Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jort

Tourist biosecurity awareness and risk mitigation for outdoor recreation:

Management implications for Ireland
Domhnall Melly *, James Hanrahan
School of Business and Social Sciences, Department of Marketing, Tourism and Sport, Institute of Technology Sligo, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to analyse tourist’s awareness of biosecurity measures in Ireland. The author’s
Biosecurity risk recognised tourist vectoring from outdoor recreation can increase the risk of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and
Tourist awareness disease in destinations worldwide. The resulting control and eradication are expensive and often unsuccessful.
Tourist communication
The author’s position in this issue contends that future biosecurity risk management strategies at national and
Risk mitigation
Outdoor recreation
local planning levels should incorporate specific tourist awareness and communication programmes that reflect
international and European regulation. A mixed methodology was utilised for this research. A theoretical
framework was developed which incorporates various components that emerged from the literature to examine
outdoor recreational tourist’s awareness of biosecurity in Ireland. Combined with findings from a recent study of
national-level biosecurity, content analysis was conducted on all Local Authority county development plans
(CDP) in Ireland using specific tourist awareness and communication criteria. A survey was distributed among
tourists that combined quantitative and qualitative data collection from tourists who participated in outdoor
recreational activities. The findings indicate a shortfall in the provision of specific tourism biosecurity awareness
and communication at both national and local levels in Ireland. This was reflected in the significantly low level of
biosecurity awareness among outdoor recreational tourists in Ireland. This represents a substantial environ­
mental and economic threat to Ireland’s sustainability as a nature-based destination. These findings have im­
plications for tourism managers and policymakers to implement evidence-based tourist awareness and
communication programmes in Ireland and other nature-based destinations before a biosecurity breach occurs.

Management Implications worldwide, resulting in impressive growth and popularity of tourist

� Findings underline that biosecurity awareness and communication is
essential for the application of appropriate biosecurity measures
among outdoor recreational tourists.
� This research offers tourism policymakers in Ireland and other
nature-based destinations an opportunity to improve outdoor rec­
reational tourist’s awareness by incorporating international and
European biosecurity regulation into future national and local bio­
security risk management approaches.
� Utilising a framework and evaluation tool would help to identify
factors that affect the success of awareness campaigns and apply an
evidence-based approach to preventing future biosecurity breaches.
1. Introduction
Nature-based tourism is experiencing increasing diversification
outdoor recreational activities (Pickering et al., 2018). This shift in part
is due to the promotion of public health and the ability to enhance a
person’s quality of life and psychological well-being (Ankre et al., 2016;
Chakraborty et al., 2020). Although tourism and outdoor recreation can
provide a valuable source of economic revenue for protected areas and
communities, it can bring about several challenges for the sustainable
management of the very environment it depends on (Thomas & Reed,
2019). For example, declines in wildlife abundance, damage to barriers
for coastal protection, and damage to a wide range of flora and fauna are
consequences of common recreational usage (Hogan et al., 2019; Larson
et al., 2016). These challenges, therefore, need to be incorporated into
tourism risk management approaches to ensure the sustainability of
destinations.
Outdoor recreational tourist activities are also considered to provide
an efficient vector for damaging biosecurity threats (Anderson et al.,
2014; Hulme et al., 2015). For example, recreational equipment used by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Domhnall.melly@mail.itsligo.ie (D. Melly).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100313
Received 5 May 2020; Accepted 11 June 2020
Available online 15 July 2020
2213-0780/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
canoeists, kayakers anglers and hillwalking can spread IAS and disease
from one location to another (Anderson et al., 2014, 2015; Pickering &
Mount, 2010). This causes severe environmental impacts such as
inhibiting normal ecosystem functioning and cause native species ex­
tinctions (Bellard et al., 2016). Consequently, sustainable risk manage­
ment approaches for tourism and outdoor recreation should incorporate
biosecurity and the associated risk from tourist vectoring.
Nature-based recreation is growing in popularity in Ireland among
overseas tourists (Fa �ilte Ireland, 2018; 2019). However, with almost
1300 IAS present, and the devastating environmental impacts of the
newly introduced crayfish plague (Aphanomyces Astaci), tourist’s
awareness of biosecurity is a key issue for sustainable tourism planning
and risk management in Ireland (Anderson et al., 2015; Biodiversity
Ireland, 2018; Sutcliffe et al., 2019). To date, biosecurity awareness
campaigns appear to come into effect too late. For example, since the
latest outbreak and commencement of emergency containment mea­
sures for the crayfish plague including the ‘check, clean, dry’ biosecurity
protocol, it has since spread to nine different water catchments and
caused significant native species loss (Biodiversity Ireland, 2019).
However, tourist awareness and the timely implementation of appro­
priate biosecurity procedures for outdoor recreational gear such as
cleaning boat hulls could have prevented the introduction of pests and
diseases in the first place (De Ventura et al., 2016). Academic research in
Ireland so far has focused on the control and eradication of existing IAS
(Caffrey et al., 2018; Coughlan et al., 2018; Minchin, 2014). However,
this research rarely focuses on preventative cleaning protocols and their
awareness among outdoor recreational tourists. Due to this limitation,
this paper offers Ireland and other nature-based destinations worldwide
an opportunity to improve the sustainable use of natural environments
by incorporating a component of recreational tourist awareness of bio­
security risk and essential risk mitigation protocols.
The primary aim of this paper was to assess the current provision of
biosecurity awareness for outdoor recreational tourists in Ireland. Spe­
cific criteria to be analysed are identified in the development of a
theoretical framework assessing Ireland’s tourism biosecurity awareness
for outdoor recreation. Building on previous research, tourist bio­
security awareness at a national level has been systematically reviewed
within specific national biosecurity plans and strategies (Melly & Han­
rahan, 2020). Tourist biosecurity awareness, communication, and plans
for tourism will be analysed at a local level within all 29 Local Authority
county development plans (CDP). To gain a deeper understanding and
develop new knowledge on tourist biosecurity awareness and behavior,
the quantitative method was complemented by a qualitative approach.
The findings from this paper are discussed and critically assessed. Rec­
ommendations are put forward on how biosecurity risk management in
Ireland and other nature-based destinations can be improved by incor­
porating specific methods to increase tourist’s awareness and compli­
ance of biosecurity risk mitigation measures.
2. Literature review
2.1. Tourism biosecurity risk management
Managing tourism biosecurity risk is of significant importance for
destinations worldwide (Horrill et al., 2019; Le et al., 2018; Liu & Tien,
2019). Successfully preventing biological invasions through the tourism
pathway is closely related to the selection of risk management strategies
(Hall & Baird, 2013). Implementing cleaning protocols for recreational
tourists using mountain bikes and hiking boots could help reduce the
risk of IAS dispersal in popular destinations (Pickering et al., 2016).
Initiatives such as the ‘check, clean, dry’ biosecurity campaign has been
utilised in many countries. However, its effectiveness among outdoor
recreational tourists has yet to be established (Shannon et al., 2019). An
increasingly common approach is to address biosecurity at national
borders, rather than at the level of a destination (Baird et al., 2018).
However, several authors suggest an earlier pre-border approach of
2
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
developing educational programmes for tourists to reduce the likelihood
of the introduction of unwanted organisms (Baird et al., 2018; Caffrey
et al., 2014; Melly & Hanrahan, 2020). Risk management strategies
utilising a pre-border approach could be critical to Ireland’s biosecurity,
especially in light of border issues ensuing from Brexit.
There are over 1280 non-native species in Ireland with 13% of these
potentially becoming highly invasive meaning they could spread in an
aggressive manner (Biodiversity Ireland, 2018). The rate of biological
invasions in Ireland is increasing, causing severe environmental degra­
dation and expense to control (Gioria et al., 2018; O’Flynn et al., 2014).
Many ‘high impact’ IAS in Ireland may have become established as a
result of tourism and recreation (Anderson et al., 2015; NBDC, 2019).
This is despite biosecurity measures in place for anglers, boaters, paddle
sports, and scuba diving (IFI, 2019). In theory, biosecurity measures
could effectively mitigate the potential risk of vectoring on tourist
footwear, angling equipment, boats, vehicles and trailers (Coughlan
et al., 2019). However, tourists may not perform preventative bio­
security measures due to a lack of knowledge about recommended
biosecurity practises (Cole et al., 2018). Furthermore, the provision of
biosecurity risk management measures is often perceived to be costly
and relies on limited resources (Booy et al., 2017; Early et al., 2016).
Therefore, risk management measures for recreational tourism may
require careful prioritisation and to advocate for increased biosecurity
awareness with recreational tourists in Ireland (Caffrey et al., 2014;
Fraser et al., 2016).
Biosecurity legislation is crucial for effective national biosecurity risk
management especially for issues of prevention and response (Bai, 2014;
WHO, 2017). However, the legislative environment for biosecurity may
be complex with many overlapping responsibilities; in addition, inter­
national standards often fail to align with domestic intent (Caffrey et al.,
2014; Goldson et al., 2010). Therefore, Ireland’s national biosecurity
risk management may need co-ordination with EU policymakers to
ensure harmonisation between local, national, and international levels
of biosecurity. European regulation instructs member states including
Ireland on risk management measures. For instance, EU regulation
1143/2014 obliges member states to develop action plans on the path­
ways of IAS to raise public awareness on unintentional pathways (EC,
2014). The Biosecurity Pyramid (Fig. 1) identifies the structure of in­
ternational legislation to be integrated into national and local bio­
security risk management.
While EU regulation underpins many vital processes for Ireland to
prevent biological invasions, there are several issues for local-level
implementation. Furthermore, although Irish legislation No. 354/2018
outlines the competent authorities responsible for IAS management and
eradication, it appears to lack focus specific to biosecurity prevention
(Melly & Hanrahan, 2020). Therefore, efforts to prevent recreational
tourist vectoring through public outreach efforts have become common
(Cole et al., 2016). Therefore, Fig. 1 requires components to integrate
tourist awareness and ensure EU regulation, as well as other interna­
tional and national regulations are implemented nationally. These will
be integrated into the theoretical framework for this study.
2.2. Tourist awareness of biosecurity for outdoor recreation in Ireland
A key issue for tourism and outdoor recreation in Ireland is how to
prevent the spread of IAS and diseases through tourist vectoring.
Awareness of biosecurity campaigns is known to increase the perception
of biosecurity risk and alter recreational tourist’s biosecurity behaviour
(Shannon et al., 2019). Furthermore, several authors suggest that
increasing awareness may be a necessary condition for higher adoption
of biosecurity prevention measures (Baird et al., 2018; Cole et al., 2016).
However, delivering clear and consistent information to many stake­
holders that is accessible by all can be difficult (Davis et al., 2019). There
are a number of discussions which recognise that tourists themselves
represent an important component of the biosecurity system (MPI,
2018b) Tourists themselves can contribute to the management of IAS by
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
Fig. 1. The Biosecurity Pyramid.
Source: adapted from (Melly & Hanrahan, 2020; Oidtmann et al., 2011).
detecting and reporting, assisting eradication, and aiding in vector
management (Campbell et al., 2017; Piola & McDonald, 2012). How­
ever, a robust biosecurity communications plan or strategy may be
needed to reach recreational tourists and deliver trusted and reliable
information (Melly & Hanrahan, 2019; Piola & McDonald, 2012).
Tourism biosecurity risk management requires the adoption of a set
of attitudes and behaviours by tourists and other stakeholders to reduce
risk (Hall, 2011). The timely communication of accurate and trust­
worthy information could be crucial to the adoption of preventative
biosecurity measures among outdoor recreational tourists (Anderson
et al., 2014; Shannon et al., 2019). However, the ‘check clean dry’
biosecurity campaign in the UK appears to be more effective than in
Ireland at reducing the risk of vectoring among outdoor recreational
tourists (Anderson et al., 2014). Therefore, it could be important to
engage with recreational tourists to raise awareness and evaluate the
effectiveness of biosecurity campaigns (Gozlan et al., 2013). Further­
more, providing evidence to tourists that their participation in bio­
security measures make a difference could encourage improved
commitment to biosecurity (Baruch-Mordo et al., 2011). However, any
biosecurity awareness-raising campaigns should be combined with
better biosecurity education, guidance, and training (Shannon et al.,
2019; Switalski, 2018).
Several studies discuss the role of vendors for raising awareness of
biosecurity measures (Connelly et al., 2018; Kilian et al., 2012; Oele
et al., 2015). Others have proposed newspapers, television, signage at
water access points, inspection-education programs delivered at boat
landings, brochures, fact sheets, and smart mobile technology (Eiswerth
et al., 2011; Melly & Hanrahan, 2018). Additionally, there is increasing
support for the integration of local communities to assist in preventing
the introduction of species, spot likely invaders and aid eradication ef­
forts (Buta et al., 2014; HISC, 2017; MPI, 2018a; Thompson et al., 2009).
Applying community volunteerism into the biosecurity system could
enhance local participation in environmental governance and ensure a
cost-efficient workforce is in place to support biosecurity management
work (Giovos et al., 2019; Pag� es et al., 2019). However, simply
involving community members and volunteers within biosecurity risk
management frameworks may not be enough to ensure appropriate
community awareness is realised; it also requires tools and incentives
that encourage and support engagement in the process (Bueno et al.,
2015). One potential tool is the virtual community such as Facebook
groups and smart mobile technology that could enable community
monitoring and surveillance of IAS and integrate an element of citizen
science and reporting (Giovos et al., 2019; Melly & Hanrahan, 2018).
3
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
The relationship between the individual, community, and social struc­
tures supporting biosecurity (Fig. 2) is useful for identifying suitable
methods of biosecurity education and outreach programs at the com­
munity level to raise tourist awareness. Key Social structures such as
community groups and social networks may lead to community
enforcement of biosecurity as well as the benefits of citizen science.
The specific direction taken within social structures and their effec­
tiveness can form a certain local context that could encourage in­
dividuals within a community to support biosecurity. Biosecurity
awareness could be supported by individual awareness-raising at a local
level by developing community groups and social networks (Martin &
Herron, 2019). This approach is already adopted within several inter­
national biosecurity strategies (CBD, 2014; HISC, 2017; MPI, 2018a).
Biosecurity risk management in Ireland appears to not have any primary
plan or strategy that applies tourist’s awareness. Therefore, essential
elements from Fig. 2 will be incorporated into the development of a
theoretical framework for this research.
Target 6 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 is for member states to
combat IAS. However, the strategy appears to be lacking a clear focus on
tourism biosecurity risk awareness (Davies, 2016). In order to improve
the implementation of EU regulation 1143/2014 among member states,
tourist biosecurity awareness may need to be incorporated into the EU
Biodiversity Strategy 2020. Furthermore, national implementation in
Ireland may require a specific national biosecurity strategy incorpo­
rating education and outreach for outdoor recreational tourists (See­
kamp et al., 2016; Cole et al., 2016; 2018). From a local perspective, the
Planning and Development Act (2015) and Planning and Development
Regulations (2013) gives Local Authorities in Ireland the legal power to
plan for tourism. Public education could be used as an effective tool for
tourism planning in areas of visitor management and mitigating envi­
ronmental impacts (Mason, 2016). Therefore, CDP’s may need to
include an emphasis on raising awareness of biosecurity among tourists
and the community.
A lack of tourist biosecurity awareness could impede the success of
preventing biological invasions (Anderson et al., 2014; Baird et al.,
2018). For example, Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) outlines biosecurity
measures for selected outdoor recreational activities. However, these
could fall short due to a lack of ‘check, clean, dry’ implementation and
no specific national biosecurity or communication strategy. The re­
sources available to policymakers for preventing and responding to
biosecurity breaches are limited in Ireland (O’Flynn et al., 2014).
Therefore empowering local communities could be essential for raising
awareness of IFI protocols among outdoor recreational tourists of the
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
Fig. 2. Relationship between the individual, community, and social structures supporting biosecurity.
Source: adapted from: Thompson et al. (2009).
potential to vector biosecurity threats and specific preventative mea­
sures (Anderson et al., 2014; Cole et al., 2016; Gozlan et al., 2013).
However, raising awareness of biosecurity measures among outdoor
recreational tourists in Ireland appears to only occur in the event of a
biosecurity breach which could be too late (Caffrey et al., 2018; IFI,
2015; Melly & Hanrahan, 2019). In contrast, New Zealand identifies
every member of society as essential to practice and proactive bio­
security behaviours through a specific national biosecurity strategy
(MPI, 2018a). Moreover, Great Britain has a specific Invasive Non-native
Species Media and Communications Plan to implement awareness of the
‘check clean dry’ biosecurity protocol (MCWG, 2017).
EU regulation 1143/2014, as well as the EU Biodiversity Strategy
2020, guides biosecurity risk management in Ireland. Furthermore, the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encourages members to
organise training and promote education and awareness-raising of
border control officials and other relevant persons regarding IAS
Fig. 3. Theoretical framework for assessing Ireland’s tourism biosecurity awareness for outdoor recreational tourists.
4
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
particularly in relation to tourists (CBD, 2006). From a national
perspective, a specific national biosecurity plan or strategy should
include a component for raising biosecurity awareness among outdoor
recreational tourists. However, it must be noted that the role of the
National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021 is not specifically
designed for tourism or biosecurity. Several international and national
regulatory and strategic components have been incorporated into the
theoretical framework (Fig. 3) for this study to assess Ireland’s tourism
biosecurity awareness for outdoor recreational tourists.
The theoretical framework (Fig. 3) contains several key elements
that support the theory of this research and are crucial for assessing
Ireland’s tourism biosecurity awareness for outdoor recreational tour­
ists. EU level regulation can support national implementation of bio­
security including creating tourist awareness within member states. A
national biosecurity plan or strategy incorporating tourism does not
exist in Ireland. However, Local Authorities planning for tourism
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
through CDP’s are in a strategically favourable position to incorporate
biosecurity awareness among outdoor recreational tourists at a local
level in Ireland. Therefore, CDP’s have been incorporated into the
theoretical framework for this research to identify further correlation
between biosecurity awareness in place and implementation of tourist
biosecurity measures. This could lead to future effective risk manage­
ment of possible biosecurity vectors and pathways to mitigate possible
impacts of a biosecurity breach in Ireland and other destinations
worldwide.
3. Methodology
The main purpose of this theoretical work is to provide a basis to
incorporate biosecurity awareness-raising and communication for
tourists partaking in outdoor recreational activities at national and local
levels in Ireland. A mixed-method research approach was utilised,
allowing for the study to be enhanced by adding qualitative data
(Creswell & Clark, 2011). Initially, an in-depth review of international
literature grounded the researcher in the current theory to assess Ire­
land’s level of tourism biosecurity awareness and communication for
outdoor recreation. The development of a theoretical framework was
guided by relevant theory and incorporates fundamental components of
various international models of tourism biosecurity. Specifically,
essential elements of the biosecurity pyramid (Fig. 1), and the rela­
tionship between the individual, community, and social structures
supporting biosecurity (Fig. 2) were identified and critically evaluated.
This provides an overarching perspective between international, bio­
security risk management and planning to guide national, local, and
individual level biosecurity risk management and planning in Ireland.
A specifically designed semi-structured questionnaire was utilised
from the development of a theoretical framework (Fig. 3) to survey
outdoor recreational tourist’s awareness and communication received of
biosecurity in Ireland. This strategic open-ended questionnaire was
utilised to apply a confidence level of 95% and a 5% margin of error.
Once sample numbers were calculated, random sampling occurred until
the required number of 457 questionnaires being completed. This data
was collected between July and September 2019 in tourist attractions at
Strandhill, Co.Sligo, Glencar Waterfall, Co.Leitrim, Cliffs Of Moher, Co.
Clare, Bunratty Castle, Co.Clare, Lough Mask, Co Mayo, and Sandy­
mount Beach, Co.Dublin. Respondents were asked: (i.) Did you partake
in any outdoor recreation activities while on holiday in Ireland; (ii.) Are
you aware of any biosecurity measures tourists can take to minimise
biosecurity threats while visiting Ireland as a destination; (iii.) Have you
seen any communication in relation to tourists and potential biosecurity
threats while on holiday in Ireland; and (iv.) Did you undertake in any
specific biosecurity measures while on holiday in Ireland. After each
question, the respondents were asked to elaborate on their initial answer
which facilitated a qualitative response from each question which
gathered qualitative responses from 132 tourists. This method allowed
for the collection of rich data, while also offering the opportunity for
clarifications on certain issues. The data gathered was analysed with
statistical data analysis software SPSS version 26 and Nvivo was used to
analyse qualitative data.
Findings from a recent study of Ireland’s biosecurity was used to give
a national perspective of tourism biosecurity communication and
awareness (Melly & Hanrahan, 2020). According to McLoughlin and
Hanrahan (2019), effective planning is required by Local Authorities in
order to find solutions to inevitable challenges, particularly for tourisms
consumption of the natural environment and the irreplaceable resources
of many local communities. Therefore, content analysis was utilised for
this study to comprehensively examine all Local Authorities 29 CDP’s in
Ireland to identify if appropriate biosecurity awareness and communi­
cation is in place for outdoor recreational tourists at a local level through
the acknowledgement of specific criteria. Qualitative content analysis
has been utilised as a theoretically valid method to identify, categorize,
and count the impartial elements of communication and provide readers
5
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
with a summary of this data. According to Rourke and Anderson (2004),
this technique is comprehensive and the analysis leaves little room for
counter interpretation. Therefore, content analysis was believed to be
most suitable for use in this assessment. All Local Authorities 29 CDP’s
were analysed for (i.) biosecurity awareness; (ii.) biosecurity commu­
nication; and (iii.) biosecurity plans for tourism. Additional criteria were
subsequently added to the content analysis specific to IAS consisting of
(i.) IAS awareness; (ii.) IAS communication; and (iii.) IAS plans for
tourism. The results have been analysed and discussed with a focus on
international examples of biosecurity risk management and planning
that incorporate biosecurity awareness tourists. Recommendations are
put forward based on the findings of this study which could improve
Ireland’s and other nature-based destinations’ biosecurity risk planning
and management from national to local levels by incorporating effective
awareness and communication for outdoor recreational tourists.
4. Results
The results from a previous study revealed that Ireland is lacking
appropriate tourist biosecurity awareness and communication at a na­
tional level. This is due to no national biosecurity strategy or commu­
nication strategy that incorporates tourism in place. Furthermore,
communication for biosecurity is understandably missing within Ire­
land’s National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021 and Plant Health &
Biosecurity Strategy 2020–2025 as the focus of these are clearly specific
to biodiversity and plant health (Melly & Hanrahan, 2020). This leaves
the implementation of biosecurity awareness and communication for the
public and indeed tourists within EU regulation 1143/2014 and CBD
decision VIII/27 lacking in Ireland.
The results of the content analysis of all 29 Local Authority CDP’s in
Ireland (Table 1) found that there is no evidence (0%) of biosecurity
awareness, communication, or plans for tourism in place from the
criteria assessed. This is clearly a concern for the implementation of
biosecurity best practice guidelines among recreational tourists. Further
content analysis specific to IAS indicated that although 29% of CDP’s
were found to be partially compliant with the criteria assessed, the IAS
awareness only specified awareness among landowners, developers, and
the general public for the transfer of IAS in already invaded locations.
This does not represent sufficient awareness and communication for
tourists that could be providing a pathway for IAS and disease through
participation in outdoor recreational activities.
Only one of the CDP’s incorporate any IAS plans for tourism. Kerry
provided the only CDP to implement biosecurity for recreational tourist
activities. Objective T-16 of Kerry CDP is to ‘monitor aquatic vessels in
relation to the spread of invasive alien aquatic species by leisure craft’.
However, there was no evidence of any specific tourist communication
for IAS within all CDP’s. This is despite the crucial role of local pop­
ulations in assessing levels of biosecurity awareness and the selection of
prevention measures within local communities (Shrestha et al., 2019).
The results in Table 2 reflect the findings from Table 1. First of all,
this research found that most of the respondents (90.6%) sampled
participated in outdoor recreational activities while on holiday in
Ireland. The most popular activities were walking (36.2%), hiking
(11%), and hillwalking (9.6%), and fishing (6.4%). However, the anal­
ysis determined that there is a significant lack of biosecurity awareness,
communication, and implementation of biosecurity measures among
tourists participating in outdoor recreational activities in Ireland. Out of
the overall sample of tourist surveys, 92.8% of tourists said they did not
undertake any specific biosecurity measures, while 87.5% said they did
not see any communication in relation to tourists and potential bio­
security threats while on holiday in Ireland. This was a worrying finding
especially considering the extent of the Asian Clam, Zebra Mussel, and
Crayfish Plague already present in Ireland.
A high percentage (70.5%) of the tourists that participated in out­
door recreational activities said they were not aware of any biosecurity
measures. This was concerning considering the need for effective
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
Table 1
Biosecurity and IAS assessment for County Development Plans.
Criteria Assessed Local Authorities in Ireland
within County
Carlow Cavan Clare Cork Donegal
Development Plans
Biosecurity Section
Biosecurity Awareness
Biosecurity
Communication
Biosecurity Plans for
tourism
IAS (Invasive Alien Species) Section
IAS Awareness P P P P
IAS Communication
IAS Plans for tourism
X ¼ Compliant P¼Partially Compliant.
awareness-raising measures to reduce unintentional introductions of
biosecurity threats through the tourism pathway (Anderson et al.,
2015).
Proven and effective vector mitigation measures, and the scalable
capacity to implement them are essential to prevent biosecurity
breaches (De Ventura et al., 2016; Hall & Baird, 2013). However, this
analysis determined a relatively low percentage (21.2%) of tourists that
said they seen biosecurity communication actually undertook any bio­
security measures. It is important to note that the two most frequent
form of biosecurity communication in the entire tourist survey sample
was signage for invasive mussels at boat ramps (51.9%), and road
signage for Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia Japonica) (42.6%). The
remaining forms of all biosecurity communication received were airport
signage (1.9%), leaflet (1.9%), and social media (1.9%). There was
clearly a significantly low percentage (8%) of the 90.6% of tourists who
said they participated in outdoor recreational activities, saying they
undertook specific biosecurity measures.
The results of the qualitative data indicate a similarly low level of
biosecurity awareness among the recreational tourists interviewed. Just
25 (19%) of the 132 tourists which gave qualitative responses said that
they were aware of any biosecurity measures. Of the 19% that knew
what biosecurity was, interestingly there was recurrent mentioning of
biosecurity communication specifically from tourists who visited the
UK, New Zealand, and Australia. Even more concerning however was
that 62 (58%) of the 132 indicated that they didn’t know what bio­
security was. Therefore these results offer Ireland and other nature-
based destinations the opportunity to prevent a biosecurity breach
from tourist vectoring by incorporating effective biosecurity awareness
and communication for tourists at national and local levels.
4.1. Discussion
The high tourist participation in outdoor recreation is no surprise
given the emphasis and marketing campaigns by Fa �ilte Ireland and
Discover Ireland that promote Ireland as a destination of adventure
(Discover Ireland, 2019; Fa�ilte Ireland, 2013). From a national point of
view, Ireland is evidently missing an element of biosecurity awareness
among outdoor recreational tourists due to no national biosecurity
strategy that incorporates tourism in place. Considering the role of
recreational tourism in the spread of IAS and disease, this finding
highlights the importance of having appropriate biosecurity awareness
measures in place (Anderson et al., 2015; Cole et al., 2016). This
shortfall is emphasised when various international biosecurity plans and
strategies are taken into consideration. For instance, the Hawaii Inter­
agency Biosecurity Plan 2017–2027 incorporates a biosecurity com­
munications specialist to develop outreach materials to launch a visitor
awareness campaign before their arrival, during flights, and during their
stay in Hawaii. National planning approaches for tourism obviously
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
Dún Laoghaire- Fingal Galway Kerry Kildare Kilkenny Laois Leitrim Limerick
Rathdown
P P
X
need to incorporate the risk associated with tourists vectoring bio­
security threats and appropriate effective awareness-raising and
communication measures.
From a local perspective, the results of the content analysis clearly
indicate that biosecurity is missing from all CDP’s. According to
McLoughlin and Hanrahan (2016), the Planning and Development
(Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004 require that all
CDP’s in Ireland have a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) carried
out in order to maximise the environmental sustainability of their CDP’s.
Given that all CDP’s confirmed to this regulation, it is clear that while
planning has been performed specifically for IAS, the role of tourism
providing a pathway for biosecurity threats has not. Although it was
positive to find that some Local Authorities (29%) have recognised the
importance of promoting public awareness for IAS, this is not sufficient
to raise awareness of biosecurity among tourists participating in outdoor
recreation.
At the individual tourist level, initial findings revealed a high per­
centage (70.5%) of tourists participating in outdoor recreational activ­
ities in Ireland are unaware of biosecurity measures. Specific biosecurity
best practice measures for cleaning and disinfecting footwear, fishing
gear, canoes/kayaks, and boats can effectively reduce the likelihood of
tourist vectoring (Anderson et al., 2014; Cuthbert et al., 2019; De Ven­
tura et al., 2016). Likewise, awareness of the ‘check clean dry’ bio­
security protocol could improve biosecurity best practices among
recreational tourists (Anderson et al., 2014; Shannon et al., 2019).
Walking and hiking which represented the most popular recreational
activities from the tourist surveys are well known to contribute to the
dispersal of IAS, especially invasive plants, weeds, and disease (White
et al., 2019, p. 716). Although there is some evidence of ‘check clean
dry’ implemented in Ireland, it was only evident on the IFI, Biodiversity
Ireland, and Invasive Species Ireland websites.
Signage at boat ramps could be an effective method of creating
biosecurity awareness among recreational anglers, boaters, or canoeists.
However, raising biosecurity awareness at the water’s edge could be too
late for tourists to undertake measures. Further analysis revealed the
percentage (7.2%) of tourists who seen biosecurity communication and
didn’t undertake biosecurity measures (78.8%) was relatively high. The
volume, location, type, and quality of communication clearly needs
improvement. Responses from the qualitative data indicate that recre­
ational tourists agreed that creating awareness earlier would be bene­
ficial for them undertaking biosecurity measures, specifically at the
border:
“I received communication in Australia at the airport not to transport
dirty boots and to clean before moving” (Tourist 136)
“In New Zealand, there are very strict rules on biosecurity and everyone is
very aware, there is much communication at airports, lakes, and rivers”
(Tourist 199)
6
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313

Local Authorities in Ireland

Longford Louth Mayo Meath Monaghan North Offaly Roscommon Sligo South South Waterford Westmeath Wexford Wicklow
Tipperary Dublin Tipperary

Biosecurity Section

IAS (Invasive Alien Species) Section

P P P P

“In the UK, biosecurity is communicated in brochures from fishing com­
petitions. Boats must have a valid certificate that the boat has been steam
cleaned” (Tourist 227)
These responses indicate there is potential improvements to be
gained in tourist biosecurity awareness by incorporating the pre-border,
border, and post-border biosecurity approach that has been adopted in
Australia and New Zealand (Jeggo, 2012; Sherring, 2019). This
approach becomes increasingly appropriate when considering the use of
road signage to communicate information about the highly invasive
Japanese knotweed in Ireland. Evident from tourist responses, earlier
forms of awareness-raising and communication may be required:
“We arrived through Rosslaire on a ferry with camper van with two
mountain bikes on the back that we used elsewhere in Europe, we were not
aware that we could be vectoring biosecurity threats and we did not see or
receive any information about biosecurity”(Tourist 165)
“Japanese Knotweed signs are uninformative and cannot read them when
driving past at 80kph. Tourists especially could do with more informa­
tion” (Tourist 344)
Containing the spread of existing IAS through road and boat ramp
signage is commended. However, there appears to be a lack of early
intervention through awareness to prevent invasions from occurring in
the first place. Tourists arriving and participating in outdoor recrea­
tional activities in Ireland are not being made aware or communicated
Table 2
Outdoor recreational tourist’s awareness, communication, and undertaking of
biosecurity measures.
Out of 90.6% of tourists who participated in outdoor Awareness of
recreational activities while on holiday in Ireland biosecurity
measures
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Total
Of the 7.2% who undertook specific biosecurity measures Seen biosecurity
while on holiday in Ireland communication
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Total
Out of 90.6% of tourists who participated in outdoor Undertook specific
recreational activities while on holiday in Ireland biosecurity
measures
Yes
No
Don’t
know
Total
biosecurity risk or measures. For instance, cleaning and drying angling
and canoeing equipment before being transported into another water
body are of high importance to prevent a biosecurity breach which could
be communicated to tourists in Ireland through smartphone apps similar
to New Zealand’s “NZ Arrivals” (Anderson et al., 2014; Melly & Han­
rahan, 2018). Yet, only a very small percentage (1.9%) of tourists said
they saw biosecurity communication through social media in Ireland.
The costs of developing smartphone apps that deliver essential bio­
security communication to tourists would be a fraction of what Ireland
and destinations worldwide are spending on the control and eradication
of existing biosecurity breaches. Particularly considering the significant
percentage (92%) of tourists who participated in outdoor recreational
activities not undertaking any biosecurity measures, these forms of
communication could prove vital for Ireland as a nature-based
destination.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
We conclude that biosecurity awareness and communication at na­
tional and local levels in Ireland are inadequate to raise the level of
awareness need to mitigate the risk of tourist vectoring. Despite the
potential of tourist vectoring on hiking boots, fishing gear and water­
craft, implementation of the ‘check clean dry’ biosecurity protocol in
Ireland appears to be ineffective. The current national strategies for
biodiversity and plants are not equipped to raise awareness of bio­
security issues to tourists. Ireland could benefit from a specifically
developed national biosecurity plan or strategy incorporating a strong
element of tourist awareness and communication at pre-border, and
border stages of a tourist’s journey. Moving from development to
application, international agreements and regulations offer valuable
support on planning for biosecurity. A specific national biosecurity plan
or strategy could ensure EU regulation 1143/2014 and CBD decision
VIII/27 are implemented in Ireland and penetrate into local planning
29.3%
approaches.
70.5%
0.2%
From a local perspective, while it is encouraging to see some CDP’s
incorporate IAS awareness, there is no specific awareness measures
100.0% outlined. Furthermore, emphasis is primarily directed only towards
existing IAS such as Japanese knotweed and Asian Clam and is lacking
awareness for tourists. Ireland is clearly missing effective proactive
21.2%
78.8% awareness-raising measures for all biosecurity threats. CDP’s could set
0% out programmes for raising awareness and knowledge of proactive
biosecurity behaviours with targeted audiences including recreational
100%
tourists. Hosting community workshops, and developing community
groups and social networks could outline activities to drive behaviour
change (Gruber et al., 2018, p. 379). An educated and engaged com­
8% munity could assist with raising tourist awareness, detecting and
92% reporting on invasive species, and helping to prevent their spread and
0%
establishment (Pag� es et al., 2019). Moreover, improving awareness and
100% building public engagement are essential to gaining the support of the

7
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
general public, policymakers, and industry for preventative biosecurity
(Rago & Sugano, 2015). Public awareness could increase motivation and
commitment from industry and government to construct comprehensive
solutions to prevent biosecurity threats from recreational tourist activ­
ities in Ireland. CDP’s could strategically support targeted public
awareness campaign to motivate the public and tourists about issues for
prevention, control, and eradication (Novoa et al., 2017). These mea­
sures could provide efficiency and low-cost improvements in biosecurity
risk management for Ireland.
This paper has discussed the provision of tourist biosecurity aware­
ness and communication for outdoor recreation in Ireland. This study
contributes to new knowledge on biosecurity awareness and commu­
nication for tourists in Ireland. A lack of biosecurity specific for tourism
at national and local planning levels means compliance with interna­
tional and European biosecurity regulations and incorporating aware­
ness for the tourism pathway are lacking in Ireland. Furthermore, a lack
of awareness-raising measures for recreational tourists specifically at the
pre-border and border stages could leave Ireland at risk of a serious
biosecurity breach as a result of tourist vectoring. This is concerning and
falls well short of biosecurity awareness to achieve effective biosecurity
risk management required for tourism.
An essential policy implication can be drawn from this study. As
discussed by Balchin et al. (2019), biosecurity compliance and
enforcement can be challenging in small, isolated communities if
stakeholders are not willingly engaged through knowledge of need and
benefit. Maria Gstaettner et al. (2017) explains that visitors are often
observed to ignore risk management interventions put in place in nat­
ural tourism settings due to destination managers and visitors operating
in different dimensions of risk. This indicates that perceptions of risk as
well as conservation priorities differ between tourists and destination
managers. Moreover, in a study by Cole et al. (2018), recreational boater
knowledge and IAS prevention behaviour were similar in three surveyed
regions despite vastly different levels of investment in public outreach
and education. Policymakers, therefore, require a distinct understanding
of how biosecurity awareness approaches influence tourist behaviour,
and a need to incorporate outcome metrics to evaluate the success of an
awareness program. For instance, although the ‘check, clean, dry’ bio­
security campaign is utilised in Ireland, the use of a framework and
evaluation tool would help to identify factors that affect the success of
conservation activities. An example is the Cambridge Conservation
Forum (CCF) as a tool to meet the need for evidence-based conservation
approaches by providing both a means to assess the effects of whole
projects and single management interventions, as well as collecting the
data needed for evidence-based conservation approaches to biosecurity.
Thus, the verified success of the ‘check, clean, dry’ campaign can be used
to inform accurate pathway action plans thereby complying with EU
Regulation 1143/2014 (Smith et al., 2020). This approach could ensure
policymakers in Ireland and other nature-based destinations are accu­
rately informed of specific components relating to ‘check, clean, dry’
and other awareness campaigns that can improve tourist compliance
based on evidence.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Anderson, L. G., Rocliffe, S., Haddaway, N. R., & Dunn, A. M. (2015). The role of tourism
and recreation in the spread of non-native species: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. PloS One, 10(10), 1–15.
Anderson, L. G., White, P. C. L., Stebbing, P. D., Stentiford, G. D., & Dunn, A. M. (2014).
Biosecurity and vector behaviour: Evaluating the potential threat posed by anglers
and canoeists as pathways for the spread of invasive non-native species and
pathogens. PloS One, 9(4), 1–10.
8
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
Ankre, R., Fredman, P., & Lindhagen, A. (2016). Managers’ experiences of visitor
monitoring in Swedish outdoor recreational areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 14, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.04.008.
Bai, J. (2014). Research on the fundamental principles of China’s marine invasive species
prevention legislation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 89, 174–179.
Baird, T., Hall, C. M., & Castka, P. (2018). New Zealand wine growers attitudes and
behaviours towards wine tourism and sustainable winegrowing. Sustainability, 10
(797), 1–23.
Balchin, J. R., Duncan, D. G., Key, G. E., & Stevens, N. (2019). Biosecurity on St Helena
Island – a socially inclusive model for protecting small island nations from invasive
species. In C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout, A. R. Martin, J. C. Russell, & C. J. West (Eds.),
Island invasives: Scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 468–472). Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62.
Baruch-Mordo, S., Breck, S. W., Wilson, K. R., & Broderick, J. (2011). The carrot or the
stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-
wildlife conflicts. PloS One, 6(1), Article e15681.
Bellard, C., Cassey, P., & Blackburn, T. M. (2016). Alien species as a driver of recent
extinctions. Biology Letters, 12, 20150623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623.
Biodiversity Ireland. (2018). Invasive species week 2018. http://www.biodiversityire
land.ie/invasive-species-week-2018/. (Accessed 5 November 2019).
Biodiversity Ireland. (2019). Crayfish plague species alert. Available online from: http://
www.biodiversityireland.ie/projects/invasive-species/crayfish-plague/. (Accessed
21 October 2019).
Booy, O., Mill, A. C., Roy, H. E., Hiley, A., Moore, N., Robertson, P., Baker, S., Brazier, M.,
Bue, M., Bullock, R., Campbell, S., Eyre, D., Foster, J., Hatton-Ellis, M., Long, J.,
Macadam, C., Morrison-Bell, C., Mumford, J., Newman, J., … Wyn, G. (2017). Risk
management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native
species. Biological Invasions, 19(8), 2401–2417.
Bueno, E. A., Adeleye, A. S., Bradley, D., Brandt, W. T., Callery, P., Feraud, M.,
Garner, K. L., Gentry, R., Huang, Y., McCullough, I., Pearlman, I., Sutherland, S. A.,
Wilkinson, W., Yang, Y., Zink, T., Anderson, S. E., & Tague, C. (2015). Citizen science
as an approach for overcoming insufficient monitoring and inadequate stakeholder
buy-in in adaptive management: criteria and evidence. Ecosystems, 18, 493–506.
Buta, N., Holland, S. M., & Kaplanidou, K. (2014). Local communities and protected
areas: The mediating role of place attachment for pro-environmental civic
engagement. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 5–6, 1–10.
Caffrey, J., Baars, J. R., Barbour, J., Boets, P., Boon, P., Davenport, K., Dick, J., Early, J.,
Edsman, L., Gallagher, C., Gross, J., Heinimaa, P., Horrill, C., Hudin, S., Hulme, P.,
Hynes, S., MacIsaac, H., McLoone, P., Millane, M., … Lucy, F. (2014). Tackling
invasive alien species in Europe: The top 20 issues. Management of Biological
Invasions, 5(1), 1–20.
Caffrey, J., Gallagher, K., Broughan, D., & Dick, J. T. A. (2018). Rapid response achieves
eradication – Chub in Ireland. Management of Biological Invasions, 9(4), 475–482.
Campbell, M. L., Bryant, D. E. P., & Hewitt, C. L. (2017). Biosecurity messages are lost in
translation to citizens: Implications for devolving management to citizens. PloS One,
12(4), 0175439.
Chakraborty, S., Saha, S. K., & Ahmed Selim, S. (2020). Recreational services in tourism
dominated coastal ecosystems: Bringing the non-economic values into focus. Journal
of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 30, 100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jort.2020.100279.
Cole, E., Keller, R., & Garbach, K. (2016). Assessing the success of invasive species
prevention public outreach and education efforts at changing the behaviours of
recreational boaters. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 210–218.
Cole, E., Keller, R. P., & Garbach, K. (2018). Risk of invasive species spread by
recreational boaters remains high despite widespread adoption of conservation
behaviours. Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 112–119.
Connelly, N. A., Lauber, T. B., Stedman, R. C., & Knuth, B. A. (2018). Bait dealers’ roles in
preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species and fish pathogens in the Great
lakes region. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44(3), 514–520.
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]. (2006). Decision VIII/27: Alien species that
threaten ecosystems. Habitats or Species (Article 8 (H). Available online from: htt
ps://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-08/cop-08-dec-27-en.pdf. (Accessed 31 March
2020).
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]. (2014). Vanuatu national invasive species
strategy and action plan 2014-2020. Available online from: https://www.cbd.int/do
c/meetings/mar/soiws-2016-05/other/soiws-2016-05-vanuatu-15-en.pdf. (Accessed
18 October 2019).
Coughlan, N. E., Cuthbert, R. N., Dickey, J. W. E., Crane, K., Caffrey, J. M., Lucy, F. E.,
Davis, E., & Dick, J. T. A. (2019). Better biosecurity: spread-prevention of the
invasive Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea (Müller, 1774). Management of Biological
Invasions, 10(1), 1–14.
Coughlan, N. E., Walsh, D. A., Caffrey, J., Davis, E., Lucy, F. E., Cuthbert, R. N., &
Dick, J. T. A. (2018). Cold as ice: a novel eradication and control method for invasive
Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea using pelleted dry ice. Management of Biological
Invasions, 9(4), 463–474.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Desigining and constructing mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cuthbert, R. N., Crane, K., Dick, J. T. A., Caffrey, J. M., MacIsaac, H. J., & Coughlan, N. E.
(2019). Die hard: Impact of aquatic disinfectants on the survival and viability of
invasive Elodea nuttallii. Aquatic Botany, 154, 11–17.
Davies, P. (2016). Alien invasive species – is the EU’s strategy fit for purpose? In
M. Bowman, P. Davies, & E. Goodwin (Eds.), Research handbook on biodiversity and
law (pp. 184–219). Elgar Online, 2016.
Davis, E., Caffrey, J. M., Coughlan, N. E., Dick, J. T. A., & Lucy, F. E. (2019).
Communications, outreach and citizen science: Spreading the word about invasive
alien species. Management of Biological Invasions, 9(4), 515–525.
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
De Ventura, L., Weissert, N., Tobias, R., Kopp, K., & Jokela, J. (2016). Overland transport
of recreational boats as a spreading vector of Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha.
Biological Invasions, 18, 1451–1466.
Discover Ireland. (2019). Things to do in Ireland. https://www.discoverireland.ie/thi
ngs-to-do. (Accessed 12 November 2019).
Early, R., Bradley, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Lawler, J. J., Olden, J. D., Blumenthal, D. M.,
Gonzalez, P., Grosholz, E. D., Ibanez, I., Miller, L. P., Sorte, C. J. B., & Tatem, A. J.
(2016). Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and
national response capacities. Nature Communications, 7, 12485.
Eiswerth, M. E., Yen, S. T., & van Kooten, G. C. (2011). Factors determining awareness
and knowledge of aquatic invasive species. Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1672–1679.
European Commission [Ec]. (2014). Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014: The prevention and
management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (2014). Available
online from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid¼1417443
504720&uri¼CELEX: 32014R1143. (Accessed 22 August 2018).
F�
ailte Ireland. (2013). What do those seeking adventure really want? Tourism authority
releases comprehensive insights into future visitors. Available online from: http://www.
failteireland.ie/Footer/Media-Centre/What-do-those-seeking-adventure-really-want
.aspx. (Accessed 12 November 2019).
F�
ailte Ireland. (2018). Tourism facts 2017. Available online from: http://www.failteirela
nd.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/5_I
nternational_Tourism_Trends/Tourism-Facts-2017_1.pdf?ext¼.pdf. (Accessed 5
November 2019).
F�
ailte Ireland. (2019). Key tourism facts 2018. Available online from: http://www.failteir
eland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/
Key-Tourism-Facts-2018.pdf?ext¼.pdf. (Accessed 5 November 2019).
Fraser, D., Dabb, H., & Graham, C. (2016). Biosecurity awareness of ferry passengers
travelling to islands in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Available online from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c6ae/d76e3d1fa84d5e7b8427e1 ba904d949
28243.pdf. (Accessed 15 October 2019).
Gioria, M., O’Flynn, C., & Osborne, B. A. (2018). A review of the impacts of major
terrestrial invasive alien plants in Ireland. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the
Royal Irish Academy, 118B, 157–179.
Giovos, I., Kleitou, K., Poursanidis, D., Batjakas, I., Bernardi, G., Crocetta, F.,
Doumpas, N., Kalogirou, S., Kampouris, T. E., Keramidas, I., Langeneck, J.,
Maximiadi, M., Mitsou, E., Stoilas, V. O., Tiralongo, F., Kyriakidis, G. R.,
Xentidis, N. J., Zenetos, A., & Katsanevakis, S. (2019). Citizen-science for monitoring
marine invasions and stimulating public engagement: A case project from the
Eastern Mediterranean. Biological Invasions, 21(12), 3707–3721.
Goldson, S. L., Frampton, E. R., & Ridley, G. S. (2010). The effects of legislation and
policy in New Zealand and Australia on biosecurity and arthropod biological control
research and development. Biological Control, 52, 241–244.
Gozlan, R. E., Burnard, D., Andreou, D., & Britton, J. R. (2013). Understanding the
threats posed by non-native species: Public vs. conservation managers. PloS One, 8
(1), Article e53200.
Gruber, M. A. M., Pierce, R. J., Burne, A. R., Naseri-Sale, L., & Lester, P. J. (2018). Using
community engagement and biodiversity surveys to inform decisions to control
invasive species: A case study of yellow crazy ants in Atafu, Tokelau. Pacific
Conservation Biology, 24, 379–387.
Hall, C. M. (2011). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for
managing biological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and
Events, 3(3), 256–280.
Hall, C. M., & Baird, T. (2013). Ecotourism, biological invasions and biosecurity. In
R. Ballantyne, & J. Packer (Eds.), International Handbook on Ecotourism (pp. 66–77).
Australia: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hawaii Invasive Species Council [HISC]. (2017). Hawaii interagency biosecurity plan 2017-
2027. Available online from: https://hdoa.hawaii.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/
09/Hawaii-Interagency-Biosecurity-Plan.pdf. (Accessed 11 October 2019).
Hogan, J. L., Sponarski, C. C., & Bath, A. J. (2019). All-terrain vehicles: Differences in
perceptions of impact on coastal dunes among communities in New Brunswick,
Canada. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 26, 61–71.
Horrill, J. C., Oliver, M. K., & Partridge, J. S. (2019). Lessons on effectiveness and long-
term prevention from broad-scale control of invasive alien species in Scotland’s
rivers and Lochs. In C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout, A. R. Martin, J. C. Russell, & C. J. West
(Eds.), Island invasives: Scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 458–465). Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62.
Hulme, P. E. (2015). Invasion pathways at a crossroad: Policy and research challenges for
managing alien species introductions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1418–1424.
Inland Fisheries Ireland [Ifi]. (2015). Post-trial dredge report, hot water section
Lanesborough. Available from: https://www.fisheriesireland.ie/documents/533-post
-trial-dredge-report-hot-water-section-lanesborough/file.html. (Accessed 1
November 2019).
Inland Fisheries Ireland, [Ifi]. (2019). Invasive species and biosecurity publications Accessed
online from: https://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Research/invasive-species.html.
(Accessed 10 October 2019).
Jeggo, M. (2012). The Australian perspective, the biosecurity continuum from preborder,
to border and postborder. In Institute of Medicine (US). Improving food safety through a
one health approach: workshop summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press
(US). Available online from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114489/.
(Accessed 28 November 2019).
Kilian, J. V., Klauda, R. J., Widman, S., Kashiwagi, M., Bourquin, R., Weglein, S., &
Schuster, J. (2012). An assessment of a bait industry and angler behavior as a vector
of invasive species. Biological Invasions, 14(7), 1469–1481.
Larson, C. L., Reed, S. E., Merenlender, A. M., & Crooks, K. R. (2016). Effects of
recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systematic review.
PloS One, 11(12), Article 0167259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167259.
9
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
Le, C., Fukumori, K., Hosaka, T., Numata, S., Hashim, M., & Kosaki, T. (2018). The
distribution of an invasive species, Clidemia hirta along roads and trails in Endau
Rompin national Park, Malaysia. Tropical Conservation Science, 11, 1–9.
Liu, T. M., & Tien, C. M. (2019). Assessing tourists’ preferences of negative externalities
of environmental management programs: A case study on invasive species in Shei-Pa
national Park, Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(10), 2953.
Maria Gstaettner, A., Rodger, K., & Lee, D. (2017). Visitor perspectives of risk
management in a natural tourism setting: An application of the theory of planned
behaviour. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 19, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jort.2017.04.001.
Martin, P., & Herron, A. S. (2019). A focus on citizen led action. In T. Alter, P. Martin,
D. Hine, & T. Howard (Eds.), Community-based control of invasive species (pp. 1–14).
Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 2019.
Mason, P. (2016). Tourism impacts, planning and management (3rd ed.). Routledge.
McLoughlin, E., & Hanrahan, J. (2016). Local authority tourism planning in Ireland: An
environmental perspective. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 8
(1), 33–52.
McLoughlin, E., & Hanrahan, J. (2019). Local authority sustainable planning for tourism:
Lessons from Ireland. Tourism Review, 74(3), 327–348.
Media and Communications Working Group [MCWG]. (2017). The invasive non-native
species media and communications plan for Great Britain. Retrieved from www.nonnati
vespecies.org/downloadDocument.cfm?id¼1587. (Accessed 11 November 2019).
Melly, D., & Hanrahan, J. (2018). The potential role of smart mobile technology in
mitigating Ireland’s tourism biosecurity risk. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Management, 6(3), 264–280.
Melly, D., & Hanrahan, J. (2019). Biosecurity risk and tourist communication in Ireland.
European Journal of Tourism Research, 22, 45–61.
Melly, D., & Hanrahan, J. (2020). Tourism biosecurity risk management and planning:
An international comparative analysis and implications for Ireland. Tourism Review,
75(1) (in press).
Minchin, D. (2014). The distribution of the Asian Clam Corbicula Fluminea and its
potential to spread in Ireland. Management of Biological Invasions, 5(2), 165–177.
Ministry for Primary Industries [Mpi]. (2018a). Biosecurity 2025 implementation plan.
Available online from: https://www.thisisus.nz/biosecurity-2025/implementation/.
(Accessed 18 October 2019).
Ministry for Primary Industries [Mpi]. (2018b). Biosecurity 2025 engagement plan.
Available online from: https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29168-e
ngagement-plan-strategic-direction-1. (Accessed 21 October 2019).
National Biodiversity Data Centre [Nbdc]. (2019). Species designation browser, invasive
species.. Available online from: https://species.biodiversityireland.ie/?
taxonDesignation GroupId¼25. (Accessed 26 March 2019).
Novoa, A., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Fried, J., & Vimercati, G. (2017). Does public awareness
increase support for invasive species management? Promising evidence across taxa
and landscape types. Biological Invasions, 19(12), 3691–3705.
Oele, D. L., Wagner, K. I., Mikulyuk, A., Schreck, S. S., & Hauxwell, J. A. (2015). Effecting
compliance with invasive species regulations through outreach and education of live
plant retailers. Biological Invasions, 17, 2707–2716.
Oidtmann, B. C., Thrush, M. A., Denham, K. L., & Peeler, E. J. (2011). International and
national biosecurity strategies in aquatic animal health. Aquaculture, 320(1-2),
22–33.
O’Flynn, C., Kelly, J., & Lysaght, L. (2014). Ireland’s invasive and non-native species –
trends in introductions. National Biodiversity Data Centre Series No. 2. Ireland.
Pag�es, M., Fischer, A., van der Wal, R., & Lambin, X. (2019). Empowered communities or
“cheap labour”? Engaging volunteers in the rationalised management of invasive
alien species in Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 102–111.
Pickering, C., Ansong, M., & Wallace, E. (2016). Experimental assessment of weed seed
attaching to a mountain bike and horse under dry conditions. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 15, 66–70.
Pickering, C., & Mount, A. (2010). Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global review of
unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles and
horses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 239–256.
Pickering, C., Rossi, S. D., Hernando, A., & Barros, A. (2018). Current knowledge and
future research directions for the monitoring and management of visitors in
recreational and protected areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 21,
10–18.
Piola, R. F., & McDonald, J. I. (2012). Marine biosecurity: The importance of awareness,
support and cooperation in managing a successful incursion response. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 64, 1766–1773.
Rago, F., & Sugano, D. (2015). Can’t see the forest for the (Albizia) trees: An invasive species
update. Report No. 3. Legislative Reference Bureau, Honolulu, Hawaii. Available
online from: http://lrbhawaii.org/reports/legrpts/lrb/2015/invasive.pdf. (Accessed
16 November 2019).
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.
Seekamp, E., McCreary, A., Mayer, J., Zack, S., Charlebois, P., & Pasternak, L. (2016).
Exploring the efficacy of an aquatic invasive species prevention campaign among
water recreationists. Biological Invasions, 18, 1745–1758.
Shannon, C., Quinn, C. H., Sutcliffe, C., Stebbing, P. D., Dally, T., Glover, A., &
Dunn, A. M. (2019). Exploring knowledge, perception of risk and biosecurity
practices among researchers in the UK. A Quantitative Survey. Biological Invasions, 21,
303–314.
Sherring, P. (2019). Declare or dispose: Protecting New Zealand’s border with behaviour
change. Journal of Social Marketing, 10(1), 85–104.
Shrestha, B. B., Shrestha, U. B., Sharma, K. P., Parajuli, R. B. T., Devkota, A., &
Siwakoti, M. (2019). Community perception and prioritization of invasive alien
D. Melly and J. Hanrahan
plants in Chitwan-Annapurna landscape, Nepal. Journal of Environmental
Management, 229, 38–47.
Smith, E. R. C., Bennion, H., Sayer, C. D., Aldridge, D. C., & Owen, M. (2020).
Recreational angling as a pathway for invasive non-native species spread: Awareness
of biosecurity and the risk of long distance movement into Great Britain. Biological
Invasions, 22, 1135–1159.
Sutcliffe, C., Quinn, C. H., Shannon, C., Glover, A., & Dunn, A. M (2019). Exploring the
attitudes to and uptake of biosecurity practices for invasive non-native species:
Views amongst stakeholder organisations working in UK natural environments.
Biological Invasions, 20(2), 399–411.
Switalski, A. (2018). Off-highway vehicle recreation in drylands: A literature review and
recommendations for best management practices. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 21, 87–96.
10
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 31 (2020) 100313
Thomas, S. L., & Reed, S. E. (2019). Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and
conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management. Environmental
Research Letters, 14, 115009.
Thompson, L., Stenekes, N., Kruger, H., & Carr, A. (2009). Engaging in biosecurity:
Literature review of community engagement approaches. Australian Government:
Bureau of Rural Sciences.
White, R. M., Marzano, M., Leahy, S., & Jones, G. (2019). Are we defending the
indefensible? Reflecting on policy and practice around ‘the border’ in plant
biosecurity for tree health. Forests, 10(9), pp716.
World Health Organisation [WHO]. (2017). Asia Pacific strategy for emerging diseases
and public health emergencies (2005). Available online from: https://apps.who.int/
iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259094/9789290618171-eng.pdf?sequence¼1&is
Allowed¼y. (Accessed 18 October 2019).