View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 3
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 4
● 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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 5
Measuring CWB: 15 dimensions in six domains
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 6
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 7
● Likkert-type responses
● 1 = least to 5 = most
● Scores < 3 represent an unfavourable view
● Average scores
Overall CWB robust
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 8
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 |
OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING
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 COMMUNITY WELLBEING
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
Presentation title | Presenter name
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 COMMUNITY WELLBEING
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 13
Expected future community wellbeing: About the same
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 14
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 15
Mixed views on community’s adaptiveness to CSG development – if it were to occur
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 16
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.
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 17
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 19
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.
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 21
● 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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 22
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 23
Perceived impacts: Fracking highest concern
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 24
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 25
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 26
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 27
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 28
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 29
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
Presentation title | Presenter name
In town more favourable views
30 |
26% 26%
17%16% 15%
39%
29%
10%7%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
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 Out-of-town
Presentation title | Presenter name
Narrabri and surrounds more favourable views
31 |
28%26%
14% 15%17%
36%
29%
16%
9%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Reject it Tolerate it Be OK with it Approve of it Embrace it
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f p
art
icip
an
ts
Narrabri and surrounds Rest of shire
Presentation title | Presenter name
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%
Reject it Tolerate it Be OK with it Approve of it Embrace it
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 34
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
Presentation title | Presenter name
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
Presentation name | 13 January 2017 | 37
● 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 andrea.walton@csiro.auw gisera.org.au
Rod McCreaSocial Scientist
e rod.mccrea@csiro.auw 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
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
Recommended