Social research: Trends in community wellbeing and local attitudes to coal seam gas development: 2014 – 2016 – 2018 Western Downs and eastern Maranoa regions QLD Dr Rod McCrea | Dr Andrea Walton| Social Scientists | 11 Dec 2018 Background to the research Since 2012 Four main research themes:
Community Wellbeing Adapting to change
Community expectations Local attitudes perceptions of CSG sector towards CSG development
3 Investigated impacts over different industry phases
Pre-approval
Construction
Operations
Closure
4 Investigated impacts over different industry phases
Pre-approval
Construction
Operations
Closure
5 We have used a diversity of methods
Qualitative – Interviews and small discussion groups Quantitative – Large shire-wide surveys (randomly selected representative samples)
6 What we did in the survey research – an overview
Western Downs and eastern Maranoa regions, Qld
7 Surat Basin survey: Feb - Mar 2014, 2016, 2018
SAMPLE: N = 400; 500; 623 100 x – Dalby – Chinchilla – Miles / Wandoan – Tara – Roma
In town = Out of town
ABS representative ● age, gender, and employment
8 Telephone interview covering four topics
2. 1. Resilience and adapting Community wellbeing to change
3. 4. Local attitudes & • 180 questions Expected future • 32 minutes community wellbeing perceptions of CSG development
9 Telephone interview covering four topics SAMPLE: 2014-2016-2018
2. At least 100 x 1. Resilience and adapting – Dalby Community wellbeing to change – Chinchilla – Miles / Wandoan – Tara – Roma [200 in 2018]
3. 4. In town = Out of town Expected future Local attitudes & community wellbeing perceptions of CSG ABS representative development ● age, gender, and employment
10 Scores are on a scale of 1-5
● Likert-type responses ● 1 = least to 5 = most ● Scores < 3 represent an unfavourable view ● Average scores
11 Community wellbeing RESULTS Measuring CWB: 15 dimensions in six domains
13 Overall Community Wellbeing: 2014-2016-2018
5
4 3.82 3.82 3.75
3
2 Perception scores Perception
1 Western Downs Western Downs Western Downs 2014 2016 2018
14 Overall Community Wellbeing: 2014-2016-2018
5
3.96 4 3.82 3.82 3.75
3
2 Perception scores Perception
1 Western Downs Western Downs Western Downs Eastern Maranoa 2014 2016 2018 2018
15 Community Wellbeing – Roma 2018
Personal safety Community spirit Environmental quality Community cohesion Income sufficiency Built environment Health Social interaction Local trust Services and facilities Community participation Environmental management Economic opportunities Roads Local decision making OVERALL COMMUNITY WELLBEING
1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores Community Wellbeing WD: 2018 Community spirit Personal safety 2018 Environmental quality Health Income sufficiency Built environment Community cohesion Social interaction Services and facilities Local trust Community participation Environmental management Roads Local decision making Economic opportunities Overall community wellbeing
1 2 3 4 5
17 Community Wellbeing WD: 2016 - 2018 Community spirit Personal safety 2018
Environmental quality 2016 Health Income sufficiency Built environment Community cohesion Social interaction Services and facilities Local trust Community participation Environmental management Roads Local decision making Economic opportunities Overall community wellbeing
1 2 3 4 5
18 Community Wellbeing WD: 2014 - 2016 - 2018 Community spirit 2018 Personal safety 2016 Environmental quality 2014 Health Income sufficiency Built environment Community cohesion Social interaction Services and facilities Local trust Community participation Environmental management Roads Local decision making Economic opportunities Overall community wellbeing
1 2 3 4 5
19 Community Wellbeing WD: 2014 - 2016 - 2018 Community spirit 2018 Personal safety 2016 Environmental quality 2014 Health Income sufficiency Built environment Community cohesion Social interaction Services and facilities Local trust Community participation Environmental management Roads Local decision making Economic opportunities Overall community wellbeing
1 2 3 4 5
20 Only five dimensions changed significantly 2014 – 2016 – 2018 5
2014 2016 2018 4
3 Perception scores Perception
2
1 Environmental Environmental Roads Local decision Economic quality management making opportunities
21 Only five dimensions changed significantly 2014 – 2016 – 2018 5
2014 2016 2018 4
3 Perception scores Perception
2
1 Environmental Environmental Roads Local decision Economic quality management making opportunities
22 Sub-regions: Tara perceives its community wellbeing as lower
5 2014 2016 2018
4
3 Perception scores Perception
2
1 Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara* Eastern Maranoa Compared to people who live in town, people who live out of town feel community wellbeing is lower
5 In-town Out-of-town
4
3
2 Community wellbeing scores wellbeing Community
1 2014 2016 2018
24 Community Demographic differences Wellbeing
Age Gender ● Older residents experience ● Compared to men, women higher community wellbeing reported – Rate services and facilities as – Less satisfaction with personal higher safety, services and facilities, Income and environmental quality – More satisfaction with social ● Lower income residents interaction and higher report lower community community spirit wellbeing in 7/15 dimensions
25 The community as a ‘great place to live’ is high except for teenagers
2018 2016 2014
Overall, I am happy living in this local area Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life
This community is suitable for seniors
This community is suitable for teenagers * This community is suitable for young children
1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores
26 The community as a ‘great place to live’ is high except for teenagers
EM 2018 2018 2016 2014
Overall, I am happy living in this local area Overall, this local area offers a good quality of life
This community is suitable for seniors
This community is suitable for teenagers * This community is suitable for young children
1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores
27 Community Important drivers of community Wellbeing wellbeing consistent over time
Top three drivers
• Community spirit, cohesion, and local trust • Services and facilities • Community participation, and social interaction
• Personal safety / Environmental loading / Economic opportunities
28 Resilience and adapting to change RESULTS
29 Community resilience actions Adapting to important for adapting to change change
30 Perceptions of adapting to CSG not shifting
2014 2016 2018 50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Percentage of participants of Percentage
0% Community Community not Community only Community Community resisting it coping just coping adapting to the changing into changes something different Western Downs but better
Adapting to change 31 More positive perceptions of adapting to CSG in eastern Maranoa 60% Western Downs 2018 eastern Maranoa 2018 50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Percentage of participants of Percentage
0% Community Community not Community only Community Community resisting it coping just coping adapting to the changing into change something different but better
Adapting to change 32 Smaller subregions feel coping and adapting less than larger centres
5 Coping and adapting to CSG activities - 2016
4 Coping and adapting to CSG activities - 2018
3.28 3.29 3.13 3.12 3.15 3.03 3.07 3 2.86 2.75 2.73
2 Perceptions of coping and adapting adapting and of coping Perceptions
1 Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara Eastern Maranoa
33 2018: What matters to adaptive communities Adapting to change
Perceived adapting score 1 2 3 4 5 Local planning Leadership Dalby 3.18 Information access
Chinchilla 3.18 Working together Community commitment Miles 2.82 Local decision making Being listened to Tara 2.91 Having a say Trust in local leaders WD 3.03 region Economic opportunities Environmental Roma 3.35 management
34 Perceptions of resilience actions modest
Overall satisfaction with community responses to… COMMUNITY COMMITMENT EM 2018 The community supports its volunteers WD 2018 The community perseveres to find solutions WORKING TOGETHER All groups can work together to take advantage of CSG… All groups can work together to address problems… There are key people to help get things done ACTING STRATEGICALLY There is sufficient access to relevant information There is adequate leadership to deal with the changes There is good planning for future changes
1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores
35 Expected future community wellbeing RESULTS
36 Expectations of future community wellbeing slightly more optimistic in 2018 than 2016
Western Downs: Expected community wellbeing Decline Stay about the same Improve
56% 57%
30%
Percentage of participants of Percentage 21% 21% 14%
2016 2018
Community Wellbeing 37 Community Adapting to How does this all fit together Wellbeing change
Overall Expected Future Dimensions of community community Community wellbeing wellbeing wellbeing
Overall Social Community resilient actions community acceptance of adaptation CSG
Based on McCrea, R., Walton, A., and Leonard, R. (2016)
38 Summary of changes – WD region
5
Western Downs 2014 Western Downs 2016 Western Downs 2018
3 Perception scores Perception
1 Overall community Expected future Overall community Place attachment Community attitudes wellbeing wellbeing resilience and feelings towards CSG
39 Summary of changes – WD region and Roma 5
Western Downs 2014 Western Downs 2016 Western Downs 2018 Eastern Maranoa 2018
3 Perception scores Perception
1 Overall community Expected future Overall community Place attachment Community attitudes wellbeing wellbeing resilience and feelings towards CSG
40 Key messages – Community wellbeing
● Communities maintained their wellbeing over three different industry phases ● The main drivers of community wellbeing were consistent over time – Ensure services and facilities maintained and enhanced – Social wellbeing is as important – personal safety, community sprit, social interaction ● Perceptions of community wellbeing were consistently lower over time for people who live out of town ● Expectations of future community wellbeing have become more optimistic in 2018
41 Observations – Community resilience to CSG
● Community perceptions of coping and adapting to CSG remained static for WD region – Perceptions of resilience actions to CSG development remained modest over time – Economic opportunities and environmental management act as indicators of how well the community is adapting – Processes for ensuring people feel listened to and heard, and ways to share information important ● Adapting to CSG development is different from community wellbeing ● Size of town seems to matter in perceptions of adapting to CSG development ● Age of the industry seems to affect perceptions of adapting
42 Local attitudes towards CSG development RESULTS
43 CSG Attitudes – slightly more positive in 2018
40% 37% 34% 34% 34% 33% 31% 30%
20% 16% 14% 12% 12% 9% 9% 10% 10% 8%
Percentage of participants of Percentage 7%
0% Reject it Tolerate it Accept it Approve of it Embrace it
Note: Percentages rounded to the nearest whole 2014 2016 2018 percent
Local attitudes 44 2018: Attitudes toward CSG – still vary across the region
Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara 40%
30%
20% Percentage of participants of Percentage 10%
0% Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
Local attitudes 2018: Attitudes toward CSG – still vary across the region
Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara eastern Maranoa 40%
30%
20% Percentage of participants of Percentage 10%
0% Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
Local attitudes A general softening of negative emotions over the four years in the WD 5 2014 2016 2018
4
3
2
1 Feelings towards CSG development towards Feelings Pleased Optimistic Angry Worried Types of feelings
47 A general softening of negative emotions over the four years in the WD 5 2014 2016 2018 EM 2018
4
3
2
1 Feelings towards CSG development towards Feelings Pleased Optimistic Angry Worried Types of feelings
48 2018: CSG Attitudes – Out-of-town residents still less positive 50% In town
40% 39% Out of town
30% 31% 30% 29% 24%
20%
13% 11% 10% 9% 9% Percentage of participants Percentage 6%
0% Reject Tolerate Accept Approve Embrace
49 10 Farmers with active leases no differences in wellbeing compared to farmers without
Decision making - CSG companies involve local residents in their decisions
Levels of trust - CSG companies in your local area can be trusted
Attitudes and feelings toward CSG
1 2 3 4
Farmers with active leases Other farmers Farmers with active leases more positive in 2018 than 2016
50%
2018 2016 2016 2018 40%
Attitudes and feelings 30% toward CSG
Satisfaction with dealings 20% with CSG companies
1 2 3 4 5 10%
0% 1 = very 2 3 4 5 = very Farmers with active CSG leases: 2016 - 2018 dissatified satisfied
Satisfaction with dealings with CSG companies Suggested improvements from farmers with active leases, 2018
Improve the relationship quality with the 52% farmer
Improve things related to compensation 20% agreements
Reduce impacts on farming operations 16%
No recommendations 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% Perecentage of comments Comparison: QLD 2018
40% 38%
34% 31% 30%
23% 21% 20% 16%
12% 10% 10% 9% 7% Percentage of participants Percentage 0% Reject it Tolerate it Be OK with it Approve of it Embrace it Narrabri shire NSW Western Downs QLD Eastern Maranoa QLD
53 | Comparison: QLD 2018 and Narrabri 2017
40% 38%
34% 31% 30% 30% 27%
23% 21% 20% 16% 15% 15% 13% 12% 10% 10% 9% 7% Percentage of participants Percentage 0% Reject it Tolerate it Be OK with it Approve of it Embrace it Narrabri shire NSW Western Downs QLD Eastern Maranoa QLD
54 | Eight groups of factors influencing attitudes and feelings toward CSG development Industry effects Relational aspects - Perceived Perceived impacts benefits industry and community Trust in Distributional Industry fairness
Relationship Governance quality
Procedural SOCIAL Knowledge fairness ACCEPTANCE
Presentation title | Presenter name | Page 55 Factors important to acceptance of CSG development
WD region 1. PERCEIVED IMPACTS EM region
2. PERCEIVED BENEFITS
3. DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS
4. TRUST IN CSG COMPANIES
5. QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS
6. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
7. GOVERNANCE
8. KNOWLEDGE CONFIDENCE
OVERALL COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE…
1 2 3 4 5 Perception scores
56 | Size of town matters in the way impacts and local benefits perceived
5 5 Dalby Chinchilla Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara Miles-Wandoan Tara EM region EM region 4 4
3 3 Perception scores Perception Perception scores Perception
2 2
Perceptions of impacts Perceptions of benefits
1 1 Future issues Current impacts Societal benefits Local benefits Note: Scores: 1 = Not at all concerned and 5 = very concerned; the Note: Scores: 1 = lowest and 5 = highest perception; scores < 3 higher the score the greater the level of concern indicate unfavourable perceptions
57 Community Demographic differences Wellbeing
Age Gender ● Younger adults more positive ● Compared to men, women about CSG development reported ‒ Perceive less impacts and – Much less confident in their more benefits knowledge about CSG ‒ Distribution fairness to be higher ‒ Much more confidence in and trust in governance
58 Tara: lowest level of knowledge confidence about CSG
Knowledge confidence 5
4
3 Rating
2
1 Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara eastern Maranoa Note: The higher the score the greater the confidence in knowledge and the greater the need for information
59 Tara: lowest level of knowledge confidence about CSG; highest need for more information
Knowledge confidence Need for more information 5
4
3 Rating
2
1 Dalby Chinchilla Miles-Wandoan Tara eastern Maranoa Note: The higher the score the greater the confidence in knowledge and the greater the need for information
60 Half the community indicating a need for more information
40% Western Downs region eastern Maranoa
30% 30% 29% 29% 25%
19% 20% 19% 16% 13% 11% 10% 9% Perentage of participants of Perentage
0% 1 = need very 2 3 4 5 = need a lot little more Need for more information
61 Risks to groundwater still seen as not manageable, not understood by science, and not understood by community
Western Downs region Eastern Maranoa region
Risks are potentially catastrophic
Risks are manageable
Risks are understood by science
Risks are understood by the community
1 2 3 4 5 Note: 1 = does not agree, 5 = Strongly agrees Agreement scores
62 | Modelling social acceptance, or lack of:
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural Relationship Trust in SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE perception
Perceived impacts Governance Distributional fairness Perceived benefits
63 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of:
Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits perceptions
LEVELS OF Knowledge Trust in SOCIAL and risk industry ACCEPTANCE perception
Distributional fairness
64 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of:
Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits perceptions
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural Relationship Trust in SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE perception
Distributional fairness
65 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of:
Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits perceptions
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural Relationship Trust in SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE perception
Governance Distributional fairness
66 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of:
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural Relationship Trust in SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE perception
Perceived impacts Governance Distributional fairness Perceived benefits
67 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of: with data
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
-.14 .19 -.30 .17 -.11 .07
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural .57 Relationship .27 Trust in .27 SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE .05 perception
.34 .41 .13 -.14 Perceived .18 impacts Governance Distributional fairness .29 Perceived benefits .17
68 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of: with data
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
-.14 .19 -.30 .17 -.11 .07
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural .57 Relationship .27 Trust in .27 SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE .05 perception
.34 .41 .13 -.14 Perceived .18 impacts Governance Distributional fairness .29 Perceived benefits .17
69 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of: with data
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
-.14 .19 -.30 .17 -.11 .07
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural .57 Relationship .27 Trust in .27 SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE .05 perception
.34 .41 .13 -.14 Perceived .18 impacts Governance Distributional fairness .29 Perceived benefits .17
70 Modelling social acceptance, or lack of: with data
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Water risk impacts benefits impacts benefits perceptions
-.14 .19 -.30 .17 -.11 .07
LEVELS OF Knowledge Procedural .57 Relationship .27 Trust in .27 SOCIAL and risk fairness quality industry ACCEPTANCE .05 perception
.34 .41 .13 -.14 Perceived .18 impacts Governance Distributional fairness .29 Perceived benefits .17
71 Opportunities to improve the things that matter to communities 5
Perceived impacts 4 Perceived benefits Water risk severity Knowledge confidence Water risk 3 manageability
Distributional Percepton score Percepton fairness Relationship quality Procedural fairness 2 Trust in industry Governance
1 Note: Size of bubble indicates relative importance of that driver; height of bubble indicates perception score of the driver (y axis); bubbles below the red line indicate an unfavourable perception of that driver except for perceived impacts where a higher score indicates greater concerns
72 Key messages - Attitudes and perceptions of CSG
● A range of views towards CSG development continue and with a similar pattern ● Attitudes not polarised ● Feelings had softened ● Water remains the main concern about CSG development ● Local and societal benefits from CSG development were both seen as modest ● Size of towns matter in the way local benefits and impacts are perceived ● More favourable perceptions towards CSG development in the eastern Maranoa than the Western Downs ● Landowner relationship with gas is ongoing – Needs continual work to maintain and improve
73 Key messages - Attitudes and perceptions of CSG
● Level of social acceptance in local communities depends on perceptions about: – Industry effects: perceived impacts and benefits – Relations between community and CSG operator: procedural fairness; relationship quality; and trust in industry – Distributional fairness in terms of how benefits and costs are shared – Governance of the industry: compliance, regulations, planning and trust in governing bodies – Risk to underground water: beliefs about the manageability of the risk and the severity of the outcome – Confidence of knowledge about CSG combined with beliefs about risks to underground water Opportunities for building trust and increasing acceptance exist by improving these key drivers
74 Thank you
RESEARCHERS Social projects Dr Andrea Walton Dr Rod McCrea Prof Rosemary Leonard Economic projects Dr Rachel Williams Dr Tom Measham https://gisera.csiro.au Ms Talia Jeanneret Dr David Fleming /research Dr Bruce Taylor Dr Paul Graham /social-and-economic- Dr Yiyong Cai Dr Raymundo Marcos- impacts-and-opportunities Martinez Scientific papers and technical reports
Leonard, R., McCrea, R., & Walton, A. (2016). Perceptions of community responses to the unconventional gas industry: The importance of community agency. Journal of Rural Studies, 48, 11-21. McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2014). A conceptual framework for investigating community wellbeing and resilience. Rural Society, 23(3), 270-282. doi: 10.1080/10371656.2014.11082070 McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2016). Developing a model of community wellbeing and resilience in response to change. Social Indicators Research, 29(1), 195-214. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11205-015-1099-y McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (under review). Rural communities and unconventional gas development: What’s important for maintaining community wellbeing and resilience over time? Journal of Rural Studies Walton, A. and McCrea, R. (2018) Trends in community wellbeing and local attitudes to coal seam gas development, 2014 – 2016 - 2018: Western Downs and Eastern Maranoa regions, Queensland. Survey report. CSIRO Australia Walton, A., Leonard, R., Williams, R., & McCrea, R. (2015). A review of community concerns about onshore gas development: Challenges and opportunities (CSIRO report for the Government of Victoria). Australia: CSIRO Retrieved from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP152912&dsid=DS2. Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Leonard, R. (2014). CSIRO survey of community wellbeing and responding to change: Western Downs region in Queensland. Australia: CSIRO Land and Water Retrieved from http://gisera.org.au/publications/tech_reports_papers/socioeco-proj-3- community-wellbeing-report.pdf. Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Leonard, R. (2016). The 2016 CSIRO Community Wellbeing and Responding to Change survey: Western Downs region, Queensland - Changes between 2014 and 2016 in the Context of Coal Seam Gas Development. Brisbane: CSIRO Retrieved from www.gisera.org.au. Walton, A., McCrea, R., Leonard, R., & Williams, R. (2013). Resilience in a changing community landscape of coal seam gas: Chinchilla in southern Queensland. Journal of Economic and Social Policy - Special Edition: The Economic and Social Policy Implications of Coal Seam Gas Mining (CSG) in Australia, 15(3), 1-23. Walton, A., McCrea, R., Taylor, B., & Jeanneret, T. (2017). Understanding local community expectations and perceptions of the CSG sector. Social baseline assessment: Narrabri project. Australia: CSIRO. Walton, A., Williams, R., & Leonard, R. (2017). Community perspectives of coal seam gas development during two phases of industry activity: construction and post-construction. Rural Society, 26(1), 85-101. Williams, R., & Walton, A. (2013). The Social Licence to Operate and Coal Seam Gas Development. A literature review report to the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). Canberra: CSIRO. Williams, R., & Walton, A. (2014). Community Expectations and Coal Seam Gas Development: A report to the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). Australia: CSIRO Retrieved from https://gisera.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/socioeco-proj-5- community-expectations.pdf.
76 Open discussion
77 Extra
78 Three groups of attitudes to depict the model: WD and EM Reject Lukewarm Support
Perceived impacts Distributional fairness Water risk severe
Procedural fairness Water risk manageable
Relationship quality Perceived benefits
Trust in CSG companies Informal governance
Knowledge confidence Formal governance Trust in state governing bodies
79 Three groups of attitudes to depict the model: WD and EM Reject Lukewarm Support
Perceived impacts Distributional fairness Water risk severe
Procedural fairness Water risk manageable
Relationship quality Perceived benefits
Trust in CSG companies Informal governance
Knowledge confidence Formal governance Trust in state governing bodies
80