An invitation to conduct the survey (with two follow up prompts, two weeks apart) was circulated to the following organisation types, with 288 invitations in total:•government (including federal, state and local government levels);•coastal-based natural resource management regional management bodies and catchment management authorities (quasi-autonomous governmental organisations operating at SB 431542 scale broader than local government but narrower than state government);•Industry groups (e.g. Australian Coastal Society);•Community groups (e.g. Ocean Watch Australia, Coastcare groups); and•Research and consulting groups.
Data were analysed using mixed methods including the use of SPSS for nominal, ordinal and numeric data, and the open coding analysis to identify core themes (Babbie, 1998) from text-based responses.
3. Results
Overall, the survey had a response rate of 24%, typical of many surveys (see Jacobson et al., 2013). A response bias was evident, with proportionately higher community group, state group and university group participation than expected (10%, 6% and 17% respectively compared to 3%, 1% and 4% expected participation), and lower than expected regional group and local government group participation (53% and 12% respectively compared to 65% and 27% expected participation). Further, respondents from the states of New South Wales and Tasmania were over-represented (33% and 17%, compared to 24% and 7% respectively), whilst Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia were under-represented (23%, 6%, and 7% respectively compared to 27%, 24% and 9% expected participation). These figures are approximate only; we know from university response rates that the survey was circulated more broadly through participants forwarding the survey to colleagues.
Data were analysed using mixed methods including the use of SPSS for nominal, ordinal and numeric data, and the open coding analysis to identify core themes (Babbie, 1998) from text-based responses.
3. Results
Overall, the survey had a response rate of 24%, typical of many surveys (see Jacobson et al., 2013). A response bias was evident, with proportionately higher community group, state group and university group participation than expected (10%, 6% and 17% respectively compared to 3%, 1% and 4% expected participation), and lower than expected regional group and local government group participation (53% and 12% respectively compared to 65% and 27% expected participation). Further, respondents from the states of New South Wales and Tasmania were over-represented (33% and 17%, compared to 24% and 7% respectively), whilst Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia were under-represented (23%, 6%, and 7% respectively compared to 27%, 24% and 9% expected participation). These figures are approximate only; we know from university response rates that the survey was circulated more broadly through participants forwarding the survey to colleagues.