2017 Social Report - QUT
SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND CATCHMENTS WATERWAY ENGAGEMENT 2017 RESEARCH REPORT
Prepared by
Dr Kim Johnston and Dr Amanda Beatson QUT Business School Queensland University of Technology Research Assistant - Dr Ryan McAndrew
13 August 2017
Page 1
2017 Social Report - QUT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waterways offer a range of environmental and social benefits for people living in South East Queensland. The impact of these benefits is important to understand. Each year, Healthy Land and Water produces an annual report card on environmental conditions and social impacts of the waterways across 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ). The Report Card provides an annual assessment of the pressures facing our waterways, their current environmental condition (A-F grade), and the level of social and economic benefit the waterways provide to local communities (1-5 star rating). The 2017 QUT social science report contributes the social research data for the Healthy Land and Water annual Report Card. The study provides the social component of evidence, specifically the attitudinal and behavioural components that underpin social expectations and actions towards valuing and using local and SEQ waterways in communities across the 19 catchment areas. The 2017 social science study is guided by a conceptual-based model and two research questions focusing on the social benefits of waterways – specifically to understand the relationship between waterway condition and perceptions of waterway useability, accessibility and satisfaction, within an engagement framework. The questions specifically investigated to what extent do people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, and to what extent do waterway conditions impact the use and enjoyment of these waterways? Data for the study were collected through a self-administered 15 minute online survey. Questions for the survey were developed from modified existing scale items and questions used in previous Healthy Waterway surveys to allow comparison. The sample was adults living in the 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ) The 2017 survey used two recruitment strategies for sampling; panel (n = 3200) and social media (n = 722) , as a way to increase representation in the Stanley, mid Brisbane and Upper Brisbane catchments. It should be noted that analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the panel and social media data and these are therefore reported separately. Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS (23). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations regressions and cluster analysis. The study found respondents confirmed local waterways in particular, play a valuable and important role in their daily lives and that they enjoyed a range of wellness benefits from their use. Swimming and recreational activities alongside waterways, such as walking, cycling and picnics, were the most popular activities, with fishing featuring more prominently in some catchments. Similar to previous years, while local waterways were viewed as very accessible, useable, and that respondents were generally satisfied overall, the response means (average score) on all these indicators were lower than previous years. Respondents’ life satisfaction scores were found to be positively related to satisfaction of waterways and waterway conditions (local and SEQ level). This means that those people who used or visited waterways were generally more satisfied with their lives. In addition, waterway place attachment - or the benefits the respondents feel they receive from their local waterways – were reported as high in coastal aligned catchments, such as Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment, while social value – or the level of value respondents receive from using waterways with their friends and family – were reported as high in the Mid Brisbane catchment area. Conditions of local waterways, such as perceptions of water clarity and cleanliness, were found to influence activities in or alongside a waterway. The study also found that in general, people were limited in their protection activities. For those who did report being active in stewardship, rubbish clean-up and monitoring were the most commonly undertaken. Tallebudgera showed the highest levels of stewardship with their local waterways while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels. Discussion responding to the two research questions is presented in the conclusion section, followed by key recommendations, with opportunities for future research identified.
Page 2
2017 Social Report - QUT
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1.0 Introduction...... 5 2.0 Project Aims ...... 5 3.0 Guiding Research Questions and Model...... 5 4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding ...... 6 5.0 Method...... 6 5.1 Instrument ...... 6 5.2 Sampling and Procedure ...... 6 5.3 Analysis ...... 7 5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles ...... 7
5.4.1 EMPLOYMENT ...... 8 5.4.2 INDUSTRY ...... 8 5.4.3 LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN SEQ ...... 9 5.4.4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ...... 10 5.4.5 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ...... 10 6.0 Catchment Areas ...... 11 7.0 Survey Constructs ...... 13 7.1 Validity and Reliability ...... 14 8.0 Results and Discussion ...... 15 8.1 Local waterway accessibility, use and overall satisfaction ...... 18 8.1.1 LOCAL WATERWAY ACCESSIBILITY ...... 18 8.1.2 LOCAL WATERWAY USEABILITY ...... 19 8.1.3 LOCAL WATERWAY SATISFACTION ...... 20 8.2 Constructs ...... 21 8.2.1 NATURE RELATEDNESS ...... 21 8.2.2 INTEGRATED REGULATION ...... 22 8.2.3 PLACE ATTACHMENT ...... 23 8.2.4 SOCIAL VALUE ...... 24 8.2.5 STEWARDSHIP ...... 25 8.2.6 FASCINATION ...... 26 8.2.7 BEING AWAY ...... 27 8.2.8 COMPATIBILITY ...... 28 8.2.9 LIFE SATISFACTION ...... 29 8.3 Waterway use and activities ...... 30
8.3.1 COMPARISON – LOCAL, SEQ, AND NATIONAL WATERWAY USE AND ACTIVITIES ...... 32 8.4 Protection Activities ...... 34 8.5 Conditions...... 36 8.5.1 SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL AND SEQ WATERWAY CONDITIONS ...... 36 8.5.2 WATERWAY USAGE FOR ACTIVITIES IN OR ON THE WATER, AND ALONGSIDE THE WATERWAYS 38 8.5.3 LIKELIHOOD OF USE GIVEN WATERWAY CONDITION ...... 40 8.6 Correlations ...... 41 8.6.1 SATISFACTION AND NATURE RELATEDNESS...... 41 8.6.2 SATISFACTION AND USE ...... 43 8.6.3 SATISFACTION AND ACCESSIBILITY ...... 45 8.7 Regressions ...... 47
Page 3
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.8 Additional Analysis...... 48 8.8.1 – CLUSTER ANALYSIS ...... 48 8.8.2 – OVERALL LIFE SATISFACTION ...... 52 8.8.3 – INDUSTRY STEWARDS ...... 53 8.8.4 – STEWARDSHIP BEHAVIOUR ...... 54 9. Catchment Reporting ...... 56 9.1 Albert Catchment ...... 57 9.2 Bremer Catchment ...... 63 9.3 Caboolture Catchment ...... 69 9.4 Lockyer Catchment ...... 75 9.5 Logan Catchment ...... 81 9.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment ...... 87 9.7 Maroochy Catchment ...... 93 9.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment ...... 99 9.9 Mooloolah Catchment ...... 105 9.10 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment ...... 111 9.11 Nerang Catchment ...... 117 9.12 Noosa Catchment ...... 123 9.13 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment ...... 129 9.14 Pine Catchment...... 135 9.15 Pumicestone Catchment ...... 141 9.16 Redland Catchment...... 147 9.17 Stanley Catchment ...... 153 9.18 Tallebudgera Catchment ...... 159 9.19 Upper Brisbane ...... 165 10. Discussion and Conclusion ...... 171 10.1 Future Research ...... 172 11. References ...... 173 12. Appendices ...... 174 APPENDIX A – LIST OF CATCHMENTS, SUBURBS, AND POSTCODES ...... 174 APPENDIX B – PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET ...... 197 APPENDIX C – CONSTRUCT MAP AND MODIFICATIONS ...... 198
Page 4
2017 Social Report - QUT
1.0 Introduction
Healthy Land and Water is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works with government, industry and the community to protect and improve the sustainable use of land and waterways in South East Queensland’s waterways. The organisation monitors and reports on the condition of these waterways and provides capacity building for professionals and community groups. It advises on reforms to policy and planning, and provides the education programs to motivate Queensland community members to value and protect Queensland waterways and the natural environment. Underpinning these activities are four strategic objectives: 1) Promote healthy land and water biodiversity 2) Innovate solutions to protect and restore our natural environment 3) Involve, inform and inspire our members 4) Keep a connected, engaged and motivated community
Each year Healthy Land and Water produces an annual assessment of the current environmental condition and level of social and economic benefit South East Queensland’s waterways provide to local communities of waterways. This Social Science Report provides the evidence contributing to the social component of the annual Report Card.
2.0 Project Aims
The project aims to understand how people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, their stewardship behaviours, and to what extent do waterway conditions impact the use, accessibility and satisfaction of South East Queensland waterways. The study investigates the social benefits of waterways across 19 catchment areas in SEQ to provide the empirical evidence and analysis to contribute the social data for the annual Healthy Land and Water Report Card. The 2017 social science study is guided by a conceptual-based model and two research questions focusing on the social benefits of waterways – specifically to understand the relationship between waterway condition and perceptions of waterway useability, accessibility and satisfaction, within an engagement framework.
3.0 Guiding Research Questions and Model
The key research problem addressed in this study is to understand and measure the social benefits of waterways for South East Queenslanders. To investigate this problem, the study was guided by a proposed conceptual model, and two research questions: RQ1: How does waterway condition affect satisfaction and useability of local waterways? RQ2: What factors impact satisfaction, useability and accessibility of local waterways?
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual relationships within the study:
Page 5
2017 Social Report - QUT
Figure 1: Social Benefit Model of Waterways
4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding
This research reported was granted ethics approval by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Human Ethics Committee (QUT approval number: 1500000402) in line with standard ethical guidelines and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government, 2007). This study is part of a three year social study (2016-2018) and is jointly funded by Healthy Land and Waters and QUT. Please see Appendix B for Participant Information Sheet.
5.0 Method
5.1 Instrument A survey instrument, reflecting the key concepts and constructs forming the research questions, was developed from established scale items and modified for use. The construct map is provided in Appendix C. In addition, some historical questions were used to provide comparative data based on previous surveys (2015/2016). Questions featured seven point Likert scale questions (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree range was used), open text boxes, and distance pins on maps. The survey was administered through a 20-minute online survey hosted by QUT Key Survey. The survey is included in Appendix C.
5.2 Sampling and Procedure Two sampling strategies were undertaken: A panel and a promoted community survey. Both strategies targeted a sample of adults (18+) living in 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ).
1. Panel (presented in the report as Panel data): Data were collected via an online survey using panel data as a recruitment strategy (n=3200). The catchment and postcode methodology was refined from the postcode distribution used in the 2016 to improve accuracy through aligning specific suburbs catchments to allow more accurate allocation of respondents. Applying this methodology resulted in n=2947 useable by catchment responses. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting specific catchment results with low numbers. A soft launch was conducted with panel data on 13
Page 6
2017 Social Report - QUT
June 2017 (n50) to check response timing and dropout rates. The full launch was on 14 June 2017. The survey was hosted on a QUT web-based survey (Key Survey) with the link distributed to recruited panel members. The survey was closed out on 17 July 2017. 2. Community Survey (presented in the report as Social Media Data): Data were collected via an online survey recruited through traditional media (media releases), advertising (advertorial) and social media. An incentive was offered as a chance to win one of three iPads. The recruitment campaign resulted in 722 respondents completing the survey – with a useable sample of 655 (after catchments were assigned). More information about the advertising and advertorial campaign is available from Healthy Land and Water. Three winners were randomly drawn on Friday 4 August 2017 by random number generator matched to the participant number. Winners were notified on Monday 7 August 2017 by Healthy Land and Water.
5.3 Analysis Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS (23). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations, regressions and cluster analysis.
5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles
A total of 3200 surveys were completed. For analyses purposes, this number dropped slightly to 2947, as 253 respondents were excluded from the analysis as they either lived in areas outside of the SEQ catchment areas under study or only filled out a small Gender Ratio portion of the survey. Of these 2947 respondents, 56.7 % were female, 43.1% male, and 0.3% of respondents elected not to disclose their gender. Figure 2 illustrates this mix. 60.90% Social Media 39.10% More than 71.3% of respondents have lived in Queensland more than 10 years. Just over 3.9% of respondents have 56.90% lived in Queensland for up to 2 years. SSI Data 43.09% The median age of respondents was 46 years old (M= 45.79 SD 16.49) with the youngest being 19 and the oldest 81 Female Male years old.
Figure 2: Gender ration- full sample Education of respondents represented a normal distribution with 69.2% holding a post-secondary school qualification.
Page 7
2017 Social Report - QUT
5.4.1 Employment Nearly 30% of participants were in full time employment, with 20% part-time. 28% of participants were a carer, student or unemployed. Just over a fifth of the sample (22.5%) identified as retired.
Panel Data Social Media Employment types Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Retired 664 22.5 112 17.1 Carer 102 3.5 24 3.7 Full time student 216 7.3 47 7.2 Unemployed and not seeking work 215 7.3 18 2.7 Unemployed and seeking work 281 9.5 31 4.7 Part time employee 588 20.0 116 17.7 Full time work 881 29.9 307 46.9 Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
5.4.2 Industry Participants were asked what industry they currently work in, or recently worked in. While just over 9% identified as retired, other industries were represented. More than 29% of participants represented the retail, education and health sectors.
Panel Data Social Media Industries Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, 35 1.2 29 4.4 Mining 27 0.9 3 0.5 Manufacturing 84 2.9 19 2.9 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 46 1.6 51 7.8 Construction and development 127 4.3 23 3.5 Wholesale Trade 65 2.2 13 2.0 Retail Trade 318 10.8 44 6.7 Hospitality and Tourism 216 7.3 25 3.8 Transport and Storage 132 4.5 16 2.4 Communication Services 52 1.8 16 2.4 Finance and Insurance 125 4.2 19 2.9 Property and Business Services 72 2.4 13 2.0 Government Administration and Defence 186 6.3 68 10.4 Education 242 8.2 77 11.8 Health and Community Services 295 10.0 67 10.2 Cultural and Recreational Services 23 0.8 11 1.7 Personal and Other Services 109 3.7 11 1.7 I have not worked 213 7.2 12 1.8 I am retired & do not identify with any of these industries 272 9.2 25 3.8 Other - please provide 308 10.5 113 17.3 Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
Page 8
2017 Social Report - QUT
5.4.3 Length of time living in SEQ
Length of time living in SEQ suggests more familiarity with local and state-wide waterways. For each catchment, the majority of residents had lived in their current locations for more than 10 years. The average for residents living in the region for more than ten years was 71.2%, with Pumicestone having the lowest amount at 58.1% and Redland having the highest value as 80.9%.
Less 1-3 4-6 7-10 More Total than a years years years than 10 (%) Catchments year (%) (%) (%) years (%) (%) Albert 0 13.5 16.2 2.7 67.6 100 Bremer 3.2 7.2 6.4 4.8 78.4 100 Caboolture 1.6 7.8 4.7 11.4 74.6 100 Lockyer 1.1 4.6 3.4 13.8 77 100 Logan 3.1 8.4 7.2 8.1 73.1 100 Lower Brisbane 4.7 8.6 7.7 8 71 100 Maroochy 5.1 5.8 3.6 9.5 75.9 100 Mid Brisbane 0 8.3 4.2 12.5 75 100 Mooloolah 5.9 11.1 10.4 8.1 64.4 100 Moreton Bay and Islands 5.1 8.5 5.1 6.8 74.6 100 Nerang 6.8 12.9 8.3 9.1 62.9 100 Noosa 4.4 2.2 17.8 15.6 60 100 Pimpama-Coomera 3.2 14.4 10.4 8.8 63.2 100 Pine 2.9 7.3 5.8 7.7 76.4 100 Pumicestone 6.7 16.2 9.5 9.5 58.1 100 Redland 1.5 3 5.5 9 80.9 100 Stanley 0 13.6 4.5 4.5 77.3 100 Tallebudgera 3.9 9.1 2.6 9.1 75.3 100 Upper Brisbane 5.1 7.7 15.4 5.1 66.7 100 Averages 3.4 9.0 7.8 8.6 71.2 100
Page 9
2017 Social Report - QUT
5.4.4 Household Income Participants were asked to provide an indication of their household income. More than 30% of participants earned between $50,000 and $100,000, while just over 30% earnt less than $50,000. Just over 7% earned more than $150,000. These data reflect ABS statistics for these representative areas. Nearly 16% of participants elected not to disclose their income.
Panel Data Social Media Income Categories Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Under $25,000 322 10.9 53 8.1 $25,001-$50,000 672 22.8 100 15.3 $50,001-$75,000 487 16.5 97 14.8 $75,001-$100,000 418 14.2 98 15.0 $100,001-$150,000 430 14.6 113 17.3 $150,001-$200,000 125 4.2 51 7.8 Over $200,000 53 1.8 37 5.6 Prefer not to say 440 14.9 106 16.2 Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
5.4.5 Educational Attainment
Panel Data Social Media Education Levels Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Primary School (PS) 43 1.5 3 0.5 High School (HS) 918 31.2 87 13.3 Diploma or Cert or equivalent (Dip/Cert) 827 28.1 155 23.7 Apprenticeship or trade cert equivalent (Appren) 248 8.4 34 5.2 Bachelor degree or equivalent (UD) 641 21.8 223 34.0 Postgraduate degree or equivalent (PG) 253 8.6 143 21.8 Other qualification (Other) 17 0.6 10 1.5 Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
Page 10
2017 Social Report - QUT
6.0 Catchment Areas Respondents in Queensland postcodes spanning 19 SEQ waterway catchment areas were targeted with this research. See Appendix A for catchment allocated suburbs and associated postcodes.
Unique Catchments Frequency Catchments & Combinations Frequency Percentage Albert 37 Albert 30 1.00 Bremer 125 Bremer 112 3.80 Caboolture 193 Caboolture 167 5.70 Lockyer 87 Lockyer 79 2.70 Logan 320 Logan 269 9.10 Lower Brisbane 789 Lower Brisbane 721 24.50 Maroochy 137 Maroochy 115 3.90 Mid Brisbane 24 Mid Brisbane 15 3.20 Mooloolah 135 Mooloolah 95 1.20 Moreton Bay and Islands 59 Moreton Bay and Islands 34 6.30 Nerang 264 Nerang 187 1.50 Noosa 45 Noosa 45 5.90 Pimpama-Coomera 250 Pimpama-Coomera 175 9.40 Pine 313 Pine 277 2.20 Pumicestone 105 Pumicestone 66 5.70 Redland 199 Redland 168 0.50 Stanley 22 Stanley 15 2.20 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 77 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 66 1.30 Upper Brisbane 39 Upper Brisbane 38 0.50 Nerang & Pimpama-Coomera 62 2.10 Mooloolah & Stanley 1 0.00 Bremer & Lower Brisbane 11 0.40 Lower Brisbane & Pine 19 0.60 Maroochy & Mooloolah 22 0.70 Nerang & Tallebudgera-Currumbin 11 0.40 Logan & Lower Brisbane 31 1.10 Logan & Redland 17 0.60 Mooloolah & Pumicestone 17 0.60 Lockyer & Upper Brisbane 1 0.00 Caboolture & Pine 17 0.60 Caboolture & Pumicestone 9 0.30 Albert & Pimpama-Coomera 5 0.20 Redland & Lower Brisbane 7 0.20 Albert & Logan 2 0.10 Bremer & Mid Brisbane 2 0.10 Lockyer & Mid Brisbane 7 0.20 Logan & Pimpama-Coomera 1 0.00 Moreton Bay & Island & Nerang 4 0.10 Moreton Bay & Island & Pimpama- 7 0.20 Coomera Moreton Bay & Island & 7 0.20 Pumicestone Moreton Bay & Island & Redland 7 0.20 Moreton Bay & Island & 6 0.20 Pumicestone & Stanley Total 2947 100.00
Page 11
2017 Social Report - QUT
Unique Catchments Frequency Catchments & Combinations Frequency Percentage Albert 9 Albert 3 0.5 Bremer 30 Bremer 27 4.1 Caboolture 37 Caboolture 32 4.9 Lockyer 5 Lockyer 4 0.6 Logan 34 Logan 28 4.3 Lower Brisbane 230 Lower Brisbane 218 33.3 Maroochy 31 Maroochy 25 3.8 Mid Brisbane 3 Mid Brisbane 1 0.2 Mooloolah 33 Mooloolah 26 4.0 Moreton Bay and Islands 39 Moreton Bay and Islands 29 4.4 Nerang 26 Nerang 18 2.7 Noosa 22 Noosa 22 3.4 Pimpama-Coomera 41 Pimpama-Coomera 28 4.3 Pine 76 Pine 64 9.8 Pumicestone 19 Pumicestone 9 1.4 Redland 40 Redland 35 5.3 Stanley 18 Stanley 14 2.1 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 10 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 9 1.4 Upper Brisbane 8 Upper Brisbane 7 1.1 Nerang & Pimpama-Coomera 6 0.9 Bremer & Lower Brisbane 2 0.3 Lower Brisbane & Pine 6 0.9 Maroochy & Mooloolah 6 0.9 Nerang & Tallebudgera-Currumbin 1 0.2 Logan & Lower Brisbane 3 0.5 Logan & Redland 3 0.5 Mooloolah & Pumicestone 1 0.2 Caboolture & Pine 3 0.5 Caboolture & Pumicestone 2 0.3 Albert & Pimpama-Coomera 3 0.5 Redland & Lower Brisbane 1 0.2 Albert & Pine 3 0.5 Bremer & Mid Brisbane 1 0.2 Lockyer & Mid Brisbane 1 0.2 Moreton Bay & Island & Nerang 1 0.2 Moreton Bay & Island & Pimpama- 4 0.6 Coomera Moreton Bay & Island & 4 0.6 Pumicestone Moreton Bay & Island & Redland 1 0.2 Stanley & Upper Brisbane 1 0.2 Pumicestone & Stanley 3 0.5 Total 655 100.0
Page 12
2017 Social Report - QUT
7.0 Survey Constructs
The items in the survey were based on existing measures, but also included specific questions and issues used historically by Healthy Waterways. A number of constructs or topic areas were identified for the survey that had previously rated survey items (i.e. they have been tested in previous research and found to have reliability and validity). Wherever possible we have used these items, adapted if necessary to the specific context, to ensure reliability. The construct map is included in Appendix C. Means and Standard Deviations for each construct are summarised in Table 1.
The aim of each construct investigated is outlined below in section 8.0 with the results of each construct including the average score across SEQ respondents and also the highest and the lowest scoring catchment per construct. The tables including all the data for the individual catchments can be found in Section 9.0.
Independent samples t-tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between the Panel data and Social media data, with the percentage difference between mean scores being reported. The final column indicates that the data is significantly different across the two samples.
Table 1: Survey constructs - total sample
1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree
Construct Panel Data Social Media Mean Difference Mean SD Mean SD 1. Nature Relatedness 4.88 1.39 5.79 1.24 15.76%*** 2. Integrated Regulation 3.92 1.64 4.87 1.67 19.43%*** 3. Place Attachment 4.57 1.49 N/A N/A N/A 4. Overall Satisfaction 4.54 1.42 4.93 1.34 7.84%*** 5. Overall Accessibility 4.99 1.57 5.49 1.49 9.08%*** 6. Overall Useability 4.53 1.41 5.23 1.30 13.36%*** 7. Social Value 4.33 1.47 4.83 1.38 10.35%*** 8. Stewardship 5.11 1.46 5.99 1.24 14.66%*** 9. Fascination 4.45 1.51 5.18 1.42 14.15%*** 10. Being away 4.58 1.66 5.48 1.42 16.36%*** 11. Compatibility 4.18 1.57 5.04 1.44 17.05%*** 12. Overall Life satisfaction 4.69 1.25 5.06 1.16 7.31%***
Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
Page 13
2017 Social Report - QUT
7.1 Validity and Reliability To assess the validity and reliability of the constructs exploratory factory analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and item-to-total correlation (ITC) tests were conducted.
Test SPSS steps Thresholds Cronbach’s Analyse Scale Reliability Analysis α ≥ 0.70 (or 0.60 in Alpha, item- Add items exploratory research) to-total Statistics Check Item, Scale, Scale if correlation item delete Cont. ITC > 0.30 OK EFA Analyse Dimensions Reduction KMO > 0.5 Factor Add items Bartlett’s test < .05 Descriptives Check KMO/Bartlett Extractions Principal components Factor loadings > .5 Rotations Check Direct Oblimin Options Check Sorted by size, Supress small coefficients, chance value to 0.3 OK
The KMO and Bartlett’s test were used to assess the suitability for factor analysis, with the KMO cut-off value being 0.5 and the Bartlett’s test needing to be significant. Items with an item-to-total correlation below 0.30 (Field, 2009) were removed; items with a factor loading less than 0.50 were removed (Field, 2009). This research cautiously used the guidelines set out by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), with 0.7 being the generally accepted lower limit for α, while it may decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research. A full list of steps and item results is available from the authors on request.
Constructs Items α KMO Bartlett’s Lowest Lowest Thresholds test ITC Loading Met? Nature Relatedness 4 .89 .812 .000 .712 .834 Integrated Regulation 3 .91 .696 .000 .715 .859 Overall Satisfaction 4 .91 .839 .000 .755 .861 Accessibility 4 .96 .866 .000 .858 .919 Usability 4 .86 .775 .000 .621 .774 Social Value 4 .90 .809 .000 .706 .827 Stewardship 3 .88 .745 .000 .765 .896 Fascination 4 .94 .868 .000 .911 .841 Being Away 4 .95 .859 .000 .831 .903 Compatibility 4 .92 .811 .000 .779 .873 Place Attachment 12 .98 .968 .000 .787 .818 Life Satisfaction 5 .91 .863 .000 .753 .641
Page 14
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.0 Results and Discussion Results are presented by total sample in general section and by panel data only for individual catchment level (Section 9.0). To begin, the results are presented and discussed regarding access, usability and overall satisfaction toward the respondent’s local waterway. Following this the results from the table are discussed relating to each construct. The questions first relate to using their local waterway and then move on to their connections with their waterways such as loyalty and feelings of value derived through their waterways.
Nature Nature relatedness - This scale was used in 2015 HWSSS. It measures how an Relatedness individual’s connection to the natural world (environment). In this construct we see a good connection with nature (M 4.88, SD 1.39). When respondents rate favourably on this construct, they are also more likely to demonstrate greater happiness and environmental concern. Those respondents from Stanley catchment demonstrate the highest level of nature relatedness (M 5.44, SD 1.35). Those from Upper Brisbane demonstrate the lowest (M 4.60, SD 1.66).
Integrated Integrated regulation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with Regulation one’s personal values and needs. Respondents did not score this construct too highly demonstrating that while the connection with their self-concept was there, it was not too strong (M 3.92) and it had a reasonably wide standard deviation (SD 1.64) which shows a large spread in the answers to this question. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of integrated regulation (M 5.25, SD 1.4) and Logan showed the lowest levels (M 3.43, SD 1.59).
Place This construct captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local Attachment Waterways. Overall, place attachment has a positive score (M 4.57, SD 1.49). Moreton Bay and Island catchment showed the highest levels of place attachment (M 5.45, SD 1.41) and Logan showed the lowest levels (M 4.08, SD 1.54).
Local Local Waterway Satisfaction measures how satisfied overall the respondents are with Waterway their experiences when using or visiting their local waterways. It looks at whether Satisfaction respondents find these to be good experiences and whether they truly enjoyed these experiences. On average SEQ respondents responded generally favourably to this (M 4.54, SD 1.42). Those in the Moreton bay and Islands Catchment scored the highest levels of satisfaction with a mean of (M 5.55, SD 1.19) with those in Lockyer being the least satisfied (M 4.02, SD 1.56).
Page 15
2017 Social Report - QUT
Local Overall accessibility explores whether the respondents feel they can access their local Waterway waterway easily. The average score across SEQ residents for this was 4.99 (SD 1.57) Accessibility indicating that on the whole respondents feel that accessing their local waterways is straight forward. Those respondents in Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment felt that they had the best accessibility to their local waterway (M 5.89 SD 1.24) whereas those in Logan felt they had the lowest (M 4.45, SD 1.63).
Local Overall Usability measured whether they respondents thought that their local Waterway waterways were usable and did not take much effort to use. The average score across Useability on this construct suggesting that respondents overall think that their local waterways are relatively easy to use was 4.53 (SD 1.41). Those in Tallebudgera catchment thought their local waterways were the most usable (M 5.48, SD 1.3) whereas those respondents in Logan thought theirs were the least usable (M 4.01, SD 1.45).
Social Value Social value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterway with their friends and others known to them. Respondents indicated general agreement with this. They are happy, and they find using waterways more interesting when they are using them with friends or as part of a group. The overall mean was 4.33 (SD 1.47). Those respondents in the Mid Brisbane catchment scored the highest level of social value (M 5.20, SD 1.11) and those in Albert catchment scored the lowest (M 3.93, SD 1.81).
Stewardship Stewardship represents awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. Stewardship had the highest mean score for a construct (M 5.11, SD 1.47), suggesting that respondents feel a sense of responsibility to protect waterways. Those respondents in the Tallebudgera catchment scored the highest level of social value (M 5.71, SD 1.32) and those in Upper Brisbane catchment scored the lowest (M 4.79, SD 1.65).
Page 16
2017 Social Report - QUT
Third Place Third Place (TP) represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens (Rosenbaum, 2009). The measurement of third place includes three dimensions; 1) Being Away, 2) Fascination and 3) Compatibility.
Fascination TP 2) Fascination is conceptualised as a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly absorbing. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk. This construct taps into the person’s awareness of interesting things to do at this location and that they want to spend more time on activities at this location. The average for all respondents was 4.45 (SD 1.51), with those in Moreton Bay and Island Catchment scoring the highest (M 5.48, SD 1.28) and those in Lockyer the lowest (M 3.85, SD 1.62).
Being away TP 1) Being Away involves a “conceptual rather than a physical transformation” (Kaplan, 1995, p. 173) whereby a being in a location helps the person to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape. Overall respondents thought of their local waterways as places to be away at. The mean was 4.58 (SD 1.66). Those respondents in the Moreton Bay and Island catchment recorded the highest on this construct (M 5.64, SD 1.33) while those in Albert scored the lowest (M 4.03, SD 1.85).
Compatibility TP 3) Compatibility focuses on what a person is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the person can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place. The average for all SEQ residents on this construct was 4.18 (SD 1.57), with those in Moreton Bay and Island catchment scoring the highest (M 5.35, SD 1.36) and those in Albert scoring the lowest (M 3.57 SD 1.67).
Overall Life This index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, Satisfaction community and life. Overall life satisfaction has positive with a mean of 4.69 (SD 1.25), Index with those in Noosa scoring the highest (M 5.28, SD 1.02) and those in Upper Brisbane scoring the lowest (M 4.32, SD 1.47).
Page 17
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.1 Local waterway accessibility, use and overall satisfaction
Respondents across the total sample were asked to consider their local waterway and rate their perceptions of access, use and overall satisfaction.
8.1.1 Local waterway accessibility These questions asked participants their about their perceptions for local waterway accessibility (where 1= Strongly Disagree, and 7= Strongly Agree). At a SEQ level, the mean was 4.99 (SD 1.57) suggesting that respondents felt their local waterway tended to be very accessible. This is a slight reduction on 2016 levels (M 5.12, SD 1.36). This difference could reflect the change of one of the accessibility items from “My waterway are quickly reached from the parking areas” in the 2016 survey, to “My local waterways are easy to access” for the 2017 survey. An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences between 2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 3.44, p = .0006 (two-tailed), (mean difference = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.06). At the local catchment level, Tallebudgera-Currumbin (M 5.79 SD .97), Pumicestone (M 5.81 SD 1.10), and Mooloolah (M 5.57 SD 1.33) reported the highest levels of accessibility, while Albert (M 4.51 SD 1.22) and Bremer (M 4.50 SD 1.38) reported the lowest.
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.74 1.75 5.81 1.18 Bremer 4.57 1.64 5.08 1.59 Caboolture 4.98 1.59 5.33 1.86 Lockyer 4.63 1.74 6.65 0.49 Logan 4.45 1.63 5.79 1.26 Lower Brisbane 4.65 1.57 5.15 1.51 Maroochy 5.36 1.38 5.73 1.22 Mid Brisbane 5.35 1.31 5.67 0.63 Mooloolah 5.81 1.26 5.73 1.20 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.89 1.24 6.09 1.38 Nerang 5.30 1.49 5.44 1.30 Noosa 5.64 1.50 6.32 1.10 Pimpama-Coomera 5.19 1.42 5.40 1.38 Pine 5.13 1.50 5.48 1.52 Pumicestone 5.54 1.45 5.99 1.46 Redland 5.24 1.37 5.78 1.21 Stanley 5.24 1.48 5.61 1.90 Tallebudgera 5.78 1.42 6.25 0.88 Upper Brisbane 4.62 1.72 6.41 1.15
Page 18
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.1.2 Local waterway useability These questions asked respondents to rate how useable their local waterway was, selecting from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree for useability related items. The SEQ mean was 4.53 (SD 1.41) suggesting respondents felt their local waterway tended to be useable. However, this is a decrease from 2016 (M 4.90, SD 1.32) and 2015 report card (M 5.07, SD 1.82) suggesting more participants felt their waterway was less useable. An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences between 2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 10.52, p = .0001 (two-tailed), (mean difference = -0.37, 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.30). Those respondents in Tallebudgera-Currumbin catchment (M 5.64 SD .96), Pumicestone (M 5.47 SD 1.03), and Mooloolah (M 5.33 SD 1.22) reported the highest levels of useability, while Albert (M 4.26 SD 1.17) and Bremer (M 4.35 SD 1.36) reported the lowest.
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.07 1.58 5.47 0.99 Bremer 4.15 1.38 4.85 1.41 Caboolture 4.59 1.39 5.35 1.31 Lockyer 4.08 1.55 5.95 0.48 Logan 4.01 1.45 5.33 1.21 Lower Brisbane 4.23 1.38 4.92 1.32 Maroochy 4.81 1.34 5.34 1.14 Mid Brisbane 4.88 1.16 4.75 2.38 Mooloolah 5.18 1.19 5.41 1.28 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.45 1.20 5.83 1.15 Nerang 4.80 1.34 5.38 1.15 Noosa 5.17 1.44 6.10 1.09 Pimpama-Coomera 4.74 1.28 5.49 1.04 Pine 4.62 1.37 5.17 1.35 Pumicestone 5.00 1.40 5.80 1.12 Redland 4.79 1.21 5.52 1.06 Stanley 4.98 1.26 5.06 1.41 Tallebudgera 5.48 1.30 5.98 0.62 Upper Brisbane 4.03 1.55 6.09 1.40
Page 19
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.1.3 Local waterway satisfaction
Questions asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their local waterway, choosing from a selection satisfaction related questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. The SEQ Mean was 4.54 (SD 1.42) suggesting respondents felt somewhat satisfied with their local waterway. However, this is a decrease on the 2016 report card 4.84 (SD 1.25), and 2015 report card measure (M 5.01 SD 1.66). An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences between 2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 8.72, p = .0001 (two-tailed), (mean difference = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.23). Moreton Bay and Islands catchment and Tallebudgera-Currumbin showed the highest levels of satisfaction with their local waterways (5.55, SD 1.19 and 1.29 respectively) while Lockyer catchment showed the lowest levels (4.02, SD 1.56).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.16 1.66 5.25 1.13 Bremer 4.14 1.51 4.37 1.28 Caboolture 4.52 1.40 5.03 1.45 Lockyer 4.02 1.56 4.65 0.91 Logan 4.05 1.45 5.07 1.37 Lower Brisbane 4.22 1.35 4.54 1.33 Maroochy 4.87 1.26 5.09 1.33 Mid Brisbane 4.77 1.14 3.83 2.75 Mooloolah 5.29 1.21 4.98 1.39 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.55 1.19 5.62 0.89 Nerang 4.90 1.32 5.31 1.05 Noosa 5.32 1.33 5.91 1.04 Pimpama-Coomera 4.80 1.27 5.36 1.01 Pine 4.57 1.32 4.92 1.31 Pumicestone 5.06 1.35 5.50 1.06 Redland 4.85 1.22 5.28 1.20 Stanley 4.77 1.31 4.85 1.54 Tallebudgera 5.55 1.29 5.93 0.41 Upper Brisbane 4.10 1.66 5.87 1.47
Page 20
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2 Constructs Each construct is now examined by catchment.
8.2.1 Nature Relatedness These questions asked respondents to rate their connections to the natural world (environment). The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Stanley showed the highest levels of nature relatedness with their local waterways (5.44, SD 1.35) while Upper Brisbane catchment showed the lowest levels (4.60, SD 1.66).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.68 1.53 6.22 0.89 Bremer 4.92 1.52 5.61 1.38 Caboolture 4.95 1.36 6.39 0.91 Lockyer 5.03 1.34 6.20 0.48 Logan 4.65 1.43 5.96 1.22 Lower Brisbane 4.70 1.37 5.51 1.24 Maroochy 5.18 1.28 5.92 1.20 Mid Brisbane 5.27 1.05 6.75 0.25 Mooloolah 5.41 1.23 5.56 1.39 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.40 1.31 6.08 1.24 Nerang 5.00 1.35 6.07 0.92 Noosa 5.19 1.18 6.34 1.36 Pimpama-Coomera 4.91 1.40 5.80 1.07 Pine 4.76 1.39 5.78 1.15 Pumicestone 5.06 1.52 6.17 1.25 Redland 4.98 1.27 5.94 1.11 Stanley 5.44 1.35 5.44 1.89 Tallebudgera 5.34 1.36 6.45 0.81 Upper Brisbane 4.60 1.66 6.66 0.67
Page 21
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.2 Integrated Regulation
Integrated regulation measures whether the motives for using waterways are in line with one’s personal values and needs. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of integrated regulation with their local waterways (5.25, SD 1.40) while Logan showed the lowest levels (3.43, SD 1.59).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 5.25 1.40 4.89 1.15 Bremer 4.88 1.57 4.40 1.79 Caboolture 4.60 1.68 5.14 1.68 Lockyer 4.47 1.59 5.53 1.26 Logan 4.38 1.69 4.81 1.84 Lower Brisbane 4.32 1.61 4.43 1.66 Maroochy 4.27 1.67 5.05 1.63 Mid Brisbane 4.27 1.62 4.89 2.22 Mooloolah 4.25 1.46 5.10 1.53 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.24 1.38 5.84 1.49 Nerang 4.12 1.58 5.01 1.63 Noosa 3.90 1.62 5.95 1.33 Pimpama-Coomera 3.90 1.60 5.26 1.44 Pine 3.66 1.56 4.65 1.66 Pumicestone 3.50 1.67 5.42 1.37 Redland 3.49 1.82 5.09 1.40 Stanley 3.46 1.77 4.74 1.56 Tallebudgera 3.45 1.54 6.27 0.58 Upper Brisbane 3.43 1.59 6.04 1.65
Page 22
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.3 Place Attachment Place attachment measures the benefits the respondents feel they receive from their local waterways. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of place attachment with their local waterways (5.45, SD 1.41) while Logan showed the lowest levels (4.08, SD 1.54). Place Attachment data was not collected for the Community Survey.
Catchment Mean SD Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.45 1.41 Tallebudgera 5.45 1.36 Noosa 5.24 1.24 Mooloolah 5.17 1.33 Pumicestone 4.97 1.48 Mid Brisbane 4.95 1.19 Nerang 4.90 1.31 Maroochy 4.88 1.32 Redland 4.86 1.29 Pimpama-Coomera 4.80 1.32 Stanley 4.79 1.48 Pine 4.62 1.43 Caboolture 4.61 1.46 Lower Brisbane 4.29 1.5 Bremer 4.27 1.6 Lockyer 4.18 1.61 Upper Brisbane 4.17 1.65 Albert 4.10 1.69 Logan 4.08 1.54
Page 23
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.4 Social Value Social Value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterways with their friends and others known to them. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Mid Brisbane showed the highest levels of social value with their local waterways (5.20, SD 1.11) while Albert showed the lowest levels (3.93, SD 1.81).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 3.93 1.81 4.03 1.42 Bremer 4.22 1.64 4.69 1.63 Caboolture 4.25 1.43 4.57 1.52 Lockyer 4.02 1.66 4.60 1.07 Logan 4.01 1.49 5.02 1.49 Lower Brisbane 4.08 1.42 4.73 1.38 Maroochy 4.56 1.42 4.44 1.39 Mid Brisbane 5.20 1.11 4.08 2.47 Mooloolah 4.64 1.35 4.69 1.26 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.85 1.35 5.06 1.18 Nerang 4.61 1.34 4.99 1.22 Noosa 4.55 1.30 5.24 1.07 Pimpama-Coomera 4.48 1.34 5.01 1.30 Pine 4.35 1.51 4.80 1.52 Pumicestone 4.75 1.56 5.47 1.38 Redland 4.63 1.27 5.05 1.20 Stanley 4.70 1.36 4.78 1.56 Tallebudgera 4.95 1.59 4.90 0.97 Upper Brisbane 3.98 1.54 5.03 2.25
Page 24
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.5 Stewardship Stewardship captures awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Tallebudgera showed the highest levels of stewardship with their local waterways (5.71, SD 1.3) while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels (4.79, SD 1.65).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.95 1.45 6.07 1.12 Bremer 5.12 1.71 5.87 1.51 Caboolture 5.21 1.46 6.50 1.00 Lockyer 5.02 1.54 6.00 0.94 Logan 4.90 1.55 6.16 1.03 Lower Brisbane 4.87 1.47 5.73 1.22 Maroochy 5.35 1.29 5.97 1.07 Mid Brisbane 5.44 1.27 7.00 0.00 Mooloolah 5.68 1.28 5.89 1.37 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.58 1.31 6.32 1.30 Nerang 5.20 1.36 6.22 0.90 Noosa 5.53 1.32 6.50 1.30 Pimpama-Coomera 5.17 1.39 6.11 1.07 Pine 5.06 1.44 5.94 1.17 Pumicestone 5.60 1.34 6.37 1.23 Redland 5.28 1.31 6.10 1.26 Stanley 5.59 1.36 5.67 1.95 Tallebudgera 5.71 1.32 6.80 0.45 Upper Brisbane 4.79 1.65 6.63 0.74
Page 25
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.6 Fascination Fascination is conceptualised as being in a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly absorbing. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of fascination with their local waterways (5.48, SD 1.28) while Lockyer showed the lowest levels (3.85, SD 1.62).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.05 1.71 5.50 1.32 Bremer 4.05 1.57 4.88 1.44 Caboolture 4.35 1.48 5.39 1.42 Lockyer 3.85 1.62 5.45 1.08 Logan 3.96 1.58 5.22 1.56 Lower Brisbane 4.17 1.48 4.78 1.41 Maroochy 4.88 1.36 5.33 1.36 Mid Brisbane 4.70 1.17 6.50 0.43 Mooloolah 5.15 1.33 5.04 1.41 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.48 1.28 6.01 1.12 Nerang 4.83 1.37 5.50 1.06 Noosa 5.21 1.32 6.17 1.14 Pimpama-Coomera 4.62 1.40 5.49 1.16 Pine 4.50 1.43 5.18 1.45 Pumicestone 4.93 1.46 5.63 1.27 Redland 4.77 1.28 5.59 1.13 Stanley 5.07 1.22 4.85 1.72 Tallebudgera 5.39 1.33 6.08 0.67 Upper Brisbane 4.02 1.70 6.00 1.32
Page 26
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.7 Being Away
Being away captures a conceptual transformation where being in a location helps a person to relax and gives them a break. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of sense of being away (5.64, SD 1.33) while Albert showed the lowest levels (4.03, SD 1.85).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.03 1.85 6.03 1.14 Bremer 4.22 1.70 5.18 1.68 Caboolture 4.59 1.67 5.66 1.45 Lockyer 4.30 1.83 5.90 0.91 Logan 4.08 1.75 5.38 1.75 Lower Brisbane 4.25 1.62 5.20 1.39 Maroochy 4.93 1.55 5.73 1.09 Mid Brisbane 4.96 1.32 4.42 2.53 Mooloolah 5.23 1.57 5.57 1.32 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.64 1.33 5.94 1.30 Nerang 4.88 1.49 5.69 1.26 Noosa 5.20 1.53 6.10 1.14 Pimpama-Coomera 4.74 1.52 5.74 1.14 Pine 4.67 1.67 5.50 1.51 Pumicestone 4.98 1.66 6.00 1.09 Redland 4.93 1.47 5.78 1.24 Stanley 4.93 1.52 5.26 1.45 Tallebudgera 5.50 1.60 6.38 0.65 Upper Brisbane 4.35 1.90 6.22 1.57
Page 27
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.8 Compatibility
Compatibility focuses on what a person is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of compatibility with their local waterways (5.3, SD 1.36) while Albert showed the lowest levels (3.57, SD 1.67).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 3.57 1.67 5.58 1.15 Bremer 3.75 1.53 4.72 1.60 Caboolture 4.19 1.50 5.16 1.52 Lockyer 3.85 1.64 5.40 1.08 Logan 3.66 1.57 5.02 1.60 Lower Brisbane 3.93 1.53 4.65 1.42 Maroochy 4.51 1.54 5.19 1.19 Mid Brisbane 4.48 1.36 4.75 1.80 Mooloolah 4.84 1.53 5.08 1.28 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.35 1.36 5.81 1.13 Nerang 4.55 1.51 5.24 1.21 Noosa 4.86 1.44 5.98 1.29 Pimpama-Coomera 4.31 1.47 5.34 1.23 Pine 4.19 1.53 5.02 1.54 Pumicestone 4.60 1.58 5.68 1.26 Redland 4.45 1.35 5.36 1.20 Stanley 4.74 1.63 5.08 1.48 Tallebudgera 5.14 1.52 5.98 0.53 Upper Brisbane 3.80 1.73 6.13 1.61
Page 28
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.2.9 Life Satisfaction The life satisfaction index captures how satisfied the participants are in general. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Noosa showed the highest levels of life satisfaction (5.28, SD 1.04) while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels (4.32, SD 1.47).
Panel data Social Media Catchment Mean SD Mean SD Albert 4.44 1.25 4.49 1.02 Bremer 4.48 1.43 4.52 1.61 Caboolture 4.53 1.32 5.08 1.28 Lockyer 4.62 1.35 4.36 0.95 Logan 4.50 1.26 5.09 1.19 Lower Brisbane 4.57 1.19 4.96 1.14 Maroochy 4.81 1.16 4.82 1.13 Mid Brisbane 4.47 1.30 4.93 0.70 Mooloolah 5.02 1.17 4.88 1.15 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.99 1.04 5.54 1.00 Nerang 4.75 1.28 5.72 0.81 Noosa 5.28 1.02 5.53 0.91 Pimpama-Coomera 4.70 1.29 5.01 1.16 Pine 4.77 1.30 5.01 1.18 Pumicestone 4.73 1.15 5.37 1.00 Redland 4.96 1.15 5.13 0.94 Stanley 4.64 1.11 5.88 0.87 Tallebudgera 5.01 1.21 5.12 0.95 Upper Brisbane 4.32 1.47 5.48 1.19
Page 29
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.3 Waterway use and activities Types of usage were captured across the total sample and by catchment. Participants were asked ‘Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?’ Across the sample, swimming and recreational activities such as walking, cycling, running, and picnics and barbeques, were the most popular activities on waterways, with fishing featuring more prominently in some catchments. Activities involving the use of craft on water, and those requiring sophisticated equipment– such as boating, sailing, water and jet-skiing, sailboarding and kayaking, and scuba diving – were undertaken less frequently. Panel Survey Usage
Usage Almost Every week Every Every Once or Every Panel Data everyday fortnight month twice a few (%) year years Picnics, BBQs 0.7 5.6 12.9 32.8 47.4 0.6 Walking, running 18 29.5 13.3 23.2 15.2 0.8 Swimming 4.1 17 15.4 33.2 29.7 0.6 Cycling 6.6 27.9 21.4 27.9 14.8 1.4 4WD driving, trail bike riding 3.6 10.7 11.9 34.5 36.9 2.4 Jet skiing water skiing 0.0 8.3 12.5 30.6 36.1 12.5 Camping 1.9 6.6 2.8 34.9 50.9 2.8 Recreational fishing 1.4 12.3 16.1 36 32.9 1.2 Boating, sailing 2.2 7.5 13.7 33 39.2 4.4 Rowing, kayaking, canoeing 2.4 13.4 11.5 26.3 41.6 4.8 Surfing, kite-surfing, sail 9.8 32.9 19.5 23.2 12.2 2.4 boarding Scuba diving, snorkelling 4.5 11.4 15.9 29.5 34.1 4.5 Enjoying nature e.g. 12.6 25.6 13.2 27.5 20.3 0.8 birdwatching, conservation, photography Catching a ferry 2.7 7.3 10 24.3 51 4.6 Other 15 28.3 10 16.7 18.3 11.7
Some other waterway usage activities that participants wrote in the survey included: Dog walking, Whale watching, Soccer, Watching the fish, Watching the waves, Yoga and light exercise, Sunbathing or tanning, Hydrotherapy, Relaxing, and Conducting wedding ceremonies.
Page 30
2017 Social Report - QUT
Community Survey Usage
Usage Almost Every week Every Every Once or Every Social Media everyday fortnight month twice a few (%) year years Picnics, BBQs 0.8% 5.8% 11.3% 32.7% 47.8% 1.6% Walking, running 24.2% 28.7% 13.5% 23.9% 9.5% 0.2% Swimming 5.9% 17.2% 11.8% 31.4% 32.5% 1.2% Cycling 15.2% 24.0% 14.6% 22.8% 23.4% 0.0% 4WD driving, trail bike riding 8.6% 2.9% 8.6% 20.0% 57.1% 2.9% Jet skiing water skiing 13.6% 4.5% 9.1% 40.9% 18.2% 13.6% Camping 3.2% 0.0% 6.5% 24.2% 62.9% 3.2% Recreational fishing 1.7% 2.5% 16.0% 38.7% 37.8% 3.4% Boating, sailing 2.8% 10.4% 13.2% 28.3% 41.5% 3.8% Rowing, kayaking, canoeing 6.1% 9.6% 9.6% 30.7% 43.0% 0.9% Surfing, kite-surfing, sail 17.1% 28.6% 2.9% 31.4% 20.0% 0.0% boarding Scuba diving, snorkelling 12.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 48.0% 4.0% Enjoying nature e.g. 24.4% 25.6% 12.8% 25.0% 11.7% 0.6% birdwatching, conservation, photography Catching a ferry 9.2% 11.5% 7.6% 22.9% 46.6% 2.3% Other 30.6% 12.2% 12.2% 24.5% 18.4% 2.0%
Page 31
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.3.1 Comparison – Local, SEQ, and National waterway use and activities
Participants were asked if and where they did you did various activities in the past 12 months. The table below is laid out as follows: Yes and No are the percentages of responses reported from the total sample, the different levels (Local, SEQ, National) represent the people who said they participated in the activities at that particular location. For instance, 57.4% said yes to Picnics and BBQs on the waterways while 42.6% said no. Of the people who said yes, 36.6% said they did it at a local level, 19.8% at a SEQ level, and 4.8% at a national level. This data is presented below with the Panel Survey Data.
The next three columns labelled Local VS SEQ, Local VS National, and SEQ VS National, all test for statistical differences between each level in pairs, using McNemar’s chi-square difference test. For example, the people indicated that they have picnics and BBQs at statistically different amounts between local and SEQ locations, and local and national locations, and SEQ and national locations. Local was the most frequently used location for picnics and BBQs, then SEQ, then the national level. Whereas, for scuba diving and snorkelling activities, there are no statistical differences across any of the locations.
Activity Yes No Local SEQ National Local Local VS SEQ VS level level Level VS SEQ National National Picnics, BBQs 57.4 42.6 36.6 19.8 4.8 *** *** *** Walking, running 68.3 31.7 48.9 17.3 4.9 *** *** *** Swimming 31.9 68.1 17.5 11.5 3.2 *** *** *** Cycling 15.1 84.9 9.8 2.5 0.6 *** *** *** 4WD driving, trail bike 10.5 89.5 2.8 4.9 1.6 *** ** *** riding Jet skiing, water skiing 5.9 94.1 2.4 2.1 0.5 ns *** *** Camping 18.7 81.3 3.6 10.7 4.2 *** ns *** Recreational fishing 26.4 73.6 14.3 10.3 3.3 *** *** *** Boating, sailing 16.1 83.9 7.7 6.1 2.1 ** *** *** Rowing, kayaking, 13.0 87.0 7.1 4.3 1.4 *** *** *** canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, sail 5.8 94.2 2.7 1.6 0.4 ** *** *** boarding Scuba diving, snorkelling 5.5 94.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 ns ns ns Enjoying nature e.g. 38.7 61.3 26.1 14.6 5.8 *** *** *** birdwatching, conservation, photography Catching a ferry 23.7 76.3 8.8 9.8 3.3 ns *** *** Other 6.3 93.7 2.0 1.2 0.3 ** *** *** Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
Page 32
2017 Social Report - QUT
Participants were also able to include a response for “Other” uses and activities not captured in the list provided. These responses included:
Attending festivals at Redcliffe e.g. kites and sails New Year fireworks and markets e.g. South Bank and River City and Redcliffe Bodyboarding Cafe Checking out flood levels Compound bow shooting and mountain hiking Conducting wedding ceremonies Crabbing and bait collection Cruising under sail Dog walking Drinking and eating at a bar Enjoy outings with family Exercise/bootcamp Fishing Having lunch beside Brisbane River. Hydrotheraphy In family boat leaving from Sanctuary Cove, enjoying lunch looking out over marina at Sanctuary Cove Just to see how much water is there Just watch Meditation Meeting family Merely relaxing/having a break, at one of the many parks of Gold Coast, many of them near/next to waterways. Naturism Observation Paddle boarding Party in the park Playing Sports Playing with kids Prawning Reading Reducing stress levels by listening to water and wildlife Relaxing Research Roller skating Running and exercising dog Sitting enjoying the view Sitting on beach and reading Sitting Relaxing Observing wildlife and humans Sun tanning Taking dogs for a walk, fetch and swimming Tubing tow-behind Used a vehicular ferry to get to the mainland. Also water taxis. Watching the boats go past Watching the waves, storms, moon, whales and crowds.
Page 33
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.4 Protection Activities
Waterway protection activities were examined by the researchers, these questions asked participants how much time they spent on protection activities in or alongside a local waterway in the past 12 months. Five protection activities were posed, with the option to write in the ‘other’ category. Most people allocated no hours to all activities. Rubbish clean-up had the largest about of time allocated to it followed by monitoring (e.g. water quality, fish, bird, frog, mammal or other), weed removal and/or control, native plants, and lastly erosion control. Reported in the table is the total amount of people who selected they did more than 0 hours, or in other word did any type of protection activities. By averaging the hours in the categories (i.e. 1-5 hours becomes 2.5 hours etc.…) and multiplying that by the amount of people with each category a rough estimate of the total hours spent on each activity were calculated. This figure was then divided by the total people amount to determine the average amount of hours spent per person.
Panel Survey Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours Panel data (%) hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) people spent person
Weed control 85.4 8.5 3.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 430 3013 7.01 Native tree planting 87.3 7.1 3.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 374 2613 6.99 Monitoring 82.2 9.0 4.6 2.3 0.9 1.0 526 4243 8.07 Rubbish clean-up 64.7 22.9 7.3 2.9 1.2 1.1 1040 6368 6.12 Erosion control 89.6 5.0 2.9 1.6 0.7 0.2 308 2475 8.04 Other 92.3 2.9 2.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 170 1590 9.35
Respondents were able to provide comments about why they didn’t conduct any hours of protection activities. Reasons provided included:
Age and Transport Problems can cause difficulties. Current disability does not allow me to do these things now, sadly. Have had no involvement in local waterways and never will until the waters are pristine like they are in the country I came from originally, known for its clean waterways. I'm unable to do anything because of my health I do not go to waterways that much. I don’t use the waterways at all being in a wheelchair I live in a high rise along the river and can only participate in council/government clean-up activities when available. Only used to relax Too busy with two jobs to meet the cost of living With the high taxes on all levels of govt that we pay and high salaries etc. I feel there is no reason to participate in those sorts of activities Respondents were also asked to provide examples of the types of protection activities they undertake. These were broken down by amount of hours per year that respondents indicated they did. Responses are listed below.
Page 34
2017 Social Report - QUT
Comments for 1-5 hours:
Awareness of environmentally unsafe use I have a creek that runs through my place I mow and clean it I pick up other people's rubbish left behind and dispose of it properly and I move fallen tree branches to a safe location so others are not injured Monitoring and giving advice to visitors, locals and tourists on local laws and controls on use of beaches and dog control Path maintenance Picking up used fishing line Recently joined the Wetlands group, but haven't been to a working bee there yet, though it is soon Reminding people to have their dogs controlled, and pick up their dogs faeces. Report Graffiti Restocking fish Rubbish collection Stopping people from dumping garbage at the river Water testing Comments for 5-10 hours:
Educating students about waterways Exploring and teaching our kids about why we care for environment and pollution like littering Pruning, trimming Comments for 10-20 hours:
Straddie pest management working group
Comments for 20-30 hours:
Nothing provided
Comments for more than 30 hours:
Bird monitoring Killing or eradicating invasive species Community Survey Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours Social Media (%) hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) people spent person
Weed control 62.1% 15.7% 6.7% 5.0% 1.8% 8.5% 248 3063 12.35 Native tree planting 68.7% 14.4% 6.3% 2.7% 2.0% 6.0% 205 2308 11.26 Monitoring 63.2% 17.1% 5.8% 4.4% 3.5% 6.0% 241 2745 11.39 Rubbish clean-up 35.4% 38.2% 10.8% 5.5% 3.1% 7.0% 423 3578 8.46 Erosion control 77.3% 9.8% 5.3% 2.7% 1.2% 3.7% 149 1613 10.82 Other 84.8% 3.1% 2.9% 1.5% 0.9% 6.8% 69 1268 18.37
Page 35
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.5 Conditions
8.5.1 Satisfaction with local and SEQ waterway conditions The following table presents the condition of waterways at the local, and South East Queensland level and the corresponding level of satisfaction presented as a percentage with the conditions. The explanation for this table is: Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. As can be seen in the table below the majority of respondents are grouped around the neutral zone and one bad either side. This indicates that respondents are ambivalent about the conditions of their waterways at the local and South East Queensland level. If they are satisfied, this is only at the slight satisfied level, however dissatisfaction is only at the slightly dissatisfied level as well. The lead in for this question were: Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Panel Survey Condition Satisfaction Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 7.4% 9% 15.9% 28.8% 21.1% 12.4% 5.4% clarity Pollution 6.3% 9.1% 17.5% 29.2% 21.2% 11.6% 5.1% levels Fish 5.9% 10.1% 17.7% 38.2% 16.5% 7.8% 3.8% Local numbers Natural 3.5% 5.3% 12.7% 29.5% 25.2% 16.6% 7.3% vegetation Overall 4.4% 6.2% 13.2% 29.8% 24.4% 15.3% 6.7% condition Water 5.2% 6.8% 15.4% 33.5% 22.7% 11.4% 5.1% clarity Pollution 5% 7.9% 18% 33.6% 20.6% 10.3% 4.5% levels Fish 5% 8.4% 17.1% 38% 19.6% 8.4% 3.5% SEQ numbers Natural 3.5% 5.4% 13% 33.1% 25% 14.3% 5.7% vegetation Overall 4.1% 5.3% 13.9% 32.5% 24.3% 14.4% 5.4% condition
Page 36
2017 Social Report - QUT
Community Survey Condition Satisfaction
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 8.90% 11.80% 22.60% 22.70% 16.90% 10.40% 6.70% clarity Pollution 7.30% 12.50% 25.50% 21.20% 19.50% 9.00% 4.90% levels Fish 8.40% 13.40% 20.90% 34.20% 14.80% 5.20% 3.10% Local numbers Natural 5.50% 9.30% 16.80% 21.80% 22.60% 17.90% 6.10% vegetation Overall 5.30% 10.50% 18.80% 25.20% 22.00% 13.10% 5.00% condition Water 6.30% 9.60% 21.80% 27.00% 21.10% 10.50% 3.70% clarity Pollution 6.10% 11.90% 24.60% 28.50% 17.30% 8.90% 2.70% levels Fish 5.00% 13.10% 23.10% 36.60% 13.70% 6.10% 2.30% SEQ numbers Natural 6.10% 11.50% 17.60% 26.70% 19.80% 14.00% 4.30% vegetation Overall 4.10% 9.80% 20.50% 28.20% 21.80% 11.90% 3.70% condition
Page 37
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.5.2 Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways The next two questions address waterway usage as determined by conditions for activities on or in the water in the first instance and activities conducted alongside the water in the second instance. This question is only captured using Panel Survey Data. The explanation for the colour coding is presented below: Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. In or on the water The lead in to this question was: How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions: As the table shows condition has a large impact on whether respondents will conduct activities in or on the water. While mud is likely to impact activity usage, pollution has the greater impact with even low levels of pollution having negative impact on activities. Panel Survey
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 5.7% 4.3% 4.2% 15.1% 13.6% 22.1% 35% Clarity Clear 5.2% 4.3% 5.1% 15.7% 16% 29% 24.7%
Partly 12.5% 11.3% 17.8% 23.8% 20.4% 11.4% 2.9% muddy Muddy 24.7% 22.2% 19.3% 19.4% 9.1% 4.1% 1.3%
Very 45.2% 18.9% 12% 15.5% 4.7% 2.3% 1.4% muddy Pollution No 5.5% 4.7% 4.6% 14.9% 11.5% 22.2% 36.5% levels pollution Low levels 11.1% 9.1% 11.7% 20.6% 17.6% 21.8% 8.1% of pollution Some 22.5% 16.6% 19.1% 23.1% 12.7% 4.7% 1.4% pollution Polluted 47% 21.5% 12.2% 12.9% 3.4% 2.3% 0.6%
Very 64.9% 12.1% 6% 11.9% 2.5% 1.6% 1% polluted
Page 38
2017 Social Report - QUT
Alongside the waterway This question asked: How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions: The results indicate that the condition is not as important for activities conducted alongside waterways in comparison to those in or on the water. Again, muddy water has less of an impact than pollution levels but it is only at the ‘polluted’ and ‘very polluted” that condition really impacts activities alongside the water.
Panel Survey
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.7% 2.6% 3.7% 12.5% 11.6% 22.8% 43.2% Clarity Clear 3.2% 2.9% 3.8% 13.3% 12.8% 28.9% 35.2%
Partly 6.8% 5.2% 10% 20.7% 20.4% 23.5% 13.4% muddy Muddy 13.4% 12% 14.1% 23.6% 16.2% 13.5% 7.1%
Very 23.7% 13.7% 14.4% 21.5% 11.8% 9.2% 5.7% muddy Pollution No 3.7% 2.6% 4.2% 13.8% 10.4% 21.4% 43.9% levels pollution Low levels 7% 5.2% 7.6% 18.7% 16.8% 25.4% 19.3% of pollution Some 14.5% 10.3% 16.6% 25.4% 16.5% 11.9% 4.8% pollution Polluted 31.2% 21.4% 15.9% 17.5% 7.4% 4.7% 1.9%
Very 49.2% 14.5% 10.8% 14.8% 5.2% 3.6% 1.9% polluted
Page 39
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.5.3 Likelihood of use given waterway condition Respondents were asked how likely they were to visit or use a local of SEQ waterway when presented with the following conditions. The conditions were presented as incremental shifts in waterway condition.
Water clarity : Very clear, Clear, Partly muddy, Muddy, Very Muddy Water pollution: No pollution, low levels of pollution, some pollution, polluted, very polluted
A ratio of the unlikely to visit and likely to visit results was calculated, with a score of 1.0 meaning a balanced and equal number of unlikely and likely scores, below 1 indicates they are more unlikely to visit, a score above 1 indicates they are more likely to visit. There is a decreasing chance of visiting or using the water with increases in mud/pollution. As can be seen when the water is very clear and clear there is a much greater possibility of the respondents conducting activities within the water, this drops dramatically when the water becomes muddy with respondents indicating they would not use the water. However when the respondents are alongside the water they are still likely to do this when the water is partly muddy but this drops when the water is deemed muddy. Usage in or on the water and also use near the water will occur when pollution is not present or at low levels.
Likelihood of use within the water
Condition Scenario Unlikely Likely Ratio Very clear 14.2 70.7 4.98 Clear 14.6 69.7 4.77 Water Clarity Partly muddy 41.6 34.7 0.83 Muddy 66.2 14.5 0.22 Very muddy 76.1 8.4 0.11 No pollution 14.8 70.2 4.74 Low levels of pollution 31.9 47.5 1.49 Pollution levels Some pollution 58.2 18.8 0.32 Polluted 80.7 6.3 0.08 Very polluted 83 5.1 0.06
Likelihood of use near the water
Condition Scenario Unlikely Likely Ratio Very clear 10 77.6 7.76 Clear 9.9 76.9 7.77 Water Clarity Partly muddy 22 57.3 2.60 Muddy 39.5 36.8 0.93 Very muddy 51.8 26.7 0.52 No pollution 10.5 75.7 7.21 Low levels of pollution 19.8 61.5 3.11 Pollution levels Some pollution 41.4 33.2 0.80 Polluted 68.5 14 0.20 Very polluted 74.5 10.7 0.14
Page 40
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.6 Correlations
8.6.1 Satisfaction and nature relatedness Correlations between satisfaction and nature relatedness showed a strong significant relationship in all but two of the catchments (but these are still significant); however this relationship does differ between catchments. The overall sample suggests that people who feel that nature is important to them are satisfied overall with their local waterway. This implies that to keep the satisfaction levels up for those people using waterways, the importance of nature to their lives should be reinforced. By making this strong association, people are reminded of the importance of nature in their lives and therefore can make the connection with how using the waterways can contribute towards this. Upper Brisbane (0.79) and Tallebudgera (0.78) showed the highest levels of correlation between nature relatedness and satisfaction and Lockyer (0.48) and Stanley (0.54) showed the lowest.
Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction by catchment
Albert 0.712*** Bremer 0.619*** Caboolture 0.669*** Lockyer 0.478*** Logan 0.596*** Lower Brisbane 0.646*** Maroochy 0.683*** Mid Brisbane 0.634** Mooloolah 0.649*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.594*** Nerang 0.632*** Noosa 0.612*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.579*** Pine 0.657*** Pumicestone 0.618*** Redland 0.702*** Stanley 0.538* Tallebudgera 0.781*** Upper Brisbane 0.787*** Overall Sample 0.637*** Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
Page 41
2017 Social Report - QUT
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction by catchment Upper Brisbane 0.787*** Tallebudgera 0.781*** Albert 0.712*** Redland 0.702*** Maroochy 0.683*** Caboolture 0.669*** Pine 0.657*** Mooloolah 0.649*** Lower Brisbane 0.646*** Overall Sample 0.637*** Mid Brisbane 0.634** Nerang 0.632*** Bremer 0.619*** Pumicestone 0.618*** Noosa 0.612*** Logan 0.596*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.594*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.579*** Stanley 0.538* Lockyer 0.478***
Page 42
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.6.2 Satisfaction and Use
Correlations between satisfaction and people’s use of waterways (frequency and type) showed a clear and significant relationship for all catchment areas. All catchments are significant and are very high, with all but two being above 0.07 indicating very strong relationships (p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **). This suggests that South East Queensland waterways are able to satisfy a diverse range of users. Noosa catchment shows the highest amount of satisfaction to use relationship (0.91) while Moreton Bay and Islands showed the lowest (0.82) however its high level and significance indicates that those in the catchment still are satisfied with their use of their local waterways.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction Albert 0.844*** Bremer 0.868*** Caboolture 0.882*** Lockyer 0.88*** Logan 0.876*** Lower Brisbane 0.868*** Maroochy 0.878*** Mid Brisbane 0.825*** Mooloolah 0.858*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.824*** Nerang 0.899*** Noosa 0.912*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.876*** Pine 0.891*** Pumicestone 0.898*** Redland 0.832*** Stanley 0.884*** Tallebudgera 0.908*** Upper Brisbane 0.957*** Overall Sample 0.884*** Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
Page 43
2017 Social Report - QUT
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction Upper Brisbane 0.957*** Noosa 0.912*** Tallebudgera 0.908*** Nerang 0.899*** Pumicestone 0.898*** Pine 0.891*** Overall Sample 0.884*** Stanley 0.884*** Caboolture 0.882*** Lockyer 0.88*** Maroochy 0.878*** Logan 0.876*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.876*** Lower Brisbane 0.868*** Bremer 0.868*** Mooloolah 0.858*** Albert 0.844*** Redland 0.832*** Mid Brisbane 0.825*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.824***
Page 44
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.6.3 Satisfaction and accessibility
Correlations between satisfaction and accessibility showed there is a relationship between satisfaction levels relating to the respondent’s local waterway and their feeling of being able to access their local waterway. All catchments showed strong significant relationships. Tallebudgera (0.831) showed the highest levels of satisfaction and the feeling of being able to access their waterway. Stanley showed the lowest levels (0.586).
Satisfaction and Accessibility by Catchment
Albert 0.783*** Bremer 0.682*** Caboolture 0.692*** Lockyer 0.712*** Logan 0.713*** Lower Brisbane 0.68*** Maroochy 0.783*** Mid Brisbane 0.671*** Mooloolah 0.603*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.718*** Nerang 0.746*** Noosa 0.758*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.653*** Pine 0.72*** Pumicestone 0.734*** Redland 0.685*** Stanley 0.586*** Tallebudgera 0.831*** Upper Brisbane 0.65*** Overall Sample 0.721*** Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
Page 45
2017 Social Report - QUT
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction Tallebudgera 0.831*** Maroochy 0.783*** Albert 0.783*** Noosa 0.758*** Nerang 0.746*** Pumicestone 0.734*** Overall Sample 0.721*** Pine 0.72*** Moreton Bay and Island 0.718*** Logan 0.713*** Lockyer 0.712*** Caboolture 0.692*** Redland 0.685*** Bremer 0.682*** Lower Brisbane 0.68*** Mid Brisbane 0.671*** Pimpama-Coomera 0.653*** Upper Brisbane 0.65*** Mooloolah 0.603*** Stanley 0.586***
Page 46
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.7 Regressions Multiple regressions were performed for the main variables. Three sets of multiple regressions were preformed against the outcome variables of Overall Satisfaction, Overall Accessibility, and Overall Usability. The first set consisted of the third place variables: Being Away, Compatibility, and Fascination; this was followed by constructs associated with attitudes towards the environment, namely: Nature Relatedness, Integrated belief, Social Value, Stewardship, and Place attachment; and lastly, overall life satisfaction was examined.
Topic Variables Satisfaction Accessibility Usability Third Place Being Away .097*** .382*** .310*** Compatibility .235*** .069* .264*** Fascination .602*** .304*** .364*** Values and Attitudes Nature Relatedness -.05*** -.018ns -.067*** towards the environment Integrated belief .182*** .062** .360*** Social Value .125*** .158*** .156*** Stewardship .141*** .283*** .170*** Place attachment .581*** .285*** .375*** Life Satisfaction Life Satisfaction .340*** .277*** .304*** Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
The regression results suggests that a feeling of fascination (0.60) and the attachment the respondent feels to a location (Place attachment 0.58) are the most important predictors of overall satisfaction with a local waterway. This suggests that when respondents feel the location provides them with something to explore and the waterway is exciting, and when they feel attached to the waterway they are the most satisfied.
The feeling of being away (0.38), or rather escaping from everyday life, is the largest predictor of accessibility of local waterways. This is followed by the fascination (0.30) the respondents had with their local waterway. This suggests perhaps that when respondents were able to gain from using their waterway they felt that it was easy to access and more worth the effort of using it.
Place attachment (0.38) featured again as the strongest predictor of usability of the local waterway followed by fascination (0.36) with the waterway. The results also show that life satisfaction contributes to satisfaction (0.34), accessibility (0.28) and usability (0.30) of local waterways.
Page 47
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.8 Additional Analysis
8.8.1 – Cluster Analysis Cluster analysis is a multivariate technique designed to group objects based on their characteristics (Everitt et al., 2011). This is a method frequently used for the market segmentation of quantitative data. This research specifically uses two-step cluster analysis to reveal natural groupings (clusters) within the data (IBM, 2011). The two-step cluster analysis algorithm allows comparison within the data through standardisation of all of the input variables. This data- driven method automatically determines the number of clusters present, thereby removing bias caused by a user selecting a number of clusters a priori. A Two-Step Cluster Analysis was used to assigned participants to groups based on four important variables. These input variables were: Overall Usage, Place attachment, stewardship, and length of time living in SEQ. Based on these 4 inputs, 6 clusters were uncovered in the data by the two-step cluster analysis process.
Input variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Usage 5.84 4.26 4.65 4.75 2.4 4.56 Stewardship 6.34 4.86 5.13 5.25 3.23 5.15 Place attachment 5.94 4.31 4.75 4.81 2.21 4.69 Live in SEQ > 10 years > 10 years 1-3 years 4-6 years > 10 years 7-10 years
Overall, Group 1 and 5 represent the extremes of the group who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years, with group 1 seeming very optimistic and group 5 appearing pessimistic. Group 2 has the most average scores with people living for more than 10 years in SEQ, these people are almost indifferent. Groups 3, 4, and 6 appear to have similar scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment but differ on their length of time people have live in SEQ for, 1-3 years, 4-6 years and 7-10 years respectively.
Group 1 (26.1% of the sample) has the highest scores for usage, stewardship, place attachment, and has participants who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. This group has the highest percentage of retired persons and highest amount of people with trade as an education. They seem to enjoy life and love their waterways.
Group 2 (31.5% of the sample) has average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has participants who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. Their mean scores for integrated belief and compatibility are below the midpoint of 4.0 suggesting they have negative views and that their life and waterway catchment do not overlap.
Group 3 (8.8% of the sample) has slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has participants who have lived in SEQ for the small amount of time at 1 to 3 years. Compared to other groups this group has the highest proportion of full time students and unemployed seeking work, suggesting that this group may not have the resources (time and money) needed to travel to waterways or engage in costly usage activities.
Page 48
2017 Social Report - QUT
Group 4 (7.5% of the sample) has slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has participants who have lived in SEQ for between 4 and 6 years. Their scores on nature relationship and accessibility are the second highest out of the clusters.
Group 5 (13.6% of the sample) has the lowest scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment, and has participants who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. Their mean life satisfaction scores is the lowest out of all the groups but remains positive suggesting that their negative views on waterways could be driven by their world view on life in general. This group has the highest amount of unemployed not searching for work compared to other groups, and the highest promotion of high school level educated persons. Their pessimistic life outlook seems to be spilling over into their views about waterways.
Group 6 (12.5% of the sample) has the slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship, place attachment, and has participants who have lived in SEQ for between 7 and 10 years. This group has the highest amount of people working full time, which suggests they could be somewhat time poor.
Profile Key
1 = Positive LONG Long-term optimists 4 = Middle group young Settling in averages 3 = Middle ground brand new Brand new averages 6 =Middle group longer Settled in averages 2 = low but not negative Long Long-term indifferent 5 = negative LONG Long-term pessimists
The statistics for these profiles are presented over the page.
Page 49
2017 Social Report - QUT
Cluster Analysis Profiling Table Presented in Group Order
Profile variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Gender Male 39.0% 45.0% 38.9% 43.4% 45.1% 46.3% Female 61.0% 55.0% 61.1% 56.6% 53.9% 53.7% Education Primary 1.70% 1.00% 0.40% 3.20% 2.50% 0.80% H School 30.30% 33.20% 27.60% 27.10% 37.30% 27.50% Dip / Cert 28.50% 28.20% 28.80% 29.40% 26.30% 28.90% Trade 10.10% 9.10% 6.60% 4.10% 8.30% 7.70% Bachelor 21.10% 19.90% 26.50% 27.50% 19.80% 24.20% Postgrad 8.40% 8.70% 10.10% 8.70% 6.00% 10.70% Employment Retired 29.90% 22.70% 16.20% 14.00% 24.90% 13.60% Carer 3.30% 2.80% 3.50% 3.60% 5.20% 3.50% FT Student 4.60% 6.40% 15.10% 12.20% 6.70% 7.90% UE NS 8.30% 6.00% 7.30% 6.80% 10.70% 4.90% UE S 7.70% 8.80% 12.70% 8.10% 7.50% 16.10% PT Work 19.60% 21.50% 18.50% 20.80% 17.90% 19.30% FT Work 26.70% 31.80% 26.60% 34.40% 27.10% 34.60% Constructs Nature Relationship 5.96 4.63 4.86 5.02 3.29 4.92 Integrated Belief 5.28 3.53 4.14 4.39 1.75 4.05 Satisfaction 5.81 4.24 4.62 4.79 2.47 4.69 Accessibility 6.19 4.81 4.89 5.03 3.28 4.85 Social Value 5.39 4.20 4.46 4.51 2.32 4.43 Fascination 5.78 4.18 4.55 4.73 2.21 4.58 Being away 6.04 4.30 4.67 4.84 2.15 4.65 Compatibility 5.57 3.84 4.29 4.52 1.94 4.32 Life satisfaction 5.14 4.53 4.72 4.73 4.17 4.66
Page 50
2017 Social Report - QUT
Cluster Analysis Profiling Table Presented in Score Order
This table is the same as above but the groups are arranged with the highest construct scores on the left and the lowest construct scores on the right.
Profile variables Group 1 Group 4 Group 3 Group 6 Group 2 Group 5 Gender Male 39.00% 43.40% 38.90% 46.30% 45.00% 45.10% Female 61.00% 56.60% 61.10% 53.70% 55.00% 53.90% Education Primary 1.70% 3.20% 0.40% 0.80% 1.00% 2.50% H School 30.30% 27.10% 27.60% 27.50% 33.20% 37.30% Dip / Cert 28.50% 29.40% 28.80% 28.90% 28.20% 26.30% Trade 10.10% 4.10% 6.60% 7.70% 9.10% 8.30% Bachelor 21.10% 27.50% 26.50% 24.20% 19.90% 19.80% Postgrad 8.40% 8.70% 10.10% 10.70% 8.70% 6.00% Employment Retired 29.90% 14.00% 16.20% 13.60% 22.70% 24.90% Carer 3.30% 3.60% 3.50% 3.50% 2.80% 5.20% FT Student 4.60% 12.20% 15.10% 7.90% 6.40% 6.70% UE NS 8.30% 6.80% 7.30% 4.90% 6.00% 10.70% UE S 7.70% 8.10% 12.70% 16.10% 8.80% 7.50% PT Work 19.60% 20.80% 18.50% 19.30% 21.50% 17.90% FT Work 26.70% 34.40% 26.60% 34.60% 31.80% 27.10% Constructs Nature Relationship 5.96 5.02 4.86 4.92 4.63 3.29 Integrated Belief 5.28 4.39 4.14 4.05 3.53 1.75 Satisfaction 5.81 4.79 4.62 4.69 4.24 2.47 Accessibility 6.19 5.03 4.89 4.85 4.81 3.28 Social Value 5.39 4.51 4.46 4.43 4.2 2.32 Fascination 5.78 4.73 4.55 4.58 4.18 2.21 Being away 6.04 4.84 4.67 4.65 4.3 2.15 Compatibility 5.57 4.52 4.29 4.32 3.84 1.94 Life satisfaction 5.14 4.73 4.72 4.66 4.53 4.17
Page 51
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.8.2 – Overall Life Satisfaction Overall life satisfaction significantly predicts all of the usability questions. Those respondents who score highly on the life satisfaction index are also likely to find their waterways easy to use.
Questions Pearson Correlation Significance level with well-being index I get a lot out of using my local .247 .000*** waterways I would like to use my local .204 .000*** waterways more often I find my local waterways easy to .297 .000*** use It doesn’t take much effort to use .276 .000*** my local waterways
Overall life satisfaction also shows that it is significantly and positively related to each of the waterway conditions with satisfaction being shown at both the local and SEQ levels.
Level Questions Pearson Correlation Significance level with well-being index Water Clarity .307 .000*** Pollution levels .287 .000*** Local Fish Number .266 .000*** Amount of natural vegetation .320 .000*** Overall condition .319 .000*** Water Clarity .294 .000*** Pollution levels .288 .000*** SEQ Fish Number .263 .000*** Amount of natural vegetation .320 .000*** Overall condition .314 .000***
Page 52
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.8.3 – Industry Stewards The table below outlines the industries where the respondents indicated they were employed and the scores the respondents indicated for all of the key constructs. Interestingly those employed in property and business services indicated the highest scores over all as a group and those employed in cultural and recreational services scored the lowest as a group.
NR Integ Sat Acc Use Soci Stew Fasc Away Com Life Place Agriculture, 5.06 3.87 4.41 4.66 4.39 4.06 5.05 4.40 4.33 4.14 4.72 4.41 Forestry & Fishing Mining 4.84 4.04 4.63 5.19 4.56 4.51 5.00 4.43 4.78 4.18 4.77 4.52 Manufacturing 4.79 3.90 4.48 4.92 4.48 4.11 5.07 4.27 4.47 4.13 4.56 4.50 Electricity, Gas, 4.33 3.86 4.25 4.84 4.39 4.10 4.66 4.09 4.23 3.89 4.67 4.17 Water Supply Construction 4.84 4.09 4.61 5.13 4.66 4.35 5.05 4.60 4.72 4.34 4.66 4.64 Development Wholesale Trade 4.79 4.02 4.56 4.99 4.57 4.47 5.23 4.41 4.68 4.20 4.62 4.52 Retail Trade 4.82 3.72 4.48 4.86 4.45 4.35 5.08 4.40 4.45 4.04 4.60 4.53 Hospitality & 4.86 3.97 4.55 5.00 4.57 4.42 5.10 4.51 4.65 4.25 4.59 4.59 Tourism Transport & 4.72 3.88 4.54 4.98 4.55 4.27 5.08 4.44 4.63 4.12 4.76 4.62 Storage Communication 4.78 4.09 4.66 5.09 4.59 4.39 5.02 4.52 4.55 4.23 4.95 4.76 Services Finance & 4.89 3.87 4.40 4.95 4.44 4.30 5.15 4.31 4.52 4.13 4.84 4.46 Insurance Property & 5.32 4.54 5.14 5.51 5.02 4.94 5.63 5.10 5.15 4.76 4.91 5.16 Business Services Government 4.89 3.93 4.57 5.01 4.56 4.35 5.17 4.48 4.56 4.19 4.75 4.58 Administration & Defence Education 5.05 4.03 4.65 5.10 4.62 4.48 5.28 4.61 4.73 4.33 4.77 4.73 Health & 5.06 4.09 4.65 5.13 4.68 4.40 5.31 4.54 4.74 4.31 4.85 4.68 Community Services Cultural & 4.60 3.54 4.18 4.61 4.28 3.98 4.64 4.14 4.07 3.85 3.91 4.11 Recreational Services Personal & Other 4.67 3.72 4.41 4.81 4.35 4.18 4.79 4.20 4.35 4.06 4.47 4.47 Services
Page 53
2017 Social Report - QUT
8.8.4 – Stewardship behaviour
The following analysis explored the relationship between whether respondents indicated that they were aware and involved in activities relating to waterway protection and their actual behaviour when it came to waterway protection.
Only weed removal, monitoring, and rubbish clean-up had a statistically significant link with the stewardship construct. The Pearson correlation for these protection activities was positive, suggesting that as the construct increases so too does the activity. Native tree planting and Erosion control were not statistically significant; this could be due to the higher level of coordination required to conduct these activities and a low amount of people actively engaging with these protection behaviours.
Questions Pearson Correlation Significance level with Stewardship protection Weed removal/control .050 .007** Native tree planting -.004 .817ns Monitoring .072 .000*** Rubbish clean up .192 .000*** Erosion control -.031 .101ns
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the stewardship construct with each of the protection activities (the results of this are shown over the page). The results, similar to the Pearson correlation, showed time planting (p = .218) and erosion control (p = .235) not to be significant, but weed removal (p = .04), time monitoring (p = .000), and rubbish clean up (p = .000) were significant (asterisks in graph show significant protection activities). Graphing the descriptive mean scores (solid lines) and adding a trend line (dotted lines) show that for the significant protection activities as time spent on the activity increases so does the stewardship construct. Whereas for the non-significant protection activities, the trend line is either horizontal or slight downward sloping.
Page 54
2017 Social Report - QUT
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4 0 hours 1-5 hours 5-10 hours 10-20 hours 20-30 hours More than 30 hours
Weed removal* Time planting Monitoring* Rubbish clean up* Erosion Control Linear (Weed removal*) Linear (Time planting) Linear (Monitoring*) Linear (Rubbish clean up*) Linear (Erosion Control)
Page 55
2017 Social Report - QUT
9. Catchment Reporting
The following section contains analysis of individual catchment areas under investigation. While some catchment level reporting has been done in the main report (section 8), the following sections contain individual catchment analysis contains tables on the following items: Demographics Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways Use and frequency of activities
Page 56
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.1 Albert Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 20 54.1 Female 17 45.9 Total 37 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 2 5.4 High School 12 32.4 Diploma or Cert 13 35.1 Apprenticeship or trade cert 4 10.8 Bachelor degree 6 16.2 Postgraduate degree 0 0.0 Total 37 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 0 0.0 1-3 years 5 13.5 4-6 years 6 16.2 7-10 years 1 2.7 More than 10 years 25 67.6 Total 37 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 13 35.1 Carer 3 8.1 Full time student 1 2.7 Unemployed and not seeking work 1 2.7 Unemployed and seeking work 1 2.7 Part time employee 7 18.9 Full time work 11 29.7 Total 37 100.0
Page 57
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 2.7 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 3 8.1 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 2 5.4 Construction and Development 0 0.0 Wholesale Trade 2 5.4 Retail Trade 7 18.9 Hospitality and Tourism 1 2.7 Transport and Storage 3 8.1 Communication Services 0 0.0 Finance and Insurance 1 2.7 Property and Business Services 0 0.0 Government Administration and Defence 3 8.1 Education 2 5.4 Health and Community Services 4 10.8 Cultural and Recreational Services 1 2.7 Personal and Other Services 0 0.0 I have not worked 1 2.7 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 4 10.8 Other 2 5.4 Total 37 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 3 8.1 $25,001-$50,000 11 29.7 $50,001-$75,000 8 21.6 $75,001-$100,000 5 13.5 $100,001-$150,000 6 16.2 $150,001-$200,000 1 2.7 Prefer not to say 3 8.1 Total 37 100.0
Protection Activities Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 83.8% 10.8% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 6 43 7.12 Native tree planting 91.9% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 3 53 17.50 Monitoring 89.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 4 50 12.55 Rubbish clean-up 73.0% 18.9% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 10 65 6.52 Erosion control 86.5% 8.1% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 5 40 8.04 Other 86.2% 0.0% 6.9% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 4 55 13.85
Page 58
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Albert
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 16.2 18.9 8.1 29.7 16.2 10.8 0 clarity Pollution 13.5 10.8 18.9 24.3 24.3 8.1 0 levels Fish 8.1 13.5 10.8 32.4 27 5.4 2.7 Local numbers Natural 2.7 16.2 5.4 32.4 32.4 10.8 0 vegetation Overall 2.7 21.6 10.8 21.6 35.1 8.1 0 condition Water 2.7 16.2 16.2 40.5 13.5 10.8 0 clarity Pollution 0 10.8 24.3 29.7 29.7 5.4 0 levels Fish 2.7 10.8 13.5 35.1 24.3 13.5 0 SEQ numbers Natural 0 13.5 8.1 24.3 40.5 13.5 0 vegetation Overall 2.7 5.4 16.2 32.4 29.7 10.8 2.7 condition
Page 59
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways - Albert
In the water usage - Albert How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
With same colouring style as satisfaction and condition table above, so green means good, red means bad. Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 2.70% 5.40% 2.70% 24.30% 10.80% 29.70% 24.30% Clarity Clear 2.70% 5.40% 8.10% 24.30% 16.20% 29.70% 13.50%
Partly 18.90% 13.50% 16.20% 24.30% 24.30% 2.70% 0.00% muddy Muddy 32.40% 16.20% 18.90% 29.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 43.20% 16.20% 18.90% 21.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 2.70% 10.80% 2.70% 24.30% 5.40% 32.40% 21.60% levels pollution Low levels 16.20% 13.50% 13.50% 29.70% 13.50% 8.10% 5.40% of pollution Some 37.80% 16.20% 13.50% 27.00% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% pollution Polluted 54.10% 21.60% 8.10% 16.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 64.90% 13.50% 10.80% 10.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 60
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Albert How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 5.40% 0.00% 5.40% 16.20% 13.50% 24.30% 35.10% Clarity Clear 5.40% 0.00% 5.40% 16.20% 16.20% 24.30% 32.40%
Partly 16.20% 0.00% 8.10% 18.90% 13.50% 35.10% 8.10% muddy Muddy 18.90% 8.10% 10.80% 21.60% 13.50% 18.90% 8.10%
Very 24.30% 8.10% 16.20% 13.50% 18.90% 10.80% 8.10% muddy Pollution No 8.10% 2.70% 5.40% 21.60% 10.80% 16.20% 35.10% levels pollution Low levels 10.80% 2.70% 8.10% 24.30% 10.80% 24.30% 18.90% of pollution Some 16.20% 5.40% 21.60% 29.70% 8.10% 16.20% 2.70% pollution Polluted 24.30% 21.60% 16.20% 24.30% 10.80% 0.00% 2.70%
Very 43.20% 10.80% 18.90% 16.20% 8.10% 0.00% 2.70% polluted
Page 61
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Albert
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 2.71% 8.11% 5.40% 0.00% 83.8% Walking, running 0.00% 2.71% 8.12% 10.82% 8.12% 0.00% 70.3% Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.41% 2.70% 0.00% 91.9% Cycling 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.6% 4WD driving, trail bike 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.41% 5.41% 0.00% 89.2% Recreational fishing 2.71% 0.00% 2.71% 8.11% 2.71% 0.00% 83.8% Boating, sailing 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 89.2% Rowing, kayaking, 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 91.9% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 97.3% snorkeling Enjoying nature 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 10.81% 2.70% 78.4% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 97.3% Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3%
Page 62
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.2 Bremer Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 45 36.3 Female 79 63.7 Total 124 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 6 4.8 High School 36 28.8 Diploma or Cert 38 30.4 Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 8.8 Bachelor degree 23 18.4 Postgraduate degree 9 7.2 Other Qualification 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 4 3.2 1-3 years 9 7.2 4-6 years 8 6.4 7-10 years 6 4.8 More than 10 years 98 78.4 Total 125 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 28 22.4 Carer 6 4.8 Full time student 6 4.8 Unemployed and not seeking work 17 13.6 Unemployed and seeking work 16 12.8 Part time employee 22 17.6 Full time work 30 24.0 Total 125 100.0
Page 63
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 .8 Mining 2 1.6 Manufacturing 3 2.4 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 2.4 Construction and Development 7 5.6 Wholesale Trade 2 1.6 Retail Trade 13 10.4 Hospitality and Tourism 8 6.4 Transport and Storage 7 5.6 Communication Services 1 .8 Finance and Insurance 2 1.6 Property and Business Services 1 .8 Government Administration and Defence 14 11.2 Education 8 6.4 Health and Community Services 13 10.4 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 5 4.0 I have not worked 12 9.6 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 10 8.0 Other 13 10.4 Total 125 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 18 14.4 $25,001-$50,000 29 23.2 $50,001-$75,000 24 19.2 $75,001-$100,000 16 12.8 $100,001-$150,000 12 9.6 $150,001-$200,000 3 2.4 Over $200,000 5 4.0 Prefer not to say 18 14.4 Total 125 100.0 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 85.6% 12.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 18 85 4.73 Native tree planting 89.6% 8.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 13 50 3.86 Monitoring 85.6% 8.0% 2.4% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8% 18 148 8.23 Rubbish clean-up 68.0% 21.6% 8.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 40 210 5.24 Erosion control 92.8% 4.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9 53 5.86 Other 95.7% 3.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4 23 5.63
Page 64
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Bremer
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 17.6 12.8 18.4 25.6 16 7.2 2.4 clarity Pollution 16.8 10.4 20.8 26.4 13.6 10.4 1.6 levels Fish 14.4 11.2 22.4 29.6 15.2 5.6 1.6 Local numbers Natural 7.2 8 16.8 24.8 19.2 19.2 4.8 vegetation Overall 12 8 18.4 25.6 19.2 10.4 6.4 condition Water 10.4 8.8 22.4 21.6 24 8.8 4 clarity Pollution 8.8 12 20.8 26.4 18.4 9.6 4 levels Fish 8.8 9.6 25.6 29.6 18.4 4.8 3.2 SEQ numbers Natural 4 8 20 28 25.6 9.6 4.8 vegetation Overall 7.2 4.8 19.2 32.8 16 14.4 5.6 condition
Page 65
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Bremer
In the water usage - Bremer How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 8.00% 4.00% 3.20% 15.20% 12.80% 20.00% 36.80% Clarity Clear 7.20% 4.00% 4.80% 12.80% 17.60% 28.80% 24.80%
Partly 14.40% 15.20% 18.40% 20.80% 22.40% 5.60% 3.20% muddy Muddy 32.80% 21.60% 20.80% 16.80% 4.00% 2.40% 1.60%
Very 52.00% 23.20% 7.20% 14.40% 0.80% 0.00% 2.40% muddy Pollution No 6.40% 4.80% 3.20% 15.20% 12.00% 20.80% 37.60% levels pollution Low levels 13.60% 14.40% 10.40% 20.00% 12.00% 20.00% 9.60% of pollution Some 24.00% 22.40% 14.40% 25.60% 7.20% 4.00% 2.40% pollution Polluted 58.40% 18.40% 8.00% 12.00% 1.60% 0.00% 1.60%
Very 72.80% 9.60% 3.20% 12.00% 0.80% 0.00% 1.60% polluted
Page 66
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Bremer How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 5.60% 1.60% 4.00% 11.20% 11.20% 18.40% 48.00% Clarity Clear 4.80% 2.40% 4.00% 12.00% 13.60% 21.60% 41.60%
Partly 6.40% 9.60% 9.60% 20.80% 18.40% 20.80% 14.40% muddy Muddy 19.20% 10.40% 16.00% 19.20% 11.20% 20.00% 4.00%
Very 27.20% 14.40% 12.80% 20.80% 11.20% 10.40% 3.20% muddy Pollution No 4.80% 4.00% 0.80% 12.00% 10.40% 16.00% 52.00% levels pollution Low levels 6.40% 9.60% 6.40% 16.00% 18.40% 20.80% 22.40% of pollution Some 19.20% 12.00% 16.00% 26.40% 12.80% 11.20% 2.40% pollution Polluted 40.00% 18.40% 20.00% 13.60% 2.40% 4.80% 0.80%
Very 59.20% 19.20% 3.20% 11.20% 3.20% 3.20% 0.80% polluted
Page 67
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Bremer
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 3.19% 13.59% 13.59% 0.00% 69.6% Walking, running 4.00% 6.38% 1.61% 10.42% 11.19% 0.00% 66.4% Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 5.60% 0.80% 91.2% Cycling 0.00% 2.40% 1.60% 1.60% 0.00% 0.00% 94.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.80% 0.80% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 97.6% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 98.4% Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.60% 0.80% 4.80% 1.60% 0.80% 90.4% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.20% 0.00% 95.2% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 2.40% 0.00% 96.0% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 0.00% 3.99% 2.41% 9.60% 8.80% 0.00% 75.2% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 93.6% Other 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4%
Page 68
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.3 Caboolture Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 83 43.2 Female 109 56.8 Total 192 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 2 1.0 High School 73 37.8 Diploma or Cert 57 29.5 Apprenticeship or trade cert 15 7.8 Bachelor degree 33 17.1 Postgraduate degree 13 6.7 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 193 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 3 1.6 1-3 years 15 7.8 4-6 years 9 4.7 7-10 years 22 11.4 More than 10 years 144 74.6 Total 193 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 49 25.4 Carer 12 6.2 Full time student 13 6.7 Unemployed and not seeking work 16 8.3 Unemployed and seeking work 13 6.7 Part time employee 35 18.1 Full time work 55 28.5 Total 193 100.0
Page 69
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 4 2.1 Mining 6 3.1 Manufacturing 4 2.1 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 1.6 Construction and Development 4 2.1 Wholesale Trade 5 2.6 Retail Trade 32 16.6 Hospitality and Tourism 12 6.2 Transport and Storage 5 2.6 Communication Services 2 1.0 Finance and Insurance 5 2.6 Property and Business Services 5 2.6 Government Administration and Defence 10 5.2 Education 13 6.7 Health and Community Services 15 7.8 Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1.0 Personal and Other Services 8 4.1 I have not worked 13 6.7 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 22 11.4 Other 23 11.9 Total 193 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 21 10.9 $25,001-$50,000 59 30.6 $50,001-$75,000 28 14.5 $75,001-$100,000 26 13.5 $100,001-$150,000 24 12.4 $150,001-$200,000 9 4.7 Over $200,000 0 0.0 Prefer not to say 26 13.5 Total 193 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 89.1% 7.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 21 133 6.34 Native tree planting 90.2% 5.7% 2.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 19 143 7.54 Monitoring 83.4% 8.3% 3.6% 2.6% 0.5% 1.6% 32 284 8.87 Rubbish clean-up 65.3% 22.8% 6.7% 3.1% 1.0% 1.0% 67 410 6.12 Erosion control 92.7% 4.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 14 120 8.60 Other 96.6% 0.7% 1.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 5 58 11.58
Page 70
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Caboolture
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 6.7 10.9 13 37.3 16.1 11.4 4.7 clarity Pollution 6.2 10.4 21.8 25.9 20.7 10.4 4.7 levels Fish 5.2 12.4 19.7 35.8 16.6 7.3 3.1 Local numbers Natural 2.6 4.7 11.9 30.6 25.9 17.1 7.3 vegetation Overall 3.6 8.8 11.9 33.2 25.4 13 4.1 condition Water 4.7 7.8 17.1 35.8 21.8 10.4 2.6 clarity Pollution 3.6 10.9 21.2 29.5 20.7 10.9 3.1 levels Fish 4.1 13 16.1 35.8 21.2 6.7 3.1 SEQ numbers Natural 3.1 5.7 13 32.6 22.8 16.6 6.2 vegetation Overall 4.1 7.3 14 30.6 23.8 17.6 2.6 condition
Page 71
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Caboolture
In the water usage - Caboolture How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 6.70% 4.70% 3.10% 12.40% 13.50% 28.50% 31.10% Clarity Clear 6.20% 4.10% 5.70% 14.50% 15.00% 32.60% 21.80%
Partly 9.80% 17.10% 13.00% 23.30% 22.30% 11.90% 2.60% muddy Muddy 19.70% 28.00% 19.20% 18.70% 10.40% 2.60% 1.60%
Very 46.60% 18.70% 10.40% 16.10% 5.20% 2.10% 1.00% muddy Pollution No 7.30% 4.70% 3.10% 13.00% 10.90% 25.90% 35.20% levels pollution Low levels 12.40% 11.90% 9.30% 20.70% 16.60% 21.80% 7.30% of pollution Some 22.30% 18.10% 20.70% 22.30% 13.00% 3.10% 0.50% pollution Polluted 47.70% 24.40% 10.40% 15.00% 1.60% 1.00% 0.00%
Very 65.80% 15.00% 4.70% 11.90% 2.10% 0.00% 0.50% polluted
Page 72
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Caboolture How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 5.70% 2.10% 2.60% 11.40% 10.90% 21.80% 45.60% Clarity Clear 4.70% 2.60% 2.10% 13.00% 13.00% 27.50% 37.30%
Partly 7.80% 5.70% 8.80% 17.60% 22.30% 21.80% 16.10% muddy Muddy 13.00% 13.00% 14.00% 21.20% 15.50% 16.60% 6.70%
Very 26.90% 9.80% 10.40% 22.30% 14.00% 9.80% 6.70% muddy Pollution No 4.70% 2.60% 2.60% 13.00% 11.90% 19.20% 46.10% levels pollution Low levels 8.30% 5.20% 5.70% 19.70% 17.10% 26.40% 17.60% of pollution Some 15.50% 11.40% 14.50% 24.90% 13.50% 14.50% 5.70% pollution Polluted 34.20% 22.30% 14.50% 15.50% 6.70% 5.20% 1.60%
Very 50.80% 14.00% 11.90% 11.90% 6.70% 2.60% 2.10% polluted
Page 73
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Caboolture
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 1.03% 3.64% 12.95% 19.17% 0.00% 63.2% Walking, running 6.23% 8.81% 6.73% 12.96% 11.39% 0.00% 53.9% Swimming 0.00% 1.03% 2.59% 5.70% 3.11% 0.00% 87.6% Cycling 1.04% 1.55% 0.52% 1.55% 0.52% 0.00% 94.8% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 1.56% 1.56% 0.00% 96.4% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4% Camping 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 0.52% 1.55% 0.00% 96.9% Recreational fishing 0.51% 2.08% 5.71% 5.18% 4.14% 0.00% 82.4% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 2.07% 1.55% 0.52% 95.3% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 1.04% 3.11% 0.52% 93.8% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 97.9% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 3.12% 6.73% 5.17% 7.25% 8.28% 0.00% 69.4% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 99.0% Other 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 0.00% 97.9%
Page 74
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.4 Lockyer Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 38 44.7 Female 47 55.3 Total 85 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 3 3.4 High School 23 26.4 Diploma or Cert 29 33.3 Apprenticeship or trade cert 9 10.3 Bachelor degree 16 18.4 Postgraduate degree 6 6.9 Other Qualification 1 1.1 Total 87 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 1 1.1 1-3 years 4 4.6 4-6 years 3 3.4 7-10 years 12 13.8 More than 10 years 67 77.0 Total 87 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 26 29.9 Carer 2 2.3 Full time student 5 5.7 Unemployed and not seeking work 9 10.3 Unemployed and seeking work 12 13.8 Part time employee 16 18.4 Full time work 17 19.5 Total 87 100.0
Page 75
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.1 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 3 3.4 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 1.1 Construction and Development 4 4.6 Wholesale Trade 1 1.1 Retail Trade 7 8.0 Hospitality and Tourism 4 4.6 Transport and Storage 3 3.4 Communication Services 2 2.3 Finance and Insurance 4 4.6 Property and Business Services 0 0.0 Government Administration and Defence 4 4.6 Education 11 12.6 Health and Community Services 11 12.6 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 1 1.1 I have not worked 8 9.2 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 11 12.6 Other 11 12.6 Total 87 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 9 10.3 $25,001-$50,000 23 26.4 $50,001-$75,000 18 20.7 $75,001-$100,000 11 12.6 $100,001-$150,000 7 8.0 $150,001-$200,000 3 3.4 Over $200,000 1 1.1 Prefer not to say 15 17.2 Total 87 100.0 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 82.8% 9.2% 4.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 15 121 8.05 Native tree planting 90.8% 5.7% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 43 5.36 Monitoring 86.2% 4.6% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 2.3% 12 138 11.51 Rubbish clean-up 67.8% 18.4% 4.6% 4.6% 2.3% 2.3% 28 241 8.60 Erosion control 90.8% 5.7% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 8 83 10.31 Other 95.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3 40 13.40
Page 76
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lockyer
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 12.6 6.9 20.7 29.9 14.9 10.3 4.6 clarity Pollution 12.6 6.9 19.5 25.3 17.2 12.6 5.7 levels Fish 16.1 8 17.2 35.6 12.6 6.9 3.4 Local numbers Natural 10.3 5.7 16.1 25.3 20.7 12.6 9.2 vegetation Overall 10.3 4.6 19.5 26.4 23 12.6 3.4 condition Water 4.6 11.5 13.8 36.8 17.2 10.3 5.7 clarity Pollution 5.7 8 16.1 29.9 20.7 13.8 5.7 levels Fish 5.7 11.5 12.6 37.9 17.2 9.2 5.7 SEQ numbers Natural 4.6 12.6 13.8 27.6 23 11.5 6.9 vegetation Overall 5.7 8 12.6 35.6 20.7 12.6 4.6 condition
Page 77
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lockyer
In the water usage – Lockyer How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 9.20% 6.90% 2.30% 19.50% 12.60% 12.60% 36.80% Clarity Clear 10.30% 6.90% 1.10% 19.50% 13.80% 18.40% 29.90%
Partly 16.10% 11.50% 14.90% 19.50% 21.80% 14.90% 1.10% muddy Muddy 28.70% 18.40% 20.70% 14.90% 12.60% 4.60% 0.00%
Very 49.40% 17.20% 6.90% 17.20% 4.60% 3.40% 1.10% muddy Pollution No 9.20% 8.00% 2.30% 20.70% 8.00% 14.90% 36.80% levels pollution Low levels 14.90% 10.30% 10.30% 20.70% 14.90% 19.50% 9.20% of pollution Some 27.60% 16.10% 20.70% 19.50% 6.90% 8.00% 1.10% pollution Polluted 49.40% 23.00% 10.30% 10.30% 5.70% 1.10% 0.00%
Very 66.70% 14.90% 2.30% 11.50% 2.30% 2.30% 0.00% polluted
Page 78
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Lockyer How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 9.20% 4.60% 0.00% 18.40% 4.60% 24.10% 39.10% Clarity Clear 8.00% 4.60% 1.10% 18.40% 5.70% 26.40% 35.60%
Partly 10.30% 5.70% 5.70% 25.30% 14.90% 25.30% 12.60% muddy Muddy 16.10% 12.60% 10.30% 25.30% 16.10% 16.10% 3.40%
Very 29.90% 11.50% 9.20% 28.70% 6.90% 11.50% 2.30% muddy Pollution No 8.00% 4.60% 2.30% 19.50% 5.70% 18.40% 41.40% levels pollution Low levels 13.80% 4.60% 8.00% 19.50% 14.90% 19.50% 19.50% of pollution Some 26.40% 6.90% 12.60% 23.00% 16.10% 13.80% 1.10% pollution Polluted 41.40% 18.40% 10.30% 19.50% 6.90% 3.40% 0.00%
Very 55.20% 12.60% 5.70% 21.80% 1.10% 3.40% 0.00% polluted
Page 79
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Lockyer
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 1.14% 4.60% 19.54% 1.14% 73.6% Walking, running 4.60% 5.74% 1.14% 3.44% 9.20% 2.30% 73.6% Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.45% 0.00% 94.3% Cycling 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 2.30% 0.00% 0.00% 95.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 97.7% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 98.9% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.45% 0.00% 94.3% Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 4.59% 1.15% 92.0% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 96.6% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 2.30% 0.00% 96.6% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 98.9% snorkeling Enjoying nature 2.30% 3.45% 2.30% 8.05% 6.90% 0.00% 77.0% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 0.00% 98.9% Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Page 80
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.5 Logan Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 127 39.8 Female 192 60.2 Total 319 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 7 2.2 High School 120 37.5 Diploma or Cert 92 28.7 Apprenticeship or trade cert 32 10.0 Bachelor degree 58 18.1 Postgraduate degree 9 2.8 Other Qualification 2 0.6 Total 320 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 10 3.1 1-3 years 27 8.4 4-6 years 23 7.2 7-10 years 26 8.1 More than 10 years 234 73.1 Total 320 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 68 21.3 Carer 16 5.0 Full time student 19 5.9 Unemployed and not seeking work 28 8.8 Unemployed and seeking work 43 13.4 Part time employee 62 19.4 Full time work 84 26.3 Total 320 100.0
Page 81
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 7 2.2 Mining 2 .6 Manufacturing 19 5.9 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 6 1.9 Construction and Development 18 5.6 Wholesale Trade 8 2.5 Retail Trade 34 10.6 Hospitality and Tourism 19 5.9 Transport and Storage 16 5.0 Communication Services 8 2.5 Finance and Insurance 12 3.8 Property and Business Services 7 2.2 Government Administration and Defence 16 5.0 Education 15 4.7 Health and Community Services 31 9.7 Cultural and Recreational Services 2 .6 Personal and Other Services 9 2.8 I have not worked 36 11.3 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 33 10.3 Other 22 6.9 Total 320 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 42 13.1 $25,001-$50,000 64 20.0 $50,001-$75,000 53 16.6 $75,001-$100,000 46 14.4 $100,001-$150,000 50 15.6 $150,001-$200,000 10 3.1 Over $200,000 4 1.3 Prefer not to say 51 15.9 Total 320 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 85.0% 10.3% 1.9% 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 48 314 6.54 Native tree planting 90.0% 4.7% 1.9% 2.5% 0.6% 0.3% 32 284 8.87 Monitoring 85.0% 7.5% 3.8% 1.3% 1.6% 0.9% 48 427 8.90 Rubbish clean-up 70.0% 20.3% 5.0% 3.4% 0.6% 0.6% 96 561 5.84 Erosion control 90.3% 5.0% 1.9% 2.5% 0.3% 0.0% 31 231 7.46 Other 91.8% 2.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.9% 19 192 10.08
Page 82
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Logan
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 13.4 13.1 17.5 32.8 15.3 5.9 1.9 clarity Pollution 12.2 13.8 17.8 31.3 15.3 6.6 3.1 levels Fish 9.7 10.9 20.9 40 11.9 5 1.6 Local numbers Natural 5.9 6.3 14.7 34.7 22.2 11.3 5 vegetation Overall 8.8 7.5 18.4 32.5 20.6 8.4 3.8 condition Water 9.4 8.1 16.3 36.6 17.5 9.7 2.5 clarity Pollution 10 10.9 20.3 31.3 17.2 7.2 3.1 levels Fish 8.4 9.4 18.1 39.1 16.9 7.2 0.9 SEQ numbers Natural 7.8 6.3 15.3 34.4 20.6 11.9 3.8 vegetation Overall 8.8 6.3 15.3 35.9 18.8 11.3 3.8 condition
Page 83
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Logan
In the water usage – Logan How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 8.40% 4.10% 3.80% 17.20% 7.80% 25.30% 33.40% Clarity Clear 7.50% 4.10% 4.70% 18.80% 10.60% 32.50% 21.90%
Partly 16.60% 7.50% 16.30% 25.00% 18.40% 10.90% 5.30% muddy Muddy 26.30% 18.10% 20.30% 20.90% 7.80% 4.70% 1.90%
Very 43.40% 20.60% 11.90% 15.30% 4.70% 1.30% 2.80% muddy Pollution No 6.90% 5.00% 4.10% 16.60% 8.80% 20.30% 38.40% levels pollution Low levels 14.70% 10.00% 10.60% 20.00% 14.70% 21.60% 8.40% of pollution Some 24.70% 15.90% 19.10% 21.90% 13.10% 3.40% 1.90% pollution Polluted 48.80% 20.60% 9.70% 15.30% 3.10% 0.60% 1.90%
Very 65.30% 12.20% 7.20% 10.60% 1.30% 1.30% 2.20% polluted
Page 84
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Logan How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 4.40% 2.80% 3.10% 13.80% 13.40% 19.70% 42.80% Clarity Clear 4.10% 2.80% 2.80% 15.00% 14.40% 26.60% 34.40%
Partly 7.20% 3.80% 10.30% 22.20% 19.40% 22.80% 14.40% muddy Muddy 13.40% 14.40% 11.90% 26.30% 18.10% 9.10% 6.90%
Very 24.70% 15.60% 13.40% 22.80% 11.60% 7.20% 4.70% muddy Pollution No 4.70% 2.20% 3.10% 14.40% 11.60% 18.40% 45.60% levels pollution Low levels 8.40% 4.70% 6.60% 19.70% 14.10% 25.90% 20.60% of pollution Some 14.70% 12.50% 15.90% 23.80% 17.50% 10.30% 5.30% pollution Polluted 30.30% 25.00% 12.20% 18.40% 7.20% 4.40% 2.50%
Very 53.40% 12.50% 8.80% 15.30% 4.10% 3.80% 2.20% polluted
Page 85
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Logan
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.32% 0.95% 2.81% 8.12% 10.31% 0.00% 77.5% Walking, running 4.39% 8.74% 5.94% 6.89% 7.80% 0.00% 66.3% Swimming 0.00% 0.94% 0.62% 2.81% 3.13% 0.00% 92.5% Cycling 0.62% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 0.00% 94.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.00% 98.1% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 98.1% Camping 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 1.56% 0.31% 0.31% 97.2% Recreational fishing 0.32% 0.94% 1.56% 4.38% 5.00% 0.00% 87.8% Boating, sailing 0.31% 0.00% 0.94% 1.25% 2.81% 0.00% 94.7% Rowing, kayaking, 0.31% 0.31% 0.63% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 98.4% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 99.4% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 99.7% snorkeling Enjoying nature 2.50% 4.37% 2.80% 4.69% 5.32% 0.63% 79.7% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.31% 1.25% 1.56% 2.50% 0.31% 94.1% Other 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.31% 98.1%
Page 86
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 372 47.4 Female 413 52.6 Total 785 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 8 1.0 High School 193 24.5 Diploma or Cert 188 23.8 Apprenticeship or trade cert 50 6.3 Bachelor degree 241 30.5 Postgraduate degree 106 13.4 Other Qualification 3 0.4 Total 789 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 37 4.7 1-3 years 68 8.6 4-6 years 61 7.7 7-10 years 63 8.0 More than 10 years 560 71.0 Total 789 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 118 15.0 Carer 23 2.9 Full time student 89 11.3 Unemployed and not seeking work 46 5.8 Unemployed and seeking work 79 10.0 Part time employee 158 20.0 Full time work 276 35.0 Total 789 100.0
Page 87
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 6 .8 Mining 6 .8 Manufacturing 17 2.2 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 15 1.9 Construction and Development 30 3.8 Wholesale Trade 14 1.8 Retail Trade 78 9.9 Hospitality and Tourism 59 7.5 Transport and Storage 40 5.1 Communication Services 18 2.3 Finance and Insurance 42 5.3 Property and Business Services 16 2.0 Government Administration and Defence 58 7.4 Education 73 9.3 Health and Community Services 63 8.0 Cultural and Recreational Services 8 1.0 Personal and Other Services 35 4.4 I have not worked 69 8.7 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 46 5.8 Other 96 12.2 Total 789 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 70 8.9 $25,001-$50,000 157 19.9 $50,001-$75,000 129 16.3 $75,001-$100,000 120 15.2 $100,001-$150,000 128 16.2 $150,001-$200,000 44 5.6 Over $200,000 20 2.5 Prefer not to say 121 15.3 Total 789 100.0 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 84.3% 8.4% 4.2% 1.9% 0.8% 0.5% 124 914 7.37 Native tree planting 84.8% 8.1% 4.2% 1.8% 0.9% 0.3% 120 859 7.16 Monitoring 81.5% 9.8% 5.3% 2.7% 0.4% 0.4% 146 996 6.82 Rubbish clean-up 67.6% 19.9% 8.4% 2.5% 1.0% 0.6% 256 1551 6.06 Erosion control 88.0% 4.7% 4.1% 2.2% 1.0% 0.1% 95 824 8.67 Other 88.9% 3.7% 5.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 66 601 9.11
Page 88
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lower Brisbane
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 9.5 12 20.4 31.8 17.1 6.3 2.8 clarity Pollution 7.1 11.4 20.4 33 18.8 6.7 2.7 levels Fish 7 12.2 20.2 40.3 13.2 4.9 2.3 Local numbers Natural 4.4 7.1 12.8 32.3 25.7 12.2 5.4 vegetation Overall 5.3 8.5 14.7 36.1 20.7 10.3 4.4 condition Water 7.2 8.4 17.4 36.8 18.9 8 3.4 clarity Pollution 6.3 8.9 19.9 37.1 18 7 2.8 levels Fish 5.8 8.6 20.2 39.9 17.2 5.2 3 SEQ numbers Natural 4.7 5.8 13.8 37.1 24.5 9.8 4.3 vegetation Overall 5.1 6.1 16.7 34.7 23.6 9.9 3.9 condition
Page 89
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lower Brisbane
In the water usage – Lower Brisbane How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 6.60% 5.20% 5.60% 18.00% 16.60% 20.40% 27.60% Clarity Clear 5.40% 5.10% 6.80% 18.30% 19.90% 26.70% 17.70%
Partly 11.30% 9.30% 20.40% 25.90% 21.30% 10.40% 1.50% muddy Muddy 22.20% 22.10% 19.30% 23.30% 7.40% 4.80% 1.00%
Very 40.20% 19.30% 13.30% 18.10% 4.80% 3.00% 1.30% muddy Pollution No 5.10% 6.50% 5.70% 18.10% 14.60% 21.40% 28.60% levels pollution Low levels 10.10% 9.50% 12.80% 23.30% 17.50% 20.40% 6.30% of pollution Some 21.00% 17.40% 18.30% 24.60% 12.80% 4.60% 1.40% pollution Polluted 42.20% 21.20% 13.60% 15.80% 2.90% 3.80% 0.50%
Very 58.90% 12.40% 7.50% 14.60% 3.30% 2.00% 1.30% polluted
Page 90
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Lower Brisbane How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 4.80% 3.80% 5.10% 14.40% 13.20% 24.30% 34.30% Clarity Clear 4.30% 3.30% 5.70% 15.50% 15.20% 29.30% 26.70%
Partly 7.10% 5.40% 11.40% 22.70% 20.30% 22.60% 10.50% muddy Muddy 13.30% 13.10% 15.60% 24.10% 15.00% 14.80% 4.20%
Very 24.00% 13.90% 14.40% 22.10% 11.80% 10.40% 3.40% muddy Pollution No 4.60% 2.80% 5.40% 15.80% 12.50% 22.40% 36.40% levels pollution Low levels 7.40% 5.10% 7.90% 20.20% 18.80% 24.70% 16.10% of pollution Some 13.10% 10.30% 17.90% 27.10% 16.30% 11.70% 3.70% pollution Polluted 29.20% 20.30% 18.00% 18.60% 6.60% 6.10% 1.30%
Very 45.40% 14.60% 11.50% 16.70% 5.60% 4.60% 1.60% polluted
Page 91
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Lower Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.14% 1.41% 2.93% 9.88% 13.56% 0.25% 71.9% Walking, running 7.11% 14.82% 5.83% 11.15% 6.61% 0.37% 54.1% Swimming 0.00% 1.40% 1.65% 1.90% 2.91% 0.25% 91.9% Cycling 0.38% 2.15% 1.65% 2.91% 1.77% 0.26% 90.9% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.38% 0.51% 1.01% 0.76% 0.00% 97.3% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 0.76% 0.89% 0.00% 97.3% Camping 0.13% 0.25% 0.13% 0.63% 1.01% 0.13% 97.7% Recreational fishing 0.13% 0.76% 1.01% 2.28% 2.66% 0.13% 93.0% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 1.27% 1.14% 0.13% 96.5% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.89% 0.26% 1.01% 1.77% 0.26% 95.8% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.25% 0.38% 0.63% 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 98.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.25% 0.38% 0.38% 0.25% 0.38% 0.00% 98.4% snorkeling Enjoying nature 2.16% 5.32% 3.04% 5.08% 4.43% 0.12% 79.8% Catching a ferry 0.63% 1.64% 1.39% 4.43% 8.49% 0.51% 82.9% Other 0.00% 0.25% 0.51% 0.00% 0.51% 0.13% 98.6%
Page 92
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.7 Maroochy Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 48 35.0 Female 89 65.0 Total 137 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 46 33.6 High School 47 34.3 Diploma or Cert 8 5.8 Apprenticeship or trade cert 25 18.2 Bachelor degree 11 8.0 Postgraduate degree 46 33.6 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 137 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 7 5.1 1-3 years 8 5.8 4-6 years 5 3.6 7-10 years 13 9.5 More than 10 years 104 75.9 Total 137 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 45 32.8 Carer 2 1.5 Full time student 9 6.6 Unemployed and not seeking work 10 7.3 Unemployed and seeking work 15 10.9 Part time employee 28 20.4 Full time work 28 20.4 Total 137 100.0
Page 93
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0 Mining 3 2.2 Manufacturing 1 .7 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 .7 Construction and Development 4 2.9 Wholesale Trade 0 0.0 Retail Trade 15 10.9 Hospitality and Tourism 12 8.8 Transport and Storage 4 2.9 Communication Services 1 .7 Finance and Insurance 8 5.8 Property and Business Services 4 2.9 Government Administration and Defence 4 2.9 Education 10 7.3 Health and Community Services 12 8.8 Cultural and Recreational Services 1 .7 Personal and Other Services 6 4.4 I have not worked 8 5.8 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 28 20.4 Other 15 10.9 Total 137 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 18 13.1 $25,001-$50,000 42 30.7 $50,001-$75,000 21 15.3 $75,001-$100,000 15 10.9 $100,001-$150,000 15 10.9 $150,001-$200,000 3 2.2 Over $200,000 1 0.7 Prefer not to say 22 16.1 Total 137 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 83.9% 10.2% 2.9% 2.2% 0.0% 0.7% 22 141 6.40 Native tree planting 86.1% 6.6% 5.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 19 146 7.71 Monitoring 79.6% 10.2% 5.8% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 28 212 7.56 Rubbish clean-up 59.1% 27.0% 9.5% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 56 308 5.49 Erosion control 88.3% 7.3% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 16 96 5.99 Other 95.1% 2.9% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 23 4.58
Page 94
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Maroochy
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 0.7 3.6 13.1 17.5 32.8 22.6 9.5 clarity Pollution 0.7 6.6 12.4 21.2 33.6 19 6.6 levels Fish 1.5 4.4 20.4 37.2 19.7 12.4 4.4 Local numbers Natural 0.0 4.4 6.6 22.6 32.1 25.5 8.8 vegetation Overall 0.0 0.7 10.9 21.9 36.5 21.2 8.8 condition Water 1.5 2.2 14.6 31.4 29.9 15.3 5.1 clarity Pollution 1.5 4.4 16.1 29.9 30.7 13.1 4.4 levels Fish 1.5 5.1 17.5 39.4 21.9 12.4 2.2 SEQ numbers Natural 0.0 2.9 8.8 31.4 29.9 20.4 6.6 vegetation Overall 0.7 2.2 9.5 31.4 32.8 17.5 5.8 condition
Page 95
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Maroochy
In the water usage – Maroochy How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 5.80% 2.90% 4.40% 13.10% 9.50% 24.10% 40.10% Clarity Clear 5.10% 2.20% 4.40% 14.60% 13.90% 29.20% 30.70%
Partly 10.90% 14.60% 18.20% 16.80% 17.50% 19.70% 2.20% muddy Muddy 24.80% 21.90% 17.50% 21.20% 8.80% 5.10% 0.70%
Very 45.30% 21.20% 12.40% 16.10% 0.70% 3.60% 0.70% muddy Pollution No 4.40% 2.20% 7.30% 10.90% 8.00% 24.80% 42.30% levels pollution Low levels 10.20% 7.30% 13.90% 18.20% 16.10% 26.30% 8.00% of pollution Some 26.30% 16.10% 20.40% 20.40% 13.10% 3.60% 0.00% pollution Polluted 52.60% 22.60% 9.50% 12.40% 0.70% 2.20% 0.00%
Very 70.80% 12.40% 7.30% 8.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% polluted
Page 96
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Maroochy How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.50% 1.50% 0.70% 10.90% 10.90% 28.50% 46.00% Clarity Clear 0.70% 1.50% 2.90% 10.20% 11.70% 35.00% 38.00%
Partly 4.40% 2.90% 13.90% 16.10% 24.10% 21.20% 17.50% muddy Muddy 11.70% 13.90% 13.90% 20.40% 18.20% 11.70% 10.20%
Very 22.60% 12.40% 16.80% 18.20% 12.40% 8.80% 8.80% muddy Pollution No 1.50% 1.50% 4.40% 11.70% 8.80% 26.30% 46.00% levels pollution Low levels 5.10% 2.90% 5.80% 16.80% 17.50% 34.30% 17.50% of pollution Some 15.30% 5.80% 17.50% 26.30% 18.20% 14.60% 2.20% pollution Polluted 29.90% 22.60% 16.10% 19.00% 8.00% 3.60% 0.70%
Very 51.10% 16.80% 10.90% 13.10% 4.40% 2.90% 0.70% polluted
Page 97
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Maroochy
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 3.66% 4.38% 16.04% 23.36% 0.72% 51.8% Walking, running 8.75% 18.98% 7.27% 13.13% 10.23% 0.71% 40.9% Swimming 2.18% 7.29% 3.66% 8.03% 10.95% 0.00% 67.9% Cycling 0.73% 2.92% 0.73% 2.19% 1.46% 0.00% 92.0% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 1.46% 1.46% 0.73% 95.6% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.73% 1.46% 0.73% 0.00% 0.73% 96.4% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.65% 2.19% 0.73% 93.4% Recreational fishing 0.00% 3.65% 1.46% 10.96% 9.48% 0.00% 74.5% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.19% 2.93% 8.03% 0.74% 86.1% Rowing, kayaking, 0.73% 0.73% 1.46% 1.46% 5.84% 0.73% 89.1% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 4.38% 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 93.4% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.46% 0.00% 0.00% 98.5% snorkeling Enjoying nature 2.92% 8.77% 2.92% 9.49% 8.77% 0.00% 67.2% Catching a ferry 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 4.38% 0.00% 93.4% Other 0.00% 1.46% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 2.19% 95.6%
Page 98
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 7 29.2 Female 17 70.8 Total 24 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 1 4.2 High School 5 20.8 Diploma or Cert 10 41.7 Apprenticeship or trade cert 7 29.2 Bachelor degree 1 4.2 Postgraduate degree 1 4.2 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 24 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 0 0.0 1-3 years 2 8.3 4-6 years 1 4.2 7-10 years 3 12.5 More than 10 years 18 75.0 Total 24 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 3 12.5 Carer 1 4.2 Full time student 3 12.5 Unemployed and not seeking work 0 0.0 Unemployed and seeking work 4 16.7 Part time employee 7 29.2 Full time work 6 25.0 Total 24 100.0
Page 99
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 4.2 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 1 4.2 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0 Construction and Development 0 0.0 Wholesale Trade 0 0.0 Retail Trade 1 4.2 Hospitality and Tourism 3 12.5 Transport and Storage 1 4.2 Communication Services 1 4.2 Finance and Insurance 0 0.0 Property and Business Services 2 8.3 Government Administration and Defence 1 4.2 Education 3 12.5 Health and Community Services 3 12.5 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 1 4.2 I have not worked 1 4.2 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 1 4.2 Other 4 16.7 Total 24 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 1 4.2 $25,001-$50,000 3 12.5 $50,001-$75,000 5 20.8 $75,001-$100,000 5 20.8 $100,001-$150,000 0 0.0 $150,001-$200,000 1 4.2 Over $200,000 1 4.2 Prefer not to say 8 33.3 Total 24 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 83.3% 12.5% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 15 3.80 Native tree planting 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 10 2.50 Monitoring 87.5% 4.2% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3 33 10.83 Rubbish clean-up 62.5% 20.8% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9 58 6.43 Erosion control 87.5% 8.3% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 13 4.23 Other 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 3 2.50
Page 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mid Brisbane
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 4.2 4.2 29.2 33.3 16.7 12.5 0 clarity Pollution 0 8.3 8.3 29.2 37.5 16.7 0 levels Fish 4.2 4.2 12.5 41.7 29.2 4.2 4.2 Local numbers Natural 0 0 16.7 37.5 25 16.7 4.2 vegetation Overall 0 0 20.8 37.5 25 12.5 4.2 condition Water 4.2 0 25 41.7 16.7 12.5 0 clarity Pollution 0 8.3 8.3 58.3 16.7 8.3 levels Fish 0 4.2 8.3 50 25 4.2 8.3 SEQ numbers Natural 0 0 20.8 37.5 29.2 8.3 4.2 vegetation Overall 0 0 12.5 50 20.8 4.2 12.5 condition
Page 101
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mid Brisbane
In the water usage – Mid Brisbane How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 29.20% 33.30% Clarity Clear 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 29.20% 33.30%
Partly 4.20% 4.20% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 41.70% 0.00% muddy Muddy 8.30% 12.50% 20.80% 25.00% 16.70% 16.70% 0.00%
Very 29.20% 25.00% 8.30% 12.50% 12.50% 8.30% 4.20% muddy Pollution No 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 8.30% 29.20% 41.70% levels pollution Low levels 0.00% 8.30% 0.00% 20.80% 12.50% 45.80% 12.50% of pollution Some 12.50% 12.50% 16.70% 20.80% 25.00% 12.50% 0.00% pollution Polluted 37.50% 16.70% 16.70% 12.50% 12.50% 4.20% 0.00%
Very 50.00% 25.00% 4.20% 12.50% 4.20% 4.20% 0.00% polluted
Page 102
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Mid Brisbane How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 12.50% 37.50% 37.50% Clarity Clear 0.00% 0.00% 4.20% 8.30% 12.50% 41.70% 33.30%
Partly 4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 20.80% 25.00% 33.30% 16.70% muddy Muddy 8.30% 8.30% 0.00% 29.20% 20.80% 29.20% 4.20%
Very 16.70% 8.30% 4.20% 29.20% 20.80% 12.50% 8.30% muddy Pollution No 0.00% 4.20% 0.00% 12.50% 16.70% 20.80% 45.80% levels pollution Low levels 8.30% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 12.50% 29.20% 20.80% of pollution Some 12.50% 4.20% 12.50% 37.50% 16.70% 12.50% 4.20% pollution Polluted 37.50% 20.80% 8.30% 20.80% 8.30% 4.20% 0.00%
Very 50.00% 29.20% 0.00% 8.30% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 103
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Mid Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 12.51% 24.98% 0.00% 54.2% Walking, running 0.00% 8.33% 8.33% 4.17% 20.83% 0.00% 58.3% Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 12.50% 0.00% 83.3% Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.16% 8.34% 0.00% 87.5% Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 20.83% 0.00% 70.8% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 91.7% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 8.33% 20.83% 0.00% 58.3% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 0.00% 91.7% Other 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.8%
Page 104
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.9 Mooloolah Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 50 37.0 Female 85 63.0 Total 135 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 3 2.2 High School 53 39.3 Diploma or Cert 38 28.1 Apprenticeship or trade cert 10 7.4 Bachelor degree 18 13.3 Postgraduate degree 9 6.7 Other Qualification 4 3.0 Total 135 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 8 5.9 1-3 years 15 11.1 4-6 years 14 10.4 7-10 years 11 8.1 More than 10 years 87 64.4 Total 135 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 40 29.6 Carer 7 5.2 Full time student 10 7.4 Unemployed and not seeking work 10 7.4 Unemployed and seeking work 14 10.4 Part time employee 25 18.5 Full time work 29 21.5 Total 135 100.0
Page 105
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1.5 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 3 2.2 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 .7 Construction and Development 5 3.7 Wholesale Trade 3 2.2 Retail Trade 18 13.3 Hospitality and Tourism 14 10.4 Transport and Storage 1 .7 Communication Services 3 2.2 Finance and Insurance 6 4.4 Property and Business Services 3 2.2 Government Administration and Defence 5 3.7 Education 9 6.7 Health and Community Services 13 9.6 Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1.5 Personal and Other Services 6 4.4 I have not worked 8 5.9 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 19 14.1 Other 14 10.4 Total 135 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 25 18.5 $25,001-$50,000 38 28.1 $50,001-$75,000 24 17.8 $75,001-$100,000 11 8.1 $100,001-$150,000 9 6.7 $150,001-$200,000 1 0.7 Over $200,000 1 0.7 Prefer not to say 26 19.3 Total 135 100.0 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 89.6% 5.2% 3.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.5% 14 123 8.81 Native tree planting 86.7% 9.6% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 18 88 4.91 Monitoring 80.0% 8.9% 6.7% 2.2% 1.5% 0.7% 27 224 8.31 Rubbish clean-up 54.8% 30.4% 8.1% 3.0% 2.2% 1.5% 61 382 6.27 Erosion control 88.1% 7.4% 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 16 123 7.69 Other 92.5% 2.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.9% 8 108 13.49
Page 106
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mooloolah
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 3.7 3.7 12.6 24.4 23.7 19.3 12.6 clarity Pollution 0.7 8.9 12.6 31.9 22.2 14.1 9.6 levels Fish 2.2 5.9 15.6 39.3 20.7 10.4 5.9 Local numbers Natural 0.7 0 11.1 29.6 25.9 23 9.6 vegetation Overall 0 2.2 6.7 29.6 28.1 22.2 11.1 condition Water 2.2 5.2 14.8 35.6 23 12.6 6.7 clarity Pollution 1.5 6.7 17 38.5 17.8 11.1 7.4 levels Fish 0.7 6.7 20.7 40 17.8 10.4 3.7 SEQ numbers Natural 0.7 1.5 14.1 34.8 25.2 16.3 7.4 vegetation Overall 0.7 3.7 11.1 38.5 24.4 14.1 7.4 condition
Page 107
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mooloolah
In the water usage – Mooloolah How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 6.70% 2.20% 0.70% 11.90% 12.60% 23.70% 42.20% Clarity Clear 5.90% 3.00% 0.70% 11.90% 14.80% 33.30% 30.40%
Partly 11.10% 11.90% 12.60% 23.70% 19.30% 19.30% 2.20% muddy Muddy 25.20% 16.30% 17.80% 18.50% 14.10% 5.90% 2.20%
Very 46.70% 20.00% 7.40% 11.90% 5.90% 6.70% 1.50% muddy Pollution No 4.40% 1.50% 2.20% 9.60% 10.40% 24.40% 47.40% levels pollution Low levels 8.90% 5.20% 8.90% 18.50% 21.50% 26.70% 10.40% of pollution Some 21.50% 12.60% 25.90% 19.30% 12.60% 7.40% 0.70% pollution Polluted 49.60% 24.40% 11.10% 8.10% 3.70% 3.00% 0.00%
Very 74.80% 6.70% 4.40% 8.90% 2.20% 2.20% 0.70% polluted
Page 108
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Mooloolah How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 2.20% 1.50% 2.20% 5.90% 6.70% 20.70% 60.70% Clarity Clear 0.70% 1.50% 3.70% 5.90% 8.10% 30.40% 49.60%
Partly 4.40% 2.20% 9.60% 12.60% 23.70% 28.90% 18.50% muddy Muddy 13.30% 6.70% 14.10% 20.70% 16.30% 14.10% 14.80%
Very 20.70% 15.60% 15.60% 11.10% 14.80% 12.60% 9.60% muddy Pollution No 0.70% 2.20% 3.70% 5.20% 5.20% 23.70% 59.30% levels pollution Low levels 5.90% 3.70% 7.40% 9.60% 17.80% 31.10% 24.40% of pollution Some 13.30% 8.90% 17.00% 23.00% 21.50% 11.10% 5.20% pollution Polluted 36.30% 20.00% 19.30% 8.90% 9.60% 3.70% 2.20%
Very 60.00% 12.60% 6.70% 8.90% 8.10% 3.00% 0.70% polluted
Page 109
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Mooloolah
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 1.48% 2.96% 9.61% 19.27% 17.79% 0.00% 48.9% Walking, running 18.53% 25.18% 6.66% 11.87% 2.97% 0.73% 34.1% Swimming 2.23% 8.17% 4.43% 17.03% 6.66% 0.00% 61.5% Cycling 1.48% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 2.22% 0.75% 82.2% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.74% 2.22% 0.00% 95.6% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.74% 0.00% 98.5% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.74% 0.74% 96.3% Recreational fishing 0.00% 2.96% 2.96% 8.16% 8.16% 0.00% 77.8% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 4.44% 2.22% 0.74% 91.1% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 2.22% 1.48% 2.96% 7.40% 1.48% 84.4% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 1.48% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 97.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 7.42% 11.86% 3.69% 10.36% 5.93% 0.00% 60.7% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 1.48% 0.00% 97.8% Other 1.48% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 94.1%
Page 110
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.10 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 28 47.5 Female 31 52.5 Total 59 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 0 0.0 High School 14 23.7 Diploma or Cert 10 16.9 Apprenticeship or trade cert 9 15.3 Bachelor degree 18 30.5 Postgraduate degree 7 11.9 Other Qualification 1 1.7 Total 59 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 3 5.1 1-3 years 5 8.5 4-6 years 3 5.1 7-10 years 4 6.8 More than 10 years 44 74.6 Total 59 100.0 Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 25 42.4 Carer 1 1.7 Full time student 0 0.0 Unemployed and not seeking work 2 3.4 Unemployed and seeking work 3 5.1 Part time employee 13 22.0 Full time work 15 25.4 Total 59 100.0
Page 111
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.7 Mining 1 1.7 Manufacturing 0 0.0 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0 Construction and Development 2 3.4 Wholesale Trade 1 1.7 Retail Trade 2 3.4 Hospitality and Tourism 7 11.9 Transport and Storage 3 5.1 Communication Services 1 1.7 Finance and Insurance 5 8.5 Property and Business Services 3 5.1 Government Administration and Defence 6 10.2 Education 4 6.8 Health and Community Services 7 11.9 Cultural and Recreational Services 1 1.7 Personal and Other Services 1 1.7 I have not worked 2 3.4 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 7 11.9 Other 5 8.5 Total 59 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 6 10.2 $25,001-$50,000 16 27.1 $50,001-$75,000 9 15.3 $75,001-$100,000 7 11.9 $100,001-$150,000 10 16.9 $150,001-$200,000 2 3.4 Over $200,000 1 1.7 Prefer not to say 8 13.6 Total 59 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 81.4% 8.5% 5.1% 3.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11 96 8.69 Native tree planting 83.1% 10.2% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 10 68 6.81 Monitoring 67.8% 20.3% 6.8% 0.0% 1.7% 3.4% 19 146 7.67 Rubbish clean-up 42.4% 32.2% 16.9% 3.4% 3.4% 1.7% 34 235 6.90 Erosion control 91.5% 1.7% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 33 6.66 Other 94.9% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2 18 8.75
Page 112
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 3.4 3.4 8.5 15.3 40.7 18.6 10.2 clarity Pollution 5.1 1.7 15.3 25.4 39 8.5 5.1 levels Fish 3.4 3.4 18.6 37.3 23.7 10.2 3.4 Local numbers Natural 1.7 1.7 8.5 27.1 39 18.6 3.4 vegetation Overall 1.7 1.7 10.2 20.3 40.7 20.3 5.1 condition Water 0 5.1 13.6 32.2 35.6 8.5 5.1 clarity Pollution 1.7 6.8 20.3 27.1 33.9 6.8 3.4 levels Fish 1.7 6.8 20.3 33.9 27.1 6.8 3.4 SEQ numbers Natural 0 5.1 11.9 27.1 33.9 18.6 3.4 vegetation Overall 0 5.1 15.3 30.5 37.3 8.5 3.4 condition
Page 113
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
In the water usage – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 0.00% 5.10% 1.70% 3.40% 15.30% 27.10% 47.50% Clarity Clear 0.00% 1.70% 3.40% 6.80% 15.30% 37.30% 35.60%
Partly 3.40% 5.10% 32.20% 16.90% 15.30% 15.30% 11.90% muddy Muddy 18.60% 33.90% 8.50% 18.60% 13.60% 5.10% 1.70%
Very 45.80% 16.90% 16.90% 13.60% 5.10% 1.70% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 0.00% 5.10% 3.40% 5.10% 5.10% 28.80% 52.50% levels pollution Low levels 0.00% 11.90% 13.60% 8.50% 22.00% 28.80% 15.30% of pollution Some 10.20% 15.30% 16.90% 22.00% 13.60% 15.30% 6.80% pollution Polluted 37.30% 33.90% 13.60% 8.50% 6.80% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 66.10% 20.30% 5.10% 6.80% 1.70% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 114
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 3.40% 6.80% 27.10% 55.90% Clarity Clear 1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 1.70% 10.20% 37.30% 44.10%
Partly 5.10% 1.70% 13.60% 13.60% 25.40% 23.70% 16.90% muddy Muddy 13.60% 13.60% 18.60% 20.30% 15.30% 5.10% 13.60%
Very 25.40% 15.30% 23.70% 16.90% 6.80% 3.40% 8.50% muddy Pollution No 1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 5.10% 6.80% 28.80% 52.50% levels pollution Low levels 3.40% 5.10% 8.50% 8.50% 20.30% 25.40% 28.80% of pollution Some 10.20% 13.60% 11.90% 18.60% 18.60% 11.90% 15.30% pollution Polluted 28.80% 25.40% 20.30% 8.50% 5.10% 3.40% 8.50%
Very 50.80% 13.60% 16.90% 6.80% 3.40% 0.00% 8.50% polluted
Page 115
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Moreton Bay and Islands
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 11.86% 5.08% 15.23% 15.23% 0.00% 52.5% Walking, running 33.88% 20.35% 1.67% 6.76% 1.67% 0.00% 35.6% Swimming 3.39% 10.16% 3.39% 10.16% 3.39% 0.00% 69.5% Cycling 3.39% 10.18% 5.08% 1.68% 3.39% 0.00% 76.3% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 3.39% 0.00% 0.00% 94.9% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 1.69% 1.69% 94.9% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 98.3% Recreational fishing 1.70% 5.07% 8.47% 11.87% 1.70% 0.00% 71.2% Boating, sailing 0.00% 10.17% 1.71% 10.17% 5.10% 0.00% 72.9% Rowing, kayaking, 1.70% 3.39% 3.39% 5.09% 5.09% 0.00% 81.4% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.3% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 13.55% 22.05% 3.38% 1.71% 0.00% 0.00% 59.3% Catching a ferry 1.69% 5.08% 5.08% 5.08% 3.40% 0.00% 79.7% Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Page 116
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.11 Nerang Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 124 47.0 Female 140 53.0 Total 264 100.0 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 1 .4 High School 73 27.7 Diploma or Cert 77 29.2 Apprenticeship or trade cert 21 8.0 Bachelor degree 62 23.5 Postgraduate degree 30 11.4 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 264 100.0 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 18 6.8 1-3 years 34 12.9 4-6 years 22 8.3 7-10 years 24 9.1 More than 10 years 166 62.9 Total 264 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 65 24.6 Carer 2 .8 Full time student 16 6.1 Unemployed and not seeking work 17 6.4 Unemployed and seeking work 21 8.0 Part time employee 49 18.6 Full time work 94 35.6 Total 264 100.0
Page 117
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 3 1.1 Mining 1 .4 Manufacturing 5 1.9 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 2 .8 Construction and Development 18 6.8 Wholesale Trade 8 3.0 Retail Trade 23 8.7 Hospitality and Tourism 26 9.8 Transport and Storage 9 3.4 Communication Services 4 1.5 Finance and Insurance 15 5.7 Property and Business Services 8 3.0 Government Administration and Defence 20 7.6 Education 25 9.5 Health and Community Services 27 10.2 Cultural and Recreational Services 4 1.5 Personal and Other Services 8 3.0 I have not worked 12 4.5 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 19 7.2 Other 27 10.2 Total 264 100.0 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 24 9.1 $25,001-$50,000 50 18.9 $50,001-$75,000 45 17.0 $75,001-$100,000 44 16.7 $100,001-$150,000 52 19.7 $150,001-$200,000 6 2.3 Over $200,000 5 1.9 Prefer not to say 38 14.4 Total 264 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 85.6% 7.6% 3.4% 1.9% 0.4% 1.1% 38 309 8.14 Native tree planting 88.3% 8.0% 1.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 31 196 6.32 Monitoring 78.8% 12.9% 4.5% 1.9% 0.4% 1.5% 56 397 7.10 Rubbish clean-up 60.6% 27.7% 5.3% 2.7% 1.9% 1.9% 104 670 6.45 Erosion control 88.6% 6.8% 2.3% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 30 221 7.37 Other 90.4% 5.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 18 148 8.23
Page 118
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Nerang Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 2.3 4.9 12.9 25.4 23.5 22.3 8.7 clarity Pollution 2.3 8 12.5 24.6 25.8 18.6 8.3 levels Fish 1.9 4.9 15.2 39.8 21.6 11.4 5.3 Local numbers Natural 0.4 3 11.7 29.5 29.2 17.4 8.7 vegetation Overall 1.5 3.8 11.4 21.6 28.8 22.3 10.6 condition Water 1.1 4.5 13.6 25.4 29.2 18.2 8 clarity Pollution 1.1 8.7 14.8 28.8 25.4 14.4 6.8 levels Fish 1.9 6.1 13.3 40.5 22.3 11 4.9 SEQ numbers Natural 0.8 3.4 11.4 28.8 31.1 17 7.6 vegetation Overall 0.4 4.9 12.9 26.5 26.9 20.1 8.3 condition
Page 119
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Nerang
In the water usage – Nerang How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.80% 4.20% 5.30% 12.90% 15.20% 21.60% 37.10% Clarity Clear 3.00% 6.40% 4.90% 10.20% 19.70% 28.40% 27.30%
Partly 15.20% 15.50% 19.30% 22.30% 18.20% 6.40% 3.00% muddy Muddy 28.80% 23.90% 20.80% 14.00% 8.00% 2.70% 1.90%
Very 50.40% 18.20% 12.50% 10.20% 5.70% 1.50% 1.50% muddy Pollution No 5.30% 5.30% 5.70% 10.20% 13.60% 22.00% 37.90% levels pollution Low levels 12.10% 9.10% 15.20% 15.90% 18.20% 21.60% 8.00% of pollution Some 26.10% 15.20% 16.70% 23.10% 11.40% 5.30% 2.30% pollution Polluted 52.70% 21.60% 9.80% 7.20% 5.30% 3.00% 0.40%
Very 68.20% 9.50% 5.70% 11.00% 3.40% 1.10% 1.10% polluted
Page 120
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Nerang How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.90% 2.30% 4.20% 8.70% 11.40% 25.00% 46.60% Clarity Clear 1.50% 4.20% 3.00% 8.70% 12.50% 33.70% 36.40%
Partly 6.80% 8.70% 9.10% 20.10% 17.80% 27.30% 10.20% muddy Muddy 14.00% 14.40% 15.20% 22.00% 13.60% 12.10% 8.70%
Very 22.00% 18.20% 16.30% 16.70% 12.10% 8.70% 6.10% muddy Pollution No 3.00% 5.30% 3.80% 9.50% 9.10% 22.70% 46.60% levels pollution Low levels 6.40% 8.70% 8.00% 17.40% 15.20% 22.70% 21.60% of pollution Some 14.80% 13.30% 13.60% 21.60% 15.90% 14.00% 6.80% pollution Polluted 33.00% 23.50% 14.80% 13.30% 7.60% 4.50% 3.40%
Very 49.20% 17.00% 9.10% 13.60% 4.90% 3.40% 2.70% polluted
Page 121
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Nerang
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.37% 3.01% 6.81% 11.73% 18.58% 0.74% 58.7% Walking, running 10.59% 19.69% 11.01% 11.37% 6.04% 1.14% 40.2% Swimming 1.91% 5.30% 7.57% 7.96% 5.30% 0.00% 72.0% Cycling 1.52% 4.55% 2.64% 4.17% 1.89% 0.00% 85.2% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 0.38% 0.00% 97.3% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 0.76% 98.5% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 1.51% 0.00% 96.6% Recreational fishing 0.00% 2.28% 2.66% 6.83% 4.17% 0.00% 84.1% Boating, sailing 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 3.41% 4.54% 0.38% 89.8% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 1.89% 1.51% 3.41% 3.41% 0.00% 89.8% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 1.14% 2.27% 1.52% 1.89% 0.76% 0.00% 92.4% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 1.89% 0.38% 0.00% 97.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 3.80% 6.82% 4.55% 7.95% 4.92% 0.75% 71.2% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.76% 1.90% 1.51% 0.38% 95.5% Other 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.76% 0.38% 0.00% 98.1%
Page 122
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.12 Noosa Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 21 46.7 Female 24 53.3 Total 45 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 1 2.2 High School 13 28.9 Diploma or Cert 14 31.1 Apprenticeship or trade cert 4 8.9 Bachelor degree 4 8.9 Postgraduate degree 9 20 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 45 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 2 4.4 1-3 years 1 2.2 4-6 years 8 17.8 7-10 years 7 15.6 More than 10 years 27 60 Total 45 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 18 40 Carer 3 6.7 Full time student 2 4.4 Unemployed and not seeking work 3 6.7 Unemployed and seeking work 2 4.4 Part time employee 6 13.3 Full time work 11 24.4 Total 45 100
Page 123
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0 Mining 1 2.2 Manufacturing 2 4.4 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0 Construction and Development 1 2.2 Wholesale Trade 1 2.2 Retail Trade 3 6.7 Hospitality and Tourism 2 4.4 Transport and Storage 3 6.7 Communication Services 0 0.0 Finance and Insurance 3 6.7 Property and Business Services 2 4.4 Government Administration and Defence 1 2.2 Education 5 11.1 Health and Community Services 8 17.8 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 1 2.2 I have not worked 3 6.7 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 7 15.6 Other 2 4.4 Total 45 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 3 6.7 $25,001-$50,000 13 28.9 $50,001-$75,000 8 17.8 $75,001-$100,000 8 17.8 $100,001-$150,000 4 8.9 $150,001-$200,000 1 2.2 Over $200,000 0 0.0 Prefer not to say 8 17.8 Total 45 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 10 5.10 Native tree planting 91.1% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 20 5.10 Monitoring 86.7% 2.2% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 6 63 10.55 Rubbish clean-up 62.2% 20.0% 13.3% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 17 109 6.39 Erosion control 91.1% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 20 5.10 Other 92.3% 2.6% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97
Page 124
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Noosa Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 2.2 0 4.4 8.9 33.3 35.6 15.6 clarity Pollution 2.2 0 6.7 11.1 40 24.4 15.6 levels Fish 2.2 2.2 8.9 28.9 33.3 13.3 11.1 Local numbers Natural 2.2 0 4.4 6.7 35.6 33.3 17.8 vegetation Overall 2.2 0 0 8.9 31.1 40 17.8 condition Water 2.2 0 8.9 28.9 28.9 17.8 13.3 clarity Pollution 2.2 0 11.1 33.3 22.2 15.6 15.6 levels Fish 2.2 2.2 15.6 37.8 22.2 11.1 8.9 SEQ numbers Natural 4.4 2.2 8.9 24.4 26.7 22.2 11.1 vegetation Overall 2.2 0 8.9 33.3 20 22.2 13.3 condition
Page 125
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Noosa
In the water usage – Noosa How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 15.60% 22.20% 51.10% Clarity Clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 13.30% 44.40% 31.10%
Partly 6.70% 13.30% 28.90% 20.00% 24.40% 4.40% 2.20% muddy Muddy 33.30% 35.60% 17.80% 6.70% 6.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 68.90% 13.30% 8.90% 8.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 6.70% 11.10% 26.70% 51.10% levels pollution Low levels 2.20% 8.90% 15.60% 15.60% 17.80% 26.70% 13.30% of pollution Some 17.80% 22.20% 28.90% 22.20% 6.70% 2.20% 0.00% pollution Polluted 64.40% 20.00% 11.10% 4.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 82.20% 11.10% 2.20% 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 126
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Noosa How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 15.60% 22.20% 51.10% Clarity Clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 13.30% 44.40% 31.10%
Partly 6.70% 13.30% 28.90% 20.00% 24.40% 4.40% 2.20% muddy Muddy 33.30% 35.60% 17.80% 6.70% 6.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 68.90% 13.30% 8.90% 8.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 6.70% 11.10% 26.70% 51.10% levels pollution Low levels 2.20% 8.90% 15.60% 15.60% 17.80% 26.70% 13.30% of pollution Some 17.80% 22.20% 28.90% 22.20% 6.70% 2.20% 0.00% pollution Polluted 64.40% 20.00% 11.10% 4.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 82.20% 11.10% 2.20% 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 127
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Noosa
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.20% 2.20% 24.43% 22.23% 0.00% 48.9% Walking, running 8.90% 24.45% 8.90% 15.56% 4.42% 0.00% 37.8% Swimming 0.00% 8.89% 8.89% 15.57% 2.24% 0.00% 64.4% Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 2.22% 2.22% 0.00% 84.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 95.6% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.45% 0.00% 93.3% Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.45% 8.88% 0.00% 84.4% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.44% 8.89% 2.22% 82.2% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 91.1% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 6.66% 8.90% 4.45% 6.66% 4.45% 0.00% 68.9% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 88.9% Other 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.8%
Page 128
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.13 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 111 44.4 Female 139 55.6 Total 250 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 2 0.8 High School 76 30.4 Diploma or Cert 92 36.8 Apprenticeship or trade cert 23 9.2 Bachelor degree 42 16.8 Postgraduate degree 15 6 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 250 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 8 3.2 1-3 years 36 14.4 4-6 years 26 10.4 7-10 years 22 8.8 More than 10 years 158 63.2 Total 250 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 52 20.8 Carer 4 1.6 Full time student 14 5.6 Unemployed and not seeking work 21 8.4 Unemployed and seeking work 25 10 Part time employee 47 18.8 Full time work 87 34.8 Total 250 100
Page 129
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 4 1.6 Mining 1 0.4 Manufacturing 12 4.8 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 4 1.6 Construction and Development 14 5.6 Wholesale Trade 9 3.6 Retail Trade 32 12.8 Hospitality and Tourism 20 8 Transport and Storage 14 5.6 Communication Services 2 0.8 Finance and Insurance 10 4 Property and Business Services 3 1.2 Government Administration and Defence 12 4.8 Education 20 8 Health and Community Services 23 9.2 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 10 4 I have not worked 16 6.4 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 20 8 Other 24 9.6 Total 250 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 28 11.2 $25,001-$50,000 53 21.2 $50,001-$75,000 43 17.2 $75,001-$100,000 33 13.2 $100,001-$150,000 43 17.2 $150,001-$200,000 13 5.2 Over $200,000 2 0.8 Prefer not to say 35 14 Total 250 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 87.6% 8.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 31 199 6.40 Native tree planting 88.8% 7.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 28 176 6.29 Monitoring 84.0% 8.8% 2.8% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 40 364 9.10 Rubbish clean-up 63.6% 25.2% 7.6% 2.4% 0.8% 0.4% 91 474 5.21 Erosion control 90.8% 4.4% 2.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 23 176 7.67 Other 95.0% 2.2% 1.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9 70 7.82
Page 130
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 4 6 14 29.2 24.8 14.4 7.6 clarity Pollution 2.4 4.8 17.2 31.6 20.4 14.8 8.8 levels Fish 3.6 7.6 16.4 40.8 16.4 9.6 5.6 Local numbers Natural 2 3.6 14.8 28.4 24.8 19.2 7.2 vegetation Overall 1.6 4.8 13.2 26.8 25.6 18.4 9.6 condition Water 3.6 4.8 12 31.6 27.2 13.2 7.6 clarity Pollution 3.2 4 17.2 33.6 24.4 10.8 6.8 levels Fish 4.8 7.6 14 40 19.6 8.4 5.6 SEQ numbers Natural 2 3.6 14 31.6 26.4 15.6 6.8 vegetation Overall 2.8 4 12.8 29.6 26.8 17.2 6.8 condition
Page 131
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Pimpama- Coomera Catchment
In the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.60% 3.20% 4.40% 14.80% 13.60% 24.40% 36.00% Clarity Clear 4.80% 3.20% 3.20% 13.60% 16.00% 32.00% 27.20%
Partly 12.40% 10.80% 19.60% 30.00% 15.60% 7.60% 4.00% muddy Muddy 28.40% 20.80% 21.20% 17.20% 8.40% 2.80% 1.20%
Very 47.60% 16.40% 11.60% 15.60% 5.60% 2.40% 0.80% muddy Pollution No 5.60% 2.80% 4.80% 13.20% 10.80% 26.40% 36.40% levels pollution Low levels 12.80% 9.20% 11.20% 20.40% 21.60% 17.20% 7.60% of pollution Some 22.80% 20.40% 18.00% 23.20% 10.40% 4.40% 0.80% pollution Polluted 47.60% 21.60% 13.60% 10.80% 3.60% 2.40% 0.40%
Very 66.80% 9.60% 6.80% 12.00% 3.60% 0.80% 0.40% polluted
Page 132
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.60% 4.00% 2.80% 10.40% 14.00% 23.20% 44.00% Clarity Clear 2.40% 4.00% 3.60% 10.40% 11.60% 31.60% 36.40%
Partly 5.20% 7.20% 8.40% 21.60% 24.80% 22.00% 10.80% muddy Muddy 13.20% 12.40% 14.40% 22.80% 18.00% 12.00% 7.20%
Very 22.40% 14.40% 14.00% 22.80% 11.60% 7.60% 7.20% muddy Pollution No 2.40% 3.60% 4.40% 11.60% 11.20% 23.20% 43.60% levels pollution Low levels 5.60% 7.60% 8.40% 19.20% 17.60% 24.00% 17.60% of pollution Some 15.60% 11.20% 19.60% 24.00% 16.40% 9.60% 3.60% pollution Polluted 30.00% 27.20% 10.80% 19.20% 6.00% 4.80% 2.00%
Very 48.40% 14.80% 10.00% 16.80% 4.80% 2.80% 2.40% polluted
Page 133
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Pimpama-Coomera
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.81% 5.18% 13.21% 14.40% 0.40% 64.0% Walking, running 9.21% 17.59% 6.80% 12.00% 8.82% 0.38% 45.2% Swimming 0.80% 3.59% 3.99% 11.60% 6.81% 0.00% 73.2% Cycling 0.80% 4.00% 1.60% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 89.6% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 99.6% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 1.20% 1.20% 0.80% 96.4% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.20% 0.00% 97.2% Recreational fishing 0.00% 3.60% 1.60% 6.41% 5.99% 0.40% 82.0% Boating, sailing 0.40% 0.80% 1.60% 5.20% 3.20% 0.00% 88.8% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 1.20% 0.40% 1.60% 1.20% 0.80% 94.8% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 98.4% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% 98.8% snorkeling Enjoying nature 5.19% 7.21% 1.99% 6.00% 4.79% 0.00% 74.8% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.80% 1.20% 0.40% 97.2% Other 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 98.4%
Page 134
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.14 Pine Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 145 46.3 Female 168 53.7 Total 313 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 6 1.9 High School 100 31.9 Diploma or Cert 75 24 Apprenticeship or trade cert 41 13.1 Bachelor degree 59 18.8 Postgraduate degree 30 9.6 Other Qualification 2 0.6 Total 313 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 9 2.9 1-3 years 23 7.3 4-6 years 18 5.8 7-10 years 24 7.7 More than 10 years 239 76.4 Total 313 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 79 25.2 Carer 10 3.2 Full time student 19 6.1 Unemployed and not seeking work 18 5.8 Unemployed and seeking work 22 7 Part time employee 62 19.8 Full time work 103 32.9 Total 313 100
Page 135
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0 Mining 1 0.3 Manufacturing 9 2.9 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 6 1.9 Construction and Development 10 3.2 Wholesale Trade 10 3.2 Retail Trade 31 9.9 Hospitality and Tourism 19 6.1 Transport and Storage 12 3.8 Communication Services 9 2.9 Finance and Insurance 14 4.5 Property and Business Services 10 3.2 Government Administration and Defence 20 6.4 Education 20 6.4 Health and Community Services 44 14.1 Cultural and Recreational Services 1 0.3 Personal and Other Services 17 5.4 I have not worked 14 4.5 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 31 9.9 Other 35 11.2 Total 313 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 30 9.6 $25,001-$50,000 74 23.6 $50,001-$75,000 46 14.7 $75,001-$100,000 53 16.9 $100,001-$150,000 46 14.7 $150,001-$200,000 22 7 Over $200,000 4 1.3 Prefer not to say 38 12.1 Total 313 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 86.3% 8.6% 3.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 43 262 6.10 Native tree planting 87.5% 6.4% 3.8% 1.6% 0.3% 0.3% 39 272 6.98 Monitoring 84.0% 7.3% 4.5% 2.9% 0.6% 0.6% 50 410 8.21 Rubbish clean-up 63.9% 24.3% 7.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.0% 113 629 5.57 Erosion control 91.1% 4.2% 3.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 28 185 6.59 Other 93.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 16 131 8.19
Page 136
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pine Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 4.5 8 16 32.6 23 11.2 4.8 clarity Pollution 2.9 9.3 19.5 31 20.1 13.4 3.8 levels Fish 5.1 13.1 14.4 39 16.9 7.3 4.2 Local numbers Natural 2.6 5.8 13.4 31 22.7 16.6 8 vegetation Overall 2.6 5.8 11.5 34.2 26.5 13.7 5.8 condition Water 4.8 5.8 13.4 38 23 10.9 4.2 clarity Pollution 4.2 8.3 17.3 35.5 21.1 11.5 2.2 levels Fish 5.1 10.9 14.4 38 20.8 8.9 1.9 SEQ numbers Natural 2.9 6.4 8.6 37.1 25.2 16.9 2.9 vegetation Overall 3.2 6.1 12.8 34.8 23.6 16.3 3.2 condition
Page 137
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pine Catchment
In the water usage – Pine Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 4.80% 6.10% 2.60% 15.00% 14.70% 22.00% 34.80% Clarity Clear 5.10% 5.10% 3.20% 17.60% 15.30% 31.00% 22.70%
Partly 12.80% 13.70% 17.90% 23.30% 20.40% 10.90% 1.00% muddy Muddy 24.30% 26.50% 17.90% 17.90% 8.00% 5.10% 0.30%
Very 48.60% 18.80% 10.90% 13.70% 4.80% 2.60% 0.60% muddy Pollution No 5.80% 4.80% 4.20% 14.70% 10.90% 22.00% 37.70% levels pollution Low levels 9.60% 8.90% 12.10% 20.40% 17.60% 23.60% 7.70% of pollution Some 20.40% 16.60% 17.90% 24.00% 16.90% 3.50% 0.60% pollution Polluted 44.10% 24.90% 12.10% 11.50% 5.10% 1.90% 0.30%
Very 64.50% 14.40% 4.20% 10.20% 3.80% 2.60% 0.30% polluted
Page 138
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Pine Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 4.50% 2.20% 3.50% 12.10% 15.30% 19.50% 42.80% Clarity Clear 4.50% 3.20% 3.20% 13.70% 14.40% 27.20% 33.90%
Partly 7.30% 5.80% 10.50% 20.40% 21.40% 19.50% 15.00% muddy Muddy 13.10% 13.10% 12.80% 26.20% 14.40% 12.50% 8.00%
Very 24.30% 13.10% 14.70% 20.40% 10.50% 10.50% 6.40% muddy Pollution No 5.10% 2.20% 2.90% 14.40% 12.50% 21.70% 41.20% levels pollution Low levels 7.70% 4.50% 7.70% 16.90% 19.80% 27.20% 16.30% of pollution Some 13.70% 10.20% 15.70% 26.50% 17.60% 9.60% 6.70% pollution Polluted 29.70% 20.80% 15.30% 16.30% 11.50% 3.50% 2.90%
Very 47.30% 13.10% 11.50% 14.40% 7.30% 4.50% 1.90% polluted
Page 139
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Pine
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.34% 2.24% 5.44% 12.15% 22.06% 0.00% 57.8% Walking, running 7.05% 13.76% 5.11% 12.77% 8.61% 0.00% 52.7% Swimming 0.96% 2.24% 1.60% 3.19% 4.79% 0.00% 87.2% Cycling 0.64% 2.87% 2.87% 3.51% 1.27% 0.00% 88.8% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.32% 0.32% 0.96% 0.96% 0.00% 97.4% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.96% 0.64% 0.96% 97.4% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 2.24% 0.00% 97.1% Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.59% 2.87% 4.79% 4.48% 0.00% 86.3% Boating, sailing 0.00% 1.28% 0.64% 1.92% 2.56% 0.00% 93.6% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.64% 0.96% 2.56% 3.51% 0.32% 92.0% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.32% 0.00% 0.64% 0.64% 0.00% 0.32% 98.1% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.32% 0.64% 0.32% 98.4% snorkeling Enjoying nature 2.56% 5.42% 2.88% 9.25% 2.25% 0.32% 77.3% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.96% 1.28% 0.32% 97.1% Other 0.00% 0.64% 0.32% 0.64% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4%
Page 140
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.15 Pumicestone Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 46 43.8 Female 59 56.2 Total 105 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 1 1 High School 36 34.3 Diploma or Cert 32 30.5 Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 10.5 Bachelor degree 22 21 Postgraduate degree 3 2.9 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 105 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 7 6.7 1-3 years 17 16.2 4-6 years 10 9.5 7-10 years 10 9.5 More than 10 years 61 58.1 Total 105 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 35 33.3 Carer 6 5.7 Full time student 4 3.8 Unemployed and not seeking work 11 10.5 Unemployed and seeking work 8 7.6 Part time employee 20 19 Full time work 21 20 Total 105 100
Page 141
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1.9 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 0 0.0 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 2.9 Construction and Development 3 2.9 Wholesale Trade 4 3.8 Retail Trade 17 16.2 Hospitality and Tourism 12 11.4 Transport and Storage 2 1.9 Communication Services 3 2.9 Finance and Insurance 3 2.9 Property and Business Services 6 5.7 Government Administration and Defence 4 3.8 Education 8 7.6 Health and Community Services 9 8.6 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 0 0.0 I have not worked 8 7.6 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 14 13.3 Other 7 6.7 Total 105 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 14 13.3 $25,001-$50,000 23 21.9 $50,001-$75,000 22 21 $75,001-$100,000 8 7.6 $100,001-$150,000 16 15.2 $150,001-$200,000 3 2.9 Over $200,000 2 1.9 Prefer not to say 17 16.2 Total 105 100 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 82.9% 8.6% 1.0% 4.8% 1.0% 1.9% 18 190 10.57 Native tree planting 85.7% 8.6% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 15 121 8.04 Monitoring 80.0% 12.4% 1.9% 2.9% 1.0% 1.9% 21 178 8.47 Rubbish clean-up 60.0% 27.6% 4.8% 2.9% 2.9% 1.9% 42 291 6.93 Erosion control 90.5% 4.8% 2.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 10 76 7.56 Other 94.9% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 4 55 13.75
Page 142
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pumicestone Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 2.9 8.6 6.7 24.8 26.7 18.1 12.4 clarity Pollution 4.8 9.5 12.4 20 27.6 19 6.7 levels Fish 1 13.3 12.4 35.2 17.1 15.2 5.7 Local numbers Natural 1.9 2.9 6.7 26.7 31.4 20 10.5 vegetation Overall 1.9 5.7 9.5 22.9 26.7 22.9 10.5 condition Water 1.9 5.7 8.6 37.1 26.7 9.5 10.5 clarity Pollution 3.8 6.7 9.5 35.2 27.6 11.4 5.7 levels Fish 2.9 8.6 12.4 39 19 14.3 3.8 SEQ numbers Natural 1.9 4.8 10.5 26.7 33.3 15.2 7.6 vegetation Overall 2.9 2.9 7.6 26.7 34.3 16.2 9.5 condition
Page 143
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pumicestone Catchment
In the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.80% 3.80% 1.90% 16.20% 10.50% 19.00% 44.80% Clarity Clear 3.80% 2.90% 4.80% 17.10% 10.50% 24.80% 36.20%
Partly 11.40% 8.60% 16.20% 21.90% 25.70% 13.30% 2.90% muddy Muddy 24.80% 24.80% 18.10% 17.10% 11.40% 3.80% 0.00%
Very 49.50% 12.40% 14.30% 15.20% 7.60% 1.00% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 3.80% 1.90% 4.80% 17.10% 11.40% 18.10% 42.90% levels pollution Low levels 7.60% 7.60% 9.50% 23.80% 21.90% 21.90% 7.60% of pollution Some 21.00% 11.40% 21.90% 22.90% 18.10% 4.80% 0.00% pollution Polluted 42.90% 17.10% 20.00% 16.20% 2.90% 1.00% 0.00%
Very 64.80% 9.50% 8.60% 13.30% 1.90% 1.00% 1.00% polluted
Page 144
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.00% 2.90% 2.90% 16.20% 6.70% 19.00% 51.40% Clarity Clear 1.00% 1.90% 4.80% 16.20% 8.60% 24.80% 42.90%
Partly 3.80% 4.80% 8.60% 24.80% 20.00% 24.80% 13.30% muddy Muddy 12.40% 9.50% 18.10% 23.80% 15.20% 10.50% 10.50%
Very 25.70% 14.30% 11.40% 22.90% 9.50% 7.60% 8.60% muddy Pollution No 1.00% 2.90% 4.80% 16.20% 3.80% 20.00% 51.40% levels pollution Low levels 3.80% 4.80% 11.40% 15.20% 11.40% 33.30% 20.00% of pollution Some 11.40% 10.50% 14.30% 28.60% 18.10% 11.40% 5.70% pollution Polluted 32.40% 16.20% 17.10% 21.00% 8.60% 2.90% 1.90%
Very 46.70% 13.30% 14.30% 17.10% 3.80% 2.90% 1.90% polluted
Page 145
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Pumicestone
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.96% 1.92% 7.62% 10.50% 29.53% 0.00% 49.5% Walking, running 14.29% 14.29% 11.43% 12.40% 4.74% 0.00% 42.9% Swimming 1.89% 3.83% 7.61% 11.44% 12.37% 0.00% 62.9% Cycling 0.95% 2.86% 3.81% 2.86% 0.95% 0.00% 88.6% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 3.81% 0.00% 95.2% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.81% 0.00% 0.00% 96.2% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 5.71% 0.00% 93.3% Recreational fishing 0.96% 0.96% 6.67% 11.44% 6.67% 0.00% 73.3% Boating, sailing 0.95% 0.95% 2.85% 6.67% 0.95% 0.95% 86.7% Rowing, kayaking, 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 4.76% 5.71% 0.96% 85.7% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 2.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 96.2% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 0.95% 0.95% 0.00% 97.1% snorkeling Enjoying nature 5.73% 8.56% 3.81% 8.56% 2.86% 0.00% 70.5% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 0.95% 0.95% 96.2% Other 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 1.91% 0.00% 0.00% 97.1%
Page 146
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.16 Redland Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 63 31.8 Female 135 68.2 Total 198 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 3 1.5 High School 65 32.7 Diploma or Cert 56 28.1 Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 5.5 Bachelor degree 50 25.1 Postgraduate degree 13 6.5 Other Qualification 1 0.5 Total 199 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 3 1.5 1-3 years 6 3 4-6 years 11 5.5 7-10 years 18 9 More than 10 years 161 80.9 Total 199 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 35 17.6 Carer 6 3 Full time student 12 6 Unemployed and not seeking work 19 9.5 Unemployed and seeking work 11 5.5 Part time employee 52 26.1 Full time work 64 32.2 Total 199 100
Page 147
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1 Mining 3 1.5 Manufacturing 7 3.5 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 1.5 Construction and Development 12 6 Wholesale Trade 4 2 Retail Trade 20 10.1 Hospitality and Tourism 12 6 Transport and Storage 9 4.5 Communication Services 3 1.5 Finance and Insurance 10 5 Property and Business Services 7 3.5 Government Administration and Defence 13 6.5 Education 19 9.5 Health and Community Services 22 11.1 Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1 Personal and Other Services 4 2 I have not worked 8 4 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 20 10.1 Other 19 9.5 Total 199 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 12 6 $25,001-$50,000 43 21.6 $50,001-$75,000 29 14.6 $75,001-$100,000 23 11.6 $100,001-$150,000 37 18.6 $150,001-$200,000 10 5 Over $200,000 10 5 Prefer not to say 35 17.6 Total 199 100 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 87.9% 7.0% 4.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 24 137 5.69 Native tree planting 89.9% 5.5% 3.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 20 129 6.44 Monitoring 84.4% 7.5% 4.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 31 257 8.28 Rubbish clean-up 69.3% 23.1% 6.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 61 292 4.79 Erosion control 92.5% 3.5% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 15 131 8.73 Other 93.1% 3.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 10 103 10.29
Page 148
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Redland Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 3.5 7.5 15.6 30.7 26.6 12.6 3.5 clarity Pollution 4.5 6.5 14.1 36.2 23.6 10.1 5 levels Fish 2.5 10.1 13.1 40.7 22.1 8.5 3 Local numbers Natural 2 2.5 12.6 30.7 26.1 20.6 5.5 vegetation Overall 3.5 5 9 34.2 26.6 16.1 5.5 condition Water 3 5 16.6 30.7 28.1 9 7.5 clarity Pollution 4.5 4.5 16.6 37.7 20.6 9.5 6.5 levels Fish 2 7.5 13.6 38.7 24.6 9.5 4 SEQ numbers Natural 1.5 3.5 14.1 35.2 26.6 11.1 8 vegetation Overall 3.5 4 14.6 29.1 29.6 11.6 7.5 condition
Page 149
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Redland Catchment
In the water usage – Redland Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.50% 2.50% 4.00% 10.10% 15.60% 21.10% 43.20% Clarity Clear 4.00% 1.50% 4.50% 12.60% 17.60% 28.10% 31.70%
Partly 9.50% 8.00% 13.60% 25.10% 27.10% 12.10% 4.50% muddy Muddy 20.60% 19.60% 21.60% 18.10% 15.10% 2.50% 2.50%
Very 41.70% 18.10% 16.10% 15.10% 4.50% 2.50% 2.00% muddy Pollution No 4.00% 1.50% 5.00% 10.60% 13.60% 22.10% 43.20% levels pollution Low levels 10.10% 3.00% 13.10% 18.10% 21.10% 26.10% 8.50% of pollution Some 19.60% 12.10% 24.60% 23.10% 14.10% 5.50% 1.00% pollution Polluted 46.20% 18.60% 14.60% 13.60% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00%
Very 66.30% 9.50% 7.00% 11.60% 2.00% 2.50% 1.00% polluted
Page 150
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Redland Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 11.60% 7.50% 23.60% 51.30% Clarity Clear 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 10.60% 10.60% 29.10% 43.70%
Partly 5.00% 2.00% 5.50% 20.60% 22.10% 27.60% 17.10% muddy Muddy 9.50% 5.00% 12.10% 28.10% 24.60% 11.60% 9.00%
Very 16.60% 9.50% 21.10% 27.10% 11.10% 7.50% 7.00% muddy Pollution No 1.50% 0.50% 4.50% 13.10% 9.50% 19.60% 51.30% levels pollution Low levels 5.50% 2.00% 8.00% 18.10% 15.10% 25.10% 26.10% of pollution Some 11.10% 6.50% 19.10% 21.60% 19.60% 15.60% 6.50% pollution Polluted 26.60% 16.60% 19.10% 21.60% 8.50% 6.00% 1.50%
Very 43.20% 11.10% 19.10% 16.10% 5.00% 4.00% 1.50% polluted
Page 151
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Redland
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.51% 2.03% 7.56% 15.07% 25.63% 0.00% 49.2% Walking, running 10.57% 15.58% 10.57% 15.07% 11.59% 0.00% 36.7% Swimming 0.00% 2.01% 1.01% 6.03% 11.06% 0.00% 79.9% Cycling 0.00% 2.51% 1.51% 3.02% 3.02% 0.51% 89.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01% 1.51% 0.00% 97.5% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 2.51% 0.00% 97.0% Camping 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.51% 0.50% 0.00% 97.5% Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.00% 4.02% 6.53% 6.53% 0.50% 81.4% Boating, sailing 0.50% 0.50% 1.51% 5.53% 6.03% 1.01% 84.9% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 4.52% 5.53% 0.00% 88.9% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.5% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 3.53% 9.04% 4.54% 6.53% 7.05% 0.00% 69.3% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 4.03% 16.08% 0.99% 77.4% Other 1.51% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 97.0%
Page 152
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.17 Stanley Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 8 36.4 Female 14 63.6 Total 22 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 0 0.0 High School 7 31.8 Diploma or Cert 9 40.9 Apprenticeship or trade cert 1 4.5 Bachelor degree 4 18.2 Postgraduate degree 1 4.5 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 22 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 0 0.0 1-3 years 3 13.6 4-6 years 1 4.5 7-10 years 1 4.5 More than 10 years 17 77.3 Total 22 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 7 31.8 Carer 1 4.5 Full time student 0 0.0 Unemployed and not seeking work 3 13.6 Unemployed and seeking work 3 13.6 Part time employee 2 9.1 Full time work 6 27.3 Total 22 100
Page 153
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 9.1 Mining 0 0.0 Manufacturing 1 4.5 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0 Construction and Development 0 0.0 Wholesale Trade 0 0.0 Retail Trade 1 4.5 Hospitality and Tourism 2 9.1 Transport and Storage 0 0.0 Communication Services 0 0.0 Finance and Insurance 0 0.0 Property and Business Services 0 0.0 Government Administration and Defence 1 4.5 Education 3 13.6 Health and Community Services 4 18.2 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 0 0.0 I have not worked 1 4.5 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 4 18.2 Other 3 13.6 Total 22 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 4 18.2 $25,001-$50,000 7 31.8 $50,001-$75,000 4 18.2 $75,001-$100,000 2 9.1 $100,001-$150,000 4 18.2 $150,001-$200,000 0 0.0 Over $200,000 0 0.0 Prefer not to say 1 4.5 Total 22 100 Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 77.3% 0.0% 18.2% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5 46 9.16 Native tree planting 86.4% 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 3 35 11.73 Monitoring 72.7% 9.1% 13.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6 43 7.18 Rubbish clean-up 59.1% 18.2% 13.6% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9 63 7.01 Erosion control 86.4% 4.5% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97 Other 85.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 2 33 16.35
Page 154
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Stanley Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 9.1 4.5 9.1 31.8 27.3 13.6 4.5 clarity Pollution 13.6 9.1 9.1 22.7 27.3 18.2 0 levels Fish 0 9.1 22.7 36.4 22.7 9.1 0 Local numbers Natural 0 0 9.1 27.3 36.4 13.6 13.6 vegetation Overall 0 9.1 18.2 18.2 27.3 13.6 13.6 condition Water 13.6 4.5 13.6 18.2 36.4 9.1 4.5 clarity Pollution 9.1 13.6 9.1 36.4 18.2 4.5 9.1 levels Fish 9.1 4.5 13.6 27.3 36.4 4.5 4.5 SEQ numbers Natural 4.5 4.5 9.1 31.8 31.8 9.1 9.1 vegetation Overall 4.5 4.5 9.1 22.7 40.9 9.1 9.1 condition
Page 155
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Stanley Catchment
In the water usage – Stanley Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 0.00% 0.00% 13.60% 18.20% 9.10% 18.20% 40.90% Clarity Clear 0.00% 0.00% 18.20% 13.60% 9.10% 27.30% 31.80%
Partly 18.20% 4.50% 18.20% 18.20% 18.20% 18.20% 4.50% muddy Muddy 22.70% 18.20% 27.30% 13.60% 18.20% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 36.40% 18.20% 18.20% 22.70% 4.50% 0.00% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 4.50% 4.50% 9.10% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 36.40% levels pollution Low levels 27.30% 9.10% 13.60% 22.70% 13.60% 9.10% 4.50% of pollution Some 31.80% 9.10% 22.70% 18.20% 13.60% 4.50% 0.00% pollution Polluted 50.00% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 4.50% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 54.50% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 156
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Stanley Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 22.70% 9.10% 18.20% 45.50% Clarity Clear 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 22.70% 9.10% 22.70% 40.90%
Partly 4.50% 0.00% 9.10% 36.40% 18.20% 18.20% 13.60% muddy Muddy 22.70% 4.50% 18.20% 27.30% 4.50% 13.60% 9.10%
Very 31.80% 9.10% 13.60% 18.20% 4.50% 13.60% 9.10% muddy Pollution No 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 27.30% 4.50% 22.70% 40.90% levels pollution Low levels 22.70% 13.60% 0.00% 36.40% 9.10% 4.50% 13.60% of pollution Some 27.30% 4.50% 27.30% 31.80% 4.50% 0.00% 4.50% pollution Polluted 50.00% 4.50% 18.20% 27.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very 54.50% 13.60% 4.50% 27.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% polluted
Page 157
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Stanley
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 4.54% 13.62% 4.54% 18.16% 0.00% 59.1% Walking, running 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 9.08% 0.00% 4.55% 72.7% Swimming 4.55% 0.00% 4.55% 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 77.3% Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 95.5% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 95.5% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 95.5% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 13.64% 0.00% 81.8% Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 9.10% 0.00% 0.00% 86.4% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 9.10% 0.00% 0.00% 86.4% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 90.9% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 95.5% snorkeling Enjoying nature 0.00% 18.16% 4.54% 9.08% 9.08% 0.00% 59.1% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 95.5% Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Page 158
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.18 Tallebudgera Catchment Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 28 36.4 Female 49 63.6 Total 77 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 2 2.6 High School 23 29.9 Diploma or Cert 27 35.1 Apprenticeship or trade cert 7 9.1 Bachelor degree 14 18.2 Postgraduate degree 4 5.2 Other Qualification 0 0.0 Total 77 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 3 3.9 1-3 years 7 9.1 4-6 years 2 2.6 7-10 years 7 9.1 More than 10 years 58 75.3 Total 77 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 20 26 Carer 2 2.6 Full time student 3 3.9 Unemployed and not seeking work 7 9.1 Unemployed and seeking work 3 3.9 Part time employee 26 33.8 Full time work 16 20.8 Total 77 100
Page 159
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.3 Mining 1 1.3 Manufacturing 0 0.0 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 1.3 Construction and Development 7 9.1 Wholesale Trade 0 0.0 Retail Trade 10 13 Hospitality and Tourism 3 3.9 Transport and Storage 6 7.8 Communication Services 0 0.0 Finance and Insurance 0 0.0 Property and Business Services 2 2.6 Government Administration and Defence 7 9.1 Education 10 13 Health and Community Services 6 7.8 Cultural and Recreational Services 2 2.6 Personal and Other Services 4 5.2 I have not worked 2 2.6 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 6 7.8 Other 9 11.7 Total 77 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 10 13 $25,001-$50,000 15 19.5 $50,001-$75,000 17 22.1 $75,001-$100,000 14 18.2 $100,001-$150,000 8 10.4 $150,001-$200,000 2 2.6 Over $200,000 1 1.3 Prefer not to say 10 13 Total 77 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 87.0% 10.4% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10 43 4.27 Native tree planting 92.2% 5.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6 25 4.23 Monitoring 81.8% 13.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 14 73 5.22 Rubbish clean-up 57.1% 31.2% 5.2% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 33 206 6.24 Erosion control 96.1% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97 Other 98.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 3 2.50
Page 160
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Tallebudgera Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 0 3.9 9.1 19.5 24.7 27.3 15.6 clarity Pollution 1.3 3.9 9.1 23.4 26 20.8 15.6 levels Fish 1.3 7.8 9.1 31.2 24.7 10.4 15.6 Local numbers Natural 0 2.6 7.8 20.8 22.1 29.9 16.9 vegetation Overall 0 2.6 3.9 18.2 24.7 31.2 19.5 condition Water 0 5.2 6.5 24.7 22.1 27.3 14.3 clarity Pollution 0 5.2 7.8 28.6 22.1 23.4 13 levels Fish 1.3 5.2 10.4 24.7 26 19.5 13 SEQ numbers Natural 0 3.9 5.2 19.5 24.7 31.2 15.6 vegetation Overall 0 2.6 6.5 18.2 28.6 29.9 14.3 condition
Page 161
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Tallebudgera Catchment
In the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 3.90% 3.90% 2.60% 9.10% 6.50% 19.50% 54.50% Clarity Clear 2.60% 2.60% 5.20% 9.10% 5.20% 31.20% 44.20%
Partly 13.00% 18.20% 10.40% 15.60% 26.00% 13.00% 3.90% muddy Muddy 24.70% 32.50% 15.60% 15.60% 9.10% 1.30% 1.30%
Very 48.10% 28.60% 9.10% 9.10% 3.90% 0.00% 1.30% muddy Pollution No 5.20% 3.90% 2.60% 11.70% 6.50% 19.50% 50.60% levels pollution Low levels 11.70% 7.80% 9.10% 18.20% 15.60% 26.00% 11.70% of pollution Some 24.70% 20.80% 22.10% 19.50% 10.40% 1.30% 1.30% pollution Polluted 58.40% 18.20% 11.70% 6.50% 3.90% 0.00% 1.30%
Very 71.40% 11.70% 6.50% 5.20% 2.60% 1.30% 1.30% polluted
Page 162
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 0.00% 1.30% 2.60% 11.70% 2.60% 22.10% 59.70% Clarity Clear 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 14.30% 2.60% 28.60% 51.90%
Partly 2.60% 5.20% 11.70% 19.50% 14.30% 24.70% 22.10% muddy Muddy 13.00% 11.70% 10.40% 22.10% 14.30% 16.90% 11.70%
Very 24.70% 10.40% 13.00% 19.50% 13.00% 7.80% 11.70% muddy Pollution No 3.90% 2.60% 2.60% 13.00% 3.90% 16.90% 57.10% levels pollution Low levels 6.50% 5.20% 13.00% 20.80% 9.10% 22.10% 23.40% of pollution Some 19.50% 13.00% 20.80% 19.50% 15.60% 9.10% 2.60% pollution Polluted 35.10% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30% 2.60% 2.60% 2.60%
Very 64.90% 10.40% 9.10% 9.10% 2.60% 1.30% 2.60% polluted
Page 163
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Tallebudgera
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 6.49% 10.40% 18.18% 23.38% 0.00% 41.6% Walking, running 25.95% 20.76% 6.52% 10.38% 6.52% 0.00% 29.9% Swimming 3.87% 15.60% 10.36% 14.29% 10.36% 0.00% 45.5% Cycling 2.60% 2.60% 5.20% 5.20% 2.60% 0.00% 81.8% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 97.4% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 2.60% 94.8% Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.79% 0.00% 92.2% Recreational fishing 1.31% 3.90% 0.00% 9.10% 5.20% 0.00% 80.5% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.30% 2.60% 6.49% 0.00% 89.6% Rowing, kayaking, 1.31% 3.91% 2.60% 6.50% 5.19% 1.31% 79.2% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 1.29% 6.49% 1.29% 7.80% 1.29% 0.00% 81.8% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.19% 3.90% 0.00% 90.9% snorkeling Enjoying nature 5.19% 9.10% 6.48% 15.58% 5.19% 0.00% 58.4% Catching a ferry 0.00% 1.30% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 96.1% Other 1.30% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 94.8%
Page 164
2017 Social Report - QUT
9.19 Upper Brisbane
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent Male 11 28.9 Female 27 71.1 Total 38 100 Education
Frequency Percent Primary School 0 0.0 High School 15 38.5 Diploma or Cert 13 33.3 Apprenticeship or trade cert 5 12.8 Bachelor degree 4 10.3 Postgraduate degree 1 2.6 Other Qualification 1 2.6 Total 39 100 Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent Less than a year 2 5.1 1-3 years 3 7.7 4-6 years 6 15.4 7-10 years 2 5.1 More than 10 years 26 66.7 Total 39 100
Employment
Frequency Percent Retired 13 33.3 Carer 2 5.1 Full time student 3 7.7 Unemployed and not seeking work 1 2.6 Unemployed and seeking work 4 10.3 Part time employee 9 23.1 Full time work 7 17.9 Total 39 100
Page 165
2017 Social Report - QUT
Employment industry
Frequency Percent Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 5.1 Mining 1 2.6 Manufacturing 0 0.0 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 2.6 Construction and Development 1 2.6 Wholesale Trade 0 0.0 Retail Trade 4 10.3 Hospitality and Tourism 2 5.1 Transport and Storage 0 0.0 Communication Services 1 2.6 Finance and Insurance 0 0.0 Property and Business Services 0 0.0 Government Administration and Defence 1 2.6 Education 4 10.3 Health and Community Services 6 15.4 Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0 Personal and Other Services 4 10.3 I have not worked 5 12.8 I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 5 12.8 Other 2 5.1 Total 39 100 Household Income
Frequency Percent Under $25,000 10 25.6 $25,001-$50,000 13 33.3 $50,001-$75,000 4 10.3 $75,001-$100,000 2 5.1 $100,001-$150,000 3 7.7 $150,001-$200,000 2 5.1 Over $200,000 0 0.0 Prefer not to say 5 12.8 Total 39 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More than Actively Total Hours hours hours hours hours 30 hours engaged Hours per people spent person
Weed control 79.5% 10.3% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 55 6.93 Native tree planting 79.5% 5.1% 10.3% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 66 8.23 Monitoring 79.5% 10.3% 7.7% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 8 58 7.26 Rubbish clean-up 64.1% 12.8% 10.3% 0.0% 2.6% 10.3% 14 188 13.45 Erosion control 79.5% 2.6% 5.1% 7.7% 5.1% 0.0% 8 113 14.11 Other 96.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 8 7.70
Page 166
2017 Social Report - QUT
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Upper Brisbane Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns: The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green. Satisfaction columns: The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red. Summary: red = bad, green = good. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table. The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following? Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied Slightly Neither Slightly Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Dissatisfied satisfied Satisfied Satisfied nor dissatisfied Water 15.4 2.6 15.4 33.3 15.4 15.4 2.6 clarity Pollution 12.8 2.6 25.6 25.6 12.8 12.8 7.7 levels Fish 12.8 7.7 25.6 38.5 7.7 2.6 5.1 Local numbers Natural 10.3 5.1 20.5 33.3 15.4 7.7 7.7 vegetation Overall 15.4 0 20.5 17.9 17.9 25.6 2.6 condition Water 5.1 5.1 25.6 28.2 15.4 15.4 5.1 clarity Pollution 7.7 7.7 20.5 33.3 10.3 17.9 2.6 levels Fish 7.7 5.1 23.1 43.6 12.8 7.7 0 SEQ numbers Natural 7.7 2.6 23.1 38.5 10.3 12.8 5.1 vegetation Overall 10.3 0 20.5 25.6 17.9 20.5 5.1 condition
Page 167
2017 Social Report - QUT
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Upper Brisbane Catchment
In the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 7.70% 2.60% 12.80% 23.10% 7.70% 15.40% 30.80% Clarity Clear 7.70% 10.30% 5.10% 23.10% 12.80% 17.90% 23.10%
Partly 15.40% 17.90% 12.80% 15.40% 17.90% 20.50% 0.00% muddy Muddy 25.60% 15.40% 10.30% 20.50% 17.90% 10.30% 0.00%
Very 33.30% 23.10% 12.80% 23.10% 0.00% 7.70% 0.00% muddy Pollution No 15.40% 2.60% 7.70% 23.10% 5.10% 25.60% 20.50% levels pollution Low levels 15.40% 15.40% 0.00% 25.60% 15.40% 17.90% 10.30% of pollution Some 28.20% 10.30% 10.30% 33.30% 10.30% 7.70% 0.00% pollution Polluted 46.20% 12.80% 12.80% 23.10% 0.00% 5.10% 0.00%
Very 59.00% 12.80% 2.60% 17.90% 2.60% 5.10% 0.00% polluted
Page 168
2017 Social Report - QUT
Near the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely Slightly Neither Somewhat Likely Extremely Unlikely Unlikely likely Likely Likely nor unlikely Water Very clear 7.70% 0.00% 7.70% 17.90% 10.30% 25.60% 30.80% Clarity Clear 5.10% 5.10% 5.10% 20.50% 7.70% 28.20% 28.20%
Partly 10.30% 7.70% 10.30% 20.50% 12.80% 28.20% 10.30% muddy Muddy 12.80% 7.70% 10.30% 25.60% 15.40% 23.10% 5.10%
Very 20.50% 10.30% 7.70% 30.80% 15.40% 12.80% 2.60% muddy Pollution No 2.60% 0.00% 10.30% 23.10% 5.10% 28.20% 30.80% levels pollution Low levels 5.10% 7.70% 2.60% 33.30% 12.80% 23.10% 15.40% of pollution Some 15.40% 12.80% 7.70% 33.30% 15.40% 12.80% 2.60% pollution Polluted 28.20% 17.90% 10.30% 25.60% 10.30% 7.70% 0.00%
Very 43.60% 15.40% 7.70% 20.50% 5.10% 5.10% 2.60% polluted
Page 169
2017 Social Report - QUT
Use and frequency of activities – Upper Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost Every Every Every Once or Every Never everyday week fortnight month twice a few No year years response Missing Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.57% 5.13% 12.83% 12.83% 0.00% 66.7% Walking, running 2.57% 0.00% 7.70% 17.94% 0.00% 0.00% 71.8% Swimming 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 89.7% Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 97.4% 4WD driving, trail bike 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 0.00% 92.3% riding Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% Camping 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 0.00% 87.2% Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 2.56% 7.69% 0.00% 87.2% Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 92.3% Rowing, kayaking, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% canoeing Surfing, kite-surfing, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 97.4% sail boarding Scuba diving, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% snorkeling Enjoying nature 7.70% 5.13% 0.00% 10.27% 5.13% 0.00% 71.8% Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 97.4%
Page 170
2017 Social Report - QUT
10. Discussion and Conclusion The 2017 social impact report investigated the role of waterways in the lives of residents in SEQ, particularly their uses at a local and SEQ level, and the influence of condition on their views and values of waterways. Similar to findings reported in the 2015 and 2016 social science surveys (Johnston & Beatson, 2015; 2016), respondents confirmed waterways as valuable and important to their lives. Respondents particularly confirmed the importance of their local waterways, with the high levels of use in a range of activities. While variations across catchments were not surprising, the results remained consistent with previous years, however some indicators in useability, accessibility and satisfaction declined when compared to 2015 and 2016. More research is needed to understand this trend.
Two research questions guided the study. The first question asked: How does waterway condition affect satisfaction and useability of local waterways?
The mean across SEQ (on a seven point scale) for waterway useability was 4.53 (SD 1.41) suggesting respondents felt their local waterway tended to be useable. Similarly, when asked about satisfaction, the SEQ Mean was 4.54 (SD 1.42) suggesting respondents felt somewhat satisfied with their local waterway. When satisfaction was explored in the context of condition of local and SEQ waterways, the majority of respondents are neutrally grouped (+/-1), indicating there is a level of ambivalence about the condition of their waterways at the local and SEQ level. When respondents were asked about impact of condition when using the waterway, if this waterway use was for activities on or in the water, the condition of a waterway was found to have a large impact on whether respondents will conduct these activities in or on the water. While mud is likely to impact activity usage, pollution has the greater impact with even low levels of pollution having negative impact on activities undertaken. However, for activities undertaken alongside a waterway, such as walking, or BBQs, waterway condition was found to be not as important in comparison to those activities in or on the water. Again, muddy water has less of an impact than pollution levels, but it is only at the ‘polluted’ and ‘very polluted’ level that condition really impacts activities alongside the water. Respondents were asked how likely they were to visit or use a local or SEQ waterway when presented with the conditions reflecting increasing levels of pollution (no pollution to very polluted) and decreasing levels of water clarity (very clear to very muddy). Overall, there was a decreasing chance of visiting or using the waterway with increases in mud and pollution. While respondents are alongside the water they are still likely to use the waterway when the water is partly muddy, however this decreases when the water is deemed muddy. This effect is stronger when the respondents are undertaking activities in or on the water. The key finding here is that waterway condition plays a substantial role in how SEQ residents use and whether they are satisfied with their waterways. While muddiness may be a natural phenomenon, residents may benefit from understanding the natural state of a waterway, and how to identify non optimum times for use.
The second question asked: What factors impact waterway satisfaction, accessibility and useability of local waterways?
Findings suggested a number of factors impact the overall satisfaction, accessibility, and usability of local waterways. The study explored these factors through the related variables of how connected a respondent feels to a location (place attachment and third place), attitudes to the environment, and overall life satisfaction. The following variables were found to be predictors of a specific overall outcome:
Page 171
2017 Social Report - QUT
Overall satisfaction: The study found that ‘feeling of fascination’ (0.60), conceptualised as being in an interesting, absorbing location, and ‘place attachment’ (0.58) or the benefits the respondent feel they receive from that waterway, were the two most important predictors of overall satisfaction with a local waterway. Nature relatedness had the least influence. This means respondents who have a sense of connection, familiarity, and interest with a waterway are more likely to be satisfied with that waterway. Overall accessibility: The feeling of being away (0.38), or rather escaping from everyday life, is the largest predictor of accessibility of local waterways. This is followed by the fascination (0.30) the respondents had with their local waterway. This suggests perhaps that when respondents were able to gain from using their waterway they felt that it was easy to access and more worth the effort of using it. Overall useability: Place attachment (0.38) featured again as the strongest predictor of usability of the local waterway followed by fascination (0.36) with the waterway.
While only one relationship was not statistically significant (nature relatedness and useability), third place variables and place attachment featured strongly as a predictor of satisfaction, useability and accessibility. This means that waterways play a significant and valuable role in escaping pressures of everyday life, reconnecting with the environment, and that most people can find aspects of a waterway environment to enjoy, thereby providing a sense of belonging.
10.1 Future Research Based on the finding in this report a number of recommendations are offered. Further research and resources may be required to implement these recommendations:
Given the prominence of third place and place attachment as strong predictors of overall satisfaction, accessibility and useability, further research is needed to understand how the predictors interact. More importantly, how can these be used to improve satisfaction for waterway users? While the value that waterways play in people’s lives is important, more research is also needed to understand the relationship between nature relatedness – i.e.: people who feel that nature is important to them, and overall life satisfaction. Overall life satisfaction significantly predicts all of the usability questions. Those respondents who score highly on the life satisfaction index were also likely to find their waterways easy to use. Increase representation in low representation catchments: The 2017 survey used two recruitment strategies, panel data and social media data, as a way to increase representation in the Stanley, mid Brisbane and Upper Brisbane catchments. However analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the panel and social media data and therefore the data could not be combined. A key recommendation is to explore alternative research methods to try and improve understanding of these catchments. Depth interviews or focus groups could be conducted to explore these catchments in detail whereby a smaller sample size would not negatively impact the understanding of these catchments as the method would allow deeper and richer understanding. More research is needed to understand waterway stewardship and protection activities. While rubbish clean-up and monitoring were the most common activities, more research is needed to understand the most effective activities given the stated barriers, such as limited time available. Only weed removal, monitoring, and rubbish clean-up had a statistically significant link with the stewardship construct. This is important because even though
Page 172
2017 Social Report - QUT
respondents indicated that they had positive attitudes towards waterway protection, they had limited behaviours to support this. Conditions: The findings suggested waterway condition influences activities in/on or alongside a waterway, suggesting levels of muddiness and pollution has the greatest impact. However more research is needed to further understand the perceptions of condition and how people use these in their decision making to use a waterway. Group Clusters: The cluster analysis suggests further research is needed to understand the psychographic differences between groups and to explore if certain interventions could be designed to increase any one of the variables investigated in this report, i.e., how to improve stewardship in groups 3 and 4.
In conclusion, the 2017 investigated the social benefits of waterways across 19 catchment areas in SEQ to understand how people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, their stewardship behaviours, and the influence of waterway conditions on using, accessing and levels of satisfaction of local waterways. The data provided in this report also contributes the social component of the 2017 Healthy Land and Water Report Card.
11. References Ali, F., Kim, W. G., Li, J., & Jeon, H. M. (2016). Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. (in press) Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656. Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure Travel Experience. Journal of Travel Research, (Summer), 20-26. Cumes, D. (1998). Inner Passages, Outer Journeys. Llewellyn, St Paul, MN. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140. Iniesta-Bonillo, M., Sánchez-Fernández, R. A., Jiménez-Castillo, D. (2016). Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations. Journal of Business Research, 69 (11), pp. 5002-5007 Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21(4), 349-362. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. Olson, Jerry C. (1981). What is an Esthetic Response? In Symbolic Consumer Behavior, Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, (Eds). Ann Arbor, NY: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 71–74 Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170. Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 203–220. Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Restorative servicescapes: Restoring directed attention in third places. Journal of Service Management, 20 (2), 173-191. Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor Adventure Tourism: A Review of Research Approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (2), 363-380. Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Values, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 413-438.
Page 173
2017 Social Report - QUT
Veryzer, Robert W. Jr (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design Principles on Product Preferences, in Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research. 20, pp. 224–228
12. Appendices
Appendix A – List of Catchments, Suburbs, and Postcodes Locality Catchment Name Postcode Bahrs Scrub Albert 4207 Bannockburn Albert 4207 Belivah Albert 4207 Benobble Albert 4275 Biddaddaba Albert 4275 Birnam Albert 4285 Boyland Albert 4275 Cainbable Albert 4285 Canungra Albert 4275 Cedar Creek Albert 4207 Darlington Albert 4285 Eagleby Albert 4207 Kairabah Albert 4207 Kerry Albert 4285 Luscombe Albert 4207 Mount Warren Park Albert 4207 Mundoolun Albert 4285 Nindooinbah Albert 4285 O'Reilly Albert 4275 Sarabah Albert 4275 Stapylton Albert 4207 Tabragalba Albert 4285 Tamborine Albert 4270 Tamborine Mountain Albert 4272 Windaroo Albert 4207 Wolffdene Albert 4207 Wonglepong Albert 4275 Yatala Albert 4207 Amberley Bremer 4306 Anthony Bremer 4310 Aratula Bremer 4309 Ashwell Bremer 4340 Barellan Point Bremer 4306 Basin Pocket Bremer 4305 Blacksoil Bremer 4306 Blackstone Bremer 4304 Page 174
2017 Social Report - QUT
Blantyre Bremer 4310 Booval Bremer 4304 Brassall Bremer 4305 Bundamba Bremer 4304 Calvert Bremer 4340 Charlwood Bremer 4309 Churchill Bremer 4305 Chuwar Bremer 4306 Clumber Bremer 4309 Coalfalls Bremer 4305 Coleyville Bremer 4307 Deebing Heights Bremer 4306 Dinmore Bremer 4303 East Ipswich Bremer 4305 Eastern Heights Bremer 4305 Ebbw Vale Bremer 4304 Ebenezer Bremer 4340 Fassifern Bremer 4309 Fassifern Valley Bremer 4309 Flinders View Bremer 4305 Frazerview Bremer 4309 Goolman Bremer 4306 Grandchester Bremer 4340 Harrisville Bremer 4307 Ipswich Bremer 4305 Jeebropilly Bremer 4340 Kalbar Bremer 4309 Karalee Bremer 4306 Karrabin Bremer 4306 Kents Lagoon Bremer 4309 Kulgun Bremer 4309 Lanefield Bremer 4340 Leichhardt Bremer 4305 Limestone Ridges Bremer 4305 Lower Mount Walker Bremer 4340 Merryvale Bremer 4340 Milbong Bremer 4310 Milora Bremer 4309 Moogerah Bremer 4309 Moorang Bremer 4340 Moores Pocket Bremer 4305 Morwincha Bremer 4309 Mount Edwards Bremer 4309 Mount Forbes Bremer 4340
Page 175
2017 Social Report - QUT
Mount Marrow Bremer 4306 Mount Mort Bremer 4340 Mount Walker Bremer 4340 Mount Walker West Bremer 4340 Muirlea Bremer 4306 Munbilla Bremer 4309 Mutdapilly Bremer 4307 Newtown Bremer 4305 North Booval Bremer 4304 North Ipswich Bremer 4305 North Tivoli Bremer 4305 Obum Obum Bremer 4309 One Mile Bremer 4305 Peak Crossing Bremer 4306 Purga Bremer 4306 Raceview Bremer 4305 Radford Bremer 4307 Ripley Bremer 4306 Riverview Bremer 4303 Roadvale Bremer 4310 Rosevale Bremer 4340 Rosewood Bremer 4340 Sadliers Crossing Bremer 4305 Silkstone Bremer 4304 Silverdale Bremer 4307 South Ripley Bremer 4306 Swanbank Bremer 4306 Tarome Bremer 4309 Templin Bremer 4310 Teviotville Bremer 4309 Thagoona Bremer 4306 The Bluff Bremer 4340 Tivoli Bremer 4305 Walloon Bremer 4306 Warrill View Bremer 4307 Washpool Bremer 4306 West Ipswich Bremer 4305 White Rock Bremer 4306 Willowbank Bremer 4306 Wilsons Plains Bremer 4307 Woodend Bremer 4305 Woolooman Bremer 4310 Wulkuraka Bremer 4305 Yamanto Bremer 4305
Page 176
2017 Social Report - QUT
Beachmere Caboolture 4510 Bellmere Caboolture 4510 Bracalba Caboolture 4512 Burpengary Caboolture 4505 Burpengary East Caboolture 4505 Caboolture Caboolture 4510 Caboolture South Caboolture 4510 Campbells Pocket Caboolture 4521 Deception Bay Caboolture 4508 Godwin Beach Caboolture 4511 Moodlu Caboolture 4510 Moorina Caboolture 4506 Morayfield Caboolture 4506 Narangba Caboolture 4504 Ningi Caboolture 4511 Ocean View Caboolture 4521 Rocksberg Caboolture 4510 Upper Caboolture Caboolture 4510 Wamuran Caboolture 4512 Wamuran Basin Caboolture 4512 Adare Lockyer 4343 Atkinsons Dam Lockyer 4311 Ballard Lockyer 4352 Black Duck Creek Lockyer 4343 Blanchview Lockyer 4352 Blenheim Lockyer 4341 Blue Mountain Heights Lockyer 4350 Brightview Lockyer 4311 Buaraba Lockyer 4311 Buaraba South Lockyer 4311 Cabarlah Lockyer 4352 Caffey Lockyer 4343 Carpendale Lockyer 4344 Churchable Lockyer 4311 Clarendon Lockyer 4311 College View Lockyer 4343 Coolana Lockyer 4311 Coominya Lockyer 4311 Crowley Vale Lockyer 4342 Derrymore Lockyer 4352 East Haldon Lockyer 4343 Egypt Lockyer 4344 Fifteen Mile Lockyer 4352 Flagstone Creek Lockyer 4344
Page 177
2017 Social Report - QUT
Fordsdale Lockyer 4343 Forest Hill Lockyer 4342 Gatton Lockyer 4343 Glen Cairn Lockyer 4342 Glenore Grove Lockyer 4342 Grantham Lockyer 4347 Hampton Lockyer 4352 Hatton Vale Lockyer 4341 Helidon Lockyer 4344 Helidon Spa Lockyer 4344 Ingoldsby Lockyer 4343 Iredale Lockyer 4344 Junction View Lockyer 4343 Kensington Grove Lockyer 4341 Kentville Lockyer 4341 Laidley Lockyer 4341 Laidley Creek West Lockyer 4341 Laidley Heights Lockyer 4341 Laidley North Lockyer 4341 Laidley South Lockyer 4341 Lake Clarendon Lockyer 4343 Lawes Lockyer 4343 Lefthand Branch Lockyer 4343 Lilydale Lockyer 4344 Lockrose Lockyer 4342 Lockyer Lockyer 4344 Lockyer Waters Lockyer 4311 Lower Tenthill Lockyer 4343 Lowood Lockyer 4311 Lynford Lockyer 4342 Ma Ma Creek Lockyer 4347 Middle Ridge Lockyer 4350 Minden Lockyer 4311 Morton Vale Lockyer 4343 Mount Berryman Lockyer 4341 Mount Hallen Lockyer 4312 Mount Lofty Lockyer 4350 Mount Luke Lockyer 4352 Mount Sylvia Lockyer 4343 Mount Tarampa Lockyer 4311 Mount Whitestone Lockyer 4347 Mulgowie Lockyer 4341 Murphys Creek Lockyer 4352 Palmtree Lockyer 4352
Page 178
2017 Social Report - QUT
Patrick Estate Lockyer 4311 Placid Hills Lockyer 4343 Plainland Lockyer 4341 Postmans Ridge Lockyer 4352 Prenzlau Lockyer 4311 Preston Lockyer 4352 Prince Henry Heights Lockyer 4350 Ramsay Lockyer 4358 Rangeville Lockyer 4350 Redwood Lockyer 4350 Regency Downs Lockyer 4341 Rifle Range Lockyer 4311 Ringwood Lockyer 4343 Rockmount Lockyer 4344 Rockside Lockyer 4343 Ropeley Lockyer 4343 Seventeen Mile Lockyer 4344 Silver Ridge Lockyer 4352 Spring Bluff Lockyer 4352 Spring Creek Lockyer 4343 Stockyard Lockyer 4344 Summerholm Lockyer 4341 Tallegalla Lockyer 4340 Tarampa Lockyer 4311 Thornton Lockyer 4341 Townson Lockyer 4341 Upper Flagstone Lockyer 4344 Upper Lockyer Lockyer 4352 Upper Tenthill Lockyer 4343 Veradilla Lockyer 4347 Vinegar Hill Lockyer 4343 West Haldon Lockyer 4359 White Mountain Lockyer 4352 Winwill Lockyer 4347 Withcott Lockyer 4352 Woodbine Lockyer 4343 Woodlands Lockyer 4343 Woolshed Lockyer 4340 Alberton Logan 4207 Allandale Logan 4310 Allenview Logan 4285 Barney View Logan 4287 Beaudesert Logan 4285 Beenleigh Logan 4207
Page 179
2017 Social Report - QUT
Berrinba Logan 4117 Bethania Logan 4205 Boonah Logan 4310 Boronia Heights Logan 4124 Bromelton Logan 4285 Browns Plains Logan 4118 Buccan Logan 4207 Bunburra Logan 4310 Bunjurgen Logan 4310 Burnett Creek Logan 4310 Calamvale Logan 4116 Cannon Creek Logan 4310 Carbrook Logan 4130 Carneys Creek Logan 4310 Cedar Grove Logan 4285 Cedar Vale Logan 4285 Chambers Flat Logan 4133 Chinghee Creek Logan 4285 Christmas Creek Logan 4285 Coochin Logan 4310 Cornubia Logan 4130 Coulson Logan 4310 Crestmead Logan 4132 Croftby Logan 4310 Cryna Logan 4285 Daisy Hill Logan 4127 Drewvale Logan 4116 Dugandan Logan 4310 Edens Landing Logan 4207 Flagstone Logan 4280 Flinders Lakes Logan 4285 Frenches Creek Logan 4310 Gilberton Logan 4208 Gleneagle Logan 4285 Heritage Park Logan 4118 Hillcrest Logan 4118 Hillview Logan 4285 Holmview Logan 4207 Hoya Logan 4310 Innisplain Logan 4285 Jimboomba Logan 4280 Josephville Logan 4285 Kagaru Logan 4285 Karawatha Logan 4117
Page 180
2017 Social Report - QUT
Kents Pocket Logan 4310 Kingston Logan 4114 Knapp Creek Logan 4285 Kooralbyn Logan 4285 Kuraby Logan 4112 Lamington Logan 4285 Laravale Logan 4285 Logan Central Logan 4114 Logan Reserve Logan 4133 Logan Village Logan 4207 Loganholme Logan 4129 Loganlea Logan 4131 Maroon Logan 4310 Marsden Logan 4132 Meadowbrook Logan 4131 Milford Logan 4310 Monarch Glen Logan 4285 Mount Alford Logan 4310 Mount Barney Logan 4287 Mount French Logan 4310 Mount Gipps Logan 4285 Mount Lindesay Logan 4287 Munruben Logan 4125 New Beith Logan 4124 North Maclean Logan 4280 Oaky Creek Logan 4285 Ormeau Logan 4208 Palen Creek Logan 4287 Park Ridge Logan 4125 Park Ridge South Logan 4125 Rathdowney Logan 4287 Redland Bay Logan 4165 Regents Park Logan 4118 Running Creek Logan 4287 Shailer Park Logan 4128 Silverbark Ridge Logan 4124 Slacks Creek Logan 4127 South Maclean Logan 4280 Southern Lamington Logan 4211 Springwood Logan 4127 Stapylton Logan 4207 Steiglitz Logan 4207 Stockleigh Logan 4280 Stretton Logan 4116
Page 181
2017 Social Report - QUT
Tabooba Logan 4285 Tamrookum Logan 4285 Tamrookum Creek Logan 4285 Tanah Merah Logan 4128 Underwood Logan 4119 Undullah Logan 4285 Veresdale Logan 4285 Veresdale Scrub Logan 4285 Wallaces Creek Logan 4310 Waterford Logan 4133 Waterford West Logan 4133 Woodhill Logan 4285 Woodridge Logan 4114 Woongoolba Logan 4207 Wyaralong Logan 4310 Yarrabilba Logan 4207 Yatala Logan 4207 Acacia Ridge Lower Brisbane 4110 Albion Lower Brisbane 4010 Alderley Lower Brisbane 4051 Algester Lower Brisbane 4115 Annerley Lower Brisbane 4103 Anstead Lower Brisbane 4070 Arana Hills Lower Brisbane 4054 Archerfield Lower Brisbane 4108 Ascot Lower Brisbane 4007 Ashgrove Lower Brisbane 4060 Aspley Lower Brisbane 4034 Auchenflower Lower Brisbane 4066 Augustine Heights Lower Brisbane 4300 Balmoral Lower Brisbane 4171 Banyo Lower Brisbane 4014 Bardon Lower Brisbane 4065 Barellan Point Lower Brisbane 4306 Bellbird Park Lower Brisbane 4300 Bellbowrie Lower Brisbane 4070 Belmont Lower Brisbane 4153 Boondall Lower Brisbane 4034 Bowen Hills Lower Brisbane 4006 Bracken Ridge Lower Brisbane 4017 Brisbane Airport Lower Brisbane 4008 Brisbane City Lower Brisbane 4000 Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069 Brookwater Lower Brisbane 4300
Page 182
2017 Social Report - QUT
Bulimba Lower Brisbane 4171 Calamvale Lower Brisbane 4116 Camira Lower Brisbane 4300 Camp Hill Lower Brisbane 4152 Cannon Hill Lower Brisbane 4170 Carina Lower Brisbane 4152 Carina Heights Lower Brisbane 4152 Carindale Lower Brisbane 4152 Carole Park Lower Brisbane 4300 Carseldine Lower Brisbane 4034 Chapel Hill Lower Brisbane 4069 Chelmer Lower Brisbane 4068 Chermside Lower Brisbane 4032 Chermside West Lower Brisbane 4032 Clayfield Lower Brisbane 4011 Collingwood Park Lower Brisbane 4301 Coopers Plains Lower Brisbane 4108 Coorparoo Lower Brisbane 4151 Corinda Lower Brisbane 4075 Darra Lower Brisbane 4076 Deagon Lower Brisbane 4017 Doolandella Lower Brisbane 4077 Durack Lower Brisbane 4077 Dutton Park Lower Brisbane 4102 Eagle Farm Lower Brisbane 4009 East Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4169 Eight Mile Plains Lower Brisbane 4113 Ellen Grove Lower Brisbane 4078 Enoggera Lower Brisbane 4051 Enoggera Reservoir Lower Brisbane 4520 Everton Hills Lower Brisbane 4053 Everton Park Lower Brisbane 4053 Fairfield Lower Brisbane 4103 Ferny Grove Lower Brisbane 4055 Ferny Hills Lower Brisbane 4055 Fig Tree Pocket Lower Brisbane 4069 Fitzgibbon Lower Brisbane 4018 Forest Lake Lower Brisbane 4078 Forestdale Lower Brisbane 4118 Fortitude Valley Lower Brisbane 4006 Gailes Lower Brisbane 4300 Gaythorne Lower Brisbane 4051 Geebung Lower Brisbane 4034 Goodna Lower Brisbane 4300
Page 183
2017 Social Report - QUT
Gordon Park Lower Brisbane 4031 Graceville Lower Brisbane 4075 Grange Lower Brisbane 4051 Greenbank Lower Brisbane 4124 Greenslopes Lower Brisbane 4120 Hamilton Lower Brisbane 4007 Hawthorne Lower Brisbane 4171 Heathwood Lower Brisbane 4110 Hemmant Lower Brisbane 4174 Hendra Lower Brisbane 4011 Herston Lower Brisbane 4006 Highgate Hill Lower Brisbane 4101 Holland Park Lower Brisbane 4121 Holland Park West Lower Brisbane 4121 Inala Lower Brisbane 4077 Indooroopilly Lower Brisbane 4068 Jamboree Heights Lower Brisbane 4074 Jindalee Lower Brisbane 4074 Kalinga Lower Brisbane 4030 Kangaroo Point Lower Brisbane 4169 Karalee Lower Brisbane 4306 Karana Downs Lower Brisbane 4306 Kedron Lower Brisbane 4031 Kelvin Grove Lower Brisbane 4059 Kenmore Lower Brisbane 4069 Kenmore Hills Lower Brisbane 4069 Keperra Lower Brisbane 4054 Kholo Lower Brisbane 4306 Kuraby Lower Brisbane 4112 Larapinta Lower Brisbane 4110 Lutwyche Lower Brisbane 4030 Lyons Lower Brisbane 4124 Lytton Lower Brisbane 4178 Macgregor Lower Brisbane 4109 Mackenzie Lower Brisbane 4156 Mansfield Lower Brisbane 4122 McDowall Lower Brisbane 4053 Middle Park Lower Brisbane 4074 Milton Lower Brisbane 4064 Mitchelton Lower Brisbane 4053 Moggill Lower Brisbane 4070 Moorooka Lower Brisbane 4105 Morningside Lower Brisbane 4170 Mount Coot-tha Lower Brisbane 4066
Page 184
2017 Social Report - QUT
Mount Crosby Lower Brisbane 4306 Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122 Mount Gravatt East Lower Brisbane 4122 Mount Ommaney Lower Brisbane 4074 Murarrie Lower Brisbane 4172 Nathan Lower Brisbane 4111 New Beith Lower Brisbane 4124 New Chum Lower Brisbane 4303 New Farm Lower Brisbane 4005 Newmarket Lower Brisbane 4051 Newstead Lower Brisbane 4006 Norman Park Lower Brisbane 4170 Northgate Lower Brisbane 4013 Nudgee Lower Brisbane 4014 Nudgee Beach Lower Brisbane 4014 Nundah Lower Brisbane 4012 Oxley Lower Brisbane 4075 Paddington Lower Brisbane 4064 Pallara Lower Brisbane 4110 Parkinson Lower Brisbane 4115 Petrie Terrace Lower Brisbane 4000 Pinjarra Hills Lower Brisbane 4069 Pinkenba Lower Brisbane 4008 Pullenvale Lower Brisbane 4069 Red Hill Lower Brisbane 4059 Redbank Lower Brisbane 4301 Redbank Plains Lower Brisbane 4301 Richlands Lower Brisbane 4077 Riverhills Lower Brisbane 4074 Riverview Lower Brisbane 4303 Robertson Lower Brisbane 4109 Rochedale Lower Brisbane 4123 Rocklea Lower Brisbane 4106 Runcorn Lower Brisbane 4113 Salisbury Lower Brisbane 4107 Sandgate Lower Brisbane 4017 Seven Hills Lower Brisbane 4170 Seventeen Mile Rocks Lower Brisbane 4073 Sherwood Lower Brisbane 4075 Shorncliffe Lower Brisbane 4017 Sinnamon Park Lower Brisbane 4073 South Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4101 Spring Hill Lower Brisbane 4000 Spring Mountain Lower Brisbane 4124
Page 185
2017 Social Report - QUT
Springfield Lower Brisbane 4300 Springfield Central Lower Brisbane 4300 Springfield Lakes Lower Brisbane 4300 St Lucia Lower Brisbane 4067 Stafford Lower Brisbane 4053 Stafford Heights Lower Brisbane 4053 Stretton Lower Brisbane 4116 Sumner Lower Brisbane 4074 Sunnybank Lower Brisbane 4109 Sunnybank Hills Lower Brisbane 4109 Taigum Lower Brisbane 4018 Taringa Lower Brisbane 4068 Tarragindi Lower Brisbane 4121 Teneriffe Lower Brisbane 4005 Tennyson Lower Brisbane 4105 The Gap Lower Brisbane 4061 Tingalpa Lower Brisbane 4173 Toowong Lower Brisbane 4066 Upper Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069 Upper Kedron Lower Brisbane 4055 Upper Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122 Virginia Lower Brisbane 4014 Wacol Lower Brisbane 4076 Wakerley Lower Brisbane 4154 Wavell Heights Lower Brisbane 4012 West End Lower Brisbane 4101 Westlake Lower Brisbane 4074 White Rock Lower Brisbane 4306 Willawong Lower Brisbane 4110 Wilston Lower Brisbane 4051 Windsor Lower Brisbane 4030 Wishart Lower Brisbane 4122 Woolloongabba Lower Brisbane 4102 Wooloowin Lower Brisbane 4030 Wynnum West Lower Brisbane 4178 Yeerongpilly Lower Brisbane 4105 Yeronga Lower Brisbane 4104 Zillmere Lower Brisbane 4034 Alexandra Headland Maroochy 4572 Bli Bli Maroochy 4560 Bridges Maroochy 4561 Buderim Maroochy 4556 Burnside Maroochy 4560 Chevallum Maroochy 4555
Page 186
2017 Social Report - QUT
Coes Creek Maroochy 4560 Cooloolabin Maroochy 4560 Coolum Beach Maroochy 4573 Diddillibah Maroochy 4559 Doonan Maroochy 4562 Dulong Maroochy 4560 Eerwah Vale Maroochy 4562 Eudlo Maroochy 4554 Eumundi Maroochy 4562 Forest Glen Maroochy 4556 Highworth Maroochy 4560 Hunchy Maroochy 4555 Image Flat Maroochy 4560 Kiamba Maroochy 4560 Kiels Mountain Maroochy 4559 Kulangoor Maroochy 4560 Kuluin Maroochy 4558 Kunda Park Maroochy 4556 Kureelpa Maroochy 4560 Landers Shoot Maroochy 4555 Mapleton Maroochy 4560 Marcoola Maroochy 4564 Maroochy River Maroochy 4561 Maroochydore Maroochy 4558 Mons Maroochy 4556 Mount Coolum Maroochy 4573 Mudjimba Maroochy 4564 Nambour Maroochy 4560 Ninderry Maroochy 4561 North Arm Maroochy 4561 Pacific Paradise Maroochy 4564 Palmwoods Maroochy 4555 Parklands Maroochy 4560 Peregian Springs Maroochy 4573 Perwillowen Maroochy 4560 Point Arkwright Maroochy 4573 Rosemount Maroochy 4560 Towen Mountain Maroochy 4560 Twin Waters Maroochy 4564 Valdora Maroochy 4561 Verrierdale Maroochy 4562 West Woombye Maroochy 4559 Woombye Maroochy 4559 Yandina Maroochy 4561
Page 187
2017 Social Report - QUT
Yandina Creek Maroochy 4561 Yaroomba Maroochy 4573 Aroona Mooloolah 4551 Bald Knob Mooloolah 4552 Balmoral Ridge Mooloolah 4552 Battery Hill Mooloolah 4551 Birtinya Mooloolah 4575 Bokarina Mooloolah 4575 Buddina Mooloolah 4575 Buderim Mooloolah 4556 Currimundi Mooloolah 4551 Diamond Valley Mooloolah 4553 Dicky Beach Mooloolah 4551 Glenview Mooloolah 4553 Ilkley Mooloolah 4554 Landsborough Mooloolah 4550 Little Mountain Mooloolah 4551 Meridan Plains Mooloolah 4551 Minyama Mooloolah 4575 Moffat Beach Mooloolah 4551 Mooloolaba Mooloolah 4557 Mooloolah Valley Mooloolah 4553 Mountain Creek Mooloolah 4557 Palmview Mooloolah 4553 Parrearra Mooloolah 4575 Shelly Beach Mooloolah 4551 Sippy Downs Mooloolah 4556 Tanawha Mooloolah 4556 Warana Mooloolah 4575 Wurtulla Mooloolah 4575 Amity Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 Banksia Beach Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Bellara Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Bongaree Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Bribie Island North Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Bulwer Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 Coochiemudlo Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Cowan Cowan Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 Dunwich Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 Hollywell Moreton Bay and Islands 4216 Karragarra Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Kooringal Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 Lamb Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Lota Moreton Bay and Islands 4179
Page 188
2017 Social Report - QUT
Macleay Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Main Beach Moreton Bay and Islands 4217 Manly Moreton Bay and Islands 4179 Moreton Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4025 North Stradbroke Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 Paradise Point Moreton Bay and Islands 4216 Peel Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Point Lookout Moreton Bay and Islands 4183 Port Of Brisbane Moreton Bay and Islands 4178 Russell Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184 Sandstone Point Moreton Bay and Islands 4511 South Stradbroke Moreton Bay and Islands 4216 Southern Moreton Bay Islands Moreton Bay and Islands 4212 Welsby Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 White Patch Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Woorim Moreton Bay and Islands 4507 Advancetown Nerang 4211 Ashmore Nerang 4214 Austinville Nerang 4213 Benowa Nerang 4217 Bonogin Nerang 4213 Broadbeach Nerang 4218 Broadbeach Waters Nerang 4218 Bundall Nerang 4217 Burleigh Heads Nerang 4220 Burleigh Waters Nerang 4220 Carrara Nerang 4211 Clear Island Waters Nerang 4226 Gilston Nerang 4211 Highland Park Nerang 4211 Lower Beechmont Nerang 4211 Main Beach Nerang 4217 Mermaid Beach Nerang 4218 Mermaid Waters Nerang 4218 Merrimac Nerang 4226 Miami Nerang 4220 Molendinar Nerang 4214 Mudgeeraba Nerang 4213 Natural Bridge Nerang 4211 Nerang Nerang 4211 Neranwood Nerang 4213 Numinbah Valley Nerang 4211 Reedy Creek Nerang 4227 Robina Nerang 4226
Page 189
2017 Social Report - QUT
Southport Nerang 4215 Springbrook Nerang 4213 Surfers Paradise Nerang 4217 Tallai Nerang 4213 Varsity Lakes Nerang 4227 Worongary Nerang 4213 Boreen Point Noosa 4565 Castaways Beach Noosa 4567 Como Noosa 4571 Cooloola Noosa 4580 Cooroibah Noosa 4565 Cootharaba Noosa 4565 Kin Kin Noosa 4571 Marcus Beach Noosa 4573 Noosa Heads Noosa 4567 Noosa North Shore Noosa 4565 Noosaville Noosa 4566 Peregian Beach Noosa 4573 Ringtail Creek Noosa 4565 Sunrise Beach Noosa 4567 Sunshine Beach Noosa 4567 Tewantin Noosa 4565 Tinbeerwah Noosa 4563 Weyba Downs Noosa 4562 Arundel Pimpama-Coomera 4214 Ashmore Pimpama-Coomera 4214 Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Biggera Waters Pimpama-Coomera 4216 Binna Burra Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Clagiraba Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Coombabah Pimpama-Coomera 4216 Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209 Ferny Glen Pimpama-Coomera 4275 Flying Fox Pimpama-Coomera 4275 Gaven Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Guanaba Pimpama-Coomera 4210 Helensvale Pimpama-Coomera 4212 Hollywell Pimpama-Coomera 4216 Hope Island Pimpama-Coomera 4212 Illinbah Pimpama-Coomera 4275 Jacobs Well Pimpama-Coomera 4208 Kingsholme Pimpama-Coomera 4208 Labrador Pimpama-Coomera 4215 Lower Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Page 190
2017 Social Report - QUT
Maudsland Pimpama-Coomera 4210 Molendinar Pimpama-Coomera 4214 Mount Nathan Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Nerang Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Norwell Pimpama-Coomera 4208 Ormeau Hills Pimpama-Coomera 4208 Oxenford Pimpama-Coomera 4210 Pacific Pines Pimpama-Coomera 4211 Paradise Point Pimpama-Coomera 4216 Parkwood Pimpama-Coomera 4214 Pimpama Pimpama-Coomera 4209 Runaway Bay Pimpama-Coomera 4216 Southport Pimpama-Coomera 4215 Steiglitz Pimpama-Coomera 4207 Tamborine Mountain Pimpama-Coomera 4272 Upper Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209 Willow Vale Pimpama-Coomera 4209 Witheren Pimpama-Coomera 4275 Wongawallan Pimpama-Coomera 4210 Albany Creek Pine 4035 Armstrong Creek Pine 4520 Bald Hills Pine 4036 Bracken Ridge Pine 4017 Bray Park Pine 4500 Brendale Pine 4500 Bridgeman Downs Pine 4035 Brighton Pine 4017 Bunya Pine 4055 Camp Mountain Pine 4520 Cashmere Pine 4500 Cedar Creek Pine 4520 Clear Mountain Pine 4500 Clontarf Pine 4019 Closeburn Pine 4520 Dakabin Pine 4503 Dayboro Pine 4521 Draper Pine 4520 Eatons Hill Pine 4037 Griffin Pine 4503 Highvale Pine 4520 Jollys Lookout Pine 4520 Joyner Pine 4500 Kallangur Pine 4503 King Scrub Pine 4521
Page 191
2017 Social Report - QUT
Kippa-ring Pine 4021 Kobble Creek Pine 4520 Kurwongbah Pine 4503 Laceys Creek Pine 4521 Lawnton Pine 4501 Mango Hill Pine 4509 Margate Pine 4019 Mount Glorious Pine 4520 Mount Nebo Pine 4520 Mount Pleasant Pine 4521 Mount Samson Pine 4520 Murrumba Downs Pine 4503 Narangba Pine 4504 Newport Pine 4020 North Lakes Pine 4509 Petrie Pine 4502 Redcliffe Pine 4020 Rothwell Pine 4022 Rush Creek Pine 4521 Samford Valley Pine 4520 Samford Village Pine 4520 Samsonvale Pine 4520 Scarborough Pine 4020 Strathpine Pine 4500 Warner Pine 4500 Whiteside Pine 4503 Wights Mountain Pine 4520 Woody Point Pine 4019 Yugar Pine 4520 Beerburrum Pumicestone 4517 Beerwah Pumicestone 4519 Bells Creek Pumicestone 4551 Caloundra Pumicestone 4551 Caloundra West Pumicestone 4551 Coochin Creek Pumicestone 4519 Donnybrook Pumicestone 4510 Elimbah Pumicestone 4516 Glass House Mountains Pumicestone 4518 Golden Beach Pumicestone 4551 Kings Beach Pumicestone 4551 Landsborough Pumicestone 4550 Little Mountain Pumicestone 4551 Meldale Pumicestone 4510 Mount Mellum Pumicestone 4550
Page 192
2017 Social Report - QUT
Ningi Pumicestone 4511 Pelican Waters Pumicestone 4551 Sandstone Point Pumicestone 4511 Toorbul Pumicestone 4510 Alexandra Hills Redland 4161 Birkdale Redland 4159 Burbank Redland 4156 Capalaba Redland 4157 Chandler Redland 4155 Cleveland Redland 4163 Daisy Hill Redland 4127 Gumdale Redland 4154 Lota Redland 4179 Manly Redland 4179 Manly West Redland 4179 Mount Cotton Redland 4165 Ormiston Redland 4160 Priestdale Redland 4127 Ransome Redland 4154 Redland Bay Redland 4165 Rochedale South Redland 4123 Sheldon Redland 4157 Thorneside Redland 4158 Thornlands Redland 4164 Victoria Point Redland 4165 Wakerley Redland 4154 Wellington Point Redland 4160 Wynnum Redland 4178 Bald Knob Stanley 4552 Bellthorpe Stanley 4514 Booroobin Stanley 4552 Cedarton Stanley 4514 Commissioners Flat Stanley 4514 Crohamhurst Stanley 4519 Crossdale Stanley 4312 D'aguilar Stanley 4514 Delaneys Creek Stanley 4514 Glass House Mountains Stanley 4518 Glenfern Stanley 4515 Hazeldean Stanley 4515 Kilcoy Stanley 4515 Mount Archer Stanley 4514 Mount Byron Stanley 4312 Mount Delaney Stanley 4514
Page 193
2017 Social Report - QUT
Mount Kilcoy Stanley 4515 Mount Mee Stanley 4521 Neurum Stanley 4514 Peachester Stanley 4519 Royston Stanley 4515 Sandy Creek Stanley 4515 Sheep Station Creek Stanley 4515 Somerset Dam Stanley 4312 Stanmore Stanley 4514 Stony Creek Stanley 4514 Villeneuve Stanley 4514 Westvale Stanley 4514 Winya Stanley 4515 Woodford Stanley 4514 Woolmar Stanley 4515 Wootha Stanley 4552 Bilinga Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225 Burleigh Heads Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4220 Coolangatta Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225 Currumbin Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 Currumbin Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 Currumbin Waters Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223 Elanora Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221 Palm Beach Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221 Tallebudgera Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228 Tallebudgera Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228 Tugun Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4224 Anduramba Upper Brisbane 4355 Avoca Vale Upper Brisbane 4306 Banks Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 Benarkin Upper Brisbane 4306 Benarkin North Upper Brisbane 4306 Bergen Upper Brisbane 4353 Biarra Upper Brisbane 4313 Blackbutt Upper Brisbane 4306 Blackbutt North Upper Brisbane 4306 Blackbutt South Upper Brisbane 4306 Borallon Upper Brisbane 4306 Braemore Upper Brisbane 4313 Bryden Upper Brisbane 4312 Caboonbah Upper Brisbane 4312 Cherry Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 Chuwar Upper Brisbane 4306 Coal Creek Upper Brisbane 4312
Page 194
2017 Social Report - QUT
Coalbank Upper Brisbane 4352 Colinton Upper Brisbane 4306 Cooeeimbardi Upper Brisbane 4313 Coominya Upper Brisbane 4311 Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4402 Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313 Cressbrook Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 Crossdale Upper Brisbane 4312 Crows Nest Upper Brisbane 4355 Djuan Upper Brisbane 4352 Dundas Upper Brisbane 4306 East Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4353 East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 Emu Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 England Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 Esk Upper Brisbane 4312 Eskdale Upper Brisbane 4312 Fairney View Upper Brisbane 4306 Fernvale Upper Brisbane 4306 Fulham Upper Brisbane 4313 Gilla Upper Brisbane 4306 Glamorgan Vale Upper Brisbane 4306 Glen Esk Upper Brisbane 4312 Glenaven Upper Brisbane 4355 Googa Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 Grapetree Upper Brisbane 4352 Gregors Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 Haden Upper Brisbane 4353 Haigslea Upper Brisbane 4306 Harlin Upper Brisbane 4306 Ironbark Upper Brisbane 4306 Ivory Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 Jones Gully Upper Brisbane 4355 Kholo Upper Brisbane 4306 Kooralgin Upper Brisbane 4402 Lake Manchester Upper Brisbane 4306 Lake Wivenhoe Upper Brisbane 4312 Lark Hill Upper Brisbane 4306 Linville Upper Brisbane 4306 Lower Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313 Lowood Upper Brisbane 4311 Marburg Upper Brisbane 4346 Monsildale Upper Brisbane 4515 Moombra Upper Brisbane 4312
Page 195
2017 Social Report - QUT
Moore Upper Brisbane 4306 Mount Beppo Upper Brisbane 4313 Mount Binga Upper Brisbane 4306 Mount Hallen Upper Brisbane 4312 Mount Stanley Upper Brisbane 4306 Mountain Camp Upper Brisbane 4355 Muirlea Upper Brisbane 4306 Murrumba Upper Brisbane 4312 Nukku Upper Brisbane 4306 Nutgrove Upper Brisbane 4352 Ottaba Upper Brisbane 4313 Patrick Estate Upper Brisbane 4311 Perseverance Upper Brisbane 4352 Pierces Creek Upper Brisbane 4355 Pine Mountain Upper Brisbane 4306 Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355 Ravensbourne Upper Brisbane 4352 Redbank Creek Upper Brisbane 4312 Scrub Creek Upper Brisbane 4313 South East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 South Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615 Split Yard Creek Upper Brisbane 4306 St Aubyn Upper Brisbane 4352 Tallegalla Upper Brisbane 4340 Taromeo Upper Brisbane 4306 Teelah Upper Brisbane 4306 The Bluff Upper Brisbane 4355 Thornville Upper Brisbane 4352 Toogoolawah Upper Brisbane 4313 Upper Cooyar Creek Upper Brisbane 4402 Upper Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355 Upper Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614 Vernor Upper Brisbane 4306 Wanora Upper Brisbane 4306 Wivenhoe Hill Upper Brisbane 4311 Wivenhoe Pocket Upper Brisbane 4306 Wutul Upper Brisbane 4352 Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614 Yimbun Upper Brisbane 4313
Page 196
2017 Social Report - QUT
Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Survey –
Healthy Land and Water Social Science Research QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000402
RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher: Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology Associate Researchers: Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology Dr Paul Maxwell, Principal Scientist – Monitoring and Research, Healthy Land and Water Dr Emily Saeck, Senior Scientist - Monitoring and Research, Healthy Land and Water DESCRIPTION The purpose of this research is to understand the attitudes and behaviours that underpin expectations and actions towards using and valuing local waterways in communities across Queensland. You are invited to participate in this project because you are over 18 years old and you live in South East Queensland. PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve completing an anonymous online survey with Likert scale answers (strongly agree – strongly disagree). The survey will take approximately 15 minutes of your time. Questions will include: I feel a strong personal obligation to protect local waterways Overall, I am satisfied with my local waterways I take notice of wildlife wherever I am Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not have to complete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or with Healthy Land and Water. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty by closing your browser before you submit. If you close your browser, any data collected may be used. As the survey is anonymous, once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may help to inform policy and community education programs about using and protecting waterways in Queensland. A summary report of this research, in the form of the waterways report card, will be available in November 2017. If you would like to receive a copy of this report via email in November, you will be offered the opportunity to leave your email address at the end of the survey. RISKS There are no foreseen risks associated with your participation in this study. However, if you experience any level of discomfort as a result of completing the survey, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. Data collected in this survey will be used to inform the social component of the 2017 waterways report card and also for comparison for future report cards. The project is jointly funded by QUT and Healthy Land and Water. Healthy Land and Water will have access to the data obtained during the project. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Commencing the online survey is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below. Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School Phone 31381241 Phone 31384089 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
Page 197
2017 Social Report - QUT
Appendix C – Construct Map and Modifications The following table documents the constructs and mapping to questions and modifications. It should be noted some questions were removed at various stages of piloting (due to time) and some were not reported in this field report but will be reported in future academic publications.
Survey with construct codes and definitions
Stewardship Explores awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. This captures attitude toward as well as actual behaviour. Nature relatedness It measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment). Integrated Integrated motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with Motivation one’s personal values and needs. Overall Satisfaction This measures how satisfied participants are overall with their local waterways. Overall Measures the perceptions of participants about the accessibility of their local waterway. Accessibility Overall Usability This captures whether participants feel that their local waterways are usable and don’t take much effort to use. Social Value Social value captures the value participants get from using their local waterways with others such as friends or family. Third Place Represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens. Third place is measured by Being away, Fascination and Compatibility. Being Away Captures a conceptual idea rather than a physical transformation. It emphasises that a location helps the participant to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape. Fascination This conceptualises a location which is thoroughly absorbing for the participant. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk. Compatibility This focuses on what a participant is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the participant can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place. Place Attachment This construct captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local waterways Wellness Index This index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, community and life.
Page 198
2017 Social Report - QUT
Stewardship captures awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. This captures attitude toward as well as actual behaviour. 1. I feel a strong personal obligation to protect local Stewardship_2 waterways
2. I would feel guilty if I didn’t behave in a way to protect local Stewardship_3 waterways
3. I am willing to behave in a way to protect local waterways Stewardship_4 on a regular basis
Nature relatedness measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment).
4. I always think about how my actions affect the Natrel_1 environment.
5. I take notice of wildlife wherever I am. Natrel_2
6. My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am. Natrel_3
7. I feel very connected to all living things and the earth. Natrel_4
Integrated motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs. 8. Using local waterways is part of the way I have chosen to Integrated motivation_1 live my life
9. Using local waterways is a fundamental part of who I am Integrated motivation_2
10. Using local waterways is an integral part of my life Integrated motivation_3
Overall satisfaction measures how satisfied participants are overall with their local waterways.
11. Overall, I am satisfied with my local waterways OverallSat_1
12. Overall, my local waterways are close to my ideal. OverallSat_2
13. Overall, I am delighted with my experiences with my local OverallSat_3 waterways
14. Overall, I am very satisfied with my decisions to use/visit my OveralSat_6 local waterways
Page 199
2017 Social Report - QUT
Overall accessibility measures the perceptions of participants about the accessibility of their local waterway.
15. Overall, I find it easy to access my local waterways OverallAcc_1
16. Overall, accessing my local waterways is simple OverallAcc_2
17. Overall, it is fairly straightforward to get to my local OverallAcc_3 waterways
18. Overall, my local waterway is easy to access OverallAcc_4
Overall usability captures whether participants feel that their local waterways are usable and don’t take much effort to use. 19. Overall, I get a lot out of using my local waterways OverUse_1
20. Overall, I find my local waterways easy to use OverUse_2
21. Overall, it doesn’t take much effort to use my local OverUse_3 waterways
22. Overall, I would like to use my local waterways more often Overuse_5
Social value captures the value participants get from using their local waterways with others such as friends or family. 23. I am happy when I visit or use local waterways with my Social Value_1 friends
24. I find using my local waterways more interesting when my Social Value_2 friends are with me
25. It is more interesting to use my local waterway as part of a Social Value_3 group
26. Social outings at my local waterways make them more Social Value_4 interesting
Third Place represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens. Third Place is measured by Being away, Fascination and Compatibility. Being Away captures a conceptual idea rather than a physical transformation. It emphasises that a location helps the participant to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape.
Page 200
2017 Social Report - QUT
27. Spending time using my local waterways gives me a break Being-away prop_1 from my day-to-day routine
28. My local waterways are a place to get away from it all Being-away prop_2
29. Using my local waterways helps me to relax Being-away prop_3
30. Using my local waterways helps me to get relief from Being-away prop_4 everyday stress
Fascination conceptualises a location which is thoroughly absorbing for the participant. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk. 31. My local waterways have fascinating features Fascination prop_1
32. There is a lot to explore and discover at my local waterways Fascination prop_2
33. My local waterways are exciting Fascination prop_3
34. My local waterways are fascinating Fascination prop_4
Compatibility focuses on what a participant is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the participant can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place. 35. Using my local waterways suits my personality Compatibility prop_1
36. I can do things I like at my local waterways Compatibility prop_2
37. I have a sense that I belong at my local waterways Compatibility prop_3
38. I have a sense of oneness (like being united) with my local Compatibility prop_4 waterways
Place Attachment captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local waterways I benefit from my local waterway because: Of the activities I can do Placeatt1 Of how pleasing it looks Placeatt2 I feel like I belong Placeatt3 It gives me a feeling of comfort Placeatt4 I feel connected to nature Placeatt5 It gives me freedom Placeatt6 I get a good level of entertainment there Placeatt7
Page 201
2017 Social Report - QUT
It supports memories Placeatt8 Of the amenities there Placeatt9 I feel good there Placeatt10 I feel relaxed there Placeatt11 I feel like I personally ‘grow’ when I use it Placeatt12
The wellness index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, community and life. Wellbeing Thinking about your own personal circumstances and life, how satisfied are you with the following?
Your health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_HEALTH Your community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_COMM Your use of time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_TIME Yourself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_SELF Your life as a whole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_WHOLE
Actual stewardship behaviour
Thinking about the past 12 months, how many No 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 More hours did you spend on the following activities in hours hours hours hours hours than your creek or nearby waterway? 30 hours
TIME Weed removal and/or control _WEE DING Native tree planting TIME_ PLANT Monitoring (e.g. water quality, fish, bird, TIME_ frog, mammal or other) MONI T Rubbish clean up TIME_ CLEAN Erosion control TIME_ EROSI O Other TIME_ OTHE R
Page 202
2017 Social Report - QUT
TEXT BOX TIME_ OTHE R_TXT
Waterway Conditions
Thinking about your future intentions to use your local waterway in the next 12 months, how likely or unlikely are you to use this waterway given the following conditions:
Water Clarity and Water Pollution for Use In and Use near, no Fish amount or habitation question
Extremely Unlikely Somew Neither Somew Likely Extreme Unlikely hat likely or hat ly Likely Unlikely unlikely likely The water clarity is USE_IN Very clear _VC Clear USE_IN _C Partly muddy USE_IN Muddy _PM Very muddy USE_IN _M USE_IN _VM There is USE_IN No pollution _NP Low levels of USE_IN pollution _LP Some pollution USE_IN _SP Polluted USE_IN Very polluted _P USE_IN _VP The number of fish are: High and there are many species High and there are several species Medium and there are several species
Page 203
2017 Social Report - QUT
Medium and there are few species Low and there are very few species
Habitat condition is Very good Good Moderate Poor Very poor
In this survey we would like you to think about waterways. First some definitions:
A Waterway: is a passage for water or a body of water, including all types of permanent and short term streams, rivers, wetlands and bays. A waterway includes all estuaries, foreshores, coastal and marine waters. Waterways may be a freshwater or saltwater creek or river, a lake or dam, a bay, lagoon or canal, or a surf beach. Local waterways: When we talk about local waterways, we mean waterways that are within 15 kilometres of your home. Visiting or using waterways: When we talk about visiting or using these waterways, we mean taking part in activities in, and on, the water such as boating or swimming. We also mean taking part in activities alongside these waterways such as walking or having a picnic. Commuting to work using waterways is also included in this category.
Actual Waterway Usage
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a local waterway, within 15 km of your home, for the following activities?
Once Almost or Every Nev every Every Every Every twice few er day week fortnight month a year years
Picnics, BBQs
Walking or running
Page 204
2017 Social Report - QUT
Swimming
Cycling
4WD driving or trail bike riding
Jet skiing, Water skiing
Camping
Recreational fishing
Boating, sailing
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
Surfing, kite- surfing, sail boarding
Scuba diving, snorkelling
Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching, conservation, photography
For commuting or getting to work
Other (TEXT BOX)
Page 205
2017 Social Report - QUT
How long have you lived in South East Queensland?
less than a year
1 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
More than 10 years
What is the highest level of education you have attained to date?
Primary School
High School
Diploma / Certificate or equivalent
Apprenticeship or trade certificate or equivalent
Bachelor Degree or equivalent
Postgraduate Degree or equivalent
Page 206
2017 Social Report - QUT
Other qualification
How would you describe your current employment?
Retired
Carer
Full time student
Unemployed and not seeking work
Unemployed and seeking work
Part time employee
Full time work
What industry do you work in, or recently worked in?
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply
Construction and development
Page 207
2017 Social Report - QUT
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Hospitality and Tourism
Transport and Storage
Communication Services
Finance and Insurance
Property and Business Services
Government Administration and Defence
Education
Health and Community Services
Cultural and Recreational Services
Personal and Other Services
I have not worked
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries
Other - please provide
Industry impacts on waterway
Page 208
2017 Social Report - QUT
Thinking about the industry you work in, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 6 agree
My industry is aware of its potential for negative impacts
on water quality
Within my industry, roles and responsibilities for minimising negative impacts on waterways are clearly defined and understood
My industry is proactive in improving practice and
promoting responsible environmental behaviour
My industry could manage its impact on waterways more
effectively
My industry manages its impact on waterways to an
acceptable degree
My industry could improve its performance in managing
its impact on waterways
Which of following categories best indicate your annual household income?
Under $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001 to $100,000
Page 209
2017 Social Report - QUT
$100,001 to $150,000
$150,001 to $200,000
Over $200,000
Prefer not to say
Do you have any other comments or feedback about your local waterway or any topic related to this research?
TEXT BOX
Would you like to receive a copy of the summary report?
Yes
No
If yes, separate box to open to request email address so report can be sent. Also with a comment that this is not part of the collect data.
______
Page 210