social research survey report presentation · 2018-01-15 · fairness 4. procedural fairness 5....

Social researchNarrabri Survey report

CSIRO Land and Water

Dr Andrea Walton| Dr Rod McCrea |Social Scientists

Four project phases: Mixed methods design

Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 2

1.

Planning and preparation

2.

Interviews

Qualitative

“Understanding local community expectations and

perceptions of the CSG sector”

3.

Survey

Quantitative

“Community wellbeing and

local attitudes to CSG

development”

4.

Feeding back findings

Feedback on survey results

Telephone survey covering four topics


1.

Community Wellbeing

2.

Resilience and Adapting to change

3.

Expected Future Community Wellbeing

4.

Local attitudes towards CSG development

• 183 questions• 32 minutes

Sample of 400 residents: Narrabri shireMarch-April 2017


● Randomly selected

● Quota sampling

– Narrabri and surrounds

– Rest of shire: Boggabri and surrounds, Wee Waa and surrounds

– In town / Out of town

● ABS representative

– Gender, indigenous identification, employed, living in-town

– Was over representative of older residents » weighted sample

● Response Rate: 56%

1. Community Wellbeing2. Expected Future Community Wellbeing


Measuring CWB: 15 dimensions in six domains


COMMUNITY WELLBEING

Socialpersonal safety, community spirit, community cohesion,

community trust, community participation, social interaction

Environmentenvironmental quality

and environmental management

Politicaldecision making and

citizen voice

Physical infrastructure

services and facilities, roads, built environment

EconomicIncome sufficiency,

employment and business opportunities

Healthphysical and mental

health

Scores are on a scale of 1-5


● Likkert-type responses

● 1 = least to 5 = most

● Scores < 3 represent an unfavourable view

● Average scores

Overall CWB robust


4.42

3.81

3.96

3.00

3.07

3.23

3.31

3.40

3.48

3.66

3.69

3.73

3.75

3.90

3.90

3.93

4.16

4.26

1 2 3 4 5

Place attachment

Expected future wellbeing

OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING

Local decision making

Employment and business opportunities

Roads

Environmental management

Community participation

Services and facilities

Social interaction

Local trust

Community cohesion

Town appearance

Health

Environmental quality

Income sufficiency

Personal safety

Community spirit

Perception scoresUnfavourable perceptions Favourable perceptions

Presentation title | Presenter name9 |


3.96 Local decision making3.00

Employment and business opportunities

3.07

Roads3.23

Environmental management3.31

Community participation3.40

Services and facilities 3.48

Social interaction3.66Local trust

3.69

Community cohesion3.73

Town appearance 3.75

Health3.90

Environmental quality 3.90

Income sufficiency3.93

Personal safety4.16

Community spirit4.26

Presentation title | Presenter name

Suitability for teenagers the lowest score

10 |

3.96

4.18

4.24

4.33

4.07

3.29

4.04

1 2 3 4 5


Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life

Overall, I am happy living in this local area

This community is a great place to live

The community is suitable for seniors

The community is suitable for teenagers

The community is suitable for young children

Perception scores


Suitability for teenagers the lowest score

11 |

3.96

4.18

4.24

4.33

4.07

3.29

4.04

1 2 3 4 5


Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life

Overall, I am happy living in this local area

This community is a great place to live

The community is suitable for seniors

The community is suitable for teenagers

The community is suitable for young children

Perception scores

Most important dimensions to community wellbeing

12 |

1

2

3

4

5

Pe

rce

pti

on

s o

f we

llbe

ing

dim

ensi

on Se

rvic

es

& fa

cilit

ies

So

cia

l in

tera

ctio

n

Loca

l tru

st

Tow

n a

pp

eara

nce

Co

mm

un

ity

coh

esi

on

Envi

ron

me

nta

lqu

alit

y

Co

mm

un

ity

par

tici

pat

ion

Inco

me

su

ffic

ien

cy

Ro

ads

Eco

no

mic

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

He

alth

Envi

ron

me

nta

l m

anag

em

en

tPe

rso

nal

saf

ety

Co

mm

un

ity

spir

it

Note: Red font denotes most important, statistically significant predictors of community wellbeing; size of the bubbles indicates relative level of importance of the dimension to community wellbeing; the height of the bubbles indicates level of satisfaction with dimension (y axis); bubbles below the red line would indicate an unfavourable level of satisfaction for that dimension; results showed the local decision making dimension contributed to resilience rather than community wellbeing

Key message

● Overall community wellbeing is robust

● Expected future wellbeing similar

● Underlying drivers of community wellbeing – shows where to focus scarce and valuable resources to help strengthen or augment community wellbeing

Aim to address

● Those dimensions that are low

● Those dimensions that are important


Expected future community wellbeing: About the same


Decline24%

Stay about the same53%

Improve23%

2.97

3.95

4.33

1

2

3

4

5

Decline Stay about thesame

ImproveEx

pe

cte

d fu

ture

co

mm

un

ity

we

llb

ein

g

Resilience and Adapting to change


Mixed views on community’s adaptiveness to CSG development – if it were to occur


17%

4%

19%

54%

6%

16%

5%

41%

34%

4%

16% 16%

25%

35%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Community would resist Community would notcope

Community would onlyjust cope

Community would adaptto the changes

Community wouldchange into something

different but better

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f par

tici

pan

ts

Narrabri Boggabri Wee Waa

Indicators of adapting well – a bundle of community functions

Key message

● When people feel there are high levels of community functioning they would be more likely to perceive their community as adapting and coping well with CSG development if it were to occur.


High community functioning

Good sharing of information and working together on problems and opportunities

Good planning, leadership, and access to information

Community involvement and perseverance

The environment is being managed well for the future

Good environmental quality

Good roads

Effective local decision making processes and strong citizen voice

Satisfaction with community participation

Community resilience actions important for adapting to change

Walton, A., McCrea, R., Leonard, R., Williams, R. (2013)McCrea, R., Walton, A., and Leonard, R. (2016) 18

Strategic actions

•Planning, leadership, accessing and using

information, learning

Working together

•Sharing resources, information, and

learnings; good working relationships, collective

efficacy beliefs

Community commitment

•Perseverance, supporting volunteers,

getting involved, committed to the

future

Citizen Voice

Local decision making processes, being heard, being involved, trust in leaders

Adapting to change

Perceptions of resilience actions: in the context of CSG development


3.04

3.09

2.84

2.86

2.93

2.96

3.03

3.06

3.06

3.13

3.48

1 2 3 4 5

OVERALL COMMUNITY RESILIENCE TO CSG DEVELOPMENT

Overall, the community would effectively manage the changes

*Work together to address problems from CSG development

Adequate leadership to deal with the changes

Proactive planning for future changes

*Work together to maximise benefits from CSG development

Key people to help get things done

Able to access relevant information

Share resources, information, and learnings

Persevere to find solutions

The community would get involved

Perception scores

Unfavourable perceptions Favourable percepetions

20

Future community wellbeing

Overall community wellbeing

Dimensions of Community wellbeing

Overall community adaptation

Community resilient actions

Social acceptance of

CSG

How does this all fit together Adapting to change

Community Wellbeing

Based on McCrea, R., Walton, A., and Leonard, R. (2016)

Key message: if CSG development were to occur

● Although current community wellbeing being is high, there also needs to be effective community resilience actions including a strong belief that all stakeholders can effectively work together to address potential problems and to maximise possible opportunities.


● If people are not satisfied with community resilience actions and do not believe that local residents, government, business, and resource companies can effectively work together, they will feel less confident about the future of their community.

Perceptions and local attitudes to CSG development


Eight groups of factors influencing attitudes toward CSG development

Attitude towards

CSG

1. Perceived impacts

2. Perceived benefits

3. Distributional

fairness

4. Procedural fairness

5. Relationship quality with

industry

6. Trust in industry

7. Governance

8. Knowledge


Perceived impacts: Fracking highest concern


3.75

3.68

3.60

3.71

3.76

4.02

3.41

3.51

2.98

3.13

3.17

3.18

3.28

3.35

3.36

3.48

3.51

3.61

3.63

3.74

3.75

1 2 3 4 5

AVERAGE FUTURE ISSUES

Overall, how concerned about possible future issues

A change in CSG operator, say in 10 years time

CSG well integrity over time

CSG extending into other farming areas in the shire

Fracking being introduced over time

FUTURE ISSUES

AVERAGE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Overall, how concerned for potential negative impacts

Traffic on the roads

Pressure on services and facilities

Dust, noise, and light pollution

Risk of fire

Air contamination

Health impacts

Home rental prices

Farm property values

The natural environment of the Pilliga State Forest

Disposal of salt and brine

Community division over CSG development

Depletion of underground water

Water contamination

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Perception scores

Note: Scores: 1 = not at all concerned and 5 = very concerned

Local benefits are more important than societal benefits


3.16

3.17

3.05

3.21

3.20

3.39

3.17

3.33

3.34

3.35

3.40

3.74

1 2 3 4 5

AVERAGE PERCEIVED SOCIETAL BENEFITS

Overall, CSG Narrabri would bring significant benefits for wider…

As a transition fuel between coal and renewable energy sources

For the wider Australian economy

For energy supply in NSW

SOCIETAL BENEFITS

AVERAGE PERCEIVED LOCAL BENEFITS

Overall, CSG would bring significant benefits to local community

Additional local services and facilities

Local business opportunities

Opportunities for young people to stay in the region

Local employment

Corporate support for local community activities

LOCAL BENEFITS

Perception scores

Scores: 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

Other influencing factors


3.13

2.9

3.14

3.04

2.82

2.76

2.87

2.68

1 2 3 4 5

Trust in State governing…

Informal governance

Formal governance

GOVERNANCE:

TRUST IN CSG COMPANIES

QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS

DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

Perception scores

Note: The higher the perception score the more favourable the perception; a score of 3 represents the midline

In town more favourable views


1 2 3 4 5

8. CONFIDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE*

7. GOVERNANCE*

6. TRUST IN CSG COMPANIES*

5. QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS*

4. DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS

3. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS*

2. PERCEIVED BENEFITS*

1. PERCEIVED IMPACTS

Perception scores

Out-of-town

In-town

Note: The higher the perception score the more favourable the perception except for perceived impacts where the higher the score the greater the level of concern; a score of 3 represents the midline; * indicates a significant difference between In-town and Out-of-town residents

Narrabri and surrounds more favourable views


1 2 3 4 5

8. CONFIDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE*

7. GOVERNANCE*

6. TRUST IN CSG COMPANIES

5. QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS*

4. DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS

3. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

2. PERCEIVED BENEFITS

1. PERCEIVED IMPACTS*

Perception scores

Rest ofshire

Narrabriandsurrounds

Note: The higher the perception score the more favourable the perception except for perceived impacts where the higher the score the greater the level of concern; a score of 3 represents the midline; * indicates a significant difference between Narrabri and surrounds and the rest of the shire

Attitude towards CSG development varies


30.5%

27.0%

14.7%13.0%

14.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Reject it Tolerate it Be OK with it Approve of it Embrace it

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f par

tici

pan

ts


In town more favourable views

30 |

26% 26%

17%16% 15%

39%

29%

10%7%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f par

tici

pan

ts

In-town Out-of-town


Narrabri and surrounds more favourable views

31 |

28%26%

14% 15%17%

36%

29%

16%

9%10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f p

art

icip

an

ts

Narrabri and surrounds Rest of shire


Comparison with QLD

32 |

30%

27%

15%13%

15%13%

33%35%

12%

7%8%

26%

43%

9%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Per

cen

tage

of p

arti

cip

ants

Narrabri shire NSW Western Downs QLD Eastern Maranoa QLD

Model Of Trust and Social Acceptance

33 |

Note: * this path was curvilinear

Attitude towards CSG development


In confidence

30.5

41.7

27.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Reject Lukewarm (Tolerate /I'm ok with it)

Support (Approve /Embrace)

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Three groups of attitudes to depict the model

35

1

2

3

4

5

Perceived impacts(Concerns)

Perceived benefits

Informal governance

Formal governance

Trust in governing bodies

Feelings towards CSG

Knowledge confidence

Governance overall

Distributional fairness

Trust in CSG company

Relationship quality

Procedural fairness

Reject Lukewarm Support

Local attitudes


People with stronger views rated their knowledge as higher

36 |

1 2 3 4 5

Reject it

Tolerate it

Be OK with it

Approve of it

Embrace it

Self-rated knowledge scores

Att

itu

des

tow

ard

s C

SG d

evel

opm

ent

Key points

● Direct drivers of social acceptance are perceived impacts, perceived benefits, distributional fairness, trust in industry, and confidence in knowledge about CSG


● Indirect drivers of social acceptance via trust in the industry included procedural fairness, relationship quality, and governance. Perceived impacts and benefits also impacted trust.

● Governance underpinned trust in industry, perceptions of relationship quality with industry, and perceptions of distributional fairness

Thank youAndrea WaltonProject Leader

e [email protected] gisera.org.au

Rod McCreaSocial Scientist

e [email protected] gisera.org.au

For the full report, visit https://gisera.csiro.au/project/social-baseline-assessment-narrabri-region-nsw-relation-csg-development/

Walton, A., and McCrea, R. (2017). Community wellbeing and local attitudes to coal seam gas development. Social baseline assessment: Narrabri project. CSIRO report. CSIRO Australia

https://gisera.csiro.au/project/social-baseline-assessment-narrabri-region-nsw-relation-csg-development/

Presentation title | Presenter name39 |

Reject30.5%

Tolerate27.0%

Be OK14.7%

Approve 13.0%

Embrace14.8%

1.72

2.85

3.60

4.12

4.61

1

2

3

4

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Fee

lings

sco

res

% respondents with each attitude towards CSG Feelings toward CSG

Feeding back findings - a significant component of our work

– Community forums and presentations

– Popular media

– Fact sheets

– Research communiques

– Videos

– Industry forums

– Events e.g. Ag shows

– Knowledge transfer sessions

– Technical reports

– Academic papers

40

● All research findings are publicly available

Aim

● To make the information accessible to a wide range of audiences

social research survey report presentation · 2018-01-15 · fairness 4. procedural fairness 5....

Documents