Social research Narrabri Survey report CSIRO Land and Water Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Social research

Narrabri 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 shire March-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 Wellbeing
• 2. 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

Social

personal safety, community spirit, community cohesion, community trust, community participation, social interaction

Environment

environmental quality and environmental management

Political

decision making and citizen voice

Physical infrastructure

services and facilities, roads, built environment

Economic

Income sufficiency, employment and business

• pportunities

Health

physical 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 scores

Unfavourable perceptions Favourable perceptions

Presentation title | Presenter name

9 |

OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING 3.96 Local decision making 3.00 Employment and business

• pportunities

3.07 Roads 3.23 Environmental management 3.31 Community participation 3.40 Services and facilities 3.48 Social interaction 3.66 Local trust 3.69 Community cohesion3.73 Town appearance3.75 Health 3.90 Environmental quality3.90 Income sufficiency3.93 Personal safety 4.16 Community spirit 4.26

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 Perceptions of wellbeing dimension Services & facilities Social interaction Local trust Town appearance

Community cohesion Environmental quality Community participation Income sufficiency Roads Economic opportunities Health Environmental management Personal safety Community spirit

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

• r 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

Decline 24% Stay about the same 53% Improve 23%

2.97 3.95 4.33 1 2 3 4 5 Decline Stay about the same Improve Expected future community wellbeing

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 not cope Community would only just cope Community would adapt to the changes Community would change into something different but better

Percentage of participants

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

• pportunities.

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 of shire Narrabri and surrounds

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

Percentage of participants

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 Percentage of participants 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 Percentage of participants 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 Percentage of participants 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 10 20 30 40 50 Reject Lukewarm (Tolerate / I'm ok with it) Support (Approve / Embrace) Percentage of respondents

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 Attitudes towards CSG development

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

• f relationship quality with

industry, and perceptions of distributional fairness

Thank you

Andrea Walton Project Leader e andrea.walton@csiro.au w gisera.org.au Rod McCrea Social Scientist e rod.mccrea@csiro.au w 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 name

39 | Reject 30.5% Tolerate 27.0% Be OK 14.7% Approve 13.0% Embrace 14.8% 1.72 2.85 3.60 4.12 4.61 1 2 3 4 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Feelings scores

% respondents with each attitude towards CSG Feelings toward CSG

Feeding back findings - a significant component

• f 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