Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorParry-Wilson, HM
dc.contributor.authorRees, Sian
dc.contributor.authorLeather, H
dc.contributor.authorCole, R
dc.contributor.authorRugg, C
dc.contributor.authorAttrill, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-23T09:49:59Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-01
dc.identifier.issn0964-5691
dc.identifier.issn1873-524X
dc.identifier.other104906
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/14811
dc.description.abstract

Seagrass beds are critically important habitats delivering a range of ecosystem service benefits that support human wellbeing. They are, however, declining globally at an unprecedented rate. The damaging effects on Zostera marina (Common Eelgrass) seagrass beds in UK waters from mechanical recreational boating activities, namely anchoring and traditional swing mooring scour, suggest that measures of implementing management to mitigate human impacts need prioritising. Eco-moorings, a design that reduces the abrasion pressure of anchoring and mooring on the seabed, are such a mitigation method. In the UK, limited test sites and a lack of social acceptance of the technology compounds the limited uptake of eco-moorings to date. To advance the evidence base, this study focusses on a bespoke eco-mooring design deployed in 2017 to protect seagrass beds within a popular anchorage in Southwest England. We assess the behavioural and social responses of recreational boaters to the trial eco-mooring through 1) mapping of boating activity pre- and post-deployment and 2) structured questionnaires both on-site and online to local and national audiences respectively. Results of mapped boating activity demonstrated a shoreward distribution shift of anchoring away from the deployed eco-mooring, with 45.4% of all anchoring vessels directly within or within a range of potential influence of the seagrass bed. Through the deployment of the eco-mooring (where no mooring previously existed), an estimated additional 20% of anchoring pressure was alleviated from the seagrass bed. A total of 89.6% of on-site respondents reacted positively to the prospect of further eco-moorings being deployed locally. When questioned, 74.6% of on-site and 82.8% of online respondents demonstrated a preference for the physical action of mooring a vessel over anchoring. This suggests that implementation of eco-moorings in seagrass-dense regions could successfully alleviate anchor damage, especially where over half of respondents indicated an awareness of seagrass presence prior to anchoring their vessel and/or hesitance to cease visiting preferential anchoring sites (sheltered bays). This study recommends targeting conservation guidance at the powerboat community, the dominant group anchoring/mooring in the study area and identified as not currently engaged in seagrass education campaigns. It is proposed that management introduce incentives such as free of charge eco-moorings and/or anchoring charges in Marine Protected Areas/Voluntary No Anchor Zones to conserve and recover seagrass and other sensitive seabed habitats nationally.

dc.format.extent104906-104906
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.subjectSeagrass
dc.subjectEelgrass
dc.subjectEnvironmental impact
dc.subjectMPA
dc.subjectVNAZ
dc.subjectSeagrass-friendly
dc.subjectQuestionnaire
dc.subjectAnchoring
dc.subjectBoat mooring
dc.subjectRecreation
dc.titleAssessing behavioural and social responses to an eco-mooring trial for Zostera marina conservation management in Torbay, Southwest England
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000488139200002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.volume180
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalOcean and Coastal Management
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104906
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering/School of Biological and Marine Sciences
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/PRIMaRE Publications
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA07 Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA14 Geography and Environmental Studies
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-07-30
dc.rights.embargodate2020-8-12
dc.identifier.eissn1873-524X
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.funderNatural Environment Research Council
rioxxterms.identifier.projectSouth West Partnership for Environment and Economic Prosperity (SWEEP)
rioxxterms.versionAccepted Manuscript
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104906
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-10-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.funderSouth West Partnership for Environment and Economic Prosperity (SWEEP)::Natural Environment Research Council


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV