Results and Evaluation of the ConferenceAttendees Questionnaire Attendees’ responses about partnerships established during the conference Attendees Questionnaire. Evaluation Results:

May 15 – 17, 2012 Clearwater Beach Marriott Suites on Sand Key Clearwater Beach, FL University of Florida

5/14/2012

Results and Evaluation of the Conference: From Stem to Stern II

May 15 – 17, 2012 Clearwater Beach Marriott Suites on Sand Key

Clearwater Beach, FL

1

Conference Chair: Betty Staugler, Florida Sea Grant – Extension, University of Florida/IFAS, Charlotte County

Conference Co-chair: Holly Abeels, Florida Sea Grant – Extension, University of Florida/IFAS, Brevard County

Program Committee members:

Thomas Ankersen Director, Conservation Clinic Florida Sea Grant Legal Specialist University of Florida Levin College of Law

Jeff Littlejohn Deputy Secretary, Regulatory Program Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Garin Davidson Boating and Waterway Planning Program Florida Sea Grant University of Florida/IFAS

Major Jack Daugherty Section Leader, Boating and Waterways Section Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Bryan Fluech Florida Sea Grant - Extension University of Florida/IFAS, Collier County

Capt. Thomas Shipp Boating and Waterways Section Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Pat Harrell Boating Access Coordinator Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Joy Hazell Florida Sea Grant - Extension University of Florida/ IFAS, Lee County

J Staci Biondini Florida Sea Grant - Communications University of Florida/IFAS

Lisa Krimsky Florida Sea Grant - Extension University of Florida/IFAS, Miami-Dade County

Corina Guevara Boating and Waterway Planning Program Florida Sea Grant University of Florida/IFAS

Capt. Richard Moore Boating Law Administrator Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Brad Stombock Director, Office of Sustainable Initiatives Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bob Swett Coordinator, Florida Sea Grant Boating and Waterway Planning Program University of Florida/IFAS

Chris Verlinde Florida Sea Grant - Extension University of Florida/IFAS, Santa Rosa County

Fred Vose Florida Sea Grant - Extension University of Florida/IFAS, Taylor County

Dorothy Zimmerman Florida Sea Grant- Communications University of Florida/IFAS

Libby Carnahan Florida Sea Grant – Extension University of Florida/IFAS, Pinellas County

2

Conference Sponsors:

1. University of Florida/IFAS

2. Florida Sea Grant College Program

3. University of Florida Levin College of Law

4. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

5. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

6. Coastal Engineering Consultants Inc.

7. ATKINS

8. American Underwater Contractors Inc.

9. Florida Inland Navigation District

10. National Marine Manufacturers Association

11. Boat Owners Association of the United States (BoatU.S.)

12. Marine Industries Association of Palm Beach County

13. Pearl - Integrated Advertising and Digital Agency

Conference Description: From Stem to Stern is a statewide conference that is organized

every two to three years in the state of Florida. Its primarily goal is to provide an opportunity

for planners, resource managers, waterway users, marina operators, industry representatives,

harbor masters, city managers, elected officials, law enforcement, policymakers, attorneys,

consultants, educators, and researches to learn and discuss boating and waterways issues,

and to network with colleagues in the area.

Conference Purpose: Specific goals and objectives for the 2012 conference were:

Goal 1: Bring together those involved in Florida’s boating and waterways to discuss relevant

topics and issues.

Objectives: Implement a statewide conference that provides the opportunity for communicating

relevant boating and waterway topics and issues.

Provide information that supports decision-making processes and management actions.

Goal 2: Promote capacity building among stakeholders on appropriate boating and waterway

topics and tools.

Objectives: Train stakeholders in the use of a tool that can help to better plan and manage boating

infrastructure in Florida. Train stakeholders on economic principles and tools for valuing boating access/boating

infrastructure in Florida. Train stakeholders in social marketing to promote positive and proactive

environmental behavior changes within coastal communities.

Goal 3: Strengthen and develop networks among the different Florida boating and waterway

sectors and stakeholders.

Objectives: Provide an appropriate environment to maintain or establish new partnerships among

stakeholders. Promote collaborative work among stakeholders on boating and waterway actions.

3

Conference Evaluation: The effectiveness of the conference in achieving its goals and

objectives was measured using the plan shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Conference Evaluation Plan.

Goal Evaluation Question Indicators Information

Source Data Collection

Tool 1

Were the different sectors involved in boating and waterways represented at the conference?

A variety of boating and waterway stakeholders attended the conference

Attendees

Attendance list Registration

form Evaluation

questionnaire

Were stakeholders satisfied with the conference?

Attendees’ level of satisfaction with conference

Attendees Questionnaire

Was the conference relevant and useful for the stakeholders?

Attendees’ responses about the conference level of relevance and usefulness


Are stakeholders planning on using information delivered at the conference for decision-making processes or management actions?

Attendees’ answers on how they plan to use the information provided during the conference


2

Were stakeholders trained on relevant boating and waterway topics/tools?

The number and variety of boating and waterway stakeholders who attended pre-conference workshops

Attendees Attendance list

Attendees’ responses about the pre-conference workshops’ level of relevance


Attendees’ self-report on their level of learning at the pre-conference workshops


Attendees’ level of satisfaction with pre-conference workshops


Attendees’ answers on how they plan to use the information provided during the conference


3 Did the conference provide an appropriate environment for networking among stakeholders?

Attendees’ level of satisfaction with networking environment provided during the conference


Attendees’ responses about partnerships established during the conference


Evaluation Results:

Goal 1: Bring together those involved in Florida’s boating and waterways to discuss relevant

topics and issues.

Were the different sectors involved in boating and waterways represented at the

conference?

Registration information and the participant list indicate that a variety of people related to

boating and waterways attended the conference. The largest contingents represented state

government agencies (20%, 31 attendees), “Other” organizations (19%, 29 attendees mainly

4

consisted by academic/science practitioners), and county government agencies (17%, 26

attendees) (Figure 1). The predominant boating and waterways role of participants was in

boating and waterways was planning (38%, 59 attendees), followed by science/academics

(21%, 33 attendees), and marine industry (16%, 25 attendees) (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Percentage of attendees by affiliation.

Figure 2. Percentage of attendees by role in boating and waterways.

City government, 17 attendees, 11%

County government, 26 attendees,

17%

Federal government,

5 attendees, 3%

Non-profit organization,

9 attendees, 6%

Other, 29 attendees,

19% Private company/

corporation, 18 attendees, 11%

Private consultant, 20 attendees, 13%

State government, 31 attendees,

20%

Engineering/ Design,

15 attendees, 10% Law

Enforcement, 8 attendees, 5%

Legal, 6 attendees, 4%

Marine Industry,

25 attendees, 16%

Planning, 59 attendees,

38%

Policy, 3 attendees, 2%

Science/ Academic,

33 attendees, 21%

Other, 6 attendees, 4%

5

Although 155 people attended the conference, evaluation results are based on 61 participants

who responded to the conference evaluation questionnaire. The organizational affiliations

and roles of the respondents’ are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. The organizational affiliation of questionnaire respondents.

Figure 4. The boating and waterways roles played by evaluation respondents.

City Government, 7 attendees,

11%

Federal Government,

2 attendees, 3%

Non-profit Organization,

2 attendees, 3%

County Government, 12 attendees,

19%

Private Consultant, 6 attendees,

10%

State Government, 16 attendees,

26%

Private Company/

Corporation, 11 attendees,

18%

Other, 6 attendees,

10%

Science/ Academic,

10 attendees, 10%

Legal, 2 attendees, 2%

Law Enforcement,

6 attendees, 6%

Engineering/ Desgin,

8 Attendees, 8%

Policy, 12 attendees,

13% Planning,

21 attendees, 22%

Marine Industry,

14 attendees,

15%

Other, 23 attendees,

24%

6

Were stakeholders satisfied with the conference?

Overall, the results from evaluation questionnaires suggest that respondents were very

satisfied with the conference (Tables 2 through 6).

Table 2. Participants’ evaluation of conference logistics.1

Conference Logistics Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Information provided in advance of the conference (i.e., purpose, location, hotel, parking arrangements)

0% 0% 0% 28.3% 71.7%2

Online registration communication and assistance

0% 0% 3.3% 20.0% 76.7%

Onsite registration communication and assistance

0% 0% 7.0% 19.3% 73.7%

Quality of conference meeting rooms 0% 0% 5.0% 23.3% 71.7%

Quality of conference food 0% 0% 13.6% 25.4% 61.0%

Overall conference organization 0% 0% 0% 23.7% 76.3% 1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

In addition, 96% of respondents agree that they were satisfied with the services provided by

the hotel (i.e., room reservation, quality of guest room, check-in/out, parking), and only 4%

reported experienced issues: such as slow bath tub draining, TV malfunction, inopportune

check-out (would like late check-out), being booked at the wrong Marriot Hotel, and

inappropriate restaurant and conference room temperature (too cold).

Respondents also suggested that the most effective way to hear about the conference was

either through email (49.2%, 30 attendees) or from a colleague (45.9%, 28 attendees).

Table 3. Respondent evaluations of the conference format.1

Conference Format Very

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Format of conference sessions 0% 0% 5.0% 41.7% 53.3%2

Opportunities to discuss boating and waterways issues

0% 1.6% 4.9% 32.8% 60.7%

Overall time management of conference sessions

0% 1.7% 5.0% 30.0% 63.3%

Opportunities to interact with presenters

0% 0% 5.0% 25.0% 70.0%

Opportunities to interact with fellow attendees

0% 0% 0% 23.0% 77.0%

Overall opportunities for networking 0% 0% 0% 29.5% 70.5% 1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

7

Furthermore, 81.7% (49 attendees) of respondents suggested that the conference should continue in its current format, while 18.3% recommended changes. Some of the proposed changes included: shorter presentations, less presentations per panel, break-out sessions with state and federal agencies, more time for discussions, an open forum and concurrent sessions, and set goals to be accomplished by each section. Table 4. Participants’ evaluation of conference speakers.1

Speakers Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Overall presenters performance 0% 0% 5.1% 45.8% 49.2%2

Overall session moderators performance 0% 0% 10.0% 35.0% 55.0% 1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

Table 5. Participants’ evaluation of conference content.1

Conference Content None Very Little

Some A Good

Deal A Significant

Amount

How much NEW information did you obtain about boating and waterway projects/work in Florida?

0% 1.6% 26.2% 68.9%2 3.3%

Overall, how much did you learn from this conference? 0% 1.6% 23.0% 62.3% 13.1%

1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

Participant responses also indicate that the presentations (34.5%, 19 attendees) were the favorite part of the conference. Of the 19 attendees, specific presentations/sessions that were mentioned as favorites included: anchoring and mooring fields’ panel session (4 attendees), 2020 vision- managing anchored vessels on water of the state (1 attendee), Florida’s at-risk vessel program (3 attendees), the national working waterfronts and waterways network (1 attendee), the opening plenary session (1 attendee), navigating the permitting process session (1 attendee), Sebastian inlet channel dredging, resource protection and safety improvements (1 attendee), a synopsis of feedback from four regional boating and waterways workshop in Florida (1 attendee), innovative non-regulatory approaches (1 attendee), project planning and considerations for the future (1 attendee), ports and commercial access (1 attendee), and panel sessions on the last day (1 attendee). Networking opportunities was another aspect that rated high among the participants (27.3%). In addition, other aspects that were mentioned included receiving a copy of the PowerPoint presentations, open discussions (questions and answers) with the policy, planning, and law enforcement-regulatory representatives who were present, meeting people who were previously only known by name, hearing industry’s perspective on topics, seeing former attendees from S2S I, accommodations, the good organization, location, intriguing speakers, on time presentations, being informed on two sides of an issue, and being able to interact with speakers. Table 6. Participants’ evaluation of conference Materials.1

Materials Very Poor

Poor Average Good Excellent

Quality of conference materials (i.e., program book) 0% 3.4% 8.5% 49.2%2 39.0%

Usefulness of conference materials 0% 1.7% 13.6% 49.2% 35.6% 1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

8

After the conference, some attendees contacted the conference chair and co-chair to provide

additional comments related to their satisfaction with the event. Comments received

included:

“I just wanted to thank you for a great conference last week. I thought it was very organized

and ran very smoothly. You did a great job. I received a lot of questions and positive feedback

regarding our agency so I’m glad I was able to attend and participate. I’m looking forward to

the next conference. I’ve also used some of the information and data that was presented last

week to answer some questions that I’ve received from my bosses. Also the link that you

provided on Wednesday allowed me to pull some data from one of the presentations to

answer a question that I needed to address last Thursday. Very timely access to the

information. Thanks again.”

“I certainly hope you were able to unwind this past weekend after all the hard work you put

into the conference. You all did a superb job! Seriously! Thank you so much.”

“I just wanted to compliment you all on your successful conference. It was an honor to be a

part of the panel for this conference. Out of my entire career with the Corps I have never

attended such a well organized, informative and diverse conference. Well done. Thank you.”

“I enjoyed researching the topic of my presentation, although as I said yesterday it was much

more work than I had anticipated! That said, I learned a lot on the topic of climate change and

boating. I also met many like-minded Floridians and believe these new associations will lead

to new opportunities via professional collaboration.”

“First, I want to congratulate you and the entire team who created this symposium. It was

well-run, informative and very pleasant. I met the city attorney for Manatee County during the

conference, but didn’t get his card. His name may be Tedd Williams, but I’m not sure. He isn’t

on the participants list, so he may have been a walk-on or late registrant. Do you have his

name and contact info, or know who does? Thanks, both for the good conference and for your

help getting this guy’s name.”

9

Was the conference relevant and useful for the stakeholders?

Overall, the participant responses to the evaluation questions suggest that most of the topics

presented at the conference were extremely relevant and perceived as moderately and very

helpful (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 7. Participants’ evaluation of the relevance of the conference sessions.1

Session Titles Irrelevant Somewhat Relevant

Neutral Relevant Extremely Relevant

The State of Boating and Waterways in Florida

0% 1.7% 10.3% 37.9% 50.0%2

Anchoring and Mooring Fields 6.8% 5.1% 11.9% 28.8% 47.5%

Ports and Commercial Access 6.8% 6.8% 27.1% 33.9% 25.4%

Navigating the Permitting Process 1.7% 1.7% 10.0% 33.3% 53.3%

Boating Access, Safety and Resource Protection

0% 5.2% 8.6% 39.7% 46.6%

Innovative Non-Regulatory Approaches

1.8% 3.5% 14.0% 43.9% 36.8%

Project Planning and Considerations for the Future

1.8% 0% 27.3% 29.1% 41.8%

Networking and Poster Session 0% 2.0% 10.0% 40.0% 48.0%

Innovative Solutions to Data and Information Needs

1.9% 3.8% 18.9% 35.8% 39.6%

Exemplary Public Waterway Access Projects

2.0% 6.0% 20.0% 40.0% 32.0%


Table 8. Participants’ evaluation of the usefulness of conference sessions.1

Session Titles Not at all Helpful

Slightly Helpful

Moderately Helpful

Very Helpful

Extremely Helpful

The State of Boating and Waterways in Florida

0% 3.8% 15.4% 30.8% 50.0%2

Anchoring and Mooring Fields 3.4% 5.2% 19.0% 24.1% 48.3%

Ports and Commercial Access 5.4% 12.5% 28.6% 33.9% 19.6%

Navigating the Permitting Process 0% 5.1% 18.6% 32.2% 44.1%

Boating Access, Safety and Resource Protection

1.7% 5.2% 17.2% 43.1% 32.8%

Innovative Non-Regulatory Approaches

0% 8.8% 22.8% 40.4% 28.1%

Project Planning and Considerations for the Future

0% 11.3% 20.8% 35.8% 32.1%

Networking and Poster Session 0% 2.1% 19.1% 31.9% 46.8%

Innovative Solutions to Data and Information Needs

0% 4.0% 22.0% 36.0% 38.0%

Exemplary Public Waterway Access Projects

2.2% 0% 24.4% 44.4% 28.9%


10

Are stakeholders planning on using information delivered at the conference for decision-

making processes or management actions?

Table 9 shows that most of the respondents intend to use information from the conference in

their daily work activities (16%), to continue building partnerships and networking (14%),

and to enhance planning efforts (14%). Other potential uses mentioned by participants are

listed in Table 9.

Table 9. Participants’ responses on how they plan to use information from conference sessions.1

Use of Information Number of Attendees

Percentage

Apply new information to daily work/activities 8 16.02

Continue building partnerships and networking 7 14.0

Enhance planning efforts 7 14.0

Share information with internal and external entities (i.e., FIND, Marine Advisory Board, City Commission, industry members)

6 12.0

Use info for waterway project development 6 12.0

Enhance and support permitting process 5 10.0

Public outreach and awareness 3 6.0

Participate in the next regional workshop organized by FSG 2 4.0

Improve communication with entities/ authorities (i.e., elected officials)

2 4.0

Monitor boating trends in Florida that affect businesses 1 2.0

Apply info for waterway and natural resource management 1 2.0

More efficiently route pump-out vessels on a daily basis 1 2.0

Promote local boating education 1 2.0 1 Results are based on 30 participant responses. 2 Items that received the highest percentage are bolded and shaded.

Goal 2: Promote capacity building among stakeholders on appropriate boating and waterway

topics and tools.

Were stakeholders trained on relevant boating and waterway topics and tools?

Three workshops were offered before the conference to train stakeholders on the following

topics/tools:

Valuing Boating Access in Florida: Using Economics to More Effectively Manage Florida’s

Boating Infrastructure. Presented by Michael Thomas, Ph.D., Professor of Agribusiness, Florida

A&M University (Workshop 1).

A Primer on the Tools and Concepts of Social Marketing for Environmental Behavior Change.

Presented by Paul Monaghan, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and

Communication, University of Florida (Workshop 2).

Florida’s Maritime Infrastructure Planning Tool Overview. Presented by Kevin Sharbough,

Keyser & Woodward P.A. and Gaye Esperson, Programmer, Point & Click, Inc. (Workshop 3).

11

a. Who attended the workshops?

The largest group that attended Workshop 1 consisted of city government employees (33.3%)

followed by state government employees (16.7%). For Workshops 2 and 3, the largest group

corresponded to people from “Other” institutions (60% and 50%, respectively), which mainly

consisted of academic/science practitioners (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Number of Attendees by affiliation.

b. Were the workshops relevant to stakeholders?

For all three workshops, 100% of participants agreed that the workshops were relevant to

their work. Approximately 70% of the attendees are planning to use the workshop

information in their work activities and future projects. For instance, most of the attendees

from Workshop 1 are planning to use the information to assess decisions for building

infrastructure such as ramps and marinas (31%) and to evaluate potential uses of land (23%)

(Figure 6). Most participants from Workshop 2 are planning to use the information to develop

projects based on a more structured approach to social marketing (37%), while most

Workshop 3 participants (40%) will attempt to apply information at the county level (Figures

7 and 8).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3

Nu

mb

er

of

Att

en

de

es

City Government

County Government

Federal Government

Non-profit organization

Other

Private company/corporation

Private consultant

State government

60% 33.3%

16.7%

50%

12

Figure 6. Number of Attendees planning on using information from Workshop 1.


0

1

2

3

4

5

Model development at different levels (i.e., municipal)

Better understanding of connections

between market values and non-market values

Habitat valuation and property value

Evaluate potential uses of

land

Assess decisions for building

infrastructure (i.e., ramps,

marinas)

Identify aspects of the report that can be applied to

current and future projects

Nu

mb

er

of

Att

en

de

es

0

1

2

3

4

Develop projects with a more structured

approach to social marketing

Continuing education

Applied research Increase agency efficiency for

public outreach

Boating and waterway planning

Build-up partnership for future projects

Nu

mb

er

of

Att

en

de

es

31%

23%

37%

13


c. Did the attendees increase their knowledge of boating and waterway topics and

tools?

Participants’ self-assessment about their level of learning at the end of each workshop

indicates that, overall, most learned a good deal/significant amount (Table 10).

Table 10. Participants’ evaluation about their level of learning.1

Level of Learning None Very Little Some A Good Deal A Significant

Amount

Workshop 1 0% 0% 17.6% 47.1%2 35.3%

Workshop 2 0% 0% 30% 50% 20%

Workshop 3 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 1 Results are based on 61 participant responses. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

0

1

2

3

Attempt to apply at county level

Unspecified Integrate with other spatial technology

Assess marina siting plans

Nu

mb

er

of

Att

en

de

es

40%

14

d. Were attendees satisfied with the workshops?

Participants’ responses to evaluation questions suggest that overall they were satisfied with

the training programs (Tables 11 through 13).

Table 11. Participants’ evaluation of the Valuing Boating Access in Florida: Using Economics to More Effectively Manage Florida’s Boating Infrastructure Workshop.1

Design and Logistics Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

The goals and required skills were clearly stated in the workshop announcement. 0% 0% 11.8% 41.2% 47.1%2

I was given enough information to prepare for the workshop (e.g., where to park, what to bring, workshop goals, and required skills).

0% 0% 5.9% 52.9% 41.2%

Instruction and Learning Environment Strongly Disagree


Agree

Topics covered were presented clearly. 5.9% 0% 0% 47.1% 47.1%

There were sufficient opportunities for questions and discussion. 5.9% 0% 0% 29.4% 64.7%

There was enough time to comprehend new information. 5.9% 5.9% 0% 47.1% 41.2%

There was enough staff assisting participants during the training. 5.9% 0% 0% 35.3% 58.8%

Materials Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Quality of workshop materials (i.e., hand-outs)

0% 0% 26.7% 33.3% 40.0%

Usefulness of workshop materials 0% 0% 26.7% 40.0% 33.3%

Trainer Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent

Michael Thomas 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 1 Results are based on 17 responses from participants who attended the workshop. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

15

Table 12. Participants’ evaluation of A Primer on the Tools and Concepts of Social Marketing for Environmental Behavior Change workshop.1



Agree

The goals and required skills were clearly stated in the workshop announcement.

10.0% 0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%2


20.0% 0% 0% 30.0% 50.0%



Agree

Topics covered were presented clearly. 10.0% 0% 10.0% 40.0% 40.0%

There were sufficient opportunities for questions and discussion.

10.0% 0% 0% 20.0% 70.0%

There was enough time to comprehend new information.

10.0% 0% 10.0% 30.0% 50.0%

There was enough staff assisting participants during the training.

10.0% 0% 10.0% 30.0% 50.0%



0% 0% 33.3% 55.6% 11.1%

Usefulness of workshop materials 0% 0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0%


Paul Monaghan 0% 0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 1 Results are based on 10 responses from participants who attended the workshop. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

16

Table 13. Participants’ evaluation of the Florida’s Maritime Infrastructure Planning Tool Overview

Workshop.1



Agree

The goals and required skills were clearly stated in the workshop announcement. 0% 0% 25.0% 62.5%2 12.5%


0% 0% 0% 75.0% 25.0%

The software and computer equipment worked well. 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%



Agree

Topics covered were presented clearly. 0% 0% 0% 50.0% 50.0%

There were sufficient opportunities for questions and discussion. 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 87.5%

There was enough time to comprehend new information. 0% 0% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5%

There was enough staff assisting participants during the training. 0% 0% 0% 25.0% 75.0%



0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4%

Usefulness of workshop materials 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 85.7%


Kevin Sharbaugh 0% 0% 0% 0% 100.0%

Gaye Esperson 0% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 1 Results are based on 8 responses from participants who attended the workshop. 2 The category for each rated item that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

In addition, participants also assessed each workshop’s duration as follows:

Workshop 1: Continue as is (46.2%); Expand or re-design (53.8%)

Participants suggest re-designing or expanding the training to allow for more detailed

information about market and non-market tools, more information about the FWC model

mentioned at the end of the training, and more information about cost-benefit metrics for

environmental impact of marine infrastructure.

Workshop 2: Continue as is (33.3%); Expand or re-design (53.9%)

Participants suggest that expanding the training will allow more time for discussions and to

allot an equal amount of time to cover each of the training goals.

Workshop 3: Continue as is (87.5%)

Only 1 attendee suggested that the workshop be re-designed to explore more applications and

some policy implications.

17

e. Workshop Improvements:

Participants suggest that the workshops be improved by:

Workshop 1:

Provide more informational material.

Improve the quality of the PowerPoint copies (can’t read the slides).

Workshop 2:

Provide handouts of the presentation.

Provide more breaks.

Expand the training.

Workshop 3:

Improve marketing to get governmental entities involved.

Goal 3: Strengthen and develop networks among the different Florida boating and waterway

sectors and stakeholders.

Did the conference provide an appropriate environment for networking among

stakeholders?

Participants’ responses reveal that the conference provided an appropriate environment for

networking among stakeholders (Table 14).

Table 14. Participants’ responses about new partnerships established during the conference.1

New partnerships Number of

Respondents Percentage

Yes 49 86.02

No 5 8.8

Prefer not to say 3 5.3 1 Results are based on 57 responses. 2 The category that received the highest percentage is bolded and shaded.

What aspects of the conference can be improved?

Participants also provided comments and suggestions on how to enhance the next conference.

The majority of comments were related to improving session organization (20.0%, 7

attendees) and adding open forum sessions (11.4%, 4 attendees). In regard to the sessions’

organization, participants suggest improving them through: better titles, better grouping,

more balance of topics, fewer presentations per panel, setting goals for panel sessions, more

breaks between presentations, more control on presentation length (shorter), and providing

more time for questions and answers. Other items that were mentioned by either one or two

attendees include:

1. Provide outline of presentations.

2. Present questions for panel prior to session.

3. Add round-table discussions.

18

4. Include water management districts, EPA, Coast guard presentations.

5. More information on grass beds (SAV-Submerged Aquatic Vegetation).

6. More relevant topics on law enforcement.

7. More environmental group representation.

8. More federal agency representation.

9. Simpler presentations that the public can understand (law topics are difficult to comprehend).

10. No more undergraduate student presentations.

11. Expand the conference at least half a day.

12. More frequent conferences (not every 6 yrs.).

13. Include participants’ introduction at the beginning of the conference.

14. Easy access to Wi-Fi connection.

15. More display area.

16. Add list of attendees into registration packets.

17. Better sound.

18. More microphones available for panel sessions.

19. Podium with its own microphone.

20. Better microphone type for panel sessions (no clip type).

21. Better snacks.

22. Better breakfast (no continental type).

23. Provide free shirts.

Other Results

What topics should be included in From Stem to Stern III?

Participants suggest that for the next conference the following topics should be included (Note: each separate item was suggested by only one attendee; except for mooring and anchoring that was proposed by three attendees):

1. Mooring and anchoring (1 person suggested less about anchoring). 2. Waterways/anchoring and mooring guidelines. 3. Status of mooring fields. 4. Dredging depth issues. 5. Mega yacht facilities. 6. How to communicate on a continued basis to share statewide information. 7. Permitting and restoration. 8. Dredging programs, success and difficulties. 9. Kayakers as a growing trend. 10. ATONs logistics and effective installation. 11. Removing unneeded speed zones (based on facts and requirements). 12. Send survey to identify participants’ interest before the conference. 13. Policy updates on anchoring and mooring. 14. Seagrass case studies. 15. Boating economics at the ground level. 16. Planning for waterfront access with limited waterfront property. 17. New technology for boaters and waterway managers. 18. Marine “events” (i.e., boat races, fundraising parties with bands on barges, and permitting/

resource protection for them). 19. Boaters and marine debris/clean-up/education. 20. Open forum. 21. The role of management districts in protecting waterways.

19

22. Public issues (i.e., visitor use issues and how to solve them). 23. Ecosystem service valuation. 24. Artificial Reef planning and economics. 25. Reef issues. 26. Collaborative efforts of counties. 27. Navigation. 28. Grant Management. 29. Solutions for submerged aquatic vegetation. 30. GIS information. 31. Innovative ways to enjoy Florida’s waterways (including boating) while protecting coastal and

marine resources. 32. Data for management enacted in the last 5-10 yrs. 33. Manatee restrictive zones. 34. PWC and Power boat restrictions. 35. Seagrass replenishment. 36. Results from survey. 37. Dealing with new vessel designs (i.e., hybrid vessels). 38. Vessel theft awareness. 39. Economic update on boat manufactures and marine business.

Are attendees interested in attending the next statewide conference?

Evaluation responses indicate that 98.2% (55 respondents) are interested in attending From

Stem to Stern III. Only one attendee (out of the 56 who responded to the question) mentioned

that they did not plan to attend the next conference due to retirement. In addition, 100% of

respondents (based on 58 responses) agreed to recommend the conference to others.

List of organizations that attended the conference:

Organization Number of

Attendees

American Underwater Contractors, Inc. 2

American Watercraft Association 1

Atkins North America 4

Bay County Board of Commissioners 1

Boat Owners Association of The United States 3

Brevard County 1

Broward County Marine Advisory Committee 1

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 1

Citizens for Florida Waterways 1

Citrus County BOCC - Aquatic Services 1

City of Clearwater 1

City of Cocoa 1

City of Crystal River 1

City of Fort Lauderdale 1

City of Fort Pierce 1

City of Holly Hill 2

City of Jacksonville 1

City of Madeira Beach 1

City of Marathon 1

20


Attendees

City of Milton - Planning Department 1

City of Naples 1

City of Titusville 1

City of Vero Beach 1

CMar Consulting, LLC 1

Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1

Coastal Systems International 1

Coastal Technology Corporation 1

Collier County Government 1

Escambia County BCC 1

Fernandina Harbor Marina 1

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 14

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 10

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute 3

Florida Inland Navigation District 1

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary - Advisory Council 1

Florida Ports Council - Public Affairs 1

Gerald M Ward, P.E. 1

Greenberg Traurig 1

Hans Wilson & Associates, Inc. 2

Hopping Green & Sams 2

Jacksonville Marine Association 1

Jacksonville Marine Transportation Exchange 1

Lauderdale Marine Center 1

Law Office of Andrew Dickman, P.A. 1

Loggerhead Marina 1

Manatee County - Attorney's Office 1

Manatee County - Natural Resources Department 4

Manatee County - Sheriff's Office 3

Marine Industries Association of Collier County 1

Marine Industries Association of Florida 1

Marine Industries Association of Palm Beach County 2

MarineMax 1

Martin County - Utilities & Solid Waste 1

Miami-Dade County - Department of Environmental Resources Management 1

Michael P. Haymans Attorney at Law, P. A. 1

Mike Brescher & Associates 1

Monroe County - Marine Resources Department 1

National Marine Manufacturers Association 1

NOAA Office of Coast Survey 1

Osceola County Natural Resources 1

Pearl 2

Pinellas County - Department of Environmental Infrastructure 1

21


Attendees

Pinellas County - Solid Waste 2

Presidents Reef Memorial 1

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 2

RWParkinson Consulting 1

Sarasota County 2

Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc. 1

Sebastian Inlet District 1

St. Petersburg Municipal Marina 1

Sunrise Marina - Grills Riverside 1

Tampa Port Authority 1

Tampa Yacht & Country Club 1

Taylor County 1

Technomarine USA 1

The Trust for Public Land 1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2

University of Central Florida 3

University of Florida - College of Liberal Arts and Science 1

University of Florida - Department of Agricultural Education & Communication 1

University of Florida - Levin College of Law 4

University of Florida - School of Forest Resources and Conservation 1

University of Florida - School of Natural Resources and Environment 2

University of Florida/IFAS - Florida Sea Grant 15

Urban Harbors Institute 1

Urban Realty Solutions 1

US Sailing 1

Venice Police Department 1

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 1

Volusia County - Environmental Management 1

Whiticar Boat Works, Inc. 1

Documents

Results and Evaluation of the ConferenceAttendees Questionnaire Attendees’ responses about partnerships established during the conference Attendees Questionnaire. Evaluation Results: