Abstract
Proponents of artificial reef (AR) deployment are often motivated by the usefulness of such structures. The usefulness of ARs is related to their capability of providing ecosystem services/additional functions. We present two distinct Portuguese AR case studies: (1) The Nazaré reef off the central coast of Portugal and (2) the Oura reef off the Algarve coast. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with local fishermen in the fishing towns of Nazaré and Quarteira pre-and post-AR deployment. The main focus of the interviews was to understand fishermen’s perception of AR usefulness (or lack thereof) in terms of nine ecosystem services/additional functions potentially provided by the ARs. We tested the null hypothesis that ARs do not provide additional ecosystem services/additional functions. When queried pre-AR deployment, fishermen indicated that ARs are most likely to provide three ecosystem services: “habitat and refuge,” “biodiversity preservation” and “food production.” Fishermen had similar perceptions post-deployment. For the Nazaré reef, fishermen tended to have a positive or neutral perception of ecosystem services/additional functions being provided by ARs. For the Oura reef, fishermen tended to have a mostly neutral perception of AR ecosystem services; however, there were also some positive and other negative perceptions. It was difficult for stakeholders to conceptualize some of the ecosystem services/additional functions provided by ARs prior to actively using them. As a result, some stakeholders changed their perception of the ecosystem services/additional functions after using the structures. These results indicate that stakeholders likely need to perceive ARs as useful in order for them to provide their support for AR installation. Likewise, their support is often needed to justify the use of public funds to install ARs, therefore making it imperative for resource managers to undertake similar interviews with fishermen when considering the use of ARs in other areas.
Highlights
Artificial reefs (ARs) have been used to mitigate coastal fishing pressure, enhance the potential of biodiversity, and enhance fisheries catch (Bohnsack, 1996; Leitão et al, 2009; Santos, Monteiro & Leitão, 2011)
The principal research question we address is: How do fishermen perceive usefulness of ARs before and after AR deployment? This question is posed for nine ecosystem services and additional functions that were expected to be provided by the ARs
We present the methodology and questionnaire we used to capture stakeholder perceptions of AR usefulness in both locations, the hypotheses we tested with the questionnaire data, and a summary of the results of the interviews conducted for this study
Summary
Artificial reefs (ARs) have been used to mitigate coastal fishing pressure, enhance the potential of biodiversity, and enhance fisheries catch (Bohnsack, 1996; Leitão et al, 2009; Santos, Monteiro & Leitão, 2011). ARs may contribute to reverse fisheries resource depletion (Watanuky & Gonzales, 2006) Such reefs can be utilized for diving activities, diverting divers from sensitive natural reefs to man-made structures (Wilhelmsson et al, 1998; Van Treeck & Schuhmacher, 1999; Oh, Ditton & Stoll, 2008; Polak & Shashar, 2012; Van Treeck & Eisinger, 2012; Oliveira, Ramos & Santos, 2015). For a given AR project, proponents need to gather information to justify deployment, such as benefits that have been documented in existing AR projects, in order to advocate for third party acceptance and obtain funding (Pilkey & Cooper, 2012; Lowry et al, 2014). Bortone (2006) argues that an AR may enhance species richness, but may not increase human utility
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call