Identifying &Mapping the Values of Victorian Public Lands By Dr Delene Weber & Associate Professor Greg Brown June 2014 This report was produced for the use of Parks Victoria. The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of Kelly De Bie in the project and also Tony Varcoe for his support. Photos have been provided by Parks Victoria or the authors Table of Contents I1 Summary .....................................................................................................ii 1.1 Objectives of Study ................................................................................ iii 1.2 Overview of Methods .............................................................................iv 1.3 Key Results ............................................................................................iv 2 Introduction ................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Background ............................................................................................ 9 2.2 Overview of the Process ........................................................................ 9 3 Methods ................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Study Location ..................................................................................... 13 3.2 Survey Procedure ................................................................................ 16 3.3 Sampling and recruitment .................................................................... 18 3.4 Data analysis ....................................................................................... 19 3.4.1 Participant characteristics .................................................................. 19 3.4.2 Association of mapped values with public lands .............................. 19 3.4.3 Association of mapped values with public lands by IUCN category . 20 4 Mapping Results ...................................................................................... 24 4.1 Overview of Results ............................................................................. 25 4.2 Distribution of Markers ......................................................................... 25 4.2.1 Frequency of mapped values and management preferences on public lands 26 4.2.2 Association of mapped values with public land categories .............. 28 4.2.3 Association of mapped values with IUCN categories ....................... 32 4.2.4 Association of mapped values with Parks Victoria Level of Protection (LoP) 34 4.2.5 Social landscape metrics by park/reserve ........................................ 36 5 Overview of Respondents ........................................................................ 42 5.1 Overview of Respondents .................................................................... 43 5.2 Respondent Characteristics ................................................................. 44 5.2.1 Knowledge of public land in Victoria ................................................ 44 5.2.2 Perceived level of ease to access Victorian public lands ................. 44 5.2.3 Frequency of use of Victorian public lands ...................................... 45 5.2.4 Motivation for visits .......................................................................... 45 5.2.5 Preferences regarding public lands ................................................. 48 5.2.6 Gender of study participants ............................................................ 51 5.2.7 Age of study participants .................................................................. 52 5.2.8 Lifecycle category. ........................................................................... 52 5.2.9 Level of formal education of study participants ................................ 53 5.2.10 Household income of study participants .......................................... 53 5.2.11 Further comments provided by participants ..................................... 55 Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................... 60 6.1 Discussion & Conclusions ........................................................................ 61 References ....................................................................................................... 66 Appendices ....................................................................................................... 70 Authors ........................................................................................................... 124 List of Figures Figure 1: Screen image of PPGIS interface ...................................................... 17 Figure 2Frequency distribution of mapped values in public land units: (a) Recreation, (b) scenic/aesthetic, (c) Biological, and (d) intrinsic/existence values. Recreation and scenic values indicate similar spatial distribution while biological and intrinsic/extrinsic values deviate in western mallee lands, River Murray lands, and the eastern coastline (indicated by arrows). .............................................. 27 Figure 3 Symmetrical normalised plots from correspondence analysis of values by (a) public land type and (b) IUCN classification ........................................... 31 Figure 4 . Map of potential conflict in parks/reserves based on conflict index grouped into high/medium/low categories. ....................................................... 41 List of Tables Table 1: Variables respondents could map on the PPGIS website including operational definitions and expected associations of values with public lands in Victoria. ............................................................................................................. 14 Table 2. Participation statistics and respondent characteristics with comparison to Victoria census data (ABS, 2011). ................................................................ 25 Table 3. Association of mapped values with public land type. Overall association is significant (Χ2=1160.4, df=100, p < .001) with residuals less than -2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0 (green) highlighted.................................................................. 30 Table 4. Association of mapped values with IUCN protected area categories. Metropolitan parks are not classified within the IUCN system, but were included in the analysis for contrast. The overall association is significant (Χ2=651.2, df=50, p < .001) with standardized residuals less than -2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0 (green) highlighted. ..................................................................................... 33 Table 5. Association of mapped values with Parks Victoria designated Level of Protection (LoP) classifications. The overall association is significant (Χ2=467.4, df=50, p < .001) with standardized residuals less than -2.0 (pink) or greater than 2.0 (green) highlighted. ..................................................................................... 35 Table 6: Social lanscape metriics for most frequently mapped values.............. 37 Table 7: Self-identified knowledge of public lands in Victoria ........................... 44 Table 8: Perceived East of Access to Victorian Public Lands ........................... 44 Table 9: Frequency of use of public lands in Victoria....................................... 45 Table 10: Primary motivation for public land visits ........................................... 47 Table 11: Comparison of motivations for visits between this study and two previous studies ................................................................................................ 47 Table 13: Preferences regarding public land management ............................. 48 Table 14: Gender of study participants by sampling group .............................. 51 Table 15: Average age of respondents ............................................................. 52 Table 16: Breakdown of sample by lifecycle category (n=1642) ...................... 53 Table 17: Self-identified highest level of formal education (n=1645) ................ 53 Table 18:Household income of respondents .................................................... 54 Table 19: Comparison of Study Participants with ABS Census Data................ 54 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Survey with results ....................................................................... 71 Appendix 2: The postcard distributed in parks. ................................................. 80 Appendix 3: Onsite survey dates ...................................................................... 81 Appendix 4: Additional Comments provided by respondents ............................ 82 Summary - i 1 Summary Summary - ii Summary This project was undertaken to provide public input to assist Parks Victoria in better understanding the values and management preferences of Victorians in relation to public lands. A total of 1905 respondents provided information about the values they associated with public lands and their preferences for future management via an interactive, web-based public participatory geographic information system (PPGIS). Landscape values are perceptions about places that determine land use aspirations and conflict. When landscape values are scientifically identified and mapped, they provide for a wide range of land use suitability and social impact analyses. This project developed a state wide geospatial database of people’s values and preference for public lands using public participation geographic information systems