Strategies for Use and Protectionof the Marine Environment

Perceptions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture in Parks Canada’s

Proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA)

Dr Rick RollinsDepartment of Tourism and RecreationMalaspina University-College

David E. McCallumMA Candidate, Department of Geography, UVic

Purpose of this Study:

• To examine compatibilities and conflicts between:

• This type of social science research is useful for coastal planning and to prevent conflict and confrontation before they are created.

Marine Protected Areas

Shellfish Aquaculture

Recreational Boating

Part of a Larger Study:

1. (2002) Perceptions of marine tourists regarding similar issues

• Intercept Visitors’ Survey

2. (2003) Perceptions of shellfish growers towards marine protected areas (MPAs)

• Focus Groups

3. (2004) Perceptions of scientists regarding indicators of health of the Gulf Islands marine environment

• Email Survey

4. (2004 - 2005) This study - Perceptions of Gulf Islands residents

• Random household survey

Methods:

Random selection of residents from 3 Gulf Islands that have existing shellfish aquaculture facilities nearby:

» Thetis Island n=51 (N=211)

» Salt Spring Island n=201 (N=5017)

» Saturna Island n=50 (N=278)

Methods Continued:

• Sample size of 302, resulting in a margin of error of plus or minus 5.48% at a 95% confidence level.

• Overall response rate – 73.8%

• Data were collected between June and September 2004.

Questionnaire:

Strategies for Use and Protection of the Gulf Islands Marine Environment

A Survey of Residents of the Gulf Islands – Summer, 2004

Research Conducted By:David E. McCallumDepartment of Geography, UVic

Most Important Values (Q.3)

0.3

0

0

1.3

3

0.7

6.6

5.6

9.3

4.3

10.6

16.6

20.5

15.2

0

1

2.3

2.6

3

5.3

4.3

10.6

8.6

13.9

8.3

5.6

8.6

19.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Cultural

Historic

Learning

Economic

Subsistence

Spiritual

Therapeutic

Intrinsic

Future

Recreation

Aesthetic

Life Sustaining

Conservation

Percent (%) Responding First or Second Most Important Value

First Choice: Second Choice:

Perceived Impacts from Industry (Q.4)

39.4

39.1

19.5

56.3

20.5

36.1

55.3

20.9

25.5

41.4

19.5

20.9

42.4

11.3

50.7

40.4

24.5

61.3

57.9

46.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Visual impact of shellfish aquaculture

Runoff from agriculture

Chemical spills from commercial cargo vessels

Noise from commercial vessels (e.g. freighters, tugs)

Threat to wild salmon from finfish aquaculture

Visual impact of logging

Impact of garbage on beaches

Over fishing due to commercial fishing

Pollution from pulp mills

Loss of habitat due to residential development

Percent (%) Responding "Moderate" or "Serious" Impact

Moderate Serious

Perceived Impacts from Marine Recreation (Q.4)

30.5

39.4

43.7

33.1

49.3

39.1

62.6

53

7

19.5

19.2

31.1

15.9

31.1

10.9

28.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Damage to the ocean floor from anchors

Visual impact of shellfish aquaculture

Over fishing due to sport fishery

Petroleum spillage from overfills or bilges

Disturbance of shorebirds from boating

Disturbance of whales from whale watching

Noise from recreational vessels (e.g. yachts)

Loss of habitat due to other shoreline development (e.g.marinas)

Percent (%) Responding "Moderate" or "Serious" Impact

Moderate Serious

Perceived Contributing Sources of Sewage (Q.4)

39.4

28.8

38.1

35.1

27.2

19.5

32.8

27.5

30.8

39.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Visual impact of shellfishaquaculture

Sewage from commercialvessels

Sewage from Gulf Islandscommunities

Sewage from recreationalvessels

Sewage from Vancouver Islandcommunities

Percent (%) Responding "Moderate" or "Serious" Impact

Moderate Serious

Support for Potential Solutions for Managing Sewage from Recreational Boats (Q.7)

42.4

49.7

48.7

48

79.1

23.3

21.5

23.2

30.1

11.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Designation of specific “no go”areas that apply to recreational

boats and other vessels

Introduction of voluntary “nodischarge” restrictions in some

areas

Subsidised (no fee charged)holding-tank pump out stations

Private (fee charged) holding-tankpump out stations

Introduction of compulsory “nodischarge” regulations in some

areas

Percent Responding "Somewhat Support" and "Strongly Support"

Somewhat Support Strongly Support

Shellfish Aquaculture – Booth Bay, Salt Spring

Abandoned Shellfish Aquaculture – Boot Cove, Saturna

Mussel Lease (Background) at Same Site as Finfish Facility (Foreground) – Yeo Pt, Salt Spring

Beach Oyster Culture – Thetis Island

Visual Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)Pristine Background Photo Sequence (n = 221)

  Photo A   Photo B   Photo C  

  Photo D   Photo E   Photo F  

Visual Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)Developed Background Photo Sequence (n = 81)

  Photo A   Photo B   Photo C  

  Photo D   Photo E   Photo F  

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo A – No Aquaculture

2.4

11.1

2.5

2.5

21

60.5

1.2

0.5

1.4

2.3

94.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No Response

Very Unacceptable

Somew hatUnacceptable

Not Sure

Somew hat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo B – One Row of Shellfish Aquaculture

1.2

19.8

18.5

3.7

38.3

18.5

1.4

15.4

8.1

1.8

43

30.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No Response

Very Unacceptable

SomewhatUnacceptable

Not Sure

Somewhat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo C – Two Rows of Shellfish Aquaculture

2.5

40.7

22.2

8.6

16.1

9.9

1.8

24.9

18.6

5.4

35.3

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

No Response

Very Unacceptable

Somewhat Unacceptable

Not Sure

Somewhat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo D – Three Rows of Shellfish Aquaculture

2.5

71.6

9.9

2.5

8.6

4.9

1.8

45.7

27.6

5.9

14.9

4.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

No Response

Very Unacceptable

SomewhatUnacceptable

Not Sure

Somewhat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo E – Four Rows of Shellfish Aquaculture

2.5

82.7

4.9

2.5

3.7

3.7

1.3

69.7

18.1

3.2

5.4

2.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No Response

Very Unacceptable

Somewhat Unacceptable

Not Sure

Somewhat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Opinions of Acceptability of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.9)• Photo F – Five Rows of Shellfish Aquaculture

2.5

85.2

3.7

3.7

1.2

3.7

1.2

76.5

12.7

2.3

5

2.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No Response

Very Unacceptable

SomewhatUnacceptable

Not Sure

Somewhat Acceptable

Very Acceptable

Percent Responding

Perceptions of Benefits of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.10)

44

33.4

17.2

13.9

22.2

29.8

10.9

6.2

31.8

35.1

70.2

77.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Shellfish aquaculturedemonstrates “clean”resource harvesting

techniques

The presence of shellfishaquaculture is an indicator ofa healthy marine environment

Shellfish aquaculturediversifies the economy of a

coastal region

Shellfish aquacultureprovides employment in

coastal communities

Percent Responding

Not Sure Somewhat or Strongly Disagree Somewhat or Strongly Agree

Perceptions of Concerns of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.10)

51

42.1

25.2

7.9

17.5

11.9

7.3

4

29.8

43.7

64.9

86.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Some forms of shellfishaquaculture create noise

pollution

Some forms of shellfishaquaculture impact seabird

feeding opportunities

Some forms of shellfishaquaculture conflict withboating anchorages or

beach accesses.

Some forms of shellfishaquaculture alter visual

quality of the marineenvironment

Percent Responding

Not Sure Somewhat or Strongly Disagree Somewhat or Strongly Agree

Text Quotes Regarding Other Benefits / Concerns Not Stated in Survey:

Benefits:

• “Shellfish aquaculture improved water quality in Boot Cove because sewage discharge on lots adjoining the cove had to be upgraded.”

• “I think it may provide a safer source of shellfish for consumers than would wild harvest and less destructive to the natural shellfish environment.”

Concerns:

• “We are extremely annoyed by the garbage generated by the shellfish aquaculture in Booth Bay. It makes us have a very negative view of such operations.”

• “They destroy the natural cycles of local marine creatures.”

• “I am concerned about the harvesting of the wild shellfish in Booth Canal. Is it monitored? It appears to be over-harvested & is done in a noisy manner without consideration to residents who may be sleeping!”

Overall Perception of Shellfish Aquaculture (Q.11)

42.7

30.5

23.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Not Sure

Concerns OutweighBenefits

Benefits OutweighConcerns

Percent Responding

Text Quotes Regarding Influence of Finfish Aquaculture:

• “Farm salmon aquaculture is still highly controversial, and I cannot support shellfish aquaculture without 110% proven data that it has zero impact on the marine environment.”

• “The Gulf Islands (are) already at risk in terms of (their) marine environment. I would totally ban all forms of aquaculture.”

• “Based upon the disastrous impact of fish farms on the BC coast, I am concerned about where shellfish aquaculture will end up.”

• “Please keep shellfish / finfish aquaculture out of Gulf Islands!”

Text Quotes Regarding “Not Sure” Public:

• “I don’t understand why, if the bay is closed to shellfish gathering, an oyster farm is viable.”

• “I am not well informed, thus very concerned.”

• “Concerns over the health of farmed shellfish – not sure I’d eat them.”

• “Our knowledge of shellfish aquaculture is very limited – hence our ‘not sure’ answers.”

• “All in all, if this is a clean industry, then I would strongly support it. How much is allowed is another matter and there needs to be lots of informed public debate. We hear lots about fish farms but nothing really about shellfish aquaculture.”

Conclusions and Recommendations to Industry:

• Visual impact of shellfish aquaculture is low in relation to concern for other impacts on the marine environment. However, residents are cautious about new development.

• Perceptions of the industry are highly influenced by the intense controversy over finfish aquaculture in BC.

• There may be an opportunity to educate the public, before significant negative perception or controversy is created.

• Some concerns are relatively easy to remedy: aesthetic (colour of buoys, tidiness), garbage from the facility, and inconsideration of neighbours (noise, profanity, etc.).

• Consultations with local community are key to inform the neighbours about the activity at the facility.

Future Considerations for Research:

• Explore other methods to address the research.

• Address the process for integrating shellfish aquaculture policy with other planning frameworks:

• tourism,

• land-use planning,

• MPA planning,

• integrated coastal zone management.

David McCallum, MA CandidateMarine Protected Areas Research Group (MPARG)Department of Geography, University of Victoria(250) 721 7345 / davidmcc@uvic.ca

Dr Rick Rollins, Principal InvestigatorDepartment of Tourism and RecreationMalaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC(250) 753 3245 (x 2413) / rollins@mala.bc.ca

Thank-you very much!

Photo Source: BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries