MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS A Case Study of Surin Marine National Park, Thailand
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Queensland in September 2007
Suchai Worachananant
BSc (Fisheries) (KU), MS (Marine Science) (KU) School of Natural and Rural Systems Management
Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand
CHAPTER 1 MANAGING MARINE PARKS IN THAILAND
The University of Queensland 1 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand 1.1 Chapter overview
1.2 Clarification 1.3 Thailand’s of the study Marine National 1.2.1 Before the Parks great wave 1.2.2 After the crisis
1.4 Research questions and methodology
1.5 Dissertation structure
Figure 1-1 Chapter 1 structure
2 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand
CHAPTER 1 MANAGING MARINE PARKS IN THAILAND 1.1 Chapter overview
This chapter introduces the thesis topic. It includes background information, and an introduction to problems in managing marine protected areas in Thailand, using Surin Marine National Park (hereafter as Surin) as a case study. The condition of Thailand’s Marine National Parks is reviewed, emphasising that flexibility in management and regulation are needed to adapt to changing circumstances. Research questions are defined and the rationale for the research approach is outlined. The broad methodology and methods used in this research are presented. 1.2 Clarification of the study
This study was prompted by the questions ‘how might we know which factors limit the effectiveness of management strategies of Thailand marine protected areas? and ‘how this situation can be improved?’. Based on the understanding that management will be more effective if affected stakeholders support management action or, at least, appreciate the rationale for management tools being applied, then, the additional question arises, ‘how acceptable are management actions and tools to stakeholders?’. However, during the middle of the research period, one of the most destructive natural events in human history occurred – the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. This necessitated that the objectives and aims for this study be modified to suit the unusual circumstances. For example, application of some management strategies was no longer possible, and ad hoc approaches were applied in marine national parks around Thailand including at Surin (the focus of this study). Major stakeholder behaviours changed and the ‘natural’ condition changed from the pre-tsunami state. As a result, the dissertation is divided into two sections; before and after the tsunami. 1.2.1 Before the great wave This study commenced by examining the literature and international case studies on the range of possible management tools for marine park management, considering their strength and weakness in relation to conditions in Thailand. From this work, a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of current strategies being applied to Thailand marine parks was developed by identifying the range of problems occurring in the marine environment worldwide and how management has responded to those threats. Emphasis is given to the management of direct anthropogenic causes of change to marine environments. Then, limitations of the effectiveness of Thailand’s current management approaches were assessed and possible management strategies proposed. After nearly ten years experience in marine national park activities, especially in Surin, it has become evident to me that the views of tour operators, marine park researchers, park staff, visitors and university researchers differ considerably and create conflict that does not assist in achieving the ideals of park management. Different stakeholders seek to use Surin’s natural resources for different and competing purposes. The National Park Service attempts to manage the site with a management plan derived from a general terrestrial Thailand national park master plan with only minor modification to suit marine conditions.
The University of Queensland 3 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Marine park management often focuses on accommodating visitor use rather than on resource protection and regulation of activity. In Thailand, new policies have been implemented (e.g. a user- pay system for SCUBA divers) which permit diving operators (both SCUBA and snorkelling) to use underwater resources; a change in policy that put pressure on marine park management resources. This research was motivated by a belief that it is time to review the approaches to management adopted at Surin (and throughout Thailand) in the interests of guiding the long-term management of the Thai marine park estate. Many management approaches have been employed in Surin, however, the question is: Are these approaches effective in achieving the primary objective of conserving the natural environment while providing opportunity for people to use the resources? More visitors, especially divers, arrive each year. Conflict between groups of users is increasing and the maritime environment is affected. When working as a tour operator, I found information about the marine park to be lacking. After talking with the marine park superintendents, I commenced working as a volunteer researcher gathering biological information that would contribute to knowledge of Surin’s resources as well as my masters degree thesis on the distribution of soft corals and gorgonians in the Thai Sea. While undertaking the research, I perceived that the management approaches being used were not delivering desired results. Illegal activities still occurred and reef condition continued to decline. I began asking: How has this situation occurred, and why, and how can the park prevent or manage this? With these issues in my mind, I gained employment at Kasetsart University as a lecturer. In this position, I was able to undertake research related to marine park management and presented many training programmes to park staff and students. However, I continued to concentrate on biological science. Marine biodiversity information gathered by my colleagues and me was used to divide Surin’s reef into sections, and to create the zoning plan for Surin (2000-2004 Zoning Plan). However, the plan has not been able to fulfil its primary objective because of changing circumstances such as increased demand for user access. The plan, developed without any consultation with stakeholders, is in need of review and modification to address the demands of visitors and in response to the experience gained in managing the resource and its use. Perceptions and behaviour of stakeholders needs to be considered along with the biological information to create a plan that facilitates management within the resources and expertise of park management. This realisation pressed me to start my PhD study into: defining effective management approaches that suit Thai conditions. The work for the thesis was planned and structured to meet these objectives. Information was gathered on management models, in both a sociological and biological context. Data acquired from field studies (biological and stakeholder surveys) were analysed and some of the major research questions were addressed, at least partially. Some of the information and analyses were presented to the public in a series of presentations in Thailand and modification of the study was ongoing in response to biological and stakeholder feedback. The study progressed as planned, but as I prepared to do a second round of surveys, the tsunami hit! 1.2.2 After the crisis On 26 December 2004, a massive earthquake occurred off-shore of Sumatra and resulted in the tsunami that struck many countries around the Indian Ocean. At about 9.55 am, the first of a series of waves hit the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. The waves, up to 10 metres high, had a severe
4 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand impact on the six coastal provinces along the Andaman Sea. Within half an hour, major damage occurred along the shoreline. Local residents and tourists were killed or injured, some being swept out to sea. Surin, the study site for this work, was one of the worst affected places. Most land facilities were destroyed. At least one reef suffered severe damage and management capacity was critically constrained. Findings from the study, before the tsunami, were providing valuable insight to an effective management scheme; however, the destructive power of the tsunami limited the effectiveness of management in many ways and changed the context for management. As a result, research questions were extended to cover the effect of a major perturbation on management, using the effect of the tsunami as the focus, and how effective management can respond to constraints caused by such a perturbation. After the tsunami, Thailand’s marine science education institutes formed a taskforce to assess the impact of the tsunami on the natural environment. I took responsibility for the survey of Surin. Biological surveys were conducted on 3-4 January 2005, 9-15 January 2005, and 27 March-1 April 2005. The first surveys sought to evaluate the effect on management capacity and a preliminary assessment of the reef condition. Then, a tsunami assessment survey was undertaken in mid January 20051. Finally, the March survey again assessed change after what was expected to be a recovery time (3 months after the tsunami) for both management and the reef resource. At the same time, major stakeholders (e.g. tour operators, visitors, SCUBA divers) were surveyed on their perception of management and acceptability of management schemes. Questionnaire surveys of general visitors were cancelled due to the sharp decline in the number of visitors to Surin2. The low number of respondents to the social surveys means that these cannot be analysed satisfactorily using statistical approaches. Thus, an incomplete data set from social surveys represents a significant limitation for this work. However, information on SCUBA divers, the industry that bounced back most quickly, was acquired, analysed and compared with the data gained from pre-tsunami surveys3. In addition, responses to surveys of visitors pre-tsunami were showing only minor variations, hence the data is used, although guardedly, for the purpose of this study. While some information was acquired by systematic methods, anecdotal information on the response of government and the broader community, reported in many sources (Government declarations, local newspapers, reports), with information from personal interviews and experiences at academic meetings, were also used to fill information gaps4. For these reasons, the situation after the tsunami is treated separately and discussed in part of Chapter 6 and the whole of Chapter 7. Information provided in Chapters 1 to 5 does not include the situation after the tsunami, unless so identified.
1 See Chapter 7 2 Numbers decreased to fewer than 100 visitors per week in the first month after the park reopened. 3 See Chapter 6 4 See Chapter 7
The University of Queensland 5 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
1.3 Thailand’s marine national parks
Together with mangrove forest and sea grass beds, coral reefs are one of the most diverse tropical coastal ecosystems. In addition, they are one of the most popular resources for tourist use, indicated by the increasing numbers of visitors each year (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Piewsawat, 2002; Sudara, 2002a, 2002b). Thailand attracts divers from around the world to its reefs. One of the main reasons is to see the diversity of marine life. At present, more than 12 millions visitors travel to the marine parks of Thailand each year (TAT, 2006). Most reefs in Thailand are located in Marine National Parks or in Royal Thai Navy areas, so there are restrictions on use and laws to protect marine resources (Sudara, 2002a). However, the health of the natural resources in the national parks has decreased in the past few years (Worachananant et al., 1996; Sittithaweepat, 2001; Piewsawat, 2002). Some of the causes of this degradation are illegal fishing, poor tourism management and the El Niño phenomenon in 1998-1999 (Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1994; Thamrongnawasawat et al., 2000; Sittithaweepat, 2001; Sudara & Yeemin, 2001; Piewsawat, 2002; RFD, 2002). The overall responsibility for marine national parks in Thailand lies with the Royal Forest Department (RFD). Previously, the National Park Division administered the terrestrial and marine parks. However, following reorganisation within RFD in 1993, a separate Marine National Park Division (MNPD) became responsible for protection, management and operation of marine national parks. The major responsibilities of the Marine National Park Division are:
• implementation of the National Park Act B.E. 2504 (1961), National Forest Reserve Act B.E. 2507 (1964), the Wildlife Reservation Act B.E. 2535 (1992), Forest Act B.E. 2484 (1941), Fishery Act B.E. 2537 (1994) and other relevant laws;
• application of the principles of marine management in the promotion and development of guidelines for conservation of natural resources and rehabilitation of ecosystems and the environment;
• prevention of extractive uses, protection of the natural resources, and the making of recommendations regarding natural resources to gain the greatest possible benefits and achieve sustainability according to the principles of marine national park management and government policy; and
• research of natural resources in marine national parks and information dissemination to the public, especially children, to promote understanding and awareness of the need for protection of natural resources (RFD, 1993). Many researchers suggest that despite Thailand’s laws prohibiting destructive activities in marine parks, management is inadequate to prevent illegal activities (Dearden et al., 2000; Sudara, 2002b). The strategies used for marine national park management in Thailand reflect those developed for terrestrial parks because they are under the same authority and the applicable legislation is the same. In addition, marine national park staff, including superintendents, come from a terrestrial park background and tend to apply strategies known to be effective in terrestrial situations. It is very rare to have staff with marine experience and knowledge of the marine environment. Kenchington (1990) and Kelleher (2002) have argued that there are fundamental differences in social expectation and biological and geophysical aspects of terrestrial and marine protected areas that warrant
6 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand specialised management expertise and experience. In the absence of this experience, researchers can provide insight to adequate and appropriate management strategies through studying management effectiveness and informing management to improve the achievement of nature conservation objectives. Thailand’s national plan of economic growth aims to improve and strengthen all sectors of industry to create wealth and opportunities for Thai people at all levels. One government policy is to increase benefits from tourism, especially marine-based activities (Sudara, 2002b; Yeemin et al., 2003). Thailand’s maritime environments are a major attraction for international visitors (more than 80 per cent of overseas visitor came to Thailand, at least in part, to discover the Thai sea) (TAT, 2003c; Thamrongnawasawat & Worachananant, 2004). Therefore, there is a need for effective tools to manage sustainable use of the reefs. At the end of 2006, Thailand had 26 marine national parks. Most of these lack baseline data on which to develop targeted management programmes as well as detailed management systems with targeted outcomes. Unlike other marine parks, Surin has been the centre of research interest for some time. In the past decade, research, especially biological studies, have provided Surin with the basis for best practice management in Thailand. All of Thailand’s major marine ecosystems (mangrove forest, coral reef and sea grass beds) are found within Surin. However, despite Surin being one of the most studied reefs in Thailand and one of the few with any form of targeted and geographically based management guidelines (RFD, 2000), it has only a basic management zoning system. From my experience and the limited literature (RFD, 2000), Surin’s zoning system is based on the vision of marine biologists and without the participation of other stakeholders. Surin in Phang-nga Province is one of the most beautiful and popular places for tourism. It is famed for its shallow-water coral reef. Here, two of the most diverse ecosystems, tropical rain forest and coral reef, meet (RFD, 2000, 2002). Surin consists of five large islands and two pinnacle rocks (Figure 1-2). Many tourists visit Surin, which increases the pressure on natural resources, especially underwater natural resources. Some activities, such as kayaking at low tide and snorkelling, cause some deterioration of the reefs. In addition, the Department of Marine Science (1997) has found that increasing detergent use by visitors increases the nutrient level of the naturally low nutrient status waters, promoting algal growth. In the last 5-year zoning plan (2000-2004), Surin was divided into Strict Nature Reserve, Primitive, Recovery, Outdoor Recreation, Intensive Use and Special Use Zones5. Each zone is separated by a General Use Zone (RFD, 2000; Sudara & Yeemin, 2001). Coral reefs around Surin fall into four of these zones: Strict Nature Reserve, Recovery, Outdoor Recreation, and General Use Zone. While Surin had a zoning system, there was a widespread view that it was not effective in achieving primary objectives because of the decline in the biological status of the reefs. After a long period of prohibition, most of Thailand’s marine parks now permit and facilitate diving operations (both SCUBA and snorkelling) and recreational use of underwater resources. However, government policy has been made without assessment of the effect of this decision, the capacity of management to respond to increased usage and certainly without management being prepared for the change in use brought by ‘new’ recreation and tourism activity. Further, the zoning plan for
5 Zoning map is provided in Chapter 4
The University of Queensland 7 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Surin did not include consideration of diving or associated regulations6. The response has been to manage on a reasonably informed, but still largely ad hoc basis.
Figure 1-2 Surin Marine National Park 1.4 Research questions and methodology
The purpose of this study is to help identify what factors limit the effectiveness of reef management under Thai circumstances. This will involve identifying how to minimise conflict between resource uses and management objectives. With much baseline information, Surin is well-suited as a case study area. This study does not seek to provide the very thing that invoked it: a one-size-fits-all approach to management that can be applied throughout Thailand’s marine parks. However, it does seek to provide a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of management being applied and assessing management approaches and tools. With this insight, management may be better informed of the range of management tools available and how these might be grouped to develop an effective and appropriate marine park management system. The following research questions were defined to address the need to clarify management approaches to protecting marine resources and resource use, especially tourism use.
6 See Chapter 4
8 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand
Q1. How effective has management of Surin been? Q2. How could management effectiveness of Surin be improved? An additional question emerged after the 2004 tsunami situation. Q3. How did the tsunami affect Surin Marine National Park and its management? The methodologies for this study are divided into what was initially proposed (pre- tsunami) to address Q1 and Q2 (Phase 1) and the modified research programme post-tsunami to address Q3 (Phase 2). The first phase consists of a literature review of the evolution of the marine park concept and management, analysis of literature relating to marine park management tools, analysis of international case studies, and analysis of the appropriateness of management approaches to the case of Surin based on biological and sociological surveys. The second phase consists of analysis of Surin’s conditions (both management capacity and biological status including changes), stakeholders’ reaction before, between and after the tsunami crisis, and the effectiveness of management. Reported and observed park management response to the effects of the tsunami threats and problems that emerged after the tsunami are also analysed and discussed. To address these research questions, the appropriateness of management strategies, condition of reefs, and opinion of stakeholders toward the management strategies were considered. The conceptual framework (methodology) for addressing the research questions is shown in Figure 1-3. To acquire information on the appropriateness of Surin’s existing management strategies, a review of the literature and personal observation was used. The information was summarised and reviewed through content analysis. Literature analysis of marine park management focused on threats and problems associated with the dual objective of resource protection and use. These two extremes often create conflict, or at least a management dilemma, because most marine protected areas use revenue generated from tourism for nature protection activity (De Meyer et al., 2001). Further analysis has been done to illustrate the need for a unique set of management approaches due to the differences between marine and terrestrial protected areas (Chapter 2). Analysis of the literature relating to marine park management tools was influenced by the general literature on management approaches to problems. The ability of management approaches and tools, when applied to specific threats and problems associated with achieving multiple objectives, are analysed with special attention given to Thai circumstances (Chapter 3). This includes lessons learned from international case studies. The analysis starts by reviewing threats and problems that occur in reef environments and the management strategies that have been used to address such threats worldwide. The study proceeds to examine what factors limit the effectiveness of the selected strategies, and under what circumstances. The effectiveness of management approaches are evaluated against two criteria (following two broad major objectives), the ability to protect reef environments (conservation purposes) and their acceptability to stakeholders (recreational purposes). Strategies are discussed in terms of their benefits and limitations and then how to potentially address the limitations.
The University of Queensland 9 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas Opinion of stakeholders Awareness and of acceptance stakeholders (Surveys, interviews and observation) CHAPTER 6 Emerging responses threats and and threats management management Phase 2 Condition of reefs Change in cover corals intercept (Line transect) of Impact diversthe on reefs (observation) CHAPTER 7 How did the affect tsunami Surin and its management?Surin Effects on Effects management strategies Review of literature Personal observation CHAPTER 7 Future Future Future for Surin for for Surin for PHASE 2 Tsunami! PHASE 1 Management management management Evaluation of be improved? be How could management Surin of Opinion of stakeholders Awareness and acceptance of stakeholders (Surveys, and interviews observation) CHAPTER 6 management Evaluation of Phase 1 Condition of of Condition reefs of Surin Surin been? of Change in cover corals intercept (Line transect) of Impact diversthe on reefs (observation) CHAPTER 5 How effective has management Surin Situation of Situation of Appropriateness Appropriateness of management strategies Review of literature Personal observation CHAPTER 2, 4 3, and Figure 1-3 Study framework Selected management strategies used to address common threats and problems for marine park managers were then evaluated in relation to Surin (Chapter 4). The main objectives of the marine
10 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand park, the existing management strategies applied, threats to the reefs, and the limitations of management effectiveness were reviewed. The limitations of Surin’s management are compared with experience of managing marine parks worldwide. This comparison permits evaluation of the appropriateness of Surin’s management strategies. To do this, the appropriateness of management strategies were, again, examined against two main criteria; the ability to protect reef environments (Chapter 5) and the acceptability of management strategies to stakeholders (Chapter 6). The analysis of the effectiveness of Surin’s management has been undertaken by collecting biological data of reef condition at seven dive sites around Surin from 1997 to 20067 using line intercept transect techniques. These data are analysed statistically to identify the change between years (Chapter 5). Major changes are interpreted with reference to other changes that have occurred in the biophysical, social and managerial environment over this period. Much of this latter information was obtained through personal communication with park superintendents and park staff. Biological data are used to identify how Surin’s reefs have responded to threats and how well the management approaches applied have addressed the threats. The effect of SCUBA divers coming in contact with coral during a dive was also examined at Surin as part of this study to identify level of impact caused by divers. This component of the research also examined the ability of interpretation, through pre-dive briefing session to increase environmental awareness of divers and reduce impacts on the reefs. The awareness of stakeholders and their acceptance of management approaches was assessed using a range of commonly-used sociological data gathering methods (Chapter 6), including questionnaire surveys, semi-structured interviews, and personal observation. While the findings from the first part of this research suggest the need to modify Surin’s management, the situation was confounded by the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. It created an additional threat to both the reefs and management and highlighted the need for additional approaches to be in place for management to be able to respond appropriately to unforeseeable major disturbances. To assess the impact of the tsunami, the study investigated the changes in biological condition of reefs one month (January 2005) and three months (March 2005) after the tsunami. The effect on management capacity and key stakeholders’ reaction to the altered management regime were identified using social survey methods and observation. These data were used to analyse the damage caused by the tsunami and how Surin’s management responded to the altered circumstances (Chapter 7). The analysis of pre and post tsunami situations provided better understanding of the factors limiting management effectiveness and enabled the identification of possible approaches to improve management effectiveness. 1.5 Dissertation structure
The dissertation is divided into what was initially proposed (pre- tsunami) and the modified research programme post-tsunami. The first phase is presented in the first six chapters. The first four chapters discusses the context of the dissertation, research questions, methodology and the marine protected areas context as presented in the literature. Chapter 5 presents the biological monitoring data at the study site, which are interpreted in light of known threats and pressures that existed between 1997-2004. These interpretations are used to generate hypotheses about the
7 Data from 1997-2002 were collected before commencing PhD study but have not been used or reported previously.
The University of Queensland 11 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas effectiveness of management approaches that have been applied over this period. Then, the acceptability of various management approaches to stakeholders are assessed and presented in Chapter 6. The second phase of the dissertation consists of the analysis of the post-tsunami situation, including Surin’s biological and managerial condition, stakeholders’ reaction before and after the tsunami crisis, and an assessment of the effectiveness of management in this period. The structure of the dissertation is shown in Figure 1-4.
Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand Methodology and Methods
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Development and Managing Marine The Case of Management of Protected Areas Surin Marine Marine Protected National Park Areas
Chapter 7 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 The Boxing Day Environmental Perceptions of Tsunami and its and Management Stakeholders effects Changes at Surin toward Marine National Management Park
Chapter 8 Improving Management
Figure 1-4 Dissertation structure Chapter 1 (Managing Marine Parks in Thailand) provides an overview of the thesis and includes background information, problems occurring and the purpose of this study. It identifies that marine
12 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 1 Managing Marine Parks in Thailand protected areas in Thailand, like many around the world, face problems associated with increasing demand for resource use and limited management resources and management knowledge. It is proposed that existing management cannot deal effectively with changing circumstance. In addition, it identified that management of Thailand national parks requires providing education and service for reasonable use and, at the same time, conserving the natural environment. These two objectives often cause conflict between user groups and management. The research questions are defined and the case study chosen to explore them is identified. This chapter presents the broad methodology used in this research. Chapter 2 (Development and Management of Marine Protected Areas) briefly reviews the evolution of concepts of environmental protection, with emphasis given to marine protected areas. The chapter highlights the diverse characteristics of marine protected areas, focusing on the Marine National Parks of Thailand. Approaches to administration and management of Thailand’s protected areas are also presented and reviewed. Chapter 3 (Managing Marine Protected Areas) identifies the threats and problems commonly found in the marine environment. Commonly adopted management strategies are discussed in terms of their ability to address these threats. Examples of effective management are identified from international case studies. This chapter highlights the assumption that each management approach is suitable for threats under specific conditions and might not have universal applicability. Chapter 4 (The Case of Surin Marine National Park) presents general information, current threats and management strategies of the main case study area, Surin Marine National Park. The analysis concludes that there is a need to revise management approaches. Chapter 5 (Environmental and Management Changes in Surin Marine National Park) presents an analysis of biological data collected since 1997 and identifies the change between years. Major changes are interpreted with reference to events that have occurred in the biophysical, social and managerial environment over this period. The chapter discusses the selection of study sites, the analysis of life form cover changes and other biophysical changes and finally the threats and management approaches being applied. It highlights specific threats that occur at Surin and how well management has responded to these threats. Chapter 6 (Perceptions of stakeholders toward management) identifies the importance of understanding stakeholders’ acceptability of management actions if they are to be most effective. It reports an analysis of visitors’ perception and attitudes toward management approaches. It also discusses the perception of various stakeholders toward Surin’s marine environment and its management schemes. Chapter 7 (The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects) provides information on the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. Information is compiled from observations during the post-tsunami period, biological monitoring data, opinion of various stakeholders, reports, and the conclusion from the tsunami assessment taskforce. Impacts of the tsunami on Surin, to the natural environment and management capacity, are discussed. Chapter 8 (Improving management) presents major finding from each chapter, a reflection on the research, and general discussion of the work’s contribution. The chapter develops guidelines for improving management for Surin and other Thai Marine National Parks.
The University of Queensland 13 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
14 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas
Chapter 2 DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
The University of Queensland 15 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 2 Development and Management of Marine Protected Areas 2.1 Chapter Overview
2.2 Protecting the 2.3 Marine natural protected areas environment in Thailand
2.2.1 Marine 2.3.1 Protected environment area in Thailand protection 2.3.2 2.2.2 Types of Administration and marine protected management of areas protected areas 2.2.3 Relevance to 2.3.3 Status of this thesis marine protected areas in Thailand
2.4 Summary
Figure 2-1 Chapter 2 structure
16 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas
CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 2.1 Chapter overview
In this chapter, the concept of environment protection in the marine environment and its evolution are reviewed. The chapter highlights the diverse characteristics of marine protected areas, focusing on Marine National Parks in Thailand. It presents the origin, development and current situation of protected areas in Thailand. Mechanisms for the administration and management of Thailand’s protected areas are also identified and discussed. 2.2 Protecting the natural environment
The world’s population continues to increase, with a consequent demand for more resources. Scientists have raised concerns about conservation and sustainable use of natural resources since the latter part of the 19th century (CALM, 1990; Kenchington, 1990; Agardy, 1995b; Gubbay, 1995; Dudley & Stolton, 1999). One response to this concern was to create areas especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (IUCN, 1992). The widespread acceptance of this approach has meant that protected areas have come to play an important role in conservation programmes around the world (Kenchington, 1990; Gubbay, 1995; Kramer et al., 1997; Dudley & Stolton, 1999). While protected areas have been established world wide, the context and objectives of each protected area is not the same and local attributes of each protected area can require application of differing management methodologies. Management methodologies developed for temperate regions do not always suit tropical regions (MacKinnon et al., 1986). Similarly, management approaches developed for terrestrial environments are not always appropriate for marine environments (Gubbay, 1995). 2.2.1 Marine environment protection Concern for protection of marine areas lagged far behind terrestrial areas, with active consideration of marine protection not emerging as an issue until the 1950s and 1960s (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). In the Great Barrier Reef region of Australia, the area that has provided a lead to marine protected areas worldwide, the first marine environment protection concerns were to reduce pollution from ships and to protect the sea bed from mining (Kenchington, 1990). Subsequently, this shifted to protection of fisheries yield and habitat. In tropical countries, the concept of wise and sustainable use of resources, both for tourist use and fisheries, were important (Agardy, 2000a). The history and evolution of marine protected areas are documented elsewhere (see Kenchington, 1990; Gubbay, 1995; Kelleher, 2002; Lawrence et al., 2002) and are reviewed in detail in this thesis. Recently, marine protected areas have been acknowledged as crucial planning tools for simultaneously accomplishing a broad spectrum of objectives (Alexander, 1993; Alder, 1996b; Agardy & Wilkinson, 2003). They are being employed to address the broader goal of integrating management across landscapes and seascapes, while meeting a wide range of human needs (Al-
The University of Queensland 17 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Jufaili et al., 1999; Agardy, 2000a; Alino et al., 2000). In addition to accommodating local communities and nature-based tourists or recreational users, marine protected areas are being used to manage fisheries (Agardy, 2000a; Cadwallader et al., 2000; Kenchington, 2000; Alcala et al., 2003), protect key habitats (Crowder et al., 2000; Graham et al., 2003), control reef-based enterprise development (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Agardy, 2000b), reduce land based impacts on water quality (Chadwick & Green, 2000) and resolve user conflicts (Agardy, 1993; Bohnsack, 1993). To achieve these broad purposes, a diversity of management approaches are needed and have been applied. While the objectives of marine protected areas are expanding, marine protected areas worldwide still have one thing in common; the objective of environmental protection. The IUCN states that the primary goal of marine protected areas conservation and management is: “To provide for the protection, restoration, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world in perpetuity through the creation of a global, representative system of marine protected areas and through the management in accordance with the principles of the World Conservation Strategy of human activities that use or affect the marine environment (Kelleher and Kenchington, 1992 p.7).” The IUCN defines marine protected areas as: “Any area of intertidal or sub tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment (Kelleher and Kenchington, 1992 p.7)” From the definition, a marine protected area always includes marine terrain and, in some cases, may include terrestrial terrain, such as coastal areas, coral cays or islands. Marine protected areas must have some form of protection, either legal or customary, and the degree of protection need not necessarily be the same throughout the area. 2.2.2 Types of marine protected areas Yellowstone National Park is the prototype of the modern day ‘national park’. However, a change of definition was required when countries started to establish their own ‘national parks’ and when their own circumstances did not align with the original model. In many countries, in contrast with the original, quite small areas were created as national parks with the objective of preserving specific features. The proliferation of ‘protected area’ terminology around the world created confusion for international and national conservation management agencies, making it difficult to develop an understanding of the status of protected area establishment around the world. The same terminology was applied to different types of reserve and similar areas were called different names. To address this confusion, the General Assembly of IUCN defined the term 'national park' in 1969 and preliminary categories were published in 1973 and revised in 1978 (IUCN, 1994). By the early 1990s, the 1978 categories also appeared to be in need of review. Marine conservation needs were more prominently on the agenda due to problems of coastal environment degradation (Agardy, 1995b). The differences between some categories were vague and more consideration of marine conservation approaches was needed (IUCN, 1994). Some of the criteria required flexibility
18 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas in their interpretation to meet the various needs and conditions of countries applying them. In 1994, the system was revised again. The first five categories were retained, while the terminology and layout was simplified and a new category was added. The 1994 system allowed for marine environment inclusion in all categories. The six categories, based on their objectives, are (IUCN, 1994): Category I Protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection (Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area); Category II Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation (National Park); Category III Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features (Natural Monument); Category IV Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention (Habitat/Species Management Area); Category V Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (Protected Landscape/Seascape); Category VI Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems (Managed Resource Protected Area).
When IUCN published the categories, different levels of management were ascribed to each category. With the 1994 categories, human activities and levels of participation are integrated with conservation areas. The level of human intervention is indicated as being low for Category I and higher for Category V (Table 2-1). Category VI was added to the categorisation later so it does not fit neatly into the pattern (Phillips & Harrison, 1999).
Table 2-1 Matrix of management objectives and IUCN protected area management categories (IUCN 1994)
Management Objective Ia Ib II III IV VI V Preservation of species and genetic diversity 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 Scientific research 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 Maintenance of environmental services 2 1 1 - 1 1 2 Wilderness protection 2 1 2 3 3 2 - Education - 1 2 2 2 3 2 Tourism and recreation - 2 1 1 3 3 1 Sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems - 3 3 1 2 1 2 Protection of specific natural/cultural features - - 2 1 3 3 1 Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes - - - - - 2 1 Level of human intervention/presence Lower Higher Key: 1 Primary objective; 2 Secondary objective; 3 Potentially applicable objective; - Not applicable
Human uses of the natural environment are expanding and protected areas are being used to target the ambitious goals of integrating management across the landscape and seascape, while meeting the wide range of human needs. Similar to terrestrial protected areas, objectives of marine protected areas need to expand to cover the changing circumstances. Such objectives range from rather straightforward goals of conserving the stock of a single species or helping to develop eco-tourism industries, to complex goals of conserving overall biodiversity and assisting in community development and poverty alleviation. Generally, objectives of marine protected area are to maintain biodiversity, control exploitative uses of resources and manage marine environments (Kenchington, 1990). These objectives divide marine protected areas by the degree of restriction into strict preservation areas, limited-exploitation areas and multiple-use areas.
The University of Queensland 19 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Strict preservation areas limit access to specific user groups and fit within IUCN’s Category Ia (Strict Nature Reserve) and Ib (Wilderness area). Limited-exploitation areas, or areas with restriction of exploitive uses but provide for people, are comparable with IUCN’s Category II (National Park), III (Natural Monument) and IV (Habitat/Species Management Area). Finally, multiple-use areas or areas provided for sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems may be comparable with Category V (Protected Landscape/Seascape) and VI (Managed Resource Protected Area). Strict preservation areas or no-intrusion areas are the most restrictive (Murray, 2000). These are areas where humans are prohibited from entry (except for saving human life, avoiding injury, or securing vessel safety) to protect sensitive resources such as breeding sites for seabirds or marine mammals (Roberts, 1997; Day, 2002; GBRMPA, 2003a). Limited-exploitation areas or no-take areas are generally places where the extraction of all marine life is prohibited. Category I and II are ‘no-take areas’ where extraction of marine life is prohibited except for purposes of approved scientific research. Category IV can play an important role in habitat management through restriction of permitted fishing techniques to those that have no or little direct impact on the seabed (e.g. no-trawling as in the GBR Habitat protection Zone (old GU-B)). These restrictions apply to commercial, recreational, traditional fishing or collection of organisms. These areas are established for scientific research, biodiversity protection, endangered species or habitat protection, protection of critical fisheries stocks and protection of representative ecosystems (Roberts, 1997; Bohnsack et al., 2000; Day et al., 2000; Jones, 2001; Agardy et al., 2003; Alcala et al., 2003; Graham et al., 2003; Russ et al., 2003). No-take areas frequently require strong regulations, focussed on prohibiting harvest of marine life (Rodriguez-Martinez & Ortiz, 1999; Russ & Alcala, 1999; Nickerson-Tietze & Donna, 2000; Woodley & Sary, 2000; Lirman & Miller, 2003; Walmsley & White, 2003). The most recent form of marine protected areas are multiple-use reserves (Agardy, 1994). These marine protected areas (Category V and VI) consider and seek to balance the needs of habitat and biodiversity protection and of various stakeholders and provide a mechanism for managing a wide range of marine resources (Kelleher, 1984; Agardy, 1993; Bujang et al., 1994; Valentine et al., 1997; Skeat et al., 2000; Reichelt, 2003). Multiple-use marine protected areas are normally larger than no-take areas, and many incorporate zoning systems as the basis of the management strategy. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the USA and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia are two large areas that represent this model of marine protected areas. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, areas with higher protection status (IUCN categories I-IV) exist within the broader, buffering, Category VI area. 2.2.3 Relevance to this thesis The diverse objectives of protected areas have implications for the development of management strategies as well as operational management approaches. Applying a single set of management approaches across all protected areas, therefore, is unlikely to be appropriate. Defining the appropriate management approaches that suit a protected area and stakeholder characteristics is important.
20 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas
2.3 Marine protected areas in Thailand 2.3.1 Protected areas in Thailand The earliest official conservation policies in Thailand were established during the 13th Century by King Ram Kham Haeng the Great who established Royal Dong Tan Park. In Thai history, parks were usually established around temples and other religious sites, which, due to the Buddhist prohibition of killing, functioned as wildlife sanctuaries (Kasetsart University, 1987). The establishment of the Royal Forest Department by H.M. King Rama V in 1896 introduced modern management practices to achieve the maximum and theoretically sustainable yield of forest products. Constrained by a lack of funds and suitable staff, a limited number of ‘forest parks’ for recreation and conservation was established between 1940 and 1960. In the early 1960s, government awareness about deforestation increased. The first national park, Khao Yai National Park, was gazetted in 1962. In common with protected area trends worldwide, the concept of marine protected areas in Thailand lagged behind the development of the concept in terrestrial areas (Kasetsart University, 1987). Sam Roi Yod National Park, the first marine national park was gazetted in 1969. It was an area of 98.08 km2, with the terrestrial estate of 77.20 km2. However, the Sam Roi Yod National Park was recognised as a ‘terrestrial’ national park at the time of gazettal, but reclassified as marine national park in 1993 when the Government was reformed and the Marine Park Division was separated. Nevertheless, the legislative power to manage terrestrial and marine parks are still under the same Act, the National Park Act of 1961. 2.3.2 Administration and management of protected areas The establishment of marine national parks and fish sanctuaries falls under the National Park Act of 1961 and Fisheries Law of 1947. In addition, under the National Environment Quality Act, certain areas can be declared as ‘areas under protection’ (RFD/TAT, 2002). The government agencies responsible for marine protected area management are the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department8 (DNP), which is responsible for marine park management, and the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR), which is in charge of aquatic resources management and other marine protected areas management (e.g. RAMSAR sites or non-hunting areas). The National Park Division of the DNP is authorised to manage marine parks and implement the relevant laws and regulations. The National Park Division is administrated by a Director and governed by the National Park Committee, which includes representatives from Government Departments, the Office of National Environment Board, Kasetsart University, and the Tourist Authority of Thailand. a. Policy Since Thailand’s regulations prohibit destructive use in national parks as well as people living inside a park boundary, Thailand’s policy for protected area management is concentrated on
8 Marine national parks were administered by the Marine National Park Division, Royal Forest Department until 2002, when Government restructuring moved it to the authority of the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The University of Queensland 21 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas boundary demarcation, patrols and law enforcement. Patrol and law enforcement activities are occasionally supported by local police and regional forestry officers (RFD, 1993; Sudara, 2002b). A national conservation plan for Thailand was compiled by IUCN at the request of the National Environment Board and completed in 1979. The suggested guidelines were included in the fifth Five-Year National Social and Economic Development Plan (1982-1986), especially the expansion of the protected area system (Kasetsart University, 1987). According to the plan, national parks would increase every year. The national park system was expanded from 16 sites (approximately 9,350 km2) in 1979 to 45 sites (approximately 24,200 km2) in 1985. By 2003, more than 260 protected areas had been established, covering approximately 96,800 km2 (WDPA Consortium, 2004). b. Objectives of national park establishment The main objective of establishing a national park is to protect natural resources. However, additional objectives include:
• preserving and conserving natural resources and the environment in a condition that can provide sustainable benefits to society;
• providing opportunities to the public for recreation;
• providing opportunities to the public for education and research that is within the park’s carrying capacity (FRC, 1996b). c. Laws and regulations9 The existing laws and regulations that can be enforced in marine park areas are:
• The National Park Act of 1961,
• The Fisheries Law of 1974,
• The Enhancement and Conservation of National Environment Quality Act (NEQA) of 1975,
• The Wildlife Protection and Conservation Act of 1992,
• Ministerial Regulations and Notifications, and
• the SCUBA diver user fee regulation. While the National Park Act provides the main head of power for regulations for marine parks, the Act does not currently have specific provisions for marine parks. The legislation uses the same instruments applied to terrestrial national parks. In addition, interpretation of the laws is complex and regulations are sometimes unclear (Sethapun, 2000). While designated marine protected areas cover nearly 40 percent of coral reefs, the effectiveness of Thailand’s marine protected areas has been compromised by local conflicts, unclear boundaries, jurisdictional issues, and controversial priority setting that places more weight on tourism than conservation (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Piewsawat, 2002).
9 Details on laws and regulations relevant to marine park management are presented in Chapter 4.
22 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas
2.3.3 Status of marine protected areas in Thailand There are five categories of protected areas in Thailand; Navy restriction areas, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries (or “wildlife conservation areas”), forest parks and non-hunting areas. Navy restricted areas are under the control of the Royal Thai Navy, while the rest are under the control of the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department. Navy restriction areas are excluded from consideration here because the main objective of the areas is to restrict access for defence purposes and not to provide recreational use. While Thailand prohibits people from living inside national parks, Khao Laem Ya – Mu Ko Samet Marine National Park is an exception. This area had communities living inside the park area before park gazettal so people continue to inhabit the marine protected area. It is the only park that is a Category V, Protected Landscape; all others are Category II, National Parks. With a coastal area of 513,115 km2, Thailand has three major types of marine habitats; coral reefs, mangrove forest and seagrass beds (with some sandy or muddy bottom). In 2006, there were 23 marine parks covering 5810 km2 and one UNESCO-MAB reserve of 303.09 km2 (Table 2-2) (DNP, 2006).
Table 2-2 Types of MPAs in Thailand (adapted from DNP 2006; Wood 2005)
2 Area (km ) Coral Average Types and name Characteristic 1 Total Marine habitat visitors/year National park* Tarutao 1,490 1,264 Islands Yes 25,574 Mu Ko Chang 650 458 Islands Yes 45,979 Mu Ko Petra 494 468 Mix Yes 75,891 Ao Phang-Nga 400 347 Mix Yes 228,552 Had Nopparatthara - Mu Ko Phi Phi 388 326 Mix Yes 189,312 Mu Koh Chumphon 317 255 Mix Yes 21,838 Laemson 315 267 Mix Yes 2,656 Had Chao Mai 231 137 Mix Yes 165,974 Thaleban 196 2 Coastal No 50,874 Lam Nam Kraburi 160 64 Coastal No 25,601 Mu Ko Similan (Similan) 140 124 Islands Yes 45,979 Mu Ko Surin (Surin) 135 103 Islands Yes 22,479 Mu Ko Lanta 134 109 Islands Yes 30,827 Khao Laem Ya - Mu Ko Samet 131 123 Mix Yes 218,801 Khao Lak-Lam Ru 125 02 Coastal No 17,730 Tarn Bok Khaoranee 104 64 Coastal No 169,142 Mu Ko Ang Thong 102 84 Islands Yes 350,495 Khao Sam Roi Yot 98 21 Coastal No 81,869 Sirinath 90 68 Coastal Yes 126,498 Khao Lam Pee-Hat Thai Muang 72 02 Coastal No 69,877 Had Vanakorn 38 15 Coastal Yes 28,831 Total 5,810 4,299 Non hunting area Thale Sap 365 No data Mu Ko Libong 447 No data Total 812 UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve Ranong 303 No data
The University of Queensland 23 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
2 Area (km ) Coral Average Types and name Characteristic 1 Total Marine habitat visitors/year Wetland of International Importance (RAMSAR sites) Mu Koh Ang Thong Marine National Park 102 No data Krabi Estuary 213 No data Phang-Nga Bay Marine National Park 400 No data Had Chao Mai MP - Ta Libong Island 663 No data Don Hoi Lot 875 No data Kaper Estuary - Laemson MP – Kraburi river 1,220 No data Total 3,474 Remark: Proposed marine parks are excluded; 1 average visitors between 2000 to 2004; 2 These park are recognised as marine parks even though their boundaries do not include any marine components.
Thailand’s Marine National Parks include a diverse range of characteristics (FRC, 1996a, 1996b; Sethapun, 2000; DNP, 2006), from coastal areas (Had Vanakorn Marine National Park) to remote islands (Surin); areas with no local community inhabitants (Similan Island National Park) to areas with dense populations (Khao Laem Ya – Mu Ko Samet Marine National Park); and areas with a few thousand visitors per year (Laemson Marine National Park) to those with more than 300,000 visitors per year (Mu Ko Ang Thong Marine National Park). The habitat composition in Marine Parks also ranges widely, from the domination of coral reefs (e.g. Surin and Similan Marine National Parks) to seagrass (e.g. Had Chao Mai Marine National Pak) to mangrove forest (Ao Phang-Nga Marine National Park). 2.4 Summary
Modern protected area concepts first emerged as a result of the concerns about conservation and sustainable use of natural resource in 1872. Since then, protected area concepts have changed and evolved. As the number of protected areas has increased, the purposes and objectives for management of these areas have diversified in response to the different opportunities, needs and pressures in various countries. This diversification is reflected in IUCN’s system of classifying protected areas by their objectives. This system is potentially the key to promoting international understanding about protected areas. Concern for protection of marine areas lagged far behind terrestrial areas. Globally, active consideration of marine protection did not occur until seventy years after the first national park was established, although in Thailand there was a much shorter lag, probably the result of the much later adoption of protected areas in this country. The idea was to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources and limit exploitation. Marine protected areas are used worldwide for conserving marine diversity, enhancing fisheries, providing tourism opportunity, and resolving user conflicts. The diverse objectives of protected areas have implications for the development of management strategies as well as operational management approaches. Since all marine protected areas are not created with the same purpose and have diverse characteristics, each should be managed to take account of these differences. Applying a single set of management approaches across all protected areas, therefore, is unlikely to be appropriate. Defining the appropriate management approaches that suit protected area and stakeholder characteristics is important.
24 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 2 Development and management of marine protected areas
Although the Marine Park Division was separated from the National Park Division of the Royal Forest Department10 in 1993, all marine parks continue to be managed and enforced under the National Park Act as if they are terrestrial parks. There is no specific legislation for marine park management. Thailand’s marine parks include a diverse range of characteristics, face different stresses, hence, require appropriate management schemes in response to address specific threats. As the protected area network continues to expand in accordance with Thailand’s national policy, it is important to develop appropriate management strategies for the marine park system.
10 This distinction was retained when the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation was established in 2002.
The University of Queensland 25 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
26 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
Chapter 3 MANAGING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
The University of Queensland 27 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas 3.1 Chapter Overview
3.2 Evaluating 3.3 Types of 3.4 Tourism in effectiveness threats in marine Marine Protected of management environment Areas approaches 3.3.1 Climate change and mass coral bleaching
3.3.2 Habitat 3.4.1 Marine modification and tourism and the land/sea environment encroachment 3.4.2 Management 3.3.3 Pollution and approaches to sediment reduce marine transportation tourism impact 3.3.4 Overexploitation of resources
3.5 Conclusion
Figure 3-1 Chapter 3 structure
28 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
CHAPTER 3 MANAGING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 3.1 Chapter overview
This chapter provides background information relevant to management of Thailand’s Marine Parks. Types of threats commonly occurring in marine parks are reviewed. The chapter also reviews the management approaches used by the Royal Thai Government to address these problems. Criteria used to evaluate appropriateness of each management approach to the Thai situation are described and some international examples have been selected to illustrate the factors that limit the effectiveness of each of these management approaches. 3.2 Evaluating effectiveness of management approaches
Hockings et al. (2000 p.3) defined evaluation as “the judgment or assessment of achievement against some predetermined criteria (usually a set of standard or objectives); in this case including the objectives for which the protected areas were established.”. To conduct an evaluation on how effectively management approaches achieve desired outcomes, firstly requires defining objectives for the park. Most marine protected area objectives share one thing in common, they seek to preserve natural environments (Kelleher, 2002). This subsumes all other ‘sub’ objectives, such as providing for the sustainable use of resources, supporting the livelihood of communities or developing marine ecotourism within the park. Because the main objectives of Thailand’s marine parks are to conserve marine environments and provide opportunities for recreational use of the resources, two criteria that reflect these objectives are used to evaluate the appropriateness of applied management approaches: the ability of management approaches to maintain or conserve natural condition and the acceptability of these to resources users. The effectiveness of a management approach can be measured through its ability to conserve or maintain natural condition, reduce negative impacts from permitted activities and increase the positive aspects of the reefs (see Pomeroy et al., 2004). However, to be effective, management approaches also rely on public acceptance and support (Alder, 1996a). Management approaches that are acceptable to and easily understood by visitors and tour operators are preferable because these are more likely to gain compliance, and can be instituted with fewer requirements for active enforcement. The following section reviews the common threats to marine environments and approaches applied to manage these threats. The discussion of appropriateness of each approach to the specific threat is based on its ability to conserve and its acceptability to users. Limitations of the approaches to Thai conditions are also provided. 3.3 Types of threats in marine environment
This section identifies major threats and problems commonly occurring in maritime environments of Thailand, with special attention given to marine protected areas. Major threats in this region are mass coral bleaching, habitat modification, land/sea encroachment, material transportation and
The University of Queensland 29 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas overexploitation of resources (Phongsuwan et al., 1993; Sudara & Yeemin, 1994; Putra & Cottrell, 2000; Chou et al., 2002; Fortes et al., 2002; UP-MSI et al., 2002). Beside these, tourism, which has been promoted over the last three decades, has emerged a major management issue (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap, 1988; Davis & Tisdell, 1996; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001; Lawson et al., 2003). Recreational activities, without appropriate management, have been recognised as a pressure on reefs (Dutra, 1998; Kitsiou et al., 2002). 3.3.1 Climate change and mass coral bleaching Corals and other reef organisms are extremely sensitive to environmental change (Wilkinson & Buddemeier, 1994; Veron & Stafford-Smith, 2000). Corals are likely to eject their symbiotic algae, the zooxanthellae, when they are stressed (Sorokin, 1993). Without zooxanthellae, corals become pale or turn completely white, a condition called coral bleaching. A variety of factors can activate bleaching, including temperature extremes, sedimentation, pollution, air exposure, or changes in salinity (Glynn, 1996). Of these, temperature-correlated bleaching is the most widely reported. The range of temperatures tolerated by reef-building corals worldwide is relatively narrow, usually between 16°C and 36°C (Veron & Stafford-Smith, 2000). On any particular coral reef, the range is even narrower. Studies have shown that changing temperature by only 1-2°C above the normal threshold temperature for a few weeks is sufficient to create a bleaching event (Wilkinson & Buddemeier, 1994; Coles, 2001). Extreme or prolonged temperature inconsistency can cause significant coral mortality (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Coles, 2001; Burke et al., 2002). Scientific studies now confirm that the earth’s surface temperature has increased 0.6°C during the past hundred years (McCarthy, 2001). Evidence suggests that increases in both air and sea temperatures are mostly a direct result of anthropogenic activities such as burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Barnett et al., 2001; Levitus et al., 2001). Sea-surface temperatures have now moved so close to coral thermal limits that the fluctuations of temperatures within natural climatic events such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (El Niño) can cause massive coral bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; GESAMP, 2001). In fact, reports of mass coral bleaching have increased greatly since 1979 (Lough, 1999). Mass coral bleaching was discovered on reefs all over the world between 1997 and 1998 (McPhaden, 1999). Two thirds of the world’s reefs were bleached in 1998 (Burke et al., 2002). In some places, such as the Maldives, 90 per cent of corals were reported as bleached. Although effects from the phenomena were most severe in the central Indian Ocean, major bleaching was also reported across Southeast Asia, where an estimated 18 percent of reefs were damaged (Wilkinson et al., 2000). Despite the severity of bleaching in the region, recovery is occurring. New coral growth has been observed, but patterns of recovery are site specific. Temperature, salinity, and levels of ultraviolet radiation affect how severely specific sites are impacted and how well they recover (Wilkinson et al., 1994). Management approaches to reduce the effect of coral bleaching Westmacott et al. (2000) suggest positive actions that might assist reef recovery. The basic assumption behind the guidelines is that reefs will regenerate, given the right environmental conditions and sufficient time. There is encouraging evidence from long term studies that coral reefs can recover from major events if other negative impacts are minimised (see Coles, 2001;
30 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
Done, 2001). Where direct human impacts already threaten coral reefs, resilience may be lower and recovery rates may be slower (Burke et al., 2002). According to Salm et al. (2001), management strategies to deal with bleached coral reefs include:
• assess the affected reefs, identify the least affected area, and ensure that the remaining live corals and reef areas are protected (these actions may require the establishment/expansion of marine protected areas, or reviewing and revising the zoning schemes of existing marine protected areas);
• establish a monitoring programme to track recovery;
• suspend activities that may damage remaining live corals, such as diving, anchoring, or coral collection;
• encourage reef tourism sectors to help reduce negative impacts in affected reefs such as direct damage to corals from divers and snorkellers or from boat anchors, and indirect damage from coastal activities that support the tourist industry;
• emphasise other attractions for tourists besides coral reefs, both on land and in the water, while corals recover; and
• increase the frequency of patrols and strengthen legislation that prohibits destructive fishing practices. Despite the widespread mortality that has followed some bleaching events, there has never been total elimination of all living coral in any area (Berkelmans & Willis, 1999; Loya et al., 2001; Baird & Marshall, 2002). In addition, new coral recruits are often observed within a year after the event. This provides a starting point and hope for natural recovery. Areas where corals have managed to survive the events will be important sources of coral larvae to replenish degraded areas11. Despite the availability of these guidelines, no marine park area in Thailand has applied them, and merely relied on nature’s inherent capacity to regenerate. This may be a management strategy of high risk! Assessment and identification of least affected areas and establishment of a monitoring programme to track recovery may be difficult for developing countries that lack the capacity or resources for such rapid response measures (see McClanahan et al., 2000). In many cases, contributions to assess and monitor a coral bleaching event are provided by international NGOs (see Obura, 2001). In Fiji, the Reefcheck Foundation, with local dive operators and researchers, helped document and assess the ecological impacts of the mass coral bleaching event that occurred in 2000 (Cumming et al., 2000; Lovell, 2000). Involving tourism sectors in monitoring and assessment programmes not only addresses the problem of limited management staff, but also increases the level of environmental awareness of tourism operators and fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to protecting reef resources. Such attitudes are fundamental to developing co-operative approaches to park management. With sufficient information on the impact of coral bleaching, consideration should be given to revising (or creating) the zoning scheme. Areas with high resilience to bleaching that can act as
11 This area is also known as ‘source reef’, while reefs that receive larvae from the source are sometime referred as ‘sink reef’
The University of Queensland 31 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas potential sources for recruitment should be kept as strictly protected areas (Salm & Coles, 2001). Often, this prohibition concept creates conflict with major reef users (Schuttenberg & Obura, 2001). Coral bleaching events can have direct impacts on human uses of reefs by reducing the aesthetic qualities of reef sites that are important for tourism, and by decreasing the abundance or availability of fish. Tourism (diving and snorkelling) are likely to suffer from further social and economic impacts. Studies on the economic impacts of diving tourism caused by coral bleaching in Tanzania, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and the Philippines reveal that diver and snorkeller satisfaction with the underwater experience declines in bleached areas (see Schuttenberg, 2001). To maintain their clients’ satisfaction, reef tourism operators seek less affected areas (Schuttenberg, 2001). The result is increased demand for access to any exclusion zone, to the detriment of park planning and management. This conservation and recreation conflict can be addressed by communication and co-operation between park managers and tourism operators. Park managers can provide access to reefs with high resilience and, at the same tine, encourage the tourism sector to help reduce negative impacts such as direct trampling or anchoring on the reefs. It is further possible that impacts to the diving industry can be mitigated by diverting diver attention to other focal points such as wrecks or offer an education programme about coral bleaching and encouraging the observation of bleached coral as an attraction (Schuttenberg & Obura, 2001). From a management perspective, an ideal strategy is to prevent external disturbance to the affected reefs and let the reefs recover themselves (Westmacott et al., 2000). However, this strategy is not practical where reef areas are small and highly used. In the case of Thailand, significant coral bleaching occurrences have overwhelmed Thai reefs. Coral reefs in the Andaman Sea suffered extensive coral bleaching and subsequent mortality in 1991, 1995, and 1998 (Phongsuwan et al., 1993; Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1994; DMSCI, 1997; Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998). Most of the affected reefs are situated in marine parks; however, few management strategies, aiming to prevent further deterioration, have been applied after the period of bleaching. These strategies were prepared centrally within relevant Thai agencies but were not communicated to marine park managers and hence not implemented by them (Yeemin et al., 2003). While mass coral bleaching is a specific event, it is indicative of any event where reefs are damaged and steps to speed recovery are needed. Many researchers indicate the climate change as a significant threat to the condition of coral reef ecosystems globally (Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994; Soto, 2001; Hughes, 2003; West and Salm, 2003; Ayre and Hughes, 2004). The future condition of coral reefs will be significantly influenced by the rate and severity of climate change and that actions to mitigate climate change are important to maintaining reef values (Salm and Coles, 2001; Hughes, 2003; West and Salm, 2003). According to this concern, during the general meeting of the International Coral Reef Initiative in Tokyo, Japan in April 2007, the ICRI member approved the resolution on coral reef and climate change, which requests the assistant from the member to help improve coral reef resilience. The resolution includes four actions as followed (ICRI, 2007); 1) Support actions to improve coral reef resilience to climate change by maintaining or enhancing good water quality, healthy coral cover, and the full range of biodiversity, including good herbivore (plant-eating) populations, and by working with local stakeholders to protect biological diversity and reduce direct stresses;
32 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
2) Support research to improve the understanding of factors that promote resilience in coral reefs and their application in management; 3) Support the development of sustainable livelihoods that may reduce vulnerability to climate change among coastal populations and strengthen ecosystem resilience; 4) Enhance public awareness of the impacts of climate change on coral reefs. 3.3.2 Habitat modification and land/sea encroachment Growing populations, increasing demand for natural resources and expanding tourism markets necessitate the construction of infrastructure and modification of coastal areas. Coastal development and habitat modification can result in direct and indirect pressure on biodiversity in protected areas, especially for coral reefs (UP-MSI et al., 2002; Erni, 2003; Yeemin, 2004). In Thailand’s marine national parks, the issue of land reclamation is minor, since Thailand’s law prohibits permanent occupation of parks. In theory, the areas to be declared National Park must be free of any ownership or control; but in reality, national park areas have often been disturbed by local communities and occasionally national parks are declared over local people’s subsistence land (Arunotai, 2002). There are cases in the Ao Phang-Nga Marine National Park and Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park where people involved in shrimp farming have encroached into the marine protected areas and thereby destroyed mangrove forests and occupied the land (Sethapun, 2000). In the case of Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park, the government cancelled all land ownership documents within the boundary of the national park, strictly enforced the rules and established more frequent patrolling. It also attempted to prevent further problems by seeking the co-operation of the surrounding communities by creating joint activities to improve the value of the park for the state and the local people (ONEP, 1995). Nonetheless, in several parks, many destroyed areas cannot be reclaimed as protected area because of land claims. Shrimp farming constitutes a serious problem, threatening the Ao Phang-Nga National Park (Sethapun, 2000). Several parks, including Had Nopparatthara-Mu Ko Phi Phi Marine National Park (Phi Phi), face serious difficulties because of encroachment and land disputes (RFD, 1993). Over the past few years, Phi Phi has grown into one of the busiest tourist destinations in Thailand. In 1998, over 150,000 tourists visited the islands and the number increased to over 308,000 tourists in 2004 (TAT, 2006). The increasing number of visitors led to increased demand for accommodation, and local communities expanded their land occupation and encroached into the marine park boundaries (Seenprachawong, 2001). So far, the government has no strategy to reclaim encroached land and concentrates on preventing further expansion by clearly defining park boundaries (Sethapun, 2000). Management approaches to reduce habitat modification From the Thai experience, a factor that limits the effectiveness of management is the lack of clear park boundary definition. Stakeholders use this to claim that they do not know the park’s boundary. In response, the Thai Government has attempted to clearly mark boundaries (ONEP, 1995). While defining the boundary of coastal parks, where the boundary is located on land, can be done by installing fences or boundary markers (Sudara, 1999; Piewsawat, 2002), it is somewhat complicated in the case of island marine parks where boundaries are located in the sea. Unlike terrestrial areas, where sites are bound by identifiable geological features such as rivers or mountains, the characteristics of water makes marine ecological boundaries less well defined and also less static (Kenchington, 1990). Usually, the boundary is indicated as the distance from specific landmarks (in
The University of Queensland 33 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas the case of Thailand; 3 km from the lowest low water of the island). Precise and/or permanent geographical boundaries are rare in the marine environment. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park provides a good example of using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with maps, indicating boundary coordinates (points of latitude and longitude), to indicate the extent of a zoning system. This helps resource users identify area boundaries (GBRMPA, 2003b). In addition, zoning information is available in electronic formats which may be interfaced directly with modern navigational aids found on many vessels (Day, 2002). This system received support from GBR users because removed uncertainty through permitting precise boundary identification and allows users to access areas that might otherwise be ‘locked up’ in buffers. This GPS and boundary map system seems to be useful and easily applied provided all vessels have modern navigation devices (e.g. GPS and navigation plotters). In the case of Thailand, while most diving vessels have the navigation systems, other vessels (e.g. local fishing boats – long tailed boats) are less likely to have these. Identifying the boundary of the parks still largely relies on the estimation of users (Sudara, 1999). Sudara (1999) describes a successful boundary marking case in the small coral reefs in the southern part of Thailand. Here local NGOs, with the local authorities, placed buoys to mark the boundaries of coral reefs in their area and voluntarily patrolled for illegal activities. While successful, this case depends on the size of the area (the area must be small so that setting up buoys to mark the boundaries is feasible) and accessibility of the area (the area must be close to local communities to make effective patrolling feasible). While this case might not be practical in other situations (e.g. large or remote areas), it highlights the usefulness of involving resource users in conserving coral reefs, and seems to be a positive approach to reducing illegal activity in the park. 3.3.3 Pollution and sediment transportation Beside these direct impacts, habitat modification also increases sedimentation and nutrient runoff (Burke et al., 2002). Removal of seagrass beds and mangrove forests, which act as a filter for nutrients and sediments, can reduce the clarity of water and will disturb the photosynthetic process of zooxanthellae within coral reefs (UP-MSI et al., 2002). This can lead to reduced growth, coral bleaching and reef death (Yeemin, 2004). Materials transported from the terrestrial environment are a major cause of reef degradation (Burke et al., 2002; Yeemin, 2004). Impacts include the effects of biological pollution, chemical pollution, fresh water run-off, sediment transportation, erosion, sediment deposition, eutrophication and human waste translocation (Kenchington, 1990; Dutra, 1998; Fabbri, 1998). Most of these impacts are caused by indirect activities, that is, not directly related to reef activities. In the last two decades, logging, agricultural conversion, river modifications, and road construction have contributed to extraordinary erosion rates throughout Thailand’s coastal region (Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991; Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Burke et al., 2002). With this erosion, particulate matter is transported into the sea causing water turbidity to rise. An increased rate of erosion, sediment transportation and deposition may come from deforestation of river basins or mangrove forests (Sudara, 1995b; Dutra, 1998). In addition to sediment, nutrients and fertilizers, not absorbed in the soil, can flow to the sea via river waters. High nutrient effluent levels can activate red tide or toxic algal blooms in enclosed shallow-water areas (Kinne, 1970; Castro & Huber, 2000). Nutrients in discharge water can trigger major shifts in reef communities, allowing algae to overgrow and smother corals (Bell et al., 1989; Bell, 1992; Dubinsky & Stambler, 1996;
34 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
Fabricius, 2005). Because many coastal communities in Thailand lack adequate sewage treatment systems, population growth often results in the release of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus onto reefs (Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991; Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Burke et al., 2002). Management approaches to reduce pollution and sedimentation While wind acts as an important transporter in terrestrial systems, currents play this role in marine environments. The greater density of seawater means that relatively large particles can remain suspended for a longer time, which means they can travel over longer distances in ocean currents (Takano, 1991; Garrison, 2002). Partly for this reason, a core and buffer protection concept has emerged to protect pristine environments within protected areas (Salm & Price, 1995; Attwood et al., 1997; Hooker et al., 1999). The concept involves a buffer zone around the core zone to protect the core from activities with far-reaching (geographic) effects, such as dredging, sedimentation and chemical pollution. While expanding the size of buffer zones is likely to reduce the impact caused by pollution to the core zone (see Salm & Price, 1995), it is not always possible to have large buffers in marine parks, especially in coastal marine parks of developing countries, such as Thailand, where economic development exists along the coastal area (Sudara, 1999). Integrating large buffer zones into marine parks inevitably causes conflict with other resource users (e.g. fisheries), especially in Thailand where regulation prohibits fishing, for example, in the park. Salm and Price (1995) suggest an alternative for minimising the effect of pollution is to establish broader collaboration between Government agencies and industry sectors through applying broad Coastal Zone Management (CZM) schemes. Under this system, pollution generated inside the park can be minimised using park management regulation and capacity through enforcement or applying effluent/treatment technologies, while relevant authorities (e.g. the pollution control department) can manage pollution from outside the boundary. Clearly, this requires co-operative and integrated management that is often lacking, and often prevented by a belief that the ocean is a limitless sink. Many authors (Salm & Price, 1995; Clark, 1996; Nickerson-Tietze & Donna, 2000; Chuenpagdee et al., 2001a) have also identified that in the absence of formal coastal zone management (CZM) programmes, park managers can attempt to establish coordinating networks to achieve similar results. Such informal CZM schemes require the co-operation and commitment of agencies with authority and local communities in surrounding areas of the land or sea, which lie close to the park boundary, to assist with addressing external effects from pollution and other impacts. Inevitably and ultimately, this requires policy direction from government and considerable effort to develop the required level of co-operation. While several agencies can work together to control the effect of sedimentation and pollution, it is important to be able to address the impact affecting the entire ecosystem (Clark, 1996). To be able to clarify the source of problems, all areas linked to the park should be examined carefully and monitored regularly (Salm & Price, 1995; Morris et al., 2003). Monitoring programmes should be included and introduced early in the life of a management plan lest ‘irreversible’ change occurs before the cause of degradation is identified. In the case of coastal marine parks, major threats to the reefs are sedimentation caused by land- based pollution and net-trawling that disturbs soft bottom habitats (Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991; Sudara et al., 1991; Sudara, 1999), while the threat shifts to marine-based pollution in remote
The University of Queensland 35 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas island marine parks. While land-based pollution is usually more significant than marine based pollution (Fortes et al., 2002), marine-based pollution can be accumulative and damage coral reproductive tissues, harm zooxanthellae, and reduce the resistance of coral reefs to other stresses (Dubinsky & Stambler, 1996). In the case of Thailand, almost all vessels that operate in parks do not have storage systems for wastewater, and sewage is directly flushed into the sea (Sethapun, 2000). This pollutes the marine environment and thereby, threatens reefs (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998). This is particularly of concern where boats anchor on shallow reefs and in bays where water circulation is low. This is largely the case at Surin. While wastewater is discharged from marine vessels in many marine protected areas worldwide, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (USA) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia) attempt to control this problem through vessel sewage regulations (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 2003; GBRMPA, 2006e). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act declared state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to be a No Discharge Zone for sewage from all vessels (Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, 2003). It is illegal to discharge sewage to surface waters in a No Discharge Zone and all boats, especially live aboard vessels12, are required to store their sewage in a holding tank and have that holding tank pumped out at an approved facility located at marinas or on mobile barges. This requires costly technology, not necessarily available in developing countries. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the new vessel sewage regulation was introduced in 2005 (GBRMPA, 2005). The regulation requires vessels, which carry 16 or more people onboard, to have holding tanks to store sewage, which must be discharged at least one nautical mile seawards from the nearest reef, island, mainland or an aquaculture facility. The Great Barrier Reef Authority also encourages tour operators to minimise the use of water on vessels (e.g. through flow restricted and auto-shutoff taps) and minimise waste water production (e.g. by using low volume toilets). It also promotes the use of environmentally friendly alternatives such as phosphate-free and readily biodegradable soaps (GBRMPA, 2006e). For Thailand, the Florida Keys approach seems not to be feasible since it is expensive to install the treatment facility although requiring holding tank might be possible. From personal observation, most live aboard vessels operate in at least two marine parks during their trips (e.g. Surin and Similan Marine Parks) and it would be possible for them to hold their sewage and pump out while they are travelling outside the park. During the post tsunami workshop for marine park superintendent13, it was proposed to regulate vessel sewage systems, requiring all registered boats operating in the park to install holding tanks, however there has been no subsequent action on this. While the regulation is not in place, park managers can encourage tour operators to install holding tanks voluntarily and help reduce the impact from wastewater (e.g. the use of biodegradable cleaners). This can be done through the development of ‘Codes of Practice’ for tourism activities, prepared in co-operation with relevant stakeholders. Codes of Practice have been recognised as important management tools in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Kelleher & Dinesen, 1993).
12 SCUBA diving boats with facilities, such as, bedrooms, toilets and showers for over night stays. 13 The workshop in Bangkok on 25 May 2005 sought to determine environmental rehabilitation methods and application of adaptive management for rehabilitation after the tsunami disaster.
36 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
3.3.4 Overexploitation of resources Inappropriate levels of harvesting, collecting and gathering natural resources is threatening reefs worldwide (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Allison et al., 1998; Dutra, 1998; Fabbri, 1998; Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Kenchington & Baldwin, 2000; GESAMP, 2001; Chou et al., 2002; Kitsiou et al., 2002; UP-MSI et al., 2002; Hughes et al., 2003; Lawson et al., 2003). This includes subsistence, commercial and recreational fishing, ornament collecting and marine animal harvesting. Collecting and gathering natural resources can be a serious threat to reefs if they are carried out at unsustainable levels. Fisheries exploitation affects not only target stocks but also communities of organisms, ecological processes, and even entire ecosystems (Agardy, 2000a). In many parts of Southeast Asia, marine fisheries are the major source of food (UP-MSI et al., 2002; Seenprachawong, 2003). With the advent of overfishing and resource depletion, subsistence fishermen are often move to destructive fishing techniques such as dynamite-fishing and use of poisons (UP-MSI et al., 2002). Poisons, such as cyanide, are usually used for catching live aquarium fish and high-priced fish such as groupers and the Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) for export to restaurants. In the Philippines, the ‘muro-ami’14 technique is also destructive (Chou et al., 2002; UP-MSI et al., 2002). Exploitation of fish resources can lead to local or regional species extinctions. Illegal trawling by commercial fishers, which is of particular concern in Thailand and Malaysia, also causes serious damage to the habitat and overexploitation (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Chuenpagdee et al., 2001b; Chou et al., 2002). While this issue is not considered a direct threat to no-take marine parks, overexploitation of nearby areas often trigger illegal fishing in the park (Chou et al., 2002; UP-MSI et al., 2002). Management approaches to reduce over exploitation of resources Fishery activities are considered a central problem in some Thailand marine parks, especially for coastal marine parks where local communities fish around the park boundary. The conflict between parks and people over marine resources utilisation is currently high (Sudara, 2002b, 2002a). The use of illegal and inappropriate fishing gear negatively affects the marine national park environment (Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991; Sudara, 1995a; Undersea Parks Project 1993, 1995; Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998). The use of inappropriate fishing gear, including push nets and trawling nets that damage soft bottom communities, especially seagrass communities, destroys the habitat for numerous marine animals. This situation does not affect coastal marine parks directly due to the prohibition of extractive use of resources, but it does affect the park from the sediment that is resuspended from the fishing activities (Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991). Offshore marine parks do not have same problems as coastal parks; fisheries pressure is largely related to illegal fisheries. Wide-spread degradation of coral reefs in marine parks was caused by dynamite fishing in the early 1960s (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap, 1988; Sudara & Patimanukasaem, 1991; Sudara et al., 1991). Blast fishing, poison fishing and illegal trawling or trapping still occurs in remote marine parks (RFD, 1993; Sethapun, 2000). This is a systemic problem related to the ineffective marking of protected area boundaries, absence of patrolling and law enforcement, and lack of skilled personnel and funding (Sudara, 1999, 2002b).
14 Muro-ami is illegal fishing done by pounding and crushing corals underwater to scare fish towards nets.
The University of Queensland 37 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Management approaches to reduce illegal activities While protected area boundary demarcation can be addressed by management strategies such as the installation of fence or mooring buoys, the lack of sufficient financial and staff resources for effective management is more difficult to address. This situation is not unique in Thailand; it is a problem for marine protected areas (and many terrestrial protected areas) worldwide, especially in developing countries (see James et al., 1999). Many marine parks such as Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles), Gilutongan Marine Sanctuary and Tubbataha Reefs Natural Marine Park (Philippines) use a ‘user fee’ as a problem solving tool for park financing (Dixon et al., 1993; Ross et al., 2000; De Meyer & Simal, 2003; Ross et al., 2003; Tongson & Dygico, 2004). While the success of a user fee system relies on the participation of the tourism sector, the application of a use fee often receives resistance from the tourist industry (Chin & Rosien, 2003; Skeat, 2003). Some of the important lessons derived from the experiences elsewhere are the importance of transparency in fee collection and disbursement, clear agreements on revenue sharing; and allotting funds for conservation activities (see Dixon et al., 1993; De Meyer & Simal, 2003; Tongson & Dygico, 2004). Another debated issue relating to user fees is the appropriate level of the fee to be charged. Some groups of stakeholders believe that user fees result in a drop in tourist numbers, if the charge is higher than visitors can afford (Chin & Rosien, 2003). For this reason, a willingness-to-pay study has been suggested as essential prior to the introduction of a user fee system (Tapsuwan, 2005). In three of Thailand’s marine parks, a specific user fee system (SCUBA diving fee) was introduced without a study of the willingness-to-pay and has resulted in many regulation infringements15. In large marine protected areas, effective management may be impossible to achieve if it relies solely on the activities of officers. Many marine protected areas encourage and accept volunteer service. Volunteers can be used in many roles, participating in monitoring programmes, providing information, supporting the operation of an office or visitor’s centre, or doing practical tasks such as fish counts or beach cleanups (NOAA/NMSP, 2002). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority provides the example of a voluntary programme that encourages tourism operators, who regularly conduct their trips in the park, to report unusual incidents. These include such things as littering, moving too close to a marine fauna, not using the booking system, using an illegal mooring, damage to a mooring, operating without a permit or fishing in a ‘green zone’ (GBRMPA, 2006b). As a result, tourism operators have become recognised as a vital part of the surveillance programme and report incidents that help improve management effectiveness (GBRMPA, 2006c)16. 3.4 Tourism in Marine Protected Areas
As well as the three major threats of habitat modification, material transportation and overexploitation of resources, tourism had become a major management issue over the last three decades (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap, 1988; Davis & Tisdell, 1996; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001; Lawson et al., 2003). While conserving the natural environment is the major issue for marine protected area management, some marine protected areas have objectives relating to recreational
15 This conclusion was based on personal observation and communication with park staff, tour operators and policy makers. 16 The possibility of introducing volunteer programmes to the management of Surin is covered in Chapter 6.
38 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas use (Toengkagie, 2004) or sustainable use by the community (Hawkins & Roberts, 2004). In many parts of the world, tourism is promoted as an environmentally sustainable industry that can replace extractive industries in marine protected areas while, at the same time, providing financial support for local economies (Agardy, 1995a; Moscardo, 1997; White & Vogt, 2000). Reef-based marine protected areas provide opportunities for many recreational activities such as snorkelling, glass-bottom boating, reef-walking, SCUBA diving, kayaking, seabird-watching, turtle- watching, whale-watching and surfing (Harriott, 2002). With this diversity of activities and the growth of tourism, recreational activities without appropriate management have been recognised as a pressure on reefs (Dutra, 1998; Kitsiou et al., 2002). Conflict between recreation and conservation often occurs in marine protected areas, with recreational SCUBA diving, as an example, potentially leading to biological damage and reduced amenity values (Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Davis & Tisdell, 1996; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001; Lawson et al., 2003). 3.4.1 Marine tourism and the environment Marine tourism is defined by Orams (1999) as recreational activities that involve travel away from one’s place of residence and which have the marine environment as their focus. Marine tourism, like the whole tourism industry, is growing rapidly (Miller, 1993) and damage to the environment is becoming an issue that has attracted considerable attention (Kenchington, 1993; Davis & Tisdell, 1996; Dutra, 1998; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001; Harriott, 2002; Lawson et al., 2003). However, due to its economic benefits, particularly in Thailand, tourism is still heavily promoted (TAT, 2003a, 2003d, 2003b). Because reef-based tourism can have both positive and negative impacts, it presents a dilemma. The positive aspect of marine tourism is the extra income generated for the country, which can be used for environmental conservation (see Sudara & Yeemin, 1994; Vogt, 1997; Tongson & Dygico, 2004) and the non-consumptive use of marine environment for tourism can replace other more threatening practices (see Gee & Fayos Solแ, 1997). The negative aspect is the destruction of marine resources due to lack of proper use and care (Beekhuis, 1981). While there is evidence that unplanned and poorly managed tourism development can damage the natural environment (Hall & Page, 1996; Hall, 2003), the overall understanding of the interaction between tourism and the environment, particularly within marine protected areas, is quite poor (Wong, 1998; Orams, 1999; Hall, 2001). Identifying the impact of tourism on marine environments is important to guide management responses (see Hall, 2001). Woodley (1992) described two types of environmental impacts that can be attributed to reef-based tourism: ‘once-off’ effects and ‘recurrent’ effects. Once-off effects relate to impacts connected with the initial installation or construction of infrastructure such as mooring or piers. Disturbances caused by these effects generally stop at the completion of the construction. Recurrent disturbance, associated with recreational activities such as snorkelling or SCUBA diving, are continual and impact is often incremental and cumulative and, therefore, may slow or prevent the recovery of reef organisms affected directly by other degrading perturbations. Impacts can also accumulate to the extent that they become significant. Incidental damage to corals by visitors is becoming increasingly significant as an environmental impact affecting coral reefs. Several studies have described how reef walking (Woodland & Hooper, 1977; Liddle & Kay, 1987; Kay & Liddle, 1989; Hawkins & Roberts, 1993) and snorkelling and SCUBA diving damage corals (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992; Davis & Tisdell, 1995; Harriott et al., 1997; Plathong, 1997; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002). Increased levels of suspended
The University of Queensland 39 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas sediment, which may occur as a result of coastal tourism development and tourist activities such as boating, can lead to mortality of corals (Neil, 1990; Rogers, 1990). Although the damage done by individuals is often minor when compare to industrial impact, there is some evidence that the cumulative effects of these disturbance can cause localised destruction of sessile organisms (Plathong, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1999). Because reef-based tourism is concentrated in marine parks in Thailand (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap, 1988; RFD, 1993, 1998), there is great interest in whether reef-based tourism can be managed in a sustainable way and what management strategies can be employed to minimise negative impacts. 3.4.2 Management approaches to reduce marine tourism impact Damage to coral reefs from careless divers, as well as pollution and other ecosystem impacts from recreational vessels, are tourism effects of particular concern at Surin. Since tourism is dependent on an attractive environment, there is strong motivation to protect and conserve reefs that are the subject of tourism interest (Shafer, 1998). Coral reefs have a capacity to recover from damage or disturbance and, to this extent, can be considered as renewable resources. Of course, it is assumed that the degradation is still under the acceptable level where recovery remains possible. Park management, then, has a task to implement strategic decisions to ensure use is sustainable. Carter and Grimwade (1997) suggest two management options based on a policy determination that would help reduce the negative impacts on the marine environment while improving visitor experiences; raising the site’s capacity for use, or reducing the amount of use of the site. Raising the site’s capacity for use can be done through the modification of the site’s use and/or reorganisation of site characters, while, the reduction of the attractiveness of, or access to the site for existing use and/or the increasing of the attractiveness of other, similar areas can be used to reduce the amount of use of the site. To implement these strategic decisions, three broad categories of site management tool are available, namely, development, controls, and communication (Carter & Grimwade, 1997). As the name suggests, development is the category that alters the character of the site involving site modification to enhance or reduce the capacity of use. This category includes the installation of facilities to enhance site’s capacity for use, improvement of design and durability of the facility, modification of site access, and technology enhancement. Control strategies aim to limit the number of users to a particular site, and control appropriate user behaviour. This includes the installation of barriers to control use to optimal levels, or implementing and enforcing laws and regulations. Communication strategies aim to reduce inappropriate behaviour on a voluntary basis through interpretation. Usually, the management of site-visitor interactions is dominated by development and control strategies, but considerable potential exists to increase the role of communication in management strategies (Orams, 1996). The use of education and interpretation has become a widespread management technique in the park management profession (Sharpe, 1982; Alder, 1996a) and education and interpretation programmes have been shown to help protect the environment and, at the same time, increase visitor enjoyment (Beckmann, 1988; Alcock, 1991).
40 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas
Communication strategies can also provide better understanding of expected behaviours and help reduce negative impacts (e.g. proper use of diving equipment and minimal impact diving schemes). a. Development Development strategies involve alteration of the tourist attracting area to become more resilient through installed new facilities or improved design and durability of existing facilities. Examples include designing boardwalks that are safe for walkers and more durable to meet higher recreational demands as well as minimise human contact with the environment. This technique also includes the use of mooring buoys to reduce anchor damage (Alder & Haste, 1994), snorkelling trails to improve the snorkelling experience while limiting snorkeller contact with sensitive substrates (Tabata, 1991; Chanwichai, 1994; Plathong et al., 2000) and the use of pontoons moored offshore to provide a stable and convenient platform from which tourists can experience the reef with ease and comfort (Nelson & Mapstone, 1997). The disadvantage of this approach, however, is that it can escalate the number of visitors and intensify the use of facilities, and, in some cases, concentrate the use on particular locations (e.g. near the mooring buoys or the snorkelling trail), which might substantially increase damage (Plathong, 1997; Plathong et al., 2000; Tratalos & Austin, 2001). Snorkelling trails have received much attention from both tourists and park managers since they can enhance understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the marine environment (Robinson, 1976; Mitchell & Barborak, 1991; Tabata, 1991; Chanwichai, 1994; Plathong et al., 2000), and they enable divers to practice their diving skills. This combination of facility installation (Development) and interpretative techniques (Communication) can also limit dive movement on a reef and help reduce use of more vulnerable sites (Hawkins & Roberts, 1993). However, as discussed earlier, concentration of use along a trail may cause environmental degradation (Woodland & Hooper, 1977; Kay & Liddle, 1989). There is similar potential for environmental impact along snorkelling trails where the concentration of snorkellers in particular areas might cause increased damage along the trails (Plathong, 1997). However, unlike visitors who reef walk and trample corals directly, snorkellers do not have to step on the substratum. Damage caused by self-guided snorkelling trail users can be negligible through careful design of the trail, site selection and the provision of anchor buoys as starting and end points (Robinson, 1976; Marion & Rogers, 1994; Plathong, 1997). Development strategies can also be used to reduce the amount of use of the existing sites by removing or altering the attraction; for example, by moving boat ramps and mooring points away from sensitive areas (e.g. areas dominated by fragile corals). However, this can result in public complaint17. b. Controls Control strategies include limiting the number of visitors to a particular site, prohibiting certain activities at a site, closing the site to use, and zoning different areas for different activities. Limiting visitor numbers aims to control impacts through setting a maximum level of use for a site and closure when the limit has been reached. This can be achieved using a pre-booking system to control the number of boats and visitors entering the park each day (Tapsuwan, 2005) or by placing a restriction on boat sizes and on length of stay at particular sites (Alder & Haste, 1994).
17 This issue is discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.4 and 6.4.4
The University of Queensland 41 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Prohibition is one of the most common forms of controls. Prohibition is usually easily understood (by people) and is convenient for enforcement (by managers) (Kenchington, 1990). Prohibitions range from access prohibitions to forbidding specified activities within identified areas. Limitation and prohibition techniques often restrict the freedom of the visitors to do as they wish and there is some evidence that this may reduce the enjoyment of the experience (Hatten & Hatten, 1988). Because reef-based marine protected areas provide opportunities for many use activities, some activities will inevitably be in conflict, such as marine ecotourism and commercial fishing or SCUBA diving and angler fisher (Dowling, 1997; Russell, 1997; Harriott, 2002; Friedlander et al., 2003). For this reason, multiple use zoning schemes have been used to help resolve user conflict (Agardy, 1993; Day, 2002). Zoning has long been considered as a keystone of marine park management through its ability to separate differing uses in space or time. Beside the ability to help separate incompatible activities, it can also facilitate reef protection. Boating or kayaking may cause greater coral damage than SCUBA diving or snorkelling, so zoning can enhance protection by providing areas with more tolerant forms of coral for activities that are more likely to create physical damage. Successful zoning requires knowledge of the biological and physical characteristics of the areas, user activities and their interaction with the resource, existing and potential conflict between different users, and knowledge of conflict between users and the environment (Laffoley, 1995). An effective zoning scheme needs to be easily understood by stakeholders (Clark, 1996) and should be as simple as practicable (see Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). There has been considerable experience with the use of zones in marine parks(see Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). According to guidelines arising from this experience, zones should avoid sudden transition from highly protected areas to areas of relatively little protection and buffer zones should be used to surround core areas (see Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). These guidelines have proven to be reasonable and practicable in large marine protected areas such as Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Day, 2002; NOAA/NMSP, 2002). However, in small protected areas such as the Lundy Island Marine Reserve (UK), the complexity of the zoning scheme for such a small area has attracted criticism (Laffoley, 1995). This does not mean that zoning schemes are not compatible with marine protected areas that are small in size (with little or no ability to buffer); it does mean that the rationale for establishing zones in small marine protected areas needs to be clear and zone definitions and their boundaries carefully defined. If the area is small, areas with high conservation value might be located close to high use areas and clear boundaries are hard to define. Clear marking of the boundary with, say, mooring buoys can provide better understanding to stakeholders. In addition, management and zoning information must be easily accessible and understood by stakeholders. In most cases, this will mean that the required information needs to be presented in a format that matches the intended audience and will probably need to be brief and colourfully presented. Attention to this detail can help create better understanding of the intent and ‘restrictions’ in the zoning scheme (Dearden et al., 2000; Day, 2002)18. Often, economic techniques have been used as control strategies aiming to control visit use, and modify visitor behaviour (Tapsuwan, 2005). These include charging differential fees, fines, rewards and damage bonds. The differential fee method follows the ‘user pays’ principle where
18 The issue of Surin’s zoning scheme and its effectiveness is discussed in Chapter 5.
42 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas different fees are charged for certain groups, activities, times or locations. For example, visitors who come in closer contact with the reef and more likely to damage marine resources through careless behaviour pay a higher fee than others to cover the extra management budget that might be incurred (RFD/TAT, 2002; Tapsuwan, 2005). However, charging different prices can be politically unpopular because it excludes use by people in the lower socio-economic groups (Tapsuwan, 2005). In Thailand, this is considered inequitable, because marine resources are seen as public goods and everyone should have equal opportunity to access them. The objective that marine parks provide recreational opportunities for all people reflects this view. Fines are financial penalties imposed on inappropriate and damaging behaviours, including littering, kicking corals, taking marine resources out of the park, while damage bonds are like rental bonds where an amount of money is required for use of a site and refunded if the site is left in its original state. These approaches represent the combination of economic and regulatory techniques and both approaches require legislation and enforcement mechanisms to back the measures, which might be difficult where management resources are lacking (Plimmer, 1992; Tapsuwan, 2005). Another type of economic technique is through offering rewards for performance. These economic incentives are offered to those who comply with management policy such as reporting inappropriate and damaging behaviour. It can also be used as an encouragement to shift visitor concentration, for example, through offering a discounted entry or permit fee to operators who agree to move from concentrated areas to areas below capacity. However, this technique requires a budget to finance the reward. Alternatively, the park can use reward programmes in the form of discount for park fees (e.g. access fee or user fee) or through providing special benefits to tour operators who assist the park during their visits (e.g. assist in the monitoring programme, undertake a cleanup project or report illegal activities). An example of a reward programme exists in the Great Barrier Reef where the Authority seeks to establish a partnership with the tourism industry and offers benefits to operators involved in the partnership (see GBRMPA, 2006d). The Great Barrier Reef authority provides partners in management with eligibility to apply for longer-term permits and receive other benefits and recognition, such as GBRMPA’s support at trade events. This approach also helps foster co- operative behaviours of operators. c. Communication Public awareness plays a central role in the success of marine park management. By communicating with stakeholders about the benefits of conserving natural conditions, a base of public support can be built between stakeholders and park managers. Achieving public support can improve stakeholder compliance with park regulations and develop greater trust between stakeholder and park managers (MPA News, 2007). There are a number of communication strategies that can be applied to help increase public awareness of the need for environmental conservation and improve public understanding and support toward management. Examples include the distribution of printed material, posting of signs, organising guided walks, and organising seminars, workshops or training programmes. While communication techniques are the preferred management tool to gain acceptance for management prescriptions in marine protected areas when compared with regulatory techniques (Alder, 1996a), a lack of knowledge regarding the marine environment and lack of suitably trained and qualified personnel to implement the programmes might reduce the effectiveness of these
The University of Queensland 43 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas techniques (Beckmann, 1988). Involving scientific and academic institutions familiar with the management areas can help solve this information deficit (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). Often, suitably trained and qualified staff are limited in many marine parks, so enlisting the support of tour guides to become ‘interpretation staff’ is a useful approach. The Great Barrier Reef Authority provides an example of involving tour guides and tourism operators to help raise environmental awareness of tourists through the ‘Responsible Reef Practices’ programme (see GBRMPA, 2006a). Since clients usually remain in the operator’s care for the majority of their time in the marine park, the operator is important, in an educational sense, as a provider of experience and information about the environment and management (Hockings, 1994). This also applies to dive masters who lead tourist dives19. Park management can assist the process by organising management interpretation programmes for operator staff. Despite the possibility of involving tour operator staff as interpretation staff, in places where visitor numbers are large, interpretive staff are still insufficient. In this case, developing effective interpretative media (e.g. brochures, signs, posters, or leaflets) can help address the problem (Robinson, 1976; Piewsawat, 2002). Given the diversity of users, uses, site characteristics and numerous other aspects that influence selection of management techniques in a marine park, no one strategy for managing visitors to coral reefs will be able to address all circumstances. A combination of strategies is needed to ensure that the desired objectives of the park can be achieved. For example, physical methods of control such as fences and buoys need to be supported by regulation, as does interpretation. However, the nature of marine environments and recreational use of them necessitates a high level of user support for park management practices or at least impact minimisation practices. While the installation of management facilities supported by strong regulation may be fundamental, successful park management ultimately relies on stakeholders having a common vision for the future of the marine protected area and working collaboratively to realise this vision. 3.5 Conclusion
The main contribution of this chapter to the overall study is to provide an overview of common marine park management problems and the institutional structures for marine park management in Thailand. This chapter also serves to provide background information on tourism management strategies that have been used to reduce the negative aspects of use and increase positive effects. The assessment of various management options for Surin in Chapter 5, 6 and 7 are based on the insights from experience elsewhere and discussed in this chapter. Thailand’s marine parks face issues and challenges such as mass coral bleaching, illegal fishing, land encroachment, and pollution. The level of each threat varies between national parks. Many illegal activities are uncontrolled because of a lack of patrolling and enforcements, and ill-defined park boundaries. Experience has shown the benefit of communicating the intent and benefits of park management with stakeholders to help reduce these illegal issues through co-operation. Involving stakeholders in management can help improve effectiveness in many ways including, attracting additional funds, voluntary works and increased acceptance of regulations and other
19 The possibility of using tour guides as the interpreter for the case of Surin is discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.5.5
44 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 3 Managing Marine Protected Areas management approaches. For effective management, stakeholder acceptance and support of marine protected areas is as crucial as user compliance with rules and regulations. Management approaches that are acceptable to and easily understood by visitors and tour operators are preferable because these are more likely to gain compliance, and can be instituted with less need for active enforcement. Now that reef-based tourism is heavily promoted in Thailand due to its economic benefits, it will be impossible to return to the times when diving was excluded from marine parks: recreational use of parks is now firmly part of Surin’s management objectives. An important issue for managers is to define the management strategies that can be employed to minimise negative impacts.
The University of Queensland 45 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
46 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park
Chapter 4 THE CASE OF SURIN MARINE NATIONAL PARK
The University of Queensland 47 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park 4.1 Chapter Overview
4.2 Surin Marine National Park
4.3 Current 4.4 Management situation approaches 4.3.1 Reefs 4.4.1 Zoning plan degradation 4.4.2 Mooring 4.3.2 Management system problems 4.3.3 Increasing 4.4.3 Boat permits number of visitors and SCUBA diving regulations 4.4.4 Day-to-day management 4.4.5 Laws and regulations 4.4.6 Exhibition centre
4.5 Conclusion
Figure 4-1 Chapter 4 structure
48 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park
CHAPTER 4 THE CASE OF SURIN MARINE NATIONAL PARK 4.1 Chapter overview
This chapter provides background information on Surin Marine National Park. The reasons for choosing Surin as the case study for this research relate to its natural and socio economic attributes and its management over recent years. This chapter outlines the characteristics of the area, the current situation of the site and the management systems employed in Surin. The findings from this Chapter form one input to the analysis of effectiveness of management together with the data on the changes in coral cover (Chapter 5) and data on stakeholder views concerning management (Chapter 6). 4.2 Surin Marine National Park
Surin Marine National Park is situated approximately 70 km offshore in the upper Andaman Sea in Phang-nga Province, southern Thailand (Thamrongnawasawat, 1996). It was gazetted as the 29th National Park of Thailand on 9 July 1981 (RFD, 2000). The park, also known as Mu Ko Surin, was under the administration of the Marine National Park Division, Royal Forest Department until late 2002, when Government restructuring moved it to the authority of the Department of Natural Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. With Similan and Ao Phang-nga Marine National Parks, in late 2003 Surin was proposed as an Asian Heritage Site. Surin has an area of 135 km2. Seventy six percent of the area (102 km2) is the marine component and the balance (33 km2) is terrestrial. Of the marine area, only 8 km2 is reef. Surin consists of five islands (North Surin, South Surin, Torinla, Pachumba and Stork Islands) and two exposed pinnacles (Pae and Kong). All of the islands and exposed rocks in Surin are granitic. The largest islands, North and South Surin, are aligned in a north-south axis (Figure 4-2). In November and December, Stork and Torinla Islands are nesting sites for sea turtles. Five species of sea turtle occur in Thai waters, though only four are found in Surin: the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Green (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate) and Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Surin has been confirmed as the most diverse reef system in Thailand (Thamrongnawasawat, 1995; Worachananant, 2000; Sittithaweepat, 2001; Saisaeng, 2002; Limviriyakul, 2004; Reopanichkul, 2005). More than 260 species of fish are found in the area, with 33 genera of soft corals and gorgonians, 48 species of nudibranchs and 31 species of shrimp. Corals and other marine organisms are also abundant.
The University of Queensland 49 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Figure 4-2 Islands and reefs of Surin Marine National Park The geographical characteristics of North and South Surin provide monsoon shelters that foster the growth of fringing coral reefs around most of the islands. Only in the south-western part of South Surin Island, with a steep oceanic slope and without shelter from the monsoon, are corals found encrusting the rock, rather than building a reef platform. The coral reefs of Surin are of the ‘fringing reef’ type. More than 68 species of corals are found in Surin (in 8km2) (RFD, 2000). The pollution-free clear water stimulates healthy coral growth, especially in the sheltered bays on the eastern sides of the islands such as Turtle Bay and Mae Yai Bay. Torinla Island, the area with best reef conditions, has more than 90 percent living coral coverage (Figure 4-3). Corals are generally found between the low water mark and a depth of 30 metres. In sheltered areas, seabeds deeper than 30 metres are sandy. In contrast, encrusted coral forms are found in most of the exposed locations, especially on the western side of the park where strong waves batter the shore during the stormy monsoon season. The seabed below 10 metres is mainly sandy with a few rocks. According to the National Park Act of 1961, activities within the Park boundary have to be limited and controlled. In theory, the areas to be declared National Park have to be free of any ownership or control; but in practice, National Park areas have often been settled by local people or indigenous communities (RFD 2002). In the case of Surin, a small community of Moken or sea gypsy people
50 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park has resided in the park’s boundary since the early beginning (Hinshiranan 2002). Although there is no formal or written agreement between the Park Staff and the Moken, it has been understood by all that the Moken are indigenous people who have been accepted as a part of the islands under one condition that their livelihood must do no harm to the marine environment (Jirararuensak, pers. comm., February 2002). Around 1987 when the Park has become a popular marine tourist destination, the Moken gathered decorative seashells for sale to island visitors (Chanwichai 1994; RFD 2002). These seashells were collected from waters around the Surin Islands and other islands in Myanmar waters. While this activities against the law of the park, this seashell sale continued for almost 10 years (Chanwichai 1994; RFD 2002). Later in 1996, the Park has issued a prohibition on seashell sale and established a Moken Fund by accepting donation from island visitors and other parties (Hinshiranan 2000). The park uses the money from the fund to buy rice and other necessities for the Moken. A fraction of the income from Park’s souvenir shop is used to hire some Moken to work as Park boatmen, gardeners, and garbage collectors. While the activities of Moken have been restricted under the park’s regulation and many of them has been hired as temporary park staff, Moken is not considered as the key stakeholder in this thesis. In addition, the focus of this thesis is on the tourism management so Moken is recognised as park staff and their contribution to the management is considered as of those park staff (e.g. patrolling, tourism service or garbage collecting).
Figure 4-3 Reef around Torinla Island
The University of Queensland 51 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
4.3 Current situation 4.3.1 Reef degradation Like all reefs around Thailand, reef condition at Surin has declined in the past decade. Notwithstanding the destructive effects of the 2004 tsunami, there are few natural threats to the reefs of Surin. Strong waves seasonally batter the reefs during stormy monsoons. The increasing temperature of seawater from the El Niño phenomenon, particularly in 1998, resulted in the mass bleaching of corals. However, the park is remote from the mainland and all the islands are covered with healthy forest, so sedimentation and pollution are not major issues. Most researchers suggest that the major threat is from human-related activities (Dearden et al., 2000; Thamrongnawasawat et al., 2000; Sittithaweepat, 2001; Saisaeng, 2002). Pollution sources of concern were found to be the park’s accommodation facilities, oil spillage from travel boats and detergent use (DMSCI, 1997): all tourism-related. Most tourists, especially snorkel groups, appear to lack conservation knowledge and rarely take precautions to limit their impact (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4 Tourist trampling the reef flat during low tide Monitoring of coral cover condition has been undertaken myself, with field assistance from Surin’s park staff, since 1997, and damage identified has been classified as in Box 4-1. Results of this monitoring are presented in Chapter 5.
Box 4-1 Characteristic of coral damage
Coral reef damage in Surin can be categorized by source of damage into the following types: Type 1: Anchor damage – the colony where anchors are dropped becomes fragmented, usually creating a hole-like appearance. Reef damage is limited to a small area. Type 2: Coral damage by divers (both snorkel and SCUBA) – only a small portion of the whole colony is usually affected or broken, such as near the tips of branching and foliose corals. Reef damage is limited to a small area. Type 3: Coral damage due to wave action or storm – the colony becomes uprooted or fragmented. Large areas of reef are affected. Type 4: Blast fishing damage – the colony is destroyed in patches of the reef while surrounding areas remain healthy. Reef damage is limited to a small area. Type 5: Coral damage affected by El Niño phenomenon – the colony becomes bleached, including soft corals and sea anemones. Large areas of reef are affected. Sources: Consolidated from Worachananant and Thamrongnawasawat, 1999; Thamrongnawasawat et al., 2000; Worachananant, 2000.
52 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park
4.3.2 Management problems Surin faces most of the problems found in many protected areas around the world: a lack of resources (funding and personnel), weak enforcement of regulations, lack of relevant information for visitors and non-management related tasks being undertaken by park officers (Hockings, 2002). These problems are common in Thai national parks, along with the problem of accumulating overtime (RFD, 2000; Thamrongnawasawat et al., 2000; Sudara, 2002b). a. Lack of funding Surin generated tourism income of 56.3 million baht (US$1.4 million) during the period 1995-2002, while the total management costs were only 15 percent of this (Piewsawat & Worachananant, 2001). However, all income is sent to the centralised Division, with only a small amount of the income being returned to the National Park. Through interviews with park superintendents, it is reported that most of the budget for park management comes from the co-op shop operated by park staff. b. Lack of personnel Lack of personnel is one of the most common problems identified in marine parks around the world, including Surin (De Meyer & Simal, 2003; Miller & Vanzella-Khouri, 2003; Ruengsawang & Yeemin, 2004). With limited funding, Surin can employ only a few compliance officers. Most labourers and park rangers are hired short-term (RFD, 2000). This leads to a lack of continuity in the work of protecting and monitoring. In addition, without sufficient human resources, all staff have to do many types of work and cannot focus or specialise on particular tasks. For example, officers appointed as scientific researchers fulfil the roles of dive leaders, interpreters or even receptionists. While there is no fundamental problem with multi-skilling in a remote small park, the problem arises when core responsibilities and expectations are neglected and an imbalance in management actions develops. Park rangers, whose primary role is patrolling and protecting, also work as dive leaders and receptionists to service the visiting public. Even though Thailand’s laws state that fishing and hunting in protected areas are prohibited, there is still illegal destructive use because of weak enforcement and lack of staff patrols. c. Lack of information Because studying in marine environments is physically difficult and costly, scientific knowledge about its environment is limited. Even in Surin, which is a target for many researchers, information is still lacking. Studies undertaken in Surin have focused on acquiring biogeophysical data with a small number of socioeconomic studies. There have been no studies directly considering management effectiveness or others that might directly inform management planning. While this may be common around the world, the lack of staff continuity at Surin increases the implications of lack of knowledge for effective planning. That is, where information exists, it is often ignored when staff change because new staff do not have time to read reports and hence appreciate the findings and detail of site specific research. The 2000-2004 zoning plan relied totally on coral cover data and professional judgement regarding what might be effective20. Lack of baseline information has also led to generalised interpretation programmes (brochures, and park information boards).
20 See Chapter 6
The University of Queensland 53 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
4.3.3 Increasing number of visitors The number of visitors to Surin continues to increase, from 9,700 in 1996 to 30,000 in just the first four months of the 2003-2004 season (November 2003- January2004)21. Most visitors wished to snorkel to see to the richness and beauty of coral reefs (Thamrongnawasawat, 1996), but SCUBA diving is increasing in popularity. In 2004, it was estimated that at least 6,000 divers visited the park22. A major source of funding conservation and marine park management comes from the tourism industry (Hawkins, 1997; Moscardo, 1997). The economic value of coral reef tourism plays an important role in making a case for improved management and conservation (Dixon, 1997). Park management needs to balance conservation objectives with the need to satisfy the expectations of tourists. The issue is achieving the appropriate balance, and determining the balance point requires appropriate information and application of effective management approaches. In the case of Surin, like other national park in Thailand, management funding is generated from revenue collected from certain activities in the park including entrance and accommodation fees (RFD, 2000). All income collected is sent to the central department with only a small amount being returned as budget revenue. Often, this budget is insufficient and consequently limits the capacity to manage effectively (Phaowongsa, 1999). To address this issue, many park managers, including those at Surin, seek top-up funding from tourism expenditure (e.g. visitor service charges). Thus, the number of tourists is important for management effort. Limiting the number of tourists visiting the island is not an option at present because of this policy. So, it is essential to generate income for management purposes and apply techniques that facilitate manageable use rather than exclude use. Park managers need management tools and approaches that keep use and its impact within manageable limits. This ultimately means managing visitor behaviour to reduce negative impacts of use. 4.4 Management approaches
Before the tsunami, Surin used a visitor register charge, boat permits, specific activities management, a short term zoning plan and an education centre to manage visitors. A visitor information database was first created in 2001, using data gathered from the visitor register charge and boat permit records. All tourist operators are required to obtain permission for activities in the park and pay a registration fee before entering the park. This information has been used to calculate the number of visitors and identify activities carried out in the park. 4.4.1 Zoning plan The 2000-2004 zoning plan for Surin is the first for the park and also the first time in Thailand that marine scientists were involved in the creation of the scheme (RFD, 2000). From 2000-2004 Surin had a five-zone plan comprising an intensive use zone, an outdoor recreation zone, a special conservation zone, a primitive zone and a special use zone. Each zone was buffered by a general use zone (Sudara & Yeemin, 2001). The zoning system was created on the basis of biological abundance and provides for regulation through prohibition from entering and undertaking specified
21 See Chapter 5, Section 5.5.5 for additional information on visitor numbers. 22 Visitor numbers declined abruptly after the tsunami but quickly returned to the pre-tsunami level (see Chapter 7)
54 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park activities in designated areas. However, this zoning plan was altered many times in an ad hoc and opportunistic manner. With coral bleaching in 1998, some reefs in the general use zone and other zones designated for diving were under severe threat and some reefs were extensively damaged. Tourists, especially divers, do not want to use these reefs. Hence, the zoning plan was adjusted in response to user demand, usually by removing exclusion provisions to certain areas. A comprehensive revision of zoning commenced in 2004, as part of the Government’s nomination of Surin, with Ao Phang-nga and Similan Marine National Park, as ASEAN Heritage Areas. The process is still incomplete (as of November 2006). Surin is being managed without a formalised zoning plan despite public hearings on the draft zoning scheme. The proposed plan divided Surin into five zones: a primitive zone, tourism zone, service zone, general use zone and scientific zone23. The details of each zone are given in Box 4-2 and the draft zoning map is shown in Figure 4-5 (Sudara, 1995a; RFD, 2000; Sudara & Yeemin, 2001).
Box 4-2 Zones in Surin Marine National Park
In the proposed zoning plan (2006), Surin (both terrestrial and marine areas) will be divided in to five zones with different objectives and management attributes. Primitive zone: this zone is the most important area and classified as the core zone. Management in this area is very strict. No activities except special permitted scientific research are permitted. The zone is further divided into three areas – strict nature reserve area, conservation area, and recovery area. Tourism zone: this zone has characteristics that are favoured by tourists. Non-destructive activities are permitted and some tourism-related development, such as interpretation signs or piers, can be constructed. The zone is further divided into cultural tourism areas, beach and sightseeing areas, snorkelling areas and SCUBA diving areas. Service zone: this is the intensive use area, in which development is allowed. This area has no unique or pristine environment. Carrying capacity has been used in this area to limit overcrowding. This area includes the accommodation area, park headquarters and ranger stations. General use zone: this area is for general use and some special management activities, such as other government stations and traditional villages. This area has no unique or pristine environment. It is further divided into special management sites, and general use area. Scientific zone: this area is for scientific research purposes. It may be a temporary or permanent zoning and may cover other zones. All activities except research are prohibited in this zone. Source: Translated from documents presented at the draft zoning system workshop for Thailand’s ASEAN Heritage Site held in Phuket, Thailand on February 2006.
23 After the tsunami, a temporary zoning plan was proposed but never been implemented (see Chapter 7).
The University of Queensland 55 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Figure 4-5 Draft zoning map of Surin Marine National Park
(source: DNP and CBIPT 2006) 4.4.2 Mooring system
After the alteration of the zoning plan in 200224, Surin prepared a specific activities management plan to meet the needs of tourists and at the same time concentrate on conservation objectives. That
24 See Chapter 5.
56 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park is, the activities management plan replaced the zoning plan as the guide for management rather than working within a use policy formalised within the zoning scheme. A clearly identified mooring system was included in this plan. Three types of buoys provided for different activities: orange acrylic buoys for skin diving, yellow acrylic buoys for SCUBA diving and large orange metal buoys for large ship mooring. Because park regulations prohibit anchoring, all boating activities have to use buoys. In addition, all buoys have a unique code and GPS positioning for maintenance. During the storm season, all buoys are removed to prevent reef damage from the ropes and re-installed in the tourist season. The GPS system permits re-installation at prescribed places. While the mooring system is a management strategy that can reduce negative impact from anchoring and provide boundary identification, it assumes that stakeholders have a clear understanding of the system. Often, moorings have been misused (e.g. buoy is not appropriate for a vessel’s size – large boats using buoys designed for small boats). Rarely has a mooring system been applied that includes interpretation or communication as an integral part of the mooring plan. 4.4.3 Boat permits and SCUBA diving regulations All vessels entering and undertaking any activity in Surin require a permit under the National Park Act of 1961 (B.E. 2504) and Regulation for the Permission of Tourism and Accommodation Operators in National Park of 1992 (B.E. 2535). In part, these regulations aim to acquire data on the number of operators and visitors using the park. Although this is the regulation, park management has paid little attention to enforcement and only local operators are aware of the existence of this system, with other operators visiting without a permit25. This is partly due to the lack of communication from the park to the tourist industry or operators. In 2002 the park administration agency introduced a standard regulation for the control of SCUBA diving within two marine national parks: Surin and Similan. The regulations sought to preserve natural resources and the marine environment through systematic management, while also increasing order and safety for tourists. A summary of the regulation is provided in Box 4-3.
Box 4-3 Standard regulations for the control of SCUBA diving within marine national parks
• Anyone wishing to establish a business that involves diving activities within marine national parks must seek permission from the Royal Forest Department. Full and detailed documentation must be provided along with a registration fee, before the Department will consider granting a license permitting any diving activity. • Diving activities and related tourism services may only be carried out within designated areas of each park. • A minimum of ten day’s advance notice must be given before any dive can take place. A detailed plan of the dive must be submitted along with the relevant fee. • The dive leader or supervisor must be a Thai national or foreigner with a Thai work permit. • The initial certification fees for entrepreneurs that wish to provide services related to SCUBA diving are 500 Baht per year with an additional monthly charge of 200 Baht. • Admission fees to marine national parks are fixed at 40 Baht for each adult Thai tourist and 20 Baht for each Thai child. Fees for foreign tourists are fixed at 200 Baht for each adult and 100 Baht for each child. • Service fee for SCUBA diving activity is fixed at 200 Baht per day, irrespective of the nationality of the tourist. Source: DNP, 2003
25 See Section 6.5.4
The University of Queensland 57 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
While this SCUBA regulation is intended to provide a systematic approach to management, it is strongly opposed by tour operators due to the charge of a diving fee. Many do not believe in the transparency of fee collection and disbursement, and consider that the fee is too high26. 4.4.4 Day-to-day management Of the range of systems available for determining the number of mooring buoys at any location, a demand driven density operating system has been used that averages the number of divers. The day to day diving programme is governed by pre-determined site-carrying capacities. Table 4-1 shows the number of divers per dive site in the first four months of the 2004 season (later details are unavailable due to the loss of information during the tsunami). The change in the number of visitors each month occurs because (a.) diving sites with high visitation were impacted and divers sought to go to uncrowded sites, and (b.) park officers sought to move divers to different sites to spell areas.
Table 4-1 Numbers of boats and visitors in each site (first four months of 2004 tourism season)
Place
Month Total Pakkhad Bay Stork Island Mae Yai Bay Jark Bay Kong Pinnacles Bay Turtle Mai-Ngam Bay Pachumba Island Suthep Bay Torinla Island Boats Nov 27 18 18 18 18 21 21 22 22 27 212 Dec 72 39 68 43 43 63 76 77 92 67 640 Jan 99 61 81 67 65 77 75 82 82 106 795 Feb 90 58 67 61 59 63 70 75 77 92 712 Total 288 176 234 189 185 224 242 256 273 292 2,359 Visitors Nov 335 221 233 221 217 252 298 291 268 332 2,668 Dec 772 487 817 530 482 685 831 844 973 782 7,203 Jan 1,011 658 903 725 728 810 795 848 846 1,027 8,351 Feb 958 898 691 683 631 670 793 829 855 983 7,991 Total 3,076 2,264 2,644 2,159 2,058 2,417 2,717 2,812 2,942 3,124 26,213
However, governing site access by limiting the number of visitors receives limited support from visitors. Many visitors charter boats, and in doing so, avoid the regulation. 4.4.5 Laws and regulations Implementation and enforcement for protection and management of Surin is authorised under the following acts.
• The National Park Act B.E. 2504 (1961) is the major legislation regulating the park. The law describes the protection of the parks. According to the law, park flora and fauna is protected, and any trade or transport of species out of the park is not allowed (Box 4-4).
26 Based on personal observation in the field and personal communication with tour operators.
58 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 4 The Case of Surin Marine National Park
• The Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act B.E. 2535 has general provisions regarding hunting, propagating, possessing and trading of wildlife, which includes marine life, their carcasses and carcass products, importing, exporting, passing and transporting wildlife.
• The Fishery Act B.E. 2537 (1994) is additional legislation concerning sea based activity. The act has provisions for regulating fishing and marine resource gathering, including issues related to encroachment of trawlers into protected seawater areas.
• The Harbour Act B.E. 2456 & 2535 (1913 & 1992) is additional legislation concerning the control of seashore development and seawater transportation. The act also controls the securities of seawater activities, and provision of boat permits.
• The Environment Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is additional legislation concerning environmental impact assessment to control any development projects within marine national parks. In addition, to ensure the recruitment of fishery stock and the condition of the marine environment, Thai law prohibits commercial fishing within 3 km of a marine national park.
Box 4-4 Regulations and penalties under the terms of National Park Act of 1961
It is strictly forbidden to touch, harm or attempt to remove: soils, rocks, gravel, sand, wood, resin, creosote turpentine, minerals and any other natural resources from a National Park. Attempts to remove of or harm animals are also strictly prohibited. Punishment: Up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 20,000 Baht or both. It is strictly forbidden to attempt to take explosives, or weaponry of any sort, into a National Park. Punishment: Fine of up to 500 Baht. It is forbidden to take a pet or ride an animal into a National Park area. Punishment: Fine of up to 500 Baht. The creation of loud and intrusive noise, as well as use of sound amplification equipment is forbidden within National Park areas. Punishment: Fine of up to 500 Baht. The posting of an advertisement or inscriptions of any sort is forbidden within National Park areas. Punishment: Fine of up to 500 Baht. It is an offence to deliberately ignore the orders of Park Officials when enforcing Park Regulations. Punishment: Up to one month’s imprisonment or fine of up to 1,000 Baht or both.
Although there are number of pieces of legislation applied to conserve the marine environment, no specific legislation has been made for marine park management. Lack of specific marine management legislation limits the effectiveness of enforcement because the geophysical (and other) environments of terrestrial and marine parks differ, and management arrangements created for terrestrial parks are unlikely to fit the marine environment. In addition, the language use in the law is complex and regulations are sometime unclear (Sethapun, 2000). This can lead to ‘accidental infringements’ due to misunderstanding of the regulations. 4.4.6 Education centre Education plays an important role in management. Research has indicated that providing information and education to tourists can reduce environmental impacts (Plathong, 1997; Plathong, 2004). Piewsawat (2002) indicated that the information centre is important for providing knowledge of management and environmental awareness. However, the information centre in Surin lacks resources and the interpretation does not seem to be of interest to visitors. Additionally, with
The University of Queensland 59 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas the numbers of international visitors increasing every year, Surin still has few international language resources. 4.5 Conclusion
Like many Thai Marine parks, Surin faces a number of problem that lead to the degradation of the reefs. Mass coral bleaching in 1998-1999, increasing levels of pollution in marine waters, and the rapid increase in the negative impacts of activities all lead to the degradation of the reefs (DMSCI, 1997). A number of management approaches has been applied in response to these threats; however, the effectiveness of management is limited by the lack of funding, personnel, and information to fully implement and support strategies applied. Despite these management constraints, Surin’s staff have applied various management approaches with the aim of preserving the environmental condition and providing for sustainable use. At its inception, the zoning plan (2000-2004) was designed to separate Surin into zones with different degrees of control (e.g. prohibition of entry, limitation of activities); however, due to the lack of flexibility and lack of public support, the plan was altered many times when the condition of the reef and external influences changed. After the collapse of zoning plan in 2003, many of the management strategies were employed on an ad hoc basis (e.g. the mooring system and spreading tourism pressure among sites) with decisions being made without assessment of the effect of decisions and the capacity of reef management to respond to increased usage. This situation highlights the need to evaluate existing management approaches. While the management approaches being applied at Surin have inherent merit, problems that limit their effectiveness are the lack of awareness of management and poor understanding of the benefit of management, which is reflected in the level of public support. Management arrangements for Surin, so far, have focused on command and control mechanisms, with less attention given to communication strategies. A redirection of the management framework may be needed. Surin Marine National Park is chosen as a case study for this research because of the availability of biogeographic, socioeconomic and management information on the park. Information from this chapter will be combined with data on changes in coral cover (Chapter 5) and stakeholders’ opinion (Chapter 6) to assess the effectiveness of Surin’s management approaches.
60 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Chapter 5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT CHANGES AT SURIN MARINE NATIONAL PARK
The University of Queensland 61 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 5 Chapter 4 The Environmental Case of Surin and Management Marine National Changes at Surin Park Marine National Park
5.1 Chapter Overview
5.2 Biological 5.3 Study sites 5.4 Conditions of monitoring selection selected reefs method 5.3.1 Reef condition and characteristics 5.3.2 Specific 5.4.1 Chong Khad management Channel approaches 5.4.2 Mae Yai Bay 5.3.3 Accessibility 5.4.3 Mai Ngam to sites Bay 5.4.4 Suthep Bay 5.4.5 Pakkhad Bay 5.4.6 Turtle Bay 5.4.7 Torinla Island 5.4.8 Summary of trends
5.5 Problem management 5.5.1 El Niño phenomenon and mass coral bleaching
5.6 Conclusion 5.5.2 Illegal activities 5.5.3 Sediment and pollution loaded 5.5.4 The impact of SCUBA divers 5.5.4 The impact of visitors 5.5.5 Lack of management funding
Figure 5-1 Chapter 5 structure
62 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT CHANGES AT SURIN MARINE NATIONAL PARK 5.1 Chapter overview
Surin was established as a marine national park with the dual objectives of conserving the natural environment in its pristine condition and providing opportunities for people to enjoy and experience nature (RFD, 2000). Management approaches have sought to balance these two objectives. Concern for the condition of coral reefs around Surin resulted in management commissioning me to survey the reefs and make recommendations on use and management of the reefs. These were reported in an unpublished manuscript by the Department of Marine Science in 1997. At that time, the Department established an intensive oceanographic study that covered many issues that affect coral growth, such as water quality, physical oceanography, and marine biodiversity. Since 1997, regular information on coral life form cover has been collected from seven sites at Surin, and this information is analysed to identify changes that have taken place. The major changes are interpreted with reference to other changes that have occurred in the biophysical, social and managerial environment over this period. Much of this latter information was obtained through personal communication with park superintendents and staff. This chapter covers the period of 1997 to 2004. A detailed analysis of the effects of the 2004 tsunami is covered in Chapter 7. The chapter is divided into three parts: method and the selection of study sites, the analysis of life form cover changes and other biophysical changes at these study sites and finally a discussion of threats and management approaches for each site. 5.2 Biological monitoring method
Generally, researchers use several methods in combination to suit particular research questions. In this study, the objective was to measure the effectiveness of management approaches by examining change in coral condition. Monitoring methods should permit comparison of site condition over time. Frequently used survey techniques for monitoring biological changes are aerial photography and remote sensing, manta tow rapid survey, swimming survey (visual or video), line intercept transects, fish census (visual or video), quadrats and photo quadrats and circle sampling (Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1994; DMSCI, 1997; English et al., 1997; Worachananant & Thamrongnawasawat, 1999; RFD, 2000; Worachananant, 2000). Monitoring a large area requires more resources than a small area, so the level of monitoring will have to balance confidence in the data and cost of collection. On this basis, broad-scale methods were excluded. In addition, data from broad scale methods tend to be more qualitative and difficult to compare unless obvious differences exists. When I commenced monitoring coral cover in 1997, I selected the line intercept transect technique as the method for monitoring. The line intercept transect technique records the percent coverage by calculating the length of various life forms/substrates intercepting the transect. It gives the best
The University of Queensland 63 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas estimates of percent coral cover and diversity and allows observers who have limited experience in the identification of benthic communities to collect data (English et al., 1997). Data collected from one site on a reef cannot represent the entire reef and, likewise, data from one reef cannot represent the whole park. Sampling effort needs to be spread throughout the area of interest to be able to make general statements and conclusions about the area (Oxley, 1997). In this study, the surveys were conducted using intersect transects, 30 metre long, five lines per sample and four samples per site (20 lines per site). Each sample was independent of the other samples and did not overlap. Coral reef habitats usually change with depth and position on the reef (Figure 5-2). In this study, all transects were located in the edge-slope zone (between four to ten metres depth below mean sea level- MSL); the standard zone used for this type of monitoring in Thailand (Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1992; Phongsuwan et al., 1993; Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1994; DMSCI, 1997).
Figure 5.2 Reef position 5.3 Study sites selection
For this study, the main objective was to identify management strategies that are appropriate to Thailand’s environmental and socio-political conditions. Since the Thai government prohibits destructive activities (e.g. fishing or collecting marine organism) in marine parks, the focus is to reach a state of balance between tourism use and conservation of coral reefs. This study aims to identify the effect of recreational use and possible management strategies to minimise impacts.
64 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Thus, sites for study need to cover the range of recreational uses and intensities of use, as well as the range of bio-physical conditions involved and the suite of management methods being applied. Because of this diversity, and normal variation found within reef systems, a simple paired comparison with one or more control sites is not appropriate, whereas time series data that can identify trends is more likely to provide insight to the effect of use and management. This study incorporates detailed information on reef condition, based on coral cover and the abundance of other marine organisms that I have collected from 12 sites around Surin since 1997. This has enabled me to observe and gather data on changes that have taken place every year (except the year 2003). These data have not been used or reported previously. The primary objective of this monitoring was to investigate changes in coral reefs around Surin. When I commenced my doctoral study in 2003, it was difficult to maintain monitoring the 12 sites. The number of monitoring sites needs to be reduced. Seven sites from the previous 12 sites were chosen as representative based on their condition and reef characteristics, management strategies applied to the areas, and site accessibility. Detail of the selection criteria is presented in the following section. 5.3.1 Reef condition and characteristics The monitored 12 sites cover a range of reef characteristic from fragile dominated reefs to tolerant dominated reefs, reefs with gentle reef slopes to steep reef slopes, and sheltered reefs to exposed reefs. To cover all possible reef types at Surin, I selected study sites based on topography, geographic position, and dominant life form. a. Topography In my study, I found that topography created different types of reef. Reefs around North Surin Island have steeper reef slopes than reefs around South Surin Island. The topography of Torinla and Pachumba Islands permits the development of large reef flats. While the nature of pinnacles limits large reef formation, they support small coral communities and patch reef formation. For this study, I have selected areas with different topography, such as large and narrow reef flats, steep and gentle reef slopes and drop offs (Table 5-1). b. Geographic position of sites Due to the storm season, which occurs in Surin every six months, reefs are few and poorly developed in areas exposed to strong waves. Areas situated on the south-west of the islands and the pinnacles usually have a narrow reef flat. In some areas, there are no true reefs, corals cover hard substrates to form coral assemblages only. In contrast, areas on the eastern side of the islands, and sheltered from storms, usually have true reef formation. The position of sites around the islands (e.g. the middle of bays, around headlands or at drop-offs) has been used for selection of study sites. Sites were selected to cover both sheltered and exposed positions (Table 5-1). c. Dominant life form Reefs around Surin can be divided by the dominant coral life form. Some areas, such as Torinla Island, have more than 90% cover of branching corals, while in other areas, massive or encrusting corals dominate. Mae Yai Bay has been covered by algae (Padina sp.) for a long time27. Sites
27 After 2003, the area covered by Padina sp. reduced and the area showed signs of recolonisation by coral. In 2004, around 60% of area is covered by living coral.
The University of Queensland 65 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas were selected to ensure that each dominant life form was represented in at least one of the sites. Reef characteristics of selected sites around Surin are presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Information on characteristic of selected sites
Place Topography Position Dominant life forms Percent of living corals Stork Island Eastern Moderate reef flat Northern most island 25% branching 70 Bay Gentle reef slope Semi exposed in eastern side corals North Surin Island Sai Daeng Moderate reef flat Northern most bay of n. Surin 20% of branching 50 Bay Gentle reef slope Exposed to north-western corals direction Mae Yai Large reef flat Eastern side of N. Surin Covered by algae Less than 10 Bay Steep reef slope Sheltered bay (Padina sp.) for long time Mai Ngam Very large reef flat Western side of N Surin 20% of massive 50 Bay Moderate steep reef slope Sheltered bay corals Chong patch reef developed on Channel between N. and S. 23% of massive 25 Khad sand flat Surin corals Channel Most of the area shallow Channel and walkable during low tide South Surin Suthep Bay Large reef flat Western side of S. Surin 32% of branching 68 Gentle reef slope Sheltered bay and protected by corals Pachumba Island Pakkhad Small reef flat Southern most of S. Surin 40% of branching 70 Bay Gentle reef slope Island corals Exposed bay Turtle Bay Small reef flat Eastern side of S Surin Island 25% of massive 65 Gentle reef slope Exposed to eastern direction corals Very long straight shoreline Pachumba Island Eastern Small reef flat Western most Island 30% of branching 70 Bay Gentle reef slope Coral growth only on protected corals eastern side Torinla Island North- Large reef flat Southern most Island 75% of branching 90 eastern Bay Gentle reef slope Coral growth only on exposed corals North-eastern side Pinnacles Pae Group of rock form in Eastern side of S. Surin 10% of encrusting 15 Pinnacle straight direction corals (Front rock) Patch reef. Kong Group of rock form in oval North-western side of N. Surin 8% of encrusting 15 Pinnacle direction corals (Back rock) Patch reef. Source: Monitoring data from 1997 -2002
66 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
5.3.2 Specific management approaches Management approaches, which have been applied to specific areas in Surin, have been used as the second criterion for study site selection. The 2000-2004 zoning plan divided Surin into zones, with some excluding access and others that prohibited specific activities or allocated times for specified activities28. The zoning plan was changed a number of times because of perceived changes in reef condition and increasing demand by visitors (Table 5-2). Tourists, especially divers, did not want to go to damaged reefs. In response to additional tourist demand, in 2002 and 2003 the prohibited areas of Torinla Island, Stork Island and both pinnacles were opened to diving activities. That is, no area is currently prohibited from diving activity. Given the need to meet the demands of tourists and still achieve conservation objectives, in late 2003 Surin’s managers adopted a facilitation approach to management, using a mooring buoy strategy29. With the introduction of the mooring system, in 2004 management arrangements to limit use were proposed.
Table 5-2 Timeline of management applied or changed
Year Situation(s) 2000 Zoning plan (2000-2004) was applied (to be reviewed in 5 years). 2001 Frequency of patrol was increased. 2002 Some formerly prohibited areas were opened for tourism activities (Stork Island, Pinnacles). SCUBA diver fee system was introduced. 2003 More formerly prohibited areas were open (Torinla Island, Mae Yai Bay). Mooring system was applied. Education centre was improved. 2004 Limiting visitors to Chong Khad Channel by tidal condition was proposed (but not implemented due to the destruction of Chong Khad reefs by the tsunami). Limiting the number of visitor by time was proposed for Suthep Bay. Visitor centre was improved. Source: Park declarations, Department of National Park’s (DNP’s) notices and personal communication with park superintendents.
5.3.3 Accessibility to sites The third criterion used to select study sites was accessibility of the areas. Currently, Surin has one main accommodation area and one campground. The accommodation area is situated at Chong Khad Bay, near the park headquarters, and the campground is located at Mai Ngam Bay. As boating is essential for most activities, use pressure is highest in areas close to these bays and reduces with distance. Details of site locations in relation to accommodation and the pressure of use are summarised in Table 5-3.
28 See Section 4.5.1 29 See Section 4.5.2
The University of Queensland 67 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Table 5-3 Management strategies applied at Surin and pressure of use
Distance from Specification Special management Place Actual use accommodation Dominant uses in zoning plan arrangements centre1 Stork Island Eastern Bay Strict nature Recreation area Visitor numbers limited by 30-60 minute boat ride Snorkelling boat scheduling North Surin Sai Daeng Bay Outdoor Recreation area Limiting number of visitors by 30-60 minute boat ride Snorkelling recreation boat scheduling Mae Yai Bay Recovery Recreation area No 15-30 minute boat ride Snorkelling Mai Ngam Bay Outdoor Recreation area No Accessible without boat Swimming recreation Snorkelling SCUBA diving Kayaking Reef walking Chong Khad Intensive used Recreation area Limiting number of visitor by Accessible without boat Swimming Channel tide (proposed)2 Snorkelling SCUBA diving Kayaking Reef walking South Surin Suthep Bay Outdoor Recreation area Limiting number of visitor by 15-30 minute boat ride Snorkelling recreation time3 SCUBA diving Pakkhad Bay Outdoor Recreation area Limiting number of visitor by 30-60 minute boat ride Snorkelling recreation moorring4 SCUBA diving Turtle Bay Outdoor Recreation area No 15-30 minute boat ride Snorkelling recreation SCUBA diving Pachumba Island Eastern Bay Strict nature Recreation area No 5-15 minute boat ride Snorkelling SCUBA diving Torinla Island North-eastern Strict nature Recreation area Limiting number of visitor by 30-60 minute boat ride Snorkelling Bay moorring3 SCUBA diving Pinnacles Pae Pinnacle Strict nature Recreation area No 5-15 minute boat ride SCUBA diving (Front rock) Snorkelling Kong Pinnacle Strict nature Recreation area No 30-60 minute boat ride SCUBA diving (Back rock) Source: Park declarations, DNP’s notices and personal communication with park superintendents. Remarks: 1 Travelling time indicates use of the long-tail boat, the travelling time was cut in half after the introduction of high speed boats in 2001; 2. This area is shallow and proposed to be closed during low tide before the tsunami; however, the tsunami destroyed most of Chon Khad reefs, so this proposal was not implemented; 3. This area is unpassable from the main accommodation during low tide; 4. These areas are quota limited by the number of mooring buoys installed.
Using these three criteria, seven sites have been chosen: Mai Ngam Bay (number 1 in Figure 5-2), Suthep Bay (2), Torinla Island (3), Mae Yai Bay (4), Chong Khad Channel (5), Turtle Bay (6A) and Pakkhad Bay (6 B) (Table 5-4 and Figure 5-3). Chong Khad Channel and Mai Ngam Bay were selected as high use sites. Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay were chosen because of their fragile
68 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park environment (being covered mostly by branching coral). Suthep Bay, Mae Yai Bay and Turtle Bay were selected because of the different management strategies applied at these sites.
Table 5-4 Detail of selected sites
Pressure of Place Environmental condition Management uses Mai Ngam Bay Large reef flat, spur and groove reef created by - Heavy freshwater runoff Suthep Bay Large reef flat with branching coral Time limitation Little Torinla Island Large reef flat with branching coral Mooring system Moderate Mae Yai Bay Damage for long time but recently showing signs Recently open for Little of recovery uses Chong Khad Massive coral, the area has good water flow Tide limitation Heavy Channel Turtle Bay Moderate reef flat with massive coral - Heavy Pakkhad Bay Small reef flat with branching coral Mooring system Moderate
Figure 5-3 Selected sites 5.4 Condition of selected reefs
This section describes the change in life form cover at the selected sites and some factors that may have affected these changes. Monitoring data were collected from 1997 to 2002 and from 2004 to 2006. The information on circumstances at the sites that may have led to changes in coral cover were obtained by personal observation, interviews with park staff, and documents, both academic and news items published in Thai newspapers and magazines. Figures of coral cover change are presented in four combined categories; fragile, tolerant, dead coral and living coral (combination of
The University of Queensland 69 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas fragile and tolerant). Details of monitoring data and analyses of each coral life form are presented in Appendix I. Life forms of coral can be classified into fragile types that are vulnerable to physical impacts and tolerant types that have more resistance to physical impacts. The ‘tolerant types’ include massive (e.g., Porites lutea), submassive (e.g., Pocillopora damicornis) and encrusting (e.g., Favia sp.) corals, while the ‘fragile types’ include branching (e.g., Acropora branching), tabulate (e.g., Acropora tabulate) and foliose types (e.g., Montipora sp.). 5.4.1 Chong Khad Channel a. General This 200 metre-wide channel is situated between North and South Surin Islands (Figure 5-4), very close to the main accommodation area and park headquarters. The shallow channel is walkable during low tide.
Figure 5-4 Study area in Chong Khad Channel This area was a preferred place for snorkelling due to its proximity to the accommodation site. Park managers also promoted this channel as a snorkelling practice area30. From 2001, tourism pressure rapidly increased in this area. Day-tripping was introduced by faster boats that reduced the travel time from the mainland from three to one hour. Park policies required every visitor to register at the headquarters during their visits, so many visitors decided to snorkel here when they visited.
30 This channel received severe damage from the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and is no longer suitable for swimming and snorkelling.
70 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Kayaking was added as a tourism activity in 2001. Kayaks changed from fibreglass to inflatable on the recommendation of the Department of Marine Science, Kasetsart University in 2003, when physical damage to coral colonies from incautious kayakers became evident. Most of the area is covered by dead coral or non-coralline substrate (e.g. sand, rock or other benthic organisms rather than coral). Tolerant coralline life forms dominate (e.g. massive, submassive and encrusting). The study site was situated in the most intensively used area between North and South Surin (Figure 5-4) and was approximately two to five metres deep. b. Changes Fragile corals are not common in this area (Figure 5-5). With average cover less than three percent, changes in fragile corals are not considered as important as those for the dominant tolerant forms.
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
40
% cover 30
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year
Waste water Destroyed El Niño Speed boat treatment introduced by tsunami installed
Figure 5-5 Changes in substrate cover in Chong Khad Channel (1997-2004) Total live coral cover declined significantly from 1997 to 1998 (T-test, t=3.40, p<0.01), possibly because of the 1998 El Niño phenomenon31, which caused coral bleaching. Bleached tolerant corals, especially massive, were obvious during late 1997 and early 1998 when I conducted the monitoring survey. Massive corals declined significantly (t=2.52, p<0.05) between 1997 and 1998, but remained in a steady state between 1998 and 1999. Fragile corals cover also declined significantly between 1997 and 1998, and 1998 and 1999 (t=2.41 and t=4.10 at p<0.05, respectively). The proportion of living corals increased significantly (t=-2.64, p<0.05) in 2000 coincidently with the installation of the wastewater treatment system. Living corals cover declined slowly in 2001, 2002 and 2004 but changes were not statistically significant between years (t=1.28, t=1.20 and t=1.02 respectively, p>0.05, in all cases). The living corals response after introduction
31 The El Niño occurred during my survey period in late 1997 and early 1998 (referred as 1998). Sites susceptible to bleaching (e.g. shallow water or water had limited movement, see West, 2001), such as Chong Khad Channel, showed obvious sign of bleaching in the 1998 survey, while other places (e.g. Mae Yai Bay) did not shown obvious signs in 1998 but was evident in the 1999 survey.
The University of Queensland 71 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas of the wastewater treatment system gives reason to believe that this strategy was effective in improving condition for coral growth. 5.4.2 Mae Yai Bay a. General Mae Yai Bay is the largest bay on the east side of North Surin Island (Figure 5-6). The entire bay was closed in 1997 for rehabilitation from the outbreak of brown algae (Padina sp.) and reopened by park management in 2003 for snorkelling. In 1997, the alga covered more than 80% of the Bay between 3 metres and 45 metres in depth (DMSCI, 1997).
Figure 5-6 Study area at Mae Yai Bay Under the 2000-2004 zoning plan, the entire bay was zoned as a recovery zone and all tourism activities were prohibited. However, the bay was still used as a mooring bay for fishing boats seeking shelter during storms. Some minor illegal fishing (line fishing) and garbage disposal (damaged nets) still occurred. In 2003, park management temporarily allowed diving in this area when signs of recovery were evident and coral conditions in other sites were degrading in comparison to Mae Yai Bay. The park regulated snorkelling trips to the Bay to once a day. The area allocated for snorkelling is the edge-slope zone between five to ten metres depth. This bay has a large reef flat and steep reef slope. Corals are found from one metre to approximately 50 metres depth. Thamrongnawasawat et al. (1995) reported that this area is a place where the reef had grown over an ancient reef and collapses in the underlying substrate of old coral communities have created small blue holes. Dead corals and other substrates (e.g. sand, rock or algae) cover most of the area. The dominant coral life forms are massive, submassive and
72 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park encrusting32. The study area is at the northern side of the bay where snorkelling is currently permitted (see Figure 5-6). b. Changes While 80% of the bay was covered by algae, the study area selected was the least affected by the algae outbreak with more than 58% living corals cover (average, SE=1.54). Since the beginning of monitoring, the area has experienced significant change in the proportion of tolerant coral cover (Figure 5-7).
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
40
% cover 30
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004
Year
Snorkelling El Niño Waste water treatment permitted installed
Figure 5-7 Changes in substrate cover at Mae Yai Bay A t-test analysis shows that corals cover increased between 1997 and 1998 (t=-4.03, p<0.01) and declined in 1999 (t=4.05, p<0.01). Sign of bleaching were not obvious during the 1998 surveys but was recognised as dead coral (patchy area of dead massive corals) in the 1999 surveys. Brown algae cover increased from 16% in 1998 to 26% in 1999. The algae shaded some massive and submassive corals. Most coral life forms increased significantly in the period 2000-2001. The proportion of living corals cover changed from 41%±1.7 (Mean% ±SE) in 2000 to 74%±1.7 in 2001. Small colonies and recruitments were found on hard substrates, previously covered by Padina. The overall living corals cover was stable between 2001and 2004. There are three possible types of nutrient sources that accelerate the Padina growth which are freshwater run-off, upwelling and wastewater. Surin is a vegetative high island, hence there is a lot of underground water transferred to sea. Such underground water can be a good source of nutrient for Padina growth. However, there are large reservoirs on both North and South Surin island and the South one is larger tha the north one. In this case, one might expect Padina to be wide spread on South Surin’s reefs. This is not the case since the outbreak is wider spread on the North Island
32 The proportion changed after 2000 when brown algae almost disappeared and recruitment of corals was seen.
The University of Queensland 73 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
(Mae Yai Bay and North of Chong Khad Channel) than the South (small part of Chong Khad Channel). The other important source of nutrient might come from the upwelling which is very distinct in this area (close to the continental shelf edge). One might expect the higher impact of upwelling from the western side of the island which is closer to the continental shelf edge, however, this I not the case again since Mae Yai Bay is on the Eastern side of North Surin Island. The Department of Marine Science (1997) suggested that untreated water from accommodation areas, with high detergent and hence nutrient levels, was the main cause for the algal bloom. The living corals response after introduction of the wastewater treatment system gives reason to believe that this strategy was effective in reducing the algal bloom and improving conditions for coral growth33. Permitting snorkelling in 2003 seems not to have had much impact in this area; perhaps because of the dominance of tolerant coral life forms. It has to be noted that the data was gathered from the edge-slope zone where the mooring buoys are installed and most of the snorkellers dived there. The water is considerably deep and impact of snorkellers might occur on the reef flat where it is shallower. 5.4.3 Mai Ngam Bay a. General Mai Ngam Bay is an enclosed bay on the western side of North Surin Island (Figure 5-8). In the past, this area was severely damaged by blast and illegal fishing (RFD, 2000). The Department of Marine Science also found evidence of damaged fish net disposal and blast fishing as recently as 1997 (DMSCI, 1997). An accommodation area was established adjacent to this area in 2003, and was fully functional in 2004. The facility was limited to camping (i.e. no houses or bungalows).
This area has a very large shallow reef flat34. There is use pressure coming from visitors from both accommodation areas. Most snorkellers, accommodated in the campground, walk across the reef flat to dive, and the Park offers a daily boat trip from the main accommodation area. The edge- slope area is the most favoured spot for snorkelling (approximate five to ten metres deep). The study area is situated on the southern side of the Bay, where the Park usually takes people to snorkel (Figure 5-8).
33 See Section 5.6.3. 34 Distance from lowest water mark to the reef edge is more than 400 m.
74 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Figure 5-8 Study area at Mai Ngam and Suthep Bays b. Changes Living coral covers approximately 55% of the study area (Figure 5-9). The dominant coral life forms are tolerant types (31%±0.7).
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 % cover 20 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year
Evidence of El Niño Large mooring Increased Campground blast fishing installed patrolling opened
Figure 5-9 Changes in substrate cover at Mai Ngam Bay
The University of Queensland 75 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The results of the t-test show that corals declined between 1997 and 1998 (t=9.05, p<0.01), and between 1998 and 1999 (t=6.20, p<0.01). This appears to be due to coral bleaching during the 1998 El Nino. Bleaching was observed over a large area of both tolerant and fragile coral. The proportion of living to dead corals improved in 2000 (t=-6.08, p<0.01) and was stable until 2002. The proportion of living corals cover significantly increased between 2002 and 2004 (t=-5.87, p<0.01). After the coral bleaching, reef in this bay has shown signs of recovery and this appears to match management input (e.g. the installation of large mooring and the more frequent patrolling). In addition, the introduction of the campground has not been associated with any decline in reef quality. 5.4.4 Suthep Bay a. General Suthep Bay is the only bay on the western side of South Surin Island where reef has developed. The Bay is not fully sheltered, but is protected from the monsoon influence by Pachumba Island (Figure 5-8). A ranger patrol station was proposed for this area in 1997 (RFD, 2000), but the construction has been delayed because of a lack of funding and personnel. In late 2001, a massive landslide occurred here resulting in increased turbidity and impacts from terrestrial objects (e.g. logs, tree branches) drifting into and smashing coral colonies. This area was opened to snorkelling in 1999 with the establishment of a snorkelling trail. However, the snorkelling trail has been inoperable since 2001 due to a lack of maintenance. This Bay is difficult to visit during low tide when boats are not able to pass Chong Khad Channel. Park management organises a daily snorkel trip to the bay during high tide. The study area is situated at the southern side of the Bay where the park rangers usually bring people to snorkel (Figure 5-8). This area has a very large reef flat and a gentle slope. The inner reef flat is mostly covered by sand, while the outer reef flat and reef edge are dominated by branching corals. b. Changes Approximately 70% of the study area is covered by living corals (Figure 5-10). The area is dominated by fragile corals (41%±0.7).
76 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
40
30 % cover
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004
Year
Massive El Niño Snorkelling introduced landslide
Figure 5-10 Changes in substrate cover at Suthep Bay The result of t-test analysis shows that coral cover increased between 1997 and 1998 (t=-8.70, p<0.01). The decline in 1999 (t=11.27, p<0.01) was probably caused by coral bleaching. Bleaching may have occurred in 1998 but was not obvious in the 1998 survey period, though the result was recorded in the 1999 survey. Bleaching was observed over a large area of both tolerant and fragile coral. Around 2000, the proportion of living corals increased (t=-3.97, p<0.01) and remained relatively stable until 2001. The proportion of fragile corals cover significantly decreased between 2001 and 2002 (t=2.54, p<0.05), when the landslide occurred. Branching coral decreased significantly (t= 4.07, p<0.01)35. Between 2002 and 2004, branching coral cover increased significantly (t=-4.10, p<0.01). This very variable picture of coral cover may indicate that branching coral is more vulnerable than massive coral, especially to direct impacts. However, broken colonies might not be completely killed, but moved to another place and may act as ‘stepping stones’ for coral regeneration (Rouphael & Inglis, 1995). In this area, coral recovery after the 1998 El Nino event appears not to have been impeded by tourist snorkelling activities. 5.4.5 Pakkhad Bay a. General Pakkhad Bay is a small and exposed bay situated at the southern tip of South Surin Island (Figure 5- 11). It was zoned for recreation in 2000 because of its diversity of fish and corals (Thamrongnawasawat et al., 1995; Thamrongnawasawat et al., 2000). Because of its distance from Park headquarters, this area has tended to receive infrequent patrolling. The frequency of patrols was increased when snorkelling was introduced in 2000.
35 See Appendix I
The University of Queensland 77 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The number of snorkellers has increased since 2001 when speedboats were introduced to Surin. Before 2001, travel to this bay took thirty to forty minutes. Speedboats and the higher powered engines of the park’s long tail boats have reduced travel time to ten to fifteen minutes. Park management organises daily snorkel trips, and all diving companies operate from the mainland to this bay. To regulate the number of visitors, park management developed a mooring system to control the number of boats36 in 2003. The area has a narrow reef flat and steep slope. Tabulate and foliose corals dominate the reef flat, while massive corals dominate the reef edge. Together with Torinla Island, this area is the most diverse reef within Surin and also supports the highest abundance of fishes (RFD, 2000). The study area covers most of the bay (Figure 5-11).
Figure 5-11 Study area at Pakkhad Bay, Turtle Bay and Torinla Island b. Changes Living corals, dominated by fragile types (62%±1.2), cover approximately 80% of the study area (Figure 5-12). Of this, branching coral covers more than 57%±1.1.
36 See Section 4.5.2
78 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
40
% cover 30
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year
El Niño Snorkelling Increased Mooring introduced tourism system pressure applied
Figure 5-12 Changes in substrate cover at Pakkhad Bay The result of t-test analysis shows that corals cover continually decreased between 1997 and 1999. The reason for the decline between 1997 and 1998 (t=2.81, p<0.05) is unclear. The decline in the period of 1998 - 1999, which may have been caused by coral bleaching, was not statistically significant (t=1.63, p>0.05). Bleaching was observed to be patchy across this area but not obviously seen as areas of mass bleaching. The proportion of living corals increased between 1999 and 2000 (t=-2.70, p<0.05) and dropped again in late 2000 (t=3.40, p<0.01). Living corals cover declined between 2001 and 2002 (t=1.74, p>0.05) but increased significantly in 2003 (t=-2.32, p<0.05), especially tabulate, massive and submassive forms (see Appendix I). Living coral cover did not significantly decline around the 1998 El Niño. This may possibly be because the exposed environment has better water flow, which reduced the effect of water warming (which causes coral bleaching). Branching coral cover decreased significantly (t= 2.4, p<0.05) and dead coral cover increased (t=-3.7, p<0.01) in late 2000. At this time, the area was subject to increased recreational use including snorkelling. Further monitoring is needed to confirm if use in this area is a factor in the continuing decline of fragile corals. If this is so, then they are also highly responsive to management given the improvement/stabilizing in 2004, after the installation of the mooring system. 5.4.6 Turtle Bay a. General Turtle Bay is a long and exposed bay situated on the south-eastern part of South Surin Island (Figure 5-11). It was zoned for recreation in 2000. Previous study indicates that more than 95% of visitors used this bay at least once (Piewsawat & Worachananant, 2001). In 2001, a self-guided snorkelling trail was established; however, due to lack of maintenance, it was unusable by 2003. This area was scheduled by park management for snorkel trips two times a day.
The University of Queensland 79 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The bay has a moderately wide reef flat (150 m) and steep slope. Sand and submassive coral mostly covers the reef flat, while the reef edge is dominated by massive coral. The study area is situated near the southern end of the bay (Figure 5-11). b. Changes Approximately 70% of the study area is covered by living corals (Figure 5-13) and dominated by tolerant types (45%±0.8). Of this, massive coral covers more than 24%±0.537.
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
40 % cover
30
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year
El Niño Increased tourism pressure
Figure 5-13 Changes in substrate cover at Turtle Bay The results from t-test analysis show that coral cover decreased between 1997 and 2001. The cause of this decline from 1997 to 1998 (t=3.21, p<0.05) is unclear. Bleaching in this area is minor. No large bleached area was seen, and only a small amount of massive coral was seen bleached. The increasing number of visitors in 2000 also did not cause a significant change in this area (t=0.26, p>0.05). Reef in this area exhibits significant resistance to coral bleaching. A possible reason for this tolerance may be the topography of this exposed bay which promotes frequent changes of tidal currents (West, 2001). The steady decline in coral cover after the bleaching may be associated with use pressure. This is supported by the shift in coral cover type towards tolerant forms.
37 See Appendix I
80 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
5.4.7 Torinla Island a. General Torinla Island lies in the southern most part of the group (Figure 5-11). It has been a restricted area in many zoning plans over time. In the last zoning plan (2000-2004), it was identified as a strict nature reserve, only available for research purposes. However, due to circumstances that reduced the abundance and attractiveness of reefs around Surin, this area was opened for recreational uses in 2003 and was scheduled for snorkel trips daily. This area has a large reef flat and a gentle reef slope. Most of the area is covered by branching coral and the water is very clear. The study area is situated in the north-eastern bay (Figure 5-11). b. Changes Living corals cover approximately 90% of the study area (Figure 5-14). Dominant life forms are fragile types (75%±0.7). Within this, branching coral covers more than 69%±0.838.
100 Tolerant form Fragile form Dead and Other Living corals 90
80
70
60
50
% cover 40
30
20
10
0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year
El Niño Increased Opened patrolling to divers Figure 5-14 Changes in substrate cover at Torinla Island The results of t-tests show that coral cover was steady between 1997 and 1998. The declination between 1998 and 1999 (t=8.66, p<0.01) was probably caused by coral bleaching. Bleached corals were obvious at this time and large areas of branching coral were affected. Living corals cover steadily increased between 1999 and 2002. At the time the area was opened to use in 2003, data on coral cover had not been collected. However, data from 2004 showed signs of decline of some life forms (e.g. foliose, tabulate and encrusting). There was a significant increase in dead coral cover (t=3.42, p<0.01) in 2004.
38 See Appendix I
The University of Queensland 81 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
This site seems to be highly responsive to perturbation (low resistance) but highly resilient, which is consistent with the dominant coral cover type (fragile corals form). The changes in coral type cover over time suggest that management has had a positive effect in the case of patrolling, and negatively in the case of opening the site to diving. 5.4.8 Summary of trends Chong Khad Channel, a well-used site, exhibits declining living coral cover. Mae Yai Bay exhibits increasing coral cover, especially tolerant forms. Mai Ngam Bay exhibits stable, or possibly slightly increasing living coral cover. Suthep Bay exhibits a slight increase in living coral cover. Pakkhad Bay exhibits a decline in fragile forms and an increase in tolerant forms with the result of a net decline in living coral cover. It is not clear what factors influence this change; although a possible reason is that the whole area is in a transitional state of dominant coral moving from fragile to tolerant forms. Turtle Bay exhibits stable conditions in terms of living coral cover, but there is a trend for a greater proportion of tolerant forms and a decreasing proportion of fragile forms. Torinla Island appears to be relatively stable, although between 2002 and 2004, there has been a decline in both tolerant and fragile forms. Generally, the reefs seem to be relatively stable, responding to perturbation although quick to recover. Combined, many of the changes in coral cover parallel changes in management practice or visitation rates. This reinforces the view that the reefs of Surin are highly responsive to disturbance but recover quickly once the impacting force is relaxed. It also suggests that even minor changes in management practice can have beneficial (and harmful) effects on the quality of the reefs. The recent decline in fragile forms of living coral cover at some places warrants monitoring. 5.5 Problem management
As is common in other marine parks39, Surin has faced many threats in the past decade. Despite regulations prohibiting destructive harvesting, illegal fishing still occurs in many areas. Increasing sediment and pollution loads from accommodation areas has caused physical and chemical changes to the seawater (DMSCI, 1997). The introduction of high speed motor boats is reflected in increasing visitor numbers. In this section, the threats that have arisen in Surin between 1997 and 2004 are identified and discussed in terms of how the park has responded. 5.5.1 El Niño phenomenon and mass coral bleaching The increased temperature from the El Niño phenomenon caused mass coral bleaching in many areas around Surin. The proportion of dead corals increased at all study sites (Table 5-5). It should be noted that during my survey my dive computer indicated the increased temperature of seawater around one to four degree Celsius in every study sites. Of all study sites, the El Niño effect was most obvious at Chong Khad Channel during the 1998 survey while the effects at the other places were not recorded until the 1999 survey.
39 See Chapter 3
82 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Table 5-5 Mean value of percent coral cover and observation of bleaching levels at seven sites after coral bleaching
Place Fragile form Tolerant form Dead corals and other Level of observed Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change bleaching Chong Mean 4.3 2.5 32.2 26.7 65.6 70.9 Large area Khad SE 0.6 0.4 Ø 1.4 1.7 Ø 1.2 1.7 × bleached Mae Yai Mean 6.1 4.8 33.9 23.9 60.0 71.3 Patchy Bay SE 0.6 0.4 Ø 2.3 2.0 Ø 2.0 1.9 × bleached Mai Ngam Mean 24.1 18.0 29.2 25.0 46.8 57.0 Large area Bay SE 1.5 1.3 Ø 1.4 1.1 Ø 1.3 1.0 × bleached Pakkhad Mean 73.8 71.5 14.2 12.6 12.1 16.0 Bay SE 2.3 1.1 Ø 1.1 1.1 Ø 2.2 1.0 × Not obvious Suthep Mean 50.4 37.0 36.8 26.4 12.8 36.6 Large area Bay SE 1.0 1.4 Ø 1.2 0.9 Ø 1.2 1.7 × bleached Turtle Bay Mean 30.2 32.2 45.6 41.4 24.3 26.5 Patchy SE 1.7 1.6 × 1.2 1.7 Ø 2.1 1.4 × bleached Torinla Mean 78.4 64.7 13.6 11.9 8.1 23.5 Large area Island SE 1.3 1.4 Ø 0.7 0.9 Ø 1.1 1.4 × bleached Remark: Comparison is between the year before (1998 survey) and after (1999 survey) the El Niño, except Chong Khad Channel where comparison is between the 1997 and 1998 survey.
Two-thirds of the world’s reefs were bleached in 1998 (Burke et al., 2002). Surin, like many other places around the world (see Wilkinson et al., 2000), received significant impact from the El Niño. Some reefs in the General Use Zone and Outdoor Recreation Zone40 designated for diving, both SCUBA and snorkelling, were under severe threat and some reefs were extensively damaged (see RFD, 2000). Experiences worldwide41 suggest that positive actions that might assist reef recovery should be undertaken. The basic assumption behind the guidelines is that reefs will regenerate, given the right environmental conditions and sufficient time. Coral reefs can recover from major events if other negative impacts are minimised (see Coles, 2001; Done, 2001). In the case of Surin, some severely bleached places were closed for rehabilitation. In fact, tourists, especially divers, did not want to go to affected reefs. While experience worldwide (Salm et al., 2001) suggests the temporary closure of resilient areas (tolerant to bleaching) to assist restoration, this strategy proved to be impossible to apply at Surin. The limited number of sites available after coral bleaching made visitor management difficult since the number of visitors was increasing each year. While management capacity relies on tourism expenditure, prohibiting visitors from diving in less impacted areas is difficult. In response, park management sought to reduce the possible ‘top up’ pressure caused by tourism activity by spreading use to allow the recovery of affected areas The zoning plan was altered to allow diving activities in areas that were formerly prohibited (Table 5-2). Further discussion on this alteration of management practice in response to tourism pressure is provided in Section 5.5.5. 5.5.2 Illegal activities Lack of regular patrolling results in the occurrence of illegal fishing at Surin, especially in the areas far from the headquarters (e.g. Mai Ngam Bay, Stork Island, Sai Daeng Bay) (RFD, 2000). Mai
40 See Section 4.5.1 41 See Section 3.3.1
The University of Queensland 83 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Ngam Bay, one of the study sites on the western side of North Surin, has been seriously affected by blast fishing and crushing of coral by large fish traps (over 2 metres high). Damage from blast fishing and anchor damage42 were seen during the study in 1997. In 1999, park management installed three large mooring buoys and encouraged people not to anchor on reefs. Anchors cause damage to coral reefs during setting, retrieval, and while at anchor. Corals are broken, fragmented, or overturned as the anchor drops to the substratum. Once set, further damage occurs by the chain dragging across the substratum or wrapping around reef structures. If the anchor stays under a coral colony, overturning occurs during the retrieval process, particularly if an electronic winch is used. Coral reefs that experience high intensities of boating activities have higher levels of broken corals (Dinsdale & Harriott, 2004). Casual observations from the site suggest less anchor damage to coral when compared with the previous ‘no mooring’ state. The percentage cover of all living coral increased significantly (t=-6.08, p<0.01) between 1999 and 2000; however, fragile type corals, which are more susceptible to anchor damage (McManus et al., 1997; Dinsdale & Harriott, 2004), improved only slightly (t=-0.79, p>0.05). Mai Ngam Bay also showed evidence of a shift in the amount of encrusting corals cover between years; however, there was no obvious reason for the cause of this change. The decline in encrusting coral may be the result of damaged fishnets being thrown overboard to cover the corals43. This effect has been reported by many researchers who note that fishnet covered coral colonies are weakened and living tissue is damaged (Phongsuwan et al., 1993; DMSCI, 1997; RFD, 2000). Reduction of blast fishing was coincidental with the increased frequency of patrols in 2001, which is common in many cases (Sudara, 2002a; Dygico, 2003; Erdmann, 2003). In addition, the introduction of new sites for snorkelling also reduced the level of illegal fishing encountered. This finding is also reported by others (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Dearden et al., 2000; RFD, 2000). 5.5.3 Sediment and pollution loads Sewage runoff from land facilities creates both direct and indirect effects to coral reefs (Bjork et al., 1995; Cesar et al., 1997). A very high nutrient concentration can cause direct toxic effects on reef organisms. At a moderate nutrient level, indirect effects (such as increased turbidity) can lead to decreased light penetration, which can result in low coral growth. In addition, nutrients can enhance algal growth, which leads to a decline in coral cover. The Department of Marine Science study (DMSCI, 1997) reported high levels of nutrients in waters around all park accommodation sites. Freshwater and sewage run-off onto the reef flat affects corals directly at Chong Khad Channel, which is adjacent to the main tourist accommodation. This high level of nutrient also affects the reefs in Mae Yai Bay. The bay acts like a reservoir that keeps water from Chong Khad Channel, with the water being circulated within this large bay (DMSCI, 1997). Eutrophication is likely to occur if nutrients are added from park accommodation. The eutrophication can cause an overpopulation of brown algae (Padina sp.) and coralline algae. Sewage treatment may help reduce the cover of algae; so, based on this logic, a sewage treatment system was established in mid 1999. After the installation, the percentage of algal cover at Mae Yai
42 See Box 4-1 43 During the monitoring survey, fish nets covering coral were observed around transects.
84 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Bay decreased from 54% in 1999 to 45% in 2000 (t=-4.10, p<0.01). In 2001, algal cover reduced significantly to 19%. While there has been no subsequent study to confirm the lower levels of nutrients within the channel and bay, the reduction of algal cover and increased coral recruitment provides indirect support for the effectiveness of the sewage treatment works in reducing impacts on the reef44.
5.5.4 The impact of SCUBA divers45 Coral reefs are one of the most popular resources for tourist use, indicated by increasing numbers of visitors each year to diving sites (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998; Piewsawat, 2002; Sudara, 2002a, 2002b). Due to the rapid growth in tourism, damage to the environment is increasingly an issue that has attracted considerable research attention (Kenchington 1993; Davis & Tisdell 1996; Rouphael & Inglis 2001). In Thailand, the degradation of marine resources can be divided into three main issues: the effect of habitat modification, pollution and tourist activities themselves. As visitor numbers increased to the area, impacts tend to become more prevalent. The increasing impact tourist activity may have on coral reefs is a major concern especially on water activities. The impacts of reef recreation activities have received attention from many marine researchers (Woodland & Hooper, 1977; Liddle & Kay, 1987; Kay & Liddle, 1989; Sudara et al., 1991; Hawkins & Roberts, 1992, 1993; Mohamaed et al., 1994; Rouphael & Inglis, 1997; Al-Jufaili et al., 1999; Rouphael & Inglis, 2001; Tratalos & Austin, 2001). The recreation activities identified as bringing physical changes to coral reefs include: incremental effects from reef walking, snorkelling, and SCUBA diving through kicking, touching or standing on the coral, as well as sporadic effects from anchoring in coral beds, and boats colliding with reefs. Some studies have raised the concern that SCUBA diving may also constitute a significant threat. Breakage of corals by SCUBA divers has been documented worldwide, including reports from Egypt (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992), the USA (Talge, 1992), Australia (Rouphael & Inglis, 1997) and the Caribbean (Tratalos & Austin, 2001). Many report that most divers contact corals during their dive but the damage caused by contact varies. The effect of SCUBA divers coming in contact with coral during a dive was examined at Surin as part of this study. a. Survey methods Observations were made on the behaviour of 40 SCUBA divers visiting four different dive sites (Mae Yai Bay, Mai Ngam Bay, Turtle Bay and Torinla Island) in Surin during November 2004. Selection of divers to be observed aimed for a representative sample of the demographics of dive groups, including age, gender, level of diving experience and attendance at a pre-dive briefing46. Each subject was observed underwater for 10 minutes. The dives usually lasted about 60 minutes and approximately three divers were observed in each 10 minutes of the dive. Information on the
44 The Boxing Day Tsunami disturbed the monitoring of the changes since it wiped most of the algae away. 45 Some of this section of this dissertation was presented as poster form in Worachananant, S., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M. & Reopanichkul, P. 2006, 'Managing the impacts of SCUBA divers on Thailand's Marine National Park', at the East Asian Seas Congress 2006, Haikou City, Hainan Province, China, 12-16 December 2006. 46 The pre-dive briefing session covers detail on dive location, things to see, safety procedures and brief responsible behaviours (e.g. no touch).
The University of Queensland 85 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas gender of each diver, the site where they were dived, the time of observation during the dive (i.e. which of the 10 minutes periods) and whether they carried a camera was documented. For each subject, the level of training and experience (number of dives completed since gaining qualifications) were asked from the dive operators. Observers entered the water with the dive party and remained a distinct distance behind their subjects (usually 5-10 metres depending on visibility). To avoid influencing the subject's behaviour, divers were not informed of the activities of the observers until all dives were completed. The number of times each diver made physical damaged with the substratum or corals during the dive was recorded. Damage was classified according to whether they were made to any type of substratum involved. Benthic substrata was categorised by life form as branching (including tabulate), massive (including sub-massive), foliose and encrusting corals, and other substrates. For completeness, the disturbance to ‘other substrates’ was recorded when sessile organisms other than hard corals (e.g. gorgonian or sea anemone) were damaged, sand was disturbed, or rocks were dislodged. The mean number of diver interactions resulting in coral damage in each 10 minutes period of the dive was compared by statistical methods. Independent t-tests were used to assess the difference between the mean number of damaging contacts. Correlation between level of diver experience and number of divers who made contact with or damaged corals was analysed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. b. Characteristic of divers and their impacts on reefs Subjects of observation were mainly female (70%). Experience amongst the subjects varied widely. The number of logged dives varied from four to 152 (median=18 dives). Subjects were grouped into four ranks by their experience (Table 5-6). Seventy percent of divers had logged fewer than 50 dives before arriving at Surin.
Table 5-6 Number of divers’ logged dives
Ranks Frequency Percent 1 - 25 dives 16 40.0 26-50 dives 12 30.0 51-100 dives 3 7.5 100 dives up 9 22.5 Total 40 100
Twenty nine divers (73%) damaged coral at least once during the ten minute observation period. On average, each diver damaged around 2.9±1.4 (Mean±SE) corals per ten minutes. Visible damage caused by the divers normally consisted of the breaking of fragments of branching corals. The damage to massive and encrusting corals was not clearly seen, but the generation of mucus by affected coral was evident (Liddle & Kay, 1987) and used in this study as an indicator of damage. Kicks by divers’ fins were the major cause of coral damage (Table 5-7). Of the many types of substrate, branching coral received the highest level of damage from divers (75 times recorded) (Figure 5-15).
86 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Table 5-7 Number of times divers interacted coral reef substrates during 10 minutes (n=40)
Coral Other Types Total Branching Massive Foliose Encrusting substrate Hand 13 12 1 4 14 44 Knee 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fin 42 7 3 9 37 98 Damage by Gauges 13 4 9 3 7 36 Other 7 1 0 0 3 11 Total 75 24 13 16 61 189
Figure 5-15 Number of times divers came into contact with and damaged each substrate Fifteen divers (63%), who attended a pre-dive briefing (‘briefed divers’), damaged corals which was statistically different (t=5.27, p<0.05) from damage caused by divers (14 divers - 88%) who did not attend the pre-dive briefing (‘non-briefed divers’) (Table 5-8). In addition, the average number of corals damaged by non-briefed divers was significantly greater than damage caused by briefed divers (t=-4.58, p<0.01- Figure 5-16).
The University of Queensland 87 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Table 5-8 Summary of effects
Divers who of damaged coral Number Percent Pre -dive briefing attended No (n=16) 14 88 Yes (n=24) 15 63 Camera possession No (n=21) 13 62 Yes (n=19) 16 84 Gender Female (n=28) 23 82 Male (n=12) 5 42 Level of experience 1 - 25 dives (n=16) 14 88 26-50 dives (n=12) 7 58 51-100 dives (n=3) 2 67 100 dives up (n=9) 6 67
7.0 5.0 6.5 4.5 6.0 5.5 4.0
5.0 3.5 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
1.5 Mean number damages of 1.0 1.0 Mean number of damages of number Mean 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 Attended Non-attended With camera Without camera Pre-dive briefing Underwater camera possession
5.0 6.0
4.5 5.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5
2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
0.5 damages of number Mean Mean number damages of 0.5
0.0 0.0 1-25 26-50 51-100 100 + Female Male dives dives dives dives Gender Level of experience
Figure 5-16 The mean (±SE) number of damaging contacts caused by divers with various attributes Sixteen divers (84%) who used underwater cameras damaged corals while 13 non-photographers (62%) caused damage. However, the average number of corals damaged by underwater photographers (3.11±0.55) was slightly fewer than for non-photographers (3.22± 0.92) (Figure 5- 16), although there was no statistical difference between these two groups (t=-0.78, p>0.05).
88 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Twenty three female divers (82%) damaged corals (Figure 5-16). In contrast, only 5 male divers (42%) caused damage. The difference between damage caused by females and males is statistically significant (t=4.93, p<0.05). Average number of corals damaged by female divers was also greater than that caused by male divers (t=3.45, p<0.05). Subjects frequently came into contact with coral at all four dive sites. The mean number of damages per ten minutes ranged between 1.0 and 8.3 times per diver (Figure 5-17). There was a high level of correlation between the mean number of contacts and dive sites (r=0.82, p<0.01), with Torinla Island accounting for a high number of contacts and damaging contacts.
Figure 5-17 The mean (±SE) number of total damages made per diver with the substratum in a 10 minute interval at four dive sites Twelve divers (92%) observed at Torinla Island made at least one damage with corals in the ten minutes of observation. Turtle Bay was the least affected site with only five divers (45%) causing damage to corals (Figure 5-18). The total number of contacts that resulted in damage ranged from five in Turtle Bay to 21 in Torinla Island. There are considerable differences between dominant corals cover at Torinla Island and Turtle Bay. Branching corals dominate the reef at Torinla Island, while the reef at Turtle Bay is dominated by tolerant corals types. The mean number of contacts that resulted in damage was larger at Torinla Island (8.6±1.80) than at the other four sites (Table 5- 9).
The University of Queensland 89 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Figure 5-18 Percent of contacts resulting in damage at the four dive sites
Table 5-9 Rate of damage per diver in a 10 minute interval at the four dive sites
Rate of damage per diver in 10 minutes interval Study sites N Mean SE Minimum Maximum Torinla Island 11 8.60 1.80 0 21 Suthep Bay 11 3.55 0.73 0 9 Mai Ngam Bay 13 1.94 0.53 0 6 Turtle Bay 5 1.60 0.87 0 5 Total 40 3.06 0.44 0 21 c. Relevance to the dissertation In this study, SCUBA divers occasionally made contact with corals which resulted in coral damaged. The amount of damage and the frequency of its occurrence were relatively high (around 12 times per dive). Seventy seven percent of all contacts that resulted in damage to corals were ‘uncontrolled contacts47’ caused by a fin kick (52%), gauge (19%) or other equipment (6%). The rest (23%) were caused by hand contact (i.e. divers intentionally touched or grabbed corals or other substrates). This conscious action may suggest low environmental concern amongst divers or they may simply be unaware that their actions can injure coral or they believe that the level of damage they cause is inconsequential. The amount of damage caused by divers was related to the percent cover of fragile corals48, which were the most vulnerable to physical impact49. This suggests that places with a high cover percent of fragile coral are more vulnerable to increasing pressure of divers
47 Davis & Tisdell (1995) defined ‘uncontrolled contact’ as interactions with corals in which the diver did not purposely touch or kick the substrata. 48 See Table 5-7 49 See Figure 5-15
90 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park than places with a high proportion of tolerant corals. A short presentation on environmental awareness in pre-dive briefings can help reduce the damage caused by divers. Divers who attended a pre-dive briefing were likely to have fewer contacts with corals and cause less physical damage than those who did not attend briefings50. While underwater photographers were significantly more likely to damage corals than non- photographers, as were female divers compared to males, the observations indicate diver-induced damage to corals decreases with increasing number of logged dives. While dive sites with high cover percent of fragile coral are more vulnerable, many factors such as gender and activity undertaken also influences the degree of damage. Female divers, who generally have less physical strength than males, are likely to be forced to make contact with the coral substrate by strong currents. Some activities such as underwater photography can cause high damage to coral in places with large percentage cover of fragile coral. These characteristics are important to park managers because it is possible to arrange suitable management strategies that can reduce the impacts. In summary, this study suggests that diving activity can cause damage to coral reefs, especially in areas with a high proportion of branching corals cover. However, the amount of damage can be reduced by increasing the environmental awareness of divers through pre-dive briefing sessions and informing them about the potential of diver impact on coral reefs. Park managers should encourage divers to minimise the number of destructive contacts with the substratum through appropriate selection of dive sites. Park manager should also be alerted to the potential for diver impact and be encouraged to give special attention to site selection based on substrate fragility, current strength, diver competence and physical capacity and diving activity. Resource users can be informed about the necessity to pay special attention to site selection based on substrate fragility, and diving activity. Underwater photographers should be advised of ways to be more aware of their actions when taking photographs. 5.5.5 The impact of visitors a. Physical impact in shallow water reefs Despite the physical impact on coral that is caused by direct contact of SCUBA divers, walking and standing on coral heads were the major reasons leading to a decline in living coral cover at Surin (Thamrongnawasawat & Thipanan, 1998) and worldwide (Hawkins & Roberts, 1993). While tolerant corals seem to be less vulnerable to direct physical impact (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992), standing on massive corals can destroy a proportion of the living tissues (Liddle & Kay, 1987) At Chong Khad Channel, impact from visitors standing on corals was due to the shallow water (less than four metres deep) and the designation of this area as a snorkelling practice area. In 2003, prohibition of all activities during low tide was proposed51 along with alteration of kayak material from fibreglass to inflatables to reduce potential impacts from tourist’s activities (although, the alteration of kayak material did not seem to have much effect as indicated in Section 5.4.1).
50 See Figure 5-16 51 Most of coral in this area was affected by the tsunami so this proposal had not been applied.
The University of Queensland 91 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Because Surin lacks sufficient pier mooring births, speedboats land on the beach and cause turbulence of water from the propellers. This increases suspended particles that increase the turbidity of the water. Some researchers report that coral life forms with a flat surface (e.g. encrusting, massive types) are less tolerant of sedimentation than branching forms (Rogers, 1990; Fabricius, 2005). While Talge (1992) reported that re-suspended sediment settling and accumulating on benthic organisms can cause additional stress to reef benthos, it was not able to be determined from this study whether the reduction of encrusting coral cover from 4.6% in 2001 to 0.6% in 2004 at Chong Khad Channel was caused by the re-suspension of sediment. A pier for speedboats was proposed in 2006; however, this was brought forward after the tsunami and was in use by 2005 and the potential threat has been reduced. b. Increasing number of visitors The number of tourists to Surin increased considerably after 2001 when speedboats were introduced for day-trippers (Figure 5-19). The zoning and management plans for Surin did not consider the introduction of high-speed boats, so it was unable to manage the overuse of resources and overcrowding of visitors. In addition, as stated earlier in this chapter, the effectiveness of the zoning plan collapsed in 2003 when all areas were made available for use. With the contribution from the declining condition of reefs after the bleaching, increasing number of visitors was the issue that persuaded park management to introduce additional areas to spread tourism pressure. The increasing number of tourists affected four of my seven study sites. Snorkelling was introduced in late 1999 to Mai Ngam, Pakkhad and Suthep Bays, while the number of snorkellers at Turtle Bay increased 140%. Corals cover percentage at these four study sites changed considerably between 2000 and 2004 (Table 5-10). Increased tourist arrivals occurred in late 1999 after my annual monitoring, therefore, the effect of increased tourism was not captured until the year 2000. Between 2000 and 2001, the percent cover of fragile corals at Pakkhad Bay and Suthep Bay decreased (t= 3.62, p<0.01 at Pakkhad Bay, and, t= 2.07, p<0.05 at Suthep Bay). This parallels the study in Section 5.4 that found that fragile corals are more vulnerable to physical impact than tolerant corals. These two dive sites are dominated by fragile corals: Pakkhad Bay (approximately 70% fragile) and Suthep Bay (approximately 40% fragile). Few differences in the proportion of corals cover were observed between these two sites. While fragile corals cover at Pakkhad Bay steadily decreased between 2000 and 2004 (Table 5-10), fragile corals cover at Suthep Bay also decreased between 2000 and 2002, but increased in 2004. It is unclear which factors influenced this difference. However, some studies (Woodland & Hooper, 1977; Kay & Liddle, 1989; Hawkins & Roberts, 1992) suggest that the initial phase of impact is the most damaging. The most vulnerable corals are broken first and thereafter damage accumulated less rapidly. Since damage from physical contact of snorkellers and divers is patchy, damage on the reefs in areas with high fragile coral cover are likely to be spread across the sites. The damage at Pakkhad Bay, where fragile coral cover is highest, might occur over a longer period than those areas with lower fragile coral cover52. The damage will accumulate until deterioration stabilises (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992).
52 While fragile coral is preferred by snorkellers and is more vulnerable to physical impact than tolerant corals, damage to areas with small fragile corals cover is likely to accumulate more rapid
92 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
Figure 5-19 Number of visitors from 1996 to 2005
Source: Surin Marine National Park.
Table 5-10 Mean value of percent coral cover at study sites after the increase in tourism pressure
Place Fragile form Tolerant form Dead corals 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 Mai Ngam Mean 18.0 19.3 18.9 20.5 26.2 25.0 32.1 34.6 29.7 37.3 57.0 34.0 34.8 36.3 32.4 Bay SE 1.33 0.97 1.54 1.18 2.42 1.08 0.94 1.19 1.65 2.37 1.04 1.01 1.14 1.08 1.88 Pakkhad Mean 71.5 72.2 65.4 61.1 60.3 12.6 15.9 16.1 16.8 22.9 16.0 9.4 16.8 19.9 16.0 Bay SE 1.13 1.16 1.50 1.40 2.03 1.09 0.91 1.53 1.34 1.99 1.03 1.19 1.62 1.56 2.00 Suthep Mean 37.0 42.9 40.4 35.7 42.6 26.4 29.8 32.4 33.7 33.4 36.6 20.5 20.75 22.1 23.0 Bay SE 1.40 1.31 1.26 1.38 2.15 0.95 0.89 0.89 1.22 1.51 1.71 1.30 0.53 0.78 1.62 Turtle Bay Mean 32.2 27.8 25.1 22.7 23.3 41.4 42.2 44.2 45.7 47.4 26.5 25.3 28.2 28.7 25.8 SE 1.55 1.78 1.37 1.21 1.81 1.69 2.98 1.22 1.80 2.47 1.40 2.08 1.56 1.75 2.17 Note: Percent cover of substrates other than corals is excluded in this table
The possible explanation for the living coral cover recovery at Suthep Bay and Mai Ngam Bay between 2002 and 2004 might be that live loose coral fragments re-attached to other colonies and/or fragile coral recruitments, which are small and are ‘less branched’ than older colonies, are more resistant to damage. Either re-attached or new recruitment colonies are likely to have higher resistance and resilience to physical impacts than older colonies because of their size and forms (Sorokin, 1993; Saenghaisuk & Yeemin, 2006).
The University of Queensland 93 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
While Pakkhad Bay and Suthep Bay were introduced as diving sites at the same time (1999), they are different in important characteristics. One difference is the geographic position of the areas; Pakkhad Bay is slightly more exposed than Suthep Bay while both of them have a gentle reef slope (Table 5-11).
Table 5-11 Characteristic of Pakkhad Bay and Suthep Bay
Place
Pakkhad Bay Suthep Bay Geographic position Exposed Sheltered Topography Gentle reef slope Gentle reef slope Dominant corals Fragile (70% branching) Fragile (40% branching) Year introduce as a dive sites 1999 1999 Special management applied Mooring system (2003) Limiting number of visitor by time (2003)
Wave energy affects reefs in many ways, resulting in differences in coral communities and reef zonation (Sorokin, 1993). Previous research suggests that corals in exposed areas can have denser skeletons and, therefore, may be more resistant to breakage than those in sheltered areas (Brown et al., 1985). However, the study areas, situated between seven and 12 metre depths, have very little wave action, so differences were very slight. Another issue is the number of long tail boats (visitors) visiting the sites (Table 5-12). The major increase in snorkellers in 2000 was paralleled by an increase in dead corals cover (Figure 5-20). Due to the broken data sets (monitoring was disturbed by the tsunami), the data are insufficient to confirm a cause and effect relationship between increased tourist arrivals and dead corals, but existing evidence suggests tourism activity warrants careful monitoring.
Table 5-12 Number of long tail boats at study sites from 1997 to 2004
Number of boats (approximately 10 person per boat) Place 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Turtle 162 230 242 272 282 264 282 Suthep 61 92 108 202 223 225 Mai Ngam 69 84 122 204 242 282 Pakkhad 72 159 222 262 235 242 Mae Yai 234 255 Torinla 292 353 Source: Surin Marine National Park.; 1998 means period of September 1997- June 1998.
94 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park
300 25 250 24 23 250 20 200 23
22 200 150 15 22 150 21 % cover 10 % cover 100 100 21 Number of boats Number of boats of Number 50 20 50 5 Number of Boats Dead corals Number of Boats Dead corals 20 0 0 0 19 2000 2001 2002 2004 2000 2001 2002 2004 Year Year
Pakkhad Bay Suthep Bay
Figure 5-20 Changes in dead corals cover and number of visited boats at Pakkhad Bay and Suthep Bay In 2003, an improved mooring system, to better identify use areas, was developed for Pakkhad Bay. The mooring system has the additional benefit of limiting the number of visitors in the area at any one time. However, since this study covered only one year53 after the installation of the buoys, longer term trend data showing a reduction of dead coral cover that would suggest a positive influence from the installation of mooring buoys is not available. However, the existing evidence supports an assumption of a positive benefit to reef condition. 5.4.6 Lack of management funding Management funding in Thailand national parks is generated from revenue collected from certain activities in the parks. The important fees are entrance and accommodation fees (Box 5-1). In some marine national parks, fees for special activities (e.g. SCUBA diving fee) are collected at the rate 200 Baht/individual/day.
Box 5-1 Important fees in Thailand’s marine parks
Entrance fees All marine national parks collect entrance fees from tourists. The rates are as follows: Thai-Adult 20 Baht Thai-Child 10 Baht Foreigner-Adult 200 Baht Foreigner-Child 100 Baht Accommodation fees All marine national parks have their own accommodation for tourists. There are various types of houses with different accommodation rates ranging from 40 Baht per person per night (using facility but have own tents) to 4,000 baht per night (house or bungalow) Source: Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plants Conservation.
All revenue and income collected is sent to the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) in Bangkok. Five percent is sent to the Ministry of Interior and then allocated to relevant local administration authorities (Figure 5-21). Another 38 percent is deposited at DNP and can be spent on any activities, subject only to departmental policies. The remaining 57 percent is divided into two parts; routine expenses and capital for development projects. The Park can spend 9.5 percent for routine expenses such as fuel and maintenance of equipment. The park is able
53 The monitoring was disturbed by the tsunami.
The University of Queensland 95 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas to request 47.5 percent for other park development projects but it must submit budget proposals with expenditure detail. The executive board of DNP considers and approves projects before a budget is allocated to the park.
Entrance fee Diving fee Accommodation fee
Revenue raised by Surin Miscellaneous revenue Marine National Park (e.g. souvenir shop, restaurant, equipment hire)
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP)
Ministry of Interior allocation to Surin Marine National Park DNP for use on DNP activities local administration authorities (57%) (38%) (5%)
Routine park expenditure Capital expenditure for park Special expenditure (e.g. fuel, maintenance of development (e.g. temporary staff hire) equipment) (requires project proposals) (9.5%) (47.5%)
Figure 5-21 Revenue allocated flowchart The diving fee was established to supplement the financing of marine conservation efforts. At its inception, it was proposed that the money collected would be used directly for conservation projects in each park. However, due to legal constraints, it was defined as park revenue and had to be sent to DNP. In summary, only 9.5% of revenue collected from visitors in Surin is returned directly to Surin for management purposes. This small amount of ‘returned’ budget limits the capacity of management. However, as well as these fees collected from tourists, Surin earns income through the souvenir shops, restaurants, diving equipment and boat rental. This miscellaneous revenue does not require submission to DNP and, at the discretion of the park superintendent, this money can be used for special purposes (e.g. salary of short-term employees). As a result, the Park needs to maintain the amount of miscellaneous revenue to be able to manage its conservative programmes. A decreasing number of tourists means a decreasing amount of income, which is inevitably reflected in reduced management efforts. This issue was confirmed by the situation after the tsunami which created a sharp decrease in the number of tourists54. 5.5 Conclusion
Sporadic catastrophes are unpredictable and uncontrollable; however, ensuring, or at least removing any impediment to natural recovery after such events is an essential part of park management. Surin’s reefs received severe damage from coral bleaching, but rapid recovery is identified in many areas. Living corals cover at Mai Ngam Bay, Pak Khad Bay and Torinla Island increased significantly (t=-6.08, t=-2.70, t=-3.22, p<0.05, respectively) between 1999 and 2000, immediately
54 See Chapter 7
96 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 5 Environmental and management changes at Surin Marine National Park after the coral bleaching event. Increasing tourism pressure on top of the catastrophic damage can prevent, or delay, recovery time as appears to be the case at Turtle Bay. Coral bleaching had little effect at Turtle Bay, no significant change of living corals cover had been observed after the El Niño (t=0.85, p>0.05). However, tourism pressure increased (boat arrivals from 162 in 1998 to 230 in 1999 - Table 5-13). After 1999, fragile corals cover at Turtle Bay decreased which parallels the finding that fragile corals are more vulnerable to physical impact than tolerant corals. Diver characteristics influences the degree of damage caused to reefs. While underwater photographers were significantly more likely to damage corals than non-photographers, as were female divers compared to males, the observations indicate diver-induced damage to corals decreases with increasing number of logged dives. However, the amount of damage can be reduced by increasing the environmental awareness of divers through pre-dive briefing sessions and informing them about the potential of diver’s impact on coral reef. Strategies that may reduce impacts of SCUBA divers on coral reefs include minimising the number of destructive contacts with the substratum through appropriate selection of dive sites. Park managers can also encourage diver and tour operators to give special attention to site selection based on substrate fragility, current strength, diver competence and physical capacity and diving activity. Female divers who are likely to have less physical strength than males should be encouraged to avoid diving in areas with strong currents that may force them to make contact with the coral substrate. Underwater photographers should be advised of ways to be more aware of their actions when taking photographs. The pre-dive briefing should include ‘environmental friendly’ practice such as consideration of the vulnerability of coral to physical stress, how to avoid physical impact caused on coral and the correct way to make a contact with coral (if necessary). Suitable management is needed to reduce the pressure and help accelerate recovery. Many management approaches were applied to Surin; some have had a positive effect (in the case of patrolling, mooring buoy installation, and sewage treatment programme) while other had negative effects (in the case of opening the site to diving). The effective collapse of the zoning plan means that the management plan for Surin requires review. This does not mean that existing management strategies for Surin are ineffective. It does mean that circumstances have changed and that existing management emphasis may not be appropriately targeted to address these changing circumstances. Surin has applied a clarified mooring system to better identify use areas. The mooring system has the additional benefit of limiting the number of visitors in each area at any one time. Areas with higher conservation values have fewer buoys than recreation areas. Because of the 2004 tsunami, the monitoring process was interrupted. The information acquired so far is still too weak to indicate the relationship between limiting the number of users and the improvement in living corals cover. There was, however, evidence that increasing number of tourists influenced the increasing proportion of dead corals55 and an encouraging biological response to applied management tools. Increasing levels of pollution and sediment loads can cause environmental change and increase stress of corals, which is reflected in a decline in coral health. Installation of a sewage treatment system has helped reduce the pollution and sedimentation load to coral reefs near accommodation areas. A decreased level of pollution has reduced the possibility of eutrophication. The installation
55 See Figure 5-20
The University of Queensland 97 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas of a pier in Chong Khad Bay also helped reduce the resuspending of sediment by speed-boat propellers. Anecdotal information and observation suggested that the increasing frequency of patrolling in 2001 helped reduce the number of illegal fishing occurrences. This parallels the findings of Sudara et al. (1995), who suggested that a lack of regular patrolling in protected areas, especially remote areas, is likely to increase the level of illegal fishing. Increased tourist use is also likely to reduce illegal fishing. Realistic and sufficient funding is needed for effective management. While Piewsawat and Worachananant (2001) indicated that the total management costs of Surin was approximately 1.2 million Baht (US$ 30,000) or around 15% of Surin’s tourism income, Surin received only 9.5% of their total income back from Government. The park is forced to seek ‘top-up’ income for management from visitor service charges (co-op shop, restaurant). However, this type of income is not reliable, and dependent on the number of visitors. This revenue declines if visitor numbers decrease from unpredictable events (e.g. the tsunami). So management that is reliant on top-up funding is always vulnerable to shifts in tourism trends, making forward planning of conservation works difficult. High levels of protection are needed in areas with a large cover of branching coral because it is more susceptible to diver impacts than areas with a minimal cover of branching coral. However, strict protection is less likely to be accepted by tourism as tourism pressure increases over time. While active enforcement of laws and regulations may cause a negative response in stakeholders, a short presentation on the vulnerability of reefs can encourage visitors to be more aware of their actions and responsibilities and consequently may help reduce impacts on coral reefs. However, a level of compromise is needed to ensure the support of stakeholders. While various management approaches are applied or proposed to be applied, knowledge on the acceptability of each approach to stakeholders is still lacking. A study of the perception and attitude of stakeholder toward management of Surin was conducted between May 2004 and March 2006. The results are presented in the next chapter.
98 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Chapter 6 PERCEPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS
TOWARD MANAGEMENT
The University of Queensland 99 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 6 Perceptions of stakeholders toward management 6.1 Chapter Overview
6.2 Method
6.3 Visitors’ 6.4 SCUBA 6.5 Tour perception and divers’ perception operators’ understanding of and perception and park understanding of understanding of management park park 6.3.1 General management management visitor 6.4.1 SCUBA diver 6.5.1 Tour characteristics characteristics operators characteristics 6.3.2 Activities 6.4.2 Activities undertaken undertaken 6.5.2 Activities 6.3.3 Visitor 6.4.3 Diver undertaken satisfaction with satisfaction with 6.5.3 Operators environmental environmental satisfaction with condition condition environmental 6.3.4 Visitors’ 6.4.4 Divers’ condition knowledge and knowledge and 6.5.4 Operators’ satisfaction with satisfaction with knowledge and management management satisfaction with 6.3.5 Summary and 6.4.5 Summary and management Management Management 6.5.5 Summary and implication implication Management implication
6.6 Differences 6.7 Conclusion between stakeholders, and management strategies
Figure 6-1 Chapter 6 structure
100 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
CHAPTER 6 PERCEPTIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS TOWARD MANAGEMENT 6.1 Chapter overview
In Chapter 5, tourism was shown to be a probable cause of reef degradation but there was evidence to suggest that it also could contribute to environmental protection. To create effective management, finding the right balance between tourist’s expectations and environmental conservation is crucial. Before the tsunami, visitor numbers to the park were increasing annually. In the first four months of the 2003-2004 season (November 2003 – January 2004), visitor numbers reached 30,000 (Figure 6-2). Piewsawat (2002) found that 56% of 200 visitors to Surin surveyed expressed a desire to snorkel, and 98% actually did. A reason given for snorkelling being one of the most popular activities was the abundance of marine organisms and the availability of snorkelling equipment for hire. The relatively small area available for diving makes it extremely difficult to manage the increase in tourist numbers and the impacts to marine resources at an acceptable level.
Figure 6-2 Snorkellers at Chong Khad Channel Surin’s managers have applied a number of approaches to manage visitors and their impacts, but they have applied this management without any knowledge of stakeholders’ acceptance or awareness of these approaches. As identified in Chapter 3, the effectiveness of management approaches relies on compliance, which can be improved by stakeholder’s knowledge and understanding of the reason why selected approaches are being applied. Management approaches that are acceptable to and easily understood by visitors and tour operators are preferable because these are more likely to gain compliance, and can be instituted with fewer requirements for active enforcement. This chapter discusses the perception of various stakeholders towards the Surin marine environment and its management.
The University of Queensland 101 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
6.2 Method
In this study, semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to collect information on stakeholder knowledge of management tools. A mix of open-ended and closed questions was adopted to allow respondents to answer questions in their own words as well as providing responses for statistical analysis (Babbie, 1990). However, questionnaires alone cannot generate in-depth and explanatory qualitative information, so exploratory interviews were also used. The interviews were used when a respondent sought to elaborate on their answers and/or from respondents whose answers to key questions did not seem to make obvious sense (e.g. ‘do not like the management approaches’ or ‘never realised the existence of different management approaches but satisfied with performance’). In addition, observation of tourist behaviour was conducted opportunistically to validate the questionnaire results in terms of actual behaviour. Observation of stakeholders (general visitors, SCUBA divers and tour operators) was used to monitor behaviour in response to management approaches. For divers, short duration observations were conducted to determine the negative effect they can cause to the reef, such as touching, breaking or standing on coral and results have been presented and discussed in the previous chapter. For tour operators, observations examined how they interpret their knowledge to their clients. Questionnaire surveys of visitor attitudes and knowledge about management of Surin were conducted three times: at the end of the 2003 tourism season (May 2004), the beginning of 2004 tourism season (December 2004) and three months after the 2004 Boxing day tsunami (March 2005). Participants were selected by convenience, aiming to gain a representative sample of the visitors from various demographic groups. The survey consisted of four sections: general travel information, recreation activity, opinion about management and facilities, and the demographic background of visitors. The first section sought general information, such as respondent’s motivation for visiting Surin and source of information used prior to the visit. The second section sought information on recreation activities undertaken in the Park and satisfaction with various natural attributes. The third section sought information on their opinion about and satisfaction with various management approaches. The final section sought to clarify the background of visitors and included nationality, gender, age, education level, occupation and annual household income. In total, 302 general visitors, 62 SCUBA divers and 15 tour operators were surveyed (Table 6-1). General tourism was interrupted significantly by the 2004 tsunami and neither general visitors nor tour operators visited the island in sufficient numbers in the post-tsunami period to be included in that survey.
Table 6-1 Survey response
General visitors SCUBA divers Tour operators Period Surveys Responses Surveys Responses Surveys Responses May 2004 200 128 (64%)1 December 2004 200 174 (87%) 30 17 (56%)2 20 15 (75%) March 2005 N/A3 N/A 50 45 (90%) N/A3 N/A Remark: 1.) Actual response was 178 (89%), however, 50 records were lost during return delivery. 2.) Some records, kept at park HQ, were destroyed by the tsunami. 3.) The number of respondents was too small to conduct analyses.
102 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Correlation between variables was used to identify difference and similarity between factors. Since the numbers of expected frequencies in some cells are low, the G-test statistic (likelihood ratio) was used to examine the difference between factors (Sokal & Rohlf, 1987; Hockings, 1994). For the rating questions (e.g. importance of factors that motivate respondents to visit Surin, and satisfaction with these factors), options were provided on a 5-point scale (Trochim, 2006) from one (not at all important) to five (extremely important). Correlation of satisfaction of divers with coral condition and biological information on coral coverage was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Satisfaction of divers with fish condition was compared with expert opinion on fish quantity and number of damselfish species; a group of fish found to be most favoured by divers (Saisaeng, 2002). Expert opinion from visual observation of the quantity of fish was collected by interview with two park staff, two marine fish taxonomists and one diving instructor. They were asked to rank the quantity of fish in various places from one to ten (one is least and ten is most). Diver satisfaction was then compared with coral coverage data and fish condition evaluated by marine scientist and those with experience in diving around Surin. 6.3 Visitors’ perception and understanding of park management
The original intention of this study was to collect data from three different periods of the tourist season; the beginning, the middle and at the end of the season. However, this was not possible because the tsunami prevented the planned mid-season data collection. The two surveys of general visitors that were undertaken represent the end of the tourism season (May) and the beginning of tourism season (December). 6.3.1 General visitor characteristics Characteristics of visitors in the two survey periods were similar (Table 6-2). Most visitors were Thai and were visiting Surin for the first time. Around half of them travelled with tour operators and most spent between 2 and 4 days in the park. Visitors were predominantly young, well- educated people, commonly travelling with a partner or friends and often in groups of five or more. Almost all visitors departed from Kuraburi pier (marine park office) and travelled via boats registered as park transporters. The rest travelled via a charter boat from Tap Lamu. The main differences between the samples were that in December there were:
• more visitors spending more than 4 days, rather than 2 to 4 days, at Surin;
• more couples rather than in groups of five or more;
• slightly more international visitors;
• fewer females;
• fewer young people (<22); and
• more visitors with an education level higher than a bachelor degree. The higher proportion of international visitors probably explains most of these differences.
The University of Queensland 103 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Table 6-2 Characteristics of general visitors (%) in May and December 2004
Characteristics May December Total (end of 2003 season) (early 2004 season) % n % n % First time 96 75% 129 74% 75% Number of times visited Two to four times 20 16% 36 21% 19% More than four times 12 9% 9 5% 7% Full day 10 8% 7 4% 6% Number of days spent Two to four days 104 88% 138 80% 83% More than four days 5 4% 28 16% 11% Friend and/or couple 110 86% 149 85% 86% Family 12 9% 12 7% 8% Travelling Group Individual 0 0% 5 3% 2% Other 6 5% 8 5% 5% One 0 0% 5 3% 2% Two 20 16% 53 31% 24% Number of persons in group Three to five 33 26% 49 29% 28% More than five 74 58% 66 38% 48% Kuraburi 127 99% 172 99% 99% Source of departure Tap Lamu 1 1% 2 1% 1% Thai 118 92% 149 86% 88% Nationality Foreign 10 8% 25 15% 12% Male 41 32% 99 57% 46% Gender Female 87 68% 75 43% 54% <22 42 33% 7 4% 16% 22-34 61 48% 112 65% 58% Age 35-44 18 14% 39 23% 19% 45-older 5 4% 16 9% 7% Below bachelor 12 9% 21 12% 11% Education Bachelor 90 70% 92 53% 62% Over bachelor 27 21% 61 35% 27%
Rest and relaxation, followed by a desire to experience the natural environment were the two most important motivations for visiting (Table 6-3). However, diving, the volunteered answer provided by 24% of respondents in both surveys, was rated very high (mean score of 5.0 in May and 4.6 in December).
Table 6-3 Motivation of visitors to visit Surin
Mean* Mode SD Motivation May Dec May Dec May Dec Closed question choice Rest and relaxation (n=128, 172) 4.4 4.3 5 5 0.9 0.9 Experience natural environment (n=128, 174) 4.0 4.0 5 5 0.9 1.0 Socialise with family/friends (n=128, 174) 3.9 3.8 5 5 1.2 1.2 Escape everyday routines (n=126, 174) 3.9 3.3 5 4 1.1 1.3 Be physically active (n=126, 174) 3.2 2.5 3 3 1.1 1.2 Open ended choice Diving (n=30, 43) 5.0 4.6 5 5 0 1.0 * 5 point rating scale: 1=not at all important to 5=extremely important
104 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
More than 95% of respondents used at least one source of information before their visit. Word-of- mouth recommendation was the principal source of information (59% in May and 57% in December). Travel magazines, published periodically (monthly, bi-monthly), were rated second (Table 6-4). Periodically updated media that reported recent environment condition such as websites or web boards, and travel guidebooks or magazines received higher attention from respondents than the remaining media forms (i.e. newspaper or television advertisement). Telephone inquiry to the park was widely used in May when respondents were concerned about the availability of accommodation at the peak period (long weekend), while this proportion reduced in December when there was no public holiday.
Table 6-4 Information sources used (%) when deciding to visit Surin (2004)
Information sources May (n=128) December (n=174) Total Word-of-mouth recommendation 59% 57% 58% Travel magazine 56% 44% 50% Telephone or written inquiry to park 55% 5% 30% Website 38% 36% 37% Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge 24% 20% 22% Tourist information centre 15% 11% 13% Television/radio advertisement 12% 6% 9% Other 3% 6% 5% Received no information prior to visit 2% 1% 2%
6.3.2 Activities undertaken All repeat visitors and 88% of first-time visitors snorkelled during their visit to Surin (Table 6-5), although, prior to arrival, many had not anticipated undertaking this activity. The percent of respondents who attended the video presentation programme increased from 5% in May to 39% in December. Of this, 33% had not expected to attend but changed their mind when they visited. This increased attendance at the video presentation can be attributed to the introduction of new presentations (which included bi-lingual documentaries) and improvements to the exhibition centre. People attending the video presentation were asked their reason for attending; all respondents replied that they were attracted by the beautiful and interesting underwater documentaries.
Table 6-5 Activities respondents expected and did (%) in Surin (2004)
Types Activities Not expected Expected but Not expected but Expected and and did not do did not do actually did actually did May (n=128) 4% 2% 53% 41% Snorkelling December (n=172) 2% 6% 63% 29% May (n=126) 70% 20% 8% 2% SCUBA diving December (n=172) 71% 25% 2% 2% Education centre May (n=128) 37% 14% 30% 19% exploring December (n=170) 34% 12% 45% 9% Watching video May (n=128) 76% 19% 5% 0% presentation December (n=164) 41% 20% 33% 6% Diving in May (n=108) 48% 38% 14% 0% SCUBA trail December (n=153) 49% 37% 12% 2%
Only a quarter of return visitors expected to explore an education centre. The number of respondents who did not expected but actually explored the education centre increased from 30% in
The University of Queensland 105 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
May to 45% in December. While the number of ‘accidental’ explorers were less than half in both surveys, the increasing figure reflects the positive response to the renovation of the education centre in late 2004 (November). The new displays seemed to attract more visitors. 6.3.3 Visitor satisfaction with environmental condition Data, collected in December, was paired and analysed using the Pearson correlation to examine relationships between the satisfaction of visitors and the condition of natural attributes. The analysis was applied to the following data sets (Table 6-6):
• living coral coverage and visitor satisfaction with coral condition,
• species of damsel fish and visitor satisfaction with the quantity of fish,
• expert opinion from visual observation on the quantity of fish with visitor satisfaction with the quantity of fish,
• living coral coverage with overall visitor satisfaction,
• species of damsel fish with overall visitor satisfaction , and
• expert opinion from visual observation on the quantity of fish with overall visitor satisfaction. The environmental variables were simplified from the coral cover data acquired by the monitoring survey, with the addition of expert opinion from their observation of the quantity of fish and averaged across the five experts (see Section 6.2).
Table 6-6 Mean value of coral cover (%) and fish quantity score at study sites
Chong Khad Mae Yai Mai Ngam Pakkhad Suthep Torinla Turtle Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Coral cover Branching 0.71 0.41 11.89 1.14 16.43 1.68 53.51 2.67 37.53 2.16 75.04 2.90 16.11 1.33 Foliose 0.09 0.09 1.88 0.63 3.60 0.94 1.20 0.85 0.52 0.20 0.08 0.08 1.51 0.51 Tabulate 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.28 6.20 2.18 5.61 1.05 4.52 1.01 1.05 0.41 5.64 1.06 Encrusting 0.59 0.23 9.41 1.42 7.41 1.61 3.67 1.33 5.28 1.39 0.17 0.10 5.93 0.79 Massive 23.01 2.66 25.82 2.04 22.63 2.23 13.44 1.23 22.25 1.52 7.63 2.20 26.27 1.82 Submassive 0.00 0.00 26.56 1.71 7.30 1.16 5.84 1.52 5.91 0.87 1.37 0.56 15.22 1.42 Dead coral 28.53 3.84 18.79 1.58 32.36 1.88 16.04 2.00 22.96 1.62 13.33 1.66 25.83 2.17 Other cover 47.03 5.01 5.02 0.71 4.07 1.11 0.70 0.35 1.02 0.54 1.33 0.68 3.49 0.69 Fish Fish score 3.6 0.6 4.6 0.6 5.8 0.5 9.0 0.7 7.0 0.7 9.6 0.6 7.4 0.6 Number of species 19 36 34 38 33 38 35
Conceptually from the biological data, the natural attributes that influence visitors’ satisfaction can be placed on two axes: coral type and fish quantity (Figure 6-3). Proportion of fragile coral represents the percent cover of the fragile corals (branching, tabulate and foliose forms), while quantity of fish represents the fish score (expert opinion of the quantity of fish from Table 6-6). If the place has a high quantity of fish (score higher than five), it is located in the eastern sector of the figure. Similarly, a place with a high proportion of coral (percent cover higher than 50) is located in the northern sector. For example, a place with a high percent cover of fragile corals and a high quantity of fish (e.g. Torinla Island) would be located in the northeast sector.
106 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Figure 6-3 Factors influencing visitors’ satisfaction For sites visited around Surin by tourists, the plotting indicates a spread from sites with low fragile corals cover and low quantity of fish to the reverse. Satisfaction of general visitors with coral condition was positively correlated with the proportion of branching and tabulate corals cover, while respondent satisfaction was negatively correlated with other forms of corals (Table 6-7). That is, respondents prefer (gain satisfaction from) sites dominated by branching and tabulate corals rather the other forms. In the case of Surin, the respondents’ preferences are places in the northern sector of Figure 6-3.
Table 6-7 Correlation between respondent’s satisfaction and natural attributes
Satisfaction of general visitors Coral condition Fish quantity Overall condition r Significance r Significance r Significance Respondent opinion Fish quantity 0.87 0.01 Overall satisfaction 0.81 0.03 0.97 0.01 Biological condition Coral branching 0.84 0.02 0.80 0.03 0.78 0.04 Coral encrusting -0.15 0.75 -0.44 0.32 -0.51 0.24 Coral foliose -0.10 0.84 -0.36 0.44 -0.39 0.39 Coral massive -0.67 0.10 -0.77 0.04 -0.83 0.02 Coral submassive -0.05 0.92 -0.26 0.57 -0.25 0.58 Coral tabulate 0.40 0.37 0.20 0.67 0.01 0.98 Dead coral -0.70 0.08 -0.75 0.05 -0.80 0.03 Other substrates -0.75 0.05 -0.39 0.38 -0.29 0.53 Fish quantity evaluated by experts 0.97 0.01 0.85 0.02 0.77 0.04 Number of damselfish species 0.83 0.02 0.53 0.22 0.47 0.29 Legend: grey cells represent a significant difference (p<0.05) and grey cells with bold text represent a high significant difference (p<0.01)
Satisfaction with fish quantity was significantly correlated with fish quantity rated by experts (r=0.85, p<0.05) but was not correlated with number of species. That is, respondents tend to focus
The University of Queensland 107 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas on quantity of fish rather than on diversity. In this case, the respondents’ preferences are places in the eastern sector of Figure 6-3. Satisfaction from overall condition was negatively correlated with the proportion of massive corals (r=0.83, p<0.05) and dead corals cover (r=0.79, p<0.05), while the proportion of branching corals and fish quantity were positively correlated with respondents’ satisfaction. That is, visitors gain most satisfaction from sites where there is a high cover of branching corals and/or a large number of fishes. Respondents prefer the east sector of Figure 6-3 and their satisfactions increase when sites visited have characteristics that place them in north and east sector. Places where respondents are most satisfied fall in northeast sector of Figure 6-3; Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay. 6.3.4 Visitors’ knowledge and satisfaction with management In May 2004, respondents were asked questions on their knowledge and opinion of management approaches being applied. However, some respondents had difficulty with the terminology relating to the zoning scheme. Clearly, there was little knowledge of details of the zoning plan. In December, zoning terminologies were clarified and questions on the zoning system were dealt with in detail:
• limitation on the number of visitors,
• permanent prohibition from entry,
• restriction of some activities, and
• temporary prohibition from entry. Few respondents had a clear understanding of the zoning system (Table 6-8). In May, only 39% were aware of the provisions of the zoning system56, while in December, less than half of the respondents had useable knowledge of the zoning schemes (prohibitions, restrictions). While the education centre is situated beside the main refectory, only 50% of respondents (in May) realised its existence. The majority of respondents also indicated that both control (prohibition, restriction or limitation) and education tools should be applied at Surin (80% for control and 90% for education).
Table 6-8 Proportion of respondents aware of management approaches
May December Management approaches n % n % Education centre 64 50% 133 76% Zoning system 50 39% Number of visitor limitation 81 47% Prohibition of entry 67 39% Activity restriction areas 64 37% Temporary prohibit (time/tide) 54 31% Park’s regulation 41 32% 104 60% Permits system 32 25% 71 41%
Some respondents were dissatisfied with the interpretation and information available at the island (26% in May and 17% in December). The reasons given for dissatisfaction were that the
56 During the interviews is became evident that some respondents did not exactly know, and were guessing because only 23% succeed in answered both questions relating to zoning.
108 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management interpretation media were ‘insufficient, ‘not attractive’ and ‘out of date’. Seventy eight percent of respondents indicated that a lack of interpretation signs would negatively affect environmental conditions. During the 2004 tourism season, a programme of media presentations, including posters, television documentaries, newspapers and journals, focused on Surin’s marine qualities and its management. The programme strongly identified prohibited areas and included upgrading of the education centre (Thamrongnawasawat, pers. comm., 2005). Survey results suggest that this programme was effective. Knowledge of both prohibition areas and regulations were significantly correlated with information received from media (G=6.14, p<0.05 for prohibition areas and G=7.18, p<0.05 for regulations). Awareness of both the existence of prohibited areas and regulations increased significantly between the May and December (Table 6-9).
Table 6-9 Respondents (%) who received information from mass media and had awareness of management approaches
Management approaches Data set Prohibition of entry Boat permits Education centre Law and regulation May (n=128) 24% 25% 50% 32% December (n=174) 39% 41% 76% 60%
Respondents who were aware of the existence of the education centre also had greater awareness of management approaches (Table 6-10). This situation is coincidental with interpretation presentations in the education centre. Information on zoning schemes and regulation had been displayed in the centre since 2003, while information on the permit system was added when the centre was renovated in November 2004.
Table 6-10 Likelihood ratio (G-test) of respondent’s awareness of each the management approaches with awareness of the education centre
May December Management approaches G p G p Zoning system 8.52 0.004 Prohibition of entry 21.71 0.001 Temporary prohibit (time/tide) 21.56 0.001 Activity restriction areas 19.59 0.001 Number of visitor limitation 38.54 0.001 Park regulations 10.61 0.001 66.29 0.001 Legend: bold text represent a high significant difference (p<0.01)
Both questionnaires also showed that respondent satisfaction with the quality of interpretation was related to visitor understanding of management approaches (G=7.98, p<0.05). The higher the perceived quality of interpretation, the higher is the level of visitor knowledge (Piewsawat, 2002). After the renovation of the education centre, more attractive and colourful interpretation was exhibited. Opportunistic interviews found that 92% (46 from 50 respondents) stated that colourful and attractive interpretation helped them gain more understanding about the marine environment and management. These results suggest that interpretation in the education centre is likely to assist visitors to gain more awareness about park management: a first step in developing behaviour that conforms with management intent.
The University of Queensland 109 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
In the December survey, respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with seven management approaches that seek to control or regulate visitor behaviour (i.e. tide limitation, time limitation, closed areas, prohibition of some activities, laws and regulations, SCUBA fee and the quota of visitors to each site). Again, the mean score of importance of each factor was obtained by averaging respondents’ rating57. In this case, the option ‘not aware of its existence’ was excluded. The result revealed that all management approaches had been rated at a neutral level (Table 6-11).
Table 6-11 Satisfaction of visitors with controlling approaches (n= 174)
Satisfaction % of ‘not aware of its Mean SD existence’ Number of park regulations 3.2 0.9 23.6% SCUBA diver fee 3.2 1.0 52.3% Park regulation enforcement 3.1 1.0 21.3% Prohibition of enter in some areas 3.1 0.9 60.3% Appropriateness of site limit access 3.1 1.1 29.9% Restriction of some activities 3.0 1.0 52.3% Time limitation 2.9 0.7 53.5% Tide limitation 2.8 1.0 57.5% Rating scale: 1=Very dissatisfied to 5=Very satisfied and 6=Never realise the existence.
Five of the seven controlling management approaches (SCUBA diver fee, prohibition to entry in some areas, restriction of some activities, and time and tide limitations) were rated (by the majority of respondents) as ‘not aware of its existence’. Four of these five approaches (except the SCUBA diver fee) were applied to control use of areas after the effective collapse of the zoning plan58. These results indicate the failure of the park to provide better understanding about the adopted management approaches. An improved interpretation programme is required to ensure co-operation from respondents. 6.3.5 Summary and management implications Most respondents were first-time visitors to the park, travelling by the park’s transportation and departing from the park’s pier. Fewer than half had a clear understanding of park management but sought information from the park’s interpretation media (78% in May and 82 % in December). This suggests that respondents are interested in how the park is managed. Information given at the mainland office and/or park’s vessels attracts visitors and can provide more knowledge about park management. Since visitors have to wait for the departure time (nine o’clock each morning) at the park’s mainland office, park managers could provide information about management with attractive presentations (posters, brochures or zoning map) at the pier. In addition, the travelling time to Surin is usually one to two hours, so this time is available for providing a short video presentation about the park, vulnerability of marine environment, management and regulations. Most respondents are young, well-educated and sought information before the visit. Perhaps responding to word-of-mouth recommendation from friends and acquaintances, respondents sought information from media such as travel magazines and websites. With these findings, park managers can implement simple steps to help increase environmental awareness by presenting a short commentary on the vulnerability of corals to visitor impacts, and providing a ‘code of conduct’ on
57 See Section 6.3.1 58 See Chapter 5
110 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management how to minimise impact from tourism activities using media such as magazines and websites to support the word-of-mouth information. Mass media (e.g. travel magazines) also increased visitor understanding of nature conservation. Conservation campaigns through the mass media appear to affect visitors’ understanding of management. The majority of respondents came to relax and most (more than 90%) went snorkelling. They wanted to snorkel in places with a high cover of branching corals. However, from the biological data59, places with a high density of branching corals are mostly situated in prohibited zones according to the 2000-2004 zoning plan (e.g. Torinla and Pachumba Islands). Therefore, use conflict occurs between management and tourism operators. With management revenue being highly reliant on tourism, the increasing demand by tourism operators for access to additional ‘quality’ sites has been difficult to ignore.
During 2003, when tourism demand increased, all sites were opened for snorkelling60. Areas with high levels of branching coral cover received high attention from snorkellers, which was reflected in the damage to fragile corals from direct physical attrition (e.g. Torinla Island, Pakkhad Bay – see Chapter 5). From observation and the literature (Rogers et al., 1988; Rogers, 1990; Talge, 1992; Allison, 1996; Plathong et al., 2000), damage from snorkellers occurs mostly in shallow water where snorkellers can stand. Damage also occurs more with inexperienced snorkellers, who feel uncomfortable with their ability in places with high waves or strong currents and where vigorous treading of water stirs up large amounts of sediment. From these findings, park managers can minimise the impacts that may be caused by snorkellers by selecting places for snorkelling that are too deep to stand up in and/or have sheltered protection from waves or currents. Selecting places with protection from waves or currents will not only minimise the impact of snorkelling but also provides visitor safety which is a key issue that management needs to take into account. The ideal snorkelling site has a relative steep sandy entry to a depth of approximately two metre (at low tide) before corals are encountered. Pakkhad Bay and Torinla Island are the preferred sites for snorkellers because of the dominance of branching corals. However, Torinla Island is not ideal because it has a very strong current during tidal transitions, and branching corals dominate. Water depth is approximately two to four metres (depending on the tidal range). Since the height of an adult man or woman is approximately 170 cm and the average fin length is 45 cm, the depth for snorkellers that will minimise impact is at least 215 cm. That is, Torinla Island is considered to be a risk area. In contrast, Pakkhad Bay has a very steep reef edge and the fragile coral area is around three to five metres. So it is preferable, from an impact minimisation perspective, to Torinla Island. However, with the collapse of the zoning plan, it is no longer possible to prohibit people from diving at Torinla Island, so park managers need to find strategies other than prohibition to minimise impact. As a diving instructor, I found that novice snorkellers, who were the majority of respondents to the survey, always orient their body in a vertical position because they lack familiarity with snorkelling techniques. Since the only way for snorkellers to access Torinla Island is by boat, the park could install a mooring buoy at the reef edge or reef slope, which is about ten to twenty metre from the diving areas. This distance provides sufficient space and time for visitors to adjust their equipment before starting to explore the reefs. In addition, floating rest station or safety lines can also be set along the way for snorkellers to rest
59 See Chapter 5 60 See Section 5.4
The University of Queensland 111 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas or solve problems with equipment. These floating stations should be located in places where water is sufficiently deep to prevent damage from standing or finning. While visitors gain more satisfaction when diving in places with high branching corals cover, they also want to dive in places with a large quantity of fishes. This broadens the options for satisfying snorkelling experiences and includes Turtle, Mai Ngam and Suthep Bays (eastern sector of Figure 6-3). These three bays consistently have mild currents, except Turtle Bay where the geographic position of the exposed bay creates a longshore current during ebb tide (Phongsuwan et al., 1993). However, from a snorkeller satisfaction perspective, even though bays have large numbers of fishes, visitors might not be fully satisfied with snorkelling in these three bays because of the low proportion of branching corals (less than 20%, Table 6-6). The answer may lie in focusing interpretation programmes in these areas to enhance visitor satisfaction. Underwater or snorkelling trails have been reported to be an effective strategy in improving the snorkelling experience (Tabata, 1991; Chanwichai, 1994; Plathong, 1997; Plathong et al., 2000). While this type of interpretation programme, with effective management, can help enhance public awareness of the value of marine environments (Chanwichai, 1994), make snorkellers aware of minimal impact diving, and foster safe diving and appropriate behaviour (Tabata, 1991), it has not received much attention from park managers. Two snorkelling trails were established at Suthep Bay and Turtle Bays in 2002-2003, but, due to a lack of maintenance, they were destroyed during the monsoon season. Consideration of re-establishing these trails seems an appropriate approach for improving snorkeller satisfaction with less than ideal sites, and at the same time, reducing the pressure on less resistant reefs. The shift in satisfaction would be, of course, worth monitoring. More than half of first-time visitors did not expect to snorkel but actually did snorkel when they visited. It is likely that these visitors who undertake snorkelling as a spontaneous rather than planned activity will be inexperienced and ill-informed about environmentally-sensitive snorkelling behaviour. Piewsawat (2002) found that 70% of visitors who did snorkel at Surin were not content to just observe but were anxious to ask questions and increase their understanding of how the complex system works. The management implication from these findings is that park management should respond with an effective interpretation programme that helps visitors to better understand the vulnerability of reef organisms and encourage visitors to develop environment friendly behaviours. When park management is forced to open restricted areas for diving, specific management approaches, such as mooring buoys or limitations on the number of visitors should be applied to ensure sustainability. While the study of SCUBA diver impact found that the effectiveness of management relies on how well the visitors were aware that the management approaches applied, respondents had low awareness of management practices. Park management needs better ways and mediums to announce its approaches. Upgrading displays in the education centre seems to be an appropriate measure in this direction and money well spent, because it proved to attract more people and was reflected in the knowledge gained. While respondents were neutral in their opinions of controlling management techniques (Table 6- 11) and most respondents (80%) indicated their acceptance of the need for management techniques to control visitor activities at Surin, the majority of respondents were unaware that these approaches had, in fact, been applied. If the park is seeking co-operation from visitors (and they indicate a willingness to cooperate), better interpretation programmes are needed to increase this awareness.
112 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
In summary, controlling methods of visitor management may prove effective management methods for protecting coral condition but can cause negative responses in visitors, unless they are informed of the rationale behind the approach (Alder, 1996a). Even though, the survey data found that most respondents (80%) welcomed control-oriented management tools, education tools were preferred (90%). While good interpretation media can educate visitors who usually have low understanding of management, Surin still lacks effective management presentations. Information on management can be simply communicated at several locations using a variety of media (e.g. fact sheets, noticeboards) at park HQ (both mainland and Island) or on the park’s transporters. These are not expensive park management initiatives. 6.4 SCUBA divers’ perception and understanding of park management
Like the data gathered from general visitors, data on SCUBA divers were collected in two different periods. Data were collected before (December 2004) and after the 2004 tsunami (March 2005). Some records (29 records) from the December survey were lost during the tsunami. In total, only 17 records were available from the December survey and 45 records from the March survey. 6.4.1 SCUBA diver characteristics Divers in the two survey period were mostly women (Table 6-12). Most divers came to Surin with tour operators. Divers were commonly travelling with a partner or friends and often in groups of five or more. Most departed from Tap Lamu pier, followed by Phuket and Kuraburi.
Table 6-12 Proportions of SCUBA divers in December 2004 and March 2005
Characteristics December 2004 March 2005 Total (before tsunami) (after tsunami) n % n % % First time 8 47% 9 20% 27% Number of times visited Two to four times 3 18% 14 31% 27% More than four times 6 35% 22 49% 46% Full day 0 0% 0 0% 0% Number of days spent Two to four days 3 18% 30 69% 55% More than four days 14 82% 14 31% 45% Friend and/or couple 14 82% 44 98% 94% Family 0 0% 0 0% 0% Travelling Group Individual 2 12% 0 0% 3% Other 1 6% 1 2% 3% One 2 12% 0 0% 3% Two 3 18% 0 0% 5% Number of persons in group Three to five 4 24% 0 0% 7% Five to ten 3 18% 20 44% 37% More than ten 5 29% 25 56% 48% Kuraburi 4 24% 0 0% 6% Source of departure Tap Lamu 13 76% 30 69% 71% Phuket 0 0% 13 31% 23% Thai 8 47% 41 91% 79% Nationality Foreign 9 53% 4 9% 21% Male 6 38% 18 40% 39% Gender Female 11 62% 27 60% 61%
The University of Queensland 113 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Characteristics December 2004 March 2005 Total (before tsunami) (after tsunami) n % n % % <22 1 6% 7 16% 13% 22-34 12 71% 26 60% 63% Age 35-44 4 24% 5 11% 15% 45-older 0 0% 6 13% 10% Below bachelor 1 6% 7 16% 13% Education Bachelor 10 56% 32 76% 71% Over bachelor 6 38% 4 9% 16%
In interpreting these results, it is important to realise that some variables are correlated. For example, there was a very strong relationship between the origin of respondents and whether it was the first trip to Surin (G= 13.44, p<0.05). Only 31% of international respondents were return visitors, while 84% of Thais were return visitors. This means that the variable ‘number of times visited’ will resemble relationships for the place of origin. Without further analysis, it would not be possible to determine if the difference was caused by the differences of number of times visited or whether it is because the respondent was an overseas visitor. While the relatively small number of respondents limits the confidence of statistical tests applied in this study, the confounding relationships have been examined only where it was deemed important to interrogate the data in greater detail. The majority of respondents shifted from foreign divers (53%) in December (pre tsunami) to Thai divers (91%) in March (post tsunami), and this shift also reflected the number of times respondents visited Surin. Before the tsunami, almost half the respondents were visiting Surin for the first-time (47%), while after the tsunami, most respondents (80%) were return visitors who had visited Surin more than four times (49%). The reduction of overseas respondents also parallels TAT, (2006) data that reports a decline in overseas tourist numbers after the tsunami. Respondent occupations also changed. Company employee numbers reduced (47% to 7 %), while government officers and students increased (6% to 22% and 6% to 33%, respectively). Again, the differences in these demographic data between surveys probably reflect the change in the place of origin of respondents, since 67% of foreign divers have their own business and none of them were government officers. Before the tsunami, most respondents (82%) spent more than four days on each visit; while, after the tsunami, most respondents (69 %) spent a maximum of four days. There is no significant difference in number of days spent between Thai and foreign divers (G=16.78, p>0.05). That is, the shift in the number of times visited probably reflects to the reduced number of overseas visitors, while the length of stay was not related to the reduced number of overseas visitors. After the tsunami, most divers were return divers who had experienced Surin many times before. The duration of stay was also shorter. Opportunistic interviews revealed that most respondents reduced their time of stay because of a lack of information on coral condition and the lack of confidence in safety procedures. Factors that motivated respondents to visit Surin were identified from a given range of options. Because of the high level of commonality of response from the first survey and, to reduce the length of second survey, after the tsunami only the importance of seeing the effects of the tsunami was sought. The importance of each factor was rated on a five point rating scale, where ‘not at all important’ equals one and ‘extremely important’ equals five.
114 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Table 6-13 Motivation of SCUBA divers to visit Surin
Motivation Mean* Mode SD Diving (n= 3) 5.0 5 0.0 Experience natural environment (n=17) 4.3 5 0.8 Rest and relax (n=17) 4.3 4 0.7 Escape everyday routines (n=17) 4.1 5 1.2 Socialise with family/friends (n=17) 3.7 5 1.3 Be physically active (n=17) 3.3 3 1.3 Seeing effects of tsunami (n=45) 3.6 3 0.8 * 5 point rating scale: 1=not at all important to 5=extremely important
Experiencing the natural environment, followed by rest and relaxation were the two most often reported factors that motivated respondents to visit Surin. However, diving, the volunteered answer provided by 18% of respondents, was rated very high (score of 5.0). Post tsunami, all respondents indicated that they wanted to see the effect of the tsunami; however, the majority of respondents (60%) rated the importance of seeing the effects of the tsunami on their decision to visit as only ‘moderately important’. Most respondents indicated that their main objective was to go diving with the additional objective of seeing the effect of the tsunami. This suggests that divers are strongly activity focused and that environmental setting, while important for satisfaction, become less important than a successful dive experience. All respondents used at least one source of information before the visit (Table 6-14). Periodically updated travel books and magazines were the most used source (65% in December and 78% in March) with prior personal knowledge. In contrast with general visitors, respondents did not telephone the park for information. Observation and anecdotal information suggest that the accommodation factor might influence this situation. All respondents came with live-aboard diving vessels and no respondent stayed at the park accommodation. If there was no concern for accommodation, respondents did not need to make any inquiry with the park. The difference in the use of experience as the source of information was influenced by their origin. Understandably, previous experience was a valuable source of information for Thai respondents but not for foreign divers (G=13.15, P<0.05).
Table 6-14 Sources of information used when deciding to visit Surin
Information sources May (n=17) December (n=45) Total Travel magazine 65% 78% 74% Website 41% 49% 47% Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge 35% 78% 66% Word-of-mouth recommendation 35% 42% 40% Television/radio programmes and advertisement 18% 2% 6% Tourist information centre 12% 18% 16% Received no information prior to visit 6% 0% 2% Telephone or written inquiry to park 0% 0% 0% Other 0% 0% 0%
After the tsunami, the majority of respondents sought more sources of information (four sources) than before (one source) (Figure 6-4). The reason given for the use of many sources was that they needed to make sure that ‘Surin is now safe for travel’ and ‘Surin still has something left to see’.
The University of Queensland 115 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Respondents gained information from a wider range of sources after the tsunami because information often conflicted regarding the impact of the tsunami (see Appendix III).
60% Before tsunami After tsunami
50%
40%
30%
20% percent of respondents
10%
0% 1234567 Number of sources
Figure 6-4 Number of information sources used when visiting Surin 6.4.2 Activities undertaken In addition to SCUBA diving, most respondents also snorkelled (Table 6-15). Opportunistic interviews with respondents who did not expect to SCUBA dive gave the following reasons for not expecting to dive:
• Surin is one of many destinations that their tour company offered, but did not provide activity details,
• trip members invited them to try, and
• they had received information that reefs were destroyed.
116 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Table 6-15 Activities expected and undertaken by divers in Surin
Activities Dataset Types Not expected Expected but Not expected Expected and and did not do did not do but actually did actually did December (n=17) 0% 0% 53% 47% SCUBA diving March (n=45) 0% 0% 13% 87% December (n=17) 47% 6% 41% 6% Snorkelling March (n=45) 43% 4% 0% 53% Education centre December (n=17) 53% 6% 41% 0% exploring March (n=45) 68% 32% 0% 0% Diving in SCUBA December (n=17) 53% 23% 24% 0% trail March Not asked Watching video December (n=17) 64% 18% 18% 0% presentation March (n=42) 98% 2% 0% 0% Natural trail December (n=17) 88% 0% 12% 0% trekking March Not asked
Respondents who expected to snorkel and actually did snorkel increased from 6% before the tsunami to 53% after the tsunami. Of this, no first-time visitors expected to snorkel after the tsunami. Additional interviews with respondents, who expected to snorkel, gave the reason that they wanted to see the impact of the tsunami. In contrast, before the tsunami 41% of respondents changed their mind and snorkelled when they visited Surin (see column ‘not expect but actually did snorkel’) while no respondent changed their mind after the tsunami. After the tsunami, one third of respondents expected to explore the exhibition and education centre, however none of them did because the centre was destroyed by the tsunami and was not yet reconstructed. 6.4.3 Diver satisfaction with environmental condition Like the general visitor data, diver data were analysed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to find relationships between the satisfaction of divers and the condition of natural attributes. The analysis was applied to:
• living coral coverage with divers’ satisfaction with the existing coral condition,
• species of damsel fish found compared with divers’ satisfaction with the quantity of fishes available,
• experts’ opinion on quantity of fish compared with the divers’ satisfaction of the quantity of fish,
• coverage of living coral with overall satisfaction of divers,
• species of damsel fish with overall diver satisfaction, and
• experts’ opinion on the quantity of fish with overall diver satisfaction. With coral cover data acquired by the monitoring survey, expert opinion of the quantity of fish was collected and averaged (Table 6-16). After the tsunami, experts were asked to score the number of fish again.
The University of Queensland 117 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Table 6-16 Mean value of living coral cover (%) and fish quantity score in various places
Place Types Time Chong Khad* Mae Yai Mai Ngam Pak Khad Suthep Torinla Turtle Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Coral cover Dec 0.71 0.41 11.89 1.14 16.43 1.68 53.51 2.67 37.52 2.16 75.04 2.90 16.11 1.33 Branching Mar 6.97 1.90 20.33 1.78 35.43 2.64 34.28 1.94 73.03 2.15 12.15 1.73 Dec 0.59 0.23 9.41 1.42 7.41 1.61 3.67 1.33 5.58 1.39 0.17 0.10 5.93 0.79 Encrusting Mar 7.53 1.62 3.59 0.44 2.37 0.85 2.89 0.69 0.32 0.17 6.45 1.27 Dec 0.09 0.09 1.88 0.63 3.60 0.94 1.20 0.85 0.46 0.17 0.08 0.08 1.51 0.51 Foliose Mar 0.35 0.19 0.52 0.29 0.27 0.19 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.12 1.33 0.60 Dec 23.01 2.66 25.82 2.04 22.63 2.23 13.44 1.23 22.63 1.48 7.63 2.20 26.27 1.82 Massive Mar 21.42 2.49 16.83 1.46 15.25 1.75 18.76 1.03 7.48 0.90 21.18 1.63 Dec 0.00 0.00 26.56 1.71 7.30 1.16 5.84 1.52 5.24 0.63 1.37 0.56 15.22 1.42 Submassive Mar 27.58 2.50 5.14 1.36 7.59 1.66 3.19 0.97 0.80 0.31 14.56 2.46 Dec 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.28 6.20 2.18 5.61 1.05 4.49 1.02 1.05 0.41 5.64 1.06 Tabulate Mar 2.05 1.06 5.28 0.70 2.98 0.64 4.74 0.85 0.65 0.26 4.81 1.34 Dec 28.53 3.84 18.79 1.58 32.36 1.88 16.04 2.00 22.94 1.62 13.33 1.66 25.83 2.17 Dead coral Mar 23.55 2.19 37.98 2.86 31.86 2.22 30.28 1.94 13.16 1.26 32.60 3.35 Other Dec 47.03 5.01 5.02 0.71 4.07 1.11 0.70 0.35 1.02 0.53 1.33 0.68 3.49 0.69 substrates Mar 10.55 2.17 10.17 1.48 4.27 2.19 5.59 1.41 4.47 1.61 6.93 1.89 Fish Dec 3.60 0.55 4.60 0.55 5.80 0.45 9.00 0.71 7.00 0.71 9.60 0.55 7.40 0.55 Fish Score Mar 2.40 0.55 4.60 0.55 5.80 0.45 7.40 0.55 8.00 0.00 9.60 0.55 8.00 0.00 Number of species 19 36 34 38 33 38 35 * monitoring at Chong Khad Channel was suspended in the March survey due to the changing of current from mil to very strong after the tsunami
Correlations of SCUBA divers satisfaction against various natural attributes are shown in Table 6- 17 (for the December 2004 survey) and Table 6-18 (for the March 2005 survey). Conceptually from biological data, the natural attributes that influence divers’ satisfaction can be placed on two axes: coral type and fish quantity (Figure 6-5). From Pearson correlation analysis, satisfaction of SCUBA divers with coral condition was negatively correlated with the proportion of encrusting corals cover, but not correlated with any other variable (Table 6-17). That is, respondents were less satisfied with places dominated by encrusting forms. In this case, the respondents’ preferences are dive sites other than Mae Yai and Mai Ngam Bays where encrusting corals are dominant.
118 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Figure 6-5 Factors influencing SCUBA divers’ satisfaction (Black symbols represent places before the tsunami and white symbols represent places after the tsunami)
Table 6-17 Correlation of divers’ satisfaction and natural attributes before the tsunami
Satisfaction of SCUBA divers Correlation Coral condition Fish quantity Overall condition r Significance r Significance r Significance Respondent opinion Fish quantity 0.19 0.69 Overall satisfaction 0.04 0.94 0.67 0.10 Biological information Coral branching 0.66 0.11 0.65 0.12 0.49 0.27 Coral encrusting -0.09 0.85 -0.25 0.59 -0.77 0.04 Coral foliose 0.02 0.97 -0.11 0.82 -0.53 0.23 Coral massive -0.69 0.08 -0.60 0.15 -0.62 0.14 Coral submassive -0.16 0.74 0.07 0.89 -0.48 0.27 Coral tabulate 0.01 0.99 0.07 0.88 -0.02 0.97 Dead coral -0.61 0.14 -0.63 0.13 -0.41 0.36 Other substrates -0.39 0.38 -0.50 0.26 0.12 0.80 Number of damselfish species 0.49 0.26 0.66 0.11 0.03 0.95 Fish quantity evaluated by experts 0.43 0.34 0.77 0.05 0.59 0.17 Legend: grey cells represent significant correlations (p<0.05)
Satisfaction with quantity of fish was significantly correlated with quantity of fish as rated by experts (r=0.77, p<0.05) but not with number of species. That is, before the tsunami, divers tended to focus on quantity of fish rather than on diversity. In this case, the respondents’ preferences are places in the eastern sectors of Figure 6-5. After the tsunami, diver satisfaction was correlated with many aspects of the diving site (quantity, variety and condition of coral, colour, size and diversity of fish) (Table 6-18). However,
The University of Queensland 119 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas satisfaction of SCUBA divers with coral condition was not significantly correlated with the proportion of any corals cover, while respondent satisfaction on the overall condition of the sites was positively correlated with fish diversity. That is places with abundant fish are preferred by SCUBA divers which paralleled the findings of previous studies that diver preferences of diving sites correlated to the abundance of fishes (Williams & Polunin, 2000; Rudd & Tupper, 2002). This gives considerable room for management flexibility. Divers focused only to the sites with high fish number and did not pay much attention on coral cover. That is, sites with resistant corals cover (and fish) can be selected as key diving sites. This will satisfy divers and minimise impacts.
Table 6-18 Correlation of divers’ satisfaction with natural attributes after the tsunami
Coral Coral Coral Fish Fish Fish Overall
quantity variety condition colour size diversity satisfaction Respondent opinion r 0.75 Coral variety Sig. 0.050 r 0.82 0.98 Coral condition Sig. 0.025 0.000 r 0.95 0.90 0.94 Fish colour Sig. 0.001 0.006 0.002 r 0.92 0.87 0.93 0.95 Fish size Sig. 0.004 0.011 0.003 0.001 r 0.92 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.93 Fish diversity Sig. 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.003 r 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.96 Overall satisfaction Sig. 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 Biological information r 0.70 -0.62 -0.40 0.26 0.28 0.18 0.74 Coral branching Sig. 0.118 0.189 0.426 0.624 0.590 0.738 0.090 r -0.69 0.40 0.20 -0.27 -0.42 -0.16 -0.80 Coral encrusting Sig. 0.132 0.428 0.705 0.603 0.402 0.765 0.055 r -0.22 -0.13 0.03 0.01 0.30 -0.19 -0.68 Coral foliose Sig. 0.679 0.801 0.958 0.982 0.563 0.718 0.135 r -0.72 0.53 0.44 -0.33 -0.25 -0.16 -0.77 Coral massive Sig. 0.106 0.274 0.384 0.527 0.633 0.756 0.075 r -0.50 0.46 0.21 -0.09 -0.53 0.09 -0.53 Coral submassive Sig. 0.316 0.357 0.689 0.864 0.281 0.861 0.280 r -0.48 0.26 0.29 -0.33 0.22 -0.42 -0.54 Coral tabulate Sig. 0.337 0.625 0.574 0.525 0.668 0.407 0.264 r -0.34 0.57 0.54 -0.06 0.28 -0.15 -0.36 Dead corals Sig. 0.507 0.239 0.268 0.908 0.587 0.770 0.487 r -0.83 0.34 -0.19 -0.58 -0.73 -0.58 -0.70 Other substrates Sig. 0.039 0.504 0.725 0.224 0.102 0.228 0.123 Fish quantity evaluated r 0.90 0.64 0.75 0.83 0.88 0.82 0.83 by experts Sig. 0.005 0.119 0.054 0.021 0.008 0.024 0.021 Legend: grey cells represent significant correlations (p<0.05) and grey cells with bold text represent highly significant correlations (p<0.01)
In summary, before the tsunami, visitors gained most satisfaction from a visit if there was a low proportion of encrusting corals cover and a large number of fishes at sites visited. However, after
120 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management the tsunami, divers tended to focus on quantity of fish rather than proportion of coral cover type. Places where respondents gain more satisfaction are situate in a eastern sector of Figure 6-5 except Mae Yai and Mai Ngam Bays, the preferred sites are Torinla Island, Suthep, Turtle and Pakkhad Bays. 6.4.4 Divers’ knowledge and satisfaction with management Before the tsunami, respondents were asked questions on their knowledge and opinion of management approaches being applied; after the tsunami these questions were not asked due to the temporary halt in management operations. The survey revealed that about half of respondents had a clear understanding of the zoning schemes (in any meaning; prohibitions and restrictions) (Table 6- 19). Only 35% of respondents realised the existence of the education centre. Casual observation suggests that low awareness of respondents on the existence of the education centre was influenced by the time the respondents spent on the island (all respondents visited by live aboard vessels and few went to the park headquarter and spent only a short time there). Many more Thai respondents were aware of the existence of the education centre than their foreign counterparts (G=13.5, p<0.01). The majority of respondents also indicated that both control (in the form of prohibitions, restrictions or limitations) and education tools should be applied at Surin (70% for control tools and 75% for education) which is similar to the response of general visitors (80% for control and 90% for education).
Table 6-19 Proportion of respondent awareness of management approaches
Management approaches Percent of awareness (n=17) Activity restriction areas 59% Number of visitor limitation 59% Regulation 47% Prohibition of entry 47% Temporary prohibit (time/tide) 41% Education centre 35% *Question was not asked after tsunami due to the absence of management approaches
SCUBA divers were asked about their perception and understanding of the approaches being applied to park management. The results showed different levels of satisfaction of management before and after the tsunami. Not surprisingly, satisfaction with park management was lower after the tsunami (Table 6-20). This reflects the reduction of management capacity associated with the destruction of infrastructure by the tsunami (e.g. education centre, visitor centre and staff patrolling)61. While the education centre had been destroyed, a number of respondents still ranked their satisfaction with it as satisfied and the quality as neutral. Additional interviews with these respondents revealed that this response was culturally determined with Thai respondents not wanting to be critical.
61 See Chapter 7
The University of Queensland 121 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Table 6-20 Satisfaction of divers with management
Satisfaction of divers* Management issues Before tsunami After tsunami Mean SD Mean SD Number of buoys available (n=17, 45) 3.3 0.9 2.6 0.8 Number of sites available for activities (n=17, 45) 3.7 0.6 2.9 0.5 Interpretation media available (n=17, 42) 3.3 0.8 2.7 0.5 Management of visitors (e.g. noise, crowding, behaviour) (n=17, 45) 3.1 1.1 2.9 1.0 Management activities (n=17, 45) 2.8 0.8 2.4 0.9 * 5 point rating scale: 1=very disappointed to 5=very satisfied
Respondents were also asked to rate the appropriateness of information they received at the park. Before the tsunami, most respondents (46.6%) did not expect much information at the park, but found that the information provided was better than expected. After the tsunami, when all information sources in the park were destroyed, divers were still neutral about the park information, and support the hypothesis that Thai culture influenced their response. Respondents were asked for their opinion on information that might reduce environmental impact. A number of factors were given in the December survey, but these were reduced in the March survey to one (availability of interpretation and information) to shorten the time to complete the survey and because of the high commonality of response in the first survey. Results revealed that most people believed that a lack of available information would effect environmental degradation (Table 6-21).
Table 6-21 Opinion of divers to factors that may effect environment
Effect environment Yes No Not sure Adequate information on terrestrial organism (n=17) 81% 6% 13% Adequate information on marine organism (n=17) 80% 0% 20% Adequate warning and guidelines provided in the area (n=17) 80% 0% 20% Before tsunami Adequate information for pre-plan visit (n=17) 73% 7% 20% Availability or presence of staff for help at site (n=17) 69% 6% 25% Presence of exhibition centre and its interpretations (n=17) 66% 0% 34% After tsunami Availability of interpretation/information (n=45) 100% Legend: Bold text indicates highest proportion
Before the tsunami, respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with seven controlling management approaches (i.e. tide limitation, time limitation, prohibition of entry to some places, prohibition of some activities, laws and regulations, SCUBA fee and the quota of visitors to each site). After the tsunami, the question was shortened to only their satisfaction with overall management schemes because many management approaches had not been applied. Again, the mean score of the importance of each factor had been rated62. In this case, the option ‘not aware of existence’ was excluded. The results reveal that all management approaches were rated around neutral level, except restriction of some activities, with which respondents were reasonably satisfied (mean score=3.7) (Table 6-22).
62 See Section 6.3.1
122 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
Table 6-22 Satisfaction of visitors with controlling approaches
Satisfaction % of ‘not aware of existence’ Mean SD Before tsunami (n=17) Restricted activities 3.7 0.89 25.0% Prohibition from entering some areas 3.5 0.76 46.7% Time limitation 3.3 0.49 53.3% SCUBA diver fee 3.3 0.82 37.5% Number of park regulations 3.1 0.94 31.3% Tide limitation 3.1 0.84 46.7% Strength of law and enforcement 3.0 1.27 31.3% Appropriateness of limited site access 2.9 1.10 37.5% After tsunami (n=45) Overall management 2.8 0.68 0% Rating scale: 1=Very dissatisfied to 5=Very satisfied and 6=Never realise the existence.
The majority of respondents did not realise that they are required (by law) to pay a SCUBA diver fee when diving in the park. In addition, five of the seven controlling management approaches were also poorly understood: prohibition from entering some areas, time and tide limitations, and appropriateness of limited site access (number of divers allowed in the water at the same time). This suggests that the park has failed to provide understanding of management approaches and basic information on required behaviour. While 37% of respondents did not realise the existence of the limited access approach, most who were aware of the existence, were dissatisfied with this approach (mean score=2.9 and Mode=2). Opportunistic interviews with respondents who were dissatisfied with the approach gave the reason for dissatisfaction as ‘have no idea how park management controls the number of divers’. Not surprisingly, satisfaction with management was lower after the tsunami. Before the tsunami, many management tools were being applied; however, the tsunami made most of these inoperable. Divers tend to prefer management tools to be in place and they tend to support active management. 6.4.5 Summary and management implications Most SCUBA divers came with tour operators and departed from Tap Lamu piers. All respondents came with live aboard vessels and searched for information about Surin before visiting. After the tsunami, the duration of stay was shortened because of a lack of information on coral condition and the lack of confidence in safety procedures. The most favoured information source was periodical magazines (travel magazines). Respondents sought information from a wider range of sources after the tsunami because of concern for the veracity of information being distributed. Additional sources of information used by respondents were periodically updated media such as, travel magazines and websites. Since management revenue is highly reliant on tourism (i.e. park’s fee, SCUBA diving fee, and visitor service charge from restaurant and shop)63, shorter stays reflect in less income for the park. Park management can provide better information on both environmental condition and safety procedures through periodically updated media to make divers more confident. In addition, park managers can provide information through this channel to increase diver’s understanding of management.
63 See Section 5.5.5
The University of Queensland 123 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The majority of respondents came to experience the natural environment. Before the tsunami, divers were less satisfied with places dominated by encrusting corals and they wanted to dive in places with a large number of fishes. After the tsunami, respondents tended to emphasise the importance of the dive activity itself with the additional objective of seeing the effect of the tsunami. They did not care much about damage caused by the tsunami, but they did want to dive in a place with a large number of fish. It is unclear if coral cover type influenced respondents’ satisfaction because the results from the two surveys were different. In addition, the second survey was conducted a short time (3 months) after the tsunami, so imagined tsunami effects may have influenced answers. However, respondents from the two surveys repeatedly indicated that they did want to dive in places with a large number of fish. This finding suggests that the quantity of fish can be used as additional criteria for site allocation in future zoning plans. From the divers’ perspective, their preferred dive sites are Torinla Island, Suthep, Turtle and Pakkhad Bays (see Figure 6-5). However, these four sites might not be the preferences of managers due to the abundance of fragile corals in these areas. Apart from the issue of vulnerability to physical impact of fragile corals, the impact of SCUBA diver study64, found that the amount of damage caused by divers was also related to current strength and diver characteristics. While places with a high percent cover of fragile coral are more vulnerable, factors such as diver strength, experience and activity undertaken strongly influence the degree of damage. Female divers, with less physical strength than males, are likely to make contact with the coral substrate because of physical limitations to handle currents and bulky diving gear. Conceptually, the site factors that influence SCUBA diver propensity to cause damage to coral can be placed on two axes: coral type and current (Figure 6-6).
Figure 6-6 Factors influencing SCUBA diver impacts to coral
64 See Section 5.5.4
124 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
If park managers seek to minimise diver attrition of coral, from a management perspective, areas with strong current and a high proportion of fragile corals (the southwest sector of Figure 6 – Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay) should be avoided. If the preferences of divers and managers are combined, places available for diving activity are confined to Suthep and Turtle Bays. This is not practical because it would be difficult to gain stakeholder acceptance. Findings from Section 5.5.4 and previous research (Hawkins & Roberts, 1992; Tratalos & Austin, 2001) indicate that each dive site has a threshold level of damage. Increasing pressure on the reefs over the level might be reflected in degradation. In addition, crowding in the area also affected divers’ satisfaction negatively (Inglis et al., 1999). Divers should be allocated to several dive sites to minimise the possibility of reef degradation and provide more opportunity for natural recovery at intensively used sites. Since strength of the currents at offshore islands such as Surin is related to tidal change/exchange of water (Phongsuwan & Chansang, 1994), as an alternative, park managers can use their knowledge of the sites to estimate current strength by the tidal range and the time of day. In this light, sites with strong currents (Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay) can be used safely, from a diver and environmental impact perspective, during neap tides. This can be done by either providing a ‘recommended dive sites’ board on the mainland and at Park HQ, which must be changed daily, or enforcing the regulation on ‘diving limitations’. The former represents a service to divers and operators as well as responsive management that will foster a co-operative approach to management and certainly posit park management as a proactive management agency. In addition, this study found that divers were less satisfied with the limited access approach and did not respect the rules because they did not believe in the effectiveness of park’s enforcement. Hence, seeking co- operation from divers, by facilitating the recommended programmes, is likely to be a more effective management approach. Respondents were aware of the permit system and this increased after the tsunami. However, awareness was limited to regulations, with little understanding of the benefits of the permit system that park managers want to use as a limitation tool to control number of illegal operators. Most people, especially Thai divers, did not know if their chosen operator held a current permit. If park management wants to use public awareness to eliminate illegal operators, the park needs to provide more information to the public to improve their understanding. In so doing, the market is likely to demand compliance with regulations by their chosen operators. Before the tsunami, most SCUBA divers did not realise the existence of the education centre. This changed after the tsunami when respondents tended to seek information from the park’s interpretation media. Most divers believed that lack of information would be a factor in environment degradation, especially after the tsunami when temporary management approaches were applied65. However, the education centre and other interpretation media were destroyed and have still not been replaced. Park management needs to focus on re-establishing the education centre and communicating the substance and intent of management schemes to influence attitudes to management. Divers supported management and their satisfaction was reduced when management capacity was limited by the effects of the tsunami. That is, there is a high level of good-will in visitors towards
65 See Appendix III
The University of Queensland 125 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas management, but park management must be able to respond rapidly to changes in circumstances if respect and confidence is to be maintained. For Surin, after the tsunami, there were problems that made this an impossibility66. From the surveys, respondents had low awareness of management practices, especially the ad hoc management approaches applied after the collapse of the zoning system. While the effectiveness of management relies on how well visitors are aware of the management presence, the destruction of the education centre directly affected park management’s capacity to communicate with visitors on management practice, thus, reducing the effectiveness of management. 6.5 Tour operators’ perception and understanding of park management
Unlike the surveys of general visitors and SCUBA divers, tour operators were surveyed only once in December 2004. From 39 tour guides who work in the seven companies operating tours to Surin, 15 respondents (38%) participated in the survey. The intention to conduct additional surveys became impossible after the tsunami because general operators did not visit and the number of dive companies was reduced to two previously interviewed companies. 6.5.1 Tour operator characteristics All but two tour operators are Thai. Most work for tour companies while two are freelance operators. Most of the companies (58%), for whom the respondents worked, operated daily trips to Surin; 34% operated between twice to six times a week and the rest operated weekly or less than once per week. Most (93%) had their own vessel and carried between 5,000 and 9,999 clients per year (60%). The most common group size was 20-50 people per trip (53%). Most (80%) departed from Kuraburi pier. All of the tour operators stay with their clients during the trip. Beautiful environments (reef, forest, and beach) were the most often reported factors motivating respondents to operate tours to Surin, followed by friendly park staff, while luxury accommodation was the least cited reason (Table 6-23). These results suggest that tour operator businesses are clearly dependent on the health of environments.
Table 6-23 Motivation of tour operator to visit Surin
Motivation Mean* Mode SD Beautiful reef (n=15) 4.85 5 0.38 Beautiful forest (n=15) 4.46 5 0.78 White sandy beach (n=15) 4.46 5 0.78 Friendly staff (n=15) 4.33 5 0.82 Remote environment (n=15) 3.38 4 1.39 Luxury accommodation (n=15) 1.54 1 1.33 * 5 point rating scale: 1=not at all important to 5=extremely important
6.5.2 Activities undertaken All tour companies offered snorkelling, and only 13% of their clients do not undertake this activity (Table 6-24). Few operators offered information about the park interpretation programmes to their clients. Only 13% mentioned the education centre and 27% the video presentation. However,
66 See Chapter 7
126 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management many of their clients (73%) were interested in the education centre and went to explore it and 40% attended the video presentation. The reason provided for not recommending the education programme was that ‘they were not sure their clients would be interested’. These results suggest that their clients are interested in learning about the reef environment although this is not well supported by operators.
Table 6-24 Activities offered and undertaken by operator clients in Surin
Types Activities (n=15) Offered but clients Not offered but Offered and clients Not offered did not do clients actually did actually did Snorkelling 0% 13% 0% 87% SCUBA diving 20% 33% 20% 27% Education centre exploring 27% 0% 60% 13% Watching video presentation 33% 27% 40% 0%
Chong Khad Channel (HQ Bay) is the most well-known destination in Surin, followed by Torinla Island and Suthep Bay. All operators brought their clients to visit HQ Bay. Casual observations found that operators strongly influenced the selection of sites visited. Few tour clients specified their intention to visit specific places, while most followed their operators’ suggestions. 6.5.3 Operators satisfaction with environmental condition Pearson correlation was used to compare the satisfaction of operators with biological aspects of places visited. The calculation was done on the same data sets described in Section 6.3.3. Together with coral cover data acquired by the monitoring survey, expert opinion of the quantity of fish was collected and averaged (Table 6-25).
Table 6-25 Correlation of operator’s satisfaction and natural attributes
Correlation Satisfaction of tour operators Coral condition Fish quantity Overall condition r Significance r Significance r Significance Respondent opinion Fish quantity 0.59 0.17 Overall satisfaction 0.86 0.01 0.87 0.01 Biological information Coral branching 0.87 0.01 0.64 0.12 0.82 0.02 Coral encrusting -0.23 0.62 -0.82 0.02 -0.57 0.19 Coral foliose -0.17 0.72 -0.62 0.14 -0.57 0.18 Coral massive -0.69 0.09 -0.66 0.11 -0.69 0.08 Coral submassive -0.27 0.57 -0.72 0.07 -0.42 0.35 Coral tabulate 0.51 0.24 0.04 0.94 0.18 0.70 Dead coral -0.60 0.15 -0.31 0.50 -0.62 0.14 Other substrates -0.71 0.07 -0.01 0.98 -0.40 0.38 Number of damselfish species 0.97 0.002 0.68 0.09 0.90 0.006 Fish quantity evaluated by experts 0.72 0.07 0.04 0.93 0.43 0.34 Legend: grey cells represent significant correlations (p<0.05) and grey cells with bold text represent high significant correlations (p<0.01)
From Pearson correlation analysis, satisfaction of operators with coral condition was positively correlated with the proportion of branching corals cover and diversity of fish species; and not correlated with any other variable. That is, operator prefer sites dominated by branching corals
The University of Queensland 127 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas rather the other forms and tend to focus on diversity of fish rather than on quantity. Their preferred sites are Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay. 6.5.4 Operators’ knowledge and satisfaction with management The surveys revealed that most operators (80%) were aware of the existence of the education centre. Less than half (47%) had a clear understanding of the limitation of access schemes (restriction on tide, time or number of visitors). During the interviews, it became evident that some respondents did not know the detail of the permit system, and were guessing, because only 40% correctly answered both questions relating to permits. While only eight respondents were aware of the permit requirements for tour companies (by law), ten respondents indicated that their company had a permit. This is likely to be because most respondents (13 people) were company employees and might not be aware of their company’s compliance. Both non-local tour operators (2 records) were unaware of the existence of the permit system, and consequently did not possess the required permits. It was apparent that they were not deliberately avoiding compliance costs but simply ignorant of requirements; again, an unsatisfactory situation for management. Most operators also indicated that the park should apply both control (prohibitions, restrictions or limitations) and education tools to manage Surin (90% for controlled tools and 100% for education). The majority of operators were satisfied with interpretation and information available at the island (mean score above three, neutral level). Seventy five percent also considered that insufficient interpretation would negatively affect environmental condition. Respondents also believed that the absence of park staff on-site would more negatively affect environmental condition than the absence of an education centre. Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with seven controlling management approaches (i.e. tide limitation, time limitation, entry prohibition to some places, prohibition of some activities, laws and regulations, SCUBA diver fee and the quota of visitors to each site). Again, mean score according to preference of each factor was rated67. The results reveal that all management approaches were rated at a neutral level (Table 6-26). All operators indicated that they were interested in park training programmes on management.
Table 6-26 Satisfaction of operators with controlling approaches (n=15)
Satisfaction % of ‘not aware of Mean SD existence’ Activities restriction 3.42 1.00 0% SCUBA diver fee 3.42 1.31 0% Time limitation 3.25 1.42 0% Prohibition of entering 3.08 1.17 0% Appropriateness of site limit access 2.83 1.08 17% Park regulations enforcement 2.83 0.58 0% Number of park regulations 2.83 0.58 0% Tide – level limitation 2.83 1.12 0% Rating scale: 1=Very dissatisfied to 5=Very satisfied
67 See Section 6.3.1
128 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management
6.5.5 Summary and management implications Most respondents are working in tour companies that conduct daily trips to Surin in company- owned vessels and departed from Kuraburi. Fewer than half had a clear understanding of park management but were happy to participate in management education programmes. Most operators were aware of the existence of the Park’s education programmes and were satisfied with the programmes’ performances. However, only a few passed their knowledge of the education centre to their clients. Casual observations indicated that none of the operators recommended clients explore the education centre even though some recommended the presentation video. Since clients usually remain in the operator’s care for the majority of their time in the marine park, the operator is important, in an educational sense, as a provider of experience and information about the environment and management (Hockings, 1994). In addition, this study found that tour operators strongly influenced the selection of sites visited and the activities undertaken. Most of the operators’ clients reported an interest in the education centre and explored it by themselves. The proportion of visitors exploring the education centre and gaining more understanding of Surin’s management could be increased if the Park obtained the co-operation of tour operators. The major motivation to conduct a trip to Surin for most tour operators was the beautiful environments and their businesses are clearly dependent on the health of these environments. In many studies, tourism operators have indicated that their business would directly benefit from effective management (Sudara & Nateekarnchanalap, 1988; Suman et al., 1999; Kenchington, 2003). Tour operators are likely to support management that ensures the protection of the pristine environment. However, the study found that most tour operators had a neutral view of controlling management techniques. This may be the result of operators not truly understanding management practices and their intent. Operators had incomplete understanding of their legal obligations and the rationale for management approaches. Park management would benefit from conducting management education programmes for tour operators since all respondents indicated a willingness to attend. This seems to be a cost effective approach to management, since knowledge received from the programmes could subsequently be passed on to visitors/clients. On-site surveillance and patrolling by park staff is considered to be vital by operators. As seen in marine protected areas elsewhere (Sudara, 2002a; Muthiga, 2003; Songco, 2003), increased frequency of staff patrols helps to reduce inappropriate behaviour of resources users. However, patrolling at the desirable frequency is not possible due to a lack of management capacity; so there is a need to either increase capacity or for an alternative approach to improving and managing the behaviour of resource users. An alternative used by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is to encourage tourism operators, who regularly conduct their trips in the park, to report unusual incidents. These include such things as littering, moving too close to marine fauna, not using a booking system, operating an illegal mooring, any damage to a mooring, operating without a permit or fishing in a green zone (GBRMPA, 2006b). As a result, tourism operators have become recognised as a vital part of the surveillance programme and report incidents that help improve management effectiveness (GBRMPA, 2006c). This strategy can be applied to Surin because tourism businesses are clearly dependent on the health of environments visited. Hence, they are more likely to help the manager preserve natural condition. However, competitiveness between operators runs the risk of fallacious and nuisance reporting. The implementation of a co-operative approach to surveillance is only possible if the parties involved have mutual respect. This needs time to develop through a series of successful collaborations in less sensitive areas.
The University of Queensland 129 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
6.6 Differences between stakeholders, and management strategies
Most respondents (general visitors, SCUBA divers, tour operators) had a neutral view of the desirability of various management approaches, especially controlling ones (e.g. prohibition or limitation). However, this study suggests that respondents gain more satisfaction if the Park has management tools in place. Respondents expect and welcome a controlling management system, provided they understand the rationale for such tools. The more information respondents received, the greater is their understanding and support they expressed for management. However, and despite evidence that interpretation was sought and appreciated by visitors, and had a positive effect, the park’s education tools were not very effective in delivering an understanding of management intent. While respondents (combination of general visitors and SCUBA divers) had a generally poor understanding of management, awareness of the zoning and other visitor restrictions increased with the number of times people had visited the park (Table 6-27). Awareness was not affected by whether or not visitors used park accommodation. However, previous analysis (Section 6.3.4, Table 6-8) has shown that visitors who used the information centre had a greater awareness of these regulations. So the opportunity of having visitors staying in park accommodation is not being used effectively by park managers to increase communication with visitors. Visitors who come with tour operators have a greater awareness than independent travellers, so operators appear to be communicating some management messages to their clients.
Table 6-27 Likelihood ratio (G-test) of respondent’s awareness of each the management approaches existence amongst different variables (n=191)
Number of times visited Stay at park’s accommodations Come with tour operators Management approaches (first time/returned) (yes/no) (yes/no) G significant G significant G significant Prohibition of entry 4.93 0.026 4.67 0.494 6.31 0.012 Activity restriction areas 3.96 0.047 3.08 0.080 6.12 0.013 Number of visitor limitation 4.26 0.039 0.81 0.369 6.15 0.013
There were differences between general visitors (hereafter, ‘snorkellers’) and SCUBA divers (hereafter, ‘divers’) in a number of characteristics relating to their visit. Snorkellers came with the Park’s transporters and departed from the Park’s pier, and stayed on the island for most of their visit, so they had better chance to explore the education media from both the mainland office and the island’s education centre. In contrast, divers rarely had a chance to explore either the mainland interpretation media or island’s education centre. Divers spent most time on live-aboard vessels. The Park cannot assume that their education programmes are able to increase divers’ understanding of management. Proactive management can be used by announcing the intent of management through either leaflets (e.g. brochure and/or posters), on board diving boats and at dive shop (or diving societies) or websites (e.g. official park website, diving shop and diving society websites). There was a difference between snorkellers and divers in their motivation for visiting Surin. Most snorkellers came to rest, but are likely to snorkel if given the opportunity. In contrast, divers intended to experience the natural environment through SCUBA diving. The difference between these intentions reflects the difference in preparedness. Divers are more likely to take a careful
130 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 6 Perceptions of Stakeholders Toward Management approach towards the vulnerable environment than those who undertook underwater activities opportunistically (Piewsawat, 2002). By observation, it was found that many snorkellers, who rented diving gear from the Park, and are more likely to be novice snorkellers, usually felt uncomfortable with the diving gear and, subsequently, stood on massive coral to adjust their poorly fitted equipment. Results demonstrated that a pre-dive briefing can significantly reduce the number of impacts caused by divers68, so briefing snorkellers before their dives and encouraging the practice of diving skills in calm water and/or a place with low cover of coral is likely to help reduce impact caused by snorkellers, ignorant of their impacting behaviour. Snorkellers preferred places with high coverage of branching corals and large numbers of fish, while divers were found to be less concerned with coral cover and focus more on the number of fish at a site. Park managers already have biological information on each dive site that provides the rationale for site selection. While Suthep and Turtle Bays can be made available for SCUBA diving at all times, and Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay at variable times of the day, depending on tides, additional sites with a large number of fish can also be introduced for diving. These sites are available offshore (i.e. the pinnacles) or between the islands (Channels). For snorkellers, Torinla Island, Pakkhad, Turtle, Mai Ngam and Suthep Bays are the preferred sites. Of these, Mai Ngam Bay is only preferred by snorkellers and the pinnacle and channel only by SCUBA divers, while Torinla Island, Pakkhad, Turtle, and Suthep Bays are preferred by both. Since the preferences of SCUBA divers focus on the quantity of fish, and snorkellers on branching corals, spatial distribution of the activities is possible to satisfy the preference of both groups. SCUBA divers can be encouraged to conduct their dives around edge-slope zones, which are the dominant zones for fishes (Saisaeng, 2002; Reopanichkul, 2005), while snorkellers can used flat-edge zones where branching corals dominate, associated with a considerable number of fishes. Co-operation with tour operators is needed to implement such an approach as decisions on which areas are visited was strongly influenced by tour operators. While voluntary surveillance by tour operators may help reduce unacceptable behaviour of users, its weakness is in focusing on the consequences, rather than the cause of the problem. Management attention should be directed to the prevention of negative behaviour. This can be done through the development of ‘Codes of Practice’ for tourism activities, to be developed in co-operation with relevant stakeholders. This has been recognised as an important management tool in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Kelleher & Dinesen, 1993). In Thailand, the Department of National Park Wildlife and Plant Conservation have already produced some codes of practice for basic activities (e.g. anchoring, boating, and camping). However, no such code of practice has been specifically produced for appropriate behaviour of snorkellers and SCUBA divers. The code of practice should be developed with clear descriptions of appropriate practices and reinforced with explanations of how visitor use affects coral reef resources. Since this study found that snorkellers cause damage when they stand on corals to rest or adjust their gear, the codes of practice should alert snorkellers to be aware of their resting point and make them aware of their fin or feet when adjusting their gear and communicating above water. Similarly, the code of practice for SCUBA divers should advise divers to be aware of the effect of current strength and provide criteria to identify sites that match diver expectations for safety and quality experiences, but within the experience of the diver to dive with minimum impact.
68 See Section 5.4
The University of Queensland 131 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
6.7 Conclusion
While all management approaches aim to conserve natural environments and provide recreational opportunities for people, the acceptability of these differ. Some users of marine parks respond positively while others react negatively, often because of a lack of understanding of the rationale for the constraints and limitations on their desired activities. Respondents are likely to welcome a controlled management system, if they understand its rationale. Information about management needs to be easily understood, explained and promoted through targeted media. The study revealed that most people visited Surin with tour operators and all operators are interested in park training programmes; so using tour operators as a medium for promoting park regulations seems to be a sensible and cost-effective strategy. Tour operators benefit from healthy environments, so they have a predisposition to support the protection of the environment. The Park should work collaboratively with operators to facilitate greater understanding of management strategies, so that they can subsequently pass this knowledge to their clients, and encourage operators to conduct conservation update briefings with clients. If a new multiple use zoning plan is prepared for Surin, selection criteria of biodiversity richness alone should not be the only basis for designation of zones but should also take account of user group preferences for different site characteristics. Quantity of fish, topography and hydrography, and biodiversity criteria can be used to design a zoning scheme that meets the dual objectives of biodiversity conservation, minimising impacts of use and providing satisfying experiences for users.
132 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
Chapter 7 THE BOXING DAY TSUNAMI AND ITS EFFECTS ON SURIN MARINE NATIONAL PARK
The University of Queensland 133 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 7 The Boxing Day Tsunami and Its Effects 7.1 Chapter Overview
7.2 The Boxing Day tsunami
7.3 Impacts on 7.4 Impacts on 7.6 Impacts on the natural the Human Surin Marine environment livelihood National Park 7.3.1 Coral reefs 7.4.1 Infrastructure 7.6.1 Coral reefs 7.3.2 Sea grass of socio-economic 7.6.2 Infrastructure beds sectors and management 7.3.3 Protected 7.4.2 Debris, capacity areas Hazardous Materials and Liquid Waste
7.5 Government’s 7.7 Threat and response to the problems that tsunami emerged 7.5.1 Support to fisheries
7.5.2 Support to tourism 7.7.1 Damages to 7.5.3 Psychological coral reefs and support and post revision of the tragedy trauma zoning plan handling 7.7.2 Management 7.5.4 resources Environmental 7.7.3 Increasing recovery pressure of fisheries 7.5.5 Relevance to 7.7.4 Uneven 7.8 Conclusion this thesis recovery time of stakeholders
Figure 7-1 Chapter 7 structure
134 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
CHAPTER 7 THE BOXING DAY TSUNAMI AND ITS EFFECTS 7.1 Chapter overview
This chapter provides information on the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami; arguably the greatest natural disaster in Thailand’s history. The tsunami affected six provinces along the Andaman Coast of Thailand, leaving more than 8,000 people dead, one third of them foreigners. It impacted 407 villages, of which 47 were completely destroyed, including well-known tourist destinations such as Khao Lak. It also had a disruptive effect on the planned direction for my research although it has created a unique opportunity to examine the biophysical and management impacts on Surin. After the disaster, the Royal Thai Government instituted immediate emergency responses followed by longer-term recovery schemes to help the affected communities. Thailand’s marine science education institutes formed a taskforce to assess the impact of the tsunami on the natural environment. I was in charge of the survey of Surin Marine National Park and surrounding islands in Ranong province, aided by research staff from the Department of Marine Science, Kasetsart University. Details of the government’s response and reactions of other organisations relevant to management of Surin Marine National Park are also documented. The information in this chapter comes mostly from my observations during the post-tsunami period and the conclusions from the tsunami assessment taskforce. Some information has been collated from local newspapers, and reports of the Royal Thai Government and international agencies. Detailed information on the tsunami and management response is provided in Appendix III. 7.2 The Boxing Day tsunami
On 26 December 2004, a massive earthquake occurred off-shore Sumatra. This resulted in the tsunami that struck many countries around the Indian Ocean. At about 9.45 am, the first of a series of waves hit the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. The waves, up to 10 metres high, impacted severely on the six coastal provinces along the Andaman Sea, namely: Ranong, Phang Nga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun (Figure 7-2). Within half an hour, major damage occurred along the shoreline. Local residents and tourists were killed or injured, some being swept out to sea. As of 8 February 2005, the Royal Thai Government casualty estimates were reported at 5,393 dead, 8,457 injured and 3,062 missing (DMCR, 2005). Beachside properties were destroyed and serious damage occurred to infrastructure. The level of destruction in the six provinces varies significantly depending upon a number of natural parameters including sea floor bathymetry, slope, elevation and presence of natural barriers (i.e. mangrove forests, reefs), as well as constructed influences such as coastal land-use and development. The most affected province was Phang Nga, in particular Khao Lak district (see Appendix III #1). Phuket and Krabi provinces were also severely affected. In Ranong, Trang and Satun provinces, offshore islands sustained severe damage, but lesser impacts were recorded on the mainland. The loss of life and structural damage was probably the worst on record for Thailand.
The University of Queensland 135 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Figure 7-2 Tsunami affected provinces An environmental damage taskforce assessed the effect on marine ecosystems a few days after the tsunami (DMCR, 2005). The taskforce was led by the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), and was composed of about 100 research staff from DMCR and nine educational institutions (Chulalongkorn University, Kasetsart University, Burapha University, Ramkhamhaeng University, Prince of Songkhla University, Walailak University, Mahidol University, Rajamangala Institute of Technology, Trang, and Rajamangala Institute of Technology, Bangkok Campus). This group undertook rapid assessments in 174 out of 324 coral reef sites between 30 December 2004 and 15 January 2005. The 174 sites were selected across the six affected provinces, both inside and outside protected areas, and included key snorkelling and diving sites as well as sites not visited by tourists The rapid investigations at seven sites at Surin Marine National Park, undertaken between 30 December 2004 and 15 January 2005, involved assessing coral reefs, seagrass beds, marine endangered species, and water quality (see Appendix III environmental survey section). More than 120 volunteer divers and 10 dive-boat operators assessed the tsunami impacts on the coral reefs across Thailand (Phongsuwan et al., 2006). 7.3 Impacts on the natural environment 7.3.1 Coral reefs The tsunami damage assessments revealed that the overall extent of the damage to the coral reefs was much less than had been expected. The level of impact was site-specific and varied from 0 to 80 per cent. From a total of 174 sites, representing the principal coral reef areas in the Andaman Sea, up to 60% of the sites were either untouched (no sign of damage: 69 sites), or had very little damage (1–10% of corals affected: 36 sites). Reefs with low (11–30% of corals affected) and moderate (31–50%) impacts amounted to 30 and 16 sites, respectively, and collectively comprise
136 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
26% of the total. Only 23 of the sites had been severely impacted (>50% corals damaged), this being just 13% of the total sites surveyed (Table 7-1). Coral reefs on the western coasts of islands were more affected than the eastern coasts. Reefs located in channels between islands experienced highest impacts. Shallow-water reefs were most affected. Deep-water reefs and those around Phuket remained largely unharmed. Six to seven sites, where over 50% of the reefs were affected, were proposed to be closed to tourism, four of which were located in Surin Marine National Park.
Table 7-1 Tsunami impact on coral reefs at monitoring stations
Damage Province No sign Very slight Slight Moderate Severe Total (0 %) (1-10 %) (11-30 %) (31-50 %) (>50 %) Ranong 0 2 2 1 7 12 Phang Nga 21 12 16 10 13 72 Surin 0 5 7 5 4 21 Phuket 12 5 3 1 0 21 Krabi 12 8 4 4 2 30 Trang 2 4 2 0 0 8 Satun 22 5 3 0 1 31 Total 69 36 30 16 23 174 Source: DNP, 2005
The destructive impact of the tsunami on the coral reefs depended on factors such as the geographic location of the area, the islands, reef characteristics, the sea bottom depth and the physiographic zone on the reef. Damage to corals was classified into five types (Figure 7-3):
• branches or portions of coral colonies that are broken (probably caused by the waves or indirectly by heavy drifting objects or debris striking the corals);
• colonies that had been overturned or had collapsed;
• large massive colonies that had been moved into shallow water and exposed directly to the sun;
• sand-sliding along the reef slope, leading to breakage of corals, abrasion of coral surfaces, or completely burying corals; and
• erosion of shallow, sandy seabeds, which led to either sand smothering or burying the coral. The first three types of damage were generally found at the most impacted reef sites, particularly in shallow waters. The fourth effect was commonly found on reefs with steep slopes. The fifth was typical of the reefs located on wave-exposed shorelines.
The University of Queensland 137 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Figure 7-3 Types of tsunami damage on coral reefs
(A: coral colonies destroyed by direct impact of waves, B: large massive corals overturned, C: Large massive corals that have been moved into shallow water, D and E: Sand sliding and burying corals) 7.3.2 Seagrass beds The sea grass beds along the Andaman coast of Thailand cover an area of 79.37 km2. Sea grass habitats are of considerable importance as a basis for fishery production, as a food source for certain threatened animals, in particular the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the dugong (Dugong dugon), as well as for coastal stabilisation. To estimate the impacts of the tsunami disaster on the sea grass meadows, a rapid assessment was undertaken by the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE). Seagrass beds received little damage from the tsunami waves. About 72% (57.6 km2) of the total seagrass area along the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand was inspected post tsunami, of this, only 5% was affected. The signs of impact included detachment of seagrass leaves, accumulation or deposition of a thin sediment layer, and erosion of sand along the outer edges of the seagrass bed or on wave-exposed patches. The latter erosion led, to some extent, to habitat loss. However, this accounted only for 1.5% of the area investigated. 7.3.3 Protected areas There are 14 Marine National Parks on the Andaman Coast of Thailand. They cover many of the offshore islands, including Surin, Similan, Phi Phi, Adang Rawi and Tarutao, and sensitive coastal areas in each of the six tsunami-affected provinces. Besides damage to the marine and coastal habitats, Marine National Parks (MNP) suffered losses in terms of infrastructure (office, housing,
138 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects tourist facilities) and equipment (communications, vehicles). Six Marine National Parks were most affected by the tsunami, Laem Son MNP (Ranong Province), Sirinath MNP (Phuket Province), Surin MNP, Similan MNP and Tan Bok Korani MNP (Phang Nga Province), and Hat Noppharat Thara MNP (Phi Phi Islands, Krabi Province)69. 7.4 Impacts on human livelihood
Information in this section has been collated and translated from government reports and websites. Most of these sources were originally published in Thai. Online reports used included those presented on websites listed in Box 7-170.
Box 7-1 Online reports on the impact of the Boxing Day tsunami
Royal Thai Government (http://www.thaigov.go.th/th/home/home.aspx) Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT - http://www.tat.or.th/e-journal/, http://www.tatgovernor.com), Department of Fisheries (http://www.fisheries.go.th), Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM http://61.19.54.131/tsunami/index.php?pack=overall), Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR - http://www.dmcr.go.th), Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP – http://www.dnp.go.th), Office of Prime Minister (http://www.opm.go.th, http://203.170.239.222/tsunami/index) Australian Government: (AUSAID – http://www.ausaid.gov.au), and many United Nations organisations such as United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP - http://www.unep.org/tsunami/tsunami_rpt.asp) and United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP- http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/tsunami/nations.htm)
7.4.1 Infrastructure of socio-economic sectors The tsunami disaster severely affected the infrastructure of the two most important economic sectors of the Andaman Coast; tourism and fisheries. The losses in these two sectors are estimated at US$321 million, and US$43 million respectively (UN, 2005). a. Tourism based livelihoods Many of the worst affected areas in Thailand were favoured destinations for international tourists. Tourism in the region, especially marine-related tourism, was the most important source of revenue and the largest provider of livelihoods, both in the formal and informal sectors. The tourism sector was the most affected by the tsunami in pure economic terms, given that the six affected provinces generated 17% of total tourism revenue for Thailand in 200471. The tsunami destroyed or damaged 25% of total room capacity in the six provinces. More than 300 hotels and resorts and 200 restaurants were damaged or destroyed (DDPM, 2005). In addition, about 4,300 shops, many of them largely dependent on tourism, were lost72. Many businesses lost their staff, boats, shops, and diving equipment. About 148 large tourist vessels and 779 small tourist boats were damaged or lost. Comparison of 2003 and 2004 tourism figures from January to June showed a 53% drop in tourist arrivals in the affected provinces (TAT, 2006).
69 See Appendix III #4,#7 70 Significant articles, reports and commentaries are cited in the references. Sources listed in Box 7-1 represent minor parts of websites, often the ‘front page’ that changed very regularly. 71 Data from the website of the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), January 2005. 72 Data from local newspapers and report published in March 2005.
The University of Queensland 139 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The loss of tourist revenue affected both those directly working in the tourism industry, and those indirectly supporting the industry. Tourism based employees are often not local but income spent by these employees supports other local people’s livelihoods. b. Fisheries based livelihoods Coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangrove forests are important nursery grounds for fisheries sectors, particularly local based fisheries. Most households in coastal areas of the Andaman coast are either involved in aquaculture or fishing (DOF, 2003). While shallow natural resources were more likely to be damaged than resources at depth, impacts upon small-scale fishers, who practice in shallow coastal waters using smaller ‘long-tailed’ boats, were impacted more significantly than larger scale fisheries operations. The livelihoods of fisher folk in the coastal areas of the tsunami-affected provinces experienced heavy damage to fishing boats and gear73. The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) reported that nearly 6,000 boats were lost and more than 6,600 items of significant fishing equipment (e.g. fish traps, nets) were destroyed (DDPM, 2005). 7.4.2 Debris, hazardous materials and liquid waste With the extensive damage to buildings, including individual houses, shops, tourist facilities and public infrastructure, large amounts of debris, ranging from building material to hazardous wastes, were washed into the sea. The total amount of debris is not known, although preliminary estimates for Phi Phi Islands (Phang Nga Province) are 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes (DMCR, 2005). The receding waves swept debris and scattered it across the coastal zone to the marine ecosystems such as sea grass meadows and coral reefs. Debris brought by the receding tidal waves was seen as a serious threat to the marine ecosystem. It needed to be removed rapidly to prevent irreparable damage. Since 9 January 2005, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR), in collaboration with the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) (both in MONRE), and many in the private sector have been conducting regular clean-up operations of the beaches and coral reefs. DMCR (2005) assessed fifteen parameters of seawater quality from various routine monitoring sites along the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand and reported that there were no negative effects of the tsunami on the quality of coastal water, compared to the pre-tsunami data. Some parameters such as total suspended solid were higher than normal at a few sites, while some seawater properties improved after the tsunami. Prior to the tsunami, contamination by coliform bacteria (E. coli and others) was over the standard limit at several sites, but after the event, high contamination areas were reduced to only one site. Overall, the seawater quality along the Andaman Sea coast improved post-tsunami. 7.5 Government’s response to the tsunami
The Royal Thai Government led an effective emergency response to the largest natural catastrophe in Thailand's history in three consecutive periods; emergency response (a few days), intermediate response (up to 3 months) and long-term recovery. Emergency responses focused on searching for
73 See Appendix III #19
140 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects and rescuing survivors, providing basic needs of local communities and the recovery and identification of human remains, including a massive forensic operation74. Intermediate responses focused on preventing infectious diseases and secondary losses amongst those who survived the tragedy, as well as the preliminary assessment of damage to built and natural environments75. This included a Government declaration of a temporary suspension of national park rules for the rehabilitation of park facilities76, the assessment of economic loss and several special assistance programmes and compensation schemes to mitigate the economic impact of the disaster on victims. Finally, the long-term recovery focused on reconstruction and longer-term rehabilitation of those affected. The Government provided many assistance schemes including recovery support to fisheries, small business and tourism, psychological support and post-tragedy trauma counselling, and environmental recovery.
7.5.1 Support to fisheries77 After the tsunami affected over 400 fishing communities along Thailand's Andaman coast, the Royal Thai Government compensation scheme granted US$1,500 for fishermen who lost small boats and US$5,000 for large boats. However, thousands of the boats lost were not registered. The Government agreed to pay compensation equivalent to 70% of the actual damage to fishermen who lost unregistered boats or fishing equipment78. In many cases, especially for unregistered boats, the compensation from the Government was not sufficient to repair or rebuild fishing boats and replace lost fishing gear; fishermen were unable to go to sea to earn a living again. Aid efforts were increased by national and international agencies. A number of organizations jointly provided support for fishing communities in building and repairing boats, and providing boat engines and fishing gear79 .
7.5.2 Support to tourism80 Although tourism infrastructure was severely damaged by the tsunami, the government tried to encourage tourists to return to these destinations, because tourism was the most important source of revenue and the largest provider of livelihoods in the affected region. Therefore, the rehabilitation of tourism infrastructure was a priority. The World Tourism Organization (WTO) organised a meeting of tourism experts from 42 countries, the private sector and several international organisations in February 2005. The meeting produced the Phuket Action Plan (PAP) to speed recovery of tourism in the affected destinations and to restore traveller confidence (WTO, 2005).
74 See Appendix III, #3, #8 75 See Appendix III, after the crisis section 76 See Appendix III #4 77 See Appendix III #35, #44 78 Data from website of Department of Fisheries, March 2005 79 Data from website of Office of Prime Minister, November 2005 80 See Appendix III #22, #23, #26, #36
The University of Queensland 141 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
The Government supported the recovery process of the tourism sector with special packages and encouragements to stimulate tourism in the affected areas. Funding was raised and policies altered to revive tourism in the tsunami-affected provinces, and included the suspension of the national park and SCUBA diving’s fee. An extra US$19.5 million was added to the marketing and promotion budget for tourism, with a post-disaster strategy focusing on new markets and new products (TAT, 2005).
7.5.3 Psychological support and post tragedy trauma handling81 The tsunami tragedy caused psychological injury to people in affected regions. Post-disaster trauma made it difficult for affected people to get back to their normal life. The Department of Mental Health commenced a programme to support those who had difficulty in dealing with the trauma and stress of having lived through the disaster82. The department organised teams, staffed by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and pharmacists, to cover each affected district. These teams provided individual and group counselling as well as medication for those in need. The programme was scheduled to continue with monthly visits for two years. Two years on, a number of documentaries have been made for television based on interviews with tourists who lived through the tsunami horror. It is clear from such documentaries that the psychological effect is felt deeply. While not devaluing the experiences of these tourists being interviewed and their losses, for the residents in the tsunami affected areas, there is the added grief associated with a loss of home and livelihood.
7.5.4 Environmental recovery83,84 The area affected by the tsunami included pristine natural sites and ecosystems. The Government’s rehabilitation plan included giving priority to the sustainability of these areas. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR), under the Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE), worked with the Department of National Parks (DNP) and the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), in collaboration with national and international partners, volunteers and academia, to assess the impact, repair the damage, and promote longer term rehabilitation. After the immediate response, the DMCR, with collaboration from Chulalongkorn University, developed policies and plans to restore and protect natural resources and the environment. In the longer term, the environmental rehabilitation plans included regular monitoring of corals and maintenance of their healthy condition, protection of endangered species (such as sea turtles and dugongs), preserving and replanting mangrove forests, and devising suitable policies and measures to implement rehabilitation plans in the tsunami impacted provinces. The Office of National Resources and Environment Policies and Planning (ONEP), under MONRE, is preparing legislation to protect the environment and assist in the rehabilitation of natural resources in the affected provinces85. The legislation aims: to prohibit the use of habitat disruptive
81 See Appendix III #3, #14 82 Information from DMH website (http://www.dmh.go.th/english/) 83 Information from DMCR website (http://www.dmcr.go.th - in Thai) and local newspapers published between May and September 2005 84 See Appendix III #28, #29, #30, #37, #38, #39 85 Information from ONEP website http://www.onep.go.th/tsunami/default.asp (in Thai)
142 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects fishing gear, such as trawl nets and push nets, within 3,000 meters of the shore; to avoid any activities that lead to environmental degradation; to enforce the Building Control Act to control infrastructure in coastal areas; and, to ensure that land use is environment friendly. 7.5.5 Relevance to this thesis The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami affected many coastal communities in Thailand. In response, the Royal Thai Government provided immediate relief and temporary shelters for displaced victims and undertook projects of rehabilitation and reconstruction to help those affected. Of all assistance schemes, most attention was given to fisheries and tourism sectors. The Government tried to help the communities re-establish and regain their lives as quickly as possible. With many issue to be considered, the recovery of management capacity in the national parks received little attention from the Government. In the marine park, the tsunami not only affected the marine environment but also damaged management facilities. Despite the impact assessment plan and environmental rehabilitation schemes, no particular attention was given to the acceleration of rebuilding management capacity in response to the rapid recovery of tourism and fisheries sectors. This issue has been confirmed in the case of Surin Marine National Park where the tourism sector recovered rapidly, while recovery of management capacity lagged far behind. 7.6 Impacts on Surin Marine National Park
Surin was one of the places most affected by the Boxing Day tsunami. Most land facilities were destroyed. At least one reef suffered major damage and management capacity was significantly reduced86. After the tsunami, I conducted surveys on 3-4 January 2005, 9-15 January 2005, and 27 March - 1 April 2005. The first surveys aimed to evaluate the effect of the tsunami on management capacity and on the reefs (briefly). Then, more detailed tsunami assessment surveys were completed (49 stations) in January 2005 (Figure 7-4), using the same survey techniques reported in Chapter 5 (intersect transects, 30 metre long, five transects per set and four sets per site). The stations covered the previous study sites (seven sites as in Chapter 5). Finally, the March survey repeated the work in the seven sites to assess the change after a period of possible recovery (three months after the tsunami). In January, in addition to the usual monitoring data recorded, visible damage caused by the tsunami to each coral life form was noted. Damage was subjectively assessed based on observable coral features such as branches or portions of colonies that were broken, and colonies that were overturned. The impact of the tsunami on different reef areas was calculated by the formula: Impact value=affected/ (affected + unaffected)
7.6.1 Coral reefs87 The degree of the tsunami’s impact on Surin’s coral reefs varied greatly between locations. Coral damage was greatest on:
86 See Appendix III #2, #6 87 This section of this dissertation forms the basis of the paper: Worachananant, S., Carter, R.W. & Hocking, M. in press, 'Impacts of the 2004 tsunami on Surin Marine National Park, Thailand', Coastal Management Journal.
The University of Queensland 143 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
• reefs in shallow water on highly exposed coasts of islands or shorelines; or
• on shallow or deep reefs in the channels between two relatively close islands. Debris also was a cause of damage to corals. This included fallen trees, damaged boats, and parts of damaged infrastructure washed onto the reefs (Figure 7-4). Reefs in the proximity of highly populated areas (e.g., accommodation areas and the camping ground) were badly affected by debris (Table 7-2).
Figure 7-4 Part of a park tent covering corals
Table 7-2 Sample site characteristics and type of tsunami damage recorded
Place Characteristics Chong Mae Yai Mai Ngam Pak Khad Suthep Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Khad Bay Bay Bay Bay Island Large sandy Sandy reef Sandy reef Steep slope Large sandy Steep slope Large area reef flat flat/ steep flat/ spur reef flat of branching Reef characteristic slope and groove coral like reef Adjacent to land Yes No Yes No No No No facilities Channel Semi Semi Exposed Semi Exposed Exposed Area topography exposed exposed exposed Types of damage Colonies overturned or Common Present Common Rare or Rare or Rare or Present collapsed absent absent absent Large massive coral Common Present Common Rare or Rare or Rare or Rare or swept and exposed absent absent absent absent Colonies partly broken Common Present Present Present Present Present Common Sand slides and coral Common Common Present Present Common Present Rare or buried absent Erosion of sandy Common Present Common Common Present Common Rare or seabed absent
In Surin, four levels of damage could be identified by the change in coral coverage, along with clearly visible damage (e.g. debris from the land, sliding of the reef platform, or sand burying coral colonies; Table 7-3).
144 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
Table 7-3 Damage rating system and criteria
Damage level Coral cover Indicators change criteria Level 1. Severe Reduction of more Reefs severely damaged directly by the tsunami. damage than 50% Habitats and communities changed negatively. Corals and benthic organisms mostly covered by sand. Corals and benthic organisms overturned or swept away. Level 2 Moderate Reduction of 30 – Reefs damaged by direct attrition of the tsunami, changing water damage 50% level, or currents which resulted from rapid change in water level. Reef platforms collapsed or sand slides evident. Corals and benthic organisms partly covered by sand. Branching colonies broken and small massive corals are overturned. Level 3 Slight Reduction of 10 – Reefs damaged by currents. damage 30% Some reef platforms have collapsed. Some broken colonies and small overturned massive corals occur. Level 4 Very Reduction of 1 – Shallow reef coral colonies broken. slight damage 10%
There was visible damage to all coral life forms in January (Table 7-4). Change in coral coverage was grouped in three categories: ‘tolerant’ corals (massive, sub-massive and encrusting), ‘fragile’ corals (branching, tabulate and foliose) and ‘dead and others (dead coral and other substrates) (Figure 7-5). Some reefs were little affected by the tsunami. Major impact was confined to areas where the topography included a channel or the reef slopes were steep, such as the channel between North and South Surin, the channel between South Surin and Torinla Island, and the reef slope of Pak Khad Bay.
Table 7-4 Mean coverage (%) of coral life forms around Surin Marine National Park
Place Types Time Chong Khad Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Pak Khad Bay Suthep Bay Torinla Island Turtle Bay Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Dec 0.71 0.41 11.89 1.14 16.43 1.68 53.51 2.67 37.52 2.16 75.04 2.90 16.11 1.33 Branching Jan 5.82 0.69 16.00 2.19 34.42 2.99 30.73 2.54 65.27 4.43 16.31 3.00 Mar 6.97 1.90 20.33 1.78 35.43 2.64 34.28 1.94 73.03 2.15 12.15 1.73 Dec 0.09 0.09 9.41 1.42 7.41 1.61 3.67 1.33 5.58 1.39 0.17 0.10 5.93 0.79 Encrusting Jan 8.58 3.22 2.22 1.11 4.00 1.66 2.13 1.21 0.75 0.53 4.36 1.59 Mar 7.53 1.62 3.59 0.44 2.37 0.85 2.89 0.69 0.32 0.17 6.45 1.27 Dec 0.04 0.04 1.88 0.63 3.60 0.94 1.20 0.85 0.46 0.17 0.08 0.08 1.51 0.51 Foliose Jan 0.55 0.41 2.33 1.15 1.42 0.59 0.40 0.28 0.18 0.11 1.24 0.50 Mar 0.35 0.19 0.52 0.29 0.27 0.19 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.12 1.33 0.60 Dec 0.59 0.23 25.82 2.04 22.63 2.23 13.44 1.23 22.63 1.48 7.63 2.20 26.27 1.82 Massive Jan 21.13 3.94 19.93 1.86 15.50 2.00 26.08 2.92 4.96 1.06 27.20 3.73 Mar 21.42 2.49 16.83 1.46 15.25 1.75 18.76 1.03 7.48 0.90 21.18 1.63 Dec 23.01 2.66 26.56 1.71 7.30 1.16 5.84 1.52 5.24 0.63 1.37 0.56 15.22 1.42 Sub- Jan 33.16 3.54 8.73 1.75 4.38 1.11 4.47 1.39 1.65 0.54 15.16 3.12 massive Mar 27.58 2.50 5.14 1.36 7.59 1.66 3.19 0.97 0.80 0.31 14.56 2.46
The University of Queensland 145 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Place Types Time Chong Khad Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Pak Khad Bay Suthep Bay Torinla Island Turtle Bay Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Dec 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.28 6.20 2.18 5.61 1.05 4.49 1.02 1.05 0.41 5.64 1.06 Tabulate Jan 2.45 0.89 5.47 0.85 4.78 1.21 5.56 2.01 3.94 1.19 4.93 1.20 Mar 2.05 1.06 5.28 0.70 2.98 0.64 4.74 0.85 0.65 0.26 4.81 1.34 Dec 24.44 2.69 76.19 9.38 63.57 9.08 83.27 9.01 76.02 9.36 85.34 8.36 70.68 12.05 Total live Jan 71.69 10.15 54.69 11.50 64.51 10.64 69.38 9.65 76.75 14.07 69.20 19.18 coral Mar 65.90 11.76 51.85 9.18 63.88 14.52 64.13 8.01 82.38 10.86 57.45 20.82 Dec 28.53 3.84 18.79 1.58 32.36 1.88 16.04 2.00 22.94 1.62 13.33 1.66 25.83 2.17 Dead Jan 20.13 2.41 36.94 1.90 34.72 2.45 26.44 2.05 21.65 2.75 26.83 3.94 Mar 23.55 2.19 37.98 2.86 31.86 2.22 30.28 1.94 13.16 1.26 32.60 3.35 Dec 47.03 5.01 5.02 0.71 4.07 1.11 0.70 0.35 1.02 0.53 1.33 0.68 3.49 0.69 Other Jan 8.71 1.09 8.37 2.21 0.77 0.43 4.18 1.62 1.60 0.85 3.98 1.33 substrates Mar 10.55 2.17 10.17 1.48 4.27 2.19 5.59 1.41 4.47 1.61 6.93 1.89 Note: The tsunami caused considerable change to Chong Khad Bay; the current became very strong. Rapid manta tow surveys in January and March reveal that more than 85% of area is covered by sand.
Figure 7-5 Changes in coral cover (%) at survey sites around Surin Marine National Park
146 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
Sand and rubble coral often covered reefs around channels, and more than 500 colonies of massive corals at Chong Khad Bay were overturned, moved to shallower areas and exposed to the air (counting only colonies with a diameter greater than one metre). Here, the current changed from calm prior to the tsunami to very strong after the tsunami, and has remained so (Figure 7-6).
Figure 7-6 Changes of Chong Khad Channel from the tsunami The cover of branching corals in Pak Khad Bay and Mae Yai Bay was reduced significantly (impact value 0.31, f=15.05, p<0.01 and 0.063, f=6.61, p<0.01 respectively), while other life forms did not change (see Table 7-4 and Table 7-5). While branching corals at Torinla Island were more affected than in Pak Khad Bay (impact value 0.059), the overall cover of branching corals in Torinla Island was not significantly reduced (f=2.45 p>0.05). This may be because Torinla Island has calm and clear water that allows branching colonies, moved to deeper water, to survive. In contrast, Pak Khad Bay has clear water but a strong current and Mae Yai Bay has calm but more turbid water, so the potential for coral to survive in changing circumstances is lower. Another reason is that branching corals are highly dominant in the Torinla Island reef and the reef slope is gentle. Pak Khad Bay has a steep reef slope and, during the tsunami, large volumes of sand from the reef flat collapsed over the reef slope causing deep grooves in the reef slope that have subsequently expanded.
Table 7-5 Impact value of various sites around Surin Marine National Park
Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Pak Khad Bay Suthep Bay Torinla Island Turtle Bay Affected Affected Affected Affected Affected Affected Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Types value value value value value value Branching 5.45 15.52 32.39 29.27 44.87 11.66 0.063 0.030 0.059 0.048 0.313 0.285 Branching* 0.37 0.48 2.03 1.47 20.40 4.65 Encrusting 0.35 1.52 4.00 1.42 0.75 4.36 0.959 0.316 0.000 0.336 0.000 0.000 Encrusting* 8.23 0.70 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 Foliose 0.00 0.48 1.42 0.40 0.18 1.24 1.000 0.793 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Foliose* 0.55 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Massive 9.38 13.15 15.50 22.28 4.96 27.15 0.556 0.340 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.002 Massive* 11.75 6.78 0.00 3.80 0.00 0.05 Sub-massive 32.34 7.77 4.38 4.37 1.65 15.09 0.025 0.111 0.000 0.222 0.000 0.004 Sub-massive* 0.82 0.97 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 Tabulate 0.77 3.85 4.72 4.40 3.86 4.80 0.687 0.297 0.014 0.208 0.021 0.027 Tabulate* 1.68 1.63 0.07 1.16 0.08 0.13 Total live coral 48.29 42.28 62.41 62.13 56.27 64.30 0.326 0.227 0.033 0.104 0.267 0.071 Total live coral* 23.40 12.41 2.10 7.24 20.48 4.90 * (affected by Tsunami)
The University of Queensland 147 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
While Mae Yai Bay received most impact from the tsunami (Table 7- 5 - impact value for overall coral=0.326), coral coverage was not significantly altered (see Table 7- 4). One reason may be that sub-massive corals dominate this area, which were least affected by the tsunami. Massive, sub-massive and encrusting coral types showed little impact from the tsunami. The exceptions were in areas near accommodation sites, e.g. Chong Khad Bay and Mai Ngam Bay, and an area of large sandy reef flat (Suthep Bay), which had significantly reduced cover of the ‘tolerant’ coral types. Coverage of ‘tolerant’ coral types at Chong Khad Bay and Mai Ngam Bay were reduced because of debris damage, while sand burying was the main cause of damage that reduced ‘coverage of tolerant’ corals in Suthep Bay and Chong Khad Bay. Encrusting corals were significantly reduced in Mai Ngam Bay (f=4.41, p <0.05), and massive corals in Suthep Bay (f=3.25, p<0.05). The extent of damage to live-coral cover at some sites reduced between January and the subsequent survey in March 2005. This reduction appears to result from the following:
• branching corals, where whole colonies were moved, were still alive and continued to survive in their new location – they were recorded as impacted in the January survey but not in March, when they were clearly seen to be still alive and growing,
• large massive colonies, which had been overturned, were regenerating in their new orientation,
• sand covering massive and branching corals, in some areas, had been rapidly removed by currents and the surviving coral was regenerating. 7.6.2 Infrastructure and management capacity The tsunami destroyed almost all land infrastructure, including the park office, dining hall, most accommodation, the freshwater pond, visitor centre and exhibition areas (Figure 7-7). The patrol station that housed fuel and patrol boats was also destroyed.
Figure 7-7 Damage to facilities caused by the tsunami
(Education centre (A: before, B: after) and research station (C: before, D: after)) As well as the infrastructure damage, much equipment was destroyed or lost (see Appendix III #6). Research equipment, computers, diving equipment and the compressor, power generator, radios and communication systems, and staff personal belongings were destructed by waves (both direct and receding) or material brought by the waves (Figure 7-8).
148 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
Figure 7-8 Damage caused to equipment by the tsunami The tsunami caused serious issues for the management of Surin, directly and indirectly. Loss of tourist-generated money from decreased numbers of tourists and the temporary closure of the park after the tsunami affected the management budget88. There was little operational budget to do any work. Threats and problems emerged after the tsunami that were both predictable and unforseen.
88 See Appendix III #9
The University of Queensland 149 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
7.7 Threats and problems that emerged 7.7.1 Damage to coral reefs and revision of the zoning plan
Surin’s zoning scheme was already compromised before the tsunami89 and was, at least, in need of revision. While the tsunami caused degrees of damage, Chong Khad Channel (favoured by snorkellers) and Torinla Channel (favoured by SCUBA divers) were severely damaged. These two areas were considered, by both park management and scientists, to require resting and some kind of limited access be applied. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) held workshops for the damage assessment taskforce in Bangkok and Phuket to discuss results of the surveys and formulate management responses. It was recognised that different levels of response would be required for different levels of damage. At the request of the Ministry, recommendations on short and long-term management of Surin National Park were provided. Reorganisation of the zoning plan was one of the most important steps. After the tsunami, four zone types were recommended and have been adopted for Surin: General use zone; Research and study use zone; Controlled use zone; and Temporary closure zone (Table 7-6).
Table 7-6 Post-tsunami recommendations for re-zoning
Importance Sites Damage Effect Recommendation Biodiversity Tourism Stork Island { zz zz Broken colonies General use Jark Bay { zz zz Broken colonies General use Mae Yai Cape (North) z zz zz Broken colonies Controlled Mae Yai Cape { zz zz Broken colonies General use (South) Chong Khad Bay and Sand covered, current zzz z zzz Research channel (East) alteration Chong Khad Bay and zz z { Sand covered, garbage Research channel (west) Mai Ngam Bay z zz zzz Sand covered, garbage Controlled Broken colonies, up- Pachumba Island z zz zzz Controlled turned Suthep Bay z zz zzz Broken colonies, sand General use covered Turtle Bay z zzz zzz Broken colonies Controlled Pak Khad Bay (East) z zzz zzz Broken colonies Temporarily closed Broken colonies, sand Pak Khad Bay (West) zz zzz zz Temporarily closed covered Torinla Island (East) z zzz zzz Broken colonies Temporarily closed Broken colonies, sand Torinla Island (West) zzz zzz z Temporarily closed covered Shallow Mae Yai Cape (North) { z z None recorded General use Torinla Channel zzz zzz zz All covered by sand Research Yellow rock zzz zzz zz All covered by sand Research Pak Khad Bay zz zzz z Sand slide partly. Temporarily closed Deep Deep Legend: {=none, z=slight, zz=moderate, zzz=high
89 See Section 5.5.1
150 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
To give tourism a boost, the Royal Thai Government encouraged visitors to go back to affected areas by reducing the park’s fee90. After a short period of closure, when damage was assessed and operational re-building of tourism related facilities (e.g. accommodation, restaurant and co-op shops) was completed, the park was re-opened (on 21 February 2005). While the new zoning scheme has been adopted in field operations (Box 7-2), it has not been formalised and no monitoring has commenced in any zones. In addition, park staff were directed to ignore the zoning plan and respond to visitor demand and permit use of the least damaged areas in order to raise income from tourist expenditure.
Box 7-2 Types and description of draft zones (after the tsunami)
General use Provide for general non-destructive activities with controls on the numbers of visitors zones through the requirement of permits and ‘must-use’ mooring buoys. Intend for areas that received no, or only slight damage (change of live coral cover from 1 – 30%), have high or moderately important biodiversity assets and were previously used for tourist activities. Mooring buoys are proposed to control access and to reduce crowding. Vessels are not permitted to land on beaches and snorkelling is prohibited in places where it is possible to stand. These prohibitions aim to reduce direct damage to coral through boat strikes and by snorkellers. Fines for breaking these rules were recommended but have not been applied. Recommendations were also made for short and long term monitoring of coral condition at these sites. Research and Provide for study of rehabilitation; monitoring change and the pressure from usage. study zones Apply to places that received severe (more than 50% change) or slight damage (10-30% change) and are dominated by ‘tolerant’ coral life forms (i.e. massive, sub-massive and encrusting coral forms). Recommended that these zones be associated with an education centre to provide details on the effects of the tsunami. Artificial reefs or man-made dive sites are also possible in these zones. It was recommended that these zones be intensively monitored for both long and short term change. Controlled use Design for limited use. zones Apply to areas that received slight damage (10-30% change) but large usage pressure. Prohibition of some activities (SCUBA, snorkelling) was recommended for some areas. A usage quota was also recommended and a reduction in the pre-tsunami number of buoys present at these sites. It was recommended that these areas be intensively monitored for both long and short term change. Temporarily Prohibit all activities except for monitoring by park and authorised research staff. closed zones Apply to high biodiversity areas which received slight to severe damage. Removal of pre-tsunami mooring buoys was strongly recommended for permit detection of prohibited use. It was intended that these zones be closed for only one year during which intensive monitoring would be undertaken and then re-zoned to one of the other categories.
7.7.2 Management resources With the Royal Thai Government encouraging tourists to return to the affected areas, park management was forced to rebuild their facilities and re-open as soon as possible91. Government money for reconstructing park facilities was divided between the six affected parks. Sufficient money was available for coastal marine parks, but funds for island-based marine parks proved to be
90 See Appendix III Second stage response 91 See Appendix III #20, #21
The University of Queensland 151 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas insufficient92. The transportation of material from the mainland to the park was more than two times higher than usual, and heavy machinery was not available on the island, so all work had to be done manually. Money provided by Government was not sufficient to reconstruct Surin’s management facilities to their previous state. Prioritisation was determined by the superintendent and tourism objectives received higher attention than environmental protection objectives. The patrolling budget was cut to meet reconstruction requirements. Since money from government was insufficient, additional funds had to be acquired from tourist related income. Despite the zoning revision (after the tsunami), park rangers were forced by tourists (and the operators) to ignore the plan and allow access to places with better coral condition93. In addition, before the tsunami, more than 50 staff were employed on a temporary basis. Fewer than half of these workers were employed with Government funds. The rest were paid by park generated income (from the souvenir shop and convenience stores)94. When the park was closed or the tourism number decreased, employees were laid off. Some staff also decided to leave their jobs as a result of the stress and mental trauma caused by the tsunami95. While the number of staff had been reduced, the rest were forced to work harder and be involved in a broader range of work areas. Some staff had insufficient knowledge and could not perform their new activities correctly. Patrolling and enforcement were not priorities; construction of facilities was needed to be completed as soon as possible to encourage tourists back to Surin. After the Tsunami, available fuel was only 500 litres per month (before the tsunami, the monthly amount used was around 3500 litres). Especially during the first few weeks, the fuel available was only 100 litres (of which about 70 litres was used for electricity generation) 96. Most park vessels were destroyed, as was the diving station. After the tsunami, the issue of a lack of management continuity emerged. During the year after the tsunami, Surin’s superintendent changed twice97. Some park employees moved with the departing superintendent, along with the staff reductions due to inadequate budgets. The changing of superintendents also changed management policies. The coral reef monitoring procedure established nine years previously and undertaken by park staff was discontinued due to the limitation of resources. Rangers with high-level marine skills (mostly temporarily employees) were discharged when the superintendent changed. With the increasing number of meetings and workshops on tsunami rehabilitation and management response, park superintendents had less time to devote (on-island) to marine park management98. Park management effectiveness was reduced as a result of the absence of a person with authority to make decisions.
92 From conversation with the (former) Surin superintendent (March, 2005) 93 See Appendix III #46 94 See Section 5.5.6 95 From conversation with park staff (see Appendix III #7) 96 From conversation with the (former) assistant to the superintendent (January 2005) 97 See Appendix III #15 98 From conversation with the current superintendent (see Appendix III #56)
152 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects
7.7.3 Increasing pressure of fisheries While the tsunami destroyed more than 5,000 fishing vessels, the Government, with the assistance of many national and international agencies, tried to compensate affected fisher folk. However, the oversupply of fishing boats from many organisations, both international and national, proved to be the cause of many difficulties. Before the tsunami, each fishing boats had at least two or three persons on board (an estimation, and dependent on the type of fishing and size of boat). However, after the tsunami, the number of boats increased. In the ‘Phuket workshop’99, delegates from many organisation such as FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and Department of Fisheries, Thailand raised the issue that the oversupply of small boats in the wake of the tsunami could result in overfishing100. The donated boats were small (long tailed boat) with low catch capacity, and the enormous number of them was reflected in the decline in the catch of larger commercial boats. Commercial boats that used to harvest near the coastlines were forced to go further offshore. The result was numerous small boats catching fish inshore and larger commercial boats extending their range off-shore. The whole fishery was under increased pressure. The reduction in fisheries yield, together with a lack of patrol in the park, encouraged illegal fishing. In the park, many fish traps were found by SCUBA divers. These fish traps, which are usually larger than one metre high, were destroyed if found by divers. 7.7.4 Uneven recovery time of stakeholders The tsunami affected stakeholders in different ways. The resistance, resilience and the speed of recovery of each stakeholder varied. These different recovery times made management difficult. Table 7-7 summarises the reaction time sequence of keys stakeholders.
Table 7-7 Reaction time of stakeholders
Time (after Park1 Research1 Tourism2 Fisheries3 tsunami) 1 week Suspended Suspended Closed 1 month Assess the damage Partial recovery Partial recovery and propose the Open (40% function) Operating at near Fully recovered 3 month management plan Lack of resources normal levels Seasonal closure Suspended Fully operational Over supply of fishing 6 month (monsoon) boats Open (75% functional) Monitoring Fully operational Illegal fishing found in 1 years Still lack of patrolling Demand more sites for park activities Sources: 1) park manager, DMCR, personal observation, 2) TAT and personal interview, 3) Department of Fisheries
Zeng et al. (2005) highlight that while individual tourist operators can be affected by short-term catastrophic events to the point of business failure, tourism is highly resilient, rapidly returning to pre-event status as soon as infrastructure is in place. In contrast, reef ecosystems can be relatively slow to recover (Grigg & Dollar, 1990; Hawkins & Roberts, 1993; Sorokin, 1993; Manthachitra, 1996). This, with the variability in reef areas affected and the demands of a re-establishing tourist industry have the potential to place considerable stress on marine park management, especially
99 ‘Post-Disaster Assessment and Monitoring of Changes in the Coastal, Ocean and Human Systems in the Indian Ocean and Asian Waters’, which was held in Phuket between 20 – 23 February 2006 100 See Appendix III #50
The University of Queensland 153 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas small areas. The changed biological status of reef areas can negate the rationale for management zones and operational practice. As tourism activity rapidly recovers, demand concentrates on the least affected areas and, depending on the number of these available, potential impacts on these areas increases. Marine park management must be sensitive and responsive to the recovery needs of tourist operators in the immediate post catastrophe period and support recovery with flexible management policies but towards a mutually agreed long-term strategy. However, lack of resources leads to the delay in re-establishing management capacity. While most resource-based industries (e.g. fisheries, tourism) rapidly recovered, recovery of management capacity lagged far behind. Lack of ability to control the uses may lead to the critical depletion of natural resources. 7.8 Conclusion
The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami affected many coastal communities in Thailand. In response, the Royal Thai Government provided immediate relief and temporary shelters for displaced persons and undertook projects of rehabilitation and reconstruction to help those affected. Intermediate response programmes focused on preventing infectious diseases and secondary losses amongst those who survived the tragedy, as well as the preliminary assessment of damage to built and natural environments. Of all assistance schemes, most attention was given to the fisheries and tourism sectors. The Government tried to help the communities re-establish and regain their lives as quickly as possible. One of the Government responses included a Government declaration of a temporary suspension of national park rules for the rehabilitation of park facilities and the assessment programme that aimed to assess the effect of the tsunami on both natural condition and human livelihood. With the concerns for the effect on marine ecosystems, an environmental damage taskforce was formed with the co-operation of nine educational institutions and a numbers of divers and tour operators. The taskforce identified that the level of impact was site-specific and varied from 0 to 80 per cent. Six to seven sites, which were favoured by tourism, had been severely impacted (>50% corals damaged), four of these were located in Surin Marine National Park. Following the study of the taskforce, recommendations to limit uses in several sites inside marine parks were proposed to the Government based on the level of damage to coral reefs. Besides damage to the marine and coastal habitats, six marine parks suffered losses in terms of management infrastructure (office, housing, tourist facilities) and equipment (communications, vehicles). Most management arrangements were suspended. In the case of Surin, the tsunami caused degrees of damage to individual reefs. Coral form, reef morphology and position all affected the extent of damage. While the previous zoning scheme was already compromised before the tsunami101 and hence the integrity of the whole zoning plan was in need of revision, the tsunami reinforced the need for urgent revision of the plan. After the tsunami, four zone types were recommended and adopted for Surin, however, the new zoning scheme was not formalised and no monitoring commenced in any zones. There are several possible reasons that could explain the failure to launch the proposed zoning scheme, including the frequent changing of superintendents after the tsunami. The superintendent, who was in charge when the plan was
101 See Section 5.5.1
154 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 7 The Boxing Day tsunami and its effects proposed, was replaced and the new superintendent had little understanding of the rationale of the scheme and exhibited less commitment to its implementation. Another possible reason might be the lack of management funding. With many issues to be considered, the recovery of management capacity in the national parks received little attention from the Government. Despite the impact assessment plan and environmental rehabilitation schemes, little attention was given to rebuilding management capacity in response to the rapid recovery of the tourism and fisheries sectors. With insufficient Government-generated management funding, the major source of management budget shifted to tourist expenditure102. Park staff were directed to ignore the zoning plan and respond to visitor demand and permit use of the least damaged areas in order to raise income. The lag in restoration of management capacity following the tsunami reinforces the need for managers to change their reliance on control approaches to management towards co-operation with stakeholders. Tour operators generally support management103 and this continued in some spheres after the tsunami. Many dive operators assisted in the assessment of reef condition by providing staff, boats and equipments for the programme, removing debris and destroying any fish traps they encountered. Park management can use this goodwill as the starting point to form a co-operative management approach. The tsunami highlighted the importance of operator assistance when a shortfall in management capacity occurs. Tour operators have a shared responsibility to conserve the natural environment through operating their business in a responsible manner, while park management has a responsibility to provide management direction. To gain public support, a good relationship between park management and tour operators is important. Experience from the past shows that contact and mutual respect between superintendents and tour operators rarely exists. In cases where a relationship existed, these were personal rather than institutional. This means that the connection was lost when staff change. Park management can improve this situation by developing policies that encourage the co-operation of stakeholders in developing an agreed management strategy. This will create a system which does not totally rely on individuals, and connections will not get terminated with staff changes. In addition, a policy of co-operation with other stakeholders permits staff to maintain engagement, even when superintendents change. While education and interpretation programmes, the major communication strategies, can help increase resource user understanding of management policies, and increase environmental awareness104, the programmes received less attention from park management indicated by the delay in their re-establishment. More attention should be given to developing effective interpretation programmes to gain greater public support which can translate into stakeholder compliance with regulation. The delay in re-establishing interpretive programmes, indicates that this is not seen as a priority management strategy. With management capacity reduced and new threats emerging after the tsunami, the need for a collaborative approach to park management also became apparent. As described earlier, involving the tourism sectors to help in conserving the reefs is important and this can fill the gap in management capacity.
102 See Section 5.5.5 103 See Chapter 6 104 See Chapter 6
The University of Queensland 155 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
156 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
Chapter 8 IMPROVING MANAGEMENT
The University of Queensland 157 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chapter 8 Improving management 8.1 Chapter Overview
8.2 Surin’s 8.3 Principles management arising for responses to consideration threats from this thesis
8.4 Alternative approaches for alternative outcomes
8.5 Management 8.4.1 Legislation and of Thai Marine regulation Parks 8.4.2 Assistance from specialists 8.4.3 Co-operatively developed zoning scheme 8.4.4 Designing the use pattern 8.4.5 Managing the behaviour of users
8.6 Limitations of this research and direction for future research
Figure 8-1 Chapter 8 structure
158 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
CHAPTER 8 IMPROVING MANAGEMENT 8.1 Chapter overview
Thailand’s Marine Parks, including Surin, face significant internal and external management challenges. Internally, marine parks face capacity problems where staff are not sufficiently skilled or lack sufficient background and experience to manage the challenges peculiar to maritime environments. This is exacerbated by changing corporate and political policy that responds to external influences without consideration of impacts on management effectiveness. Externally, illegal fishing, degradation of reefs from mass coral bleaching and human-induced activity (e.g. pollution or overcrowding during peak seasons), like elsewhere, are the focus of management. The effectiveness of management effort is limited by the internalities. The limitations are apparent through a lack of effective communication for environmental awareness-raising, and a lack of strategic application of management approaches and tools. Shortage of funding and lack of up-to- date policies prevent Surin from dealing effectively with these challenges. All management constraints are reflected ultimately in elevated risk of degradation of the marine environment. This situation is not unique; it is common in many marine protected areas worldwide. In this work, the internal challenges have been identified as a context for management, but the focus has been on identifying management tools that could be applied to external pressures on marine resource. Since numerous management techniques exist and have been proposed and applied to marine parks worldwide, including development, controls and communication techniques, the question arises which combination of approaches might best suit Thailand. Within this primary question, this dissertation has specifically addressed three research questions regarding the appropriateness of existing management strategies with the aim of proposing adaptation of these for more effective management of Surin Marine National Park within existing resourcing constraints. With Surin as a case study, the insights might be able to inform the management of marine parks throughout Thailand and possibly elsewhere. The dissertation also identifies additional approaches that merely require a shift in management focus for implementation. 8.2 Surin’s management responses to threats
During the past decade, mass coral bleaching, sediment and pollution loads and a lack of tourism management have detrimentally affected coral reefs around Surin. These concurrent external challenges and the lack of management resources and staff capacity have prevented effective management and use of the marine environment. The management approaches applied have varied (Figure 8-2) and, individually, have been appropriate to address specific issues, but not sufficient to address the combination of current impacts and certainly not to address unforseen threats. Figure 8- 2 indicates issues that have emerged at Surin since 1997, the environmental impacts of these issues on management and how Surin’s management responded to changed conditions. The changing circumstances after the tsunami are summarised in Figure 8-3. While park management tried to respond to emerging threats, some impacts were not addressed.
The University of Queensland 159 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas system Close sites to to sites Close to remotesites Spread to uses Spread uses to Spread uses recover naturally recover Installed sewage Installed treatment system Introduced tourist Introduce mooring mooring Introduce Management Abandon zoning plan zoning Abandon Commission research Commission previously closed sites closed previously previously closed sites previously responses/actions bloomed corals impacts bleaching Mass coral corals cover corals corals cover, cover, corals corals cover corals corals cover Illegal fishing Illegal especially fragile especially Environmental Environmental living in Decline Decline in living in Decline Padina Decline in living in Decline Decline in living Decline Point source Non-point source Issues expertise resources Increased Increased Lack of Lackmarine of El Nino (1997-1998) Nino El Lack of Lackmanagement of pollution loads(2001) tourism pressure (2001) pressure tourism techniques impacts and management Lack of Lackpatrolling of Management English language Lack relevant of plans displays, especially especially displays, Insufficient education Insufficient displays researchers Management top-up budget top-up expenditure to to expenditure infrastructures Partnership with 2004 zoning plan zoning 2004 Creation of 2000- of Creation tourist Increased Improve education responses/actions Used tourist-generated
Figure 8-2 Surin’s management response to threats (before the tsunami)
160 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management if found if (not implemented) (not Divers voluntarily Divers Co-operation with Management destroyed fish destroyed fish traps, operators for cleanup operators for Revision of Revision zoning plan responses/actions on reefs impacts Decline in Decline Illegal fishing Degrees of damage Degrees Debris onDebris the reefs Environmental Environmental living corals cover corals living Tourism Fisheries issues resources continuity awareness Decline in Decline fishing boat Over supplyOver of environmental of stakeholders Uneven recovery time Uneven recovery Lack of management management of Lack Lack management of Direct impact to reefs impact to Direct Tsunami and post-tsunami displays policies impacts reduction of staff reduction Lack of high-level Lack of Lack of education education Lack of Management Lack patrolling, of marine skilled staff skilled marine Lack understanding of on the zoning rationale zoning the on Change of management of Change top-up budgettop-up expenditure to expenditure Management Abandon zoning plan zoning Abandon Used tourist-generated responses/actions
Figure 8-3 Surin’s management response to threats (after the tsunami)
The University of Queensland 161 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Many of the existing management strategies rely largely on command and control approaches. These require internal management capacity to be effective. In addition, some management strategies, such as zoning have been abandoned when circumstances changed (i.e. increasing tourism numbers and after the tsunami). In an ideal world, management capacity and resources would parallel changing circumstances, but this has proven to be a Utopian situation at Surin, in Thailand and throughout most of the developing world. The reality is that management must be framed with the knowledge that circumstances will change; that resource demands will vary and that budget constraints will be perennial. This study finds that the existing tools applied to manage are not generally inappropriate, but rather are not able to respond to changing circumstances in a timely fashion. Existing tools for management have a continuing role to play in the management of Surin, but need to be placed in the context of a shift in the framework for management towards a more collaborative approach. To be able to suggest approaches for management improvement, a clearer understanding of existing management and limiting factors is needed. 8.3 Principles arising for consideration from this thesis
Literature reviews of management response toward the threats of marine protected areas around the world and the observed occurrences at Surin identified principles for a modified approach to the management of Surin. 8.3.1 Knowing the impacts of disturbance events, and reefs’ resistance and resilience increases management flexibility Sporadic catastrophic events (e.g. mass coral bleaching, the tsunami, and severe storms) can rapidly alter the condition of reefs. The level of damage usually varies with the location and topography of the reefs, and the dominant coral life forms in the areas. In the case of Surin during the mass coral bleaching events in 1998-1999, the reef at Chong Khad Channel was severely bleached due to its shallowness, while corals at Turtle Bay and Pakkhad Bay were minimally affected. A possible reason for this tolerance appears to be related to the topography of these exposed bays that promoted frequent change of the water mass through tidal currents (see Section 5.4.5 and 5.4.6, and West, 2001). The impacts of the tsunami in 2004 on the reefs also varied with dominant coral form, the location and exposure of the reefs. Channel areas between islands were severely damaged. Areas with steep reef slopes were damaged by sand slides or coral collapse more than areas with low slopes. Massive and sub-massive corals received major damage from sand burying and from debris striking the corals. The major cause of damage to more ‘fragile’ coral types was from direct impact of the waves breaking the colonies. The variability in damage suggests that, if total protection zones are used as a strategy for biodiversity protection, topography and hydrography should be used as additional criteria for site selection to account for sporadic catastrophic events (in this case a tsunami and mass coral bleaching). Reefs with high resilience should be given strict protection so that they may serve as re- spawning areas following such events (Grimsditch & Salm, 2006; Marshall & Schuttenberg, 2006). Sites that could be considered are Torinla Island and Pakkhad Bay. Other criteria to consider include the direction of currents (upstream ‘source’ reefs should be protected) and areas sheltered from strong currents, such as reefs in sheltered or semi-sheltered bays. Sites that could be considered are Torinla Island, Suthep Bay and Mae Yai Bay. In contrast, reefs that are dominated by ‘tolerant’ coral types – massive (e.g., Porites lutea), sub-massive (e.g., Pocillopora damicornis)
162 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management and encrusting (e.g., Favia sp.) – can be opened for general use to reduce pressure on places that have been selected for strict protection. Site that could be considered is Turtle Bay. 8.3.2 Manage point source pollutants at their source and non- point sources cooperatively In remote island marine parks, threats from sedimentation caused by land based pollution and net- trawling that disturbs soft bottom habitats are minor when compared to marine based pollution105. In the case of Surin, untreated wastewater discharge from park accommodation and travelling boats appear to be the most probable cause of reef deterioration (DMSCI, 1997; Comley, 2005; Tapsuwan, 2005; Meprasert, 2006). Untreated wastewater from accommodation centres at Surin’s headquarters (point source pollution) appears to have been the cause of the brown algae (Padina sp.) outbreak at Chong Khad Bay and Mai Yai Bay (DMSCI, 1997). Park management responded by commissioning research to clarify the situation, and subsequently, installing the sewage treatment system in mid 1999. This system appears to have resulted in a reduction of algal cover and increased coral recruitment in both bays. In the March 2005 monitoring survey, most of the remaining algae were washed away by the tsunami; however, the algae are reported to again be dominant in January 2007 (Reopanichkul, pers. comm., February 2007). This coincides with the failure of the treatment system due to the tsunami. Another source of pollution is sewage discharge from marine vessels (a non-point source). In the case of Surin, like other Thailand marine parks, almost all vessels that operate in the park do not have storage systems for wastewater and sewage. Therefore, direct discharge into the sea is the norm (Sethapun, 2000). This is also common around the world, and many management strategies have been applied106. Encouraging all vessels to have holding tanks to store sewage and pump out while travelling outside the park is an option appropriate to Surin. This approach requires a high level of tour operator support since there is no regulation to enforce compliance. 8.3.3 Support natural recovery from disturbance As coral reefs are renewable resources, disturbed areas often recover naturally without management effort, provided no or minor additional perturbations impede natural processes. These are usually sites with high resistance (i.e. dominated by tolerant species) or high resilience (i.e. biologically diverse sites that have a suite of species that can respond differently to stress and disturbance events, increasing the chance that some species will survive and continue to perform key ecosystem functions). Other areas, with low resistance and resilience, require management intervention to slow or stop subsequent degradation processes and speed the recovery process. Balancing the level of perturbation with a sites inherent ability to recover is important to achieving sustainable use. This requires technical input and an understanding of the biophysical character of sites. In many cases, prohibition is recognised as an ideal strategy from the conservation point of view to reduce the use pressure. However, in small marine protected areas the prohibition option is constrained. What is needed is ‘micro-management’ of specific sites where use is adjusted in response to site resilience characteristics and threats caused by use. This requires detailed knowledge of the marine resource and user preferences; a situation that can be achieved at Surin.
105 See Chapter 3 106 See Section 3.3.3
The University of Queensland 163 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
As seen in the case of mass coral bleaching at Mai Ngam Bay107 and Suthep Bay108 and the effect of the tsunami109, living corals cover decreased after the perturbations, but with time, and no additional impacts, coral cover increased. In contrast, increasing human pressure on top of catastrophic damage can prevent, or delay, recovery as appears to be the case at Turtle Bay110. Apart from the exclusion of use strategy, installation of facilities can assist the recovery as seen in the case of the mooring buoy installation at Mai Ngam Bay and Pakkhad Bay. The installation of the sewage treatment system also appears to have assisted the increase in living corals cover at Mae Yai Bay and Chong Khad Channel. In addition, this work has identified management approaches that involve directing specific uses to sites that are resistant to potential impacts of the use and away from sites that are of greater risk of impact. 8.3.4 Permanent prohibition is not an option where demand is high and available sites are few Although a prohibition strategy may appear to be ideal from the conservation point of view, this approach is difficult to implement where tourism numbers are high and diving sites, for example, are few. After the introduction of high-speed boats in 2001, the number of visitors to Surin increased rapidly. This was reflected in a general decline of living coral covers, especially fragile corals, in reefs in the General Use Zone and the Outdoor Recreation Zone designated for SCUBA and snorkelling. Subsequently, tourists, especially divers, did not want to go to these ‘lower quality’ reefs. In response, park management ceded to demand and allowed recreation activities throughout the park: the zoning plan was abandoned to provide alternative sites for recreation. Following the demand from the tourism sector, the Strict Nature Reserve area of Torinla Island, Stork Island and both pinnacles were opened to diving activities in 2003. That is, no area was prohibited from diving activity; hence the integrity of the zoning plan was compromised and in need of revision111. The zoning plan was ignored again after a temporary zoning plan was proposed in response to the tsunami. Park staff and tour operators ignored the closure of many of the sites proposed under a recovery strategy. Announcing a zoning scheme that is not respected by resource users or park managers is useless. While socio-political realities cannot be ignored, neither can managers abrogate their responsibility to manage protected areas for conservation. If traditional approaches to management do not work, there must be action to find those that do. This work suggests that the existing dominant management philosophy and approach must shift from prohibition mechanisms to co-operative approaches towards the management of specific sites to achieve short and long term objectives of sustainability.
107 See Section 5.4.3 108 See Section 5.4.4 109 See Section 7.6.1 110 See Section 5.4.6 111 Discussion of the compromising of the zoning plan is presented in Worachananant, S., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M., Reopanichkul, P. & Thamrongnawasawat, T. 2004, 'Tourism Management in Surin Marine National Park, Thailand', paper presented to Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference "Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas", Hilton Hotel, Brisbane, Australia. 5-9 September, 2004.
164 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
While many reefs at Surin have shown an ability to recover after disturbance, the failure of the command and control approach has meant that what recovery has occurred has been in spite of the additional pressure placed on reefs by tourism use, and full recovery has probably been delayed. It can be argued that use was within the natural recovery threshold for Surin’s reefs system; however, the precautionary principle suggests that the permissive management approach applied at Surin was high risk. It also suggests, because of the precedent, that management will always respond to tourism demand, irrespective of the consequences. Management approaches that can maintain the level of impact under the threshold level of natural recovery and that educate and enforce user behaviour to minimise damage must be targeted, and the precautionary principle applied. For Surin this approach has four important implications: it establishes an approach to management that is inclusive of stakeholders and their interests, it informs stakeholders of ecological thresholds, it addresses many of the impact concerns that currently exist, and it establishes the logical basis for rationing of access when thresholds are approached. At that time, management will have no alternative but to limit access and search for additional/alternative use locations. The ability of management to apply restrictive management approaches and redirect use elsewhere will depend on stakeholders appreciating that management has maximised used within ecological limits and therefore that constraint and user restraint is now needed. 8.3.5 Involve stakeholders in the creation of zoning plans (and other management strategies) While public participation is recommended at every stage of the management planning process to ensure public support and increase understanding of the management rationale (Kenchington, 1990; Kelly, 1992; Kelleher, 2002), it is also essential during the implementation/management phase. Lack of stakeholder support and understanding made Surin’s zoning plan (2000-2004) redundant, especially when circumstance changed. Surin’s last zoning plan (2000-2004) was the result of marine researcher input and represented a successful co-operative approach to management between research institutions and park management. Marine ecological criteria were incorporated into the zoning plan along with management’s understanding of use and management constraints. While the subsequent history of the zoning plan highlighted its failings by not having comprehensive participation and its inability to be responsive to changed circumstances112, it provided insight to the benefits of integrating research and monitoring with management of the marine park. Good will was created between researchers and management: a basis for a long term co-operative relationship. Recent policy and management decisions have not only made the zoning scheme redundant, but the non-consultative approach to decision-making has tended to undermine, though not extinguish, the co-operative approach to management. The prohibition and limitation schemes applied created unresolved conflict between resource users and park management, exacerbated by ignorance of regulations and their rationale. One reason contributing to the collapse of the 2000-2004 zoning scheme was a lack of resource user understanding of the conservation rationale of park management. Snorkellers and divers seek sites with good coral cover and tour operators respond to their clients’ preferences and demands. In contrast, park management seeks to preserve the ‘good sites’ for conservation. This study has
112 See Chapter 5
The University of Queensland 165 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas identified considerable flexibility in the allocation of sites for use and conservation that can address the apparent and inherent incompatibility of objectives. Identifying the extent of the flexibility and then communicating this to stakeholders to jointly devise a use and conservation scheme requires the input of researchers, park management and all user groups. Without this, it is not surprising that conflicts were not identified and addressed, and economically strong user groups usurped management, resulting in the collapse of the zoning scheme. 8.3.6 Snorkelling impacts can be reduced by educating snorkellers and appropriate selection of diving sites Visitors who undertake snorkelling as a spontaneous rather than planned activity are more likely to be inexperienced and ill-informed about environmentally-sensitive snorkelling behaviour (see Chapter 6 and Piewsawat (2002) and not content to just observe. However, they are keen to ask questions and increase their understanding of how the complex reef system works. The management implication from these findings is that management can respond with an effective interpretation programme that helps visitors better understand the vulnerability of reef organisms and encourage visitors to develop environment friendly behaviours. There is little incompatibility between the protection message and the experiential, understanding and appreciation desires of snorkellers. Interpretation programmes can be offered simply and relatively cheaply through approaches already applied at Surin. However, management rationale and protective behaviour messages need to pervade all communications, implicitly and explicitly. While interpretation must commence with the interests of targeted audiences, again there is overlap between stakeholder interests and park management objectives. The education centre and short briefing sessions for visitors undertaking potentially impacting recreational activities within the park were shown in this study to have a conserving effect, and were welcomed by visitors and commercial operators alike. This study identified that information in the education centre must be easily understood, explained and promoted through colourful interpretation media if it is to improve understanding of the marine environment and management113. The importance of the pre-dive briefing was shown in this study. Encouraging pre-dive briefing sessions seems an appropriate approach because informing divers of their potential to impact reef organisms proved to be effective in reducing the amount of damage on the reefs114. Divers who attended a pre-dive briefing with a protective behaviour message were likely to have fewer contacts with corals and cause less physical damage than those who did not attend briefings. This approach also responds to divers’ inherent interest in the reef and their desire to behave responsibly and be alerted to safety issues. As most visitors undertook snorkelling as a spontaneous activity, they usually rent diving gear from the park and/or tour operators. Park staff can implement the pre-activity briefing session for visitors who are willing to rent. This could be done on either a voluntary basis or as an enforceable prerequisite. Further, park management can encourage visitors to practice their diving skill in
113 See Section 6.3.4 114 See Section5.5.4
166 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management places where living coral cover is low or resistant to use impact and there are no strong currents115. The key point is that every contact with visitors (and other stakeholders) should seek to communicate or reinforce protective behaviour, and the rationale for management approaches. While some contacts may have the protective behaviour message subtly entwined in other messages, others represent opportunities for direct specification and explanation of the park management message. This requires an important but minor shift in operational guidelines provided to park staff. As well as communication to alter user behaviour, park management can provide information on the range of sites that match snorkeller and SCUBA diver expertise (e.g. sites dominated by tolerant corals for novices, and sites where fragile corals can be less easily affected by direct attrition). The park can also direct use of sites selected for their geographic characteristics that minimise the risk of coral damage (steep entries with tolerant corals to a depth where fragile corals cannot be stood on). That is, park management has the potential to mix site selection for use with effective communication to reduce user impact significantly. Users, and those who facilitate use, must be informed. Again, the approach being suggested needs cooperation and mutual understanding by the relevant stakeholders. 8.3.7 Knowing conditions and preferences of users increases management flexibility At an extreme, environmental condition can be protected by controlling activities with a high potential for impact simply by limiting the number of uses and users. This has been called the exclusion or ‘lock-up’ approach to management. This approach dominated Thai marine park management until the 1990s. This study has shown that such action is unacceptable to users, operators and indeed management and conflicts with park management objectives. However, knowing condition and preferences of resource users can increase flexibility for management. Integrating this knowledge into management schemes has the potential to increase stakeholder satisfaction, which will be reflected in increased public support for the park and its management, higher stakeholder compliance with regulation and greater trust between park management and resource users.
As identified in this study, two major reef user groups had different preferences for sites’116. For park management then, the task is to identify and facilitate snorkelling and SCUBA diving at sites that match visitor expectations for safety and quality experiences, but within the experience of the visitor to undertake the activities with minimum impact. Practically, such an approach can only be achieved with the co-operation of users and tour operators (and knowledge of site characteristics). Given Surin’s research limitations, it also requires cooperation with research institutions, which can possibly enlist the support of user groups to gather the needed resource information. Therefore, park managing agencies must take the lead in building partnerships with key stakeholders to implement such a policy. For the partnership to succeed, all stakeholders must make a commitment
115 Before the tsunami, the channel between North and South Surin Islands was recommended; however, after the tsunami the current became very strong. From my experience, HQ bay, which is situated in front of the park headquarters and main accommodation, can be used as an alternative site after the tsunami because it is sheltered, and dominated by sand and massive corals. 116 See Section 6.6
The University of Queensland 167 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas to a shared vision. Examples of actions that will demonstrate commitment to minimising SCUBA impacts (as an example) are presented in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 SCUBA diving stakeholder actions to minimise contact impact
Park management actions Dive-boat operator, dive master and dive-club actions Define dive sites with marked mooring buoys Promote minimal impact diving techniques in all promotional indicating recommended experience levels material. (largely determined by coral substrate type). Develop partnerships with dive masters and Include information on potential for substrate-contact in all dive-boat operators to communicate best pre-dive briefings. practice diving technique that includes minimum impact diving. Provide information on diver impacts Give greater emphasis to protective diving behaviour if the generally and especially to dive masters and divers are beginners and novices, the dive site is rich in fragile dive-boat operators. corals, dive conditions are not benign, or divers intend to undertake activities that demand interaction with the substrate (e.g. photography). Provide minimal impact diving instruction to Provide pre-dive briefings that include protective diving dive masters and dive-boat operators. behaviour (this may need to be mandatory, with guidelines for content developed between relevant stakeholders). Inform divers (dive boat operators) of dive Establish a Surin dive operators association to identify and conditions, daily and recommend dive sites promote best practice. for divers of different levels of experience.
These actions require mutual commitment and must be undertaken concurrently to be effective. This requires cooperation and effective communication between stakeholders. 8.3.8 Appropriate interpretation media will assist management
Stakeholder awareness of management practice was found to be low at Surin117. Hence, pro-active support from stakeholders cannot be expected (Kenchington, 1990; Kelly, 1992; Kelleher, 2002). To improve stakeholder support, many marine protected areas place strong emphasis on effective communication (Alcock, 1991; Chowdhury, 2003). Communicating with resource users can be done through many forms of communication such as public meetings, visitors centres, radio programmes, websites, posters, brochures, and other print materials (MPA News, 2007). Selection of the most appropriate medium depends on the target audience and their characteristics, and, of course, available funds. However, embarking on a communicative approach to management requires a commitment from the managing agency to it and an appreciation of the long-term benefits of the approach. This usually means employment of a full time staff member to work with the user community and update materials. Generally, management of Thai marine parks has (rightly) seen interpretation as a service to users, but have not embraced it as a management strategy. In recent years, Surin has implemented a communication programme through an education centre, brochures, posters and short documentary video presentation at visitor centre on the island. These have often been developed with volunteer assistance and initiated by other than park management. The emphasis has been on promoting the biodiversity values of Surin, although information on rules and regulations (e.g. general rules of ‘no-take’ and the zoning scheme) and general suggestions for undertaking activities (i.e. list of activities that can be done in the park) are included. While these approaches have been shown to have limited affect in raising public understanding and awareness
117 See Section 6.3.4, 6.4.4 and 6.5.4
168 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management of management practices118, this situation can be improved by enhancing existing approaches and applying new forms of media. This study identified that upgrading displays in the education centre119 had an effect and money was well spent, because it proved to attract more people and was reflected in raised awareness of management approaches and protective behaviours. Although the education centre and its interpretative displays were destroyed by the tsunami, it was not a priority for re-establishment. This reflects park management’s view that interpretation is a service and not an essential part of the management approach. A communicative approach to management would have seen priority given to re-establishing the centre and the seeking of support to again develop interpretive displays. Since most of the displays (e.g. posters) in the past were donated by academic institutes and NGOs, it is likely that these sources would have been responsive again to any request from the Park. While attractive presentations on the island might help increase awareness and understanding of management practice to visitors who stay on the island for most of their visit120, this is not the case for SCUBA divers who come on live-aboard vessels and rarely explore the island’s education centre. This could be addressed by making a visit to the interpretive centre a mandatory condition of the activity/operator’s permit. However, the Park cannot assume that existing education programmes121 alone are able to increase divers’ understanding of management. Proactive management can be used by announcing the intent of management through either leaflets (e.g. brochure and/or posters), on board diving boats and at dive shops (or diving societies) or websites (e.g. official park website, diving shop and diving society websites). The effectiveness of such media can be improved by reinforcement by operators in any face to face communication with clients. The intent of management and rules to protect the environment from damage can also be announced on board the Park’s transporters since most of the general visitors come with Park’s vessels and spend between one and two hours on board. While this too can be made a mandatory part of permit conditions, it still requires the cooperation of operators. Of relevance here is the fact that the Park is not maximising its opportunities to communicate with its stakeholders. It has not drawn on the good-will that existed, and probably still exists, between the park and some institutions as part of a re-establishment strategy. The possibility of enlisting the cooperation of interested stakeholders in minimising impact and rebuilding of management capacity and infrastructure appears not to have been considered. Park management at Surin remains entrenched in a paradigm where the responsible Government agency must control all activity rather than sharing responsibility cooperatively. 8.3.9 Support from stakeholders is important for effective management Communication between resource users and park managers plays an important role in successful examples of sustainable use (Hinshiranan, 2002; Erdmann, 2003; Kuijper, 2003). It has been recognised as an effective tool in developing a co-operative spirit between communities and
118 See Chapter 6 119 See Section 6.3.5 120 See Section 6.3.4, Table 6-8 121 This refers to the pre-tsunami situation, since post tsunami everything was destroyed
The University of Queensland 169 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas management (MPA News, 2007). In the case of Surin, where management capacity is a perennial problem, education and interpretation strategies could start with promoting the benefits of environmental conservation and emphasising how stakeholders can help protect the natural integrity of the protected area. It should also emphasise how embracing the Park’s conservation objectives is in people’s long-term interest. Park managers can highlight the fact that the park exists for the use and appreciation of all Thai people, since one of the primary objectives of Thailand’s marine park establishment is to provide a place for recreation. This would help emphasise that users and operators are privileged stakeholders, but along with the right to use come responsibilities to protect. Tourist businesses are dependent on the health of the marine environments. This perspective was understood and accepted by operators in this study as indicated by their recognition that they visited Surin because of the quality of its natural environment. Almost all operators are local and conduct their trips specifically to Surin. This means that any deterioration of Surin’s reefs would affect their businesses directly. Hence, it would be good business practice to support or assist in the protection of reef condition. Stakeholders have a part to play in protecting this natural environment and in deciding how it should be best managed. However, they need information to realise their dependence on reef quality and their impacts on it; presented in a non-accusatory style if its implications are to be considered. By involving stakeholders in management and convincing them of the benefits of environmental protection, park managers can expect greater satisfaction with and support for management practices, which can translate to stakeholder compliance with management desires and directions. While park managers play a central role in providing protection of the park’s natural values through regulations, enforcement and policies, tourism operators can provide support by operating their businesses in a responsible manner. At Surin, only limited support from stakeholders exists. There are several possible reasons for this limited support but most of these reasons can be addressed by park management (Table 8-2). Any proposals that involve additional costs for business will be more difficult to implement because of resistance from operators and some means to compensate them may be required. Many initiatives, however, involve no additional expense for operators.
Table 8-2 Possible reasons for limited operator support for management and potential park management responses
Possible reason for limited support Possible park management response Operators are not given the opportunities to Provide meaningful and relevant opportunities to participate in contribute management decisions that affect them. Operators do not know how to contribute Inform operators of management strategies and actions and, at a minimum, seek comment as a basis for opening dialogue. Encourage responsible uses There is no competitive advantage in Provide incentive for conserving practices (e.g. certify investing in best practice behaviours. operators as ‘Green’ or ‘eco-friendly’ operators so they can advertise to their clients) Operators’ profit margins are so low that they Issue fee rebates to encourage a change in behaviour and, at have no surplus to invest. the same time, reduce business cost. Encourage alternative management support that does not require additional expenditure (e.g. follow responsible reef practice or help report illegal activities)
The park can also assist tour operators by developing with them ‘Codes of Practice’. While many stakeholders already follow all or some of the recognised codes during their visits, there seems to be
170 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management value in developing Surin-specific guidelines (see Section 8.4.5). This would raise Surin to the status of an exemplar of best practice marine park management and use in Thailand; something that operators and park management can be proud of and of commercial value. 8.3.10 Management capacity constraints following the tsunami exacerbated impact on the reef environment. Although some long-term environmental changes have arisen directly from the tsunami, the most significant long-term effect has come from the impact of the tsunami on management capacity. While the tsunami was assumed to cause severe damage to reefs around Surin, the study revealed that the effects were less significant than expected. Coral form, reef morphology and position all affected the extent of damage. The loss of management capacity, in the absence of a cooperative approach to management, represents a greater threat to the reef than the direct effects of the tsunami on the reefs, which proved to be more resistant and resilient than might have been thought. As tsunamis are rare occurrences, the lessons are not directly transferable to other cases; however what is transferable is the concept that rapid management responses are needed to prevent additional pressure on reefs during the recovery period from any destructive perturbation. While many reef user businesses (e.g. tourism and fisheries sectors) are highly resilient and can rapidly return to pre event status, recovery of management capacity may lag far behind, especially in developing countries. Lack of ability to control use post-event may lead to additional pressure and hence critical depletion of natural resources. 8.4 Alternative approaches for alternative outcomes
Management of Thailand marine parks has always relied on top-down, command and control mechanisms (RFD, 1993, 2000). These command and control approaches require sufficient resources and support (e.g. personnel and budget) to ensure effective management. Shortage of management capacity will prevent marine parks from implementing these types of approaches effectively. Where management capacity is limited, improving the effectiveness of management will depend ultimately on stakeholder support and acceptance of management approaches applied. This study has identified the importance of involving relevant stakeholders (e.g. researchers, tourism operators, tourists) in conserving rather than just using the reefs. In addition to assisting in conservation efforts through appropriate behaviour and use of the reef, these stakeholders can potentially help further by filling the gap in management capacity. This finding provides a basis for suggesting improvement, or adjustment of Surin’s management. This has been expanded to provide an integrated framework for management actions and activities that directly affect stakeholders (Figure 8-4). The framework includes the concept of a shift from reliance on command and control management towards co-management. While the basis of the framework is involvement of stakeholders in conservation and management, it embraces the philosophy that all stakeholders benefit from conserving the marine environment.
The University of Queensland 171 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Legislation and regulation
Special marine expertise
Co-operatively developed zoning
Designing the use pattern Managing the behaviour of visitors
Raising site capacity Pre-dive briefing
Facility installation Interpretation
Site selection for uses Diving practices
Site rotation or closure Management interpretation training Monitoring change Workshop Volunteer coordination Print materials
Limit number of users Codes of practice All stakeholders share benefits of conserving Consultation towards co-operative management
Figure 8-4 Possible management framework 8.4.1 Legislation and regulation Legislation and regulation are acknowledged as being essential for providing power to address flagrant abuse of the intent of park creation and to provide enforceable standing to management approaches. However, legislation and regulation can never address, in specific terms, all issues that require management. The management strategies used for Surin, like others marine national parks in Thailand, reflect those developed for terrestrial parks, partly because the applicable legislation is the same (the National Park Act B.E. 2504). Although previous researchers (Kenchington, 1990; Kelleher, 2002) have indicated that specific legislation is important for the effectiveness of management of marine parks, Thailand still has no specific legislation for marine park management. The lack of specialised management legislation is a major issue for marine park management, but addressing this issue is beyond the scope of this research. 8.4.2 Assistance from expertise Marine researchers and educators can assist park managers, in the absence of legislation, by providing their expertise to inform managers about environmental conditions, user activities and preferences, and possible management implications within a marine setting. While this knowledge is most important for strategic planning (e.g. developing zoning schemes), this expertise will be useful in all management areas, especially monitoring and evaluation of resource condition and the management of specific sites. The value of collaboration with academic institutions from the biophysical sciences is perhaps obvious, but this work has identified the value of the understanding
172 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management of management approaches that can be gained from the socio-economic sciences. The message is that specialist expertise relevant to marine park management exists; it simply needs to be attracted and nurtured for mutually beneficial relationships to develop. 8.4.3 Co-operatively developed zoning scheme The most recent zoning plan for Surin (2000-2004) was a successful attempt to co-opt researchers in an important management initiative. However, the lack of understanding, support or commitment from other resource users (i.e. tour operators) in the process resulted in the collapse of the plan when circumstances changed. This indicates the need to understand and integrate the perspectives and knowledge of all stakeholders when devising zoning schemes. Park management, with the assistance of research, can create an outline of a zoning scheme based on marine ecological criteria and knowledge of condition and preference of users. After that, to ensure the acceptance of users, public consultation with stakeholders on this draft is necessary; not to ‘sell’ the scheme, but to adjust the scheme, taking into account the needs of other stakeholders. The success of co- operatively developed zoning schemes may lie partly in the process of co-development where defining sites that match resource user needs and expectations are overtly and positively considered. Findings from this study that Surin’s two major reefs users (i.e. snorkellers and SCUBA divers) have different preferences for sites can be used to distribute use pressures122. As dive-based tourism is an important revenue earner, and if the sites are to maintain their aesthetic appeal and biological characteristics, then it is in the interests of dive operators to ensure their clients dive safely and with minimal impact. While protected area managers could take draconian zoning action to minimise impacts by focusing use away from all sensitive areas, this would have the effect of reducing the attractiveness of Surin, and clients will probably move elsewhere. It is suggested that collaborative action is a more sensible, and indeed a more effective and responsible, approach. Park managers need to identify suitable diving sites with stakeholders and provide data such as presented in this study123 to inform selection of diving sites. This can result in a shared benefit for park management and tour operators. By controlling the pressure under the recoverable limit, diving sites are likely to have a higher chance of regenerating and, by providing sites that match user expectation and skill levels, tour operators will benefit from increasing satisfaction of their clients. Park management can also work to improve tour operator performance, for example, by restricting access to sites with high fragility to operators who demonstrate high standards of dive management with environmentally-appropriate procedures. Although this approach might receive some protest from operators and require the evaluation and monitoring of performance, it can be attractive for diving businesses by offering preferential treatment to those who can meet the standards required. Again, it requires the communication and mutual agreement of park managers and tourism operators. 8.4.4 Designing the use pattern While this study indicates that increasing use has resulted in increasing damage to reefs, effective management can reduce the impact. There are two principal aspects to reducing impact: designing the use pattern, and managing the behaviour of users. There are many ways for management to minimise the level of coral damage caused by use pressure. This study has provided insight to
122 See Section 6.6 123 See Section 6.6
The University of Queensland 173 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas raising the resistance and resilience of sites’, site rotation or closure, and limiting the number of users. a. Raising the resistance and resilience of sites Many factors influence the incidence and severity of reef impacts. The type of benthos and location of sites, for example, are important for determining natural reef ecosystem dynamics as well as visitor experience. Branching corals are more susceptible to breakage by fin kicking or stepping than massive corals. This study identified that a considerable amount of damage occurred to branching growth forms in shallow water. So, ideally, shallow sites with high branching coral cover (e.g. Torinla Island) should not be selected as snorkelling sites. However, this has proven to be difficult to implement because sites with high coral cover are preferred by snorkellers. Park management could identify sites dominated by branching corals where water is sufficiently deep to prevent impact from standing or finning. However, there are few sites with these characteristics such as the edge-slope zone of Torinla Island. Alternatively, park management can use the finding of this study that most novice snorkellers, who rent diving equipments from the park and/or operators, usually orient their body in a vertical position because of their lack of familiarity with snorkelling techniques and are likely to stand on corals to adjust their unfitted equipment. The management implication is that the park could install a mooring buoy at the reef edge or reef slope, which is about ten to twenty metre from the diving areas. This distance provides sufficient space and time for visitors to adjust their equipment before starting to explore the reefs. In addition, floating rest stations or safety lines can also be set for snorkellers to rest or solve problems with equipment. In this way, a site’s biological carrying capacity can be increased, because impacts are likely to be significantly reduced. Facility development can also be used to raise a site’s resistance and resilience. Apart from the use of mooring buoys to identify use areas and limit the number of visitors in each area at any one time, they can be used to reduce anchoring damage. Because previous research (Tratalos & Austin, 2001) has shown that physical damage is high around mooring buoys, careful site selection for mooring buoys (e.g. places with high cover of sand or tolerant corals) is needed to reduce impacts. Providing facilities to focus use in desired locations must be seen as a management strategy as well as a service. This dual role of facilities equally applies to the installation of sewage treatment systems124 and speedboat piers at Surin 125. b. Site rotation and closure Techniques that can be applied to damaged diving sites are temporary or permanent closure and rotational use of sites. As discussed earlier in this chapter, coral reefs are renewable resources that, given sufficient time and no or minor additional disturbance, will recover naturally. They are highly resilient. Provided users understand the rationale for site closures and other sites are available, this approach to managing degraded sites is likely to receive stakeholder support because there is a preference for undamaged sites. To manage diving sites by rotation, it is important to know the point where renewal is still possible (the threshold level), the rate of recovery, and the time for full recovery. So far, there have been few studies documenting the natural recovery of areas affected by recreational impacts. Some studies have shown that corals have the ability to heal
124 See Section 8.2.2 125 See Section 5.5.1
174 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management their broken branches in a time scale of months (Brown & Howard, 1985; Kay & Liddle, 1989). However, the rate of recolonisation of impacted areas varies from site to site. My long term monitoring data from Surin indicates that where reefs are highly degraded, a considerably longer time is required (as in the case of Mae Yai Bay). In contrast, places where degradation has not reached the threshold level have shown signs of rapid recovery (as in the case of Pakkhad Bay and Suthep Bay between the year 2002 and 2004). More research is needed to clarify the acceptable limit of sites and the time required for the damaged site to recover. To ensure that reef degradation does not exceed the threshold limit, monitoring of coral cover is important. In the case of Surin, where monitoring is constrained by funding and expertise, park management could encourage tour operators to help detect environmental changes and impacts at the sites they use. With the assistance of research institutions, simple monitoring strategies can be developed to provide a steady flow of useful data to park management, or the research institution, for analysis and interpretation. The Reef Check model is an example where tour operators offer the programme as another activity attractive to their clients (Reef Check, 2007). Again, this requires the development of a co-operative approach to management. Park management can also assist tour operators by conducting seminars and workshops to help improve their understanding of the vulnerability of reefs and the importance of recovery time. For the operator, they gain information of use in improving their clients’ experience through improved interpretation. For the park, operator cooperation is encouraged along with improved protective behaviours and opens the door to further communication. c. Limit number of users It is widely recognised that unrestricted use of natural areas can result in degradation or destruction of a site’s ecological features, which in turn can lead to deterioration in visitor satisfaction with those areas. Identifying the number of users that can be accommodated before severe impact to reefs occur is difficult (Salm, 1986; Plathong et al., 2000). Salm (1986) suggests four variables for calculating reef carrying capacity: activities undertaken, skill of users, size and shape of the reef, and coral community composition. The appropriate number of visitors in each site is dependent on type of benthic composition and the amount of impact caused by users. However, such discussions fail to acknowledge the role of management and the effectiveness of management strategies. Hence, there is no magic number that can be applied to every site. Although, this study did not seek to determine an optimum number of users at a site, the study on impact of SCUBA divers on coral reefs found that the capacity of each area used can be increased with management action. Snorkellers or divers who never contact fragile corals will probably have negligible impact (Marion & Rogers, 1994). Capacity then will not be ecologically determined, but rather will be a social phenomenon. Thus, management attention should shift from the establishment of use limits towards understanding visitor preferences, expectations and behaviour, and the management of use in relation to these attributes. 8.4.5 Managing the behaviour of users Whilst managing the pattern and level of use is a necessary part of any management strategy, its weakness is that it focuses on the consequences, rather than the causes of the problem. Attention should not only be directed to managing use levels, but also to managing the behaviour of visitors when undertaking park activities.
The University of Queensland 175 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Interpretation should be an integral part of resource management. Interpretation not only introduces resource users to a new environment, but also helps them understand human impacts and appropriate behaviour (Tabata, 1991). Effective interpretation can help users (both tour clients and individual visitors) appreciate the marine environment and encourage their involvement in helping to protect it. Two important items of information that should be provided to users are how to undertake their activities safely and with minimal impact (for visitors and tour clients), how to design and conduct tourist programs and activities with minimal impacts (for tour operators and leaders) and the fragile nature of branching coral and many other marine organisms. In this study, pre-dive briefings proved to be an effective strategy for reducing diver impacts on corals. Also, all stakeholders (i.e. tourists and operators) surveyed had limited awareness of management practices applied in the park. Low awareness can limit public support for management. Again, park management can increase awareness and understanding through communication programmes such as workshops, training programmes focusing on explaining management (specifically for tour operators) and/or print material and other inexpensive media (for operators, clients and visitors). An effective communication strategy, used in the case of the Great Barrier Reef (Kelleher & Dinesen, 1993), has been the development of codes of practice for users and operators. This approach seems well worth exploring for Surin. If a series of codes of practice is to be produced for activities undertaken at Surin, they should be developed with clear descriptions of appropriate practices, reinforced with explanations of how these directly reduce impacts on the reefs. This study suggests many ways of limiting user impacts that could form the basis of a series of codes of practice. Based on existing problems at Surin, guidelines for responsible practices that could be developed are listed in Table 8-3. These guidelines focus on tour operator practices because they can pass their knowledge to clients during the operation of their business, but specific guideline for general visitors could also be developed.
176 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
Table 8-3 Examples of responsible practice for tour operators
Activities Findings from study Responsible behaviour Boating Careless boating causes Look for shallow coral, and take into account tidal change. physical impact to coral. Leave sufficient space (approximately 30 cm clearance) between the propeller and seabed. Avoid landing vessels on beaches126. Garbage/rubbish covering coral Do not throw rubbish (such as food scraps, plastic, paper, surfaces can damage coral fishing gear, and cigarette butts) overboard – take it back to tissue. shore for proper disposal. Collect litter found on and in the water, and take it back to shore for proper disposal. Oil and fuel spills are a serious Keep outboard engines in good condition; fix all leaks threat to reef organisms. immediately. Inspect fuel lines for cracks and loose connections; replace the lines before they start leaking. Refuel on shore wherever possible. Use the correct gear and have spill response equipment available. Do not overfill the fuel tank. Increased nutrient/pollution Use environmentally friendly, biodegradable alternatives; causes living coral cover avoid using environmentally damaging chemicals. reduction and algae outbreak Limit the quantity of chemicals used. Never release chemicals into the environment Direct passengers (e.g. those on live-aboard vessels) to limit their use of soap and shampoos. Diving Careless/inexperienced divers Enhance the quality of your client’s dive experience by are likely to cause physical explaining the complexity and susceptibility of the impact to the reefs. By environment to human induced change; provide onboard informing them about interpretation (e.g. posters, brochures, displays, guided appropriate behaviour, impact tours, presentations, and videos). can be reduced significantly. Brief divers on responsible reef practices, impact minimising behaviour, rules of the reef, and information about the local marine life; regularly review briefing content to ensure that it is based on up-to-date information. Check that all the divers have secured their dive gear before entering the water so that it does not dangle and catch on the reef. Give adequate instruction on best buoyancy practices; check new divers for proper buoyancy before they get close to the reef. Practice buoyancy control over sand patches before approaching a reef; test buoyancy whenever new equipment (e.g. new wetsuits, BCDs, and cameras) is being used. Avoid leaning on, holding onto, or touching any part of the reef. This needs to be especially emphasised for clients taking underwater photographs. Avoid kicking up and disturbing sand. Avoid touching any animals or plants Mooring Encouraging the use of mooring Before attaching to a buoy, ensure it is appropriate for your can reduce anchoring impacts vessel. Do not attach to a damaged mooring and inform the park about that damaged buoy. Do not remove, misuse or damage moorings.
126 Landing on sandy beaches appears to be acceptable. The issue is grounding boats on shallow corals. At Surin, almost all beaches used for landing boats include shallow corals.
The University of Queensland 177 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Activities Findings from study Responsible behaviour Snorkelling Careless/inexperienced Brief your clients thoroughly before they enter the water. snorkellers are likely to cause Keep briefings simple, and include information on the physical impact to the reefs. correct use of equipment, snorkelling areas, potential By informing them about hazards, rules, appropriate behaviour, and information on appropriate behaviour, impact local marine life. can be reduced significantly. Do not provide and discourage clients from using long fins. They are difficult for inexperienced divers to use and tend to cause leg cramps! Enhance the quality of the snorkelling experience by explaining the complexity and susceptibility of the environment to human induced change. Encourage snorkellers to explore interpretation media on the island (e.g., posters, displays, presentations, and videos). Monitor the wildlife and coral cover at your snorkelling sites to detect any environmental changes. Report your observations to Park HQ. Encouraging snorkellers to practise over sand patches and away from the coral. Advice them to: • get comfortable with buoyancy control and finning techniques. • be mindful of where their fins are to avoid accidentally hitting the reef or stirring up sand. Advise snorkellers to practice minimum impact behaviours: • move slowly and deliberately in the water, relax and take time to enjoy the reef; • remain in a swimming position as much as possible; refrain from standing up; • avoid snorkelling into areas where the water is shallow (e.g. less than one metre deep); • avoid over exertion; use rest stations or other flotation aids (e.g., float lines, resting platform, flotation vests) if available; • avoid leaning on, holding onto, or touching any part of the reef or moving animals when taking underwater photographs. Walking on Trampling on shallow water Avoid walking on the reef whenever possible. the reef reefs reduces living coral cover Step only in sand channels and patches; minimise stirring up the sand. Wastewater Increasing nutrient/pollution Minimise water usage on vessels (e.g., install flow (sewage and causes living coral cover restrictors, aerators and auto-shutoff taps) and sewage greywater) reduction and algae outbreak production (e.g. use low volume and dual-flush toilets). Discourage the use of soaps and shampoos; use environmental cleaning alternatives such as phosphate-free and readily biodegradable soaps. Use readily biodegradable and environmentally friendly chemicals for cleaning and maintenance. Store wastewater in holding tanks and pump it only in open water. Reporting Voluntary surveillance helps Monitor environmental behaviour of other users and report address management capacity all relevant incidents to the Park HQ. issues.
Apart from encouraging the use of ‘Codes of Practices’, park management can also emphasise the use of more enforceable practice such as the requirement for the stakeholder to obtain/renew permits. Some examples might include the requirement for the operator to;
• have floating devices (e.g. floating rest station, rope or clients’ personal floating devices) available to reduce physical impacts from the activities,
178 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
• have their staff attend a workshop or presentation to increase their understanding of management practices and to raise environmental awareness, and
• brief their clients about management arrangements in the park, major regulations, and environmentally-responsible behaviour. Recent events On 30 May 2007, the United Nations Environment Programme's East Asian Seas Regional Coordinating Unit (EAS RCU) and Phuket Marine Biological Center (PMBC) had officially launch The Green Fins programme. The programme, which is now launched in the Philippines and Thailand, aims to protect and conserve coral reefs by establishing and implementing environmentally friendly guidelines to promote a sustainable diving tourism industry (Greenfins, 2007). Main focus of the programme is to prepare educational and promotional materials, including a DVD showing environmentally-friendly guidelines for divers and snorkellers, and provides an environmental Code of Conduct covering a whole range of issues such as garbage management and minimum discharge to dive operators. This emphasises the important of education that might help improve behaviour of divers and snorkellers as I have pointed out in the dissertation. Environmentally-friendly guidelines is quite simple and easy to understand and would be beneficial to the reef of Surin if this programme would be extended to. Findings on Chapter 6 and 7 suggest that both visitors and operators are willing to help protect the reef and try to find the way to reduce the impact. The emerging of the programme might be one of the solutions. While the focus of the programme is to encourage divers and snorkellers to be ‘green’ or environmentally friendly, one other important thing is to incorporate the operators into the systems. The programme encourage the involvement of tour operators to help protect the reefs by educating their staff which these knowledge could be passed to their clients, requesting their staff to report the abnormal situation (e.g. coral bleaching) or inappropriate behaviour (e.g. action against the parks’ rules or destructive activities) and help clean garbage from the reefs. This concept emphasises the important of tour operators that can fill the gap in management system such as lack of personals and resources. While the Greenfins was literally launched in Thailand since 2004, it was not promoted until 2007 and is still not well-promoted so far. According to the Greenfins website, the Greenfins’ members are just 18 operators so far (Greenfins, 2007) from hundreds of operators in Phuket and Khaolak. Of these, only a few operate their trip to Surin and none of Surin-based operators are member. These programme needed to be better promoted and extended to cover larger area, one possible solution might be asking for corporation from park authorities. The programme was focussed on users (divers, snorkellers and operators) but conservation agencies (i.e. the parks) were ignored. Few park staff have knowledge about this programme and aware it existence (this information was acquired during the personal communication during the official launch and later). This programme aims to provide the educational material to the dive operators’ vessels; however, my findings in Chapter 6 suggest that most of visitors go to Surin by park’s vessel and spent most of their time at the park. These educational materials might be more beneficial if there are provided to the park and displayed on the island.
The University of Queensland 179 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
8.5 Management for Thai Marine Parks
At present, it is unacceptable, politically, socially and practically, to separate tourism or recreation activities from marine protected areas. From a simple cost-benefit perspective, management attention must move from priority being placed on preventing or limiting use opportunities towards reducing negative impact from activities by seeking cooperation. From this study, activities management in Thai marine parks may need fundamental redirection. It needs to shift from relying on command and control mechanisms (the effectiveness of which are often limited by management capacity) towards co-operative approaches where stakeholders exercise their stake in management with responsible actions that contribute to their future within the park. To facilitate this change, a co-operative spirit towards management between park managers and stakeholders is vital. Tour operators, who are often seen by park managers as being irresponsible, are likely to accept this shift, as indicated by their willingness to provide assistance to management during the tsunami impact assessment period. In addition, this study identified a high level of ignorance about management, apparently due simply to not having been informed. Co-operative management requires the development of a close, trusting relationship between park management, tour operators and other stakeholders. Park management can assist in this change in direction (Figure 8-5) by shifting their attention from;
• regulating use to • facilitating use at sites where impacts can be managed;
• simply presenting regulatory to • interpreting the rationale of management; requirements
• responding to problems to • preventing problems by encouraging wise practices.
Command and control Co-operative management
Regulation Consultation
Regulation of use Facilitation of use
Edicts Communications
Informing Interpreting
Reactive management Preventing impact
Figure 8-5 Shifting direction of park management Tourist operators can also respond by developing conservative approaches to minimise impact (e.g. develop and follow codes of practices, or develop their own minimal impact practices), encouraging clients to practice minimal impact behaviour through education and interpretation, and assist the park with the implementation of management practices.
180 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Chapter 8 Improving management
8.6 Limitations of this research and direction for future research
All studies have their limitations including this research. The study itself, adopted a mixed method approach to enable consideration of the variety of reef conditions at Surin, the diversity of management approaches and stakeholder responses. The research was severely affected by the 2004 tsunami. While these considerations have affected the reproducibility of some of the data sets, many of the deductions made match experiences elsewhere. Thus, there is reason to believe that suggestions derived from the study for the future of marine park management at Surin are worthy of careful consideration by managers. From a theoretical perspective, the study confirms the value of a management style for marine park management that is strongly inclusive of stakeholders. Others have argued for this shift; what this study highlights is the possible consequences of not embracing such a shift. While this principle may have general applicability, specific application of the findings to other sites/parks should be done with caution. Since Surin is an offshore marine park it differs from coastal marine parks. Factors that might influence the degradation of the reefs in coastal environments, such as sewage and pollution run-off from mainland or land encroachment, have not been considered. Thus, elsewhere, priorities for management action and techniques applied may need to vary. However, while focusing on problems common to island-based marine parks, the findings and implications of this research can be used to guide further study of coastal marine parks. The research methods and approach to the study, despite the broken data sets, seem to be useful in assessing management effectiveness. This research used change of living corals cover to measure the ability of management approaches to conserve natural environments. The line intercept transect technique was selected as a monitoring method because it gives the best estimates of percent coral cover and diversity and allows observers who have limited experience in the identification of benthic communities to collect data (English et al., 1997). However, the use of this technique alone does not permit unequivocal attribution of change with a cause. For example, sedimentation monitoring techniques, such as sediment traps, need to be conducted to confirm the reason of coral degradation in highly turbid areas. Nevertheless, monitoring coral cover change and matching this with known events provides management with possible, and at times probable, insight into causes and effects, at least at a level useful for management to apply the precautionary principle. Although, this research found that there is a correlation between increased tourist arrival and percent of dead corals cover at some sites, the question arises whether increased tourist number is the cause of coral degradation. While this research addressed in some detail the impact caused by SCUBA divers, specific study on the impact of snorkellers on reefs is needed to confirm this assumption. The sample size for the resource users’ questionnaires was limited by the availability of the whole community. Before the tsunami, the sample sizes of respondents were sufficiently large to confidently analyse the data statistically; however, after the tsunami, when the number of visitors reduced sharply, it became impossible to access an appropriate sample size. In any case, the sample would have been inherently biased given the changed context. Management implications, therefore, cannot be deduced with confidence. Continuation of the study is recommended to confirm the implication from this research. Nevertheless, discussions with colleagues and others familiar with
The University of Queensland 181 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Surin suggest that the data collected inherently ‘makes sense’, and improves my confidence in my conclusions. In this research, questionnaires were designed primarily to acquire information of level of understanding of stakeholders and their perception of management. However, during the studies the ability of interpretation strategies to improve management understanding of stakeholders emerged. Data acquired from the questionnaire merely suggests the effectiveness of the education strategy; it can only conclude that education is the most preferred strategy for stakeholders. Given the insights from this study, the role of interpretation in management appears to be an area of research that will be of particular benefit to park management.
182 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
REFERENCES
Agardy, M.T. 1993, 'Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal and marine protected areas', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 219-239. Agardy, M.T. 1994, 'Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas', Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 267-270. Agardy, M.T. 1995a, 'Marine eco-tourism: fundamental characteristics and links to conservation', paper presented to Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Coral Reef Conservation, Washington DC. Agardy, M.T. 1995b, The science of conservation in the coastal zone : new insights on how to design, implement, and monitor marine protected areas. A marine conservation and development report, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Agardy, M.T. 2000a, 'Effects of fisheries on marine ecosystems: a conservationist's perspective', ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 761-765. Agardy, M.T. 2000b, 'Opportunities and constrains for using marine protected areas to conserve reef ecosystems', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Agardy, M.T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E. & Peau, L. 2003, 'Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas', Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 353-367. Agardy, M.T. & Wilkinson, T. 2003, 'Conceptualizing a system of marine protected area networks for North America', paper presented to The Fifth International Science and Management on Protected Areas Association Conference - Making Ecosystem Based Management work, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada., 11-16 May 2003. Alcala, A.C., Russ, G.R. & Stockwell, B. 2003, 'Marine reserves as coastal and marine resources management tools', paper presented to The International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaboration and Partnerships, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. 8-12 December 2003. Alcock, D. 1991, 'Education and extension: management's best strategy', Australian Parks and Recreation, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 15-17. Alder, J. 1996a, 'Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park', Environmental Management, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 541-551. Alder, J. 1996b, 'Have tropical marine protected areas worked? An initial analysis of their success', Coastal management, vol. 24, pp. 97-114. Alder, J. & Haste, M. 1994, 'The Cod Hole: a case study in adaptive management', paper presented to Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology (Recent advances in marine science and technology '94), James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Alexander, L.M. 1993, 'Large marine ecosystems: a new focus for marine resources management', Marine Policy, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 186-198. Alino, P.M., Palomar, N.E., Arceo, H.O. & Uychiaoco, A.T. 2000, 'Challenges and opportunities for marine protected area (MPA) management in the Philippines', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Al-Jufaili, S., Al-Jabri, M., Al-Baluchi, A., Baldwin, R.M., Wilson, S.C., West, F. & Matthews, A.D. 1999, 'Human impacts on coral reefs in the Sultanate of Oman', Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 49, Supplement A, pp. 65-74.
The University of Queensland 183 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. & Carr, M.H. 1998, 'Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation', Ecological Applications, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. S79-S92. Allison, W.R. 1996, 'Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldives Islands', Coral Reefs, vol. V15, no. 4, pp. 215-218. Arunotai, N. 2002, 'Moken livelihood in the Surin Islands National Park', paper presented to Wise Coastal Practice for Asia and the Pacific, Khuraburi Greenview Resort, Khuraburi District, Phang-nga Province, 25-28 November 2002. Attwood, C.G., Harris, J.M. & Williams, A.J. 1997, 'International experience of marine protected areas and their relevance to South Africa', South African Journal of Marine Science-Suid- Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Seewetenskap, vol. 18, pp. 311-332. Babbie, E.R. 1990, Survey research methods, 2nd edn, Wadsworth Publication Company, Belmont, California. Baird, A.H. & Marshall, P.A. 2002, 'Mortality, growth and reproduction in scleractinian corals following bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef', Marine Ecology-Progress Series, vol. 237, pp. 133-141. Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W. & Schnur, R. 2001, 'Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans', Science, vol. 292, no. 5515, pp. 270-274. Beckmann, E.A. 1988, 'Interpretation in Australia: Some examples outside national parks', Australian Parks and Recreation, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 8-12. Beekhuis, J.V. 1981, 'Tourism in the Caribbean: impacts on the economic, social and natural environments' Ambio, vol. 10, pp. 325-331. Bell, P.R.F. 1992, 'Eutrophication and coral reefs some examples in the Great-Barrier-Reef lagoon', Water Research, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 553-568. Bell, P.R.F., Greenfield, P.F., Hawker, D. & Connell, D. 1989, 'The impact of waste discharges on coral reef regions', Water Science and Technology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 121-130. Berkelmans, R. & Willis, B.L. 1999, 'Seasonal and local spatial patterns in the upper thermal limits of corals on the inshore Central Great Barrier Reef', Coral Reefs, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 219-228. Bjork, M., Mohammed, S.M., Bjorklund, M. & Semesi, A. 1995, 'Coralline algae, important coral reef builders threatened by pollution', Ambio, vol. 24, no. 7-8, pp. 502-505. Boersma, P.D. & Parrish, J.K. 1999, 'Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution', Ecological Economics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 287-304. Bohnsack, J.A. 1993, 'Marine reserves: they enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect resources', Oceanus, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 63-71. Bohnsack, J.A., Causey, B., Crosby, M.P., Griffis, R.B., Hixon, M.A., Hourigan, T.F., Koltes, K.H., Maragos, J.E., Simons, A. & Tilmant, J.T. 2000, 'A rationale for minimum 20-30% no take protection', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Brown, B.E. & Howard, L.S. 1985, 'Assessing the effects of "stress" on reef corals', Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 22, pp. 1-63. Brown, B.E., Sya'rani, L. & Le Tissier, M. 1985, 'Skeletal form and growth in Acropora aspera (Dana) from the Pulau Seribu, Indonesia', Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 139-150. Bujang, J.S., Hj., M.I. & Ridzwan, A.R. 1994, 'Challenges in managing multiple use Pulau Redang Marine Park', in C.R. Wilkinson, S. Sudara & L.M. Chou (eds), Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Qld., Bangkok, Thailand, vol. 2, pp. 133-142.
184 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Burke, L., Spalding, M. & Selig, E. 2002, Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia, World Resources Institute; Kogan Page, Washington, D.C. Cadwallader, P., Russell, M., Cameron, D., Bishop, M. & Tanzer, J. 2000, 'Achieving ecologically sustainable fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. CALM 1990, Why have marine parks and marine nature reserves?, Department of Conservation and Land Management(CALM), Perth, Western Australia. Carter, R.W. & Grimwade, G. 1997, 'Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management', International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45-53. Castro, P. & Huber, M.E. 2000, Marine biology, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts. Cesar, H., Lundin, C.G., Bettencourt, S. & Dixon, J. 1997, 'Indonesian coral reefs-An Economic analysis of a precious but threatened resource', Ambio, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 345-350. Chadwick, V. & Green, A. 2000, 'Managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and world heritage area through critical issues management: Science and management', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Chanwichai, D. 1994, 'Visitors Profile: The tourism attitude toward Surin Marine National Park, Thailand' MS thesis, James Cook University, Queensland. Chin, T.S. & Rosien, D. 2003, 'Making tourism activities pay for biodiversity conservation in the marine protected areas of Malaysia', paper presented to The International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaboration and Partnerships, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. 8-12 December 2003. Chou, L.M., Tuan, V.S., Philreefs, Yeemin, T., Cabanban, A., Suharsono & Kessna, I. 2002, 'Status of Southeast Asia coral reefs', in C.R. Wilkinson (ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World:2002, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, pp. 123-152. Chowdhury, Q.I. 2003, 'Building effective partnerships in environmental communications towards coastal and ocean governance', paper presented to The International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaboration and Partnerships, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. 8-12 December 2003. Chuenpagdee, R., Knetsch, J.L. & Brown, T.C. 2001a, 'Coastal management using public judgments, importance scales, and predetermined schedule', Coastal management, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 253. Chuenpagdee, R., Knetsch, J.L. & Brown, T.C. 2001b, 'Environmental damage schedules: Community judgments of importance and assessments of losses', Land Economics, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1-11. Clark, J.R. 1996, Coastal zone management handbook, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Coles, S.L. 2001, 'Coral bleaching: What do we know and what can we do?' in RV Salm & SL Coles (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigating Coral Bleaching Impact Through MPA, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA., Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. May 29-31 2001, pp. 25-34. Comley, J. 2005, The coral reef resources of Mu Ko Surin National Park, Thailand, Coral Cay Conservation. Crowder, L.B., Lyman, S.J., Figueira, W.F. & Priddy, J. 2000, 'Source-sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves', Bulletin of Marine Science, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 799- 820. Cumming, R.L., Toscano, M.A., Lovell, E.R., Carlson, B.A., Dulvy, N.K., Hughes, A., Koven, J.F., Quinn, N.J., Sykes, H.R., Taylor, O.J.S. & Vaughn, D. 2000, 'Mass coral bleaching in the Fiji Islands, 2000', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000.
The University of Queensland 185 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Davis, D. & Tisdell, C. 1995, 'Recreational SCUBA diving and carrying capacity in marine protected areas', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 19-40. Davis, D. & Tisdell, C. 1996, 'Economic management of recreational SCUBA diving and the environment', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 229-248. Day, J.C. 2002, 'Zoning-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 45, no. 2-3, pp. 139-156. Day, J.C., Fernandes, L., Lewis, A., De’ath, G., Slegers, S., Barnett, B., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., Innes, J., Oliver, J., Ward, T. & Lowe, D. 2000, 'The representative areas program for protecting the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. DDPM 2005, Lists of Tsunami impact to several sectors (in Thai), Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), viewed 24 September 2006
186 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Dowling, R. 1997, 'Plans for the development of regional ecotourism: theory and practice', in Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia and New Zealand: Cases, Issues and Practice, pp. 110-126. Dubinsky, Z. & Stambler, N. 1996, 'Marine pollution and coral reefs', Global Change Biology, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 511-526. Dudley, N. & Stolton, S. 1999, Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas, Earthscan, London. Dutra, G.F. 1998, 'Coral reefs of the Abrolhos Bank, Brazil', paper presented to The International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS) Coordinated by the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), Townsville, Australia., 22-26 November 1998. Dygico, M.P. 2003, 'Conservation trust fund for the Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park', paper presented to The International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaboration and Partnerships, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. 8-12 December 2003. English, S., Wilkinson, C.R., Baker, V., Australian Institute of Marine Science & ASEAN-Australia Marine Science Project 1997, Survey manual for tropical marine resources, 2nd edn, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland. Erdmann, M. 2003, 'Using locals in enforcement, some MPA managers see improved compliance as a result (Bunaken National Park: Benefits of joint patrols)', MPA News, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1. Erni, M.G. 2003, 'The private sector in sustainable coastal development for Bataan, Philippines', paper presented to The International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Seas of East Asia: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaboration and Partnerships, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. 8-12 December 2003. Fabbri, K.P. 1998, 'A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal zone management', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 39, no. 1-2, pp. 51-62. Fabricius, K.E. 2005, 'Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis', Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 125-146. Fortes, M.D., Djohani, R., Kahn, B. & The World Commission on Protected Areas South East Asia - Marine Working Group 2002, Introducing the Regional Action Plan (RAP) to strengthen a resilient network of effective marine protected areas in Southeast Asia: 2002-2012 technical background on SE Asia's MPAs and RAP description, WCPA - SEA Marine. FRC 1996a, 'Protected areas management and biodiversity conservation (in Thai)', paper presented to Training of Protected Areas' Personnel, Kasetsart University and Khao Yai National Park. FRC 1996b, 'Protected areas management planning (in Thai)', paper presented to Training of Protected Areas' Personnel, Kasetsart University and Khao Yai National Park. Friedlander, A., Nowlis, J.S., Sanchez, J.A., Appeldoorn, R., Usseglio, P., McCormick, C., Bejarano, S. & Mitchell-Chui, A. 2003, 'Designing effective marine protected areas in Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, Colombia, based on biological and sociological information', Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1769-1784. Garrison, T. 2002, Oceanography: an invitation to marine science, 4th edn, Wadsworth- Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA. GBRMPA 2003a, Representative areas program technical information sheets, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), viewed 16 October 2003
The University of Queensland 187 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
GBRMPA 2005, New vessel sewage regulations for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), viewed 24 December 2006
188 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Harriott, V.J. 2002, Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier Reef, Technical Report No. 46, CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville. Hatten, K.J. & Hatten, M.L. 1988, Effective strategic management: analysis and action, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Hawkins, D.E. 1997, 'The relationship of tourism-related revenue generation to coral reef conservation', paper presented to An Associated Event of the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, the World Bank, Washington, D.C. October 9-11, 1997. Hawkins, J.P. & Roberts, C.M. 1992, 'Effects of recreational SCUBA diving on fore-reef slope communities of coral reefs', Biological Conservation, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 171-178. Hawkins, J.P. & Roberts, C.M. 1993, 'Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs: trampling on reef-flat communities', Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 30, pp. 25-30. Hawkins, J.P. & Roberts, C.M. 2004, 'Effects of artisanal fishing on Caribbean coral reefs', Conservation Biology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 215-226. Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., Van't Hof, T., de Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. & Aldam, C. 1999, 'Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities', Conservation Biology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 888-897. Hinshiranan, N. 2002, Improving communication and preserving cultural heritage / Surin Islands- Thailand., Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human Development Forum, viewed 3 December 2003. Hockings, M. 1994, 'A survey of the tour operator's role in marine park interpretation', Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 16-28. Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. 2000, Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing the management of protected areas., World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 9, IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Hockings, M.T. 2002, 'Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management', Ph.D. thesis, Griffith University. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 1999, 'Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs', Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 839 - 866. Hooker, S.K., Whitehead, H. & Gowans, S. 1999, 'Marine protected area design and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine canyon', Conservation Biology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 592-602. Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D.R., Card, M., Connolly, S.R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B.C., Kleypas, J., Lough, J.M., Marshall, P., Nystrom, M., Palumbi, S.R., Pandolfi, J.M., Rosen, B. & Roughgarden, J. 2003, 'Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs', Science, vol. 301, no. 5635, pp. 929-933. ICRI 2007, ICRI resolution on coral reefs & climate change, International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), viewed 13 August 2007
The University of Queensland 189 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
James, A.N., Green, M.J.B. & Paine, J.R. 1999, Global review of protected area budgets and staff, WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Jones, P.J.S. 2001, 'Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground', Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 197-216. Kasetsart University 1987, Assessment of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and other preserves in Thailand. Final Report (in Thai). Kasetsart University, Royal Forest Department, Office of the National Environment Board and US Agency for International Development. Kay, A.M. & Liddle, M.J. 1989, 'Impact of human trampling in different zones of a coral-reef flat', Environmental Management, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 509-520. Kelleher, G. 1984, 'Conserving the Great Barrier Reef through zoning', paper presented to Conservation, Science and Society: Contributions to the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress, Minsk, Byelorussia/USSR, 26 Sept. Kelleher, G. 2002, Guidelines for marine protected areas, World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 3, IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Kelleher, G. & Dinesen, Z. 1993, 'Marine based tourism in the Great Barrier Reef environmental impacts and management', paper presented to MARINET Seminar: North Queensland Regional Development in Marine Industries, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, 19 October 1993. Kelleher, G. & Kenchington, R.A. 1992, Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Kelly, G.C. 1992, 'Public participation and perceived relevance as critical factors in marine park management', paper presented to the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, Micronesia, 22-27 June 1992. Kenchington, R.A. 1990, Managing marine environments, Taylor & Francis, New York; London. Kenchington, R.A. 1993, 'Tourism in coastal and marine environments - a recreational perspective', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Kenchington, R.A. 2000, 'Fisheries management and marine protected areas - a 2000 perspective', InterCoast network, vol. 37, pp. 4-5. Kenchington, R.A. 2003, The benefits of marine protected areas, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra: Australia. Kenchington, R.A. & Baldwin, J.S. 2000, 'The International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS): Management questions for science', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Kinne, O. 1970, Marine ecology: a comprehensive integrated treatise on life in oceans and coastal waters, Wiley & Sons., New York; Brisbane ; London. Kitsiou, D., Coccossis, H. & Karydis, M. 2002, 'Multi-dimensional evaluation and ranking of coastal areas using GIS and multiple criteria choice methods', Science of the Total Environment, vol. 284, no. 1-3, pp. 1-17. Kramer, R., van Schaik, C. & Johnson, J. 1997, Last stand: protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversity, Oxford University Press, New York. Kuijper, M.W.M. 2003, 'Marine and coastal environmental awareness building within the context of UNESCO's activities in Asia and the Pacific', Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 47, p. 265–272. Laffoley, D. 1995, 'Techniques for managing marine protected areas: zoning', in S Gubbay (ed.), Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for management, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 103-178.
190 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Lawrence, D., Kenchington, R.A. & Woodley, S. 2002, The Great Barrier Reef : finding the right balance, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic. Lawson, S.R., Manning, R.E., Valliere, W.A. & Wang, B. 2003, 'Proactive monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity in Arches National Park: an application of computer simulation modeling', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 68, pp. 305-313. Levitus, S., Antonov, J.I., Wang, J., Delworth, T.L., Dixon, K.W. & Broccoli, A.J. 2001, 'Anthropogenic warming of earth's climate system', Science, vol. 292, no. 5515, pp. 267-270. Liddle, M.J. & Kay, A.M. 1987, 'Resistance, survival and recovery of trampled corals on the Great Barrier Reef' Biological Conservation, vol. 42, pp. 1-18. Limviriyakul, P. 2004, 'Study of Associated Crab Distribution in Thai Sea', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Lirman, D. & Miller, M.W. 2003, 'Modeling and monitoring tools to assess recovery status and convergence rates between restored and undisturbed coral reef habitats', Restoration Ecology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 448-456. Lough, J.M. 1999, Sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef: a contribution to the study of coral bleaching, 57, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Lovell, E.R. 2000, Reef check description of the 2000 mass coral bleaching event in Fiji with reference to the South Pacific, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, USA. Loya, Y., Sakai, K., Yamazato, K., Nakano, Y., Sambali, H. & van Woesik, R. 2001, 'Coral bleaching: the winners and the losers', Ecology Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 122-131. MacKinnon, J., MacKinnon, K., United Nations Environment Programme & International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1986, Managing protected areas in the Tropics, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,, Gland, Switzerland :. Manthachitra, V. 1996, 'Reef fish assemblages on near shore coral reefs: the effects of habitat structure, degradation and rehabilitation', Ph.D. thesis, James Cook University of North Queensland. Marion, J.L. & Rogers, C.S. 1994, 'The applicability of terrestrial visitor impact management strategies to the protection of coral reefs', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 153-163. Marshall, P.A. & Schuttenberg, H.Z. 2006, A reef manager's guide to coral bleaching, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia. McCarthy, J.J. 2001, Climate change 2001 : impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability : contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group II., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York. McClanahan, T.R., Obura, D.O. & Sheppard, C.R.C. 2000, Coral reefs of the Indian Ocean : their ecology and conservation, Oxford University Press, New York. McManus, J.W., Rodolfo B. Reyes, J. & Cleto L. Nanola, J. 1997, 'Effects of some destructive fishing methods on coral cover and potential rates of recovery', Environmental Management, vol. V21, no. 1, pp. 69-78. McPhaden, M.J. 1999, 'Genesis and evolution of the 1997-98 El Nino', Science, vol. 283, no. 5404, pp. 950-954. Meprasert, S. 2006, 'The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: Tourism impacts and recovery progress in Thailand’s marine national parks', PhD thesis. Miller, M. & Vanzella-Khouri, A. 2003, 'Capacity building for marine protected area management: the case of the UNEP-CEP training of trainers programme', paper presented to Second
The University of Queensland 191 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS) March 24-27, 2003, Manila, Philippines. Miller, M.L. 1993, 'The rise of coastal and marine tourism', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 181-199. Mitchell, B.A. & Barborak, J.R. 1991, 'A new system of marine parks and protected areas in the Turk and Caicos Island, BWI', paper presented to The 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, Honolulu. Mohamaed, M.I.H., Rahman, R.A. & Abdullah, M.P. 1994, 'Impact of development of Pulau Layang Layang coral reefs', in C.R. Wilkinson, S. Sudara & L.M. Chou (eds), Third ASEAN- Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Qld., Bangkok, Thailand, vol. 2, pp. 35-40. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 2003, Florida Keys no discharge zone fact sheet, Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, viewed 01 January 2007
192 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Oxley, W. 1997, 'Sampling design and monitoring.' in S. English, C.R. Wilkinson & V. Baker (eds), Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources., Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, pp. 307-326. Phaowongsa, S. 1999, 'Thailand's marine protected areas', paper presented to The World Commission on Protected Areas, Second South East Asia Regional Forum, Pakse, Lao PDR, 6-11 December 1999. Phillips, A. & Harrison, J. 1999, 'The framework for international standards in establishing national parks and other protected areas.' in S. Stolton & N. Dudley (eds), Partnership for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas, Earthsacn, London, pp. 13-17. Phongsuwan, N. & Chansang, H. 1992, 'Assessment of coral communities in the Andaman Sea (Thailand)', paper presented to the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, Micronesia, 22-27 June 1992. Phongsuwan, N. & Chansang, H. 1994, 'Long term monitoring of coral reefs in the Andaman Sea, Thailand', in C.R. Wilkinson, S. Sudara & L.M. Chou (eds), Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Qld., Bangkok, Thailand, vol. 2, pp. 5-12. Phongsuwan, N., Chansang, H. & Satapoomin, U. 1993, A study and analysis of conditions of coral reefs in marine national parks, Andaman Sea (in Thai), No.2, Phuket Marine Biological Center, Department of Fisheries, Phuket, Thailand. Phongsuwan, N., Yeemin, T., Worachananant, S., Duangsawasdi, M., Chotiyaputta, C. & Comley, J. 2006, 'Post-Tsunami status of coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems on the Andaman Sea Coast of Thailand', in C. Wilkinson, D. Souter & J. Goldberg (eds), Status of Coral Reefs in Tsunami Affected Countries: 2005, pp. 63-78. Piewsawat, W. 2002, 'Analysis of recreation activities and effectiveness of nature interpretation program at Mu Koh Surin National Park, Phang-nga province', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Piewsawat, W. & Worachananant, S. 2001, Visitor knowledge on nature interpretation program of Mu Koh Surin National park, Phang-nga province, Unpublished data. Plathong, S. 1997, 'Impact of self-guided snorkelling trails on coral reef benthos', M.Sc. thesis, James Cook University of North Queensland. Plathong, S. 2004, 'The coral reef management plan for Mu Ko Chumphon Marine National Park, Thailand', paper presented to The Tenth International Coral Reef Symposium, Okinawa Convention Center, Okinawa, Japan, 28 June-2 July 2004. Plathong, S., Inglis, G.J. & Huber, M.E. 2000, 'Effects of self-guided snorkeling trails on corals in a Tropical Marine Park', Conservation Biology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1821-1830. Plimmer, W.N. 1992, 'Managing for growth: regulation versus the market', paper presented to The Conference on Ecotourism Business of the Pacific, University of Auckland, Auckland. Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. & Watson, L.M. 2004, How is your MPA Doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Putra, S. & Cottrell, A. 2000, 'Conflicts of coastal management in North Sulawesi', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Reef Check 2007, Reef Check - Saving reefs worldwide research, education, conservation, viewed 21 February 2007
The University of Queensland 193 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Reopanichkul, P. 2005, 'Taxonomic study and distribution of fish family Labridae in Thai Coral Reef', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. RFD 1993, Marine national parks, Thailand (in Thai), Interpretation & Recreation Subdivision, Marine National Park Division, Natural Resources Conservation Office, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), Thailand. RFD 1998, Marine national park traveling guide (in Thai), Marine National Park Division, Natural Resources Conservation Office, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), Thailand. RFD 2000, Resource Data of Surin Marine National Park, Phang-nga Province (in Thai), vol. 1, 2 vols., Land and Forest Resource division, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), Thailand. RFD 2002, Mu Ko Surin: Surin marine national park travelling guide (in Thai), Marine National Park Travelling Guide., Marine National Park Division, Natural Resources Conservation Office, Royal Forestry Department (RFD), Thailand. RFD/TAT 2002, Regulations for Controlling SCUBA diving for Entrepreneurs (Surin Islands and Similan Islands National Parks) (in Thai), Conservation Division, Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) and Royal Forestry Department (RFD), Thailand. Roberts, C.M. 1997, 'Permanent No-Take Zones: A Minimum Standard for Effective Marine Protected Areas', paper presented to An Associated Event of the Fifth Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, the World Bank, Washington, D.C. October 9-11, 1997. Robinson, A.H. 1976, 'Recreation, interpretation and environmental education in marine park: concepts, planning techniques and future directions', paper presented to An International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves, Japan. Rodriguez-Martinez, R. & Ortiz, L.M. 1999, 'Coral reef education in schools of Quintana Roo, Mexico', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1061-1068. Rogers, C.S. 1990, 'Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation', Marine Ecology- Progress Series, vol. 62, pp. 185-202. Rogers, C.S., McLain, L. & Zullo, E. 1988, 'Damage to coral reef in Virgin Islands National Park and biosphere reserve from recreational activities.' paper presented to The Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, 8-12 August 1988. Ross, M., Ross, N., Green, S., Amores, A., Carina, J. & Menguito, T. 2003, 'Experience from improving management of an “Urban” marine protected area: Gilutongan Marine Sanctuary, Municipality of Cordova, Cebu, Philippines', paper presented to Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS) March 24-27, 2003, Manila, Philippines. Ross, M.A., White, A.T., Sitoy, A.C. & Menguito, T. 2000, 'Experience from improving management of an “Urban” marine protected area: Gilutongan marine sanctuary, Philippines', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Rouphael, A.B. & Inglis, G.J. 1995, The effects of qualified recreational SCUBA divers on coral reefs, Technical Report No.4, CRC Reef Research Centre Ltd, Townsville. Rouphael, A.B. & Inglis, G.J. 1997, 'Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving at sites with different reef topographies', Biological Conservation, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 329-336. Rouphael, A.B. & Inglis, G.J. 2001, 'Take only photographs and leave only footprints?: An experimental study of the impacts of underwater photographers on coral reef dive sites', Biological Conservation, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 281-287. Rouphael, A.B. & Inglis, G.J. 2002, 'Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage caused by recreational scuba diving', Ecological Applications, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 427-440.
194 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Rudd, M.A. & Tupper, M.H. 2002, 'The Impact of Nassau Grouper size and abundance on SCUBA diver site selection and MPA economics' Coastal management, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 133-151. Ruengsawang, N. & Yeemin, T. 2004, 'Management intervention for coral reefs in the Gulf of Thailand', paper presented to The Tenth International Coral Reef Symposium, Okinawa Convention Center, Okinawa, Japan, 28 June-2 July 2004. Russ, G.R. & Alcala, A.C. 1999, 'Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy', Coral Reefs, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 307-319. Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C. & Maypa, A.P. 2003, 'Spillover from marine reserves: the case of Naso vlamingii at Apo Island, the Philippines', Marine Ecology-Progress Series, vol. 264, p. 15–20. Russell, D. 1997, 'Philosophy of marine park management', paper presented to The Great Barrier Reef, Science, Use and Management : a National Conference, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. 25-29 November 1996. Saenghaisuk, C. & Yeemin, T. 2006, 'Coral recruitment in Tsunami affected coral reefs of Surin Islands, the Andaman Sea.' paper presented to The First Asia Pacific Coral Reef Symposium, Hong Kong. Saisaeng, A. 2002, 'Taxonomic study on fish Family Pomacentridae in Thai coral reef', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Salm, R.V. 1986, 'Coral reefs and tourist carrying capacity: The Indian Ocean experience', UNEP Industry and Environment, pp. 11-14. Salm, R.V. & Coles, S.L. 2001, Coral bleaching and marine protected areas. Proceedings of the workshop on mitigating coral bleaching impact through MPA design, 0102, Asia Pacific Coastal Marine Program Report # 0102, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA., Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. May 29-31 2001. Salm, R.V. & Price, A. 1995, 'Selection of marine protected areas', in S Gubbay (ed.), Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for management, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 15-31. Salm, R.V., Smith, S.E. & Llewellyn., G. 2001, 'Mitigating the impact of coral bleaching through marine protected area design', in Coral Bleaching: Causes, Consequences and Response. Selected papers presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium on "Coral Bleaching: Assessing and Linking Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts, Future Trends and Mitigation Planning" Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island: 102 pp., pp. 81- 88. Schuttenberg, H.Z. 2001, Coral bleaching: causes, consequences and response, Coastal Management Report #2230, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Schuttenberg, H.Z. & Obura, D. 2001, 'Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of coral bleaching: A strategic approach to management, policy and research responses', in Coral Bleaching: Causes, Consequences and Response. Selected papers presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium on "Coral Bleaching: Assessing and Linking Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts, Future Trends and Mitigation Planning" Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island: 102 pp., pp. 1-11. Seenprachawong, U. 2001, Putting a price on paradise: Economic policies to preserve Thailand's coral reefs, School of Economic, Sukhothai Thammathirat open University, Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. Seenprachawong, U. 2003, 'Economic valuation of coral reefs at Phi Phi Islands, Thailand', International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 104-114. Sethapun, T. 2000, Marine national park in Thailand, viewed 20 March 2005
The University of Queensland 195 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Shafer, C.S. 1998, Visitor experiences and perceived conditions on day trips to the Great Barrier Reef, 1876054751, Cooperative Research Centre for Ecologically Sustainable Development of the Great Barrier Reef (Australia),CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Qld. Sharpe, G.W. 1982, Interpreting the environment, 2nd edn, John Wiley, New York ; Brisbane. Sittithaweepat, N. 2001, 'Study of species richness and distribution of nudibranchs in Thai Coral Reef', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Skeat, A. 2003, 'Financing protected areas---Tourism and the Great Barrier Reef', paper presented to World Parks Congress (Building a Secure Financial Future Stream), Durban South Africa, 7- 17 September 2003. Skeat, A., Smith, A., Baldwin, J., Robinson, M., McGinnity, P. & Nankivel., B. 2000, 'Planning, environmental impact management and compliance on the Great Barrier Reef', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1987, Introduction to biostatistics, 2nd edn, Freeman, New York. Songco, A. 2003, 'Law enforcement in the Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park', paper presented to Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS) March 24-27, 2003, Manila, Philippines. Sorokin, Y.I. 1993, Coral reef ecology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Sudara, S. 1995a, 'Management of marine protected areas in Thailand - striking a balance between conservation and development', paper presented to The Regional Seminar on Conservation of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sudara, S. 1995b, 'Thailand (Chapter 17): National status and approaches to coastal management', in Coastal Management in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues and Approaches, Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 235-242. Sudara, S. 1999, 'Who and what is to be involved in successful coastal zone management: a Thailand example', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 39-47. Sudara, S. 2002a, 'Conservation and management of MPA in Thailand', paper presented to The Fourth Conference on the Protected Areas of East Asia. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas in East Asia Conference “Benefits Beyond Boundaries in East Asia”, Taipei, Taiwan, 18-23 March, 2002. Sudara, S. 2002b, 'Current status and prospect of protected areas in Thailand', paper presented to The Fourth Conference on the Protected Areas of East Asia. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas in East Asia Conference “Benefits Beyond Boundaries in East Asia”, Taipei, Taiwan, 18-23 March, 2002. Sudara, S. & Nateekarnchanalap, S. 1988, 'Impact of tourism development on the reef in Thailand.' paper presented to The Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, 8-12 August 1988. Sudara, S. & Patimanukasaem, O. 1991, 'Large scale Anchovy fishing in the Gulf of Thailand: A new threat to reef fish communities', paper presented to The Regional Symposium on Living Resources in Coastal Areas, Quezon City: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines. Sudara, S., Thamrongnawasawat, T., Nateekanjanalarp, S. & Kuanman, P. 1991, 'Coral reef management plan for conservation and tourism development in Ang- tong, Samui and Pha- ngan Islands in the Gulf of Thailand.' paper presented to The Regional Symposium on Living Resource in Coastal Areas. University of Philippines, Manila. Sudara, S. & Yeemin, T. 1994, 'Coral reefs in Thai waters: newest tourist attraction', in CR Wilkinson, S Sudara & LM Chou (eds), Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Qld., Bangkok, Thailand, vol. 1, pp. 89-97.
196 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Sudara, S. & Yeemin, T. 2001, Demonstration site baseline assessment report: Mu Koh Surin Marine National Park, Thailand, viewed 9 September 2003
The University of Queensland 197 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Tongson, E. & Dygico, M. 2004, 'User fee system for marine ecotourism: The Tubbataha reef experience', Coastal management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 17-23. Tratalos, J.A. & Austin, T.J. 2001, 'Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coral communities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman', Biological Conservation, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 67-75. Trochim, W.M.K. 2006, Likert scaling, viewed 3 March 2007
198 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management References
Williams, I.D. & Polunin, N.V.C. 2000, 'Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists', Environmental Conservation, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 382-391. Wong, P.P. 1998, 'Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia: relevance and lessons for coastal zone management', Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 89-109. Woodland, D.J. & Hooper, J.N.A. 1977, 'The effect of human trampling on coral reefs.' Biological Conservation, vol. 11, pp. 1-4. Woodley, D. 1992, Monitoring environmental impacts of tourism in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, GBRMPA report. Woodley, J.D. & Sary, Z. 2000, 'Development of a locally-managed fisheries reserve at Discovery bay, Jamaica', paper presented to The Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October 2000. Worachananant, S. 2000, 'Study of soft corals and gorgonians distribution in Thai Sea', MS thesis, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Worachananant, S. & Thamrongnawasawat, T. 1999, 'Pilot Study of gorgonians distribution in Thai Sea', paper presented to Kasetsart University Annual Conference, Kasetsart University, Main Campus, Bangkok, Thailand. Worachananant, S., Thamrongnawasawat, T., Saisaeng, A., Varapirom, C., Mekdaeng, N., Limviriyakul, P. & Rojanapiyawong, B. 1996, The survey of giant clam in Thai's coral reefs (in Thai), Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished document. WTO 2005, Tsunami relief for the tourism sector: Phuket Action Plan, World Tourism Organization (WTO), viewed 22 September 2005
The University of Queensland 199 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
200 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendices
APPENDICES
The University of Queensland 201 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
202 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix I Statistic result of coral coverage
Appendix I Independent Samples T- Test of coral coverage
The Independent Samples T Test was used to compares the mean percentage of each coral coverage between years. Levene's Test for Equality of Variances had been applied to test the equality of variance on the variable. If the Levene's Test is significant (the value under "Sig." is less than 0.05), the two variances are significantly different. If it is not significant (Sig. is greater than 0.05), the two variances are not significantly different; that is, the two variances are approximately equal. Results with significant different (Sig. is less than 0.05) are showed in bold texts.
The University of Queensland 203 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Chong Khad Channel between 1997 and 1998 Chong Khad Channel between 2000 and 2001
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.12 38 0.269 Branching 0.40 38 0.694 Foliose 1.85 30 0.075 Foliose -0.52 38 0.609 Tabulate 1.00 38 0.323 Tabulate 0.28 38 0.779 Encrusting 0.14 38 0.890 Encrusting 0.53 38 0.601 Massive 2.52 38 0.016 Massive 1.15 38 0.258 Submassive 3.32 19 0.004 Submassive 0.24 38 0.809 Dead coral 2.89 38 0.006 Dead coral -1.29 29 0.209 Other coverage -4.14 38 0.006 Other coverage Types Types Living coral 3.40 38 0.002 Living coral 1.28 38 0.207 Tolerant form 2.47 38 0.018 Tolerant form 1.24 38 0.222 Fragile form 2.41 38 0.021 Fragile form 0.13 38 0.895 Dead and Other -3.40 38 0.002 Dead and Other -1.28 38 0.207
Chong Khad Channel between 1998 and 1999 Chong Khad Channel between 2001 and 2002
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 2.93 25 0.007 Branching 0.22 38 0.826 Foliose 0.65 38 0.523 Foliose 2.49 25 0.020 Tabulate 1.87 25 0.073 Tabulate 0.67 38 0.505 Encrusting -0.39 38 0.702 Encrusting 3.07 28 0.005 Massive 0.13 38 0.899 Massive -0.12 25 0.903 Submassive -8.07 38 0.001 Submassive 0.86 38 0.395 Dead coral -0.37 31 0.714 Dead coral 0.15 25 0.882 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 0.86 38 0.397 Living coral 1.20 25 0.243 Tolerant form 0.00 38 1.000 Tolerant form 0.69 25 0.494 Fragile form 4.10 27 0.001 Fragile form 1.59 38 0.120 Dead and Other -0.86 38 0.397 Dead and Other -1.20 25 0.243
Chong Khad Channel between 1999 and 2000 Chong Khad Channel between 2002 and 2004
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -2.37 24 0.026 Branching 0.45 43 0.658 Foliose -1.93 30 0.063 Foliose 0.72 43 0.474 Tabulate -1.69 25 0.103 Tabulate 1.55 21 0.136 Encrusting -0.87 38 0.388 Encrusting 7.26 43 0.001 Massive -1.39 38 0.174 Massive -0.11 28 0.912 Submassive -2.04 19 0.055 Submassive 1.00 19 0.330 Dead coral 8.45 38 0.001 Dead coral -2.37 34 0.024 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -2.64 38 0.012 Living coral 1.02 28 0.316 Tolerant form -1.71 38 0.096 Tolerant form 0.80 28 0.431 Fragile form -3.87 25 0.001 Fragile form 1.12 43 0.269 Dead and Other 2.64 38 0.012 Dead and Other -1.02 28 0.316
204 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix I Statistic result of coral coverage
Mae Yai Bay between 1997 and 1998 Mae Yai Bay between 2000 and 2001
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -0.80 38 0.428 Branching -2.81 38 0.008 Foliose -1.28 38 0.209 Foliose -0.10 38 0.922 Tabulate 1.25 34 0.222 Tabulate -1.89 38 0.066 Encrusting -0.72 38 0.476 Encrusting -3.57 38 0.001 Massive -3.92 38 0.001 Massive -7.88 38 0.001 Submassive -0.66 38 0.515 Submassive -8.05 32 0.001 Dead coral 0.85 38 0.403 Dead coral 3.28 38 0.002 Other coverage Other coverage 7.04 19 0.001 Types Types Living coral -4.04 27 0.001 Living coral -13.60 38 0.001 Tolerant form -3.16 29 0.004 Tolerant form -10.69 38 0.001 Fragile form -0.84 38 0.409 Fragile form -3.32 38 0.002 Dead and Other 4.04 27 0.001 Dead and Other 13.60 38 0.001
Mae Yai Bay between 1998 and 1999 Mae Yai Bay between 2001 and 2002
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 0.76 38 0.449 Branching -2.27 38 0.029 Foliose 2.21 38 0.033 Foliose 0.00 38 1.000 Tabulate -0.70 38 0.488 Tabulate 0.17 30 0.865 Encrusting 1.37 38 0.178 Encrusting 2.86 38 0.007 Massive 2.75 38 0.009 Massive 0.48 38 0.636 Submassive 2.37 38 0.023 Submassive -1.52 38 0.138 Dead coral -0.33 38 0.742 Dead coral -0.48 38 0.638 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 4.06 38 0.001 Living coral -0.02 38 0.982 Tolerant form 3.24 38 0.002 Tolerant form 0.78 38 0.439 Fragile form 1.88 38 0.067 Fragile form -1.86 38 0.071 Dead and Other -4.06 38 0.001 Dead and Other 0.02 38 0.982
Mae Yai Bay between 1999 and 2000 Mae Yai Bay between 2002 and 2004
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -3.90 29 0.001 Branching -1.06 47 0.295 Foliose -0.77 38 0.448 Foliose -0.60 48 0.554 Tabulate -0.24 38 0.811 Tabulate 1.93 30 0.063 Encrusting -2.70 28 0.012 Encrusting -2.24 45 0.030 Massive -0.99 38 0.330 Massive -0.40 48 0.692 Submassive -3.83 38 0.001 Submassive 1.81 43 0.077 Dead coral 1.44 38 0.158 Dead coral -5.07 48 0.001 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -4.74 38 0.001 Living coral -0.89 48 0.380 Tolerant form -3.40 38 0.002 Tolerant form -0.49 48 0.626 Fragile form -4.31 38 0.001 Fragile form -0.56 47 0.577 Dead and Other 4.74 38 0.001 Dead and Other 0.89 48 0.380
The University of Queensland 205 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Mae Yai Bay between 2004 and 2005 Mai Ngam Bay between 1998 and 1999
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 2.36 48 0.022 Branching 1.27 38 0.211 Foliose 2.32 34 0.027 Foliose -1.07 38 0.290 Tabulate -1.29 22 0.210 Tabulate 5.84 38 0.001 Encrusting 0.86 48 0.394 Encrusting 4.44 28 0.001 Massive 1.37 48 0.178 Massive -1.34 38 0.188 Submassive -0.35 48 0.726 Submassive 1.24 38 0.223 Dead coral -1.81 48 0.077 Dead coral -7.72 38 0.001 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 3.43 48 0.001 Living coral 6.20 38 0.001 Tolerant form 1.37 28 0.183 Tolerant form 2.34 38 0.024 Fragile form 2.15 48 0.037 Fragile form 2.97 38 0.005 Dead and Other -3.43 48 0.001 Dead and Other -6.20 38 0.001
Mae Yai Bay between 2005 and 2006 Mai Ngam Bay between 1999 and 2000
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -0.14 27 0.888 Branching 1.24 32 0.223 Foliose -3.38 25 0.002 Foliose -0.85 38 0.403 Tabulate 0.41 38 0.682 Tabulate -3.50 38 0.001 Encrusting -0.95 38 0.350 Encrusting -6.34 38 0.001 Massive 0.77 38 0.448 Massive -3.26 38 0.002 Submassive -1.04 38 0.307 Submassive 1.44 38 0.157 Dead coral 2.41 38 0.021 Dead coral 5.08 38 0.001 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -0.37 38 0.710 Living coral -6.08 38 0.001 Tolerant form -1.23 38 0.227 Tolerant form -4.92 38 0.001 Fragile form -0.79 38 0.434 Fragile form -0.79 38 0.434 Dead and Other -0.60 32 0.555 Dead and Other 6.08 38 0.001
Mai Ngam Bay between 1997 and 1998 Mai Ngam Bay between 2000 and 2001
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.59 26 0.123 Branching -1.30 38 0.201 Foliose 4.82 26 0.001 Foliose 1.70 25 0.102 Tabulate 0.99 28 0.332 Tabulate 1.80 38 0.081 Encrusting 4.45 38 0.001 Encrusting 1.71 29 0.091 Massive 1.58 38 0.123 Massive -1.65 38 0.103 Submassive 3.65 38 0.001 Submassive -0.63 38 0.534 Dead coral -5.79 31 0.001 Dead coral 0.76 38 0.454 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 9.05 33 0.001 Living coral -0.72 38 0.474 Tolerant form 5.26 38 0.001 Tolerant form -0.76 38 0.454 Fragile form 3.97 38 0.001 Fragile form 1.07 38 0.313 Dead and Other -9.05 33 0.001 Dead and Other 0.72 38 0.474
206 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix I Statistic result of coral coverage
Mai Ngam Bay between 2001 and 2002 Mai Ngam Bay between 2005 and 2006
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 3.27 38 0.002 Branching 0.14 38 0.888 Foliose -0.04 38 0.965 Foliose 0.46 38 0.648 Tabulate -0.42 38 0.679 Tabulate 0.27 38 0.792 Encrusting 3.40 27 0.002 Encrusting -2.29 38 0.028 Massive -2.85 29 0.008 Massive -0.66 38 0.514 Submassive -0.09 38 0.927 Submassive 0.12 38 0.907 Dead coral -2.23 38 0.032 Dead coral 1.29 38 0.206 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 1.30 38 0.203 Living coral -1.14 38 0.262 Tolerant form -1.01 38 0.320 Tolerant form -1.58 38 0.123 Fragile form 2.29 38 0.027 Fragile form 0.31 38 0.759 Dead and Other -1.30 38 0.203 Dead and Other 1.14 38 0.262
Mai Ngam Bay between 2002 and 2004 Pakkhad Bay between 1997 and 1998
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -2.14 45 0.038 Branching -0.28 38 0.779 Foliose 1.93 48 0.059 Foliose 0.86 33 0.394 Tabulate -1.83 33 0.077 Tabulate 3.65 25 0.001 Encrusting -3.10 39 0.004 Encrusting -1.07 30 0.293 Massive 0.85 46 0.399 Massive -0.15 38 0.884 Submassive -3.66 36 0.001 Submassive 3.92 25 0.001 Dead coral 1.82 44 0.076 Dead coral -3.07 24 0.005 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -5.87 48 0.001 Living coral 2.81 24 0.010 Tolerant form -2.66 47 0.011 Tolerant form 1.44 38 0.159 Fragile form -2.15 41 0.038 Fragile form 1.18 38 0.244 Dead and Other 5.87 48 0.001 Dead and Other -2.81 24 0.010
Mai Ngam Bay between 2004 and 2005 Pakkhad Bay between 1998 and 1999
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -1.54 48 0.129 Branching 1.18 31 0.248 Foliose 3.14 34 0.004 Foliose 0.05 36 0.957 Tabulate 0.40 35 0.691 Tabulate -1.26 32 0.215 Encrusting 2.29 33 0.029 Encrusting 1.52 38 0.138 Massive 2.13 46 0.039 Massive 1.85 32 0.074 Submassive 1.20 48 0.237 Submassive -3.18 30 0.003 Dead coral -1.72 48 0.092 Dead coral -1.66 28 0.109 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 4.45 48 0.001 Living coral 1.63 27 0.116 Tolerant form 3.91 48 0.001 Tolerant form 1.02 38 0.314 Fragile form 0.03 48 0.974 Fragile form 0.92 28 0.368 Dead and Other -4.45 48 0.001 Dead and Other -1.63 27 0.116
The University of Queensland 207 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Pakkhad Bay between 1999 and 2000 Pakkhad Bay between 2002 and 2004
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -1.20 38 0.237 Branching 1.69 25 0.104 Foliose 3.77 26 0.001 Foliose 0.05 38 0.958 Tabulate -0.91 38 0.370 Tabulate -3.54 27 0.001 Encrusting -2.31 38 0.026 Encrusting 0.51 38 0.610 Massive -1.54 38 0.133 Massive -2.10 38 0.043 Submassive 0.17 38 0.864 Submassive -2.12 22 0.046 Dead coral 3.06 38 0.004 Dead coral 1.55 38 0.131 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -2.70 38 0.010 Living coral -2.32 30 0.028 Tolerant form -2.32 38 0.026 Tolerant form -2.56 38 0.015 Fragile form -0.46 38 0.646 Fragile form 0.32 38 0.753 Dead and Other 2.70 38 0.010 Dead and Other 2.32 30 0.028
Pakkhad Bay between 2000 and 2001 Pakkhad Bay between 2004 and 2005
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 2.41 38 0.021 Branching 4.82 38 0.001 Foliose 1.27 38 0.214 Foliose 1.07 21 0.298 Tabulate 1.10 38 0.277 Tabulate 2.15 31 0.039 Encrusting 1.23 31 0.226 Encrusting 0.83 38 0.415 Massive -1.62 29 0.116 Massive -0.85 38 0.403 Submassive 2.15 38 0.038 Submassive -0.78 38 0.441 Dead coral -3.67 38 0.001 Dead coral -5.30 38 0.001 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 3.40 38 0.002 Living coral 5.08 38 0.001 Tolerant form -0.08 31 0.933 Tolerant form -0.70 38 0.488 Fragile form 3.62 38 0.001 Fragile form 6.69 38 0.001 Dead and Other -3.40 38 0.002 Dead and Other -5.08 38 0.001
Pakkhad Bay between 2001 and 2002 Pakkhad Bay between 2005 and 2006
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.73 38 0.091 Branching -0.05 38 0.964 Foliose 0.10 38 0.923 Foliose 1.41 19 0.176 Tabulate 0.83 38 0.412 Tabulate 0.70 38 0.487 Encrusting -0.40 38 0.688 Encrusting -1.51 38 0.140 Massive -0.19 38 0.851 Massive 0.46 38 0.649 Submassive 0.19 35 0.851 Submassive -0.72 38 0.478 Dead coral -1.40 38 0.170 Dead coral 0.13 38 0.897 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 1.74 38 0.089 Living coral -0.57 38 0.575 Tolerant form -0.37 38 0.714 Tolerant form -0.73 38 0.471 Fragile form 2.08 38 0.045 Fragile form 0.18 38 0.857 Dead and Other -1.74 38 0.089 Dead and Other 0.57 38 0.575
208 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix I Statistic result of coral coverage
Suthep Bay between 1997 and 1998 Suthep Bay between 2000 and 2001
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -6.37 35 0.001 Branching 0.53 38 0.597 Foliose 3.02 38 0.005 Foliose 2.90 38 0.007 Tabulate 1.95 27 0.061 Tabulate 0.82 38 0.419 Encrusting -0.06 22 0.957 Encrusting -0.59 38 0.556 Massive -9.25 24 0.001 Massive -0.44 38 0.662 Submassive 0.39 38 0.699 Submassive -1.09 31 0.282 Dead coral 5.74 38 0.001 Dead coral 0.18 25 0.860 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -8.70 38 0.001 Living coral -0.08 38 0.940 Tolerant form -5.98 38 0.001 Tolerant form -1.35 38 0.186 Fragile form -4.53 38 0.001 Fragile form 2.07 38 0.046 Dead and Other 8.70 38 0.001 Dead and Other 0.08 38 0.940
Suthep Bay between 1998 and 1999 Suthep Bay between 2001 and 2002
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 8.33 38 0.001 Branching 4.07 38 0.001 Foliose 0.00 38 1.000 Foliose -2.15 33 0.039 Tabulate 0.34 38 0.739 Tabulate -1.88 38 0.068 Encrusting 4.78 27 0.001 Encrusting -0.13 38 0.894 Massive 5.50 25 0.001 Massive -1.38 30 0.179 Submassive 0.38 38 0.705 Submassive 0.41 38 0.685 Dead coral -11.65 38 0.001 Dead coral -1.96 38 0.057 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 11.27 38 0.001 Living coral 2.42 38 0.020 Tolerant form 6.69 38 0.001 Tolerant form -0.90 38 0.376 Fragile form 7.69 38 0.001 Fragile form 2.54 38 0.015 Dead and Other -11.27 38 0.001 Dead and Other -2.42 38 0.020
Suthep Bay between 1999 and 2000 Suthep Bay between 2002 and 2004
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -1.04 38 0.306 Branching -4.10 44 0.001 Foliose -3.29 38 0.002 Foliose 9.43 48 0.001 Tabulate -2.48 38 0.018 Tabulate -0.02 39 0.984 Encrusting -3.11 38 0.004 Encrusting 0.04 44 0.967 Massive -1.52 38 0.138 Massive 0.81 35 0.424 Submassive 1.04 38 0.306 Submassive -1.16 41 0.255 Dead coral 4.75 38 0.001 Dead coral -0.48 41 0.634 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -3.97 38 0.001 Living coral -3.59 39 0.001 Tolerant form -2.58 38 0.014 Tolerant form 0.13 48 0.896 Fragile form -3.04 38 0.004 Fragile form -2.71 46 0.009 Dead and Other 3.97 38 0.001 Dead and Other 3.59 39 0.001
The University of Queensland 209 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Suthep Bay between 2004 and 2005 Turtle Bay between 1998 and 1999
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.05 48 0.298 Branching 1.80 38 0.080 Foliose 0.92 48 0.365 Foliose -5.55 38 0.001 Tabulate -0.17 48 0.869 Tabulate 0.71 38 0.481 Encrusting 1.54 41 0.130 Encrusting -0.18 38 0.862 Massive 1.90 47 0.064 Massive 3.14 27 0.004 Submassive 2.06 48 0.045 Submassive 0.05 38 0.959 Dead coral -2.89 48 0.006 Dead coral -1.88 38 0.068 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 4.65 48 0.001 Living coral 0.85 33 0.403 Tolerant form 3.90 48 0.001 Tolerant form 2.01 34 0.052 Fragile form 1.02 48 0.315 Fragile form -0.87 38 0.391 Dead and Other -4.65 48 0.001 Dead and Other -0.85 33 0.403
Suthep Bay between 2005 and 2006 Turtle Bay between 1999 and 2000
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 2.59 38 0.014 Branching -0.17 38 0.870 Foliose -1.43 29 0.164 Foliose 4.54 38 0.001 Tabulate 0.81 38 0.426 Tabulate 0.00 38 1.000 Encrusting -1.97 29 0.059 Encrusting 0.38 38 0.709 Massive -0.46 38 0.652 Massive -0.25 38 0.801 Submassive 0.67 30 0.509 Submassive -0.82 38 0.420 Dead coral -0.95 38 0.349 Dead coral -0.81 38 0.423 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 1.75 38 0.089 Living coral 1.24 29 0.226 Tolerant form -1.27 38 0.213 Tolerant form -0.22 38 0.828 Fragile form 2.56 38 0.015 Fragile form 1.84 38 0.074 Dead and Other -1.75 38 0.089 Dead and Other -1.24 29 0.226
Turtle Bay between 1997 and 1998 Turtle Bay between 2000 and 2001
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.08 38 0.289 Branching -0.03 38 0.978 Foliose 0.20 38 0.843 Foliose 3.25 38 0.002 Tabulate 1.78 38 0.083 Tabulate -0.26 38 0.800 Encrusting 1.49 38 0.144 Encrusting 0.03 38 0.978 Massive 1.91 38 0.064 Massive -1.19 38 0.243 Submassive 1.78 38 0.084 Submassive 0.04 28 0.968 Dead coral -3.35 38 0.002 Dead coral -1.12 38 0.272 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 3.21 38 0.003 Living coral 0.26 28 0.794 Tolerant form 2.91 38 0.006 Tolerant form -0.62 25 0.540 Fragile form 1.74 38 0.091 Fragile form 1.22 38 0.229 Dead and Other -3.21 38 0.003 Dead and Other -0.26 28 0.794
210 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix I Statistic result of coral coverage
Turtle Bay between 2001 and 2002 Turtle Bay between 2005 and 2006
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 0.65 38 0.519 Branching -1.20 37 0.239 Foliose 1.15 38 0.258 Foliose -0.08 37 0.941 Tabulate 0.36 38 0.718 Tabulate -0.10 37 0.919 Encrusting -0.03 38 0.973 Encrusting 0.50 37 0.622 Massive -0.23 38 0.820 Massive -2.64 37 0.012 Submassive -1.00 38 0.322 Submassive -0.36 37 0.719 Dead coral -0.21 38 0.832 Dead coral 1.50 37 0.142 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 0.41 38 0.685 Living coral -2.26 38 0.030 Tolerant form -0.71 38 0.480 Tolerant form -1.86 38 0.071 Fragile form 1.29 38 0.206 Fragile form -1.54 38 0.132 Dead and Other -0.41 38 0.685 Dead and Other 1.53 38 0.134
Turtle Bay between 2002 and 2004 Torinla Island between 1997 and 1998
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 0.29 48 0.774 Branching -1.47 38 0.149 Foliose 1.19 48 0.240 Foliose -0.99 27 0.329 Tabulate -1.68 43 0.100 Tabulate 2.49 32 0.018 Encrusting 1.15 48 0.258 Encrusting -0.84 38 0.404 Massive -1.43 48 0.159 Massive 1.42 38 0.163 Submassive 0.11 45 0.913 Submassive 0.72 38 0.478 Dead coral 0.95 48 0.347 Dead coral -2.46 27 0.020 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -0.85 47 0.397 Living coral 0.47 32 0.640 Tolerant form -0.56 48 0.577 Tolerant form 0.35 38 0.726 Fragile form -0.26 46 0.798 Fragile form 0.17 29 0.866 Dead and Other 0.85 47 0.397 Dead and Other -0.47 32 0.640
Turtle Bay between 2004 and 2005 Torinla Island between 1998 and 1999
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching 1.83 47 0.074 Branching 7.82 38 0.001 Foliose 0.22 47 0.824 Foliose -0.83 38 0.412 Tabulate 0.49 47 0.629 Tabulate 1.76 38 0.087 Encrusting -0.37 47 0.716 Encrusting 1.83 38 0.075 Massive 1.94 47 0.059 Massive -0.61 38 0.545 Submassive 0.25 47 0.805 Submassive 0.71 29 0.486 Dead coral -1.78 47 0.082 Dead coral -6.73 38 0.001 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral 2.57 28 0.016 Living coral 8.66 38 0.001 Tolerant form 1.66 48 0.104 Tolerant form 1.50 38 0.142 Fragile form 2.15 48 0.037 Fragile form 7.13 38 0.001 Dead and Other -1.78 30 0.084 Dead and Other -8.66 38 0.001
The University of Queensland 211 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Torinla Island between 1999 and 2000 Torinla Island between 2002 and 2004
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -0.89 38 0.380 Branching -1.30 38 0.201 Foliose -1.06 32 0.297 Foliose 6.03 20 0.001 Tabulate -2.32 38 0.026 Tabulate 4.41 25 0.001 Encrusting 0.49 34 0.630 Encrusting 3.17 19 0.005 Massive -1.96 38 0.058 Massive -0.04 20 0.971 Submassive -0.56 38 0.578 Submassive 0.79 27 0.439 Dead coral 3.27 38 0.002 Dead coral -3.42 33 0.002 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -3.22 38 0.003 Living coral 3.43 30 0.002 Tolerant form -0.95 38 0.351 Tolerant form 1.45 29 0.159 Fragile form -2.28 38 0.028 Fragile form 1.26 30 0.218 Dead and Other 3.22 38 0.003 Dead and Other -3.43 30 0.002
Torinla Island between 2000 and 2001 Torinla Island between 2004 and 2005
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -0.95 38 0.351 Branching 0.53 38 0.596 Foliose 3.12 38 0.003 Foliose -0.69 38 0.495 Tabulate -0.29 38 0.775 Tabulate 0.99 38 0.327 Encrusting 0.91 38 0.371 Encrusting -0.62 38 0.536 Massive -1.31 38 0.199 Massive 0.13 26 0.901 Submassive 1.64 38 0.109 Submassive 0.76 29 0.452 Dead coral -0.54 33 0.593 Dead coral 0.08 38 0.937 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -0.80 38 0.428 Living coral 0.97 38 0.339 Tolerant form 0.08 38 0.935 Tolerant form 0.28 27 0.779 Fragile form -0.63 38 0.535 Fragile form 0.68 38 0.503 Dead and Other 0.80 38 0.428 Dead and Other -0.97 38 0.339
Torinla Island between 2001 and 2002 Torinla Island between 2005 and 2006
Life forms t-test Life forms t-test t df p t df p Forms Forms Branching -2.24 38 0.031 Branching -1.43 38 0.162 Foliose -1.49 27 0.149 Foliose -0.62 38 0.537 Tabulate -1.38 38 0.176 Tabulate -2.69 26 0.012 Encrusting -0.71 31 0.480 Encrusting -0.64 38 0.525 Massive 2.02 38 0.051 Massive 2.85 30 0.008 Submassive -1.57 38 0.125 Submassive 0.82 38 0.420 Dead coral 4.77 38 0.001 Dead coral 1.74 38 0.090 Other coverage Other coverage Types Types Living coral -6.31 38 0.001 Living coral -0.97 38 0.339 Tolerant form 0.17 38 0.864 Tolerant form 2.81 29 0.009 Fragile form -4.44 38 0.001 Fragile form -2.11 38 0.041 Dead and Other 6.31 38 0.001 Dead and Other 0.97 38 0.339
212 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Appendix II Questionnaire survey on behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park
Questionnaire surveys had been applied three times during PhD study in both Thai and English versions depended on respondent’s preferences. First survey was applied in May 2004 and it had only one set. The second survey was applied during November and December 2005 and it had three types which included survey for general visitor, for SCUBA diver and for tour operator. The last survey was applied in March 2006 and aimed for measuring the perception of SCUBA diver against Boxing Day tsunami effects.
The University of Queensland 213 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
214 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Questionnaire survey on Behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park
Suchai Worachananant University of Queensland Kasetsart University Surin Marine National Park
The purpose of this study is to evaluate tourist knowledge and their opinion about Surin Marine National Park (Surin) management by doing a 15 minutes questionnaire, observation of stakeholder behaviour, and semi-structured interview. The information you give will be kept confidential and only use for purpose of this research. If you decided you do not want to participate, you can withdraw any time. Result of this study will publish on website (http://www.talaythai.com) and PhD Thesis of Mr Suchai Worachananant on the topic of Management approaches of Marine Protected Areas: A case study of Surin Marine National Parks.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of the University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher via e-mail at [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in this study, you can contact Chair of the School Research Committee, Prof Helen Ross (ph. 07 5460 1648 or [email protected]).
Time conducted November 2004 Number of questionnaire applied 200 Response rates 128 (64%)
The University of Queensland 215 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Sector 1: General Information 1 .Including this visit, how many times have you visited Surin Marine National Park (Surin)? (Tick one box only)
Once, this is my first time 5 to 10 times 2 to 4 times More than 10 times
2. If you have visited Surin more than once, when approximately was the last time? (Tick one box only)
Less than 1 month ago Between 1 year and 5 years ago More than 1 month, but less than 1 year ago More than 5 years ago
3. How long was this visit to Surin? (Tick one box only)
Half day (up to 4 hours) Full day (4-8 hours) Overnight (specify)______
4. Thinking of your trip, was this visit to Surin (Tick one box only)
the main purpose of your trip one of several destinations on this trip one of several Marine Park visited on this trip not a planned destination on this trip
5. How important was each of the following statements to you as a reason for visiting Surin? (Circle a number for each statement)
Statement Not at all important Moderately Extremely important To rest and relax To socialise with family/friends To experience a natural environment To escape everyday routines To be physically active
6. Which of the following sources of information did you use when deciding to visit Surin? (Tick all that apply)
Received no information prior to visit Travel guide/book Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge Word of mouth Tourist information centre Website Television/radio programmes Advertisement Telephone or written inquiry to park Other (please specify)______
7. Which category best describes the group you are travelling with? (Tick one box only)
Individual A couple Family Friends Other (please specify)
8. How many people in your group? (Included you)
2 6-10 3-5 10+
9. What type of accommodation that you stayed in? (Tick one box only)
House Park’s tent Row house Own tent Other, please specify ______
216 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
10. How much of the travel expense for this trip?
Travel Accommodation Service Food Other
11. Which pier did you come from?
Kuraburi Tap Lamu Other, please specify ______
12. Are you coming with a tourist operator?
Yes No
Section 2: Data of tourist’s recreation activities in the park 1. Which activities did you expected to do when visiting Surin and what did you actually do?
Activity Expected Actually did Activity Expected Actually did Bird watching Exhibition area exploring Sky interpretation Walking in nature trail Snorkelling Diving in underwater trail SCUBA diving Trekking with staff Study Sea Gypsy’s Watching presentation lives video
2. Where have you visited on this trip to Surin? Mark on the map the places visited.
Section 3: Data about Tourist’s opinion and satisfaction about management 1. The following is a list of park management tools often used to manage marine parks. Which of these do you think apply to/are used in managing Surin?
Zoning plan Permits Management plan Education centre Site plan Law and legislation Other tool:
The University of Queensland 217 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
2. Are you aware that SMNP has a zoning plan that defines areas where recreation activities can occur?
Yes No
3. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following facilities and services provided. (Circle a number for each attribute)
Very dissatisfied<– Moderate –> Very Satisfied Staff (e.g. availability, attitude, presence) Number of sites available for activities Interpretation and information available Management of visitors (e.g. noise, crowding, behaviour
of others) Prevention of illegal activities Strong enforcement Management of site access (prohibition/limitation)
4. How do you rate each of the following sources of information or interpretation? (Circle a number for each attribute)
Never know of Much worse than expected As expected Much better than expected its existence Park brochure Park map Park notice board Exhibition centre Park staff interpretation Self guide walk sign
Section 4: Tourist’s background 1. What country do you come from? (Tick one box only)
Thailand Other (specify)
2. What is your gender? (Tick one box only)
Male Female
3. Please indicated our age (Tick one box only)
<22 years 35-44 22-34 45 or older
4. Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (Tick one box only)
Grade 1-6 Bachelor Grade 7-9 Master Grade 10-12 Ph. D Diploma Other
5. Which of the following best describes your present occupation? (Tick one box only)
Unemployed Company employee Student Government officer Own business Other, please specify ______
218 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
6. Which bracket best describes your household’s combined annual income in Thai baht? (Tick one box only)
Less than 50,000 100,000 - 149,999 50,000 - 79,999 150,000 - 299,999 80,000 - 99,999 300,000 or more Don’t know
The University of Queensland 219 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
220 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Questionnaire survey on Behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park GENERAL VISITOR
Suchai Worachananant University of Queensland Kasetsart University Surin Marine National Park
The purpose of this study is to evaluate tourist knowledge and their opinion about Surin Marine National Park (Surin) management by doing a 15 minutes questionnaire, observation of stakeholder behaviour, and semi-structured interview. The information you give will be kept confidential and only use for purpose of this research. If you decided you do not want to participate, you can withdraw any time. Result of this study will publish on website (http://www.talaythai.com) and PhD Thesis of Mr Suchai Worachananant on the topic of Management approaches of Marine Protected Areas: A case study of Surin Marine National Parks.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of the University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher via e-mail at [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in this study, you can contact Chair of the School Research Committee, Prof Helen Ross (ph. 07 5460 1648 or [email protected]).
Time conducted November – December 2004 Number of questionnaire applied 200 Response rates 174 (87%)
The University of Queensland 221 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Sector 1: General Information 1. Including this visit, how many times have you visited Surin Marine National Park (Surin)?
Once, this is my first time 2 – 4 times More than 4 times
2. How long was this visit to Surin? (Tick one box only)
Full day 2 – 4 days More than 4 days
3. Thinking of your trip, was this visit to Surin (Tick one box only)
the main purpose of your trip one of several destinations on this trip not a planned destination on this trip Other (please specify)______
4. How important was each of the following statements to you as a reason for visiting Surin?
Statement Not at all important Moderately Extremely important To rest and relax To socialise with family/friends To experience about natural environment To escape everyday routines To be physically active Other (please specify)______
5. Which of the following sources of information did you use when deciding to visit Surin? (Tick all that apply)
No information Advertisements Word of mouth Websites Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge Telephone or written inquiry to park Tourist information centre and/or brochure Newspaper/Television/radio programmes Travel guide/book and magazine Other (please specify)______Now cycle the one that you found most useful
6. Which category best describes the group you are travelling with? (Tick one box only)
Individual A couple Family Friends Commercial tour group Other (please specify)
7. How many people in your group? (Included you)
1 2 3-5 6-10 10+
8. Which pier did you come from?
Kuraburi Tap Lamu Other (please specify)______
9. Are you coming with a tourist operator?
Yes No
222 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Section 2: Data of tourist’s recreation activities in the park 1. Which recreation activities did you expected to do when visiting Surin and what did you actually do?
Activity Expected Actually did Activity Expected Actually did Snorkelling Exhibition area exploring Diving in U/W trail Watching presentation video SCUBA diving Other, please specify
2. Which place have you done/want to do your activities? (Used the map to fill in the table)
Want to do Actually did Place SN SC KA OT SN SC KA OT Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay SN=Snorkelling, SC=SCUBA diving, KA=Kayaking, OT=other activities
3. Please indicate your level of satisfaction about coral condition for each of the following sites. (Circle a number for each attribute)
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
The University of Queensland 223 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
4. Please indicate your level of satisfaction about quantity of fishes for each of the following sites.
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
5. Please indicate your level of overall satisfaction for each of the following sites. (Circle a number for each attribute)
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
Section 3: Data about Tourist’s opinion and satisfaction about management 1. The following is a list of park management tools often used to manage marine parks. Which of these do you think apply to/are used in managing Surin?
Are used at Surin? Do you think this should apply to Surin? Management tools Yes No Yes No Not sure Prohibition of entry Temporary prohibition (time/tide) Activity restriction areas Boat permits Education centre Number limits at sites Regulation
2. Are you aware that every tour operators are required to hold permits?
Yes No
3. Do you know if your tour operator has the required permits?
Yes No
4. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following facilities and services provided. (Circle a number for each attribute)
Very dissatisfied<– Moderate –> Very Satisfied Number of buoys Number of sites available for activities
224 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Very dissatisfied<– Moderate –> Very Satisfied Interpretation and information available Management of visitors (e.g. noise, crowding, behaviour of others) Prevention of illegal activities Strong enforcement Management of site access (prohibition/limitation) Limitation of number of visitors Diving site access scheduling If you dissatisfied of any facilities and services provided, please provide reason:
Reason Number of buoys Number of sites available for activities Interpretation and information available Management of visitors Prevention of illegal activities Strong enforcement Management of site access (prohibition/limitation) Limitation of number of visitors
5. How do you rate each of the following sources of information or interpretation?
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its expected expected expected existence before Availability of pre-visit information Information on terrestrial organism Information on reef Staff present or available for help Park brochure Park map Park notice board/whiteboard Exhibition centre Park staff interpretation Interpretation video Information on management activities If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
6. How do you rate the appropriateness of each of the following management approaches?
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its existence expected expected expected before Mooring system Prohibition of areas Limitation of areas Quota of area access Park Enforcement User fee If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
The University of Queensland 225 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
7. Thinking about your experiences at Surin, how do you think the following effect environmental condition?
Effect environment Yes No Not sure Interpretation/Information Adequacy of warning and guidelines provided in the area Adequacy information for pre-plan visit Adequacy information on terrestrial organism Adequacy information on marine organism Availability or presence of staff for help at site Presence of exhibition centre and its interpretations Environment/Experience Number of people in each site Number of people on Island Behaviour of other visitors Facilities/Management Mooring buoy provided Maintenance of mooring buoys Regularly of staff patrols Enforcement Understanding about regulation Risk potential Activity Reef walking SCUBA diving Snorkelling Diving in underwater trails
8. What is your level of satisfaction with each of the following management tools? (Circle a number for each attribute)
Never realise Very dissatisfied Moderate Very satisfied the existence Tide – level limitation (Chong Khad Bay) Time limitation (Suthep Bay) Prohibition of entering (Mae Yai Bay/Torinla Island) Activities restriction (SCUBA diving ) Park regulations enforcement Number of park regulations SCUBA diver fee Appropriateness of site limit access If you dissatisfied of any method, please provide your suggestion for improvement:
Method Suggestion Tide – level limitation Time limitation Prohibition of entering and doing activities Activities restriction Strong law enforcement Lots of laws and regulations SCUBA diver fee Appropriateness of site limit access
226 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Section 4: Tourist’s background 1. What country do you come from? (Tick one box only)
Thailand Other (please specify)______
2. What is your gender? (Tick one box only)
Male Female
3. Please indicated our age (Tick one box only)
< 22 years 35-44 22-34 45-older
4. Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (Tick one box only)
Below bachelor Over Bachelor Bachelor Other
5. Which of the following best describes your present occupation? (Tick one box only)
Unemployed Company employee Student Own business Government officer Other, please specify
6. Which bracket best describes your household’s combined annual income in Thai baht? (Tick one box only)
Less than 50,000 100,000 - 149,999 50,000 - 79,999 150,000 - 299,999 80,000 - 99,999 300,000 or more Don’t know
The University of Queensland 227 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
228 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Questionnaire survey on Behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park SCUBA DIVER
Suchai Worachananant University of Queensland Kasetsart University Surin Marine National Park
The purpose of this study is to evaluate tourist knowledge and their opinion about Surin Marine National Park (Surin) management by doing a 15 minutes questionnaire, observation of stakeholder behaviour, and semi-structured interview. The information you give will be kept confidential and only use for purpose of this research. If you decided you do not want to participate, you can withdraw any time. Result of this study will publish on website (http://www.talaythai.com) and PhD Thesis of Mr Suchai Worachananant on the topic of Management approaches of Marine Protected Areas: A case study of Surin Marine National Parks.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of the University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher via e-mail at [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in this study, you can contact Chair of the School Research Committee, Prof Helen Ross (ph. 07 5460 1648 or [email protected]).
Time conducted November – December 2004 Number of questionnaire applied 30* Response rates 17 (56%) *Some questionnaires were destroyed by tsunami.
The University of Queensland 229 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Sector 1: General Information 1 .Including this visit, how many times have you visited Surin Marine National Park (Surin)? (Tick one box only)
Once, this is my first time 2 – 4 times More than 4 times
2. How many dives you plan to do in Surin (Tick one box only)
1 dive 2 – 4 dives More than 4 dives
3. How important is each of the following statements as a reason for visiting Surin?
Statement Not at all important Moderately Extremely important To rest and relax To socialise with family/friends To experience and learn about natural environment To escape everyday routines To be physically active Other (please specify) ______
4. Which of the following sources of information did you use when deciding to visit Surin? (Tick all that apply)
Received no information prior to visit Advertisement Tourist information centre Website Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge Word of mouth Telephone or written inquiry to park Travel guide/book Television/radio programmes Other (please specify)
Now cycle the one that you found most useful
5. Which category best describes the group you are travelling with? (Tick one box only)
Individual A couple Family Friends Other (please specify) ______
6. How many people are in your travel party? (Included you)
1 2 3-5 6-10 10+
7. What is the name of your vessel and which company?
Vessel ______Company ______
8. Which pier did you come from?
Kuraburi Phuket Tap Lamu Khao Lak Other (please specify) ______
230 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Section 2: Data of tourist’s recreation activities in the park 1. Which recreation activities do you expect to do when visiting Surin and what did you actually do?
Activity Expected Actually did Activity Expected Actually did Snorkelling Exhibition area exploring Diving in U/W trail Watching presentation video SCUBA diving Other
2. Where have you visited on this trip to Surin? Mark on the map the places dived with: (Use a, b, c, d and so on, on order, to represent the place dived)
3. What is your opinion of the condition of the coral at the following sites? (Circle a number for each attribute) - (Use map in question 2 to identify places)
Very poor Poor Moderate Good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other (please specify) ______
4. How did you find the quantity of fish at each of the following sites? (Circle a number for each attribute) - (Use map in question 2 to identify places)
Very poor Poor Moderate Good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other (please specify) ______
The University of Queensland 231 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
5. Overall, how satisfied were you with the following sites? (Circle a number for each attribute)
Very poor Poor Moderate Good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other (please specify) ______
Section 3: Opinion and satisfaction about management 1. The following lists park management tools often used in marine parks. Which of these do you think apply to/are used in managing Surin?
Are used at Surin? Do you think this should apply to Surin? Management tools Yes No Yes No Not sure Prohibition of entry Temporary prohibition (time/tide) Activity restriction areas Boat permits Education centre Number limits at sites Regulation
2. Are you aware that every tour operators are required to hold permits?
Yes No
3. Do you know if your tour operator has the required permits?
Yes No
4. How satisfied are you with each of the following facilities and services provided?
Very dissatisfied Moderate Very Satisfied Number of buoys Number of sites available for activities Interpretation and information available Management of visitors Prevention of illegal activities Strong enforcement Management of site access (prohibition/limitation) Limitation of number of visitors Diving site access scheduling If you dissatisfied of any facilities and services provided, please provide reason:
232 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
5. How do you rate each of the following sources of information or interpretation? (Circle a number for each statement)
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its expected expected expected existence before Availability of pre-visit information Information on terrestrial organism Information on reef Staff present or available for help Park brochure Park map Park notice board/whiteboard Exhibition centre Park staff interpretation Interpretation video Information on management activities If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
6. How do you rate the appropriateness of each of the following management approaches? (Circle a number for each statement)
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its expected expected expected existence before Mooring system Prohibition of areas Limitation of areas Quota of area access Park Enforcement User fee If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
7. Thinking about your experiences at Surin, how do you think the following effect environmental condition? Effect environment Yes No Not sure Interpretation/Information Adequacy of warning and guidelines provided in the area Adequacy information for pre-plan visit Adequacy information on terrestrial organism Adequacy information on marine organism Availability or presence of staff for help at site Environment/Experience Number of people in each site Number of people on Island Behaviour of other visitors Facilities/Management Mooring buoy provided Maintenance of mooring buoys Regularly of staff patrols Enforcement Understanding about regulation
The University of Queensland 233 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Effect environment Yes No Not sure Risk potential Activity Reef walking SCUBA diving Snorkelling Diving in underwater trails
8. What is your level of satisfaction with each of the following management tools?
Never realise the Very dissatisfied Moderate Very satisfied existence Tide – level limitation (Chong Khad Bay) Time limitation (Suthep Bay) Prohibition of entering and doing activities Activities restriction (SCUBA diving,
Snorkelling, Kayaking) Park regulations enforcement Number of park regulations SCUBA diver fee Appropriateness of site limit access If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
Section 4: Background 1. What country do you come from? (Tick one box only)
Thailand Other (please specify) ______
2. What is your gender? (Tick one box only)
Male Female
3. Please indicated our age (Tick one box only)
< 22 years 22-34 35-44 45-older
4. Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (Tick one box only)
Below bachelor Over Bachelor Bachelor Other (please specify) ______
5. Which of the following best describes your present occupation? (Tick one box only)
Unemployed Company employee Student Government officer Own business Other, please specify ______
6. Which bracket best describes your household’s combined annual income in Thai baht? (Tick one box only)
Less than 50,000 100,000 - 149,999 50,000 - 79,999 150,000 - 299,999 80,000 - 99,999 300,000 or more Don’t know
234 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Questionnaire survey on Behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park Tour Operator
Suchai Worachananant University of Queensland Kasetsart University Surin Marine National Park
The purpose of this study is to evaluate tourist knowledge and their opinion about Surin Marine National Park (Surin) management by doing a 15 minutes questionnaire, observation of stakeholder behaviour, and semi-structured interview. The information you give will be kept confidential and only use for purpose of this research. If you decided you do not want to participate, you can withdraw any time. Result of this study will publish on website (http://www.talaythai.com) and PhD Thesis of Mr Suchai Worachananant on the topic of Management approaches of Marine Protected Areas: A case study of Surin Marine National Parks.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of the University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher via e-mail at [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in this study, you can contact Chair of the School Research Committee, Prof Helen Ross (ph. 07 5460 1648 or [email protected]).
Time conducted November – December 2004 Number of questionnaire applied 20 Response rates 15
The University of Queensland 235 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Sector 1: General Information 1 .How frequently does your company visit Surin Marine National Park (Surin)?
Daily Weekly Monthly
2. What is the average time spent in Surin on a visit? (Tick one box only)
Full day 2 – 4 days More than 4 days
3. How important is each of the following attributes to your company use of Surin?
Statement Not at all important Moderate Extremely important Remotely environment Luxury accommodations Beautiful forest Beautiful shallow reef White sandy beach Other (please specify) ______
4. Which of the following sources of information did your company use when planning trips?
No information Advertisements Word of mouth Websites Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge Telephone or written inquiry to park Tourist information centre and/or brochure Newspaper/Television/radio programmes Travel guide/book and magazine Other (please specify)______
Now cycle the one that you found most useful
5. How many people (in average) are in your trips? (Included you)
10 – 19 20 – 49 50+
6. Which category best describe your company average number of clients per year?
100 - 999 1,000 – 4,999 5,000 – 9,999 10,000+
7. Which pier did you usually come from? (If more than one please rank by 4 as most used and 1 as less used)
Kuraburi Phuket Tap Lamu Other (please specify)______
Section 2: Data of tourist’s recreation activities in the park 1. Which recreation activities do you provided for clients when visiting Surin and what did your clients actually do?
Activity Expected Actually did Activity Expected Actually did Snorkelling Exhibition area exploring SCUBA diving Watching presentation video
236 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
2. Where have you visited on this trip to Surin? Mark on the map the places visited with:
3. What is your opinion of the condition of the coral at the following sites?
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
4. How did you find the quantity of fish at each of the following sites?
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
5. Overall, how satisfied were you with the following sites?
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay
The University of Queensland 237 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Very poor Poor Moderate good Very good Never visited Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Other, please specify______
Section 3: Opinion and satisfaction about management 1. The following lists park management tools often used in marine parks. Which of these do you think apply to/are used in managing Surin?
Are used at Surin? Do you think this should apply to Surin? Management tools Yes No Yes No Not sure Prohibition of entry Temporary prohibition (time/tide) Activity restriction areas Boat permits Education centre Number limits at sites Regulation
2. Are you aware that every tour operators are required to hold permits?
Yes No
3. Do you know if your company has the required permits?
Yes No
4. How satisfied are you with each of the following facilities and services provided?
Very dissatisfied Moderate Very satisfied Number of buoys Number of sites available for activities Interpretation and information available Management of visitors Prevention of illegal activities Strong enforcement Management of site access (prohibition/limitation) Limitation of number of visitors Diving site access scheduling
5. How do you rate each of the following sources of information or interpretation?
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its expected expected expected existence before Availability of pre-visit information Information on terrestrial organism Information on reef Staff present or available for help Park brochure Park map Park notice board/whiteboard Exhibition centre
238 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Much worse than As Much better than Never know of its expected expected expected existence before Park staff interpretation Interpretation video Information on management activities
6. How do you rate the appropriateness of each of the following management approaches?
Never know of its Much worse than expected As expected Much better than expected existence before Mooring system Prohibition of areas Limitation of areas Quota of area access Park Enforcement User fee If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
7. Thinking about your experiences at Surin, how do you think the following effect environmental condition?
Effect environment Yes No Not sure Interpretation/Information Adequacy of warning and guidelines provided in the area Adequacy information for pre-plan visit Adequacy information on terrestrial organism Adequacy information on marine organism Availability or presence of staff for help at site Presence of exhibition centre and its interpretations Environment/Experience Number of people in each site Number of people on Island Behaviour of other visitors Facilities/Management Mooring buoy provided Maintenance of mooring buoys Regularly of staff patrols Enforcement Understanding about regulation Risk potential Activity Reef walking SCUBA diving Snorkelling Diving in underwater trails Kayaking Other (please specify)______
The University of Queensland 239 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
8. What is your level of satisfaction with each of the following management tools?
Never realise Very dissatisfied Moderate Very satisfied the existence Tide – level limitation Time limitation Prohibition of entering and doing activities Activities restriction (SCUBA diving, Snorkelling) Park regulations enforcement Number of park regulations SCUBA diver fee Appropriateness of site limit access If you were dissatisfied with any method, do you have any suggestion for improvement?
Section 4: Background 1. What is your nationality? (Tick one box only)
Thailand Other (please specify)______
2. Where are you main office? (Tick one box only)
Kuraburi Khao Lak Other (please specify)______
3. Is your company have its own vessel? (Tick one box only)
Yes No
If yes, please provided number ______4. If the park provided education programmes on management, would you participated (Tick one box only)
Yes No
240 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Questionnaire survey on Behaviour, knowledge and perception of Stakeholders in Surin Marine National Park SCUBA Diver
Suchai Worachananant University of Queensland Kasetsart University Surin Marine National Park
The purpose of this study is to evaluate tourist knowledge and their opinion about Surin Marine National Park (Surin) management by doing a 15 minutes questionnaire, observation of stakeholder behaviour, and semi-structured interview. The information you give will be kept confidential and only use for purpose of this research. If you decided you do not want to participate, you can withdraw any time. Result of this study will publish on website (http://www.talaythai.com) and PhD Thesis of Mr Suchai Worachananant on the topic of Management approaches of Marine Protected Areas: A case study of Surin Marine National Parks.
This study adheres to the Guidelines of the ethical review process of the University of Queensland. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher via e-mail at [email protected], if you would like to speak to an officer of the University not involved in this study, you can contact Chair of the School Research Committee, Prof Helen Ross (ph. 07 5460 1648 or [email protected]).
Time conducted March 2005 Number of questionnaire applied 50 Response rates 45 (90%)
The University of Queensland 241 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Sector 1: General Information 1. Including this visit, how many times have you visited Surin Marine National Park (Surin)?
First time 2-4 times More than 4 times
2. How long was this visit to Surin? (Tick one box only)
Full day 2-4 days More than 4 days
3. Thinking of your trip, was this visit to Surin (Tick one box only)
the main purpose of your trip one of several destinations on this trip not a planned destination on this trip
4. How important was seeing the effects of the Tsunami on your decision to visit?
Not at all important Not Important Moderately important Important Extremely important
5. Which of the following sources of information did you use when deciding to visit Surin? (Tick all that apply)
No information Advertisements Word of mouth Websites Previous visit(s)/ prior personal knowledge Telephone or written inquiry to park Tourist information centre and/or brochure Newspaper/Television/radio programmes Travel guide/book and magazine Other (please specify)______
6. Which category best describes the group you are travelling with? (Tick one box only)
Individual A couple Friends Family working group Other (please specify)______
7. How many people in your travel party? (Included you)
1 2 3-5 6-10 10+
8. Which pier did you come from?
Kuraburi Tap Lamu Phuket Other (please specify)______
9. What is the name of your vessel and which company?
Vessel ______Company ______
Section 2: Recreation activities in the park 1. Which activities did you expected to do when visiting Surin and what did you actually do?
Activity Expected Actually did Snorkelling SCUBA diving Exhibition area exploring Watching Surin’s presentation video Other, please specify (looking for a girl)
242 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
2. Where have you visited on this trip to Surin? Mark on the map the places dived with:
3. How satisfied were you with the condition of coral at the following sites?
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
4. How satisfied were you with the quantity of coral at the following sites? (Tick a box for each site)
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
5. How satisfied were you with the variety of coral at the following sites? (Tick a box for each site)
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
The University of Queensland 243 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
6. How satisfied were you with the variety of fish colours at the following sites?
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
7. How satisfied were you with the sizes of fish at the following sites? (Tick a box for each site)
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
8. How satisfied were you with the diversity of fish at the following sites? (Tick a box for each site)
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay
9. How satisfied were you with the overall condition at the following sites?
Very Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied disappointed Mae Yai Bay Mai Ngam Bay Suthep Bay Chong Khad Bay Turtle Bay Torinla Bay Pakkhad Bay Now circle the site you think was the best and please provide the reason for your choice
244 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix II Questionnaire surveys
Section 3: Opinion and satisfaction about management 1. Are you aware that every tour operators are required to hold permits?
Yes No
2. Do you know if your tour operator has the required permits?
Yes No
3. How satisfied were you with the following facilities and services provided?
Very dissatisfied <– Moderate –> Very Satisfied Number of buoys Number of sites available for activities Interpretation and information available Management of visitors (e.g. noise, crowding, behaviour) Management activities
4. How do you rate the appropriateness of information received?
Much worse than Worse than Better than Much better than Never know of its As expected expected expected expected expected existence before
5. Thinking about your experiences at Surin, how do you think the following effect environmental condition? (Tick a box for each attribute)
Effect environment Yes No Not sure Availability of interpretation/information Number of people at each site Number of people on the Island Behaviour of visitors Facilities/Management Mooring buoy provided Maintenance of mooring buoys Regularly of staff patrols Enforcement Understanding about regulation Activities Reef walking SCUBA diving Snorkelling Kayaking
6. How satisfied were you with management of Surin Marine National Park?
Very disappointed Disappointed Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
The University of Queensland 245 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Section 4: Tourist’s background 1. What country do you come from?
Thailand Other (please specify)______2. What is your gender?
Male Female
3. Please indicated your age (Tick one box only)
< 22 years 35-44 22-34 45-older
4. Which of the following best describes your highest level of education? (Tick one box only)
Below bachelor Over Bachelor Bachelor Other
5. Which of the following best describes your present occupation? (Tick one box only)
Unemployed Company employee Student Own business Government officer Other, please specify
6. Annual household income (Thai only)
Less than 50,000 100,000 - 149,999 50,000 - 79,999 150,000 - 299,999 80,000 - 99,999 300,000 or more Don’t know
246 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix III Tsunami Story
Appendix III Tsunami Story
The University of Queensland 247 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
No. Story Source Date situation happen Introduction 1 On 26 December 2004, a massive earthquake off the coast of Sumatra resulted in a Newspapers (Dec 04) 26 Dec Tsunami (Harbour wave) that struck many countries around the Indian Ocean. At and News (Dec 04) 04 about 9 am, the first of a series of giant waves hit the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. Within half an hour there had been catastrophic damage at most places along the shoreline. Local residents and tourists were killed and injured, some being swept out to the sea. Beachside properties were destroyed and the infrastructure was serious damage. The toll on this disaster was probably the worst socio-natural disaster recorded in Thailand’s history. Surin situation 2 Around 9.50 am, the first of a series of massive waves came from a north-western Personal interview 26 Dec directed to the southeast and hit Mai Ngam Bay (second campground area). Park (27 Dec 04) 04 Headquarters received radio contact from the campground informing that there was a sudden increase of seawater level. The conversation lasted three minutes before all contact was lost. At the same time at Chong Khad Bay (HQ), a large group of tourists (about 200 people) were transferred from a vessel (Ocean Princess) to HQ by two of the park’s long-tail boats and two of the operator’s boats. To the astonishment of all, the sealevel rapidly decreased; the water retreated from the shore more than 500 metres within four to five minutes. This was followed by a very strong wave that hit the shore. The heavy wave retreated sweeping with it debris and many tourists into deep water. Some massive corals and broken colonies of branching coral were also swept along with the current. Within 3 minutes, the water had risen to about two metres high above mean sea level (MSL). Many visitors were rescued and delivered to large vessels moored offshore: the Ocean Princess (122 metre long), the Choke Suwan (40 metre long) and four 30 metres long speedboats. Fifteen minutes later, the second series of waves arrived from a southeast to northwest direction. This time, most of massive corals, which functioned as a barrier along the reef edge of the Chong Khad Bay, were hit and up-turned. Water levels also changed rapidly. Within four to five minutes, the water retreated from the shore to more than 1000 metres and in the next four to five minutes the water level increased to over three meters above MSL. The wave damaged many long tail boats, a small patrol dinghy and swept most loose material into the sea. At the time, two hundred people including park staff, tour operator staff and visitors had been evacuated to higher ground. This wave caused some damage to the visitor centre and minor injuries to some snorkellers. Nearly twenty minutes later, the third series and the most destructive waves came again from the northwest to southeast. The waves were more than ten metres height and attacked land infrastructure. Many bangalows were destroyed, either by wave power or by massive debris that came with the wave. One visitor died and more than 50 were injured. These waves caused the diving station and fuel keep to collapse. Diving equipment, fuel tanks and buoy installation equipment were swept away. The visitor centre was almost totally destroyed. The main refectory and education centre collapsed. The fresh water pond and beach forests were salinated. Communications (cell phone, marine radio) with the mainland and the electricity generator were destroyed. Immediate response 3 The Royal Thai Government led an effective emergency response to the largest Government declares 26 Dec natural catastrophe in Thailand's history, including a massive forensic operation for 04 identifying the bodies of thousands of foreign visitors and Thai citizens. Basic needs of local communities were addressed within days. Eighteen months later most of the reconstruction and rehabilitation had been completed and the longer-term recovery of the local economy and communities were now the major focus of the national response. Thailand adopted a three-phase response strategy to the disaster. Phase one focused on searching and rescuing the survivors together with recovering and identification of the remains of the dead; phase two focused on preventing infectious diseases and secondary losses of those who survived the tragedy; and phase three addressed reconstruction and longer-term rehabilitation of those affected.
248 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix III Tsunami Story
No. Story Source Date situation happen After the crisis (within the week after the tsunami) 4 The park was temporary closed by order of the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Department notice 26 Dec Conservation Department. Only a small number of voluntary staff was left on the 04 island. 5 Many media, both local and international, reported ‘total destruction’ of Thailand’s Observation 26 Dec coral reefs within hours of the disaster, before anyone had a chance to check out what 04 really happened. 6 Park staff briefly investigated the level of destruction and found that the island had no Interview 27-31 electricity, no fresh water supply and little fuel available. In the meantime, many Dec 04 fishing boats came near the island to seek shelters. Details of damage was described as follows: • education centre (100 %); • visitor centre (100 %); • main refectory (100%); • diving station (100%) and all diving equipment including diving tanks, SCUBA gear, air compressor, rope and buoys; • five bungalows, included staff houses; and • fuel keep and electricity generators. Nearly 350 massive coral colonies were moved to the beach – some were 2 or 3 metres high. Chong Khad Channel, the most favoured and closest place for diving, was totally modified – sand covered the corals, branching corals were broken and the current changed to very strong. 7 Park staff were left to face a number of psychological stresses. These came from Interview Dec 04 – experiencing the disaster personally such as witnessing, or handling cases of loss. Jan 05 Most the anxiety and suffering came from fears – of another tsunami, of returning to the sea to patrol again, of an uncertain future with the closure of the national park, and from a lost sense of safety and security. 8 Activities focused on rescuing the injured and collect dead bodies, especially at Khao News 26 Dec Lak and Phang Nga, which received heavy damage. 04 – 2 Jan 05 9 Some diving operators, based at Khao Lak, were affected by tsunami. Many lost their Interview 28 -29 staff, boats, shops, and diving equipment. This situation affected the livelihood of Dec 04 tourism operators and affected the revenue generated to the park via visitor and diving fees. Environmental surveys 10 Preliminary survey was undertaken in various areas to identify the effect of the Personal observation 30 Dec tsunami in the marine environment. Some contact with research institutions was 04 – 2 established. Based on my previous data, my department volunteered to assess Surin. Jan 05 11 Preliminary survey of tsunami damage at Surin MNP Personal observation 3-4 Jan During 3 – 4 Jan 2005, I, accompanied staff from Kasetsart University on a visit to 05 Surin to gather information in preparation for the task force meeting in Phuket (5 Jan 2005). Some preliminary biological data were collected through spot check diving and observation. The type of damage to corals could be divided into : 1) colonies up-turned or knocked down; 2) branches or portions of coral colonies broken off, this appeared to be caused directly by the waves or indirectly by heavy drifting objects or debris striking the corals; 3) sand-sliding along the reef slope, leading to breakage of corals, abraision of coral surfaces, or sand completely burying corals; and 4) serious erosion of shallow sandy seabeds, which led to either sand smothering or burying corals. The first two types of damage were generally found at the most impacted reef sites particularly in shallow waters. The third effect was commonly found on reefs with steep slopes. The fourth was typical of the reefs located on wave-exposed shorelines. In addition, a number of massive corals had been exposed, some were already dead most were considered unlikely to survive. Massive sand drifts covered many coral
The University of Queensland 249 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
No. Story Source Date situation happen surfaces. Debris from land had been swept to hit corals. It was recommended that park staff push the living portion of corals back to water, count and map up-turned massive corals. Damage to land facilities was also assessed. Many fishermen who came to seek shelter at the park offered to help park staff clear the damaged land areas. Damaged building and bungalows had been cleared as much as possible without machinery. 12 The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) of the Ministry of Natural Personal experience 5-15 Jan Resources and Environment (MONRE) invited marine researchers from 9 educational 05 institutions (Chulalongkorn University, Kasetsart University, Burapha University, Ramkhamhaeng University, Prince of Songkhla University, Walailak University, Mahidol University, Rajamangala Institute of Technology, Trang, and Rajamangala Institute of Technology, Bangkok Campus), together with almost 100 research staff from DMCR, to form a taskforce to assess the effect of the tsunami on marine ecosystems. After an environmental damage assessment taskforce was formed, a series of rapid assessments began within a few days after the disasters. The rapid investigations were conducted between 30 December 2004 and 15 January 2005 and involved 4 areas of assessment; coral reefs, seagrass beds, marine endangered species, and water quality. More than 120 volunteer divers also assisted in the assessment of the tsunami impacts on the coral reefs. Tourist operators offered their boats, at a low charter price, for survey purposes. Meanwhile, all vessels were prohibited from entering marine parks; however, some tour operators illegally operated, carrying people to see the disasters. Confusion in identifying permitted vessels occurred because communication problems between the central department and on-site staff. So the prohibition of entry announced by Government was ignored. 13 Two surveys were completed in mid January and late March. (Data used in Chapter Personal experience Jan and 7). Recommendations were made about re-zoning of the park. Mar 05 Affected to public and communities 14 Psychological problem The Department of 23 Jan 05 The Department of Mental Health estimated that 10,000 people from six provinces Mental Health (DMH) suffered psychological trauma resulting from the disaster. Survivors in the areas that experienced maximum damage experienced the highest incidence of trauma related symptoms. Staff from the Department of Mental Health, with medical staff from the local hospital, offered a health and mental check for park staff and relatives. 15 Surin’s Superintendent was changed twice. Assistance to the superintendent The Department of Jan – increased from three to five persons. National Park (DNP) May 05 16 The Tourism Authority of Thailand reported that the tourism sector was the most Tourism Authority of Jan 05 affected by the tsunami in pure economic terms, given that the six affected provinces Thailand (TAT ) generated 17% of total tourism revenue for Thailand in 2004. The tsunami destroyed or damaged 25% of total room capacity in the six provinces. Year on year comparison of tourism figures from January to June showed a 53% drop in tourist arrivals in the affected provinces. 17 At least one dive company complained of irresponsible claims of environmental Website Jan 05 damage to coral reefs. “We hope that the dive industry and indeed the entire region continue to show its incredible fortitude and thrives despite the media's appetite for sensationalism (no matter what the cost to livelihoods involved or even whether the story is factual). We are appalled at the recent irresponsible reporting by organisations like CBS who typically chose to look at a couple of dive sites (from the hundreds out there) and then condemned the local economy and in particular the diving industry, by graphically describing or at least implying widespread damage when this just is not the case. There is no doubt at all that Thailand and Burma still offer a multitude of world class dive sites - more than enough for any live aboard itinerary.” http://www.ocean-rover.com/news/posttsunami.htm 18 The Bank of Thailand reported that tourism revenues dropped dramatically in the first Bank of Thailand, Office Early - quarter and then started to slowly recover. However, they expected to pick up in the of the National Economic Mid 05 last quarter of 2005 (the high tourist season in Thailand). Given the slow recovery of and Social Development the tourism sector in the first three quarters of the year, tourism revenues would be Board. reduce by around USD 1.4 billion, or 0.8 percent of GDP, compared to the initial target
250 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix III Tsunami Story
No. Story Source Date situation happen for this year. 19 The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) reported that the Department of Disaster Early - tsunami caused heavy damage to fishing boats and gear, as well as to aquaculture Prevention and Mid 05 infrastructures located in the Andaman Sea, and consequently affected the livelihood Mitigation (DDPM) of large numbers of fisher folk in the coastal areas of the tsunami affected provinces Many fishing communities along the coastline were affected by the tsunami. Nearly 6,000 fishing boats were damaged or destroyed, and nearly 7,000 sets of fishing gear lost. Virtually all fish hatcheries along the coast were washed away. Second stage response from Government and other organisations 20 Recommendations from academic institutes were sent to DNP to delay the opening of Personal experience 15 Jan 05 three MNP, including Surin. DNP asked the taskforce for recommendations on the modification of management plans. 21 Twelve MNP opened for tourism but Surin and another two remained closed. DNP 25 Jan 05 22 Tsunami “Crisis or Opportunity” presentation was conducted by the Head of Planning TAT 26 Jan 05 division, Policies and Planning Department, TAT. It aimed to encourage visitors to return to affected areas. 23 TAT launched a strategic plan encouraging tourism recovery. TAT 26 Jan 05 24 GCRMN, CORDIO, IUCN, Reefbase, ReefCheck, ICRAN for ICRI and ISRS, together, Literature Jan 05 published a first draft of the Tsunami Damage to Coral Reefs: Guidelines for Rapid Assessment and Monitoring to help assessing the impacts. 25 To support tourism activities and increase revenue, DNP opened the campground DNP 7 Feb 05 area (Mai Ngam Bay) in Surin for travellers, but other areas including HQ area (Chong Khad Bay) remained close for re-construction. 26 DNP issued the policy to remove the park’s visitor registration fee and boat permit fee DNP 11 Feb – to encourage tourism activity to return to affected parks. 31 May 05 27 At Surin, HQ area was opened to tourist. Despite the re-zoning proposal, park staff DNP 21 Feb responded to visitors’ demand and permitted access to least affected areas in order 05 to raise income from tourist expenditure. 28 UNEP established the Asian Tsunami Disaster Task Force, and assisted the Observation Feb 05 environmental authorities in Thailand in assessing the damage to natural resources and the need for environmental recovery and rehabilitation. Experts were deployed to conduct and facilitate rapid environmental assessments and help coordinate environmental recovery programmes in partnership with national authorities, UN agencies and the international community. In February 2005, UNEP presented a regional Rapid Environmental Assessment report on the environmental damages caused by the tsunami. A number of priority areas of assistance were identified by Thailand's Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE). 29 In January 2005, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) along Literature Feb- Mar with the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), invited www.coralcay.org 05 the UK based NGO, Coral Cay Conservation (CCC), to undertook a study of the coral reefs of the Surin Islands Marine National Park to assess the level of damage that had occurred as a result of the tsunami of December 26th 2004. With the support of the British Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a team of CCC marine scientists carried a programme of underwater surveys around the islands for two weeks in February and March 2005. The first week was spent identifying and quantifying specific indictors of tsunami-induced damage, the second undertaking a preliminary assessment of the current state of the existing marine resources of the islands. After the surveys, two reports were published. A project-specific methodology was developed for this study, with a high resolution IKONOS satellite image being used. The surveys took place around the islands at a series of spatially representative sites. In total, 1424 sub-transects were surveyed. These data were imported to a Geographic Information System (GIS), which referenced them to the satellite image. The GIS outputs had been used to recommend appropriate sites for the implementation of a programme to monitor the rate and extent of coral recovery. According to the report, some areas had shown the result of damage slightly different to my study. The possible reasons for different damage results might be caused by
The University of Queensland 251 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
No. Story Source Date situation happen the difference of survey methods and the difference of survey period; my studies also revealed difference in reef damage with time. Live hard corals cover was found to be exceptionally high on the north-east coast of the island of North Surin, with an average value of 75% and a maximum value of 90% (quite different to my survey). Areas of high proportional tsunami related coral damage were found in areas that did not have substantial live hard coral cover previously. Whilst at the localised scale, the tsunami would have far-reaching ecological consequences on these areas, overall, it was calculated that only 8% of the pre-tsunami coral quantity or coverage may potentially have been lost to the tsunami if all of the damaged coral subsequently dies (again, this does not match my surveys). This paper also concluded that healthy coral reef systems of Surin can begin to regenerate rapidly even in the aftermath of a natural event as momentous as a tsunami 30 Supported by UNDP and UNOPS, the Phuket Marine Biologist Centre (PMBC), in DMCR, UNDP, UNOP Mar – collaboration with DMCR, volunteer divers, the Royal Thai Navy, Prince of Songkla Dec 05 University and Kasetsart University, undertook Coral Reef Clean-Up, Rehabilitation and Protection program at Phi Phi Islands, Similan Island, Phuket and other affected sites. 31 The Park stopped services for seasonal reason, but tour operators could enter the DNP 16 May– park during the storm season at their own risk. The number of staff remaining on the 15 Nov park was reduced along with a decreased amount of patrolling. 05 32 A workshop for marine park superintendents was held in Bangkok. The objective was Give a presentation by 25 May to provide information on environmental rehabilitation methods and discuss adaptive self (3 sections) 05 management for rehabilitation after the tsunami disaster. 33 With the official inauguration of Thailand’s National Disaster Warning Centre on 31 TAT 31 May May, 2005, Thailand became the first country hit by the December 26 tsunami to 05 launch a natural disaster early warning system. 34 UNDP promoted the ‘Build Back Better’ campaign and provided support for Sea UNDP Mid 05 Gypsies who lived in Surin to protect and promote their cultural heritage, however park staff who directly suffered from the tsunami were not considered. 35 UNESCO with UNDP launched the ‘Support to Rehabilitation of Traditional UNESCO and UNDP Mid 05 Communities in Tsunami-Affected Areas in Thailand’ project. The project included activities such as: • constructing traditional boats and nature trails to transfer sea gypsies’ knowledge and skills and for community use, • rebuilding huts exhibiting the traditional culture of the Sea Gypsy people, • workshops with relevant stakeholders to explore options and provide recommendations for co-management in protected areas, • developing booklets for tourists on indigenous people and their natural resources, • developing local school curricula materials with an emphasis on sea gypsies traditional cultures, and • GIS mapping of part of the Surin Islands and Adang Archipelago. 36 Support to Recovery of Tourism TAT, UNCT, Mid 05 Tourism in the park is the most important source of revenue and, in addition to the International Labour constrained budget from government, it provides support for management and is also Organisation used for the salary of short term staff. While many of the worst affected areas in Thailand, which were active tourist destinations, received a high priority for the rehabilitation of tourism infrastructure, and initiatives to get the tourists to return to these destinations; such as Khao Lak and Phuket, the four national marine parks received little attention from the Government. The budget for restoring the parks was presented as a lump sum and shared among the four severely affected national parks. The slow rebound of the tourism sector in Thailand affected the recovery of more than 100,000 tourism employment businesses damaged by the tsunami. They continued to suffer the impact of the so called ‘second wave’. The lower number of tourist arrivals continued to hurt workers in the formal tourism sector. As a result, many jobs were lost, incomes significantly reduced, especially in some of the worst affected areas.
252 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix III Tsunami Story
No. Story Source Date situation happen Livelihoods dependent on the tourism related informal economy (masseurs, handicraft sellers, beachfront vendors etc.) had also been affected. Many who lost jobs in the formal sector joined the informal economy for survival. 37 UNDP, with Ministry of Tourism and Sports in partnership with MONRE, IUCN, and UNDP Mar 05 – the private sector launched ‘Sustainable Eco-Tourism Development in the Affected Dec 06 Southern Provinces of Thailand’ project. It aimed to strengthen partnerships, to assess current and future capacity in the tourism sector in the Andaman Sea, and to determine sustainable limits for recreation activities. 38 Most tsunami affected areas had spectacular natural resources and ecosystems, DMCR May05- valuable not only in themselves but also because of their critical inter linkages with life Feb 06 and livelihoods of affected communities. Hence, the rehabilitation of these areas was a matter of concern not only for environmentalists and conservationists, but also to related sectors. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR) under the Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) worked closely with the Department of National Parks (DNP) in collaboration with national and international partners, volunteers and academia to assess the impact, repair the damage, and promote longer term rehabilitation. 39 The DMCR, with Chulalongkorn University, also worked to evaluate different aspects DMCR May05- of environmental impact, and develop policies and plans to restore and protect natural Feb 06 resources and the environment. In the longer term, the environmental rehabilitation plans included regular monitoring of corals and maintaining them in a healthy condition, protection of endangered species such as sea turtles and dugongs, preserving mangrove forests, and developing policies and measures to implement rehabilitation plans in the tsunami impacted provinces. 40 Thailand was also arranging itself as a knowledge centre for natural resources MONRE/ personal May05- management, particularly of coral reefs, to share this knowledge with other countries observation/ interview Feb 06 in the region. The MONRE, with the Asian Institute of Technology, World Wild Life Fund for Nature and IUCN, and supported by UNEP promoted integration of environmental concerns in reconstruction and rehabilitation activities, as well as supporting Integrated Coastal Zone Management and ecosystem restoration. The MONRE, with support from UNEP, developed a series of digital maps to help rehabilitation of damaged mangrove formations. 41 Many national and international organisations supported the recovery of management Literatures, websites ongoing capacity in various national parks. 42 DMCR, with DNP, Department of Fisheries (DOF), Office of Tourism Development DMCR Ongoing (OTD), and NGOs, asked for support from Australia (AUSAID) to conduct ‘Capacity 2006 Strengthening for Management of Thailand’s Andaman Sea Coastal Zone’. It aimed to develop guidelines for sustainable development of coastal resources. 43 MONRE collaborated with FAO and UNDP on the technical assessment of tsunami UNDP Apr– Oct affected mangroves and other coastal forests to assist integrated costal land use 05 planning and forest ecosystem management. 44 Since the tsunami affected fishing communities along Thailand's Andaman coast, the Government declare, Government compensation proposal assured USD 1,500 (estimate) for fishermen who FAO lost small boats and USD 5,000 for large ones. However, thousands of the boats lost were not legally registered. The Government agreed to pay compensation equivalent to 70% of the actual damage to fishermen who lost unregistered boats or fishing equipment. In many cases, especially for unregistered boats, the compensation from the Government was not sufficient to repair and rebuild fishing boats and replace lost fishing gear; fishermen were unable to go out to sea and earn a living. The efforts of the Government were supported by a large number of national and international agencies. A number of organisations came together to support fishing communities in building boatyards, building and repairing boats, and providing boat engines and fishing gear to support the livelihood recovery of the affected communities. International agencies such as the FAO worked with the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives on technical assessment for determining the level of fishing capacity and the promotion of community-based coastal natural resource management, in close collaboration with NGOs. The Government documented five key concepts in rehabilitation of the fisheries sector. These included the provision of fishing boats and gear; impact on natural resources and fishing grounds; damage mitigation plans; safety at sea; and
The University of Queensland 253 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
No. Story Source Date situation happen sustainable fisheries development. 45 The Park opened for the 2005 season. DNP Nov 05 46 Earlier advice on zoning was ignored. The mooring system laid before the monsoon Observation Nov 05 was lifted off. One year after the tsunami 47 Surin’s second campground area was closed due to low visitor numbers. DNP Dec 05 48 Prince of Songkla University (PSU), with support from JICA and For sea foundation, PSU –JICA – For sea Mid Jan hold a meeting to discuss management approaches and zoning for the New Asian foundation. 06 Heritage site (Andaman triangle). 49 DNP invited university researchers (led by PSU) to help define zoning and DNP 2-3 Feb management approaches for Surin and Similan in order to establish the new Asian 06 Heritage Site (Surin-Similan- Phang Nga Bay). 50 IOC-WESTPAC and PMBC organised an international workshop on ‘Post-disaster Personal experiences 20-23 Assessment and Monitoring of Changes in Coastal, Ocean, and Human Systems in Feb 06 the Indian Ocean and Asian Waters’ in Phuket Thailand. Delegates from FAO raised the issue of the excessive supply of fishing boat to fishing communities leading to the over fishing of fishery resources. The illdirected support from many organisation, both international and national, proved to be the cause of many problems. Before the tsunami, each fishing boats had at least two or three persons on board (estimation and dependent on types of fishing and size of boat). After the tsunami, the number of boats increased; in the Phuket workshop many delegates identified that every household seems to have at least one boat. The number of boats was exceeding the capacity of the fishery stock. While the donated boats were small (long tailed boat) and did not have a high capacity to catch, the enormous number of them was reflected in a decline in the harvesting rates of commercial boats. Commercial boats that used to harvest near the coastlines were forced to go further offshore. There is little evidence to suggest that this caused increased illegal fishing in the park, but an increasing number of lost fish traps was observed in the park. 51 The new jetty built at Surin after the tsunami resulted in the loss of sand dunes. This Interview Feb 06 project aimed to encourage day visitors to the park. Somkiat Luangbumrung, the park superintendent, stated that Surin could accommodate around 1,000 people per day; while the number of visitors was still low at this time, he expected the number to increase in new year. 52 Many tour operators reduced the frequency of their speedboat schedules and formed Interview Feb 06 an alliance. Small companies, with fewer clients, sent their clients to larger companies or shared the speedboats to reduce the cost of operating a trip with few clients. 53 The field survey for coral coverage change after the monsoon season was conducted. Fieldwork Feb 06 Most areas show improvement. 54 Many lost fish traps, which are usually anchored to the sea floor, were found floating Observation Feb 06 around the islands and were possibly cut by divers. The numbers of traps imply an increase in illegal fishing. 55 Surin’s education centre remains without displays. Observation Feb 06 56 The superintendent rarely visits the islands due to a tight schedule of meetings with Interview 9 Mar 06 the Government and related organisations. Park management effectiveness is reduced due to the absence of a person with authority to make decisions.
254 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Appendix IV Observation of SCUBA divers effects
Apeendix IV Observation of SCUBA Divers Effects on Coral Reefs in Surin Marine National Park
The study had involved independent observations on SCUBA divers, selected at random from dive parties visiting five dive sites in Surin Marine National Park, Thailand (Mai Ngam Bay, Mae Yai Bay, Pakkhad Bay, Turtle Bay and Torinla Island. Six divers will be observed per day (per observer) on separate dives.
Following same method of (Rouphael & Inglis, 1997), each subject will be observed underwater for 10 min. The dives usually lasted about 60 minutes and approximately equal numbers of divers will be observed in the first, second or third 10-min period and the second set on the 40, 50 and 60 minutes. Information on the gender of each diver, the site at which they had been observed, the time of observation during the dive (i.e. first, second or third 10-min period of the dive), whether they carried a camera and information on the level of training and experience (number of dives completed since gaining qualifications) of each subject had been recorded by information asked from dive operators.
The number of times each diver made direct physical contact with the substratum, broke or damaged corals, and kicked-up sediments during the dive had been observed. Contact or damage had been classified according to whether it was made by the diver's hands, fins, knees, gauges or other equipment and by the type of substratum involved. Benthic substrata were recorded as one of seven categories: Others (others substrate rather than corals), branching corals (including tabulate corals), massive corals (including submassive corals), foliose corals, and encrusting corals.
Observers entered the water with the dive party and remained a discrete distance behind their subjects in the water (usually 5-10 m depending on visibility). To avoid influencing the subject's behaviour, divers were not informed of the activities of the observers until after the dive was completed. Data were not used for any subjects who were obviously aware of the presence of the observer.
For each diver, observers had recorded the number of times diver contact with hard substrata, the type of substratum involved, how the contact made (e.g. by fin kick, kneeling, holding onto corals, or through contact with equipment) and whether any obvious damage was caused to living corals.
The University of Queensland 255 S. Worachananant Management Approaches in Marine Protected areas
Observation Record Sheet Perception and behaviour of tourist with Surin management approaches 2004-2005
Subject number. Date Time
Dive period 1 2 3 Dive site # of dives record
Observer
Dive master briefing (attended) Y N Special Equipment
Observation table
Contact Other substrates Branching corals Massive corals Foliose corals Encrusting corals Hand Knee Fin Gauges Other Damage Hand Knee Fin Gauges Other Kick up sediment
Time conducted November 2004 Number of subjects 40
256 School of Natural and Rural Systems Management