Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Bringing harbours alive: Assessing the importance of eco-engineered coastal T

infrastructure for different stakeholders and cities
⁎
S.E. Kienkera,b, , R.A. Colemana,b, R.L. Morrisd, P. Steinbergb,c, B. Bollarde, R. Jarvise,
K.A. Alexanderf,g, E.M.A. Strainb,d
a
Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
b
Sydney Institute of Marine Science, 19 Chowder Bay Rd, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia
c
Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
d
National Centre for Coasts and Climate, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
e
Institute of Applied Ecology, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
f
Centre for Marine Socio-ecology, Private Bag 129, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
g
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia

A B S T R A C T

Urbanisation and population growth continue to impact already pressured harbour environments, resulting in a
proliferation of artificial structures in the marine environment. In response, there is a growing interest in eco-
logical engineering these structures for the benefit of both nature and humankind. Since the decision to build or
adapt coastal infrastructure is a socio-economic one, the views and perceptions of different users are likely to
influence support for ecological engineering projects. A survey was developed and run in four harbours (Sydney,
Hobart, Auckland and Tauranga) to quantify the perceptions of different stakeholder groups towards ecological
engineering of artificial structures. This study tested whether respondents with a greater connection, concern for
environment, with a higher socio-economic status or who lived in a more modified harbour environment are
more likely to be supportive of ecological engineering than other respondents. The study also assessed whether
respondents with prior knowledge about the dominant artificial structure in their harbour (seawalls) agreed with
the positive effects, disagreed with negative effects, and were more willing to contribute to costs of ecological
engineering than those without prior knowledge. Results showed that most people are supportive of ecological
engineering (92.55%). However, stakeholders whose work is directly linked to the harbour are more supportive
of ecological engineering in Sydney and Auckland, than in Tauranga or Hobart. Environmental concern, edu-
cation, income and level of harbour modification all have a positive influence on support for ecological en-
gineering. Prior knowledge also influenced willingness to pay for ecological engineering. These results are
promising for councils and managers seeking to implement ecological engineering initiatives, and looking to
understand stakeholder groups’ attitudes and perceptions towards ecological engineering initiatives. Greater
consideration of both ecology and public users’ values are required for more holistic management strategies of
artificial structures in urban marine harbours.

1. Introduction
Globally, coastal systems are being impacted through multiple
stressors occurring over different timescales [1]. Over longer time-
scales, almost all coastal systems will be affected by climate change
through increases in temperature, reductions in ocean pH, increased
storminess and sea-level rise [2–4]. More immediately, the proliferation
of man-made structures, often referred to as ocean sprawl presents
challenges to coastal habitats [5]. Given that more than half of the
world's population now lives in cities [6] and over two thirds live
within 60 km of the coast [7], these coastal cities will need to increase
infrastructure and investment in their protection, therefore the extent
of ocean sprawl will only increase [5,8].
Artificial structures introduce novel substrata along shorelines
whilst replacing existing habitats, causing numerous ecological impacts
[9–12]. Shoreline armouring is the replacement or shielding of natural
shoreline with resistant materials, such as seawalls [13], to both protect
infrastructure and minimise erosion. It is a global phenomenon [14]

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006,
Australia.
E-mail address: skie0674@uni.sydney.edu.au (S.E. Kienker).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.028
Received 24 January 2018; Received in revised form 21 April 2018; Accepted 23 April 2018
Available online 26 May 2018
0308-597X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.E. Kienker et al.
and in some urban harbours, seawalls have replaced more than 50% of
the natural foreshore [13–15]. Armouring of nearshore ecosystems will
increase owing to rising sea levels from climate change [16]. Ecological
engineering [17] is now gaining traction as an approach to mitigate
contemporary and future impacts of coastal infrastructure.
Ecological engineering is the design and rehabilitation of sustain-
able ecosystems for the benefit of both humans and nature [11]. This
approach combines ecological understanding and principles of en-
gineering, structure and safety to enhance the ecological value of built
infrastructure [17]. Ecological engineering projects have been delivered
in rocky and soft-sediment systems, above and below the tidal zone.
Soft shoreline engineering methods are implemented to partially restore
degraded habitats [18] (such as dunes, mangroves, saltmarshes sea-
grass, shellfish and coral reef) and reduce the impact on biodiversity.
Attempts to enhance habitat value for hard-substrata engineering pro-
jects are more extensive, and have been recently reviewed [19,20].
Where shoreline armouring cannot be avoided, the use of complex
surfaces [21], flowerpots to function as rock pools [22], pits, crevices
and cracks to add complexity to surfaces [21,23] and light penetrating
panels to reduce shading effects [24–27] have been used to increase the
biodiversity of seawalls and other infrastructure. Research into ecolo-
gical engineering has demonstrated that targeted investment into eco-
logical enhancements can improve biological outcomes [11,20,28]. It is
important to note that whilst the ecological successes of the interven-
tions are considerable, the positive effects on biodiversity were not the
primary reason for the insertion of the built infrastructure. Adding coast
and harbour infrastructure is fundamentally a socio-economic decision
based on financial drivers and political considerations [22]. Whilst re-
search on the ecological value of marine ecological engineering con-
tinues to grow, the importance of societal considerations and values in
the management of urban shorelines is gaining recognition,
[16,22,29,30], but continues to be an area lacking in structured re-
search.
Human occupation has led to harbours being the focus of diverse
and sometimes intense activities, from a wide variety of user groups
[31]. Potential conflicts amongst different user groups and their use of
nearshore ecosystems are however, still poorly understood and there
have been few studies to date on the way people view and feel about
coastal infrastructure (except see Morris, et al. [22], Evans, et al. [32],
Gray, et al. [33]). It is important to quantify the social value of these
environments so their development and impact on society might be
better understood, as well as the connection of these groups of people to
the harbour. Quantifying societal connections to the harbour and per-
ceptions towards marine infrastructure can allow for integrated man-
agement techniques to be successfully implemented because key sta-
keholder groups will need to become invested and champion ecological
engineering projects for them to be an ongoing success [32]. Studies
into community concerns for climate change induced environmental
hazards are covered in the literature [34,35] as are peoples connection
to the beach [36,37]. Further study is required to assess how stake-
holder groups perceive ecological engineering of artificial marine
structures and what factors influence their support for environmental
initiatives.
Community groups and key stakeholders can greatly impact an in-
itiative or project so their support can be essential to the success of a
development project [38,39]. Some research has shown that public
support for ecological engineering can be independent of cost con-
siderations [22]. Morris, et al. [22] found public support for ecological
engineering in treatment groups regardless of whether costs of flow-
erpots were known, and residents in Sydney demonstrated a willingness
to pay more towards initiatives where there was a demonstrable en-
vironmental benefit [22]. This finding [22] should be tempered by the
fact that the study designers took a coarse-grained view of the stake-
holder constituency, although they found that the public were sup-
portive of marine initiatives [22]. Differences in values and perceptions
exist among stakeholder groups [32] but it is not known why they exist
239
Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246
or whether differences in context and location influence stakeholder
values. Each of the key studies into stakeholder perceptions of harbour
infrastructure [22,32] have highlighted the need for a more structured
approach to the research of stakeholder groups’ attitudes and percep-
tions of ecological engineering and marine infrastructure. Researching
the differences in stakeholder attitudes towards ecological engineering
of artificial structures could reveal stakeholder groups that are more
likely to support ecological engineering, and those who are more likely
to oppose such initiatives. It is possible that one of the key influences on
how people may value ecological aspects of the harbour is the in-
formation they hold about the harbour. This in turn could be directly
linked to educational success. Socio-economic and other factors that
may influence people to support ecological engineering - income,
education level, level of concern or prior knowledge on the topic- must
be explored further.
Prior knowledge of a topic has been correlated with a higher level of
concern across any issue, [35], indicating that a member of the public
more informed on a topic will show greater concern for the health,
treatment or well-being of the natural environment under scrutiny.
People's concerns for the exploitation of the natural environment have
been studied, such as for fisheries, aquaculture [40] and offshore wind
farms [41], but specific community groups were often the main focal
point [35,36,42], and the general public was often neglected in these
community studies. Other socio-economic factors including genera-
tional differences through age, education, income, ancestry and loca-
tion [43] can play a role in support for or against environmental in-
itiatives: For example, people born on Reunion Island had less
favourable views of marine protected areas compared to immigrants
[44] on the island, showing that natal origin of residents can give rise to
differences in perception. Studies on the public's willingness to pay for
urban green spaces [45,46] shows urban green spaces are recognised as
a common asset for the good of society [45] however socio-economic
factors, prior knowledge on the topic and stakeholder group identified
should also be recognised as factors that may influence the public's
willingness to pay. Single discipline approaches cannot address the full
scope of what threatens the coastal environment and those that use it
[47] and more research is needed incorporating cross-institutional
study. Both ecological and social research is necessary to improve the
outcomes of ecological engineering approaches. In this study, harbours
of greater and lesser modification by artificial marine structures were
used to test the differing attitudes and perceptions of stakeholder
groups and better understand why people may or may not be supportive
of ecological engineering.
The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes and perceptions of
people towards ecological engineering in four urban harbours, in which
seawalls are the dominant artificial coastal structure [12,15,48,49]. It
was hypothesised that people with a greater connection to the harbour,
greater concern for the environment, and a higher socio-economic
background would lead to more support for ecological engineering. It
was also predicted that support for ecological engineering would be
affected by the extent of artificial modification of the harbour. Finally,
it was predicted that prior knowledge of the predominant harbour
structure (seawalls) would influence a positive evaluation of ecological
engineering, a nuanced view of negative consequences of ecological
engineering and lead to greater propensity to pay for ecological en-
gineering.
2. Methods
2.1. Study sites
The survey was done in two locations in Australia (Sydney and
Hobart) and two in New Zealand (Auckland and Tauranga). These lo-
cations were chosen to compare the perceptions of respondents in
harbours that are highly modified with extensive coverage of seawalls
(> 50% in Sydney [12] and Auckland, [15]) against harbours that are
S.E. Kienker et al. Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246

Table 1
Comparison of respondents’ demographics from the survey and census data for New Zealand (2013) and Australia (2016).
Harbour Sydney Hobart Auckland Tauranga

Demographics Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey Census

Females (%) 52.07 50.77 50.43 51.39 47.78 51.43 38.82 52.63
Males (%) 47.93 49.23 48.28 48.61 52.22 48.57 61.18 47.38
English as main language (%) 88.94 58.40 93.97 86.50 85.00 87.10 94.71 92.00
Certificate level education or greater (%) 93.09 33.17 94.40 31.11 86.11 41.92 74.71 37.84
Educational attainment up to and including high school (%) 6.91 67.83 5.60 68.89 13.89 58.08 25.29 62.15
Income bracket (Survey) and Mean income (Census) USD$ 47,700–63,600 29,727 31,800–47,700 26,336 28,635–42,953 21,190 28,635–42,953 19,400
Age range (Survey) and Mean age (Census) 35–54 36 35–54 40 35–54 35.1 35–54 41

less modified by seawalls (< 40% in Hobart [48] and Tauranga [49]). understanding the harbour Table S4. This study tested the effects of:
The harbour catchment in these locations also varies in use, environ- stakeholder groups (fixed factor = 5 levels), environmental concern
mental pressures, population demographics and size, which could in- (fixed factor, with 5 levels), income bracket (fixed factor = 5 levels),
fluence the perceptions of the respondents [44]. The surveys were level of education (fixed factor = 5 levels), level of harbour mod-
distributed to respondents located within two kilometres of the fore- ification (fixed factor = 2 levels) on support for ecological engineering
shore areas to assess the perceptions and attitudes of people who ac- (yes or no) using generalised linear models with a binomial distribu-
tively used its waterways (Fig. S1). tion. Effects of prior knowledge (fixed factor = 2 levels) were then
tested on respondent's agreement for the positive effects, disagreement
with the negative effects and willingness to pay (5-point Likert scale)
2.2. Study design
using ordinal regression models. The effects of the different hypotheses
were tested across the four locations (Auckland, Sydney, Hobart and
This study used convenience sampling, which is a widely used non-
Tauranga, fixed factor = 4 levels). For all analyses tested, no effects of
probabilistic method used to capture the responses of people who are
over dispersion were found using the AER library. All analyses were
easy to reach [50]. A pilot survey was tested on a group of 20 people for
done in R [54].
language clarity, and the questions were modified according to their
comments. The final survey was distributed online to people 18 years of
age or over, through advertisements on community boards, business
3. Results
cards, emails, social media, newsletters, mailing lists, and in-person
using face-face surveys in four suburbs along each harbour foreshore
In total, 799 respondents completed the survey (217 in Sydney, 232
(two lower socio-economic and two higher socio-economic suburbs).
in Hobart, 180 in Auckland and 170 in Tauranga). This number of re-
The harbour foreshores were selected based on Australian Bureau of
sponses is consistent with other public perception studies [22,32].
Statistics [51] and Statistics New Zealand [52] data (Fig. S1). Specific
Across the different cities, most of the participants were between 35
user groups (i.e. harbour managers and marine scientists) were further
and 54 years old, spoke English as their primary language, and had
targeted through direct emails and face to face surveys at meetings, and
diploma or certificate level education and greater (Table 1). The age
social events. All respondents were provided with the participant in-
and level of education was greater than that reported for the population
formation sheet (ethics approval reference number H16175) before
as a whole from the census information for each city [51,52] (Table 1).
agreeing to undertake the survey (Fig S2).
The proportion of male and female respondents compared similarly to
The survey was made available between January 10th and May
the census data for three of the four harbour cities (Table 1), however
15th, 2017. During the survey period, demographic data on age,
for Tauranga, 61.18% of survey respondents were male, and from
gender, income, education, ethnicity and primary language were
census data, 47.38% of the census respondents were male (Table 1). As
compared to census data collected in 2013 and 2016, and the sampling
only 4 people indicated their level of education was primary school, this
adjusted accordingly [51,52]. This comparison ensured that the sample
option was removed from analysis so as not to confound results. In all
more closely reflected the larger population of all four harbours. An
cities, the income brackets were higher than census equivalent in-
electronic survey tool [53] was used to capture and store the survey
formation (Table 1).
data securely. The survey took 10 minutes to complete and included 19
The survey indicated across the four locations the majority of re-
questions on three themes: harbour use, views on artificial structures
spondents (92.55%) supported ecological engineering of artificial
and perceptions of ecological engineering (Fig. S3). In this study 11
structures. There were however, significant differences among the sta-
questions were used in analysis (Fig. S3). A combination of multiple
keholder groups and locations (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The stakeholders
choice questions, binary yes and no questions, 5-point Likert scales (2
whose work is directly associated with the harbour (e.g. commercial
answers in agreement with the statement, 1 neutral answer and 2 an-
fishers, boat builders and tour operators) were more supportive of
swers in disagreement with the statement) were used. A mix of binary
ecological engineering in Sydney (100%, SE = +/−0) and Auckland
and multiple response answers allowed for nuance and the ability to
(94%, SE = 0.05) than Hobart (64%, SE = 0.01) and Tauranga (80%,
explore multiple perspectives. Participation in the survey was voluntary
SE = 0.12), (Fig. 1 and Table 2). As predicted, those with an increased
and all cases with incomplete information were excluded from the
concern for the harbour environment (Fig. 2 and Table 2), who had
analyses.
higher income and greater level of education (Fig. 3 and Table 2) and
who lived in more modified harbours, (Fig. 4 and Table 2) were more
2.3. Data analysis likely to support ecological engineering, than those who had less con-
cern for the environment, lower income, level of education or lived in a
There were 48 stakeholder group options provided to all partici- less modified harbour.
pants (Question 14, Fig. S3), and for analysis these were combined into Across the four locations, people who selected seawalls as the
5 groups: (1) property and business, (2) transport or work unrelated to dominant artificial structure in their harbour were more likely to
the harbour, (3) leisure and recreation, (4) work directly associated strongly agree with statement six of the potential positive effects of
with the harbour, and (5) work tied directly to managing or ecological engineering “Stabilising the shoreline is important” than

240
S.E. Kienker et al. Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246

Fig. 1. Effects of stakeholder group and harbour on the percentage of respondents that supported (“yes”) ecological engineering of coastal infrastructure. The number
above the bars indicates total number of respondents.

those who chose another artificial structure (Table 3). There were,
however, no detectable effects of prior knowledge on the respondents’
attitudes towards the negative effects of ecological engineering, or any
of the other positive statements about ecological engineering (Table 3).
There were also no clear differences between locations in people's at-
titudes towards the positive and negative statements about ecological
engineering (Table 3). People with prior knowledge were more likely to
strongly agree with paying extra taxes and voting to ensure businesses
include the costs of ecological engineering in future developments, but
not paying a council levy or donating money towards ecological en-
gineering (Fig. 5 and Table 3). Across the four locations, people in
Sydney and Hobart were more likely to strongly agree with paying extra
taxes to ensure businesses include the costs of ecological engineering in
future developments, than people in Auckland or Tauranga (Table 3).
There were however, no clear differences between locations for all of
the other statements about the costs of ecological engineering (Fig. 5
and Table 3).
4. Discussion
There is an increasing interest in people's perceptions of ecological
engineering in marine [22,32,55] and terrestrial environments [56,57].
This study provides the first empirical evidence that support for eco-
logical engineering is not consistent amongst stakeholder groups and is
enhanced among groups who exhibit other environmental concerns, or
have greater socio-economic status. There was also a positive re-
lationship between the development of the harbour and the extent of
support for ecological engineering. The results demonstrated that peo-
ple's prior knowledge about the dominant marine artificial structures in
their harbour influences their willingness to pay for the costs of eco-
logical engineering. Having prior knowledge did not however, influ-
ence whether the respondent was more or less likely to agree with the
positive or disagree with the negative effects, of ecological engineering.
This study used a convenience sampling method to provide valuable
insights into how multiple stakeholders view ecological engineering
across four urban harbours. The relative time and cost of convenience
sampling are small in comparison to other sampling methods. Whilst
convenience sampling means the results of the survey may be more
prone to particular biases, this is true of all sampling strategies [58,59].
In addition, voluntary data sourced through convenience sampling can
be considered as well suited for scoping information in the early stages
of decision-making, raising awareness of the marine environment, and
identifying key stakeholder perspectives that can be used to inform
broader participatory processes [59–62]. Although the use of

Table 2
Results of the generalised linear models testing the effects of stakeholder groups, concern for the environment, income bracket, level of education, level of harbour
modification and location on support for ecological engineering and prior knowledge and location on attitudes towards the positive and negative effects and
willingness to pay for ecological engineering. See Tables S2 for full details of the analyses. Significant p-values are indicated in bold-print (at α = 0.05).
Response variable Factors df Deviance residual df. residual Pr (> Chi) P-value

Stakeholder group Stakeholder group 4 7.90 740 423.87 > 0.05

Location 3 9.71 737 414.16 0.02
Stakeholder group × Location 12 25.57 725 388.59 0.01
Environmental concern Concern for environment 4 20.22 794 444.91 < 0.001
Location 3 8.56 791 436.34 0.04
Concern for environment × Location 12 14.69 779 421.65 > 0.05
Socio-economic factors Income bracket 4 20.31 792 444.46 < 0.001
Location 3 8.40 789 436.05 0.04
Income bracket × Location 12 25.33 777 410.73 > 0.05
Level of education 4 24.50 794 440.64 < 0.001
Location 3 7.40 791 433.00 > 0.05
Level of education × Location 12 3.67 781 429.58 > 0.05
Modified harbour Level of modification 1 7.61 797 457.51 0.006
Level of modification (Location) 2 2.10 795 455.46 > 0.05

241
S.E. Kienker et al. Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246

131 9 38 259 362

100

Proporon of respondents
80

60
Yes
40 No
20

0
Indifferent Very low Low High Very high
Fig. 2. Effects of environmental concern on the percentage of respondents that supported (“yes”) ecological engineering of coastal infrastructure. The number above
the bars indicates total number of respondents.

convenience sampling may mean that the sample is not representative
of the population studied, the sample populations compared favourably
to census data for three of the four locations. Overall, convenience
sampling was a suitable data collection approach for this study.
Effective ecological engineering of marine artificial structures de-
mands greater understanding of conflicting stakeholder priorities [35].
Similar to Evans et al. [35] the results here indicate that the majority of
people who took part in the survey supported the idea of ecological
engineering or developing multifunctional coastal infrastructure in
urban harbours, however there were significant differences between
stakeholder groups. Evans [35] demonstrated that engineering con-
sultants were more supportive of creating multifunctional artificial
marine structures than respondents from statutory authorities such as
councils; Whereas this study demonstrated that people whose work is
directly linked to the harbour (e.g. fishermen or ferry workers) are
more supportive of ecological engineering in larger urban harbours
than smaller urban harbours. These results are likely to be explained by
the difference in stakeholders’ perceptions of ecological engineering
and their primary use of marine artificial structures. Evans et al. [35]
demonstrated that people from statutory authorities wanted to avoid
adding any additional infrastructure to the coast, because of the per-
ceived environmental damage from structural additions. In contrast, in
this study it seems likely that people who needed artificial structures for
work were more concerned by any changes that could affect their

Fig. 3. Effects of socio-economic factors a) income in US$ and b) level of education, on the percentage of respondents that supported ecological engineering (“yes”).
The number above the bars indicates total number of respondents.

242
S.E. Kienker et al. Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246

residents from more developed areas may be more concerned about

Fig. 4. Effects of harbour modification on the percentage of respondents that
supported ecological engineering (“yes”). The number above the bars indicates
total number of respondents. More modified harbours refer to Sydney and
Auckland. Less modified harbours are those of Hobart and Tauranga.
livelihoods in smaller than larger harbours, which could be due to an
association between people and place [63].
A positive correlation was found between the extent of harbour
modified by seawalls and respondents’ support for ecological en-
gineering. It has been suggested that differences in environmental at-
titudes exist between more and less developed locations and that
their environment, either linked to connection to area, or the residents’
socioeconomic status [43]. However, a review of multiple studies on
the topic found no or few consistent significant differences [64]. It
would be unsurprising to find that this difference does exist, given that
different experiences of nature and the natural world shape different
ways of thinking and feeling about the environment [65]. It is likely,
therefore, that different experiences of urban modification would also
shape different ways of thinking and feeling. Alternatively, differences
may be due to demographics or socio-economic status [66–68]. Indeed,
results suggest that people with higher income and educational levels
also had greater support for ecological engineering. It must be noted
however, as with the potential difference between more or less devel-
oped areas, the influence of social structural factors has also been found
to be variable in a review of similar studies [64]. Key points for plan-
ners are that exposing the public to the potential impacts of develop-
ment through education on the topic can broaden their understanding
which could confirm if disparities in economic status does have a si-
milar impact on support for ecological engineering as found in this

Table 3
Results of the ordinal regression models testing the effects of prior knowledge and location on respondent's attitudes towards the positive and negative effects and
willingness to pay for ecological engineering. Significant p-values are indicated in bold-print (at α = 0.05).
Response variable Factors df Likelihood ratio statistic P-value

Increasing abundance of native species is important Prior knowledge 1 2.22 > 0.05
Location 3 3.88 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 1.07 > 0.05
Aesthetics and making ecological engineering visually appealing is important Prior knowledge 1 0.51 > 0.05
Location 3 0.83 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 3.93 > 0.05
Reducing the abundance of invasive species is important Prior knowledge 1 0.85 > 0.05
Location 3 3.30 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.40 > 0.05
Improving nursery habitats for native species is important Prior knowledge 1 0.29 > 0.05
Location 3 7.18 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 0.51 > 0.05
Improving the water quality is important Prior knowledge 1 0.37 > 0.05
Location 3 5.55 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 0.52 > 0.05
Stabilising the shoreline is important Prior knowledge 1 7.02 0.01
Location 3 2.36 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.81 > 0.05
Minimising risks of degradation to existing habitats is important Prior knowledge 1 1.07 > 0.05
Location 3 9.72 0.020
Prior knowledge × Location 3 0.40 > 0.05
It interferes with harbour structures Prior knowledge 1 1.78 > 0.05
Location 3 12.93 0.01
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.12 > 0.05
It has increased cost of development Prior knowledge 1 0.05 > 0.05
Location 3 5.76 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 1.91 > 0.05
It has an environmental impact Prior knowledge 1 1.73 > 0.05
Location 3 2.81 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 0.90 > 0.05
It has health and safety concerns Prior knowledge 1 3.87 > 0.05
Location 3 3.58 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 34.59 > 0.05
There are no concerns with ecological engineering Prior knowledge 1 0.47 > 0.05
Location 3 0.42 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.42 > 0.05
I would be willing to donate money Prior knowledge 1 0.79 > 0.05
Location 3 8.84 0.01
Prior knowledge × Location 3 6.24 > 0.05
I would be willing to pay extra taxes Prior knowledge 1 10.41 0.01
Location 3 12.50 < 0.001
Prior knowledge × Location 3 1.20 > 0.05
I would be willing to pay a levy Prior knowledge 1 2.30 > 0.05
Location 3 7.26 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.02 > 0.05
I would be willing to vote Prior knowledge 1 4.14 0.04
Location 3 3.84 > 0.05
Prior knowledge × Location 3 2.96 > 0.05

243
S.E. Kienker et al.
Fig. 5. Effects of prior knowledge on respondent's willingness to pay for ecological engineering: a) donate money, b) pay additional taxes, c) pay a council levy and d)
vote to ensure businesses include the costs in future development plans. The number above the bars indicates total number of respondents.
study.
The results of this study suggest that people with prior knowledge of
the dominant artificial structure in their harbour are more likely to
agree to contribute to the costs of ecological engineering. Similarly
work by Morris, et al. [22] found that there was no effect of disclosing
costs of flowerpots on public support of the pots as an ecological en-
gineering initiative for seawalls, although in this study, payment of pots
was not attributed to individuals. This was unsurprising; well-informed
individuals have been found to be willing to pay more for public goods
in other studies on e.g. climate change and marine conservation
[69,70], although in this instance the survey asked about a substantially
more tangible item. Here it was shown that payment type was of im-
portance: people with prior knowledge were more likely to agree with
paying taxes and voting to ensure businesses included the cost of eco-
logical engineering in future projects, but not to pay a council levy or
make a donation. These results suggest that respondents prioritised the
development of government legislation rather than contributing di-
rectly to the cost of ecological engineering schemes. The amount re-
spondents may be prepared to pay was not, however, considered in this
study. Experimental economics may provide useful insights here.
The aim of this research was to assess the views of people from
different stakeholder groups and harbours on the concept of ecological
engineering of marine artificial structures. The social values, priorities
and cultures of people vary greatly geographically, therefore under-
standing attitudes and perceptions of these key stakeholder groups is
vital, and the consideration of public values in urban conservation is
essential for developing holistic management strategies [57]. Whilst the
findings here contribute to this debate, by no means do they provide a
definitive answer. Further study, with a larger sample size and more
geographic and social diversity is required. This research should try to
determine what the public perceive as key environmental issues and
locations that require ecological engineering initiatives. This informa-
tion could be used by decision makers and ecologists to develop best
practices for sustaining biodiversity in marine urban areas. The results
of this study identify geographical areas of support for ecological en-
gineering within four prominent harbour cities of the southern hemi-
sphere which could directly assist planners. Planners may wish to use
the knowledge of variation in support among groups to ensure success
of ecological engineering projects and gather community support. The
244
Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246
key points for urban planners are that educating the public on the po-
tential impacts of development can broaden their understanding and
ensure their willingness to contribute to the costs of conservation in-
itiatives.
Acknowledgments
Financial support came from the Centre for Research on Ecological
Impacts of Coastal Cities at the University of Sydney, The Ian Potter
Foundation, Harding Miller Foundation, and New South Wales Office of
Environment and Heritage. Special thanks to Alicia Donnellan
Barraclough, Dominic McAfee and Stephanie Bagala for their help with
the fieldwork. This is Sydney Institute of Marine Science publication
number 224 and is part of the World Harbour Project.
Ethical conduct
This work complied with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct
in Human Research (2007). The study was approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee at the University of New South Wales under
application reference H16175.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.028.
References
[1] S.L. Smith, S.E. Cunniff, N.S. Peyronnin, J.P. Kritzer, Prioritizing coastal ecosystem
stressors in the Northeast United States under increasing climate change, Environ.
Sci. Policy 78 (2017) 49–57.
[2] H.L. Rouse, R.G. Bell, C.J. Lundquist, P.E. Blackett, D.M. Hicks, D.N. King, Coastal
adaptation to climate change in Aotearoa-New Zealand, N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res.
51 (2) (2017) 183–222.
[3] D. Hopkins, C. Campbell-Hunt, L. Carter, J.E.S. Higham, C. Rosin, Climate change
and Aotearoa New Zealand, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. -Clim. Chang. 6 (6) (2015)
559–583.
[4] IPCC, Climate Change: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)] IPCC, Geneva,
S.E. Kienker et al.
Switzerland (2014) 151.
[5] M.J. Bishop, M. Mayer-Pinto, L. Airoldi, L.B. Firth, R.L. Morris, L.H.L. Loke,
S.J. Hawkins, L.A. Naylor, R.A. Coleman, S.Y. Chee, K.A. Dafforn, Effects of ocean
sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
492 (2017) 24.
[6] United Nations, World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in
urban areas. 〈http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-
urbanization-prospects-2014.html〉. (Accessed 19 November 2017).
[7] United Nations, Atlas of the Oceans: Facts. 〈http://www.oceansatlas.org/facts/en/
〉. (Accessed 20 May 2017).
[8] L.B. Firth, A.M. Knights, D. Bridger, A.J. Evans, N. Mieszkowska, P.J. Moore,
N.E. O'Connor, E.V. Sheehan, R.C. Thompson, S.J. Hawkins, Ocean Sprawl: chal-
lenges and opportunities for biodiversity management in a changing world, in:
R.N. Hughes, D.J. Hughes, I.P. Smith, A.C. Dale (Eds.), Oceanography and Marine
Biology: An Annual Review, 54 Crc Press-Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,
2016, pp. 193–269.
[9] M. Mayer-Pinto, E.L. Johnston, P.A. Hutchings, E.M. Marzinelli, S.T. Ahyong,
G. Birch, D.J. Booth, R.G. Creese, M.A. Doblin, W. Figueira, P.E. Gribben,
T. Pritchard, M. Roughan, P.D. Steinberg, L.H. Hedge, Sydney Harbour: a review of
anthropogenic impacts on the biodiversity and ecosystem function of one of the
world's largest natural harbours, Mar. Freshw. Res. 66 (12) (2015) 1088–1105.
[10] E.M. Marzinelli, A.J. Underwood, R.A. Coleman, Modified habitats change ecolo-
gical processes affecting a non-indigenous epibiont, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 446
(2012) 119–129.
[11] M.G. Chapman, A.J. Underwood, Evaluation of ecological engineering of "ar-
moured" shorelines to improve their value as habitat, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 400
(1–2) (2011) 302–313.
[12] M.G. Chapman, F. Bulleri, Intertidal seawalls - new features of landscape in inter-
tidal environments, Landsc. Urban Plan. 62 (3) (2003) 159–172.
[13] F. Bulleri, M.G. Chapman, The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of
change in marine environments, J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (1) (2010) 26–35.
[14] R.K. Gittman, F.J. Fodrie, A.M. Popowich, D.A. Keller, J.F. Bruno, C.A. Currin,
C.H. Peterson, M.F. Piehler, Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of
shoreline hardening in the US, Front. Ecol. Evol. 13 (6) (2015) 301–307.
[15] A. Wilson, Coastal planning in North Shore City, New Zealand: Developing re-
sponsible coastal erosion policy, 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010,
Adelaide, Australia, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 2010.
[16] M.G. Chapman, A.J. Underwood, M.A. Browne, An assessment of the current usage
of ecological engineering and reconciliation ecology in managing alterations to
habitats in urban estuaries, Ecol. Eng. (Online first).
[17] W.J. Mitsch, What is ecological engineering? Ecol. Eng. 45 (2012) 5–12.
[18] S.H. Munsch, J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, Effects of shoreline engineering on shallow
subtidal fish and crab communities in an urban estuary: a comparison of armored
shorelines and nourished beaches, Ecol. Eng. 81 (2015) 312–320.
[19] E.G. Moffatt, M.D.A. Thomas, Performance of rapid-repair concrete in an aggressive
marine environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 132 (2017) 478–486.
[20] E.M.A. Strain, C. Olabarria, M. Mayer‐Pinto, V. Cumbo, R.L. Morris, A.B. Bugnot,
K.A. Dafforn, E. Heery, L.B. Firth, P.R. Brooks, M.J. Bishop, Eco‐engineering urban
infrastructure for marine and coastal biodiversity: which interventions have the
greatest ecological benefit? J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (1) (2018) 426–441.
[21] E.M.A. Strain, R.L. Morris, R.A. Coleman, W.F. Figueira, P.D. Steinberg,
E.L. Johnston, M.J. Bishop, Increasing microhabitat complexity on seawalls can
reduce fish predation on native oysters, Ecol. Eng. 7 (2017) 9567–9579.
[22] R.L. Morris, G. Deavin, S.H. Donald, R.A. Coleman, Eco-engineering in urbanised
coastal systems: consideration of social values, Ecol. Manag. Restor. 17 (1) (2016)
33–39.
[23] M.A. Coombee, E.C. La Marca, L.A. Naylor, R.C. Thompson, Getting into the groove:
opportunities to enhance the ecological value of hard coastal infrastructure using
fine-scale surface textures, Ecol. Eng. 77 (2015) 314–323.
[24] J.R. Cordell, S.H. Munsch, M.E. Shelton, J.D. Toft, Effects of piers on assemblage
composition, abundance, and taxa richness of small epibenthic invertebrates,
Hydrobiologia 802 (1) (2017) 211–220.
[25] S.H. Munsch, J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, Effects of shoreline armouring and overwater
structures on coastal and estuarine fish: opportunities for habitat improvement, J.
Appl. Ecol. 54 (5) (2017) 1373–1384.
[26] S.H. Munsch, J.R. Cordell, J.D. Toft, Effects of seawall armoring on juvenile Pacific
salmon diets in an urban estuarine embayment, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 535 (2015)
213–229.
[27] P. Guenther, W. Elkey, E. Herzstein, The Elliott Bay seawall replacement project-
Protecting and Enhancing Seattle's waterfront, Ports 2016: Port. Eng. (2016)
657–666.
[28] R.L. Morris, M.G. Chapman, L.B. Firth, R.A. Coleman, Increasing habitat complexity
on seawalls: Investigating large‐ and small‐scale effects on fish assemblages, Ecol.
Evol. 7 (22) (2017) 9567–9579.
[29] K.A. Dafforn, T.M. Glasby, L. Airoldi, N.K. Rivero, M. Mayer-Pinto, E.L. Johnston,
Marine urbanization: an ecological framework for designing multifunctional arti-
ficial structures, Front. Ecol. Evol. 13 (2) (2015) 82–90.
[30] E.J. Sterling, E. Betley, A. Sigouin, A. Gomez, A. Toomey, G. Cullman, C. Malone,
A. Pekor, F. Arengo, M. Blair, C. Filardi, K. Landrigan, A.L. Porzecanski, Assessing
the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation, Biol.
Conserv. 209 (2017) 159–171.
[31] S. Pearson, W. Windupranata, S.W. Pranowo, A. Putri, Y. Ma, A. Vila-Concejo,
E. Fernandez, G. Mendez, J. Banks, A.M. Knights, L.B. Firth, B. Bollard-Breen,
R.M. Jarvis, C.U. Krägeloh, D.R. Billington, J.D. Aguirre, S. Chen, A.N.H. Smith,
P.D. Steinberg, E. Chatzinikolaou, C. Arvanitidis, Conflicts in some of the World
harbours: what needs to happen next? Marit. Stud. 15 (2016) 1–23.
245
Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246
[32] A.J. Evans, B. Garrod, L.B. Firth, S.J. Hawkins, E.S. Morris-Webb, H. Goudge,
P.J. Moore, Stakeholder priorities for multi-functional coastal defence develop-
ments and steps to effective implementation, Mar. Pol. 75 (2017) 143–155.
[33] J.D.E. Gray, K. O'Neill, Z. Qiu, Coastal residents' perceptions of the function of and
relationship between engineered and natural infrastructure for coastal hazard mi-
tigation, Ocean Coast. Manag. 146 (2017) 144–156.
[34] E.L. Tompkins, R. Few, K. Brown, Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: in-
corporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change, J.
Environ. Manag. 88 (4) (2008) 1580–1592.
[35] S. Gelcich, P. Buckley, J.K. Pinnegar, J. Chilvers, I. Lorenzoni, G. Terry,
M. Guerrero, J.C. Castilla, A. Valdebenito, C.M. Duarte, Public awareness, concerns,
and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 111 (42) (2014) 15042–15047.
[36] M.L. Campbell, C. Slavin, A. Grage, A. Kinslow, Human health impacts from litter
on beaches and associated perceptions: a case study of 'clean' Tasmanian beaches,
Ocean Coast. Manag. 126 (2016) 22–30.
[37] C. Ford, Sydney Beaches: A History, NewSouth Publishing, Coogee, NSW., 2014.
[38] S. Wyatt, Aboriginal people and forestry companies in Canada: possibilities and
pitfalls of an informal 'social licence' in a contested environment, Forestry 89 (5)
(2016) 565–576.
[39] R. Kelly, G.T. Pecl, A. Fleming, Social licence in the marine sector: a review of
understanding and application, Mar. Pol. 81 (2017) 21–28.
[40] J. Morton, E. Ariza, M. Halliday, C. Pita, Valuing the wild salmon fisheries of
Scotland: the social and political dimensions of management, Mar. Pol. 73 (2016)
35–45.
[41] L. Weyer, G. Krause, B.H. Buck, Lessons from stakeholder dialogues on marine
aquaculture in offshore wind farms: perceived potentials, constraints and research
gaps, Mar. Pol. 51 (2015) 251–259.
[42] G. Murray, L. D'Anna, P. MacDonald, Measuring what we value: the utility of mixed
methods approaches for incorporating values into marine social-ecological system
management, Mar. Pol. 73 (2016) 61–68.
[43] H. Hu, S. Geertman, P. Hooimeijer, The willingness to pay for green apartments: the
case of Nanjing, China, Urban Stud. 51 (16) (2014) 3459–3478.
[44] A. Thomassin, C.S. White, S.S. Stead, G. David, Social acceptability of a marine
protected area: the case of Reunion Island, Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (4) (2010)
169–179.
[45] A.Y. Lo, C.Y. Jim, Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of
urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong, Urban For. Urban Green. 9
(2) (2010) 113–120.
[46] B. Chen, Z.Y. Bao, Z.J. Zhu, Assessing the willingness of the public to pay to con-
serve urban green spaces: the Hangzhou City, China, case, J. Environ. Health 69 (5)
(2006) 26–30.
[47] A.K. Spalding, K. Biedenweg, Socializing the coast: engaging the social science of
tropical coastal research, Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci. 187 (2017) 1–8.
[48] Derwent Estuary Program, The State of the Derwent Estuary Report, Hobart,
Tasmania, p. 252.
[49] Tauranga City Council, Harb. Reserves Manag. Plan (2007) 1–49.
[50] A.P. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: And Sex and Drugs and
Rock 'n' Roll, Sage Publishings, London, 2013.
[51] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Theme: QuickStats. 〈http://www.abs.gov.au/
websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats?Opendocument&navpos=220〉.
(Accessed 20 June 2017).
[52] Statistics New Zealand, Quickstats by location. 〈http://www.stats.govt.nz/〉.
(Accessed 20 June 2017).
[53] P.A. Harris, R. Taylor, R. Thielke, J. Payne, N. Gonzalez, J.G. Conde, Research
electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow
process for providing translational research informatics support, J. Biomed. Inform.
42 (2) (2009) 377–381.
[54] I. Corp., IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 24.0, in: I. Corp. (Ed.) Armonk
New York, Released.
[55] K.A. Dafforn, M. Mayer-Pinto, R.L. Morris, N.J. Waltham, Application of manage-
ment tools to integrate ecological principles with the design of marine infra-
structure, J. Environ. Manag. 158 (2015) 61–73.
[56] S. Ulubeyli, V. Arslan, Economic viability of extensive green roofs through scenario
and sensitivity analyses: clients' perspective, Energy Build. 139 (2017) 314–325.
[57] B. Gunnarsson, I. Knez, M. Hedblom, Å.O. Sang, Effects of biodiversity and en-
vironment-related attitude on perception of urban green space, Urban. Ecosyst. 20
(1) (2017) 37–49.
[58] G.M.H. Breakwell, S. Fife-Schaw, C, Surveys and Sampling Issues, Sage Publications
Ltd, London, 1995.
[59] K.J. Wyles, S. Pahl, R.C. Thompson, Perceived risks and benefits of recreational
visits to the marine environment: Integrating impacts on the environment and
impacts on the visitor, Ocean Coast. Manag. 88 (Suppl. C) (2014) S53–S63.
[60] G. Brown, M. Kyttä, Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS
(PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research, Appl. Geogr. 46 (2014) 122–136.
[61] R.M. Jarvis, B.B. Breen, C.U. Krageloh, D.R. Billington, Identifying diverse con-
servation values for place-based spatial planning using crowdsourced voluntary
geographic information, Soc. Nat. Resour. 29 (5) (2016) 603–616.
[62] R.M. Jarvis, B.B. Breen, C.U. Krageloh, D.R. Billington, Citizen science and the
power of public participation in marine spatial planning, Mar. Pol. 57 (2015)
21–26.
[63] G.G. Gurney, J. Blythe, H. Adams, W.N. Adger, M. Curnock, L. Faulkner, T. James,
N.A. Marshall, Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected
world, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 (38) (2017) 10077–10082.
[64] J.D. Ambrosius, J.I. Gilderbloom, Who's greener? Comparing urban and suburban
residents' environmental behaviour and concern, Local Environ. 20 (7) (2015)
S.E. Kienker et al.
836–849.
[65] J. Berenguer, J.A. Corraliza, R. Martín, Rural-urban differences in environmental
concern, attitudes, and actions, Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 12 (2) (2005) 128.
[66] J.G. Nooney, E. Woodrum, T.J. Hoban, W.B. Clifford, Environmental worldview and
behavior: consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North Carolinians, Environ.
Behav. 35 (6) (2003) 763–783.
[67] Thomas Dietz, Paul C. Stern, Gregory A. Guagnano, Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern, Environ. Behav. 30 (4) (1998)
450–471.
246
Marine Policy 94 (2018) 238–246
[68] B. Clements, The sociological and attitudinal bases of environmentally-related be-
liefs and behaviour in Britain, Environ. Polit. 21 (6) (2012) 901–921.
[69] J. Diederich, T. Goeschl, Willingness to pay for voluntary climate action and its
determinants: field-experimental evidence, Environ. Resour. Econ. 57 (3) (2014)
405–429.
[70] J. LaRiviere, M. Czajkowski, N. Hanley, M. Aanesen, J. Falk-Petersen, D. Tinch, The
value of familiarity: effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay
for a public good, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68 (2) (2014) 376–389.