Dimensions of Southeast Florida Reefs: Benefits, Uses, and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Human Dimensions of Southeast Florida Reefs: Benefits, Uses, and Perceptions

Manoj Shivlani, PhD Lead Coordinator Center for Independent Experts/NTVI

Outline

 I will focus on the human dimensions of coral reefs in

southeast Florida, presenting information and analysis on:

 1. Population and population change in southeast Florida  2. Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral

reefs

 3. Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs  4. Perceptions of southeast Florida reef conditions and

management preferences

Population and population change

Population and population change in southeast Florida

 There are almost

six million residents in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties  This makes up 1/3

• f the entire state
• f Florida

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Population % of FL population Millions/percengate Florida Southeast Florida

Population and population change in southeast Florida

 Population increased considerably in the post war years,

growing by 714% over the past 60 years  700,000 residents in 1950  5.7 million residents in 2010

1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Populaton Year Miami-Dade Broward Palm Beach Martin

Population and population change in southeast Florida

 Population densities increased considerably in the post war years,

as well, going from an average of 101.8 persons/mile2 in 1950 to an average of 828.9 persons/mile2 in 2010

 These figures do not account for areas protected from building,

and effective population densities are much higher

 Broward County is the 2nd most populous county in FL

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Population density Year Miami-Dade Broward Palm Beach Martin Southeast Florida

Population and population change in southeast Florida

 Population growth has

always centered near the coast in southeast Florida  The first areas to be

developed in the region were invariably the waterfront and coastal areas, to the detriment of coastal and nearshore habitats

 With a few exceptions,

growth swung to inland areas only from the 1970s onwards, after the much of the coastal belt had been built out

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Direct benefits

 Direct benefits are those

related to the values derived clearly from coral reefs

 These are the benefits

that most people can “see” and appreciate

 Direct benefits include

income and enjoyment derived from:  Fishing  Diving and snorkeling  Other recreation and uses

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 How much are these direct benefits worth?

 The last major, reef use study on the value of natural and

artificial reefs was completed almost 15 years ago

 In short, we don’t know how much MORE coral reefs are

worth today

 Johns et al., 2004 and Johns et al., 2001reported that reefs in

the early 2000s contributed over $3.5 billion and almost 36,000 jobs to the regional economy

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Direct benefits from commercial fishing

 Total landings do not represent value from coral reefs, but many

species landed do spend some time on reefs and reef associated ecosystems

 Spiny lobster, reef finfish, coastal migratory finfish

Landings averaged 7 million pounds from 1994-2010 Most important species included king and Spanish mackerel, bait shrimp, reef finfish, and

• ffshore pelagic

finfish

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs



While this figure does not show the direct benefits accrued from fishing trips and is not specific to the southeast Florida region, it is clear that from the totals that recreational fishing is a major industry in the region



Recreational fisheries account for a majority of all fin fish landings in southeast Florida

Almost 6 million anglers took 25 million fishing trips in 2012 in the State of Florida Benefits from local and out of state anglers include contributions to bait shops, fishing licenses, charter vessels, headboats, boating establishments, and even the lodging and hospitality industry

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Indirect benefits

 Indirect benefits are

those benefits that coral reefs provide but which are not easily or clearly

• bserved or

discerned

 Indirect benefits

include ecosystem services, storm protection, biodiversity generation, and biomedical potential

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Storm protection

 We live in

hurricane alley and are presently at the start of another hurricane season

 Coral reefs help to

absorb storm energy and slow down wave actions during storms

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Centers of biodiversity

 Our reefs, like those

across the tropical

• ceans, hold vast

amounts of biodiversity

 An estimated 25% of

fish species are found

• n coral reefs

 These reefs and

environs can serve as source sites for seeding other locations

 Connecting

metapopulations

Kough et al. (2013) shows source-sink dynamics and connectivity for spiny lobster in the Caribbean and NW Atlantic

Direct and indirect benefits of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Biomedical potential and

realities

 Coral skeletons

themselves are used as bone grafts

 Antivirals such as AZT

and anti-cancer drugs have been isolated from sponges on Caribbean coral reefs

 Prospects of finding

new drugs in the ocean are much higher than on terrestrial ecosystems, due in part to phylogenetic diversity

Caribbean sea whip, Pseudopterogorgia elisabethae

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Because of the proximity of the

reef tract and multiple benefits, the upper Florida reef tract is heavily used

 Parts of the reef are located

as close as one mile from the shoreline

 Uses of the coral reef and

associated habitats include:

 Fishing  Diving and snorkeling  Boating  Surfing, kiteboarding, paddle

boarding, kayaking, and

• ther water sports

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Many of the 30 million

visitors and 6 million residents use southeast Florida’s coral reefs and associated coastal and marine resources

 Activities undertaken on or

adjacent to the reefs start with beach visitation, which is among the most popular tourism attractions for visitors and residents alike

 In a 2005 AA 2 project, we

found that many beach visitors in four SE FL beaches undertook water- based activities

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Swim Snorkel/dive Fish Boat Sail Surf Kayak Glassbottom

Activity Percentage

SB FLB SI JB Total

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Commercial and for-hire fishing

 The following maps from project FDOU 10 show areas of use

among charter and commercial fishers

 The areas fished for the most part cover the reef tract, showing the

dependence of the fisheries on the coral reef habitat

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 As part of FDOU 10, recreational fishers reported on their

target species  While offshore species were the most important species and

most often targeted, 30% targeted reef fish on their fishing trips and almost a third considered reef fish their most important species

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Nearshore Reef Offshore Highly migratory Other Species group Percentage Targeted Most important

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Diving and snorkeling (dive

• perations)

 Use, as can be expected,

was limited to shallow water for a majority of dive and snorkel trips

 Use patterns data showed

that trips were taken to nearby locations unless for specialized trips

 An average of 263 trips

taken per year by

• peration, with more trips

taken to natural than artificial reefs

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

Boating Trends in total registered vessels in southeast Florida, 1964-2001. (a.) Total number of registered recreational and commercial vessels. (b.) Number of registered commercial vessels by county. (c.) Number of registered recreational vessels by county

Uses of southeast Florida coral reefs

 Boating

 A 2008-09 study conducted

by Behringer et al. evaluated vessel use via the identification of vessel use patterns in the region

 The study used aerial

surveys to ascertain vessel locations and attributes, analyze use data for patterns, and to develop a GIS framework to facilitate visualization and analysis of use patterns relative to natural reefs

METHODS 1) Flew south to north for consistency during peak boating hours (9am – 4 pm) 2) Recorded GPS location and attributes for each vessel:

• Class: commercial, recreational, etc.
• Activity: fishing, diving, etc.
• Size:

< 10 m 10 – 20 m > 20 m

• Status: anchored, moored, adrift, trolling, underway

3) Use levels: Weekdays (low-use n=3) Weekends (medium-use n=3) Holidays (high-use n=4)

Vessel Class

R e c r e a t i

• n

a l C

• m

m e r c i a l C

• m

m e r c i a l ( H e a d b

• a

t ) R e s e a r c h O t h e r U n k n

• w

n

Percentage of all vessels 20 40 60 80 100

Vessel size

< 10 m 10 - 20 m > 20 m

Percentage of all vessels 20 40 60 80 100 Vessel status

A d r i f t A n c h

• r

e d M

• r

e d T r

• l

l i n g O t h e r

Percentage of all vessels 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vessel activity

D i v i n g a n d F i s h i n g D i v i n g / s n

• r

k e l i n g F i s h i n g F i s h i n g ( T r

• l

l i n g ) O t h e r U n k n

• w

n

Percentage of all vessels 10 20 30 40 50

Region-wide Vessel Patterns

Vessel status

Adrift Anchored Moored Trolling Other

Percentage of vessels in each use level 10 20 30 40 50 60

Weekday Weekend Holiday

Vessel activity

Diving and Fishing Diving/ snorkeling Fishing Fishing (Trolling) Other Unknown

Percentage of vessels in each use level 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Weekday Weekend Holiday

Use-level Vessel Patterns

Vessel class and size categories similar between use levels

Vessel-use/Benthic habitat Spatial Analysis

Location Quotient Analysis

Location Quotient: ratio of proportions used to measure the concentration of a given group or activity in a specific geographic area relative to the concentration of the same group or activity within the larger study region. % of vessels over a habitat type % of total area that habitat represents Ratio > 1.0: more vessels were observed over the habitat type than would be expected given the relative areal extent of the habitat. Ratio = 1.0: the number of vessels observed was as would be expected given the relative areal extent of the habitat. Ratio < 1.0: the number of vessels observed was less than would be expected given the relative areal extent of the habitat.

Location Quotient Results

Habitat Type Area Anchored Vessels All Vessels % Count % Ratio Count % Ratio Artificial 2.85 50 6.32 2.22 89 3.88 1.36 Hard-bottom 29.39 202 25.54 0.87 623 27.13 0.92 Reef 10.48 208 26.30 2.51 514 22.39 2.14 Sand 53.10 325 41.09 0.77 1,061 46.21 0.87 Seagrass 3.77 6 0.76 0.20 8 0.35 0.09 Unknown 0.42 0.00 N/A 1 0.04 0.10 Totals 100.0 791 100.0 1.00 2,296 100.0 100.0

• 3,406 vessels observed during 10 survey flights in 2008 – 2009.
• 85% of vessels < 10 m in estimated length - 90% of those were

recreational.

• 95% of vessels (regardless of class or size) were either fishing
• r diving/snorkeling.
• 32% of vessels were anchored, 90% of these were < 10 m and

more recreational vessels were anchored compared to commercial.

• More anchoring on weekends/holidays.
• Nearly 2x more anchoring in Miami-Dade than either Broward or

Palm Beach County.

• Reef habitat receives more anchoring pressure than would be

expected based on its areal extent

Vessel Survey Conclusions

Southeast Florida coral reef perceptions

Southeast Florida coral reef perceptions

 Perceptions information is essential for the following

purposes  1. Stakeholder/use and public perceptions of southeast

Florida reefs inform decision makers on what these groups know concerning the status and trends of the reefs

 2. Perceptions data provide a baseline against which to

measure future changes in knowledge and attitudes

 3. Overall perceptions related to management

preferences can provide guidance for management measures that will be viewed as legitimate and therefore increase compliance

Southeast Florida coral reef perceptions

 Three main studies on public and stakeholder perceptions

conducted in the region over the past decade

 1. Awareness and Appreciation (AA) project 2

 Gauged resident, visitor, and stakeholder knowledge of the region’s

coral reefs and associated resources

 2. Fishing, Diving, and Other Uses (FDOU) project 10

 Evaluated stakeholder views on the region’ coral reefs and associated

resources, including conditions, trends, and stressors

 3. FDOU project 18-20B

 Worked with key informants in the larger stakeholder community to

• btain their preferences for management alternatives for protecting the

region’s coral reefs more effectively

AA Project 2

 AA Project 2, conducted from 2005-06, consisted of the following

sub-projects:  1. Visitor beach survey project

 Intercept surveys, with 1,773 completed surveys

 2. Resident mail back survey project

 Mail-back surveys, with 619 returns from 12,000 mailers

 3. Stakeholder interview project

 60 in-person interviews with members of different user groups

 4. Marine industry electronic mail and telephone survey project

 70 email and phone completed interviews

 5. Registered boater field intercept survey project

 Intercept surveys, with 356 registered boaters in the region

 A total of almost 2,900 surveys and interviews completed

AA Project 2

 AA Project 2 main findings  There is a basic

understanding among residents and visitors alike on coral reefs, that reef exist in the region, that the reefs serve multiple purposes, and provide benefits, and that the reefs deserve protection  BUT, many visitors and

residents identified the Florida Keys as the primary location

• f coral reefs in Florida and

not southeast Florida

VII II I VI III IV V

14 14 95 14 17 15 19 Visitor Survey Where coral reefs are found

¯

25 50 12.5 Miles

AA Project 2

 AA Project 2 main findings  Most of those surveyed

believe that coral reefs serve a utilitarian rather than a preservation purpose  This was further reinforced

by the prevailing view that respondents did not consider fisheries as a major threat to coral reefs

AA Project 2

 AA Project 2 main

findings

 Stakeholders did not

agree on a single cause

• f coral reef decline

across the region  Those in the north

pointed to runoff from agriculture and development

 Those in the south

pointed to overuse

FDOU Project 10

 FDOU project 10, conducted from 2007-08, consisted of surveys

with the various stakeholder groups to characterize their uses and to identify their concerns on coral reefs

 Six stakeholder groups surveyed, for a total of 1,962 surveys

Group Population (N) Sample (n) Methodology

• 1. Commercial fishers

1,247 193 Field-based interviews

• 2. Charter fishing operations

377 59 Field-based interviews

• 3. Recreational fishing license holders

– anglers 10,000* 1,058 Mail-back surveys

• 3a. Recreational fishing license holders

– lobster divers 400 Field intercept surveys

• 4. Dive operations

166 46 Field-based interviews

• 5. Researchers and managers

55 Field-based interviews

• 6. Surfers

900 151 Internet-based surveys

FDOU Project 10



FDOU Project 10 main findings



All stakeholder groups were able to provide spatial use areas and use patterns, from when they first started to the present



Use maps showed a high diversity in use based on stakeholder group and the type of use (ex., gear, species)



Most stakeholders stated that they had moved their areas of use, as resources including reefs had degraded over time

FDOU Project 10

• All stakeholder groups agreed that coral reef conditions have worsened since when

they first started

• All stakeholder groups also agreed that water quality had worsened

–

As well as fisheries and use conflicts

• Views among nonconsumptive groups were more negative on fisheries than the views of

consumptive groups

Stakeholder group Fisheries Coral reefs Artificial reefs Water quality Use conflicts Charter fishing

• perations

3.12 3.67 2.43 3.78 3.73 Commercial fishers 3.28 3.49 2.51 3.73 3.70 Dive operations 3.68 3.70 2.57 3.78 3.60 Recreational anglers 3.47 3.74 2.68 3.78 3.54 Researchers and managers 3.79 3.98 2.90 3.65 3.31 Surfers 3.53 4.06 3.33 3.42 3.40

Views on resource and issue trends (where the mean score is based on a scale from 1-5, where 1 = better conditions and 5 = worse conditions)

FDOU Project 10

• Stakeholder groups identified land-based sources of pollution as the most

significant indirect threat to coral reefs in the region

• The least important impact to SEFCRI coral reefs was identified as global

warming.

Stakeholder group LBS Coastal development Dredging and filling activities Global warming Charter fishing operations 4.61 4.44 4.41 3.13 Commercial fishers 4.60 4.14 4.29 3.45 Dive operations 4.71 4.47 4.64 3.64 Researchers and managers 4.21 4.37 3.96 3.86 Surfers (in percentages) 36 33 19 2

Views on indirect impacts (where the mean score is based on a scale from 1-5, where 1 = least indirect impact and 5 = most indirect impact)

FDOU Project 10

• Education led all forms of management as the preferred

management for most stakeholder groups

• All groups showed a low preference towards less

management or the current form of management

Stakeholder group Enforcement Zoning Education Limited entry Current Less Charter fishing

• perations

2.14 3.81 2.80 3.56 3.97 5.31 Commercial fishers 3.08 4.19 2.56 3.74 3.52 4.99 Dive operations 2.20 2.11 1.72 4.28 3.72 5.37 Recreational Anglers* 26.7 17.2 35.4 6.7 11.5 2.4 Researchers and managers 3.26 1.91 2.72 4.63 5.70 5.98 Surfers* 22 29 30 2 2

Preferred forms of management (where the mean score is based on a ranking scale from 1-6, where 1 = most preferred form of management and 6 = least preferred form

• f management)

FDOU Project 10

• The results show that across groups there is a strong

agreement that coral reef conditions have deteriorated in southeast Florida

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Better Same Worse Condition Percentage

Coral reefs Water quality 10 20 30 40 50 60 Better Same Worse Condition Percentage Coral reefs Water quality 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Better Same Worse Don't know Resource condition Percentage Coral reefs Water quality

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Significantly better Somewhat better Same Somewhat worse Significantly worse I don't know Condition Percentage Coral reefs Water quality

Charter fisher views on coral reefs and water quality Commercial fisher views on coral reefs and water quality Recreational fisher views on coral reefs and water quality Surfer views on coral reefs and water quality

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B

 Study conducted from 2009

to 2011

 Study involved the

establishment of key informant panels to conduct interviews

 Study selected participants

based on tenure and participation in previous SEFCRI studies

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B

 The video was made

available to participants via DVD or on a website created for the project

 The video ensured that all

participants had the same level of knowledge before conducting the interview

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder interview totals

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Spatial use



Commercial operators use profiles showed that commercial and charter fishers used most of the region



Dive operators relied on discrete areas closer to shore

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder conflicts



All groups interviewed reported moderate to high levels of conflict



Limited space and competing uses in the highly congested nearshore areas likely contributed to conflicts

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder views on resource conditions

RESOURCE CONDITIONS (1 = excellent; 5 = very poor) All counties Miami- Dade County Broward County Palm Beach County Martin County

• 1. Overall

3.38 (0.83) n = 239 3.33 (0.82) n = 81 3.52 (0.83) n = 64 3.31 (0.83) n = 52 3.37 (0.88) n = 42

• 2. Corals

3.66 (0.79) n = 182 3.67 (0.72) n = 53 3.91 (0.77) n = 55 3.39 (0.80) n = 42 3.59 (0.80) n = 34

• 3. Seagrasses

3.26 (0.90) n = 102 3.41 (0.90) n = 34 3.24 (1.01) n = 19 3.09 (0.91) n = 29 3.28 (0.82) n = 20

• 4. Mangroves

3.77 (0.92) n = 74 3.45 (0.91) n = 22 3.95 (1.00) n = 22 3.88 (0.93) n = 17 3.85 (0.69) n = 13

• 5. Beaches and wetlands

3.58 (0.97) n = 133 3.60 (0.92) n = 36 3.92 (1.10) n = 22 3.25 (1.03) n = 42 3.76 (0.72) n = 31

• 6. Water quality

3.59 (0.96) n = 164 3.50 (0.94) n = 49 3.96 (0.94) n = 65 3.29 (0.96) n = 42 3.66 (0.88) n = 32

• 7. Fisheries

3.44 (1.13) n = 156 3.58 (1.11) n = 42 3.66 (1.17) n = 34 3.27 (1.12) n = 44 3.25 (1.09) n = 36

!

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder views on resource conditions



Pollution was identified as the main threat to Southeast Florida corals



Other threats identified included: 

Overuse



Overfishing



Physical impacts



Freshwater discharges



Nourishment



Coastal Development



Climate Change



Death by 1,000 cuts

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder views on management alternatives

 Inadequate enforcement = low support for management alternatives

Present management Effective enforcement Support for management alternatives

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder views on management alternatives

 61% of those

interviewed favored some type of marine managed area management

 Those in favor of

marine managed areas were more likely to support restricted zones

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Stakeholder preferred managed areas



As shown above for Broward County, stakeholders selected very specific areas for protection, based on local knowledge, preferences, and expected benefits

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Summary

Fishing then and now

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Summary

SEFCRI FDOU Project 18&20B: Summary

Conclusions

 The following are consistent findings from a series of

studies conducted over the past decade

 We are facing serious threats from a variety of pressures,

some of which are local, others that are regional, and other which are global  Population, uses, and stressors

 But, there is a shared understanding that we are losing our

coral reefs, a resource that all stakeholders value and would like to see protected

 There is also a consensus on action, as almost all

stakeholder groups agree that current management is not working