Scuba diving

Abstract

Intentional and unintentional physical contact between scuba divers and the seabed is made by most divers and multiple times per dive, which often results in damage to corals and other marine life. Current efforts to reduce reef contacts (e.g., voluntary dive operator recognition programs and voluntary dive standards) can be effective, but lack sufficient incentive structures for longterm compliance. In their current capacity, these programs fail to reduce reef contacts to tolerable levels. Regulatory policies can facilitate pervasive and permanent shifts in human behavior, but have been underutilized to change unsustainable underwater norms. Most coral reefs open to recreational diving lie within territorial waters of individual countries, and many already have existing forms of protection with legislation that can be easily modified. Successful policy precedents in Marine Protected Areas (e.g., bans on underwater glove use) and elsewhere (e.g., antismoking laws in public spaces and legislation enforcing seat belt use) demonstrate the largely untapped potential of using effective governance to change destructive diving norms for good. To reduce intentional reef contacts, policy-makers can enact regulations in MPAs directly banning all contact between divers and the seabed. To reduce unintentional contacts, policy-makers can create policy safeguards that preempt such occurrences (e.g., requiring divers to keep a certain distance from the seabed). Crucially, such policies will need accompanying formal and informal enforcement measures that are equitable, effective, and efficient to motivate compliance and effect lasting behavior change. Having a robust, well-enforced, regulatory framework to tackle both types of reef contacts lends credence to the efforts of existing conservation programs, and is key to permanently changing divers’ underwater attitudes and fostering sustainable scuba diving behavior to the benefit of all.

Tropical regions and developing states depend largely on their “blue nature” and related tourism for their potential and economic well-being. Even so, coral reefs are degrading around the globe, whereas the pressure exerted by diving tourism is increasing steadily. This conflicting situation empathizes the need for sustainable use of marine ecosystems and sustainable tourism development. Here, we looked at the potential of sustainable growth of diving tourism for the small tropical island Sint Eustatius, part of the Dutch Caribbean. We evaluated the ecological and social carrying capacity of the reefs surrounding the island and studied the possibilities for artificial reefs. Our study showed that a new methodology identifying pressures and sensitivities of dive sites was effective in differentiating between sites, and could act to evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic risks acting on reefs for management purposes. Consequently, our study demonstrated that pressures associated with the diving sector were relatively small for St.Eustatius, but that the marine resources of St. Eustatius have declined over time. Moreover, we found that the diving tourist especially prized the natural resources and tranquility of the island, while stakeholders envisioned growth of tourism. And lastly, we showed that divers valued landscaped reefs positively depending on the design of the reef. Natural looking reefs with rich biotic growth and wrecks were particularly well appreciated and were considered a possibility to dive on. In summary, our results indicate that the reefs of St.Eustatius can sustain growth of the diving sector and that landscaped reefs can support sustainable growth. As the attraction of St.Eustatius to visitors is currently characterized by the rich nature and quiet atmosphere, growth of tourism should be carefully considered in terms of both ecological as social carrying capacity. Such consideration requires adequate ecological and environmental data for which consistent monitoring programs need to be developed. This will safeguard sustainable use of St.Eustatius’ blue-nature, for generations to come.

This research was conducted as part of the Wageningen UR innovation program TripleP@sea – Caribbean Netherlands (as funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic affairs under project number KB-IV-007). More specifically, this report contributes to the subproject “Towards a Tourism Masterplan for St.Eustatius”. 

The number and type of diver contacts with coral reefs on Bonaire and Klein Bonaire’s fringing reefs were studied in fall 2006. The goal of this study was to observe the number of contacts recreational SCUBA divers are making with the local reefs. Twenty four divers were chosen haphazardly and followed for 30 minute observation periods on three shore dives and seven boat dives. Forty-one percent of observed divers came in contact with the reef substrate at least once during the observation period for a total of 84 contacts. Contacts were categorized as fin taps, body bumps, skin contacts, sediment upsets and equipment dragging. The majority of observed contacts were fin taps, followed by skin contacts, sediment upsets, equipment dragging and body bumps. The following diver attribute categorizes were analyzed to determine the relationship between contact rate and diver attributes: dive access type (shore vs. boat), gender of the diver, skill level of the diver (beginner vs. advanced), and presence or absence of camera equipment. Shore dives, female divers, beginner divers and underwater photographers all demonstrated higher numbers of contacts than their counterparts with female divers contacting the reef nearly twice as often as males. A one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the number of contacts between the divers in each of the above categories. There were no statistically significant differences in number of contacts within any of the categories. The lack of statistically significant differences may be a result of the relatively small sample size, short study period, or a combination of the two.

This student research was retrieved from Physis: Journal of Marine Science I (Fall 2006)19: 7-12 from CIEE Bonaire.

SCUBA diving on coral reefs is a beneficial economic option for small tropical islands, that can have a lower impact on the environment than alternative options, such as the fishing industry. However, diving can also have a negative impact, when divers physically damage the reefs. The effects of diving on reef fish populations have received little study, though alteration of fish distribution or recruitment in areas with high levels of diving is likely. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of diving on coral and fish communities in Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean. Coral and fish communities at six sites adjacent to a popular dive site were studied. Sites studied included two sites immediately adjacent to the entry where most divers pass, 2 sites (120 m from entry) with intermediate levels of diving and 2 sites (240 m from entry) representing less dived sites. Benthic video transects were conducted at two depths (8-10 m, 15 m), recording coral cover and abundance of Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment fish species. Coral cover increased with increasing distance to the north of the site, peaking at 31.2%. Coral cover decreased south of the site, which could be attributed to anthropogenic influences occurring due to southern sites proximity to a main population center. A known relationship between Agaricia spp. and Montastrea annularis complex was observed, with the first increasing at intermediately disturbed site, and the latter decreasing at the same sites. All other factors varied greatly across sites and could not be associated with changes in diver intensity; however they could be associated with anthropogenic pressures. Overall, this study did not show significant diver impact, though it displayed negative trends in relation to anthropogenic factors.

This student research was retrieved from Physis: Journal of Marine Science XI (Fall 2012)19: 21-28 from CIEE Bonaire.

Fishers and divers are the major resource users of Caribbean coral reefs. On Curaçao and Bonaire, reef condition is good relative to the Caribbean average, but fishes and corals have greatly declined over the last few decades. We interviewed 177 fishers and 211 professional SCUBA divers to assess their views on the extent and causes of degradation. Fishers know fish stocks are severely depleted and declining, whereas divers were aware of declines but had “shifted baselines” and consider the reefs healthy. Fishers and divers differ in perceptions of the causes and appropriate remedies for decline. Fishers generally blame external factors such as changes in climate, currents, or industrial fishing offshore, whereas divers primarily blame overfishing and coastal development. Nevertheless, the great majority of both fishers and divers support more management of both fishing and diving. Thus the social climate is ripe for balanced and strong restrictions on both groups for reef recovery and sustainable use. Exclusion of both fishers and divers from protected areas of significant size around the islands would be a major step forward towards the long-term conservation of reef resources.

Coral reefs worldwide are attracting increasing numbers of scuba divers, leading to growing concern about damage. There is now a need to manage diver behaviour closely, especially as many dive companies offer unlimited, unsupervised day and night diving from shore. We observed 353 divers in St. Lucia and noted all their contacts with the reef during entire dives to quantify rates of damage and seek ways of reducing it. Divers using a camera caused significantly more contacts with the reef than did those without cameras (mean 0.4 versus 0.1 contacts min-1), as did shore versus boat dives (mean 0.5 versus 0.2 contacts min-1) and night versus day dives (mean 1.0 versus 0.4 contacts min-1). We tested the effect of a one-sentence inclusion in a regular dive briefing given by local staff that asked divers to avoid touching the reef. We also examined the effect of dive leader intervention on rates of diver contact with the reef. Briefing alone had no effect on diver contact rates, or on the probability of a diver breaking living substrate. However, dive leader intervention when a diver was seen to touch the reef reduced mean contact rates from 0.3 to 0.1 contacts min-1 for both shore and boat dives, and from 0.2 to 0.1 contacts min-1 for boat dives. Given that briefings alone are insufficient to reduce diver damage, we suggest that divers need close supervision, and that dive leaders must manage diver behaviour in situ.