The relationship between community vitality, viability and health ...

The relationship between community vitality,
viability and health, and natural resources and
their management
– a brief review of the literature
URS 15
Don Burnside

This report has been produced in partnership with:
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this report reflect those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the National Land & Water
Resources Audit. The material presented in this report is based on sources that are
believed to be reliable. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of the
report, the author gives no warranty that the said sources are correct and accepts no
responsibility for any resultant errors contained herein any damages or loss,
whatsoever caused or suffered by any individual or corporation.
Published by:
National Land & Water Resources Audit
Postal address: GPO Box 2182 Canberra ACT 2601
Office location: 86 Northbourne Ave Braddon ACT 2612
Telephone: 02 6263 6035
Facsimile: 02 6257 9518
Email:
Internet:
info@nlwra.gov.au
http://www.nlwra.gov.au
© National Land & Water Resources Audit 2007
The National Land & Water Resources Audit is an initiative of the Natural Heritage
Trust. The Audit provides data, information and nationwide assessments of Australia's
land, water and biological resources to support sustainable development.
Publication data: Burnside D (2007). The relationship between community vitality,
viability and health, and natural resources and their management – a brief review of
the literature, URS Australia Pty Ltd, prepared for the National Land & Water
Resources Audit, Canberra, July 2007.
Information contained in this report may be copied or reproduced for study, research,
information or educational purposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgement of
the source. This project was managed by Karen Cody, Social and Economic
Information Coordinator, National Land & Water Resources Audit under funding
from the Natural Heritage Trust.

Contents
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ES-1
1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1
1.1 About the Project – background 1-1
1.2 Project objectives 1-2
1.3 About the literature review 1-2
1.4 Reviewing the literature 1-3
1.4.1 The questions 1-3
1.4.2 The conceptual framework 1-3
1.4.3 Establishing definitions 1-6
1.4.4 Literature sources 1-8
1.4.5 Expert review of the material 1-8
2 Communities and natural resources - the policy context ----------------------------------- 2-1
2.1 Government policies in regional development 2-1
2.1.1 National policies 2-1
2.1.2 State and territory policies 2-2
2.2 Government policies and their impact upon natural resource management 2-3
2.2.1 The regional delivery model for NRM 2-3
2.2.2 Investment by government in NRM research and development 2-4
2.2.3 State and Territory strategies, programs and targets 2-5
2.2.4 Industry and local government investment in NRM 2-5
2.2.5 Evaluation of the regional delivery model 2-6
2.3 Summary 2-7
3 The Nature of Community Vitality, Viability and Health-------------------------------------- 3-1
3.1 The notion of ‘community’ 3-1
3.2 Defining a viable, vital and healthy community 3-2
3.2.1 What is a sustainable community? 3-2
3.2.2 Community and social factors in community development 3-2
3.2.3 Human behavioural characteristics in VVH 3-5
3.2.4 Infrastructure and services 3-7
3.2.5 Evidence for the nature of community VVH 3-7
3.3 Linking community VVH and NRM 3-10
3.3.1 From an NRM perspective 3-10
3.3.2 From a human behaviour perspective 3-11
3.4 A typology of communities? 3-17
3.4.1 Trends at work in rural Australia 3-17
3.4.2 Alternative approaches to considering communities 3-18
3.5 Summary 3-21
4 Community VVH as a driver of NRM---------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1
4.1 Industry trends in natural resource management 4-1
4.2 People and natural resources 4-2
4.2.1 How humans value natural resources 4-2
4.2.2 Human capital as a driver of change 4-4
4.2.3 Social capital as a driver of change 4-12
i

Contents
4.3 Organisations and natural resources 4-15
4.4 Measuring community VVH 4-17
4.5 Summary 4-19
5 Natural resource management as contributor to Community VVH ---------------------- 5-1
5.1 The evidence for varying relationships 5-1
5.1.1 Regional reliance on natural resources as a source of community VVH 5-1
5.1.2 The economic cost of natural resource decline 5-8
5.2 Summary 5-12
6 Measuring community behaviour - options------------------------------------------------------ 6-1
6.1 International, national and state reporting frameworks 6-1
6.1.1 International reporting experience 6-1
6.1.2 National reporting experience 6-2
6.1.3 Existing NRM ‘capacity reporting’ frameworks 6-3
6.2 Summarising the reporting experience 6-6
7 Conclusions and recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1
7.1 Conclusions 7-1
7.1.1 The nature of community VVH 7-1
7.1.2 Linkages between community development and NRM 7-1
7.1.3 Dependency of community VVH on natural resources 7-1
7.1.4 Dependency of NRM on community VVH 7-1
7.1.5 Contrasting situations 7-2
7.2 Recommendations 7-3
8 Acknowledgements and references ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1
8.1 Acknowledgements 8-1
8.2 References 8-1
9 Limitations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1
10 Annexes-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10-1
10.1 Participants in workshops 10-1
10.2 Examples of socio-economic indicators 10-3
ii

Contents
Tables
Table 1: Funding summary for R&D ....................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2: Characteristics of a healthy Community (Bauen et al. 1996)................................................... 3-13
Table 3: Social capital indicator framework (Macgregor and Cary 2002)............................................. 4-18
Table 4: Human capital indicator framework (Macgregor and Cary 2002) ........................................... 4-19
Table 5: Household income in Western New South Wales...................................................................... 5-2
Table 6: Contribution to the regional economy – Outback Queensland 1998/99 .................................... 5-2
Table 7: Regional rangeland economies in WA in 2001.......................................................................... 5-3
Table 8: The performance of Australian agriculture ................................................................................ 5-9
Table 9: Measuring capacity for NRM..................................................................................................... 6-4
Table 10: Framework for assessing the social and institutional Foundations of NRM............................ 6-5
Table 11: Workshop attendees ............................................................................................................... 10-1
Table 12: Socio-economic indicators for assessing changing resource condition and community vitality,
viability & health...................................................................................................... 10-3
Figures
Figure 1: A simplified conceptual framework of community VVH and NRM program logic ................ 1-5
Figure 2: Analytical framework for assessing and describing community sustainability (Macgregor 2003)3-16
Figure 3: Hierarchical distribution of selected towns from northern Australian (Macgregor 1996)...... 3-19
Figure 4: Two hypothetical communities................................................................................................. 7-3
iii

Executive Summary
This Literature Review explores the nature of people’s interactions with natural resources,
viewed from individual and community perspectives, with special attention given to the concept
of community vitality, viability and health (VVH).
This is the first of two reports that will be delivered to the National Land & Water Resources
Audit (NLWRA), as part of URS’s commitments to the Socio-economic indicators to assess
community vitality, viability and health for natural resource management project.
Findings from a review of the literature
Communities and natural resources – the policy context
• Australian governments (Commonwealth, State and Local) are investing in regional
economic and social development, in research and development for NRM, and in
changed land use and management.
• It appears that the investments in regional economic and social development and
regional NRM are occurring in parallel at all levels of government, with limited
linkages between the two streams. The exception will be where investments in human
and social capacity are being made to meet the needs for NRM.
• Capacity building, including information and knowledge generation and management
for NRM is occurring in a plethora of organisations and programs. While some of these
programs have been designed to operate within the regional delivery model, most have
not, and instead are linked to industry R&D corporations, and industry organisations. A
focus on developing and measuring capacity in NRM needs to include this very large
and complex array of organisations and programs.
• The regional delivery model for NRM has received endorsement by two recent
authoritative reviews, which have recommended continuation of the model with minor
adjustments only.
The nature of community vitality, viability and health
• There is no one definition of community that is sufficient for all purposes. People living
together in a location in space may comprise one community, or in the case of people
with widely differing ‘stories’ and economic and social supports, they may comprise
more than one community. However, many of the factors that contribute to overall
community VVH require contributions from these separate sectors. For example,
competent and well-resourced governance and access to a wide range of skills and
experience are more likely to be achieved in a heterogeneous larger local or regional
population than in a more homogenous and smaller population.
ES-1

Executive Summary
• The characteristics of what make communities ‘tick’ have received abundant attention
in the community development literature and there seems to be a high degree of
commonality that human, social and economic capital in a number of dimensions are
what matters. However, there is less attention to how this capital is built and the role of
some of the underlying drivers in creating the environment where human and social
capital can flourish.
• Although there is much theoretical literature in the area, not all of which seems to be
grounded in observation or evidence, there is sufficient empirical support for a number
of human and social capital factors being instrumental in the development of innovative,
healthy and viable communities.
• The research into community VVH has not given much consideration to the role of the
physical environment in which a community is located as a contributor to community
well-being. There appears to be no obvious or necessary relationship. This may in part
be because the research into human factors in community development and NRM has
rarely been closely linked.
Community VVH as a driver of natural resource management (NRM)
• The adoption of desirable conservation practices in NRM by landholders mainly occurs
as a function of the extent to which the change being considered is perceived to be
contributing to the achievement of an individual’s goals. These goals will include
economic, social and environmental dimensions. Personality and human traits are
important in deciding how an individual decides what is in his or her best interest. These
values and goals are held individually and contribute to a community’s human capital,
which is a building block for community VVH. Further the nature of the technology
being considered – its relative advantage, its trialability – are powerful influences. In
summary, change will occur when the individual’s motivation, the nature of the change,
and the information supports are aligned.
• While affecting human capital and hence individual behaviour may be beyond the easy
and direct reach of community influence, human and social capital will be important in
determining how well a community collectively makes decisions, how well it
communicates the decisions, the trust it has in decisions made by its own and others,
and how it allocates resources to address problems. Thus, human and social capital that
is fostered within communities with high VVH is likely to contribute to better
management of natural resources but through the planning and implementation of
programs that operate at community governance scale.
ES-2

Executive Summary
• The development of organisational capacity is likely to occur more readily in
communities that are rich in human and social capital.
Natural resources and their management as a contributor to community VVH
• The use of natural resources for broad-acre, capital intensive agriculture and agroforestry
is likely to be having a depressing impact on community VVH in those areas
where it is the primary driver of economic activity. This depressing impact will result
from declining local populations required to support this land use, and centralising of
services into fewer larger regional centres.
• The paradox evident in this analysis is that the very trends required to improve the
ability of agriculture to address declining terms of trade, and to generate sufficient
resources for NRM – such as farm amalgamations, increased use of technology, and
increased sourcing of specialist advice – are also the factors that will impact hardest on
local community VVH.
• Where local and regional populations are increasing their dependency on alternative
uses of natural resources, such as mining, oil and gas extraction (as in the rangelands)
and tourism (as in areas of high scenic value), these trends are likely to be enhancing
community VVH.
• Trends in migration to coastal and peri-urban areas are altering the rural and community
fabric of these areas in a way that is likely to be beneficial to community VVH.
• Aboriginal people have very different relationships to the environment than European
people, with a larger cultural dependence on a healthy environment required for
community well-being. The aspirations and needs of Aboriginal people in their
relationships between land access, land use and management and community
development are not always being addressed adequately within existing institutional and
organisational arrangements for land use and management in the rangelands. Specialist
programs funded through the regional NRM delivery model are now addressing some of
these inadequacies.
• Based on the evidence reviewed for this report, we suggest that the impact of the decline
in the condition of the natural resources on local and regional community VVH has
been overstated. While there are clearly some extreme local and regional examples, at
large scale, major natural resource problems are contributing less to diminishing
regional fortunes than factors such as declining terms of trade, and changing land uses.
ES-3

Executive Summary
Measuring community capacity
• There is abundant experience in the design and use of indicators to measure the
accepted elements that comprise community VVH.
• The development of means of measuring and reporting on regional NRM organisational
performance is well advanced, although these methodologies may not connect closely
with some of the fundamental drivers of that performance which are community-based.
• The task will be to consider the components of community VVH that are likely to
contribute most to NRM performance and match these with appropriate social and
economic indicators used in existing national and state frameworks.
Conclusions
The nature of community VVH
There is reasonable consistency within the literature about what makes communities vital, viable
and healthy. Factors such as growing populations, availability of skills and experience,
willingness to use external information, the quality of leadership and networks are identified in
many authors’ work. Further, Australian, State and local governments are all involved in
measuring most of these elements as part of a commitment to triple-bottom line progress. This
provides a solid grounding to the consideration of community VVH in the use and management
of natural resources.
Linkages between community development and NRM
The community development and NRM professions have had limited cross-fertilisation. While
the information on community functioning is rich in the area of how human and social capital
contribute to healthy communities, there is less attention given to the economic supports for the
communities and the resultant impacts on NRM.
Dependency of community VVH on natural resources
The available evidence would suggest that the economic gains from the use of natural resources
have varying impacts on community VVH. Where the use is confined to broad-acre agriculture,
the market forces operating on that land use are resulting in adjustments that are likely to inhibit
local and sometimes regional community VVH. Conversely, where there is a move towards uses
of natural resources for tourism and amenity/ lifestyle supports, as in coastal and peri-urban
areas, the evidence is for trends that are enhancing community VVH. Finally, natural resource
decline is likely to be having a marginally depressing impact on community VVH is most areas
of Australia, and more so in remote Aboriginal communities.
ES-4

Executive Summary
Dependency of NRM on community VVH
Individual land use and management behaviour is generally only indirectly affected by
community VVH. Social and community factors will contribute to how individuals perceive their
goals, with adoption of new technology determined by how well they will assist achievement of
those goals. However, it is likely that it is easier to design technologies that fit with most
individuals’ goals, than to build community VVH with a view to changing the individuals’ goals.
There is evidence that communities with strong VVH are better at setting regional directions and
plans for how they want their communities to develop and function and how they want their
landscapes to look and to be used. This is particularly so in the management of NRM strategies,
programs and investments at regional and local scale, where a depth of community strength will
be able to support better performance in all these areas.
Recommendations
Four recommendations are presented.
1. There is enough evidence of linkages between community VVH and NRM to investigate
the relationship further in testing the utility of indicators that can highlight the nature of
the linkages. However, the evidence of linkages is not consistent at a national scale, and
varies considerably according to regional situations. Further work is required to define
the relationships at region-by-region scale.
2. This project and subsequent work can be used to define and foster the linkages between
those people and organisations working in the community VVH and NRM domains.
3. Indicators need to be straightforward and clearly focused on those aspects of Community
VVH that are relevant to and contribute to NRM delivery.
4. Indicators for the NLWRA measurement of community VVH must be linked to existing
National, State and locally developed indicators.
ES-5

Introduction
SECTION 1
1 Introduction
This Final Report presents a Literature Review that explores the nature of people’s interactions
with natural resources, viewed from individual and community perspectives, with special
attention given to the concept of community vitality, viability and health (VVH).
This is the first of the reports that will be delivered to the National Land & Water Resources
Audit, as part of URS’s commitments to the Socio-economic indicators to assess community
vitality, viability and health for natural resource management project.
1.1 About the Project – background
The Natural Heritage Ministerial Board has tasked the Audit with coordinating the collation of
data to support reporting under the National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework (NM&EF).
Three groups of stakeholders relevant to or affected by natural resource management (NRM)
programs have been prioritised for the development of socio-economic indicators: land
managers, regional organisations and the broader community within a NRM region.
The Workplan aims to identify socio-economic indicators to assess the:
• capacity of land managers to change and adopt sustainable management practices;
• capacity of regional organisations to make decisions on NRM issues and the impact of
the social and institutional foundations of NRM programs, and the
• interlinkages between the above and their relationship to the achievement of longer term
changes to the:
• condition of the natural resource base;
• capacity of regional communities to respond and manage for effective NRM
outcomes, and the
• economic viability of agriculture.
Under the Socio-economic Workplan the Audit has allocated funding to advance the
development of socio-economic indicators to assess community vitality, viability and health
(VVH) for NRM. The overall aims for this project are to develop an evidence-based conceptual
framework of the relationship between changing resource condition and community VVH, and to
identify future partnership options to advance reporting on community VVH.
1-1

Introduction
SECTION 1
The objectives of this project were discussed and agreed upon by the Social and Economic
National Coordinating Committee (SENCC) at its November 2005 meeting and in out of session
discussions in July 2006.
1.2 Project objectives
The objectives listed in the Consultancy Terms of Reference (ToR) are to:
1. produce an evidence based Conceptual Framework that clarifies concepts and
terminology on the relationship between community vitality, viability and health (VVH)
and natural resource management (NRM) outcomes, in consultation with key
stakeholders;
2. propose initial indicators of VVH relevant to NRM, and identify appropriate measures
and information sources, highlighting major data gaps, and
3. develop a prospectus for future co-investment in trials of the indicators, data collection
and reporting on VVH.
The project’s Terms of Reference identify four key policy questions that need to be answered.
• Is community VVH important to NRM?
• How should VVH be used in NRM program design and delivery?
• What are the most useful measures of VVH?
• How should we measure, analyse and report on VVH now and in the future?
1.3 About the literature review
Section 1 introduces the objectives of the project and the literature review.
Section 2 describes the policy context for the project and its outputs.
Section 3 reviews recent literature in presents an overview of people’s observed behaviour in
managing natural resources, both individually and collectively.
Section 4 defines the nature and components of community VVH.
Section 5 reviews evidence for a relationship between community VVH and natural resources
and their management.
1-2

Introduction
SECTION 1
Section 6 presents options for the measurement of community behaviour, based on existing state,
national and international reporting frameworks.
Section 7 sets out the consultant team’s conclusions and recommendations based on the findings
of the literature review.
Section 8 acknowledges the assistance received and lists the literature reviewed.
Section 9 presents the standard limitations for a report of this nature.
Section 10 presents Annexes referred to in the body of the Report.
1.4 Reviewing the literature
1.4.1 The questions
The focussing literature review questions are:
1. Is community VVH important in NRM?
2. How should VVH be used in NRM program design and delivery?
3. What are the most useful measures of VVH?
4. How should we measure, analyses and report on VVH now and in the future?
Answers to these questions must be evidence-based.
1.4.2 The conceptual framework
The Conceptual Framework in Figure 1 draws upon our existing knowledge of human behaviour
in managing natural resources, in regional and local development, and the community dynamics,
and is linked to the program logics developed by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT).
The model shows five types of capital that are available to contribute to the NRM programs.
Human capital can be found and developed internally in a community, but is also a function of
a community’s willingness and ability to access and exploit ‘external’ resources of human skills,
experience, and innovation. Social capital include the internal and external networks, the
organisations that operate for community good and spare resources that are available to support
the community. Economic capital is drawn from the consumptive and non-consumptive use of
natural resources (natural capital), and increasingly in many communities, from those activities
1-3

Introduction
SECTION 1
that rely purely on social and human capacity. Built capital, which is sometimes included as a
subset of economic capital is the public accessible infrastructure available to support community
endeavours. Finally natural capital is the resources of land, water and air, their condition and
the values placed on them.
Collectively, the natural, built, economic, human and social resources (capitals) available to a
community are contributors to components of community VVH. These include administrative
capacity, infrastructure and services, population mobility and trends, and the skills, knowledge
and experience accessible to the community. For example, population increase and mobility will
contribute to community VVH directly (just by having more people able to contribute) and by
increasing skills, knowledge and experience. Further, a higher mobility in the population
provides new talents, and revitalisation of community structures and activities. The quality of
infrastructure and services will be a function of the economic resources available to a
community, generated either internally, or through access to external resources.
The framework postulates that these components of community VVH interact with and support
(and if feedback loops were shown, benefit from) achievement in NRM. While developing
foundations and actions may mainly occur through grass-roots work in the community,
achievement of sound NRM will require a community to incorporate NRM as a core function of
its organisational and institutional capacity. In the NAP program logic, the equivalent stages are
motivating and then enabling the community to take effective action on NRM. Thus the
framework is about the added value that community VVH can make to NRM planning and
action above that undertaken by individuals acting on their own initiative.
1-4

Introduction
SECTION 1
External Policies (Regional
Development, NRM framework)
Achievement –
Capacity building and
institutional change
External “Shocks” (climate
change, oil prices)
Motivate
regional
communities
Enable regional
communities
Actions –
On-going actions and
reforms, development of
institutions
Change –
Improved decision making,
institutional responsiveness
• Administration capacity & commitment
(e.g. Plowman et al. 2003, Macgregor
1996, Dore & Woodhill 1999)
• Infrastructure (e.g. Plowman et al. 2003)
• Local & regional resources invested in
NRM (e.g. NLWRA 2002, ABS 2001,
AFPRG 2006, Stanley et al. 2005,
Pannell et al. 2005)
• Commitment to NRM strategic planning and activity (e.g.
Dore & Woodhill 1999, Stephens 2005, Kelly et al. 2003)
• ‘spare’ resources (e.g. Plowman 2004, Byron & Curtis
2001)
• Economic capacity & resilience (e.g. Flora & Flora 1995,
Curtis & Byron 2002, Kenyon & Black 2001, Bauern et al.
1996)
• Network effectiveness (e.g. Plowman et al. 2003,
Plowman 2004)
Natural capital (e.g. NLWRA
2002, Jardine et al. unpubl,
Brunckhorst 2000, AFPRG 2006)
Built capital (e.g. Cavaye 2004a,
Plowman et al. 2003)
Economic capital e.g. Black &
Hughes 2001, NLWRA 2002,
Macgregor 2003, AFPRG 2006)
Foundations –
Generation of knowledge,
skills awareness and
community engagement
• Skills, knowledge and experience
in the community (e.g. Plowman
et al. 2003)
• Population mobility & trends (e.g.
Plowman et al. 2003, Barr 2005)
Social capital (e.g. Cavaye 2004a, Black & Hughes 2001,
Plowman et al. 2003, BTRE undated, Curtis & Byron 2002))
Human capital (e.g. Black & Hughes 2001,
Plowman 2006, Cavaye 2004b, Webb et al. 2004,
Barr & Cary 2000, Curtis & Byron 2002)
Figure 1: A simplified conceptual framework of community VVH and NRM program logic
1-5

Introduction
SECTION 1
The framework also shows external forces in terms of those that are unplanned (shocks and
trends) and those that are planned as in policy drivers for regional development. These policy
drivers can be in conflict, as in policies that reduce employment in some government service
sectors in regional communities while other arms of government are encouraging regional
industrial and tourism growth to address population decline. Finally, there are many feedback
loops, which are not shown in the model. Government can be a significant investor in human
social capacity, and can act directly in motivating and enabling communities to take action in
NRM.
The purpose of the literature review is to examine and test the validity of the relationships
between the five capitals and the concept of community VVH, and then the linkages between
VVH and NRM planning and action. A sample of relevant references for each capital type, and
element of community VVH is presented in the Figure.
1.4.3 Establishing definitions
Consistency in definitions is not easily found. Examples of definitions that were used to guide
the Literature Review are presented in the following sub-sections.
Community vitality, viability and health
The term ‘community vitality, viability and health (VVH)’ is not used in the literature, and may
be constraining if adopted universally. However, there is reasonable consistency within the
literature about what makes communities vital, viable and healthy. Black & Hughes (2001) note
the range of terms that have been used to describe ‘strong communities’ being community
‘sustainability’, ‘development’, ‘resilience’, ‘capacity’ or ‘health’. Another term suggested in the
workshops is a community’s ‘comparative advantage’.
These terms are defined as involving varying combinations of elements drawn from human,
social, economic, built and natural capital, which themselves have varying definitions. A wide
range of factors including population mobility and trends, availability of skills and experience,
willingness to use external information, the quality of leadership and networks, trust and mutual
support, the availability of infrastructure and services, and administrative capacity are identified
variously in the literature reviewed. Further, Australian, State and local governments are all
involved in measuring most of these elements as part of a commitment to triple-bottom line
progress. This provides a solid grounding to the consideration of community VVH in the use and
management of natural resources.
Definitions from the literature have contributed to working definitions for further terms used in
this report as presented below.
1-6

Introduction
SECTION 1
Human capital
‘Human capital includes the capacity of people to contribute to the community. It is dependent
on their motivation to do so and their ability to do so as measured by their skills and knowledge,
their capacity to adjust to changing circumstances, sometimes by acquiring new skills and
knowledge, and the management of health and disability.’ (Black & Hughes 2001 p.3). In this
Report, we have drawn on further literature and have added in population mobility and trends,
diversity in skills and knowledge, attitudes and values, leadership, managerial capacity and
commitment to place, some of which relate to human aspirations. Human capital is always
vested in the individual (Cavaye 2004a).
Social capital
Social capital can be referred to as ‘The extent of social networks in a community, the level of
trust between community members and local norms. It exists, not in individuals, but between
people making up the social organisation in a community.’ (Cavaye 2004a, p. 11). In this Report,
we have drawn on further literature and have added in the availability of ‘spare’ resources in a
community, inclusiveness and organisational supports.
Economic capital
‘Produced economic capital includes what a community produces in terms of manufactured or
harvested goods, services that can be traded or sold, and knowledge that has economic value. It
includes financial capital. Produced economic capital can be measured through audits which
provide a picture of resources and infrastructure at a particular point in time and through
measures of changes in production over time. From the perspective of community strength,
attention needs to be given to the extent to which economic capital is owned within, or available
to, a community and is spread among the individuals within the community.’ (Black & Hughes
2001, p3.). It includes the financial resources of a community, which is sometimes identified
separately as ‘financial capital’ (Cavaye 2004a).
Built (or physical) capital
Built capital includes the structures and facilities within a community, such as transport networks
(roads, rail), communication networks (telephone, internet facilities), public sporting and cultural
facilities and equipment (Cavaye 2004a). These infrastructure items, which can be limited in
some communities, have been identified as an essential pre-requisite for community innovation
(Plowman et al. 2003). Built or physical capital is sometimes included as a component of
economic capital (Black & Hughes 2001).
1-7

Introduction
SECTION 1
Natural capital
Natural capital includes the natural resources, ecosystems, and aesthetic features within a locality
or region. The contribution that these assets can make to a community varies considerably from
one community to another (Black & Hughes 2001), and may not be a factor at all in a
community’s innovative capacity (Plowman et al. 2003). An alternate view is that communities
that have access to clean air and water and ‘attractive’ landscapes are more able to remain vital
than polluted communities in stark surroundings (Cavaye 2004a), although this view reveals the
author’s subjective values about the environment. ‘The challenge for the strength of the
community is to use and develop the natural capital in ways which sustain and even enhance the
natural capital.’ (Black & Hughes 2001, p. 3).
1.4.4 Literature sources
The literature available in the broad community development domain is enormous. It is drawn
from many disciplines, including rural and urban sociology, social psychology, economics,
human geography and anthropology.
Although a good deal of the literature addresses the opportunities and challenges facing rural
communities, with varying levels of dependency on agriculture, it would appear that the subject
has not attracted the attention of many agricultural scientists and practitioners. However the
latter have been active in considering people’s behaviour in adopting new technologies on farms,
and in managing natural resources generally for private and community benefits. A lesser
number of notable social scientists (e.g. Dr Neil Barr, Professors Frank Vanclay & David
Pannell, and staff in the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, the Bureau
of Rural Sciences and Land & Water Australia have made important contributions to our
understanding. Outside the NRM domain, considerable work has been done in Australian and
State agencies of regional economic and social development, including the Bureau of Transport
and Regional Economics.
Given the amount of literature available, the Literature Review presented is not complete, but we
believe it is sufficiently comprehensive to allow principal themes to be extracted, as a basis for
defining the relationship between the concept of Community VVH and natural resources
condition and management, and then suggesting how that relationship can be measured in a way
that is beneficial in policy formulation.
1.4.5 Expert review of the material
URS completed a first Draft Literature Review in November 2006. This literature review and a
draft conceptual framework of the relationships was initially reviewed by the Project Advisory
1-8

Introduction
SECTION 1
Committee (PAC) and then considered at a series of consultation workshops and meetings held
between December 2006 and February 2007. Workshops in Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth were
held with key stakeholders to go over the review of literature carried out in the first part of the
project, to review a proposed conceptual framework for the relationship between VVH and
NRM, and to begin work on a useful set of indicators. The exception to this process was in the
Canberra workshop where the opportunity was taken to review the feedback and contributions
made by the Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth workshops. The numbers and categories of
attendees are shown in Table 11. A list of names of those attending is attached. The Literature
Review has been changed to reflect significant feedback from participants in the workshops.
Follow-up meetings were held with representatives of the Australian Local Government
Association (ALGA) and the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) in
Canberra. These meetings were undertaken to provide information about the project to these
agencies, and consider where there many be opportunities for collaboration between the
initiatives in indicator development in NRM being done by the Audit and that being done by
other agencies in the areas of local and regional economic and community development.
1-9

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
2 Communities and natural resources - the policy context
In this section, Government policies in regional economic and social development and NRM are
scoped briefly. The purpose is to describe the policy context for a consideration of the existence
and importance of relationships between community VVH and NRM.
2.1 Government policies in regional development
Australian and State Governments are committed to regional economic and social development,
with specific policies and programs operating to encourage devolved decision making, industry
development, better services, human capacity building, and improved resources use. The purpose
of government’s involvement in regional development varies – in some regions (such as in much
of Victoria) it is to manage growth, whereas in other regions (e.g. broadacre agriculture regions)
it is to arrest decline and identify alternative industries.
2.1.1 National policies
The Australian, State and Territory Ministers for regional development and ALGA have
developed a Framework for cooperation in Regional development which provides definitions,
roles and responsibilities and principles (Department of Transport & Regional Services 2005).
The Framework defines regional communities as including the people, families, businesses, local
industries, non-government organisations, educational institutions, and economic and social
networks that make up regional Australia. It further defines regional development as being:
‘about regional communities improving their economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing
by fully developing the potential of the region and its people. Key elements underlying successful
regional development include cooperation between all spheres of government in building community
capacity to adjust to change, growing and attracting businesses, diversifying regional economies,
fostering innovation and working cooperatively on public and private sector infrastructure
development and regional investment.’
While the framework requires that regional communities should take responsibility for their own
future, there is recognition that government will provide critical support for the development
process. The support required from the three spheres of government has several important
dimensions:
• A shared vision to strengthen the perspective of regional Australia in government
decision making, including bottom-up regional thinking as an integral part of government
policy development processes, and to create a sense of community ownership in the
future of the region;
2-1

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
• A long-term commitment that provides regional communities with the certainty they
require to develop and implement strategic development plans, working in partnership
with industry and government; and
• Regional development policy must support and be consistent with national and
State/Territory economic, social and environmental objectives, but targeted regional
initiatives can improve economic performance, address industry restructuring pressures
and provide equitable access to services.
The agreed principles of regional development set out in the Framework stress the importance of
the three layers of government (federal, state/ territory and local) in collaborating in planning and
action, the importance of communities in setting their own priorities by building on natural
advantages and existing structures, and cooperation with the private sector (Department of
Transport & Regional Services 2005).
2.1.2 State and territory policies
Specific published statements outlining their intentions in this area, which can be considered as
analogous to regional development of community VVH, are reviewed for three jurisdictions
(New South Wales – Strategic Plan 2004-2007, Department of State and Regional Development;
Victoria – Moving Forward: Making Provincial Victoria the Best Place to Live, work and
Invest; and WA – Regional Western Australia . A better place to live. Regional Development
Policy).
The central thrust of these three strategies/plans is about building the economic strength of
regional communities with investments in infrastructure and services, and attraction and
incubation of new industries. For growing regions, this is about ensuring that economic growth
can be sustained and not hampered by inadequate facilities. For struggling regions, investment in
infrastructure is often seen as a ‘supply-side’ driver of regional development. Other common
themes include improving the quality and inclusiveness of regional governance and fostering
innovation and technology in the regions. Community development receives varying attention,
with a focus on improving health and education outcomes and community cohesiveness.
Environmental enhancement is also mentioned, but there is little recognition of linkages with the
regional delivery model for NRM.
2-2

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
2.2 Government policies and their impact upon natural resource
management
2.2.1 The regional delivery model for NRM
The Australian and State Governments are committed to the ‘Regional Delivery Model’, which
operates through partnerships between these governments and 56 Regional NRM Organisations
around Australia. This model is a conduit for the investment of $2.7 billion through the National
Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAPSWQ), the second phase of the Natural
Heritage Trust and the National Landcare Program (Keogh et al. 2006).
NAPSWQ was established through a series of Bi-lateral Agreements between the Australian and
respective State and Territory Governments (Commonwealth of Australia 2003). The
Agreements were guided by a National Framework which addressed inter alia purpose,
outcomes, regional targets, guidelines, indicators, protocols, and roles and responsibilities. Of
relevance to this project, Item 18 recognises that in setting bio-physical targets, socio-economic
values and impacts need to be considered. The Agreement lists the importance of best practice
governance arrangements in regional NRM organisations including sound and professional
decision-making, planning, community engagement, auditing, monitoring and evaluation, and
data and information use. Although these governance requirements relate strongly to elements of
community VVH, the national outcomes are confined to bio-physical and production values.
Development of the regional delivery model has recognised the need for capacity building in
supporting change. A National Natural Resource Management Capacity Building Framework
was developed in 2002 as a guide for planning and implementing capacity building investments
for NRM delivery (see www.nrm.gov.au). The framework defines capacity building as:
‘…. a range of activities by which individuals, groups and organisations improve their capacity to
achieve sustainable natural resource management. Capacity in this context includes awareness, skills,
knowledge, motivation, commitment and confidence. While regional bodies are a key target
audience for capacity building, it is equally an issue for diverse players such as Landcare groups,
Indigenous communities, industry sectors, local government and State/Territory and Commonwealth
Government Agencies.’ (p. 1).
It also defines human capital as capability of individuals, and social capital as the level to which
social networks, relationships and processes within a community support individuals to exercise
their capabilities. These definitions have been used implicitly in the conceptual framework for
this project. Increased capacity is seen as an intermediate outcome on the way to sustainable
NRM, which is fostered by capacity-building, communications and institutional change
programs. As defined in the NRM domain, capacity-building is thus a means to an end.
2-3

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
The strategic activity areas for capacity building are listed as:
1. awareness by individuals of NRM issues, and their linkage to community viability;
2. natural resource managers being able and willing to access and use sound information in
making decisions;
3. natural resource managers equipped with, or with access to the required skills and
training for NRM, and
4. facilitation and support systems to ensure engagement and motivation of the community,
to build social capital, and to exercise ownership over regional decision making
processes.
The National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (NM&EF)
has been established by the Australian, State and Territory Governments. It sets out broad key
issues called ‘Matters for Target’ which will be reported on using a range of indicators. The sets
of indicators monitor resource condition and community and social issues relevant to NRM
programs and adoption of sustainable management practices (see www.nlwra.gov.au). The
framework was trialled in selected NRM regions between 2003 and 2005. Under the social and
economic category, matters for target are being developed for land managers (Byron et al. 2006,
Nelson et al. 2006), regional NRM organisations (Fenton 2006, Fenton & Rickert 2006a and b)
and communities (this project).
2.2.2 Investment by government in NRM research and development
Governments are large investors in NRM research and development. The Corish Report
estimates total investment for agricultural and closely related NRM research at $1 billion
(Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group 2006). Inclusion of Cooperative Research Centres
(CRCs) that have an environmental focus adds an estimated $600 m to this total (Department of
Education Science and Training 2004). Taking out the contributions made by Government and
industry to the Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) and Government’s contribution
to the CRCs and CSIRO leaves an estimated $750 million being contributed through higher
education (mainly universities) and direct investment in R&D by State Governments. The Joint
RDCs NRM Working Group (2005) notes that $78.5 million was invested across all RDCs in
natural resource management in 2004-2005. This represents 15 per cent of the total R&D
investment by the RDCs. The estimates for each sector are shown in Table 1.
2-4

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
Funding category
Commonwealth Government
contribution to RDCs
Commonwealth Government
contribution to CSIRO
Commonwealth Government
contribution to CRCs
Table 1: Funding summary for R&D
$m per
annum
Comment
$200 m Source: DAFF.
$350 m
$90 m
Calculated from full seven year
funding (DEST 2004)
State agencies (including CMAs) $425 m Estimated from 2000-2001 data
Universities $315 m Estimated from 2000-2001 data
Industry groups ?? Mainly in-kind
Landholders via commodity levies $230 m Contributed to RDCs
Total $1,600
2.2.3 State and Territory strategies, programs and targets
All states and territories have strategies, agencies and programs focusing on NRM. The array of
programs and activities is legion, and the net investment from State and Territory resources into
land and water management exceeds the Australian Government contribution several fold. Better
coordination within state activities and between state and Commonwealth-funded activities to
ensure efficient service delivery is often cited as being desirable.
2.2.4 Industry and local government investment in NRM
In a review of applied R&D programs in NRM occurring around Australia completed in 2005,
industry groups, specific farmer groups and private service providers are actively engaged in
many regions, in applied R&D in sustainable land use and management practices to meet
industry or regulatory standards – at a rough count there may be between 400 and 800 such
programs operating across Australia. Government support is used to provide the settings,
stimulus and incentives for industry investment, and to support landholders’ engagement. Much
of this investment is captured in the categories in Table 1. In some industries, including intensive
industries and irrigation industries, government investment in regulation and R&D is paying
dividends and these industries are now actively self regulating in relation to certain NRM issues
including chemical usage, water use efficiency and water quality. It is worth noting that most of
this investment occurs independently of the Regional NRM organisations although linkages are
occurring through some specific programs (such as ‘Grain and Graze’). In summary, the
investment, activity and growing capacity in developing sustainable land use and management is
2-5

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
not adequately captured by a focus on the regional NRM organisations, their strategies, targets
and investment activities (Griffin-NRM & URS 2005).
This review also found that the role of local government is also growing, with many local
governments in the more closely settled areas in urban and peri-urban areas encouraging
sustainable land use and management in their jurisdictions. Collectively, these regional efforts
are better resourced that their equivalent Regional NRM Organisation. Many rural local
governments in more remote areas, however, remain poorly resourced in relation to NRM issues
(Griffin-NRM & URS 2005).
2.2.5 Evaluation of the regional delivery model
Two recent reviews accepted by the Australian Government have put forwarded benefits of the
Model, and recommended its continuation. The ‘Corish Report’ summarised the benefits of the
regional model as follows (Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group 2006).
• ‘Local solutions for local problems, reflecting the variable agronomic, environmental and
climatic nature of Australia.
• An opportunity for the local community to have an input into solving problems and
ownership of the solutions not available with a top down approach.
• Joint funding arrangements between the Australian and state and territory governments.
• A more targeted, strategic and accountable framework than other models.
• Encouragement for innovative approaches to resource management and environmental
problems.
• An excellent opportunity for government, community and industry to invest jointly with the
local stakeholders, increasing the local resources’ (p. 146).
A more specific investigation of the regional delivery model undertaken by the Ministerial
Reference Group (Keogh et al. 2006) has also found that the model has consistent support and is
proceeding well, and has recommended its continuation and strengthening. Key findings of
importance to this Literature Review are that:
‘key land managers, i.e. primary industry and local government, are yet to be fully engaged’, and
that ‘the Australian Government must persist with regional NRM arrangements or be prepared to
risk losing community backing and on-ground support’ (p. 6).
However, their observation of low engagement with primary industry and local government is of
concern given these sectors’ pivotal role in community development and NRM, and in the light
2-6

Communities and natural resources -
the policy context
SECTION 2
of contrasting findings that local government’s role in NRM is increasing within available
resource constraints (Griffin-NRM & URS 2005).
2.3 Summary
• Australian governments (Commonwealth, State and Local) are investing in regional
economic and social development, in research and development for NRM, and in
changed land use and management.
• It appears that the investments in regional economic and social development and
regional NRM are occurring in parallel at all levels of government, with limited
linkages between the two streams. The exception will be where investments in human
and social capacity are being made to meet the needs for NRM.
• Capacity building, including information and knowledge generation and management
for NRM is occurring in a plethora of organisations and programs. While some of these
programs have been designed to operate within the regional delivery model, most have
not, and instead are linked to industry R&D corporations, and industry organisations. A
focus on developing and measuring capacity in NRM needs to include this very large
and complex array of organisations and programs.
• The regional delivery model for NRM has received endorsement by two recent
authoritative reviews, which have recommended continuation of the model with minor
adjustments only.
2-7

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
3 The Nature of Community Vitality, Viability and Health
In this section, we refer to the literature to set out a definition of a vital, viable and healthy
community, we then describe its characteristics and how such a community may be fostered. We
will also touch on the implications of community VVH for the management of natural resources.
3.1 The notion of ‘community’
Two main types of communities are defined by Black & Hughes (2001).
• Communities of location, and
• Communities of interest.
‘Communities of location’ are usually defined geographically. In rural Australia, it is relatively
easy to identify location-based communities that have a connection to areas of land and that are
centred on a local or regional town. Communities defined on a location-basis recognise that
people obtain services within that area, and that local and regional governance is delivered on a
geographical basis. A ‘community of interest’ was defined by the West Australian Local
Government Association (Western Australian Local Government Association 2006) as ‘a real or
perceived sense of community or belonging to a locality that comes from a critical mass of
people having common interests in similar social, economic, environmental, recreational,
historic attachment or other matters of common interest’. While it may be common to consider
communities in a geographic context e.g. a town or neighbourhood, it seems notable that the
above definitions make no reference to geography; rather, sociological considerations – by way
of attachments – form the main criteria.
Arguably, neither type of community is sufficient for all planning and management needs. Hugo
et al. (2001) developed the concept of ‘social catchments’ aiming to introduce geographic
considerations into definitions of community. They described social catchments as ‘the territory
occupied by a group of households and individuals who are in some form of regular interaction
and which the inhabitants identify as their community or region…social catchment areas
represent communities of interest.’ The authors argue that social catchments can be potent
forces shaping people’s consciousness and open up the possibility of mobilising group action and
group involvement in a variety of activities e.g. NRM. The authors maintain that social
catchments, when properly identified, provide the most meaningful spatial unit for social,
economic and environmental planning and management.
3-1

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
3.2 Defining a viable, vital and healthy community
3.2.1 What is a sustainable community?
The not-for-profit Sustainable Communities Network in the United States describes sustainable
communities as: integrative, inclusive and participatory. In many communities, large and small,
rural and urban, issues are being addressed in an interconnected manner. They are demonstrating
how innovative strategies can produce communities that are more environmentally sound,
economically prosperous, and socially equitable.
One of the more tangible definitions of sustainable communities comes from the Sustainable
Communities Network program based at Edith Cowan University (www.ecu.edu.au). The
program states that:
‘A healthy, sustainable community is one that has an explicit systemic (adaptive) approach to the
integration of ecological, social, cultural and economic features to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the needs of the future. It uses principles of inclusivity, connectivity,
equity, security and precaution to make decisions about the use and distribution of resources and
services.’
The Victorian Local Governance Association has advised that establishing relationships within
communities and building the capacity of those communities to work together on environmental
issues is a prerequisite for achieving environmental outcomes (www.vlga.org.au):
‘sustainable communities are … environmentally sound with good programs on water and good
programs on energy, but they are also communities that are economically robust and prosperous,
and they are also communities that are engaged in the decision making that affects their own
lives … that almost makes the other things possible – the greatest environmental outcomes and
the greatest economic possibilities. Communities that are not engaged, that are not [taking
ownership of] those projects and aren't part of the development and innovation of them, are in
the long run not sustainable in themselves.’
As a final point, in his major review of the fates of communities across all of human history,
Jared Diamond defined sustainable communities as being those that managed to avoid the five
scourges: war, self-inflicted environmental degradation, climate change, disastrous trading
relationships and unwise responses to societal problems (Diamond 2006). These are all
applicable to this project.
3.2.2 Community and social factors in community development
Community VVH is a concept defined mainly in human capital and social capital terms, and less
often in terms of the bio-physical (i.e. land and water resources used for economic purposes)
3-2

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
supports for those communities. Consequently articles exploring community VVH tend to have a
community development focus and NRM rarely features in such discussions. For example,
Lackey et al. (1978) suggested that the following should be considered:
• Attitudes and values – encourage a positive community vision and community pride;
• Capacities – develop knowledge and skills and ability to perform functions;
• Organisational arrangements – develop arrangements that foster community
participation; and
• Leadership – encourage shared community-wide leadership and skilled individual
leaders.
Later in 1987, Lackey et al. extended the list of concerns when they explored the concept of
resilient and vibrant communities. These authors then suggested there were seven characteristics.
These were:
• Local groups with well developed problem solving skills and a spirit of self-reliance;
• Broadly distributed power, commitment to the community and wide participation in civic
affairs;
• Leaders with vision and residents with a strong sense of community loyalty;
• Collaboration and consensus on goals and priorities;
• Citizens with problem-solving skills and the ability to acquire resources;
• Government that provides enabling support; and,
• Ability to manage community conflict.
At a similar time, the Oklahoma Community Institute (1998) identified nine key characteristics
of what they described as ‘effective communities’. In their terms, effective communities:
• Educate the community in the community’s business;
• View challenges as opportunities instead of seeing themselves as victims;
• Are open to diversity of citizen involvement and perspective;
• Create opportunities for open, respectful community dialogues;
• Have leaders who listen more than they talk;
3-3

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
• Are willing to share decision making;
• Understand the concept of team work;
• Aggressively work towards collaborative problem solving and consensus building, and
• Seek win/win solutions to issues and problems.
In a seminal article Flora & Flora (1995) explored small town vitality, vibrancy and health. They
made the point that ‘health’ is more than just the absence of disease and in this context they
offered the following definitions:
‘…it is an optimum state of well being …health is wholeness…it includes a sense of belonging to
community and experiencing control over one’s circumstances and fate. A healthy community is
not a perfect place, but is in a dynamic state of renewal and improvement. It builds a culture that
supports healthy life choices and a high quality of life.’
They suggested that a healthy community is one that is:
‘…continually creating and improving those physical and social environments, and expanding
those community resources which enable people to support each other in performing all the
functions of life and in developing themselves to their maximum potential’.
It seems notable that while no specific reference is made to NRM here, the physical environment
is mentioned and it seems implicit that ‘improving the physical environment’ must involve
NRM.
‘Viability is the ability to survive and to pursue the face of changing circumstances. Community
economic viability is the capacity of local socio-economic systems to generate employment and
income to maintain, if not improve, the community’s relative economic position. Economically
viable communities possess the capacity to perceive changing socio-economic circumstances and
to respond appropriately. Community viability has political, social, and political dimensions.
(Shaffer, 1990:75 quoted in Flora & Flora 1995)
Strategic Regional Development (SRD) seeks to address social and economic sustainability
within regional and rural areas. Dore & Woodhill (1999) offered a ‘checklist’ of what they
regard as essential characteristics of SRD initiatives:
Purposeful:
Visionary:
Inclusive:
Clear process:
Clear reasons for why it should been developed
Based on a well-developed, widely shared, long-term vision
Has a high level of community (stakeholder) involvement and
ownership
Utilises an appropriate, widely understood, equitable, interactive and
forward moving process for development and implementation
3-4

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
Informed and informing:
Holistic:
Integrated:
Appropriate scale:
Institutional backing:
Focused:
Options evaluated:
Costed:
Prioritised:
Action and outcome
oriented:
Responsibilities
clarified:
Negotiated:
Monitored, evaluated,
adapted:
Communicative and
credible:
Utilises and shares the best available information and builds the
knowledge and research base
Takes an integrated and holistic view of issues taking account of
social, economic, and ecological issues, their actions and
interdependencies
Integrates with other plans, strategies and initiatives
Recognizes that action might best occur at the regional, sub-regional
or local level
To be effective, the strategy needs to be supported by appropriate,
empowered and resourced institutional/organizational structures
Clearly identifies the key issues for the region
Assess positive and negative impacts of alternative options
Attempts to identify monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits
of the options
Prioritises, in a transparent and equitable way, the importance and/or
logical order of activities
Is designed to produce action and is held accountable by the record
of its outcomes
Includes a well-defined division of responsibilities and roles of all
stakeholders
Agreements about implementation need to be negotiated
Includes a simple framework for monitoring, evaluation, and review
Effectively communicates high quality, honest information
3.2.3 Human behavioural characteristics in VVH
Plowman (2006) draws attention to the classic adoption model developed by Everett Rogers for
explaining differences in adoption rates. Rogers’ model suggests that a small minority of
community members may be willing to positively seek out new ideas and innovations, and to
experiment with their practical application. The large majority, however, are more likely to be
influenced by others and to adopt new ideas only after they have seen demonstrable benefits:
observation of earlier adopters reduces risk and uncertainty and facilitates diffusion. Rogers
(1983) suggests that adoption of any innovation can be explained by socio-economic variables
such as education, financial security, social participation and media consumption.
The classic Rogers diffusion model has been criticised in recent years as being too simplistic.
Nevertheless, the underlying principle is still likely to hold and it can be argued that it could still
3-5

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
have a place in determining adoption processes, and, if the links between the variables that are
considered to influence adoption were demonstrated empirically, then the model could also still
be useful in classifying communities’.
Cary et al. (2002) argue that NRM practices have inherent characteristics that can either
encourage or discourage adoption. These include: relative advantage, the associated risk, the
complexity, the compatibility, the trialability and the observability of a given practice. In short,
agricultural practices that are perceived to have a relative advantage, are not too risky or
complex, that are compatible with existing practices, that can be easily be trialled and the results
observed, are more likely to be adopted especially if they are believed to be profitable (Stanley et
al. 2005).
Past experience has also been identified as influencing behaviour. Vanclay (2004) noted that
many of the land degradation problems facing farmers today have to a large extent been
encouraged by misguided past land management policies e.g. land clearing encouraged by tax
concessions. Many current NRM policies are in direct contrast to those former policies and, from
a land manager’s point of view, they may be represent something of a ‘back flip’ (Stanley et al.
2005). Consequently, this affects the confidence land managers may have in government
agencies promoting sustainable NRM.
Plowman (2006) also maintains that psychology has a significant role to play in VVH and that it
should be considered in any typology. He suggests that people pursue unconscious motives
underpinned by a quest for neurochemical satisfaction. He maintains that communities
dominated with conservative people have a need for structure and certainty. They are less openminded
and more resistant to change. Rogers (2003) later adaptation curve illustrates individual
differences, and the impact of peer influence. Communities with net outflows are less adaptable
to changing external conditions (Plowman 2006). They are more conservative, more passive, and
more prone to seek patronage from external sources. Communities with social structures which
are hierarchical are also likely to be conservative and to be collectively slow to change old habits
even when those habits are not beneficial. Occupants of the senior ranks of such communities
show a marked inability to ask questions or to seek out information. Those reporting to those
senior ranks show a tendency to provide the information that is expected. Hence change within
social structures or by social structures is difficult because the senior people tend to be
conservative, to make statements rather than ask questions and to be fed from below with
information they expect to hear (Plowman 2006).
The notion of conservatism is supported by Stanley et al. (2005). These authors noted the
important role that tradition has. Traditions are formed over generations because they are
believed to be the best or most appropriate way of doing something. Consequently there can be
considerable resistance to discarding long-held traditions, particularly if the adoption of new
practices is uncertain and they are perceived to be potentially risky.
3-6

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
3.2.4 Infrastructure and services
Most of the resources of government (especially State and Local) are used to develop
infrastructure of one form or another e.g. roads and utilities. Some social services are provided
by government but as Plowman et al. (2003) noted adequate service provision is an important
component of thriving towns. In a study of small town sustainability in northern Australia,
Macgregor (2003) also recognised the important role that commercial service provision plays in
the perceptions of residents in small towns. Macgregor concluded that a sufficient quantity (for
healthy competition) and variety influenced resident’s sense of community. Part of the
explanation for this is the potential high costs of using such services in rural and especially
remote areas where there may also be little competition. In the longer term, residents also have
concerns about future employment opportunities (especially for the young), particularly
important in communities that are or appear to be in decline. Curtis & Byron (2002) also noted
employment opportunities, especially for young people, as one of the five most important issues
that people from the Wimmera region in Victoria had about their community. Not surprisingly,
the community saw a link between employment opportunities and the decline of small rural
towns, which was another of the five most important issues.
3.2.5 Evidence for the nature of community VVH
Kenyon & Black (2001) also considered the social and economic viability of small rural
Australian towns. They discussed the concept of ‘resilience’, which it can be argued is closely
aligned with VVH. They defined resilience as the ‘intentional action to enhance the personal and
collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to, and influence the course of social
and economic change’. Interestingly, they noted that there is a variety of environmental
challenges that are impacting upon the quality of life in many towns they considered. For
example, they claim that salinity and poor water quality is having a negative impact on the
viability of small towns (note, this assumption is challenged in part in Section 5.1.2). Decline in
logging of natural forest areas and an increase in agroforestry have both impacted negatively on
rural population densities in many towns and also upon community VVH. While the reverse
argument is not put, namely that community VVH issues have impacted negatively (or
positively) on natural resources, it seems likely that cases of negative impact could be identified
– water degradation, dams, pollution, loss of biodiversity, introduction of feral plants and
animals etc.
A study of small town survival in Queensland by Plowman et al. (2003) identified a list of
attributes that have been empirically demonstrated to measure the level of VVH within a
community. However, none of these have direct implications for NRM; in fact, they are
orthogonal to NRM and have zero correlation, a point that will be discussed in later sections.
Nevertheless the findings are important in further defining the concept.
3-7

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
Towns reporting the highest numbers of leaders were the least innovative; towns with the highest
net inflows, the lowest average age, the highest average education, the highest level of overseas
travel, the highest level of home ownership who scored highest on the psychological measure of
‘openness’ were the most innovative.
The measures used by these authors were designed to answer the following questions.
• Does this town have those products and services that people might expect?
• Do we have the technologies we expect?
• Are we managing and promoting this town well enough – both to ourselves and to the
outside world?
• Do we have all the professional expertise we need?
• Do our professional experts work alone or do they have colleagues in the same area with
whom they can share and develop ideas?
• Are our professional experts constantly upgrading their knowledge and skills?
• Do we have enough technical expertise?
• Are the big decisions in this town made by the Council, or are there a broad variety of
decision groups?
• Can anybody (a) easily participate in decision-making in this town if they want to, and
(b) do they want to?
• Is the management of this town innovative or conservative?
• Do we have enough ‘new blood’ and new ideas in our leadership?
• Do we have enough administrative capacity to help turn good ideas into reality? Whilst it
is fine for the community to have good ideas, those ideas can only be turned into reality
with the necessary infrastructure. Do we have that administrative infrastructure?
• Are the resources in the community stretched to the limit, or does the community have
spare capacity to help out?
• Do we have enough fresh ideas coming in from outside? Are we talking enough with the
outside world and getting ideas from them?
• Do we share and support ideas enough with each other?
3-8

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
• What advice or recommendations would you make to any community that is seeking to
become innovative? What are the key issues it needs to pay attention to?
While the usefulness of Plowman’s measures appears self evident, there are no secondary data
sources of such data so data representing these must be collected using primary collection
techniques (questionnaires, interviews etc).
What characteristics make a community strong and resilient? A list of ten characteristics from
the Strengthening Rural Communities Project, Premier’s Department (Stephens 2005) was
developed:
• The community takes a multi-functional approach to create a sustainable (economically,
environmentally, socially and politically) development system;
• The community maximises the use of its limited time and resources in areas that will
yield the greatest strategic benefits;
• The community develops plans that merge social and economic goals and build local
capacity;
• The community is able to mobilise sectors of the community around priorities;
• The Community is able to focus its energies on mobilising internal assets while
leveraging outside resources to achieve its goals;
• The community has established a critical mass of cooperating organisations through
which locally based initiatives are implemented and evaluated;
• The community has strong , inclusive and visionary leadership - both formal and
informal: and
• The community promotes the well being of all members of the community by
encouraging participation, consultation and involvement in community life.
The NSW Farmer’s Association project, ‘Building Rural Communities’ (2005) conducted a
survey of 66 rural towns in NSW that were regarded as having high dependence. This study used
a survey methodology built on the work of Plowman et al. (2003). Environmental factors were
not considered in the study however but the following measures were used to classify the towns:
• Services: health, education, transport, banking, police, child care, aged care, employment.
• Levels of innovation: leadership, size and geography, technology, professional expertise,
skills development, management, volunteering.
3-9

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
• Government assistance: successful programs, awareness, application process,
participation.
• Major inhibitors to growth and development: government regulation, shire
amalgamations, housing/land shortages, hobby farms, NRM reforms (creating
uncertainty).
• Notable attributes of towns doing well: local government, volunteer groups, council staff,
whole-of-government approach, tourism.
3.3 Linking community VVH and NRM
While NRM does not appear to feature strongly in the community development literature it
certainly seems that the subject areas of focus are more often than not the same as those
identified by authors concerned with advancing community approaches to NRM such as
Landcare and catchment management initiatives.
3.3.1 From an NRM perspective
An article by Vanclay (1992) that explored farmers’ decision-making processes emphasised the
role that social and human capital played and he suggested a number of considerations for its
enhancement:
• Understand social structures and networks: Where necessary, conduct regional socioeconomic
assessment, stakeholder identification and networks analysis.
• Engage early adopters: Identify innovators and engage them in innovation design,
adoption and development. Jointly evaluate experience and identify benefits. Empower
(information and resources) early adopters, and support their regional leadership and
promotion.
• Work through existing networks: Recognise that the end-user is the primary force for
change and innovation success. Work through existing social networks, including
stakeholder, industry and representative groups, to communicate success. Mass media is
useful for raising awareness, but interpersonal communication is essential for influencing
adoption.
• Build on existing knowledge and practice: Ensure new knowledge and innovation
requires limited capital and intellectual investments, and is congruent with existing
personal and business objectives.
3-10

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
• Reduce risk through trialability: Build in experimentation and adaptation. Enable
incremental adoption and partial adoption.
• Demonstrate advantages: Monitor and evaluate the adoption and diffusion of new
knowledge. Identify benefits, adapt where necessary and communicate success.
Barr & Cary (2000) suggest that appeals to stewardship values and management attitudes is not
enough to progress NRM. They point the farming community is not homogenous and an
understanding of the diversity within rural communities and landholders with regard to social
and economic factors is necessary. They also point out that farmers have to consider other
priorities first e.g. maximising farm profit, building a valuable business, reducing debt and
providing for children. As a result, most of farmers’ personal development is in some way
connected with increasing productivity. However, farmers are very conscious of how they are
perceived by their peers and other members of the community. This provides an opportunity and
these authors agree with Vanclay in that the right social environment must first be created or at
least be enhanced.
3.3.2 From a human behaviour perspective
The question remains however: are there any direct links between community VVH and the
environment and consequently NRM? The environmental health literature has certainly
demonstrated links between living conditions and health but direct empirical evidence of links
between resource condition and human health seems illusive. However, there is some notable
recent work being conducted by Jardine et al. (in press) which has explored the links between
declining resource condition (in the form of dryland salinity) and human health. The study,
which is being conducted in the agricultural region of Western Australia, has used a spatial
Bayesian framework to look at the links between 15 common regional diseases and salinity.
Statistical associations have been found between areas affected by dryland salinity and several
diseases including asthma, ischemic heart disease, suicide and depression. When individuals who
had been diagnosed with depression were removed from the analysis the effect of the dryland
salinity variable was no longer detectable for asthma, ischemic heart disease or suicide, although
socio-economic and aboriginal population effects remained. In terms of health, Jardine et al. also
concluded that salinity is having psychological effects brought about by impacts on sense of
place and the associated grief and sense of lost legacy, which consequently is affecting the
general health of the people living in the saline areas. But he draws attention to the broader
community impacts also. For example, the impact salinity is having on infrastructure (roads,
railways) and towns, the estimated costs of which far exceed those that have been estimated for
loss of agricultural production.
3-11

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
Some psychology literature also appears to suggest causal links. For example, Mealy & Theis
(1995) suggest there is a relationship between landscape appearance and human health in the
form of mood. The proposition is couched in an evolutionary context and it relates to when
humans were essentially hunter-gatherers and when operating in savannah landscapes were the
preferred living environments. The basic thesis is that aesthetic and emotional reactions to
landscapes may have evolved from a psychology that helped hunter-gatherers make better
decisions about when to move, where to settle, and what activities to follow in various localities.
According to this argument, environmental stimuli as diverse as flowers, sunsets, clouds, and
snakes all activate response systems of ancient origin. These response systems - including
perceptual, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural processes served important functions for both
day-to-day survival and long-term fitness of early humans (Orians & Heerwagen 1992). Ulrich
(1983) found that people prefer environments that have water, large trees, a focal point, changes
in elevation, semi-open space, ground cover, distant views to the horizon, and moderate degrees
of complexity. These landscapes contain moderate degrees of complexity, a sense of coherence,
and a semi-open spatial configuration. Ulrich’s studies have found that people in stressful
situations show lower distress responses when surrounded by natural scenes. Conversely, an
open environment, generally devoid of protective cover, is relatively undesirable for human
occupation. So is a completely closed canopy forest within which movement and visual access
are very difficult.
In a similar vain, Mealy & Theis (1995) hypothesise that high scores on measures of energy,
cheerfulness and optimism can be associated with preference for environments rich in ‘prospect’
– the prospect of an adequate food supply. In contrast, sadness, fatigue and anxiety would be
associated with a perceived threat and the need for safety, security and hence a preference for
‘refuge’. In essence, the authors are proposing that mood suggests landscape preference. It is
conceivable that if this is true, the reverse may also be true – that landscape appearance might
influence mood. Orians & Heerwagen (1992) suggest this is what happens. For example, males,
with an evolved preference for Prospect become angry and depressed when faced with Refuge,
since it hides potential danger, reduces opportunity to observe hunting opportunities, and reduces
opportunity to observe changes in the weather. The direct translation of these thoughts to the
context of vegetation management would seem plausible.
Despite the above discussions, it is nevertheless still difficult to demonstrate empirical evidence
of the links between community VVH and NRM. However, in an interesting article by Bauen et
al. (1996) a ‘sustainable community checklist’ is offered that clearly identifies social, economic
and environmental measures that contribute to healthy communities. Table 2 summarises these
measures along with implied indicators.
3-12

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
Fosters
commitment to
Place
Table 2: Characteristics of a healthy Community (Bauen et al. 1996)
• Has historic celebrations, festivals, fairs and community projects that build a
sense of commitment to the community and its landscape
• Forums exist where diverse members of the community can come together to
develop a common vision, resolve conflicts and advance mutual goals.
• Living-wage jobs are available for members of the community within a
reasonable distance from home.
• Education and training are available locally that provide residents with skills
they need to gain, keep or create living-wage jobs.
• Adequate affordable housing is available for the more economically vulnerable
members of the community.
• Residents, including businesses and landowners are committed to the well-being
of the community, its residents and the environment that sustains them.
Promotes vitality • Residents purchase goods and services within the community whenever
possible.
• Local businesses are innovative, keeping pace with changing market demands
and technologies, ensuring their continued vitality.
• Businesses ‘add value’ locally to renewable natural resources (fish, timber, farm
products etc.) to increase the local economic benefits from sustainable harvest
levels.
• The natural system (lakes, rivers, forests, prairies, farm lands etc) that enrich the
community are ecologically healthy.
• Citizens from all segments of the community are welcomed and encouraged to
participate in organizations and activities that help to strengthen the community
and make it a better place to live.
Builds resilience • There is sufficient diversity in the local economy to help it weather downturns
in individual businesses or economic sectors.
• Natural resource management practices maintain and promote native biological
diversity, helping to maintain economic and ecological productivity over the
long-term.
• Local organizations have the capacity to help the community define and
advance its economic, social and environmental goals. Capacity includes
effective leadership, broadened community involvement and access to
information and financial resources.
• There is adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation, and
telecommunications) to protect public health and the environment and to
support desired social and economic development.
• There are adequate social support networks—both formal and informal—that
help members of the community during times of need.
Acts as a steward • Water quality and quantity are adequate to meet the needs of human
consumption, industry, recreation and fish and other wildlife.
3-13

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
Forges
connections
• The air is clean to breathe.
• Homes and businesses practice energy conservation to reduce the economic
costs and environmental impacts of energy production.
• Productive natural resource lands (including farm, forest and range lands) are
protected from development to ensure continued economic and environmental
benefits for future generations.
• Critical wildlife habitats and other environmentally sensitive lands (including
wetlands, riparian areas and habitat for rare or threatened or endangered species)
have been identified, protected and where necessary, restored.
• Community members (both residences and businesses) are taking steps to
reduce, reuse and recycle solid wastes.
• There are opportunities for dialogue between citizens and owners or managers
of natural resource lands whose management has significant ecological,
economic and social consequences for the community.
• A community is involved in regional, watershed or ecosystem-based initiatives
where such efforts are useful in addressing concerns that cross multiple
jurisdictions.
• The community has built positive relationships with outside agencies and
organizations that allow it to gain access to information and technical and
financial assistance.
• Local businesses are aware and take advantage of markets beyond the
community, and of outside sources of marketing assistance, technical assistance
and financing.
• Businesses work together when it is in their self interest to do so.
• Schools, hospitals and other local public organizations cooperate with one
another to improve their services, create new programs or acquire needed
infrastructure for the community.
Promotes equity • Each resident has similar access to and opportunity to participate in community
decision making processes.
• Social, economic and political burdens and benefits are equitably distributed
among all members of the community.
• Activities within the community do not impose unfair burdens on people in
other communities within the region, state, country and other parts of the world.
• Community activities and decisions consider, and seek not to jeopardize the
well-being of future generations.
• The community practices equity in relationships to the environment by
respecting other forms of life and passing on a healthy environmental legacy to
the future.
3-14

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
A sense of community, participation and empowerment;, competence leadership, voluntarism
and creativity; social capital and trust, and positive affect and attitude, have been recognised as
key components of community development, with an emphasis placed on the importance of
people within the community providing voluntary services to contribute to the community’s
well-being (Rural Women’s Advisory Council 2001). The importance of slack resources as a
factor in innovative communities (noted by Plowman et al. 2004) is clearly linked to the ability
of communities to capture these resources in a voluntary capacity.
Like Bauen et al. (1996), Macgregor (2003) also described viable, resilient and healthy
communities as ‘sustainable communities’. In recognition of the ‘triple-bottom-line’
(environment, society and economy) he developed an analytical framework (Figure 2) capable of
adaptation to a variety of circumstances, to assess the position of a community or communities
with respect to sustainability.
The model seems best suited to small towns – perhaps under 5,000 inhabitants – simply because
larger towns are economically better able to operate independently. That said the model could
have applications in larger communities, especially where one is concerned with the social and
environmental dimensions.
The pyramid image of the model aims to convey the impression of the two extremes a
community could find itself in with respect to sustainability. A community that would be
regarded as completely ‘unsustainable’ would be located at the bottom of the pyramid and
characteristically the members would be disparate and diffuse. A community that could be
described as ‘sustainable’ would contain members that are likely be highly supportive and
involved in the purpose of achieving sustainability. Five stages or levels in progressing towards
sustainability are identified (from bottom to top), basic needs, information, attitudes, activity,
completion and at the apex of the model is the sustainability ‘vision’, which would essentially be
some kind of statement about the intention of the community. A community that could be
identified with the highest level on the ladder (completion) would be one that demonstrates
extremely high scores on all dimensions and indicators. There are four ‘measurable’ levels and
there is a sense that these are sequential i.e. the basic needs of the community would usually first
need to be satisfied before the level of information becomes important, and so on.
It is reasonable to assume that the level of support within each of the levels will vary and it is this
variation that lends itself to indicator development. For example, in terms of the provision of
basic needs (essentially, food, water, shelter, safety etc) the community could either be in a
position of complete supply (‘satisfaction’) or completely starved (‘deprivation’). The indicators
within this level are more likely to refer to structural circumstances that are likely to encourage
or prevent sustainability and many of these could be developed from simple observation e.g. the
provision of suitable infrastructure and services – housing, adequate health care and so on.
3-15

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
The information level essentially refers to elements of social and human capital and the types of
initiatives that are likely to encourage these. While much of this relates to the community’s
educational status and its access to information resources outside the community, Macgregor
(2003) notes that it also refers to the kind of knowledge that is diffused to local government and
other organisations since it is they that usually have a leadership role in developing community
sustainability initiatives but in terms of information, the community could possibly have full
‘knowledge’ or alternatively be in complete ‘ignorance’.
Figure 2: Analytical framework for assessing and describing community sustainability
(Macgregor 2003)
VISION
HIGHLY
INTEGRATED &
UNIFIED COMMUNITY
COMPLETION
ACTIVITY
ATTITUDES
INFORMATION
BASIC NEEDS
ECONOMY
COMMITMENT
LETHARGY
UNDERSTANDING
ARROGANCE
KNOWLEDGE
IGNORANCE
SATISFACTION
DEPRIVATION
DISPARATE & DIFFUSE
COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIETY
As discussed elsewhere in this review, values and attitudes can also be regarded as a component
of human capital but Macgregor contends that they play such an important role in motivation
action that it is useful to consider these independently from the other attributes of human capital.
It is implied here that community attitudes towards sustainability could, on the one hand, reflect
a position of ‘arrogance’, typified by a general community attitude that can be summarised by
the hypothetical quote, ‘…sustainability has nothing to do with me – I’ve got to get on with my
life and make the most of it in any way I can’. The other extreme (‘understanding’) can be
3-16

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
exemplified by the statement, ‘…it’s very important that we all pull together to improve all our
lifestyles so long as we don’t do it at the expense of future generations’.
The activity level can be differentiated by the degree to which the community is actually working
towards achieving sustainability. Aspects of this would include community volunteering,
membership of support organisations and the like. The dimensional nature of this can loosely be
described as ‘lethargy’ at the bottom or ‘commitment’ at the top.
There seems an obvious similarity between Macgregor’s model and that of the hierarchy of
human needs developed behavioural psychologist Abraham Maslow and indeed Macgregor
acknowledges this work in the development of the model. However, unlike Maslow’s hierarchy
Macgregor notes that it is not absolutely essential for a community to obtain complete
‘satisfaction’ on the basic needs level before the next level, or even higher levels, can be
addressed and his study of towns in northern Australia where the model was tested and used
demonstrated that a community can score well on the attitudes level but poorly on the basic
needs dimension.
Macgregor (2003) notes that the development of individual indicators should take account of
local contexts – for example, geographic circumstances; however, they should be based on scales
(qualitative or quantitative) so that scores can be calculated and the community ‘plotted’ against
the model. This allows a pattern of where the community sits within the model to emerge making
it possible to identify areas of concern and so informing local strategic processes.
3.4 A typology of communities?
3.4.1 Trends at work in rural Australia
There have been some notable trends taking place within Australia’s rural landscape. Barr et al.
(2005) argue that Australia’s rural landscape is following divergent transformations of
agriculture and society according to location, amenity, and landscape. They point out that about a
quarter of Australia’s rural landscape is progressing along what some writers have called a postproduction
trajectory. This is taking place in areas of high amenity which are usually places that
can be considered to be an attractive location and are closer to major population centres. The
farms in these areas are generally small and one can expect farm management practices to be less
influenced by the need to generate cash flow from the land. Off-farm income is a common
feature within the economies of these areas. Similarly, towns along the coasts are increasingly
being decoupled from the local farming economy as they become populated by migrants seeking
quieter, less hectic lifestyles – often retirees.
3-17

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
This post-production trajectory has changed the demographic profile of many towns; some rural
towns are increasingly populated by people seeking landscape or lifestyle amenity, by welfare
migration and others, collectively creating a cultural patchwork (Barr 2005). Often the incoming
populations are urban – from large cities – and so this process has been referred to as counterurbanisation
by some writers. Property purchasing can therefore be considered amenity
purchases and they can be classified as ‘statement housing sites’, ‘hobby farms’, ‘rural
residential properties’, ‘weekenders’ or ‘bush retreats’. Significantly, competition for farm land
for amenity purposes pushes up property prices higher than can be afforded for farm purposes.
In other areas many towns have lost their capacity to maintain their populations through natural
increase and will be increasingly populated by aged residents (Barr 2005). These ‘less attractive
areas’ account for approximately 75 percent of Australian farmland; this land is generally drier,
flatter, and more remote. Being less attractive to counter-urbanites it is likely to remain within
the realm of commercial agriculture but with declining populations. Importantly, there will be
less discretionary labour for NRM tasks (Barr et al. 2005).
3.4.2 Alternative approaches to considering communities
One approach to empirically describe towns (usually adopted by human geographers) is to
consider population and service provision (functional units). This work has demonstrated that
towns within a pre-determined landscape are hierarchical i.e. there is an order of functionality
that is typically based on size 1 . Figure 3 shows the hierarchy of 19 towns in northern Australia
(Macgregor 1996). An important point that emerged from this and other studies of this kind is
that central place hierarchies have changed in many non-metropolitan areas of Australia due to
increased mobility in the population enabling them to travel further than they have in the past
and shop in larger centres with more comparative shopping, cheaper prices etc.
The hierarchical nature of rural landscapes has also been acknowledged within NRM. An
examination of sustainability issues in the agricultural context by Smith and McDonald (1998)
revealed at least four nested hierarchies. At the largest scale are those that can be associated with
field or paddock; then there are those associated with the farm; then those associated with the
watershed or catchment; and lastly, there are those associated with the region or even nation. The
point that these authors emphasise is that the indicators of concern to NRM should vary
according to the scale one is concerned with.
Brunckhorst (2000) also supports the hierarchical approach to NRM but he emphasises that
landscapes are culturally constructed so NRM processes and their associated landscapes should
1 The most seminal work in this area was that of Walter Christaller (1933) in which the ‘central place theory’ was
forwarded.
3-18

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
be developed along social concepts such as ‘sense of place’ as well as ecological concepts. He
notes a problem with the approach however in that these culturally defined areas are likely to
cross or encompass political jurisdictional boundaries, as well as natural landscape features such
as catchments; nevertheless, he believes that identifying such ‘communities of common concern’
will make innovation for development and the pursuit of social and ecological sustainability
more attainable.
Figure 3: Hierarchical distribution of selected towns from northern Australian
(Macgregor 1996)
10000
9000
1
19
8000
7000
12
Population
6000
5000
4000
14
3000
2000
1000
0
13
2
16 4
8
11 3 15 17
6 9 10
7
5
18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of Functional Units
Baum (2006) took a more socio-economic approach to classifying Australian towns when he
based his considered differential levels of socio-economic performance. The groupings formed
were developed according to the degree they shared similar economic and demographic
outcomes. His analysis produced six groupings (a typology): income advantaged mining-based
towns; tourism/population boom advantaged towns; advantaged serve-based towns; agriculturebased
disadvantaged towns; old economy employments disadvantaged towns; and,
welfare/retirement migration disadvantaged towns. Some of the more significant variables used
to develop this typology were: population, employment (youth and adult labour force
3-19

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
participation and unemployment), income, credit, education, occupations, construction, single
parent families, age dependency, financial stress (rental and mortgage), public housing and home
owners.
Macgregor’s (1996) study (discussed above) also involved a town classification procedure for
the 19 towns examined in northern Australia. Like Baum’s (2006) this study also used a range of
socio-economic variables and a statistical cluster analysis procedure to differentiate groupings.
However, this study included a range of environmental and landscape variables e.g. land
degradation; presence of invasive woody weeds; known tourist attractions; mine sites; national
parks or other protected areas; and, coastal features. Interestingly, this study developed a similar
grouping to Baum (2006) although the headings for the grouping differed: pastoral towns; tourist
towns, large self-supporting towns, vibrant towns, declining towns, welfare dependent towns (in
this case, dominated by indigenous populations).
It is notable that both Macgregor’s (1996) and Baum’s (2006) studies developed most of their
indicators by using secondary data from sources such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) Housing and Population census.
The heterogeneous nature of the Corangamite Natural Resource Management Region highlights
difficulties in defining the nature of ‘community’ in these types of regions. In a report
commissioned by the CCMA, four approaches to defining separate ‘communities’ in the
Corangamite Catchment were defined (URS & AgInsight 2001). These considered the region by:
1. Local government areas. Local government in Victoria has changed significantly over
the last decade, with major rationalisation and amalgamation of local authorities. The
Corangamite Catchment is included within the boundaries of nine local governments, all
of which are themselves heterogeneous in terms of socio-economic make-up. .
2. Areas of common geography and human activity. The diversity in landscape, human
habitation and activity is high – from extensive open broad care farming lands to the
north west, to cities, and to coastal tourism attractions. Eight geographical/human activity
types could be defined, which occur largely independently of local government
boundaries.
3. Occupations and industries – which can be defined by their impact upon NRM. The
categories defined were: major secondary and resource industries, tertiary industries and
service providers, managers of land use change, support organisations for agricultural
land and water use, rural industries and communities, forestry, support organisations for
environmental values, urban settlers in rural/coastal areas, urban communities and
tourism.
3-20

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
4. The key drivers of natural resource management behaviour – whose normal activities
lead them to be considered as important influences of behaviour in NRM. The categories
are: market and production influences, networks of relevance to NRM (e.g. Landcare
networks), NRM governance and regulation, local governance, and icons (e.g. the Great
Ocean Road).
In considering how the CCMA should engage with its ‘communities’, the third approach to
defining the communities was recommended, which included a recognition that engagement with
some of the large drivers of natural resource use such as secondary industry and managers of
land use change (e.g. Shire planners) needed to be strengthened at the expense of more
traditional support for Landcare groups.
While this may be a useful approach for the CCMA to adopt, being able to capture and report
data on trends on community VVH in these non-geographically defined communities would
present a challenge.
3.5 Summary
• There is no one definition of community that is sufficient for all purposes. People living
together in a location in space may comprise one community, or in the case of people
with widely differing ‘stories’ and economic and social supports, they may comprise
more than one community. However, many of the factors that contribute to overall
community VVH require contributions from these separate sectors. For example,
competent and well-resourced governance and access to a wide range of skills and
experience are more likely to be achieved in a heterogeneous larger local or regional
population than in a more homogenous and smaller population.
• The characteristics of what make communities ‘tick’ have received abundant attention
in the community development literature and there seems to be a high degree of
commonality that human, social and economic capital in a number of dimensions are
what matters. However, there is less attention to how this capital is built and the role of
some of the underlying drivers in creating the environment where human and social
capital can flourish.
• Although there is much theoretical literature in the area, not all of which seems to be
grounded in observation or evidence, there is sufficient empirical support for a number
of human and social capital factors being instrumental in the development of innovative,
healthy and viable communities.
• The research into community VVH has not given much consideration to the role of the
physical environment in which a community is located as a contributor to community
3-21

The Nature of Community Vitality,
Viability and Health
SECTION 3
well-being. There appears to be no obvious or necessary relationship. This may in part
be because the research into community VVH has not generally investigated the role of
the physical environment as a contributing factor. The possible relationships between
community VVH and the physical environment (and its management) is explored in the
next two Sections (Sections 4 and 5).
3-22

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
4 Community VVH as a driver of NRM
In this section, the literature is reviewed that considers how people in communities either acting
individually or collectively consider their options and make decisions in NRM. This topic has
been the result of considerable research in recent years, which has been captured in a number of
reviews which form the basis of the information presented here. This section is followed by a
consideration of the social relationships between people and natural resources, and then a short
investigation of organisational influences.
4.1 Industry trends in natural resource management
Increased industrial development and sophistication in production systems, driven by tighter
operating margins, increased regulation and higher quality standards in the marketplace is
impacting on how the natural resources affected by agriculture are used. One response to this has
been increased efficiency in the use of natural resources, reflected in an increase in dollars
returned per unit of land and water used (Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group (2006).
On-farm decisions are being made in an environment of increasing external complexity
(Campbell 2005). Landholders are being expected to have an appreciation of the off-farm
impacts of their decisions, and the importance of societal goals established by the general
community for the land and water resources they manage. At the same time the array of
information that they need to cope with is increasing, and the number of people and entities that
impact on their daily lives is growing (Blackadder Communication & Naturally Resourceful
(2001).
The National Land & Water Resources Audit (2002) has documented beliefs about the
environment that are held by farmers across Australia. The Audit states that farmer concern for
the environment increased rapidly through the 1980s, resulting in a smaller gap between urban
and rural attitudes. While the Audit concludes that ‘These findings demonstrate the existence of
a positive but pragmatic attitude towards environmental issues on the part of Australian farmers.’
(p. 62), it also says that relying on farmers to sacrifice self-interest to manage for public good
outcomes in the absence of enabling mechanisms is not likely to result in significant change.
How have agricultural industries responded? Landholders committed $221 million on direct
investment in natural resources repair and damage prevention, mainly on fencing, earthworks
and weed control (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001). This represents approximately 2.3 per
cent of total farm costs, using the years 1992/93 to 1996/97 as a benchmark (National Land &
Water Resources Audit 2002). Although seemingly a modest proportion, this investment does
not include the benefits to natural resources achieved through production innovations such as notill
cropping, improved grazing management and improved fertiliser and water use efficiency,
which are frequently highlighted in reports published by the industry Research and Development
Corporations (see estimates of investment in Section 2.2.2). Further, it does not consider the
4-1

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
large amount of in-kind investment by volunteers, estimated at $2.60 for every dollar of
government investment (Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group 2006). It is this larger
commitment to sound NRM that is of interest here.
4.2 People and natural resources
As set out in Section 3.2, human capital is a component of community VVH. Strong
communities can build human capital. Strong leaders can build community VVH. Human capital
is an individual characteristic, and therefore it is appropriate that in this Review of community
VVH and NRM we consider how individuals with their human capital interact with natural
resources and their management. Similarly, we need to consider the role of social capital in
driving desired change.
4.2.1 How humans value natural resources
It is first important to acknowledge that natural resources have both intrinsic and extrinsic values
associated with them. Intrinsic values can be regarded as the values that offer no direct benefit to
humankind; for example, the intrinsic value of a forest to exist for its own sake. Such values may
be associated with philosophical positions that are more aligned with deep ecology or strong
definitions of sustainability. It can of course be argued that all natural resources offer a range of
ecosystem services and so by default they all offer extrinsic values but perhaps this is mere
semantics. But for definition, extrinsic values are those that offer direct benefits to humanity;
trees being valued for timber or paper production for example.
Many natural resources also have direct and indirect values. For example, a forest can be
harvested and the timber utilised for some economic purpose (direct use value), it may be
preserved for recreational use (direct use value), it may be preserved for future generations to use
(bequest values), or it may be preserved because it is regarded as valuable in itself (intrinsic nonuse
value). When it comes to thinking about natural resources more holistically (ecosystems,
landscapes etc) these too offer intrinsic and extrinsic, direct and in-direct values. How the
determinations of value are assigned to natural resources can be complex and different
stakeholders often represent very different value interpretations. The idea of cultural landscapes
serves as a useful example to demonstrate the nature and complexity of this issue. We would
suggest too that cultural landscapes have a role to play in contributing to community VVH.
The Burra Charter (quoted in Lennon & Mathews 1996) defines the values that determine a
culturally significant landscape as follows:
4-2

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
• Aesthetic value: including aspects of sensory perception, measured by qualities such
as form, scale, colour, texture and material of the fabric (i.e. the physical evidence
of the landscape).
• Historic value: relating to how a place has influenced or been influenced by a
historic figure, event, phase or activity, or whether it was the site of an important
event. Historic significance is greater where evidence of the association is stronger,
e.g. through survival of evidence in good condition.
• Scientific value: reflecting the importance of the data involved, its rarity, quality, or
representativeness, and on the degree to which the place may contribute further
substantial information.
• Social value: embracing the qualities for which a place has become a focus of
spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment to a majority or minority
group. This is particularly relevant to interpretations of landscape to indigenous
Australians.
Aesthetic value, historic value and social value, if not the scientific value, seem relevant to
community VVH because these are all representative of a particular land-use and way of life.
Much of the challenge in introducing sustainable land management systems to farming and
pastoral communities arises because there is an implied shift from a production way of life to
one more aligned with conservation and preservation. This represents a change in emphasis; one
that perhaps threatens the ‘traditional’ way of life that many may hold dear.
The use of land and water resources for economic gain is obviously an important driver of NRM
thinking and behaviour. ‘Use’ encompasses the production of food and fibre, the extraction of
minerals and water, and the use of land for industrial, residential, tourism and cultural pursuits.
There are interactions – the rural landscape which has been modified for agriculture can provide
values for rural tourism and ‘seachange’ habitation which are altering the social landscape of
agriculture, especially in the more attractive and closely settled environments (Barr 2005). Curtis
& Byron (2002) suggest that the most important values that people attached to their farming
properties included: a sense of accomplishment from knowing the property will be passed on to
others in better condition; providing the majority of household income; and, the freedom of
being self-employed. Community and social factors will shape how a landscape is valued – for
example for biodiversity, production and aesthetic qualities – and how a landscape is valued will
determine how a landscape is used and managed. Finally, the patterns of land use and
management will induce a management response (at and beyond) community level (Nichol et al.
undated). This is an illustration of a major influence of community values on NRM.
4-3

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
Attitudinal factors are frequently cited as the most significant barrier to adoption of sustainable
NRM (Stanley et al. 2005). However, Stanley et al’s review also noted many authors present
evidence that land managers already have strong stewardship 2 values (the rise in the landcare
movement is cited as an example of this). The evidence presented in their review notes however
that possessing a stewardship ethic does not necessarily equate with adoption and it is concluded
that attitudes are not a reliable measure to predict implementation of changed practices.
At a psychological level, Dunlap et al. (2000) explain that primitive beliefs form an individual’s
inner core and that people hold a world view that influences their attitudes and beliefs towards
more specific environmental issues. However, they note that there may not be a strong New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP)/behaviour relationship due to extrinsic factors on that
behaviour; in other words, the ‘sphere of concern’ is much broader than ‘sphere of influence’.
Their study showed that environmentalists score higher on NEP than do members of the broader
community. They found significant relationships between NEP scores and actual behaviours
towards the environment. They also observed a negative relationship between right-wing
authoritarianism and NEP scores. Interestingly (and contradicting many other studies and the
views of some NRM professionals in Australia), they found that those employed in primary
industries have lower NEP scores. They also found that critical environmental circumstances can
accelerate change in environmental worldview. Given that these findings are controversial, there
may be value in exploring the concepts further for their validity.
As is shown later in Section 5, in parts of Australia, the economic value of non-consumptive uses
can exceed that of consumptive uses, although it is the consumptive uses that tend to have by far
the greater impact on natural resource condition at landscape scale. However, this section is
concerned mainly with the drivers of individual behaviour in respect of the consumptive uses.
4.2.2 Human capital as a driver of change
The human factors
A large amount of research has been undertaken into the nature of individuals’ – principally
farmers – decision-making around changes in land use and management that will lead to better
natural resources outcomes. We do not delve deeply into this work which is well reported in
major reviews elsewhere (see Barr & Cary 2000, Pannell 1999, Pannell et al. 2005), and here we
only highlight the key findings and remaining questions.
2 Stanley et al. (2005) define the concept of stewardship as ‘responsible care-taking of natural resources, so as to
pass healthy ecosystems to future generations.’
4-4

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
The extent to which behaviour is driven from within (feelings, values, examination of the world)
or without (stimulus from outside) is a controversial subject in psychology, with important
implications for how we perceive the value of information, persuasion and external support in
driving change (URS 2004).
The individual’s perceived self-interest – including the economic and non-economic costs and
benefits of accessing, interpreting and incorporating information into operating practice – is the
single most-important factor in determining adoption of new technologies or different practices
(Lindner 1987). While self-interest may include qualitative variables such as personal values,
risk management and environmental considerations, the final level of uptake may depend
primarily on economic factors (Pannell 1999). However, many writers would maintain that there
are other important factors. Vanclay (1992) has cogently argued the need to better understand
land users’ rational decision-making processes in relation to change, and identified critical
cognitive, personality and logistical barriers to the adoption of new ideas and technologies.
Vanclay emphasises that relying on farmers to sacrifice self-interest to manage for public good
outcomes in the absence of enabling mechanisms is not likely to result in significant change. The
drivers of change need to have an intrinsic payoff for the individual. A more recent review has
noted that although financial factors may not dominate a decision whether or not to adopt a new
technology, where its use results in a large economic loss it is unlikely to be adopted (Pannell et
al. 2005).
A comprehensive review of the literature in this topic area was completed by Neil Barr and John
Cary in 2000. This section summarises some suggested relevant points from the review (Barr &
Cary 2000).
• Adoption of new (NRM) practices is continuous rather than discrete. The process is ongoing
and frequently reviewed.
• In adopting more sustainable practices, ‘farmers act as both individual agents, mindful
of their own interests, and as social agents within the social and economic constraints of
local communities and the broader structural constraints of Australian agriculture.’ (p. 1)
• A recognition of the heterogeneity of the farming population in regard to social and
economic factors is necessary before policies can be developed to change behaviour.
Farmers have very different views about what constitutes ‘sustainable farming’ (Farmers
First Report).
• Recent research suggests that barriers to change are overwhelmingly structural.
• Successional change (inter-generational transfer) is a major factor influencing the
direction of discretionary investment or adoption of new practices.
4-5

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
• There is goal conflict between family and financial security and sustainability.
• ‘Changed NRM practices are most likely to be achieved by promoting changes that
provide private benefits to the landholder’ (p. 2)
The authors recognised six over-arching recommendations for NRM policy development.
• NRM practices are difficult to promote.
• The limitations of reliance on a stewardship ethic.
• Expect a limited response to messages about future threats of land degradation.
• Landcare is a tool to promote incremental, rather than radical, change to existing
agricultural systems.
• Structural constraints in broadacre industries are a major barrier to change.
• Reticence to plan for catchment structures of the future.’ (p. 3-4)
A more recent review of landholders’ capacity to change to sustainable practices has been
completed by a same team (Cary et al. 2002). Their analysis confirms much of what has been
presented in early sections, in that they conclude that the capacity to change behaviour in a way
that will lead to more sustainable outcomes is a function of situation, individual circumstances
and the suitability of practices.
The discussion so far has not considered personality traits of individuals. Pannell et al. (2005)
refer to the ‘locus of control’. Individuals with a strong belief in their own ability to influence the
circumstances of their lives are described as having an ‘internal locus of control’. Persons with
this personality trait are likely to experience less stress in decision-making. The limited research
into farmer stress in Australia has shown that financial difficulty alone does not predict stress.
Stress is instead a combination of circumstances and the interpretation placed upon those
circumstances by the individual. There is a great variation in this psychological propensity
towards the experience of stress.
These barriers or constraints to effective NRM can all be explained under Plowman’s ‘four
determinants’ model. There are genetic constraints, there are formative year constraints, there are
constraints in the contemporary context (social and structural) and there are constraints in
creative capacity. And across all of these are individual differences or heterogeneity. If we look
only at the surface structure of the issues, then it is possible to be overwhelmed by the
complexity. However, if we drill down to the deep structure of the issues, there are few.
4-6

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
Kenyon et al. (2001) and Black & Hughes (2001) have identified attitudes, values and beliefs as
important components of human capital. These writers contended that these variables influence
how perceptive and open minded individuals are to new ideas and further individual
development. Barr & Cary (2000) recognized that farmers are not a homogenous group but that
they are made up of a variety of sub-groups all with different values and attitudes to NRM. They
note that ‘different attitudes to income needs, risk perception, dynastic expectations and cultural
expectations of farming mean that there are quite distinct groups of farmers…some are very
receptive to messages about profit maximization strategies while others are less receptive to such
messages’. It was suggested in one of the workshops that these different world views will also be
affecting how landholders and government agencies perceive the same issues.
Unlike social capital, human capital should regarded as a ‘private good’ of individuals, rather
than a public good that lies between individuals or societies. However, Cavaye (2004b)
identified four levels at which human capital operates: the individual level; the group level; the
community level; and lastly, the State or National level, so while it is a ‘private good’ it certainly
has ‘public value’. So levels of knowledge, skills and experience can be considered either at the
individual level or at a collective level e.g. the skills and knowledge contained within a
community of interest. With respect to regional NRM, internal human capacity can be regarded
as the human capacity that lies within that regional area; it would include the human capacity of
the land managers themselves as well as that of the members of the regional NRM bodies and
any others that in some way have a direct relationship with the natural resource base within the
region.
Most writers on the subject of human capital have identified health, education, skills, knowledge
and leadership qualities as attributes of human capital (e.g. Becker 1993; Black & Hughes 2001;
Webb & Curtis 2002; Webb et al 2004). These qualities provide a community with the capacity
to undertake activities through which financial and built capital may be produced and desirable
social, economic and environmental outcomes achieved. Cary et al. (2002) note while there is no
direct relationship between adoption of best practices and the level of formal education, they are
of the opinion that participation in courses or training activities does encourage adoption of
sustainable practices. The rationale being that land managers are only likely to fix a problem if
they have the capacity to first recognise it (Stanley et al. 2005).
Aspects of human capital can be regarded as positive forces for change. Research undertaken by
the Queensland Murray-Darling farmers indicates that the drivers of NRM uptake are social in
nature, including values, confidence in NRM practices, and participation in property planning
and Landcare groups (Whelan 2006).
There is a vast body of empirical evidence suggesting a positive relationship between levels of
educational attainment and the likelihood that farmer/managers adopt new and perhaps
challenging land management practices (e.g. Thomas et al., 1990; Bultena & Hoiberg, 1991;
4-7

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
Turrell & McGuffog, 1997; Wilson, 1997; Traore et al., 1998; Curtis & Van Nouhuys, 1999).
Higher levels of professional knowledge and skills have been correlated with a greater ‘capacity’
to adopt and practice sustainable management practices (Korsching et al., 1983; Norris & Batie,
1989; Witter et al., 1996). Studies of landcare have also shown that higher levels of land
stewardship are found in farmers with higher levels of education (Curtis & DeLacy, 1996, 1999).
However, not all studies support a direct positive relationship between education and adoption;
Cary et al. (2002) for example suggests that education may be important more because it enables
land managers to seek off-farm income, which may increase their financial capacity to invest in
changed practices.
Some authors recognise successional change (inter-generational transfer) as a major factor
influencing the direction of discretionary investment or adoption of new practices (Barr & Cary
2000). This is significant where the land owner is planning to pass the farm on to siblings and a
number of studies suggest that succession planning is a positive indicator of capacity to adopt
mainly because it provides an incentive to improve the environmental condition of the farm.
However, Plowman (2006) suggests caution: he draws attention to sibling position; the oldest
child has the highest need for power and the highest need for achievement via conformity. The
consequences are that those who gravitate to positions of leadership have the greatest interest in
protecting the status quo. In contrast, later-born siblings are more likely to be driven by
achievement via independence, are more creative and more mobile. For them, learning is easier
because it is necessary.
One of the more common demographic variables tested in adoption studies is age. It is generally
considered that the older farmer managers have a lower capacity to adopt more sustainable
practices (see for example, Curtis & DeLacy, 1996; Wilson, 1997; Curtis & Van Nouhuys,
1999). The general thinking is that older farmers are thought to be more ‘traditional’ in their
approaches to management and so less willing to embrace change. It is also considered that older
farmers have less capacity to adopt partly because they generally have lower education levels,
and partly because age makes them less able to perceive a problem and cope with complex
solutions. However, many factors may influence the basic premise, for example, in cases where
sustainable practices would positively influence the sale (or rental) value of the property or if the
property is to be passed onto the farmer’s next generation.
However, the case for age inhibiting adoption is not clear-cut. Quantitative research undertaken
for Queensland Murray-Darling farmers suggests that age, property size, debt levels, and offfarm
income have no causal links with the uptake of NRM practices (Whelan 2006). These
authors did however agree with most studies that a healthy on-farm income is a necessary but not
sufficient condition for the uptake of NRM practices.
Cary et al. (2002) support age as a driver and suggest that at a community level, in localities with
an increasingly aged farmer population, implementation of sustainable practices is likely to be
4-8

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
low. They add that an aging rural population can also be linked with increasing out-migration
from rural areas suggesting a reduction in family farm succession, which in turn is likely to lead
to a reduced willingness to make significant investments in sustainable practices. They add that
at the individual level, relationships between age and behaviour oriented to NRM appear to be
curvilinear. For tree-planting the peak was 45-55, for treatment of erosion, the peak was 35-44.
These authors also noted that there is a declining number of new entrants into farming and an
increase in exits by younger farmers. Their surveys also revealed that the more intensively
farmed regions of Australia contain the older farming population.
The general finding with age may be related to the world view of the farmers. Dunlap et al.
(2000) explored support for their New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), a construct of a number
of attitude indicators, to determine whether demographic factors have a role in constructing such
broad attitudes. They found that support for the NEP construct is negatively related to age and
positively related to education and liberalism. Plowman (2005) notes that increased age
correlates with an increased inability to learn and a decreased propensity to invest or to risk. As
one ages, thought processes shift from ‘opportunities ahead’ (and for which one takes risks) to
‘time left’ (for which one doesn’t). In a later paper, Plowman (2006) suggests that with age there
is an increase in crystallized intelligence and a decrease in fluid intelligence which inhibits the
potential rate of take up of new ideas.
Curtis & Byron’s (2002) study of Wimmera respondents noted that their median age was 53
years and they support the notion that an aging population is expected to be an important
constraint affecting landholders’ willingness and capacity to adopt current recommended
practices. Their survey data showed that the outward migration of youth from the region was a
major issue for survey respondents. Plowman (2005) also notes that producers are more likely to
be the oldest in their families, a consequence of primogeniture where the oldest inherits the farm.
Oldest siblings are also commonly the most conservative and also more likely to associate with
formal authority structures from which they seek patronage. He also argues that they also tend to
have an economic or materialistic bias.
Barr & Cary (2000) also have concerns that older landholders are deferring farm exit and
increasingly, they do not expect to transfer the farm to another generation. Out migration by
younger persons has the effect of increasing the median age of the rural population further.
However, this pattern is not consistent geographically. Some rural areas are demonstrating
growth e.g. in peri-urban areas and along some coastal areas while the inland areas show decline
and an aging population.
4-9

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
The nature of the practice change
From the above, it is clear that to achieve voluntary change, practices that are attractive,
reasonably certain in their impacts and adoptable are required. This has important consequences
for how much change can be expected if such practices are not readily available. At the
individual property level, the adoption decision may be driven by the innovation’s capacity to
satisfy five key criteria:
• Relative Advantage: Will it deliver more benefit than the idea or practice it supersedes?
• Compatibility: Is it compatible with the adopter’s existing values, needs and practice?
• Simplicity: Is it relatively easy to understand and apply?
• Trialability: Can it be adopted on a limited or incremental basis?
• Observability: How easy is it to measure and demonstrate the benefits of the innovation?
Vanclay (1992) has cogently argued the need to better understand farmers’ rational decisionmaking
processes in relation to change, and identified critical barriers to the adoption of new
ideas and technologies:
• Complexity: The more complex the innovation, the greater the resistance to adoption.
Complexity makes the innovation more difficult to understand; requires greater
management skills; and increases the risk associated with the innovation.
• Divisibility: Where innovations are not divisible they are not likely to be adopted,
particularly if innovations have other negative attributes. Farmers’ commitment is
unlikely, and they are acting rationally when they do not adopt technologies that are not
divisible.
• Congruence: Where innovations are complex and indivisible, they are also likely to
represent major changes in the management of the farm and may not be compatible with
other operations on the farm. Similarly, required capital expenditure may be inconsistent
with existing farm and personal goals.
• Economics: Although economic benefits will generally increase the rate of adoption,
farmers do not necessarily act in a strictly economically rational way and many other
factors will also affect farmers' decisions to adopt new technologies.
• Risk and Uncertainty: Farmers may reasonably be concerned that the capital and other
resources invested in adopting innovations will not produce any benefits (also Pannell
4-10

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
1999). The risk is not only defined in terms of capital outlay, but may also include risks
to farm productivity or the yield of one or a number of seasons.
• Conflicting Information: All new technologies are subject to debate about their
applicability and effectiveness. Farmers receive often contradictory information from
numerous sources. Where there is existing uncertainty, non-adoption may be an entirely
appropriate response.
• Capital Outlay: Innovations which require significant capital outlay may require
farmers to forego income until the new system is established. The farmer must have the
resources not only to adopt the new innovation but also to survive the period until the
new innovation produces income. Marginal farmers do not innovate because capital
outlays or the inability to deal with the consequences of failure, even where there may be
clear economic reasons to adopt a new technology.
• Intellectual Outlay: In addition to the capital costs associated with adoption of new
technology, there are also intellectual costs. Many innovations require acquisition of new
knowledge and new ways of doing things. Farmers are not unique in attempting to
minimize the intellectual capital required to conduct their operations.
• Loss of Flexibility: Farmers are likely to resist the adoption of new technology that
restricts their flexibility. Particularly in a situation of fluctuating market prices, farmers
are acting rationally by wanting to maintain flexibility.
• Physical Infrastructure: Many innovations are tied to particular marketing
infrastructures that may not exist in certain areas. Adoption is not likely unless the
appropriate infrastructure exists.
• Farming Culture: Firstly, other farmers are an important source of information about
new ideas and technologies, and the large majority of farmers will depend on a critical
mass of interest forming before they decide to adopt an innovation. Secondly,
conforming to cultural norms is a fundamental aspect of social behaviour in any group,
and the social norms surrounding the agricultural management practices acceptable to a
community may present a powerful force in resisting change.
In summary
Pannell et al. (2005), a team of economists, rural sociologists and a psychologist have completed
the most recent and comprehensive review of change behaviour in the adoption of desired NRM
practices. They state:
4-11

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
‘The common theme from several decades of research on technology adoption is that landholder
adoption of a conservation practice depends in them expecting that it will allow them to better
achieve their goals. If the landholder does not perceive that goals are likely to be met, adoption will
certainly not follow. Goals vary widely between individual landholders depending on their
circumstances and personal preferences, but may include economic, social and environmental goals.
Adoption is based on subjective perceptions or expectations rather than on objective truth. These
perceptions depend on three broad sets of issues: the process of learning and experience, the
characteristics and circumstances of the landholder within their social environment, and the
characteristics of the practice. …. Non-adoption or low adoption of a number of conservation
practices is readily explicable in terms of their failure to provide a relative advantage (particularly in
economic terms), and/or the range of difficulties that landholders may have in trialling them.’
An elegant simplification of the principles of voluntary behavioural change is that people must
want to change, know how to change and have the means to change (Jiggins et al. 1998). The
implications for this study is the role that community VVH might play in influencing how a
landholder ‘constructs’ his/her goals. However it is clear that if the practice change (technology
to be adopted) does not contribute to the achievement of those goals, then adoption is unlikely to
occur, regardless of the level of extension activities applied (Pannell et al. 2005).
4.2.3 Social capital as a driver of change
When considering human capital within and without communities (i.e. beyond the individual) it
is important to recognise that collective resources can achieve greater outcomes more efficiently
than the same number of individuals tackling the problem on their own (Stanley et al. 2005). In
NRM, collective resources include the physical resources, the human resources and the
information resources. This includes knowledge, skills, expertise and support. Research into the
role that social capital has in enhancing collective resources for NRM continues but as Stanley et
al. (2005) note lack of social capital within a community almost certainly reduces the capacity of
individuals to work collectively and to access group recourses, knowledge and skills.
Cavaye (2004a) explains that social capital essentially refers to the networks, trust and
cooperation within a community. Pretty (2003) notes four key areas associated with social
capital: relations and trust; reciprocity and exchanges; common rules, norms and sanctions; and,
connectedness, networks and groups.
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (undated) suggest two approaches to
considering social capital for Australia’s regions. Community involvement is measured using
indicators of volunteering, active membership, neighbours helping each other out, and
integration into the community. General support is measured using indicators of feelings of
loneliness, health barriers to social participation, the availability of social support, and financial
support. Components of social capacity include: relationships and networks; cohesion and the
4-12

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
ability to work cooperatively; active and inclusive citizen participation; communication;
learning-knowledge transfer, sharing and acquisition; community motivation, morale, sense of
community and a community-wide will to act; leadership; tolerance, accepting diversity and
inclusiveness; unity and shared norms; ability to consider alternatives; self help/self reliance and
community responsibility (Cavaye 2004b).
Trust lubricates cooperation. It reduces transaction costs between people – rather than having to
invest in monitoring, individuals are able to trust. Trust takes time to build and is easily broken.
Common rules are the cement of society – they shape everyday behaviour. A high level of social
capital implies high ‘internal morality’. Connections may be internal (within groups or
communities – ‘bonding’) or external (between groups or communities with different views–
‘bridging’). This could be considered in a geographic context also, one-way or two-way (twoway
is better than one). Linking social capital describes the ability of groups to engage vertically
with external agencies, either to influence their policies or to draw down resources. This is
particularly relevant when considering the engagement of land managers to regional bodies and
regional bodies to State and Commonwealth governments. Other notable ‘products’ from social
capital relevant to more effective NRM would include: community empowerment, increased
efficiency e.g. individuals sharing ideas leading to better decision-making.
Many writers warn that social capital must not be seen as the panacea to resolve all community
problems and in fact some note that it can have a ‘dark side’ (e.g. Pretty 2003). It can support
unhealthy norms, reinforce existing cleavages, lead to social cartels prone to corruption, lock
people into social sectors e.g. ethnic groups, the social norms can exclude community members
that could change things for the better, sanction and fortify unjust power structures, transmit
misinformation, reduce tolerance of outsiders, stifle innovation, support unhealthy norms and
cause people to reject alternatives. He notes that social capital in and between some
organisations (e.g. churches) is in decline but it is increasing in other organisations – NRM is
one area where he suggests an increase. This highlights the importance of qualitative assessment
rather than just merely a quantitative assessment.
Measuring social capital requires sophistication and flexibility; it rarely involves clear causes
and effects and it isn’t suited to traditional performance indicators and measures of inputs and
outputs. Pretty (2003) suggests it involves value judgments rather than absolute truths. All this
suggests perhaps that it isn’t well suited to quantitative analysis but he does suggest that
measurement should involve both qualitative and quantitative analyses. He emphasises that
community members are the key source of information as opposed to secondary sources.
The ‘community readiness model’ (Kelly et al. 2003) has been used to assess the extent to which
NRM groups in the Queensland Murray–Darling Basin and Condamine Catchments are
preparing to build or enhance their social networks as a means of engaging with other NRMrelated
organisations, government departments, and the wider community (Whelan 2006). Pretty
4-13

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
(2003) presents a model of group development. He discusses social capital from the perspective
of three developmental stages; stage one being early establishment where the group tends to be
reactive. Social capital tends to be low at this stage and there is the potential of group collapse.
At the second stage the group has begun to realise its independence and potential. Trust and
confidence has developed and the group has its own norms etc. It is also quite resilient. By the
third stage the group can be described as mature; it is well linked to external agencies and other
groups and there is sufficient strength to resist external threats. Consequently the group members
have adopted a range of innovations. Groups at this stage are unlikely to regress to a previous
stage as worldviews, philosophies and practices have fundamentally changed. All this suggests
that the age of groups could be a useful indicator of how well established social capital is with
the group. However, the author doesn’t present any studies that would support his hypotheses
and as appealing as the model is, it would need to be tested empirically – perhaps a question to
be explored in one of the trials of the indicators.
Geography will influence social capital. Barr & Cary (2000) note that the adoption of
conservation cropping practices in many more remote districts is relatively low, particularly in
broadacre grazing industries. In NRM, participation in landcare and property management
planning processes are considered useful indicators of land managers’ level of social capital
(access) by virtue of the linkages offered by participation (Cary et al. 2002).
The social drivers of catchment management have been recently investigated in the Wimmera
region of Victoria, where there are a range of threats to the condition of the natural resources.
Expected findings revealed a wide range of values that landholders attach to their properties, and
some limitations in knowledge about the issues being faced, and how to address them. The
authors emphasise the need to appeal to a wide range of landholder values and to continue to
invest in education and awareness. Two of the less expected findings included a positive
correlation between age and adoption of current recommended practices, and lack of relationship
between current farm profitability and adoption of changed practices. The authors explain the
latter phenomenon as a consequence of a reluctance to change form current profitable farming
systems (Curtis & Byron 2002).
Mackay’s (1994) view is that attitude change is not a big driver of behavioural change, with the
reverse occurring more normally. However, value shifts that develop new community norms
about sustainability as a goal provide social drivers and supports for those who change
behaviour. As noted above, farmers have been part of these changes, with increased recognition
of on-farm land and water degradation issues, which is extending to a widespread awareness of
on environmental impacts beyond the farm gate (Reeve 2001).
For the positive components discussed above to influence overall VVH, they must be linked
together in some way. It is well acknowledged that linkages play an enormously important role
in capacity building because they allow exchanges to take place within and between
4-14

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
communities. In the literature linkages are often considered as a component of social capital.
Social capital can be seen as both a means and an end; it mediates relationships that can lead to
concrete outcome (very relevant to NRM actions) and importantly the relations between
community members is strengthened when it is used which increases cooperation between
individuals and groups. Unlike other forms of capital, it diminishes if not used. It can operate on
at least four levels: individual, group, community and/or institutional, and State or National. It is
regarded by Vanclay (1992) as essential to farm practice change because it encourages three
important elements: peer support and encouragement, effective answering of questions during
adoption, and a supportive structure between producers and scientists that is beneficial to both
parties. Peer support is particularly important in NRM initiatives because continued commitment
and support helps maintain confidence where the results of initiatives may not become apparent
for many years; as is often the case with salinity management (Barr & Cary 2000).
4.3 Organisations and natural resources
In a review of literature associated with the adoption of sustainable land management practices,
Barr & Cary (2000) suggest that landcare successes have generally been found in facilitating
incremental change rather than in bringing about systematic change. This would suggest that
indicators of administrative capacity in regional contexts should be geared towards social
processes rather than adoption per se.
Dore & Woodhill (1999) make an another important and fundamental point about regional scale
initiatives, ‘The regional scale is one at which we do not have formalised structures of
government, yet it has become clear that many of our tasks of governance [especially NRM]
need to occur at this scale…herein lies the root cause of many of the difficulties sustainable
regional development (SRD) initiatives are currently experiencing’. More recently, Cavaye
(2004b) explored the capacity of regional bodies and he also noted that regional bodies need to
recognise a spatial variable i.e. peri-urban areas and traditional rural communities have different
capacities and different influences acting on them.
There are clearly many challenges facing regional NRM organisations but what can be done
structurally to improve their effectiveness? A study of small town vitality and viability by
Plowman et al. (2003) suggested that one of the notable measures in VVH is the capacity to turn
good ideas into reality and the authors emphasise the role that administrative infrastructure has in
this conversion. A later study by the same authors (Plowman 2004) that explored this further
presented six characteristics of the most innovative primary industries associations. These are:
• Compulsory leadership turnover;
• Active participation by all members in governance;
4-15

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
• Quality internal communication mechanisms;
• Quality external communication mechanisms;
• Availability of slack resources – to invest, experiment, or ‘play’; and,
• Initiated an EMS.
Leadership turnover is critical to avoid ‘burnout’. Burnout has been identified as a major
constraint to both NRM organising bodies (e.g. landcare committees or regional bodies) and land
managers alike (Byron & Curtis 2001). Burnout or exhaustion, which must influence the health
(VVH) of a community, can arise when an individual believes their involvement has not resulted
in the biophysical improvements expected, or that funding was not extended for a long enough
period of time to achieve change.
Plowman’s (2004) study also noted that regional NRM organisations recognise the need for
effective partnerships as a key component of capacity. There are two aspects to this: the extent
and effectiveness of partnerships between regional bodies and the organisations and stakeholders
in each region (relates to internal capacity); and, the effectiveness of the partnership brokering
role of regional bodies and the subsequent strength of partnerships between regional groups
(external capacity). Engagement was also regarded as an important component i.e. community
engagement and engagement in NRM. McIntyre-Tamwoy (2004) make the point that that the
‘committees’ that run regional bodies need to be truly representative of the community. Stanley
et al. (2005) emphasise that community involvement is essential to ensure this occurs. Decisionmaking
processes that involve all stakeholders are more likely to lead to better social outcomes
and more satisfied communities; essentially, an innovation is more likely to be accepted by the
community if they are involved in the development and trial stages.
According to Whelan’s (2006) study, regional bodies also saw attitudes and motivation (a
component of human capital) as a key component; some referred to this as the ‘intellectual
capacity to make change’. Communication was also identified i.e. commutation between
regional bodies (external social capital) and communication between the regional body and the
community (internal social capital), especially with local landcare and catchment groups.
Implied within this second component is the ‘brokering role’ that regional bodies have i.e. where
they help people access and interpret information. Similarly, they help people to access skills and
knowledge and facilitate information exchange from outside the region.
Whelan (2006) notes that regional bodies go through evolutionary stages of readiness. They start
out with what is described as ‘no awareness or intolerance’, then go on to a stage of ‘denial’, to
‘vague awareness’, to ‘pre-planning’, then ‘preparation’, ‘initiation’, institutionalisation,
confirmation/expansion, and finally, ‘professionalisation’. These authors argue that it is
important to identify the current stage of readiness and to tailor regional activities appropriate to
4-16

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
that stage (Whelan 2006). One of the concerns that emerged was that many NRM bodies are on
the periphery of the networks of community organisations (Whelan 2006). The Condamine
Alliance for example observed that the local governments are comfortable in their roles, but not
comfortable with NRM. Another challenge is that community organisational activity is rich,
possibly saturating the available capacity, but very little of it is directed towards NRM (Whelan
2006).
Whelan (2006) discusses ‘management capacity’ of regional bodies which refers to the degree to
which systems and processes are in place to maintain the function of the regional body. This
includes:
• Skills and abilities in financial management and human resources;
• Staff training and development;
• The quality of decision making processes; and
• Organisational cohesion and leadership within the regional body.
These authors go on to discuss program capacity suggesting that indicators of program capacity
include:
• Use and availability of NRM knowledge and technical skills;
• Use of expert advisory panels;
• Use of and access to NRM information; and,
• Effectiveness of local NRM facilitator networks.
The same authors note that regional bodies are responsible for the delivery of NRM outcomes,
but currently have no ability to monitor and evaluate their performance in delivering these
outcomes. This is an area of concern that will need to be addressed in the future.
4.4 Measuring community VVH
As discussed above, many of the indicators of community VVH are associated with human and
social capital. Clearly, for national auditing purposes, it would be most useful to access
secondary data to represent these indicators. Macgregor & Cary (2002) conducted an
investigation into potential secondary sources of data that could act as social and human capital
indicators. Their study demonstrated that there were significant gaps in secondary data capable
of representing social capital. Table 3 displays the indicators that could be used to represent
social capital.
4-17

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
Desired (primary) indicators
Table 3: Social capital indicator framework
Patterns of processes (A)
Secondary data indicators
(dependent on data availability)
A1) Social participation Membership levels of social,
sporting and other clubs or
organisations
A2) Services and non-profit
organisations
Number and variety of services and
non-profit organisations within
designated area
A3) Volunteering Membership levels of community
organisations reliant of volunteer
inputs
A4) Civic participation Frequency and attendance levels of
Local Government associated
meetings
A5) Relationships between
individuals and
organisations
Desired indicators
Not available
Qualities of processes (B)
Available indicators
Social capital outcomes (D)
Possible proxy
indicators (dependent
on data availability)
Funds ($) attracted by
social, sporting and
community clubs or
organisations
B1) Trustworthiness Not available Crime rates
B2) Altruism and
reciprocity
B3) Shared norms and
ideals
B4) Equal opportunity and
ethnic tolerance
See volunteering above
Not available
Cross-tabulation of ethnicity and/or
language with workplace status
Family indicators e.g.
the divorce rate, also
ethnic and language
variance
B5) Sense of community Not available Length of residence,
residential housing
ownership rates, age
dependency ratios
B6) Community self-help Not available Participation in tertiary
education
Structures that enhance social processes (C)
Desired indicators
C1) Conflict resolution
mechanisms
Available indicators
Not available
Not available
Source: Macgregor & Cary (2002)
Community indicators
with no particular
affiliation
D1) Labour force
participation rate
D2) Unemployment
rate
D3) Youth
unemployment rate
D4) Family income
D5) SEIFA and change
in SEIFA scores
D6) ARIA
(remoteness)
4-18

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
Macgregor & Cary (2002) produced a similar table for human capital (Table 4).
Table 4: Human capital indicator framework
Human capital indicators
Human capital outcomes
Desired (primary) indicators
1) Levels of skill, expertise
(education and training) and ability
(age)
Secondary data indicators (dependent
on data availability)
Distribution and ratios of educational
status (e.g. higher degrees, bachelor
degrees, skilled, basic etc); age
Possible proxy indicators (dependent
on data availability)
2) Size and quality of labour force Labour force participation rate,
dependency ratio, and distribution
and ratios of occupational status (e.g.
managers, professionals, associate
professionals, skilled etc)
3) Health levels Infant mortality, hospital separations,
access to health services, suicide rates
4) Leadership Not available New business/company registrations
5) Values, beliefs and attitudes Not available Not available
Source: Macgregor & Cary (2002)
We acknowledge that the ABS is now attempting to collect data that could better represent social
capital but clearly the national census will never be able to acquire comprehensive data capable
of representing social capital. Macgregor & Cary (2002) conclude that a full understanding of
social and human capital is really only possible with acquisition of specifically tailored primary
data. This obviously presents a problem for national collection processes and at the end of the
day primary data collection, for many of the indicators will remain necessary.
4.5 Summary
• The adoption of desirable conservation practices by landholders mainly occurs as a
function of the extent to which the change being considered is perceived to be
contributing to the achievement of an individual’s goals. These goals will include
economic, social and environmental dimensions. Personality and human traits are
important in deciding how an individual decides what is in his or her best interest. These
values and goals are held individually and contribute to a community’s human capital,
which is a building block for community VVH. Further the nature of the technology
being considered – its relative advantage, its trialability – are powerful influences. In
summary, change will occur when the individual’s motivation, the nature of the change,
and information supports are aligned.
4-19

Community VVH as a driver of NRM
SECTION 4
• While affecting human capital and hence individual behaviour may be beyond the easy
and direct reach of community influence, human and social capital will be important in
determining how well a community collectively makes decisions, how well it
communicates the decisions, the trust it has in decisions made by its own and others,
and how it allocates resources to address problems. Thus, human and social capital that
is fostered within communities with high VVH is likely to contribute to better
management of natural resources but through the planning and implementation of
programs that operate at the community governance scale.
• The development of organisational capacity is likely to occur more readily in
communities that are rich in human and social capital.
4-20

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
5 Natural resource management as contributor to Community VVH
The relationships between community VVH and natural resources indicated in the conceptual
framework are investigated in this section. The issues considered are (i) the evidence for reliance
on natural resources in sustaining community VVH; and (ii) the evidence for the economic
impact of natural resource decline on communities. Where possible, this is done using nationally
available data, followed by regional case studies. The evidence is used in making some
observations about the varying relationships.
5.1 The evidence for varying relationships
5.1.1 Regional reliance on natural resources as a source of community VVH
The variation of regional economies across Australia is large – extending from closely settled
areas that provide (in part) rural residential lifestyles for people working in major cities and
regional centres, to remote areas reliant on mineral extraction, to the broadacre agricultural areas
located in the low to medium rainfall areas along the southern and eastern sides of Australia.
Three case studies showing sharply different relationships between the use of natural resources
and regional economies are presented.
Case study – the rangelands
More than 75 per cent of Australia is broadly defined as rangelands (Harrington, et al. 1984).
The mining, tourism and pastoral industries, all of which ‘use’ natural resources, generate
approximately three per cent of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product. Of that total, mining
generates about $12 billion each year (or 2.4 per cent of GDP) and tourism about $2 billion each
year (or 0.4 per cent GDP) (National Land & Water Resources Audit, 2001). Grazing enterprises
generate gross revenues of approximately $1 billion each year, or 0.2 per cent of total Gross
Domestic Product (National Land & Water Resources Audit 2002, CSIRO & URS 2001).
Grazing industries are important in many regional rangeland economies, especially in areas such
as Western New South Wales and Western Queensland. As shown in Table 5, in the rangelands
in the Western Division of New South Wales, farm income provides between 8 and 48 per cent
of total household income (National Institute of Economic & Industry Research 1999a).
Predictions for this region are that under a ‘do nothing different’ scenario, gross regional product
(in 1996 dollars) will fall from $596 million in 1998 to $579 million in 2015, with transfer
payments becoming an increasing source of income (National Institute of Economic & Industry
Research 1999b).
5-1

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
Local
Government
Area
Table 5: Household income in Western New South Wales
Average
property
size (ha.)
Total
number of
properties
Average
annual net
farm
income
(1996)
Total farm
income for
LGA ($m)
Farm income as
percentage of
total LGA
household
income
Balranald 12,905 170 $61,291 10.4 31%
Bourke 25,479 160 $67,060 10.7 22%
Brewarrina 12,581 132 $51,537 6.8 32%
Central Darling 35,374 146 $55,287 8.1 28%
Cobar 18,024 179 $36,824 6.6 8%
Unincorporated 53,853 145 $48,520 7.0 48%
Wentworth 5,014 506 $44,937 22.7 27%
Total (mean) (18,545) 1,438 ($45,450) 65.4 na
Source: Anon 2000, National Institute of Economic and Social Research (1999a)
In Outback Queensland, the grazing industry is an important source of regional income, although
mining is the major generator of wealth, with tourism also being important. As shown in Table 6,
the value of animal products outstrips visitor expenditure by tourists, but falls short of that
generated by mining in two of the three sub-regions (Office of Economic & Social Research
2001, 2002). This situation is reflected in the figures for the relative contribution to gross
regional product (GRP) in Outback Queensland. In this region, which extends from the Gulf of
Carpentaria to the NSW border, in 1998-1999, agriculture (virtually all pastoralism) contributed
$475 million out of a total gross regional product (GRP) of $3,202 million or 14 per cent of GRP
(Office of Economic and Social Research (OESR) 2002).
To put this in context, the contribution made by mining to GRP is higher ($885 million), and
government administration and services, which accounts for $357 m of GRP is of the same order
as that contributed by pastoralism. In these regions, mining employs more people than
agriculture in the remote north-west while service industries employ more than agriculture does
in central and south-west inland areas of the state (Department of Environment & Heritage
2001).
5-2

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
Table 6: Contribution to the regional economy – Outback Queensland 1998/99
Sector
Grazing
production*
Mining and
petroleum*
Tourist
expenditure**
Contribution to regional economy - $million
Outback region
North west Central west South west
Total
183 192 279 654
1,879 1 368 2,248
247 (406 if including expenditure by people visiting
the region on business)
* Source: OESR 2001
** Source: OESR 2002
As reported in Fargher et al. (2003)
247 (406)
In Table 7, three of the regional economies in the rangelands of Western Australia are profiled in
brief. In all three regions, mining and petroleum production is the major contributor to regional
wealth. Grazing production is a relatively minor sector of these economies, with a contribution
that is well below that generated by tourism. These two industries both rely on natural resources
for their productivity, but the bio-physical values that matter to tourism (gorges, river pools,
coastline, rugged ranges) are not those of value to the grazing industry (grassy plains, open
shrublands).
Table 7: Regional rangeland economies in WA in 2001
Sector
Contribution to regional economy - $million
Kimberley Pilbara Gascoyne
Mining and
petroleum
665 14,865 91
Pastoralism 59 25 20
Fishing 9 13 54
Manufacturing 23 134 55
Tourism 249 207 65
Retail turnover 259 301 73
Source: Department of Local Government & Regional Development (2003a)
As reported in Fargher et al. (2003)
5-3

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
Case study – Corangamite Catchment, Victoria
The Corangamite Catchment, which is defined as one of the 56 Natural Resource Management
Regions in Australia, covers an area from north of Geelong, west to include Ballarat, and then
south west to the coast east of Warrnambool. It includes large industrial complexes on Port
Phillip Bay, urban centres of Geelong and Ballarat, rural landscapes, and the scenically
renowned Otway Ranges and Great Ocean Road (Corangamite Catchment Management
Authority 2003).
The economy of the Corangamite Catchment is diverse and robust. It is dominated by secondary
and tertiary industries, which employ 61 per cent of the workforce – a total of 74,000. There are
a number of very significant employers on a national scale, including Ford Motor Company,
Alcoa World Alumina and Shell Petroleum. The port of Geelong is amongst the 10 most
important in Australia (City of Geelong website). Within the tertiary sector, tourism is a rapidly
growing industry with a gross value of production of $940 million. Tourism activities focus on
Ballarat, the coastal region and the Otway Ranges (City of Ballarat website). Agriculture, fishing
and forestry are declining in importance, with only 6 per cent (8,500 people) employed in the
sector. The gross value of agricultural production is $770 million per annum, a figure that is
exceeded by tourism alone (Department of Natural Resources & Environment 2001). Thus the
natural resources of the region make a larger contribution to economic support for community
VVH through their amenity rather than their productive values, although those productive values
are substantial.
The region is growing in population (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002). Growth is
particularly rapid in local authorities that include the peri-urban areas close to Geelong and
Ballarat, and along the Great Ocean Road coast. For example, the Surf Coast Shire (centred on
Torquay) was the local authority with the fastest growing population in Australia between 1996
and 2001. All local authorities have policies and strategies to promote economic and social
opportunities and growth within their jurisdictions.
Pressures on the natural resources are increasing as a simple function of population increases,
demands for higher levels of servicing, increased demand for water, increased access to the
region and increased intensification of agriculture. Management of resource allocation for
competing uses will be a growing activity for state and local governments in the area.
In the Regional NRM Strategy (pp. 39-40), six forces that are shaping the region are listed.
These are: urban migration as people move in from Melbourne; intensification of economic
activity, including intensive agriculture, extractive industries, oil and gas recovery; growth of
tourism, with an estimated doubling of visitation to the Otway Ranges over the next five years;
competition for water to support population growth; stronger environmental ethic as knowledge
grows in the wider community; and greater complexity for communities as policies, programs
5-4

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
and regulations increase. Changes in the ‘traditional’ natural resource uses of agriculture and
forestry are marginal to these trends and therefore of declining importance in shaping the NRM
region. The Strategy goes on to note that NRM needs to address the production and consumption
activity of all people in the region, the array of decision processes, competing demands for
resources, and the innovation required to improve resource use efficiency.
Case study – remote Indigenous communities
European notions of natural resource management are not well understood by Aboriginal people.
This stems from the way Aboriginal people relate to the natural world through their framework
of understanding as set down in the Dreaming. The non-Aboriginal concept of conservation
management involves active intervention in the natural world to attempt to control the processes
and events occurring there. It relies on the premise that the relationships and interactions in the
natural world can be understood and thus managed. Aboriginal ‘management’ of the
environment is understood through song and ceremony. It is seen to be more of an integrated
process whereby knowledge of the natural world is gathered through personal experience and
passed on through tradition and culture. Aboriginal management links people to their
environment rather than giving them dominion over it (Rose, 1995), which increases the
importance of environmental quality in community well-being.
Aboriginal relationships to land are defined in terms of culture and site protection, land usage
and harvesting of natural resources. To be accepted and understood by Aboriginal people
conservation practices need to be consistent with those things (Rose, 1995). It follows then that
an essential component of considering Indigenous involvement in conservation management on
Indigenous land is recognition of the important Indigenous values in relation to owning,
controlling and managing land (Worth, 2005).
Whereas scientific knowledge is often categorised and compartmentalised, Indigenous
knowledge is holistic and set within an ecosystems framework (Ross and Pickering, 2002).
Indigenous attitudes are shaped by their world views and are inseparable from the economic and
social situation in which they find themselves. Many of the concerns of non-indigenous land
managers are not shared by Indigenous people. An explanation for this difference relates to
Indigenous culture’s non-reliance of the western scientific paradigm. The western scientific
paradigm is based on the premise that the relationships and interactions occurring in the natural
world can be understood and managed in a rational and scientific fashion, and have measured
outputs that can be compared with original goals (Worth, 2005).
The interaction between Indigenous people and NRM is most obvious and closer in the
rangelands than in more closely settled environments. In the Northern Territory, South Australia
and Western Australia, Indigenous people live on and use large areas of rangeland for cultural,
5-5

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
social and economic reasons. For example, in the Ord River Catchment in Western Australia,
there are 67 separate settlements located in the rangelands (URS 2003), although more recent
anecdotal advice is that people are leaving these settlements and relocating in nearby towns.
In outback South Australia, one of the 56 NRM Regions – the Aboriginal lands Region –
includes a vast area of the north-west of the state from the Northern Territory and West
Australian borders to the Great Australian Bight, and includes the Nullarbor Plain, Anangu
Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, 'Maralinga Tjarutja Lands, Yalata and some large National
Parks in the region. The Regional body also has a role in supporting a wide range of Aboriginal
Lands Trust properties; properties owned or leased by Aboriginal people; and areas where
Aborigines have a formal involvement in management or co-management throughout the State
(source: NRM website).
Over the last 50 years, the area of land held by Indigenous people either through inalienable title,
or as pastoral leases has increased from 35 to 92 million hectares, which is 17 per cent of the
rangelands (reported in Fargher et al. 2003). In some regions, such as Cape York and the
Kimberley, a sizable proportion of the pastoral leasehold land is held and managed by
Indigenous communities. This land has been acquired under a range of State and Federal
legislation and programs. The demand for land remains, and in areas such as Western NSW,
Indigenous people with strong connections to the region have had limited opportunity to acquire
land for multiple purposes (Williams & Johnstone 2003). As a result, the Indigenous Land
Corporation is continuing to acquire land that has traditional, historical and/or contemporary
cultural significance, but also now has a strong focus on providing support for the owners/
lessees to enable the landholdings to generate optimum benefits (Indigenous Land Corporation
2001 and 2002).
This is not proving to be easy. Indigenous communities who hold and manage pastoral leases
will have a range of cultural, social and economic goals for the landholdings. In this sense,
Indigenous people hold genuine multiple values leading to multiple objectives for land (Head
1994). Further, many of the pastoral leases acquired under various programs have limited
grazing utility, although it was intended that they would support a grazing business. In many
cases therefore, the management planning for the lease has failed to account sufficiently for the
goals and objectives of the incoming landholders (Stafford Smith et al. 1994), and a survey
conducted showed that only in a minority of cases were the intended benefits being realized
(McPherson 2003).
Finally, the planning and use of these lands may not account adequately for traditional ecological
knowledge in land use and management, which is important in an landscape of environmental
extremes and uncertainties (Young & Ross 1994). It is argued that the Indigenous approaches to
land use and management, which align with multiple values and objectives are not
5-6

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
accommodated properly in the administrative requirements for the use and management of
pastoral leases. Young & Ross (2003) therefore state
‘… that this challenge must be met, by revision of land tenure to accommodate multiple use, by
improving Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communication and information exchange on
rangeland management, by providing appropriate land management programs and by engaging
in long-term, holistic planning for all residents of such regions. Such approaches would enhance
opportunities for closing the gap between the realities of rangeland use and beliefs in appropriate
forms of use.’ (p. 184).
Case study - Wheatbelt Region of WA
The Western Australian Wheatbelt Region (as defined by the Department of Local Government
and Regional Development) covers 155,000 square kilometres of the south west agricultural area
of the state, and includes 44 local governments. The population is about 72,000 and has been
stable over the last 20 years. Gross Regional Product (GRP) in 2001/2002 was $2.8 billion, made
up of agricultural commodities ($1.657 b), mining ($393 m), retail trade ($381 m),
manufacturing and construction ($162 m), tourism ($90 m) and fishing ($76 m). Dependence on
natural resources as a source of economic and social wealth is high, with 34 per cent of the
workforce employed in agriculture and fishing (Department of Local Government & Regional
Development 2003b).
Growth in agricultural production in the wheatbelt region is not reflected in increased
populations. Although GVAP is increasing by about 4.6 per cent per annum, the number of
farms has been declining since 1968 by between 1 and 2 per cent per annum (faster in some
eastern sub-regions, see Frost & Burnside 2001), and populations are declining in the more
remote eastern parts of the region. This trend is universal across agriculturally dependent small
communities – driven fundamentally by long-term declining terms of trade, which require
responses in increased farm size, increased gross factor productivity and increased amalgamation
of services into larger centres (see Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group 2006).
Conversely, in the ‘Avon Arc’ area of the region closer to Perth, ‘seachange’ migration and
craft-type industries are increasing the population, with the dependence on natural resources by
this new community being largely a function of amenity values. This trend is expected to
continue, with a decline in youth and working-age population in remote shires, and modest
increases in areas closer to major centres (Western Australian Planning Commission 2005).
In summary, for those areas with limited populations to start with, and that are dependent on
broadacre agriculture as a primary source of economic support, either relative, or in extreme
cases an absolute decline in population and local services is probably inevitable.
5-7

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
Thus, while agriculture in remoter areas such as the central and eastern parts of the WA
wheatbelt is responding properly with structural adjustment to address market demands and
capture technological opportunities, this rebounds on the industry with problems in attracting
labour to these areas, and in supporting viable communities (Agriculture & Food Policy
Reference Group 2006). It is not evident that there is any effective policy response to this
paradox. For example, the Corish Report notes
‘…. Special subsidies to attract people and resources to country Australia – let alone to the
agriculture and food sector – are not sustainable. Instead, country communities must work to
promote the financial, social and other benefits of life outside capital cities. Farmers should also
identify ways to find employees with the skills to fulfil labour needs, while continuing to adopt new
technology and improve operating efficiency.’ (Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group 2006,
p. 163.
5.1.2 The economic cost of natural resource decline
The most available set of national data on the economic cost of natural resource decline comes
from the research done by the NLWRA (National Land & Water Resources Audit 2002).
Selected data from all Australian river basins are aggregated in Table 8.
In these investigations, the costs and returns of agriculture were estimated, with a value
calculated for profit at full equity. For the five-year period under investigation (1992/93 to
1996/97), the average gross return was $13.224 billion 3 , the average total cost of production was
$9.776 billion and the average profit at full equity was calculated as $3.448 billion. Over a 20
year period, and using a private landholder discount rate of 10 per cent, the net present value of
profit at full equity is about $30.288 billion. Although accurate data are not readily available, it
can be assumed that a significant proportion of these costs and profit are invested in regional
communities, in either purchasing goods and services, construction of new infrastructure and
allowing asset transfers.
The analysis considered three impacts of declining natural resources – increasing soil acidity
which affects large areas across temperate Australia, increasing dryland salinity which is
removing land from conventional agricultural production and limiting yields on land still in
conventional production, and soil structure decline as soils become sodic.
The gross benefit of addressing soil acidity at national scale is estimated at $0.914 billion. This
represents a ceiling for the level of investment that can be made in addressing soil acidity. The
3 Note that in another NLWRA publication Australian Agricultural Assessment 2001, the average gross value of
farm production is given as $24.7 billion for the years 1989 to 1992 and 1995 to 1998. Total farm costs are given as
$17.6 billion.
5-8

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
net present value of lime applications to ameliorate acidity is estimated at $4.476 billion. The
gross benefit of addressing soil structure decline is rather less at $0.571 billion. However, both of
these problems have much larger economic impacts than does soil salinity, which is expected to
result a decline in profit at full equity of $70.8 million over the years to 2020, which is 2 per cent
of current profit.
Overall, the gross benefit of addressing these natural resource issues would be $1.481 billion if
they could be solved at no cost. Thus if these problems were resolved, it is reasonable to assume
that gross returns from use of natural resources by agriculture would increase by about 11 per
cent, with a similar increase in the profit at full equity that is invested in local and regional
communities.
Table 8: The performance of Australian agriculture
Item
Value
Agricultural area (ha) 189,447,274
5yr (1992/93 – 1996/97) Gross revenue ($000) $13,224,492
5yr (1992/93 – 1996/97) Total costs ($000) $9,776,049
5yr (1992/93 – 1996/97) Profit at full equity ($000) $3,448,443
Area where NPV of lime application is positive (ha) 3,854,865
Area where NPV of gypsum application is positive (ha) 1,458,583
Area where NPV of lime and gypsum application is positive (ha) 489,323
Area where dryland salinity caused yield loss in 2000 (ha) 2,955,283
Area where dryland salinity may cause yield loss in 2020 (ha) 3,995,135
Gross benefit from ameliorating acidic soils ($000) $914,989
Gross benefit from ameliorating sodic soils ($000) $570,922
Gross benefit from ameliorating saline soils ($000) $170,441
Impact cost of dryland salinity to agriculture from 2000 to 2020 ($000) $70,827
Present value of dryland salinity impact cost to agriculture from 2000 to 2020
($000) $392,912
Net present value of lime application ($000) $4,475,577
Net present value of gypsum application ($000) $2,086,958
Net present value of lime and gypsum application ($000) $2,977,500
Local infrastructure cost of salinity and water table rise 2000 ($000/yr) $72,507
Local infrastructure cost of salinity and water table rise 2020 ($000/yr) $106,788
Present value of increase in local infrastructure costs from salinity & rising
water tables from 2000 to 2020 ($000) $190,173
Source: National Land & Water Resources Audit 2002
5-9

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
While acidity and sodicity are only on-farm problems, rising groundwater levels and associated
dryland salinity affects rural infrastructure including roads, rail, and townsites. The estimates
presented in Table 8 show that in 2000, damage to local infrastructure was $72.5 million, or
$930 million NPV over a 20 year period using a 5 per cent discount rate. The impact of salinity
on infrastructure is expected to increase over coming years, with an estimated cost of $106.8
million per year in 2020. Based on the investigations completed for WA alone (see below), this
estimate of damage to infrastructure resulting from dryland salinity may be an underestimate.
Overall through, it appears that the impact of salinity is at least as great on infrastructure as it is
on agricultural productivity.
The superficiality of this analysis at a national scale obviously obscures regions and locations
where the decline in the productivity of natural resources is having a large impact in reducing the
economic resources available to regional and local communities. For a large number of the 112
river basins in the NLWRA study, resolving problems of soil acidity, salinity and sodicity will
result in a less than a 10 per cent increase in gross revenue. However, for some regions, located
in the temperate regions of Australia, resolving these issues would increase gross revenue by
over 40 per cent. Clearly, it is in these river basins that the decline in the condition of natural
resources is having a significant depressing effect on agricultural productivity and its flow on as
a contribution to community VVH.
Case study – salinity in WA
The Salinity Investment Framework (SIF) process in Western Australia has been investigating
how the known threat to natural and built assets in the agricultural areas can be addressed.
Current estimates are that the area affected by shallow saline groundwater levels (and resultant
dryland salinity is likely to expand from 0.82 million hectares to between 2.9 and 4.4 million
hectares over coming years (McFarlane et al. 2004). Most of this land is used for agricultural
purposes, and is traversed by roads and railways, with most towns located in valley floors.
In the first phase of testing the SIF, natural and built assets of high value facing high threats were
identified (see description of the process in Department of Environment 2003). In the second
phase of testing the SIF, the feasibility of achieving recovery, containment and adaptation was
assessed for biodiversity, water, agricultural and infrastructure assets. Leaving aside the first two
categories, the analysis showed that for 16 rural towns, the present value cost of salinity control
would be between $600 and $4,500 per resident in the towns. The current costs in repairing
roads affected by salinity is $21 million, and given an expansion of the lengths of roads affected,
the present value of forecast road repair costs is $1,938 million, of which $1,667 million will
need to be addressed by rural local governments.
5-10

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
The current cost of salinity to agricultural land is estimated at approximately $35 million per
year, and as the area affected expands, this could increase to between $170 and $260 million per
year. The analysis further shows that of the area predicted to be come salt-affected, it will pay
farmers to recover 0.415 m ha, to prevent salinisation on 0.445 m ha, and to implement saline
farming systems on 0.725 m ha (Sparks et al. 2006).
The economic losses due to salinity need to be put into the context of a broadacre agriculture that
is currently generating about $5 billion in GVAP per year. Therefore, while salinity is affecting
some landholders, and some localised communities severely, at state scale it is not costing as
much as some other impacts (e.g. soil acidity). However, it is affecting non-economic values in
terms of biodiversity greatly, although this is not likely to be affecting the economic supports for
community VVH in the immediate term. However, it will be affecting community VVH in terms
of how communities view their natural amenity, and there is evidence that this can influence
people’s behaviour towards their natural resources (see for example, commentary in Beresford et
al. 2001).
Environmental water management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB)
The issues with water management in the MDB are well known. The Murray-Darling Basin
Commission (MDBC) has recognised the social and economic impacts resulting from addressing
environmental imperatives in the management of the water resource. In particular, this case study
focuses on the impacts of ‘The Living Murray’ program (TLM) which recovers irrigation water
for environmental flows.
The MDBC commissioned a preliminary assessment of the economic and social impacts of
returning water to environmental flows (Young et al. 2002). The authors stressed that this was a
preliminary assessment with ‘rough order of magnitude (p. i)’ estimates. Their modelling
suggested that diversion of irrigation water to environmental flows would reduce net agricultural
returns by between $100 m (-1.6%) for 750 GL and $300 m (-5.6%) for 3,330 GL. The cost to
Government to secure this larger amount of water for the environment was estimated at $1.7
billion. There were also costs and benefits associated with changed arrangements for urban and
industrial water use, including for the generation of hydro-electricity. They also highlighted a
wide range of uncertainties associated with how water would be traded, the value of remaining
water entitlements, resulting structural adjustment as some farmers leave, and the spur to
innovation in water use efficiency technologies.
This analysis of direct effects was followed by an analysis of the impact on regional economies,
using input-output analysis. The analysis showed that about 23 to 28 per cent of expenditure in
the agricultural sector was supporting activity in other sectors of the regional economy. While
these direct effects would be reflected in declining regional economic health, the authors
5-11

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
speculated that the losses could be offset by the increased value of the remaining allocated water,
and increased regional returns from tourism and recreation. Finally, the estimates of reduced
returns above assume no technical innovation, whereas constraints on water availability would
be expected to stimulate innovation in water-use efficiency which would reduce losses of
production.
In recognition of the social impacts involved in implementing the program, the MDBC has
developed a conceptual framework for undertaking a social impact assessment of the TLM
(Fenton 2003). The key procedural issues identified that need to be addressed were: a perceived
lack of trust in relationships with external groups; a belief that the decision-making process
lacked transparency, and was unduly influenced by external groups; an inequitable distribution
of the impacts, with farmers seen as adversely affected; concern about a lack of knowledge in
external parties; and an apparent conflict between local and ‘science-based’ knowledge systems.
In summary, in this case study, a response to a declining condition in natural resources was
predicted (preliminary figures only) to cost between 2 and 6 per cent of agricultural returns at
worst case. Therefore, while adjustment will be forced on some landholders, with resulting social
costs, at a regional scale, if these impacts were realised it would be hard to argue a major affect
on community VVH as a result of addressing this environmental imperative. Indeed, as the
authors suggest, there may be benefits for regional community VVH from the program.
5.2 Summary
• The use of natural resources for broad-acre, capital intensive agriculture and agroforestry
is likely to be having a depressing impact on community VVH in those areas
where it is the primary driver of economic activity. This depressing impact will result
from declining local populations required to support this land use, and centralising of
services into fewer larger regional centres.
• The paradox evident in this analysis is that the very trends required to improve the
ability of agriculture to address declining terms of trade, and to generate sufficient
resources for NRM – such as farm amalgamations, increased use of technology, and
increased sourcing of specialist advice – are also the factors that will impact hardest on
local community VVH.
• Where local and regional populations are increasing their dependency on alternative
uses of natural resources, such as mining, oil and gas extraction (as in the rangelands)
and tourism (as in areas of high scenic value), these trends are likely to be enhancing
community VVH.
5-12

Natural resource management as
contributor to Community VVH
SECTION 5
• Trends in migration to coastal and peri-urban areas are altering the rural and community
fabric of these areas in a way that is likely to be beneficial to community VVH.
• Aboriginal people have very different relationships to the environment than European
people, with a larger cultural dependence on a healthy environment required for
community well-being. The aspirations and needs of Aboriginal people in their
relationships between land access, land use and management and community
development are not always being addressed adequately within existing institutional and
organisational arrangements for land use and management in the rangelands. Specialist
programs funded through the regional NRM delivery model are now addressing some of
these inadequacies.
• Based on the evidence reviewed for this report, we suggest that the impact of the decline
in the condition of the natural resources on local and regional community VVH has
been overstated. While there are clearly some extreme local and regional examples, at
large scale, major natural resource problems are contributing less to diminishing
regional fortunes than factors such as declining terms of trade, and changing land uses.
5-13

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
6 Measuring community behaviour - options
There is a growing body of literature and experience in the development of reporting frameworks
to report the state of human and social well-being, the progress towards sustainability or ‘triplebottom
line’ objectives, and objectives for community development and social goals. These
recent developments have added to long-standing reporting behaviour that has occurred through
publication of national accounts and statistics for dimensions such a demographics, economic,
employment, education, health and community safety. However, it is within these wider
reporting frameworks that existing indicators are likely to be found that can contribute to an
appreciation of the state and trends in a community’s overall vitality, viability and health (VVH).
6.1 International, national and state reporting frameworks
An analysis of a cross-section of reporting frameworks that deal with community VVH and
NRM is presented as an Annex in 10.2.
6.1.1 International reporting experience
International experience in reporting on environmental, economic and social indicators is
extensive. Of the English speaking countries scanned, the USA, Canada, and the European
Community are well advanced in the development of national and regional reporting frameworks
and methodologies. This work is of significance to this project. Examples from the European
Community are briefly described below.
In 1999 the United Kingdom published A Better Quality of Life - A strategy for sustainable
development in the UK (Government Statistical Service 2001). The strategy referred to four
objectives that are to be met together (that is without trade-offs):
• social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
• effective protection of the environment;
• prudent use of natural resources, and
• maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
In order to measure progress towards meeting the objectives, 15 headline indicators were
developed to provide a broad overview of trends in pursuing sustainable development, with an
additional 150 indicators developed to focus on specific issues and areas for action (Department
of Environment, Transport & the Regions 2001). Examples of relevant UK indicators for
measuring community VVH are presented as an Annex in Section 10.2.
6-1

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
The European Union is working towards developing an overall framework for reporting
sustainability, with close links to the set of indicators being used by the United Nations
Commission for Sustainable Development (Economic Communities 2001). The list of 63
indicators has close overlap with those in Australian sets, but some are targeted at the specific
needs of developing countries. More recently, the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities published a review entitled EU Member State experiences with
sustainable development indicators (European Communities 2004). Across the 15 countries
reviewed, all have either developed frameworks for reporting progress, or are in the process of
developing indicators, but only five have a set of headline indicators. The indicators relating to
community VVH used in the European community’s work are shown in Section 10.2.
6.1.2 National reporting experience
Commonwealth Government agencies, such as the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Economics (ABARE), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Bureau of Rural
Sciences (BRS), the Department of Environment & Heritage (DEH) and the Productivity
Commission are building their capacity to report on the economic, environmental and social
trends in Australia.
Environment Australia 4 published Are we sustaining Australia? Report against headline
indicators in 2002 (Environment Australia 2002). The framework was developed to measure
national performance against the core objectives of the National Strategy for Ecologically
Sustainable Development (Council of Australian Governments 1992).
The ABS is increasing its capacity to report on specific aspects of sustainable development such
as (i) Indigenous health and welfare, (ii) how the nation is housed, and (iii) what Australians
think about the environment, and (iv) how regions are functioning across economic, social and
environmental domains. It has also begun reporting on general progress through the Reporting
Australia’s Progress 2004 document (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004). This report can be
considered as the first ‘triple-bottom line’ report on Australia as a whole and as such the
development of indicators for reporting on community VVH and NRM at local and regional
scale would benefit from being consistent with this national approach. More specific socioeconomic
indicators have been developed by the National Land & Water Resources Audit,
ABARE and BRS to measure landholder economic and social capacity (see Byron et al. 2006).
Some of these indicators are shown in Section 10.2.
4 Now the Department of Environment and Heritage
6-2

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
Intellectual development in measuring change in community and environmental conditions is
being led by the Commonwealth and State Governments (e.g. see Department of Local
Government & Regional Development 2003a), and some NGOs such as the Australia Institute
(Hamilton & Denniss 2000). The work being done by the Australia Institute is highlighting
problems with conventional measures such as gross domestic or regional product (GDP) per
capita, and is focusing on indicators that provide insights into how ‘we’ live as a community and
individuals. Commissioned reports have been completed for the Department of Family and
Community Services (Black & Hughes 2001), the Department of Transport & Regional Services
(Rural Women’s Advisory Council 2001), and the Australian Local Government Association
(National Economics 2002).
Across Australia, State and Territory Governments such as Tasmania (Tasmania Together
Progress Board 2003), Victoria (Government of Victoria 2001) and the Australian Capital
Territory (ACT 2003); and local governments such as Newcastle and Onkaparinga have
developed reporting frameworks (Australia Institute & City of Newcastle 2000, City of
Onkaparinga 2000).
These reports follow a similar framework being based on aspirational goals or desired states,
with a range of measures that are able to detect change in respect of the goal or the general area
of interest. Victoria’s approach is a little different, in that it reports on an array of selected
activities (e.g. number of new teachers employed) undertaken by Government in pursuit of the
goals. The approach is less objective than that taken by Tasmania or the ACT. The Government
of South Australia’s State Strategy lists 6 objectives and 79 targets across these objectives
(Government of South Australia (2004). Again the approach is mainly about being able to track
what government does to drive change in desired directions.
6.1.3 Existing NRM ‘capacity reporting’ frameworks
Two recent approaches (Cleary et al, 2006, and Fenton 2004) for determining indicators that
relate to NRM capacity are reviewed, with the indicators compared in Table 9. The focus is
clearly on the measurement of regional NRM organisational status and performance, and they do
not consider background community VVH factors that may be contributing to the NRM
performance.
6-3

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
Table 9: Measuring capacity for NRM
Headline indicator)
Indicators
(from Fenton 2004) Cleary et al. 2006 Fenton 2004
Governance
Organisational structure and
composition
NRM management Strategic direction
Decision making
capacity
Leadership
Skills and abilities
Quality of leadership
Organisational cohesion
NRM Management Financial resources
Financial capability
outcomes Human resources Personnel management
Knowledge resources
Planning and management
knowledge
Program capacity
Physical resources
Scientific knowledge
Technical and expert advice
Funding submissions and
investment strategies
Program specific staff
Environmental controls Networks and relationships
Interaction with government
and semi-government
organisations, (ii) local
governments and (iii)
community
Not surprisingly there is a high degree of similarity in the two lists. Both have been used in
measurements with regional NRM organisations. Fenton & Rickert (2006a) continued the
development of this indicator set in publishing a quantitative survey instrument to capture the
data from stakeholders involved directly in regional NRM delivery. Fenton & Rickert (2006b)
have since published an initial use of the instrument to assess the performance of the regional
NRM organisations in Queensland. The instrument enables individual regional NRM
organisations to benchmark their indices of performance against all organisations together.
Cleary et al. have measured capacity in the South Australian Arid lands NRM Board, using the
10 elements of capacity shown in Table 9. Data on these elements are calculated across
individual, organisational and institutional domains, which extends the measurement of capacity
deeper into the wider community.
Fenton (2006) has incorporated the earlier work into a larger framework for assessing the social
and institutional foundations of NRM with indicators developed under three headings:
engagement, partnership and capacity. The respondents to surveys to measure these indicators
6-4

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
include regional NRM groups and their stakeholders, including governments. The framework
including summary indicators is presented in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Framework for assessing the social and institutional Foundations of NRM
Engagement Partnership Capacity
Adequate community strategy
(composite index)
Implementation of a
community engagement
strategy
Evaluation of the community
engagement strategy
Community knowledge of the
regional NRM process
Scale of NRM engagement
(composite index)
Level of NRM engagement
Effectiveness of engagement
process
Effectiveness of engagement
with new community groups
Opportunities for NRM
engagement
Diversity of NRM engagement
Inclusiveness of NRM decision
making
Quality of NRM engagement
process (composite index)
Trust in Institutional
Partnerships
Transparency of Decision
Making
Flexibility in Negotiation
Effectiveness of the
partnership
Consistency of Information
Independence of Decision
Making
Management capacity
Appropriate decision making
processes
Appropriate mix of people in
decision making
Good decision making processes
Organisational cohesion (staff)
Organisational cohesion )Shared
vision of staff/ Board)
Staff training and development
Board member training and
development
Level of job satisfaction
Job satisfaction (staff turnover)
Adequacy of staffing levels
Competency in human resource
management
Leadership competency
(composite index)
Competency in financial
management
Financial management
performance
Program capacity
Capacity to review the NRM plan
Capacity to review the investment
strategy
Use of NRM advisory panels
Effectiveness of NRM advisory
panels
6-5

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
Engagement Partnership Capacity
Effective utilisation of NRM
information
Ability to access external sources
of NRM information
Effective local facilitator
networks (composite index)
Knowledge of NRM (composite
index)
External leadership in NRM
Capacity to prepare NRM funding
submissions
Ability to lever external NRM
investment
From: Fenton (2006)
At an industry level, Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics (2005) recently
put forward a framework for developing economic and social indicators for Australian
agriculture. This is being done within the Signposts project which ‘is aimed at developing a
framework for reporting on the contribution of agriculture to ecologically sustainable
development in Australia.’ (p.3). Indicators are suggested across:
• economic outcomes – total factor productivity, farm business profit, farmland value;
• human capital – number of farm accidents, level of education and training, and
• social capital outcomes – employment.
While the indicator sets and accompanying quantitative instruments discussed in this section are
able to measure the status and trends in regional NRM organisational capacity, and individual
farmer capacity, they are not yet fully complemented with suitable indicator sets for NRM
capacity and activity in their communities. This project is to commence that task.
6.2 Summarising the reporting experience
• As shown in this Section and in Section 10.2 there is abundant experience in the design
and use of indicators to measure the accepted elements that comprise community VVH.
• The development of means of measuring and reporting on regional NRM organisational
performance is well advanced, although these methodologies may not connect closely
with some of the fundamental drivers of that performance which are community-based.
6-6

Measuring community behaviour -
options
SECTION 6
• The task will be to consider the components of community VVH outlined in Section 3
that are likely to contribute most to NRM performance and match these with appropriate
social and economic indicators used in existing national and state frameworks.
6-7

7 Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations
SECTION 7
7.1 Conclusions
7.1.1 The nature of community VVH
There is reasonable consistency within the literature about what makes communities vital, viable
and healthy. Factors such as growing populations, availability of skills and experience,
willingness to use external information, the quality of leadership and networks are identified in
many authors’ work. Further, Australian, State and local governments are all involved in
measuring most of these elements as part of a commitment to triple-bottom line progress. This
provides a solid grounding to the consideration of community VVH in the use and management
of natural resources.
7.1.2 Linkages between community development and NRM
The community development and NRM professions have had limited cross-fertilisation. While
the information on community functioning is rich in the area of how human and social capital
contribute to healthy communities, there is less attention given to the economic supports for the
communities and the resultant impacts on NRM.
7.1.3 Dependency of community VVH on natural resources
The available evidence would suggest that the economic gains from the use of nature resources
have varying impacts on community VVH. Where the use is confined to broad-acre agriculture,
the market forces operating on that land use are resulting in adjustments that are likely to inhibit
local and sometimes regional community VVH. Conversely, where there is a move towards uses
of natural resources for tourism and amenity/ lifestyle supports, as in coastal and peri-urban
areas, the evidence is for trends that are enhancing community VVH. Finally, natural resource
decline is likely to be having a marginally depressing impact on community VVH is most areas
of Australia, and more so in remote Aboriginal communities.
7.1.4 Dependency of NRM on community VVH
Individual land use and management behaviour is generally only indirectly affected by
community VVH. Social and community factors will contribute to how individuals perceive their
goals, with adoption of new technology determined by how well it will assist achievement of
those goals. However, it is likely that it is easier to design technologies that fit with most
individuals’ goals, than to build community VVH with a view to changing individuals’ goals.
7-1

Conclusions and recommendations
SECTION 7
There is evidence that communities with strong VVH are better at setting regional directions and
plans for how they want their communities to develop and function and how they want their
landscapes to look and be used. This is particularly so in the management of NRM strategies,
programs and investments at regional and local scale, where a depth of community strength will
be able to support better performance in all these areas.
7.1.5 Contrasting situations
The above conclusions present something of a paradox, in that while community VVH may be
developing independently of natural resources use and management, sound local and regional
direction of NRM will benefit from communities that are more viable, vital and healthy. As a
simplified illustration, two hypothetical communities are compared in Figure . These are meant
to be extreme examples, which illustrate the different effects that NRM can have on community
VVH and hence on the ability to deliver NRM. The paradox is that the communities that are less
directly dependent on natural resources for economic and social supports are likely to be those
best able to provide quality local and regional NRM. Resolving this paradox will be a challenge
for policy makers. It may be necessary to use alternative structures for NRM delivery within
such communities, such as industry organisations.
7-2

Conclusions and recommendations
SECTION 7
Figure 4: Two hypothetical communities
Broad-acre agriculture community
Declining terms of trade
↓
Increasing farm size and profitability
↓
Declining population
↓
Increased remote sourcing of inputs
↓
Declining community VVH
Low community VVH
↓
Lower value attached to nonproductive
uses of natural resources
↓
Reduced human and social resources
for NRM
↓
Difficulty in sustaining organisations
and delivering programs
Results in …..
Mixed community in peri-urban
area
Changing industry base and
attractiveness of ‘seachange’ lifestyle
↓
Reduced dependency on agriculture
↓
Increased population
↓
Increased community diversity
↓
Increasing community VVH
High community VVH
↓
Higher value attached to amenity
value of natural resources
↓
Increased human and social resources
for NRM
↓
Strong organisations and programs
7.2 Recommendations
At this stage of the project, four recommendations are presented.
1. There is enough evidence of linkages between community VVH and NRM to investigate
the relationship further in testing the utility of indicators that can highlight the nature of
the linkages. However, the evidence of linkages is not consistent at a national scale, and
varies considerably according to regional situations. Further work is required to define
the relationships at region-by-region scale.
2. This project and subsequent work can be used to define and foster the linkages between
those people and organisations working in the community VVH and NRM domains.
7-3

Conclusions and recommendations
SECTION 7
3. Indicators need to be straightforward and clearly focused on those aspects of Community
VVH that are relevant in NRM delivery.
4. Indicators for the NLWRA measurement of community VVH must be linked to existing
National, State and locally developed indicators.
7-4

8 Acknowledgements and references
Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
8.1 Acknowledgements
The Consultant Team acknowledge with the gratitude the assistance provided by the following
people and organisations.
• Karen Cody and Toni Latta (National Land & Water Resources Audit) for assistance
with project implementation and conceptual framework design, and advice on literature
sources.
• Members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) for their input to the conceptual
framework and their assistance with locating relevant literature.
• NRM and regional development professionals who attended workshops and project
briefings in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Canberra for their advice and information.
• Members of the Social and Economic National Coordination Committee (SENCC) for
their contribution to project activities.
8.2 References
Agriculture & Food Policy Reference Group 2006, Creating our future: Agriculture and food
policy for the next generation. Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics 2005, Signposts for Australian
Agriculture: A Framework for developing economic and social indicators, October, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Measures of Australia’s Progress 2004. Australian
Government, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003, Australian Social Trends. Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, Census of Population and Housing 2001. Australian
Government.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001, Agriculture, Australia 1999-2000. Australian Government,
Canberra.
Australian Capital Territory 2003, People, Place, Prosperity. Publication 03/0063. Office of
Sustainability, Chief Minister’s Department
8-1

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Australian Government 2003, National natural resource management monitoring and evaluation
framework. Report prepared by DAFF/ DEH.
Australia Institute & City of Newcastle 2000). Indicators of a sustainable community. The
Australia Institute Discussion Paper 28. May 2000.
Barr, N 2005, The changing social landscape of rural Victoria. Department of Primary
Industries, Bendigo, Victoria
Barr N & Cary, J 2000, Influencing improved natural resource management on farms. Bureau of
Rural Sciences. ACT.
Barr, N, Karunaratne, K, & Wilkinson, W 2005, Australia’s farmers: past, present and future.
Land & Water Australia
Bauen, R Baker, B & Johnson, K 1996, Sustainable community checklist. Seattle: Northwest
Policy Center, University of Washington. Available:
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:FU537G8VVh0J:www.cityofangels.org/Departments/Plann
ing/GeneralPlan/FINAL_DraftGeneralPlan2006/C11%2520CommunityID%25200806.pdf+Baue
n+et+al+(1996)&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=3
Barron, L & Gauntlett, E 2002, Model of social sustainability. Stage 1 Report of the Indicators
Project. Western Australian Council of Social Services.
Baum, S 2006, A Typology of Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage in Australia’s
Large Non-Metropolitan Cities, Towns and Regions. Australian Geographer, Vol 37, No 2, 233-
258.
Becker, G 1993. Human Capital, 3 rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beresford, Q, Bekle, H, Phillips, H & Mulcock, J 2001, The salinity crisis: landscapes,
communities and politics. University of WA Press, Perth.
Black, A & Hughes, P 2001, The identification and analysis of indicators of community strength
and outcomes. Occasional paper No. 3, Department of Family and Community Services, June
2001, Commonwealth of Australia.
Blackadder Communication & Naturally Resourceful 2001, Natural Resources Management.
People and Policy. Research projects commissioned by the Social and Institutional Research
Program of Land & Water Australia. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.
Brunckhorst, D 2000, Bioregional Planning: Resource Management Beyond the New
Millennium, Harwood Academic Publishers.
8-2

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Bultena, G & Hoiberg, E 1983, Factors affecting farmer’s adoption of conservation tillage,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.38: 281-284.
Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics 2006, About Australia’s Regions. Working Paper
No 68. Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics (undated), Working paper 55. Government
interventions in pursuit of regional development: learning from experience.
Byron, I & Curtis, A 2001, Landcare in Australia: burned out and browned off, Local
Environment, 6(3), 311-326.
Byron, I, Nelson, R, Webb, T & Cody, K 2006, Socio-economic Indicators & Protocols for the
National NRM Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: Capacity of landmanagers to adopt
sustainable management practices. National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
Campbell, A 2005, The Australian Natural Resource Management Knowledge System. Land &
Water Australia
Canadian Policy Research Networks 2001, Indicators of Quality of Life in Canada: A Citizens’
Prototype. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Cary, J, Webb, T, & Barr, N 2002, Understanding landholders capacity to change to sustainable
practices: Insights about practice adoption and social capacity for change. Bureau of Rural
Sciences, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia.
Cavaye, J 2004a, Our community. Our Future. A guide to community development. Community
Practitioner Short Course, LaTrobe University, Bendigo.
Cavaye, JM 2004b, Social capital: a commentary on issues, understanding and measurement.
Paper for the Pascal Observatory, RMIT, Melbourne.
Christaller, W 1933, Central Places in Southern Germany (Translated by CW Baskin, 1966),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
City of Greater Geelong (http://geelong.vic.gov.au
City of Ballarat (http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au
City of Onkaparinga 2000, Monitoring outcomes: achieving goals City of Onkaparinga,
Noarlunga.
Cleary, J, Raymond, CM & Cosgrove, K 2006, Community engagement in natural resource
management – capacity auditing in the SA arid lands. Rural Solutions, South Australia.
8-3

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Commonwealth of Australia 1999, National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland
Management. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)
and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
(ARMCANZ).
Commonwealth of Australia 2003, National Action Plan for salinity and Water Quality.
Schedule 4. National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets.
NRM Ministerial Council.
Corangamite Catchment Management Authority 2003, Corangamite Regional Catchment
Strategy 2003-2008. Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac: Victoria
Council of Australian Governments 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development. AGPS, Canberra.
CSIRO & URS Australia 2001, Data compilation and analysis for Theme 6 of NLWR Audit.
Report for National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra. CSIRO Land and Water and URS
Australia Pty Limited, Adelaide.
Curtis, A 2003, The Landcare Experience, in Dovers, S & Wild River, S (eds) Managing
Australia’s Environment, Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.
Curtis, A & Byron, I 2002, Understanding the social drivers of catchment in the Wimmera
region. Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Curtis, A & De Lacy, T 1996, Landcare in Australia: Does it make a difference? Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol.46: 119-137.
Curtis, A & Van Nouhuys, M 1999, Landcare participation in Australia: The volunteer
perspective, Sustainable Development, Vo.7: 98-111.
Curtis, A & Van Nouhuys, M 1999, Landcare participation in Australia: The volunteer
perspective, Sustainable Development, Vo.7: 98-111.
Department of Education, Science & Training 2004, Cooperative Research Centre Directory
2004. Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Environment 2003, Salinity Investment Framework Interim Report – Phase I.
Department of Environment, Salinity and Land Use Impacts Series No. SLUI 32.
Department of the Environment & Heritage (DoEH) 2001, Australia State of the Environment
Report 2001 (Land Theme Report), Prepared by: Ann Hamblin, Bureau of Rural Sciences.
8-4

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Department of Environment, Transport & the Regions 2001, Achieving a better quality of life.
Review of progress towards sustainable development. Government Annual Report 2000.
Department of Local Government & Regional Development 2003a, Indicators of Regional
Development in Western Australia. Government of Western Australia.
Department of Local Government & Regional Development 2003b, Wheatbelt Economic
Perspective. An update on the economy of Western Australia’s Wheatbelt Region. Government
of Western Australia.
Department of Natural Resources & Environment 2001, Agricultural Production across the
Corangamite Region. Government of Victoria.
Department of Transport & Regional Services 2005, Framework for cooperation on Regional
Development. Prepared by the Commonwealth, State & Territory Regional Development
Ministers & the Australian Local Government Association.
www.rdcouncil.gov.au/framework.aspx
Diamond, J 2006, Collapse. How societies choose to fail or survive. Penguin, London.
Dore, J & Woodhill, J 1999, Sustainable Regional Development. Final report. An Australia-wide
study of regionalisism highlighting efforts to improve the community, economy and
environment. Greening Australia.
Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones 2000, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological
paradigm scale: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues. Vol 56, No 3. pp 425-442.
Ellis, F 2000, Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press,
UK.
Environment Australia 2002, Are we sustaining Australia? Report against headline indicators.
Government of Australia.
European Communities 2001, Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe.
Proposed indicators for sustainable development. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, European Union.
European Communities 2004, EU Member State experiences with sustainable development
indicators Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, European Union.
Fargher, JD, Howard, BM, Burnside, DG & Andrew, M.H 2003, The economy of the
rangelands: myth or mystery. The Rangeland Journal 25(2) 140 – 156.
8-5

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Fenton, M 2003, Development of a framework for social impact assessment in the Living Murray:
Water recovery in the Murray Irrigation Area of NSW, report prepared for the Murray Darling Basin
Commission, EBC consultants, Townsville, 92 pp.
Fenton, M 2004, Socio-economic indicators for NRM (project A1.1). Indicators of Capacity,
Performance and Change in Regional NRM bodies. National Land & Water Resources Audit,
Canberra.
Fenton, M 2006, Socio-economic Indicators & Protocols for the National NRM M&E
Framework: Social and Institutional Foundations of NRM. National Land & Water Resources
Audit, Canberra
Fenton, M & Rickert, A 2006a, Refining indicators for monitoring and evaluating the social and
institutional foundations of regional NRM programs. Report prepared for the Departments of
Environment and Heritage, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
Fenton, M & Rickert, A 2006b, Monitoring and Evaluating the Performance of NAPSWQ
Regional Bodies in Queensland (EBC2). Canberra, ACT: National Land & Water Resources
Audit.
Flora, CB and Flora JL 1995, The past and the future. Social contract. Social policy and Social
capital. In: Increasing understanding of public problems and policies. Halbrook, S.A. and
Merry, C.E (Eds.) pp 53-64. Oakbrook Illinois, Farm Foundation.
Frost, F & Burnside, D 2001, Appreciating and creating history. In Viv Read and Associates
(Ed.). Wheatbelt Valley Floors Conference, 30 July – 1 August 2001, Merredin, Australia: Water
and Rivers Commission.
Government Statistical Office 2001, Quality of life counts. Indicators for a strategy for
sustainable development for the United Kingdom. HMSO.
Government of South Australia 2004, A Strategy for South Australia.
Government of Victoria 2001, Growing Victoria together.
Griffin-NRM & URS 2005, Case studies for sustainable land management - Overview report.
Unpublished report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Canberra.
Hamilton, C & Denniss, R 2000, Tracking well being in Australia - The Genuine Progress
Indicator 2000. The Australia Institute Ltd.
Head, L 1994, Perspectives on multiple use of the rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 16(2) 167
– 183.
8-6

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Hugo, G, Smailes, P, Macgregor, C, Fenton, M & Brunckhorst, D 2001, Defining Social
Catchments in Non-metropolitan Australia. Canberra, ACT: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Indigenous Land Corporation 2001, National Indigenous Land Strategy 2001-2006. Indigenous
Land Corporation, Adelaide.
Indigenous Land Corporation 2002, Land Acquisition and Land Management Programs Guide
2002-2006. Indigenous Land Corporation, Adelaide.
Jardine, A, Speldewinde, P & Carver, S (In press). Dryland Salinity and Ecosystem Distress
Syndrome: Human Health Implications. EcoHealth.
Jiggins, J, Syme, GJ & Butterworth, JE 1998, Community participation in CSIRO’s Dryland
Farming Systems program. In: Farming Action – Catchment Reaction: the effect of dryland
farming on the natural environment. (Eds. J. Williams, R.A. Hook, and H.L. Gascoigne).
Collingwood: CSIRO.
Joint RDCs NRM Working Group 2005, Natural Resource Management Research &
Development Report 2005. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
Kelly, KJ, Edwards, RW, Comello, MLG, Plested, BA, Jumper-Thurman, P & Slater, D 2003,
The community readiness model: A complementary approach to social marketing. Marketing
Theory, Vol. 3, No. 4, 411-426
Kenyon, P & Black, A (Editors), 2001, Small Town Renewal. Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation.
Kenyon, P, Black, A, Cavaye, J, Duff, J, O’Meara, M & Palmer, P 2001, A kit for Small Town
Renewal. Canberra, ACT: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Keogh, K, Chant, D & Frazer, B 2006, Review of Arrangements for Regional Delivery of Natural
Resource Management Programmes. Final Report to the Ministerial Reference Group for Future
NRM Programmes Delivery, Australian Government, Canberra.
Korsching, P, Stofferahn, C, Nowak, P & Wagener, D 1983, Adopter characteristics and
adoption patterns of minimum tillage: Implications for soil conservation programs, Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.38: 428-431.
Lackey, AS, Burke, R & Peterson, M 1987, Healthy communities: the goal of community
development’. Journal of the Community Development Society. 18: pp 1-17.
Lennon, J & Mathews, S 1996, Cultural Landscape Management: guidelines for identifying,
assessing and managing cultural landscapes in the Australian Alp National Parks. Cultural
Heritage Working Group, Australian Alps National Parks.
8-7

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Lindner, RK 1987, Adoption and Diffusion of Technology: An Overview, in ‘Technological
Change in Postharvest Handling and Transportation of Grains in the Humid Tropics’, BR
Champ, E Highley & JV Remenyi (eds.), ACIAR Proceedings No. 19.
Macgregor, C 1996, Researching Sustainability in the Australian Tropical Savanna: A Review of
Methodological Issues. Paper presented to the Federated PhD Scheme, ANU, Canberra, July
1996.
Macgregor, C 2003, Working towards sustainability in small towns: a perspective from northern
Australia. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, Vol 2, No 4 pp
342-363.
Macgregor, CJ and Cary, J 2002, Social/Human Capital Rapid Appraisal Model (SCRAM): a
method of remotely assessing social and human capacity in Australian rural communities. Rural
Society, 12(2): 105-122.
Mackay, H 1998, The good listener. Macmillan, Sydney.
McFarlane, DJ, George, RJ & Caccetta, PA 2004, ‘The extent and potential area of salt-affected
land in Western Australia estimated using remote sensing and digital terrain models’, in S
Dogramaci & A Waterhouse (eds.), Proceedings of Engineering Salinity Solutions, 1 st National
Salinity Engineering Conference, 9-12 November 2004, Perth, Engineers Australia. 2004, pp.
55-60.
McIntyre-Tamwoy, S 2004, Social value, the cultural component in natural resource
management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, Dec 2004)
McPherson, S 2003, Keynote address to the VIIth International Rangeland Congress, Durban,
South Africa, July 2003.
Mealy, L & Theis, P 1995, The relationship between mood and preferences among natural
landscapes: an evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 247-256.
National Economics 2002, Towards a national regional benchmarking system. Report prepared
for Australian Local Government Association and Department of Transport and Regional
Services.
National Institute of Economic & Industry Research 1999a, The Western Division of New South
Wales: its human geography and economic prospects. A report for the Western Lands Review
and the CSIRO/DLWC/LWRRDC Project – Sustainable use of rangelands in the 21 st Century.
8-8

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
National Institute of Economic & Industry Research 1999b, Prospects for socio-economic
advancement in the Western Catchment area of NSW. Unpublished Report for the Western
Catchment Management Committee.
National Land & Water Resources Audit 2001, Rangelands – Tracking Changes: Australian
Collaborative Rangeland Information System. National Land & Water Resources Audit,
Canberra.
National Land & Water Resources Audit 2002, Australians and Natural Resource Management
2002. National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
National Land & Water Resources Audit (undated), Indicators with a decision framework.
Social, economic and institutional indicators for sustainable management of rangelands. Report
prepared by the Centre for International Economics, BRS, CSIRO, and Resource Planning and
Management. Canberra and Sydney.
Nelson, R, Webb, T, & Byron, I 2006, Socio-economic data, prioritising collection to support
Australian Government NRM programmes, NLWRA, Canberra
Nichol, GE, MacEwan, RJ, Pettit, C, Dorrough, J, Hossain, H, Suter, H, Cherry, D, Beverly, C
Cheng, X, Sposito, V, McNeill, J, Melland, A, & Shanks, A (undated), A review of models
applicable to ‘Our Rural landscape’. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
Norris, P & Batie, S 1989, Virginia farmers’ soil conservation decisions: An application of Tobit
analysis, Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.19: 79-90.
NSW Farmers Association 2005, Building Rural Communities Project.
Office of Economic & Statistical Research 2001, Regional Profiles - North West Central West
and South West. Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Queensland Treasury.
Office of Economic & Statistical Research 2002, The contribution of international and domestic
visitor expenditure to the Queensland regional economies 1998-1999. Office of Economic and
Statistical Research, Queensland Treasury.
Oklahoma Community Institute 1998, Characteristics of effective communities Information
Sheet. Shawnee, Oklahoma.
Orians, GH & Heerwagen, JH 1992, Evolved responses to landscapes. In JH Barkow, L
Cosmides & J Tooby 1992, The Adapted Mind. Oxford University Press, New York.
Pannell, DJ 1999, Uncertainty and Adoption of Sustainable Farming Systems, Sustainability and
Economics in Agriculture Working Paper 99/01, University of Western Australia.
8-9

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Pannell, DJ, Marshall, GR, Barr, N, Curtis, A, Vanclay, F, & Wilkinson, R 2005, Understanding
and promoting adoption of conservation technologies by rural landholders. Unpublished
manuscript, submitted to Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture.
http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dp0502.html
Paton, S, Curtis, A, McDonald, G & Woods, M 2004, Regional Natural Resource Management:
Is it Sustainable? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 11(4), 259-267.
Plowman, I, Coutts, J, & Botha, C 2004, Report on the ‘Cultural Imprint Project’: mapping the
social culture of the sugar industry in the Herbert. A SRDC-funded project.
Plowman, I, Ashkanasy, NM, Gardner, J & Letts, M 2003, Innovation in Rural Queensland:
Why some towns thrive while others languish. An ARC-funded joint venture between University
of Queensland Business School and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
Plowman, I, Ashkanasy, NM, Gardner, J & Letts, M 2004, Innovation in Rural Queensland:
Why some primary industries and their associations thrive while others languish. An ARCfunded
joint venture between University of Queensland Business School and the Queensland
Department of Primary Industries.
Plowman, I 2005, The personalities of primary producers and the consequences for agriculture
and government. Australia & Pacific Extension Network NRM Forum, Toowoomba, 2005.
Plowman, I 2006, Achieving Australia: An Inclusive Learning Society; Why we can’t and
therefore how we can. Commissioned by Adult Learning Australia.
Plowman, I 2006, The four determinants of behaviour. © 2006 Practice change for sustainable
communities: Exploring footprints, pathways and possibilities. Proceedings of APEN
International Conference, 6-8 March 2006 at Beechworth, Victoria, Australia. ISBN 1 920842 31
4
Pope, J 2006, Indicators of Community Strength: a framework and evidence. Strategic Policy
and Research, Department for Victorian Communities.
Pretty, J 2003, Social capital and connectedness: Issues and implications for agriculture, rural
development and natural resource management in ACP countries. Working Document Number
8032. Technical Centre for Agricultural Rural Cooperation.
Purcell, G & Proske, C 2002, Triple bottom line reporting in Australia. A practioners guide to
reporting against social indicators. Draft-in-Discussion Report prepared by the Department of
Family and Community Services, Canberra
8-10

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Reeve, I, 2001, Australian farmers’ attitudes on rural environmental issues. 1991-2000. Report
to Land & Water Australia, Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale.
Richards, C, Lawrence, G, & Kelly, N 2003, Is it hard to be green when you are in the red? A
sociological account of primary production and environmental sustainability, paper presented to
the ‘New times, new worlds, new ideas: sociology today and tomorrow’, Conference of the
Australian Sociological Association, University of New England, Armidale, December.
Rogers, EM 1983, Diffusion of Innovations. 5 th ed. New York: Free Press
Rose, B 1995, Aboriginal Land Management Issues in Central Australia, Central Land Council,
Cross Cultural Land Management Project. Accessed 3 rd January 2007.
http://www.clc.org.au/media/publications/rose_reports/exec2.asp
Ross, A & Pickering, K 2002, The Politics of Reintegrating Australian Aboriginal and American
Indian Indigenous Knowledge into Resource Management: The Dynamics of Resource
Appropriation and Cultural Revival, Human Ecology 30(2):187-214.
Rural Women’s Advisory Council 2001, Success factors – managing change in regional and
rural Australia. Technical Report prepared for the Council and the Department of Transport and
Regional Development, Canberra.
Smith, C & McDonald, G 1998, Assessing the Sustainability of Agriculture at the Planning
Stage, Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 15-37.
Stanley, J, Clouston, B & Baker, R 2005, Understanding Land Manager Constraints to the
Adoption of Changed Practices or Technological Innovations: Literature Review. Queensland
Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water.
Stafford Smith DM McNee, A, Rose, B, Snowdon, G & Carter, CR 1994, Goals and strategies
for Aboriginal cattle enterprises. The Rangeland Journal. 16(1): pp 77-93.
Stephens, U 2005, What characteristics make a community strong and resilient? Strengthening
Communities Unit of New South Wales Premier’s Department. Available:
http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/builder/what/10_char_sustain.html
Stocker, L & Moore, S 1999, Community Involvement in Ocean Policy: Coastcare and the
Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Australia. Journal of Policy Studies, 7, 139-150.
Tasmania Together Progress Board 2003, Tasmania Together Progress Report 2003.
Government of Tasmania.
Thomas, J, Ladewig, H & McIntosh, A 1990, The adoption of integrated pest management
practices among Texas cotton growers, Rural Sociology, 55(3), 395-410.
8-11

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Traore, N, Landry, R & Amara, N 1998, On-farm adoption of conservation practices: The role of
farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards, Land Economics, 74(1): 114-
127.
Turrell, G & McGuffog, I 1997, Rinsing practices of Australian farmers: The characteristics of
farmers who do not rinse chemical residues from empty containers, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol.50: 129-146.
Ulrich, RS 1983, Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: I Altman and JF
Wohlwill (Eds.). Behaviour and the Natural Environment 6(85-127), Plenum, New York, NY.
URS & AgInsight 2001, Demographics and characteristics of the Corangamite people.
Unpublished report prepared for the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Colac.
URS 2003, Mid-term Review of the Ord Bonaparte Program. Unpublished Report prepared for
the Ord Bonaparte Board and Land and Water Australia by URS Australia Pty Ltd, Perth.
URS 2004, Information and knowledge management in regional natural resource management.
Unpublished paper prepared for the Corangamite and Glenelg Hopkins CMAs and Land and
Water Australia.
Vanclay, F, 1992, Barriers to Adoption: a General Overview of the Issues. Rural Society 2(2),
Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga.
Vanclay, F 2004, Social Principles for Agricultural Extension to assist in the Promotion of
Natural Resource Management, Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44(3), 213-222.
Webb, T, Cody, K, Harrison, B, Sincock, A & Mues, C 2004, Social and economic information
for NRM: An initial discussion paper. Canberra, ACT: National Land & Water Resources Audit.
Webb, T & Curtis, A 2002, Mapping Regional Capacity. Final Report to Land and Water
Australia. Canberra, ACT: Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Western Australian Local Government Association 2006, In Your Hands: Shaping the future of
Local Government in Western Australia, Western Australian Local Government Association,
August 2006.
Western Australian Planning Commission 2005, Western Australia Tomorrow. Population
predictions for planning regions 2004-2031 and local government areas 2004 to 2021.
Population Report No. 6, Government of Western Australia.
Whelan, J (ed.) 2006, Partnership-based social research for sustainable natural resource
management in Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Brisbane.
8-12

Acknowledgements and references
SECTION 8
Williams, N & Johnston, R 1994, ‘not Passing Through’: Aboriginal Stakeholders in the
Rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 16(2) 198 – 205.
Wilson, G 1997, Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas
scheme, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.50: 67-93.
Witter, S, Robotham, M and Carrasco, D 1996, Sustainable adoption of conservation practices
by upland farmers in the Dominican Republic, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51(3),
249-254.
Worth, D, 2005) The Natural Heritage Trust and Indigenous Engagement in Natural Resource
Management, National Native Title Tribunal, Canberra.
Young, E & Ross, H 1994, Using the Aboriginal rangelands: ‘insider’ realities and ‘outsider’
perceptions. The Rangeland Journal 16(2) 184 – 197.
Young, M, Young, D, Hamilton, A & Bright, M 2002, A preliminary assessment of the economic
and social implications of environmental flow scenarios for the Murray River System. A Report
prepared for the Murray Darling Basin Commission. CSIRO Land and Water.
8-13

Limitations
SECTION 9
9 Limitations
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) has prepared this report for the use of the National Land and
Water Resources Audit in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting
profession. It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
report. It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the
Proposal dated 18 August 2006.
The methodology adopted and sources of information used by URS are outlined in this report.
URS has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works
and URS assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found
during our investigations that information contained in this report as provided to URS was false.
This report was prepared between October 2006 and July 2007 and is based on the conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims responsibility
for any changes that may have occurred after this time.
This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report
in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to
give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.
9-1

10 Annexes
Annexes
SECTION 10
10.1 Participants in workshops
Location
Aust and
State NRM
agencies
Table 11: Workshop attendees
Other
agencies
Category
Academia/
CSIRO
Private
sector
Independent
Melbourne 6 3 1 1 1
Brisbane 5 1
Perth 4 2 1 1 1
Canberra 6 1
ALGA 1
DOTARS 3
Total 24 6 3 3 2
Melbourne Brisbane Perth Canberra
John Smout (URS)
Andrea McIntosh
(URS)
Chris Duke (RMIT)
Frankie MacLennan
(DSE Yarram)
Jane Ryan (DSE River
Health)
Maureen Rogers
(Independent)
Steven Gelsi (ABS)
Dr Neil Barr (DPI)
Jessica Davison (EPA)
David Lucas (DSE
Land Care)
Rose Read
(Sustainability
Dr Ian Plowman
(Consultant, and URS
team)
Dr Jeanette Stanley
(Dept of Natural
Resources and Water
and member of the
PAC
Dr John McKenzie
(Dept of Natural
Resources and Water)
Dr Peter Oliver (Dept
of Natural Resources
and Water)
Lynda Pollock (Dept
of Natural Resources
and Water)
Alison Moore (Dept of
Dr Don Burnside
(URS)
Dr Colin Macgregor
(URS)
Louise Hillman
(SCRIPT)
Alan Carter
(Greenskills, South
Coast)
Dr Veronica
Huddleston (Inst for
Regional
Development, UWA)
Clare Taylor (NRM
Facilitator, DAFF)
Catherine Johnston
(CSIRO)
Ross Colliver
Todd Ritchie (URS)
Karen Cody
(NLWRA)
Allan Nicholls
(ABS)
Toni Latta
(NLWRA)
Anna Carr (BRS)
Andrew Hodges
(ABARE)
Benjamin
Whitworth (BRS)
Michelle Eardes
Charles Mackilane
(NFF)
10-1

Annexes
SECTION 10
Melbourne Brisbane Perth Canberra
Victoria)
Natural Resources and (Consultant)
Water)
Sara Gipton
(Greenfleet)
Christine Kilmartin
(DSE)
Michelle Riedlinger
(Econnect)
Dr Anne Pisarski
(University of
Queensland Business
School)
Carina Calzoni (WA
Dept of Ag & Food)
Barbara Morrell
(NRM policy officer
WA Dept of Ag &
Food)
Dr Fionnuala Hannon
(Dept of Water)
10-2

Annexes
SECTION 10
10.2 Examples of socio-economic indicators
Table 12: Socio-economic indicators for assessing changing resource condition and community vitality, viability & health
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Productivity Multifactor
productivity
(that part of
growth that
cannot be
explained by
growth in
labour & capital
inputs
Gross value of
agricultural
production by
state/territory
Total factor
productivity
rate of growth
of Gross value
added (GVA
aka Gross
regional
product), GVA
per capita
Labour
productivity -
GDP per
worker and per
hour worked
Economic
Output
Industry gross
value added
(IGVA) - total
value of goods
& services
produced by an
industry, after
deducting the
cost of goods &
services used
up in the
process of
production.
Gross state
Product - total
& per capita;
Average annual
growth per
capita; exports
of goods &
services
Economic
output (GDP)
and GDP per
head
Value of
economic
activity by
sector;
Index of
economic
diversification;
levels of private
investment
GDP per capita;
regional
breakdown of
GDP;
Investment
GDP &
GDP/head,
Regional GDP
& GDP per
head; Imports,
exports and
trade balance
Income,
Wealth
First home
purchases;
levels of
household
income
Equivalised
disposable
(after tax)
income.; Real
net capital stock
(per industry)
Median income
and income
distribution;
Farm cash
income; Farm
family off-farm
income; farm
Debt-equity
ratio
Local
government
areas with
highest and
lowest real
income per
taxpayer
Income above
living wage;
Living wages,
bankruptcies
(personal &
business),
income &
wealth
distribution,
consumer debt
levels;
Financial
Security
home
ownership
Average taxable
income;
average total
income
Financial
income: net
returns
generated from
a given mix of
natural,
physical,
financial,
human and
social assets.
e.g. farm
business profit;
Dollar measure
of the value of
natural,
physical,
financial and
human assets
that yield or
have potential
to yield income.
E.g. farm land
value
Cash income -
three year
average; farm
cash income;
Value of
property
proportion of
population in
low income
category;
household
incomes per
capita
net saving, total
consumption
expenditure;
income
distribution
Consumer
expenditure per
household
standard of
living; average
income; range
of incomes;
average savings
and range of
savings;
10-3

Annexes
SECTION 10
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Businesses,
supports and
investment
Index of
economic
diversity
Number of and
total income for
employing &
non-employing
small
businesses by
state &
territory.
Small business
supports and
investment
Rate of growth
of small
business; small
business
assistance; Net
investment by
region
Business
conditions;
business
survival rates;
Business
infrastructure
indices; net
business startups
index of
telecommunicat
ions
availability;
quality and cost
New business
start-ups net of
closures; by
region & by
sector; New
retail floorspace
in town centres
and out of town
Information &
Communicatio
n networks
Households
with home
computers
internet access;
Effectiveness of
information
networks
Communication
s usage &
access; Average
price paid for
national long
distance calls;
Terrestrial
mobile
coverage;
Computer and
internet usage
by remoteness
class
Further
educational
qualifications
by remoteness
class;
Attendance at
government and
nongovernment
schools by
remoteness
class
Internet/mobile/
telecommunicat
ions service
access
Education &
training
Education
participation
rates and levels
of educational
attainment of
people aged 15-
64 years;
Percent of
people aged 25-
64 with a
vocational or
higher
education
qualification;
Education
participation
rate for those
aged 15-19
years; Apparent
retention rate of
Year 7/8 to
Year 12.
Unemployment
rate;
unemployment
rate by regionremoteness
area
& English
language
proficiency.
Average hours
worked per
week;
proportion of
full time
workers
working 50
hours or more
per week
Education
participation
rates and levels
of educational
attainment of
people aged 15-
64 years;
Percent of
people aged 25-
64 with a
vocational or
higher
education
qualification.
level of
education
attainment
Education
(qualifications
at age 19)
Access to
universal
primary/second
ary education
system, Access
to postsecondary
education,
Participation
rates &
enrolment,
Access to
lifelong
learning,
Child/youth &
adult literacy
rates, Quality of
education.
Education
levels &
training:
proportion of
participants in
higher
education
School
enrolments;
attendance;
literacy;
educational
attainments;
Youth
transition rate
from education
to employment;
the apparent
retention rate to
year 12;
education
participation
rate of persons
aged 15-19
Lifelong
learning:
Percentage of
adults age 25-
64 participating
in education
and training
Average hours
of training per
year per
employee by
category of
employee (eg.
Senior
management,
middle
management
etc)
Percentage of
people age 19
with level 2
qualifications:
1984-1999;
learning
participation
literacy levels,
numeracy
levels, years of
primary and
secondary
education, or
retention rates
in secondary
schools;
certificates in
trades or other
post-secondary
forms of
education;
university
degrees
Quality of life
in relation to
education;
access to
information,
knowledge and
expertise
Employment
Employment
for industry
sectors by
remoteness
class;
Unemployment
by remoteness
class; labour
market
overview by
state/territory;
Employment -
percentage of
people of
working age
who are in
work
Employment &
training
programs,
Unemployment
and labour
force
participation
rates,
percentage of
involuntary
part-time
workers, Job
security, job
satisfaction and
working
conditions
Employment
rate
Sectoral
employment;
youth
employment;
youth literacy;
unemployment
rates; jobs
located in the
region;
residents with
jobs; rate of
growth of
resident
employment
Employment/
unemployment
Employment
net creation and
average
turnover
segmented by
geographical
area.
Geographical
breakdown of
workforce by
status
(employee/non
employee),
employment
type (full
time/part time)
and by
employment
contract
Proportion of
people of
working age
who are in
work;
businesses
recognised as
investors in
people;
proportion of
working age out
of work for
more than 2
years;
Proportion of
lone parents,
long-term-ill
and disabled
people who are
Proportion of
community
who are
unemployed
and seeking
work
Quality of life
in relation to
employment
10-4

Annexes
SECTION 10
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
(indefinite/perm
anent/fixed
term or
temporary) ;
Existence of
programs to
support the
continued
employability
of employees
and to manage
career endings
economically
active;
Percentage of
people in
employment
working long
hours (over
45hrs/week),
percentage of
people in low
paid
employment (to
be developed)
Extent of long
term-planning
Extent of long
term planning
Desire to
remain (Do you
see yourself
living on this
property in 10
years? Would
you like your
children to
work in the
pastoral
industry? Do
you have a
succession
plan?)
Social
assistance
rates
Social
assistance rates,
Availability of
programs &
services
Diversity of
services; health,
education and
community
welfare sector
workers/thousa
nd population
Access to
services in rural
areas;
Community
Service
provision
measures:
transport, health
Poverty,
Housing
accessibility &
affordability
Housing tenure
and costs, mean
weekly public
and private rent,
applicants on
housing wait
lists;
Housing tenure
and costs by
remoteness
class
Housing
condition;
percentage of
homes judged
unfit to live in;
proportion of
social housing
Housing
accessibility &
affordability
Median sale
price and
number sold;
tenure
arrangements;
rate of new
housing
development
Percentage of
new homes
built on
previously
developed land,
Vacant and
properties and
derelict land;
homeless
households in
temporary
accommodation
, Rough
sleepers
Median house
price by
locality,
housing tenure;
proportions of
households
which are not
connected with
power or water
supplies; type
of housing
Quality of life
in relation to
housing
10-5

Annexes
SECTION 10
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Health &
Lifestyle
People in
welfare
institutions;
Fertility rate;
Life expectancy
at birth, infant
mortality rate
per 1000 births,
Proportion of
people
surviving to age
25, 50 & 75,
burden of
disease;
Doctors per
100,000
population;
Distribution of
doctors by
remoteness
area. Proportion
of adult
smokers,
proportion of
obese or
overweight
adults, Burden
of disease,
Causes of
death;
Hospitalisations
for neglect and
abandonment,
and other
maltreatment
syndromes
among
children;
number of child
protection
notifications
Life expectancy
at birth, infant
mortality rate
per 1000 births,
Proportion of
people
surviving to age
25, 50 & 75,
burden of
disease
(Disability
adjusted life
years), burden
of disease pg33
causes of death
pg34, Mental
health -
Proportion of
adults that
experienced a
mental disorder
during the
preceding year,
by gender;
Type of
disorder
(anxiety ,
affective, drug
& alcohol
dependence).
Obesity levels,
mortality levels
Health services
by remoteness
class; Health
labour force by
remoteness
class; Selected
self-reported
health risk
factors by
remoteness
class (smoking,
alcohol risk,
sedentary,
overweight,
intake of fruit);
life expectancy
by remoteness
class & burden
of disease
health -
expected years
of healthy life
Stress levels,
status of
physical &
mental health,
lifestyle,
Health (e.g.
number of farm
accidents)
Levels of ill
health; regional
health status;
accessibility to
health services
Overweight
people; cancer
incidence; years
of healthy life;
suicide death
rate; Present
smokers
Expected years
of healthy life
by gender;
Expectancy at
birth of years in
good or fairly
good general
health by
gender; Death
rates form
cancer,
circulatory
disease,
accidents &
suicides,
Respiratory
illness, Number
of hospital
admissions;
number
awaiting
admission to
public
hospitals;
self-reported
levels of health;
numbers of
injuries; life
expectancy and
expectancy of
years of
independent
living; infant
mortality;
numbers with
anxiety
disorders;
numbers with
affective
disorders,
numbers with
substance abuse
disorders;
health and
fitness; Suicide
rates;
Quality of life
in relation
health and well
being
Work-related
health
Serious
accidents at
work
Standard injury
lost day and
absentee rates
and number of
work related
fatalities
Major injury
rates for
workers; Fatal
injury rates for
workers Work
fatalities;
working days
lost thorough
illness
levels of
accidents in the
workplace
Satisfaction
measures
Self-reported
indicators of
financial
pressure by
remoteness
class (feel
prosperous/com
fortable/just
getting along/
poor)
Self esteem or
self-satisfaction
measures
Value of life Selfsatisfaction
with health
status; sense of
satisfaction and
happiness,
material
wellbeing,
spiritual life.
Sense of selfworth;
sense of
empowerment
and
responsibility;
sense of selfreliance;
Quality of life
measures
10-6

Annexes
SECTION 10
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Poverty &
homelessness
rates
Recipients of
selected
government
benefits by
remoteness
class;
Percentage of
people by
remoteness
class asking for
financial help
from
friends/family;
welfare
organisations;
went without
meals; could
not pay
mortgage/rent
on time.
Poverty &
social exclusion
- percentage of
elderly in fuel
poverty,
working age
people without
qualifications
and in workless
households, and
children living
in families with
persistently low
incomes
Poverty &
homelessness
rates
Degree of
socio-economic
disadvantage
Poverty rate;
Cost of living
index; housing
condition
Persistent rate
of poverty;
income
distribution;
jobless
households;
early school
leavers; long
term
unemployment;
gender income
gap
Homes judged
unfit to live in;
Percentage of
elderly in fuel
poverty;
Percentage of
working age
people with no
qualifications;
percentage of
working age
people in
workless
households;
Index of local
deprivation
Proportion of
homeless; in
impoverished
dwellings
Neighbourhoo
d
characteristics
- Quality of
surroundings
Access to clean,
healthy public
outdoor spaces
Sense of
'commons'
Quality of
physical
environment
Access to local
green space (to
be developed);
Vandalism &
hooliganism;
litter & rubbish;
graffiti;
Population
exposure to
different noise
levels outside
their homes
Sense of place;
sense of
connection with
nature
Crime
People in
prisons,
corrective
institutions and
detention
institutions;
imprisonment
rates;
victimisation
rates
Crimehomicide
rate,
rate of
imprisonment
Crime - violent
crime, vehicle,
burglary
Crime Rate,
sense of
personal safety
Sense of trust
and safety
Sense of safety;
crime rate
Crime rates per
100,000
population;
Fear of Crime
Sense of safety;
public safety
Sense of safety
Population/
demographics
Distribution of
the population
across
Remoteness
Area,
proportion of
Aboriginal or
Torres Strait
Islander origin,
proportion of
overseas born,
Age profiles of
demographic;
Population
mobilityproportion
of
population by
age group who
moved
Age &
experience;
Population
growth; Youth
net migration
Population &
age distribution
by Remoteness
area; Local
Gov. areas with
fastest
population
increase/decrea
se; Reasons for
leaving
previous
location by
region of origin
(towards all
destinations);
Suicide rate
Degree of
geographic
isolation; net
migration out of
region of 15-24
year olds
Population,
population
growth;
population
structure; rate
of growth of
resident
population;
proportion of
children/young
adults/above
retirement age
Fertility rate;
inward
migration
Percentage of
population
speaking a
language other
than English at
home;
percentage of
population with
at least one
parent born
overseas
Teenage
pregnancies;
Population
growth;
Household
growth
10-7

Annexes
SECTION 10
INDICATOR
AREA
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
Purcell & Proske
2002
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Black and
Hughes 2001
Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Diversity &
opportunity
and Justice
Service supply
of essential
services in
remote
indigenous
communities;
Service
disruptions in
remote
indigenous
communities;
Average
distance of
hospitals to
remote
Indigenous
communities;
communication
services in
indigenous
communities.
Survival rates
of Aboriginal
and Torres
Strait Islander
Peoples;
Proportion of
Indigenous
youth aged 15-
19 attending an
educational
institution;
Proportion of
indigenous
adults aged 25-
64 with a
vocational or
higher
education
qualification;
Female students
as a proportion
of all students
(indigenous &
nonindigenous).
Ethnic diversity
& Indigenous
persons by
remoteness
class;
Equity and
fairness of tax
system,
Distribution of
wealth, equality
of opportunity;
racist or
discriminatory
attitudes
Tolerance of
diversity
Indigenous
participation in
employment
Composition of
senior
management &
corporate
governance
bodies,
community
organisations
etc (including
female/male
ration & other
indicators of
diversity as
culturally
appropriate);
Description of
equal
opportunity
policies or
programs as
well as
monitoring
systems to
ensure
compliance and
results of
monitoring
Female labour
market
participation
rates,
Percentage of
population of
working age
living with a
disability,
Percentage of
population
living with a
severe or
profound
disability and
participating in
the labour
market
Ethnic minority
employment
and
unemployment;
Percentage of
people with and
without a car
finding access
to amenities
difficult;
Percentage of
disabled people
having
difficulties in
accessing goods
and services
availability of
appropriate
opportunities
for labour force
involvement
and social
participation by
people with
physical or
mental
disabilities;
levels of social
support for
people
experiencing
physical or
mental illness;
tolerance and
belief in equal
opportunity.
Equity of
opportunity,
human rights
and equity for
ethnic minority
groups and
disadvantaged
persons;
exclusivity of
groups,
community
value of
diversity;
Openness and
accountability
of participation
processes;
integrity of
democratic
processes and
governance;
legal rights and
justice
Social Capital
(ABS
definition:
Networks,
together with
shared norms,
values &
understanding
s that facilitate
cooperation
within &
among groups)
Children's
participation in
organised
cultural
activities
Trust; social
participation;
volunteering
rate &
community
support; Social
capital
indicators by
remoteness
class;
Civic
involvement or
democratic
participation;
sense of
personal
responsibility;
Social cohesion
(e.g. interaction
with
neighbours);
Degree of
segregation or
cultural
isolation;
Volunteer
participation
rates
Participation in
networks;
Reciprocity;
trust; social
norms;
Reactivity and
co-operation;
participation
rates;
neighbourhood
connections;
family and
friends
connections;
work
connections
Membership in
local groups
Volunteer
activity; degree
of social
identity; levels
of ethnic and
refugee
concentration
public
participation
rates;
Voluntary
activity;
community
spirit;
Proportion of
households
participating in
local voluntary
work;
Percentage of
households who
thought their
areas had a lot
of community
spirit;
Participation in
sport and
cultural
activities
Social
participation
rates
(bonds/bridges/
mixing with
strangers); civic
participation
rates (active
membership
rates);
involvement in
not-for-profit
organisations
and
volunteering;
levels of trust,
altruism,
reciprocity,
norms; Sense of
belonging, selfreliance;
Leadership;
sense of
community;
attendance at
cultural/sportin
g activities per
100 people
Separation rate;
divorce rate;
proportion of
single parents
Number of
artistic and
cultural
activities; sense
of belonging;
sense of place;
quantity and
quality of social
processes and
social activities;
Family
Structure
number of
registered
marriages,
Divorce rate,
Proportion of
population
according to
family types;
Proportion of
single-parent
families
Proportion of
same sex
partnerships &
lone parent
households
10-8

Barron and
Gauntlett 2002
Black and
Hughes 2001
Government
Statistical Office
2001
Purcell & Proske
2002
Annexes
INDICATOR
AREA
SECTION 10
10-9
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2003
Australian
Bureau of
Statistics 2004
Australian
Government
2003
Bureau of
Transport and
Regional
Economics
2006b
Department of
Environment,
Transport and
the Regions 2001
Canadian Policy
Research
Networks 2001
Cavaye 2004
Department of
Local
Government and
Regional
Development
2003
Australian
Bureau of
Agricultural and
Resource
Economics 2005
National Land &
Water Resources
Audit (Undated)
National
Economics 2002
European
Communities
2004
opportunities
for and
convenience of
travel
Average
number of
children under
15 years in
families with
children
Travel method of
travel to work
by remoteness
class; Transport
mode usage for
domestic
interregional,
non-commuter
passenger trips
by remoteness
class; Visitor
expenditure for
states/territories
number of
journeys per
person per year
by main mode
of travel;
Average length
of journey by
purpose;
Distance
travelled
relative to
household
income band