WHEATBELT NRM 2015 COMMUNITY SURVEY

FINAL REPORT

This publication is produced by Wheatbelt NRM through funding from the Australian Government ‘s National Landcare Programme.

Introduction 1

Methods 2

SurveyParticipants 3

Findings 5

Descriptionofthesample 5

Geographicspread 5

Involvementinfarming 5

Demographiccharacteristics 6

Interestsinprotectingtheenvironment 7

Environmentalconcerns 7

Environmentalactions 8

Sustainablefarmingpractices 9

Engagementwithnaturalresourcemanagement 10

Communityknowledgeandconcernsovertime 13

Conclusions 15

Appendix1:Detailedtables 16

CONTENTS

WheatbeltNaturalResourceManagement2015CommunitySurvey:FinalReportAugust2015

Commissioned by:WheatbeltNRMPOBox311,Northam,WA6401P:0896703100E:info@wheatbeltnrm.org.auW:wheatbeltnrm.org.au

Report prepared by:AnnLarson,PhDSocialDimensionsPOBox2429,GeraldtonWAAustralia6531P:0899653015ABN:38849688220www.socialdimensions.com.au

Designed by:WheatbeltNRM

INTRODUCTION

WheatbeltNaturalResourceManagementIncorporated(WheatbeltNRM)isanindependentcommunity-basedorganisationinvolvedwithnaturalresourcemanagement(NRM)endeavourswithintheAvonRiverBasin.TheorganisationoperatesfromitsNorthamoffice,WesternAustralia,andisthesecondlargestofthesixNRMregionalorganisationsinthestate,withresponsibilityforthe12,000,000hectaresoftheAvonRiverbasin.

Since2006,WheatbeltNRMhasconductedfivecommunitysurveys.Theobjectivesofthesurveysareto:

• monitorattitudeandbehaviourchange,

• assessthecommunity’scurrentenvironmentalpriorities,and

• deriveinsightstoassistWheatbeltNRMbuildandmaintainastrongrelationshipwithitscommunity.

The2015surveywasconductedinselectedlocalities,coveringmostoftheWheatbeltNRMregion.Therespondentsprovidedinformationontheirtopenvironmentalconcernsandwhatactivitiestheydidtohelptheenvironment.Theyalsodescribedtheirsourcesofinformationonenvironmentalandnaturalresourceissuesandtheirmembershipinrelevantenvironmentalgroups.Landownerswhoreceivedtheirprimaryincomefromtheirpropertywereaskedabouttheirfarmingandlandmanagementpractices.ThesurveyalsoaskedaboutawarenessofWheatbeltNRMandtheNRMRegionalStrategy.

Thisreportpresentstheresultsofthe2015survey.Theintentionisnotonlytodescribehowtherespondentsanswered,buttointerpretthefindingstoinformWheatbeltNRM’sprograms.

1

METHODS

WheatbeltNRMhasconductedcommunitysurveysin2006,2010,2011,2013and2015.ThesesurveysareavaluablerepositoryofinformationaboutWheatbeltresidents’knowledge,attitudesandbehaviourrelatedtoNRMandengagementwithNRMgroups.

Responsestothe2015surveywerecollectedbystaffof17CommunityResourceCentres(CRCs)locatedthroughouttheWheatbeltNRMregion.WheatbeltNRMofficersgaveinstructions,advice,encouragementandasmallfeeforeachcompletedsurvey.Outofthe17CRCs,15conductedinterviews.ThenumberofinterviewsperCRCrangedfrom8to60.

SeveralapproacheswereemployedtosampleWheatbeltresidents.Theprincipalmethodwasthroughlistsofknownresidents.WheatbeltNRMcompiledamasterlistofresidentsorhouseholdswithcontactdetailsfromdirectoriescompiledbytheCRCs.EachCRCwasgivenalistofrandomlyselectedentriesfromtheirdirectoryandaskedtorecruit20fromthelisttotakethesurvey.Interviewswereusuallyconductedoverthephone.Eightofthe15participatingCRCsusedthismethodforselectingallorthemajorityoftheirrespondents.Outofthe415completedsurveys,259respondentsor62%wereselectedinthismanner.

Anothermethodforidentifyingandinterviewingresidentswere‘interviews’.ThisinvolvedtheCRCsconductingface-to-faceinterviewswithrespondents.Agroupof33residentsself-completedthesurveyonline.

Respondentswereaskedabouttheirage,genderandthesizeoftherespondent’sproperty.Aninsightintorespondents’passionsabouttheenvironmentwaselicitedfromquestionsaboutwhattheypersonallydofortheenvironmentandtheirtopthreeenvironmentalconcerns.Respondentswhoreportedthattheirprimaryincomewasderivedfromtheirpropertywereaskedabouthowtheymanagednativevegetation,cropstubbleandperennialtreesandshrubs.Informationonrespondents’engagementinnaturalresourcemanagementwascapturedbyaskingabouttheirinvolvementwithWheatbeltNRMandotherenvironmentalorfarmingrelatedgroupsandmediasources.Manyofthesequestionshadbeenaskedinthesamewayinprevioussurveys,makingitpossibletotrackcommunityattitudesovertime.

2

LEGENDNUMBER OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

1 - 10

11 - 22

23 - 32

AVON RIVER BASIN

3

4

Involvement in farming

WiththeassistanceoftheCRCs,WheatbeltNRMobtained415validsurveyresponses.

FINDINGS

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

Geographic spreadThegeographiccoverageofthesurveywasdeterminedbythelocationandengagementofparticipatingCRCs.SinceCRCsareprimarilyinsmallregionalcentresandruraltowns,thesurveyrespondentshavebeendrawnfromtheWheatbeltNRM’sruralheartland.Thelocalities,asrecordedbytheCRCinterviewer,werebasedonthelistsprovidedtotheCRCs.Table1showsthenumberofrespondentsfromeachlocality.SeveralCRCscoveredmorethanonelocality.

TABLE 1: WHERE RESPONDENTS LIVEDLocality No. of respondents Locality No. of respondents

BeaconCentral 15 Kulin 1Bencubbin 32 LakeGrace 20Beverley 20 Merredin 21

BruceRock 20 Mukinbudin 8Corrigin 19 Nungarin 12

Cunderdin 21 Pingelly 20Dalwallinu 27 Toodyay 25Dowerin 20 WonganHills 16Kalannie 1 York 20

Kellerberrin 59 Self-completed 33Koorda 5 Total 415

FarmersandotherlandmanagersareimportantstakeholdersforWheatbeltNRMbecausetheycanimplementsustainableagriculturalpracticesandprotectagainstlossofbiodiversityandwaterwaysdegradation.Beingabletodistinguishthoserespondentswhoarefarmersaddsdepthtotheinformationfromthesurvey.Theresultssuggestthatthemajorityof2015AnnualCommunitySurveyrespondentswereinvolvedinfarming,althoughfarmingmaynothavebeentheirprincipalsourceofincomeandtheymaynothavebeenpersonallyinvolvedinlandmanagementdecisions.

5

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

17 - 21 22 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 74 75+

Sample Population of shires

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

17 - 21 22 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 74 75+

Sample Farmers

Earlyinthequestionnaire,respondentswereaskediftheyreceivedtheirprimaryincomefromtheirproperty.Theprecodedanswerswere:‘Yes’,‘No’,and‘Nobutliveonafarm’.Outofthe153respondentswhoansweredyes,allbuteightownedormanagedmorethantwohectaresofland.Morethanhalfoftherespondentswhoreportedtheydidnotearntheirprimaryincomefromtheirproperty(23outof38)hadfromtwotomorethan5000hectaresofland.The221respondents(53percent)whoreportedthattheylivedonafarmbutdidnotgaintheirprimaryincomefromthepropertywerenotaskedhowmuchlandtheyowned.AtableshowingrespondentsbyprimaryincomeandpropertysizeisinAppendix1.

Demographic characteristicsPiecingtogetheranswerstothequestiononsourceofprimaryincomeandanswersonaquestionabouthelpingtheenvironmentthatimpliedtherespondentwasinvolvedinfarming,identifiedatleast222surveyrespondents(53percentofthesample)whoprobablyownedormanagedfarms.Themaximumnumberoffarmersinthesample,includingallofthosewhoreportedtheylivedonafarm,wouldbe392or94percentofthesample.

ComparedtotheusualresidentsoftheWheatbeltNRMregion,surveyrespondentswereolderandmorelikelytobefemale.Thisiscommoninphonesurveyswhichareconductedduringthedayandreliantonlandlines,aswasthecaseintheWheatbeltNRMsurvey.

Sixtypercentofrespondentswereaged50andoverandmorethanhalf(52%)wereagedsixtyandover.ThroughoutAustraliatheaverageageoffarmersandotherruralresidentsisincreasing.However,therespondentsinthissurveyareevenolderthanfarmersandthegeneralpopulation.Theagesofrespondentswerecomparedtothepopulationinshireswhererespondentslived,asenumeratedinthe2011Australiancensus.1AsshowninFigure1,thesurveyunder-representedadultsinthecommunityunder60yearsold,whetherthecommunityisdefinedasthegeneralpopulationoronlyfarmers.ThesameresultsinFigure1canbefoundasatableinAppendix1.

Morewomentookthesurveythanmen.Twooutofeverythreerespondentswerefemale.

Figure 1: Age of respondents compared to ages of the total population shires and the farmers in participating shires, 2011 census, usual residents

1TheshireswereBeverley,BruceRock,Corrigin,Cunderin,Dalwalinu,Dowerin,Kellerberrin,Koorda,Kulin,LakeGrace,Merredin,MtMarshall,Mukinbudin,Nungarin,Pingelly,Toodyay,Wongan-BalliduandYork.1 The shires were Beverley, Bruce Rock, Corrigin, Cunderin, Dalwalinu, Dowerin, Kellerberrin, Koorda, Kulin,

6

FIGURE 2: RESPONDENTS' TOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sustainableagriculture

Biodiversity Water Broaderenvironmental

issues

80%80%

37%

16%

4%

INTERESTS IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental concerns

Respondentswereaskedtonametheirtopthreeenvironmentalconcerns.Interviewerscodedthoseresponsesusingalistofnineprecodedconcerns.Answerswhichdidnotcorrespondwithaprecodedresponsewererecordedas‘other’anddescribedusingtherespondents’ownwords.Therespondentswhoself-completedthesurveyonlinewroteinalloftheirconcernswithouttheprecodedlist.Table2showsthatamongtheprecodedcategories,lackofrainwasthemostcommonenvironmentalconcern,followedbysalinity.

TABLE 2: MENTIONED AS ONE OF THREE TOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, 415 RESPONDENTS% N

Lackofrain 47% 193Salinity 40% 166Climatechange 31% 129Erosion(includingwindandwater) 27% 113Weedsandferals 27% 110Farmsustainability/production 16% 67Biodiversityandvegetationdecline 14% 58Soilfertilitydecline 9% 39Waterwaydegradationandmanagement 8% 33

BygroupingtheresponsesintoWheatbeltNRM’smainprogramareas-Biodiversity,SustainableAgriculture,andWater-theprogramsofmostinteresttocommunitymemberscanbeseen.AsshowninFigure2,almostallrespondents(81percent)namedatleastoneconcernrelatedtosustainablefarming.Themostfrequentlymentionedconcernsinthiscategoryweresalinityandlackofrain.About30percentwereconcernedaboutclimatechange,erosionandthedamagedonebyweedsandferalanimals.

7

FIGURE 3: TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Home- or community-basedpractices

Water conservation

Fuel and Energy

Farming practices

75%

51%

46%

31%

Thirty-sevenpercentofrespondentsmentionedatleastonebiodiversityconcernintheirtopthree.Theserelatedtoriskstonativefloraandfaunaandthepresenceofweedsandferalanimals.Sixteenpercentofrespondentsmentionedconcernsrelatedtowater,suchaswatererosionorwaterwaydegradation.Afinalgroupof‘other’responsesrelatedtobroaderenvironmentalissuessuchasurbansprawl,pollutionandgovernmentpolicies.

Details on how the specific answers were grouped into categories are given in Appendix 1.

Environmental actions

Respondentswereaskedtonamethe‘topthreeactions’theytooktohelptheenvironment.Theinterviewerrecordedtheanswersfromalistofprecodedactions.Whenananswerdidnotcorrespondwithaprecodedresponse,theinterviewerwroteintheresponse.Respondentswhoself-completedthesurveyonlinewroteintheiranswers.Allopenendedresponseswerecodedduringanalysis.

Theactionsweregroupedintofivebroadcategories:protectingorconservingwater;reducingenergyorfueluse;actionsaroundthehomeorcommunity;andactionsrelatedtofarmingpractices(otherthanthoseinpreviousgroups).Almostalloftherespondentslistedatleastoneactionandmostreportedthree.

AsFigure3shows,respondentswereveryinvolvedinhelpingtheenvironment.Three-quartersmentionedactionstheytookathomeorinthecommunitysuchasrecycling,pickinguprubbish,compostingandgrowingtheirownfood.Actionsrelatedtowateruse,includingmonitoringwateruseandusingrainwatertankswerementionedby51percentofrespondents.Almosthalfofrespondents(46percent)reportedthattheytookactionstoreducetheirfuelorenergyconsumption,includinguseofrenewableenergy,reducinguseofautomobiles,andmonitoringenergyuse.Theactionsrelatedtofarmingpracticeswerestatedbythesmallgroupofrespondentswholistedtheiractionswithoutthelist.

8

Any trees or shrubs

SUSTAINABLE FARMING PRACTICES

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Protect

Recycle

Reuse

Reduce

66%

67%

52%

32%

50% 60% 70% 80%

Anotherwayofthinkingaboutrespondents’actionstoprotecttheenvironmentistocategorisethembyreducing,reusing,recyclingandprotecting.TheseareshowninFigure4.

Twothirdsofrespondentsmentionedatleastoneactionthatinvolvedreducingconsumption.Twothirdsalsoreportedthattheyrecycled.Aslandmanagers,itisappropriatethatoneoutofthree(32percent)mentionedactionstoprotecttheenvironmentsuchastreeplanting,protectingbushlandornativefaunaandsustainableagriculturalpractices.

See Appendix 1 for details on how the specific responses were classified into groups.

The153respondentswhostatedthattheymadetheirprimaryincomefromtheirpropertywereaskedadditionalquestionsabouttheirnaturalresourcemanagementpractices.

Allbut10respondentsdescribedusingatleastonestrategytomanagenativevegetationontheirproperty.Themeannumberofstrategieswas3.4outofapossible5.Table3showsthatallofthestrategieswerepracticed.Plantingtrees,controllingweedsandferalanimalsandfencingweredonebymorethanone-halfofrespondents.

Virtuallyallrespondents(93percentor142outof153)saidtheyprefertoretainstubbleratherthanremovingit.

Theplantingofperennialtreesandshrubsiscommonwiththree-quartersofthe153respondentsreportingthattheyplanttrees.Table4liststhespecifictypesofperennialstheygrow.Thetableincludes‘nativetreesandshrubs’suchassaltbushwhichwerenotonthelistofperennialsonthesurveybutwerewritteninbyrespondents.

FIGURE 4: TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS

9

Any trees or shrubs

AlittlemorethanonehalfoftherespondentshadheardofWheatbeltNRMbeforetheytookthesurvey(52percentor208outof403respondentswhoansweredthequestion).ThosewhomadetheirprimaryincomefromtheirpropertyweremostlikelytoknowaboutWheatbeltNRM;65%(99outof153)saidtheyknewaboutitbeforetheytookthesurvey.

Inadifferentquestion,respondentswereaskediftheybelongedtoan‘environmentalornaturalresourcecommunitygroup’.Interviewerswereinstructednottopromptforanswers;onlygroupsvolunteeredbyrespondentswererecorded.

Aboutonequarterofrespondentsnamedagrouptowhichtheybelonged(Table5).The‘othergroup’categoryincludedcommunitygroupssuchasTidyTownsandgardeningclubsthatmaynotbestrictlyconsideredenvironmentalbutwhichsharemanyofthesameobjectives.Onerespondentwrote‘Iaminvolvedinmanycommunitygroupsnonespecificallyenvironmentalbutallgroupsworkforthegreatergood.’Itmaybethatrespondentsdidnotconsiderthegroupstheybelongedtoasqualifyingas‘environmentalornaturalresourcegroups’.

ENGAGEMENT WITH NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 3: STRATEGIES TO MANAGE NATIVE VEGETATION, RESPONDENTS MAKING THEIR PRIMARY INCOME FROM THEIR PROPERTY, MULTIPLE ANSWERS PERMITTED, 153 RESPONDENTS

Strategy N %Treeplanting 117 76%Weedcontrol 114 75%Foxandrabbitcontrol 108 71%Fencing 102 67%Saltbushplanting 74 48%

TABLE 4: TYPES OF PERENNIAL TREES AND SHRUBS GROWN, RESPONDENTS MAKING THEIR PRIMA-RY INCOME FROM THEIR PROPERTY, MULTIPLE ANSWERS PERMITTED, 153 RESPONDENTS

Type of perennials N %Oilmallee 45 29%Timber 33 22%Sandalwood 30 20%Brushwood 22 14%Nativetreesandbushes 10 7%Olives 7 5%Bushfood 3 2%Vineyards 1 1%Nuts 1 1%Anytreesorshrubs 115 75%

10

Almostallrespondents(89percent)mentionedatleastoneinformationsourcetheyusedwhenneededtoknowabouttheenvironmentornaturalresourcemanagement.Theaveragenumberoftypesofsourcesmentionedwas1.4.AsTable6shows,themostcommonsourceofinformationwasotherfarmersorfriends,usedby2outoffiverespondents.Theotherfrequentlymentionedsourcesweregovernmentagenciesandnaturalresourcemanagementofficers(oftenmentionedbyname).Overone-fifthor22percentofrespondentsstatedthattheywouldtalkwithNRMOsorWheatbeltNRM.

TABLE 5: NUMBERS OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING BEING INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED GROUPS, N=415.

Type of group NCatchmentgroup 23Landcaregroup 22Localenvironmentalgroup,includingchaptersofnationalorganisations

22

Growergroup/FarmImprovementGroup 13WheatbeltNRM 13LandConservationDistrictCommittee(LCDC) 8LocalIndigenousgroup 1Othercommunitygroups 34Anyenvironmentalgroup 94

TABLE 6: PERSON OR SOURCE RESPONDENTS WOULD CONSULT IF THEY WANTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT OR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MULTIPLE ANSWERS PERMITTED.

Source of information N %Farmersorfriends 162 39%Governmentofficers(egSynergy,DAFWA,WaterCorp,LG)

81 19%

CommunitylandcarecoordinatorsorNRMOs 65 16%Farmconsultant 43 10%WheatbeltNRM 37 9%Groups(egWorkshops,fielddays,seminars) 36 9%Internet 30 7%Shire 19 5%NotforprofitNRMorganisations(egOilMalleeAssociation,theWWFetc)

18 4%

Researchers 17 4%Ruralmerchandiseandstockfirms 14 3%Reading 5 1%Localindigenouscommunity 4 1%Idon’tseekNRMinformation 33 8%

11

0%

20%

40%

65%

80%

100%

17 - 21 22 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 74 75+

Respondentsaccessedadiverserangeofmediatofindoutinformationabouttheenvironmentandnaturalresourcemanagement.Table7showsthespecificresponses,bytypeofmedia.Morethanhalf(54percent)reportedusingatleastonesourceofmainstreammediaand42percentmentionedatleastonesourceofspecialistfarmingorNRMmedia.

Almostallrespondentshaveaccesstotheinternet;only32reportedthattheydidnot.Twooutoffiverespondents(39percent)reportedtheyusesocialmediasuchasFacebookorTwitterbutonlytenrespondentshadsigneduptoWheatbeltNRM’sFacebookpageand57weresigneduptoWheatbeltNRMnewsletters.Aquarterofrespondents(107people)politelyrespondedthattheywouldliketosignuptothenewsletter.

Socialmediauserswereyoungerthanrespondentswhodidnotusesocialmedia(Figure5).Womenusedsocialmediamorethanmen;40percentoffemalerespondentssaidtheyusedsocialmediacomparedto30percentofmalerespondents.Socialmediausershavesimilarconcernsandengagementinenvironmentalissuesaspeoplewhodonotusesocialmedia.

Figure 5: Percentage of respondents who use social media, by age group

TABLE 7: MEDIA RESPONDENTS USE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

Mainstream media N %LocalNewspaper 151 36%ABCradio 123 30%TheWestAustralian 98 24%TheAustralian 19 5%SpecialistmediaFarmWeekly(formerlyElders) 138 33%Countryman 94 23%Landcarerelatedmagazine 39 9%TV,espABCLandline 25 6%WheatbeltNRMNewsletter 22 5%WheatbeltNRMEnews 14 4%Internet 159 38%Allrespondents 415 100%

12

COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE AND CONCERNS OVER TIME

WheatbeltNRMhascompletedfivecommunitysurveys.Thisisauniqueresourceforstudyingchangesincommunityknowledge,attitudesandpracticesoveralmostadecade.Thebasicquestionnairewasrelativelyconsistentthroughthe2010to2015surveys.However,themethodofsamplingrespondentsandadministeringthesurveywasdifferenteachyear.Thismakesitdifficulttocompareresults.Table8summarisesthecompositionofeachsurvey.

Forthisreport,onlyahandfulofindicatorsarecomparedacrossyears.ThesewereselectedbecausetheymaybethemostusefulformeasuringWheatbeltNRMreach.However,becauseoftheproblemsincomparingsamples,anyapparenttrendsshouldbeinterpretedcautiously.Table9displayscross-surveypercentageofrespondentswho:knewofWheatbeltNRM;hadheardoftheregionalNRMstrategy;mentionedofsalinityandlackofrainfall(thetopenvironmentalconcerns);supporteduseofNoongarnamesonsignage;andwouldgotospecificsourcesforinformationonenvironmentalorNRMissues.

TABLE 8: DESCRIPTION OF WHEATBELT NRM COMMUNITY SURVEYS

Year Sample composition2006 Largepropertyowners2010 FarmerslistedinYellowPages2011 Townresidents2013 Approximatehalffarmersandhalftownresidents2015 Morethanhalffarmers

13

TABLE 9: SELECTED RESULTS FROM FIVE COMMUNITY SURVEYS

Heard of … Cncerned about …Wheatbelt

NRMRegionalStrategy

SupportsuseofNoongarnames

Salinity Lackofrain

2006 -- -- -- -- --2010 91% 35% 55% 73% 32%2011 47% 30% 55% 50% 59%2013 58% 32% 44% 17% 21%2015 52% 29% 56% 40% 47%

Wouldgotoforinformation…Farmers&friends

Landcarecoordinators&NRMOs

WheatbeltNRM

Workshops

2006 56% 17% 22% --2010 21% 32% 10% 6%2011 52% 10% 6% 17%2013 78% 43% 22% 47%2015 39% 16% 9% 9%

Table10showswhilesalinityandlackofrainfallhavebeenthetopenvironmentalconcernssince2010,thepercentageofrespondentsconcernedaboutclimatechangedoubledin2015.

TABLE 10: MENTIONED AS ONE OF THREE TOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, 2010, 2013 AND 2015 SURVEYS

2010 2013 2015Lackofrain 32% 63% 47%Salinity 73% 51% 40%Climatechange 14% 15% 31%Erosion(includingwindandwater) 34% 35% 27%Weedsandferals 9% 26% 27%Farmsustainability/production 11% 41% 16%Biodiversityandvegetationdecline 28% 13% 14%Soilfertilitydecline 13% 12% 9%Waterwaydegradationandmanagement 14% 11% 8%

14

CONCLUSIONS

TheWheatbeltNRM2015CommunitySurveyisarichsourceofinformationonresidents’attitudesandactions.Theresultscanbeusedinnumerouswaystoinformprograms.Thissectionpresentssiximplicationsthatcanbedrawnfromthefindingsbuttheyarenotintendedtobeexhaustive.WheatbeltNRMprogrammanagers,boardmembersandotherstakeholdersareencouragedtousetheresultstoformtheirownconclusions.

First,knowledgeofWheatbeltNRMisrelativelyhigh,butonlyonehalfofrespondentswereawareofit.Somerespondentsmayhavenotrecognisedthename,thinkingoftheorganisationastheAvonCatchmentorevenasaLandcaregroup.

Second,themessagespromotedbyWheatbeltNRMandothernaturalresourcemanagementgroupshavebeenadoptedbytherespondents.Managingnativevegetation,retainingstubbleand,toalesserextent,plantingperennials,areapartofroutinefarminginthispopulation.

Third,theenvironmentalconcernsareverywellalignedwithWheatbeltNRMprogramssuggestingthatthecommunitywouldbeinterestedinengagingwiththeorganisation.

Fourth,althoughthisispartlyanartefactofthesurveyquestions,people’sreportedactionstohelptheenvironmentareabouthomeandcommunitybasedactivitiesratherthantheirpropertymanagement.Thismeansthatpeoplemightliketolearnmoreaboutthingstheycandointheirhomesandcommunities.Italsomeansthatpeoplemaynotrecognisethattheirfarmmanagementpracticesarehelpingtheenvironment.Framinglandownersandmanagersasenvironmentalprotectorsmaybewellreceived.

Fifth,trustedsourcesofinformationarefriends,otherfarmersandmainstreammedia,especiallylocalpapers.ThemorethatWheatbeltNRMcanbepartofthelocalcommunity,involvinglocalpeopleandlocalmedia,themoretheywillbeconsideredopinionleadersandavaluedsourceofinformation.

Lastly,socialmediahasaroleinpromotingWheatbeltNRM’smessagesbutitneedstobetargetedtosocialmediaaudiences.ThissurveysuggeststhatthepotentialaudienceforWheatbeltNRMthroughsocialmediaareyoungerandmorelikelytobefemalethanWheatbeltNRM’straditionalaudience.

15

APPENDIX 1: DETAILED TABLES

APPENDIX TABLE 1:PROPERTY SIZE AND SOURCE OF INCOMESizeofproperty(hectares)

Does your property provide your primary

income?

>2 2-100 101-500

501-1000

1001-5001

>5000 Chose not to

re-spond

Blank Grand Total

Yes 8 2 9 7 70 49 7 1 153No 4 8 4 3 4 1 3 11 38No,butliveonfarm 221 221Chosenottoanswer 3 3GrandTotal 12 10 13 10 74 50 10 236 415

APPENDIX TABLE 2: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE COMPARED TO THE TOTAL AND FARMER POPULATIONS AGED 17 YEARS AND OLDER, OF PARTICIPATING

SHIRES, 2011 CENSUS, USUAL RESIDENTSAge group Sample Total population Farmers

17-21 3% 6% 3%22-34 10% 16% 16%35-49 18% 26% 32%50-59 18% 21% 25%60-74 31% 23% 20%75+ 21% 9% 4%N 334 19,788 2,977

20%4%

2,977

20%4%

2,9774%

2,9772,977

32%

20%4%

16%26%21%26%21%23%23%9%

19,78819,78819,788 2,9772,9772,977

16%32%32%25%20%20%4%

2,977

20%4%

2,977

21%21%23%9%23%9%

19,7889%

19,78819,788

6%16%6%16%6%16%16%26%16%26%26%21%

334334

6%

18%18%

21%334

31%21%334

3%3%10%3%10%18%

31%31%

334

3%10%10%18%

3%10%10%18%18%18%18%31%

Source:PopulationdatageneratedfromABSTableBuilderPro,2011Census,usualresidents.Farmersarepeoplewhoreportedworkingasafarmer,farmmanagerorfarmlabourer.Seetextforlistofshires.

16

APPENDIX TABLE 3: CODING OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION ‘WHAT DO YOU DO TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT’

Water Fuel and Energy

Home or communi-ty based practices

Farming practices

Reduce Reuse Recycle Protect

1.Recycling(household)

1 1

2.Composting 1 13.Monitorpowerusage 1 14.Monitorwaterusage 1 15.Growownfood 1 16.Insulatehome 1 17.Decreasevehicleusage 1 18.Waterwisegardening 1 19.Greywatersystems 1 110.Waterreuse 1 111.Rainwatertanks 1 112.Solarpanels 1 113.Windturbines 1 114.Protectinglocalbush-land

1 1

15.Treeplanting 1 116.Weedcontrol 1 117.Protectingyourlocalwaterways

1 1

20.Controlferalanimals 1 1

21.Decreasewinderosion 1 122.Sustainablefarmingpractices

1 1

23.Purchaserenewableenergy

1 1

24.Pickuprubbish,don’tlitter

1 1

25.Avoidplasticbags 1 126.Useclothnappies 1 127Belongtoconservationgroup/environmentalactiv-istgroup

1 1

28.Beacitizenscientist 1 129.Haveasustainablelife-style

1 1

30.Protectinjurednativeanimals

1 1

17

APPENDIX TABLE 4: CODING OF THE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION ‘WHAT ARE YOUR TOP THREE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS?’

Biodiversity Sustainable agriculture

Water Broader en-vironmental

issues1.Salinity 12.Winderosion 13.Watererosion 14.Erosion 15.Lackofrain 16.Climatechange 17.Biodiversity&vegetationdecline

1

8.Weedsandferals 19.Waterwaydegradation&management

1

10.Soilfertilitydecline 111.Farmsustainability/production

1

14.Threatsfrommining 115.Impactofuseoffossilfuels

1

16.Overuseofherbicides/chemicalsinfarming

1

17.Urbansprawl 118.Badpolicies 119.SmoginPerth 120.Rubbish/litter 1

21.Pollution 122.Lackofknowledge/ignorance

1

23.Waste 124.Overuseofland 127.Industrialproliferation 1

18

Healthy Environments

Sustainable Industry & livelihoods

Productive Relationships

Organisational Excellence

Wheatbelt NRMPOBox311

269FitzgeraldStreetNortham,WA6401

P:0896703100E:info@wheatbeltnrm.org.au

W:wheatbeltnrm.org.au

www.wheatbeltnrm.org.auwww.wheatbeltnrm.org.au