Talk:Environmental impact of recreational diving

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kzakarian. Peer reviewers: Osabby13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

B-Class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Fairly well referenced.Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Covers the subject reasonably well. No obvious directions for expansion. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Seems appropriate. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK to me. No obvious problems. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Complies. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks. OK to me. Y

Promoting to B-class. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Peter, your thoughts about the following proposed change to the first paragraph of the lead:

The environmental impact of recreational diving focuses on both the negative and positive effects of dive tourism on marine environments, more specifically coral reefs and the organisms that inhabitant them. It is not uncommon for highly trafficked dive destinations to have more adverse effects with visible signs of diving's negative impacts due in large part to inexperienced divers, an inadequate pre-dive orientation, or lack of a basic understanding of biodiversity and the delicate balance of aquatic ecosystems. On the other hand, positive effects have resulted from conservation efforts by dive communities who promote environmental awareness, teach low impact diving and the importance of respecting all marine life. There are also global coral reef monitoring networks in place which include local dive volunteers assisting in the collection of data for scientific monitoring of coral reef systems.

Note: It may prove helpful to add information about the various coral reef monitoring efforts in the section, Strategies for sustainable use management. Atsme 💬 📧 13:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, Thanks for the suggestion, I think you have something there, so I will think about it for a while and read up your links. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the general balance of your proposal, it does seem to be more neutral, but there are few details that I think need to be modified.

• Environmental impact is not a thing that focuses on effects, it is the effects.
• Experience and competence are not the same thing. Where competence is required, experience may be a route to developing competence, but there are people with lots of the wrong kind of experience who remain incompetent at a specific skill. The same distinction applies between competence and training. The problems are lack of the requisite skills and the motivation to apply them consistently. How the skills and motivation are developed is an important but separate issue, addressed at some length in the body of the article.
• Motivation is an important issue. Competence without motivation is insufficient. It is often a matter of education to develop an understanding of the consequences of adverse impact, but some divers just don't care.
• Most studies appear to have focused on tropical coral reefs. This may be because they are the most trafficked environments, the most sensitive to diver impact, the easiest to measure impact, the most convenient to study, the most economically important, a combination of the above or something else. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the topic title implies that there may be impacts on other ecosystems, and there are a few studies to support the wider scope.
• It is an interesting question whether the impact of volunteer reef monitoring is overall positive or negative on the monitored ecosystems. I think we are assuming that it is positive if we assume the divers would be there anyway, but the methodology is not always totally free of impact, and I am not aware of any published independent metastudies. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, I have made a few changes to incorporate your suggestions in the lead. I think it is an overall improvement, though a little longer. It does seem to put all the most important concepts together right at the start, which is helpful to the user.

Looking into mentioning reef monitoring projects in the strategy section, probably as a new subsection. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my slowness, Peter, but I find myself with too many irons in the fire that have consumed a great deal of my time since the Holidays began! Glad they're behind us but it now spells tax season, a time of year that I absolutely deplore. On a much happier note, I'll share my thoughts re: your comments above.

• Environmental impact is not a thing that focuses on effects, it is the effects. You are absolutely correct. I was referring to the article, as in a summary of what the article is about, when I should have been referring to the impact itself. My bad.
• Experience and competence are not the same thing. Can't argue with that but most will probably agree that incompetent divers usually don't live long enough to gain experience.
• Motivation is an important issue. I personally believe so, and as a dive instructor, I impressed upon my students that having a burning desire to dive was a prerequisite because it is an extreme sport, and the training can be intense.
• Most studies appear to have focused on tropical coral reefs. Yes, globally perhaps, but there are also some impacts in large bodies of freshwater like the Great Lakes, or globally in cenotes, springs, etc. There's enough that you could have 2 different articles.
• It is an interesting question whether the impact of volunteer reef monitoring is overall positive or negative on the monitored ecosystems. Another good point, but I think DUE would probably be a big consideration. It should be mentioned if concern over it has been demonstrated in RS but typically, if a diver is volunteering for that kind of work, they're probably competement divers.

I'm glad you were able to make use of the proposal, and I will try to finish reading the article over the next few days. Good job, Peter! Atsme 💬 📧 18:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, there is no deadline. Any constructive comments are appreciated, specially if they help me to see the article from a different perspective, and you are doing that.

From my perspective, I see a majority of dilettantes who do not have that burning desire to dive and drop out after a few years of occasional diving when the next fad takes them over. A smaller number persist, but not frequently enough to become fully competent. The training standards for rec diving appear to be written around minimum skills needed to stay alive and reasonably comfortable in familiar conditions as long as nothing serious goes wrong. Of course there are a core of dedicated and skilled enthusiasts who recognise the deficits in their own skills and understanding, and take it upon themselves to get the training, develop the skills, and maintain them. Some are overtaken by real life problems and drop out eventually, others are still diving 30 years later.

The roads are full of bad drivers, most survive. The sea is less full of bad divers, most of them also survive, because they are not there long enough to become statistics. Low exposure to the hazards decreases the probability of getting killed. Dive often enough, and something will go wrong. The competent usually survive and can deal with the incident well enough to make it an annoyance rather than a catastrophe. Sometimes the incompetence is in a specific skill, or choice of equipment, which is usually no problem until one day something changes and it is fatal. By then the diver is considered "experienced" and few blame the training or the training standards.

Extreme sport in that the environment is inherently hazardous, yes. Intense training? maybe for navy divers, or by some instructors, and for relatively advanced specialties. For the average entry level rec diver, not so much. The advertising tends to focus on "fun", rather than diligence, skill, and effort needed to stay alive, so there are more customers, but often not the kind best suited to diving over the long term.

I don't know of anyone who has analysed the skill of the average volunteer. They are probably not much different from the average professional (not necessarily that good - most of the scientific divers I have known are not the greatest when it comes to water skills, most of them don't dive often enough, and when they do, they are trying to get the job done, and getting the job done often has some environmental impact. The ones that are good are usually also recreational divers).

There may well be more studies on diver impact on non-tropical and fresh water envirinments, but most seem to be paywalled. Abstracts often don't provide enough information to judge the quality of the content. I will ask at the Wikipedia library. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear ya, Peter! Recreational diving compared to commercial diving - incomparable. Uhm, Peter...you are aware that the album Boats, Beaches, Bars & Ballads & Budweiser are what comprise fun on dive trips and are the soul of dive travel, right? Budweiser is probably a contraindication to diving, and to some, so is Buffett. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It was Buffet and Heineken when I was in Sint Maarten in '87. Rum and coke were also popular with some. Not my thing, really, though I don't object to Buffet in moderation.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 20:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Off topic content removed

Removed as off topic, may have some value on a different page. I have not verified:

In particular, the Coral Restoration Foundation provides a thorough illustration of the essential role that coral reefs play in the ocean environment, as a source of nutrients and sustainability for about a quarter of all aquatic life. Although people tend not to think of coral reefs as animals, each coral species relies on safe interaction with other organisms, the energy they receive from the algae zooxanthellae, and the ability to thrive in an ecosystem free from harmful contaminants. Unfortunately, over recent years as escalating carbon dioxide emission and the resulting climate change crisis have posed an increasing threat, many coral reefs around the world have suffered from the effects of rising temperatures, which have destroyed the growth of zooxanthellae that coral polyps regularly depend on to survive.

References