Kay Dimmock, Jessica Taplin and John Jenkins
Introduction
Freshwater systems, which include rivers, streams, estuaries, lakes, sinkholes, underground reservoirs and caves, have long been popular recreational and tourist sites throughout the world, with areas such as Antarctica now also experiencing the impacts of human use and tourist visitation. Freshwater systems may be the sites of activities themselves (e.g. swimming and sailing), an ancillary support (e.g. snow making) or an aesthetic element (i.e. the scenic backdrop to the activity). Despite their significance as recreational and tourist resources, and although elements of their recreational management have long attracted attention, there has been little research into the economic, environmental and socio-political issues associated with recreational tourism and freshwater systems (Geering 1986; Wood and Hooy 1982; Hall and Stoffels 2006; Pigram 2006;
Prideaux and Cooper 2009). This situation is in stark contrast to the body of research, which examines aspects of wider marine environments and tourism (e.g. see Orams 1999; Lück 2008;
also see the journal Tourism in Marine Environments).
Freshwater systems support a wide range of recreational activities in diverse settings and contexts, with a variety of outcomes and impacts. According to Pigram (2003: 544)
Water figures prominently in several aspects of outdoor recreation [and tourist activity].
The quantity and quality of available water can represent major constraints on the location, siting, design and operation of recreation facilities. As pressure grows on increasingly scarce water resources, the potential of areas, otherwise suitable for development, may be com-promised by inadequate water supplies.
Management applications that fail to recognise the potential of multipurpose use, the need to ameliorate conflicts among different user groups, and the significance of risk may further limit recreational and tourism opportunity. Limits to recreational use are also presented in a variety of risks.
This chapter uses inter-disciplinary perspectives to review some of the key research trends and issues concerning tourism at freshwater locations. It draws on a model (Figure 15.1) the authors have adapted from Stolk’s (2010) study of scuba diving on Australian artificial reefs. The
Figure 15.1 Freshwater experience Kay Dimmock et al.
adapted model usefully highlights factors contributing to, and significant outcomes from, the development and use of freshwater systems for tourism. After a general introduction and brief discussion of necessarily selective contributing factors and outcomes presented in the model, we focus on case studies of two particular types of freshwater systems. Thefirst case study examines recreational use of and access to streams in England and Wales, highlighting the complexity of freshwater management and ownership systems. The second case study focuses on recreational use of caves and sinkholes, highlighting the fragility of these sensitive ecosystems. The conclu-sion briefly summarises the chapter and describes opportunities for further research.
Freshwater systems as scarce and fragile recreational and tourist settings Freshwater systems are popular sites in remote locations, such as Lake Argyle and the Ord River system in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, and in highly accessible locations within or in close proximity to urban centres, such as the Lakes District of the UK (McEvoy et al. 2008) or the Swan River, Perth, Australia (McDonald 2009). Almost 30 years ago, it was estimated that Lakes Burley Griffin and Ginninderra were the focus of more than 40 per cent of recreational activity in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), in southeastern Australia (Hanrahan 1981). At first glance, it might seem that an extraordinarily large proportion of recreational activity in the ACT is water-based or water-related, but in fact the popularity of freshwater systems for outdoor recreation and tourism is well highlighted internationally by Cushman et al. (2005).
In their book focusing on free time and leisure participation in more than 15 countries, the work of Cushman et al. cites national and regional surveys and in its review highlights, among other things, the prominence of water-related and water-based activities, including swimming, fishing, sailing, boating, canoeing, kayaking, ice skating, ice hockey and downhill skiing. Cor-dell (2008) highlighted kayaking, visiting water (other than ocean beaches) and snowboarding as among the ten fastest growing outdoor recreation activities in the USA, with percentage changes in total number of days of participation between 2000 and 2007 being 29.4%, 28.1%
and 23.9%, respectively. In the UK, the University of Brighton (2011: 15) revealed that 26% of the adult population in the UK spends some part of their leisure time‘in ways closely linked to coasts and inland waterways and watercourses’, but noted that ‘[f]or most water-related recreation activities, participation rates are higher for men compared to women, younger age groups compared to older ones and wealthier… groups compared to the other socio-economic groups’.
Freshwater, however, is a scarce resource, representing only about 0.01% of the world’s water (Dudgeon et al. 2006). Freshwater is in high demand and its major stores are often located in sparsely populated areas. The distribution of freshwater across the globe is remarkably uneven, and many people live in countries and regions that are water-deficient. Indeed, it is often these same freshwater-deficient countries or regions that also lack the resources and technology to harness water, to sanitise water to make it potable and to prevent deterioration in water quality (Pigram 2006).
Freshwater systems are highly fragile and intricate elements of natural and cultural landscapes, and these systems serve many purposes. Food production and irrigation (including aquaculture and agriculture), local council and municipal uses, generation of energy and hydroelectric power, gold mining and prospecting, water storage and sewage disposal, and outdoor recreation and tourism are among many potential, often competing, uses that require healthy freshwater resources.
In Australia, the National Irrigator’s Council (NIC) estimates that agriculture uses between 65% and 70% of the water consumed in that country, and that about 90% of that water is dis-tributed and used through irrigation, controlled by various licences and regulations, which vary Freshwater systems and tourism
between Australia’s states and territories (National Irrigator’s Council, NIC n.d.). According to the NIC:
In 2007–8 irrigated land comprised less than 0.5 per cent of all agricultural land in Australia but produced 28 per cent of the total gross value of agricultural production. In 2007–8, vegetables contributed the highest value to total irrigated production of $2.9 billion, fol-lowed by fruit and nuts ($2.3 billion) and dairy production ($2.29 billion). These three commodities accounted for 61 per cent of the total gross value of irrigated agricultural product (GVIAP) in 2007–8.
Water for food production and irrigation is used not only in primary production, but also in the processing of foods and in other ways. In addition, some products involve far less water-intensive use and consumption than others. Cotton, for example, requires significant water allocations and consumption in Australia.
Freshwater systems are not only important for human-related uses; but also they are valuable elements of a nation’s landscape and biodiversity, and are essential for migratory semi-aquatic and riparian species. The significance of some wetlands, for example, is highlighted by the fact that legislation is often used to protect them (e.g. the Macquarie Marshes of Australia are a Nature Reserve) (Jones 1994; Pigram 2006). Recognising the diverse and powerful threats to freshwater systems, Dudgeon et al. (2006) argued for the need for a new paradigm in the management and protection of freshwater ecosystems– ‘reconciliation ecology’. Such a para-digm recognises that: (i) scientists, conservationists and others should turn their attentions not only to natural landscapes to preserve biodiversity but also to modified landscapes; and (ii) reconciling stakeholder demands with regard to freshwater systems (e.g. between those advo-cating biodiversity conservation and those advoadvo-cating human use) is always going to be difficult.
Freshwater ecosystems are important and dynamic natural resources, which support high levels of biodiversity. We rely on freshwater to sustain us, but we use it in ways that draw down on it to such an extent that ecosystems are threatened. According to Dudgeon et al. (2006: 164), these‘may well be the most endangered ecosystems in the world’, and they are especially vul-nerable because of ‘the disproportionate richness of inland waters as a habitat for plants and animals’. Dudgeon et al. (2006) go on to cite five major threats to freshwater biodiversity – overexploitation;flow modification; habitat degradation; water pollution; and species invasion.
Human development of, in and around many sites can impact on and dramatically reduce a location’s biodiversity, and so sustainable approaches to planning and management are urgently needed (de Carlo and Bassano 2010; Viorosmarty et al. 2010). In many countries, strong debates about water rights, water access, water pricing and waterflows to support freshwater ecosystems are being waged among primary producers, conservationists, recreational users and governments (Pigram 2006). The challenge presented is to improve understanding of water resources and freshwater ecosystems and the relationships between these and various forms of human use and consumption (e.g. Dudgeon et al. 2006), including recreational and tourist use. Buckley (2005, in Pigram and Jenkins 2006: 113), for example, has described the need for recreational ecology research ‘to enhance the effectiveness of management of recreation impacts’. Reviews of research reporting recreation impacts on the biophysical environment in many settings, includ-ing freshwater environments, can nonetheless be found in Mathieson and Wall (1982), Ham-mitt and Cole (1998) and Liddle (1997).
European settlement in many countries has placed ever-growing demands on many fresh-water systems, introducing more extractive and redistributive practices. For example, lakes and river systems are now accessed for irrigation and agriculture, transportation,fishing, recreational Kay Dimmock et al.
boating, swimming and diving (Prideaux and Cooper 2009). Freshwater sites have assumed greater recreational value because their physical amenity and attractiveness as sites for leisure have increased and have become even more popular as accommodation and transport infra-structure have developed around them (Naiman et al. 1995). The infrainfra-structure that supported the Ord River Irrigation scheme at Lake Argyle in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, for example, has also supported the development of leisure and tourism. However, the expe-dition cruise industry established in the region generated unwelcome cultural and spiritual impacts at sites of Aboriginal significance as permission for access from traditional landowners was not sought and cultural protocols not followed. The lack of consultation, among other things, showed a lack of respect for the original inhabitants (Smith et al. 2009).
Smith et al. (2009) go on to argue that at freshwater locations environmentally and socially sustainable tourism needs to be managed in a way that is consistent with the natural and cultural values of the local communities. Major river systems like the Murray River in southeastern Australia, Lake Argyle and the Ord River in northwestern Australia, and Yellow Waters in Kakadu National Park have been central to the culture and lives of Aboriginal Australians who live on and near them (Barber and Rumley 2003; Braithwaite et al. 1996; Moore 1986). So, too, are the Amazon and Mekong rivers central features in the lives of indigenous people in South America and Asia. In short, indigenous peoples everywhere rely on freshwater systems to support their livelihoods, culture and heritage, and many such systems are under threat or have been negatively affected by various forms of economic development, including tourism development.
Tourism and recreation have been recognised by governments and industry in many devel-oped and developing countries as means to restructure and diversify local economies. Tourism can contribute economically to rural and regional development at freshwater locations, and can be one way of diversifying a region’s economy from dependence on traditional industries, such as agriculture, to an alternate economy and lifestyle choice in regional centres (e.g. Butler et al.
1998). Heritage and culture can also be maintained and restored (Moore 1986), and indeed agricultural and other industries can actually engage in the tourism industry through regional food networks (e.g. paddock to plate initiatives whereby local farm produce is used in local restaurants), on-farm accommodation (e.g. bed and breakfast), local sales direct to consumers (e.g.
wine cellar door sales) and agri-tours. Nevertheless, tourism poses a significant threat to natural ecosystems, including freshwater ecosystems.
In the 1980s the potential for tourism to be a major industry in the Murray River Valley of Australia was identified and promotion of tourism to regional areas such as the Murray Valley gained momentum. In recent years, afigure of A$1.6 billion has been quoted as the value of a healthy Murray River to tourism industries in three Australian states – New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (Howard 2008). However, not all expenditures in regional economies stay in those regions. Hjerpe and Kim (2007), for example, reported that, in the Grand Canyon, USA, over 50% of tourist expenditures from river rafting leaked from the regional economy because of external investments and ownership, and that many of the jobs created were low-wage, low-skilled and seasonal. Kemper et al. (2008) found a similar situation at Beaver Lake in the USA.
Agricultural practices in southwestern China currently combine with unrelenting tourism development to threaten environmental quality, causing pollution and diminishing of the quality of natural resources. It has been argued that in China’s Yunnan Great Rivers region, sustainable approaches are needed to reduce environmental and social impacts and protect the rich heritage that underpins tourism demand (Cater 2000). Ironically, although China’s polluted lakes might not attract water-based tourism activities, those lakes do form part of the whole aesthetic gaze or scenic amenity of the landscape, which includes the built environment.
Freshwater systems and tourism
Indeed, Ryan et al. (2010) note that concerns about the low environmental quality of some freshwater systems might be a regarded as a Western perspective, and Arlt and Feng (2009) also suggest that ecological priorities might differ between Western and non-Western cultures.
In contrast to the situation in China, the high-quality landscape,flora and fauna that make up the waterways and wetland areas of Australia’s Kakadu National Park have been recognised as a major tourist attraction in the Northern Territory for many decades (Braithwaite et al. 1996).
Wildlife encounters, for example, have involved boat cruises on the beautiful Yellow Waters billabong and South Alligator River, but during the 1990s visitor experiences were diminished by boat noise, lack of comfort, crowding and lack of wildlife sightings. Ongoing visitation patterns of boat cruises were considered to have impacted on wildlife such that wildlife became habituated by the regularity of visitation (Braithwaite et al. 1996). Wildlife sightings were expected features of boat cruises, yet it is usually by disturbing animals that a wildlife spectacle actually occurs, thereby disrupting their feeding and breeding patterns and behaviour.
Naiman et al. (1995) make the point that ecological literacy is poor at best in many freshwater populations. One recommendation is for community co-operation to harness collective views while protecting biodiversity through ecotourism. Introducing environmental protection can bring way-of-life changes to host communities (Sithole 2005). Partnerships between local communities and governments and tourism organisations help to increase awareness and understanding of sustainable practices (Amunquandoh 2010). Nevertheless, many host com-munities are disempowered and perceptions of social displacement widespread. This is particu-larly emphasised in developing countries, where leisure is not a priority for host communities.
Also often absent or weak is the ability of host communities to advocate on their own behalf.
For example, Salmi and Salmi (2010) discuss recreational riverfishing in Finland, where local riverfishermen have commenced a social movement in an effort to restrict commercial salmon fishing in the open sea. Tourists are attracted to the area for river fishing and one view is that commercial salmonfishing is leading to a decline in fish stocks in the river and discouraging tourist visitation and tourism development.
Finally, developing an awareness of risk, and indeed risk analysis, planning and management, is a critical and increasingly common element in the establishment of guidelines and standards for water-related recreation. International Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments were published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in separate volumes (1 and 2) in 2003 and 2006. The WHO has taken an active interest in‘the protection of human health from the use of recreational waters since the 1970s’ (WHO 2003, Foreword p. ix). The second volume of the above mentioned guidelines, for example, presented a very detailed discussion of water-borne diseases arising from water-based recreation in a variety of environments, including marine and freshwater settings.
Standards for Recreational Water Quality (Kay and Fawell 2007) have been developed for the UK. In Australia and New Zealand, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) has developed guidelines (published in 2000) for water quality with respect to different ecosystem types and water uses, including water used for recreational purposes (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council 2000). Furthermore, in New Zealand 200 freshwater sites located in lakes and rivers used by recreationists are monitored by local and district councils during summer. The main focus of the monitoring is on the presence and levels of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, ‘which do not necessarily cause human disease themselves but indicate the possible presence of other disease-causing organisms’ (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment 2010). The guidelines were published by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (2008). The primary aim of the guidelines‘is to protect human health’ (p. 11), an aim similar to that of the WHO Kay Dimmock et al.
(see above). The guidelines were designed to support local, state and territory authorities in the development ‘of legislation and standards appropriate for local conditions and circumstances;
and to encourage the adoption of a nationally harmonized approach to managing the quality of water used for recreational purposes’ (ibid.).
Freshwater systems are complex, risk-prone and often highly contested areas, with much scope for innovative planning schemes as well as potential and actual conflict between com-peting uses and users (e.g. between supply of potable water, recreational use and energy gen-eration; or between commercial fishing, recreational fishing and conservation), and indeed among recreationists and tourists themselves (e.g. among recreationalfishers, motorised sports and swimmers). The two case studies that follow provide more detailed insights into many of the key issues described above.
Case study one
Recreational canoeists and anglers in England and Wales: access to freshwater streams
There are approximately 65,000 km of rivers and streams in England and Wales, with public and legal right of navigation to approximately 2,200 km. Based on thesefigures, the public can rightfully access less than 4 per cent of the two countries’ inland waterways (The Rivers Access Campaign n.d., Church and Ravenscroft 2007). Most non-tidal inland waters are privately owned with no public right of navigation or access.
In 1998 an estimated 6 per cent of the UK’s population enjoyed some form of freshwater recreation (Church et al. 2001). Canoeing is one of the most popular activities with up to two million people taking to the water in a canoe each year (Canoe England n.d.). Access to inland rivers can be difficult for canoeists. Where there is no public footpath or public access to the water’s edge, permission must be negotiated with landowners to cross private land. To canoe on a river without permission constitutes as trespassing. Similar circumstances with regard to access to fresh-water streams and rivers in the Australian countryside were described by Pigram (1981).
Angling is also a popular activity that uses freshwater resources. Contra to the situation for canoeists (and other freshwater recreationists like boaters and swimmers), anglers have a well-established process in which they are able to obtain legal rights to access freshwater for fishing, dating back to the nineteenth century. Anglers are required to purchase an access permit forfishing and a rod licence. They can buy access permits individually, from the landowner, or these can be arranged through membership of a club. Anglers also purchase rod licences from the government’s Environment Agency, which generates £24 million annually and these fees are used to maintain fisheries (Church and Ravenscroft 2007: 179, Environment Agency n.d.). An estimated 1.4 million rod licences were sold in Britain in 2009 alone, reflecting a 27 per cent increase since 2000. It is an offence to catch freshwater fish and eels without a valid rod licence and fines of up to £2,500 can be imposed (Environment Agency n.d.).
Conflict can occur between recreational users sharing resources like freshwater streams (Pigram 1981; Pigram and Jenkins 2006), and the significance of social relationships in common property, environmental governance and sustainable development are being increasingly acknowledged (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2007: 55). For example, disparities in access rights to freshwater have led
Freshwater systems and tourism
to conflict and tension between two very different user groups – canoeists and anglers (National Assembly for Wales 2009; Church et al. 2007). Church and Ravenscroft (2007) and Gilchrist and Ravenscroft (2008) explore difficulties in the relationship between canoeists and anglers in England and Wales. Church et al. (2007: 14) explain that the conflict can be understood as an ‘argument of rights’, the ‘moral rights’ of the canoeists and the ‘legally enforceable rights’ of the anglers. The canoeists take the position that they have a moral right to a fair share of the access to these fresh-water sites, whereas the anglers argue from their position as the legal rights holders.
Many anglers argue that canoeing, like angling, should be a regulated activity that involves licensing and financial payment (fishing licences are also required in countries such as Australia).
Anglers further argue that canoeists and other boaters have a detrimental effect on fishing stocks (National Assembly for Wales 2009). However, it is noted that the environmental impacts of canoeing are not clear and are often disputed. Environmental impacts from freshwater recreation appear to be a contested topic with a need for further research to clarify claims and matters of debate and disagreement (e.g. Church et al. 2001). One issue raised by anglers is the risk offish stocks being disturbed and salmon spawn lost if canoeists launch in certain areas at certain times.
The Environment Agency asks paddlers to avoid launching in spawning areas to avoid disturbing fish. An open forum is seeking to determine how the Agency and paddlers can work together and improve ecologically sustainable practices (Environment Agency n.d.). If open access is granted, the issue of environmental impacts to freshwater sites could become an even more contentious issue (Church et al. 2001). In fact, Church and Ravenscroft (2007) consider the tensions between the user groups to have worsened in recent years. Campaigns have been launched and acts of conflict and hostility have included verbal abuse, physical threats, vandalism, protests and legal threats (Church and Ravenscroft 2007: 179, National Assembly for Wales 2009).
Advocating on behalf of many canoeists is the British Canoe Union (BCU), which had a 2009 membership in excess of 65,000 members and is increasing at 9 per cent annually (British Canoe Union 2009). In response to the inequality of freshwater access, the BCU embarked on the Rivers Access Campaign to lobby for legislation that opens up the inland water-ways to all members of the public (The Rivers Access Campaign n.d.). The strategy pursued by BCU encourages canoeists to seek voluntary agreements from landowners for access rights in the short term, while they pursue law reforms in the long term. The UK government has also encouraged canoeists to seek voluntary access agreements by negotiating with private landowners (Church and Ravenscroft 2007: 192).
Voluntary agreements involve sharing the water spaces and negotiating access. For example, agreements may include‘trading water’ and allowing the canoeists to use certain stretches of water in exchange for not using other areas, or restricting access to certain times of the year (Church et al.
2007: 222–3). As a result of the political pressure, some landowners and anglers have been willing to engage in voluntary agreement negotiations with canoeists. Some of these agreements have been successful and in place for many years, but attempts to establish others have not been so fruitful.
Issues of power have emerged with some‘voluntary agreements’ because the rights owners are free
‘to determine the nature of the agreement to an extent not available to the other party’. Mean-while, landowners and anglers are able to decide the restrictions and the conditions of the agree-ment (Church et al. 2007: 216).
There have also been instances when owners have retracted the rights of access they‘gifted’ to the canoeists when canoeists did not adhere to the restrictive stipulations of an agreement (Church et al. 2007: 216, Gilchrist and Ravenscroft 2008: 133). An example of this occurred in Wales on the River Dee. Access to the river was ‘gifted’ by the Dee Fisheries Association; however, some canoeists were taking part in‘bandit runs’ and ignoring the agreed access conditions. In response the Dee Fisheries Association retracted their offer of access. A protest was organised using the internet, and canoeists demonstrated in a street march. The actions uncovered the disparity being felt across Kay Dimmock et al.
the canoeing community in other locations. In support of the contribution canoeists make to local communities, during the Welsh‘Dee Day’ protest, a number of retailers came out to show support ‘in an acknowledgement of the impact of canoeing on the local economy’ (Gilchrist and Ravenscroft 2008). There has been evidence of tension within the canoeing community itself as a result of acts and differences in opinion as to how to best manage the situation (Gilchrist and Ravenscroft 2008).
Canoeists and landholders have not resolved their differences in many instances, and the extent of the problem has been raised with the government agencies responsible for access, recreation and inland water. McDonald (2009) argues that conflict is necessary to promote creative processes and prevent stagnation. The websites of the respective government agencies offer advice and informa-tion to canoeists on how to seek voluntary access (British Canoe Union 2009; Environment Agency n.d.). The BCU also advises canoeists on legislation and access points about where to legally enter and exit the water. Membership of the BCU has reached record levels as a result of increased media and parliamentary awareness (British Canoe Union 2009). A division of BCU contends that canoeing has been voted the number one water sport for the seventh year in a row (www.canoe-england.co.uk).
Solutions to property rights and recreational access to and use of England’s inland waterways have been variously described, and may rest in collaborative and communicative planning models and frameworks. A detailed discussion of possible governance and other models is not possible here, but it is worth noting that in recent studies exploring the complex property regimes for river cor-ridors in Canada, Plummer (2006) highlighted the importance of communication and negotiation.
Plummer suggested the concept of co-management captures and promotes among stakeholders‘the idea that rights and responsibilities should be shared among those with a claim to the environment or a natural resource’ (Plummer 2009: 24). Building on the concept of co-management and his previous research, Plummer’s later (2009) study concluded that the ‘Adaptive co-management is receiving considerable attention as an innovative governance strategy to sustain social-ecological systems’. However, Church et al. (2007) have noted that conflict arises from the concept of resource
‘sharing’ and that in any system where rights are legally defined and ascribed, weaker parties actually have negligible power. Moreover, these authors suggested that by engaging in attempts to secure access, weaker parties (in their study these are canoe paddlers) may in fact be further‘legitimating the concentration and deployment of those rights in the hands of static land-based interests’ (the anglers). The concept of sharing and expectations that rights will be voluntarily relinquished are common in debates about access to and use of freshwater systems worldwide. Where resolutions to conflicts over access rights and use are found, they very much rest on addressing peculiar local circumstances.
Case study two
Cave diving in Australia
Cave diving involves using SCUBA diving equipment to explore submerged caves that have been flooded from saltwater or freshwater systems. Cave diving is well developed in areas such as the Bahamas, Mexico, Brazil, the USA and Australia. Some inland locations offer access to freshwater-flooded caves. In Australia, much cave diving takes place within and around the Limestone Coast
Freshwater systems and tourism
region of South Australia, where Mount Gambier is the regional centre and is well known to the cave diving community because its relatively unexplored underground sites hold much recreation and conservation appeal.
Groundwater in the underwater cave system is fed by the unconfined aquifer, which formed in the limestone layer beneath Mount Gambier. The aquifer flows southwards towards the coast and along the way, there are surfaces where sinkholes, caverns and caves have resulted from the dis-solution of limestone and the collapse of the roof of water-filled caverns (Doolette and Prust 1999).
Diving in these sinkholes and cavesfirst began in the 1960s when some of the sinkholes were dis-covered by local farmers. Upon entering, divers were struck by the water clarity, which was dra-matically different from diving in saltwater environments. By the 1970s, the ‘new’ freshwater caves had become known to the broader diving community (Wight 1994). Doolette and Prust (1999:
158) confirm that ‘it was not unusual for up to 6 carloads of divers from Melbourne or Adelaide to be at any sinkhole on a weekend’.
Diver training and equipment at the time was rudimentary for the demands of the environment they entered. There were no reporting systems to co-ordinate demand and use, or organisations that trained people for the realities of the underground environment. Divers independently accessed sites – with no real knowledge of the depth or necessary equipment to guide them through the conditions they would confront. The social cost was evident in the period 1969–74, during which 11 divers’ lives were lost (Doolette and Prust 1999). Access to the caves was subsequently denied by landowners, and some sites were locked. The legitimacy of the activity also came under question (Buzzacott and McDonald 2009). The cave diving community was motivated to resolve the situa-tion and began to build an organisasitua-tional base to enable the diving community to self-regulate and safely manage the activity. It was with these foci that the Cave Divers Association of Australia (CDAA) was conceived in 1973, when a group of divers met to elect thefirst committee, draw-up a constitution and set standards for cave diving in the Mount Gambier region (Buzzacott and McDonald 2009).
CDAA is now a strong and well-supported organisation, with a focus on ensuring the central aim remains on training and co-ordinating access to cave sites for its membership of almost 1,000 divers. Cave training certification is obligatory to access caves, and all caves have been rated to correspond with training levels to equip divers and signal the complexity demanded at each cave site. CDAA’s role is crucial for the future of cave diving in Australia. Every five years a Landholder Liaison Meeting between stakeholder groups is held to reaffirm the detail of the partnership between landholders, CDAA and tourism organisations. There is a positive relationship between the organisations involved, which recognises the CDAA’s attention to safety, site preservation and management. For example, access to sites is not guaranteed and is not year round so that sites are not overused. Caves are closed when there is a need to minimise deterioration from extensive physical impact and duringfire bans. Every site has restrictions on the number of permits allocated at any one time to assist in managing to promote safety and minimise visitor impacts.
Because many sites are located on land owned or leased by farmers or government agencies, cave access often requires entering private land or land managed by an agency for a specific activity (e.g.
forestry), and permission to dive involves obtaining a permit, presenting cave diving certification and membership of the CDAA. Maintaining ongoing access to about 40 key sites is so highly valued that within the CDAA National Committee a Site Officer is responsible for ensuring landowners’
needs are understood and met, and for monitoring impacts at each site. Landholder relations can be jeopardised through misuse of access sites (e.g. littering, noise, cattle lost when a gate is left open).
Within CDAA penalties are applied for misuse and inappropriate behaviour, and have been enforced. In extreme cases, memberships have been cancelled and prosecution has resulted (Buzza-cott and McDonald 2009). There are benefits for landowners from the arrangement with CDAA, Kay Dimmock et al.