|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 FLORIDA FRESHWATER BOATER AND ANGLERS AWARENESS AND PERCEPTIONS OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES AND ADOPTION OF PREVENTIVE BEHAVIOR S By KATHRYN L. WILSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE GREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Kathryn L. Wilson
3 To water warriors everywhere
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS role in this major milestone. He was the scout that brought me to the other side of the country he has become my biggest supporter, most fantastic mentor, editor extraordinaire, and, best of all, a great friend Big life changes are d ifficult, but with his encouragement I find myself basking in the glow of a very good decision. Thank you for providing me with such a phenomenal opportunity My other committee members made this massive project manageable with their support, passion, and endless encouragement provided an excellent framework for my research. Oh what two innovators can do! It has truly been a pleasure. what a gratifying and immense learning experience you have facilitated I appreciate the time you have dedicated to this project. Thank you for your patience, humor, and love for statistics! Your spirit is contagious. I would like to thank the Florida Fish & Wildli fe Conservation Commission Plant Management Section for funding and providing me the o pportunity to work on this important issue. A special thanks to Bob Wattendorf for promptly answering my many questions. The UF/IFAS Center for Aqu atic & Invasive Plants provided a great environment to work and persevere through this process thank you Amy Richard, Karen Brown, Bobbi Goodwin, Lynda Dillon, Anne Taylor, Jeremy Douglas and Charlie Bogatescu. A special thanks to Dr. Haller and Bobbi Good win for contributing countless hours to facilitating the cash incentive experiment. Without you it would not have been possible.
5 For both scholastic and emotional supp ort, thank you friends I would especially like to thank Melissa Mazurkewicz Emily Ott, Joy Goodwin Quisto Settle and the Richard family Melissa helped me through the difficult process of returning to academia (on a different planet, no less), and I am forever thankful for her loyal friendship, resolute character, and assistance entering da ta! Emily Ott, best mentee and KYS Campaign organizer ever, so happy to happen upon you and your fun or spirit. I will miss our late night water politics To Joy Goodwin, special thanks for your endless patience, kindness, and always lending me an ear and a little wisdom. You will do great things in this world. Quisto Settle, as you know, you are awesome! Thank you for sharing your music, stories, and wit But most of all, thank you for providing much needed comic relief in my moments of mild hy steria. Last but really right close to the top, I would like to thank my fabulous family and Bradley Hunter for believing in me, even when I had do u bts. You are the very best tribe a girl could ask for. Chuck Wilson, though our views may not always align your unshakable confidence, wisdom, and humor run deep and are some of my favorite things in this life. Diane She Ra Wilson, the Pollyanna spirit who never doubts you for a minute and always is there to cheer you on, I adore you You are always with me Bradley Hunter, so happy to have found you; no place like the right time. Looking forward to a lifetime of adventures and excited to begin the next chapter with you.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 LIST OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17 CHAPTER 1 ABOUT INVASIVE SPECIES ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 The Big Picture: Global Invasive Species ................................ ................................ ........... 19 National Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 Aquatic Invasive Species as a Threat to Freshwater Resources ................................ ........... 22 About Aquatic Plants ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 Other Aquatic Invasive Species ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Pathways ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 Recreational Activities as Pathways ................................ ................................ ............ 29 Recreational Boating as a Primary Vector in the Secondary Spread of AIS .................. 31 Florida Freshwater Resources and Recreation ................................ ................................ .... 32 Threats to Florida Freshwater Resources ................................ ................................ ............ 34 Preve ntion: The Importance of Education and Outreach ................................ ..................... 36 Boaters as the Primary Target for Education ................................ ................................ ....... 37 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Significance of Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 2 THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES ................................ 42 Introduction to Models ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43 Theory of Planned Behavior ................................ ................................ ........................ 45 Behavioral beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Normative beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Control beliefs ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Theory of planned behavior related studies ................................ ........................... 47 The Conceptual Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior ................................ 48 Knowledge and awareness of issues ................................ ................................ ..... 49 Knowledge of action strategies (and associated skills) ................................ .......... 50 Locus of control ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 53 Attitudes ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 Individual sense of responsibility ................................ ................................ .......... 56 Situational factors ................................ ................................ ................................ 57
7 Intention ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Responsible Environmental Behavior and AIS ................................ ............................ 60 Other Responsible Environmental Behavior Related Studies ................................ ....... 62 Modifications to the REB Model for Predicting AIS Preventive Behavior .......................... 63 Florida Boaters and Normative Influences ................................ ................................ ... 63 Self Efficacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 64 Educational Campaigns ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 75 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 76 Target Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ............................ 76 Florida Registered Boaters ................................ ................................ .......................... 77 Non Resident Freshwater Anglers ................................ ................................ ............... 78 Pilot and Sample Generation ................................ ................................ ....................... 79 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 80 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 86 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 86 Survey Error ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 90 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 92 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 104 Socio demographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................... 105 Boater and Angler Attitudes towards Aquatic Invasive Species ................................ ........ 109 Boater and Angler Aquatic Invasive Species Related Behavior ................................ ........ 112 Predicting Boater and Angler Adoption of BMPs ................................ ............................. 116 Descriptive Analysis of Open Ended Questions ................................ ............................... 118 5 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ .... 142 Summary and Discussion of Results ................................ ................................ ................. 143 Socio Demographic In formation ................................ ................................ ............... 144 Species and Management Awareness ................................ ................................ ........ 144 Boater and Angler Attitudes towards AIS Issues, Spread and Management ............... 147 Boater and Angler AIS Related Behavior ................................ ................................ .. 150 Predicting Boater and Angler Responsible Environmental Behavior .......................... 152 Limitations of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 154 Assumptions of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 155 Recommendations for Increasing Res ponsible Environmental Behavior ........................... 156 Develop a Well Targeted Educational Campaign ................................ ...................... 156 Test before Launch ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 159 Social Norms Pack a Punch ................................ ................................ ....................... 159 Boat Cleaning/Inspection Stations Provide Equipment and Social Norms .................. 160 Carrot First, Stick Later ................................ ................................ ............................. 160 Control Methods are Contentious ................................ ................................ .............. 161 Signs at Boat Launches as Reminders ................................ ................................ ........ 162
8 Send AIS Information via Boat Registration and Fishing Regulations ....................... 162 Traditional Media Outlets ................................ ................................ .......................... 163 ................................ ........................... 163 They are listening; Utilize Broadcast Media ................................ .............................. 164 Recommendations for Further Inquiry ................................ ................................ .............. 164 Assessments and Comparisons of AIS Education/Prevention Campaigns .................. 165 Importance of Prevention in Management ................................ ................................ 1 66 Sources of Introductions ................................ ................................ ............................ 167 Recommendations for Theory ................................ ................................ .......................... 168 APPENDIX A QUAGGA/ZEBRA MUSSEL DISTRIBUTION MAP ................................ ..................... 170 B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD DOCUMENTATION ................................ .......... 171 C SU RVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ............................... 174 D SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing one: advance letter ................................ .......... 186 E SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing two: cover letter ................................ .............. 190 F SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing three: post card ................................ ............... 195 G SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing four: final cover letter ................................ ..... 197 H RESPONSE RATE BY TREATMENT GROUPS ................................ ............................ 201 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 201 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 217
9 LIST OF TABLE S Table page 3 1 Breakdown of boater and angler populations ................................ ................................ 98 3 2 M easuring boater/angler awareness of AIS issues, spread, and management .................. 98 3 3 Measuring boater/angler attitudes towards AIS issues, spread, and management ............ 99 3 4 Measuring boater/angler AIS preventive behavior ................................ ....................... 100 3 5 ........... 101 3 6 Subscale indices representing BMP Index (dependent variable) ................................ ... 102 3 7 Subscale indices representing Knowledge ................................ ................................ .... 102 3 8 Subscale indices representing Intention (Willingness to Pay) ................................ ...... 102 3 9 Subscale indices representing Attitudes ................................ ................................ ....... 103 3 10 Factor Loadings for Attitude Index ................................ ................................ .............. 103 3 11 Factor Loadings for Laws, Enforcement, and Fines ................................ ...................... 103 4 1 Boat er and Angler Demographics ................................ ................................ ................ 128 4 2 Boater and Angler Radio Station Preference ................................ ................................ 128 4 3 Boater and Angler Radio Communication Meth od Preference ................................ ..... 128 4 4 Trustworthiness of Organizations ................................ ................................ ................ 129 4 5 Boater and Angler Awareness of Specific Species ................................ ....................... 130 4 6 Boater and Angler Awareness of AIS in Visited Waterbodies ................................ ...... 130 4 7 Boater and Angler Awareness of AIS Control Methods ................................ ............... 130 4 8 Boater and Angler Sources for AIS Awareness ................................ ............................ 131 4 9 Sources Most Effective for AIS Related Information ................................ ................... 132 4 10 Boater and Angler Attitudes about AIS Impacts ................................ ........................... 133 4 11 Angler Preference for Fishing Habitat ................................ ................................ .......... 133 4 12 Boater and Angler Preference of AIS Control Methods ................................ ................ 134
10 4 13 Perception of Effective Methods to Help Boater/Anglers Prevent the Spread ............... 134 4 14 Perception of Effective Consequences for Violators ................................ ..................... 134 4 15 Motivators for AIS BMP Adoption ................................ ................................ .............. 135 4 16 S ources/steps Most Effective for Getting Boaters/Anglers to Adopt BMPs .................. 136 4 17 Respondents Reasons for Not Taking Action ................................ ............................... 136 4 1 8 Adoption and Frequency of Boater AIS Preventive BMPs ................................ ........... 137 4 19 Boater and Angler Willingness to Pay for AIS Related Services ................................ .. 137 4 20 Correlations Between Boater/Angler BMP Adoption and Personality Factors, Knowledge of Issues, Knowledge of Action Strategies, Norms and Intention ............... 138 4 21 Linear Regression: Full REB Mo del vs. Reduced REB Model ................................ ..... 139 4 22 Variable Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 140 4 23 Qualitative Analysis of Boater & Angler Comments/Recommendations ...................... 141 H 1 Treatment Groups for Embedded Cash Incentive Experiment ................................ ...... 201
11 LIST OF FIGURE S Figure page 1 1 Pathways of Initial Invasive Species Introductions. ................................ ........................ 41 2 1 Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior relating to Florida boater and angler AIS preventive behavior. ................................ ................................ ............................... 74 A 1 Zebra and Quagga Mussel Sightings Distribution (2012) ................................ ............. 170 H 1 Response Rates per Treatment Group ................................ ................................ .......... 201
12 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AIS Aqu atic Invasive Species BMP S Best Management Practices CAIP UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants CBSM Community Based Social Marketing EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission REB Model of Respo nsible Environmental Behavior TPB Theory of Planned Behavior WTP Willingness to Pay
13 LIST OF TERMS A QUATIC INVASIVE SPEC IES Aquatic species includes both aquatic plant and aquatic animals. Invasive aquatic plants are introduced plants that have adapted to living in, on, or next to water that can grow either submerged or partially submerged. Invasive aquatic animals require a watery habitat, but do not necessarily have to live entirely in water (USDA National Invasive Species Information Center, 2012). ATTIT UDE The combination of beliefs and a positive or negative evaluation of an object, issues, person, or event (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975; Jacobson, 2009). B IODIVERSITY The totality of genes, species and ecosystems in a region. Genetic diversity refers to the variation of genes within species. Species diversity refers to the variety of species within a region. Ecosystem diversity refers to the variety of systems of living things in relationship with their environment within a region. Biodiversity saves the var iation of organism which may one day be of use to humans for medical, agricultural or forestry use (Splash & Hanley, 1995). B IOLOGICAL CONTROL ( AGENT ) Biological control is the use of parasites, predators and pathogens (diseases) to c ontrol pests (Shetlar & Hale, 2008). Biological control is the purposeful introduction of natural enemies by scientists as a means of weakening or suppressing invasive species. Biological control is regulated by the United States Department of Animal and Plant He alth Inspection Service
14 C HEMICAL CONTROL Chemical control in reference to invasive species is most often the use of herbicides. For aquatic plants, chemical control is the application of herbicides directly to aquatic and wetland plants or to the water or soil in which they grow. In Florida, the use of aquatic herbicides is the primary method for managing invasive aquatic and wetland plants such as hydrilla water hyacinth water lettuce torpedo grass and other wide spread and highly invasive aquatic weeds. C OGNITIVE HIERARCHY A pred ictive model that maps values to behaviors and describes and demonstrates relationships among the concepts (Fulton et al. 1996). E NVIR ONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A federal agency created in 1970 to protect human health and the environment. In relation to aquatic invasive species, the EPA regulates the registration, approval, and ultimate application and training in the use of aquatic herbicides. FWC PLANT MANAGEMENT S ECTION A division of the F lorida Fish & W ildlife C ommission that is responsible for coor dinating funding for controlling invasive aquatic and upland plants on public lands and waterways throughout Florida. The section also has a permitting program and funds research E XOTIC I NVASIVE SPECIES An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health Council, 2006). Most invasive weeds in aquatic and natural areas are of foreign (exotic) origin.
15 LO CUS OF C ONTROL A generalized expectation about the characteristics and/or actions and their experien ced outcomes (Rodder, Chance, & Phares, 1972). Locus of of their ability to affect ch ange as a result of their behavior, which can be internal or external (Lefcourt, 1991). M AINTENANCE CONTROL The working philosophy for aquatic and wetland invasive plant control in attempts to keep invasive plants at the lowe st possible levels to minimize herbicide use and environmental impacts. The goals of maintenance control are to reduce invasive plant numbers, reduce herbicide usage, and reduce management and environmental costs (Florida Statute 369.20(2) ) M ECHANICAL CON TROL Mechanical control involves the use of machines, devices, and barriers. These methods are usually non selective and short term. Most often used for aquatic plant control, large machines can cut, chop, or mow plants. In Florida and throughout the U.S. for more than 100 years, plant managers have developed a variety of machines that are specifically designed to shear, shred, crush, or otherwise remove aquatic weeds from waterbodies. P ATHWAY Modes, vectors, or routes in which invasive species can be intr oduced or spread (Lovell & Stone, 2005). PHYSICAL CONTROL Physical control refers to hand pulling or cutting AIS. P lants are sometimes also contro lled by artificial alterations such as water level manipulation, dredging, light barriers and dyes, bott om ba rriers, aeration and fire.
16 P RO ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVI OR Behavior that intentionally seeks to minimize any negative impacts as a and urbanized world (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). S ELF EFFICACY This concept relates to whet her an individual can carry out specific behaviors and action strategies and whether those behaviors will be effective in realizing specific outcomes. Self efficacy is best suited to issues relating to environmental education and pro environmental behavior (Bandura, 1997; Israel, 2002). S UBJECTIVE NORM Subjective norm is the combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or groups along with intentions to comply with the expectations. Ajzen and Fishbein define this as the "person's percept ion that most people who are important to him/her think he/she should or should not perform the behavior in question" (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). V ALUES Within social psychology, values are defined as desirable end states, the manners in which people conduct themselves, or qualities of life held dear (Rokeach, 1973). UF / IFAS CENTER FOR A QUAT IC & I NVASIVE P LANTS A multidisciplinary research, teaching and extension facility created to develop environmentally sound techniques for the management of aquatic and n atural area weed species and to coordinate aquatic plant research activities within the State of Florida. The Center was established in 1978 by the Florida legislature. It is divided into two arms research and information.
17 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science F LORIDA F OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES AND ADOPTION OF PREVENTIVE BEHAVI ORS By Kathryn L. Wilson August 2012 Chair: Tracy Irani Major: Agricultural Education and Communication A quatic I nvasive S pecies (AIS) pose considerable threats to aquatic ecosystems as well as community and state economies. Florida is home to the most registered boaters in North America and is also a destination for many non resident boaters and anglers. As such, it is imperative that managers understand the current level of awareness, perceptions, and behavior o f boaters in or der to best prevent AIS s pread Registered Florida boaters and non resident freshwater angers were surveyed by mail (34% of 4119 responded) to determine their awareness and attitudes towards AIS and the actions they took or would be willing to take in order to prevent the spread of AIS. Respondents believe d While 75% of respondents frequented numerous waterbodies, presenting a higher risk of spreading AIS, 69% indicated that they took preventive action. Bo aters and anglers reported taking action based on "prevent damage to m y boat and equipment". Additiona lly, 75% indicated that they were ke AIS preventive action in the future, signaling a strong intention to act. Respondents suggested that signs at boat launches, AIS information in b oat registration information, fishing regulations, and boater training courses be utilized in order to best
18 encourage them to take action. Preference for consequences for violators ranged between education (32.5%), self regulation (31%), fines (30%) and restrictions (27%). This suggest s that while boaters and anglers care about this issue, they are mixed on the best way to solve the problem. Variables from the Model of Responsi ble Environmental Behavior were evaluated based on their ability to predict whether or not boaters and angl ers adopted AIS preventive Best Management Practices Intention to act, subject ive norms, knowledge of action strategies, and attitudes were found to be the strongest predictors of whether or not boaters and anglers adopted B MPs These factors should be emphasized in the development of an AIS prevention campaign. The campaign should include targeted venues and mandatory boat cleaning and/or inspection stations should also be considered.
19 CHAPTER 1 ABOUT INVASIVE SPECI ES The Big Picture: Global Invasive Species Scientists, academ icians, and industry leaders acknowledge that invasi ve species are one of the most serious environmental threats of the twenty first century (U.S. General Accountability Office, 2002). With economic globalization comes the movement of plants, animals, and other organisms from one part of the world to anothe r through trade, transport, and tourism. While some of these introductions are beneficial, others have mixed impacts that benefit specific groups but cost others and some introductions are detrimental to the ecosystems and the n ative species that depend on them (McNeely, 2001). Exotic plant and animal species are introduced into new environments all the time. Some are known to be valuable such as food and forage crops, but many others cause great harm to native species, public infrastructure, and communiti es in the affected area. Economic enterprises such as agriculture, forestry, power production, fishery resources, and even international trade can be negatively impacted by the introduction and spread of invasive species (Lovell & Stone, 2005). Humans rely native species for food and garden crops and many agricultural practices rely upon the production of non native plants. Most non native species do not cause problems, but a small portion of introduced species do cause significant of problems for humans and animals alike. Once a non native or exotic species is released into natural areas parks, forests, lakes or rivers it can quickly become a problem. I nvasive s pecies are defined as plan species that are non native to t he ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
20 1). A major consequence of invasive species introductions is a los s of biodiversity, or the genetic varia bility that exist among native species that have evolved to inhabit a particular ecological niche (Pimental, 2003). Invasive species are an international problem and are considered to be one of the biggest threats to resource conservation (Coblentz, 1990). As of 2005 there were approximately 50,000 foreign species considered to be invasive in the United States and the number continues to increase (Pimental, Zuniga & Morrison, 2005). Exotic species intro duced into for eign ecosystems are considered by some s cientists Due to increased international trade and travel, geographic boundaries that previously l imited the spread of invasive species are becoming less effective barriers. Transportation routes such as roads, canals, ships, and air travel provide numerous pathways for non native species to overcome geographical boundaries and become established (Rahe l, 2007). See Figure 1 1 for a depiction of invasive species introductions. Recreational activities such as gardening exotic pet ownership fishing, hunting, and boating also have a major role in the introduction and spread of non native species (Kubeck, 2008). National Impacts Economic losses in the U.S. due to invasive species are estimated to be over $120 billion annually in damages and losses, which equates to approximately $1100 per household (Pimental et al. 2005). The Office of Technology Assessmen Non have caused economic or ecological harm and estimated $97 137 billion dollars in cumulative costs to forestry, fisher ies, water uses, utilities, natural areas, and agriculture (USOTA, 1993).
21 The costs of control or, where possible, eradication are alone estimated to be greater than $9 billion annually in the United States (Pimental, 2003). This estimate includes $5.4 bi llion on fish, $1 billion on Dreissenid mussels, $1 billion on Asian clams, and more than $500 million on aquatic plants (Pimental, 2003). Invasive aquatic and riparian plants known as oosestrife, melaluc a, and h ydrilla) are conservatively estimated to cost over $100 million annually in control costs alone ( USOTA 1993). With the rise in global trade over the past 200 years, there are links to exponential increases in invasive species invasions ( Ericson, 2 005). Of the more than 50,000 exotic species established in the United States, about one in seven has become invasive, causing adverse economic, environmental or human health impacts (Evans, 2003). Nearly 25 percent of U.S. agricultural production is lost to invasive species each year, and many private landowners experience lower property values and/or mitigation costs. I n addition, invasive species place federally listed (as endangered or threatened) species at a higher risk for extinction, since 42 perce impacted by invasive species competition or predation ( Pimental, 2003 ). A related study found that invasive plants, animals, and fungi are second only to habitat loss and degradation in terms of end angering native plant species (Wilcove, Rothstein, Dubow, Phillips & Losos, 1998). Lodge et al. (2006) provide d an evaluation of current U.S. national policies and practices in relation to invasive species introductions and spread. This study concluded th at invasions are increasing in number, size of the area affected, and damage to ecosystems, economies, and human welfare. The authors advise that the situation will continue to escalate without a collaboration of federal, state, and local leadership workin g on detecting new invasions and
22 responding quickly by controlling the spread of existing invasions This also includes ensuring coordinated and cost effective prevention and control efforts (Lodge et al. 2006). Aquatic Invasive Species as a Threat to Fre shwater Resources Freshwater resources are an integral part of human existence. As such, people are dependent on freshwater not only for drinking and po t able uses, but also for irrigating food and forage crops, recreation and leisure, and sustaining habita ts of native fish and wildlife. The greatest threats to freshwater resources include depletion (quantity) and pollution (quality). Another serious threat to freshwater, particularly surface waters, is the introduction and spread of invasive species and sub sequent loss of biological diversity ( Coblentz, 1990; Carlton & Geller, 1993; Vitousek, 1994). These non native species are sometimes moved naturally (e.g. by birds and storm events), but more commonly are spread by humans (Rahel, 2007). Rivers, canals, e stuaries, and harbors are particularly prone to introductions of non native species as a consequence of being focal points for activities that represent the major vectors for introductions such as s hipping and boating (Carlton & Geller 1993 ; Ruiz et al. 2000 ), aquaculture (Naylor Williams & Strong, 2001 ), aquarium trade (Padilla & Williams 2004 ) and the sale of live seafood and bait (Chapman Miller & Coan, 2003 ). Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are introduced primarily by trade and transport (aquarium releases, exotic pet releases, ballast tank discharge, horticultural plants, live food and bait, water gardens, etc.) and are most common ly spread by recreational boats and other equipment (Scales & Bryan, 1979; Dove & Malcolm, 1980; Dove & Wallis, 1981; Dove & Taylor, 1982; Johnstone et al. 1985; Joyce, 1992; Mosisch & Arthington, 1998; Bucha n & Padilla, 1999; Johnson Ricciardi & Carlto n ., 2001). Some of these activities that result in the introduction of non native species are intentional, bu t most are inadvertent (Keller & Lodge, 2007). Figure 1 1 depicts the pathways in which invasive species are initially introduced.
23 Because these e xotic species lack the predators from their native areas to keep them in check, and because they are known to grow quickly and reproduce abundantly when introduced, t hey pose great risks to native plants and wildlife dependent on balanced ecosystem s (Rockw ell, 2003). In many s ituations they also threaten public safety (flood control), local economies, livelihoods, recreation, water supply, water quality, and even property values (Rockwell, 2003). Circuna, Meyerson and Gutierrez (2004) noted that inland e cosystems are especially vulnerable to invasive species invasions and that given projected human population growth and associated use of freshwater, immediate action is needed to protect water resources and maintain survival of native species. In addition, since there are fewer methods available for the control of invasive species in freshwater aquatic ecosystems than terrestrial systems, eradication and control are difficult at best (Circuna et al. 2004). Once introduced into an ecosystem, dispersal of AI S may be easier in interconnected freshwater systems than the spread of their terrestrial counterparts (Lodge et al 1998). About Aquatic Plants A diversity of a quatic plants provide important benefits to native fish and wildlife, and to the littoral, or shallow, areas of waterbodies. They stabilize soils, which protects water quality slows erosion, and provides diverse fish and wildlife habitat, particularly for many species of juveni le fish and associated invertebrates (Madsen, 2009). Unfortunately, non native plants that are introduced to waters outside of their native ranges often become a nuisance by hindering human uses of water resources and limiting the ecological benefits of the native plant species they replace (Madsen, 2009). Many of these invas ive aquatic plants can form dense canop ies on the surface of the water which allows them to capture more light energy than is available near the bottom. These dense plant colonies interfere with human uses such as recreation and water intakes, increase flo oding risk and shade out lower growing
24 native species Exotic plants can also be significantly more productive than native species, which can lead to increases in the rate of nutrient loading in the system, a serious concern in Florida where freshwater sys tems already have high background levels of nutrients due to naturally rich soil and geologic conditions (National Academy of Sciences, 2012). These dense colonies of invasive plants also have negative impacts on fish and the quality of their habitat. Den se plant beds provide a hiding place for very small forage fish, which can reduce the ability of predatory fish (such as bass and northern pike) to capture their prey. Consequently, this can lead to a large number of small, stunted forage fishes and poor p roduction of game fishes (Madsen, 2009). In addition, the amount of dissolved oxygen under dense plant canopies can be insufficient to support the more desirable fish species and may result in fish kills, especially during summer months when temperatures r ise and the water contains less oxygen Hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata ) beds may provide improved habitat for some warm water fish species such as largemouth bass, but once the stands grow into a dense monoculture, the same fish species can be negatively impacted (Co lle, Shireman, Haller, Joyce & Canfield, 1987). Extensive stands of dense hydrilla have been reported to limit boat access and navigation as well as bank access for anglers in Florida. When plant coverage exceeded 80 percent of a central Flor ida lake, angler use decreased drastically, which resulted in a 90 percent loss in revenue from the sport fishery, which wa s valued at nearly $1 million annually (Colle et al. 1987). Non native aquatic plants are thought to have been introduced into the U .S. as early as the 16 th c entury (Schmitz et al. 1991). The issue of aquatic invasive plants received national attention w hen water hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ) was introduced and became a wide spread
25 problem in the southeast in the 19 th c entury (Rockw ell, 2003). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( US FWS) estimated the loss of fish and wildlife due to just two aquatic invasive plants water hyacinth and alligatorweed ( Alternanthera philoxeroides ) to be over $20 million by the end of the 1940s ( Lynch, Kin g, Chamberlain & Smith, 1947). Hydrilla was introduced to Florida in the 1950s and has since become the most serious invasive aquatic plant in the state, partly because it spreads by fragmentation the natural and accelerated breaking off of plant fragment s that start new plant colonies and is difficult and costly to control (Rockwell, 2003; W.T. Haller, personal communication, April 18, 2012). Shortly after hydrilla was introduced in Florida, Huser (1968) estimated that $2 million in AIS control efforts in central and southern dam age increased land use, recreation, fish and wildlife, and navigation. Today, the impacts from invasive plants, particularly hydrilla in F lorida, are fairly well documented and remain costly to control. Such species place both the recreational and commercial resources of a lake and associated community at risk (Bell, 2005). Aquatic invasive plants can have impacts not only on aquatic ecosyst ems and the abundance of native species, but also use of water resources, which is important to local and state economies as well as private individuals. For example, Horsch and Lewis (2009) found that the presence of Eurasian milfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatu m ) in residential lakes in Wisconsin decreased property value by up to 13 percent. In South Carolina, dense infestations of h intake screens caused a $4 million loss in hydropower generation which also resulted in the largest fish kill incident in the state (Kirk & Henderson, 2006).
26 Other Aquatic Invasive Species Beyond aquatic invasive plants, there are many other AIS species including fish, mollusks, snails, and parasites One of the most detrimental AIS in North America ar e the Dreissenid mussel s pecies Native to the Black and Caspian Seas, Quagga mussels ( Dreissena bugensis) and zebra mussels ( Dreissena polymorpha ) were first discovered in the 1980s in the Great Lakes and have provided the perfect scary poster child for invasive species in North America. A freshwater mollusk known for its extensive nutrient filtering capacities ( phytoplankton, suspended particulates ), these mussels attach to substrates and reproduce to form dense populations. The removal of nutrients by these exotic mussels decreases the food source for zooplankton, therefore altering the food web. Water clarity increases and the greater light penetration can caus e a proliferation of aquatic plants that can change species dominance and alter the entire aq uatic ecosystem (ISDA, 2012). Quagga and zebra mussels are commonly found on boat trailers, props, and hulls and have quickly spread across the nation. These mussels have driven much of the invasive species awareness campaigns that exist today due to the serious nature of their impacts including those to water quality; native species biodiversity; beaches; infrastructure such as piers, docks, pilings, and ports; water treatment plants; irrigation pipes; increases in drinking water costs; and damage to indi vidual boats and equipment (Benson, Richerson, Maynard Larson & Fusaro, 2012). standing water such as engine cooling water, ballast water, and live or ba it wells (Johnson, Ricciardi & Carlton, 2001). For this reason, merely inspecting the boat and removing plants or debris is not enough; hot water (over 140 degrees) is needed to kill mussels and the boat must be drained of standing water and thoroughly dried befor e safely launching in another waterbody.
27 In the Great Lakes region alone, where most introductions are linked to commercial shipping and ballast water releases, it is estimated that as much as $500 million is spent annually for mitigation and control of in vasive Dreissenid mussels. This f igure includes increased costs of drinking water facility treatment (ISDA, 2012). The New Zealand mud snail ( Potamopyrgus antipodarum ) is a highly invasive freshwater species with tremendous reproductive potential. It can overtake and degrade entire ecosystems through its competition with native invertebrates for habitat and food sources. Much like other AIS, these mud snails have no natural predators and reproduce rapidly; they can survive up to 50 days in damp areas and a re known to be spread largely by anglers and other human vectors (National Park Service, 2003; Proctor et al. 2007). In Florida, invasive Island apple snails ( Pomacea insularum ) likely introduced as a result of an aquarium release, are also cause for con cern. First discovered in Lake Okechobee in 1987, the Island apple snail population has expanded exponentially in the subsequent 10 years (FWC, 2006). Although there is not extensive documentation of the impacts associated with the Island apple snail, they are a direct competitor (for food) of the native Florida apple snail ( Pomacea paludosa ) and eat native aquatic plants. Native snail populations have declined in population since the introduction of invasive apple snails which presents a risk for the endan gered snail kite ( Rostrhamus sociabilis ) whose primary forage is the native apple snail ( Catt au, Martin & Kitchens, 2010 ). Pathways Invasive species may enter a new region by three different means: 1) the importation of a commodity, 2) the arrival of a transport vector and 3) natural spread from a neighboring region where the species is itself alien All of these can either be intentional or, most commonly, unintentional introductions (Hulme et al. 2008).
28 Pathways for the introductions of AIS are mo st frequently transportation and commercial related pathways involving trade and transport (Keller & Lodge, 2007). These include ballast water releases from maritime commerce and shipping (Carlton & Gellar, 1993); fish bait buckets a nd live wells of boats (Ludwig & Le itch, 1996); shipments of fish and plants for aquaculturalists, aquarium hobbyists, and water gardeners ( Courtenay & Stauffer 1990; Schmitz et al. 1991 ); live seafood shipments (Chapman et al. 2003); canals and connected waterway dispersal; and recreational activities involving boating (Rothlis berger, Chadderton, McNulty & Lodge, 2010; Murry, Pakhomov & Therriault, 2011 ). The aquarium trade is known to be a significant source of non native plant introductions, and few regulations exist t o curb the problem (Cohen, Mirotchnick & Leung, 2007). Methods for disposal of aquarium plants, snails, and fish tend to range from depositing them on the lawn or garden ( low risk of invasion) to disposing of water into outdoor ponds, storm water drains, lakes, or rivers ( very high risk of invasion). Cohen et al. (2007) conducted a study on the St. Lawrence Seaway in Quebec to quantify invasive plants introduced by the aquarium trade and found that thousands of non native plant propagules (any part of the plant capable of growth) are introduced to the St. Lawrence River each year by the Montreal aquarium trade alone. Water gardens are also a source of invasive species introductions. Kay and Hoyle (2001) found that mail and e commerce exacerbated the in tro duction of non native plants and reported that twelve highly invasive aquatic plants some of which are prohibited by federal law, were intentionally sold by wetland nurseries and water garden dealerships (Kay & Hoyle, 2001). Keller and Lodge (2007) noted that most plants and animals sold by n urseries and exotic pet suppliers were identified by common name only, so consumers even if knowledgeable, cannot
29 be certain what species they are receiving because misidentification is common. They also found that 90 percent of plant orders arrived contaminated with unordered live organisms (Keller & Lodge, 2007). Much like the aquar ium introductions, these results clearly show that stronger enforcement of laws and an intensive education and outreach effort are needed to prevent further introductions of invasive species through the aquatic and wetland plant industry (Kay & Hoyle, 2001; Keller & Lodge, 2007). Aquaculture (the farming of marine and freshwater organisms such as fish, mollusks and plants) is also a potenti al source of AIS introductions. Naylor, Williams, and Strong (2001) reported that aquaculture worldwide AIS introductions Though the overall risks of introductions are not well understood, there are some established introduct ions of mussels, oysters, and clams are examples showing that live seafood shipments and aquaculture are significant AIS pathways (Chapman et al. 2003). Commercial boating and transport poses great risks to the environment. Over 21 billion gallons of ballast water containing thousands of non native species are discharged into U.S. waters each year ( Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force, regulation of the federal government to prohibit species that may become invasive and as such, present a high level of risk to American environmental resources ( Fowler, Lodge & Hsia, 2007). Since this law is weakly enforced and not inclusive, state govern ments are often responsible for preventing new non native and potentially dangerous species from being introduced. Recreational Activities as Pathways R ecreational activities most likely t o transport non native species are gardening, hunting hiking, fish ing, and boating (Kubeck, 2008). G ardeners need to be aware of known and potential invasive plants to protect native and en dangered plants and animals (Johnson, Bossenbroek &
30 Kraft, 2006). Since many aquatic plants that become invasive are introduced as a result of the water garden and/or aquarium trade, it also important that p roblem plants are identified so gardeners and aquarium enthusiasts understand the proper way to dispose of them The recommended disposal approach is to encourage aquarium owners to pour aquarium wastes directly onto gardens or lawn since invasion risk from this action is minimal (Duggan, 2010). Hunters and hikers provide secondary spread of invasive species on their clothing and gear and b o aters pose a risk to water resources by t he accidental transport of non native organisms carried in bilge water, live wells, bait buckets, and engines (Johnson et al. 2001). Plants and some animals, such as Dreissenid mussels (quagga and/or zebra mussels) can attach to props, outboard engines, a nd trailers. Anglers can introduce AIS by intentionally stocking fish species, using and/or disposing of live bait in surface waters, or carrying standing water in live wells or coolers and disposing of it in other waterbodies (Schantz, 2005) Examples of introductions as a result of anglers irresponsible introductions include New Zealand mudsnails and rusty crayfish ( Orconectes rusticus ) New Zealand mudsnails have been spread throughout North America by anglers through transport on fishing rods, boots, an d waders (Raloff, 1999). Movement of an invasive species by human activities (e.g. boating, fishing, recreational (Johnson et al. 2001; 1996 ; Murry et al. 2011 ). Ultimately, the severity and success of secondary s pread determines the scale of ecological and economic impacts of an invasive species (Lodge et al. 1998). Transient recreational boating and commercial boating in particular, is now c ommonly perceived by scientists policy makers, ma nagement agencies as t he primary means by which AIS are transported and spread (Johnson et al. 2001).
31 Recreational Boating as a Primary Vector in the Secondary Spread of AIS W ater based recreation has led to increased anthropological pressure on freshwater environments with p hysical, chemical, and biological impacts being documented where motorized activities on lakes and rivers occur frequently ( Mosisch & Arthington, 1998). Aside from its potential to change waterbody characteristics, recreational boating is also known to be a major vector for the unintentional transpo rt of aquatic plants (Scales & Bryan, 1979; Dove & Malcom, 1980; Dove & Wallis, 1981; Dove & Taylor, 1 982; Johnstone et al. 1985; Joyce, 1992; Puth & Post, 2005; Murray et al. 2011). Trailered boats are also the most effective transport vector of Dreissenid mussels, which are frequently found attached to or mixed in with aquatic plants (Johnson & Pad illa, 1996; Schneider, Ellis & Cummings, 1998; Johnson et al. 2001). A quatic weeds with attached live zebra musse ls were observed i n the Great Lakes region on one of every 275 boats in parking lots while owners were preparing to launch int o un infested lakes (Johnson & Carlton, 1996). Small watercraft that are towed on trailers are known to be the primary vectors in the secondary spread of aquatic plants and animals (R othlisberger et al. 2010). T he distinct possibility exists that every time a boat is transported overland after use in an AIS infested waterbody, it will also be transporting AIS to un invaded waterbodi es (Rothlisberger et al. 2010). Spiny water fleas (Muirhead & MacIsaac, 2005), Eurasian watermilfoil (Buchan & Padilla, 2000) as well as quagga and zebra mussels (Leung et al. 2004) have no doubt been transported by trailered watercraft. A recent Lak lakes being sequentially invaded once an AIS specie s was present in Lake Huron, which is directly related to the magnitude of boat traffic from invaded sources (MacIsaac, Borbe ly, Muirh ead & Graniero, 2004). B uchan and Padilla (1999) report ed on survey results of registered
32 boaters to estimate dispersion rates of zebra mussels. They found that few in state boaters traveled long distances with their boats, however, there is stil l great risk to ar ea waterbodies once a species is introduced s ince it is highly likely that it will be spread to all areas that boaters frequent. This study of boaters recommen ded that management efforts such as prevention and education focus on high freq uency long distance boaters as well as regions with the highest volume of boater traffic and most registered boaters (Buchan & Padilla, 1999). S mall watercraft were also reported to be the highest AIS risk in British Columbia because they can travel long di stances making them ideal for fouling species quagga and zebra mus sels (Murray et al. 2011). The Murray et al. (2011) study demonstrated that secondary spread of AIS is likely attributed to recreational boating and to date, there is very little education, management or policy directed at limiting the intro duction and spread of AIS by re creational boaters T he spread of five aquatic invasive plants in New Zealand was reported to be asso ciated with boating and fishing. H uman water activities are primarily responsible for the spread of AIS, not birds, wildlife, or wind, as occasionally suggested (Johnstone, Coffey & Howard Williams, 1985). This study also reported boats that came out of launch area s infested with weeds were muc h more likely to be exiting the water with attached macrophytes compared to launches that were weed free (Johnstone et al. 1985). Florida Freshwater Resources and Recreation There are over 12.8 million registered boats in the United States and Florida le ads the nation with nearly one million registered boaters and an estimated 300,000 visitors who bring their boats to the state annually ( (National Marine Manufacturers Association, 2000; Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2010). In 20 06, f reshwater sport fishing in Florida provided recreational opportunities for over 1.1 million residents (over age 16) and more
33 than a quarter million non residents. This generates an annual economic return of more than $2.4 billion (Wattendorf, 2006). Florida has an estimated 2.5 million acres of freshwater resources which include nearly 8000 lakes and 1400 rivers and str eams Since funding for aquatic plant control in Florida is partially derived from motor boat and commercial boat registrations, the connection between boating and vectors for AIS transport is already established, particularly for recreational boaters /anglers who travel to participate in fishing tournaments. Though economic benefits of boating can be difficult to quantify, it has been shown to play a significant role within state economies. Florida is a major destination for boaters and anglers. Boaters use inland, coastal and brackish waters for fishing and other kinds of recreation, and out of state travel to Florida from elsewhere, including recreational boats t raile red on highways, is also pervasive (Hayward & Estevez, 1997). Florida currently ranks first in the nation for the most in state registered anglers (2.8 million), highest angler expenditures ($4.4 billion), as well as the generation of $440 million in state and local taxes generated by sport fishing (Wattendorf, 2006). Of the 2.8 million anglers fishing in Florida in 2006, 1.9 million were residents and 0.9 million were non residents or tourists. Anglers averaged 17 fishin g da ys per year for a total of 24 million days spent in freshwater by 1.4 million anglers and 23 million days were spent on saltwater by 2 million anglers (Wattendorf, 2006). Non resident anger s spent over $1 billion annually in direct retail sales, not including pe ripheral tourism revenues (USFWS 2006). The state with the second highest non resident angler spending is Wisconsin, with only half of the direct retail sales reported for Florida (USFWS, 2006). For this reason, Florida has developed a reputat
34 sed by these non resident expenditures (FWC, 2010). Lake Okeechobee alone contributes over $32 mill value (Hayward & Estevez, 2007). While economic data are often hard to compare due to different assessment methods, it is clear that fishing and boating is a major economic activity in Florida Threat s to Florida Freshwater Resources T here were more than 1300 non native plant species established in Florida in 2007 124 of which are considered to cause harm or risk to natural areas. These species are classified by the Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council (2007) as Category I (invasive exotics which alter native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with native s peci es) or Category II ( invasive exotic s pecies that has increased in abundance or frequency but have not y et al. tered Florida plant communities to the sa me extent as Category I species ). One specific concern about AIS is their effect engaging in recreational activities (Adams Bucamm L ee & Hodges, 2010). Aquatic invasive plants in Florida can quickly cover the entire surface of lakes and rivers d uring summer months making access difficult for boaters, swimmers and other users, eventually leading to reduced recreational use. In 2007, floating water hyacinth and water lettuce, and 79 percent were infested with hydrilla (F lorida D ept. of E nvironmental P rotection, 2007). Negative economic impacts (loss of recreation and t considerable if not for control efforts, which are a constant and growing drain on scarce public resources (Glisson 1994).
35 Invasive aquatic plants infest over 93 percen t of the 439 public lakes and rivers inventoried in 2008 in Florida. Public freshwater resources comprise 1.26 million acres of freshwater where fishing alone is valued at more than $2.5 billion annually providing approximately 23,500 jobs (FWC, 2008). Th e F lorida Fish & W ildlife Conservation C ommission (FWC) estimates that Florida freshwater generates approximately $55 million each year in state sales and motor fuel tax revenue ( FWC, 2012 ). In Florida, 20 30 million dollars are spent each year on the cont rol of aquatic invasive plants (FWC, 2008). Due to th e subtropical climate and long growin g season AIS present considerable challenges to management agencies, outdoor enthusiasts, anglers, and the many native species that have evolved to live in this envir onment over time. Also, organized competitive sport fishing has been a steadily increasing use of water resources for the past 20 years. In a national survey of sport fishing, Schramm et al. (1991) found that competitive fishing tournaments or derbies wer e reported in all surveyed states Those who frequently participate in competitive sport from one waterbody to another. Due to the nature of fishing tournaments, particularly in fishing tes (such as Florida), there is mounting concern that anglers who participate in out of state derbies and tournaments present a much higher risk of transporting AIS. There were an estimated 7500 freshwater fishing tournaments held in Florida in the three y ears between 2009 2011 (B. Wattendorf personal communication March 21, 2012). Given the number of AIS present in Florida waterways, non resident anglers who travel with their boats to p articipate in them to their home sta te s The risks occur both ways, s ince it is also possible that non resident anglers could also introduce new AIS to Florida waters.
36 While Florida currently does not have Dre isse nid mussels, t he ecological an d eco nomic impacts in other states would be expected to occur in Florida. Hayward and Estevez (1997) studied the suitability of Florida freshwaters for zebra mussel invasion and reported that there is a high likelihood that mussels will reach north Florida and a moderate likelihood that they will reach south Florida. The St. Johns River and Lake Okeechobee were noted as being susceptible to mussel invasion given their low a cidity and high mineral content. The authors assert that educational programs held the mos t promise for prevention of zebra mussel in troductions to Florida. Since this 1997 report was published, Dreissenid mussels have spread to many others states in rapid succession ( see Appendix A for curren t map of mussel infestation ). Lee, Adams and Rossi (2007) conducted a study on economic impacts of a zebra mussel introduct ion on Lake Okeechobee and reported that the expected net economic impact from zebra mussels is well over $240 million over a 20 year period Other r esearch provides evidence for prev introduction of invasive mussels is likely, coupled with their potential to induce severe economic and environmental damage and the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of er adication (Lee et al. 2007). Lake Okeechobee is a very popular destination for both Florida and non resident anglers and is host to several large scale fishing tournaments each year. Out of state boaters present a high risk because they are the most likel y vectors for transporting invasive mussels to Lake Okeechobee (Lee et al. 2007). Adams (2007) found that there are several fishing tournaments and organization s that draw participants from the entire United S tates Canada, and even from international loc ations Prevention: The Importance of Education and Outreach A survey of invasive species management and prevention programs in the 50 states would yield vast and highly variable results. Some states focus on containing or even, where possible,
37 eradicatin g what they already have, whereas others spend resources on prevention and education to limit new introductions. There is no universal policy and only recently have geographical regions begun to address their common problems. States that target outreach an d educationa l campaigns towards boaters tend to have a greater chance of preventing introductions and secondary spread of AIS, as well as increasing public knowledge and understanding of AIS management efforts (Jensen, 2010). The level of prevention and e ducation regarding AIS varies greatly from state to state. Within the last five years, many states, such as Maine, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado have implemented or entering boat launches. These programs also have a strong educational component, with communication campaigns and widely utilized logo and taglines. Other states, such as Oregon have initiated educational programs with voluntary boat inspections. Some states, such as Florida, focus more on control efforts than education and have minimal prevention programs Targeting boats that are traveling from one waterbody to another or between states is known to be an effective way to stop, curb, or at least slow t he spread of AIS in North America. Boaters as the Primary Target for Education It is well documented that recreational boaters are the most likely mode of AIS secondary spread (Johnson, 2001; Jensen, 2010; Murray et al. 2011). Boaters are a user group ide ally suited to the spread of AIS, yet have not been specifically targeted for AIS education/outreach in Florida. Preve ntion and education may reduce the number and severity of introduct ions and secondary spread, and could save the state of Florida money ne eded for control efforts. A concentrated outreach campaign targeting freshwater boaters and anglers could increase public awareness of AIS issues and management as well as encourage desired AIS preventive behaviors.
38 Florida registered boaters who boat primarily on freshwater (lakes, reservoirs, rivers, springs, and streams) in Florida are stakeholders in the AIS issue; assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in regard to AIS could provide critical information to management agencies on how to most effectively develop and disseminate a communication campaign targeting the biggest user group in the state. Out of state freshwater anglers who purchase fishing licenses for three days, a week, or on an annual basis present a significant risk of bring ing new introductions into the state. Alternately, they could also (along with Florida registered boaters who travel out of the state with their boats) move AIS to ot her states or provinces. A communication campaign that identifies and explains current AI S issues in Florida could be beneficial to the general public, but boaters and anglers, given their direct connection to freshwater resources and AIS spread should be considered the Florida boaters understand that AIS is a problem and are knowledgeable of the steps that they can take to limit or stop the spread of AIS, they might be more likely to adopt those behaviors. Targeting non resident anglers would also be beneficial in protecting Florida lakes and rivers. Understan ding the issue and knowing there is something they can do to help that is within their communication techniques and modes of engaging stakeholders in AIS issues could b e beneficial to agencies combating the introduction, secondary spread, and public awareness of AIS. Purpose and Objectives This tudes of AIS issues, spread, and management. Spe cifically, the objectives of this research are to assess the following : resident freshwater anglers awareness of AIS issues management, and vectors for spreading;
39 Attitudes regarding AIS issues, spread, and management on behalf of Florida boaters and non resident freshwater anglers; issues and spread; and F actors that predict boater and angler AIS preventive behaviors (BMPs). Significance of Research The data collected in this study will provide information to management agencies regarding the Florida accessing information on AIS. In addition, it will assess potential predictors of boater and angler behavior and adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in relation to AIS prevention, information that can lead to well informed management and outreach p rogram s that will best target key stakeholders in both content and communication channels. I Invasive Plant Management Section manages invasive species and will benefit from increased knowledge about boater and angler awareness and perceptions of AIS. The Florida Statutes authorize the FWC to direct the control of noxious aquatic so as to protect human health, safety, and recreation and, to the greatest degree practicable, prevent injury to plant (2). Since $20 30 million is spent annually on the control of aqu atic invasive plants in Florida by FWC alone, i t can be inferred that AIS present s ignificant risks and problems in Florida waterbodies (FWC, 2008). Management agencies struggle with fundi ng issues, management decisions stakeholder desires, and perceptions of the general public. The management of AIS has been compared to that of prescribed burns, programs that focus on prevention of serious fires or maintenance can be difficult for the publi c to understand. The FWC has historically utilized a program for AIS known keep invasive species at the lowest feasible levels that technology, funding and current conditions C
40 2008). However, if invasive species, and plants in particular, present gre at risks to the public, but the public never sees AIS get that bad because they are maintained regula rly the public might wonder if AIS are tru ly a significant issue ( Jeff Schard t FWC, personal communication December 2012 ). Boaters and anglers may have more experience, knowledge and attitudes of the i mpacts and risks posed by AIS and they have been implicated in the dispersal of AIS for some time (G riffiths, Schloesser, Leach & K ovalak, 1991; Johnson et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2006). Traveling boaters w ithout an awareness of AIS introductions and impacts present a high r isk to all freshwater resources, not just in the ir resident state but also to other destinations throughout N orth America. T his survey and assessment will also provide recommendations for outreach approaches and the most effective communication channels. In a time of government deficits and reduced public spending, identifying effective pathways for communicatin g with key stakeholders is crucial. I t will be po ssible to create an educational campaign by targeting appropriate audiences conservation issues, reinforce positive social norms, teach new ski lls, and foster support for
41 Figure 1 1. Pathways of Initial Invasive Species Introductions. [Reprinted with permission from Hulme et al. 2007. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: A framework for integrating pathways into policy. (p. 406, Figure 2) Journal of Applied Ecology 45 ].
42 CHAPTER 2 THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES Human d imensions research related to conservation and the environment presents a wealth of l theoretical framework for this study consists of behavioral theories often utilized in human dimensions and conservation research due to their focus on knowledge and atti tudes in regard to practice and behavior. While several theories are used in environmental behavior studies this research model draws specifically from responsible environmental behavior and the theory of planned behavior. This study focused on boate r and angler behavior in regard to the spread of AIS, but explored other constructs such as awareness and attitudes. Human dimensions research posits that conservation issues are also human issues (Jacobson, 1998). Effective communication can bridge the gap bet ween what people do not wildlife management problems start as biological problems, but eventually become people ldlife management problems are socially defined as such. Effective communicatio n and education can ultimately lead to changes in behavior that help protect and conserve our native fish and wildlife (Jacobson, 1998). If AIS issues become (or be seen as) mor e salient and relevant to the public, the chances of stakeholders adopting behaviors that prevent the spread of AIS will greatly increase. Assessing Florida boater and non regarding AIS issues, spread, a nd management is intimately c onnected to the human dimension aspects of conservation and wi ldlife research. T he AIS issue is as much a human issue as a biologica l one in regard to introduction and spread, as well as perceptions of the problem and knowledge of the various management options
43 Jensen (2010) evaluated the level of AIS knowledge and awareness of boaters in four regions of the United States (Northwest, Midwest, Great Plains, and Northeast) and found that effective AIS outreach can motivate boate rs to act. The study also demon strated that if outreach is a pri ority, is consistent, directed through appropriate channels, and frames the value of personal actions effective at preventing AIS spread, boaters will be more likely to understand AIS issues a nd act more responsibly In order to adequately address the multitude of impacts associated with AIS, effective educational campaigns should be developed and implemented. Behavio ral theory and models are very useful tools in understanding why people chose to take action (or not) and the best ways in which to reach stakeholders with messages that are salient, targeted, and capable of influencing behavior. Introduction to Models Many early environmental behavior al studies assumed that knowledge was a necessa ry pre attitude (Chaffee & Roser, 1986; Zimmermann, 1996). While this assumption was considered valid for many years more recent studies have argued against the direct link between knowle dge and attitude. Recent studies contend that the link is often not always strong enough to effect desired be havioral changes (Frick, Kaiser & Wilson, 2004; Hwang, Kim & Jeng 2000; Oskamp, 2002). Moreover it has repeatedly been found that knowledge alone does not necessarily translate into behavior (Rothlisberger et al. 2010; Zhong, 2007; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Hwang et al. 2000; McKenzie Mohr, 2008 ). The Theory of Planned Behavior has been used in many previous studies regarding environmental attitud es and subsequent behaviors ( Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior is based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, but adds knowledge of issues, action strategies, commitment /intention sense of responsibility, as well as
44 out side situational factors (Hines, Hungerford & Tomera, 1987). Some research has been conducted in recreational and leisure applications of these theories which is closely related to the practice of boating and angling (Ajzen, 1992; Cottrell, 2003). Ajzen a nd Fishbein (1980) research (Theory of Reasoned Action which led to the development of the Theory o f Planned Behavior) demonstrated that in order to find a positive correlation between attit udes and behaviors, the scientist has to measure the attitude to wards that specific behavior attitude measurement s must be narrowly targeted to define the real issue (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Essentially, Ajzen that attitudes do not directly determine behavior, but they do influence be havioral intentions. These contribution of these theories addresses the power of beliefs. As Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) state are the behavioral beliefs concerning its The publishing of the Theory of Planned Behavior directly led to the evolution of the theory in the form of the Model of Responsible Envi ronmental Behavior. The Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior will be the primary theoretical framework used in this study due to the desire for a better understanding and predicting behavior as it relates to boater d related issues. Most studies have consistently demonstrated that intentions are good predictors of behaviors (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; Vining & Ebreo, 2002). The two models (Theory of Planned Behavior and the Model of Responsi ble Environmental Beha vior) share this premise as well as the construct attitude. In both models, attitudes are assumed to have a direct influence on
45 Responsible Environmental Behavio r asserts that two additional broad factors are necessary: cognitive (issue, action strategy, and skill knowledge) and affective (attitudes, personal responsibility, and locus of control) components. The premise is that if cognitive and affective factors c an be changed, behavioral intentions can be influenced, which can ultimately result in environmentally desirable beha vior (Hwang et al. 2000). Theory of Planned Behavior The main premise in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is that attitudes, norms, an d control are necessary to affect a change in behavior with the emphasis of the theory linking attitudes to action or behavior. Ajzen (1992) maintains that attitudes toward the behavior, subjective societal norms regarding the specific behavior and perceiv ed control over the desired TPB is an empirically derived behavior model that identifies determinants of behavior change while recognizing that intention to c hange a behavior will not occur if the individual is unable to act upon the i ntention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980 ). The TPB differs from Ajzen Reasoned Action because it adds perceived behavioral control to the model (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 20 02). By adding this element, Ajzen (2002) tried to address situations in which the individual has little control over the context or available resources necessary to perform or complete the desired behavior. A key underlying mechanism to the TRA and the TP B is based on the expectancy value theory which asserts that attitudes are predicted by beliefs about the evaluation of those p erceived consequences (Atkin & Rice 2001). Ajzen that the main determinant s strength of their intention (beliefs, attitudes) as well as their ability to act (capacity, skill
46 understanding ) The TBP is regularly used in conservation and recreation studies, and has been in leisure activities (Ajzen & Driver, 1992). Behavioral beliefs Behavioral beliefs are attitude s towards the consequences of a specific behavior ( Ajzen 2002). If the individual perceives that the potential of a favorable outcome outweighs the potential negative outcomes t hat are possible, it is more likely that they will engage in the desired behavior. In this case, they will likely engage in the behavior if the boater/angler be lieves that the value of undertaking preventive measures to stop the spread of AIS outweighs the time and effo rt required to adopt the preventive behaviors. According to the TPB, behavioral beliefs influence attitudes towards a targeted behavior ( Ajzen 1 988). Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) hypothesize that an attitude is developed through three main influences: it is learned, it prompts action, and actions are either favorable or unfavorable towards the idea/object. Normative beliefs Normative beliefs represent heavily influenced by the judgment and opinions of significant others in their life, such as spouses, friends, family, members of an organization, or those held in high regard ( Ajzen 2002). If the behavior of interest is adopted by opinion leaders and members of specific groups with whom an individua l aligns himself, it is likely that the individual will also adopt that specific behavior ( Ajzen by people who matter to them engage in the behavior or not. In regard to AIS, if boaters and anglers are encouraged to partake in preventive measures by influe ntial others, they will be more likely to adopt the same behaviors. Thus if popular
47 boating and fishing organizations were to promote AIS preventive behaviors, and influential opinion leaders were to model said behaviors, it would be likely to become a pa rt of the boating and fishing culture and an expected norm for those engaging in freshwater recreational activities. For example, Aipanjiguly, Jacobson and Flamm (2003) found that normative influences were one of the most important factors in whether or n ot a boater decided to take action to protect manatees in Florida (e.g. slow down in posted areas). Control beliefs Control beliefs relate to an individual's beliefs about the existence of factors that may facilitate or hinder the implementation and perfo rmance of a specific behavior ( Ajzen 2002). If an individual feels that there are significant factors in place that will prevent them from acting or otherwise make the behavior difficult, they will be less likely to engage in the behavior. An of difficultly necessary to perform the desired behavior. Perceived difficulty may exist at the physical, situational, or personal level; if an individual believes that t he level of difficulty required is too high in performing a specific behavior, they are un likely to do it ( Ajzen 2002). For example, if boaters/anglers perceive that there is too much required of them (energy, bending over/climbing) or they have to go out of their way because equipment is not available (boat cleaning equipment), they may face a disincentive to participate. If boaters and anglers feel that engaging in AIS preventive behaviors is going to be difficult, they will likely not adopt the behavior s. Theory of p lanned b ehavior r elated s tudies The TPB provides a model to determine how people think about particular behaviors and can be used to test or verify reasons for inaction and action within a specific population. There are three main elements regarding b ehavior in this context (the spread of AIS by boaters and
48 anglers). They include: 1) action inspecting boat/equipment and removing AIS, 2) target all AIS and debris including plants, animals, and mud, and 3) context boat and/or equipment at the point of water access to accomplish the task (Jensen, 2010). Another lesson that arose from TPB studies is that specific prescriptions work better to change behavior than general requests. Identifying, promoting, and modeling the desired action or behav have learned is that the most effective interventions will be those prescribing specific behaviors (e.g., walk for 20 minutes three times a week) rather than behavior categories (e.g., exercise) or to prevent the spread of AIS, they will be more likely to adopt preventive practices than if there is a vague, general appeal concerning the issue. In other words, people must clearly understand what is being asked of them in order to modify their behavior. The Conceptual Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera ( 1986/87 ) conducted a meta analysi s of 128 pro environmental behavior studies in an effort to better understand the variables that influence an Hines et al. (1986) argued that the numerous factors found by various studies clearly indicated the potential presence of interconnectedness among variables to influence behavioral action. It was found that an individual who expresses an intention to take action is more likely to engage in that action (much like the TPB suggests), b ut that intention is influenced by cognitive knowledge, cognitive skills, and personality factors (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). The meta analysis that led to the development of the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) included cognitive, psycho soc ial, and demographic variables. Cognitive variables included factors relating to knowledge of the environment or a specific aspect of an
49 environmental issue. Psycho social variables included factors relating to individual personality characteristics includ ing perce ptions of themselves and others which includes attitudes, locus of control, economics, personal responsibility, and verbal commitment to taking action (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). Demographic variables included in the study included age income, educa tion, and gender; none of which were found to be significant in relation to responsible environmental behavior (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). The following variables were found to be directly related to the presence of responsible environmental behavior: knowl edge of issues, knowledge of action strategies (and associated skills), locus of control, attitudes, verbal commitment, and individual sense of responsibility (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). Situational f actors were also added to the model to account for extenuat ing circumstances and social pressures. The REB is highly relevant to human dimensions of conservation and invasive species because if the public and primary users of resources do not think their actions will make a difference, they will not be likely to a ct in a way that curbs the spread of AIS to protect the habitat they prefer for recreation Knowledge and awareness of i ssues The realization that knowledge alone has not necessarily led to behavior changes moved scientists to segregate knowledge into thr ee different forms (Hines et al. 1986; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Hwang et al. 2000). Hines et al. (1986) found that individuals with greater knowledge of environmental issues and also greater knowledge of action strategies associated with the issue were m ore likely to engage in responsible environmental behaviors than those without the knowledge (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). I ndividual s must be familiar with the environmental problem or issue as well as its causes in order to act in the desired responsible mann er. These forms of knowledge deal with the (Frick et al. 2004, p. 1599). If boaters and anglers do not know
50 about the issue of AIS and associated impacts, they will not know what is expected of them i n relation preventive behavi or. Some knowledge is likely necessary for action. Derrick, Miller and Andrews (2008) examined the effects of risk communication interv entions among a group of anglers and found that knowledge of fish trimming methods and safe levels of consumption in crea sed. Results also show ed that anglers were more likely to avoid Conventional environmental issue campaigns were based on early linear models of pro environmental behavior. These models assumed that environment al knowledge leads to a sympathetic attitude towards the issue, which in turn leads to the desired behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 200 2). It is necessary to have awareness of the AIS issue in order to take strategic action to stop their spread, which most co mmonly requires some kind of educational campaign targeting boaters and anglers. However, this is likely only one piece of the puzzle in promoting AIS prevention. Knowledge of action strategies (and associated skills) In addition to knowledge and aware ness of an issue, Hines et al. (1986) found that knowledge of specific strategies is also essential for behavior adoption. This can be considered the strategies knowledge is more procedural and considered a better predictor of pro environmental behavior (Kaiser & Fuhrer, 2003). A study conducted by Rothlisberger et al. (2010) of AIS transport via trailered boats demonstrated that though boater awareness in the Great Lakes are a may be higher than other parts of the country, they also lack experiential information about the spread of AIS by small crafts as well as the effectiveness of preventive techniques. To date, educational outreach in the Great Lakes region has focused on p re launch inspections and communication campaigns to
51 educate the general public about the dangers of AIS not how to prevent the spread (Rothlisberger et al. 2010). This research suggests that it is not enough for an individual to know that an issue exist s; they also need to know how she/he needs to ac t in order to appropriately address the problem. Boaters and anglers have been found to be uncertain about what exact steps are required to prevent the spread of AIS and o thers may undertake measures that are not really addressing the problem ( Rothlisberger et al. 2010 ; Kubeck, 2008 ). To date, management has focused more on mitigating AIS impacts through control and, where possible, eradication, than prevention (Simberloff, Parker & Windle, 2005; Lovell & Dr ake, 2009). Management actions with the objective of educating boaters on proper AIS removal techniques may be a resourceful more effective and complementary means of red ucing the spread of AIS (Drury & Rothlisberger, 2008). With regard to prevention tech niques, placing boat inspection and cleaning stations at high trafficked lakes already infested with AIS might be more effective at slowing their spread, at least at a landscape level, than at un invaded lakes (Drury & Rothlisberger, 2008). There seems to be a consistency issue in AIS prevention that can be improved with the communication of clear prescriptions to the problem, t he more specific the better (for example, clean live wells with hot water and allow to dry five or more days). The courses of actio n which are possible and available in a given situation must be known if action is expected or desired (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). Also relating to this is the perception that an individual has the right skill in appropriately applying the knowledge and actio n strategy to the problem. Hin es et al. ( 1986/87 ) report ed that assuming skills evolve naturally from knowledge is erroneous. For this reason, it is included in the REB model. Lindgren (2006) conducted a face to face survey of anglers in Manitoba to gaug e AIS awareness and preventive p ractices. A lthough angler AIS awareness was relatively high, many
52 anglers had not adopted simple preventive practices such as properly discarding of unused live bait and removi ng plants from the boat trailer This suggests t hat knowledge alone is not enough to instigate action. Mueting and Gerstenberger (2011) compared boater behaviors prior to and following the quagga mussel infestation at Lake Mead in Nevada. They found that although boaters were more aware of the mussel is sue following the invasion, their cleaning habits had not significantly changed The authors recommend ed increasing boater awareness about AIS issues and suggested that it is also imperative that education focus on effective cleaning and preventive techniq ues. Data are lacking on the efficacy of the recommended AIS preventive measures, and also documentati on of boater compliance with various preventive practices. The Rothlis berger et al. study (2010) included observation and a survey of boaters in the Grea t Lakes region and demonstrated that: 1) boats leaving the Great Lakes were three times as likely to be carrying attached or entangled vegetation than those arriving; and 2) there seems to be three different types of recreational boaters those who keep the ir boat on the same body of water all season, those who visit three different waterways in a two week period, and professional fishing guides that visit more than f ive waterbodies every two weeks In addition, their research showed that high pressure washi ng can remove over 90 pe rcent of small bodied organisms The same st udy found that more than two thirds of boaters do not always take steps to clean their boats to prevent the spread of AIS. Visual inspections of boats and hand removal of plants, mud, and debris can reduce the amount of plants on boats by 88 percent, high pressure washing was found to be equally effective and low pressure washing was found to be less effective. This research supports the prevalent opinion that many boaters simply have not y et
53 adopted consistent and effective AIS preventive habits which clearly indicates that additional management and educational efforts are necessary (Rothlisberger et al. 2010). General behavioral actions recommended f or curbing the spread of AIS by trail ered watercraft include : 1) inspect and remove plants, animals, mud and debris; 2) drain all standing water from the boat (bilge, live/bait wells, motor, bait buckets, etc.) before leaving the launch; 3) remove and destroy any live bait or fish; 5) rinse y our boat with hot or high pressure water; and 6) dry for at least five days (Zook & Phillips, 2009). In addition, wiping the hull has been reported to be a fairly common practice among boaters that can also address AIS spread (D. Jensen, personal communica tion November 25, 2011). T he associated skills required to carry out specific action strategies, Rogers (2003) called principles knowledge. The skills required to take action relate to the functioning principles underlying how an innovation works. While th et al. (1986), described the skill knowledge to be vital in influencing Locus of control In order f or an individual to change their behavior they must feel as though they can bring about change through their own actions. t of their behavior (Rodder et al. 1972). Those with a strong internal locus of control believe that their behavior has the power to bring about change; those with an external locus of control, in contrast, feel that their actions are not significant enou gh to change the status quo (P eyton & Miller, 1980). This concept is based on the belief that some people do not engage in desired behavior because they et al. 1986/87 ). Related to this concept is
54 do so with the belief that their behavior is effective at realizing a specific outcome (Bandura, 1997). A study testing REB in reference to visitors of an urban forest tra il in Korea found that locus of control and attitude was more important than knowledge or personal responsibility when it comes to the intention to act (Hwang et al. 2000). The authors suggest that education and interpretation efforts need to focus more o n strengthening the internal locus of control. This makes sense in relation to AIS prevention as well because if boaters and anglers do not perceive that their actions can or will truly make a difference in the spread of AIS, they will not be likely to tak e the time to take action. Attitudes Individuals with strong pro environmental attitudes should be more likely to engage in pro environmental behaviors. Attitudinal factors included in Hines et al. ( 1986/87 ) study were those that dealt with an individual specific aspects of an environmental problem. In the meta analysis, the authors found that there were essentially two different types of attitudes under study: attitudes towards the environm ent as a whole and attitudes towards taking environmental action, both of which are positively correlated to responsible environmental behavior (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). r. Closely r elated to attitudes are beliefs which relate directly to how aware an individual is to a particular issue (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Ajzen (1991) suggests that behavioral beliefs, or determinant of intention to act, which is the precursor to action. It is these beh avioral beliefs that produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the targeted behavior ( Ajzen 1991). Attitudes are presumed to influence
55 behavior, with positive atti tudes (towards a specific issue or action) promoting pro environmental behaviors while negat ive or unfavorable attitudes lead to no action. Diekmann and Preisendoerfer (1992) found that environmental attitudes do not always have a significant impact on pro environment al behavior. The authors suggested that people choose pro environmental behaviors when the cost to do so is low, which can include time, effort, and monetary costs (Diekmann & Preisendoerfer, 1992). Attitudes are more likely to only indirectly influence behavior (Kollmuss & Agye man, 2002). In the case of AIS, attitudes may have some influence on whether or not a boater or angler is likely to adopt AIS preventative behaviors (intention), but most likely will not be enough to elicit action as the REB predicts Additionally, p revious research demonstrates that different user groups (e.g. boaters, anglers, duck hunters, shoreline homeowners) can have very different attitudes about AIS issues and manageme nt preferences (Slipke, Maceina & Grizzle, 19 98; Kirk & Henderson, 2006; Kyle, Abasher & Graefe, 2003). Slipke, Maceina and Grizzle (1998) found that an gler use decreased by 33 percent when hydrilla coverage was at a maximum anglers indicated that they preferred a high amount of hydrilla coverage, anglers who sought other species preferred less, and homeowners preferred even less hydrilla coverage. A South Carolina study suggested that while anglers and waterfowl hunters had positive experiences and perceptions of hydrilla for fishing and hunting, boating and hydropower generation were negatively impacted (Kirk & Henderson, 2006). A similar study in Alabama found that relatively moderate levels of aquatic plant management were associated with the hig hest levels of recreation based economic effects on the economy surrounding Lake Guntersville (Bergstrom, Teasley, Cordell, Souter & English, 1996).
56 Recreationists are more willing to support user fee based prevention and control activities when they have strong ties to a specific place and have an idea what the funds will be used for. If inadequate funding is preventing management agencies from implementing education and preventive strategies that would help boaters take action in stopping the spread of A IS, perhaps fee programs can help. Kyle, Abasher, and Graefe (2003) found that people using public lands were more willing to support a user fee program if there was some componen rd a fee program and additional funding As place identity increased in relevance, attitudes toward the fee program became more positive. This suggests that a more place based approach might be necessary to obtain the rt from the boating and angling public. Individual sense of responsibility sense of obligation or duty to undertaking a desired behavior. Those who possess a greater sense of obligation or duty are more likely to e ngage in pro environmental behaviors. In the meta analysis, this responsibility was expressed either in reference to the environment as a whole or a specific aspect (air pollution, recycling, water quality, etc.). It was found that those individuals who fe lt some degree of personal responsibility toward the environment (both as a whole or just some component) were more likely to have reported acting in responsible environmental ways (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). Jensen (2010) found that boaters in two of the fiv e states he surveyed indicated that a sense of personal responsibility had motivated them to adopt preventive AIS behaviors. However, this was not found to be the case in all states, though many boaters in the sample (across the five states) thought it (a sense of personal responsibility) would be somewhat or very effective at getting boaters to take action.
57 S ituational f actors In addition to the aforementioned factors relat to engage in environmentally responsible behavio r, Hines et al. ( 1986/87 ) a factors include such constraints as economics, available infrastructure, social pressures, and opportunities to choose other options. Situational factors may vary depending on the context. In the case of boater and angler behavior regarding the spread of AIS, situational factors are likely a large variable in explaining why some take action and others do not. Situational factors in rega rd to AIS preventive measures would likely include: social nor mative pressures (they do not feel that other boaters/anglers take action); lack of available space or equipment to properly wash or decontaminate boat s ; lack of economic resources at home to take action (high pressure hose, cleaning tools); or the circums tances surrou nding the experience ( ramp area too crow ded or small ). Attachment to a local natural resource can also influence environmentally responsible life (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Halpenny, 2010). Encouraging an indi responsible environmental behavior (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Relating this to AIS prevention, boaters and anglers may be more likely to inspect and clean their boat an d equipment if they have a strong connection to the place in which they recreate. Boaters and anglers that regularly use the same bodies of water for recreation would possibly be more likely to adopt preventive behaviors in order to protect their preferred recreational site from being taken over by AIS. Place attachment could be considered another situational factor in the REB model. It is worth noting that situational factors do not always have a negative effect on whether or not an individual chooses to undertake responsible environmental behavior (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). Other effects are possible. For example, an individual could choose to clean their boat
58 and equipment not just because there is equipment available and it reduces the likelihood of trans porting AIS but also because it protects their inve stment in the equipment itself. In this case, t his motivation could possibly be emphasized as a double benefit. Intention Intention is an indication of an individual's readiness to implement a specific behavior and it is assumed to be an immediate antecedent of behavior in the TPB ( Ajzen 2002). Ajzen and Fishbein (1975) assert that the strength of an intention is signified by the likelihood of the individual engaging in the desired behavior. A focal po int of the Theory of Planned Behavior is that intention to perform a certain behavior is directly related to action ( Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). According to the model of environmental responsible behavior, intention to act is influenced by co gnitive components (issues, action strategies, and skills knowledge) and the affective componen ts known as personality factors: attitudes, locus of control, and personal responsibility (Hines et al. 1986). The communicated willingness to take action can p rovide an indication about an commitment is a measure of intention a nd does not necessarily need to be expressed verbally (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). In the meta analysis, those who expressed the intention to undertake or adopt an action in regard to an environmental problem were more likely to have reported actually doing so (Hines et al. 1986/87 ). If boaters and anglers possess the attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in regard to stopping the spread of AIS, then their likelihood of engaging in pro environmental behaviors (preventive measures) great ly increases. For example, Hrubes, Ajzen and Daigle (2001) applied the TPB to the prediction and explanation of hunting behaviors
59 through a mail survey where it was found that hunting intentions contributed to h unting frequency. Hunting intent ions were st rongly influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control T hese predictors were associated with the underlying beliefs of the hunters (Hrubes et al. 2001). to ovide a useful framework to view user preference and commitment, and evaluates the strength of an intention to act. When utilities are measurable in monetary willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation, these parameters represent t he marginal monetary va lue of specific characteristics even in regard to environme ntal services (Farber, Costanza & Wilson, 2002). Though a useful tool, WTP studies have been critiqued for oversimplifying values and failing to capture actual preference, p articularly in regard to public goods, which individuals do not generally purchase directly (Diamond & Hausman 1994). Milon et al. (1986) investigated Orange and Lochloosa Lakes in Central Florida to assess AIS impacts to fishery resources and found that anglers were willing to pay up to $25 per year AIS in Lake Tarpon, Florida and found that anglers, on average, were willing to pay about $26 per person annually to reduce the infestation of aquatic weeds. More recently, a study demonstrated that users of all recreational freshwater resources would be willing to pay up to $14 per year to control AIS (Bell & Bonn, 2004). The same study also demonstrated that it is n ot only recreational value that is lost w hen AIS cause problems, but jobs and wages are also affected in the local communities that are dependent on the freshwater resources t o attract people to the area (Bell & Bonn, 2004).
60 The Lake Kissimmee Chain of La kes, a very popular bass fishing destination, was found to have nearly 500,000 visi tors per year, which provides significant revenue to local economies (Bell, 2005). T here would be major economic consequences on the local community if the level of AIS was to become denser and visitation decreased Bell (2005) reported that users of the Kissimmee Chain would be willing to pay $12.64 per year to use the lake if a reg ular AIS control program (primarily for hydrilla) was initiated. About 83 percent of all users of Lake Toho in the Kissimmee Chain of lakes felt that AIS posed a serious problem for recreation. Duckworth (2006) found that 65 percent of Kissimmee Chain stakeholders perceived that aquatic weeds negatively impacted enjoyment of lake oriented activitie s Adams et al. (2010) conducted a study on public preferences and values for management of aquatic invasive plants in state parks and discovered that the typical Florida resident is willing to pay approximately $6.15 (per visit) to control AIS, $3.81 to i ncrease the abundance of native plants, and $4.99 to increase native animal species. Recreational users in 63 river and lake state parks indicated that they were willing to pay a total of $35 million a year to keep aquatic atural areas Similarly, McIntosh, Shogren and Finnoff (2010) found, in a national valuation survey, that the average person was willing to make a one which equates to nearly $4 billion if all U.S. households participated. The federal government, for comparison, invests only $394 million (annually) for invasive species prevention and Early Detection / Rapid Response programs for both aquatic and terrestri al species (McIntosh et al. 2010). Responsible Environmental Behavior and AIS Behavior, the ultimate target of most behavioral intervention strategies, is a product of situational factors and intention in the REB. Ultimately, preventing the spread of A IS is the
61 relates to behavior, which is affected by many interrelated issues and processes. Early behavioral cision to act to various external and internal factors. External factors include institutional, economic, an d socia l variables Internal factors include knowledge and awareness (about the particular issue), attitudes and motivation, emotion, locus of control, respon sibilities and priorities (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). The focus of this study is on AIS prevention, which centers on individual boater and angler behavior. Most of the research on behavior is conducted through self reported measures such as surveys which Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954 ; Peterson & Kerin 1981 best possible light even if responding anonymously The result is that data are often biased toward respondents' perceptions of what is "correct" or socially accep t able (Maccoby & Maccoby 1954). For this reason, it is important to note that this research utilized a questionnaire that requests boaters and anglers to report their aware ness, attitudes, and behavior. It is actually their perceived behavior because it was self reported and not directly observed. Johnson et al. (2001) conducted an observational study at boat launches in Michigan and found mussels frequ ently attached to aq uatic plants which were entangled on boat props and trailers. T he authors of this study recommend targeted educational and prevention campaigns for boaters that travel and intensive efforts to increase boater behaviors that prevent the spread of AIS. Kub eck (2008) reported on a qualitative study in Oregon to evaluate the behavior and associated barriers that prevent people (hunters, recreational anglers, exotic pet/aquarium owners, and gardeners) from changing behaviors that would help stop the introducti on of
62 invasive species. Research discovered barriers such as a lack of information about what preventive behaviors entail and the belief that preventive behaviors are too difficult to perform ( Dierking, Chan, Kubeck, Cone & Wolters, 2009). Other Resp onsi ble Environmental Behavior Related S tudies Sia, Hungerford and Tomera (1985 86) tested the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior and found that the best predictors for engaging in responsible environmental behavior were: 1) the level of environment al sensitivity, 2) the perceived knowledge of environmental action strategies, and 3) the perceived skill in using environmental action strategies. Cottrell (2003) tested the REB Model on recreational boaters in Maryland and found a relationship between p rofessed knowledge of environmental issues, general environmental concern, and verbal commitment. Verbal commitment was actually found to be the strongest predictor, since it is a direct measure of intention. This was closely followed by professed knowled g e of the issue ill be much more likely to adopt preventive behaviors but also to contribute to a normative influence in regard to their pe ers. Similarly Mobley, Vagi as and DeWard (2010) also reported that environmental concern was a stronger predictor of REB than other background charac teristics. They also found that those that read environmental literature (e.g. magazines, newsletters, b ooks) were more likely to act. This suggests that boaters and anglers who belong to a fishing, hunting, angling or conservation group that receive publications with articles on AIS might be more receptive to preventive behaviors. Twenty yea rs after the Hines et al. ( 1986/87 ) REB model was proposed, it was tested again using a meta analysis of 57 studies relating to pro environmental behavior (Bamb erg & Moser, 2007 ). The authors found results similar to thos e proposed by Hines et al. (1986 ),
63 particularl y the strong correlation between psycho social variables and responsible environmental b ) study confirmed that behavioral intention mediated the impact of all other psycho social variables and added moral norms as an additio nal predictor of responsible environmental behavior. These studies indicate that the REB model still functions well The REB has also been used to survey attitudes re garding forest conservation (Hwang et al. 2000), household waste management (Barr, 2003), and recycling behaviors (Nemiroff & McKenzie Mohr, 1992), among others. Hwang et al. (2000) found that locus of control and attitudes were more important than knowle dge and personal responsibility in terms of intention to act, suggesting that interventions should focus on changing the internal locus of control. Modifications to the REB Model for Predicting AIS Preventive Behavior The proposed integrated an d extended model that guided this study was informed by constructs from responsible environmental behavior and theory of planned behavior, as previously discussed The model was modified for the purpose of this study due to existing research on similar populations li nking the importance of sub jective norms and self efficacy See Figure 2 1 for a depiction of the modified REB Model used Florida Boaters and Normative Influences Research on Florida boaters and non resident freshwater anglers is sparse but two studies on manatee conservation in Florida suggest that normative influence may be a larger variable than the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior advocates in this specific case. Aipanjiguly et al. (2003) conducted a study on boater behavior in regard to ma natees and results showed that boaters were more supportive of increased public education than more regulations, and that greater knowledge of the issue correlated to increased support for manatee conservation. Results also suggested that there is a strong
64 actions. Boaters were found to be highly motivated to comply with law enforcement and were more likely to cooperate if they knew others were doing it ( Aipanjiguly et al. 2003). Similar communicati on strategies would be required for reducing the spread of AIS as the attitudes, behavioral intentions, and normative influences toward the issues is mandatory for co nservation Self Efficacy successfully performing specific behaviors. Those who are confident that they can carry out the recommended practices are more likely to attempt the m, and ultimately adopt the behavior (Bandura, 1997). Self efficacy is often used in environmental ed ucation contexts instead of locus of control since it is considered by some to be more important to participate and adopt behav ior than generalized beliefs of control (Smith Sebasto, 1995; Israel, 2002). Locus of control, used in the traditional REB, shares some commonalities with social pa rticular behavior (Lefcourt, 1991). The theory hypothesizes self efficacy as a predictor of behavior or behavioral intent (Compeau, Higgins & Huff, 1999). The concept asserts that those with high self efficacy are more likely to adopt and implement desire d behaviors (Bandura, execute a specific behavior influences the decision to take action. Individuals acquire expectancies about what they can and cannot do over time, which factor into whethe r or not they think their actions will make a difference. Bandura ( 1986 ) asserts that in order to achieve self directed behavior change, individuals need to have knowledge of reasons to alter risky behavior. The author also is adamant that
65 individuals mus t also possess the means and resources to do so. These means and resources include self motivation and self guidance. Bandura (1990) also differentiates between the possession of skills and the ability to use them effectively and consistently. Successful b ehavior change, therefore, requires not only skills but also resilient robust self they choose to do and how much effort they are wil ling to put into the desired behavior change. When a sense of self though they might know what to do and possess the skills to do so (Bandura, 1990). Critiques of the T heory o f R easoned A ction, the earliest version of what would become the TPB, suggest th at it fails to capture efficacy. For this reason, Ajzen revised the Theory of Reasoned Action in the form of the TPB which adds perceived behavioral control as a proxy for eff icacy. In the TRB, it is suggested that a high level of perceived control should strengthen a determination (Ajzen, 2002). Both perceived behavioral control and the concep t of self efficacy Critiques of TPB address the issue of actual control versus perceived control as a way to better capture a ction In response to the TPB critiques and other b ehavioral models the REB model incorporated the concept of action ski lls, which is thought to better addresses control beliefs (Hines et al. 1986/87) Educational Campaigns Communication and education about natural resources conservation is becoming an e ssential component in natural resource management and sustainable development (Jacobson, 1999). However, for communication about natural resources to be meaningful, it is necessary for scientists and stakeholders to engage in dialogue that will promote the mutual exchange of ideas
66 accordingly (Saunders, 2008). Two way communication is likely necessary to promote mutual understanding and stakeholder buy in. Environme ntal problems, such as AIS, have been classified as preventive innovations due to their complex and uncertain nature (Rog ers, 2003 ; Thakadu Tsompi, 2010). Preventive innovations are new ideas that an individual adopts to avoid the possible occurrence of so me future event that is undesired (Rogers, 2003). The complex nature of these innovations presents an additional challeng e to educational campaigns. While environmental communication and environmental education are intimately connected, they are different. Environmental communication focuses more on behavior change and adoption of desired behaviors while environmental education encourages positive values in regard to the environment (Feek & Morry, 2003). Prior environmental communication studies have primar ily focused on environmental risk communication (e.g. toxic waste, pollution, environmental public health, safety), while other studies have focused on environmental conservation and communication (e.g., water and energy conservation) Public communication influence behavior in large audiences within a specified time period using an organized set of communication activities and featuring an array of mediated messages in multiple channels generally to produce noncommercial benefits to in Atkin, 2001, p.3). Most successful public communication campaigns utilize aspects of social marketing, which emphasize a focus on audience orientation and strategic attempts to package the social product in a way that appeals to the targeted audience. Social marketing concepts also tend to employ a combination of campaign components in order to attain realistic goals (Rice & Atkin,
67 2001, p.3; McKenzie Mohr, 2011). When seeking to influen ce behavior through a communication campaign, decision makers choose between promoting positive behaviors (e.g., we ar your seat belt, recycle ) or to preventing problematic behaviors (e.g.,drunk driving, forest fires, littering). Traditionally, prevention c ampaigns directed at a particular sector of the public have presented fear appeals to focus awareness on the potential negative consequences of behavior rather than promoting the desirability of a positive alternative (Rice & Atkin, 2001, p.8). This approa ch can work in cases where harmful outcomes are genuinely threatening or positive products are insufficiently compelling, but social marketing suggests that promoting positive behaviors can be mor e effective (McKenzie Mohr, 2008 ). In terms of content, mess ages in public communication campaigns can focus on awareness (information only), instruction (step by step action strategies), or persuasion (why the individual should adopt the desired behavior). Past research suggest s that educational preventive campai gns generate moderate to strong influences on cognitive outcomes, less influence on attitudinal outcomes, and still less influence on behavioral outco mes (Atkin, 2001). However, chances of success can be improved by greater diversification of pathways, pro ducts, incentives, and channels beyond the approaches conventionally used in public communication campaigns (Rice & Atkin, 2001, p.15). Success stories in public health (e.g. seat belt use, AIDs and STDs) and the environmental field such as Smokey the Bear and the programs provide valua ble examples of highly successful educational campaigns Another example is the Are you doing your bit? campaign that focused on five specific environmental behaviors (water conservation, energy saving, sustainable transport use, waste
68 by benefitting from the various cost savings that can be realized their awareness is increased The campaign recogni zes the significance of the need for incentives and the necessity for environmental action to be seen as normative behavior. This kind of campaign is more likely to be successful than an ion (Barr, 2003). Rice & Atkin (200 1) suggest ed that guidance and rigorous evaluation, substantial quantity of message dissemination over sustained periods, widespread receptivity to the advocated action and accompanying persuasive incen tives, and supplementation of mediated messages by campaign stimulated factors such as informal A Florida manatee conservatio n study compared attitudes, knowledge, and behavioral intentions of boaters who had received educational materials to those who did n ot. Results indicated that it is necessary to better target boaters, create media messages about ecosystem health, make messages more salient to boater experiences, and increas e the variety and duration of intervention while boaters are engaging in undesirable behaviors ( Morris, Jacobson & Flamm, 2007). T hese manatee and conservation studies can have great applicability for developing a Fl orida AIS educational campaign since th ere is not much available data on the behavior of Florida boaters. While some states have dedicat ed a significant amount of resources for developing AIS specific outreach programs, many others have not. To date, evaluation of AIS prevention programs in reg ard to boater attitudes, knowledge, and actual behavior changes have been rare, with the exception of a han dful of studies (Lindgren, 2006; Kubeck, 2008; Jensen, 2010). Boaters, in particular, tend to be the target audience given the potential for boats to transport AIS from one waterbody to another (Johnson et al. 2001).
69 AIS educational c ampaigns The most common forms of outreach, incentives, and gun approaches These are d escribed by Jensen (2010) as the following : Civil penalties Road checks Watercraft inspections Information in fishing/boating/hunting regulations Creel surveys (targeting anglers) Signs/posters at boat launches and bait shops Billboards along high traffic ked highways Public Service Announcements (PSAs) on TV and radio Mass media coverage AIS conferences and workshops with homeowners and sport or environmental organizations Fact sheets, brochures, books, and videos Booths, displays, or exhibits Fishing cont ests and derbies Internet websites Radio broadcasts/traveler information systems along major highways Education on AIS introductions, issues, and prevention directed at both targeted stakeh olders and the general public are widely recognized as part of the answer to slowing and/or stopping the spread of AIS (Johnson et al. 2001; Pimental, 2003; Lindgren, 2006; Jensen, 2010). The states in the Great Lakes region provide excellent opportunities to st udy AIS management and spread, s ince many AIS have been in troduced over the years to the area due to
70 its role in global commerce Recreational boating is an important aspect to the Great Lakes economy, with over 4.3 million registered boaters spending over $2.3 billion annually (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008 ). For this reason, the area provides a rich source of information about boater awareness and behaviors regarding the spread of AIS. Much of the literature, studies, policy, and science in the AIS field come from the Great Lakes area. Thus, the stakeholde rs in the Great Lakes area tend to be more aware, in general, of AIS issues, spread, and management (Rothlisberger et al. 2010). Research suggests that existing educational campaigns are not enough to motivate boaters to take preventive action (Rothlisber ger et al. 2010). This is not unexpected since there are a multitude of social marketing studies that show rates of behavior change are relatively low in cases where compliance benefits society more than the individual, and the action requested is perceiv ed as inconvenient (McKenzie Mohr, 2008 ). If educational efforts are continued but augmented by more action oriented measures such as staffed boat inspection and cleaning stations as well as disincentives and enforcement for non compliance, the research f inding s suggest that the situation would likely improve. In addition, the Rothlisberger et al. (2010) study suggests that, given different types of boaters, different types of communication approaches may be necessary. The authors suggest that management e fforts better target and communicate with those boaters considered to be at high risk, for example, recreational boaters that travel long distances An example of an existing invasive species education effort is the environmental risk campaign focused on the transportation of firewood by campers in the Pacific Northwest. Depending on its origins, firewood is known to contain at least 20 invasive insects, pathogens, o r other deleterious species. Run berg (2011) measure d the effectiveness of the communication
71 campaign and provide an audience analysis. exposure to infor mation about invasive species associated with firewood after the completion of the campaign, there were still knowledge gaps and misconceptions. In add ition, results suggest that the campaign should have tested messages before launching the campaign s ince risk messaging efforts need to effectively and efficiently communicate invasive species risks, a recommendation for any conservation communication camp aign. Regional and national campaigns that emphasize the importance of boat cleaning when leaving a waterway are becoming more widely used, such as the Clean Boats/Clean Waters campaign, the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign or the Protect Your Waters cam paign ( Michigan Sea Grant, 2012; Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 2012 ) Another example of existing invasive species education and prevention campaigns are individual state programs. omprehensive exotic Agriculture (ISDA) consists of mandatory boat inspections, AIS monitoring programs, and a public awareness campaign (ISDA, 2011). Boaters who travel are a greater risk for the secondary spread of AIS, thus are targeted with higher fees to fund a great er proportion of the prevention program. T he fees and mandatory boat inspections associated with support or understand the id ea of preventing AIS or not (T. Woolf, personal communication September 15, 20 10 ). Idaho has detected 38 mussel contaminated boats since the commencement of their prevention program in 2008 and Washington has decontaminated over
72 20 in the past couple years In 2011, boat inspection stations in Idaho reported out of state boats came from 49 states and many Canadian provinces (ISDA, 2011). S imilar AIS education and prevention programs have now been implemented in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Nevada Colorado maintains that states that have implemented education and inspection pr ograms have significantly slowed or even stopped the spread of AIS species and that even slowing the spread of mussels could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 2012). ISDA launched a public a wareness and outreach campaign in 2008 that included the development of broc hures, billboards, posters, stickers, radio spots (public service announcements), YouTube videos, and educational mailers included in utility bills Communication materials such as posters, fliers, buttons, and stickers were disseminated to fishing suppl y stores and guides (T. Woolf, personal communication, September 15, 2010) Colorado has developed YouTube videos that detail prevention steps and explain the concerns associated wit h AIS (CDNR, 2012). Many states and countries include a regulatory component in AIS prevention and education. The Idaho example discussed above, for instance, combines both regulations (mandatory boat inspections and fee) and education (face to face conve rsation at boat inspection stations, communicat ion campaign). This multifaceted approach seems to hold great promise. Based on the personal experience of two years of boat inspection training and implementation, requiring boaters to stop provides an excell ent educational opportunity that may prove to have a lasting influence on boater behavior. Regulation, when appropriate, promotes natural r esources protection In a study on the Truckee watershed in Nevada, Davis and Moeltner (2010) found that losses to f reshwater fisheries caused by an infestation of the New Zealand mud snail would
73 mmend efforts to control human behavior to avoid further spread which should include inspection stations for boats and gear, post visit mandatory cleaning, and/or access restrictions (Davis & Moeltner, 2010). Though there are more AIS educational campaig ns existing today than in the past, there is little documentation on whether or not these campaigns are reaching their target audiences and attaining the goal of increased adoption of AIS prevention BMPs. A baseline assessment (such as this research) can a ssist in the development of an appropriate AIS educational campaign and also a means of comparison after it is implemented. In addition, a baseline study can help assess the most effective means of reaching boaters, and whether o r not the target population would be supportive of educational campaigns, regulatory approaches, or a combination of both.
74 Figure 2 1. Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior relating to Florida boater and angler AIS preventive be havior. Adapted from Hines, Hungerford & Tome ra (1986/87 ) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta analysis Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2): 1 8.
75 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY T he ecological and economic impacts associated with aquatic invasive species (AIS) were discussed in earlier sections, which also identified boaters as a primary vector of secondary AIS spread and justified the need to better understand boater and angler awareness and perceptions of Florida AIS iss ues The Theory of Planned Behavio r (TPB) and the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) were introduced and discussed within the context of their influence on boater a nd angler behavior. A need for research targeting Florida boater and behavior regarding the spread of AIS was established in order to provide a baseline assessment from which to develop future outreach and prevention efforts. Thus, the primary goal of this study was to provide an analysis of Florida registered boater and n on resident freshwater angler awareness, perceptions, practices, and barriers to adopting AIS preventive measures. It also explored general boating and fishing practices as well as modes of communication best suited for more effective outreach in an effort to prepare the management agency (FWC) with information on which to base a preventive communication campaign. The stakeholders for this research include natural resource professionals, especially those working in AIS, management, and native species conse rvation. This chapter describes the research design, target population, sample selection, instrumentation, data collection methods, and statistical proce dures used for data analysis in this study. The objectives of this project were to develop a survey wh ich will determine: resident freshwater anglers awareness of AIS issues management, and vectors for spreading; Attitudes regarding AIS issues, spread and management on behalf of Florida boaters and non resident freshwater anglers;
76 issues and spread; and Factors that predict boater and angler AIS preventive behaviors (BMPs). Research D esign The survey instrument was based on an existing instrum ent (Jensen, 2010) but was modified to meet specific goals for this project. A mail survey was designed to determine the current level of awareness of, general attitudes towards, and behavior related to the spread and associated impacts of AIS. Descriptive research was used in order to accomplish objectives 1 3 of this project. case, the awareness and opinions of boater and an glers regarding AIS (Agresti & Finlay, 2009, p.3). Inferential statistics were utilized for objective four, in order to explore predictive variables associated with boater and angler behavior in relation to AIS preventive measures. There were two additional questions that required a different ( qualitative) approach. In addition, open ended questions were analyzed qualitatively for themes and trends. Target Population and Sample Following development of the survey, it was necessary to focus on developing the target audience in order to obtain a attitudes, and behavior regarding AIS. A ny Florida boater who uses public waterways must renew their registration either annually or every other year in order to comply with the law Sinc e the boater population of this study focuses on recreational boaters, only individuals possessing used primarily for non commercial purposes; or leased, rente d, or chartered to a person for the
77 engaged in the taking or landing of saltwa ter fish or saltwater products or freshwater fish or freshwater products, or any vessel licensed pursuant to section 379.361, Florida Statutes from which commercial quantities of saltwater products are harvested, from within and without the waters of this state for sale either to the consumer, retail dealer, or wholesale dealer, or any other Florida D ep t of H ighway S afety & M otor V ehicles 2010). The Florida Department o f Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) maintain a registe red vessels), excluding the following categories that are exempt from annual registration: (1) non motor powered vessels, (2) vessels used entirely on private lakes and ponds, (3) vessels owned by the United States Government, (4) vessels used exclusively vessels with a current registration number from another state or country and that are temporarily using Florida waters for less than 90 consecutive days (DHSMV, 2010). One survey instrument was used for both registered boater s and non resident anglers. An assumption of the angler population was that the majority of non resident anglers would either resident freshwater anglers likely bring their boats will provide valuable information on the level of risk posed by a population that has not been assessed. Florida Registered B oaters There were a total of 717, 671 registered boaters in Florid a based upon the dataset from DHSMV. It was necessary to eliminate some members of this population most likely to be
78 saltwater boaters because this research is focused on freshwater AIS issues. After consulting freshwater biologists with FWC and local boat dealers, it was determined that most freshwater boa ts are 2 0 feet or less In order to best target freshwater boaters, all of the registered boaters with vessels over 20 feet were removed from the population. The survey questions relating to specific fres most likely to utilize marine waters (and not inland lakes). Also included in the original database were commercially owned vessels and duplicates of people who had more tha n one registered boat. These boaters were also removed from the population, which resulted in 140,101 total boate rs being removed from the total population (N=717, 671) Non Resident Freshwater Anglers There are approximately 200,000 non resident freshwat er anglers that apply for Florida fishing licenses annually (B. Wattendorf personal communication, October 15, 2011). Non resident anglers may apply for an annual, 3 day, or 1 day license to fish The number of non resident angl ers in the FWC database dep ends very much on the time of year at which the request for the angler database was made. Since this request was made in September 2011, only non anglers who had a valid license at the time the programmer downloaded the data, which means that many of the short term license holders (IE: three day or one week) are not represented in the population. With this exception, this population, unlike the boater population, w as targeted extremely well given that they had recently purchased a freshwater fishing license. In the case of the boaters however, modifications had to be made to the population given the inability to discern between salt and freshwater boaters. The a ngler database received from FWC included a total of 39,726 licensed anglers who had valid licenses at the ti me of the data request. This figure included some Florida addresses
79 because FWC requires that only those anglers who claim residency in Florida qua l ify for an in state license Those whose primary residence is located out of state are required to purchase an out of state license. Florida addresses were removed from the population under the assumption that a majority of those residents have a boat in Florida and are therefore not indicative of typical non resident freshwater angler s Also, all non resident freshwater anglers who lived outside of the United States were removed from the population which reduced the total population from which the sample was drawn to 34,009 non resident anglers. Pilot and Sample Generation From these populations, 66 boaters and 33 anglers were selected at random for a pilot study, the proportion of which equals the breakdown of boat ers to anglers in the study ( two thirds boaters and one third anglers ). The pilot study yielded a total response rate of 40 percent, with the most significant finding being that even with the larger boats removed, there were still a large frequency of saltwater only boaters (n=15). Based on thi s information, it was clear that more modifications to the potential sample population were needed in order to adequately target freshwater boaters. I t was decided to also remove those boaters residing in coastal communities from the population since the d ataset still included too many saltwater only boaters. The survey review panel agreed that the best strategy to better target freshwater boaters would be to remove all boaters residing in coastal communities under the assumption that the closer a boater is to saltwater, the more likely they are to be a saltwater only boater. This reduce d the boater population to 261, 585 of the original 717,671 registered boat owners This strategy would hopefully provi de a more concentrated target population and increase th e frequency of respondents who were freshwater boaters. Two third s of the survey sample was derived from registered Florida boaters with boats 20 feet or less in length and do not live in coastal communities in Florida.
80 Florida registered boaters and non r esident anglers randomly drawn from their respective populations are combined into a single population for the purpose of this research. Boaters and anglers took the same survey. The total population of boaters (with vessels 20 feet or less in non coastal communities) and non resident freshwater anglers (that live outside of Florida but within the U.S.) constitute a total population of 295,594, from which the sample was drawn (see Table 3 1) Those included in the pilot study were removed from the popula tio n before the sample was drawn. A simple random sample of 4500 randomly assigned into nine treatment groups was selected from this population (N=295, 594) in order to conduct an experiment on the timing and amount of cash incentives ( see Appendix H ). Of the 4500 names and addresses in the sample, 3000 were chosen from the boater population and 1500 were chosen from the angler population in order to more accurately represent each population If combined before the sample was drawn, there would have been too m any boaters (N=261,585) and not enough anglers (N=34,009) In the survey, a published t able was used to establish the sample size necessary in order to be representative of the larger boating and non resident angler population. From this, it was determined that 1111 obtained respons es would be required to provide a confidence level of 95 percent and a sampling error of +/ 3 percent (Israel, 2009). Instrumentation The instrument developed by Jensen (2010) was modified for the specific scope and objectives of this research in order to solicit Florida specific information. Modifications were made to the survey instrument per an expert panel of UF/IFAS and FWC representatives. Jensen (2010) measured differences in boater AIS awareness in five different states an d utilized the same questions for each state except for a section on state specific AIS species of concern. S even cognitive interviews in addition to the pilot study, were conducted with Florida boaters and anglers in order to ensure clarity and precision of the instrument and to test it on members of the
81 target population. Revisions were made to the survey instrument regarding language and question structure in order to increase clarity and minimize question non response based upon the pilot test results and the se cognitive interviews (see Appendix C for final instrument) A screener marine, freshwater, both, or neither. If boaters/angers respond that they boat only in saltwater or brackish w ater, they are asked to not complete the survey but return it in a postage paid envelope. If boaters/anglers fish in both saltwater and freshwater, they we re asked to continue through the survey. If boaters/anglers respond ed er nor freshwater) because they have not boated in the past year, they we re also asked to not complete the survey, but return it Little is known about this population of freshwater boaters and anglers so it is valuable to assess how many registered boate communities) do not use their boat or boat only in saltwater. F our questions were utilized measuring boater and angler awareness and knowledge to accomplish objective one ( Table 3 2) Respondents were asked how much awareness they had of waterbodies with AIS present, the subsequent question was how they knew about AIS (signs at launches, observed it, educational materials, heard about it f rom a friend, etc.). They were also asked about where they saw/heard information on AIS and their level of knowledge regar ding the management of aquatic plants in Florida (the most common form of AIS management in the state). Several questions were utilized to measure objective two, which evaluated attitudes toward AIS on beha lf of boaters and anglers (see Table 3 2). Respon dents were asked to rate their
82 perception of the level of risk and seriousness posed by AIS. They were also asked if they agreed or disagreed (on a likert scale) with six statements about threats posed by AIS in regard to environmental and economic impacts as well as the need for management. Respondents were asked what kinds of measures they thought would help boaters and anglers take ste ps to prevent the spread of AIS, preventing nt question concerned attitudes towards consequences for those who knowingly do not take steps to prevent AIS spread. Respondents encourage boaters/anglers to prevent the spread of AIS. Respondents had the option of choosing that they do not think preventive steps would prevent the eventual spread of AIS or that they do not think AIS are a problem. This query measured attitudes of those who reported that they did not tak e steps to prevent the spread. They were also asked to rate their attitudes towards certain fishing habitats (native emergent grasses, open water, etc.). Boaters and anglers were asked if they thought AIS had caus ed any problems for them, what percentage of plant cover they preferred, and their attitudes towards AIS chemical, mechanical, biological, and physical control methods ( Table 3 3) Finally, respondents were asked to rate their attitudes towards the most ef fective sources of information for AIS prevention and the trustworthiness of specific organizations. This information can greatly assist in the development of an educational campaign since it identifies trusted sources A major focus of this research and the majority of questions in the instrument measure objective three, boater and angler behavior ( Table 3 4). Respondents were asked what kinds of boating they do, if applicable, how frequently, what waterbodies, and if they also boat in
83 brackish or saltw ater. Those boaters and/or anglers that boated/fished in freshwater in 2011 were directed to questions regarding how often they fished, how many different waterbodies, and what for purpose and species they fish. Subsequently, they were asked if they have p articipated in fishing competitions. If so, they are asked to report how far they traveled to compete, and how often they travel for this purpose. Respondents were also asked if they boated on waters where they knew AIS were present and what kind of meas ures would be effective at getting them to take steps in regard to most effective for reaching this target audience. High risk boater behavior refers to those that travel with their boats to different waterbodies. Relatively little risk is posed to those who only use one waterbody, do not transport their boat, or remain in o ne area. Respondents were asked to indicate if they frequent more than one waterbody, how long their boat(s) remain in the water, how long their boat(s) are out of the water between visits, how far apart the different waterbodies are, and whether or not th ey transported their boat(s) out of state. These questions assess the extent of risk posed by boaters and anglers who travel with boats and equipment. waterbody t question referencing why they do not take steps; one of the options in this list also measures of questioning, boaters and anglers are also asked how often they take specific steps (always, usually, sometimes, never, or does not apply) which include: conducting a visual inspection of their boat/equipment; drain
84 standing water; dispose of live bait properly; remove plants and debris from boat/equipment; wash/rinse; wash/rinse with hot and/or high pressure water; flush motor; dry for at least five to prevent the spread of AIS. Variables from the conceptual REB model were utilized to evaluate objective four, which was to identify predictors of boater and angler AIS preventive behaviors. The predictive variables in the REB include those associated with pro env ironmental behavior, which in this case are BMPs recommended for preventing the spread of AIS. These include: attitudes, self efficacy (modified from locus of control for this study), personal responsibility, personality factors, knowledge of issues, knowl edge of action strategies, action strategy skills, intention, situational factors, and demographics (added to personality factors for this study). Together, attitudes, self efficacy personal responsibility, and demographics contribute to objective two, they provided information on their attitudes towards AIS issues, spread, and management. The attitudes measured in objective four differ since they are specific to boate r and angler attitudes towards AIS BMPs. Attitude items included questions abo ut the risk/threat posed by AIS and the need for prevention of new AIS introductions ( Table 3 5) Questions measuring self efficacy include those alluding to whether respondents believe that preventive steps on their part will reduce or stop the eventual spread of AIS. The measurement for personal responsibility included a question on whether feeling a strong sense of personal responsibility was a motivating factor for taking prev entive steps.
85 Influencing intention to act are personality factors, knowledge of issues, and a combination of knowledge of action strategies and possessing the skills/ability to carry out those action strategies. Measures for awareness (objective one) ser ve as knowledge of issues in this case. Knowledge of action strategies and action skills were measured by respondents indicating whether they always, usually, sometimes, or never take specific preventive steps (does not apply was also an option). In additi on, those that indicated that they did not take preventive steps were Measuring intention to act included two types of questions. One q uestion asked how likely respondents would be to take preventive action in the future. Options for responses included very likely, somewhat likely, neutral, not very likely, not likely at all, or do not boat on infested waters. Intention to act was also me asured by willingness to Pay (WTP) questions. WTP refers to questions on the economic value placed on a specific non market good or service if an imagined market did exist or they had to pay taxes or a user fee. Hypothetical WTP questions in this case mea sure the intention to act in relation to AIS prevention measures, much like the Ajzen and Driver (1992) study treating WTP for public goods as a behavioral intention in research associated with recreation and leisure activities. Hines et al. (1986) emphas ized that one remaining category of predictive variables that economic constraints, social pressures, and opportunities to choose different actions as sit uational factors. However, in this case, normative influence (related to social pressures), lack of infrastructure and equipment, and other resource constraints (economics, time, crowding at boat ramps, etc.) were added as potential situational factors.
86 Da ta C ollection The UF Behavioral/Non medical Institutional Review Board (IRB) is responsible for reviewing and monitoring research with human subjects conducted under the auspices of the University of Florida. The IRB must approve of methods and interaction with human subjects in this survey to ensure there is no risk to participants. All correspondence with the sample, including the survey instrument must be IRB rs sent to all members of the sample. See Appendix B for IRB approval documentation. The survey was conducted and data collected only after the University of Florida IRB approved the study. Procedure The survey instrument was reviewed by an expert panel through the University of Florida and the FWC that included representation from agronomy, aquatic invasive plant management, fisheries, communication, marketing, and survey design. After databases for the boater and angler addresses and information were c ollected from the DHSMV and FWC, and modified as previously described, the random sample was drawn and organization for the printing, mailing, postage and billing was finalized. A pilot test was sent to 100 members of the population, who were randomly sel ected from the population in November December 2011. Those who received the pilot test were removed from the population after they were drawn in order to ensure that they would not be included in th e final sample. Seven cognitive interviews were also cond ucted during this time frame, after which t he survey was finalized and distrib uted to the sample (n=4500) between January 25 to February 28, 2012. The survey was administered via U.S. mail utilizing a four wave mailing that consisted of a pre letter, surve y with cover letter and reply envelope, reminder postcard, and a
87 (2009) Tailored Design Method. The Tailored Design Method is based on a social exchange perspective Christian, 2009, p.16). Dillman et al. a different look and ates (p. 242). A sequence of four contact s were implemented in this study, which included : 1) an advance letter that alerts the participant that they have been chosen for the study and the questionnair e will be arriving in a few days; 2) the questionnaire with a cover letter and self addressed postage paid reply envelope; 3) a reminder post card; and 4) a follow up letter and questionnaire to all non respondents. The surveys had individual identificatio n numbers so that respondents are not contac ted once they have submitted their survey. All correspondence with the survey sample was conducted through the UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants which included official letterhead and mailing envelopes The purpose of the advance letter is to introduce the study and request the participation of the participant (Dillman et al. 2009). Hembroff, Rusz, Rafferty, McGee, and Ehrlich (2005) found that by sending an advance letter the odds of respondents ret urning their survey increase d by 28 percent. T he advance letter in this study contained a single page letter from the UF/IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants introducing the project It a lerted the 4500 participant s that they had been selected in a ra ndom sample and a survey would be forthcoming, and requesting a response (see Appendix D ). One thousand of the total 4500 participants also received either $2 or $5 dollar incentive at this time enclosed with the advance letter The second mailing was the questionnaire itself, a cover letter, and an addressed postage (see Appendix
88 E for cover letter and Appendix C for survey instrument ). This mailing was sent 3 5 days followin g the advance letter. One thousand random participants also received either $2 or $5 dollars cash incentive with this mailing of mail that was returned with bad add resses) and included a reminder (for those boaters who had yet to respond) and/or a thank you (for those who had). The intention of the post card is meant to but yet completed it The post card was mailed about one week after the survey was mailed (see Appendix F ). Repeated studies suggest that almost half of return envelopes are postmarked within 2 or 3 days of receiving the post card (Dillman et al. 2009 ). The fourth and final mailing, a replacement questionnaire, was sent to the boaters and anglers who had not yet responded. This final mailing was sent three weeks after the post card or about 30 days after the original survey was sent The cover letter of the replacement questionnaire differed from the letter accompanying the first questionnaire (see Appendix G ). The strongest aspect of this cover letter is the first paragraph where recipients are told that their completed survey has not yet been receive d, which sets a personal tone and encouraged them to respond (Dillman et al. 2009, p. 255). Cash incentives of $2 or $5 were also included for 1000 participants receiving this final request. A local printer/publisher in the Gainesville area provided mail services for all four contact s which included the bulk of the printing and mailing services. These services included: CASS TM Certify & NCOA Verify customer supplied database(s); Supply rejected, corrected, and verified address records back to the scie ntist; Pre sorted and applied IntelligentMailTM barcode for automation; and Use of the Gainesville Bulk Mail Entry Unit via the UF Document & Mail Center.
89 T he two mailings with survey questionnaires (mailing 2 & 4 respectively) required slightly differen t handling. The printer/publisher provided the following services: Sorting / handling / inserting #10 envelope into folded booklet; and Affixing 3 tabs per USPS regulations for automated mailing by county The UF D only returned surveys had postage paid in lieu of providing a stamped response envelope in each package regardless if the participant responds or not Survey experts have repor ted that cash incentives tend to facilitate increased response rates, so cash incentives were incorporated into two thirds (n=3000) of the sample (n 4500) as an embedded experiment to measure any increase d response rates (Dillman et al. 2009, p. 18). Dill man et al. (2009) suggest ed that substantial paymen ts are not as effective at increas ing response rates as small token cash incentives that are provided in advance. Contrary to popular thought, the promise of a reward after completing a request (to com plet e the survey in this case) ha s been shown to provide less motivation than the token provided prior to or accompanying the survey (Church 1993; James & Bolstein, 1992 1992; Johnson & McLaughlin, 1990; Dillman et al. 2009). The leverage salience theory a sserts that respondents are motivated by dif ferent factors in survey design. R espondents could be motivated by different aspects of the survey (leverage), how much emphasis is put on each aspect (salience), or the to ken provided (Groves, Singer & Corning, 2000). For this reason it is important for appeals to respondents to participate be et al. 2009, p. 21) Also relevant and related to this model is the basic co ncept of social exchange
90 Social exchange theory motivated by the return these action s are expected to bring from others (Blau, 1964). The cash incentive experiment was inco rporated to test response rates comparing zero, $2 and $5 dollar incentives as well as collecting information on the timi ng of the incentives The cash incenti ve experiment is relevant to this report because it may have directly influence d respon se rates, but the com prehensive results of this embedded experim ent have not yet been determined and are beyond the scope of the current report The sample was broken into nine treatment groups in which one third of the sample receives no money (control), one third receives $2 and one third receives $5 (see Ap pendix H ). Nine treatment groups are necessary to also differentiate between the three different times the incentives were mailed to respondents. Of those that received $2, one third received the money with the advance let ter, one third received the money with the first survey mailing, and approximately one third (those in the treatment group that had not responded) received the money with the final survey mailing. The same process was followed for those who received the $5 cash incentives. No indivi dual in the sample was sent a cash incentive more than one time. See Appendix H for response rates and the nine treatment groups. Survey Error There are four types of survey error which can affect vali dity and reliability of usin g surveys to assess public knowledge and attitudes towards a subject Coverage error occurs when zero chance of being included in the sample for the survey and when those who are excluded are different f rom those who are et al. 2009, p. 17). For this research, all boaters with vessels 20 feet and under that did not reside in coastal communities were included in the population and therefore, had the same chance o f being chosen for the sample. The only
91 exception is family members with the same address as another individual, but listed separately in the boater database. There were several such cases that were removed if found, but given the size of the database, it is like ly that two or more individuals with the same address were included in the sample population (likely very few) However, since there are likely some boaters who reside his undoubtedly resulted in some coverage error as well. Sampling error occurs when not every person in the population is sampled and precision is limited. Usually this occurs in the form of a subset of the population that is used for the sample that does not adequately represent the broader population. T he survey sampled all registered boaters with vessels less than 20 feet in the pilot test to eliminate sampling error in this study However, the pilot test indicated that a high proportion of boaters who resided in coastal communities only recreated in saltwater. Therefore those boaters residing in coastal communities were also removed from the population before the final sample was drawn. The initial FWC database request was for all non resident anglers within the year, which included the entire population of out of state freshwater anglers. Non resident anglers with Florida addresses were also removed from the population to reduce the potential of sampling error. The removal of Florida anglers also ensur ed that the group was treated as a minority, or sub group, who has a residence in Florida part of the year (in addition to their primary residence). Non response error occurs when all surveys are not returned. This error occurs when the for the survey who do not respond are different from those who do respond in a et al. 2009, p.17). Since 100 percent response rates are rare, one should be cautious in generalizing findings to a larger populat ion if evidence of non response error is found. It is difficult to compare the surveyed population to a general
92 population or existing data since little is known about this population. Non response error is a difficult error to account for in this study. H owever, the multiple contacts (advance letter, survey, post card, second survey) aided in limiting non response error (Dillman et al. 2009) Also, the cash incentive was designed to address the non response error by providing a social exchange motivator w hich likely facilitated the participation of many of those that otherwise would have been non respondents. Finally, measurement error results from inaccurate answers to questions which result from question wording or other structural issu es. Questions should be detailed but easy to understand and include instructions on exactly what respondents are expected to do. A pilot test and cognitive interviews were utilized in order to avoid confusing wording and questi on structure. The pilot study (n =100) and t he cognitive interviews (n=7) resulted in question modifications before finalizing the survey. Data A nalysis Quantitative research methods were utilized to achieve the objectives of this study which were to assess boater and angler awareness, attitudes, behavior, and predictive factors associated with AIS preventive practices. Data for objectives 1 3 were analyzed using SPSS: An IBM Company (version 18). Descriptive statistics were calculated including mean and standard deviation (likert scale items) Co rrelations were calculated for each of the predicted relationships F requency t able s were gene rated in SPSS for each question with the exception of qualitative and special type questions (such as ranked and weighted questions) Objective four, assessing p redictive factors to determine the effort boaters/angers take regarding preventive action required a different methodological approach. V ariables that influence or predict whether or not a boater/angler ta kes AIS preventive steps (BMPs) were assessed using inferential statistics in SAS and SPSS statistical software A question in the
93 survey asking respondents if they took specific preventive steps and how often was utilized to assess behavior as the dependent variable (see Table 3 6 for the BMP index ) Firs t, it was necessary to build an index of the AIS preventive steps (BMPs) that would Table 3 6). The frequency measure for each BMP was re coded from 0 nd 3 being they perform divided by the total number of points possible. leg itimate if there were extenuating circumstances, such as someone that only use s one waterbody or a boater living on a lake and keeping their boat in the water or on a boat lift. After cross ons where they would have indicated that they only use one waterbody, those who from the analysis penalty in the score; instead it reduces the numb er of points possible for those with legitimate BMP score. In the Model of Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB), the dependent variable was a high BMP index score). The independent variables included: personality factors (attitudes, self eff icacy, personal responsibility), knowledge of issues, knowledge of action strategies and skills, intention to act, and situational factors.
94 It was necessary to create indices (much like the BMP index) for both knowledge of issues (specific species) and in tention (willingness to pay). Respondents were asked how much they had heard about specific aquatic invasive species (knowledge) and values were enumerated or large respondent based on their knowledge of each species divided by the number of points possible. The individual species listed included: 1) hydrilla, 2) water hyacinth, 3) water lettuce, 4) armored catfish, 5) Island a pple snail, and 6) quagga/zebra mussels. distribution of means of the BMP index f or each value (1 5) was examined Table 3 7). A similar index was created to measure int ention by the willingness to pay (WTP) question Respondents were asked to indicate whether they would pay $10, $5, $2, $1, or no dollars for certain AIS related preventive o r control measures. A score was generated from their responses by tallying each r answer as the respective dollar values. The AIS prevention/control measures that respondents were asked to indicate their willingness to pay levels included: 1) boat cleaning stations, 2) signs and materials at boat ramps, 3) communication and outreach campaigns, and 4) management and control of AIS.
95 A ters and anglers were asked to report their level of agreement or disagreement with five statements: 1) AIS pose threats to the environment, 2) AIS pose threats to local, state, and regional economies, 3) AIS threaten the health and abundance of native fis h and wildlife, 4) if left unmanaged, aquatic invasive plants can take over Florida waterways, and 5) if left unmanaged, native aquatic plants can take over Florida waterways. In addition, respondents were nse in the attitudes meas ure. It was necessary to calculate the distribution of means of the BMP index for each value (1 were at the median value for respons es and were thus assigned a value of 3.75 to be tallied in the score for For self efficacy, a measure replacing locus of control in personality factors, respondents were asked about their ongly distribution of means for each value (1 ses were most similar to with regard to the BMP index and were tallied with the score of 3s. A factor analysis was used to ensure that all measures in the attitudes variable were related to the underlying construct ( Table 3 7) It was found that one statement relating to native plants taking over waterways was not an important contributor to the underlying construct and was thus
96 removed. The rest of the measures had comparable factor loadings (e.g. were found to measure the sam e construct). The eigenvalue for the primary component was 2.891, and it was found to explain 72.3% of the total variation of the four remaining items ( Table 3 10) The actual index score was calculated as the mean of the four items. Factor analysis was al factors in the REB. The eigenvalue for the construct was 2.206, and it was found to explain 73.5% of the total variation of the three items. The factor loadings for these three items were similar and thus measu re the same construct ( Table 3 11 ). The actual index score was calculated as the mean of the three items. Two variables, one measuring boater and angler knowledge of action strategies and the other measuring situational factors (ava ilability of boat washing equipment) were treated as categorical variables due to the large number of missing data (skip logic questions). For these questions an 88 was assigned to those who did not answer the question due to skip logic (e.g. they reported that they took steps to prevent the spread of AIS). Of the remaining respondents, those who indicated that they did not take steps to prevent the spread of AIS, a 1 was assigned to those who reported that they did not take action because they did not know what to do and a 0 to those who did not select this as the reason for not taking action. Similarly, a 1 was assigned to those who reported that they did not take steps to prevent the spread of AIS because there was no boat washing equipment a vailable. A 0 was assigned to the remaining respo ndents who did not indicate a lack of equipment was the reason they did not take action. Once all indices were created, the full model, with the exception of actions skills, for which no measure in the survey was deemed appropriate, was tested using regression analysis. This allowed for the relative strength of each independent variable as a predictor of behavior
97 (adoptio n of AIS BMPs) to be calculated. This, in turn led to the development of a reduced model comprised o nly of those variables found to be good predictors of behavior. Descriptive and Special Type Questions. For two ranking questions a weighted score points for nd rd type asked respondents to indicate which of the 20 measures or sources of information/motivation provided would be most effective at getting boaters/anglers to take AIS preventive steps. The second asked respondents to indicate which information sources of the 19 provided would be the most effective at providing AIS related information on education and prevention. Descriptive Analysis was used for open ended questions T he open ended questions included a general comments and recommendations question at the end of the survey as well as a skip logic question in which respondents who indicated they had experienced problems with AIS were asked to describe the issue or prob lem. These responses were coded into categories and themes with Weft QDA software. The Constant Comparative technique was utilized.
98 Table 3 1. Breakdown of boater and angler populations Group Removed from population Sample Population remai ning Boater Population: Original DHSMV database of registered boaters 717,671 Commerical vessels, and duplicates removed 140,101 577,570 Boaters residing in coastal communities removed 315,985 261,585 Angler Population : Original FWC database of current non resident freshwater anglers 39,726 Anglers: Florida addresses and those from outside of US removed 5,717 34,009 Total combined population of registered boaters and non resident anglers from which random sample w as drawn 295,594 Table 3 2. Measuring boater/angler awareness of AIS issues, spread, and management Survey Question Awareness Measured Question 2: How much information have you heard or read about each of the AIS listed? Specific species knowledge Q uestion 3A: [IF you boated on waters where you knew AIS were present], How did you know that the waters you boated on were infested with an AIS? How boaters/anglers knew waters they frequented were infested with AIS Question 28: Have you heard or read ab out AIS from any of the following source? Information sources Question 26: How much do you know about the following control methods? Knowledge of AIS control methods Question 18: Have you seen or heard others you know taking steps to stop the spread of AIS? Question 19: Do you think most boaters and anglers take steps to stop the spread of AIS?
99 Table 3 3. Measuring boater/angler attitudes towards AIS issues, spread, and management Survey Question Attitude Measured Question 4: How serious of an issue do you think AIS are? Question 16A.5: I do not take action because I do not believe AIS are a problem (yes/no) Seriousness of AIS threat Seriousness of AIS Question 5: Do you agree or disa gree with the following statements about AIS management? AIS management Question 6: In your opinion, which three best methods would best help boaters & anglers prevent the spread of AIS? Boaters/angers can help prevent spread of AIS Question 7: If a boater/angler does not take steps to prevent the spread of AIS, but knows that they are present where they boated and can be prevented, what kind of consequence should exist? Consequences of non compliance Question 8/9: How effective would the following (measures) be in getting you to take action? Sources of motivation/preference for source Question 21E: Please rate the desirability of the following fish habitats (very desirable very Preference for fishing habitat Question 23: Have AIS caused problems for you? Experience of AIS related problems Question 25: Do you favor or oppose use of the following aquatic plant management control methods? Preference for or opposition to AIS control methods Question 27: What is your prefe rred coverage of aquatic plants in a given lake or river (0% being none and 100% being completely covered)? Preference for percent coverage of aquatic plants Question 29: Please rank which sources would be most effective at providing AIS information? P reference for information source
100 Table 3 4. Measuring boater/angler AIS preventive behavior Survey Question Behavior measured Question 3: During 2011, did you boat on waters where you knew AIS were present? Question 3: I boat on infested water s (yes, no, Boat or fish where AIS present Level of risk Question 11: Considering the boats you used during 2011, for how long was the boat(s) IN the water before being moved to a different waterbody (on average)? Question 12: About how lo ng was the boat(s) OUT of the water before you put it in a different waterbody (on average)? Question 13: During the 2011 boating season, did you TRANSPORT and use any boat(s) to waters OUTSIDE the state where the boat is registered? Level of risk: time boat in water Level of risk: time boat out of water Level of risk: distance between waterbodies, transport out of state Question 22: Have you participated in fishing competitions? Compete in fishing competitions Question 16: Upon leaving a wa terbody, do you take any steps to prevent the transport of AIS? Perceived behavior Question 17: After removing your boat(s) from the water, how often do you do the following? (BMPs) Use and frequency of preventive steps (BMPs)
101 Table 3 5. In (objective four) Survey question Variable measured Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about AIS management? Personality factors: attitude Question 8B: A sense of personal responsibility would/not be effective at getting me to take action. Personality factors: personal responsibility Question 16A.1: I do not take action because I do not believe it will prevent the eventual spread of AIS. Personality factors: self efficacy Question 2: How much information have you heard or read about each of the AIS listed? Knowledge of issues: specific species Question 4: How serious of an issue do you think AIS are? Knowledge of issues Question 16A.3: I do not ta ke action because I do not know what to do. Knowledge of action strategies Question 18: Have you seen or heard other boaters or anglers you know taking steps to stop the spread of AIS? Normative influence Question 19: Do you think the majority of boate rs and anglers take steps to stop the spread of AIS? Normative influence Question 8A: Talking with friend or acquaintances would/not be effective at getting me to take action. Normative influence Question 8F: Laws or regulations to prevent the transport of AIS would/not be effective at getting me to take action. Situational factors: lack/presence of laws & regulations Question 8G: Enforcement checks to educate users and/or to catch violators would/not be effective at getting me to take action. Situat ional factors: lack/presence of enforcement Question 8H: Fines that must be paid by violators would be effective at getting me to take action. Situational factors: lack/presence of fines/penalties Question 16A.6: I do not take action because there is not boat washing equipment available. Lack of infrastructure/equipment Question 20: If you boat on waters with AIS, how likely is it that you will take steps to prevent the spread of AIS in the future? Intention: likelihood of adopting BMPs in the fu ture Question 24: How much more would you be willing to spend for a boating or fishing license if the additional money was used to fund activities to prevent the spread of AIS and to reduce their harmful effects? Intention: Willingness to Pay
102 Table 3 6. Subscale indices representing BMP Index (dependent variable) Best Management Practice (BMP) for AIS Prevention M SD Conduct visual inspection of boats/equipment for aquatic plants, animals, and mud 2.46 1.044 Drain water from boats, including motor, live wells, bilge, and bait buckets 2.63 .961 Dispose of unwanted bait, worms, and fish parts in the trash 2.66 1.417 Remove aquatic plants and animals from boats and equipment 2.57 1.052 Wash or rinse boat, trailer, and equipment 1.99 1.232 Wash or rinse boat, trailer, and equipment with high pressure and/or hot water 1.01 1.352 1.43 1.404 Allow boat/equipment to dry 5 or more days 1.64 1.247 Wipe down hull and other equipment with a towel 1.20 1.274 Table 3 7. Subscale indices representing Knowledge Knowledge index items M SD Hydrilla (n=1092) 1.81 1.015 Water hyacinth (n=1064) 1.43 1.041 Water lettuce (n=1013) .87 .935 Armored catfish (n=1030) .65 .876 Island apple snails (n=1022) .4 9 .785 Mussels (n=1033) .87 .987 Seriousness of Issue (n=1101) 2.02 1.467 Table 3 8. Subscale indices representing Intention (Willingness to Pay) WTP Index Items M SD Boat cleaning stations (n=1054) 2.12 2.639 Signs at launches (n=1056) 1.86 2 .190 Outreach and communication (n=1035) 1.44 2.043 AIS control & management (n=1066) 2.69 2.925
103 Table 3 9. Subscal e indices representing Attitudes Table 3 10. Factor Loadings for Attitude Index Item Factor Communality Threats to environment (question 5.1) .899 .809 Threats to the economy (question 5.2) .873 .763 Threats to native fish & wildlife (question 5.3) .836 .0 70 Aquatic invasive plant take over (question 5.5) .787 .619 Eigenvalue 2.89 Percent of variance explained 72.3 Table 3 11. Factor Loadings for Laws, Enforcement, and Fines Item Factor Communality Laws (question 8.6) .841 .708 Enfor cement (question 8.7) .878 .771 Fines (question 8.8) .852 .727 Eigenvalue 2.21 Percent of variance explained 73.5 Attitude Index Items M SD AIS pose threats to environment (n=1111) 4.46 .857 AIS pose threat s to local economies (n=1110) 4.33 .919 AIS pose threats to native fish & wildlife (n=1108) 4.42 .907 If left unmanaged invasive plants can take over FL waterways (n=1111) 4.52 .782 If left unmanaged native plants can take over FL waterways (n=1109) 4.05 1.242
104 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The sample size for this study was 4500, and each o f these boaters and anglers were sent survey correspondence via first class mail. Participants reviewed a cover letter complete with consent language and were then asked to complete a 12 page survey. Surveys were returned via first class mail in a pre addr essed postage paid envelope with a unique ide ntification number. Although 4500 advance letters were initially sent out, 381 were returned due to bad addresses Unknown to the researchers and the printer, this phrase on the envelope di d not allow those with temporary forwarding addresses (those who reside in more than one location) to receive the mail per US mail policy Of the total questionnaires mailed out once the bad addressed were removed (N=4119), 1398 questionnaires were returne d. Of the 1398 returned questionnaires, 1118 were completed by freshwater boaters or anglers who had boated or fished in Florida in the past year. Three were removed since they were retuned blank, which indicates a refusal to complete the survey, leaving a total of 1395 responses yielding a response rate of 33.9 %. Participants indicated on the remaining 277 questionnaires that they did not boat/fish in the past year or boated in saltwater only. In terms of structural organization, this chapter presents desc riptive statistics and frequency t able s depicting objectives one through three and the demographic characteristics of the study subjects. This is followed by presentation of the results of objective four, exploring predictive factors that potentially influ Finally, qualitative data from open ended is presented by category. Select quotes representing major comment categories and sentiments are also reported.
105 Socio demographic Characteristics The basic demographic characteristics in this study included: gender; age; location of primary residence; whether respondents boat, fish, both, or not in Florida; and whether respondents boated or fished in Florida freshwater in 2011. Since it was known t hat some of the respondents would be saltwater only boaters, a filter question was first. Although some respondents only boated or fished, the majority reported that they both boated and fished (68%, n=950). Of the 1395 that responded to the survey, 11% in dicated that they did not boat in the past year (n=158). When those who did not boat in the past year were removed (n=1237), an additional 8.5% reported that they boated/fished in s altwater only (n=119). The remaining 1118 valid responses (e.g. fres hwater boaters and anglers) completed the survey (see Table 4 1). The respondents who completed the demographic gender question (n=1085) were predominately male (91%, n=987) and the age rang e was from 16 93 years old ( mean age was 59 years old ). Seventy percent o f the valid responses (n=787) were from Florida (e.g. registered boaters) and 30% (n=333) were from out of state (e.g. non resident anglers) which was consistent with the number of surveys sent to each group. The most out of state respondents came from Georgia (n=80), Alabama (n=34), Kentucky (n=32), Indiana (n=28), Ohio (n=21), Illinois (n=19), Pennsylvania (n=11), and Tennessee (n=10). Of the freshwater respondents, 93% (n=1032) reported that they used a boat in 2011. Of those that boated, a majority used a small powerboat less than 20 feet in length ( 77%, n=775), 18% used a large powerboat over 20 feet (n=183), 18% used a Jon boat (n=179), and 17% used a kayak or canoe (n=170). It is important to note that many boaters h ave multiple vessels and were a s ked to list all boats they owned. Of the respondents, 83% indicated that they fished in freshwater in the pa st year (n=924) Sixty one percent fished for sport (n=848), 21% for food purposes (n=287), and less than one
106 percent for work (n=8). Anglers we re asked to select all of the specie s that they fish for in Florida. The majority of anglers (73%, n=670) indicated that they fish for largemouth bass, 62% for crappie (n=570), and 57% for bluegill (n=522). Fewer anglers fished fo r catfish (32%, n=296), s triped bass (13%, n=117), or other (7%, n=68). Other demographic questions included what kinds of radio stations respondents most frequently listened to, what kinds of communication methods they preferred, and their level of trust with various agencies an d groups. A majority of respondents indicated that they preferred e Jazz, Christian, and gospel ( Table 4 2). Most respondents indicated that they strongly prefer m ail over all othe r communication modes, followed by email which was frequently written in responses included television, radio, media, and face to face ( Table 4 3) The perceived level of trust of an organization by an individual is a good measure of whether or not that organization would be a viable source of information. Boaters and anglers are less likely to receive and proces s messages that come from untrustworthy sources. Boaters and anglers in dicated that their most trusted source was the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, followed by the University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants and boating/angling NGOs The lowest sources included stores, t he media, and the lowest trusted source was social media ( Table 4 4). Boater and Angler Awareness of Aquatic Invasive Species Acknowledging the issue of AIS is a first step towards raising awareness and promoting the adoption of preventive behavior. Awarene ss of specific i nvasive species v aried widely among survey respondents. High or moderate awareness was highest for hydrilla and water
107 hyacinth, AIS found throughout Florida ( Table 4 5) High to moderate awareness of these three species ranged from 30% of respondents havin (n=332) water hyacinth, and 33% (n=333) having heard a small amount about water lettuce. B oaters and anglers were less familiar with non plant species. Over half of the respondents (66%, n=678) had heard nothing about apple snails or armored catfish (57%, n=588) and nearly half reported knowing nothing about quagga/zebra mus sels (47%, n=487). The majority of respondents (63%, n=70 2) indicated that they boated on waters where AIS were present ( Table 4 6 ). Others did not boat on AIS infested waters (14%, n=158) or did not know if they did (22.5%, n=250). Those that did boat on wate rs where AIS were present were aske d to select (all t hat apply) how they knew that the waters were infested. The majority of the (80%, n=546), 40% reported that they had seen a sign at the boat launch (n=270), an d 25.5% had heard that there was AIS present from a friend or family member (n=174). On the other hand, very few respondents had heard about AIS in waterbodies they frequent from other sources (such as the media or educational materials). It is not known h ow the majority of respondents knew how to identify specific invasive species and how accurately they could do so. Although a relatively high amount of respondents had seen a sign at the boat launch, many more had not (60%, n=412). Closely linked to aware ne ss of AIS are control methods used to manage them ( Table 4 7) This awareness can vary widely d epending on the leve l of public outreach conducted by management agencies and partners Respondents were asked how much they knew about the four most commonly used control methods (chemical, mechanical, biological, and physical). Boaters
108 and anglers reported that they knew more about chemica l and mechanical control followed by physical and biological control methods. Biological control was expected to have a lo wer awareness rate given the acade mic and scientific nature of this practice, which precludes a large body of knowledge possess ed by the public. See Table 4 7 for a breakdown of plant management awareness. In order to promote awareness of AIS issues, prev ention, and manag ement, it is necessary to determine where stakeholders seek and/or find information. Magazines and newsletters, signs at boat launches, and newspapers were reported to be the most prevalent sources of information for AIS ( Table 4 8) Altho ugh the use of social media has grown exponentially in the last decade, it does not appear that it is a popular sour ce of information for these survey participants since only 2% (n=23) indicated that it was a source where they had heard about A IS. Social media is clear ly not the best avenue for information dissemination since this is an older demographic group (average age is 59) Another interesting result of this question was the relatively high percentages of respondents indicating that they received in formation about AIS in fishing, boating or waterfowl hunting regulations (45%, n=487) and boat registration materials ( 27%, n=289). Of the sou rces of information listed respondents were asked to rank the sources they believe to be most effective at gettin g out AIS related information. Weighted scores g enerated for each respondent assigned higher scores to T he most effectiv e sources were found to be: 1) signs or information provi ded at a marina or boat launch, 2) telev ision news or programs, 3) fishing, boating, or waterfowl hunting regulations pamphlets, 4) magazine and newsletter artic les, and 5) newspapers ( Table 4 9 )
109 N ormative influences or subjective norms in many cases are thought to influence behavior. Responden ts were asked whether they had heard or seen other boaters or anglers they knew tak ing AIS preventive action and also if they thought that the majority of boaters and anglers took action. Of the 1106 who responded, 54% (n=602) indicated that they knew of o thers who took preventive steps. When asked if they believe that the majority of boaters and anglers take preventive action, 68% of re spondents indicated that they did not think s o (n=731). Boater and Angler Attitudes towards Aquatic Invasive Species Measu res of boater and angler attitudes towards AIS ranged from overall percepti on of the issue to more specific questions regarding AIS impacts and the need for management and prevention. Respondents were also asked preference questions about fishing control methods, and vegetation coverage of waterbodies ( Table 4 10) The majority of re spondents indicated that AIS were a very serious problem (47%, n=515) or a somewhat seriou s problem (35%, n=388). Th which indicate s a lack of awareness about t he issue in n=63), not very serious (2.5 %, n=28), and not serious at all (0. 5%, n=5) which suggests that the majority of these stakeholders view the issue to be one of significance. The lev el of agreement with AIS issues by the respondents was measured by asking if: AIS pose threats to the environment; AIS pose threats to local, state, and regional economies; AIS threaten the health and abundance of native fish and wildlife; there are preven tive steps I can take to prevent the spread of AIS; if left unmanaged, invasive plants can take over Florida waters; and if left unmanaged, native aquatic plants can take over Florida waterways ( Table 4 10) Respondents reported the highest levels of agree ment with the statements regarding the
110 r than for disagree statements. Again, this suggests a general lack of awarene ss o r personal experience. Of the 1096 who answered the question, those respondents who had experienced AIS related problems (40%, n=4 43) were slightly lower than those who indicated that they had not had problems (46%, n=508). However, there was an additi Table 4 22) for a description of specific AIS related problems reported by respondents Of the 83% (n=924) respondents that fished in Florida f reshwater in the past year, most preferred f ishing in native emergent plant habitats (83%, n=729) and fish attractors such as piers and gravel beds (85%, n=734) were also habitat ( Table 4 11). Invas ive hydrilla beds and open water were reported to be the least desirable fishing habitat. There wer e also several which once again suggests the conclusion that many lack knowledge of plant species or fishing exper tise (n=718 for all six cat egories) Respondents were asked their specific preference for plant coverage in a given waterbody. Most boaters and anglers prefer between 11 40 percent plant coverage in lakes and rivers (54%, n=567), while others prefer 0 10 p ercent (37%, n=390), 41 70 percent (8%, n=81), or 71 100 percent (1%, n=13). Related to boater and angler preference of plant coverage is preference for AIS control methods. Respondents indicated that they had the most knowledge about mechanical and chem ical control methods (see Table 4 7 in previous section), but report the strongest preferences for mechanical and p hysical control ( Table 4 o ndents
111 and physical by 63% (n=686). On the lower end, 46% (n=498) of respondents indicated that the strongly or somewhat favored physical control, and 43% (n=467) strongly or somewhat favored and anglers are not exposed to information or have no desire to learn about AIS control methods. Responsibility is a key concept in prevention. Respondents were asked what three methods would best help them prevent the sprea d of AIS : signs at ramps; educational materials in boat registration and fishing regulations; new boater training; Radio/TV; boat cleaning equipment; boat inspection stations; and rules and regulations ( Table 4 Signs at boat launches, education regulations in registration materials, and new boater training were the most potentially helpful measures in regard to increasing boater/angler adoption o f AIS preventive practices ( Table 4 13). A very small percentage of respondents (3.5%, n=39) indicated that they did not think boaters and anglers were responsible for preventing AIS spread. This suggests that although there are various p erceptions of what measures would be the most effective, the group overall believes that something should be done (by stakeholders) to prevent the spread of AIS. The follow up question one assesses respondent opinions of potential consequences for those who elect not to ta ke action in the prevention of AIS ( Table 4 14) The language explicitly asks about consequences for a boater/angler who is aware that AIS are present but does not take preventive steps. The highest percentage of respondents indicated that training would b e the best rely on self 323 (27%, n= 287 ). This suggests that while this population seems to be lieve that AIS present a
112 se rious threat, they do not agree on the best way to solve the problem. Restrictions, fines, no consequences, and boater training were within five percentage points of each other. Personality factors as well as information source s can potentially serve as motivators for boater/angler adop tion of AIS preventive measures ( Table 4 15) A scaled question on motivators included both personality factors and information sources. Those that indicated they had already taken action indicat and because they saw a sign at a boat launch (15%. n=165). Signs at boat launches were the highest educational materials (60%, n=655), and educational materials in boating/fishing regulation pamphlets (60%, n=639). Respondents were asked to rank the sources and personality factors listed in Table 4 16 to determine which would be most effective at enco urag ing boaters and anglers to adopt preventive BMPs. Weighted scores generated for each respondent for higher scores assigned to choices information/motivation thought to be most effective The five most effective sources or measures were: 1) signs at marinas or bo at launches, 2) brochures, species ID cards, f act sheets, or other materials, 3) a se nse of personal responsibility, 4) fishing o r boating regulation pamphlet s, and 5) a desire to keep AIS out of our lakes and rivers (see Table 4 16 ). Boater and Angler Aquatic Invasive Species Related Behavior Boaters who regularly travel with their boats are the primary vector in the secondary spread of AIS particularly boat ers who do not take appropriate precautions to stop the ir spread.
113 Of the 936 freshwater boaters and anglers who provided a response to the question, 25% (n=237) reported that the y only use a single waterbody. The vast majority of Florida registered boaters and non resident freshwater anglers (75%, n=699) use their boats in multiple waterbodies and present a higher risk of s preading AIS Several factors were assessed to determine the level of risk (of spreading AIS), which include d : length of time the boat is in the water, length of time boat is left out of the water, and the frequency and distance of travel between waterbodies Those boats that remain in a waterbody for a long period of time (e.g. more than five days) present a higher risk of becoming a vec tor for AIS, particularly in the case of Dreissenid mussels or other species that can attach or live in damp areas of boats or equipment. Of the respondents who used a boat in 201 1 and responded to the question (n=771), 64% (n=493) had their boat in the wa ter for one day or le ss, presenting a lower risk than those who remained in the water for 2 4 days (10%, n=78), 5 14 days (12%, n=91), 15=30 days (7%, n=56), or more than 30 days (10.5%, n=81). Boats that remain out of the water (for more than five days) present a lower risk due to the drying effect. However, five days is not sufficient time to kill some AIS through drying and is thus recommended among other BMPs such as inspect boat and remove plants and animals. The risk of transporting AIS is reduced t he longer a boat is out of the water before being transported to a different waterbody Twenty percent of the 747 respondents (n=149) reported that their boat was out of the water for more than 30 days Others reported that they commonly kept their boat ou t of the water for less time; 24% (n=177) 15 30 days out of water, 37% (n=275) 5 14 days of water, 12% (n=90) 2 4 days out of water, and 13.5% (n=101) out of the water just one day or less.
114 AIS are likely to be transported to nearby waterways first, but b oaters that travel with their bo ats long distances also pose a high risk of mov ing AIS from one par t of the country to another. A majority ( 52.5% ) reported moving between 11 50 miles between waterbodies (n=398). Posing a slightly lesser risk, 28% reported moving less than 10 miles (n=210). Longer distances travelled include 51 150 miles (24%, n=183), 151 500 miles (5.5%, n=42), or more than 500 miles (2%, n=15). Simil arly, boaters who travel long distances tend to cross state lines. Of 784 respondents, 22% (n=172) reported transporting their boat to states outside of where it was registered. Those who transported their boat outside of the state where it was registered most frequently visited Florida (n=101), Georgia (n=35), Alabama (n=25), South Carolina (n =13), and Indiana (n=8). Respondents listed 30 states and two Canadian provinces for places that they had transported their boat(s). Anglers who competed in fishing competitions are known to travel long distances and present a high risk if BMPs are not pr acticed. Of the 1104 people that responded to the question, 14% competed in fishing competitions (n=153). The majority of anglers that compete do so within 50 miles of home (71%, n=107), although others travel 51 100 miles (36%, n=54), 101 300 miles (20%, n=30), 301 500 (9%, n=14), or even more than 500 miles (9%, n=13). Given the time, money, and other resources needed to pull a boat long distance, it is not surprising that fewer boaters travel more than 50 miles, but it only takes one boat produce a new introduction. 98 completed the question ask ing if they took steps to prevent the spread of AIS. Those who did not use a boat in 2011 were asked to skip questi ons regarding taking preventive steps after boat use (skip logic),
115 which accounts for the decline in respondents. Most respondents reported that they did take steps (69%, n=689) while 31% (n=309) reported that they did not. A follow up question regarding r easons why they did not take action was asked of those that did not take preventive steps ( Table 4 17) Of the 309 that did not take action, 285 reported reasons for not taking AIS preven tive precautions. The primary reason for not taking action was that b The subse quent question asked respondents whether they engage in specific behaviors and if so, how often. Many of those that indicated that they did not take AIS preventive steps actually reported doing some of these behaviors, but perhaps not for the specific reas on of stopping the spread of AIS (e.g. prevent damage to boa t and equipment). See Table 4 18 for a breakdown of b oater/angler AIS BMP adoption and frequency of practicing. The majority of boaters reported their boat, removing plants and animals from boat and equipment (70%, n=695), and conducting a visual inspection of the boat (61%, n=6140) after removing it from the water. Washing with hot or high pressure water, wiping the hull of the boat, and allowing everything t o dry for at least five days were the BMPs with the lowest level of adoption by boaters and anglers Commitment and/or behavioral intent are often measured by willingness to pay (WTP) studies, especi ally in the case of public good utilization such as water resources or public parks Respondents in this study indicated a higher level of commitment towards signs and information at boat launches and control than AIS outreach o r boat cleaning equipment (see Table 4 19).
116 Finally, one of the best me asures of whether or not an individual decides to take action is thought to be intention to act. Boaters and anglers were asked about their likeliness of taking steps to prevent the spread of AIS in the future (regardless if they perceive that they already do or not). An overwhelming majority of the 1099 boaters who answered this question indicated at (n=37) indicated that they do not boat on infested waters and thus do not have a need to take action in the future. Predicting Boat er and Angler Adoption of BMPs The REB variables thought to predict Responsible Environmental Behavior, in this case, boater and angler adoption of AIS BMPs, were tested through linear regression in the statistical software SAS. With the exception of one variable that was not measured in the questionnaire (action skills), all were tested on the strength of their relationship to behavior (adoption of BMPs). The variables tested included: personality factors (attitudes, self efficacy, and personal responsibi lity), knowledge of issue, knowledge of action strategies, intention to act, situational factors, as well as an additional variable (subjective norms) included by the researcher. After the indices were created for multiple item questions (BMP adoption, kn owledge of issues, willingness to pay, and attitudes), as discussed in Chapter 3, two way relationships were tested by generating Pearson Correlation Coefficients for each independent variable (see Table 4 20). Variables constructed with multiple items are heading; all others are single measure items. Items with significance values of 0.05 or less (based on 95% confidence level) for most of the two way relationships included: intention, norms, personal responsibility self efficacy, attitudes, knowledge of specific species, and knowledge of
117 issue. It was apparent from this initial analysis that monetary values (WTP for AIS related services) and laws and fines, while having some relationship with other independent vari ables, did not bear a strong relationship to the dependent variable, behavior (BMP Index). The full REB model was tested using linear regression, providing significance levels for endent variable, BMP adopt ion ( Table 4 21). All variables with a significance level of 0.4 or higher were removed from the model and then the model run again. In the first regression, self onal factors) were removed from the model. In the subsequent regression, knowledge index, personal responsibility, and willingness to pay (a measure of intention) were removed. In the final regression, issue was removed (a measure of knowledge). Through th ese tests, it was determined that self efficacy, personal responsibility, knowledge index, issue, willingness to pay, laws and fines, and no equipment were all poor predictors of whether or not a boater/angler takes action (adopts BMPs). The strongest p re d ictors of boater and angler adoption of BMPs (responsible environmental behavior) per the REB were: intention to act, norms, knowledge of action strategies (or lack thereof), and attitudes. The data was also checked for interaction between norms and attit udes, which proved to be non significant (data not shown). This information led to the development of a reduced REB model for predicting boater/angler adoption of AIS preventive practices (see Table 4 21). Table 4 22 provides the means and standard deviat ion for each variable tested in the REB for this research. Since many of them have different scales (minimum/maximum value), the means are not comparable to each other, but provided for informational purposes only.
118 Descriptive Analysis of Open Ended Ques tions Comments provided by respondents were diverse and not always focused on AIS issues, but provide insight into the thoughts and perceptions of Florida freshwater boaters and anglers. They were coded using the constant comparative method. Table 4 23 pro vides a breakdown of the categories that were found in responses to the open question 36 in survey) These categories include: control, appreciation, education, taxes/fees/regulations, other water issue s resp onsibility, general issue comments, government, fishing/hunting, boat cleaning/inspections, specific place or issue, community action, introductions, lack of awareness, and other solutions. It is important to note that a single comment may have multiple th emes so can be counted in different groupings and categories as necessary. The categories with the most comments from respondents were taxes/fees/regulations, education, and control. Since respondents were encouraged to write about any AIS issue or topic t hat they were concerned about, the most numerous s ubject of comments are significant s ince they suggest that these issues are meaningful or important to respondents. Comments regarding general control tended to express broad statements or sentiments about invasive plants under control so we can enjoy our lakes better. For ch emical control, comments were mixed between favor and opposition towards ents about the freque ncy or kind
119 objective three that respondents tended to prefer mechanical control over chemical control. Many of the comments expressed preference for mechanical and also mentioned opinions of other logical control received mostly unfavorable comments, a nd wa s reflected in objective three as well. Most of these comments made the connection between controlling an invasive species with another non ng non bio methods these potentially cause more probl control was reflected in comments mostly in the form of draw downs and water manipulation. Comments a drawdown and r Some respondents expressed appreciation and gratitude for receiving information that have covered it pretty go Education was the most numerous category of comments and recommendations. There was a large amount of general comments about the importance of education for solving t his issue. All comments were favorable. Many comments expressed the need for public education about AIS
120 more advertising of other comments emphasized the preference for education over regulations, as well as general personality characteristics of regulations and enforcement. Boaters and fishermen There were also numerous comments made about putting informational signs at boat ramps and/or marinas. All co You n eed to have updated and current info at boat tangible nature of signs in appropriate places and the prompts they can provide. ps is an are right there at the waters location and about to go boating. That would be great! Many suggestions were made about generating various edu cational materials other than signs at ramps. These included television shows, brochures and other printed materials, billboards, pictures, email/web notifications, fishing magazines, PSAs/media, and bait shops and tackle stores. Many of the comments empha sized the need for pictures for identification purposes in educational materials. Numerous suggestions were made about putting AIS information in boater registration mailings and fishing regulations. This tactic guarantees that the desired audience is bein g Others thought at least using the registered boater list to send additional information would think it would be great if you got our email addresses so upon renewal of our information is not already include d in existing materials targeting boaters and a nglers (about
121 AIS) Taxes, fees, and regulations received many comments. This category was split between support and opposition, with m ore supporting than opposing the idea of regulation. Comments I think there should be an inspection station at all major highways entering the state of Florida for boaters to stop and have their boats inspected by FW C mandatory. Many comments were qualified with a sentiment about not preferring regulations but feeling that this was a serious issue that may require them or needing to know that funding was going to the nd inspections are probably the only way people will be compelled Many respondents m ade a distinction between those who were unaware and those who had warnings first, but then moving to regulatory process for violators. There was also some strong opposition to taxes fees, and regulations dollars more resourc self Many respondents used the sur vey as an opportunity to comment about other water issues, mostly in the form of water quality and quantity issues. However, comments regarding building more wetlands, removing manatees, mercury levels, ethanol fuel in marine engines, water
122 bottling compan ies, and noisy airboats were also received. Comments having to do with water ned muck, Most respondents who made comments about responsibility alluded to boaters and anglers Maintaining y our boat goes hand in hand with preventing the spread of AIS. and are less likely to spread AIS. Others thought that the issue would not only benefit from but require a larg er commitment Bring about cultural change through behavior based reinforcement/awareness increas Build personal responsibi lity through a rewards program. Others were skeptical that boaters had a responsibility and thought that other sources or vectors were just as responsible (e.g. wildlife) or that it was a shared responsibility to provide equipment R emarks were coded into two groupings for general comments about the AIS issue, those that suggested the issue was un manageable (or ), and those that were genuinely concerned. Those that though t the issue was unmanageable made comments t able
123 The planet is evolving, human activity is part of evolution, including the dispersal th e lakes will never be the same. g Many respondents made comments about t he importance of protecting the resources, such There were many comments made about gover nment, both positive and negative. While concerned about herbicide spraying techniques and/or training of personnel. Some made a distinction between national were very supportive. Keep funding WMDs and other government agencies. Unfortunately, it seems neg ative to be pro environment in this state. If the WMDs and other agencies M any comments were made about fishing and hunting. While the majority made lls a lake. Have never seen fish kill by too much hydrilla, but chemicals to control hydrilla will kill a lake
124 the management of natural resources (natural areas, waters, etc.) There needs to be a balance on maintaining a healthy fishery and removal of invasive aquatic vegetation. When you have a healthy fishery, it al so benefits the local economy. In addition, s ome anglers thought that management agencies in Florida needed to do a better job prote cting fisheries. Florida is a magnificent bass fishing resource. Florida does not take advantage of this great economic resource, nor does it prom ote and protect it adequately. Although much less numerous than fishing, some respondents made comments about hunting. These comments mostly focused on waterfowl although alligators and invasive snakes were occasionally mentioned veg=fishermen are happy. More veg=duck hunters are happy. Love to see tons of vegetation, but not the non Perhaps related to the frequency the topic was mentioned in the survey, many respondents made comments about boat cleaning, inspection stations, and/or boat check points. These comments were divided into support or opposition. Many more boaters and anglers made supportive c Many respondents alluded t o the importance of placement, s ince boat ramps can get congested of the way (loading/unloading) location for veg removal at busy Some thought that this practice (of cleaning and/or getting inspected needed to be mandatory.
125 People should be made aware of the problem and clean their boats and trailers at y be necessary in order to make peo ple clean their equipment. Oppositional comments were far less numerous They mostly alluded to ramps being overcrowded already. A lot of respondents made comments about a specific issue, species, or place. These were d ivided into three categories: 1) anecdotal AIS related personal stories or experiences, 2) specific species, or 3) a particular lake or location. Many of these comments combine elements down the high powered (ridiculous) bass boats and makes it native Indiana. No effort was made t o educate me when I registered m Most anecdotes focused on an opinion or experience We spent 3/4 months in Florida now and see that time increasing. I would favor additional fees for license provided these funds be directed to signage info, or cleaning stations. I fish IL, WS, MN, Ontar io and Manitoba. Now adding FL. Other comments focused on a specific species, which was most often hydrilla or water hyacinth, although tilapia, armored catfish, and apple snails were also mentioned. I believe hydrilla was introduced to the lake I live on during wildfires in 2008 b y helicopter fire fighting ops. Comments on community action mentioned on teaching kids, creating jobs locally, involving scout troops or 4H groups, community cleanup events, public meetings, or using inmates to help clean or inspect boats/ramps.
126 Jobs could be created to remove these species which helps our environment and economy. All it w ill take is time and training. Quite a few comments were made about the source of invasive species introductions. All bass tournaments as sou A f ew respondents made comments or apologies about not knowing more about the issue, tle because the problem is so Finally, some respondents offered solutions that did not fall into any of the previous rporating AIS prevention in boater safety courses, putting a filter on locks to catch weeds, providing tax credits for AIS prevention donations, forming committees of local stakeholders, and providing incentives for homeowners to control their own shorelin es. Of the 1096 who answered the question, 40% of respondents reported that they had experienced AIS related problems (n=443). These respondents were prompted to write in a description of the problem, which 417 did comment Categories for problems describ ed include: 1) navigation, 2) recreation, which was further broken down into boat/equipment, and fishing groups, and 3) other, which was further broken down into a group who explicitly cited chemicals. There were 178 comments that mentioned navigational i
127 Problems related to boats and e quipment were nearly as numerous as navigation issues with 173 comments. Most of these comments mentioned AIS clogging intakes or jet drives, e Some respondents simply described the AIS specific la becoming shallower tilapia, cattails, algae, and snails. Several respondents alluded to a chemical the over de
128 Table 4 1. Boater and Angler Demo graphics Measure Percent Frequency Both (n=1395) 68.1% 950 Boat only (n=1395) 10.7% 149 Fish only (n=1395) 9.9% 138 None (n=1395) 11.0% 158 Saltwater only (n=1237) 8.5% 119 Table 4 2. Boater and Angler Radio Station Preference Radio Station Gen re Yes No Country (n=1083) 63.1% (n=683) 36.9% (n=400) Oldies/Classic rock (n=1083) 52.4% (n=568) 47.6% (n=515) Talk radio (n=1083) 36.0% (n=390) 64.0% (n=693) Public radio (n=1083) 21.7% (n=235) 78.3% (n=848) Other (n=1083) 18.3% (n=198) 81.7% (n=885 ) New age/Alternative (n=1083) 14.2% (n=154) 85.8% (n=929) Classical (n=1081) 10.6% (n=115) 89.4% (n=966) Table 4 3. Boater and Angler Radio Communication Method Preference Communication Method (n=1082) Yes No Mail 78.1% (n=845) 21.9% (n=237) Em ail 41.6% (n=450) 58.4% (n=632) Smart Phone App 6.7% (n=72) 93.3% (n=1010) Public meetings 6.5% (n=70) 93.5% (n=1012) Other (TV, radio, face to face) 4.9% (n=53) 95.1% (n=1029) Social Media 3.3% (n=36) 96.7% (n=1046)
129 Table 4 4. Trustworthin ess of Organizations Note on coding: 1=very trustworthy, 2=somewhat trustworthy, 3=slightly trustw orthy, 4=not trustworthy, 5=no experience w/organization, and 5=undecided Agency Very trustworthy Somewhat trustworthy Slightly trustworthy Not trustworthy No experience Undecided M SD FWC (n=1072) 57.4% (n=615) 25.1% (n=269) 5.9% (n=63) 2.1% (n=23) 6.3% (n=67) 3.3% (n=35) 1.85 1.335 EPA (n=1068) 25 .4% (n=271) 27.9% (n=298) 15.0% (n=160) 16.7% (n=178) 10.2% (n=109) 4.9% (n=52) 2.73 1.495 UF/IFAS CAIP (n=1067) 52.3% (n=558) 22.1% (n=236) 4.7% (n=50) 0.6% (n=6) 15.9% (n=170) 4.4% (n=47) 2.19 1.642 WMD (n=1065) 20.8% (n=222) 35.0% (n=373) 17.6% (n=187) 9. 3% (n=99) 12.5% (n=133) 4.8% (n=51) 2.72 1.460 Stores (n=1061) 10.1% (n=107) 39.3% (n=417) 28.9% (n=307) 6.8% (n=72) 8.3% (n=88) 6.6% (n=70) 2.84 1.328 Tackle shops (n=1067) 18.7% (n=199) 46.3% (n=494) 20.8% (n=222) 3.2% (n=34) 6.6% (n=70) 4.5% (n=48) 2.4 6 1.273 Boating & angling NGOs (n=1067) 32.0% (n=341) 36.3% (n=387) 13.2% (n=141) 1.6% (n=17) 11.4% (n=122) 5.5% (n=59) 2.41 1.505 Env. NGOs (n=1070) 17.1% (n=183) 26.4% (n=283) 18.9% (n=202) 15.8% (n=169) 15.2% (n=163) 6.5% (n=70) 3.05 1.518 Extension (n=1055) 23.6% (n=249) 31.7% (n=334) 15.1% (n=159) 3.8% (n=40) 17.6% (n=186) 8.2% (n=87) 2.85 1.651 Friends/family (n=1068) 27.9% (n=298) 39.3% (n=420) 18.2% (n=194) 3.8% (n=41) 4.6% (n=49) 6.2% (n=66) 2.36 1.373 Media (n=1063) 8.6% (n=91) 39.0% (n=415) 3 0.8% (n=327) 10.3% (n=110) 5.4% (n=57) 5.9% (n=63) 2.83 1.247 Social media (n=1067) 2.2% (n=24) 13.8% (n=147) 27.1% (n=289) 17.5% (n=187) 22.9% (n=244) 16.5% (n=176) 3.94 1.383
130 Table 4 5. Boater and Angler Awareness of Specific Species Species A lot of knowledge Some knowledge A little knowledge No knowledge M SD Hydrilla (n=1092) 30.2% (n=330) 33.9% (n=3 70) 22.4% (n=245) 13.5% (n=147) 1.81 1.015 Water hyacinth (n=1064) 18.0% (n=191) 31.2% (n=332) 26.9% (n=286) 24.0% (n=255) 1.43 1.041 Water lettuce (n=1013) 7.3% (n=74) 16.0% (n=162) 32.9% (n=333) 56.2% (n=444) .87 .935 Armored catfish (n=1030) 5.0 % (n=52) 11.7% (n=121) 26.1% (n=269) 57.1% (n=588) .65 .876 Island Apple snail (n=1022) 3.4% (n=35) 8.0% (n=82) 22.2% (n=227) 66.3% (n=678) .49 .785 Quagga/zebra mussel (n=1033) 8.8% (n=91) 16.6% (n=171) 27.5% (n=284) 47.1% (n=487) .87 .987 Table 4 6. Boater and Angler Awareness of AIS in Visited Waterbodies Source of awareness Yes No Able to identify & observed (n=682) 80.1% (n=546) 19.9% (n=136) Sign at boat launch (n=682) 39.6% (n=270) 60.4% (n=412) Friend or family member (n=690) 2 5.5% (n=174) 74.5% (n=508) Media (n=682) 10.9% (n=74) 89.1% (n=608) Regulation pamphlet (n=682) 10.7% (n=73) 89.3% (n=609) Educational brochure (n=690) 5.4% (n=37) 94.6% (n=645) Website (n=690) 3.1% (n=21) 96.9% (n=661) Boat inspector (n=690) 1.2% (n= 8) 98.8% (n=674) Table 4 7. Boater and Angler Awareness of AIS Control Methods Method A lot of knowledge Some knowledge A little knowledge No knowledge M SD Chemical (n=1099) 10.0% (n=110) 41.9% (n=461) 29.0% (n=319) 19.0% (n=209) 2.57 .909 Mechanic al (n=1100) 9.7% (n=107) 42.4% (n=466) 26.6% (n=293) 21.3% (n=234) 2.59 .928 Biological (n=1099) 4.5% (n=49) 27.6% (n=303) 34.6% (n=380) 33.4% (n=367) 2.97 .888 Physical (n=1094) 9.2% (n=101) 37.3% (n=408) 28.2% (n=308) 25.3% (n=277) 2.70 .951
131 Table 4 8. Boater and Angler Sources for AIS Awareness Source of information Yes No Magazine/newsletter (n=1080) 58.8% (n=635) 35.6% (n=384) 5.6% (n=61) Sign at boat launch (n=1079) 56.6% (n=610) 35.3% (n=381) 8.2% (n=88) Newspapers ( n=1081) 47.7% (n=516) 45.0% (n=486) 7.4% (n=79) Fishing/boating/hunting regulations (n=1076) 45.3% (n=487) 44.3% (n=477) 10.4% (n=112) Information at bait/tackle shop (n=1062) 38.1% (n=405) 52.7% (n=560) 9.1% (n=97) TV news or programs (n=1 060) 35.9% (n=381) 55.5% (n=588) 8.6% (n=91) Boat registration materials (n=1070) 27.0% (n=289) 60.4% (n=646) 12.6% (n=135) Educational materials (n=1053) 24.7% (n=260) 67.5% (n=659) 11.4% (n=134) Websites (n=1066) 22.9% (n=244) 68.0% (n=725) 9.1% (n=97) Booth at sport/fishing show (n=1064) 21.7% (n=231) 68.1% (n=725) 10.3% (n=108) Sport/environmental organization (n=1064) 21.1% (n=225) 67.5% (n=718) 11.4% (n=121) Fishing surveys or boat inspections (n=1065) 17.3% (n=184) 73.3% ( n=781) 9.4%( n=100) Billboards (n=1068) 12.7% (n=136) 78.0% (n=833) 9.3% (n=99) Conferences, presentations, meetings n=1064) 12.7% (n=135) 86.5% (n=824) 11.3% (n=105) Radio (n=1068) 12.5% (n=134) 76.9% (n=821) 10.6% (n=113) Contests, derbi es, or regattas (n=1065) 12.5% (n=133) 76.6% (n=816) 10.9% (n=116) Educational videos (n=1013) 5.8% (n=59) 81.3% (n=824) 12.8% (n=130) Social media (n=1048) 2.2% (n=23) 86.5% (n=907) 11.3% (n=118) Other specified (n=43) 14.0% (n=6) 76.7% (n=33) 9.3% (n=4)
132 Table 4 9. Sources Most Effective for AIS Related Information Measure/source Frequency Total Points Most important (n=896) 2 nd most important (n=872) 3 rd most important (n=837) Signs at marinas or launches 252 125 117 1123 Television news or programs 129 72 59 590 Fishing, boating, or waterfowl hunting regulation pamphlets 95 104 90 583 Magazine/newsletter articles 82 101 70 518 Newspapers 83 46 54 395
133 Table 4 10. Boater and Angler Att itudes about AIS Impacts Table 4 11. Angler Preference for Fishing Habitat Habitat Very desirable Desirable Undesirable Very undesirable know M SD Native emergent plants (n=881) 39.4% (n=34 7) 43.4% (n=382) 3.4% (n=30) 1.5% (n=13) 12.4% (n=109) 2.04 1.265 Native submerged plants (n=881) 28.7% (n=253) 43.6% (n=384) 8.9% (n=78) 2.4% (n=21) 16.5% (n=145) 2.34 1.355 Floating plants (n=872) 11.8% (n=103) 33.3% (n=290) 27.9% (n=243) 13.0% (n=113) 14.1% (n=123) 2.84 1.215 Hydrilla (n=871) 8.0% (n=70) 19.1% (n=166) 27.7% (n=241) 29.7% (n=259) 15.5% (n=135) 3.26 1.169 Open water (n=867) 11.2% (n=97) 36.6% (n=317) 24.9% (n=216) 13.3% (n=115) 14.1% (n=122) 2.82 1.216 Other structure ( n=867) 36.6% (n=317) 48.1% (n=417) 4.3% (n=37) 1.4% (n=12) 9.7% (n=84) 2.00 1.156 Impact Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree Know M SD Environmental (n=1111) 42.4% (n=471) 39.0% (n=433) 8.3% (n=92) 1.7% (n=19) 0.5% (n=5) 8.2% (n=91) 2.03 1.388 Economic (n=1110) 32.6% (n=362) 43. 1% (n=478) 12.3% (n=136) 2.5% (n=28 ) 0.4% (n=4) 9.2% (n=102) 2.23 1.415 Native Fish/Wildlife (n=1108) 41.7% (n=462) 36.6% (n=406) 10.3% (n=114) 2.5% (n=28) 0.5% (n=5) 8.4% (n=93) 2.09 1.414 I can take preventive steps (n=1103) 22.4% (n=312) 36. 9% (n=515) 7.4% (n=103) 0.8% (n=11) 0.1% (n=1) 14.6% (n=161) 2.42 1.609 Invasive plants can take over (n=1111) 39.2% (n=547) 29.4% (n=410) 4.8% (n=67) 1.1% (n=16) 0.3% (n=3) 6.1% (n=68) 1.85 1.262 Native Plants can take over (n=1109) 27.0% (n=2 99) 31.7% (n=351) 17.5% (n=194) 9.4% (n=104) 2.9% (n=32) 11.6% (n=129) 2.64 1.590
134 Table 4 12. Boater and Angler Preference of AIS Control Methods Method Strongly favor Somewhat favor Neither Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose know M SD Chem ical (n=1094) 15.1% (n=165) 27.6% (n=302) 13.2% (n=144) 16.4% (n=179) 18.2% (n=199) 9.6% (n=105) 3.24 1.606 Mechanical (n=1094) 36.2% (n=396) 36.7% (n=402) 13.6% (n=149) 2.9% (n=32) 1.8% (n=20) 8.7% (n=95) 2.23 1.455 Biological (n=1083) 19.3% (n=2 09) 26.7% (n=289) 15.2% (n=165) 13.0% (n=141) 12.6% (n=136) 13.2% (n=143) 3.12 1.687 Physical (n=1087) 25.8% (n=280) 37.4% (n=406) 17.9% (n=195) 5.1% (n=55) 3.1% (n=34) 10.8% (n=117) 2.55 1.532 Table 4 13. Perception of Effective Methods to Help Boater/Anglers Prevent the Spread Measure (n=1107) Yes No Signs at boat launch 84.0% (n=930) 16.0% (n=177) Educational materials 63.3% (n=701) 36.7% (n=406) Boater training courses 34.0% (n=376) 66.0% (n=731) Radio/TV 30.0% (n=332) 70.0% (n=775) Boa t cleaning equipment 28.2% (n=312) 71.8% (n=795) Rules and regulations 20.3% (n=225) 79.9% (n=882) Boat inspections 11.0% (n=122) 89.0% (n=985) Other (specified) 7.2% (n=80) 92.8% (n=1027) Boaters/anglers not responsible 3.5% (n=39) 96.5% (n=1068) Table 4 14. Perception of Effective Consequences for Violators Measure (n=1064) Yes No Boater training 32.5% (n=346) 67.5% (n=718) No consequences 31.3% (n=333) 68.7% (n=731) Fines 30.4% (n=323) 69.6% (n=741) Restrictions 27.0% (n=287) 73.0% (n=777) Other (specified) 10.2% (n=109) 89.8% (n=955)
135 Table 4 15. Motivators for AIS BMP Adoption Measure/source Already led me to take action Would be very effective Would be somewhat effective Would NOT be effective Friends and acquaintances (n=1074) 15.7% (n=169) 37.2% (n=399) 38.7% (n=416) 8.4% (n=90) Sense of personal responsibility (n=1081) 30.9% (n=334) 50.2% (n=543) 16.5% (n=178) 2.4% (n=26) Desire to keep AIS out of lakes/rivers (n=1080) 29.4% (n=317) 54.5% (n=589) 13.6% (n=147) 2.5% (n =27) Desire to prevent damage to equipment (n=1094) 24.2% (n=262) 55.3% (n=599) 16.4% (n=178) 4.2% (n=45) Desire to reduce cost of controlling AIS (n=1075) 12.4% (n=133) 50.0% (n=537) 26.0% (n=279) 11.7% (n=126) Laws & regulations (n=1088) 7.4% (n=8 1) 54.7% (n=595) 26.2% (n=285) 11.7% (n=127) Enforcement checks (n=1075) 5.6% (n=60) 50.7% (n=545) 29.7% (n=319) 14.0% (n=151) Fines to be paid by violators (n=1078) 3.7% (n=40) 45.3% (n=487) 30.2% (n=326) 20.9% (n=225) Media (n=1079) 5.0% (n=54) 46.2% (n=499) 41.1% (n=443) 7.7% (n=83) TV/Radio (n=1086) 5.1% (n=55) 45.3% (n=492) 39.5% (n=429) 10.1% (n=110) Billboards (n=1071) 3.3% (n=35) 38.7% (n=415) 43.7% (n=468) 14.3% (n=153) Mag/newsletter (n=1081) 5.2% (n=56) 41.5% (n=449) 43.9% (n= 475) 9.3% (n=101) Website (n=1068) 3.5% (n=37) 34.9% (n=373) 42.9% (n=458) 18.7% (n=200) Social Media (n=1068) 1.7% (n=18) 28.1% (n=300) 38.8% (n=414) 31.5% (n=336) Educational materials (n=1088) 7.7% (n=84) 60.2% (n=655) 28.1% (n=306) 4.0% (n =43) Fishing/boating regulation pamphlets (n=1072) 5.5% (n=59) 59.6% (n=639) 31.3% (n=336) 3.5% (n=38) Signs at boat launches (n=1080) 15.3% (n=165) 66.3% (n=716) 16.8% (n=181) 1.7% (n=18) Boat inspections (n=1064) 3.4% (n=36) 47.2% (n=502) 31.8 % (n=338) 17.7% (n=188) Videos/presentations (n=1073) 2.1% (n=23) 40.4% (n=433) 45.0% (n=483) 12.5% (n=134) Radio broadcasts along roads (n=1070) 1.3% (n=14) 24.9% (n=266) 42.1% (n=451) 31.7% (n=339) New boater training courses (n=1086) 2.9% (n=32 ) 55.1% (n=598) 32.0% (n=348) 9.9% (n=108)
136 Table 4 16. Sources/steps Most Effective for Getting Boaters/Anglers to Adopt BMPs Measure/source Frequency Total Points Most important (n=896) 2nd most important (n=872) 3rd most important (n=837) Signs at marinas or boat launches 150 140 113 843 Brochures, ID cards, fact sheets or other materials 114 88 81 599 Sense of personal responsibility 126 42 35 497 Fishing or boating regulations 47 92 68 393 A desire to keep AIS out of our lakes and rivers 67 69 46 385 Table 4 17. Respondents Reasons for Not Taking Action Reason for not taking action (n=285) Yes No 51.2% (n=146) 48.8% (n=139) Other (specified) 29.5% (n=84) 70.5% (n=201) Boat washing equipment not available 27.0% (n=77) 73.0% (n=208) 13.7% (n=39) 86.3% (n=246) re a problem 3.5% (n=10) 96.5% (n=275) 3.5% (n=10) 96.5% (n=275) Not convenient 2.1% (n=6) 97.9% (n=279)
137 Table 4 18. Adoption and Frequency of Boater AIS Preventive BMPs Table 4 19. Boater and Angler Willingness to Pay for AIS Rel ated Services BMP Always Usually Sometimes Never Does not apply M SD Visual inspection (n=1002) 61.3% (n=614) 22.9% (n=229 ) 7.3% (n=73) 6.0% (n=60) 2.6% (n=26) 2.46 1.044 Drain water (n=999) 73.1% (n=730) 16.0% (n=160) 4.2% (n=42) 2.3% (n=23) 4.4% (n=44) 2.63 .961 Dispose of live bait properly (n=982) 53.8% (n=528) 15.6% (n=153) 7.3% (n=72) 10.6% (n=104) 12.7% (n=1 25) 2.66 1.417 Remove plants and animals (n=995) 69.8% (n=695) 16.5% (n=164) 4.4% (n=44) 3.7% (n=37) 5.5% (n=55) 2.57 1.052 Wash (n=988) 40.1% (n=396) 22.3% (n=220) 23.9% (n=236) 10.5% (n=104) 3.2% (n=32) 1.99 1.232 Wash with hot or high pressure (n= 987) 13.1% (n=129) 9.7% (n=96) 25.4% (n=251) 46.8% (n=462) 5.0% (n=49) 1.01 1.325 Flush cooling system (n=977) 26.3% (n=257) 13.4% (n=131) 23.7% (n=232) 26.7% (n=261) 9.8% (n=96) 1.43 1.404 Dry (n=987) 23.0% (n=227) 29.7% (n=293) 24.7% (n=244) 17.4% (n =172) 5.2% (n=51) 1.64 1.247 Wipe hull (n=99) 14.8% (n=147) 15.6% (n=155) 31.0% (n=308) 33.8% (n=335) 4.7% (n=47) 1.20 1.274 Service None $1 $2 $5 $10 M SD Boat cleaning stations (n=1054) 38.8% (n=409) 21.9% (n=231) 17.0% (n=179) 16.8% (n=177) 5.5% (n=58) 2.12 2.639 Signs and materials at boat ramps (n=1056) 30.6% (n=323) 34.3% (n=362) 19.8% (n=209) 12.3% (n=130) 3.0% (n=32) 1.86 2.190 Communication & outreach (n=1035) 43.4% (n=449) 29.5% (n=305) 16.5% (n=171) 8.2% (n=85) 2.4% (n=25) 1.44 2.043 Management & control of AIS (n=1066) 27.6% (n=294) 25.0% (n=267) 18.7% (n=199) 19.8% (n=211) 8.9% (n=95) 2.69 2.925
138 Table 4 20. Correlations Between Boater/Angler BMP Adoption and Personality Factors, Knowledge of Issues, Knowledge of Action Strategies, Norms and Intention BMP index Know. index Issue Efficacy BMP likely WTP index Norms Pers. Res. Laws/fines Attitud es BMP index 1.00 Know. index .110* 1.00 Issue .097* .248* 1.00 Efficacy .162* .225* .388* 1.00 BMP likely .360* .034 .139* .234* 1.00 WTP index .052 .056 .185* .087* .108* 1.00 No rms .318* .204* .179* .304* .308* .056 1.00 Per. Res. .172* .206* .263* .392* .245* .139* .483* 1.00 Laws/fines .039 .009 .149* .136* .085* .208* .079* .159* 1.00 Attitudes .144* .168* .629* .402* .202* .213* .173* .275* .261* 1.00 *indicates a significance of 0.05 or less
139 Table 4 21. Linear Regression: Full REB Model vs. Reduced REB Model Note: Per the REB Model: Attitude, Efficacy, Personal Responsibility=measures of personality facto rs. Issue, Knowledge Index=measures of knowledge of issues. BMP likely, Likely Spend=measures of intention. Laws/Fines, No Equipment=measures of situational factors. Efficacy, Personal Responsibility, Issue, Knowledge Index, Likely Spend, Laws/Fines, and N o Equipment removed in the Reduced REB Model. a R squared= .223 (Adjusted R squared= .210) b R squared= .209 (Adjusted R squared= .205) Full REB Model a Reduced REB Model b Predictive Variable B Std. Error t Sig. B Std. Error t Sig. Intercept 5.531 6.667 .830 .407 4.619 6.209 .744 .457 Attitude 3.663 1.381 2.652 .008 1.720 .999 1.721 .086 Efficacy 8.00 1.035 .773 .440 Per. Res. 1.848 1.081 1.709 .088 Knowledge Index .0 38 .034 1.114 .266 Issue 1.576 .911 1.730 .084 Norms 3.255 .640 5.083 .000 2.352 .564 2.172 .000 BMP Likely 11.377 1.479 7.691 .000 11.901 1.395 8.532 .000 Likely Spend .409 .329 1.243 .214 Laws/F ines .285 1.038 .275 .783 No Equip. .938 4.447 .210 .834 Action Strat. 11.997 4.193 2.861 .004 11.199 1.918 5.838 .000
140 Table 4 22. Variable Statistics Variable N M SD Min/Max Value BMP Index (dep.) 1008 59.80 21.70 0 100 Knowledge Ind ex 1092 32.60 20.70 0 100 Issue 1101 3.16 1.01 0 4 Efficacy 1103 3.02 7.55 0 4 BMP likely 1099 3.76 .50 1 4 WTP index 1083 1.53 2.14 0 10 Norms 1041 2.47 1.26 0 5 Responsibility 1080 2.09 .75 0 3 Laws/Fines 1063 1.46 .63 1 5
141 Table 4 23. Qualitative Analysis of Boater & Angler Comments/Recommendations Category/grouping (n=619) Number of comments 1. Control 91 a. General 39 b. Chemical 56 c. Mechanical 14 d. Biological 6 e. Physical 8 2. Appreciation 24 3. Education 151 a. Signs at boat ramps 37 b. Educational materials 31 c. Boating registration/fishing regulations 28 4. Taxes/fees/regulations 103 a. Favor 64 b. Oppose 39 5. Other water issue 21 a. Quality 10 b. Quantity 12 6. Responsibility 59 7. Genera l issue comment/recommendation 54 a. Unmanageable/not an issue 14 b. Concerned 46 8. Government 41 9. Fishing/hunting 39 10. Boat cleaning/inspections 36 a. Favor 59 b. Oppose 8 11. Specific place or issue 85 a. Anecdotal 72 b. Species 32 c. Location 38 12. Community involvement/action 11 13. Introductions of AIS 14 14. 22 15. Other solutions 23
142 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Invasive species are a global problem and are considered to be one of the biggest en vironmental threats of the 21 st Century (Coblentz, 1990; U.S. General Accountability Office, 2002). With increased trade, transport, and travel, natural barriers that used to deter species movement are disappearing Aquatic invasive species (AIS) pose seri ous threat s to freshwater resources by diminishing biological diversity as invasive plants and animal species move in and take over native species (Carlton & Geller, 1993; Vitousek, 1994). These invasives can also threaten public safety, local economies, l ivelihoods, recreation, water supply, water quality, and property values (Rockwell, 2003). Recreational water activities (e.g. boating and fishing) are the leading sources of the secondary spread of AIS (Johnson & Padilla, 1996; Johnson et al. 2001; Murr y et al. 2011) Florida leads the nation in number of regis tered boats and an estimated 300,000 visitors who come to boat and/or fish annually (FD H SMV 2010).As such, this study provides a baseline assessment of Florida boater and angler awareness, attitu des and behavior in regard to AIS issues and prevention. Florida registered boaters who boat primarily on freshwater in Florida are major stakeholders in the AIS issue; assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in regard to AIS can provide critic al information to management agencies on how best to develop and disseminate an educational campaign targeting the biggest user group in the state. The study focused on boater and angler behavior in regards to the spread of AIS, but explored other construc ts such as awareness and attitudes. While several theories are used in environmental behavior studies this research model draws specifically from Responsible Environmental Behavior (REB) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The two models
143 share the c onstructs of intention to act and attitude. In both models, attitudes are assumed to have act, the REB asserts that two additional broad factors are necessar y: cognitive (issue, action strategy, and skill knowledge) and affective (attitudes, personal responsibility, and locus of control) components. The principle is that if cognitive and affective factors can be changed, behavioral intentions can be influenced which can ultimately result in environmentally desirable behaviors (Hwang, Kim, & Jeng, 2000). For the purpose of this research, the REB was modified to include a variable present in the TPB subjective norms. Research on boaters and anglers suggested t hat norms were a significant factor that could have a great influence on behavior. Understanding what factors facilitate boater and angler responsible environmental behavior can provide important guidelines for designing and implementing an educational cam paign capable of increasing boater and angler adoption and practice of AIS preventive measures. Effective AIS outreach can motivate boaters to act (Jensen, 2010). In order to adequately address the multitude of impacts associated with AIS, effective educa tional campaigns should be developed and implemented. Behavioral theory and models are helpful tools in understanding why people chose to take action (or not) and the best ways in which to engage stakeholders with messages that are relevant, targeted, and adept at influencing behavior. Summary and Discussion of Results A mail survey was sent to 4500 Florida freshwater boaters and non resident anglers requesting participation in this study regarding AIS A total of 1395 surveys were returned, yielding a resp onse rate of 33.87%. Of these, 1118 (27.14%) were completed surveys returned by freshwater boaters (70%, n=787) and anglers (30%, n=333). The remaining 277 surveys were
144 returned by boaters/anglers who either had not boated/fished in some time or boated/fis hed in saltwater only. All 1395 returned surveys were respondents, 1118 were considered valid. Socio Demographic Information Demographic information can provide insight into who the target audience is and how best to target them. Of the eligible responden ts (n=1118), an overwhelming majority (68%) reported th at they both boated and fished in 2011 Most of the respondents were male (91%) and the average age was found to be 59, which is significantly higher than a five state comparison of boater awareness, w here the mean age was 45 (Jensen, 2010). Most of the respondents used a s mall powerboat under 20 feet, fished in freshwater in the past year for pleasure or sport for mostly largemouth bass, crappie or bluegill. This is an older (retired age) population th at prefers to listen to country or oldies/classic rock on the radio and receive information by mail or email. Respondents also indicated that they found the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC) to be ty of Florida IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants. It is possible that because these organizations were associated with the survey, it presented some bias in the question. However, it does suggest that these organizations would be logical entities to design and implement an AIS educational campaign for boaters. Also, it should be noted that respondents also regarded friends and family with a high degree of trust, with 67% (n=718) rating them as very or somewhat trustworthy. This supports the notion of incorporating a strong social, normative component to an AIS prevention campaign. Species and Management Awareness Awareness of specific invasive species varied widely among boaters and anglers. Hig h or moderate awareness was great est for hydrilla, wate r hyacinth, and water l ettuce, which are widespread in Florida. Awareness of other species listed was much lower, particularly that of
1 45 (2010) five state comparison the Great Lakes Region, and more recently the northwest, though there are also national campaigns focused on them as well, such as the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers campaign. Flori da, and likely the entire southeast region, state comparison, has much lower levels of awareness about mussels. This could be attributed to a low perception of risk on the part of managers. However, as suggested elsewhere, mussels do present a risk to Florida, and are currently found in parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama Jensen (2010) found that public awareness was highest for species that had been made a priority and promoted in boater outreach efforts for exte nded periods of time, suggesting that AIS awareness of Florida boaters and non resident anglers could increase greatly if all species of concern were made more of a priority. Also, Jensen (2010) recommended that states with hydrilla or other aquatic plant infestations focus on making boater outreach a priority, since these plants are known to be carriers of other AIS. Boaters and anglers reported that they knew more about chemical and mechanical control method than physical and biological control methods. This data likely reflects the prevalence and observable nature of th ese practices (AIS treatment by chemical and mechanical means) If management agencies would like boaters and anglers (and other stakeholders) to be more aware of management efforts and to ols, this could be incorporated into an AIS educational campaign along with preventive measures. However, since attitudes about these control methods (chemical control in particular) varied from strong opposition to support, a campaign focusing on manageme nt would have to be carefully designed and tested before implementation in order to be successful.
146 Sources of AIS information Most respondents who boated on AIS infested waters knew that AIS were present because they could identify the species and per sonally observed them. Although a relatively high amount of respondents reported that they had seen a sign at the boat launch, most had not, indicating that this may be a valuable missed educational opportunity where signs are not present. This data sugges ts that ensuring all public waterways have signs notifying users of AIS presence and specifying preventive BMPs would be an important part of an educational campaign. waterbody was infested with AIS, which points to a strong normative association for this issue among boaters similar to the results of the fi ve state comparison of boaters and manatee conservation study (Jensen, 2010; Aipanjiguly et al. 2003). As sugges ted in the TBP, an norm not. Knowledge of where boaters/ang lers receive information can assist management agencies by recognizing the most likely effective allocation of resources for specific mediums. Magazines and newsletters, signs at boat launches, newspapers, and fishing regulations were reported to be the most prevalent sources of information for AIS coverage among respondents. An additional 27% of respondents indicated that they had received information about AIS in boat registration materials. Management agencies in Florida have included very limited information about AIS in fishing regulations, but not to boat owners with registration materials (Bob Wattendorf, personal communication May 10, 2012). For those who reside or hunt/fish outside of the state, it is possible that they have received AIS materials with hunting regulations or boat registr ation
147 materials, but not much for those who reside inside of Florida. Since all registered boaters receive registration materials and all anglers receive fishing regulations, the data s uggests that these would be effective and in expensive sources to disseminate AIS information and messages in an educational campaign. Boater and Angler Attitudes towards AIS Issues, Spread and Management Attitudes are an important mediating factor relating to an individual intention in the TPB an d the REB. A vast major ity of respondents indicated that AIS were conservation. Many of the comments made in the open ended questions a l so allude d to boaters and anglers being responsible, conscientious, and caring about the resource. Most respondents indicated that they regional and local economies, native fish and wildlife, a nd could take over Florida waterways if can take to prevent the spread, alluding to their level of self efficacy. However, this finding was followed by a relat ively large amount of respondents reporting that t specific important but not understanding what can be done to address the issue. This presen ts an opportunity for education on not only the AIS issue and associated impacts, but also for providing clear action strategies that empower boaters and anglers to better protect the resources that they enjoy. The number of respondents who had personally experienced issues or problems with AIS was similar to those who indicated they had not experienced problems. In the open ended questions, many respondents provided anecdotal information about their personal experiences and attitudes.
148 M any personal experi ences seem to dictate or play a role in attitudes about AIS as an issue or some aspect of it such as control. Anglers indicated that native emerg ent plants and other underwater structure were more desirable fishi ng habitat than invasive submers ed hydrilla or floating plants. This suggests that while some anglers may prefer more vegetation in general, they do care if it is invasive. Over half of the respondents indicated that 11 40 percent plant coverage of a lake was most desirable, which may help inform pl ant management goals. The survey respondents reported a strong preference for mechanical and physical control compared to chemica l and biological control. This is significant since respondents also indicated that they had more knowledge of chemica l and mec hanical control This finding suggests, probably to no surprise to those who manage AIS, that stakeholders (such as boaters and anglers) have reservations about chemical and biological control. In the open ended comments, many respondents reported concern, fear, or disapproval of chemical methods and alluded to negative impacts to fish, wildlife, and native plants, as well as appropriate training of applicators. Comment s made about biological control all emphasized the danger in releasing another exotic spe cies to deal with an invasive one. Because there was a substantial majority of boaters and anglers who viewed AIS as a serious issue and demonstrated strong support for taking action on this issue, it is significant that so many made negative comments or i ndicated d iscomfort with chemical control, which is the most commonly used form of control in Florida and many other states. Motivators and sources of influence Florida freshwater boaters and anglers indicated that signs at boat launches, AIS educati onal materials in boat registration mailings and fishing regulations, and incorporating AIS prevention into boater training courses (for new boaters) would be the best methods of helping them prevent the spread. This question gets at the heart of
149 the respo nsibility issue. If boaters and anglers do not think that they have a responsibility to help curb the secondary spre ad of invasives, they are not likely to take action. However, only 3.5% of respondents (n=1107) indicated that they did not think boaters an d anglers were responsible, which suggests that a strong majority do believe that they play a pivotal role in prevention. The subsequent question asking about consequenc es for violators was nearly equal for three solutions: boater training, no consequences and fines. This suggests that there is a dichotomy between those who think the issue needs to be handled by education alone or education coupled with regulations. A third of respondents indicated that they already took preventive steps (e.g. adopted BMP factors in the REB. This was closely matched by those who reported that they took action out of Though seemingly opposite, these latter two motivators are related to the AIS issue. Most of the in with thorough maintenance of boats and eq uipment. Though the motivation may be different than wanting to protect the resour ce, the two should not be mutually exclusive. These concepts could be carefully craft ed into an educational campaign incorporating e. Similarly for getting them to take action. Signs at boat launches, educational materials (brochures, species ID, fact sheets, etc.), and educational materials in boat registrat ion and fishing regulations were reported as the perceived most effective means of increasing boater action.
150 Boater and Angler AIS Related Behavior Three quarters of respondents (75%, n= 699 ) indicated that they frequent multiple waterbodies, which present s a high risk of the secondary spread of AIS, especially given the number of waterbodies in Florida infested with invasive species. Many of these respondents are coming from geographic locations w hich present a significant risk to reso urces. High risk areas include eastern Canada and the Great Lakes region, among others. Several factors play a role in assessing the level of risk of spreading AIS. Generally speaking, they include the length of time the boat was in the water, the length o f time the boat was out of the water, and the frequency and distance of moves. The longer a boat is in the water, the higher the ch ance that it will be carrying plant fragment s hull fouling species, or other organism s either on the boat or equipment or in standing water. Most respondents had their boat in the water for one day or less. Boats that are out of the water for more than five days after being in a waterbody present a lower risk (due to the drying effect). However, in damp or humid climates, some species may still be viable after five days. Most boaters surveyed indicated that are out of the water 5 14 days, which was closely followed by those who regularly kept their boat(s) out the water for even longer periods of time. Nearly a quarter of respo ndents indicated that they move their boat outside of the state in which it is registered, and 14% traveled to compete in fishing derbies. In this case, boaters listed 30 states and two Canadian provinces that they had traveled with their boats in the past year. As it only takes one boat to introduce a new species assessing risk of boaters by evaluating travel patterns, while useful, do es not provide a silver bullet solution to prevention Different types of watercraft pose different kinds of risk in terms of spreading AIS. For example, those with large powerboats and sailboats are not as likely to move as frequently from one body of water to another. However, the longer the time a watercraft stays on a waterbody,
151 the greater the potential for it to be colonized by hull fouling species such as Dreissenid mussels. Therefore, these kinds of watercraft still pose a high risk if moved to another waterbody, even if e left on the water for periods of time as long as larger craft, but are likely to be more transient, based on their size (Jensen, 2010). Much like risk assessments, vessel size can be helpful in identifying higher risk pathways, but all traveling vessels pose a risk. Most respondents reported that they take steps to prevent AIS. The primary reason provided by those who did not AIS preventive BMPs, boaters must be empowered with knowledge of action strategies in order to take any kind of action. This is a gap where education can play a major role. The easier and more common boater practices were reported by the majority of respondents (draining water, removing plants/animals, visual inspectio n), but other suggested BMPs were not adopted or practiced as often. While these other BMPs may be more time consuming, only a couple of them involve any kind of specialized equipment (flush cooling system, wash with hot/high pressure water), which suggest s that boaters could ea sily adopt more BMPs if they kne w what to do. tes a strong intention to act Respondents were also asked if they would be willing to pay more for a license or registration if the money went to specific AIS commitment or behavioral intention. Freshwater boaters and anglers w ere more willing to pay more if the funds went towards management and control or boat cleaning stati ons, suggesting that a multifaceted management approach would be supported by these stakeholders.
152 Predicting Boater and Angler Responsible Environmental Beh avior Predictive variables tested in the modified REB model included personality factors (attitudes, self efficacy, and personal responsibility), knowledge of issue, knowledge of action strategies, subjective norms, situational factors (equipment availabl e, presence or lack of laws/fines/regulations), and intention to act. It is important to note that these variables measured (adopted AIS BMPs). Of these, intentio n was found to be the strongest predictor of responsible environmental behavior (adoption of BMPs), as the model predicted. As Hines et al. (1986 /87 ) certain man written instrument, as was the case in this study Intention was a mediating va riable for both attitudes and knowledge of action strategies occurring between the predicators and the outcome (responsible environmental behavior). Intention was followed by norms and knowledge of action strategies. Norm s were added to the modified REB, making a hybrid between the TPB and the REB, and turned out to be a strong predictor of behavior surpassed only by intention. The power of norms in influencing intentions (and thus adoption of AIS BMPs) is one of the most significant findings in this resea rch. It suggests that boaters and anglers are more likely to take action if they perceive that it is a subjective norm (e.g. others they know take action). The greater the perceived social pressure to adopt and regularly practice AIS BMPs, the hig her the l ikelihood that boaters will engage in preventive behaviors. As Ajzen (2002) asse r ts, these social norms are heavily influenced by the judgment and opinions of significant others in their life, such as spouses, friends, family, members of an organization, o r those held in high regard. If the AIS preventive BMPs are
153 adopted by opinion leaders and members of specific groups with whom an individual aligns himself, it is expected that the individual will also adopt that specific behavior ( Ajzen 2002). Only one of thes e predictive variables lends itself directly to education al solution knowledge of action strategies. This represents an important variable in whether or not individuals take action that can actually be addressed through education (knowledge of what action is required to help prevent the problem) The other predictors, however, are more complex and require a carefully developed communication campaign that emphasizes BMP adoption as a norm in boater/angler culture. Attitudes (about AIS as a serious i ssue) had a strong relationship with intention, but less directly with behavior, as Hines et al. (1986 /87 ) similarly reported Attitudes that are supportive of taking action to prevent the spread of AIS or favor doing something about the AIS issue appear t o play a role in individual action via intentions (and other factors) The remaining variables turned out to be poor predictors of behavior. Whether or not there was equipment available (presumably at launches) turned out to have very little bearing on wh ether or not boaters were likely to ta k e action. This was also found with willingness to pay measures. Whether or not boaters and anglers were willing to pay for signs at launches, other outreach, boat cleaning stations, or control of AIS did not play a ro le in determining if they took action or not. Self efficacy also did not have a strong net relationship with behavior. This data suggests that p roviding AIS related information alone (knowledge of issue s ), a traditional approach to public good and environ mental problems, may not be successful in increasing boate r adoption of AIS BMPs either, s ince knowledge did not have a strong relationship with responsible environmental behavior.
154 Although boaters and anglers need to know about the issue in order to care about it, the model suggests that knowledge of action strategies, a supportive attitude, and t he intention to act are very important. Th is will require a multifaceted approach that emphasizes and incorporates influencing attitudes, providing clear informa tion about action strategies and changing the culture to incorporate this behavior as a social norm. Limitations of Study Every study, no matter how well it is conducted, is going to have some limitations. Limitations can include any parts of the populati on that were excluded, the generalizability of the study to the entire population, etc. In this study, limitations included: The data request to FWC for non resident freshwater anglers included only those anglers with a current fishing license. This means that those who had purchased a short term license (three or seven day options) before the data request was granted are not represented in the population. Also, those who purchased a long term f reshwater license after the date the request was granted are a lso not repr esented in the population This could ha ve resulted in a coverage error for non resident freshwater anglers. A pproximately 300 anglers were removed from the sample after the first mailing. The advance letter sent to these anglers was returned w volved, and we did not removed. In hindsight, the issue was a) a populati on with a high proportion of people who leave their primary residence in the winter percentage of th ese long term lice nse holders due to limitations in the FWC database request. This also could have led t o some degree of coverage error. Boats over 20 feet we re excluded in order to minimize sending surveys to saltwater o nly registered Florida boaters s ince this research wa s specific to freshwater aquatic invasive species. Provided freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams as well as brackish water and saltwater), there are a plethora of both freshwater and saltwate r boaters. One way to target freshwater boate rs wa s to remove the larger vessels from the population of boaters, assuming that larger boats are used only in saltwater This could remove some larger boats that are used in freshwater (such as larger bass boa ts, pontoon boats and houseboats). Consultation with FWC personnel and boat dealerships indicates that freshwater boats are sold up to 20 feet. I t was deemed necessary to target freshwater boaters and anglers (instead of the entire state popula tion of boat ers) which may contribute to some cove rage error since there ar e no doubt some freshwater boat s over 20 feet in length
155 Vessels exempt from registration are not inc luded in the population since there is no access to that information. These vessels include : non motor powered vessel less than 16 feet in length, and any non powered canoe, kayak, racing shell, or rowing scull, regardless of length; vessels used exclusively on private lakes and ponds; vessels owned by the United States Government; vessels used numbers in full force and effect which have been awarded pursuant to federal law or a federally approved numbering system provided that such vessels are not operated in state waters in excess of 90 c onsecutive days (Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 2010). Users of non motorized boats such as kayaks and canoes are a population that can be greatly impacted by aquatic invasive species, but there is no way in which to obta in contact information for this population since there are vessels not registered This research was based o n an existing survey instrument. Therefore, little e ffort was made to develop questions specifically measuring Responsible Environmental Behavior variables, an d as such, pose limitations in what could be measured. For example, there were no sui table questions analyzed that assessed whether or not skill associated with action strategies was a significant predictor variable. While some variables had strong measure s (e.g. multiple items or questions) relating to AIS BMPs, others did not and single items or questions were used. Descriptive survey methods do have weaknesses. A large number of the selected sample must reply in order to be representative I t may be dif ficult for par ticipants to recall information and survey research is difficult in addressing context (Colorado State University, 2010). Particularly, questions that require participants to recall dates of frequencies are expected to have a lower response r ate, which was also found to be true in this survey. Adult learners, including boaters and anglers, generally reflect on and relate to issues to which they have been exposed or experienced directly. If individuals in the sample did not have exposure or per sonal experience with AIS issues, the survey questions may have been difficult to answer. Boater survey results only represent awareness, knowledge, attitudes, values, motivations, and behaviors for the Florida boating population and non resident freshwate r anglers surveyed during the study period (2011 2012). Assumptions of Study A ssumptions are those things that can be taken for granted in research, usually in the case of statements made about certain elements of the research that are believed to be true. In this case, there were assumptions made about the sample population. The se included : The registered boat owner or angler who purchased non resident freshwater fishing license in Florida was the person to actually complete the survey.
156 Each individual in the population had a registered boat or has purchased a non resident AIS issues will be relevant and matter to boaters and anglers once they are aware, see the significance and understand what they can do to help. People are rational beings and make choices based on a sound decision making process based on available information, values, attitudes and past experiences. Recommendations for Increasing Responsible Environmental Behavior The data collected for this study provide support and implications for action on the part of AIS management agencies and advocacy groups. Most recommendations focus on developing a salient and well targeted educational campaign, utilizing the mos t effective communication outlets, emphasizing cultural and social norms, and considering the placement of boat cleaning stations and inspection stations. While these recommendations are specific to this research on Florida boaters and anglers, they also may hold promise for other environmental issues that rely on human behavior. Develop a Well Targeted Educational Campaign Boa ters and anglers responding to this baseline assessment indicated that they care about the issue and support action to prevent the secondary spread of AIS. The most important predictors of whether or not boaters and anglers adopt preventive BMPs were intention, social norms, knowledge of action strategies, and attitudes. This suggests that an AIS educational campaign must move beyond traditional information dissemination to focus on the factors that real ly matter to this population to have the best chance of successfully increasing s takeholder adoption of BMPs. I t is recommended that strategies and guidelines suggested in social marke ting and Communi ty Based Social Marketing theory are adopted to take advantage of these factors
157 The idea of using marketing strategies for social issues emerged in the 19 5 0s and has gained traction over th e years Social marketing is the use of marketing logic for non business implementation, and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability of social ideas and involving considerations of product planning pricing, communication, distribution, and Though there are fundamental differences between products and social causes, through marketing a commonality is found: both are based on an exchange relationship (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). In the case of social issues, money/services are not exchanged, but an exchange very much exists (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971, p.4). Examples of social causes utilizing social marketing principles include Smokey B ear, the W ie be ( 1951 52 ) suggests that there five factors that determine whether or not a social marketing campaign will be effective. Successful campaigns must possess 1) force (intensity o f and stimulation of the message), 2) direction (knowledge of how an individual might follow through on message), 3) mechanism (a person must be enabled to act whi ch may include providing resources or materials), 4) adequacy and compatibility (of the agency/message), and 5) behavior). Traditional marketing practices focus o price. Social marketing also should consider these concepts in promoting social causes (McCarthy, 1968). Kotler & Zaltman (1971) stress the importance of agencies developing
158 campaigns based on social marketin g principles instead of more superficial social advertising perceptions, a well developed campaign that uses appropriate communication channels and influential g roups to spread the message (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971). Without knowing up front where the audience gets information (channels) and who they listen to (influential groups), the message could be lost entirely. Community Based Social Marketing ( CBSM ) has eme rged more recently and advocates a multifaceted approach to environmental issues that starts with behavior and works backward to select tactics most sui t able for promoting that behavior. This approach acknowledges that while knowledge and attitudes may be part of the solution, their relationship to actual behavior is commonly quite weak. Changing behavior is difficult. For this reason, traditional marketing str ategies will likely fall short s ince they involve altering existing behavior (e.g. preference of o ne brand over another) not actually changing behavior. CBSM advocates a pragmatic approach to environmental issues that involves: identifying barriers and benefits to behavior, designing a strategy that utilizes behavior change tools (e.g. gaining commitme nt, building cultural norms, addressing barriers, emphasizing benefits), piloting the strategy, and evaluating the impact (McKenzie Mohr, 2008). This research provides the first step in the CBSM process identifying barriers and benefits of adopting AIS BMP s. It is recommended that an AIS educational campaign be developed that utilizes CBSM strategies These strategies include : identify ing barriers and emphasizing benefits of the desired behavior; build ing commitment, intention and social norms among the tar get audience; develop ing a campaign based on research of the stakeholders; pilot ing and test ing the campaign; making changes as necessary; and utilizing communication outlets most effect ive t o reach the
159 boaters and anglers. In addition, campaigns should be evaluated regularly to ensure the campaign is continuing to reach and impact the target audience Test before Launch Also, it is recommended that an educational campaign be tested before dissemination by using focus groups or other qualitative analysis m ethods to ensure messages and materials are salient, appropriate, and possess enough stickiness to be remembered by members of the target audience. An educational c ampaign should be consistent with its messages. As part of a campaign, it is important to develop a logo, name, and possibly even a tag line. For example the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers campaign always uses the same logo for educational materials and the consiste Public Service Announcements ( PSAs ) and printed materials. Although this requires a bit more cost up front, ensuring a pertinent message in a campaign is usually found to be well worth the investment. Social Norms Pack a Punch It is important that the social norms be a component of each part of t he AIS prevention campaign, given its power in predicting whether an individual will tak e action or not. Emphasizing an tow ards AIS holds great promise for increasing adoption of the desired behaviors. The social aspect can be emphasized in the campaign by featuring photos and broadcast media pieces that reflect the boater/angler group as conservationists who work t ogeth er to protect the resources they depend up on. Ajzen (2002) recommends utilizing opinion leaders and influential groups to help spread the message. In this case it could be boating and angler groups and FWC conservation officers who frequently demonstr ate the desired behaviors which could become a very observable norm for boaters and
160 anglers Additionally, strategically placed boat cleaning and inspection stations could provide impetus for greater awareness and prevention of AIS spread. Increasing boa ter and angler adoption of responsible environmental behavior in regard to AIS will likely require a change in culture, or the way things are done in a specific organization ent 2008). Burke (2008) advocates focusing on the desired behaviors to gradually change the attitudes and values of the culture over time. Boat Cleaning/Inspection Stations Provide Equipment and Social Norms Respondents indicated the desire to clean their boats and help maintain their investment. Many were even willing to pay more for a license if they money went towards these services. Although there were concerns about congestion and overcrowding at launches, there was also a fair amount of interest in the idea Many states have adopted prevention programs that provide facilities on highways to intercept those who travel with their boats. This avoids the congestion at boat ramps, targets thos e engaging in the most risky behavior and is less costly than putting equipment and inspectors at launches However, inspection stations on highways do not offer the same kind of demonstrated social norm that cleaning stations at public boat ramps do. They are harder for the public to see and understand and can involve a regulatory approach, which can undermine choice and c ultural norms. One approach might be to provide equipment at busy launches on a trial basis to see if they are utilized and if they contribute to an increase in a cultural norm to take preventive steps after leaving a waterbody to prevent the spread of AIS. Carrot First, Stick Later While many respondents advocated for an education only or education first app roach to solving this issue, there are others who believe that regulations also have a role to play. It may be
161 necessary to implement an educational program first to better inform boaters and anglers about the issue and the preventive action strategies, bu t in time it may also be necessary to follow or supplement an educational campaign with regulations on transporting invasive species or stopping for mandatory boat inspections. When asked about what would be most effective at getting boaters and anglers t o take action, at least half of respondents thought that laws and regulations, enforcement checks, and fines for violators would be effective, suggesting a significant level of support. CBSM guidelines, while they do not emphasize regulations, recognize th at they can be successful (auto emissions or seat belts for example). This theory (McKenzie Mohr, 2008, p.8). As demonstrated here, though not a consensus, many boaters and anglers supported some kind of regulation. The most common form of regulation mentioned in comments was mandatory boat inspections to prevent transport of AIS Control Methods are Contentious While boaters and anglers indicated that they bel also demonstrated apprehension or opposition to both chemical and biological control methods. It is possible that this stems fr om a general lack of exposure to AIS control methods, but respondents indicated that they had the most information about chemical and mechanical control and still preferred mechani cal and physical control If management agencies want to increase public awa reness or support for specific control methods, it will be necessary to address the concerns that accompany them. While control is definitely related to prevention, they are also very different. It may be possible to build an educational campaign that enco mpasses both prevention and control at some point but caution is advised. If the two concepts were combined into one campaign, it also runs the risk of negatively influencing those who have strong feelings
162 about control methods but are supportive of preve ntive measures. If the management agencies are interested in pursuing a campaign with both messages, it may be necessary to start with prevention and add management strategies at a later point. Signs at Boat Launches as Reminders Information posted at lau nches where boaters can immediately take action might be at boat launches was one of the most frequently cited recommendation in the open ended comment question at the end of the survey as well as numerous other survey questions Many respondents requested signs posted at launches that feature pictures (for species identification), have current information about the specific AIS issue, and most importantly, provid e an explanation of action strategies to prevent the spread. This is an important venue for prompts reminding boaters and anglers about t he issue and action strategies s ince it targets them while they are engaging in the potentially harmful behavior (e.g. not taking action). Send AIS Information via Boat Registration and Fishing Regulations Since these methods target boaters and anglers specifically, including more information about AIS with boat registration and fishing regulation materials is strongly recommended. Boaters and anglers sampled demonstrated strong support for this tactic and some even wondered why it was not commonly practiced already. In fact, the lack of language about specific action strategies and AIS related issues in these materials has the danger of sending a message that it is not that important. Since it is guaranteed that the target audience will receive this information, this would also be a good communication method in which to provide AIS prevention materials.
163 Traditional Med ia Outlets This population reported that traditional media sources are an effective means of providing information about AIS. Due to the power of social norms demonstrated in this research, it is recommended that AIS related information be published in bo newsletters and magaz ines since this can also p rovide a social pressure among the group. This social pressure has the power to influence all variables found to be important to behavior, including intention, building of norm s, knowledge of action strategies, and attitudes about AIS. Given the popularity of the internet and social media, these sources are espe cially interesting to s cientists and management agencies. However, thes e were minor sources of information for Florida boaters and non resident anglers. Social media in particular was very low. Many respondents indicated t hat the internet (particularly social media) was not a preferred mode of communication. Howe ver, among yo unger boaters, social media should not be completely discounted. If this communication outlet is utilized, it is recommended it be paired with something like AIS preventive strategy training at boater safety courses intended for new or young boaters. Socia l media and apps could be advertised or adoption encouraged at these courses. Also, the FWC website, at the very least, should include more detailed information about the issue and advocate specific preventive action strategies. Currently, most of the info rmation on the site related to AIS is on control methods and is not located in the boating once curiosity is piqued or awareness is raised and stakeholders desire more information.
164 They are listening; Utilize Broadcast Media In terms of targeting these boaters and anglers, radio seemed to be relatively popular among the population, while not many of them indicated that something they heard on the radio way to get AIS information out. These Florida boaters and anglers are most likely to listen to c ountry and oldies/classic rock stations. In addition, television and videos were recommended by brought up reality TV shows and Animal Planet type shows for comm unication modes conducive to providing information about AIS issues and contro l methods (think Burmese python hunting). Also, with the increasing popularity of YouTube, it is recommended that AIS related videos be created and frequently posted For example the Texas Parks and Wildlife have partnered with other agencies and advocacy organizations to create a popular invasive species target anglers and boaters specif ically and can be adapted for specific species as well as other educational materials such as posters, flier s and brochures (Texas Parks & Wildlife 2010; Texas Invasive Plant & Pest Council, 2011). Recommendations for Further Inquiry While prevention of new invasions is the most desirable management action, it is still critical to limit the further spread of invasive species once they have been introduced. Any efforts that slow the spread are helpful in providing time to assess impacts and develop control strategies (Johnson et al. 2001). K nowledge of what aspects of the programs work and which can be enhanced is crucial in a time of government deficits and reduced public spending States working on policy and management changes to create AIS preventive programs will also benefit from the knowledge
165 gained by determining the most cost effective educational programs that create behavioral changes and lend to the adoption of boating practices that curb the spread of AIS. This information would have broad app lication for many agencies and organizations worldwide. The entire discipline would benefit from further research on assessing stakeholder awareness, attitudes and behavior while evaluating existing invasive species ed ucational programs. A comparison of e xisting invasive species educational campaigns across states, regions, or even countries would be valuable. Also, the focus of this research is on stakeholders and vectors (e.g. boaters and anglers), but what is often overlooked is the role of managers in this issue. Whether or not managers adhere to the precautionary principle and value prevention over reaction is a major factor in whether or not successful educational campaigns are implemented. Finally, research addressing solutions to the introduction i s sue would be beneficial. Perri n g s (2001) makes a case for a solution based on economics, but very little research exists in this particular area. Assessments and Comparisons of AIS Education/Prevention Campaigns The AIS field would benefit from more base line assessments of current boater and angler that already have educational campaigns, they would benefit from regular evaluations to ensure that the m essage is still accomplishing its goals These assessments and evaluations could maximize resources by focusing on communication methods and outlets that work best to target boaters and anglers. Currently, there is very little data supporting the most effective means of targeting stakeholders and increasing participation and BMP adoption. state assessment of boater awareness that provides a comparison of different invasive species educational campaigns. Research that explicitly compares and contrasts different current educational
166 campai gns would provide valuable information to those with an interest in developing or improving prevention programs. This would also be the best utilization of reso urces to know what works best. Importance of Prevention in Management Ecologists generally differentiate between two types of managerial interventions in regard to invasive species: prevention and control (Finoff, Shogren, Leung & Lodge, 2007). Preven tive measures are those that seek to obstruct the arrival of a nuisance species to non infested ecosystems. Control measures are aimed at curbing population growth or reducing the population of an invasive species after it h as already arrived (Davis & Moel tner, 2010). Currently, there are a handful of theoretical economic contributions that address how scarce agency resources should be divided between these two strategies (Leung et al. 2002 Finoff et al. 2007). Finnoff et al. (2007) demonstrates how incr eased aversion to risk by managers can lead to less prevention and more control, particularly in the case of Dreissenid increases the probability of invasions and realized abundance of invaders, which lowers overall social welfare in compar data is the result of risk averse managers valuing a dollar spent on control (with assured benefits now) more highly than a dollar spent on prevention (with uncertain benefits). Prev entive tactics are more uncertain because manager s do not know if she/he really kept the species out or whether it simply would never have arrived or may die out on its own. The opportunity costs of investments in prevention drive the manager to lean towar d control at the expense of prevention (Finnoff et al. 2007). This demonstrates that the higher the aversion to risk, the less prevention is emphasized. Applying excessive caution in management strategies in this case is counterproductive when it leads to mo re control rather than preventive attitudes and measures
167 Finnoff et al. (2007) found that there are social consequences of this choice that lead to a greater probability of future invasions by AIS and associated lower social welfare Though it is commo nly argued that environmental and health issues caused by pollution would be reduced more cost effectively by greater investments in prevention, the bulk of private and public resources are invested primarily for control ( Finnoff et al. 2007). This is esp ecially true for the spread of AIS, a biological form of pollution (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). Concepts such as the precautionary principle ( Sandin, 1999; Foster Vecchia & Repacholi 2000) suggest that a cautious manager would use more prevent ive techniques relative to control strategies because prevention would keep more invaders out over time. But this is not the case. Instead, it is more common for managers to wait until the invaders have arrived before scrambling to limit damages to communi ties, natural resources, and native species (Leung et al. 2002). Sources of Introductions Perrings (2001) maintains that invasive species introductions, an anthropogenic environmental change, are a consequence of economic activity. Invasive species invasi ons impose real costs on society, and as such, a precautionary approach that involves an economic solution is necessary to curb future introductions of non native species. Since the control of invasive species is dependent on human behavior, a key element in control, according to Perrings (2001), must be the regulation of human behavior. Perrings recommends utilizing penalties for violators as well as incentives promoting the desired behaviors. Environmental assurance bonds on the part of those who import n on native species would be an example Importers of new species (considered to be undertaking high risk) would be required to post a bond equal to the estimated damage if the species was to become established and cause problems (Perrings, 2001).
168 Very littl e research exists on these concepts of better regulating sources of AIS introductions through policy. For this reason, the AIS field would benefit from further research in this area. Recommendations for Theory The REB theory proved to be a valuable model in this particular issue. It would be interesting to test the REB in other social and/or environmental issues to assess whether variables that did not turn out to be good predictors in this case would be when other types of environmental behavior are being assessed. T here may be t ranslatability to other environmental behaviors that are as observable and visible as AIS prevention. Certain kinds of environmental behavior that have no social consequ action ) may have considerable different outcomes regarding REB variables Particularly in regard to norms, since AIS preventive behavior is very visible, nor ms seem to be very powerful but other less visible environmental behaviors such as composting or ganic waste or properly disposing of hazardous household wastes might logically not be so dependent upon social norms One concept that is not directly incorporated into the REB but could play a significant role in whether or not individuals decide to take action or adopt behavior are perceptions of risk. In this case, the perception of risk may relate to natural resources (e.g. protecting balanced ecosystems, preventing catastrophic changes, providing productive resources for future generations, etc.) or p ersonal property (e.g. preventing damage to boats and equipment or decreases in shoreline property). Following the TPB, it is reasonable to assume that risk perceptions would influence attitudes, so perhaps that is where it would fit within the REB. Furthe r study on whether or not perceptions of risk are a significant factor in whether or not boaters and anglers take AIS preventive action would be beneficial and could build upon existing behavioral theory.
169 Additionally, social marketing and CBSM as resea rch tool s have not been fully utilized or assessed in the development of an AIS campaign. Research on the effectiveness of social marketing techniques, particularly through a pre/post evaluation, would be highly valuable in the development of theory into p ractice.
170 APPENDIX A QUAGGA/ZEBRA MUSSEL DISTRIBUTION MAP Figure A 1. Zebra and Quagga Mussel Sightings Distribution (2012). Reprinted from United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (2012). Zebra and Quagga Mussel Sighting Distri bution Map Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/maps/current_zm_quag.jpg
171 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD DOCUMENTATIO N
174 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT
186 APPENDIX D SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing one: advance letter
190 APPENDIX E SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing two: cover letter
195 APPENDIX F SURVEY CORRESPO NDENCE mailing three: post card
197 APPENDIX G SURVEY CORRESPONDENCE mailing four: final cover letter
201 APPENDIX H RESPONSE RATE BY TREATMENT GROUPS Table H 1. T reatment G roups for E mbedded Cash Incentive E xperiment Figure H 1 Response Rates per Treatment Group
202 REFERENCES Adams. D.C., Bucaram S.B. Lee D.J., & Hodges A.W. (2010). Public preferences and values for management of aquatic invasive plants in state parks. Lake and Reservoir Management 26 (3), 185 193 Agresti A. & Finlay B. ( 2009 ) Statistical Methods for Social Sciences (4 th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Aipanjiguly, S., Jacobson S.K., & Flamm R.O. (2003). Conserving Manatees: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Intentions of Boaters in Tampa Bay, Fl orida. Conservation Biology 17 (4), 1098 1105. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action control from cognition to behavior Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I. (1992). Persuasive communication theory in social psychology: A historical perspective. In M. J. Manfredo (ed.), Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation a nd tourism Champaign, IL: Sagamore. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665 683. Ajzen, I., & Driver B.L. (1992) Application of t he Theory of Planned Behavior to leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research 24 (3), 207 224. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B.L. (1992). Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 297 316. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign Retrieved from http://protectyourwaters.org Atkin, C. K. (2001). Theory and principles of media health campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 49 68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Bamberg, S. & Moser G. (2006). Twe nty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta analysis of psycho social determinants of pro environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (1), 14 25.
203 Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral c hange. Psychological Review 84 (2), 191 215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behaviour. Area 35 (3), 227 240. Bell, F.W. (2005). Economic sectors at risk from invasive aquatic weeds for the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes in Osceola County, Florida Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Invasive Plant Management. Tallahassee, FL. Retriev ed from http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/osceola/pdf/Economic_Sectors_at_Risk_from_Invasives.pdf Bell, F.W., & Bonn M.A. (2004). Economic Sectors at Risk from In vasive Aquatic Weeds at Lake Istokpoga, Florida. The Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Florida Department of Environment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Retrieved from http://w ww.aquatics.org/pubs/istokpoga.pdf Benson, A. J., Richerson, M.M. Maynard, E., J. Larson, J., & Fusaro, A. (2012). Zebra Mussel Fact Sheet U nited S tates G eological S ervice. Non indige nous Aquati c Species website. Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/ Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, J.R., Cordell, H.K. Souter R., & English D.B.K. (1996). Effects of Reservoir Aquatic Plant Management on Recreational Expendit ures and Regional Economic Activity. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 2 8 (2), 409 422. Blau, P. ( 1964 ). Exchange and Power in Social Life New York: Wiley. Buchan, L.A., & Padilla D.K. (1999). Estimating the probability of long distance over land dispersal of invading aquatic species. Ecological Applications 9 254 265. Burke, W.W. (2008). Organizational Change: Practice and Theory Thousand Oaks, Ca lifornia: Sage Carlton, J.T., & Gel lar J.B. (1993). Ecological roulette: the global tran sport of non indigenous marine organisms. Science 261 78 82. Ca ttau, C.E., Martin, J., & Kitchens W.M. (2010). Effects of an exotic prey species on a native specialist: Example of the snail kite. Biological Conservation 143 513 520. Chapm an, J.W., M iller, T.W., & Coan E.V. (2003). Live seafood species as recipes for invasion. Conservation Biology 17 1386 1395. Church, A.H. ( 1993 ). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (1), 62 79.
204 Circuna K A Meyerson, L.A., & Gutierrez A. ( 2004 ) The ecological and socio economic impacts of invasive alien species in inland water ecosystems. Report to the Conservation on Biological Diversity on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Progr amme. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/ref/alien/ias inland waters en.pdf Coblentz, B.E. (1990). Exotic Organisms: A Dilemma for Conservation Biology. Conservat ion Biology 4 (3): 261 265. Cohen, J., Mirotchnick N., & Leung B. (2007). Thousands introduced annually: the aquarium pathway for non indigenous plants to the St Lawrence Seaway. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5 528 532. Colle, D.E., Shir eman, J.V., Haller W.T., Joyce J.C., & Canfield D.E (1987). Influence of Hydrilla on Harves t able Sport Fish Populations, Angler Use, and Angler Expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7 (3), 410 417. Compe au, D., Higgins, C.A., & Huff S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145 158. Cottrell, S.P. (2003). Influence of socio demographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior 35 (3) 347 375. Colorado Department of Natural Resources (2012). A quatic N uisance S pecies Watercraft Inspection Handbook Retrieved from http://www.parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Programs/ParksResourceStewar dship/ANS%20Inspect%20HBook%20V12.pdf Colorado State Un iversity (2010 ). Advantages and Disadvantages of the Survey Method Retrieved from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/survey/com2d1.cfm Courtenay, W.R., & Stauffer J.R (1990). The Introduced Fish Problem and the Aquarium Fish Industry. The Journal of World Aquaculture Society 21 (3), 145 159. Davis, A., & Moeltner K. (2010). Valuing the prevention of an investation: Threat of New Zealand mud snail in northern Nevada Agriculture and Resource Economics Review 39 (1), 56 74. Derrick, C. G., Miller, J.S.A., & Andrews J.M. (2008). A fish consumption study of anglers in an at risk community: A community based participatory approach to risk reduction. Public Health Nursi ng, 25 (4), 312 318. Diamond, P.A., & Hausman, J.A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 45 64.
205 Diekmann A. & Preisendoerfer P. (1992) Persoenliches Umweltverhalten: Die Diskrepanz zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsychologi e 44 226 251 Dierking, L.D., Cha n, S., Kubeck, G., Cone, J., & Wolters, E. (2009). Silent invasion: reported awareness, understan ding, and behaviors toward invasive species Proceedings of CMT2009, the 6th International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism, 23 26 June 2009, Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa. Dill man, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian L.M. (2009). Internet, Mail and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3 rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dove, R., & Malcolm, B. (1980). Studies on aquatic macrophytes, part XXXII: Aquatic plant quarantine project File number 0316533. Assessment and Plann ing Division, Ministry of the Environment (British Columbia). Victoria, B.C., Canada. Dove, R., & Taylor, B. (1982). Studies on aquatic macrophytes, part XXXVI: The 1981 aquatic plant quarantine project Assessment an d Planning Division Bulletin 18. Vi ctoria, British Columbia, Canada. Ministry of th e Environment Dove, R., & Wallis, M. (1981) Studies on aquatic macrophytes, part XXXIV: The 1980 aquatic plant quarantine project Assessment an d Planning Division Bulletin 17. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Ministry of the Environment. Duck, J.D. (2001). The Change Monster: The Human Forces that Fuel or foil Corporate Transformation and Change New York: Crown Business. Duckworth, B. (2006) Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Long Term Management Plan S o uth F lorida W ater M anagement D istrict. Stakeholder Survey Eval uation, Kissimmee Retrieved from http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watershed/kbmos_ _environmenta615/tab4960134/kbmos_kissimmee%20chain%20of%20lakes%20long%2 0term%20management%20plan.pdf Duggan, I.C. (2010). The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna. Biological Invasions 12 3757 3770. Ericson, J.A. (2005). The economic roots of aquatic species invasions. Fisheries 30 (5), 30 33. Evans, E. A. ( 2003 ) Economic Dimensions of Invasive Species. CHOICES: The magazine of food, farm and resource issues Retrieved from http://www.choicesmagazine.org/archives/2003/q2/2003 2 02.htm Feek, W., & Morry C. (2003). Communication and natura l resources management: Experience and theory. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4737E/y4737e00.pdf
206 Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Leung, B., & Lodge D.M. (2007). Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics 62 (2), 216 222. Fishbein M. & Ajzen I. ( 1975 ). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introductio n to Theory and Research Reading, MA: Addision Wesley. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (2006). Non Native Apple Snails in Florida Retrieved from http://myfwc.com/media/673 720/FWC_applesnails_FLMS_handout.pdf Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (2008). Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters: Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007 2008 Tallahassee (FL): Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection. Retrieved from http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/manage/sites/default/files/fwc_07 08_annual_report.pdf Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commiss ion (2010). Economics of Fish and Wildlife Recreation Seafood Industry and Boating Estimates through October 2010 Retrieved from http://myfwc.com/media/1313374/Economic sOfFishAndWildlifeRecJan2011.pdf F lorida Fish and W ildlife C ommission ( 2012 ) Aquatic plant Management. Retrieved from http:// www. myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/invasive plant s/aquatic plant Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (2010). Vessel statistics by county Retrieved from www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/TaxCollDocs/ vesselstats2010 .pdf Florid a E xotic Plant Pest Council ( 2007 ) Retrieved from http://www.fleppc.org/list/07list.htm l Florida Senate. 2011 Florida Statutes Retrieved from http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/369.20 Foster, K.R ., Vecchia, P., & Repacholi, M.H. ( 2000 ) Science and the precautionary principle. Science 288 979 981. Fowler, A.J., Lodge, D.M., & Hsia J.F ( 2007). Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the En vironment, 5 (7), 353 359. Frick, J., Kaiser, F.G., & Wilson M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring preva lence and structure in a representative sample. Person ality and Individual Differences 37 (8), 1597 1613. Glisson, M.W. (1994). Invasive non D.C., and T.C. Brown (Eds). An Assessment of Invasive No n indigenous Species in Technical Report TSS 94 100. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
207 Griffiths, R.W., S chloesser, D.W., Leach, J.H., & Kovalak W.P. (1991). Distribution and dispersal of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes Region. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Sciences 48 1381 1388. Groves, R.M., Singer E., & Corning A. ( 2000 ). Leverage Saliency Theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3), 299 308. Haller, W.T. pe rsonal communication April 18, 2012 University of Florida IFAS Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants. Halpenny, E.A. (2010). Pro environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 409 421. Hayward, D. & Estevez E.D. (1997). Suitability of Florida Waters to Invasion by the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Florida Sea Grant. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 495. Hembroff, L.A., Rusz D. Rafferty A. McGee, H.M., & Ehrlich N. (2005). The cost effectiveness of alternative advance mailings in a telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (2), 232 245. Hines, J.M., Hungerford H.R., & Tomera A.N. (1986/1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta analysis Journal of Environmental Education 18 (2): 1 8. Horsch, E.J. & Lewis D.J. (2009). The Effects of Aquatic Invasive Species on Property Values: Evidence from a Quasi Experiment. Land Economics 85 (3), 391 409. Hrubes, D., Aj zen I., & Daigle J. (2001). Predicting Hunting Intentions and Behavior: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Leisure Sciences 23 ( 3 ) 165 178 Hulme, P.E., Bacher S., Kenis M. Klotz S. K uhn I. Minchin D. Nentwig W. Olenin S. Pa nov V. Pergl J., Pyek P., Roques A. Sol D., Solarz W., & Vila M. (2008). Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: A framework for integrating pathways to policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 45 403 414. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk T.L. (199 0). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8 21. Hwang, Y.H., Kim S.I., & Jen g J.M. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavio r. Journal of Environmental Education 31 (4), 19 25. Idaho State Department of Agriculture Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation, and Pacific S t ates Marine Fisheries Commission (2012). A Review of the State of Idaho Dreissenid Mussel Prevention and Co ntingency Plans Retrieved from www.aquatics.org/musselreport.pdf
208 Israel, G., & Hague G.W. (2002).A recruiting challenge for extension education: A comparison of nonparticipants and participants in homeowner landscaping programs. Journal of Agricultural Education 43 (4), 76 87. Israel, G (2009). Determining Sample Size University of Florida I FAS Extension, PEOD6. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu Jacobson, S. K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals Washington, D.C. Island Press. Jacobson, S. K. (1998). Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Education 12 (2), 263 237. James J.M. & Bolstein R. (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4), 442 453. Jensen, D.A. (2010). Assessing the Effectiveness of Aquatic Invasive Species Outreach Influencing Boater Be havior in Five States MS Thesis, University of Minnesota Duluth. Johnson, L.E., Ricciardi A., & Carlton J.T. (2001). Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications 11 1789 1799. Johnson, L.E., Bossenbroek, J.M, & Kraft C.E. (2006). Patterns and pathways in the post establishment spread of non indigenous aquatic species: the slowing invasion of North American inland lakes by zebra mussel. Biological Invasions 8 475 489. Johnson, L.E., & Padilla D.K. (1996). Geographic spread of exotic species: Ecological lessons and opportunities from the invasion of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Biological Conservation 78 23 33. Johnson T. & McLaughlin S. ( 1990 ). GMAT Registrant Survey Design Report Los Angeles Graduate Admission Council. Johnson, L.E., Ricciardi A., & Carlton J.T. (2001). Overland Dispersal of Aquatic Invasive Species: A Risk Assessment of Transient Recreational Boating. Ecological Applications 11 (6), 1789 1799. Johnstone, I.M., Coffey B.T., & Howard Williams C. (1985). The role of recreational boat traffic in interlake dispersal of macrophytes: a New Zealand case study. Journal of Environmental Management 20 263 279. Joyce, J.C. (1992). Impact of Eichornia and Hydrilla in the United States. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Marine Sciences Symposium 194 106 109.
209 Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer U. (2003). Ecological behavior's dependency on different forms of knowle dge. Applied Psyc hology: An International Review 52 (4), 598 613. Kay, S.H., & Hoyle S.T. (2001). Mail order, the Internet, and invasive aquatic weeds. Journal of Plant Management 39 88 91. Keller, R.P., & Lodge D.M. (2007). Species invasion from co mmerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. Biological Invasions 57 428 436. Kirk, J.P., & Henderson J.E. (2006). Management of Hydrilla in the Santee Cooper Reservoirs, South Carolina: Experiences from 1982 to 2004. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 44 98 103. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8 (3), 239 260. Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971).Social marketing: An approach to social change. Journal of Marketing 35 3 12. Kubeck, G. (2008). Prevent the Spread of Invasive Species: A Focus Group Study MS Thesis, Orego n State University. Kyle, G.T., Absher J.D., & Graefe A.R. (2003). The Moderating Role of Place Attachment on the Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Fees and Spending Preferences. Leisure Sciences 25 33 50. Lee, D.J., Adams, D.C., & Rossi F. (20 07). Optimal management of a potential invader: The case of zebra mussels in Florida. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39 69 81 Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes New York: Academic Press. Leung, B., Lodge, D.M., Finoff, D., Shogren, J.F., Lewis, M.A. & Lamberti, G. (2002). An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: Bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Pro ceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 269, 2407 2413. Lindgren, C.J. ( 2006). Angler awareness of aquatic invasive species in Manitoba. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 44, 103 108. Lodge, D.M., Stein R.A. Brown K.M Covich A.P. Bronmark C. Garvey J.E., & Klosiewski S.P. (1998). Predicting impact of freshwater exotic species on native biodiversity: Challenges in spatial scaling. Australian Journal of Ecology 23 (1), 53 67.
210 Lodge, D.M., Williams S. MacIsaa c H.J., Hayes K.R. Leung B., Reichard S., Mack R.N., Moyle P.B. Smith M., Andow D.A. Carlton J.T, & McMichael A. (2006). Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applications 16 (6), 2035 2054. Lovell, S.J., & S.F. Stone S.F. (2005). The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: A review of the literature National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper Series. Working Paper # 05 02. United States Environmental Pro tection Agency. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/ecocomm.nsf/invasive+species/document library/$file/economic impacts of invasive speci es.pdf Ludwig, H.R., & Leitch J.A. (1996). Interbasin transfer of aquatic biota via anglers' bait buckets. Fisheries 21 (7), 14 18. Lynch, J.J., Kin g J.E., Chamberlain T.K., & Smith, A.L (1947). Effects of aquatic weed infestations on the fish and wildlife of the gulf states. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scient ific Report No. 39. Retrieved from http://www.fishlib.org/cgi bin/koha /opac detail.pl?biblionumber=2930 Maccoby, E.E., & Maccoby N. (1954), "The In terview: A Tool of Social Science," in G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 1. Cambri dge, MA: Addison Wesley MacIsaac, H.J., J.V. M. Borbely, J.R. Muirhead and P.A. Graniero (2004). Backcasting and forecasting biological invasions of inland lakes. Ecological Applications, 14(3), 773 783. Madden, T., Ellen P.S. and Ajzen I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned a ction. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 18 (3), 3 9. Madsen, J. (2009). Impact of Invasive Aquat ic Plants on Aquatic Biology. In L.A. Get tys, W.T. Haller & M. Bellaud (Eds.), Biology and control of aquatic plants: a best management practices handbook Marietta, GA: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation McCarthy, J.E. (1968). Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach (3 rd Ed.). Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. McIntosh, C.R., Shogren J.F., & Finnoff D.C. (2010). Invasive species and del aying the inevi t able : Valuation evidence from a national survey. Ecological Economics 69 632 640. McKenzie Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social marketing. Gabriola Island B.C., Canada: New Society McKenzie Mohr, D., & Smith W. (2008). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social marketing. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.
211 McNeely, J.A. (2001). The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien specie s Gland, Switzerland U.K .: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Michigan Sea Grant (2012). Clean Boats Clean Waters Campaign Retrieved from http://www.miseagrant.umic h.edu/cbcw Milon, J.W., Yingling J., & Reynolds J.E. (1986) An Economic Analysis of the Benefits of Aquatic Weed Control in North Central Florida With Special Reference to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. Economi cs Report 113, UF/IFAS. Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027545/00001 M orris, J. K, Jacobson, S.K., & Flamm, R.O. (2007). Lessons from an Evaluation of a Boater Outreach Program for Manatee Protection. Environmental Management 40 596 602 Mobley, C., Vagias W.M., & DeWard S.L. (2010). Exploring Additional Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Influence of Environmental Literature and Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42 (4), 420 447 Mosisch, T.D. & Arthington A.H. (1998). The impacts of boating and water skiing on lakes and reservoirs. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 3 1 17. Mueting. S.A., & Gerstenberger S.L. (2011). The 100th Meridian Initiative at the Lake Mead National Re creation Area, NV, USA: Differences between boater behaviors before and after a quagga mussel, Driessena rostiformis bugensis invasion. Aquatic Invasions 6 (2), 223 229. Muirhea d, J.R., & McIsaac, H.J. (2005). Development of inland lakes as hubs in an in vasion network. Journal of Applied Ecology 42 80 90. Murry, C.C., Pakhomov E.A. & Therriault T.W. (2011). Recreational boating: A large unregulated vector transporting marine invasive species. Diversity and Distributions 17(6), 1 12. National Aca demy of Sciences (2012). Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida Retrieved from http://ww w.wef.org/NRC_EconomicAnalysis_FL_NutrientStandardsReport/ National Aquatic Inv asive Species Task Force (2012) A quatic Nuisance Species Impacts Retrieved from www.anstaskforce.gov/impacts.php Natio nal Invasive Species Council (2006). Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee, Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Retri eved from http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf
212 National Park Service ( 2003 ). New Zealand Mud Snail, Baseline Distribution and Monitoring Study. Yellowstone National Park Service, U.S. Departme nt of the Interior. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/fishing/mudsnail.html National Marine Manufacturers Associati on (2000). Boating 2000 F acts and Figure s at a G lance. Retrieved from http://www.nmma.org/facts/archive/boatingstats/2000stats/registrations.html Naylor, R., Williams S.L. & Strong D.R. (2001). Aquaculture a gateway for exotic species Science 294 1655 1656. Nemiroff, L. S., & McKenzie Mohr D. (1992). Determinants and distinguishing variables of pro disarmament behavior and responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and personality 7 (1), 1 24. Office of Techno logy Assessment. U.S. Congress (1993). Harmful Non Indigenous Species in the United States OTA Publication OTA F 565. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http: //www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9325/932501.PDF Oskamp, S. (2002). Environmentally responsible behavior: Teaching and promoting it effectively. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy 2 (1), 173 182. Padilla, D.K., & Williams S.L. (2004). Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 131 148. Page, K.S., & Radomski P. (2006). Compliance with sport fishery regulations in Minnesota related to regulation awareness. Fisheries 31 (4), 166 178. Peterson, R.A., & Kerin R.A. (1981). The Quality of Self Rep ort Data: Review and Synthesis. I n B.M. Enis & K.J Roering (Eds.), Review of Marketing Chicago: American Marketing Association, 5 20. Pimentel D. ( 2003 ) Economic and ecological costs associated with aquatic invasive species. In: K. Wakefield & A. Faulds (Eds), Aquatic invaders of the Delaware Estuary Malvern, PA : Penn State Un iversity. Retrieved from ht tp://tinyurl.com/d3os8f Pimentel, D., Zuniga R., & Morrison D. (2005). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52 273 288. Perrings, C. (2001). The economics of biological invasions. Land Use and Water Resources Research 1 (3),1 9.
213 Proctor, T., Kerans B., Clancey P., Ryce E., Dybdahl M., Gustafson D., Hall R., Pickett, F., Richards, D., Draheim, R., Chapman J., Wiltshire R.H., Becker D., Anderson M. Pitman, B., Lassuy, D., He imowitz P., Dwyer, P., & Levri E. ( 2007 ). National Management and Control Plan for the New Zealand Mudsnail Report prepared by the New Zealand Mudsnail Management and Control Plan Working Group for the Aquatic Nuisa nce Specie s Task Force Retrieved from http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Documents/NZMS_MgmtControl_Final.pdf Raloff, J. (1999). New flea imperils fish, fouls gear. Science News 156 308. Rahel, F.J. (2007). Biogeographic barriers connectivity and homogenization of freshwater Freshwater Biology 52 696 710. Rice, R.E. & Atkin C.K. (2001). Public Communication Campaigns (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Rockwell, H.W (2003). Summary of a survey of the literature on the economic impact of aquatic weeds Report for the Aquatic Ecosystem Rest oration Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.aquati cs.org/pubs/economics.htm Rodder, J.B., Chance J.E., & Phares E.J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. Rokeach, M (1975). The nature of human values. Teachers College Record 77 (2), 298 303. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations New York: Free Press. Rothlisberger, J.D., Chadderton W.L. McNulty J., & Lodge D.M. (2010). Aquatic invasiv e species via trailered boats: W hat is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35 (3), 121 132. Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings T.K. D obbs F.C. Drake L.A. Mullardy T. Hug A., & Colwell R.R. (2000). Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408 49 50 Runberg, D.M. (2011). Educating Pacific Northwest Camper s on the Risk of Spreading Invasive Forest Pests through Firewood: Developing a Mental Model MS Thesis, Oregon State University Sandin, P. ( 1999 ) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5 889 907. Saunders, P. (2008). Measuring wellbeing using non monetary indicator: Deprivation and social exclusion. Family Matters 78 8 17.
214 Scales, P., & Bryan A. (1979). Studies on aquatic macrophytes, part XXVII: Transport of Myriophyllum spicatum fragments by boaters an d assessment of the 1978 boat quarantine program. File number 0316533. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Assessment and Planning Division, Ministry of th e Environment Schantz, S.L. (2005). Editorial: Lakes in Crisis. Environmental Health Perspective 113 148 149. Schardt, J. (2012). P ersonal communication October 15, 2012. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. Schneider, D.W., Ellis C.D., & Cummings K.S. (1998). A transportation model assessment of the risk to native mussel communiti es from zebra mussel spread. Conservation Biology 12 788 800. Schmitz, D.C., Nelson, B.V., Nall, J.E., & Schardt J.D. (1991). Exotic aquatic plants in Florida: a historical perspective and review of the present aquatic plant regulation program. In T.C. Doren, R.F., R.L. Hofstetter, R.L. Myers & L.D. Whiteaker (Eds.), Proceedings of a symposium on exotic pest plants Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR 91/06. Denver, CO: U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. Schramm H.L., Armstrong, M.L., Funicelli, N.A., Green, D.M., Lee, D.P., Manns, R.E., Taubert, B.D., & Waters, S.J. (1991). The status of competitive sport fishing in North America. Fisheries 16 (3), 4 9. Sia, A.P., Hungerford H.R., & Tomera A.N. (1985 86). Selected predictors of res ponsible environmental behavior: an analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education 17 (2), 31 44. Slipke, J.W., Maceina M.J., & Grizzle J.M. (1998). Analysis of the Recreational Fishery and Angler Attitudes Toward Hydrilla in Lake Seminole, a Southe astern Reservoir. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 36 101 107. Smith Sebaso, N.J. (1995). The effects of an environmental studies course on selected variables related to environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 26 (4) 30 34. Splash, C.L., & Hanley N. (1995). Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation. Ecological Economics 1 2, 191 208. Teague, R.D. (1979). The roles of social sciences in wildlife management. In R.D. Teague & E. Decker (Ed s .), Wildlif e Conservation: Principles and Practices Washington, DC: The W ildlife Society. Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council (2011). Hello/Goodbye Campaign Retrieved from www.Invasives.org
215 Texas Parks and Wildlife (2010 ). Giant Salvinia Public Service Announcement Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Mf95GDGjg&feature=BFa&list=PLE8624570732 337DC Texas Parks and Wild life (2010). Giant Salvinia Campaign Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= cgiJuoM4Jo&feature=BFa&list=PLE8624570732337DC Thakadu Tsompi, O. (2010). Rel ative effects of two communication methods and prediction of environmental knowledge sharing behaviors: Okavango Delta, Botswana Dissertation submitted to University of Florida. U nited S tates Army Corps of Engineers (2008). Great Lakes Recreational Boat ing: In response to Public Law 106 53, Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Section 455(c) John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program, Great Lakes Rec reational Boating. Retrieved from http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=6197&dest ination=ShowItem United States Department of Agriculture (2012). National Invasive Species Information Cen ter. Aquatic Species Retrie ved from http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/main.shtml United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (2012). Zebra and Quagga Mussel Sighting Distribution Ma p Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/maps/current_zm_quag_map.jpg United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2006). National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associate d Recreation Florida Retrieved from http://myfwc.com/media/131136/2006_Florida_NationalSurvey.pdf U nited S tates General Accountin g Office ( 2002 ) Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem GAO 03 1. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031.pdf Vaske, J.J. & Kobrin K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 32 (4), 16 21. Vining, J., & Ebreo A. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In R. Bechtel & A. Churc hman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology New York: Wile y. Vitousek, P.M. (1994). Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75 1861 1876. Wiebe, G.D. (1951 52). Merchandising commodities and citizenship on television. Public O pinion Quarterly 15 679 691.
216 Wattendorf, B. (2006). Retrieved from http://myfwc.com/conservation/freshwater/fbcc/bass values/ Wattendorf, B. (2012). P ersonal communication March 21, 2012 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. Wilcove D.S., Rothstein D., Dubow J., Phillips A., & Losos, E. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioSci ence 48 607 615. Woolf, T. (2010) P ersonal communication September 1 5, 2010 Idaho Department of Agriculture. Zhong, E. (2007). Cleaner Captains: The Relationship between boater knowledge and their pro environmental behavio rs Retrieved from http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2007final/Zhong.pdf Zook, B. & Phillips S. (2009). Recommended Uniform Minimum Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Intercept ion Programs for Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States Retrieved fro m http ://www.100thmeridian.org/Recommended Protocols and Standards for Watercraft Interception Programs for Dreissenid Mussels in the Western United States.pdf
217 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kathryn Lorraine Wilson grew up in the tiny town of Northport, Washington. Nestled in the craggy mountains of the Pacific Northwest, Northport is located in eastern Washington and home to right around 500 lucky souls. She holds that g rowing up in the country is responsible for the best parts of her that and a fun lov connectivity, and a deep love for wide open spaces. For her undergraduate studies, Kathryn attended Carroll College in Helena, Montana, a small liberal art s school, where she majored in public r elations/ j o urnalism and minored in English w riting. While completing her degree, Kathryn edited a literary magazine and served on the board of a grassroots environmental organization. She completed an internship for the Helena Festival of the Book and grad uated with honors in 2005. In the five years after graduating from Carroll, Kathryn worked in S andpoint, Idaho as the executive director for the Pend Oreille Basin Commission, a state created advisory board on water quality and quantity issues in the Pend Oreille watershed. This work combined science and outreach and provided a rich and diverse experience that included writing grants, managing budgets, planning and facilitating public meetings, assisting with fish and plant surveys, and carrying out Commiss ion funded projects. In addition, Kathryn worked as a project journalist for Resource Planning Unlimited, authoring a regular column in the River Journal as well as feature stories and articles in regional and national magazines on natural resource issues in the Pacific Northwest. Always interested in graduate school, these professional experiences provided the insight and motivation to pursue an advanced degree in environmental c ommunication. Insert Dr. Haller and his fantastic recruitment abilities! Dr. Haller was advising the state of Idaho on aquatic invasive species issues and management when he met the likes of Kathryn. Once her interest in
218 graduate school was out of the bag, Kathryn was off to University of Florida for a visit. Kathryn recognized a g reat opportunity, even though it involved being whisked away from all of the wild water issues of the west. Little did she realize that Florida would be home to some very interesting water and natural resources as well. While working in Idaho, Kathryn bec ame an avid spokesperson for the seriousness of aquatic invasive species. Through this she became a boat inspector trainer and prevention advocate, providing workshops, trainings, and seminars throughout the Northwest. At the University of Florida, Kathry n took many classes on communication theory and practice, but also facilitation, human dimensions of biological conservation, water politics, public policy analysis, and agricultural and natural resource law. Research methods and statistics classes served their role in her research as well. The thesis research turned out to be an excellent topic that fit the niche that Kathryn has come to be most passionate about, preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species. It is her dream to work on environmental ou treach and education projects, particularly on water issues. She is also very interested in natural resource conflict resolution, outdoor/e nvironmental writing, and public policy evaluation.