This literature review is written by Jessica Peelen as part of her NHTV Master in Tourism Destination Management.

Diving is becoming more popular. It started as a recreational activity and diving is now developing into a booming sector of travel industry all over the world. The Professional Association of Dive Instructors (PADI) measure the increasing participation in diving activity, from 2.5 million certified divers in 1988 to 17.5 million in 2008 (PADI Diver Statistics, 2008). One the world’s most popular diving destination is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Actually it’s not possible to leave Australia without diving here, or at least snorkel. But also new diving destinations as Myanmar and Mozambique will be developed and this stimulates the development of diving tourism worldwide. More new tour operators and travel agencies specialized in diving holidays are started the last years (T.F. Ong and G. Musa, 2011).

It’s useful to find out what influence diving has on the environment and if divers’ attitude can make a difference.

Diving is often related with damaging and fracturing of coral. This will be examined from different perspectives with case studies of three dive destinations as Malaysia Sipadan, Cayman Island in the Caribbean and a Marine National Park inThailand, called Surin.

Sipadan, Malaysia

In the case of Sipadan, an island claimed by Malaysia, Dr. Musa (2002) found in his case study that the increasing of development of diving tourism, crowding and their environmental impact has become a matter of concern.Sipadan is a diving paradise since its discovery as a dive destination in the late 1980s. Up to now tourismdevelopment on the island is staggering and threatens its small and fragile resources.Sipadan is renowned for their turtles, but their nesting on the beach has been reduced from 1470 in 1992 to 1001 in 1997, an alarming decline. During high season, crowding is common. Especially the peak months July – August, when circa 500 divers per day are underwater with an average of threedives each a day and there are only 13 dive-sites around the tiny island. No fixed arrangements were made by dive centers and their divers were being taking out at any time, with the result that too many divers were underwater.Various scientific studies have been done and one of the major problems identified was coral damage.

Grand Cayman, Caribbean

Another interesting case study is the coast of Grand Cayman in the western Caribbean, the home of the Southern Stingray and also famous for ‘Stingray City’. Since 1930s, stingrays have been present here. They were attracted by fishermen cleaning their catch. Diving became popular at Stingray City and trips started to hand feed the rays in 1986. Today most leisure tourism for this area is motivated by diving or fishing. And the dive, with 50 stingrays at least, has become one of the best in the world as the fish are harmless and not aggressive to people. Actually their only natural predators are humans and sharks.Shackley presented this case with observations of the impact and management of visitors viewing only the stingray. There are no official numbers for Stingray City available, but the Cayman Islands Department of Tourism and their Protection andConservation Unit estimates between 80,000 to 100,000 visitorsper year. In high season more than 500 divers and snorkelers each day can befound in the water feeding and stroking the rays.There is concern expressed about the effect of consistently high levels of visitation upon the rays’ population, because such visitor numbers seems likely to start or accelerate existing changes in the behavior of the stingray. Also other visitor-related problems as overcrowding, like the provision of poor and inaccurate information and minimal safety precautions will be become a problem. Unfortunately is Stingray City, by far the most frequently visited marine tourism attraction in the Caymans, outside the network of protected areas off the coasts. This means that the activities of local dive tourism operators are the most profitable, but not subject to protected arearegulations. The levels of overcrowdingthese days influence the quality of the visitor experience and seem to have an unfavorable effect upon the rays. (Shackley, 1998).

Surin Marine Park, Thailand

According to Worachananant, Carter, HockingsReopanichkul (2008), the aim of their study was to examine the impact on coral, caused by diving in Thailand, in Surin Marine National Park. Thailand’s maritime environment is one of the major attractions for (international) visitors. More than 80% of overseas tourists come to visit Thailand’s seas.This result in an increasing concern for the impact tourist activity might have on reefs, because the coral reefs are one of the most popular resources for tourist use (Hall, as cited in Worachananant et al, 2008). Divers could damage through direct physical contact with corals with their hands, body, equipment and fins. The number of contacts with coral and the amount of damage depends on the characteristics of individual divers. Level of dive education and briefing, diving experience and even gender can make a difference. Male divers tend to be more adventurous and more likely to take risks. And comparing with female divers, men are less likely to follow instructions.(Rouphael and Inglis, as cited in Worachananant et al, 2008).Also photographing underwater is a possibility for damage. It is reported that underwater photographers caused less damage than non-photographers even as they will touch corals more often. Nevertheless, the loss per contact is less. There is also a difference in diver behavior among dive sites. The sites with stronger current for example, can account for a much higher number of contacts.But also some damage originate may be from diving-associated activities, such as anchoring.In this study they mentioned that divers often made contact with corals, and coral was damaged on more than half of these occasions. The frequency when it happened was relatively high, around 19 times per dive.It is examined that the reef condition at Surin has declined in the past decade, in common with most reefs in Thailand (Worachananantet al., 2007).Other possible problems are sedimentation and pollution, but these are not major issues for Surin as the park is remote from the mainland, circa 60 km, and all the islands are covered with healthy forest. Still most researchers, as referred in the article,believe that the major threat is from human-related activities as diving.

Hughes (2002)found in his study that the physical damage of coral may not be intensive enough to be fatal immediately, but it could expose the host to pathogens that ultimately cause death of the coral a few years later. If the intensity of diving increases at a coral reef through more divers, this will normally be linked with a decrease in the percentage cover of live coral and also a decrease in the diversity of species.However, the decline in diversity depends on the differential resistance of coral to physical pressure. For example, more massive forms are more resistant than fragile and branching forms of coral.

Different studies verify the impact of diving and the damage on the coral is not that enormous as they maybe think. Actually, it’s surprising to see that in the Caribbean, in Bonaire at sites where divingis more intensive, it was found that coral diversity increased. And in Egypt, there appeared to be no significant impact on the abundance of different coral morphologies after 15 years of intensive tourism pressure on the Red Sea. Liddle and Kay (as cited in Hughes, 2002) explained this by suggesting that the more fragile skeletal forms also have higher recovery rates after damage and this may compensate for their vulnerability. (Hughes, 2002).

Analysis

The different case studies show the development to control the increase and intensity of diving. The question is which different solutions are necessary to reduce the possible damage of diving and to protect the environment of the marine area.

For Sipadan, all of the research teams propose that the island should be designated as a Marine Park. One of the conclusions was that marketing should place greater emphasis on diving quality, and not the convenience of the diving, as this is currently widely marketed by all the operators. To protect the environment of Sipadan, the government decided to limit the dive activities and a certain number of diving permits will be released. Today a total maximum of 100 divers is allowed to dive in one day. However, Davis (1993) reported that diving activities are unlikely to cause damage to marine life compared to natural causes, overdevelopment of the land may do so. (G. Musa, 2002).

The economy of the Cayman Islands is really dependent on tourism, so restriction on dive tour numbers would result in political opposition from tour operators and travel agencies. Assuming that demand continues to rise, it is unlikely that they would be able to raise tour fees sufficiently to compensate for reductions in numbers. It makes sense, economic as well as conservation, to develop a sustainable management plan for the site. One of the potential solutions is to incorporate Stingray City into the protected area system, so a management mechanism will be provide to co-ordinate a systematic study of the population dynamics and reproductive behavior of the rays, plus the enforcement of feeding regulations. It is impossible to prevent overcrowding without a management structure that combines some quota-based restriction of access with appropriate ecological studies.

These days, deliberate damage to stingrays is minimal, largely due to the educational content of dive tour briefings. Important note of the study is that snorkeling is a far less intrusive activity than scuba diving and probably far better for the rays. (Shackley,1998).

In the case study of Thailand, the writers mentioned that there is a need to limit diver-induced stress on the coral reef system if the diving tourism industry is to sustain itself.

Various writers noted in the article of Worachananantet al (2008) that management and restoration efforts should be conducted on a site-by-site basis, because of the great variation in the amount of physical damage within and among different diving sites. As the study suggests that divers practice a low level of environmental care, but divers may be simply unaware that their actions can damage coral. A short pre-dive briefing on environmental protecting, the divers were likely to have fewer contacts with the corals and cause less damage. (Worachananant,Carter, HockingsReopanichkul, 2008).

Conclusion

It’s clear that some studies defines that impact of diving is minimal. Gross of the divers are conscious of their actions and they respect the environment. According to Ong and G. Musa (2011) divers are mostly highly responsible underwater and possess a positive attitude to the environment. The behavior of divers underwater has a direct relationship with both environmental concern and specific attitude.This specific scuba diving attitude means that divers scored the highest on knowledge of diving practices and awareness of consequences. This would also include behavior such as contributing money and committing time to marine conservation activities. Important for divers is the feeling of responsibility for non-contact diving behavior, followed by skill diving behavior and safety diving behavior.

According to the article of Rouphael and Hanafy (2007),researchers are convinced that scuba diving can even help support management of protected areas, for example through fees and even contribute substantially to the economies of countries by encouraging investment and employment opportunities.

Concluding remarks are that diving has impact on the environmentwithout doubt. The most important is that the intensity of diving should be controlled, by government and the diving industry. Take note of carrying capacity is important;the balance between how much can the environment handle and the satisfied experience of the divers. Dive tour operators have to focus on clear information about the diving spot, so divers will be more aware of the environment and fragile coral. In general divers respect the world underwater and they are well educated during the scuba diving course(s). Even for the government of the country the protection of the diving environment is necessary as the tourism industry is still growing and diving is becoming more popular.If the environment is damaged, the diving destination will not attract tourist anymore.Diving tourism could be valuable for a destination, because there will be more attention for the world underwater this way and there will be an increase of protection of vulnerable species of flora and fauna.

Unfortunately, there has not much research been done about examining the impact of dive tourism on the living species of the underwater world. As there is a lack of evidence if the influence of diving is good or bad, it will be difficult to criticize. More study hasto be done so they can compare and improve the situation. Beside it, a critical look on the tourism industry around the diving areas is necessary because this will affect the surrounding andnature as well. Increasing numbers in accommodations for example will disturb the environment. If it is not correctly done, the resources will be fatigue and this will eventually lead to the downfall of the diving destination.

General conclusion

As a general conclusion the question ‘To dive or not to dive?’ could be answered now. A restriction on diving is not necessary. Diving can make it possible that a destination will profit from the activities of dive centers and good conditions for theenvironment will be developed.For some destinations it is required that a limit of divers will be introduced by stakeholders as the government and in this way certain areas will be protected.

Divetour operators and travel agencies have to be aware of the possible losses through diving activities and what this means for the future of a diving destination.If the agencies and divers are well educated and the dive centers will provide clear briefings before diving, the impact of diving will most probably not cause major damage on the environment. Coral will stay healthy and diversity of the sea life can even increase. At last, more research should be done on the impact of diving on the sea life and this is necessary to improve the diving industry.

 

References:

Hughes, G. (2002). “Environmental indicators”.Annals of Tourism

G. Musa (2002). “Sipadan: a SCUBA-diving paradise: an analysis of tourism impact, diver satisfaction and tourism management”.Tourism Geographies

M. Shackley (1998): “‘Stingray City’- Managing the Impact of Underwater Tourism in the Cayman Islands”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism

S. Worachananant, R. W. Carter, M. Hockings and P. Reopanichkul (2008). “Managing the Impacts of SCUBA Divers on Thailand’s Coral Reefs”.Journal of Sustainable Tourism

T.F. Ong and G. Musa (2011).“SCUBA divers’ underwater responsible behaviour: can environmental concern and divers’ attitude make a difference?”.Current issues in Tourism

T.F. Ong and G. Musa (2011).“An examination of recreational divers’ underwater behaviour by attitude–behaviour theories.”Current issues in Tourism

P. Stolk, K. Markwell and J.M. Jenkins (2009). “Artificial Reefs as Recreational Scuba Diving Resources: A Critical Review of Research”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism�%r w�� @� Barcelona: Atlas.

Ver Beek, K. (2006). The impact of short-term missions: a case study of house construction in Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. Missiology: An International Review 34(4): 477-496.

Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer tourism: Experiences that make a difference. New York: CABI Publishing.

Wearing, S. (2002). Re-centering the self in volunteer tourism. The Tourist as a Methaphor of the Social World, Dann. G. (ed.) New York: Cabi Publishing; 237-262.

Wearing, S., Deville, A. & Lyons, K. (2008). The volunteer’s journey through leisure into the self. Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism, Lyon, K & Wearing, S. (eds). Cambridge: CABI Publishing; 195-209.