Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal)and analysing visitors' perceptions

M.O. Rangel a,n, C.B. Pita a,b,c, J.M.S. Gonçalves a, F. Oliveira a, C. Costa d, K. Erzini a

a Centre of Marine Sciences (CCMAR), University of the Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, FCT Ed.7, 8005-139 Faro, Portugalb Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugalc eGEO, Geography and Regional Planning Research Centre, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugald Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering (DEGEI), University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 11 August 2013Received in revised form23 October 2013Accepted 23 October 2013

Keywords:Underwater routesScuba divingEnvironmental awarenessCoastal tourismDive tourismEcotourism

a b s t r a c t

Scuba diving allows for underwater visitation of cultural and natural resources. Underwater routes can beused as a tool for guided and supervised underwater visits. Two scuba diving routes were implementedin the Algarve (South of Portugal), the “B24” and “Poço” diving sites. The perceptions of scuba diversregarding several aspects of the routes and the existing support infrastructures were studied following asurvey carried out through face-to-face interviews from 2008 to 2012. Divers profile and theirperceptions were analysed using 246 valid questionnaires. Divers were mainly Portuguese, over 30years old and with more than 12 years of formal education. Some of the support infrastructures did notachieve a “good” or “acceptable” grade. This should be carefully considered by diving operators andmanagers, because perceptions tend to circulate throughout the diving tourists. All features ofinterpretative slates were graded as highly satisfactory. Overall, diver satisfaction increased slightlyafter route implementation, with an average ranking of “good”. These findings support the implementa-tion of underwater routes as a way to promote diving activity, and to increase divers' environmentaleducation and awareness.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Large scale coastal tourism began in the 19th century, withincreased prosperity and mass transports, and consequent afford-ability of tourism activities [1]. Currently, coastal tourism repre-sents the fastest growing industry in the world [2], triggering thedevelopment of a wide variety of marine recreational activities[3,4].

Diving allows visitation of subaquatic cultural and naturalresources. In fact greater underwater autonomy, along with highercultural and ecotourism demand, have encouraged in situ pre-servation of underwater sites with archaeological features, pro-moting the development of underwater tourism, either throughmedia virtual tours, snorkelling, scuba diving or glass-bottomboat tours, thereby increasing the popularity of the diving activityper se [5,6]. Scuba diving and snorkelling are also increasinglyimportant touristic components of multiple-use Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs) [7,8]. The use of underwater routes (or trails), mostlyby scuba divers, but also by snorkelers [8] allows divers to carry

out guided and supervised underwater visits of the natural and/orcultural patrimony, and have been in use for some time now[5,9–11]. The use of trails is also important because it restrictsdivers' access to defined areas, and serves to enhance theirknowledge of the marine environment [12–14]. The latter issueis particularly important since the broadening of divers' knowl-edge, especially with regard to (potential negative) impactsand diving skills, enhances environmentally responsible behaviour[15].

In the Mediterranean, MPAs managers are increasingly inter-ested in reducing the environmental effects of underwater recrea-tional activities using self-guide trails, and there are severalexamples of routes established for this purpose, such as in thePort Cros National Marine Park, the Bouches de Bonifacio MarineReserve and the Cerbère-Banyuls Natural Marine Reserve, alllocated in France [16–18].

In Brazil the interpretative trail located at Anchieta Island Park(southeast Brazil) represents an important example (probably thesole example for this country) of a scientifically-based underwaterroute that aims to promote environmental education for snorke-lers and scuba divers [19]. In Mexico, at Isabel Island National Park,six underwater trails were implemented to concentrate scubadiving within established routes and define carrying capacity ofrecreational diving in this popular island [20]. In the Nordic and

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011

n Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: mafalda.rangel@gmail.com, mrangel@ualg.pt (M.O. Rangel).

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

the Baltic Sea Regions, Tikkanen [11] presents two innovativeprojects for the regulation of visits of underwater cultural heritagesites: the Nordic Blue Parks Project that enhances recreationthrough underwater trails at wreck sites; and the Vrouw MariaUnderwater Project, that provides underwater visits to theVrouw Maria Dutch snow ship using virtual simulation, becauseof the “Natura 2000” protected area in which the wreck is loca-ted. In Portugal, three underwater snorkelling routes have beendeveloped, in 2008, as a way to promote environmental knowl-edge at a popular summer season beach, the Marinha Beach(Algarve) [10].

Independently of the method used, carefully planned briefingsare essential for reducing divers' underwater impact [14,21].However, in order to be effective, briefings must be “environmen-tally friendly” [22], site and target specific, and be providedimmediately prior to the dive [23]. If properly delivered, in situinterpretation and education can contribute to increase environ-mental awareness. Furthermore, these methods increase divers'satisfaction and their perception about the surrounding environ-ment [23].

A number of studies have been conducted on scuba diver visits[e.g. 10,13,24–26], with most research focusing on divers' impactson the environment, especially on coral reefs, an issue ofincreasing concern amongst the scientific community[23,27,28]. Some studies have analysed divers' perceptions abouttheir impacts on the system or their satisfaction regardingdifferent aspects of the dive, support facilities and infrastruc-tures. Analysis of divers' perceptions about this recreationalactivity is rare and mainly relate to specific crowded and populardiving sites, explicit concerns of managers, divers' satisfactionsand motivations, or environmental education procedures. Musa[29,30] studied Sipadan (Malaysia) diving site in order to exam-ine overall divers' satisfaction, define divers' profile and under-stand their impact on the tourism development of the island.O’Neill et al. [31] Atilgan et al. [32] and MacCarthy et al. [33]analysed operators performances by investigating divers percep-tions. Reef management preferences of sport divers, in offshoreTexas, were studied by Ditton et al. [34]. Demographic character-istics of divers in the Medes Island (Spain) were analysedby Mundet and Ribera [35]. Musa et al. [36] analysed theinfluence of scuba divers' personality, experience and demogra-phy on their underwater behaviour. Divers' environmental per-ception and its implications for the management of the activitywere studied by Brotto et al. [37] for the coastal area of Rio deJaneiro (Brazil).

Specific scientific research on underwater routes use is evenrarer. In Brazil, Berchez et al. [38] and Pedrini et al. [19], worked onimproving environmental education for Anchieta Island's Parkunderwater routes, reporting the absence of research data forcomparison purposes. Hannak [13] analysed visitor characteristicsand their perceptions about the management tools used for theimplementation of a snorkelling underwater route in Dahab(South Sinai, Egypt). In Portugal, Rangel et al. [10] analysedvisitors' satisfaction and overall perceptions about three under-water snorkelling routes implemented at Marinha Beach (Algarve).The general lack of knowledge in this area conflicts with theincreasing use of interpretative trails as management measures allaround the world.

Two underwater scuba dive routes were implemented in theAlgarve (South of Portugal), allowing visitors to engage withnatural underwater biodiversity, landscape, and historical heritagein the area. The objectives of this paper are to gauge divers'perceptions about these routes and their role in enhancing under-water tourism, the diving service provided and the supportinginfrastructures. Plus the paper investigates their motivations anddefines divers' demographic profiles.

2. Methods

2.1. Mapping, characterization and selection of dive sites for routes'implementation

Diving spots were selected based on defined features: highbiodiversity, existence of charismatic (e.g. Muraena helena) andprotected species (e.g. Eunicella verrucosa), appealing landscape(e.g. rocky outcrops), geological features, existence of key biotopespecies (e.g. Dyctiota dichotoma), existence of wrecks, accessibilityand supporting infrastructures. Motivating features for divingvisitation such as presence of fish and other dynamic aquatic life,site popularity, underwater adventure, natural and unpollutedsurroundings [34] were also considered.

All dives were undertaken with local operators to allowcustomary dive procedures within each company and to enableimmediate surveys of the tourists after diving. When choosing thestudy areas, all dive operators of the Algarve were considered fortaking part in the study. Of the 13 dive clubs that existed in 2007in the Algarve, Dive Spot (Armação de Pêra) and Hidroespaço(Faro) were chosen due to the interest and willingness theyshowed in taking part in the research and to the fact that bothclubs are owned and managed by marine biologists who werereceptive to collaborating in a scientific study. Initially, in 2007 and2008, five well known diving spots were analysed for possibleroute implementation: “Anzol”, “B24” and “Cavalos do Mar”,operated by Hidroespaço, and “Poço” and “Nudis”, by Dive Spot.

Marine underwater communities were assessed (to character-ize local fauna and flora, identify characteristics and/or protectedspecies, localize interesting landscape features and locate conspic-uous species) in all five dive spots using the RenSub projects visualcensus methodology for characterization of the marine commu-nities of the Central Algarve Underwater Ecological Reserve.

In 2008 two diving spots, “B24” and “Poço” (Fig. 1), were chosen forthe implementation of routes. Selection was first based on RenSubfield research team choice of most appealing and feasible underwaterspots for route development. Accessibility, possible dangers and routes'drawings, support infrastructures, as well as motivating features fordiving visitation, as identified by Ditton et al. [34], were laterconsidered for the final selection of areas for the routes. The chosenspots were considered the most consensual for all described features.

Both study areas are part of the National Underwater EcologicalReserve Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN; DL no. 321/83, of 5th ofJuly), consisting of areas under special protection, from the shoreto the 30 m bathymetric mark (Minister Council Resolution no. 81/2012), due to their ecological sensitivity, exposure and suscept-ibility to natural impacts.

2.2. Route sites

2.2.1. “B24” – FaroThe “B24 Liberator” (Fig. 1) is the wreck of the U.S. B-24 Liberator

bomber PB4Y that sank in 1943 off Faro (coordinates: N36 59.235;W008 00.251). The historical aspect of the spot, along with its richbiological assemblages and its popularity amongst divers were themain reasons for its selection. Nowadays it is possible to identify thestructure of two complete wings (34 m long) in inverted position,the motors and the cavities for the landing gear storage bay.Unfortunately, the fuselage has disappeared, but two of the pro-pellers, a motor rotor and one vertical rudder are located quite nearthe main structures and can be seen during the same dive.

2.2.2. “Poço” – Armação de PêraThe diving spot “Poço”, located off Armação de Pêra (coordi-

nates: N37 03.103; W008 21.197) (Fig. 1), consists of an underwater

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎2

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

outcrop with multiple recesses and large caves. The area is knownfor its biological diversity and beauty, and is the most popular divelocation operated by “Dive Spot”. Also, it is a fairly straightforwarddive trail, with the outcrop running along the left side of the diver,and sandy bottom on the right side. The characteristics of the spotallowed the implementation and integration of a self-guided routein the regular activities of the club.

2.3. Routes' implementation

After biodiversity mapping and careful description of geographi-cal features of each area, specific locations were selected in each area,which contained appealing fauna, flora and landscape features.Double sided acrylic slates, five in “B24” and six in “Poço”, werethen deployed in specific places along each route (Fig. 2). Slates wereattached to a highly visible yellow cable. The first one, indicating thebeginning of the route, had an orange buoy to mark the spot. Eachslate had an illustration of the route's map with the location of theslates, mean depth, substratum type, snorkelers' location within thepath, and photos of eight of the most common species.

“Environmental briefings”, following Barker and Roberts[22,24], were carefully planned and designed with each divingoperator, considering the overall route' characteristics such asdiving area, characteristics of the usual divers, difficulties anddangers, and environmentally interesting features.

For the “B24” site special care was taken when providinginformation regarding the historical aspects of the plane wreck.In this context, structure conservation procedures were carefullyconsidered. Also, for all dives, a researcher provided support to

visitors, and the clubs' dive masters were trained to follow allprocedures required to enhance this activity.

The first route was implemented in “B24” during November2008. In “Poço” the project was launched in June 2009. After eachdive visitors were asked to reply to a questionnaire about theiropinions regarding several aspects of the routes, their satisfactionwith the dive, and other related items. Slates were periodicallycleaned (every 15 days) by researchers, divers from the clubs andeven visitors, to prevent fouling.

2.4. Survey and data analysis

Divers' perceptions were investigated using a structured face-to-face questionnaire designed to investigate diver' opinionsregarding several features of the underwater routes, such asbiological diversity of the area and landscape attractiveness. Thesurvey also collected information about divers' views of severalissues related to the dive (e.g. supporting structures, preferredroutes), and on their main perceptions concerning several featuresof the dive sites, implemented routes and interpretative slatescharacteristics. Additionally, the survey also gathered informationon divers' socio-demographic profile (age, gender, nationality, andeducational level).The survey was undertaken from 2008 to2012. The questionnaire was carried out with all divers who usedthe five sites considered for route implementation. After theimplementation of routes, only “B24” and “Poço” divers wereinterviewed.

A total of 365 scuba divers were approached in the course of 75dives, with 246 questionnaires validated for analysis. A total of 140

Fig. 1. Location of “B24” and “Poço” underwater routes (Algarve, South of Portugal). Some characteristic/interesting features are displayed.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

divers surveyed dived before routes were implemented and 106afterwards. It should be noted that 64 questionnaires are related tosites that were not selected for route implementation (“Anzol”,“Cavalos”, “Nudis”). Of the interviews related to route dives, 70%(74) dived in “B24”, and 30% (32) in “Poço”.

Questions followed a dichotomous format (yes/no) and a five-point Likert-scale format (ranging from strongly disagree tostrongly agree, and from terrible to excellent). No questions wereleft open-ended in order to constrain respondents to provide ananswer to every question, although the option “I don't know” wasavailable for some questions. For some analyses, and due to thesample size, the five-point Likert-scale scale was collapsed to athree-point scale (agree, neutral and disagree).

Differences between respondents were tested with the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test, when assumptions were not metby the data) for categorical data, and with the Kruskal–Wallis andWilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests for ordinal or interval data. Alldata were analysed with Stata SE 10 (Data Analysis and StatisticalSoftware, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Divers' characteristics

Marine ecotourism is by definition a sustainable activity, but itsassociated negative ecological and socio-economic impacts areacknowledged by several authors [e.g. 24,25,43,44]. Hence, to

allow the definition of accurate management measures able toeffectively prevent negative impacts, socio-economic profiling ofusers is essential [37]. In fact, Pedrini et al. [45] emphasize that inmarine ecotourism the knowledge of environmental perceptionsof recreational divers is essential for installing touristic facilities.According to Brotto et al. [37], these perceptions can be identifiedthrough socio-economic profiling of ecotourists, allowing theidentification of possible problems and the definition of mitigationmeasures.

The majority of interviewees were Portuguese, single males,over 30 years old, with more than 12 years of schooling. Themajority reported a monthly income of less than 1500€ (Table 1).The high percentage of nationals interviewed highlights the localcharacter of the Algarve diving companies. As reported by Town-send [46], companies that effectively dive with tourist and do thetraining, are mainly small or medium sized and work with localcommunities. It can also be argued that, as observed by Mundetand Ribera [35], the geographical proximity between diving siteand divers' home location is considered as one of the majormotivations for site selection.

A high level of formal education is also a characteristic of divers[46]. This was observed by Rangel et al. [10] for snorkelling routesdeveloped at Marinha Beach, Algarve, where over 52% of thesnorkelers had an undergraduate degree or higher. Musa [30]found that 71% of the divers in Sipadan Island (Malaysia) had atleast some years of college education. The same pattern was alsoobserved for divers in Layang Layang Island, Malaysia, where 58%had a university degree or postgraduate qualifications [26], and for

Fig. 2. Example of the double sided acrylic slates for “B24” (A; B) and “Poço” (C; D) underwater routes.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎4

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

scuba divers and snorkelers of Mauritius, with 58% with a collegedegree [25].

Divers ranged in age from 14 to 60 years, similar to St. Lucia(Caribbean Sea) divers (15–60 years) [24] and divers in Napoleonreef in Egypt (14–65 years) [14]. It should be noted that theaverage age of divers is increasing due to technological advances indiving apparatus, allowing older people to engage in this activity[47,48].

Gender imbalance is reported in the vast majority of studies,with males accounting for the greater portion of divers [e.g.10,12,13,30,35,48,49]. In fact, in the study conducted by Mundetand Ribera [35], 80% of divers were male, as were 68% of thesnorkelers in underwater routes of Marinha Beach [10] and 77% ofscuba divers questioned in the present study. Nevertheless, Lindg-ren et al. [50] and Musa et al. [48] state that this gender disparity isbecoming gradually less marked.

Musa et al. [36] report that several authors observed patternsrelating demographic variables to underwater behaviour. In fact,Rouphael and Inglis [15] and Luna et al. [51] and Uyarra and Coté[52] concluded that male divers are less responsible than femaledivers.

3.2. Visitors' opinions and perceptions about support infrastructures

Interviewees' perceptions about support infrastructures aregiven in Table 2. The analysis is shown for all divers and for theones who visited the “B24” (off Faro) and “Poço” (off Armação dePêra) routes' sites.

Mundet and Ribera [35], Musa [29] and Musa et al. [48]emphasise the importance of diver satisfaction, stating that asatisfied customer will recommend diving sites and services tofriends. Sites with warm water, high visibility, and high biodiversityare the most attractive to divers [e.g. 1,25]. In fact, several studiesindicate that divers prefer biological attributes of the marine

environment, such as the presence of corals and of fishes [52–55].The satisfaction of users towards different aspects of the dive, suchas quality of service, facilities, and nature was carefully evaluated inthis study.

The importance of access points is highlighted by the largemajority of the interviewees. This was also pointed out bysnorkelers diving in the Marinha Beach (Algarve) routes [10] andby scuba divers in Layang Layang (Malaysia) [48]. In this study,however, the relationship between satisfaction and conservationof access points does not seem consensual between divers whoboarded in Faro and in Armação de Pêra. This fact could be relatedto differences in the starting points, with Faro divers boarding in amarina, while in Armação de Pêra the departure was made fromthe beach, with the help of a tractor, as used by local fishingvessels; a more traditional way of going to the sea but one whichhampers logistics.

Infrastructures for disabled people are considered important bythe majority of users, as found amongst snorkelers in MarinhaBeach (Algarve) [10]. It should be emphasized that Hidroespaçohas a special group of dive instructors trained to dive withdisabled people. Nevertheless, an overall discontentment aboutinfrastructures for disabled people was noted. Also, even thoughthe overall disappointment seems obvious, there is no apparentconsensus amongst divers from “B24” and “Poço”. In fact, there areno specific walkways for disabled people near the beach accesspoint in Armação de Pêra, while the marina of Faro has theminimum mandatory state regulation for access structures forthe disabled in place.

Similarly, parking facilities are not a consensual subject. In fact,although the large majority of interviewees agreed on theirimportance, as also found for underwater route snorkelers ofMarinha Beach [10], there are significant differences between theopinions of “B24” and “Poço” divers with regard to this issue. Thisfact may be related to an additional small improvised parking

Table 1Demographic characteristics of the respondents in the case study (n¼246). Significant differences between divers who used routes and those who did not use routes weretested with Chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests.

All data Dive in routes Dive not in routes Statistical test results

N % N % N %

GenderFemale 57 23.2 25 23.6 32 22.9 χ 2¼0.02, p¼0.893Male 189 76.8 81 76.4 108 77.1

NationalityPortuguese 219 89.0 98 92.5 121 86.4 χ 2¼2.24, p¼0.134Other 27 11.0 8 7.6 19 13.6

Marital statusSingle or divorced 120 49.8 52 49.1 68 50.4 χ 2¼0.04, p¼0.840Married or living together 121 50.2 54 50.9 67 49.6

Education levela

Standard grade or high school grade 71 30.5 34 32.7 37 28.7 χ 2¼0.44, p¼0.509Undergraduate degree or more 162 69.5 70 67.3 92 71.3

Age groupr20 37 15.7 11 10.5 26 20.0 H(3)¼5.24, p¼0.155[21–30] 44 18.7 20 19.1 24 18.5[31–40] 84 35.7 37 35.2 47 36.2Z41 70 29.8 37 35.2 33 25.4

Income levelso €1000 100 45.1 47 48.5 53 42.4 H(3)¼1.44, p¼0.696€1000–1500 32 14.4 15 15.5 17 13.6€1500–2500 53 23.9 21 21.7 32 25.64 €2500 37 16.7 14 14.4 23 18.4

a Level of formal education: standard grade corresponds to 9 years of schooling, high school grade corresponds to 12 years of schooling, undergraduate degree or morecorresponds to undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

facility at an affordable price near the Armação de Pêra diving clubfacilities. In fact, these divers seemed more satisfied overall but themajority did not regard the facility to be “in good conditions”. InFaro marina there is usually a lack of parking places and parking ismuch more expensive.

The importance of a support bar is acknowledged by 63% ofdivers, with surveyed divers from “B24” and “Poço” sharing thesame opinion (60% and 59%, respectively). Nevertheless there aresignificant differences in perceptions with regard to the conditionof the existing bars. These differences may be due to the fact thatFaro marina has a support bar within its facilities, while inArmação de Pêra Beach the closest bar is not in the vicinity ofthe club boarding facilities.

The large majority of visitors interviewed agreed on theimportance of the existence of sanitary facilities (89%), but only23% were satisfied with the existing facilities, and only 20%perceived them to be in good condition. The pattern is similar tothe one found in the perceptions of “B24” divers and “Poço” divers.Similarly, in Dahab (Egypt), 73% of snorkelers identified sanitaryfacilities as the most important support infrastructures to imple-ment in a snorkelling trail programme [13].

Divers were unanimous with regard to the importance ofhaving emergency support facilities, as was the case with snorke-lers of Marinha Beach [10] and scuba divers in Layang Layang(Malaysia) [48]. Nevertheless, overall perceptions regarding theexistence of emergency facilities around the diving area were notas consensual, and it seems that satisfaction regarding emergencybackup remains a concern for some of the divers. This fact may be

due to lack of information regarding this issue which should beprovided by diving operators during dive preparation. In fact, divesafety is usually a concern for divers when going on a dive trip, asreported by Mundet and Ribera [35], where divers were reportedto be satisfied with overall diving safety facilities available in thediving area. The existence and condition of on board emergencyequipment satisfied the majority of interviewees (95% and 86%respectively) in both diving clubs.

The dive material belonging to the diving clubs is a keyconcern for the majority of divers (93%), and most divers wereextremely pleased with the material belonging to the clubs (90%were satisfied and 81% considered the material to be in goodcondition). During the surveys carried out in Layang Layang(Malaysia) and in Sipadan (Malaysia) scuba divers reported a“low satisfaction” with the equipment they had rented [48]. Alarge majority of respondents (94%) were concerned about theexistence of hyperbaric chambers in the diving area. Neverthelessit should be highlighted that there are significant differencesbetween divers of “B24” and “Poço”. This may be related to theabsence of reported barotrauma accidents and to the individualhyperbaric chamber that exists in a yacht in Lagos marina, closeto Armação de Pêra. This chamber belongs to a local yachtsman,and can be used by the diving community in an emergency,although this fact is not very well known.

Mundet and Ribera [35] suggest that divers' surveys provideimportant information regarding satisfaction levels towardsthe services, which can be used to improve scuba diving offer.During this study, information regarding scuba diving support

Table 2Descriptive statistics for statements designed to quantify interviewees' perceptions about support infrastructures. Data presented in percentage. Comparisons between theperceptions of “B24” divers and “Poço” divers were tested for departure from neutrality with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Perceptions about infrastractures All data % responses “B24” % responses “Poço” % responses Kruskal–Wallis test(“B24”– “Poço”)

Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree

“Access points are important” 3.7 11.5 85.0 4.2 12.6 83.2 5.6 11.1 83.3 W (2)¼0.15, p¼0.927“I am satisfied with the access area” 17.3 34.6 48.2 15.8 36.8 47.3 25.0 33.3 41.7 W (2)¼1.47, p¼0.479“Access point is in good condition” 19.0 40.2 40.8 14.4 44.4 41.1 37.5 46.9 15.6 W (2)¼10.52, p¼0.005

“Infrastructures for disabled people are important” 5.4 11.2 83.4 5.4 11.8 82.8 8.6 17.1 74.3 W (2)¼1.17, p¼0.556“I am satisfied with existing infrastructures for disabledpeople”

46.6 31.8 21.6 40.5 36.9 22.6 72.7 21.2 6.1 W (2)¼10.30, p¼0.006

“Infrastructures for disabled people are in goodcondition”

42.8 34.0 23.3 37.2 46.2 16.7 66.7 14.8 18.5 W (2)¼9.02, p¼0.011

“Parking facilities are important” 5.2 8.4 86.4 2.1 7.4 90.5 13.9 13. 9 72.2 W (2)¼8.95, p¼0.011“I am satisfied with the existing parking facilities” 35.1 37.2 27.8 42.1 39.0 19.0 25.0 30. 6 44.4 W (2)¼9.01, p¼0.011“Parking facilities are in good condition” 33.5 42.5 24.0 32.2 47.8 20.0 50.0 31.3 18.8 W (2)¼3.50, p¼0.174

“A bar is important” 9.1 27.8 63.1 6.4 34.0 59.8 17.6 23.5 58.8 W (2)¼4.23, p¼0.121“I am satisfied with the existing bar facilities” 25.3 37.6 37.1 22.5 41.6 36.0 38.2 29.4 32.4 W (2)¼3.30, p¼0.193“The existing bar is in good condition” 21.6 51.2 27.7 17.1 58.5 24.4 40.7 40.7 18.5 W (2)¼6.40, p¼0.041

“Sanitary facilities (toilets) are important” 2.6 8.4 89.0 2.1 9.5 88.4 8.6 5.7 85.7 W (2)¼3.20, p¼0.202“I am satisfied with existing sanitary facilities (toilets)” 44.1 33.0 22.5 40.7 34.1 25.3 57.1 22.9 20.0 W (2)¼2.82, p¼0.245“Sanitary facilities (toilets) are in good condition” 48.2 31.9 19.9 49.5 30.1 20.5 48.4 35.5 16.1 W (2)¼0.43, p¼0.807

“Emergency support facilities are important” 5.7 3.4 90.9 5.6 5.6 88.7 12.5 3.1 84.4 W (2)¼1.83, p¼0.401“I am satisfied with existing emergency support facilities” 34.6 29.2 36.2 38.3 30.0 31.7 26.0 29.6 44.4 W (2)¼1.67, p¼0.435“Emergency support facilities are in good condition” 32.5 35.8 31.7 36.8 38.6 24.6 33.3 29.8 37.5 W (2)¼1.46, p¼0.483

“Onboard emergency equipment is important” 0.5 0.5 98.9 0.0 1.1 98.9 2.9 0.0 97.1 W (2)¼2.99, p¼0.224“I am satisfied with onboard emergency equipment” 1.2 3.5 95.4 2.4 1.2 96.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 W (2)¼1.20, p¼0.550“Onboard emergency equipment is in good condition” 3.8 10.1 86.1 5.2 7.8 87.1 3.3 3.3 93.3 W (2)¼0.91, p¼0.636

“Dive material of the dive club is important” 2.1 4.8 93.1 0.0 6.4 93.6 3.0 6.1 90.9 W (2)¼2.849, p¼0.241“I am satisfied with dive material of the dive club” 2.2 7.7 90.1 1.1 9.1 89.8 3.0 3.0 93.9 W (2)¼1.737, p¼0.420“Dive material of the dive club is in good condition” 5.3 13.5 81.2 6.0 13.1 81.0 3.1 9.4 87.5 W (2)¼0.737, p¼0.692

“Local hyperbaric chamber is important” 4.3 1.6 94.1 4.4 1.1 94.5 8.6 5.7 85.1 W (2)¼3.24, p¼0.198“I am satisfied with local hyperbaric chamber facilities” 80.8 9.0 10.2 87.84 7.3 4.9 61.7 20.6 17.7 W (2)¼10.27, p¼0.006

Note: Statements were measured on a five-point Likert-scale, subsequently dropped to a three-point Likert-scale: Disagree, Neutral (neither agree nor disagree), Agree.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎6

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

infrastructures in the Algarve could be acknowledge and used bymanagers and operators to improve the services provided andoverall divers satisfaction.

3.3. Visitors' diving motivations

There are several attributes that motivate the choice of a divingsite [34,48]. Musa et al. [48] reviewed literature on the mostsignificant attributes for divers in seven diving sites around theworld (USA, Canada, Hawaii, Malaysia, Australia, Maldives) andnoticed that divers highlighted marine life and visibility as themost important motivations for diving. The existence of coral reefsand the professionalism of staff in diving centres were also mainmotivations. Nevertheless, many other characteristics are listed,such as existence of wrecks, conditions for underwater photo-graphy, ice diving, possibility of spear fishing, interesting geologi-cal features, safety support infrastructures, easy accesses, calmatmosphere, no currents, professional dive masters, food opera-tors, no crowding, cost of diving, friendly and helping staff, gooddive buddies, water temperature, boat size, and quality of theequipment.

In this survey there were no obvious or significant differencesin the motivation for diving between the divers diving in routes orthe ones not diving in routes (Table 3). Interestingly, it was obviousthat the costs of diving are not considered by the majority of diversas a concern. In opposition, in the survey undertaken by Mundetand Ribera [35] in L’Estartit Resot (Spain) divers were somewhatconcerned about the costs of diving and they rated the costspracticed negatively.

The “type of dive” and “new place to explore” seemed to be themost common diving motivations, although less than 50% of thesurveyed divers agreed on these. “Other”, “friends' recommenda-tion” and “natural beauty” follow in the ranking of motivations.

Marine life is reported in many studies as the main reason fordiving site location [e.g. 35,48], but that does not seem to be amajor concern for divers in our study sites. In this study, the largemajority of surveyed divers are local residents and have beendiving with their “local” diving club for a while, thus diving site

selection tends to be made by the dive master, who sometimeschooses dive location based on weather and ocean conditions priorto departure; changes in diving destination after entering the boatare quite common.

3.4. Visitors' satisfaction with route characteristics

Underwater trails are used for guided visits to naturaland cultural patrimony and simultaneously to enhance divers'knowledge of the marine environment [5,9,11–14]. Actually, byenhancing divers' knowledge and diving skills, environmentalresponsibility is also likely to be enhanced [15]. In fact there isthe need to design, integrate and regulate activities that take partin coastal marine areas, in order to avoid user–environmentconflicts and, thus, negative environment impacts [56].

Nevertheless, underwater routes must be carefully designed inorder to achieve their goals and for users to be satisfied with them[11]. In fact, as reported by Wiener et al. [57], commercial toursperformed in marine areas can have negative impacts (such ascrowding and pollution) but they can also reinforce environmentalawareness, which can facilitate conservation and protection. Themarine environment can be used as an “outdoor laboratory”,where the operator provides in situ biological and ecologicalinformation to visitors [58]. Education is considered an importanttool for increasing environmental awareness, leading to changes indamaging behaviours [23]. In this educational process, operatorsserve as environmental interpreters [59,60] emphasizing theimportance of the environment, since negative attitudes towardsthe environment can be easily associated with lack of motivationto engage in conservation [57].

Overall divers' satisfaction regarding several characteristics ofthe trips to “B24” and “Poço” before and after the implementationof routes seems to be “good” (Table 4). Nonetheless there are somecharacteristics, such as the existence of charismatic or uniquespecies or floral cover, which are mostly graded as “acceptable”.That is also the case for “the geography of the area” and the“landscape” in “B24”, probably due to the fact that this is a sandybottom site, with the plane wreck as the only visible structure. It is

Table 3Descriptive statistics for the motivations to dive in the two locations. Results presented in percentage. Significant differences were tested with Chi-square test.

Motivations to dive All Routes divers Non-routes divers Chi-square test

No Yes No Yes No Yes

Dive type 53.8 46.2 53.6 46.2 53.7 46.3 χ 2¼0.0004, p¼0.983Dive costs 85.9 14.2 88.5 11.5 83.3 16.7 χ 2¼1.1469, p¼0.284Friends recommendation 60.9 39.2 63.5 36.5 58.3 41.7 χ 2¼0.5849, p¼0.444Natural beauty 60.9 39.2 65.4 34.6 56.5 43.5 χ 2¼1.7628, p¼0.184New place to explore 56.1 43.8 60.6 39.4 51.9 48.2 χ 2¼1.6380, p¼0.201Other (e.g. social contacts) 51.4 48.6 55.8 44.2 47.2 52.8 χ2¼1.5494, p¼0.213

Table 4Descriptive statistics for statements designed to quantify interviewees' satisfaction with the dive trips in “B24” and “Poço” before the implementation of the routes (NR) andafter the implementation of the routes (R). Results presented as means (7Standard Deviation).

Satisfaction with the dive B24 (NR) B24 (R) Kruskal–Wallis test Poço (NR) Poço (R) Kruskal–Wallis test

Path selected by the club 4.3970.70 4.4470.70 H(4)¼5.158, p¼0.271 4.1670.97 4.4470.73 H(4)¼1.060, p¼0.787Geography of the area 3.9270.89 3.9870.77 H(4)¼1.006, p¼0.800 4.0470.89 4.2070.98 H(4)¼2.713, p¼0.438Landscape 3.8070.91 4.0070.83 H(4)¼1.500, p¼0.682 4.0870.86 4.1370.72 H(4)¼2.081, p¼0.353Fauna 4.0470.79 4.0670.77 H(4)¼0.132, p¼0.988 3.7670.93 4.0670.93 H(4)¼1.261, p¼0.738Flora 3.5171.06 3.7070.89 H(4)¼2.841, p¼0.585 3.7670.97 3.9470.77 H(4)¼2.035, p¼0.565Charismatic or unique species 3.5571.55 3.6071.25 H(4)¼3.208, p¼0.524 3.5671.29 3.8871.02 H(4)¼2.572, p¼0.632Accessibility 4.2070.93 4.0470.88 H(4)¼3.243, p¼0.518 3.9671.10 4.0670.78 H(4)¼2.338, p¼0.674Route in general 4.2270.69 4.3270.77 H(4)¼4.244, p¼0.236 4.2470.72 4.5070.90 H(4)¼5.476, p¼0.140

Note: Statements were measured on a five-point scale: Terrible (¼1), Bad (¼2), Acceptable (¼3), Good (¼4), and Excellent (¼5).

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

important to emphasize that there is a general upgrading, thoughnot statistically significant, in divers' satisfaction towards all thecharacteristics in analysis, in both study sites, after the implemen-tation of routes.

Overall divers ranked their trip as “good”, and even better afterthe implementation of both routes. In fact, divers seem to enjoydiving in the selected sites, and their satisfaction increased slightlyafter implementation of routes. At Marinha Beach, all threeavailable snorkelling trails were also ranked as “good” or “excel-lent” [10], and the one that attracted more divers achieved aclassification of “excellent”. Berchez et al. [38] also observed a highdegree of satisfaction amongst snorkelers diving in the routes inAnchieta Island Park (Brazil), who ranked the experience with anaverage 2.7 out of 3. As perceived by several authors, if anexperience reveals itself to be better than expected, satisfactionwill be achieved [48].

Musa [29] noted that the large majority of Sipadan (Malaysia)divers (98%) perceived their diving experience as “highly satisfac-tory” and marine life, friendly/helpful staff, good dive buddies,water temperature and easy dive access were the most importantfeatures. Musa et al. [48] reported that 93% of surveyed scubadivers of Layang Layang (Malaysia) were also “highly satisfied”,while Pedrini et al. [19] reported that 75% of divers of theunderwater route in Anchieta Island graded their experience as“excellent”. In fact divers seem to appreciate overall divingexperiences, and their satisfaction seems to increase if an under-water route is implemented and available.

3.5. Visitors' levels of satisfaction regarding slates characteristics

Interpretation can be defined as “a tool for education aimed atdeveloping a resource-based awareness whereby components ofthe environment are used to build a holistic understanding of thewhole” [61]. Interpretation can effectively increase visitors' envir-onmental knowledge, change perceptions, increase environmentalawareness, and successfully modify behaviours [62,63].

All divers characterized their level of satisfaction with regard toseveral aspects of the slates displayed along each underwaterroute on a five-point scale, ranging from terrible (1) to excellent(5). None of the items in analysis was ranked below “good” (4),indicating a high appreciation for the underwater in situ informa-tion method chosen and implemented (Table 5).

Marine tourism provides a unique scenario for providinginformation about conservation but, although tours work as anatural setting for learning, unpredictable factors may make theinterpretation and learning process complex [25,62]. For instance,bad weather conditions, poor visibility, and client anxiety towardswild marine life are some obstructing factors for successfulinterpretation within marine activities [57].

While studying snorkelers' perceptions about underwaterinformation at Anchieta Island, Pedrini et al. [19] observed that

the majority of the respondents reported that the interpretativesigns were the most interesting feature of the visit.

Divers ranked the overall information slates of “B24” and“Poço” routes as “good” or higher (Z4). When analysing theirviews about the slates in more detail, “visibility” was the char-acteristic graded lowest and still “visibility” of slates was graded3.72 by the “B24” divers, and 4.16 for “Poço”. The Algarve waters,at around 20 m depth, have an average visibility of around 5.8 m[see [39–42]] and the “B24” diving site is in a sandy area, whereexcellent buoyancy control is essential to avoid suspension in thewater. Visibility is one of the top motivations for divers around theworld, as reported by Musa et al. [48]. Slates could have differentdimensions, as some divers verbally stated particular concernsregarding interpretative slate size, with some stating they weretoo big (too much human presence) and some that they were toosmall (and thus, difficult to interpret). In fact, smaller slates wouldmake interpretation almost impossible, while bigger slate sizeswould make reading and understanding easier, but this wouldresult in an increased visibility of human presence. The bestcompromise is to keep the current slate size and reinforceinformation through other means such as environmentally struc-tured and targeted briefings.

4. General conclusions

In marine tourism, socio-economic profiling of divers is essen-tial to define effective management measures [37]. The divers thattook part in this study seem to present a typical socio-economicprofile as such management measures used on other locationscould be considered for diving tourism in the south of Portugal.

Overall, divers were disappointed with some of the infrastruc-tures, e.g. parking facilities, support bar, sanitary facilities, absenceof a hyperbaric chamber, and infrastructures for the disabled.These aspects should be carefully considered when planning divetourism support facilities in the Algarve, since their improvementwill most probably increase divers' satisfaction and, thus, thenumber of visiting diving tourists.

“Natural beauty”, reported in many studies as the most impor-tant motivation for diving, was not considered a prime motivationfor diving in the case studies. This is not surprising since mainlandPortugal is not a prime diving location; visibility and temperatureare usually relatively low and sediment suspension is high. Still,divers are satisfied with their diving experience, ranking it as“good”, and seem to enjoy diving in the Algarve overall. Never-theless, satisfaction was slightly higher amongst divers diving inroutes. In fact, satisfaction towards diving in underwater routesseems to be consensual, as also reported by Pedrini et al. [19] andRangel et al. [10]. Routes seem to have pleased the divers whovisited them and thus can be used as an important asset topromote Algarve diving sites, and enhance visitors' environmentalawareness with in situ interpretation.

Table 5Descriptive statistics for statements designed to quantify interviewees' satisfaction with several aspects of the slates available in the routes. Results presented as means(7Standard Deviation).

Slates features All Poço B24 Kruskal–Wallis test

Information on the slate 4.3370.72 4.3670.75 4.2870.63 H(4)¼1.553, p¼0.6700Design of the slate 4.4370.75 4.4770.77 4.3570.71 H(4)¼1.672, p¼0.6432Habitat correspondence 4.3970.72 4.3970.74 4.4170.67 H(4)¼0.614, p¼0.8931Divers' utility 4.4970.76 4.4470.82 4.5970.61 H(4)¼1.174, p¼0.8824Conservations usefulness 4.3070.77 4.2370.81 4.4470.67 H(4)¼1.939, p¼0.7470Utility for structures conservation (e.g. bomber) 4.3870.75 4.3370.79 4.4870.63 H(4)¼1.234, p¼0.8725Visibility of the slate 4.0371.15 4.1671.09 3.7271.25 H(4)¼4.099, p¼0.3928Overall quality 4.2370.82 4.237082 4.2170.92 H(4)¼2.353, p¼0.6712

Note: Statements were measured on a five-point scale: Terrible (¼1), Bad (¼2), Acceptable (¼3), Good (¼4), and Excellent (¼5).

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎8

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

Acknowledgements

M. Rangel was funded by the Portuguese Foundation forScience and Technology (FCT) grant (SFRH/BD/27478/2006). C.Pita was supported by the “Cátedra do Mar” UA-CGD grant“Sustainability of small-scale fisheries: Alternative approachesto fisheries management and governance”. Part of the data usedin this study was collected for the purposes of the RENSUBproject, funded by the ARH/CCDR Algarve. The funding sourcesplayed no part in the design, analysis, interpretation or writing-up of the study or in the decision to publish. The authors wish tothank C. Almeida, C. Afonso, I. Sousa, L. Bentes, L. Leite, P.Monteiro, P. Veiga, and I. Costa for their support during all thefield and office work.

References

[1] Davenport J, Davenport JL. The impact of tourism and personal leisuretransport on coastal environments: a review. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci2006;67(1–2):280–92.

[2] Mola F, Shafaei F, Mohamed B. Tourism and the environment: issues ofconcern and sustainability of southern part of the Caspian Sea Coastal Areas.J Sustainable Dev 2012;5(3):2.

[3] Leeworthy VR, Bowker JM, Hospital J, Stone E. Projected participation inmarine recreation: 2005 & 2010. National Survey on Recreation and theEnvironment. Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics. Maryland: NOAANational Ocean Service, Silver Spring; 2005.

[4] Pendleton L, Rooke J. Understanding the potential economic impact of SCUBAdiving and snorkeling: California. Working Paper. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia; 2006.

[5] Delgado JP, editor. The impact on and opportunities arising from tourism tosubmerged sites. UNESCO Scientific Colloquium on Factors Impacting theUnderwater Cultural Heritage. Brussels: Royal Library of Belgium; 2011.

[6] Lück M. The encyclopedia of tourism and recreation in marine environments.London, UK: Cabi; 2008.

[7] Davis D, Tisdell C. Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in marineprotected areas. Ocean Coastal Manage 1995;26(1):19–40.

[8] Plathong S, Inglis GJ, Huber ME. Effects of self-guided snorkeling trails oncorals in tropical marine park. Conserv Biol 2000;14:1821–30.

[9] Hall CM. Snorkelers impact on fish communities and algae in a temperatemarine protected area. Biodivers Conserv 2010;19(6):1649–58.

[10] Rangel MO, Pita CB, Gonçalves JMS, Leite L, Costa C, Erzini K. ecotourismsnorkelling routes at Marinha Beach (Algarve). J Coastal Res 2011;61:274–81.

[11] Tikkanen S, editor. Brussels: Royal Library of Belgium; 2011.[12] Harriott VJ. Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great

Barrier Reef: CRC Reef Research Centre Townesville. Australia: QLD; 2002.[13] Hannak JS. A snorkel trail based on reef condition and visitor perception as a

management tool for a threatened shallow water reef in Dahab (South Sinai,Egypt). [Doctoral dissertation]. Uniwien; 2008.

[14] Hannak JS, Kompatscher S, Stachowitsch M, Herler J. Snorkelling and tram-pling in shallow-water fringing reefs: risk assessment and proposed manage-ment strategy. J Environ Manage 2011;92(10):2723–33.

[15] Rouphael AB, Inglis GJ. Take only photographs and leave only footprints?: anexperimental study of the impacts of underwater photographers on coral reefdive sites Biol Conserv 2001;100(3):281–7.

[16] Lloret J, Marín A, Marín-Guirao L, Francisca Carreño M. An alternativeapproach for managing scuba diving in small marine protected areas. AquatConserv: Mar Freshwater Ecosyst 2006;16(6):579–91.

[17] Di Franco A, Marchini A, Baiata P, Milazzo M, Chemello R. Developing a scubatrail vulnerability index (STVI): a case study from a Mediterranean MPA.Biodivers Conserv 2009;18(5):1201–17.

[18] Claudet J, Lenfant P, Schrimm M. Snorkelers impact on fish communities andalgae in a temperate marine protected area. Biodivers Conserv 2010;19(6):1649–58.

[19] Pedrini AG, Messas TP, Pereira ES, Ghilardi-Lopes NP, Berchez FA. EducaçãoAmbiental pelo Ecoturismo numa trilha marinha no Parque Estadual da IlhaAnchieta, Ubatuba (SP). Bras Ecoturismo 2010;3(3):428–59.

[20] Ríos-Jara E, Galván-Villa CM, Rodríguez-Zaragoza FA, López-Uriarte E, Muñoz-Fernández VT. The tourism carrying capacity of underwater trails in IsabelIsland National Park, Mexico. Rev Environ Manage 2013:1–13.

[21] Camp E, Fraser D. Influence of conservation education dive briefings as amanagement tool on the timing and nature of recreational SCUBA divingimpacts on coral reefs. Ocean Coastal Manage 2012;61:30–7.

[22] Barker N, Roberts CM. Attitudes to and preferences of divers toward regula-tion. In: Garrod, B., Stefan G., editors. New frontiers in marine tourism. Oxford:Oxford, Elsevier; 2008. p. 171–88.

[23] Townsend C. Interpretation and environmental education as conservationtools. In: Garrod, B., Stefan G., editors. New frontiers in marine tourism.Oxford: Elsevier; 2008; 189–200.

[24] Barker N, Roberts CM. Scuba diver behaviour and the management of divingimpacts on coral reefs. Biol Conserv 2004;120(4):481–9.

[25] Garrod B, Gossling S. Introduction. In: Garrod, B., Stefan G., editors. Newfrontiers in marine tourism. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008; 3–28.

[26] Musa G, Dimmock K. Scuba diving tourism: introduction to special issue.Tourism Mar Environ 2012;8(1–2):1.

[27] Hall, CM. Environmental impact of tourism in the Pacific.In: Hall CM, Page SJeditors.Tourism in the Pacific: issues and cases. UK: International ThomsonBusiness Press.

[28] Rouphael AB, Abdulla A, Said Y. A framework for practical and rigorous impactmonitoring by field managers of marine protected areas. Environ Monit Assess2011;180(1–4):557–72.

[29] Musa G. Sipadan: a SCUBA-diving paradise: an analysis of tourism impact,diver satisfaction and tourism management. Tourism Geogr 2002;4(2):195–209.

[30] Musa G. Sipadan: an over-exploited scuba-diving paradise? An analysis oftourism impact, diver satisfaction and management priorities In: Garrod B,Wilson JC, editors. Marine ecotourism: issues and experiences. Clevedon:Channel View Publications; 2003. p. 122–38.

[31] O’Neill MA, Williams P, MacCarthy M, Groves R. Diving into servicequality—the dive tour operator perspective. Manag Serv Qual 2000;10(3):131–40.

[32] Atilgan E, Akinci S, Aksoy S. Mapping service quality in the tourism industry.Manag Serv Qual 2003;13(5):412–22.

[33] MacCarthy M, O’neill M, Williams P. Customer satisfaction and scuba-diving:some insights from the deep. Serv Ind J 2006;26(5):537–55.

[34] Ditton RB, Osburn HR, Bake TL, Thailing CE. Demographics, attitudes, and reefmanagement preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES J MarSci 2002;59:186–91.

[35] Mundet L, Ribera L. Characteristics of divers at a Spanish resort. TourismManage 2001;22(5):501–10.

[36] Musa G, Seng WT, Thirumoorthi T, Abessi M. The influence of scuba divers'personality, experience, and demographic profile on their underwater beha-vior. Tourism Mar Environ 2010;7(1):1–14.

[37] Brotto DS, de Gusmão Pedrini A, Bandeira RCR, Zee DMW. Percepçãoambiental do mergulhador recreativo no Município do Rio de Janeiro eadjacências: subsídios para a sustentabilidade do ecoturismo marinho. RevBras Ecoturismo 2012;5(2):297–314.

[38] Berchez F, Carvalhal F, Robim MJ. Underwater interpretative trail: guidance toimprove education and decrease ecological damage. Int J Environ SustainableDev 2005;4(2):128–39.

[39] Gonçalves JMS, Monteiro P, Coelho R, Afonso C, Ribeiro J, Almeida C, et al.Mapeamento de biocenoses marinhas da Reserva Ecológica Nacional Submar-ina entre Albufeira e Vale do Lobo. Faro: Universidade do Algarve, CCMAR;2004.

[40] Gonçalves JMS, Monteiro P, Coelho R, Afonso C, Almeida C, Veiga P, et al.Cartografia e caracterização das biocenoses marinhas da Reserva EcológicaNacional Submarina entre a Galé e a barra Nova do Ancão. Relatório final.Faro: Universidade do Algarve, CCMAR; 2007.

[41] Gonçalves JMS, Monteiro P, Afonso C, Almeida C, Oliveira F, Rangel M, et al.Cartografia e caracterização das biocenoses marinhas da Reserva EcológicaNacional Submarina entre a Galé e a foz do rio Arade. Relatório Final CCDRAlgarve. Faro: Universidade do Algarve, CCMAR; 2008.

[42] Gonçalves JMS, Monteiro P, Afonso C, Almeida C, Oliveira F, Rangel M, et al.Cartografia e caracterização das biocenoses marinhas da Reserva EcológicaNacional Submarina entre a foz do Rio Arade e a Ponta da Piedade. RelatórioFinal CCDR Algarve. Faro: Universidade do Algarve, CCMAR; 2010.

[43] Hawkins JP, Roberts CM, Van’T Hof T, De Meyer K, Tratalos J, Aldam C. Effectsof recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. ConservBiol 1999;13(4):888–97.

[44] Rouphael AB, Inglis GJ. Increased spatial and temporal variability in coraldamage caused by recreational scuba diving. Ecol Appl 2002;12(2):427–40.

[45] Pedrini AG, Brotto DS, LM C, Gestão de Áreas Messas T. Protegidas comEducação Ambiental Emancipatória pelo Ecoturismo Marinho: a proposta doProjeto Ecoturismar. OLAM—Cienc Tecnol 2011;3:6–81.

[46] Townsend C. Dive tourism, sustainable tourism and social responsability: agrowing agenda. In: Garrod, B., Stefan G., editors. New frontiers in marinetourism. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008; 140–52.

[47] Dignan D. SCUBA gaining among mainstream travelers. Tour and Travel News;1990; 44–5.

[48] Musa G, S.L.S.A. Kadir, Lee L. Layang Layang: an empirical study on SCUBAdivers' satisfaction. Tourism Mar Environ 2006;2(2):89–102.

[49] Tabata RS, Miller ML., editors. Dive travel in Hawaii and implications forcommercial interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 1990 congress on coastaland marine tourism national coastal resources research and developmentinstitute. Oregon: Newport; 1991.

[50] Lindgren A, Palmlund J, Wate I, Gössling S. Environmental managementand education: the case of PADI. In: Garrod, B., Stefan G., editors. Newfrontiers in marine tourism. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008; 115–38.

[51] Luna B, Perez CV, Sanchez-Lizaso JL. Benthic impacts of recreational diversin a Mediterranean Marine Protected Area. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66(3):517–23.

[52] Uyarra MC, Côté IM. The quest for cryptic creatures: impacts of species-focused recreational diving on corals. Biol Conserv 2007;136(1):77–84.

[53] Polak O, Shashar N. Economic value of biological attributes of artificial coralreefs. ICES J Mar Sci 2013;70(4):904–12.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i

[54] Ramos J, Santos MN, Whitmarsh D, Monteiro CC. The usefulness of the analytichierarchy process for understanding reef diving choices: a case study. Bull MarSci 2006;78(1):213–9.

[55] Shafer CS, Inglis GJ. Influence of social, biophysical, and managerial conditionson tourism experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.Environ Manage 2000;26(1):73–87.

[56] Douvere F. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancingecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 2008;32(5):762–71.

[57] Wiener CS, Needham MD, Wilkinson PF. Hawaii's real life marine park:interpretation and impacts of commercial marine tourism in the HawaiianIslands. Curr Issues Tourism 2009;12(5–6):489–504.

[58] Salm RV, Siirila E. Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for planners andmanagers. IUCN; 2000.

[59] Cheng J, Thapa B, Confer JJ. Research note: environmental concern andbehaviors among coral reef tourists at Green Island, Taiwan. Tourism MarEnviron 2005;2(1):39–43.

[60] Medio D, Ormond RF, Pearson M. Effect of briefings on rates of damage tocorals by scuba divers. Biol Conserv 1997;79:91–5.

[61] Leal Filho W, Carvalho C, WHG Hale. Environmental education in protectedareas: international perspectives and experiences. London, UK: Taylor &Francis; 1998.

[62] Orams M. Marine tourism: development, impacts and management. London,UK: Psychology Press; 1999.

[63] Dearden P, Bennett M, Rollins R. Perceptions of diving impacts and implica-tions for reef conservation. Coastal Manage 2007;35(2–3):305–17.

M.O. Rangel et al. / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎10

Please cite this article as: Rangel MO, et al. Developing self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysingvisitors' perceptions. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.011i