c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters notice ... aug 2018_hlw report_final.p… · be...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Johnston, Kim, Beatson, Amanda, & McAndrew, Ryan(2018)South East Queensland Catchments: Waterway Engagement 2018 Re-

search Report.Queensland University of Technology, Australia.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/122974/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Johnston,_Kim.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Beatson,_Amanda.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/McAndrew,_Ryan.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/122974/

2018 Social Report - QUT

Page 1

SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND CATCHMENTS:

WATERWAY ENGAGEMENT

2018 RESEARCH REPORT

7/08/2018

Dr Kim Johnston

Dr Amanda Beatson Dr Ryan McAndrew

QUT Business School Queensland University of Technology


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Healthy Land and Water is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works with government,

industry and the community to protect and improve the sustainable use of land and waterways in South East Queensland. The organisation monitors and reports on the condition of these waterways and provides capacity building for professionals and community groups. It advises on reforms to policy and planning, and provides the education programs to motivate Queensland community members to value and protect Queensland waterways and the natural environment. Healthy Land and Water produces a report card that publishes an annual assessment of the pressures facing waterways across 18 local SEQ catchment areas, documenting their current environmental condition and the level of social and economic benefit the waterways provide to local communities. The data contained in this 2018 waterway engagement social research study contributes the social research data for the Healthy Land and Water annual report card.

Understanding the social benefits of local waterways provides important insights to how SEQ residents use and value waterways in their local area. The focus for the 2018 waterway engagement community survey is aligned with a social benefits measurement framework reflecting four key areas. The first is Experience; measured by waterway satisfaction, accessibility, useability, awareness, and appraisal. The second is Personal Benefit; measured by social value, transformation and fascination qualities. The third is Connection with Nature; measured by nature relatedness and motivation. The final is Stewardship; measured by the attribution of responsibility for protecting the environment, behavioural intention and life stage demographics.

Overall these areas of analysis help to continue strengthening the quality and depth of data used for the Waterways Benefit Ratings (report card) calculations and extend the understanding of the influences on waterway stewardship behaviours. Data for the 2018 study were collected through a self-administered 15 minute online survey. Questions for the survey were developed from modified existing scale items and questions used in previous Healthy Land and Water surveys to allow comparison. The sample was adults living in the 18 catchment areas in SEQ. The 2018 survey used two recruitment strategies for sampling; panel data and respondents recruited through social media, as a way to increase representation across catchments. Data were analysed using the statistical package SPSS (25). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations, cluster analysis and regressions.

The study found that generally SEQ residents remained satisfied with their experiences when using or visiting their local waterways however there was evidence of a decline in levels of satisfaction, useability and accessibility when compared to 2017, but remaining higher than 2016. Waterways continue to offer a destination that contributes to well-being through relaxation, and offering a break from routines. SEQ residents reported high levels of personal benefits from these experiences, indicating both social value and health value from relaxation. This was also expressed through an increase in connection to nature when compared to last year, and strong connection with nature and familiarity with local or favourite waterways. While the study found good levels of positive appraisal of waterways, suggesting residents generally felt their waterway was not polluted and they were largely satisfied, there was some variation across catchments. Residents generally felt local Councils had the main responsibility for maintaining and protecting waterways. Overall stewardship behavioural intentions remained low, suggesting weak intention to undertake behaviours to protect waterways.

SEQ residents continue to use waterways for activities on or beside the water, and at times travelled large distances to recreate in favourite waterways. However local waterways remained the most popular to use by SEQ residents. Recommendations focus on motivating stewardship behaviours through focusing on social oriented positive factors and education around raising awareness of minor waterways in local catchments. While findings indicated respondents were less likely to take personal actions to protect waterways, opportunities exist for individual education that highlights the importance of personal action in contributing to waterway protection.


Page 3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Project Aims ................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 Research Questions and Model .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Measurement Framework ................................................................................................................................... 6

4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding .............................................................................................................. 7 5.0 Method......................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Instrument ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Sampling and Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 8

5.3 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles ................................................................................................................... 9

5.4.1 EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................................................................... 9 5.4.2 INDUSTRY .................................................................................................................................... 10 5.4.3 TIME IN SEQ ................................................................................................................................ 11 5.4.4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ................................................................................................................. 12 5.4.5 EDUCATION LEVELS .................................................................................................................... 12 5.4.6 MARITAL STATUS ........................................................................................................................ 12 5.4.7 CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD .................................................................................................. 13 5.4.8 HOUSING STATUS ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.4.9 GARDEN ON PROPERTY .............................................................................................................. 13

6.0 Catchment Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 14 7.0 Survey Constructs ....................................................................................................................................... 16

7.1 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................................................ 17

8.0 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 18

8.1 Local waterway Usability, Satisfaction and Accessibility ..................................................................................... 21

8.1.1 LOCAL WATERWAY USABILITY ................................................................................................... 21 8.1.2 LOCAL WATERWAY SATISFACTION ............................................................................................ 22 8.1.3 LOCAL WATERWAY ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................................. 23

8.2 Constructs .......................................................................................................................................................... 24

8.2.1 BEING AWAY ............................................................................................................................... 24 8.2.2 FASCINATION .............................................................................................................................. 25 8.2.3 SOCIAL VALUE ............................................................................................................................. 26 8.2.4 MOTIVATION............................................................................................................................... 27 8.2.5 NATURE RELATIONSHIP .............................................................................................................. 28 8.2.6 AWARENESS ................................................................................................................................ 29 8.2.7 POSITIVE APPRAISAL ................................................................................................................... 30 8.2.8 NEGATIVE APPRAISAL ................................................................................................................. 31 8.2.9 RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................................................................................... 32 8.2.10 BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS ..................................................................................................... 33

8.3 Waterway use and activities .............................................................................................................................. 34

8.3.1 COMPARISON – LOCAL, SEQ, AND NATIONAL WATERWAY USE AND ACTIVITIES ................... 36

8.4 Responsibility and Important Issues ................................................................................................................... 37

8.4.1 RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................................................................................... 37


Page 4

8.4.2 IMPORTANT ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 38 8.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .................................................................................................... 39

8.5 Conditions.......................................................................................................................................................... 43

8.5.1 SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL WATERWAY CONDITIONS ............................................................ 43

8.6 Correlations ....................................................................................................................................................... 44

8.6.1 SATISFACTION AND NATURE RELATEDNESS.............................................................................. 44 8.6.2 SATISFACTION AND USE ............................................................................................................. 46 8.6.3 SATISFACTION AND ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................................ 48

8.7 Awareness, Appraisal, Responsibility (AAR) Model ..................................................................................... 50 8.8 Additional Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 51

8.8.3 – INDUSTRY STEWARDS .............................................................................................................. 51 8.8.4 – ACTIONS AND DONATIONS ..................................................................................................... 53

9. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 58 10. Catchment Reporting .................................................................................................................................. 58

10.1 Albert Catchment ............................................................................................................................................. 60

10.2 Bremer Catchment ........................................................................................................................................... 65

10.3 Caboolture Catchment ..................................................................................................................................... 69

10.4 Lockyer Catchment .......................................................................................................................................... 73

10.5 Logan Catchment ............................................................................................................................................. 77

10.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment .............................................................................................................................. 81

10.7 Maroochy Catchment ...................................................................................................................................... 85

10.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment .................................................................................................................................. 89

10.9 Mooloolah Catchment ..................................................................................................................................... 93

10.10 Nerang Catchment ......................................................................................................................................... 97

10.11 Noosa Catchment ........................................................................................................................................ 101

10.12 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment .................................................................................................................... 105

10.13 Pine Catchment............................................................................................................................................ 109

10.14 Pumicestone Catchment .............................................................................................................................. 113

10.15 Redland Catchment ...................................................................................................................................... 117

10.16 Stanley Catchment ....................................................................................................................................... 121

10.17 Tallebudgera Catchment .............................................................................................................................. 125

10.18 Upper Brisbane ............................................................................................................................................ 129

11. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 133

Appendix A – List of Catchments, Suburbs, and Postcodes..................................................................................... 135

Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet .......................................................................................................... 158


Page 5

1.0 Introduction

Healthy Land and Water is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works with government, industry and the community to protect and improve the sustainable use of land and waterways in South East Queensland. The organisation monitors and reports on the condition of these waterways and provides capacity building for professionals and community groups. It advises on reforms to policy and planning, and provides education programs to motivate Queensland community members to value and protect South East Queensland waterways and the natural environment. Underpinning these activities are four strategic objectives:

1) Promote healthy land and water biodiversity 2) Innovate solutions to protect and restore our natural environment 3) Involve, inform and inspire our members 4) Keep a connected, engaged and motivated community

Each year Healthy Land and Water produces an annual assessment of the current environmental condition and level of social and economic benefit South East Queensland’s waterways provide to local communities of waterways. This 2018 Social Science Report provides the evidence contributing to the social component of the annual Report Card and informs policy and actions relating to the promotion and protection of waterways in South East Queensland.

2.0 Project Aims

The 2018 community research study aims to understand and measure the social benefits of waterways for South East Queenslanders across 18 catchment areas. The focus for the 2018 waterway engagement community survey is aligned with three key outcomes. First, to continue to strengthen the quality and depth of data for the Waterways Benefit Ratings (report card) calculations. Second, to extend understanding of the influences on waterway stewardship behaviours, and potential enablers or barriers to these activities, and finally, to continue to deepen the understanding of the relationship between waterway use and condition.

3.0 Research Questions and Model

The 2018 SEQ community waterways study is guided by a conceptual-based model and research questions focusing on the social indicators of waterways as engagement measures. Engagement is a multidimensional relational concept featuring psychological and behavioural attributes of connection, interaction, participation, and involvement, designed to achieve or elicit an outcome at individual, organisation, or social levels (Johnston, 2018). The overall research question guiding this study was ‘How does engagement influence the social benefits of waterways? For this study, engagement was operationalised through the overall social indicators of waterway use, satisfaction, and connection. Drawing from previous studies, empirical literature, and Healthy Land and Water research priorities, the study was guided by a research model and four key research questions:

RQ1: How does waterway experience influence satisfaction? RQ2: How do perceptions of useability and accessibility influence satisfaction? RQ3: What is the relationship between social benefits and stewardship? RQ4: How do perceptions of waterway condition affect intention to use?


Page 6

Figure 1: Social Benefits of Waterways: Measurement Framework

3.1 Measurement Framework

Social benefit will be measured by four concepts with a total of eight constructs represented within this model (please see Section 7 for further explanation of these concepts):

Experience

Satisfaction measures how satisfied respondents are with their local waterways experience (use in or near).

Accessibility measures the perceptions of respondents about the accessibility of their local waterway.

Usability captures whether respondents feel that their local waterways are usable and don’t take much effort to use.

Awareness measures a respondent’s general knowledge of, familiarity with, and attentiveness to their local waterway

Appraisal (positive and negative) measures the respondents’ beliefs about a waterway’s condition (ie: pollution, litter, erosion and organism levels)

Personal benefits

Social value captures the value respondents get from using their local waterways with others such as friends or family.

Being Away captures a conceptual idea rather than a physical transformation. It emphasises that a location helps the respondent to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape.

Fascination conceptualises a location which is thoroughly absorbing for the respondent. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk.

Connection with nature and waterways

Nature relatedness measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment).

•Responsibility

•Behavioural intention

•Life stage demographics

• Nature relatedness

• Motivation

• Social value

• Being Away

• Fascination

• Satisfaction

• Accessibility

• Usability

• Awareness

• Appraisal

ExperiencePersonal Benefit

StewardshipConnection


Page 7

Motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs.

Stewardship

Responsibility measured the attribution of responsibility for protecting the environment.

Behavioural intention measures behaviours that could be undertaken to protect local waterways.

Life stage demographics: offer important insights into enablers and drivers for action.

4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding

This research reported was granted ethics approval by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Human Ethics Committee (QUT approval number: 1500000402) in line with standard ethical guidelines and

the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government, 2007). Please see

Appendix B for Respondent Information Sheet and survey instrument. This study is part of a three year

social study (2016-2018) and is jointly funded by Healthy Land and Waters and QUT.


Page 8

5.0 Method

5.1 Instrument

A survey instrument, reflecting the key concepts and constructs forming the research questions, was

developed from established scale items and modified for use. The construct map is provided in Section 7.

In addition, some historical questions were used to provide comparative data based on previous surveys

(2015/2016). Questions featured seven point Likert scale questions (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly

Agree range was used), open text boxes, and distance pins on maps. The survey was administered through

a 20-minute online survey hosted on QUT Key Survey.

5.2 Sampling and Procedure

Two sampling strategies were undertaken: A panel and a community survey. Both strategies targeted a

sample of adults (18+) living in 18 catchment areas in SEQ:

1. Panel (presented in the report as Panel Data): Data were collected via an online survey using panel

data (SSI or Social Science International) as a recruitment strategy (n=3231). The catchment and

postcode methodology originally refined in 2017, was used in this current survey. The refinements

undertaken in 2017 improved the postcode distribution accuracy through aligning specific suburbs

with catchments. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting specific catchment results with low

numbers. A soft launch was conducted with panel data on 1 May with n100 to check response

timing and dropout rates. The full launch was on 2 May 2018, following successful quality checks.

The survey was hosted on a QUT web-based survey (Key Survey) with the link distributed to

recruited panel members. The survey was closed out on 31 May 2018.

2. Community Survey (presented in the report as Social Media Data): Data were collected via an

online survey recruited through social media – specifically Healthy Land and Water Facebook,

shared and promoted links through Twitter and QUT newsletters. An incentive was offered as a

chance to win one of ten $100 gift cards. The recruitment campaign resulted in 555 respondents

completing the survey. Ten respondents were randomly drawn by QUT on 6 June 2018 by random

number generator matched to the respondent number. Winners were notified by Healthy Land and

Water.


Page 9

5.3 Analysis

Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS (25). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations and regressions. Data was cleaned prior to analysis and the constructs were assessed for validity and reliability, 47 “straight liners” (people who select the same responses throughout a survey) were identified but this small amount was negligible and made not noticeable difference.

5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles

A total of 3,786 surveys were completed. Of this 3,231 were obtained through a data panel, and 555

completions were made through social media. For analyses purposes, this number dropped slightly to

3,747, as 39 respondents were excluded from the analysis as

they either lived in areas outside of the SEQ catchment areas

under study or only filled out a small portion of the survey.

Of these 3,747 respondents, 60.5% were female, 39.0% male,

and 0.3% of respondents elected not to disclose their

gender. Figure 2 illustrates this mix. According to the ABS the

gender split in the catchment areas is 49.36% male, and

50.64% female. Having more females than males answer

online suveys is faily common.

More than 76% of respondents have lived in Queensland

more than 10 years. Just over 3.0% of respondents have lived

in Queensland for less than 1 year. The median age of respondents was 48 years old (M= 48.71, SD 16.74)

with the youngest being 18 and the oldest 89 years old. More than 70% of respondents held post-

secondary school qualifications.

5.4.1 Employment

Nearly 30% of panel respondents were in full time employment, with nearly 20% part-time, indicating that

50% of the sample had employment of some type. Just over 25% of respondents were a carer, student or

unemployed. Just over a quarter of the panel respondents (25.9%) identified as retired. Respondents in the

social media sample featured much higher full and part-time employment (65.4%) and lower carer,

student, or unemployed status (13.7%).

Employment types Panel Data Social Media

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Retired 827 25.9 111 20.8 Carer 123 3.9 11 2.1

Full time student 185 5.8 21 3.9 Unemployed and not seeking work 235 7.4 14 2.6

Unemployed and seeking work 279 8.7 27 5.1

Part time employee 612 19.2 93 17.4 Full time work 933 29.2 256 48

Total 3194 100 533 100

38.70%

39.80%

60.40%

59.10%

Gender Ratio

Female Male

Figure 2: Gender ration- full sample

Social

Media Data

Panel Data


Page 10

5.4.2 Industry

Respondents were asked what industry they currently work in, or recently worked in. The top three

industries in the data panel sample (excluding ‘Other’) were Retail Trade (12.4%), Health Care and Social

Assistance (10.6%), Education and Training (10.0%). For the Social Media sample the top three were:

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (19.9%), Education and Training (15%), Health Care and Social

Assistance (7.1%). Comparing the survey data to ABS data shows some discrepancies, however, this is most

likely due to survey participants not being able to correctly identify the industry that they work in, as

evidenced by the large amount (more than 16%) who selected “Other” as an option.

Industries Panel Data Social Media

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent ABS data

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 49 1.5 29 5.4 6.0

Mining 41 1.3 7 1.3 0.3

Manufacturing 151 4.7 4 0.8 4.1

Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services

30 0.9 21 3.9 0.3

Construction 156 4.9 15 2.8 18.6

Wholesale Trade 57 1.8 5 0.9 3.5

Retail Trade 395 12.4 19 3.6 6.0

Accommodation and Food Services 133 4.2 6 1.1 3.9

Transport, Postal and Warehousing 151 4.7 12 2.3 6.2

Information Media and Telecommunications

98 3.1 15 2.8 0.8

Financial and Insurance Services 124 3.9 11 2.1 8.7

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services

45 1.4 2 0.4 11.7

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

117 3.7 106 19.9 12.5

Administrative and Support Services 259 8.1 27 5.1 4.1

Public Administration and Safety 103 3.2 35 6.6 0.3

Education and Training 319 10 80 15 1.5

Health Care and Social Assistance 339 10.6 38 7.1 5.9

Arts and Recreation Services 61 1.9 14 2.6 1.3

Other - please provide 566 17.7 87 16.3 4.4

Total 3194 100 533 100 100


Page 11

5.4.3 Time in SEQ

Length of time living in SEQ suggests more familiarity with local and state-wide waterways. For each

catchment, the majority of residents had lived in their current locations for more than 10 years. The

average for residents living in the region for more than ten years was 71.2%, with Pumicestone having the

lowest amount at 58.1% and Redland having the highest value as 80.9%.

Catchments

Less than a year (%)

1-3 years (%)

4-6 years (%)

7-10 years (%)

More than 10

years (%)

Total (%)

Panel Data 3.2 7 7.2 6.7 75.8 100

Social Media 1.3 4.7 6.2 7.3 80.5 100

Overall 2018 Sample 3.0 6.7 7.1 6.8 76.5 100

Catchments 2018

Less than a year (%)

1-3 years (%)

4-6 years (%)

7-10 years (%)

More than 10

years (%)

Total (%)

Albert 1.0 3.1 4.1 9.3 82.5 100

Bremer 2.7 2.7 4.1 9.6 80.8 100

Caboolture 2.0 5.1 7.1 9.6 76.3 100

Lockyer 2.3 5.8 4.0 7.5 80.3 100

Logan 2.8 4.2 4.5 7.0 81.4 100

Lower Brisbane 4.3 8.3 7.5 6.0 73.9 100

Maroochy 2.6 4.7 7.9 3.1 81.7 100

Mid Brisbane 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 90.5 100

Mooloolah 2.8 9.6 8.4 7.3 71.9 100

Nerang 1.7 8.0 8.4 9.1 72.7 100

Noosa 3.6 10.0 12.7 10.9 62.7 100

Pimpama-Coomera 2.1 10.2 8.7 7.8 71.2 100

Pine 3.4 4.9 3.7 6.1 82.0 100

Pumicestone 2.3 8.6 10.3 3.4 75.4 100

Redland 1.5 4.4 3.9 5.3 85.0 100

Stanley 0.0 9.8 9.8 7.3 73.2 100

Tallebudgera 1.0 6.1 9.1 7.1 76.8 100

Upper Brisbane 0.0 6.3 12.5 3.1 78.1 100

Averages 3.0 6.7 7.1 6.8 76.5 100


Page 12

5.4.4 Household Income

Respondents were asked to provide an indication of their household income. Nearly 30% of respondents earned

between $50,000 and $100,000, while just over 30% (panel) earnt less than $50,000. Nearly 7% (panel) earned more

than $150,000 while 15% of the social media sample earned more than $150,000. Panel data generally aligns with ABS

reported statistics for these representative areas. 14.4%-18.8% of respondents elected not to disclose their income.

Income Categories Panel Data Social Media


Under $25,000 357 11.2 42 7.9

$25,001-$50,000 746 23.4 75 14.1

$50,001-$75,000 502 15.7 67 12.6

$75,001-$100,000 459 14.4 88 16.5

$100,001-$150,000 456 14.3 81 15.2

$150,001-$200,000 136 4.3 57 10.7

Over $200,000 77 2.4 23 4.3

Prefer not to say 461 14.4 100 18.8

Total 3194 100 533 100

5.4.5 Education Levels

In the data panel sample 67.5% of respondents had post school qualifications, whereas the social media sample has

90.9% of respondents with post school qualifications.

Education Levels Panel Data Social Media


Primary School (PS) 36 1.1 1 0.2

High School (HS) 1001 31.3 48 9

Diploma or Cert or equivalent (Dip/Cert) 918 28.7 99 18.6

Apprenticeship or trade cert equivalent (Appren) 284 8.9 25 4.7

Bachelor degree or equivalent (UD) 633 19.8 180 33.8

Postgraduate degree or equivalent (PG) 307 9.6 169 31.7

Other qualification (Other) 15 0.5 11 2.1

Total 3194 100 533 100

5.4.6 Marital Status

More than 50% of respondents, across both data samples, were married, while just under a third of the total sample

were single. The ABS breaks down marital status into married in a registered marriage, married in a defacto marriage,

and not married, these categories were used as rough proxies to compare with the survey data.

Marital Status Panel Data Social Media

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent ABS

Single 1148 35.9 149 28 38.7

Married 1568 49.1 283 53.1 50.2

Defacto 478 15 101 18.9 11.2

Total 3194 100 533 100 100


Page 13

5.4.7 Children in the Household

Both samples reported 51% of respondents not having any children. Almost a quarter had Young Children (0-13), 8%

had Teenage Children (14-18), and more than 13% had Older Children (18+). Similar to marital status, the categories

used by the ABS are slightly different to the survey data but can be used to approximately gauge representativeness.

Children Panel Data Social Media


No children 1632 51.1 273 51.2 48.8

Young children (0-13) 764 23.9 143 26.8 41.9

Teenage children (14-18) 280 8.8 46 8.6

Older children (18+) 518 16.2 71 13.3 9.3

Total 1632 51.1 533 100

5.4.8 Housing Status

Of the total sample, nearly three quarters of respondents reported owning or buying their home. The ABS data for

housing status measures the percent of homes owned outright, owned but with a mortgage, rented, or occupied rent

free. The ABS data doesn’t not add up to 100 as they differentiate between “Other tenure” types and also include

dwellings with tenure type not stated.

Housing Status Panel Data Social Media


Rented 1328 41.6 122 22.9 24.4

Owned / Have mortgage 1866 58.4 411 77.1 66.3 Total 3194 100 533 100

5.4.9 Garden on Property

Most respondents reported having a garden on their property. However it should be noted that there was no

definition of what a garden was.

Garden Panel Data Social Media


Yes 2693 84.3 492 92.3

No 501 15.7 41 7.7

Total 3194 100 533 100


Page 14

6.0 Catchment Areas

Respondents in Queensland postcodes spanning 18 SEQ waterway catchment areas were targeted with this research. Unique catchments represent localities where one catchment was assigned to a suburb; however, since some localities with more than one catchment exist, a dual catchment column is also presented. The totals represent the final number of catchments that people were assigned to; since some localities were assigned to more than 1 catchment the total number of assignments made increases the total sample size. See Appendix A for catchment allocated suburbs and associated postcodes.

Catchments

Panel Data Social Media

Single % Dual % Single % Dual %

Albert 85 2.7% 85 1.8% 13 2.4% 13 2.2%

Bremer 128 4.0% 128 2.7% 20 3.7% 20 3.4%

Caboolture 193 6.0% 193 4.1% 6 1.1% 6 1.0%

Lockyer 160 5.0% 160 3.4% 13 2.4% 13 2.2%

Logan 325 10.1% 327 6.9% 30 5.6% 30 5.2%

Lower Brisbane 830 25.9% 859 18.1% 179 33.1% 186 32.0%

Maroochy 147 4.6% 1447 30.5% 47 8.7% 47 8.1%

Mid Brisbane 7 0.2% 15 0.3% 4 0.7% 6 1.0%

Mooloolah 122 3.8% 147 3.1% 29 5.4% 31 5.3%

Nerang 256 8.0% 256 5.4% 31 5.7% 31 5.3%

Noosa 64 2.0% 64 1.3% 46 8.5% 46 7.9%

Pimpama-Coomera

228 7.1% 301 6.3% 17 3.1% 33 5.7%

Pine 251 7.8% 307 6.5% 15 2.8% 21 3.6%

Pumicestone 137 4.3% 150 3.2% 27 5.0% 27 4.6%

Redland 158 4.9% 175 3.7% 28 5.2% 31 5.3%

Stanley 16 0.5% 26 0.5% 12 2.2% 16 2.8%

Tallebudgera-Currumbin

74 2.3% 82 1.7% 17 3.1% 18 3.1%

Upper Brisbane 26 0.8% 26 0.5% 6 1.1% 6 1.0%

TOTAL 3207 100.0% 4748 100.0% 540 100.0% 581 100.0%

Eighteen dual catchments existed, these were:

Albert & Logan

Albert & Pimpama-Coomera

Albert & Pine

Bremer & Lower Brisbane

Bremer & Mid Brisbane

Caboolture & Pine

Caboolture & Pumicestone

Lockyer & Mid Brisbane

Logan & Lower Brisbane

Logan & Redland

Lower Brisbane & Pine

Lower Brisbane & Redland

Maroochy & Mooloolah

Mooloolah & Pumicestone

Mooloolah & Stanley

Nerang & Pimpama-Coomera

Nerang & Tallebudgera-Currumbin

Pumicestone & Stanley


The overall catchment allocation for the total sample is shown below.

Catchments

Total Sample

Single % Dual %

Albert 98 2.6% 98 2.4%

Bremer 148 3.9% 148 3.7%

Caboolture 199 5.3% 199 4.9%

Lockyer 173 4.6% 173 4.3%

Logan 355 9.5% 357 8.9%

Lower Brisbane 1009 26.9% 1045 25.9%

Maroochy 194 5.2% 194 4.8%

Mid Brisbane 11 0.3% 21 0.5%

Mooloolah 151 4.0% 178 4.4%

Nerang 287 7.7% 287 7.1%

Noosa 110 2.9% 110 2.7%

Pimpama-Coomera 245 6.5% 334 8.3%

Pine 266 7.1% 328 8.1%

Pumicestone 164 4.4% 177 4.4%

Redland 186 5.0% 206 5.1%

Stanley 28 0.7% 42 1.0%

Tallebudgera-Currumbin 91 2.4% 100 2.5%

Upper Brisbane 32 0.9% 32 0.8%

TOTAL 3747 100.0% 4029 100.0%


7.0 Survey Constructs

The items in the survey were based on existing measures, but also included specific questions and

issues used historically by Healthy Waterways. A number of constructs or topic areas were identified

for the survey that had previously rated survey items (i.e. they have been tested in previous research

and found to have reliability and validity). Wherever possible we have used these items, adapted if

necessary to the specific context, to ensure reliability. Means and Standard Deviations for each

construct are summarised in Table 7.

The aim of each construct investigated is outlined in Section 8.0 with the results of each construct

including the average score across SEQ respondents and also the highest and the lowest scoring

catchment per construct. The tables including all the data for the individual catchments can be

found in Section 9.0.

Independent samples t-tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between the

Panel data and Social media data, with the percentage difference between mean scores being

reported. The final column indicates that the data is significantly different across the two samples.

All but one construct achieved a higher mean in the Social Media sample than the Panel Data

sample. This is most likely due to self-selection phenomenon whereby people with more interest in

the topic will select to respondent in the survey. Therefore, more positive or critical views are

present in the social media sample than in the data panel sample.

Table 7.0: Survey constructs - total sample

1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree

Construct Panel Data Social Media Mean Difference

Mean SD Mean SD

1. Satisfaction 4.50 1.54 4.88 1.39 7.9%***

2. Usability 4.47 1.50 5.33 1.28 17.5%***

3. Accessibility 4.97 1.63 5.60 1.45 12.0%***

4. Being Away 4.57 1.70 5.59 1.44 19.9%***

5. Fascination 4.37 1.57 5.33 1.40 19.8%***

6. Social Value 4.43 1.54 4.83 1.35 8.6%***

7. Motivation 3.91 1.76 5.06 1.73 25.7%***

8. Nature Relationship 5.13 1.40 6.25 1.02 19.7%***

9. Awareness 4.24 1.23 5.42 1.19 24.6%***

10. Negative Appraisal 4.15 1.24 4.92 1.35 17.0%***

11. Positive Appraisal 3.80 1.32 3.35 1.41 12.7%***

12. Responsibility 4.50 1.34 5.25 1.28 15.4%***

13. Behavioural Intentions 3.46 1.39 4.79 1.40 32.3%***

Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.


7.1 Validity and Reliability

To assess the validity and reliability of the constructs an exploratory factory analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s

alpha (α), and item-to-total correlation (ITC) tests were conducted. The table below details the steps

and options chosen for this analysis.

Test SPSS steps Thresholds

Cronbach’s Alpha, item-to-total correlation

Analyse Scale Reliability Analysis Add items Statistics Check Item, Scale, Scale if item delete Cont. OK

α ≥ 0.70 (or 0.60 in exploratory research) ITC > 0.30

EFA Analyse Dimensions Reduction Factor Add items Descriptives Check KMO/Bartlett Extractions Principal components Rotations Check Direct Oblimin Options Check Sorted by size, Supress small coefficients, chance value to 0.3 OK

KMO > 0.5 Bartlett’s test < .05 Factor loadings > .5

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s test were used to assess the suitability for factor analysis, with the KMO cut-off value being 0.5 and the Bartlett’s test needing to be significant. Items with an item-to-total correlation below 0.30 (Field, 2009) were removed; items with a factor loading less than 0.50 were removed (Field, 2009). This research cautiously used the guidelines set out by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), with 0.7 being the generally accepted lower limit for α, while it may decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research. A full list of steps and item results is available from the authors on request. As shown in the table below, all thresholds were met, and all Cronbach alpha scores were above the 0.7 threshold. Notably, the original construct of appraisal had both negative and positive items that formed one factor solution, our testing revealed a two-factor solution that split appraisal into two separate constructs, namely, positive appraisal and negative appraisal.

Constructs α KMO Bartlett’s test

Lowest ITC

Lowest Loading

Thresholds met?

Usability .882 .773 .000 .667 .803

Satisfaction .928 .882 .000 .811 .800

Accessibility .961 .874 .000 .877 .930

Being Away .953 .865 .000 .851 .927

Fascination .945 .869 .000 .848 .914

Social Value .910 .821 .000 .745 .853

Motivation .956 .762 .000 .877 .944

Nature relationship .938 .825 .000 .799 .886

Awareness .750 .751 .000 .590 .530

Appraisal Positive 883 .734 .000 .746 .783

Appraisal Negative .762 .649 .000 .733 .733

Responsibility .829 .794 .000 .554 .534

Behavioural Intentions .912 .868 .000 .672 .778


8.0 Results and Discussion

Results are presented by total sample in general section and by panel data only for individual

catchment level (Section 9.0). To begin, the results are presented and discussed regarding access,

usability and satisfaction toward the respondent’s local waterway. Following this the results

summarised in Table 8.0 relating to each construct are discussed.

Table 8.0: Summary of key constructs across total sample

Usability Usability measured whether they respondents thought that their local waterways were usable and did not take much effort to use. The 2018 average was 4.59 (SD 1.5). Noosa has the highest score at 5.55 (SD 1.23), Upper Brisbane reported the lowest score at 3.84 (SD 1.74). This overall score is higher than the 2017 average of 4.53 (SD 1.41). In 2017, those in Tallebudgera catchment thought their local waterways were the most usable (M 5.48, SD 1.3) whereas those respondents in Logan thought theirs were the least usable (M 4.01, SD 1.45).

Satisfaction Local Waterway Satisfaction measures how satisfied overall the respondents are with their experiences when using or visiting their local waterways. It looks at whether respondents find these to be good experiences and whether they truly enjoyed these experiences. The 2018 average was 4.55 (SD 1.53). Noosa scored highest on satisfaction with a score 5.61 (1.17). Bremer scored lowest on 3.62 (SD 1.56). This score in on par with last year, remaining almost unchanged. In 2017, respondents responded generally favourably to this (M 4.54, SD 1.42). 2017 results showed those in the Moreton bay and Islands Catchment scored the highest levels of satisfaction with a mean of (M 5.55, SD 1.19) with those in Lockyer being the least satisfied (M 4.02, SD 1.56).

Accessibility Accessibility explores whether the respondents feel they can access their local waterway easily. The 2018 mean was 5.06 (SD 1.62). Tallebudgera scored highest at 5.87 (SD 1.32). Bremer was lowest score at 4.31 (SD 1.69). This was higher than the 2017 period, where the average score across SEQ residents was 4.99 (SD 1.57), indicating that on the whole respondents feel that accessing their local waterways is straight forward. For 2017, those respondents in Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment felt that they had the best accessibility to their local waterway (M 5.89 SD 1.24) whereas those in Logan felt they had the lowest (M 4.45, SD 1.63).

Being Away Being Away involves a “conceptual rather than a physical transformation” (Kaplan, 1995, p. 173) whereby a being in a location helps the person to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape. 2018 results were 4.72 (SD 1.7), with Noosa scoring the highest on 5.63 (SD 1.37), and Bremer scoring lowest on 3.93 (SD 1.83). In 2017, the mean was 4.58 (SD 1.66). Those respondents in the Moreton Bay and Island catchment recorded the highest on this construct (M 5.64, SD 1.33) while those in Albert scored the lowest (M 4.03, SD 1.85).


Fascination Fascination is conceptualised as a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly absorbing. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk. This construct taps into the person’s awareness of interesting things to do at this location and that they want to spend more time on activities at this location. The 2018 average for all respondents was 4.5 (SD 1.58). Noosa scored highest at 5.58 (SD 1.15), lowest was Bremer at 3.63 (SD 1.64).

Social Value Social value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterway with their friends and others known to them. Similar to findings in 2017, the 2018 respondents indicated they find using waterways more interesting when they are using them with friends or as part of a group. The overall sample indicated generally a high level of value in using waterways. In 2018, the overall mean was 4.49 (SD 1.52). Noosa scored highest at 5.18 (SD 1.27), while the lowest was Bremer 3.83 (SD 1.74).

Motivation Motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs. In 2018 there was an increase when compared to 2017, in that respondents demonstrated a connection with using waterways aligned with their personal values and needs, but there was a large variation across the catchments. The overall mean was 4.06 (SD 1.8). Noosa reported the highest levels of motivation (M 5.33, SD 1.52), while Bremer reported the lowest (M3.14, SD 1.69)

Nature Relatedness

Nature relatedness - This scale measured an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment). In 2018, the mean across all catchments was 5.29 (SD 1.41) indicating a strong connection with nature. This is also an increase when compared to last year’s overall mean. Stanley catchment again scored highest at 5.92 (SD 1.17) (when compared to 2017), while the lowest mean for nature relatedness was shared by Logan 5.06 (SD 1.47) and Lower Brisbane 5.06 (SD 1.44).

Awareness Awareness is resident’s general knowledge of, familiarity with, and attentiveness to their local waterway (Story & Forsyth, 2008). Awareness includes things such as paying attention to local waterways, being aware of environmental conditions of local waterways, knowing where local waterways being and end. This is new to the 2018 survey. Across all catchments, the Mean was 4.4 (SD 1.29) suggesting respondents felt they had a good level of knowledge and familiarity with their local waterway. Noosa reported the highest levels of awareness (M5.16, SD 1.04), while Logan catchment reported the lowest (M3.94, SD 1.26).


Positive Appraisal

Positive appraisal is the respondents’ beliefs about the degree to which their local waterway is free of disease-carrying organisms, clear and unpolluted, and they are satisfied with the quality of the water (Story & Forsyth, 2008). This construct was new to the 2018 survey. In 2018, the average across all catchments was 4.26 (SD 1.28) suggesting a fair level of appraisal by respondents. Noosa scored the highest (M4.57, SD 1.23), while Bremer scored the lowest (M3.12, SD 1.35)

Negative Appraisal

Negative appraisal is the respondents’ beliefs about the degree to which their local waterway is polluted, contains litters, and has erosion problems (Story & Forsyth, 2008). This construct was new to the 2018 survey. In 2018, the average across all catchments was 3.74 (SD 1.34) suggesting a general level of appraisal by respondents that their waterway is not polluted. Bremer was highest at 4.54 (SD 1.30), while Tallebudgera was lowest at 3.88 (SD 1.54)

Responsibility The responsibility scale measured residents’ feelings of personal responsibility for maintaining and protecting the local waterway, as well as their feelings of efficacy in dealing with pollution (Story & Forsyth, 2008). It included the following items: “It is my responsibility to protect my local waterways”, “There is a lot I can do to combat pollution in my local waterways”, “My efforts to clean up local waterways would make much of a difference”, and “One person can do much to prevent pollution in my local waterways”. This construct was new to the 2018 survey. Across the sample, the mean was 4.6 (SD 1.36). Tallebudgera reported the highest levels of personal responsibility 5.18 (SD 1.37), while the Logan catchment reported the lowest levels of personal responsibility 3.36 (SD 1.34)

Behavioural Intentions

Behavioural Intentions refers to behaviours that residents could perform to promote, or not promote, the overall quality of the waterways where they lived (Story & Forsyth, 2008). This scale included the following items: “I intend to monitor the condition of my local waterways”, “I intend to talk about the condition of my local waterways with my neighbours and others in my local community”, “I intend to make changes around my home to limit my impact on my local waterway”, “I intend to clean up portions of my local waterway (pick up litter, remove weeds, and so on)”, and “I intend to be more involved in my local environmental community group”. This construct was new to the 2018 survey. Overall across all samples, the overall mean was 3.64 (SD 1.46) indicating a generally low level of intention to take actions to protect the overall quality of waterways. However there was a wide SD suggesting wide variation across the sample. The highest level of intention was reported by Mid Brisbane 4.29 (SD 1.15), while the lowest was held by Upper Brisbane 3.17 (SD 1.60)


8.1 Local waterway Usability, Satisfaction and Accessibility

Respondents across the total sample were asked to consider their local waterway and rate their

perceptions of access, use and overall satisfaction.

8.1.1 Local waterway Usability

These questions asked respondents their about their perceptions for local waterway usability (where

1= Strongly Disagree, and 7= Strongly Agree). The overall score for usability was 4.59 (SD 1.5). This

score was slightly higher than the mean for 2017 (M 4.53 SD 1.41) but was not statistically significant

t (6731) = 1.68, p = .092 (two-tailed).

Usability: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.26 1.36

Bremer 3.87 1.51

Caboolture 4.53 1.49

Lockyer 4.00 1.51

Logan 4.00 1.52

Lower Brisbane 4.36 1.39

Maroochy 5.07 1.48

Mid Brisbane 4.65 1.50

Mooloolah 5.09 1.35

Nerang 4.94 1.43

Noosa 5.55 1.23

Pimpama-Coomera 4.85 1.46

Pine 4.64 1.46

Pumicestone 5.19 1.44

Redland 4.83 1.43

Stanley 4.56 1.37

Tallebudgera 5.51 1.23

Upper Brisbane 3.84 1.74


8.1.2 Local waterway Satisfaction

These questions asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their local waterway was,

selecting from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree for satisfaction related items. The 2018

average was 4.55 (SD 1.53). Noosa scored highest on satisfaction with a score 5.61 (1.17). Bremer

scored lowest on 3.62 (SD 1.56). This score was slightly higher than the mean for 2017 (M 4.54 SD

1.42) the differences between 2018 to 2017 were not statistically significant t (6731) = 0.27, p =

0.7817 (two-tailed).

Satisfaction: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.27 1.51

Bremer 3.62 1.56


Lockyer 3.98 1.69

Logan 3.86 1.54


Maroochy 5.10 1.44


Mooloolah 5.18 1.38

Nerang 5.01 1.47

Noosa 5.61 1.17


Pine 4.63 1.40


Redland 4.81 1.44

Stanley 4.40 1.34




8.1.3 Local waterway Accessibility

Questions asked respondents to rate how accessible their local waterway was,, choosing from a

accessible related questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. The

2018 mean was 5.06 (SD 1.62). Tallebudgera scored highest at 5.87 (SD 1.32), while Bremer was

lowest score at 4.31 (SD 1.69).

Accessibility: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.85 1.51

Bremer 4.31 1.69


Lockyer 4.62 1.72

Logan 4.34 1.71


Maroochy 5.51 1.50


Mooloolah 5.50 1.43

Nerang 5.36 1.50

Noosa 5.85 1.43


Pine 5.22 1.59


Redland 5.40 1.41

Stanley 4.94 1.54




8.2 Constructs

Each construct is now examined by catchment.

8.2.1 Being Away

Being away captures a conceptual transformation where being in a location helps a person to relax

and gives them a break. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1

= Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.

The mean score for being away in 2018 was 4.72 (SD 1.7), with Noosa scoring the highest on 5.63 (SD

1.37), and Bremer scoring lowest on 3.93 (SD 1.83).

Being Away: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.41 1.65

Bremer 3.93 1.83


Lockyer 4.29 1.84

Logan 4.08 1.73


Maroochy 5.25 1.62


Mooloolah 5.28 1.48

Nerang 5.05 1.56

Noosa 5.63 1.37


Pine 4.73 1.73


Redland 5.07 1.59

Stanley 4.88 1.65




8.2.2 Fascination

Fascination is conceptualised as being in a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly

absorbing. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly

Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. The mean score for Fascination in 2018 was 4.5 (SD 1.58). Noosa

scored highest at 5.58 (SD 1.15), lowest was Bremer at 3.63 (SD 1.64).

Fascination: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.27 1.56

Bremer 3.63 1.64


Lockyer 3.85 1.65

Logan 3.86 1.56


Maroochy 4.97 1.53


Mooloolah 5.05 1.40

Nerang 4.90 1.50

Noosa 5.58 1.15


Pine 4.52 1.45


Redland 4.87 1.49

Stanley 4.74 1.51




8.2.3 Social Value

Social value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterways with their

friends and others known to them. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores

based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. The overall sample average for social value was

4.49 (SD 1.52). Noosa scored highest at 5.18 (SD 1.27), lowest was Bremer 3.83 (SD 1.74).

Social Value: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.18 1.46

Bremer 3.83 1.74


Lockyer 4.17 1.67

Logan 4.15 1.60


Maroochy 4.81 1.48


Mooloolah 4.89 1.39

Nerang 4.81 1.44

Noosa 5.18 1.27


Pine 4.47 1.47


Redland 4.65 1.49

Stanley 4.40 1.37




8.2.4 Motivation

Motivation measures whether the motives for using waterways are in line with one’s personal values

and needs. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly

Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. For motivation the mean score was 4.06 (SD 1.8). Noosa 5.33 (SD

1.52) scores the highest and Bremer 3.14 (SD 1.69) was the lowest.

Motivation: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 3.69 1.77

Bremer 3.14 1.69


Lockyer 3.41 1.78

Logan 3.41 1.68


Maroochy 4.65 1.85


Mooloolah 4.68 1.71

Nerang 4.48 1.76

Noosa 5.33 1.52


Pine 3.99 1.69


Redland 4.37 1.77

Stanley 4.07 1.73




8.2.5 Nature relationship

These questions asked respondents to rate their connections to the natural world (environment).

The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7

= Strongly Agree. For 2018 the mean score was 5.29 (SD 1.41).

Nature Relationship: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 5.27 1.35

Bremer 5.18 1.33


Lockyer 5.26 1.43

Logan 5.06 1.47


Maroochy 5.73 1.38


Mooloolah 5.48 1.35

Nerang 5.35 1.29

Noosa 5.89 1.22


Pine 5.22 1.37


Redland 5.38 1.38

Stanley 5.92 1.17




8.2.6 Awareness

Awareness was a new measure for the 2018 survey. Awareness is resident’s general knowledge of, familiarity with, and attentiveness to their local waterway (Story & Forsyth, 2008). Awareness includes things such as paying attention to local waterways, being aware of environmental conditions of local waterways, knowing where local waterways being and end.

The awareness mean score for 2018 was 4.4 (SD 1.29). Noosa 5.16 (SD 1.04), Logan 3.94 (SD 1.26).

Awareness: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.35 1.25

Bremer 4.16 1.38


Lockyer 4.18 1.31

Logan 3.94 1.26


Maroochy 4.78 1.26


Mooloolah 4.74 1.20

Nerang 4.61 1.17

Noosa 5.16 1.04


Pine 4.46 1.22


Redland 4.45 1.24

Stanley 4.79 1.26




8.2.7 Positive Appraisal

Positive appraisal is the respondents’ beliefs about the degree to which their local waterway is free of disease-carrying organisms, clear and unpolluted, and they are satisfied with the quality of the water (Story & Forsyth, 2008). The mean score for positive appraisal in 2018 was 4.26 (SD 1.28). Noosa 4.57 (SD 1.23), Bremer 3.12 (SD 1.35).

Appraisal Positive: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 3.37 1.36

Bremer 3.12 1.35


Lockyer 3.46 1.35

Logan 3.36 1.34


Maroochy 3.90 1.31


Mooloolah 4.11 1.25

Nerang 4.13 1.21

Noosa 4.57 1.23


Pine 3.78 1.20


Redland 3.72 1.23

Stanley 4.06 1.42




8.2.8 Negative Appraisal

Negative appraisal is the respondents’ beliefs about the degree to which their local waterway is polluted,

contains litters, and has erosion problems (Story & Forsyth, 2008).The mean score for negative appraisal in

2018 was 3.74 (SD 1.34). Bremer was highest at 4.54 (SD 1.30), Tallebudgera was lowest at 3.88 (SD 1.54).

Appraisal Negative: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.39 1.34

Bremer 4.54 1.30


Lockyer 4.10 1.38

Logan 4.28 1.21


Maroochy 4.29 1.28


Mooloolah 4.18 1.35

Nerang 4.16 1.21

Noosa 4.01 1.31


Pine 4.11 1.24


Redland 4.22 1.29

Stanley 4.33 1.33




8.2.9 Responsibility

Responsibility items measured residents’ feelings of personal responsibility for maintaining and protecting the

local waterway, as well as their feelings of efficacy in dealing with pollution (Story & Forsyth, 2008). This was

introduced in the 2018 study. The mean score for responsibility 2018 was 4.6 (SD 1.36). Tallebudgera 5.18 (SD

1.37), Logan 3.36 (SD 1.34).

Responsibility: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 4.54 1.36

Bremer 4.52 1.32


Lockyer 4.60 1.43

Logan 4.42 1.38


Maroochy 4.93 1.34


Mooloolah 4.86 1.25

Nerang 4.60 1.44

Noosa 5.06 1.20


Pine 4.55 1.30


Redland 4.66 1.29

Stanley 5.12 1.28




8.2.10 Behavioural Intentions

Behavioural Intentions refers to behaviours that residents could perform to promote, or not promote, the

overall quality of the waterways where they lived (Story & Forsyth, 2008). This scale included the following

items: “I intend to monitor the condition of my local waterways”, “I intend to talk about the condition of my

local waterways with my neighbours and others in my local community”, “I intend to make changes around my

home to limit my impact on my local waterway”, “I intend to clean up portions of my local waterway (pick up

litter, remove weeds, and so on)”, and “I intend to be more involved in my local environmental community

group”. This construct was new to the 2018 survey. Overall across all samples, the average/overall mean was

3.64 (SD 1.46) indicating a generally low level of intention to take actions to protect the overall quality of

waterways. However there was a wide SD suggesting wide variation across the sample. The highest level of

intention was reported by Mid Brisbane 4.29 (SD 1.15), while the lowest was held by Upper Brisbane 3.17 (SD

1.60)

Behavioural Intention: Catchment Mean SD

Albert 3.52 1.41

Bremer 3.39 1.60


Lockyer 3.52 1.42

Logan 3.44 1.43


Maroochy 3.91 1.46


Mooloolah 3.85 1.35

Nerang 3.64 1.41

Noosa 4.25 1.49


Pine 3.53 1.42


Redland 3.64 1.43

Stanley 4.12 1.49




8.3 Waterway use and activities

Types of usage were captured across the total sample and by catchment. Respondents were asked ‘Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?’ Across the sample, swimming and recreational activities such as walking, cycling, running, and picnics and barbeques, remained the most popular activities on waterways, with fishing featuring more prominently in some catchments. Activities involving the use of craft on water, and those requiring sophisticated equipment– such as boating, sailing, water and jet-skiing, sailboarding and kayaking, and scuba diving – were undertaken less frequently.

Usage Activities (combined data)

2018

Never Almost everyday

Every week

Every fortnight

Every month

Once or twice a

year

Every few

years

Picnics, BBQs 0.7% 1.1% 5.8% 8.9% 32.2% 49.4% 1.9%

Walking, running 1.0% 22.9% 31.7% 11.9% 20.9% 11.4% 0.2%

Swimming 1.8% 5.2% 22.7% 14.4% 29.3% 26.2% 0.4%

Cycling 0.9% 13.4% 28.1% 13.4% 23.8% 20.0% 0.4%

4WD driving, trail bike riding

3.3% 2.5% 14.9% 12.4% 33.1% 32.2% 1.7%

Jet skiing water skiing 4.8% 3.2% 6.5% 11.3% 24.2% 45.2% 4.8%

Camping 2.0% 2.0% 4.1% 5.1% 25.0% 55.1% 6.6%

Recreational fishing 0.4% 1.9% 13.2% 11.9% 34.2% 37.0% 1.3%

Boating, sailing 1.3% 2.3% 15.1% 10.0% 27.4% 39.8% 4.0%

Rowing, kayaking, canoeing 1.0% 3.5% 11.1% 10.0% 31.5% 40.8% 2.1%

Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding

1.7% 14.3% 22.7% 17.6% 24.4% 16.8% 2.5%

Scuba diving, snorkelling 3.9% 3.9% 5.2% 9.1% 15.6% 59.7% 2.6%

Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching, conservation, photography

0.2% 19.5% 24.5% 12.9% 26.0% 16.2% 0.7%

Catching a ferry 1.8% 1.8% 6.6% 6.1% 26.1% 54.5% 3.1%

Other 8.8% 15.4% 18.7% 13.2% 24.2% 18.7% 1.1%

Some of the other waterway activities that respondents reported were:

Marine and wildlife rescue

Litter collection, cleaning up and working bees

Waterway cleaning and restoration activities such as weeding, restoration, and revegetation

Walking /exercising animals (dog walking/swimming)

Taking children or family for recreation or swimming

Surf Life Saving

Paddle boarding

Educational and conservation activities such as research and monitoring water quality

Meditation and relaxation

Other activities besides water such as reading, bike riding, playing golf, drone flying, or using playgrounds.

The following tables report on Panel Data and Social Media Data separately, however similar activities were reported by both samples:


PANEL DATA Usage Activities

2018


Every week

Every fortnight

Every month

Once or twice a

year

Every few

years

Picnics, BBQs 0.7% 1.0% 5.3% 8.2% 32.8% 49.9% 2.2%

Walking, running 1.2% 22.8% 30.0% 12.1% 21.1% 12.7% 0.2%

Swimming 1.9% 4.3% 21.7% 14.3% 30.6% 26.9% 0.3%

Cycling 1.4% 13.1% 27.8% 13.7% 24.4% 18.9% 0.7%


3.4% 2.3% 14.9% 14.9% 33.3% 29.9% 1.1%


Camping 1.6% 3.1% 6.3% 5.5% 25.0% 53.9% 4.7%


Boating, sailing 1.9% 3.3% 14.6% 8.5% 26.9% 40.6% 4.2%



1.4% 8.1% 23.0% 20.3% 25.7% 17.6% 4.1%



0.1% 16.7% 22.5% 13.5% 27.2% 19.2% 0.8%

Catching a ferry 1.4% 2.2% 7.9% 7.2% 24.2% 53.1% 4.0%

Other 15.4% 12.8% 15.4% 10.3% 17.9% 28.2% 0.0%

SOCIAL MEDIA DATA Usage Activities

2018


Every week

Every fortnight

Every month

Once or twice a

year

Every few

years

Picnics, BBQs 0.6% 1.3% 7.6% 11.8% 30.3% 47.5% 1.0%

Walking, running 0.5% 23.3% 39.0% 11.1% 19.9% 6.1% 0.0%

Swimming 1.7% 8.0% 26.1% 14.8% 25.0% 23.9% 0.6%

Cycling 0.0% 13.9% 28.5% 12.7% 22.8% 22.2% 0.0%


2.9% 2.9% 14.7% 5.9% 32.4% 38.2% 2.9%


Camping 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 25.0% 57.4% 10.3%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 13.8% 28.7% 37.9% 3.4%



2.2% 24.4% 22.2% 13.3% 22.2% 15.6% 0.0%



0.3% 26.3% 29.4% 11.4% 23.1% 9.2% 0.3%

Catching a ferry 2.6% 0.9% 3.5% 3.5% 30.7% 57.9% 0.9%

Other 3.8% 17.3% 21.2% 15.4% 28.8% 11.5% 1.9%


8.3.1 Comparison – Local, SEQ, and National waterway use and

activities

Respondents were asked what activities, and where these activities were undertaken in the past 12 months – at local, SEQ, or national locations. For instance, 65.5% said yes to Picnics and BBQs on the waterways while 34.5% said no. Of the people who said yes, 40.8% said they did it at a local level, 21.9% at a SEQ level, and 7.2% at a national level. The next three columns labelled Local VS SEQ, Local VS National, and SEQ VS National, all test for statistical differences between each level in pairs, using a chi-square difference test. For example, the people indicated that they have picnics and BBQs at statistically different amounts between local and SEQ locations, and local and national locations, and SEQ and national locations. Local was the most frequently used location for picnics and BBQs, then SEQ, then the national level. Whereas, for scuba diving and snorkelling activities, there are statistical differences at the local vs SEQ and local vs National but SEQ vs national are not significantly different. Activity Yes No Local level SEQ level National

Level Local VS

SEQ (p-value)

Local VS National (p-value)

SEQ VS National (p-value)

Picnics, BBQs 65.50% 34.50% 40.80% 21.90% 7.20% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Walking, running 74.90% 25.10% 51.80% 16.60% 7.40% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Swimming 37.90% 62.10% 20.40% 12.80% 4.50% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cycling 19.70% 80.30% 12.10% 3.20% 1.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00


13.10% 86.90% 3.30% 6.70% 2.60% 0.00 0.07 0.00

Jet skiing, water skiing

5.20% 94.80% 1.70% 1.90% 0.40% 0.38 0.00 0.00

Camping 26.10% 73.90% 5.30% 14.70% 7.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Recreational fishing

30.00% 70.00% 14.10% 10.80% 3.90% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Boating, sailing 18.80% 81.20% 8.30% 6.90% 2.40% 0.07 0.00 0.00

Rowing, kayaking, canoeing

16.90% 83.10% 7.80% 5.60% 1.80% 0.00 0.00 0.00


7.30% 92.70% 3.20% 2.20% 1.20% 0.01 0.00 0.00

Scuba diving, snorkelling

8.90% 91.10% 2.20% 3.10% 3.00% 0.01 0.01 0.89


47.40% 52.60% 28.80% 18.40% 9.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Catching a ferry 29.60% 70.40% 10.90% 10.30% 3.90% 0.91 0.00 0.00

Other 8.00% 92.00% 2.50% 1.50% 0.60% 0.00 0.00 0.00


8.4 Responsibility and Important Issues

8.4.1 Responsibility

This question explored the concept of attribution of responsibility for protecting the environment. The question asked “To what extent are the following entities/groups responsible for protecting the environment. Local Government was found to be most responsible, while non-profit organisations the least responsible. Overall, the top five entities shared attribution of responsibility (>80%) by the total sample. Interestingly, “business” featured lower levels of attribution of responsibility than expected. The graph below shows the combined data sets.

5.1

6.0

6.8

7.5

8.9

15.9

19.4

7.7

9.5

11.8

12.6

12.2

17.9

25.4

87.3

84.5

81.4

80.0

79.0

66.1

55.2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Local Government (Council)

State Government

Local Communities

Individuals

Federal Government

Business

Charities and Not-for-profit organisations

Not Responsible Neutral Responsible


8.4.2 Important issues

This question asked respondents to rank from a list of 11 items and one other (to specify), the three most important social issues. The top three items included health, transport, and the cost of living. The environment was ranked 4th. The graph below shows the combined data sets.

Respondents who selected the “other” category (.87%) reported comments that could generally be categorised into one of the main options however usually the comments have a more specific focus, for instance “Housing affordability” was written even though that seems like a cost of living issues; similarly, ice addiction is mentioned a few times and this could be a crime/law and order issue or a health issue. Unique issues mentioned included ageing and older populations, governments, power prices, tourism, media, and rural population decline.

14.14%13.02% 12.46%

10.19% 9.61% 9.31% 8.82% 8.62%

5.35%

3.81% 3.80%

0.87%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%


8.4.3 Environmental concerns

Respondents were also asked to rank the top three environmental concerns. Across the sample, litter pollution, climate change and concerns about the extinction of native flora and fauna were reported as the top three concerns, while loss of traditional owner heritage and soil erosion were of least concern. The graph below shows the combined data sets.

Respondents were also asked generally how concerned they were about environmental problems in SEQ. While few respondents reported none (not at all), more than 68% of the sample reported in the top two levels of concern (a great deal/a fair amount).

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

A great deal 927 24.7 24.7 24.7 A fair amount 1623 43.3 43.3 68.1 A little 1006 26.8 26.8 94.9 Not at all 133 3.5 3.5 98.5 Don't know 58 1.5 1.5 100.0 Total 3747 100.0 100.0

12.1%

10.9%

9.7%

9.5%

9.0%

8.1%

7.4%

6.5%

6.3%

6.1%

6.0%

3.5%

3.1%

1.9%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%

Litter pollution

Climate change

Local extinction of native plants & animals

Water pollution/water quality

Deterioration and loss of places of natural beauty

Tree clearing

Water supply/drought

Weeds and pest infestation

Air pollution/air quality

Decline in fish numbers/sustainable fisheries

Flood impacts

Deterioration of agricultural land

Soil erosion

Loss of traditional owner cultural heritage


Following this, a comparison was performed exploring the concern levels per environmental issue. Comparison:

Environmental Issues A great deal

A fair amount

A little Not at all

Don't know

Air pollution/air quality 5.5% 6.1% 7.2% 4.8% 9.8%

Climate change 13.0% 10.8% 9.9% 6.5% 8.0%

Local extinction of native plants & animals 13.6% 9.9% 6.5% 4.8% 7.5%

Decline in fish numbers/sustainable fisheries 6.0% 6.4% 5.6% 5.8% 5.2%

Deterioration and loss of places of natural beauty 10.2% 8.8% 8.9% 5.3% 7.5%

Soil erosion 2.9% 3.1% 2.8% 4.8% 4.6%

Deterioration of agricultural land 2.9% 3.5% 4.1% 2.5% 4.6%

Water supply/drought 4.4% 7.5% 9.0% 14.0% 9.2%

Flood impacts 3.1% 5.7% 8.2% 12.8% 8.0%

Loss of traditional owner cultural heritage 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 4.6%

Litter pollution 9.0% 12.8% 13.9% 14.8% 7.5%

Tree clearing 12.3% 7.3% 6.2% 4.0% 6.9%

Weeds and pest infestation 5.5% 6.4% 7.0% 10.5% 6.9%

Water pollution/water quality 9.7% 9.7% 9.1% 7.8% 9.8%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The comparison found that while some environmental concerns varied widely in ranking the level of concern (water supply/drought/flood impacts), other concerns were consistent in their level (such as fish numbers, and loss of traditional owner cultural heritage. The graph below shows the combined data sets.


0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

A great deal A fair amount A little Not at all Don't know


An alternate presentation of this graph is below:

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%Air pollution/air quality

Climate change

Local extinction of nativeplants & animals

Decline in fishnumbers/sustainable fisheries

Deterioration and loss ofplaces of natural beauty

Soil erosion

Deterioration of agriculturalland


Flood impacts

Loss of traditional ownercultural heritage

Litter pollution

Tree clearing



A great deal A fair amount A little Not at all Don't know


8.5 Conditions

8.5.1 Satisfaction with local waterway conditions

The following table presents the condition of waterways and the corresponding level of satisfaction presented as a percentage with the conditions. Overall, respondents reported high levels of neutrality (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) with regard to the waterway conditions in their local catchment area.

Condition Highly Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Slightly Satisfied

Satisfied Highly Satisfied

Water clarity 6.50% 8.80% 15.80% 27.00% 22.40% 13.90% 5.60%

Pollution levels

7.10% 10.10% 18.40% 27.60% 20.40% 11.90% 4.40%

Fish numbers 6.50% 10.60% 17.90% 35.50% 17.60% 8.40% 3.50%

Natural vegetation

4.30% 6.30% 14.00% 27.70% 24.00% 16.40% 7.30%

Overall condition

5.10% 6.90% 13.90% 27.50% 24.70% 16.40% 5.50%

Testing conditions as predictors on perceptions of Satisfaction, Usage, and Accessibility.

Fish numbers may not be significant because it might only be important for people who fish, or the word “fish” might be too specific and a word that is broader such as “aquatic life” might be more appropriate. Water clarity is all statistically significant and positively related to satisfaction, usage and accessibility; this is the same for natural vegetation, and overall condition. This suggests that as satisfaction with water clarity, natural vegetation and overall conditions increase, so to do the outcomes of satisfaction, usage, and accessibility. As expected, pollution levels are negatively correlated with the three outcomes, but only statistically so for satisfaction and usage.

Satisfaction Usage Accessibility

Water clarity .302*** .299*** .235***

Pollution levels -.071*** -.069** -.048ns

Fish numbers .021ns -.011ns -.038ns

Natural vegetation .153*** .154*** .221***

Overall condition .304*** .224*** .146***

Note: where p > 0.50 = ns, p <.05 = *, p <.01 = **. p<.001 = ***.


8.6 Correlations

8.6.1 Satisfaction and nature relatedness

Correlations between satisfaction and nature relatedness showed a strong significant relationship in all but two of the catchments however this relationship does differ between catchments. The overall sample suggests that people who feel that nature is important to them are satisfied overall with their local waterway. This implies that to keep the satisfaction levels up for those people using waterways, the importance of nature to their lives should be reinforced. By making this strong association, people are reminded of the importance of nature in their lives and therefore can make the connection with how using the waterways can contribute towards this. Pimpama-Coomera (.585) and Mooloolah (.575) showed the highest levels of correlation between nature relatedness and satisfaction, while Upper Brisbane (.291) and Mid Brisbane (.215) showed the lowest. It should be noted that the sample size was small for these catchments which may explain the result and the non-significance of these when compared to 2017.

Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction

by catchment

2018 Correlation 2017 Correlation

Albert .573** .712*** Bremer .493** .619*** Caboolture .519** .669*** Lockyer .391** .478*** Logan .404** .596*** Lower Brisbane .443** .646*** Maroochy .486** .683*** Mid Brisbane 0.215 .634** Mooloolah .575** .649*** Moreton Bay and Island n/a .594*** Nerang .498** .632*** Noosa .385** .612*** Pimpama-Coomera .585** .579*** Pine .518** .657*** Pumicestone .545** .618*** Redland .499** .702*** Stanley .318** .538* Tallebudgera .526** .781*** Upper Brisbane .291 .787*** Overall Sample .488*** .637***

Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***


The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.

Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction by catchment 2018 Correlation

Pimpama-Coomera .585**

Mooloolah .575**

Albert .573**

Pumicestone .545**

Tallebudgera .526**

Caboolture .519**

Pine .518**

Redland .499**

Nerang .498**

Bremer .493**

Overall Sample .488***

Maroochy .486**

Lower Brisbane .443**

Logan .404**

Lockyer .391**

Noosa .385**

Stanley .318**

Upper Brisbane 0.291

Mid Brisbane 0.215


8.6.2 Satisfaction and Use

Correlations between satisfaction and people’s use of waterways (frequency and type) showed a clear and significant relationship for all catchment areas. All catchments are significant and are very

high, with all but two being above 0.07 indicating very strong relationships (p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **). This suggests that South East Queensland waterways are able to satisfy a diverse range of users. Upper Brisbane catchment shows the highest amount of satisfaction to use relationship (0.932) while Stanley showed the lowest (0.671) however this level and significance indicates that those in the catchment still are satisfied with their use of their local waterways.

Catchments 2018 2017

Albert .884** .844***

Bremer .854** .868***

Caboolture .931** .882***

Lockyer .897** .88***

Logan .886** .876***

Lower Brisbane .862** .868***

Maroochy .889** .878***

Mid Brisbane .804** .825***

Mooloolah .873** .858***

Moreton Bay and Island n/a .824***

Nerang .884** .899***

Noosa .869** .912***

Pimpama-Coomera .893** .876***

Pine .882** .891***

Pumicestone .874** .898***

Redland .846** .832***

Stanley .671** .884***

Tallebudgera .850** .908***

Upper Brisbane .932** .957***

Overall Sample .888** .884***

Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***



Catchments 2018

Upper Brisbane .932**

Caboolture .931**

Lockyer .897**


Maroochy .889**

Overall Sample .888**

Logan .886**

Albert .884**

Nerang .884**

Pine .882**

Pumicestone .874**

Mooloolah .873**

Noosa .869**


Bremer .854**

Tallebudgera .850**

Redland .846**

Mid Brisbane .804**

Stanley .671**


8.6.3 Satisfaction and accessibility

Correlations between satisfaction and accessibility showed there is a relationship between

satisfaction levels relating to the respondent’s local waterway and their feeling of being able to

access their local waterway. All catchments showed strong significant relationships. Upper Brisbane

(0.849) showed the highest levels of satisfaction and the feeling of being able to access their

waterway. Mid Brisbane showed the lowest levels (0.542).

Catchments 2018 2017

Albert .682** .783***

Bremer .675** .682***

Caboolture .726** .692***

Lockyer .770** .712***

Logan .760** .713***

Lower Brisbane .750** .680***

Maroochy .816** .783***

Mid Brisbane .542* .671***

Mooloolah .792** .603***

Moreton Bay and Island n/a .718***

Nerang .770** .746***

Noosa .743** .758***

Pimpama-Coomera .786** .653***

Pine .776** .720***

Pumicestone .763** .734***

Redland .767** .685***

Stanley .601** .586***

Tallebudgera .756** .831***

Upper Brisbane .849** .650***

Overall Sample .773** .721***

Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***



Catchments 2018

Upper Brisbane .849**

Maroochy .816**

Mooloolah .792**


Pine .776**

Overall Sample .773**

Lockyer .770**

Nerang .770**

Redland .767**

Pumicestone .763**

Logan .760**

Tallebudgera .756**


Noosa .743**

Caboolture .726**

Albert .682**

Bremer .675**

Stanley .601**

Mid Brisbane .542*


8.7 Awareness, Appraisal, Responsibility (AAR) Model

A step-wise regression was conducted examining the effect of Awareness, Positive and Negative Appraisal, and Responsibility on the outcome variable of Behavioural Intentions. First, responsibility on behavioural intention is examined, then positive and negative appraisal is added, and finally awareness is added. In Step 1, the model is showing that responsibility (without any controlling factors) is not significantly predictive of behavioural intentions (β = .282, p = 0.117) and has a low R squared (.049). R-Squared indicates the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that is shared by the predictor variable. The beta (β) value determines the strength of the relationship between a predictor and the outcome, and is used in interpretation when the p value is significant (p < 0.05). Step 2, uses the same variables for step 1 but adds positive and negative appraisal. This model is significant (ANOVA, p = 0.029) and shows a better R squared (.194) than the previous model. Positive appraisal (β = .391, p = 0.027) and Responsibility (β = .445, p = .015) significantly predict behavioural intention. While responsibility was not significant in model 1, now that appraisal is being taking into account responsibility predicts behavioural intentions. Model 2 also shows negative appraisal is not significantly related to behavioural outcomes (p = .141), suggesting that positive appraisal is more important than negative appraisal. In model 3, all of the variable are used in the model. Model 3 is statistically significant (ANOVA, p = .003), with an even more improved R squared (.356). Notably, responsibility becomes non-significant (p = .102), with negative appraisal also non-significant (p = .144). Positive appraisal significantly predicts behavioural intentions (β = .316, p = .048), as well as Awareness (β = .438, p = .009). Overall, the model shows that awareness of ‘a waterway’ is key to predicting behaviour intentions to improve local waterways. Interestingly, while positive appraisal significantly predicted behavioural outcomes, negative appraisal was not significant. This suggests that using techniques that try to motivate people to monitor or clean up their local waterway with a negative or threat appeal (“Look what happens if we do nothing”) may work much less effectively than a positively frame campaign (“Look what we can become/achieve”). Notably, responsibility seems to be important under certain circumstances. This predisposition may reflect underlying segments where certain groups of people have characteristics (employment/age/education) that predispose them (positively or negatively) to fall in this group (see groupings in next section). Importantly, this model does not use demographics which could changes the results.

Model Beta Sig. ANOVA R SQR

1 (Constant) .083 .117 .049

Responsibility .282 .117

2 (Constant) .254 .029 .194


Negative Appraisal .250 .141

Positive Appraisal .391 .027

3 (Constant) .044 .003 .356


Negative Appraisal .223 .144

Positive Appraisal .316 .048

Awareness .438 .009


8.8 Additional Analysis

8.8.3 – Industry Stewards

The table below outlines the industries where the respondents indicated they were employed and

the scores the respondents indicated for all of the key constructs. Interestingly those employed in

property and business services indicated the highest scores overall as a group, and those employed

in cultural and recreational services scored the lowest as a group.

Use Sat Acc Be Awa

y

Fas Soc Val

Mot Nat Aware

Neg App

Pos App

Res Beh Int

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

4.77 4.67 5.28 4.86 4.87 4.63 4.45 5.81 4.96 4.61 3.66 4.6 4.02

Mining 4.65 4.61 5.08 4.77 4.66 4.6 4.3 5.26 4.59 4.28 3.73 4.45 3.88

Manufacturing 4.46 4.41 4.86 4.55 4.4 4.4 3.85 4.97 4.4 4.04 3.8 4.53 3.26

Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services

4.76 4.58 5.23 4.96 4.54 4.72 4.14 5.25 4.76 4.41 3.44 4.64 3.82

Construction 4.53 4.52 4.99 4.68 4.45 4.4 4.17 5.07 4.51 4.1 3.79 4.57 3.5

Wholesale Trade 4.36 4.3 4.75 4.41 4.3 4.24 3.86 5.22 4.24 4.31 4.04 4.46 3.47

Retail Trade 4.32 4.34 4.83 4.5 4.21 4.41 3.71 5.01 4.12 4.09 3.72 4.48 3.35

Accommodation & Food Services

4.5 4.52 5.07 4.63 4.41 4.45 3.92 5.06 4.12 4 4 4.57 3.74

Transport, Postal & Warehousing

4.6 4.52 5.06 4.55 4.42 4.31 3.94 5.13 4.34 4.25 3.8 4.57 3.53

Information Media Telecommunications

4.35 4.39 4.87 4.48 4.27 4.27 3.73 4.84 4.2 4.09 3.75 4.44 3.46

Financial, Insurance Services

4.61 4.58 5.14 4.75 4.53 4.49 4.12 5.27 4.31 4.19 3.91 4.38 3.51

Rental, Hiring, Real Estate Services

4.75 4.57 5.5 4.73 4.46 4.53 3.89 5.21 4.25 3.99 3.84 4.24 3.45

Professional, Scientific, Technical Services

4.88 4.58 5.25 5.12 4.73 4.65 4.38 5.74 5.04 4.71 3.48 4.8 4.05

Administrative, Support Services

4.62 4.67 5.11 4.81 4.52 4.59 4.11 5.29 4.23 4.3 3.72 4.63 3.59

Public Administration, Safety

4.47 4.34 4.91 4.61 4.37 4.38 4.01 5.28 4.47 4.51 3.42 4.51 3.55

Education, Training 4.84 4.81 5.3 4.94 4.8 4.76 4.35 5.57 4.58 4.39 3.84 4.81 3.99

Health Care, Social Assistance

4.64 4.63 5.08 4.77 4.54 4.61 4.16 5.39 4.27 4.31 3.8 4.71 3.73

Arts & Recreation Services

4.87 4.77 5.32 4.98 4.71 4.42 4.4 5.54 4.65 4.35 3.72 4.75 3.85

Other - please provide

4.52 4.52 4.98 4.62 4.47 4.36 3.97 5.31 4.37 4.17 3.7 4.58 3.6

Key: Use – Usability Sat –Satisfaction Acc – Accessibility Be Away – Being Away


Fas – Fascination Soc Val – Social Value Mot – Motivation Nat – Nature Relatedness Aware – Awareness Neg App – Negative Appraisal Pos App – Positive Appraisal Res - Responsibility Beh – Behavioural Intentions


8.8.4 – Actions and Donations

Two question examining the behavioural actions of people were asked, specifically:

I cover exposed soil on my property, and/or worksites

I report muddy water running off construction and building sites to my local council Question asking about donations include:

I would be willing to donate my time to improve my local environment

I would be willing to donate money to improve my local environment

I would be willing to collect information relating to my local waterways or the surrounding environment (e.g. water quality, wildlife, vegetation)

Results suggest that respondents were less likely to take actions to protect waterways (cover soil and prevent

run off) and tended to be less likely to donate money, their time, or take actions to collect information about

their local waterway. The graph below shows the combined data sets.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree Strongly Agree

I cover exposed soil on my property, and/or worksites

12.2% 12.9% 12.3% 25.8% 15.6% 11.2% 9.9%

I report muddy water running off construction and building sites to my local council

22.0% 21.7% 16.2% 20.8% 8.8% 5.7% 4.7%

I would be willing to donate my time to improve my local environment

11.6% 14.8% 15.9% 24.1% 15.3% 9.6% 8.6%

I would be willing to donate money to improve my local environment

24.1% 20.7% 16.5% 20.8% 10.0% 4.8% 3.1%

I would be willing to collect information relating to my local waterways or the surrounding environment (e.g. water quality, wildlife, vegetation)

13.2% 14.7% 15.9% 21.1% 15.4% 9.9% 9.8%

12%

22%

12%

24%

13%

13%

22%

15%

21%

15%

12%

16%

16%

17%

16%

26%

21%

24%

21%

21%

16%

9%

15%

10%

15%

11%

6%

10%

5%

10%

10%

5%

9%

3%

10%

Cover exposed soil

Report run-off

Donate time

Donate Money

Citizen Science

Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree


Comparing mean scores of the panel data and social media

The mean scores of these activities was tested between the panel data and social media sample. Compared to

the panel data, every variable was statistically significant (p-value < .000) and higher in the social media

sample.

The next set of graphs using the combined data sets show the various….

3.75

2.96

3.57

2.85

3.58

4.98

3.84

5.16

3.78

5.08

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Cover exposed soil Report run-off Donate time Donate Money Citizen Science

Panel Socia Media


3.56

3.68

3.72

3.78

3.8

3.86

3.91

3.92

3.94

3.94

4.11

4.13

4.14

4.14

4.15

4.19

4.43

4.9

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Upper_Brisbane

Nerang

Logan

Bremer

Lockyer

Redland

Lower_Brisbane

Pimpama_Coomera

Albert

Pine

Pumicestone

Mooloolah

Caboolture

Maroochy

Noosa

Tallebudgera_Currumbin

Mid_Brisbane

Stanley

Cover exposed soil

2.34

2.82

2.87

2.95

2.95

2.95

2.99

3.02

3.05

3.07

3.15

3.22

3.23

3.24

3.25

3.28

3.33

3.52

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Upper_Brisbane

Bremer

Lockyer

Redland

Albert

Pine

Pimpama_Coomera

Logan

Caboolture

Maroochy

Nerang

Pumicestone

Lower_Brisbane

Mid_Brisbane

Mooloolah

Noosa


Stanley

Report run-off


3.44

3.49

3.55

3.59

3.59

3.63

3.64

3.67

3.72

3.78

3.89

3.91

3.97

4.03

4.05

4.45

4.48

4.67

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Upper_Brisbane

Bremer

Redland

Albert

Logan

Pine

Caboolture

Pimpama_Coomera

Lockyer

Nerang


Lower_Brisbane

Mooloolah

Maroochy

Pumicestone

Noosa

Stanley

Mid_Brisbane

Donate time

2.53

2.81

2.82

2.84

2.86

2.88

2.89

2.9

2.94

2.95

2.95

2.95

2.97

3.04

3.07

3.1

3.22

3.24

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Upper_Brisbane

Caboolture

Logan

Bremer

Pine

Pimpama_Coomera

Albert

Lockyer

Pumicestone

Redland

Nerang

Mid_Brisbane

Maroochy


Noosa

Mooloolah

Lower_Brisbane

Stanley

Donate Money


3.31

3.36

3.57

3.58

3.67

3.7

3.72

3.74

3.77

3.78

3.89

3.89

3.9

4.01

4.02

4.07

4.19

4.25

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Upper_Brisbane

Bremer

Albert

Logan

Pine

Pimpama_Coomera

Caboolture

Nerang

Redland

Lockyer


Mooloolah

Lower_Brisbane

Maroochy

Pumicestone

Stanley

Mid_Brisbane

Noosa

Citizen Science


9. Limitations

While all effort has been made to mitigate or overcome the limitations in this study, they do still exist to some level. These include;

Data is collected through a panel survey and also through Facebook. Those respondents accessing the survey through the panel survey may show some level of survey fatigue as they complete a number of surveys for the data collection company. Those respondents accessing the survey through Facebook may be more involved in the topic as they accessed the survey through partner organisations. This may indicate bias in their results. Despite these limitations, we see no significant differences in the demographics from our samples and that of the Australian Bureau of Statistics demographics suggesting that the respondents are largely in line with the general population of South East Queensland.

Data is collected at one point in time annually. Although the data is collected longitudinally on an aggregate level there is no way of identifying the perceptions of the same respondents over time to see if these differ through different stages of their lives. Despite this, making comparisons at the catchment level over time does allow comparative data at the aggregate level, giving general trend data.

While survey data is useful for providing representative results, it would be good to get a deeper understanding on some key topics such as usage and perceptions of conditions. Therefore supplementing the quantitative data with qualitative interviews would allow Healthy Land and Water to drill further into key areas of concern for certain catchments.

10. Catchment Reporting

The following section contains analysis of individual catchment areas under investigation. While

some catchment level reporting has been done in the main report (section 8), the following sections

contain individual catchment analysis contains tables on the following items:

Demographics

o Sex

o Education

o Length of residence in SEQ

o Employment Status

o Industry

o Household Income

o Household Makeup

o Home ownership

o Garden ownership

Satisfaction with catchment conditions

o Water clarity

o Pollution levels

o Fish numbers


o Natural vegetation

o Overall condition

Use and frequency of activities

o Picnics, BBQs

o Walking, running

o Swimming

o Cycling

o 4WD driving, trail bike riding

o Jet skiing water skiing

o Camping

o Recreational fishing

o Boating, sailing

o Rowing, kayaking, canoeing

o Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding

o Scuba diving, snorkelling

o Enjoying nature

o Catching a ferry


10.1 Albert Catchment

Demographics

Gender ratio Frequency Percent

Male 36 37.1

Female 61 62.9

Total 97 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 1.0

High School 26 26.8

Diploma or Cert 42 43.3

Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 11.3

Bachelor degree 10 10.3

Postgraduate degree 7 7.2

Total 97 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent

Less than a year 1 1.0

1-3 years 3 3.1

4-6 years 4 4.1

7-10 years 9 9.3

More than 10 years 80 82.5

Total 97 100.0


Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 30 30.9

Carer 5 5.2

Full time student 1 1.0

Unemployed and not seeking work 6 6.2

Unemployed and seeking work 8 8.2

Part time employee 24 24.7

Full time work 23 23.7

Total 97 100.0

Employment industry

Frequency Percent

1 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.0%

2 Mining 1 1.0%

3 Manufacturing 8 8.2%

4 Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 0 0.0%

5 Construction 6 6.2%

6 Wholesale Trade 3 3.1%

7 Retail Trade 13 13.4%

8 Accommodation and Food Services 9 9.3%

9 Transport, Postal and Warehousing 7 7.2%

10 Information Media and Telecommunications 4 4.1%

11 Financial and Insurance Services 5 5.2%

12 Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 0 0.0%

13 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 3 3.1%

14 Administrative and Support Services 5 5.2%

15 Public Administration and Safety 3 3.1%

16 Education and Training 13 13.4%

17 Health Care and Social Assistance 6 6.2%

18 Arts and Recreation Services 0 0.0%

19 Other - please provide 10 10.3%

Total 97 100%


Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 9 9.3

$25,001-$50,000 27 27.8

$50,001-$75,000 22 22.7

$75,001-$100,000 13 13.4

$100,001-$150,000 11 11.3

$150,001-$200,000 3 3.1

Prefer not to say 12 12.4

Total 97 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 43 44.3

Young children (0-13) 31 32.0

Teenage children (14-18) 10 10.3

Older children (18+) 13 13.4

Total 97 100

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 31 32.0

Owned / Have Mortgage 66 68.0

Total 97 100

Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 86 88.7

No 11 11.3

Total 97 100


Satisfaction with local conditions - Albert




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

9.20% 9.20% 18.40% 33.70% 17.30% 7.10% 5.10%

Pollution levels

11.20% 11.20% 26.50% 29.60% 11.20% 5.10% 5.10%

Fish numbers

7.10% 16.30% 20.40% 40.80% 8.20% 2.00% 5.10%

Natural vegetation

7.10% 6.10% 18.40% 37.80% 16.30% 7.10% 7.10%

Overall condition

6.10% 9.20% 23.50% 35.70% 13.30% 7.10% 5.10%


Use and frequency of activities – Albert

Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,

river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?


Every week

Every fortnight

Every month

Once or twice a year

Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 4.8% 23.8% 66.7% 0.0%

Walking, running 3.3% 20.0% 26.7% 0.0% 30.0% 20.0% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Scuba diving, snorkeling

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 19.0% 23.8% 14.3% 33.3% 9.5% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.2 Bremer Catchment

Demographics


Male 52 35.6

Female 92 63

Prefer not to answer 2 1.4 Total 146 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 45 30.8



Bachelor’s degree 22 15.1


Other 1 .7

Total 146 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 4 2.7

4-6 years 6 4.1

7-10 years 14 9.6


Total 146 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 31 21.2

Carer 13 8.9






Total 146 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 0.7%

Mining 3 2.1%

Manufacturing 6 4.1%

Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 3 2.1%

Construction 6 4.1%

Wholesale Trade 2 1.4%

Retail Trade 14 9.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 4 2.7%

Transport, Postal and Warehousing 6 4.1%

Information Media and Telecommunications 5 3.4%

Financial and Insurance Services 3 2.1%

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 2 1.4%

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 10 6.8%

Administrative and Support Services 15 10.3%

Public Administration and Safety 4 2.7%

Education and Training 14 9.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance 14 9.6%

Arts and Recreation Services 3 2.1%

Other - please provide 31 21.2%

Total 146 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 26 17.8

$25,001-$50,000 24 16.4

$50,001-$75,000 20 13.7

$75,001-$100,000 22 15.1

$100,001-$150,000 23 15.8

$150,001-$200,000 8 5.5

Over $200,000 2 1.4


Total 146 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 62 42.5




Total 146 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 58 39.7


Total 146 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 132 90.4

No 14 9.6

Total 146 100.0

Satisfaction with conditions - Bremer




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

19.6% 20.3% 20.3% 19.6% 12.8% 5.4% 2.0%

Pollution levels

16.9% 16.9% 23.6% 25.0% 11.5% 4.7% 1.4%

Fish numbers

12.8% 18.2% 27.7% 26.4% 7.4% 5.4% 2.0%

Natural vegetation

8.8% 11.5% 22.3% 28.4% 13.5% 9.5% 6.1%

Overall condition

14.9% 15.5% 19.6% 24.3% 16.9% 6.1% 2.7%


Use and frequency of activities – Bremer




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 2.0% 0.0% 6.1% 6.1% 22.4% 59.2% 4.1%

Walking, running 2.0% 7.8% 31.4% 9.8% 23.5% 25.5% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 23.1% 69.2% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 37.5% 50.0% 0.0%


16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 30.0% 10.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 11.9% 19.0% 16.7% 23.8% 28.6% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%


10.3 Caboolture Catchment

Demographics


Male 82 41.4

Female 116 58.6

Prefer not to answer 0 0 Total 198 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 66 33.3





Other 0 0

Total 198 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 10 5.1

4-6 years 14 7.1

7-10 years 19 9.6


Total 198 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 51 25.8

Carer 12 6.1






Total 198 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 3 1.5%



Construction 10 5.1%















Total 198 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 17 8.6

$25,001-$50,000 52 26.3

$50,001-$75,000 34 17.2

$75,001-$100,000 26 13.1

$100,001-$150,000 23 11.6

$150,001-$200,000 4 2.0

Over $200,000 17 8.6


Total 198 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 99 50.0




Total 198 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 98 49.5


Total 198 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 182 91.9

No 16 8.1

Total 198 100.0

Satisfaction with conditions - Caboolture




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

9.0% 6.0% 16.6% 23.6% 26.1% 16.1% 2.5%

Pollution levels

9.0% 9.5% 20.1% 30.2% 17.6% 11.6% 2.0%

Fish numbers

8.5% 12.1% 15.1% 36.7% 20.1% 6.5% 1.0%

Natural vegetation

7.0% 6.0% 9.0% 28.6% 25.1% 16.1% 8.0%

Overall condition

7.5% 8.5% 10.6% 27.6% 27.1% 15.1% 3.5%


Use and frequency of activities – Caboolture




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 9.2% 29.9% 52.9% 2.3%

Walking, running 0.0% 12.6% 36.8% 14.7% 16.8% 18.9% 0.0%

Swimming 2.8% 0.0% 16.7% 13.9% 38.9% 27.8% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 31.3% 18.8% 18.8% 31.3% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 16.7% 58.3% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 5.3% 0.0% 31.6% 5.3% 15.8% 31.6% 10.5%


0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0%


0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 17.5% 24.6% 15.8% 26.3% 12.3% 3.5%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%


10.4 Lockyer Catchment

Demographics


Male 58 33.5

Female 114 65.9

Prefer not to answer 1 .6 Total 173 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 45 26.0





Other 0 0

Total 173 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 10 5.8

4-6 years 7 4.0

7-10 years 13 7.5


Total 173 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 45 26.0

Carer 5 2.9






Total 173 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 4 2.3%



Construction 3 1.7%















Total 173 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 21 12.1

$25,001-$50,000 42 24.3

$50,001-$75,000 28 16.2

$75,001-$100,000 31 17.9

$100,001-$150,000 21 12.1

$150,001-$200,000 5 2.9

Over $200,000 1 .6


Total 173 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 79 45.7




Total 173 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 69 39.9


Total 173 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 159 91.9

No 14 8.1

Total 173 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lockyer




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

8.1% 11.0% 16.8% 34.7% 15.6% 11.0% 2.9%

Pollution levels

9.2% 9.8% 22.5% 29.5% 15.6% 11.6% 1.7%

Fish numbers

9.8% 13.3% 17.3% 34.7% 16.8% 6.4% 1.7%

Natural vegetation

6.9% 7.5% 17.9% 30.6% 15.0% 17.3% 4.6%

Overall condition

8.7% 8.7% 17.9% 25.4% 23.1% 12.7% 3.5%


Use and frequency of activities – Lockyer




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 3.7% 27.8% 64.8% 0.0%

Walking, running 1.7% 25.0% 18.3% 5.0% 26.7% 21.7% 1.7%

Swimming 0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 15.4% 7.7% 53.8% 0.0%

Cycling 9.1% 0.0% 45.5% 27.3% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 86.7% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 81.8% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 9.8% 24.4% 12.2% 22.0% 31.7% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.5 Logan Catchment

Demographics


Male 128 36.1

Female 226 63.7

Prefer not to answer 1 .3 Total 355 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 130 36.6





Other 1 .3

Total 355 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 15 4.2

4-6 years 16 4.5

7-10 years 25 7.0


Total 355 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 74 20.8

Carer 14 3.9






Total 355 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0%


















Total 355 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 39 11.0

$25,001-$50,000 74 20.8

$50,001-$75,000 63 17.7

$75,001-$100,000 50 14.1

$100,001-$150,000 43 12.1

$150,001-$200,000 14 3.9

Over $200,000 11 3.1


Total 355 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 174 49.0




Total 355 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 157 44.2


Total 355 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 305 85.9

No 50 14.1

Total 355 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Logan




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

13.2% 11.8% 21.0% 31.9% 14.0% 5.6% 2.5%

Pollution levels

13.7% 12.6% 23.0% 29.4% 12.9% 5.6% 2.8%

Fish numbers

12.0% 10.9% 22.1% 35.6% 11.5% 5.6% 2.2%

Natural vegetation

7.0% 9.5% 16.5% 31.9% 18.5% 12.9% 3.6%

Overall condition

9.2% 9.5% 19.0% 31.7% 17.9% 9.0% 3.6%


Use and frequency of activities – Logan




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 1.9% 4.7% 5.6% 25.2% 58.9% 3.7%

Walking, running 1.5% 10.7% 31.3% 9.9% 27.5% 18.3% 0.8%

Swimming 0.0% 0.0% 10.7% 7.1% 42.9% 39.3% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 9.1% 22.7% 13.6% 40.9% 13.6% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 58.3% 8.3%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 18.2% 54.5% 9.1%


10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 10.0% 60.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 12.2% 20.3% 16.2% 23.0% 27.0% 1.4%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 5.3% 10.5% 10.5% 21.1% 52.6% 0.0%

Other 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%


10.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment

Demographics


Male 438 42.2

Female 590 56.8

Other 4 .4 Prefer not to answer 7 .7 Total 1039 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 9 .9






Other 7 .7

Total 1039 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 86 8.3

4-6 years 78 7.5

7-10 years 62 6.0


Total 1039 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 163 15.7

Carer 31 3.0






Total 1039 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 17 1.6%


















Total 1039 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 102 9.8

$25,001-$50,000 179 17.2

$50,001-$75,000 141 13.6

$75,001-$100,000 153 14.7

$100,001-$150,000 180 17.3

$150,001-$200,000 90 8.7

Over $200,000 43 4.1


Total 1039 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 1039 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 451 43.4


Total 1039 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 823 79.2

No 216 20.8

Total 1039 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lower Brisbane




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

6.7% 11.6% 20.0% 30.0% 19.5% 8.6% 3.5%

Pollution levels

6.5% 13.6% 21.1% 28.6% 18.9% 9.0% 2.4%

Fish numbers

5.7% 12.1% 20.7% 39.0% 14.0% 6.2% 2.3%

Natural vegetation

3.9% 7.3% 16.3% 29.8% 23.3% 13.9% 5.6%

Overall condition

4.8% 8.3% 17.4% 30.3% 23.9% 11.1% 4.1%


Use and frequency of activities – Lower Brisbane




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 2.2% 1.7% 4.4% 10.8% 31.4% 46.9% 2.5%

Walking, running 1.8% 19.9% 30.2% 13.9% 22.4% 11.7% 0.0%

Swimming 4.6% 2.8% 22.2% 10.2% 32.4% 26.9% 0.9%

Cycling 1.4% 15.2% 25.5% 13.1% 19.3% 24.1% 1.4%


8.0% 4.0% 16.0% 12.0% 36.0% 24.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 2.6% 10.5% 2.6% 23.7% 50.0% 10.5%


Boating, sailing 2.1% 4.2% 12.5% 8.3% 20.8% 47.9% 4.2%


1.6% 4.8% 6.3% 7.9% 31.7% 42.9% 4.8%


7.7% 15.4% 15.4% 7.7% 15.4% 38.5% 0.0%


8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 58.3% 8.3%

Enjoying nature 0.4% 12.4% 20.1% 15.3% 35.0% 16.8% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.8% 1.6% 8.8% 6.8% 31.2% 48.8% 2.0%

Other 8.8% 11.8% 5.9% 14.7% 32.4% 23.5% 2.9%


10.7 Maroochy Catchment

Demographics


Male 64 33.5

Female 127 66.5

Other 0 0 Prefer not to answer 0 0 Total 191 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .5

High School 44 23.0





Other 1 .5

Total 191 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 9 4.7

4-6 years 15 7.9

7-10 years 6 3.1


Total 191 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 57 29.8

Carer 7 3.7






Total 191 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 2 1.0%



Construction 9 4.7%















Total 191 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 17 8.9

$25,001-$50,000 50 26.2

$50,001-$75,000 30 15.7

$75,001-$100,000 27 14.1

$100,001-$150,000 21 11.0

$150,001-$200,000 13 6.8

Over $200,000 3 1.6


Total 191 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 191 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 60 31.4


Total 191 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 177 92.7

No 14 7.3

Total 191 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Maroochy




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

3.6% 6.7% 14.9% 22.7% 21.6% 25.3% 5.2%

Pollution levels

3.1% 9.3% 17.0% 21.6% 31.4% 12.9% 4.6%

Fish numbers

4.6% 11.3% 18.0% 29.9% 24.7% 9.3% 2.1%

Natural vegetation

2.1% 6.7% 13.4% 22.7% 28.4% 19.6% 7.2%

Overall condition

2.6% 4.6% 12.9% 26.3% 24.7% 25.8% 3.1%


Use and frequency of activities – Maroochy




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 1.0% 1.0% 7.9% 8.9% 28.7% 51.5% 1.0%

Walking, running 1.8% 22.8% 34.2% 14.9% 21.1% 5.3% 0.0%

Swimming 1.4% 5.6% 33.3% 16.7% 27.8% 12.5% 2.8%

Cycling 0.0% 15.4% 42.3% 15.4% 11.5% 15.4% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0%


Camping 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 43.8% 31.3% 6.3%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 5.0% 20.0% 45.0% 0.0%


4.3% 0.0% 17.4% 13.0% 34.8% 30.4% 0.0%


0.0% 21.1% 26.3% 15.8% 21.1% 15.8% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 13.3% 66.7% 6.7%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 30.5% 34.1% 3.7% 17.1% 14.6% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 12.5%

Other 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 10.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment

Demographics


Male 7 33.3

Female 14 66.7


Education

Frequency Percent


High School 5 23.8





Other 0 0

Total 21 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent

Less than a year 0 0

1-3 years 0 0

4-6 years 1 4.8

7-10 years 1 4.8


Total 21 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 6 28.6

Carer 1 4.8






Total 21 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0%



Construction 1 4.8%


Retail Trade 2 9.5%













Total 21 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 3 14.3

$25,001-$50,000 2 9.5

$50,001-$75,000 0 0

$75,001-$100,000 6 28.6

$100,001-$150,000 2 9.5

$150,001-$200,000 1 4.8

Over $200,000 1 4.8


Total 21 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 13 61.9



Older children (18+) 0 0

Total 21 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 8 38.1


Total 21 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 21 100.0

No 0 0

Total 21 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mid Brisbane




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 38.1% 28.6% 0.0% 19.0%

Pollution levels

14.3% 9.5% 19.0% 23.8% 23.8% 0.0% 9.5%

Fish numbers

4.8% 9.5% 9.5% 33.3% 23.8% 4.8% 14.3%

Natural vegetation

4.8% 4.8% 14.3% 33.3% 19.0% 14.3% 9.5%

Overall condition

14.3% 4.8% 9.5% 23.8% 33.3% 4.8% 9.5%


Use and frequency of activities – Mid Brisbane




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 77.8% 0.0%

Walking, running 0.0% 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 28.6% 14.3% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 25.0% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.9 Mooloolah Catchment

Demographics


Male 64 36.0

Female 114 64.0


Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .6

High School 54 30.3





Other 1 .6

Total 178 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 17 9.6

4-6 years 15 8.4

7-10 years 13 7.3


Total 178 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 54 30.3

Carer 7 3.9






Total 178 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 0.6%



Construction 7 3.9%















Total 178 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 19 10.7

$25,001-$50,000 42 23.6

$50,001-$75,000 34 19.1

$75,001-$100,000 19 10.7

$100,001-$150,000 22 12.4

$150,001-$200,000 5 2.8

Over $200,000 5 2.8


Total 178 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 96 53.9




Total 178 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 67 37.6


Total 178 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 163 91.6

No 15 8.4

Total 178 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mooloolah




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

2.2% 6.2% 12.4% 23.0% 30.3% 21.3% 4.5%

Pollution levels

2.2% 7.3% 16.3% 26.4% 28.7% 13.5% 5.6%

Fish numbers

5.6% 5.1% 23.0% 23.0% 24.7% 13.5% 5.1%

Natural vegetation

1.7% 2.8% 17.4% 25.3% 25.3% 19.1% 8.4%

Overall condition

1.1% 4.5% 15.2% 23.6% 23.0% 27.5% 5.1%


Use and frequency of activities – Mooloolah




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.9% 0.0% 9.4% 8.5% 37.7% 43.4% 0.0%

Walking, running 1.7% 29.7% 39.0% 7.6% 14.4% 7.6% 0.0%

Swimming 3.8% 7.6% 31.6% 16.5% 22.8% 17.7% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 9.1% 33.3% 6.1% 27.3% 24.2% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0%


Camping 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.6% 70.6% 5.9%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 4.2% 8.3% 4.2% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 15.4% 19.2% 50.0% 3.8%


0.0% 7.7% 23.1% 15.4% 38.5% 7.7% 7.7%


0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 16.7% 58.3% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 23.1% 33.8% 9.2% 21.5% 9.2% 3.1%

Catching a ferry 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0%


10.10 Nerang Catchment

Demographics


Male 115 40.1

Female 170 59.2

Other 0 0 Prefer not to answer 1 .3 Total 286 99.7

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .3

High School 82 28.7





Other 2 .7

Total 286 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 23 8.0

4-6 years 24 8.4

7-10 years 26 9.1


Total 286 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 74 25.9

Carer 7 2.4






Total 286 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 3 1.0%


















Total 286 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 25 8.7

$25,001-$50,000 60 21.0

$50,001-$75,000 57 19.9

$75,001-$100,000 43 15.0

$100,001-$150,000 43 15.0

$150,001-$200,000 17 5.9

Over $200,000 6 2.1


Total 286 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 286 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 117 40.9


Total 286 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 215 75.2

No 71 24.8

Total 286 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Nerang Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

2.8% 4.9% 10.5% 21.3% 31.4% 19.2% 10.1%

Pollution levels

4.2% 6.3% 14.6% 26.5% 23.7% 17.4% 7.3%

Fish numbers

4.9% 4.2% 12.2% 34.5% 25.1% 13.9% 5.2%

Natural vegetation

3.1% 5.6% 9.1% 26.8% 27.2% 20.2% 8.0%

Overall condition

2.8% 3.5% 9.1% 23.3% 30.3% 23.3% 7.7%


Use and frequency of activities – Nerang




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 12.7% 36.5% 43.7% 1.6%

Walking, running 0.0% 29.4% 34.1% 14.1% 14.7% 7.6% 0.0%

Swimming 1.0% 7.3% 20.8% 17.7% 28.1% 25.0% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 23.8% 23.8% 7.1% 28.6% 16.7% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 62.5% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 3.2% 9.7% 12.9% 22.6% 45.2% 6.5%


0.0% 3.8% 7.7% 3.8% 46.2% 38.5% 0.0%


0.0% 16.7% 27.8% 16.7% 27.8% 5.6% 5.6%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 28.2% 26.9% 19.2% 20.5% 5.1% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0%

Other 11.1% 0.0% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0%


10.11 Noosa Catchment

Demographics


Male 49 44.5

Female 61 55.5


Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .9

High School 26 23.6





Other 4 3.6

Total 110 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 11 10.0

4-6 years 14 12.7

7-10 years 12 10.9


Total 110 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 49 44.5

Carer 0 0






Total 110 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0%



Construction 1 0.9%


Retail Trade 4 3.6%













Total 110 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 7 6.4

$25,001-$50,000 26 23.6

$50,001-$75,000 19 17.3

$75,001-$100,000 22 20.0

$100,001-$150,000 13 11.8

$150,001-$200,000 2 1.8

Over $200,000 5 4.5


Total 110 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 69 62.7




Total 110 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 19 17.3


Total 110 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 103 93.6

No 7 6.4

Total 110 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Noosa Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

0.9% 4.5% 7.3% 14.5% 28.2% 33.6% 10.9%

Pollution levels

0.9% 0.9% 5.5% 28.2% 22.7% 30.9% 10.9%

Fish numbers

0.0% 10.9% 11.8% 31.8% 25.5% 11.8% 8.2%

Natural vegetation

0.0% 2.7% 5.5% 20.9% 24.5% 31.8% 14.5%

Overall condition

0.0% 0.9% 5.5% 20.9% 26.4% 33.6% 12.7%


Use and frequency of activities – Noosa




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 18.0% 39.3% 36.1% 0.0%

Walking, running 0.0% 33.3% 40.3% 6.9% 19.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 13.6% 43.2% 18.2% 15.9% 9.1% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0%


9.1% 0.0% 27.3% 9.1% 18.2% 36.4% 0.0%


Camping 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 21.4% 57.1% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 3.8% 15.4% 11.5% 26.9% 38.5% 3.8%


0.0% 5.3% 21.1% 21.1% 15.8% 36.8% 0.0%


5.9% 5.9% 29.4% 23.5% 23.5% 5.9% 5.9%


50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 29.2% 29.2% 6.3% 22.9% 12.5% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 5.9% 14.7% 73.5% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.12 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment

Demographics


Male 128 38.3

Female 205 61.4


Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .3

High School 88 26.4





Other 2 .6

Total 333 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 34 10.2

4-6 years 29 8.7

7-10 years 26 7.8


Total 333 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 99 29.7

Carer 9 2.7






Total 333 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 2 0.6%


















Total 333 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 36 10.8

$25,001-$50,000 87 26.1

$50,001-$75,000 48 14.4

$75,001-$100,000 58 17.4

$100,001-$150,000 40 12.0

$150,001-$200,000 15 4.5

Over $200,000 7 2.1


Total 333 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 333 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 136 40.8


Total 333 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 280 84.1

No 53 15.9

Total 333 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

4.2% 4.5% 11.4% 24.6% 27.5% 20.1% 7.8%

Pollution levels

6.3% 6.9% 12.0% 26.9% 24.0% 17.7% 6.3%

Fish numbers

3.6% 6.9% 10.5% 38.6% 21.9% 12.3% 6.3%

Natural vegetation

3.9% 3.6% 11.4% 25.7% 29.6% 16.5% 9.3%

Overall condition

3.3% 3.9% 8.4% 26.3% 25.7% 24.3% 8.1%


Use and frequency of activities – Pimpama-Coomera




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 6.3% 46.5% 40.8% 0.7%

Walking, running 0.0% 20.7% 30.9% 15.4% 24.5% 8.5% 0.0%

Swimming 2.0% 4.0% 15.2% 13.1% 34.3% 31.3% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 5.4% 29.7% 21.6% 27.0% 16.2% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 55.6% 33.3% 0.0%


Camping 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 36.8% 42.1% 10.5%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 2.3% 18.6% 18.6% 20.9% 34.9% 4.7%


0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 16.7% 33.3% 29.2% 0.0%


0.0% 6.7% 13.3% 20.0% 26.7% 33.3% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 70.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 15.6% 26.7% 13.3% 30.0% 13.3% 1.1%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 77.8% 11.1%

Other 0.0% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0%


10.13 Pine Catchment

Demographics


Male 126 38.5

Female 199 60.9

Other 2 .6 Prefer not to answer 0 0 Total 327 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent







Other 2 .6

Total 327 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 16 4.9

4-6 years 12 3.7

7-10 years 20 6.1


Total 327 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 89 27.2

Carer 12 3.7






Total 327 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 0.3%


















Total 327 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 32 9.8

$25,001-$50,000 79 24.2

$50,001-$75,000 41 12.5

$75,001-$100,000 44 13.5

$100,001-$150,000 58 17.7

$150,001-$200,000 13 4.0

Over $200,000 12 3.7


Total 327 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 327 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 113 34.6


Total 327 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 296 90.5

No 31 9.5

Total 327 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pine Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

4.0% 7.6% 16.2% 29.6% 22.9% 14.9% 4.9%

Pollution levels

4.6% 8.2% 17.7% 29.9% 22.0% 12.2% 5.5%

Fish numbers

5.2% 10.4% 17.4% 39.3% 16.8% 9.5% 1.5%

Natural vegetation

3.0% 4.3% 14.0% 26.2% 28.0% 18.3% 6.1%

Overall condition

2.7% 5.8% 12.5% 27.4% 28.7% 18.9% 4.0%


Use and frequency of activities – Pine




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 2.8% 5.0% 10.6% 24.8% 54.6% 2.1%

Walking, running 1.2% 19.7% 31.8% 13.9% 17.3% 15.6% 0.6%

Swimming 0.0% 5.4% 12.5% 14.3% 35.7% 32.1% 0.0%

Cycling 3.8% 11.5% 26.9% 7.7% 23.1% 26.9% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 81.8% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 15.8% 5.3% 52.6% 26.3% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 5.9% 23.5% 58.8% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 13.3% 32.5% 10.8% 21.7% 19.3% 2.4%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Other 16.7% 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%


10.14 Pumicestone Catchment

Demographics


Male 82 46.3

Female 93 52.5

Other 0 0 Prefer not to answer 0 0 Total 175 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 44 25.1




Postgraduate degree 1 .6

Other 0 0

Total 175 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 15 8.6

4-6 years 18 10.3

7-10 years 6 3.4


Total 175 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 88 50.3

Carer 4 2.3






Total 175 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 5 2.9%



Construction 8 4.6%















Total 175 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 28 16.0

$25,001-$50,000 54 30.9

$50,001-$75,000 25 14.3

$75,001-$100,000 18 10.3

$100,001-$150,000 17 9.7

$150,001-$200,000 6 3.4

Over $200,000 2 1.1


Total 175 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent





Total 175 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 43 24.6


Total 175 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 156 89.1

No 19 10.9

Total 175 100.0

Satisfaction with conditions – Pumicestone Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

2.8% 2.3% 10.2% 24.9% 28.8% 18.6% 12.4%

Pollution levels

4.0% 7.9% 13.0% 23.2% 26.6% 16.9% 8.5%

Fish numbers

4.5% 6.8% 19.2% 33.9% 21.5% 9.0% 5.1%

Natural vegetation

1.7% 2.8% 9.0% 22.0% 27.1% 22.0% 15.3%

Overall condition

2.3% 5.1% 6.2% 21.5% 32.2% 21.5% 11.3%


Use and frequency of activities – Pumicestone




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 1.0% 7.0% 4.0% 42.0% 46.0% 0.0%

Walking, running 0.9% 35.4% 29.2% 5.3% 23.9% 5.3% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 5.0% 31.7% 20.0% 21.7% 21.7% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 24.1% 34.5% 10.3% 17.2% 13.8% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 11.8% 35.3% 41.2% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 66.7% 8.3%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 13.8% 41.4% 27.6% 6.9%


0.0% 8.7% 17.4% 13.0% 34.8% 26.1% 0.0%


0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 83.3% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 36.5% 23.0% 6.8% 18.9% 13.5% 1.4%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Other 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.15 Redland Catchment

Demographics


Male 69 33.5

Female 136 66.0

Other 0 0 Prefer not to answer 1 .5 Total 206 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .5

High School 71 34.5





Other 3 1.5

Total 206 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 9 4.4

4-6 years 8 3.9

7-10 years 11 5.3


Total 206 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 57 27.7

Carer 5 2.4






Total 206 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 4 1.9%



Construction 8 3.9%















Total 206 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 21 10.2

$25,001-$50,000 35 17.0

$50,001-$75,000 31 15.0

$75,001-$100,000 35 17.0

$100,001-$150,000 37 18.0

$150,001-$200,000 7 3.4

Over $200,000 7 3.4


Total 206 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 99 48.1




Total 206 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 51 24.8


Total 206 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 187 90.8

No 19 9.2

Total 206 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Redland Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

5.8% 8.7% 16.0% 28.2% 24.3% 11.7% 5.3%

Pollution levels

7.8% 7.8% 21.4% 27.7% 23.3% 8.7% 3.4%

Fish numbers

5.8% 11.7% 19.4% 35.9% 18.9% 4.9% 3.4%

Natural vegetation

3.4% 8.7% 12.6% 25.7% 28.2% 13.1% 8.3%

Overall condition

4.9% 7.3% 12.1% 28.6% 27.7% 13.6% 5.8%


Use and frequency of activities – Redland




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 1.1% 1.1% 7.8% 5.6% 30.0% 53.3% 1.1%

Walking, running 0.0% 25.8% 30.0% 10.8% 20.8% 12.5% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 3.3% 10.0% 16.7% 26.7% 43.3% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 8.0% 32.0% 0.0% 36.0% 24.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 57.1% 14.3%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 3.4% 10.3% 6.9% 31.0% 41.4% 6.9%


0.0% 5.3% 10.5% 0.0% 42.1% 36.8% 5.3%


0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 1.7% 19.0% 22.4% 12.1% 22.4% 22.4% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 8.0% 18.0% 70.0% 2.0%

Other 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0%


10.16 Stanley Catchment

Demographics


Male 13 31.0

Female 28 66.7


Education

Frequency Percent


High School 10 24.4





Other 0 0

Total 41 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 4 9.8

4-6 years 4 9.8

7-10 years 3 7.3


Total 41 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 11 26.8

Carer 3 7.3






Total 41 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0%



Construction 4 9.8%


Retail Trade 3 7.3%













Total 41 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 6 14.6

$25,001-$50,000 12 29.3

$50,001-$75,000 1 2.4

$75,001-$100,000 5 12.2

$100,001-$150,000 8 19.5

$150,001-$200,000 0 0

Over $200,000 0 0


Total 41 100

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 17 41.5




Total 41 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 14 34.1


Total 41 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 40 97.6

No 1 2.4

Total 41 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Stanley Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

4.8% 4.8% 11.9% 31.0% 16.7% 16.7% 14.3%

Pollution levels

2.4% 9.5% 14.3% 26.2% 16.7% 21.4% 9.5%

Fish numbers

4.8% 4.8% 16.7% 40.5% 11.9% 11.9% 9.5%

Natural vegetation

2.4% 9.5% 16.7% 26.2% 16.7% 19.0% 9.5%

Overall condition

4.8% 4.8% 16.7% 23.8% 26.2% 16.7% 7.1%


Use and frequency of activities – Stanley




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 38.5% 46.2% 7.7%

Walking, running 0.0% 26.3% 26.3% 10.5% 26.3% 10.5% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 20.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 35.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Other 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.17 Tallebudgera Catchment

Demographics


Male 39 39.4

Female 60 60.6


Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 0 0

High School 31 31.3





Other 0 0

Total 99 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 6 6.1

4-6 years 9 9.1

7-10 years 7 7.1


Total 99 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 25 25.3

Carer 5 5.1






Total 99 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 4 4.0%



Construction 9 9.1%















Total 99 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 9 9.1

$25,001-$50,000 25 25.3

$50,001-$75,000 12 12.1

$75,001-$100,000 18 18.2

$100,001-$150,000 15 15.2

$150,001-$200,000 3 3.0

Over $200,000 0 0


Total 99 100

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 52 52.5




Total 99 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 41 41.4


Total 99 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 87 87.9

No 12 12.1

Total 99 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Tallebudgera Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 21.0% 35.0% 23.0% 17.0%

Pollution levels

3.0% 3.0% 9.0% 35.0% 21.0% 17.0% 12.0%

Fish numbers

3.0% 7.0% 9.0% 33.0% 27.0% 12.0% 9.0%

Natural vegetation

3.0% 2.0% 5.0% 27.0% 26.0% 23.0% 14.0%

Overall condition

0.0% 4.0% 6.0% 20.0% 29.0% 28.0% 13.0%


Use and frequency of activities – Tallebudgera




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 1.6% 7.8% 9.4% 31.3% 46.9% 3.1%

Walking, running 0.0% 31.4% 34.3% 14.3% 17.1% 2.9% 0.0%

Swimming 0.0% 3.4% 25.4% 13.6% 42.4% 15.3% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 11.5% 23.1% 23.1% 30.8% 11.5% 0.0%


0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%


Camping 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 28.6% 0.0%


Boating, sailing 6.7% 6.7% 13.3% 0.0% 26.7% 40.0% 6.7%


0.0% 11.1% 5.6% 11.1% 44.4% 27.8% 0.0%


0.0% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 7.7% 0.0%


0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 24.4% 26.8% 19.5% 24.4% 4.9% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0%

Other 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


10.18 Upper Brisbane

Demographics


Male 14 43.8

Female 18 56.3


Education

Frequency Percent


High School 13 40.6





Other 0 0

Total 32 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 2 6.3

4-6 years 4 12.5

7-10 years 1 3.1


Total 32 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 14 43.8

Carer 2 6.3






Total 14 43.8


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 3.1%



Construction 1 3.1%















Total 32 100.0%

Household Income

Frequency Percent

Under $25,000 8 25.0

$25,001-$50,000 10 31.3

$50,001-$75,000 4 12.5

$75,001-$100,000 5 15.6

$100,001-$150,000 2 6.3

$150,001-$200,000 0 0

Over $200,000 0 0


Total 32 100.0

Household Makeup

Frequency Percent

No children 22 68.8




Total 32 100.0

Home Ownership

Frequency Percent

Rented 10 31.3


Total 32 100.0


Garden

Frequency Percent

Yes 25 78.1

No 7 21.9

Total 32 100.0

Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Upper Brisbane Catchment




Slightly Satisfied


Water clarity

9.4% 12.5% 6.3% 28.1% 21.9% 15.6% 6.3%

Pollution levels

9.4% 12.5% 9.4% 25.0% 18.8% 25.0% 0.0%

Fish numbers

12.5% 9.4% 15.6% 31.3% 6.3% 21.9% 3.1%

Natural vegetation

9.4% 6.3% 9.4% 28.1% 15.6% 18.8% 12.5%

Overall condition

12.5% 12.5% 9.4% 25.0% 9.4% 31.3% 0.0%


Use and frequency of activities – Upper Brisbane




Every week

Every fortnight

Every month


Every few years

Picnics, BBQs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 11.1% 55.6% 11.1%

Walking, running 0.0% 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Swimming 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0%

Cycling 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0%


Camping 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0%


Boating, sailing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Scuba diving, snorkeling 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Enjoying nature 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0%

Catching a ferry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


11. Recommendations

The 2018 waterway engagement study investigated the role of waterways in the lives of

residents in SEQ, particularly how engagement influenced the overall social benefits of waterways.

For SEQ community members, the study explored the useability, satisfaction, accessibility and

awareness of local waterways. In addition, it explored the influence of condition on their views and

values of waterways. Similar to previous years’ findings (Johnston & Beatson, 2015; 2016; 2017),

respondents confirmed waterways as valuable and important to their lives. Respondents particularly

confirmed the importance of their local waterways, with the high levels of use in a range of

activities. While the results remained consistent across catchments, some indicators in useability,

accessibility and satisfaction declined when compared to 2015 and 2016. More research is needed to

understand this trend.

Based on the findings in this report, a number of recommendations are offered:

Motivating stewardship behaviours: The study suggested that to increase commitment and

motivate people to undertake behaviours to clean up or monitor a waterway, education, and

messaging should focus on positive factors (rather than negative) such as highlighting the collective

level benefits from individuals working together to create healthy waterway environments

The AAR analysis also indicated that awareness of ‘a waterway’ was key to predicting behaviour

intentions to improve local waterways. More effort should be made to highlight the minor

waterways that individuals may not be aware of in their catchment.

Environmental concerns: Respondents were primarily concerned with litter pollution as the

key environmental concern. This highlights the importance of local clean up events – either

organised by community groups or council. The other concerns controllable by local bodies

identified, were water pollution and water quality (4th concern), and deterioration and loss of places

of natural beauty (5th concern), and tree clearing (6th concern). These are key areas which are

influenced by council policy, and can be mitigated and improved by local government’s action. It is

recommended that these key areas be highlighted and addressed by local councils as a way to

respond to community concerns, and subsequently gain support or recognition for these actions.

Waterway protection: While results suggest that respondents were less likely to take

personal actions to protect waterways (cover soil and prevent run off) and tended to be less likely to

donate money, their time, or take actions to collect information about their local waterway, these

results may be due to respondents not understanding the significance of these actions for waterway

health. Education could highlight the relevance and importance of personal and individual action as

a way of contributing to waterway health and protection.


Responsibility: The study suggested that local (government) councils are perceived as being

primarily responsible for protecting the environment, followed by State Government and local

communities. This suggests that councils may wish to highlight their role in the local community and

the specific activities they are undertaking to improve the local waterway environment. This may

also help councils raise their profiles in the local areas. Further, the cluster analysis (8.8) identified a

number of groups with key characteristics that could be used as a foundation for audience

segmentation for campaigns that address responsibility and satisfaction. Further research and

resources may be required to implement these recommendations.


Appendix A – List of Catchments, Suburbs, and Postcodes

Locality Catchment Name Postcode Repeated Column1

Acacia Ridge Lower Brisbane 4110 1

Adare Lockyer 4343 1

Advancetown Nerang 4211 1

Albany Creek Pine 4035 1

Alberton Logan 4207 1

Albion Lower Brisbane 4010 1

Alderley Lower Brisbane 4051 1

Alexandra Headland Maroochy 4572 1

Alexandra Hills Redland 4161 1

Algester Lower Brisbane 4115 1

Allandale Logan 4310 1

Allenview Logan 4285 1

Amberley Bremer 4306 1

Amity Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 1

Anduramba Upper Brisbane 4355 1

Annerley Lower Brisbane 4103 1

Anstead Lower Brisbane 4070 1

Anthony Bremer 4310 1

Arana Hills Lower Brisbane 4054 1

Aratula Bremer 4309 1

Archerfield Lower Brisbane 4108 1

Armstrong Creek Pine 4520 1

Aroona Mooloolah 4551 1

Arundel Pimpama-Coomera 4214 1

Ascot Lower Brisbane 4007 1

Ashgrove Lower Brisbane 4060 1

Ashmore Nerang 4214 2 2

Ashmore Pimpama-Coomera 4214 2 2

Ashwell Bremer 4340 1 2

Aspley Lower Brisbane 4034 1 2

Atkinsons Dam Lockyer 4311 1 2

Auchenflower Lower Brisbane 4066 1 2

Augustine Heights Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Austinville Nerang 4213 1 2

Avoca Vale Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Bahrs Scrub Albert 4207 1 2

Bald Hills Pine 4036 1 2

Bald Knob Mooloolah 4552 2 2

Bald Knob Stanley 4552 2 2

Ballard Lockyer 4352 1 2

Balmoral Lower Brisbane 4171 1 2

Balmoral Ridge Mooloolah 4552 1 2


Banks Creek Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Banksia Beach Pumicestone 4507 2 1

Bannockburn Albert 4207 1 2

Banyo Lower Brisbane 4014 1 2

Bardon Lower Brisbane 4065 1 2

Barellan Point Bremer 4306 2 2

Barellan Point Lower Brisbane 4306 2 2

Barney View Logan 4287 1 2

Basin Pocket Bremer 4305 1 2

Battery Hill Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Beachmere Caboolture 4510 1 2

Beaudesert Logan 4285 1 2

Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Beenleigh Logan 4207 1 2

Beerburrum Pumicestone 4517 1 2

Beerwah Pumicestone 4519 1 2

Belivah Albert 4207 1 2

Bellara Pumicestone 4507 2 1

Bellbird Park Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Bellbowrie Lower Brisbane 4070 1 2

Bellmere Caboolture 4510 1 2

Bells Creek Pumicestone 4551 1 2

Bellthorpe Stanley 4514 1 2

Belmont Lower Brisbane 4153 1 2

Benarkin Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Benarkin North Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Benobble Albert 4275 1 2

Benowa Nerang 4217 1 2

Bergen Upper Brisbane 4353 1 2

Berrinba Logan 4117 1 2

Bethania Logan 4205 1 2

Biarra Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Biddaddaba Albert 4275 1 2

Biggera Waters Pimpama-Coomera 4216 1 2

Bilinga Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225 1 2

Binna Burra Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Birkdale Redland 4159 1 2

Birnam Albert 4285 1 2

Birtinya Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Black Duck Creek Lockyer 4343 1 2

Blackbutt Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Blackbutt North Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Blackbutt South Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Blacksoil Bremer 4306 1 2

Blackstone Bremer 4304 1 2


Blanchview Lockyer 4352 1 2

Blantyre Bremer 4310 1 2

Blenheim Lockyer 4341 1 2

Bli Bli Maroochy 4560 1 2

Blue Mountain Heights Lockyer 4350 1 2

Bokarina Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Bongaree Pumicestone 4507 2 1

Bonogin Nerang 4213 1 2

Boonah Logan 4310 1 2

Boondall Lower Brisbane 4034 1 2

Booroobin Stanley 4552 1 2

Booval Bremer 4304 1 2

Borallon Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Boreen Point Noosa 4565 1 2

Boronia Heights Logan 4124 1 2

Bowen Hills Lower Brisbane 4006 1 2

Boyland Albert 4275 1 2

Bracalba Caboolture 4512 1 2

Bracken Ridge Lower Brisbane 4017 2 2

Bracken Ridge Pine 4017 2 2

Braemore Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Brassall Bremer 4305 1 2

Bray Park Pine 4500 1 2

Brendale Pine 4500 1 2

Bribie Island North Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 1 2

Bridgeman Downs Pine 4035 1 2

Bridges Maroochy 4561 1 2

Brighton Pine 4017 1 2

Brightview Lockyer 4311 1 2

Brisbane Airport Lower Brisbane 4008 1 2

Brisbane City Lower Brisbane 4000 1 2

Broadbeach Nerang 4218 1 2

Broadbeach Waters Nerang 4218 1 2

Bromelton Logan 4285 1 2

Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Brookwater Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Browns Plains Logan 4118 1 2

Bryden Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Buaraba Lockyer 4311 1 2

Buaraba South Lockyer 4311 1 2

Buccan Logan 4207 1 2

Buddina Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Buderim Maroochy 4556 2 2

Buderim Mooloolah 4556 2 2

Bulimba Lower Brisbane 4171 1 2


Bulwer Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 1 2

Bunburra Logan 4310 1 2

Bundall Nerang 4217 1 2

Bundamba Bremer 4304 1 2

Bunjurgen Logan 4310 1 2

Bunya Pine 4055 1 2

Burbank Redland 4156 1 2

Burleigh Heads Nerang 4220 2 2

Burleigh Heads Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4220 2 2

Burleigh Waters Nerang 4220 1 2

Burnett Creek Logan 4310 1 2

Burnside Maroochy 4560 1 2

Burpengary Caboolture 4505 1 2

Burpengary East Caboolture 4505 1 2

Cabarlah Lockyer 4352 1 2

Caboolture Caboolture 4510 1 2

Caboolture South Caboolture 4510 1 2

Caboonbah Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Caffey Lockyer 4343 1 2

Cainbable Albert 4285 1 2

Calamvale Logan 4116 2 2

Calamvale Lower Brisbane 4116 2 2

Caloundra Pumicestone 4551 1 2

Caloundra West Pumicestone 4551 1 2

Calvert Bremer 4340 1 2

Camira Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Camp Hill Lower Brisbane 4152 1 2

Camp Mountain Pine 4520 1 2

Campbells Pocket Caboolture 4521 1 2

Cannon Creek Logan 4310 1 2

Cannon Hill Lower Brisbane 4170 1 2

Canungra Albert 4275 1 2

Capalaba Redland 4157 1 2

Carbrook Logan 4130 1 2

Carina Lower Brisbane 4152 1 2

Carina Heights Lower Brisbane 4152 1 2

Carindale Lower Brisbane 4152 1 2

Carneys Creek Logan 4310 1 2

Carole Park Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Carpendale Lockyer 4344 1 2

Carrara Nerang 4211 1 2

Carseldine Lower Brisbane 4034 1 2

Cashmere Pine 4500 1 2

Castaways Beach Noosa 4567 1 2

Cedar Creek Albert 4207 2 2


Cedar Creek Pine 4520 2 2

Cedar Grove Logan 4285 1 2

Cedar Vale Logan 4285 1 2

Cedarton Stanley 4514 1 2

Chambers Flat Logan 4133 1 2

Chandler Redland 4155 1 2

Chapel Hill Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Charlwood Bremer 4309 1 2

Chelmer Lower Brisbane 4068 1 2

Chermside Lower Brisbane 4032 1 2

Chermside West Lower Brisbane 4032 1 2

Cherry Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Chevallum Maroochy 4555 1 2

Chinghee Creek Logan 4285 1 2

Christmas Creek Logan 4285 1 2

Churchable Lockyer 4311 1 2

Churchill Bremer 4305 1 2

Chuwar Bremer 4306 2 2

Chuwar Mid Brisbane 4306 2 2

Clagiraba Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Clarendon Lockyer 4311 1 2

Clayfield Lower Brisbane 4011 1 2

Clear Island Waters Nerang 4226 1 2

Clear Mountain Pine 4500 1 2

Cleveland Redland 4163 1 2

Clontarf Pine 4019 1 2

Closeburn Pine 4520 1 2

Clumber Bremer 4309 1 2

Coal Creek Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Coalbank Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Coalfalls Bremer 4305 1 2

Coes Creek Maroochy 4560 1 2

Coleyville Bremer 4307 1 2

Colinton Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

College View Lockyer 4343 1 2

Collingwood Park Lower Brisbane 4301 1 2

Commissioners Flat Stanley 4514 1 2

Como Noosa 4571 1 2

Coochiemudlo Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Coochin Logan 4310 1 2

Coochin Creek Pumicestone 4519 1 2

Cooeeimbardi Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Coolana Lockyer 4311 1 2

Coolangatta Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225 1 2

Cooloola Noosa 4580 1 2


Cooloolabin Maroochy 4560 1 2

Coolum Beach Maroochy 4573 1 2

Coombabah Pimpama-Coomera 4216 1 2

Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209 1 2

Coominya Lockyer 4311 1 2

Coopers Plains Lower Brisbane 4108 1 2

Cooroibah Noosa 4565 1 2

Coorparoo Lower Brisbane 4151 1 2

Cootharaba Noosa 4565 1 2

Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4402 1 2

Corinda Lower Brisbane 4075 1 2

Cornubia Logan 4130 1 2

Coulson Logan 4310 1 2

Cowan Cowan Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 1 2

Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Cressbrook Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Crestmead Logan 4132 1 2

Croftby Logan 4310 1 2

Crohamhurst Stanley 4519 1 2

Crossdale Stanley 4312 2 2

Crossdale Upper Brisbane 4312 2 2

Crowley Vale Lockyer 4342 1 2

Crows Nest Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Cryna Logan 4285 1 2

Currimundi Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Currumbin Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 1 2

Currumbin Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 1 2

Currumbin Waters Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 1 2

D'aguilar Stanley 4514 1 2

Daisy Hill Logan 4127 2 2

Daisy Hill Redland 4127 2 2

Dakabin Pine 4503 1 2

Darlington Albert 4285 1 2

Darra Lower Brisbane 4076 1 2

Dayboro Pine 4521 1 2

Deagon Lower Brisbane 4017 1 2

Deception Bay Caboolture 4508 1 2

Deebing Heights Bremer 4306 1 2

Delaneys Creek Stanley 4514 1 2

Derrymore Lockyer 4352 1 2

Diamond Valley Mooloolah 4553 1 2

Dicky Beach Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Diddillibah Maroochy 4559 1 2

Dinmore Bremer 4303 1 2

Djuan Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2


Donnybrook Pumicestone 4510 1 2

Doolandella Lower Brisbane 4077 1 2

Doonan Maroochy 4562 1 2

Draper Pine 4520 1 2

Drewvale Logan 4116 1 2

Dugandan Logan 4310 1 2

Dulong Maroochy 4560 1 2

Dundas Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Dunwich Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 1 2

Durack Lower Brisbane 4077 1 2

Dutton Park Lower Brisbane 4102 1 2

Eagle Farm Lower Brisbane 4009 1 2

Eagleby Albert 4207 1 2

East Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4169 1 2

East Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4353 1 2

East Haldon Lockyer 4343 1 2

East Ipswich Bremer 4305 1 2

East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 1 2

Eastern Heights Bremer 4305 1 2

Eatons Hill Pine 4037 1 2

Ebbw Vale Bremer 4304 1 2

Ebenezer Bremer 4340 1 2

Edens Landing Logan 4207 1 2

Eerwah Vale Maroochy 4562 1 2

Egypt Lockyer 4344 1 2

Eight Mile Plains Lower Brisbane 4113 1 2

Elanora Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221 1 2

Elimbah Pumicestone 4516 1 2

Ellen Grove Lower Brisbane 4078 1 2

Emu Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

England Creek Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Enoggera Lower Brisbane 4051 1 2

Enoggera Reservoir Lower Brisbane 4520 1 2

Esk Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Eskdale Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Eudlo Maroochy 4554 1 2

Eumundi Maroochy 4562 1 2

Everton Hills Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Everton Park Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Fairfield Lower Brisbane 4103 1 2

Fairney View Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Fassifern Bremer 4309 1 2

Fassifern Valley Bremer 4309 1 2

Fernvale Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Ferny Glen Pimpama-Coomera 4275 1 2


Ferny Grove Lower Brisbane 4055 1 2

Ferny Hills Lower Brisbane 4055 1 2

Fifteen Mile Lockyer 4352 1 2

Fig Tree Pocket Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Fitzgibbon Lower Brisbane 4018 1 2

Flagstone Logan 4280 1 2

Flagstone Creek Lockyer 4344 1 2

Flinders Lakes Logan 4285 1 2

Flinders View Bremer 4305 1 2

Flying Fox Pimpama-Coomera 4275 1 2

Fordsdale Lockyer 4343 1 2

Forest Glen Maroochy 4556 1 2

Forest Hill Lockyer 4342 1 2

Forest Lake Lower Brisbane 4078 1 2

Forestdale Lower Brisbane 4118 1 2

Fortitude Valley Lower Brisbane 4006 1 2

Frazerview Bremer 4309 1 2

Frenches Creek Logan 4310 1 2

Fulham Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Gailes Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Gatton Lockyer 4343 1 2

Gaven Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Gaythorne Lower Brisbane 4051 1 2

Geebung Lower Brisbane 4034 1 2

Gilberton Logan 4208 1 2

Gilla Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Gilston Nerang 4211 1 2

Glamorgan Vale Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Glass House Mountains Pumicestone 4518 2 2

Glass House Mountains Stanley 4518 2 2

Glen Cairn Lockyer 4342 1 2

Glen Esk Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Glenaven Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Gleneagle Logan 4285 1 2

Glenfern Stanley 4515 1 2

Glenore Grove Lockyer 4342 1 2

Glenview Mooloolah 4553 1 2

Godwin Beach Caboolture 4511 1 2

Golden Beach Pumicestone 4551 1 2

Goodna Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Googa Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Goolman Bremer 4306 1 2

Gordon Park Lower Brisbane 4031 1 2

Graceville Lower Brisbane 4075 1 2

Grandchester Bremer 4340 1 2


Grange Lower Brisbane 4051 1 2

Grantham Lockyer 4347 1 2

Grapetree Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Greenbank Lower Brisbane 4124 1 2

Greenslopes Lower Brisbane 4120 1 2

Gregors Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Griffin Pine 4503 1 2

Guanaba Pimpama-Coomera 4210 1 2

Gumdale Redland 4154 1 2

Haden Upper Brisbane 4353 1 2

Haigslea Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Hamilton Lower Brisbane 4007 1 2

Hampton Lockyer 4352 1 2

Harlin Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Harrisville Bremer 4307 1 2

Hatton Vale Lockyer 4341 1 2

Hawthorne Lower Brisbane 4171 1 2

Hazeldean Stanley 4515 1 2

Heathwood Lower Brisbane 4110 1 2

Helensvale Pimpama-Coomera 4212 1 2

Helidon Lockyer 4344 1 2

Helidon Spa Lockyer 4344 1 2

Hemmant Lower Brisbane 4174 1 2

Hendra Lower Brisbane 4011 1 2

Heritage Park Logan 4118 1 2

Herston Lower Brisbane 4006 1 2

Highgate Hill Lower Brisbane 4101 1 2

Highland Park Nerang 4211 1 2

Highvale Pine 4520 1 2

Highworth Maroochy 4560 1 2

Hillcrest Logan 4118 1 2

Hillview Logan 4285 1 2

Holland Park Lower Brisbane 4121 1 2

Holland Park West Lower Brisbane 4121 1 2

Hollywell Pimpama-Coomera 4216 2 1

Holmview Logan 4207 1 2

Hope Island Pimpama-Coomera 4212 1 2

Hoya Logan 4310 1 2

Hunchy Maroochy 4555 1 2

Ilkley Mooloolah 4554 1 2

Illinbah Pimpama-Coomera 4275 1 2

Image Flat Maroochy 4560 1 2

Inala Lower Brisbane 4077 1 2

Indooroopilly Lower Brisbane 4068 1 2

Ingoldsby Lockyer 4343 1 2


Innisplain Logan 4285 1 2

Ipswich Bremer 4305 1 2

Iredale Lockyer 4344 1 2

Ironbark Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Ivory Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Jacobs Well Pimpama-Coomera 4208 1 2

Jamboree Heights Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Jeebropilly Bremer 4340 1 2

Jimboomba Logan 4280 1 2

Jindalee Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Jollys Lookout Pine 4520 1 2

Jones Gully Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Josephville Logan 4285 1 2

Joyner Pine 4500 1 2

Junction View Lockyer 4343 1 2

Kagaru Logan 4285 1 2

Kairabah Albert 4207 1 2

Kalbar Bremer 4309 1 2

Kalinga Lower Brisbane 4030 1 2

Kallangur Pine 4503 1 2

Kangaroo Point Lower Brisbane 4169 1 2

Karalee Bremer 4306 2 2

Karalee Lower Brisbane 4306 2 2

Karana Downs Lower Brisbane 4306 1 2

Karawatha Logan 4117 1 2

Karrabin Bremer 4306 1 2

Karragarra Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Kedron Lower Brisbane 4031 1 2

Kelvin Grove Lower Brisbane 4059 1 2

Kenmore Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Kenmore Hills Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Kensington Grove Lockyer 4341 1 2

Kents Lagoon Bremer 4309 1 2

Kents Pocket Logan 4310 1 2

Kentville Lockyer 4341 1 2

Keperra Lower Brisbane 4054 1 2

Kerry Albert 4285 1 2

Kholo Lower Brisbane 4306 2 2

Kholo Mid Brisbane 4306 2 2

Kiamba Maroochy 4560 1 2

Kiels Mountain Maroochy 4559 1 2

Kilcoy Stanley 4515 1 2

Kin Kin Noosa 4571 1 2

King Scrub Pine 4521 1 2

Kings Beach Pumicestone 4551 1 2


Kingsholme Pimpama-Coomera 4208 1 2

Kingston Logan 4114 1 2

Kippa-ring Pine 4021 1 2

Knapp Creek Logan 4285 1 2

Kobble Creek Pine 4520 1 2

Kooralbyn Logan 4285 1 2

Kooralgin Upper Brisbane 4402 1 2

Kooringal Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 1 2

Kulangoor Maroochy 4560 1 2

Kulgun Bremer 4309 1 2

Kuluin Maroochy 4558 1 2

Kunda Park Maroochy 4556 1 2

Kuraby Logan 4112 2 2

Kuraby Lower Brisbane 4112 2 2

Kureelpa Maroochy 4560 1 2

Kurwongbah Pine 4503 1 2

Labrador Pimpama-Coomera 4215 1 2

Laceys Creek Pine 4521 1 2

Laidley Lockyer 4341 1 2

Laidley Creek West Lockyer 4341 1 2

Laidley Heights Lockyer 4341 1 2

Laidley North Lockyer 4341 1 2

Laidley South Lockyer 4341 1 2

Lake Clarendon Lockyer 4343 1 2

Lake Manchester Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Lake Wivenhoe Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Lamb Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Lamington Logan 4285 1 2

Landers Shoot Maroochy 4555 1 2

Landsborough Mooloolah 4550 2 2

Landsborough Pumicestone 4550 2 2

Lanefield Bremer 4340 1 2

Larapinta Lower Brisbane 4110 1 2

Laravale Logan 4285 1 2

Lark Hill Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Lawes Lockyer 4343 1 2

Lawnton Pine 4501 1 2

Lefthand Branch Lockyer 4343 1 2

Leichhardt Bremer 4305 1 2

Lilydale Lockyer 4344 1 2

Limestone Ridges Bremer 4305 1 2

Linville Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Little Mountain Mooloolah 4551 2 2

Little Mountain Pumicestone 4551 2 2

Lockrose Lockyer 4342 1 2


Lockyer Lockyer 4344 1 2

Lockyer Waters Lockyer 4311 1 2

Logan Central Logan 4114 1 2

Logan Reserve Logan 4133 1 2

Logan Village Logan 4207 1 2

Loganholme Logan 4129 1 2

Loganlea Logan 4131 1 2

Lota Redland 4179 2 1

Lower Beechmont Nerang 4211 2 2

Lower Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211 2 2

Lower Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Lower Mount Walker Bremer 4340 1 2

Lower Tenthill Lockyer 4343 1 2

Lowood Lockyer 4311 2 2

Lowood Mid Brisbane 4311 2 2

Luscombe Albert 4207 1 2

Lutwyche Lower Brisbane 4030 1 2

Lynford Lockyer 4342 1 2

Lyons Lower Brisbane 4124 1 2

Lytton Lower Brisbane 4178 1 2

Ma Ma Creek Lockyer 4347 1 2

Macgregor Lower Brisbane 4109 1 2

Mackenzie Lower Brisbane 4156 1 2

Macleay Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Main Beach Nerang 4217 2 1

Mango Hill Pine 4509 1 2

Manly Redland 4179 2 1

Manly West Redland 4179 1 2

Mansfield Lower Brisbane 4122 1 2

Mapleton Maroochy 4560 1 2

Marburg Mid Brisbane 4346 1 2

Marcoola Maroochy 4564 1 2

Marcus Beach Noosa 4573 1 2

Margate Pine 4019 1 2

Maroochy River Maroochy 4561 1 2

Maroochydore Maroochy 4558 1 2

Maroon Logan 4310 1 2

Marsden Logan 4132 1 2

Maudsland Pimpama-Coomera 4210 1 2

McDowall Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Meadowbrook Logan 4131 1 2

Meldale Pumicestone 4510 1 2

Meridan Plains Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Mermaid Beach Nerang 4218 1 2

Mermaid Waters Nerang 4218 1 2


Merrimac Nerang 4226 1 2

Merryvale Bremer 4340 1 2

Miami Nerang 4220 1 2

Middle Park Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Middle Ridge Lockyer 4350 1 2

Milbong Bremer 4310 1 2

Milford Logan 4310 1 2

Milora Bremer 4309 1 2

Milton Lower Brisbane 4064 1 2

Minden Lockyer 4311 1 2

Minyama Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Mitchelton Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Moffat Beach Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Moggill Lower Brisbane 4070 1 2

Molendinar Nerang 4214 2 2

Molendinar Pimpama-Coomera 4214 2 2

Monarch Glen Logan 4285 1 2

Mons Maroochy 4556 1 2

Monsildale Upper Brisbane 4515 1 2

Moodlu Caboolture 4510 1 2

Moogerah Bremer 4309 1 2

Mooloolaba Mooloolah 4557 1 2

Mooloolah Valley Mooloolah 4553 1 2

Moombra Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Moorang Bremer 4340 1 2

Moore Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Moores Pocket Bremer 4305 1 2

Moorina Caboolture 4506 1 2

Moorooka Lower Brisbane 4105 1 2

Morayfield Caboolture 4506 1 2

Moreton Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 1 2

Morningside Lower Brisbane 4170 1 2

Morton Vale Lockyer 4343 1 2

Morwincha Bremer 4309 1 2

Mount Alford Logan 4310 1 2

Mount Archer Stanley 4514 1 2

Mount Barney Logan 4287 1 2

Mount Beppo Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Mount Berryman Lockyer 4341 1 2

Mount Binga Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Mount Byron Stanley 4312 1 2

Mount Coolum Maroochy 4573 1 2

Mount Coot-tha Lower Brisbane 4066 1 2

Mount Cotton Redland 4165 1 2

Mount Crosby Lower Brisbane 4306 1 2


Mount Delaney Stanley 4514 1 2

Mount Edwards Bremer 4309 1 2

Mount Forbes Bremer 4340 1 2

Mount French Logan 4310 1 2

Mount Gipps Logan 4285 1 2

Mount Glorious Pine 4520 1 2

Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122 1 2

Mount Gravatt East Lower Brisbane 4122 1 2

Mount Hallen Lockyer 4312 2 2

Mount Hallen Upper Brisbane 4312 2 2

Mount Kilcoy Stanley 4515 1 2

Mount Lindesay Logan 4287 1 2

Mount Lofty Lockyer 4350 1 2

Mount Luke Lockyer 4352 1 2

Mount Marrow Bremer 4306 1 2

Mount Mee Stanley 4521 1 2

Mount Mellum Pumicestone 4550 1 2

Mount Mort Bremer 4340 1 2

Mount Nathan Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Mount Nebo Pine 4520 1 2

Mount Ommaney Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Mount Pleasant Pine 4521 1 2

Mount Samson Pine 4520 1 2

Mount Stanley Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Mount Sylvia Lockyer 4343 1 2

Mount Tarampa Lockyer 4311 1 2

Mount Walker Bremer 4340 1 2

Mount Walker West Bremer 4340 1 2

Mount Warren Park Albert 4207 1 2

Mount Whitestone Lockyer 4347 1 2

Mountain Camp Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Mountain Creek Mooloolah 4557 1 2

Mudgeeraba Nerang 4213 1 2

Mudjimba Maroochy 4564 1 2

Muirlea Bremer 4306 2 2

Muirlea Mid Brisbane 4306 2 2

Mulgowie Lockyer 4341 1 2

Munbilla Bremer 4309 1 2

Mundoolun Albert 4285 1 2

Munruben Logan 4125 1 2

Murarrie Lower Brisbane 4172 1 2

Murphys Creek Lockyer 4352 1 2

Murrumba Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Murrumba Downs Pine 4503 1 2

Mutdapilly Bremer 4307 1 2


Nambour Maroochy 4560 1 2

Narangba Caboolture 4504 2 2

Narangba Pine 4504 2 2

Nathan Lower Brisbane 4111 1 2

Natural Bridge Nerang 4211 1 2

Nerang Nerang 4211 2 2

Nerang Pimpama-Coomera 4211 2 2

Neranwood Nerang 4213 1 2

Neurum Stanley 4514 1 2

New Beith Logan 4124 2 2

New Beith Lower Brisbane 4124 2 2

New Chum Lower Brisbane 4303 1 2

New Farm Lower Brisbane 4005 1 2

Newmarket Lower Brisbane 4051 1 2

Newport Pine 4020 1 2

Newstead Lower Brisbane 4006 1 2

Newtown Bremer 4305 1 2

Ninderry Maroochy 4561 1 2

Nindooinbah Albert 4285 1 2

Ningi Caboolture 4511 2 2

Ningi Pumicestone 4511 2 2

Noosa Heads Noosa 4567 1 2

Noosa North Shore Noosa 4565 1 2

Noosaville Noosa 4566 1 2

Norman Park Lower Brisbane 4170 1 2

North Arm Maroochy 4561 1 2

North Booval Bremer 4304 1 2

North Ipswich Bremer 4305 1 2

North Lakes Pine 4509 1 2

North Maclean Logan 4280 1 2

North Stradbroke Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 1 2

North Tivoli Bremer 4305 1 2

Northgate Lower Brisbane 4013 1 2

Norwell Pimpama-Coomera 4208 1 2

Nudgee Lower Brisbane 4014 1 2

Nudgee Beach Lower Brisbane 4014 1 2

Nukku Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Numinbah Valley Nerang 4211 1 2

Nundah Lower Brisbane 4012 1 2

Nutgrove Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Oaky Creek Logan 4285 1 2

Obum Obum Bremer 4309 1 2

Ocean View Caboolture 4521 1 2

One Mile Bremer 4305 1 2

O'Reilly Albert 4275 1 2


Ormeau Logan 4208 1 2

Ormeau Hills Pimpama-Coomera 4208 1 2

Ormiston Redland 4160 1 2

Ottaba Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Oxenford Pimpama-Coomera 4210 1 2

Oxley Lower Brisbane 4075 1 2

Pacific Paradise Maroochy 4564 1 2

Pacific Pines Pimpama-Coomera 4211 1 2

Paddington Lower Brisbane 4064 1 2

Palen Creek Logan 4287 1 2

Pallara Lower Brisbane 4110 1 2

Palm Beach Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221 1 2

Palmtree Lockyer 4352 1 2

Palmview Mooloolah 4553 1 2

Palmwoods Maroochy 4555 1 2

Paradise Point Pimpama-Coomera 4216 2 1

Park Ridge Logan 4125 1 2

Park Ridge South Logan 4125 1 2

Parkinson Lower Brisbane 4115 1 2

Parklands Maroochy 4560 1 2

Parkwood Pimpama-Coomera 4214 1 2

Parrearra Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Patrick Estate Lockyer 4311 2 2

Patrick Estate Mid Brisbane 4311 2 2

Peachester Stanley 4519 1 2

Peak Crossing Bremer 4306 1 2

Peel Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Pelican Waters Pumicestone 4551 1 2

Peregian Beach Noosa 4573 1 2

Peregian Springs Maroochy 4573 1 2

Perseverance Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Perwillowen Maroochy 4560 1 2

Petrie Pine 4502 1 2

Petrie Terrace Lower Brisbane 4000 1 2

Pierces Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Pimpama Pimpama-Coomera 4209 1 2

Pine Mountain Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Pinjarra Hills Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Pinkenba Lower Brisbane 4008 1 2

Placid Hills Lockyer 4343 1 2

Plainland Lockyer 4341 1 2

Point Arkwright Maroochy 4573 1 2

Point Lookout Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 1 2

Port Of Brisbane Moreton Bay and Islands 4178 1 2


Postmans Ridge Lockyer 4352 1 2

Prenzlau Lockyer 4311 1 2

Preston Lockyer 4352 1 2

Priestdale Redland 4127 1 2

Prince Henry Heights Lockyer 4350 1 2

Pullenvale Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Purga Bremer 4306 1 2

Raceview Bremer 4305 1 2

Radford Bremer 4307 1 2

Ramsay Lockyer 4358 1 2

Rangeville Lockyer 4350 1 2

Ransome Redland 4154 1 2

Rathdowney Logan 4287 1 2

Ravensbourne Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Red Hill Lower Brisbane 4059 1 2

Redbank Lower Brisbane 4301 1 2

Redbank Creek Upper Brisbane 4312 1 2

Redbank Plains Lower Brisbane 4301 1 2

Redcliffe Pine 4020 1 2

Redland Bay Logan 4165 2 2

Redland Bay Redland 4165 2 2

Redwood Lockyer 4350 1 2

Reedy Creek Nerang 4227 1 2

Regency Downs Lockyer 4341 1 2

Regents Park Logan 4118 1 2

Richlands Lower Brisbane 4077 1 2

Rifle Range Lockyer 4311 1 2

Ringtail Creek Noosa 4565 1 2

Ringwood Lockyer 4343 1 2

Ripley Bremer 4306 1 2

Riverhills Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Riverview Bremer 4303 2 2

Riverview Lower Brisbane 4303 2 2

Roadvale Bremer 4310 1 2

Robertson Lower Brisbane 4109 1 2

Robina Nerang 4226 1 2

Rochedale Lower Brisbane 4123 1 2

Rochedale South Redland 4123 1 2

Rocklea Lower Brisbane 4106 1 2

Rockmount Lockyer 4344 1 2

Rocksberg Caboolture 4510 1 2

Rockside Lockyer 4343 1 2

Ropeley Lockyer 4343 1 2

Rosemount Maroochy 4560 1 2

Rosevale Bremer 4340 1 2


Rosewood Bremer 4340 1 2

Rothwell Pine 4022 1 2

Royston Stanley 4515 1 2

Runaway Bay Pimpama-Coomera 4216 1 2

Runcorn Lower Brisbane 4113 1 2

Running Creek Logan 4287 1 2

Rush Creek Pine 4521 1 2

Russell Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 1 2

Sadliers Crossing Bremer 4305 1 2

Salisbury Lower Brisbane 4107 1 2

Samford Valley Pine 4520 1 2

Samford Village Pine 4520 1 2

Samsonvale Pine 4520 1 2

Sandgate Lower Brisbane 4017 1 2

Sandstone Point Pumicestone 4511 2 1

Sandy Creek Stanley 4515 1 2

Sarabah Albert 4275 1 2

Scarborough Pine 4020 1 2

Scrub Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Seven Hills Lower Brisbane 4170 1 2

Seventeen Mile Lockyer 4344 1 2

Seventeen Mile Rocks Lower Brisbane 4073 1 2

Shailer Park Logan 4128 1 2

Sheep Station Creek Stanley 4515 1 2

Sheldon Redland 4157 1 2

Shelly Beach Mooloolah 4551 1 2

Sherwood Lower Brisbane 4075 1 2

Shorncliffe Lower Brisbane 4017 1 2

Silkstone Bremer 4304 1 2

Silver Ridge Lockyer 4352 1 2

Silverbark Ridge Logan 4124 1 2

Silverdale Bremer 4307 1 2

Sinnamon Park Lower Brisbane 4073 1 2

Sippy Downs Mooloolah 4556 1 2

Slacks Creek Logan 4127 1 2

Somerset Dam Stanley 4312 1 2

South Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4101 1 2

South East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 1 2

South Maclean Logan 4280 1 2

South Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 1 2

South Ripley Bremer 4306 1 2

South Stradbroke Moreton Bay and Islands 4216 1 2

Southern Lamington Logan 4211 1 2

Southern Moreton Bay Islands Moreton Bay and Islands 4212 1 2

Southport Nerang 4215 2 2


Southport Pimpama-Coomera 4215 2 2

Split Yard Creek Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Spring Bluff Lockyer 4352 1 2

Spring Creek Lockyer 4343 1 2

Spring Hill Lower Brisbane 4000 1 2

Spring Mountain Lower Brisbane 4124 1 2

Springbrook Nerang 4213 1 2

Springfield Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Springfield Central Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Springfield Lakes Lower Brisbane 4300 1 2

Springwood Logan 4127 1 2

St Aubyn Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

St Lucia Lower Brisbane 4067 1 2

Stafford Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Stafford Heights Lower Brisbane 4053 1 2

Stanmore Stanley 4514 1 2

Stapylton Albert 4207 2 2

Stapylton Logan 4207 2 2

Steiglitz Logan 4207 2 2

Steiglitz Pimpama-Coomera 4207 2 2

Stockleigh Logan 4280 1 2

Stockyard Lockyer 4344 1 2

Stony Creek Stanley 4514 1 2

Strathpine Pine 4500 1 2

Stretton Logan 4116 2 2

Stretton Lower Brisbane 4116 2 2

Summerholm Lockyer 4341 1 2

Sumner Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Sunnybank Lower Brisbane 4109 1 2

Sunnybank Hills Lower Brisbane 4109 1 2

Sunrise Beach Noosa 4567 1 2

Sunshine Beach Noosa 4567 1 2

Surfers Paradise Nerang 4217 1 2

Swanbank Bremer 4306 1 2

Tabooba Logan 4285 1 2

Tabragalba Albert 4285 1 2

Taigum Lower Brisbane 4018 1 2

Tallai Nerang 4213 1 2

Tallebudgera Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228 1 2

Tallebudgera Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228 1 2

Tallegalla Lockyer 4340 2 2

Tallegalla Mid Brisbane 4340 2 2

Tamborine Albert 4270 1 2

Tamborine Mountain Albert 4272 2 2

Tamborine Mountain Pimpama-Coomera 4272 2 2


Tamrookum Logan 4285 1 2

Tamrookum Creek Logan 4285 1 2

Tanah Merah Logan 4128 1 2

Tanawha Mooloolah 4556 1 2

Tarampa Lockyer 4311 1 2

Taringa Lower Brisbane 4068 1 2

Tarome Bremer 4309 1 2

Taromeo Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Tarragindi Lower Brisbane 4121 1 2

Teelah Upper Brisbane 4306 1 2

Templin Bremer 4310 1 2

Teneriffe Lower Brisbane 4005 1 2

Tennyson Lower Brisbane 4105 1 2

Teviotville Bremer 4309 1 2

Tewantin Noosa 4565 1 2

Thagoona Bremer 4306 1 2

The Bluff Bremer 4340 2 2

The Bluff Upper Brisbane 4355 2 2

The Gap Lower Brisbane 4061 1 2

Thorneside Redland 4158 1 2

Thornlands Redland 4164 1 2

Thornton Lockyer 4341 1 2

Thornville Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Tinbeerwah Noosa 4563 1 2

Tingalpa Lower Brisbane 4173 1 2

Tivoli Bremer 4305 1 2

Toogoolawah Upper Brisbane 4313 1 2

Toorbul Pumicestone 4510 1 2

Toowong Lower Brisbane 4066 1 2

Towen Mountain Maroochy 4560 1 2

Townson Lockyer 4341 1 2

Tugun Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4224 1 2

Twin Waters Maroochy 4564 1 2

Underwood Logan 4119 1 2

Undullah Logan 4285 1 2

Upper Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069 1 2

Upper Caboolture Caboolture 4510 1 2

Upper Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209 1 2

Upper Cooyar Creek Upper Brisbane 4402 1 2

Upper Flagstone Lockyer 4344 1 2

Upper Kedron Lower Brisbane 4055 1 2

Upper Lockyer Lockyer 4352 1 2

Upper Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122 1 2

Upper Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355 1 2

Upper Tenthill Lockyer 4343 1 2


Upper Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614 1 2

Valdora Maroochy 4561 1 2

Varsity Lakes Nerang 4227 1 2

Veradilla Lockyer 4347 1 2

Veresdale Logan 4285 1 2

Veresdale Scrub Logan 4285 1 2

Vernor Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Verrierdale Maroochy 4562 1 2

Victoria Point Redland 4165 1 2

Villeneuve Stanley 4514 1 2

Vinegar Hill Lockyer 4343 1 2

Virginia Lower Brisbane 4014 1 2

Wacol Lower Brisbane 4076 1 2

Wakerley Lower Brisbane 4154 2 2

Wakerley Redland 4154 2 2

Wallaces Creek Logan 4310 1 2

Walloon Bremer 4306 1 2

Wamuran Caboolture 4512 1 2

Wamuran Basin Caboolture 4512 1 2

Wanora Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Warana Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Warner Pine 4500 1 2

Warrill View Bremer 4307 1 2

Washpool Bremer 4306 1 2

Waterford Logan 4133 1 2

Waterford West Logan 4133 1 2

Wavell Heights Lower Brisbane 4012 1 2

Wellington Point Redland 4160 1 2

Welsby Pumicestone 4507 2 1

West End Lower Brisbane 4101 1 2

West Haldon Lockyer 4359 1 2

West Ipswich Bremer 4305 1 2

West Woombye Maroochy 4559 1 2

Westlake Lower Brisbane 4074 1 2

Westvale Stanley 4514 1 2

Weyba Downs Noosa 4562 1 2

White Mountain Lockyer 4352 1 2

White Patch Pumicestone 4507 2 1

White Rock Bremer 4306 2 2

White Rock Lower Brisbane 4306 2 2

Whiteside Pine 4503 1 2

Wights Mountain Pine 4520 1 2

Willawong Lower Brisbane 4110 1 2

Willow Vale Pimpama-Coomera 4209 1 2

Willowbank Bremer 4306 1 2


Wilsons Plains Bremer 4307 1 2

Wilston Lower Brisbane 4051 1 2

Windaroo Albert 4207 1 2

Windsor Lower Brisbane 4030 1 2

Winwill Lockyer 4347 1 2

Winya Stanley 4515 1 2

Wishart Lower Brisbane 4122 1 2

Withcott Lockyer 4352 1 2

Witheren Pimpama-Coomera 4275 1 2

Wivenhoe Hill Upper Brisbane 4311 1 2

Wivenhoe Pocket Mid Brisbane 4306 1 2

Wolffdene Albert 4207 1 2

Wongawallan Pimpama-Coomera 4210 1 2

Wonglepong Albert 4275 1 2

Woodbine Lockyer 4343 1 2

Woodend Bremer 4305 1 2

Woodford Stanley 4514 1 2

Woodhill Logan 4285 1 2

Woodlands Lockyer 4343 1 2

Woodridge Logan 4114 1 2

Woody Point Pine 4019 1 2

Woolloongabba Lower Brisbane 4102 1 2

Woolmar Stanley 4515 1 2

Woolooman Bremer 4310 1 2

Wooloowin Lower Brisbane 4030 1 2

Woolshed Lockyer 4340 1 2

Woombye Maroochy 4559 1 2

Woongoolba Logan 4207 1 2

Woorim Pumicestone 4507 2 1

Wootha Stanley 4552 1 2

Worongary Nerang 4213 1 2

Wulkuraka Bremer 4305 1 2

Wurtulla Mooloolah 4575 1 2

Wutul Upper Brisbane 4352 1 2

Wyaralong Logan 4310 1 2

Wynnum Redland 4178 1 2

Wynnum West Lower Brisbane 4178 1 2

Yamanto Bremer 4305 1 2

Yandina Maroochy 4561 1 2

Yandina Creek Maroochy 4561 1 2

Yaroomba Maroochy 4573 1 2

Yarrabilba Logan 4207 1 2

Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614 1 2

Yatala Albert 4207 2 2

Yatala Logan 4207 2 2


Yeerongpilly Lower Brisbane 4105 1

Yeronga Lower Brisbane 4104 1

Yimbun Upper Brisbane 4313 1

Yugar Pine 4520 1

Zillmere Lower Brisbane 4034 1


Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet and Formatted

Survey

5/30/2018 Healthy Land and Water Survey 2018

https://survey.qut.edu.au/f/191365/5d8f/ 1/3

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000402

RESEARCH TEAM

PrincipalResearcher:

Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

AssociateResearchers:

Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

Dr Paul Maxwell, Principal Scientist, Healthy Landand Water

Dr Emily Saeck, Senior Scientist, Healthy Land andWater

Description

The purpose of this research is to understand the attitudes and behaviours that underpin expectationsand actions towards using and valuing local waterways in communities across Queensland. You areinvited to participate in this project because you are over 18 years old and you live in South EastQueensland.

Participation

Your participation will involve completing an anonymous online survey with Likert scale answers(strongly agree – strongly disagree) and short answers. The survey will take approximately 20 minutesof your time. Questions will include:

Using my local waterways is an integral part of my lifeIn your opinion, what are the THREE most important issues in South East Queensland today?Thinking about the last 12 months, have you done any of the following activities in, on oralongside a waterway?

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not have tocomplete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate or notparticipate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or with Healthy Landand Water. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penaltyby closing your browser before you submit. If you close your browser, any data collected may be used.As the survey is anonymous, once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw.

Win one of ten $100 Coles Myer Gift Vouchers. You have a one in 50 chance of winning a giftvoucher.

All competition information is summarised in the Terms and Conditions. Survey respondents voluntarilyenter the competition by providing an email address at the end of the survey (which is stored separatelyfrom survey response data). By entering the competition, they are agreeing to the stated Terms andConditions, as follows:

Terms and conditions

Healthy Land and Water Survey 2018



To be eligible to enter this competition, conducted by Healthy Land and Water (HLW) and QUT, youmust be 18 years or over and you must complete the Healthy Land and Water Social Science ResearchSurvey 2018.

Only one entry per participant. HLW reserves the right to exclude any persons from the competition.

HLW may, subject to State Regulations, terminate this competition or vary its terms at any time at itsabsolute discretion without liability to any contestant or other person.

The competition will be drawn on Wednesday 6 June at HLW, Level 19, 160 Ann St, Brisbane, Qld,4000. Winners will be notified by phone or email. Ten prize winners will be drawn at random fromall valid entries. Each winner will receive one $100 Coles Myer gift card valued at $100 redeemablefrom any Coles Myer accepting retail outlet see http://www.giftcards.com.au/

If for some reason a winner is unable to be contacted within three months, despite all reasonablemeans by HLW, the prize will be redrawn. The results will not be published.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding either this competition or these Terms andConditions. In the unlikely event of a dispute, HLW’s decision shall be final. HLW reserves the right toamend, modify, cancel or withdraw this competition at any time without notice.

To the extent permitted by law, all contestants release from, and indemnify the HLW against, all liability,cost, loss or expense arising out of acceptance of any prize or participation in the competition including(but not limited to) loss of income, personal injury and damage to property and whether direct orconsequential, foreseeable, due to some negligent act or omission or otherwise.

Personal contact details collected in this form is for the purposes of processing your entry and used.

Expected benefits

It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may help to inform policy andcommunity education programs about using and protecting waterways in Queensland. A summaryreport of this research, in the form of the Healthy Land and Water Report Card, will be available inNovember 2018. If you would like to receive a copy of this report via email in November, you will beoffered the opportunity to leave your email address at the end of the survey.

Risks

There are no foreseen risks associated with your participation in this study. However, if you experienceany level of discomfort as a result of completing the survey, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Privacy and Confidentiality

All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law.The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part ofthis project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note thatnon-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects orstored on an open access database for secondary analysis. Data collected in this survey will be used toinform the social component of the Healthy Land and Water Report Card 2018 and also for comparisonfor future report cards. The project is jointly funded by QUT and Healthy Land and Water. Healthy Landand Water will have access to the data obtained during the project.

Consent to Participate

Commencing the online survey is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in thisproject.

Questions / further information about the project

If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research teammembers below.

Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School

http://www.giftcards.com.au/



Phone 31384089 Email [email protected]

Phone 31381241 Email [email protected]

Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you dohave any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUTResearch Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT ResearchEthics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern inan impartial manner.

.

Completed:

Are you over 18 years of age?

Yes

No

mailto:[email protected]




https://survey.qut.edu.au/servlet/survey.VotingSurvey?i_n_f=survey191365_pg0_totpg40_rid23163839_lqid4496457_SurveyLook&msig=f0b1ac65c298d5511ab0

.

Completed:

In this survey we would like you to think about waterways. First some definitions:

A Waterway: is a passage for water or a body of water, including all types of permanent and short term creeks, rivers, wetlands and bays.

A waterway includes all estuaries, foreshores, coastal and marine waters. Waterways may be a freshwater or saltwater creek or river, a lakeor dam, a bay, lagoon or canal, or a surf beach.

Local waterways: When we talk about local waterways, we mean waterways that are within 15 kilometres of your home.

South East Queensland Waterways: When we talk about SEQ Waterways, we mean any waterway located in the South East Queenslandregion (from Noosa in the North, to Gold Coast in the South, and West to Toowoomba)

Visiting or using waterways: When we talk about visiting or using these waterways, we mean taking part in activities in, or on, the watersuch as boating or swimming. We also mean taking part in activities alongside these waterways such as walking, camping or having a picnic.

A note about question repetition: Some questions appear very similar. This is because we need to measure some concepts a number of times in slightly different ways. We appreciate your cooperation

when completing these questions.




.

Completed:

Can you please tell us your postcode and suburb?

Please select one ...




.

Completed:

The following questions ask your views about your LOCAL WATERWAYS. A local waterway is awaterway (creek, river, beach, lake etc.) that is within 15 km of your home.

Thinking about these statements, indicate how much you agree or disagree:

Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly agree

Overall, I get a lot out of using my localwaterways

I find using my local waterways moreinteresting when my friends or familyare with me

Overall, it is fairly straightforward to getto my local waterways

My local waterways are a place to getaway from it all

Accessing my local waterways is simple

Using my local waterways helps me torelax

Spending time using my localwaterways gives me a break from myday-to-day routine

Overall, I find it easy to access my localwaterways

My local waterways are fascinating




.

Completed:

The following questions ask your views about your LOCAL WATERWAYS. A local waterway is awaterway that is within 15 km of your home.

Thinking about these statements, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of them:


Strongly agree

My local waterways are exciting

Overall, my local waterways are easy toaccess

Overall, my local waterways are closeto my ideal

Social outings at my local waterwaysmake them more interesting

I am happy when I visit or use localwaterways with my friends or family

Using my local waterways helps me toget relief from everyday stress

There is a lot to explore and discover atmy local waterways

Using my local waterways is part of theway I have chosen to live my life




.

Completed:

The following questions ask your views about your LOCAL WATERWAYS. A local waterway is awaterway that is within 15 km of your home.



Strongly agree

Overall, I am satisfied with my localwaterways

My local waterways have fascinatingfeatures

Overall, I would like to use my localwaterways more often

Overall, I find my local waterways areeasy to use

Using my local waterways is afundamental part of who I am

Overall, it doesn’t take much effort touse my local waterways

Using my local waterways is an integralpart of my life

Overall, I am very satisfied with mydecisions to use/visit my localwaterways

It is more interesting to use my localwaterways as part of a group

Overall, I am pleased with myexperiences using or visiting my localwaterways




.

Completed:

The following questions ask your views about nature in general.



Strongly agree

I always think about how my actionsaffect the environment

I take notice of wildlife wherever I am

My relationship to nature is animportant part of who I am

I feel very connected to all living thingsand the earth




.

Completed:

Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS over the past 12 months, how satisfied haveyou been with the following?

Highlydissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6

Highlysatisfied

Water clarity (e.g. clear or muddy)

Pollution levels

Fish numbers

Amount of natural vegetation

Overall condition




.

Completed:

Thinking about the past 12 months, have you done any of the following activities in, on, or alongside awaterway?

If yes, where did you do it?

Yes

No, I do notdo thisactivity

Locally(within 15kmof my home)

Elsewhere inSEQ

Elsewhere inAustralia

Picnics, BBQs

Walking, running

Swimming

Cycling


Jet skiing, water skiing

Camping

Recreational fishing

Boating, sailing



Scuba diving, snorkelling

Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching,conservation, photography

Catching a ferry

Other




.

Completed:

In the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited LOCAL WATERWAYS, within 15 kmof your home, for the following activities

Never

Almosteveryday

Everyweek

Everyfortnight

Everymonth

Once ortwice a

year

Everyfew

years

Walking, running

Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching,conservation, photography




.

Completed:

Different groups have responsibility for protecting the environment. In your view, to what extent are thefollowing responsible for protecting the environment?

Not at allresponsible 2 3 4 5 6

Veryresponsible

Business

Local communities

Individuals

Australian Government (Federal)

Queensland Government (State)

Local Government (Council)

Charities and not-for-profitorganisations



https://survey.qut.edu.au/servlet/survey.VotingSurvey?i_n_f=survey191365_pg10_totpg40_rid23163839_lqid4496470_SurveyLook&msig=f0b1ac65c298d5511ab

.

Completed:

In your opinion, what are the THREE most important issues in South East Queensland today?

Transport

Health

Education

Social issues

Unemployment

Environment

Personal finances/cost of living

Economic issues

Immigration - race/ethnicity

Planning and development

Crime/law and order

Other




.

Completed:

Thinking about the environment, in your opinion, what are the THREE most important environmentalissues in South East Queensland today?

Air pollution/air quality

Climate change

Local extinction of native plants & animals

Decline in fish numbers/sustainable fisheries

Deterioration and loss of places of natural beauty

Soil erosion

Deterioration of agricultural land


Flood impacts

Loss of traditional owner cultural heritage

Litter pollution

Tree clearing






.

Completed:

In general, how concerned are you about environmental problems in South East Queensland?

A great deal

A fair amount

A little

Not at all

Don’t know




.

Thinking about your local waterways (creek, river, beach, lake etc. within 15km of your home), how muchdo you agree or disagree with the following statements


Strongly agree

I do not know very much about my localwaterways

Parts of my local waterways (streams,creeks, drainage ditches) arenoticeable where I live

I don’t pay much attention to my localwaterways

I am not sure of where my localwaterways begin and where they end

I am aware of the environmentalcondition of my local waterways

I am satisfied with the quality of thewater in my local waterways

The water in my local waterways arefree of disease-carrying organisms

My local waterways are clean(unpolluted)

Portions of my local waterways arepolluted

My local waterways contain litter

Erosion is a problem in my localwaterways

I feel personally responsible forprotecting my local waterways

It isn’t my responsibility to protect mylocal waterways

There is very little I can do to combatpollution in my local waterways

My efforts to clean up local waterwayswould not make much of a difference

No one person can do much to preventpollution in my local waterways




.

Completed:

Thinking about your actions how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:


Strongly agree

I intend to monitor the condition of mylocal waterways

I intend to talk about the condition of mylocal waterways with my neighboursand others in my local community

I intend to make changes around myhome to limit my impact on my localwaterway

I intend to clean up portions of my localwaterway (pick up litter, remove weeds,and so on)

I intend to be more involved in my localenvironmental community group

I cover exposed soil on my property,and/or worksites

I report muddy water running offconstruction and building sites to mylocal council

I would be willing to donate my time toimprove my local environment

I would be willing to donate money toimprove my local environment

I would be willing to collect informationrelating to my local waterways or thesurrounding environment (e.g. waterquality, wildlife, vegetation)




The next questions are about you.

What is your marital status?

Single

Married

Defacto

What is your gender?

Male

Female

Other

Prefer not to say

What year were you born?


How many people are there in your household?


Select the option that characterises the children in your household.

No children

Young children (0-13)

Teenage children (14-18)

Older children (18+)

Do you rent or own the home you live in?

Rented

Owned / have a mortgage on the property

Does your home have a garden?

Yes

No

Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

Yes

No




How long have you lived in South East Queensland?

less than a year

1 to 3 years

4 to 6 years

7 to 10 years

More than 10 years

What is the highest level of education you have attained to date?

Primary School

High School

Diploma / Certificate or equivalent

Apprenticeship or trade certificate or equivalent

Bachelor Degree or equivalent

Postgraduate Degree or equivalent

Other qualification

How would you describe your current employment?

Retired

Carer

Full time student

Unemployed / pension not seeking work

Unemployed and seeking work

Part time employee

Full time work

What industry do you work in, or recently worked in?

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

Mining

Manufacturing

Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services

Construction

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Accommodation and Food Services

Transport, Postal and Warehousing

Information Media and Telecommunications

Financial and Insurance Services

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Administrative and Support Services

Public Administration and Safety

Education and Training

Health Care and Social Assistance

Arts and Recreation Services

Other - please provide



.

Completed:

Which of following categories best indicate your annual household income?

Under $25,000

$25,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $75,000

$75,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

$150,001 to $200,000

Over $200,000

Prefer not to say



What do you enjoy doing at your local waterways? Please use the box below to explain this activity

Can you suggest one improvement or change in your local waterways that you would like?

Have you done this survery already in the last month?

Yes

No

Do you have any other comments?

Are you interested in being contracted by a researcher at a later date to participate in a focus group?

Yes

No

Would you like to receive a copy of the summary report once the research is completed?

Yes

No

Would you like to enter the prize draw?

Yes

No



https://survey.qut.edu.au/f/191364/f6b9/?LQID=1&facebook=&report=&prize=Yes 1/1

.

Please submit your details (your contact details will be kept separate from your survey responses toprotect your anonymity)

Email

Phone



References:

Ali, F., Kim, W. G., Li, J., & Jeon, H.-M. (2018). Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 7, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.05.003

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656.

Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure travel experience. Journal of Travel Research, (Summer), 20-26.

Cumes, D. (1998). Inner Passages, Outer Journeys. Llewellyn, St Paul, MN. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer

fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140. Iniesta-Bonillo, M., Sánchez-Fernández, R. A., Jiménez-Castillo, D. (2016). Sustainability, value, and

satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations. Journal of Business Research, 69 (11) 5002-5007 doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071

Johnston, K. A. (2018). Engagement. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication: Wiley Boston.

Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21(4), 349-362.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. Olson, Jerry C. (1981). What is an Esthetic Response? In Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B.

Holbrook, (Eds)., Symbolic Consumer Behavior,. Ann Arbor, NY. pp. 71–74 Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of

consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170. Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple

item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 203–220. Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Restorative servicescapes: Restoring directed attention in third places.

Journal of Service Management, 20 (2), 173-191. Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism

Research, 28 (2), 363-380. Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Values, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in an adventure

tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 413-438. Veryzer, Robert W. Jr (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product

preferences, Advances in Consumer Research. 20, pp. 224–228

c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters notice ... aug 2018_hlw report_final.p… · be...

Documents