CSIRO 2016 Community Wellbeing and Responding to Change surveyWestern Downs and eastern Maranoa
LAND AND WATER
Research Team: Dr. Andrea Walton| Dr. Rod McCrea | Prof Rosemary Leonard
16 December 2016
What we did: Repeat CWB survey from 2014
Feb 2016
SAMPLE: N = 500100 x
• Dalby• Chinchilla• Miles / Wandoan• Tara• Roma
In town = Out of town
ABS representative• age, gender, and employment
2
What we measured: Telephone survey
1. Community Wellbeing– 15 different dimensions
2. Community Resilience– Adapting and responding to
change
3. Attitudes and feelings towards CSG
4. Expected Future Community Wellbeing
• 120 questions
• 30 minutes
3
Community Wellbeing: 2016 to 2014Only five dimensions significantly different
Reduced dimensions
• Employment and job opportunities
• Community cohesion
Improved dimensions
• Roads
• Environmental management for the future
• Quality of environment (dust, noise, air)
Overall community wellbeing: Similar - no real change
4
Community wellbeing dimensions
Presentation title | Presenter name | Page 5
3.8
2.2
3.4
2.8*
2.9*
3.9
3.8
3.1*
3.6
2.3
2.7
3.5
1 2 3 4 5
Overall community wellbeing
Employment and businessopportunities
Community cohesion
Roads
Environmental management
Environmental quality
20142016
statistical difference p < .05
Most important wellbeing dimensions: 2016
5
Future Community wellbeing – Most expect it to stay the same
In 2014 • Slightly negative outlook
Not borne out in 2016
In 2016 • Most people expect it to stay
the same
• Still slightly negative
7
29%
57%
14%
Decline
Stay the same
Improve
2016 Adapting to Change perceptions: Modest scores …varies across the region
What’s important for feeling like adapting well to change
Local planning LeadershipInformation accessWorking togetherCommunity commitmentBeing listened toHaving a sayCommunity trustJobs, business opportunitiesEnvironmental management
8
3.04
3.21
2.83
3.13
3.06
3.33
1 2 3 4 5
Dalby
Chinchilla
Miles
Tara
WD region
Roma
Perceived adapting score
Community perceptions: Adapting to CSG: 2014 and 2016
9
6%8%
34%
46%
6%6% 7%
38%
44%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Resisting it Not coping Only just coping Adapting to thechanges
Changing intosomething
different butbetter
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f par
tici
pan
ts
2014 2016
Note: Differences between 2014 and 2016 were not significantly different
2016 Community perceptions of adapting to CSG: varies across the region
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Dalby Chinchilla Miles Tara Roma
Per
cen
tage
of p
arti
cip
ants
Resisting
Not coping
Only just coping
Adapting to the changes
Changing into something different but better
2016: Coping with drought v coping with CSG
11
3.03.1
2.8
3.13.0
3.3
3.03.1
2.8
2.5
2.9 2.9
1
2
3
4
5
Dalby Chinchilla Miles Tara Western Downs Roma
Per
ceiv
ed c
opin
g sc
ores
CSG activities Drought
CSG Attitudes – still a range of views, slightly more negative in 2016
9%
33%
36%
14%
8%
13%
33%35%
12%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
Per
cen
tage
of p
arti
cip
ants
2014 2016
8
2016: Attitudes toward CSG –still vary across the region
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
Per
cen
tage
of p
arti
cip
ants
Dalby
Chinchilla
Miles
Tara
Roma
9
2016: CSG Attitudes – Out-of-town residents still less positive
10%
34%
36%
12%
9%
16%
33%34%
13%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
Per
cen
tage
of p
arti
cip
ants
In town
Out of town
10
Feelings toward CSG development WD region: 2016
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.7
3.1
2.8
1 2 3 4 5
Positive feelings
Pleased
Optimistic
Excited
Negative feelings
Angry
Worried
Sad
Agreement scores with feeling ….
Farm owners:2016
Community wellbeing dimensions WD Region
Farm ownership
No Yes
Community spirit 3.92 3.91 3.93
Environmental quality 3.88 3.79L 4.06H
Personal safety 3.85 3.73L 4.10H
Health 3.75 3.67L 3.89H
Income sufficiency 3.72 3.66 3.82
Built environment 3.60 3.64 3.54
Community cohesion 3.45 3.43 3.46
Services and facilities 3.42 3.49H 3.30L
Social interaction 3.40 3.44 3.32
Community participation 3.20 3.09L 3.42H
Community trust 2.96 3.00 2.88
Environmental management 2.95 2.92 2.98
Roads 2.76 2.74 2.79
Decision making and citizen voice 2.59 2.57 2.64
Employment and business opportunities 2.22 2.25 2.14
Farmers perceptions: 2014 and 2016
2.6
3.8
3.0
3.9
2.6
3.5
3.0
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
Attitudes and feelings towardCSG
Expected future Wellbeing
Community Resilience
Community wellbeing
Farmers 2014 Farmers 2016
Farmers with active CSG leases and other farmers, 2016
Presentation title | Presenter name18 |
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.3
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.9
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.1
1 2 3 4 5
Q44. Satisfaction with dealings with CSG companies
Feelings towards CSG development
Q18. Coal seam gas companies involve local residents …
Decision making and citizen voice (overall)
Q22 Coal Seam Gas companies ...can be trusted
Environmental quality (dust, noise)
Health
Expected future community wellbeing
Overall community wellbeing
Farmers - Active CSG lease Farmers - Other
Interesting observations ….for Q & A session
• Roma compares favourably to the Western Downs
• Changes in ‘in-town’ attitudes
• Farm attitudes not shifting
• What's driving the community cohesion decrease
• Information access, ‘having a say’ – still unsatisfactory
Sense making
CSIRO Surveys
Other research
Feedback
19 |Presentation title | Presenter name
Thank You
Presentation title | Presenter name20 |
LAND AND WATERDr. Andrea Walton
t 07 3833 5675e [email protected]
LAND AND WATERDr. Rod McCrea
t 07 3833 5677e [email protected]
LAND AND WATER
Farm owners:2016Community wellbeing dimensions WD Region
Farm ownership
No Yes
Community spirit 3.92 3.91 3.93
Environmental quality 3.88 3.79L 4.06H
Personal safety 3.85 3.73L 4.10H
Health 3.75 3.67L 3.89H
Income sufficiency 3.72 3.66 3.82
Built environment 3.60 3.64 3.54
Community cohesion 3.45 3.43 3.46
Services and facilities 3.42 3.49H 3.30L
Social interaction 3.40 3.44 3.32
Community participation 3.20 3.09L 3.42H
Community trust 2.96 3.00 2.88
Environmental management 2.95 2.92 2.98
Roads 2.76 2.74 2.79
Decision making and citizen voice 2.59 2.57 2.64
Employment and business opportunities 2.22 2.25 2.14
Overall Community wellbeing 3.84 3.82 3.90
Overall Community resilience 3.15 3.22H 3.02L
Expected future wellbeing 3.69 3.63 3.81
Place attachment 4.16 4.13 4.24
Community attitudes and feelings towards CSG 2.80 2.89H 2.64L
Presentation title | Presenter name23 |
-2 -1 0 1 2
Only just copingNot coping
Resisting
Adapting
Transforming
High community functioning
Indicators of high community functioning: 2016-
Local planning Leadership Information access Working together Community trust Community commitmentBeing listened to Having a say Jobs, business Environmental management
Community wellbeing dimensions
Presentation title | Presenter name | Page 243.8
2.2
2.6
2.8*
2.9*
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.9*
3.9
3.8
3.1*
2.6
2.3
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.6*
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.5
3.9
1 2 3 4 5
Overall community wellbeing
Employment and business opportunities
Decision making and citizen voice
Roads
Environmental management
Community trust
Community participation
Social interaction
Services and facilities
Community cohesion
Built environment
Income sufficiency
Health
Personal safety
Environmental quality
Community spirit
2014
2016
statistical difference p < .05