Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling in...

Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling in Australia Nyree Stenekes, Robert Kancans and Bill Binks

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

Technical report 18.4

July 2018

© Commonwealth of Australia 2018

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to [email protected].

Stenekes, N, Kancans, R & Binks, B 2018, Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling in Australia, ABARES technical report prepared for the Aquatics and Marine Pests Unit, DAWR, Canberra, July. CC BY 4.0.

ISSN 189-3128 ISBN 978-1-74323-393-1 Internet

This publication is available at agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Postal address GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Email [email protected] Web agriculture.gov.au/abares

Disclaimer The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, represented by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, ABARES, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, the Marine Pest Sectorial Committee, Boating Industry Association, and Marina Industries Association for their guidance and support for this project. Special thanks to Phil Tennant (ABARES) for his advice on the statistical analysis in the report. We also thank the participants of the expert elicitation process who shared their valuable insights into marine pest management, and the recreational boat operators who participated in the recreational boater survey.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

mailto:[email protected]

http://agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications


http://agriculture.gov.au/abares/

Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling ABARES

i

Contents Summary 5

1 Background 10

2 Introduction 11

3 Methods and approach 14

4 National recreational boater survey results 17

Survey respondents and boat characteristics 17

About the boat 18

Awareness of biofouling and marine pest transfer 22

Information sources used by recreational boaters 25

Familiarity with national guidelines 28

5 Behavioural survey questions 31

Cleaning the hull (in water) 33

Cleaning the hull (out of water) 36

Cleaning niche areas 37

Clean-and-go 39

Anti-fouling 41

Biofouling waste capture 46

6 Selecting behaviours and groups for action 48

Community based social marketing 48

Investigating domestic boater behaviour using cluster analysis 53

Potential engagement tactics 57

7 Voyage patterns 61

Trip frequency 61

Location of home ports 64

Spatial distribution of trips 66

Longest time boat was stationary in water 67

Duration of stay at destination 68

8 References 70

Data collection strategy 72

Expert ratings of effective boater behaviour 89

Recreational boat survey instrument 96

Survey response 111

Survey communications strategy 115

Review of existing recreational boater surveys 127

Statistical methods 134


ii

Tables Table 1 Boat stored in or out of the water 21

Table 2 List of best practice biofouling management actions (behaviours) included in the recreational boater survey 31

Table 3 Scales 1—5 defined for frequency charts 32

Table 4 Anti-fouling coatings used by respondents 44

Table 5 Preventing spread of marine pests - behaviour selection matrix 49

Table 6 Definition of scales used in behaviour selection matrix 50

Table 7 Cluster group description – proportion of survey respondents in cluster, following best biofouling management practice 54

Table 8 Cluster group description – descriptive characteristics to understand differences between cluster groups 55

Table 9 Potential engagement tactics 59

Table 10 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, by state 61

Table 11 Summary statistics for visits to a place in the last 12 months, by state/territory 62

Table 12 Summary statistics for visits to a place in the last 12 months, by boat type 63

Table 13 Top home port locations, by state 65

Table 14 Longest period that boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, by boat type 67

Table 15 Longest period that boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, by state 68

Table 16 Summary statistics for duration of stay, by state/territory 68

Table 17 Summary statistics for duration of stay, by boat type 69

Table 18: Data collection approaches mapped to project objectives 73

Table 19 Population of recreational boats by state/territory and length classes (metres) 76

Table 20 Sampling options - strengths and weaknesses 77

Table 21 Recreational boat registration and marine licences – agencies records held 78

Table 22 Survey delivery options 81

Table 23 Facebook Demographics in Australia 82

Table 24 Frequency of using social media networking sites 82

Table 25: Best practice management actions to reduce biofouling risk 85

Table 26: Barriers and benefits to biofouling management 88

Table 27 Expert ratings on effectiveness of actions in reducing the spread of marine pests 89


iii

Table 28 Recreational boater survey respondents’ home ports by state/territory 111

Table 29 Counts of respondents – digital and print referrals to the survey 114

Table 30: Recreational boater survey review 127

Figures Figure 1 Role in relation to the boat 17

Figure 2 Member of boating club or association, and boat type 18

Figure 3 Club membership and where boat is stored 18

Figure 4 Type of boat 19

Figure 5 Boat type by state and territory 19

Figure 6 Hull type 19

Figure 7 Hull material 20

Figure 8 Boat length classes represented in the ABARES domestic boater survey responses 20

Figure 9 Boat storage place 21

Figure 10 Aware that marine pests can foul your boat 22

Figure 11 Aware that all boats can transfer marine pests from one location to another if they have biofouling on them 22

Figure 12 Aware of marine pests versus where the boat is stored 23

Figure 13 Aware of marine pests and biofouling versus member of boat club or association 24

Figure 14 Information sources used by recreational boat operators 25

Figure 15 Information sources used, by state 26

Figure 16 Information sources used, by boat type 27

Figure 17 Information sources used, by club membership status 28

Figure 18 Familiar with the contents of the National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (2009) 28

Figure 19 Familiar with the contents of the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (2015) 29

Figure 20 Self-assessed familiarity with National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels, by home port 30

Figure 21 Summary of biofouling management actions by boat operators 32

Figure 22 Frequency of cleaning the boat hull (in the water) 33

Figure 23 Frequency of in-water hull cleaning by boat type 34

Figure 24 Frequency of cleaning boat hull (out of the water) 36

Figure 25 Frequency of cleaning the niche areas of the boat 37


iv

Figure 26 Frequency of cleaning boat hull and niche areas before moving the boat to another location 39

Figure 27 How frequently has anti-fouling coating been applied to the boat hull including the niche areas? 41

Figure 28 Who does the anti-fouling? 42

Figure 29 Anti-fouling product type applied 43

Figure 30 How often biofouling waste is captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat 46

Figure 31 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, national 61

Figure 32 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, ‘Yes’ by boat type 62

Figure 33 Home ports of recreational boat operators, national 64

Figure 34 Domestic recreational boat trips in the past 12 months 66

Figure 35 Longest average period boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, nationally 67

Figure 36 Steps in research project 72

Figure 37 Theoretical model of target population 75

Figure 38 Proportion of registered recreational boats in Australia compared with respondents to the ABARES domestic boater survey, by state 112

Figure 39 Comparison of boat length classes 113

Figure 40 Cluster analysis – measures of fit 135

Figure 41 Cluster analysis – group sizes 136

Figure 42 Cluster group comparison for domestic recreational boat sector 136

Figure 43 Predictor importance 137


5

Summary Background This report presents key results from a national survey of 1,585 recreational boat owners, co-owners or crew (operators) about their boat maintenance practices. The purpose was to inform a national communication approach to reducing the risk of marine pest translocation via biofouling of recreational boats in the Australian marine environment.

The focus of the survey was on the biofouling management actions of people who own vessels, such as yachts (keel boats) and motor cruisers that are usually kept in the water where conditions may encourage the growth of invasive marine plants and animals.

Access to jurisdictional recreational boat licence and registration databases, to develop a national sample frame of recreational boat owners, was unavailable. Therefore, a non-probability sampling approach was employed to recruit participants from this hard-to-reach population. A number of approaches were used to recruit participants, such as through informal social networks of people with connections to recreational boat owners through their day-to-day work activities; industry associations; managers of marinas; boat and yacht clubs; traditional media advertising; and social media. Data was captured via an online survey platform that was open between February and July 2017.

The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the recreational boat population, however, response to the survey showed there was adequate coverage across a number of relevant strata: both sailing boats and powerboats; the majority of boats between 5 and 24 metres in length; storage location of boats at marinas or swing moorings; and responses across all states and territories in Australia proportional to registered owner numbers.

Key findings from the survey are:

Awareness of biofouling and marine pests • There was a high level of awareness of marine pest risk among Australian recreational

boaters who participated in the survey. Almost all respondents (95 per cent) were aware that marine pests can be present as biofouling on their boat. And the vast majority (86 per cent) were aware that all boats can transfer marine pests if they have biofouling on them. Members of boating clubs or associations were more likely to be aware that all boats can transfer marine pests if they have biofouling on them.

Familiarity with national guidelines • Self-assessed familiarity with the contents of key National Biofouling Management

Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (Australian Government 2009) and the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (Australian Government 2015) produced by the Australian Government was quite low nationally (with about 20 per cent of survey respondents familiar).

• However, there were differences in the levels of familiarity with the National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels by state. Familiarity levels among recreational boat operators with home ports in New South Wales (16 per cent) was lower than expected while more respondents with home ports in Tasmania (36 per cent) were familiar with the guidelines than expected. There was no significant difference in levels of familiarity with the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines across the states.


6

Common biofouling management actions • Domestic recreational boat operators who participated in the survey, undertake a range

of biofouling management actions on a regular basis. The majority—around 60 per cent or more—of respondents nationally were doing many of the best practices, including: regularly cleaning the boat hull, cleaning the niche areas of the boat, renewing the anti-fouling coating each year and capturing the biofouling waste after cleaning. However, only about a third were cleaning the boat before moving it to another location.

• A large majority (>80 per cent) of respondents were interested in engaging in several of the practices more in future, including out-of-water hull cleaning, niche area cleaning, and maintaining the renewal of the anti-fouling coating at the current level. Most (66 per cent) said they would be likely to capture and dispose of biofouling waste in the future. There were, however, fewer respondents (42 per cent) willing to do regular in-water cleaning in the future, mainly due to concerns about release of contaminants and marine pests into waters and safety concerns. Only 35 per cent of domestic boat operators said they would be likely to clean the boat before moving it to another location in the future, mainly due to the cost of slipping, lack of care about boat performance, time taken for cleaning, cleaning not needed (i.e. if the boat was already clean, owners believed anti-fouling still operating effectively) or it was impractical to clean the boat in the water.

Biofouling management actions that are worth promoting • A Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) approach developed by McKenzie-Mohr

(2011) was used in this project to identify which biofouling management actions were worth promoting in future public engagement or education campaigns. This approach has been applied in Australia to managing a range of invasive species, such as wild dogs and feral cats, and works especially well where managing risks successfully relies on actions taken by individuals in the community (Hine et al. 2015; McLeod 2016; Please et al. 2017).

• We identified and prioritised a number of key biofouling management practices that domestic recreational boat owners could engage in, which are regarded as important for minimising the translocation of marine pests. The behaviours (or management actions) were based on a review of the national and international guidelines relating to anti-fouling, cleaning and biofouling management for the recreational vessel sector (Australian Government 2009; 2015; International Maritime Organization 2012).

• An expert elicitation approach was used to rank the biofouling management actions according to their effectiveness in preventing the translocation of marine pests if undertaken regularly by the vast majority of recreational vessel owners. The following rankings emerged from the experts (in order from most to least effective):

1) cleaning the boat before moving it to another location,

2) renewal of anti-fouling coating,

3) capture and disposal of biofouling waste after cleaning,

4) cleaning niches areas,

5) taking the hull out of the water for cleaning, and

6) in-water hull cleaning.

• This process allowed the researchers to prioritise behavioural questions for inclusion in the recreational boater survey. Recreational boat operators responded to the national survey and gave their ratings on how regularly they did these actions, and how likely in future they would be to do these management actions.

• The rankings of experts were compared with those given by recreational boat operators who participated in the survey in a behaviour prioritisation matrix. The matrix


7

produced an overall ranking of the biofouling management actions in terms of projected impact. The selector matrix helps choose the behaviours that have a combination of: a high degree of effectiveness in addressing the issue, a high probability that domestic boaters will adopt the behaviour, and are currently not widely being undertaken by domestic boaters.

• This process showed that the greatest overall benefits for marine pest management would arise from promoting behaviours in the following order:

- cleaning the boat before moving it to another location (i.e. clean-and-go)

- anti-fouling coating applied to the boat hull including the niche areas

- biofouling waste captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat.

• Although the experts ranked ‘clean-and-go’ as the most highly effective action, it was not commonly practiced by recreational boat operators (usually or always done by only 27 per cent). There were a number of reasons why domestic boat operators are not cleaning their boats before moving them, including: clean before you go was not applicable because they were not moving the boat far, or it was already clean, or it was not practical (boat is stopping for short periods while in transit), and the high cost of using a slipway if the cleaning requires dry docking or hauling out. External factors they mentioned were the difficulty in accessing a local slipway, particularly one which has the required facilities (for example, able to haul out larger boats), and access to safe areas that were free of sharks or crocodiles for in-water cleaning. These factors are likely to mean that there will be limited adoption of ‘clean-and-go’ without significant changes to the opportunities available for domestic boaters to clean their boats before going.

• Renewing the ‘anti-fouling coating on the hull and niche areas’ of the boat regularly (at least once a year) was ranked by the experts as a highly effective action in reducing biofouling growth and the potential spread of marine pests if done properly. This is widely adopted—by 59 per cent of survey respondents—but some effort is needed to promote this action further. Anti-fouling renewal and a number of the other recommended actions were often done as part of the annual haul out and servicing of recreational vessels during the ‘off season’. It is therefore worth considering ways of encouraging domestic boaters to keep maintaining this action.

• ‘Waste capture and disposal’ of biofouling after cleaning the boat was rated as quite an effective behaviour by experts in reducing the risk of translocation of marine pests. Particularly if the fouling occurred in a port known (or suspected) to have marine pests and the waste capture was done in another (clean) port. But, the penetration of this behaviour into the recreational boat sector was moderate, with most (64 per cent) of the respondents who knew what happened to the waste, reporting that the biofouling waste was usually or always captured and disposed of properly after cleaning the boat. Thirty six per cent admitted that the biofouling waste is not regularly captured (sometimes, rarely or never). A group of 142 further respondents said they didn’t know if it was captured and disposed of, in the main because someone else does it for them. There was considerable willingness to engage further in biofouling waste capture in the future (66 per cent of those who answered this question). This suggests there are opportunities to encourage this practice, such as by providing better access to facilities that have waste capture and motivating people to do so, for example, by explaining more clearly the circumstances in which waste capture is recommended and why.

• The other actions that related to regular cleaning of the boat hull out of the water and cleaning of the niche areas are quite effective actions with a moderate to high degree of penetration in the domestic recreational boating sector, and relatively high levels of willingness to adopt these actions in future. This suggests that there is a high level of motivation present among recreational boat operators who can see the benefits of regular


8

cleaning and maintenance. These actions are often part of the yearly anti-fouling, maintenance and repair schedule and ensures that the operation of the boat is reliable and safe. There was a high level of willingness to continue hauling out the boat for cleaning and maintenance once a year. The most commonly reported barrier to continuing this was the high costs of slipping and hauling out, the availability and accessibility of those facilities and the time consuming nature of the procedure.

• ‘Cleaning the boat hull in the water’ was rated on average by experts as a less effective behaviour for preventing translocation of marine pests. The penetration of the behaviour into the recreational boat sector was moderate, with 60 per cent of survey respondents cleaning their boat hulls in the water at least once a year or more often. However, the probability of recreational boat operators more widely adopting in-water cleaning in the future was low with a majority (58 per cent) of survey respondents saying they were unlikely to have their boat hulls cleaned in the water in the future. A common reason given was the potential release of contaminants into marine waters, in the context of government guidelines discouraging removal of hard growth in the water. ‘Cleaning the hull in water’ had the lowest effectiveness score and low continued adoption score which were the significant factors in the low overall impact rank for this management practice.

Domestic recreational boat operators are not all the same To identify groups for further focus, we investigated recreational boat operators’ level of adoption of key biofouling practices in more detail using a cluster analysis technique. This enabled us to identify homogenous groups of survey respondents who shared similar biofouling management practices.

• Three cluster groups emerged from the cluster analysis, who can be described as the ‘Minimalists—DIY group’, those with a ‘Comprehensive regime—active club members’, and the ‘OK—but could improve’ group.

• The ‘Minimalists—DIY group’ represented 43 per cent of survey respondents. This group had a minimalist biofouling management regime, characterised by a very low proportion undertaking all the key biofouling management actions. Most (59 per cent) were doing the anti-fouling renewal themselves rather than using a service provider. This group were less likely to be a member of a boating club or association, and their boats were kept in water for longer periods over the year (average 91 days) than the other groups. Most (59 per cent) had travelled outside their home port or harbour in the last 12 months. The infrequent nature of cleaning and anti-fouling suggests that this group represents a high risk for biofouling growth and domestic marine pest translocation.

• ‘Comprehensive regime—active club members’ were the smallest group of domestic boaters representing 19 per cent of respondents. This group were typically going above and beyond the requirements of the voluntary national guidelines in terms of biofouling management. Very little effort is needed to maintain their biofouling management regime as they are motivated not by biosecurity concerns, but by boat efficiency and performance, particularly for better cruising and racing experiences. Frequent cleaning and biofouling actions among this group suggests the boats in the group pose a relatively low risk of developing biofouling growth and thus a lower risk of domestic marine pest translocation.

• This left 38 per cent of survey respondents in the ‘OK, but could improve’ group. This group of domestic boaters were managing some biofouling actions—for example, almost all were renewing the anti-fouling coating on the boat once a year, and cleaning the boat thoroughly out of the water once a year or more often. But a large proportion were not engaging regularly in a number of other management actions, such as 39 per cent were


9

never doing in-water cleaning, and only 25 per cent were usually or always cleaning the boat before moving it to another location.

• This suggests there is some confusion among domestic recreational boaters about whether in-water cleaning is a good biofouling management practice, and if it is, under which circumstances. A sizable proportion in cluster group 3 (‘OK but could improve’), for example, were ‘Never’ or not very regularly doing in-water cleaning (39 per cent). Some of the reasons reported for never cleaning the boat in the water were legitimate, such as it is not permitted in many marinas, it is illegal in some states, because of the potential for release of chemicals or pollution, or because of the risk of spreading of marine pests in the environment, or the boat does not need it/or it is not appropriate due to the type of anti-fouling paint used. It may be worth looking at the messaging around this practice with a view to being more specific about when in-water cleaning is desirable and should be encouraged (such as only for cleaning the slime layer; no scraping of hard growth).

• There is a considerable interest among a large proportion of recreational boat operators in ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘protecting the environment’, as is demonstrated by comments about the benefits of undertaking biofouling management actions. The analysis above presents opportunities to develop messaging that could be used as part of future engagement strategies with recreational boaters to influence behaviour voluntarily and promote best practice biofouling management activities. The messages could be tailored further to suit particular groups of recreational boat operators such as the three cluster groups, so that they are appropriate. Engagement tactics and messaging would need to be tested with recreational boat operators and developed further in the context of a broader education or outreach campaign.

How to reach domestic boaters • The most popular information sources for recreational boat operators for advice and

information about boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance were industry service providers (e.g. marinas and slipways) (68 per cent of respondents are using this source), the Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook) (52 per cent) and other boat owners (46 per cent). Yacht and boat clubs were an important source of information used by 28 per cent of respondents.

• There were some differences within the domestic boater cohort. Respondents with sailing boats were more likely to be using the Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook), yacht or boat clubs, and other boat owners to get information about anti-fouling and hull maintenance than were powerboat operators. Those who were members of a boating association or club were more likely to get information from pamphlets/brochures, from yacht or boat clubs, and other boat owners, than respondents who were not members of an association or club.

• Recreational boat operators with home ports in New South Wales were more likely than expected to use industry service providers such as marinas and slipways (81 per cent) as information sources than were survey respondents in other jurisdictions. Recreational boat operators with home ports in Victoria were more likely to be using other boat owners and yacht or boat clubs as information sources than expected, compared to survey respondents in other jurisdictions.


10

1 Background Biofouling occurs when aquatic organisms (including microorganisms, plants and animals) attach and grow on surfaces submerged in or exposed to the marine environment, including the hull and niche areas (for example, sea chests, rudders, propeller shaft, internal piping, anchor boxes) of boats. Vessels that have biofouling can unintentionally transport invasive plant and animal pest species within the Australian marine environment. The introduction and spread of invasive marine pests poses a serious threat to native biodiversity and can have widespread effects on the economy, social amenity and human health. Biofouling on vessels can reduce fuel efficiency and speed, and increase maintenance costs to vessel owners.

Domestic recreational boat biofouling management is not regulated by the Australian Government and the management approach is provided on a voluntary basis through national biofouling management guidelines, which recommends initiatives to manage biofouling risks. Currently, the Commonwealth’s legislative reach is targeted at international vessels arriving in Australia, while states and territories are responsible for domestic biofouling requirements.

The 2015 Review of National Marine Pest Biosecurity (the Review) and its recommendations set a new direction for the development and strengthening of Australia’s marine pest biosecurity arrangements. The Review highlighted domestic recreational vessels as a biosecurity management gap and recommended the Australian Government initiate education and awareness raising about biofouling management in line with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) biofouling guidelines for recreational vessels.

This project underpins the following recommendation from The Review:

Recommendation 5: The Australian Government should support national education and awareness activities to minimise the domestic spread of marine pests

To assist with this, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources commissioned ABARES to conduct a nationwide project to better understand the behaviours of domestic vessel operators including the level of awareness of biofouling marine pests, the current standard of biofouling management activities and vessel movement patterns in the domestic recreational vessel sector.


11

2 Introduction Biofouling accumulation rates on vessels differs depending on operational profiles, maintenance activities and voyage patterns. Australia’s national approach to domestic marine pest biosecurity relies heavily on voluntary uptake of the national biofouling management guidelines by recreational vessel operators to prevent and manage biofouling growth. However, little is known about the uptake of the voluntary guidelines by the recreational vessel sector. Detailed information on the awareness levels about biofouling and marine pests, biofouling management practices (or behaviours), and domestic voyage patterns of domestic recreational boat operators in Australia is lacking, particularly across jurisdictional and national scales.

The purpose of this project is to establish an understanding of domestic recreational vessel operators’ marine pest awareness, current biofouling management actions, and their current and potential contribution to managing biofouling risk. The approach taken in the project was to identify where the greatest impact in promoting voluntary options for biofouling management lies – including what behaviours should be targeted for change, and for whom the educational campaigns can be focussed within the recreational vessel sector. The development of actual educational materials is not in scope for the project. However, the information from the project can be used to inform the development of educational materials to encourage uptake of the voluntary guidelines and help guide direct investment in voluntary measures for the domestic recreational sector in order to minimise biofouling risks.

The objectives of the project were therefore to provide a better understanding of:

• the level of marine pest awareness of domestic recreational boat operators associated with biofouling management in Australia

• hull husbandry practices adopted by domestic recreational boat operators to manage biofouling accumulation on their boats

• barriers and benefits to improved self-management of biofouling by domestic recreational boat operators

• trusted communication channels used by domestic recreational boat operators

• domestic recreational boat voyage patterns in Australia.

To address these project objectives a quantitative survey was chosen as the primary data collection strategy to gather evidence directly from domestic recreational boat operators.

Survey scope The scope of the national domestic boater survey was developed in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, taking into account the recommendations of the 2015 Review of National Marine Pest Biosecurity and previous research on biofouling risk assessment.

Research highlighted that marine pest translocation risk by the recreational boating sector in Australia varies substantially, but generally increases with the size of the vessel, as larger recreational vessels travel longer distances and to a greater array of destinations (Kinloch et al. 2003). Larger vessels also provide more surface area for biofouling attachment and a wider variety of niche areas.

The amount of time the recreational vessel is in the water is considered an important factor for the development of biofouling growth and risk of marine pest spread as biofouling. According to Kinloch et al (2003), there would be more risk of marine pest translocation via biofouling


12

growth if the boat is on the water for all or part of the year. Kinloch et al (2003) identified that within the recreational sector, yachts1 were the group most likely to transfer marine pests because they are often kept permanently in the water either at anchor, on a mooring or berthed in a marina, except for occasional haul outs for repainting or anti-fouling in the ‘off’ season.

Yachts also tend to travel further distances than smaller recreational vessels, which is another risk factor for the spread of marine pests. Therefore, the project scope focussed on domestic recreational vessels (for example, yachts) of a certain size, which are kept in water for much of the year and travel longer distances.

These considerations provided the following guidance on the scope of the project:

1. Operators of domestic2 recreational vessels: • ranging from ≥5m and < 25 metres (except for superyachts) • non-trailered • normally kept in water

2. A range of coastal environments:

• marinas • anchorages • moorings • ports • harbours • reaches

3. Vessel movements include:

• within Australia – but also capturing any travel overseas by domestic vessels • in-water: stationary or active periods • out-of-water, dry dock or hard stand times

4. Biofouling maintenance regimes and behaviours (what, how, when and where):

• cleaning niche areas • cleaning the hull in/out of water • appropriate anti-fouling coating and maintenance • location of maintenance • biofouling waste capture and disposal • record keeping

5. Understanding the level of knowledge of marine pests and biofouling within the

domestic recreational vessel community:

1 Yachts as defined as vessels with a fixed keel whose primary method of propulsion is sail. 2 Vessels that are primarily international, i.e. have an international home port and transit domestic ports were out of scope. These were included in a concurrent ABARES project on international recreational vessel biofouling.


13

• of national biofouling guidelines3 • translocation of marine pests via biofouling • use of anti-fouling service providers • boat club membership.

This is the first baseline national data collection that has been undertaken on biofouling management in the Australian recreational boating sector. It provides a unique national dataset that can be used by marine biosecurity managers at the federal, state and territory government levels, marina and boating industry representatives, marine researchers and boating service providers to assist in developing education and awareness campaigns to encourage behaviours that will help minimise biofouling risk.

3 Including the Australian Government Australian Government 2009, National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels, and the Australian Government 2015, Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines. IMO ‘Guidance for minimizing the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species as Biofouling (hull fouling) for Recreational Craft’ recommends ways to actively minimise the biofouling on vessels to reduce the risk of transferring invasive aquatic species. IMO guidance is noted in this report where it is consistent with the Australian national guidelines (a comparison in available in Table 25: Best practice management actions to reduce biofouling risk). The fundamental approach recommended by the IMO is to use an appropriate anti-fouling coating system and having a good maintenance regime.


14

3 Methods and approach Several steps were required to meet the objectives of the project. These steps are summarised here and described in more detail in Appendix A: Data collection strategy.

1. Stakeholder analysis (desk top review)

Biofouling management is a shared responsibility of a number of stakeholders. This step in the project involved identifying people, service providers, businesses, organisations and institutions who are involved in recreational boat biofouling management and their role. This stakeholder analysis was needed in order to reach the boat owner population for the national survey.

2. Identify the best practices for domestic recreational boat biofouling management (review of guidelines and surveys)

What voluntary behaviour is expected of recreational boat operators? What actions are they meant to undertake that would substantially contribute to minimising marine pest spread? There are a number of Australian and international guideline documents that identify best practices for managing biofouling on recreational boats to prevent marine pest spread. This process involved reviewing and summarising the practices that are recommended for domestic recreational boat operators (Appendix A, Table 25).

We also reviewed existing survey questionnaires that were used with recreational boat operators by other researchers and governments that related to biofouling, anti-fouling or cleaning practices, or any other relevant questions. This assisted us in the design of the national survey instrument, such as with the use of terminology, what biofouling management behaviours were relevant to ask about, that is, may influence marine pest translocation (Appendix F: Review of existing recreational boater surveys).

3. Prioritise the biofouling best practices (expert rating survey)

Which of the practices are most effective at preventing marine pest translocation in Australia? This involved asking a range of experts to rate the biofouling management practices identified in step 2 according to how effective they are at preventing biofouling growth on domestic boats and marine pest spread.

This process involved an online survey of experts in marine biofouling management about what recreational boat management practices they thought would be most effective in minimising the spread of marine pests by the domestic recreational boat sector (Appendix B: Expert ratings of effective boater behaviour). The experts were from international and Australian government, industry and research organisations.

4. Characteristics of Australian domestic recreational sector, awareness of marine pests, biofouling practices and voyage patterns (national recreational boater survey)

The survey was a means of capturing a range of information about domestic recreational boat owners in Australia, including general characteristics such as boat type, where the boat is stored, and preferred information sources. It was also a method to determine levels of awareness of marine pests, familiarity with national guidelines, and perceptions about a range of recommended biofouling management practices.


15

Very little is known about the voluntary biofouling management practices of the recreational boating sector in Australia and how they might (or might not) be contributing to reducing marine pest spread. A number of behavioural studies from overseas provided some insight into recreational boater behaviour, but this project required collection of evidence directly from Australian recreational boat owners or crew (operators). The survey enabled us to gain a better understanding of why boat owners engage in voluntary biofouling management or not—that is, the barriers and benefits they saw to undertaking the behaviours, in the Australian context.

There was also a lack of national information about voyage patterns of domestic recreational boats, particularly interstate travel patterns, and there was some interest in gaining a national picture of vessel movements for this cohort through the survey.

A complete sample frame containing the list of people in the target population was not available for this project. So the strengths and weaknesses of alternative sampling techniques were evaluated for the national domestic boater survey. The strengths and weaknesses of these alternatives are discussed in more detail in Appendix A: Options and considerations for sampling recreational domestic boat operators.

Delivery method

Based on these considerations, the internet was considered the best option for delivering the survey using an adapted referral sampling method. This involved recruiting recreational boat operators to participate in the online survey through invitations sent via email lists, public newsletters, boating magazine advertisements, boat club member lists, social media (for example, Facebook, Twitter) and other referrals from third parties, such as marina businesses. The referral process involved several steps, including the development of a stakeholder database which identified the primary referral parties. A communications strategy was developed and implemented to recruit participants to the survey (Appendix E: Survey communications strategy). Data was captured via the online survey platform that was open between February and July 2017.

Survey instrument

The question development was informed by the review of biofouling guidelines and survey questions were adapted from previous surveys of recreational boaters. Three areas required question development: general survey questions (for example, awareness, role in relation to boat, boat characteristics, boat use and storage, use of information sources), voyage pattern questions (trip information) and biofouling management (behavioural) questions. The selection of questions is discussed in more detail in Appendix A: Survey questionnaire development.

Survey response

There were 1,585 responses to the survey, and of these 883 were within scope (see on page 11). The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the recreational boat population, however, response to the survey showed there was adequate coverage across a number of relevant strata: both sailing boats and powerboats; the majority of boats between 5 and 24 metres in length; storage location of boats at marinas or swing moorings; boat club membership; and responses across all states and territories in Australia proportional to registered owner numbers.

There would be response bias due to the non-probablistic sampling procedure and the method of online survey delivery. The responses are therefore likely to be biased towards boat operators who have internet connectivity and who are regular users of social media. The extent


16

of the bias cannot be determined. However, we compared the survey responses on other known population datasets such as boat length classes for recreational vessels registered held by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) List of Registered Ships (see Figure 39 Appendix D: Survey response), and against data held by state/territory jurisdictions on registered boats. These comparisons indicated that the coverage of survey responses was comparable by geographical location and boat length classes with that of the Australian population of domestic recreational boats.

Analytical approaches To facilitate and enable a focused approach to influencing biofouling management behaviour in the recreational boat cohort, further analysis was required of the data collected from the national domestic recreational boater survey. Beyond a descriptive understanding of biofouling management by the domestic recreational boat cohort, there was a desire to understand:

• What management behaviours should be prioritised and promoted to reduce the risk of translocating marine pests

• Who within the recreational cohort are more or less likely to be undertaking biofouling management practices

• How to spread the message to the cohorts to improve voluntary biofouling management.

We applied the following analytic approaches to address these questions:

1) Descriptive statistics – statistics used to summarise general characteristics of the national recreational boat cohort.

2) Inferential statistics – to look at the relationships between independent variables, such as boat type (powerboat/sailing boat) and location of boat storage (in/out of water), and dependent variables, such as frequency of cleaning, anti-fouling, and waste capture, to understand the relationships between them and whether the independent variables could explain the behaviours (Appendix G: General statistical tests).

3) Community Based Social Marketing – a framework adopted for this project to prioritise what biofouling management actions would be most beneficial to promote (steps used for CBSM are detailed in Appendix A: CBSM framework and process used to develop the behavioural survey questions).

4) Cluster analysis – to identify who is undertaking the biofouling management actions, by using a statistical approach that classifies survey respondents into relatively homogenous groups, based on their biofouling management regimes. Key characteristics of the groups can then be explored to build a profile of each group (Appendix G: Development of the cluster analysis).

The outputs of these analyses are presented in the next chapters.


17

4 National recreational boater survey results

Results presented in this section are based on the responses of 1,585 recreational boat operators who participated in the 2017 ABARES national domestic recreational boater survey (the domestic boater survey).

Survey respondents and boat characteristics Role in relation to the boat The majority of respondents’ role in relation to the boat was owner (81 per cent), followed by co-owner (10 per cent) and crew (5 per cent), with the remaining falling into other roles (Figure 1). Other roles included the master or skipper of the boat, bosun (caretaker), boat maintenance personnel, friend or family of owner, passenger/observer, marina/slipway manager, past or prospective owners, and industry or club representatives.

Figure 1 Role in relation to the boat

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=1267

Member of boat club or association The majority of survey respondents were members of boating clubs or associations, of which a larger proportion operated sailing boats (41 per cent of total) than those who operated power boats (20 per cent of total) (Figure 2).

The relationship between where the boat is kept (in or out of water) and boat club/association membership status was investigated (Figure 3). Those who kept their boat at a facility such as a marina berth or on a mooring were more likely to be a member of a boating club or association than expected (67 per cent and 52 per cent respectively), compared to those who kept their boat in a dry rack, hard stand or boat lift (67 per cent were club members)4.

4 A chi-square test of independence revealed that this relationship was statistically significant with χ2(2)=19.04, p=<0.0001. Following the significant chi-square test, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002).

81%

10%

5%4%

Owner

Co-owner

Crew

Other - Please specify


18

Figure 2 Member of boating club or association, and boat type

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=864 (excludes trailered boats)

Figure 3 Club membership and where boat is stored


About the boat Nationally, approximately half of the respondents owned sailing boats while the other half owned powerboats (Figure 4). A breakdown by state and territory reveals that there were higher proportions of respondents with sailboats in all states and territories (except for Western Australia) (Figure 5). Of those respondents who did not provide a home port location, a large proportion were powerboat owners (71 per cent). This may be because the majority of powerboats are either stored in a dry rack, hard stand or boat lift, or trailered to a boat ramp, and may not have a single home port.

Most respondents’ operated boats with monohull types (Figure 6) and in the majority of cases, the hull material of the boats was fibreglass (Figure 7).

20%

41%

40%Yes, powerboat

Yes, sailing boat

No

0

20

40

60

80

100

In the water year-round ata marina berth

In the water year-round ona mooring

Out of the water (e g dryrack, hard stand or boat lift)

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Are you a member of a boating association or club? Yes

Are you a member of a boating association or club? No


19

Figure 4 Type of boat


Figure 5 Boat type by state and territory


Figure 6 Hull type


50%50%

Powerboat

Sailing boat

0

20

40

60

80

100

No homeport location

provided

NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Location of homeport, by state

Powerboat Sailing boat

91%

9%

Monohull

Multihull (e.g.catamaran)


20

Figure 7 Hull material


Boat length The average length of boats represented in the domestic boater survey was 10 metres, with the majority of recreational vessels represented in the survey were between 5 and 15 metres in length (Figure 8).

Figure 8 Boat length classes represented in the ABARES domestic boater survey responses

Note: Frequency counts of survey respondents’ by 5 metre class boat lengths are shown on graph. Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=1214

72%

13%

3% 9%3%

Fibreglass

Aluminium

Steel

Wood


0

141

540

453

52

9 6 8 4 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 More

Surv

ey re

spon

dent

s(c

ount

s)

Boat length classes (metres)


21

Where the boat is stored The responses of domestic recreational boaters were summarised according to where there boat is primarily stored (Figure 9). The majority of respondent’s boats were stored in the water year-round, either at a marina berth (40 per cent) or on a mooring (30 per cent). Boats that were trailered to a boat ramp accounted for 22 per cent of the responses, with a further 3 per cent stored in a dry rack, hard stand or boat lift and 4 per cent as other. Simpler categories of stored ‘in water’ and stored ‘out of water’ were then assigned based on whether the boat was kept in the water for extended periods compared with boats taken out of the water after each use (e.g. trailered vessels) (Table 1 column 4) to provide a basis for comparison of the level of risk posed by the vessel. Boats kept on a dry rack, hard stand or boat lift were assigned to ‘in water’ because they could be stationary in the water in the boating season for extended periods of time, in some cases up to 200 days a year.

Figure 9 Boat storage place

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey. N=1253

Table 1 Boat stored in or out of the water

Where the boat is primarily stored No. respondents

% survey respondents Assigned to

% survey respondents

in/out of water Year-round at a marina berth 506 40.4

In water 73.7 Year-round on a mooring 377 30.1

Dry rack, hard stand or boat lift 40 3.2

Trailered to a boat ramp 280 22.3 Out of water 22.3

Other - Please specify 50 4.0 In/out water depends5 4.0

Total 1253 100

5 Assigned based on free text description of where the boat was stored. Other specified responses assigned to ‘in water’ included boats stored on pontoon, private jetty, pole mooring, on anchor, cruising, continually sailing, or in the water for part of the year. ‘Out of water’ included boats stored on a floating dock, at home, in shed/garage, or on a trailer.

40%

30%

3%

22%

4%Year-round at a marina berth

Year-round on a mooring

Dry rack, hard stand or boat lift

Trailered to a boat ramp



22

Awareness of biofouling and marine pest transfer Respondents were asked if they were aware that marine pests can foul their boat (Figure 10) and the potential for marine pest transfer if fouling occurs (Figure 11). Almost all respondents (95 per cent) were aware that marine pests can be present as biofouling on their boat. And the vast majority (86 per cent) were aware that all boats can transfer marine pests if they have biofouling on them.

Figure 10 Aware that marine pests can foul your boat


Figure 11 Aware that all boats can transfer marine pests from one location to another if they have biofouling on them


95%

5%

Yes

No

86%

14%

YesNo


23

The relationship between a respondent’s awareness of marine pests and the location that respondents kept their boats—either in water for extended periods or out of the water after each use (assigned categories as per Table 1)—was investigated.

Those who stored their boat in the water for extended periods were more likely to be aware that marine pests can foul their boat (98 per cent) than those who kept their boats out of the water (89 per cent)6. This could be explained by the large proportion of trailer boat operators in the group who keep their boat out of the water after each use and may not be as aware of biofouling material building up on the boat.

There was no significant difference in levels of awareness that all boats can transfer marine pests if they have biofouling on them, between those who kept their boat in the water for extended periods (86 per cent) and those who kept their boat out of the water after each use (84 per cent)7.

There was also no significant difference between those who kept their boat at a marina versus those who kept it on a mooring, in the levels of awareness that marine pests can foul boats8, or that all boats can transfer marine pests if they have biofouling on them9.

Figure 12 Aware of marine pests versus where the boat is stored

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Note: Boat stored ‘in the water’ and boat stored ‘out of water’ were assigned categories (as per Table 1). In water storage N=959 (aware of marine pests) and N=964 (aware of biofouling); and out of water storage N=282 (aware marine pests) and N=281 (aware of biofouling).

6 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(1)=38.23 continuity corrected, p=<0.0001. 7 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was not significant, χ2(1)=0.88 continuity corrected, p=0.347. 8 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was not significant, χ2(1)=0.57 continuity corrected, p=0.452. 9 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was not significant, χ2(1)=1.27 continuity corrected, p=0.261.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes - Aware that marine pests canfoul the boat

Yes - Aware that all boats cantransfer marine pests if they have

biofouling on them

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Boat kept in water for extended periods (e.g. marina berth, on mooring,dry rack, hard stand or boat lift)

Boat stored out of water after each use (e.g. at home, in shed/garage, ortrailered)


24

The relationship between a respondent’s awareness of marine pests and whether the respondent was a member of a boating association or club was investigated (Figure 13). There was no significant difference in awareness that marine pests can foul boats between members and non-members. However, those who were members of boating associations and clubs were more likely to be aware that biofouling on a boat can lead to marine pest transfer10.

Figure 13 Aware of marine pests and biofouling versus member of boat club or association

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=857 (Aware marine pests can foul the boat), N=861 (Aware all boats with biofouling can transfer marine pests)

10 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(1)=7.46 continuity corrected, p=0.006.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes - Aware that marine pests can foul theboat

Yes - Aware that all boats can transfermarine pests if they have biofouling on

them

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Member of boating club or association

Not a member of a boating club or association


25

Information sources used by recreational boaters Recreational boat operators were asked to indicate the sources and formats through which they obtain information about boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance (Figure 14). Nationally, 68 per cent of survey respondents got their information from industry service providers, such as marina and slipway operators. The Internet (such as boating blogs and Facebook) (52 per cent), was also a popular information source, as were other boat owners (46 per cent), and yacht or boat clubs (28 per cent). Other common information sources11 consisted of their ‘own experience’, anti-fouling coating manufacturers, marine paint suppliers, marine retailers, boating magazines, training courses and boat shows.

Figure 14 Information sources used by recreational boat operators

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=718 Information sources were explored to find out if there was a relationship between boat operators’ use of information sources and other characteristics such as the location of the home port, boat type, boat storage place and club membership status.

11 In the ‘Other – Please specify’ category.

0 20 40 60 80

NGOs (e.g. Oceanwatch)

Marine Rescue / Coast Guard

Media (e.g. TV, newspapers)

Government - federal

Government - State


Friends and family

Pamphlets / brochures

Yacht / boat club

Other boat owners

Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook)

Industry service providers (e.g. marina, slipways)

% survey respondents


26

The notable differences between the groups were:

• Recreational boaters with home ports in NSW were more likely to use industry providers such as marinas and slipways (81 per cent) than expected as information sources12, than were survey respondents in other states (Figure 15). In Tasmania, fewer respondents than expected get their information from industry service providers (54 per cent).

• Recreational boat operators with home ports in Victoria were more likely to be using other boat owners (59 per cent) and yacht/boat clubs (50 per cent) than expected as information sources13, than were survey respondents in other states (Figure 15). In Queensland, fewer respondents than expected get their information from yacht/boat clubs (19 per cent).

Figure 15 Information sources used, by state

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=653. NT excluded from chi-square analysis since counts are too low.

12 A chi-square test of independence revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(5)=24.47, p=<0.0001. Following this significant chi-square test of independence, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002). 13 Chi-square tests of independence revealed that these relationships were significant, for yacht/boat clubs χ2(5)=32.28, p=<0.0001 and for other boat owners, χ2(5)=12.64, p=0.027. Following these significant chi square tests, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002).

0

20

40

60

80

100


% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

State of homeport

Industry service providers (e g marina, slipways)

Yacht / boat club

Other boat owners

Internet (e g boating blogs, Facebook)


27

• Respondents with sailing boats were significantly14 more likely than expected to be using the Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook), yacht or boat clubs, and other boat owners to get information about anti-fouling and hull maintenance than powerboat operators (Figure 16).

Figure 16 Information sources used, by boat type


• No significant differences were found between information sources used by survey respondents who stored their boat year-round at a marina berth compared with those storing their boat on a mooring15.

• Members of a boating associations or clubs were significantly16 more likely than expected to get information from pamphlets/brochures, yacht or boat clubs, and other boat owners, than were respondents who were not members of an association or club (Figure 17).

14 Chi-square tests (continuity corrected) revealed that these relationships were significant, for Internet χ2(1)=4.70, p=0.03, for yacht/boat clubs, χ2(1)=28.53, p=<0.0001 and for other boat owners, χ2(1)=5.12, p=0.024. 15 Chi-square tests (continuity corrected) revealed that these relationships were not significant, for Internet χ2(1)=0.13, p=0.72, for Government-State χ2(1)=0.98, p=0.257, for Friends and family χ2(1)=0.55, p=0.46, for Industry service providers χ2(1)=0.02, p=0.881, for Pamphlets/brochures χ2(1)=0.51, p=0.477, for Yacht/boat clubs χ2(1)=2.83, p=0.092, for Other boat owners χ2(1)=0.08, p=0.778, for Marine rescue/Coast guard χ2(1)=0.75, p=0.368, for Government-federal χ2(1)=1.6, p=0.206, for Media χ2(1)=0.99, p=0.319, for NGOs χ2(1)=2.82, p=0.093. 16 Chi-square tests (continuity corrected) revealed that these relationships were significant for pamphlets/brochures χ2(1)=7.93, p=0.005, for yacht/boat clubs, χ2(1)=61.9, p=<0.0001 and for other boat owners, χ2(1)=4.54, p=0.033.

0

20

40

60

Internet (e g boating blogs,Facebook)

Yacht / boat club Other boat owners

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Information source used



28

Figure 17 Information sources used, by club membership status


Familiarity with national guidelines Respondents were asked to self-assess their familiarity with the contents of National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (Australian Government 2009) and the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (Australian Government 2015). Familiarity levels were 80 per cent for both guidelines (Figures 18 and 19).

Figure 18 Familiar with the contents of the National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (2009)


0

20

40

60

Pamphlets / brochures Yacht / boat club Other boat owners

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Information source used

Member of boating association or clubNot a member of boating association or club

20%

80%

YesNo


29

Figure 19 Familiar with the contents of the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (2015)


There were no significant differences in self-assessed familiarity with either guidelines according to boat type, boat storage place of the boat (marina versus mooring), and club membership status.

However, there was a difference between the levels of familiarity with the National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels by home port17 (Figure 20). Recreational boaters with home ports in New South Wales were less likely to be familiar with the guidelines (16 per cent) than expected. Recreational boaters with home ports in Tasmania were more likely to be familiar with the guidelines (36 per cent) than expected.

There was no significant difference in the self-assessed familiarity with the Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines by home port.

17 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(5)=17.20, p=0.004. Following the significant chi-square test, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002).

20%

80%

YesNo


30

Figure 20 Self-assessed familiarity with National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels, by home port

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=658 (biofouling guidelines), N=664 (anti-fouling guidelines). NT excluded from chi-square analysis since counts are too low.

0

20

40

60

80

100


% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

Location of homeport, by stateYes, familiar with contents of National Biofouling Management Guidelines forRecreational VesselsNo, not familiar with contents of National Biofouling Management Guidelines forRecreational Vessels


31

5 Behavioural survey questions A key objective was to provide an understanding of current recreational boat owner behaviour in regard to biofouling management. This includes the biofouling management practices that are commonly being undertaken by recreational boat operators, and whether they would be likely to undertake biofouling management actions in the future.

A list of best practice biofouling management actions that emerged from the review of international and national biofouling management guidelines and surveys are in Appendix A, Table 25. These were distilled into a shorter list of six biofouling management actions (or behaviours) that experts rated as more effective in preventing marine pest spread (Table 2). These six practices were included as questions in the recreational boater survey.

The domestic boater survey responses enabled us to determine how common these actions already are among recreational boat operators and how likely18 they would be to undertake these actions in the future. Boat types that were in scope for these behavioural questions were yachts, sailing boats and power boats that are kept in the water for extended periods of time (including those stored on a dry rack, hard stand or boat rack). If the respondent said their boat was trailered to a boat ramp they were exempted from answering the behavioural questions, as they were considered a lower risk of marine pest transfer since the boat was stored out of the water after each use, and most likely, dried out between uses.

Table 2 List of best practice biofouling management actions (behaviours) included in the recreational boater survey

Biofouling management action Survey question

Cleaning the hull (in water) How often is the boat hull cleaned while it is in the water? Cleaning the hull (out of water)

How often is the boat taken out of the water for cleaning the hull (e.g. dry dock, slipway, on land)?

Cleaning niche areas How frequently are the niche areas of the boat cleaned?

Clean-and-go How frequently is the boat hull cleaned including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location outside the home port, harbour or estuary?

Anti-fouling How frequently has anti-fouling coating been applied to the boat hull including the niche areas?

Waste capture How often is the biofouling waste captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat?

In addition, respondents were asked what prevents or encourages boat operators to undertake these practices (barriers and benefits to doing the practice). These are presented for each management action in the following sections.

A summary of how well recreational boat operators were following these six biofouling management practices is presented in Figure 21 for quick reference. The charts are color-coded. The percentage of recreational boat operators who followed the guidelines ‘best practice or better’ are in dark blue bars on the charts, and ‘below best practice’ by orange bars. Decisions

18 Response counts for the likelihood of taking the management action in the future have been pooled throughout this section of the report such that those who selected 4 (likely) and 5 (very likely) are described as ‘likely’ to continue the practice in the future, while those who selected 1 (very unlikely), 2 (unlikely) and 3 (neutral) are described as ‘unlikely’ to do so.


32

about what is considered within best practice are discussed in each section under ‘Frequency’ (with relevant citations).

Figure 21 Summary of biofouling management actions by boat operators

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Values for each scale is broken down by biofouling management actions (behavioural questions). For the frequency charts the scales 1 to 5 are defined in Table 3 for each management action. ‘Best practice or above’ is shown in dark blue bars, and ‘below best practice’ in orange bars. For frequency charts, N varies from 599 to 812. For the likelihood charts, N varies from 545 to 835.

Table 3 Scales 1—5 defined for frequency charts

Cleaning hull in / out water Cleaning niche areas Clean-n-go Anti-fouling coating Waste capture

1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 2 = Less than once a year 2 = Once a year 2 = Rarely 2 = Once every 4 years or more 2 = Rarely 3 = Once a year 3 = 2 times a year 3 = Sometimes 3 = Once every 3 years 3 = Sometimes 4 = 2 times a year 4 = 3 times a year 4 = Usually 4 = Once every 2 years 4 = Usually

5 = 3 times a year or more 5 = 4 times a year or more 5 = Always 5 = At least once a year 5 = Always

Within best practice 60%

Within best practice 69 %






33

Cleaning the hull (in water) Frequency Regular in-water cleaning of recreational vessel hulls and niche areas is recommended by the Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines at least every 6-12 months to limit the development of biofouling (Australian Government 2015). However, in-water cleaning is only acceptable where contaminant discharges from the cleaning activity meets any standards or requirements set by the relevant authority. In-water cleaning of more mature and extensive biofouling is not recommended.

Sixty per cent of survey respondents indicated their boat hulls were cleaned in the water at least once a year or more often (Figure 22). The remaining 40 per cent cleaned their boat hulls in the water less than once a year or never. In-water hull cleaning frequency was significantly related to the boat type, with sailing boats generally cleaning in-water more regularly than expected, compared to powerboats19 (Figure 23).

Figure 22 Frequency of cleaning the boat hull (in the water)

Note the ‘I don’t know’ (i.e. someone else does it for me or other reason) response was negligible. Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=812 (excludes trailered boats)

19 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(4)=64.55, p<0.0001. Following the significant chi-square test, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002).

0

10

20

30

Never Less than oncea year

Once a year 2 times a year 3 times a yearor more

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


34

Figure 23 Frequency of in-water hull cleaning by boat type


Likely to clean the hull in water in future?

Forty-two per cent of survey respondents said they were likely to clean their boat hull in the water in future (Figure 21). However, 58 per cent said they were unlikely to have their boat hulls cleaned while it is in the water in future.

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw in cleaning the boat hull in the water were:

• performance and speed (131), particularly to gain a racing advantage, but also for sailing and cruising, and greater efficiency of the engine and hull

• avoided costs of slipping, by extending anti-fouling service life, and by saving fuel when motoring (129)

• for routine control of marine growth (112)

• convenience due to in-water cleaning being relatively easy and quick (39)

• slipping or haul out facilities inadequate or unavailable (34)

• aesthetics to ensure the waterline and boat looked clean (15).

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw in cleaning the boat hull in the water were:

• releasing contaminants, including marine pests/organisms, chemicals and paint into marine waters (77)

• safety concerns due to the risk of injury from sharks, jellyfish and crocodiles, or dangerous conditions (for example, rough seas, running tides, low visibility, cold) (76)

0

20

40

Never Less than once ayear

Once a year 2 times a year 3 times a year ormore

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts



35

• too hard or difficult to access the hull and reach all areas, and the inability to inspect the hull properly and do other maintenance tasks at the same time (for example, replace anodes, check propellers) (69)

• lack of capability or motivation of owner or crew to do the cleaning, for example laziness, being too old, or physically unable (40)

• not required because of the type of anti-fouling paint used (e.g. ablative or self-polishing coatings), or the marine growth was not present (34)

• requires specialised gear and skills, such as a scuba diving, or the need to hire a diver (18)

• government regulations discouraging removal of hard growth in water, or the marina or club has rules that do not allow in-water cleaning (6).


36

Cleaning the hull (out of water) Frequency The recommended frequency for out-of-water cleaning of recreational boat hulls is at least once every 12 months (Australian Government 2015).

Sixty-nine per cent of survey respondents had their boats taken out of the water for cleaning the hull at least once a year (or more often), for example using a dry dock, slipway (Figure 24), which is within the recommended regularity. Thirty-one per cent however had the boat hull taken out of the water for cleaning less frequently than every 12 months.

Figure 24 Frequency of cleaning boat hull (out of the water)


Likely to clean the hull out of water in future?

Eighty-one per cent of survey respondents were likely to have their boat hull taken out of the water for cleaning in the future (Figure 21). Only, 19 per cent said they would be unlikely to take their boat out of the water to clean the hull in the future.

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw in taking the boat out of the water to clean the hull were:

• to thoroughly clean the hull and then re-apply the anti-fouling (197)

• be able to access and inspect all of the hull, fittings and propellers for wear and tear, replace anodes and do repairs at the same time (80)

• as part of a routine (often yearly) maintenance or at the beginning of the season (55)

• enable capture of the cleaning waste at a facility and avoid release of marine organisms (19).

0

20

40

60

Never Less than once ayear

Once a year 2 times a year 3 times a year ormore

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


37

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw in taking the boat out of the water to clean it were:

• costs of slipping or hauling out (298)

• availability and accessibility of slipping or dry dock facilities, or having to book ahead (45)

• time consuming nature of dry dock procedure, or a lack of time or being too busy (45)

• laziness (36) or because they do not use the boat or neglect the boat (10)

• the potential damage to hulls from boat lifting and poor industry practices (5).

Cleaning niche areas Niche areas of the boat are areas that retain water, or attachments that protrude, such as the bottom of the keel, intakes and outlets, anodes, propellers and shafts, sea chests, rudders and casings.

Frequency The Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines recommends regular, 6-12 monthly, cleaning of submerged surfaces, particularly niche areas of recreational vessels (Australian Government 2015). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recommends that a recreational craft is hauled out of the water for cleaning the hull and niche areas at least every 12 months (International Maritime Organization 2012).

Fifty per cent of survey respondents indicated they were cleaning the niche areas of the boat at least once every 12 months (Figure 25). Another 46 per cent were cleaning the niche areas regularly, that is, 2 times a year or more. A small proportion (4 per cent) said they never cleaned the niche areas of their boat.

Figure 25 Frequency of cleaning the niche areas of the boat

Note the ‘I don’t know’ (i.e. someone else does it for me or other reason) response was negligible. Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=754 (excludes trailered boats).

0

20

40

60

Never Once a year 2 times a year 3 times a year 4 or more times ayear

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


38

Likely to clean the niches areas of the boat in future?

Eighty-three per cent of survey respondents were likely to have the niche areas of the boat cleaned in the future (Figure 21). Seventeen per cent said they would be unlikely to have the niche areas of the boat cleaned in the future.

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw to cleaning the niche areas of the boat were:

• to optimise the performance and speed of the boat (144), improve fuel efficiency and ensure that engine water cooling intakes are clear to operate

• to maintain correct operation (23), including for safety and reliability.

- ‘Blocked seacocks, or exhaust [outlets] can critically affect the safety and performance of the boat.’

- ‘All those areas are needed for the operation of the boat. Failing to clean them can mean blocked pipes and useless anodes.’

• to stop the spread of biofouling over boat or in the environment (10)

• and because it’s not too time consuming.

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw to cleaning niche areas of the boat were:

• just plain laziness (90)

• the cost and time required to clean niche areas of the boat (52)

• the difficultly in accessing the niche areas (43), for instance:

- ‘stern driven propellers can be precarious to access, as they are directly beneath the hull’

- ‘They're very hard to get at’

• lack of knowledge or ignorance (40).

• not caring about their boat or about the environmental impacts (12)


39

Clean-and-go Clean-and-go was defined as cleaning the hull including niche areas before moving the boat to another location outside the home port, harbour or estuary.

Frequency The National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (Australian Government 2009) recommends cleaning the boat hull each time a boat is taken to a different location, such as between different waterways, bays or harbours, to prevent the spread of potential pests. This is reflected in the IMO Guidance for Minimizing the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species as Biofouling (hull fouling) for Recreational Craft (International Maritime Organization 2012), which recommends that cleaning and maintenance be co-ordinated so that the craft starts significant journeys as clean as practical to avoid the accidental transfer of invasive aquatic species between water bodies.

Twenty-seven per cent of survey respondents indicated they were usually or always cleaning the hull and niche areas of the boat before moving it to a different location (Figure 26). Seventy-four per cent were sometimes, rarely or never cleaning the hull and niche areas of the boat before moving it from one location to another.

Figure 26 Frequency of cleaning boat hull and niche areas before moving the boat to another location

Note the ‘I don’t know’ (i.e. someone else does it for me or other reason) response was negligible. Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 N=699 (excludes trailered boats).

Likely to clean the boat before moving to another location in future?

Thirty-five per cent of survey respondents were likely to clean the boat hull, including the niche areas, before moving it to another location in the future (Figure 21). Sixty-six per cent said they would be unlikely to clean the boat hull, including the niche areas, before moving it to another location in the future.

0

20

40

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


40

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw in cleaning the boat hull including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location were:

• to avoid moving marine growth from one area to another (167)

o In some cases respondents said the reason was to prevent transfer of unwanted marine species such as shellfish, microbes, seaweed, barnacles, parasites, or diseases, particularly if going to unique areas such as Port Davey, Tasmania

• ensuring boat performance, particularly for longer journeys, to ensure better travel times and efficiency, and to maintain vessel reliability and serviceability before a sea voyage (130)

o some respondents (15) regarded ‘clean before you go’ as not applicable because the boat was stationary, staying within a bay or going on a short trip to, for example, the next bay or estuary where the same marine animals are present.

• increase speed through the water, for cruising or racing (60)

• safety of instruments and checking that the boat is working properly (17)

• maintain appearance of the vessel and pride in vessel (6).

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw in cleaning the boat hull including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location were:

• fees can be costly, especially if dry docking, haul out or slipping is required (81)

• laziness or lack of care (such as about boat performance, or slowness) or ignorance of potential damage to a boat from not cleaning it, such as to the steerage (67)

• time constraints, takes too much time or timing prevents it (50), particularly if slipping is required for the clean, for example “If sailing somewhere usually there isn't enough time to take a clean into consideration”

• not needed if the boat is already clean, or recently cleaned (for example, in last 60 days) (49) or if anti-fouling coating is in good condition or a long life anti-fouling coating is used

• impractical to clean when only spending a few days in each location, for example, if in transit and the boat is stopping for short periods (26)

• unaware of the risks posed by marine pests (22)

• difficulty in accessing a slipway (for example, Jervis Bay has no slipway), local facilities are not adequate or they don’t cater for bigger boats, or wash down hoses were not available (19)

• safe areas are needed to clean in the water, for example, concerns about crocodiles, bull sharks, or the water is too cold (for example in Victorian waters), visibility is low, the water is dirty or polluted, there are strong winds or tides making conditions dangerous (14)


41

• no availability of maintenance equipment and/or personnel, or divers/diving equipment in order to clean the vessel (6)

• no regulations, or it is not required by law, nor enforced (for example by the mooring authority) (3)

• unable due to fitness levels, age or health (3)

Anti-fouling Anti-fouling was defined as the application of specifically designed coatings to the boat hull, including the niche areas, to prevent biofouling by organisms on wet surfaces.

Frequency The recommended application frequency of anti-fouling for recreational vessels depends on a number of factors, such as the type of craft, construction material, activity profile of the vessel, and service life of the chosen coating. The Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (Australian Government 2015) recommend a minimum in-service period of 12 months for biocidal anti-fouling coatings and 24 months for biocide-free coatings. This is based on the recommended service life of anti-fouling coatings currently available in Australia.

Fifty-nine per cent of survey respondents had their vessels anti-fouled at least once a year and 31 per cent had them anti-fouled every 24 months (Figure 27). A small proportion (11 per cent) were applying anti-fouling coating to the boat every 3 years or less often.

Figure 27 How frequently has anti-fouling coating been applied to the boat hull including the niche areas?


Who does the anti-fouling? Half of the respondents (49 per cent) apply the anti-fouling coating themselves, while 48 per cent get a contractor or service provider to do the anti-fouling for them.

0

20

40

60

Never Once every 4years or more

Once every 3years

Once every 2years

At least once ayear

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


42

Those who kept their boat year-round on a mooring were more likely than expected to apply the anti-fouling coating themselves (59 per cent), while those who stored their boat year-round at a marina (46 per cent) were less likely to do so than was expected (Figure 28)20.

Figure 28 Who does the anti-fouling?


Which anti-fouling product type applied The most popular anti-fouling coating used by 72 per cent of survey respondents was the ablative type, which works by gradually wearing away (Figure 29). Several respondents were using paints recommended for other purposes such as house paint, or paints known to be harmful to human health or the environment such as paints containing Tributyltin (TBT) or lead based paints.

Those who indicated ‘Other – Please specify’, were using products as follows:

• Copper epoxy coatings (4)

• Tributyltin (2)

• Combinations, such as ablative on the hull and hard coatings on the propeller, rudder etc (2)

• Hydrolysing silyl acrylate polymers (1)

• Lead paint (1)

• Oil-based house paint (1)

• Self-polishing or semi-ablative (1).

20 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(2)=10.837, p=0.004. Following the significant chi-square test, table cell standardised Pearson residuals were used to find where the association between variables lay (Agresti 2002).

0

20

40

60

In the water year-round at amarina berth

In the water year-round on amooring

Out of the water (e g dry rack,hard stand or boat lift)

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts

I do it myself A contractor or service provider


43

Figure 29 Anti-fouling product type applied


Brand of anti-fouling Popular brands of anti-fouling coatings that were applied to recreational boats are listed in Table 4. Of those respondents who indicated the brand they used, 59 per cent were using anti-fouling coatings that are registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), and 3 per cent were using unregistered coatings. A large proportion of respondents (38 per cent) were using anti-fouling coatings for which the registration status could not be determined because the brand information was not specific enough.

72.1%

18.8%

1.7%7.4%

Ablative coating (gradually wearsaway)

Hard coating (with or withoutbiocide)


I dont know


44

Table 4 Anti-fouling coatings used by respondents

Counts (N) APVMA status

Brand group Registered Not registered Status unknown Total International 164 32 196 Altex 81 3 7 91 Jotun 13 2 64 79 Hempels 13 6 17 36 Wattyl 24 3 27 PPG Industries 10 10 ABS Technologies 4 4 Akzo Nobel 4 4 Micron 3 3 Pettit 3 3 Norglass 2 2 Boero yacht coatings 1 1 British paints 1 1 Devoe Anti-fouling 1 1 Marine Systems 1 1 Nautical 1 1 Sea Hawk 1 1 Don't know 58 58 Other 15 15

Total 314 16 204 534 Percentage 58.8% 3.0% 38.2% 100%

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 (figures exclude trailered boats) AVPMA status was determined using the list of anti-fouling products registered in Australia available from the APVMA website (downloaded 14 September 2017).

Likely to have anti-fouling coating applied in future?

Eighty-nine per cent of survey respondents indicated they would be likely to have anti-fouling applied to their boat in the future while 11 per cent said it would be unlikely they would have anti-fouling coating applied to the boat in future (Figure 21).

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw in having anti-fouling applied to the boat hull, including the niche areas, were:

• to minimise or slow the build-up of biofouling or marine growth on the vessel, including on the hull, inlets, outlets, shafts, rudders and propellers (228)

• maintain performance and speed by reducing drag or friction (129)

• avoid damage to hull, for example marine wood worm, and fittings, particularly during inactive periods (91)

• reduce engine load and maintain fuel economy (37)


45

• as part of annual maintenance schedule, to maintain systems and reveal potential long term issues, for example corrosion (36)

• increase aesthetic appeal of boat, and make the experience more enjoyable (6).

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw in having anti-fouling coating applied to the boat hull, including the niche areas, were:

• high cost of slipping or hauling out (102)

• laziness, or lack of knowledge that anti-fouling is required (69)

• time constraints and/or requires too much effort (22)

• availability of boat yards or access to facilities, boat lift and contractors to do the work (11)

• unable due to age or health, or lack capacity to do the work (7).


46

Biofouling waste capture Biofouling was described as plants and animals that can attach and grow on the underwater areas of a boat such as hull, propellers, anchors and lines of a boat. Biofouling may be dislodged by cleaning the boat and if not appropriately contained creates a biosecurity risk through potential spread of marine pest propagules.

Frequency The National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (Australian Government 2009) advises that all biofouling waste should be contained, collected and disposed of appropriately after cleaning the hull into identified bins at a licenced vessel maintenance facility.

Of the respondents who knew that their waste was captured, most (64 per cent) said that the biofouling waste is always or usually captured after cleaning the boat. However, 36 per cent of respondents admitted that the biofouling waste is sometimes, rarely or never captured after cleaning the boat.

Figure 30 How often biofouling waste is captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 (figures exclude trailered boats) N=559 (A further 142 respondents said they did not know if the waste was captured as ‘someone else does it for me’ or for ‘another reason’).

Likely to capture biofouling waste in future?

Sixty-six per cent of survey respondents indicated they would be likely or very likely to capture the biofouling waste after cleaning the boat hull in the future while 34 per cent said it would be unlikely or very unlikely they would capture the biofouling waste in the future (Figure 21).

Benefits The main benefits respondents saw to capturing and disposing of the biofouling waste after cleaning the boat were:

0

10

20

30

40

50

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

% su

rvey

resp

onde

nts


47

• to avoid, or reduce contamination and pollution into waterways (60). Respondents mainly referred to toxic or chemical pollution rather than biological pollution (such as pests).

• protect and help the environment (48), for instance:

o ‘Because it is the right thing to do to protect the environment’

o ‘Help keep the environment healthy’

• prevent the spread of marine pests and growth (40), for instance:

o ‘Prevent organisms from establishing in environment’

o ’To reduce polluting local areas with marine growth from other areas’

• meet requirements to comply with laws and regulations (31), for instance:

o ‘It is the law under the environment acts and MARPOL Regulations21 that you do not pollute the water’

• because the practices are required at slipways (24), for instance:

o ‘Slipway requires it and provides for it’

o ‘mandatory in all slipways so anyone having a clean in a slipway must do this’.

Barriers The main barriers respondents saw to capturing and disposing of the biofouling waste after cleaning the boat were:

• not practical or possible to capture waste when cleaning in water (80)

• slipways or boatyards with containment and disposal systems for the biofouling waste are unavailable, for example, older slipways without a storage pit/drain system, or disposal bins not provided (51)

• laziness, or lack of care about the potential risks to the environment, or unsure how or where to dispose of waste (50)

• high cost of using facilities, no assistance provided, and time involved (26)

• the biofouling is from the same local waters, there is no biological risk, or the biofouling is similar to the biota already in the water (7).

21 MARPOL is an international marine convention developed by the International Maritime Organization that deals with marine pollution.

http://www.imo.org/en/About/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx


48

6 Selecting behaviours and groups for action

Community based social marketing Recent work undertaken by the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) (formerly the Cooperative Research Centre for Invasive Animals) on behaviourally effective communications for invasive animal management, provided an approach to meet the objectives of this project (Hine et al. 2015). The approach is a Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) framework developed by Doug McKenzie-Mohr (2011), to help prioritise which behaviours to target in a behaviour change intervention.

Steps to designing a successful intervention:

1) Define and prioritise issue/behaviours in human behavioural terms — not just what the issue is but what are the specific behaviours that contribute to the issue; specific behaviours that will resolve the issue; and who is going to do these behaviours.

2) Refine and select the target behaviour(s) — select a few specific behaviours, too many can cause problems like behaviour change fatigue. Use the behaviour change selector framework to determine the behaviours of most interest.

3) Determine or uncover barriers and benefits/drivers — consider the views of different stakeholders not just experts. Consider the capability, opportunity and motivation in regard to each barrier and benefit.

To determine which behaviours are of most interest for targeting an intervention, CBSM combines all these dimensions in the following model:

Impact rank = Effectiveness x (5 — Penetration) x Adoption Probability

Where;

Effectiveness = effectiveness of behaviour in reducing impact (Source: expert survey)

Penetration = how many people are currently performing the behaviour (Source: domestic boater survey)

Adoption Probability = likelihood of adopting the behaviour (Source: domestic boater survey)

Responses from the expert survey and domestic boater survey were combined to compute an ‘Impact rank’ for reducing the risk of translocation of marine pests using the CBSM model (Table 5). The behaviours were ranked according to this score to identify the behaviours that were likely to have the greatest impact on reducing marine pest spread in the domestic recreational boat sector in Australia. Behaviours with higher impact rank scores are the most attractive behaviours to target.

For more information about each of the steps used in the CBSM approach, please see Appendix A: Data collection strategy.


49

Results of behaviour selection process The behaviours with the highest overall impact rankings are the most useful to promote across the whole cohort of domestic recreational boat operators. Table 6 contains the definitions of scales reported in Table 5.

Table 5 Preventing spread of marine pests - behaviour selection matrix

Expert Survey Domestic boater survey Impact rank

= Effectiveness x (5-Penetration) x

Adoption

Effectiveness (scale 0-4) N Penetration

(scale 1-5)

Adoption probability (scale 1-5)

N

Behaviour

Clean-and-go 3.69 26 2.06 2.78 699 30.2

Anti-fouling – hull and niche areas 3.27 26 3.36 4.57 738 24.5

Waste capture and disposal after cleaning 3.00 25 3.56 3.82 559 16.5

Cleaning the hull – out of water 2.54 26 3.75 4.31 784 13.7

Cleaning the hull – in water 2.42 26 3.40 2.91 813 11.2

Cleaning niche areas 2.77 26 4.86 4.36 754 1.7 Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Impact rank scores are rounded to nearest decimal at last calculation.

Clean-and-go ‘Clean-and-go’—defined as cleaning the boat hull, including the niche areas, before moving it to another location—was ranked as potentially having the biggest impact on reducing the risk of translocating marine pests, largely because experts considered it the most effective behaviour and there are currently low levels of penetration. Expert comments suggested that it would be an effective practice for recreational vessels with a little or a lot of biofouling. However, it is not a widely undertaken practice, with less than a third of domestic boat operators regularly cleaning the hull and niche areas of their boat before moving it to another location. Domestic recreational boaters indicated a low likelihood of future adoption of this behaviour. There were various reasons domestic boat operators gave as to why this was the least adopted (and least likely to be adopted) behaviour, including:

• cleaning the boat before moving it to another location was not applicable (because they were not moving the boat far, or it was already clean)

• it was not practical to do so (boat is stopping for short periods while in transit)

• the high cost of using a slipway if the cleaning requires dry docking or hauling out.

External factors they mentioned were the difficulty in accessing a local slipway, particularly one which has the required facilities (for example, able to haul out larger boats), and access to safe areas that were free of sharks or crocodiles, for in water cleaning. These factors are likely to mean that there will be limited adoption of ‘clean-and-go’ without significant changes to the opportunities available for domestic boaters to clean their boats.


50

Anti-fouling hull and niche areas Experts considered ‘anti-fouling boat hull and niche areas’ as a highly effective behaviour in reducing biofouling growth and the potential spread of marine pests. There were caveats to this rating, which depended on whether the appropriate type of anti-fouling coating was selected and whether the coating was applied correctly in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions. Keeping in mind these caveats, regular anti-fouling application widely adopted within the recreational boat cohort and a high likelihood of continued adoption. Therefore, some effort is needed to promote further uptake of the behaviour. Most survey respondents (59 per cent) said they apply anti-fouling to their vessel at least once a year, which is within the recommended minimum in-service period of 12 months (Australian Government 2015). The main barriers to regular anti-fouling were:

• the high cost of slipping and haul out

• anti-fouling it is not required because the boat is stored out of water or it is a trailered vessel

• the boat is not used regularly enough to require anti-fouling this frequently.

Half the respondents (50 per cent) apply the anti-fouling coating themselves, while 48 per cent get a contractor or service provider to do the anti-fouling for them, often as part of the annual maintenance schedule for the vessel. There was a clear willingness to continue with the behaviour with a majority (89 per cent) of survey respondents saying that they would be likely to have anti-fouling applied to their boat in future. Resources could be directed at maintaining the motivation for this behaviour.

Table 6 Definition of scales used in behaviour selection matrix

Effectiveness (scale 0-4)

Penetration (scales 1-5) Adoption probability (scale 1-5)

Cleaning hull in / out water

Cleaning niche areas Clean-n-go Anti-fouling coating Waste capture

0 = Not at all effective 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Never 1 = Very

unlikely

1 2 = Less than once a year 2 = Once a year 2 = Rarely 2 = Once every 4 years

or more 2 = Rarely 2

2 3 = Once a year 3 = 2 times a year 3 = Sometimes 3 = Once every 3 years 3 = Sometimes 3 3 4 = 2 times a year 4 = 3 times a year 4 = Usually 4 = Once every 2 years 4 = Usually 4 4 = Extremely effective

5 = 3 times a year or more

5 = 4 times a year or more 5 = Always 5 = At least once a year 5 = Always 5 = Very

likely Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Note: Biofouling management actions within the recommended regularity are in blue text (based on a review of government guidelines on best practices presented in Table 25). The other behaviours received considerably lower rankings using the CBSM framework.

Waste capture and disposal after cleaning ‘Waste capture and disposal’ after cleaning the boat was rated as quite effective by the experts in reducing the risk of marine pest translocation. Particularly if the fouling occurred in a port known (or suspected) to have marine pests and the waste capture was done in another (clean) port.

This would prevent the introduction of potential marine pests. The penetration of this behaviour into the recreational boat sector was moderate, with most (64 per cent) of the respondents who knew what happened to the waste, reporting that the biofouling waste was usually or always captured and disposed of properly after cleaning the boat. However, 36 per


51

cent admitted that the biofouling waste is not regularly captured (sometimes, rarely or never). A group of 142 further respondents said they didn’t know if it was captured and disposed of, in the main because someone else does it for them. The main reasons given for not capturing and disposing of the biofouling waste were:

• that it is not practical or possible to capture waste when cleaning in the water

• slipways or boatyards with containment and disposal systems for the biofouling waste are unavailable or the facilities are not provided

• laziness or lack of care

• the high cost of using facilities

• a belief that the biofouling is from the same local waters and therefore there is no biological risk.

There was some willingness to engage further in waste capture practices with 66 per cent of survey respondents who answered this question indicating they would be willing to do so in the future. Therefore there are opportunities to encourage this practice, such as by providing better access to facilities that have waste capture, and by motivating people to do so, for example, by explaining more clearly the circumstances in which waste capture is recommended and why.

Cleaning the hull (out of the water) ‘Cleaning the hull (out of the water)’ is also considered a relatively effective behaviour by experts. The assumption being that a thorough clean is done at the same time the niche areas are cleaned and the boat hull is anti-fouled.

As this is a practice that is often done as part of the yearly hull cleaning, anti-fouling, maintenance and repairs schedule, there was a high level of uptake with 69 per cent of survey respondents taking their boats out of the water for cleaning at least once a year. This is within the out-of-water cleaning frequency recommended in the Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (Australian Government 2015).

There was also a relatively high level of willingness (81 per cent) among recreational boat operators who responded to the survey to have their boat hull cleaned out of the water at least once a year in the future. The barriers to out-of-water hull cleaning related overwhelmingly to the:

• high costs of slipping and hauling out

• availability and accessibility of slipping or dry dock facilities

• time consuming nature of the dry dock procedure.

This suggests that there is a high level of motivation present among recreational boat operators who can see the benefits of cleaning the boat hull out of the water. This means that the opportunities for increasing adoption of this practice arise from making access to cleaning infrastructure and services easier and cheaper.

Cleaning the hull (in the water) ‘Cleaning the boat hull in the water’ was rated on average by experts as a less effective behaviour for preventing translocation of marine pests. Regular in-water cleaning (4 times a year or more) was considered effective in reducing marine pest spread. But it was assumed that the material being cleaned off the hull, when the vessel is in the water, is a slime layer with no secondary or tertiary fouling present, and the material is being captured and retained.


52

The penetration of the behaviour into the recreational boat sector was moderate, with 60 per cent of survey respondents cleaning their boat hulls in the water at least once a year or more often. It was often done to enhance performance and speed, particularly to gain a racing advantage, or for routine control of marine growth.

The probability of recreational boat operators more widely adopting in-water cleaning in the future was low with a majority (58 per cent) of survey respondents saying they were unlikely to have their boat hulls cleaned in the water in the future. A common reason given was the potential release of contaminants into marine waters, in the context of government guidelines discouraging removal of hard growth in the water. There were also:

• safety concerns due to the risk of injury from in water cleaning due to sharks, jellyfish, crocodiles or dangerous conditions (for example rough seas or running tides)

• difficulty in accessing the hull

• lack of physical capability

• that in-water cleaning was not required due to the type of anti-fouling paint used or because marine growth was not present.

‘Cleaning the hull in water’ had the lowest effectiveness score and low continued adoption score which were the significant factors in the low overall impact rank for this management practice.

Cleaning the niche areas of the boat ‘Cleaning niche areas of the boat’ is considered a relatively effective behaviour, with a similar high degree of penetration in the domestic recreational boating sector, and high levels of continued adoption. ‘Cleaning niche areas of the boat’ is already widely practiced with more than 96 per cent of survey respondents regularly having the niche areas of their boat cleaned (once a year or more often).

Niche areas are often cleaned as part of the yearly anti-fouling and maintenance schedule and ensures that the boat is operational, reliable and safe. It is not surprising therefore that a large proportion of survey respondents (83 per cent) said they were likely or very likely to continue to clean the niche areas of the boat in the future.

The main barriers boat operators gave for not cleaning niche areas were:

• laziness

• the cost and time required

• the difficulty in accessing the niche areas.

This suggests there is considerable willingness to engage in this management action in future and therefore, presents an opportunity to encourage more of this management action.


53

Investigating domestic boater behaviour using cluster analysis Cluster analysis is an exploratory analysis method designed to identify groups in complex data sets. The groups (or clusters) share more characteristics in common with one another than they do with characteristics of other groups (Gore 2000). The cluster analysis can be helpful in identifying different market segments for which awareness or communication strategies can be tailored to influence those groups to take up voluntary action.

Specifically, we used a two-step cluster analysis to identify homogenous groups of domestic recreational boat operators who share similar biofouling management behavioural habits and are distinctively different from other respondent groups. We used data from the domestic boater survey on 5 key biofouling management behaviours as inputs to the cluster analysis. The sixth behaviour, biofouling waste capture, is often done at the same time as the other management actions, particularly after cleaning the boat hull while it is out of water, renewing the anti-fouling coating and niche cleaning, and therefore seen as a related action, rather than on its own. Therefore, it was not included as an input variable. Three clusters emerged from the analysis, which enabled us to identify three distinct groups of domestic recreational boat operators which were significantly different from the other groups.

Cluster analyses are an exploratory tool that do not offer statistical explanations of the groupings. So in this section we suggest a way of describing and summarising the particular characteristics of each group. By adding other information gathered in the domestic boater survey, such as boat type, place boat is stored, boat club membership status, longest time boat is stationary, we provide a picture of how these other characteristics relate to biofouling management behaviours.

Table 7 shows the descriptions of the three cluster groups that emerged from the analysis and the proportion of each cluster group that were following the particular biofouling management practice at a best practice frequency. Best practice frequencies were based on the review of recreational vessel biofouling, anti-fouling and in-water cleaning management guidelines (Australian Government 2009; 2015; International Maritime Organization 2012).

Cluster group 1: Minimalist do-it-yourself group Cluster group 1 was the largest group with 43 per cent of survey respondents. Members of this group tended to have a minimalist biofouling management regime, characterised by a very low proportion undertaking key biofouling practices. For example, low proportions were within the recommended minimum frequency for taking the boat out of the water for hull cleaning (of once a year or more often) (30 per cent) and very low proportion doing the recommended frequency of anti-fouling application (of at least once a year) (14 per cent) and clean-and-go was being done regularly only by a small proportion (19 per cent). Recreational boat operators in cluster group 1 were also more likely to be cleaning their boat hull in the water regularly than were cluster group 3 but not as often as cluster group 2. The infrequent nature of cleaning and anti-fouling suggests that this group represents the highest risk for biofouling growth and domestic marine pest translocation.


54

Table 7 Cluster group description – proportion of survey respondents in cluster, following best biofouling management practice

Cluster group - based on biofouling management regime

group22

Proportion of respondents in

cluster (%)

N Cleaning hull out-of-water

Anti-fouling frequency

Niche areas

Niche areas

Cleaning hull in water

Clean-and-go

Waste capture and disposal23

(once a year or more often)

(at least once a year)

(once a year or more often)

(2 times a year or more often)

(one a year or more often)

(usually or always)

(usually or always)

1 Minimal 43% 271 30% 14% 93% 23% 58% 19% 53%

2 Comprehensive 19% 122 91% 82% 98% 98% 90% 50% 53%

3 OK but could improve 38% 243 100% 99% 100% 9% 51% 25% 79%

Total 100% 636

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Note there are statistically significant differences between the 3 cluster groups on all the biofouling management practices in the survey, including ‘waste capture and disposal’ which was not an original input variable to the cluster analysis.

22 For the cluster group analysis, N=636 23 For the cluster group vs waste capture and disposal frequency cross tab, N=487


55

Table 8 Cluster group description – descriptive characteristics to understand differences between cluster groups

Cluster group24

This group is likely to be/have…

Boat stationary in water – longest time (average days/yr) 25

Travel outside home port/harbour 26 (proportion of cluster)

Boat type and place stored (mooring/ marina) (proportion of cluster)

Member of boat club/association 27 (proportion of cluster)

DIY anti- fouling 28 (proportion of cluster)

Information sources used for boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance (proportion of cluster)

1 Minimal

Longer periods stationary in water (91 days/yr)

Likely to travel outside home port or harbour (59%)

Sailing boat at a marina (38%) Sailing boat on a mooring (30%)

Less likely to be a member of a boating club or association (59%)

Is DIY—most do the hull anti-fouling themselves (59%) particularly the sailboats (67%) and those on a mooring (68%)

Industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways) (67%) Internet (for example, boating blogs, Facebook) (61%) Other boat owners (47%) Yacht / boat clubs (30%) Friends and family (20%)

2 Comp-rehensive

Shorter periods stationary in water, that is, using the boat more (52 days/yr)

Very likely to travel outside home port or harbour (66% of cluster) and make more visits to a place but stay for shorter times

Sailing boat on a mooring (41%) Sailing boat at a marina (36%)

Very likely to be a member of a boat club or association (75%)

Half-and-half DIY—half do the hull anti-fouling themselves (50%)

Industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways) (72%) Other boat owners (57%) Internet (for example, boating blogs, Facebook) (50%) Yacht / boat clubs (33%)

3 OK but could improve

Somewhat longer periods stationary in the water (74 days/yr)

Likely to travel outside home port or harbour (57%)

Powerboat at a marina (31%) Sailing boat at a marina (28%) or mooring (27%)

Likely to be a member of a boating club or association (64%) Likely for both powerboats (63%) and sailing boats in this cluster (66%) to be members

Less DIY—more use a service provider to anti-foul the boat (54%)

Industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways) (73%) Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook) (51%) Other boat owners (45%) Yacht / boat clubs (25%)

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017

24 Cluster groups analysis, N=636 25 Boat stationary against cluster groups, N=618 26 Travel outside of the home port or harbour (Y/N) against cluster groups, N=584 27 Membership against cluster groups, N=635 28 DIY anti-fouling against cluster groups, N=611


56

Other notable characteristics of this group were that the boat was typically kept stationary in the water for longer periods of the year, which suggests lower boat use patterns. This group was more likely to own a sailing boat stored year-round at a marina (38 per cent), or a sailing boat stored year round on a mooring (30 per cent).

Most respondents in this cluster group took a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach, with 59 per cent doing the hull anti-fouling themselves rather than getting a service provider to do it for them. This was particularly the case for sailing boats kept on a mooring (67 per cent of moored sailing boat operators did the anti-fouling themselves). Members of this cluster group tended to use the Internet (for example, boating blogs, Facebook) to find out about boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance more than the other clusters.

Cluster group 2: Comprehensive regime, active club members Cluster group 2 was the smallest group with 19 per cent of respondents. They were typically going above and beyond the requirements of the voluntary national guidelines in their biofouling management. Highly frequent cleaning and anti-fouling practices were common, with almost all members of this group cleaning and anti-fouling, including cleaning niches, at least once a year (>80 per cent). Indeed, a sizable proportion (16 per cent) were cleaning the boat out of the water 3 or more times a year. Almost all (98 per cent) were cleaning the niche areas of the boat 2 times a year or more. This group were also cleaning the boats in water regularly, with 84 per cent doing this 2 or more times a year. The high frequency of cleaning and biofouling activities among this group suggests the boats in this group are at a relatively low risk of developing biofouling growth and thus a lower risk of domestic marine pest translocation.

There was however a proportion of those in this group that were anti-fouling less frequently than you would expect, with 12 per cent anti-fouling once every two years. When looking into the reasons why some anti-fouled less frequently than recommended, it appears they were using the boat for racing events or regattas and indicated that anti-fouling slows the boat down. A small proportion (6 per cent) said they never anti-foul the boat because they use specialised coatings, for example, gel based coatings (epoxy or silicone). Half (50 per cent) did the anti-fouling application themselves, and the other half used a service provider to do it for them.

Recreational boaters in this cluster group were more likely to have sailing boats and to keep the boat on a mooring (41 per cent of cluster), or at a marina (36 per cent of cluster) than the other two clusters, and were very likely to be a member of a boating club or association.

The boat use patterns were also distinctive. This group typically used the boat more with the lowest average days the boat was stationary in the water (52 days/year) compared to the other two clusters. The members of this group were much more likely to travel outside the home ports or harbour. When they did they made more visits to a place, but stayed for shorter periods on average. This cluster group was more likely than cluster group 1 to use industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways) (72 per cent) and other boat owners (57 per cent) to get information about boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance.

Cluster group 3: OK but could improve in some areas Cluster group 3 was the middle sized group with 38 per cent of respondents. Members of this group were typically managing biofouling on their boats quite well on some measures—such as anti-fouling at least once a year, cleaning the hull and niches once a year or more often, waste


57

capture and disposal usually or always. But there were some who were not engaging in some management activities at all and therefore this cluster group might pose some risk for biofouling growth and domestic marine pest transfer.

For example, a sizable proportion were ‘Never’ doing in-water cleaning or doing it ‘Less than once a year’) (40 per cent). Some of the reasons respondents in this cluster gave for never cleaning the boat in the water were legitimate, including that in water cleaning is not permitted in many marinas, it is illegal in some states, because of the potential for release of chemicals or pollution, or because of the risk of spreading of marine pests in the environment, or the boat does not need it/or it is not appropriate due to the type of anti-fouling paint used. This suggests there is some confusion among the domestic recreational boat cohort about whether in-water cleaning is a good biofouling management practice, and if it is, under which circumstances. It may be worth looking at the messaging around this practice with a view to being more specific about when in-water cleaning is a desirable biofouling management practice that should be encouraged (such as only for cleaning the slime layer; no scraping of hard growth).

Furthermore, a low proportion (25 per cent) of this cluster group were usually or always cleaning the boat before moving it to another location. This may be because of the sizable portion of powerboat operators in this cluster, and the tendency for powerboats to stay within a single region or area. Comments by powerboat operators suggested that some of the reasons did relate to using the boat only within the same region, or not moving the boat (shown clearly in Figure 32). Nevertheless, this cluster was fairly likely to travel outside the home port or harbour (57 per cent).

Interestingly, the majority of members of this cluster group (79 per cent) were usually or always capturing the waste and disposing of it after cleaning the boat, which was much more frequent than the other cluster groups. This could be related to the greater number of powerboat operators in this cluster and the higher likelihood that powerboats are cleaned out of the water, where it is more likely that waste capture can be done.

The most common reasons powerboat operators in this cluster group gave for always or usually capturing and disposing of the biofouling waste after cleaning, were: 1) wanting to protect the marine environment and to avoid the spread of marine pests, and 2) it is mandated by the marina or slipway or part of complying with EPA regulations. An interesting comment by a respondent in this cluster group was that the Boating Industry Association had worked closely with the boating industry, and general good management practices have been adopted industry-wide and filtered back to the boat owner.

Other notable characteristics of this cluster group included quite likely to be a member of a boating club or association (65 per cent)—both for powerboat and sailing boat operators—and tended to use a service provider to do the anti-fouling of their boat (54 per cent). This suggests that there is a fairly strong link with this cluster group to industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways). This is also reflected in a tendency to seek information on boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance from industry service providers (for example, marinas and slipways) (73 per cent).

Potential engagement tactics The analysis above presents opportunities to develop messaging that could be used as part of future engagement strategies with recreational boaters to influence behaviour voluntarily and promote best practice biofouling management activities. The messages could be tailored further


58

to suit particular groups of recreational boat operators such as the three cluster groups. Engagement tactics and messaging would need to be tested with recreational boat operators and developed further in the context of a broader education or outreach campaign.

Three other steps involved in the CBSM approach: 4) Develop strategy or intervention, 5) Design the intervention, and 6) Implement and evaluate, were beyond the scope of this project. The purpose of these steps are mainly about designing an engagement program to overcome the barriers to the selected behaviours, piloting this program and evaluating it once it has been broadly rolled out. As this goes beyond the agreed project scope, only steps 1–3 were operationalised in this project.

Table 9 outlines potential engagement tactics that could be used to encourage domestic boaters to maintain or increase the frequency of biofouling management actions based on the study findings. These could be developed further as part of the last three steps of the CBSM approach.


59

Table 9 Potential engagement tactics

Biofouling management action Benefits (survey) Barriers (survey) Engagement tactics29

Clean-and-go – cleaning the hull and niche areas before moving the boat to another location

• To avoid moving marine growth from one area to another; ensure boat performance (speed, travel times, efficiency); safety of instruments and checking boat working properly

• Fees are costly if dry docking; laziness/lack of care; time constraints; not needed if boat is clean; impractical in transit; access to a slipway; need safe areas

• Make behaviour easier to perform • Only a small proportion are doing this regularly How? • Communicate clearly when cleaning prior to moving to a new

location is necessary, e.g. just to the next harbour / even for day trips • Create safe areas (e.g. shark nets) at key recreational boat ports to

do clean-n-go. Connect people with cleaning services e.g. divers, slipways with haul outs

• Clearly communicate performance benefits to boat owner/users (e.g. speed, efficiency)

Cleaning niche areas • Optimise performance of boat (speed, fuel efficiency); maintain operation of boat; for reliability and safety as blocked seacocks or exhaust outlets can affect safety and performance of boat

• Laziness/lack of care; cost and time needed to clean niche areas, difficulty in accessing niche areas; general ignorance or lack of knowledge

• Maintain motivation

• Already a large majority doing this as part of annual maintenance How? • Communicate safety, reliability and performance benefits

Cleaning the hull out of water

• Can do a thorough clean job, do repairs at same time, as part of routine maintenance/at start of season, can capture cleaning waste at facility

• Costs of slipping or hauling out, available/accessible facilities, time consuming or too busy, laziness, or potential damage to hulls during boat lifting and poor industry practices

• Maintain or increase motivation • Linked to haul out for anti-fouling and cleaning schedule, so benefits

of doing at same time are high

How? • Connect domestic boaters with service providers and facilities, (e.g.

slipping and hauling). For example via an App to check ‘where the facilities are in my region’, and see which facilities are booked out/available, and a rating on the service.

• Consider liaison with state authorities or marina operators to reduce fees for those who clean boats to a schedule or can demonstrate cleaning on visits to new ports

29 Based on Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) references, particularly Hine et al. (2015) and Michie et al. (2011).


60

Biofouling management action Benefits (survey) Barriers (survey) Engagement tactics30

Waste capture and disposal after cleaning

• Avoid or reduce contamination and pollution into waterways; protect the environment; stop spread of marine pests; meet requirements and regulations; required at most slipways

• Not practical or possible when cleaning in water; slipways or boatyards don’t always have containment and disposal systems; laziness/lack of care; high costs of using facilities; the biofouling is from the same area so no risk

• Already quite motivated, so make behaviour easier to perform How? • Work with slipways and marinas industry to ensure containment

facilities are available and up to standard • Liaise with marinas and slipways to develop minimum standards for

facilities which include waste containment and disposal

Cleaning the hull in water

• Performance and speed; avoided costs of slipping by extending AF life; routine control of marine growth; it is convenient; or benefit in that you don’t need to use facilities for haul out which may be unavailable

• Release of contaminants or marine pests into water; safety concerns (injury, sharks); difficult to access hull areas; lack of capability; not required; requires specialised gear

• Increase motivation and make behaviour easier to perform How? • Communicate advantages of in water cleaning • Clear messaging around when it is OK to do in-water cleaning, i.e.

only for minor biofouling • Create ‘safe areas’ for in water cleaning (e.g. shark nets)

Anti-fouling – application of coatings to the boat hull including the niche areas, to prevent biofouling by organisms on wet surfaces

• Minimise or slows the build-up or marine growth; reduces drag; avoid damage to hull where biofouling attaches; increase aesthetic appeal of boat

• high cost of slipping or haul out; laziness/lack of knowledge; not required if storing boat out of water, not using boat regularly, or trailering; time constraints/too much effort; availability of boat yards; physically unable due to ill health, age, lack of capacity

• Maintain motivation • Already a common practice How? • Spread messages through mooring authorities and marinas that

berth sailing boats • Sponsor Internet DIY guides (e.g. YouTube, boat blogs) to good anti-

fouling methods matched to boat use and type • Improve access to facilities / boat yards • Provide guidelines on anti-foulants to promote use of those that

work best

30 Based on Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) references, particularly Hine et al (2015) and Michie et al (2011).


61

7 Voyage patterns Trip frequency Of the 1,585 recreational boat operators who responded to the survey, 692 operators (44 per cent) provided a response to the question about whether they had travelled outside their home port or harbour. Of the 692, about half indicated the boat had travelled outside their home port or harbour in the last 12 months (Figure 31). A total of 530 operators reported their voyage patterns during the past 12 months.

A higher proportion of those with boats in Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland home ports had travelled outside their home port or harbour than those from other states in the last 12 months, however, there was no evidence to show that these differences were significant31 (Table 10). A higher proportion of those with sailing boats had travelled outside of their home port or harbour than those with powerboats in the last 12 months32 (Figure 32).

Figure 31 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, national


Table 10 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, by state

State of home port Yes No

% % NT 88 12 TAS 68 32 QLD 63 37 WA 59 41 SA 59 42 NSW 51 49 VIC 47 53


31 A chi-square test of independence revealed that this relationship was not significant, χ2(5)=10.860, p=0.054. NT homeports had cell counts of less than 5 and were excluded from this test. 32 A chi-square test revealed that this relationship was significant, χ2(1)=12.495 continuity corrected, p=<0.0001.

25%

19%56%

Yes

No

no response


62

Figure 32 Did the boat travel outside your home port or harbour, ‘Yes’ by boat type


Of those who reported a trip, an average of seven visits a year were made by a boat to a destination across the national cohort. The data for visits to a place in the last 12 months had skewed distributions with many very low values (number of visits) combined with fewer, large values. When disaggregated by state/territory, mean visits per year ranged from two for Northern Territory to 13 for Victoria, while median visits per year (a statistic that is more robust to outlying values), only ranged from one to three (Table 11)33. The relatively large arithmetic mean of 13 for Victoria was influenced by one boater from that state who went to a place 200 times, and a second boater who went to a destination 100 times. One boater from Western Australia and one boater from Queensland went to one of their respective destinations 100 times. The average number of visits to a place was higher for powerboat owners compared to sailboat owners (Table 12)34.

Table 11 Summary statistics for visits to a place in the last 12 months, by state/territory

Home port jurisdiction

Mean Median Minimum Maximum n

Visits / year

Visits / year

Visits / year

Visits / year

(respondent counts)

VIC 13 2 1 200 30 WA 8 3 1 100 35 QLD 7 2 1 100 83 SA 5 2 1 50 23 TAS 3 2 1 20 28 NSW 3 2 1 20 90 NT 2 1 1 3 7 No home port provided 11 6 1 160 161

Total 7 3 0 200 457 Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Note: 151 of the 457 boaters reported more than one destination. Two respondents reporting an international home port were not included in this analysis.

33 To explore the association between a boater's number of visits to a place and their homeport jurisdiction we used a Kruskal-Wallis test. To meet the assumption of independence among observations that is implicit for the test, we used one randomly selected observation for the boaters that provided visit information for more than one destination. There was little evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the different state samples came from the same distribution, χ2(6)=8.397, p=0.21. 34 To explore the association between a boater's number of visits to a place and the type of boat they had, we used a Mann-Whitney U test. As with the previous test, to meet the assumption of independence among observations that is implicit for the test, we used one randomly selected observation for the boaters that provided visit information for more than one destination. There was strong evidence that the two boat-type samples came from different distributions. The number of visits to a place was higher for powerboat owners compared to sailboat owners, Z=-8.419, p=<0.0001.

31%

69%

Yes (powerboats)

Yes (sailing boats)


63

Table 12 Summary statistics for visits to a place in the last 12 months, by boat type

Boat type Mean Median Minimum Maximum n

Visits / year Visits / year

Visits / year

Visits / year

(respondent counts)

Powerboat 10 5 1 200 230 Sailing boat 5 2 1 100 231 Total 461

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Note: 153 of the 461 boaters reported more than one destination.


64

Location of home ports A total 821 survey respondents (52 per cent) reported a valid home port location for their boat, of which 377 unique home ports were identified nationally (Figure 33). Across Australia, the most commonly reported home ports were Manly Boat Harbour, Newport (Queensland), Lake Macquarie, Pittwater, Sydney Harbour (New South Wales) and North Haven (South Australia) (Table 13).

Figure 33 Home ports of recreational boat operators, national

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Colour coding shows the state of the homeport. N=821


65

Table 13 Top home port locations, by state

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Note: ‘Top’ home ports were defined as any port with more than 4 respondents reporting it as their home port. N=821


66

Spatial distribution of trips Boat trips in the last 12 months made by survey respondents for the reporting period of 1 February to 31 July 2017 are shown in Figure 34. The trips are presented as lines between the origins and destinations aggregated across respondents. The thicker the line, the more frequently the pathway was used for domestic recreational travel. For example, a popular destination for recreational boaters in South Australia, is Hobart. This data has been presented as a Tableau dashboard project (forthcoming) that can be explored by a user.

The trip patterns could be overlaid with ‘hot spots’ for marine pests, using spatial information about the extent of marine pests (such as information in the National Introduced Marine Pest Information System) or historical marine pest incursions, to show the intersection of ports and paths that are at higher risk of translocating marine pests by domestic boat operators. Ports of entry of international vessels originating from areas of known pest infestations (e.g. Asian green mussels, New Caledonia) could be overlaid with the domestic route patterns to indicate the risk of further domestic translocation of pests. This could be used to guide where awareness raising activities about preventative measures, such as boat cleaning, regular anti-fouling and maintenance, could be targeted.

Figure 34 Domestic recreational boat trips in the past 12 months

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 Color coding is by the state (homeport) of origin of the trip. N=530


67

Longest time boat was stationary in water Respondents were asked to report the longest period (in days) that their boat was stationary in the water, for example, moored, tied up or anchored, during the last 12 months (Figure 35). The longest average period that sailing boats were kept stationary in the water was higher than for powerboats (Table 14)35. The longest average period that boats were stationary in the water over the course of a year varied across jurisdictions ranging from 63 days in Western Australia to 152 days in the Northern Territory (Table 15)36.

Figure 35 Longest average period boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, nationally


Table 14 Longest period that boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, by boat type

Mean Median N (days) (days) (respondent

counts) Powerboat 62 30 318 Sailing boat 86 42 511

Total 829 Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017

35 The relationship between boat type and the longest period of time a boat is kept stationary in the water was explored using a Mann Whitney U test. This revealed strong evidence that the two boat-type samples came from different distributions. The period of time boats were kept stationary in the water was higher for sailing boats than powerboats, Z=-2.98 p=0.003. 36 To explore the association between the longest period a boat was kept stationary in the water and their homeport jurisdiction we used a Kruskal-Wallis test. There was little evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the different state samples came from the same distribution, χ2=7.07 p=0.314.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 25 50 75 100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

365

Coun

ts o

f res

pond

ents

Days


68

Table 15 Longest period that boats were stationary in the water over last 12 months, by state

Mean Median N (days) (days) (respondent counts) NT 152 95 11 VIC 84 45 103 TAS 83 45 57 SA 81 59 57 QLD 77 35 196 NSW 74 31 291 WA 63 35 100 International home port 6 No home port provided 72 30 764 Total 1585

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017

Duration of stay at destination Fifty per cent of all trips reported involved a stay at the destination of between 1 and 3 nights. When disaggregated by state/territory, the average duration of stay for operators ranged from 6 nights in South Australia to 36 nights in Northern Territory (Table 16) 37. The relatively large mean of 36 nights per visit for Northern Territory was influenced by one boater from that state who stayed at a place for 180 nights, while the mean for Tasmania was influenced by a boater who stayed for 300 nights in one place. The Queensland average was influenced by two boaters, one staying 150 nights and another boater who stayed for 180 nights at a place. The average duration of stay at a place was higher for sailing boat owners compared to powerboat owners (Table 17)38.

Table 16 Summary statistics for duration of stay, by state/territory

Mean Median Minimum Maximum N (nights per

visit) (nights per

visit) (nights

per visit) (nights

per visit) (respondent

counts)

NT 36 15 2 180 7 TAS 19 5 1 300 26 QLD 17 5 1 180 79 VIC 15 3 1 150 27 NSW 13 5 1 120 88 WA 9 3 1 137 30 SA 6 4 1 20 22 Total

279

Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Note: 219 of the 279 boaters reported more than one stay.

37 To explore the association between the duration of stay at a destination and homeport jurisdiction we used a Kruskal-Wallis test. To meet the assumption of independence among observations that is implicit for the test, we used one randomly selected observation for the boaters that provided visit information for more than one destination. There was little evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the different state samples came from the same distribution, χ2(6)=9.49 p=0.148. 38 To explore the association between the duration of stay at a destination and boat type we used a Mann Whitney U test. To meet the assumption of independence among observations that is implicit for the test, we used one randomly selected observation for the boaters that provided visit information for more than one destination. There was strong evidence that the two boat-type samples came from different distributions, Z=-4.89 p=<0.0001.


69

Table 17 Summary statistics for duration of stay, by boat type

Mean Median Minimum Maximum N (nights per

visit) (nights

per visit) (nights

per visit) (nights

per visit) (respondent

counts)

Powerboat 12 2 0 365 210 Sailing boat 14 5 0 300 218

Total

428 Source: ABARES domestic boater survey 2017. Note: 283 of the 428 boaters reported more than one stay.


70

8 References

Agresti A 2002, 2nd edn, Categorical data analysis, Heboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Australian Government 2009, National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels,

Canberra. Australian Government 2015, Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines, Department of Agriculture,

Department of the Environment, and New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, Canberra, available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/pests-diseases/marine-pests/antifouling-consultation/antifouling-guidelines.pdf.

Australian Maritime Safety Authority 2017, Australian General Register, available at https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels/shipping-registration/australian-general-register/ [Accessed

de Leeuw ED 2010, 'Mixed-Mode Surveys and the Internet', Survey Practice, vol. 3, no. 6, available at http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/150/html.

Dillman D 1978, edn, Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method, New York Wiley. Gore PA 2000, Cluster analysis, Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling:

Academic Press. Griffiths S, Pepperell J, Tonks M, Fay G, Venables W, Lyle J, Olyott L, Sawynok W & Edgar S 2010a,

Developing innovative and cost-effective tools for monitoring recreational fishing in Commonwealth fisheries, FRDC Project 2007/014 Final Report, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, available at http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2007-014-DLD.pdf.

Griffiths S, Pollock K, Lyle J, Pepperell J, Tonks M & Sawynok W 2010b, 'Following the chain to elusive anglers', Fish and Fisheries, no. 11, pp. 220-28.

Hine DW, Please P, McLeod L & Driver A 2015, Behaviourally Effective Communications for Invasive Animals Management: A Practical Guide, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia.

International Maritime Organization 2012, Guidance for Minimizing the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species as Biofouling (hull fouling) for Recreational Craft, The Marine Environment Protection Committee, London, 12 November, available at http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Biofouling/Documents/MEPC.1-Circ.792.pdf.

Kinloch M, Summerson R & Curran D 2003, Domestic vessel movements and the spread of marine pests: Risks and management approaches, Australian Government, Canberra, available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a746d310-92d6-4287-b689-fb12eae8318c/files/domestic-vessel-imp-risks.pdf.

McKenzie-Mohr D 2000, 'Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing', The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 543–54.

McKenzie-Mohr D 2011, edn, Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

McLeod L 2016, Feral cat containment study - presentation, Human dimensions of biosecurity management, Department of Agriculture and Food WA, Perth, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPyACypmnvE.

McLeod L, Hine D & Bengsen A 2015, Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment, The Netherlands, Elsevier BV.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/pests-diseases/marine-pests/antifouling-consultation/antifouling-guidelines.pdf

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/pests-diseases/marine-pests/antifouling-consultation/antifouling-guidelines.pdf

https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels/shipping-registration/australian-general-register/

http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/150/html

http://frdc.com.au/research/Documents/Final_reports/2007-014-DLD.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Biofouling/Documents/MEPC.1-Circ.792.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a746d310-92d6-4287-b689-fb12eae8318c/files/domestic-vessel-imp-risks.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a746d310-92d6-4287-b689-fb12eae8318c/files/domestic-vessel-imp-risks.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPyACypmnvE


71

Michie S, van Stralen MM & West R 2011, 'The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions', Implementation Science, vol. 6, no. 42.

NSW Department of Primary Industries 2016, Gorse in Palerang – A community based research and weed control project - Final report, Weeds Action Program 2013-15 Innovation Project, Palerang Council,

University of New England, Armidale NSW. Pallant J 2005 (2nd edn.), edn, SPSS Survival Manual, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Please PM, Hine DW, Skoien P, Phillips KL & Jamieson I 2017, 'Prioritizing community behaviors to

improve wild dog management in peri-urban areas', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, pp. 1-15, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1385877 (10.1080/10871209.2017.1385877).

Wise B & Fletcher W 2013, Determination and development of cost effective techniques to monitor recreational catch and effort in Western Australian demersal finfish fisheries, final report for Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 2005/034 and WAMSI Subproject 4.4.3, Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries, North Beach, WA.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1385877


72

Data collection strategy The objectives of the project strongly influenced the data collection methods employed, the scope of the collections, and the types of questionnaire and survey instrument design.

The project objectives were to provide a better understanding of:

• the level of marine pest awareness associated with biofouling management in Australia • hull husbandry practices adopted by domestic boat operators to manage biofouling

accumulation on their boats • barriers and incentives to improved compliance in biofouling management by domestic

recreational boat operators • trusted communication channels used by domestic recreational boat operators. • domestic voyage patterns in Australia

The major steps in the research project are shown in Figure 36.

Figure 36 Steps in research project

Project objectives

Choice of research methods

Conceptualisation

Population and sampling

Operationalisation

Observations

Data processing, analysis and reporting

Information needed on domestic recreational boat owner biofouling practices, awareness, boat use patterns

• stakeholder analysis • survey of experts• interviews with stakeholders• desktop review – surveys/

guidelines

Scope and parameters of the project objectives specifies meaning of concepts and variables for:• biofouling behaviour

(CBSM framework)• characteristics of boats• awareness levels• voyage patterns

Who is the target population?

How do we find them? (sample frame)

How will we actually measure the variables? Steps to measure the concepts:• survey delivery• questionnaire development• comms promotional strategy Collecting the data for analysis

and interpretation• surveys in field• promotion

• Collating and processing• Interpreting / writing up

• Survey recreational boat owners


73

Selecting the data collection method(s) There were a number of research methods available that could have provided information to inform the project objectives, and each had its strengths and weaknesses. To ensure that the evidence collected addressed the project objectives, a number of data collection approaches were considered, including:

• desktop review of existing datasets and past surveys, biofouling management guidelines for domestic boats, and behavioural frameworks

• expert elicitation survey • boat owner survey • interviews with key stakeholders.

Table 18 provides a summary of these data collection approaches and indicates how they were relevant to achieving the projects’ objectives. The primary collection method chosen for the target population of domestic Australian boat operators was a national survey because it met the information needs across most objectives. Supplementary approaches included a survey of experts as part of the behavioural framework discussed in the section on Behavioural survey questions – developed using a Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) approach, supplemented with several interviews with industry representatives and desk top reviews.

Table 18: Data collection approaches mapped to project objectives

Project objective – required information

Data collection method 1 – Survey (primary method)

Data collection method 2 – Interviews and desktop review (supplementary methods)

What is the level of marine pest awareness associated with biofouling management in Australia

Survey of recreational boat operators

Interviews (MIA, BIA, MPSC)

What are the hull husbandry practices adopted by domestic boat operators to manage biofouling accumulation on their boats


Expert elicitation survey

Desk top review (guidelines and survey review)


What are barriers and incentives to improved compliance in biofouling management by domestic recreational boat operators


Expert elicitation survey


Describe domestic voyage patterns in Australia


Analysis of databases (including Cruise Safe and Sea Hawk) used by Marine rescue and Volunteer marine rescue groups

What trusted communication channels are used by domestic recreational boat operators


Desk top review (IPSOS report)

Project communication plan



74

National survey of recreational boat operators (primary method) The primary method used for data collection was an internet based survey using an adapted referral sampling method. This involved recruiting boat operators to participate in the survey through invitations sent via email lists, newsletters, magazine advertisements, club member lists, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and other referrals from third parties. The recruitment process involved several steps, including the development of a stakeholder database which identified the primary referral parties.

Some data collection systems are in place for recreational boat ownership, such as the administrative information that captures licencing and registration details at the jurisdictional level. However, detailed information on the awareness levels about biofouling and marine pests, biofouling management practices (or behaviours), and domestic voyage patterns of recreational boat operators in Australia is lacking, particularly across jurisdictional and national scales.

A quantitative survey was therefore chosen as the primary data collection method to gather evidence directly from recreational boat operators that would address the project objectives. The following section outlines the approach taken to develop and deliver the survey.

Survey scope The scope of the national recreational boater survey was developed in consultation with the Aquatic and Marine Pests Unit, taking into account the recommendations of the 2015 Review of National Marine Pest Biosecurity and previous research on biofouling risk assessment.

Research highlighted that marine pest translocation risk by the recreational boating sector in Australia varies substantially, but generally increases with the size of the vessel, as larger vessels travel longer distances and to a greater array of destinations (Kinloch et al. 2003). Larger vessels also provide more surface area for attachment and a wider variety of niches.

Kinloch et al (2003) identified that within the recreational sector yachts were the group most likely to transfer marine pests because they are often kept permanently in the water either at anchor, on a mooring or berthed in a marina, except for occasional haul outs for repainting or anti-fouling in the ‘off’ season. Yachts also tend to travel further distances than smaller recreational vessels, which is another risk factor for the spread of marine pests. Therefore, the project scope focussed on domestic recreational vessels (e.g. yachts) of a certain size, which are kept in water for much of the year and travel longer distances.

The project scope was defined as:

1. Australian domestic recreational boats:

• ranging from ≥ 5 metres and <25 metres (except for superyachts)

• non-trailered

• normally kept in water.

Note: Boats that are primarily international i.e. have an international home port and transit domestic ports will be out of scope. These will be captured in the concurrent ABARES international project.

2. reside and voyage in a range of coastal environments across Australia:

• marinas

• anchorages


75

• moorings

• ports

• harbours

• reaches.

3. boat movements include:

• within Australia – but also capturing any travel overseas by domestic boats

• in-water: stationary or active periods

• out of water, dry dock or hard stand times.

Based on these parameters, the target population is defined in Figure 37. The intent is not to survey all recreational boat operators, but to create a target population and attempt to survey all accessible people. While the target population was identified in theory, it is difficult to reach all individuals that would fall within the target population, this is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Figure 37 Theoretical model of target population

Sampling Collecting data from operators of domestic recreational boats that is representative of all in-scope recreational boat operators is a significant challenge. Table 19 provides population estimates for all recreational boats registered in Australia, indicating that approximately 75,000 boat operators could be in-scope for the study—i.e. of 7m in length or greater, and likely to be kept in the water year round. It is impractical to survey the entire population (a Census) because of the large size of the population, so the most practical approach is to collect data from a sample from the population.

Australian domestic recreational boat owners/operators

Target population - all owners/operators of recreational boat (over 5m and under 24m, non-trailered and normally kept in water), ~ 70 000 boats (see table 18) Sampling frame - accessible population

Survey respondents


76

Table 19 Population of recreational boats by state/territory and length classes (metres)

Jurisdiction out of scope in scope in scope

< 7m 7m-10m >10m for example, yachts (keel

boats), catamarans, motor cruisers

Total

number % of total

registered Total

number % of total

registered Total

number % of total

registered

New South Wales 267 292 91 15 435 5.3 11 017 3.8

Victoria 177 016 93.9 2194 1.2 9273 4.9

Queensland 233 892 92.4 11 269 4.5 7983 3.2

South Australia 52 768 93.6 1942 3.4 1674 3

Western Australia 86 868 88.3 7511 7.6 3952 3.9

Tasmania 26 937 90 1299 4.3 1689 5.6

Northern Territory ND ND ND

Total 844 773 91.8 39 650 4.3 35 588 3.8 Based on state agency recreational boat registration data provided by jurisdictions to ABARES in 2014. ND=No data provided as NT does not require registration or licencing of domestic vessels.

There were a variety of sampling methods that could be used to collect data from the recreational boat cohort, however, there are strengths and weaknesses associated with each approach and limitations to what is feasible.

Options and considerations for sampling recreational domestic boat operators The options for sampling can be broadly categorised as probabilistic and non-probabilistic. A probability based sample is where respondents are selected randomly and the results can be extrapolated to the target population, while with a non-probabilistic sample individuals choose to participate or not and results are seen as only reflective of the target population. For the biofouling project, impediments to achieving a representative sample of the target population were identified early on. Due to these foreseen difficulties it was decided—that while possible—results would most likely not be representative of the target population. However, this did not diminish the goal of trying to achieve an adequate coverage of the target population.

The best approach, to ensuring the greatest coverage of a population, is to obtain a complete sample frame. An ideal sample frame provides a complete list of all those in a target population who can be contacted and sampled. If a sample frame is available and adequately covers the target population, a probability based sample of units can be obtained (de Leeuw 2010). If a suitable sample frame cannot be accessed alternative non-probabilistic sampling techniques will need to be applied.

Three sampling methods were evaluated to determine the most appropriate for reaching domestic recreational boat operators within the constraints of project resources and accessibility to existing licencing and registration databases.


77

Table 20 presents the three sampling options and their strengths and weaknesses.

Table 20 Sampling options - strengths and weaknesses

Sampling method

Strengths Weaknesses

1) Sample frame Probabilistic, coverage of population, ease of contact, enables

probabilistic sampling

Difficult to obtain, expensive

2) Intercept including; time location, access point and roving creel

Suitable for hard to reach populations, in-depth data

collection from face-to-face collection

Time consuming, expensive, small sample size, limited coverage of

population, geographically restrictive, avidity bias

3) Snowball/chain referral

Low cost, suitable for hard to reach populations

Non-probabilistic, volunteerism bias

1) Sample frame

A key priority for the project was to investigate the possibility of developing a sample frame of domestic recreational boat operators and their contact details. In Australia recreational boat owner registration or operator licence databases are held by most State Maritime and Transport Authorities. Nearly all States within Australia require any boat with an engine, including electric motors, or that can have an engine fitted to be registered to travel in State waters and for the operator to be licenced (see Table 21). The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) also are custodian of the List of Registered Ships39. Some details of recreational boats from the AMSA list are available to the public.

ABARES, through the Marine Pest Sectorial Committee (MPSC) and jurisdictional maritime and transport departments, requested access to the registration or operator licence databases. In all cases access was denied, mostly on the basis of breaching privacy laws or other legislation associated with the databases.

An alternative option for developing a sample frame is the purchasing of a panel list of boat operators from a private entity. An example of this option is DMDatabases.com in the United States40, complied from boat registration lists and other niche boat owner lists, e.g. boat show attendees, boating magazines, boat club rosters, and boat supply retail purchases. ABARES investigated the existence of similar panels for recreational boat operators in Australia but could not locate any.

After investigating a number of options for contacting domestic recreational boat operators, market research company Roy Morgan Research offered a possible solution. Roy Morgan Research surveys approximately 1000 people each week in Australia, asking a wide range of questions. Within these 1000 surveyed people approximately 400 people are asked about recreational boat ownership.

39 AMSA List of Registered Ships updated 31 July 2017 40 DMDatabases.com

https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-operators/ship-registration/list-registered-ships

http://dmdatabases.com/databases/specialty-lists/boat-owner-names


78

Over the past 5 years Roy Morgan Research has surveyed approximately 5000 people who own a speed or motor boat and 800 who own a yacht.

Roy Morgan Research cannot differentiate between trailered speed and motor boats, and those predominately kept in water, therefore this sample is of little use. To access the 800 yacht owners, ABARES would need to engage Roy Morgan Research as a consultant and pay approximately $30 000 to deliver the survey to this group. This options is currently outside the scope of the project but could be considered if required.

Table 21 Recreational boat registration and marine licences – agencies records held

Jurisdiction and agency

Boat registration Marine licences Records held

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

All boats—including personal watercraft

(PWC)—with an engine of 3kW or more must be

registered when they are on the water in Queensland.41

You must have a marine licence to operate a boat

that has an engine power greater than

4.5kW.42

• TRAILS licence and registration database

• Numbers of registered recreational boats by length (<7m, 7 – 10 m, >10 m) for years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.

Western Australia Department of Transport

Every recreational boat that is in WA Navigable

Waters (all waters of the State) and has a motor, or

can be fitted with one including boats with

electric motors and boats which are ordinarily

propelled by sail, must be registered with the

Department of Transport.43

A Recreational Skipper’s Ticket is required for

any person in charge of a registered

recreational boat. You do not need an RST to

operate a boat that does not have a motor, or

that has a motor with a power of 6 hp (4.5 kW)

or less.44

• Marine Biosecurity Research and Monitoring Group, Department of Fisheries (WA). Contact: Claire Wellington

• survey of recreational boat owners (2015): pattern movements including anti-fouling practices, and level of fouling on hulls

South Australia Department of Transport (SA)

All boats with an engine must be registered to

travel in South Australian waters. This includes sailing and row boats

fitted with an auxiliary engine and boats fitted

with an electric motor45.

You must have a current boat operator’s licence

to operate a recreational boat fitted

with an engine, regardless of the size of

the boat or engine, or whether the engine is

operating or not.46

• 60,272 recreational boat registered (2014) (\Data SA)

• Provision of department name for recreational boat information.

41 https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/boating/registration/recreational/index.html 42 http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Licensing.aspx 43 http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/recreational-boat-registration.asp 44 http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/about-the-rst.asp 45 https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/boating-and-marine/boat-registration/registering-a-motorboat 46 https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/boating-and-marine/boat-operators-licences-and-permits/applying-for-a-boat-licence


79

Marine & Safety Tasmania (MAST)

Recreational boats with a motor of 4 hp or more and personal water craft must

be registered. 47

A motor boat licence is required to operate a

boat 4hp or more (except for a hire and

drive boat).48

• Advised that MAST can provide boat registration details.

• Provision of survey results of boater survey.

• surveys with 20% response rate mailed to registered boat owners along with BOATWISE newsletter

Jurisdiction and agency

Boat registration Marine licences Records held

Transport Safety Victoria

A boat including a boat and PWC, that uses (or is

capable of using) an engine for propulsion in

Victorian waters must be registered.49

Anyone operating a powered recreational

boat on Victorian waters requires a

marine licence. This includes paddle craft (kayaks, canoes etc.)

and sailing boats fitted with a motor, regardless

of engine size.50

• recreational boat registration figures 2012 and 2013 and types of boats registered at this link Transport Safety Victoria

• survey of boating behaviour (2015) online / phone by IPSOS of 1035 registered boaters (link to boater survey). There are 8665 boats registered and 12% completed a survey (N=1035)

New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services

The following boats must be registered with Roads

and Maritime when occupying NSW navigable

waters: Power-driven boats that are powered by

an engine with a power rating of 4.0 kilowatts or

more (greater than 5 horsepower); any power-

driven or sailing boat of 5.5 metres or longer;

every boat subject to a mooring licence

(including marina berths); personal watercraft

(PWC). 51

To drive a powered boat for recreational

purposes on NSW waterways at a speed of 10 knots (18.5 km/h) or

more, you need a general boat driving

licence.52

• 293,744 registered boats (2015)

hp = horsepower

47 http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/motor-boat-registration/ 48 http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/licences-registration/ 49 https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/new-registration/register-a-boat 50 http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-boat-operators/powerboat/licensing 51 http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/registration/get-nsw-registration.html 52 http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/licence/boat-pwc/

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/publications-and-forms?doctype-report=show

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/publications-and-forms?doctype-report=show

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/33820/Victorian-Boating-Behaviour-Report-2015.pdf

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/33820/Victorian-Boating-Behaviour-Report-2015.pdf


80

1) Intercept methods; time location, access point and roving creel

Intercept methods such as time location, access point and roving creel have been used to survey ‘hard to reach’ populations. They have, for example, been used extensively in surveying recreational fishers.

‘Time location’ sampling was considered as an option to collect survey data. This method relies and capitalises on predictable behaviours of the target population, such as people who frequent the same locations regularly (Watters and Biernacki, 1989 cited in Griffiths et al. 2010b). The method requires the researcher to identify aggregation sites, in this case, a mooring location, or a geographic region, and to undertake in-person interviews over a pre-defined period, e.g. a randomly chosen time period on a randomly chosen day (Griffiths et al. 2010b).

Access point and roving creel are similar to time location but are seen as more opportunistic because the researchers must intercept the target group at specific access points and record data on their activities. These methods work best when there are a limited number of accessible points, such as moorings, jetties and marinas (Griffiths et al. 2010a). The approach is more suited to collecting data in a specific area or region, or for a tournament or event, and where time and resources are not constrained. The time and cost involved in intercept surveys makes the intercept methods unfeasible for the biofouling survey of recreational boaters.

2) Snow ball/chain referral

Snowball or chain referral self-selecting surveys have been used extensively for ‘hard-to-reach’ populations (recreational fishing organisations used this as reported in Wise and Fletcher 2013). Examples include online surveys sent out to social networks of recreational fishers via smartphone applications. The approach involves the primary data sources—or social networks—nominating other potential data sources to be used in the research. Often incentives are used, such as prizes, gifts or rewards to motivate people to pass on the survey details to other people in their networks. However, the sampling method is non-random, and there is a risk that avidity (keenness about the topic) and non-response (those that don’t respond) might systematically bias the outcomes.

Survey delivery options There were three basic options (or combinations of these) available to deliver the survey to the target population for the project, these were:

• paper based mail out survey • phone survey • internet survey.

Table 22 provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of possible survey delivery methods. This assessment determined that an online survey platform was the most suitable for the project.


81

Table 22 Survey delivery options

Survey delivery method

Strengths Weaknesses Decision

1) mailout Can apply the Dillman Total Design Method (Dillman

1978), which has been applied for previous

ABARES’ mail surveys

Requires sample frame, postage can be expensive,

requires data entry

Unsuitable – because list of mail addresses of target

group (i.e. sample frame) is not available

2) phone Quick collection of data, can ask in-depth questions

Very expensive, not suitable for sampling sub-

populations, decreasing rates of landline use

Unsuitable – phone numbers unavailable; and expensive

3) internet Cost effective, wide reach, effective in conjunction

with snowball sampling, can be target population

Bias to those that have internet connectivity

Suitable – compatible with digital promotion to recruit

participants; cost effective and efficient

A mail out delivery method was considered, but this depended on there being a population list with addresses of registered boat operators being available. Boat registration and licencing databases are held by state and territory maritime transport authorities, but access to such lists is uncertain due to legal and privacy restrictions on access to these lists. We have explored the availability of these population lists with government contacts in marine and transport authorities via our contacts on the Marine Pest Sectoral Committee (MPSC), but have not been able to obtain any of them mainly due to legislative restrictions on access.

A phone survey has the same issues as with the mail out, as it depends on the availability of a population list of phone numbers. The cost and time involved in phone surveys also made this delivery option fairly expensive for the project.

An Internet survey is cost effective and efficient to run and is compatible with digital promotion to recruit participants. However, this delivery method is open to potential bias towards respondents with internet connectivity, particularly if the survey is promoted using social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.

However, recent data on social media use by Australians shows that social media use in Australia is the norm rather than the exception. Smartphone penetration in the Australian market is 81 per cent, and there are 17 million Australian people active on Facebook. Therefore, approximately 70 per cent of the total Australian population (27,714,446) is an active Facebook user, which is the largest platform in the world. This is across all age groups, including the 30+ age groups (Table 23) who might be more likely to own a recreational vessel. In addition, the frequency of using social media networking sites is quite heavy with 59 per cent doing so daily (Table 24).

The vast majority of people are using social media in Australia and this suggests that internet and social media user bias may not be as much of a concern as in the past. This presents opportunities


82

to recruit a wide range of people with recreational vessels to the survey using online and social media promotional channels.

Table 23 Facebook Demographics in Australia

Source: https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-august-2017/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/680581/australia-facebook-users-by-age/

Table 24 Frequency of using social media networking sites

% 2017

More than five times a day 35

At least once a day 24

Most days 9

A few times a week 5

About once a week 3 Source: https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-Chapter-1.pdf

Approach taken Based on these assessments, the internet was considered the best option for delivery of the survey using an adapted referral sampling method. This would involve encouraging boat operators to participate in the survey through invitations sent via email lists, newsletters, member lists, and other social media referrals from third parties.

The referral process involved several steps:

1) Development of stakeholder database – this identified the primary referral parties, such as marina operators, yacht and sailing clubs, businesses providing services for recreational boats, and any others who are likely to be trusted by / in contact with recreational boat operators

2) Engagement with key stakeholders – including state and territory jurisdictional representatives, who are linked to recreational boating networks through activities such as registration and licencing of recreational boats, boating safety campaigns, research on biofouling or marine pests, recreational boating operational activities (e.g. moorings), industry peak bodies and the like

Age ~Number of users

13–17 940,000

18–25 3,500,000

25–39 6,100,000

40–55 4,100,000

55–64 1,600,000

65+ 1,200,000

https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-august-2017/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/680581/australia-facebook-users-by-age/

https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-Chapter-1.pdf


83

3) Development of communication strategy to promote the survey directly to recreational boat operators using social media, email lists, newsletters and advertising. Detailed information about the strategy that was adopted is available in Appendix E: Survey communications strategy.

Survey questionnaire development The survey questionnaire required the development of content for three components; general survey questions, voyage pattern questions and biofouling management behavioural questions.

General survey questions A search for relevant surveys was undertaken to develop and understanding of previous research that had being undertaken, domestically and internationally, in relation to recreational boating biofouling management. The search uncovered 12 relevant surveys. The content of each survey was reviewed and thematically summarised in a matrix (see Table 30, Appendix F: Review of existing recreational boater surveys). A requirement of the survey questionnaire development was that it aligned, where possible, with a recreational boat owner survey undertaken by the West Australian Department of Fisheries in 2015 (Pers. Comm. Claire Wellington 2016).

Voyage pattern questions As with the general survey questions, the voyage pattern questions were adapted from the Western Australian recreational vessel survey questionnaire (Pers. Comm. Claire Wellington 2016) and the review of other recreational surveys (see Table 30, Appendix F Review of existing recreational boater surveys).

Behavioural survey questions – developed using a Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) approach A key objective of the survey was to provide an understanding of recreational boat owner behaviour in regard to biofouling management, which could be utilised to guide possible education campaigns in the future. Recent work undertaken by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre on behaviourally effective communications for invasive animal management, provided an approach to meet this objective (Hine et al. 2015). The approach is based on Community Based Social Marketing framework developed by McKenzie-Mohr, to help prioritise which behaviours to target in a behaviour change intervention.

CBSM framework and process used to develop the behavioural survey questions Steps to designing a successful intervention:

1) Define and prioritise issue/behaviours in human behavioural terms — not just what the issue is but what are the specific behaviours that contribute to the issue; specific behaviours that will resolve the issue; and who is going to do these behaviours.

5) Refine and select the target behaviour(s) — specific behaviours, select a few, too many can cause problems like behaviour change fatigue. Uses the behaviour change selector framework to determine the behaviours of most interest.


84

6) Determine or uncover barriers and benefits/drivers — consider the views of different stakeholders not just experts. Consider the capability, opportunity and motivation in regard to each barrier and benefit.

7) Develop strategy or intervention

8) Design the intervention

9) Implement and evaluate.

For the purpose of the recreational boat biofouling project, only steps 1–3 are being operationalised in this project.

Step 1 – Define behaviours Behaviour(s) should adhere to two criteria: no behaviour should be further divisible; and each behaviour should be an end-state.

• Divisible behaviours: those actions that can be divided further. Why, because each behaviour will have substantially different barriers.

• End-state: refers to the behavior that actually produces the desired outcome. To determine whether a behavior is end-state, simply ask, ‘will engaging in this behavior produce the desired outcome, or will the target audience need to do something else before the desired outcome is achieved?’

What are the non-divisible behaviours we want to change/influence? Failure to create a list of non-divisible behaviors can jeopardise the development of effective strategies as there will be insufficient information regarding the barriers to specific behaviors.

A review of biofouling management guidelines resulted in a number of behaviours (or biofouling management actions) being identified that are considered non-divisible end-states that are important for preventing marine pest translocation (Table 25). The list in Table 25 is a summary of this review, covering three categories of behaviours: general, anti-fouling and cleaning actions.


85

Table 25: Best practice management actions to reduce biofouling risk

General behaviours Source Biofouling management plan and/or log book Coordinated cleaning, maintenance, and anti-fouling program for the boat

1, 2, 3, 7

Boat movement and voyages logged 3, 7 In-water inspections before moving boat or periods of inactivity 2 Undertake monthly inspections of hull, propeller and niche areas 2, 3 Notify local authorities of any suspected harmful organism 2, 3 Anti-fouling Does the boat have anti-fouling paint (biocidal or biocide free) 1, 3 Niche areas are anti-fouled using appropriate product 1, 3 Frequency of anti-fouling paint application (biocidal 12 mths or biocide free 24 mths) surveys, 7 Anti-fouling paint applied by a professional licenced boat maintenance facility 3, surveys, 7 Anti-fouling paint applied in compliance with paint manufactures specifications 1, 3, surveys, 7 Expert advice on the choice of anti-fouling coatings for boat hull and niche areas. 2, 3, 7 Cleaning Do you clean your boats hull and niche areas 1, 2, 3 How many times each year is the boat hull cleaned (in-water 6-12 mths/out-water 12 mths)

surveys, 7

How many times each year are niche areas cleaned (in-water 6-12 mths/out-water 12 mths)

1, surveys

How many times each year is the boat hauled out of the water and cleaned 1, 2 How is the boat hull cleaned (scrubbing, scrapping, hydroblasting, or abrasive blasting) in-water/out-water

1, surveys, 7

Dispose biofouling waste appropriately 2, 3, 7

Clean gear and equipment such as anchor, chains, nets, and sports equipment after each trip.

1, 3

Clean the hull before taking it out of the marina/on significant journeys/leaving current location

1, 2, 3, surveys

Clean or treat internal seawater systems 2, 3 Sources:

1) International Maritime Organization 2012, Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft, London, 12 November.

2) Inglis G, Morrisey D, Woods C, Sinner J & Newton M 2013, Managing the Domestic Spread of Harmful Marine Organisms Part A: Operational Tools for Management, NZ Ministry for Primary Industries.

3) Australian Government 2009, National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels, Canberra. 4) IPSOS 2007, Recreational Users of the Marine Environment Market Research. Executive Summary Report, Prepared for

the Australian Government of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 5) NIMPCG Communications Working Group 2007, Draft Communications Framework for Marinas, Harbours, Slipways—

Communication and Awareness Strategy, National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions.

6) Boating Industry Association of Victoria 2007-2008, Marine Pests Project - Communication Strategy, Boating Industry Association of Victoria.

7) Australian Government 2015, Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Environment, and New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, Canberra.


86

Step 2 – Refine and select the target behaviours Prioritising the behaviours by determining the effectiveness of the behaviour in addressing the impacts of translocating marine pests

To determine the effectiveness of a given behaviour, a panel of 41 marine pest management experts, domestic and international, were approached to rate the effectiveness of the behaviours presented in

Table 25, in reducing the risk of translocating marine pests. Of those approached, 24 experts responded, including Australian and international biofouling and marine pest researchers; marina, slipway and boating industry representatives; and Australian federal and state government officers.

Experts were asked to rate the effectiveness of each behavioural strategy on a 5 point scale. The output of this is a list of behaviours ranked according to how effective each behaviour is in addressing each impact. This process allowed the researchers to prioritise behavioural questions for inclusion in the recreational boater survey.

The expert survey questions are presented in Appendix B: Expert elicitation survey - results.

Selecting target behaviours – the behaviour change selector matrix The behaviour selector matrix was applied to bring these concepts together to determine which behaviours should be the focus of any behavioural intervention program. The premise of the CBSM approach is that it is better to direct resources towards influencing a small number of specific behaviours rather than spreading resources thinly by addressing too many behaviours. The selector matrix helps choose the behaviours that have a combination of: 1) a high degree of effectiveness in addressing the issue, 2) a high probability that domestic boaters will adopt the behaviour, and 3) are currently not widely being undertaken by the target cohort (Hine et al. 2015; McKenzie-Mohr 2000). Behaviours with higher impact rank scores are the most attractive behaviours to target.

To determine which behaviours are of most interest to target in an intervention, CBSM apply the following model:

Impact rank = Effectiveness x (5 — Penetration) x Adoption Probability

Where;

Effectiveness = effectiveness of behaviour in reducing impact (source: expert survey) Penetration = proportion of people currently doing best practice behaviour or better (source: domestic boat owner survey) Adoption Probability = likelihood of adopting the behaviour (source: domestic boat owner survey)

Respondents to the expert elicitation survey were asked to rate behaviours on a 5 point scale (where 0 = not at all effective to 4 = extremely effective) (‘Effectiveness’). Respondents to the national boater survey were asked to indicate a) how often they currently engaged in each behaviour on 5 point scale (where 1 = never to 5 = always/more often) (‘Penetration’), and b) the


87

likelihood that they would adopt each behaviour in the future on a 5 point scale (where 0 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely) (‘Adoption Probability’).

The CBSM calculation for Effectiveness, Penetration and Adoption Probability is to take the average of all the individual respondents’ scores on the relevant scales, as applied in a number of other behavioural ranking studies (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2016; Please et al. 2017). We followed this approach to calculate the Effectiveness and Adoption Probability scores. However, because we had different values on the scales for Penetration for each behaviour, we calculated the Penetration scores by taking the proportion of respondents who were ‘within the best practice or above’ so that the resulting scores for each behaviour could be compared. ‘Within best practice’ for recreational boat maintenance behaviours was defined as part of a review of Australian and IMO guidelines for recreational vessel operators (summarised in Table 25: Best practice management actions to reduce biofouling risk). The scales used for the Penetration scores, and definition of best practice behaviours, are presented in the table just below Figure 21 Summary of biofouling management actions by boat operators.

Responses from the expert survey and domestic boater survey were combined to compute an ‘Impact rank’ score using the algorithm above (Table 5). The behaviours were ranked according to this score to identify the behaviours that were likely to have the greatest influence on reducing marine pest spread in the domestic recreational boat sector in Australia.

Step 3 – Barriers and benefits The next step is to uncover the barriers and benefits related to the behaviours. The barriers and benefits related to the behaviours are critical to understanding the opportunities for behaviour adoption. The barriers and benefits of biofouling management behaviours were identified through the national domestic boater survey.

Barriers can be internal to the individual (e.g. knowing how to undertake anti-fouling activities), external to the individual (e.g. cost of anti-fouling), or derive from structural changes, such as organising biofouling maintenance services and facilities at slipways and marinas. The barriers and benefits are very specific to the type of activity that is the focus of the study, in this case to boat cleaning and anti-fouling.

Barriers and benefits to the behaviour changes can be determined via: 1) Literature review 2) Observe people engaging in the behaviour as well as the behaviour you want to dissuade

people from doing (largely impossible for this project) 3) Conduct focus groups to explore in-depth attitudes and behaviors of your target audience

regarding the activities you wish to encourage and discourage. 4) Survey target audience.

Source: based on McKenzie-Mohr (2011).

Table 26 presents an initial list of barriers and benefits identified in the literature through previous surveys and research on recreational boat cleaning practices and from educational campaign material for boaters produced by state/territory jurisdictions.


88

Table 26: Barriers and benefits to biofouling management

Barriers (general) – internal and external • Cost prohibitive/too expensive (anti-fouling paint and cleaning) • Anti-fouling products poisonous, impact environment • Anti-fouling paints do not work • Lack of infrastructure (to haul boat to apply antifoul or clean) • Lack of knowledge (anti-fouling and cleaning) • Lack of information (anti-fouling and cleaning) • Lack of support (government) • Don’t care about marine pests • Lack of scientific data to support threat

Benefits – personal and environmental • Boat performance/efficiency • Aesthetics • Increase longevity of boat • Protect the marine environment/ marine stewardship • Intergenerational environmental benefits

Sources: 1) IPSOS 2007, Recreational Users of the Marine Environment Market Research. Executive Summary Report, Prepared for

the Australian Government of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2) NIMPCG Communications Working Group 2007, Draft Communications Framework for Marinas, Harbours, Slipways—

Communication and Awareness Strategy, National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions.

3) Findings from previous surveys, reviewed in Appendix F, and educational campaign material (such as NSW Make ‘clean’ part of your routine’, available: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/pests-diseases/marine-pests/stop-the-spread/clean-routine, and the Conservation Council SA’s Boat Owner’s Guide – Caring for our Coastal Waters, available: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/310/attachments/original/1450260825/Boat_Owners_Guide.pdf?1450260825).

As part of the national survey, Australian domestic boater survey respondents were asked to identify barriers or benefits specific to undertaking the target behaviours, including the antifouling and cleaning practices. These barriers and benefits are presented in full in Chapter 5: Behavioural survey questions.

Factors that are likely to influence human behaviours can be grouped in terms of:

• Capabilities: awareness, knowhow, physical skills, cognitive / personal skills, personal confidence

• Circumstances: physical, economic, technological, social, cultural, institutional

• Motivations: values, beliefs, attitudes, personal norms, emotions, social norms, response efficacy.

Source: Lynnette McLeod (2016; 2015) CRC Invasive Animals – feral cat containment study.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/pests-diseases/marine-pests/stop-the-spread/clean-routine

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/pests-diseases/marine-pests/stop-the-spread/clean-routine

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/310/attachments/original/1450260825/Boat_Owners_Guide.pdf?1450260825

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conservationsa/pages/310/attachments/original/1450260825/Boat_Owners_Guide.pdf?1450260825


89

Expert ratings of effective boater behaviour Expert elicitation survey - results summary To determine the effectiveness of a given behaviour, a panel of 41 marine pest management experts, domestic and international, were approached to rate the effectiveness of the behaviours presented in Table 27 in reducing the risk of translocating marine pests. Of those approached, 26 experts responded, including Australian and international researchers; marina, slipway and boating industry representatives; and Australian federal and state government officers. Drawing on their professional expertise in marine pest management, the survey asked the experts to evaluate each of the listed biofouling management actions on a five point scale according to how effective they thought each action would be in reducing the risk of translocating marine pests, assuming the majority of recreational vessel operators adopted them. An average effectiveness score was calculated across all the experts on each behaviour. The output of this was a list of behaviours ranked according to how effective they considered each behaviour in addressing the risk of domestic marine pest translocation. The top ranked behaviours was ‘cleaning the hull and niche areas before moving the vessel to a new location’ followed by a range of actions relating to ‘properly maintaining the anti-fouling coating’. This process allowed the researchers to prioritise behavioural questions for inclusion in the recreational boater survey.

Table 27 Expert ratings on effectiveness of actions in reducing the spread of marine pests Rank order

(by experts)

Behaviour description

(survey question)

Effectiveness of behaviour (rating 0-4) 53

N

1 Cleaning hull and niche areas before moving vessel to a new location 3.69 26

2 Applying anti-foulant coating to the vessel hull regularly (e.g. at least once a year) 3.27 26

3 Applying anti-foulant coating to the niches of the vessel (including to pipe openings, propeller, shaft and rudder) at least once a year 3.15 26

4 Have anti-foulant coating applied to the vessel by a professional service provider 3.12 26

5 Capturing and disposing of biofouling waste when cleaning the vessel 3.00 25

6 Using expert advice on the choice of anti-foulant coatings for the vessel hull and niche areas 2.88 26

7 Cleaning the niche areas of the vessel regularly 2.77 26 8 Have a biofouling management plan for cleaning and/or anti-fouling 2.76 25

9 Notifying local authorities of any suspected harmful material or organisms 2.76 25

10 Cleaning the vessel hull out of the water at least once a year 2.54 26

11 Applying the anti-foulant coating themselves, in accordance with the manufacturers specifications 2.54 26

12 Cleaning the vessel hull regularly in the water (e.g. four times a year or more) 2.42 26

53 Average ratings across all experts are presented in this table, where, 0 = Not at all effective and 4 = Extremely effective.


90

Expert elicitation survey - survey responses Responses to the expert elicitation survey are presented below.


91


92

2 Australian Government Department of the Environment, and Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

11 State departments of agriculture, food or fisheries in WA, SA, NT, Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania

3 Specialised consultants

2 Overseas government agencies

3 International science institutes and universities

2 Ministry for Primary Industries NZ

3 Regional councils in Australia and NZ

26 Total


93


94


95


96

Recreational boat survey instrument

Hello. Thank you for participating in the National Recreational Boat Survey, being conducted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) for the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The aim of the survey is to gather information about common anti-fouling practices used by recreational boat owners. We are also interested in patterns and movements of recreational boats around Australia's coastline. This research will help us understand biofouling (Biofouling occurs when plants and animals attach and grow on the wet areas of a vessel, such as the hull, propellers, anchors and lines.) in relation to recreational boats and keep Australia’s waters safe from pests and diseases. The survey should be completed by a person over the age of 18 years who has the best knowledge about the use and maintenance of the boat. This could be the owner, co-owner, a friend or family member who uses the boat, or a crew member. If you would like to complete a survey for more than one boat you own, you are invited to do so. Research data gathered from the survey may be published, but the identities of survey participants will remain confidential. To learn more visit the recreational boat survey page on the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources website or by calling 1800 186 029 (toll free) or emailing the ABARES research team at [email protected]. The survey takes about 20 minutes to complete.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/biofouling/recreational-vessel-survey



97

Marine pest awareness 1) Before starting this survey, were you aware that marine pests (Marine pests are plants or animals, usually introduced from overseas, that have a significant impact on our marine industries and environment. They can include mussels, crabs, seaweeds, sea stars and other marine species.) can foul your boat?

( ) Yes

( ) No

2) Before starting this survey, were you aware that your boat can transfer marine pests (Marine pests are plants or animals, usually introduced from overseas, that have a significant impact on our marine industries and environment. They can include mussels, crabs, seaweeds, sea stars and other marine species.) from one location to another if it has biofouling on it?

( ) Yes

( ) No

About your boat 3) What type of boat do you have?

( ) Powerboat

( ) Sailing boat

4) Hull type - is your boat:

( ) Monohull

( ) Multihull (e.g. catamaran)

5) Which category best describes your role in relation to the boat?


98

( ) Owner

( ) Co-owner

( ) Crew

( ) Other - Please specify: _________________________________________________

6) What material is the hull made of?

( ) Fibreglass

( ) Aluminium

( ) Steel

( ) Wood


About your boat (cont.)

Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify LogicIF: Question "Where is your boat primarily stored?" #8 is one of the following answers ("On land or trailered to a boat ramp") THEN: Jump to page 20 - Your boat use

7) What is the size of the boat? .: _________________________________________________

Validation: Must be numeric (in metres)

8) Where is your boat primarily stored?

( ) In the water year-round at a marina berth


99

( ) In the water year-round on a mooring

( ) Out of the water (e.g. dry rack, hard stand or boat lift)

( ) On land or trailered to a boat ramp


About your boat (cont.) 9) What is the name of the home port of your boat?

The home port is the location, such as a marina, estuary, port or nearest town, where the boat is usually kept.

_________________________________________________

10) In the last 12 months, what was the longest time your boat was stationary (i.e. moored, tied up or anchored) in the water?

_________________________________________________

Validation: Min = 0 Max = 365 Must be numeric (in days)

11) Are you a member of a boating association or club?

( ) Yes

( ) No


100

Cleaning the hull (in water) 12) How often is the boat hull cleaned while it is in the water?

( ) Never

( ) Less than once a year

( ) Once a year

( ) 2 times a year

( ) 3 times a year or more

( ) I don't know - someone else does it for me

( ) I don't know - other reason

13) How likely is it that the boat hull will be cleaned while it is in the water in the future?

( ) 1 - Very unlikely

( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely

14) Can you suggest why a boat owner:

would clean the boat hull in the water...

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

would NOT clean the boat hull in the water...

____________________________________________

____________________________________________


101

Cleaning the hull (out of water) 15) How often is the boat taken out of the water for cleaning the hull (e.g. dry dock, slipway, on land)?

( ) Never

( ) Less than once a year

( ) Once a year

( ) 2 times a year

( ) 3 times a year or more



16) How likely is it that the boat hull will be taken out of the water for cleaning in the future?


( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely


.would take the boat hull out of the water for cleaning...

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

.would NOT take the boat hull out of the water for cleaning...

____________________________________________

____________________________________________


102

Cleaning niche areas 18) How frequently are the niche areas of the boat cleaned?

Niche areas of the boat are areas that retain water, or attachments that protrude, such as the bottom of the keel, intakes and outlets, anodes, propellers and shafts, sea chests, rudders, anchors and casings. ( ) Never

( ) Once a year

( ) 2 times a year

( ) 3 times a year

( ) 4 or more times a year



19) How likely is it that the niche areas of the boat will be cleaned in the future?


( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely


would clean the niche areas of the boat…

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________


103

.would NOT clean the niche areas of the boat…

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Clean-and-go 21) How frequently is the boat hull cleaned, including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location?

A voyage outside of your home port, harbour or estuary is considered another location.

( ) Never

( ) Rarely

( ) Sometimes

( ) Usually

( ) Always



22) How likely is it that you would clean the boat hull including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location in the future?


( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely


104


would clean the boat hull including the niche areas, before moving it?

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

would NOT clean the boat hull nor the niche areas, before moving it?

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Anti-fouling

Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify LogicIF: Question "How frequently has anti-foulingAnti-fouling is the ability of specifically designed materials and coatings to remove or prevent biofouling by any number of organisms on wet surfaces. coating been applied to your boat hull including the niche areas?" #24 is one of the following answers ("Never") THEN: Jump to page 14 - Anti-fouling (cont.)

24) How frequently has anti-fouling (Anti-fouling is the ability of specifically designed materials and coatings to remove or prevent biofouling by any number of organisms on wet surfaces.) coating been applied to your boat hull including the niche areas?

( ) Never

( ) Once every 4 years or more

( ) Once every 3 years

( ) Once every 2 years

( ) At least once a year

( ) I don't know


105

Anti-fouling (cont.) 25) Who does the anti-fouling?

( ) I do it myself

( ) A contractor or service provider

( ) A friend or family member


26) Which product type was applied to your boat?

( ) Ablative coating (gradually wears away)

( ) Hard coating (with or without biocide)


( ) I don't know

27) What is the product brand name of the anti-fouling coating used on your boat?_________________________________________________

Anti-fouling (cont.) 28) What is the likelihood that an anti-fouling coating will be applied to your boat hull including the niche areas, in the future?


( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely


106


.Would have anti-fouling coating applied to the boat hull, including the niche areas...

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Would NOT have anti-fouling coating applied to the boat hull, including the niche areas....

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

30) Are you familiar with the contents of the National Biofouling Management Guidelines for Recreational Vessels (2009) produced by the Australian Government?

( ) Yes

( ) No

31) Are you familiar with the contents of the national Anti-Fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (2013) produced by the Australian Government?

( ) Yes

( ) No

Waste capture

Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify LogicIF: Question "How often is the biofouling waste captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat?" #32 is one of the following answers ("I don't know - someone else does it for me","I don't know - other reason") THEN: Jump to page 18 - Information sources

32) How often is the biofouling waste captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat?


107

Biofouling is plants and animals that can attach and grow on the submerged areas such as hull, propellers, anchors and lines of a boat that may be dislodged when cleaning the boat.

( ) Never

( ) Rarely

( ) Sometimes

( ) Usually

( ) Always



33) How likely is it that the biofouling (Biofouling is plants and animals that can attach and grow on the submerged areas such as hull, propellers, anchors and lines of a boat, that may be dislodged when cleaning the boat.) waste would be captured and disposed of after cleaning the boat in the future?


( ) 2

( ) 3

( ) 4

( ) 5 - Very likely


would capture and dispose of the biofouling waste after cleaning the boat?

____________________________________________

____________________________________________


108

would NOT capture and dispose of the biofouling waste after cleaning the boat?

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Information sources 35) Where do you get your information about boat anti-fouling and hull maintenance?

[ ] Internet (e.g. boating blogs, Facebook)

[ ] Government - State

[ ] Friends and family

[ ] Industry service providers (e.g. marina, slipways)

[ ] Pamphlets / brochures

[ ] Yacht / boat club

[ ] Other boat owners

[ ] Marine Rescue / Coast Guard

[ ] Government - federal

[ ] Media (e.g. TV, newspapers)

[ ] NGOs (e.g. Oceanwatch)

[ ] Other - Please specify: _________________________________________________


109

Your boat use

Page exit logic: Skip / Disqualify LogicIF: Question "In the last 12 months, did your boat travel outside of your home port or harbour?" #36 is one of the following answers ("No") THEN: Jump to page 21 - (untitled) Flag response as complete

36) In the last 12 months, did your boat travel outside of your home port or harbour?

( ) Yes

( ) No

Your boat use

Logic: Add-as-needed

37) Please summarise the voyages your boat has taken within Australian waters, in the past 12 months

Place of origin (e.g. name of home port): _________________________________________________

Place visited (e.g. name of port, harbour, town or area): _________________________________________________

How many visits to this place? (number of visits/year): _________________________________________________

Duration of stay (average number of nights/visit): _________________________________________________


110

(untitled) You are about to submit your responses. If you would like to review your answers, please use the “Back” button. Otherwise, please click on the “Submit” button to submit your survey.

Thank you for completing the survey. Your responses have now been registered. You will be redirected to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources website.

Action: Social Media: Share this survey with people you know.

Action: URL Redirect

[END OF SURVEY]


111

Survey response The estimates in this report are based on responses from 1,585 recreational boat operators who participated in the 2017 ABARES national domestic recreational boater survey (the domestic boater survey). The results are likely to differ from those of the true population of recreational boaters in Australia because they are based on a sample recruited through social media and traditional media promotion to participate in an Internet survey. There is therefore likely to have been a bias towards respondents who had Internet connectivity and who use social media, and this may have some effect on the estimates.

There is limited information with which the survey response can be validated for how well it covers the population of recreational boaters in Australia. However, it was possible to compare the coverage based on location of home port, and boat length classes.

An analysis was also undertaken of the means by which the survey respondents were referred to the online survey, and which of the promotional tools were most successful.

Home port by state and territory A number of survey questions were asked about the characteristics of the respondents, including their home port location. Using this information, a validation check was made of how well the responses reflected the distribution of actual boats registered in the states/territories.

Of those who provided their home port location (51 per cent), the proportions by state and territory are shown in Table 28.

Table 28 Recreational boater survey respondents’ home ports by state/territory

Home port Respondents counts % of survey respondents

NSW 291 18.3

VIC 103 6.5

QLD 196 12.4

SA 57 3.6

WA 100 6.3

TAS 57 3.6

NT 11 0.7

No home port given 764 48.2 International 6 0.4

Total 1585 100

Approximately 0.4 per cent of respondents indicated that their home port was in an international location, these respondents have only been included in analyses where relevant. Almost half (48 per cent) did not provide a home port location (or it could not be determined).

The actual recreational boat registrations were provided to ABARES by state and territory agencies (Table 19). Figure 38 provides a comparison of the proportions of respondents from the ABARES domestic boater survey with recreational boats registered in Australia by state/territory. This indicates that the proportion of boat operators from Victoria and Queensland was lower, while for other states, the proportions of responses was higher than actual registered boat proportions. On the whole however, responses to the domestic boater


112

survey were geographically spread across states/territories in roughly similar proportions to actual boat registrations. This gives us some confidence that recreational boats from each state/territory are represented proportionally in the survey responses.

Figure 38 Proportion of registered recreational boats in Australia compared with respondents to the ABARES domestic boater survey, by state

Source: State agency recreational boat registration data provided to ABARES in 2014 (blue columns). ABARES domestic boater survey 2017 (orange columns). No data provided for NT as registration or licencing of domestic vessels is not required.

Boat length coverage The length classes of the boats represented in the ABARES domestic boater survey are shown in Figure 39, including the trailered boats. This was compared with the length class of recreational vessels in the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) List of Registered Ships database54. This provides a way to check how well the ABARES domestic boater survey responses represented the range of boat sizes in the Australian recreational vessel fleet.

The boat size classes follow a similar general pattern. However, smaller length classes (<10m) are better represented in ABARES’ domestic boater survey than in the AMSA database. The difference is explained by the over representation of larger recreational vessels that are used for long distance travel by AMSA. Registration of recreational vessels with AMSA is voluntary. There are no recreational vessels less than 5 metres registered in the AMSA database. The types of vessels likely to be registered from the recreational class are those used for long distance travel, which would mean that larger length classes are likely to be represented in the AMSA database55.

54 Recreational boat use categories selected from the AMSA List of Registered Ships database for this analysis, dated 31 July 2017, included yachts, catamaran, motor boat, pleasure craft and other (e.g. game or sport fishing vessels) boat types. 55 The AMSA database has several purposes: provide vessel owners with proof of ownership e.g. for the purposes of sale; Australian vessels travelling overseas must be registered; and vessels on the high seas are required to have nationality (Australian Maritime Safety Authority 2017).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


% re

crea

tiona

l boa

ts

% of registered boats by state % ABARES domestic boater survey respondents by state


113

Figure 39 Comparison of boat length classes

Note: Frequency counts of Australian recreational vessels in each class are shown on graph.

0 5

293

493

292

119

45 41 7 40

141

540

453

52

9 6 8 4 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 More

Freq

uenc

y(c

ount

s)

Length classes

AMSA - registered boat lengths ABARES domestic boater survey


114

Referrals to the online survey An analysis was done of the digital referrals through which respondents arrived at the survey web page. This was to gain a picture of the most effective way of promoting the survey, and specifically which websites, social media or forums directed respondents to the survey.

The Facebook advertisements were by far the most common referral site directing nearly 70 per cent of respondents to the survey, followed by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources website which referred just over 15 per cent of respondents to the survey, and the SurveyGizmo link used in a range of promotional material, directed 11 per cent of respondents to the survey (Table 29). The Department of Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA) Fishfacts e-newsletter was also an important referral site pulling a number of people to the survey.

Table 29 Counts of respondents – digital and print referrals to the survey

Referral web site Counts of respondents % survey respondents Facebook 1096 69.1% agriculture.gov.au a 245 15.4%

SurveyGizmo.com link b 173 11.0% PIRSA - Fishfacts March 2017 37 2.3% Trawlerforum.com 12 0.8% Twitter 5 0.3% Unknown referral sites 5 0.3% shipmate.com.au 4 0.3% Boat Gold Coast newsletter 3 0.2% woodenboat.com 2 0.1% Cruising yacht club of SA 1 0.1% Hastings yacht club 1 0.1% Reef Watch newsletter 1 0.1% Total 1586 100%

a The agriculture.gov.au link was used in the Reef Watch South Australia Facebook page, Boat Gold Coast magazine, Australian Boating magazine, and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ project factsheet. b The SurveyGizmo.com link was used in promotions of the survey in the Fisheries Queensland website, and Cruising Yacht Club of South Australia Facebook page.


115

Survey communications strategy

56 This assumes a conservative response rate of 10% for the survey. If there are 75,238 recreational boats registered in Australia (of the 7m or greater length group), and about 15% receive the survey promotional material (i.e. 11,286 registered boat owners), and the response rate is 10%, that means the survey returns would be in the vicinity of about 1,200.

Domestic recreational vessel biofouling survey communication strategy Key Contacts

Business area: Farm Analysis and Biosecurity section, ABARES Division

Design and Change: Biosecurity Communication team

Dr Nyree Stenekes, , Social Scientist Roanna Dawson, Assistant Director Robert Kancans, Social Scientist Mae Allen, Policy Officer (Animal Biosecurity, Aquatics & Marine

Pests) Nathalie Jarosz, Policy Officer (Biological Quarantine Operations

& Marine Pests)

Carly Ambler, Senior Communications Officer

Project summary • The department is undertaking a survey of

Australia’s domestic recreational boating community following recommendations in a 2015 review for strengthening the regulation of national marine pest biosecurity.

• The survey will establish baseline data on the patterns and movements of recreational vessels around Australia as well as on the values, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of domestic recreational vessel operators in regards to biofouling and marine pest risk.

• The department will work with state and territory jurisdictions and peak industry bodies and stakeholders to promote the survey to target audiences.

• The data captured will be used to inform the development of a national approach to reducing the biofouling risk presented by private domestic recreational vessels (there are no plans for this to be regulated).

• The target survey response is 1,200 from a total estimated population of 75,238 (domestic registered recreational boats seven metres in length or greater and are normally kept in marine water)56.

Major milestones

December 2016 Develop marketing / communication materials

February 2017 Survey opens

July 2017 Survey closes


116

Communication objectives Raise awareness among target audiences of the

Government’s strengthened approach to managing domestic marine biosecurity risk.

Reach 12,000 registered recreational boat owners with communications about the online survey of domestic recreational vessel biofouling management and travel patterns.

Encourage at least 1200 registered recreational boat owners to complete the survey.

Key audience/s Primary external Registered owners of Australian domestic

recreational yachts, cruisers and motor boats, which are normally kept in marine waters. Approximate population sizes for each state and territory are as follows.

New South Wales 26,452

Queensland 19,252

Victoria 11,467

Western Australia 11,463

South Australia 3616

Tasmania 2988

Northern Territory n/a*

Total 75,238 * NT does not require registration or licencing of domestic vessels.

Secondary external The following groups will be targeted as intermediaries to assist in reaching the primary audience with our communications about the survey. Industry peak bodies (MIA, BIAA, BIA etc) Yacht and sailing clubs and associations Marinas and slipways (public/private marinas and

slipway and jetty managers) Marine commercial businesses (marine service

and product retailers, boat repairers, marine berth leasing, aquaculture, fisheries)

Marine Pest Sectoral Committee (7 state/territory government representatives)

Ocean Watch Researchers (working on biofouling risk) Media Internal Department Staff (as intermediaries and

potential survey participants) Internal partners ABARES MPU Animal Biosecurity Branch Biodiversity Communication team Department’s media unit


117

Key online and print products Description Approx. cost

Department website – a new survey landing page will be created. This will include communications key messages and link to relevant pages on the website, i.e. biofouling, marine pests etc. Poster, sharables and other resources can also be made available from the page. Also update existing relevant biofouling, marine pests web pages to link to survey. The survey will also be promoted on the marine pests website (http://www.marinepests.gov.au) and mylink.

Nil

e-magazine advertisement – Run tailored ads in e-magazines with high readership by the survey target audience and stakeholders.

See Industry publications table below

Facebook advertisements – run 2-3 ads tailored to key audience characteristics (interests, location, etc) and phase of survey (start/mid and one-week before close). Ad will appear in sponsored ad section of individual’s Facebook page and link to survey on website.

Right hand column advert, text + photo /1 Jan-31 Jan 2017 (1 month) $2332.00 (incl GST)

Printable products A3 printed poster- will be developed for mail out to stakeholders and display at industry conferences, boat shows, retailers etc. It will include a call to action to complete the survey online with a short, memorable link to the survey web page. Will include print to digital functionality (i.e. QR code for scanning on phone). An electronic version will be made available from the survey landing page on the department’s website. A4 flyer – An electronic flyer will be developed for emailing and upload to the survey landing page on the department’s website.

1pp colour A3 poster: 500 $1045.00 (incl GST) 1000 $1188.00 (incl GST) 2000 $1485.00 (incl GST) (with 500 C4 envelopes for posting out. Postage estimate @ 500 x $1.90 = $950)

Digital tile – will be designed for displaying on stakeholder websites and e-newsletters to promote survey to target audience. The tile will be activated to click through to survey.

Sample digital tile

Nil

Sharable graphics – digital postcards and other graphics will be designed for sharing on Facebook and Twitter with target audiences and include key messages, facts and a call to action to complete the survey. Graphics will present different key messages depending on the phase of the survey, i.e. open, mid, close (one week to go). Graphics will be activated to click through to survey.

Nil

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/new-biosecurity-legislation


118

Sample sharable graphic

Digital communication pack – tailored packs will be emailed to state/territory jurisdictions and industry stakeholders for promoting the survey via their channels to the target audience. Content will include digital tile, shareable graphics (see samples above) and suggested messaging for social media and e-newsletters, also link to printable resources on survey landing page on the department’s website (i.e. flyer/poster).

Nil

Departmental social media posts – develop a schedule of tailored messages for roll out on ABARES and Biosecurity Facebook and Twitter channels, encouraging target audience to participate in the survey and also promote to (sharewith) other recreational boat owners.

Nil


119

Industry publications Publication/website Target audience Opportunity Frequency

Shipmate

http://www.shipmate.com.au/

MIA members Website ‘premium animated tile’ - A premium positioned, high profile animated tile appearing across all pages of the site. No matter what page visitors are on, your ad features prominently.

The tile is linked to your own website allowing visitors to single-click through to your own site. 2017 media kit

Monthly

Waterline (Marina Industries Association)

https://www.marinas.net.au/resources/waterline-mia-publication

Recreational boaters Waterline magazine advertisement – Waterline, published in print and electronic formats, allows you to market directly to MIA members and a large subscription base of marine professionals in Australia and overseas, industry suppliers, and government departments at all levels throughout Australia.

2016 media kit

Quarterly

Fishing World https://www.yaffa.com.au/consumer/fishing-world/

Circulation: 14,000 (Publisher’s statement)

Readership: 180,000 (Roy Morgan June 2016)

Core target: Recreational and sport fishermen

Editorial, advertising, possible advertorial Monthly

Australian Boating

http://www.australianboatmags.com.au/pub/index.php

“Our national, monthly PDF magazine dedicated to all kinds of recreational boats - fibreglass power and sailing boats, imported boats, plate aluminium fishing boats, pressed tinnies, composite fibreglass boats, DIY boats - if it floats, and gets you out there, we're interested!”

Boat owners and prospective boat owners

Editorial, advertising, possible advertorial

2017 Media Kit

Monthly

Boat Gold Coast Many of our readers live on waterfront properties requiring

Editorial, advertising, possible advertorial Quarterly

http://www.shipmate.com.au/

http://www.shipmate.com.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SMDMediaKit.pdf



http://www.marinas.net.au/documents/item/547

https://www.yaffa.com.au/consumer/fishing-world/

https://www.yaffa.com.au/consumer/fishing-world/



http://www.australianboatmags.com.au/pdf/ABM_2017_Media_Kit.pdf


120

http://boatgoldcoast.com.au/

Boat Gold Coast magazine is FREE to readers and we are large format glossy 275W x 345H. We print minimum 10,000 copies and hand deliver to 400 participating locations for distribution on the Gold Coast and surrounding suburbs, cities and towns. From Tweed Heads, throughout the Gold Coast to Manly (near Brisbane).

We also publish the magazine online at the worlds largest online magazine publishing site issuu.com, and we have a social media strategy on Facebook and Instagram.

marine industry products. Our boat owner readers are upgrading boats or buying related equipment. Some of our readers do not yet own a boat, but are engaged in boating activities through friends, family or charters; they may be first time boat buyers.

Average size of primary boat: 16-40 feet

Average value of primary boat: $40,000-$200,000

Boat ownership: 60%

2016 Media Kit

http://boatgoldcoast.com.au/

http://boatgoldcoast.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MediaKit-BOAT-2016.pdf


121

Publication/website Target audience Frequency

Blogs & private

MyBoatingLife http://www.myboatinglife.com.au/

Boaties

Queensland Fishing Monthly http://www.fishingmonthly.com.au/

Rec fishers Magazine

YachtsandYachting.com

Sail-World.com http://www.marinebusinessworld.com/contact/

Racing, sailing, cruising, power boaters – international & Australia

e-Newsletter

The global site for cruising sailors http://www.noonsite.com/General/CruisersWebsites

Cruising sailors Blog

SailBlogs http://www.sailblogs.com/groups/

Active sailors and cruisers Blog

Government

MAST (Marine & Safety Tasmania) http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/maintenance/construction-maintenance/

Hull maintenance tips on website and boat condition checklist

TAS Government website

Boatwise (MAST government magazine) http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/faqs/#newsletter

Boaties - safety TAS government Print magazine (3 per year) & e-newsletter

FishFacts (PIRSA)

Boaties SA Government newsletter

http://www.myboatinglife.com.au/

http://www.fishingmonthly.com.au/

http://www.marinebusinessworld.com/contact/

http://www.noonsite.com/General/CruisersWebsites

http://www.noonsite.com/General/CruisersWebsites

http://www.sailblogs.com/groups/

http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/maintenance/construction-maintenance/

http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/maintenance/construction-maintenance/

http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/faqs/%23newsletter

http://www.mast.tas.gov.au/recreational/faqs/%23newsletter


122

Boating Communities Newsletter http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/boating-communities-newsletter.asp

Boaties WA Government newsletter

Marine TSV Maritime Safety Victoria twitter feed https://twitter.com/MaritimeTSV and web site http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-vessel-operators

Rec vessel operators – safety related Website and twitter feed

Maritime Matters Maritime Safety Queensland www.msq.qld.gov.au

Boaters - maritime issues, information and services

Quarterly newsletter (http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/About-us/Maritime-Matters)

On Deck SA Department Planning, Transport and Infrastructure http://dpti.sa.gov.au/ondeck/news/?a=126453

newsletter

Boating SA

Soundings Quarterly Journal of Marine Rescue NSW

Yachties, Marine Rescue and Coastguard employees & volunteers, and on all aspects of boating safety published by Marine Rescue NSW

Quarterly journal

Industry

Marine E-news http://biavic.com.au/e-newsletter/ by the Boating Industry Association of Victoria http://biavic.com.au/

BIAV members, industry professionals and representatives (Peak body for the marine industry sector in VIC)

E-newsletter

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/boating-communities-newsletter.asp

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/boating-communities-newsletter.asp

https://twitter.com/MaritimeTSV

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-vessel-operators

http://transportsafety.vic.gov.au/maritime-safety/recreational-vessel-operators

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/About-us/Maritime-Matters




http://dpti.sa.gov.au/ondeck/news/?a=126453

http://biavic.com.au/e-newsletter/

http://biavic.com.au/


123

Boating Industry Association WA http://biawa.asn.au/

Businesses associated with the marine industry (and boat sales website at BoatsOnSale.com.au: http://au.urlm.com/www.boatsonsale.com.au )

Bi-monthly newsletter to members

Boating Industry Association NSW & SA

Boating Advocate (Boat Owners Association) www.boaters.org.au

BOA is the peak representative body for recreational boaters in NSW.

Monthly magazine

http://biawa.asn.au/

http://au.urlm.com/www.boatsonsale.com.au

http://au.urlm.com/www.boatsonsale.com.au

http://www.boaters.org.au/


124

Implementation plan Date Communication activity Audience Key messages Responsibility

Mid-November 2016 Publish survey landing page on dept website (include basic details about survey) Publish mylink content about survey with link to website landing page

All Raise awareness of the survey. ABARES team coordinate/ Comms assist

Mid-November 2016 Review of department and MPU websites to identify key pages to promote/link to survey Publish links

Comms draft/ ABARES review

Mid-November 2016 Develop digital engagement pack + electronic flyer


Early-December 2016 1st email to stakeholders Industry stakeholders Raise awareness and get stakeholders on board with survey + scope out demand for printed poster+ distribute digital engagement packs/flyer

ABARES draft/ approve + distribute /Comms QA

Mid-December 2016 Develop social media content schedule/ social media stakeholder mapping


Dec/January 2017 (TBC) Biosecurity Matters article Industry stakeholders Raise awareness of survey ABARES provide content and clearance. Comms draft/ manage publication.

Early-January 2017 Design + print/mail out A3 poster Comms draft/ ABARES review/ ABAREs develop mailing list+ distribution /comms manage production

Late-January 2017 Activate online survey ABARES / comms assist with QA/testing


125

Late- January (2 days before survey opens) 2017

2nd email to stakeholders + digital engagement pack

Industry stakeholders Notifying survey will open soon ABARES draft/ approve + distribute /Comms QA

1 February (survey open) Departmental social media posts Recreational boaties Announcing survey open Comms and media unit draft/ manage publication. ABARES review

1 February (survey open) Facebook advertisement (run for initial month)

Recreational boaties Encourage target audience participation in survey

ABARES provide content and clearance. Comms manage design and production.

Early-February mylink top news story Departmental staff Encourage target audience participation in survey

ABARES provide content and clearance. Comms draft/ manage publication.

February (TBC) Biosecurity Matters article Industry stakeholders Encourage target audience participation in survey


Early-February Industry advice notice Industry stakeholders Encourage target audience participation in survey


March Facebook advertisement (TBC – depending on results of initial month/ available budget)


BARES provide content and clearance. Comms manage design and production.

1 April 3rd email to stakeholders + digital engagement pack

Industry stakeholders Reminding target audience to complete survey

ABARES draft/ approve + distribute /Comms QA

1 April Departmental social media posts Recreational boaties Reminding target audience to complete survey

Comms and media unit draft/ manage publication. ABARES review


126

May Facebook advertisement (TBC – depending on results of previous month/ available budget)


ABARES provide content and clearance. Comms manage design and production.

1 May Departmental social media posts Recreational boaties Reminding target audience to complete survey

Comms and media unit draft/ manage publication. ABARES review

End-June (2-3 days before survey closes)

Departmental social media posts Recreational boaties Final call to complete survey Comms and media unit draft/ manage publication. ABARES review

End-June (2-3 days before survey closes)

4th email to stakeholders + digital engagement pack

Industry stakeholders Final call to complete survey ABARES draft/ approve + distribute /Comms QA

Post survey 5th email to stakeholders Industry stakeholders Announce results published ABARES draft/ approve + distribute /Comms QA

Post survey Departmental social media posts Recreational boaties Announce results published Comms and media unit draft/ manage publication. ABARES review

Post survey Biosecurity Matters article Industry stakeholders Announce results published ABARES provide content and clearance. Comms draft/ manage publication.


127

Review of existing recreational boater surveys This is a summary of the themes and questions that were covered in previous Australian and international recreational boater surveys.

Table 30: Recreational boater survey review

Question / theme Davidson and Ruiz

2014 Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011 Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Welling-ton 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015

Cathryn Clarke Murray

et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Owner details

Name X X X

Contact details X X X

Permanent residence X X

Boat registration number X

Type of crew (professional, solo, competitive, family)

X

Gender X

Household income X

Age X

Boat information

Date X X X X X

Boat name X X X X X

Type of boat (Sail, power, cabin cruiser, converted fish, personal water craft, luxury yacht or cruiser)

X X X X X X X X X X

Size/length/displacement X X X X X X X X X X

Hull type/material X X X X X X X X


128


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Length of boat ownership X

Home harbour/port X X X X X X X X X X

Boat purpose X

Average ocean cruising speed, ocean going and under motor (knots)

X X

General condition of boats exterior X

Maintenance (cleaning and anti-fouling)

Do you maintain and clean your boat X

Who cleans your boat X

When did you last clean your boat's hull or frequency

X X X X

Where was the boat cleaned (location/port, in-water, boat launch, on land, other)

X X

How (method) boat hull is kept clean manually (scrapping, blasting), date of last cleaning

X X X X X X X X X X

Is the boat cleaned in or out of the water, (where/location)

X X X X X X

Which areas were cleaned and which were missed (niche, rudder)

How many times per year is the hull cleaned X X X X

Do you clean the hull before taking it outside the marina

X

Number of summer and winter cleans X X

Annual boat maintenance and cleaning charges ($)

X


129


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Motivation to manually clean boat X

Barriers to cleaning the hull X

Anti-fouling practices (none, new boat, do not know, anti-fouling paint)

X

Type of anti-fouling paint used (CDP/Ablative, SPC, hard/insoluble, combination. Brands, manufacturer if known)

X X X X X X X X X X X

Boat does not have anti-foul paint X X

Use specialised anti-fouling paint for propeller

X

When was the last antifoul paint application X X

Last time (boat out of water for) anti-fouling application X X X X X X X

Since last application of anti-fouling paint has the hull been manually cleaned

X X X

Why was the hull manually cleaned (linked to above question)

X

Frequency of anti-fouling paint renewal (may include general maintenance), date of last application

X X X X X

Who applies anti-fouling paint (yourself, professional, other)

X X

How is anti-fouling paint applied X

Adherence to anti-fouling paint manufactures guidelines for application

X

Ease of meeting anti-fouling paint manufactures guidelines for application

X

Have there being any problems with the anti-fouling coating

X


130


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Please describe problems (linked to question above)

X

Where do you get information relating to anti-fouling and hull maintenance

X

Criteria for using a 'type' of anti-fouling paint X

Happy with cost & benefits of anti-fouling paint

X

What motivates (constrains) anti-fouling paint renewal OR timing of renewal

X X

General attitude towards anti-fouling (scale) X

Reason for general attitude rating (linked to question above)

X

Perceived effectiveness of antifoul paint for weeds and shells

X

Do you renew anti-fouling paint before a race X

Would you anti-foul more often if it were cheaper

X

Behaviour if hull requires unplanned renewal of anti-fouling paint

X

Beliefs regarding TBT (tributyltin)-based paints

X

Amount of biofouling carried on boat (<25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-100%)

X

Suitability of refugia for harbouring pest organisms (<25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-100%). Photo scale

X X

Boat use and recent voyage history

Where do you keep your boat (in-water all year, part year, on land)

X X

How many days was the boat in the water last year

X X

Number of years actively boating X


131


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Frequency of boating - use of boat X X X X

Season boat mostly used (summer, winter) X X

Length of inactivity (seasonal) X

Longest time boat in-water at a single location (where and when)

X X

Longest time boat moored, anchored, tied up outside your home marina

X X

Types of trips taken or plan to take (day, long, racing, tours, weekenders)

X X

Last port-of-call before current location X

Main areas (Country, region) visited, date, was boat stationary >4 weeks (no specific number of ports or time period)

X

Location of all places visited in last 12 months (set list British Columbia (BC))

X

Location of all places visited in last 12 months (set list outside BC)

X

Location of all places visited in last 12 months (set list USA)

X

Location of places visited in last 24 months (set list NZ)

X

International, interstate, overnight WA, location, duration, frequency (one question)

X X X X X

All trips within local area, with no overnight trips

X X X X

OS trips in last month/year/2 years X X X X

Number of boat trips away from home port in past 2 years

X X

Duration of trips X

Travel outside of home marina in the last 12 months (where, when and how long) X X X


132


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Number of trips and where since last out of water/antifoul application/cleaning? X X X X

Distance of trips from home port X

Last 5 mooring locations in last 2 years X

Last 5 marinas where boat was berthed/moored in last 12 months

X

Destination location(s) of domestic trips (map)

X

When travelling where do you prefer to reside (offshore, marina, estuaries)

X

Are you an international visitor

Do you travel internationally, where how often

Storage and stationary periods

Longest period boat in water at single location and where X X X

How is the boat kept when not boating (in water, marina, private mooring, trailer)

X X X X

Type of primary mooring at home port - swing or marina

X X

Mooring charges ($) X

Knowledge of marine biosecurity

Knowledge of marine pests X

Have you received information on the importance of boat cleaning

X

Have you changed your boat maintenance after learning more about the damage marine pest scan cause

X

What would you do if you came across something unusual on your boat hull

X


133


2014

Floerl 2002

Brine et al 2013

Cynthia McKenzie

2011

Zabin 2011

Davidson, Zabin and

Ashton 2013

Wellington 2013

Glasby & Lobb, 2008

Gorgula & Gates

2015


et al 2011

Thompson 2009

Bird 2016

Are you aware marine pests can foul your boat

X

Are you aware that your boat can transfer marine pests from one location to another

X

Awareness of biofouling issues (hull damage, reduced performance, increased fuel consumption

X

Were you aware before this survey that biofouling can introduce marine pests

X

Are you aware that hull maintenance and anti-fouling practices can minimise the introduction of marine pests

X

Is biofouling on your hull a problem when you are sailing

X


134

Statistical methods General statistical tests Inferential (non-parametric) statistical tests were used in this report to make judgments about the probability that an observed difference between groups was non-random, or one that might have happened by chance in this study (the results of these tests are presented throughout Chapter 4: National recreational boater survey results).

A non-parametric test does not assume anything about the underlying distribution, for example, that the data comes from a normally distributed population. A number of the variables in the national recreational boater survey were measured using nominal (or categorical) response types and these types of variables are suitable for non-parametric tests.

The statistical tests used in this report were:

• Chi-square test for independence – comparing two categorical variables (with two or more categories in each)

• Mann-Whitney U test – comparing two independent groups on a continuous measure

• Kruskal-Wallis test – comparing scores on a continuous variable for three or more groups

A statistically ‘significant difference’ between the variables being compared means we can be 95 per cent confident the difference observed between the variables being compared, reflected a true difference and is not a result of chance. In cases where chi-square tests for independence were found to be significant and there were more than two variable levels contributing to the significance, post-hoc tests were carried out to examine where the association between the variables lay. The procedure for the post-hoc tests was to use table cell standardised Pearson residuals to examine where the association between variables lay following the approach in Agresti (2002). Outcomes of these post hoc tests are reported in the text and footnotes in relevant sections of this report.

Procedures for the non-parametric statistical tests used in this report are based on Pallant (2005 (2nd edn.)). All statistical processes were done using the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.

Development of the cluster analysis The process used for cluster analysis involved taking the survey sample of domestic recreational boaters and identifying representative variables for use in the cluster method. The variables were carefully selected so that they were meaningful and relevant to the purpose of clustering. For this project the purpose was to find out if there were any sub-groups (clusters) in the domestic boater cohort who were undertaking a range of biofouling management related cleaning and anti-fouling practices on a regular basis. A number of decisions were made, such as what constituted a cluster, with a view to ensuring the clusters were replicable and valid (Gore 2000). The cluster analysis was done using SPSS version 19 using the Two-Step cluster procedure, which is better for larger datasets.

The variables selected to develop the cluster for this study were the 5 key biofouling management behaviours (listed in Table 2). The aim was to cluster the survey respondents according to reported biofouling management actions they had taken over the course of a year and to develop an understanding of their general regimes. The ‘waste capture and disposal’ management action was not included in the input variables, because it was not regarded as a separate and distinct action, as it should be done at the same time, or as part of, most other


135

management actions, such as cleaning the hull (out of water), anti-fouling, niche cleaning and clean-and-go management actions.

The number of clusters to interpret was chosen based on inspection of the model fit and group sizes, and the interpretability of the cluster groups. Using the 5 input variables, the model summary for the three cluster solution (Figure 40) showed the cluster quality was ‘fair’ using measures of cohesion and separation between the clusters (the closer to 1.0 this measure is, the better the model fit). The groups sizes (Figure 41) should be roughly similar, such that the Ratio of Sizes (largest cluster to smallest cluster) should be <3 (in this case 2.22). Several other cluster solutions were reviewed including a 4 and 5 cluster solution, but the fit and group sizes were less optimal, so the 3 cluster solution was chosen.

The output of the 3 cluster solution (represented visually in Figure 42) shows the main differences between the groups across all the input variables. The circles indicate where the largest proportions of respondents in each cluster group were for each input variable. For example, a large proportion of respondents in cluster group 3 (dark blue circle top right) indicated they clean the boat out of the water once a year. The predictor importance chart (Figure 43) shows the most important predictor variable for developing the clusters was cleaning the boat hull out of the water, followed by cleaning the niche areas, then anti-fouling the boat hull and niches. The other two variables: cleaning the boat hull in the water, and clean-and-go were less important predictors for developing the clusters.

Figure 40 Cluster analysis – measures of fit


136

Figure 41 Cluster analysis – group sizes

Figure 42 Cluster group comparison for domestic recreational boat sector


How frequently has anti-fouling coating been applied to the boat hull including the niche areas?

How frequently are the niche areas of the boat cleaned?

How often is the boat hull cleaned while it is in the water?

How frequently is the boat hull cleaned including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location outside the homeport, harbour or estuary?

38.2% 42.6%

19.2%


137

Figure 43 Predictor importance


How frequently has anti-fouling coating been applied to the boat hull including the niche areas?

How frequently are the niche areas of the boat cleaned?

How often is the boat hull cleaned while it is in the water?

How frequently is the boat hull cleaned including the niche areas, before moving the boat to another location outside the homeport, harbour or estuary?

Least important Most important

Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling in...

Documents

Transcript of Recreational boat operators’ self-management of biofouling in...