Mark Orams and Michael Lück
Introduction
The marine environment has always been an integral part of human activity. Throughout history, the sea has attracted people who have used it for a range of important functions including as a source of food, a means of transport, a receptacle for waste, a basis for exploration, discovery and settlement and as a location for recreation and leisure. Those areas of land that border the sea have also been attractive to people throughout the globe with coastal areas and islands playing a significant part in the geography of human settlement (Lück 2007). This historical trend has become even more significant throughout the twentieth century with coastal areas becoming highly desirable areas residential and industrial development. For example, in southeast Asia more than 350 million people now live within 50 km of the coast (Burke et al. 2002). Globally, around 70 per cent of the world’s population lives within a day’s walk of the coast (Brown et al. 2002) and the great majority of cities are located close to coasts (Crooks and Turner 1999).
Although Orams (1999) notes that there have been early records of the recreational use of marine environments, the growth of tourism and recreational activities based on the sea has primarily occurred over the past 100 years and the most dramatic growth has been since the 1970s (Higham and Lück 2007). Much of this recent growth has been facilitated by technolo-gical advances, which have allowed easier, safer and more affordable ways to access and utilise the sea (Orams 1999). Such developments include the invention of the self-contained under-water breathing apparatus (SCUBA), mass produced and marketed boats, kayaks, sailing vessels, surfboards and the like. In addition, the development of equipment that allows for safer and more comfortable use of the sea for recreation has had a major influence. Examples include the invention of wetsuits, drysuits and various clothing that has allowed for the use of colder water environments that were undesirable or unsafe for humans in the past. Furthermore, equipment such as GPS navigation systems, electronic chart plotters, more accurate and readily available weather and wave forecasting, and a variety of telecommunication systems suited for use on the sea have contributed to ease of access and use of marine environments for recreation.
Although marine tourism was initially viewed as a niche type of tourism (Jennings 2007), its rapid growth over the past four decades has led Hall (2001) and others to label ocean and marine tourism as one of the new frontiers. There is widespread evidence and agreement that
this type of tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of tourism and recreation (Hall and Page 2002; Orams 1999). A good illustration of this growth is in the activity of SCUBA diving.
SCUBA was invented in the late 1950s but was not commercially available to the mass market until the mid-1970s. Its growth since that time has been massive. PADI, the world’s largest diving organisation, estimates that every year about 600,000 new divers are being certified, a growth rate of 6 per cent (Garrod and Gössling, 2008). This is not a niche activity anymore. A further example is the phenomenal growth of the cruise-ship industry, which has been esti-mated at 7–10 per cent annually over the past two decades (Dowling 2006). Thus, marine recreation and tourism is a global phenomenon, which has become hugely influential for communities, both natural and human.
Marine systems and tourism
Marine ecosystems are complex and multifaceted natural systems that occur in a variety of contexts and settings (Alter 2008a). Categorising marine habitat types can be undertaken in two main ways. First, spatially and related to a habitat’s distance from shore, zones are labelled as littoral, neritic and oceanic (Barnes and Hughes 1999). Second, habitats are labelled according to their types, utilising characteristics that influence or dominate their functioning. Examples include estuaries, sandy beaches, rocky shores, rocky reefs, coral reefs, kelp forests, inter-tidal areas, harbours, bays and inlets, sea-mounts, the continental shelf and open ocean (Tait and Dipper 1998).
Irrespective of how they are categorised, marine ecosystems are affected in terms of their biological functioning by a range of important variables including, light, depth, salinity, ben-thos/substrate, temperature, currents/tides, nutrients and up-welling (Barnes and Hughes 1999).
Traditionally, most oceanographic analyses of marine habitats and ecosystems tend to exam-ine the natural processes that influence function, that is the biotic and abiotic variables that occur naturally in a particular location. However, it is clear that one of the most influential factors for any marine community is human activity. Irrespective of whether or not humans are physically present in a particular marine ecosystem, it is now accepted that the wider global influences of human activity do impact marine systems. Thus, there is an increasing recognition and inclusion of human influences in the study, understanding and management of marine resources.
Although the incorporation of human factors into oceanography is becoming more widely accepted and adopted, most of the emphasis has tended to be on human activities that are extractive (e.g.fisheries, mining, oil/gas exploration and extraction), dumping or discharges (e.g.
sewage and storm-water runoff, sediment, litter and waste) and, most recently, human influ-ences that are global in influence (climate change). Surprisingly, given their scale and spread, recreational and tourist uses and influences on marine ecosystems have received little attention in terms of their impacts and influences (negative and positive).
Defining marine tourism
Orams (1999) discusses the inherent challenges in defining ‘marine tourism’, and warns that too strict or too liberal definitions could become meaningless. For example, are people who are watching whales from shore actually marine tourists? Even more extreme, visitors to aquaria and maritime museums can be hundreds of miles away from the sea, but are exploring marine life (including human maritime history and heritage), and thus are focused on the marine environ-ment. However, if definitions are based simply on human focus or interest in things marine, such as watching movies (e.g. Finding Nemo) or television documentaries (e.g. BBC’s ‘Seas of Life’ in Marine systems and tourism
The Blue Planet series), they would be too liberal to be meaningful. In order tofind a useful understanding of what marine tourism includes, Orams (1999: 9) offers the following definition:
Marine tourism includes those recreational activities that involve travel away from one’s place of residence and which have as their host or focus the marine environment (where the marine environment is defined as those waters which are saline and tide-affected).
This definition has subsequently been adopted by other authors (Cater and Cater 2007; Hall 2001; Jennings 2007; Lück 2007). It is also worth noting that the terms‘tourism’ and ‘recreation’
are used interchangeably in the context of this definition. This is due to the fact that all recreational users of marine environments are visitors who move from their place of residence to recreate on, in and under the sea. Although some might argue that those who reside on house-boats, live on yachts or other sea-based accommodation are not strictly marine tourists, in reality humans are not marine-based creatures. Thus, all are visitors to the marine environment, whether their actual place of residence is above or below the tidal high-water mark. Consequently, all who utilise the sea for recreational purposes are considered marine tourists.
The distribution and influences of marine tourism
Despite the rapid development of marine recreation and tourism and the increasing indepen-dence and safety of marine-based activities, the majority of recreational activities are still closely tied to the coast (Smith 2007), that is in the neritic province. This tendency is, however, complicated by a range of other influential variables. These include natural factors such as latitude, season, temperature, weather, sea-state, tides and the proximity of sheltered harbours, inlets and launching and retrieving areas. Human factors are also influential and include issues such as the availability and quality of ports, channels, docks, moorings, safety systems, navigational information and the socio-economic status of particular areas. In order to better understand the influences on tourist and recreational uses of marine environments, a model developed by Orams (1999) is helpful.
The Spectrum of Marine Recreation Opportunities (SMARO)
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is as a tool for classifying differing recreational activities and the natural settings to which they are best suited (or in which they tend to occur) (Stankey 1985). This approach has been widely adopted as a planning and management tool for large terrestrial natural areas such as national parks, forests and mountain areas (Manning 1986). The underlying assumption on which the ROS is based is that diversity is a desired outcome with regard to managing recreation in natural settings. Furthermore, it explicitly recognises that particular settings are a prerequisite for certain recreational activities. For example, the remote wilderness experiences desired by some recreationists can only be found in pristine natural areas of significant size where there is little or no human influence (such as human-built structures, facilities and services). Conversely, recreationists who desire high levels of social interaction and who want or need access to a wide range of human-provided services (such as accommodation, retail facilities, electrical power, medical facilities and so on) need settings where these options and experiences are readily available. The ROS, therefore, is most often used in a land-use planning context, whereby inventories of resources and their spatial distribution are important information. Maps are typically used in combination with these inventories to designate particular ROS classes or zones, which are managed to meet the diverse needs of recreation user groups (Manning 1986).
Mark Orams and Michael Lück
A similar kind of approach to planning for, and managment of, marine recreation was pro-posed by Orams (1999). He termed this the Spectrum of Marine Recreation Opportunities (SMARO). Underlying the SMARO is the understanding that intensity of use is strongly influenced by distance from shore (i.e. it is inversely proportional). Furthermore, the intensity of recreational use of marine settings is also influenced by distance from areas of human habitation.
Thus, the closer to shore and the closer to centres of human population (cities and urban areas) the greater the number and diversity of marine recreation participants and activities. The further offshore, and more distant from residential areas, the lower the level and diversity of recreational use (seeFigure 16.1).
The SMARO (seeTable 16.1) then provides a tool whereby general geographic patterns of use of marine systems for recreation and tourism can be understood. It uses afivefold classifi-cation based on ease of access and intensity of use. Furthermore, the types of activities under-taken and the experiences of recreationists/tourists can also be overlaid or considered in terms of the model. Finally, the types and quality of the natural ecosystems that host each SMARO class can also be outlined in broad terms in the model.
SMARO Class 1 is dominated by coastal locations which are easily accessible, extremely popular and occur in close proximity to or on the shore. Experiences for participants are typi-cally very social with large numbers of people, many activities, noise and crowding. Well known beaches and coastal parks are categorised in this class. Examples include beaches such as;
Miami, Copacabana, Bondi and Waikiki.
SMARO Class 2 is typically a near-shore area that is relatively easy to access (from vehicle parking areas, docks, boat ramps and beaches). While such areas may be crowded at times, there are opportunities tofind space to undertake recreational pursuits that are difficult or unsafe to conduct in SMARO Class 1 settings. Often people move from a base in a SMARO Class 1 location (such as a crowded urban beach) to a SMARO Class 2 location (50 metres offshore or a less crowded area along-shore) which permits recreational activities like small-boat sailing, windsurfing, fishing, snorkelling, kite flying and so on.
SMARO classes 3, 4 and 5 require increasing effort, experience, skill and often equipment for recreation. An offshore blue-water sailing voyage, for example, requires an ocean-going sea-worthy vessel with suitable supplies, equipment and skilled crew to ensure safe passage. Some of
Figure 16.1 The Spectrum of Marine Recreation Opportunities (SMARO)
Marine systems and tourism
the attributes of Class 5 experiences are the wilderness, escapism and isolation and the challenges and satisfaction derived from independence and self-sufficiency.
While the SMARO model identifies general patterns of usage and typical experiences there are many activities which occur across all classes. Surfing, for example, occurs in crowded urban beach settings (Class 1) but also across all other SMARO classes including Class 5 when live-aboard offshore vessels explore remote islands and reefs for surf-breaks and surfing opportunities.
Table 16.1 The Spectrum of Marine Recreation Opportunities SMARO (after Orams, 1999) Characteristics Class 1
Easily Accessible
Class 2 Accessible
Class 3 Less Accessible
Class 4 Semi-remote
Class 5 Remote Experiences Much social
interaction.
High level of services.
Usually crowded.
Noisy.
Lots of activity.
Frequent contact with others.
Some spaces/
times to escape from others.
Some contact with others.
Locations/times when no other people present.
Quieter.
Infrequent contact with others.
Peace and quiet.
Close to nature.
Virtually no contact with others.
Solitude.
Tranquillity.
Self-sufficiency.
Environment Many human influences.
Highly modified.
Lower-quality natural environment.
Human structures and influences visible and close by.
Environment quality variable.
Few human structures close by but some maybe visible.
Higher environmental quality.
Limited evidence of human activity/
structures.
High quality environment.
Isolated.
Little to no evidence of human activity.
Pristine environment.
Locations Close to or in urban areas.
Beaches, docks, piers, urban coastal parks and walkways/
cycleways.
Close to road, parking and mass-transport options
Intertidal zone and areas up to 100 metres offshore.
Often requires walk of several hundred metres from car parking, mass-transport.
100m to 1km offshore.
More than 20km from major urban area.
More remote beaches, islands and coastal areas.
Often requires boat for access or walk in
>500m.
1–50km offshore.
Isolated coasts/
islands/reefs difficult to access.
Boats or overnight hiking needed to access.
>50km offshore.
Coastal areas
>100km from any significant human habitation.
Examples of activities
Sunbathing/
baking.
People-watching.
Swimming.
Playing games.
Eating.
Social gatherings.
Sightseeing.
Special events (e.g.
concerts)
Swimming.
Fishing.
Boating.
Surfing.
Windsurfing/
kite-boarding.
Boating.
Fishing.
Snorkelling/
SCUBA.
Nature-study.
Surfing.
Sailing.
Sea-kayaking
Coastal sailing.
Remote coast hiking and camping.
Live-aboard vessels (fishing, diving, surfing etc.).
Offshore blue-water sailing.
Live-aboard offshore vessels (forfishing, diving etc.).
Remote coast/
reef sea-kayaking and surfing.
Mark Orams and Michael Lück
Similarly, sailing andfishing are also activities which occur across all classes. Thus, the model is one which seeks to provide a framework for understanding general patterns of use and experi-ences as opposed to a definitive tool for categorising all marine recreation and tourism activities and settings.
Additional factors which are universally influential with regard to marine recreation and tourism usage are weather and sea conditions. Particular activities are entirely dependent on this, for example, water-skiing and wake-boarding require relatively calm water-surface conditions, surfing however is entirely dependent on ocean swell conditions for surfable waves (which are also influenced by bottom type, wind and tidal state). While it may be self-evident that weather and sea conditions are significant variables affecting use (including seasonal influences), changes in weather forecasting accuracy and availability, and the invention and use of technologies (such as wet-suits, and more robust and sea-worthy vessels) have tended to mitigate the influence of weather, sea and temperature on marine recreation and tourism.
The distribution, intensity and types of marine tourism activities are, therefore, changing rapidly. Nevertheless, it is helpful, when analysing recreational activities available in a particular coastal and marine location, to simplify the wide range of opportunities so that the role of each is better understood. Consideration of where a particular marine tourism operation or activity lies in the SMARO clarifies the environmental characteristics and the experiences available for the wide variety of marine tourism enterprises.
Impacts on Marine Systems
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) noted that ‘[c]lean water, healthy coastal habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable environment are clearly fundamental to successful coastal tourism. Similarly, bountiful living marine resources (fish, shellfish, wetlands, coral reefs, etc.) are of critical importance to most recreational experiences’ (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997: 602). Thus, healthy, viable and resilient marine ecosys-tems are an important contributor to human recreational uses of those ecosysecosys-tems. It is widely accepted that marine systems are under stress as a consequence of a wide range human induced changes (Earle 1995). Marine systems are subject to global phenomena such as climate change, to ocean-wide influences such as human produced sound and to regional and localised pressures fromfishing, dredging, dumping, and point discharges. It is also worthwhile noting that many environmental pressures in near-shore marine ecosystems are a result of human land-based activities such as the urbanisation of catchments, sediment run off, coastal engineering works and the re-routing of water courses (Harriott 2004). An additional and growing impact is the influence of introduced ‘alien’ species. As the global movement of ships and other vessels has increased so has the transportation of species of plants and animals from one location to another.
Many of these organisms are transferred inadvertently through attachment to vessel hulls (especially encrusting organisms such as barnacles and sponges as well as molluscs and crustaceans).
In addition, the common practice of the deliberate ingress of sea-water into ballast tanks to help with the sea-worthiness of lightly loaded ships and the expelling of this ballast water at other locations when the ship needs to lighten to take on cargo has resulted in the introduction of many non-native species to marine ecosystems (Lavoie, Smith and Ruiz 1999; Lück 2010).
It is important to recognise that marine ecosystems differ from their terrestrial counterparts in an important way. Pristine and high-quality land-based resources such as forests, mountains, lakes and rivers are typically located away from major areas of urban development. In addition, there is now a century long tradition (and acceptance) of setting aside such areas for conserva-tion purposes as naconserva-tional, regional and forest parks or other types of formal environment Marine systems and tourism
protection (Butler and Boyd 2000). Marine ecosystems however, do not have the same degree of protection (geographically or in terms of management regimes).
The most productive marine ecosystems are those close to shore and, in particular, those close to tidal areas (such as estuaries and wetlands), reefs, harbours, bays and areas of upwelling (Earle 1995). These locations have also historically been the most popular for human settlement.
The great majority of coastal cities were established in bays, harbours and close to river mouths, estuaries and areas protected by reefs. Urban environments have the highest amounts of run-off, coastal‘reclamation’, sediment, sewage discharge, shipping, dredging, dumping, litter and other forms of human activity. Thus, the most important and productive marine ecosystems are also the very locations that are subject to the most human influence. Furthermore, the protection of marine ecosystems (as marine protected areas) lags far behind the protection of terrestrial eco-systems (Orams 1993; Higham and Lück 2007).
Marine ecosystems are, therefore, under increasing pressure from human activity. Recreation and tourism uses of marine ecosystems are adding further pressure both in terms of their scale (intensity of use) and distribution (the increasing geographic spread of activities). The most sig-nificant of these influences has been the spread of housing and related infrastructural develop-ment along coasts. Much of this developdevelop-ment has been driven by a desire to live in close proximity to the coast because of the recreational lifestyle it offers. In particular, the growing number of second or holiday homes built on the coast has resulted in a major change to the nature of beaches and near-shore hinterlands in the developed world. In New Zealand, for example, the widespread development of coastal land for holiday homes has become con-troversial (Peart 2009). In the developing world a related trend has been occurring with the development of coastal resorts where those from wealthier (primarily western) nations come for sea, sand and sun holidays.
A wide range of other impacts resulting from recreation and tourism activities has been occurring. These include: disturbance of wildlife (Newsome et al. 2005; Wilkes 1977), over-fishing (Ellis 2003), litter (Berghan 1998), damage to benthic organisms (eg. coral from anchors and trampling) (Rogers et al. 1990), noise pollution from vessels (Lusseau, 2007), vessel wake and wave action accelerating coastal erosion, dune and coastal plant trampling, souveniring (eg.
shells, corals, driftwood etc.), waste water discharge from vessels (Lück 2010; Lumma and Gross 2009), sun-screen leaching and increased nutrient loads (from urine) at popular beaches, oil/fuel residue from recreational and cruise vessel exhausts and leaching of toxins from recreational vessel anti-fouling paints (Gray 2008; Klein 2002; Wang 2008).
Assessing impacts
One of the major challenges in assessing and managing impacts on natural ecosystems is di ffer-entiating between human induced change and change that occurs naturally. All ecosystems are dynamic and react to a wide range of influences. Examples include macro influences such as climatic events like the El Niño/La Nina oscillations, dramatic one off events such as hurricanes/
cyclones and tsunamis, and localised influences such as floods/droughts, disease, and changes in predator/prey relationships. Because such changes are ongoing and hard to predict, understanding humans’ role in influencing changes in marine systems is difficult. In addition, it is important to accept that human induced change is not necessarily detrimental to marine systems. All natural ecosystems have the ability to adapt to new influences. However, some ecosystems have a greater ability to withstand and accommodate change than others. It is these systems that can retain a healthy level of functioning that are of interest because the elimination of human influence is impossible. As a consequence, there has been a growing interest in better understanding and Mark Orams and Michael Lück