum, T. (1997). The fascination of islands: a tourist perspective. In D. G. Lockhart & D. Drakakis-Smith (Eds.), Island tourism: trends and prospects (pp. 21-30). Great Britain: Pinter.

Baum, T. G., Hagen-Grant, L., Jolliffe, L., Lambert, S., & Sigurjonsson, S. (2000). Tourism and cold water islands in the North Atlantic. In G. Baldacchino & D. Milne (Eds.), Lessons from the political economy of small islands: The resourcefulness of jurisdiction (pp. 214-229). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Belle, N., & Bramwell, B. (2005). Climate Change and Small Island Tourism: Policy Maker and Industry Perspectives in Barbados. Journal of Travel Research, 44(August), 32-41.

Benghezal, V., Foran, B., & Baker, B. (2000). Unfogging the Future in 2020: Balancing the opportunities and challenges for Australian tourism in the long term Working Paper Series 00/09 Research Futures Program. Canberra: CSIRO.

Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sci, 25(3), 275-294.

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. UK: Cambrdieg University Press.

Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. USA: Sage Publications.

Black, R., & Johnson, M. S. (1997). Tidal ponds: unusual habitats characteristic of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. In F. E. Wells (Ed.), The Marine Flora and Fauna of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (pp. 47-61). Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Bower, S. (2004, 31 May). Out of Control: Capping visitor numbers management option to protect Abrolhos Islands, The Geraldton Guardian, p. 1.

194

Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J., & Wall, G. (1996). Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies. London: Pinter.

Britton, S. (1991). Tourism, Capital, and Place - Towards a Critical Geography of Tourism. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 9(4), 451-478.

Buckley, R. (1998). Tools and Indicators for Managing Tourism in Parks. [Research Notes]. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 208-211.

Buckley, R. (1999). Tourism and Biodiversity: Land-use, planning and impact assessment. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 10(2), 47-56.

Buckley, R. (2003). Ecological Indicators of Tourist Impacts in Parks. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 54-66.

Buerger, R., Hill, J., Herstine, J., & Taggart, J. (2000). The Impact of Recreation on Barrier Islands: A Case Study on Masonboro Island. Coastal Management, 28, 249-259.

Burbidge, A., Dunlop, N., Surman, C. A., Desmond, A., & Prince, J. (2004). Abrolhos Islands Seabird Management Strategy. Geraldton.

Burbidge, A., & Fuller, P. (1995). Code of conduct for human visitation to Houtman Abrolhos seabird breeding colonies Tourism at the Abrolhos Islands - Final Report June 1995: Abrolhos Islands Consultative Committee.

Bureau of Meteorology. (2010, 07/01/2010). Climate Statistics for Australian locations: Summary statistics for Geraldton Town Retrieved 08/01/2010, 2010, from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_008050.shtml

Burger, J. (1995). Beach Recreation and Nesting Birds. In R. L. Knight & K. J. Gutzwille (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research (pp. 281-295). USA: Island Press.

Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1993). Tourism and short-term behavioural responses of nesting Masked, Red-footed, and Blue-footed, Boobies in the Galapagos. Environmental Conservation, 20, 255-259.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism development in small islands: past influences and future directions. In D. G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith & J. Schembri (Eds.), The Development Process in Small Island States (pp. 71-90). London: Routledge.

Butler, R. W. (1997). Transport innovations and island tourism. In D. G. Lockhart & D. Drakakis-Smith (Eds.), Island tourism: trends and prospects (pp. 36-57). Great Britain: Pinter.

195

Carter, C., & Cater, E. (2007). Marine ecotourism: between the devil and the deep blue sea. United Kingdom: CAB International.

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism's Global Footprint. Washington D.C. and Paris: Conservation International and the United Nations Environment Program.

Chubb, C. F., & Nardi, K. (2003). Towards an assessment of natural and human use impacts on the marine environment of the Abrolhos Islands - Phase 1: Data consolidation and scoping. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Claridge, G. (1997). Guidelines for Managing Visitation to Seabird Breeding Islands. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Cole, D. N. (1981). Managing ecological impacts at wilderness campsites: an evaluation of techniques. Journal of Forestry, 79, 86-89.

Cole, D. N. (1995a). Experimental trampling of vegetation. I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 203-214.

Cole, D. N. (1995b). Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 215-224.

Cole, D. N., & Landres, P. D. (1995). Indirect Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. In R. L. Knight & K. J. Gutzwille (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreation: Coexistence through Management and Research (pp. 183-202). USA: Island Press.

Collins, A. (1999). Tourism development and natural capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 98-109.

Collins, L. B., Zhu, Z. R., & Wyrwoll, K.-H. (1997). Geology of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. In H. L. Vasher & T. Quinn (Eds.), Geology and Hydrogeology of Carbonate Islands: Developments in Sedimentology (pp. 811-833). The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Collins, L. B., Zhu, Z. R., Wyrwoll, K.-H., Hatcher, B. G., Playford, P. E., Chen, J., Wasserburg, G., & Eisenhauer, A. (1993). Late Quaternary evolution of high latitude reefs on a cool-water carbonate margin: the Abrolhos carbonate platforms, south west Australia. Marine Geology, 111, 203-212.

Conlin, M. V., & Baum, T. (1995). Island Tourism: an Introduction. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (Eds.), Island tourism: management principles and practice (pp. 3-14). Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons.

D'Antonio, C. M., & Dudley, T. L. (1995a). Biological Invasions as Agents of Change on Islands Versus Mainlands. In P. M. Vitousek, L. L. Loope & A. H. (Eds.), Islands: Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Function (Vol. 115, pp. 103-121). Germany: Springer-Verlag. 196

D'Antonio, C. M., & Dudley, T. L. (1995b). Biological Invasions as Agents of Change on Islands Versus Mainlands. In P. M. Vitousek, L. L. Loope & A. H. (Eds.), Islands: Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Function (Vol. 115). Germany: Springer- Verlag.

De Freitas, C. R. (2005). The climate-tourism relationship and its relevance to climate channge impact assessment. In C. M. Hall & J. Higham (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change (pp. 29-43). Great Britain: Channel View Publications. de Vaus, D. A. (1995). Surveys in Social Research (4th ed.). Singapore: Allen and Unwin.

Department of Environment and Conservation Western Australia. (2008). Lands and Waters managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Perth.

Department of Fisheries Western Australia. (2003). Inventory of the Land Conservation Values of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Department of Fisheries Western Australia. (2007). Management of the Houtman Abrolhos System: A Draft Review 2007 to 2017 Fisheries Management Paper No. 220. Perth: Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee.

Department of Fisheries Western Australia. (2008). A Strategy for Managing the Recreational Catch of Demersal Scalefish in the West Coast Bioregion Fisheries Management Paper No. 228. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Department of Fisheries Western Australia. (2010a). Recreational Fishing Guide - West Coast Region. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Department of Fisheries Western Australia. (2010b). West Coast Rock Lobster Managed Fishery: Frequently Asked Questions. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2004). Population status and threats to ten seabird species listed as threatened under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: National Heritage Trust.

Diamond, A. W. (1985a). The conservation of landbirds on islands in the tropical Indian Ocean. In P. J. Moore (Ed.), Conservation of Island Birds: case studies for the management of threatened island species (Vol. ICBP Technical Publication No. 3). England: International Council for Bird Preservation.

Diamond, A. W. (1985b). Multiple Use of Cousin Island Nature Reserve, Seychelles. Paper presented at the Conservation of Island Birds: Case Studies for the management of threatened island species, Cambridge, England.

Diaz, L. F. (2007). Resource and environmental management in islands. Waste Management, 27, 325-326.

197

Douglas, C. H. (2006). Small Island States and Territories: Sustainable Development Issues and Strategies – Challenges for Changing Islands in a Changing World. Sustainable Development, 14, 75-80. doi: 10.1002/sd.297

Dovers, S. (2005). Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation, Implementation, Evaluation. Sydney: Federation Press.

Downes, B. J. (2002). Monitoring Ecological Impacts: concepts and practice in flowing waters. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Driscoll, P. (2011, 7th January 2011). [Personal Communication].

Duffus, D. A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Oriented Recreation: A Conceptual Framework. Biological Conservation, 53, 213-231.

Dunlop, N. (1996a). Habituation to Human disturbance by breeding Bridled Terms Sterna anaethetus. Coralle, 20, 13-16.

Dunlop, N. (1996b). Habituation to Human disturbance by breeding Bridled Terns Sterna anaethetus. Coralle, 20, 13-16.

Dunlop, N. (2002). Baseline research and monitoring required at seabird colonies to accommodate proposed tourism developments at the Houtman Abrolhos. In F. J. Webster, C. J. Dibden, K. E. Weir & C. F. Chubb (Eds.), Towards an assessment of the natural and human use impacts on the marine environment of the Abrolhos Islands, Volume 2: Strategic research and development plan (Vol. Volume 2, pp. 28-30). Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Eagles, P. F. J. (1984). The Planning and management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Hong Kong: Longman.

Eagles, P. F. J. (2001). Evolution of the concept of visitor use management in parks. Industry and Environment (UNEP), July-December, 65-67.

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom: International Union for the Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environment Program, and the World Tourism Organisation.

Ehler, C. N. (2003). Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, 335-345.

Elgin, D. J., Pattison, A., & Weible, C. M. (2012). Policy Analytical Capacity Inside and Outside of Government: A Case Study of Colorado Climate and Energy Issues. Canadian Politicial Science Review, 6(1), 101-116.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2007). Long Island Tourism Development, Houtman- Abrolhos Islands: Humphrey Land Development Pty Ltd - Report and 198

recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Perth: Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia.

Environmental Protection Authority Western Australia. (2007). Long Island Tourism Development, Houtman-Abrolhos Islands: Humphrey Land Development Pty Ltd - Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Errington, A. (2003). Carnarvon-Ningaloo Coast: Governance Models Discussion Paper. Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Erwin, R. M. (1989). Responses to Human Intruders by Bird Nesting in Colonies: Experimental Results and Management Guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds, 12(1), 104-108.

Farrell, B. H., & Runyan, D. (1991). Ecology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 26-40.

Finlayson, C. M. (1996). Framework for designing a monitoring programme. In T. Vives (Ed.), Monitoring Mediterranean Wetlands: A Methodological Guide (pp. 150-159). Lisbon: MedWet Publication, Wetlands International.

Fisheries Western Australia. (1998). Management of the Houtman Abrolhos System Fisheries Management Paper No. 117. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fisheries Western Australia. (2000a). Aquaculture Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands Fisheries Management Paper No. 137. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fisheries Western Australia. (2000b). Assessment of Applications for the granting, renewal or transfer of Fishing Tour Operators Licenses and Aquatic Eco-Tourism Operators Licenses Fisheries Ministerial Policy Guideline No. 12. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fisheries Western Australia. (2001a). Sustainable Tourism Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands Fisheries Management Paper No. 149. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fisheries Western Australia. (2001b). Sustainable Tourism Plan for the Houtman Abrolhos Islands Fisheries Management Paper No. 146. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fisheries Western Australia. (2002). Policy for the Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture within Western Australia Fisheries Management Paper No. 157. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Fletcher, W., Chubb, C. F., McCrea, J., Caputi, N., Webster, F., Gould, R., & Bray, T. (2005). Western Rock Lobster Fishery: ESD Report Series No. 4. Perth: Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

199

Fletcher, W., & Head, F. (Eds.). (2006). State of the Fisheries Report 2005/06. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Fletcher, W., & Santoro, K. (Eds.). (2007). State of the Fisheries Report 2006/07. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Fletcher, W., & Santoro, K. (Eds.). (2008). State of the Fisheries Report 2007/08. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Fletcher, W. J., & Santoro, K. (Eds.). (2009). State of the Fisheries Report 2008/09. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Fletcher, W. J., & Santoro, K. (Eds.). (2010). State of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report 2009/10. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Fletcher, W. J., Shaw, J., Metcalf, S. J., & Gaughan, D. J. (2010). An Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for management agencies. Marine Policy, 34, 1226-1238.

Frandberg, L. (2005). Tourism as vicitim, problem or solution: story lines of a complex industry-environment relation. In C. M. Hall & J. Higham (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change (pp. 273-285). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Fuller, P. J., Burbidge, A. A., & Owens, R. (1994). Breeding seabirds of the Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia. Corella, 18(4), 97-113.

Gales, N. J., Cheal, A. J., Pobar, G. J., & Williamson, P. (1992). Breeding Biology and Movements of Australian Sea-lions, Neophoca cinerea, off the West Coast of Western Australia. Wildlife Research, 19(4), 405-416.

Gales, N. J., Shaunghnessy, P. D., & Dennis, T. E. (1994). Distribution, abundance and breeding cycle of the Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea (Mammalia: Pinnipedia). Journal of Zoology, 234(353-370).

Glasbergen, P. (2011). Understanding partnerships for sustainable development analytically: the ladder of partnership activity as a methodological tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1002/eet.545

Goldsmith, F. B., Munton, R. J. C., & Warren, A. (1970). The impact of recreation on the ecology and amenity of semi-natural areas; methods of investigation used in the Isles of Scilly. Biological Journal of the Linneaus Society, 2, 287-306.

Gossling, S. (2001). The consequences of tourism for sustainable water use on a tropical island: Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management, 61, 179-191.

Government of Western Australia. (1986). Environmental Protection Act (1986). Australia.

Government of Western Australia. (1994). Fisheries Resource Management Act (1994). 200

Government of Western Australia. (1995). Fish Resources Management Regulations. Perth.

Government of Western Australia. (1997). New Horizons - the way ahead in marine conservation and management. Perth: Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Government of Western Australia. (1999). Fisheries Resources Management Act (1994): Abrolhos Islands Fish Habitat Protection Area Order 1999 Government Gazette F1401, Section 115 (pp. 513). Perth.

Graci, S., & Dodds, R. (2010). Sustainable Tourism in Island Destinations. United Kingdom: Earthscan.

Grafton, R. Q., Adamowicz, W., Dupont, D., Nelson, H., Hill, R. J., & Renezetti, S. (2004). The economics of the environment and natural resources. United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Gray, H. S. (1999). The Western Rock Lobster Panulirus cygnus Book 2: A History of the Fishery. Geraldton: Westralian Books.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2009). Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement. Canberra.

Grubba, T., Butcher L., and Fitzgerald K. (2005). Human Usage Monitoring in Marine and Coastal Areas in the Northern Agricultural Region Focussing on the West Midlands Sub-Region: Manual of Standard Operating Procedures. Fremantle: Marine Conservation Branch, Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: policies, processes and relationships. Malaysia: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C. M. (2001). Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(9-10), 601-618.

Hall, C. M. (2005). Tourism: rethinking the Social Science of Mobility. England: Pearson Educations.

Hall, C. M. (2007). Introduction to tourism in Australia: development, issues and change. Malaysia: Pearson Education Australia.

Hall, C. M., & Higham, J. (2005). Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change. In C. M. Hall & J. Higham (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change (pp. 3-28). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

201

Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1993). Ecotourism in Antarctica and adjacent sub-Antarctic islands: development, impacts, management and prospects for the future. Tourism Management(April), 117-122.

Hall, M., & Wouters, M. (1994). Managing Nature Tourism in the Sub-Antarctic. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 355-374.

Harriott, V. J. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier Reef. Townsville: James Cook University.

Harrison, D. (2007). Cocoa, conservation and tourism - Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 919-942. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.annals.2007.04.004

Harvey, J. M., Alford, J. J., Longman, V. M., & Keighery, G. J. (2001). A flora and vegetation survey of the islands of the Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia. CALMScience, 3(4), 521-623.

Hatcher, A. I., Wright, G. D., & Hatcher, B. G. (1990). Resolving the conflict between conservation values and extractive use of the Abrolhos coral reefs. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, 16, 55-70.

Hatcher, B. G. (1991). Coral reefs in the Leeuwin Current - an ecological perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 74, 115-127.

Haward, M., & Vince, J. (2008). Oceans Governance in the Twenty-first Century: Managing the Blue Planet. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

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

HaySmith, L., & Hunt, J. D. (1995). Nature Tourism: Impacts and Management. In R. L. Knight & K. J. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research (pp. 203-219). USA: Island Press.

Hercock, M. (1996). Landscape, Legislation, and Leisure: A Comparative Environmental History of the Islands off the Metropolitan Coast. Early Days, 2(2), 241-253.

Heylings, P., & Bravo, M. (2007). Evaluating governance: A process for understanding how co-management is functioning, and why, in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50, 174-208.

Hill, G., & Rosier, J. (1989). Wedgetailed Shearwaters, White Capped Noddies and tourist development on Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 107-114.

202

Hill, G., Rosier, J., & Dyer, P. (1995). Tourism Development and Environmental Limitations at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef: a Response. Journal of Environmental Management, 45, 91-99.

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? United States of America: Island Press.

Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153-175.

Huddlestone, V. (2006). Assessment of Western Rock Lobster Strategic Management Arrangements. Volume 3: A Social Assessment of Coastal Communities Hosting the Western Rock Lobster Fishing Fleet Fisheries Management Paper No. 211. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Hughey, K. F. H., Ward, J. C., Crawford, K. C., McConnell, L., Phillips, J. G., & Washbourne, R. (2004). A Classification Framework and Management Approach for the Sustainable Use of Natural Assets used for Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 349-363.

Hutchins, J. B. (1997). Checklist of fishes of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. In F. E. Wells (Ed.), The marine flora and fauna of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (pp. 459-503). Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Ingram, G. B. (1991). Habitat, visual and recreational values and the planning of extractive development and protected areas: a tale of three islands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 21, 109-129.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2005, 2005). IUCN Protected Areas Programme Retrieved 28/07/2006, 2006, from

Ioannides, D. (2001). Sustainable Development and Shifting Attitudes of Tourism Stakeholders: Toward a Dynamic Framework. In S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: linking development with the environment (pp. 55-76). United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Jackson, R. (2008). Playing Lotto with Rotto? Tourism, the environment and gambling with the ethos of a Western Australian island. Australian Geographer, 39(4), 495- 519.

Keighery, G. J., & Sercombe, N. (2001). Verbesina encelioides (Golden Crown Beard) on the Abrolhos Islands. Perth: Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Kerr, S. A. (2005). What is small island sustainable development all about? Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 503-524.

203

King, W. B. (1985). Islands Birds: Will the Future repeat the Past? Paper presented at the Conservation of Island Birds: Case Studies for the management of threatened island species, Cambridge.

Kokkranikal, J., McLellan, R., & Baum, T. (2003). Island Tourism and Sustainability: A Case Study of the Lakshadweep Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(5), 426-447.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2nd edition). USA: Sage.

Lane, M. B. (2006). Towards integrated coastal management in Solomon Islands: Identifying strategic issues for governance reform. Ocean & Coastal Management, 49, 421-441.

Leung, Y.-F., Marion, J. L., & Farrell, T. A. (2001). The Role of Recreation Ecology in Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism. In S.F. McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: linking development with the environment (pp. 21-39). USA: CAB International.

Liddle, M. J. (1975). A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 7(17-36).

Liddle, M. J., & Greig-Smith, P. (1975a). A Survey of Tracks and Paths in a Sand Dune Ecosystem, I. Soils. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 12(3), 893-908.

Liddle, M. J., & Greig-Smith, P. (1975b). A Survey of Tracks and Paths in a Sand Dune Ecosystem, II. Vegetation. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 12(3), 909-930.

Lim, C. C., & Cooper, C. (2009). Beyond sustainability: optimising island tourism development. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1), 89-103. doi: 10.1002/jtr.688

Lindberg, K., McCool, S., & Stankey, G. (1997). Rethinking Carrying Capacity. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 461-465.

Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459-475.

Lockhart, D. G. (1997). Islands and tourism: an overview. In D. G. Lockhart & D. Drakakis-Smith (Eds.), Island tourism: trends and prospects (pp. 3-20). Great Britain: Pinter.

Longman, V. M., Harvey, J. M., & Keighery, G. J. (2000). Bryophyllum delagoense (Crassulaceae): a new weed for Western Australia and a potentially serious problem for the Abrolhos Islands. [Short Communication]. Nuytsia, 13(2), 399-401.

MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 204

MacLeod, D. V. L., & Carrier, J. G. (2010). Tourism, Power and Culture: Insights from Anthropology. In D. V. L. MacLeod & J. G. Carrier (Eds.), Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights (pp. 3-20). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Manning, R. (2007). Parks and Carrying Capacity. United States of America: Island Press.

Manning, R., Leung, Y.-F., & Budruk, M. (2005). Research to Support Management of Visitor Carrying Capacity of Boston Harbour Islands. Northeastern Naturalist, 12(3), 201-220.

Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group. (1994). A Representative Marine Reserve System for Western Australia. Perth: Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Marion, J. L., & Cole, D. N. (1996). Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecological Applications, 6(2), 520-530.

Markandya, A., Perelet, R., Mason, P., & Taylor, T. (Eds.). (2001). Bath, United Kingdom: Earthscan.

Marshall, G. H. (2005). Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management. Bath, United Kingdom: Earthscan.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1983). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. New York: Longman.

McArthur, S., & Sebastian, I. (1998, 1999). Implementation of Impact Management Models - Who's Doing What Across Australia? Paper presented at the Developing Ecotourism into the Millennium: Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia 1998 National Conference.

McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The Intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.x

McCool, S. F., & Lime, D. W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 372-388. doi: Cited By (since 1996) 47 Export Date 25 October 2012

McCool, S. F., & Moisey, R. N. (2001). Pathways and pitfalls in the search for Sustainable Tourism. In S.F. McCool & R.N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: linking development with the environment (pp. 1-16). United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

205

McCool, S. F., Moisey, R. N., & Nickerson, N. P. (2001). What should Tourism Sustain? The Disconnect between Industry Perceptions of Useful Indicators. Journal of Travel Research, 40(November), 124-131.

McElroy, J. L., & de Albuquerque, K. (2002). Problems for managing sustainable tourism in small islands. In Y. Apostolopoulos & D. J. Gayle (Eds.), Island Tourism and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences (pp. 15-31). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

McElroy, J. L., & Potter, B. (2006). Sustainability Issues. In G. Baldacchino (Ed.), Extreme Tourism: Lessons from the World's Cold Water Islands (pp. 31-40). The Netherlands: Elsevier.

McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169-183.

McKee, D., & Tisdell, C. A. (1990). Development issues in small island economies. United States of America.

McKercher, B. (1993). The unrecognized threat to tourism: Can tourism survive 'sustainability'? Tourism Management, April, 131-136.

Mimura, N., Nurse, L., McLean, R., Agard, J., Briguglio, L., Lefale, P., Payet, R., & Sem, G. (2007). Small islands. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), (pp. 687-716). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Minister for Fisheries Western Australia. (2010). Abrolhos Islands Lease (Draft). Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Minister for the Environment Western Australia. (2008). Ministerial Approval Statement: 0777 - Long Island tourism development, Houtman-Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. Perth: Environmental Protection Authority.

Morgan, G. J., & Wells, F. E. (1991). Zoogeographic provinces of the Humboldt, Benguela and Leeuwin Current systems. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 74, 59-69.

Moscardo, G., Saltzer, R., Galletly, A., Burke, A., & Hildebrandt, A. (2003). Changing Patterns of Reef Tourism. Townsville: James Cook University.

Muir, F., & Chester, G. (1993). Managing tourism to a seabird nesting island: a case study. Tourism Management, April, 99-105.

Nardi, K., Jones, G. P., Moran, M. J., & Cheng, Y. W. (2004). Contrasting effects of marine protected areas on the abundance of two exploited reef fish species at the 206

sub-tropical Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. Environmental Conservation, 31(2), 160-168.

Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor Governance and the Environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 365-387. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-094659

Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. England: Channel View Publications.

Northern Agricultural Catchment Council. (2005). Regional Natural Resource Management Strategy - Northern Agricultural Region of WA. Geraldton: Northern Agricultural Catchment Council.

Northern Agricultural Catchment Council. (2011). Turtle Bay Project Retrieved 05/01/2012, 2012, from http://www.nacc.com.au/Programs/Current- programs/Caring-for-our-Country/Coastcare/PROJECTS/CFOC-Projects/Turtle- Bay-Project.aspx

Olsen, R., De Leon, D., & White, A. T. (2005). Do Biophysical studies and coastal databases enhance coastal management sustainability? Several Philipine cases. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 411-426.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Highes, T. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9489-9494.

Orams, M. (2003). Marine Ecotourism in New Zealand: An Overview of the Industry. In B. Garrod & J. C. Wilson (Eds.), Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences (pp. 233-248). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Ormsby, J., Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., & Foxlee, J. (2004). A Review of Research into Tourist and Recreational Uses of Protected Natural Areas. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Orsini, J.-P. (2004). Human impacts on Australian sea lions, Neophoca cinerea, hauled out on Carnac Island (Perth, Western Australia) and implications for wildlife and tourism management. (Research Masters with Training (Marine Science)), Murdoch University, Western Australia, Perth.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. USA: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 104(39), 15181- 15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104

207

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. [Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.]. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133

Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(04), 451- 463. doi: 10.1017/s0376892910000834

Pattberg, P., & Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economy, 8, 367-388.

Payne, R. J., Johnston, M. E., & Twynam, G. D. (2001). Tourism, Sustainability and the Social Milieux in Lake Superior's North Shore and Islands. In S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: linking development with the environment (pp. 315-342). United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Pearce, A. F. (1997). The Leeuwin Current and the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. In F. E. Wells (Ed.), The marine flora and fauna of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (pp. 11-46). Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Pearce, A. F., & Walker, D. I. (1991). The Leeuwin Current; an influence on the coastal climate and marine life of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 74, 1-10.

Penn, J. W., Fletcher, W., & Head, F. (Eds.). (2004). State of the Fisheries Report 2003/04. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Penn, J. W., Fletcher, W., & Head, F. (Eds.). (2005). State of the Fisheries Report 2004/05. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Peters, B. G. (1996). The Policy Capacity of Government. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Management Development.

Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillian.

Poetschke, B. (1995). Key Success Factors for Public/Private-Sector Partnerships in Island Tourism Planning. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (Eds.), Island Tourism: Management Principles and Practice (pp. 53-63). Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Priskin, J. (2001). Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism: the case of the Central Coast Region of Western Australia. Tourism Management, 22(6), 637-648.

208

Pross, P. A. (1992). Group politics and public policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 652-667.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Richardson, J. J., & Jordon, A. G. (1979). Governing under pressure: The policy process in a post-parliamentary democracy. Great Britain: Robertson.

Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2002). Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage by recreational Scuba diving. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 427-440.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. United States: Westview Press.

Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00292

Sanson, L. (1994). An Ecotourism Case Study in Sub-Antarctic Islands. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 344-354.

Scheyvens, R., & Momsen, J. (2008). Tourism in Small Island States: From Vulnerability to Strengths. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 491-510. doi: 10.1080/09669580802159586 10.2167/jost821.0

Schittone, J. (2001). Tourism vs. commercial fishers: development and changing use of Key West and Stock Island, Florida. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 15-37.

Sebastian, I., & McArthur, S. (1998). Introducing the Sustainability Barometer - a tool to measure the sustainability of tourism. Paper presented at the The Ecotourism Association of Australia 1998 National Conference.

Simpson, C. J., Colman, J. G., & Hill, A. K. (2002). A Strategic Framework for Marine Research and Monitoring in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property. Fremantle: Environment Australia & the Marine Conservation Brach of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Smith, A. J., & Newsome, D. (2002). An Integrated Approach to Assessing, Managing and Monitoring Campsite Impacts in Warren National Park, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4), 343-359.

Sobhee, S. K. (2006). Fisheries biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism in Mauritius. Ocean & Coastal Management, 49, 413-420.

209

Spenceley, A. (2005). Nature-based Tourism and Environmental Sustainability in South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 136-170.

Stanbury, M. (1991). Historic areas of the Houtman Abrolhos. Code of Conduct recommendations for visitors to the Islands. Perth: Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Museum.

Stanbury, M. (2000). Abrolhos Islands Archaeological Sites: Interim Report Australian National Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archaeology Special Publications No. 5. Perth: Western Australian Maritime Museum.

Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen, M. E., & Frissell, S. S. (1985). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, Utah: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Stankey, J. T., Harvey, H. T., & Harvesveldt, R. J. (Eds.). (1979). A Report on the Wildlerness Impact Study: The Effects of Human Recreational Activities on Wildlerness Ecosyetms with Special Emphasis on Sierra Club Wilderness Outings in the Sierra Nevada. United States of America: Sierra Club Foundation.

Stewart, M. C. (1993). Sustainable Tourism Development and Marine Conservation Regimes. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20, 201-217.

Storr, G. M. (1964). The Physiography, Vegetation and Vertebrate Fauna of the Wallabi Group, Houtman Abrolhos. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 43, 59-62.

Storr, G. M., Hanlon, T. M. S., & Dunlop, J. N. (1983). Herpetofauna of the Geraldton Region, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 10(3), 215- 234.

Storr, G. M., Johnstone, R. E., & Griffin, P. (1986). Birds of the Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 24. Fremantle: Western Australian Museum.

Sumner, N. (2006, 1 December 2006). Creel census to determine recreational fishing catch and effort within the Abrolhos Islands. Paper presented at the Making Waves II: A Symposium for Coastal and Marine Natural Resource Management, Perth, Western Australia.

Sumner, N. (2008). An assessment of the finfish catch by recreational fishers, tour operators, commercial rock lobster fishers and commercial wetline fishers from the Houtman Abrolhos Islands during 2006. Fisheries Research Report No. 175. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Sun, D., & Walsh, D. (1998). Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 53, 323-338.

210

Surman, C. A. (1998). Breeding schedules of seabirds breeding at the Pelsaert group of islands, Houtman Abrolhos, Western Australia Records of the Western Australian Museum No. 25 (pp. 215-234). Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Surman, C. A. (2002). Houtman Abrolhos Land Conservation Plan Fisheries Research Paper. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Teh, L., & Cabanban, A. (2007). Planning for sustainable tourism in southern Pulau Bangii: An assessment of biophysical conditions and their implications for future tourism development. Journal of Environmental Management, 85, 999-1008.

Thiele, M. T., Pollnac, R. B., & Christie, P. (2005). Relationships between coastal tourism and ICM: sustainability in the central Visavas region of the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 378-392.

Thomas, I. (2005). Environmental Management: Processes and Practices for Australia. Sydney: The Federation Press.

Tisdell, C. A. (1991). Economics of Environmental Conservation: economics for environmental and ecological management. The Netherlands: Elsvier.

Tourism Western Australia. (2004). Australia's Coral Coast Destination Development Strategy: 'An Action Plan Approach' 2004-2014. Perth: Western Australian Tourism Commission.

Tourism Western Australia. (2006). Australia's Coral Coast: Destination Development Strategy 'An Action Plan Approach' 2006-2016. Perth: Western Australian Tourism Commission.

Tourism Western Australia. (2008). Tourism Western Australia: Strategic Plan 2008 to 2013, Building for the Future. Perth: Western Australian Tourism Commission.

Tourism Western Australia. (2010a). Australia's Coral Coast: Tourism Development Priorities 2010-2015. Perth: Western Australian Tourism Commission.

Tourism Western Australia. (2010b). Tourism Western Australia: Annual Report 2009- 2010. Perth: Western Australian Tourism Commission.

Towns, D., & Ballantine, W. J. (1993). Conservation and restoration of New Zealand Island ecosystems. Trend in Ecology & Evolution, 8(12), 452-457.

Trevino, H. S., Skibiel, A. I., Karels, T. J., & Dobson, F. S. (2007). Threats to Avifauna on Oceanic Islands. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 125-132.

Valentine, P. S., Newling, D., & Wachenfeld, D. (1997). The Estimation of Visitor Use from GBRMPA Data Returns Technical Report No. 16. Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.

211

Vallega, A. (1999a). Fundamentals of Integrated Coastal Management. Netherlands: The GeoJournal Library, Kluwer Academic Press.

Vallega, A. (1999b). Ocean geography vis-a-vis Global Change and Sustainable Development. Professional Geographer, 51(3), 400-414.

Vallega, A. (2007). The role of culture in island sustainable development. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50(5-6), 279-300. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.02.003

Wagar, J. A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation Forest Science Monograph. Washington D.C.: Society of American Foresters.

Walker, T. A. (1991). Tourism development and environmental limitations at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Environmental Management, 33, 117-122.

Ward, T., Butler, E., & Hill, B. (1998). Environmental indicators for national state of the environment reporting - Estuaries and the Sea State of the Environment (Environmental Indicator Reports). Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment.

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.

Watts, R. L. (2000). Islands in comparative constitutional perspective. In G. Baldacchino & D. Milne (Eds.), Lessons from the Political Economy of Small Islands (pp. 17-37). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2002). Tourism Management (2nd ed.). Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

Webster, F. J., Dibden, C. J., Weir, K. E., & Chubb, C. F. (2002a). Towards an assessment of the natural and human use impacts on the marine environment at the Abrolhos Islands, Volume 1: Summary of existing information and current levels of human use Fisheries Research report No. 134 (Vol. 1). Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Webster, F. J., Dibden, C. J., Weir, K. E., & Chubb, C. F. (2002b). Towards an assessment of the natural and human use impacts on the marine environment of the Abrolhos Islands, Volume 2: Strategic research and development plan Fisheries Research Report No. 134 (Vol. 2). Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.

Welford, R., Ytterhus, B., & Eligh, J. (1999). Tourism and sustainable development: an analysis of policy and guidelines for managing provision and consumption. Sustainable Development, 7(4), 165-177. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099- 1719(199911)7:4<165::aid-sd117>3.0.co;2-f

Wells, F. E. (1997). Introduction to the marine environment of the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. In F. E. Wells (Ed.), The marine flora and fauna of the 212

Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. (pp. 1-11). Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Wells, F. E., & Nardi, K. (2006, 26 February - 2 March). Allocation of fish resources in the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia. Paper presented at the Sharing the Fish Conference March 2006, Perth, Western Australia.

Western Australian Maritime Museum. (1995). Code of conduct for visitors to Historic Sites at the Abrolhos Islands. Fremantle: Abrolhos Islands Consultative Council.

Western Australian Tour Operators Fishing Working Group. (1998). Future Management of the Aquatic Charter Industry in Western Australia Final Report. Perth: Fisheries Western Australia.

Western Australian Tourism Commission. (1997). Keeping it Real: A Nature Based Tourism Strategy for Western Australia. Perth: Government of Western Australia.

Wilkinson, P. F. (1989). Strategies for Tourism in Island Microstates. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(153-177).

Wilson, J. C. (2003). Planning Policy Issues for Marine Ecotourism. In B. Garrod & J. C. Wilson (Eds.), Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences (pp. 48-65). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability: United Nations Environment Program, International Ecotourism Society.

World Travel and Tourism Council. (2007). Travel and Tourism, Navigating the Path Ahead: The 2007 Travel & Tourism Economic Report, Executive Summary. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.

Yamamoto, L., & Esteban, M. (2010). Vanishing Island States and sovereignty. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.003

Wells, FE & Nardi, K 2006, 'Allocation of fish resources in the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia', in Sharing the Fish Conference March 2006, Department of Fisheries Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 1-10.

Western Australian Maritime Museum 1995, Code of conduct for visitors to Historic Sites at the Abrolhos Islands, Abrolhos Islands Consultative Council, Fremantle.

Western Australian Tour Operators Fishing Working Group 1998, Future Management of the Aquatic Charter Industry in Western Australia, Final Report, Fisheries Western Australia, Perth.

Western Australian Tourism Commission 1997, Keeping it Real: A Nature Based Tourism Strategy for Western Australia, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

213

Wilkinson, PF 1989, 'Strategies for Tourism in Island Microstates', Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 16, no. 153-177.

Wilson, JC 2003, 'Planning Policy Issues for Marine Ecotourism', in Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences, eds B Garrod & JC Wilson, Channel View Publications, Great Britain, pp. 48-65.

World Tourism Organisation 1995, UNWTO Technical Manual: Collection of Tourism Expenditure Statistics, Madrid.

World Tourism Organisation 2006, 'World Tourism Barometer', United Nations-World Tourism Organisation World Tourism Barometer, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-5.

World Travel and Tourism Council 2007, Travel and Tourism, Navigating the Path Ahead: The 2007 Travel & Tourism Economic Report, Executive Summary, World Travel and Tourism Council, London

214

APPENDIX A: POSTAL SURVEY OF AIR CHARTER OPERATORS 2003-4 & 2004-5

215

Emily Stoddart School of Earth and Geographical Sciences PhD Candidate M004 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009 Phone +61 8 6488 2683 Mobile 0438 697 081 Email [email protected]

CRICOS Provider Number 00126G

Houtman Abrolhos Islands Visitation Study Air Charter Operator Postal Survey 2004

1) Type of organisation/operation: Charter Boat Operator Charter Plane Operator

2) Name of organisation/operation:

3) Location of operational base:

4) Number of trips to the Houtman Abrolhos Islands in 2003-4 season:

5) Proportion of total trips in 2003-4 that were to the Houtman Abrolhos Islands:

6) Total number of pax/passengers to visit Houtman Abrolhos Islands in 2003- 4 season: (Estimate by person or by vessel plus average number of passengers per vessel)

7) Total number of pax/passengers to visit Houtman Abrolhos Islands during the 2004 In-season period from 15th March to 30th June: (Estimate by person or by vessel plus average number of passengers per vessel)

8) Total number of pax/passengers/members to visit Houtman Abrolhos Islands during the 2004 Easter period from 9-12th April: (Estimate by person or by vessel plus average number of passengers per vessel)

9) Primary activity of pax/passengers during Houtman Abrolhos Islands visit (list three most popular activities):

216

1. 2. 3. 10) What guidance and active physical guiding do you offer your visitors to the Houtman Abrolhos Islands?

11) What is the proportion of pax/passengers which are of the following origins? 1. International: 2. Australian/inter-state: 3. Western Australian:

12) What label best describes your product? (Circle one) Ecotourism Nature-based tourism Outdoor adventure tourism Specialised tourism Recreational tourism Other (please specify)

13) What are the 3 primary reasons for selecting the Houtman Abrolhos Islands for your visits? 1. 2. 3.

Thank you for your time.

217

APPENDIX B: VISITOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 2004-6

219

Emily Stoddart School of Earth & Geographical Sciences PhD Candidate M004 The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009 Phone +61 8 6488 2683 Mobile 0438 697 081 Email [email protected]

CRICOS Provider Number 00126G

Houtman Abrolhos Islands Visitation Study Visitor Survey Questionnaire 2004

A. Number of people in group:

B. Number of people answers apply to:

1. Are you (select one): 1.1. Visiting family? 1.2. Visiting friends? 1.3. Day tripping from another inhabited island? 1.4. Day tripping by charter plane? 1.5. Day tripping by charter boat? 1.6. From another mooring/anchorage? 1.7. Moored here?

2. Your residential postcode:

3. Number of days stay in the Abrolhos Islands:

4. Trip plan: (Night by night and day by day breakdown of trip itinerary – both of the trip so far and the remainder of the trip)

5. Number of nights on public moorings: Have the numbers of moorings been able to meet demand? Y / N

220

6. Activities (number from most frequent to least): 6.1Fishing; line, game, spear 6.2 Snorkelling 6.3 Diving 6.4 Swimming 6.5 Cruising 6.6 Beach walking 6.7 Island sight seeing 6.8 Surfing 6.9 Bird watching 6.10 Dropping pots 6.11 Other (please specify)

7. Is this a regular Easter trip? Y / N

8. Do you visit the fisher camps/inhabited islands? Y / N Which ones?

9. Do you perceive visitor management at the HAI to be adequate? Any comments?

Thank you for your time.

221

APPENDIX C: TOURIST VISITATION AND ACTIVITY DATA 2002-3 – 2005-6

223

Table I. Total number of recreational and commercial charter boats visits during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2001-2 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON YEAR RECREATIONAL BOAT CHARTER BOAT BOAT TYPE NOT STATED TOTAL

2001-2 N/A N/A 88 88

2002-3 87 59 3 149

2003-4 52 80 2 133

2004-5 66 81 2 149

2005-6 48 29 0 77

Table II. Total number of recreational and commercial charter boat passengers to visit during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON YEAR RECREATIONAL BOAT COMMERCIAL CHARTER BOAT BOAT TYPE NOT STATED TOTAL

2002-3 351 829 7 1187

2003-4 239 1209 10 1458

2004-5 346 1173 6 1525

2005-6 285 473 0 758

Table III. Annual numbers of commercial charter boat trips and passenger to visit the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Tour Operator Logbook Records, Department of Fisheries).

YEAR NUMBER OF OPERATORS NUMBER OF TRIPS NUMBER OF PASSENGERS

2002-3 27 483 4,943

2003-4 28 551 5,194

2004-5 23 517 4,882

2005-6 28 440 4,200

Table IV. Numbers of Tourist Flights and Passengers visiting the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2003-4 to 2005-6 (Source: UWA Air Charter Operator Survey 2003-4 to 2005-6).

YEAR TOURIST FLIGHTS PASSENGERS

2004-5 178 561

2005-6 201 707

Table V. Numbers of Visiting Boats (Power and Sail Vessel) counted by aerial survey across the Easter holiday period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, in 2004-2006 (Source: UWA – AIMAC Easter Aerial Survey 2004-2006).

DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 YEAR VESSEL TYPE Good Friday Easter Saturday Easter Sunday Easter Monday

Power 18 34 47 41

2004 Sail 5 9 13 8

TOTAL 23 43 60 49

Power 13 28 29 25

2005 Sail 2 12 13 11

TOTAL 15 40 42 36

Power 31 37 38 32

2006 Sail 7 7 8 7

TOTAL 38 44 46 39

Table VI. Monthly number of visits by private recreational boats during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON PERIOD July August September October November December January February

2002-3 2 5 20 22 7 6 18 17

2003-4 6 8 14 12 2 4 2 4

2004-5 3 8 13 19 7 9 3 4

2005-6 0 0 3 16 4 7 11 6

Table VII. Number of private recreational boat visits to the four island groups during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON PERIOD North Island Wallabi Group Easter Group Pelsaert Group

2002-3 4 23 24 62

2003-4 3 22 17 29

2004-5 4 23 23 41

2005-6 1 10 15 29

Table VIII. Combined number of daily sightings of visiting boats (all types) across the four days of the Easter holiday period at various locations across the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, and ranked according to frequency of sightings for the total number of sightings in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Source: UWA – AIMAC Easter Aerial Survey 2004-2006).

LOCATION EASTER EASTER EASTER RANKING ISLAND GROUP (frequency of combined sightings 2004-6 (Island, Anchorage or Waters) 2004 2005 2006 across all locations)

Pelsaert Island – Guano Jetty & Wreck Point 14 23 23 2

Pelsaert Island – North end (The Nook) 14 15 8 4

Inhabited Islands 1 7 17 8

Lagoon - Centre 0 4 7 11

Lagoon - Central small islands 0 7 1 14

Middle Island 7 1 0 14 Pelsaert Gun Island 7 1 0 14 Group Pelsaert Island – Mid 3 1 3 15

Lagoon – North end 2 2 3 15

Zeeuwick Channel 4 2 0 16

Outer Reef - South 0 1 3 18

Outer Reef - West 0 0 2 20

Coral Patches 0 2 1 20

Little Sandy Island (White Bank) 13 13 7 5

Easter Morely Island 6 8 14 6

Group Little Rat & Roma Islands 1 16 4 9

Wooded Island 9 0 2 11

LOCATION EASTER EASTER EASTER RANKING ISLAND GROUP (frequency of combined sightings 2004-6 (Island, Anchorage or Waters) 2004 2005 2006 across all locations)

Severenty Island 4 3 2 13

Middle Channel 4 3 1 14

Easter Passage 6 0 0 16

Outer Reef – North West 4 2 0 16

Outer Reef – North East 4 1 0 17

Outer Reef – East 0 2 3 17

Lagoon – Centre 0 1 4 17

Campbell Island 2 0 2 18

Big Sandy Island 1 0 3 18

Keru Island 0 0 1 21

Alexander Island 0 0 1 21

Turtle Bay 26 18 37 1

Pigeon Island Anchorage 30 10 8 3

Long Island 14 2 11 7

Lagoon – South 4 4 5 10

Wallabi Fish Point 8 0 2 12

Group Outer Reef – North West 2 0 2 18

Dick Island 1 1 1 19

Westside 0 1 2 19

Beacon Island 3 0 0 19

West Wallabi Island – South East 0 2 0 20

LOCATION EASTER EASTER EASTER RANKING ISLAND GROUP (frequency of combined sightings 2004-6 (Island, Anchorage or Waters) 2004 2005 2006 across all locations)

East Wallabi Island – East 0 0 2 20

West Wallabi Island - North 1 0 0 21

North Island North Island N/A 4 6 12

Table IX. Numbers of private recreational boats intending on undertaking types of activities during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON PERIOD Eco Tourism Fishing Diving

2002-3 20 68 17

2003-4 18 43 17

2004-5 22 48 17

2005-6 10 49 14

Table X. Numbers of private recreational boats intending on undertaking fishing activities and non-consumptive (or non-fishing) activities during the Off- season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON PERIOD Fishing Activities Non-Consumptive Activities

2002-3 68 37

2003-4 43 35

2004-5 48 40

2005-6 49 33

Table XI. Numbers of passengers on commercial charter boat trips undertaking types of activities on an annual basis at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, in 2002 and 2003 (Source: Tour Operator Logbooks Records, Department of Fisheries).

YEAR Fishing Diving Snorkelling Wildlife Observation Sightseeing

2002 2,538 1,119 923 306 249

2003 4,254 1,140 842 518 419

Table XII. Numbers of commercial charter boat trips undertaking fishing activities and non-consumptive (or non-fishing) activities annually at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Tour Operator Logbooks Records, Department of Fisheries).

YEAR Fishing Activities Non-Consumptive Activities

2002-3 374 109

2003-4 426 125

2004-5 407 110

2005-6 380 60

Table XIII. Numbers of commercial charter boat trip passengers undertaking fishing activities and non-consumptive (or non-fishing) activities annually at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6 (Source: Tour Operator Logbooks Records, Department of Fisheries).

YEAR Fishing Activities Non-Consumptive Activities

2002-3 3,375 1,568

2003-4 4,404 790

2004-5 3,887 995

2005-6 3,397 803

Table XIV. Numbers of private recreational boats intending on undertaking Fishing Activities and Non-Consumptive (or non-fishing) activities across the four island groups during the Off-season period at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, from 2002-3 to 2005-6. (Source: Off-Season Notification Records, Department of Fisheries).

OFF-SEASON WALLABI PELSAERT ABROLHOS ISLAND ACTIVITY TYPE NORTH ISLAND EASTER GROUP PERIOD GROUP GROUP ZONE

Fishing 3 14 15 55 0 (all Activities involving Fishing) 2002-3 Non-Consumptive 1 9 10 24 0 (all Activities NOT involving Fishing)

Fishing 2 14 13 25 1 (all Activities involving Fishing) 2003-4 Non-Consumptive 1 15 12 13 1 (all Activities NOT involving Fishing)

Fishing 4 15 13 33 3 (all Activities involving Fishing) 2004-5 Non-Consumptive 3 13 13 16 1 (all Activities NOT involving Fishing)

Fishing 1 7 12 24 6 (all Activities involving Fishing) 2005-6 Non-Consumptive 1 7 7 11 6 (all Activities NOT involving Fishing)

Table XV. Numbers of various types of recreational activities undertaken by respondent groups by visitor type during the In-season periods in 2004-2006 at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (Source: UWA Visitor Survey-Questionnaire 2004-6).

Rock Lobster Air Charter Recreational Aquatic Charter TOTAL ACTIVITY Visiting Relatives Tourists Boat Tourists (all Visitor Types) & Friends Visitors

Fishing Line 20 (95%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 35 (88%) 58 (75%)

Game 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 13 (33%) 14 (18%)

Spear 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 7 (18%) 10 (13%)

Snorkelling 15 (71%) 13 (100%) 1 (33%) 27 (68%) 56 (73%)

SCUBA Diving 3 (14%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 12 (30%) 17 (22%)

Swimming 6 (29%) 2 (15%) 1 (33%) 21 (53%) 30 (39%)

Cruising 2 (10%) 0 (0% 0 (0%0 6 (15%) 8 (10%)

Beach Walking 8 (38%) 10 (77%) 0 (0%) 17 (43%) 36 (47%)

Island Sight Seeing 10 (48%) 10 (77%) 1 (33%) 18 (45%) 40 (52%)

Surfing 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 3 (4%)

Bird Watching 2 (10%) 2 (15%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 6 (8%)

Dropping Pots 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (13%) 6 (8%)

Other 3 (terrestrial 1 (terrestrial 2 (kayaking) (10%) 0 (0%) 6 (8%) nature study) (23%) nature study) (3%)

Table XVI. Analysis of respondents to the UWA Visitor Survey-Questionnaire conducted across the In-season periods in 2004-2006 by visitor type and by size of respondent group, at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia (Source: UWA Visitor Survey –Questionnaire 2004-6).

Rock Lobster Recreational Air Charter Aquatic Charter Recreational TOTAL YEAR Visiting Relatives Boat Tourists Tourists Air Visitors (all Visitor Types) & Friends Visitors

No. of Surveys of Visitor Types 5 1 2 0 16 24 2004 Combined size of Respondent Groups 16 4 11 0 71 102

No. of Surveys of Visitor Types 11 4 0 0 14 29 2005 Combined size of Respondent Groups 29 10 0 0 71 110

No. of Surveys of Visitor Types 5 8 1 1 10 25 2006 Combined size of Respondent Groups 20 18 8 2 48 96

APPENDIX D: ISLAND SURVEY SITE AND TRACK CONDITION DATA 2004-6

237

Table I. Island Site Survey and Track Condition Field Codes

SUBSTRATE VEGETATION BIRD BREEDING OTHER

Code Label Code Label Code Label Code Label SG SANDY GRAVEL A ATRIPLEX CINEREA BN BURROW NESTING RL ROCK LOBSTER CR CORAL RUBBLE M THISOPORUM INSULARE RN RAPTOR SITE SH WIND SHELTER ROSEATE TERNS - S SAND SP SPINIFEX LONGIFOLIUS RT - R S INTERPRETIVE SIGN ROOSTING L LAGOON OR TIDAL POND GC GROUND COVER LN LESSER NODDY T TRACK SL SOIL T THREKELDIA DIFFUSA SG SILVER GULLS TH TRACK HEAD PL PAVEMENT LIMESTONE N NITRARIA BILLARDIEREI TT TRACK TERMINATION SB SANDY BEACH CB CARPOBROTUS VIRESCENS CS CAMP SITE SARCOCORNIA FC FOSSIL CLIFFS S OR SC CR COASTAL ROUTE QUINQUEFLORA BL SAND DUNE ‗BLOW OUT‘ SE SENECIO LAUTUS RC ROCK CAIRN GR GRASS SPP. LL LEAD LIGHT MG AVICENNIA MARINA (WHITE MANGROVES OR MANGAL) F FENCING O/G OVERGROWN M MARKER POLE OR POST F FRANKENIA PAUCIFLORA P PONTOON SV SCAEVOLA CRASSIFOLIA J JETTY EW PL V EAST WALLABI PAVEMENT LIMESTONE SPECIES MS MOORING STAKE EW SD V EAST WALLABI SAND DUNE SPECIES SM SURVEY MARKER IP CAKILE MARITIMA (OR ICE PLANT) WP WRECK POINT LIGHT H OR HL HALOSACIA HALOCNEMOIDES OR HALOSACIA INDICA HP HELICOPTER PAD RU RUIN GM GUANO MINING GJ GUANO JETTY BW BOARDWALK CARTOGRAPHIC N, S, E, W ORIENTATION

Table II. East Wallabi Island Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T1 H 28°26.023 113°44.131 0.00 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG A, SP

EW T1 1 28°26.018 113°44.132 7.10 1.40 1.40 1.40 9.94 9.94 9.94 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 2 28°26.014 113°44.134 10.60 2.00 1.80 1.80 21.20 19.08 19.08 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 3 28°26.010 113°44.134 8.50 1.80 2.00 2.00 15.30 17.00 17.00 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 4 28°26.008 113°44.136 3.80 0.20 0.60 0.50 0.76 2.28 1.90 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 5 28°26.006 113°44.134 2.50 0.80 0.50 0.40 2.00 1.25 1.00 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 6 28°26.004 113°44.135 6.10 0.80 0.80 0.80 4.88 4.88 4.88 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 7 28°26.002 113°44.134 5.80 0.60 0.80 0.60 3.48 4.64 3.48 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 8 28°25.998 113°44.129 2.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.30 1.30 1.30 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 9 28°25.996 113°44.128 8.70 2.00 1.50 1.50 17.40 13.05 13.05 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 10 28°25.985 113°44.126 22.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.40 22.40 22.40 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 11 28°25.980 113°44.125 12.10 1.00 0.80 0.80 12.10 9.68 9.68 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 12 28°25.973 113°44.121 8.80 1.30 1.20 1.20 11.44 10.56 10.56 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 13 28°25.971 113°44.122 5.30 1.50 1.00 1.20 7.95 5.30 6.36 SG,PL EW PL V

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T1 14 28°25.967 113°44.121 9.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 7.68 9.60 9.60 SG,PL EW PL V

EW T1 15 28°25.961 113°44.120 8.40 0.80 0.70 0.60 6.72 5.88 5.04 S EW PL V

EW T1 16 28°25.961 113°44.119 1.70 0.80 0.60 0.60 1.36 1.02 1.02 S EW PL V

EW T1 17 28°25.955 113°44.120 11.60 0.80 0.70 0.70 9.28 8.12 8.12 S EW PL V

EW T1 18 28°25.952 113°44.121 7.20 1.50 1.20 1.20 10.80 8.64 8.64 S EW PL V

EW T1 19 28°25.947 113°44.119 7.20 1.50 1.40 1.40 10.80 10.08 10.08 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 20 28°25.943 113°44.122 8.30 1.50 1.40 1.40 12.45 11.62 11.62 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 21 28°25.939 113°44.121 6.50 1.50 1.40 1.40 9.75 9.10 9.10 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 22 28°25.931 113°44.118 18.70 1.50 1.20 1.20 28.05 22.44 22.44 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 23 28°25.929 113°44.115 4.50 1.50 1.20 1.20 6.75 5.40 5.40 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 24 28°25.922 113°44.114 13.00 1.50 1.40 1.40 19.50 18.20 18.20 S,PL EW SD V

EW T1 25 28°25.914 113°44.113 11.70 1.50 1.00 1.00 17.55 11.70 11.70 S EW SD V

EW T1 26 28°25.910 113°44.115 11.30 1.00 0.80 0.80 11.30 9.04 9.04 S EW SD V

EW T1 27 28°25.907 113°44.116 4.70 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.88 1.88 1.88 S EW SD V

EW T1 28 28°25.905 113°44.114 4.30 0.50 0.50 0.60 2.15 2.15 2.58 SD,BL EW SD V

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T1 29 28°25.902 113°44.115 6.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 SD,BL EW SD V,SP

EW T1 30 28°25.901 113°44.117 4.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.88 2.88 2.88 SD,BL EW SD V,SP

EW T1 T 28°25.899 113°44.120 6.00 1.50 0.50 0.60 9.00 3.00 3.60 SB EW SD V,SP

EW T2 H 28°25.952 113°44.121 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG EW PL V

EW T2 1 28°25.944 113°44.127 14.30 1.50 1.50 1.50 21.45 21.45 21.45 SG EW PL V

EW T2 2 28°25.940 113°44.127 9.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 14.25 14.25 14.25 SD EW SD V

EW T2 3 28°25.936 113°44.130 6.30 0.60 0.50 0.50 3.78 3.15 3.15 SD EW SD V

EW T2 T 28°25.936 113°44.133 4.20 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.10 2.10 2.10 SD EW SD V

EW T3 H 28°25.913 113°44.144 0.00 2.00 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB SP

EW T3 1 28°25.916 113°44.142 10.40 0.80 0.80 1.00 8.32 8.32 10.40 SD EW SD V

EW T3 2 28°25.920 113°44.142 4.60 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.92 1.38 1.38 SD EW SD V

EW T3 3 28°25.922 113°44.143 4.90 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.47 1.47 1.47 SD EW SD V

EW T3 4 28°25.924 113°44.143 4.90 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.98 0.98 0.98 SD EW SD V

EW T3 T 28°25.926 113°44.144 2.40 0.60 0.50 0.50 1.44 1.20 1.20 SD EW SD V

EW T4 H 28°25.916 113°44.152 0.00 1.50 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB SP, TH

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T4 1 28°25.917 113°44.151 1.80 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.72 1.08 0.72 SD EW SD V

EW T4 2 28°25.921 113°44.150 7.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 4.62 4.62 3.85 SD EW SD V

EW T4 3 28°25.921 113°44.146 5.90 0.60 0.50 0.40 3.54 2.95 2.36 SD EW SD V

EW T4 4 28°25.923 113°44.147 3.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 SD EW SD V

EW T4 5 28°25.925 113°44.145 4.60 0.60 0.50 0.60 2.76 2.30 2.76 SD EW SD V

EW T4 6 28°25.927 113°44.144 2.90 0.50 0.40 0.40 1.45 1.16 1.16 SD,BL EW SD V

EW T4 7 28°25.930 113°44.144 8.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 SD,BL EW SD V

EW T4 8 28°25.937 113°44.144 8.30 0.80 0.60 0.80 6.64 4.98 6.64 SD,BL EW SD V

EW T4 T 28°25.938 113°44.139 7.20 1.20 1.00 1.00 8.64 7.20 7.20 SD,BL EW SD V

EW T5 H 28°26.012 113°44.134 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 PL,SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 1 28°26.015 113°44.142 12.20 1.00 0.60 1.00 12.20 7.32 12.20 PL,SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 2 28°26.013 113°44.146 11.20 0.50 0.40 0.40 5.75 4.48 4.48 PL,SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 3 28°26.001 113°44.157 6.60 0.30 0.30 0.20 1.98 1.98 1.32 PL,SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 4 28°26.000 113°44.155 22.50 0.80 0.30 0.20 18.00 6.75 4.50 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 5 28°25.996 113°44.156 5.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.60 5.60 5.60 SG,SL EW PL V

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T5 6 28°25.993 113°44.157 5.90 0.80 1.00 0.80 4.72 5.90 4.72 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 7 28°25.986 113°44.155 3.60 0.80 0.60 0.80 2.88 2.16 2.88 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 8 28°25.984 113°44.153 15.40 0.80 0.60 0.80 12.32 9.24 12.32 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 9 28°25.984 113°44.150 6.10 0.40 0.20 0.20 2.44 1.22 1.22 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 10 28°25.979 113°44.153 3.70 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.74 0.74 0.74 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 11 28°25.972 113°44.145 14.90 0.20 0.20 0.20 2.98 2.98 2.98 SG,SL EW PL V

EW T5 12 28°25.971 113°44.149 13.30 0.40 0.20 0.20 5.32 2.66 2.66 SG,SD EW PL V

EW T5 13 28°25.960 113°44.153 23.00 0.80 0.30 0.30 18.40 6.90 6.90 SG,SD EW PL V

EW T5 14 28°25.957 113°44.150 5.40 0.60 0.30 0.40 3.24 1.62 2.16 SG,SD EW PL V

EW T5 T 28°25.955 113°44.150 3.90 0.50 0.30 0.30 1.95 1.17 1.17 SG,SD EW PL V

EW T6 H 28°25.941 113°44.219 0.00 1.60 1.60 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB AT, SP, TH

EW T6 T 28°25.949 113°44.217 9.70 0.80 0.80 0.80 11.64 11.64 10.67 SD EW SD V

EW T7 H 28°25.847 113°44.513 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB EW SD V

EW T7 1 28°25.848 113°44.518 8.40 0.60 0.50 0.50 5.04 4.20 4.20 SD EW SD V

EW T7 2 28°25.847 113°44.523 8.40 0.50 0.50 0.40 4.20 4.20 3.36 SD EW SD V

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T7 T 28°25.849 113°44.525 5.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.00 3.00 3.00 SD EW SD V

EW T8 H 28°25.865 113°44.487 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB SP,T,EW SD V

EW T8 T 28°25.876 113°44.495 24.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 9.64 9.64 9.64 SD EW SD V

EW T9 H 28°26.043 113°44.432 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 PL,SG EW PL V

EW T9 1 28°26.002 113°44.432 76.00 0.20 0.20 1.80 15.20 15.20 136.80 PL,SG EW PL V

EW T9 2 28°25.911 113°44.508 210.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB

EW T9 3 28°25.899 113°44.525 34.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 13.68 13.68 13.68 PL EW PL V

EW T9 4 28°25.866 113°44.556 79.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB

EW T9 5 28°25.844 113°44.612 100.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 40.16 40.16 40.16 PL,CR EW PL V

EW T9 6 28°25.817 113°44.632 59.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 23.80 23.80 23.80 PL,S FK,AT,SV

EW T9 7 28°25.758 113°44.673 127.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB

EW T9 8 28°25.714 113°44.709 100.40 0.80 0.50 0.50 80.32 50.20 50.20 PL,CR F,T

EW T9 9 28°25.679 113°44.716 65.50 0.80 0.60 0.60 52.40 39.30 39.30 PL,SG,CR F,A,H

EW T9 10 28°25.671 113°44.721 17.10 0.80 0.50 0.70 13.68 8.55 11.97 PL,SG,CR F,A,H

EW T9 11 28°25.659 113°44.722 22.10 0.60 0.40 0.60 13.26 8.84 13.26 PL,SG F,A,H

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T9 12 28°25.631 113°44.713 54.10 0.60 0.50 0.60 32.46 27.05 32.46 PL,SG F,A,H

EW T9 13 28°25.623 113°44.714 14.90 0.50 0.40 0.40 7.45 5.96 5.96 PL,CR F,A,H

EW T9 14 28°25.621 113°44.691 37.80 0.50 0.60 0.60 18.90 22.68 22.68 PL,SG F,A,H

EW T9 15 28°25.649 113°44.671 61.20 0.40 0.60 0.60 24.48 36.72 36.72 PL,CR SP,A,T,F

EW T9 16 28°25.667 113°44.640 60.90 0.80 0.60 0.50 48.72 36.54 30.45 PL,S,CR SP,A,F

EW T9 17 28°25.701 113°44.594 97.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB

EW T9 18 28°25.709 113°44.567 46.40 0.60 0.60 0.60 27.84 27.84 27.84 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 19 28°25.728 113°44.550 44.80 0.60 0.40 0.40 26.88 17.92 17.92 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 20 28°25.730 113°44.546 7.70 0.60 0.40 0.40 4.62 3.08 3.08 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 21 28°25.729 113°44.530 26.10 0.60 0.40 0.40 15.66 10.44 10.44 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 22 28°25.735 113°44.527 12.20 0.60 0.40 0.40 7.32 4.88 4.88 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 23 28°25.745 113°44.540 28.10 0.60 0.60 0.40 16.86 16.86 11.24 PL,FC EW PL V

EW T9 24 28°25.796 113°44.550 95.40 0.80 0.80 0.80 76.32 76.32 76.32 PL,FC,SG EW PL V

EW T9 25 28°25.800 113°44.545 11.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 9.20 9.20 9.20 PL,FC,SG A,SV,T,EW SD,V

EW T9 26 28°25.808 113°44.541 16.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 13.20 13.20 13.20 PL,FC,SG A,SV,T,EW SD,V

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW T9 27 28°25.811 113°44.532 15.90 0.60 0.80 0.80 9.54 12.72 12.72 PL,FC,SG AT,SV

EW T9 28 28°25.818 113°44.530 13.20 0.60 0.60 0.60 7.92 7.92 7.92 PL,FC,SG EW SD V

EW T9 29 28°25.829 113°44.523 23.30 0.80 0.60 0.60 18.64 13.98 13.98 PL,FC,SG EW SD V

EW T9 T 28°25.838 113°44.520 17.40 1.60 1.60 1.60 27.84 27.84 27.84 PL,SB SP,A,T

EW T10 H 28°25.839 113°44.522 0.00

EW T10 1 28°25.841 113°44.519 6.20

EW T10 2 28°25.844 113°44.527 14.40

EW T10 3 28°25.858 113°44.538 31.50

EW T10 4 28°25.863 113°44.540 9.80

EW T10 5 28°25.864 113°44.545 8.50

EW T10 T 28°25.867 113°44.548 7.30

EWI NW 28°25.879 113°44.087

EW SW 28°26.043 113°44.087

EW LL 1 28°25.947 113°44.218

EW LL 2 28°25.982 113°44.216

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW LL 3 28°25.626 113°44.710

EW RC 1 28°25.782 113°44.550

EW RC 2 28°25.778 113°44.558

EW RC 3 28°25.777 113°44.549

EW RC 4 28°25.737 113°44.530

EW RC 5 28°25.634 113°44.711

EW F 1 28°25.994 113°44.245

EW F 2 28°25.993 113°44.258

EW M 1 28°25.979 113°44.205

EW M 2 28°25.994 113°44.210

EW M 3 28°25.999 113°44.250

EW S 1 28°25.945 113°44.263

EW S 2 28°25.947 113°44.268

EW RS 1 28°25.702 113°44.656

EW RS 2 28°25.702 113°44.656

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK SECTION TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE -SIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) (M²) VEGET SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB -ATION BREEDING -STRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

EW RS 3 28°25.702 113°44.656

EW RS 4 28°25.654 113°44.679

Table III. East Wallabi Island Site Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK TRACK TRACK Annual Mean CODE LENGTH Width Range Annual Variation Variation in Averaged Rate Total Track Area (m²) Averaged Rate (m) of Track Points (m) in Area (m²) Width (m) of Annual Mean of Annual Variation Variation in Width in Area 2004-06 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 (m²)

EW T1 249.8 0.2-2.0 0.3-2.0 0.3-1.8 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 302.0 266.0 265.0 -36.0 -1.0 -18.5

EW T2 34.3 0.5-1.5 0.5-1.5 0.5-1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.6 41.0 41.0 -0.6 0.0 -0.3

EW T3 27.2 0.2-2.0 0.2-1.8 0.2-1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.4 15.4 +0.3 +2.0 +1.2

EW T4 49.5 0.4-1.5 0.4-1.3 0.4-1.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 33.9 29.8 30.2 -4.1 +0.4 -1.9

EW T5 153.3 0.2-1.2 0.2-1.2 0.2-1.2 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 98.5 60.7 65.9 -37.8 +5.2 -32.6

EW T6 9.7 0.8-1.6 0.8-1.6 0.8-1.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 11.6 11.6 10.7 0.0 -0.9 -0.5

EW T7 21.8 0.5-1.5 0.5-1.5 0.4-1.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 12.2 11.4 10.6 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

EW T8 24.1 0.4-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.4-0.4 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 9.6 9.6 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

EW T9 1577.8 0.0-1.6 0.0-1.6 0-1.8 -0.1 0.1 0.0 646.4 570.9 694.0 -75.5 +123.1 +23.8

TOTAL 2147.5 116.9 1014.4 1142.4 -154.5 +128.0 -13.3

Table IV. Long Island Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI T1 H 28°28.408 113°46.476 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

LI T1 1 28°28.409 113°46.477 3.50 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.70 CR A

LI T1 2 28°28.413 113°46.479 9.30 0.30 0.20 0.15 2.79 1.86 1.40 CR,S A,T,M BN

LI T1 3 28°28.418 113°46.480 8.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 3.44 3.44 3.44 CR,S A,T,M BN

LI T1 4 28°28.421 113°46.477 8.80 0.20 0.30 0.30 1.76 2.64 2.64 CR,S A,T,M BN

LI T1 5 28°28.428 113°46.478 9.20 0.60 0.60 0.70 5.52 5.52 6.44 CR,S A,T,M BN

LI T1 T 28°28.429 113°46.479 3.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.66 0.99 0.99 S,CR A,T,M BN

LI T2 H 28°28.421 113°46.471 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,S A BN

LI T2 1 28°28.430 113°46.473 17.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 5.19 6.92 6.92 S,CR A,T BN

LI T2 2 28°28.434 113°46.474 6.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.60 2.60 2.60 S A,T BN

LI T2 3 28°28.437 113°46.471 5.40 0.80 0.60 0.80 4.32 3.24 4.32 S A,T BN

LI T2 4 28°28.438 113°46.474 8.70 0.60 0.40 0.40 5.22 3.48 3.48 S A,T,M BN

LI T2 T 28°28.439 113°46.471 2.60 0.80 0.60 0.60 2.08 1.56 1.56 S,CR A,T BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI T3 H 28°28.405 113°46.479 0.00 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A SG,BN

LI T3 1 28°28.405 113°46.483 5.60 0.20 0.15 0.15 1.12 0.84 0.84 CR,S A SG,BN

LI T3 2 28°28.405 113°46.483 3.00 0.60 0.30 0.30 1.80 0.90 0.90 CR,S A SG,BN

LI T3 3 28°28.406 113°46.485 2.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.44 0.33 0.33 S,CR A SG,BN

LI T3 4 28°28.407 113°46.485 2.70 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.81 0.54 0.54 S,CR A,T SG,BN

LI T3 5 28°28.407 113°46.487 2.40 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.96 0.72 0.22 S,CR A,T SG,BN

LI T3 T 28°28.407 113°46.488 1.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.44 0.44 CR A SG,BN

LI T4 H 28°28.405 113°46.479 0.00 0.40 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,S A SG,BN

LI T4 1 28°28.405 113°46.483 2.00 0.40 0.15 0.00 0.80 0.30 0.00 S,CR A SG,BN

LI T4 2 28°28.399 113°46.485 15.50 0.40 0.30 0.00 7.75 4.65 0.00 S,CR A SG,BN

LI T4 3 28°28.388 113°46.488 19.00 1.40 1.40 1.40 26.60 26.60 26.60 S,CR A SG,BN

LI T4 4 28°28.383 113°46.485 9.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 3.84 3.84 3.84 S,CR A SG,BN

LI T4 5 28°28.369 113°46.488 26.50 0.40 0.50 0.50 10.60 13.25 13.25 S,CR A,M SG,BN

LI T4 6 28°28.361 113°46.490 15.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 9.30 9.30 9.30 S,CR A,M,T SG,BN

LI T4 7 28°28.345 113°46.487 36.90 0.60 0.30 0.00 22.14 22.14 0.00 S,CR A,M,GR,T SG,BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI T4 8 28°28.335 113°46.484 13.10 0.20 0.40 0.00 2.62 3.93 0.00 S,CR A,M,GR,T SG,BN

LI T4 9 28°28.327 113°46.481 19.20 0.40 0.40 0.00 7.68 7.68 0.00 S A SG,BN

LI T4 10 28°28.315 113°46.479 17.00 0.40 0.50 0.00 6.80 8.50 0.00 S,CR A,M,GR,T SG,BN

LI T4 11 28°28.303 113°46.477 13.80 0.40 1.00 0.00 5.52 13.80 0.00 S,CR A,M,SE,GR SG,BN

LI T4 T 28°28.296 113°46.475 23.30 1.00 0.80 0.00 23.30 18.64 0.00 S A,M,GR,T SG,BN

LI T5 H 28°28.371 113°46.482 0.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,N SG

LI T5 1 28°28.351 113°46.483 73.30 1.20 1.20 1.20 87.96 87.96 87.96 CR A,IP SG

LI T5 2 28°28.336 113°46.478 6.40 1.20 1.20 1.20 7.68 7.68 7.68 CR A,GC SG

LI T5 3 28°28.332 113°46.478 7.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 5.60 7.00 7.00 CR A SG

LI T5 4 28°28.325 113°46.475 13.30 0.80 1.20 1.00 10.64 15.96 13.30 CR A SG

LI T5 5 28°28.316 113°46.473 16.60 0.80 1.20 1.20 13.28 19.92 19.92 CR A SG

LI T5 6 28°28.306 113°46.472 21.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 17.52 17.52 17.52 CR A,IP SG

LI T5 7 28°28.291 113°46.464 34.90 1.60 1.50 1.50 55.84 52.35 52.35 CR,S A,IP SG

LI T5 8 28°28.288 113°46.461 5.40 0.40 0.60 0.60 2.16 3.24 3.24 CR,S A,IP SG

LI T5 9 28°28.288 113°46.458 3.70 0.40 0.60 0.60 1.48 2.22 2.22 CR,S A,N,IP SG

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI T5 10 28°28.285 113°46.457 3.00 0.80 0.50 0.50 2.40 1.50 1.50 CR,S A,N SG

LI T5 11 28°28.281 113°46.456 7.50 0.40 0.20 0.20 3.00 1.50 1.50 CR A SG

LI T5 T 28°28.280 113°46.454 4.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.82 2.82 2.82 CR A SG

LI T6 H 28°28.287 113°46.466 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,S,SL A,IP SG

LI T6 T 28°28.283 113°46.477 26.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 5.28 3.96 3.96 CR,S,SL A SG,BN

LI T7 H 28°28.323 113°46.457 0.00 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,C SG

LI T7 1 28°28.323 113°46.455 8.70 0.40 0.50 0.00 3.48 4.35 1.74 CR A SG

LI T7 T 28°28.316 113°46.450 11.80 0.20 0.00 0.00 2.46 0.00 0.00 CR A SG

LI T8 H 28°28.341 113°46.499 0.00 0.60 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,M SG

LI T8 1 28°28.338 113°46.496 5.70 0.60 0.80 0.80 3.24 4.56 4.56 CR A,M SG

LI T8 2 28°28.336 113°46.492 7.10 0.80 0.80 0.80 5.68 5.68 5.68 CR,S A,M SG

LI T8 3 28°28.316 113°46.489 37.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.20 37.20 37.20 S,CR A,M SG,BN

LI T8 4 28°28.309 113°46.489 6.50 0.40 0.60 0.60 2.60 3.90 3.90 S,CR A,M,SP SG,BN

LI T8 5 28°28.304 113°46.490 8.70 0.60 0.60 0.80 5.22 5.22 5.22 S,CR A,M,SP SG,BN

LI T8 6 28°28.294 113°46.491 27.70 1.20 1.20 1.20 33.24 33.24 33.24 S,CR A,M,T SG

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI T8 T 28°28.292 113°46.492 4.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.30 2.30 2.30 CR A,M,T SG

LI SH 1 28°28.542 113°46.498

LI SH 2 28°28.466 113°46.473

LI RS 1 28°28.096 113°46.449

LI RS 2 28°28.228 113°46.451

LI RS 3 28°28.741 113°46.439

LI RS 4 28°28.673 113°46.492

LI RS 5 28°28.520 113°46.484

LI RS 6 28°28.030 113°46.426

LI RS 7 28°28.302 113°46.439

LI RS 8 28°28.648 113°46.488

LI LL 1 28°28.466 113°46.470

LI LL 2 28°28.469 113°46.481

LI M 1 28°28.742 113°46.428

LI M 2 28°28.408 113°46.474

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACK SECTION TRACK TRACK WIDTH AREA -SIDE GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH SOIL -SIDE (M) (M²) SEABIRD IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) SUB VEGET BREEDING -STRATE -ATION 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 HABITAT

LI M 3 28°28.406 113°46.466

LI M 4 28°28.164 113°46.469

LI MS 1 28°28.560 113°46.473

LI SM 1 28°28.405 113°46.474

LI SM 2 28°28.283 113°46.477

LI N 28°27.884 113°46.423

LI E 28°28.527 113°46.519

LI S 28°28.761 113°46.415

LI W 28°28.969 113°46.360

LI CS 1 28°28.006 113°46.414

LI CS 2 28°28.388 113°46.488

LI CS 3 28°28.467 113°46.471

Table V. Long Island Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK Annual Mean TRACK Annual Variation TRACK Width Range of Track Points (m) Variation Averaged Rate Total Track Area (m²) Averaged Rate LENGTH in Area (m²) CODE in Width (m) of Annual Mean of Annual Variation (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

LI T1 42.7 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 15.2 15.6 +0.3 +0.4 +0.4

LI T2 40.5 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 19.4 17.8 18.9 -1.6 +1.1 -0.3

LI T3 17.0 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.4 0.15-0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 3.8 3.3 -1.8 -0.5 -1.2

LI T4 211.4 0.4-1.0 0.15-1.0 0.0-0.6 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 127.0 132.6 53.0 +5.6 -79.6 -37.0

LI T5 197.7 0.4-1.0 0.2-1.2 0.2-1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 210.4 219.7 217.0 +9.3 -2.7 +3.3

LI T6 26.4 0.2-0.2 0.0-0.3 0.0-0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 -1.3 0.0 -0.7

LI T7 20.5 0.2-0.4 0.0-0.8 0.0-0.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.1 5.9 4.4 1.7 -1.5 -2.7 -2.1

LI T8 97.5 0.4-1.2 0.5-1.2 0.5-1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 89.5 92.1 92.1 +2.6 0.0 +1.3

TOTAL 653.7 478.0 489.6 405.6 +11.6 -84.0 -41.9

Table VI. Leo Island Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (M) (M) SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

LEI T1 H 28°41.297 113°51.619 0.00 0.20 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG T, M, A

LEI T1 1 28°41.296 113°51.619 3.10 1.50 1.30 1.10 4.65 4.03 3.41 SG A,M,T,SP BN

LEI T1 2 28°41.295 113°51.617 3.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 3.00 3.04 3.04 SG A,T,M BN

LEI T1 3 28°41.293 113°51.617 7.10 0.80 0.60 0.50 5.68 4.26 3.55 SG A,M BN

LEI T1 4 28°41.287 113°51.613 8.80 4.00 4.00 4.00 35.20 35.20 35.20 SG A,SP,M BN

LEI T1 5 28°41.283 113°51.613 9.10 0.80 0.60 0.60 7.28 5.46 5.46 SG A,SP, H BN

LEI T1 6 28°41.278 113°51.610 10.10 0.80 0.60 0.60 8.08 6.06 6.06 S,CR A,SP, H BN

LEI T1 7 28°41.271 113°51.611 8.20 1.40 1.40 1.20 11.48 11.48 9.84 S,CR H,SP,A BN

LEI T1 8 28°41.266 113°51.607 10.70 1.40 1.40 1.40 14.98 14.98 14.98 SG A,H,SP BN

LEI T1 9 28°41.262 113°51.606 10.20 1.00 0.90 0.80 10.20 9.18 8.16 SG A,H,SP BN

LEI T1 10 28°41.259 113°51.602 7.20 0.80 0.80 0.60 5.76 5.76 4.32 SG A,SP BN

LEI T1 11 28°41.247 113°51.603 20.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 12.00 12.00 12.00 SG SP BN

LEI T1 12 28°41.245 113°51.602 4.50 0.80 0.80 0.60 3.60 3.60 2.70 SG SP,T BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (M) (M) SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

LEI T1 13 28°41.240 113°51.600 6.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.78 3.78 3.78 S SP,N,T BN

LEI T1 14 28°41.229 113°51.593 25.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 12.90 12.90 12.90 S N,SP,T BN

LEI T1 15 28°41.226 113°51.588 6.90 0.70 0.60 0.60 4.83 4.14 4.14 S,CR N,SP,T BN

LEI T1 16 28°41.211 113°51.583 32.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 19.26 19.26 19.26 S N,M,SP,T BN

LEI T1 17 28°41.200 113°51.582 20.20 0.80 0.80 0.80 16.16 16.16 16.16 CR,S N,M,T,CB

LEI T1 18 28°41.196 113°51.582 4.40 0.60 0.70 0.70 2.64 3.08 3.08 CR,S M,N,T

LEI T1 19 28°41.193 113°51.581 10.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 6.06 6.06 6.06 S M,T,N BN

LEI T1 20 28°41.187 113°51.584 14.10 0.80 1.00 1.00 11.28 14.10 14.10 S M,CB BN

LEI T1 21 28°41.182 113°51.582 6.20 0.60 0.50 0.70 3.72 3.10 4.34 S SP,CB BN

LEI T1 22 28°41.180 113°51.584 4.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 S M,CB,N,S

LEI T1 T 28°41.178 113°51.584 2.60 1.80 0.80 1.00 2.08 2.08 2.60 S M,T,CB

LEI T2 H 28°41.188 113°51.583 0.00 0.80 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 S SP,CB

LEI T2 T 28°41.190 113°51.587 5.60 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.64 10.64 10.64 S N,M

LEI T3 H 28°41.322 113°51.689 0.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S N,A BN

LEI T3 1 28°41.324 113°51.692 4.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.76 1.76 1.76 SG A,T,N BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (M) (M) SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

LEI T3 2 28°41.325 113°51.696 7.50 0.60 0.50 0.50 4.50 3.75 3.75 SG A,T,SP BN

LEI T3 3 28°41.335 113°51.718 36.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 18.35 18.35 18.35 SG A,T,N BN

LEI T3 4 28°41.335 113°51.720 2.40 0.60 0.50 0.50 1.44 1.20 1.20 SG A,SP BN

LEI T3 5 28°41.337 113°51.722 6.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.48 2.48 2.48 SG A,M BN

LEI T3 6 28°41.338 113°51.725 5.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.16 2.16 2.16 SG N,A BN

LEI T3 7 28°41.339 113°51.725 4.80 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.44 1.44 1.44 SG A,N BN

LEI T3 8 28°41.340 113°51.725 4.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.20 1.20 1.20 SG A,N BN

LEI T3 9 28°41.344 113°51.727 7.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 2.22 2.22 2.22 SG A,M,N BN

LEI T3 10 28°41.354 113°51.727 19.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 9.65 9.65 9.65 SG,CR A,M,CB BN

LEI T3 11 28°41.357 113°51.726 5.70 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.28 2.28 2.28 SG,CR A BN

LEI T3 12 28°41.398 113°51.728 69.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 34.90 34.90 34.90 SG,CR A,HL,M

LEI T3 13 28°41.415 113°51.729 38.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 15.36 15.36 7.68 SG A,HL BN

LEI T3 14 28°41.421 113°51.733 8.70 0.30 0.30 0.30 2.61 2.61 2.61 SG A,HL BN

LEI T3 15 28°41.425 113°51.744 21.30 0.50 0.60 0.00 10.65 12.78 0.00 SG,CR A,HL BN

LEI T3 16 28°41.424 113°51.751 10.90 0.50 0.50 0.00 5.45 5.45 0.00 SG,CR A,T

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (M) (M) SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

LEI T3 17 28°41.417 113°51.754 11.80 0.40 0.50 0.00 4.72 5.90 0.00 SG,CR A,HL

LEI T3 18 28°41.412 113°51.761 17.80 0.40 0.40 0.40 7.12 7.12 7.12 SG,CR A,HL

LEI T3 T 28°41.411 113°51.765 5.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.48 3.48 3.48 SG,CR A,HL

LEI T4 H 28°41.306 113°51.699 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,CR A,N

LEI T4 1 28°41.303 113°51.699 9.10 0.20 0.15 0.00 1.82 1.37 0.00 CR,SG A,N BN

LEI T4 T 28°41.290 113°51.707 26.60 0.30 0.40 0.30 7.98 10.64 7.98 CR A BN

LEI RS 1 28°41.225 113°52.059

LEI SH 1 28°41.185 113°52.162

LEI SH 2 28°41.365 113°51.900

LEI E 28°41.178 113°52.196

LEI N 28°41.145 113°52.164

LEI NE 28°41.148 113°52.186

LEI W 28°41.301 113°51.535

LEI NW 28°41.169 113°51.570

LEI S 1 28°41.190 113°51.580

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (M) (M) SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

LEI S 2 28°41.323 113°51.689

LEI S3 RL2 28°41.453 113°51.588

LEI RL1 S 28°41.206 113°51.581

LEI RL1 N 28°41.196 113°51.580

LEI J 1 28°41.197 113°51.586

LEI PT 1 28°41.177 113°51.585

Table VII. Leo Island Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK TRACK TRACK Annual Mean Variation Averaged Rate Annual Variation Averaged Rate LENGTH Width Range of Track Points (m) Total Track Area (m²) CODE in Width (m) of Annual Mean in Area (m²) of Annual Variation (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

LEI T1 235.5 0.2-4.0 0.5-4.0 0.4-4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206.6 201.7 197.1 -4.9 -4.6 -4.8

LEI T2 5.6 0.8-2.0 1.8-2.0 1.8-2.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 10.6 10.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

LEI T3 288.3 0.3-0.8 0.3-1.0 0.0-1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 131.8 134.1 102.0 +2.3 -32.1 -14.9

LEI T4 35.7 0.2-0.3 0.15-0.4 0.0-0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 9.8 12.0 8.0 +2.2 -4.0 -0.9

TOTAL 565.1 358.8 358.4 317.7 -0.4 -40.7 -20.6

Table VIII. Morely Island Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK TRACK TRACKSIDE SECTION POINT SECTION TRACK TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE SEABIRD LENGTH WIDTH AREA SOIL -SIDE IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) BREEDING (M) (M) (M²) SUBSTRATE VEGETATION HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

MI T1 H 28°44.612 113°48.644 0.00 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,SG,PL A,T,N BN

MI T1 T 28°44.610 113°48.639 9.00 0.40 0.60 0.60 3.60 5.40 5.40 S,CR N,A,T BN

MI T2 H 28°44.617 113°48.643 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,SG A,N,T BN

MI T2 1 28°44.613 113°48.634 18.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 5.40 5.40 5.40 S A,N BN

MI T2 T 28°44.612 113°48.633 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 S,CR,PL N,A,T BN

MI T3 H 28°44.652 113°48.679 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,T,CB,M

MI T3 1 28°44.648 113°48.678 8.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 3.44 3.44 3.44 CR A,T,CB

MI T3 T 28°44.644 113°48.675 7.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.40 1.40 1.40 CR A,T,N

MI T4 H 28°44.671 113°48.699 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S A,T,SP,M BN

MI T4 1 28°44.672 113°48.698 4.60 0.80 0.80 0.80 3.60 3.60 3.60 S A,N,SP,T BN

MI T4 2 28°44.685 113°48.702 24.10 0.60 0.80 0.80 14.46 19.28 19.28 S A,M,N,SP BN

MI T4 T 28°44.688 113°48.702 4.20 1.00 1.50 1.20 4.20 6.30 5.04 S A,SP BN

MI T5 H 28°44.743 113°48.882 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,M

MI T5 1 28°44.735 113°48.879 18.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 5.46 3.64 3.64 CR,SG A,T,M

TRACK TRACK TRACK TRACKSIDE SECTION POINT SECTION TRACK TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE SEABIRD LENGTH WIDTH AREA SOIL -SIDE IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) BREEDING (M) (M) (M²) SUBSTRATE VEGETATION HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

MI T5 2 28°44.730 113°48.873 10.50 0.30 0.20 0.20 3.15 2.10 2.10 CR,SG A,T,M

MI T5 T 28°44.724 113°48.864 19.90 0.30 0.60 0.50 5.97 11.94 9.95 CR A,MG LN

MI T6 H 28°44.686 113°48.694 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB BN

MI T6 1 28°44.680 113°48.693 9.80 2.00 2.00 1.30 19.60 19.60 12.74 S A,N BN

MI T6 2 28°44.679 113°48.691 5.50 0.30 0.20 0.30 1.65 1.10 1.65 S A,N, M BN

MI T6 T 28°44.681 113°48.689 3.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.68 0.68 0.68 S A,N,MG BN,LN

MI T7 H 28°44.692 113°48.640 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,N

MI T7 1 28°44.693 113°48.642 3.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.64 0.64 0.64 CR A,N

MI T7 2 28°44.691 113°48.645 5.60 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.68 1.12 1.12 CR N,A

MI T7 T 28°44.691 113°48.652 12.00 0.40 0.30 0.30 4.80 3.60 3.60 CR A

MI T8 H 28°44.667 113°48.618 0.00 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

MI T8 1 28°44.669 113°48.620 5.00 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.50 1.00 1.00 CR A

MI T8 T 28°44.672 113°48.622 8.00 0.30 0.30 0.40 2.40 2.40 3.20 CR A

MI T9 H 28°44.671 113°48.690 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,SG N,A BN

MI T9 1 28°44.669 113°48.682 14.00 0.40 0.30 0.20 5.60 4.20 2.80 S,SG A,N BN

TRACK TRACK TRACK TRACKSIDE SECTION POINT SECTION TRACK TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE SEABIRD LENGTH WIDTH AREA SOIL -SIDE IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) BREEDING (M) (M) (M²) SUBSTRATE VEGETATION HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

MI T9 2 28°44.676 113°48.679 13.20 0.20 0.10 0.30 2.64 1.32 3.96 S,SG A,N,MG BN

MI T9 3 28°44.678 113°48.681 7.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 3.00 3.00 3.00 S,SG A,N,MG BN

MI T9 T 28°44.687 113°48.683 14.60 1.00 0.80 0.80 14.60 11.68 11.68 S A,N BN

MI T10 H 28°44.641 113°48.663

MI T10 1 28°44.642 113°48.658

MI T10 2 28°44.638 113°48.656

MI T10 3 28°44.636 113°48.655

MI T10 4 28°44.630 113°48.650

MI T10 5 28°44.626 113°48.648

MI T10 6 28°44.629 113°48.642

MI T10 T 28°44.632 113°48.641

MI NE 28°44.522 113°49.043

MI S 28°44.862 113°48.740

MI S 1 28°44.692 113°48.799

MI S 2 28°44.583 113°48.993

TRACK TRACK TRACK TRACKSIDE SECTION POINT SECTION TRACK TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE SEABIRD LENGTH WIDTH AREA SOIL -SIDE IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) BREEDING (M) (M) (M²) SUBSTRATE VEGETATION HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

MI W 28°44.631 113°48.604

MI M 1 28°44.685 113°48.741

MI M 2 28°44.692 113°48.823

MI M 3 28°44.687 113°48.837

MI CS 1 28°44.665 113°48.686

Table IX. Morely Island Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK TRACK Annual Mean TRACK Averaged Rate Annual Variation Averaged Rate LENGTH Width Range of Track Points (m) Variation Total Track Area (m²) CODE of Annual Mean in Area (m²) of Annual Variation (m) in Width (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

MI T1 9.0 0.4-0.4 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.6 5.4 5.4 +1.8 0.0 +0.9

MI T2 20.0 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3 0.2-.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MI T3 15.6 0.2-0.4 0.2-0.4 0.2-0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

MI T4 32.9 0.6-1.0 0.8-1.5 0.0-1.2 0.2 -0.3 -0.1 22.3 29.2 27.9 +6.9 -1.3 +2.8

MI T5 48.6 0.3-0.3 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 17.7 15.7 +3.1 -2.0 +0.6

MI T6 18.7 0.2-2.0 0.2-2.0 0.2-0.4 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 21.9 21.4 15.1 -0.5 -6.3 -3.4

MI T7 20.8 0.2-0.4 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 5.4 5.4 -1.7 0.0 -0.9

MI T8 13.0 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.4 4.2 -0.5 +0.8 +0.2

MI T9 49.3 0.2-1.0 0.1-0.8 0.2-0.8 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 25.8 20.2 21.4 -5.6 +1.2 -2.2

TOTAL 227.9 110.0 113.5 105.9 +3.5 -11.6 -2.0

Table X. Wooded Island Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

WI T1 H 28°44.989 113°48.357 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR N, M RT R

WI T1 1 28°44.991 113°48.361 6.50 2.00 0.80 0.80 13.00 5.20 5.20 CR N,IP RT R

WI T1 2 28°44.989 113°48.391 45.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 91.00 91.00 91.00 CR N,IP RT R

WI T1 3 28°44.986 113°48.398 13.70 1.00 0.90 0.90 13.70 12.30 12.30 CR N, T RT R

WI T1 4 28°44.979 113°48.433 61.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 74.20 61.80 61.80 CR A,IP RT R

WI T1 5 28°44.977 113°48.474 64.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 77.30 64.40 51.52 CR A,IP RT R

WI T1 T 28°44.984 113°48.488 22.10 1.20 1.00 1.00 26.50 22.10 22.10 CR A RT R

WI T2 H 28°44.991 113°48.327 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR N,A,T RT R

WI T2 1 28°44.994 113°48.329 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 2.89 2.89 2.89 CR N,A,T RT R

WI T2 2 28°44.994 113°48.293 56.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 113.00 84.75 84.75 CR A,N RT R

WI T2 3 28°45.004 113°48.227 97.70 2.00 1.70 1.70 195.40 166.09 166.09 CR A,N RT R

WI T2 4 28°45.007 113°48.222 9.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 5.46 5.46 5.46 CR N,A RT R

WI T2 5 28°45.005 113°48.213 12.40 1.20 0.60 0.80 14.90 7.44 9.92 CR IP,T,N,A RT R

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

WI T2 6 28°45.006 113°48.208 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 CR A,N,IP

WI T2 7 28°45.008 113°48.205 5.50 0.60 0.40 0.40 3.30 2.20 2.20 CR A,N,IP

WI T2 T 28°45.007 113°48.195 12.60 0.50 0.40 0.40 6.30 5.04 5.04 CR A,N

WI T3 H 28°45.009 113°48.194 0.00 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

WI T3 1 28°45.010 113°48.197 5.70 0.60 0.50 0.20 3.42 2.85 1.14 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 2 28°45.009 113°48.200 5.50 0.60 0.40 0.00 3.30 2.20 0.00 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 3 28°45.012 113°48.202 5.10 0.50 0.40 0.00 2.55 2.04 0.00 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 4 28°45.012 113°48.204 2.50 0.80 0.40 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 5 28°45.014 113°48.207 8.30 1.00 0.50 0.50 8.30 4.15 4.15 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 6 28°45.019 113°48.212 10.00 0.80 0.70 0.70 8.00 7.00 7.00 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 7 28°45.020 113°48.219 21.70 0.60 0.60 0.00 13.02 13.02 0.00 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 8 28°45.026 113°48.226 8.50 0.30 0.50 0.50 2.55 4.25 4.25 CR A,MG LN

WI T3 T 28°45.029 113°48.231 9.90 2.00 2.00 1.00 19.80 19.80 9.90 CR A,MG LN

WI T4 H 28°45.018 113°48.154 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A BN

WI T4 1 28°45.018 113°48.159 5.80 0.60 0.70 0.50 3.48 4.06 2.90 CR A

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

WI T4 2 28°45.024 113°48.162 11.40 0.60 0.50 0.20 6.84 5.70 2.28 CR A,MG LN

WI T4 3 28°45.029 113°48.158 11.20 0.20 0.15 0.00 2.24 1.68 0.00 CR N,MG,A LN

WI T4 4 28°45.030 113°48.157 5.00 0.30 0.25 0.15 1.50 1.25 0.75 CR N,A BN

WI T4 5 28°45.035 113°48.156 9.10 0.20 0.15 0.15 1.82 1.37 1.37 CR N BN

WI T4 T 28°45.038 113°48.157 4.30 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.86 0.65 0.65 CR N,A

WI T5 H 28°44.984 113°48.488 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

WI T5 1 28°44.975 113°48.485 9.80 0.50 0.50 0.30 4.90 4.90 2.94 CR A

WI T5 2 28°44.971 113°48.484 7.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 2.19 3.65 3.65 CR A

WI T5 3 28°44.971 113°48.502 31.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 37.20 37.20 37.20 CR A,N

WI T5 4 28°44.975 113°48.515 22.70 1.20 1.20 1.20 27.24 27.24 27.24 CR A

WI T5 5 28°44.968 113°48.522 19.50 0.40 0.60 0.60 7.80 11.70 11.70 CR A

WI T5 6 28°44.966 113°48.527 8.80 0.30 0.30 0.10 2.64 2.64 0.88 S,CR A BN

WI T5 7 28°44.964 113°48.528 4.00 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.80 1.20 1.20 CR,S A,T,N BN

WI T5 8 28°44.960 113°48.533 9.20 0.30 0.30 0.10 2.76 2.76 0.92 S,CR A,T,N BN

WI T5 9 28°44.957 113°48.534 7.90 0.30 0.40 0.40 2.37 3.16 3.16 CR,S A,T,N BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

WI T5 T 28°44.949 113°48.545 24.80 0.50 0.50 0.30 12.40 12.40 7.44 CR A,T BN

WI T6 H 28°44.984 113°48.488 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,T

WI T6 1 28°44.985 113°48.495 16.50 0.60 0.50 0.50 9.90 8.25 8.25 CR A

WI T6 T 28°44.993 113°48.499 11.50 0.40 0.40 0.30 4.60 4.60 3.45 CR A,MG

WI T7 H 28°44.975 113°48.488 0.00 0.60 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

WI T7 T 28°44.974 113°48.496 8.00 0.80 0.80 0.60 5.60 6.40 5.60 CR A

WI T8 H 28°44.984 113°48.488 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

WI T8 T 28°44.980 113°48.490 6.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.70 2.70 2.70 CR A

WI T9 H 28°44.973 113°48.492 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A

WI T9 T 28°44.978 113°48.493 7.00 0.40 0.50 0.50 3.50 3.85 3.85 CR A,T

WI SH 1 28°44.908 113°48.623

WI S 1 28°44.993 113°48.335

WI RS 1 28°44.984 113°48.488 A

WI RS 2 28°44.958 113°48.560 RS

WI NW 28°45.029 113°48.111

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

WI W 28°45.050 113°48.101

WI S 28°45.153 113°48.363

WI M 1 28°45.056 113°48.204

Table XI. Wooded Island Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK Width Range of Annual Mean Variation Annual Variation Averaged Rate TRACK Averaged Rate Total Track Area (m²) TRACK Track Points (m) in Width (m) in Area (m²) of Annual LENGTH of Annual Mean CODE Variation (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-6 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

WI T1 214.0 1.0-2.0 0.8-2.0 0.8-2.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 296.0 257.0 244.0 -39.0 -13.0 -26.0

WI T2 206.5 0.5-2.0 0.4-1.7 0.4-1.7 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 352.0 285.0 287.0 -67.0 +2.0 -32.5

WI T3 77.2 0.3-2.0 0.4-2.0 0.2-1.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 62.9 56.3 26.4 -6.6 -29.9 -18.3

WI T4 46.8 0.2-0.8 0.15-0.7 0.0-0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 16.7 14.7 7.9 -2.0 -6.8 -4.4

WI T5 145.0 0.2-1.2 0.3-1.2 0.1-1.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 100.3 106.9 96.3 +6.6 -10.6 -2.0

WI T6 28.0 0.4-0.6 0.4-0.5 0.3-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 12.9 11.7 -1.6 -1.2 -1.4

WI T7 8.0 0.6-0.8 0.8-0.8 0.6-0.8 0.1 -0.1 0.0 5.6 6.4 5.6 +0.8 -0.8 0.0

WI T8 6.0 0.4-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.4-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

WI T9 7.0 0.4-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.5 3.9 3.9 +0.4 0.0 +0.2

TOTAL 738.5 854.2 745.8 685.5 -108.8 -60.3 -88.4

Table XII. Pelsaert Island North Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI N T1 H 28°54.039 114°00.196 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB A,SP,T BN

PI N T1 1 28°54.039 114°00.196 1.20 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.36 0.72 0.72 S A,T BN

PI N T1 2 28°54.040 114°00.194 2.60 0.40 0.30 0.20 1.04 0.78 0.52 S A,T BN

PI N T1 3 28°54.041 114°00.192 4.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.20 1.20 1.20 S A,SP BN

PI N T1 4 28°54.043 114°00.191 3.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.96 0.64 0.64 S A,SP BN

PI N T1 5 28°54.043 114°00.192 4.60 0.50 0.50 0.30 2.30 2.30 1.38 S T,SP,A BN

PI N T1 6 28°54.047 114°00.193 3.80 0.50 0.30 0.50 1.90 1.14 1.90 S A,T,M BN

PI N T1 T 28°54.049 114°00.195 5.80 0.40 0.60 0.60 2.32 3.48 3.48 S SP,A,M BN

PI N T2 H 28°54.050 114°00.193 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SB A,T BN

PI N T2 1 28°54.051 114°00.189 4.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.84 0.42 0.42 SG A,H BN

PI N T2 2 28°54.049 114°00.189 3.00 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.30 0.30 SG A,H BN

PI N T2 3 28°54.049 114°00.186 4.00 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.80 0.60 0.60 CR,SG A,H BN

PI N T2 4 28°54.049 114°00.185 1.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.24 0.24 CR,SG A,H BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI N T2 5 28°54.049 114°00.184 2.40 0.40 0.15 0.10 0.96 0.36 0.24 CR,SG A,H BN

PI N T2 T 28°54.049 114°00.183 1.20 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.48 0.72 0.36 CR,SG H,HL,A BN

PI N RS 1 28°54.018 114°00.212

PI N RS 2 28°54.048 114°00.192

PI N RS 3 28°54.108 114°00.186

PI N S 28°54.119 114°00.204

PI N W 28°54.046 114°00.180

PI N N 28°53.958 114°00.360

PI N SH 1 28°53.965 114°00.350

PI N SH 2 28°53.974 114°00.348

PI N SH 3 28°53.998 114°00.332

PI N SH 4 28°54.005 114°00.330

PI N SH 5 28°54.009 114°00.324

PI N SH 6 28°54.007 114°00.319

PI N SH 7 28°54.010 114°00.301

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION SECTION TRACKSIDE LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LENGTH TRACKSIDE SEABIRD (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) SOIL IDENTIFIER (M) VEGETATION BREEDING SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI N M 1 28°53.981 114°00.344

PI N MS 1 28°53.987 114°00.327

PI N MS 2 28°53.996 114°00.324

PI N MS 3 28°54.000 114°00.318

PI N MS 4 28°54.002 114°00.314

PI N MS 5 28°54.003 114°00.307

PI N MS 6 28°54.003 114°00.301

PI N MS 7 28°54.002 114°00.317

PI N MS 8 28°54.000 114°00.317

Table XIII. Pelsaert Island North Site Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK Annual Mean Variation Annual Variation Averaged Rate TRACK Width Range of Track Points (m) Averaged Rate Total Track Area (m²) TRACK in Width (m) in Area (m²) of Annual LENGTH of Annual Mean CODE Variation (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

PI N T1 25.2 0.3-0.8 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 10.3 9.8 +0.2 -0.5 -0.2

PI N T2 16.0 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.6 0.1-0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 4.3 2.6 2.2 -1.7 -0.4 -1.1

TOTAL 41.2 14.4 12.9 12.0 -1.5 -0.9 -1.3

Table XIV. Pelsaert Island South Site Survey and Track Condition Data 2004-6

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T1 H 28°58.106 113°57.382 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR H,N

PI S T1 1 28°58.106 113°57.383 1.90 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.57 0.57 0.57 SG,CR H,N

PI S T1 2 28°58.107 113°57.383 1.80 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.54 0.54 SG,CR H,N,A

PI S T1 T 28°58.108 113°57.386 6.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.83 1.22 1.22 SG,CR N,A,SP,T

PI S T2 H 28°58.109 113°57.379 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG H

PI S T2 1 28°58.110 113°57.380 2.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 SG H,A

PI S T2 2 28°58.111 113°57.381 2.10 0.50 0.40 0.40 1.05 0.84 0.84 SG,CR H,A,T

PI S T2 3 28°58.111 113°57.382 3.10 0.50 0.30 0.30 1.55 0.93 0.93 CR,SG A,T BN

PI S T2 T 28°58.112 113°57.389 9.20 0.50 0.60 0.80 4.60 5.52 7.36 CR,SG A,T,SP,CB BN

PI S T3 H 28°58.123 113°57.383 0.00 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 S A,T,N BN

PI S T3 1 28°58.120 113°57.383 6.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 5.36 5.36 5.36 S A,N,SP,CB BN

PI S T3 2 28°58.117 113°57.383 5.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.24 2.24 2.24 S A,N,T,SP BN

PI S T3 3 28°58.115 113°57.383 4.60 0.40 0.30 0.30 1.84 1.38 1.38 S A,N,T BN

PI S T3 4 28°58.113 113°57.382 1.90 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.76 5.70 0.38 S A,N BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T3 T 28°58.111 113°57.382 4.30 0.60 0.40 0.40 2.58 17.20 17.20 S A,SP,T BN

PI S T4 H 28°58.124 113°57.383 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,SG SP,A,T BN

PI S T4 1 28°58.125 113°57.384 5.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 SG SP,N,T BN

PI S T4 T 28°58.126 113°57.387 4.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.23 1.23 1.23 SG,CR CB,A,T,N

PI S T5 H 28°58.110 113°57.380 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,SG H

PI S T5 1 28°58.109 113°57.382 2.20 0.40 0.30 0.10 0.88 0.66 0.22 CR,SG T,H,A

PI S T5 T 28°58.111 113°57.383 2.40 0.60 0.60 0.50 1.44 1.44 1.20 CR,SG H,A

PI S T6 H 28°58.112 113°57.389 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,SG IP,A,T BN

PI S T6 1 28°58.114 113°57.390 5.90 0.60 0.40 0.40 3.54 2.36 2.36 CR,SG IP,A,T BN

PI S T6 2 28°58.117 113°57.391 4.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.20 1.20 1.20 CR,SG A,N,T BN

PI S T6 T 28°58.118 113°57.393 4.80 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.96 0.72 0.96 CR,SG A,N,T BN

PI S T7 H 28°58.112 113°57.389 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,SG A,T,CB

PI S T7 1 28°58.109 113°57.391 8.00 0.40 0.30 0.30 3.20 2.40 2.40 CR,SG A,T,CB

PI S T7 2 28°58.107 113°57.393 5.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 CR,SL CB,T,A,IP BN

PI S T7 3 28°58.111 113°57.406 23.70 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.74 4.74 4.74 CR,SL IP,A,T,N BN

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T7 4 28°58.115 113°57.412 11.10 0.40 0.40 0.30 4.44 4.44 3.33 SG,CR SE,CB,T BN

PI S T7 5 28°58.122 113°57.415 10.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 6.42 6.42 6.42 CR,SG SE,CB BN

PI S T7 T 28°58.132 113°57.415 15.00 0.60 0.50 0.40 9.00 7.50 6.00 CR CB,T,A BN

PI S T8 H 28°58.116 113°57.418 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR,SL A,T,N

PI S T8 1 28°58.118 113°57.421 6.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.80 1.80 1.80 CR,SL A BN

PI S T8 2 28°58.122 113°57.435 24.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 48.00 24.00 24.00 CR A,T

PI S T8 3 28°58.123 113°57.437 3.60 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.72 0.72 0.72 CR,SL A,T

PI S T8 4 28°58.125 113°57.442 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 CR

PI S T8 5 28°58.125 113°57.445 4.90 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.47 0.98 0.98 CR A,T

PI S T8 6 28°58.125 113°57.448 4.90 0.80 0.80 0.60 3.92 3.92 2.94 CR A,T

PI S T8 T 28°58.125 113°57.449 1.60 0.40 0.60 0.50 0.64 0.96 0.80 CR A,T

PI S T9 H 28°58.113 113°57.387 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG,CR T,A

PI S T9 1 28°58.112 113°57.387 2.00 0.80 0.70 0.60 1.60 1.40 1.20 SG,CR T,A

PI S T9 T 28°58.110 113°57.388 3.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 2.28 2.28 2.28 SG,CR T,A

PI S T10 H 28°58.110 113°57.388 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG,CR A,CB,T

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T10 T 28°58.109 113°57.391 8.10 0.60 0.40 0.40 5.67 4.86 4.86 SG,CR A,CB,T

PI S T11 H 28°58.201 113°57.377 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,CR,S H,A

PI S T11 1 28°58.205 113°57.379 10.90 0.40 0.40 0.30 4.36 4.36 3.27 S,SG H,A BN

PI S T11 2 28°58.209 113°57.380 4.60 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.84 1.84 1.84 S,SG A,H BN

PI S T11 3 28°58.212 113°57.380 3.10 0.40 0.40 0.30 1.24 1.24 0.93 S,SG A,H BN

PI S T11 4 28°58.214 113°57.379 4.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.30 2.30 2.30 S H BN

PI S T11 T 28°58.217 113°57.378 3.90 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.80 7.80 7.80 S H

PI S T12 H 28°58.149 113°57.454 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR A,T

PI S T12 1 28°58.154 113°57.453 9.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 5.58 5.58 5.58 CR A,T

PI S T12 2 28°58.159 113°57.453 9.40 0.60 0.60 0.60 5.64 5.64 5.64 CR A,T

PI S T12 3 28°58.184 113°57.440 50.60 0.80 0.80 0.80 40.48 40.48 40.48 CR A,T,M

PI S T12 4 28°58.210 113°57.428 51.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 41.52 41.52 41.52 CR

PI S T12 5 28°58.235 113°57.421 47.70 0.80 0.80 0.80 38.16 38.16 38.16 CR SP,T,CB

PI S T12 6 28°58.256 113°57.417 31.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 25.52 25.52 25.52 CR M,A,T,SP

PI S T12 7 28°58.268 113°57.415 22.50 0.80 0.80 0.60 18.00 18.00 13.50 CR A,SP,T,CB

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T12 8 28°58.293 113°57.420 46.50 0.80 0.80 0.60 37.20 37.20 27.90 CR A,CB,SP,T

PI S T12 9 28°58.342 113°57.424 90.70 0.80 0.80 0.80 72.56 72.56 72.56 CR M,SP

PI S T12 T 28°58.363 113°57.431 40.10 0.80 1.00 1.00 32.08 40.10 40.10 CR M,SP,T

PI S T13 H 28°58.309 113°57.411 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG A,N,T BN

PI S T13 1 28°58.319 113°57.412 19.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 5.79 5.79 3.86 SG A,CB,M,T,SP BN

PI S T13 2 28°58.331 113°57.411 21.80 0.20 0.30 0.30 4.36 6.54 6.54 S,CR A,CB,SP,T BN

PI S T13 3 28°58.344 113°57.412 24.10 3.00 3.00 2.00 72.30 72.30 48.20 S,CR SC,SE,CB,A BN

PI S T13 4 28°58.372 113°57.418 52.90 3.00 3.00 1.50 158.70 158.70 79.35 S,CR SC,CB BN

PI S T13 5 28°58.465 113°57.442 176.30 0.80 0.80 0.60 141.04 141.04 105.78 S,CR CB,A

PI S T13 6 28°58.490 113°57.446 45.70 0.80 0.70 0.60 36.56 31.99 27.42 SG,CR CB,A

PI S T13 7 28°58.529 113°57.456 73.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 51.66 44.28 36.90 SG,CR CB,SE,A

PI S T13 8 28°58.544 113°57.465 31.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 25.52 25.52 22.33 SG,CR A,CB

PI S T13 9 28°58.569 113°57.479 51.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 30.90 30.90 25.75 SG,CR A,CB,GR,SE

PI S T13 10 28°58.572 113°57.477 6.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 5.20 5.20 5.20 CR A,CB,GR

PI S T13 11 28°58.580 113°57.484 19.10 0.80 0.80 0.60 15.28 15.28 11.46 CR,SG N,A,CB

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T13 12 28°58.604 113°57.497 49.00 0.60 0.60 0.80 29.40 29.40 39.20 SG A,CB,GR,SE

PI S T13 13 28°58.616 113°57.508 28.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 17.16 17.16 17.16 SG A,GR,SE

PI S T13 T 28°58.632 113°57.531 47.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 28.62 28.62 28.62 SG A

PI S T14 H 28°58.945 113°57.752 0.00 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 1 28°58.955 113°57.759 21.70 0.40 0.30 0.30 8.68 6.51 6.51 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 2 28°58.972 113°57.765 33.00 0.40 0.30 0.30 13.20 9.90 9.90 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 3 28°58.978 113°57.767 12.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 3.72 3.72 2.48 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 4 28°59.027 113°57.769 89.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 17.82 17.82 17.82 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 5 28°59.119 113°57.766 170.80 0.20 0.20 0.20 34.16 34.16 34.16 SL,SG,CR,PL IP,A,T

PI S T14 6 28°59.127 113°57.762 16.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 PL,CR A,T

PI S T14 7 28°59.137 113°57.759 19.30 0.60 0.60 0.60 11.58 11.58 11.58 CR,SL,PL A,IP,T

PI S T14 8 28°59.144 113°57.758 13.00 0.40 0.60 0.60 5.20 7.80 7.80 PL,CR A

PI S T14 9 28°59.151 113°57.735 39.50 0.80 0.70 0.70 31.60 27.65 27.65 PL,CR A,T

PI S T14 10 28°59.148 113°57.729 11.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 5.65 5.65 5.65 PL,CR A,T,CB

PI S T14 11 28°59.151 113°57.715 22.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 11.30 11.30 11.30 PL,CR A,T

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T14 12 28°59.159 113°57.703 24.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 24.60 24.60 24.60 PL,CR A

PI S T14 13 28°59.158 113°57.697 10.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 3.00 3.00 3.00 CR,SL A

PI S T14 14 28°59.156 113°57.693 7.90 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.58 1.58 1.58 CR,SL A

PI S T14 15 28°59.151 113°57.689 10.80 0.40 0.20 0.20 4.32 2.16 2.16 CR,SL A

PI S T14 16 28°59.141 113°57.684 20.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.08 4.08 4.08 CR,SL A,T

PI S T14 17 28°59.119 113°57.672 44.90 0.20 0.20 0.20 8.98 8.98 8.98 CR,SG A,T,N

PI S T14 T 28°59.006 113°57.665 219.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 175.84 175.84 175.84 SB T,A

PI S T15 H 28°59.132 113°57.739 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG A,IP,T

PI S T15 1 28°59.135 113°57.739 5.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.65 1.65 1.65 SL A,IP,T

PI S T15 2 28°59.139 113°57.737 8.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.62 1.62 1.62 SG,CR A,IP,N

PI S T15 3 28°59.140 113°57.735 3.80 0.40 0.40 0.20 1.52 1.52 0.76 CR A,IP,T

PI S T15 T 28°59.147 113°57.730 15.20 0.50 0.50 0.30 7.60 7.60 4.56 CR A,CB,T

PI S T16 H 28°59.135 113°57.739 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG,SL A,IP,T

PI S T16 1 28°59.140 113°57.740 9.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 2.82 2.82 1.88 CR A,T

PI S T16 T 28°59.147 113°57.744 14.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 5.76 7.20 7.20 CR A,N,T,M

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S T17 H 28°59.129 113°57.740 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG A,T

PI S T17 1 28°59.134 113°57.746 13.60 0.30 0.30 0.20 4.08 4.08 2.72 CR,SL A,IP,T

PI S T17 T 28°59.137 113°57.749 7.40 0.60 0.60 0.60 4.44 4.44 4.44 CR A,N,T,IP

PI S WP NE 28°59.129 113°57.740

PI S WP NW 28°59.130 113°57.738

PI S WP SW 28°59.132 113°57.739

PI S WP SE 28°59.131 113°57.741

PI S S 1 28°58.113 113°57.390

PI S S 2 28°58.112 113°57.384

PI S M 1 28°58.846 113°57.703

PI S M 2 28°58.874 113°57.732

PI S M 3 28°59.109 113°57.743

PI S HP 28°59.114 113°57.729

PI S SH NW 28°58.109 113°57.384

PI S SH NE 28°58.110 113°57.388

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S SH SE 28°58.113 113°57.387

PI S SH SW 28°58.111 113°57.383

PI S RU SW 28°58.746 113°57.334

PI S RU SE 28°58.785 113°57.368

PI S RU NE 28°58.711 113°57.339

PI S RU NW 28°58.725 113°57.329

PI S J RU 28°58.758 113°57.340

PI S GM NW 28°58.119 113°57.394

PI S GM NE 28°58.119 113°57.395

PI S GM SE 28°58.122 113°57.395

PI S GM SW 28°58.122 113°57.393

PI S RS 1 28°58.679 113°57.332

PI S GJ W 28°58.115 113°57.372

PI S NE 28°58.050 113°57.467

PI S NW 28°58.050 113°57.405

TRACK TRACK POINT TRACK SECTION TRACKSIDE SECTION TRACK GEOGRAPHIC LATITUDE LONGITUDE WIDTH AREA TRACKSIDE SEABIRD LENGTH SOIL IDENTIFIER (DMD) (DMD) (M) (M²) VEGETATION BREEDING (M) SUBSTRATE HABITAT 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

PI S BW E 28°58.256 113°57.416

PI S BW W 28°58.259 113°57.399

Table XV. Pelsaert Island South Site Track-related Impact Assessment Data 2004-6

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK TRACK Annual Mean TRACK Averaged Rate Annual Variation Averaged Rate LENGTH Width Range of Track Points (m) Variation Total Track Area (m²) CODE of Annual Mean in Area (m²) of Annual Variation (m) in Width (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

PI S T1 9.8 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3 0.2-0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

PI S T2 16.4 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.6 0.3-0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.8 7.9 9.7 0.1 1.8 1.0

PI S T3 23.1 0.4-0.8 0.3-0.6 0.2-0.6 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 11.4 9.9 9.7 -1.5 -0.2 -0.9

PI S T4 9.1 0.3-0.4 0.3-0.4 0.3-0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

PI S T5 4.6 0.3-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.1-0.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 2.3 2.1 1.4 -0.2 -0.7 -0.5

PI S T6 14.7 0.2-1.0 0.15-1.0 0.2-1.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.3 4.5 -1.4 0.2 -0.6

PI S T7 73.5 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 27.5 24.9 -2.3 -2.6 -2.5

PI S T8 54.0 0.2-2.0 0.2-1.0 0.2-1.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 65.6 41.4 40.2 -24.2 -1.1 -12.7

PI S T9 5.8 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.7 3.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

PI S T10 8.1 0.6-0.8 0.4-0.8 0.4-0.8 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 5.7 4.9 4.9 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

PI S T11 27.1 0.3-2.0 0.4-2.0 0.3-2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 17.5 16.1 0.0 -1.4 -0.7

PI S T12 400.6 0.6-0.8 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 316.7 324.8 311.0 8.0 -13.8 -2.9

PI S T13 648.2 0.2-3.0 0.2-3.0 0.2-2.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 622.5 612.7 457.8 -9.8 -155.0 -82.4

TRACK POINTS TOTAL AREA OF TRACK TRACK Annual Mean TRACK Averaged Rate Annual Variation Averaged Rate LENGTH Width Range of Track Points (m) Variation Total Track Area (m²) CODE of Annual Mean in Area (m²) of Annual Variation (m) in Width (m) Variation in Width in Area 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m) 2004 2005 2006 2004-05 2005-06 2004-06 (m²)

PI S T14 787.1 0.2-1.0 0.2-1.0 0.2-1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 371.7 362.7 361.5 -9.0 -1.2 -5.1

PI S T15 32.6 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 12.4 12.4 8.6 0.0 -3.8 -1.9

PI S T16 23.8 0.3-0.4 0.3-0.5 0.2-0.5 0.0 -0.1 0.0 8.6 10.0 9.1 1.4 -0.9 0.3

PI S T17 21.0 0.3-0.6 0.3-0.6 0.2-0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.0 8.5 8.5 7.2 0.0 -1.4 -0.7

TOTAL 2159.5 1497.6 1477.8 1292.5 -19.8 -185.3 -102.6