<%BANNER%>
UFIR IFAS
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00003045/00001
 Material Information
Title: An Assessment of Florida Boaters and their Awareness of the Clean Vessel Act and Clean Marina Program
Physical Description: Fact Sheet
Creator: Swett, Robert
Publisher: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Melanie Mercer.
Publication Status: Published
General Note: "December 2005"
General Note: "TP 151"
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00003045:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

SG06900 ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 3

AN ASSESSMENT OF FLORIDA BOATERS AND THEIR AWARENESS OF THE CLEAN VESSEL ACT AND CLEAN MARINA PROGRAM Robert Swett1, 2, Susan Fann1, and Jan DeLaney3 1Florida Sea Grant College Program 2Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida 3Florida Department of En vironmental Protection Research sponsored by the Florida Department of En vironmental Protection Project Number: 00050357 December 2005

PAGE 4

ii Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. .................. iv List of Figures................................................................................................................ ................. vi Background..................................................................................................................... ................ 1 Object ives..................................................................................................................... ................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................ .................. 2 Results........................................................................................................................ ..................... 3 Question 1: Please indicate how many boats of ea ch type listed that you own.............. 4 Question 2: In what type of vessel do you spend most of your boating time?............... 5 Question 3: Please enter the make, model, an d length of the boat that you identified in question 2 above........................................................................................ 6 Question 4: Please identify your ty pical launch site........................................................... 7 Question 5: Please indicate the number of times per month that you go boating.......... 8 Question 6: How many hours do you spend on the water during a typical boat ing trip?.................................................................................................... 9 Question 7: What is your favorite activity on a typical pleasure boating trip?............... 10 Question 8: Do you have a marine sanitation device on your boat (either portable or permanent)?..................................................................................... 11 Question 9: What type of marine sanitati on device do you have?.................................... 12 Question 10: For each of the four categories listed, please estimate the proportion (a percentage ranging from 0 to 100 percent) of the total sewage discharged from your boat(s) during the past year........................................................................ 13 Question 11: For each of the statements listed please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement.............................................................................. 14 Question 12: What factors, if any, would lead you to use sanitation pumpout stations more often?....................................................................................... 16 Question 13: Are you aware of Floridas Clean Vessel Act?............................................... 17 Question 14: How did you learn about th e Clean Vessel Act?.......................................... 18 Question 15: Please indicate whether each of the statements below is true or false...... 19 Question 16: Are you aware of Floridas Clean Marina Program?................................... 20 Question 17: How did you learn about the Clean Marina Program?............................... 21 Question 18: Please rank how likely you are to obtain information about boating and boating-related issues from each of the following information sources.......... 22 Question 19: What do you consider to be th e best way for you to obtain information about boating and boating-related issues?............................................. 24 Question 20: How many times during the course of a year do you visit a marina or use the services available at a marina?.................................................... 25 Question 21: How frequently do you use services available at a boatyard?................... 26 Ques tion 22: During a typical year, how many months do you store a boat at each of the faciliti es listed below?............................................................................. 27 Question 23: For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreem ent.............................................................................. 28 Question 24: Please rate each of the statements below in terms of its importance when you choose a marina to stay at....................................................... 30 Question 25: Please rate each of the statements below in terms of its importance when you choose a boatyard for repairs or maintenance.......................................... 32 Question 26: Please list any other reasons, not listed in the previous two questions, that are very important to yo u when choosing a marina to stay at or when selecting a boatyard fo r repairs or maintenance.......................................... 33

PAGE 5

iii Question 27: For each of the following statements about the environment, please indicate the extent of yo ur agreement or disagreement................................. 35 Question 28: How many years have yo u been boating?.................................................... 39 Question 29: How many years have you been boating in Florida?.................................. 39 Question 30: How many months per year do you live in Florida?................................... 39 Question 31: In what year were you born (how old are you)?.......................................... 39 Question 32: What gender are you?...................................................................................... 40 Question 33: How much formal education have you had?................................................ 40 Question 34: Which best describes your total annual family income, before taxes?...... 41 Question 35: What detracts most from yo ur boating experience?.................................... 42 Question 36: What is needed most to improv e your boating experience?....................... 44 Question 37: What kinds of information would impr ove your boating experience?..... 46 Conclusions and Reco mmendations........................................................................................... 47 Literature Cited............................................................................................................... ............... 49 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ................ 50 Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire used to assess boater awareness of the Clean Vessel Act.................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 2: Invitation letter sent to the sample of vessel owners invited to participate in the In ternet-based survey.................................................................. 64 Appendix 3: No-Internet card to be returned if a respondent did not have Internet access................................................................................................................ .. 65 Appendix 4: Invitation letter sent to the sample of vessel owners invited to participate in th e mail surveys.................................................................................. 66 Appendix 5: Reminder card sent to the sample of vessel owners invited to participate in the In ternet-based survey.................................................................. 67 Appendix 6: Reminder card sent to the sample of vessel owners invited to participate in th e mail surveys.................................................................................. 68 Appendix 7: Makes and models of the vessels in which Survey 1 (vessels 16 feet) respondents spend most of their boating time............................................................ 69 Appendix 8: Makes and models of the vessels in which Survey 2 (vessels 26 feet) respondents spend most of their boating time............................................................ 72

PAGE 6

iv Tables 1. Relative quantities of boat types that are owned by survey respondents.................... 4 2. The vessel types in which survey responde nts spend most of their boating time...... 5 3. Length characteristics of most frequently used vessels.................................................. 6 4. Typical launch sites of survey respondents...................................................................... 7 5-1. Monthly and yearly boating activity for Survey 1 (vessels 16 feet) respondents............................................................................................ 8 5-2. Monthly and yearly boating activity for Survey 2 (vessels 26 feet) respondents).......................................................................................... 8 6. Number of hours spent on the wate r during a typical boating trip.............................. 9 7. Favorite activities of survey respon dents during a typical boating trip....................... 10 9. Types of Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD ) found on survey respondents boats...... 12 10. Proportions and locations of sewage discharged by survey respondents.................... 13 11-1. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents opinions regarding pumpout facilities.................... 14 11-2. Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents opinions regarding pumpout facilities.................... 15 12. Factors that would lead to gr eater use of pumpout stations by survey re spondents......................................................................................................... 16 13. Boater awareness of Floridas Clean Vessel Act............................................................... 17 14. How respondents learned abou t the Clean Vessel Act.................................................... 18 15. Gauging respondents knowledge of provisions pertaining to Floridas Clean Vessel Act............................................................................................... 19 17. How respondents learned about the Clean Marina Program........................................ 21 18-1. The likelihood of Survey 1 ( 16 feet) boaters to obtain boating-related information from various sources...................................................................................... 22 18-2. The likelihood of Survey 2 ( 26 feet) boaters to obtain boating-related information from various sources...................................................................................... 23 19. Best sources of information on boating and related issues ............................................ 24 20-1. How often Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents visi t marinas or use marina services over the course of a year...................................................................................... 25 20-2. How often Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents visit marinas or use marina services over the course of a year.............................................................. 25 21-1. How often Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents us e boatyard services.............................. 26 21-2. How often Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents us e boatyard services.............................. 26 22-1. How many months a year Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents store vessels at different fa cility types.................................................................................................... .. 27 22-2. How many months a year Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents store vessels at different fa cility types.................................................................................................... .. 27 23-1. Willingness of Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents to use Clean marinas..................... 28 23-2. Willingness of Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents to use Clean marinas..................... 29 24-1. The importance of various marina amenities to Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents..... 30 24-2. The importance of various marina amenities to Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents..... 31 25-1. The importance of various boatyard amenities to Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents.. 32 25-2. The importance of various boatyard amenities to Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents.. 32 26-1. Additional factors that respondent s consider when choosing a marina...................... 33

PAGE 7

v 26-2. Additional factors that respondent s consider when choosing a boatyard................... 34 27-1. Measuring environmental attitudes among Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents............ 36 27-2. Measuring environmental attitudes among Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents............ 37 27-3. Comparing the environmental attitudes of Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents....... 38 28. Number of years that re spondents have boated.............................................................. 39 29. Number of years that responde nts have boated in Florida............................................ 39 30. Number of months per year that respondents live in Florida....................................... 39 31. Age characteristics of survey respondents....................................................................... 39 33. Education levels of survey respondents............................................................................ 40 34. Annual family income levels of survey respondents...................................................... 41 35. Factors that detract from resp ondents boating experience........................................... 42 36. Factors needed to improv e the boating ex perience......................................................... 44 37. Information need s of boaters.............................................................................................. 46

PAGE 8

vi Figures 1. Relative quantities of boat types th at are owned by survey respondents...................... 4 2. The vessel types in which survey responde nts spend most of their boating time........ 5 3. Length characteristics of most frequently used vessels..................................................... 6 4. Typical launch sites of survey respondents........................................................................ 7 6. Number of hours spent on the wate r during a typical boating trip................................ 9 7. Favorite activities of survey respon dents during a typical boating trip......................... 10 8. Percent of survey respondents with a marine sanitation device in their boat............... 11 13. Boater awareness of Floridas Clean Vessel Act................................................................. 17 16. Boater awareness of Floridas Clean Marina Program...................................................... 20 32. Gender characteristics of survey resp ondents.................................................................... 40 33. Education levels of survey respondents.............................................................................. 40

PAGE 9

1 Background Congress passed the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) in 1992 to help reduce pollution from vessel sewage discharges. The Act established a five-year federal grant program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and authorized funds for use by the states. In 1998, Congress reauthorized and extended the pumpout grant program through 2003, providing $50 million to continue to provide alternatives to overbo ard disposal of recreational boater sewage.1 In Florida, the Department of Environmental Protections (FDEP) Division of Law Enforcement administers the CVA Grant Program. The Clean Marina Program (CMP) was developed in 1996 by the Division of Law Enforcement to complement and enhance the CVA Grant Program through an expansion of the education and outreach components. The CMP is a voluntary pollution prevention program that encourages marinas and boatyards to meet environmental standards and become good environmental stewards. The goal of the CMP is a Clean Marina Designation for participating facilities. Designation lets boat ers who use the marina or boatyard know that these businesses adhere toor exceedprogram criteria, including Marina Environmental Measures (MEMs). MEMs are simple, innovative solutions for day-to-day marina operations that protect the environment. MEMs have been developed by examination of best management practices applied around the coun try and through the part nership of Floridas marinas, boatyards, boaters, and government. In April of 2000, the Division of Law Enfo rcement formed a public-private partnership with the marine industry to further extend the reach of the Clean Marina Program and enhance direction to and evaluation of the Program. The Clean Boating Partnership (CBP) comprises marina and boatyard owners and operators, representatives of the Marine Industries Association of Florida, Florida Sea Grant (FSG), U.S. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary, and the FDEP. The Pa rtnerships goal is to achieve compliance by using industry expertise and peer assistance to promote awar eness and involvement with clean marina and clean boatyard practices. Ultimately, the success of th e CVA grant program, the CBP, and the CMP depends on the awareness of marina personnel and boaters of (1) the environmental laws (e.g., CVA), rules and regulations, and jurisdictions with which they must comply, and (2) the locations of pumpout facilities and Clean Marinas. Objectives The primary goal of this study is a statistica lly valid (5% at the 95% confidence level) assessment of boater awareness of the CVA and the CMP. The statistical analyses will address three basic issues: (1) boater awareness levels for the CVA and CMP, (2) changes in awareness of the CVA since the last assessment was comple ted in 1998, and (3) statistical differences between results obtained via mail and Internet-based surveys. The study objectives are: 1. To determine the level of awareness of the CVA and the CMP in 2004 by owners of boats that are 26 feet in length and greater. 2. To statistically compare boater awareness of the CVA in 2004 with the level of awareness determined from a 1998 survey conducted for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marine Patrol by the Florida State University Survey Lab. 1 Continuation funding is expected through a bill signed by the President in August 2005 Specific state allocations will be finalized in the months to follow. (http://federalaid.fws.gov/cva/cva_info.html)

PAGE 10

2 3. To assess the ability of an Internet-based survey to provide a statistically valid assessment of boater awareness of the CVA and the CMP. If proven valid, Internet-based surveys can serve as the primary mechanism for future assessments of boater awareness conducted by FDEP, resulting in cost reductions and standardization of methods. 4. To characterize the practices and attitudes of Florida boaters in order to better target future educational and outreach efforts. Methods Between November 2004 and April 2005, Florid a Sea Grant (FSG) implemented one Internetbased survey and two mail surveys. Two thousand invitations to participate in the Internet survey and 2,000 invitations to participate in th e first mail survey were sent to owners of vessels 16 feet in length and greater. Four thousand names and addresses were drawn randomly from Floridas Vessel Ti tle Registration System (VTRS).2 The Internet survey and first mail survey were designed to permit compar ison with results that were obtained from a 1998 survey conducted for the Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection Marine Patrol by the Florida State University Survey Lab (1998) In particular, the goal was to determine the degree to which overall awareness of Floridas Clean Vessel Act had changed since the 1998 survey. The sample for the 1998 survey was drawn from Floridas population of 717,205 registered pleasure boats at the timeregardless of vessel length. Eighty -four percent of those who responded to the 1998 survey owned vessels less than 26 feet in length, with most between 16 and 20 feet. Based on the 1998 result s, the authors (FSG and CMP staff) decided to draw a sample from the population of 946,072 registered recreational vessels contained in the VTRS (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2004)3 consisting of owners of vessels 16 feet and greater for the 2004 surv eys (both Internet survey and the first mail survey). A primary goal of CMP staff is to obtain info rmation regarding owners of vessels that are most likely to use Floridas marinas and pumpout facilities. To accomplish this objective, an independent mail survey was sent to owners of vessels 26 feet in length and greater. All vessels 26 feet or more in length that have an enclosed cabin with sleeping facilities must be equipped with a toilet if they are on Florida state waters.4 A random sample of 2,500 names and addresses was drawn from the VTRS. The authors developed the survey questionna ire (Appendix 1), conducted a pretest, and modified the questionnaire based on feedback obtained from 26 pretest respondents. An invitation to participate in the Internet-based survey was sent to each invitee (Appendix 2), along with a no-Internet card (Appendix 3) to be returned if the respondent did not have Internet access. Each mail survey invitee re ceived a copy of the questionnaire and an invitation letter (Appendix 4). Invitees to all three surveys received two reminder cards (Appendix 5 and 6), which were sent two and four weeks, respectively, after the initial invitation. 2 The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles maintains the VTRS. 3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2004 Boating Accident Statistical Report; available online at http://myfwc.com/law/boating/ 4 Florida Statute 327.53

PAGE 11

3 Results Letters were sent to a random sample of 2,000 owners of vessels 16 feet in length, drawn from the VTRS, inviting them to participate in the Internetbased survey. Eighty-three persons sent back a noInternet card and were then mailed a questionnaire, of which 36 (43%) mailed back a completed questionnaire. The overall response rate for the Internet-based survey was 15.8% (316) and the survey completion rate was 13.5% (269). Similarly, letters were sent to a random sample of 2,000 owners of vessels 16 feet in length, drawn from the VTRS, inviting them to pa rticipate in the first mail survey. Ten survey questionnaires were returned as undeliverable (7) or because the intended survey respondent was deceased (3). Completed surveys were re ceived from 377 respondents. The overall response rate for the first mail survey was 19 .4% (387) and the survey completion rate was 18.9% (377). The target number of 400 responses for the Inte rnet-based survey and 400 for the first mail survey (vessel length 16 feet) was not achieved and, th erefore, the 269 Internet-based responses were combined with the 377 responses received from the first mail survey for 646 total responses. (The Internet-based survey and the first mail survey were sent to owners of vessels 16 feet in length.) Letters were sent to a random sample of 2,500 owners of vessels 26 feet in length, drawn from the VTRS, inviting them to participate in the second mail survey. The number of initial invitees for the second mail survey was increa sed from 2,000 to 2,500 due to the lower than expected response rate achieved for the Internet-based survey and the first mail survey. Eleven survey questionnaires were returned be cause they were undeliverable or because the intended respondent did not have a boat. The ov erall response rate for the second mail survey was 20.2% (505) and the survey completion rate was 19.8% (494). [From this point forward, the two surveys will be referred to as Survey 1 (sent to owners of vessels 16 feet in length) and Survey 2 (sent to owners of vessels 26 feet length).] Overall, there were 646 responses to Survey 1 ( 16 feet): 269 from the Internet-based survey and 377 from the first mail survey, along with 494 responses to Survey 2 ( 26 feet). There were 946,072 recreational vessels registered in Florida in 2004 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2004). The sampling erro r (confidence interval) associated with the sample size (646) for Survey 1 (sent to owners of vessels 16 feet in length) and the overall recreational boating population represented in the VTRS (946,072) yielded a confidence interval of 3.85 at the 95% confidence level. This is within the sample error originally proposed for this study ( 5 at the 95% confiden ce level). The 494 responses to Survey 2 (sent to owners of vessels 26 feet in length) represent a confid ence interval of 4.41 at the 95% confidence level. Again, this is within the sample error originally proposed for the study. The following results are presented in the orde r that the questions appeared on the survey instrument. The results are summarized for the two sampled populations: (1) Survey 1, to provide a basis for comparison with the 1998 surv ey, and (2) Survey 2, to provide a transition to future CVA surveys. Number of completed surve y s Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey Type ( 16 feet) ( 26 feet) Internet 269 n/a Mail 377 494 Total 646 494

PAGE 12

4 Question 1: Please indicate how many boats of each type listed that you own. Survey respondents were presented with a list of boat types and were asked to indicate how many of each type they owned (Table 1 and Figure 1). Powerboat with cabin accommodations was the most frequently owne d boat type among Survey 2 respondents (30.2%)nearly double that of Survey 1 respondents (16.8%). Survey 2 respondents preferred cruising sailboats at a rate (11.8%) more than double that of Survey 1 respondents (5.0%). Open fishing boat was the most frequently owned boat type among Survey 1 respondents (22.5%)a significantly higher rate than the 12.2% of Survey 2 respondents who owned this boat type. Survey 1 respondents also preferred po ntoon or deck boats at a rate (5.0%) six times greater than that of Survey 2 respondents (0.8%). [Percentages contained in report tables may not sum to 100% due to rounding.] Table 1. Relative quantities of boat types that are owned by survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Vessel Type Count % Count % Open Fishing 304 22.5% 137 12.2% Powerboat (cabin accommodations) 227 16.8% 340 30.2% Kayak/Row/Canoe 219 16.2% 136 12.1% Jon/Utility 111 8.2% 77 6.8% Speed or Jet Boat (no cabin) 98 7.3% 49 4.4% Skiff or Flats Boat 93 6.9% 55 4.9% Pontoon or Deck Boat 68 5.0% 9 0.8% Sailboat (cruising sail) 67 5.0% 133 11.8% Personal Watercraft 56 4.1% 59 5.2% Other 56 4.1% 88 7.8% Sailboat (day sail) 51 3.8% 43 3.8% Total 1350 100% 1126 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the boat types that received the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the boat types that received the second largest number of responses.0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Open Fishing Powerboat (cabin accommodations) Kayak/Row/Canoe Jon/Utility Speed or Jet Boat (no cabin) Skiff or Flats Boat Pontoon or Deck Boat Sailboat (cruising sail) Personal Watercraft Other Sailboat (day sail) Figure 1. Relative quantities of boat types th at are owned by survey respondents.

PAGE 13

5 Question 2: In what type of vessel do you spend most of your boating time? As a group, nearly 80% of Survey 2 respondents boating time was spent in a powerboat with cabin accommodations (55.3%) or in a cruising sailboat (22.4%). Open fishing boats accounted for another 12.8% (Table 2 and Figure 2). Survey 1 respondents, as a group, tended to spend their boating time in a greater vari ety of boat types than those in Survey 2. Nonetheless, nearly 60% of Survey 1 respondents boating time was spent in an open fishing boat (34.0%) or in a powerboat with cabin accommodations (22.7%). Table 2. The vessel types in which survey respondents spend most of their boating time. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Vessel Type Count % Count % Open Fishing 217 34.0% 62 12.8% Powerboat (cabin accommodations) 145 22.7% 269 55.3% Speed or Jet Boat (no cabin) 59 9.2% 15 3.1% Skiff or Flats Boat 59 9.2% 8 1.6% Sailboat (cruising sail) 55 8.6% 109 22.4% Pontoon or Deck Boat 43 6.7% 5 1.0% Other 23 3.6% 4 0.8% Kayak/Row/Canoe 12 1.9% 5 1.0% Jon/Utility 10 1.6% 3 0.6% Sailboat (day sail) 10 1.6% 3 0.6% Personal Watercraft 6 0.9% 3 0.6% Total 639 100% 486 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the boat types t hat received the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the boat types that received the second largest number of responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Open Fishing Powerboat (cabin accommodations) Speed or Jet Boat (no cabin) Skiff or Flats Boat Sailboat (cruising sail) Pontoon or Deck Boat Other Kayak/Row/Canoe Jon/Utility Sailboat (day sail) Personal Watercraft Figure 2. The vessel types in which survey respondents spend most of their boating time.

PAGE 14

6 Question 3: Please enter the make, model, and length of the boat that you identified in question 2 above. The make and model of the vessel in which ea ch respondent indicated they spent most of their boating time are listed in Appendices 7 (Survey 1) and 8 (Survey 2). Table 3 and Figure 3 list the length characteristics of the vessels mo st frequently used by survey respondents. Lengths are listed according to the classes (A-1, A-2, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) that Florida uses when levying vessel registration fees. The majo rity of Survey 1 vessels (74.4%) were 16 feet and <26 feet; the next most frequent ca tegory (18.1%) encompasses vessels 26 feet and < 40 feet. The majority of Survey 2 vessels (71.3%) were 26 feet and < 40 feet, followed by vessels 40 feet and < 65 feet (17.7%). On average, the vessels that Survey 1 respondents spent most of their time in were 21.8 feet in length and th ose of Survey 2 respondents were 32.2 feet in length. Table 3. Length characteristics of most frequently used vessels. Length Statistics Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) < 12' (class A-1) 1.0% 0.8% 12' to 15' 11 (class A-2) 3.3% 0.8% 16' to 25' 11 (class 1) 74.4% 8.7% 26' to 39' 11 (class 2) 18.1% 71.3% 40' to 64' 11 (class 3) 2.9% 17.7% 65' to 109' 11 (class 4) 0.3% 0.6% 110' or more (class 5) 0.0% 0.0% Average (feet) 21.8 32.2 Minimum (feet) 7.5 9 Maximum (feet) 74 106 Standard Deviation (feet) 8.0 10.0 Count (# of responses) 628 494 Bold percentages in the shaded cells represent the length categories receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the length categories receiving the second largest number of responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% < 12' (class A-1) 12' to 15' 11" (class A-2) 16' to 25' 11" (class 1) 26' to 39' 11" (class 2) 40' to 64' 11" (class 3) 65' to 109' 11" (class 4) 110' or more (class 5) Figure 3. Length characteristics of most frequently used vessels.

PAGE 15

7 Question 4: Please identify your typical launch site. Survey 1 respondents used ramps to launch thei r boats at a rate nearly five times that of Survey 2 respondents: 43.3% versus 8.8% (Table 4 and Figure 4). In contrast, 33.9% of Survey 2 respondents reported using marina wet slips versus only 12.1% of Survey 1 respondents.5 Over 50% of Survey 2 respondents launched from residential docks (44.3% from home docks; 5.9% from condominium docks) versus 37.2% of Survey 1 respondents (34.9% from home docks; 2.3% from condominium docks). Table 4. Typical launch sites of survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Launch Type Count % Count % Boat ramp 277 43.3% 43 8.8% Home dock 223 34.9% 217 44.3% Marina wet slip 77 12.1% 166 33.9% Marina dry storage 37 5.8% 24 4.9% Condominium dock 15 2.3% 29 5.9% Shoreline/causeway 9 1.4% 3 0.6% Other 1 0.2% 8 1.6% Total 639 100% 490 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the launc h sites receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells r epresent the launch sites receiving the second largest number of responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50% Boat ramp Home dock Marina wet slip Marina dry storage Condominium dock Shoreline/causeway Other Figure 4. Typical launch sites of survey respondents. 5 The authors feel that this particular question was poorly co nstructed, with the potential for differing interpretations, therefore rendering the analysis suspec t, particularly for larger vessels that use marina wet slips. The term launch implies boat introduction to the water and does not properly apply to wet slip occupants departing from a marina slip. Since no other category was provided for the latter group, many marina users may not have been properly represented.

PAGE 16

8 Question 5: Please indicate the number of times per month that you go boating. Table 5-1 (Survey 1) and Table 52 (Survey 2) show the distribu tion of boating activity by month and by excursion category6 over the course of one year as reported by respondents. The percentages in each cell were calculated as a proportion of the total number of boating excursions reported by all respondents. Survey 1 respondents reported 29,273 excursions over a 12-month period and Survey 2 respondents repo rted 23,406 excursions The months of May, June, July, and August represent the peak of boating activity (in terms of number of excursions) for both Survey 1 and 2 responde nts. Forty-one percent of Survey 1 boating excursions and 42% of Survey 2 boating excurs ions occurred during these 4 months. The last column presents the proportion of yearly boatin g activity by excursion category. For example, 41% of all Survey 1 excursions during the year were by boaters who boated 1 to 5 times per month, whereas 3.4% of all Survey 1 excursions were by boaters who boated more than 25 times per month. Table 5-1. Monthly and yearly boating activity for Survey 1 (vessels 16 feet) respondents (expressed as percentages). No. of excursions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr 1-5 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.1 3. 3 3.5 3.3 3.1 41 6-10 1.6 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.1 2.8 2.1 1.7 33 11-15 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 11 16-20 0.4 0.3 0. 4 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 7.4 2125 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 4.1 >25 0.2 0.3 0. 3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.4 Total 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 10 9 8 7 6 100 Shaded cells represent months of peak boating activity for each Number of excursions interval. Table 5-2. Monthly and yearly boating activity for Survey 2 (vessels 26 feet) respondents (expressed as percentages). No. of excursions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr 1-5 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.1 43 6-10 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.6 3.2 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.5 1.9 1.3 28 11-15 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 12 16-20 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 7.2 21-25 0.1 0.2 0. 2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 >25 0.5 0.5 0. 6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.1 Total 6 6 8 9 10 11 11 10 9 8 7 5 100 Shaded cells represent months of peak boating activity for each Number of excursions interval. 6 Excursion categories group the number of boating excursio ns per month as reported by respondents. There are six groupings in tables 5-1 and 5-2 that range from 1 to 5 excu rsions per month to greater than 25 excursions per month.

PAGE 17

9 Question 6: How many hours do you spend on the water during a typical boating trip? Survey 2 respondents tended to spend more time on the water during a typical boating trip than did Survey 1 respondents (Table 6 and Figure 6). During a typical boating trip, 48.8% of Survey 1 respondents spent 1 to 5 hours on the water and 40.5% spent 5 to 10 hours. Fortyone percent of Survey 2 respondents spent 5 to 10 hours on a typical boating trip, followed by 30.4% who spent 1 to 5 hours. Longer times spen t on the water by Survey 2 respondents also is reflected by the cumulative percentage of ho urs on the water. For example, 94% of Survey 1 respondents were on the water for less than 24 hours during a typical trip; in contrast, only 78% of Survey 2 respondents typically were on th e water for less than 24 hours. Stated another way, 22% of Survey 2 respondents spent more than 24 hours on the water during a typical boating trip, compared to only 6% of Survey 1 respondents. Table 6. Number of hours spent on the wate r during a typical boating trip. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Hours Count % Cum. % Count % Cum. % 0 hours 8 1.2% 1.2% 14 2.8% 2.8% 1 to 5 hours 314 48.8% 50% 150 30.4% 33% 5 to 10 hours 261 40.5% 91% 203 41.2% 74% 10 to 24 hours 24 3.7% 94% 20 4.1% 78% 24 to 72 hours 29 4.5% 99% 69 14.0% 92% > 72 hours 8 1.2% 100% 37 7.5% 100% Total 644 100% 493 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the category receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the category receiving the second largest number of responses. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0 hrs1-5 hrs5-10 hrs10-24 hrs24-72 hrs> 72 hrs Figure 6. Number of hours spent on the water during a typical boating trip.

PAGE 18

10 Question 7: What is your favorite activity on a typical pleasure boating trip? The top three activities ranked by Survey 2 respondents accounted for approximately 70% of the total: cruising (29.0%), fishing (26.8%), and sailing (14.6%) (Table 7 and Figure 7). Nearly 50% of Survey 1 respondents listed fish ing as their favorite activitya rate nearly double that reported by Survey 2 respondents. Though cruising was the second most popular activity among Survey 1 respondents (15.2%), it was nearly twice as popular with Survey 2 respondents (29%) as was sailing. Table 7. Favorite activities of survey respondents during a typical boating trip. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Activities Count % Count % Fishing 309 49.0% 127 26.8% Cruising 96 15.2% 137 29.0% Sailing 42 6.7% 69 14.6% Nature Viewing 35 5.6% 7 1.5% Sightseeing 31 4.9% 9 1.9% Other 24 3.8% 4 0.8% Beach Picnicking 21 3.3% 6 1.3% Diving 18 2.9% 16 3.4% Socializing 20 3.2% 23 4.9% Daytime Anchoring 13 2.1% 22 4.7% Overnight Anchoring 13 2.1% 36 7.6% Visiting Restaurant 5 0.8% 13 2.7% Swimming 3 0.5% 4 0.8% Totals 630 100% 473 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the activity receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the ac tivity receiving the second largest number of responses. 0%10%20%30%40%50% Fishing Cruising Sailing Nature Viewing Sightseeing Other Beach Picnicking Diving Socializing Daytime Anchoring Overnight Anchoring Visiting Restaurant Swimming Figure 7. Favorite activities of survey respondents during a typical boating trip.

PAGE 19

11 Question 8: Do you have a marine sanitation device on your boat (either portable or permanent)? Forty-one percent of Survey 1 respondents (266 of 646) and 92.3% of Survey 2 respondents (456 of 494) reported having some type of mari ne sanitation device on their boat (Figure 8). Seven Survey 1 respondents and two Survey 2 respondents did not answer this question. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No No answer 41.2% 57.7% 7.3% 1.1% 0.4% 92.3% Figure 8. Percentage of survey respondents with a marine sanitation device on their boat.

PAGE 20

12 Question 9: What type of marine sanitation device do you have? The majority (51.9%) of Survey 1 respondent s who reported having a Marine Sanitation Device7 (MSD) on their vessel and who indicated the type of device they use (two respondents from both surveys did not list a MSD type) employed a portable MSD versus 11.7% of Survey 2 respondents (Table 9). An additional 43.6% of Survey 1 respondents and 80.8% of Survey 2 respondents used a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) type III MSD. Table 9. Types of Marine Sanitation De vices (MSD) found on survey respondents' boats. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) MSD Type Count % Count % Portable 137 51.9% 53 11.7% Portable and USCG Type II 1 0.4% 1 0.2% Portable and USCG Type III 1 0.4% 3 0.7% USCG Type I or II 10 3.8% 25 5.5% USCG Type I or II and III 0 0% 5 1.1% USCG Type III 115 43.6% 367 80.8% Total 264 100% 454 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the MS D type receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the MSD type receiving the second largest number of responses. 7 A Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) refers to a ma rine toilet system and is also referred to as a head. A USCG approved MSD TYPE I is a flow-through device that treats sewage by chemical or thermal means; an MSD TYPE II treats the sewage by biological means and uses bacteria; and an MSD TYPE III holds th e sewage and prevents its direct overboard discharge.

PAGE 21

13 Question 10: For each of the four categories listed, please estimate the proportion (a percentage ranging from 0 to 100 percent) of t he total sewage discharged from your boat(s) during the past year. Seventy-five percent of sewa ge discharged by Survey 1 respondents as a group (199 reporting) was into a pumpout facility, 11% into waters more than 9 miles offshore, and 9% into waters between 3 and 9 miles offshore (Table 10).8 Four percent of discharge reported for Survey 1 was into waters le ss than 3 miles offshore. Sixty-four percent of sewage discharged by Survey 2 respondents as a group (397 reporting) was into a pumpout facility. Approximately 30% of discharged sewage was into waters more than 3 miles offshore, and 5.4% was into waters less than 3 miles offshore. The higher proportion of sewa ge discharged into a pumpout facility (75%) by Survey 1 respondents versus that discharged (64.4%) by Survey 2 respondents appears anomalous. However, a much higher proportion (51.9% ) of Survey 1 respondents than Survey 2 respondents (11.7%) had a portable sanitation device (Table 9). Based on comments made by some survey respondents, the authors believe it likely that most (if not all) Survey 1 respondents (and Survey 2 respondents) with a po rtable sanitation device used a toilet rather than a pumpout facility when discharging se wage. Since Question 11 did not provide a category for reporting discharge into a toilet, survey respondents likely reported this occurrence under the pumpout category. Table 10. Proportions and locations of sewage discharged by survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) (199 respondents) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) (397 respondents) Discharge Locations Average Standard Deviation Average Standard Deviation Percent discharged into a pumpout facility. 75.0% 38.7% 64.4% 42.6% Percent discharged into water LESS than 3 miles offshore. 4.0% 16.4% 5.4% 19.0% Percent discharged into waters between 3 and 9 miles offshore. 9.0% 22.8% 14.6% 28.5% Percent discharged into waters MORE than 9 miles offshore. 11.0% 25.6% 15.5% 30.2% Total 100% 100% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the discharge facility/locations receiving the largest proportion of sewage discharge and bold percentages in non-s haded cells represent the discharge fac ility/locations receiving the second largest proportion of sewage discharge. 8 Since October 1, 1994, boaters are prohibited from disc harging raw sewage into fresh water or within coastal saltwater limits. Coastal limits are 9 nautical miles on th e Gulf and 3 nautical miles on the Atlantic Ocean. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/la w/Grants/CVA/default.htm.

PAGE 22

14 Question 11: For each of the statements listed, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement. Survey respondents were asked to select their level of agreementstrongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, or strongly disagreewith several statements about pumpout facilities. The agreement levels were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Strongly Agree=1; Strongly Disagree =5). The overall score (or ranking) for each statement is shown in the last column of each table. A score of 3 indicates that most re spondents were not sure how to respond to the statement (they neither agree nor disagree); a scor e less than 3 denotes an overall tendency to agree with the statement; and a score greater than 3 denotes an overall tendency to disagree with the statement. Anywhere from 210 and 227 of the Survey 1 respondents (Table 11-1) and 419 and 430 of the Survey 2 respondents (Table 11-2) answ ered each of the seven pumpout-related statements. Overall, both Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents did not believe that an adequate number of pumpout facilities exist (Survey 1 score = 3.18; Survey 2 score = 3.02) or that pumpout facilities are conveniently located (Survey 1 score = 3.16; Survey 2 score = 3.03). In general, respondents to both surveys indicate d that: (a) pumpout facilities are usually open when they want to use them (although 39.4% of Survey 1 respondents were unsure), (b) pumpout facilities are easy to use, and (c) they do not have to wa it long to use the facilities. Survey 2 respondents, overall, appear to make more of an effort (score = 3.21) than do Survey 1 respondents (score = 2.92) to use pumpout faci lities when they go boating. The majority of respondents to both surveys (Survey 1 = 55.2%; Survey 2 = 60.2%) indicated that they use a pumpout facility every time their holding tank is full. Table 11-1. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents opinions regardin g pumpout facilities (Strongly Agree=1; Strongly Disagree =5). Statement Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score There are an adequate number of pumpout facilities where I operate my boat. 11.5% 18.1% 26.4% 29.1% 15.0% 3.18 Pumpout facilities are conveniently located. 10.2% 20.4% 27.1% 28.0% 14.2% 3.16 Pumpout facilities are usually open when I want to use them. 9.5% 25.8% 39.4% 20.4% 5.0% 2.86 Pumpout facilities are easy to use. 10.7% 37.3% 31.6% 16.0% 4.4% 2.66 I usually have to wait only a short time to use the pumpout facilities. 9.1% 36.8% 35.9% 15.5% 2.7% 2.66 I don't make a special effort to use a pumpout facility when I go boating. 15.3% 29.3% 19.4% 20.3% 15.8% 2.92 I use a pumpout facility every time my holding tank is full. 25.2% 30.0% 14.3% 21.0% 9.5% 2.60 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the opinion receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the opinion receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 23

15 Table 11-2. Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents opinions regardin g pumpout facilities (Strongly Agree=1; Strongly Disagree =5). Questions Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score There are an adequate number of pumpout facilities where I operate my boat. 15.3% 26.5% 15.6% 26.0% 16.5% 3.02 Pumpout facilities are conveniently located. 12.3% 28.6% 17.0% 28.1% 14.0% 3.03 Pumpout facilities are usually open when I want to use them. 11.1% 38.0% 22.6% 20.3% 8.0% 2.76 Pumpout facilities are easy to use. 12.3% 49.3% 15.3% 17.5% 5.7% 2.55 I usually have to wait only a short time to use the pumpout facilities. 8.1% 51.3% 20.3% 14.3% 6.0% 2.59 I don't make a special effort to use a pumpout facility when I go boating. 10.7% 29.7% 8.8% 29.9% 20.9% 3.21 I use a pumpout facility every time my holding tank is full. 32.1% 28.1% 8.3% 23.1% 8.3% 2.47 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the opinion receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the opinion receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 24

16 Question 12: What factors, if any, would lead you to use sanitation pumpout stations more often? Both Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents cited greater availability of pumpout stations as the number one factor, followed by convenience (a ccessible, short wait, and easy to use), and lower cost (i.e., free) (Table 12). These three factors accounted for nearly 70% of Survey 1 responses and 75% of Survey 2 responses. More than twice as many Survey 2 respondents (6.7%) cited a need for pumpouts in better wo rking condition than did Survey 1 respondents (3.2%). Table 12. Factors that would lead to greater use of pumpout stations by survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Factors that Promote Greater Use of Pumpout Facilities Count % Count % Greater Availability 40 32.3% 90 28.8% Convenience (accessible, short wait, easy) 39 31.5% 86 27.5% Lower Cost (free) 13 10.5% 39 12.5% Boater Doesn't Use MSD 7 5.6% 7 2.2% Boats off-shore, Dumping is No t Restricted 6 4.8% 15 4.8% Better Publicized 5 4.0% 9 2.9% Pumpout Boats 5 4.0% 11 3.5% Better Working Condition 4 3.2% 21 6.7% None OK now 3 2.4% 26 8.3% Better Staffed 2 1.6% 4 1.3% If Mandatory 0 0.0% 5 1.6% Total 124 100.0% 313 100.0% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the factor receiving the most responses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the factor receiving the second largest number.

PAGE 25

17 Question 13: Are you aware of Floridas Clean Vessel Act? Results of the 1998 survey (Florida State Un iversity Survey Lab) showed that 48.7% of respondents were aware of Floridas Clean Vessel Act and 43.9% were not (7.4% said maybe). The results for the current survey show that 49 .8% of the Survey 1 respondents were aware of the Clean Vessel Act and 46.7% were not (Table 13 and Figure 13). Given the 1998 survey sample error ( 3.0% at the 95% confidence interval) and the Survey 1 sample error ( 3.85 at the 95% confidence level), the results obtained in 1998 are not statistically different than those obtained in 2004 (i.e., no significant differen ce). In other words, there is no evidence to indicate that awareness of Floridas Clean Vessel Act among the general boater population has changed since 1998. In contrast to the 1998 and the Survey 1 results, 71.9% of Survey 2 respondents said that they were aware of the Clean Vessel Act (and 26.5% were not). The Survey 2 results indicate that owners of larger vessels ( 26 feet in length) were more much more aware (by a factor of approximately one-half) of the Clean Vessel Act than were boaters from the general boating populationin particular, owners of smaller vessels. Table 13. Boater awareness of Florida's Clean Vessel Act. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Response Count % Count % No 302 46.7% 131 26.5% Yes 322 49.8% 355 71.9% No Answer 22 3.4% 8 1.6% Total 646 100% 494 100% Bold shaded cells represent the category wi th the largest number of responses. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Yes No No answer 49.8% 46.7% 26.5% 3.4% 1.6% 71.9% Figure 13. Boater awareness of Florida's Clean Vessel Act.

PAGE 26

18 Question 14: How did you learn about the Clean Vessel Act? Both Survey 1 (21.0%) and 2 (22.5%) respondents most frequently cited boating publications as their primary source of knowle dge regarding the Clean Vessel Act (Table 14). Survey 1 (13.2%) respondents cited other boaters as the next most likely information source followed by media reports (newspaper, TV, radio). Survey 2 respondents cited USCG literature or a USCG class (10.7%) fo llowed by other boaters (8.5%). Table 14. How respondents learned about the Clean Vessel Act. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Source of Information Count % Count % Boating Publications 59 21.0% 82 22.5% Other Boaters/General Knowledge 37 13.2% 31 8.5% Newspaper, TV, Radio 34 12.1% 9 2.5% USCG Literature or Class 29 10.3% 39 10.7% USCG Auxiliary 20 7.1% 14 3.8% Boat Course/Licensure 16 5.7% 31 8.5% Boat U.S. 16 5.7% 25 6.9% State Publications 16 5.7% 9 2.5% Marina 14 5.0% 30 8.2% U.S. Power Squadron 10 3.6% 23 6.3% Marine Store/Show 8 2.8% 16 4.4% Vessel Registration 7 2.5% 6 1.6% Internet 5 1.8% 25 6.9% Boat Dealer 4 1.4% 10 2.7% Boat Posting 3 1.1% 13 3.6% Marine Industry Associations 1 0.4% 1 0.3% Non-Governmental Organizations 1 0.4% 0 0.0% Marine Patrol 1 0.4% 0 0.0% Total 281 100.0% 364 100.0% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the information source receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the info rmation source receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 27

19 Question 15: Please indicate whether each of the statements below is true or false. Survey respondents were asked to respond (tru e, false, or dont know) to six statements regarding the Clean Vessel Act and Florida laws for discharging sewage from vessels (Table 15). In general, owners of larger vessels (Sur vey 2) were more knowledgeable about the Clean Vessel Act and laws dealing with sewage disc harge from vessels into Florida waters. On average, 45% of Survey 2 respondents knew the right answers to the statements, versus 32% of Survey 1 respondents. The st atement eliciting the most correct answers (false) was On the east coast of Florida, untreate d sewage can be discharged in waters closer than 3 miles offshore ; 71.5% of Survey 2 respondents and 55.6% of Survey 1 respondents answered correctly. Only 8.4% of Survey 1 respondents correctly identified as false the statement that On the west coast of Florida, untreated sewage can be discharged in waters closer 9 miles offshore versus 50% of Survey 2 respondents who answered correctly. On average, 56% of Survey 1 respondents and 46% of Survey 2 resp ondents reported that they did not know the answers to the statements. Table 15. Gauging respondents knowledge of provisions pertaining to Florid a's Clean Vessel Act. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Statements (correct answer in parentheses) True False Don't Know Total True False Don't Know Total On the west coast of Florida, untreated sewage can be discharged in waters closer than 9 miles offshore. (false) 44.1% 8.4% 47.5% 100% 15.3 % 50.0% 34.7% 100% The Clean Vessel Act provides funds to build vessel pumpout facilities. (true) 25.8% 7.4% 66.8% 100% 35.0% 6.4% 58.6% 100% On the east coast of Florida, untreated sewage can be discharged in waters closer than 3 miles offshore. (false) 4.3% 55.6% 40.1% 100% 4.2% 71.5% 24.3% 100% Florida requires that vessels 26 feet and longer be equipped with a toilet. If not portable, it must be connected to a Type I, II, or II marine sanitation device. (true) 41.4% 5.4% 53.2% 100% 46.1% 16.0 % 37.9% 100% In Florida, the Department of Environmental Protection administers the Clean Vessel Act. (true) 30.0% 5.6% 64.4% 100% 32.5% 6.4% 61.1% 100% The Clean Vessel Act is the result of Federal legislation. (true) 30.9% 4.8% 64.3 % 100% 33.8% 8.2% 57.9 % 100% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent answers receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent answers receivi ng second largest number of responses.

PAGE 28

20 Question 16: Are you aware of Floridas Clean Marina Program? The majority of respondents were not aware of Floridas Clean Marina Program. Just 17.5% respondents of Survey 1 and 38.2% of Survey 2 respondents said yes when asked if they knew of the program. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Yes No No answer 17.5% 75.9% 61.8% 6.7% 2.1% 38.2% Figure 16. Boater awareness of Florida's Clean Marina Program.

PAGE 29

21 Question 17: How did you learn about the Clean Marina Program? Over 50% of Survey 2 respondents who knew of the Clean Marina Pr ogram obtained their knowledge from two sources: marinas (45.9%) an d boating publications (10.3%) (Table 17). Survey 2 respondents next three most oft-cited sources accounted for an additional 19 percent: other publications (6.5%), the Internet (6.5%), and Boat U.S. (5.9%). Marinas were the prime source of information for Survey 1 re spondents (28%), though significantly less so than for Survey 2 respondents (45.9%). Survey 1 respondents were 7 times more likely to get information about the Program from a newspaper (15%) than were Survey 2 respondents (2.7%), and more than twice as likely (8.4%) to get it from other boaters than were Survey 2 respondents (3.2%). Table 17. How respondents learned abou t the Clean Marina Program. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Sources of Information Count % Count % Marina 30 28.0% 85 45.9% Newspaper 16 15.0% 5 2.7% Boating Publication 9 8.4% 19 10.3% General Knowledge or Other Boaters 9 8.4% 6 3.2% Boating Course 6 5.6% 2 1.1% Club 5 4.7% 2 1.1% Boat U.S. 4 3.7% 11 5.9% Other Publication 3 2.8% 12 6.5% Internet 3 2.8% 12 6.5% U.S. Power Squadron 3 2.8% 4 2.2% USCG Auxiliary 3 2.8% 3 1.6% Other 3 2.8% 2 1.1% TV or Radio 2 1.9% 2 1.1% State Publication 2 1.9% 1 0.5% Friend 2 1.9% 0 0.0% Vessel Registration 2 1.9% 0 0.0% Marina Ads 1 0.9% 4 2.2% State Agency 1 0.9% 2 1.1% Marine Industry Association 1 0.9% 1 0.5% Sea Grant 1 0.9% 1 0.5% Non-Governmental Organization 1 0.9% 0 0.0% Boat Show 0 0.0% 8 4.3% Other Agency 0 0.0% 2 1.1% Marine Store 0 0.0% 1 0.5% Total 107 100.0% 185 100.0% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent t he answer receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 30

22 Question 18: Please rank how likely you are to obtain information about boating and boatingrelated issues from each of the following information sources. Survey respondents were asked to rank the li kelihoodnot likely, somewhat likely, likely, very likely, and extremely likelyof their obta ining boating and boatin g-related information from a number of sources. The likelihood levels were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Not Likely =1; Extremely Likely =5). The overall scor e (or ranking) for each information source is shown in the last column of each table. A scor e of 1 indicates that most respondents were not likely to use the information source and a score of 5 indicates that most respondents were extremely likely to use the information source. The top three information sources common to both surveys were from friends (Survey 1 score = 3.01, Survey 2 score = 3.10), general boating publications (Survey 1 score = 2.94, Survey 2 score = 3.40), and mail delivered to me (Survey 1 score = 2.94, Survey 2 score = 3.08). The next most likely sources of information for Survey 1 respondents were from the newspaper (2.68) and television (score = 2.49), whereas a marina or boatyard (score = 2.96) or the Inte rnet (score = 2.91) were the next most likely sources for Survey 2 respondents. Table 18-1. The likelihood of Survey 1 ( 16 feet) boaters to obtain boatin g-related information from various sources (Not Likely =1; Extremely Likely =5). Information Sources Not Likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely Extremely Likely Score From friends 9% 19% 40% 23% 8% 3.01 General boating publications 12% 20% 38% 22% 8% 2.94 Mail delivered to me 13% 19% 39% 18% 11% 2.94 In the newspaper 17% 26% 34% 18% 5% 2.68 Television 24% 26% 31% 14% 5% 2.49 At a marina or boat yard 25% 25% 32% 12% 5% 2.48 On the Internet 37% 20% 21% 15% 8% 2.36 At boat shows 30% 29% 27% 11% 4% 2.30 Boating education courses 40% 23% 23% 8% 7% 2.19 Public service announcements 36% 30% 24% 7% 3% 2.11 Trade publications 44% 21% 23% 8% 4% 2.08 On the radio 42% 25% 24% 6% 2% 2.00 E-Mail 52% 16% 17% 11% 4% 1.99 Local public access TV 52% 24% 17% 5% 2% 1.80 From a boat dealer 50% 30% 14% 4% 1% 1.77 Technical documents, govt. reports, proceedings 58% 21% 14% 6% 1% 1.70 Extension fact sheets 67% 18% 10% 3% 1% 1.52 Conferences and seminars 69% 18% 10% 1% 1% 1.47 Watching video tapes or DVDs 77% 14% 6% 2% 1% 1.36 Movie theater announcements 83% 10% 4% 1% 1% 1.25 E-mail discussion groups (List servers) 87% 7% 4% 2% 1% 1.24 Listening to audio tapes 89% 7% 2% 0% 1% 1.16 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the opinion receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the opinion receiving the second largest number.

PAGE 31

23 Table 18-2. The likelihood of Survey 2 ( 26 feet) boaters to obtain boating-related information from various sources (Not Likely =1; Extremely Likely =5). Information Sources Not Likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely Extremely Likely Score General boating publications 4% 11% 38% 36% 12% 3.40 From friends 8% 17% 42% 23% 10% 3.10 Mail delivered to me 6% 21% 40% 23% 9% 3.08 At a marina or boat yard 12% 20% 36% 23% 8% 2.96 On the Internet 23% 19% 20% 19% 18% 2.91 At boat shows 18% 23% 33% 22% 5% 2.72 In the newspaper 20% 31% 30% 16% 4% 2.52 Boating education courses 29% 27% 25% 12% 8% 2.44 E-Mail 35% 19% 23% 16% 7% 2.41 Trade publications 28% 25% 29% 13% 4% 2.39 Television 29% 27% 28% 13% 4% 2.36 From a boat dealer 41% 27% 22% 7% 3% 2.02 Public service announcements 40% 30% 21% 7% 1% 2.00 On the radio 46% 28% 17% 7% 2% 1.91 Technical documents, govt. reports, proceedings 46% 31% 14% 6% 3% 1.89 Local public access TV 52% 26% 14% 5% 2% 1.77 Conferences and seminars 61% 23% 11% 4% 1% 1.60 Extension fact sheets 64% 21% 11% 3% 1% 1.57 E-mail discussion groups (List servers) 79% 11% 5% 3% 2% 1.40 Watching video tapes or DVDs 73% 18% 7% 2% 1% 1.39 Movie theater announcements 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1.31 Listening to audio tapes 87% 7% 3% 1% 1% 1.22 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the opinion receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the opinion receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 32

24 Question 19: What do you consider to be the best way for you to obtain information about boating and boating-related issues? Survey 1 respondents indicated that mail was the best way (14.2%) to receive boating information, followed by boating publications (12. 9%), and the Internet (8.8%) (Table 19). For Survey 2 respondents the highest ranked sources were boating publications (17.8%), followed by mail (11.5%), and the Internet (11.1%). Table 19. Best sources of information on boating and related issues. >16 feet >26 feet Best Sources of Information on Boating and Related Issues Count % Count % Mail 108 14.2% 79 11.5% Boating Publications 98 12.9% 122 17.8% Internet 67 8.8% 76 11.1% Newspapers 60 7.9% 31 4.5% E-mail 55 7.2% 41 6.0% TV/Radio 52 6.8% 34 5.0% Marina 35 4.6% 59 8.6% Fishing Publications 30 3.9% 10 1.5% Vessel Registration 28 3.7% 23 3.4% General knowledge, Other Boaters 27 3.6% 27 3.9% Boat U.S. 23 3.0% 43 6.3% Trade Publications 23 3.0% 16 2.3% Marine Stores 19 2.5% 13 1.9% Boating Course 17 2.2% 29 4.2% Bait Shops 16 2.1% 3 0.4% State Agencies 15 2.0% 5 0.7% Boat Dealers 12 1.6% 6 0.9% Ramps 12 1.6% 4 0.6% Clubs 10 1.3% 14 2.0% Other 10 1.3% 14 2.0% USCG 10 1.3% 6 0.9% Boat Shows 9 1.2% 12 1.8% U.S. Power Squadron 9 1.2% 11 1.6% USCG Auxiliary 9 1.2% 6 0.9% Laws 2 0.3% 0 0.0% Marine Industry Associations 2 0.3% 0 0.0% Phone 1 0.1% 1 0.1% Ski Tournaments 1 0.1% 0 0.0% Total 760 100.0% 685 100.0% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the information sources receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the inform ation sources receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 33

25 Question 20: How many times during the course of a year do you visit a marina or use the services available at a marina? The majority of Survey 1 respondents (53%) did not launch at a marina, did not recreate (relax) at a marina (76%), nor did they use a marina as a boating destination (55%). In addition, 60% either fueled their boat at a marina only 1 to 2 times per year (19%) or never (41%) (Table 20-1). Sixty percent of Survey 2 respondents said that th ey never launch their boat at a marina (Table 20-2). The authors of this report believe this ques tion was poorly constructed with the potential for differing interpretations that render the analysis suspectparticularly for vessels likely to use marina wet slips. The term launch implies boat introduction to the water and does not properly apply to wet slip occupants departing from a marina sl ip. Since no other category was provided for the latter group, many marina users were not represented. Many noted this oversight in their responses. Fifty-four percent of Survey 2 respondents reported never relaxing (43%) at a marina or only doing so 1 to 2 times per year (11%). Table 20-1. How often Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents visit marinas or use marina services over the course of a year (Never =1; Every Week = 9). Question Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times 9-10 times 11-12 times Every other week Every week Score How many times a year do you launch your boat at a marina? 53% 17% 7% 4% 4% 2% 5% 5% 3% 2.60 How many times a year do you use a marina as a place to relax on the boat without going out? 76% 7% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1.89 How many times a year do you fuel your boat at a marina? 41% 19% 8% 8% 4% 5% 9% 3% 2% 2.94 How many times a year do you use a marina as a boating destination? 55% 20% 8% 6% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2.22 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses. Table 20-2. How often Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents visit marinas or use marina services over the course of a year (Never =1; Every Week = 9). Question Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times 9-10 times 11-12 times Every other week Every week Score How many times a year do you launch your boat at a marina? 60% 11% 4% 2% 2% 1% 5% 6% 8% 2.78 How many times a year do you use a marina as a place to relax on the boat without going out? 43% 11% 8% 5% 3% 4% 7% 7% 12% 3.60 How many times a year do you fuel your boat at a marina? 11% 16% 14% 14% 9% 8% 19% 8% 2% 4.46 How many times a year do you use a marina as a boating destination? 24% 22% 14% 10% 7% 4% 11% 3% 5% 3.57 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 34

26 Question 21: How frequently do you use services available at a boatyard? On average, 76.5% of Survey 1 respondents Never (63%) or Hardly Ever (13.5%) use boatyard services (Table 21-1). Survey 2 respon dents were much more likely to use boatyard services during the course of a year than were Survey 1 respondents (Table 21-2). The average score for Survey 1 respondents was 1.93, which falls between Never and Hardly Ever, versus 3.00 ( Once every 3 years ) for Survey 2 respondents. Table 21-1. How often Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents use boatyard services (Never =1; More often than every 6 months =7). Question Never Hardly Ever Once every 3 years Once every 2 years Once a year Once every 6 months More often than every 6 months Score How often do you have your boat pressure washed at a boatyard? 73% 6% 4% 6% 8% 1% 1% 1.78 How often do you use a boatyard to prepare and paint your hull? 69% 7% 7% 9% 7% 0.5% 0.2% 1.79 How often do you use a boatyard for electrical/electronics repairs? 62% 20% 5% 4% 7% 2% 1% 1.83 How often do you use a boatyard for repairs? 48% 21% 7% 6% 13% 3% 2% 2.32 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number of responses. Table 21-2. How often Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents use boatyard services (Never =1; More often than every 6 months =7). Question Never Hardly Ever Once every 3 years Once every 2 years Once a year Once every 6 months More often than every 6 months Score How often do you have your boat pressure washed at a boatyard? 32% 11% 11% 18% 21% 4% 3% 3.07 How often do you use a boatyard to prepare and paint your hull? 24% 8% 20% 26% 21% 1% 0% 3.16 How often do you use a boatyard for electrical/electronics repairs? 37% 32% 5% 8% 13% 4% 2% 2.48 How often do you use a boatyard for repairs? 14% 32% 11% 11% 23% 6% 3% 3.28 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 35

27 Question 22: During a typical year, how many mont hs do you store a boat at each of the facilities listed below? Table 22-1 (Survey 1) and Table 22-2 (Survey 2) convey the number of months in a typical year that respondents store a boat in a marina wet-slip, marina dry stack, boatyard, or at home. The last column in both tables indicate s the average number of months. As a group, Survey 1 respondents store their vessels an average of 9.9 months at home, 1.5 months in a marina wet-slip, and less than one month in a marina dry stack or boatyard. As a group, Survey 2 respondents store their vessels an average of 8.7 months at home, 5.1 months in a marina wet-slip, approximately one month in a marina dry stack, and less than one-half a month at a boatyard. Survey 2 respondents, on average, store their vessels in marina slips 3.6 months longer per year than do Survey 1 respondents. Survey 1 respondents, on average, store their vessels at home 1.2 months longer per year than do Survey 2 respondents. Table 22-1. How many months a year Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents store vessels at different fa cility types. Number of months Facility Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avg. Marina wet-slip 85% 1.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0. 4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 11% 1.5 Marina dry stack 93% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5% 0.7 Boatyard 94% 2.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4 At home 13% 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 1.5% 0.2% 1. 0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.9% 78% 9.9 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number of responses. Table 22-2. How many months a year Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents store vessels at different fa cility types. Number of months Facility Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Avg. Marina wet-slip 52% 1.9% 1.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0. 2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 39% 5.1 Marina dry stack 90% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8% 1.1 Boatyard 87% 7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.9% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5 At home 25% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.8% 0.8% 1. 3% 0.5% 1.8% 2.3% 66% 8.7 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 36

28 Question 23: For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement. Question 23 gauges the willingn ess of respondents to patronize Clean marinas even though doing so might carry greater cost or in convenience. Survey respondents were asked to render their level of agreementstrongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, or strongly disagreewith three hypothetical statements about using Clean marinas. The agreement levels were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). The overall score (or ranking) for each statement is shown in the last column of each table. A score of 3 indicates that most respondents were no t sure how to respond to the statement (they neither agreed nor disagreed); a score less than 3 denotes an overall tendency to agree with the statement; and a score greater than 3 denote s an overall tendency to disagree with the statement. The average score for Survey 1 respondents was 2.31 versus 2.41 for Survey 2 respondents, indicating a greater willingness to patronize Clean marinas among Survey 1 respondents. As a group, 74% of Survey 1 respondents and 72% of Survey 2 respondents agreed that they would use a Clean marina over one not designated as Clean. Fifty-four percent of Survey 1 respondents and 51% of Survey 2 respondents said they would travel farther, bypassing other marinas, to visit a Clean marina. Forty-nine percent of Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents said they would pay more for services if the marina were designated as Clean. Previous questionnaire responses indicated that Survey 2 respondents were more likely than Survey 1 respondents to visit and use marina services (e.g., Questions 4, 20, and 26). Table 23-1. Willingness of Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents to use Clean marinas (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). Question Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score I would use a marina designated as Clean before using a marina not designated as Clean. 40% 34% 21% 2% 3% 1.94 I would travel farther to visit a Clean marina, bypassing other marinas that are not designated as Clean. 25% 29% 31% 11% 4% 2.41 I would willingly pay more for services provided by a Clean marina than for lower-cost services provided by marinas not designated as Clean. 20% 29% 32% 13% 7% 2.57 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 37

29 Table 23-2. Willingness of Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents to use Clean marinas (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). Question Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score I would use a marina designated as Clean before using a marina not designated as Clean. 35% 37% 17% 7% 4% 2.07 I would travel farther to visit a Clean marina, bypassing other marinas that are not designated as Clean. 20% 31% 28% 14% 6% 2.54 I would willingly pay more for services provided by a Clean marina than for lower-cost services provided by marinas not designated as Clean. 17% 32% 27% 16% 8% 2.65 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 38

30 Question 24 : Please rate each of the statements below in terms of its importance when you choose a marina to stay at. Survey respondents were asked to rank th e importancevery impo rtant, important, neutral, unimportant, or very unimportantof va rious services or amenities found at or near marinas. The levels of importance were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). The overall score (or rank ing) for each of the ten statements is shown in the last column of each table. A score of 3 indicates that most respondents were neutral; a score less than 3 indicates that, in general, th e amenity or service was important; and a score greater than 3 indicates that the amenity or service was unimportant. All ten statements received a score less than 3 among Survey 2 respondents and nine statements received a score less than 3 among Survey 1 respondents. The last statement about cultural amenities ranked unimportant (3.10) among Survey 1 respondents. The average score for all ten statements was 2.23 among Survey 1 respondents and 1.93 among Survey 2 respondents, indicating that the services an d amenities listed were, on average, more important to Survey 2 respondents. Both Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents ranked a safe and secure marina as the most important factor (Survey 1 score = 1.64; Survey 2 score = 1.38); followed by clean docks and grounds (Survey 1 score = 1.84; Survey 2 score = 1.56); and friendly, service-oriented staff (Survey 1 score = 1.78; Survey 2 score = 1.60). The availability of nearby cultural amenities was ranked least important (score = 2.73) by Survey 2 respondents. The only statement that Survey 1 respondents scored more important (2.69) th an did Survey 2 respondents (2.70) was that the marina must have a ships store with a wide range of products. Table 24-1. The importance of various marina amenities to Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). Statement Very Important ImportantNeutralUnimportant Very Unimportant Score The marina must have fueling. 48% 26% 15% 7% 3% 1.90 The marina must have a pumpout facility available. 20% 20% 29% 16% 15% 2.87 The marina must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. 38% 42% 16% 2% 3% 1.90 The marina must have clean shower and restroom facilities. 34% 31% 19% 7% 8% 2.24 The marina must have water and power hookups. 32% 29% 20% 10% 10% 2.37 The marina must have friendly, service-oriented staff. 44% 41% 11% 1% 3% 1.78 The marina must be secure and safe. 54% 34% 8% 2% 2% 1.64 The marina must have clean docks and grounds. 38% 45% 13% 2% 2% 1.84 The marina must have a ship's store with a wide range of products. 12% 32% 39% 12% 6% 2.69 The marina must be located in an interesting area to visit (for example, nearby museums, parks, and other cultural amenities). 7% 18% 43% 21% 11% 3.10 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-sha ded cells represent the answer receiving t he second largest number of responses.

PAGE 39

31 Table 24-2. The importance of various marina amenities to Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). Statement Very Important ImportantNeutralUnimportant Very Unimportant Score The marina must have fueling. 54% 26% 15% 4% 1% 1.72 The marina must have a pumpout facility available. 32% 36% 21% 8% 4% 2.16 The marina must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. 32% 49% 15% 3% 0% 1.90 The marina must have clean shower and restroom facilities. 46% 29% 18% 7% 1% 1.89 The marina must have water and power hookups. 56% 29% 9% 4% 2% 1.68 The marina must have friendly, service-oriented staff. 48% 45% 6% 0% 0% 1.60 The marina must be secure and safe. 65% 32% 2% 0% 0% 1.38 The marina must have clean docks and grounds. 50% 45% 4% 1% 0% 1.56 The marina must have a ship's store with a wide range of products. 9% 29% 44% 15% 3% 2.72 The marina must be located in an interesting area to visit (for example, nearby museums, parks, and other cultural amenities). 10% 35% 32% 17% 6% 2.73 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-sha ded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number.

PAGE 40

32 Question 25: Please rate each of the statements below in terms of its importance when you choose a boatyard for repairs or maintenance. Survey respondents were asked to rank th e importancevery impo rtant, important, neutral, unimportant, or very unimportantof various amenities or services that might be found at boatyards. The levels of importance were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). The over all score (or ranking) for each of the six statements is shown in the last column of ea ch table. A score of 3 indicates that most respondents were neutral; a score less than 3 indicates that the amenity or service was important; and a score greater than 3 indicates that the amenity or services was unimportant. All six statements garnered scores less than three, which means they were important to a majority of Survey 1 and 2 respondents. The average score was 1.79 among Survey 1 respondents and 1.68 among Survey 2 respondents, indicating that the boatyard services and amenities were, on average, more important to Survey 2 respondents. The most important characteristics were a reputation for service, on-time performance, and quality work (Survey 1 score = 1.61; Survey 2 score = 1.48); a safe and secure boatyard (Survey 1 score = 1.67; Survey 2 score = 1.47); and a well-trained staff (Survey 1 score = 1.67; Survey 2 score = 1.53). Least important was a boatyard with a clean appearance of docks and yard areas. Table 25-1. The importance of various boatyard amenities to Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). Statement Very Important ImportantNeutralUnimportant Very Unimportant Score The boatyard must have a clean appearance on the docks and yard areas. 20% 52% 23% 3% 2% 2.14 The boatyard must have well trained staff. 49% 38% 10% 1% 1% 1.67 The boatyard must have friendly, serviceoriented staff. 38% 49% 11% 1% 2% 1.80 The boatyard must be secure and safe. 48% 39% 10% 1% 1% 1.67 The boatyard must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. 37% 43% 16% 2% 2% 1.87 The boatyard must have a reputation for service, on-time performance, and quality of work. 55% 33% 9% 1% 2% 1.61 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-sha ded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number. Table 25-2. The importance of various boatyard amenities to Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents (Very Important =1; Very Unimportant =5). Statement Very Important ImportantNeutralUnimportant Very Unimportant Score The boatyard must have a clean appearance on the docks and yard areas. 24% 57% 14% 4% 1% 2.01 The boatyard must have well trained staff. 55% 39% 5% 1% 0% 1.53 The boatyard must have friendly, serviceoriented staff. 38% 55% 6% 1% 0% 1.70 The boatyard must be secure and safe. 57% 39% 4% 0% 0% 1.47 The boatyard must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. 33% 50% 15% 2% 0% 1.87 The boatyard must have a reputation for service, on-time performance, and quality of work. 59% 35% 5% 0% 1% 1.48 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-sha ded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number.

PAGE 41

33 Question 26: Please list any other reasons, not listed in the previous two questions, that are very important to you when choosing a marina to stay at or when selecting a boatyard for repairs or maintenance. The most frequently cited factor by Survey 1 respondents when choosing a marina was the location of the facility (23.2%), followed by costs (11.9%), and the availability of entertainment amenities (11.3%) (Table 26-1). Survey 2 respondents most frequently cited costs associated with the marina (17.7%), followed by location (17.3%), and the availability of entertainment amenities (14.7%). Table 26-1 Additional factors that respondents consider when choosing a marina. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Important Factors for Selecting a Marina Count % Count % Location 39 23.2% 46 17.3% Costs 20 11.9% 47 17.7% Entertainment Amenities 19 11.3% 39 14.7% Ease of Access, Deep Entry 13 7.7% 32 12.0% Good Ramp 12 7.1% 1 0.4% Fuel 9 5.4% 6 2.3% Work Quality 8 4.8% 9 3.4% Safe and Well-Lit 5 3.0% 6 2.3% Friendly Staff and Dock Attendants 5 3.0% 4 1.5% Parking 5 3.0% 2 0.8% Facilities; Pumpout St ation 4 2.4% 7 2.6% Floating Dock 4 2.4% 5 1.9% Hours of Operati on 4 2.4% 3 1.1% Fish Cleaning Provisions and Bait 4 2.4% 3 1.1% Reputation 3 1.8% 7 2.6% Hoists, Large Slips, and Good Docks 2 1.2% 17 6.4% Plenty of Slips 2 1.2% 6 2.3% Noise Level 2 1.2% 3 1.1% In/Out Service 2 1.2% 2 0.8% Ground Transportation 2 1.2% 2 0.8% Sheltered 1 0.6% 11 4.1% Self-Service Availability 1 0.6% 5 1.9% Power 1 0.6% 3 1.1% Mechanical Service 1 0.6% 0 0.0% Total 168 100% 266 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the answ er receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 42

34 The most frequently cited factor of Survey 1 respondents for choosing a boatyard was location (17.2%), followed by costs (16.4%), and work quality (10.9%) (Table 26-2). Survey 2 respondents most frequently cited costs (24.3%), followed by self-service availability (14.2%), and facility location (13.3%). Table 26-2. Additional factors that respondents consider when choosing a boatyard. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Important Factors for Selecting a Boatyard Count % Count % Location 22 17.2% 30 13.3% Costs 21 16.4% 55 24.3% Work Quality 14 10.9% 21 9.3% Necessary Parts, Tools, and Lifts 12 9.4% 13 5.8% Honest Dealings 9 7.0% 6 2.7% Reputation 7 5.5% 12 5.3% Access 6 4.7% 12 5.3% Self-Service Availability 6 4.7% 32 14.2% Environmentally Conscious Practices 4 3.1% 3 1.3% Neatness 4 3.1% 5 2.2% Work Finished on Schedule 4 3.1% 6 2.7% Full Service Deck Hands 4 3.1% 6 2.7% Safety 3 2.3% 5 2.2% Authorized Service 3 2.3% 6 2.7% Fuel 2 1.6% 0 0.0% Parking 1 0.8% 0 0.0% Ramp Facility 1 0.8% 0 0.0% Hours of Operati on 1 0.8% 1 0.4% Ground Transport 1 0.8% 1 0.4% Availability 1 0.8% 1 0.4% Noise Level 1 0.8% 2 0.9% Sailboat Knowledge 1 0.8% 2 0.9% Sheltered 0 0.0% 1 0.4% Dry Storage 0 0.0% 1 0.4% Allows Outside Contractors 0 0.0% 5 2.2% Total 128 100% 226 100% Bold amounts in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold amounts in non-shaded cells represent the answ er receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 43

35 Question 27: For each of the following statements about the environment, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement. Survey respondents were asked to select their level of agreementstrongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, or strongly disagreewith sixteen statements about the environment. The statements were drawn from the revised New Ec ological Paradigm (NEP ) scale (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones, 2000) and adapte d from Cottrell (1993). The New Ecological Paradigm scale evolved from the New Environmental Paradigm scale, which originated in work by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The scale, as originally designed, was meant to capture shifts in environmental concern: for example, from a view of the environment as unlimited and bountiful to one of a limited and fragile environment (Cordano, Welcomer, and Scherer, 2003). The revised New Ecologic al Paradigm scale incorporates refinements and modified language that reflects a more modern vernacular. The agreement levels were ranked 1 through 5, respectively (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). The overall score (or ranking) for each statement is shown in the last column of each table. A score of 3 indicates that most re spondents were not sure how to respond to the statement (they neither agree nor disagree); a scor e less than 3 denotes an overall tendency to agree with the statement; and a score greater th an 3 denotes an overall tendency to disagree with the statement. Table 27-3 compares the environmental attitudes expressed by Survey 1 respondents with those of Survey 2 respondent s. The scores reported in Table 27-3 were transformed such that, for every statement, the lower the score the greater the degree of environmental concern. The scores in Table 27-3 are sorted in asce nding order based first on the scores of the Survey 1 respondents followed by the scores of Survey 2 respondents. In general, the degree of environmental concern demonstrated by respondents decreased with each succeeding statement presented in Table 27-3 (column 1). Th e numbers in the last column of the table are the differences between the Survey 1 score and the Survey 2 score achieved for each statement. A negative value in the last column signifies that Survey 1 respondents exhibited a greater degree of agreement with the statement and, thus, a greater degree of environmental concern. A positive value would signify that Survey 2 respondents demonstrated a greater degree of environmental concern. The transformed scores for Survey 1 respondents were less than 3 for every statement and the scores for Survey 2 respondents were less than 3 for twelve of the sixteen statements (Table 27-3). Thus, Survey 1 respondents, on average, expressed a level of environmental concern for all statements. Survey 2 respondent s, on average, did not agree (score > 3) if things continue on their present course, we wi ll soon experience an ecological catastrophe, nor that we are approaching the limit of the nu mber of people the earth can support. Survey 2 respondents also were more apt to believe that the earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them and that the so-called ecological crisis facing people has been greatly exaggerated. Overall, the average score was 2.20 for Survey 1 respondents and 2.44 for Survey 2 respondents.

PAGE 44

36 Table 27-1. Measuring environmental attitudes among Survey 1 ( 16 feet) respondents (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). Statements Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score Despite our abilities, people are subject to the laws of nature. 37% 51% 8% 4% 0% 1.79 The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily disrupted. 40% 46% 5% 8% 1% 1.83 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 32% 44% 9% 13% 3% 2.09 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 19% 28% 30% 18% 6% 2.63 The so-called ecological crisis facing people has been greatly exaggerated. 7% 20% 32% 25% 15% 3.21 Shellfish are easily susceptible to contamination from sewage. 48% 42% 9% 0% 0% 1.63 Plants and animals have as much right as people to exist. 30% 40% 11% 13% 5% 2.22 Boaters disposing human waste at a proper sanitation facility on shore will significantly reduce the amount of water pollution. 39% 40% 10% 8% 3% 1.95 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable. 13% 33% 31% 18% 5% 2.69 Raw sewage discharged into the water from recreational boats does not contribute to water pollution. 3% 7% 7% 41% 41% 4.10 People will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 3% 12% 30% 37% 18% 3.56 We are approaching the lim it of the number of people the earth can support. 13% 21% 33% 24% 9% 2.94 The phosphorous and nitrogen from sewage in the water triggers algal blooms that decrease the available oxygen for plants and animals. 33% 40% 24% 2% 1% 1.96 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 12% 39% 24% 18% 7% 2.68 Sewage discharged from recreational boats is not significant enough to cause any disease among people. 4% 10% 21% 36% 29% 3.76 People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 3% 12% 15% 38% 32% 3.84 High concentrations of sewage in an area result in a serious depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water. 36% 39% 22% 1% 2% 1.94 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiv ing the largest number of re sponses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 45

37 Table 27-2. Measuring environmental attitudes among Survey 2 ( 26 feet) respondents (Strongly Agree =1; Strongly Disagree =5). Statements Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Score Despite our abilities, people are subject to the laws of nature. 33% 51% 12% 3% 1% 1.88 The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily disrupted. 33% 46% 10% 10% 2% 2.03 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 25% 41% 12% 17% 5% 2.35 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 13% 19% 30% 29% 8% 3.00 The so-called ecological crisis facing people has been greatly exaggerated. 11% 30% 31% 20% 8% 2.84 Shellfish are easily susceptible to contamination from sewage. 45% 45% 9% 1% 0% 1.65 Plants and animals have as much right as people to exist. 23% 39% 11% 21% 6% 2.47 Boaters disposing human waste at a proper sanitation facility on shore will significantly reduce the amount of water pollution. 38% 33% 13% 12% 4% 2.12 Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable. 18% 41% 25% 10% 5% 2.45 Raw sewage discharged into the water from recreational boats does not contribute to water pollution. 2% 9% 13% 42% 34% 3.95 People will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 1% 16% 31% 36% 15% 3.47 We are approaching the lim it of the number of people the earth can support. 9% 15% 32% 33% 11% 3.24 The phosphorous and nitrogen from sewage in the water triggers algal blooms that decrease the available oxygen for plants and animals. 24% 46% 28% 3% 0% 2.10 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 11% 47% 24% 13% 5% 2.53 Sewage discharged from recreational boats is not significant enough to cause any disease among people. 4% 17% 25% 35% 19% 3.48 People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 3% 16% 19% 40% 21% 3.59 High concentrations of sewage in an area result in a serious depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water. 26% 45% 26% 1% 1% 2.07 Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the largest number of respons es and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receivi ng the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 46

38 Table 27-3. Comparing the environmental attitudes of Survey 1 and Survey 2 respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Statements Score Score Difference Shellfish are easily susceptible to contamination from sewage. 1.63 1.65 -0.03 Despite our abilities, people are subject to the laws of nature. 1.79 1.88 -0.09 The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily disrupted. 1.83 2.03 -0.20 Raw sewage discharged into the water from recreational boats does not contribute to water pollution. 1.90 2.05 -0.15 High concentrations of sewage in an area result in a serious depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water. 1.94 2.07 -0.13 Boaters disposing human waste at a proper sanitation facility on shore will significantly reduce the amount of water pollution. 1.95 2.12 -0.17 The phosphorous and nitrogen from sewage in the water triggers algal blooms that decrease the available oxygen for plants and animals. 1.96 2.10 -0.14 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 2.09 2.35 -0.26 People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 2.16 2.41 -0.24 Plants and animals have as much right as people to exist. 2.22 2.47 -0.24 Sewage discharged from recreational boats is not significant enough to cause any disease among people. 2.24 2.52 -0.28 People will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. 2.44 2.53 -0.09 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 2.63 3.00 -0.37 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 2.68 3.47 -0.78 The so-called ecological crisis facing people has been greatly exaggerated. 2.79 3.16 -0.37 We are approaching the lim it of the number of people the earth can support. 2.94 3.24 -0.30 Averages 2.20 2.44 -0.24 Shaded cells contain the score that reflects relatively greater environmental concern.

PAGE 47

39 Questions 28 through 34 are se lf-explanatory and the results for each are reported in an accompanying table or figure. Question 28: How many years have you been boating? Table 28. Number of years that respondents have boated. Statistics Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Average number of year s 35.3 years 32.9 years Minimum number of years 0 years 2 years Maximum number of years 80 years 70 years Standard deviation 15.8 years 14.5 years Number of respondents 599 458 Question 29: How many years have you been boating in Florida? Table 29. Number of years that respondents have boated in Florida. Statistics Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Average number of year s 24.6 years 20.0 years Minimum number of years 0 years 1 years Maximum number of years 80 years 60 years Standard deviation 15.5 years 13.2 years Number of respondents 601 459 Question 30: How many months per year do you live in Florida? Table 30. Number of months per year that respondents live in Florida. Statistics Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Average number of months 11.4 months 11.1 months Minimum number of mont hs 0 months 0 months Maximum number of mont hs 12 months 12 months Standard deviation 2.0 m onths 2.4 months Number of respondents 600 463 Question 31: In what year were you born (how old are you)? Table 31. Age characteristics of survey respondents. Statistics Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Average age 57 years old 56 years old Minimum age 22 years old 23 years old Maximum age 87 years old 94 years old Standard deviation 12.1 years 11.5 years Number of respondents 593 458

PAGE 48

40 Question 32: What gender are you? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Male Female 92% 95% 5% 8% Figure 32. Gender characteristics of survey respondents. Question 33: How much formal education have you had? Table 33. Education levels of survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Education Level % Cum. % % Cum. % Grade School 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% Some High School 2.3% 3% 0.9% 1.1% High School Graduate 13% 16% 7% 8% Vocational or Technical School 11% 27% 5% 13% Some College 22% 50% 23% 36% College Graduate 29% 79% 40% 76% Postgraduate 22% 100% 24% 100% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answ er receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number of responses. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% Grade School Some High School High School Graduate Vocational or Technical School Some College College Graduate Postgraduate Figure 33. Education levels of survey respondents.

PAGE 49

41 Question 34: Which best describes your total annual family income, before taxes? Table 34. Annual family income levels of survey respondents. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Income Level % Cum. % % Cum. % Less than $10,000 1% 1% 0% 0% $10,000 to $14,999 1% 2% 1% 1% $15,000 to $24,999 4% 6% 1% 2% $25,000 to $34,999 7% 13% 2% 4% $35,000 to $49,999 13% 26% 7% 11% $50,000 to $74,999 25% 51% 16% 27% $75,000 to $99,999 16% 67% 11% 39% $100,000 to $149,999 16% 84% 25% 63% $150,000 to $199,999 8% 91% 11% 75% $200,000 or more 9% 100% 25% 100% Total 100% 100% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answer receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-shaded ce lls represent the answer receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 50

42 Question 35: What detracts most from your boating experience? Table 35 lists factors that respondents indicate d most detract from their boating experience. To facilitate reporting the results, the factors were grouped into eight categories according to their similarities: those that pertain to (1) other boaters, (2) environmental concerns, (3) insufficient management, (4) too much manageme nt, (5) limited access, (6) infrastructure, (7) limited boating destinations, and (8) expense or se rvice. Table 35 lists the eight categories in descending order, according to the total number of responses for factors tallied under each category. Survey 1 respondents (45.9%) and Survey 2 respondents (47.9%) cited factors under Other Boaters as those that most detract from their boating experience. In particular, they pointed to irresponsible boaters (Survey 1: 18.8%; Survey 2: 18.2%), unskilled boaters (Survey 1: 10.7%; Survey 2: 17.4%), and (operators of) personal watercraft (Survey 1: 9.5%; Survey 2: 5.1%). Together, these three factors accounte d for about 40% of complaints across all categories. The next most frequently cited category was Environmental Concerns (Survey 1: 20.8%; Survey 2: 21.2%): in particular weather, trash, and pollution. Insufficient Management was the third most frequently cited ca tegory by Survey 1 respondents (12.0%) versus Too Much Management by 12.9% of Survey 2 respondents. Table 35. Factors that detract from respondents boating experience. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Detracting Factors (grouped by category) Count % Count % Other Boaters 295 45.9% 226 47.9% Irresponsible Boaters 121 18.8% 86 18.2% Unskilled Boaters 69 10.7% 82 17.4% Personal Watercraft 61 9.5% 24 5.1% Speed Boats 18 2.8% 22 4.7% Wakes 14 2.2% 6 1.3% Airboats 6 0.9% 0 0.0% Noise 5 0.8% 5 1.1% Rental Boats 1 0.2% 1 0.2% Environmental Concerns 134 20.8% 100 21.2% Weather 58 9.0% 63 13.3% Trash 28 4.4% 16 3.4% Pollution 16 2.5% 7 1.5% Dirty Water 13 2.0% 7 1.5% Not Enough Fish 9 1.4% 0 0.0% Coastal Development 4 0.6% 2 0.4% Crab Pots 2 0.3% 3 0.6% Prop Scars 2 0.3% 0 0.0% Habitat Destruction 1 0.2% 2 0.4% Loss of Natural Reefs 1 0.2% 0 0.0% Insufficient Management 77 12.0% 28 5.9% Excessive Boat Traffic 69 10.7% 25 5.3% Not Enough Marine Patrol 3 0.5% 1 0.2% Speed Zones 3 0.5% 0 0.0% Fish Catch Limits 2 0.3% 2 0.4% (table continued on next page)

PAGE 51

43 (table continued from previous page) Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Detracting Factors (grouped by category) Count % Count % Too Much Management 55 8.6% 61 12.9% Manatee Protection 19 3.0% 18 3.8% No Wake Zones 10 1.6% 10 2.1% Speed Zones 9 1.4% 15 3.2% Too Many Boating Restrictions 8 1.2% 10 2.1% Excessive Marine Patrols 8 1.2% 5 1.1% Environmentalism versus Boating 1 0.2% 1 0.2% MSD Inspection 0 0.0% 2 0.4% Limited Access 40 6.2% 27 5.7% Inadequate Ramp Space 33 5.1% 4 0.8% Public Marinas 4 0.6% 13 2.8% Anchorages 1 0.2% 6 1.3% Dinghy Docks 1 0.2% 2 0.4% Islands 1 0.2% 0 0.0% Waterfront Eateries 0 0.0% 2 0.4% Infrastructure 36 5.6% 27 5.7% Lack of Parking 13 2.0% 1 0.2% Lack of Dredging 8 1.2% 14 3.0% Ramp Quality 4 0.6% 3 0.6% Crowded Facilities 3 0.5% 1 0.2% Marina Quality 2 0.3% 3 0.6% Low Bridges 2 0.3% 2 0.4% Lack of Markers 2 0.3% 1 0.2% Small Channels 1 0.2% 1 0.2% Nonworking Pumpouts 1 0.2% 1 0.2% Limited Boating Destinations 4 0.6% 2 0.4% Restaurants 3 0.5% 1 0.2% Recreational Destinations 1 0.2% 1 0.2% Expense/Service 2 0.3% 1 0.2% Fuel 1 0.2% 0 0.0% Dishonest Mechanics 1 0.2% 0 0.0% Bad Boat Dealers 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Total 643 100.0% 472 100.0%

PAGE 52

44 Question 36: What is needed most to improve your boating experience? Table 36 lists factors that respondents in dicated would most improve their boating experience. To facilitate reporting the results, the factors were grouped into nine categories according to their similarities. Th e categories, which are listed in Table 36 in descending order according to those that received more respon ses, include: (1) management needs: more restrictions, (2) boater education, (3) environmental needs, (4) increased access, (5) facility improvements, (6) management needs: fewer rest rictions, (7) infrastructure improvements, (8) more destinations, and (9) fuel efficient motors. Management Needs: More Restrictions was the highest ranked category (25.7%) by Survey 1 respondents; in particular the need for better law enforcement (6.1%) and (management of) personal watercraft (3.3%). This category was the second most often cited by Survey 2 respondents (19.4%). Survey 2 respondents most often identified Boater Education (21.6%); in particular, they identified regula tions and etiquette (20.4%) as the factor most needed to improve their boating experience. Boater Education was the second most often cited category of Survey 1 respondents (21.3%). More than three times the proportion of Su rvey 1 respondents (8.6%) as compared to Survey 2 respondents (2.7%) identified the need for increased access through ramps. In contrast, more than three times the proportion of Survey 2 respondents (6.0%) as compared to Survey 1 respondents (1.9%) identified the need for increased access to marina slips. Environmental Needs were relatively more important to Survey 1 respondents (14.6%) than to Survey 2 respondents (10.0%). This result conforms to those observed for Question 27. Nearly double the proportion of Survey 2 respon dents (12.4%) called for fewer restrictions as compared to 6.3% of Survey 1 respondents. Table 36. Factors needed to improve the boating experience. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Factors (grouped by category) Count % Count % Management Needs: More Restrictions 134 25.7% 78 19.4% Better Law Enforcement 32 6.1% 18 4.5% Personal Watercraft 17 3.3% 8 2.0% Power Boats 2 0.4% 2 0.5% Speed Zones 6 1.1% 2 0.5% No Wake Zones 8 1.5% 2 0.5% More Patrols 8 1.5% 5 1.2% Sewage Dumping 8 1.5% 4 1.0% Environmental Protection 7 1.3% 0 0.0% Drinking 3 0.6% 3 0.7% Licensing in Genera 36 6.9% 29 7.2% Licensing of PWC 1 0.2% 2 0.5% Fishing Regulations 6 1.1% 3 0.7% Boater Education 111 21.3% 87 21.6% Regulations and Etiquette 100 19.2% 82 20.4% Environmental 11 2.1% 5 1.2% Environmental Needs 76 14.6% 40 10.0% Improve Water Quality 17 3.3% 8 2.0% Less Development 2 0.4% 4 1.0% (table continued on next page)

PAGE 53

45 (table continued from previous page) Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Factors (grouped by category) Count % Count % Environmental Needs (cont.) 76 14.6% 40 10.0% Less Pollution 11 2.1% 1 0.2% Fewer Boaters 15 2.9% 5 1.2% Better Weather 18 3.4% 18 4.5% More Fish 13 2.5% 4 1.0% Increased Access 56 10.7% 48 11.9% Ramps 45 8.6% 11 2.7% Marinas/Slips 10 1.9% 24 6.0% Transient Docks 1 0.2% 13 3.2% Facility Improvements 53 10.2% 33 8.2% Full Service Marinas/Pumpout 10 1.9% 11 2.7% Lower Fuel Costs 8 1.5% 11 2.7% Ramps, Parking, Showers 32 6.1% 8 2.0% More Service Boatyards 3 0.6% 3 0.7% Management Needs: Fewer Restrictions 33 6.3% 50 12.4% Less Government Presence 5 1.0% 15 3.7% Marine Sanitation Devices 1 0.2% 2 0.5% Beach Access 0 0.0% 2 0.5% Marine Patrol 1 0.2% 2 0.5% Speed Zones 3 0.6% 7 1.7% No Wake Zones 4 0.8% 6 1.5% Manatee Zones 14 2.7% 14 3.5% Fishing Regulations 3 0.6% 1 0.2% Access 2 0.4% 1 0.2% Infrastructure Improvements 28 5.4% 39 9.7% Channel/Zone Marking 12 2.3% 14 3.5% Signs 4 0.8% 4 1.0% Dredging 11 2.1% 20 5.0% Shoaling Alerts 1 0.2% 1 0.2% More Destinations 26 5.0% 25 6.2% Boat Accessible Destinat ions 9 1.7% 13 3.2% Public Moorings 3 0.6% 9 2.2% Artificial/Natural Reefs 5 1.0% 1 0.2% Natural Areas 4 0.8% 0 0.0% Designated Watersport Areas 4 0.8% 1 0.2% Canoe Trails 1 0.2% 1 0.2% Fuel Efficient Motors 5 1.0% 2 0.5% Total 522 100.0% 402 100.0%

PAGE 54

46 Question 37: What kinds of information would improve your boating experience? Table 37 lists information types that respondents indicated would most improve their boating experience. Survey 1 respondents rank ed boating etiquette as the most important (19.9%) information source (we suspect that they mean it is important information for other boaters to possess). Survey 1 respondents were more keen than were Survey 2 respondents to have information on fishing reports (10% versus 5.1%), fishing limits and regulations (6% versus 1.3%), and ramp sites (4.5% versus 1.3% ). Survey 2 respondents were more interested (22.4%) in information on weather, tides, and winds than were Survey 1 respondents (14.9%). Table 37. Information needs of boaters. Survey 1 ( 16 feet) Survey 2 ( 26 feet) Information Needs Count % Count % Boating Etiquette 40 19.9% 19 12.2% Weather/Tides/Wind 30 14.9% 35 22.4% Fishing Reports 20 10.0% 8 5.1% Aerial Maps/Charts 16 8.0% 14 9.0% Environment/Wildlife 12 6.0% 11 7.1% Fishing Limits/Regulations 12 6.0% 2 1.3% Ramp Sites 9 4.5% 2 1.3% Technical Navigation Aids (GPS) 8 4.0% 8 5.1% Clean Marina/Pumpout 7 3.5% 4 2.6% Boating Pollution/MS D 6 3.0% 8 5.1% Destinations 6 3.0% 7 4.5% Boating Guides 5 2.5% 7 4.5% Anchorages/Marinas 5 2.5% 5 3.2% Restaurants/Shore Facilit ies 5 2.5% 5 3.2% Clean Vessel Act Survey 5 2.5% 2 1.3% Boating Effects on Environment 4 2.0% 7 4.5% Channel Depths/Shoals 4 2.0% 6 3.8% Speed Zones 3 1.5% 2 1.3% Artificial Reefs 2 1.0% 0 0.0% Signage 1 0.5% 3 1.9% Manatee Zones 1 0.5% 1 0.6% Total 201 100.0% 156 100.0% Bold percentages in shaded cells represent the answ er receiving the largest number of responses and bold percentages in non-shaded cells represent the answer receiving the second largest number of responses.

PAGE 55

47 Conclusions and Recommendations The primary goal of this study, as expressed by FDEP Clean Marina Program staff, was to determine boaters level of awareness of the Clean Vessel Act (CVA). Survey results indicate that 49.8% of Survey 1 respondents we re aware of the CVA and 46.7% were not (Question 13, Table 13, and Figure 13). Results of the 1998 survey (Florida State University Survey Lab) indicated that 48.7% of respondents were aware of Floridas Clean Vessel Act and 43.9% were not. Given the 1998 survey sample error ( 3.0% at the 95% confid ence interval) and the Survey 1 sample error ( 3.85 at the 95% confidence level), the results ob tained in 1998 are not statistically different than those obtained in 2004 (i.e., no significant difference). In other words, ther e is no evidence to suggest that awareness of Floridas Clean Vessel Act among the general boater population has changed since 1998. In contrast to 1998 and Survey 1 results, 71.9% of Survey 2 respondents said that they were aware of the CVA (and 26.5% were not). Survey 2 results indicate that owners of larger vessels ( 26 feet in length) were much more aware (by a factor of approximately 50 percent) of the CVA than were boaters from the general boating populationin part icular, owners of smaller vessels. The 1998 survey did not report results for larger vessels ( 26 feet in length) separately and, therefore, no comparison can be made with Survey 2 results. Thus, we do not know if awareness of the CVA among owners of larger vessels ( 26 feet in length) has chan ged since 1998. The Survey 2 results, however, do provide a baseline to measure future change in CVA awareness among owners of larger vessels ( 26 feet in length). Given the fact that boater awareness of the CVA and its provisions has held steady among Survey 1 respondents (and if we assume the same for Survey 2 respondents), enhanced education efforts and more incentives are warranted if awar eness and compliance levels are to be increased. The results of this survey (and future, more targ eted surveys) should be used to determine what communication methods are most likely to reach (a nd positively influence) target audiences. New approaches should be tried. For exam ple, the potential of social marketing9 to target and disseminate messages should be investigated. Floridas Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS) could be used to identify market segments that are most likely to respond to specific types of messages (Swett, Sidman, Fik, and Sargent, 2004). Su ch efforts will requir e a good understanding of how best to communicate with target audiences. Respondents to the 1998 survey said that they learned about the CVA from publications (32%), education materials (28%), friends (14%), and marinas (13%); other sources listed included TV/Radio (6%), mail (4%), and the Internet (1%). These information sources remained the same among Survey 1 respondents, although their relative rankings changed. More instructive for purposes of planning future education or marketing efforts are those sources that Survey 1 respondents considered the best way for them to obtain information about boating and boatingrelated issues (Question 19). Survey 1 respondents listed publications as the primary source of information, accounting for 31% of all responses. Particular types of publications listed by respondents included boating and fishing publications, newspapers, Boat U.S., and trade publications. Twenty-five percent of Survey 1 respondents cited mail (17.9%) and email (7.2%) as the best way for them to obtain boatingrelated information. An analysis of Floridas Vessel Title Registration System (VTRS) by Swett et al. (2004) determined that boat owner mailing addresses contained within the VTRS are a reliable and valuable source of information for mapping boat locations and characteristics. 9 Social marketing is the planning and implementation of programs designed to bring about social change using concepts from commercial marketing. ht tp://www.social-mark eting.org/sm.html.

PAGE 56

48 This knowledge could be used to target mailings to specific segments of Floridas boating population based on boat characteristics (such as length) and/or boat locations. For example, owners of vessels of specific lengths or types could be notified when a new Clean Marina has opened in their vicinity. Such no tifications could be sent in the same envelope in which they receive their vessel registration renewal forms. Fifteen percent of Survey 1 respondents cited boating-related facilities as their best source of boating information. In particular, they listed marinas, marine stores, bait shops, boat dealers, and ramps. Nine percent of respondents listed the Internet as the best source of information. However, use of the Internet to distribute information is problematic, since it requires that people actively seek out Web sites. The remaining information sources cited by Survey 1 respondents were TV/Radio (7%), boating education courses (6%) provided by such entities as U.S. Power Squadrons and U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliaries, and friends (4%). In addition to educational and marketing efforts, boaters need access to an adequate infrastructure. The results from this study show that most boaters are inclined to do the right thing, but they may not act upon those inclinations due to a lack of facilities. Respondents cited the need for more pumpouts that are conveniently located and that are low cost (especially, free) (Questions 11 and 12). Furthermore, respondents indicated a willingness to incur added expense and inconvenience in order to use Clean marinas (Question 23). This response is encouraging and should lead to Floridas redoubling its efforts to increase the number of Clean Marinas. Furthermore, since nearly two-th irds of respondents were unaware of Floridas Clean Marina Program (before learning of it from this survey), increased education and/or marketing efforts are needed. The expressed willingnes s of respondents to patronize Clean marinas over non-Clean marinas should be used in campaigns to convince marina owners to adopt Clean marina standards. Another encouraging study result is that the percentage of boaters with marine sanitation devices (MSD) appears to have in creased since the 1998 survey, when 73.9% said that they did not have an MSD versus 23.5% that did. In 2004, 41.2% of Survey 1 respondents said that they have an MSD on their boatmore than 1.75 time s the proportion reported in 1998. Finally, the response rates achieved for the Internet survey (13.5%) and the first mail survey (18.9%) were lower than the rates stipulated as necessary to conduct a comparative analysis and, thus, determine the efficacy of Internet survey s. Similar types of mail surveys conducted by Florida Sea Grant have garnered response rates of approximately 30 percent. We can only speculate as to why the response rates were lower than expected: 1. Florida experienced four hurricanes in 2004 th at affected wide areas of the state. The distractions caused by such traumatic events may have contributed to the lower response rates. 2. The survey instrument was long, which may have dampened the enthusiasm of many respondents to complete it. 3. Some respondents may have reacted adversely to question 27, which asked them to rate their extent of agreement or disagreement with several statements about the environment. We recommend that, for future implementation s of the Clean Vessel Act boater awareness survey, the survey instrument be streamlined. When response rates are low, as they were for this study, it is recommended that the possibility of non-response bias be examined. The level of resources earmarked for this study precluded an analysis of non-response and, therefore, it was not included in the scope of services. That said, the principal author will attempt to investigate non-response bias employing several techniques, such as comparing Internet-based resp onses with those obtained by mail, and by comparing early and late responders. The results from the non-response analysis will be reported separately.

PAGE 57

49 Literature Cited Cottrell, S. (1993). Predictors of responsibl e environmental behavior among boaters on the Chesapeake Bay: an exploratory analysis (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University at University Park, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 12A. Cordano, M., Welcomer, S.A., & Scherer, R.F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the New Ecological Paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education 34 2228. Dunlap, R.E. & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education 9 10. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 425442. Florida State University Survey Lab. (1998). Final report on the performance of Floridas marine law enforcement agencies and other topics related to marine law enforcement. Tallahassee: Florida State University, Devoe L. Moore Center. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, Boating and Waterways Section. (2004). 2004 Florida Boating Accident Statistical Report. Tallahassee: Retrieved May 20, 2005 fr om http://myfwc.com/law/boating/. Swett, R.A., Sidman, C., Fik, T., & Sargent, W. (2004). Floridas vessel title registration system as a source of boat locations and characteristics: a case study in Lee and Manatee counties (TP138). Gainesville, FL: Florida Sea Grant.

PAGE 58

50 Appendix 1 Survey questionnaire used to assess boater awareness of the Clean Vessel Act. Questionnaire Control Number Recreational Boating in Florida A STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROGRAM November 2004 Contact Information: Dr. Robert Swett Assistant Professor Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Extension Specialist, Florida Sea Grant University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences P.O. Box 110405 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Ph: (352) 392-6233 Email: boatsurvey@ifas.ufl.edu

PAGE 59

51 1. Please indicate how many boats of each ty pe listed below that you own. Enter the number in the box next to each type. Personal Watercraft (e.g., Jet Ski) Kayak/Row/Canoe John/Utility Sailboat (day sail) Sailboat (auxiliary engine cruising sail) Speed, Jet Boat, or Deck Boat (no cabin) Pontoon Open Fishing Skiff or Flats Boat Power Boat (cabin accommodations) Other (please specify type) ____________________ 2. In what type of vessel do you spend most of your boating time? Please check the box next to ONLY ONE of the boat types listed below. Personal Watercraft (e.g., Jet Ski) Kayak/Row/Canoe John/Utility Sailboat (day sail) Sailboat (auxiliary engine cruising sail) Speed, Jet Boat, or Deck Boat (no cabin) Pontoon Open Fishing Skiff or Flats Boat Power Boat (cabin accommodations) Other (please specify type) ___________________

PAGE 60

523. Please enter the make, m odel, length, and draft of THE boat that you identified in question 2 above. (Draft is how far below the wa ter surface your prop or hull extends.) Boat Make / Model Length (Feet) Draft (feet / inches) 4. Please check the box next to your typical launch site. Marina wet slip Home dock Condominium dock Shoreline / causeway Marina dry storage Public boat ramp Other (please specify) 5. Please indicate, in the boxes below, the num ber of times per month that you go boating. JanuaryJulyFebruaryAugustMarchSeptemberAprilOctoberMayNovemberJuneDecember

PAGE 61

536. How much time do you spend on the water dur ing a typical boating trip? Please enter the number of hours or days in the appropriate box below. Hours Days 7 What is your favorite activity on a typical pleasure boating trip? Please select ONLY ONE of the activities listed below. Beach Picnicking Nature Viewing Sightseeing Beach Camping Daytime Anchoring Socializing Cruising Overnight Anchoring Visiting Restaurant Diving Sailing Swimming Fishing Other ( specify ) _________________________________ 8. Do you have a marine sanitation device on your boat (either portable or permanent)? Note: Marine sanitation devices refer to marine to ilet systems and are also referred to as heads. Yes No Dont Know If you answered No or Dont Know to Question 8, please skip to Question 13 9. If you answered YES to question 8, what ty pe of Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) do you have? A portable head that is not per manently attached to the boat A permanent toilet system that releases treated waste directly into the water (a U.S. Coast Guard Type I or II Marine Sanitation Device) A permanent toilet system with a holding t ank that is emptied by pumpout means or discharged directly into the water ( a U.S. Coast Guard Type III Marine Sanitation Device)

PAGE 62

5410. For each of the four categories below, please estimate the proportion (a percentage ranging from 0 to 100 percent) of the total sewage discharged from your boat(s) during the past year. (Note: the sum of the f our percentages entered below should total to 100 percent) Percent discharged into a pumpout facility Percent discharged into wate rs LESS than 3 miles offshore Percent discharged into waters between 3 and 9 miles offshore Percent discharged into waters MORE than 9 miles offshore 100% TOTAL 11. The statements below are about boat pumpout facilities. For each of the statements, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by checking the appropriate box located to the right of the statement. Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree There are an adequate number of pumpout facilities where I operate my boat. Pumpout facilities are conveniently located. Pumpout facilities are usually open when I want to use them. Pumpout facilities are easy to use. I usually have to wait only a short time to use the pumpout facilities. I dont make a special effort to use a pumpout facility when I go boating. I use a pumpout facility every time my holding tank is full. 12. What factors, if any, would lead you to use sewage pumpout stati ons more often? Please enter your response below.

PAGE 63

5513. Are you aware of Floridas Clean Vessel Act? Yes No 14. If you answered Yes to Question 13, how di d you learn of Floridas Clean Vessel Act? Please enter your response in the box below. 15. Please indicate whether each of t he statements below is true or false. True False Dont Know On the west coast of Flor ida, untreated sewage can be discharged in waters closer than 9 miles offshore. The Clean Vessel Act provides funds to build vessel pumpout facilities. On the east coast of Flori da, untreated sewage can be discharged in waters closer than 3 miles offshore. Florida requires that vessel s 26 feet and longer be equipped with a toilet. If not portable, it must be connected to a Type I, II, or III marine sanitation device. In Florida the Department of Environmental Protection administers the Clean Vessel Act. The Clean Vessel Act is the result of Federal legislation. 16. Are you aware of Floridas Clean Marina program? Yes No 17. If you answered Yes to Question 16, how did you learn of Floridas Clean Marina program? Please enter your response below.

PAGE 64

5618. Please rank how likely you are to obtain information about boating and boating-related issues from each of the fo llowing information sources. Not Likely Somewhat Likely Likely Very Likely Extremely Likely On the Internet Listening to audio tapes Mail delivered to me From friends General boating publications E-Mail At boat shows Television In the newspaper Technical documents, government reports, proceedings Movie theater announcements Watching video tapes or DVDs Trade publications E-mail discussion groups (List servers) On the radio Conferences and seminars Extension fact sheets From a boat dealer Local public access TV Public service announcements Boating education courses At a marina or boat yard

PAGE 65

5719. In the box below, please write what y ou consider to be the BEST way to obtain information about boating and boating-related issues. 20. How many times during the course of a year do you visit a marina or use the services available at a marina? To the right of each statement below please indicate the appropriate frequency (Note: Frequency of use increases from left to right ). Never 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 Every other week Every Week How many times a year do you launch your boat at a marina? How many times a year do you use a marina as a place to relax on the boat without going out? How many times a year do you fuel your boat at a marina? How many times a year do you use a marina as a boating destination?

PAGE 66

5821. We would like to know how frequently you use services available at a boatyard. To the right of each statement below pleas e indicate the appropriate frequency (Note: Frequency of use increases from left to right). Never Hardly ever Once every 3 years Once every 2 years Once a year Once every 6 months More often than every 6 months How often do you have your boat pressure washed at a boatyard? How often do you use a boatyard to prepare and paint your hull? How often do you use a boatyard for electrical / electronics repairs? How often do you use a boatyard for repairs? 22. During a typical year, how many months do yo u store a boat at each of the facilities listed below? Please check the appropriat e box next to each facility type (the choices range from 0 months to 12 months). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Marina wet-slip Marina dry stack Boatyard At Home

PAGE 67

5923. For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by checking the appropriate box to the right of the statement. Please note that a marina is designated Clean by the State of Florida when the marina voluntarily employs stringent, standardized measures that are designed to protect the environment. 24. For each of the statements below, please check the box t hat best matches your opinion on what is important in choosing a marina. Very Important Important Neutral Unimportant Very Unimportant The marina must have fueling. The marina must have a pumpout facility available. The marina must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. The marina must have clean shower and restroom facilities. The marina must have water and power hookups. The marina must have friendly, service-oriented staff. The marina must be secure and safe. The marina must have clean docks and grounds. The marina must have a ships store with a wide range of products. The marina must be located in an interesting area to visit (for example, nearby museums, parks, and other cultural amenities). Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree I would use a marina designated as Clean before using a mari na not designated as Clean. I would travel farther to visit a Clean marina, bypassing other marinas that are not designated as Clean. I would willingly pay more for services provided by a Clean marina than for lower-cost services provided by marinas not designated as Clean.

PAGE 68

6025. For each of the statements below, please check the appropriate box that best matches your opinion on what is important when choosing a boatyard for repairs or maintenance. Very Important Important Neutral Unimportant Very Unimportant The boatyard must have a clean appearance on the docks and repair yard areas. The boatyard must have well trained staff. The boatyard must have friendly, service-oriented staff. The boatyard must be secure and safe. The boatyard must implement practices that are meant to protect the environment. The boatyard must have a reputation for service, on-time performance, and quality of work. 26. In the boxes below, please enter any other reasons, not listed in the previous two questions, that are very important to you when choosing a marina at which to stay or when selecting a boatyard for repairs and maintenance. Marina Boatyard

PAGE 69

6127. The following statements are about the envir onment. For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by checking the appropriate box located to the right of the statement. Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree Despite our abilities, people are subject to the laws of nature. The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily disrupted. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. The so-called ecological crisis facing people has been greatly exaggerated. Shellfish are easily susceptible to contamination from sewage. Plants and animals have as much right as people to exist. Boaters disposing hum an waste at a proper sanitation facility on shore will significantly reduce the amount of water pollution. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable. Raw sewage discharged into the water from recreational boats does not contribute to water pollution. People will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. The phosphorus and nitrogen from sewage in the water triggers algal blooms that decrease available oxygen for plants and animals. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. Sewage discharged from recreational boats is not significant enough to cause any disease among people. People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. High concentrations of sewage in an area result in a serious depletion of dissolved oxygen in water.

PAGE 70

62Finally, please describe yourself. We stress that all of your answ ers are strictly confidential! 28. How many years have you been boating? 29. How many years have you been boating in Florida? 30. How many months per year do you live in Florida? (Please che ck the appropriate box below.) Months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 31. In what year were you born? 32. Are you: Male Female 33. How much formal education have you had? (Please check the appropriate box below.) Grade School Some High School High School Graduate Vocational or Technical School Some College College Graduate Postgraduate

PAGE 71

6334. Which best describes your total annual fam ily income, before taxes? (Please check the appropriate box below.) Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more 35. What detracts most from your boating experience? 36. What is needed most to im prove your boating experiences? 37. What kinds of information woul d improve your b oating experiences? YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE SURVEY Florida Sea Grant thanks you for your assistance.

PAGE 72

64 Appendix 2 Invitation letter sent to the sa mple of vessel owners invited to participate in the Internet-based survey. RECREATIONAL BOATING IN FLORIDA UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM Dear Boat Owner / Operator, Florida Sea Granta research, education, and outreach program based at the University of Floridais seeking to characterize boating activities and behaviors. Your participation in this study will be very important to our continuing efforts to develop boater products that enhance the overall recreational boating experience. You are one of a few Florida boaters invited to participate, so your input is very important. Please be assured that the information you provide will be held in the strictest confidence. Your responses will remain anonymous and your name and address will NOT be made available to anyone. All results will be presented in summary form to ensure that no individual responses can be linked to a specific respondent. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. Please type the following address in your Internet browser to access the Florida Sea Grant boater survey: http://boating.ifas.ufl.edu/survey Once you have reached the survey Website, enter the following code in the box provided on the Web page and then click Continue. The survey code is used only to insure the scientific integrity of the study and to avoid inconveniencing you with reminder cards. If you do not have Internet access, then please return the enclosed green card. There are no direct risks or benefits to you for participating in this study. There is no compensation to you for participating in this study. For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611 or 352-392-0433. If you have any questions about th is survey or about Florida Sea Grant, you may contact me by telephone at (352) 392-6233 or by E-mail at boatsurvey@ifas.ufl.edu We are most grateful for your assi stance in this important project. Bob Swett, Ph.D. Extension Specialist Boating and Waterway Management Florida Sea Grant P.O. Box 110405 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

PAGE 73

65 Appendix 3 No-Internet card to be returned if a respond ent did not have Internet access. Dear Boat Owner / Operator If you do not have access to an Internet connection and, therefore, can not complete the Internet survey, then pl ease mail this card back to us. Note: the postage is pre-paid. Sincerely Robert Swett, Ph.D. University of Florida

PAGE 74

66 Appendix 4 Invitation letter sent to the sa mple of vessel owners invited to participate in the mail surveys. RECREATIONAL BOATING IN FLORIDA UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROGRAM Dear Boat Owner / Operator, Florida Sea Granta research, education, and outreach program based at the University of Floridais seeking to characterize boating activities and behaviors. Your participation in this study will be very important to our continuing efforts to develop boater products that enhance the overall recreational boating experience. You are one of a few Florida Boaters invited to participate, so your input is very important. Please be assured that the information you provide will be held in the strictest confidence. Your responses will remain anonymous and your name and address will NOT be made available to anyone. All results will be presented in summary form to ensure that no individual responses can be linked to a specific respondent. The questionnaire control number is used only to insure the scientific integrity of the study and to avoid inconveniencing you with reminder cards. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. We would appreciate your completing and returning the survey as soon as possible. We have provided a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. There are no direct risks or benefits to you for participating in this study. There is no compensation to you for participating in this study. For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University of Florida Institutional Revi ew Board at PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611 or 352-392-0433. If you have any questions about th is survey or about Florida Sea Grant, you may contact me by telephone at (352) 392-6233 or by E-mail at boatsurvey@ifas.ufl.edu We are most grateful for your assi stance in this important project. Bob Swett, Ph.D. Extension Specialist Boating and Waterway Management Florida Sea Grant P.O. Box 110405 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

PAGE 75

67 Appendix 5 Reminder card sent to the sample of vessel ow ners invited to participate in the Internet-based survey. Dear Boat Owner / Operator Florida Sea Grant recently sent you an invitation to participate in an Internet survey about recreational boating in Florida. Your answers will help our continuing efforts to develop boater products that enhance the recreational boating experi ence. You are one of a few boaters that were invited to participate, so your response is very important to us. If you havent already done so, could you please take a few moments to complete our Internet survey? The survey can be accessed at the following Internet site: www.boatersurvey.ufl.edu/survey. The survey code that will allow you to complete the survey is printed below your name on the other side of this card. We are most grateful for your assistance in this important project. Sincerely Robert Swett, Ph.D. University of Florida boatsurvey@ifas.ufl.edu

PAGE 76

68 Appendix 6 Reminder card sent to the sample of vessel ow ners invited to participate in the mail surveys. Dear Boat Owner / Operator Florida Sea Grant recently sent you a survey about recreational boati ng in Florida. Your answers will help our continuing efforts to develop boater products that enhance the recreational boating experience. You are one of a few boaters that were invited to participate, so your response is very importa nt to us. If you havent already done so, could you please take a few moments to complete the survey and return it to us? If you have already completed and returned the survey thank you. We are most grateful for your assistance in this important project. Sincerely Robert Swett, Ph.D. University of Florida boatsurvey@ifas.ufl.edu

PAGE 77

69 Appendix 7. Makes and models of the vessels in which Survey 1 (vessels 16 feet) respondents spend most of their boating time. 1948 Garwood wood utility speed boat 1953 Chris craft no cabin 1970 Mako-Perdue-Dean 1974 Searay 1978 Century 1979 Crestliner 1979 Pursuit 1980 Aquasport 1981Monark/MAKA 1982 Cajun 1985 PROLINE 1986 Randall Craft Bass Boat 1989 Action Craft Bayrunner 1989 Beltrum 1990 AMC Fish Hawk 1993 Sea Cat 1993 Welcraft 1994 Silver King 1994 Sunbird Fish & Ski 1995 Chris craft 1996 Seadoo XP 1997 Cobia 214 2005 Hydra-Sport 2005 Rinker 320 85-ton circa 1871 schooner in Maine 87 VIP Sea Squirt 91 Proline 99 Actioncraft/1720SE 99 Chaparral SS Sportboat Action Craft Action Craft Bay Runner Action Craft/Flatsmaster Adventure Craft Alberg Albin Allied Trihull AlumaCraft Aluminum Bass Boat Alumiweld Alura 30 Angler Angler Open Fisherman Angular/Center Console Aqua Sport Aquasport Aquasport 200 Aquasport 22.2 Family Fisherman Aquasport 22-2 Aquasport 225 Aquasport Open Fisherman Aquasport Osprey Aquasport Osprey CC Aquasport TM 290 Aquasport/215 Explorer Arriva Aultra Baja 190 BAJA 272 Bass Attacker Bass boat Bass Tracker Bass Tracker Pro 17 Bass Tracker Pro Team 17 Bass Tracker/1993 Bayliner Bayliner 2705 Bayliner 3270 Bayliner Capri Bayliner Cierra Bayliner Contessa Bayliner Saratoga Bayliner Sun Bridge Bayliner Trophy Bayliner Trophy center console Bayliner Trophy with cuddy cabin Bayliner/Capri Bayliner/Cierra Bayliner/Trophy BENETAU, CC 40 Benetear Oceanis 390 Bennington GS2100 Bertram Bertram Sportfish Cruiser Blackfin 24 Fisherman Blackwatch 24 Blazer Boston Whaler Boston Whaler Dauntless Boston Whaler Jet Boston Whaler Montauk Boston Whaler Outrage Boston Whaler Rampage Boston Whaler Revenge Boston Whaler/ Ventura Boston Whaler/Montauk 17 Buddy Davis Sportsfish Buskin C Hawk C&C Cajun Bass boat Canoe Cape Dory Cape Dory Typhoon Cape Horn Cape Horn Center Console Capehorn Caravelle Center Console Carolina skiff Carver Carver 455MY Carver Montigo Carver, 410 Sport Sedan Casrolina Skiff Sea Chaser Catalina Catalina 22 Catalina 27 Catalina 30 Catalina Sloop Century Century 1800 CC Century 1850 Century 2300 Century 25 Chapparal Chapperall/180SL Checkmate Checkmate Diplomat Chesapeake 17 kayak Chris Craft Chris Craft 230 SL Cuddy Chris Craft Commandore 1970 Chris Craft Cuddy Cabin Chris Craft Motor Yacht Chris Craft Sport Fish Chris Craft walk around cuddy Chris Craft Commander Cigarette Cobalt Cobia 17vbr Cobia bow rider Cobia Center console Cobia Cuddy Cobia Cuddy cabin Cobia Robalo Cobia/WAC Coleman Compac 16 Contender Contenter 25 Contest sloop Correct Craft (Ski Nautique) Correct Craft Dominique Creekcraft CREST Cruisers Inc. Bar Harbor III Cruisers Yachts/Tiara Cruisers, Inc. Sea Devil Cruisers/Aria 3020 Crusader Dixie 821 Dolphin Dolphin open console Donzi Regatta Doral 250 SC Drifter Durbeck Duricraft Croppie (flat bottom) Dusky Dusky 203 Dusky 233 Ebbtide/Mystique Elite Endeavour 32 Fabuglas Runabout Fiesta Fiesta 20

PAGE 78

70Fiesta Pontoon Boat Fisher Fisher Marsh Hawk Fisher outboard FISHERMAN Float boat 20 Florida Skiff Formula Open Fish Four Winns Horizons 210 FourWinns Quest 207 FourWinns Vista Frenzy FunWay Gheenoe Gheenoe Classic Glacier Bay Glasstream Glastron Glastron Bowrider Glastron open bow Godffre Grady White Grady White Trophy Pro Grady White 226 Seafarer Grady White 247 Grady White 247CC Grady White Explorer Grady White Express Grady White Marlin Grady White Offshore Grady White overnighter Grady White Overnighter 20 Grady White Sailfish Grady White Tournament Grady White Voyager 24 Grady White with cuddy cabin Grady White 222 Fisherman Grady-White Grampian Grumman Grumman Sportboat 1950 Gulfstar Hirsh 45 Hans Christians Cutter Rig Harris Float Boat Hatteras Hatteras convertible Hatteras CPMY Hatteras Motor Yacht Herreshoff America Herreshoff Cat HEWES Hewes Bayfisher Hobie Home built P.M. design 1958 Homemade Honda Aquatrax Huckins Neptune Hunter Hunter 212 Centerboard Sailboat Hunter Legend 35.5 Hurricane Hurricane (w/cabin) Hurricane Deck Boat 1999 Hurricane Fundeck HW2 Showboat Hydra sport Hydra_Sport Vector CC Hydrasport Hydrodyne/Grand Sport Hydrosport 475 Hydrosport bass boat Hydrosport VL 185 Hydrosports 260 Hydrostream Vamp Indian River Flats Boat International Skimmer Invader Irvette Irwin Irwin 43 Irwin Sloop Island Gypsy Island Packet Island Packet Cutter Island Packet 27 Islander Johnson Jon Almond Kadey Krogen Kencraft Challenger Kennercraft tunnel hull Key West Key West 1520 Key West 1900 Sportsman Key West Stealth Landau Landau DX 18 Larson Bowrider Lonestar Lowe Lowe Bass Boat Lowe, Landau pontoon Lowe's Lowes pontoon Luhrs Tournament 320 Conv Lund Lund Rebel Lyncraft Center Console m3 MacGregor 25 MacGregor 26 Maine Cat 30 Mainship Sedan Bridge Mako Mako 19 CC Mako 1979 Mako 221 Mako 260 Mako Center console Mako Cudy Mako Flats boat Mako Open Fisherman Malibu 1979 Marathon Marathon Cruiser Marine Trader Trawler Marlin Sport Mastercraft Pro Ski Mastercraft Prostar Mastercraft Tristar Maverick Maxum SR20 McGregor Bruhrs 342 Mistral Sailboard Mitchell Mitchell Bowrider Monarch Alum. Monark Montera Morgan Morgan 1971 Morgan 34 Morgan sloop MTX Nacra Inter 17 Nassau Necky Looksha Nelson Craft (made in Titusville) Oasis Ocean O'Day O'Day 27 O'Day 37 Center Cockpit Offshore Center Console Old Town/Discovery 17 Osborn 1991 Palm Beach 30 Paramount 1987 Parker W.A. Cuddy Parti Kraft Party Craft Party Craft pontoon Pathfinder tunnel hull PDQ Sailing Catamaran Pearson 1972 Pearson 31 Pearson 323 Phantom Phoenix Phoenix Conv. Playbuoy Polar 2300 Center Console Pontoon Starcraft Privateer Pro Line Center Console ProCraft Procraft 1995 Proline Proline 206 Proline 211 Proline 24 Double console Proline 32 Express Cruiser Proline CC Proline Center Console Proline Center-console 18 Pro-Line Cuddy

PAGE 79

71Proline DC Pro-Line DC Proline sport Proline Sportsman Prosport Prosport CC Prosport DC20 Prowler 32 Pursuit Pursuit Open Bow Ranger Ranger 370 Bass Boat Ranger Bass Ranger Bass boat Ranger Commanche Bass Boat Regal Regal 170 Regal 1996 Regal 202 Regal 242 Regal bow rider Regal Cuddy SLR Regal Leisure Cat Regal SS Regal XR2 Regal-World Cat Renken Cuddy Riviera Cruiser Robalo Robalo 1800 Sabre Critchfield Scout Scout 16' Sea Fox Sea Fox Center Console Sea Hunter Sea Myth Sea Nymph Bass Boat Sea Ox Sea Pearl Sea Pro Sea Ray Sea Ray 180OB Sea Ray Bow Rider Series Sea Ray Sundancer Sea Ray Weekender 1994 Sea Wolf Center Console Seabird Seachaser Seacraft Seacraft CC Seacraft Center Console Seacraft Classic SeaCraft Seafari Seadoo Seadoo Explorer Seadoo Sportster Seagull Nautica catamaran Seagull/ Nautico' 14 SeaPro center console Seapro 235 Searay SeaRay Bowrider Searay Express SeaRay Sundancer Searay310 express cruiser Sears John boat SeaVee Seavee 28 cc Shadow Shamrock Shamrock 20 1988 Shamrock Cuddy Shamrock Kingfisher Shamrock Stalker Shoal Cat shrimp boat Silverton Flybridge Skinny Water Speed Craft Speedcraft Sport Craft Sport-Cat 25 Sportcraft 210 Fisherman Sports Craft Starcraft Starrat-Jenks Starwind Stilson 44 Stingray Stratos Stratos Bass Boat Streaker/Blue Water 1700 Stumpknocker Sun Tracker Sunbird Sunbird Quiet Rider Sundowner Sunfish Suntracker 28 Supra Launch SSV Swedish made sloop Sweetwater 2020 Sylvan Sylvan 1990 Sylvan Pontoon TCraft Trophy Tiara Tiberias Tom Sawyer Runabout Topaz Tracker Tracker Pro Deep-V17 Traveler Sea Nymph Tremblay Trojan Trojan Sport Fisherman Trojan Sportfisher FB Trophy Hull Trophy/Bayliner Twin Vee Hawaiian Fisherman U-20 Step Lift Wellcraft Ultimate Concepts catamaran US #1 Hull Velocity Vendeta Victoria Viking Convertible Wahoo Weers Wellcraft Wellcraft Bowrider Wellcraft C190 Center Console Wellcraft Coastal 3300 Wellcraft Open Fisherman Wellcraft Scarab Whiteline WINDROSE Yamaha Yamaha exciter 270 Yamaha/Waverunner FXcruiser

PAGE 80

72 Appendix 8 Makes and models of the vessels in which Survey 2 (vessels 26 feet) respondents spend most of their boating time. Cruiser Yacht Express Powerquest Avenger 1967 Columbia 31 Charles Morgan Design 1977 Columbia 8.7 1979 Ericson 1985 Silverton 1987 Scarab 1989 Donzi Blackwidow 1996 Maxum 1997 Cape Horn 2000 Rinker Captiva 2003 Formula 37 SS 286 Cruisers 2860 WA Pro Sport Action Craft Active Thunder Adventure Craft Albemar 6 Albin Express Cruiser Albin Sundeck Trawler Albin Trawler Alden Alden / Zephyr Aluminum canoe Alwin Vega Aquaglass Fish and Ski Aquasport Aquasport 290 Express Awesome Cat Back Country Baha Weekender Bayliner Bayliner 2655 Cerra Bayliner Ciera Bayliner Ciera 2855 Beneteau 430 Beneteau Oceanis Bertram Bertram 35 Sportfish Bertram 39 Bertram Fly Cruiser Bertram Flybridge Cruiser Bertram Open Fisherman Blackfin Bluewater Coastal Cruiser Boston Whaler Boston Whaler 255 Conquest Boston Whaler Conquest Boston Whaler Outrage Brewer 12.8 Brewer Cutter rig Burger Flush Deck Cruiser C&C 37 sailboat Cabo Fly Bridge CAL Cal 39 Californian Motor Yacht Camper Nicholson Cape Dory Cape Horn Carolina Classic Carroll Marine Tripp 26 Carver Carver 325 Aft Cabin Motor Yacht Carver 350 Mariner Carver 455 Aft Cabin Carver 466 Carver 570 Voyager Pilothouse Carver Aft Cabin Carver Mariner Carver Motor Yacht Carver Voyager Cat Limbo Marine Catalac Catalina Catalina 25 Catalina 27 Catalina 30 Catalina 30 MK II Catalina C 380 Catalina C400MKII Catalina Sloop Celebrity 31 Century Century 2600 Century 2600 WA Chaparral Signature Chapperall Cheoy Lee Ketch Chris Craft Chris Craft 320 Express Chris Craft Catalina Chris Craft Commander Chris Craft Corinthian Chris Craft Fly Bridge Chris Craft Scorpion Cobia 260 Walk-Around Cobia 27 Walk around Cobia CC Cobia Center Console Cobia Fishing boat Coboa CC Columbia 8.7 Columbia Yacht Club Contender Contender 25 Contender 27 Contender 31 Contender 31 Open Contendy Cuddy Contest 29 Corbin Cranchi Atlantique Crownline Cruiser Cruiser Cruisers Inc. Rogue Cruisers Yachts 4450 Cruisers, Inc. 400 Express CSY 44 CSY 44 Cutter CT35 Sundeck Trawler Custom wood ketch DeFever 1990 Donzi Downeast Cutter Edgewater Eggharbor Sport Fisherman Egret Eliminator Daytona Endeavor Cat Ericson Ewin Mark II Express Yachting, Ltd Scout Fairline 52 Squadron Fairline Squadron Formula Formula Thunderbird Fountain Fountain Fever Four Winns Four Winns 328 Vista Freedom Center cockpit Frers Custom Gemini 105 catamaran Glastron Cruiser Grady White Grady White Marlin Grady White Sailfish Grand Banks 36 Grank Banks 36 Grumman Gulfstar Aux Gulfstar Motorsailer Hacker Craft Harbor Master 450 Coastal Hatteras Hatteras 55 SF Hatteras Convertible Hatteras Motor Yacht Hatteras Sedan Cruiser Hatteras Sport Deck Heritage Kayak Hobie Power CC Holiday Mansion Homemade (Replica 1750 Dutch) Horizon 39 Ketch Huckins Sports Cruiser Hunter Hunter 27 Hunter 28.5 Hunter 30 Hunter 31 Hunter 37 Cutter Hunter 43 Hunter 434 Hunter Legend

PAGE 81

73Hunter Sloop Hurricane Hurricane deck boat Hurricane Sun Deck IMP 330 Eleganza Intrepid Intrepid 30 Irwin Irwin 32.5 CC Ketch Irwin 40 Citation Irwin Classic 32 Irwin Ketch Irwin Sloop Island Packet Island Packet 31 Island Packet 38 Jefferson Marlago John Almond Kadey Krogen trawler kayak Krogen Trawler Lancer Lazzara motor yacht Ludens Luhrs Luhrs FlyBridge Cruiser Luhrs Tournament Magnum Marina Mainship Mainship Aft Cabin Mainship III Mainship Mark II Mainship Pilot Mainship Pilot 34 Mainship Trawler Mako 262 Mako 282 Mako Bay Shark Mako CC Mako Open Fisherman Maquit 1963 (one-off) Marina 95 Marine Trader Europa Marine Trawler Marlargo Marlin Matthews Motor Yacht Maverick Maxim Sun Cruiser Maxum 2800 SCR Maxum 3000 SCR Maxum 4600 SCB Meridian Monza Moody Morgan Morgan 1971 Morgan 38 Morgan 382 Morgan Classic 28 Morgan Out Island Morgan Out Island Sloop Morgan Sloop Narutic Star 22 Bay Boat Navigator Classic Neptunus 1995 North American Center Console Novetek Ocean Alexander Ocean Alexander 456 Classico Ocean Yacht Sunliner O'Day Old Town Canoe Pacemaker Sportfish Pacific Seacraft Panga Marine Parker 180 Pathfinder CC PDQ Capella PDQ Powercat/MV34 Pearson 300 Pearson 323 Pearson 35 Pearson Ketch 365 Permacraft Sport Fisher Phinn Schooner Piro Pontoon boat Post/Sportfish Powercat Euphoria President Sundeck Pro Cat ProLine Proline 25 Walk Proline 26 Sport Proline 27 Proline 2950 Proline 2950 Walk ProLine D/C Prosports Prokat Prout Snowgoose Pursuit 2870 WA Pursuit 2870 Walkaround Pursuit 2880 Open Pursuit Offshore 3000 Rampage 31 Express Ranger I91 Regal 2950 Regal Commodore 3060 Regulator 26 Rinker Rinker Fiesta Vee Rinker Fiesta Vee 270 Riviera 2002 Riviera 3000 Rivolta Robalo Robalo 232 Robalo 2330 Royal Commodore 3260 Sea Doos and Tiger Sharks Sea Fox Sea Fox 287 Sea Harvester Sea Pro 1900 Sea Ray Sea Ray 280 Sea Ray 310 Express Cruiser Sea Ray 320 DA Sea Ray 380 Sea Ray 380 AC Sea Ray 390 SDSF Sea Ray 450 Sea Ray Aft Cabin Sea Ray Amberjack Sea Ray Bowrider Sea Ray Bridge Sea Ray Cruiser Sea Ray EC 410 Sea Ray Express Sea Ray Express Bridge Sea Ray Express Cruiser Sea Ray Power Sea Ray Sedan Bridge Sea Ray Sundancer Sea Ray Sundancer 310 Sea Ray Sundancer 33 Sea Ray Sundancer 380 Sea Ray Weekender Sea Sundancer Sea Vee Seadoo 1996 GS model Seafarer sloop Shamrock Silverton Silverton 38c Silverton 392 Silverton 410 Silverton Convertible Sovereign CC Sport Fisherman Stamas 290 Tarpon Stamas Tarpon Stapleton Open Fish Strike Sport fish Striker Sunfish Suntracker Party Hut Tartan Tartan 338 Tartan Piper Tartan Sloop Tartan Standard Tiara Tiara 2700 Open tiara 29 Open Tiara 3100 Tiara 3100 Open Tiara 3300 Open Tiara 35 Express Tiara 3800 Tiara 41 Open Tiara Convertible Tiara Open Tiara Open Express Tiara Pursuit Outboard 2870 Tiera Tiera Open

PAGE 82

74Tracker Party Hut Trawler Triton CC Bass Boat Trojan Trojan 28 FB Sedan Trojan Sport Fish Tullycraft US Yacht 1980 Vega Ventura Venture 34 Viking Sport Fish Viking Sportfish Convertible Watkins Watkins Seawolf 29 Wauquiez Hood 38 Wellcraft Wellcraft 32 Sportsman Wellcraft 400 Wellcraft CC Wellcraft Coastal Wellcraft Excel Wellcraft Scarab Sport Wellcraft SE Wellcraft St. Tropez Wellcraft V 21 Whaler/Outrage Whitewater Whitewater 28 Open World Class Catamaran TE 270