artificial reefs and mass marine ecotourism
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Ulster Library]On: 04 December 2014, At: 06:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Tourism Geographies: AnInternational Journal of TourismSpace, Place and EnvironmentPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20
Artificial Reefs and Mass MarineEcotourismAmir Shani a , Omer Polak b & Nadav Shashar ba Department of Hotel and Tourism Management , Ben-Gurion University of the Negev , Beer-Sheva , Israelb Department of Life Sciences , Ben-Gurion Universityof the Negev , Beer Sheva , IsraelPublished online: 01 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Amir Shani , Omer Polak & Nadav Shashar (2012) Artificial Reefsand Mass Marine Ecotourism, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of TourismSpace, Place and Environment, 14:3, 361-382, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2011.610350
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.610350
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Tourism GeographiesVol. 14, No. 3, 361–382, August 2012
Artificial Reefs and MassMarine Ecotourism
AMIR SHANI*, OMER POLAK** & NADAV SHASHAR**
*Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel**Department of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
Abstract Deploying artificial reefs on the seabed has become popular in diving management.This practice has been advocated as a means towards meeting both ecological concerns andrecreational divers’ demands for diversification and themed experiences. Nevertheless, theperceptions of the user community itself – the scuba divers – regarding the establishment ofartificial reefs have received only limited attention in the literature. Their views on criticalissues concerning artificial reefs remain, as a result, fairly vague and speculative. The aimof the current paper is to bridge this gap in the literature by presenting the results of a studyexploring divers’ attitudes and preferences with regards to the plan for a new artificial reefalong the northern shore of the Red Sea in Eilat, Israel. The findings indicate that the potentialintegration of this artificial reef was well perceived by the divers, regarding its contributionboth to the diving experience and to the natural environment. The divers also expressed theirpreference for large objects with a themed structure as artificial reefs, such as naval ships andairplanes, rather than more generic and amorphous forms, such as concrete blocks or pipes.Overall, the study points toward the marketing potential of developing mass marine ecotourismthrough the deployment of artificial reefs at diving sites, as well as the prospect of promotingsoft ecotourism in modified marine environments.
Key Words: Soft ecotourism, mass ecotourism, recreational scuba diving, artificial reefs,conservation, tourists’ preferences, tourist attraction, Red Sea, Eilat, Israel
Introduction
Despite the good intentions involved in the concept of ecotourism, it is well recog-nized that it requires effective planning and management in order to prevent potentialnegative impacts (Nelson 1994; Wearing & Neil 2009). One of the threats posed byecotourism development is the overcrowding of tourists in ecologically sensitive ar-eas, resulting, among others, in disturbing the wildlife and destroying the vegetation(Wall 1997; Kruger 2005). One strategy for tackling this problem is known as zoningwhich, in ecotourism, often refers to attempts to concentrate the ‘soft ecotourists’
Correspondence Address: Amir Shani, Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Ben-Gurion Uni-versity of the Negev, Eilat Campus, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105 Israel. Fax: 972-8-6304538; Tel.:972-8-6304561; Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /12/03/00361–22 C© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.610350
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
362 A. Shani et al.
(or ‘mass ecotourists’) into a relatively small modified area. Since these ecotouristsconstitute the vast majority of visitors to natural areas, it allows for a more efficientand sustainable management of the rest of the site, which can be made accessi-ble to the minority of ‘hard ecotourists’ (Weaver 2001; 2005; Fennell & Weaver2005).
In the context of the marine environment, the growing pressure on marine resources,such as coral reefs, due to the presence of scuba divers, also calls for the formulationof strategies to divert some divers from the fragile natural reefs (NRs) (Davis &Tisdell 1995; Epstein et al. 1999; Barker & Roberts 2004; Musa 2010). One way toachieve this is to create underwater artificial reef (AR) attractions, which were shownin past studies to have had positive effects on the biodiversity of fish species andplants, in addition to beneficial economic impacts, at the diving sites (Dowling &Nichol 2001; Leeworthy et al. 2006). ARs are used extensively as both conservationaltools and tourism attractions in many regions in the world, including North America,Europe, Australia, the Pacific and South East Asia, the Caribbean Islands and theMediterranean (Jensen 2002). In the USA, for example, there are over 500 approvedARs in coastal waters, primarily for recreational use, with 350 of them in Floridaalone (Pears & Williams 2005).
Nevertheless, despite the growing recreational appeal of ARs, investigating theattitudes and preferences of divers regarding ARs has received limited attention inthe literature. Since ARs are important underwater attractions, and their deploymenton the seabed requires substantial resources (Enemark 1999; Jameson et al. 2007),more attention is warranted toward marketing studies that investigate the perceivedbenefits of ARs among the user community, as well as divers’ views on AR planningconsiderations, including the preferred characteristics of ARs (Ditton et al. 2002). Asnoted by Stolk et al. (2007: 347), such information is critical ‘if artificial reef structuresare to be deliberately created as substitute sites for heavily visited natural reefs, andif we are to successfully expand the spectrum of recreational diving opportunities’.
The purpose of the current study is to explore divers’ attitudes toward the formationof an AR as a diving attraction in Eilat, located on the northern tip of the Red Sea,in Israel. Eilat is one of the prominent resort cities in the Red Sea region, with anabundance of natural resources, primarily marine attractions and diving sites. Thecoral reefs in Eilat are among the most heavily used in the world, resulting from theproximity of Eilat to Europe, as well as its extensive tourism and hospitality facilitiesand its rich and diverse fauna (Wilhelmsson et al. 1998; Zakai & Chadwick-Furman2002). The evidence of the degradation of the reefs due to intense diving activityhas led to the formulation of management strategies to reduce the impacts of divers,including the deployment of ARs for recreational use. The results of the current casestudy are expected to provide useful indications for plans to deploy a new AR on thenorthern shore in Eilat, in particular, and regarding the development of sustainablemarine tourism, in general, while contributing to the understanding of the feasibilityof mass ecotourism in marine environments.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 363
Literature Review
Ecotourism
Since its emergence in the late 1980s, ecotourism appears to be one of the mostprominent concepts in both the tourism academic literature and the industry itself.Ecotourism has drawn extensive attention from other stakeholders as well, suchas local and national governments, communities and environmental organizations(Goodwin 1996; Fennell 2001). The considerable appeal of ecotourism has beenlargely the result of growing global ecological awareness and the severe criticismpointed at conventional tourism development (Orams 1995; Hunter 1997). As such,ecotourism is traditionally perceived as a form of alternative tourism with the aimof serving as a panacea to the destructive impact of mass tourism (Choi & Sirakaya2005; Weaver 2005).
Numerous definitions for ecotourism have been suggested, both from the demandand the supply perspectives; however, it is generally agreed that ecotourism is charac-terized by three core criteria (Blamey 2001; Fennell & Weaver 2005; Weaver 2005):(1) it is founded on nature-based attractions that may have cultural attributes, as well;(2) it involves environmental and cultural education, with the dual aim of satisfyingtourists’ demands for information on natural and cultural attractions, as well as posi-tively influencing the environmental knowledge, attitudes and, most profoundly, thebehaviour of the visitors; and (3) ecotourism is sustainably planned and managed ina way that supports both local economies and essential ecological systems. Despitethe aforementioned perception of ecotourism as an alternative to conventional masstourism, the responsibility of ecotourism venues to be financially sustainable (i.e. ofbeing profitable in both the short and long term) and to achieve high levels of visi-tor satisfaction was also recognized in the literature (Khan 2003; McKercher 2003;Uriely et al. 2007; Reichel et al. 2008).
Despite the accepted conceptualization of ecotourism, the interpretation of itsfeatures and their realization in practice are still subject to debate. Two controversialissues are particularly relevant in the context of the current study. The first is the degreeof ‘naturalness’ that should be present in order to classify an attraction/activity as‘nature-based’. The traditional approach to ecotourism maintains that the area visitedby ecotourists should be relatively undeveloped or undisturbed by human influence(Ceballos-Lascurain 1987; Sirakaya et al. 1999; Bjork 2000). Nevertheless, this puristinterpretation of ecotourism was challenged more recently by scholars who reject theassumption of ecotourism as occurring in ‘unmodified’ landscapes only. As explainedby Lawton and Weaver (2001: 315)
if . . . the attraction base of ecotourism is construed as including the naturalenvironment or some component thereof , then there is no inherent reason forneglecting as a potential setting, spaces that have been more modified by variousforms of human activity.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
364 A. Shani et al.
They then suggested considering modified spaces, such as agricultural lands (e.g.cropland, grazing land, etc.), urban and peri-urban areas (e.g. parks, golf courses andzoos) and artificial reefs, as possible settings for ecotourism activities.
Considering modified spaces as potential settings for ecotourism purposes has beenadvocated by some as having great potential with regards to the desired sustainableand educative outcomes of ecotourism. For example, case studies of ‘urban eco-tourism’, where ecotourism operations successfully take place in proximity or withincity limits, were illustrated by Higham and Luck (2002) and Gibson et al. (2003).In both cases it was suggested that neglecting the ecotourism potential in urban set-tings would represent a missed opportunity, as many cities encompass broad areas ofgreen spaces. Moreover, urban ecotourism provides greater ecological benefits andwider learning opportunities, in comparison with ecotourism in pristine and distantareas.
The second disputed issue, which is closely related to the first one, refers to thedesired scope and nature of ecotourism (e.g. Wheeller 1997; Weaver 2001; 2005; Fen-nell 2003). As noted by Blamey (2001), since ecotourism was positioned as a formof alternative tourism that involves small-scale and personal experiences, a prevalentassumption is that these features are fundamental elements of ecotourism. None theless, this notion was criticized by other scholars who argue that such an inflexibleinterpretation of ecotourism excludes large-scale tourism initiatives that successfullycomply with the core criteria of ecotourism (Luck 2002; Kontogeorgopoulos 2004a;2004b; Weaver 2005). In this regard, Weaver (2001: 108) argues that ‘the assessmentof a particular tourism product does not depend on scale, but rather on the effec-tiveness of the management practices that are applied to the circumstances of eachindividual destination’. In fact, the vast majority of ecotourists actually possess manyof the characteristics of mass tourists, such as travelling in large groups for relativelyshort trips that are physically comfortable and rely on high-quality service. Conse-quently, they can be typified as ‘soft ecotourists’, in contrast to the minority of ‘hardecotourists’, who are characterized by the fact that they embark on specialized eco-tours for longer periods of time and express a stronger environmental commitment,while demanding fewer – if any – services (Weaver 2002; Weaver & Lawton 2002;Singh et al. 2007). For example, many cruise passengers, although traditionally notassociated with ecotourism, participate in nature-based shore excursions that involvesome form of environmental interpretation or advocacy and thus can be classified as‘soft ecotourists’ (Johnson 2006). The accommodation of soft (or mass) ecotourists isadvocated both on financial and environmental grounds, as soft ecotourism exposeswider populations to ecotourism education and tends to involve the concentration ofvisitors in a relatively small area that allows for effective visitor management andcontrol (Fennell & Weaver 2005).
Although still under dispute, ‘there is a growing recognition in the reality andpotential of mass ecotourism . . . and ecotourism in highly modified spaces outsideof protected areas’ (Weaver & Lawton 2007: 1175). Such an interpretation allows
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 365
for the exploration of broader opportunities for the development of soft ecotourismattractions. Along these lines, Reichel and Uriely (2002; 2003) suggested the ‘inte-grative approach’ to tourism development, which combines elements of ecotourismwith themed and simulated attractions, with the aim of balancing between the needfor natural and cultural preservation and the need for wider exposure to tourists, inorder to achieve financial sustainability. Subsequent studies found a high preferenceamong tourists for sites with combined natural and artificial components, providingan indication as to the economic potential of mass ecotourism (Reichel et al. 2008;Collins-Kreiner & Israeli 2010).
Artificial Reefs
Coral reefs world-wide constitute an important source of attraction for marine-basedexperiences, such as snorkelling and scuba-diving (Barker & Roberts 2004; Asafu-Adjaye & Tapsuwan 2008). Unfortunately, anthropogenic intrusions, such as fishing,chemical discharge, oil pollution and tourist activity, threaten reefs and lead to theloss of their biodiversity. Coral reefs continue to deteriorate world-wide in spiteof growing attempts to preserve and rehabilitate them (Wilkinson 2000). Althoughscuba-diving is often considered to be a form of marine ecotourism (e.g. Schuster1992; Cater & Cater 2001), the damage caused by recreational divers has long beendocumented as a significant cause for coral reef deterioration (Hawkins et al. 1999;Schleyer & Tomalin 2000; Tratalos & Austin 2001). Various solutions have beensuggested to address the adverse impacts of diving, such as limiting the numberof divers or excluding them entirely from certain sites. Such options, however, arelikely to yield negative economic consequences for diving operators as well as fordestinations that rely on recreational diversity as an important source of income(van Treeck & Schuhmacher 1998; Jameson et al. 2007). Furthermore, they maydivert local communities from tourism-based economies to relying on fishing and theextraction of corals.
A solution to the conflict between the economic value of diving and its ecologicalthreats involves the establishment of ARs near popular dive sites. ARs are anthro-pogenic objects that have traditionally been deployed on the seabed to influencephysical, biological or socio-economic processes related to living marine resources(Seaman & Jensen 2000). Underwater structures that were not intended to becomeARs (e.g. shipwrecks and oil rigs) yet function as such may also fall under this cate-gory. When ARs are introduced in the sea, fish and other organisms rapidly colonizethem (Grossman et al. 1997). Hence, in recent decades, ARs constitute a major toolfor enhancing aquatic ecosystems (Chua & Chou 1994), providing shelter for thefish and stable areas for the development of encrusting communities which, in turn,contributes to the diet of many species (Chou 1997). Traditionally, ARs were usedfor enhancing fish and bivalve catches (Bohnsack & Sutherland 1985). Currently, the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
366 A. Shani et al.
deployment of ARs is performed for additional reasons, including habitat conserva-tion, environmental restoration, and natural resource management and rehabilitation(see Baine 2001; Lok et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, in many diving sites a primary purpose for establishing ARs is tocreate alternative new underwater attractions, thereby reducing the pressure fromnearby NRs and thus decreasing future intrusions, while facilitating the reef’s re-habilitation (Oren & Benayahu 1998). Recreation-orientated ARs are used in manyshore destinations world-wide, as they provide enhanced entertaining opportunitiesand novel settings where recreational divers can interact both with the natural envi-ronment and, sometimes, with cultural heritage (e.g. shipwrecks and old piers) (Stolket al. 2007). Previous studies show that the recreational use of ARs is preferableto other commercial utilizations of ARs, such as fishing, both from ecological andeconomic perspectives and, thus, can be successfully integrated into ecotourism div-ing packages (Brock 1994; Pears & Williams 2005). As an illustration, Leeworthyet al. (2006) found that the deployment of the retired navy ship USS Spiegel Grovein Key Largo in southern Florida led to an overall increase in diving activity andsubsequently improved the local economy, while there was a drop in the recreationaluse of the nearby NRs. Dowling and Nichol (2001) also noted that the sinking of theship HMAS Swan in Western Australia has generated beneficial environmental andeconomic impacts. It should be noted, however, that establishing ARs is associatedwith high costs (Jameson et al. 2007) and thus should be well planned in order toensure that the divers will be drawn to these reefs.
Despite the aforementioned positive indications, the effects of ARs on the nat-ural environment are still being debated by ecologists, especially with regards totheir potential effects on the surrounding NRs (Pickering & Whitmarsh 1997). Forexample, ARs may divert resources and organisms from their natural environment,create hard substrates on soft bottoms, thus altering the previous habitat, as well asgenerate ecological corridors for the spread of invasive species (Barros et al. 2001;Perkol-Finkel & Benayahu 2004; Arena et al. 2007). These issues are worth furtherinvestigation as the lively debate on the environmental outcomes of deploying ARswill continue to draw attention in the future.
ARs seem to be akin with the concept of ‘modified spaces’ in ecotourism devel-opment, as well as with the aforementioned integrative approach which combinesthemed attractions with natural and cultural elements, while observing sustainableprinciples. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for establishing mass marine eco-tourism sites, which adhere to the ecological as well as the financial aspects ofsustainability. In this regard, ARs often function as Diver Aggregation Device, whichallows for a better control of the divers’ impact on the sites (van Treeck & Schuh-macher 1998). As noted by Stolk et al. (2007: 346), ‘provided there is an educationalcomponent delivered through pre-dive briefing and/or interpretive signage, then recre-ational SCUBA-diving on artificial reefs practiced in this manner might be regardedas ecotourism’.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 367
Nevertheless, what remain fairly vague from a researcher’s perspective are thedivers’ attitudes towards ARs and the latter’s influence on their diving experience.The establishment of ARs as an ecological management tool requires considering thedivers’ views, including the perceived impacts, preferable designs, location and depth,as well as possible variations regarding these issues among the divers themselves.The limited studies conducted on these issues reveal an overall support by divers forARs, with a preference for sunken vessels as a desired form (Milon 1989; Ditton et al.2002). In light of the growing popularity of ARs as tourism attractions, more focusshould be directed towards exploring their views on ARs, as well as their preferenceswith regard to the latter’s characteristics.
The Case Study
Study Setting
The fringing coral reef of the Gulf of Aqaba (Northern Red Sea) is one of the mostnorthern coral reefs in the world, offering a high diversity of both coral and fishspecies (Khalaf & Disi 1997; Wilkinson 2000). In general, these reefs enable shorediving without the need for long boat rides. Loya (1972) found a high diversityof corals in the Eilat reefs, which corresponds to a high fish diversity and a highproportion of fish endemic to the region (Golani & Darom 1997). The reefs in Eilatgenerally offer divers a relaxing experience, with moderate slopes, easy access to arange of animals and close proximity to diving centres.
These reefs are heavily used by recreational divers: more than 200,000 dives areperformed annually along the Israeli 11 km coastline (Wilkinson 2000, see Figure 1for the distribution of diving clubs), most dives occurring along 4 km of fringing reefs,inside the Coral Beach Nature Reserve. Indeed, diving pressure is a major cause ofenvironmental stress to the coral reefs of Eilat (Rilov & Benayahu 1998; Zakai &Chadwick-Furman 2002). Due to the proximity of Eilat to Europe, the extensivetourist facilities and the spectacular beauty of the Eilat coral reefs, these are amongthe most heavily used in the world for recreational diving. Damage caused by diversto stony corals was compared in 1996 and 1999, between sites with low diving pres-sure and heavily used sites (Zakai & Chadwick-Furman 2002). The rates of damagedcorals in 1996 were 8–66 percent, for low and heavily used sites, respectively; but de-creased during 1999 to 4–23 percent, respectively (Zakai & Chadwick-Furman 2002).The drop in damage caused to corals is also supported by examination of the rate ofphysical contact that divers had with the reef (D. Zakai, personal communication).The study found that between 1996 (Zakai & Chadwick-Furman 2002) and 2000(D. Zakai, personal communication), rates of contact with the reef decreased by 51–91 percent. The improvement in divers’ underwater behaviour was due to implemen-tation of public education and management strategies. None the less, the proportionof corals damaged by divers in Eilat’s reefs is still one of the highest world-wide.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
368 A. Shani et al.
Figure 1. Map of the study site. Stars represent active diving clubs, while letters representdiving locations, as examined in this study: A, Dekel Beach; B, Dolphin Reef; C, Satil; D,Aqua Sport; E, Yatush; F, Tamar Reef; G, Japanese Gardens; H, The Caves; and I, PrincessHotel. Nature reserve starts immediately south of F. Note the high concentration of divingclubs in this area.
The main motivation for establishing ARs on the Eilat coastline is to diversifythe diving experience and to divert recreational divers from the fragile coral reefs.Over the years several artificial reefs have been deployed along the coast of Eilat(see Figure 2 for examples). Some of them were intended for research only (e.g.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 369
Figure 2. Artificial reefs deployed along the Israeli coast in Eilat. (Left) A pyramid-likestructure intended for research only; photo by Amir Gur. (Center) The Satil, a decommissionedmissile ship deployed as a diver’s attraction site, location C on map; photo by Nadav Shashar.(Right) Tamar reef, an artificial reef planned for both research and visitor use, location F onmap; photo by Ziggy Livnat.
a pyramid-like structure deployed away from the shore, 29 m deep); others weredeployed for recreational diving (e.g. the Satil – a missile ship, deployed not farfrom shore, 27 m deep), while one of them serves both scientific and recreationalpurposes (Tamar Reef, 8 m deep, near the coral nature reserve). Currently (2008–10),the municipality of Eilat and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism are developing a plan fora large AR complex that will cover approximately 9 hectares of sandy sea floor andwill be situated some 2 km away from the natural coral reef located on the northernshores of the Gulf.
Several of Eilat’s ARs have been studied (see Oren & Benayahu 1998; Wilhemssonet al. 1998; Golani & Diamant 1999). More specifically, Rilov and Benayahu (2000)observed that fish abundance and species richness at an AR located close to oil jettieswere higher than in the NRs of the region. These results suggest the potential benefitof using ARs for coral reef conservation. The current article illustrates findings of asurvey that was conducted among divers in Eilat, concerning a plan to set up a newAR along the northern shore of the Red Sea.
Instrument and Sampling
A survey instrument was developed to investigate the research objectives. First, a listof prominent diving sites in Eilat was presented to the participants, who were askedto indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the degree to which they prefer to dive at eachsite. The list (see Figure 1) includes both sites that are based on NRs (e.g. JapaneseGardens, Dekel Beach and Aqua Sport), and sites that comprise ARs as their primaryattraction (e.g. Satil, Yatush and Tamar Reef). The second part of the questionnairemeasures preferences for potential forms/structures of the future AR to be positionedalong the northern shore. This list was compiled following the review of previousstudies on ARs, as well as past initiatives to establish ARs world-wide (Milon 1989;Ditton et al. 2002; Jensen 2002; Pears & Williams 2005). For each form/structure, the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
370 A. Shani et al.
respondents were asked to rate their preference on a 5-point Likert scale. In addition,they were also requested to indicate their one most preferred form/structure from thelist.
The respondents were asked other relevant questions for planning and deployingARs, such as their favoured depth and location for placing the AR, and what wouldbe the implications of such a new AR on the frequency of their diving in this area(see Stolk et al. 2007). The participants also expressed their views with regards to theenvironmental impacts of an AR, its contribution to the diving experience and theirgeneral level of support for placing a new AR along the northern shore of the Israelicoast. The last section of the survey included references to the participants’ socio-demographics and diving-related characteristics, including motivations for diving.The list of prominent motivations for diving was developed on the basis of previousstudies (Todd et al. 2002; Dearden et al. 2006). The respondents were asked toindicate how important each motivation was for them, on a 5-point Likert scale.
Data for the study were collected using an intercept survey among Israeli recre-ational divers between October 2009 and February 2010. The participants in the studywere all certified divers who were approached according to the principles of ‘het-erogeneous purposive sample’, in order to ensure maximum heterogeneity, withoutapplying random sampling methods (Finn et al. 2000; Reichel et al. 2008). Specifi-cally, six trained research assistants recruited the participants in nine different divingclubs in Eilat and at two diving conferences that took place in the city. The interviewswere conducted on both weekdays and weekends, at different times of the day. Allthe respondents were 18 years old or above and their anonymity was ensured asthey were not requested to provide any identifying information. The response ratewas about 70 percent; the sample comprised a total of 236 participants, yielding 222usable questionnaires.
Findings
The frequencies of the socio-economic and diving-related characteristics are shown inTable 1. Of the 222 recreational divers included the study, 76.8 percent (n = 169) weremale (23.2% female), averaging 33.9 years of age (SD = 9.9). Note that the largestage group comprised 25–34-year-old divers (41.5%). The majority of the respondentswere single (52.7%), with a monthly income of 8,000 New Israeli Shekels (NIS; c.$US2,100) or more (73.6%). Note that these socio-economic characteristics of thedivers are fairly consistent with previous studies on recreational divers (e.g. Dittonet al. 2002; Todd et al. 2002; Barker & Roberts 2004; PADI 2010).
With regards to diving-related characteristics, 56.0 percent of the participants re-ported that their highest diving rank was two stars (equal to PADI – Advanced OpenWater), 18.3 percent were diving masters and 24.3 percent were assistant divingguides or higher, corresponding to the training level world-wide (PADI 2010). Thesample exhibited a mean of 10.3 years of certified diving experience (SD = 7.8);
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 371
Table 1. Respondents’ profile and diving-related characteristics
%
GenderMale 76.8Female 23.2
Age (years)18–24 17.025–34 41.535–44 25.045 and over 14.2
Marital statusSingle 52.7Married 39.5Other 7.7
Monthly income (New Israeli Shekels [NIS])a
Less than 8,000 26.4Equal to 8,000 26.0More than 8,000 47.6
Years of diving certification0–5 32.46–10 25.511–15 23.116–20 10.221 and over 8.8
Highest diving certificationOne star (Open Water) 1.4Two stars (Advanced Open Water) 56.0Three stars (Divemaster) 18.3Ass. Instructor or more 24.3
Diving as a recreational activityMost favoured 48.72nd most favoured 29.13rd most favoured 8.0Just another recreational activity 14.1
n = 222aThe monthly average worker’s wage in Israel for 2009 was approximately NIS8,000according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (2010).
almost half the participants (48.7%) indicated that diving was their favourite recre-ational activity, while only 14.1 percent stated that diving was just one activity amongmany; finally, the main reasons for diving (see Table 2) were ‘relaxation’ and ‘spe-cial underwater feature’, followed by ‘expanding knowledge’. Motivations that wererated at the bottom of the list were ‘physical activity’ and ‘adventure diving’.
The divers were asked about their favoured diving sites in Eilat. Figure 3 showsthat among the sites that received the highest scores was the Satil, which is the most
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
372 A. Shani et al.
Table 2. Importance of diving motivations
Motivation n Mean∗ SD
Relaxation 217 4.31a 0.92Special underwater features 216 4.06b 1.05Expand knowledge 215 3.91bc 1.05Good knowledge of the site 217 3.76c 1.23Develop diving skills 217 3.48d 1.29Social activity 217 3.17e 1.30Adventure diving 217 3.12ef 1.35Physical activity 217 2.86g 1.38
∗Scale ranges from 1 (not important) to 5 (important).Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between pairs of mean scores based on paired samples t-testsare indicated by letters a–g. Pairs of means that do not have the same letter are significantly different,whereas those pairs of means that have the same superscript are not significantly different.
prominent AR in Eilat. Along with the Satil were the Japanese Gardens and TheCaves, sites that include natural coral reefs and other natural features. Note that theother two ARs in Eilat, Yatush (a small Bertram patrol boat) and Tamar Reef (anexperimental AR with an abstract structure), received lower means; however, very
Figure 3. Favoured diving sites along the Israeli coastline. Mean + standard deviation. Scaleranges from 1 (not favoured) to 5 (highly favoured). Sites correspond to map on Figure 1. Sitesare of natural reefs (NRs), artificial reefs (ARs) and one artificial ‘swim with dolphins’ site.n = 222 returned questionnaires. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between pairsof mean scores based on paired samples t-tests are indicated by letters a–d. Pairs of means thatdo not have the same letter are significantly different whereas those pairs of means that havethe same letter are not significantly different.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 373
Figure 4. Preference for types of artificial reefs among scuba divers. Left axis and stripedbars – overall preference on a 1 (not favoured) to 5 (highly favoured) scale; mean + standarddeviation. Right axis and plain bars – most favoured structure as percentage of all responses.n = 222 returned questionnaires. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between pairsof mean scores based on paired samples t-tests are indicated by letters a–h. Pairs of means thatdo not have the same letter are significantly different, whereas those pairs of means that havethe same letter are not significantly different.
similar to that of the Aqua Sport NR near them. The least favoured sites were DekelBeach (a NR) and Dolphin Reef (a site for swimming/diving with captive dolphins).
As the next stage, the respondents were asked to indicate their favoured formsand structures for future ARs (see Figure 4). With regards to their mean scores, themost favoured AR structures by far were large naval ships and airplanes, followedby culverts. Other popular structures were small boats and barges, and replicas ofcoral reefs. The least favoured structures include tyres, concrete blocks, pipes, wallsand cars or car parts. Note that for 17.6 percent of the participants, the most favouredstructure was a replica of a coral reef, while 8.3 percent indicated famous buildings.Consequently, there seems to be a certain demand for these AR structures amongdivers, although they were not ranked exceptionally high in their mean scores. Thedivers were also asked to state their views with regards to their favoured depth andlocation for the new AR in Eilat. The majority of respondents (65.9%) indicated thatthe favoured depth was between 15 and 30 m (30 m is the maximum depth allowedfor sports diving in Israel), while 24.9 percent were interested that the AR be locatedless than 15 m deep. Only 9.2 percent expressed a preference for the AR to be locatedmore than 30 m deep. In addition, 78.4 percent indicated that the best location for theAR was in relative proximity to the shore (not too close and not too far).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
374 A. Shani et al.
Table 3. Divers’ attitudes towards establishing an AR in Eilat
n %
In your opinion, the establishment of an artificial reefalong the northern shore will
damage the marine natural environment 12 5.5have no effect on the marine natural environment 35 15.9contribute to the marine natural environment 173 78.6In your opinion, the establishment of an artificial reef
along the northern shore willdamage the diving experience 0 0have no effect on the diving experience 11 5.0contribute to the diving experience 210 95.0Assuming a new artificial reef is placed along the
northern shore, the frequency of your diving willdecrease 3 1.4remain the same 62 28.1increase 156 70.6
n = 222.
The last questions relate to the divers’ attitudes and views toward the option ofplacing a new AR in Eilat (Table 3). Slightly more than three-quarters (78.6%) ofthe respondents expressed the belief that a new AR would contribute to the naturalmarine environment. A higher percentage (more than 90%) stated that the AR wouldcontribute to the diving experience, yet less than that (70.3%) indicated that theywould be diving more frequently. Overall, the respondents expressed a high level ofsupport for placing a new AR in Eilat, with a mean of 4.30 and SD of 0.91 (scaleranged from 1 – no support to 5 – strong support).
Despite these clear indications of divers’ generally positive attitudes toward thedeployment of a new AR in the northern shore in Eilat, further examinations wereconducted to inquire whether the divers’ attitudes varied along socio-demographic anddiving-related characteristics. Only statistically significant differences are describedhereafter. One of the clear differences detected pertained to the divers’ gender: maledivers expressed an overall higher level of support than female divers for establishinga new AR, t(218) = 4.760, p < 0.001 (M = 4.60, SD = 0.78 and M = 3.96, SD =0.91, respectively). Additionally, it was found that a higher percentage of male diversthan female divers (76.3% vs. 52.0%) stated that a new AR along the northern shorewould lead to an increase in their diving frequency (χ2
2 = 13.556, p = 0.001).Other statistically significant differences were found based on diving-related char-
acteristics. A chi-square test indicated that a higher percentage of those who statedthat diving was their most favoured (97.9%) and second most favoured (98.3%) recre-ational activity stated that a new AR would contribute to the diving experience, incomparison to those who stated that diving was their third favoured (87.5%) or just
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 375
one among other recreational activities (88.9%). Although significant (χ23 = 8.217,
p = 0.042), this difference is quite marginal. Another difference was found based onthe divers’ specialization with regard to diving frequency following the deploymentof a new AR (χ2
4 = 16.288, p = 0.003). A lower percentage of divers with one-or two-star certificates (62.1%) indicated that a new AR would increase their divingfrequency, in comparison to three-star divers (80.0%) and assistant instructors orhigher (84.9%).
Discussion and Conclusions
Summary
The reliance of many coastline destinations on the diving industry requires taking thedivers’ perspective into account in the planning and development of marine areas.The growing popularity of scuba-diving has resulted in a growing pressure on naturalcoral reefs and, consequently, in the deterioration of the biodiversity in these areas.This is the case despite rigorous efforts to increase environmental awareness amongrecreational divers at diving courses and sites. Nevertheless, placing strict limitationson the number of divers allowed into diving sites is not likely to be a viable solutionfor many destinations, which rely on the diving industry as an important source ofincome and employment. As a result, to alleviate the pressure from the coral reefs andto increase the carrying capacity of the sites, ARs are being deployed world-wide toserve as underwater attractions (or theme parks) that can divert the lion share of diversfrom the more sensitive areas. This zoning technique, which is used in many nationalparks and ecotourism sites (Weaver 2001), has resulted in positive indications withregards to the possible rehabilitation of coral reefs (Leeworthy et al. 2006; Stolket al. 2007). The current study contributes to the literature by investigating the divers’attitudes and views towards the issues under discussion.
Preferred Characteristics of Artificial Reefs
The results of the study indicate that the presence of an AR in itself does not guaranteeits success among divers. In the case of existing diving sites in Eilat, although themost favoured site is based on an AR, other AR-based sites were rated lower thanNR sites. Therefore, one should put in more effort in trying to understand the successfactors of ARs among divers. This study reveals two main features of ARs that therespondents favoured. First, it is the size factor – there is a clear tendency towardspreferring large objects as ARs, rather than small objects. One of the most populardiving sites was the Satil, which is a 45 m long missile boat, while smaller AR’s(Yatush and Tamar Reef) received quite neutral scores. In addition, when askedto state their favoured AR structures, the respondents rated large naval ships andairplanes, while small structures, such as small boats and barges, and other shapes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
376 A. Shani et al.
such as statues and cars, received notably smaller values. This is an indication of thedemand among recreational divers for appealing underwater attractions to diversifythe marine landscapes at diving sites.
The second AR characteristic that seems to be significant for the divers is itsessence. The respondents appear to favour structures that have a clear theme, ratherthan abstract forms. This was mainly evident from the high popularity of the Satil,and the high level of preference for structures such as large naval boats and airplanes.The popularity of naval boats as ARs was demonstrated in some previous studies (e.g.Ditton et al. 2002; Leeworthy et al. 2006), yet it seems that other themed structures,such as airplanes, can also constitute popular ARs.
These findings can be understood in light of the tendency among contemporaryvacationers to seek themed experiences that tell them a story, in which they areencouraged to play a part (Milman 2001; 2008). On the other hand, abstract formsseem to make less of an impression on divers, presumably due to their lack ofability to immerse the divers in the atmosphere of a specific theme (e.g. war shipsor airplanes, with a certain narrative and infused with mythology). In this regard,these findings indicate that ARs are regarded by recreational divers as underwatertheme sites, aimed at enhancing and diversifying the diving experience. As wasdemonstrated by Bryman (1999), the concept of theming has been embraced bymany sectors of the economy, in what was termed by Pine and Gilmore (1998) as‘The Experience Economy’, where businesses, as well as tourism destinations, areexpected to provide memorable experiences by staging the environment, along withattractive storylines and themes. Note that in the case of diving sites the favouredtheme does not necessarily relate to the site’s setting (i.e. marine environment), butcan also be based on out-of-context objects, such as an airplane.
Development of Mass Marine Ecotourism
Overall the participants were enthusiastic about establishing a new AR along thenorthern shore of Eilat. The most prominent finding was that over 90 percent ex-pressed the opinion that the AR would contribute towards their diving experience,while more than 70 percent stated that it would increase the frequency of their diving.Experienced, highly trained divers were significantly more in favour of the deploy-ment of ARs than less trained divers. This may be due to the additional knowledgethe divers gained during their training about the state of the reefs and conservationmethods (environmental education is mandatory in Israel for all diving courses, atall levels). It may also indicate that divers see ARs as challenging the environment,which requires additional experience.
Diving is a nature-based activity, which is often considered to be a form of eco-tourism (see Schuster 1992; Cater & Cater 2001; Dimmock 2009). The study’s find-ings, which indicate that the integration of ecotourism products with artificial themed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 377
and simulated attractions is positively accepted by divers, have important implica-tions for the development of ecotourism, in general, and of recreational marine areas,in particular. This conclusion is akin to that of a study conducted by Reichel et al.(2008) on ecotourism development in the Negev Desert in Israel, which reveals thatpotential tourists were in favour of integrated tourism sites that combine natural andartificial features and involve environmental preservation. This integrative approach,which can potentially appeal to wide segments of recreational divers, can be seenas a form of ‘mass ecotourism’ or ‘soft ecotourism’ and can be more effective thanother practices, such as limiting the number of divers at the sites. This is especiallyimportant in light of the efforts of many coastline and other nature-based destinationsto achieve financial sustainability, on the one hand, and ecological sustainability, onthe other. Note that the development of mass marine ecotourism through the de-ployment of ARs at diving sites was also recognized by the participants themselvesas potentially contributing to the natural environment. Provided the divers receiveadequate environmental education and learning opportunities, establishing sustain-able ARs can be regarded as a means towards developing soft ecotourism in marineenvironments.
The association of the majority of recreational divers with soft ecotourism issupported by the participants’ declared motivations to dive – these participants arecharacterized by similar socio-economic features to those of divers that were inves-tigated in other studies. As their main motivations, the divers cited ‘relaxation’ and‘special underwater feature’, followed by ‘expanding knowledge’, which is morerelated to the educational component of ecotourism. These findings are akin withseveral previous investigations, which found visitors to ecotourism sites to be moregeneralist, soft ecotourists, who primarily seek affective experiences in nature, thanspecialist, hard ecotourists, who seek deep cognitive experiences that involve expand-ing their knowledge (Ryan et al. 2000; Collins-Kreiner & Israeli 2010). The divers’key motivation for observing unique marine features, as well as their request for largethemed underwater attractions, are akin with the conclusions of Ryan et al.’s (2000:148) study conducted at an Australian location, according to which the experience ofecotourists ‘is primarily ocular and concerned with spectacle’, while ‘ecotourism isa hedonistic experience rather than concerned with learning’.
Future Research
There is a need for additional studies in other marine areas to validate our findingsand conclusions. Once the new AR is installed along the northern shore in Eilat,other studies should focus on the experiences of divers in AR-based sites, includingthe prominent satisfaction factors. Furthermore, comparative studies that evaluate thediving experiences in artificial vs. natural reefs are also likely to contribute to theplanning and development of diving sites. The integration of contrived features withecotourism seems well accepted in the case of recreational divers, although certain
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
378 A. Shani et al.
circles might consider it as a violation of ecotourism fundamentals, especially thosewho adhere to its ‘hard’, uncompromising interpretation. A large-scale investigationmight yield other segments of divers who object to the establishment of ARs andprovide a better understanding of their views. Future studies are also needed in orderto explain the differences that were found between male and female divers, withregard to attitudes toward artificial reefs.
References
Arena, P. T., Jordan, L. K. B. & Spieler, R. E. (2007) Fish assemblages on sunken vessels and natural reefsin southeast Florida, USA, Hydrobiologia, 580, pp. 157–171
Asafu-Adjaye, J. & Tapsuwan, S. (2008) A contingent valuation study of SCUBA diving benefits:Case study in Mu Ko Similan Marine National Park, Thailand, Tourism Management, 29(6),pp. 1122–1130.
Baine, M. (2001) Artificial reefs: A review of their design, application, management and performance,Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(3–4), pp. 241–259.
Barker, N. H. L. & Roberts, C. M. (2004) SCUBA diver behaviour and the management of diving impactson coral reefs, Biological Conservation, 120(4), pp. 481–489.
Barros, F., Underwood, A. J. & Lindegarth, M. (2001) The influence of rocky reefs on structure ofbenthic macrofauna in nearby soft-sediments, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 52(2), pp. 191–199.
Bjork, P. (2000) Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourismform, International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(3), pp. 189–202.
Blamey, R. K. (2001) Principles of ecotourism, in: D. B. Weaver (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism,pp. 5–20 (Wallingford, UK: CAB International).
Bohnsack, J. A. & Sutherland, D. L. (1985) Artificial reef research: A review with recommendations forfuture priorities, Bulletin of Marine Science, 37(1), pp. 11–39.
Brock, R. E. (1994) Beyond fisheries enhancement: Artificial reefs and ecotourism, Bulletin of MarineScience, 55(2–3), pp. 1181–1188.
Bryman, A. (1999) The Disneyization of society, The Sociological Review, 47(1), pp. 25–47.Cater, C. & Cater, E. (2001) Marine environments, in: D. B. Weaver (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism,
pp. 265–282 (Wallingford, UK, CAB International).Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987) The future of ecotourism, Mexico Journal (January), pp. 13–14. Central Bu-
reau of Statistics (2010). Available at http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw usr view SHTML?ID=329(accessed 30 September 2011).
Central Bureau of Statistics (2010) Available at http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_SHTML?ID=329(accessed 30 September 2011).
Choi, H. C. & Sirakaya, E. (2005) Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Developmentof sustainable tourism attitude scale, Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), pp. 380–394.
Chou, L. M. (1997) Artificial reef of Southeast Asia – do they enhance or degrade the marine environment?Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 44(1–3), pp. 45–52.
Chua, C. Y. Y. & Chou, L. M. (1994) The use of artificial reefs in enhancing fish communities in Singapore,Hydrobiologia, 285(1–3), pp. 177–187.
Collins-Kreiner, N. & Israeli, Y. (2010) Supporting an integrated soft approach to ecotourism development:The Agmon Lake, Israel, Tourism Geographies, 12(1), pp. 118–139.
Davis, D. & Tisdell, C. (1995) Recreational SCUBA-diving and carrying capacity in marine protectedareas, Ocean and Coastal Management, 26(1), pp. 19–40.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 379
Dearden, P., Bennett, M. & Rollins, R. (2006) Implications for coral reef conservation of diver specializa-tion, Environmental Conservation, 33(4), pp. 353–363.
Dimmock, K. (2009) Comfort in adventure: The role of comfort, constraints and negotiation in recreationalSCUBA diving, Doctoral dissertation, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
Ditton, R. B., Osburn, H. R., Baker, T. L. & Thailing, C. E. (2002) Demographics, attitudes, and reefmanagement preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters, ICES Journal of Marine Science,59, pp. 186–191.
Dowling, R. K. & Nichol, J. (2001) The HMAS Swan artificial dive reef, Annals of Tourism Research,28(1), pp. 229–232.
Enemark, T. (1999) The tourism aspects of artificial reefs: The nine fundamental lessons. Available athttp://navydiver.ca/news/NineTourismAspectsofArtificialReefs.pdf
Epstein, N., Bak, R. P. M. & Rinkevich, B. (1999) Implementation of a small-scale ‘no-use zone’ policyin a reef ecosystem: Eilat’s reef-lagoon six years later, Coral Reef, 18(4), pp. 327–332.
Fennell, D. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions, Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5),pp. 403–421.
Fennell, D. (2003) Ecotourism: An Introduction, 2nd edn (London: Routledge).Fennell, D. & Weaver, D. B. (2005) The ecotourium concept and tourism–conservation symbiosis, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 13(4), pp. 373–390.Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. & Walton, M. (2000) Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data Collection,
Analysis, and Interpretation (Longman: Harlow).Gibson, A., Dodds, R., Joppe, M. & Jamieson, B. (2003) Ecotourism in the city? Toronto’s green tourism
association, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(6), pp. 324–327.
Golani, D. & Darom, D. (1997) Handbook of the Fishes of Israel (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter PublishingHouse).
Golani, D. & Diamant, A. (1999) Fish colonization of an artificial reef in the Gulf of Eilat, northern RedSea, Environmental Biology of Fishes, 54(3), pp. 275–282.
Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(3), pp. 277–291.Grossman, G. D., Jones, G. P. & Seaman, W. J. (1997) Do artificial reefs increase regional fish production?
A review of existing data, Fisheries, 22(4), pp. 17–22.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, 13(4),pp. 888–897.
Higham, J. & Luck, M. (2002) Urban ecotourism: A contradiction in terms?, Journal of Ecotourism, 1(1),pp. 36–51.
Hunter, C. (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm, Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), pp.850–867.
Jameson, S. C., Ammar, M. S. A., Saadalla, E., Mostafa, H. M. & Riegel, B. (2007) A quantitativeecological assessment of diving sites in the Egyptian Red Sea during a period of severe anchordamage: A baseline for restoration and sustainable tourism management, Journal of SustainableTourism, 15(3), pp. 309–323.
Jensen, A. (2002) Artificial reefs of Europe: Perspective and future, ICES Journal of Marine Science,59(1), pp. S3–S13.
Johnson, D. (2006) Providing ecotourism excursions for cruise passengers, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,14(1), pp. 43–54.
Khalaf, M. A. & Disi, A. M. (1997) Introduction, in: M. A. Khalaf & A. M. Disi (Eds) Fishes of the Gulfof Aqaba, pp. 7–11 (Jordan: Marine Science Station).
Khan, M. (2003) ECOSERV: Ecotourists’ quality expectations, Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),pp. 109–124.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
380 A. Shani et al.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2004a) Ecotourism and mass tourism in Southern Thailand: Spatial interdepen-dence, structural connections, and staged authenticity, GeoJournal, 61(1), pp. 1–11.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2004b) Conventional tourism and ecotourism in Phuket, Thailand: Conflictingparadigms or symbiotic partners?, Journal of Ecotourism, 3(2), pp. 87–108.
Kruger, O. (2005) The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box?, Biodiversity andConservation, 14(3), pp. 579–600.
Lawton, L. J. & Weaver, D. B. (2001) Modified spaces, in: D. B. Weaver (Ed.) The Encyclopedia ofEcotourism, pp. 315–326 (Wallingford, UK: CAB International).
Leeworthy, V. R., Maher, T. & Stone, E. A. (2006) Can artificial reefs alter user pressure on adjacentnatural reefs?, Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(1), pp. 29–37.
Lok, A., Tokac, A. & Metin, C. (2007) Artificial reef researches and applications in Turkey. Paperpresented at the 8th International Workshop on Methods for the Development and Evaluation ofMarine Technologies, Rostock, Germany, October 10–13.
Loya, Y. (1972) Community structure and species diversity of hermatypic corals at Eilat, Red Sea, MarineBiology, 13(2), pp. 100–123.
Luck, M. (2002) Large-scale ecotourism – A contradiction in itself?, Current Issues in Tourism, 5(3&4),pp. 361–370.
McKercher, B. (2003) Sustainable tourism development – guiding principles for planning and management.Paper presented at the National seminar on Sustainable Tourism Development, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan,November 5–9.
Milman, A. (2001) The future of the theme park and attraction industry: A management perspective,Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), pp. 139–147.
Milman, A. (2008) Theme park tourism and management strategy, in: A. Woodside & D. Martin (Eds)Tourism Management: Analysis, Behavior, and Strategy, pp. 218–231 (Cambridge, MA: CABIPublishing).
Milon, J. W. (1989) Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation behavior by sport anglersand divers, Bulletin of Marine Science, 44(2), pp. 853–862.
Musa, G. (2010) Sipadan: A SCUBA-diving paradise: An analysis of tourism impact, diver satisfactionand tourism management, Tourism Geographies, 4(2), pp. 295–209.
Nelson, J. G. (1994) The spread of ecotourism: Some planning implications, Environmental Conservation,21(3), pp. 248–255.
Orams, M. B. (1995) Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism, Tourism Management, 16(1), pp. 3–8.Oren, U. & Benayahu, Y. (1998) Didemnid ascidians: Rapid colonizers of artificial reefs in Eilat (Red
Sea), Bulletin of Marine Science, 63(1), pp. 199–206.PADI (2010) PADI statistics. Available at http://www.padi.com/SCUBA/about-padi/PADI-statistics/default.aspx
(accessed 25 March 2010).Pears, R. J. & Williams, D. M. (2005) Potential effects of artificial reefs on the Great Barrier Reef:
Background paper. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 60 (Townsville, Australia:CRC Reef Research Centre).
Perkol-Finkel, S. & Benayahu, Y. (2004) Community structure of stony and soft corals on vertical un-planned artificial reefs in Eilat (Red Sea): Comparison to natural reefs, Coral Reefs, 23(2), pp.195–205.
Pickering, H. & Whitmarsh, D. (1997) Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: A review of the ‘attractionversus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy, Fisheries Research,31(1/2), pp. 39–59.
Pine, B. J. & Gilmore, J. H. (1998) Welcome to the experience economy, Harvard Business Review, 76(4),pp. 97–105.
Reichel, A. & Uriely, N. (2002) Tourism development in a desert frontier town, in: S. Krakover& Y. Gradus (Eds) Tourism in Frontier Areas, pp. 195–203 (Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Artificial Reefs and Mass Marine Ecotourism 381
Reichel, A. & Uriely, N. (2003) Sustainable tourism development in the Israeli Negev desert: An integrativeapproach, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(4), pp. 14–29.
Reichel, A., Uriely, N. & Shani, A. (2008) Ecotourism and simulated attractions: Tourists’ attitudes towardsintegrated sites in a desert area, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), pp. 23–41.
Rilov, G. & Benayahu, Y. (1998) Vertical artificial structures as an alternative habitat for coral reef fishesin disturbed environments, Marine Environmental Research, 45(4–5), pp. 431–451.
Rilov, G. & Benayahu, Y. (2000) Fish assemblage on natural versus vertical artificial reefs: The rehabili-tation perspective, Marine Biology, 136(5), pp. 931–942.
Ryan, C., Hughes, K. & Chirgwin, S. (2000) The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism, Annals of TourismResearch, 27(1), pp. 148–163.
Schleyer, M. H. & Tomalin, B. J. (2000) Damage on South African coral reefs and an assessment oftheir sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries approach, Bulletin of Marine Science, 67(3), pp.1025–1042.
Schuster, B. K. (1992) What puts the eco in ecotourism?, The Undersea Journal, 1, pp. 45–46.Seaman, W. & Jensen, A. C. (2000) Purposes and practices of artificial reef evaluation, in: W. Seaman
(Ed.) Artificial Reef Evaluation with Application to Natural Marine Habitats, pp. 2–19 (Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press).
Singh, T., Slotkin, M. H. & Vamosi, A. R. (2007) Attitude towards ecotourism and environmental advocacy:profiling the dimensions of sustainability, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(2), pp. 119–131.
Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V. & Sonmez, S. (1999) Redefining ecotourism: The need for a supply-side view,Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), pp. 168–172.
Stolk, P., Markwell, K. & Jenkins, J. M. (2007) Artificial reefs as recreational SCUBA diving resources:A critical review of research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), pp. 331–350.
Todd, S. L., Graefe, A. R. & Mann, W. (2002) Differences SCUBA diver motivations based on levelof development, in: S. L. Todd (Ed.) Proceedings of the 13th Northeastern Recreation ResearchSymposium, pp. 107–114 (Newton Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Northeastern Forest Experiment Station).
Tratalos, J. A. & Austin, T. J. (2001) Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on coral communities of theCaribbean island of Grand Cayman, Biological Conservation, 102(1), pp. 67–75.
Uriely, N., Reichel, A. & Shani, A. (2007) Ecological orientation of tourists: An empirical investigation,Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3/4), pp. 161–175.
van Treeck, P. & Schuhmacher, H. (1998) Mass diving tourism – a new dimension calls for new managementapproaches, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37(8–12), pp. 499–504.
Wall, G. (1997) Is ecotourism sustainable?, Environmental Management, 21(4), pp. 483–491.Wearing, S. & Neil, J. (1999) Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities, 2nd edn (Oxford: Butter-
worth Heinemann).Weaver, D. B. (2001) Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality?, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 104–112.Weaver, D. B. (2002) Hard-core ecotourists in Lamington National Park, Australia, Journal of Ecotourism,
1(1), pp. 19–35.Weaver, D. B. (2005) Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism, Annals of tourism re-
search, 32(2), pp. 439–455.Weaver, D. B. & Lawton, L. J. (2002) Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast
hinterland of Australia, Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), pp. 270–280.Weaver, D. B. & Lawton, L. J. (2007) Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research,
Tourism Management, 28(5), pp. 1168–1179.Wheeller, B. (1997) Here we go, here we go, here we go eco, in: M. Stabler (Ed.) Tourism & Sustainability,
Principles to Practice, pp. 39–49 (Wallingford, UK: CAB International).Wilhelmsson, D., Ohman, M. C., Stahl, H. & Shlesinger, Y. (1998) Artificial reefs and dive tourism in
Eilat, Israel, Ambio, 27(8), pp. 764–766.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14
382 A. Shani et al.
Wilkinson, C. R. (2000) Executive summary, in: C. R. Wikinson (Ed.) Status of Coral Reefs of the World,pp. 7–19 (Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science).
Zakai, D. & Chadwick-Furman, N. E. (2002) Impacts of intensive recreational diving on reef corals atEilat, northern Red Sea, Biological Conservation, 105(2), pp. 179–187.
Notes on Contributors
Amir Shani is a lecturer in the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Eilat Campus. Dr Shani specializes in tourism andhospitality ethics, as well as current issues in tourism marketing, such as destinationimage and loyalty.
Omer Polak is finishing his PhD at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His researchexamines active means for coral reefs preservation. He currently works on pre-plannedartificial reefs and observes their biological and socio-economical function.
Nadav Shashar is a faculty member at the Department of Life Sciences in Ben-Gurion University if the Negev, Eilat Campus, where he runs a programme in marinebiology and biotechnology. Dr Shashar has been involved in the deployment of severalartificial reefs and has studied them world-wide.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f U
lste
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:41
04
Dec
embe
r 20
14