Supplementary Material

Fig S1: Participant information sheet provided to all respondents, informing the public

of their rights as survey participants, the ethics approval reference number [H16175].

and contact information for follow up questions.

Project Officer: Dr. Elisabeth Strain

Supervisor: Prof. Ross Coleman

Student: Sarah Kienker

SYDNEY INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

BUILDING 19, CHOWDER BAY RD

Mosman NSW 2088

Australia

Ph: +612 9435 4600

Fax: +612 9969 8664

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT

Global Differences in Stakeholder Attitudes towards Marine Green Engineering

You are invited to participate in the above research project.

(1) What is this study about?

This project focuses on understanding the differences in the attitudes of

stakeholders from the coastal environment towards marine green engineering. We

are aiming to survey the public in 4 Australasian cities. This will enable us to get

feedback to be communicated to the council and other decision makers. The goal of

the survey is to understand what people think of green engineering in harbours. This

information will be used to develop better planning and management strategies for

green engineering in harbours around the world. The final aim is include the

community stakeholders in management of harbour catchment

(2) Who is running the study?

This study is being conducted by the World Harbour Project through Sydney

Institute of Marine Science (SIMS) and includes the University of New South

Wales (UNSW), Sydney University (USYD), Sydney Institute of Marine Science

(SIMS) and Institute of Marine Science (IMAS) and the Auckland University of

Technology, Auckland, New Zealand (AUT). It is supported by Ian Potter, Harding

Miller Foundation, and New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage.

Sarah Kienker will be doing the study as part of her postgraduate research, which

will be titled “Assessing Australasian stakeholder attitudes towards Marine Green

Engineering” at SIMS. This study will take place under the supervision of Dr.

Elisabeth Strain SIMS/UNSW and A/Prof Ross Coleman, USYD.

(3) What will the study involve for me?

As a harbour resident we are interested in how you value the coastal environment,

how you perceive “green engineering” and man-made structures in the marine

environment, within your harbour. The study will involve you filling out a

questionnaire online, as well as participating in an online workshop exercise. This is

optional. By completing either or both the online questionnaire and workshop

exercises, you consent to participating in the study. The questionnaires do not

collect personal information with which you can be identified. Information that we

collect on you include your age given in broad classes and your suburb of residence:

all answers in the questionnaires will therefore remain anonymous.

(4) How much of my time will the study take?

Filling in the questionnaire in full should take approximately ten minutes of your

time.

(5) Who can take part in the study?

We are interested in the views of all harbour residents and would like you to

participate. The only condition of the survey is that you must be over 18 years of

age in order to participate in the study.

(6) Do I have to be in the study? Can I withdraw from the study once I've started?

Your participation in the survey is completely voluntary. By completing the survey

you are participating in the study and as results are anonymous so unidentifiable,

submitted survey responses cannot be withdrawn. However you are not under any

obligation to consent and you can withdraw at any time by not participating in the

survey.

(7) Are there any risks or costs associated with being in the study?

We do not perceive there to be any risks with completing the survey, and there are

no costs associated with taking part in this study. You will only be asked to give

approximately 10 minutes for completing the survey.

(8) Will the study benefit me?

The study seeks to understand how communities value their coastal environments,

perceive green engineering and man-made structures in the harbour; by

understanding these perceptions, the results of the study can better communicate

local research projects to the community, and bridge the gap between science and

the general public. This information will be used to develop better planning and

management strategies for green engineering in your harbour and so will benefit

you as a harbour user and resident of the catchment. The final aim is to aid

management options provided to community stakeholders in every harbours’ local

area.

We hope this study can facilitate support of science-driven policy that will result in

positive effects for your local area and wider community.

(9) Will anyone else know the results?

As the questionnaire is completely anonymous, individual participants will not be

identifiable in any reports produced. Any collated data might be submitted to a

scientific journal for publication. A report of the overall results might also be made

available to the general public, but again, all results will be anonymous.

(10) Can I tell other people about the study?

We encourage you to tell other people about the study and let them know how to

complete the survey, and how to contact us if they are interested in participating.

We encourage all community members to get involved as their values are important

to us.

(11) What if I would like further information about the study?

When you have read this information, the study’s project officer Sarah Kienker is

able to answer any questions you may have. If you would like to know more, please

feel free to contact Sarah. ( Phone : 0455 247 097, Email :

worldharbourproject@gmail.com )

(12) Will I be told the results of the study?

As the results are completely anonymous, we can only provide you with the overall

results once all information has been collated and analysed. If you would like to

receive this feedback on results, you have a right to receive feedback about the

overall results of this study. You can tell us that you wish to receive feedback by

using the above email and requesting results for the World Harbour Sydney Survey.

You will receive this feedback only after the study is finished and results have been

collected.

Alternatively, you can follow the progress of the study by going to The World

Harbour twitter page for updates. You can also find the Publications link through

the website for the final project results:

http://www.worldharbourproject.org/publications/

(13) What if I have a complaint or any concerns about the study?

Research involving humans in Australia is reviewed by an independent group of

people called a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). The ethical aspects of

this study have been approved by the HREC at the University of New South Wales

[H16175]. As part of this process, we have agreed to carry out the study according

to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007). This

statement has been developed to protect people who agree to take part in research

studies.

If you are concerned about the way this study is being conducted or you wish to

make a complaint to someone independent from the study, please contact the

university using the details outlined below. Please quote the study title and protocol

number.

This information sheet is for you to keep

Fig S2: Questions in the survey

PART 1: This first section focuses on the way in which you use the harbour. To clarify, the harbour is the area defined as 2 km around the coast (within the blue line). The foreshore is defined as 0.5 km from the coast into coastal waters (map of harbour inserted showing the 0.5 and 2 km boundaries)

Q1. How do you primarily use the harbour? (Select one answer)

Property (e.g. where you live or own a business)

Transport (e.g. travel to and from work)

Leisure (e.g. recreational fishing, snorkelling, bbq picnic)

Work (e.g. commercial fishing)

Unpaid/volunteer work

Cultural use

I do not use the harbour

Q2. What is the frequency of your main activity? (Select one answer) I live here

One visit daily or more

One visit per week or more

Once every 2 to 3 months

Once every 4 to 6 months

Occasionally or rarely (less than 1 visit per year)

I do not use the harbour

Q3. What percentage of your income (per year) do you get from the harbour? (Select one answer, Note: If you work within 2 km of the harbour boundary, in any employment sector, then 100% of your income comes from the harbour) None of my income is gained from the harbour

Less than 10%

Between 11 and 20%

Between 21% and 50%

Between 51% and 80%

Over 81%

It's hard to say what percentage but I do gain some of my income from the harbour

PART 2: For this section, harbour development will be the focus. We would like to understand your views about the use of all man-made structures (e.g. jetties, breakwaters, groynes and seawalls) in your harbour (Note: pictures of man-made structures in the harbour were inserted)

Q4. What are your views on the harbour environment? (Select one answer for each statement) 

Strongly

disagree Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly

agree

The harbour and foreshore environments are generally healthy

The harbour and foreshore environments have been degraded by human development

Q5. How would you rate your knowledge of the harbour? (Select one answer) Very good

Good

Average

Poor

Very poor

Q6. How would you rate your concern for the harbour environment? (Select one answer)No concern

Low concern

Average concern

Moderate concern

High concern

PART 3: In the next section we are interested in your views on ecological engineering. Ecological engineering is the practice of combining engineering and ecology to minimise the ecological impacts of artificial structures (such as jetties, groynes and seawalls). Ecological engineering options include, replacing man-made structures or planting on man-made structures with habitat-forming species, building with natural or eco-friendly materials and/or adding new features (picture of ecological engineering options from local harbour inserted)

Q7. Are you supportive of ecological engineering in the harbour? (Select one answer) Yes

No

Q8. How would you rate your knowledge of ecological engineering? (Select one answer) Very good

Good

Average

Poor

Very poor

Q9. What do you think about the costs of ecological engineering in the harbour? (Select one answer for each statement) 

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

I would be willing to donate money

I would be willing to pay extra government taxes

I would be willing to vote to ensure businesses include the costs in future developments

PART 4: The last section of this survey asks for information about your cultural,

professional and ancestral background, which will help us to understand the connection

between you and the harbour. All of the results from this survey are anonymous.

Q10. Which age range do you belong to? (Select one answer) 18-34

35-54

55-73

74-94

+95

Q11. Which gender are you? (Select one answer) 

MaleFemale

Other

Q12. What is the highest level of schooling or higher education qualification you have achieved? (Select one answer) Primary

Secondary/High school

Certificate or diploma

Tertiary or bachelor

Postgraduate

Q13. What approximately is your income before tax, per annum? (Select one answer) Note brackets were modified for each harbour.Between $0-40,000

Between $40,000-60,000

Between $60,000-80,000

Between $80,000-120,000

Over $120,000

Q14. What is the predominant language spoken by you at home? (Select one answer)How would you rate your understanding of the survey? (Select one answer) Very poor

Poor

Average

Good

Very good

Q15. What is the number of years you have been living within the harbour? (Select one answer) Less than one year

1-2 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21 or more

I don't live here

Table S3: Cumulative impact index (Halpern et al., 2008) and percentage of harbour

shoreline modified by artificial structures in each location

Location Cumulative Estimated percentage Estimated

Table S4: Census data for the twelve locations

Variables Sydney

Melbourne Hobart Auckland

Arraial do Cabo

BostonPlymouth Ravenna Santande

rKeelung Pena

ngXiamen

Females (%) 50.8 51.0 51.4 51.5 49.2 52.0 50.6 51.5 53.9 51.4 50.3 51.9

Male (%) 49.3 49.0 48.6 47.9 50.8 48.0 49.4 48.5 46.2 49.6 49.7 48.1

Age

18-34 (%) 23.1 29.7 21.1 20.8 25.7 37.0 20.3 15.4 17.2 28.9 28.7 25.935-54 (%) 34.9 27.4 26.8 27.0 29.0 31.0 37.5 30.7 39.3 26.3 26.7 34.455-73 (%) 18.5 18.3 20.7 13.5 15.0 17.0 14.4 23.9 30.2 11.0 15.0 15.674-95 (%) 6.2 6.4 6.9 2.8 2.9 4.7 7.6 14.2 13.5 3.3 2.9 3.3

Education

School (%) 17.3 17.2 13.7 9.0 48.3 21.3 13.5 69.6 18.0 31.5 74.8 73.1College certificate or diploma (%) 12.1 12.8 16.6 8.0 NA 13.4 16.7 NA 53.0 33.6 NA NABachelor/Tertiary (%) 28.3 27.5 21.3 15.0

8.2

30.1 16.6 13.3

29.0

29.2

16.4 17.8Postgrad (%)

5.6 4.7 3.5 7.0 20.8 21.5 10.2 2.7Annual income

Very low (%)

36.1 37.8 30.8 39.0 37.5 NA NA NA 9.4 17.1 16.4 NALow (%) 21.5 26.1 11.6 18.9

22.6 NA NA NA 27.8 59.5 NAAverage (%)

22.6 22.9 14.7 20.3 22.0 NA NA NA 16.3 28.9 37.1 NAHigh (%) 15.2 13.5 11.6

29.2

15.7 NA NA NA 20.1 2.2 46.1 NAVery high (%)

4.5 3.4 1.9 5.9 NA NA NA 26.4 <1 NA

Census area

Greater Sydney

Greater Melbourne

Greater Hobart Greater

Auckland

Arraial do Cabo

Greater Boston

Plymouth Ravenna Santander

Greater Keelung

Penang

Fujian Province

Reference

abs.gov.au/census

abs.gov.au/census

abs.gov.au/census

stats.govt.nz/topics/censushnewzealand

.govt.nz

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia. (2010). Indicadores de desenvolvimento sustentável: Brasil 2010 (No. 7). IBGE.

census.gov.com;censusreporter.org

https://www.ons.gov.uk

https://www4.istat.it/it/istituto-nazionale-di-statistica

https://www.ine.es

https://eng.stat.gov.tw

Department of Statistics Malaysia

http://www.stats-xm.gov.cn and http://www.stats-fj.gov.cn/

Table S5: Results (p-values) of binomial tests testing for differences the socio-economic characteristics between the survey and the census

populations in each location.

Variables SydneyMelbourne Hobart

Auckland

Arraial do Cabo

BostonPlymouth

Ravenna

Santander

Keelung

Penang Xiamen

Sex ratio p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p=0.02 p>0.05 p=0.001 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05

Age

18-34p<0.001 p>0.05 p>0.05 p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

35-54 p>0.05 p<0.001p<0.001 p=0.003 p=0.02

p<0.001 p>0.05 p=0.01 p>0.05

p<0.001 p>0.05

p<0.001

55-73 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p=0.01 p>0.05p<0.001

p>0.05p<0.001 p>0.05

p<0.001

74-95 p<0.001 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05

p<0.001 p>0.05

p<0.001p>0.05

p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

Education

School p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001 p=0.02 p<0.001 p>0.05 p>0.05

p<0.001p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

College certificate or diploma p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 NA p>0.05 NA NA NA p>0.05 NA NABachelor/Tertiary

p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001 p>0.05

p<0.001

p>0.05 p<0.001p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001

Postgradp<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001 p<0.001

p<0.001

p<0.001 p<0.001p<0.001

Annual income

Averagep>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05 p>0.05

NA NA NAp>0.05

p<0.001

p<0.001

NA

Fig S6: Results of PCA testing for relationships between the two independent measures of impact and the perceptions and connectedness

individual people (see below details) across continents.

EigenvaluesPC Eigenvalues %Variation Cum.%Variation 1 3.43 21.5 21.5 2 2.26 14.1 35.6 3 1.31 8.2 43.8 4 1.17 7.3 51.1 5 1.08 6.7 57.8

Eigenvectors(Coefficients in the linear combinations of variables making up PC's)Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5Use 0.280 0.057 -0.311 0.209 0.288Frequency of use 0.412 -0.066 -0.130 0.223 0.166Percentage of income 0.318 -0.042 -0.231 0.263 0.261Perception of harbour health 0.068 -0.251 0.268 0.492 -0.275Perception of harbour degraded 0.083 0.300 -0.051 -0.466 0.340Perceived knowledge of harbour environment 0.381 0.150 -0.027 -0.091 -0.363Concern for harbour environment 0.356 0.186 0.073 -0.237 -0.139Willingness to donate -0.096 0.391 0.218 0.335 0.103Willingness to pay taxes -0.072 0.450 0.259 0.294 0.158Willingness to vote 0.031 0.442 -0.138 0.087 0.120Perceived knowledge of ecological eng 0.194 0.299 0.030 -0.116 -0.546Support for eco-eng 0.026 0.288 -0.086 0.141 -0.207Number of years living by the harbour 0.351 -0.077 0.051 0.154 -0.066Halpern index -0.306 0.087 -0.471 0.197 -0.209Continents 0.086 -0.002 0.620 -0.031 0.189% Shoreline modified -0.298 0.211 -0.031 0.105 -0.061

Table S7: Results of ordinal regressions and generalised linear models with binomial distribution testing for relationships between the status of

the harbour environment (as measured by either the cumulative impact index or the percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial

structures) and people’s perceptions of harbour health, degradation, and concern for harbour environment, support for ecological engineering and

willingness to contribute to the costs of ecological engineering.

Response variable Factors Df

Residual deviance

Likelihood ratio statistic

P-value

Perception of harbour health Cumulative impact index 1 6436.59 37.00 <0.001

Perception of harbour degradation Cumulative impact index 1 5497.64 40.10 <0.001

Concern for the harbour environment Cumulative impact index 1 6097.67 406.90 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Cumulative impact index 1 897.43 >0.05

Donate money for ecological engineering Cumulative impact index 1 4268.04 9.45 >0.05

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Cumulative impact index 1 4699.00 6.81 >0.05

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in future developments

Cumulative impact index 1 5028.49 1.96 >0.05

Perception of harbour health Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 3212.36 25.44 <0.001

Perception of harbour degradation Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 5541.00 1.46 >0.05

Concern for the harbour environment Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 6266.54 238.13 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 897.43 <0.001

Donate money for ecological engineering Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 4237.67 9.82 >0.05

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Percentage of harbour shoreline 1 7082.11 134.86 <0.001

modified by artificial structures

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in future developments

Percentage of harbour shoreline modified by artificial structures

1 5715.44 15.62 <0.001

Table S8: Results of ordinal regressions or generalised linear models with binomial distribution whether in combination with location people’s

connection to the harbour (as measured by type and use of the harbour, percentage of income from the harbour and years living in the harbour)

predicts concern for harbour environment, perceived knowledge about the harbour environment, support for ecological engineering and

willingness to contribute to the costs of ecological engineering.

Response variable Factors Df Residual deviance

Likelihood ratio statistic

P-value

Concern for the harbour environment Type of use 6 6318.15 186.52 <0.001

Location 11 537.06 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of the harbour environment Type of use 6 6747.63 230.77 <0.001

Location 11 278.21 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Type of use 6 897.43 >0.05

Location 11 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of ecological engineering Type of use 6 6725.52 57.95 <0.001

Location 11 96.62 <0.001

Donate money for ecological engineering Type of use

Location

6

11

6848.58 9.94

206.73

>0.05

<0.001

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Type of use

Location

6

11

6771.52 12.55

413.17

>0.05

<0.001

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in future developments

Type of use

Location

6

11

5462.33 33.73

239.01

<0.001

<0.001

Concern for the environment Frequency of use 7 5775.80 83.72 <0.001

Location 11 645.11 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of the harbour environment Frequency of use 7 6731.23 502.56 <0.001

Location 11 389.91 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Frequency of use 7 897.43 >0.05

11 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of ecological engineering Frequency of use 7 6488.39 49.57 <0.001

Location 11 93.96 <0.001

Donate money for ecological engineering Frequency of use

Location

7

11

6848.00 0.51

186.63

>0.05

<0.001

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Frequency of use

Location

7

11

6783.86 0.21

412.47

>0.05

<0.001

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in future developments

Frequency of use

Location

7

11

5480.18 5.88

249.92

>0.05

>0.001

Concern for the harbour environment Income from the harbour

6 5834.87 24.65 <0.001

Location 11 551.57 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of the harbour environment Income from the harbour

6 6774.43 154.30 <0.001

Location 11 260.21 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Income from the harbour

6 890.84 >0.05

Location 11 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of ecological engineering Income from the harbour

6 6765.10 59.44 <0.001

Location 11 290.83 <0.001

Donate money for ecological engineering Income from the harbour

6 6848.51 0.001 >0.05

Location

11 210.70 <0.001

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Income from the harbour

Location

6

11

6783.82 0.21

213.10

>0.05

<0.001

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in future developments

Income from the harbour

Location

6

11

13.41

241.10

<0.001

<0.001

Concern for the harbour environment Number of years living in the harbour

7 5789.94 69.58 <0.001

Location 11 441.28 <0.001

Perceived knowledge of the harbour environment Number of years living in the harbour

7 6562.21 294.05 <0.001

Location 11 229.00 <0.001

Support for ecological engineering Number of years living in the harbour

Location

7

11

894.31 >0.05

<0.001

Perceived knowledge of ecological engineering Number of years living in the harbour

7 6753.17 34.00 <0.001

Location 11 96.56 <0.001

Donate money for ecological engineering Number of years living in the harbour

Location

7

11

6837.94 10.58

239.01

>0.05

<0.001

Pay taxes for ecological engineering Number of years living in the harbour

Location

7

11

4302.94 14.60

229.01

>0.05

<0.001

Vote to ensure business include costs of ecological engineering in Number of years living 7 5485.62 10.45 >0.05

future developments in the harbour

Location

11

235.10

<0.001