SEA Working Paper 2000/02

Community attitudes to land degradation issues and responsibilities in Western Australia

Sally P. Marsh*, Michael P. Burton, and Josie Patterson

Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA 6907
*Now at Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Sydney

Abstract

Many catchments in Western Australia (WA) are facing a range of environmental problems caused by farming activities. Samples from three populations – city, farm and rural town – were surveyed for a study investigating community attitudes and acceptance of water management options in a catchment. A small part of the survey sought responses to statements posed about agriculture, the environment and responsibility for managing environmental degradation caused by agriculture. Responses to these statements show that all groups support a balance between agricultural and environmental objectives in land use, although farmers and those in the rural towns are more pro-agriculture than residents of Perth. Awareness of environmental problems caused by conventional agricultural activities is only moderate in all samples, especially awareness of off-site impacts on wetlands, roads and rural towns. There is a strong acceptance of community responsibility for land degradation caused by farming activities, as opposed to a view that individual landowners/farmers having sole responsibility.

1. Background

Many catchments in Western Australia (WA) are facing a range of environmental problems caused by farming activities. For example, community consultation in the Moore Catchment in WA has identified salinity, waterlogging and flooding, soil erosion and loss of native vegetation and wildlife as priority issues to be addressed (Black, 1999). In 1999 a team from the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Western Australia undertook a study for the WA Waters and Rivers Commission to investigate community attitudes and acceptance of water management options in the Moore River Catchment. This work would contribute to an ongoing project in the catchment funded by the Natural Heritage Trust.

The Moore Catchment is situated in the northern agricultural region in Western Australia. It covers an area of 14,000 km² in eight shires: Victoria Plains, Dandaragan, Moora, Dalwallinu, Coorow, Carnamah, Gingin and Perenjori. It extends from Guilderton to just south of the Yarra Yarra Lakes (near Three Springs). There is a diverse array of farming systems in the catchment, ranging from intensive horticulture, floriculture and aquaculture in Gingin to broadacre wheat and sheep enterprises in the upper reaches of the catchment. There are also extensive wetlands in the catchment which face a variety of theats (e.g. salinisation, excessive inundation, eutrophication) as a result of agricultural practices (Carpenter, 1999).

The basis for the conclusions presented in this paper are 3 surveys of different stakeholders: farmers both from within and outside the Moore Catchment, residents of three towns in the catchment and residents of the city of Perth. Each have different, and legitimate interests in the outcomes of different management practices in the catchment, and might be expected to hold different attitudes to land degradation problems caused by agricultural activities. The survey sought responses to statements posed about agriculture, the environment and responsibility for managing environmental degradation caused by agriculture. The statements are quite general and do not refer to the Moore Catchment at all. This section of the survey was only the first part of a larger survey which also included a choice modeling exercise which addressed water management options within the Moore Catchment. Only the results from the first part of the survey, the responses to the more general attitudinal statements, are reported in this paper.

2. Method

The surveys were conducted face-to-face with three populations: farmers, people from rural towns, and people from the city. One hundred and one people from the rural towns of Guilderton, Dalwallinu and Moora were surveyed, 99 people from Perth participated in the survey, and 66 farmers were surveyed.

Of the three rural towns chosen, Dalwallinu was located high in the catchment, Moora in the middle, and Guilderton low in the catchment. The majority of the rural town surveys were completed by Moora and Dalwallinu residents (41% and 38% respectively) with only 21% of surveys being completed by Guilderton residents. Respondents in rural towns were chosen at random by doorknocking. Of the farmer surveys, 65% were completed by people with postcodes from within the Moore Catchment area. Farmers were surveyed at agricultural shows at Moora, Dalwallinu and Dowerin. The city surveys were done by randomly approaching people in the central business district of Perth, and in riverside parks.

The general attitudinal questions were the first part of the survey and did not take long to complete. The rest of the survey was more complex and respondents generally took around 30 minutes to complete the survey. All the interviews were conducted by two fourth year students in the Faculty of Agriculture.

3. Results

The attitudinal and socio-economic data have been analysed and are presented in this section. Section 3.1 shows a summary of the socio-economic data from the three populations. The attitudinal data is then presented in section 3.2, followed by a brief discussion of the apparent trends and common characteristics evident in this information.

3.1 Data summary: Socio-economic characteristics

A summary of the socio-economic data for the surveyed groups is presented in Table 1. Generally speaking, the city respondents were younger and better educated than the town and farm respondents. The city respondents had a higher percentage of students, the town population a higher percentage of retired and unemployed people, and the farm population the highest percentage who were self-employed. Rural town respondents had a lower average annual household pre-tax income than both city and farm respondents (Table 2).

Table 1 Summary of socio-economic data for the surveyed populations

Table 2 Annual household pre-tax income for city, town and farm respondents

The survey from the rural towns in the Moore Catchment appears to contain a good cross-section of the community. The representativeness of the survey may be accounted for by the method of surveying. For the survey, streets in Moora, Dalwallinu and Guilderton were chosen at random as were the people surveyed, thereby decreasing interviewer bias.

The other survey populations, however, do not appear to be as representative of the general population. Older age groups appear to be under-represented, and students over-represented, in the city survey. Conversely, older age groups appear to be over-represented in the farm survey, and less females were surveyed than in the other two populations. The majority of the city surveys were completed in the central business district of Perth, which could have contributed to this bias. Only 100 surveys were completed to represent the approximately 1.2 million people who live in Perth. Therefore, the results of the survey should be viewed with caution.

3.2 Data summary: Respondents’ attitudes and opinions

In the first part of the survey, participants were presented with a number of statements that endeavoured to ascertain their attitudes towards the environment and related issues (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). There were a total of eighteen statements with which the participants could indicate that they strongly agreed, agreed, were undecided, disagreed, strongly disagreed, or didn’t know. The eighteen statements were divided into three categories (although these divisions did not appear in the survey):

• attitudes towards farming and the environment;
• awareness of agricultural and environmental problems; and
• perception of responsibility for environmental degradation.

Attitudes towards farming and the environment

A summary of the responses to these six questions is given in Table 3. Replies to the statements were scored from 4 for "strongly agree" to 0 for "strongly disagree". "Don’t know" was scored as 2 as was "undecided". Mean scores and standard deviations for these statements for the three populations are shown in Table 3.

Generally, the surveyed populations strongly agreed with statements that "government should give higher priority to policies to conserve and protect the environment" and "society has a right to expect farmers to farm in way that maintains land and water in good environmental health"; tended to disagree with statements that "WA need to maximise agricultural production" and that "government legislation to protect the environment is hampering primary industries" and that "agricultural land should be used primarily for annual crops"; and were undecided about the statement relating to drainage of water off rural properties.

The final column in the table indicates whether the distribution of responses from the three populations was significantly different, as determined by chi-squared tests. For example:

• the city population was significantly less inclined than the town and farm populations to agree with statements that "WA needs to maximise agricultural production" and "government legislation to protect the environment is hampering primary industries",
• responses to the statement that " government should give higher priority to policies to conserve and protect the environment" were not significantly different between the three populations, and
• the town population agreed more strongly than the farm population that society has a right to expect farmers to farm in a way that maintains land and water in good environmental health.

Table 3 Average response scores to statements designed to elicit respondents’ opinions about agriculture and the environment. (4 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree)

Awareness of agricultural and environmental problems

A summary of the responses to these six questions is given in Table 4. Replies to the statements were scored from 4 for "strongly agree" to 0 for "strongly disagree". In this case "don’t know" was scored as 0 as this reply indicated a lack of awareness of the problems. Mean scores and standard deviations for these statements for the three populations are shown in Table 4.

The surveyed populations tended to agree with statements that "WA agricultural land faces serious degradation problems caused by clearing native vegetation", and that "agricultural activities are damaging river systems and wetlands" and that "extensive revegetation is required"; but were undecided about the statements relating to the area of agricultural land that will be affected by salinity, and the effect of salinity on biodiversity and building and roads in rural areas.

The city population was significantly less aware than the other populations that "salinity is reducing biological diversity" and "affecting buildings and roads in rural areas". Farmers were significantly more likely to agree than the other populations that "salinity will affect 30% of farming land by 2050" and that "extensive revegetation is required to reduce the area of land threatened by salinity". This indicates that these messages are reaching the farming population. The town populations are significantly more aware that agricultural activities are damaging river systems and wetlands.

Table 4 Average response scores to statements designed to gauge respondents’ awareness of environmental degradation problems. (4 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree)

Perception of responsibility for environmental degradation

These questions were designed to elicit the degree to which respondents thought that the responsibility for environmental degradation problems should rest with individual landholders or the government and wider community. A summary of the responses to these six questions is given in Table 5. Replies to the statements were scored from 4 for "strongly agree" to 0 for "strongly disagree". "Don’t know" was scored as 2 as was "undecided". Mean scores and standard deviations for these statements for the three populations are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Average response scores to statements designed to elicit respondents’ opinions on the degree of responsibility for environmental degradation problems that should be accepted by the wider community. (4 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree)

The surveyed populations strongly agreed that "more government funding is needed to address the problem of salinity", but only tended to agree that "the wider community should contribute more money to address degradation issues on farming land" and that "the general public should accept more responsibility for the environmental problems being caused by farming activities". Interestingly, the respondents seem to make a distinction between the perceived responsibilities of government and the acceptance of responsibility by the community.

All the populations tended to disagree that "funding Landcare should be the sole responsibility of rural landholders"; that "farmers should pay a levy for water, salt and nutrients that leave their property"; and that "damage to infrastructure caused by salinity should be the responsibility of local Shire Councils". However, the farm population disagreed significantly more strongly than the town and city populations with these statements. Similarly, the farm population agreed significantly more strongly than the town and city populations that "the wider community should contribute more money to address degradation issues on farming land".

Overall attitudes to issues related to farming and the environment

All responses in the attitudinal section of the survey were re-scored to consistently reflect the response with regard to environmental concerns, awareness and responsibility for degradation. Scores for each individual in each section of the questionnaire were summed to give a scale score. This scale score is taken as an indication of a person’s ‘position’ on the abstract dimension which the individual questions are intended to tap (de Vaus, 1995). In this case, the three scale scores indicate the extent to which the respondent favours conservation of the environment, is aware of environmental problems caused by agricultural activities, and favours individual (as opposed to public) responsibility for degradation problems. As shown in Table 6 the scores were distributed between the minimum of zero and the maximum of twenty-four, and as illustrated, higher scores indicate that respondents favour conservation, are aware of environmental problems, and favour individual responsibility for degradation problems.

Table 6 An explanation of the scoring system of the attitudinal responses from the surveys.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the summated scores for attitudes to farming and the environment for the city, town and farm populations. The score for the majority of all populations is concentrated in the 2^nd and 3^rd deciles, which suggests that the respondents are concerned about environmental issues but would still support land being used for agricultural activities despite these concerns. The city population tend to be more conservation-oriented than the town and farm populations. A small percentage of each population (10 to 15%) have scores which indicate a high support for conservation as opposed to agricultural activities.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the summated scores for awareness of environmental issues for the city, town and farm populations. Generally speaking, levels of awareness of environmental issues amongst the surveyed populations were moderate, and higher in the town and farm populations than the city population. Approximately twenty percent of the city population had an extremely low awareness (summated score of 6 or less) of environmental issues related to degradation caused by farming activities.

Figure 1. Summated scores for attitudes to farming and the environment in city, town and farm populations

Figure 2. Summated scores for awareness of environmental issues

Figure 3. Summated scores for attitudes to responsibility for environmental degradation caused by farming activities

Figure 3 shows the distribution of the summated scores for attitudes to responsibility for environmental degradation caused by farming activities. The graph illustrates that virtually all of the people surveyed had scores in the 1^st and 2^nd deciles, indicating that they think government and the wider community should take more responsibility for the environmental damage caused by farming activities. This attitude was more pronounced with the farm population, with over 50 percent of respondents having a very low summated score (between 0 and 6).

Some caution should be exercised in interpreting these summated scores. The summated scores were statistically tested for unidimensionality and reliability. A unidimensional scale is one in which items in the scale measure the same underlying concept, and tests for reliability assess the likelihood that individuals would obtain the same scale score on different occasions. The tests indicated that the scale scores for level of environmental concern and perception of responsibility did not measure well for either unidimensionality or reliability. The scale score for awareness of environmental issues, however, scored well on both counts, and can be considered a valid scale score indicating an overall level of awareness.

4. Conclusions

It appears that all three populations tend to value conservation of the environment to some extent. This tendency is more pronounced with the city population. However, results from the questions on environmental attitudes also show that all the surveyed populations do support agricultural use of the land. It appears that all groups support a balance between agricultural and environmental objectives in land use, although farmers and those in the rural towns are more pro-agriculture than residents of Perth.

It is possible that farmers surveyed might have been biased towards those already interested in Landcare issues. Most farmers from outside the Moore Catchment were surveyed at the Dowerin show, a large 3-day farm machinery-oriented event where the farmers who completed the survey would have been looking at Landcare displays adjacent to where the survey was conducted. It is likely that these farmers were already interested in and aware of Landcare issues (but unaware of the survey). However, farmers surveyed at the much smaller Moora and Dalwallinu shows are likely to have been more representative of farmers just at the show, and not those specifically interested in Landcare.

The awareness of agricultural problems was only moderate in all samples, and their attitudes towards conservation may be influenced by their lack of knowledge about environmental damage resulting from farming activities. This is particularly so for the city population who, although generally aware that farming activities are causing degradation problems, were significantly less aware that salinity was affecting biological diversity, buildings and roads. Farmers are significantly less aware that agricultural activities are damaging river systems and wetlands. Our results suggest that there is still a potential for education of farmers and the general public about the problems that are facing agriculture and the environmental damage resulting from conventional agricultural activities.

Most people surveyed tended to think that the general public should accept more responsibility for addressing environmental problems. This is an encouraging result, especially in the current political climate where the merits and possibility of an environmental tax, such as a salt levy , are being debated (e.g. Pannell 2000). There was a very low acceptance of the idea that rural landholders should be solely responsible for funding Landcare activities in their district, and a low acceptance of the idea (very low for the farm population) that landholders should pay a levy for the water, salt and nutrients that leave their property. The overall low scores for all populations (see Figure 3) indicate that they might be willing to pay for either compensation to farmers who have been required to curtail their agricultural activities, especially if environmental damage could be avoided, or measures to address the environmental damage caused by agriculture.

References

Black, J., 1999. Moore River Basin Regional Committee: Drawing together historical information on the group. Mimeo.

Carpenter, J., 1999. Northern Agriculture Region Integrated Management Strategy. Sustainable Rural Development, Northern Agriculture Region. Agriculture Western Australia, Western Australia.

Pannell, D.J., 2000. Salt Levy? The Complex Case for Public Funding of Salinity. SEA Working Paper 2000/01.

De Vaus, D.A., 1995. Surveys in Social Research. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.

Citation: Marsh, S.P., Burton, M.P. and Patterson, J. (2000). Community attitudes to land degradation issues and responsibilities in Western Australia, SEA Working Paper 2000/02, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia. http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0002.htm.

SEA News issue #6

The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews

Copyright © 1999 S. Marsh, M. Burton and J. Patterson
Last revised: May 21, 2003.