Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846

Socio-economic aspects of articial reefs:

Considerations for the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park
Stephen G. Sutton

, Sally L. Bushnell
CRC Reef Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University,
Townsville, Qld. 4811, Australia
Available online 24 March 2007
Abstract
Articial reefs are used to enhance recreational shing and diving opportunities in the marine
environment. Until recently, demand for articial reefs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(GBRMP) has been low due to the high value placed on the natural ecosystem of the Great Barrier
Reef (GBR) and the abundance of shing and diving opportunities it provides. In the GBRMP,
where there are multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and often conicting values and opinions,
the deployment of articial reefs will be a complex and controversial social issue. We review the
available socio-economic literature regarding the deployment, use, and management of articial
reefs, and aim to identify and understand potential socio-economic issues and information gaps
surrounding deployment of articial reefs in the GBRMP. We also outline a strategy to guide
decision-making and maximize the socio-economic value of articial reefs should they be deployed in
the GBRMP.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is one of the worlds largest marine
parks, extending approximately 2300 km along the north-east coast of Queensland,
Australia and encompassing an area of approximately 345,000 km
2
. The Great Barrier
Reef (GBR) ecosystem consists of diverse habitats including inter-reefal areas, lagoons,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.01.003

Corresponding author. Fax: +61 7 4781 4099.

E-mail address: Stephen.Sutton@jcu.edu.au (S.G. Sutton).
seagrass ats, mangrove swamp, deep-water continental slope, and approximately 2900
individual coral reefs [1]. The GBRMP was proclaimed in 1975, and the GBR was added
to the list of World Heritage Areas in 1981. The GBRMP Authority (GBRMPA) is the
lead management agency responsible for the care and development of the GBRMP and
the World Heritage Area. The GBRMPAs primary goal is to preserve and protect the
outstanding natural values of the GBR while providing for the wise use, understanding,
and enjoyment of the region [2].
Activities such as shing, diving, boating, tourism, and research are permitted in the
park but are regulated through a system of zoning and management plans. In July 2004 the
GBRMPA implemented a new zoning plan for the park that increased no-take areas
from 5% to 33% of the total park area. In response to the new zoning plan, several user
groups have been lobbying for the deployment of articial reefs within the park to enhance
shing and diving opportunities and compensate for loss of access to natural reefs.
Although used to provide a variety of biological functions (e.g., increased sh
aggregation and/or enhanced production), articial reefs are deployed primarily for social
reasons (i.e., to meet demand from stakeholders) [3], and have the potential to produce
both positive and negative socio-economic impacts. In the GBRMP, where there are
multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and often conicting values and opinions
surrounding use of the park, the deployment of articial reefs is likely to be a highly
complex and controversial social issue. To deal effectively with the emerging issue of
articial reefs and make fair and defensible decisions that are consistent with the goals of
resource protection and wise use, managers will need a sound understanding of the
potential socio-economic issues surrounding deployment and management of articial
reefs in the GBRMP.
In this paper, we review the available socio-economic literature regarding the
deployment, use, and management of articial reefs to enhance shing and diving
opportunities. We aim to identify and understand potential socio-economic issues and
information gaps surrounding the deployment of articial reefs within the context of the
GBRMP. We also outline a proposed strategy to guide decision-making and maximize the
socio-economic value of articial reefs should they be deployed in the GBRMP.
2. Articial reef background
2.1. Articial reefs: denition, materials, and purpose
An articial reef is dened as any material purposefully placed in the marine
environment to inuence physical, biological, or socio-economic processes related to
living marine resources. Articial reefs encompass a wide range of structures from specially
engineered and prefabricated reef structures to materials of opportunity such as white
goods and tires, and in recent years unwanted oil and gas recovery structures [4].
Articial reefs are a readily accessible and widely used technology for modifying the
aquatic environment, and as such they have been built and deployed by a range of interests
from lay-level or semi-technical to specialists who have been formally educated in the area
[5]. The most prominent use of articial reefs has been for the enhancement of shing and
diving; however, their application, especially in the last few decades, serves various
purposes including enhanced commercial and artisinal shery harvest, aquaculture
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 830
production, habitat and coastal protection, research, and mitigation of habitat damage
and loss [5].
2.2. Articial reefs around the world
At least 40 countries have deployed articial reefs [6]. Japan leads the world in articial
reef technology to increase commercial shery yields and production, whereas the
Philippines widely use reef structures for artisanal shery activities. North America and
Australia use articial reefs predominantly for recreational activity including shing and
diving. European articial reefs are generally in the development stage but include a
number of research reefs and articial reefs for trawler exclusion [4,7,8].
Articial reef history in the United States of America has been well documented due to
years of intense public interest leading to the deployment of an extensive articial reef
network (Florida is the leading state with over 1500 articial reefs [9]). The USA articial
reef network began with ad hoc volunteer efforts by recreational and commercial shers to
enhance shing using materials of opportunity, but has evolved into a more
technologically advanced approach. This evolution included the passing of the US
National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA) in 1984 and the development of the National
Articial Reef Plan in 1985 to encourage more responsible and effective efforts to establish
articial reefs in US waters. Other federal programs (including the Federal Aid in Sportsh
Restoration Program) and grants provide hundreds of millions of dollars for sport sh
management, which includes articial reefs [10]. Europe has also made a concerted effort
to ensure responsible and effective articial reef development through creation of the
European Articial Reef Research Network (EARRN) in 1995 (funded by the European
Commission). The objectives of EARRN include, but are not limited to, promoting
regional collaboration, promoting awareness of issues, and guiding future research on
articial reefs [7].
2.3. Articial reefs in Australia
Beginning with the rst reported articial reef deployed in Port Phillip Bay in 1965 [11],
Australia now has approximately 72 articial reefs [12]. Similar to the USA, Australias
articial reef network began in an ad hoc manner with articial reefs deployed by both
sheries management agencies and public interest groups to enhance shing and/or diving.
Materials used were also mostly of opportunity i.e., tires, concrete or rock, and derelict
vessels (see [11,13] for reviews of articial reef development in Australia). Articial reef
placement and construction later became regulated by the passing of the Commonwealth
Environment Protection (sea dumping) Act 1981. The GBRMPA has included guidelines
for the management of articial reefs in the GBRMP on its website, and further guidelines
for articial reefs in Australia are being developed by the Department of the Environment
and Heritage [6].
Acknowledging the lack of strong evidence in support of the utility of articial reefs, the
South Australian government now discourages the construction of any additional articial
reefs in South Australian waters [14]. Queensland on the other hand, is still actively
deploying articial reefs as evidenced by the recent (July 2005) scuttling of the HMAS
Brisbane off the Sunshine Coast. The new articial reef created by this initiative will be
protected and managed as a marine park [15].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 831
2.4. Articial reefs in the GBRMP
There are few records of articial reef deployment in the GBRMP, and no proposals for
articial reefs in the marine park have been approved since its establishment in 1975. This
situation is not surprising given that the GBRMP contains the largest and healthiest
system of coral reefs in the world, whereas articial reef deployment elsewhere generally
occurs against a backdrop of overshing, degraded habitats, or in areas where natural reefs
are lacking. It would appear that, until recently, the demand for articial reefs in the
GBRMP has been low due to the high value placed on the natural ecosystem of the GBR
and the abundance of shing and diving opportunities it provides. It is this situation
where high quality shing and diving opportunities already exit within a highly valued and
healthy natural ecosystemthat is likely to produce a unique set of social issues
surrounding articial reef deployment.
3. Articial reef stakeholders
The potential deployment of articial reefs in the GBRMP is likely to generate interest
among multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and conicting values and opinions
surrounding use of the marine park. To deal effectively with these groups and to foster a
participative approach to decision-making, managers will need to identify and understand
stakeholder groups and their values [16]. This section identies the major stakeholders and
their potential interest in the GBRMP articial reef issue.
3.1. Articial reef proponents
Articial reefs to enhance shery habitats (elsewhere) have been deployed by a diverse
range of groups and organizations including: recreational and commercial shing groups,
recreational diving groups, governments (including sheries management agencies and
environmental protection agencies), researchers, the aquaculture industry, community
groups, and private businesses (e.g. dive operators) [11,1720]. In the GBR, articial reefs
are being proposed and promoted primarily by recreational shing and diving interests.
However, with the exception of well-established commercial dive-tour operators, it is
unlikely that groups promoting articial reef development will have the capacity to
implement and manage articial reef programs. More likely, local shing and diving
interest groups will lobby governments and other organizations to take the lead on
articial reef projects.
3.2. Recreational shers and divers
Recreational shers and divers are usually the primary direct users of articial reefs
[3,18,19,2126], and would be the primary users of articial reefs should they be deployed
in the GBRMP. Fishers and divers using articial reefs in the GBRMP would likely be a
mix of local residents and non-local tourists accessing the reefs on either private or
commercial vessels. Recreational shers and divers elsewhere generally have very positive
attitudes towards articial reefs [19,2628]; however, data about the attitudes, preferences,
and opinions of shers and divers regarding articial reefs in the GBRMP have not been
formally collected.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 832
3.3. Commercial shers
Commercial sheries in the GBRMP have a direct economic value of about $200
million/annum and comprise about 3700 professional shers [29]. Commercial shers have
been identied as users of articial reefs in other areas [19,21,22,24,27,30]. Although
articial reefs in the GBRMP are not currently being promoted for commercial shing
purposes, commercial shers could potentially expect access to articial reefs in the
GBRMP, especially if reefs are placed in areas currently used for commercial shing.
Furthermore, commercial shing interests could be negatively impacted if articial reef
deployment displaces commercial shers from areas they currently use, or if articial reefs
increase the recreational take of shared sh stocks.
3.4. Tourism and related businesses
Tourism is the largest commercial activity in the GBR region, generating over $4.2 billion/
annum [31]. Interests such as local dive and shing charters, dive and shing equipment
stores, and other indirect businesses such as hotels and restaurants [32,33] could potentially
benet from articial reef development in the park. These stakeholders could also potentially
suffer negative consequences if articial reef development results in changed patterns of use
in the marine park, particularly if changes result in movement of tourism dollars within the
region rather than attracting additional tourism to the area (see Section 5.3.1).
3.5. Management agencies
Agencies responsible for managing the marine park and the activities which occur in it
are also major stakeholders in decisions concerning articial reefs [28,34]. The GBRMPA
is the Commonwealth agency responsible for setting policy and making decisions
regarding management of the park. The GBRMPA will be responsible for ensuring that
any articial reef development within the park is consistent with the goals set out in the
GBRMP Act 1975 and other relevant legislation. The GBRMPA will also be responsible
for ensuring that the values of other stakeholders are adequately considered in the articial
reef decision-making process.
Three state agenciesthe Queensland Department of Transport (QDOT), the Queens-
land Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) and the Queensland Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F)will also have a stake in decisions related to articial
reef deployment in the park. The QDOT is the agency responsible for maritime safety in
Queensland waters (including the GBRMP), and the QPWS is largely responsible for day
to day management of the marine park. The QDPI&F is the agency responsible for
sheries management and enforcement in Queensland waters (including the GBRMP) and
will be particularly interested in ensuring that articial reefs used for shing do not
threaten the sustainability of sheries in the GBR or result in a reallocation of sheries
resources from one sheries sector to another.
3.6. Environmental organizations
The GBR attracts a great deal of attention from environmental organizations
worldwide. For example, the World Wide Fund for Nature was a strong supporter of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 833
the recent initiative to increase no-take areas within the park, and played a role in
generating support (both nationally and internationally) for the plan. Environmentalists
place high value on the natural state of the GBR and are concerned primarily with
resource preservation and protection [22,35]. Environmental interest groups have opposed
articial reef development elsewhere. For example, environmental groups successfully
mobilized public opinion against the deep water abandonment of the Brent Spar oil
platform (a potential articial reef), despite a positive environmental impact assessment
[36]. Murray and Betz [22] investigated the views of environmentalists on articial reef
development and found that they were concerned about adverse affects on the biological
community through over shing and dumping junk in the oceans. If articial reefs are
deemed to diminish the natural values of the GBR, they would likely be met with
opposition from environmental organizations and their supporters.
3.7. Scientic community
Articial reefs provide a unique opportunity to study ecological processes, and are often
used for research purposes [7,37]. It is likely that marine scientists would value the
opportunity to investigate ecological process associated with articial reefs, and would
likely be called upon to evaluate the ecological consequences of articial reef deployment
in the GBR. Conversely, the scientic community has not yet reached consensus on the
ecological benets of articial reefs [6,37]. Some members of the scientic community
could potentially oppose the use of articial reefs to enhance shing and diving
opportunities if they conclude that articial reefs are not an ecologically sound option
for the GBR.
3.8. Wider community
Many people in the wider community locally, nationally, and internationally hold
diverse values regarding the GBRMP. Although understanding the diversity of values held
by the wider community regarding the park is difcult, it is known that the general public
holds strong values related to protection of the unique environment of the GBR [38]. The
GBRMP is a highly visited area enjoyed for its aesthetic features. The presence of articial
structures in the park (whether they are seen or not) may be perceived by some as
diminishing the aesthetic values of the area [39]. Values related to protection of the natural
and aesthetic values of the GBR are reected in its National Park and World Heritage
Area designations [1], obligating GBRMPA to ensure that these values are not diminished
by development in the park.
3.9. Summary of stakeholder analysis
It is clear that the articial reef issue will be of interest to a wide range of GBR
stakeholders with diverse and potentially conicting values, opinions, and desires. Because
potential articial reef development in the GBRMPA is still an emerging issue, it is difcult
to predict how various stakeholders may respond. The issue is clouded further by potential
diversity of opinions within various stakeholder groups. For example, a recent survey of
recreational shers in Queensland demonstrated that shers hold strong values related to
protection of the natural environment and sheries resources [40]. Those shers who place
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 834
high value on preserving the GBR in its natural state may see articial reefs as an
inappropriate use of the GBRMP. Gaining an understanding of the various stakeholders
(particularly those directly affected by the issue) and their values and attitudes regarding
articial reefs in the GBRMP will be a key component of a management strategy to deal
with this emerging issue.
4. Social issues surrounding articial reefs
A review of the relevant literature has identied a number of social issues and
outcomesboth positive and negativethat often surround the deployment and
management of articial reefs. The following sections outline these issues and, where
possible, relates them to the potential deployment of articial reefs in the GBRMP.
4.1. Enhanced recreational opportunities
Articial reefs are used to create new dive opportunities where none existed previously,
or to enhance already existing diving opportunities and experiences. Recreational shing is
usually present in an area prior to articial reef deployment, but reef deployment in an
area can also enhance shing opportunities and experiences. Articial reefs can create or
enhance recreational experiences in a number of ways. First, they can add to the variety of
shing and/or diving experiences that exist within an area by providing different types of
structure and attracting different kinds of marine life [41,42]. Second, they can provide
more accessible shing and diving opportunities when placed close to access points,
thereby enabling people who are limited by experience, boat size/horsepower, time, or
money to enjoy recreational shing or diving [41]. Third, they can enhance the recreational
experience or success rate by attracting or producing more marine life and increasing the
probability of observing and/or catching sh [43]. Fourth, they can help redistribute use
throughout a given area thereby reducing user congestion and crowding [41].
4.1.1. Will divers and shers use articial reefs in the GBRMP?
Whereas the positive impacts of articial reef deployment on recreation opportunities
outlined above have been realized elsewhere, it is difcult to predict whether similar
outcomes will be realized in the GBRMP. In general, articial reef deployment elsewhere
occurs against a backdrop of degraded natural systems, or in areas where natural reef
habitat is limited, thus providing obvious enhancement of recreation opportunities. In
contrast, the GBR already provides extensive world-class opportunities for shing and
diving in a relatively healthy natural environment. The few studies of diver and sher
preferences for natural vs. articial habitat suggest that, all else being equal, shers and
divers prefer natural habitat over articial habitat [18,23,44]. Furthermore, when natural
and articial reef habitat are both available, use of natural habitat by divers and shers
tends to be higher [23,44]. Of the enhancements to recreational opportunities identied
above, increased accessibility to recreation opportunities is likely to be the outcome most
perceptible to divers and shers in the GBRMP (depending on where articial reefs are
located). In addition, the use of materials desired by divers (e.g. ships) to create articial
reefs may be seen as an enhancement of diving opportunities because such sites are
relatively rare in the GBR. However, without prior information about the desires and
preferences of GBR divers and shers regarding articial reefs, it is difcult to predict
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 835
whether the opportunities provided by articial reefs will be valued, and whether articial
reefs will receive sufcient usage to produce social and economic benets.
4.2. Social and economic impacts of overshing at articial reefs
Catch rates of sh around articial reefs are often higher than catch rates in surrounding
non-reef areas [45,46], leading to the perception of enhanced sheries. However, there is
considerable debate over whether improved catch rates occur as a result of increased
production (i.e., increased stock size) or through increased attraction and aggregation of
pre-existing sh stocks [6,47,48]. Fished articial reefs have the potential to lead to
overshing if they increase the aggregation/attraction of existing stocks without increasing
overall stock size [49,50]. Such an outcome would be counter to the objectives of articial
reef deployment and would have direct social and economic impacts including reduced
shing opportunities, lower quality recreational shing experiences, negative economic
impacts on the communities and businesses that support the commercial and recreational
shing industries, and diminished natural values of the GBRMP. A recent study revealed
that recreational shers in Queensland place high value on conservation of sheries
resources and strongly support sheries management tools designed to prevent overshing
by the recreational sector [40]. Consequently, it is doubtful that the recreational shing
community would support the use of articial reefs for shing in the GBRMP if articial
reefs were demonstrated to have high potential to lead to overshing.
4.3. Changes in property and resource-use rights
Marine areas have traditionally been characterized by an open-access or non-property
regime under which the benets of use were available to anyone. Although this regime is no
longer as widely applied, the assumption of open access still prevails on a widespread basis
[51]. Deploying an articial reef can alter the traditional regime and change property and
resource-use rights, which could be benecial to some users and detrimental to others. For
example, because of incompatibilities between gear and structure, placing an articial reef
on a seabed where commercial shers operate can automatically exclude this group from
the area that was formally open access and their right to use. In Europe, articial reefs are
commonly used to exclude (illegal) trawling from sensitive habitats [35].
Changes to property and resource-use rights can also occur through management of
articial reefs. Commercial shers are often excluded from using articial reefs [11], and
many articial reefs deployed and managed for diving exclude both commercial and
recreational shing (i.e. the HMAS Swan [52] and the HMAS Brisbane [15]). Restrictions
on use of articial reefs (including the designation of the reef as a protected area) can be a
point of contention because such restrictions can affect the institutional and human use
characteristics of the locality [51].
The recent rezoning of the GBRMP demonstrated the high level of public interest and
contention that can be generated when resource-use rights are changed. Although any
changes in property or resource-use rights associated with articial reefs would be minor
compared to the rezoning of the GBRMP, there is still potential for conict if new
regulations are perceived to encroach on peoples right to access the marine environment
[51]. In particular, exclusion of commercial or recreational shing from articial reefs
could be interpreted by some shers as further erosion of shing rights in the GBRMP.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 836
4.4. Creation of conict within and between user groups
Articial reefs for recreational use are usually deployed to meet a demand which stems
from lack of such opportunities in a particular area. It is rare, however, that demand is
completely satised through articial reef programs. Consequently, articial reefs often
become the focal point of conict within and across user groups [21]. Conict is dened as
goal interference attributed to anothers behaviour [53], and has been documented on
numerous articial reef sites worldwide [21,22]. Conict can arise from a number of factors
including: (1) crowding and congestion; (2) stock effects; and (3) mode of use.
Conict within groups of articial reef users is common and usually arises from
crowding and congestion at articial reef sites [22]. Crowding is a negative and subjective
evaluation of use level, and occurs when use level reaches a point where it is perceived to
interfere with ones activities or intentions [54]. Divers appear to be particularly affected
by crowding [22], possibly because of the non-consumptive nature of their activity and
the associated value of natural aesthetics. However, recreational shers can also be
affected by crowding at articial reefs [22] which can result in an increase in shing
costs, and a decrease in catch per unit of effort as boats manoeuvre to avoid other boats
and gear [21].
Conicts at articial reefs can also arise through stock effects i.e., when users harvest
from a common sh stock leading to the redistribution of catches and/or income from one
group of shers to another [21,55]. Conict arises when perceived declines in catch rates
(resulting in reduced satisfaction for recreational shers and reduced income for
commercial shers) are attributed to the competing sector. Stock effects can also be felt
by recreational divers who use articial reefs where shing is permitted. Brock [24] found
that shing (including line shing, spearing, and netting) produced effects observable by
divers on sh populations around an articial reef in Hawaii. These observable effects
which would detract from the diving experienceincluded sh with net burns and spear
wounds, as well as noticeably reduced population sizes after shing events.
Mode-of-use conict often arises when different types of users (i.e., commercial shers,
recreational shers, divers) simultaneously engage in activities at or around articial reefs.
Conict between different types of users is due to differences in the goals of the activities
and the values of the participants. For example, divers may view shing as an
inappropriate use of articial reefs because they believe the removal of sh has negative
impacts on the recreational diving experience [22,24]. Conict may also occur due to the
incompatibility of different activities. In particular, shing and diving in the same area may
be incompatible for safety reasons, and because the presence of one type of activity
interferes with the conduct of the other.
4.4.1. Conict management
A number of measures to minimize or manage conict at articial reefs have been
proposed including: (1) selective access controls; (2) gear and catch restrictions; and (3)
temporal or spatial segregation of users [21,24]. Selective access controls involve user fees
and/or limited licensing to monitor and control the number and type of users who gain
access to articial reefs. Gear and catch restrictions are usually imposed on shers to
reduce or eliminate stock effects caused by overshing. Spatial and temporal segregation
entails separating user groups to reduce crowding and mode conict by allocating specic
time periods or specic areas where each group is permitted access [21].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 837
It is difcult to predict the type and amount of conict that will occur over articial reefs
deployed in the GBRMP; however, the above discussion suggests that some level of
conict is likely. Likewise, it is difcult to predict what conict management strategies will
be effective in the GBRMP because preferences for various conict management options
will likely vary among and between the various articial reef user groups [22]. It should
also be noted that the implementation of some conict management measures (e.g., user
fees, spatial segregation of users) may cause conict between the management agency
implementing the regulation and some user groups. If articial reefs are deployed in the
GBRMP, managers will need to assess the amount and type of conict likely to be
generated and design appropriate conict management strategies to enable the socio-
economic objectives of articial reef development to be met.
4.5. Liability
The potential for accidents resulting in personal injury or property damage at articial
reefs raises the issue of who should be held liable if such incidents occur. Because lawsuits
have not yet passed through the courts [56,57], answers to liability questions remain
speculative. One question concerns whether the group or organization granted a permit to
deploy an articial reef will be capable of withstanding a liability suit. In Australia, private
citizens and interest groups can apply for articial reef permits, and may be required to
provide liability insurance for deployed structures [58]. However, such groups could
potentially disband before the life expectancy of the reef they build has run its course,
raising the question of who is then liable for the structures [56]. In the USA, a
recommended revision to the National Fishing Enhancement Act 1984 will require that
articial reef permits are issued only to state agencies responsible for management of
marine resources who can assume liability for the life of the articial reef [56].
A second question concerns the liability of the government agency responsible for
issuing articial reef permits. The GBRMPA is responsible for issuing permits for articial
structures (including articial reefs) in the GBRMP. The Environment and Heritage
Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 listed item 76 which would protect the Commonwealth
(including the GBRMPA) from any liability charges relating to articial reef permits.
However, the Environment Protection (sea dumping) Act 1984 has not been appropriately
amended to legalize this item. Consequently, the liability of the Commonwealth for
accidents involving permitted articial reefs remains unclear.
5. Economic issues surrounding articial reefs
Economic arguments are frequently put forth in support of articial reef development.
This section examines the costs, impacts, and values associated with articial reef
development and questions whether the positive economic outcomes observed elsewhere
will be realized with articial reef deployment in the GBRMP.
5.1. Financial costs of reef deployment and management
There are signicant nancial costs associated with deploying and managing articial
reefs. Costs associated with deployment will depend in part on the materials used. For
example, preparing and sinking a decommissioned ship (the material most preferred by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 838
divers [22,26]), can be labour intensive [59] and can cost up to US$2 million depending
on the size of the vessel [60]. On-going maintenance costs can also be signicant.
It is estimated that the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the recently-scuttled
HMAS Brisbane in south Queensland will be on the order of AU$200,000/annum over
10 years [15].
Financial costs associated with articial reef deployment and management have been
covered in various ways. In the US, funds collected through an excise tax on shing
equipment under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program (among other
sources) have been used to create and manage articial reefs for sheries enhancement
[10,49]. On the west coast of Canada, the Articial Reef Society of British Columbia has
used volunteer efforts (up to 8000 h/ship) to prepare decommissioned ships for use as
articial reefs. The British Columbia projects were funded through sale of scrap materials
removed from the ships prior to scuttling as well as grants from governmental economic
development programs and community fundraising [59]. In Australia, the HMAS Swan
and HMAS Brisbane were gifted to Western Australia and Queensland, respectively,
from the Commonwealth Government. The costs of scuttling the Swan were borne locally
through fundraising, through the sale of scrap materials removed from the ship, and by the
investment of approximately 10,000 h of volunteer labour [52]. The AU$5 million cost of
preparing and scuttling the HMAS Brisbane was born primarily by the Queensland
government [15].
Ongoing management costs of articial reefs are often borne by reef users through
user fees. For example, funds to cover the $200,000/year management costs for the
former HMAS Brisbane will be raised through a user fee for private and club divers, and
through permitting fees charged to commercial dive companies who use the reef [15].
Currently, visitors to the GBRMP on private vessels are not required to pay fees to use the
park; however, visitors using commercial vessels are required to pay a $5 reef tax
collected by operators of commercial vessels. Although divers and shers have shown a
willingness to pay for articial reef diving and shing opportunities elsewhere [19,22,23], it
is not known whether divers and shers (particularly those on private vessels) would be
willing to pay user fees to support articial reef deployment and management in the
GBRMP.
5.2. Economic impact of articial reefs
One of the arguments frequently used in support of articial reef development is that
articial reefs can have positive economic impacts on local communities through increased
tourism and recreation activity. Economic impacts can occur at local, regional, or state
levels and are measured in terms of employment, sales, income, and tax revenue [36].
Economic impacts are derived from expenditures on items such as user fees, charter fees,
equipment, lodging, meals, fuel, and bait made by articial reef users in the local, regional,
or state-wide area of interest. The most important expenditures in terms of economic
impact are those made within the local area by visitors from outside the area.
(Expenditures by non-locals represent new money injected into the local economy,
whereas expenditures by locals are assumed to occur within the local area regardless of
whether they are spent on articial reef use or something else). When articial reef users
purchase goods and services in the local area, they transfer money to local businesses who
in turn make purchases to supply the goods and services needed. Local businesses also use
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 839
this new money to pay wages to employees who in turn spend money in the local economy.
This re-spending of money in the local economy has a multiplier effect that results in the
total economic impact being larger than the actual expenditures made [36].
Impacts on local economies due to articial reef use can be signicant. Johns et al. [23]
estimated that the total economic impact of articial reefs in Broward County (southeast
Florida) from June 2000 to May 2001 amounted to US$962 million in sales, $502 million in
income, and 16,800 full- and part-time jobs. Estimates of economic impact of articial
reefs for three other southeast Florida counties range from $131 million to $419 million in
sales, $33 million to $195 million in income, and 1,800 to 6,000 jobs. Ditton and Baker [25]
estimated that the total economic impact of non-resident divers using charter boats to
access articial reefs in Texas (1997 dollars) ranged from US$0.58 million to $1.7 million.
In Australia, the total economic impact of the reef created by the former HMAS Swan in
the initial 15 months of operation was estimated to be US$1.39 million [52], and the
Burnett Coasts Cochrane articial reef in Queensland is estimated to inject approximately
AU$1 million dollars into the region annually [61].
5.3. Economic value of articial reefs
Economic value measures the value that users place on the opportunity and experience
of using resources like articial reefs. The extent to which users value articial reefs is
expressed by the money they spend to use the reefs plus any additional amount they would
be willing to pay before foregoing the opportunity to use the reefs [62]. Measures of
willingness to pay in excess of actual trip expenditures (commonly called consumers
surplus) have been used to estimate use value of articial reefs. Johns et al. [23] estimated
that the total use value of articial reefs in southeast Florida in 20002001 was US$8.59/
person/day, which equates to an annual use value for all users of US$85 million (compared
to values of $12.47 per person per day and $229 million annually for natural reefs at the
same location). Pendleton [44] reviewed 7 studies investigating the economic value of
articial reefs and reported non-market values for diving on articial reefs ranging from
US$5.45 per person per day to US$339 annually per diver. Johns et al. [23] found
recreational users willingness to pay for new articial reefs was signicant (US$27 million/
year), but was lower than willingness to pay for protection of both existing articial reefs
(US$85 million/year) and existing natural reefs (US$229 million/year).
5.3.1. Will articial reefs in the GBRMP result in increased economic impacts and benets?
It is clear that articial reefs have the potential to be highly valued by users and to inject
signicant amounts of new money into local economies; however, what is not clear is the
extent to which these positive outcomes will be realized through articial reef development
in the GBRMP. As noted previously, articial reef deployment elsewhere generally occurs
against a backdrop of degraded natural systems, or in areas where natural reef habitat is
limited. The GBR, however, already provides extensive world-class opportunities for
shing and diving in a relatively healthy natural reef ecosystem. Studies conducted in areas
where natural and articial reef habitat co-exist suggest that, all else being equal, users
prefer natural reefs over articial reefs, place higher value on natural reefs, and use natural
reefs more than articial reefs [23,44]. Studies also indicate that there is declining marginal
value with increasing number of reefs (articial or natural) in an area [23,44]. Given the
extensive natural reef system that already exists within the GBRMP, these results suggest
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 840
that the value placed on articial reefs deployed in the GBRMP may be lower than that
demonstrated in other areas.
The potential for articial reefs in the GBRMP to produce substantial positive economic
impacts on local communities is also uncertain. As discussed previously, positive economic
impacts will result only if articial reefs attract new or additional money to local or
regional areas. Even if articial reefs are used extensively, the economic impact could be
minimal if the majority of use comes from locals or from visitors to the area who forego
other opportunities during their trip in order to visit articial reefs. Moreover, positive
economic impacts in communities close to articial reefs could be offset by negative
impacts in other communities if articial reef development results in a redistribution of
tourism dollars among communities rather than attracting additional tourism dollars to
the region [32]. Ultimately, whether there are signicant economic impacts realized by
articial reef development will depend on whether the recreation opportunities created by
articial reefs are sufciently valued to attract additional visitors to the region or increase
the expenditures of visitors already there. Unfortunately, prediction of economic impacts
and benets from articial reef development in the GBRMP is difcult due to lack of
relevant data from the GBR area.
6. A strategy to maximize the socio-economic values of articial reefs in the GBRMP
If articial reefs are deployed in the GBRMP, it will be primarily for the purpose of
producing social and/or economic benets. Based on the preceding discussion, it is clear
that attention must be paid to socio-economic issues if the values and benets of articial
reefs in the GBRMP are to be realized; without considerable advance planning, articial
reefs are unlikely to meet their socio-economic objectives [17]. This section outlines a
strategy for making informed decisions regarding articial reef permitting and for
maximizing the socio-economic values of articial reefs should they be deployed in the
GBRMP. To ensure that the socio-economic values of articial reefs are realized, we
suggest that the planning, implementation, and management process should include the
following steps: (1) assess the demand for articial reefs in the GBRMP; (2) consult
relevant stakeholders; (3) conduct a cost/benet analysis; (4) decide whether to permit
articial reefs in the marine park; (5) involve stakeholders in the planning and management
process; (6) set clear socio-economic goals and objectives; (7) consider social and economic
issues in an appropriate management plan; (8) monitor and evaluate social and economic
issues. Each of these steps will be outlined briey below.
6.1. Step 1: Assess the demand for articial reefs
Articial reefs will only produce social and economic benets if there is sufcient
demand for the opportunities and experiences they providearticial reefs will be
ineffective at meeting social and economic objectives if they are not valued and used.
Gordon and Ditton [17] suggest that before any reef is built, there should be an accurate
needs assessment of which and how many user groups will benet from the reef; only if
sufcient demand exists should the reef be built. Currently, nothing is known about the
preferences and attitudes of GBRMP shers and divers (or other potential users) regarding
articial reefs in the marine park. Before decisions can be made about articial reef
deployment in the GBRMP, research is needed to answer a range of questions including:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 841
(1) Who will use articial reefs in the GBRMP?; (2) To what extent will articial reefs be
used?; (3) What benets do potential users expect from articial reefs?; (4) Where will users
come from?; (5) Are users willing to pay for reef deployment and management?; and (6)
Will users accept regulations (e.g., user fees, segregation of users) necessary to manage
articial reefs?
6.2. Step 2: Consult relevant stakeholders
As discussed previously, a wide range of GBRMP stakeholders will likely have an
interest in the articial reef issue. To deal effectively with various stakeholders and
incorporate their values in the decision-making process, managers will need to understand
the attitudes, opinions, and values of various stakeholder groups regarding the potential
deployment of articial reef in the GBRMP. Groups to be consulted should include not
only potential users of articial reefs, but also those likely to be affected by articial reef
decisions (e.g., commercial shers, tourism operators, etc.) as well as the wider community
at the local, regional, and national level.
6.3. Step 3: Conduct a cost benet analysis
Articial reefs should not be deployed unless a detailed analysis suggests that the
expected socio-economic benets will outweigh the potential socio-economic costs [17,63].
Information obtained through Steps 1 and 2 above as well as information presented
elsewhere in this review will be crucial for estimating the socio-economic costs and benets
of articial reefs in the GBRMP. Benets examined should include the potential for
enhanced recreation opportunities, as well as the creation of economic value and impacts.
Costs to be examined should include the nancial cost of deploying and managing the reefs
as well as social costs such as changes in tourism patterns, changes in resource use rights,
increased conict, diminished social values, etc. The socio-economic cost benet analysis
suggested here would necessarily be conducted as part of a larger cost-benet analysis that
also considers potential ecological costs and benets (see [6]).
6.4. Step 4: Decide whether to permit articial reefs in the GBRMP
A decision will be necessary as to whether to permit articial reefs in the GBRMP. This
will be a complex decision based on a range of social, economic, and ecological factors, the
outcome of which will not be consistent with the desires and values of all interested
stakeholders. To be defensible, the decision should be based on the best information
available, including information collected in Steps 1 anf 2 and the outcome of the socio-
economic and ecological costbenet analyses described in Step 3.
6.5. Step 5: Include stakeholders in the planning and management process
If a decision is made to permit articial reefs in the GBRMP, then stakeholders should
be included to the greatest extent possible in further planning, management, and
monitoring (i.e., Steps 68 below) [16]. There are many benets to incorporating public
participation in articial reef projects, particularly where one or more user groups may
perceive negative impacts. Involving those who may be negatively affected provides an
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 842
opportunity for the values of that group to be identied and potential negative impacts to be
considered in the decision-making process. Stakeholder involvement may also help diffuse
potential conicts [51]. Involvement of potential users and other beneciaries of articial reef
development will help ensure that articial reefs meet user needs so that social and economic
values are maximized. User involvement also provides an opportunity to educate
stakeholders about potential problems and issues surrounding articial reef deployment,
use, and management. Furthermore, involvement of stakeholders will be vital for monitoring
the social, economic, and ecological outcomes of articial reef development.
6.6. Step 6: Set clear socio-economic goals and objectives
To maximize social values, articial reef development should have clear and measurable
socio-economic goals and objectives. Goals and objectives will depend in part on the
nature of the demand identied in Step 1 and the expected benets identied in Step 3.
Goals may be social (e.g., increase the number of shore-accessible recreational shing sites)
or economic (e.g., increase dive-tourism related expenditures in community X by a Y%).
Importantly, goals and objectives should be measurable to enable the success of the project
to be evaluated in social and economic terms.
6.7. Step 7: Consider social and economic issues in an appropriate management plan
To meet socio-economic goals and objectives, plans designed to manage articial reefs in
the GBRMP will need to address social and economic issues such as those identied
previously (e.g., crowding, displacement, liability, cost recovery, etc.). Because some
specic management measures used to meet socio-economic goals (e.g., user fees,
segregation of users) may be less acceptable to some groups, choice of management tools
should be informed by data on user preferences and attitudes. It is recognized that
ecological considerations will take precedence in some management decisions (e.g., reef
location, materials, and impacts on natural ecological systems and processes); however,
social and economic values will be maximized by incorporating user needs and desires
whenever possible.
6.8. Step 8: Monitor and evaluate social and ecological factors
To ensure that social and economic goals are met and that values are maximized, it will
be necessary to monitor socio-economic variables and periodically evaluate progress
toward achieving socio-economic goals. In particular, attention should be paid to
monitoring use levels, users perceptions of crowding, levels of conict, users attitudes,
opinions, and satisfactions, and articial reef-related expenditures. It will also be
important to monitor public attitudes and values surrounding articial reefs and the
GBRMP and evaluate the extent of negative social and economic impacts of articial reef
development.
7. Conclusion
It is clear that articial reef development can produce a variety of positive and negative
social and economic impacts. It is also clear that the potential deployment of articial reefs
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 843
in the GBRMP will be a complex and controversial issue that will need a high level of
management to ensure that articial reef development produces positive social and
economic benets without diminishing the existing social, economic, and ecological values
of the GBR. In this paper, we have outlined some of the issues that might be encountered
based on experiences elsewhere. However, given the unique situation in the GBRMP, other
unanticipated issues are likely to arise. Almost 20 years ago, Gordon and Ditton [17]
identied a need for a more integrated and interdisciplinary approach to articial reef
research and management that includes the expertise of marine scientists, social scientists,
and planners. However, most research on articial reefs and articial reef management is
still ecological in nature, with few studies focusing on the socio-economic aspects [4]. We
suggest that a strong social science research program in support of decision-making will
give managers and other stakeholders the information they need to deal effectively with
issues that will arise regarding the potential development of an articial reef program in the
GBRMP.
References
[1] Lucas PH, Webb T, Valentine PS, Marsh H. The outstanding universal value of the great barrier reef World
Heritage Area. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 1997.
[2] Craik W. The great barrier Reef Marine Park: its establishment, development and current status. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 1992;25:58.
[3] Milon JW. Articial marine habitat characteristics and participation behaviour by sport anglers and divers.
Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):85362.
[4] Baine M. Articial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and
Coastal Management 2001;44:24159.
[5] Seaman Jr W, Jensen AC. Purposes and practices of articial reef evaluation. In: Seaman Jr W, editor.
Articial reef evaluation with application to natural marine habitats. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000. p. 119.
[6] Pears R, Williams DMcB. Potential effects of articial reefs on the GREAT BARRIER reef. Cooperative
Research Centre for the great barrier Reef World Heritage Area technical report 60. Townsville: James Cook
University; 2005.
[7] Jenson A. Final report of the European articial reef research network. European Articial reef research
network 1998. Web reference: /http://www.icit.hw.ac.uk/Finalreport.rtfS. Accessed: 19 October 2005.
[8] Sayer MDJ, Wilding TA. Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an articial reef development:
the Loch Linnhe reef, a case study. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S17885.
[9] Gravitz L. The double-edged lure of man-made reefs. Cyber Diver News Network 2000. Web reference:
/http://www.cdnn.info/article/articial_reefs/articial_reefs.htmlS. Accessed 22 July 2005.
[10] McGurrin JM, Stone RB, Sousa RJ. Proling United States articial reef development. Bulletin of Marine
Science 1989;44(2):100413.
[11] Branden KL, Pollard DA, Reimers HA. A review of recent articial reef developments in Australia. Bulletin
of Marine Science 1994;55(23):98294.
[12] Jebreen E. Articial reefs and their effects on sh stocks. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries 2001. Information Series Q101031.
[13] Pollard DA. Articial habitats for sheries enhancement in the Australian region. Marine Fisheries Review
1989;51(4):1128.
[14] Primary Industries and Resources South Australia. (2005). Articial reefsto build or not to build? Web
reference: /http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pages/sheries/environmental/articial_reefs.htm:sectID=1983&temp
ID=1S. Accessed: 01 August 2005.
[15] Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Sink the Brisbane. Environmental Protection Agency/
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service 2005. Web reference: /http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/about_the_epa/
coming_events/sink_the_brisbaneS. Accessed 22 July 2005.
[16] Claudet J, Pelletier D. Marine protected areas and articial reefs: a review of the interactions between
management and scientic studies. Aquatic Living Resources 2004;17:12938.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 844
[17] Gordon Jr WR, Ditton RB. A user-resource planning framework for offshore recreational articial reefs.
Coastal Zone Management Journal 1986;13(34):36995.
[18] Milon JW. A nested demand shares model of articial marine habitat choice by sport anglers. Marine
Resource Economics 1988;5:191213.
[19] Milon JW. Economic evaluation of articial habitat for sheries: progress and challenges. Bulletin of Marine
Science 1989;44(2):83143.
[20] Jensen A, Collins K. Appendix 1: Articial reef research in the European Union: a review. In Jensen A. Final
report of the European articial reef research Network 1998. Web reference: /http://www.icit.hw.ac.uk/
Finalreport.rtfS. Accessed: 19 October 2005.
[21] Samples KC. Assessing recreational and commercial conicts over articial shery habitat use: theory and
practice. Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):84452.
[22] Murray JD, Betz CJ. User views of articial reef management in the southeastern US. Bulletin of Marine
Science 1994;55(23):97081.
[23] Johns GM, Leeworthy VR, Bell FW, Bonn MA. Socioeconomic study of reefs in Southeast Floridanal
report. Report prepared for Broward County, Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade County, Monroe County,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. Hazen and Sawyer: Environmental Engineers and Scientists, 2001.
[24] Brock RE. Beyond sheries enhancement: articial reefs and ecotourism. Bulletin of Marine Science
1994;55(23):11818.
[25] Ditton RB, Baker TL. Demographics, attitudes, management preferences, and economic impacts of sport
divers using articial reefs in offshore Texas waters. Report prepared for the Texas Park and Wildlife
Department. Texas A&M University, College Station; 1999.
[26] Ditton RB, Osburn HR, Baker TL, Thailing CE. Demographics, attitudes, and reef management preferences
of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S18691.
[27] Chii A. A case study on the function and attribute of articial reefs as an ideal type of social overhead capital.
In: IPFC Symposium on articial reefs and sh aggregation devises as tools for the management and
enhancement of marine shery resources, Colombo, Sri-Lanka, 1990. p. 96104.
[28] Murray JD. A policy and management assessment of US articial reef programs. Bulletin of Marine Science
1994;55(23):9609.
[29] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Commercial sheries. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
2005. Web reference: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/sheries/index.htmlS. Accessed 19
October 2005.
[30] Clarke S, Leung AWY, Mak YM, Kennish R, Haggan N. Consultation with local shers on the Hong Kong
articial reefs initiative. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S1717.
[31] PDP Australia. An economic and social evaluation of implementing the representative areas program by
rezoning the great barrier Reef Marine Park. PDP Australia Pty. Ltd., 2003.
[32] Enemark, T. The tourism aspects of articial reefs: the nine fundamental lessons. Articial Reef Society of
British Columbia 1999. Web reference: /http://www.articialreef.bc.ca/Resources/Nine%20Tourism
%20Aspects%20of%20Articial%20Reefs.pdfS. Accessed: 22 July 2005.
[33] Ivanova I. Recreational scuba diving in British Columbia survey report. Dive Industry Association of British
Columbia 2004. Web reference: /http://tourism.bc.ca/PDF/DIABC_Survey_Report_Final_Sept_2004.pdfS.
Accessed 01 August 2005.
[34] Steimle FW, Meier MH. What information do articial reef managers really want from sheries science?
Fisheries 1997;22(4):68.
[35] Baine M, Side J. Habitat modication and manipulation as a management tool. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 2003;13:18799.
[36] Milon JW, Holland SM, Relini G. Social and economic evaluation methods. In: Seaman Jr W, editor. Articial
reef evaluation with application to natural marine habitats. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2000. p. 16594.
[37] Seaman Jr W. What if everyone thought about reefs? Fisheries 1997;22(4):45.
[38] AEC Group. Market research for the great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Coastal Research-2003.
Great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority internal report, 2003.
[39] Bolding B, Bonar S, Divens M. Use of articial structure to enhance angler benets in lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs: a literature review. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2004;12:7596.
[40] Sutton SG. An assessment of the social characteristics of Queenslands recreational shers. Cooperative
Research Centre for the great barrier Reef World Heritage Area technical report 65. Townsville: James Cook
University; 2005.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 845
[41] Radonski GC, Martin RG, DuBose WP. Articial reefs: the sport shing perspective. In: DItri FM, editor.
Articial reefs: marine and freshwater applications. Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc.; 1985. p. 52936.
[42] Chou LM. Articial reefs of southeast Asiado they enhance or degrade the marine environment?
Environment Monitoring and Assessment 1997;44:4552.
[43] McGlennon D, Branden KL. Comparison of catch and recreational anglers shing on articial reefs and
natural seabed in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(23):51023.
[44] Pendleton LH. Creating underwater value: the economic value of articial reefs for recreational diving. The
San Diego Oceans Foundation 2004.
[45] Santos MN, Monteiro CC. The OLHAO articial reef system (south Portugal): sh assemblages and shing
yield. Fisheries Research 1997;30(1-2):3341.
[46] Santos MN, Monteiro CC. Comparison of the catch and shing yield from an articial reef system and
neighbouring areas off Faro (Algarve, south Portugal). Fisheries Research 1997;39(1):5565.
[47] Bohnsack JA. Are high densities of shes at articial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioural
preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):63145.
[48] Pickering H, Whitmarsh D. Articial reefs and sheries exploitation: a review of the attraction versus
production debate, the inuence of design and its signicance for policy. Fisheries Research 1997;31:3959.
[49] Jebreen E. An investigation into the effects of articial reefs on sh stocks. Queensland Department of
Primary Industries, 2005. Web reference: /http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/far/9279.htmS. Accessed: 22 August
2005.
[50] Bohnsack JA, Sutherland DL. Articial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities.
Bulletin of Marine Science 1985;37:1139.
[51] Cocklin C, Craw M, McAuley I. Marine reserves in New Zealand: use rights, public attitudes, and social
impacts. Coastal Management 1998;26:21331.
[52] Dowling RK, Nichol J. The HMAS Swan articial dive reef. Annals of Tourism Research 2001;28(1):22932.
[53] Jacob G, Schreyer R. Conict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research
1980;12:36880.
[54] Manning RE. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press; 1999 (374pp).
[55] Willmann R. Economic and social aspects of articial reefs and sh aggregation devises. In: IPFC
symposium on articial reefs and sh aggregation devises as tools for the management and enhancement of
marine shery resources, Colombo, Sri-Lanka, 1990. p. 38491.
[56] Lukens RR. Articial reefs: habitat for marine resources national policy? In: Horn W, editor. Proceedings
from the Florida articial reef summit 01. Florida: Fort Lauderdale; 2001. p. 1620.
[57] Schroeder DM, Love MS. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of offshore oil
facilities in the Southern California Bight. Ocean and Coastal Management 2004;47:2148.
[58] Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage. Articial Reefs. Department of the
Environment and Heritage 2002. Web reference: /http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/dumping/
reefs.htmlS. Accessed: 29 July 2005.
[59] Enemark T. Recycling economics from the perspective of articial reef creation: remarks made to the ship
recycling conference, Philadelphia, September 11, 2001. Articial Reef Society of British Columbia 2001.
Web reference: /http://www.articialreef.bc.ca/Resources/Remarks%20for%20Philedelphia%20Shi-
p%20Recycling%20Conference.pdfS. Accessed 22 July 2005.
[60] Hess R, Rushworth D, Hynes MV, Peters JE. Disposal options for ships. RAND 2001. Web reference:
/http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1377/S. accessed 22 July 2005.
[61] Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Articial attraction. FISH Newsletter, 2004;
(1). Web reference: /http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/sh/14257.htmlS. Accessed: 22 August 2005.
[62] Huppert DD. NMFS Guidelines on economic valuation of marine recreational shing. US Department of
Commerce 1983. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-SWSC-32.
[63] Whitmarsh D. Cost benet analysis of articial reefs. In: Jensen AC, editor. European articial reef research.
Proceedings of the rst EARRN conference, March 1996, Ancona, Italy. Southampton Oceanography
Centre, 1997. p. 17594.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829846 846