2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 1
SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND CATCHMENTS
WATERWAY ENGAGEMENT
2017 RESEARCH REPORT
Prepared by
Dr Kim Johnston and Dr Amanda Beatson QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology Research Assistant - Dr Ryan McAndrew
13 August 2017
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waterways offer a range of environmental and social benefits for people living in South East
Queensland. The impact of these benefits is important to understand. Each year, Healthy Land and Water produces an annual report card on environmental conditions and social impacts of the waterways across 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ). The Report Card provides an annual assessment of the pressures facing our waterways, their current environmental condition (A-F grade), and the level of social and economic benefit the waterways provide to local communities (1-5 star rating).
The 2017 QUT social science report contributes the social research data for the Healthy Land and Water annual Report Card. The study provides the social component of evidence, specifically the attitudinal and behavioural components that underpin social expectations and actions towards valuing and using local and SEQ waterways in communities across the 19 catchment areas.
The 2017 social science study is guided by a conceptual-based model and two research questions focusing on the social benefits of waterways – specifically to understand the relationship between waterway condition and perceptions of waterway useability, accessibility and satisfaction, within an engagement framework. The questions specifically investigated to what extent do people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, and to what extent do waterway conditions impact the use and enjoyment of these waterways?
Data for the study were collected through a self-administered 15 minute online survey. Questions for the survey were developed from modified existing scale items and questions used in previous Healthy Waterway surveys to allow comparison. The sample was adults living in the 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ) The 2017 survey used two recruitment strategies for sampling; panel (n = 3200) and social media (n = 722) , as a way to increase representation in the Stanley, mid Brisbane and Upper Brisbane catchments. It should be noted that analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the panel and social media data and these are therefore reported separately. Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS (23). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations regressions and cluster analysis.
The study found respondents confirmed local waterways in particular, play a valuable and important role in their daily lives and that they enjoyed a range of wellness benefits from their use. Swimming and recreational activities alongside waterways, such as walking, cycling and picnics, were the most popular activities, with fishing featuring more prominently in some catchments. Similar to previous years, while local waterways were viewed as very accessible, useable, and that respondents were generally satisfied overall, the response means (average score) on all these indicators were lower than previous years.
Respondents’ life satisfaction scores were found to be positively related to satisfaction of waterways and waterway conditions (local and SEQ level). This means that those people who used or visited waterways were generally more satisfied with their lives. In addition, waterway place attachment - or the benefits the respondents feel they receive from their local waterways – were reported as high in coastal aligned catchments, such as Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment, while social value – or the level of value respondents receive from using waterways with their friends and family – were reported as high in the Mid Brisbane catchment area. Conditions of local waterways, such as perceptions of water clarity and cleanliness, were found to influence activities in or alongside a waterway. The study also found that in general, people were limited in their protection activities. For those who did report being active in stewardship, rubbish clean-up and monitoring were the most commonly undertaken. Tallebudgera showed the highest levels of stewardship with their local waterways while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels.
Discussion responding to the two research questions is presented in the conclusion section, followed by key recommendations, with opportunities for future research identified.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 3
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Project Aims ................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 Guiding Research Questions and Model........................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding .............................................................................................................. 6 5.0 Method......................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Instrument ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Sampling and Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles ................................................................................................................... 7
5.4.1 EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................................................................... 8 5.4.2 INDUSTRY ...................................................................................................................................... 8 5.4.3 LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN SEQ .................................................................................................. 9 5.4.4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ................................................................................................................. 10 5.4.5 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ..................................................................................................... 10
6.0 Catchment Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 11 7.0 Survey Constructs ....................................................................................................................................... 13
7.1 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................................................ 14
8.0 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 15
8.1 Local waterway accessibility, use and overall satisfaction .................................................................................. 18
8.1.1 LOCAL WATERWAY ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................................. 18 8.1.2 LOCAL WATERWAY USEABILITY ................................................................................................. 19 8.1.3 LOCAL WATERWAY SATISFACTION ............................................................................................ 20
8.2 Constructs .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
8.2.1 NATURE RELATEDNESS ............................................................................................................... 21 8.2.2 INTEGRATED REGULATION ......................................................................................................... 22 8.2.3 PLACE ATTACHMENT .................................................................................................................. 23 8.2.4 SOCIAL VALUE ............................................................................................................................. 24 8.2.5 STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................................. 25 8.2.6 FASCINATION .............................................................................................................................. 26 8.2.7 BEING AWAY ............................................................................................................................... 27 8.2.8 COMPATIBILITY ........................................................................................................................... 28 8.2.9 LIFE SATISFACTION ..................................................................................................................... 29
8.3 Waterway use and activities .............................................................................................................................. 30
8.3.1 COMPARISON – LOCAL, SEQ, AND NATIONAL WATERWAY USE AND ACTIVITIES ................... 32
8.4 Protection Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 34
8.5 Conditions.......................................................................................................................................................... 36
8.5.1 SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL AND SEQ WATERWAY CONDITIONS ............................................ 36 8.5.2 WATERWAY USAGE FOR ACTIVITIES IN OR ON THE WATER, AND ALONGSIDE THE WATERWAYS 38 8.5.3 LIKELIHOOD OF USE GIVEN WATERWAY CONDITION ............................................................... 40
8.6 Correlations ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
8.6.1 SATISFACTION AND NATURE RELATEDNESS.............................................................................. 41 8.6.2 SATISFACTION AND USE ............................................................................................................. 43 8.6.3 SATISFACTION AND ACCESSIBILITY ............................................................................................ 45
8.7 Regressions ............................................................................................................................................... 47
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 4
8.8 Additional Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 48
8.8.1 – CLUSTER ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 48 8.8.2 – OVERALL LIFE SATISFACTION .................................................................................................. 52 8.8.3 – INDUSTRY STEWARDS .............................................................................................................. 53 8.8.4 – STEWARDSHIP BEHAVIOUR ..................................................................................................... 54
9. Catchment Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 56
9.1 Albert Catchment ............................................................................................................................................... 57
9.2 Bremer Catchment ............................................................................................................................................. 63
9.3 Caboolture Catchment ....................................................................................................................................... 69
9.4 Lockyer Catchment ............................................................................................................................................ 75
9.5 Logan Catchment ............................................................................................................................................... 81
9.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment ................................................................................................................................ 87
9.7 Maroochy Catchment ........................................................................................................................................ 93
9.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment .................................................................................................................................... 99
9.9 Mooloolah Catchment ..................................................................................................................................... 105
9.10 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment ............................................................................................................. 111
9.11 Nerang Catchment ......................................................................................................................................... 117
9.12 Noosa Catchment .......................................................................................................................................... 123
9.13 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment ...................................................................................................................... 129
9.14 Pine Catchment.............................................................................................................................................. 135
9.15 Pumicestone Catchment ................................................................................................................................ 141
9.16 Redland Catchment........................................................................................................................................ 147
9.17 Stanley Catchment ......................................................................................................................................... 153
9.18 Tallebudgera Catchment ................................................................................................................................ 159
9.19 Upper Brisbane .............................................................................................................................................. 165
10. Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 171
10.1 Future Research ............................................................................................................................................. 172
11. References ................................................................................................................................................ 173 12. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 174
APPENDIX A – LIST OF CATCHMENTS, SUBURBS, AND POSTCODES ................................................ 174 APPENDIX B – PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET ......................................................................... 197 APPENDIX C – CONSTRUCT MAP AND MODIFICATIONS .................................................................. 198
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 5
1.0 Introduction
Healthy Land and Water is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works with government, industry and the community to protect and improve the sustainable use of land and waterways in South East Queensland’s waterways. The organisation monitors and reports on the condition of these waterways and provides capacity building for professionals and community groups. It advises on reforms to policy and planning, and provides the education programs to motivate Queensland community members to value and protect Queensland waterways and the natural environment. Underpinning these activities are four strategic objectives:
1) Promote healthy land and water biodiversity 2) Innovate solutions to protect and restore our natural environment 3) Involve, inform and inspire our members 4) Keep a connected, engaged and motivated community
Each year Healthy Land and Water produces an annual assessment of the current environmental condition and level of social and economic benefit South East Queensland’s waterways provide to local communities of waterways. This Social Science Report provides the evidence contributing to the social component of the annual Report Card.
2.0 Project Aims
The project aims to understand how people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, their stewardship behaviours, and to what extent do waterway conditions impact the use, accessibility and satisfaction of South East Queensland waterways. The study investigates the social benefits of waterways across 19 catchment areas in SEQ to provide the empirical evidence and analysis to contribute the social data for the annual Healthy Land and Water Report Card. The 2017 social science study is guided by a conceptual-based model and two research questions focusing on the social benefits of waterways – specifically to understand the relationship between waterway condition and perceptions of waterway useability, accessibility and satisfaction, within an engagement framework.
3.0 Guiding Research Questions and Model
The key research problem addressed in this study is to understand and measure the social benefits of waterways for South East Queenslanders. To investigate this problem, the study was guided by a proposed conceptual model, and two research questions:
RQ1: How does waterway condition affect satisfaction and useability of local waterways? RQ2: What factors impact satisfaction, useability and accessibility of local waterways?
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual relationships within the study:
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 6
Figure 1: Social Benefit Model of Waterways
4.0 Ethical Considerations and Funding
This research reported was granted ethics approval by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Human Ethics Committee (QUT approval number: 1500000402) in line with standard ethical guidelines and
the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government, 2007). This study is
part of a three year social study (2016-2018) and is jointly funded by Healthy Land and Waters and QUT.
Please see Appendix B for Participant Information Sheet.
5.0 Method
5.1 Instrument
A survey instrument, reflecting the key concepts and constructs forming the research questions, was
developed from established scale items and modified for use. The construct map is provided in Appendix C.
In addition, some historical questions were used to provide comparative data based on previous surveys
(2015/2016). Questions featured seven point Likert scale questions (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree range was used), open text boxes, and distance pins on maps. The survey was administered through
a 20-minute online survey hosted by QUT Key Survey. The survey is included in Appendix C.
5.2 Sampling and Procedure
Two sampling strategies were undertaken: A panel and a promoted community survey. Both strategies
targeted a sample of adults (18+) living in 19 catchment areas in South East Queensland (SEQ).
1. Panel (presented in the report as Panel data): Data were collected via an online survey using panel
data as a recruitment strategy (n=3200). The catchment and postcode methodology was refined
from the postcode distribution used in the 2016 to improve accuracy through aligning specific
suburbs catchments to allow more accurate allocation of respondents. Applying this methodology
resulted in n=2947 useable by catchment responses. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting
specific catchment results with low numbers. A soft launch was conducted with panel data on 13
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 7
June 2017 (n50) to check response timing and dropout rates. The full launch was on 14 June 2017.
The survey was hosted on a QUT web-based survey (Key Survey) with the link distributed to
recruited panel members. The survey was closed out on 17 July 2017.
2. Community Survey (presented in the report as Social Media Data): Data were collected via an
online survey recruited through traditional media (media releases), advertising (advertorial) and
social media. An incentive was offered as a chance to win one of three iPads. The recruitment
campaign resulted in 722 respondents completing the survey – with a useable sample of 655 (after
catchments were assigned). More information about the advertising and advertorial campaign is
available from Healthy Land and Water. Three winners were randomly drawn on Friday 4 August
2017 by random number generator matched to the participant number. Winners were notified on
Monday 7 August 2017 by Healthy Land and Water.
5.3 Analysis
Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS (23). Quantitative analyses provided frequencies, mean statistics, correlations, regressions and cluster analysis.
5.4 Respondents – Demographic profiles
A total of 3200 surveys were completed. For analyses purposes, this number dropped slightly to 2947, as
253 respondents were excluded from the analysis as they either lived in areas outside of the SEQ
catchment areas under study or only filled out a small
portion of the survey. Of these 2947 respondents, 56.7 %
were female, 43.1% male, and 0.3% of respondents elected
not to disclose their gender. Figure 2 illustrates this mix.
More than 71.3% of respondents have lived in Queensland
more than 10 years. Just over 3.9% of respondents have
lived in Queensland for up to 2 years.
The median age of respondents was 46 years old (M= 45.79
SD 16.49) with the youngest being 19 and the oldest 81
years old.
Education of respondents represented a normal distribution
with 69.2% holding a post-secondary school qualification.
43.09%
39.10%
56.90%
60.90%
SSI Data
Social Media
Gender Ratio
Female Male
Figure 2: Gender ration- full sample
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 8
5.4.1 Employment
Nearly 30% of participants were in full time employment, with 20% part-time. 28% of participants were a
carer, student or unemployed. Just over a fifth of the sample (22.5%) identified as retired.
Employment types Panel Data Social Media
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Retired 664 22.5 112 17.1 Carer 102 3.5 24 3.7
Full time student 216 7.3 47 7.2 Unemployed and not seeking work 215 7.3 18 2.7
Unemployed and seeking work 281 9.5 31 4.7
Part time employee 588 20.0 116 17.7 Full time work 881 29.9 307 46.9
Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
5.4.2 Industry
Participants were asked what industry they currently work in, or recently worked in. While just over 9%
identified as retired, other industries were represented. More than 29% of participants represented the
retail, education and health sectors.
Industries Panel Data Social Media
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, 35 1.2 29 4.4
Mining 27 0.9 3 0.5
Manufacturing 84 2.9 19 2.9
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 46 1.6 51 7.8
Construction and development 127 4.3 23 3.5
Wholesale Trade 65 2.2 13 2.0
Retail Trade 318 10.8 44 6.7
Hospitality and Tourism 216 7.3 25 3.8
Transport and Storage 132 4.5 16 2.4
Communication Services 52 1.8 16 2.4
Finance and Insurance 125 4.2 19 2.9
Property and Business Services 72 2.4 13 2.0
Government Administration and Defence 186 6.3 68 10.4
Education 242 8.2 77 11.8
Health and Community Services 295 10.0 67 10.2
Cultural and Recreational Services 23 0.8 11 1.7
Personal and Other Services 109 3.7 11 1.7
I have not worked 213 7.2 12 1.8
I am retired & do not identify with any of these industries 272 9.2 25 3.8
Other - please provide 308 10.5 113 17.3
Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 9
5.4.3 Length of time living in SEQ
Length of time living in SEQ suggests more familiarity with local and state-wide waterways. For each
catchment, the majority of residents had lived in their current locations for more than 10 years. The
average for residents living in the region for more than ten years was 71.2%, with Pumicestone having the
lowest amount at 58.1% and Redland having the highest value as 80.9%.
Catchments
Less than a year (%)
1-3 years (%)
4-6 years (%)
7-10 years (%)
More than 10
years (%)
Total (%)
Albert 0 13.5 16.2 2.7 67.6 100
Bremer 3.2 7.2 6.4 4.8 78.4 100
Caboolture 1.6 7.8 4.7 11.4 74.6 100
Lockyer 1.1 4.6 3.4 13.8 77 100
Logan 3.1 8.4 7.2 8.1 73.1 100
Lower Brisbane 4.7 8.6 7.7 8 71 100
Maroochy 5.1 5.8 3.6 9.5 75.9 100
Mid Brisbane 0 8.3 4.2 12.5 75 100
Mooloolah 5.9 11.1 10.4 8.1 64.4 100
Moreton Bay and Islands 5.1 8.5 5.1 6.8 74.6 100
Nerang 6.8 12.9 8.3 9.1 62.9 100
Noosa 4.4 2.2 17.8 15.6 60 100
Pimpama-Coomera 3.2 14.4 10.4 8.8 63.2 100
Pine 2.9 7.3 5.8 7.7 76.4 100
Pumicestone 6.7 16.2 9.5 9.5 58.1 100
Redland 1.5 3 5.5 9 80.9 100
Stanley 0 13.6 4.5 4.5 77.3 100
Tallebudgera 3.9 9.1 2.6 9.1 75.3 100
Upper Brisbane 5.1 7.7 15.4 5.1 66.7 100
Averages 3.4 9.0 7.8 8.6 71.2 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 10
5.4.4 Household Income
Participants were asked to provide an indication of their household income. More than 30% of participants
earned between $50,000 and $100,000, while just over 30% earnt less than $50,000. Just over 7% earned
more than $150,000. These data reflect ABS statistics for these representative areas. Nearly 16% of
participants elected not to disclose their income.
Income Categories Panel Data Social Media
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 322 10.9 53 8.1
$25,001-$50,000 672 22.8 100 15.3
$50,001-$75,000 487 16.5 97 14.8
$75,001-$100,000 418 14.2 98 15.0
$100,001-$150,000 430 14.6 113 17.3
$150,001-$200,000 125 4.2 51 7.8
Over $200,000 53 1.8 37 5.6
Prefer not to say 440 14.9 106 16.2
Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
5.4.5 Educational Attainment
Education Levels Panel Data Social Media
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Primary School (PS) 43 1.5 3 0.5
High School (HS) 918 31.2 87 13.3
Diploma or Cert or equivalent (Dip/Cert) 827 28.1 155 23.7
Apprenticeship or trade cert equivalent (Appren) 248 8.4 34 5.2
Bachelor degree or equivalent (UD) 641 21.8 223 34.0
Postgraduate degree or equivalent (PG) 253 8.6 143 21.8
Other qualification (Other) 17 0.6 10 1.5
Total 2947 100.0 655 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 11
6.0 Catchment Areas
Respondents in Queensland postcodes spanning 19 SEQ waterway catchment areas were targeted with this research. See Appendix A for catchment allocated suburbs and associated postcodes.
Unique Catchments Frequency Catchments & Combinations Frequency Percentage
Albert 37 Albert 30 1.00
Bremer 125 Bremer 112 3.80
Caboolture 193 Caboolture 167 5.70
Lockyer 87 Lockyer 79 2.70
Logan 320 Logan 269 9.10
Lower Brisbane 789 Lower Brisbane 721 24.50
Maroochy 137 Maroochy 115 3.90
Mid Brisbane 24 Mid Brisbane 15 3.20
Mooloolah 135 Mooloolah 95 1.20
Moreton Bay and Islands 59 Moreton Bay and Islands 34 6.30
Nerang 264 Nerang 187 1.50
Noosa 45 Noosa 45 5.90
Pimpama-Coomera 250 Pimpama-Coomera 175 9.40
Pine 313 Pine 277 2.20
Pumicestone 105 Pumicestone 66 5.70
Redland 199 Redland 168 0.50
Stanley 22 Stanley 15 2.20
Tallebudgera-Currumbin 77 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 66 1.30
Upper Brisbane 39 Upper Brisbane 38 0.50
Nerang & Pimpama-Coomera 62 2.10
Mooloolah & Stanley 1 0.00
Bremer & Lower Brisbane 11 0.40
Lower Brisbane & Pine 19 0.60
Maroochy & Mooloolah 22 0.70
Nerang & Tallebudgera-Currumbin 11 0.40
Logan & Lower Brisbane 31 1.10
Logan & Redland 17 0.60
Mooloolah & Pumicestone 17 0.60
Lockyer & Upper Brisbane 1 0.00
Caboolture & Pine 17 0.60
Caboolture & Pumicestone 9 0.30
Albert & Pimpama-Coomera 5 0.20
Redland & Lower Brisbane 7 0.20
Albert & Logan 2 0.10
Bremer & Mid Brisbane 2 0.10
Lockyer & Mid Brisbane 7 0.20
Logan & Pimpama-Coomera 1 0.00
Moreton Bay & Island & Nerang 4 0.10
Moreton Bay & Island & Pimpama-Coomera
7 0.20
Moreton Bay & Island & Pumicestone
7 0.20
Moreton Bay & Island & Redland 7 0.20
Moreton Bay & Island & Pumicestone & Stanley
6 0.20
Total 2947 100.00
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 12
Unique Catchments Frequency Catchments & Combinations Frequency Percentage
Albert 9 Albert 3 0.5
Bremer 30 Bremer 27 4.1
Caboolture 37 Caboolture 32 4.9
Lockyer 5 Lockyer 4 0.6
Logan 34 Logan 28 4.3
Lower Brisbane 230 Lower Brisbane 218 33.3
Maroochy 31 Maroochy 25 3.8
Mid Brisbane 3 Mid Brisbane 1 0.2
Mooloolah 33 Mooloolah 26 4.0
Moreton Bay and Islands 39 Moreton Bay and Islands 29 4.4
Nerang 26 Nerang 18 2.7
Noosa 22 Noosa 22 3.4
Pimpama-Coomera 41 Pimpama-Coomera 28 4.3
Pine 76 Pine 64 9.8
Pumicestone 19 Pumicestone 9 1.4
Redland 40 Redland 35 5.3
Stanley 18 Stanley 14 2.1
Tallebudgera-Currumbin 10 Tallebudgera-Currumbin 9 1.4
Upper Brisbane 8 Upper Brisbane 7 1.1
Nerang & Pimpama-Coomera 6 0.9
Bremer & Lower Brisbane 2 0.3
Lower Brisbane & Pine 6 0.9
Maroochy & Mooloolah 6 0.9
Nerang & Tallebudgera-Currumbin 1 0.2
Logan & Lower Brisbane 3 0.5
Logan & Redland 3 0.5
Mooloolah & Pumicestone 1 0.2
Caboolture & Pine 3 0.5
Caboolture & Pumicestone 2 0.3
Albert & Pimpama-Coomera 3 0.5
Redland & Lower Brisbane 1 0.2
Albert & Pine 3 0.5
Bremer & Mid Brisbane 1 0.2
Lockyer & Mid Brisbane 1 0.2
Moreton Bay & Island & Nerang 1 0.2
Moreton Bay & Island & Pimpama-Coomera
4 0.6
Moreton Bay & Island & Pumicestone
4 0.6
Moreton Bay & Island & Redland 1 0.2
Stanley & Upper Brisbane 1 0.2
Pumicestone & Stanley 3 0.5
Total 655 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 13
7.0 Survey Constructs
The items in the survey were based on existing measures, but also included specific questions and issues
used historically by Healthy Waterways. A number of constructs or topic areas were identified for the
survey that had previously rated survey items (i.e. they have been tested in previous research and found to
have reliability and validity). Wherever possible we have used these items, adapted if necessary to the
specific context, to ensure reliability. The construct map is included in Appendix C. Means and Standard
Deviations for each construct are summarised in Table 1.
The aim of each construct investigated is outlined below in section 8.0 with the results of each construct
including the average score across SEQ respondents and also the highest and the lowest scoring catchment
per construct. The tables including all the data for the individual catchments can be found in Section 9.0.
Independent samples t-tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between the Panel
data and Social media data, with the percentage difference between mean scores being reported. The final
column indicates that the data is significantly different across the two samples.
Table 1: Survey constructs - total sample
1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree
Construct Panel Data Social Media Mean Difference
Mean SD Mean SD
1. Nature Relatedness 4.88 1.39 5.79 1.24 15.76%***
2. Integrated Regulation 3.92 1.64 4.87 1.67 19.43%***
3. Place Attachment 4.57 1.49 N/A N/A N/A
4. Overall Satisfaction 4.54 1.42 4.93 1.34 7.84%***
5. Overall Accessibility 4.99 1.57 5.49 1.49 9.08%***
6. Overall Useability 4.53 1.41 5.23 1.30 13.36%***
7. Social Value 4.33 1.47 4.83 1.38 10.35%***
8. Stewardship 5.11 1.46 5.99 1.24 14.66%***
9. Fascination 4.45 1.51 5.18 1.42 14.15%***
10. Being away 4.58 1.66 5.48 1.42 16.36%***
11. Compatibility 4.18 1.57 5.04 1.44 17.05%***
12. Overall Life satisfaction 4.69 1.25 5.06 1.16 7.31%***
Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 14
7.1 Validity and Reliability
To assess the validity and reliability of the constructs exploratory factory analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha
(α), and item-to-total correlation (ITC) tests were conducted.
Test SPSS steps Thresholds
Cronbach’s Alpha, item-to-total correlation
Analyse Scale Reliability Analysis Add items Statistics Check Item, Scale, Scale if item delete Cont. OK
α ≥ 0.70 (or 0.60 in exploratory research) ITC > 0.30
EFA Analyse Dimensions Reduction Factor Add items Descriptives Check KMO/Bartlett Extractions Principal components Rotations Check Direct Oblimin Options Check Sorted by size, Supress small coefficients, chance value to 0.3 OK
KMO > 0.5 Bartlett’s test < .05 Factor loadings > .5
The KMO and Bartlett’s test were used to assess the suitability for factor analysis, with the KMO cut-off value being 0.5 and the Bartlett’s test needing to be significant. Items with an item-to-total correlation below 0.30 (Field, 2009) were removed; items with a factor loading less than 0.50 were removed (Field, 2009). This research cautiously used the guidelines set out by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), with 0.7 being the generally accepted lower limit for α, while it may decrease to 0.6 in exploratory research. A full list of steps and item results is available from the authors on request.
Constructs Items α KMO Bartlett’s test
Lowest ITC
Lowest Loading
Thresholds Met?
Nature Relatedness 4 .89 .812 .000 .712 .834
Integrated Regulation 3 .91 .696 .000 .715 .859
Overall Satisfaction 4 .91 .839 .000 .755 .861
Accessibility 4 .96 .866 .000 .858 .919
Usability 4 .86 .775 .000 .621 .774
Social Value 4 .90 .809 .000 .706 .827
Stewardship 3 .88 .745 .000 .765 .896
Fascination 4 .94 .868 .000 .911 .841
Being Away 4 .95 .859 .000 .831 .903
Compatibility 4 .92 .811 .000 .779 .873
Place Attachment 12 .98 .968 .000 .787 .818
Life Satisfaction 5 .91 .863 .000 .753 .641
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 15
8.0 Results and Discussion
Results are presented by total sample in general section and by panel data only for individual catchment
level (Section 9.0). To begin, the results are presented and discussed regarding access, usability and overall
satisfaction toward the respondent’s local waterway. Following this the results from the table are
discussed relating to each construct. The questions first relate to using their local waterway and then
move on to their connections with their waterways such as loyalty and feelings of value derived through
their waterways.
Nature Relatedness
Nature relatedness - This scale was used in 2015 HWSSS. It measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment). In this construct we see a good connection with nature (M 4.88, SD 1.39). When respondents rate favourably on this construct, they are also more likely to demonstrate greater happiness and environmental concern. Those respondents from Stanley catchment demonstrate the highest level of nature relatedness (M 5.44, SD 1.35). Those from Upper Brisbane demonstrate the lowest (M 4.60, SD 1.66).
Integrated Regulation
Integrated regulation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs. Respondents did not score this construct too highly demonstrating that while the connection with their self-concept was there, it was not too strong (M 3.92) and it had a reasonably wide standard deviation (SD 1.64) which shows a large spread in the answers to this question. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of integrated regulation (M 5.25, SD 1.4) and Logan showed the lowest levels (M 3.43, SD 1.59).
Place Attachment
This construct captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local Waterways. Overall, place attachment has a positive score (M 4.57, SD 1.49). Moreton Bay and Island catchment showed the highest levels of place attachment (M 5.45, SD 1.41) and Logan showed the lowest levels (M 4.08, SD 1.54).
Local Waterway Satisfaction
Local Waterway Satisfaction measures how satisfied overall the respondents are with their experiences when using or visiting their local waterways. It looks at whether respondents find these to be good experiences and whether they truly enjoyed these experiences. On average SEQ respondents responded generally favourably to this (M 4.54, SD 1.42). Those in the Moreton bay and Islands Catchment scored the highest levels of satisfaction with a mean of (M 5.55, SD 1.19) with those in Lockyer being the least satisfied (M 4.02, SD 1.56).
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 16
Local Waterway Accessibility
Overall accessibility explores whether the respondents feel they can access their local waterway easily. The average score across SEQ residents for this was 4.99 (SD 1.57) indicating that on the whole respondents feel that accessing their local waterways is straight forward. Those respondents in Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment felt that they had the best accessibility to their local waterway (M 5.89 SD 1.24) whereas those in Logan felt they had the lowest (M 4.45, SD 1.63).
Local Waterway Useability
Overall Usability measured whether they respondents thought that their local waterways were usable and did not take much effort to use. The average score across on this construct suggesting that respondents overall think that their local waterways are relatively easy to use was 4.53 (SD 1.41). Those in Tallebudgera catchment thought their local waterways were the most usable (M 5.48, SD 1.3) whereas those respondents in Logan thought theirs were the least usable (M 4.01, SD 1.45).
Social Value Social value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterway with their friends and others known to them. Respondents indicated general agreement with this. They are happy, and they find using waterways more interesting when they are using them with friends or as part of a group. The overall mean was 4.33 (SD 1.47). Those respondents in the Mid Brisbane catchment scored the highest level of social value (M 5.20, SD 1.11) and those in Albert catchment scored the lowest (M 3.93, SD 1.81).
Stewardship Stewardship represents awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. Stewardship had the highest mean score for a construct (M 5.11, SD 1.47), suggesting that respondents feel a sense of responsibility to protect waterways. Those respondents in the Tallebudgera catchment scored the highest level of social value (M 5.71, SD 1.32) and those in Upper Brisbane catchment scored the lowest (M 4.79, SD 1.65).
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 17
Third Place Third Place (TP) represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens (Rosenbaum, 2009). The measurement of third place includes three dimensions; 1) Being Away, 2) Fascination and 3) Compatibility.
Fascination TP 2) Fascination is conceptualised as a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly absorbing. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk. This construct taps into the person’s awareness of interesting things to do at this location and that they want to spend more time on activities at this location. The average for all respondents was 4.45 (SD 1.51), with those in Moreton Bay and Island Catchment scoring the highest (M 5.48, SD 1.28) and those in Lockyer the lowest (M 3.85, SD 1.62).
Being away TP 1) Being Away involves a “conceptual rather than a physical transformation” (Kaplan, 1995, p. 173) whereby a being in a location helps the person to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape. Overall respondents thought of their local waterways as places to be away at. The mean was 4.58 (SD 1.66). Those respondents in the Moreton Bay and Island catchment recorded the highest on this construct (M 5.64, SD 1.33) while those in Albert scored the lowest (M 4.03, SD 1.85).
Compatibility TP 3) Compatibility focuses on what a person is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the person can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place. The average for all SEQ residents on this construct was 4.18 (SD 1.57), with those in Moreton Bay and Island catchment scoring the highest (M 5.35, SD 1.36) and those in Albert scoring the lowest (M 3.57 SD 1.67).
Overall Life Satisfaction Index
This index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, community and life. Overall life satisfaction has positive with a mean of 4.69 (SD 1.25), with those in Noosa scoring the highest (M 5.28, SD 1.02) and those in Upper Brisbane scoring the lowest (M 4.32, SD 1.47).
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 18
8.1 Local waterway accessibility, use and overall satisfaction
Respondents across the total sample were asked to consider their local waterway and rate their
perceptions of access, use and overall satisfaction.
8.1.1 Local waterway accessibility
These questions asked participants their about their perceptions for local waterway accessibility (where 1=
Strongly Disagree, and 7= Strongly Agree). At a SEQ level, the mean was 4.99 (SD 1.57) suggesting that
respondents felt their local waterway tended to be very accessible. This is a slight reduction on 2016 levels
(M 5.12, SD 1.36). This difference could reflect the change of one of the accessibility items from “My
waterway are quickly reached from the parking areas” in the 2016 survey, to “My local waterways are easy
to access” for the 2017 survey. An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences
between 2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 3.44, p = .0006 (two-tailed), (mean difference =
-0.13, 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.06). At the local catchment level, Tallebudgera-Currumbin (M 5.79 SD .97),
Pumicestone (M 5.81 SD 1.10), and Mooloolah (M 5.57 SD 1.33) reported the highest levels of accessibility,
while Albert (M 4.51 SD 1.22) and Bremer (M 4.50 SD 1.38) reported the lowest.
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.74 1.75 5.81 1.18
Bremer 4.57 1.64 5.08 1.59
Caboolture 4.98 1.59 5.33 1.86
Lockyer 4.63 1.74 6.65 0.49
Logan 4.45 1.63 5.79 1.26
Lower Brisbane 4.65 1.57 5.15 1.51
Maroochy 5.36 1.38 5.73 1.22
Mid Brisbane 5.35 1.31 5.67 0.63
Mooloolah 5.81 1.26 5.73 1.20
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.89 1.24 6.09 1.38
Nerang 5.30 1.49 5.44 1.30
Noosa 5.64 1.50 6.32 1.10
Pimpama-Coomera 5.19 1.42 5.40 1.38
Pine 5.13 1.50 5.48 1.52
Pumicestone 5.54 1.45 5.99 1.46
Redland 5.24 1.37 5.78 1.21
Stanley 5.24 1.48 5.61 1.90
Tallebudgera 5.78 1.42 6.25 0.88
Upper Brisbane 4.62 1.72 6.41 1.15
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 19
8.1.2 Local waterway useability
These questions asked respondents to rate how useable their local waterway was, selecting from 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree for useability related items. The SEQ mean was 4.53 (SD 1.41)
suggesting respondents felt their local waterway tended to be useable. However, this is a decrease from
2016 (M 4.90, SD 1.32) and 2015 report card (M 5.07, SD 1.82) suggesting more participants felt their
waterway was less useable. An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences between
2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 10.52, p = .0001 (two-tailed), (mean difference = -0.37,
95% CI: -0.44 to -0.30). Those respondents in Tallebudgera-Currumbin catchment (M 5.64 SD .96),
Pumicestone (M 5.47 SD 1.03), and Mooloolah (M 5.33 SD 1.22) reported the highest levels of useability,
while Albert (M 4.26 SD 1.17) and Bremer (M 4.35 SD 1.36) reported the lowest.
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.07 1.58 5.47 0.99
Bremer 4.15 1.38 4.85 1.41
Caboolture 4.59 1.39 5.35 1.31
Lockyer 4.08 1.55 5.95 0.48
Logan 4.01 1.45 5.33 1.21
Lower Brisbane 4.23 1.38 4.92 1.32
Maroochy 4.81 1.34 5.34 1.14
Mid Brisbane 4.88 1.16 4.75 2.38
Mooloolah 5.18 1.19 5.41 1.28
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.45 1.20 5.83 1.15
Nerang 4.80 1.34 5.38 1.15
Noosa 5.17 1.44 6.10 1.09
Pimpama-Coomera 4.74 1.28 5.49 1.04
Pine 4.62 1.37 5.17 1.35
Pumicestone 5.00 1.40 5.80 1.12
Redland 4.79 1.21 5.52 1.06
Stanley 4.98 1.26 5.06 1.41
Tallebudgera 5.48 1.30 5.98 0.62
Upper Brisbane 4.03 1.55 6.09 1.40
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 20
8.1.3 Local waterway satisfaction
Questions asked respondents to rate how satisfied they were with their local waterway, choosing from a
selection satisfaction related questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.
The SEQ Mean was 4.54 (SD 1.42) suggesting respondents felt somewhat satisfied with their local
waterway. However, this is a decrease on the 2016 report card 4.84 (SD 1.25), and 2015 report card
measure (M 5.01 SD 1.66). An independent samples t-test on this variable show the differences between
2016 and 2017 samples to be significant t (6025) = 8.72, p = .0001 (two-tailed), (mean difference = -0.30,
95% CI: -0.37 to -0.23). Moreton Bay and Islands catchment and Tallebudgera-Currumbin showed the
highest levels of satisfaction with their local waterways (5.55, SD 1.19 and 1.29 respectively) while Lockyer
catchment showed the lowest levels (4.02, SD 1.56).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.16 1.66 5.25 1.13
Bremer 4.14 1.51 4.37 1.28
Caboolture 4.52 1.40 5.03 1.45
Lockyer 4.02 1.56 4.65 0.91
Logan 4.05 1.45 5.07 1.37
Lower Brisbane 4.22 1.35 4.54 1.33
Maroochy 4.87 1.26 5.09 1.33
Mid Brisbane 4.77 1.14 3.83 2.75
Mooloolah 5.29 1.21 4.98 1.39
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.55 1.19 5.62 0.89
Nerang 4.90 1.32 5.31 1.05
Noosa 5.32 1.33 5.91 1.04
Pimpama-Coomera 4.80 1.27 5.36 1.01
Pine 4.57 1.32 4.92 1.31
Pumicestone 5.06 1.35 5.50 1.06
Redland 4.85 1.22 5.28 1.20
Stanley 4.77 1.31 4.85 1.54
Tallebudgera 5.55 1.29 5.93 0.41
Upper Brisbane 4.10 1.66 5.87 1.47
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 21
8.2 Constructs
Each construct is now examined by catchment.
8.2.1 Nature Relatedness
These questions asked respondents to rate their connections to the natural world (environment). The
respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree. Stanley showed the highest levels of nature relatedness with their local waterways (5.44, SD 1.35)
while Upper Brisbane catchment showed the lowest levels (4.60, SD 1.66).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.68 1.53 6.22 0.89
Bremer 4.92 1.52 5.61 1.38
Caboolture 4.95 1.36 6.39 0.91
Lockyer 5.03 1.34 6.20 0.48
Logan 4.65 1.43 5.96 1.22
Lower Brisbane 4.70 1.37 5.51 1.24
Maroochy 5.18 1.28 5.92 1.20
Mid Brisbane 5.27 1.05 6.75 0.25
Mooloolah 5.41 1.23 5.56 1.39
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.40 1.31 6.08 1.24
Nerang 5.00 1.35 6.07 0.92
Noosa 5.19 1.18 6.34 1.36
Pimpama-Coomera 4.91 1.40 5.80 1.07
Pine 4.76 1.39 5.78 1.15
Pumicestone 5.06 1.52 6.17 1.25
Redland 4.98 1.27 5.94 1.11
Stanley 5.44 1.35 5.44 1.89
Tallebudgera 5.34 1.36 6.45 0.81
Upper Brisbane 4.60 1.66 6.66 0.67
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 22
8.2.2 Integrated Regulation
Integrated regulation measures whether the motives for using waterways are in line with one’s personal
values and needs. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of
integrated regulation with their local waterways (5.25, SD 1.40) while Logan showed the lowest levels
(3.43, SD 1.59).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 5.25 1.40 4.89 1.15
Bremer 4.88 1.57 4.40 1.79
Caboolture 4.60 1.68 5.14 1.68
Lockyer 4.47 1.59 5.53 1.26
Logan 4.38 1.69 4.81 1.84
Lower Brisbane 4.32 1.61 4.43 1.66
Maroochy 4.27 1.67 5.05 1.63
Mid Brisbane 4.27 1.62 4.89 2.22
Mooloolah 4.25 1.46 5.10 1.53
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.24 1.38 5.84 1.49
Nerang 4.12 1.58 5.01 1.63
Noosa 3.90 1.62 5.95 1.33
Pimpama-Coomera 3.90 1.60 5.26 1.44
Pine 3.66 1.56 4.65 1.66
Pumicestone 3.50 1.67 5.42 1.37
Redland 3.49 1.82 5.09 1.40
Stanley 3.46 1.77 4.74 1.56
Tallebudgera 3.45 1.54 6.27 0.58
Upper Brisbane 3.43 1.59 6.04 1.65
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 23
8.2.3 Place Attachment
Place attachment measures the benefits the respondents feel they receive from their local waterways. The
respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of place attachment with their local
waterways (5.45, SD 1.41) while Logan showed the lowest levels (4.08, SD 1.54). Place Attachment data
was not collected for the Community Survey.
Catchment Mean SD
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.45 1.41
Tallebudgera 5.45 1.36
Noosa 5.24 1.24
Mooloolah 5.17 1.33
Pumicestone 4.97 1.48
Mid Brisbane 4.95 1.19
Nerang 4.90 1.31
Maroochy 4.88 1.32
Redland 4.86 1.29
Pimpama-Coomera 4.80 1.32
Stanley 4.79 1.48
Pine 4.62 1.43
Caboolture 4.61 1.46
Lower Brisbane 4.29 1.5
Bremer 4.27 1.6
Lockyer 4.18 1.61
Upper Brisbane 4.17 1.65
Albert 4.10 1.69
Logan 4.08 1.54
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 24
8.2.4 Social Value
Social Value measures the level of value respondents receive from using waterways with their friends and
others known to them. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Mid Brisbane showed the highest levels of social value with their
local waterways (5.20, SD 1.11) while Albert showed the lowest levels (3.93, SD 1.81).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 3.93 1.81 4.03 1.42
Bremer 4.22 1.64 4.69 1.63
Caboolture 4.25 1.43 4.57 1.52
Lockyer 4.02 1.66 4.60 1.07
Logan 4.01 1.49 5.02 1.49
Lower Brisbane 4.08 1.42 4.73 1.38
Maroochy 4.56 1.42 4.44 1.39
Mid Brisbane 5.20 1.11 4.08 2.47
Mooloolah 4.64 1.35 4.69 1.26
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.85 1.35 5.06 1.18
Nerang 4.61 1.34 4.99 1.22
Noosa 4.55 1.30 5.24 1.07
Pimpama-Coomera 4.48 1.34 5.01 1.30
Pine 4.35 1.51 4.80 1.52
Pumicestone 4.75 1.56 5.47 1.38
Redland 4.63 1.27 5.05 1.20
Stanley 4.70 1.36 4.78 1.56
Tallebudgera 4.95 1.59 4.90 0.97
Upper Brisbane 3.98 1.54 5.03 2.25
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 25
8.2.5 Stewardship
Stewardship captures awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway
protection. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Tallebudgera showed the highest levels of stewardship with their local
waterways (5.71, SD 1.3) while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels (4.79, SD 1.65).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.95 1.45 6.07 1.12
Bremer 5.12 1.71 5.87 1.51
Caboolture 5.21 1.46 6.50 1.00
Lockyer 5.02 1.54 6.00 0.94
Logan 4.90 1.55 6.16 1.03
Lower Brisbane 4.87 1.47 5.73 1.22
Maroochy 5.35 1.29 5.97 1.07
Mid Brisbane 5.44 1.27 7.00 0.00
Mooloolah 5.68 1.28 5.89 1.37
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.58 1.31 6.32 1.30
Nerang 5.20 1.36 6.22 0.90
Noosa 5.53 1.32 6.50 1.30
Pimpama-Coomera 5.17 1.39 6.11 1.07
Pine 5.06 1.44 5.94 1.17
Pumicestone 5.60 1.34 6.37 1.23
Redland 5.28 1.31 6.10 1.26
Stanley 5.59 1.36 5.67 1.95
Tallebudgera 5.71 1.32 6.80 0.45
Upper Brisbane 4.79 1.65 6.63 0.74
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 26
8.2.6 Fascination
Fascination is conceptualised as being in a location which provides an interest which is thoroughly
absorbing. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of
fascination with their local waterways (5.48, SD 1.28) while Lockyer showed the lowest levels (3.85, SD
1.62).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.05 1.71 5.50 1.32
Bremer 4.05 1.57 4.88 1.44
Caboolture 4.35 1.48 5.39 1.42
Lockyer 3.85 1.62 5.45 1.08
Logan 3.96 1.58 5.22 1.56
Lower Brisbane 4.17 1.48 4.78 1.41
Maroochy 4.88 1.36 5.33 1.36
Mid Brisbane 4.70 1.17 6.50 0.43
Mooloolah 5.15 1.33 5.04 1.41
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.48 1.28 6.01 1.12
Nerang 4.83 1.37 5.50 1.06
Noosa 5.21 1.32 6.17 1.14
Pimpama-Coomera 4.62 1.40 5.49 1.16
Pine 4.50 1.43 5.18 1.45
Pumicestone 4.93 1.46 5.63 1.27
Redland 4.77 1.28 5.59 1.13
Stanley 5.07 1.22 4.85 1.72
Tallebudgera 5.39 1.33 6.08 0.67
Upper Brisbane 4.02 1.70 6.00 1.32
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 27
8.2.7 Being Away
Being away captures a conceptual transformation where being in a location helps a person to relax and
gives them a break. The respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of sense of
being away (5.64, SD 1.33) while Albert showed the lowest levels (4.03, SD 1.85).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.03 1.85 6.03 1.14
Bremer 4.22 1.70 5.18 1.68
Caboolture 4.59 1.67 5.66 1.45
Lockyer 4.30 1.83 5.90 0.91
Logan 4.08 1.75 5.38 1.75
Lower Brisbane 4.25 1.62 5.20 1.39
Maroochy 4.93 1.55 5.73 1.09
Mid Brisbane 4.96 1.32 4.42 2.53
Mooloolah 5.23 1.57 5.57 1.32
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.64 1.33 5.94 1.30
Nerang 4.88 1.49 5.69 1.26
Noosa 5.20 1.53 6.10 1.14
Pimpama-Coomera 4.74 1.52 5.74 1.14
Pine 4.67 1.67 5.50 1.51
Pumicestone 4.98 1.66 6.00 1.09
Redland 4.93 1.47 5.78 1.24
Stanley 4.93 1.52 5.26 1.45
Tallebudgera 5.50 1.60 6.38 0.65
Upper Brisbane 4.35 1.90 6.22 1.57
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 28
8.2.8 Compatibility
Compatibility focuses on what a person is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. The
respondents chose from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly
Agree. Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment showed the highest levels of compatibility with their local
waterways (5.3, SD 1.36) while Albert showed the lowest levels (3.57, SD 1.67).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 3.57 1.67 5.58 1.15
Bremer 3.75 1.53 4.72 1.60
Caboolture 4.19 1.50 5.16 1.52
Lockyer 3.85 1.64 5.40 1.08
Logan 3.66 1.57 5.02 1.60
Lower Brisbane 3.93 1.53 4.65 1.42
Maroochy 4.51 1.54 5.19 1.19
Mid Brisbane 4.48 1.36 4.75 1.80
Mooloolah 4.84 1.53 5.08 1.28
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 5.35 1.36 5.81 1.13
Nerang 4.55 1.51 5.24 1.21
Noosa 4.86 1.44 5.98 1.29
Pimpama-Coomera 4.31 1.47 5.34 1.23
Pine 4.19 1.53 5.02 1.54
Pumicestone 4.60 1.58 5.68 1.26
Redland 4.45 1.35 5.36 1.20
Stanley 4.74 1.63 5.08 1.48
Tallebudgera 5.14 1.52 5.98 0.53
Upper Brisbane 3.80 1.73 6.13 1.61
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 29
8.2.9 Life Satisfaction
The life satisfaction index captures how satisfied the participants are in general. The respondents chose
from a selection of questions with scores based on 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Noosa
showed the highest levels of life satisfaction (5.28, SD 1.04) while Upper Brisbane showed the lowest levels
(4.32, SD 1.47).
Catchment Panel data Social Media
Mean SD Mean SD
Albert 4.44 1.25 4.49 1.02
Bremer 4.48 1.43 4.52 1.61
Caboolture 4.53 1.32 5.08 1.28
Lockyer 4.62 1.35 4.36 0.95
Logan 4.50 1.26 5.09 1.19
Lower Brisbane 4.57 1.19 4.96 1.14
Maroochy 4.81 1.16 4.82 1.13
Mid Brisbane 4.47 1.30 4.93 0.70
Mooloolah 5.02 1.17 4.88 1.15
Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment 4.99 1.04 5.54 1.00
Nerang 4.75 1.28 5.72 0.81
Noosa 5.28 1.02 5.53 0.91
Pimpama-Coomera 4.70 1.29 5.01 1.16
Pine 4.77 1.30 5.01 1.18
Pumicestone 4.73 1.15 5.37 1.00
Redland 4.96 1.15 5.13 0.94
Stanley 4.64 1.11 5.88 0.87
Tallebudgera 5.01 1.21 5.12 0.95
Upper Brisbane 4.32 1.47 5.48 1.19
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 30
8.3 Waterway use and activities
Types of usage were captured across the total sample and by catchment. Participants were asked ‘Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?’ Across the sample, swimming and recreational activities such as walking, cycling, running, and picnics and barbeques, were the most popular activities on waterways, with fishing featuring more prominently in some catchments. Activities involving the use of craft on water, and those requiring sophisticated equipment– such as boating, sailing, water and jet-skiing, sailboarding and kayaking, and scuba diving – were undertaken less frequently.
Panel Survey Usage
Usage Panel Data
Almost everyday
(%)
Every week Every fortnight
Every month
Once or twice a
year
Every few
years
Picnics, BBQs 0.7 5.6 12.9 32.8 47.4 0.6
Walking, running 18 29.5 13.3 23.2 15.2 0.8
Swimming 4.1 17 15.4 33.2 29.7 0.6
Cycling 6.6 27.9 21.4 27.9 14.8 1.4
4WD driving, trail bike riding 3.6 10.7 11.9 34.5 36.9 2.4
Jet skiing water skiing 0.0 8.3 12.5 30.6 36.1 12.5
Camping 1.9 6.6 2.8 34.9 50.9 2.8
Recreational fishing 1.4 12.3 16.1 36 32.9 1.2
Boating, sailing 2.2 7.5 13.7 33 39.2 4.4
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing 2.4 13.4 11.5 26.3 41.6 4.8
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
9.8 32.9 19.5 23.2 12.2 2.4
Scuba diving, snorkelling 4.5 11.4 15.9 29.5 34.1 4.5
Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching, conservation, photography
12.6 25.6 13.2 27.5 20.3 0.8
Catching a ferry 2.7 7.3 10 24.3 51 4.6
Other 15 28.3 10 16.7 18.3 11.7
Some other waterway usage activities that participants wrote in the survey included:
Dog walking,
Whale watching,
Soccer,
Watching the fish,
Watching the waves,
Yoga and light exercise,
Sunbathing or tanning,
Hydrotherapy,
Relaxing, and
Conducting wedding ceremonies.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 31
Community Survey Usage
Usage Social Media
Almost everyday
(%)
Every week Every fortnight
Every month
Once or twice a
year
Every few
years
Picnics, BBQs 0.8% 5.8% 11.3% 32.7% 47.8% 1.6%
Walking, running 24.2% 28.7% 13.5% 23.9% 9.5% 0.2%
Swimming 5.9% 17.2% 11.8% 31.4% 32.5% 1.2%
Cycling 15.2% 24.0% 14.6% 22.8% 23.4% 0.0%
4WD driving, trail bike riding 8.6% 2.9% 8.6% 20.0% 57.1% 2.9%
Jet skiing water skiing 13.6% 4.5% 9.1% 40.9% 18.2% 13.6%
Camping 3.2% 0.0% 6.5% 24.2% 62.9% 3.2%
Recreational fishing 1.7% 2.5% 16.0% 38.7% 37.8% 3.4%
Boating, sailing 2.8% 10.4% 13.2% 28.3% 41.5% 3.8%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing 6.1% 9.6% 9.6% 30.7% 43.0% 0.9%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
17.1% 28.6% 2.9% 31.4% 20.0% 0.0%
Scuba diving, snorkelling 12.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% 48.0% 4.0%
Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching, conservation, photography
24.4% 25.6% 12.8% 25.0% 11.7% 0.6%
Catching a ferry 9.2% 11.5% 7.6% 22.9% 46.6% 2.3%
Other 30.6% 12.2% 12.2% 24.5% 18.4% 2.0%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 32
8.3.1 Comparison – Local, SEQ, and National waterway use and
activities
Participants were asked if and where they did you did various activities in the past 12 months. The table below is laid out as follows: Yes and No are the percentages of responses reported from the total sample, the different levels (Local, SEQ, National) represent the people who said they participated in the activities at that particular location. For instance, 57.4% said yes to Picnics and BBQs on the waterways while 42.6% said no. Of the people who said yes, 36.6% said they did it at a local level, 19.8% at a SEQ level, and 4.8% at a national level. This data is presented below with the Panel Survey Data. The next three columns labelled Local VS SEQ, Local VS National, and SEQ VS National, all test for statistical differences between each level in pairs, using McNemar’s chi-square difference test. For example, the people indicated that they have picnics and BBQs at statistically different amounts between local and SEQ locations, and local and national locations, and SEQ and national locations. Local was the most frequently used location for picnics and BBQs, then SEQ, then the national level. Whereas, for scuba diving and snorkelling activities, there are no statistical differences across any of the locations.
Activity Yes No Local level
SEQ level
National Level
Local VS SEQ
Local VS National
SEQ VS National
Picnics, BBQs 57.4 42.6 36.6 19.8 4.8 *** *** ***
Walking, running 68.3 31.7 48.9 17.3 4.9 *** *** ***
Swimming 31.9 68.1 17.5 11.5 3.2 *** *** ***
Cycling 15.1 84.9 9.8 2.5 0.6 *** *** ***
4WD driving, trail bike riding
10.5 89.5 2.8 4.9 1.6 *** ** ***
Jet skiing, water skiing 5.9 94.1 2.4 2.1 0.5 ns *** ***
Camping 18.7 81.3 3.6 10.7 4.2 *** ns ***
Recreational fishing 26.4 73.6 14.3 10.3 3.3 *** *** ***
Boating, sailing 16.1 83.9 7.7 6.1 2.1 ** *** ***
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
13.0 87.0 7.1 4.3 1.4 *** *** ***
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
5.8 94.2 2.7 1.6 0.4 ** *** ***
Scuba diving, snorkelling 5.5 94.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 ns ns ns
Enjoying nature e.g. birdwatching, conservation, photography
38.7 61.3 26.1 14.6 5.8 *** *** ***
Catching a ferry 23.7 76.3 8.8 9.8 3.3 ns *** ***
Other 6.3 93.7 2.0 1.2 0.3 ** *** ***
Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 33
Participants were also able to include a response for “Other” uses and activities not captured in the list provided. These responses included:
Attending festivals at Redcliffe e.g. kites and sails
New Year fireworks and markets e.g. South Bank and River City and Redcliffe
Bodyboarding
Cafe
Checking out flood levels
Compound bow shooting and mountain hiking
Conducting wedding ceremonies
Crabbing and bait collection
Cruising under sail
Dog walking
Drinking and eating at a bar
Enjoy outings with family
Exercise/bootcamp
Fishing
Having lunch beside Brisbane River.
Hydrotheraphy
In family boat leaving from Sanctuary Cove, enjoying lunch looking out over marina at Sanctuary Cove
Just to see how much water is there
Just watch
Meditation
Meeting family
Merely relaxing/having a break, at one of the many parks of Gold Coast, many of them near/next to waterways.
Naturism
Observation
Paddle boarding
Party in the park
Playing Sports
Playing with kids
Prawning
Reading
Reducing stress levels by listening to water and wildlife
Relaxing
Research
Roller skating
Running and exercising dog
Sitting enjoying the view
Sitting on beach and reading
Sitting Relaxing Observing wildlife and humans
Sun tanning
Taking dogs for a walk, fetch and swimming
Tubing tow-behind
Used a vehicular ferry to get to the mainland. Also water taxis.
Watching the boats go past
Watching the waves, storms, moon, whales and crowds.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 34
8.4 Protection Activities
Waterway protection activities were examined by the researchers, these questions asked participants how
much time they spent on protection activities in or alongside a local waterway in the past 12 months. Five
protection activities were posed, with the option to write in the ‘other’ category. Most people allocated no
hours to all activities. Rubbish clean-up had the largest about of time allocated to it followed by monitoring
(e.g. water quality, fish, bird, frog, mammal or other), weed removal and/or control, native plants, and
lastly erosion control. Reported in the table is the total amount of people who selected they did more than
0 hours, or in other word did any type of protection activities. By averaging the hours in the categories (i.e.
1-5 hours becomes 2.5 hours etc.…) and multiplying that by the amount of people with each category a
rough estimate of the total hours spent on each activity were calculated. This figure was then divided by
the total people amount to determine the average amount of hours spent per person.
Panel Survey Protection Activities
Activity Panel data
0 hours (%)
1-5 hours
(%)
5-10 hours
(%)
10-20 hours
(%)
20-30 hours
(%)
More than 30 hours
(%)
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 85.4 8.5 3.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 430 3013 7.01
Native tree planting 87.3 7.1 3.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 374 2613 6.99
Monitoring 82.2 9.0 4.6 2.3 0.9 1.0 526 4243 8.07
Rubbish clean-up 64.7 22.9 7.3 2.9 1.2 1.1 1040 6368 6.12
Erosion control 89.6 5.0 2.9 1.6 0.7 0.2 308 2475 8.04
Other 92.3 2.9 2.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 170 1590 9.35
Respondents were able to provide comments about why they didn’t conduct any hours of protection
activities. Reasons provided included:
Age and Transport Problems can cause difficulties.
Current disability does not allow me to do these things now, sadly.
Have had no involvement in local waterways and never will until the waters are pristine like they are in the country I came from originally, known for its clean waterways.
I'm unable to do anything because of my health
I do not go to waterways that much.
I don’t use the waterways at all being in a wheelchair
I live in a high rise along the river and can only participate in council/government clean-up activities when available.
Only used to relax
Too busy with two jobs to meet the cost of living
With the high taxes on all levels of govt that we pay and high salaries etc. I feel there is no reason to participate in those sorts of activities
Respondents were also asked to provide examples of the types of protection activities they undertake.
These were broken down by amount of hours per year that respondents indicated they did. Responses are
listed below.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 35
Comments for 1-5 hours:
Awareness of environmentally unsafe use
I have a creek that runs through my place I mow and clean it
I pick up other people's rubbish left behind and dispose of it properly and I move fallen tree branches to a safe location so others are not injured
Monitoring and giving advice to visitors, locals and tourists on local laws and controls on use of beaches and dog control
Path maintenance
Picking up used fishing line
Recently joined the Wetlands group, but haven't been to a working bee there yet, though it is soon
Reminding people to have their dogs controlled, and pick up their dogs faeces.
Report Graffiti
Restocking fish
Rubbish collection
Stopping people from dumping garbage at the river
Water testing
Comments for 5-10 hours:
Educating students about waterways
Exploring and teaching our kids about why we care for environment and pollution like littering
Pruning, trimming
Comments for 10-20 hours:
Straddie pest management working group
Comments for 20-30 hours:
Nothing provided
Comments for more than 30 hours:
Bird monitoring
Killing or eradicating invasive species
Community Survey Protection Activities
Activity Social Media
0 hours (%)
1-5 hours
(%)
5-10 hours
(%)
10-20 hours
(%)
20-30 hours
(%)
More than 30 hours
(%)
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 62.1% 15.7% 6.7% 5.0% 1.8% 8.5% 248 3063 12.35
Native tree planting 68.7% 14.4% 6.3% 2.7% 2.0% 6.0% 205 2308 11.26
Monitoring 63.2% 17.1% 5.8% 4.4% 3.5% 6.0% 241 2745 11.39
Rubbish clean-up 35.4% 38.2% 10.8% 5.5% 3.1% 7.0% 423 3578 8.46
Erosion control 77.3% 9.8% 5.3% 2.7% 1.2% 3.7% 149 1613 10.82
Other 84.8% 3.1% 2.9% 1.5% 0.9% 6.8% 69 1268 18.37
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 36
8.5 Conditions
8.5.1 Satisfaction with local and SEQ waterway conditions
The following table presents the condition of waterways at the local, and South East Queensland level and the corresponding level of satisfaction presented as a percentage with the conditions. The explanation for this table is:
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
As can be seen in the table below the majority of respondents are grouped around the neutral zone and one bad either side. This indicates that respondents are ambivalent about the conditions of their waterways at the local and South East Queensland level. If they are satisfied, this is only at the slight satisfied level, however dissatisfaction is only at the slightly dissatisfied level as well.
The lead in for this question were:
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Panel Survey Condition Satisfaction
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
7.4% 9% 15.9% 28.8% 21.1% 12.4% 5.4%
Pollution levels
6.3% 9.1% 17.5% 29.2% 21.2% 11.6% 5.1%
Fish numbers
5.9% 10.1% 17.7% 38.2% 16.5% 7.8% 3.8%
Natural vegetation
3.5% 5.3% 12.7% 29.5% 25.2% 16.6% 7.3%
Overall condition
4.4% 6.2% 13.2% 29.8% 24.4% 15.3% 6.7%
SEQ
Water clarity
5.2% 6.8% 15.4% 33.5% 22.7% 11.4% 5.1%
Pollution levels
5% 7.9% 18% 33.6% 20.6% 10.3% 4.5%
Fish numbers
5% 8.4% 17.1% 38% 19.6% 8.4% 3.5%
Natural vegetation
3.5% 5.4% 13% 33.1% 25% 14.3% 5.7%
Overall condition
4.1% 5.3% 13.9% 32.5% 24.3% 14.4% 5.4%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 37
Community Survey Condition Satisfaction
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
8.90% 11.80% 22.60% 22.70% 16.90% 10.40% 6.70%
Pollution levels
7.30% 12.50% 25.50% 21.20% 19.50% 9.00% 4.90%
Fish numbers
8.40% 13.40% 20.90% 34.20% 14.80% 5.20% 3.10%
Natural vegetation
5.50% 9.30% 16.80% 21.80% 22.60% 17.90% 6.10%
Overall condition
5.30% 10.50% 18.80% 25.20% 22.00% 13.10% 5.00%
SEQ
Water clarity
6.30% 9.60% 21.80% 27.00% 21.10% 10.50% 3.70%
Pollution levels
6.10% 11.90% 24.60% 28.50% 17.30% 8.90% 2.70%
Fish numbers
5.00% 13.10% 23.10% 36.60% 13.70% 6.10% 2.30%
Natural vegetation
6.10% 11.50% 17.60% 26.70% 19.80% 14.00% 4.30%
Overall condition
4.10% 9.80% 20.50% 28.20% 21.80% 11.90% 3.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 38
8.5.2 Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside
the waterways
The next two questions address waterway usage as determined by conditions for activities on or in the water in the first instance and activities conducted alongside the water in the second instance. This question is only captured using Panel Survey Data. The explanation for the colour coding is presented below:
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
In or on the water
The lead in to this question was:
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
As the table shows condition has a large impact on whether respondents will conduct activities in or on the water. While mud is likely to impact activity usage, pollution has the greater impact with even low levels of pollution having negative impact on activities.
Panel Survey
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 5.7% 4.3% 4.2% 15.1% 13.6% 22.1% 35%
Clear 5.2% 4.3% 5.1% 15.7% 16% 29% 24.7%
Partly muddy
12.5% 11.3% 17.8% 23.8% 20.4% 11.4% 2.9%
Muddy 24.7% 22.2% 19.3% 19.4% 9.1% 4.1% 1.3%
Very muddy
45.2% 18.9% 12% 15.5% 4.7% 2.3% 1.4%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.5% 4.7% 4.6% 14.9% 11.5% 22.2% 36.5%
Low levels of pollution
11.1% 9.1% 11.7% 20.6% 17.6% 21.8% 8.1%
Some pollution
22.5% 16.6% 19.1% 23.1% 12.7% 4.7% 1.4%
Polluted 47% 21.5% 12.2% 12.9% 3.4% 2.3% 0.6%
Very polluted
64.9% 12.1% 6% 11.9% 2.5% 1.6% 1%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 39
Alongside the waterway
This question asked:
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
The results indicate that the condition is not as important for activities conducted alongside waterways in comparison to those in or on the water. Again, muddy water has less of an impact than pollution levels but it is only at the ‘polluted’ and ‘very polluted” that condition really impacts activities alongside the water.
Panel Survey
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.7% 2.6% 3.7% 12.5% 11.6% 22.8% 43.2%
Clear 3.2% 2.9% 3.8% 13.3% 12.8% 28.9% 35.2%
Partly muddy
6.8% 5.2% 10% 20.7% 20.4% 23.5% 13.4%
Muddy 13.4% 12% 14.1% 23.6% 16.2% 13.5% 7.1%
Very muddy
23.7% 13.7% 14.4% 21.5% 11.8% 9.2% 5.7%
Pollution levels
No pollution
3.7% 2.6% 4.2% 13.8% 10.4% 21.4% 43.9%
Low levels of pollution
7% 5.2% 7.6% 18.7% 16.8% 25.4% 19.3%
Some pollution
14.5% 10.3% 16.6% 25.4% 16.5% 11.9% 4.8%
Polluted 31.2% 21.4% 15.9% 17.5% 7.4% 4.7% 1.9%
Very polluted
49.2% 14.5% 10.8% 14.8% 5.2% 3.6% 1.9%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 40
8.5.3 Likelihood of use given waterway condition
Respondents were asked how likely they were to visit or use a local of SEQ waterway when presented with
the following conditions. The conditions were presented as incremental shifts in waterway condition.
Water clarity : Very clear, Clear, Partly muddy, Muddy, Very Muddy
Water pollution: No pollution, low levels of pollution, some pollution, polluted, very polluted A ratio of the unlikely to visit and likely to visit results was calculated, with a score of 1.0 meaning a balanced and equal number of unlikely and likely scores, below 1 indicates they are more unlikely to visit, a score above 1 indicates they are more likely to visit. There is a decreasing chance of visiting or using the water with increases in mud/pollution. As can be seen when the water is very clear and clear there is a much greater possibility of the respondents conducting activities within the water, this drops dramatically when the water becomes muddy with respondents indicating they would not use the water. However when the respondents are alongside the water they are still likely to do this when the water is partly muddy but this drops when the water is deemed muddy. Usage in or on the water and also use near the water will occur when pollution is not present or at low levels. Likelihood of use within the water
Condition Scenario Unlikely Likely Ratio
Water Clarity
Very clear 14.2 70.7 4.98
Clear 14.6 69.7 4.77
Partly muddy 41.6 34.7 0.83
Muddy 66.2 14.5 0.22
Very muddy 76.1 8.4 0.11
Pollution levels
No pollution 14.8 70.2 4.74
Low levels of pollution 31.9 47.5 1.49
Some pollution 58.2 18.8 0.32
Polluted 80.7 6.3 0.08
Very polluted 83 5.1 0.06
Likelihood of use near the water
Condition Scenario Unlikely Likely Ratio
Water Clarity
Very clear 10 77.6 7.76
Clear 9.9 76.9 7.77
Partly muddy 22 57.3 2.60
Muddy 39.5 36.8 0.93
Very muddy 51.8 26.7 0.52
Pollution levels
No pollution 10.5 75.7 7.21
Low levels of pollution 19.8 61.5 3.11
Some pollution 41.4 33.2 0.80
Polluted 68.5 14 0.20
Very polluted 74.5 10.7 0.14
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 41
8.6 Correlations
8.6.1 Satisfaction and nature relatedness
Correlations between satisfaction and nature relatedness showed a strong significant relationship in all but two of the catchments (but these are still significant); however this relationship does differ between catchments. The overall sample suggests that people who feel that nature is important to them are satisfied overall with their local waterway. This implies that to keep the satisfaction levels up for those people using waterways, the importance of nature to their lives should be reinforced. By making this strong association, people are reminded of the importance of nature in their lives and therefore can make the connection with how using the waterways can contribute towards this. Upper Brisbane (0.79) and Tallebudgera (0.78) showed the highest levels of correlation between nature relatedness and satisfaction and Lockyer (0.48) and Stanley (0.54) showed the lowest.
Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction by catchment
Albert 0.712***
Bremer 0.619***
Caboolture 0.669***
Lockyer 0.478***
Logan 0.596***
Lower Brisbane 0.646***
Maroochy 0.683***
Mid Brisbane 0.634**
Mooloolah 0.649***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.594***
Nerang 0.632***
Noosa 0.612***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.579***
Pine 0.657***
Pumicestone 0.618***
Redland 0.702***
Stanley 0.538*
Tallebudgera 0.781***
Upper Brisbane 0.787***
Overall Sample 0.637***
Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 42
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation of Nature Relatedness with Satisfaction by catchment
Upper Brisbane 0.787***
Tallebudgera 0.781***
Albert 0.712***
Redland 0.702***
Maroochy 0.683***
Caboolture 0.669***
Pine 0.657***
Mooloolah 0.649***
Lower Brisbane 0.646***
Overall Sample 0.637***
Mid Brisbane 0.634**
Nerang 0.632***
Bremer 0.619***
Pumicestone 0.618***
Noosa 0.612***
Logan 0.596***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.594***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.579***
Stanley 0.538*
Lockyer 0.478***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 43
8.6.2 Satisfaction and Use
Correlations between satisfaction and people’s use of waterways (frequency and type) showed a clear and significant relationship for all catchment areas. All catchments are significant and are very high, with all but
two being above 0.07 indicating very strong relationships (p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **). This suggests that South East Queensland waterways are able to satisfy a diverse range of users. Noosa catchment shows the highest amount of satisfaction to use relationship (0.91) while Moreton Bay and Islands showed the lowest (0.82) however its high level and significance indicates that those in the catchment still are satisfied with their use of their local waterways.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction
Albert 0.844***
Bremer 0.868***
Caboolture 0.882***
Lockyer 0.88***
Logan 0.876***
Lower Brisbane 0.868***
Maroochy 0.878***
Mid Brisbane 0.825***
Mooloolah 0.858***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.824***
Nerang 0.899***
Noosa 0.912***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.876***
Pine 0.891***
Pumicestone 0.898***
Redland 0.832***
Stanley 0.884***
Tallebudgera 0.908***
Upper Brisbane 0.957***
Overall Sample 0.884***
Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 44
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction
Upper Brisbane 0.957***
Noosa 0.912***
Tallebudgera 0.908***
Nerang 0.899***
Pumicestone 0.898***
Pine 0.891***
Overall Sample 0.884***
Stanley 0.884***
Caboolture 0.882***
Lockyer 0.88***
Maroochy 0.878***
Logan 0.876***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.876***
Lower Brisbane 0.868***
Bremer 0.868***
Mooloolah 0.858***
Albert 0.844***
Redland 0.832***
Mid Brisbane 0.825***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.824***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 45
8.6.3 Satisfaction and accessibility
Correlations between satisfaction and accessibility showed there is a relationship between satisfaction
levels relating to the respondent’s local waterway and their feeling of being able to access their local
waterway. All catchments showed strong significant relationships. Tallebudgera (0.831) showed the
highest levels of satisfaction and the feeling of being able to access their waterway. Stanley showed the
lowest levels (0.586).
Satisfaction and Accessibility by Catchment
Albert 0.783***
Bremer 0.682***
Caboolture 0.692***
Lockyer 0.712***
Logan 0.713***
Lower Brisbane 0.68***
Maroochy 0.783***
Mid Brisbane 0.671***
Mooloolah 0.603***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.718***
Nerang 0.746***
Noosa 0.758***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.653***
Pine 0.72***
Pumicestone 0.734***
Redland 0.685***
Stanley 0.586***
Tallebudgera 0.831***
Upper Brisbane 0.65***
Overall Sample 0.721***
Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 46
The following table indicates this same analysis as above but is presented in the order from highest to lowest.
Correlation Use and Satisfaction
Tallebudgera 0.831***
Maroochy 0.783***
Albert 0.783***
Noosa 0.758***
Nerang 0.746***
Pumicestone 0.734***
Overall Sample 0.721***
Pine 0.72***
Moreton Bay and Island 0.718***
Logan 0.713***
Lockyer 0.712***
Caboolture 0.692***
Redland 0.685***
Bremer 0.682***
Lower Brisbane 0.68***
Mid Brisbane 0.671***
Pimpama-Coomera 0.653***
Upper Brisbane 0.65***
Mooloolah 0.603***
Stanley 0.586***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 47
8.7 Regressions
Multiple regressions were performed for the main variables. Three sets of multiple regressions were preformed against the outcome variables of Overall Satisfaction, Overall Accessibility, and Overall Usability. The first set consisted of the third place variables: Being Away, Compatibility, and Fascination; this was followed by constructs associated with attitudes towards the environment, namely: Nature Relatedness, Integrated belief, Social Value, Stewardship, and Place attachment; and lastly, overall life satisfaction was examined.
Topic Variables Satisfaction Accessibility Usability
Third Place Being Away .097*** .382*** .310***
Compatibility .235*** .069* .264***
Fascination .602*** .304*** .364***
Values and Attitudes towards the environment
Nature Relatedness -.05*** -.018ns -.067***
Integrated belief .182*** .062** .360***
Social Value .125*** .158*** .156***
Stewardship .141*** .283*** .170***
Place attachment .581*** .285*** .375***
Life Satisfaction Life Satisfaction .340*** .277*** .304***
Note: Not significant where p > .05 = ns, significant results where p < .05 = *, p < .01 = **, p < .001 = ***.
The regression results suggests that a feeling of fascination (0.60) and the attachment the respondent feels to a location (Place attachment 0.58) are the most important predictors of overall satisfaction with a local waterway. This suggests that when respondents feel the location provides them with something to explore and the waterway is exciting, and when they feel attached to the waterway they are the most satisfied. The feeling of being away (0.38), or rather escaping from everyday life, is the largest predictor of accessibility of local waterways. This is followed by the fascination (0.30) the respondents had with their local waterway. This suggests perhaps that when respondents were able to gain from using their waterway they felt that it was easy to access and more worth the effort of using it. Place attachment (0.38) featured again as the strongest predictor of usability of the local waterway followed by fascination (0.36) with the waterway. The results also show that life satisfaction contributes to satisfaction (0.34), accessibility (0.28) and usability (0.30) of local waterways.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 48
8.8 Additional Analysis
8.8.1 – Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis is a multivariate technique designed to group objects based on their characteristics (Everitt et al.,
2011). This is a method frequently used for the market segmentation of quantitative data. This research specifically
uses two-step cluster analysis to reveal natural groupings (clusters) within the data (IBM, 2011). The two-step cluster
analysis algorithm allows comparison within the data through standardisation of all of the input variables. This data-
driven method automatically determines the number of clusters present, thereby removing bias caused by a user
selecting a number of clusters a priori. A Two-Step Cluster Analysis was used to assigned participants to groups based
on four important variables. These input variables were: Overall Usage, Place attachment, stewardship, and length of
time living in SEQ. Based on these 4 inputs, 6 clusters were uncovered in the data by the two-step cluster analysis
process.
Input variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Usage 5.84 4.26 4.65 4.75 2.4 4.56
Stewardship 6.34 4.86 5.13 5.25 3.23 5.15
Place attachment 5.94 4.31 4.75 4.81 2.21 4.69
Live in SEQ > 10 years > 10 years 1-3 years 4-6 years > 10 years 7-10 years
Overall, Group 1 and 5 represent the extremes of the group who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years, with group
1 seeming very optimistic and group 5 appearing pessimistic. Group 2 has the most average scores with people living
for more than 10 years in SEQ, these people are almost indifferent. Groups 3, 4, and 6 appear to have similar scores
for usage, stewardship and place attachment but differ on their length of time people have live in SEQ for, 1-3 years,
4-6 years and 7-10 years respectively.
Group 1 (26.1% of the sample) has the highest scores for usage, stewardship, place attachment, and has participants
who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. This group has the highest percentage of retired persons and highest
amount of people with trade as an education. They seem to enjoy life and love their waterways.
Group 2 (31.5% of the sample) has average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has participants
who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. Their mean scores for integrated belief and compatibility are below the
midpoint of 4.0 suggesting they have negative views and that their life and waterway catchment do not overlap.
Group 3 (8.8% of the sample) has slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has
participants who have lived in SEQ for the small amount of time at 1 to 3 years. Compared to other groups this group
has the highest proportion of full time students and unemployed seeking work, suggesting that this group may not
have the resources (time and money) needed to travel to waterways or engage in costly usage activities.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 49
Group 4 (7.5% of the sample) has slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment and has
participants who have lived in SEQ for between 4 and 6 years. Their scores on nature relationship and accessibility are
the second highest out of the clusters.
Group 5 (13.6% of the sample) has the lowest scores for usage, stewardship and place attachment, and has
participants who have lived in SEQ for more than 10 years. Their mean life satisfaction scores is the lowest out of all
the groups but remains positive suggesting that their negative views on waterways could be driven by their world
view on life in general. This group has the highest amount of unemployed not searching for work compared to other
groups, and the highest promotion of high school level educated persons. Their pessimistic life outlook seems to be
spilling over into their views about waterways.
Group 6 (12.5% of the sample) has the slightly above average scores for usage, stewardship, place attachment, and
has participants who have lived in SEQ for between 7 and 10 years. This group has the highest amount of people
working full time, which suggests they could be somewhat time poor.
Profile Key
1 = Positive LONG Long-term optimists
4 = Middle group young Settling in averages
3 = Middle ground brand new Brand new averages
6 =Middle group longer Settled in averages
2 = low but not negative Long Long-term indifferent
5 = negative LONG Long-term pessimists
The statistics for these profiles are presented over the page.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 50
Cluster Analysis Profiling Table Presented in Group Order
Profile variables Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Gender
Male 39.0% 45.0% 38.9% 43.4% 45.1% 46.3%
Female 61.0% 55.0% 61.1% 56.6% 53.9% 53.7%
Education
Primary 1.70% 1.00% 0.40% 3.20% 2.50% 0.80%
H School 30.30% 33.20% 27.60% 27.10% 37.30% 27.50%
Dip / Cert 28.50% 28.20% 28.80% 29.40% 26.30% 28.90%
Trade 10.10% 9.10% 6.60% 4.10% 8.30% 7.70%
Bachelor 21.10% 19.90% 26.50% 27.50% 19.80% 24.20%
Postgrad 8.40% 8.70% 10.10% 8.70% 6.00% 10.70%
Employment
Retired 29.90% 22.70% 16.20% 14.00% 24.90% 13.60%
Carer 3.30% 2.80% 3.50% 3.60% 5.20% 3.50%
FT Student 4.60% 6.40% 15.10% 12.20% 6.70% 7.90%
UE NS 8.30% 6.00% 7.30% 6.80% 10.70% 4.90%
UE S 7.70% 8.80% 12.70% 8.10% 7.50% 16.10%
PT Work 19.60% 21.50% 18.50% 20.80% 17.90% 19.30%
FT Work 26.70% 31.80% 26.60% 34.40% 27.10% 34.60%
Constructs
Nature Relationship 5.96 4.63 4.86 5.02 3.29 4.92
Integrated Belief 5.28 3.53 4.14 4.39 1.75 4.05
Satisfaction 5.81 4.24 4.62 4.79 2.47 4.69
Accessibility 6.19 4.81 4.89 5.03 3.28 4.85
Social Value 5.39 4.20 4.46 4.51 2.32 4.43
Fascination 5.78 4.18 4.55 4.73 2.21 4.58
Being away 6.04 4.30 4.67 4.84 2.15 4.65
Compatibility 5.57 3.84 4.29 4.52 1.94 4.32
Life satisfaction 5.14 4.53 4.72 4.73 4.17 4.66
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 51
Cluster Analysis Profiling Table Presented in Score Order
This table is the same as above but the groups are arranged with the highest construct scores on the left and the
lowest construct scores on the right.
Profile variables Group 1 Group 4 Group 3 Group 6 Group 2 Group 5
Gender
Male 39.00% 43.40% 38.90% 46.30% 45.00% 45.10%
Female 61.00% 56.60% 61.10% 53.70% 55.00% 53.90%
Education
Primary 1.70% 3.20% 0.40% 0.80% 1.00% 2.50%
H School 30.30% 27.10% 27.60% 27.50% 33.20% 37.30%
Dip / Cert 28.50% 29.40% 28.80% 28.90% 28.20% 26.30%
Trade 10.10% 4.10% 6.60% 7.70% 9.10% 8.30%
Bachelor 21.10% 27.50% 26.50% 24.20% 19.90% 19.80%
Postgrad 8.40% 8.70% 10.10% 10.70% 8.70% 6.00%
Employment
Retired 29.90% 14.00% 16.20% 13.60% 22.70% 24.90%
Carer 3.30% 3.60% 3.50% 3.50% 2.80% 5.20%
FT Student 4.60% 12.20% 15.10% 7.90% 6.40% 6.70%
UE NS 8.30% 6.80% 7.30% 4.90% 6.00% 10.70%
UE S 7.70% 8.10% 12.70% 16.10% 8.80% 7.50%
PT Work 19.60% 20.80% 18.50% 19.30% 21.50% 17.90%
FT Work 26.70% 34.40% 26.60% 34.60% 31.80% 27.10%
Constructs
Nature Relationship 5.96 5.02 4.86 4.92 4.63 3.29
Integrated Belief 5.28 4.39 4.14 4.05 3.53 1.75
Satisfaction 5.81 4.79 4.62 4.69 4.24 2.47
Accessibility 6.19 5.03 4.89 4.85 4.81 3.28
Social Value 5.39 4.51 4.46 4.43 4.2 2.32
Fascination 5.78 4.73 4.55 4.58 4.18 2.21
Being away 6.04 4.84 4.67 4.65 4.3 2.15
Compatibility 5.57 4.52 4.29 4.32 3.84 1.94
Life satisfaction 5.14 4.73 4.72 4.66 4.53 4.17
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 52
8.8.2 – Overall Life Satisfaction
Overall life satisfaction significantly predicts all of the usability questions. Those respondents who score
highly on the life satisfaction index are also likely to find their waterways easy to use.
Questions Pearson Correlation with well-being
index
Significance level
I get a lot out of using my local waterways
.247 .000***
I would like to use my local waterways more often
.204 .000***
I find my local waterways easy to use
.297 .000***
It doesn’t take much effort to use my local waterways
.276 .000***
Overall life satisfaction also shows that it is significantly and positively related to each of the waterway
conditions with satisfaction being shown at both the local and SEQ levels.
Level Questions Pearson Correlation with well-being
index
Significance level
Local
Water Clarity .307 .000***
Pollution levels .287 .000***
Fish Number .266 .000***
Amount of natural vegetation .320 .000***
Overall condition .319 .000***
SEQ
Water Clarity .294 .000***
Pollution levels .288 .000***
Fish Number .263 .000***
Amount of natural vegetation .320 .000***
Overall condition .314 .000***
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 53
8.8.3 – Industry Stewards
The table below outlines the industries where the respondents indicated they were employed and the
scores the respondents indicated for all of the key constructs. Interestingly those employed in
property and business services indicated the highest scores over all as a group and those employed in
cultural and recreational services scored the lowest as a group.
NR Integ Sat Acc Use Soci Stew Fasc Away Com Life Place
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing
5.06 3.87 4.41 4.66 4.39 4.06 5.05 4.40 4.33 4.14 4.72 4.41
Mining 4.84 4.04 4.63 5.19 4.56 4.51 5.00 4.43 4.78 4.18 4.77 4.52
Manufacturing 4.79 3.90 4.48 4.92 4.48 4.11 5.07 4.27 4.47 4.13 4.56 4.50
Electricity, Gas, Water Supply
4.33 3.86 4.25 4.84 4.39 4.10 4.66 4.09 4.23 3.89 4.67 4.17
Construction Development
4.84 4.09 4.61 5.13 4.66 4.35 5.05 4.60 4.72 4.34 4.66 4.64
Wholesale Trade 4.79 4.02 4.56 4.99 4.57 4.47 5.23 4.41 4.68 4.20 4.62 4.52
Retail Trade 4.82 3.72 4.48 4.86 4.45 4.35 5.08 4.40 4.45 4.04 4.60 4.53
Hospitality & Tourism
4.86 3.97 4.55 5.00 4.57 4.42 5.10 4.51 4.65 4.25 4.59 4.59
Transport & Storage
4.72 3.88 4.54 4.98 4.55 4.27 5.08 4.44 4.63 4.12 4.76 4.62
Communication Services
4.78 4.09 4.66 5.09 4.59 4.39 5.02 4.52 4.55 4.23 4.95 4.76
Finance & Insurance
4.89 3.87 4.40 4.95 4.44 4.30 5.15 4.31 4.52 4.13 4.84 4.46
Property & Business Services
5.32 4.54 5.14 5.51 5.02 4.94 5.63 5.10 5.15 4.76 4.91 5.16
Government Administration & Defence
4.89 3.93 4.57 5.01 4.56 4.35 5.17 4.48 4.56 4.19 4.75 4.58
Education 5.05 4.03 4.65 5.10 4.62 4.48 5.28 4.61 4.73 4.33 4.77 4.73
Health & Community Services
5.06 4.09 4.65 5.13 4.68 4.40 5.31 4.54 4.74 4.31 4.85 4.68
Cultural & Recreational Services
4.60 3.54 4.18 4.61 4.28 3.98 4.64 4.14 4.07 3.85 3.91 4.11
Personal & Other Services
4.67 3.72 4.41 4.81 4.35 4.18 4.79 4.20 4.35 4.06 4.47 4.47
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 54
8.8.4 – Stewardship behaviour
The following analysis explored the relationship between whether respondents indicated that they were
aware and involved in activities relating to waterway protection and their actual behaviour when it came to
waterway protection.
Only weed removal, monitoring, and rubbish clean-up had a statistically significant link with the
stewardship construct. The Pearson correlation for these protection activities was positive, suggesting that
as the construct increases so too does the activity. Native tree planting and Erosion control were not
statistically significant; this could be due to the higher level of coordination required to conduct these
activities and a low amount of people actively engaging with these protection behaviours.
Questions Pearson Correlation with Stewardship
protection
Significance level
Weed removal/control .050 .007**
Native tree planting -.004 .817ns
Monitoring .072 .000***
Rubbish clean up .192 .000***
Erosion control -.031 .101ns
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the stewardship construct with each of the
protection activities (the results of this are shown over the page). The results, similar to the Pearson
correlation, showed time planting (p = .218) and erosion control (p = .235) not to be significant, but weed
removal (p = .04), time monitoring (p = .000), and rubbish clean up (p = .000) were significant (asterisks in
graph show significant protection activities). Graphing the descriptive mean scores (solid lines) and adding
a trend line (dotted lines) show that for the significant protection activities as time spent on the activity
increases so does the stewardship construct. Whereas for the non-significant protection activities, the
trend line is either horizontal or slight downward sloping.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 55
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
0 hours 1-5 hours 5-10 hours 10-20 hours 20-30 hours More than 30hours
Weed removal* Time planting Monitoring*
Rubbish clean up* Erosion Control Linear (Weed removal*)
Linear (Time planting) Linear (Monitoring*) Linear (Rubbish clean up*)
Linear (Erosion Control)
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 56
9. Catchment Reporting
The following section contains analysis of individual catchment areas under investigation. While some
catchment level reporting has been done in the main report (section 8), the following sections contain
individual catchment analysis contains tables on the following items:
Demographics
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways
Use and frequency of activities
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 57
9.1 Albert Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 20 54.1
Female 17 45.9
Total 37 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 2 5.4
High School 12 32.4
Diploma or Cert 13 35.1
Apprenticeship or trade cert 4 10.8
Bachelor degree 6 16.2
Postgraduate degree 0 0.0
Total 37 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 0 0.0
1-3 years 5 13.5
4-6 years 6 16.2
7-10 years 1 2.7
More than 10 years 25 67.6
Total 37 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 13 35.1
Carer 3 8.1
Full time student 1 2.7
Unemployed and not seeking work 1 2.7
Unemployed and seeking work 1 2.7
Part time employee 7 18.9
Full time work 11 29.7
Total 37 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 58
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 2.7
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 3 8.1
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 2 5.4
Construction and Development 0 0.0
Wholesale Trade 2 5.4
Retail Trade 7 18.9
Hospitality and Tourism 1 2.7
Transport and Storage 3 8.1
Communication Services 0 0.0
Finance and Insurance 1 2.7
Property and Business Services 0 0.0
Government Administration and Defence 3 8.1
Education 2 5.4
Health and Community Services 4 10.8
Cultural and Recreational Services 1 2.7
Personal and Other Services 0 0.0
I have not worked 1 2.7
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 4 10.8
Other 2 5.4
Total 37 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 3 8.1
$25,001-$50,000 11 29.7
$50,001-$75,000 8 21.6
$75,001-$100,000 5 13.5
$100,001-$150,000 6 16.2
$150,001-$200,000 1 2.7
Prefer not to say 3 8.1
Total 37 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 83.8% 10.8% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 6 43 7.12
Native tree planting 91.9% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 3 53 17.50
Monitoring 89.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 4 50 12.55
Rubbish clean-up 73.0% 18.9% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 10 65 6.52
Erosion control 86.5% 8.1% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 5 40 8.04
Other 86.2% 0.0% 6.9% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 4 55 13.85
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 59
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Albert
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
16.2 18.9 8.1 29.7 16.2 10.8 0
Pollution levels
13.5 10.8 18.9 24.3 24.3 8.1 0
Fish numbers
8.1 13.5 10.8 32.4 27 5.4 2.7
Natural vegetation
2.7 16.2 5.4 32.4 32.4 10.8 0
Overall condition
2.7 21.6 10.8 21.6 35.1 8.1 0
SEQ
Water clarity
2.7 16.2 16.2 40.5 13.5 10.8 0
Pollution levels
0 10.8 24.3 29.7 29.7 5.4 0
Fish numbers
2.7 10.8 13.5 35.1 24.3 13.5 0
Natural vegetation
0 13.5 8.1 24.3 40.5 13.5 0
Overall condition
2.7 5.4 16.2 32.4 29.7 10.8 2.7
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 60
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways - Albert
In the water usage - Albert
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
With same colouring style as satisfaction and condition table above, so green means good, red means bad.
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 2.70% 5.40% 2.70% 24.30% 10.80% 29.70% 24.30%
Clear 2.70% 5.40% 8.10% 24.30% 16.20% 29.70% 13.50%
Partly muddy
18.90% 13.50% 16.20% 24.30% 24.30% 2.70% 0.00%
Muddy 32.40% 16.20% 18.90% 29.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very muddy
43.20% 16.20% 18.90% 21.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
2.70% 10.80% 2.70% 24.30% 5.40% 32.40% 21.60%
Low levels of pollution
16.20% 13.50% 13.50% 29.70% 13.50% 8.10% 5.40%
Some pollution
37.80% 16.20% 13.50% 27.00% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00%
Polluted 54.10% 21.60% 8.10% 16.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
64.90% 13.50% 10.80% 10.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 61
Near the water usage – Albert
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 5.40% 0.00% 5.40% 16.20% 13.50% 24.30% 35.10%
Clear 5.40% 0.00% 5.40% 16.20% 16.20% 24.30% 32.40%
Partly muddy
16.20% 0.00% 8.10% 18.90% 13.50% 35.10% 8.10%
Muddy 18.90% 8.10% 10.80% 21.60% 13.50% 18.90% 8.10%
Very muddy
24.30% 8.10% 16.20% 13.50% 18.90% 10.80% 8.10%
Pollution levels
No pollution
8.10% 2.70% 5.40% 21.60% 10.80% 16.20% 35.10%
Low levels of pollution
10.80% 2.70% 8.10% 24.30% 10.80% 24.30% 18.90%
Some pollution
16.20% 5.40% 21.60% 29.70% 8.10% 16.20% 2.70%
Polluted 24.30% 21.60% 16.20% 24.30% 10.80% 0.00% 2.70%
Very polluted
43.20% 10.80% 18.90% 16.20% 8.10% 0.00% 2.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 62
Use and frequency of activities – Albert
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek, river,
beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 2.71% 8.11% 5.40% 0.00% 83.8%
Walking, running 0.00% 2.71% 8.12% 10.82% 8.12% 0.00% 70.3%
Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.41% 2.70% 0.00% 91.9%
Cycling 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.6%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.41% 5.41% 0.00% 89.2%
Recreational fishing 2.71% 0.00% 2.71% 8.11% 2.71% 0.00% 83.8%
Boating, sailing 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 89.2%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 91.9%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 97.3%
Enjoying nature 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 2.70% 10.81% 2.70% 78.4%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 97.3%
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 97.3%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 63
9.2 Bremer Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 45 36.3
Female 79 63.7
Total 124 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 6 4.8
High School 36 28.8
Diploma or Cert 38 30.4
Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 8.8
Bachelor degree 23 18.4
Postgraduate degree 9 7.2
Other Qualification 2 1.6
Total 125 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 4 3.2
1-3 years 9 7.2
4-6 years 8 6.4
7-10 years 6 4.8
More than 10 years 98 78.4
Total 125 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 28 22.4
Carer 6 4.8
Full time student 6 4.8
Unemployed and not seeking work 17 13.6
Unemployed and seeking work 16 12.8
Part time employee 22 17.6
Full time work 30 24.0
Total 125 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 64
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 .8
Mining 2 1.6
Manufacturing 3 2.4
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 2.4
Construction and Development 7 5.6
Wholesale Trade 2 1.6
Retail Trade 13 10.4
Hospitality and Tourism 8 6.4
Transport and Storage 7 5.6
Communication Services 1 .8
Finance and Insurance 2 1.6
Property and Business Services 1 .8
Government Administration and Defence 14 11.2
Education 8 6.4
Health and Community Services 13 10.4
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 5 4.0
I have not worked 12 9.6
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 10 8.0
Other 13 10.4
Total 125 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 18 14.4
$25,001-$50,000 29 23.2
$50,001-$75,000 24 19.2
$75,001-$100,000 16 12.8
$100,001-$150,000 12 9.6
$150,001-$200,000 3 2.4
Over $200,000 5 4.0
Prefer not to say 18 14.4
Total 125 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 85.6% 12.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 18 85 4.73
Native tree planting 89.6% 8.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 13 50 3.86
Monitoring 85.6% 8.0% 2.4% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8% 18 148 8.23
Rubbish clean-up 68.0% 21.6% 8.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 40 210 5.24
Erosion control 92.8% 4.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9 53 5.86
Other 95.7% 3.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4 23 5.63
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 65
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Bremer
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
17.6 12.8 18.4 25.6 16 7.2 2.4
Pollution levels
16.8 10.4 20.8 26.4 13.6 10.4 1.6
Fish numbers
14.4 11.2 22.4 29.6 15.2 5.6 1.6
Natural vegetation
7.2 8 16.8 24.8 19.2 19.2 4.8
Overall condition
12 8 18.4 25.6 19.2 10.4 6.4
SEQ
Water clarity
10.4 8.8 22.4 21.6 24 8.8 4
Pollution levels
8.8 12 20.8 26.4 18.4 9.6 4
Fish numbers
8.8 9.6 25.6 29.6 18.4 4.8 3.2
Natural vegetation
4 8 20 28 25.6 9.6 4.8
Overall condition
7.2 4.8 19.2 32.8 16 14.4 5.6
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 66
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Bremer
In the water usage - Bremer
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 8.00% 4.00% 3.20% 15.20% 12.80% 20.00% 36.80%
Clear 7.20% 4.00% 4.80% 12.80% 17.60% 28.80% 24.80%
Partly muddy
14.40% 15.20% 18.40% 20.80% 22.40% 5.60% 3.20%
Muddy 32.80% 21.60% 20.80% 16.80% 4.00% 2.40% 1.60%
Very muddy
52.00% 23.20% 7.20% 14.40% 0.80% 0.00% 2.40%
Pollution levels
No pollution
6.40% 4.80% 3.20% 15.20% 12.00% 20.80% 37.60%
Low levels of pollution
13.60% 14.40% 10.40% 20.00% 12.00% 20.00% 9.60%
Some pollution
24.00% 22.40% 14.40% 25.60% 7.20% 4.00% 2.40%
Polluted 58.40% 18.40% 8.00% 12.00% 1.60% 0.00% 1.60%
Very polluted
72.80% 9.60% 3.20% 12.00% 0.80% 0.00% 1.60%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 67
Near the water usage – Bremer
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 5.60% 1.60% 4.00% 11.20% 11.20% 18.40% 48.00%
Clear 4.80% 2.40% 4.00% 12.00% 13.60% 21.60% 41.60%
Partly muddy
6.40% 9.60% 9.60% 20.80% 18.40% 20.80% 14.40%
Muddy 19.20% 10.40% 16.00% 19.20% 11.20% 20.00% 4.00%
Very muddy
27.20% 14.40% 12.80% 20.80% 11.20% 10.40% 3.20%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.80% 4.00% 0.80% 12.00% 10.40% 16.00% 52.00%
Low levels of pollution
6.40% 9.60% 6.40% 16.00% 18.40% 20.80% 22.40%
Some pollution
19.20% 12.00% 16.00% 26.40% 12.80% 11.20% 2.40%
Polluted 40.00% 18.40% 20.00% 13.60% 2.40% 4.80% 0.80%
Very polluted
59.20% 19.20% 3.20% 11.20% 3.20% 3.20% 0.80%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 68
Use and frequency of activities – Bremer
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 3.19% 13.59% 13.59% 0.00% 69.6%
Walking, running 4.00% 6.38% 1.61% 10.42% 11.19% 0.00% 66.4%
Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 5.60% 0.80% 91.2%
Cycling 0.00% 2.40% 1.60% 1.60% 0.00% 0.00% 94.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.80% 0.80% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 97.6%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 98.4%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.60% 0.80% 4.80% 1.60% 0.80% 90.4%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.20% 0.00% 95.2%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 2.40% 0.00% 96.0%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 0.00% 3.99% 2.41% 9.60% 8.80% 0.00% 75.2%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 93.6%
Other 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 69
9.3 Caboolture Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 83 43.2
Female 109 56.8
Total 192 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 2 1.0
High School 73 37.8
Diploma or Cert 57 29.5
Apprenticeship or trade cert 15 7.8
Bachelor degree 33 17.1
Postgraduate degree 13 6.7
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 193 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 3 1.6
1-3 years 15 7.8
4-6 years 9 4.7
7-10 years 22 11.4
More than 10 years 144 74.6
Total 193 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 49 25.4
Carer 12 6.2
Full time student 13 6.7
Unemployed and not seeking work 16 8.3
Unemployed and seeking work 13 6.7
Part time employee 35 18.1
Full time work 55 28.5
Total 193 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 70
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 4 2.1
Mining 6 3.1
Manufacturing 4 2.1
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 1.6
Construction and Development 4 2.1
Wholesale Trade 5 2.6
Retail Trade 32 16.6
Hospitality and Tourism 12 6.2
Transport and Storage 5 2.6
Communication Services 2 1.0
Finance and Insurance 5 2.6
Property and Business Services 5 2.6
Government Administration and Defence 10 5.2
Education 13 6.7
Health and Community Services 15 7.8
Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1.0
Personal and Other Services 8 4.1
I have not worked 13 6.7
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 22 11.4
Other 23 11.9
Total 193 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 21 10.9
$25,001-$50,000 59 30.6
$50,001-$75,000 28 14.5
$75,001-$100,000 26 13.5
$100,001-$150,000 24 12.4
$150,001-$200,000 9 4.7
Over $200,000 0 0.0
Prefer not to say 26 13.5
Total 193 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 89.1% 7.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 21 133 6.34
Native tree planting 90.2% 5.7% 2.1% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 19 143 7.54
Monitoring 83.4% 8.3% 3.6% 2.6% 0.5% 1.6% 32 284 8.87
Rubbish clean-up 65.3% 22.8% 6.7% 3.1% 1.0% 1.0% 67 410 6.12
Erosion control 92.7% 4.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 14 120 8.60
Other 96.6% 0.7% 1.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 5 58 11.58
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 71
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Caboolture
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
6.7 10.9 13 37.3 16.1 11.4 4.7
Pollution levels
6.2 10.4 21.8 25.9 20.7 10.4 4.7
Fish numbers
5.2 12.4 19.7 35.8 16.6 7.3 3.1
Natural vegetation
2.6 4.7 11.9 30.6 25.9 17.1 7.3
Overall condition
3.6 8.8 11.9 33.2 25.4 13 4.1
SEQ
Water clarity
4.7 7.8 17.1 35.8 21.8 10.4 2.6
Pollution levels
3.6 10.9 21.2 29.5 20.7 10.9 3.1
Fish numbers
4.1 13 16.1 35.8 21.2 6.7 3.1
Natural vegetation
3.1 5.7 13 32.6 22.8 16.6 6.2
Overall condition
4.1 7.3 14 30.6 23.8 17.6 2.6
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 72
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Caboolture
In the water usage - Caboolture
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 6.70% 4.70% 3.10% 12.40% 13.50% 28.50% 31.10%
Clear 6.20% 4.10% 5.70% 14.50% 15.00% 32.60% 21.80%
Partly muddy
9.80% 17.10% 13.00% 23.30% 22.30% 11.90% 2.60%
Muddy 19.70% 28.00% 19.20% 18.70% 10.40% 2.60% 1.60%
Very muddy
46.60% 18.70% 10.40% 16.10% 5.20% 2.10% 1.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
7.30% 4.70% 3.10% 13.00% 10.90% 25.90% 35.20%
Low levels of pollution
12.40% 11.90% 9.30% 20.70% 16.60% 21.80% 7.30%
Some pollution
22.30% 18.10% 20.70% 22.30% 13.00% 3.10% 0.50%
Polluted 47.70% 24.40% 10.40% 15.00% 1.60% 1.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
65.80% 15.00% 4.70% 11.90% 2.10% 0.00% 0.50%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 73
Near the water usage – Caboolture
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 5.70% 2.10% 2.60% 11.40% 10.90% 21.80% 45.60%
Clear 4.70% 2.60% 2.10% 13.00% 13.00% 27.50% 37.30%
Partly muddy
7.80% 5.70% 8.80% 17.60% 22.30% 21.80% 16.10%
Muddy 13.00% 13.00% 14.00% 21.20% 15.50% 16.60% 6.70%
Very muddy
26.90% 9.80% 10.40% 22.30% 14.00% 9.80% 6.70%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.70% 2.60% 2.60% 13.00% 11.90% 19.20% 46.10%
Low levels of pollution
8.30% 5.20% 5.70% 19.70% 17.10% 26.40% 17.60%
Some pollution
15.50% 11.40% 14.50% 24.90% 13.50% 14.50% 5.70%
Polluted 34.20% 22.30% 14.50% 15.50% 6.70% 5.20% 1.60%
Very polluted
50.80% 14.00% 11.90% 11.90% 6.70% 2.60% 2.10%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 74
Use and frequency of activities – Caboolture
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 1.03% 3.64% 12.95% 19.17% 0.00% 63.2%
Walking, running 6.23% 8.81% 6.73% 12.96% 11.39% 0.00% 53.9%
Swimming 0.00% 1.03% 2.59% 5.70% 3.11% 0.00% 87.6%
Cycling 1.04% 1.55% 0.52% 1.55% 0.52% 0.00% 94.8%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 1.56% 1.56% 0.00% 96.4%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4%
Camping 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 0.52% 1.55% 0.00% 96.9%
Recreational fishing 0.51% 2.08% 5.71% 5.18% 4.14% 0.00% 82.4%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 2.07% 1.55% 0.52% 95.3%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 1.04% 3.11% 0.52% 93.8%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 97.9%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 3.12% 6.73% 5.17% 7.25% 8.28% 0.00% 69.4%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 99.0%
Other 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 0.00% 97.9%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 75
9.4 Lockyer Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 38 44.7
Female 47 55.3
Total 85 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 3 3.4
High School 23 26.4
Diploma or Cert 29 33.3
Apprenticeship or trade cert 9 10.3
Bachelor degree 16 18.4
Postgraduate degree 6 6.9
Other Qualification 1 1.1
Total 87 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 1 1.1
1-3 years 4 4.6
4-6 years 3 3.4
7-10 years 12 13.8
More than 10 years 67 77.0
Total 87 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 26 29.9
Carer 2 2.3
Full time student 5 5.7
Unemployed and not seeking work 9 10.3
Unemployed and seeking work 12 13.8
Part time employee 16 18.4
Full time work 17 19.5
Total 87 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 76
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.1
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 3 3.4
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 1.1
Construction and Development 4 4.6
Wholesale Trade 1 1.1
Retail Trade 7 8.0
Hospitality and Tourism 4 4.6
Transport and Storage 3 3.4
Communication Services 2 2.3
Finance and Insurance 4 4.6
Property and Business Services 0 0.0
Government Administration and Defence 4 4.6
Education 11 12.6
Health and Community Services 11 12.6
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 1 1.1
I have not worked 8 9.2
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 11 12.6
Other 11 12.6
Total 87 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 9 10.3
$25,001-$50,000 23 26.4
$50,001-$75,000 18 20.7
$75,001-$100,000 11 12.6
$100,001-$150,000 7 8.0
$150,001-$200,000 3 3.4
Over $200,000 1 1.1
Prefer not to say 15 17.2
Total 87 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 82.8% 9.2% 4.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 15 121 8.05
Native tree planting 90.8% 5.7% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 43 5.36
Monitoring 86.2% 4.6% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 2.3% 12 138 11.51
Rubbish clean-up 67.8% 18.4% 4.6% 4.6% 2.3% 2.3% 28 241 8.60
Erosion control 90.8% 5.7% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 8 83 10.31
Other 95.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3 40 13.40
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 77
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lockyer
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
12.6 6.9 20.7 29.9 14.9 10.3 4.6
Pollution levels
12.6 6.9 19.5 25.3 17.2 12.6 5.7
Fish numbers
16.1 8 17.2 35.6 12.6 6.9 3.4
Natural vegetation
10.3 5.7 16.1 25.3 20.7 12.6 9.2
Overall condition
10.3 4.6 19.5 26.4 23 12.6 3.4
SEQ
Water clarity
4.6 11.5 13.8 36.8 17.2 10.3 5.7
Pollution levels
5.7 8 16.1 29.9 20.7 13.8 5.7
Fish numbers
5.7 11.5 12.6 37.9 17.2 9.2 5.7
Natural vegetation
4.6 12.6 13.8 27.6 23 11.5 6.9
Overall condition
5.7 8 12.6 35.6 20.7 12.6 4.6
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 78
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lockyer
In the water usage – Lockyer
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 9.20% 6.90% 2.30% 19.50% 12.60% 12.60% 36.80%
Clear 10.30% 6.90% 1.10% 19.50% 13.80% 18.40% 29.90%
Partly muddy
16.10% 11.50% 14.90% 19.50% 21.80% 14.90% 1.10%
Muddy 28.70% 18.40% 20.70% 14.90% 12.60% 4.60% 0.00%
Very muddy
49.40% 17.20% 6.90% 17.20% 4.60% 3.40% 1.10%
Pollution levels
No pollution
9.20% 8.00% 2.30% 20.70% 8.00% 14.90% 36.80%
Low levels of pollution
14.90% 10.30% 10.30% 20.70% 14.90% 19.50% 9.20%
Some pollution
27.60% 16.10% 20.70% 19.50% 6.90% 8.00% 1.10%
Polluted 49.40% 23.00% 10.30% 10.30% 5.70% 1.10% 0.00%
Very polluted
66.70% 14.90% 2.30% 11.50% 2.30% 2.30% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 79
Near the water usage – Lockyer
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 9.20% 4.60% 0.00% 18.40% 4.60% 24.10% 39.10%
Clear 8.00% 4.60% 1.10% 18.40% 5.70% 26.40% 35.60%
Partly muddy
10.30% 5.70% 5.70% 25.30% 14.90% 25.30% 12.60%
Muddy 16.10% 12.60% 10.30% 25.30% 16.10% 16.10% 3.40%
Very muddy
29.90% 11.50% 9.20% 28.70% 6.90% 11.50% 2.30%
Pollution levels
No pollution
8.00% 4.60% 2.30% 19.50% 5.70% 18.40% 41.40%
Low levels of pollution
13.80% 4.60% 8.00% 19.50% 14.90% 19.50% 19.50%
Some pollution
26.40% 6.90% 12.60% 23.00% 16.10% 13.80% 1.10%
Polluted 41.40% 18.40% 10.30% 19.50% 6.90% 3.40% 0.00%
Very polluted
55.20% 12.60% 5.70% 21.80% 1.10% 3.40% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 80
Use and frequency of activities – Lockyer
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 0.00% 1.14% 4.60% 19.54% 1.14% 73.6%
Walking, running 4.60% 5.74% 1.14% 3.44% 9.20% 2.30% 73.6%
Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.45% 0.00% 94.3%
Cycling 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 2.30% 0.00% 0.00% 95.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 97.7%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 98.9%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.45% 0.00% 94.3%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 4.59% 1.15% 92.0%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 96.6%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 2.30% 0.00% 96.6%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 98.9%
Enjoying nature 2.30% 3.45% 2.30% 8.05% 6.90% 0.00% 77.0%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 0.00% 98.9%
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 81
9.5 Logan Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 127 39.8
Female 192 60.2
Total 319 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 7 2.2
High School 120 37.5
Diploma or Cert 92 28.7
Apprenticeship or trade cert 32 10.0
Bachelor degree 58 18.1
Postgraduate degree 9 2.8
Other Qualification 2 0.6
Total 320 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 10 3.1
1-3 years 27 8.4
4-6 years 23 7.2
7-10 years 26 8.1
More than 10 years 234 73.1
Total 320 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 68 21.3
Carer 16 5.0
Full time student 19 5.9
Unemployed and not seeking work 28 8.8
Unemployed and seeking work 43 13.4
Part time employee 62 19.4
Full time work 84 26.3
Total 320 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 82
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 7 2.2
Mining 2 .6
Manufacturing 19 5.9
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 6 1.9
Construction and Development 18 5.6
Wholesale Trade 8 2.5
Retail Trade 34 10.6
Hospitality and Tourism 19 5.9
Transport and Storage 16 5.0
Communication Services 8 2.5
Finance and Insurance 12 3.8
Property and Business Services 7 2.2
Government Administration and Defence 16 5.0
Education 15 4.7
Health and Community Services 31 9.7
Cultural and Recreational Services 2 .6
Personal and Other Services 9 2.8
I have not worked 36 11.3
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 33 10.3
Other 22 6.9
Total 320 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 42 13.1
$25,001-$50,000 64 20.0
$50,001-$75,000 53 16.6
$75,001-$100,000 46 14.4
$100,001-$150,000 50 15.6
$150,001-$200,000 10 3.1
Over $200,000 4 1.3
Prefer not to say 51 15.9
Total 320 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 85.0% 10.3% 1.9% 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 48 314 6.54
Native tree planting 90.0% 4.7% 1.9% 2.5% 0.6% 0.3% 32 284 8.87
Monitoring 85.0% 7.5% 3.8% 1.3% 1.6% 0.9% 48 427 8.90
Rubbish clean-up 70.0% 20.3% 5.0% 3.4% 0.6% 0.6% 96 561 5.84
Erosion control 90.3% 5.0% 1.9% 2.5% 0.3% 0.0% 31 231 7.46
Other 91.8% 2.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.9% 19 192 10.08
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 83
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Logan
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
13.4 13.1 17.5 32.8 15.3 5.9 1.9
Pollution levels
12.2 13.8 17.8 31.3 15.3 6.6 3.1
Fish numbers
9.7 10.9 20.9 40 11.9 5 1.6
Natural vegetation
5.9 6.3 14.7 34.7 22.2 11.3 5
Overall condition
8.8 7.5 18.4 32.5 20.6 8.4 3.8
SEQ
Water clarity
9.4 8.1 16.3 36.6 17.5 9.7 2.5
Pollution levels
10 10.9 20.3 31.3 17.2 7.2 3.1
Fish numbers
8.4 9.4 18.1 39.1 16.9 7.2 0.9
Natural vegetation
7.8 6.3 15.3 34.4 20.6 11.9 3.8
Overall condition
8.8 6.3 15.3 35.9 18.8 11.3 3.8
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 84
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Logan
In the water usage – Logan
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 8.40% 4.10% 3.80% 17.20% 7.80% 25.30% 33.40%
Clear 7.50% 4.10% 4.70% 18.80% 10.60% 32.50% 21.90%
Partly muddy
16.60% 7.50% 16.30% 25.00% 18.40% 10.90% 5.30%
Muddy 26.30% 18.10% 20.30% 20.90% 7.80% 4.70% 1.90%
Very muddy
43.40% 20.60% 11.90% 15.30% 4.70% 1.30% 2.80%
Pollution levels
No pollution
6.90% 5.00% 4.10% 16.60% 8.80% 20.30% 38.40%
Low levels of pollution
14.70% 10.00% 10.60% 20.00% 14.70% 21.60% 8.40%
Some pollution
24.70% 15.90% 19.10% 21.90% 13.10% 3.40% 1.90%
Polluted 48.80% 20.60% 9.70% 15.30% 3.10% 0.60% 1.90%
Very polluted
65.30% 12.20% 7.20% 10.60% 1.30% 1.30% 2.20%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 85
Near the water usage – Logan
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 4.40% 2.80% 3.10% 13.80% 13.40% 19.70% 42.80%
Clear 4.10% 2.80% 2.80% 15.00% 14.40% 26.60% 34.40%
Partly muddy
7.20% 3.80% 10.30% 22.20% 19.40% 22.80% 14.40%
Muddy 13.40% 14.40% 11.90% 26.30% 18.10% 9.10% 6.90%
Very muddy
24.70% 15.60% 13.40% 22.80% 11.60% 7.20% 4.70%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.70% 2.20% 3.10% 14.40% 11.60% 18.40% 45.60%
Low levels of pollution
8.40% 4.70% 6.60% 19.70% 14.10% 25.90% 20.60%
Some pollution
14.70% 12.50% 15.90% 23.80% 17.50% 10.30% 5.30%
Polluted 30.30% 25.00% 12.20% 18.40% 7.20% 4.40% 2.50%
Very polluted
53.40% 12.50% 8.80% 15.30% 4.10% 3.80% 2.20%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 86
Use and frequency of activities – Logan
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.32% 0.95% 2.81% 8.12% 10.31% 0.00% 77.5%
Walking, running 4.39% 8.74% 5.94% 6.89% 7.80% 0.00% 66.3%
Swimming 0.00% 0.94% 0.62% 2.81% 3.13% 0.00% 92.5%
Cycling 0.62% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% 0.00% 94.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.00% 98.1%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 98.1%
Camping 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 1.56% 0.31% 0.31% 97.2%
Recreational fishing 0.32% 0.94% 1.56% 4.38% 5.00% 0.00% 87.8%
Boating, sailing 0.31% 0.00% 0.94% 1.25% 2.81% 0.00% 94.7%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.31% 0.31% 0.63% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 98.4%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 99.4%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 99.7%
Enjoying nature 2.50% 4.37% 2.80% 4.69% 5.32% 0.63% 79.7%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.31% 1.25% 1.56% 2.50% 0.31% 94.1%
Other 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.31% 98.1%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 87
9.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 372 47.4
Female 413 52.6
Total 785 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 8 1.0
High School 193 24.5
Diploma or Cert 188 23.8
Apprenticeship or trade cert 50 6.3
Bachelor degree 241 30.5
Postgraduate degree 106 13.4
Other Qualification 3 0.4
Total 789 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 37 4.7
1-3 years 68 8.6
4-6 years 61 7.7
7-10 years 63 8.0
More than 10 years 560 71.0
Total 789 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 118 15.0
Carer 23 2.9
Full time student 89 11.3
Unemployed and not seeking work 46 5.8
Unemployed and seeking work 79 10.0
Part time employee 158 20.0
Full time work 276 35.0
Total 789 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 88
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 6 .8
Mining 6 .8
Manufacturing 17 2.2
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 15 1.9
Construction and Development 30 3.8
Wholesale Trade 14 1.8
Retail Trade 78 9.9
Hospitality and Tourism 59 7.5
Transport and Storage 40 5.1
Communication Services 18 2.3
Finance and Insurance 42 5.3
Property and Business Services 16 2.0
Government Administration and Defence 58 7.4
Education 73 9.3
Health and Community Services 63 8.0
Cultural and Recreational Services 8 1.0
Personal and Other Services 35 4.4
I have not worked 69 8.7
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 46 5.8
Other 96 12.2
Total 789 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 70 8.9
$25,001-$50,000 157 19.9
$50,001-$75,000 129 16.3
$75,001-$100,000 120 15.2
$100,001-$150,000 128 16.2
$150,001-$200,000 44 5.6
Over $200,000 20 2.5
Prefer not to say 121 15.3
Total 789 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 84.3% 8.4% 4.2% 1.9% 0.8% 0.5% 124 914 7.37
Native tree planting 84.8% 8.1% 4.2% 1.8% 0.9% 0.3% 120 859 7.16
Monitoring 81.5% 9.8% 5.3% 2.7% 0.4% 0.4% 146 996 6.82
Rubbish clean-up 67.6% 19.9% 8.4% 2.5% 1.0% 0.6% 256 1551 6.06
Erosion control 88.0% 4.7% 4.1% 2.2% 1.0% 0.1% 95 824 8.67
Other 88.9% 3.7% 5.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.5% 66 601 9.11
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 89
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lower Brisbane
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
9.5 12 20.4 31.8 17.1 6.3 2.8
Pollution levels
7.1 11.4 20.4 33 18.8 6.7 2.7
Fish numbers
7 12.2 20.2 40.3 13.2 4.9 2.3
Natural vegetation
4.4 7.1 12.8 32.3 25.7 12.2 5.4
Overall condition
5.3 8.5 14.7 36.1 20.7 10.3 4.4
SEQ
Water clarity
7.2 8.4 17.4 36.8 18.9 8 3.4
Pollution levels
6.3 8.9 19.9 37.1 18 7 2.8
Fish numbers
5.8 8.6 20.2 39.9 17.2 5.2 3
Natural vegetation
4.7 5.8 13.8 37.1 24.5 9.8 4.3
Overall condition
5.1 6.1 16.7 34.7 23.6 9.9 3.9
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 90
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lower Brisbane
In the water usage – Lower Brisbane
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 6.60% 5.20% 5.60% 18.00% 16.60% 20.40% 27.60%
Clear 5.40% 5.10% 6.80% 18.30% 19.90% 26.70% 17.70%
Partly muddy
11.30% 9.30% 20.40% 25.90% 21.30% 10.40% 1.50%
Muddy 22.20% 22.10% 19.30% 23.30% 7.40% 4.80% 1.00%
Very muddy
40.20% 19.30% 13.30% 18.10% 4.80% 3.00% 1.30%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.10% 6.50% 5.70% 18.10% 14.60% 21.40% 28.60%
Low levels of pollution
10.10% 9.50% 12.80% 23.30% 17.50% 20.40% 6.30%
Some pollution
21.00% 17.40% 18.30% 24.60% 12.80% 4.60% 1.40%
Polluted 42.20% 21.20% 13.60% 15.80% 2.90% 3.80% 0.50%
Very polluted
58.90% 12.40% 7.50% 14.60% 3.30% 2.00% 1.30%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 91
Near the water usage – Lower Brisbane
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 4.80% 3.80% 5.10% 14.40% 13.20% 24.30% 34.30%
Clear 4.30% 3.30% 5.70% 15.50% 15.20% 29.30% 26.70%
Partly muddy
7.10% 5.40% 11.40% 22.70% 20.30% 22.60% 10.50%
Muddy 13.30% 13.10% 15.60% 24.10% 15.00% 14.80% 4.20%
Very muddy
24.00% 13.90% 14.40% 22.10% 11.80% 10.40% 3.40%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.60% 2.80% 5.40% 15.80% 12.50% 22.40% 36.40%
Low levels of pollution
7.40% 5.10% 7.90% 20.20% 18.80% 24.70% 16.10%
Some pollution
13.10% 10.30% 17.90% 27.10% 16.30% 11.70% 3.70%
Polluted 29.20% 20.30% 18.00% 18.60% 6.60% 6.10% 1.30%
Very polluted
45.40% 14.60% 11.50% 16.70% 5.60% 4.60% 1.60%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 92
Use and frequency of activities – Lower Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.14% 1.41% 2.93% 9.88% 13.56% 0.25% 71.9%
Walking, running 7.11% 14.82% 5.83% 11.15% 6.61% 0.37% 54.1%
Swimming 0.00% 1.40% 1.65% 1.90% 2.91% 0.25% 91.9%
Cycling 0.38% 2.15% 1.65% 2.91% 1.77% 0.26% 90.9%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.38% 0.51% 1.01% 0.76% 0.00% 97.3%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 0.76% 0.89% 0.00% 97.3%
Camping 0.13% 0.25% 0.13% 0.63% 1.01% 0.13% 97.7%
Recreational fishing 0.13% 0.76% 1.01% 2.28% 2.66% 0.13% 93.0%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 1.27% 1.14% 0.13% 96.5%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.89% 0.26% 1.01% 1.77% 0.26% 95.8%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.25% 0.38% 0.63% 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 98.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.25% 0.38% 0.38% 0.25% 0.38% 0.00% 98.4%
Enjoying nature 2.16% 5.32% 3.04% 5.08% 4.43% 0.12% 79.8%
Catching a ferry 0.63% 1.64% 1.39% 4.43% 8.49% 0.51% 82.9%
Other 0.00% 0.25% 0.51% 0.00% 0.51% 0.13% 98.6%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 93
9.7 Maroochy Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 48 35.0
Female 89 65.0
Total 137 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 46 33.6
High School 47 34.3
Diploma or Cert 8 5.8
Apprenticeship or trade cert 25 18.2
Bachelor degree 11 8.0
Postgraduate degree 46 33.6
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 137 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 7 5.1
1-3 years 8 5.8
4-6 years 5 3.6
7-10 years 13 9.5
More than 10 years 104 75.9
Total 137 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 45 32.8
Carer 2 1.5
Full time student 9 6.6
Unemployed and not seeking work 10 7.3
Unemployed and seeking work 15 10.9
Part time employee 28 20.4
Full time work 28 20.4
Total 137 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 94
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0
Mining 3 2.2
Manufacturing 1 .7
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 .7
Construction and Development 4 2.9
Wholesale Trade 0 0.0
Retail Trade 15 10.9
Hospitality and Tourism 12 8.8
Transport and Storage 4 2.9
Communication Services 1 .7
Finance and Insurance 8 5.8
Property and Business Services 4 2.9
Government Administration and Defence 4 2.9
Education 10 7.3
Health and Community Services 12 8.8
Cultural and Recreational Services 1 .7
Personal and Other Services 6 4.4
I have not worked 8 5.8
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 28 20.4
Other 15 10.9
Total 137 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 18 13.1
$25,001-$50,000 42 30.7
$50,001-$75,000 21 15.3
$75,001-$100,000 15 10.9
$100,001-$150,000 15 10.9
$150,001-$200,000 3 2.2
Over $200,000 1 0.7
Prefer not to say 22 16.1
Total 137 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 83.9% 10.2% 2.9% 2.2% 0.0% 0.7% 22 141 6.40
Native tree planting 86.1% 6.6% 5.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 19 146 7.71
Monitoring 79.6% 10.2% 5.8% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 28 212 7.56
Rubbish clean-up 59.1% 27.0% 9.5% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 56 308 5.49
Erosion control 88.3% 7.3% 2.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 16 96 5.99
Other 95.1% 2.9% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 23 4.58
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 95
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Maroochy
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
0.7 3.6 13.1 17.5 32.8 22.6 9.5
Pollution levels
0.7 6.6 12.4 21.2 33.6 19 6.6
Fish numbers
1.5 4.4 20.4 37.2 19.7 12.4 4.4
Natural vegetation
0.0 4.4 6.6 22.6 32.1 25.5 8.8
Overall condition
0.0 0.7 10.9 21.9 36.5 21.2 8.8
SEQ
Water clarity
1.5 2.2 14.6 31.4 29.9 15.3 5.1
Pollution levels
1.5 4.4 16.1 29.9 30.7 13.1 4.4
Fish numbers
1.5 5.1 17.5 39.4 21.9 12.4 2.2
Natural vegetation
0.0 2.9 8.8 31.4 29.9 20.4 6.6
Overall condition
0.7 2.2 9.5 31.4 32.8 17.5 5.8
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 96
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Maroochy
In the water usage – Maroochy
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 5.80% 2.90% 4.40% 13.10% 9.50% 24.10% 40.10%
Clear 5.10% 2.20% 4.40% 14.60% 13.90% 29.20% 30.70%
Partly muddy
10.90% 14.60% 18.20% 16.80% 17.50% 19.70% 2.20%
Muddy 24.80% 21.90% 17.50% 21.20% 8.80% 5.10% 0.70%
Very muddy
45.30% 21.20% 12.40% 16.10% 0.70% 3.60% 0.70%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.40% 2.20% 7.30% 10.90% 8.00% 24.80% 42.30%
Low levels of pollution
10.20% 7.30% 13.90% 18.20% 16.10% 26.30% 8.00%
Some pollution
26.30% 16.10% 20.40% 20.40% 13.10% 3.60% 0.00%
Polluted 52.60% 22.60% 9.50% 12.40% 0.70% 2.20% 0.00%
Very polluted
70.80% 12.40% 7.30% 8.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 97
Near the water usage – Maroochy
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.50% 1.50% 0.70% 10.90% 10.90% 28.50% 46.00%
Clear 0.70% 1.50% 2.90% 10.20% 11.70% 35.00% 38.00%
Partly muddy
4.40% 2.90% 13.90% 16.10% 24.10% 21.20% 17.50%
Muddy 11.70% 13.90% 13.90% 20.40% 18.20% 11.70% 10.20%
Very muddy
22.60% 12.40% 16.80% 18.20% 12.40% 8.80% 8.80%
Pollution levels
No pollution
1.50% 1.50% 4.40% 11.70% 8.80% 26.30% 46.00%
Low levels of pollution
5.10% 2.90% 5.80% 16.80% 17.50% 34.30% 17.50%
Some pollution
15.30% 5.80% 17.50% 26.30% 18.20% 14.60% 2.20%
Polluted 29.90% 22.60% 16.10% 19.00% 8.00% 3.60% 0.70%
Very polluted
51.10% 16.80% 10.90% 13.10% 4.40% 2.90% 0.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 98
Use and frequency of activities – Maroochy
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 3.66% 4.38% 16.04% 23.36% 0.72% 51.8%
Walking, running 8.75% 18.98% 7.27% 13.13% 10.23% 0.71% 40.9%
Swimming 2.18% 7.29% 3.66% 8.03% 10.95% 0.00% 67.9%
Cycling 0.73% 2.92% 0.73% 2.19% 1.46% 0.00% 92.0%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 1.46% 1.46% 0.73% 95.6%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.73% 1.46% 0.73% 0.00% 0.73% 96.4%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.65% 2.19% 0.73% 93.4%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 3.65% 1.46% 10.96% 9.48% 0.00% 74.5%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.19% 2.93% 8.03% 0.74% 86.1%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.73% 0.73% 1.46% 1.46% 5.84% 0.73% 89.1%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 4.38% 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 93.4%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.46% 0.00% 0.00% 98.5%
Enjoying nature 2.92% 8.77% 2.92% 9.49% 8.77% 0.00% 67.2%
Catching a ferry 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 4.38% 0.00% 93.4%
Other 0.00% 1.46% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 2.19% 95.6%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 99
9.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 7 29.2
Female 17 70.8
Total 24 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 1 4.2
High School 5 20.8
Diploma or Cert 10 41.7
Apprenticeship or trade cert 7 29.2
Bachelor degree 1 4.2
Postgraduate degree 1 4.2
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 24 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 0 0.0
1-3 years 2 8.3
4-6 years 1 4.2
7-10 years 3 12.5
More than 10 years 18 75.0
Total 24 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 3 12.5
Carer 1 4.2
Full time student 3 12.5
Unemployed and not seeking work 0 0.0
Unemployed and seeking work 4 16.7
Part time employee 7 29.2
Full time work 6 25.0
Total 24 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 100
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 4.2
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 1 4.2
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0
Construction and Development 0 0.0
Wholesale Trade 0 0.0
Retail Trade 1 4.2
Hospitality and Tourism 3 12.5
Transport and Storage 1 4.2
Communication Services 1 4.2
Finance and Insurance 0 0.0
Property and Business Services 2 8.3
Government Administration and Defence 1 4.2
Education 3 12.5
Health and Community Services 3 12.5
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 1 4.2
I have not worked 1 4.2
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 1 4.2
Other 4 16.7
Total 24 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 1 4.2
$25,001-$50,000 3 12.5
$50,001-$75,000 5 20.8
$75,001-$100,000 5 20.8
$100,001-$150,000 0 0.0
$150,001-$200,000 1 4.2
Over $200,000 1 4.2
Prefer not to say 8 33.3
Total 24 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 83.3% 12.5% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 15 3.80
Native tree planting 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 10 2.50
Monitoring 87.5% 4.2% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3 33 10.83
Rubbish clean-up 62.5% 20.8% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 9 58 6.43
Erosion control 87.5% 8.3% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 13 4.23
Other 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 3 2.50
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 101
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mid Brisbane
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
4.2 4.2 29.2 33.3 16.7 12.5 0
Pollution levels
0 8.3 8.3 29.2 37.5 16.7 0
Fish numbers
4.2 4.2 12.5 41.7 29.2 4.2 4.2
Natural vegetation
0 0 16.7 37.5 25 16.7 4.2
Overall condition
0 0 20.8 37.5 25 12.5 4.2
SEQ
Water clarity
4.2 0 25 41.7 16.7 12.5 0
Pollution levels
0 8.3 8.3 58.3 16.7 8.3
Fish numbers
0 4.2 8.3 50 25 4.2 8.3
Natural vegetation
0 0 20.8 37.5 29.2 8.3 4.2
Overall condition
0 0 12.5 50 20.8 4.2 12.5
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 102
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mid Brisbane
In the water usage – Mid Brisbane
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 29.20% 33.30%
Clear 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 29.20% 33.30%
Partly muddy
4.20% 4.20% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 41.70% 0.00%
Muddy 8.30% 12.50% 20.80% 25.00% 16.70% 16.70% 0.00%
Very muddy
29.20% 25.00% 8.30% 12.50% 12.50% 8.30% 4.20%
Pollution levels
No pollution
8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 8.30% 29.20% 41.70%
Low levels of pollution
0.00% 8.30% 0.00% 20.80% 12.50% 45.80% 12.50%
Some pollution
12.50% 12.50% 16.70% 20.80% 25.00% 12.50% 0.00%
Polluted 37.50% 16.70% 16.70% 12.50% 12.50% 4.20% 0.00%
Very polluted
50.00% 25.00% 4.20% 12.50% 4.20% 4.20% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 103
Near the water usage – Mid Brisbane
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.30% 12.50% 37.50% 37.50%
Clear 0.00% 0.00% 4.20% 8.30% 12.50% 41.70% 33.30%
Partly muddy
4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 20.80% 25.00% 33.30% 16.70%
Muddy 8.30% 8.30% 0.00% 29.20% 20.80% 29.20% 4.20%
Very muddy
16.70% 8.30% 4.20% 29.20% 20.80% 12.50% 8.30%
Pollution levels
No pollution
0.00% 4.20% 0.00% 12.50% 16.70% 20.80% 45.80%
Low levels of pollution
8.30% 0.00% 8.30% 20.80% 12.50% 29.20% 20.80%
Some pollution
12.50% 4.20% 12.50% 37.50% 16.70% 12.50% 4.20%
Polluted 37.50% 20.80% 8.30% 20.80% 8.30% 4.20% 0.00%
Very polluted
50.00% 29.20% 0.00% 8.30% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 104
Use and frequency of activities – Mid Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 12.51% 24.98% 0.00% 54.2%
Walking, running 0.00% 8.33% 8.33% 4.17% 20.83% 0.00% 58.3%
Swimming 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 12.50% 0.00% 83.3%
Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.16% 8.34% 0.00% 87.5%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 20.83% 0.00% 70.8%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 91.7%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 4.17% 4.17% 4.17% 8.33% 20.83% 0.00% 58.3%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 4.17% 0.00% 91.7%
Other 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.8%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 105
9.9 Mooloolah Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 50 37.0
Female 85 63.0
Total 135 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 3 2.2
High School 53 39.3
Diploma or Cert 38 28.1
Apprenticeship or trade cert 10 7.4
Bachelor degree 18 13.3
Postgraduate degree 9 6.7
Other Qualification 4 3.0
Total 135 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 8 5.9
1-3 years 15 11.1
4-6 years 14 10.4
7-10 years 11 8.1
More than 10 years 87 64.4
Total 135 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 40 29.6
Carer 7 5.2
Full time student 10 7.4
Unemployed and not seeking work 10 7.4
Unemployed and seeking work 14 10.4
Part time employee 25 18.5
Full time work 29 21.5
Total 135 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 106
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1.5
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 3 2.2
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 .7
Construction and Development 5 3.7
Wholesale Trade 3 2.2
Retail Trade 18 13.3
Hospitality and Tourism 14 10.4
Transport and Storage 1 .7
Communication Services 3 2.2
Finance and Insurance 6 4.4
Property and Business Services 3 2.2
Government Administration and Defence 5 3.7
Education 9 6.7
Health and Community Services 13 9.6
Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1.5
Personal and Other Services 6 4.4
I have not worked 8 5.9
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 19 14.1
Other 14 10.4
Total 135 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 25 18.5
$25,001-$50,000 38 28.1
$50,001-$75,000 24 17.8
$75,001-$100,000 11 8.1
$100,001-$150,000 9 6.7
$150,001-$200,000 1 0.7
Over $200,000 1 0.7
Prefer not to say 26 19.3
Total 135 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 89.6% 5.2% 3.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.5% 14 123 8.81
Native tree planting 86.7% 9.6% 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 18 88 4.91
Monitoring 80.0% 8.9% 6.7% 2.2% 1.5% 0.7% 27 224 8.31
Rubbish clean-up 54.8% 30.4% 8.1% 3.0% 2.2% 1.5% 61 382 6.27
Erosion control 88.1% 7.4% 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 16 123 7.69
Other 92.5% 2.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.9% 8 108 13.49
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 107
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mooloolah
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
3.7 3.7 12.6 24.4 23.7 19.3 12.6
Pollution levels
0.7 8.9 12.6 31.9 22.2 14.1 9.6
Fish numbers
2.2 5.9 15.6 39.3 20.7 10.4 5.9
Natural vegetation
0.7 0 11.1 29.6 25.9 23 9.6
Overall condition
0 2.2 6.7 29.6 28.1 22.2 11.1
SEQ
Water clarity
2.2 5.2 14.8 35.6 23 12.6 6.7
Pollution levels
1.5 6.7 17 38.5 17.8 11.1 7.4
Fish numbers
0.7 6.7 20.7 40 17.8 10.4 3.7
Natural vegetation
0.7 1.5 14.1 34.8 25.2 16.3 7.4
Overall condition
0.7 3.7 11.1 38.5 24.4 14.1 7.4
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 108
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mooloolah
In the water usage – Mooloolah
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 6.70% 2.20% 0.70% 11.90% 12.60% 23.70% 42.20%
Clear 5.90% 3.00% 0.70% 11.90% 14.80% 33.30% 30.40%
Partly muddy
11.10% 11.90% 12.60% 23.70% 19.30% 19.30% 2.20%
Muddy 25.20% 16.30% 17.80% 18.50% 14.10% 5.90% 2.20%
Very muddy
46.70% 20.00% 7.40% 11.90% 5.90% 6.70% 1.50%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.40% 1.50% 2.20% 9.60% 10.40% 24.40% 47.40%
Low levels of pollution
8.90% 5.20% 8.90% 18.50% 21.50% 26.70% 10.40%
Some pollution
21.50% 12.60% 25.90% 19.30% 12.60% 7.40% 0.70%
Polluted 49.60% 24.40% 11.10% 8.10% 3.70% 3.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
74.80% 6.70% 4.40% 8.90% 2.20% 2.20% 0.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 109
Near the water usage – Mooloolah
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 2.20% 1.50% 2.20% 5.90% 6.70% 20.70% 60.70%
Clear 0.70% 1.50% 3.70% 5.90% 8.10% 30.40% 49.60%
Partly muddy
4.40% 2.20% 9.60% 12.60% 23.70% 28.90% 18.50%
Muddy 13.30% 6.70% 14.10% 20.70% 16.30% 14.10% 14.80%
Very muddy
20.70% 15.60% 15.60% 11.10% 14.80% 12.60% 9.60%
Pollution levels
No pollution
0.70% 2.20% 3.70% 5.20% 5.20% 23.70% 59.30%
Low levels of pollution
5.90% 3.70% 7.40% 9.60% 17.80% 31.10% 24.40%
Some pollution
13.30% 8.90% 17.00% 23.00% 21.50% 11.10% 5.20%
Polluted 36.30% 20.00% 19.30% 8.90% 9.60% 3.70% 2.20%
Very polluted
60.00% 12.60% 6.70% 8.90% 8.10% 3.00% 0.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 110
Use and frequency of activities – Mooloolah
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 1.48% 2.96% 9.61% 19.27% 17.79% 0.00% 48.9%
Walking, running 18.53% 25.18% 6.66% 11.87% 2.97% 0.73% 34.1%
Swimming 2.23% 8.17% 4.43% 17.03% 6.66% 0.00% 61.5%
Cycling 1.48% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 2.22% 0.75% 82.2%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.74% 2.22% 0.00% 95.6%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.74% 0.00% 98.5%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.74% 0.74% 96.3%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 2.96% 2.96% 8.16% 8.16% 0.00% 77.8%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 4.44% 2.22% 0.74% 91.1%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 2.22% 1.48% 2.96% 7.40% 1.48% 84.4%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
1.48% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 97.0%
Enjoying nature 7.42% 11.86% 3.69% 10.36% 5.93% 0.00% 60.7%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 1.48% 0.00% 97.8%
Other 1.48% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 94.1%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 111
9.10 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 28 47.5
Female 31 52.5
Total 59 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 0 0.0
High School 14 23.7
Diploma or Cert 10 16.9
Apprenticeship or trade cert 9 15.3
Bachelor degree 18 30.5
Postgraduate degree 7 11.9
Other Qualification 1 1.7
Total 59 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 3 5.1
1-3 years 5 8.5
4-6 years 3 5.1
7-10 years 4 6.8
More than 10 years 44 74.6
Total 59 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 25 42.4
Carer 1 1.7
Full time student 0 0.0
Unemployed and not seeking work 2 3.4
Unemployed and seeking work 3 5.1
Part time employee 13 22.0
Full time work 15 25.4
Total 59 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 112
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.7
Mining 1 1.7
Manufacturing 0 0.0
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0
Construction and Development 2 3.4
Wholesale Trade 1 1.7
Retail Trade 2 3.4
Hospitality and Tourism 7 11.9
Transport and Storage 3 5.1
Communication Services 1 1.7
Finance and Insurance 5 8.5
Property and Business Services 3 5.1
Government Administration and Defence 6 10.2
Education 4 6.8
Health and Community Services 7 11.9
Cultural and Recreational Services 1 1.7
Personal and Other Services 1 1.7
I have not worked 2 3.4
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 7 11.9
Other 5 8.5
Total 59 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 6 10.2
$25,001-$50,000 16 27.1
$50,001-$75,000 9 15.3
$75,001-$100,000 7 11.9
$100,001-$150,000 10 16.9
$150,001-$200,000 2 3.4
Over $200,000 1 1.7
Prefer not to say 8 13.6
Total 59 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 81.4% 8.5% 5.1% 3.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11 96 8.69
Native tree planting 83.1% 10.2% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 10 68 6.81
Monitoring 67.8% 20.3% 6.8% 0.0% 1.7% 3.4% 19 146 7.67
Rubbish clean-up 42.4% 32.2% 16.9% 3.4% 3.4% 1.7% 34 235 6.90
Erosion control 91.5% 1.7% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 33 6.66
Other 94.9% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2 18 8.75
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 113
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
3.4 3.4 8.5 15.3 40.7 18.6 10.2
Pollution levels
5.1 1.7 15.3 25.4 39 8.5 5.1
Fish numbers
3.4 3.4 18.6 37.3 23.7 10.2 3.4
Natural vegetation
1.7 1.7 8.5 27.1 39 18.6 3.4
Overall condition
1.7 1.7 10.2 20.3 40.7 20.3 5.1
SEQ
Water clarity
0 5.1 13.6 32.2 35.6 8.5 5.1
Pollution levels
1.7 6.8 20.3 27.1 33.9 6.8 3.4
Fish numbers
1.7 6.8 20.3 33.9 27.1 6.8 3.4
Natural vegetation
0 5.1 11.9 27.1 33.9 18.6 3.4
Overall condition
0 5.1 15.3 30.5 37.3 8.5 3.4
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 114
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
In the water usage – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 0.00% 5.10% 1.70% 3.40% 15.30% 27.10% 47.50%
Clear 0.00% 1.70% 3.40% 6.80% 15.30% 37.30% 35.60%
Partly muddy
3.40% 5.10% 32.20% 16.90% 15.30% 15.30% 11.90%
Muddy 18.60% 33.90% 8.50% 18.60% 13.60% 5.10% 1.70%
Very muddy
45.80% 16.90% 16.90% 13.60% 5.10% 1.70% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
0.00% 5.10% 3.40% 5.10% 5.10% 28.80% 52.50%
Low levels of pollution
0.00% 11.90% 13.60% 8.50% 22.00% 28.80% 15.30%
Some pollution
10.20% 15.30% 16.90% 22.00% 13.60% 15.30% 6.80%
Polluted 37.30% 33.90% 13.60% 8.50% 6.80% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
66.10% 20.30% 5.10% 6.80% 1.70% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 115
Near the water usage – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 3.40% 6.80% 27.10% 55.90%
Clear 1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 1.70% 10.20% 37.30% 44.10%
Partly muddy
5.10% 1.70% 13.60% 13.60% 25.40% 23.70% 16.90%
Muddy 13.60% 13.60% 18.60% 20.30% 15.30% 5.10% 13.60%
Very muddy
25.40% 15.30% 23.70% 16.90% 6.80% 3.40% 8.50%
Pollution levels
No pollution
1.70% 0.00% 5.10% 5.10% 6.80% 28.80% 52.50%
Low levels of pollution
3.40% 5.10% 8.50% 8.50% 20.30% 25.40% 28.80%
Some pollution
10.20% 13.60% 11.90% 18.60% 18.60% 11.90% 15.30%
Polluted 28.80% 25.40% 20.30% 8.50% 5.10% 3.40% 8.50%
Very polluted
50.80% 13.60% 16.90% 6.80% 3.40% 0.00% 8.50%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 116
Use and frequency of activities – Moreton Bay and Islands
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 11.86% 5.08% 15.23% 15.23% 0.00% 52.5%
Walking, running 33.88% 20.35% 1.67% 6.76% 1.67% 0.00% 35.6%
Swimming 3.39% 10.16% 3.39% 10.16% 3.39% 0.00% 69.5%
Cycling 3.39% 10.18% 5.08% 1.68% 3.39% 0.00% 76.3%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 3.39% 0.00% 0.00% 94.9%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 1.69% 1.69% 94.9%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 98.3%
Recreational fishing 1.70% 5.07% 8.47% 11.87% 1.70% 0.00% 71.2%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 10.17% 1.71% 10.17% 5.10% 0.00% 72.9%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
1.70% 3.39% 3.39% 5.09% 5.09% 0.00% 81.4%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.3%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 13.55% 22.05% 3.38% 1.71% 0.00% 0.00% 59.3%
Catching a ferry 1.69% 5.08% 5.08% 5.08% 3.40% 0.00% 79.7%
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 117
9.11 Nerang Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 124 47.0
Female 140 53.0
Total 264 100.0
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 1 .4
High School 73 27.7
Diploma or Cert 77 29.2
Apprenticeship or trade cert 21 8.0
Bachelor degree 62 23.5
Postgraduate degree 30 11.4
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 264 100.0
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 18 6.8
1-3 years 34 12.9
4-6 years 22 8.3
7-10 years 24 9.1
More than 10 years 166 62.9
Total 264 100.0
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 65 24.6
Carer 2 .8
Full time student 16 6.1
Unemployed and not seeking work 17 6.4
Unemployed and seeking work 21 8.0
Part time employee 49 18.6
Full time work 94 35.6
Total 264 100.0
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 118
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 3 1.1
Mining 1 .4
Manufacturing 5 1.9
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 2 .8
Construction and Development 18 6.8
Wholesale Trade 8 3.0
Retail Trade 23 8.7
Hospitality and Tourism 26 9.8
Transport and Storage 9 3.4
Communication Services 4 1.5
Finance and Insurance 15 5.7
Property and Business Services 8 3.0
Government Administration and Defence 20 7.6
Education 25 9.5
Health and Community Services 27 10.2
Cultural and Recreational Services 4 1.5
Personal and Other Services 8 3.0
I have not worked 12 4.5
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 19 7.2
Other 27 10.2
Total 264 100.0
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 24 9.1
$25,001-$50,000 50 18.9
$50,001-$75,000 45 17.0
$75,001-$100,000 44 16.7
$100,001-$150,000 52 19.7
$150,001-$200,000 6 2.3
Over $200,000 5 1.9
Prefer not to say 38 14.4
Total 264 100.0
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 85.6% 7.6% 3.4% 1.9% 0.4% 1.1% 38 309 8.14
Native tree planting 88.3% 8.0% 1.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 31 196 6.32
Monitoring 78.8% 12.9% 4.5% 1.9% 0.4% 1.5% 56 397 7.10
Rubbish clean-up 60.6% 27.7% 5.3% 2.7% 1.9% 1.9% 104 670 6.45
Erosion control 88.6% 6.8% 2.3% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 30 221 7.37
Other 90.4% 5.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 18 148 8.23
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 119
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Nerang Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
2.3 4.9 12.9 25.4 23.5 22.3 8.7
Pollution levels
2.3 8 12.5 24.6 25.8 18.6 8.3
Fish numbers
1.9 4.9 15.2 39.8 21.6 11.4 5.3
Natural vegetation
0.4 3 11.7 29.5 29.2 17.4 8.7
Overall condition
1.5 3.8 11.4 21.6 28.8 22.3 10.6
SEQ
Water clarity
1.1 4.5 13.6 25.4 29.2 18.2 8
Pollution levels
1.1 8.7 14.8 28.8 25.4 14.4 6.8
Fish numbers
1.9 6.1 13.3 40.5 22.3 11 4.9
Natural vegetation
0.8 3.4 11.4 28.8 31.1 17 7.6
Overall condition
0.4 4.9 12.9 26.5 26.9 20.1 8.3
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 120
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Nerang
In the water usage – Nerang
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.80% 4.20% 5.30% 12.90% 15.20% 21.60% 37.10%
Clear 3.00% 6.40% 4.90% 10.20% 19.70% 28.40% 27.30%
Partly muddy
15.20% 15.50% 19.30% 22.30% 18.20% 6.40% 3.00%
Muddy 28.80% 23.90% 20.80% 14.00% 8.00% 2.70% 1.90%
Very muddy
50.40% 18.20% 12.50% 10.20% 5.70% 1.50% 1.50%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.30% 5.30% 5.70% 10.20% 13.60% 22.00% 37.90%
Low levels of pollution
12.10% 9.10% 15.20% 15.90% 18.20% 21.60% 8.00%
Some pollution
26.10% 15.20% 16.70% 23.10% 11.40% 5.30% 2.30%
Polluted 52.70% 21.60% 9.80% 7.20% 5.30% 3.00% 0.40%
Very polluted
68.20% 9.50% 5.70% 11.00% 3.40% 1.10% 1.10%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 121
Near the water usage – Nerang
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.90% 2.30% 4.20% 8.70% 11.40% 25.00% 46.60%
Clear 1.50% 4.20% 3.00% 8.70% 12.50% 33.70% 36.40%
Partly muddy
6.80% 8.70% 9.10% 20.10% 17.80% 27.30% 10.20%
Muddy 14.00% 14.40% 15.20% 22.00% 13.60% 12.10% 8.70%
Very muddy
22.00% 18.20% 16.30% 16.70% 12.10% 8.70% 6.10%
Pollution levels
No pollution
3.00% 5.30% 3.80% 9.50% 9.10% 22.70% 46.60%
Low levels of pollution
6.40% 8.70% 8.00% 17.40% 15.20% 22.70% 21.60%
Some pollution
14.80% 13.30% 13.60% 21.60% 15.90% 14.00% 6.80%
Polluted 33.00% 23.50% 14.80% 13.30% 7.60% 4.50% 3.40%
Very polluted
49.20% 17.00% 9.10% 13.60% 4.90% 3.40% 2.70%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 122
Use and frequency of activities – Nerang
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.37% 3.01% 6.81% 11.73% 18.58% 0.74% 58.7%
Walking, running 10.59% 19.69% 11.01% 11.37% 6.04% 1.14% 40.2%
Swimming 1.91% 5.30% 7.57% 7.96% 5.30% 0.00% 72.0%
Cycling 1.52% 4.55% 2.64% 4.17% 1.89% 0.00% 85.2%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 0.38% 0.00% 97.3%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 0.76% 98.5%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 1.51% 0.00% 96.6%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 2.28% 2.66% 6.83% 4.17% 0.00% 84.1%
Boating, sailing 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 3.41% 4.54% 0.38% 89.8%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 1.89% 1.51% 3.41% 3.41% 0.00% 89.8%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
1.14% 2.27% 1.52% 1.89% 0.76% 0.00% 92.4%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 1.89% 0.38% 0.00% 97.0%
Enjoying nature 3.80% 6.82% 4.55% 7.95% 4.92% 0.75% 71.2%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.76% 1.90% 1.51% 0.38% 95.5%
Other 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.76% 0.38% 0.00% 98.1%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 123
9.12 Noosa Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 21 46.7
Female 24 53.3
Total 45 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 1 2.2
High School 13 28.9
Diploma or Cert 14 31.1
Apprenticeship or trade cert 4 8.9
Bachelor degree 4 8.9
Postgraduate degree 9 20
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 45 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 2 4.4
1-3 years 1 2.2
4-6 years 8 17.8
7-10 years 7 15.6
More than 10 years 27 60
Total 45 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 18 40
Carer 3 6.7
Full time student 2 4.4
Unemployed and not seeking work 3 6.7
Unemployed and seeking work 2 4.4
Part time employee 6 13.3
Full time work 11 24.4
Total 45 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 124
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0
Mining 1 2.2
Manufacturing 2 4.4
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0
Construction and Development 1 2.2
Wholesale Trade 1 2.2
Retail Trade 3 6.7
Hospitality and Tourism 2 4.4
Transport and Storage 3 6.7
Communication Services 0 0.0
Finance and Insurance 3 6.7
Property and Business Services 2 4.4
Government Administration and Defence 1 2.2
Education 5 11.1
Health and Community Services 8 17.8
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 1 2.2
I have not worked 3 6.7
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 7 15.6
Other 2 4.4
Total 45 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 3 6.7
$25,001-$50,000 13 28.9
$50,001-$75,000 8 17.8
$75,001-$100,000 8 17.8
$100,001-$150,000 4 8.9
$150,001-$200,000 1 2.2
Over $200,000 0 0.0
Prefer not to say 8 17.8
Total 45 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 10 5.10
Native tree planting 91.1% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 20 5.10
Monitoring 86.7% 2.2% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 6 63 10.55
Rubbish clean-up 62.2% 20.0% 13.3% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 17 109 6.39
Erosion control 91.1% 4.4% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 20 5.10
Other 92.3% 2.6% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 125
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Noosa Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
2.2 0 4.4 8.9 33.3 35.6 15.6
Pollution levels
2.2 0 6.7 11.1 40 24.4 15.6
Fish numbers
2.2 2.2 8.9 28.9 33.3 13.3 11.1
Natural vegetation
2.2 0 4.4 6.7 35.6 33.3 17.8
Overall condition
2.2 0 0 8.9 31.1 40 17.8
SEQ
Water clarity
2.2 0 8.9 28.9 28.9 17.8 13.3
Pollution levels
2.2 0 11.1 33.3 22.2 15.6 15.6
Fish numbers
2.2 2.2 15.6 37.8 22.2 11.1 8.9
Natural vegetation
4.4 2.2 8.9 24.4 26.7 22.2 11.1
Overall condition
2.2 0 8.9 33.3 20 22.2 13.3
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 126
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Noosa
In the water usage – Noosa
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 15.60% 22.20% 51.10%
Clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 13.30% 44.40% 31.10%
Partly muddy
6.70% 13.30% 28.90% 20.00% 24.40% 4.40% 2.20%
Muddy 33.30% 35.60% 17.80% 6.70% 6.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very muddy
68.90% 13.30% 8.90% 8.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 6.70% 11.10% 26.70% 51.10%
Low levels of pollution
2.20% 8.90% 15.60% 15.60% 17.80% 26.70% 13.30%
Some pollution
17.80% 22.20% 28.90% 22.20% 6.70% 2.20% 0.00%
Polluted 64.40% 20.00% 11.10% 4.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
82.20% 11.10% 2.20% 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 127
Near the water usage – Noosa
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 15.60% 22.20% 51.10%
Clear 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 8.90% 13.30% 44.40% 31.10%
Partly muddy
6.70% 13.30% 28.90% 20.00% 24.40% 4.40% 2.20%
Muddy 33.30% 35.60% 17.80% 6.70% 6.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Very muddy
68.90% 13.30% 8.90% 8.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 6.70% 11.10% 26.70% 51.10%
Low levels of pollution
2.20% 8.90% 15.60% 15.60% 17.80% 26.70% 13.30%
Some pollution
17.80% 22.20% 28.90% 22.20% 6.70% 2.20% 0.00%
Polluted 64.40% 20.00% 11.10% 4.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
82.20% 11.10% 2.20% 2.20% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 128
Use and frequency of activities – Noosa
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.20% 2.20% 24.43% 22.23% 0.00% 48.9%
Walking, running 8.90% 24.45% 8.90% 15.56% 4.42% 0.00% 37.8%
Swimming 0.00% 8.89% 8.89% 15.57% 2.24% 0.00% 64.4%
Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 2.22% 2.22% 0.00% 84.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 95.6%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.45% 0.00% 93.3%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.45% 8.88% 0.00% 84.4%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.44% 8.89% 2.22% 82.2%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 91.1%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 6.66% 8.90% 4.45% 6.66% 4.45% 0.00% 68.9%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 88.9%
Other 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.8%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 129
9.13 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 111 44.4
Female 139 55.6
Total 250 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 2 0.8
High School 76 30.4
Diploma or Cert 92 36.8
Apprenticeship or trade cert 23 9.2
Bachelor degree 42 16.8
Postgraduate degree 15 6
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 250 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 8 3.2
1-3 years 36 14.4
4-6 years 26 10.4
7-10 years 22 8.8
More than 10 years 158 63.2
Total 250 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 52 20.8
Carer 4 1.6
Full time student 14 5.6
Unemployed and not seeking work 21 8.4
Unemployed and seeking work 25 10
Part time employee 47 18.8
Full time work 87 34.8
Total 250 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 130
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 4 1.6
Mining 1 0.4
Manufacturing 12 4.8
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 4 1.6
Construction and Development 14 5.6
Wholesale Trade 9 3.6
Retail Trade 32 12.8
Hospitality and Tourism 20 8
Transport and Storage 14 5.6
Communication Services 2 0.8
Finance and Insurance 10 4
Property and Business Services 3 1.2
Government Administration and Defence 12 4.8
Education 20 8
Health and Community Services 23 9.2
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 10 4
I have not worked 16 6.4
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 20 8
Other 24 9.6
Total 250 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 28 11.2
$25,001-$50,000 53 21.2
$50,001-$75,000 43 17.2
$75,001-$100,000 33 13.2
$100,001-$150,000 43 17.2
$150,001-$200,000 13 5.2
Over $200,000 2 0.8
Prefer not to say 35 14
Total 250 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 87.6% 8.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 31 199 6.40
Native tree planting 88.8% 7.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 28 176 6.29
Monitoring 84.0% 8.8% 2.8% 1.6% 1.2% 1.6% 40 364 9.10
Rubbish clean-up 63.6% 25.2% 7.6% 2.4% 0.8% 0.4% 91 474 5.21
Erosion control 90.8% 4.4% 2.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 23 176 7.67
Other 95.0% 2.2% 1.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9 70 7.82
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 131
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
4 6 14 29.2 24.8 14.4 7.6
Pollution levels
2.4 4.8 17.2 31.6 20.4 14.8 8.8
Fish numbers
3.6 7.6 16.4 40.8 16.4 9.6 5.6
Natural vegetation
2 3.6 14.8 28.4 24.8 19.2 7.2
Overall condition
1.6 4.8 13.2 26.8 25.6 18.4 9.6
SEQ
Water clarity
3.6 4.8 12 31.6 27.2 13.2 7.6
Pollution levels
3.2 4 17.2 33.6 24.4 10.8 6.8
Fish numbers
4.8 7.6 14 40 19.6 8.4 5.6
Natural vegetation
2 3.6 14 31.6 26.4 15.6 6.8
Overall condition
2.8 4 12.8 29.6 26.8 17.2 6.8
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 132
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
In the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.60% 3.20% 4.40% 14.80% 13.60% 24.40% 36.00%
Clear 4.80% 3.20% 3.20% 13.60% 16.00% 32.00% 27.20%
Partly muddy
12.40% 10.80% 19.60% 30.00% 15.60% 7.60% 4.00%
Muddy 28.40% 20.80% 21.20% 17.20% 8.40% 2.80% 1.20%
Very muddy
47.60% 16.40% 11.60% 15.60% 5.60% 2.40% 0.80%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.60% 2.80% 4.80% 13.20% 10.80% 26.40% 36.40%
Low levels of pollution
12.80% 9.20% 11.20% 20.40% 21.60% 17.20% 7.60%
Some pollution
22.80% 20.40% 18.00% 23.20% 10.40% 4.40% 0.80%
Polluted 47.60% 21.60% 13.60% 10.80% 3.60% 2.40% 0.40%
Very polluted
66.80% 9.60% 6.80% 12.00% 3.60% 0.80% 0.40%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 133
Near the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.60% 4.00% 2.80% 10.40% 14.00% 23.20% 44.00%
Clear 2.40% 4.00% 3.60% 10.40% 11.60% 31.60% 36.40%
Partly muddy
5.20% 7.20% 8.40% 21.60% 24.80% 22.00% 10.80%
Muddy 13.20% 12.40% 14.40% 22.80% 18.00% 12.00% 7.20%
Very muddy
22.40% 14.40% 14.00% 22.80% 11.60% 7.60% 7.20%
Pollution levels
No pollution
2.40% 3.60% 4.40% 11.60% 11.20% 23.20% 43.60%
Low levels of pollution
5.60% 7.60% 8.40% 19.20% 17.60% 24.00% 17.60%
Some pollution
15.60% 11.20% 19.60% 24.00% 16.40% 9.60% 3.60%
Polluted 30.00% 27.20% 10.80% 19.20% 6.00% 4.80% 2.00%
Very polluted
48.40% 14.80% 10.00% 16.80% 4.80% 2.80% 2.40%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 134
Use and frequency of activities – Pimpama-Coomera
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.81% 5.18% 13.21% 14.40% 0.40% 64.0%
Walking, running 9.21% 17.59% 6.80% 12.00% 8.82% 0.38% 45.2%
Swimming 0.80% 3.59% 3.99% 11.60% 6.81% 0.00% 73.2%
Cycling 0.80% 4.00% 1.60% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 89.6%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 99.6%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 1.20% 1.20% 0.80% 96.4%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.20% 0.00% 97.2%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 3.60% 1.60% 6.41% 5.99% 0.40% 82.0%
Boating, sailing 0.40% 0.80% 1.60% 5.20% 3.20% 0.00% 88.8%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 1.20% 0.40% 1.60% 1.20% 0.80% 94.8%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 98.4%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% 98.8%
Enjoying nature 5.19% 7.21% 1.99% 6.00% 4.79% 0.00% 74.8%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.80% 1.20% 0.40% 97.2%
Other 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 98.4%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 135
9.14 Pine Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 145 46.3
Female 168 53.7
Total 313 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 6 1.9
High School 100 31.9
Diploma or Cert 75 24
Apprenticeship or trade cert 41 13.1
Bachelor degree 59 18.8
Postgraduate degree 30 9.6
Other Qualification 2 0.6
Total 313 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 9 2.9
1-3 years 23 7.3
4-6 years 18 5.8
7-10 years 24 7.7
More than 10 years 239 76.4
Total 313 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 79 25.2
Carer 10 3.2
Full time student 19 6.1
Unemployed and not seeking work 18 5.8
Unemployed and seeking work 22 7
Part time employee 62 19.8
Full time work 103 32.9
Total 313 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 136
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 0 0.0
Mining 1 0.3
Manufacturing 9 2.9
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 6 1.9
Construction and Development 10 3.2
Wholesale Trade 10 3.2
Retail Trade 31 9.9
Hospitality and Tourism 19 6.1
Transport and Storage 12 3.8
Communication Services 9 2.9
Finance and Insurance 14 4.5
Property and Business Services 10 3.2
Government Administration and Defence 20 6.4
Education 20 6.4
Health and Community Services 44 14.1
Cultural and Recreational Services 1 0.3
Personal and Other Services 17 5.4
I have not worked 14 4.5
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 31 9.9
Other 35 11.2
Total 313 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 30 9.6
$25,001-$50,000 74 23.6
$50,001-$75,000 46 14.7
$75,001-$100,000 53 16.9
$100,001-$150,000 46 14.7
$150,001-$200,000 22 7
Over $200,000 4 1.3
Prefer not to say 38 12.1
Total 313 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 86.3% 8.6% 3.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 43 262 6.10
Native tree planting 87.5% 6.4% 3.8% 1.6% 0.3% 0.3% 39 272 6.98
Monitoring 84.0% 7.3% 4.5% 2.9% 0.6% 0.6% 50 410 8.21
Rubbish clean-up 63.9% 24.3% 7.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.0% 113 629 5.57
Erosion control 91.1% 4.2% 3.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 28 185 6.59
Other 93.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 16 131 8.19
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 137
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pine Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
4.5 8 16 32.6 23 11.2 4.8
Pollution levels
2.9 9.3 19.5 31 20.1 13.4 3.8
Fish numbers
5.1 13.1 14.4 39 16.9 7.3 4.2
Natural vegetation
2.6 5.8 13.4 31 22.7 16.6 8
Overall condition
2.6 5.8 11.5 34.2 26.5 13.7 5.8
SEQ
Water clarity
4.8 5.8 13.4 38 23 10.9 4.2
Pollution levels
4.2 8.3 17.3 35.5 21.1 11.5 2.2
Fish numbers
5.1 10.9 14.4 38 20.8 8.9 1.9
Natural vegetation
2.9 6.4 8.6 37.1 25.2 16.9 2.9
Overall condition
3.2 6.1 12.8 34.8 23.6 16.3 3.2
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 138
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pine Catchment
In the water usage – Pine Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 4.80% 6.10% 2.60% 15.00% 14.70% 22.00% 34.80%
Clear 5.10% 5.10% 3.20% 17.60% 15.30% 31.00% 22.70%
Partly muddy
12.80% 13.70% 17.90% 23.30% 20.40% 10.90% 1.00%
Muddy 24.30% 26.50% 17.90% 17.90% 8.00% 5.10% 0.30%
Very muddy
48.60% 18.80% 10.90% 13.70% 4.80% 2.60% 0.60%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.80% 4.80% 4.20% 14.70% 10.90% 22.00% 37.70%
Low levels of pollution
9.60% 8.90% 12.10% 20.40% 17.60% 23.60% 7.70%
Some pollution
20.40% 16.60% 17.90% 24.00% 16.90% 3.50% 0.60%
Polluted 44.10% 24.90% 12.10% 11.50% 5.10% 1.90% 0.30%
Very polluted
64.50% 14.40% 4.20% 10.20% 3.80% 2.60% 0.30%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 139
Near the water usage – Pine Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 4.50% 2.20% 3.50% 12.10% 15.30% 19.50% 42.80%
Clear 4.50% 3.20% 3.20% 13.70% 14.40% 27.20% 33.90%
Partly muddy
7.30% 5.80% 10.50% 20.40% 21.40% 19.50% 15.00%
Muddy 13.10% 13.10% 12.80% 26.20% 14.40% 12.50% 8.00%
Very muddy
24.30% 13.10% 14.70% 20.40% 10.50% 10.50% 6.40%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.10% 2.20% 2.90% 14.40% 12.50% 21.70% 41.20%
Low levels of pollution
7.70% 4.50% 7.70% 16.90% 19.80% 27.20% 16.30%
Some pollution
13.70% 10.20% 15.70% 26.50% 17.60% 9.60% 6.70%
Polluted 29.70% 20.80% 15.30% 16.30% 11.50% 3.50% 2.90%
Very polluted
47.30% 13.10% 11.50% 14.40% 7.30% 4.50% 1.90%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 140
Use and frequency of activities – Pine
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.34% 2.24% 5.44% 12.15% 22.06% 0.00% 57.8%
Walking, running 7.05% 13.76% 5.11% 12.77% 8.61% 0.00% 52.7%
Swimming 0.96% 2.24% 1.60% 3.19% 4.79% 0.00% 87.2%
Cycling 0.64% 2.87% 2.87% 3.51% 1.27% 0.00% 88.8%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.32% 0.32% 0.96% 0.96% 0.00% 97.4%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.96% 0.64% 0.96% 97.4%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 2.24% 0.00% 97.1%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.59% 2.87% 4.79% 4.48% 0.00% 86.3%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 1.28% 0.64% 1.92% 2.56% 0.00% 93.6%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.64% 0.96% 2.56% 3.51% 0.32% 92.0%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.32% 0.00% 0.64% 0.64% 0.00% 0.32% 98.1%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.32% 0.64% 0.32% 98.4%
Enjoying nature 2.56% 5.42% 2.88% 9.25% 2.25% 0.32% 77.3%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.96% 1.28% 0.32% 97.1%
Other 0.00% 0.64% 0.32% 0.64% 0.00% 0.00% 98.4%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 141
9.15 Pumicestone Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 46 43.8
Female 59 56.2
Total 105 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 1 1
High School 36 34.3
Diploma or Cert 32 30.5
Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 10.5
Bachelor degree 22 21
Postgraduate degree 3 2.9
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 105 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 7 6.7
1-3 years 17 16.2
4-6 years 10 9.5
7-10 years 10 9.5
More than 10 years 61 58.1
Total 105 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 35 33.3
Carer 6 5.7
Full time student 4 3.8
Unemployed and not seeking work 11 10.5
Unemployed and seeking work 8 7.6
Part time employee 20 19
Full time work 21 20
Total 105 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 142
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1.9
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 0 0.0
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 2.9
Construction and Development 3 2.9
Wholesale Trade 4 3.8
Retail Trade 17 16.2
Hospitality and Tourism 12 11.4
Transport and Storage 2 1.9
Communication Services 3 2.9
Finance and Insurance 3 2.9
Property and Business Services 6 5.7
Government Administration and Defence 4 3.8
Education 8 7.6
Health and Community Services 9 8.6
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 0 0.0
I have not worked 8 7.6
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 14 13.3
Other 7 6.7
Total 105 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 14 13.3
$25,001-$50,000 23 21.9
$50,001-$75,000 22 21
$75,001-$100,000 8 7.6
$100,001-$150,000 16 15.2
$150,001-$200,000 3 2.9
Over $200,000 2 1.9
Prefer not to say 17 16.2
Total 105 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 82.9% 8.6% 1.0% 4.8% 1.0% 1.9% 18 190 10.57
Native tree planting 85.7% 8.6% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 15 121 8.04
Monitoring 80.0% 12.4% 1.9% 2.9% 1.0% 1.9% 21 178 8.47
Rubbish clean-up 60.0% 27.6% 4.8% 2.9% 2.9% 1.9% 42 291 6.93
Erosion control 90.5% 4.8% 2.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 10 76 7.56
Other 94.9% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 4 55 13.75
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 143
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pumicestone Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
2.9 8.6 6.7 24.8 26.7 18.1 12.4
Pollution levels
4.8 9.5 12.4 20 27.6 19 6.7
Fish numbers
1 13.3 12.4 35.2 17.1 15.2 5.7
Natural vegetation
1.9 2.9 6.7 26.7 31.4 20 10.5
Overall condition
1.9 5.7 9.5 22.9 26.7 22.9 10.5
SEQ
Water clarity
1.9 5.7 8.6 37.1 26.7 9.5 10.5
Pollution levels
3.8 6.7 9.5 35.2 27.6 11.4 5.7
Fish numbers
2.9 8.6 12.4 39 19 14.3 3.8
Natural vegetation
1.9 4.8 10.5 26.7 33.3 15.2 7.6
Overall condition
2.9 2.9 7.6 26.7 34.3 16.2 9.5
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 144
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pumicestone Catchment
In the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.80% 3.80% 1.90% 16.20% 10.50% 19.00% 44.80%
Clear 3.80% 2.90% 4.80% 17.10% 10.50% 24.80% 36.20%
Partly muddy
11.40% 8.60% 16.20% 21.90% 25.70% 13.30% 2.90%
Muddy 24.80% 24.80% 18.10% 17.10% 11.40% 3.80% 0.00%
Very muddy
49.50% 12.40% 14.30% 15.20% 7.60% 1.00% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
3.80% 1.90% 4.80% 17.10% 11.40% 18.10% 42.90%
Low levels of pollution
7.60% 7.60% 9.50% 23.80% 21.90% 21.90% 7.60%
Some pollution
21.00% 11.40% 21.90% 22.90% 18.10% 4.80% 0.00%
Polluted 42.90% 17.10% 20.00% 16.20% 2.90% 1.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
64.80% 9.50% 8.60% 13.30% 1.90% 1.00% 1.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 145
Near the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.00% 2.90% 2.90% 16.20% 6.70% 19.00% 51.40%
Clear 1.00% 1.90% 4.80% 16.20% 8.60% 24.80% 42.90%
Partly muddy
3.80% 4.80% 8.60% 24.80% 20.00% 24.80% 13.30%
Muddy 12.40% 9.50% 18.10% 23.80% 15.20% 10.50% 10.50%
Very muddy
25.70% 14.30% 11.40% 22.90% 9.50% 7.60% 8.60%
Pollution levels
No pollution
1.00% 2.90% 4.80% 16.20% 3.80% 20.00% 51.40%
Low levels of pollution
3.80% 4.80% 11.40% 15.20% 11.40% 33.30% 20.00%
Some pollution
11.40% 10.50% 14.30% 28.60% 18.10% 11.40% 5.70%
Polluted 32.40% 16.20% 17.10% 21.00% 8.60% 2.90% 1.90%
Very polluted
46.70% 13.30% 14.30% 17.10% 3.80% 2.90% 1.90%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 146
Use and frequency of activities – Pumicestone
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.96% 1.92% 7.62% 10.50% 29.53% 0.00% 49.5%
Walking, running 14.29% 14.29% 11.43% 12.40% 4.74% 0.00% 42.9%
Swimming 1.89% 3.83% 7.61% 11.44% 12.37% 0.00% 62.9%
Cycling 0.95% 2.86% 3.81% 2.86% 0.95% 0.00% 88.6%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 3.81% 0.00% 95.2%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.81% 0.00% 0.00% 96.2%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 5.71% 0.00% 93.3%
Recreational fishing 0.96% 0.96% 6.67% 11.44% 6.67% 0.00% 73.3%
Boating, sailing 0.95% 0.95% 2.85% 6.67% 0.95% 0.95% 86.7%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 4.76% 5.71% 0.96% 85.7%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 2.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 96.2%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 0.95% 0.95% 0.00% 97.1%
Enjoying nature 5.73% 8.56% 3.81% 8.56% 2.86% 0.00% 70.5%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 0.95% 0.95% 96.2%
Other 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 1.91% 0.00% 0.00% 97.1%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 147
9.16 Redland Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 63 31.8
Female 135 68.2
Total 198 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 3 1.5
High School 65 32.7
Diploma or Cert 56 28.1
Apprenticeship or trade cert 11 5.5
Bachelor degree 50 25.1
Postgraduate degree 13 6.5
Other Qualification 1 0.5
Total 199 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 3 1.5
1-3 years 6 3
4-6 years 11 5.5
7-10 years 18 9
More than 10 years 161 80.9
Total 199 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 35 17.6
Carer 6 3
Full time student 12 6
Unemployed and not seeking work 19 9.5
Unemployed and seeking work 11 5.5
Part time employee 52 26.1
Full time work 64 32.2
Total 199 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 148
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1
Mining 3 1.5
Manufacturing 7 3.5
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 3 1.5
Construction and Development 12 6
Wholesale Trade 4 2
Retail Trade 20 10.1
Hospitality and Tourism 12 6
Transport and Storage 9 4.5
Communication Services 3 1.5
Finance and Insurance 10 5
Property and Business Services 7 3.5
Government Administration and Defence 13 6.5
Education 19 9.5
Health and Community Services 22 11.1
Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1
Personal and Other Services 4 2
I have not worked 8 4
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 20 10.1
Other 19 9.5
Total 199 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 12 6
$25,001-$50,000 43 21.6
$50,001-$75,000 29 14.6
$75,001-$100,000 23 11.6
$100,001-$150,000 37 18.6
$150,001-$200,000 10 5
Over $200,000 10 5
Prefer not to say 35 17.6
Total 199 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 87.9% 7.0% 4.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 24 137 5.69
Native tree planting 89.9% 5.5% 3.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 20 129 6.44
Monitoring 84.4% 7.5% 4.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 31 257 8.28
Rubbish clean-up 69.3% 23.1% 6.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 61 292 4.79
Erosion control 92.5% 3.5% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.0% 15 131 8.73
Other 93.1% 3.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 10 103 10.29
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 149
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Redland Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
3.5 7.5 15.6 30.7 26.6 12.6 3.5
Pollution levels
4.5 6.5 14.1 36.2 23.6 10.1 5
Fish numbers
2.5 10.1 13.1 40.7 22.1 8.5 3
Natural vegetation
2 2.5 12.6 30.7 26.1 20.6 5.5
Overall condition
3.5 5 9 34.2 26.6 16.1 5.5
SEQ
Water clarity
3 5 16.6 30.7 28.1 9 7.5
Pollution levels
4.5 4.5 16.6 37.7 20.6 9.5 6.5
Fish numbers
2 7.5 13.6 38.7 24.6 9.5 4
Natural vegetation
1.5 3.5 14.1 35.2 26.6 11.1 8
Overall condition
3.5 4 14.6 29.1 29.6 11.6 7.5
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 150
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Redland Catchment
In the water usage – Redland Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.50% 2.50% 4.00% 10.10% 15.60% 21.10% 43.20%
Clear 4.00% 1.50% 4.50% 12.60% 17.60% 28.10% 31.70%
Partly muddy
9.50% 8.00% 13.60% 25.10% 27.10% 12.10% 4.50%
Muddy 20.60% 19.60% 21.60% 18.10% 15.10% 2.50% 2.50%
Very muddy
41.70% 18.10% 16.10% 15.10% 4.50% 2.50% 2.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.00% 1.50% 5.00% 10.60% 13.60% 22.10% 43.20%
Low levels of pollution
10.10% 3.00% 13.10% 18.10% 21.10% 26.10% 8.50%
Some pollution
19.60% 12.10% 24.60% 23.10% 14.10% 5.50% 1.00%
Polluted 46.20% 18.60% 14.60% 13.60% 4.00% 2.00% 1.00%
Very polluted
66.30% 9.50% 7.00% 11.60% 2.00% 2.50% 1.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 151
Near the water usage – Redland Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 11.60% 7.50% 23.60% 51.30%
Clear 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 10.60% 10.60% 29.10% 43.70%
Partly muddy
5.00% 2.00% 5.50% 20.60% 22.10% 27.60% 17.10%
Muddy 9.50% 5.00% 12.10% 28.10% 24.60% 11.60% 9.00%
Very muddy
16.60% 9.50% 21.10% 27.10% 11.10% 7.50% 7.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
1.50% 0.50% 4.50% 13.10% 9.50% 19.60% 51.30%
Low levels of pollution
5.50% 2.00% 8.00% 18.10% 15.10% 25.10% 26.10%
Some pollution
11.10% 6.50% 19.10% 21.60% 19.60% 15.60% 6.50%
Polluted 26.60% 16.60% 19.10% 21.60% 8.50% 6.00% 1.50%
Very polluted
43.20% 11.10% 19.10% 16.10% 5.00% 4.00% 1.50%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 152
Use and frequency of activities – Redland
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.51% 2.03% 7.56% 15.07% 25.63% 0.00% 49.2%
Walking, running 10.57% 15.58% 10.57% 15.07% 11.59% 0.00% 36.7%
Swimming 0.00% 2.01% 1.01% 6.03% 11.06% 0.00% 79.9%
Cycling 0.00% 2.51% 1.51% 3.02% 3.02% 0.51% 89.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01% 1.51% 0.00% 97.5%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 2.51% 0.00% 97.0%
Camping 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.51% 0.50% 0.00% 97.5%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 1.00% 4.02% 6.53% 6.53% 0.50% 81.4%
Boating, sailing 0.50% 0.50% 1.51% 5.53% 6.03% 1.01% 84.9%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 4.52% 5.53% 0.00% 88.9%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.5%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 3.53% 9.04% 4.54% 6.53% 7.05% 0.00% 69.3%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 4.03% 16.08% 0.99% 77.4%
Other 1.51% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 97.0%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 153
9.17 Stanley Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 8 36.4
Female 14 63.6
Total 22 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 0 0.0
High School 7 31.8
Diploma or Cert 9 40.9
Apprenticeship or trade cert 1 4.5
Bachelor degree 4 18.2
Postgraduate degree 1 4.5
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 22 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 0 0.0
1-3 years 3 13.6
4-6 years 1 4.5
7-10 years 1 4.5
More than 10 years 17 77.3
Total 22 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 7 31.8
Carer 1 4.5
Full time student 0 0.0
Unemployed and not seeking work 3 13.6
Unemployed and seeking work 3 13.6
Part time employee 2 9.1
Full time work 6 27.3
Total 22 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 154
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 9.1
Mining 0 0.0
Manufacturing 1 4.5
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0 0.0
Construction and Development 0 0.0
Wholesale Trade 0 0.0
Retail Trade 1 4.5
Hospitality and Tourism 2 9.1
Transport and Storage 0 0.0
Communication Services 0 0.0
Finance and Insurance 0 0.0
Property and Business Services 0 0.0
Government Administration and Defence 1 4.5
Education 3 13.6
Health and Community Services 4 18.2
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 0 0.0
I have not worked 1 4.5
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 4 18.2
Other 3 13.6
Total 22 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 4 18.2
$25,001-$50,000 7 31.8
$50,001-$75,000 4 18.2
$75,001-$100,000 2 9.1
$100,001-$150,000 4 18.2
$150,001-$200,000 0 0.0
Over $200,000 0 0.0
Prefer not to say 1 4.5
Total 22 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 77.3% 0.0% 18.2% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5 46 9.16
Native tree planting 86.4% 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 3 35 11.73
Monitoring 72.7% 9.1% 13.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6 43 7.18
Rubbish clean-up 59.1% 18.2% 13.6% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9 63 7.01
Erosion control 86.4% 4.5% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97
Other 85.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 2 33 16.35
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 155
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Stanley Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
9.1 4.5 9.1 31.8 27.3 13.6 4.5
Pollution levels
13.6 9.1 9.1 22.7 27.3 18.2 0
Fish numbers
0 9.1 22.7 36.4 22.7 9.1 0
Natural vegetation
0 0 9.1 27.3 36.4 13.6 13.6
Overall condition
0 9.1 18.2 18.2 27.3 13.6 13.6
SEQ
Water clarity
13.6 4.5 13.6 18.2 36.4 9.1 4.5
Pollution levels
9.1 13.6 9.1 36.4 18.2 4.5 9.1
Fish numbers
9.1 4.5 13.6 27.3 36.4 4.5 4.5
Natural vegetation
4.5 4.5 9.1 31.8 31.8 9.1 9.1
Overall condition
4.5 4.5 9.1 22.7 40.9 9.1 9.1
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 156
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Stanley Catchment
In the water usage – Stanley Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 0.00% 0.00% 13.60% 18.20% 9.10% 18.20% 40.90%
Clear 0.00% 0.00% 18.20% 13.60% 9.10% 27.30% 31.80%
Partly muddy
18.20% 4.50% 18.20% 18.20% 18.20% 18.20% 4.50%
Muddy 22.70% 18.20% 27.30% 13.60% 18.20% 0.00% 0.00%
Very muddy
36.40% 18.20% 18.20% 22.70% 4.50% 0.00% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
4.50% 4.50% 9.10% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 36.40%
Low levels of pollution
27.30% 9.10% 13.60% 22.70% 13.60% 9.10% 4.50%
Some pollution
31.80% 9.10% 22.70% 18.20% 13.60% 4.50% 0.00%
Polluted 50.00% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 4.50% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
54.50% 13.60% 9.10% 22.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 157
Near the water usage – Stanley Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 22.70% 9.10% 18.20% 45.50%
Clear 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 22.70% 9.10% 22.70% 40.90%
Partly muddy
4.50% 0.00% 9.10% 36.40% 18.20% 18.20% 13.60%
Muddy 22.70% 4.50% 18.20% 27.30% 4.50% 13.60% 9.10%
Very muddy
31.80% 9.10% 13.60% 18.20% 4.50% 13.60% 9.10%
Pollution levels
No pollution
0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 27.30% 4.50% 22.70% 40.90%
Low levels of pollution
22.70% 13.60% 0.00% 36.40% 9.10% 4.50% 13.60%
Some pollution
27.30% 4.50% 27.30% 31.80% 4.50% 0.00% 4.50%
Polluted 50.00% 4.50% 18.20% 27.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Very polluted
54.50% 13.60% 4.50% 27.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 158
Use and frequency of activities – Stanley
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 4.54% 13.62% 4.54% 18.16% 0.00% 59.1%
Walking, running 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 9.08% 0.00% 4.55% 72.7%
Swimming 4.55% 0.00% 4.55% 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 77.3%
Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 95.5%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 95.5%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 95.5%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 13.64% 0.00% 81.8%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 9.10% 0.00% 0.00% 86.4%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 9.10% 0.00% 0.00% 86.4%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 90.9%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 95.5%
Enjoying nature 0.00% 18.16% 4.54% 9.08% 9.08% 0.00% 59.1%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 95.5%
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 159
9.18 Tallebudgera Catchment
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 28 36.4
Female 49 63.6
Total 77 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 2 2.6
High School 23 29.9
Diploma or Cert 27 35.1
Apprenticeship or trade cert 7 9.1
Bachelor degree 14 18.2
Postgraduate degree 4 5.2
Other Qualification 0 0.0
Total 77 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 3 3.9
1-3 years 7 9.1
4-6 years 2 2.6
7-10 years 7 9.1
More than 10 years 58 75.3
Total 77 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 20 26
Carer 2 2.6
Full time student 3 3.9
Unemployed and not seeking work 7 9.1
Unemployed and seeking work 3 3.9
Part time employee 26 33.8
Full time work 16 20.8
Total 77 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 160
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 1.3
Mining 1 1.3
Manufacturing 0 0.0
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 1.3
Construction and Development 7 9.1
Wholesale Trade 0 0.0
Retail Trade 10 13
Hospitality and Tourism 3 3.9
Transport and Storage 6 7.8
Communication Services 0 0.0
Finance and Insurance 0 0.0
Property and Business Services 2 2.6
Government Administration and Defence 7 9.1
Education 10 13
Health and Community Services 6 7.8
Cultural and Recreational Services 2 2.6
Personal and Other Services 4 5.2
I have not worked 2 2.6
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 6 7.8
Other 9 11.7
Total 77 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 10 13
$25,001-$50,000 15 19.5
$50,001-$75,000 17 22.1
$75,001-$100,000 14 18.2
$100,001-$150,000 8 10.4
$150,001-$200,000 2 2.6
Over $200,000 1 1.3
Prefer not to say 10 13
Total 77 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 87.0% 10.4% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10 43 4.27
Native tree planting 92.2% 5.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6 25 4.23
Monitoring 81.8% 13.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 14 73 5.22
Rubbish clean-up 57.1% 31.2% 5.2% 2.6% 1.3% 2.6% 33 206 6.24
Erosion control 96.1% 1.3% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3 18 5.97
Other 98.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 3 2.50
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 161
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Tallebudgera Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
0 3.9 9.1 19.5 24.7 27.3 15.6
Pollution levels
1.3 3.9 9.1 23.4 26 20.8 15.6
Fish numbers
1.3 7.8 9.1 31.2 24.7 10.4 15.6
Natural vegetation
0 2.6 7.8 20.8 22.1 29.9 16.9
Overall condition
0 2.6 3.9 18.2 24.7 31.2 19.5
SEQ
Water clarity
0 5.2 6.5 24.7 22.1 27.3 14.3
Pollution levels
0 5.2 7.8 28.6 22.1 23.4 13
Fish numbers
1.3 5.2 10.4 24.7 26 19.5 13
Natural vegetation
0 3.9 5.2 19.5 24.7 31.2 15.6
Overall condition
0 2.6 6.5 18.2 28.6 29.9 14.3
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 162
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Tallebudgera Catchment
In the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 3.90% 3.90% 2.60% 9.10% 6.50% 19.50% 54.50%
Clear 2.60% 2.60% 5.20% 9.10% 5.20% 31.20% 44.20%
Partly muddy
13.00% 18.20% 10.40% 15.60% 26.00% 13.00% 3.90%
Muddy 24.70% 32.50% 15.60% 15.60% 9.10% 1.30% 1.30%
Very muddy
48.10% 28.60% 9.10% 9.10% 3.90% 0.00% 1.30%
Pollution levels
No pollution
5.20% 3.90% 2.60% 11.70% 6.50% 19.50% 50.60%
Low levels of pollution
11.70% 7.80% 9.10% 18.20% 15.60% 26.00% 11.70%
Some pollution
24.70% 20.80% 22.10% 19.50% 10.40% 1.30% 1.30%
Polluted 58.40% 18.20% 11.70% 6.50% 3.90% 0.00% 1.30%
Very polluted
71.40% 11.70% 6.50% 5.20% 2.60% 1.30% 1.30%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 163
Near the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 0.00% 1.30% 2.60% 11.70% 2.60% 22.10% 59.70%
Clear 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 14.30% 2.60% 28.60% 51.90%
Partly muddy
2.60% 5.20% 11.70% 19.50% 14.30% 24.70% 22.10%
Muddy 13.00% 11.70% 10.40% 22.10% 14.30% 16.90% 11.70%
Very muddy
24.70% 10.40% 13.00% 19.50% 13.00% 7.80% 11.70%
Pollution levels
No pollution
3.90% 2.60% 2.60% 13.00% 3.90% 16.90% 57.10%
Low levels of pollution
6.50% 5.20% 13.00% 20.80% 9.10% 22.10% 23.40%
Some pollution
19.50% 13.00% 20.80% 19.50% 15.60% 9.10% 2.60%
Polluted 35.10% 28.60% 14.30% 14.30% 2.60% 2.60% 2.60%
Very polluted
64.90% 10.40% 9.10% 9.10% 2.60% 1.30% 2.60%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 164
Use and frequency of activities – Tallebudgera
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 6.49% 10.40% 18.18% 23.38% 0.00% 41.6%
Walking, running 25.95% 20.76% 6.52% 10.38% 6.52% 0.00% 29.9%
Swimming 3.87% 15.60% 10.36% 14.29% 10.36% 0.00% 45.5%
Cycling 2.60% 2.60% 5.20% 5.20% 2.60% 0.00% 81.8%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 97.4%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 2.60% 94.8%
Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.79% 0.00% 92.2%
Recreational fishing 1.31% 3.90% 0.00% 9.10% 5.20% 0.00% 80.5%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.30% 2.60% 6.49% 0.00% 89.6%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
1.31% 3.91% 2.60% 6.50% 5.19% 1.31% 79.2%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
1.29% 6.49% 1.29% 7.80% 1.29% 0.00% 81.8%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.19% 3.90% 0.00% 90.9%
Enjoying nature 5.19% 9.10% 6.48% 15.58% 5.19% 0.00% 58.4%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 1.30% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 96.1%
Other 1.30% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 1.30% 94.8%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 165
9.19 Upper Brisbane
Demographics
Gender ratio Frequency Percent
Male 11 28.9
Female 27 71.1
Total 38 100
Education
Frequency Percent
Primary School 0 0.0
High School 15 38.5
Diploma or Cert 13 33.3
Apprenticeship or trade cert 5 12.8
Bachelor degree 4 10.3
Postgraduate degree 1 2.6
Other Qualification 1 2.6
Total 39 100
Lived in SEQ
Frequency Percent
Less than a year 2 5.1
1-3 years 3 7.7
4-6 years 6 15.4
7-10 years 2 5.1
More than 10 years 26 66.7
Total 39 100
Employment
Frequency Percent
Retired 13 33.3
Carer 2 5.1
Full time student 3 7.7
Unemployed and not seeking work 1 2.6
Unemployed and seeking work 4 10.3
Part time employee 9 23.1
Full time work 7 17.9
Total 39 100
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 166
Employment industry
Frequency Percent
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 5.1
Mining 1 2.6
Manufacturing 0 0.0
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 2.6
Construction and Development 1 2.6
Wholesale Trade 0 0.0
Retail Trade 4 10.3
Hospitality and Tourism 2 5.1
Transport and Storage 0 0.0
Communication Services 1 2.6
Finance and Insurance 0 0.0
Property and Business Services 0 0.0
Government Administration and Defence 1 2.6
Education 4 10.3
Health and Community Services 6 15.4
Cultural and Recreational Services 0 0.0
Personal and Other Services 4 10.3
I have not worked 5 12.8
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries 5 12.8
Other 2 5.1
Total 39 100
Household Income
Frequency Percent
Under $25,000 10 25.6
$25,001-$50,000 13 33.3
$50,001-$75,000 4 10.3
$75,001-$100,000 2 5.1
$100,001-$150,000 3 7.7
$150,001-$200,000 2 5.1
Over $200,000 0 0.0
Prefer not to say 5 12.8
Total 39 100
Protection Activities
Activity 0 hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Actively engaged people
Total Hours spent
Hours per
person
Weed control 79.5% 10.3% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 55 6.93
Native tree planting 79.5% 5.1% 10.3% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 66 8.23
Monitoring 79.5% 10.3% 7.7% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 8 58 7.26
Rubbish clean-up 64.1% 12.8% 10.3% 0.0% 2.6% 10.3% 14 188 13.45
Erosion control 79.5% 2.6% 5.1% 7.7% 5.1% 0.0% 8 113 14.11
Other 96.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 8 7.70
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 167
Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Upper Brisbane Catchment
Dissatisfaction columns:
The more dissatisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the red, lower levels of percentages are darker green.
Satisfaction columns:
The more satisfied in terms of higher levels of percentages the darker the green, and lower levels of percentages are darker red.
Summary: red = bad, green = good.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is neutral, and is blue in the table.
The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.
Thinking about the condition of your LOCAL WATERWAYS within 15 kms of your home, over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Thinking about the condition of WATERWAYS in SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND over the past 12 months, how satisfied have you been with the following?
Level Condition Highly Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Local
Water clarity
15.4 2.6 15.4 33.3 15.4 15.4 2.6
Pollution levels
12.8 2.6 25.6 25.6 12.8 12.8 7.7
Fish numbers
12.8 7.7 25.6 38.5 7.7 2.6 5.1
Natural vegetation
10.3 5.1 20.5 33.3 15.4 7.7 7.7
Overall condition
15.4 0 20.5 17.9 17.9 25.6 2.6
SEQ
Water clarity
5.1 5.1 25.6 28.2 15.4 15.4 5.1
Pollution levels
7.7 7.7 20.5 33.3 10.3 17.9 2.6
Fish numbers
7.7 5.1 23.1 43.6 12.8 7.7 0
Natural vegetation
7.7 2.6 23.1 38.5 10.3 12.8 5.1
Overall condition
10.3 0 20.5 25.6 17.9 20.5 5.1
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 168
Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Upper Brisbane Catchment
In the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use ANY WATERWAY for activities in or on the water (such as swimming or boating) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 7.70% 2.60% 12.80% 23.10% 7.70% 15.40% 30.80%
Clear 7.70% 10.30% 5.10% 23.10% 12.80% 17.90% 23.10%
Partly muddy
15.40% 17.90% 12.80% 15.40% 17.90% 20.50% 0.00%
Muddy 25.60% 15.40% 10.30% 20.50% 17.90% 10.30% 0.00%
Very muddy
33.30% 23.10% 12.80% 23.10% 0.00% 7.70% 0.00%
Pollution levels
No pollution
15.40% 2.60% 7.70% 23.10% 5.10% 25.60% 20.50%
Low levels of pollution
15.40% 15.40% 0.00% 25.60% 15.40% 17.90% 10.30%
Some pollution
28.20% 10.30% 10.30% 33.30% 10.30% 7.70% 0.00%
Polluted 46.20% 12.80% 12.80% 23.10% 0.00% 5.10% 0.00%
Very polluted
59.00% 12.80% 2.60% 17.90% 2.60% 5.10% 0.00%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 169
Near the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment
How likely or unlikely are you to use any WATERWAY for activities alongside the waterway (such as walking, camping, or having a picnic) given the following conditions:
Condition Scenario Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Slightly Unlikely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat Likely
Likely Extremely Likely
Water Clarity
Very clear 7.70% 0.00% 7.70% 17.90% 10.30% 25.60% 30.80%
Clear 5.10% 5.10% 5.10% 20.50% 7.70% 28.20% 28.20%
Partly muddy
10.30% 7.70% 10.30% 20.50% 12.80% 28.20% 10.30%
Muddy 12.80% 7.70% 10.30% 25.60% 15.40% 23.10% 5.10%
Very muddy
20.50% 10.30% 7.70% 30.80% 15.40% 12.80% 2.60%
Pollution levels
No pollution
2.60% 0.00% 10.30% 23.10% 5.10% 28.20% 30.80%
Low levels of pollution
5.10% 7.70% 2.60% 33.30% 12.80% 23.10% 15.40%
Some pollution
15.40% 12.80% 7.70% 33.30% 15.40% 12.80% 2.60%
Polluted 28.20% 17.90% 10.30% 25.60% 10.30% 7.70% 0.00%
Very polluted
43.60% 15.40% 7.70% 20.50% 5.10% 5.10% 2.60%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 170
Use and frequency of activities – Upper Brisbane
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a LOCAL WATERWAY (creek,
river, beach, lake etc.), within 15 km of your home, for the activities indicated?
1 Almost everyday
2 Every week
3 Every fortnight
4 Every month
5 Once or twice a year
6 Every few years
7 Never No response Missing
Picnics, BBQs 0.00% 2.57% 5.13% 12.83% 12.83% 0.00% 66.7%
Walking, running 2.57% 0.00% 7.70% 17.94% 0.00% 0.00% 71.8%
Swimming 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 89.7%
Cycling 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 97.4%
4WD driving, trail bike riding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 0.00% 92.3%
Jet skiing water skiing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Camping 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 0.00% 87.2%
Recreational fishing 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 2.56% 7.69% 0.00% 87.2%
Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 92.3%
Rowing, kayaking, canoeing
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Surfing, kite-surfing, sail boarding
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 97.4%
Scuba diving, snorkeling
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Enjoying nature 7.70% 5.13% 0.00% 10.27% 5.13% 0.00% 71.8%
Catching a ferry 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 0.00% 97.4%
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 171
10. Discussion and Conclusion
The 2017 social impact report investigated the role of waterways in the lives of residents in SEQ, particularly their uses at a local and SEQ level, and the influence of condition on their views and values of waterways. Similar to findings reported in the 2015 and 2016 social science surveys (Johnston & Beatson, 2015; 2016), respondents confirmed waterways as valuable and important to their lives. Respondents particularly confirmed the importance of their local waterways, with the high levels of use in a range of activities. While variations across catchments were not surprising, the results remained consistent with previous years, however some indicators in useability, accessibility and satisfaction declined when compared to 2015 and 2016. More research is needed to understand this trend.
Two research questions guided the study. The first question asked: How does waterway condition
affect satisfaction and useability of local waterways?
The mean across SEQ (on a seven point scale) for waterway useability was 4.53 (SD 1.41) suggesting respondents felt their local waterway tended to be useable. Similarly, when asked about satisfaction, the SEQ Mean was 4.54 (SD 1.42) suggesting respondents felt somewhat satisfied with their local waterway. When satisfaction was explored in the context of condition of local and SEQ waterways, the majority of respondents are neutrally grouped (+/-1), indicating there is a level of ambivalence about the condition of their waterways at the local and SEQ level. When respondents were asked about impact of condition when using the waterway, if this waterway use was for activities on or in the water, the condition of a waterway was found to have a large impact on whether respondents will conduct these activities in or on the water. While mud is likely to impact activity usage, pollution has the greater impact with even low levels of pollution having negative impact on activities undertaken.
However, for activities undertaken alongside a waterway, such as walking, or BBQs, waterway condition was found to be not as important in comparison to those activities in or on the water. Again, muddy water has less of an impact than pollution levels, but it is only at the ‘polluted’ and ‘very polluted’ level that condition really impacts activities alongside the water.
Respondents were asked how likely they were to visit or use a local or SEQ waterway when presented with the conditions reflecting increasing levels of pollution (no pollution to very polluted) and decreasing levels of water clarity (very clear to very muddy). Overall, there was a decreasing chance of visiting or using the waterway with increases in mud and pollution. While respondents are alongside the water they are still likely to use the waterway when the water is partly muddy, however this decreases when the water is deemed muddy. This effect is stronger when the respondents are undertaking activities in or on the water. The key finding here is that waterway condition plays a substantial role in how SEQ residents use and whether they are satisfied with their waterways. While muddiness may be a natural phenomenon, residents may benefit from understanding the natural state of a waterway, and how to identify non optimum times for use.
The second question asked: What factors impact waterway satisfaction, accessibility and
useability of local waterways?
Findings suggested a number of factors impact the overall satisfaction, accessibility, and usability of local waterways. The study explored these factors through the related variables of how connected a respondent feels to a location (place attachment and third place), attitudes to the environment, and overall life satisfaction. The following variables were found to be predictors of a specific overall outcome:
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 172
Overall satisfaction: The study found that ‘feeling of fascination’ (0.60), conceptualised as being in an interesting, absorbing location, and ‘place attachment’ (0.58) or the benefits the respondent feel they receive from that waterway, were the two most important predictors of overall satisfaction with a local waterway. Nature relatedness had the least influence. This means respondents who have a sense of connection, familiarity, and interest with a waterway are more likely to be satisfied with that waterway.
Overall accessibility: The feeling of being away (0.38), or rather escaping from everyday life, is the largest predictor of accessibility of local waterways. This is followed by the fascination (0.30) the respondents had with their local waterway. This suggests perhaps that when respondents were able to gain from using their waterway they felt that it was easy to access and more worth the effort of using it.
Overall useability: Place attachment (0.38) featured again as the strongest predictor of usability of the local waterway followed by fascination (0.36) with the waterway.
While only one relationship was not statistically significant (nature relatedness and useability), third place variables and place attachment featured strongly as a predictor of satisfaction, useability and accessibility. This means that waterways play a significant and valuable role in escaping pressures of everyday life, reconnecting with the environment, and that most people can find aspects of a waterway environment to enjoy, thereby providing a sense of belonging.
10.1 Future Research
Based on the finding in this report a number of recommendations are offered. Further research and
resources may be required to implement these recommendations:
Given the prominence of third place and place attachment as strong predictors of overall
satisfaction, accessibility and useability, further research is needed to understand how the
predictors interact. More importantly, how can these be used to improve satisfaction for
waterway users? While the value that waterways play in people’s lives is important, more
research is also needed to understand the relationship between nature relatedness – i.e.:
people who feel that nature is important to them, and overall life satisfaction. Overall life
satisfaction significantly predicts all of the usability questions. Those respondents who score
highly on the life satisfaction index were also likely to find their waterways easy to use.
Increase representation in low representation catchments: The 2017 survey used two
recruitment strategies, panel data and social media data, as a way to increase
representation in the Stanley, mid Brisbane and Upper Brisbane catchments. However
analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the panel and social media
data and therefore the data could not be combined. A key recommendation is to explore
alternative research methods to try and improve understanding of these catchments. Depth
interviews or focus groups could be conducted to explore these catchments in detail
whereby a smaller sample size would not negatively impact the understanding of these
catchments as the method would allow deeper and richer understanding.
More research is needed to understand waterway stewardship and protection activities.
While rubbish clean-up and monitoring were the most common activities, more research is
needed to understand the most effective activities given the stated barriers, such as limited
time available. Only weed removal, monitoring, and rubbish clean-up had a statistically
significant link with the stewardship construct. This is important because even though
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 173
respondents indicated that they had positive attitudes towards waterway protection, they
had limited behaviours to support this.
Conditions: The findings suggested waterway condition influences activities in/on or
alongside a waterway, suggesting levels of muddiness and pollution has the greatest impact.
However more research is needed to further understand the perceptions of condition and
how people use these in their decision making to use a waterway.
Group Clusters: The cluster analysis suggests further research is needed to understand the
psychographic differences between groups and to explore if certain interventions could be
designed to increase any one of the variables investigated in this report, i.e., how to improve
stewardship in groups 3 and 4.
In conclusion, the 2017 investigated the social benefits of waterways across 19 catchment areas in SEQ to understand how people use, value and benefit from engaging with in their local waterways, their stewardship behaviours, and the influence of waterway conditions on using, accessing and levels of satisfaction of local waterways. The data provided in this report also contributes the social component of the 2017 Healthy Land and Water Report Card.
11. References
Ali, F., Kim, W. G., Li, J., & Jeon, H. M. (2016). Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. (in press)
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656.
Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure Travel Experience. Journal of Travel Research, (Summer), 20-26.
Cumes, D. (1998). Inner Passages, Outer Journeys. Llewellyn, St Paul, MN. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140. Iniesta-Bonillo, M., Sánchez-Fernández, R. A., Jiménez-Castillo, D. (2016). Sustainability, value, and
satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations. Journal of Business Research, 69 (11), pp. 5002-5007
Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21(4), 349-362.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. Olson, Jerry C. (1981). What is an Esthetic Response? In Symbolic Consumer Behavior, Elizabeth C.
Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, (Eds). Ann Arbor, NY: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 71–74
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 203–220.
Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Restorative servicescapes: Restoring directed attention in third places. Journal of Service Management, 20 (2), 173-191.
Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor Adventure Tourism: A Review of Research Approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (2), 363-380.
Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Values, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 413-438.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 174
Veryzer, Robert W. Jr (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design Principles on Product Preferences, in Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research. 20, pp. 224–228
12. Appendices
Appendix A – List of Catchments, Suburbs, and Postcodes
Locality Catchment Name Postcode
Bahrs Scrub Albert 4207
Bannockburn Albert 4207
Belivah Albert 4207
Benobble Albert 4275
Biddaddaba Albert 4275
Birnam Albert 4285
Boyland Albert 4275
Cainbable Albert 4285
Canungra Albert 4275
Cedar Creek Albert 4207
Darlington Albert 4285
Eagleby Albert 4207
Kairabah Albert 4207
Kerry Albert 4285
Luscombe Albert 4207
Mount Warren Park Albert 4207
Mundoolun Albert 4285
Nindooinbah Albert 4285
O'Reilly Albert 4275
Sarabah Albert 4275
Stapylton Albert 4207
Tabragalba Albert 4285
Tamborine Albert 4270
Tamborine Mountain Albert 4272
Windaroo Albert 4207
Wolffdene Albert 4207
Wonglepong Albert 4275
Yatala Albert 4207
Amberley Bremer 4306
Anthony Bremer 4310
Aratula Bremer 4309
Ashwell Bremer 4340
Barellan Point Bremer 4306
Basin Pocket Bremer 4305
Blacksoil Bremer 4306
Blackstone Bremer 4304
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 175
Blantyre Bremer 4310
Booval Bremer 4304
Brassall Bremer 4305
Bundamba Bremer 4304
Calvert Bremer 4340
Charlwood Bremer 4309
Churchill Bremer 4305
Chuwar Bremer 4306
Clumber Bremer 4309
Coalfalls Bremer 4305
Coleyville Bremer 4307
Deebing Heights Bremer 4306
Dinmore Bremer 4303
East Ipswich Bremer 4305
Eastern Heights Bremer 4305
Ebbw Vale Bremer 4304
Ebenezer Bremer 4340
Fassifern Bremer 4309
Fassifern Valley Bremer 4309
Flinders View Bremer 4305
Frazerview Bremer 4309
Goolman Bremer 4306
Grandchester Bremer 4340
Harrisville Bremer 4307
Ipswich Bremer 4305
Jeebropilly Bremer 4340
Kalbar Bremer 4309
Karalee Bremer 4306
Karrabin Bremer 4306
Kents Lagoon Bremer 4309
Kulgun Bremer 4309
Lanefield Bremer 4340
Leichhardt Bremer 4305
Limestone Ridges Bremer 4305
Lower Mount Walker Bremer 4340
Merryvale Bremer 4340
Milbong Bremer 4310
Milora Bremer 4309
Moogerah Bremer 4309
Moorang Bremer 4340
Moores Pocket Bremer 4305
Morwincha Bremer 4309
Mount Edwards Bremer 4309
Mount Forbes Bremer 4340
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 176
Mount Marrow Bremer 4306
Mount Mort Bremer 4340
Mount Walker Bremer 4340
Mount Walker West Bremer 4340
Muirlea Bremer 4306
Munbilla Bremer 4309
Mutdapilly Bremer 4307
Newtown Bremer 4305
North Booval Bremer 4304
North Ipswich Bremer 4305
North Tivoli Bremer 4305
Obum Obum Bremer 4309
One Mile Bremer 4305
Peak Crossing Bremer 4306
Purga Bremer 4306
Raceview Bremer 4305
Radford Bremer 4307
Ripley Bremer 4306
Riverview Bremer 4303
Roadvale Bremer 4310
Rosevale Bremer 4340
Rosewood Bremer 4340
Sadliers Crossing Bremer 4305
Silkstone Bremer 4304
Silverdale Bremer 4307
South Ripley Bremer 4306
Swanbank Bremer 4306
Tarome Bremer 4309
Templin Bremer 4310
Teviotville Bremer 4309
Thagoona Bremer 4306
The Bluff Bremer 4340
Tivoli Bremer 4305
Walloon Bremer 4306
Warrill View Bremer 4307
Washpool Bremer 4306
West Ipswich Bremer 4305
White Rock Bremer 4306
Willowbank Bremer 4306
Wilsons Plains Bremer 4307
Woodend Bremer 4305
Woolooman Bremer 4310
Wulkuraka Bremer 4305
Yamanto Bremer 4305
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 177
Beachmere Caboolture 4510
Bellmere Caboolture 4510
Bracalba Caboolture 4512
Burpengary Caboolture 4505
Burpengary East Caboolture 4505
Caboolture Caboolture 4510
Caboolture South Caboolture 4510
Campbells Pocket Caboolture 4521
Deception Bay Caboolture 4508
Godwin Beach Caboolture 4511
Moodlu Caboolture 4510
Moorina Caboolture 4506
Morayfield Caboolture 4506
Narangba Caboolture 4504
Ningi Caboolture 4511
Ocean View Caboolture 4521
Rocksberg Caboolture 4510
Upper Caboolture Caboolture 4510
Wamuran Caboolture 4512
Wamuran Basin Caboolture 4512
Adare Lockyer 4343
Atkinsons Dam Lockyer 4311
Ballard Lockyer 4352
Black Duck Creek Lockyer 4343
Blanchview Lockyer 4352
Blenheim Lockyer 4341
Blue Mountain Heights Lockyer 4350
Brightview Lockyer 4311
Buaraba Lockyer 4311
Buaraba South Lockyer 4311
Cabarlah Lockyer 4352
Caffey Lockyer 4343
Carpendale Lockyer 4344
Churchable Lockyer 4311
Clarendon Lockyer 4311
College View Lockyer 4343
Coolana Lockyer 4311
Coominya Lockyer 4311
Crowley Vale Lockyer 4342
Derrymore Lockyer 4352
East Haldon Lockyer 4343
Egypt Lockyer 4344
Fifteen Mile Lockyer 4352
Flagstone Creek Lockyer 4344
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 178
Fordsdale Lockyer 4343
Forest Hill Lockyer 4342
Gatton Lockyer 4343
Glen Cairn Lockyer 4342
Glenore Grove Lockyer 4342
Grantham Lockyer 4347
Hampton Lockyer 4352
Hatton Vale Lockyer 4341
Helidon Lockyer 4344
Helidon Spa Lockyer 4344
Ingoldsby Lockyer 4343
Iredale Lockyer 4344
Junction View Lockyer 4343
Kensington Grove Lockyer 4341
Kentville Lockyer 4341
Laidley Lockyer 4341
Laidley Creek West Lockyer 4341
Laidley Heights Lockyer 4341
Laidley North Lockyer 4341
Laidley South Lockyer 4341
Lake Clarendon Lockyer 4343
Lawes Lockyer 4343
Lefthand Branch Lockyer 4343
Lilydale Lockyer 4344
Lockrose Lockyer 4342
Lockyer Lockyer 4344
Lockyer Waters Lockyer 4311
Lower Tenthill Lockyer 4343
Lowood Lockyer 4311
Lynford Lockyer 4342
Ma Ma Creek Lockyer 4347
Middle Ridge Lockyer 4350
Minden Lockyer 4311
Morton Vale Lockyer 4343
Mount Berryman Lockyer 4341
Mount Hallen Lockyer 4312
Mount Lofty Lockyer 4350
Mount Luke Lockyer 4352
Mount Sylvia Lockyer 4343
Mount Tarampa Lockyer 4311
Mount Whitestone Lockyer 4347
Mulgowie Lockyer 4341
Murphys Creek Lockyer 4352
Palmtree Lockyer 4352
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 179
Patrick Estate Lockyer 4311
Placid Hills Lockyer 4343
Plainland Lockyer 4341
Postmans Ridge Lockyer 4352
Prenzlau Lockyer 4311
Preston Lockyer 4352
Prince Henry Heights Lockyer 4350
Ramsay Lockyer 4358
Rangeville Lockyer 4350
Redwood Lockyer 4350
Regency Downs Lockyer 4341
Rifle Range Lockyer 4311
Ringwood Lockyer 4343
Rockmount Lockyer 4344
Rockside Lockyer 4343
Ropeley Lockyer 4343
Seventeen Mile Lockyer 4344
Silver Ridge Lockyer 4352
Spring Bluff Lockyer 4352
Spring Creek Lockyer 4343
Stockyard Lockyer 4344
Summerholm Lockyer 4341
Tallegalla Lockyer 4340
Tarampa Lockyer 4311
Thornton Lockyer 4341
Townson Lockyer 4341
Upper Flagstone Lockyer 4344
Upper Lockyer Lockyer 4352
Upper Tenthill Lockyer 4343
Veradilla Lockyer 4347
Vinegar Hill Lockyer 4343
West Haldon Lockyer 4359
White Mountain Lockyer 4352
Winwill Lockyer 4347
Withcott Lockyer 4352
Woodbine Lockyer 4343
Woodlands Lockyer 4343
Woolshed Lockyer 4340
Alberton Logan 4207
Allandale Logan 4310
Allenview Logan 4285
Barney View Logan 4287
Beaudesert Logan 4285
Beenleigh Logan 4207
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 180
Berrinba Logan 4117
Bethania Logan 4205
Boonah Logan 4310
Boronia Heights Logan 4124
Bromelton Logan 4285
Browns Plains Logan 4118
Buccan Logan 4207
Bunburra Logan 4310
Bunjurgen Logan 4310
Burnett Creek Logan 4310
Calamvale Logan 4116
Cannon Creek Logan 4310
Carbrook Logan 4130
Carneys Creek Logan 4310
Cedar Grove Logan 4285
Cedar Vale Logan 4285
Chambers Flat Logan 4133
Chinghee Creek Logan 4285
Christmas Creek Logan 4285
Coochin Logan 4310
Cornubia Logan 4130
Coulson Logan 4310
Crestmead Logan 4132
Croftby Logan 4310
Cryna Logan 4285
Daisy Hill Logan 4127
Drewvale Logan 4116
Dugandan Logan 4310
Edens Landing Logan 4207
Flagstone Logan 4280
Flinders Lakes Logan 4285
Frenches Creek Logan 4310
Gilberton Logan 4208
Gleneagle Logan 4285
Heritage Park Logan 4118
Hillcrest Logan 4118
Hillview Logan 4285
Holmview Logan 4207
Hoya Logan 4310
Innisplain Logan 4285
Jimboomba Logan 4280
Josephville Logan 4285
Kagaru Logan 4285
Karawatha Logan 4117
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 181
Kents Pocket Logan 4310
Kingston Logan 4114
Knapp Creek Logan 4285
Kooralbyn Logan 4285
Kuraby Logan 4112
Lamington Logan 4285
Laravale Logan 4285
Logan Central Logan 4114
Logan Reserve Logan 4133
Logan Village Logan 4207
Loganholme Logan 4129
Loganlea Logan 4131
Maroon Logan 4310
Marsden Logan 4132
Meadowbrook Logan 4131
Milford Logan 4310
Monarch Glen Logan 4285
Mount Alford Logan 4310
Mount Barney Logan 4287
Mount French Logan 4310
Mount Gipps Logan 4285
Mount Lindesay Logan 4287
Munruben Logan 4125
New Beith Logan 4124
North Maclean Logan 4280
Oaky Creek Logan 4285
Ormeau Logan 4208
Palen Creek Logan 4287
Park Ridge Logan 4125
Park Ridge South Logan 4125
Rathdowney Logan 4287
Redland Bay Logan 4165
Regents Park Logan 4118
Running Creek Logan 4287
Shailer Park Logan 4128
Silverbark Ridge Logan 4124
Slacks Creek Logan 4127
South Maclean Logan 4280
Southern Lamington Logan 4211
Springwood Logan 4127
Stapylton Logan 4207
Steiglitz Logan 4207
Stockleigh Logan 4280
Stretton Logan 4116
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 182
Tabooba Logan 4285
Tamrookum Logan 4285
Tamrookum Creek Logan 4285
Tanah Merah Logan 4128
Underwood Logan 4119
Undullah Logan 4285
Veresdale Logan 4285
Veresdale Scrub Logan 4285
Wallaces Creek Logan 4310
Waterford Logan 4133
Waterford West Logan 4133
Woodhill Logan 4285
Woodridge Logan 4114
Woongoolba Logan 4207
Wyaralong Logan 4310
Yarrabilba Logan 4207
Yatala Logan 4207
Acacia Ridge Lower Brisbane 4110
Albion Lower Brisbane 4010
Alderley Lower Brisbane 4051
Algester Lower Brisbane 4115
Annerley Lower Brisbane 4103
Anstead Lower Brisbane 4070
Arana Hills Lower Brisbane 4054
Archerfield Lower Brisbane 4108
Ascot Lower Brisbane 4007
Ashgrove Lower Brisbane 4060
Aspley Lower Brisbane 4034
Auchenflower Lower Brisbane 4066
Augustine Heights Lower Brisbane 4300
Balmoral Lower Brisbane 4171
Banyo Lower Brisbane 4014
Bardon Lower Brisbane 4065
Barellan Point Lower Brisbane 4306
Bellbird Park Lower Brisbane 4300
Bellbowrie Lower Brisbane 4070
Belmont Lower Brisbane 4153
Boondall Lower Brisbane 4034
Bowen Hills Lower Brisbane 4006
Bracken Ridge Lower Brisbane 4017
Brisbane Airport Lower Brisbane 4008
Brisbane City Lower Brisbane 4000
Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069
Brookwater Lower Brisbane 4300
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 183
Bulimba Lower Brisbane 4171
Calamvale Lower Brisbane 4116
Camira Lower Brisbane 4300
Camp Hill Lower Brisbane 4152
Cannon Hill Lower Brisbane 4170
Carina Lower Brisbane 4152
Carina Heights Lower Brisbane 4152
Carindale Lower Brisbane 4152
Carole Park Lower Brisbane 4300
Carseldine Lower Brisbane 4034
Chapel Hill Lower Brisbane 4069
Chelmer Lower Brisbane 4068
Chermside Lower Brisbane 4032
Chermside West Lower Brisbane 4032
Clayfield Lower Brisbane 4011
Collingwood Park Lower Brisbane 4301
Coopers Plains Lower Brisbane 4108
Coorparoo Lower Brisbane 4151
Corinda Lower Brisbane 4075
Darra Lower Brisbane 4076
Deagon Lower Brisbane 4017
Doolandella Lower Brisbane 4077
Durack Lower Brisbane 4077
Dutton Park Lower Brisbane 4102
Eagle Farm Lower Brisbane 4009
East Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4169
Eight Mile Plains Lower Brisbane 4113
Ellen Grove Lower Brisbane 4078
Enoggera Lower Brisbane 4051
Enoggera Reservoir Lower Brisbane 4520
Everton Hills Lower Brisbane 4053
Everton Park Lower Brisbane 4053
Fairfield Lower Brisbane 4103
Ferny Grove Lower Brisbane 4055
Ferny Hills Lower Brisbane 4055
Fig Tree Pocket Lower Brisbane 4069
Fitzgibbon Lower Brisbane 4018
Forest Lake Lower Brisbane 4078
Forestdale Lower Brisbane 4118
Fortitude Valley Lower Brisbane 4006
Gailes Lower Brisbane 4300
Gaythorne Lower Brisbane 4051
Geebung Lower Brisbane 4034
Goodna Lower Brisbane 4300
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 184
Gordon Park Lower Brisbane 4031
Graceville Lower Brisbane 4075
Grange Lower Brisbane 4051
Greenbank Lower Brisbane 4124
Greenslopes Lower Brisbane 4120
Hamilton Lower Brisbane 4007
Hawthorne Lower Brisbane 4171
Heathwood Lower Brisbane 4110
Hemmant Lower Brisbane 4174
Hendra Lower Brisbane 4011
Herston Lower Brisbane 4006
Highgate Hill Lower Brisbane 4101
Holland Park Lower Brisbane 4121
Holland Park West Lower Brisbane 4121
Inala Lower Brisbane 4077
Indooroopilly Lower Brisbane 4068
Jamboree Heights Lower Brisbane 4074
Jindalee Lower Brisbane 4074
Kalinga Lower Brisbane 4030
Kangaroo Point Lower Brisbane 4169
Karalee Lower Brisbane 4306
Karana Downs Lower Brisbane 4306
Kedron Lower Brisbane 4031
Kelvin Grove Lower Brisbane 4059
Kenmore Lower Brisbane 4069
Kenmore Hills Lower Brisbane 4069
Keperra Lower Brisbane 4054
Kholo Lower Brisbane 4306
Kuraby Lower Brisbane 4112
Larapinta Lower Brisbane 4110
Lutwyche Lower Brisbane 4030
Lyons Lower Brisbane 4124
Lytton Lower Brisbane 4178
Macgregor Lower Brisbane 4109
Mackenzie Lower Brisbane 4156
Mansfield Lower Brisbane 4122
McDowall Lower Brisbane 4053
Middle Park Lower Brisbane 4074
Milton Lower Brisbane 4064
Mitchelton Lower Brisbane 4053
Moggill Lower Brisbane 4070
Moorooka Lower Brisbane 4105
Morningside Lower Brisbane 4170
Mount Coot-tha Lower Brisbane 4066
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 185
Mount Crosby Lower Brisbane 4306
Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122
Mount Gravatt East Lower Brisbane 4122
Mount Ommaney Lower Brisbane 4074
Murarrie Lower Brisbane 4172
Nathan Lower Brisbane 4111
New Beith Lower Brisbane 4124
New Chum Lower Brisbane 4303
New Farm Lower Brisbane 4005
Newmarket Lower Brisbane 4051
Newstead Lower Brisbane 4006
Norman Park Lower Brisbane 4170
Northgate Lower Brisbane 4013
Nudgee Lower Brisbane 4014
Nudgee Beach Lower Brisbane 4014
Nundah Lower Brisbane 4012
Oxley Lower Brisbane 4075
Paddington Lower Brisbane 4064
Pallara Lower Brisbane 4110
Parkinson Lower Brisbane 4115
Petrie Terrace Lower Brisbane 4000
Pinjarra Hills Lower Brisbane 4069
Pinkenba Lower Brisbane 4008
Pullenvale Lower Brisbane 4069
Red Hill Lower Brisbane 4059
Redbank Lower Brisbane 4301
Redbank Plains Lower Brisbane 4301
Richlands Lower Brisbane 4077
Riverhills Lower Brisbane 4074
Riverview Lower Brisbane 4303
Robertson Lower Brisbane 4109
Rochedale Lower Brisbane 4123
Rocklea Lower Brisbane 4106
Runcorn Lower Brisbane 4113
Salisbury Lower Brisbane 4107
Sandgate Lower Brisbane 4017
Seven Hills Lower Brisbane 4170
Seventeen Mile Rocks Lower Brisbane 4073
Sherwood Lower Brisbane 4075
Shorncliffe Lower Brisbane 4017
Sinnamon Park Lower Brisbane 4073
South Brisbane Lower Brisbane 4101
Spring Hill Lower Brisbane 4000
Spring Mountain Lower Brisbane 4124
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 186
Springfield Lower Brisbane 4300
Springfield Central Lower Brisbane 4300
Springfield Lakes Lower Brisbane 4300
St Lucia Lower Brisbane 4067
Stafford Lower Brisbane 4053
Stafford Heights Lower Brisbane 4053
Stretton Lower Brisbane 4116
Sumner Lower Brisbane 4074
Sunnybank Lower Brisbane 4109
Sunnybank Hills Lower Brisbane 4109
Taigum Lower Brisbane 4018
Taringa Lower Brisbane 4068
Tarragindi Lower Brisbane 4121
Teneriffe Lower Brisbane 4005
Tennyson Lower Brisbane 4105
The Gap Lower Brisbane 4061
Tingalpa Lower Brisbane 4173
Toowong Lower Brisbane 4066
Upper Brookfield Lower Brisbane 4069
Upper Kedron Lower Brisbane 4055
Upper Mount Gravatt Lower Brisbane 4122
Virginia Lower Brisbane 4014
Wacol Lower Brisbane 4076
Wakerley Lower Brisbane 4154
Wavell Heights Lower Brisbane 4012
West End Lower Brisbane 4101
Westlake Lower Brisbane 4074
White Rock Lower Brisbane 4306
Willawong Lower Brisbane 4110
Wilston Lower Brisbane 4051
Windsor Lower Brisbane 4030
Wishart Lower Brisbane 4122
Woolloongabba Lower Brisbane 4102
Wooloowin Lower Brisbane 4030
Wynnum West Lower Brisbane 4178
Yeerongpilly Lower Brisbane 4105
Yeronga Lower Brisbane 4104
Zillmere Lower Brisbane 4034
Alexandra Headland Maroochy 4572
Bli Bli Maroochy 4560
Bridges Maroochy 4561
Buderim Maroochy 4556
Burnside Maroochy 4560
Chevallum Maroochy 4555
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 187
Coes Creek Maroochy 4560
Cooloolabin Maroochy 4560
Coolum Beach Maroochy 4573
Diddillibah Maroochy 4559
Doonan Maroochy 4562
Dulong Maroochy 4560
Eerwah Vale Maroochy 4562
Eudlo Maroochy 4554
Eumundi Maroochy 4562
Forest Glen Maroochy 4556
Highworth Maroochy 4560
Hunchy Maroochy 4555
Image Flat Maroochy 4560
Kiamba Maroochy 4560
Kiels Mountain Maroochy 4559
Kulangoor Maroochy 4560
Kuluin Maroochy 4558
Kunda Park Maroochy 4556
Kureelpa Maroochy 4560
Landers Shoot Maroochy 4555
Mapleton Maroochy 4560
Marcoola Maroochy 4564
Maroochy River Maroochy 4561
Maroochydore Maroochy 4558
Mons Maroochy 4556
Mount Coolum Maroochy 4573
Mudjimba Maroochy 4564
Nambour Maroochy 4560
Ninderry Maroochy 4561
North Arm Maroochy 4561
Pacific Paradise Maroochy 4564
Palmwoods Maroochy 4555
Parklands Maroochy 4560
Peregian Springs Maroochy 4573
Perwillowen Maroochy 4560
Point Arkwright Maroochy 4573
Rosemount Maroochy 4560
Towen Mountain Maroochy 4560
Twin Waters Maroochy 4564
Valdora Maroochy 4561
Verrierdale Maroochy 4562
West Woombye Maroochy 4559
Woombye Maroochy 4559
Yandina Maroochy 4561
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 188
Yandina Creek Maroochy 4561
Yaroomba Maroochy 4573
Aroona Mooloolah 4551
Bald Knob Mooloolah 4552
Balmoral Ridge Mooloolah 4552
Battery Hill Mooloolah 4551
Birtinya Mooloolah 4575
Bokarina Mooloolah 4575
Buddina Mooloolah 4575
Buderim Mooloolah 4556
Currimundi Mooloolah 4551
Diamond Valley Mooloolah 4553
Dicky Beach Mooloolah 4551
Glenview Mooloolah 4553
Ilkley Mooloolah 4554
Landsborough Mooloolah 4550
Little Mountain Mooloolah 4551
Meridan Plains Mooloolah 4551
Minyama Mooloolah 4575
Moffat Beach Mooloolah 4551
Mooloolaba Mooloolah 4557
Mooloolah Valley Mooloolah 4553
Mountain Creek Mooloolah 4557
Palmview Mooloolah 4553
Parrearra Mooloolah 4575
Shelly Beach Mooloolah 4551
Sippy Downs Mooloolah 4556
Tanawha Mooloolah 4556
Warana Mooloolah 4575
Wurtulla Mooloolah 4575
Amity Moreton Bay and Islands 4183
Banksia Beach Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Bellara Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Bongaree Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Bribie Island North Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Bulwer Moreton Bay and Islands 4025
Coochiemudlo Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Cowan Cowan Moreton Bay and Islands 4025
Dunwich Moreton Bay and Islands 4183
Hollywell Moreton Bay and Islands 4216
Karragarra Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Kooringal Moreton Bay and Islands 4025
Lamb Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Lota Moreton Bay and Islands 4179
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 189
Macleay Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Main Beach Moreton Bay and Islands 4217
Manly Moreton Bay and Islands 4179
Moreton Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4025
North Stradbroke Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4183
Paradise Point Moreton Bay and Islands 4216
Peel Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Point Lookout Moreton Bay and Islands 4183
Port Of Brisbane Moreton Bay and Islands 4178
Russell Island Moreton Bay and Islands 4184
Sandstone Point Moreton Bay and Islands 4511
South Stradbroke Moreton Bay and Islands 4216
Southern Moreton Bay Islands Moreton Bay and Islands 4212
Welsby Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
White Patch Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Woorim Moreton Bay and Islands 4507
Advancetown Nerang 4211
Ashmore Nerang 4214
Austinville Nerang 4213
Benowa Nerang 4217
Bonogin Nerang 4213
Broadbeach Nerang 4218
Broadbeach Waters Nerang 4218
Bundall Nerang 4217
Burleigh Heads Nerang 4220
Burleigh Waters Nerang 4220
Carrara Nerang 4211
Clear Island Waters Nerang 4226
Gilston Nerang 4211
Highland Park Nerang 4211
Lower Beechmont Nerang 4211
Main Beach Nerang 4217
Mermaid Beach Nerang 4218
Mermaid Waters Nerang 4218
Merrimac Nerang 4226
Miami Nerang 4220
Molendinar Nerang 4214
Mudgeeraba Nerang 4213
Natural Bridge Nerang 4211
Nerang Nerang 4211
Neranwood Nerang 4213
Numinbah Valley Nerang 4211
Reedy Creek Nerang 4227
Robina Nerang 4226
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 190
Southport Nerang 4215
Springbrook Nerang 4213
Surfers Paradise Nerang 4217
Tallai Nerang 4213
Varsity Lakes Nerang 4227
Worongary Nerang 4213
Boreen Point Noosa 4565
Castaways Beach Noosa 4567
Como Noosa 4571
Cooloola Noosa 4580
Cooroibah Noosa 4565
Cootharaba Noosa 4565
Kin Kin Noosa 4571
Marcus Beach Noosa 4573
Noosa Heads Noosa 4567
Noosa North Shore Noosa 4565
Noosaville Noosa 4566
Peregian Beach Noosa 4573
Ringtail Creek Noosa 4565
Sunrise Beach Noosa 4567
Sunshine Beach Noosa 4567
Tewantin Noosa 4565
Tinbeerwah Noosa 4563
Weyba Downs Noosa 4562
Arundel Pimpama-Coomera 4214
Ashmore Pimpama-Coomera 4214
Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Biggera Waters Pimpama-Coomera 4216
Binna Burra Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Clagiraba Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Coombabah Pimpama-Coomera 4216
Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209
Ferny Glen Pimpama-Coomera 4275
Flying Fox Pimpama-Coomera 4275
Gaven Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Guanaba Pimpama-Coomera 4210
Helensvale Pimpama-Coomera 4212
Hollywell Pimpama-Coomera 4216
Hope Island Pimpama-Coomera 4212
Illinbah Pimpama-Coomera 4275
Jacobs Well Pimpama-Coomera 4208
Kingsholme Pimpama-Coomera 4208
Labrador Pimpama-Coomera 4215
Lower Beechmont Pimpama-Coomera 4211
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 191
Maudsland Pimpama-Coomera 4210
Molendinar Pimpama-Coomera 4214
Mount Nathan Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Nerang Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Norwell Pimpama-Coomera 4208
Ormeau Hills Pimpama-Coomera 4208
Oxenford Pimpama-Coomera 4210
Pacific Pines Pimpama-Coomera 4211
Paradise Point Pimpama-Coomera 4216
Parkwood Pimpama-Coomera 4214
Pimpama Pimpama-Coomera 4209
Runaway Bay Pimpama-Coomera 4216
Southport Pimpama-Coomera 4215
Steiglitz Pimpama-Coomera 4207
Tamborine Mountain Pimpama-Coomera 4272
Upper Coomera Pimpama-Coomera 4209
Willow Vale Pimpama-Coomera 4209
Witheren Pimpama-Coomera 4275
Wongawallan Pimpama-Coomera 4210
Albany Creek Pine 4035
Armstrong Creek Pine 4520
Bald Hills Pine 4036
Bracken Ridge Pine 4017
Bray Park Pine 4500
Brendale Pine 4500
Bridgeman Downs Pine 4035
Brighton Pine 4017
Bunya Pine 4055
Camp Mountain Pine 4520
Cashmere Pine 4500
Cedar Creek Pine 4520
Clear Mountain Pine 4500
Clontarf Pine 4019
Closeburn Pine 4520
Dakabin Pine 4503
Dayboro Pine 4521
Draper Pine 4520
Eatons Hill Pine 4037
Griffin Pine 4503
Highvale Pine 4520
Jollys Lookout Pine 4520
Joyner Pine 4500
Kallangur Pine 4503
King Scrub Pine 4521
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 192
Kippa-ring Pine 4021
Kobble Creek Pine 4520
Kurwongbah Pine 4503
Laceys Creek Pine 4521
Lawnton Pine 4501
Mango Hill Pine 4509
Margate Pine 4019
Mount Glorious Pine 4520
Mount Nebo Pine 4520
Mount Pleasant Pine 4521
Mount Samson Pine 4520
Murrumba Downs Pine 4503
Narangba Pine 4504
Newport Pine 4020
North Lakes Pine 4509
Petrie Pine 4502
Redcliffe Pine 4020
Rothwell Pine 4022
Rush Creek Pine 4521
Samford Valley Pine 4520
Samford Village Pine 4520
Samsonvale Pine 4520
Scarborough Pine 4020
Strathpine Pine 4500
Warner Pine 4500
Whiteside Pine 4503
Wights Mountain Pine 4520
Woody Point Pine 4019
Yugar Pine 4520
Beerburrum Pumicestone 4517
Beerwah Pumicestone 4519
Bells Creek Pumicestone 4551
Caloundra Pumicestone 4551
Caloundra West Pumicestone 4551
Coochin Creek Pumicestone 4519
Donnybrook Pumicestone 4510
Elimbah Pumicestone 4516
Glass House Mountains Pumicestone 4518
Golden Beach Pumicestone 4551
Kings Beach Pumicestone 4551
Landsborough Pumicestone 4550
Little Mountain Pumicestone 4551
Meldale Pumicestone 4510
Mount Mellum Pumicestone 4550
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 193
Ningi Pumicestone 4511
Pelican Waters Pumicestone 4551
Sandstone Point Pumicestone 4511
Toorbul Pumicestone 4510
Alexandra Hills Redland 4161
Birkdale Redland 4159
Burbank Redland 4156
Capalaba Redland 4157
Chandler Redland 4155
Cleveland Redland 4163
Daisy Hill Redland 4127
Gumdale Redland 4154
Lota Redland 4179
Manly Redland 4179
Manly West Redland 4179
Mount Cotton Redland 4165
Ormiston Redland 4160
Priestdale Redland 4127
Ransome Redland 4154
Redland Bay Redland 4165
Rochedale South Redland 4123
Sheldon Redland 4157
Thorneside Redland 4158
Thornlands Redland 4164
Victoria Point Redland 4165
Wakerley Redland 4154
Wellington Point Redland 4160
Wynnum Redland 4178
Bald Knob Stanley 4552
Bellthorpe Stanley 4514
Booroobin Stanley 4552
Cedarton Stanley 4514
Commissioners Flat Stanley 4514
Crohamhurst Stanley 4519
Crossdale Stanley 4312
D'aguilar Stanley 4514
Delaneys Creek Stanley 4514
Glass House Mountains Stanley 4518
Glenfern Stanley 4515
Hazeldean Stanley 4515
Kilcoy Stanley 4515
Mount Archer Stanley 4514
Mount Byron Stanley 4312
Mount Delaney Stanley 4514
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 194
Mount Kilcoy Stanley 4515
Mount Mee Stanley 4521
Neurum Stanley 4514
Peachester Stanley 4519
Royston Stanley 4515
Sandy Creek Stanley 4515
Sheep Station Creek Stanley 4515
Somerset Dam Stanley 4312
Stanmore Stanley 4514
Stony Creek Stanley 4514
Villeneuve Stanley 4514
Westvale Stanley 4514
Winya Stanley 4515
Woodford Stanley 4514
Woolmar Stanley 4515
Wootha Stanley 4552
Bilinga Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225
Burleigh Heads Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4220
Coolangatta Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4225
Currumbin Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223
Currumbin Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223
Currumbin Waters Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4223
Elanora Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221
Palm Beach Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4221
Tallebudgera Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228
Tallebudgera Valley Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4228
Tugun Tallebudgera-Currumbin 4224
Anduramba Upper Brisbane 4355
Avoca Vale Upper Brisbane 4306
Banks Creek Upper Brisbane 4306
Benarkin Upper Brisbane 4306
Benarkin North Upper Brisbane 4306
Bergen Upper Brisbane 4353
Biarra Upper Brisbane 4313
Blackbutt Upper Brisbane 4306
Blackbutt North Upper Brisbane 4306
Blackbutt South Upper Brisbane 4306
Borallon Upper Brisbane 4306
Braemore Upper Brisbane 4313
Bryden Upper Brisbane 4312
Caboonbah Upper Brisbane 4312
Cherry Creek Upper Brisbane 4306
Chuwar Upper Brisbane 4306
Coal Creek Upper Brisbane 4312
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 195
Coalbank Upper Brisbane 4352
Colinton Upper Brisbane 4306
Cooeeimbardi Upper Brisbane 4313
Coominya Upper Brisbane 4311
Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4402
Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313
Cressbrook Creek Upper Brisbane 4355
Crossdale Upper Brisbane 4312
Crows Nest Upper Brisbane 4355
Djuan Upper Brisbane 4352
Dundas Upper Brisbane 4306
East Cooyar Upper Brisbane 4353
East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615
Emu Creek Upper Brisbane 4355
England Creek Upper Brisbane 4306
Esk Upper Brisbane 4312
Eskdale Upper Brisbane 4312
Fairney View Upper Brisbane 4306
Fernvale Upper Brisbane 4306
Fulham Upper Brisbane 4313
Gilla Upper Brisbane 4306
Glamorgan Vale Upper Brisbane 4306
Glen Esk Upper Brisbane 4312
Glenaven Upper Brisbane 4355
Googa Creek Upper Brisbane 4306
Grapetree Upper Brisbane 4352
Gregors Creek Upper Brisbane 4313
Haden Upper Brisbane 4353
Haigslea Upper Brisbane 4306
Harlin Upper Brisbane 4306
Ironbark Upper Brisbane 4306
Ivory Creek Upper Brisbane 4313
Jones Gully Upper Brisbane 4355
Kholo Upper Brisbane 4306
Kooralgin Upper Brisbane 4402
Lake Manchester Upper Brisbane 4306
Lake Wivenhoe Upper Brisbane 4312
Lark Hill Upper Brisbane 4306
Linville Upper Brisbane 4306
Lower Cressbrook Upper Brisbane 4313
Lowood Upper Brisbane 4311
Marburg Upper Brisbane 4346
Monsildale Upper Brisbane 4515
Moombra Upper Brisbane 4312
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 196
Moore Upper Brisbane 4306
Mount Beppo Upper Brisbane 4313
Mount Binga Upper Brisbane 4306
Mount Hallen Upper Brisbane 4312
Mount Stanley Upper Brisbane 4306
Mountain Camp Upper Brisbane 4355
Muirlea Upper Brisbane 4306
Murrumba Upper Brisbane 4312
Nukku Upper Brisbane 4306
Nutgrove Upper Brisbane 4352
Ottaba Upper Brisbane 4313
Patrick Estate Upper Brisbane 4311
Perseverance Upper Brisbane 4352
Pierces Creek Upper Brisbane 4355
Pine Mountain Upper Brisbane 4306
Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355
Ravensbourne Upper Brisbane 4352
Redbank Creek Upper Brisbane 4312
Scrub Creek Upper Brisbane 4313
South East Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615
South Nanango Upper Brisbane 4615
Split Yard Creek Upper Brisbane 4306
St Aubyn Upper Brisbane 4352
Tallegalla Upper Brisbane 4340
Taromeo Upper Brisbane 4306
Teelah Upper Brisbane 4306
The Bluff Upper Brisbane 4355
Thornville Upper Brisbane 4352
Toogoolawah Upper Brisbane 4313
Upper Cooyar Creek Upper Brisbane 4402
Upper Pinelands Upper Brisbane 4355
Upper Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614
Vernor Upper Brisbane 4306
Wanora Upper Brisbane 4306
Wivenhoe Hill Upper Brisbane 4311
Wivenhoe Pocket Upper Brisbane 4306
Wutul Upper Brisbane 4352
Yarraman Upper Brisbane 4614
Yimbun Upper Brisbane 4313
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 197
Appendix B – Participant Information Sheet
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Survey –
Healthy Land and Water Social Science Research QUT Ethics Approval Number 1500000402
RESEARCH TEAM
Principal Researcher: Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology Associate Researchers: Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology
Dr Paul Maxwell, Principal Scientist – Monitoring and Research, Healthy Land and Water Dr Emily Saeck, Senior Scientist - Monitoring and Research, Healthy Land and Water
DESCRIPTION The purpose of this research is to understand the attitudes and behaviours that underpin expectations and actions towards using and valuing local waterways in communities across Queensland. You are invited to participate in this project because you are over 18 years old and you live in South East Queensland. PARTICIPATION Your participation will involve completing an anonymous online survey with Likert scale answers (strongly agree – strongly disagree). The survey will take approximately 15 minutes of your time. Questions will include:
I feel a strong personal obligation to protect local waterways
Overall, I am satisfied with my local waterways
I take notice of wildlife wherever I am Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate you do not have to complete any question(s) you are uncomfortable answering. Your decision to participate or not participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or with Healthy Land and Water. If you do agree to participate you can withdraw from the project without comment or penalty by closing your browser before you submit. If you close your browser, any data collected may be used. As the survey is anonymous, once it has been submitted it will not be possible to withdraw. EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may help to inform policy and community education programs about using and protecting waterways in Queensland. A summary report of this research, in the form of the waterways report card, will be available in November 2017. If you would like to receive a copy of this report via email in November, you will be offered the opportunity to leave your email address at the end of the survey. RISKS There are no foreseen risks associated with your participation in this study. However, if you experience any level of discomfort as a result of completing the survey, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially unless required by law. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Any data collected as part of this project will be stored securely as per QUT’s Management of research data policy. Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects or stored on an open access database for secondary analysis. Data collected in this survey will be used to inform the social component of the 2017 waterways report card and also for comparison for future report cards. The project is jointly funded by QUT and Healthy Land and Water. Healthy Land and Water will have access to the data obtained during the project. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Commencing the online survey is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project. QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If you have any questions or require further information please contact one of the research team members below.
Dr Kim Johnston, QUT Business School Dr Amanda Beatson, QUT Business School
Phone 31384089 Phone 31381241
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on [+61 7] 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 198
Appendix C – Construct Map and Modifications
The following table documents the constructs and mapping to questions and modifications. It should be noted some
questions were removed at various stages of piloting (due to time) and some were not reported in this field report
but will be reported in future academic publications.
Survey with construct codes and definitions
Stewardship Explores awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. This captures attitude toward as well as actual behaviour.
Nature relatedness It measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment).
Integrated Motivation
Integrated motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs.
Overall Satisfaction This measures how satisfied participants are overall with their local waterways.
Overall Accessibility
Measures the perceptions of participants about the accessibility of their local waterway.
Overall Usability This captures whether participants feel that their local waterways are usable and don’t take much effort to use.
Social Value Social value captures the value participants get from using their local waterways with others such as friends or family.
Third Place Represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens. Third place is measured by Being away, Fascination and Compatibility.
Being Away Captures a conceptual idea rather than a physical transformation. It emphasises that a location helps the participant to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape.
Fascination This conceptualises a location which is thoroughly absorbing for the participant. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk.
Compatibility This focuses on what a participant is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the participant can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place.
Place Attachment This construct captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local waterways
Wellness Index This index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, community and life.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 199
Stewardship captures awareness, involvement and participation in activities relating to waterway protection. This captures attitude toward as well as actual behaviour.
1. I feel a strong personal obligation to protect local
waterways
Stewardship_2
2. I would feel guilty if I didn’t behave in a way to protect local
waterways
Stewardship_3
3. I am willing to behave in a way to protect local waterways
on a regular basis
Stewardship_4
Nature relatedness measures how an individual’s connection to the natural world (environment).
4. I always think about how my actions affect the
environment.
Natrel_1
5. I take notice of wildlife wherever I am. Natrel_2
6. My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am. Natrel_3
7. I feel very connected to all living things and the earth. Natrel_4
Integrated motivation occurs when motives for using waterways are fully in line with one’s personal values and needs.
8. Using local waterways is part of the way I have chosen to
live my life
Integrated motivation_1
9. Using local waterways is a fundamental part of who I am Integrated motivation_2
10. Using local waterways is an integral part of my life Integrated motivation_3
Overall satisfaction measures how satisfied participants are overall with their local waterways.
11. Overall, I am satisfied with my local waterways OverallSat_1
12. Overall, my local waterways are close to my ideal. OverallSat_2
13. Overall, I am delighted with my experiences with my local
waterways
OverallSat_3
14. Overall, I am very satisfied with my decisions to use/visit my
local waterways
OveralSat_6
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 200
Overall accessibility measures the perceptions of participants about the accessibility of their local waterway.
15. Overall, I find it easy to access my local waterways OverallAcc_1
16. Overall, accessing my local waterways is simple OverallAcc_2
17. Overall, it is fairly straightforward to get to my local
waterways
OverallAcc_3
18. Overall, my local waterway is easy to access OverallAcc_4
Overall usability captures whether participants feel that their local waterways are usable and don’t take much effort to use.
19. Overall, I get a lot out of using my local waterways OverUse_1
20. Overall, I find my local waterways easy to use OverUse_2
21. Overall, it doesn’t take much effort to use my local
waterways
OverUse_3
22. Overall, I would like to use my local waterways more often Overuse_5
Social value captures the value participants get from using their local waterways with others such as friends or family.
23. I am happy when I visit or use local waterways with my
friends
Social Value_1
24. I find using my local waterways more interesting when my
friends are with me
Social Value_2
25. It is more interesting to use my local waterway as part of a
group
Social Value_3
26. Social outings at my local waterways make them more
interesting
Social Value_4
Third Place represents a location where a person is able to restore themselves and often represents a setting central to someone’s informal life away from home and work. Third places are often important in the social and psychological lives of people and may encapsulate natural settings, such as parks and gardens. Third Place is measured by Being away, Fascination and Compatibility.
Being Away captures a conceptual idea rather than a physical transformation. It emphasises that a location helps the participant to relax, gives them a break from their routines and escape.
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 201
27. Spending time using my local waterways gives me a break
from my day-to-day routine
Being-away prop_1
28. My local waterways are a place to get away from it all Being-away prop_2
29. Using my local waterways helps me to relax Being-away prop_3
30. Using my local waterways helps me to get relief from
everyday stress
Being-away prop_4
Fascination conceptualises a location which is thoroughly absorbing for the participant. Examples can include fishing, bird watching or going for a walk.
31. My local waterways have fascinating features Fascination prop_1
32. There is a lot to explore and discover at my local waterways Fascination prop_2
33. My local waterways are exciting Fascination prop_3
34. My local waterways are fascinating Fascination prop_4
Compatibility focuses on what a participant is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. It focuses on the fact that the participant can find something enjoyable to do at this location and that they have a sense of belonging at this place.
35. Using my local waterways suits my personality Compatibility prop_1
36. I can do things I like at my local waterways Compatibility prop_2
37. I have a sense that I belong at my local waterways Compatibility prop_3
38. I have a sense of oneness (like being united) with my local
waterways
Compatibility prop_4
Place Attachment captures the benefits that participants feel they receive from their local waterways
I benefit from my local waterway because:
Of the activities I can do Placeatt1
Of how pleasing it looks Placeatt2
I feel like I belong Placeatt3
It gives me a feeling of comfort Placeatt4
I feel connected to nature Placeatt5
It gives me freedom Placeatt6
I get a good level of entertainment there Placeatt7
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 202
It supports memories Placeatt8
Of the amenities there Placeatt9
I feel good there Placeatt10
I feel relaxed there Placeatt11
I feel like I personally ‘grow’ when I use it Placeatt12
Actual stewardship behaviour
Thinking about the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on the following activities in your creek or nearby waterway?
No hours
1-5 hours
5-10 hours
10-20 hours
20-30 hours
More than 30 hours
Weed removal and/or control TIME
_WEE
DING
Native tree planting TIME_PLANT
Monitoring (e.g. water quality, fish, bird, frog, mammal or other)
TIME_MONIT
Rubbish clean up TIME_CLEAN
Erosion control TIME_EROSIO
Other TIME_OTHER
The wellness index captures how satisfied the participants are in general including their health, community and life.
Wellbeing Thinking about your own personal circumstances and life, how satisfied are you with the following?
Your health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_HEALTH
Your community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_COMM
Your use of time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_TIME
Yourself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_SELF
Your life as a whole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFE_WHOLE
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 203
TEXT BOX TIME_OTHER_TXT
Waterway Conditions
Thinking about your future intentions to use your local waterway in the next 12 months, how likely or unlikely
are you to use this waterway given the following conditions:
Water Clarity and Water Pollution for Use In and Use near, no Fish amount or habitation question
Extremely Unlikely
Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely
Neither likely or unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely Extremely Likely
The water clarity is
Very clear
Clear
Partly muddy
Muddy
Very muddy
USE_IN_VC
USE_IN_C
USE_IN_PM
USE_IN_M
USE_IN_VM
There is
No pollution
Low levels of pollution
Some pollution
Polluted
Very polluted
USE_IN_NP
USE_IN_LP
USE_IN_SP
USE_IN_P
USE_IN_VP
The number of fish are:
High and there are many species
High and there are several species
Medium and there are several species
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 204
Medium and there are few species
Low and there are very few species
Habitat condition is
Very good
Good
Moderate
Poor
Very poor
In this survey we would like you to think about waterways. First some definitions:
A Waterway: is a passage for water or a body of water, including all types of permanent and short
term streams, rivers, wetlands and bays.
A waterway includes all estuaries, foreshores, coastal and marine waters. Waterways may be a
freshwater or saltwater creek or river, a lake or dam, a bay, lagoon or canal, or a surf beach.
Local waterways: When we talk about local waterways, we mean waterways that are within 15
kilometres of your home.
Visiting or using waterways: When we talk about visiting or using these waterways, we mean taking
part in activities in, and on, the water such as boating or swimming. We also mean taking part in
activities alongside these waterways such as walking or having a picnic. Commuting to work using
waterways is also included in this category.
Actual Waterway Usage
Thinking about the past 12 months, please indicate how often you used or visited a local waterway, within 15
km of your home, for the following activities?
Nev
er
Almost
every
day
Every
week
Every
fortnight
Every
month
Once
or
twice
a year
Every
few
years
Picnics, BBQs
Walking or running
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 205
Swimming
Cycling
4WD driving or trail bike riding
Jet skiing, Water
skiing
Camping
Recreational
fishing
Boating, sailing
Rowing, kayaking,
canoeing
Surfing, kite-
surfing, sail
boarding
Scuba diving,
snorkelling
Enjoying nature
e.g. birdwatching,
conservation,
photography
For commuting or
getting to work
Other (TEXT BOX)
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 206
How long have you lived in South East Queensland?
less than a year
1 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
7 to 10 years
More than 10 years
What is the highest level of education you have attained to date?
Primary School
High School
Diploma / Certificate or equivalent
Apprenticeship or trade certificate or equivalent
Bachelor Degree or equivalent
Postgraduate Degree or equivalent
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 207
Other qualification
How would you describe your current employment?
Retired
Carer
Full time student
Unemployed and not seeking work
Unemployed and seeking work
Part time employee
Full time work
What industry do you work in, or recently worked in?
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply
Construction and development
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 208
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Hospitality and Tourism
Transport and Storage
Communication Services
Finance and Insurance
Property and Business Services
Government Administration and Defence
Education
Health and Community Services
Cultural and Recreational Services
Personal and Other Services
I have not worked
I am retired and do not identify with any of these industries
Other - please provide
Industry impacts on waterway
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 209
Thinking about the industry you work in, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
agree
My industry is aware of its potential for negative impacts
on water quality
Within my industry, roles and responsibilities for
minimising negative impacts on waterways are clearly
defined and understood
My industry is proactive in improving practice and
promoting responsible environmental behaviour
My industry could manage its impact on waterways more
effectively
My industry manages its impact on waterways to an
acceptable degree
My industry could improve its performance in managing
its impact on waterways
Which of following categories best indicate your annual household income?
Under $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001 to $100,000
2017 Social Report - QUT
Page 210
$100,001 to $150,000
$150,001 to $200,000
Over $200,000
Prefer not to say
Do you have any other comments or feedback about your local waterway or any topic related to this research?
TEXT BOX
Would you like to receive a copy of the summary report?
Yes
No
If yes, separate box to open to request email address so report can be sent. Also with a comment that this is
not part of the collect data.
_________________________________________________________________________________________