Community Landcare Groups in Western Australia: Implications of Commonwealth policy and an assessment of functioning
Genevieve Simpson, June 2009
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree: Bachelor of Science (Environment) with Honours
COPYRIGHT: THIS THESIS MAY NOT BE COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY PROCESS WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
i
ABSTRACT: Landcare groups in Australia work to increase biodiversity, eliminate invasive species and promote sustainable land-use practices. The support system that has enabled the development of Landcare groups is undergoing a radical overhaul, with implications for the ability of these groups to continue. Landcare groups in Western Australia were assessed in terms of whether they perceive themselves as being reliant on government support and in terms of their abilities to function as independent organisations. There are two recurring themes in the Landcare literature regarding government support: the importance of funding and the importance of assistance from Landcare facilitators. The literature does not consider whether Landcare groups will be sustainable without government assistance, or whether they are capable of maintaining characteristics essential for survival, such as sound leadership, frequent meetings and community participation. Quantitative and qualitative analytical methods were used.
The quantitative
analysis took the form of a postal survey, completed by Landcare participants. The survey contained Likert-type questions to determine if trends existed in reliance on government support and group characteristics. The qualitative analysis employed four case studies, to determine individual group experiences. The case study approach utilised a combination of participant observation, examination of group meeting minutes and indepth interviews. Six additional interviews with relevant stakeholders were conducted. The results showed that the majority of Landcare groups continue to be reliant on government sourced funding and Landcare facilitators, and that those groups which do not have access to support have reduced their activity levels accordingly. Results from analysis of group characteristics showed that groups were maintaining satisfactory to high levels of group functioning in the categories of meeting functioning, participation and leadership. Landcare groups were suffering from a reduced volunteer base, with static or decreasing numbers of participants, an inability to set regular meetings and a lack of volunteers to take up leadership positions. The reliance of Landcare groups on government support suggests that Landcare .was an unsuccessful form of state-sponsored community participation, making Landcare groups typical volunteer organisations in their reliance on externally sourced funds and maintained functional characteristics.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I thank Julian Clifton, my supervisor, for his on-going support and suggestions during the research process, from initial ideas, through research design and with assistance in the final stages. I thank Bryan Boruff for his support during Julian‟s sojourns.
I thank Helen Pelusey for administrative assistance during the distribution and receiving of the survey, and also for her kind comments throughout the course of my research.
I thank Sheena Martin and Shivani Jayasinghe at Landcare Australia Limited for their assistance in finding a mode of distribution for the survey material. I also thank Landcare Australia Limited for contributing an incentive prize for the return of the surveys. I hope that the information provided to Landcare Australia Limited will be useful in the future.
I thank Natalie Moore at the Western Australian State Natural Resource Management Office for distribution of my survey with her allocation of Landcare Magazines. She provided a solution when I thought all was lost.
I thank David and Martine Stanton and Renee Manning for their enthusiasm and continued commitment to Natural Resource Management in Western Australia.
I thank all the Landcare volunteers for their time and for sharing their experiences with me.
I thank my family, friends and Graham for their continued interest and encouragement not just during this research project, but in whatever I endeavour to do.
iii
CONTENTS:
Abstract
ii
Acknowledgements
iii
Contents
iv
Figures
vi
Tables
vii
Abbreviations
viii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of the Thesis Topic
1
1.1:
Introduction to the topic
1
1.2:
Aims and objectives of the research
2
1.3:
Structure and format of the study
3
1.4:
Organisation of the thesis
4
Chapter 2: A Review of Communities, Participation and Landcare in the Literature Part 1: Communities and Participation
6
2.1.1: Identifying communities and community participation
6
2.1.2: A typology of environmental community groups
8
Part 2: Landcare in Australia
11
2.2.1: History of Landcare in Australia
11
2.2.2: Examination of the Landcare literature
15
Government support and Landcare
15
Group characteristics and Landcare
17
2.2.3: Proposition for further study Chapter 3: Methodological Approach to the Study
19 20
3.1:
Survey approach
20
3.2:
Survey analysis
22
3.3:
Qualitative analysis
26
3.4:
Ethical considerations
28
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion of Research Findings
30
Objective 1: Reliance on Government Support
30
iv
4.1.1: Landcare group reliance on Government funding
31
4.1.2: Landcare group reliance on Government facilitation
38
4.1.3: Final comments: Reliance on Government support
44
Objective 2: Analysis of Group Function Characteristics
46
4.2.1: Landcare group meeting functioning
46
4.2.2: Landcare group participation
50
4.2.3: Landcare group leadership characteristics
54
4.2.4: Final comments: Analysis of group function characteristics
58
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks and Suggestions
60
5.1:
Achievement of research aims
60
5.2:
Relevance to the academic literature
61
5.3:
Limitations to the study
61
5.4:
Community value and Landcare
62
5.5:
Landcare in the future
63
5.6:
Scope for further research
65
References
66
Appendices: 2.1
Literature review
72
2.2
Analysis of the 2009-2010 Business Plan Targets
87
3.1
Postal survey
88
3.2
Survey written responses
95
3.3
Cronbach‟s coefficient α and item-total correlation results
103
3.4
Interview outline and questions
106
3.5
Ethics approval form
115
3.6
Raw survey results
CD
3.7
Single item descriptive analysis
CD
3.8
Subset descriptive analysis
CD
3.9
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistics
CD
3.10
Gamma statistics
CD
v
FIGURES: 4.1 A histogram showing Landcare groups‟ reliance on Envirofunds
32
4.2 A histogram showing Landcare groups‟ reliance on NRM regional funding
32
4.3 A histogram showing the extent to which groups are self-sufficient
33
4.4 A histogram showing perceived adequacy of resources available
38
4.5 A histogram showing frequency of communication with a Landcare facilitator/NRMO
40
4.6 A histogram showing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for technology and knowledge
40
4.7 A histogram showing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for learning about the availability of grants.
41
4.8 A histogram showing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for group survival
41
4.9 A histogram showing aggregate scores for the meeting functioning scale
47
4.10 A histogram showing frequency of goal setting at group meetings
50
4.11 A histogram showing aggregate scores for the group participation scale
51
4.12 A histogram showing whether participant numbers in Landcare events is increasing
52
4.13 A histogram showing frequencies of survey respondents by age
54
4.14 A histogram showing aggregate scores for the leadership scale
56
4.15 A histogram showing frequency of leadership turnover
58
vi
TABLES:
2.1 Summary of environmental, voluntary community groups classified according to their mode of establishment
10
2.2 Summary of progressive environmental policies affecting Landcare groups
12
3.1 Summary of statistical operations used to analyse survey responses
23
4.1: Frequency of groups receiving or being denied funding from sources
34
4.2 Frequency of respondents reporting issues of concern to Landcare groups
48
vii
ABBREVIATIONS:
CfoC
Caring for our Country
DEC
Department for Environment and Conservation
NAP
National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality
NHT
Natural Heritage Trust
NHT II
Natural Heritage Trust Phase II
NLP
National Landcare Program
NRM
Natural Resource Management
NRMO
Natural Resource Management Officer
viii
C h a p t e r O n e: I n t r o d u c t i o n
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview of the Thesis Topic
1.1:
INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC
Australian Landcare groups are voluntary associations formed in predominantly rural communities, with the aim of increasing sustainable land-use and biodiversity (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999). While Landcare has not achieved its original goal of increasing attributes associated with stewardship of the land, Landcare has been found to result in an increased awareness of the signs of land degradation and increased use of best management practices (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). On-ground works of importance have included the use of perennial pastures, conservation tilling practices, feral animal and plant control, fencing and planting of vegetation (Allan and De Lacy, 1995). Most citizens join Landcare groups in order to address problems associated with land degradation, to work locally on nationally relevant issues, and to access financial support (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999).
While those participating in Landcare value a community approach to natural resource management, Landcare group characteristics have revealed difficulties in maintaining momentum for community Landcare work (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999). Landcare groups have been found to suffer from issues of gender inequality, a lack of funding, the possibility of „burn-out‟ among Landcare leaders and difficulty in participating in the broad-scale decision making process (Allan and De Lacy, 1995). If Landcare groups are to function indefinitely as independent organisations these issues must be addressed.
Landcare groups in Australia, including Land Conservation District Committees and Natural Resource Management groups, have received government funding and support since the inception of the National Landcare Program in 1989 (Wilson, 2004). Funding and support has varied in availability and value depending on progressive Landcare related policies. Whilst Landcare was initiated with the premise that groups would evolve independence from government support, this independence has not eventuated
1
C h a p t e r O n e: I n t r o d u c t i o n (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999). Government authorities maintain control over the type of on-ground activities completed by allocating funding to activities aligned with government priorities (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). Additionally, the importance of government-funded Landcare facilitators in communicating scientific knowledge and onground experience has been recognised (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000).
Changes in the form of government assistance associated with Landcare related policy have resulted in Landcare facilitators being adopted by Natural Resource Management regions (Farrelly, 2005). Concurrently, funding to Landcare groups has decreased as a greater focus is placed on regional-scale projects implemented by Natural Resource Management regions and State Departments (Robins and Dovers, 2007). With reduced funding, and facilitators decreasing community group assistance, groups have become increasingly disenfranchised and left without direction (Farrelly, 2005). With the introduction of the Rudd Government‟s 2008 „Caring for our Country‟ policy (Australian Government, 2008b) a further reduction in funding and facilitator support is likely to result. The ability for Landcare groups to survive with reduced funding and facilitation will depend on the groups‟ functional characteristics and their independence from government support. The research outlined in this thesis will assess Landcare groups in Western Australia in terms of their abilities to function as independent organisations and the extent to which Landcare groups perceive themselves as being reliant on government support for their own survival.
1.2:
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The aim of this research is to explore the extent to which Landcare groups can be selfsustaining under the „Caring for our Country‟ policy, and to what extent the individual characteristics of each community group and its participants affect this outcome. The extent to which groups and individuals perceive their group as being able to survive without government assistance, in the form of funding and technical support, can be used to evaluate the groups‟ likelihood of survival.
2
C h a p t e r O n e: I n t r o d u c t i o n
The objectives of the research are as follows:
1.
To determine the extent to which Landcare groups are dependent on
government support. Specifically, to determine whether individual members consider their Landcare group to be functioning with the independence that will enable them to survive without government assistance in the form of funding and local Landcare facilitators.
2.
To determine the relative importance of group characteristics which may
have assisted groups to survive previous changes in Landcare related policy. Factors important to Landcare group functioning are described in the Landcare literature (Cary and Webb, 2001) and include the ability to maintain capable individuals in leadership roles (without succumbing to „burn-out‟), to access resources, seek out technological innovations and to maintain high levels of group functioning (frequency of group events, setting of goals and attendance of participants).
1.3:
STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE STUDY
A mixed-methods approach was used to examine Landcare groups in Western Australia including qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative analysis, via a postal survey, was used to provide inferential statistics on group functioning and reliance on government support. The postal survey utilised Likert-type questions to measure the attitudes and opinions of Landcare members. The survey contained questions relating to members‟ perceptions of reliance on government support, their use of local Landcare facilitators and government funds (objective 1). Questions to determine if trends exist in factors associated with survival, such as the level of group functioning, capacity of leaders, and the ability to access resources (objective 2) were also included.
Qualitative analysis was adopted to explore a wider variety of variables in real situations, where group experiences could be used to explain trends in the survey data. This took the
3
C h a p t e r O n e: I n t r o d u c t i o n form of Landcare group case studies and interviews with relevant Landcare stakeholders. Four case studies were reviewed with six additional interviews being undertaken. The case study approach utilised a combination of participant observation, the examination of documents and in-depth interviewing.
The case study focus groups and interviews
allowed individuals to voice their opinions on their groups‟ reliance on government support (objective 1) and functioning (objective 1). Interviews were voice-recorded. Content analysis (Silverman, 2005) of the interview transcripts was used to determine where trends existed between the groups. The data obtained from participant observation centred on aspects of group functioning (objective 2), such as group dynamics, leadership skills, completion of tasks, member attendance and group motivation and activity. The main documents utilised were Landcare group meeting minutes (Curtis et al., 1999). These minutes were useful in suggesting aspects of group functioning (objective 2), for instance regularity of group meetings, meeting attendance rates and the setting of goals.
1.4:
ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
The organisation of this thesis follows the standard format, with a literature review providing background to the themes and ideas central to the research, a section describing the methodology used in the research process, and a results and discussion section providing evidence to the claims made in the final concluding chapter. The results and discussion section has been combined for this thesis in order to prevent repetition of themes and place conclusions from the research alongside claims made in the academic literature.
The literature review examines the wider academic literature pertaining to volunteer organisations and the requirements for survival of these groups, before examining the Landcare literature. The Landcare literature review first provides a historical overview of Landcare-related policy in Australia, and then examines how this policy, and specifically how government support in the form of funding and Landcare facilitators, has affected group survival. Finally the literature review examines Landcare group characteristics detailed in the literature.
4
C h a p t e r O n e: I n t r o d u c t i o n
The methodology section describes the quantitative and qualitative methods used. The techniques for analysing and drawing conclusions from the survey data are described and justified. The qualitative case study methods are described, and the kinds of information they are to elicit are defined. The methodology section concludes with a brief summary of ethical considerations.
The results and discussion section is split into two halves, each examining one of the two objectives. Each objective is then separated to examine subsection themes from the survey, with qualitative results in the form of quotations from interview subjects used to support themes and possible reasons behind trends observed in the survey responses.
The concluding chapter briefly summarises the results of the research in terms of the two objectives, and how the results are likely to add to the academic literature regarding community Landcare groups. Limitations of the study and scope for further research are briefly outlined, alongside a proposition for how Landcare groups could adjust to the reduction in federal government support. The concluding chapter also identifies the inherent value of Landcare groups, an idea which is not considered in the research process but is important in determining the relevance of the research outcomes to Australian environmental policy.
5
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
Chapter 2: A Review of Communities, Participation and Landcare in the Literature This review summarises important literature regarding voluntary community groups and participation, before examining the Australian Landcare movement. This review is a summarised version of the complete Literature Review (Appendix 2.1). Part 1 analyses the term „community‟ and examines requirements of voluntary community groups, and the kinds of participation they invoke. A brief typology of environmental community groups is also provided, which characterises groups based on their mode of establishment. Part 2 examines the historical progression of Landcare in Australia as a state-sponsored community participation program, and the associated policies and funding mechanisms which have allowed the development of Landcare groups. The specific effects of government funding and agency support on group performance are analysed, as is the importance of functional group characteristics.
Part 1: Communities and Participation 2.1.1: IDENTIFYING COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Though used frequently in the academic literature, the term „community‟ is particularly unclear and value loaded (Head, 2007). Articles examining the role or function of a community define „community‟ based on a three-way typology, where a community can be identified as being a community of place, where community members are connected within a small spatial unit; or as a community of identity, where members are connected socially in a homogeneous social structure; or as a community of interest, where members share similar opinions on a range of issues (Duane, 1997; Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). It has been suggested that in the event of the formation of a community-based group designed to increase citizen power, enact community change or share responsibility for a community asset, all of these definitions must apply simultaneously (Duane, 1997). Community members must be distributed within the specific region they wish to affect,
6
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w they must engage socially in order to communicate plans for community involvement, and they must have similar ideas on the issues that are to be addressed by the community group‟s functioning (Duane, 1997).
Within the literature there are two diverging forms of recognised community participation, termed instrumental and transformative participation (Buchy and Race, 2001). Instrumental participation is used as a tool to meet a specific end, whereas transformative participation utilises community participation as a mechanism for social change (Buchy and Race, 2001). This second form of participation is that which is utilised by the majority of community groups.
In either form of participation, the
community groups ideally adopt a certain level of power and self-sufficiency, where voluntary participation acts as a practice through which individuals and the community as a whole are capable of sharing the direction of institutionally derived development projects and the resources which affect them (Buchy and Race, 2001). Furthermore, a successful community group can be identified based on the attributes of its members and the elements of their interaction with the community group (McMillan and Chavis, 1986). As an active community participant, individuals can be defined as those with a sense of membership, where they obtain a feeling of belonging and relatedness due to community interaction; or as those with a sense of influence, where they feel as though they matter and make a difference; or as those with a sense of integration and reciprocity, where member‟s needs can be met as a result of association with the community; or as those with a shared emotional connection (McMillan and Chavis, 1986).
The academic literature stresses the importance of volunteer community groups being capable of both establishing and sustaining a formal organisation (Ohmer, 2008). Florin and Wandersman‟s (1990) review of volunteer-based organisations suggested a mortality rate of 50% for groups in their first year of operation. Those groups which remain active after one year of operation do so due to higher levels of group cohesion, task orientation for participants, higher levels of order and organisation in group events, and leader support and control (Ohmer, 2008). In particular, local leadership is critical, as leaders set examples, outline courses of action and provide drive, enthusiasm and direction for
7
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w projects (Pomeroy and Katon, 2001). Further requirements associated with voluntary organisation group functioning and survival relate to resources available for the group‟s use.
Financial resources are needed to support the planning, implementation, co-
ordination and assessment of projects (Pomeroy and Katon, 2001).
Unfortunately,
financial and technical resources available to volunteer organisations are often limited, and, where available, are often conditionally supplied (Pomeroy and Katon, 2001).
2.1.2: A TYPOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY GROUPS
Community groups attempting to enact community change or share responsibility for a community asset are largely composed of volunteers and participation at the individual level is done in order to increase feelings of empowerment or as a mechanism for larger social change (Buchy and Race, 2001). A variety of voluntary community groups exist within the academic literature with the aim of improving environmental conditions or harvesting environmental resources in a sustainable manner. The types of environmental community groups represented in the literature vary in terms of their function, their source of funding, their level of involvement with government and their mode of establishment. After examination of the literature, it was determined that environmental community groups can be classified according to their mode of establishment (Table 2.1). While all environmental community groups examined displayed voluntary membership, the mode of establishment often influenced the groups‟ abilities to function as an independent organisation by determining the source of funding and the community groups‟ level of involvement with their government.
Firstly, community driven community participation, characterised by those groups established by the community without external agents acting as a driving force, typically have little involvement with their government and are required to source their own funding opportunities, thereby limiting their abilities to enact change and maintain group works. Examples of these groups include community-sponsored agriculture groups (Cox et al., 2008) and community groups with the aim of reducing the effects of man-made environmental hazards, such as pollutants (Culley and Hughey, 2008). Secondly, non-
8
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w governmental organisation (NGO) driven community participation typically results in limited interaction with governments, and relies on NGO derived funding, resulting in community groups being highly dependent on the NGO (for instance the MOPAWI program in Honduras, [Brehm, 2000]). Thirdly, state-sponsored community participation relies on state supplied funding and initiation of group activities.
Many of these
programs are designed to be implemented by the state, with the assistance of NGOs, with groups eventually becoming independent.
If these community groups are to be
successful, devolution of power from states to communities is required, and as such many of these groups and the projects they work on are given legal rights by the state (Twyman, 2000).
Examples of these groups include the CAMPFIRE program in
Zimbabwe (Alexander and McGregor, 2000; Child, 1996), the UMA program in Mexico (Garcia-Marmolejo et al, 2008), and the National Landcare Program in Australia (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Within this framework there is an opportunity for co-ordination between the instigators of establishment. For instance, the co-management of resources often involves mutual commitment and co-operation from the state and community to organise and implement a plan for the sustainable use of a common pool resource. The source of funding in this case is shared, with funding for technology supplied by the government and in-kind assistance in the form of policing provided by the community. Examples of the co-management of common pool resource include fisheries comanagement in Asia (Pomeroy and Katon, 2001) and Canada (Singleton, 2000). Additionally, NGOs, for example the Australian Conservation Foundation, may coordinate with governments to increase resource bases available to community groups and provide a platform for discussion of community concerns in the media and political arena (Lowe, 2007).
9
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w Table 2.1 A brief summary of some environmental, voluntary community groups, including their function, source of funding and limitations, classified according to the groups’ mode of establishment. Mode of Establishment: Community driven community participation
Name and location: CSA: Communitysponsored agriculture; Scotland (Cox et al., 2008) CLEANUP group; Sugar Creek, USA (Culley & Hughey, 2008)
NGO-driven community participation
MOPAWI program; Honduras (Brehm, 2000)
State-sponsored community participation
CAMPFIRE program; Zimbabwe (Alexander & McGregor, 2000; Child, 1996) UMA: Management Units for Conservation; Mexico (GarciaMarmolejo et al, 2008) Landcare; Australia (See reference list)
Co-management – co-operative establishment
Community Forestry; Canada, United States, Mexico and Bolivia (Charnely & Poe, 2007) Fisheries Comanagement; Asia (Pomeroy & Katon, 2001) Canada (Singleton, 2000)
Function:
Funding:
Limitations:
Small-scale agricultural production with specific ends of limiting environmental harm by reducing transport distance and the use of chemicals. Unofficial participation designed to promote issues relating to a hazardous waste dispute.
Funds provided directly to the growers from the community in exchange for fresh produce.
Ecological sustainability and indigenous knowledge promoted by involving communities in regional policy-making decisions. Communities act as stakeholders and are capable of claiming revenue from wildlife, giving wildlife an economic value.
Interaction with the community is entirely dependent on NGO sourced funds, primarily in the form of donations. Donor funding is generally required for personnel and vehicles, and for education and training purposes.
Uneven distribution of risk, with the community not required to commit funds and growers to consistently provide produce. Barriers exist to participation in “official” processes relating to the hazardous waste dispute. Communities are completely reliant on NGO for funding, technical assistance, planning etc.
Designed to produce income for farmers from conservation activities on private and public lands.
Funding is required from NGOs and governments for research into alternative forms of extractive and non-extractive wildlife use.
Funding for investment and maintenance exceeds revenue from UMA products. Devolution of power to UMAs is minimal.
For promoting bestmanagement agricultural practices to decrease land degradation and increase biodiversity. Local communities are provided with a source of social and economic benefits from the sustainable use of forest resources.
Government support supplied in the form of NRM officers/Landcare facilitators and grants for on-ground work. Initial support for implementation of plans provided by the government with income generated being reinvested in the community. The community will require frequent funding from the government to maintain monitoring capabilities and update technology.
Extent to which groups are reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs and funding is not known. Devolution of decision-making power from governments to communities only partially realised.
Common Pool Resources harvested in a sustainable manner by sharing responsibilities and information across bureaucratic levels.
All group activities are funded by group members.
Relies on communities to set quotas for hunting and equitably distribute funds received.
An external agent is required to provide initial implementation of the plan and promote an equitable responsibility-sharing agreement.
10
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
Part 2: Landcare in Australia 2.2.1: HISTORY OF LANDCARE IN AUSTRALIA
During its history in Australian rural development, Landcare has come to have different meanings within different academic circles (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Landcare can refer to a rural community forming a group to implement more sustainable land management practices, it can refer to the government organisations and policies adopted to help these groups, or it can refer to a social movement relating to sustainable use of the land (Baker, 1997). Landcare groups in Australia are committed to implementing onground works to increase biodiversity in their regions, eliminate invasive species and adopt sustainable land-use practices (Australian Government, 2008a). At the peak of Landcare group functioning in Australia there were over 4 500 recorded Landcare groups (Wilson, 2004). The environmental policies providing support to Landcare groups have resulted in variations in the availability of support and have affected the functioning of Landcare groups (Table 2.2).
Landcare was first adopted as a national program to address issues of land degradation in 1989 when the Commonwealth government committed $360 million to the National Landcare Program (NLP) (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Initially, limited government funding was supplied to community Landcare groups for education and demonstration activities (Curtis et al., 1999).
Funding was additionally provided to employ local
Landcare facilitators or regional officers, whose primary role was to communicate funding opportunities, technological advances and innovative activities devised by other groups (Baker, 1997). Landcare was designed as a catalytic program, endeavouring to engage a large percentage of the rural community, producing adaptive managers with an increased stewardship ethic (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000).
Landcare groups were
developed from either existing rural community groups, such as Land Conservation District Committees (LCDCs) in Western Australia (Baker, 1997), or developed more autonomously, with government agency staff working with possible leaders to initiate
11
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w groups (Curtis et al., 1999). Participation in Landcare groups and associated activities remained voluntary for the duration of the NLP (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Table 2.2 A brief summary of the progressive environmental policies affecting Landcare groups in Australia Name of policy: National Landcare Program (NLP)
Funding period and allocation: 1989 – 1999, $360 million
Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)
1997-98 – 2001-02, $1.8 Billion ($1.25 Billion initial commitment, $550 million subsequent)
Natural Heritage Trust Phase II (NHT II)
2002-03 – 2007-08, $1.032 Billion
National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP)
2000-01 – 2007-08, $1.4 Billion
Caring for our Country (CfoC)
2007-08 – 2012-13, $2.25 Billion
Purpose of policy: Promoted educational opportunities with voluntary, local community groups in partnership with agency staff. Promotes largerscale works including tree planting, pest animal and weed control, fencing etc. Integrated regional planning for onground works via 56 Natural Resource Management regions. Regionally delivered plans for action to address dryland salinity and deteriorating water quality. Funding for election commitments and for competitive application under yearly Business Plans targeting key issues.
Funding for Landcare groups: Funding from the policy supplied direct to Landcare groups.
Reference:
Funding from the policy supplied to Landcare groups for larger on-ground works.
Australian Government, 2008d; Curtis & Lockwood, 2000
Funding devolved from Natural Resource Management regions or via smaller-value Envirofunds. Devolved to Landcare groups in targeted areas from Natural Resource Management regions. No funding specifically allocated to Landcare groups. Landcare groups must compete with other government, educational and private institutions.
Australian Government, 2008e; Farrelly, 2005
Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999
Australian Government, 2008f; WalterTurnbull, 2005
Australian Government, 2009b & 2009c
In 1997 the Commonwealth government provided an initial $1.25 billion to develop the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), providing funds to Landcare groups for larger scale, onground works (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999; Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). These onground works included tree planting, pest animal and weed control, planting vegetation, and fencing to protect remnant vegetation and river-banks from soil erosion (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). The NHT also encouraged the development of urban Landcare groups and a wider variety of Care groups, including Coastcare, Rivercare and Bushcare (Centre for International Economics, 2005). The increased funding available as a result of the
12
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w NHT resulted in a dramatic increase in the number and size of projects being developed by groups (Byron et al., 2001).
Research has shown that a lack of organisational structure contributed to inequality in funding between groups and a lack of inter-group and government communication (Farrelly, 2005). Phase two of the NHT, beginning in 2002-03, developed 56 Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions to co-ordinate agency support and to provide funds to larger scale on-site works (Robins and Dovers, 2007). In addition to the NHT, the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) was developed to provide funding specifically for projects addressing issues of dryland salinity and for increasing water quality (WalterTurnbull, 2005).
The NAP provided funds to many Landcare
groups within 21 priority regions, for use in on-farm projects (WalterTurnbull, 2005). Smaller group initiatives developed by existing Landcare groups were funded at the national level in the form of Envirofunds (Farrelly, 2005). Envirofunds were planned as an outlet to provide funds for Landcare groups, as well as the more recently developed Coastcare and Rivercare groups, performing small, on-ground works designed to address locally important natural resource management issues.
Without Envirofunds it was
suggested that smaller Care groups would receive very little, if any, funding under NHT phase two, as the local level focus of group activities was not „on the radar‟ of Natural Resource Management regional agendas (Centre for International Economics, 2005). In July 2008, the Rudd Government‟s „Caring for our Country‟ policy saw NRM regions‟ funding decrease to 60% of their previous budgets during the transition year of the program (2008-2009) (Australian Government, 2008b), with decreased base level funding available in subsequent years only where NRM regions‟ objectives align with the targets proposed by the „Caring for our Country‟ business plan (Australian Government, 2009b). During the 2009-2010 year these targets focussed largely on issues based in Northern and Eastern Australian NRM regions (Australian Government, 2009d). The researcher‟s analysis of the 18 targets in the 2009-2010 business plan found that only seven could be appropriately addressed by Western Australian Landcare groups1. 1
For a brief summary of this analysis see Appendix 2.2
13
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
„Caring for our Country‟ provides grants that are to be shared between a variety of groups, including businesses and educational institutions (Australian Government, 2008c), thus increasing the competition for funds and decreasing the likelihood of small Landcare groups being capable of obtaining funding. During the transition year (20082009) nine open grants and four Landcare grants were awarded in Western Australia (minimum value of $99,000), only three of which were granted to Landcare groups (Australian Government, 2009a).
Meanwhile, 46 grants were awarded in Western
Australia to Coastcare groups, as coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats were funding priorities for the transition year (Australian Government, 2009e). „Caring for our Country‟ has also seen Envirofunds terminated, with no local level, smaller funds available to Landcare groups (Australian Government, 2008b). Instead, „Caring for our Country‟ advises that community groups should co-ordinate with their Natural Resource Management region (Australian Government 2009c), with local-level funding being sourced from the regions‟ already depleted budgets. „Caring for our Country‟ will not renew any contracts with local Landcare facilitators or Natural Resource Management officers (Australian Government, 2008b). Consequently, Landcare as a policy to provide assistance to small community groups has ended, and Landcare community groups are faced with an increasingly uncertain future.
The Landcare policy framework provides a new avenue for research as it was the first state-sponsored community participation project to be implemented in a developed nation (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999), and emphasised its possible uses in rural development (Curtis et al., 1999). However, as Landcare and its related policies evolved it became clear that there was a diverging opinion on the function of the NLP and NHT and how their funds should be implemented.
The original assumption within the National
Landcare Program was that funds and agency support would be provided to „kick-start‟ the community groups into action, but that these funds were to be provided in the initial stages only, with the Landcare groups quickly becoming independent bodies (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999). This, however, is contrary to much of the literature on community participation, which suggests that, like any organisation, Landcare groups would require
14
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w consistent and continual funding and support in order to achieve optimal results in onground works (Florin and Wandersman, 1990; Baker, 1997; Cary and Webb, 2001).
2.2.2: EXAMINATION OF LANDCARE LITERATURE
The academic literature focusing on Landcare describes its political history in Australia (Baker, 1997; Curtis and Lockwood, 2000), and the extent to which it has been capable of achieving its goal of increasing the adoption of sustainable land-use practices (Allan and De Lacy, 1995; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997; Cary and Webb, 2001). Previous studies have examined the various definitions of Landcare (Baker, 1997), with several analysing the consequences of specific events on the application of Landcare, for instance the regionalisation of natural resource management in Australia (Farrelly, 2005; Robins and Dovers, 2007), or the introduction of Landcare initiated „networks‟ (Curtis et al., 1999; Sobels et al., 2001).
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AND LANDCARE
Two recurring themes exist in the literature: the importance of continued funding (Baker, 1997; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997) and the importance of local Landcare facilitators (Allan and De Lacy, 1995; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). Several quantitative survey studies have found that there is a significant relationship between the funding available, assistance from local Landcare facilitators and high levels of group functioning (Curtis, 1998; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). Allan and De Lacy‟s (1995) study found that 70% of groups indicated that local Landcare facilitators or government officers regularly attended group activities, and that 59% of groups suggested that facilitators played an important role in assisting in group decision-making.
This research also highlighted the reliance on
government funding, with 45% of groups reporting that funds and materials supplied by the government were inadequate for task completion (Allan and De Lacy, 1995). The Centre for International Economics (2005) conducted an analysis of Envirofunds which found that without funding for local on-ground works in the form of Envirofunds many groups would have lost enthusiasm for Landcare related works, resulting in their
15
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w dissolution (Centre for International Economics, 2005). This analysis also found that facilitators assisted groups in a variety of ways integral to group functioning and that, without the support of local Landcare facilitators, many group activities would not have „gotten off the ground‟ (Centre for International Economics, 2005).
Whilst assistance from facilitators has been recognised as beneficial, several studies have identified that many groups had no access to a Landcare facilitator. Curtis and Van Nouhuys‟ (1999) analysis of Landcare groups found that 71% of groups they contacted did not have access to a local Landcare facilitator. Curtis‟ (2000) article addressed the lack of consistency in funding between groups, with 30% of Victorian groups receiving less than $2,000 in 1997-98, whilst 16% of groups received funding of more than $25,000, representing 62% of the total funds available (Curtis, 2000). These results suggest that while funding and facilitator support may be preferable, many groups have been surviving with no facilitator support and negligible funding. What these articles do not address is the longevity of the groups with minimal support, and whether they are capable of surviving into the future if minimal to no government support was to be provided.
While survey results suggest the link between increased group performance and government support, a more adverse connection between government support and group functioning has been recognised (Lockie, 1997). Curtis and Lockwood (2000) suggested that the government may have a greater influence on group functioning and on-ground activities than the rhetoric of Landcare would propose, with funds being allocated to groups with activities and projects aligned with government priority issues (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). Wilson‟s (2004) study examined the institutional framework surrounding Landcare groups, the NLP and NHT, finding that facilitators acted in a „gate-keeping‟ position between the Landcare groups and the agencies which provided funding. Facilitators were capable of projecting their own ideology about the „best‟ way to address sustainable resource issues and group projects, resulting in group activities reflecting the facilitators‟ ideas and objectives rather than the Landcare groups‟ (Wilson, 2004).
16
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w The Landcare literature available thus highlights two diverging themes regarding government support. Government support in the form of funding and supply of local Landcare facilitators has been found to increase performance in groups and aid in technological advances and innovation of group practices. Alternatively, the provision of government support is uneven and in many cases may influence Landcare groups to the extent that the group‟s intentions and desires are not accommodated. The question of whether Landcare groups will be sustainable in the long term without government assistance is not addressed in the literature.
GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND LANDCARE
The ability for groups to continue implementing on-ground works and activities, in spite of reduced government support, will be dependent on the functional characteristics of the groups. There is a dearth of information available in the wider community participation literature suggesting group characteristics which may determine a community group‟s success. The Landcare literature available largely examines group characteristics relating to leadership. One particular issue echoed repeatedly in the literature is that of „burn-out‟ in leadership positions (Allan and De Lacy, 1995; Byron and Curtis, 2001; Byron et al., 2001). Leadership „burn-out‟ appeared to be a function of leadership turnover, with the potential for „burn-out‟ apparently greater when there were few opportunities for tasks associated with leadership to be passed on to others (Allan and De Lacy, 1995). Wilson‟s (2004) article suggests, however, that increased turnover in leadership positions results in a lack of continuity, making priority setting and task completion more difficult. In another article, Curtis (2000) suggested that Landcare leaders were seen as spending a large amount of time on group management activities, with this large workload discouraging others from volunteering for leadership roles.
Other aspects of group functioning associated with leadership also contributed to collective group „burn-out‟. These included negative evaluations of those in leadership
17
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w positions, a lack of task completion and increased administrative workloads (Byron et al., 2001). Priority setting within groups and the development of goals are identified in the volunteer literature as being necessary for community group survival, and yet Byron and Curtis (2001) found that around 30% of groups examined had not set annual priorities. Curtis and Van Nouhuys (1999) similarly identified that task orientation was an important motivational force encouraging Landcare volunteers to join Landcare groups and continue participating in group events and that without a high level of task orientation it was possible that group members would lose enthusiasm for group projects. Curtis (2000) addressed the importance of a reliable pool of volunteers and community members who attend Landcare group meetings and on-ground works. The importance of participants is echoed in Woodhill (1996), who considered that in order to maintain Landcare momentum, an increased base of Landcare participants is required to share the burden of group responsibilities and build on the knowledge and skills available within the group.
The majority of the Landcare literature addresses the importance of government support via funding and supply of local Landcare facilitators. Only two sources in the literature available list explicitly the requirements for the success of community Landcare groups, and in both cases there is no attempt to address the extent to which groups are capable of maintaining these requirements, or the relative importance of these characteristics. Curtis and Lockwood (2000) identified the roles of participants and leaders in local community groups, that groups were required to establish priorities, organise participation, initiate opportunities for learning, „pull-down‟ resources, and instigate on-ground works to the extent that resources enable. Conacher and Conacher (2000) suggested that groups require sound leadership (including organisational skills and the ability to conduct functional meetings); the ability to obtain resources required for on-ground works, including funding, information and technical support; a good relationship amongst stakeholders (including Landcare participants and agency support officers); the ability to set realistic goals; and stability and regularity in group meetings, reviews and attendance of participants. There is no single article in the Landcare literature which analyses the extent to which groups adhere to these requirements, and as such there is an opportunity
18
C h a p t e r T w o: L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w for future Landcare research to determine the extent to which Landcare groups are capable of maintaining these group characteristics, deemed to be essential for group survival.
2.2.3: PROPOSITION FOR FURTHER STUDY
Following analysis of the literature, it was determined that an opportunity exists for further study with the aim of exploring the extent to which Landcare groups can be selfsustaining under the „Caring for our Country‟ policy, and to what extent the individual characteristics of each community group and its participants affect this outcome. While conclusions as to whether groups will be able to sustain themselves cannot be made until „Caring for our Country‟ has been implemented and groups have experienced the effects of this change in policy, some tentative projections can be made. Based on the Landcare literature, the ability for groups to survive will depend on two major issues, the first relating to the changing relationship between government support and group functioning, and the second relating to group characteristics required for long-term survival. Specifically, these two issues can be addressed by studying two objectives. The first objective is to determine the extent to which Landcare groups are dependent on government support. The second objective is to determine the relative importance of different group characteristics which have allowed groups to survive previous changes in policy.
The research proposed is likely to add to the depth of Landcare literature available in that it will provide evidence as to the relative success of the Landcare program as a form of state-sponsored community participation.
The first objective addresses whether the
National Landcare Program‟s initial intentions, that agency support could be provided to „kick-start‟ the community groups into action, with the Landcare groups quickly becoming independent bodies (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999), is ultimately realistic. The second objective will assist in determining whether Landcare groups are typical of those described in the volunteer literature, in terms of group characteristics required for long term survival.
19
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s
Chapter 3: Methodological Approach to the Study In order to adequately describe the complex relationship between government support and Landcare group functioning, a mixed-methods approach of analysis has been utilised. Quantitative analysis, in the form of a survey, provided inferential statistics (Black, 1999) on group demographics and functioning. The results of this analysis can be used to identify trends across the sample population of Landcare group members. Qualitative analysis, in the form of case studies and semi-structured interviews, has been used to explore a wider variety of variables in real situations, where chains of events and similar interactions are of paramount interest (Silverman, 2005). The results of case studies are not inferential, and cannot provide evidence for a generalised phenomenon (Black, 1999). Instead, they are capable of exploring human themes and concepts which cannot be covered in a brief quantitative survey (Gill, 2004). Therefore, by combining quantitative and qualitative analysis the limitations of one analytical approach are, to a certain extent, compensated for by the other approach (Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Perreault et al., 2006).
3.1:
SURVEY APPROACH
The purpose of the survey analysis was to identify trends in experiences between Landcare groups, focusing on dependence on government support (objective 1) and group characteristics (objective 2). The survey would ideally have resulted in a data set as representative of group experiences as possible. While random sampling of groups is the most appropriate technique for gaining a representative response (De Vaus, 1985), there were considerable difficulties in such a technique being applied to Landcare groups. There is no complete catalogue of Landcare group contact details available to the general public (Landcare Australia, 2008), so there is little possibility of being able to identify a random sample of Landcare group members. Instead, a convenience sample was used (Freudenberg, 1984) with surveys being submitted to any Landcare group members that could be accessed by the researcher via Natural Resource Management officers and Landcare Australia Limited. The main limitation in this method is that officers and co-
20
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s ordinators were more likely to be in contact with those groups which have been functioning to a high degree and utilising government support (Byron et al., 2001). Additionally, this method of sampling does not consider the experiences of individuals who have chosen to leave groups or individuals from groups which have previously disbanded. This results in a non-representative sample of Landcare group members being surveyed, and, as such, care must be taken in interpreting the results and in limiting generalisations made (De Vaus, 1985). The effect of this sampling method on the survey analysis is considered in the results and discussion section.
Survey implementation was performed using postal surveys.
This form of survey
distribution was used as it is relatively inexpensive and efficient and can be executed in a professional and personal manner. Postal surveys have frequently been used in other Landcare analyses, including those by Curtis and De Lacy (1994), Curtis (1998) and Byron et al. (2001). 282 surveys were sent as a supplement with Landcare Magazines being distributed to Landcare and other Care groups (Coastcare, Rivercare etc.) by the Western Australian State Natural Resource Management (NRM) office during December 2008. A second round of 68 surveys was sent in January 2009 to individual Landcare members identified from the Landcare Australia Limited website and from information provided by regional NRM officers. The two rounds of surveys targeted the same kinds of Landcare groups across the state of Western Australia, so the results from the two surveys were combined. Time limitations prevented reminder notes from being sent to survey recipients. 94 surveys were returned completed, with a response rate of 27%. This response rate is less than those levels experienced by previous Landcare studies, for instance those by Curtis and De Lacy (1994), Curtis (1998) and Byron et al. (2001). These surveys received moderate to high response rates of 59%, 45% and 71% respectively. However, the survey response rate in this study is comparable to the expected response rate of 35% for mail surveys with no follow-up reminder notes (De Vaus, 2002b). The survey (Appendix 3.1) included questions pertaining to Landcare group‟s interaction with government support (objective 1), and group member‟s attitudes and opinions on
21
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s group functioning (objective 2). The survey responses were separated into question subsets relating to the two objectives. Objective 1 was examined using two question subsets: funding, including dependence on Natural Resource Management or Envirofund funding (4 items); and dependence on facilitation or co-ordination from a Natural Resource Management officer or Landcare co-ordinator (4 items). Objective 2 was examined using three question subsets: meeting functioning, including meeting frequency, „burn-out‟ and goal setting (5 items); participation, including numbers of participants and role formation (6 items); and leadership ability and inter-group communication (9 items). The items relating to group functioning were formulated based on suggested group characteristics identified in Conacher and Conacher (2000). Two additional items were included to examine the effectiveness of the group and commitment by the Landcare member. The survey also included demographic questions relating to the respondent and the Landcare group. Questions asked respondents to list their sources of funding and their primary issues of concern, with an additional section available for open comments (responses in Appendix 3.2). Incentive for completion and return of the survey was offered in the form of a prize provided by Landcare Australia Limited. The survey questions covered four A4 pages, limiting the length of the survey to make it more attractive to respondents (Marshall and Rossman, 1999).
Time
limitations prevented the survey from being trialled before dissemination with the Landcare Magazines.
3.2:
SURVEY ANALYSIS
Bernard (2006) suggested that the most appropriate tool for measuring attitudes is Likert scales, whereby a statement is posed to the respondent and the respondent is asked to indicate the degree to which they agree with the statement. Likert scales have been used in several Landcare surveys, including those by Curtis and De Lacy (1994 and 1997). A total of 30 Likert-type questions were included in the survey, with each question containing five points (strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain/don‟t know, agree, strongly agree) (Bernard, 2006). Additionally, the respondent had the option of prescribing a „Not Applicable‟ score (Bernard, 2006). Additional questions relating to group demographics
22
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s (longevity of group, location, age and sex of participant) were scored using nominal categories.
Data was collated using Excel spreadsheets.
Nominal data was scored using
abbreviations of the respondent answer, with each nominal category then being defined with a count number (Black, 1999). The Likert scale responses were given a score ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with no score given to responses of „Not Applicable‟ or where no response was given (for raw results see Appendix 3.6). This scoring method allows the Likert responses to be transformed into ordinal data, which can then be statistically analysed (Black, 1999). Due to the non-normal nature of the resulting dataset, non-parametric tests for ordinal data were utilised (Clason and Dormody, 1994). A summary of the statistical tests performed can be found in Table 3.1. The first operation performed involved simple descriptive analysis, with responses from each item collated in histograms and visually analysed for skewness and trends within question subsets (Johnson and Bhattacharyya, 1996)2.
Table 3.1 A summary of the statistical operations used to analyse the Likert-type question responses. Analytical step: 1. Descriptive analysis
2. Assessing validity of question subsets
Statistical operation: Display item results as a histogram, examine skewness and frequencies of responses. Cronbach‟s alpha test for reliability. Item-total correlation test for unidimensionality.
3. Testing for independence of subpopulation samples
Non-parametric WilcoxonMann-Whitney test for independence of two samples.
4. Testing of association between subsets and single items
Non-parametric Gamma test for assessing association of crosstabulated, ordinal data.
2
Outcomes: Describes the survey results, specifically whether trends exist in characteristics measured by the survey Those items which do not adhere to tests of reliability and unidimensionality can be considered statistically different from those items fitting within the subset. Sub-populations of age, sex, and duration of group operation are compared to see if subpopulations have independent responses to certain items. Determines whether respondents are likely to provide similar responses for different item/subsets.
Reference: Johnson & Bhattacharyya, 1996
De Vaus, 1985; De Vaus, 2002a
Black, 1999
Bernard, 2006
For histograms and descriptive data please refer to Appendix 3.7.
23
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s Each question subset would ideally have measured the same group function, and as such each respondent should reply similarly to each item within a subset (De Vaus, 2002a). The ability of each question subset to elicit similar responses can be measured using tests for reliability and unidimensionality of the survey instrument (De Vaus, 2002a). The question subsets were tested for reliability using Cronbach‟s coefficient α and tested for unidimensionality using item-total correlation (De Vaus, 2002a)3. Due to the relatively small number of items per question subset, a higher than normal minimum α coefficient of 0.75 (compared to 0.70) was set to determine reliability and a higher than normal minimum item-total correlation of 0.60 (compared to 0.30) was set to determine unidimensionality. In cases where a respondent answered NA or did not give an answer for half, or more than half, of the items within a subset the responses to that subset were dropped for that respondent (De Vaus, 1985). Where a respondent answered NA or did not give an answer for less than half of the questions the average of the answered questions was used in the NA/unanswered questions (De Vaus, 1985). Calculations were made to determine what Cronbach‟s α would be if any particular item was omitted from each question subset. This allowed Cronbach‟s α to be maximised, designing a scale which best represented reliability and unidimensionality for a question subset (De Vaus, 2002a). Items with an item-total correlation of less than 0.60 or with a higher α when deleted were dropped from their subset. These results implied that the items did not fit the subset scale, and therefore represented a divergence of the characteristic measured by that item from the characteristic measured by the question subset (De Vaus, 2002a). Question subsets were considered reliable and unidimensional only if they had four or more items and a sufficiently high Cronbach‟s α and item-total correlations (De Vaus, 2002a). Calculation for Cronbach‟s coefficient α and item-total correlation can be found in Appendix 3.3. For those question subsets which adhered to these conditions the average of subset items for each respondent were used in further analysis 4. Where
3
Two questions within the reliance on government funding subset were reverse-coded for this operation allowing (1) to consistently represent low reliance on government funding and (5) to consistently represent high reliance on government funding. 4 Histograms were made of these aggregate scores. Scores of up to 1.5 represented „Strongly Disagree‟, of up to 2.5 represented „Disagree‟, of up to 3.5 represented „Don‟t Know‟, of up to 4.5 represented „Agree‟ and scores of up to 5 represented „Strongly Agree‟. This reflects the unlikelihood of obtaining a score of 1. Histograms and descriptive analysis can be found in Appendix 3.8.
24
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s question sub-sets did not adhere to these conditions, or where individual items were excluded from question sub-sets, individual items were analysed5.
The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test for ordinal data was used to determine if sub-populations of the sampled Landcare population differed significantly (Black, 1999). The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test has been used in previous Landcare analyses, including Curtis and Van Nouhuys (1999). Item or subset responses were compared between populations of: respondents who were 50 or older compared to those who were 49 or younger; whose group had been operating for more than 15 years compared to those that had been operating for less than 15 years; and between the sexes of the respondents. Due to the sample population being „large6‟, conversion of the WilcoxonMann-Whitney score into a Z-score allowed the independence of the sample subpopulations to be assessed for significance (Black, 1999). A Z-score of more than or equal to +1.96 or less than or equal to -1.96 (two-tailed Z-scores for α set at 0.05) indicated significant difference between the sub-populations7.
Association of responses between items and subset means was measured using Gamma (Bernard, 2006).
This non-parametric test utilises ordinal data to determine the
proportion of matching pairs between two variables, measured by two items/subset means (Bernard, 2006). This method works on the principle that the more alike items are, the more likely it is that respondents will reply in the same way to each item (Bernard, 2006). Before calculating Gamma each item response was converted into a score ranging from 1 to 3, with 1 indicating disagreement (any score of 2.5 or less), 2 indicating neutrality (any score of between 2.5 and 3.5) and 3 indicating agreement (any score of 3.5 or more). Gamma ranges from between -1 for perfect negative association to +1 for perfect positive association, with 0 indicating complete independence of the variables measured by the 5
There is some disagreement in quantitative analysis texts as to whether Likert-type items should be analysed individually. Some texts suggest that there is significant room for error in the assessment of individual items and that summative scaling is more appropriate (De Vaus, 1985). Summative scaling was used in this analysis where appropriate; however, in the interest of utilising all available data, analysis of individual items was performed where summative scaling was inappropriate. 6 Black (1999) defined a large sample size as consisting of 25 or more samples. This does not represent „large‟ as a function of the sample size compared to the total number of Landcare groups. 7 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney analysis can be found in Appendix 3.9.
25
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s items (Bernard, 2006). Due to there being more than 50 responses, the significance of Gamma could be measured by converting Gamma into a Z-score (Bernard, 2006). A Zscore of more than or equal to +1.96 or less than or equal to -1.96 (two-tailed Z-scores for α set at 0.05) indicated significant association between the items/subset means8.
3.3:
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The major limitation in the application of quantitative analyses is the limited number of questions, and therefore the limited number of interactions that can be identified (Gill, 2004). Alternatively, qualitative analyses are capable of investigating these interactions and chains of events in a smaller sample group (Ewing, 1997). In order to obtain data on a range of Landcare experiences a collective case study including analysis of four Landcare groups was performed. The case study approach to investigating Landcare experiences has been used in previous research studies (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997; Ewing, 1997; Curtis et al., 1999; Sobels et al., 2001; Gill, 2004; Farrelly, 2005; Whelan and Oliver, 2005). In order to obtain a range of attitudes and opinions on Landcare groups‟ reliance on government support (objective 1) and Landcare group functioning (objective 2) purposive sampling was used. The case study groups chosen were those which had been in operation long enough to have survived previous Landcare policy changes and with experiences in receiving government funding and accessing technical support through NRM officers or Landcare facilitators. Of the 94 surveys received 41 were considered possible case study groups based on the longevity of their group (more than 15 years). Of these 41 groups, 12 were recommended by state NRM officers as being useful groups, from which five were chosen based on variations in their experiences in group functioning, reliance on NRM facilitators and reliance on government-sourced funding. Of these five groups, one group rejected the proposal for study and four accepted. Landcare groups were ensured that their details would remain anonymous, allowing subjects to provide contentious responses without the prospect of negative repercussions. All case study analyses were performed during April and March, 2009. 8
Gamma test analysis can be found in Appendix 3.10.
26
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s
Case study analysis included participant observation, document analysis, and interviews (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). The researcher followed the example of other academics studying Landcare groups in the field by limiting participant observation to Landcare group meetings, demonstration activities and on-site works (Sobels et al., 2001; Gill, 2004; Whelan and Oliver, 2005). The data obtained from the participant observation centred on group dynamics, leadership skills and group motivation and activity (objective 2).
These characteristics are difficult to measure, and to a large extent subjective
judgement on the effectiveness of leaders and group functioning was made by the researcher (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). However, more quantitative characteristics of group interactions were also determined, for instance the number of attendees at group events and the duration of group meetings.
Measures of these characteristics were
recorded using note-taking.
Document analysis has been utilised in previous Landcare studies, such as those by Curtis et al. (1999), Sobels et al. (2001), Gill (2004) and Whelan and Oliver (2005). The review of meeting minutes produced by community groups was utilised to extract qualitative data associated with group‟s actions or interests (objective 2), and quantitative data relating to sources of funding (the number of different sources, and the amounts supplied by each source) and presence or interaction with government employees (objective 1) (Curtis et al., 1999). The analytical approach utilised was content analysis (Silverman, 2005).
Deficiencies exist in the reliability of these documents; methods of record
keeping may differ between secretaries across a Landcare group‟s history, as well as between Landcare groups (Barbour, 2001).
Interviews with case study group participants occurred after Landcare group meetings or group functions, with volunteers from within the group remaining behind to discuss several aspects of Landcare group functioning and dependence on government resources. A semi-structured, focus group approach to the interviews was utilised (Marshall and Rossman, 1999), concentrating on groups‟ reliance on their NRM officer and sources of funding.
27
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s
During the research process it became clear that many groups were not aware of how their group was going to be affected by the Rudd Government‟s „Caring for our Country‟ policy. Instead, the first people to experience the effects of this change in policy were stakeholders in government departments, regional NRM officers, and Landcare facilitators.
For this reason it was decided that semi-structured interviews with
representatives from each of these three groups would provide evidence of how „Caring for our Country‟ was changing the government support systems on which Landcare groups rely. Interviews with two individuals from each of these fields were conducted in a similar manner to the focus group interviews with Landcare members9.
Data acquisition for the interviews and focus groups involved interviews being audiorecorded and transcribed. This method enhanced reliability in the data analysis phase by ensuring that the data being analysed was expressed in the terminology of the interview respondent, not in the researcher‟s terms or phrases (Kearney, 2004). The meaning of statements in the context of the interviewer‟s questions was analysed, focusing on the intentionality of the responses and their implications, exploring recurring concepts to develop explanatory theories (Whelan and Oliver, 2005).
This qualitative analysis
technique is a non-linear, iterative process used for classifying themes derived from the research aims and the respondent data itself (Gill, 2004).
3.4:
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The ethical considerations taken into account in this research study largely related to informed consent (Silverman, 2005).
Individuals being interviewed were given
information on the research study question and its relevance to them, whilst also stressing to them that participation was entirely voluntary (Silverman, 2005). The respondents were informed on how recordings were to be used, and that recordings were to be accessed by the researcher alone. All respondents were assured that the information they provided would be recorded, transcribed and analysed in such a way that maintained their 9
For interview questions see Appendix 3.4
28
C h a p t e r T h r e e: M e t h o d s anonymity (Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Silverman, 2005).
Adherence to the
stipulations outlined in the NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government, 2007), as required by the UWA ethics committee, ensured that these ethical requirements were considered (Appendix 3.5).
29
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion of Research Findings Research into community Landcare groups in Western Australia was conducted using quantitative and qualitative analysis. The results and discussion section includes analysis of the postal survey, as well as themes outlined by the qualitative case studies and interviews, including direct quotations from case study group members, Landcare facilitators, Natural Resource Management regional representatives and Western Australian government department representatives.
The results section is split into two parts to allow consideration of the two objectives separately. However, primary data and secondary sources are integrated with regard to each objective in order to avoid repetition.
Objective 1: Reliance on Government Support There is extensive information in the Landcare literature describing the importance of government support for Australian Landcare groups.
In particular, this government
support is reflected in the importance of continued funding (Baker, 1997; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997) and the importance of local Landcare facilitators (Allan and De Lacy, 1995; Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). This section uses quantitative analysis to determine trends in Landcare groups‟ current reliance on Government support, while qualitative analysis is used to examine underlying topics of significance to Landcare groups, specifically relating to the „Caring for our Country‟ policy.
The results and discussion for objective 1 are split into three sections, the first two reflecting the objective 1 question subsets in the survey (government funding and facilitation), the final section summarises the important themes relating to Landcare groups‟ reliance on government support.
30
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n 4.1.1: LANDCARE GROUP RELIANCE ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING
The question subset relating to reliance on government funding included four items analysing; 1) whether financial resources available were adequate in meeting the group‟s needs; 2) whether the group was reliant on Government funding in the form of Envirofunds; 3) whether the group was reliant on Government funding in the form of Natural Resource Management regional funds; and 4) whether the group was selfsufficient in terms of its financial resources. Cronbach‟s α score for the subset was 0.66, too low to consider the question sub-set reliable. Cronbach‟s α scores remained below 0.75 when individual items were omitted from analysis, as a result all items were analysed individually. 57% of respondents identified their group as being reliant on Envirofunds (Figure 4.1) and 76% identified their group as being reliant on funding from their Natural Resource Management region (Figure 4.2). These results suggest that the majority of groups continue to be reliant on Government sourced funding. Additionally, Gamma statistics found that there was a significant positive association between groups being reliant on Envirofunds and groups being reliant on NRM funding (Z = 2.376, P < 0.019, a = 0.05). Those groups which rely on both sources of funding are more likely to be negatively affected by the removal of access to these funds. Reliance on Government funding was further reflected in that 73% of respondents thought that their group was not selfsufficient in terms of its financial resources (Figure 4.3).
31
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group is reliant on Government funding in the form of Envirofunds, n=84 45
40
40 32
35 30 25
17
20 15 10
6
5
5 0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.1 A histogram representing reliance on Envirofunds. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (57%) believed that their group was reliant on Envirofunds, suggesting that many groups continue to be reliant on Government sourced funding.
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group is reliant on Government funding through our Natural Resource Management region, n=88 45
40
40
36
35 30 25 17
20 15 10 5
6 1
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.2 A histogram representing reliance on NRM regional funding. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (76%) believed that their group was reliant on NRM regional funding, suggesting that many groups continue to be reliant on Government sourced funding.
32
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group is self-sufficient in terms of its financial resources, n=89 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
45
28
11
12 4
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.3 A histogram representing self-sufficiency of groups. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (73%) believed that their group was not selfsufficient in terms of its financial resources, suggesting that many groups continue to be reliant on Government sourced funding. The qualitative analysis reflects the survey results with all four case study groups having received some form of federally-based funding, either in the form of Envirofunds, Natural Resource Management funds, or both. While the groups varied in their level of reliance on government-sourced funding, all suggested that it would be difficult to continue functioning without this funding. “If they‟re not going to get funding to fence off some remnant bush, then they‟re probably not going to pay for it themselves, because there‟s not any return for doing that, except a warm fuzzy feeling.” (Regional Representative 2) “Every time we get money they get inspired again. If we can provide them with plants and weed control, I think that they‟ll be more than happy to keep going.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 1) Whilst all groups relied on government funds, they all expressed concern with the funding available. Respondent groups suggested it was difficult to plan future Landcare projects while funding was inconsistently provided and did not allow allocation for administrative costs. This unpredictable availability of funding has been a continual cause for concern for Landcare groups since the inception of the NLP, with many papers addressing the need for reliable funding (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000; Robins and Dover, 2007).
33
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n Survey respondents were asked to identify their main sources of funding and any other sources of funding they had applied for but been denied (Table 4.1). These results further confirm Landcare groups‟ reliance on government support with the five most frequently utilised sources of funding being government derived. Natural Resource Management regional funding and Envirofunds placed equal second on the list of most frequently utilised sources of funding, further exemplifying how groups are reliant on these sources for support. „Caring for our Country‟ grants were received by 16 groups, however only 2 of these were Landcare groups, the remaining 14 being Coastcare groups, for which a specific funding round existed during 2008-2009. 14 groups were denied „Caring for our Country‟ grants, the highest refusal rate of any source (47%). This percentage may decrease as future funding rounds provide further opportunities for Landcare groups to obtain funding, with increased experience in writing grant applications and accounting for target issues making groups more competitive. However, it is possible that with increased funding rounds higher proportions of Landcare groups will apply for and be denied „Caring for our Country‟ grants, keeping this figure disproportionately high in comparison to other funding sources. Table 4.1: Number of Landcare groups having applied for, received and been denied funding from sources, as determined by survey responses RECEIVED DENIED TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDING: FUNDING: FUNDING: APPLIED: LOCAL GOVERNMENT 46 2 48 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGION 44 2 46 ENVIROFUND 44 2 46 DEC COMMUNITY GRANT 18 3 21 CARING FOR OUR COUNTRY 16 14 30 PRIVATE 14 0 14 INDUSTRY 13 0 13 LANDCARE AUSTRALIA LIMITED 13 3 16 COAST WEST 11 2 13 LOTTERYWEST 7 0 7 THREATENED SPECIES 6 2 8 OTHER 9 1 10 NO SOURCE OF FUNDING SOUGHT 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS: 85 responses to this question NOTE: There were discrepancies within survey responses with many respondents claiming that they were reliant on Envirofunds or Natural Resource Management region funds in Part 2 of the survey, but omitting sources of funding from the portion of the survey requesting respondents to declare ALL sources of funds.
34
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Case study groups 1, 3 and 4 were aware of, and concerned with, the lack of community focus in the „Caring for our Country‟ grants process. Funding for small community groups is to be allocated via partnerships with larger organisations, partnerships which Landcare groups claimed not to have the time or resources to foster. This has resulted in many Landcare group members becoming concerned with future sources of funding and support for their groups. “There‟s no funding for small groups like us. Local friends groups, they just don‟t fit. Yep, Caring for Country is aiming for the big people.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 1) “It doesn‟t look like a small grass-roots community group like ourselves, with proven outcomes, it doesn‟t look like the outcomes of our group will receive much funding at all, due to „Caring for our Country‟.” (Landcare Facilitator 2) In addition to group members being concerned with the lack of community group focus in the „Caring for our Country‟ policy they were similarly frustrated with the lack of targets appropriate to their Landcare work in the 2009-2010 business plan. “I think generally, for NRMOs and Landcare groups, they are just frustrated because they can‟t see much in the Caring for Country business plan that relates to the issues that they have on-ground.” (Regional Representative 2) “The area that I work in, the Avon, is wind erosion and rabbit control, or something like that. It‟s really limited and I think that‟s a real issue.” (Departmental Representative 2) This lack of focus on local Landcare concerns has lead to the proliferation of what many group members and NRM officers refer to as „re-badging‟, whereby a Landcare group‟s goals and objectives are altered to represent targets in the business plan. Departmental representatives displayed concern at the level of group enthusiasm for projects that did not appear to align with their general priorities. “I see the submissions going up for this „Caring for our Country‟ and just question why they have suddenly changed their idea about what‟s a priority. Oh, because there‟s funding there. It‟s wrong!” (Departmental Representative 2) Alternatively, group members expressed their wish to receive funding for minor priorities in order to then divert these funds to their major priorities. “I guess maybe there‟s ways of trying to tap into some funds for salinity, but just badging it in a different way, you know, valley floor eroded
35
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n landscape management, or something like that, because wind erosion is a priority.” (Regional Representative 2) The ability for federal government priorities to influence Landcare objectives is described in the Landcare literature (Curtis and De Lacy, 1997). However, it now appears that Landcare groups are attempting to obtain funding for government priority issues in order to fund their groups‟ own, alternative priorities.
Concurrent
with
the
prevalence
of
„re-badging‟,
regional
and
departmental
representatives observed Landcare groups applying for increasing sums of money in single applications. As groups experienced increasing proportions of grant application rejection, groups were applying for increased funds in order to off-set the costs associated with failed applications. There was considerable concern that funds being supplied to groups were excessive, and that Landcare groups were over-extending themselves with the scale of works outlined in proposals. Both case study group members and regional representatives pointed out that this over-extension, and related mismanagement of funds, could be avoided if smaller scale funds were readily available to groups whenever suitable applications were prepared. “With groups being competitive, and competing against each other... I think that they are more likely to get funding for stuff that isn‟t beneficial, because they are competing for funds, because they are like „let‟s get funding for anything, so long as there‟s funding coming in‟.” (Regional Representative 2) “I think that funding needs to be evened out so that it‟s there and can be accessed when people are ready to do the work and it‟s done in accordance with recognised best practice and it meets the standards that are needed.” (Departmental Representative 1) Survey responses were evenly distributed between respondents believing that financial resources available to their group were adequate (48%) and respondents believing that resources were inadequate (48%) in meeting the group‟s needs (Figure 4.4). These results concurred with the academic literature, which found that 45% of groups reported that resources were inadequate for task completion (Allan and De Lacy, 1995). Based on the qualitative data it appeared that the key to obtaining adequate financial resources was
36
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n in being able to attract alternative sources of funding. All four of the Landcare case study groups had support from their local government, either in the form of personnel or funding. Additionally, local government funding was the most cited source of funding in the survey (Table 4.1). All four case study groups claimed they would not be able to continue functioning without this support. “I guess we‟ve gone back to local government as being a major supporter of our operational costs, just because we‟ve got a meaningful relationship with them. We can provide a tangible value to their ratepayers.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 2) Case study groups 1 and 3 received reliable funding from two local government regions under a memorandum of understanding. The amalgamation of funds from two local governments provided an increased base-level value of funding, as well as an increased volunteer pool for each group. In addition to local government, industrial companies in the Landcare groups‟ regions were also a source of funds, specifically for on-ground works. Funding was additionally available to groups on a state-government level via the Western Australian Department for Environment and Conservation‟s (DEC) Community Grants Scheme (Western Australian Government, 2009). Survey respondents reported some reliance on this source of funding (Table 4.1), and according to the qualitative analysis Landcare groups perceive the DEC grants as an alternative to the now defunct federally-sourced Envirofunds. Increased reliance on this source of funding is likely to result in an increase in competition for funds, and thus an increased proportion of applications being denied.
37
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
The financial resources available to my Landcare group are adequate in meeting the group’s needs, n=90 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
43 33
15 5
4
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.4 A histogram representing adequacy of resources available. This histogram shows that there is an even distribution between respondents believing resources are adequate (48%) and inadequate (48%). Gamma statistics found that there was a significant positive association between groups reporting that resources available to them were adequate and groups reporting that they were self-sufficient (Z = 1.996, P < 0.040, a = 0.05).
This statistic is a positive
recommendation for group‟s maintaining their activity levels, with groups capable of sourcing their own funding also finding the funding available adequate for group activities. Unfortunately, the survey reported that only 16% of respondents considered their group to be self-sufficient (Figure 4.3), with the Gamma statistic also suggesting that those groups who are not self-sufficient are more likely to perceive their resources as inadequate, further increasing their inability to complete on-ground works.
4.1.2: LANDCARE GROUP RELIANCE ON GOVERNMENT FACILITATION
The question subset relating to reliance on facilitation included four items analysing; 1) whether the Landcare group frequently communicated with a Landcare facilitator or Natural Resource Management Officer (NRMO); 2) whether the group was reliant on a Landcare facilitator or NRMO for the introduction of new technology or knowledge; 3) whether the group was reliant on a Landcare facilitator or NRMO for learning about the availability of funds or grants; and 4) whether the group would have difficulty surviving without its Landcare facilitator or NRMO. Item-total correlation for one question was
38
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n 0.56, meaning the question could not be considered unidimensional. If this question was to be omitted it would leave only 3 remaining questions, too small a subset to make a reliable scale, hence all items were analysed individually.
There was significant inter-dependence between reliance on Landcare facilitators or NRMOs for the introduction of knowledge or technology, learning about funding and grant opportunities and whether a group would be likely to survive without its Landcare facilitator/NRMO.
Gamma statistics found that there was a significant positive
association between: groups being reliant on NRMOs for technology/knowledge and funding opportunities (Z = 4.617, P < 0.001, a = 0.05); groups being reliant on NRMOs for technology/knowledge and group survival (Z = 3.243, P < 0.002, a = 0.05); and groups being reliant on NRMOs for funding opportunities and group survival (Z = 3.364, P < 0.001, a = 0.05). These results suggest that the roles of Landcare facilitators and NRMOs are intrinsically linked to maintaining Landcare group activities, providing necessary support, information and funding opportunities.
The survey results suggest that not all groups who communicate with a Landcare facilitator or NRMO have this level of dependence. 84% of respondents reported that they frequently communicate with their Landcare facilitator or NRMO (Figure 4.5), however only 56% of groups relied on their Landcare facilitator or NRMO for knowledge about technological advances (Figure 4.6), 67% of groups relied on their Landcare facilitator or NRMO for funding and grant opportunities (Figure 4.7) and 58% of respondents claimed their group would have difficulty surviving without access to their Landcare facilitator or NRMO (Figure 4.8). While these results suggest that some groups are in frequent contact with a Landcare facilitator/NRMO and are not reliant on them for support, they also suggest that the majority of groups are reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs, not just for learning about technology and grant availability, but for group survival itself.
39
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group frequently communicates with a local NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator, n=89 60
54
50 40 30 30 20 10
7
7
Disagree
Don't Know
2
0
Strongly Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.5 A histogram representing frequency of communication with a Landcare facilitator/NRMO. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (84%) frequently communicate with a Landcare facilitator/NRMO.
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group is reliant on a local NRMO or Landcare facilitator for technology or knowledge, n=90 35
32
31
30 25 25 20 15 8
10 5
4
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.6 A histogram representing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for technology and knowledge. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (56%) believed that their group was reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for technology and knowledge.
40
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group is reliant on a local NRMO or Landcare facilitator for learning about grants available, n=88 40 35
33
34
Agree
Strongly Agree
30 25
20
20 15 10
7
6
5 0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know Response
Figure 4.7 A histogram representing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for learning about the availability of grants. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (67%) believed that their group was reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for learning about the availability of grants.
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
My Landcare group would have difficulty surviving without our NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator, n=86 40
36
35 30 23
25
22
20 15
10
9
10 5 0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.8 A histogram representing reliance on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for group survival. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (58%) believed that their group was reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for survival. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney analysis of the survey results also suggest that longevity in group functioning was related to dependence on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs, with older groups perceiving themselves as being more reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for their group‟s survival (Z = 2.253, P < 0.032, a = 0.05). This statistic has consequences for the longevity of groups, indicating that as groups become older they may become 41
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n more reliant on Landcare facilitators/NRMOs, or conversely that those groups with access to a Landcare facilitator/NRMO are less likely to disband.
The qualitative analysis data show that two of the four groups (Case study groups 2 and 4) did not rely on their Landcare facilitator/NRMO for survival, however they did rely on them to maintain optimal levels in on-ground works. Both groups suggested that without their Landcare facilitator/NRMO, and the time and expertise they had available to devote to Landcare works, they would have difficulty organising large-scale group works and obtaining funding, echoing findings in the Landcare literature (Centre for International Economics, 2005). “It‟s outside the abilities and the expertise of the committee members to sit down and write a funding application and get budgets worked out and to talk to all the people who need to be talked to to make sure the applications are as strong as they need to be.” (Regional Representative 1) Case study groups 1 and 3 indicated that they would cease functioning altogether without access to their Landcare facilitators. In both cases local government councils/shires provided funding for full-time Landcare facilitators who were available to organise group activities, advise local farmers or Landcare enthusiasts about technological advances and attract funding for on-ground works. Landcare members expressed that the Landcare facilitators‟ ability to be available for questions and provide consistent support to Landcare members was what made these groups successful. “And that‟s where I think the role of the staff in this organisation… It‟s not just to find money it‟s also to connect people to each other and take away some of that administrative burden.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 2) “Two very good [NRMOs] have made a big difference to the attitude of farmers and persuading farmers to come in and spend money on conservation, on fencing, on rehabilitation.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 3) While the results of the qualitative analysis suggest that many group members have integrated Landcare-related practices into farm management schemes, with Landcare issues becoming mainstream, results also highlight the importance of continued support to maintain momentum for Landcare works and to remain informed on best-management practices and for the introduction of new technologies.
42
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
In all case study interviews group members believed that Landcare facilitators or NRMOs had the same goals and objectives as their group, contrary to what has been described in the Landcare literature, where facilitators were seen as acting in „gate-keeping‟ positions to influence Landcare group works (Wilson, 2004). Landcare facilitators/NRMOs for the Landcare case study groups valued their positions as representatives of their community and its interests, and generally did not align themselves with state or federal priorities. “We‟re not going to write a project just because the funding is there. If there‟s no community drive or interest to do it, then we wouldn‟t spend the time. We get our drive from the community, and pick up the interest from there, and help build the projects, help them do the planning.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 1) Alternatively, group members were concerned with the power funding bodies had over their group‟s activities, with some level of confusion surrounding who ultimately made decisions regarding group activities, whether it was the Landcare leaders in conjunction with Landcare officers/NRMOs or whether it was the funding organisation. “Obviously whoever funds us points us in the direction that they want us to look at.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 2) “Funding has become increasingly harder to obtain in the last 12 months, which leaves our group at the mercy of any funding body that comes along which means we have to do projects not aimed at our objectives.” (Survey Respondent 20) A larger proportion of respondents reported communication with their Landcare facilitator or Natural Resource Management officer (84%) than has been cited elsewhere in the Landcare literature. Allan and De Lacy‟s (1995) work, for instance, found that only 70% of groups frequently contacted their Landcare facilitator or NRMO. The figure reported in this study is likely inflated by the method of survey distribution, with groups currently communicating with their Natural Resource Management regions or local Landcare facilitators being targeted by this method of research. However, even within this study there appeared to be concern from survey respondents and interview subjects that access to facilitators or regional NRMOs was becoming more limited. “I have not heard from an NRM member in the last year and a half and that‟s not through my lack of trying. I‟ve tried to contact them.” (Landcare Facilitator 2)
43
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n “Our nearest NRM officer is 80 km away in one NRM region (NACC) and 60 km in the other (Avon). When we had a local Landcare officer based in the shire office the group was well supported, had many more members and had more projects going.” (Survey Respondent 49) There was considerable concern from all case study groups and interview subjects about the state and federal policies relating to Landcare facilitators and Natural Resource Management officers, particularly in terms of the length of contracts available and discontinuation of contracts as a result of „Caring for our Country‟. Case study group members conveyed the importance of having facilitators or NRMOs available, not just for Landcare works but as an integral source of knowledge available in the area. “Well, I guess that knowledge will go. We‟ve sort of got that real onground local knowledge, which I guess people in the state government departments, or people in Canberra, would have no idea about.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 2) “The length of contract for NRM officers is a serious concern. These short term employments do not encourage the more experienced people to apply for NRM jobs.” (Survey Respondent 16) 4.1.3: FINAL COMMENTS: RELIANCE ON GOVERNMENT SUPPORT “I think if NLP was originally set up so that they could get these groups going, so that they could continue running themselves, without funding… that hasn‟t worked, I don‟t think it has worked at all.” (Regional Representative 2) “This was a wonderful movement, it unfortunately was dependent on two things, one of them was the people and the other one was the money.” (Departmental Representative 1) The research suggests that the majority of groups continue to be reliant on Government sourced support in the form of funding and Landcare facilitators/NRMOs. The author acknowledges that the methods used for identifying groups for analysis has influenced the results of the research. Groups were sourced from Natural Resource Management officers and Landcare Australia Limited, a federally-funded organisation, and as such those groups identified were already likely to be reliant on, or at least in communication
44
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n with, government personnel. The effect of this non-representative mode of sampling is an inevitable consequence of the absence of a Landcare group register.
The level of dependence on government support varies between groups but appears to be related to groups‟ activity levels, with those groups attempting to engage in large-scale on-ground works being more heavily reliant on government support. The dependence on federal government support appears to be decreasing as groups seek out alternative sources of income to fund projects and facilitators, however the ability to maintain largescale works remains dependent on federally-funded grants.
Several written survey
responses suggest that many small groups are discontinuing due to a lack of funds and facilitator/NRMO support. Landcare groups will require externally sourced support for project funding and administration indefinitely, with those groups that have had no access to federal government support relying on local government or industry funding, or ceasing operation.
The results of this research suggest that the National Landcare
Program‟s initial intention, that government support could be used to initiate groups with groups quickly becoming independent organisations (Curtis and Van Nouhuys, 1999), was unrealistic.
45
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Objective 2: Analysis of Group Function Characteristics The majority of the Landcare literature describing group functioning identifies issues relating to leadership „burn-out‟ (Byron and Curtis, 2001; Byron et al., 2001) and the ability of groups to form networks (Curtis et al., 1999; Sobels et al., 2001), with few articles addressing the wider range of functional capabilities of groups. This discussion and results section uses quantitative analysis to determine trends in Landcare groups‟ levels of group functioning, while qualitative analysis is used to examine specific areas of deficiency in group functioning, as identified by the survey results.
The results and discussion for objective 2 are split into four sections, the first three reflecting the objective 2 question subsets in the survey, namely group meeting functioning, participation and leadership abilities. The final section summarises the important themes relating to Landcare groups‟ functioning abilities, and how this compares with the wider academic literature.
4.2.1: LANDCARE GROUP MEETING FUNCTIONING
The question subset relating to meeting functioning included five items analysing; 1) regularity of Landcare group meetings; 2) whether there are enough meetings to satisfy group needs; 3) whether new goals are set at each Landcare group meeting; 4) whether goals set are achievable; and 5) whether the group frequently achieves its goals. Cronbach‟s α score for the subset was 0.74, too low to consider the question subset reliable. As Cronbach‟s α increased to 0.78 if item three was removed, this item was analysed individually, with the four remaining items creating a reliable and unidimensional scale (lowest item-total correlation of 0.70). The scores for these items were averaged to create an aggregate meeting functioning score. The aggregate meeting functioning score therefore represented items one, two, four and five.
It can be
concluded from these results that the responses for item three differed significantly from the remaining items.
46
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n The aggregate scores represented a positive response to meeting functioning, with 78% of respondents replying positively to meeting functioning items (calculated as an aggregate score of more than 3.5 out of 5, Figure 4.9). Aggregate scores resulted in a distribution with the majority of aggregate scores in the „agree‟ category. These results suggested that the majority of respondents believed meetings were regular, sufficient for group needs and goals set were achievable. Survey results suggested that groups were actively promoting activities or fora for a range of issues of local importance (Table 4.2).
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
Aggregate meeting function score: meeting regularity and setting and achievement of goals, n=91 60 51 50 40 27
30 18
20 10 0
4
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.9 A histogram representing aggregate scores for the meeting functioning scale. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (78%) believed that their group was functioning adequately.
47
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n Table 4.2 Frequency of respondents reporting issues of concern to Landcare and other Care groups
Landcare and other ‘Care’ group issues: REVEGETATION REMNANT VEGETATION PROTECTION WEED MANAGEMENT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION EDUCATION/AWARENESS RAISING WILDLIFE HABITAT LOSS OR DECLINE BUILDING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WATER QUALITY SOIL EROSION BY WATER PEST ANIMALS TECHNICAL ADVICE OR SUPPORT SOIL EROSION BY WIND STREAMBANK EROSION DRYLAND SALINITY AND WATERLOGGING PROTECTION OF THREATENED SPECIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INDIGENOUS HERITAGE NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE COASTAL LAND DEGRADATION 10 Other issues
Number of groups undertaking work: 83 80 80 80 80 73 71 71 70 65 65 59 57 55 55 51 32 30 26 12
Percentage of total respondents: 88% 85% 85% 85% 85% 78% 76% 76% 74% 69% 69% 63% 61% 59% 59% 54% 34% 32% 28% 13%
Qualitative analysis suggested that, while all groups were maintaining high standards in the areas of meeting functioning, regularity of meetings was proving to be a difficult aspect of meeting functioning. Case study groups 2, 3 and 4 were all maintaining regular meetings, however there were considerable problems with this. Case study groups 3 and 4 had recently doubled the length of time between meetings in the hope of increasing the level of participation and allowing enough preparation time for meetings. Case study group 1 aimed at having meetings every two months but found that meetings regularly „blew out‟ to six months due to the heavy workload of Landcare group leaders and Landcare facilitators. Interview subjects also found that the Landcare groups they were working with were struggling to maintain regular meetings and that this was having a considerable negative impact on group functioning. “Since I started, which was five years ago, the activity has really, really, really dropped off. Just pretty basic things like getting a meeting once a year is really difficult.” (Departmental Representative 2)
48
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n “I know that committee also tries and has two meetings a year, but it‟s the same, you know, we kind of struggle if it‟s wet or if it‟s dry we may not get a second meeting in every year.” (Regional Representative 1) Case study groups 1 and 3 experienced further difficulties with group participants being reluctant to attend frequent meetings when the site of meetings was a considerable distance from their home. Both case study groups were the result of amalgamations of previously formed groups, and while this amalgamation increased the number of group participants in the region it also increased the scale of the geographic catchment of the group. Technological advances in the future may allow Landcare groups to communicate on-line, reducing this geographic burden on group members.
There were differing responses to the item addressing whether Landcare groups set goals at each meeting. 41% of respondents reported that new goals were not set at each Landcare group meeting, making goal setting the greatest challenge in meeting functioning for Landcare groups (Figure 4.10).
These results echoed the Landcare
literature, with Byron and Curtis (2001) finding that 30% of groups had not set annual priorities. Examination of qualitative analysis determined that this lack in goal setting was due to a change in Landcare group functioning. It was suggested by some interview subjects that goal setting became less important as Landcare groups changed from being an organisation involved with the development of on-ground works to a forum for discussion. As groups reduced their activity levels the development of goals became less important in Landcare group meetings. “Most of the time it‟s pretty much an opportunity for the communication type things to happen.” (Regional Representative 1) “I felt that I wasn‟t contributing much… a lot of members were sort of a bit like me, just bums on seats, forming a forum… We never did anything practical out there. It was only letters written and people talk to you about policies and activities.” (Case Study 2 Respondent 2) Alternatively, 53% of respondents maintained that goal-setting still occurred at most Landcare group meetings. This was reflected in the qualitative analysis with Case study groups 1 and 3 making a concerted effort to implement new goals at each meeting.
49
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n “Goal setting is extremely important, you know, as we are a community organisation we are directly accountable to the community, so having those goals in place and achieving them is extremely important.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 1)
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
At most Landcare group meetings my group sets new goals, n=88 45
40
38
40 35 30 25 20
15
15 10 5
6 1
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.10 A histogram representing goal setting at group meetings. This histogram shows that there is a bifurcation in goal setting within groups, with 41% of groups not setting new goals and 53% setting new goals. 4.2.2: LANDCARE GROUP PARTICIPATION
The question subset relating to group participation included six items analysing; 1) whether participants participate in every group event; 2) whether the number of participants in Landcare group events has been increasing; 3) whether participants reliably turn up for group events; 4) whether participants are aware of the next Landcare event; 5) whether clearly defined roles exist for Landcare participants; and 6) whether participants are aware of what is expected of them in their Landcare group. Cronbach‟s α score for the subset was 0.79, meaning the subset was sufficiently reliable, while itemtotal correlation scores were a minimum of 0.64, making the subset sufficiently unidimensional.
The scores for these items were averaged to create an aggregate
Landcare participation score.
The aggregate scores represented a slightly positive response to group participation, with 51% of respondents replying positively to group participation items (calculated as an aggregate score of more than 3.5 out of 5, Figure 4.11). Aggregate scores resulted in a
50
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n distribution with the highest frequency of aggregate scores in the „agree‟ category. A large portion of the respondents (40%) were placed in the „Don‟t Know‟ category, indicating that whilst respondents considered some aspects of participation to be positive, there remained considerable uncertainty with regard to individual perceptions of group participation.
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
Aggregate participation score: participant attendance and role formation, n=92 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
45 40
8
6
1
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.11 A histogram representing aggregate scores for the group participation scale. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (51%) believed that participation in their group activities was adequate. In spite of confirmation of the subset by Cronbach‟s α and item-total correlation, visual analysis of the single-item histograms showed that item two diverged from the remaining items. This will contribute towards the proportion of „Don‟t Know‟ responses described above. With regard to item two, 56% of respondents indicated that they did not think that the number of participants was increasing (Figure 4.12). Qualitative analysis supported this claim with survey, case study and interview subjects suggesting that the numbers of Landcare participants was static, if not decreasing. Qualitative analysis suggested three reasons for this reduction in Landcare participation: rural decline, a lack of interest from the younger generation and a lack of time available for Landcare works.
51
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
The number of participants in Landcare group events has been increasing, n=89 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
47
16
18 10
9
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.12 A histogram representing whether participant numbers in Landcare events is increasing. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (56%) do not believe that the number of participants is increasing. The increasing propensity for rural de-population was experienced by survey respondents and Case study groups 1 and 4. The main causes for this rural decline appeared to be the increasing trend of farm amalgamation and a change in rural lifestyles.
Farm
amalgamation was attributed to increasing costs and decreased profits associated with agricultural production, which has resulted in larger farms with a better economy of scale absorbing neighbouring farms. “Farms are amalgamating at a rapid rate, so there are less people to look after the land.” (Departmental Representative 2) It was noted by several case study respondents that rural communities were experiencing a change in population demographics, with an increase of pensioners into rural towns and a simultaneous decrease in rural agriculturalists. The increasing trend towards farmers living off-farm was contributing to a lack of Landcare participants. “Round here the young blokes are getting their pilots license, the mothers and the kids are going out to the coast and the blokes are flying out. They‟re doing fly-in fly-out on their own farm… So that sort of depopulation is a real issue.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 3) The affect of rural de-population on other aspects of regional communities is reflected in the literature, with a decrease in the number of rural sport participants challenging the
52
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n viability of community sporting clubs to the extent that some groups have been forced to disband (Tonts and Atherley, 2005).
There was consensual agreement across qualitative analysis sources, from both urban and regional Landcare groups and stakeholders, that the lack in volunteer participation from the younger generation was a cause for considerable concern. The survey data supported this lack in enthusiasm with the 20-29 age group having the lowest representation, with only 10 respondents (Figure 4.13). Qualitative analysis also identified that this figure may be inflated due to a large proportion of paid government and Landcare employees (Landcare facilitators and NRMOs) within this age group responding to surveys. Four of these ten survey respondents identified themselves as NRMOs. “I think they are reaching a point where it‟s very difficult to attract younger people in, and the current economic downturn certainly wouldn‟t be helping.” (Departmental Representative 1) “Well it certainly seems to be difficult to get younger people to be involved.” (Case Study 2 Respondent 1) Case study respondents attributed this lack of enthusiasm for volunteering to increased career-related pressure on young people today, a change in priorities away from agricultural production in rural communities and a change in community focus away from a culture valuing volunteerism. “I think it would be good if more young people got out there and showed an interest in their local environment… People can be pretty career driven, and a bit apathetic maybe. I can see where people are coming from as well, because time is precious.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 3) The lack of younger volunteers in both rural and urban Landcare groups, and its consequences for Landcare group survival, is a problem not yet described in the Landcare literature.
53
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Age of survey respondents, n=94 Frequency of Response (Percentage)
30
27 24
25 21 20
17
15 11 10 5 0
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Age Range Response
Figure 4.13 A histogram representing frequencies of respondents by age. This histogram shows the aging population of Landcare participants and the lack of young Landcare participants, with only 10 respondents (11%) between the ages of 20 and 29. Qualitative analysis from all case study groups and several of the survey responses described the problem of a lack of time for volunteer commitments. Curtis and Van Nouhuys‟ (1999) analysis found that 81% of survey respondents chose not to join a Landcare group due to a lack of time for Landcare related works. This appears to be an on-going problem for Landcare groups, with Landcare groups‟ inability to maintain a reliable volunteer base likely to have consequences for the groups‟ survival (Woodhill, 1996).
A possible solution for partially supplementing the volunteer base may be by agglomerating Landcare groups. Case study groups 1 and 3 claimed that their measures of participation have increased as a result of the amalgamation of two Landcare groups into a single regional Landcare zone. The increased funding available to the Landcare groups under amalgamation has allowed the employ of NRMOs with more time to communicate goals, expectations and future events to group participants.
4.2.3: LANDCARE GROUP LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
The question subset relating to group leadership abilities included nine items analysing; 1) whether leaders respond to feedback from group members; 2) whether leaders are
54
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n consistently enthusiastic; 3) whether appointed Landcare group leaders change frequently; 4) whether leaders initiate on-ground works to the extent that resources enable; 5) whether leaders seek out sources of funding; 6) whether leaders are adequately skilled; 7) whether leaders communicate with other groups; 8) whether leaders communicate with local government; and 9) whether leaders consistently strive to adopt new technologies. Cronbach‟s α score for the subset was 0.81, meaning the subset was sufficiently reliable. However, item-total correlation for item three was 0.28. After the exclusion of this item Cronbach‟s α was 0.86, with item-total correlation scores being a minimum of 0.61, making the subset sufficiently reliable and unidimensional. The scores for these items were averaged to create an aggregate Landcare participation score, representing all items except for item three.
The aggregate scores represented a positive response to leadership abilities, with 78% of respondents replying positively to eight out of the nine leadership items (calculated as an aggregate score of more than 3.5 out of 5, Figure 4.14). Aggregate scores resulted in a distribution with the majority of aggregate scores in the „agree‟ category. These results suggest that the majority of respondents believe that leaders were capable of communicating effectively, responded to feedback and were adequately skilled and consistently enthusiastic.
However, there is a considerable limitation is assessing
leadership via this survey. The majority of respondents are likely to be in leadership positions, either as chairmen or secretaries, and for this reason bias is likely to exist, favouring Landcare leaders.
55
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
Aggregate leadership score: enthusiasm, communication and efficiency, n=92 60
52
50 40 26
30 21 20 10 0
1
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
0
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.14 A histogram representing aggregate scores for the leadership scale. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (78%) believed that leaders were adequately skilled and capable of communication. Qualitative analysis reflected the positive evaluation of Landcare leaders. In all four case study groups members recognised the time-consuming and sometimes frustrating work involved with being a Landcare group leader. “There‟s really, really good support, because if we didn‟t have that I don‟t know where we‟d be. I don‟t think we would have made it this far.” (Case Study 3 Respondent 3) The results suggested that Landcare group leaders were capable of providing critical support to Landcare groups, as defined by Pomeroy and Katon (2001). Qualitative analysis suggested that leaders were sufficiently charismatic and intellectually capable to deal with their leadership positions, contrary to the findings of Wilson (2004) who suggested that leaders often lack education and personal management skills. In all the qualitative analyses only one respondent criticised the role played by the Landcare leaders. In this case the respondent believed that leaders did not make enough effort to „reach out‟ to new members. The need to define roles and responsibilities for group members is identified in the Landcare literature, with Curtis (2000) suggesting the increased chance of success of volunteer associations with strong induction programs that reinforce the valuable contribution of volunteers.
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney analysis revealed that there was a significant difference between survey respondent ages and perceptions of leadership, with older members
56
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n (defined as 50 years or older) perceiving membership as being better than younger members (below 50 years, Z = -2.011, P < 0.040, p = 0.05).
This may create
opportunities, or problems, in the future. As the older population retires from Landcare works and the younger population steps in it may recognise an opportunity to establish new goals and re-invigorate group members with better leadership abilities. Alternatively, this negative assessment of leadership by the younger population may be tied to perceptions of leadership and Landcare duties being difficult and time-consuming, resulting in their lack of enthusiasm in taking up office positions.
With regard to the item relating to leadership turnover, 64% of respondents indicated that leadership positions did not change frequently (Figure 4.15).
Qualitative analysis
reflected this finding with all four case study groups claiming that there was very little variation in leadership positions over time. Case study groups 2 and 4 found that there were no volunteers to take over leadership positions, with Case study group 4 claiming that this lack of volunteers for leadership positions was related to group members „venting‟ their frustrations on Landcare group leaders, making the position unappealing to possible volunteers. “And we get abused for what we are trying to do, by someone that wouldn‟t even attend a meeting until tonight, but you know, that‟s not uncommon, that‟s happening all the time. Now who the hell wants to take on a chairmanship or a secretary-ship if you‟re going to be abused, when you‟re doing [your] best?” (Case Study 4 Respondent 1) Group members in leadership positions felt „trapped‟ by the lack of opportunity to step down from leadership positions. These findings reflect the prevalence for „burn-out‟ in Landcare leadership positions, as expressed in the Landcare literature (Allan and De Lacy, 1995; Byron and Curtis, 2001; Byron et al., 2001). Additionally, the qualitative analyses concur with Curtis‟ (2000) evaluation that the amount of time and effort consumed in leadership positions was discouraging others from volunteering. The results of this research suggest that leaders‟ lengthy periods in office positions are likely to be a continuing problem.
57
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n
Frequency of Response (Percentage)
The people appointed as the leaders of my Landcare group change frequently (every year or two), n=89 60
52
50 40 26
30 20
12 6
10
4
0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Don't Know
Agree
Strongly Agree
Response
Figure 4.15 A histogram representing leadership turnover. This histogram shows that the majority of respondents (64%) do not believe that Landcare group leaders change frequently. 4.2.4: FINAL
COMMENTS:
ANALYSIS
OF
GROUP
FUNCTION
CHARACTERISTICS “I think it‟s important that [leaders and NRMOs] have, in a broad sense, the same desires as what people in the group also have, that it‟s not a constant head butt to try and discuss what you think might be an issue or might need to be done or things like that. So that similarity in thinking and in understanding.” (Regional Representative 1) “Trust within the group, passion for where they live and a need to see a change or shift in attitude towards the country.” (Landcare Facilitator 1) “The community is really good at bringing me back down to the ground and not getting hung up on the political, federal issues, and sticking to what works and that‟s talking to the community.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 1) The research suggests that the majority of groups are maintaining sufficiently high levels of group functioning in the broad categories of meeting functioning, participation and leadership.
The greatest difficulty Landcare groups are facing, in terms of group
functioning, relate to a reliable and increasing base of community volunteers.
All
specific problems identified from the survey research, including a decreasing number of participants for Landcare events, a lack of goal-setting at meetings and difficulty in re-
58
C h a p t e r F o u r: R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n allocating leadership positions, can be attributed to a lack of volunteers to drive meetings, assist in on-ground works and support leadership positions. The research thus identifies the pool of volunteers available as the most important characteristic for group survival. From the survey results and qualitative analysis „burn-out‟ in leadership positions continues to threaten Landcare group survival, and may be considered the second most important group characteristic. maintaining group enthusiasm.
Finally, issues of communication are important in Qualitative analysis identified that continued
communication with Landcare group members, and the community at large, were important in being able to identify common aims and interests to preserve the Landcare groups‟ integrity in responding to community needs.
The important role of
communication was identified in the perceived lack of goal formation and problems associated with maintaining frequent group meetings.
These results suggest that
Landcare groups are typical of groups described in the volunteer literature in that they require group characteristics of cohesion, task orientation for members, high levels of direction and organisation in group proceedings, and leader support and control (Ohmer, 2008).
59
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks and Suggestions “Landcare is one of the biggest satisfactions that people can get out of land, but it’s not immediate. And that’s one of the biggest problems.” (Case Study 4 Respondent 2) 5.1:
ACHIEVEMENT OF RESEARCH AIMS
The Landcare research proposed was aimed at exploring the extent to which Landcare groups can be self-sustaining under the „Caring for our Country‟ policy, and to what extent the individual characteristics of each community group and its participants affect this outcome. The extent to which groups and individuals perceived their group as being able to survive without government assistance, in the form of funding and technical support, was used to evaluate the groups‟ likelihood of survival. The first objective examined whether Landcare groups were reliant on federally sourced support, specifically in the form of funding and Landcare facilitators/NRMOs. The results for this first objective showed that the majority of Landcare groups continue to be reliant on government sourced funding, and that those groups that do not have reduced their activity levels accordingly. The results also showed that groups without access to a Landcare facilitator/NRMO were capable of continuing functioning, but at a reduced level of efficiency, with fewer on-ground works and less access to technological advances. The second objective examined which Landcare group characteristics have enabled groups to continue functioning, and which characteristics are proving to be problematic in maintaining Landcare momentum.
The results showed that groups were generally
maintaining satisfactory to high levels of group functioning in the categories of meeting functioning, participation and leadership. The results did show, however, that Landcare groups were suffering from a reduced volunteer base, with static or decreasing numbers of participants, inability to set regular meetings and the lack of availability of volunteers to take up leadership positions.
60
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n 5.2:
RELEVANCE TO THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE
The results of this research add to the academic literature by providing further evidence that community Landcare groups are reliant on government support in the form of funding and facilitators.
The research also suggests that, without the provision of
facilitators and funds for on-ground works, groups are likely to decrease operation, resulting in groups forming fora for discussion rather than performing on-ground works. The research also contributes to the academic literature relating to volunteerism by identifying Landcare groups as typical volunteer community groups requiring consistent levels of meeting functioning (including frequency of meetings), volunteer participation and the ability for leaders to instigate works and motivate volunteers. The research provides novel conclusions in the field of volunteer support by suggesting that the lack of enthusiasm from the younger generation, and their consequent lack of association with Landcare groups, is likely to have significant impacts on the viability of these groups. The research results indicate that a consistent and reliable pool of volunteers is likely to have a greater impact on the viability of groups than leadership „burn-out‟, which is described in much of the Landcare literature.
5.3:
LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY
The greatest limitation in this research study was the lack of a representative sample of Landcare groups for the survey analysis. Reliance on Natural Resource Management officers and Landcare Australia Limited for information regarding Western Australian Landcare groups has resulted in a bias towards those groups already receiving government support. It is likely that this non-random sampling has affected the responses to Objective 1 survey items. However, it is unlikely that government support would have affected the functional characteristics of Landcare groups, as examined in Objective 2. There is a further limitation in that the survey was administered to Landcare leaders, either secretaries or chairmen, and as such responses to questions alluding to characteristics of leadership are likely to be biased towards positive perceptions of leadership positions. Further limitations in this study included that the research was
61
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n conducted early in the application of the „Caring for our Country‟ policy, and that groups may not yet have experienced the full consequences, both good and bad, of this policy. It is possible that there are advantages and disadvantages within the „Caring for our Country‟ policy which are difficult to discern from the business plan, and will become more evident as the policy is put into practice. Finally, the low response rate reduces the ability of the survey to adequately describe representative trends.
5.4:
COMMUNITY VALUE AND LANDCARE
There is some contention within the academic literature (Curtis, 2000; Curtis and Lockwood, 2000), and a view that was reiterated several times during qualitative analysis, that the decrease in government support appears to reflect the government‟s poor assessment of community Landcare groups. It was brought to my attention that government officials feel that funds could be better allocated via larger scale works driven by government departments. It is the opinion of the researcher that Landcare works should not replace large-scale, government organised works, instead it should be recognised that Landcare groups are suitably positioned to provide necessary local-level support. While the opinion of Landcare group members is certainly biased towards the positive aspects of their works, many highlighted the irrefutable fact that Landcare groups, in however small a way, were providing environmental benefits to the greater community for little or no money. “You know, the local context makes one dollar grow to ten dollars for no extra cost.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 3) “I think the government can‟t get projects done for nothing. It must contribute and it‟s getting a bargain if it‟s got community input and community understanding for free. It should at least provide some of the materials required.” (Case Study 2 Respondent 2) Landcare groups provided a setting for communication about locally-relevant issues, and many group members saw this as the most pivotal aspect of Landcare group events. While the on-ground work may have been beneficial to the environment, the expectation that communication would occur was considered vital, especially when that communication involved best-management practices in agricultural regions. The benefit
62
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n of Landcare groups in being capable of motivating farmers to adopt sustainable land-use practices is intangible and thus the allocation of government resources to Landcare groups is difficult to justify. “That‟s one of the advantages to the [Landcare events], you are always talking, always communicating, and communication is the key to solving so many of our problems.” “And farmers don‟t communicate.” “No, we don‟t. We‟re very poor at communicating.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 5, 3, 5) “Landcare has that community feel about it, farmers are willing to share. And I know when all of these guys… when they come out to the site visits they will learn something every time.” (Case Study 1 Respondent 1) Due to the relative inability to quantify Landcare outcomes it is easy to understand the federal government‟s rationalisation to move funds away from Landcare groups. However, this does little to recognise the valuable input Landcare groups have, not only in providing environmental benefits, but also in recognising the consequences of community input; that it fosters emotional rewards and enhances community vitality. The intangible benefits of Landcare groups as a community asset remain undefined in the Landcare literature, and as such it will continue to be difficult to justify expenditure and the allocation of government resources to Landcare groups.
5.5:
LANDCARE IN THE FUTURE
The future of community Landcare groups in Western Australia is becoming increasingly tenuous, with federal support in the form of funding and facilitation being denied to groups. The research has shown that the majority of groups are still dependent on government support for survival, and will be negatively impacted under the „Caring for our Country‟ policy. In addition to this finding the research process identified that many Landcare groups have recently disbanded or are in the process of „winding up‟. The distribution of Landcare Magazines by the Western Australian State Natural Resource Management Office occurs on a quarterly basis, with the September 2008 release of magazines having a circulation of 330. The December 2008 release of magazines, in which the research survey was included, saw a reduction in circulation to 282 magazines,
63
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n a decline of 42 recipients (15%) in the three month period between publications. The Senior NRM Facilitator attributed this decline to the folding of Land Conservation District Committees (Moore, 2009), rural community groups established for environmental purposes prior to the development of the National Landcare Program (Baker, 1997). Additionally, four incomplete surveys were returned with notes indicating that the recipient groups were in the process of discontinuing their operations, or had not met for several years.
This decline in activity levels in well established groups is
indicative of the difficulties groups are experiencing in maintaining enthusiasm for Landcare works and presents a disheartening forecast for the future of Landcare. The dissolution of Landcare groups described likely reflects issues associated with population decline and the increasingly marginalised economies of rural regions, issues which are likely to affect not just Landcare groups but the health of rural communities generally.
There exists an opportunity for local government councils and shires to provide the resources needed by Landcare groups to continue their on-ground works.
Local
governments are advantageously placed to deal with Landcare groups in that they are more aware of the local focus of Landcare groups and their communities than the federal government is capable of. Local governments similarly have the capacity to utilise their own personnel and machinery in the instances that Landcare groups may require onground assistance. Case study groups 1 and 3 had funding for Landcare facilitators funded by the local councils, and Case study groups 2 and 4 had access to the council‟s NRMO. This is evidence that councils are already attributing the environmental benefits from Landcare groups to local support. However, survey responses indicated that many councils are still resisting any association with Landcare groups. If Landcare groups are to survive this current period of economic instability they will require the assistance of reliable, locally-sourced support. Local governments must move past their rates, roads and rubbish mentality to adopt a community-wide approach and appreciate that their local environment deserves considerable input.
If groups can continue receiving reliable
assistance, and if the community volunteer pool can be adjusted to provide on-going support to groups, there is no reason why Landcare groups cannot continue functioning indefinitely.
64
C h a p t e r F i v e: C o n c l u s i o n
5.6:
SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The ability for local governments to absorb the expenses associated with maintaining a Landcare facilitator or Natural Resource Management Officer, in addition to funding local on-ground works is an area which may require study. The research results have identified a lack of enthusiasm for volunteer works from the younger generation which will have a considerable impact on the longevity of not only Landcare groups, but any community volunteer association in Australia. Further research into this problem would be advantageous to determine whether this trend is isolated to Landcare groups or can be identified in all major community groups. While there is a dearth of literature available analysing Landcare groups, continual review of Landcare group functioning may be beneficial in suggesting whether these groups will be capable of coping with changes in Landcare-related policy and rural society, specifically the effects of depopulation and the prevalence of reduced economic bases. There exists an opportunity to study Landcare groups in terms of the intangible benefits they provide to rural communities, attempting to equate these intangible benefits with the economic costs associated with supplying groups with resources.
Such a study would provide evidence as to whether the
Commonwealth government‟s reduction in the allocation of resources to Landcare groups is justified.
65
References REFERENCES: Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C., (1999), Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development, 27 (4), pp. 629 – 649 Alexander, J. and McGregor, J., (2000), Wildlife and Politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, Development and Change, 31, pp. 605 – 627 Allan, C. and De Lacy, T., (1995), Evaluating Landcare groups in Australia: How they facilitate partnerships between agencies, community groups, and researchers, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50 (1), pp. 15 – 24 Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council, (2007, updated 1/11/07), NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm, accessed 4/11/08 Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, (2008a, updated 07/10/08), National Landcare Program, http://www.daff.gov.au/naturalresources/landcare/national_landcare_program, accessed 28/10/08 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2008b, updated 07/08/08), Caring for our Country: questions and answers, http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/cfocfaq.html, accessed 09/09/08 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2008c, updated 22/08/08), Caring for our Country - Open Grants, http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/open.html, accessed 09/09/08 Australian Government, Natural Heritage Trust, (2008d, updated 30/06/08), Projects funded from the first phase of the Natural Heritage Trust (1996-1997 to 20012002), http://www.nht.gov.au/projects/nht1.html, accessed 20/05/09 Australian Government, Natural Heritage Trust, (2008e, updated 30/06/08), Natural Heritage Trust Annual Report 2002-03, http://www.nht.gov.au/publications/annual-reports/2002-03/index.html, accessed 20/05/09 Australian Government, National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, (2008f, updated 30/06/08), What is the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality?, http://www.napswq.gov.au/napswq/index.html, accessed 20/05/09 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009a, updated 08/02/09), Caring for our Country Open Grants successful applicants, http://www.nrm.gov.au/projects/open-grants.html, accessed 15/05/09
66
References Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009b, updated 13/02/09), Caring for our Country business plan 2009-10 Frequently Asked Questions http://www.nrm.gov.au/business-plan/faq.html, accessed 15/05/09 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009c, updated 06/04/09), Caring for our Country business plan 2009-10, http://www.nrm.gov.au/businessplan/index.html, accessed 15/05/09 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009d, updated 06/04/09), Caring for our Country business plan information sheets, http://www.nrm.gov.au/business-plan/info-sheets.html#targets, accessed 15/05/09 Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009e, updated 13/03/09), Caring for our Country Community Coastcare - successful applicants, http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/2008/coastcare-success-wa.html, accessed 17/5/09 Baker, R., (1997), Landcare: policy, practice and partnerships, Australian Geographical Studies, 35 (1), pp. 61 – 73 Barbour, R. S., (2001), Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?, British Medical Journal, 322, pp. 1115 – 1117 Bernard, H. R., (2006), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 4th edn, Alta Mira Press, Lanham Black, T. R., (1999), Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics, Sage Publications, London Brehm, V. M., (2000), Environment, Advocacy, and Community Participation: MOPAWI in Honduras, Development in Practice, 10 (1), pp. 94 – 98 Buchy, M. and Race, D., (2001), The Twists and Turns of Community Participation in Natural Resource Management in Australia: What is Missing?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44 (3), pp. 293 – 308 Byron, I. and Curtis, A., (2001), Landcare in Australia: burned out and browned off, Local Environment, 6 (3), pp. 311 – 326 Byron, I., Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M., (2001), Exploring Burnout in Australia‟s Landcare Program: A Case Study in the Shepparton Region, Society and Natural Resources, 14, pp. 901 – 910 Cary, J. and Webb, T., (2001), Landcare in Australia: Community participation and land management, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56 (4), pp. 274 – 279
67
References Centre for International Economics, (2005), Evaluation of the Natural Heritage Trust Envirofund, Prepared for the Department of Environment and Heritage Charnley, S. and Poe, M. R., (2007), Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where are we now?, Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, pp. 301 – 336 Child, B., (1996), The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme, Biodiversity and conservation, 5, pp. 369 – 398 Clason, D.L. and Dormody, T.J., (1994), Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items, Journal of Agricultural Education, 35 (4), pp. 31 – 35 Conacher, A. and Conacher, J., (2000), Environmental planning and management in Australia, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne Cox, R., Holloway, L., Venn, L., Dowler, L., Hein, J R., Kneafsey, M. and Tuomainen, H., (2008), Common ground? Motivations for participation in a communitysupported agriculture scheme, Local Environment, 13 (3), pp. 203 – 218 Culley, M. R. and Hughey, J., (2008), Power and Public Participation in a Hazardous Waste Dispute: A Community Case Study, American Journal of Psychology, 41, pp. 41 – 114 Curtis, A., (1998), Agency-Community Partnership in Landcare: Lessons for State-Sponsored Citizen Resource Management, Environmental Management, 22 (4), pp. 563 – 574 Curtis, A., (2000), Landcare: approaching the limits of voluntary action, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 7 (1), pp. 19 – 27 Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T., (1994), Landcare in Australia: Does it make a Difference?, Journal of Environmental Management, 46, pp. 119 – 137 Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1997), Examining the assumptions behind Landcare. In: Lockie, S., Vanclay, F., eds. Critical Landcare, Charles Sturt University Key Paper Series No 5, pp. 185 – 199, Available online at http://www.utas.edu.au/ruralcommunities/publications/critical-landcare.pdf Curtis, A., Britton, A. and Sobels, J., (1999), Landcare Networks in Australia: State-sponsored Participation through Local Organisations, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (1), pp. 5 – 21 Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M., (2000), Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation, Society and Natural Resources, 13, pp. 61 – 73
68
References
Curtis, A. and Van Nouhuys, M., (1999), Landcare Participation in Australia: The Volunteer Perspective, Sustainable Development, 7, pp. 98 – 111 De Vaus, D. A., (1985), Surveys in Social Research, 1st edn, Allen & Unwin, North Sydney De Vaus, D. A., (2002a), Analyzing Social Science Data: 50 Key Problems in Data Analysis, Sage Publications, London De Vaus, D. A., (2002b), Surveys in Social Research, 5th edn, Allen & Unwin, North Sydney Duane, T. P., (1997), Community Participation in Ecosystem Management, Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, pp. 771 – 797 Ewing, S., (1997), „Small is beautiful‟: the place of the case study in Landcare evaluation. In: Lockie, S., Vanclay, F., eds. Critical Landcare, Charles Sturt University Key Paper Series No 5, pp. 175 – 184, Available online at http://www.utas.edu.au/ruralcommunities/publications/critical-landcare.pdf Farrelly, M., (2005), Regionalisation of environmental management: a case study of the Natural Heritage Trust, South Australia, Geographical Research, 43, pp. 393 – 405 Florin, P. and Wandersman, A., (1990), An Introduction to Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights for Empowerment Through Research, American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 41 – 54 Freudenberg, N., (1984), Citizen Action for Environmental Health: Report on a Survey of Community Organizations, American Journal of Public Health, 74, pp. 444 – 448 Garcia-Marmolejo, G., Escalona-Segura, G. and Van Der Wal, H., (2008), Multicriteria Evaluation of Wildlife Management Units in Campeche, Mexico, Journal of Wildlife Management,72 (5), pp. 1194 – 1202 Gill, N., (2004), Politics within and without – The Origins and Development of a Rangelands Landcare Group, Australian Geographical Studies, 42 (2), pp. 135 – 151 Government of Western Australia, Department for Environment and Conservation, (2009, no updated date), Environmental Community Grants 2009, http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/community-and-education/communityprograms/environmental-community-grants-2009.html, accessed 29/5/09 Head, B. W., (2007), Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42 (3), pp. 441 – 454
69
References
Johnson, R. A. and Bhattacharyya, G. K., (1996), Statistics: Principles and Methods, 3rd edn, John Wiley and Sons Inc., University of Wisconsin at Madison Kearney, M., (2004), Walking the walk? Community participation in HIA A qualitative interview study, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, pp. 217 – 229 Landcare Australia, Landcare Online, (2008, no updated date), National Landcare Directory Privacy Policy and Protocols, http://www.landcareonline.com/page.asp?pID=101, accessed 28/10/08 Lockie, S., (1997), Beyond a „good thing‟: political interests and the meaning of Landcare. In: Lockie, S., Vanclay, F., eds. Critical Landcare, Charles Sturt University Key Paper Series No 5, 29 - 44, Available online at http://www.utas.edu.au/ruralcommunities/publications/critical-landcare.pdf Lowe, I., (2007), Global ethics and the Australian environmental movement, Social Alternatives¸ 26 (3), pp. 22 – 25 McMillan, D. W. and Chavis, D. M., (1986), Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory, Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 6 – 23 Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B., (1999), Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Moore, N., (2009), Natalie Moore, Senior Natural Resource Management Facilitator, Western Australian State Natural Resource Management Office, Personal Email Correspondence, 8th December 2009, Ohmer, M. L., (2008), The Relationship Between Members‟ Perceptions of their Neighborhood Organization and their Involvement and Perceived Benefits from Participation, Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (7), pp. 851 – 870 Perreault, M., Pawliuk, N., Veilleux, R. and Rousseau, M., (2006), Qualitative Assessment of Mental Health Service Satisfaction: Strengths and Limitations of a SelfAdministered Procedure, Community Mental Health Journal, 42 (3), pp. 233 – 242 Pomeroy, R. S. and Katon, B. M., (2001), Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia, Marine Policy, 25, pp. 197 – 208 Robins, L. and Dovers, S., (2007), Community-based NRM boards of management: are they up to the task?, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14, pp. 111 – 122 Silverman, D., (2005), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London & Thousand Oaks, California
70
References
Singleton, S., (2000), Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policymaking, Environmental Politics, 9 (4), pp. 1 – 21 Sobels, J., Curtis, A. and Lockie, S., (2001), The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital, Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp. 265 – 276 Tonts, M. and Atherley, K., (2005), Rural restructuring and the changing geography of competitive sport, Australian Geographer, 36 (2), pp. 125 – 144 Twyman, C., (2000), Participatory Conservation? Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Botswana, The Geographical Journal, 166, pp. 323 – 335 WalterTurnbull, (2005), Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under the NHT and NAP, for Departments of the Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, December 2005 Whelan, J. and Oliver, P., (2005), Regional Community-Based Planning: The Challenge of Participatory Environmental Governance, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 12, pp. 126 – 135 Wilson, G., A., (2004), The Australian Landcare movement: towards „postproductivist‟ rural governance?, Journal of Rural Studies, 20, pp. 461 – 383 Woodhill, J., (1996), Natural resources decision making: beyond the Landcare paradox, Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 3 (1), pp. 91 – 114
71
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review Part 1: A: B: C: Part 2: A: B:
C:
Communities and Participation Communities and Multiple Actors Citizen Participation and the Volunteer Perspective Sustainable Resource Use and Governance
p 71 p 71 p 72 p 74
Landcare in Australia History of Landcare in Australia Examination of Landcare Literature I: Government Support and Landcare II: Group Characteristics and Landcare Proposition for Further Study
p 75 p 75 p 77 p 78 p 80 p 81
References:
p 82
Part 1: Communities and Participation Part one of the literature review assesses volunteer community organisations in terms of the communities from which they evolve and the rewards provided to participants of community organisations. It considers the role of institutional bodies in administering control over community organisations, where the organisation is formed to meet development ends. The role of governance in empowering the community group is then discussed, with special reference to groups with a focus on eco-system management.
A:
COMMUNITIES AND MULTIPLE ACTORS:
Though used frequently in the academic literature, the term „community‟ is particularly unclear and value loaded (Head, 2007). Articles examining the role of the community in eco-system management, neighbourhood interaction or development projects define „community‟ based on a three-way typology, where a community can be identified as being a community of place, where community members are connected within a small spatial unit, or as a community of identity, where members are connected socially in a homogeneous social structure, or as a community of interest, where members share similar opinions on a range of issues (Duane, 1997; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). It has been suggested that in the event of the formation of a community-based group designed to increase citizen power, enact community change or share responsibility for a community asset, all of these definitions must apply simultaneously (Duane, 1997). Community members must be distributed within the specific region they wish to affect, they must engage socially in order to communicate plans for community involvement, and they must have similar ideas on the issues that are to be addressed by the community group‟s functioning (Duane, 1997). Furthermore, a successful community group can be identified based on the attributes of its members and the elements of their interaction with 72
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review the community group (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). As an active community participant, individuals can be defined as those with a sense of membership, where they obtain a feeling of belonging and relatedness due to community interaction; or as those with a sense of influence, where they feel as though they matter and make a difference; or as those with a sense of integration and reciprocity, where member‟s needs can be met as a result of association with the community; or as those with a shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). While „communities‟ are often described as a function of place, society and collective norms, these three attributes are reliant on human description, and as such any „community‟ is transient (Berkes, 2004). The „community‟ required to activate community participation is dependent on multiple actors, with each actor influencing outcomes for community group endeavours, and possibly affecting the perception of the community itself (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). Duane (1997) identified several forms of social conflict between these multiple actors which impact on community engagement. Cognitive conflicts exist when actors have different understandings of facts or requirements, value conflicts relate to disputes over goals or priorities, interest conflicts result from an un-even distribution of costs or benefits to actors and relationship conflicts relate to existing social conflicts within a community. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) suggested a more critical approach to examining community interactions, which can be used to analyse the potential for conflict. These authors recommended three additional elements of communities to be considered, based on the understanding that communities are rarely made up of a homogeneous group of individuals. These three elements included the need to examine the multiple actors with multiple interests that make up the communities; the relationships and interactions between these actors; and the institutional arrangements which govern their interactions (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999).
B:
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND THE VOLUNTEER PERSPECTIVE:
Community groups attempting to enact community change or share responsibility for a community asset are largely composed of volunteers and participation at the individual level is done in order to increase feelings of empowerment or as a mechanism for larger social change (Buchy & Race, 2001). Therefore, community groups adhere to descriptions in the academic literature relating to qualities of citizen participation and the volunteer perspective (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999). Within the citizen participatory literature there are two diverging forms of community participation, instrumental and transformative participation (Buchy & Race, 2001). Instrumental participation is used as a tool to meet a specific end, such as citizen participation in town planning development, whereas transformative participation utilises community participation as a mechanism for social change (Buchy & Race, 2001). This second form of participation is that which is utilised by the majority of community groups, either those focusing on health care within a community (Zakus & Lystack, 1998), or in the case of development directed community groups, such as eco-system management in developing nations (Fabricius et al., 2007) or neighbourhood groups
73
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review aiming to increase measures of self-sufficiency, safety and independence (Stoll, 2001). In either form of participation, the community groups ideally adopt a certain level of power and self-sufficiency, where participation acts as a practice through which individuals and the community as a whole are capable of sharing the direction of institutionally derived development projects and the resources which affect them (Buchy & Race, 2001). Arnstein‟s (1969) „Ladder of Citizen Participation‟ is a typology describing the various extents to which institutions provide mechanisms of control and power to community groups and individuals. Whilst recognising that some institutional programs provide funds or other resources which allow citizens complete control over projects, the majority of citizen-oriented programs have a more tokenistic approach to participation, where citizens are included in a superficial way, giving them an opportunity to voice opinions or be informed but with no real ability to influence the outcomes of the institutionally arranged project (Arnstein, 1969). The level of success in promoting social change which a participatory group is capable of achieving is related to the extent to which the larger institution allows participation, and the ability of the participatory community group to function as an independent organisation, allowing them to mobilise efforts to influence project outcomes (Buchy & Race, 2001). The academic literature concerning volunteer organisations similarly stresses the importance of volunteer community groups being capable of establishing, then sustaining, a formal organisation (Ohmer, 2008). Florin and Wandersman‟s (1990) review of volunteer-based organisations suggested a mortality rate of 50% for groups in their first year of operation. Those groups which remain active after one year of operation do so due to higher levels of group cohesion, task orientation for participants, higher levels of order and organisation in group events, and leader support and control (Ohmer, 2008). In particular, local leadership is critical: leaders set examples, outline courses of action and provide drive, enthusiasm and direction for projects (Pomeroy & Katon, 2001). Further requirements associated with voluntary organisation group functioning and survival relate to resources available for the group‟s use. Financial resources are needed to support the planning, implementation, co-ordination and assessment of projects (Pomeroy & Katon, 2001). Unfortunately, financial and technical resources available to volunteer organisations are often limited, and, where available, are often conditionally supplied (Pomeroy & Katon, 2001). Participation in a voluntary association results in a personal cost of time and income loss, and as such involvement in voluntary community organisations should include rewards (Zakus & Lystack, 1998). Participation in voluntary organisations has been found to be linked with increased self-esteem in the event that responsibilities and roles are shared between citizens (Ohmer, 2008). Similarly, a high level of task orientation has been found to increase group members‟ perception of control (Ohmer, 2008). While rewards for participants are largely philosophical, emotional and symbolic, on-going education, support and financial and material resources are required to maintain motivation and enthusiasm for voluntary work (Zakus & Lystack, 1998).
74
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review
C:
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE USE AND GOVERNANCE:
Within the academic literature relating to citizen participation and community groups there is a specific sub-set of articles describing development projects which are aimed at enabling communities to equitably distribute and sustainably manage eco-systems and the resources they provide (Singleton, 2000; Fabricius et al., 2007). Singleton (2000) outlined four characteristics required by communities for eco-system management to succeed. According to her analysis, communities must have: a preference for sustainable management, as opposed to unrestricted harvesting or liquidation of a resource; they must have the social capital and material resources required to solve problems collectively; they must have sufficient information available to understand the requirements necessary for sustainable resource use; and they must have effective communication pathways and management training to allow the creation of effective regulations. Fabricius et al. (2007) reviewed the results of such development programs, and the ability for communities to become self-sufficient in managing the eco-systems that support them. They outlined improvements or advances that can be made in community group functioning across two scales, governance and adaptive capacity. The scale designating aspects of adaptive capacity included the ability to identify environmental threats, adopt technological approaches to solving problems, being able to investigate different options in management, and importantly, in being able to „pull-down‟ financial resources. In order for the community groups in question to carry out on-ground works capable of being successful, the group must adhere to all these conditions. The scale describing attributes of governance suggested factors which influence the success of the group to work as a self-governing, self-sufficient organisation. Governance is concerned with governmental and non-governmental organisations working together, and refers to a transformation in processes of governing, ultimately resulting in a change to the meaning of government and associated ordered rule (Marsden & Murdoch, 1998). The importance of governance in the use of natural resources is echoed by O‟Riordan (2004) who described governance as the fourth inherent aspect (or bottom line) of sustainability. After consideration of the economy, society and the environment, governance is required to construct “patterns of managing, accommodating, sharing and acting that generate the goals of resilience, well-being and livelihood” (O‟Riordan, 2004:138). O‟Riordan (2004) determined that without active governance working to drive sustainability measures into all corners of societal frameworks there could be no possible path to a sustainable lifestyle.
75
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review
Part 2: Landcare in Australia The literature reviewed in part 1 concerning communities, participation in volunteer groups, sustainable resource use and governance is relevant to the study of Landcare groups in Australia. Landcare groups are voluntary associations formed in rural communities, with the aim of increasing sustainable land-use and biodiversity (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999). The multiple actors associated with Landcare group management include the citizens that make up these groups and the agency representatives that provide them with information and funding (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999). The utilisation of government resources by Landcare groups allows government representatives a level of power and delegation of rights reminiscent of those depicted in Arnstein‟s (1969) „Ladder of Citizen Participation‟. The devolution of power from federal agencies to natural resource management regions (Farrelly, 2005) enables Landcare groups to increase their level of governance. Though not directly related to eco-system management in that Landcare participants are not sharing a common pool resource, there is a similarity between eco-system management and Landcare in that participants understand that sustainable use of their own lands can provide sustainable resources for the wider community and for the future, with individuals and the community as a whole benefiting from best-bet practices (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999). The literature reviewed in part 2 analyses the historical progression of Landcare in Australia as a governmental program, and the associated policies and funding mechanisms which have allowed the development of Landcare groups. The specific effects of government funding and agency support on group performance are analysed, as is the importance of functional group characteristics.
A:
HISTORY OF LANDCARE IN AUSTRALIA:
During its history in Australian rural development Landcare has come to have different meanings within different academic circles (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000). Landcare can refer to a rural community forming a group to implement more sustainable land management practices, it can refer to the government organisations and policies adopted to help these groups, or it can refer to a social movement relating to sustainable use of the land (Baker, 1997). Landcare groups in Australia are committed to implementing onground works to increase biodiversity in their regions, eliminate invasive species and adopt sustainable land-use practices (Australian Government, 2008a). Most citizens join Landcare groups in order to address problems associated with land degradation, to work locally on nationally relevant issues, and to access financial support (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999). At the peak of Landcare group functioning in Australia there were over 4500 recorded Landcare groups (Wilson, 2004). Landcare was first adopted as a national program to address issues of land degradation in 1989 when the Commonwealth government committed $360 million to the National Landcare Program (NLP), resulting in the 1990‟s being „the decade of Landcare‟ (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000). Initially, limited government funding was supplied to community
76
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review Landcare groups for education and demonstration activities (Curtis et al., 1999). Funding was additionally provided to employ local Landcare facilitators or regional officers, whose primary role was to communicate funding opportunities, technological advances and innovative activities devised by other groups (Baker, 1997). Landcare was designed as a catalytic program, endeavouring to engage a large percentage of the rural community, producing adaptive managers with an increased stewardship ethic (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000). Landcare groups were developed from either existing rural community groups, such as Land Conservation District Committees in Western Australia (Baker, 1997), or developed more autonomously, with government agency staff working with possible leaders to initiate groups (Curtis et al., 1999). Participation in Landcare groups and associated activities remained voluntary for the duration of the NLP (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000). In 1998 the Commonwealth government provided $1.25 billion to develop the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), providing funds to Landcare groups for larger scale, on-ground works (Curtis & Van Nouhyus, 1999; Curtis & Lockwood, 2000). These on-ground works included the adoption of perennial pastures, experimentation in conservation tilling practices, planting vegetation, and fencing to protect remnant vegetation and river-banks from soil erosion (Allan & De Lacy, 1995). At the time of its original implementation, the NHT was the largest financial investment in environmental works by any federal government (Byron et al., 2001). The increased funding available as a result of the NHT resulted in a dramatic increase in many groups‟ activity levels (Byron et al., 2001). It was found that a lack of organisational structure contributed to inequality in funding between groups and a lack of inter-group and government communication (Farrelly, 2005). Thus, phase two of the NHT, beginning in 2002-03, developed Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions within each state to co-ordinate agency support, providing funds to larger scale on-site works (Robins & Dover, 2007). Alternatively, smaller group initiatives developed by existing Landcare groups where funded at the national level in the form of Envirofunds (Farrelly, 2005). Envirofunds expanded on the original NHT funds by providing funds for on-ground works designed to maintain biodiversity, in addition to increasing sustainable resource use (Centre for International Economics, 2005). Envirofunds were planned as an outlet to provide funds for groups performing small, on-ground works designed to address locally important natural resource management issues. The value inherent in Envirofunds was that they provided an incentive for small community groups to maintain energy and enthusiasm for on-ground works in their region (Centre for International Economics, 2005). Without Envirofunds it was suggested that smaller Landcare groups would receive very little, if any, funding under NHT phase two, as the local level focus of group activities were not „on the radar‟ of Natural Resource Management regional agendas (Centre for International Economics, 2005). In July 2008, the Rudd Government‟s „Caring for Our Country‟ policy has resulted in NRM regions having their funding decreased to 60% of their previous budgets during the transition year of the program (2008-2009) (Australian Government, 2008b). In Western Australia, NHT bilateral agreements between the state and federal governments outline
77
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review that the provision of resources to NRM regions is to be shared evenly between the two governments, with the result that decreased funding at the national level will result in decreased provision of funds at the state level (WalterTurnball, 2005). A small number of grants (minimum value of $80 000) are to be provided under „Caring for Our Country‟, to be shared between a variety of groups, including businesses and educational institutions (Australian Government, 2008c), thus increasing the competition for funds and decreasing the likelihood of small Landcare groups being capable of obtaining funding. „Caring for Our Country‟ will also see Envirofunds terminated, with no local level, smaller funds available to Landcare groups (Australian Government, 2008b). Additionally, „Caring for Our Country‟ will not renew any contracts with local Landcare facilitators (Australian Government, 2008b). Consequently, Landcare as a policy to provide assistance to small community groups has ended, and Landcare community groups are faced with an increasingly uncertain future. The Landcare policy framework provided a new avenue for research and discussion as it was the first state-sponsored community participation project to be implemented in a developed nation (Curtis & Van Nouhyus, 1999), and emphasised its possible uses in rural development (Curtis et al., 1999). However, as Landcare and its related policies evolved it became clear that there was a diverging opinion on the function of the NLP and NHT and how their funds should be implemented. The original assumption within the National Landcare Program was that funds and agency support would be provided to „kick-start‟ the community groups into action, but that these funds were to be provided in the initial stages only, with the Landcare groups quickly becoming independent bodies (Curtis & Van Nouhyus, 1999). This, however, is contrary to much of the literature on community participation, which suggests that, like any organisation, Landcare groups would require consistent and continual funding and support in order to achieve optimal results in on-ground works (Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Baker, 1997; Cary & Webb, 2001).
B:
EXAMINATION OF LANDCARE LITERATURE:
Broadly speaking, the academic literature focusing on Landcare describes its political history in Australia (Baker, 1997; Curtis & Lockwood, 2000), and the extent to which it has been capable of achieving its goal of increasing the adoption of sustainable land-use practices (Allan & De Lacy, 1995; Curtis & De Lacy, 1997; Cary & Webb, 2001). The literature examines the various definitions of Landcare (Baker, 1997), described above, and examines Landcare as a means of invoking community participation and increasing the social capital of rural communities (Gill, 2004). Several studies examine the consequences of specific events on the application of Landcare, for instance the regionalisation of natural resource management in Australia (Farrelly, 2005; Robins & Dovers, 2007), or the introduction of Landcare initiated „networks‟, where Landcare groups combine to increase their ability to „pull-down‟ resources and influence policy makers (Curtis et al., 1999; Sobels et al., 2001). Specific characteristics of Landcare groups have also been researched, for instance the high rate of „burn-out‟ seen in group
78
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review leadership positions (Byron et al., 2001), and the initial motivations for members to join Landcare groups (Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999).
B:
I: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AND LANDCARE
While much of the research focuses on specific attributes or events such as those described above, there exists two recurring themes in the literature: the importance of continued funding (Baker, 1997; Curtis & De Lacy, 1997) and the importance of local Landcare facilitators in assisting group works and acting as the primary link between community groups and government agencies (Allan & De Lacy, 1995; Curtis & De Lacy, 1997). Several quantitative survey studies have found that there is a significant relationship between the funding available, assistance from local Landcare facilitators and high levels of group functioning. Curtis and De Lacy‟s (1997) survey analysis of pre-NHT Landcare group functioning found that there was a significant positive relationship between funding and Landcare group performance, specifically in the form of on-ground works and activities. Information from the survey also found that groups were reliant on Landcare facilitators for the majority of their information and inter-group communications (Curtis & De Lacy, 1997). Allan and De Lacy‟s (1995) analysis further highlighted the integral link between government support and group functioning. Their study found that 70% of groups indicated that local Landcare facilitators or government officers regularly attended group activities, and that 59% of groups suggested that facilitators played an important role in assisting in group decision-making. This research also highlighted the reliance on government funding, purporting that 45% of groups reported that funds and materials supplied by the government were inadequate for task completion (Allan & De Lacy, 1995). Curtis‟ (1998) analysis also found a significant positive relationship between the amount of government funding and group performance. The Centre for International Economics (2005) conducted an analysis of Envirofunds and associated assistance from Landcare facilitators which found that without funding for local on-ground works in the form of Envirofunds many groups would have lost enthusiasm for Landcare related works, resulting in their dissolution (Centre for International Economics, 2005). This analysis also found that facilitators assisted groups in a variety of ways integral to group functioning, including understanding new Natural Resource Management policies, completing fund application forms, providing technical advice, writing letters of support, and in the development of skills and knowledge. The research concluded that, without the support of local Landcare facilitators, many group activities would not have „gotten off the ground‟ (Centre for International Economics, 2005). Whilst the academic literature regarding Landcare groups in Australia suggests the intrinsic link between government support, funding and group performance, there is little conclusive evidence as to whether group functioning can persist without government support, as may be the case under the „Caring for Our Country‟ policy. Whilst assistance from facilitators has been recognised as beneficial, several studies have identified that many groups had no access to a Landcare facilitator. For instance, Curtis and Van Nouhuys‟ (1999) analysis of Landcare groups found that 71% of groups they contacted
79
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review did not have access to a local Landcare facilitator. Curtis‟ (2000) analysis similarly found that 62% of Victorian groups did not have access to a Landcare facilitator. Additionally, this article also addressed the lack of consistency in funding between groups, with 30% of Victorian groups receiving less than $2 000 in 1997-98, whilst 16% of groups received funding of more than $25 000, representing 62% of the total funds available (Curtis, 2000). These results suggest that while funding and facilitator support may be preferable, many groups have been surviving with no facilitator support and negligible funding. What these articles do not address is the longevity of the groups with minimal support, and whether they are capable of surviving into the future if minimal to no government support was to be provided. While survey results suggest the link between increased group performance and government support, a more negative association between government support and group functioning has been recognised. Curtis and Lockwood (2000) suggested that the government may have a greater influence on group functioning and on-ground activities than the rhetoric of Landcare would propose, with the allocation of funds to groups with activities and projects aligned with government priority issues. The influence of government priorities on group functioning was the focus of research conducted by Curtis and De Lacy (1997). This work showed that, whilst weeds were the most significant concern to most Landcare groups, more activities related to revegetation and fencing were reported, for which government funding was more readily accessible (Curtis & De Lacy, 1997). Lockie (1997) similarly found a significant relationship between agricultural best-bet practices adopted by Landcare group members, and those practices that were promoted through government initiatives, particularly Landcare News magazine. Wilson (2004) examined the institutional framework surrounding Landcare groups, the NLP and NHT and found that facilitators acted in a „gate-keeping‟ position between the Landcare groups and the agencies which provided funding. Facilitators were capable of inflicting their own ideology about the „best‟ way to address sustainable resource issues and group projects, resulting in group activities reflecting the facilitators‟ ideas and objectives rather than the Landcare groups‟ (Wilson, 2004). Campbell and Juno (1992) found evidence of this in that extension staff or facilitators could be found saying Landcare groups had „gone off the rails‟, suggesting groups were moving in a trend contrary to the desires of the agencies‟ directives. The ability for group resources, both financial and otherwise, to be consumed by government agencies or initiatives was also described in the literature. Curtis (1998) and Curtis and Van Nouhuys (1999) suggest that agencies were obtaining significant portions of National Landcare Program and Natural Heritage Trust funds supplied by the federal government, intended to be provided directly to Landcare groups. Additionally, valuable time resources were being consumed by institutional formalities. Curtis (2000) addressed the time-consuming nature of government funding application forms, where application forms were found to be the second highest energy requiring task in Landcare group functioning, including all on-ground works except tree planting/remnant vegetation protection. This information suggests the overwhelming influence government agencies have on Landcare group functioning.
80
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review The Landcare literature available thus highlights two diverging themes regarding government support. Government support in the form of funding and supply of local Landcare facilitators has been found to increase performance in groups and aid in technological advances and innovation of group practices. Alternatively, the provision of government support is uneven and in many cases may influence Landcare groups to the extent that the group‟s intentions and desires are not accommodated. The questions of whether Landcare groups will be sustainable in the long term without government assistance and the extent to which a lack of government influence will enable them to revive their own enthusiasm and trajectory in the implementation of group projects are, however, not addressed in the literature.
B:
II: GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND LANDCARE
The ability for groups to continue implementing on-ground works and activities, in spite of reduced government support, will be dependent on the functional characteristics of the groups. There is a dearth of information available in the wider community participation literature suggesting group characteristics which may determine a community group‟s success. The Landcare literature available largely examines group functioning characteristics relating to leadership. One particular issue echoed repeatedly in the literature is that of „burn-out‟ in leadership positions (Allan & De Lacy, 1995; Byron & Curtis, 2001; Byron et al., 2001). Leadership „burn-out‟ appeared to be a function of leadership turnover, with the potential for „burn-out‟ apparently greater when there were few opportunities for tasks associated with leadership to be passed on to others (Allan & De Lacy, 1995). Allan and De Lacy‟s (1995) article, written during the initial stages of the NLP, suggested, however, that the majority of groups that had been operational for two or more years had seen changes in leadership, suggesting that for the most part „burn-out‟ was avoided in these initial stages of operation. Wilson‟s (2004) article suggests, however, that increased turnover in leadership positions results in a lack of continuity, making priority setting and task completion more difficult. In another article, Curtis (2000) suggested that Landcare leaders were seen as spending a large amount of time on group management activities, with this large workload discouraging others from volunteering for leadership roles. Other aspects of group functioning associated with leadership also contributed to collective group „burn-out‟. These included negative evaluations of those in leadership positions, a lack of task completion and increased administrative workloads (Byron et al., 2001). Specifically, the lack of charismatic leaders in Landcare groups, due to leaders being appointed from the limited, largely uneducated pool of community members in which Landcare groups are situated, has been seen as a major limitation in group functioning (Wilson, 2004). Priority setting within groups is identified in the volunteer literature as being necessary for community group survival, and yet Byron and Curtis (2001) found that around 30% of groups examined had not set annual priorities. Curtis and Van Nouhuys (1999) similarly identified that task orientation was an important motivational force encouraging Landcare volunteers to join Landcare groups and
81
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review continue participating in group events and that without a high level of task orientation it was deemed possible that group members would lose enthusiasm for group projects. Curtis (2000) briefly mentioned other aspects of community group functioning which are important to group survival. Specifically, he alluded to the increased likelihood of success of volunteer associations with strong induction programs and management approaches that reinforce the valuable contribution of volunteers. Curtis (2000) addressed the importance of a reliable pool of volunteers and community members who are to attend Landcare group meetings and on-ground works. The ability for Landcare groups to maintain a reliable volunteer base is likely to have consequences for the groups‟ survival. The importance of participants is echoed in Woodhill (1996), who considered that in order to maintain Landcare momentum, an increased base of Landcare participants is required to share the burden of group responsibilities and build on the knowledge and skills available within the group. In spite of the dearth of literature available on Landcare groups, the majority of the literature addresses the importance of government support via funding and supply of local Landcare facilitators. Though some articles do address in detail the functional capabilities of groups, these articles have generally been limited to issues relating to leadership „burn-out‟ (Byron & Curtis, 2001; Byron et al., 2001) and the ability of groups to form networks (Curtis et al., 1999; Sobels et al., 2001). Only two sources in the literature available list explicitly the requirements for the success of community Landcare groups, and in both cases there is no attempt to address the extent to which groups are capable of maintaining these requirements, or the relative importance of these requirements. Curtis and Lockwood (2000) identified the roles of participants or leaders in local community groups, that individuals should participate in group activities; establish priorities; organise participation in the community; initiate opportunities for learning; „pull-down‟ resources for group efforts; and instigate on-ground works to the extent that resources enable. Conacher and Conacher (2000) suggested that groups require sound leadership (including organisational skills and the ability to conduct functional meetings); the ability to obtain resources required for on-ground works, including funding, information and technical support; a good relationship amongst stakeholders (including Landcare participants and agency support officers); the ability to set realistic goals; and stability and regularity in group meetings, reviews and attendance of participants. There is no single article in the Landcare literature which addresses the ability for groups to adhere to these requirements, and as such there is an opportunity for future Landcare research to determine the extent to which Landcare groups are capable of maintaining these group characteristics, deemed to be essential for group survival.
C:
PROPOSITION FOR FURTHER STUDY:
Following analysis of the literature, it has been determined that an opportunity exists for further study with the aim of exploring the extent to which Landcare groups can be selfsustaining under the „Caring for Our Country‟ policy, and to what extent the individual characteristics of each community group and its participants affect this outcome. While
82
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review conclusions as to whether groups will be able to sustain themselves cannot be made until „Caring for Our Country‟ has been implemented and groups have experienced the effects of this change in policy, some tentative projections can be made. Based on the Landcare literature, the ability for groups to survive will depend on two major issues, the first relating to the changing relationship between government support and group functioning, and the second relating to the characteristics of groups required for long-term survival. Specifically, these two issues can be addressed by studying two objectives. The first objective is to determine the extent to which Landcare groups are dependent on government support. The second objective is to determine the relative importance of different group characteristics which have allowed groups to survive previous changes in policy. The research proposed is likely to add to the depth of Landcare literature available in that it will provide evidence to the relative success of the Landcare program as a form of state-sponsored community participation. The first objective addresses whether the National Landcare Program‟s initial intentions, that agency support would be provided to „kick-start‟ the community groups into action, with the Landcare groups quickly becoming independent bodies (Curtis & Van Nouhyus, 1999), is ultimately realistic. The second objective will assist in determining whether Landcare groups are typical of those described in the volunteer literature, in terms of the group characteristics required for long term survival, and the relative importance of those group characteristics considered essential for their prolonged existence.
REFERENCES: Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., (1999), Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development, 27 (4), pp. 629 – 649 Allan, C., De Lacy, T., (1995), Evaluating Landcare groups in Australia: How they facilitate partnerships between agencies, community groups, and researchers, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50 (1), pp. 15 – 24 Arnstein, S. R., (1969), A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216 – 224. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, (2008a, updated 07/10/08), National Landcare Program, http://www.daff.gov.au/naturalresources/landcare/national_landcare_program , accessed 28/10/08 Australian Government, (2008b, updated 07/08/08), Caring for our Country: questions and answers, http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/cfoc-faq.html , accessed 09/09/08 Australian Government, (2008c, updated 22/08/08) Caring for our Country - Open Grants, http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/open.html , accessed 09/09/08
83
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review
Baker, R., (1997). Landcare: policy, practice and partnerships, Australian Geographical Studies, 35 (1), pp. 61 – 73 Berkes, F., (2004), Rethinking Community-Based Conservation, Conservation Biology, 18 (3), pp. 621 – 630 Buchy, M., Race, D., (2001), The Twists and Turns of Community Participation in Natural Resource Management in Australia: What is Missing?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44 (3), pp. 293 – 308 Byron, I., Curtis, A., (2001), Landcare in Australia: burned out and browned off, Local Environment, 6 (3), pp. 311 – 326 Byron, I., Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., (2001), Exploring Burnout in Australia‟s Landcare Program: A Case Study in the Shepparton Region, Society and Natural Resources, 14, pp. 901 – 910 Campbell, A., Junor, R., (1992), Land management extension in the ‟90s: Evolution or emasculation?, Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 5 (2), pp. 16 – 23 Cary, J., Webb, T., (2001), Landcare in Australia: Community participation and land management, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56 (4), pp. 274 – 279 Centre for International Economics, (2005), Evaluation of the Natural Heritage Trust Envirofund, Prepared for the Department of Environment and Heritage, Conacher, A., Conacher, J., (2000), Environmental planning and management in Australia, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne Curtis, A., (1998), Agency-Community Partnership in Landcare: Lessons for State-Sponsored Citizen Resource Management, Environmental Management, 22 (4), pp. 563 – 574 Curtis, A., (2000), Landcare: approaching the limits of voluntary action, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 7 (1), pp. 19 – 27 Curtis, A., De Lacy, T. (1997), Examining the assumptions behind Landcare. In: Lockie, S., Vanclay, F., eds. Critical Landcare, Charles Sturt University Key Paper Series No 5, pp. 185 – 199 Curtis, A., Britton, A., Sobels, J., (1999), Landcare Networks in Australia: Statesponsored Participation through Local Organisations, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (1), pp. 5 – 21
84
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., (2000), Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation, Society and Natural Resources, 13, pp. 61 – 73 Curtis, A., Van Nouhuys, M., (1999), Landcare Participation in Australia: The Volunteer Perspective, Sustainable Development, 7, pp. 98 – 111 Duane, T. P., (1997), Community Participation in Ecosystem Management, Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, pp. 771 – 797 Fabricius, C., Folke, C., Cundill, G., Schultz, L., (2007), Powerless Spectators, Coping Actors and Adaptive Co-managers: a Synthesis of the Role of Communities in Ecosystem Management, Ecology and Society, 12 (1), Article 29 Farrelly, M., (2005), Regionalisation of environmental management: a case study of the Natural Heritage Trust, South Australia, Geographical Research, 43, pp. 393 – 405 Florin, P., Wandersman, A., (1990), An Introduction to Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights for Empowerment Through Research, American Journal of Community Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 41 – 54 Gill, N., (2004), Politics within and without – The Origins and Development of a Rangelands Landcare Group, Australian Geographical Studies, 42 (2), pp. 135 – 151 Head, B. W., (2007), Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42 (3), pp. 441 – 454 Lockie, S., (1997), Beyond a „good thing‟: political interests and the meaning of Landcare. In: Lockie, S., Vanclay, F., eds. Critical Landcare. Charles Sturt University Key Paper Series No 5, 29-44. McMillan, D. W., Chavis, D. M., (1986), Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory, Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 6 – 23 Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., (1998), Editorial: The Shifting Nature of Rural Governance and Community Participation, Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (1), pp. 1 – 4 Ohmer, M. L., (2008), The Relationship Between Members‟ Perceptions of their Neighborhood Organization and their Involvement and Perceived Benefits from Participation, Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (7), pp. 851 – 870 O‟Riordan, T., (2004), Beyond Environmentalism, Towards Sustainability, Chapter 6 in Matthews, J. A., Herbert, D. T., eds., Unifying Geography, Common heritage, shared future, Routledge, Oxfordshire
85
Appendix 2.1: Literature Review Pomeroy, R. S., Katon, B. M., (2001), Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia, Marine Policy, 25, pp. 197 – 208 Robins, L., Dovers, S., (2007), Community-based NRM boards of management: are they up to the task?, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14, pp. 111 – 122 Singleton, S., (2000), Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policymaking, Environmental Politics, 9 (4), pp. 1 – 21 Sobels, J., Curtis, A., Lockie, S., (2001), The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital, Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp. 265 – 276 Stoll, M. A., (2001), Race, Neighbourhood Poverty, and Participation in Voluntary Associations, Sociological Forum, 16 (3), pp. 529 – 557 WalterTurnball, (2005), Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under the NHT and NAP, for Departments of the Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, December 2005 Wilson, G., A., (2004), The Australian Landcare movement: towards „postproductivist‟ rural governance?, Journal of Rural Studies, 20, pp. 461 – 383 Woodhill, J., (1996), Natural resources decision making: beyond the Landcare paradox, Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 3 (1), pp. 91 – 114 Zakus, J. D., Lystack, C. L., (1998), Revisiting community participation, Health Policy and Planning, 13 (1), pp. 1 – 12
86
Appendix 2.2: Assessment of 2009–2010 Business Plan
Appendix 2.2: Assessment of the 2009-2010 ‘Caring for our Country’ Business Plan Targets Appendix Table 2.2: A table summarising the 18 targets identified in the ‘Caring for our Country’ 2009-2010 Business Plan. Applications for all grants are encouraged to include more than 1 target outcome in their submission. The Business Plan includes maps identifying priority regions for target funding; this information was used to identify those targets appropriate to Western Australia. The scale and scope of each target was assessed to determine whether their goals were appropriate to the capabilities of community Landcare groups. In order for a target to be appropriate to Western Australian Landcare groups a ‘Yes’ score must appear in both columns. Target Target Description Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Increasing the National Reserve System Increasing Indigenous Protected Areas Increasing native habitat Reducing the impact of cane toads Reducing the impact of camels Reducing the impact of exotic rodents on small islands Reducing the impact of rabbits Reducing the impact of weeds (of national significance) Managing World Heritage areas Protecting the Great Barrier Reef Protecting RAMSAR wetlands Protecting critical aquatic habitats Improving coastal hotspots Increasing coastal community engagement Improving land management practices
16 17 18
Increasing landscape scale conservation Indigenous engagement Community engagement and participation
7 8
Appropriate to Western Australia Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Appropriate to Landcare groups No No No Yes Yes Yes
Yes No
Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes No Yes Wind erosion only No Yes Yes
No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
From the source: Australian Government, Caring for our Country, (2009d, updated 06/04/09), Caring for our Country business plan information sheets, http://www.nrm.gov.au/business-plan/info-sheets.html#targets, accessed 15/05/09
87
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey RESEARCH INTO LANDCARE GROUPS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Participants for this research have been recruited based on information provided to the researcher by Landcare Australia Limited and NRM region Landcare co-ordinators. The researcher has sought out members of Care community groups. The researcher is seeking to obtain information on the level of group functioning and reliance on government support. Completion of a short survey is required for this portion of the research. The survey contains two sections. The first section contains ten questions relating to participant demographics, and the demographics of the participant’s Care group. The second section of the survey includes thirty questions relating to the participant’s attitudes and opinions on the functioning of their Care group. A series of statements are provided, and the participant will be asked to indicate the level to which they agree with these statements. The survey should take no longer than fifteen minutes to complete. The data obtained will provide information on the ability of Care groups to continue functioning into the future, and provide evidence of what kind of government assistance is required by Care groups. A summary of the results will be compiled by the researcher and provided for information to Landcare Australia Limited. All information provided to the researcher will be recorded in such a way as to ensure the participant’s anonymity. Please return the completed survey by 28 February 2009 using the pre-paid envelope supplied. Landcare Australia Limited has kindly supplied a gift, in the form of a Sony Digital Camera, to one lucky survey participant. If you would like to go into the draw to win this excellent prize please provide your details at the end of the survey. Completion of this anonymous survey is taken as evidence of the participant’s consent to participate in this study. The participant is free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. The participant need give neither reason nor justification for such a decision. In such cases, the record of the participant is to be destroyed, unless otherwise agreed by the participant. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation, which you may have under statute or common law. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this research, please don’t hesitate to contact the researcher, Genevieve Simpson by e-mail at
[email protected]. Alternatively, the research supervisor at the University of Western Australia, Dr Julian Clifton, can be contacted at the above address should you wish to get in touch with him in relation to this request for participation or the research involved. The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number 6488-3703). Yours truly, Genevieve Simpson
88
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey
Communities, Participation and Landcare: Survey 2008/09 SECTION 1: The first section of the survey will include questions relating to your demographics, and the demographics of your Care group. 1.1) What is your sex?
Male
[ ]
1.2) What is your age?
0 – 19 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 +
Female [ [ [ [ [ [
[ ]
] ] ] ] ] ]
1.3) What is the postcode of your home residence?_____________________________ 1.4) What type of Care group do you belong to? Landcare Bushcare Rivercare Coastcare Indigenous Landcare Community Care Friends of LCDC Other:
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
_____________________________ (please specify) 1.5) What is the name of your Care group?
_____________________________
1.6) For approximately how many years has your group been functioning? 0–2 [ ] 2–5 [ ] 5 – 10 [ ] 10 – 15 [ ] 15 + [ ] 1.7) In what year did you join your Care group?
_____________________________
1.8) Is your Care group part of a network of Care groups? Yes, an LCDC (Land Conservation District Committee) [ ] Yes, another network _____________________________ (please specify) No [ ] I don’t know [ ]
89
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey 1.9) What issues does your Care group address? (please indicate as many as applicable) Biodiversity [ ] Threatened species [ ] Wildlife habitat loss or decline [ ] Pest animals [ ] Weed management [ ] Revegetation [ ] Remnant vegetation [ ] Water quality [ ] Coastal land degradation [ ] Streambank erosion [ ] Soil erosion by water [ ] Soil erosion by wind [ ] Dryland salinity and waterlogging [ ] Education/awareness raising [ ] Technical advice or support [ ] Building community involvement/skills [ ] Community development [ ] Non-indigenous heritage [ ] Indigenous heritage [ ] Other: ___________________________________ (please specify) 1.10) If your group has applied for or received funding in the past two years, please indicate the sources of funding. (please indicate as many as applicable) Local government Natural Resource Management regional board Australian Government Envirofund Caring for Our Country Grant Landcare Australia Limited funding Community Grant Scheme Threatened Species Network Community Grants Maintaining Australia’s Biodiversity Hotspots Coastwest/Coastal Planning FarmReady Green Skills Greenhouse Funding Private donations Unknown source of funding No source of funding Other: ___________________________________ (please specify)
Applied for:
Received:
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
90
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey SECTION 2: The second section of the survey will include questions relating to your attitudes and opinions on the functioning of your Care group. A series of statements are provided, please indicate the level at which you agree with these statements. Consider the statements to be indicative of the most recent TWO YEARS of operation. Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure/ Agree Don’t know
Strongly Agree
N/A
2.1) I find that Care group meetings occur on a regular basis
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.2) I think that there are enough Care group meetings to satisfy the group’s needs
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.3) At most Care group meetings my group sets new goals [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.4) The majority of the goals set by my Care group are achievable
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.5) My Care group frequently achieves its goals
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.6) Most Care group participants participate in every group event [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.7) The number of participants in Care group events has been increasing
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.8) Care group participants reliably turn up for Care group meetings
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.9) Most Care group participants are aware of the next Care group event
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.10) The leaders of my Care group respond to the feedback from Care group members
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.11) The leaders of my Care group are consistently enthusiastic
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.12) The people appointed as the leaders of my Care group change frequently (every year or two)
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.13) The leaders of my Care group initiate on-ground works to the largest extent that resources enable
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.14) The leaders of my Care group seek out forms of funding for the Care group
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.15) The leaders of my Care group are adequately skilled to take on positions requiring management and leadership
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
91
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Unsure/ Agree Don’t know
Strongly Agree
N/A
2.16) The leaders of my Care group make an effort to communicate with other Care groups in my area
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.17) The leaders of my Care group make an effort to communicate with the local governments in the group’s region
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.18) The leaders of my Care group are consistently striving to adopt new technologies and obtain new knowledge relating to our field of interest [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.19) Clearly defined roles exist for the Care group leaders, and other group members [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.20) As a Care group member I am always aware of what is expected of me by my Care group leaders [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.21) The financial resources available to my Care group are adequate in meeting the group’s needs [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.22) My Care group is reliant on Government funding in the form of Envirofunds [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.23) My Care group is reliant on Government funding through our Natural Resource Management region
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.24) My Care group is self-sufficient in terms of its financial resources [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.25) My Care group frequently communicates with a local NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.26) My Care group is reliant on a local NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator for introduction of new technology or knowledge [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.27) My Care group is reliant on a local NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator for learning about funds and grants available [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.28) My Care group would have difficulty surviving without our NRM officer or local Landcare facilitator [
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.29) Being a member of my Care group is emotionally rewarding
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
2.30) I think that my Care group makes a significant difference to the environment
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
92
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey If you have any further comments you would like to make regarding the matters covered in this survey or any other issues relating to government support and Landcare please feel free to include these below.
93
Appendix 3.1: Postal Survey TO WIN A SONY DIGITAL STILL CAMERA DSCW 150S PLUS A CARRY CASE, CARE OF LANDCARE AUSTRALIA, PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: Name:____________________________________ Phone:____________________________
Postal Address: _____________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: _____________________________________________________________________________
Please note this information will be separated from the completed survey questionnaire
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED SURVEYS BY 28 FEBRUARY 2009 USING THE PRE-PAID ENVELOPE SUPPLIED
94
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 3: Explanation: This LCDC has gone into recession from June 07 and is in the process of winding up. Reason being lack of numbers at meetings and enthusiasm in the community. Also a rapid population decline with farms being taken on by neighbours when sold. In our area we have lost 3 families that were neighbours in the last 5 years. The effect on the community has been that sporting and social groups are all struggling to survive (eg Golf Club 30 – 40 each slub day to 10 – 15). The major resource we lack is people. Survey 7: Because of declining numbers and farmers selling Purchase of farms for Carbon Credit groups we find it hard to raise funds and local and unless there is a major problem keeping members interested all year is a problem. Drought hasn‟t helped. They are mostly trying to survive. Survey 11: Our group relies heavily on grants from the Govt. At this „transition‟ stage, our centre holds concerns in being able to fund our NRM officer. Without them it will be extremely hard to function as a group in the business plan for CfoC program. [We were] disappointed that funds have not been allocated for these very necessary roles. Survey 16: The length of contract for NRM officers is a serious concern. These short term employments do not encourage the more experienced people to apply for NRM jobs. It takes six months to become familiar with the requirements of this (NRM) work, and to get to know local people. Commercial sponsorship is one of our aims, but we have difficulty selling our NRM message to local businesses.
95
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 17: In addition: Our Landcare group has moved on. It has been fantastic in the past, achieving some excellent results, but people are just too busy now to get involved or there just isn‟t the members around to make it worthwhile. We have good ideas and know our country – what we need is a locally based person to re-motivate and do some of the leg work. -Secretary Survey 18: Our major funding comes from industry and corporate sponsors. This funding is supplemented by grant funding which is essential to on-ground works. We partner with many groups and organisations – these partnerships are essential to the running, operations and sustainability of our groups. The support offered by Government is utilised by our group for education, funding and support and is an important part of our networking. Survey 19: The group needs more motivation – currently fallen into a bit of a „lul‟, heavily reliant on the local NRMO (environment officer), for funding, opportunities, field days etc. Growers need to work together more to find opportunities and bring them to meetings to bring back the enthusiasm. Survey 20: Kevin Rudd is NOT Caring for Our Country! Funding has become increasingly harder to obtain in the last 12 months, which leaves our group at the mercy of any funding body that comes along which means we have to do projects not aimed at our objective. Despite this our membership is increasing every year due to the „on ground works‟/grants we provide our members with. We are lead by a committee of innovative, dedicated community representatives and are the lead NRM group in the area!! We really need a camera to show you all the great work we do.
96
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses
Survey 22: Our LCDC was a very active group but has declined its activities in recent years and now just runs a fox, feral cat, rabbit shoot plus baiting (not many farmers participate anymore) plus one spring friend walk etc per year. Survey 24: Our funding to keep an officer in our office at City West Lotteries House was cut with State Govt funding allocated to hands on work in bushland – not our type of work. Minister – Mark McGowan – Labor. We could not employ a part time officer – all voluntary work now. Survey 27: Members of all community groups are increasing in age and very few younger members are joining. Members have the skills to apply for funding but very little time in which to do it. Survey 30: Our local Landcare officer completed their contract in December ‟07. Since then we have had no support from NRM in terms of grants available and alternative sources of funding. We employ a private consultant as our secretary, who was the pervious Landcare officer, to provide us with grant information and assist in applying for them. Our Landcare group has been an extremely active group and we manage numerous projects. We would appreciate more community engagement with our regional NRM body.
97
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 34: For many years our „Parent‟ LCDC group was run totally on a volunteer basis with an advisor/ex officer Ag Department Representative as the technical liaison link between farmer and department/funding. We were moderately successful. Through time, with Ag Department restructuring, responsibility for financial accountability, incorporation and the shift to dedicated NRM officers as they exist today, our group has increased in size, networking, project completions and new targets in smaller landholders, businesses and urban population. Dependency on „Project Funding‟ and maintaining continuity is more difficult when spreading the Landcare message. Projects appear, grow, flower, then die. Perhaps they rise again in a new project but are branded differently for the sake of securing funding – and so it goes. We also, here on the south coast, have seen what was originally a body that dispersed funding to local organisations now grow into a tail that is wagging the dog and even now running its own projects, competing for funding that would be used by existing care groups. It, South Coast NRM, has been so bold as to, this year, albeit a transition year, seen fit to “split” our catchment in half and we have prostituted ourselves in an obscene scramble for project funding – more short term project funding. It is too sad. Survey 45: Our LCDC has gone through a period of transition during the last few years. We employ NRM officers, with funding from our regional NRM group and have delivered quality community projects. Significant landholder input has delivered good project outcomes. We employ an administration officer to oversee the project delivery on a part time basis. She manages the day to day activities, financials and project reports. Survey 46: This group is about to disband due to Rudd government cutting funding for NRM officer and other funding.
98
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 49: Our nearest NRM officer is 80 km away in one NRM region (NACC) and 60 km in the other (Avon). When we had a local Landcare officer based in the shire office the group was well supported, had many more members and had more projects going. We are a dying group and even though the core members are enthusiastic (ourselves and two other families) we find it VERY difficult to engage other community members. I am the Secretary/Treasurer and this is the first year that I am actually living in the area! My main message would be replace LOCAL shire based Landcare officers if Landcare is to contribute, like it was a few years ago – however maybe that was not the best form of land conservation. Survey 51: Out group is industry based ie focussed on potential tree crop development. Our observation is that many “Landcare” groups are dysfunctional and landowner interest is waning. Uncertainty in future fundraising delivery is contributing ALSO landowners are seeking more commercial options to address Landcare issues which are not well supported in public programmes. Survey 53: I‟m not sure how useful this will be. Our LCDC has not met for 2.5 years. We are in the process of winding it up. Survey 55: Our care district has slowed down considerably since funding cuts to CLC‟s – facilitators. This has also affected the community as CLC‟s are a great asset. NRM officers are non-existent. Survey 58: I cannot air my personal views on Government support for Landcare, however I will say that Landcare as a movement relies HEAVILY on social capital, and the goodwill and enthusiasm of underpaid Landcare workers.
99
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 63: All groups I support struggle to get volunteers. The nature of the work they do is usually heavy physical work (weeding, spraying, fencing). There has been an expectation for too long that groups such as LCDCs and volunteers will save our natural environment. This isn‟t going to happen. There is too much to do. Over the last 10 years there has been a general abdication of responsibility by State Govt Agencies to support volunteer groups by legislation to protect the environment eg declared weeds on VCL (Vacant Crown Land), DEC (Dept Environment and Conservation) land able to thrive without prosecution, slow to follow-up community reports of illegal clearing, then granting permission for them to clear anyway in areas already over-cleared, failure to prosecute unlawful activities and thus allowing the undermining of the hard work these volunteers do. I would like to see a fully-funded program of award-waged work teams doing the onground work expected of these volunteer organisations. I see this as the only way to truly protect our environment. They could do revegetation of VCL along waterways, National Parks (DEC very poorly manage these), bushland reserves. If it is worth protecting, it is worth paying someone to do the work. At present, NRMOs are fighting to have their funding extended beyond 30th June 09. This happens every 2 years or so. The groups they support don‟t understand why their NRMOs are considered so poorly, given the amount of work they do filling in where State Govt does not cover. Links between healthy environments and healthy people are obvious. But those with the responsibility of caring for the environment “on-ground” are becoming older and it is something that very few able bodied young people have the time or inclination to do. Survey 65: I am proud of our achievements – we work hard and consistently the whole year. Our local community are becoming aware of the changes occurring through our commitment. The personal reward is high – it is what local community is about. Survey 75: Our Coastcare group is a group of very strong and dedicated people many who have strong scientific and professional careers. This makes our group unique and so although we use the services of the local Coastcare officer we do not need them except to keep us informed on what is happening.
100
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 78: The current changes in funding and processes have introduced a huge element of uncertainty to our group – it has an unsettling effect and makes it difficult to focus on and achieve long term planning which of course we need to do in this area. Until we know the outcome of funding applications for the future of our local NRM centre things will continue to be difficult – we also can‟t help but wonder what effect the current economic crisis will have on funding. Survey 79: I am an NRM professional who was previously the Landcare officer for said “Care” group. It has been challenging to stay involved, even as a volunteer, while pulling back from the support or co-ordinating role to which funding was cut. [The group] had two staff in its heyday and now really lacks the capacity to do more than receive the odd revegetation grant and attend some fetes. Survey 88: The population is decreasing, land holdings are getting bigger. Govt funding has moved away from supporting broad acre agricultural areas and supporting local NRM officers and so support to this community is waning. Often committee members feel trapped because there is no one else to take on the role. Farm consultants and agronomists are now taking on a large role and Landcare as we know it is taking a back seat. Survey 92: I am the NRM Officer employed by our Landcare group to facilitate and support the community support and engagement project. Govt. funds pay my salary and although grants allow us to carry out bigger projects, we do have a lot that are not funded through grants. These rely on community volunteer assistance ie Friends of our Reserves group.
101
Appendix 3.2: Survey Written Responses Survey 94: Landcare in my area has changed in the last twenty years. When I first became involved I joined a group of neighbours interested in improving the local area by using better farming techniques, sharing knowledge and resources and achieving a better financial deal by working as a group (eg. if we all used a contractor at the one time contractor would give better rate). Since then Landcare has become an industry and those of us at ground level have less influence on decisions. With the acceptance of government funding has come a huge bureaucracy and administrative workload.
102
Appendix 3.3: Cronbach‘s Alpha Results
Appendix 3.3: Cronbach’s Alpha and Item-total Correlation Results Cronbach’s coefficient α tests the reliability of a question set. Item-total correlation tests the uni-dimensionality of the test by comparing the responses from one question with the responses from the question set. A minimum Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75 and a minimum item-total correlation of 0.60 were required before accepting any question set. Additionally, the Cronbach’s alpha was determined with each single item deleted. If the alpha score was higher when an item was deleted this item was permanently discarded from the question set. The question subset “Meeting Functioning” was assessed using questions 1 – 5 Cronbach‟s alpha score of 0.74, but 0.78 if question 3 were to be removed. Question 3 was removed. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
ALPHA IF DELETED
0.799948 0.697786 0.601803 0.689729 0.802872
0.642733 0.703111 0.780804 0.690253 0.637703
This shows that the goal setting by groups (Question 3) was not consistent with meeting functioning. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q1 Q2 Q4 Q5
ALPHA IF DELETED
0.868436 0.768954 0.704776 0.796257
0.671675 0.765178 0.756026 0.703122
The mean of respondents‟ meeting functioning responses was subsequently used for all analysis.
60
46
40
25
16
60
20
13
5
1
Aggregate Response Score
ta l To
% gl
y
Ag
Ag
re e
re e
38
15
%
6% no on 't K
St ro n
D
gr ee
w
40
%
1% St ro n
gl
y
D
isa
Ag re
gr ee
To ta l
27 % e
51 % St ro
ng ly
Ag re
Kn ow on 't D
e
18 %
4%
0%
is ag re e D
e is ag re D ng ly
34
0
0
St ro
35
40
4
0
88
80
isa
20
100
91
80
D
Frequency
100
At most Landcare group meetings my group sets new goals
Frequency
Aggregate meeting function score: meeting regularity and setting and achievement of goals
Response
103
Appendix 3.3: Cronbach‘s Alpha Results
The question subset “Participation” was assessed using questions 6 – 9 and 19 – 20 Cronbach‟s alpha score of 0.79. Continue with analysis. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q19 Q20
ALPHA IF DELETED
0.741416 0.637821 0.812012 0.658119 0.721552 0.625902
0.749188 0.787406 0.716655 0.763905 0.746286 0.769833
The mean of respondents‟ participation responses was subsequently used for all analysis. The question subset “Leadership” was assessed using questions 10 – 18 Cronbach‟s alpha score of 0.81, but 0.86 if question 12 were to be removed. Question 12 was removed. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
0.6293386 0.75238067 0.2839723 0.59514468 0.6821449 0.63698969 0.78855213 0.66385981 0.78724932
ALPHA IF DELETED 0.79093241 0.77060519 0.85853132 0.79372471 0.78321159 0.79030624 0.76365567 0.78481367 0.76527957
This shows that the leadership turnover in groups (Question 12) was not consistent with leadership functioning. ITEMS: Q10 Q11 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION 0.632109 0.75718 0.607285 0.708705 0.697534 0.802067 0.681364 0.788626
ALPHA IF DELETED 0.849569 0.835514 0.853369 0.843887 0.845 0.827984 0.844123 0.829371
The mean of respondents‟ leadership responses was subsequently used for all analysis.
104
Appendix 3.3: Cronbach‘s Alpha Results
Aggregate leadership score: enthusiasm, communication and efficiency
y
D
48 24
19 1
0
ee gr isa
%
5 1. D
isa
ee gr
1%
D
Kn 't on
ow
% 21 Ag
e re
52
%
n ro St
gl
y
Ag
e re
26
% T
Frequency
Frequency S
gl
100 92
100 80 60 40 20 0
n tro
The people appointed as the leaders of my Landcare group change frequently (every year or two) 89
80 60
46
40
23 11
20
5
4
0
al ot
n ro St
gl
y
D
g isa
Aggregate Response Score
e re
12
% e re ag
D
is
52
%
D
K 't on
no
w
6% e re Ag
26
%
n ro St
gl
y
Ag
e re
4%
To
l ta
Response
The question subset “Reliance on funding” was assessed using questions 21 – 24 Cronbach‟s alpha score of 0.66, too low to consider the question set reliable. Each question is to be analysed individually. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24
0.67641 0.713735 0.748757 0.695674
ALPHA IF DELETED 0.646778 0.607697 0.54561 0.594387
The question subset “Reliance on NRM co-ordinator/Landcare facilitator” was assessed using questions 25 – 28 Low item-total correlation for one question (0.56). Question set too small to be utilised with only 3 questions. Each question is to be analysed individually. ITEMS:
ITEM TOTAL CORRELATION Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28
0.561687 0.851243 0.852624 0.815245
ALPHA IF DELETED 0.83035 0.665316 0.663404 0.714988
105
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline INTERVIEW INFORMATION SHEET RESEARCH INTO LANDCARE GROUPS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA The research being undertaken is directed towards examining the future prospects of Landcare groups under the new Caring for Our Country initiative. This will be undertaken through communicating with Landcare groups across the state of Western Australia in order to gain insight into their experiences with government funding and support. The data will be used as the basis for an Honours thesis to be submitted to the University of Western Australia. This thesis will analyse attributes of Landcare groups which may affect their ability to attract funds and maintain motivation and enthusiasm for practices associated with sustainable use of the land. The participants for this research have been recruited based on information provided to the researcher by Western Australian Natural Resource Management officers and local Landcare facilitators. The researcher has sought out Landcare community groups that have been functioning for a period of time long enough for the group to have experienced previous changes in Landcare related policy. The researcher is seeking to obtain information on the level of group functioning and reliance on government support via funding and appointment of Natural Resource Management officers and local Landcare facilitators. Collection of data will primarily include the audio-recording of opinions and attitudes of Landcare group members on their experiences with group functioning and government support. Though use of an audio-recording device during interviews is voluntary, the volume and quality of data obtained using audio-recording, as opposed to note-taking, is substantial. For this reason the researcher would highly appreciate your co-operation in allowing the audio-recording of interviews. The data obtained will provide information on the ability of Landcare groups to continue functioning into the future, and provide evidence of what kind of government assistance is required by Landcare groups. On completion of the interviews the researcher will transcribe all audio-tapes and analyse the interviews‟ content for the meaning of statements in the context of interviewer‟s questions, focusing on the intentionality of the responses and their implications. On completion of the analysis all audio-recordings will be destroyed. In addition to the audio-recording of interviews the researcher will observe group events and meetings in order to obtain further insight into the level of group functioning. The presence of the researcher at Landcare group meetings will allow the group members an opportunity to become acquainted with the researcher‟s presence. This is also a valuable opportunity for you, the participant, to ask the researcher questions relating to the study or its broader applications. The interview process which you, as the participant, may be asked to participate in is likely to cause low to insignificant levels of harm. In talking about your personal opinions and experiences about close friends or associates you may experience feelings
106
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline of guilt or distress. To the greatest extent possible the researcher will try to minimise these feelings, changing the topic of interview if the participant appears to be uncomfortable. At any point the participant can ask to change the line of questioning, or suspend the interview. The researcher apologises for any inconvenience associated with the time required for participants to contribute to this research. The potential benefits of this research to the Landcare community primarily involve the highlighting of prospects for Landcare groups under the new funding regime. If the results of the research are considered by governmental authorities, the results of the study may affect the decision to reduce funding and government support to Landcare groups. Landcare is the first example of a state-sponsored community participation project in a developed nation. The research will add to the academic literature on sponsored community participation projects, and will help determine whether these forms of community development projects are likely to result in desirable long-term outcomes, in developed nations. You, the participant, are free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. The participant need give neither reason nor justification for such a decision. In such cases, the record of the participant is to be destroyed, unless otherwise agreed by the participant. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation, which you may have under statute or common law. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this research, please don‟t hesitate to contact the researcher, Genevieve Simpson, by e-mail at
[email protected]. Alternatively, the research supervisor at the University of Western Australia, Dr Julian Clifton, can be contacted at
[email protected] should you wish to get in touch with him in relation to this request for participation or the research involved.
107
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM RESEARCH INTO LANDCARE GROUPS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Participant: _______________________________________________ (please print) The research will assess Landcare groups in Western Australia, in terms of their abilities to function as independent organisations and the extent to which Landcare groups perceive themselves as being reliant on government support for their own survival. Participation may include taking part in semi-structured individual interviews, focus group interviews or being observed by the researcher during Landcare group meetings and events. You, the participant are free at any time to withdraw consent to further participation without prejudice in any way. The participant need give neither reason nor justification for such a decision. In such cases, the record of the participant is to be destroyed, unless otherwise agreed by the participant. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation, which you may have under statute or common law. I (the participant) have read the information provided and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time without reason and without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if documents are required by law. I have been advised as to what data is being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used.
______________ Participant
__________________ Date
The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar‟s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number 6488-3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.
108
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline
QUESTIONS FOR LANDCARE FACILITATOR AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER INTERVIEWS EXPLAIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE HUMAN ETHICS GUIDELINES, PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE RESEARCH AND REQUEST APPROVAL FOR STUDY How long have you been involved in Landcare? What different positions have you taken on during your time working with Landcare? Have you experienced changes in your work position as a result of previous policy changes? (ie. Those associated with Natural Heritage Trust phase I and II?) (Depending on how long they have been working with their group…) Most groups have survived previous changes in policy. Do you think the regionalization of natural resources and provision of funds as Envirofunds under NHT(II) had a positive or negative effect on the groups in your area? If it was a negative effect: How did the groups manage to survive these previous changes? If it was a positive effect: How did the groups manage to survive prior to these previous changes? Have you experienced any changes in your current working position as a result of Kevin Rudd‟s „Caring for our Country‟ policy? How many Landcare groups do you work with? What are the ages of these Landcare groups? Can you explain the degree to which these groups are currently functioning? What work are they currently undertaking? Are they currently functioning to the degree that they have always been functioning at? Do you think the work they do is limited to how much help you provide them with? Do you think the work they do is limited to how much funding they receive?
109
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline Are any of the groups you work with large enough, or do they have the capacity, to receive funding under „Caring for our Country‟, to your knowledge? What are your personal opinions of the groups you are associated with in terms of their ability to survive with reduced funding and support from NRM officers? Will these groups collapse entirely, or be forced to reduce their functioning, or carry on as they have been? Can you think of any particular characteristics that enable groups to survive in spite of reduced funding and support? How many members are there in the Landcare groups you work with, both in primary leadership roles and in secondary roles? Are there an increasing, decreasing or stable number of group members? Do these groups have a sound base of leaders? Are the leaders capable of controlling group meetings, where all group members are provided with an opportunity to speak? Are the groups you are involved with currently maintaining regular group meetings? Are the groups you are involved with currently maintaining regular levels of participation in group events? Are the groups you are involved with currently maintaining goal setting and the achievement of goals? Including the ability to set priorities? Are the groups you are involved with capable of initiating opportunities for learning? Are the groups instigating on-ground work to the maximum extent applicable? Are they capable of sourcing funds besides opportunities you inform them of and those provided by the NRM board and Envirofunds? What kinds of funds have your groups received? Are there any particular characteristics of the groups you have worked with that make them capable of withstanding changes to funding and other support? (For instance, do your groups display sound levels of leadership? Organisation? (including goal setting?) Frequency of events? Technological abilities? Enthusiasm? Maintained membership?) Which do you think are the most important?
110
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline Are any of these aspects suffering as a result of reduced funding or support? Which do you think are the most important factors in maintaining Landcare group commitments? In your experience, have any groups requiring only minimal support survived in the long term (say, for a period long enough to satisfy their original goals)? Have you been in contact with any groups requiring no support, in the form of funding or NRM officers? In your experience, have you noticed any trends in the age of a certain group and their level of functioning? For instance are new groups more enthusiastic, while more established groups are better organized? Which of these characteristics infers greater independence? Is there a certain point where groups realise that they require external support? Do you think your own priorities, or the priorities of your NRM board, have influenced the choices of activities for any groups you work with? Why? Do you think that the NLP‟s original intention to „kick-start‟ community groups with minimal support with groups quickly becoming self sufficient was realistic? In your opinion, are the groups you work with capable of functioning as independent selffunded and self-governing organisations? Do you think you should ever expect voluntary community-based environmental groups like Landcare groups to function adequately without funding or personnel support from an exterior source? Do you think the work these Landcare groups undertake is important in maintaining the environmental health of Australia, or in reducing the negative affects of agricultural production? Do you find working with these Landcare groups emotionally rewarding?
111
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline
QUESTIONS FOR LANDCARE CASE STUDY FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS EXPLAIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE HUMAN ETHICS GUIDELINES, PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE RESEARCH AND REQUEST APPROVAL FOR STUDY What is the name of your Landcare group? What kinds of activities does your Landcare group perform? How long have you been involved in Landcare? How long has your Landcare group been running? What kind of roles have you played within your Landcare group? Have you personally noticed any changes to your group as a result of changes to Landcare related policy? For example changes as a result of NHT II? (Depending on how long their group has been functioning…) Most groups have survived previous changes in policy. Do you think the regionalisation of natural resources and provision of funds as Envirofunds under NHT II had a positive or negative effect on your group? If it was a negative effect: How did the group manage to survive these previous changes? If it was a positive effect: How did the group manage to survive prior to these previous changes? Have you personally noticed any recent changes to your group as a result of Kevin Rudd‟s „Caring for our Country‟ policy? Can you explain the degree to which your group is currently functioning? What work are you currently undertaking? Is the group currently functioning to the degree that they have always been functioning? Do you think the work you do is limited to how much help you receive from your NRM officer? Do you think the work you do is limited to how much funding your group receives?
112
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline Is your group large enough, or do they have the capacity, to receive funding under „Caring for our Country‟, to your knowledge? What are your personal opinions of your group in terms of their ability to survive with reduced funding and support from NRM officers? Will your group collapse entirely, or be forced to reduce their functioning, or carry on as they have been? What particular characteristics enable your group to survive in spite of reduced funding and support? How many members are there in the Landcare group you work with, both in primary leadership roles and in secondary roles? Are there an increasing, decreasing or stable number of group members? Does your group have a sound base of leaders? Are they capable of controlling group meetings, where all group members are provided with an opportunity to speak? Is the group you are involved with currently maintaining regular group meetings? Is the group you are involved with currently maintaining regular levels of participation in group events? Is the group you are involved with currently maintaining goal setting and the achievement of goals? Including the ability to set priorities? Is your group capable of initiating opportunities for learning? Is your group instigating on-ground work to the maximum extent applicable? Is it capable of sourcing funds besides opportunities your NRM officer informs you of and those provided by the NRM board and Envirofunds? What kinds of funding has your group received? Are there any particular characteristics of the group you work with that make you capable of withstanding changes to funding and other support? (For instance, does your group display sound levels of leadership? Organisation? (including goal setting?) Frequency of events? Technological abilities? Enthusiasm? Maintained membership? ) Which do you think are the most important?
113
Appendix 3.4: Interview Outline Are any of these aspects suffering as a result of reduced funding or support? Which do you think are the most important factors in maintaining Landcare group commitments? (If they have been with their group since its inception…) In your experience, have you noticed any trends in the age of your group and its level of functioning? For instance, when your group was new was it more enthusiastic, while as a more established group it has been better organised? Was there a certain point where your group realised that they required external support? Do you think your own priorities, or the priorities of your group have been influenced by your NRM officer, the NRM board or the priorities outlined under other funding arrangements? Why? Do you think that the NLP‟s original intention to „kick-start‟ community groups with minimal support with groups quickly becoming self sufficient was realistic? In your opinion, is the group you work with capable of functioning as an independent self-funded and self-governing organisation? Do you think you should ever expect voluntary community-based environmental groups like yours to function adequately without funding or personnel support from an exterior source? Do you think the work your Landcare group undertakes is important in maintaining the environmental health of Australia, or in reducing the negative affects of agricultural production? Do you find working with your Landcare group emotionally rewarding?
114
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form Human Research Ethics Committee Research Services 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 Telephone +61 8 6488 3703 Facsimile +61 8 6488 8775 Email
[email protected] http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/human_ethics
APPLICATION TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (RESPONSES MUST BE TYPED AND ONE ELECTRONIC VERSION SENT TO
[email protected] AND ONE ORIGINAL PAPER VERSION AND FOUR PAPER COPIES AND ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO HUMAN ETHICS M459) NB: Please answer all questions fully in terms which can be readily understood by an informed layperson. This form is designed to ensure compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) [National Statement] http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm
1. TITLE OF PROJECT (In lay terms): Communities, Participation and Landcare: Predicting the outcomes of reduced government assistance in Landcare
2. CHIEF INVESTIGATOR: (Must be a member of Staff of The University of Western Australia.)
Name:
Julian Clifton
Position:
Lecturer
115
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
School:
Earth and Environment
Mail Bag Delivery Point
Contact Address:
M004
UWA Mail Box Number
Telephone (Business Hrs):
(08) 6488 3385
Specify Adjunct or Clinical position if held:
Email Address:
Lecturer
[email protected]
If this is a student project please include the name, degree course and departmental address of the student. Telephone and email address should be provided if possible. NB: If this is a Masters by Research or PhD project, students must indicate this and provide student number.
3. EXPECTED DURATION OF PROJECT: Please note that the research or recruitment of participants must not commence until a date after final approval has been obtained from the HREC.
Genevieve Simpson Undertaking: B. Sc. (Hons) 10403217
[email protected]
From Date of Initial Recruitment:
Date of Expected Completion:
15/12/08
1/5/09
116
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
4. FUNDING: Is this protocol the subject of a grant application?Yes [ ] No [X]
If 'Yes', what is the Agency?
If ‘No’, what is the source of funding for the project?
Funded by student, partially funded by Landcare Australia Limited
Provide details of any affiliation or financial interest in funding source and/or commercialisation of research results
Landcare Australia Limited will be given access to anonymised survey results for their own use.
5. OTHER ETHICAL APPROVALS: Has the protocol previously been submitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee? Yes [ ] No [X] Has the protocol been submitted to another Institutional Ethics Committee? Yes [ ] No [X] If ‘Yes’ to which Committee/s has it been submitted?
What was the outcome of the submission?
Has the protocol been submitted to the Department of Health WA Human Research Ethics Committee (DoHWA HREC)? Yes [ ] No [X]
117
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
PRIVACY LEGISLATION – THRESHOLD QUESTIONS
6.
DO YOU NEED TO USE THE S95 OR S95A GUIDELINES? http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e26syn.htm and http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e43syn.htm A. Does the research proposal involve the collection, use or disclosure of personal information (i.e. information about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can be reasonably ascertained, from the information)? Yes [ ] No [X]
If the answer is no, you do not need to use either the section 95 guidelines or the section 95A guidelines in the ethical review of the proposal.
If the answer is yes, go to Question B.
B. Does the research proposal involve the collection, use or disclosure of personal information without the consent of the people to whom the information relates? Yes [ ] No [ ] If the answer is no, you do not need to use either the section 95 guidelines or the section 95A guidelines in the ethical review of the proposal. If the answer to the above question is yes, you must refer to the HREC web document titled Advice for Use of Privacy Guidelines. You will be required to submit an application to the HREC which will enable it to weigh the potential benefit of the research against the public interest in the protection of privacy. It is recommended that read the above document and then contact the Secretary to the Committee to discuss your application. (Tel: 6488-3703).
7. AIMS OF THE PROJECT: Please give a concise and simple description of the aims of the project. This must be in lay terms.
118
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
The aim of this research is to explore the extent to which Landcare groups can be self-sustaining under the „Caring for our Country‟ policy, and to what extent the individual characteristics of each community group and its participants affect this outcome. A mixed-method approach to analysis will be utilised, including a quantitative survey and a qualitative case study approach.
8. PARTICIPANT GROUP: (a) Who will be the participants? Please include size of sample(s) and variables such as age, sex and state of health. Please state clearly whether children, mentally ill individuals or persons in dependent relationships such as teacher/student, doctor/patient, staff etc. will be recruited.
The participants will include members of Landcare community groups in Western Australia. The sample size of the study includes all Landcare group members accessible by the researcher, using Landcare Australia Limited‟s contact database. The age and sex of participants is not relevant to this study. No children, mentally ill individuals or persons in dependent relationships will be recruited.
(b) From where and how will participants (including controls if applicable) be recruited? How will the initial contact be made with the participants? (Researchers must ensure that personal contact details and information are not accessed without consent.)
The participants for the survey will be recruited by accessing the Landcare Australia Limited database, and utilising the contact information provided. Case study groups will be identified with the assistance of local Landcare facilitators or Natural Resource Management officers in WA.
(c) Does recruitment involve the circulation/publication of an advertisement, circular, letter, email list, bulletin etc? Yes [X] No [ ] If ‘Yes’, please provide copies and details of publication
119
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form (d) Does the research specifically target Aboriginal people or is the sample likely to include a significant percentage of Aboriginals? Yes [ ] No [X] If 'Yes', please refer to the NHMRC publication Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research. Please provide a statement demonstrating how the study recognises the values outlined in the above publication and which Aboriginal groups or organisations have been consulted. This statement should address the six values that lie at the heart of the Guidelines (Under the headings of items 2.2.1 to 2.2.6).
9. DETAILS OF PROCEDURES: (a) Please describe briefly the project methodology. Describe all procedures to which participants will be subjected, highlighting any which may have adverse consequences.
Survey participants will be asked to complete a short (4 A4 page) postal survey containing Likert-type questions relating to their attitudes and opinions on Landcare functioning, and nominal questions seeking brief demographic information Examination of the case study groups will require participant observation of group events, document analysis of meeting minutes and other available material, and interviews taking the form of semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups, depending on what each group would prefer. Neither form of research should result in any adverse consequences for the participants.
(b) Will any chemical compounds, drugs or biological agents be administered? Yes [ ] No [X] If 'Yes', describe names, dosages, routes of administration, frequency of administration, and any known or suspected adverse effects. All suspected adverse events should be listed on the Information Sheet/Consent Form.
120
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
(c) Does the research involve use of unmarketed drugs?
Yes [ ] No [X]
If 'Yes', Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) or Clinical Trial Exemption (CTX) approval must be obtained before the project may proceed. Investigational brochure enclosed.
Yes [ ] No [ ]
CTN approval has been requested.
Yes [ ] No [ ]
CTX approval has been requested.
Yes [ ] No [ ]
(d) Will blood or other tissue samples be taken?
Yes [ ] No [X]
If 'Yes', please state site, frequency and volume of any blood or other tissue sampling.
If 'Yes', list all personnel who will be involved in this procedure.
(e) Will there be any invasive procedures other than blood or tissue sampling? Yes [ ] No [X] If 'Yes', please provide details of these procedures.
(f) Will participants be exposed to ionising or non-ionising radiation? Yes [ ] No [X]
121
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form (i)
If ‘Yes’, please refer to the ‘Code of Practice for the Exposure of Humans to Ionizing Radiation for Research Purposes.’
Please provide details including the quantitative assessment of the absorbed dose, supported either by dosimetric calculation or other information.
(ii)
If 'Yes', has the radiation Protection Office been asked for approval? Yes [ ] No [ ] If 'Yes', please attach copy of approval notification.
NHMRC NATIONAL STATEMENT ON ETHICAL CONDUCT IN HUMAN RESEARCH (2007) 10.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm
(a) Please indicate whether the protocol conforms to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Yes [X] No [ ] (b) Please indicate whether the protocol conforms to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Section 4) with regard to the following areas of research: Women who are pregnant and the human foetus
4.1
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
Children and young people
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
People in dependent or unequal relationships
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
People highly dependent on medical care who may be unable to give consent
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
People with a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability, or a mental illness
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
People who may be involved in illegal activities
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
4.2 4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
122
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
4.7
4.8
People in other countries
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A[X]
(c) If the response to any of the above is ‘No’, please provide further information below.
11. ETHICAL ISSUES Please indicate which of the following ethical issues are involved in this research. (a) Does data collection require access to confidential data without the prior consent of participants? Yes [ ] No [X] (b) Will visual recordings be made, eg: photo, video, etc?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(c) Will audio recordings be made, eg: tape or digital, etc?
Yes [X] No [ ]
(d) Will participants be asked to commit any act which might diminish self-respect or cause them to experience shame, embarrassment or regret ?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(e) Will any procedure be used which may have an unpleasant or harmful side effect? Yes [ ] No [X] (f) Does the research use any stimuli, tasks, or procedures, which may be experienced by participants as stressful, noxious, or unpleasant?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(g) Does the research involve deception of participants, concealment or covert observation?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(h) Will the research use no-treatment or placebo control conditions?
Yes [ ] No [X]
123
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form (i) Will any samples of body fluid or body tissue be required specifically for the research, which would not be required in the case of the ordinary treatment?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(j) Does the research involve a fertilised human ovum?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(k) Does the project use embryos beyond a period of fourteen days after fertilisation?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(l) Does the project involve the implantation of embryos, which have been the subjects of prior experimentation?
Yes [ ] No [X]
(m)Are there in your opinion any other ethical issues involved in the research?
Yes [ ] No [X]
If the answer to any of the above questions is 'Yes' please amplify below. Details required of secure storage of recordings, preferably within Departmental facilities.
Information provided by Landcare Australia Limited will include access to their database of e-mail addresses and names of Landcare members and other Landcare interested parties. This is being provided to the researcher without the permission of the Landcare members and other parties. Where possible focus group and semi-structured in depth interviews will be audio-recorded, and transcribed by the primary researcher. Audiorecording of participants will be voluntary. Audio-recordings and transcribed materials will be kept under lock-and-key, in the researcher‟s home.
12. INFORMATION SHEET AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM: Normally, each participant is given an information sheet and is required to sign a consent form. Do you undertake to obtain written consent for each participant? Yes [X] No [ ]
124
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form (a) If 'Yes', please attach a copy of the Information Sheet and the Consent Form to be given to and signed by all participants and/or their responsible signatory. These forms should be on departmental letterhead. The Information Sheet should describe all the procedures proposed in clear, simple terms. It should list any potential short- or long-term side effects and any hazards. The required standard paragraph must be included at the bottom of all Consent Forms, or Information Sheets where appropriate. (As the majority of concerns raised by the Human Research Ethics Committee are raised in connection with the Information Sheet and Consent Form, it is strongly recommended that you consult the Guidelines for Preparation of Information Sheet and Consent Form, available on the Human Ethics Office web page.) (b) If 'No', please justify this departure from normal procedure. Refer to National Statement 2007 (chapter 2.3).
13. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS: (a) What are the possible benefits of this research? (i) To the participant:
All participants will be members of Landcare groups. The research will provide information on the ability for Landcare groups to survive. If the results of the research are considered by governmental authorities the results may affect the decision to reduce funding and government support to Landcare groups. The information provided to Landcare Australia may be used to publicise the need for further funding from public institutions, increasing the funding available to Landcare groups.
(ii) To humanity generally;
Landcare is the first example of a state-sponsored community participation project in a developed nation. The research will add to the academic literature on sponsored community participation projects, and will help determine whether these forms of community development projects are likely to result in desirable long-term outcomes, in developed nations.
125
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form
(b) What in your view are the possible harms, discomforts or inconveniences of this research to the participants? Refer to National Statement 2007 (chapter 2.1)
The case study portion of the research may inconvenience Landcare groups as they may take valuable group meeting time explaining the researcher‟s presence etc. Additionally, some group members may not be comfortable with voicing their opinions on group functioning in the presence of other group members. Care will be taken to ensure that all participants are aware that participation is entirely voluntary.
14. REMUNERATION: Is any financial remuneration or other reward being offered to participants in the study?
Yes [X] No [ ]
If 'Yes', please state how much will be offered and for what purpose, e.g. to cover travelling expenses, time spent etc. Volunteers may be recompensed for inconvenience and time spent, but any such payment or compensation should not be so large as to be an inducement to participate.
Landcare Australia Limited is going to provide a Sony Digital Camera for use as a prize as an incentive to survey respondents to participate in the survey.
15. EXTERNAL AUDITS: Will individual results of this study be subject to an audit by any agency external to the University? Yes [ ] No [X] If 'Yes', who will be conducting the audit?
126
Appendix 3.5: Ethics Approval Form Chief Investigator: •
I certify that I am the Chief Investigator named on the front page of this application form.
•
I undertake to conduct this project in accordance with all the applicable legal requirements and ethical responsibilities associated with its carrying out. I also undertake to ensure that all persons under my supervision involved in this project will also conduct the research in accordance with all such applicable legal requirements and ethical responsibilities.
•
I certify that adequate indemnity insurance has been obtained to cover the personnel working on this project. (Refer UWA Insurance & Risk Management Office for advice, tel: 6488 3214)
•
I have read the Code of Practice for the use of Name-identified Data. I declare that I and all researchers participating in this project will abide by the terms of this Code.
•
I make this application on the basis that it and the information it contains are confidential and that the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Western Australia will keep all information concerning this application and the matters it deals with in strict confidence. Name: (Please print):
Signed:
Date:
Head of School: I am aware of the content of this application and approve the conduct of the project within this school.
Name: (Please print):
Signed:
Date:
127
A p p e n d i c e s 3 . 6 - 3 . 1 0: O n D i s c
Appendices 3.6-3.10: Excel Documents Appendix 3.6: Raw survey results Excel document containing raw data including a group-by-group breakdown of sources of funding and issues of concern. Appendix 3.7: Single item descriptive analysis Excel document containing histogram and count results from each of the 30 items in the Landcare survey. Appendix 3.8: Subset descriptive analysis Excel document containing histogram and count results from each of the aggregate question subsets, as well as histograms of Landcare group and respondent demographics. Appendix 3.9: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistics Excel document containing all Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistical tests, with Student‟s t-test results supporting the findings of the WMW tests. Appendix 3.10: Gamma statistics Excel document containing all Gamma statistical tests, and an extra worksheet cataloguing all those tests with significant results.
128
