south east queensland catchments waterway engagement 2017 research … waterway... ·...

2017 Social Report - QUT

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


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.


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


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


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 = ***.


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


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).


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).


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).


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


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.


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


Nerang 4.80 1.34 5.38 1.15

Noosa 5.17 1.44 6.10 1.09


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.90 1.32 5.31 1.05

Noosa 5.32 1.33 5.91 1.04


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


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).


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


Nerang 5.00 1.35 6.07 0.92

Noosa 5.19 1.18 6.34 1.36


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.12 1.58 5.01 1.63

Noosa 3.90 1.62 5.95 1.33


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


8.2.3 Place Attachment

Place attachment measures the benefits the respondents feel they receive from their local waterways. The


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.61 1.34 4.99 1.22

Noosa 4.55 1.30 5.24 1.07


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


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).


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


Nerang 5.20 1.36 6.22 0.90

Noosa 5.53 1.32 6.50 1.30


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.83 1.37 5.50 1.06

Noosa 5.21 1.32 6.17 1.14


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.88 1.49 5.69 1.26

Noosa 5.20 1.53 6.10 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


8.2.8 Compatibility

Compatibility focuses on what a person is doing and the fit with the surrounding environment. The


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).


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


Nerang 4.55 1.51 5.24 1.21

Noosa 4.86 1.44 5.98 1.29


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


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).


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


Nerang 4.75 1.28 5.72 0.81

Noosa 5.28 1.02 5.53 0.91


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


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.


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%


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%


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%


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 *** *** ***


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


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 ** *** ***



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.


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.


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


Educating students about waterways

Exploring and teaching our kids about why we care for environment and pollution like littering

Pruning, trimming


Straddie pest management working group


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

(%)


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


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%


Community Survey Condition Satisfaction




Slightly 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%


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:







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%


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




Somewhat 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%


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%


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


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 = ***


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



Albert 0.712***

Redland 0.702***

Maroochy 0.683***

Caboolture 0.669***

Pine 0.657***

Mooloolah 0.649***



Mid Brisbane 0.634**

Nerang 0.632***

Bremer 0.619***


Noosa 0.612***

Logan 0.596***



Stanley 0.538*

Lockyer 0.478***


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***


Maroochy 0.878***

Mid Brisbane 0.825***

Mooloolah 0.858***


Nerang 0.899***

Noosa 0.912***


Pine 0.891***


Redland 0.832***

Stanley 0.884***




Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***





Noosa 0.912***


Nerang 0.899***


Pine 0.891***


Stanley 0.884***

Caboolture 0.882***

Lockyer 0.88***

Maroochy 0.878***

Logan 0.876***



Bremer 0.868***

Mooloolah 0.858***

Albert 0.844***

Redland 0.832***




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***


Maroochy 0.783***


Mooloolah 0.603***


Nerang 0.746***

Noosa 0.758***


Pine 0.72***


Redland 0.685***

Stanley 0.586***




Note: p > .05 = ns, p < .05 = *, p <.01 = **, p < .000 = ***





Maroochy 0.783***

Albert 0.783***

Noosa 0.758***

Nerang 0.746***



Pine 0.72***


Logan 0.713***

Lockyer 0.712***

Caboolture 0.692***

Redland 0.685***

Bremer 0.682***





Mooloolah 0.603***

Stanley 0.586***


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***


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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***


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


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.


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)


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


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


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


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 83.8% 10.8% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 6 43 7.12


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Albert







The scores are presented as percentages in the table below.






Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways - Albert

In the water usage - Albert


With same colouring style as satisfaction and condition table above, so green means good, red means bad.




Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Albert





Somewhat 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%


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%


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%


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%


2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 91.9%


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%


9.2 Bremer Catchment

Demographics


Male 45 36.3

Female 79 63.7

Total 124 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 36 28.8





Other Qualification 2 1.6

Total 125 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 9 7.2

4-6 years 8 6.4

7-10 years 6 4.8


Total 125 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 28 22.4

Carer 6 4.8






Total 125 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1 .8

Mining 2 1.6

Manufacturing 3 2.4




Retail Trade 13 10.4



Communication Services 1 .8


Property and Business Services 1 .8


Education 8 6.4






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


Total 125 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 85.6% 12.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 18 85 4.73


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Bremer













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Bremer

In the water usage - Bremer





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Bremer





Somewhat 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%


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%


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


6 Every few years


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%


0.80% 0.80% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 97.6%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 98.4%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.20% 0.00% 95.2%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 2.40% 0.00% 96.0%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


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%


9.3 Caboolture Catchment

Demographics


Male 83 43.2

Female 109 56.8

Total 192 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 73 37.8






Total 193 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 15 7.8

4-6 years 9 4.7

7-10 years 22 11.4


Total 193 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 49 25.4

Carer 12 6.2






Total 193 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 6 3.1

Manufacturing 4 2.1











Education 13 6.7






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


Total 193 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 89.1% 7.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 21 133 6.34


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions - Caboolture













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Caboolture

In the water usage - Caboolture





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Caboolture





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Caboolture



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.52% 1.56% 1.56% 0.00% 96.4%


Camping 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 0.52% 1.55% 0.00% 96.9%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 2.07% 1.55% 0.52% 95.3%


0.00% 0.52% 1.04% 1.04% 3.11% 0.52% 93.8%


0.00% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 97.9%


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%


9.4 Lockyer Catchment

Demographics


Male 38 44.7

Female 47 55.3

Total 85 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 23 26.4






Total 87 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 4 4.6

4-6 years 3 3.4

7-10 years 12 13.8


Total 87 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 26 29.9

Carer 2 2.3






Total 87 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0

Manufacturing 3 3.4




Retail Trade 7 8.0







Education 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


Total 87 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 82.8% 9.2% 4.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 15 121 8.05


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lockyer













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lockyer

In the water usage – Lockyer





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Lockyer





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Lockyer



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 1.15% 97.7%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.30% 3.45% 0.00% 94.3%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 96.6%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 2.30% 0.00% 96.6%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


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%


9.5 Logan Catchment

Demographics


Male 127 39.8

Female 192 60.2

Total 319 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 120 37.5






Total 320 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 27 8.4

4-6 years 23 7.2

7-10 years 26 8.1


Total 320 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 68 21.3

Carer 16 5.0






Total 320 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 2 .6

Manufacturing 19 5.9











Education 15 4.7


Cultural and Recreational Services 2 .6




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


Total 320 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 85.0% 10.3% 1.9% 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 48 314 6.54


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Logan













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Logan

In the water usage – Logan





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Logan





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Logan



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.00% 98.1%


Camping 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 1.56% 0.31% 0.31% 97.2%


Boating, sailing 0.31% 0.00% 0.94% 1.25% 2.81% 0.00% 94.7%


0.31% 0.31% 0.63% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 98.4%


0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 99.4%


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%


9.6 Lower Brisbane Catchment

Demographics


Male 372 47.4

Female 413 52.6

Total 785 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent








Total 789 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 68 8.6

4-6 years 61 7.7

7-10 years 63 8.0


Total 789 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 118 15.0

Carer 23 2.9






Total 789 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 6 .8

Mining 6 .8





Retail Trade 78 9.9







Education 73 9.3






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


Total 789 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 84.3% 8.4% 4.2% 1.9% 0.8% 0.5% 124 914 7.37


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Lower Brisbane













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Lower Brisbane

In the water usage – Lower Brisbane





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Lower Brisbane





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Lower Brisbane



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.38% 0.51% 1.01% 0.76% 0.00% 97.3%


Camping 0.13% 0.25% 0.13% 0.63% 1.01% 0.13% 97.7%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 1.27% 1.14% 0.13% 96.5%


0.00% 0.89% 0.26% 1.01% 1.77% 0.26% 95.8%


0.25% 0.38% 0.63% 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 98.0%


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%


9.7 Maroochy Catchment

Demographics


Male 48 35.0

Female 89 65.0

Total 137 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 47 34.3






Total 137 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 8 5.8

4-6 years 5 3.6

7-10 years 13 9.5


Total 137 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 45 32.8

Carer 2 1.5






Total 137 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 3 2.2

Manufacturing 1 .7

Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1 .7






Communication Services 1 .7




Education 10 7.3


Cultural and Recreational Services 1 .7




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


Total 137 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 83.9% 10.2% 2.9% 2.2% 0.0% 0.7% 22 141 6.40


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Maroochy













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Maroochy

In the water usage – Maroochy





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Maroochy





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Maroochy



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 1.46% 1.46% 0.73% 95.6%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.65% 2.19% 0.73% 93.4%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.19% 2.93% 8.03% 0.74% 86.1%


0.73% 0.73% 1.46% 1.46% 5.84% 0.73% 89.1%


0.00% 4.38% 0.73% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 93.4%


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%


9.8 Mid Brisbane Catchment

Demographics


Male 7 29.2

Female 17 70.8

Total 24 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 5 20.8






Total 24 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 2 8.3

4-6 years 1 4.2

7-10 years 3 12.5


Total 24 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 3 12.5

Carer 1 4.2






Total 24 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0

Manufacturing 1 4.2




Retail Trade 1 4.2







Education 3 12.5






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


Total 24 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 83.3% 12.5% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 15 3.80


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mid Brisbane













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mid Brisbane

In the water usage – Mid Brisbane





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Mid Brisbane





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Mid Brisbane



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.16% 8.34% 0.00% 87.5%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 95.8%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 91.7%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


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%


9.9 Mooloolah Catchment

Demographics


Male 50 37.0

Female 85 63.0

Total 135 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 53 39.3






Total 135 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 15 11.1

4-6 years 14 10.4

7-10 years 11 8.1


Total 135 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 40 29.6

Carer 7 5.2






Total 135 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0

Manufacturing 3 2.2






Transport and Storage 1 .7





Education 9 6.7






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


Total 135 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 89.6% 5.2% 3.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.5% 14 123 8.81


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Mooloolah













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Mooloolah

In the water usage – Mooloolah





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Mooloolah





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Mooloolah



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.74% 2.22% 0.00% 95.6%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.74% 0.74% 96.3%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 4.44% 2.22% 0.74% 91.1%


0.00% 2.22% 1.48% 2.96% 7.40% 1.48% 84.4%


1.48% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.0%


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%


9.10 Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment

Demographics


Male 28 47.5

Female 31 52.5

Total 59 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 14 23.7






Total 59 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 5 8.5

4-6 years 3 5.1

7-10 years 4 6.8


Total 59 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 25 42.4

Carer 1 1.7






Total 59 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 1.7

Manufacturing 0 0.0




Retail Trade 2 3.4







Education 4 6.8






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


Total 59 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 81.4% 8.5% 5.1% 3.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11 96 8.69


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment













Slightly 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


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





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Moreton Bay and Islands Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Moreton Bay and Islands



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 3.39% 0.00% 0.00% 94.9%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 98.3%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 10.17% 1.71% 10.17% 5.10% 0.00% 72.9%


1.70% 3.39% 3.39% 5.09% 5.09% 0.00% 81.4%


0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 98.3%


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%


9.11 Nerang Catchment

Demographics


Male 124 47.0

Female 140 53.0

Total 264 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 .4

High School 73 27.7






Total 264 100.0

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 34 12.9

4-6 years 22 8.3

7-10 years 24 9.1


Total 264 100.0

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 65 24.6

Carer 2 .8






Total 264 100.0


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 .4

Manufacturing 5 1.9




Retail Trade 23 8.7







Education 25 9.5






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


Total 264 100.0


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 85.6% 7.6% 3.4% 1.9% 0.4% 1.1% 38 309 8.14


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Nerang Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Nerang

In the water usage – Nerang





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Nerang





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Nerang



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 0.38% 0.00% 97.3%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90% 1.51% 0.00% 96.6%


Boating, sailing 0.38% 0.38% 1.14% 3.41% 4.54% 0.38% 89.8%


0.00% 1.89% 1.51% 3.41% 3.41% 0.00% 89.8%


1.14% 2.27% 1.52% 1.89% 0.76% 0.00% 92.4%


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%


9.12 Noosa Catchment

Demographics


Male 21 46.7

Female 24 53.3

Total 45 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 13 28.9




Postgraduate degree 9 20


Total 45 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


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






Total 45 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 2.2

Manufacturing 2 4.4




Retail Trade 3 6.7







Education 5 11.1






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


Total 45 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 10 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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Noosa Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Noosa

In the water usage – Noosa





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Noosa





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Noosa



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 95.6%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.45% 0.00% 93.3%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 4.44% 8.89% 2.22% 82.2%


0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 91.1%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


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%


9.13 Pimpama-Coomera Catchment

Demographics


Male 111 44.4

Female 139 55.6

Total 250 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 76 30.4




Postgraduate degree 15 6


Total 250 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 36 14.4

4-6 years 26 10.4

7-10 years 22 8.8


Total 250 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 52 20.8

Carer 4 1.6



Unemployed and seeking work 25 10



Total 250 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 0.4






Hospitality and Tourism 20 8



Finance and Insurance 10 4



Education 20 8



Personal and Other Services 10 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


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 87.6% 8.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 31 199 6.40


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment

In the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Pimpama-Coomera Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Pimpama-Coomera



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 99.6%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.20% 0.00% 97.2%


Boating, sailing 0.40% 0.80% 1.60% 5.20% 3.20% 0.00% 88.8%


0.00% 1.20% 0.40% 1.60% 1.20% 0.80% 94.8%


0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% 98.4%


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%


9.14 Pine Catchment

Demographics


Male 145 46.3

Female 168 53.7

Total 313 100

Education

Frequency Percent



Diploma or Cert 75 24





Total 313 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 23 7.3

4-6 years 18 5.8

7-10 years 24 7.7


Total 313 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 79 25.2

Carer 10 3.2



Unemployed and seeking work 22 7



Total 313 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 0.3

Manufacturing 9 2.9




Retail Trade 31 9.9







Education 20 6.4






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


Total 313 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 86.3% 8.6% 3.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 43 262 6.10


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pine Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pine Catchment

In the water usage – Pine Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Pine Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Pine



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.32% 0.32% 0.96% 0.96% 0.00% 97.4%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 2.24% 0.00% 97.1%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 1.28% 0.64% 1.92% 2.56% 0.00% 93.6%


0.00% 0.64% 0.96% 2.56% 3.51% 0.32% 92.0%


0.32% 0.00% 0.64% 0.64% 0.00% 0.32% 98.1%


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%


9.15 Pumicestone Catchment

Demographics


Male 46 43.8

Female 59 56.2

Total 105 100

Education

Frequency Percent

Primary School 1 1

High School 36 34.3



Bachelor degree 22 21



Total 105 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 17 16.2

4-6 years 10 9.5

7-10 years 10 9.5


Total 105 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 35 33.3

Carer 6 5.7




Part time employee 20 19

Full time work 21 20

Total 105 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0

Manufacturing 0 0.0











Education 8 7.6






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


Total 105 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 82.9% 8.6% 1.0% 4.8% 1.0% 1.9% 18 190 10.57


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Pumicestone Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Pumicestone Catchment

In the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Pumicestone Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Pumicestone



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 3.81% 0.00% 95.2%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 5.71% 0.00% 93.3%


Boating, sailing 0.95% 0.95% 2.85% 6.67% 0.95% 0.95% 86.7%


0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 4.76% 5.71% 0.96% 85.7%


0.00% 2.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 96.2%


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%


9.16 Redland Catchment

Demographics


Male 63 31.8

Female 135 68.2

Total 198 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 65 32.7






Total 199 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 6 3

4-6 years 11 5.5

7-10 years 18 9


Total 199 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 35 17.6

Carer 6 3

Full time student 12 6





Total 199 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 2 1

Mining 3 1.5

Manufacturing 7 3.5


Construction and Development 12 6

Wholesale Trade 4 2


Hospitality and Tourism 12 6



Finance and Insurance 10 5



Education 19 9.5


Cultural and Recreational Services 2 1

Personal and Other Services 4 2

I have not worked 8 4


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


Total 199 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 87.9% 7.0% 4.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 24 137 5.69


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Redland Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Redland Catchment

In the water usage – Redland Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Redland Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Redland



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01% 1.51% 0.00% 97.5%


Camping 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.51% 0.50% 0.00% 97.5%


Boating, sailing 0.50% 0.50% 1.51% 5.53% 6.03% 1.01% 84.9%


0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 4.52% 5.53% 0.00% 88.9%


0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.5%


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%


9.17 Stanley Catchment

Demographics


Male 8 36.4

Female 14 63.6

Total 22 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 7 31.8






Total 22 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 3 13.6

4-6 years 1 4.5

7-10 years 1 4.5


Total 22 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 7 31.8

Carer 1 4.5






Total 22 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 0 0.0

Manufacturing 1 4.5




Retail Trade 1 4.5







Education 3 13.6






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


Total 22 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 77.3% 0.0% 18.2% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5 46 9.16


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Stanley Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways –Stanley Catchment

In the water usage – Stanley Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Stanley Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Stanley



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 95.5%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 13.64% 0.00% 81.8%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 9.10% 0.00% 0.00% 86.4%


0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 90.9%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


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%


9.18 Tallebudgera Catchment

Demographics


Male 28 36.4

Female 49 63.6

Total 77 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 23 29.9






Total 77 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 7 9.1

4-6 years 2 2.6

7-10 years 7 9.1


Total 77 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 20 26

Carer 2 2.6






Total 77 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 1.3

Manufacturing 0 0.0




Retail Trade 10 13







Education 10 13






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


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 87.0% 10.4% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10 43 4.27


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Tallebudgera Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Tallebudgera Catchment

In the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Tallebudgera Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Tallebudgera



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 0.00% 97.4%


Camping 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.79% 0.00% 92.2%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 1.30% 2.60% 6.49% 0.00% 89.6%


1.31% 3.91% 2.60% 6.50% 5.19% 1.31% 79.2%


1.29% 6.49% 1.29% 7.80% 1.29% 0.00% 81.8%


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%


9.19 Upper Brisbane

Demographics


Male 11 28.9

Female 27 71.1

Total 38 100

Education

Frequency Percent


High School 15 38.5






Total 39 100

Lived in SEQ

Frequency Percent


1-3 years 3 7.7

4-6 years 6 15.4

7-10 years 2 5.1


Total 39 100

Employment

Frequency Percent

Retired 13 33.3

Carer 2 5.1






Total 39 100


Employment industry

Frequency Percent


Mining 1 2.6

Manufacturing 0 0.0




Retail Trade 4 10.3







Education 4 10.3






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


Total 39 100


Activity 0 hours

1-5 hours

5-10 hours

10-20 hours

20-30 hours

More than 30 hours


Total Hours spent

Hours per

person

Weed control 79.5% 10.3% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8 55 6.93


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


Satisfaction with local and SEQ conditions – Upper Brisbane Catchment













Slightly 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


Waterway Usage for activities in or on the water, and alongside the waterways – Upper Brisbane Catchment

In the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Near the water usage – Upper Brisbane Catchment





Somewhat 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%


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%


Use and frequency of activities – Upper Brisbane



1 Almost everyday

2 Every week

3 Every fortnight

4 Every month


6 Every few years


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%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 0.00% 92.3%


Camping 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% 0.00% 87.2%


Boating, sailing 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2.56% 92.3%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 97.4%


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%


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:


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.qut.edu.au/


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


$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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

south east queensland catchments waterway engagement 2017 research … waterway... ·...

Documents