Social Innovations in Natural Resource Management

Social Innovations in Natural Resource Management

A handbook of social research in natural resource management in Queensland Edited by Carol Richards and Lyn Aitken


Origins of the publication The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAPSWQ), a jointly funded Commonwealth and Queensland Government program, provides a policy and funding base for addressing the biophysical, economic and social dimensions of natural resource management (NRM). The NAPSWQ is the source of funding for this publication, through the Social Research, Development and Extension State level activity SEO3, one of a suite of 5 programs under the Social and Economic State level activities. SEO3 is integrated with the Consortium for Integrated Resource Management (CIRM) activities through the Social Dimensions of NRM Working Group’s activities. CIRM’s support is acknowledged through its provision of funding for developing R&D priorities and enabling the networking that underpins collation of this range of projects as a further resource for continuing work in this area.

Compiled and edited by Carol A Richards (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) and Lyn Aitken (Department of Natural Resources and Mines and CIRM). Professional editing for publication by Valerie Eldershaw. Produced by Science Communications Unit, Natural Resource Sciences, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the researchers who contributed details of their projects to this publication, along with biographical details and their suggestions for further reading in their areas of research. Those who contributed include members of the Social Dimensions of Natural Resource Management Working Group: Geoff Lawrence, Helen Ross, Roy Rickson, Allan Dale, Jenny Bellamy and Stewart Lockie. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of PhD students, who provided details of their work. Some researchers have provided photographs for this publication. Those researchers retain copyright and are acknowledged where the photos are used. Other photographs in this publication are drawn from Natural Resource Information Management’s photo library. The front cover and other photographs within the document, are reproduced courtesy of Carol Richards, who retains copyright. We would also like to thank Murray Willson and Stephanie Butcher of Natural Resource Sciences for their advice with this publication. QNRME04203 ISBN 1 920920 83 8 © The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) and the Commonwealth of Australia (National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality), 2004 The document can be downloaded at: www.cirm.org.au And www.regionalnrm.qld.gov.au Disclaimer Information herein should not be quoted without the permission of the contact person whose name appears below each topic. Any scientific figures reported here are provided for information only and do not constitute formal recommendation. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice, expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the State of Queensland, its agents and employees are not liable (whether by reason of negligence, lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occurred or may occur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of any representation, statement or advice referred to above.

i


FOREWORD It is with great pleasure that I introduce Social Innovations in NRM Handbook. I believe the handbook will support community and industry groups, regional NRM bodies, local governments and State government agencies alike. As we all increasingly recognise the complexity of natural resource problems, one critical understanding keeps emerging: We cannot solve biophysical natural resource problems without understanding and managing the economic and social drivers affecting the use of natural resources. To date, the social sciences have not been a driving influence in resolving natural resource problems. This handbook seeks to showcase, in a practical way, how people involved in natural resource management are applying social assessment and social science techniques and practices to get better outcomes. There is so much going on out there in this field, but so little being effectively promoted and communicated. This handbook is dedicated to redressing this problem, and to show the practical value of social approaches in resolving natural resources issues. I hope the handbook can give you some ideas about how others are handling such complex issues, or even inspire you to write up the lessons you have gained from your experiences for the next edition. I thank both Lyn Aitken and Carol Richards for the excellent work they have undertaken in bringing this together under the CIRM Social Research Working Group. I also particularly thank the contributors for baring their souls and experiences for others to see. Happy reading, Allan Dale PhD General Manager Strategic Policy and Regional Arrangements The Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland The social frameworks that Australia chooses in managing its natural resource base will be crucial to the success of the ambitious plans of government and communities to halt environmental degradation and to place the nation on a sustainable footing. How should we be pursuing better natural resource management? The partnership arrangements that have emerged between governments and communities in Australia in recent times, and following closely from the achievements of Landcare, have the potential both to empower local groups involved in environmental management and to ensure the nation embraces with enthusiasm the goal of sustainable development. According to Land and Water Australia the ‘principles of good practice’ that are crucial to the success of community-based projects are: • clarity of purpose and dedication to achieve outcomes • time • positive group dynamics • acceptance of cultural and other differences • wide representation • skill enhancement – including personal growth.

ii


These, and other desirable features—such as well-understood and supportive institutional arrangements—do not arise spontaneously. Nor can they be ‘imposed’ on local groups. They must be nurtured—something that takes longerterm commitment and an inclusive approach to regional decision-making. We must also apply good social science in an effort to support groups and to provide them with the tools to monitor their progress. Throughout Queensland’s universities, Cooperative Research Centres and government agencies there is evidence of the emerging importance of the application of social science to the problems of natural resource management. This is seen in terms of books, articles and conferences dealing with the social dimensions of environmental issues, as well as in new research studies that seek to assess the most effective ways to assist communities to embrace positive change. In providing information about completed and ongoing studies throughout Queensland, this handbook highlights the importance of social science in the understanding of natural resource management. It is hoped that the social sciences will continue to play an important role in fostering new and innovative approaches to the solution of what is one of Queensland’s and Australia’s most serious concerns—that of the ongoing threat to the nation’s natural resource base. Geoffrey Lawrence PhD Professor of Sociology Head, School of Social Science (Anthropology, Archaeology, Criminology, Sociology) The University of Queensland

iii


ABBREVIATIONS CHRRUP

Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project

CIRM

Consortium for Integrated Resource Management

CQ

Central Queensland

CH

Central Highlands

GBRMPA

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

LWA

Land and Water Australia

NAP

National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

NHT

Natural Heritage Trust

NRM

Natural Resource Management

NR&M

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland)

iv


CONTENTS Acknowledgements

i

Foreword

ii

Abbreviations

iv

Contents

v

Introduction

vii

Part A: Research projects (arranged alphabetically by author)

1

Rural women and their use of new communication and information technologies for learning on natural resource management Jenny Bellamy, Vickie Webb, Anne Leitch and Colin Mayocchi

3

The knowledge building project Ockie Bosch and Carl Smith

6

Monitoring the impact of coal mining on local communities David Brereton (Project Co-ordinator), Jenny Moffatt and Richard Parsons

10

Engaging community in managing natural resources: Sustainable communities and the case of water quality Laurie Buys

13

Providing social data to underpin catchment planning in the Queensland Murray–Darling region Ian Byron, Allan Curtis and Jacinta MacKay

16

Citizen participation, local governance and sustainable communities Michael Cuthill

20

Improving regional resource use—a negotiated approach Allan Dale, Jenny Bellamy and Anne Leitch

23

Capacity and institutional change in NRM: Case studies in the Burdekin and Wet Tropics NRM regions Mark Fenton

27

Sustainable natural resource management in rural communities: A socialpsychological analysis of attitudes, norms, and practices Kelly Fielding

30

Environmental/ecological sustainability and farm sustainability: Opposite ends of the spectrum? Janet Grice and Sandy Paton

33

Factors impeding and facilitating natural resource management by local government? Fiona Haslam-McKenzie, Barbara Pini and Colette Roos

36

How much is cleaner stormwater worth? Brad Jorgensen

39

Learning, evaluation, action and reflection for new technologies, empowerment and rural sustainability (The LEARNERS Project) June Lennie

42

v


Natural resource governance and partnership in Central Queensland Stewart Lockie and Susan Rockloff

45

Assessing local support for community sustainability Colin Macgregor

49

Rural women in sustainable development Fiona McCartney and Helen Ross

52

Researching farmers: Who is the expert? Sandy Paton and Janet Grice

55

Developing effective partnerships in natural resource management Peter Oliver

58

Engaged Government: A study of government community-engagement for regional outcomes Peter Oliver, Tanya Liebrech, Barton Loechel, Shion Yee

61

Developing a social impact assessment for Australian industry Bruce Rich

63

Environmental sustainability in the beef grazing sector of Central Queensland: What helps, what hinders? Carol Richards, Geoff Lawrence and Lynda Cheshire

65

Globalising and industrialising agriculture: Big companies, local farmers and saving the soil Roy Rickson and David Burch

68

Farm men and women’s responses to restructuring of the Australian dairy and vegetable industries and issues of sustainability Roy Rickson, David Burch, Sally Rickson

71

Supporting the development of cooperative management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Helen Ross, James Innes, Melissa George, Cathy Robinson, Marc Hockings and Arturo Izurieta

74

Effective use of incentive mechanisms in regional natural resource management: A scoping study Sarah Simpson and Peter Chudleigh

78

Humans, water use and resource management Veronica Strang, Sandy Toussaint and Marie Seeman

81

Capacity profiling to support industry involvement Bruce Taylor

84

Community-based resource planning: Studies from northern Australia and Zimbabwe Robin Thwaites and Jennifer Carter

88

The Coastal CRC’s Citizen Science toolbox: Bridging the gap between scientists, decision-makers and the community James Whelan

91

vi


Part B: PhD studies (arranged alphabetically by author)

95

The choice between rural living and agriculture: Implications for land use and subdivision policy Geoff Anstey (The University of Queensland)

97

Host involvement in Australian wildlife-based tourism: Implications for sustainability Georgette Leah Burns (Griffith University) A socio-legal analysis of new forms of regulation in the Australian Mining Industry Petrina Czislowski (University of Queensland) Understanding new forms of regional governance in Australia: A Central Queensland case study Jo-Anne Everingham (The University of Queensland) Communicating the coast: Discursive avenues to promote local participation in coastal and marine management Kerrie Foxwell (Griffith University) Voices of the volunteers: An exploration of the influences that volunteer experiences have on the resilience and sustainability of catchment groups in coastal Queensland Margaret Gooch (Griffith University) Developing a participatory evaluation framework to assess progress towards co-management of protected areas in the Great Barrier Reef Arturo Izurieta Murky waters? Science, politics and environmental decision-making in the Brisbane River dredging dispute Emma Jaku (Griffith University) Towards triple-loop negotiation: Informing NRM extension in Queensland and Australia Greg Leach (Wageningen University) Predicting social resilience in Queensland’s commercial fishing industry Nadine Marshall (James Cook University) Graziers’ perceptions of sustainable development and what that means for policy Jenny Moffat (The University of Queensland) Social harmony in water quality strategies: Community relations in catchment management and waterways activities Denny Nash (University of the Sunshine Coast) Communication and Cooperative Research Centres: A social identity perspective Michelle Reidlinger (The University of Queensland)

98

99

100

101

102

103

105

106 107

108

109

110

vii


Community-based research: An opportunity for collaboration and social change Dana Thomsen (completed; Griffith University)

111

Linking regional and property scales for improved contributions to broadscale natural resource management outcomes Adele Vagg (The University of Queensland)

112

Creeks, convention and capital: Social dimensions of landscape management Angela Wardell-Johnson (Griffith University)

113

Past, present and future: Sustainable environmental management of legacy open cut coal mines, Ipswich, Queensland Rhys Worrall (The University of Queensland)

115

Additional resources in brief

116

Glossary of terms

119

Contributors’ biographies

123

viii


INTRODUCTION Natural resource management is the process of influencing the interactions between people and the ecosystems on which they depend

The environmental problems confronting Australia that are receiving increasing attention include concerns about the loss of plant and animal biodiversity, water quality and quantity, salinity, erosion and pressures placed on the environment through increased urbanisation along coastal zones. In addressing these problems, the biophysical sciences are contributing essential knowledge about the condition of natural resources and systems while there is increasing recognition of the necessity to include knowledge from the social sciences. As a contribution toward meeting that necessity, this handbook presents social science research in natural resource management in Queensland, with descriptions of specific projects as well as summaries of PhD research. A diversity of research projects from various social science disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, social and economic psychology, geography and political science are reported, revealing a number of approaches to gaining a better understanding of society and the environment. State and Commonwealth Government agencies have responded to the increasing pressures on the environment by providing leadership and funding for research and development to inspire new innovations, debates and the generation of knowledge. The success of programs delivered by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the Natural Heritage Trust, Land and Water Australia and Landcare, are made possible through the engagement, participation and involvement of people including landholders, local communities, volunteers, catchment groups and regional bodies and non-government organisations. Many of the research projects in this publication seek to better understand these new and evolving relationships and their implications for action. Other researchers in collaboration with community stakeholders have turned their attention to inclusiveness and participation in local government decision-making, whilst others have considered how mining companies and local communities can better work together to improve social and environmental sustainability in the long term. Research relating to peoples’ perceptions of pollution and their willingness to pay for better water quality is also reported here. Topics that are often overlooked, such as the role of rural women in natural resource management are included, as are the relationships between multinational corporations, farmers and natural resource management. Innovative solutions such as the co-management of sea country between Indigenous people and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area can also be found within this document. The research projects reported here are organised in a way that tells the research story, firstly by putting the research question into the environmental context and so showing the social dimensions of the issue, then describing the research process and identifying how the outcomes of the research provide valuable information for systemic natural resource management that includes social, economic and biophysical dimensions. The projects are reported in brief; further reading, researchers’ contact details, and where possible, weblinks are also provided.

ix


The topics fall within the social and community dimensions of NRM research priorities framework developed for the Consortium for Integrated Resource Management. The six clusters of topics in the framework are: 1) Understanding communities as a basis for achieving sustainable NRM outcomes 2) Structuring and supporting partnerships in natural resource management (NRM) 3) Institutional arrangements for regional natural resource management 4) Supporting community and institutional capacity for natural resource management 5) Addressing the social impacts of resource use and change 6) Awareness and action to facilitate social change This priorities framework has underpinned the funding of partnership-based projects through the Social Research Development and Extension program under the suite of social and economic state level activities in the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This document will provide a resource for further development of partnerships seeking to access that funding, as well as longerterm partnerships forming to research critical social issues in natural resource management that will emerge over time. It is hoped that the document will be useful to a wide range of people interested and involved in natural resource management, including community-based organisations, catchment groups, NAP and NHT regional bodies, non-government organisations, local and state government officers, students and researchers. We hope you find this publication on Social Innovations in Natural Resource Management helpful, informative and inspiring.

x


Part A Research Projects

(arranged alphabetically by author)

Rural women and their use of new communication and information technologies for learning on natural resource management Jenny Bellamy, Vickie Webb, Anne Leitch and Colin Mayocchi The knowledge building project Ockie Bosch and Carl Smith Monitoring the impact of coal mining on local communities David Brereton (Project Co-ordinator), Jenny Moffatt and Richard Parsons Engaging community in managing natural resources: Sustainable communities and the case of water quality Laurie Buys Providing social data to underpin catchment planning in the Queensland Murray– Darling region Ian Byron, Allan Curtis and Jacinta MacKay

Research Projects

Citizen participation, local governance and sustainable communities Michael Cuthill Improving regional resource use—a negotiated approach Allan Dale, Jenny Bellamy and Anne Leitch Capacity and institutional change in NRM: Case studies in the Burdekin and Wet Tropics NRM regions Mark Fenton Sustainable natural resource management in rural communities: A socialpsychological analysis of attitudes, norms, and practices Kelly Fielding Environmental/ecological sustainability and farm sustainability: Opposite ends of the spectrum? Janet Grice and Sandy Paton Factors impeding and facilitating natural resource management by local government? Fiona Haslam-McKenzie, Barbara Pini and Colette Roos How much is cleaner stormwater worth? Brad Jorgensen Learning, evaluation, action and reflection for new technologies, empowerment and rural sustainability (The LEARNERS Project) June Lennie Natural resource governance and partnership in Central Queensland Stewart Lockie and Susan Rockloff Assessing local support for community sustainability Colin Macgregor

1


Rural women in sustainable development Fiona McCartney and Helen Ross Researching farmers: Who is the expert? Sandy Paton and Janet Grice Developing effective partnerships in natural resource management Peter Oliver Engaged Government: A study of government community-engagement for regional outcomes Peter Oliver, Tanya Liebrech, Barton Loechel, Shion Yee Developing a social impact assessment for Australian industry Bruce Rich Environmental sustainability in the beef grazing sector of Central Queensland: What helps, what hinders? Carol Richards, Geoff Lawrence and Lynda Cheshire Globalising and industrialising agriculture: Big companies, local farmers and saving the soil Roy Rickson and David Burch

Research Projects

Farm men and women’s responses to restructuring of the Australian dairy and vegetable industries and issues of sustainability Roy Rickson, David Burch, Sally Rickson Supporting the development of cooperative management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Helen Ross, James Innes, Melissa George, Cathy Robinson, Marc Hockings and Arturo Izurieta Effective use of incentive mechanisms in regional natural resource management: A scoping study Sarah Simpson and Peter Chudleigh Humans, water use and resource management Veronica Strang, Sandy Toussaint and Marie Seeman Capacity profiling to support industry involvement Bruce Taylor Community-based resource planning: Studies from northern Australia and Zimbabwe Robin Thwaites and Jennifer Carter The Coastal CRC’s Citizen Science toolbox: Bridging the gap between scientists, decision-makers and the community James Whelan

2


Rural women and their use of new communication and information technologies for learning on natural resource management Jenny Bellamy, Vickie Webb, Anne Leitch and Colin Mayocchi A CSIRO research group undertook a pilot study to develop a better understanding of the differences between the current and potential roles, use and value that new communication and information technologies (C&IT) can be to rural women from five different rural industries (beef, grains, cotton, dairy and sugar). The research looked at rural women’s use of these new technologies as well as impediments and opportunities for learning especially in relation to natural resource management. It aimed to inform rural policy and industry processes. Rural women play an important role in agricultural industries—often bringing a more holistic and long-term perspective to social, environmental and economic issues. This accords well with the objective of achieving profitable and innovative agricultural industries, sustainable resource management and vibrant rural communities that are outward looking and self-reliant.  authors

New technologies include those for supporting decisions on natural resource and farm management and electronic communication tools, such as the Internet, email and teleconferencing. By embracing these, rural women will be better placed for greater involvement in decision-making and direction-setting within agriculture and natural resource management, at all levels.

What are the objectives? The study aimed to understand and capture women’s potential in using communication and information technologies in relation to natural resource management

The project was undertaken collaboratively with a number of partners (see below) to: •

Improve understanding of the role of new technologies for learning by rural women at farm and industry level.

•

Assess women’s experience with selected new technologies and how this influences their ability to access information, discuss issues, build networks and thus inform the debate on sustainable resource management for their industry.

•

Identify a range of factors that foster or hinder access to and effective use of new technologies for learning about natural resource management.

•

Develop strategies that inform industry policy and extension activities.

•

Recommend potential directions for future research.

3

Research Projects

This research examines rural women’s use of new technologies and impediments and opportunities for learning especially in relation to natural resource management


How was the research done? A case study approach was used to gather information from women in the diary, cotton, grains, beef and sugar industries

The project was conducted by researchers from CSIRO in Brisbane, based on six case studies of women’s use of new technologies in the dairy, cotton, beef, grains and sugar industries. The Central Highlands case study was based around Emerald and included women involved with beef, grains, and cotton industries. The Northern Rivers case study was based around Casino in Northern NSW and involved women from the dairy industry. The Herbert River case study based around Ingham and the Bundaberg case study involved women from the sugar industry. Each case study involved focus groups, interactive workshops and interviews. The focus was on enhancing use of these technologies for accessing information and networking as well as for exploring relevant issues, such as vegetation, effluent management, water allocation, catchment management and farm planning. The case study research approach involved qualitative research methods and triangulation of data through multiple sources (e.g. literature review, focus groups, interactive workshops and semi-structured interviews).

Research Projects

A better understanding of women’s use of information technology was gained, leading to the development of a set of principles for improving C&IT learning for rural women

What did it deliver? •

A literature review of issues relating to women’s roles on farm, in industry and the community, and the use of new information and communication technologies and their impact in the rural sector.

•

A synthesis of findings on women’s use of new information and communication technologies and the barriers and opportunities for learning.

•

A set of principles for improving learning by women through the use of new information and communication technologies.

•

Plain English versions of the lessons from rural women on new information and communication technologies for each of the five industries as well as a cross-industry comparative summary.

What are the outcomes?

4

•

Profiling of ‘successes’ with rural women’s use of new technologies to improve learning and which influenced decision-making and direction-setting in five rural industries.

•

A better understanding of barriers to, and opportunities for, learning in natural resource management by women through the use of new technologies.

•

Recommendations for supporting learning and adopting an adaptive approach to decision-making on farm and resource management through the use of new information and communication technologies, which may affect rural and industry policy development processes.


 P.Czislowski

Contact details

•

While the research was geared towards NRM, the findings are relevant for other information sourced by women through new technologies such as health, education and finance.

•

Although this was a pilot study which elicited information from different commodities and different regions, it provides interesting indications that are useful at a broader level.

Name: Dr Jenny Bellamy Address: CSIRO, Sustainable Ecosystems, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Q 4067. Phone: (07) 3214 2345 Email: [email protected]

Partners in this research project included, Agriculture, Fisheries, Foresty Australia, the NORCO Cooperative, FarmBis, Central Highlands Regional Resource Usage Planning, Central Highlands Development Corporation, Cotton Australia, and the CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production

Research Projects

Research Sponsors/partners

Further Reading Bellamy, J.A., Webb, V., Mayocchi, C. and Leitch, A. (2002). Improving Resource Management through Rural Women’s Use of New Technology: A pilot study on impediments and opportunities for learning activities. Final Report. Prepared for AAAFarmBis – Skilling Farmers for the Future Program. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: December 2002. www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1A2200060B0A00230

Bellamy, J.A. and Webb, V. (2003). Benchmarking the use of new technologies for natural resource management: A pilot study on innovation and change in the sugar industry. Activity P1~6. Final Report. June 2003. CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: Brisbane.

5


The knowledge building project Ockie Bosch and Carl Smith Knowledge is valuable in the development of NRM strategies but is difficult to capture, organise and store

Knowledge is a valuable resource in the development of NRM strategies. However, unlike data, knowledge is difficult to capture, organise and store. It is the “knowhow” stored in people’s minds that is derived from information, experience, beliefs and intuition. Knowledge relating to particular NRM problems is often scattered and varied among stakeholders. This creates a problem in developing a shared understanding of NRM problems, management interventions required to address them, the effects that these management interventions will have and the requirements for implementing them among stakeholders. Often, nonscientific sources of knowledge can be overlooked and the experience of local resource managers can be underutilised in the development of NRM strategies.

Research Projects

An additional problem is that knowledge of (be it scientific or not) how to manage NRM problems is often uncertain. This combined with continually changing environmental, economic and social conditions means that it is extremely difficult (sometimes impossible) to predict how successful NRM strategies will be at achieving NRM objectives in the long-term. The development of tools and processes for gathering, combining and making sense of different sources of knowledge builds upon existing knowledge of NRM practices

The approaches in this research to overcoming these problems are twofold: • Developing tools and processes for gathering, combining and making sense of different sources of knowledge about NRM objectives and how they can be achieved. • Developing tools and processes to support adaptive management to allow stakeholders to test and review the success of their NRM strategies over time, thereby building on their understanding of the NRM systems they are managing. In this project, workshops are used to discuss and unlock knowledge relating to NRM objectives. The knowledge gained from different stakeholder groups is then combined and represented using Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs), which are cause-and-effect diagrams that link management interventions to NRM objectives. BBNs are an effective tool in combining and representing knowledge because: •

6

Uncertainty in knowledge can be expressed using probabilistic relationships between management interventions and NRM objectives


•

They can handle relationships between quantitative and qualitative variables easily

•

They are graphical and facilitate communication between stakeholder groups

•

They can be easily updated as new knowledge comes to hand

This project will lead to improved capacity for knowledge sharing and communication about NRM systems among stakeholders

•

Northern Gulf case study – A study in collaboration with the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group (NGRMG) that gathers knowledge of the management of grazing land condition from different sources such as graziers, scientists and the NGRMG. This is used to develop a common understanding of land condition, what it means, what influences it and how it can be managed.

•

QPWS case study – A study in collaboration with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service that focuses on identifying critical success factors and impediments to establishing adaptive fire management in National Parks by developing a common understanding of the requirements of planning, implementation, monitoring and reviewing.

The expected outcomes from this project are: • Understanding of the processes and tools needed to gather and integrate different sources of knowledge to identify NRM strategies for achieving NRM objectives. • Understanding of the processes and tools needed to utilise the adaptive management cycle (planning, implementing, monitoring and reviewing) to test NRM strategies and update knowledge over time. • Improved capacity for knowledge sharing and communication about NRM systems among stakeholders.

7

Research Projects

Two case studies are currently being conducted:


Guidelines for using Bayesian Belief Networks in an NRM context and an Internet-based decision support tool will be developed

The expected outputs from this project are: • Guidelines for using Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) to support the development of NRM strategies using shared knowledge among stakeholders. • An Internet-based decision support tool for displaying and using knowledge surrounding NRM objectives in the form of BBNs. Outcomes of the case studies in this project are: • Northern Gulf case study: - A common understanding of grazing land condition and its management among graziers, the NGRMG, scientists and government agencies such as DPI&F. - Communication and knowledge transfer between stakeholders about land condition and its management. •

Research Projects

QPWS case study: - A common understanding of the critical success factors and impediments to achieving adaptive fire management in National Parks. - Communication and knowledge transfer between park managers about how to overcome impediments to adaptive fire management.

The tools can be applied to issues such as salinity and water quality management, environmental impact assessment and infrastructure development assessment

This research is targeted at developing tools and processes to assist in the development of ‘best-bet’ NRM strategies through the development and use of a common understanding of NRM systems and the testing of NRM strategies through adaptive management. These tools and processes are generic and can be applied to almost any NRM situation where an understanding of the management system is required, including salinity and water quality management, environmental impact assessment, infrastructure development assessment, assessment of institutional or corporate procedures, etc. The wide applicability of the knowledge-building processes and tools means that they can provide a useful mechanism for developing NRM strategies and implementing adaptive management in almost any region.

Contact details

Name: Professor Ockie Bosch Address: School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland, Gatton, Q 4343 Phone: (07) 5460 1047 Fax: (07) 5460 1324 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nrsm.uq.edu.au/

8



This research is sponsored by the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Savannas Management.

Further Reading Batchelor, C. and Cain, J. (1999). Application of belief networks to water management studies. Agricultural Water Management 40, 51–57. Bosch, O.J.H., Ross, A.H. and Beeton, R.J.S. (2003) Integrating science and management through collaborative learning and better information management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 20, 107–118. Cain, J., Batchelor, C. and Waughray, D. (1999). Belief Networks: A framework for the participatory development of natural resource management strategies. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1, 123–133. Cain, J. (2001). Planning improvements in natural resources management: Guidelines for using Bayesian networks to support the planning and management of development programs in the water sector and beyond. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford UK.

Research Projects

Smith, C.S. and Bosch, O.J.H. (2004). Integration of disparate knowledge to improve natural resource management. In: Conserving Soil and Water for Society: Sharing Solutions. Proc. 13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference. (Eds. S.R. Raine, A.J.W. Biggs, N.W. Menzies, D.M. Freebairn and P.E. Tolmie). 4-9 July, Brisbane. ASSSI/ IECA. Paper 1028.

9


Monitoring the impact of coal mining on local communities David Brereton (Project Coordinator), Jenny Moffatt and Richard Parsons Many mining companies now accept that they should be monitoring and managing the social, as well as economic and environmental, impacts of their activities

Most of the major players in the Australian coal mining industry have formally embraced the principles of sustainable development and ‘triple bottom line’ reporting. Companies are now expected to pay attention to the social, as well as the economic and environmental, impacts of their activities.

Research Projects

This research addresses the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) priority area of Mining and the Community, focusing specifically on the development of improved methods for monitoring the effects of coal mining on neighbouring communities. It is designed to assist Australian coal mining operations implement cost-effective impact monitoring strategies that are tailored to local circumstances. This is in line with a global move by mining companies to make a more effective contribution to the social and economic development of local communities. Although there is growing recognition within the mining industry of the importance of capturing community impact data, relatively little progress has been made to date in developing measures and monitoring systems that are suitable for use at site level.

Research with community and mining companies will help develop innovative responses to the social impacts of mining

The project will build on a currently funded ACARP project (Development of a Site-based Sustainability Opportunity and Threat Analysis Technique), which is employing risk analysis techniques and structured workshops to identify key sustainability issues for sites. A modified version of this methodology, which will involve consultation with community representatives and other stakeholders, will draw upon the knowledge and experience of the community and industry representatives. The approach will be tested and demonstrated at Anglo Coal’s Drayton operation in the Hunter Valley. The objective will be to work with the site to develop a detailed monitoring and reporting strategy that can be implemented at the local level. Based on the learnings from this case study, a manual will then be developed for industry-wide use. The second major component, the development of a sourcebook of community impact measures, will mainly involve ‘desk-top’ research and will draw upon work already undertaken in this area by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM).

10


This project is innovative in that it employs a ‘bottomup’ – as distinct from a ‘top down’–approach to the selection of community impact measures by encouraging engagement with local communities. Involving external stakeholders can bring a different perspective to bear on issues, and also adds to the legitimacy of the process.

The two main outcomes of the project will be: ♦ a methodology, documented in a manual, that can be used to develop and implement site-level community impact monitoring strategies and metrics ♦ a sourcebook of community impact measures suitable for use at site level. The outcomes of this project will assist companies and mining sites to: ♦ respond to the growing external demands being placed on the mining industry to quantify, monitor and report on community impacts ♦ identify emerging ‘social risks’ at an earlier stage ♦ assess the effectiveness of strategies aimed at ameliorating negative impacts (or conversely, maximising positive impacts) ♦ generate credible information to support informed public debate about the impacts of coal mining on neighbouring communities. The project should be of particular benefit to smaller companies, which may not be as well placed as the large multinational companies to provide corporate support to sites.

Dissemination of monitoring manual and sourcebook will help increase the industry’s capacity to respond to social and community issues

The overarching objective of this project is to enhance the capacity of Australian coal mining operations to quantify, monitor and report on the impact of their activities on local communities. The main manual and source book developed from this research will be published and disseminated to all interested parties within the industry. The outcomes of the project will be in the public domain and no direct commercialisation path is planned.

11

Research Projects

The key findings will be published in a manual and sourcebook which can be used throughout the mining industry


Contact details

Name: Professor David Brereton Address: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM), University of Queensland, Brisbane Q 4072 Phone: (07) 3346 9223 Fax: (07) 3365 4599 Email: [email protected] Website: www.csrm.uq.edu.au


ACARP, Anglo Coal

Further Reading International Institute for Economic Development (2002). Breaking New Ground. Earthscan: London. Sheehy, B. and Dickie, P. (2002). Facing the Future: The Report of the MMSD Australia Project, Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation: Melbourne. Brereton, D (2003). Self-regulation of environmental and social performance in the Australian mining industry. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 20, 261–274.

Research Projects 12


Engaging community in managing natural resources: Sustainable communities and the case of water quality Laurie Buys What is the relationship between housing choice, natural resource use and environmental responsibility?

This research addresses the questions of identifying and understanding relationships between social aspects and water quality in a Gold Coast community. It represents one case study that will contribute to an overarching community capacity building collaborative project. The aim of the overall project is to develop research instruments and community engagement guidelines applicable to the field of natural resource management and a range of other industry sectors.

•

Explore the relationship between housing choice and human interaction with the built and natural environment.

•

Investigate the impact of social capital on sustainable behaviour patterns.

•

Identify ways in which social characteristics and behaviours can facilitate and/or hinder the achievement of environmental objectives.

•

Facilitate the development of behaviour change and capacity building strategies that will contribute to building socially and environmentally sustainable communities.

•

Contribute to the development of cross-sectoral research instruments and comprehensive community engagement guidelines that will assist organisations to more successfully engage with communities to achieve goals cooperatively.

 p.czislowski

Research into housing choice, lifestyle and environmental responsibility was conducted with Gold Coast residents

The research investigated the relationships between housing choice, social behaviours and their impacts on the natural environment – specifically water quality – in the Gold Coast Highland Park catchment area. The research process involved an initial focus group discussion with residents from the Highland Park catchment area, exploring their views on the local natural environment, social relationships, neighbourhood and home. The results of focus groups were used to develop a survey that explored four key issues: ♦ the natural environment ♦ the built environment

13

Research Projects

The main aims of the research were to:


♦ ♦

interaction with neighbours responsibility for the environment.

The survey will provide a more comprehensive insight into sustainable and unsustainable behaviour patterns particularly in relation to local water use and quality. This research provides a snap shot of the relationship between social values, behaviours and natural resource management

 p.czislowski

Focus group data revealed that participants value the local natural environment to the extent that many chose to live in the area because of its natural amenity. Notably, while most participants claimed to engage in friendly interactions with their neighbours, the natural environment was seen as playing a primary role in the ‘sense of community’ they experienced. Participants expressed concern about the deterioration of creeks and an inability to maintain their gardens due to drought and the resulting water restrictions. However, participants consistently attributed these circumstances to the detrimental behaviour of others. The City Council was identified as the party exclusively responsible for managing the natural environment in the area.

Research Projects

Preliminary survey results indicate that respondents did not prioritise water quality issues. Notably, while awareness of water quality issues was higher in some sections of the community, this did not translate into an increase in sustainable behaviours. Overall, residents were not particularly sensitive to the impact of specific behaviours (such as planting water efficient plants, mulching, use of fertilisers and herbicides, car washing practices etc.) on water quality. New ways to engage community in natural resource management

This research provides a basis to facilitate behaviour change and community engagement strategies that will contribute to building sustainable communities. Issues arising from the research that require further investigation include: ♦ Utilising collaborative natural resource management approaches between communities and the bodies that are typically perceived as being responsible for NRM (such as City Councils);

14

♦

Identifying ways in which environmentally sustainable behaviours can be incorporated into ‘lifestyle’ concerns;

♦

Investigating the apparent paradox between valuing the environment and the perception that others are responsible for both its degradation and preservation.

Findings from this research are applicable in numerous settings

As a component of QUT’s Community Capacity Building Project, this research provides important information that will contribute to the development of research instruments and community engagement strategies. These instruments and engagement strategies will be useful in identifying the most appropriate means to engage communities in actively managing natural resources in different areas and regions.

Contact details

Name: Dr Laurie Buys Address: Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland University of Technology, Beams Rd, Carseldine, Q 4034 Phone: (07) 3864 4761 Fax: (07) 3864 4719 Email: [email protected]


This project was a result of a partnership between the Gold Coast City Council, Queensland Department of Public Works and Queensland University of Technology’s Centre for Social Change Research

Further Reading Buys, L.R. and Bow, V. (2003). Sense of community and place attachment: The natural environment plays a vital role in developing a sense of community. Social Change in the 21st Century, Centre for Social Change Research, QUT: Brisbane. Buys, L.R. and Bow, V. (2002). Impact of privacy on social capital. Social Change in the 21st Century, Centre for Social Change Research, QUT: Brisbane.

15

Research Projects



Providing social data to underpin catchment planning in the Queensland Murray–Darling region Ian Byron, Allan Curtis and Jacinta MacKay A partnership project led by the Bureau of Rural Sciences

The main aim of this research was to underpin catchment planning with relevant social data. Specific aims were to:

Research Projects

•

provide baseline data for key social and economic conditions/trends at the sub-catchment scale that is required for effective catchment planning (1:25 000);

•

gain a better understanding of the limitations/barriers/constraints to the adoption of recommended practices (sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation);

•

evaluate attitudes towards current tools and potential alternative tools for improved land management and predict landholder responses to a limited number of policy options; and

•

provide information that will allow assessment of Natural Heritage Trust program outcomes across intermediate objectives (e.g. awareness of issues, knowledge, business and succession planning, confidence in recommended practices and adoption of practices for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation).

1000 landholders were surveyed in relation to sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation

The principal data collection instrument was a mail survey to 1000 landholders across 25 municipalities in the Queensland Murray–Darling in 2003. The survey instrument was developed in collaboration with agency and landholder group partners and after extensive pretesting. Preliminary workshops were used to identify survey topics. A final response rate of 60% was achieved.

The issues identified as most important were social, with pest problems confirmed as key regional issues, while other priority issues in the draft NRM plan were not flagged as important in the survey

Findings from the survey indicated that social issues such as availability of services, reduced employment opportunities and the decline of small towns were rated amongst the most important issues affecting a respondent’s local district. The identification of weeds and pest animals as a key regional issue in the draft natural resource management plan for the Queensland Murray–Darling was confirmed by survey data. While being identified as priority issues in the draft natural resource management plan for the Queensland Murray– Darling, dryland salinity, native vegetation decline, deteriorating water quality and lack of Aboriginal community access to culturally significant sites were not rated as most important issues by most landholders.

16


The median property size of landholders in the Queensland Murray–Darling was 628 ha. Twelve percent of landholders owned/managed a property in excess of 10 000 ha, and these respondents managed 92% of the total area surveyed. Sixty-five percent of respondents said farming was their primary occupation and these respondents managed approximately 99% of the survey area. Property size is often considered to be an important factor in determining the viability of cropping and grazing enterprises. Findings from this research highlighted a significant relationship between larger property size and returning an on-property profit as well as a higher level of on-property profit.

Most landholders identified the importance of maintaining ground cover on grazing and cropping land

Younger age of landholders is not related to the uptake of recommended natural resource management practices

•

The most preferred option for involving landholders in natural resource management activities was through tax rebates administered by the Australian government. This was the only funding arrangement supported by the majority of respondents. Over a third of respondents also had a strong interest in the reduction of rates and an annual payment for environmental services.

•

The average age of landholders was 52 years. The current perception of a link between younger age and higher adoption of current recommended practices was not supported in this research.

•

Most property appears likely to be tightly held with over two thirds of respondents reporting that it was likely that they would continue to live on their property and over half saying that ownership of the property was likely to stay within the family.

•

Just under one third of respondents said that their long-term plans were likely to involve expanding the area of land they managed. These respondents already owned/managed significantly larger properties than other respondents.

•

Just over one third of respondents said that they were likely to sell or lease all or most of their property in the long-term.

•

Of those properties that are likely to be sold the median year that the transfer was likely to occur was 2006. These properties covered approximately 24% of the total land surveyed. The median year of likely transfer for all properties surveyed was 2019

17

Research Projects

There was only one natural resource management topic where most respondents said they had sound knowledge: that topic was the benefits of ground cover on grazing and cropping paddocks to maintain and improve soil health. Other survey findings were:


with 35% of properties likely to change hands in the next decade.

Most landholders in the area have not received government monies to undertake conservation work Cash flow was rated as one of the main constraints to changing land management practice

Research Projects

Methods used in this research are readily applicable elsewhere

•

Survey findings highlighted limited involvement in a range of planning activities (property planning, local action planning, succession planning).

•

Survey data indicated that the vast majority of landholders in the Queensland Murray–Darling had not received government funding to undertake work on their property.

•

The highest rated constraint to changing land management practices was cash flow. Suitability of soils, cost of machinery or equipment, water storage capacity and the extent to which there is support from family or partners were also considered to be important factors by more than two thirds of respondents.

•

Results from the mail survey highlighted encouraging levels of adoption for a number of current recommended practices.

Findings will guide development and implementation of the catchment management plan. The methods used in this research can readily be applied elsewhere. With studies completed/underway in seven catchments, there is now opportunity to learn from the analysis of data across the different studies, for example, about the lack of a relationship between age and adoption, or about trends in property turnover. The survey data has the potential to be spatially referenced and hence included in analyses using GIS (Geographic Information Systems), for example, to identify the characteristics of landholders managing areas more likely to be affected by dryland salinity.

Contact details

Name: Dr Ian Byron Address: Bureau of Rural Sciences, GPO Box 858 Canberra, ACT 2601 Phone: (02) 6272 3271 Email: [email protected] Name: Professor Allan Curtis Email: [email protected]


18

The Bureau of Rural Sciences in partnership with the Australian Government Natural Heritage Trust, Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QMDC), Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI), Brigalow Jimbour Floodplains Group and the Western Downs Solutions Group conducted this project.


Further Reading Barr, N., Ridges, S., Anderson, N., Gray, I., Crockett, J., Watson, B. and Hall, N. (2000). Adjustment for Catchment Management, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, Australia. Cavaye, J. (2003). Integrating Economic and Social Issues in Regional Natural Resource Management Planning: A Framework for Regional Bodies (National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality). Department of State Development, Queensland, Australia. Curtis, A., Byron, I., and McDonald, S. (2003). Integrating spatially referenced social and biophysical data to explore landholder responses to dryland salinity in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 68,397–407. Curtis, A., Graham, M., Byron, I., Lockwood, M. and McDonald, S.(2002). Providing the knowledge base to achieve landscape change in the Ovens catchment. The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia. Kuczenski, T.K., Field, D.R., Voss, P.R., Radeloff, V.C. and Hagen, A.E. (2000). Integrating

Research Projects

demographic and Landsat  data at a watershed scale. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36,1,219–228.

19


Citizen participation, local governance and sustainable communities Michael Cuthill Sustainable development and equitable democracy on the Gold Coast

In Australia, there has been increasing discussion, research and initiatives relating to a more participatory and equitable democracy. However, citizen participation emerges as a complex issue relating to considerations of empowerment and social justice, community capacity building, active citizenship and civil society, human and social capital, and collaborative local action. All of these considerations are inextricably linked to concepts of sustainability and the common good. Agenda 21 (a United Nations strategy for sustainable development) acknowledges citizen participation in local governance as a key process for involving citizens in collaborative action for a sustainable local community. Local governments are identified as having an important role in facilitating this participation.

Research Projects

In contrast, worldwide, there are reports of increasing citizen dissatisfaction with democratic governance. This dissatisfaction focuses on perceptions of corruption and vested interest, lack of response to the needs of the most disadvantaged in society, and a perceived lack of connectedness between citizens and those who govern. An emerging ‘crisis in democratic governance’ is evident. This research program, implemented over five years from within the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), has explored theory, policy and practice relating to citizen participation in local governance. A participatory, action research approach was used to engage with local stakeholders

This program of interrelated research projects adopted a ‘participatory’ action research approach built around Freirian concepts of empowerment. The aim of this approach is to facilitate social equity and justice, a voice for the people and social change based on the concept of 'critical consciousness'. Research participants have included those people (stakeholders) who are affected by, or have an interest in an issue. Different levels of government, nongovernment-organisations, the private sector and individual citizens have participated in different projects. Participatory sessions (e.g. workshops, focus groups, expert panels, consensus conferences, steering committees etc.) have formed a key method within this research with groups of stakeholders using a deliberative approach to develop responses to community issues. This key method has been supported, when required, by interviews and/or surveys.

20


Data collected (both qualitative and quantitative) has been analysed in-house then reviewed by stakeholders and used as the basis for policy or operational responses from GCCC. Ideally, a future initiative by local government would see greater decision-making emphasis devolved to these stakeholders. Ground rules for participatory democracy

A number of common themes emerged from the research, which helped identify a minimum starting point for local governments when engaging with stakeholders. These include that local government: ♦ acknowledge that all stakeholders have a right to participate in local governance processes; ♦ actively seek out broad stakeholder involvement; ♦ facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected utilising a diversity of methods appropriate to each situation and sensitive to the needs of stakeholders; ♦ provide support to enable stakeholders to participate in a meaningful way; and ♦ use open, equitable and accountable processes.

Research Projects

Importantly, equitable participation requires that all stakeholders negotiate up-front about who is driving the collaboration, thereby establishing an appropriate locus of control for that collaboration. Adoption of such principles will lay a solid foundation for development of innovative policies and processes that facilitate the active involvement of local people working collaboratively for a sustainable community. A capacity building framework, to operationalise citizen participation in local governance, has been developed to outline local government and community requirements in this area (see diagram). What else needs to be done?

This research provides a starting point for better understanding the concept of citizen participation in local governance. However, there is still a need to more fully understand the policy and operational implications of identified constraints and considerations. It is also necessary to capture the impact of citizen participation in local governance in facilitating collaborative local action for a sustainable community.

A wider application of this approach?

While this research has focused on local governance on the Gold Coast, it can be assumed that results provide direction for other local governments in their planning and decision making processes aligned to building sustainable communities.

Contact details

Name: Dr Michael Cuthill Address: Coordinator, Social Research, Gold Coast City Council, Nerang Administration Centre, PO Box 5042 GCMC 9729, Q 4211 Phone: (07) 5582 8831 Fax: (07) 5582 8679 Email: [email protected]

21


Research sponsors/partners

Research was undertaken by Gold Coast City Council. Other partners in specific projects have included nongovernment organisations, various tertiary institutions, other government agencies (local, state and federal), and individual citizens.

Further Reading Cuthill, M. (2003). 'The contribution of human and social capital to building community well-being: A research agenda relating to citizen participation in local governance in Australia. Urban Policy and Research 21 (4), 373–391. Cuthill, M. and Fien, J. (2004) (In Press), Building community capacity through citizen participation in local governance. Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M. A. (eds.) (1991). Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. The Apex Press: New York. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum: New York. Kretzmann, J. R. and McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Towards Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. ACTA Publications: Chicago.

Research Projects

Citizen participation in local governance

Facilitates sustainable democratic community outcomes

Strengthens governance

Rebuilds social capital Citizen participation in local governance as a foundation for re/building social capital, strengthening democratic governance and facilitating sustainable community outcomes

22


Improving regional resource use – a negotiated approach Allan Dale, Jenny Bellamy and Anne Leitch This research examines a more negotiated and integrated approach to regional planning for sustainable resource use

The Central Highlands Region of Queensland, with a diverse economy based on coal mining, pastoralism, irrigated agriculture and dryland cropping, faces a broad spectrum of problems, challenges and pressures, involving many different individuals, groups, industries, sectors and agencies. These problems include debates over extensive tree clearing and water use, and a range of overlapping native title claims.

CSIRO undertook a ground-breaking project (Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project – CHRRUPP which was completed in 2000) that engaged community, industry and government interest groups in cooperative and negotiated planning for a sustainable future for the region.

Studying regional planning processes through a real world planning exercise undertaken in collaboration with stakeholders in the Central Highlands of Queensland

What are the objectives? CHRRUPP was based on the premise that, to achieve long-term regional sustainability, we should not just invest short-term government-based planning activities. Instead, we should be investing long-term in building a more healthy or vital system of planning at the regional scale. To this end, CHRRUPP sought to establish and to evaluate a more negotiated and integrated approach to regional policy-making and planning for sustainable resource use by: ♦

better informing all regional stakeholder groups about natural resource problems within the region by improving linkages between science effort and policy making;

♦

supporting regional groups to do their own planning for natural resource management;

♦

supporting regional groups to negotiate regional solutions to common natural resource problems; and

♦

researching regional planning processes that suit more communicative planning styles.

How was the research done? The Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project was a three-year planning experiment on a negotiated and integrated approach to regional planning. Researchers worked closely with sector groups

23

Research Projects

These various stakeholders tend to undertake independent planning—but how can it all be pulled together for the good of the region? For long-term sustainability, the whole system of planning needs to be improved through the collaboration of all stakeholders.


A participatory research approach was used involving an active partnership between a range of government, industry, scientific and community groups.

Research Projects

Delivering a better understanding of what can be achieved in managing resource use cooperatively across a region

24

to support them in sharing information and negotiating regional actions to their shared problems. CSIRO researchers supplied technical assistance, administrative support and project coordination and evaluation, but the objective was to help all sectors to better understand natural resource problems and to undertake their own planning. This occurred through: ♦

Establishing a multi-sectoral and inclusive regional forum to support more equitable negotiation among stakeholders on resource use. This Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC) brought together the sector representatives, acted as a forum for interaction and collaboration and functioned as a driver of change.

♦

Raising broader community awareness on regional issues and on opportunities to influence policy and planning processes.

♦

Building improved planning capacity within stakeholder groups.

♦

Improving technical understanding among stakeholders of how the region functions socially, economically, environmentally and politically.

What did it deliver? ♦ A comprehensive review of regional resource use planning in Australia that identifies emerging issues and research needs. ♦

A synthesis of findings on the application of a wide range of regional planning processes and techniques to support regional planning system improvements.

♦

A plain English version of the set of learnings about a negotiated and integrated approach to regional resource use planning.

♦

Establishment of a community forum for discussion and collaboration on regional problems in the Central Highlands region.

♦

Establishment of a web-based regional information system for the region.

♦

Development of decision support tools for assessing issues and facilitating negotiation;

♦

Establishment of a system for state of region reporting for the Central Highlands.

♦

Integration of science knowledge into sector planning activities, the joint visioning of the RCC and structured negotiation over critical regional issues.

♦

Demonstration of what can be achieved in managing resource use cooperatively across a


region and can be used as a model—either in part or more comprehensively by other regions. What are the outcomes?

-

the application of technically sound social, economic and environmental knowledge, assessment and monitoring procedures within all planning activities;

-

the establishment of appropriate institutional arrangements that support integration among planning activities and equitable negotiations among stakeholder interests; and

-

the operation of clear mechanisms to provide the capacity-building assistance to stakeholder groups/sectors (including government at all levels) involved in the use and management of resources.

♦

Fundamental improvements in the Central Highlands region’s policy-making and planning system including the continuation of the RCC in its own right as a cooperative-based regional structure (called the CHRRUP Cooperative) which is taking on a sub-regional role within the regional arrangements for implementation of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.

♦

Sectoral groups that are more willing to take account of the aspirations of others.

♦

Coordinated and accessible technical information to aid planning.

♦

Progress on resolution of several natural resource conflicts—such as water allocation, mining futures and vegetation management.

Contact details

Name: Dr Jenny Bellamy Address: CSIRO 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Q 4067 Phone: (07) 3214 2345 Email: [email protected]


CSIRO, Land and Water Australia, Queensland Government and regional stakeholder groups in the Central Highlands of Queensland

25

Research Projects

Identification of three essential cornerstones required for a healthy regional planning system which have influenced the implementation of regional NRM policy in the State, namely:

♦


Further Reading: www.chrrupp.sl.csiro.au/ Dale, A.D. and Bellamy, J.A. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review. LWRRDC Occasional Paper Series, No. 6/98. www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/PR980234.pdf Bellamy, J.A. and Dale, A.P. (2000). Evaluation of the Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project: A synthesis of findings. Final Report to LWRRDC, Project CTC13. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Brisbane, November 2000. www.irum.sl.csiro.au/ Dale, A., Bellamy, J. and Leitch, A. (2001). CHRRUPP: Central Highlands Regional Resource Use Planning Project: a Planning and Learning Experience. Regional Approaches to Rangelands and Planning Series. Land and Water Australia, Canberra. www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/PK010095.pdf



Capacity and institutional change in NRM: Case studies in the Burdekin and Wet Tropics NRM Regions Mark Fenton The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality brings a regional focus to natural resource management, with regional bodies developing plans to work on the environmental issues in their areas, called ‘matters for target’. It is recognised that the capacity for regions to reach their targets by maintaining or improving environmental conditions is an equally important issue. This research investigates capacity and capacity-building requirements in the Wet Tropics Region of North Queensland as well as the role of community involvement and engagement in capacity building and the importance of addressing motivational issues and institutional change requirements. The research aims to identify the key issues for capacitybuilding and institutional change in the Wet Tropics Region and, where appropriate, to identify actions for addressing those issues and building capacity in the region. In the context of natural resource management (NRM), addressing capacity issues will support on-ground actions to achieve NRM targets. Involving community and other sectors in qualitative research

Researchers held group interviews with farmers; catchment coordinators; conservation, catchment group and Landcare members; primary industry representatives; traditional owners; community members; government agencies; and local government authority throughout the Wet Tropics catchments. This qualitative methodology involved community in a meaningful way, bringing their perspectives to the identification of issues relating to capacity and institutional change, and so ensuring that the research was ‘grounded’. In the interviews, the researchers initially gave the groups opportunity to link capacity related issues to each of the environmental matters for target in the NRM plan. Ability to make those links would be a great contribution toward developing a framework for monitoring and evaluating this approach to NRM, as it would enable everyone to understand that by taking a particular action to increase capacity to address a particular environmental issue, the result would be desired maintenance or improvement. This research highlights the difficulty of making those causal links. The flexibility of the methodology was brought into play, once it became apparent that knowledge of matters for target was limited, and also that issues related to capacity and institutional change from a community

27

Research Projects

Capacity for natural resource management in the Wet Tropics region


perspective could not be articulated within a structured framework linking specific capacity issues to identifiable resource condition targets. The line of discussion changed, becoming more fruitful when centred on components in the National Framework for Capacity Building in NRM (these are awareness, knowledge and information, skills and training and facilitation and support). Important capacity related requirements

The research is finding that a systemic approach should be taken to capacity building in the NRM context. It is difficult to link specific capacity building issues with particular resource condition targets. However applying the components identified in the National Framework, such as awareness, knowledge and information, skills and training, and facilitation and support, will help address resource condition targets. The research suggests that the objectives of NRM planning can be more effectively achieved through 1) addressing the more fundamental and ‘deepseated’ issues associated with capacity and NRM; and 2) providing a more strategic and integrated framework to address capacity issues embedded in management actions.

Research Projects

The more deep seated issues relate to procedures and processes such as: community and stakeholder involvement in decision-making, procedures for integrating local and traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge, developing community ownership of NRM targets and management actions, and development of trust amongst key stakeholders and interest groups involved in NRM. On-ground relevance of capacity building issues in management actions

In regional NRM planning there is a requirement to address capacity building and institutional change, to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use and management. This research identifies key issues for the Wet Tropics Region, to inform the current planning process taking place. It proposes a framework consisting of a subprogram to develop ‘on-ground’ community involvement and engagement activities for implementing the regional plan. It would, for example, develop strategies to enable a coordinated approach to building capacity that could be applied to reach specific resource management targets, as opposed to attempting to build capacity separately for each target. The capacity building activities would have a great focus on engagement and involvement in all aspects of regional NRM planning and implementation.

Usefulness of this knowledge for other regions

Capacity issues are of critical importance to natural resource management and this research demonstrates that similar capacity issues emerge across differing resource condition targets. This suggests that they have a generic value and would be applicable across regions. Further, this research adds to the current National Capacity Building Framework by highlighting the additional importance of engagement and motivational issues.

28


Contact details

Name: Dr Mark Fenton Address: 3 Victoria St, Townsville, Q 4810 Phone: (07) 47722544 Email: [email protected]


NRM Board (Wet Tropics) Inc. Innisfail

Further Reading Fenton, D.M. (2004). Indicators of organisational capacity, performance and change in regional NRM groups. Report prepared for the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra. Fenton, D.M. (2004). An investigation of capacity and capacity building requirements in relation to natural resource management in the Wet Tropics. Report prepared for FNQ NRM Ltd, Innisfail.

Fenton, D.M., MacGregor, C. and Carey, J. (1999). Framework and review of capacity and motivation to change towards sustainable management practices: Australian Land and Water Audit Project 6.2.1. Report prepared for the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

29

Research Projects

Fenton, D.M., Coakes, S. and Marshall, N. (2003). Vulnerability and capacity measurement. In: H.A. Becker and F. Vanclay (Eds) The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.


Sustainable natural resource management in rural communities: A social-psychological analysis of attitudes, norms, and practices Kelly Fielding Landholders’ decisions about practising sustainable natural resource management (NRM) can have effects on the longterm viability of rural communities. This raises an important question: What factors influence the use of sustainable practices by land managers? Social and psychological drivers in sustainable land management

Researchers from the University of Queensland are conducting research to answer this question. The research team are identifying the social and psychological drivers that influence the use of sustainable practices, aiming to provide information to support groups involved in natural resource management as well as provide valuable input into policy and extension programs.

Research Projects

This research was conducted through telephone interviews, surveys and follow-up assessments. Researchers are gathering information on land managers’ thoughts and beliefs about sustainable practices and natural resource management in general, assessing the major drivers of adopting sustainable NRM practices and assessing land managers’ sustainable practices. Talking with primary producers about managing riparian zones and weeds

So far, the team has conducted telephone interviews and surveys with landholders in the Fitzroy Basin, Central Queensland and Queensland horticulturalists about riparian zone management, and in South West Queensland about weed management. It is hoped that social and psychological drivers, such as attitudes and group norms, that influence the use of sustainable practices will be identified. Preliminary findings from the Fitzroy Basin survey show quite a different profile for land managers who have greater intentions to manage their riparian zones compared to those with lesser intentions. Landholders with greater intentions have a more favourable cost-benefit analysis of riparian zone management. That is, they rate the benefits of riparian zone management more favourably and the costs less negatively relative to landholders with lesser intentions. Landholders with greater intentions also perceive more normative support for riparian zone management and judge barriers as less likely to impede their management of riparian zones. Interestingly, factors such as age, education or property size are not associated with intentions.

30


Telephone interviews with Fitzroy landholders and Queensland horticulturalists highlight some similarities in beliefs about riparian zone management across the different regions and industries. Despite different definitions of riparian zone management across the two groups, land managers perceive that the major advantage of the practice is that it helps to prevent erosion and the major disadvantage relates to economic factors such as cost or loss of productive land. Cost is also perceived to be a major barrier to engaging in riparian zone management. The telephone interviews with Fitzroy Basin landholders, Queensland horticulturalists and South West Queensland landholders also reveal some consensus on other issues affecting rural land managers. When asked what factors would make managing the land more difficult in the future, government regulation was the factor most often cited by land managers. Responses to this question highlight concerns with ‘interference’ from outside sources such as government and ‘ill-informed’ interest groups (e.g. environmental groups). This ‘inter-group’ aspect is also echoed in responses to a question about relations between rural and urban Australians. The majority of interviewees, who largely identified themselves as rural Australians, expressed concerns about relations between rural and urban people. The most common theme to emerge from the interviews was that urban Australians have little understanding of the situation of rural Australians.

How might the outcomes be applied to deliver effective regional NRM outcomes?

The aim of the project is to provide information to support groups involved in natural resource management as well as provide valuable input into policy and extension programs. The research project identifies drivers that influence the adoption of sustainable NRM practices and the beliefs that underpin these drivers. This knowledge can be utilised to: • inform efforts to change attitudes toward sustainable practices; • identify incentives that may help overcome impediments to adopting sustainable practices; and • highlight ways to maximise the acceptance of NRM recommendations and campaigns. This research, for example, has identified the costs and benefits associated with riparian zone management. As land managers’ attitudes are a major driver in their decisions about whether to adopt riparian zone management, efforts to change their attitudes may be achieved by demonstrating the links between riparian zone management and the positive outcomes that can result from engaging in this practice. We have also identified the perceived costs of, and barriers to, riparian zone management and this information can be used to guide incentive schemes aimed at increasing adoption of this practice. Finally, our exploration of how group identity (eg., as a rural Australian) impacts on perceptions of natural resource management can yield

31

Research Projects

Riparian zone management is necessary to prevent soil erosion but economic imperatives may prevent action


suggestions about ways to maximise acceptance of sustainable NRM information and recommendations. Contact details

Name: Dr Kelly Fielding Address: School of Social Work and Applied Human Sciences, The University of Queensland, Ipswich, Q 4305 Phone: (07) 3381 1527 Fax: (07) 3381 1523 Email: [email protected]

Research Sponsor/partners

The research is being conducted in collaboration with an industry partner, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and through links forged throughout the course of the project with industry bodies and regional associations, including Queensland Fruit & Vegetable Growers and the Queensland Murray–Darling Committee. The Australian Research Council also provided financial support.

Further Reading

Research Projects

Cary, J., Webb, T. and Barr, N. (2001). The adoption of sustainable practices, some new insights: An analysis of drivers and constraints for the adoption of sustainable practices derived from research, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Australia www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/final_reports/BRR19.pdf Beddell, J. and Rehman, T. (2000). Using social psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 117–127.

32


Environmental/ecological sustainability and farm sustainability: Opposite ends of the spectrum? Janet Grice and Sandy Paton It has been documented that while farmers may profess to environmental ideals and the need to ensure environmental/ecological sustainability of farmlands, their actions do not always follow through with these ideals. This behaviour gives rise to a number of questions. Are farmers more concerned about farm sustainability than environmental/ecological sustainability? What are the dimensions of farm sustainability and environmental/ecological sustainability? Are they the same or very different? If Australia is to achieve true environmental/ecological sustainability, it is necessary that these questions are answered and if there are substantial differences, agencies and farmers be made aware of them so that they can move towards a common ground. Part of the problem can also be ascribed to the differing interpretations that various groups place on the literature on the subject. Is there a way in which sustainable ideals can be communicated so that all parties achieve the same understanding of the problem and can work together to an agreed outcome? What does ‘sustainability’ mean?

The proposed research is a pilot study to be undertaken in the Central Highlands region of Queensland. Interviews of farmers and agency staff will be undertaken to determine their views on the subject of sustainability. The research will take the form of a series of semi-structured face-to-face interviews with members of the stakeholder groups within Central Highlands Regional Resource Usage Planning (CHRRUP). It is anticipated that at least twenty (20) interviews will be conducted, concentrating on the dimensions of sustainability to which farmers ascribe and the processes that they have put into place for achieving this level of sustainability. Participants will also be asked questions regarding current Best Management Practices to determine their importance in sustainability practices. A number of questions framed to specifically determine the meanings that farmers give to common sustainability terms will also be developed for use in the interviews. In addition, interviews with agency staff within the Central Highlands will be conducted on similar lines.

33

Research Projects

How sustainable are current farming methods?


Results will help develop a common framework of understanding

Aims •

• • • •

To identify the dimensions of sustainability ascribed to by farmers To determine processes – including Best Management Practice – that farmers have put in place to achieve sustainability To determine the dimensions of sustainability ascribed to by agencies To identify differences in language between farmers and agencies To identify gaps between agencies’ and farmers’ perceptions of sustainability.

Outcomes •

•

Knowledge of differences in language between farmers and agencies allowing the development of communication packages that have the same meaning to all groups Knowledge of any gaps between farm sustainability and environmental/ecological sustainability.

The Central Highlands has been chosen as a region with an already established community group involved in the issues of natural resource management and of a manageable size for the proposed pilot study. It offers an immense diversity of producer perspectives from traditional grazing through to the innovative niche marketing of native flowers and encompasses both dryland farming and irrigation. Examples of the application of sustainable land management practices throughout Queensland in general, and the Central Highlands will be researched. The current level of Best Management Practice in relevant industries will also be reviewed. The relationship between Best Management Practices and farm and environmental/ecological sustainability will be examined.

Implications for other regions

If successful, there is the potential to extend the results to all areas of Queensland. Because of the diversity of producers interviewed and the inclusion of staff from all key agencies involved in NRM, the results can be easily adopted by other regions. CHRRUP will play a key role in the wider dissemination of information. Work undertaken with the sub-regional group CHRRUP can be fed not only to its local stakeholders but also directly back to the Fitzroy Basin Association, the Regional Natural Resource Management Board with whom it is linked. FBA itself then links into the Regional Strategy Group Collective—the community coordinating body for regional NRM efforts.

Contact details

Name: Janet Grice Address: School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia Q 4072 Phone: (07) 33652253 Fax: (07) 33651199 Email: [email protected]

Research Projects

Best Management Practices and sustainability

34



The research is being conducted as a partnership between the School of Social Science, The University of Queensland and the Institute for Sustainable Regional Development, Central Queensland University.

Further Reading Curtis, A., Byron, I. and McDonald, S. (2003). Integrating Spatially Referenced Social and Biophysical Data to Explore Landholder Responses to Dryland Salinity in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 68 (4), 397–407. Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1998). Landcare, Stewardship and Sustainable Agriculture in Australia. Environmental Values 7, 59–76. Curtis, A. and Robertson, A. (2003). Understanding landholder management of river frontages: the Goulburn Basin. Ecological Management and Restoration 4 (1), 45–54. Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria (2003) Ecosystems Services through Land Stewardship Practices: Issues and Options, DSE, Vic.

Research Projects

Mitchell, D. (2003). Achieving Sustainable Relationships Between Australian Landholders and Landscapes. In: Agriculture for the Australian Environment, Proceedings of the 2002 Fenner Conference on the Environment. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury.

35


Factors impeding and facilitating natural resource management by local government? Fiona Haslam-McKenzie, Barbara Pini and Colette Roos What is the capacity of local governments to respond to sustainable NRM issues?

Over the past decade, local government in Australia has experienced a period of significant reform. One of the outcomes of this has been the transformation of the roles undertaken by local government as it has moved away from a focus only on ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ to undertake a range of community-related roles. Included in this latter category is the increased responsibility for environment and natural resource management. The potential contribution that local government has to make to natural resource management has been well documented. Doyle and Kellow (1995) for example describe local authorities as the sleeping giant of the Australian environmental policy arena given that they are typically more flexible than other tiers of government and are by nature, closer to their constituents and the community. International literature echoes this sentiment.

Research Projects

Unfortunately however, there is evidence that the capacity local government has to make a contribution to natural resource management has not been fully realised. Australian critiques (Keen, Mercer and Woodfull, 1994; Crowley, 1998) have suggested that there are a range of factors that may explain why this is the case. These include a lack of finance, the dominance of more conservative and pro-development values in the sector and the limited legislative power of some authorities to support environmental action. In light of this background the goals of this research are to: • Determine the perceptions held by local government authorities regarding their responsibility for natural resource management; • Identify the contribution local government is making to natural resource management; • Clarify the role and potential contribution of stakeholders to local government approach to the environment; • Identify the facilitators and impediments for local government authorities in developing, implementing and monitoring the environment and natural resource management.

36


A case study approach will be used to assess participants’ understanding of councils’ roles in environmental monitoring

The research will consist of sixteen case studies of rural local governments in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Before undertaking these case studies, state policy documents and legislation will be analysed and interviews will be undertaken with state representatives to develop a profile of the context in which the rural local governments in each state undertake natural resource management (e.g. state legislation, governance structures). Each of the case studies will include: A focus group involving 5–6 local government staff and councillors from different rural shires. In these focus groups, members will be asked about their own council’s development, implementation and monitoring of natural resource management.

•

Interviews with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Environmental Officer of the shire.

The key findings of this research will include: •

Identification of actual local government activity with regard to sustainable NRM and potential strategies for more percipient and inclusive management of the local environment.

•

Comparison of various State/local government NRM initiatives, their aims, progress and outcomes.

•

Identification of the role of stakeholders and local government with regard to NRM.

•

Clear identification of the factors impeding and facilitating rural local government authorities percipient and inclusive natural resource management.

The case study methodology will ensure that the findings are clearly related to NRM on the ground. The project was developed in recognition of the important, but difficult role, that local government has to play in NRM.

37

Research Projects

Research will reveal current council NRM activity and factors hindering their participation

•


Research has a wide application

The research will be useful in managing natural resource management across all rural local government agencies in Australia. Potential end-users of the proposed research are local government authorities, environmental agencies, producer organisations, rural research and extension institutions, community environmental groups, natural resource management community groups, rural women’s networks, government agencies and policy makers at regional, State and Federal levels.

Contact details

Name: Dr Barbara Pini Address: Queensland University of Technology, School of Management, 2 George Street, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane Q 4001 Phone: (07) 3864 9262 Fax: (07) 3864 1766 Email: [email protected]


The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Queensland University of Technology and Curtin University of Technology are partners in this project.

Research Projects

Further Reading Crowley, K. (1998). “Glocalisation” and ecological modernity: challenges for local environmental governance in Australia. Local Environment 3, 91–97. Doyle, T. and Kellow A. (1995). Environmental Politics and Policy Making in Australia, Macmillan, Melbourne. Keen, M., Mercer, D. and Woodfull, J. (1994). Approaches to environmental management at the Australian local government level: initiatives and limitations. Environmental Politics 13, 83–95. Sproats, K. and Kelly, A. (1998). The role of local government in natural resource management. Local Government and Shire Association of NSW. Wild River, S. (forthcoming). The environmental implications of the local-state antinomy. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Wild River, S. (forthcoming) Australian local government attempts to deliver beneficial environmental outcomes. Local Environment Journal.

38


How much is cleaner stormwater worth? Brad Jorgensen This research was undertaken by CSIRO’s Australian Research Centre for Water in Society. It was part of a much larger study concerning community management of stormwater pollution abatement in four Australian state capital cities (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth). The water management agencies in these cities wanted to know whether the public were aware of stormwater pollution in rivers and oceans and how their day-to-day activities contribute to the pollution load, and whether there was a capacity for householders to change their behaviour in ways that reduced pollutants that entered the stormwater system. In addition to these awareness and behaviour change issues, the water management agencies wanted to establish the willingness of households to pay (e.g. through local government levies) to obtain cleaner water by implementing specific technical solutions to address stormwater pollution (e.g. the creation of an artificial wetland in Brisbane, sediment traps in Melbourne, and a suite of options in Sydney and Perth). Data was collected to assess the willingness of the public to pay for cleaner stormwater

Attitudes toward paying for cleaner stormwater was a bigger predictor than the price of the pollution abatement

The research was undertaken over a four-year period, and there were a number of data collection periods. In the final data collection stage, 800 individuals from randomly selected households participated in face-toface structured interviews. The major focus of this stage of the research was to measure willingness to pay (WTP) amounts and to establish exactly why people were or were not willing to pay for cleaner stormwater. The focus therefore was on understanding the meaning of the WTP responses rather than deriving an estimate of the economic value of the various policy options. Willingness to pay was measured using the contingent valuation method with a dichotomous choice WTP question. This approach involves presenting individuals with a “price” for the abatement strategy and then asking respondents if they were either willing to pay it or not. The price amount is varied across individuals in the sample. In order to understand the basis of individual’s WTP responses, the research employed a model which included price, household income, and attitude toward paying. This model was estimated in each city sample and then compared across samples. The results showed: Attitudes toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement was defined by beliefs concerning the fairness of having to pay more money, trust in

39

Research Projects

How do day to day household activities contribute to stormwater pollution load?


government and individual rights to cleaner stormwater Price of the pollution abatement intervention was a significant predictor of WTP responses in each city sample. This relationship was relatively large in the Perth, Sydney and Melbourne samples, but not in Brisbane sample. Attitude toward paying was a significant predictor of WTP in each city sample, and the size of the relationship did not vary across samples. Attitude was a larger predictor of WTP responses than was price. Income did not affect WTP directly, but was significantly related to ‘attitude toward paying’.

Research Projects

These results suggest that individual’s WTP responses are significantly influenced by factors not directly associated with the pollution abatement strategy. Specifically, decisions about paying were grounded in perceptions of the fairness of having to pay additional household payments to achieve cleaner stormwater. Respondents may well value cleaner stormwater, but question the valuation method, and particularly the attribution of individual household responsibility inherent in the WTP question. Knowledge derived from this research can help policy makers better discern what aspects of a policy option or is acceptable to various stakeholders

Interventions aimed at addressing environmental pollution can be evaluated on the basis of social criteria. Economic valuation methodologies focused on efficiency may have a role in policy development. However, this research indicates that more scrutiny of this type of data is required in order to ascertain whether it represents what contingent valuation practitioners intend it to represent. By employing a more complete account of human decision-making than normally occurs in economic valuation exercises, policy makers can better discern what aspects of a policy option or its context are acceptable to various stakeholders.

Economic processes are used in assessing the value of policy options in relation to public goods – however, social and environmental values cannot always be described in economic terms

It is important to understand any procedure that claims validity as a tool for environmental policy decisions. The contingent valuation method and other approaches in economic valuation are used throughout the world as a means of establishing the value of policy options concerning the allocation of public goods. However, the market is only one context in which individuals express value for the environment, and it is not always possible to translate social and environmental values into the language of economics. In some instances, individuals will scrutinize the structure of the valuation context itself rather than evaluate the potential benefits of the policy option at hand. The question for these individuals is not “how much is cleaner stormwater worth?” rather “how is this fair?”

40


Contact details

Name: Dr Brad Jorgensen Address: School of Journalism and Communication, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Q 4072 Phone: (07) 3365 2630 Fax: (07) 3365 1377 Email: [email protected]


The project was managed by the Australian Research Centre for Water in Society (CSIRO, Land and Water) in collaboration with the Brisbane City Council, Sydney Water, Melbourne Water, and the Water Authority of Western Australia (now the Western Australian Water Corporation). Funding was provided by the Urban Water Research Association of Australia and the participating water agencies.

Further Reading

Jorgensen, B. S. (in review). The discriminant and convergent validity of willingness to pay responses and individual evaluations of moral satisfaction? A multitrait-multimethod analysis with public and mixed goods. Ecological Economics. Jorgensen, B. S., and Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responses and willingness to pay: Attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 251-265.

41

Research Projects

Jorgensen, B. S. (2002). Perceived justice and the economic valuation of the environment. In A. Winnett and Alyson Warhurst (eds.), Towards a Collaborative Environmental Research Agenda. London: Macmillan.


Learning, evaluation, action and reflection for new technologies, empowerment and rural sustainability (The LEARNERS Project) June Lennie Rural communities and new communications and information technologies

 J. Lennie

Policies and programs have recently been implemented that aim to increase community participation, build community skills and capacities, and encourage lifelong learning. Their aim is to create communities that are more inclusive, cooperative and self-reliant. The effective use of new communications and information technology (C&IT) such as the internet can potentially help rural communities meet these aims. However, new communication technologies raise many challenges and issues for rural communities, including equity of access, meeting the diverse training and support needs of community members, securing ongoing funding and resources for planning, developing and managing C&IT initiatives; and evaluating the direct and indirect impacts of these initiatives:

Research Projects

In May 2002, a Queensland University of Technology research team approached a number of rural communities to assess their interest in trialling the LEARNERS process. LEARNERS stands for Learning, Evaluation, Action & Reflection for New technologies, Empowerment & Rural Sustainability. The process involves a diversity of community members and groups planning and conducting the evaluations and analysing the results with guidance from evaluation professionals. Collaboration and cooperation between community organisations and groups is encouraged to make better use of funding and resources and to develop shared decisions and understanding. Shire councils take up the challenge

 J. Lennie

42

The Shire Councils in Tara and Stanthorpe had recently implemented a number of C&IT projects and were very keen to participate in the trial. These projects included the Tara Shire Community website, computer and internet training courses, and ‘GraniteNet’, a virtual community project. The partnership with the QUT research team was developed through meetings, workshops, teleconferences and other forms of communication and interaction with interested community members and the project's industry partners. As well as Shire Council staff, people from community development, education, community service and business organisations and groups have participated in the project in various ways. Women have been key participants in both communities.


 J. Lennie

Significant findings emerging from this research include: • Use of the LEARNERS process was effective in: building community skills, knowledge and confidence in planning and evaluation; increasing communication, collaboration and networking between community members and groups; developing awareness of the opportunities and limitations of C&IT for rural communities; and identifying new ways of using C&IT to enhance communication and overcome distance problems. •

The language used to explain the process needs to be clear and simple to ensure understanding and interest from a wide range of participants. The benefits of using the process also need to be emphasised.

•

The LEARNERS process can help community groups develop and maintain a focus, define clearer objectives, and provides a useful and flexible framework for evaluation, planning and needs assessment.

•

Obtaining and maintaining participation from a broad range of community members and groups was difficult. Factors include drought, living in a remote location away from project activities, and the time, energy and cost of participation. Other important factors include the lack of effective access to C&IT and training and support in using C&IT.

To be effective, the LEARNERS process requires a dedicated and funded local leader, advanced technical support, and access to mentors with appropriate skills, knowledge and experience. The ideal project leader needs: sufficient time and resources to implement the process effectively; have good networks and networking/communication skills; and have the ability to tailor the process to different community groups and individuals. What might change as a result of this research in this region?

The project has recently developed an online resource kit ‘EvaluateIT’ that simplifies the task of evaluating C&IT projects. Users are led through four steps that help them to plan the evaluation, involve other people, conduct the evaluation, review the results and make the changes that will improve the project. Strategies for enhancing the sustainability of C&IT projects are also being identified. If appropriate and well-resourced project leaders can be obtained, the LEARNERS process could be widely used by other regions and groups such as natural resource management groups. Such groups could begin implementing the outcomes of the project by building the process into their activities, using the EvaluateIT kit.

43

Research Projects

Early signs suggest that LEARNERS is an effective program for rural communities


Contact details

Name: Dr June Lennie Address: Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Q 4059 Phone: (07) 3864 3861 Fax: (07) 3864 3723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.learners.bus.qut.edu.au www.evaluateit.org


The other members of the LEARNERS project research team are: Professor Greg Hearn, Chief Investigator Lyn Simpson, Chief Investigator Dr Megan Kimber, Senior Research Assistant Emma Kennedy-da Silva, Research Assistant

Research Projects

This project is funded by an Australian Research Council Strategic Partnerships with Industry – Research and Training grant and an Assisting Rural Women in Leadership grant from the Office for Women, Queensland Government. Industry partners in the project are; Learning Network Queensland; (formerly) Department of Families, Youth and Community Care; Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Legal Aid Queensland, Office for Women (Queensland), Department of Local Government and Planning (Queensland).

Further Reading Lennie, J. and Hearn, G. (2003a). The potential of PAR and participatory evaluation for increasing the sustainability and success of community development initiatives using new communication technologies. Proceedings, Action Learning, Action Research & Process Management and Participatory Action Research Congress, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 21–24 September, 2003. Available: www.education.up.ac.za/alarpm/PRP_pdf/Lenny&Hearn.PDF Lennie, J. and Hearn, G. (2003b). Designing inclusive communication and participation processes: Interim findings from the trial of a participatory evaluation process involving diverse rural communities and organisations. In Hatcher, C., Flew, T. and Jacobs, J. (Eds.) Proceedings, Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference ANZCA03: Designing Communication for Diversity, Brisbane, 9–11 July 2003. Available: www.bgsb.qut.edu.au/conferences/ANZCA03/Proceedings/default.htm

44


Natural resource governance and partnership in Central Queensland Stewart Lockie and Susan Rockloff This Coastal CRC funded project is located in the industrial Port Curtis Catchment and agricultural and pastoral Fitzroy Catchment of Central Queensland. The research focuses on aspects of social, economic and estuarine health that influence (or are influenced by) changes in the management or condition of certain natural resources. Specifically, attention is on water quality and estuarine ecosystems. The project is divided into three tasks: Industry– Community Partnerships; Integrated Estuarine Indicator Framework; and Institutionalising Adaptive Management. To enable integration of the three task activities, and the social indicator and assessment outcome with the CRC’s biological and economic research, the project has adopted the Pressure-StateImpact Response (PSIR) model used by other international coastal organisations (see Fig 1). As shown in Fig 1, this model links the project objectives in a logical way and ensures that they contribute to the management of ecological issues.

F ig 1 : C o n c ep tu a l fr a m e w o r k fo r in te g r at io n o f s u b -p ro jec t o b jec t iv es w ith b io p h y s ic a l an d ec o n o m ic r es ea rc h P re ssure: R e s p ons e : O b jec ti v e 4 : f a c i l i ta t e d ev el o p m en t o f N R M g o v er n a n c e p r o c es s e s r esp o n si v e to c h a n g e s i n r es o u r c e c o n d i ti o n , u se & m a n a g e m e n t a s w el l a s c o m m u n i ty h ea l t h & c a p a c i ty .

O b jec ti v e 1 : c l a r i f y ty p e, ma g n i tu d e & ti me f r a m e f o r r es o u r c e u s e p r e s su r e s o n P o r t C u r ti s & F i tz r o y . State: O b jec ti v e 2 : d ev el o p & a p p l y i n d i c a to r s o f ec o l o g i c a l , ec o n o mi c & so c i a l h ea l t h o f P o r t C u r ti s & F i tz r o y r el ev a n t t o w a t er q u a l i ty & mo n i to r i n g .

I m p a ct : O b jec ti v e 3 : d ev el o p & a p p l y to o l s f o r t h e a s s e s s m en t o f so c i a l & c u l tu r a l i m p a c t s o f c ha n g e i n r e so u r c e c o n d i ti o n , u s e & m a n a g e m e n t. E v a l u a t e c a p a c i ty & c a p a c i ty b u i l d i n g n e ed s.

Participation of coastal zone stakeholders

Focus groups have been conducted in the Fitzroy and Port Curtis catchments in order to use available stakeholder information to define an integrated estuarine indicator reporting framework that can be used to set management priorities.

45

Research Projects

What factors influence estuarine health and natural resource management in Central Queensland?


Stakeholder consultation is being used to: validate indicators, assess current estuarine status, identify current and future pressures, identify areas of vulnerability, identify values of significance to community, and identify information and reporting needs of stakeholders. Engaging with stakeholders will also promote the adoption of an estuarine reporting framework at local and regional levels. Stakeholders involved in focus groups and interviews include: local and state government, local community, welfare organisations, Indigenous communities, industry, resource users, NRM and conservation groups, and other key informants. The project will address several key questions

Research Projects Enhanced community/industry relations lead to improved coastal management

This project will address the following questions: •

What local and regional indicators of ecological, social and economic health can be integrated into a sustainability indicator framework? What indicators are suitable to benchmark and monitor the (1) health of the coastal zone, and (2) impact of natural resource use change?

•

What institutional changes and mechanisms do environmental planners, resource managers and organisations require, to adopt a sustainability indicator framework for planning, monitoring and reporting?

•

What are the social and cultural impacts of changes in resource use, management and condition in coastal environments? What is the capacity of coastal communities to respond to changes in natural resources?

•

What are the best practice guidelines for existing indigenous natural resource governance and participatory models?

•

What are the requirements for strategic alliances between community and industry?

In the longterm, environmental planning processes and governance arrangements are responsive to change in natural resource condition and human welfare. In the shortterm, enhanced community/industry relations lead to improved coastal management and adoption of a framework for integrated condition reporting (social, economic, ecological). Specific outcomes include:

46

•

indicator framework for integrated reporting of the social, economic and ecological condition;

•

assessment procedures to inform indicator interpretation in other regions;

•

strategies to improve industry–community relations for improved coastal management;


Significance of the research

•

guidelines and demonstrated processes for improved governance structures and capacity building techniques for indigenous resource management;

•

mechanisms to improve environmental planning and governance arrangements that are responsive to changes in natural resource condition and human welfare.

The research will assist in dealing with: (1) the failure to demonstrate any verifiable link between proposed social indicators and natural resource management practice; (2) the current limited focus of impact assessment at the project level and on biophysical aspects — highlighting the need to give attention to strategic, cumulative and social impact assessment; and (3) advances in developing integrated indicator frameworks for estuarine monitoring.

This research will contribute to ‘State of the Environment’ reporting

The main contribution resulting from the project is an integrated indicator framework and validated set of indicators (ecological, social & economic) for State of the Environment reporting, and for regional NRM benchmarking and monitoring in other regions.

Contact details

Name: Assoc Prof Stewart Lockie & Dr Susan Rockloff (formerly Jennings) Address: Centre for Social Science Research, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Q 4072 Phone: (07) 4930 6401 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]:


Coastal Cooperative Research Centre, Central Queensland University.

Research Projects

The research will draw on an adaptive management framework in a regional process to deliver the appropriate forms of governance, strategic frameworks, and community engagement.

Further Reading Jennings, S. and Lockie, S. (submitted). Democratisation and Capacity Building in Coastal Zone Decision-Making in Australia: The Application of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping. Coastal Management. Jennings, S. and Lockie, S. (in press). Application of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping for Coastal Zone Management in Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation. Lockie, S. and Jennings, S. (2002). Central Queensland Healthy Waterways Survey. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. Rockloff, S. and Lockie, S. (2004). Strategies for Indigenous Participation in Coastal Resource Management: Redefining Knowledge, Power and Dependency Structures. Paper presented at Coast to Coast 2004, Hobart, Tasmania, 19—24 April 2004.

47


Lockie, S. and Jennings, S. (2004). The Social Impacts of Natural Resource Use and Condition: The Invisible Dimension of Coastal Resource Management. In: Pritchard, B. (ed.) Triple Bottom Line Reporting in Australia, Bureau of Rural Studies, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Australia, Canberra.



Assessing local support for community sustainability Colin Macgregor The motivation behind this research came from three main sources. First, it was becoming increasingly evident that the concept of ‘sustainability’ was so entrenched in government policy and literature that it seemed appropriate to regard it as a ‘social norm’. Second, despite the fact that Local Agenda 21 (a United Nations strategy for sustainable development) emphasises local sustainability initiatives, the developing global economy appears to be forcing communities to look much wider than their local environment for their continued prosperity. Many regard this as paradoxical to the sustainability philosophy. Third, the concept of local support for sustainability-type initiatives has been inadequately researched, particularly in Australia. Northern Australia was regarded as an ideal location for this case study because: it is heavily dependent upon the export of natural resources and associated commodities; there is increasing evidence of emerging environmental problems; and there are some stark contrasts in the economic vitality of many of the towns of the region. The central aim of the research was to: Develop and use an analytical model to determine the extent of community support for sustainability from a sample of small towns from northern Australia and provide advice to local government about achieving community sustainability. The research involved both local residents and local government

The research first explored the literature to develop a three-dimensional, hierarchical model (environment, society and economy) that could be used to determine the level of support for sustainability initiatives (see Fig. 1). Using the model principally involved: •

Six case study towns from northern Australia were identified which could be regarded as being representative of towns in the region. These towns were: Charters Towers, Hughenden and Cloncurry (Qld); Jabiru (NT); Kununurra and Halls Creek (WA).

•

Face-to-face interviews with influential members of these communities (e.g. local council members) were conducted and 200 questionnaires to households in each town were distributed.

•

Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.

49

Research Projects

Achieving sustainable development in remote areas of northern Australia


There is strong support Community attitudes towards maintaining the from all local people to environment were fairly strong and consistent across all ensure environmental towns. This consensus could be regarded as a resource sustainability

that could be utilised for environmental works (e.g. Landcare or catchment management).

VISION HIGHLY INTEGRATED& UNIFIEDCOMMUNITY

•

There are clear socio-economic differences between the European and the Aboriginal populations of the towns. Alcohol misuse and poor housing are significantly impacting on the potential sustainability of remote communities with high Aboriginal populations. Unless these issues are seriously addressed, towns like Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing will continue to display health problems that are similar to those found in developing countries.

•

There are clear differences between the Qld towns, on the one hand, and the NT and WA towns on the other. The histories and demographic profiles of the towns appear to have influenced local responses to sustainability, for example, the Queensland towns achieved a significantly higher score for the concept ‘sense of place’.

•

Scores for economic constructs were not high in any town but it was the ‘poorest’ towns that demonstrated greater support for sustainability.

•

Altruism is usually higher in small, remote communities. It can be associated with income but given other social capital-type indicator scores, it may in fact not be a good indicator of sustainability support unless it takes the form of volunteering.

•

The level of knowledge within local governments about progressing community sustainability was low when compared with urban local governments. Importantly, such information is not being delivered effectively to the remote local governments of the region.

COMPLETION COMMITMENT

ACTIVITY

LETHARGY UNDERSTANDING

ATTITUDES

ARROGANCE KNOWLEDGE

INFORMATION

IGNORANCE SATISFACTION

DISPARATE &DIFFUSE COMMUNITY

DEPRIVATION

ECONOMY

EN VIR ON ME NT

SO CIE TY

BASICNEEDS

Fig 1. Hierarchical model for assessing and describing sustainability support in small town communities

Research Projects The approach is a useful model for assessing ‘sustainability capital’ within any community

The sustainability model developed in this research could have many applications for analysing and describing sustainability, particularly in small towns, and probably in other circumstances where community support is required. The potential to accurately describe communities in this way is dependent on the indicators chosen. Indicators used here included: environmental empathy, cultural sensitivity, service provision, community involvement, ethnic concerns, sense of security, sense of history, social interaction, institutional networks, sense of place, altruism, community economic support, and, perceived future prosperity.

50


Contact details

Name: Dr Colin J. Macgregor Address: School of Geography & Geosciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, Scotland UK Phone: +44 (0)1334 462022 Fax: +44 (0)1334 463949 Email: [email protected] www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/People/Research/cjm27/ index.shtml


This research would not have been possible without the aid of the School of Tropical Environment Studies, at James Cook University and the financial support of the Tropical Savannas CRC. The assistance of the local governments associated with the towns and the local people, many of whom showed enormous generosity and support are also acknowledged.

Further Reading

Macgregor, C.J. and Cary, J. (2002). Social/Human Capital Rapid Appraisal Model (SCRAM): a method of remotely assessing social and human capacity in Australian rural communities. Rural Society 12(2), 105–122. Macgregor, C.J. (1999). Sustainability Needs a Viable Economy. Savanna Links, 11 (7). Available at:www.savanna.ntu.edu.au/downloads/savlinks11.pdf

51

Research Projects

Macgregor, C. J. (2003). Working towards sustainability in small towns: perspectives from northern Australia, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 2(4), 342–363.


Rural women in sustainable development Fiona McCartney and Helen Ross Darling Downs women and sustainable development

The idea for this project came from a Darling Downs resident wanting to test the idea that women’s capacity for promoting sustainable development had been overlooked. Women are fundamental to the development of their communities and regions, yet are easily neglected due to gendered stereotypes about their role in farming as well as practical barriers to their greater involvement. The research goals were to: 1. Explore the potential roles of, and constraints on, rural women in stimulating economically, environmentally and socially sustainable development in the financially depressed Darling Downs and elsewhere. 2. Listen to women’s ideas about how they can engage in sustainable development and how they can work with others to do the same.

 P. Czislowski

Research Projects

3. Consider how Darling Downs landholding women can take a stronger role in the revitalisation of their rural communities. Researchers and local women working in partnership

The study examined ways that women could be involved in activities that would facilitate more sustainable development in their communities. The research involved: •

an informal information day giving women a chance to meet each other and decide upon the nature of the project;

•

face-to-face interviews with 25 farm women as well as interviews with small groups of women;

•

interviews with members of community-based organisations and government officers; and

•

a workshop to present and discuss initial findings with the participants.

Key Findings: The research provides a window on a rural community, seen through farming women’s eyes

Women on properties already contribute substantially to the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and, with increased opportunities, could do so more significantly. Women lead complex and busy lives as they combine their domestic, business and community roles. Many women also compensate for shortfalls in government servicing through voluntary action. These multiple roles provide a strong web of connections among community members.

52


On the other hand, women’s time and opportunities are constrained as these multiple roles leave little time for them to pursue their own leisure activities, let alone additional commitments. The well-being of rural women may well be compromised due to over-commitment, isolation, lack of support and too few leisure opportunities. Women’s reasons for not participating more at the local level included: lack of time, lack of confidence, tiredness, lack of support, prevailing community and family perceptions about women’s roles, fears about being overutilised or exploited in development activities, the exclusive nature of some organisations and guilt associated with compromising family and business commitments. What might change as a result of this research in this region?

The project will provide state and local government staff with guidance to improve community engagement through greater focus on women and their networks.

•

The facilitation of meetings that have a flexible agenda and which women can also use for recreation time, networking, and confidence building and that facilitate connections between women.

•

Ensuring that women (town and rural) have ownership of the group, the agenda, events and activities:

•

Ensuring that women have access to regular meeting space.

Research Projects

A number of recommendations were made to the Shire Council relating to the building of social capital among local women. This includes:

Further research

It is important to provide greater opportunities for women in rural decision-making. However, it should be considered whether women’s involvement is sought for social justice reasons, to increase their ‘voice’ or merely to increase voluntary human resources.

Contact details

Names: Fiona McCartney and Helen Ross Address: School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Gatton Q 4343 Phone: (07) 5460 1648 Fax: (07) 5460 1324 Email: [email protected]

53



The project was managed through a partnership between the researchers, the originator of the idea (a Darling Downs resident), the Mayor of Pittsworth (the study location), a University of Southern Queensland staff member familiar with the women of Pittsworth and a representative of the sponsor, NR&M.

Further Reading Alston, M. (1990). Feminism and farm women. Australian Social Work 43 (3), 23–27. Beilin, R. (1995), The construction of women in Landcare: does it make a difference? Rural Society 5 (2-3), 20–29. Rickson, S.T. (1997). Outstanding in their field: women in agriculture. Current Sociology 45 (2), 91–133.



Researching farmers: Who is the expert? Sandy Paton and Janet Grice Where do primary producers source information that is locally relevant and up to date?

 authors

Large-scale organic production in the variable climate and on the easily eroded soils of Central Queensland (CQ), is a recent phenomenon, leaving many producers feeling isolated and uncertain as to the appropriateness of their land management strategies. The community of the Central Highlands (CH), has been actively seeking expertise on innovative agricultural business opportunities. They see a great potential for existing and future growers to expand their investment in the organics industry. As part of this expansion, they see the need for a collective articulation of strategic information needs required for business development. The key goals of this project were to: • Develop a targeted information strategy to support the organics industry in the CH. • Adopt effective facilitation practices to ensure a flexible process that responded to growers’ needs and priorities achieved successful outcomes.

 authors

The study examined the information requirements of the organic producer, the value placed on information provided and the effectiveness of interactive learning.

Research Projects

Researchers and producers learning ‘What works best’ when it comes to acquiring information

The research involved: •

An initial informal meeting with organic growers to assess their information needs.

•

A one-day information workshop delivered by ‘technical experts’. An inclusive approach which welcomed growers outside the organic community, who while not wanting to have organic certification, were keen to improve their agricultural practice.

•

A two-day facilitated combination of workshops and field tours developed in response to identified strengths and weakness of the first workshop. This second event was flexible, informal, interactive and focussed on local knowledge and experience.

•

Publication of a report that detailed the findings of the research provided relevant information on sound agricultural practice, sources of additional information and a contact list to support grower networking.

55

Social Innovations in Natural Resource Management Effectively utilising empirical knowledge is fundamental to sustainable agriculture

The findings from this project exceeded the expectations of the original research proposal which was to simply investigate the information requirements of broadacre organic producers working within the CH area of Queensland. Key Findings:

 authors

The need for truly sustainable long-term land management has seen the emergence of three concurrent approaches to farm chemical usage, all driven by the desire of producers to meet industry best practice, to have minimal environmental impacts, to be economically viable and to be acknowledged by the broader community as effective land managers. These approaches are: 1. Organic methods—traditional approaches without artificial chemicals. 2. Zero-till systems that utilise stubble retention and the strategic use of herbicide. 3. Integrated approaches where producers incorporate the best from both of the above methods. CQ Producers identified that whatever the technique practised, they believed the methodologies were still not adequately underpinned by information and long-term locally relevant research.

Research Projects

Producers are increasingly seeking more information to support their management decisions but paradoxically there is a great deal of scepticism about any research which is not supported by producer input and extensive on-ground trials. Whilst growers did place some value on advice from ‘outside experts’, information from experienced local growers was deemed highly credible and their ‘practical’ advice much sought after. Industry boundaries did not inhibit peer group learning, if practices were locally appropriate and successful. What might change as a result of this research in this region?

 authors

56

This project highlighted the importance that growers placed on local empirical knowledge. Therefore there must be recognition and support for: •

Producer organisations that are informed, proactive and able to think holistically. These environments provide exposure, experience and examples, diversity of perspectives and technical expertise to underpin grower observations and knowledge.

•

Information sharing across various industries and agricultural styles. Recognition that practices may impact upon neighbours has extended the realisation that neighbours may also be a source of knowledge and information even if they are in another industry, for example, adaptation of composting from horticulture to a broadacre farming.

The knowledge gained is transferable

Transferable knowledge from this project includes: ♦ recognition of the importance of local empirical knowledge ♦ the value in creating dialogue between different producer groups ♦ the importance of producer networks for support and dissemination of information ♦ growers’ interest in opportunities and impediments related to particular agricultural practices ♦ recognition that many producers believe that there are gaps in current research.

Contact details

Names: Sandy Paton and Dr Janet Grice Address: Institute for Sustainable Regional Development, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton Q 4702 Phone: (07) 4923 2334 Mobile: 0407 178 587 (Sandy Paton) Fax: (07) 4930 6756 Email: [email protected]


The project was conducted as a partnership between researchers from the Institute for Sustainable Regional Development and Central Queensland organic producers. The Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services provided the project funding.

Further Reading Grice, J. and Paton, S. (2002). Report to Stakeholders Central Highlands Organic Project. Institute for Sustainable Regional Development, CQU: Rockhampton. Paton, S. (2003). The Importance of Sound Facilitation in Organically Growing Groups. The Inaugural Queensland Organic Conference, OPAQ (Organic Producer’s Association Queensland) Conference: Cairns. Paton, S. and Grice, J. (2003). Central Highlands Organic Partnerships Project, Women in Research Conference: Bundaberg. Paton, S. and Norton, J. (2003). Changing Moods Changing Focus. In: Agriculture for the Australian Environment: Proceedings of the 2002 Fenner Conference on the Environment 314–326, Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University: Albury.

57

Research Projects



Developing effective partnerships in Natural Resource Management Peter Oliver From the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development to the mid-term review of the Australian Natural Heritage Trust, Natural Resource Management (NRM) partnerships are in fashion!

This study focused on collaboration and partnership building between people from community, industry and different levels of government who share common concerns about particular natural resource management (NRM) problems. The research focused on NRM groups. It sought answers to the following questions: • •

•

•

Research Projects

The qualitative research methods used provided a rich description and detailed understanding of how people worked together to develop effective collaborations and partnerships. Tools developed included: (i) A decision tree to help to select the right tool for the job, in terms of citizen participation processes

What are the characteristics of effective NRM group participant partnerships? From coordinator, NRM group, and participant viewpoints what factors positively influence the development of effective NRM group participant partnerships? What are appropriate methods and techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of NRM group participant partnerships? In terms of citizen participation in NRM, when is the brokering of partnerships the most appropriate citizen participation process?

Fifteen ‘snap-shot’ case studies and one twelve-month, long-term case study, where the researcher worked as a participant–observer with a particular NRM group, were investigated. These involved a wide variety of cases, for example, Landcare and catchment management groups; industry–conservation, Local – State Government and university–NGO partnerships. Data were collected from the viewpoint of NRM groups, participants and group coordinators by: • running a whole-day workshop for experienced staff identified as being good partnership brokers from ‘snap-shot’ case studies; • analysing workshop transcripts and participant questionnaires; • analysing interview transcripts from participants in the long-term case study; and • analysing observation notes and documents gained during the long-term case study. Collaborations and partnerships were defined as types of citizen participation processes. Partnerships were distinguished from collaborations by the sharing of power and responsibility for its use among participants.

(ii) A pendulum of

58

Twelve characteristics of effective NRM partnerships were identified. These fell into five categories relating to: • definitions of the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘effectiveness’; • the context within which the relationship occurred; • the nature of the relationship;


• the nature of the participants; and • the perceptions of those outside the relationship.

citizen participation showing how power and responsibility are distributed in different citizen participation processes;

The research highlighted that effective NRM partnerships: • Shared power and responsibility among participants with no partner being made responsible for the decisions or actions of others: and • Were based on realistic expectations, and shared intent and relationship values.

A diagnostic checklist to assess the health of collaborations and partnerships

Research findings were integrated to form a story of a hypothetical, yet typical NRM group. Contrasting examples of both ineffective and effective practice, this story of three years in the life of the Armstrong Narrows–Yarooba (ANY) Catchment Management Group provides practical examples of members of an NRM group working together.

This research has provided practical tools to help people ‘on the ground’ to develop more effective collaborations and partnerships to solve shared NRM problems

The story of ANY Catchment Management Group may serve as a basis for discussion and learning among NRM group members and staff about ways to solve NRM problems through the development of more effective NRM collaborations and partnerships. The decision tree can assist government staff in selection of context-appropriate citizen participation processes. The pendulum of citizen participation explains government-citizen interactions in terms of power and responsibility for its use. The diagnostic checklist relies on information gained from the literature and from fieldwork undertaken for this research. It is useful in NRM collaboration and partnership development and for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of such relationships.

59

Research Projects

The study also revealed that NRM group coordinators: • Were more effective as partnership brokers when they enjoyed and were skilled at working in ‘grey’ areas and changing environments; and • Had appropriate tenure to develop long-term personal relationships among participants.


Use and continuous improvement of these tools may result in improved on-ground NRM outcomes

People from other regions and countries involved in collaborative and partnership-based NRM may wish to trial and further develop these tools to ensure that they cater for regional or cultural differences.

Contact details

Dr Peter Oliver Qld. Department of Natural Resources and Mines c/- PO Box 573, Nambour, Q 4560 Phone: (07) 5451 2281 Fax: (07) 5451 2277 Mob: 0427 053 177 Email: [email protected]


This project was supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management; Griffith University; and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy.

Further Reading

Research Projects

Eisler, R. (2002). The Power of Partnership. New World Library, Novato: California. Wondolleck, J.M., and Yaffee, S.L. (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press: Washington DC.

60


Engaged Government: A study of government community-engagement for regional outcomes Peter Oliver (Project Coordinator), Tanya Liebrecht, Barton Loechel, Shion Yee Empirical research is needed to examine cross-government collaboration

Contemporary public administration is being challenged by calls for greater cross-government collaboration, greater engagement with a diversity of non-government sectors and more decentralized governance. The rationales put forward to support these calls are many, as are the myriad of benefits claimed, and have great political currency

This project is investigating multi-sectoral (government and community) collaboration at the regional scale to determine (a) what types of collaboration add value in terms of management for regional policy outcomes, (b) what are the costs and benefits of such collaborations for the sectors involved, (c) what capacities motivate and sustain such collaborations and influence the strategies of the sectors involved and (d) how can the institutional capacities at the regional scale be improved to enable value-adding collaborations? A multidisciplinary approach will used to examine regional public administration

The research builds on an earlier project that identified the enablers and barriers to cross-agency approaches to community engagement at the regional scale. The Departments of Natural Resources and Mines, Main Roads and Queensland Transport and the Community Engagement Division funded this earlier project, which also outlined the framework for the current research. The research team will pursue: •

•

A multi-disciplinary approach to the research problem based on theories and methods from politics and public policy, economics and sociology; and An action research methodology that involves the researchers and agency partners collaboratively undertaking the research and development that will inform improvement efforts in regional public administration.

61

Research Projects

There has been little long-term, empirical research to validate the efficiency and effectiveness claims for more ‘joined up government’ and more inclusive decisionmaking, particularly in the Australian context. Further, the need to investigate these claims in the context of the regional administration scale provides an opportunity to explore central tenets of ‘new regionalism’ and subsidiarity in policy management.


Data will be collected predominantly through interviews, surveys, focus groups and archival research methods. An understanding of multi-sectoral collaboration will guide future government strategies

The project aims to describe the conditions under which, and the processes by which, multi-sectoral collaboration enhances regional policy outcomes. This understanding will inform government strategies for the improvement of regional institutional arrangements for policy management. The research is being undertaken as action research thus ensuring its relevance to the field and its immediate applicability.

Contact details

Dr Peter Oliver Qld. Department of Natural Resources and Mines c/- PO Box 573, Nambour 4560, Australia Phone: (07) 5451 2281 Fax: (07) 5451 2277 Mob: 0427 053 177 Email: [email protected]

Research Projects

PhD Students Name: Tanya Liebrecht Email: [email protected] Name: Shion Yee Email: [email protected] Name: Barton Loechel Email: [email protected] Research Sponsor/partners

The current research project is funded for three years by the Australian Research Council, the Departments of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Main Roads, Queensland Transport, the Local Government Association of Queensland and Griffith, Queensland and Central Queensland universities.

Further Reading Ackroyd, S. (1995). From public administration to public sector management. International Journal of Public Sector Management 8 (2), 19-32. Davis, G. and Keating, M. (2000). The Future of Governance. Allen and Unwin: Australia. Edwards, M. (2001), Participatory Governance into the future: Roles of the Government and Community sectors. Australian Journal of Pubic Administration 60 (3), 78-88. Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration 76, 313-333. Raco, M. and Flint, J. (2001), Communities, places and institutional relations: assessing the role of area-based community representation in local governance. Political Geography 20, 585-612. Wheeler, S.M. (2002). The new regionalism: Key characteristics of an emerging movement. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3), 267-278.

62


Developing a social impact assessment for Australian industry Bruce Rich The social impact dimension of the Triple Bottom Line

While considerable effort has been applied to quantify the economic and environmental impact dimensions of agribusiness and resource based industries, the social impact dimension of such industries remains largely under-researched.

Assessing social impacts in Australian primary industries

•

develop a method for assessing social impact that can be used as a component in Triple Bottom Line reporting, and which may in turn be used in public or regulatory reporting; and

•

document a preliminary social impact report for one key Australian industry.

These projects will develop and apply social impact assessment to various primary industry sectors. The research will involve: • establishing social impact categories and identifying indicators which allow these impacts to be quantified; • identifying and investigating case study communities; • gathering whole-of-community data from various secondary sources; • developing a software programme to analyse case study and whole-of-community data; and • producing a sector-specific social impact report for each community and the industry as a whole. The research team will be working in collaboration with case study community members as well as industry representatives, industry bodies and industry leaders.

Creating industry level tools of analysis

While there are generally accepted principles for social impact research, a clearly defined method for the determination of social impacts and its integration with economic and environmental dimensions is not available. Thus, what is required is a social impact instrument that is as rigorous as current financial reporting methods. This series of projects expects to progress toward filling this gap in reporting tools through the development of: 1.

A credible social impact analysis and reporting method for both community and whole of industry levels

63

Research Projects

This research project will investigate the social impact dimension. Specifically, the research objectives are to:


2. 3. 4.

Social impact reports on industry at both community and national levels The basis for a Triple Bottom Line method with a common metric and uniform rigour for all three dimensions The basis for developing positive solutions to improving industry environmental impacts.

The outcomes of this series of projects will benefit all levels of the various industry sectors that participate, with anticipated uptake of the findings by producers, processors and policy makers. In addition, information will be available to extension officers and industry peak bodies to assist future strategy development and public reporting.

Research Projects

Managing natural resources in other regions

This series of projects will provide a greater understanding of the inter-relationships between an industry and associated communities. The knowledge and understanding that will be generated will enable current and future industry issues to be identified and addressed. The research findings will form a solid scientific foundation on which to base future strategy and measures of industry sustainability.

Contact details

Name: Dr Bruce Rich Address: Centre for Social Change Research, QUT Carseldine, Beams Road, Carseldine, Q 4034 Phone: (07) 3864 4738 Fax: (07) 3864 4719 Email: [email protected] www.socialchange.qut.edu.au/centresocial/


Subject to funding, the series of projects will be managed by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in collaboration with the Centre for Social Change Research, Queensland University of Technology

Further Reading Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada. Hindmarsh, R. (1990). The need for effective assessment: Sustainable development and the social impacts of biotechnology in the third world. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 10 (1-2), 195–208. Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22, 183–211.

64


Environmental sustainability in the beef grazing sector of Central Queensland: What helps, what hinders? Carol Richards, Geoff Lawrence and Lynda Cheshire There has been an increasing concern about the health of the rural environment in recent years. Landholders have been increasingly required to improve production and produce more food and fibre in order to remain economically viable and competitive in global markets. This has resulted in a greater intensity of production, such as an increase in chemical inputs and the clearing of native vegetation to maximise the productive capacity of the property. Salinity, diminishing water quality, a loss of biodiversity and erosion are considered to be the cumulative effect of current and past natural resource management practices under this ‘productivist’ mode of pastoral production. This study raises a number of questions regarding sustainable natural resource management on privately owned beef grazing lands in the Fitzroy Basin, Central Queensland, where beef grazing accounts for 82% of the land use. In particular, it is asked whether graziers also perceive an environmental problem? What factors assist graziers in the sustainable management of natural resources? What are the key factors that prevent some graziers from moving toward practices that are considered ‘sustainable’ by scientists and government departments? Graziers participated in in-depth research into sustainable grazing

Over 50 male and female graziers were interviewed on their properties in relation to their perceptions, knowledge, beliefs and experiences of beef production and natural resource management. Graziers were asked what sustainability means to them and how they made decisions in relation to land management practices. Sampling was purposeful, meaning that graziers were selected to capture the diversity of people, property size, grazing practices and land types. Questions were broad and open-ended to encourage participants to reveal their own knowledge, understanding, perceptions and beliefs. This approach assumes no objective reality, but that landholders are the ‘experts’ who ‘construct meanings’ through living and sharing these experiences in everyday life.

65

Research Projects

Policies of ‘productivism’ have had a detrimental impact upon the environment

Social Innovations in Natural Resource Management Graziers reported that they were struggling to remain economically viable, had lost confidence in government and did not perceive the same environmental problem as those outside grazing and farming

Research Projects Local action, practices and beliefs need to be understood within their broader social, political and economic context

66

The research revealed a wealth of in-depth information relating to the first hand experiences of graziers. For example, •

environmental sustainability and farm economic viability were viewed as being inter-related—you cannot have one without the other

•

many graziers challenged scientific knowledge regarding the condition of the environment and believed that environmental problems had been exaggerated

•

government regulations, particularly relating to vegetation management, were cited as ‘anti-producer’, with many graziers losing confidence with governments and the willingness to cooperate with them

•

graziers felt pressured to continue to produce more with less as commodity prices were subject to global market forces

•

difficulties in earning a living from the land had forced landholders to seek ways to increase production—this often included politically unpopular practices such as clearing more trees or overgrazing land

•

a small number of graziers have changed to ‘cell grazing’ to better utilise environment resources; cell grazing works on an intensive, rotational system which allows pastures to rest and replenish

•

some graziers who had trialled innovative land management practices experienced negative comments from others, suggesting that landholders may also need a level of resilience to challenge traditional pastoral land management practices

An understanding of the factors that hinder or facilitate sustainable natural resource management can contribute to the development of strategies to engage with landholders in a meaningful way to manage the environment sustainably. It is important to understanding that individuals make decisions about land management in production-based enterprises in the context of social factors such as the global political economy, a shared culture of knowledge, ‘meaning’ and tradition. This approach acknowledges that there are a number of external constraints that lock landholders into a treadmill of production that is not socially, economically or environmentally viable in the long term. These external constraints include the degree of public underwriting afforded to international competitors in the form of agricultural subsidies, the increased cost of inputs compared with decreasing prices for agricultural and pastoral commodities and the perceived effect of government policies and regulations relating to vegetation management and property management.


It is important to take a critical approach to this issue, not merely in terms of questioning the land management practices of groups of individuals, but in terms of understanding the broader neo-liberal framework of governance within which pastoralism, and indeed agriculture, is enacted. Contact details

Names: Ms Carol Richards, Professor Geoffrey Lawrence, Dr Lynda Cheshire Address: School Social Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Q 4072 Phone: (07) 3365 2839 Fax: (07) 3354 1544 Email: [email protected]


This research was made possible through an Australian Research Council Linkage grant and the support of the industry partner – the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The graziers of Central Queensland are sincerely thanked for their candid insights into primary production and natural resource management.

Cary, J. Webb, T., and Barr, N. (2002). Understanding Landholders' Capacity to Change to Sustainable Practices. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences, Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry - Australia. Dryzek, J. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, I., and Lawrence, G. (2001). A Future for Regional Australia: Escaping Global Misfortune. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

67

Research Projects

Further Reading


Globalising and industrialising agriculture: Big companies, local farmers and saving the soil Roy Rickson and David Burch Who is responsible for on-farm resource conservation and management?

Research Projects

Researchers spoke to farmers as well as managers and executives in largescale transnational food processing companies

This research focuses on two critical dimensions of natural resource management and conservation which bear on the issue of sustainability in agricultural production. The first involves recognition that the farmer is no longer the sole decision-maker regarding the use of natural resources in agriculture. Rather, there is a complex structure which includes corporations and government agencies. Secondly, if resource-use decisions are now diffused among numerous ‘stakeholders’, then who is responsible for formulating and implementing ‘best practice’ strategies for sustainable agriculture? How should responsibility be shared, which would include the economic costs of change? In other words, the responsibility for resource conservation and management decisions must be linked to resource-use decisions, and be diffused throughout the complex framework that characterises modern agriculture. New structures are needed in order to introduce best practice policies that will ensure that all stakeholders share the responsibility for the integration of production with conservation. The study was part of a long-term research program where research data were derived from personal interviews with managers and executives in large-scale transnational food processing companies. Companies, in all cases, were contracting with local farmers for produce. The study was cross-cultural in nature, with research also being conducted in Thailand and New Zealand. Farm men and women were also interviewed in Queensland and Tasmania. Secondary data on transnational investment in Australian agriculture were gathered from public and company public records and other published sources.

Corporations are also resource use decisionmakers and could play a role in farm conservation

68

It was found that under production contracts, farm land ownership is gradually separating from the power of farmers to make decisions about either production or conservation on their own. This is most characteristic of vegetable production under contract. In addition the ability of farmers to balance production and conservation on their farms, directly depends upon how committed their corporate partners are to farm resource conservation. Their partners include transnational food processors and increasingly retailers such as fast food restaurants and supermarkets.


On the ground application of research findings

Any analysis of farm decision-making about resource conservation on their land will find that the kind of relationships that farmers have with contractors, suppliers and others, directly affects their ability to combine farm production and resource conservation. Therefore, the environmental policies of corporate food processors, retailers (McDonalds for example), supermarkets, professional harvesters and others, considerably influence farmer decision-making. Responsibility for farmland conservation therefore includes many more actors than the individual farmer and farm family.

Wider applicability of research findings

The farmer is still an important agent in resource decisions, but s/he is not the only such agent. Farm decisions are affected by the interests of a number of powerful actors who, individually and together, promote certain types of farmer behaviour and constrain others. Therefore, when we consider farm land degradation, we have to ask ‘who are the principal actors?’, ‘how are they related?’, and ‘how does their behaviour affect farm resource use?’ The answers to these questions then lead on to the second aspect of our research, ‘what are the prospects of integrating production and conservation structures throughout the production system?’ Diffusion of responsibility and development of effective policy requires collaboration between farmers and those they work with to produce food and fibre. There must be a sharing of power and responsibility so that those involved can together promote production and conservation goals. We believe that such structures are emerging, and putting into place new standards and procedures for resource use and conservation.

Contact details

Name: Professor Roy E. Rickson Address: Australian School of Environmental Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Q 4111 Phone: (07) 3875 7516 Email: [email protected]


Co-Investigator: Professor David Burch, School of Science, Griffith University, Nathan, Q 4111 Research funded by Australian Research Council, Land and Water Australia, Griffith University Research Grants (ARC Small).

69

Research Projects

If the farmer’s influential partners are culturally and structurally committed to resource conservation and sustainability, rather than just resource exploitation, then the collaborative structure of decision-making and resource management can be a significant force for conservation. The evidence is that such structures are capable of being established, and are providing useful indicators of the emerging parameters of international best practice.


Further Reading Burch, D. and Goss, J. (1999). Global Sourcing and Retail Chains: Shifting Relationships of Production in Australian Agri-foods, in ‘Antipodean Visions: The Dynamics of Agri-food Restructuring in Australia and New Zealand’, a special edition of Rural Sociology, (edited by Burch, D., Goss, J., Lawrence, G. and Rickson, R.), 64 (2), 334–351. Burch, D., Lyons, K. and Lawrence, G. (2001). What Do We Mean by Green? Consumers, Agriculture and the Food Industry. In: Lockie, S. and Pritchard, W. (eds.) Consuming Foods, Sustaining Environments, Australian Academic Press, Brisbane. Burch, D. and Rickson, R.E. (2001). Industrialised Agriculture: Agribusiness, InputDependency and Vertical Integration, in Rurality Bites: The Changes Sweeping Rural Australia and Dividing the Nation, S. Lockie and L. Bourke (eds.), Pluto Press: Sydney



Farm men and women’s responses to restructuring of the Australian dairy and vegetable industries and issues of sustainability Roy Rickson, David Burch, Sally Rickson Do farm men and women respond differently to land degradation on their properties? Farm level responses are critical to sustainable production and research shows that farm women are assuming an ever more important role in conservation decisions. There are several dimensions of our long-term research program, but two are mentioned here because of their policy significance. One is that farm men systematically underestimate the occurrence of land degradation on their own properties even though seeing it everywhere else, on neighboring farms, in rural communities and in the nation. Secondly, farm men and women make decisions about resource conservation in the context of broader problems they are facing: deregulation, cost/price squeeze on their produce and what they see as the declining power and influence of present day farmers where international companies dominate food processing and retailing. They respond to sustainability issues on their farm, community and nation in this context. Researchers examined how men and women viewed natural resource sustainability

Our primary focus was on how farm men and women saw and responded to issues of natural resource sustainability on their farms and in their communities. Intensive interviews, of farm men and women focus groups, postal surveys (return rates averaged 72% over a number of different studies), secondary data on changes in farm structure and interviews with selected managers of transnational food processors and retailers provided primary sources of data. The research also includes a longitudinal component with a number of individual studies spanning a 15-year period.

Farmers often underestimate the occurrence of land degradation on their own properties

Key findings include that farmers systematically underestimate the occurrence of erosion or general land degradation on their own properties. This finding from the first research project we conducted has been confirmed by other studies throughout Australia and the United States. Farmers do not respond in this way out of ignorance, but due to the fact that admitting there is extensive erosion on their land is personally and economically threatening to them. Farm women see sustainability issues in the context of broader changes. Participation is important to them to protect their families, rural community and themselves.

71

Research Projects

Women have an increasingly important role in conservation at the farm level


They say that: ‘Governments are pushing back more and more on communities who are into self-help and all these things. But the activist people that do it are getting smaller and smaller and smaller—and burnt out and very tired’.

We have no voice— OR power! What’s the bloody use? Farmers feel they are losing influence and not being heard

When asked whether there were some representative(s) for their positions or if there were some kind of representative council they replied, ‘There is no voice there’. More fully they see that ‘We have no united voice’. One influential woman said, ‘Let me sum things up. We have no voice---OR power—so what is the bloody use’.

Research Projects

Increasingly policies and programs on land degradation attempt to involve farm owners and operators. Responses of farm men and women suggest that they are dubious about program effectiveness. They are concerned that government resource managers are not listening to them. That government people have a ‘single-eyed’ focus on resource issues and do not understand the complex and difficult situations in which farmers now find themselves. Farmers feel they are losing influence, are being left to fend for themselves and that when resource managers work with them, often, according to farmers, they respect neither their knowledge nor experience as farmers.

Sustainability on the farm should be considered within the context of broader social, political and economic issues

It is important to understand that farmers respond to natural resource issues on the basis of how they see the future of their farms, their families and the rural community. It is clear from our research that natural resource management at the farm and community level has to be approached with the increasing intensity and extensiveness of structural changes in agriculture in mind.

Contact details

Name: Professor Roy E. Rickson Address: Australian School of Environmental, Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Q 4111 Phone: (07) 3875 7516 Email: [email protected]


Co-Investigators: Professor David Burch, School of Science and Dr Sarah Tufts Rickson, School of Arts, Media and Culture, both of Griffith University Australian Research Council Land and Water Australia National Soil Conservation Program/Griffith University Grants (Australian Research Council, small grants)

72


Further Reading Rickson, S.T., Rickson R. and Burch, D. (under review). “Rural women are stronger”: Dimensions of control and agency of local Australian producers in agrifood systems. In: Resistance and Change in Contemporary Agriculture and Food: Transformative Politics or Symbolic Consumption? Rickson, S.T., Rickson R. and Burch, D. (2001). Quality assurance, deregulation and participation in policy making: Farm women's perceptions from the field. Rural Society, 11 (3), 223–238. Rickson, S.T. and Daniels P.L. (1999). Rural women and decision making: Gender and resource management during rural restructuring. Rural Sociology, 64 (2), 234–251.

Research Projects

Rickson, S.T., Rickson R.E. and Burch, D. (1998). You can’t keep flogging your ground all the time to try and make more money: The dilemmas of farm women and families under contract. In: M. Alexander, S. Harding, P. Harrison, G. Kendall, Z.Skrbis and J. Western (eds), Refashioning Sociology: Responses to a New World Order, Proceedings of The Australian Sociological Association, Brisbane.

73


Supporting the development of cooperative management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Helen Ross, James Innes, Melissa George, Cathy Robinson, Marc Hockings and Arturo Izurieta Indigenous owners and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority comanaging sea country

Indigenous traditional owners have been pressing for cooperative management of their sea country in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area for several years, and the Marine Park Authority has also considered the possibilities at certain periods in its history. Our research is conducted collaboratively with indigenous groups and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). Its fundamental purpose is to promote informed decision-making about co-management. Our first project, conducted on a whole-of-reef scale, aimed:

Research Projects

•

To provide information and relationship-building support to GBRMPA and Indigenous Traditional Owners who wish to be involved in future co-management, in developing processes and structures for cooperative management of areas and natural resources within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

•

To help develop a framework for co-management and other forms of partnership in management of the GBRMPA suited to Indigenous management and potential later participation of other stakeholder groups.

Our second project focuses on regional and local scales and aims: •

To provide information and procedural support for Indigenous Traditional Owners and GBRMPA in developing local and regional level co-management arrangements for area and/or species management, with a focus on informed, adaptive management.

•

To provide a well-researched information base and procedural frameworks to demonstrate how the concepts of adaptive management and co-management can be integrated so as to move towards improved marine environmental management.

The emphasis in both projects is on providing information and supporting mutual learning—and moving towards the best possible design and implementation of comanagement arrangements that respective parties might want to pursue.

74


Co-managed research fosters an inclusive approach to the management of marine resources

Participants in the projects are the Southern Great Barrier Reef Sea Forum, Gooreng Gooreng elders (first project only), Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Balkanu Cape York Development Agency and Ambiilmungu Ngarra Traditional Owners and GBRMPA. The research process focuses on a process of co-managed research: a structure and process through which the indigenous and agency beneficiaries of the research collaborate formally with the researchers in guiding the research, by taking the most important research and resourcing decisions, and interpreting the research information, jointly. This ensures the research is responsive and adaptive towards the prospective co-management parties’ needs for their information, brings their advice and needs to the core of the research design. It also ensures the research procedure works optimally for their interests.

Indigenous participation in the project has been central to this co-managed research process. A part-time indigenous research assistant (a Traditional Owner and NRM practitioner) was employed, and funds were apportioned to indigenous groups to conduct their own smaller projects to further their co-management interests as well as contribute information to the main project. The first project has produced: Knowledge and understanding of sea country, tourism and management solutions were drawn together

1) A ‘key issues’ report, which explains options for comanagement in the GBRMPA and the options advantages. It shows that management of areas (such as regional agreements) and species (e.g. dugong and turtle, fisheries) are options, and that these can be combined. It gives advice towards design processes, including governance issues. 2) A set of case studies produced by three Traditional Owner groups and their supporting organisations. The Gooreng Gooreng elders (Southern Great Barrier Reef) produced a video and report describing their traditional and historical knowledge of their coasts, and interests in sharing management. 3) The Ambiilmungu Ngarra Traditional Owners (Eastern Cape York Peninsula) with Balkanu described their history of relationships with government agencies and their aspirations for sharing management of their sea and land country. Girringun Aboriginal Corporation (Cardwell Hinchinbrook area) documented rates of tourist access to their area and tourism impacts, suggesting management solutions. Together these case studies illustrate some of the contributions Traditional Owner groups can offer within co-management.

75

Research Projects

Co-managing the research had assisted in relationshipbuilding between indigenous people and GBRMPA, and between researchers and users. An important consideration in this has been sensitivity towards indigenous protocols for information handling, mutual respect, and sensitivity towards timelines given the parties’ many other demands.


4) A framework simplifying the design process for comanagement. This identifies nine key aspects requiring design, and promotes the concept of a ‘design space’. Factors that are difficult for either party to alter should form the parameters of the design space, and the parties can concentrate their attention on the wealth of negotiable opportunities lying in the space between.

Research Projects

Adaptive management can be combined with comanagement for a robust, learning and evolutionary approach to developing comanagement

The second project shows how adaptive management can be combined with co-management for a robust, learning and evolutionary approach to developing co-management. It also works through some of the practicalities and realities facing design of co-management and regional and local scales. For instance it has identified the parties as currently having very different starting points (one operational, the other strategic). It examines a recent GBRMPA initiative focusing on management of traditional use of marine resources, suggesting how this could be approached adaptively in a way that addresses cultural heritage issues.

Co-management empowers diverse groups of people

NRM is inherently an activity that must occur with the relevant communities of people who hold rights, interests and or responsibilities for the resources in question. Comanagement as explored through this research offers the opportunity for government, indigenous and potentially other parties to work cooperatively to achieve NRM outcomes that contribute not only to the future sustainability of the resource but also ensure people’s rights, interests and responsibilities for the resources are respected. The findings from the studies will add to the information available concerning joint management of Australian terrestrial parks, particularly offering ways of dealing with the greater complexity that applies on the GBR scale and with the marine park issues. The projects are timely given native title rights and management agreements are being negotiated for land and sea areas and resources within the GBRMPA. The Park has just been rezoned including new regulations to engage in Traditional Marine Resource Use Agreements with Traditional Owner groups.

Co-management can be applied in numerous settings that would benefit from an inclusive approach to natural resource management

76

This research is applicable to any NRM context where indigenous rights and interests need to be considered and where parties are interested in knowing some of the practicalities and realities of working together. Fundamentally it is about exploring the many possibilities that co-management offers for creating the best institutional arrangements for achieving NRM outcomes that enhance the opportunities for empowering communities to determine the future use and management of their natural resources.


Contact details

Name: Professor Helen Ross Address: School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Q 4343. Phone: (07) 5460 1648 Fax: (07) 5460 1324 Email: [email protected] Web links www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/techrept50.htm

www.gbrmpa.gov.au Research Sponsors/partners

Sponsor: CRC Reef Research Team members: James Innes, GBRMPA; Melissa George, Traditional Owner, with Southern Great Barrier Reef Sea Forum and Gooreng Gooreng Elders (first project only), Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation, Ambiilmungu Ngarra Traditional Owners. Second project involves Cathy Robinson, Marc Hockings and Arturo Izurieta, UQ.

George, M., Innes, J. and Ross. H. (2004). Managing sea country together: key issues for developing cooperative management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 50, CRC Reef Research Centre: Townsville Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience 53 (9), 823–832. Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of protected areas. IUCN Cardiff University Best Practice Series, IUCN Cambridge, UK. Innes, J. and Ross H. (2001). Co-managed research as a strategy for informing the development of Indigenous and government management partnerships over the Great Barrier Reef. International Association for the Study of Common Property Inaugural Pacific Regional Meeting, Brisbane, QLD, Available at Digital Library of the Commons http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/documents/dir0/00/00/07/03/index.html. Robinson, C., Ross, H. and Hockings M. (forthcoming) Development of co-management arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: An Adaptive Management Approach. CRC Reef Technical Report.

77

Research Projects

Further Reading


Effective use of incentive mechanisms in regional natural resource management: A scoping study Sarah Simpson and Peter Chudleigh What type of incentives will assist landholders with natural resource management?

An increasing effort is being made by Australian governments to encourage improved land management systems that contribute to desirable natural resource management outcomes. The role of incentives to elicit changes in management is likely to increase in the future and already new incentives are being explored and applied in some jurisdictions. To date, there has been a tendency to focus on single incentives without understanding the potential for using a wider range, or various combinations of incentives. The availability of a mechanism to tailor a suite of incentives to improve relevance at the local level is a significant knowledge gap.

Research Projects

How should incentives be used?

The way that incentives are packaged and/or delivered, and even which type of incentives are offered, will differ according to the context of the problem and location. The social, economic and cultural aspects of the take-up of incentives are often not adequately considered before an incentive is released, yet we know that local and individual abilities to access information, and the take-up of incentives vary enormously due to these factors. The capacity of land managers to understand, access or adopt the incentives on offer may have constrained the benefits that could have been delivered.

Workshop participants pooled their knowledge on incentive schemes

The approach to the scoping study was participatory in that the designers and developers of incentives, as well as representatives of those likely to use incentives in the future, were involved in workshops. First, the study defined relevant issues in the context of past and current policies and their delivery mechanisms associated with natural resource management and identified the lessons learnt to date about these institutional arrangements. Secondly, economic instruments currently in use or suggested for use in NRM were reviewed. Thirdly, implications for NRM arrangements from the delivery of incentives in the human services sector were reviewed.

Nine principles of effective land management incentives have been identified

78

From the workshops, nine principles that will contribute to more effective use of incentives were identified. The principles accommodate community aspirations, social and economic capacity and constraints to adopt proposed arrangements.


A flexible exploratory approach is important

The approach therefore is one of carefully designing arrangements that can be further tested in the field. It is important that the approach is exploratory rather than prescriptive, and designed to gain knowledge about how Australian NRM incentives may be better planned, delivered and supported in the future.

Findings from the research are relevant to a range of regional programs and structures

1.

Recognise the diversity of land managers.

2.

Encourage group ‘brokerage’ and collective responsibility where appropriate.

3.

Clear information about incentives, anticipated outcomes, targets and their applicability should be made available to land managers.

4.

Seek feedback from recipients regarding the delivery of incentives along with institutional arrangements offering flexibility in their administration to ensure local relevance.

5.

Integrate a capacity-building component into incentives to enhance landholders’ technical and management skills where necessary to ensure local actions contribute to regional NRM targets.

6.

Employ an incentives liaison officer who is trusted by the local community.

7.

Ensure that associated professional staff have employment security and professional development opportunities.

8.

Ensure effective coordination of government agencies and regional groups.

9.

Evaluate and monitor incentives and their impact.

The framework for institutional arrangements proposed here is not necessarily confined to being applied in a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAPSWQ) or Natural Heritage Trust context, but assumes that incentives will also be delivered in future under other regional programs and structures. The framework described can support any such changes in future programs or initiatives. The research outcomes are applicable to all regions throughout Australia. In the first instance, it will be particularly useful for those regions currently undertaking their NRM planning through the NAPSWQ process.

79

Research Projects

These nine principles have been designed to guide the design and delivery of incentive mechanisms. Shortened versions of the principles are as follows:


Contact details

Names: Sarah Simpson or Peter Chudleigh Address: Agtrans Research, PO Box 385, Toowong Q 4066 Phone: (07) 3870 4047 Fax: (07) 3371 3381 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.agtrans.com.au


Land & Water Australia Consortium for Integrated Resource Management

Further Reading Binning, C., Young, M. and Cripps. (1999) Beyond Roads, Rates and Rubbish: Opportunities for local government to conserve native vegetation. Research Report 1/99 Environment Australia, Canberra. www.ea.gov.au/land/bushcare/publications/beyond/index.html Chudleigh, P. and Simpson, S. (2003). Arrangements to Enhance Effective Use of Incentive Mechanisms for Regional NRM (AGT13). Land & Water Australia. www.lwa.gov.au/sirp/research_current.asp

Research Projects

James, D. (1997). Environmental incentives: Australian experience with economic instruments for environmental management. Environmental research paper 5, Environment Australia, Canberra. www.ea.gov.au/pcepd/economics/incentives/pubs/incentives.pdf Robinson, J. and Ryan, S. (2002). A review of economic instruments for environmental management in Queensland. CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane. www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/economic_instruments.pdf

80


Humans, water use and resource management Veronica Strang, Sandy Toussaint and Marie Seeman Water is an increasingly vital issue in Australia

Water is an increasingly vital issue in Australia and elsewhere. All human interactions with the land involve water, and all forms of land use are in some way reliant upon water. This dependence means that water is the most important and the most emotive of resources, and therefore central to many conflicts concerned with access to resources and their ownership and management. In Australia, water is also central to some of the most challenging environmental issues, such as the overuse of artesian bores and rivers, salinisation, changing patterns of floods and droughts, pollution and pressures upon native vegetation and aquatic species.

 authors

Understanding the diversity of meanings relating to water use

The study examines river usage in remote, rural/farming and urban areas in the Mitchell River area of Far North Queensland, the Fitzroy River area in the Kimberley region, the Brisbane River area in South Queensland and the Swan River in Western Australia. All of the groups inhabiting and making use of Australia’s river catchments have their own ways of interacting with and managing water resources, and their own perspectives on how this should be done. This diversity has led to some considerable difficulties in achieving a shared understanding of resource issues or agreement between groups on management. Meanwhile, the environmental problems and the anxieties that these engender for individuals, communities, organisations and sectors of government are increasing in intensity. Research in this area has made it clear that ecological problems cannot be tackled successfully without in-depth analyses of the socio-cultural issues involved. While there is considerable research on the ecological aspects there is a lack of detailed analyses of the ‘social’ side of environmental/human interaction.

 authors

To address this lack of knowledge, the researchers will undertake ethnographic investigation on patterns of water use, collect data on cultural meanings attributed to the use and management of water, and explore the links between water and land. Via participant observation methods and interviews, levels of knowledge about water and related environmental issues will also be recorded. Existing data on the demography and ecology of each site will be

81

Research Projects

Under Water: a comparative ethnographic analysis of water use and resource management in Queensland and Western Australia is a three-year Australian Research Council funded anthropological study that examines the social and cultural aspects of how different groups in Australia relate to water resources.


assessed from an anthropological perspective, as will industry, land claim, pastoral and tourism reports. Project findings will include detailed accounts of different groups of water users and their particular relationships with water

The Under Water project is an in-depth ethnographic investigation: it began in mid-2003 and at the time of going to press was reaching its key stages of data collection and analysis. It is anticipated that project findings will include detailed accounts of different groups of water users and their particular relationships with water: their beliefs and values; the meanings they encode in water; their ways of conceptualising aquatic ecosystems and water management; their cognitive, affective and physical interactions with water; and their aspirations and concerns about water resources and the environment. The project will also produce a wider analysis of the interactions of the different groups within the case study areas, and attempt to elucidate the dynamics of the social, economic and political networks through which water management is negotiated and enacted. It will consider avenues for resolving conflicts over water, as well as the effects of policies and legislation, and people’s responses to these.

Research Projects

What might change as a result of this research?

As well as contributing to knowledge about human associations with water, the project will inform policy development and feed into wider debates about water resource management. The findings from the research will be distributed to the groups involved in the study, as well as to academics, policy makers, interest groups and members of the wider society. The local relevance of the work will be enhanced through a series of reports and presentations to the interest groups involved, and to the industry, government and nongovernment organisations responsible for the development and application of policies affecting water resources. A website summarising the research findings and inviting further discussion and debate ensures that the research is accessible and useful for a wide audience.

 authors

82


Contact details

Name: Professor Veronica Strang, Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, Dr Sandy Toussaint & Ms Marie Seeman (PhD student) Anthropology, The University of Western Australia Phone: (08) 9380 3884 Fax: (08) 9380 1062 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Website: www.anthropology.arts.uwa.edu.au/a&s/research/underwater


Under Water is being administered through The University of Western Australia with funding support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant. The project has also received substantial funding support from the Auckland University of Technology.

Further Reading

Toussaint, S., Sullivan, P., Yu, S. and Mularty, Jnr. M. (2001). Water and Fitzroy Valley Indigenous Cultural Values, Kimberley, Western Australia (a preliminary assessment). Final Report for the Water and Rivers Commission, Perth, and the Centre for Anthropological Research at The University of Western Australia. Toussaint, S. (2004). The Anthropology of Water. Ockham's Razor, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio National (May 2004) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1097540.htm

83

Research Projects

Strang, V. (2003). The Meaning of Water. Berg Publishers: Oxford.


Capacity profiling to support industry involvement Bruce Taylor How can landholders’ capacity to move to more sustainable practices be measured?

Occupying 82% of the region’s land area and contributing 60% of the region’s agricultural income earnings, beef cattle production is the largest rural industry in Central Queensland. As a major land user in the region, the pastoral industry needs to play a key role in sustainable natural resource management. The capacity of land managers to move towards more sustainable management practices is an important consideration in planning for and managing natural resources. But what does the picture of capacity for change at the ‘industry’ or regional scale look like? How might it be measured? And how can industry and NRM planners use that picture to develop better strategies for addressing important industry sustainability and viability issues in the region?

Research Projects

Building a picture of existing practice and capacity for change issues for the regional industry, is an important step to supporting the industry in that role (Figure 1). The first step was to identify some of the more useful indicators of capacity for change within the region’s grazing industry, and use these to build an initial capacity overview or regional industry profile. The main ‘groupings’ of indicators included: ♦ Farming experience ♦ Farm finance and viability ♦ Farm families and labour ♦ Group membership ♦ Education and training ♦ Information use and access ♦ Land management practices Graziers and farmers participated in a telephone survey; strategic directions were later identified during a workshop of key participants

This information was gathered largely through a telephone survey of some 276 graziers and 84 grazing/grains producers in the region. Some workshops were then held with grazing industry representatives and NRM planners to identify strategic opportunities and challenges based on the information in the profile. Following the initial drafting of the industry profile, a workshop was held in the Central Highlands, February, 2001 with the key participants and stakeholder groups to identify strategic directions for the CQ pastoral industry that could be supported by information being developed through the industry profile and also involve industry-identified issues and approaches.

84


Some examples of the main messages from the Industry profile included: Management-relevant training Within the period 1996–99 around half of the region’s beef / beef-grains producers had participated in NRM related field days and short courses relating to production or land management. One in every three had participated in property management planning related training in the same period.

Beef producers valued the information obtained through other graziers and field days

Preferred information sources Beef producers placed more importance on ‘other producers’ and ‘field days’ as valuable sources of land management information. Beef-grains producers also place high importance on these sources but also rated ‘technical journals and extension notes’, ‘accountants’ and the ‘internet’ equally highly.

An increased level of pasture monitoring was reported by landholders

Current grazing NRM practices Two-thirds of producers indicated they currently practice ‘pasture monitoring or in-field checking’ or use some form of ‘strategic spelling or time control grazing’. One quarter of beef producers had begun pasture monitoring during the 1990s.

Despite pressures to restructure agriculture, it was found that a large number of properties were small farmer farms

Patterns of industry change By mapping industry adjustment patterns (property consolidation and exit rates) on a shire-by-shire basis it was found that, the industry in different parts of the region was responding differently to adjustment pressures. Despite processes of consolidation in the mid 1990s there will still be a significant part of the regional industry operating as smaller family farms supported by income from sources other than beef production.

Findings from this research will contribute to a strategic direction in human capital development, marketing sustainability and environmental compatibility

Using the main messages and information from the industry profile, three industry-focused briefing papers were developed. These were aligned to strategic directions identified by the industry and NRM planners in the region, including: 1. Human capital development; 2. Marketing sustainability and sustaining markets; and 3. Environmental compatibility. Each of these briefing papers includes: a number of industry-focused strategic options, their related actions and possible options; partners; and information sources that are available for the industry and other stakeholders in addressing these key areas.

The key elements of this research project are transferable to other areas

The approach used in this Signposts for Australian Agriculture project has been used also in the Gippsland region of Victoria with the dairy industry and would be equally useful in other Queensland regions with the grazing industry or other key regional industries. From

85

Research Projects

Producers reported a low uptake in marketing and personal and professional development


the larger group of capacity indicators, ones that are valid and meaningful to particular industries and regions can be selected and applied to defined industry or regional NRM objectives. Contact details

Name: Bruce Taylor (CSIRO) Address: Sustainable Ecosystems, 306 Carmody Rd St Lucia, Q 4067 Phone: (07) 3214 2638 Fax: (07) 3214 2308 Email: [email protected]


The research formed part of the Theme 6 program of the National Land and Water Resources Audit’s Signposts for Australian Agriculture project. The main research partners included Central Queensland University, CSIRO, Agforce Central Qld, Fitzroy Basin Association, CHRRUPP and Qld Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Further Reading

Research Projects

Lockie, S., Lawrence, G., Dale, A. and Taylor, B. (2002). Capacity for Change: Testing a model for the inclusion of social indicators in ‘Australia's National Land and Water Resources Audit’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (6), 813–826. Macgregor, C. (2003). Working towards sustainability in small towns: perspectives from northern Australia, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 2 (4), 342–363. NLWRA (2003). Australians and Natural Resource Management 2002. National Theme 6 Report, National land and Water Resource Audit, Canberra. www.audit.ea.gov.au/ANRA/people/docs/national/anrm_report/anrm_contents.cfm Taylor, B. and Jones, M. (2000). Fitzroy Audit Summary Report 2000. Theme 6 Fitzroy Implementation project, National Land and Water Resources Audit. Department of Natural Resources QLD, Central Queensland University and CSIRO, Brisbane. www.centralhighlands.com.au/CHRRUP/Issues/

86


Industry Input and participation at each step • Profile content • Industry workshop • Align and inform research and industry priorities

Regional Beef Industry Profile • Capacity for change (social and economic information) • Condition of the grazing resource base and risks

Identify Key Challenges and Opportunities for regional industry

Develop Strategic responses to Challenges and Opportunities

Industry Briefing papers on key industry viability and resource issues containing strategic responses

Implementation Pathways

Build Industry Profile and Briefing Papers into industry planning & policy development processes

Identify industrycommunity-govt partnership projects on shared priorities and resources

Catchment and industry scale monitoring and reporting tools (indicators)

Fig 1: Existing practices, and capacity for change in the beef industry

87

Research Projects

Process/stakeholders Signposts Team AGFORCE CQ CHRRUPP Pastoral/grains Fitzroy Basin Assn – ICM

Information and data Inputs Land use, Land systems and erosion risk mapping; Water quality and catchment health information Regional producer surveys of capacity (social and economic information) and management practices


Community-based resource planning: Studies from northern Australia and Zimbabwe Robin Thwaites and Jennifer Carter Ecosystem planning from the grass roots level

Woodland ecosystems in tropical savannas are experiencing increased pressures from changing demographic structures, and a need for woodland resources. Zimbabwe and northern Australia contain similar woodland environments in remote areas that are home to indigenous groups and farmers who desire the use of woodlands resources for both subsistence and commercial purposes. To date land use planning in these localities has been dominantly centralised and ‘top-down’.

Research Projects

Many land use plans have not been well operationalised, largely because of a lack of balance by ‘bottom-up’ approaches to planning that maximise public participation in the process as well as more flexible and dynamic land use plans. This research was designed to conceptualise and apply knowledge from different disciplines toward participatory and process-based planning for the use of woodland resources. The research developed and trialed a set of processes and tools that could be used for decision-making and more effective community-based planning for sustainable resource management in tropical woodlands. A multifaceted approach brought together knowledge from the social and biophysical sciences

A multidisciplinary resource use planning approach was conceptualised for the research project, and comprised three disciplinary fields: participatory planning, agroecosystems modelling and decision support. Within these fields, four sub-projects were defined: • •

• •

Data integration and interpretation, linking biophysical and social sciences information. Communication and decision support, including interpreting and transferring knowledge, modelling communication flows, and developing decisionmaking model tools. Support implementation of the planning framework, based on a participatory process and needs-based training. Evaluation and monitoring, based on community performance indicators and review workshops between countries.

Disciplinary fields and sub-projects were integrated within a framework of processes and tools, and implemented using participatory action research. The framework was adapted to the unique circumstances of the two countries, and various models and tools applied at different stages of the process. An evaluation of the process and tools underpinned recommendations for future resource use planning.

88


Application of locally relevant strategies

It was found that: • • • •

relationship-building activities and respect for local knowledge and land management strategies are needed; visual tools and non-technical information are important; utilisation of existing communication and governance structures of local communities during planning processes is necessary; and roles and procedures of personnel in multi-partner planning initiatives should be clearly articulated.

Knowledge generated from this research can be used by the community groups as well as planners, policy and decision makers

Given that this research tapped into grass roots level empowerment and decision-making, the knowledge generated from this research will have direct relevance to those interested or involved in ecosystem planning processes from the bottom-up. Such information is useful to community groups, non-government organisations, regional bodies and government-based planners and decision-makers. These initial planning steps set directions for various community groups. Opportunities for successful future management of the woodlands are maximised, because community participation can foster local ownership, successful implementation, broader alternatives and solutions, and eventual decreases in administrative costs. In particular, the project designed a useful process and tools for maximising community participation in planning initiatives in cross-cultural contexts, where cultural mores and protocols need to be understood and catered for within project design and implementation.

This research is useful for resource use planning with indigenous groups

This research is particularly useful to community-based planning with Indigenous groups in other regions in Australia, and also in international settings.

Contact details

Name: Dr Robin Thwaites Address: Environmental Science, School of Natural Resource Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Q 4001 Phone: (07) 3864 2400 Fax: (07) 3864 1535 Email: [email protected]

89

Research Projects

Adaptive management based on structured learning processes, whereby participants both trial and learn about new initiatives, will be a useful approach for future planning processes. Also necessary, is a broad focus on economic, social, cultural and legislative factors that may facilitate or impede community-based planning initiatives.


Name: Dr Jennifer Carter Address: Environmental & Planning Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, DC, Q 4558 Phone: (07) 5459 4496 Fax: (07) 5430 2885 Email: [email protected] Research Sponsors/partners

This project was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), and secured by the Consortium for Integrated Resource Management (CIRM). Research partners include the University of Queensland, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the University of Zimbabwe, AGRITEX and CAMPFIRE.

Further Reading

Research Projects

Carter, J., Thwaites, R., Lawrence, P. and Norman P. (2004). Multi-disciplinary resource planning: participation, agroecology and decision support. In: Thwaites, R.N. and Carter, J.(eds),Community-based Resource Planning: Studies from Zimbabwe and Northern Australia. ACIAR Monograph - Chapter 3, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra. Lawrence P., Carter J., Frost P., Thwaites R. and Norman, P. (2004). Participatory resource use planning in Zimbabwe. In: Thwaites, R.N. and Carter, J. (eds), Community-based Resource Planning: Studies from Zimbabwe and Northern Australia. ACIAR Monograph Chapter 4, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra. Carter, J., Ngallametta J, and Norman P. (2004). Participatory resource-use planning in Northern Australia. In: Thwaites, R.N. and Carter, J. (eds), Community-based Resource Planning: Studies from Zimbabwe and Northern Australia. ACIAR Monograph - Chapter 5, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra. Norman, P., Thwaites, R.N., Lawrence, P. and Carter, J. (2004). Planning space - a conceptual framework of community-based resource use planning. In: Thwaites, R.N. and Carter, J. (eds), Community-based Resource Planning: Studies from Zimbabwe and Northern Australia. ACIAR Monograph - Chapter 8, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra.

90


The Coastal CRC’s Citizen Science toolbox: Bridging the gap between scientists, decision-makers and the community James Whelan Innovative strategies to engage communities in coastal zone research and management

Bridging the gap between the community, scientists, planners and other decision-makers can contribute to a sense of shared ownership of problems and solutions, and build capacity for sustainable institutions and responsible environmental management.

The project was based on the CRC’s ethos of promoting open and meaningful public participation in research, planning and decision-making concerning the future of the coastal zone as a necessary prerequisite to maintaining the social, economic and ecological health of this high-growth area. Ends and means: enhancing collaborative environmental management through collaborative research strategies

In the period 2000–2003, the CRC’s Citizen Science research group undertook a range of applied and pure research activities, reviewing contemporary literature relating to environmental governance and deliberative democracy to develop a sound theoretical foundation. These concepts were concurrently examined in applied settings in catchments across Australia. Citizen Science researchers including five PhD students generated insights through qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods including participant observation, in-depth interviews, surveys and questionnaires. Their studies focused on community-initiated and collaborative research, environmental volunteerism, environmental communication, natural resource management partnerships, stakeholder analysis, community profiling, and community engagement practices and principles. These projects combined depth and breadth by capturing community members’ perspectives and experiences while providing a comparison across the CRC’s range of study areas: urban, rural, coastal and inland. The projects maintained a high level of dialogue between researchers and participants through seminars, think-tanks and the establishment of the ‘Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management’ (Humdimmers) research discussion group.

91

Research Projects

The Citizen Science research theme aims to enhance community involvement and empowerment in coastal zone research and governance arrangements. The theme is one of five that integrate the research projects supported by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management.


The research significantly contributes to the growing body of research and practice of deliberative environmental democracy

The signature achievement of the research theme is the online Citizen Science Toolbox*, a searchable database of 63 community engagement strategies. Each strategy is described in detail to inform community groups, researchers and environmental agencies. Many are illustrated through recent case studies that graphically portray the unique strengths, weaknesses and implications of tools such as citizens’ juries, expert panels and participant observation. Other key Citizen Science research outputs include: • an annotated bibliography of over 500 print and on-line Citizen Science references; • articles, conference papers and other publications by Citizen Science researchers; and • tailored training programs and resources for coastal zone stakeholders and agencies.

Adoption and application: Practical tools for important work

Research Projects

While the Toolbox focuses on coastal and catchment environments, the principles and tools can be used in any geographical area for a diversity of issues. The tools and resources are presented in a user-friendly and accessible format and are based on both a sound theoretical foundation and practical experience. The tools enable researchers, community members and government organisations to efficiently and effectively encourage and enable participation in decision-making processes. Since its launch in late 2003, the Toolbox has been extensively and internationally reviewed. It has been enthusiastically adopted by government and community agencies in several countries and has informed training programs with scientists and regulatory agencies.

Delivering knowledge and tools for government, industry and community groups

A key innovative feature of the Toolbox is that it provides a one-stop shop for interactive user-specified access to detailed information concerning community engagement strategies. The Toolbox offers more detail and a more complete listing of tools than other sources, as well as an analysis of the various tools’ strengths and weaknesses the functionality of the Toolbox provides resources and strategies required to plan, conduct and evaluate participatory decision-making approaches. This utility is enhanced by the inclusion of a ‘chooser’ function that helps users choose the appropriate mix of community engagement tools for a particular issue or objectives, set of stakeholders, or geographic location. The chooser is a simple decision support system that enables stakeholders to specify parameters such as: (a) the purpose of consultation; (b) budget; (c) size of target group; (d) expertise available; (e) timeframe; (f) type of organisation to be engaged (ie. industry, government, community); (g) desired level of participation; (h) number of people available to undertake engagement; and (i) preference for traditional or innovative approaches. Toolbox users can also search for tools alphabetically. Each week a different tool is highlighted on the web site.

92


Future research

The second round of Citizen Science research projects (2003– 2006) focuses attention on key themes and opportunities identified during the development of the Toolbox. CRC researchers in Central Queensland seek to understand and institutionalise arrangements to foster adaptive management and enhance community–industry partnerships. In south-east Queensland, Citizen Science researchers are examining the new regional governance arrangements established by the Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan for Water Quality and Salinity. Their interviews, observation and action research aims to promote social learning and highlight factors influencing the collaboration of grassroots community groups in these new NRM institutions.

Contact details

Name: Dr James Whelan Address: Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith, University, Nathan, Q 4111 Phone: (07) 3875 7457 Fax: (07) 3875 7459 Email: [email protected] Website: www.coastal.crc.org.au/toolbox/index.asp

The Citizen Science Toolbox was a Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management (Coastal CRC) project and was an initiative of Professor John Fien. It was developed by Dr Tim Smith, with the assistance of Neil Lazarow, Judith Pembleton, K erry Rosenthal, Don Alcock, Dr Dana Thomsen, K elly Hudson, Jim Gleeson, Dr Peter Oliver, Dr Margaret Gooch, Clayton White, B ronwyn Powell, Dr James Whelan, Professor Roy Rickson, Rowan Eisner, Christina Dwyer, and Helena Malawkin. Photograph copyright: Neil Lazarow and James Whelan

Further Reading Duane, T.P. (1997). Community Participation in Ecosystem Management. Ecology Law Quarterly 24, 771–797. Oliver, P. and Whelan, J. (2003). Insiders and outsiders: participatory decision-making and environmental advocacy. International River Symposium Conference Proceedings, www.riverfestival.com.au/2003/content/papers2003Index.htm Whelan, J. and Oliver, P. (2004). Regional Community-Based Planning: the challenge of participatory environmental governance. www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/Whelan_Oliver_ISDR.pdf

93

Research Projects





Part B PhD studies

(arranged alphabetically by author)

The choice between rural living and agriculture: Implications for land use and subdivision policy Geoff Anstey (The University of Queensland) Host involvement in Australian wildlife-based tourism: Implications for sustainability Georgette Leah Burns (Griffith University) A socio-legal analysis of new forms of regulation in the Australian Mining Industry Petrina Czislowski (University of Queensland) Understanding new forms of regional governance in Australia: A Central Queensland case study Jo-Anne Everingham (The University of Queensland) Communicating the coast: Discursive avenues to promote local participation in coastal and marine management Kerrie Foxwell (Griffith University)

PhD Studies

Voices of the volunteers: An exploration of the influences that volunteer experiences have on the resilience and sustainability of catchment groups in coastal Queensland Margaret Gooch (Griffith University) Developing a participatory evaluation framework to assess progress towards comanagement of protected areas in the Great Barrier Reef Arturo Izurieta Murky waters? Science, politics and environmental decision-making in the Brisbane River dredging dispute Emma Jaku (Griffith University) Towards triple-loop negotiation: Informing NRM extension in Queensland and Australia Greg Leach (Wageningen University) Predicting social resilience in Queensland’s commercial fishing industry Nadine Marshall (James Cook University) Graziers’ perceptions of sustainable development and what that means for policy Jenny Moffat (The University of Queensland) Social harmony in water quality strategies: Community relations in catchment management and waterways activities Denny Nash (University of the Sunshine Coast) Communication and Cooperative Research Centres: A social identity perspective Michelle Reidlinger (The University of Queensland)

95


Community-based research: An opportunity for collaboration and social change Dana Thomsen (completed; Griffith University) Linking regional and property scales for improved contributions to broadscale natural resource management outcomes Adele Vagg (The University of Queensland) Creeks, convention and capital: Social dimensions of landscape management Angela Wardell-Johnson (Griffith University) Past, present and future: Sustainable environmental management of legacy open cut coal mines, Ipswich, Queensland Rhys Worrall (The University of Queensland)

PhD Studies 96


The choice between rural living and agriculture: Implications for land use and subdivision policy Geoff Anstey (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Professor Geoff McDonald (CSIRO); Dr Mal Wegener (UQ); Rodney Beard (UQ) Funding: Augmentative funding for some research expenses from CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production Other resources: Major assistance with data: Bundaberg Sugar; Isis Central Mill; Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation; CSIRO; Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations ___________________________________________________________

This research contributes to answers to that question by statistically analysing the relationship between observed land use and land attributes, including those relating to subdivision policy. Data has been collected through: an initial survey of Queensland sugar mills; accessing various government and industry databases including sales and valuation, irrigation, and subdivision and sugarcane assignment history; digital geographic information including the cadastre, land use, land suitability and vegetation cover; aerial photographs; field inspections. This research expects to find (hypotheses) that: The most influential factor in deciding land use is its agricultural productive potential. Allotments of varying sizes are converted to small holdings, but those with more land suitable for intensive cropping are less likely to be converted. The presence of a house contributes significantly to the land use choice of rural living. Greater expectations of future urban development tend to discourage unplanned rural living. Localities with more appealing landscapes attract more rural living settlement. The research findings have implications for rural land use and subdivision policy, for example, minimum permitted allotment sizes in rural areas and the right to have a house on that land. Contact details: [email protected]

97

PhD Studies

This research sought to gain a greater understanding of the attributes of rural land that contribute to choices to use it primarily for rural living rather than agriculture. The question has importance because there is common land use policy in many parts of Australia and the United States for all rural allotments to have the right for a house and there is a need to determine whether the adverse effects of this policy warrant change.


Host involvement in Australian wildlife-based tourism: Implications for sustainability Georgette Leah Burns (Griffith University)

Supervisors/Advisors: University

Dr Jim Macbeth and Dr Sue Moore, Murdoch

The aim of this thesis is to identify and describe factors that influence the sustainability of wildlife-based tourism from the social and cultural perspectives of the local (host) communities involved. Included in this is a need to examine issues relating to local participation and benefits in wildlife-based tourism, interaction of local people with wildlife, and values and ethics underlying the dominant perception of sustainability. This thesis contributes to the body of literature on the anthropology of tourism, environmental anthropology and wildlife tourism; and for wildlife-tourism scholars, researchers, planners and managers the significance lies in a contribution to a greater understanding of the host community. For other disciplines, discussion of the contested notions of hosts and community; sustainability will be equally important.

PhD Studies

Key issues relating to the participation of local community members in wildlife tourism activities will be identified. The benefits and disadvantages, both actual and perceived, of such participation will be assessed in order to determine the role of community participation in the sustainability of wildlife tourism. Initial research was based primarily on the compilation and analysis of existing research that has been undertaken in both an Australian and international context. Primary data was then collected during fieldwork at two case study sites (Fraser Island in QLD and Penguin Island in WA) by way of participant observation, interviews, and focus groups. It is anticipated that this thesis will provide timely and valuable insights into how wildlife-based tourism in Australia can continue in a sustainable framework that is suitable for the wildlife, the tourists, and the host/local community. It is expected that the findings will be immediately applicable to the two case study contexts, and more widely useful for the variety of stakeholders involved in wildlife tourism around Australia. Contact details: [email protected]

98


A socio-legal analysis of new forms of regulation in the Australian Mining Industry Petrina Czislowski (University of Queensland) Supervisors/Advisors: Professor David Brereton of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Professor Geoff Lawrence of the School of Social Science and Dr Fiona Solomon of CSIRO Funding: CSIRO (Minerals) and CSIRO (Mining and Exploration), and supervisory team

The thesis involves a socio-legal analysis of new forms of non-state regulation of environmental and social performance in the Australian Mining Industry. The aim is to explore the complexities of how and why they have emerged, what is shaping them, and what they seek to achieve. The research focuses on three examples of non-state regulation: The Mining Certification Evaluation Project (a joint research and development venture between the World Wildlife Fund and industry);

•

The Australian Minerals Industry Operation Framework for Sustainable Development Implementation which is currently under development; and

•

A corporation’s internal management system.

PhD Studies

•

The concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘trust’ constitute two of the main guiding principles of this research. Interviews have been conducted with stakeholders from the mining sector and non-government organisations, including corporate elites from the mining industry in both Australia and America. The research will contribute to a greater understanding of the interrelationships among government, industry and civil society in the context of regulation and governance at both local and global level. Contact details: [email protected]

99


Understanding new forms of regional governance in Australia: A Central Queensland case study Jo-Anne Everingham (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Supervised by Prof G. Lawrence (UQ), Dr L. Cheshire (UQ) and industry partner advisor Kate Rose at Central Queensland A New Millennium, Rockhampton Funding: ARC project Industry partner—Qld Dept of Local Government and Planning

This research explores the discourses, forms and outcomes of recent examples of regional governance in Queensland to: • Identify the characteristics and spatial focus of regional governance in Queensland and compare it with other approaches • Reveal the institutional form of regional governance and how state and nonstate institutions engage in processes of governing • Assess the potential of such forms of regional governance to deliver sustainable development in non-metropolitan Queensland.

PhD Studies

Sociologists are aware of changes that are interacting to form a new society. These include transformation of state power (transformations in the institutions and also in the scale and scope of governing), a new economy, and a new environmental consciousness. This new governance regime is seen in natural resource management where regional bodies incorporating both state and nonstate players have key roles in environmental planning and management. This means that an enhanced understanding of the systems currently in the ascendancy is vital. An outcome of the research will be to provide the Department of Local Government and Planning with data about the practical impact of distinctive aspects of the process. As regional plans relate to a broad policy framework, these lessons will be valuable to other planning and management exercises similarly prioritising sustainability and regional involvement. Data will be collected through a case study of the regional planning process called CQ A New Millennium through documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews with approximately 40 people involved in or observing the process. An outcome of the project will be to identify the value (or otherwise) of: the attempt to involve a broad cross-section of the region’s population in identifying and articulating regional priorities; the attempt to foster collaboration within, between and beyond various levels of government; and the attempt to establish a ‘triple bottom line’ perspective that considers equally the social, economic and environmental implications of potential courses of development. A further outcome sought will be to refine a model of empowered participatory governance. The application of the research will be in theoretical and practical suggestions emerging for altered structures and practices of governing that will better serve the interests of regional citizens and that will contribute to economically, ecologically and socially sustainable development. Contact details: [email protected]

100


Communicating the coast: Discursive avenues to promote local participation in coastal and marine management Kerrie Foxwell (Griffith University)

Supervisors/advisors: Assoc. Prof. Michael Meadows; Dr Susan Forde; Dr Patrick Hughes of Griffith University

The project uses a combination of methods for data collection, including: discourse analysis of policy documents; open-ended surveys of Coastcare groups; focus group discussions; interviews with key Coastcare personnel and State Assessment Panel members. Data has been analysed using the statistical package SPSS while the more significant qualitative data has been analysed using NVivo (qualitative research software). This research offers a different way of consulting and enlisting the participation of communities, and encourages researchers and policy makers to critically assess their own role in embracing or alienating the communities they seek to enlist. There is a serious lack of qualitative data on Coastcare groups and their responses to the program and coastal management generally. For this reason alone the research is useful. Previous Coastcare evaluation has assessed the program’s performance within the framework of environmental science based outcomes or policy outcomes. This research prioritises the perceptions of communities and their responses to the coast and coastal policy issues and as such, provides fresh insight into the program. Contact details: [email protected]

101

PhD Studies

The research explores the relations between communities, governments and scientists and the effect of these relations on community participation policies. This research addresses topical issues in environmental policy literature surrounding community participation such as ‘power-sharing’ and ‘meaningful participation’. The project aims to offer avenues for policy makers to better engage with these communities. This cannot be achieved without a more detailed understanding of coastal communities. An understanding of local and policymatrix groups underpins the participation of the coastal communities. This is critical if we are to secure the opportunities presented by local management initiatives supported by global enthusiasm for Integrated Catchment Management (ICM).


Voices of the volunteers: An exploration of the influences that volunteer experiences have on the resilience and sustainability of catchment groups in coastal Queensland Margaret Gooch (Griffith University)

Supervisors/ Advisors: Professor John Fien, (AES, GU) Dr Jeni Warburton (Social Work, UQ); Professor Roy Rickson (AES, GU) Funding: Fully funded scholarship from the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Catchment Hydrology

The purpose of the research was to gain a rich understanding of the experiences of volunteers in catchment care groups, and to identify the ways in which these experiences positively influence stewardship groups. By analysing volunteer experiences certain questions may be answered, such as: What benefits accrue to the volunteers, their groups and to local natural resources? What motivates catchment volunteers? How might people be encouraged to join stewardship groups, and how might they be encouraged to keep coming back? What barriers do volunteers face? What actions do volunteers undertake to overcome problems and tackle new issues?

PhD Studies

Overcoming problems and dealing successfully with new issues as they arise may be termed ‘resilience’. Questions for research arise, including: Is there resilience in every person, and every social group? With respect to stewardship groups, do some recover from and overcome problems better than others? Are there mechanisms or processes that enhance resilience in stewardship groups? Through a process of comparing and contrasting themes in the case study transcriptions, six focal areas emerged relating to catchment volunteering. The participants were identified as looking for: seeking and maintaining balance, developing/ maintaining an identity, empowerment, learning, networking, and whether participation was sustainable. This research demonstrates the importance of keeping a balanced perspective on volunteering—a balance between things such as personal goals and organisational goals; between dedication to an unpaid vocation and family life; and between social benefits and environmental benefits. Outputs from this research include a typology of participation based on volunteer experiences; a table describing forms of empowerment in catchment volunteering; a table listing drivers for catchment volunteers; an illustration of Holling and Gunderson’s adaptive cycle as it applies to stewardship groups; a table of factors that enhance the resilience and sustainability of stewardship groups; a model of the relationship between external pressures and resilient, sustainable stewardship groups; and guidelines for developing resilient sustainable stewardship groups. These outcomes contribute to an understanding of individual, group and community level responses to environmental issues; and how resilience can be developed in volunteers and stewardship groups and programs. Contact details: [email protected]

102


Developing a participatory evaluation framework to assess progress towards co-management of protected areas in the Great Barrier Reef Arturo Izurieta (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Dr Marc Hockings, University of Queensland; Prof. Helen Ross, University of Queensland Sponsors: This project is linked to the CRC Reef Co-management Projects

Although recommendations about increasing community participation (including indigenous people) in management of Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites have been broadly documented worldwide, there is a clear need to evaluate the success of such management approaches. How can the parties know if they are achieving their goals when they differ in their approaches and perspectives? Can co-management be assisted by an adaptive and participatory research approach? Are there shared goals (agency’s and indigenous) that can assist the development of co-management, and if so, how can we assess progress?

PhD Studies

The question of collaborative management in the Great Barrier Reef has been promoted in the last decade by the agencies and it has been seen by indigenous people as a mechanism by which they can be actively engaged in the management of their country (sea and land). However there is no systematic tool that can help the parties to assess if they are progressing towards collaborative management arrangements. The assessment of the processes related to management agreements will make it easier to achieve the parties’ goals. The main objectives of this project are to develop a participatory evaluation framework that can take account of: • The diversity of mechanisms for indigenous involvement in management of coastal-marine protected areas in the GBR area including co-management and other management arrangements. • The nature of management issues of concern to indigenous peoples, management agencies and other parties. • Encompass social, economic, cultural and environmental aspects of management and its outcomes. • Develop this framework for both prospective (planning) and retrospective (evaluation) uses to support adaptive management. • Make this process a participatory and learning experience for all parties. The methodology used will include documentation of the current status of indigenous participation in management (formal and informal) of marine and coastal protected areas; conduct of a case study with an indigenous group and its partners in NRM, focusing on 2–3 specific issues (themes) identified with the parties. The research will consider perspectives, issues and desired outcomes for each party. In this it will analyse the history and current status of cooperation/interaction in management, and the identification of relevant criteria for assessing progress towards desired outcomes. Methods will include interviews, participant observations, documentation review and workshops.

103


The research is expected to find common interest between two different groups (agencies and indigenous people), to jointly identify ways (indicators) to assess progress towards the achievement of the management initiatives, and to incorporate an adaptive management approach into the co-management process. The research will assist the parties to develop a cross-cultural approach to evaluation, which will enable them to track progress towards their shared management goals. It will strengthen relationships between agencies and indigenous people and build their capacities. Contact details: [email protected]

PhD Studies 104


Murky waters? Science, politics and environmental decisionmaking in the Brisbane River dredging dispute Emma Jakku (Completed; Griffith University)

Supervisors/Advisors: Professor Roy Rickson, Australian School of Environmental Studies, Professor David Burch (GU), and Dr Sally Rickson, Griffith University

This study is a qualitative analysis of the role of science in environmental disputes, using the Brisbane River dredging dispute as a case study. The research re-examines the contribution that science can make to environmental decision-making in general and the resolution of environmental disputes in particular. It offers a unique combination of different perspectives from environmental sociology and the sociology of scientific knowledge that can increase our understanding of environmental dispute resolution. The research questions are addressed through developing a theoretical framework that draws on the synergy between the theory on environmental claims-making, actor-network theory and boundary-work, to examine the role of science in the Brisbane River dredging dispute.

PhD Studies

In-depth qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with a variety of the stakeholders in the dredging dispute. Relevant documents and newspaper articles were also useful sources of data. This research shows that the role of science in environmental decision-making can be expanded; this results in new forms of environmental decision-making based on meaningful and collaborative relationships between the experts, decision-makers and stakeholders involved in environmental disputes. As the theoretical framework developed in this thesis clearly demonstrates, there is the potential for a productive synthesis of work within environmental sociology and the sociology of scientific knowledge, which can contribute by opening up new ways of reflecting on the appropriate role of science in environmental dispute resolution. Contact details: [email protected]

105


Towards triple-loop negotiation – Informing NRM extension in Queensland and Australia Greg Leach (Wageningen University)

Supervisors/Advisors: Cees Leeuwis – Wageningen University, The Netherlands

This thesis considers what processes and approaches people in the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (NR&M) use to negotiate natural resource management outcomes. It takes into account the different values and paradigms in the department and the community, and in the ways they can inform and develop extension in natural resource management. There is little known about how negotiation, as an extension philosophy, policy and practice, is used as a means for advancing decision making and commitment to agreed natural resource management (NRM) outcomes. More particularly, little is known about the negotiation pathways across diverse business units in NR&M the public institution, a key NRM actor and legislator in Queensland.

PhD Studies

This thesis will build a position on the role and identity of extension for working toward NRM outcomes in Queensland through case study research in NR&M and its relationships with different stakeholders. These cases are then placed within a national process of negotiating the role and function of extension policy with Government, industry, private sector and regional stakeholders in rural and regional Australia. Data is collected through case study research (10 cases), using methods from participatory action research, participant observation, ethnography (auto) and critical reflection–reflective practice. This thesis will demonstrate that non-coercive policy instruments such as ‘NRM extension’ have a role in achieving responsible NRM behaviours in Queensland and indeed Australia, and that these need to be balanced against the coercive policy instruments (regulation) increasingly developed by State and Federal Government. The study will also analyse the relation between multi-stakeholder negotiations and NRM outcomes (triple-loop-negotiation in different cases) so that participants can resolve the conflicts inherent in NRM, build constructive relationships and indeed build collective ‘negotiation capacity’. This research will also be useful for informing key NRM stakeholders of the place and role of NRM extension and negotiation capacities in Queensland and rural and regional Australia. Contact details: [email protected]

106


Predicting social resilience in Queensland’s commercial fishing industry Nadine Marshall (James Cook University)

Supervisor/Advisor: Dr Mark Fenton Funding: CRC Reef, Townsville

This question is important in the development of legislation that minimises social impacts whilst maximising conservation goals. Opportunities exist to increase the resilience of resource-dependent communities facing changes in legislation or regulation. The aim of this study is to provide a better understanding of how resource-dependent people respond to change in resource policy, with particular reference to the commercial-fishing industry in Queensland. Data was collected through quantitative and qualitative interviews with 100 fishers (trawl, line, crab, net) from Cooktown, Port Douglas, Innisfail, Townsville and Bowen. Questions related to their (i) expected response to policy change, (ii) level of dependency on the fisheries resource (iii) interpretation of policy and (iv) personal and family characteristics. This study will demonstrate the importance of integrating social science research into the development of natural resource management policies and legislation. The management implications of results to date include that understanding of people’s practices, values, beliefs and circumstances is more likely to develop into acceptable, successful and less disruptive policies. This study illustrates how developing management strategies to effectively maximise conservation goals may be achieved whilst minimising social impacts. Contact details: [email protected]

107

PhD Studies

Changes in legislation are a common management approach to better protect our natural resources. However, these changes may have a significant social impact on resource-dependent communities. The problem is that little understanding exists to assist natural resource managers to predict the social impacts of proposed policy changes and gauge the level of resilience within a resourcedependent community. This study sets out to identify the mechanisms by which commercial fishers in Queensland respond to changes in fisheries policy, and in particular, to identify which factors significantly influence the ability of these people to be resilient.


Graziers’ perceptions of sustainable development and what that means for policy Jenny Moffat (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/advisors: Prof. Helen Ross, Prof. Geoff Lawrence, Prof. John Taylor: University of Queensland Funding: Australian Postgraduate Award; operational expenses and scholarship top-up from the Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre.

The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the constraints and enabling factors as perceived by graziers regarding sustainable development. This research question is important as the largest use of agricultural land in Queensland is for grazing purposes. The question is approached through an exploratory study that uses Grounded Theory methodology (unstructured interviews) and participant observation. The study will demonstrate graziers’ perceptions of sustainable development and will explore the impact of those perceptions in the context of policy development.

PhD Studies

The findings from this study will be useful in providing government with information on how graziers see the world and will therefore also be useful for the development of policy and practices that aims to engage this target group, towards a more sustainable future for all. Contact details: [email protected]

108


Social harmony in water quality strategies: Community relations in catchment management and waterways activities Denny Nash (University of the Sunshine Coast)

Supervisors/Advisors: Dr Pam Dyer USC Supervisor; Dr Elizabeth Eddy USC Co-supervisor Other organizations: Maroochy Mooloolah Catchment Coordinating Association; Maroochy Waterwatch

The study examined the capacity of members of the wider community to participate in strategy management processes. The conflicting and diverse backgrounds, knowledge and interests required a flexible, multi-method approach to complement the dynamism of the natural resource political environment and the required complexity of the theoretical framework.

This research, which analyses NRM as a social process, demonstrates that • Participants reflect on NRM issues differently at different levels of participation and from contrasting standpoints. • The capacity and propensity of community members to engage in NRM politics are determined by a number of interests, concerns and knowledge of catchment issues and policies. • There is an over-reliance on a small group of high profile participants to communicate between the strategic and community levels of participation. Overall, a greater understanding of the dispositional characteristics of individual participants and the intricacies of human relationships will enhance capacity to involve a broader range of participants. This can be achieved by: • contributing towards developing frameworks and models that are instrumental in maximising the contributions of participants at different levels of NRM while simultaneously accessing institutional resources; • reinforcing natural resource management as a social issue; • contributing to an understanding of the need to standardise environmental political language; • providing guidelines for improved use of resources including skills, knowledge and commitment of all participants while maintaining local and intrinsic values; and • suggesting ways to integrate different forms of knowledge to facilitate political and cultural changes to create permanent structural changes. Contact details: [email protected]

109

PhD Studies

Overall, the research processes adopted elements of exploratory, explanatory and descriptive research. The two main themes of the methodology were therefore its multi-method approach and the centrality of the researcher’s role in a participatory action research project. Methods included discourse analysis, content analysis, individual and group interviews and participant observation.


Communication and Cooperative Research Centres: A social identity perspective Michelle Reidlinger (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Susan McKay, University of Queensland; Cindy Gallois, University of Queensland Funding: PhD supported by an APAI (funded by Econnect Communication) Cooperative Research Centres

Funding support for collaborative research is increasing internationally and within Australia, yet social researchers report that these interdisciplinary/interregional/interorganisational and inter-industry linkages can cause major problems for collaboration due to poor intergroup communication. This thesis examines communication activities in one particular research program, the Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program to determine the effect of group identity issues on relationship development within these centres. The research includes particular CRC case studies in the environmental sector and looks at constraints and opportunities for communication in these centres and how these communication activities reflect issues of identity.

PhD Studies

Data is gathered through qualitative research that includes focus groups and semi-structured interviews with CRC personnel followed by thematic analysis of transcripts. Understanding issues of identity and group identification are a priority for effective communication in these organisations and can also help to clarify many difficulties encountered in applying Stakeholder Theory to strategic communication in these organisations. This research will provide practical suggestions for overcoming communication challenges linked to ineffective collaboration, behaviour change and adoption of research outcomes. Contact details: [email protected]

110


Community-based research: An opportunity for collaboration and social change Dana Thomsen (completed; Griffith University)

Supervisors/Advisors: Prof. John Fien and A/P Margaret Greenway, Griffith University Funding: Catchment Hydrology CRC, Coastal CRC

This study explored how professional researchers and communities could combine their skills and learn to work in partnerships to achieve shared natural resource management goals.

Data was collected through a comparative survey of attitudes to communitybased research held by 'citizen' scientists, on the one hand, and 'expert' scientists and natural resource managers on the other. It also drew upon a multi-site case study, set in a diverse urban–rural catchment, where a research program was established for natural resource management agencies to work with each other and community groups to develop research protocols for community participation in assessing the health of catchment areas. This involved scientists, natural resource managers and community education/extension officers working with established community groups to develop and trial modified scientific methods for the environmental monitoring of catchment and estuarine areas. Synthesis of both survey and case study analysis revealed that, despite resource and attitudinal barriers, community-based research can ensure access to local knowledge and increased relevance of research. In addition, many participants most valued the increased feeling of connection towards their local environment and community. Findings show that citizen/expert collaboration is key to successful community-based research and best achieved in an atmosphere of mutual respect where all participants are seen as co-researchers. However, participatory intentions are unlikely to be acted upon without sufficient opportunity. Thus, the process of research must be re-defined from that associated with positivist science to include a greater range of participants and activities in an adaptive manner. This more inclusive and reflective approach seems most likely to ensure the quality and utility of research data, the knowledge sharing and social learning, and the enjoyable atmosphere that underpin successful citizen/expert interactions. Certainly, the ability to draw upon and create social capital is vital. The integration of these findings enabled the development of guidelines for effective collaboration between citizens and experts when undertaking catchment management research. Contact details: [email protected]

111

PhD Studies

The research questions sought to understand the nature of community-based catchment research as a social process embedded in a wider societal and resource management context dominated by professional scientists and resource managers (experts), and also as a local community (citizen) pursuit. Indeed, despite much rhetoric about democratising science, little is known about the practice, value and problems of involving citizens as collaborators in natural resource management research projects.


Linking regional and property scales for improved contributions to broadscale natural resource management outcomes Adele Vagg (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Prof. Ockie Bosch (UQ) Prof. Helen Ross (UQ) Dr Daniel Walker (CSIRO) Funding: The Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Savannas Management and the University of Queensland This project investigates the potential options for closely linking and aligning goals, outcomes and actions relating to regional and property scale so that valuable contributions can be made toward the achievement of broad scale natural resource outcomes. The research seeks to understand the interactions occurring at the regional and property scale and between these scales. This understanding of interactions is vital to the coordination of actions of the many individuals within the landscape if commonly identified broadscale outcomes are going to be achieved.

PhD Studies

Two separate investigations of each scale are used to make contrasts and comparisons between the two scales. This will enable identification of both the constraints to and promoting factors for interaction and implementation of actions acceptable for achieving the desired outcomes of each scale. Three data collection methods for investigation were used at each scale: semistructured interviewing, document review, and analysis and participant observation. For the property scale investigation the project focused on eight property case studies. The major outcomes of the project will include: • An understanding of the property manager’s objectives, motivations and strategies in regards to management of natural resources on their property. • An understanding of the constraints and promoting factors in regard to enhancing linkages between property and regional level interactions. • Options and strategies for both regional planners and property managers to use in order to improve their ability to align goals and actions between scales. The project aims to produce useful strategies for both regional planners and property owners to use to aid the acceptability and effectiveness of actions contributing to various scale outcomes. Contact details: [email protected]

112


Creeks, convention and capital: Social dimensions of landscape management Angela Wardell-Johnson (Griffith University) ______________________________________________

Environmental problems are found at the complex interface of ecosystems and human social systems. Almost all environmental problems result from particular social patterns. Stakeholder participation has been recognised as a key issue by research bodies, management agencies and community stakeholders. Three dimensions of human relationships with the environment that underpin successful implementation of environmental solutions are investigated. These are sense of place, and accompanying social capital that is embedded within private, social and institutional practice in discourses of the environment. This enquiry provides insight into the norms of social practice that will facilitate stakeholder involvement and the implementation of solutions to environmental issues at the landscape scale. Data for this research is gathered through a broad-based quantitative survey, followed up with in-depth semi-focused interviews in two sub-catchments with similar agricultural communities but contrasts in the state of the environment. This research will provide insight into the diversity of community positions in relation to landscape-based natural resource management. The critical dimensions identified provide clear means of modelling social dimensions of landscape management in conjunction with the biophysical and economic components that comprise complex adaptive systems in a triple bottom line approach. This research aims to provide greater knowledge of the range of options in implementing solutions to environmental issues. The focus is on community members in line with the diversity found in the community, and particularly in communities with a strong link to natural resource management. This knowledge will be of value to policy development for natural resource management, given that contemporary policy is directed to continual improvement to consultative approaches, incorporated in government initiatives across biophysical areas such as land, water and vegetation. This work aligns with the government priorities of community engagement and a better quality of life, and of valuing the environment. It also aligns with organisational objectives that aim to take a leadership role in the stewardship of natural resources; to build strong regions and vibrant community relationships; and to provide innovative quality and relevant science and information for robust decision-making. The strategies for achieving these objectives include providing policy frameworks for the ongoing stewardship of natural resources; building strategic alliances with community; and better

113

PhD Studies

Supervisors/Advisors: Dr Malcolm Alexander, Dr Sally Rickson, Dr Richard Hindmarsh, Griffith University; Dr Lyn Aitken, Advisor for the Smart State Research Scholarship Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines; Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-based Management of Dryland Salinity (Prof David Pannell, UWA); Blackwood Basin Group, WA; Dr Senthold Asseng, CSIRO, WA


incorporating economic and social issues into decision-making and policy development at the landscape scale. Effective implementation of solutions to landscape scale issues depends on a thorough understanding of how people frame their relationships with the environment in which they live. Contact details: [email protected]

PhD Studies 114


Past, present and future: Sustainable environmental management of legacy open cut coal mines, Ipswich, Queensland Rhys Worrall (The University of Queensland)

Supervisors/Advisors: Dr David Neil, UQ; Dr Andrew Grigg, UQ; Prof. David Brereton, UQ Funding: PhD scholarship provided by the UQ Sustainable Minerals Institute

This research considers the environmental management processes for Ipswich legacy open cut coal mines that can effectively integrate environmental, economic and social needs.

The question will be addressed broadly through a four stage process: firstly, by determining the environmental history of the area; secondly, by investigating the current environmental status of the legacy mining areas; thirdly, by developing land use planning scenarios that are environmentally and socially acceptable; and finally, by assessing the value of an holistic approach to planning post-mining land uses. Data will be collected via a combination of archival research, environmental data collection, and stakeholder input. The research will demonstrate that sustainable post-mining land use options can be successfully developed for an urban legacy mining area undergoing rapid change. This research will have applications in showing how to connect historical knowledge, biophysical science, and stakeholder input to develop new, holistic strategies for sustainable post-mining land use in Queensland. Contact details: [email protected]

115

PhD Studies

This research question is important, as translating sustainability rhetoric into practice is a challenge for the mining industry, as is the issue of what to do with legacy mining sites. This research will investigate these issues and their wider implications.


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN BRIEF Reading Barr, N. and Cary, J. (1992). Greening a Brown Land: The Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use. Sydney: MacMillan. Burch, D., Goss, J., and Lawrence, G. (1999). Restructuring Global and Regional Agricultures: Transformations in Australasian Agri-Food Economies and Spaces. Aldershot: Ashgate. Cary, J., Webb, T. and Barr, N. (2002). Understanding Landholders' Capacity to Change to Sustainable Practices. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences, Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry – Australia. Conacher, A. and Conacher, J. (1995). Rural Land Degradation in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Dovers, S. and Wild River, S. (eds) (2003). Managing Australia's Environment. Annandale: Federation Press. Dryzek, J. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Endter-WADA, J., Blahna, D. Krannich, R. and Brunson M. (1998). A Framework for Understanding Social Science Contributions to Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 8(3), 891–904. Gray, I. and Lawrence, G. (2001). A Future for Regional Australia : Escaping Global Misfortune. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lockie, S. and Bourke, L. (eds.) (2002). Rurality Bites: the Social and Environmental Transformation of Rural Australia. Sydney: Pluto Press. Patterson, M. and Williams, D. (1998). Paradigms and Problems: The Practice of Social Science in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 11(3), 279–295. Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology Vol 24, 1–24. Stehlik, D., Gray, I. and Lawrence, G. (1999). Drought in the 1990s : Australian Farm Families' Experiences. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, R. (ed.) (2004). Controversies in Environmental Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

116


Web Links www.cirm.org.au (Consortium for Integrated Resource Management, with details of working groups and NRM research priorities) www.clw.csiro.au/research/water/arcwis/ (The Australian Research Centre for Water in Society successfully established a social science approach to natural resource management in CSIRO two decades ago and continues to follow a strong research focus in the area) www.coastal.crc.org.au/toolbox/index.asp (Citizen Science Toolbox, CRC for Coastal Zones, Estuary and Waterway Management www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/Share_your_knowledge/Key_engagement_initiatives /Community_engagement_showcasing_events/NRM_Showcase/CHRRUPP_Experi ment/ (A case study in community engagement showcasing, access to other studies) www.lwa.gov.au/sirp/ (See 50 records in the research portfolio for links to summary sheets and further information/contacts as well as project reports and other information) www.regionalnrm.qld.gov.au/ (Regional Natural Resource Management – Healthy Regional Arrangements and links to major initiatives) www.uq.edu.au/csrc/lcandsc/final%20report.pdf (Local Government Social Capital Action Research Project Report: "What Makes Communities Tick?")

Resource Kits Aslin, H.J. and Brown, V.A. (2004). Towards Whole of Community Engagement: A PRACTICAL TOOLKIT. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Dore, J., Keating, C., Woodhill, J. and Ellis, K. (2000). Sustainable Regional Development Kit: A resource for improving the community, economy and environment of your region. Greening Australia, Canberra.

117


118


GLOSSARY OF TERMS Action research is a process that comprises cycles of planning, action, evaluation, reflection and revision of the original plan. Active citizenship acknowledges that all individuals and groups have the right to engage and participate in the creation and re-creation of a democratic society. All individuals have the responsibility to ensure that no groups or individuals are excluded from democratic practices and institutions. Adaptive management refers to an ongoing process of designing and implementing management strategies, and then revising those strategies, on the basis of learning acquired through testing, monitoring and evaluation in an environment where there is scientific uncertainty, and changing environmental conditions and knowledge. Anthropology is the study of human life and culture in all its diversity and richness. Anthropologists study the cultures and societies of the past few centuries, ranging from indigenous peoples to the modern capitalist world system. Capacity building refers to activities undertaken to enhance peoples’ skills and abilities to make and act on decisions that affect their lives. Some activities can include skill development, training, facilitation providing information, awareness raising and network building. Citizen juries involve a representative selection of the community who are briefed in detail on the background and current thinking relating to a particular issue. Citizens are asked to become jurors and make a judgement in the form of a report, as they would in legal juries. Citizen juries can be used to broker a conflict, or to provide a transparent and non-aligned viewpoint. Citizen science is a participatory process for the inclusion of all sectors of society in the development and conduct of public-interest research in order to bridge the gaps between science and the community and between research and policy, decision-making and planning. Community-based research is a form of research in which people in the community work as co-researchers alongside researchers from colleges and universities to find results that can bring about social change. Community engagement refers to the process for groups and individuals to be involved in decision-making that affects their lives and interests. It can range from one-way information provision, to consultation, to participation, and collaboration or joint management. Cost-price squeeze refers to the financial viability of primary producers who experience increasing costs for agricultural inputs such as chemicals and machinery, whilst at the same time, they receive decreasing prices for the food and fibre that they produce. Critical consciousness is the ability to perceive social, political, and economic oppression and to take action against the oppressive elements of society. Paulo Freire developed this concept in his books the Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) and Education for Critical Consciousness (1973).

119


Decision support systems are computer-based systems that provide support to managers who are dealing with semi-structured problems. Deliberative democracy recognises conflict of interest between groups participating in or affected by decision-making processes. It refers to efforts made to include marginalised, isolated and ignored groups in decision-making and as such, focuses on processes as much as on results. Demographic structures refers to the science of population studies, in particular statistics and trends on fertility, mortality, age structure, migration, urbanisation, marriage and divorce, and labour force dynamics. Discourse analysis examines information that is stored together as shared meanings, assumptions or accounts by groups of people. Ecologically sustainable development recognises that development should not compromise or degrade the quality of natural resources such air, land, water, vegetation and biodiversity. Environmental governance refers to rules, processes and behaviours that affect the way environmental policies are enacted, particularly in relation to transparency, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. Environmental sociology studies interactions between society and the environment, with a focus on societal factors that influence the environmental condition and vice versa. Ethnography is a style of social research that seeks to view the world through the eyes of other people and groups. It often involves the researcher immersing himself or herself within an unfamiliar culture or group setting. Expert panels can be engaged when highly specialised input and opinion is required for a project. Generally, a variety of experts are engaged based on their various fields of expertise. Freiran concepts of empowerment The Brazilian, Paulo Freire, developed progressive theories of popular education for the liberation and consciousness-raising of oppressed social groups. Freire's ‘popular education’ pedagogic methods reinforce self-assurance and selfdetermination and are linked to concepts of empowerment and action. Governance concerns all the rules, procedures and practices affecting how powers are exercised. Grounded Theory is a social research methodology in which theory deriving from the study is grounded in the data rather than imposed. Holistic describes the idea that the properties of a system cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its components alone but by the products of and ways that they interrelate and interact. Human capital refers to collective assets, stock of knowledge and acquired skills embodied in groups of individual human beings. Institutionalisation refers to the definition, introduction and formalisation process (adoption and adaptation) of practices, arrangements, and mechanisms within current structures.

120


Local Agenda 21 originated in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also referred to as the Earth Summit or the Rio Summit) held in June 1992. Local Agenda 21 provides the opportunity for Local Governments to work with their local communities to create ecologically sustainable agendas for the 21st century. New regionalism is allied to the notion of the 'knowledge economy', where there is a shift from traditional manufacturing and production industries to service, information handling, knowledge accumulation and knowledge-based goods. Participant observation is a social scientific research method that attempts to find out about a group or sub-culture from the inside. Observing whilst taking a role in the situation allows the researcher to blend into the surroundings and in order to make sense of the culture or phenomenon as a participant. Participatory action research (PAR) approach seeks to involve research subjects in all aspects of the research process to support knowledge development, group empowerment and social change. Participatory decision-making is an open and continuous process, which allows the involvement of citizens in policy and other decision making through personal or representative participation. Participatory democracy is where decision-making is the process whereby people propose, discuss, decide, plan, and implement those decisions that affect their lives. This requires that the decision-making process be continuous and significant, direct rather than through representatives, and organised around issues instead of personalities (Benello and Roussopoulos 1971: 5). Productivism is a mode of agricultural production that focuses on the maximisation of agricultural outputs, often with little attention to social and environmental aspects of production. Qualitative research takes place in the natural setting of research participants and can include field research, face-to-face interviews and participant observation in contrast to data that is collected through statistical processes which are concerned with the testing of hypotheses and understanding correlations between variables. Quantitative research works from the assumptions that aspects of social life are measurable and that a greater understanding of the social world can be gained through hypothesis testing and the exploration of correlations between variables. Surveys are common ways of gathering data for quantitative analysis. Regional bodies are related to the 56 regions which have been identified across Australia for the purposes of determining natural resource management and sustainable agriculture priorities for NAP and NHT programs as well as broader NRM interests. The boundaries for each region have been established by agreement between Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments. Each region has at least one 'regional body' formed to undertake the important job of managing and protecting their region's natural resources. Sense of place studies acknowledge that the meaning that people attach to the landscape is socially and culturally constructed through the subjective experiences of individuals and groups that interact or connect with that landscape.

121


Snowball or chain reference sampling is where an interviewee provides the researcher with names of others to approach for an interview. Social assessment is a research approach that aims to identify the likely impacts and unforeseen consequences of development projects. Social capital includes networks, trust, group relationships and shared values. It is dependant on social networks which can be ‘bonding’ networks that connect similar people or ‘bridging’ networks that connect people who are different. Social impact analysis/assessment refers to applied research that documents the consequences likely to result from introducing a major change in a community (similar to above). Social research is research which increases knowledge about society and social relationships. Sociology is the study of society. It includes the study of structures that organise society, such as race, ethnicity, class and gender, and institutions such as family, religion, media, science and education as well as the social processes within these structures. Sociology of scientific knowledge examines the social construction of scientific knowledge, showing in great detail the way social, political and economic factors influence the content of scientific knowledge; SSK is an actively negotiated, social product of inquiry. Subsidiarity is the principle that decisions and responsibilities should lie as low down in the system as possible. Sustainability/sustainable development refers to a form of economic growth that satisfies society's resource needs in terms of well-being in the short, medium and – above all – long term. It is founded on the assumption that development must meet today's needs without jeopardising the prospects for growth of future generations. Triple bottom line sustainability ascribes equal weight and value to economic growth, ecological health and human quality of life.

122


CONTRIBUTOR’S BIOGRAPHIES Dr Lyn Aitken is a senior natural resource officer with NR&M, incorporating social science approaches through work with CIRM and as project leader of a Social RD&E state level activity under the NAP. Lyn has qualifications in Sociology and her PhD focuses on Sociologies of Science and (Environmental) Technology. Dr Jenny Bellamy is a Principal Research Scientist with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Brisbane with over 25 years research experience in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research on multistakeholder processes and institutional arrangements for regional natural resource management and planning and linking science, policy and community for sustainable regional development. Professor Ockie Bosch is Head of the School of Natural and Rural Systems Management at the University of Queensland (Gatton). In 1974 he received a D.Sc. degree in quantitative ecology and vegetation management from the Potchefstroom University, South Africa. He has 35 years of experience as a researcher and educator in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Professor David Brereton is the Director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) at The University of Queensland. He is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and holds a PhD in Political Science from Stanford University. He has previously worked as a researcher at senior levels of State Government in Australia. Professor David Burch of the School of Science, Griffith University is a founding member of the Australasian Agri-food Research network. He is co-editor of Globalization and Agri-food Restructuring (Avebury, 1996); Australasian Food and Farming in a Globalised Economy (Monash, 1998); Restructuring Global and Regional Agricultures (Ashgate, 1999) and is co-author of Agri-food Globalization in Perspective (Ashgate, 2003). Dr Laurie Buys is the Director of the Centre for Social Change Research and teaches research methods and supervises research students within the School of Humanities and Human Services at Queensland University of Technology. She has published widely in the areas of community engagement and social gerontology and is a regular contributor at national and international conferences. Dr Ian Byron is a social researcher in the Bureau of Rural Sciences. Ian's main interests are in the application of social research methods to facilitate improved social, economic and environmental outcomes in the management of natural resources. Ian has conducted research exploring community engagement and capacity building, adoption of improved management practices, and community attitudes and perceptions. Dr Jennifer Carter is a geographer, and is currently employed as a Lecturer in Environmental and Planning Studies at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her professional background includes various research positions at the University of Queensland and Northern Territory University in ecology, participatory planning and cross-cultural community-based processes.

123


Dr Lynda Cheshire is a lecturer in sociology at The University of Queensland. Her research interests are rural and regional development, contemporary forms of governance, and local responses to rural change. She is presently working on a number of projects exploring the changing relationship between the state and regional citizens, and upon the community engagement practices of private industries. Mr Peter Chudleigh has been operating as a private consultant in primary industry and natural resource management for the past 20 years, 19 of these with Agtrans Research in Brisbane. Peter has proven experience in strategic planning and economic assessment in rural industries, benefit-cost analysis, the triple bottom line approach, and natural resource and environmental management. Professor Allan Curtis is the new Professor of Integrated Environmental Management at Charles Sturt University. Allan was previously the Social Sciences Program Leader in the Australian Government’s Bureau of Rural Sciences – working at the interface between science and policy in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Dr Michael Cuthill previously worked at the CRC for Reef Management in Townsville and as a lecturer at the University of South Australia. He is currently Coordinator of Social Research at Gold Coast City Council where he has worked for five years. Research interests include social impact assessment, volunteer management and social capital and Third Sector collaboration for sustainability. Dr Allan Dale is the General Manager of Strategic Policy and Regional Arrangements in the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. In this role he is responsible for the administration of the Natural Heritage Trust Extension, the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and other significant community-based natural resource programs. He also is responsible for the development of broad Strategic Policy Frameworks for natural resource management in Queensland. Dr Mark Fenton is Associate Professor in planning at James Cook University in Townsville. He is also Director of EBC, a social assessment and research company which provides services to private and public sector organisations in a wide range of natural resource management and planning contexts, including those of forestry, fisheries, mining and water resources. Dr Kelly Fielding is a lecturer at the School of Social Work and Applied Human Sciences at The University of Queensland. Her research interests include environmental sustainability, group processes and intergroup relations, responses to positive and negative deviance, leadership, and collective action. Ms Melissa George is a Wulgurukaba Traditional Owner, and former member of Sea Forum working group. She has worked part-time on both CRC Reef Comanagement research projects, and simultaneously as Aboriginal Land Management Facilitator with the Burdekin Dry Tropics Board. Dr Janet Grice is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the School of Social Science, The University of Queensland. Dr Grice was awarded her PhD in 2000 for her study of Australian consumer perceptions and acceptance of genetically engineered foods. She is Co-Chief Investigator of the ARC Discovery Project: The Social Construction of Safe Foods: Uncertainty, Risk and Trust in Agri-food Applications of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

124


Dr Fiona Haslam-McKenzie is a postdoctoral fellow at Curtin University of Technology. She has published a number of articles and book chapters concerning the social, environmental and economic impact of declining rural communities particularly in Western Australia. A further research interest has been the role and development of Western Australian horticultural women's participation in formal industry organizations. Dr Marc Hockings is a Senior Lecturer in Natural Systems Management at The University of Queensland and Vice-Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Marc has a long background in management of protected areas, both within government and as an academic. Marc originally trained as a zoologist. His PhD was on methods for monitoring and evaluating management of protected areas. Dr James Innes manages the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Research and Monitoring Social Science Program. James has extensive experience managing and applying policy oriented social science research for NRM management issues. James is a social anthropologist who has also undertaken PhD research examining community conflicts over species management issues in the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Arturo Izurieta is a PhD student at The University of Queensland undertaking research on the development of a participatory framework for assessing effectiveness of indigenous involvement in management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Arturo has over a decade of experience in management of coastal marine protected areas as former director of the Galapagos National Park in Ecuador. Dr Brad Jorgensen is Lecturer at the School of Journalism and Communication at The University of Queensland. Brad has been involved in projects including community-based approaches to stormwater pollution abatement, public perceptions of the mining industry, land-use planning in semi-arid rangelands and water allocation issues and has a number of publications in these areas. Professor Geoffrey Lawrence is a rural sociologist and Head of the School of Social Science, The University of Queensland. He has recently been appointed by the Federal Government to the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum. His most recent co-authored/co-edited books are: Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihoods (Ashgate, 2003) and Recoding Nature: Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering (UNSW Press, 2004). Ms Anne Leitch is a science communicator with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Brisbane with more than ten years experience in communication planning and strategies, group communication, and communication research. Anne has a BSc (Hons) and a Masters of Business (Communication). Dr June Lennie is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology. Since 1990, she has been involved in several major research projects. As well as the LEARNERS project, they include pioneering research on rural women’s access to communication technologies, and frameworks for community participation.

125


Ms Tanya Liebrecht holds an Honours degree in politics from the University of Adelaide and a Master of Public Policy from Flinders University. Tanya worked as an assistant electoral officer in the South Australian State Electoral Office before taking up a position as Research Assistant for the School of Politics and Public Policy at Griffith University. She has recently enrolled in a PhD program on the Engaged Government Project. Associate Professor Stewart Lockie is the Director of the Centre for Social Science Research and lectures in Environmental and Rural Sociology at Central Queensland University. He has conducted research on the social aspects of natural resource management for the Catchment Hydrology and Coastal CRCs, National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Research Council. Mr Barton Loechel is a Sociology PhD candidate working on the Engaged Government Project. He recently completed an Honours degree in Sociology with the University of Tasmania. Raised on a family farm, Barton originally studied in Rural Science and worked in the field of animal nutrition before diverting to sociology. Dr Colin MacGregor is interested in research that surrounds the use of social science methodologies for delivering sustainable outcomes. Before taking up his current position, Colin was a Research Scientist with the Bureau of Rural Sciences in Canberra. He has also lectured for many years at various universities including James Cook University in Townsville. Ms Fiona McCartney has a degree in Agricultural Science from The University of Queensland. She conducted a final year project on rural women on the Darling Downs, and worked for the University as research assistant on the project described here. Mr Colin Mayocchi is an IT and Decision Support System Officer in CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Townsville. He has 10 years experience with the Australian Bureau of Statistics as an Information Technology Officer and 5 years with CSIRO developing IT tools and Decision Support Systems for natural resource management. Ms Jenny Moffat has recently completed her PhD on graziers’ perceptions of sustainable development. She is currently working at the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. Dr Peter Oliver is currently researching stakeholder and government collaboration in regional natural resource management. He received the Department of Natural Resources Achievement Award for Queensland in 2000. Peter has also received awards for his work from the Australian College of Education, the Australia Day Council, the Queensland Landcare and Catchment Management Council and the Coastal CRC. Ms Sandy Paton Community Developer, Institute for Sustainable Regional Development, Central Queensland University; National Individual Landcare Award Winner 1998, Qld Winner 97, Capricorn Region ABC Rural Women 97, Qld Premiers International Year of the Volunteer Medallion Winner 2001. Sandy’s experience and research covers the environmental and social issues connected to sustainable land management and sustainable rural communities.

126


Mr Richard Parsons began his PhD in early 2004, and is now exploring conceptual frameworks such as social responsibility and sustainability, organisational culture, social identity theory and discourse analysis. His thesis topic is Site-level community engagement processes in the Australian minerals industry: A comparative analysis. Dr Barbara Pini is a postdoctoral fellow in the Faculty of Business at Queensland University of Technology. She has published numerous papers on the topic of farm women and agricultural leadership. Ms Carol Richards graduated from The University of Queensland with an Honours Degree in Sociology. She is currently working on her PhD on the topic of sustainable grazing practices in Central Queensland. Professor Roy Rickson is based at the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University. He is also Principal Researcher with the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) on Coastal Zone, Estuary, Catchment and Waterway Management. Dr Sally Rickson is Senior Lecturer in the School of Arts, Media and Culture at Griffith University. She is on the Editorial Board for the Journal of Sociology. Her key research interests include public participation in decision making, social impact analysis, gender and ageing, regional and rural women. Dr Bruce Rich is the manager of Applied Social Research at the Centre for Social Change Research at Queensland University of Technology. Bruce has acted in an advisory capacity to local government organisations, development bodies, scientific studies and strategy development. His career has spanned consultancy, research, production and administrative management, lecturing and teaching. Ms Cathy Robinson is currently working as a Research Officer for the CRC Reef Co-management Project. Cathy has extensive experience working with Indigenous people on a range of NRM and cultural heritage issues. Other projects she is currently working on include an active role in developing a feral animal strategy for Kakadu National Park and working on tourism issues at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Dr Susan Rockloff (formerly Jennings) is a postdoctoral researcher with the Centre for Social Science Research at Central Queensland University. She is involved in social science research for the Coastal CRC. Her research activities have also focused on environmental decision-making, social sustainability, regional resource planning and management, public participation, environmental policy and law, and impact assessment. Professor Helen Ross is based at the Rural Community Development section in the School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Gatton. She is an interdisciplinary social scientist (environmental psychologist and anthropologist) specialising in social aspects of sustainable development and environmental management. Ms Colette Roos is a Senior Research Assistant and part-time lecturer at the Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology and is completing her PhD in psychology. Her research interests include interviewing techniques for improved recall; cognitive psychology; experimental psychology; eyewitness memory; road safety and quantitative and qualitative research.

127


Ms Sarah Simpson graduated at the end of 1997 in science (Australian Environmental Studies) where she majored in environmental planning processes, environmental policy and economics, and land and water processes. Sarah completed a postgraduate diploma in Agricultural Economics in 1998 and joined Agtrans Research in May 1999. Dr Carl Smith is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Natural and Rural Systems Management at The University of Queensland (Gatton). Since completing a PhD in agriculture and geographical sciences he worked on the development of decision support tools for natural resource management. Professor Veronica Strang is Professor of Anthropology, Social Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Formerly the Royal Anthropological Institute 'Urgent Anthropology' Fellow at Goldsmiths College in London, she has undertaken research with the Kowanyama Community in northern Queensland for many years, and is the author of ‘Uncommon Ground: Cultural landscapes’ and environmental values and ‘The Meaning of Water'. Mr Bruce Taylor is currently based at CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Brisbane and is working on regional planning evaluation. Trained as a geographer, Bruce's experience includes developing regional NRM strategies; social impact assessment; regional planning policy; and, as part of a team at Central Queensland University, was engaged in identifying useful measures of capacity for change in rural industries. Dr Robin Thwaites has been working in resource analysis and assessment for 20 years. His main fields of expertise are in landscape analysis, land resource analysis and assessment, and soil science, particularly in forested lands. Dr Sandy Toussaint is Senior Lecturer in Anthropology at The University of Western Australia, and a co-recipient (with Veronica Strang) of an Australian Research Council grant on water use in Queensland and WA. She has worked extensively with Kimberley indigenous groups on land, water and legal issues, is the editor of 'Crossing Boundaries: Cultural, legal, historical and practice issues in native title', and co-editor of 'Applied Anthropology in Australasia'. Ms Vickie Webb is a Resource Use Planner in CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Brisbane (currently seconded to Environmental Protection Authority, Queensland). She has extensive experience as a facilitator in agriculture extension and strategic planning initiatives (including ‘Farming for the Future’/Property Management Planning and Coastal Management Planning). Dr James Whelan is a Lecturer at the Australian School of Environmental Studies, Griffith University. His research interests include environmental advocacy, social movements, education and training, environmental education, action research and civil society. James is currently working with Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Mr Shion Yee is a civil engineer who also has a business management qualification and a Master of Natural Resource Economics degree from The University of Queensland. Shion is currently a PhD student working on the Engaged Government Project.

128


Notes

129


Notes

130


Notes

131


Notes

132