river murray environment flows and water quality project
TRANSCRIPT
1
Australian Research Centre for Waterin Society
River Murray Environment Flowsand Water Quality Project
STAKEHOLDER PROFILING STUDY
Blair E. NancarrowGeoffrey J. Syme
August 2001CSIRO Land and Water
2
3
Foreword
The Murray-Darling Basin Commission has for the first time independently andsystematically identified a range of community stakeholder views relating to the health of theMurray River. This report, prepared by the Australian Research Centre for Water in Society,CSIRO Land and Water, represents in a meaningful way the views, on the environmentalhealth of the River Murray, of more than 300 rural and urban respondents.
It is undeniable that sustainable natural resource management is inextricably linked with theviews and attitudes of community stakeholders - successful natural resource initiatives relynot only on scientific evidence but community awareness, acceptance and involvement. Thisreport indicates that communities accept the need for change in the management of the RiverMurray.
The findings of this research are encouraging in the light of the growing evidence of decliningriver health - communities are concerned about the health of the Murray, they indicate thetime to act is now and want to be involved in decisions that affect the way the river ismanaged. Understandably, there are issues relating to water allocation where stakeholderopinion is divided - matters of rights to the water and priority uses are flagged and willnecessarily continue to be debated in the quest to find acceptable management interventions toimprove the health of the River Murray.
The Stakeholder Profiling Study will help to shape future community engagement processesfor addressing environmental flows and water quality of the River Murray.
R GreenPresidentMurray Darling Basin Commission
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Project Board of the River Murray Environmental Flows and Water Quality Projectcommissioned this study with the main aim to:
‘identify the range and geographic spread of stakeholders, their prevailingattitudes and diversity of views on matters relevant to addressingenvironmental health of the River Murray.’
The objectives were ‘to build a solid body of evidence, through identification, survey andanalysis of the fullest scope of stakeholders and issues to support responsiblerecommendations to the Ministerial Council on the necessity, extent and nature of futureengagement processes.”
In line with the requirements of the Project Board, a study proposal was developed inconsultation with the Community Reference Panel (CRP) and early assistance from this groupwas sought in the initial identification of stakeholders.
A stakeholder1 survey approach was decided to be the most appropriate method within thethree month available time-frame. It was not the purpose of this survey to obtain arepresentative sample, but to ensure sufficient numbers in the major stakeholder groups toallow statistically valid comparative analyses. In this way, major similarities and differencesin perceptions, attitudes and values between the stakeholder groups could be identified. Thiswould then allow any future public involvement programs and processes to be targeted andplanned appropriately to meet the needs of all concerned.
1 It should be noted that a separate, more appropriate process is proposed for surveying the views of indigenouscommunities.
5
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 STUDY SCOPING
Semi structured telephone interviews were conducted with key stakeholders with an interestin the River Murray. These interviews broadly discussed major issues, hopes, concerns, andfuture aspirations for the river and the region.
A total of thirty-eight interviews were conducted. Appropriate names were initially providedby the CRP and the people interviewed also provided the contact details of other stakeholders.The information gained from these interviews provided the basis for the design of a number ofquestions in the questionnaire.
Table 1 provides the details of the location of the people interviewed and their stakeholdercategory. “Outside Region” refers to either regional centres outside the general area of theMurray River or capital cities in each of the states.
TABLE 1PARTICIPANT SAMPLE – SCOPING PHASE
RegionStakeholder
CategoryNSW VIC SA
TOTAL
MurrayRegion Agriculture 0 2 4 6
Environment 4 2 1 7
State/LocalGovernment 2 0 3 5
Tourism/Recreation 1 2 2 5
OutsideRegion Agriculture 1 5 0 6
Environment 3 1 0 4
State/LocalGovernment 1 1 1 3
Tourism/Recreation 0 1 1
TOTAL 12 13 12 37 ** A Federal Government person was also interviewed, bringing the total sample to 38.
2.2 THE SURVEY
A survey of stakeholders with a possible interest in the Murray River was conducted bytelephone. A stakeholder data base was developed by a variety of means includingrecommendations from the CRP and people interviewed in the scoping phase of the study.Local Government community directories were used as well as searches on the Web. TheYellow Pages were used, as well as White Pages entries for urban stakeholders.
6
2.2.1 The Questionnaire
A questionnaire was developed that investigated the following topics. (See Appendix 1 for acopy of the questionnaire.)
! Universal principles for water allocation2.! Current views on the health of the river.! Future aspirations for the river.! Agreement with statements resulting from the scoping interviews on management
issues associated with the river.! Perceived importance of the priority of water for different uses (including the
environment).! Strength of attitudes on the provision of environmental flows for the river.! Knowledge and perceptions of what environmental flows are and what they
should achieve.! Agreement with statements resulting from the scoping interviews on
environmental issues associated with the river.! Familiarity with environmental issues associated with the river and any
information requirements.! Perceptions of who should be involved in the decision making process and any
personal requirements for involvement.! Perceptions of groups of stakeholders with whom the respondents felt they had
similar interests.! Reaches of the river that stakeholders had a particular interest in.! Age and gender.
2.2.2 The Sample
Stakeholders were assigned to one of the following categories for the purpose of the survey.
! Agriculture (included organisations, agricultural businesses and individualfarmers)
! Tourism/Recreation (included individuals; associations and businesses)! Environmentalist (included associations and individuals)! Urban Resident (random individuals)! Youth (from schools and youth groups in the Murray region)! State Government! Local Government
Because of the time constraints for the survey, the sample numbers were restricted.Nevertheless, they still allowed statistical comparisons between stakeholder groups, states andregions. Interviews with Youth were assigned to Urban Resident or Agriculture categories,whichever was appropriate. On the recommendation of the CRP, South Australian urbanresidents outside the Murray region were over-sampled, due to their specific interestassociated with their water supply from the river.
A total of 321 questionnaire interviews were completed. Table 2 outlines the target numberswithin each stakeholder group, state and region and the actual numbers of interviewsachieved.
2 Syme, Nancarrow and McCreddin, 1999
7
TABLE 2SURVEY SAMPLE
Region StakeholderNSWTarget
NSWActual
VICTarget
VICActual
SATarget
SAActual
TOTALTarget
TOTALActual
MurrayRegion Agriculture 15 18 15 16 15 15 45 49
State Government 10 9 10 10 10 10 30 29LocalGovernment 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 30Tourism/Recreation 10 10 10 10 10 11 30 31
Environmentalists 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 30
Urban Residents 15 15 15 15 15 15 45 45
Youth * 5 4 5 5 5 5 15 14
Sub-total 75 76 75 76 75 76 225 228OutsideRegion Agriculture 2 2 2 3 2 2 6 7
State Government 4 4 4 4 4 4 12 12LocalGovernment 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 2Tourism/Recreation 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4
Environmentalists 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6
Urban Residents 15 15 15 15 30 30 60 60
Sub-total 25 25 25 26 40 40 90 91WholeSample Total 100 101 100 102 115 116 315 319 **
* For analytical purposes, 7 of the 14 youth were assigned to Agriculture and 7 to Urban Residents.** Two further interviews were conducted due to their “stake” in the Murray River. However, they
could not be assigned to a state, or a stakeholder group, or both and therefore do not appear in thetable. They were included in the overall analysis of the data and, where possible, in thecomparisons.
Attempts were also made to ensure a spread of interviews along the length of the MurrayRiver. Table 3 shows the numbers of interviews conducted in each stretch of the river.
TABLE 3SPREAD OF RESPONDENTS ALONG THE RIVER
River Reach No.
Upstream to Albury/Wodonga 36
to Echuca 61
to SA Border 55
to Waikerie 43
to river mouth 33
TOTAL 228
8
2.2.3 Refusals
In general, interviewers reported considerable interest by stakeholders who participated in thesurvey. The questionnaire which was designed to take twenty to thirty minutes to administer,generally took forty-five minutes because of the amount of detail that respondents wereoffering. Many interviews lasted over an hour. However, the urban residents were lessinterested in being involved, having a much higher refusal rate than the other stakeholdergroups (see Table 5).
Table 4 details the numbers of refusals and the reasons offered by people in each state. “N”refers to the number of successful interviews obtained. The overall refusal rate was 53%,with 43% in the Murray region and 68% outside the region. South Australians from outsidethe region were less likely to refuse than those from the other states.
TABLE 4REFUSALS DATA BY LOCATION
Region Refusal ReasonNSW
(N=101)VIC
(N=102)SA
(N=116)TOTAL(N=321)
MurrayRegion Too busy 32 26 24 82
(N=228) Not interested 7 23 9 39
Not enoughknowledge 4 1 1 6
No English 2 1 4 7
Unwell/too old 6 6 3 15
Other 13 8 5 26
Sub-total 64 65 46 175
% Refused 46% 46% 38% 43%
OutsideRegion Too busy 32 26 27 85
(N=93) Not interested 28 22 17 67
Not enoughknowledge 0 3 1 4
No English 7 3 1 11
Unwell/too old 5 4 4 13
Other 2 7 5 14
Sub-total 74 65 55 194
% Refused 75% 71% 58% 68%
Whole Sample TOTAL 138 130 101 369
(N=321) %Refused 58% 56% 47% 53%
9
Table 5 shows the refusal numbers for each stakeholder group. Again “N” refers to thenumber of successful interviews obtained.
TABLE 5REFUSALS DATA BY STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY
RegionStakeholder
CategoryNSW
(N=101)VIC
(N=102)SA
(N=116)TOTAL(N=321)
%Refusal
MurrayRegion Agriculture (N=56) 14 6 15 35 38%
(N=228)State Government(N=29) 2 1 3 6 17%
Local Government(N=30) 3 0 0 3 9%
Tourism/Recreation(N=31) 7 8 7 22 42%
Environmentalists(N=30) 2 1 3 6 17%
Urban Residents (N=52) 36 49 18 103 66%
Sub-total 64 65 46 175 43%
OutsideRegion Agriculture (N=7) 0 0 1 1 13%
(N=93)State Government(N=12) 1 1 1 3 20%
Local Government(N=2) 0 1 0 1 33%
Tourism/Recreation(N=4) 0 1 0 1 20%
Environmentalists(N=6) 1 2 0 3 33%
Urban Residents(N=60) 72 60 53 185 76%
Sub-total 74 65 55 194 68%
Whole Sample TOTAL 138 130 101 369 53%
Urban Residents in South Australia were less likely to refuse than those in the other states inboth the region and outside the region (Murray Region: NSW = 71%; VIC = 77%; SA = 55%Outside Region: NSW = 83%; VIC = 80%; SA = 64%).
The following potential respondents requested the questionnaire to be sent to them so theycould prepare their answers. This was not possible, as all interviews needed to be conductedunder the same circumstances.
! One state government stakeholder in South Australia – outside region.! One state government department in New South Wales – outside region.! One local government stakeholder in Victoria – Murray Region.! One urban resident in Victoria – Murray Region.
10
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
The following details results of the survey and reports statistically significant difference(p<.01) wherever they occur in group comparisons. The total number shown in tables will bemore than the sum of the individual state numbers, due to the two “unclassified” respondents.
3.1 SAMPLE DETAILS
3.1.1 Age and Gender
The following tables detail the age and gender of the sample as a whole and separately foreach state.
TABLE 6AGE CATEGORIES OF THE SAMPLE
Age NSW VIC SA TotalN % N % N % N %
(101) (102) (116) (321)
Less than 24 years 5 5.0 10 9.8 11 9.5 26 8.1
24 to 39 years 26 25.7 19 18.6 19 16.4 64 19.9
40 to 55 years 39 38.6 47 46.1 47 40.5 135 42.1
56 to 65 years 14 13.9 18 17.6 24 20.7 56 17.4
66 to 75 years 11 10.9 6 5.9 10 8.6 27 8.4
More than 75 years 6 5.9 2 2.0 5 4.3 13 4.0
TABLE 7RESPONDENTS’ GENDER
Gender NSW VIC SA TotalN % N % N % N %
(101) (102) (116) (321)
Male 68 67.3 70 68.8 72 62.1 211 65.7
Female 33 32.7 32 31.4 44 37.9 110 34.3
3.1.2 Interest in Different Reaches of the River
Respondents were asked to nominate which of a list of different reaches of the river they wereinterested in. The following table details responses for the whole sample, each stateseparately and for the two regions.
11
TABLE 8INTEREST IN DIFFERENT RIVER REACHES
Reach Total NSW VIC SA Murray OutsideRegion Region
% % % % % %(N=321) (N=101) (N=102) (N=116) (N=228) (N=93)
Upstream of Lake Hume 31.8 36.6 42.2 18.1 * 27.2 43.0 ^
Lake Hume to Echuca 45.8 60.4 59.8 20.7 * 45.6 46.2
Echuca to Swan Hill 33.3 27.7 51.0 22.4 * 30.7 39.8
Swan Hill to Mildura 34.6 30.7 47.1 26.7 * 32.9 38.7
Mildura to Renmark 37.1 22.8 34.3 51.7 * 35.1 41.9
Renmark to Murray Bridge 42.7 16.8 27.5 78.4 * 38.2 53.8 ^
Murray Bridge to the sea 40.2 18.8 28.4 68.1 * 32.9 58.1 ^
Lower Darling River+ 30.8 23.8 33.3 34.5 26.8 40.9
None 6.5 10.9 2.9 6.0 1.3 19.4 ^
+ from Menindee Lakes to the Murray River* indicates statistically significant differences between states (p<.01)^ indicates statistically significant differences between regions (p<.01)
The significant differences between states shown above in Table 8 seem to indicate localisedinterest in the different reaches of the river. Also respondents from outside the region weremore interested in the extreme ends of the river than were the respondents in the Murrayregion. Six respondents specifically stated that they were interested in the “whole river”.
However, very few respondents had no interest in the river, though significantly more fromoutside the region (19%) felt this way.
Thirty-four percent of respondents (N=109) were interested in only one reach of the river and22.7% (N=73) were interested in two. Twenty-three respondents (7.2%) were interested inthree reaches and nineteen (5.9%) in four. Fifty-one respondents (15.9%) nominated all eightreaches as being of interest.
Examination of the responses of the stakeholder groups indicated only one significantdifference in that State Government was more likely to be interested in the reach upstream ofLake Hume than were other stakeholders.
It would therefore, appear that any attempt to develop a “whole of river” approach toenvironmental management may be difficult to achieve. A “reach by reach” approach may bea more useful way to proceed.
12
3.1.3 Affinity with Different Interest Groups
Respondents were asked to rate how close or distant they felt to the interests of twelvedifferent groups. They were asked to do this on a seven point scale from 1 being extremelyclose to 7 being extremely distant.
Table 9 shows the mean score for the rating of each group for the sample as a whole, the threestates and the two regions. For ease of interpretation, the higher the mean score, the greaterthe distance that respondents felt from the interest group, with four being neither close nordistant.
TABLE 9CLOSENESS TO DIFFERENT INTEREST GROUPS(The higher the mean score, the greater the distance)
Total NSW VIC SA Murray OutsideInterest Group Region Region
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean(N=321) (N=101) (N=102) (N=116) (N=228) (N=93)
General Public 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7
Urban Water Users 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.7
Environmental Groups 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.1
Conservationists 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2
Tourism & Recreational 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.0 4.0 ^Businesses
Tourists 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.6 ^
Recreational Fisher-People 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.1 4.0 ^
Commercial Irrigators 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 4.4 ^
Government 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 4.1
Indigenous Peoples 4.2 4.4 4.5 3.7 * 4.2 4.1
Industrial Users 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.5 4.4 5.1 ^
Commercial Fisher-People 4.8 4.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.6 5.3 ^
* indicates statistically significant differences between states (p<.01)^ indicates statistically significant differences between regions (p<.01)
South Australian respondents were more likely to feel less distant to Indigenous Peoples andCommercial Fisher-People than those from the other two states. Respondents from outsidethe region felt significantly more distant to Tourism and Recreational Businesses, Tourists,Recreational Fisher-People, Commercial Irrigators, Industrial Users and Commercial Fisher-People than did respondents from the Murray region. The groups of particular note wereTourism and Recreational Businesses, Recreational Fisher-People and Commercial Irrigatorsas the means moved from the closeness side of the scale for people in the Murray Region tothe distant side of the scale for those from outside the region.
13
Examination of the responses of the stakeholder groups indicated the following statisticallysignificant differences. Although some of the findings below are often self-evident,inspection of the similarities and differences between stakeholders may provide usefulinformation to assist in structuring any future public involvement program. These results do,however, lend legitimacy to the stakeholder categories to which the researchers assignedrespondents.
! Closeness to General Public: Tourism/Recreation felt significantly closer to theGeneral Public (mean = 2.0) than did Urban Residents (mean = 2.7); Agriculture(mean = 2.7) and State Government (mean = 3.0).
! Closeness to Urban Water Users: Stakeholder groups Local Government and UrbanResidents felt significantly closer (means = 2.5 & 2.3 respectively) to this group thandid Agriculture (mean = 3.6).
! Closeness to Conservationists: Environmentalists felt significantly closer to thisgroup (mean = 2.3) than did Urban Residents (mean = 3.4).
! Closeness to Environmental Groups: Similar results were obtained to those above forConservationists (mean for Environmentalists = 2.3 & for Urban Residents = 3.4).
! Closeness to Tourism & Recreational Businesses: This yielded three different sub-sets of closeness. Tourism/Recreation stakeholders felt closest to this group (mean =1.5). Local Government (mean = 2.5) indicated the next greatest closeness, but wassignificantly less so than Tourism/Recreation. Urban Residents felt the least closeness(mean = 3.9).
! Closeness to Tourists: Tourism/Recreation felt significantly closer to this group thanany other stakeholder (mean = 1.6). The means for the remainder ranged from LocalGovernment 2.8 through to Agriculture = 3.7.
! Closeness to Recreational Fisher-People: Similar results were obtained as forTourists above. Tourism/Recreation felt significantly greater closeness to this group(mean = 1.8) than any other stakeholder (means ranged from Local Government = 3.1to Urban Residents = 3.8).
! Closeness to Commercial Irrigators: Agriculture felt significantly closer (mean = 2.3)than did Tourism/Recreation (mean = 3.7), Environmentalists (mean = 4.0) and UrbanResidents (mean = 4.3).
! Closeness to Government: State and Local Government felt significantly closer(means = 2.2 & 2.8) than any other stakeholder group (means: Agriculture = 3.7;Environmentalists = 3.8; Tourism/Recreation = 4.3; Urban Residents = 4.6).
3.1.4 Familiarity with the Term “Environmental Flows”
Before commencing the survey, interviewers asked respondents if they were familiar with theterm “Environmental Flows”. If they were not, a simple definition was read to them andinterviewers recorded this fact.
One hundred and twenty-seven respondents (39.6%) stated they were unfamiliar with theterm, there being a significant difference between regions. One-third of respondents in theMurray Region required the definition to be read compared with about half (54.8%) of therespondents outside the region.
14
3.2 LAY PHILOSOPHIES OF WATER ALLOCATION
Before considering the River Murray situation specifically, stakeholders were asked torespond to twenty-six general philosophical statements on water allocation using a five pointagree/disagree scale. The results are shown in Tables 10, 11 and 12.
For ease of interpretation, they are shown in terms of high (dis)agreement, where more than80% of the sample (dis)agreed; general (dis)agreement, where between 60% and 80%(dis)agreed; and split opinion, where there was a spread of responses from “strongly agree” to“strongly disagree”.
TABLE 10GENERAL PHILOSOPHIES IN WATER ALLOCATION
WHERE THERE WAS HIGH AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT(>80% agreed or disagreed)
Philosophical Statement Response
All sections of the community have a right to high agreementhave a say on water allocation.
Those upstream have a moral responsibility to look after high agreementthe interests of those downstream.
The natural environment has the same rights to water as high agreementpeople have.
Everyone should recognise that they may have high agreementto make some personal sacrifices if we are goingto have effective planning.
There is no time to wait for exact environmental knowledge, high agreementwe need to act now.
Water has a value other than its dollar value. high agreement
Water is owned by everyone and therefore it high agreementshould be managed for the overall public good.
All water should be put on the market and sold to high disagreementthose who will pay most, regardless of whatit is used for.
The high level of agreement on these statements provides a philosophical basis for thediscussion of specific issues in determining the allocation of water to the environment. Therewas virtually no dissent to the right of the community to have a say on water allocation; themoral responsibility to look after those downstream; the natural environment and peoplehaving the same rights to water; the need for personal sacrifices; the need to do somethingnow without exact knowledge; the value of water other than monetary; the public good aspectof water resources management; and the inappropriateness of an unconstrained water marketas a method for allocation.
These results are not dissimilar to previous results obtained in similar studies (eg. Syme,Nancarrow and McCreddin, 1999; Nancarrow, Syme and McCreddin, 1998) and so providesconfidence in the reliability of the findings.
15
TABLE 11GENERAL PHILOSOPHIES IN WATER ALLOCATION
WHERE THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT(between 60% and 80% agreed or disagreed)
Philosophical Statement Response
You can’t really solve water sharing problems by general agreementanalysing the costs and benefits in dollars.
If the decision making process is fair, people general agreementshould accept the final allocation decisions.
Water is a community resource that is only “lent” to users. general agreement
Special water allocations should be made to general agreementachieve environmental health even if it reducesthe profits of local businesses.
If new water allocation arrangements affect people’s general agreementlivelihoods, they should receive compensation.
There are no general rules about how to share general agreementwater, it depends on the situation.
When it comes to allocating water to different uses general disagreementI’ll go along with what most people think.
Water allocations should be set by experts alone. general disagreement
When it comes to water allocation, the environment general disagreementis a secondary consideration to people.
Although there was less of a consensus by the various stakeholders on these philosophies thanon those in Table 10, the general agreement or disagreement provides a further basis fordiscussion of specific allocation issues. Most people acceded to: the need to accept decisionsfrom a fair process; the nature of water as a community good; the priority of an environmentalallocation over business profits; the requirement for compensation if people’s livelihoods areaffected; and the need to decide on the situation rather than using general rules.
Respondents generally disagreed with the allocations being set by experts alone; allocationdecision making through dollar cost/benefit analyses; the priority of people’s needs over thoseof the environment; and the likelihood of going along with what most people think.
However, it is the philosophies in Table 12 (split opinion) where the greatest disagreementwould be likely to occur when discussing specific allocation issues. And it is thesephilosophies where stakeholders would need to be aware of the difference of opinion, andwork towards resolving some of the differences. These differences tend to be associated witharguments of economics; prior rights; and priority preferences between environmental andhuman uses.
16
Table 12GENERAL PHILOSOPHIES IN WATER ALLOCATION
WHERE THERE WAS A SPLIT OPINION(spread of responses from “strong agreement” to “strong disagreement”)
Philosophical Statement Response
If water is conserved for environmental reasons, split opinionenvironmental agencies should be forced to payfor it in the same way as irrigators and urban users.
Priority for water should be given to those who split opinionneed it to make a living.
Water allocations should be made to maximise split opinionthe overall economic income of a community.
It would be highly unfair to take water away split opinionfrom those who already have allocations.
Since the environment was the original “user” of water, split opinionit should always have higher priority than otherpossible users.
Water can only be allocated for human use split opinionafter the basic needs of the environmenthave been satisfied.
While some parts of the natural environment are split opinionvaluable and should be preserved through waterallocation, some are not so valuable and can be let go.
In water allocation, everyone should be split opiniontreated equally.
The only role for state government in water split opinionmanagement should be a supervisory one.
A cluster analysis was conducted using the twenty-six philosophical statements. The twocluster solution was the one most easily interpreted. A discriminant analysis was thenconducted to determine which philosophical statements discriminated between the twoclusters of respondents. The resulting analysis (λ=.308; p<.001) correctly classified 95% ofcases to the clusters.
The major discriminating statements, and the clusters’ degree of agreement with thestatements are shown in the following table.
17
TABLE 13THE CLUSTERS’ DEGREE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE
MAJOR DISCRIMINATING PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENTS
Mean Score & Degree of Agreement with Statements
Cluster 1 Cluster 2Discriminating Statements Mean Agreement Mean Agreement
Score Score
If water is conserved for environmental reasons, 3.9 lesser 2.3 greaterenvironmental agencies should be forced to pay forit in the same way as irrigators and urban users.
It would be highly unfair to take water away from 3.4 lesser 2.1 greaterthose who already have allocations.
Priority for water should be given to those who need it 3.5 lesser 2.3 greaterto make a living.
Water can only be allocated for human use after the basic 2.8 greater 3.3 lesserneeds of the environment have been satisfied.
When it comes to water allocation, the environment is a 4.0 lesser 3.0 greatersecondary consideration to people.
From the above statements, it would appear that the two clusters of respondents arephilosophically opposed and could be described as Public Good and Private Good, the PrivateGood people being more personally focussed than the Public Good people. Figure 1 showsthe relative proportions of the two clusters.
FIGURE 1RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF THE
TWO PHILOSOPHICAL CLUSTERS OF RESPONDENTS
0
50
100
%
Public Good Private Good
18
When the philosophical clusters were compared between states and regions the onlystatistically significant difference that emerged was between regions. Respondents outsidethe region were significantly more likely to hold a “public good” view (59.6%) than wererespondents in the Murray region (43.4%).
Table 14 shows the relative proportions of the clusters for each stakeholder group.
TABLE 14RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF THE TWO PHILOSOPHICAL CLUSTERS
FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER GROUP
Stakeholder Cluster 1 Cluster 2Group Public Good Private Good
% %
Agriculture (N=62) 35.5 64.5
State Government (N=41) 61.0 39.0
Local Government (N=30) 43.3 56.7
Tourism/Recreation (N=33) 36.4 63.6
Environmentalists (N=35) 62.9 37.1
Urban Residents (N=106) 50.0 50.0
It can be seen that Agriculture, Local Government and Tourism/Recreation were morestrongly Private Good than Public Good. State Government and Environmentalists weremore strongly Public Good. Urban Residents were equally split between the twophilosophical viewpoints. As noted previously, knowledge of these similarities anddifferences between stakeholders could provide useful information for structuring any futurepublic involvement program.
There were no significant differences between clusters for gender and age.
19
3.3 PERCEPTIONS OF THE RIVER AND ITS MANAGEMENT
Respondents were firstly asked how aware they were with issues associated with the MurrayRiver. They were asked to respond using a four point scale from 1 being very aware throughto 4 being not at all aware.
A total of 81% of respondents stated that they were either very aware (44%) or aware (37%)of the issues. Only 3% said that they were not at all aware.
! The Public Good cluster was significantly more aware (mean =1.7) than was thePrivate Good cluster (mean=1.9).
! Urban Residents were significantly less aware (mean = 2.3) than were all the otherstakeholders (means ranged from 1.4 to 1.7).
! There were no significant differences in perceived awareness between the three statesand the two regions.
When asked if they had any special hopes for the future of the Murray River and region, 91%of the sample responded in the affirmative. When asked what they were, a large number ofvaried, unprompted statements were received. Respondents could offer more than oneanswer. Table 15 shows the main responses provided.
TABLE 15RESPONDENTS’ HOPES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE MURRAY RIVER AND REGION
Future HopesN
(297)%
The river will be cleaned up/ water quality improved 60 20.2
Fix the problems/healthy environment 48 16.2
Flow levels to be increased/improved/adequate/natural 43 14.5
Fix salinity problems 40 13.5
Restore/preserve the river 28 9.4
Sustainable balance between people and the environment 24 8.1
Improve long term management of the river/region 22 7.4
All states should work together/share the costs 21 7.1
The river shouldn’t die/get worse 21 7.1
Look after the river for social well-being/good of everyone/futuregenerations
19 6.4
The issues above indicate considerable concern for the future of river health and waterquality. Respondents generally hoped that the problems could and would be fixed. Flowlevels were specifically mentioned by 15% of the sample.
20
Respondents were asked to rate the current health of the Murray River using a five pointscale from 1 being healthy through to 5 being so many problems it is beyond repair.Table 16 shows the results of this question for the sample. Ten respondents consideredthat they did not know enough to answer the question.
TABLE 16CURRENT HEALTH OF THE MURRAY RIVER
Health RatingN
(320)%
1. Healthy 0 0.0
2. A few problems, but easily fixed 19 6.1
3. Some serious problems, but will be fixed in time 114 36.8
4. Many problems that will need a long time to fix 176 56.8
5. So many problems it is beyond repair 1 0.3
The mean rating for the whole sample was 3.5, and there was no statistically significantdifference between states. However, there were significant differences (p<.01) betweenregions and philosophical clusters.
! Those in the Murray region were significantly more hopeful about the river’shealth (mean = 3.5) than those outside the region (mean = 3.7).
! Those in the Private Good cluster rated the river’s health significantly better (mean= 3.4) than did those in the Public Good cluster (mean = 3.7).
However, it should be noted that all of the mean ratings indicated the perception of at least“serious problems”.
The next question asked respondents if, when thinking about the way the river was managednow for all purposes, they would change anything.
Seventy percent said there was and 3% thought there might be. Sixty-three respondents(20%) said they did not know enough about the management of the river to comment. Table17 shows the major points of change that people offered. Again, responses were unpromptedand were many and varied. Up to three answers were allowed.
Eleven respondents nominated very specific, localised changes.
For the remainder, issues associated with controlling river pollution more often concernedrespondents. Long term, co-ordinated management, particularly of water-use and waterallocation was also a major concern.
21
TABLE 17MURRAY RIVER MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR CHANGE
ChangeN
(231)%
Better control of river pollution 40 17.3
Need long-term, coordinated management 25 10.8
Control water-use/all should be accountable 24 10.4
Too many water rights/need sustainable water allocation 23 10.0
Need natural flows 23 10.0
More efficient water-use 20 8.7
Need constant/more flows 19 8.2
Need one authority/national body/less state control 18 7.8
Better maintenance of the environment (river, banks, vegetation) 17 7.4
Better management of salt problems 17 7.4
Issues that were raised by people interviewed in the study scoping phase, were developed asstatements to determine the extent of agreement by stakeholders generally. They wererequired to rate their agreement on a five point scale from 1 = strongly agree through to 5 =strongly disagree. Table 8 shows the results of this for the sample as a whole.
Comparisons were conducted between states, regions, clusters and stakeholders. Thefollowing statistically significant (p<.01) differences emerged. Please note that the higher themean, the greater the disagreement.
People don’t need as much water as they use.! The Public Good cluster more strongly agreed with this statement (mean = 1.7) than
did the Private Good cluster (mean = 2.0). Both though were in agreement.
In the end, people will co-operate to fix any problems with the river.! The Public Good cluster were more likely to disagree with this statement (mean = 3.0)
than was the Private Good cluster (mean = 2.5).
If more water is not provided for the river, the quality of agricultural production will suffer.! Victoria was more likely to disagree with this statement (mean = 2.7) than was South
Australia (mean = 2.2).
! State Government was more likely to disagree with this statement (mean = 2.9) thanwere Urban Residents (mean = 2.1).
22
We need stronger water-use rules for urban users.! Victoria less strongly agreed with this statement (mean = 2.1) than did New South
Wales (mean = 1.7).
! There was no significant difference between the Urban Residents’ ratings and those ofthe other stakeholders.
We need stronger water-use rules for agricultural users.! The Public Good cluster more strongly agreed with this statement (mean = 1.7) than
did the Private Good cluster (mean = 2.2). However, both were in agreement with thestatement.
! South Australia more strongly agreed with this statement (mean = 1.7) than did theNew South Wales (mean = 2.2). Again, both were in agreement with the statement.
! There was no significant difference between the ratings of Agriculture stakeholdersand those of the others.
TABLE 18AGREEMENT WITH RIVER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Strongly Agree neither Strongly DisagreeStatement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
% % % % % (N=321)
I’m not confident that politicians will take thelong term view that is needed to fix the problems 28.1 48.8 5.0 15.6 2.5 2.2with the Murray River.
People don’t need as much water as they use 36.9 49.4 6.3 7.2 0.3 1.9
In the end, people will co-operate to fix any 5.3 54.3 7.2 26.5 6.5 2.7problems with the river.
If more water is not provided for the river, the 19.7 45.7 9.5 20.6 4.4 2.4quality of agricultural production will suffer.
I’m confident that all State Governments willstart working together to deal with the problems 4.7 42.5 6.9 31.6 14.4 3.1in the Murray region.
We need stronger water use rules for 37.3 44.5 5.3 12.5 0.3 1.9urban users.
People’s greed and self-interest will win 8.4 36.3 10.6 42.5 2.2 2.9over the good of the environment.
I’m confident that the governments will provide thelong term commitment and resources that are 3.4 40.9 11.6 35.3 8.8 3.1 needed for the future of the Murray River.
Water is money – that is the core of the 24.2 49.7 5.0 17.9 3.1 2.3problem.
We need stronger water use rules for 32.7 50.3 4.4 10.7 1.9 2.0agricultural users.
23
There appears to be little confidence in the political system to address the environmentalproblems associated with the Murray River. Over three-quarters of the sample expressed alack of confidence in the politicians to take a long term view on the problem, and there weremixed opinions on whether the State Governments could work together or provide theresources that were needed.
There was also mixed opinion as to whether people would co-operate to fix the environmentalproblems, or whether greed and self-interest would be the winners in the end.
However, over eighty percent of the sample considered there needed to stronger water userules for both urban and agricultural users. The point of particular interest is that the UrbanResidents and the Agriculture stakeholders agreed with the rest of the sample on this issue.Perhaps stronger rules are seen as ways to deal with concerns about greed and self-interest.
This attitude, though, is consistent with the unprompted responses to the previous question onmanagement issues that needed change: control water-use/all should be accountable.
24
3.4 PRIORITIES FOR USES OF WATER
Stakeholders were asked to consider twelve nominated uses for water from the Murray River.They were firstly asked to rate the importance of each use on a four point scale from 1 = mostimportant to 4 = not at all important. They were then asked to rank the five most importantuses from 1, being most importance to 5, being least important. All non-ranked uses werethen assigned the equal value of 6.
For the analysis, ratings and rankings were recoded so that the higher the number, the greaterthe importance of the use. The importance rating and ranking for each use were thanmultiplied to give a priority score for that use. Table 19 shows the outcome of the analysis.The uses have also been grouped into logical categories and labelled to assist interpretation.
TABLE 19PRIORITY SCORES FOR WATER USES
possible scores from 1 (least priority) to 24 (greatest priority)
Category Water Use Priority Score
River Health environmental health of the river 19.3
Human Life Support urban household supply along the Murray River 12.4
urban household supply for Adelaide & other SA towns 12.3
irrigation for vegetables, fruit & grapes 9.5
stock and domestic use 8.6
Industry fishing 4.4
irrigation for rice 4.3
irrigation for other grains (eg. wheat, oats) 4.0
irrigation for pasture (eg. lucerne & grasses) 3.9
tourism businesses (eg. house boats & camping grounds) 3.7
industrial use 3.5
Recreation boating 2.5
Environmental health of the river was clearly assigned the highest priority for water use bythe stakeholders. Given the category labels assigned to the use groupings, it would appearthat fishing was seen as similar to industry rather than recreation.
Table 20 shows the stakeholders’ mean priority scores for the water-uses use. Statisticallysignificant differences are noted.
25
TABLE 20PRIORITY SCORES FOR WATER USES FOR STAKEHOLDERS
possible scores from 1 (least priority) to 24 (greatest priority)
Water Use Agriculture State Local Tourism/ Environ- UrbanGovt. Govt. Recreation mentalists Residents
River Healthenvironmental healthof the river 17.7 19.3 19.6 17.7 20.4 20.4
Human Life Supporturban household supplyalong Murray River 11.8 13.5 13.8 10.2 12.8 12.5
urban household supplyfor Adelaide & SA towns 11.9 12.0 13.1 11.3 13.1 12.5
irrigation for vegetables,fruit & grapes 11.0 10.4 9.7 8.5 8.2 8.9
stock and domestic use * 11.3 9.2 7.8 5.5 7.8 8.2
Industryfishing * 4.3 4.0 4.0 8.2 3.7 3.7
irrigation for rice 3.6 3.7 4.9 3.3 3.3 5.4
irrigation for other grains(eg. wheat & oats) 3.6 3.1 3.6 4.0 3.8 4.8
irrigation for pasture(eg. lucerne & grasses) * 5.2 3.2 2.6 3.7 2.5 4.4
tourism businesses(eg. house boats& camping grounds) * 3.1 3.9 3.0 8.8 3.3 3.0
industrial use 4.0 3.2 3.3 3.3 4.4 3.0
Recreationboating * 2.0 2.7 2.2 4.7 2.2 2.3
* indicates statistically significant differences between stakeholders (p<.01). See below for details
The following details statistically significant differences for all the comparative analyses.
Priority for environmental health of the river! The Public Good cluster assigned a higher priority to water for environmental health
(mean = 21.3) than did the Private Good cluster (mean = 17.4). However, both priorityscores are in the high range.
! South Australia assigned a higher priority to water for environmental health (mean =21.5) than did either Victoria (mean = 18.5) or New South Wales (mean = 17.6).Again though, all scores are in the high range.
Priority for stock and domestic use! Tourism/Recreation assigned a significantly lower priority to water for stock and
domestic use (mean = 5.5) than did Agriculture (mean = 11.3).
26
Priority for fishing! Respondents from the Murray region assigned greater priority to water for fishing
(mean = 5.0) than did those from outside the region (mean = 3.1).
! Tourism/Recreation assigned a significantly higher priority to water for fishing (mean= 8.2) than did all the other stakeholders (means ranged from 3.9 to 4.3).
Priority for irrigation for vegetables, fruit and grapes! The Private Good cluster assigned higher priority to water for irrigation for vegetables,
fruit and grapes (mean = 10.7) than did the Public Good cluster (mean = 8.2).
Priority for irrigation for rice! The Private Good cluster assigned higher priority to water for rice irrigation (mean =
5.2) than did the Public Good cluster (mean = 3.3).
! New South Wales assigned a significantly higher priority to water for rice irrigation(mean = 6.2) than did Victoria (mean = 4.3). South Australia assigned a significantlylower priority again (mean = 2.5).
Priority for irrigation for other grains (eg. wheat and oats)! Respondents outside the region assigned a higher priority to water for irrigation for
other grains (mean = 5.4) than did those in the Murray region (mean = 3.4).
! New South Wales assigned a higher priority to water for irrigation for other grains(mean = 4.9) than did South Australia (mean = 3.0).
Priority for irrigation for pasture! The Private Good cluster assigned higher priority to water for pasture irrigation (mean
= 4.5) than did the Public Good cluster (mean = 3.2).
! Environmentalists and Local Government assigned a significantly lower priority towater for irrigation for pasture (means = 2.5 and 2.6 respectively) than did Agriculture(mean = 5.2).
Priority for tourism businesses! Tourism/Recreation assigned a significantly higher priority to water for tourism
businesses (mean = 8.8) than did all the other stakeholders (means ranged from 3.0 to3.9).
Priority for boating.! Tourism/Recreation assigned a significantly higher priority to water for boating (mean
= 4.7) than did all the other stakeholders (means ranged from 2.0 to 2.7).
The differences described above do not result in any significant order change when viewed inthe different categories except for priorities assigned to some uses by the Tourism/Recreationstakeholders. The priority this stakeholder group assigned to water for fishing and tourismbusinesses would have these uses categorised with the uses for Human Life Support. Also thepriority they assigned to stock and domestic use would indicate categorisation as Industry, aswould be the case for boating.
However, none of the above differences impact on the clear overall prioritisation of water forenvironmental health of the river by all groups.
27
3.5 SUPPORT FOR THE PROVISION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW
Stakeholders were asked if they believed that the Murray River should have a specialenvironmental allocation.
If the response was YES or MAYBE, this decision was then challenged given two differenteconomic consequences, and two different decision-making process scenarios.
If the response was NO or MAYBE, the decision was similarly challenged, given fourdifferent scenarios: inefficient water use; payment for the environment’s share; all usersdonating water; and the loss of intergenerational equity.
Ninety-five percent of stakeholders agreed with the principle of an environmental allocationfor the Murray River, 2% were unsure and 3% disagreed. Therefore, 312 people werechallenged on their positive responses, and 17 on their negative answer.
Figure 2 shows that support for environmental flows considerably decreased (less than 40%absolute support) if there was a lack of appropriate decision-making process. That is, if allwater users and interested people did not have a chance to have a say on how much and how(No. 3 below), and if local people were not involved in making the decisions (No. 4 below).
Support also decreased if there were negative economic consequences: it was bad for theeconomies of the states and Australia (No. 1) and some people’s livelihoods were badlyaffected through having to give up part of their water (No. 2). However, this occurred to alesser extent, with more than 60% still supporting an environmental allocation.
FIGURE 2DECISION CHANGES TO SUPPORT FO R AN
ENVIRO NM ENTAL ALLO CATION FO R THE M URRAY RIVER (N = 312)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4
Continued Support Unsure Not Supported
Would you (still) believe in providing more water for the river’senvironment if: ……
1. it was bad for the economies of the states and Australia?
2. some people’s livelihoods were badly affected through having togive up part of their water?
3. all water users and interested people did not have a chance tohave their say on how much and how?
4. local people were not involved in making the decisions?
28
Figure 3 shows that negative responses were mostly modified for intergenerational equityconsiderations: if rivers were destroyed for future generations (No. 1 below). Almost 70% ofthese respondents (12 of the 17 respondents) reversed their opposition to an environmentalallocation given this scenario.
There was also some decisional modification (less than 40%) if water was being usedinefficiently or being wasted (No. 2); all users, including towns supplied from the rivers, gaveup some of their water (No. 3); and someone paid for the environment’s share (No. 4).However, there was least support and greatest uncertainty about this payment option.
FIG URE 3DECISIO N CHANG ES TO O PPO SITIO N TO AN
ENVIRO NM ENTAL ALLO CATIO N FO R THE M URRAY RIVER (N=17)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4
Allocation Supported Unsure Continued Opposition
Would you (still) disagree with providing more water for the river’senvironment if: ……
1. it meant the river would be destroyed for future generations?
2. water was being used inefficiently or being wasted?
3. all users, including towns supplied from the river, gave up some oftheir water?
4. someone paid for the environment’s share?
The number and percentage of cases offering the major reasons for their decision makingwere as follows.
Would you (still) believe in providing more water for the river’s environment if: ……
1. it was bad for the economies of the states and Australia?
YES Need to maintain the basic resource/ environment first 129 44%
NOT SURE Need to balance the environment and the economy 20 7%
NO Economics must be considered 18 6%
People and businesses need to survive 13 4%
29
Would you (still) believe in providing more water for the river’s environment if: ……
2. some people’s livelihoods were badly affected through having to give up part of theirwater?
YES Must be compensated 62 21%
River has priority 51 17%
New jobs will be created 24 8%
Sacrifices needed/greater good 23 8%
Won’t happen with good management 16 5%
NOT SURE Must not be badly affected 14 5%
NO Livelihoods must be protected 32 11%
Must have a balance between needs 19 6%
Look at cases individually 12 4%
3. all water users and interested people did not have a chance to have their say on how muchand how?
NO All entitled to a say/consultation is important 89 30%
All stakeholders must be involved 53 18%
Needs a community decision 14 5%
NOT SURE Balanced debate is needed 15 5%
YES River/environment is more important 54 18%
People are self interested 15 5%
4. local people were not involved in making the decisions?
NO Local people must make the decision 97 33%
All entitled to a say/consultation is important 59 20%
Need local knowledge 27 9%
Local people will be affected 26 9%
NOT SURE Some local input is needed 14 5%
YES Environment comes first 30 10%
Local people are biased and self-interested 18 6%
Need experts to make the decision 11 5%
30
Up to five of the respondents did not offer reasons for their responses to the followingquestions. Therefore, most responses were offered by one or two people each time and aretherefore just listed below.
Would you (still) disagree with providing more water for the river’s environmentif: ……
1. it meant the river would be destroyed for future generations?
River must be protected for future generations; must not happen; won’t happenwith good management.
2. water was being used inefficiently or being wasted?
Must have water-use efficiency; wastage can be controlled; who decides if it iswasted?; it’s their allocation to waste.
3. all users, including towns supplied from the river, gave up some of their water?
All should have to give up water; townspeople waste water; not practical/ whodecides; need water to survive.
4. someone paid for the environment’s share?
User pays principle; government should pay; we pay already through our taxes;dollars won’t solve the problem; environment is for everyone.
3.5.1 Environmental Flow Trade-off Decision Score
Responses were recoded so that:agreement with an environmental flow = 1
don’t know/not sure = 0disagreement with an environmental flow = -1
Responses to the main question and the respective four trade-off questions were summed toprovide a final flow decision score. Where the “don’t know” people answered the eight trade-off questions, the sum of these scores were halved before adding the main question response.Figure 4 shows the results of this analysis. Possible scores ranged from –5 which indicatedabsolute disagreement with an environmental allocation through to +5 which indicatedabsolute agreement.
There was only one stakeholder who absolutely disagreed (-5 score) with allocating water tothe environment under all circumstances. Sixty-five stakeholders absolutely agreed (+5score) with the provision of an environmental allocation despite the possibility of a number ofnegative consequences. The mean trade-off score was 1.7.
So, even given a number of searching trade-off situations, there was considerable support forthe allocation of an environmental flow, with the decision-making process being the majorconcern of stakeholders.
31
FIGURE 4STAKEHOLDERS’ ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW TRADE-OFF DECISION SCORES
(Mean = 1.7)
0 20 40 60 80
-5
-4
-3
-2.5
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
No.
Tra
de-
off
Sco
res
Pro-EnvironmentalFlow
Anti-EnvironmentalFlow
A number of comparative analyses were performed to determine any differences (p<.01)between groups in the environmental flow decisions.
! The Public Good Cluster was significantly more favourable towards an environmentalallocation for the river (mean = 2.6) than was the Private Good Cluster (mean = 0.8).
! South Australia was significantly more favourable towards an environmental allocationfor the river (mean = 2.7) than was New South Wales (mean = 1.3) and Victoria (mean= 1.1).
However, all of the above scores are positive and represent only different degrees offavourable judgements rather than opposing views.
Interestingly, there was no significant differences between stakeholders or regions in theirconsiderations of environmental flows for the Murray River.
Further analyses were conducted to determine if there was any “social desirability” associatedwith environmental flow decisions, and if perceptions of personal knowledge about the riverand region influenced responses. One of the lay philosophical statements (When it comes toallocating water to different uses, I’ll go along with what most people think.) was used as themeasure of social desirability. A knowledge scale was constructed using the questions ofawareness and familiarity with issues and this proved to have high reliability (� = .88).
However, correlations between these items and the environmental flow decision scoresproved to be non-significant.
32
3.6 PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS
Respondents were asked what they thought an environmental flow in a river should be orshould do. Their responses were totally unprompted and they were allowed up to threeanswers. Table 21 shows the main themes offered by stakeholders.
TABLE 21PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS
What Environmental Flows should Be or DoN
(318)%
Preserve/sustain the natural species/flora/fauna 87 27.4
Maintain long term/natural healthy state 75 23.6
Clean up water quality 52 16.4
Mimic nature/natural fluctuations 47 14.8
High flowing/flushing 38 11.9
Reduce salinity 27 8.5
Constantly flowing 16 5.0
Balance people, economy and environment 14 4.4
Clear blockages at the river mouth 11 3.5
Need floods 9 2.8
Increase natural fish 8 2.5
Save wetlands 8 2.5
Fair sharing for all needs 8 2.5
Support riparian vegetation 7 2.2
There was a number of different descriptions of what an environmental flow should beincluding natural fluctuations, high flowing and flushing, and constantly flowing. This wouldindicate some misconceptions of the technical aspects of environmental flows amongstakeholders and perhaps a need for community education.
However, people were quite clear about what environmental flows should achieve, withconsiderably more people expressing their views in this way rather than on the physicalaspects of flows. They felt that environmental flows should support natural species andvegetation, maintain river health and improve water quality. So although there may need tobe some debate and education on the exact nature of what an environmental flow should be,people are quite clear on the required outcomes.
33
Respondents were then read a series of statements which had been made by various people inthe scoping interviews. They were asked to rate their agreement with the statements on a fivepoint scale. These were not meant to be factual statements, but a measure of how widely heldsome views may be in the community.
Table 22 shows the spread of responses across the scale for the ten statements as well as themean score for each.
TABLE 22AGREEMENT WITH ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS AND DECISION MAKING
Strongly Agree neither Strongly DisagreeStatement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
% % % % % (N=321)
Environmental flows should mimic nature,with natural ups and downs and natural 34.8 52.4 5.6 6.3 0.9 1.9water temperatures.
The river doesn’t need more water, it just needs 5.1 36.0 24.8 27.0 7.1 3.0more flow.
You can’t make environmental decisions without 21.1 60.1 5.3 10.4 3.1 2.1considering the economic impacts.
The environment should have access to 29.9 55.7 6.9 6.6 0.9 1.9natural floods.
Environmental flows must meet the needs of allregions along the river, both upstream and 33.2 58.3 3.4 5.0 0.0 1.8downstream.
There needs to be a national body with final 34.0 50.3 3.1 11.3 1.3 2.0control over the decision-making.
There should be water quality standards for flows 36.4 59.9 1.6 2.2 0.0 1.7at the end of the river.
There has to be a balance between somethingfor the environment, as well as eating and 33.6 62.6 1.2 1.9 0.6 1.7clothing ourselves.
You can’t make environmental decisions without 23.1 65.6 2.2 8.4 0.6 2.0considering the social impacts.
The river is a national asset, so everyone should 26.0 56.4 5.0 10.7 1.9 2.1have a say in decisions.
There was considerable agreement with all the above statements except the river doesn’t needmore water, it just needs more flow. The mean for this statement indicated neither agreementnor disagreement and it should be noted that about 40% of the sample agreed with thestatement. This is perhaps one area that needs clarification with stakeholders to determinewhat they understand the actual meaning of the statement to be, and it appears to be consistentwith the previous unprompted statements on environmental flows. This further some need forcommunity education. In any case, there is a need to ensure all areas of misunderstanding arecleared before proceeding too far along the decision-making process for establishingenvironmental flows for the river.
34
3.7 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Respondents were asked to rate how familiar they thought they were with issues about theMurray River environment and its water needs. They were asked to do this on a four pointscale with 1 being very familiar and 4 being not at all familiar. The mean rating was 2.1,which indicates an overall general perception of familiarity. Analytical comparisons wereconducted to identify any group differences.
! The Public Good cluster thought themselves to be significantly more familiar (mean =1. 9) with the Murray River environment and water needs than was the Private Goodcluster (mean = 2.3).
! Environmentalists thought themselves to be significantly more familiar (mean = 1.5)than did Local Government (mean = 2.1) respondents who were significantly morefamiliar than Urban Residents (mean = 2.6).
Respondents were then asked if they would like any particular information about the MurrayRiver environment and environmental flows. Fifty-one percent replied in the affirmative,with a further 3% indicating that they might. Forty-six percent of the sample did not want anyinformation. There were no significant differences in information requirements between anyof the groups: state, region, stakeholder or cluster.
Given that people generally felt they were familiar with the issues, it is perhaps not surprisingthat such a high percentage felt they did not need any particular information. Presumablytheir present sources were felt to be adequate.
Table 23 outlines the major themes of information required by respondents. However, manyand varied, unprompted topics were nominated. Up to three answers were allowed.
TABLE 23INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Information TopicN
(173)%
General information/anything & everything 37 21.4
Up to date information/any changes/what’s happening 35 20.2
Information on environmental flows incl. levels and rates 28 16.2
State of the river/environmental health of the river 25 14.5
Management, monitoring - plans and issues 20 11.6
Water quality issues – what’s going in/how much/how to improve 17 9.8
How much water is used by different uses 14 8.1
The major topics nominated were non-specific and associated with keeping people informedon an ongoing basis. However, there was some demand for specific information onenvironmental flows and water quality issues.
35
Stakeholders requiring information were asked how they would like to receive it. Againunprompted responses were received as shown in Table 24.
TABLE 24PREFERRED METHODS FOR RECEIVING INFORMATION
MethodN
(173)%
Newsletters/brochures/mail 123 71.1
On the web/email 60 34.7
Newspapers 47 27.2
TV or radio 45 26.0
Talks to community/Landcare groups 24 13.9
Special documentaries/video tapes 20 11.6
Direct, personal methods were more often preferred such as newsletters, web, and email.There was lesser support for mass media methods. This has been a consistent finding byARCWIS3 in both quantitative and qualitative research over the past decade. The unpromptednature of the data also lends credibility to the findings.
3 Australian Research Centre for Water in Society
36
3.8 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Stakeholders were asked, unprompted, who they thought should be involved in decidingenvironmental flows for the Murray River. Table 25 outlines the major groups that werenominated, though again, a wide and varied range was offered. Up to three responses wereallowed.
TABLE 25PREFERRED INVOLVEMENT IN DECIDING ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS
Group for InvolvementN
(321)%
All groups/stakeholders/everyone who wants to 126 39.3
Local people who know the river/live there/work there 48 15.0
People with scientific knowledge 37 11.5
All three state governments 33 10.3
Environmental people 29 9.0
Federal Government 29 9.0
Community groups 28 8.7
National/Independent body 23 7.2
Water departments/organisations 21 6.5
All levels of government (local, state, federal) 21 6.5
All users 21 6.5
Murray-Darling Basin Commission 19 5.9
There was considerable support for far reaching involvement by all stakeholders, local people,community groups and water users. The role of specifically skilled groups such as scientists,governments, environmentalists and water departments was also recognised.
Stakeholders were then asked if they would like to be personally involved in any ongoingprocess for deciding environmental flows. Forty-two percent indicated their agreement with afurther 8% indicating they might be interested. About half the sample did not want anypersonal involvement. However, this is a good response by people for personal involvement,though perhaps not surprising given it is a stakeholder sample. Comparisons between groupsyielded only the following significant differences (p<.01).
! The Public Good cluster was significantly more likely to want to be involved (52.7%)than was the Private Good cluster (31.9%).
37
! Urban Residents were significantly less likely to want to be involved (17.9%), andEnvironmentalists significantly more likely to want to be involved (72.2%) than theother stakeholder groups (Agriculture – 50.0%; Tourism/Recreation – 57.1%; StateGovernment – 48.8%; Local Government – 46.9%).
Of interest was that there was no statistically significant difference in preference for personalinvolvement between stakeholders in the Murray region and outside the region. This wouldindicate a need to provide for people other than in local areas to be involved in any ongoingdecision-making process.
Those who indicated an interest in being involved were then asked how they would like to doso. Table 26 shows the main, unprompted responses where up to three answers were allowed.
TABLE 26PREFERRED METHODS FOR PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT
IN DECIDING ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS
MethodN
(158)%
Involved already 27 17.1
Keep informed of what’s happening (what, where & when) 25 15.8
Meetings at a local community level 25 15.8
Serve on a committee (new or existing) 23 14.6
Surveys 17 10.8
Discussion groups/public debates/conferences 14 8.9
Make submissions 13 8.2
Any way I can 9 5.7
38
3.9 COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT GROUPS OFURBAN RESIDENTS
Given the particular interest in the views of South Australian Urban Residents outside theMurray region4, a number of comparative analyses were conducted within the Urban Residentstakeholder group. To do this, the group was divided into three individual groups: UrbanResidents in the Murray region (from the three states: N=52); South Australian UrbanResidents outside the region (N=30); and New South Wales and Victorian Urban Residentsoutside the region (N=30).
Analyses were then conducted with the major variables in the questionnaire to see if anystatistically significant differences occurred between the groups. The only differences toemerge were as follows.
! SA Urban Residents from outside the region were significantly more aware of issues todo with the Murray River (mean = 1.9) than were the NSW & VIC Urban Residentsfrom outside the region (mean = 2.7).
! The NSW & VIC Urban Residents from outside the region rated the priority for waterfor irrigation for other grains (eg. wheat and oats) significantly higher (mean = 7.8)than did SA Urban Residents from outside the region (mean = 4.3) and UrbanResidents from the Murray region (mean = 3.3).
! SA Urban Residents from outside the region perceived themselves to be significantlymore familiar with issues to do with the Murray River environment and its water needs(mean = 2.3) than were the NSW & VIC Urban Residents from outside the region(mean = 2.9).
! NSW & VIC Urban Residents from outside the region were significantly more likely tonominate no stretch of the river of particular interest (30.0%) than were SA UrbanResidents from outside the region (20.0%). Residents from the Murray region wereleast likely to nominate this option (3.8%).
4 See Section 2.2.2 and the CRP recommendation
39
4.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
4.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Most stakeholders were interested in participating in the survey and quite low refusal rateswere recorded for all except Urban Residents. The Urban Residents from outside the regionwere more likely to refuse than those in the Murray region, and Urban Residents from SouthAustralia were less likely to refuse than those from the other states, both in and outside theMurray region.
Stakeholders generally thought themselves to be aware of issues to do with the Murray Riverand familiar with the environment and its water needs. However, Urban Residents thoughtthemselves to be significantly less aware and less familiar than other stakeholders.
Stakeholders generally were concerned for the current state of the river and considered thereto be serious problems which would take many years to right. The need to control both riverpollution and water-use were seen to be management areas that needed attention. There wereno significant differences between stakeholder groups in agreement with the need for strongerwater-use rules for urban and agricultural users. Even the Agriculture and Urban Residentsequally agreed with these statements.
However, there was little confidence among stakeholders that there was sufficient politicalwill in terms of long term commitment, co-operation and resources that would be needed toimprove the Murray environment. There was also concern that greed and self-interest in thecommunity would be a stumbling block.
When examining lay philosophies of water allocation, a number of areas of high agreementacross the sample emerged. These can provide a philosophical basis for the development ofany allocation or reallocation debate. These areas were:
! the right of all sections of the community to have a say on water allocation;! the moral responsibility of those upstream to look after the interests of those
downstream;! the same rights of the natural environment to water as people;! the recognition that there will need to be some personal sacrifices if there is to be
effective planning;! the need to act now before exact environmental knowledge;! the value of water other than its dollar value;! the ownership of water by everyone and its management for the overall public good;! the inappropriateness of unconstrained water markets as an allocation tool.
The analysis of the twenty-six lay philosophical statements indicated that there were twodistinct clusters within the stakeholders with opposing philosophical stances on waterallocation. These were labelled Public Good and Private Good and approximately equalnumbers across the sample held each view. It should be noted however, that members of thetwo clusters are not polarised at opposite ends of the spectrum. But for the planner,understanding that two ways of thinking about water allocation exists should assist instructuring future debate on the subject and managing any possible conflict. The surveyidentified the relative proportions of these two groups in each of the various stakeholdergroups.
40
4.2 WATER-USE PRIORITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS
Water for the environmental health of the river received clear priority above eleven otherwater-uses by all stakeholders and both regions. Although there were statistically significantdifferences between the philosophical clusters and between states, the mean importancepriority scores for environmental use were still much greater than those of all other uses.
The priority scores of the other eleven uses seemed to indicate groupings in three differenttheme areas: human life support; industry; and recreation. Fishing was seen to be similar toindustries in terms of priority for water rather than a recreational use. Although a number ofstatistically significant differences occurred between the various groups, except for someTourism/Recreation interests, these were more related to degree of importance rather than anylarge order difference in priorities.
Similarly, there was unequivocal support for the principle of a specific environmentalallocation. However, this support dropped markedly from 95% to less than 40% ifprocesses that involved users and local people in the decision making were not followed.Support also decreased if there were economic impacts associated with allocating water to theenvironment. However, about two-thirds of the sample continued to support anenvironmental flow even given these concerns. This is consistent with the general agreementwith the lay philosophical statements that ‘you can’t really solve water sharing problems byanalysing the costs and benefits in dollars’ and ‘special water allocations should be made toachieve environmental health even if it reduces the profits of local businesses’.
The mean trade-off decision score indicated that, despite a number of scenarios that couldimpact on people’s original decisions, there was still positive support for an environmentalflow. There were no significant differences between the scores of the different stakeholdersor respondents from the different regions. There were differences between the philosophicalclusters and states, but these were issues of degree rather than opposing views.
It would appear therefore, that there is little argument that water for environmental health ofthe river should receive priority in any future allocation discussions. ‘How much’ and‘when’ and ‘how’ may be issues for resolution, but a sound basis of agreement exists onwhich the debate can be built. But in conducting this debate, if an appropriate decision-making process is not followed in which users and local people have the opportunity to have asay, this agreed basis will be jeopardised.
4.3 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Only about half the sample felt that they wanted any information about the Murray Riverenvironment and environmental flows. This was consistent with personal ratings ofawareness and familiarity with issues. As noted earlier, however, it may be that people arealready receiving information sufficient for their needs from other sources. So anyconsiderations of information and education programs could consider co-ordinating with otherspecific stakeholder sources.
About one-third of respondents from the Murray region and about a half of those outside theregion requested the definition of an environmental flow before starting the questionnaire.Unprompted comments from people on what they thought an environmental flow “should be”indicated some degree of misunderstanding by stakeholders.
41
However, people were very clear about what they wanted an environmental flow to achieveand seemed to be more comfortable talking about the issue in these terms. In this way, thecommunity could confidently express their environmental values without further informationand could therefore easily contribute to initial discussions and debate for goal setting.
The major information requirement nominated by respondents tended to be generalised andaimed at keeping them updated with what was happening and what was being done aboutriver health. There were some specific topics requested such as those associated with waterquality and water-use.
Personalised methods of receiving information were mostly preferred – postal or electronicmail.
4.4 INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS DECISION MAKING
Respondents generally thought that far reaching public involvement was required, both withinthe region and outside. Stakeholders, local people, water-users, community groups andappropriately skilled groups should all have the opportunity for involvement in decidingenvironmental flows for the Murray River. This was consistent with the trade-off responseswhere support for an environmental allocation dropped markedly if users and local peoplewere not given the chance to have a say in the decisions.
About half the sample wanted to be personally involved. Some of these just required to bekept informed and some said they were already involved. Local level activities weresupported, such as meetings, committees, discussion groups etc.
People outside the region wanted to be provided with opportunities for involvement, and weremore interested in the extreme ends of the river than those in the region. Stakeholders in theregion tended to be mostly interested in reaches of the river close to where they lived.Therefore, it would seem advisable that any public involvement program should consider areach by reach approach.
4.5 GROUP DIFFERENCES
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the findings was the degree of agreement betweengroups and these tended to be in the areas of greatest consequence: support for anenvironmental allocation and the priority of water for environmental health above other uses.
Throughout the data analysis statistical comparisons were made between the three states; thetwo regions; the six stakeholder groups; and the two philosophical clusters. Potentialalliances and conflicts were identified in the analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions of closenessto the interests of other groups, and the relative proportions of the philosophical clusters ineach stakeholder group.
There was little disagreement between stakeholders in considering the priority for water forthe eleven uses other than environmental health. The main exception was that ofTourism/Recreation stakeholders who gave priority to water for fishing and tourismbusinesses above that of stock and domestic use. In fact, the priority scores were similar tothose assigned by other stakeholders to uses for human life support.
42
Otherwise, the major differences between groups to emerge from the analysis were as follows.
! The Public Good clusterwas more aware of river issues; perceived themselves to be more familiar with issuesof environmental water needs; rated the present health of the river worse; was morefavourable towards allocating water specifically for the environment; and more likelyto want to be personally involved in a decision making processthan was the Private Good cluster.
! Urban Residentswere less aware of river issues; perceived themselves to be less familiar with issues ofenvironmental water needs; and were less likely to want to be personally involved in adecision making processthan were other stakeholders.
! South Australian Urban Residents outside the regionwere more aware of river issues; and perceived themselves to be more familiar withissues of environmental water needsthan were NSW & VIC Urban Residents outside the region .
! South Australian respondentswere more favourable towards allocating water specifically for the environmentthan were respondents from New South Wales and Victoria.
! Environmentalistsperceived themselves to be more familiar with issues of environmental water needsthan were Urban Residents;and more likely to want to be personally involved in a decision making processthan were other stakeholders.
! Murray Region respondentsrated the present health of the Murray River better (though not good)than respondents from outside the region.
Considering the lack of major differences between the various groups, a well-designed publicinvolvement program should be able to engender some productive debate. Recognition of thetwo philosophical differences in water allocation and the development of management optionsthat cater to both these views should allow stakeholders to consider the trade-offs in aconstructive manner.
43
5.0 REFERENCES
Nancarrow, B.E., Syme, G.J. and McCreddin, J.A. (1998). The development of stakeholder-based principles for defining environmental flows in modified rivers. A report to the Landand Water Resources R&D Corporation. CSIRO Land and Water Consultancy Report N0.98-25.
Syme, G.J., Nancarrow, B.E. and McCreddin, J.A. (1999). Defining the components offairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses. Journal ofEnvironmental Management. 57, 51-70.
44