3 Aquaculture and Coastal Space Management
91
world’s 689 million international tourists in 2001, one third travelled to Mediterranean
countries (World Tourism Organization 2002) and the largest concentrations of
these tourists visited coastal destinations. Both the coastal tourism and mariculture
industries require a marine environment of high quality to fulfil their business
objectives (Staresinic and Popovi 2004).
In most countries throughout Europe, coastal tourism is an economic force many
times greater than mariculture. Staresinic and Popovi (2004) compared the relative
contributions of tourism and mariculture to the economy of Greece, which has the
greatest production of maricultured fish of all Mediterranean countries and a substantial mussel industry. While mariculture was responsible for more than 6000 jobs
in 2002, the 14.2 million foreign tourists who visited Greece in 2002 generated
293,000 jobs (WTTC 2003). Where such a discrepancy in the overall value of the
industries to the economy exists, tourism, as the stronger competing force, may well
dictate access to coastal space. Sea bream and sea bass farmers along the southeastern Mediterranean coast of Spain state that interaction with tourism-oriented
local authorities is the greatest barrier to development of aquaculture in this region
and is their greatest concern for continuing existing operations in coastal areas.
Tourism developments and coastal aquaculture impact coastal areas through
physical developments, such as construction of hotels, marinas and hatcheries, and
deployment of sea-cages and mussels rafts. Further, both activities result in increased
nutrient and pollution levels from disposal of sewerage or fish farm wastes into
coastal waters (see Section 2.3 for discussion of this interaction). Competition
between tourism and mariculture over long-term access to a high-quality marine
environment has been documented in many European countries (Stephanou 1998;
Conides and Papaconstantinou 2001; Staresinic and Popovi 2004).
Sea-cage fish farms or mussel rafts typically have large surface structures that
impact upon the aesthetics of seascapes viewed from the shore (Fig. 3.2). Landbased facilities to support coastal aquaculture may also create conflict by alteration
of the coastal landscape, particularly where this occurs in ports or resorts, or near
tourist beaches. Tourism, driven by the desire to have extensive, uninterrupted
ocean views, may increasingly block development of aquaculture in particular areas
which may otherwise be suitable on this premise alone, or even force aquaculture
from particular regions of the coast. Staresinic and Popovi (2004) outlined the
problem in Croatia, and the same may be true of many areas of the Mediterranean
that have a dense concentration of coastal tourism sites (e.g., the Balearic Islands;
Valencia 2006). In the Canary Islands, extensive use of the coastal zone by tourism
activities and the extremely narrow continental shelf that limit suitable depths in
which to moor aquaculture installations combine to make the competition for
coastal space particularly intense (Perez et al. 2005). Even in Norway, which has
the longest coastline of any European country, and the largest and most economically important aquaculture industry, placement of aquaculture sites is sometimes
considered in terms of the aesthetic impacts of installations. Movement from inner
fiord locations to more exposed coastal locations is an industry-wide trend for the
farming of salmonids and other species in sea cages (Sunde et al. 2003) and may in
part be due to the aesthetic impacts of installations.
91
world’s 689 million international tourists in 2001, one third travelled to Mediterranean
countries (World Tourism Organization 2002) and the largest concentrations of
these tourists visited coastal destinations. Both the coastal tourism and mariculture
industries require a marine environment of high quality to fulfil their business
objectives (Staresinic and Popovi 2004).
In most countries throughout Europe, coastal tourism is an economic force many
times greater than mariculture. Staresinic and Popovi (2004) compared the relative
contributions of tourism and mariculture to the economy of Greece, which has the
greatest production of maricultured fish of all Mediterranean countries and a substantial mussel industry. While mariculture was responsible for more than 6000 jobs
in 2002, the 14.2 million foreign tourists who visited Greece in 2002 generated
293,000 jobs (WTTC 2003). Where such a discrepancy in the overall value of the
industries to the economy exists, tourism, as the stronger competing force, may well
dictate access to coastal space. Sea bream and sea bass farmers along the southeastern Mediterranean coast of Spain state that interaction with tourism-oriented
local authorities is the greatest barrier to development of aquaculture in this region
and is their greatest concern for continuing existing operations in coastal areas.
Tourism developments and coastal aquaculture impact coastal areas through
physical developments, such as construction of hotels, marinas and hatcheries, and
deployment of sea-cages and mussels rafts. Further, both activities result in increased
nutrient and pollution levels from disposal of sewerage or fish farm wastes into
coastal waters (see Section 2.3 for discussion of this interaction). Competition
between tourism and mariculture over long-term access to a high-quality marine
environment has been documented in many European countries (Stephanou 1998;
Conides and Papaconstantinou 2001; Staresinic and Popovi 2004).
Sea-cage fish farms or mussel rafts typically have large surface structures that
impact upon the aesthetics of seascapes viewed from the shore (Fig. 3.2). Landbased facilities to support coastal aquaculture may also create conflict by alteration
of the coastal landscape, particularly where this occurs in ports or resorts, or near
tourist beaches. Tourism, driven by the desire to have extensive, uninterrupted
ocean views, may increasingly block development of aquaculture in particular areas
which may otherwise be suitable on this premise alone, or even force aquaculture
from particular regions of the coast. Staresinic and Popovi (2004) outlined the
problem in Croatia, and the same may be true of many areas of the Mediterranean
that have a dense concentration of coastal tourism sites (e.g., the Balearic Islands;
Valencia 2006). In the Canary Islands, extensive use of the coastal zone by tourism
activities and the extremely narrow continental shelf that limit suitable depths in
which to moor aquaculture installations combine to make the competition for
coastal space particularly intense (Perez et al. 2005). Even in Norway, which has
the longest coastline of any European country, and the largest and most economically important aquaculture industry, placement of aquaculture sites is sometimes
considered in terms of the aesthetic impacts of installations. Movement from inner
fiord locations to more exposed coastal locations is an industry-wide trend for the
farming of salmonids and other species in sea cages (Sunde et al. 2003) and may in
part be due to the aesthetic impacts of installations.