home page |  contact us |  partners |  clients |  papers

Specialising in natural resource and social planning; community consultation and facilitation; values mapping and consensus building, mediation and conflict resolution; policy development; program and organisational diagnosis and development.

Final results:“Baseline” survey

A survey was developed in consultation with the TAN! Project , and included questions in a range of areas.

It was also seen to be useful to compare the responses of those landholders/managers who could be presumed to have already been aware of the TAN! Project, through being entered into the project database, and having received at least one mail-out about the project, and those who were not on the database, and therefore were not considered to be aware of the project. This latter group was drawn from the database of the NSW Farmers’ Association, a member of the TAN! Project management group.

A total of 813 surveys were mailed out in the week beginning 20 September 1999, with the deadline for responses being 22 October 1999.

• 600 surveys were circulated to members of the NSWFA, selected randomly by the Association from their mailing list of 6000 in the appropriate postcode areas.
• 213 surveys were circulated to people on the TAN! database, chosen to include land managers of private properties, crown land and Travelling Stock Reserves.

The survey responses were entered into an SPSS database and analysed using cross correlations and other basic statistical functions available through the inquiry facilities in SPSS.

Response rates

Of the 164 completed surveys, 40.9% ² were from respondents already on the GWB TAN! project database, and it was assumed that these respondents were participating at some level in the TAN! project, and they are therefore called TAN! participants. The level of participation would of course vary from active involvement and regular contact with the Rural Liaison Officers, to simply receiving the regular project Updates, with the many respondents likely to be in the latter category. 58.5% of surveys were from respondents who had received the survey via the NSWFA mailing list. It was assumed for the purposes of reporting on the survey that these respondents (called “non-TAN! participants”), were quite likely not to be aware of the TAN! project. Comparisons between these two groups of respondents will be found throughout the survey report. This comparison will provide an important 'baseline' aganst which some evaluation of the project and its impacts can be made through a follow-up survey to be undertaken at the conclusion of the project. For the surveys sent to non-TAN! participant respondents, the response rate was 16%, and for the TAN! respondents, the response rate was 31%.

Sex and age

Occupation

Occupation/Employment sector	No. of responses	% responses
Farm owner/manager	127	77.4
State Government	12	7.3
Local Government	6	3.7
Community based worker	6	3.7
Non-owner farm manager	4	2.4
Student	3	1.8
Farm Staff	2	1.2
Other	4	2.4
Total	164	100.0

Awareness of the project

As would be expected, many more of the non-TAN! participants were not at all aware of the project, and there were also more who expressed only some awareness, when compared with those who were already on the TAN! database (X²= 51.06, 2d.f.; p<0.0001). However, the results also showed that some among those not on the database were very aware of the project and among those who are on the database, there is considerable variation in the levels which they consider themselves to be aware of the project, including a proportion (5 out of 67 responses) who are not at all aware of the project, despite being on the database. Several factors may have contributed to this result. For instance, some who are participants by being on the project database may still not consider themselves 'aware' of the project. In other cases, the recipient initially entered in the project contact database may have moved on and information about the project may now be going to a colleague who completed the survey but has little awareness of the project. In a time when information dissemination is abundant, others may simply not have time to keep abreast of the information provided through project Updates.

Awareness of management techniques

• Very aware/actively involved
• Very aware, but no active involvement
• Somewhat aware
• Have heard about management suggestions, but little else
• Not at all aware

Significantly more of those involved in the Taking Action Now! project rated their awareness of how to manage remnant woodland very high, than did than those not involved in the project (X²= 49.43, 2d.f.; p<0.0001), with only four of those involved assessing themeslves as being 'Not at all aware' of how to manage. However, it is also important to note that 13 (14%) of those who have not had any involvement in this project also rating their management awareness as very high.

Focus of remnant management

• Managing the trees to keep them healthy
• Managing shrubs and grasses under the trees
• Managing both trees and shrubs

Attitudes

1.00 = strongly disagree
2.00 = disagree
3.00 = neither agree nor disagree
4.00 = agree
5.00 = strongly agree

Attitudes to the statement 'native vegetation is pleasing to look at'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	2	2	4
2.00	1	0	1
3.00	1	10	11
4.00	22	52	74
5.00	40	30	70
Total	66	94	160

Clearly, the majority of respondents, whether involved in the Taking Action Now! (TAN!) project or not, do find native vegetation pleasing to look at. Statistical analysis shows no significant difference between project participants and those who were not involved, in the extent to which they see native vegetation as pleasing to look at (X²= 5.47, 2d.f.; p>0.05).

Attitudes to native vegetation as 'a harbour for plant pests'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	13	12	25
2.00	20	22	42
3.00	22	28	50
4.00	10	24	34
5.00	1	7	8
Total	66	93	159

Although on inspection it appears that the a greater proportion of TAN participants might disagree with the statement 'Native vegetation harbours plant pests' than is the case for non-TAN participants, this apparent difference is not statistically significant (X²= 5.80, 2d.f.; p>0.05).

Attitude to statement 'Native vegetation reduces the productive capacity of my property'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	20	11	31
2.00	21	25	46
3.00	15	19	34
4.00	8	25	33
5.00	2	13	15
Total	66	93	159

Attitudes to native vegetation as a factor reducing productivity of the property differ significantly (X²= 12.84, 2d.f.) between those not participating in the TAN project and those who are participants at some level. Inspection of the data indicates that, in particular, a greater proportion of participants in the project disagree with this statement, or that, conversely, a greater proportion of non-participants agree with the statement.

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation is a fire hazard'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	9	7	16
2.00	19	26	45
3.00	21	24	45
4.00	14	26	40
5.00	3	10	13
Total	66	93	159

With respect to attitudes to native vegetation as a fire hazard, there were no significant differences (X²= 2.919, 2d.f.) between those respondents who were participants in the TAN! project, and those who were not project participants.

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation is important for stock shade and shelter'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	2	3	5
2.00	0	4	4
3.00	1	3	4
4.00	23	49	72
5.00	40	35	75
Total	66	94	159

Clearly, both TAN! project participants and those not involved in the project see native vegetation as important for stock shade and shelter, there being no significant differences (X²= 1.989, 2d.f.) between the two groups in this regard.

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation harbours feral animals (rabbits, foxes, cats)'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	5	2	7
2.00	11	9	20
3.00	22	22	44
4.00	25	45	70
5.00	3	16	19
Total	66	94	160

While many respondents, whether TAN! project participants or not, agree with the view that native vegetation harbours feral animals, differences between project participants and non-participants are statistically significant (p<0.02, X²=8.537, 2d.f.). Inspection of the data indicates that these views are held by a greater than expected number of non-project participants, or conversely by a smaller than expected proportion of project participants.

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation provides important wildlife corridors'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	1	2	3
2.00	0	0	0
3.00	1	7	8
4.00	17	49	66
5.00	48	66	84
Total	67	94	161

Thus, it is apparent that both TAN! project participants and non-participants acknowledge the importance of native vegetation in providing wildlife corridors. Differences between the two groups in this regard are not statistically significant (p>0.05, X²=2.969, 2d.f.).

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation provides benefits that increase my productive capacity'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	1	10	11
2.00	5	23	28
3.00	13	32	45
4.00	23	22	45
5.00	25	7	32
Total	67	94	161

A substantial proportion of both TAN! project participants and non-participants see benefits from native vegetation which will increase their productive capacity. However, the two groups differ significantly (p<0.001, X²= 27.646, 2d.f.) in the extent of these perceptions. Inspection of the data indicates that a greater than expected proportion of TAN! participants agree with this statement, as compared with the project non-participants.

Attitudes to the statement 'Native vegetation adds value to my property'

Agreement Score	TAN!	Non-TAN!	Total
1.00	1	8	9
2.00	2	20	22
3.00	10	29	39
4.00	20	29	49
5.00	34	7	41
Total	67	93	160

Only about half of the survey repsondents agreed that native vegetation adds value to the property. However, inspection of the data indicates that a greater proportion of TAN! project participants agreed with this statement than did non-participants, the difference being highly statistically significant (p<0.001, X²= 29.560, 2d.f.).

These attitudes to remnant native vegetation can be summarised as follows.

% of respondents

Native vegetation:		Agree/ Strongly Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Strongly disagree/ disagree	Statistical significance*
provides important wildlife corridors	TAN** Non-TAN	97.0 90.4	1.5 7.5	1.5 2.1	N.S.
is important for stock shade & shelter	TAN** Non-TAN	95.5 90.3	1.5 3.2	3.0 7.5	N.S.
is pleasing to look at	TAN** Non-TAN	93.9 87.2	1.5 10.6	4.6 2.1	N.S.
adds value to my property	TAN** Non-TAN	80.6 38.7	14.9 31.2	4.5 30.5	p<0.001 ***
provides benefits that increase my productive capacity	TAN** Non-TAN	71.6 30.9	19.4 34.0	9.0 35.1	p<0.001 ***
harbours feral animals	TAN** Non-TAN	42.4 64.9	33.3 23.4	24.2 11.7	p < 0.02 **
is a fire hazard	TAN** Non-TAN	25.8 38.7	31.8 25.8	42.0 35.5	N.S.
harbours plant pests	TAN** Non-TAN	16.7 33.3	33.3 30.1	50.0 36.6	N.S.
reduces the productive capacity of my property	TAN** Non-TAN	15.2 40.8	22.7 20.4	62.1 38.7	p < 0.01 **
is pleasing to look at	TAN** Non-TAN	93.9 87.2	1.5 10.6	4.6 2.1	N.S.

* Statistical significance of the difference in agreement/disagreement levels between numbers of respondents who are 'Taking Action Now!' project participants (** TAN) and those who are not project participants was calculated using a X²test, after aggregation of Agree & Strongly Agree responses, and of Disagree & Strongly disagree responses.

Main sources of information

No. of respondents (% of total)

Information Source	Male	Female	Total
Landcare	38	5	43 (26.2%)
NSW Farmers Assoc.	21	2	23 (14.0%)
Greening Australia	11	7	18 (11.0%)
Own knowledge/research	12	5	17 (10.4%)
Dept. Land & Water Conservation	13	2	15 (9.8%)
University or other researchers	5	0	5 (3.0%)
Media/Internet	5	0	5 (3.0%)
National Parks & Wildlife Service	2	1	3 (1.8%)
Community Solutions	1	2	3 (1.8%)
Rural Lands Protection Board	2	0	2 (1.2%)
Farm Consultants	1	0	1 (0.6%)
Other	4	2	6 (3.7%)
Could not identify one main source	4	0	4 (2.4%)
Sub-totals	119	26	145
Response missing			19 (11.6%)
Total			164 (100.0%)

Some of the other main sources identified included local field naturalists, research or training undertaken by the land manager themselves, Community Solutions and the media.

There are no significant differences (p>0.05) in the extent to which men and women use various organisations as their major source of information. While inspection of the data suggests that women more often use Greening Australia as their major information source, and men tend to more often use either the NSW Farmers’ Association these apparent differences did not reach statistical significance among the survey respondents.

Respondents were asked a more general question about who they talk to about their experiences in managing remnant vegetation and who they provide information to. The agencies and organisations listed in the first part of the question were all mentioned by respondents in this secondary question. A substantial proportion of respondents said that they talked to no-one, and quite a lot talk to neighbours, family members and other land managers. One respondent commented that “I have not really sought out anyone in particular as there seems to be no one in the middle ground – most farming organisations are at one end of the spectrum and green movements are at the other”. Another commented that “I do not pass any information on to any other source simply because I do not trust any of these sources not to interfere with the management of my land”.

Level of activity

This question was also analysed according to whether the respondents had been part of the TAN! project. The table below shows that in the case of all of the actions except the control of kangaroos the TAN! participants are more active than the non-TAN! participants.

Remnant vegetation management activity among project participants & non-participants

Management activity	TAN! participants	Non-TAN! participants	Total
Taking care with sprays	4.000 +/- 1.262	3.817 +/- 1.327	3.889 +/- 1.301 (1 - 5)
Controlling weeds	3.750 +/- 0.992	3.688 +/- 1.327	3.713 +/- 1.199 (1 - 5)
Leaving or creating habitat areas	3.953 +/- 1.265	3.538 +/- 1.395	3.707 +/- 1.355 (1 - 5)
Limiting times when stock are grazing	4.105 +/- 1.097	3.308 +/- 1.271	3.615 +/- 1.265 (1 - 5)
Controlling kangaroos & other grazing animals	2.542 +/- 1.466	3.220 +/- 1.467	2.953 +/- 1.499 (1 - 5)
Using fire only on occasional basis	3.129 +/- 1.751	2.659 +/- 1.714	2.850 +/- 1.739 (1 - 5)
Planting buffers	2.565 +/- 1.564	1.763 +/- 1.127	2.084 +/- 1.372 (1 - 5)

Changes to the way respondents manage remnant native vegetation

There was a wide variety of responses. A proportion of respondents identified fencing out as a specific strategy they would undertake. Others had obviously been considering more wide ranging options for native vegetation protection. For example, one respondent would like to “be in a position to ‘trade-off’ locking up native woodlands from livestock … for being able to have complete control over the rest of my property without government interference”. Another suggested that “changes could be made if the community paid for economic loss or changes to management”. Lack of resources to undertake management activity was a frequently expressed concern, one respondent suggesting that “if farmers could get financial help or tax deductions for fencing inside boundary fences” this would be a major advantage. Another claimed that “if [he] could afford it, [he would build a vermin proof fence around [his] 67 acre property and turn it into a viable wildlife sanctuary”. Another wanted “working examples [of] how managing vegetation can have a productivity and sustainability value”.

Several respondents chose to make comments on the way that their neighbours managed their properties - “Many good white box trees have been cut and burnt and destroyed in my area in the last 10 years. I want it stopped.”

Many of the responses were quite specific to the immediate needs of the land manager, and included concerns about cyprus pine regrowth and mistletoe, rabbit control and burning strategies. And there were some negative responses about government agencies “telling us how to run our land” and surveys such as this which only serve “to keep some people employed”.