Social research Narrabri Survey report CSIRO Land and Water Dr Andrea Walton| Dr Rod McCrea |Social Scientists
Four project phases: Mixed methods design 2. 3. Interviews Survey 1. 4. Planning and Qualitative Quantitative Feeding back preparation findings “Understanding “Community local community wellbeing and Feedback on expectations and local attitudes to survey results perceptions of CSG the CSG sector” development” Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 2
Telephone survey covering four topics 2. 1. Resilience and Adapting Community Wellbeing to change 3. 4. Expected Future Local attitudes towards Community Wellbeing CSG development • 183 questions • 32 minutes Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 3
Sample of 400 residents: Narrabri shire March-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% Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 4
1. Community Wellbeing 2. Expected Future Community Wellbeing Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 5
Measuring CWB: 15 dimensions in six domains Social personal safety, community spirit, community cohesion, community trust, community participation, social interaction Health Environment physical and mental environmental quality health and environmental management COMMUNITY WELLBEING Economic Political Income sufficiency, decision making and employment and business citizen voice opportunities Physical infrastructure services and facilities, roads, built environment Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 6
Scores are on a scale of 1-5 ● Likkert-type responses ● 1 = least to 5 = most ● Scores < 3 represent an unfavourable view ● Average scores Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 7
Overall CWB robust Community spirit 4.26 Personal safety 4.16 Income sufficiency 3.93 Environmental quality 3.90 Health 3.90 Town appearance 3.75 Community cohesion 3.73 Local trust 3.69 Social interaction 3.66 Services and facilities 3.48 Community participation 3.40 Environmental management 3.31 Roads 3.23 Employment and business opportunities 3.07 Local decision making 3.00 OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING 3.96 Expected future wellbeing 3.81 Place attachment 4.42 1 2 3 4 5 Unfavourable perceptions Favourable perceptions Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 8 Perception scores
OVERALL COMMUNITY Community spirit WELLBEING 4.26 Local decision making 3.96 3.00 Personal safety 4.16 Employment and business opportunities 3.07 Roads 3.23 Income sufficiency3.93 Environmental management 3.31 Environmental quality3.90 Community participation 3.40 Health 3.90 Services and facilities 3.48 Town appearance3.75 Social interaction Community cohesion3.73 3.66 Local trust 3.69 9 | Presentation title | Presenter name
Suitability for teenagers the lowest score The community is suitable for young children 4.04 The community is suitable for teenagers 3.29 The community is suitable for seniors 4.07 This community is a great place to live 4.33 Overall, I am happy living in this local area 4.24 Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life 4.18 OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING 3.96 1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores 10 | Presentation title | Presenter name
Suitability for teenagers the lowest score The community is suitable for young children 4.04 The community is suitable for teenagers 3.29 The community is suitable for seniors 4.07 This community is a great place to live 4.33 Overall, I am happy living in this local area 4.24 Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life 4.18 OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING 3.96 1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores 11 | Presentation title | Presenter name
Most important dimensions to community wellbeing Town appearance Services & facilities Social interaction 5 Local trust Perceptions of wellbeing dimension 4 Community spirit Personal safety Health Income sufficiency Environmental quality Community cohesion 3 Environmental management Community participation Roads Economic opportunities 2 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 1 that dimension; results showed the local decision making dimension contributed to resilience rather than community wellbeing 12 |
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 Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 13
Expected future community wellbeing: About the same 5 Improve Decline 23% 24% 4.33 3.95 4 2.97 3 Expected future community wellbeing 2 Stay about the same 1 53% Decline Stay about the Improve same Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 14
Resilience and Adapting to change Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 15
Mixed views on community’s adaptiveness to CSG development – if it were to occur 60% Narrabri Boggabri Wee Waa 54% 41% 40% 35% 34% Percentage of participants 25% 19% 20% 17% 16% 16% 16% 8% 6% 5% 4% 4% 0% Community would resist Community would not Community would only Community would adapt Community would cope just cope to the changes change into something different but better Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 16
Indicators of adapting well – a bundle of community functions High community functioning Key message Good sharing of information and working together on problems and opportunities ● When people feel there Good planning, leadership, and access to are high levels of information community functioning Community involvement and perseverance they would be more The environment is being managed well for likely to perceive their the future community as adapting Good environmental quality and coping well with Good roads CSG development if it Effective local decision making processes were to occur. and strong citizen voice Satisfaction with community participation Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 17
Community resilience actions Adapting to important for adapting to change change Strategic actions Working together Community commitment • Planning, leadership, • Sharing resources, accessing and using information, and • Perseverance, information, learning learnings; good working supporting volunteers, relationships, collective getting involved, efficacy beliefs committed to the future Citizen Voice Local decision making processes, being heard, being involved, trust in leaders Walton, A., McCrea, R., Leonard, R., Williams, R. (2013) McCrea, R., Walton, A., and Leonard, R. (2016) 18
Perceptions of resilience actions: in the context of CSG development The community would get involved 3.48 Persevere to find solutions 3.13 Share resources, information, and learnings 3.06 Able to access relevant information 3.06 Key people to help get things done 3.03 *Work together to maximise benefits from CSG development 2.96 Proactive planning for future changes 2.93 Adequate leadership to deal with the changes 2.86 *Work together to address problems from CSG development 2.84 Overall, the community would effectively manage the changes 3.09 OVERALL COMMUNITY RESILIENCE TO CSG DEVELOPMENT 3.04 1 2 3 4 5 Favourable percepetions Unfavourable perceptions Perception scores Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 19
How does this all fit together Community Adapting to Wellbeing change Future Overall Dimensions of community community Community wellbeing wellbeing wellbeing Overall Social Community resilient community acceptance of actions adaptation CSG Based on McCrea, R., Walton, A., and Leonard, R. (2016) 20
Key message: if CSG development were to occur ● Although current community ● If people are not satisfied wellbeing being is high, with community resilience there also needs to be actions and do not believe effective community that local residents, resilience actions including a government, business, and strong belief that all resource companies can stakeholders can effectively effectively work together, work together to address they will feel less confident potential problems and to about the future of their maximise possible community. opportunities. Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 21
Perceptions and local attitudes to CSG development Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 22
Eight groups of factors influencing attitudes toward CSG development 5. Relationship 4. Procedural fairness quality with industry 3. 6. Trust in Distributional industry fairness 2. Perceived 7. Governance benefits Attitude 1. Perceived towards 8. Knowledge impacts CSG Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 23
Recommend
More recommend
