Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey

 Data Summary Living, Working, and Playing on the Land Survey An effort to understand the issues important to rural land owners in the Kiama Local Government Area Nicholas Gill Australian Centre for Cultural Environmental Research School of Earth and Environmental Science University of Wollongong, NSW [email protected] Peter Klepeis Department of Geography Colgate University, New York 2011 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Rural Life and Community .................................................................................................................... 7 Question 1: Indicate the main reason you own rural land in the Kiama LGA? ......................................... 7 What is your most important reason for owning rural land? ................................................................... 9 Question 2: Have you attended a local community event in the Kiama LGA in the past six months? ... 11 Question 3: Have you visited a neighbour’s home in the past week? ............................................... 13 Question 4: How often do you do volunteer work for a local group or club? ........................................ 15 Question 5: Owning rural land in the Kiama LGA has brought me into contact with types of people with whom I have not interacted before. ............................................................................................... 17 Question 6: Do you work with other people in managing your land? ............................................... 19 Who is your most important contact in managing your land? ............................................................... 21 Activities on your Land ....................................................................................................................... 23 Question 7: What are the main things you produced or did on your property in the 2008‐2009 financial year? ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Question 8: I would be interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale ........................................... 24 Question 9: What best describes the role of your rural land? ........................................................... 26 Question 10: What best describes how your rural land is used? ........................................................... 27 Question 11: Do you rent land to anyone or from anyone? ................................................................... 29 What is the land area that you rent to and from? .............................................................................. 32 Question 12: Do you hire labour on your rural property? ...................................................................... 33 Question 13: I undertake agricultural grazing on my land. .................................................................... 35 Question 14: Does your property contain weeds that are a problem or you in any way? .................... 37 List the top three weeds in order of importance to you. ................................................................... 39 Question 15: Please estimate to the nearest 100 meters the length of fencing for the purposes listed below that you’ve built on your property in the Kiama LGA since you acquired it? .............................. 42 Question 16: What activities have occurred on your land in the Kiama LGA since you acquired it and how many days spent on that activity in the last year? ......................................................................... 43 Question 17: Do you seek advice before planting non‐commercial trees? ............................................ 45 Question 18: For my property I have sought expert advice and generated the following types of plans?
................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Question 19: What actions have occurred on your rural property in the last 3 years? ......................... 50 1 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 20: I undertake activities to control weeds? ........................................................................... 51 A. If yes, please select the most important reason that you control weeds. ................................. 53 B. If yes, do you spend as much time on controlling weeds as you would like? ............................ 54 Question 21: What sources of fresh water do you have on your rural property and for what do you use the water? ............................................................................................................................................... 57 Details about your property ............................................................................................................... 59 Question 22: How long has your household owned rural land in Kiama LGA? ...................................... 59 Question 23: What is the total area (ha) of your rural land in the Kiama LGA? ..................................... 60 Question 25: Is your primary residence on your rural land? .................................................................. 61 Question 26: Do you live full time on your property? ............................................................................ 63 Prospect for the Future ...................................................................................................................... 65 Question 27: Are there burdens or challenges in living on your land that might lead you to sell in the next five years? ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Question 28: In the future would you be prepared to... ........................................................................ 68 A. Participate in a food/wine/culture trail in the Kiama LGA? ........................................................ 68 B. Sell any produce from your land at you farm gate and/or to a local retailer or stallholder? .... 70 C. Link any underutilised land you have with that of other landholders in some form of lease or cooperative arrangement for agriculture and grazing? ...................................................................... 72 Details about you and your household ............................................................................................... 74 Question 29: Sex ..................................................................................................................................... 74 Question 30: What is your age? .............................................................................................................. 76 Question 31: Prior to owning your current property in the Kiama LGA did you have any previous experience in owning and/or managing rural land? ............................................................................... 77 Question 32: Does your post‐school education at Uni/College/TAFE include training in any form of natural resource management? ............................................................................................................. 79 Question 33: Have you undertaken training or courses in any respect of agriculture, natural resource management, or farm business? ............................................................................................................ 81 Question 34: Which best describes your employment status? .............................................................. 83 Question 35: If you are in paid employment, what is your main occupation? ....................................... 85 2 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Introduction This document contains a summary of data derived from a survey of rural landholders in Kiama Local Government Area in 2009. The survey was designed to: • Collect data about land use and natural resource management by landholders; • Identify and compare different types of landholders (eg. lifestylers compared to farmers); • Include questions requested by KMC staff and staff from associated bodies such as the Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Authority. The Small Farms Network and staff from the DPI also provided input into the survey. The survey was designed by Nick Gill and Peter Klepeis with assistance from Sara Dolnicar. Kiama Municipal Council posted a pre‐survey postcard, the survey, and a thank you/reminder postcard. The survey was sent to 1000 landholders in KMC’s rural landholder database. Three hundred and fifty‐five landholders returned a completed survey. Twenty‐one percent of respondents owned 0.4 hectares of less, eighty‐six percent owned 40 hectares or less, and 4 per cent owned one hundred hectares or more. The average landholding of respondents was twenty‐two hectares and the maximum was four hundred hectares. There are a few questions for which we have not provided data. This is in instances where the data is purely of a background nature and would add little, if anything here, or where the response data was of questionable validity – for example, it appears that the question on income was unfortunately answered inconsistently. This document represents a summary of the data presented largely along one of several landowner typologies that the data allows us to use. There were various ways we could differentiate landowners groups. In research literature, the extent to which land‐based income is important to landowners has been identified as point of difference between so‐called lifestyle landowners and farmers making a living from their land. We gathered data on whether land provided primary, significant secondary, minor, or no income. In this report we have collapsed this into two groups; those who derive a primary or significant secondary income from land (50 respondents) and those who derive a minor or no income from their land (288 respondents). This will undoubtedly case us to misidentify some landowners. However, precise labelling of landowners is difficult and not limited to this survey exercise. Our reasoning (and observation from fieldwork) is that many farm households do not derive their only important income from land‐based activities and that even for lifestylers with more significant land‐
based businesses, these generally remain secondary at best to their main sources of income which are jobs elsewhere or investments for those who are retired. Thus, this income division split should provide a good approximation of a distinction between lifestyle landowners and those whose primary use of land is to derive an important income from it. It also allows us to run some simple statistical comparisons that would not be valid with a finer division of landowner types. We can supply information based on finer (and other) divisions if needed. For example we can analyse data by residential owners versus those who main home is elsewhere or by best description of land use. Similarly, further detail is available where we have left values off more complex graphs for the sake of clarity. In some cases where we have presented a selection of the data, more detailed information is available. An example would be where we have presented respondents’ most important option (e.g 3 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 sources of advice). In such cases we can also provide data for each option. To have provided a full report of all such data far exceeds our resources but we will respond to requests as best we can. The data is presented by question but some key findings are provided below. We provide some descriptive statistics of the data for each question. This is probably the most useful information for most readers. For most questions we also provide some basic statistical tests that test relationships. This is primarily for our own research purposes and represents initial data exploration carried out while preparing this data summary but it may be of interest to readers so we have included it. Key data findings: 1. Overall ‘lifestyle’ was the most listed reason for landownership, followed by wanting to be closer to nature and privacy. 2. The most important reason for owning land varied between the two group. This who make no or a minor income from the land listed lifestyle followed by bring closer to nature. Those who make a primary or significant secondary income from their land listed making a living first, followed by family connections and land as an investment. 3. With some variation the two groups were roughly comparable in volunteering, visiting neighbours, and attending community events. To some extent the frequency of such activities was higher for those who make primary or significant secondary income from their land but there were no statistically significant differences across these three questions. 4. Those who make primary or significant secondary income from their land are more likely to work with others in managing their land (78% of respondents compared to 49% for those who make no or a minor income from land). 5. The two groups also nominated different people as their important contact in this regard. Those for whom land‐based income is less important rely much more on neighbours and contractors than those for whom land‐based income is more important. Almost sixty percent of landowners less dependent on land‐based income nominated neighbours or family and friends as their most important contact for managing their land. In contrast, those for whom land‐based income is more important nominated friends and family as their most important contact and none nominated neighbours. 6. Dairy production was the most significant production activity for those who make a primary/significant secondary income from their land (average production value 2008‐09, $143100), distantly followed by beef (average production value 2008‐09, $9650). Beef production was the most significant activity for those who make no/minor income from their land – average value $1397. 7. The majority of both landholder groups were not interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale but 16% (no/minor income) and 18% (primary/secondary income) of each group were interested in doing so and 8% of those who make a primary/secondary income from their land already grow vegetables or crops for sale. 8. In terms of land use 59% of those make no/minor income from their land use it primarily for recreation or a rural retreat, 17% of this group use it primarily for conservation. 6% percent of those who make a primary/secondary income from their land primarily use it for conservation. 4 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 9. 42% of those who make a primary or significant secondary income rent land from someone else. On average they rent 24ha but there is a lot of variation. The largest area rented by a respondent was 300ha. 10. Those who make no/minor income from their land are more likely to hire labour than those who make a primary/secondary income from their land. 11. 39.8 % of those who make no or a minor income from their land graze stock to some extent. 12. Fireweed, Lantana, Tobacco Tree, and Thistles are among the most problematic weeds for landowners. However, the focus of concern about weeds varies between landowners groups. Those who make a living from their land are more concerned about pasture species, while those who do not make a living had a greater propensity to list plants that represent a threat to environmental conservation and listed a far greater number of plants. 13. Motor biking, pasture maintenance and hunting are the most frequently undertaken activities for those who make a primary/significant secondary income their land while planting trees, planting in the garden and weeding are most commonly undertaken for those who make no/minor income from their land. 14. Respondents are evenly split on whether they seek expert advice before tree planting but those who make no/minor income from their land are more likely to. 15. The most important sources of advice for tree planting by those who make no/minor income from their land are ‘books, magazine, internet’, and nurseries. The most important sources of advice for tree planting by those who make a primary/secondary income from their land are ‘groups such as Landcare’, SRCMA, ’replicate what comes up/grows locally’, and ‘books, magazine, internet’. 16. Except with respect to bushfire, primary/significant secondary income producers are more likely to have sought expert advice regarding their rural property. 17. Weed control is undertaken by the great majority of landowners but those make a primary/secondary income from their land tend to control in order to main production whereas those who make no/minor income control mainly to protect environmental/conservation values. 18. Time is the main limiting factor in weed control effort but financial resources, age/health, and a perception that the weed problem is overwhelming are also important factors. 19. Rainwater is the main source of drinking water for respondents whereas sources for agriculture are more diverse, although dams are the most important. 20. Those who make a primary/secondary income their land have, on average, owned their land almost twice as long as those make no/minor income from their land. 21. Those who make a primary/secondary income their land own, on average, 65.8ha, while those who make no/minor income own, on average 15.4ha. 22. There is no significant difference between those who make no or a minor income from their land and those who make a living from their land with respect to whether their rural land is also their primary residence. For the majority of both groups, their rural land is their primary residence. Similarly there is no significant difference with respect to full time residence on their rural land. 5 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 23. Those who make their primary or a significant secondary income from their land are more likely (58%) to sell their land in the next five years than those who make a minor or no income (40%) from their land due to burdens or challenges associated with land ownership. Age/health and the ‘burden of maintaining the property’ were the main reasons for possible sale for those make no/minor income. For those who make a primary/secondary income the main reasons were ‘council rates’, and ‘burden of maintaining the property and ‘other’. Other included agricultural viability. 24. While most landowners were not interested in activities such as farm gate trails and related activities, large minorities (20%‐40%) of each group of landowners were interested in such activities. 25. There was also minority interest in linking underutilised land for production ‐ 18.3% of all respondents. 26. The average age of each group of landowners was similar at about 60 years old. 27. Those who make no/minor income from their land (30%) were less likely that those who make a primary/secondary income from their land (54%) to have had experience in owning or managing rural land prior to owning their current property. 28. Formal tertiary education in any form of natural resource management had been undertaken by a comparable minority among respondents in both groups . However 50% of those who make a primary/secondary income from their land had undertaken some form of training in agriculture, NRM or farm business. 24% of those who make no/minor income from their land have undertaken such training. 29. 34% of those who make no/minor income from their land are retired/pensioner. 6 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Rural Life and Community Question 1: Indicate the main reason you own rural land in the Kiama LGA? Reason you own land in the Kiama LGA Yes Lifestyle I want Financial Investment 96.3%
67.1%
Family has lived here all my life Recreational opportunities Earn my living from the land I enjoy the rural community To raise a family To be close to nature To protect the environment Privacy 17.6%
62.2%
18.3%
87.3%
71.1%
85.9%
79.9%
88.6%
It gives me a sense of accomplishment from maintaining agricultural land Can pursue interests 64.0%
66.1%
Table 1. The main reasons for owning land in Kiama LGA. (n=355) The results of this question show that there are many factors influencing rural land ownership in the Kiama LGA. The most frequently occurring responses were ‘Lifestyle I want’ (96.3%) followed by ‘Privacy’ (88.6%) and ‘To be close to nature’ (85.9%). 7 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 1. The most important reason for owning land in the Kiama LGA. (n=214) ‘Lifestyle I want’ is overwhelmingly the single most important reason for rural land ownership (53.3%). 8 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 What is your most important reason for owning rural land? Production from
Production from my land serves as
my land provides
the primary or a
a no income or a
significant
minor source of secondary source
income for my
of income for my
household (%)
household (%)
All respondents
(% )
It provides the lifestyle I want
58.8
16.7
52.7
It represents a financial investment
2.3
10.0
3.4
My family has lived here all my life
4.0
16.7
5.8
0.6
0
0.5
0
40.0
5.8
I enjoy being part of a rural community
2.8
6.7
3.4
It is a great place to raise a family
5.6
0
4.8
I want to be close to nature
11.3
0
9.7
3.4
3.3
3.4
4.0
0
3.4
4.5
6.7
4.8
2.8
0
2.4
Recreational opportunities are
accessible
I earn my living from the land
I want to contribute to restoring and
protecting the environment
It provides privacy for my family or
myself
It provides me a sense of
accomplishment to maintain and use
agricultural land
It provides a place where I can pursue
my interests away from others
Table 2. Most important reason for owning land for both landholder groups (n=207). We asked respondents to nominate their most important reason for owning rural land. The responses are summarised in table 2 above and in figure 2 below. ‘Lifestyle’ was overwhelmingly the main reason for those who do not derive a significant income from their land, followed by wanting to be closer to nature. For those who derive a significant income from land, making a living was the main reason but lifestyle, family connections, and to some extent investment reasons were also significant. 9 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 2. Most important reason for owning land for both landholder groups (n=207). Table 2 and Figure 2 show that the most important reason for owning land in the Kiama LGA is different for both landholder groups. For primary/significant secondary landholders ‘earning my living from the land’ is the most important reason (40%) compared to ‘it provides the lifestyle I want’ which is the most important reason for 58.8% of no/minor income producers. Fisher’s Exact test was used to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between the two landowner groups with respect to the reason for landownership. The test result was statistically significant, p < .001. There is a significant difference between these two landowning groups in what is considered the most important reason for owning land in the Kiama LGA. 10 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 2: Have you attended a local community event in the Kiama LGA in the past six months? Figure 3. Community event attendance in the Kiama LGA in the past six months (n=350). Figure 3 indicates that just over one‐third of rural landholder respondents have attended a local community event in the past six months. The large majority (77.7%) have attended at least one community event in the last six months, while (22.3%) have not attended a community event during this period. 11 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 4. Percentage of landholder groups who have or have not attended a community event in the last six months (n=333). Figure 4 reveals that that there is not a huge variation in community event attendance for these two groups. While primary/significant secondary producers claim to have attended more events in the last six months, the large majority of both groups have attended at least one event during this time. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether community event attendance is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (3, N = 333) = 4.34, p > .05. There is no statistically significant difference in community event attendance between the landowner groups. 12 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 3: Have you visited a neighbour’s home in the past week? Figure 5. Neighbour visits in the past week (n=351). Figure 5 illustrates that 57.2% of the total number of rural landholder respondents have visited a neighbour at least once in the past week. A large portion (42.7%) has reported no visits in the past week while one quarter of respondents (25.2%) have visited two times or more throughout the week. 13 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 6. Percentage of landholder groups who have or have not visited a neighbour in the past week (n=334).. Figure 6 illustrates that there is not a great deal of variation between the two groups. No/minor income producers are more likely not to have visited their neighbours in the past week while primary/significant secondary producers show a higher representation of single visits. Roughly a quarter of both groups report to visiting their neighbours two or more times in the past week. While this breakdown is not statistically significant it provides a guide to neighbours visitation patterns for these landholder groups. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to determine if the frequency of neighbour visits is related to significance of land‐based income. The test result test was not statistically significant, p > .05. There is no statistically significant difference in the frequency of visiting neighbours between the landowner groups 14 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 4: How often do you do volunteer work for a local group or club? Figure7. Whether landholders volunteer for a local group or club (n­332). Figure 7 illustrates that almost half (45.1%) of the total respondents volunteer for a local group or club once a month or more. Roughly one‐third of respondents never partake in this activity while one‐quarter report volunteering rarely. 15 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 8. Percentage of how often landholder groups volunteer for a local group or club (n=332). The results of this comparison show that there is not a great deal of variation between the two groups. Primary/ significant secondary producers report volunteering more than no/minor income producers, however the breakdowns for both groups are fairly balanced. While this breakdown is not statistically significant it provides a guide to local volunteer work patterns for these landholder groups. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether frequency of local volunteer work is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐
square test was not statistically significant, χ² (3, N = 332) = 3.43, p > .05. There is no statistically significant difference in volunteering between the landowner groups. 16 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 5: Owning rural land in the Kiama LGA has brought me into contact with types of people with whom I have not interacted before. Figure 9. Whether owning rural land has brought landholders into contact with people whom I had not interacted before (n=347). Figure 9 illustrates that the majority of total respondents (59.9%) have had contact with types of people with whom they had not interacted before. 17 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 10. Percentage of landholder groups who have or have not had contact with people with whom they had not interacted before due to owning rural land (n=330). Figure 10 shows that there is not a great deal of variation between the two groups. The comparison does show that no/minor income producers report having more contact with different types of people due to their rural land ownership. While this breakdown is not statistically significant it provides a guide to having contact with different types of people for these landholder groups. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether frequency of local volunteer work are related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐
square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 330) = 1.83, p > .05. There was no significant difference in interaction with new types of people between the two landowner groups. 18 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 6: Do you work with other people in managing your land? Figure 11. Whether landholders work with other people in managing their land (n=351). Figure 11 illustrates that a small majority of landholders work with other people in managing their land, however there is a large portion that does not. 19 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 12. Percentage of landholder group who work with other people in managing their land (n=337). Figure 12 shows that there is a significant difference between these two landholder groups in working with people on their land. A great deal more primary/significant secondary producers (78%) work with people in managing their land than no/minor income producers (49.5%). While one group is significantly higher, both groups report a substantial amount of work with others in managing their land. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether working with other people in managing land is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 330) = 13.93, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 12, primary or significant secondary income producers were significantly more likely to have worked with other people in managing their land. 20 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Who is your most important contact in managing your land? Production from my
Production from my land
land serves as the
provides a no income or a
primary or a
minor source of income for
significant secondary
my household (%)
source of income for
my household (%)
All
respondents
(%)
Neighbours
29.1
0
22.8
Small Farms Network
3.8
9.1
5.0
Groups such as Landcare or Bushcare
5.1
9.1
5.9
0
4.5
1.0
Friend or family
29.1
59.1
35.6
Conservation Volunteers Australia
1.3
0
1.0
State Government Agency
2.5
4.5
3.0
Rural Supply Store
2.5
4.5
3.0
Contractor
17.7
4.5
14.9
Other
8.9
4.5
7.9
Total
100
100
100
SRCMA
Table 3 . The most important contact for landholder groups (n=101) We asked respondents to nominate from a list their most important contact in the course of managing their land. Table 3 Shows that, overall, neighbours, friends and family are the largest groups that landowners have contact with in managing their land. This is followed by contractors. The two groups of landowners differ in their most important contact for land management. Those for whom land‐based income is less important rely much more on neighbours and contractors that those for whom land‐
based income is more important. Almost sixty percent of landowners less dependent on land‐based income nominated neighbours or family and friends as their most important contact for managing their land. In contrast those for whom land‐based income is more important nominated friends and family as their most important contact and none nominated neighbours. Beyond these more popular contacts, the percentages for other groups or types of potential contacts operating in the LGA were smaller, although of those for whom land‐based income is important, nine percent nominated each of Landcare/Bushcare and the Small Farms Network as their most important contact. This data is presented graphically below in figure 13. 21 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 13. The most important contact for landholder groups (n=101) Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different in who they considered the most important contact in managing land. The test result was statistically significant, , two sided, p =0.003.. As illustrated in Figure 13, the two groups are in contact with different groups. Primary or significant secondary income producers were significantly more likely to consider family and friends the most important contact in managing their land, where landowners less reliant on land based income were more in contact with neighbours and contractors as well as friends and family. 22 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Activities on your Land Question 7: What are the main things you produced or did on your property in the 2008­2009 financial year? Mean Values of Production ($) No/minor income from production Primary or significant secondary income from production 56.30 1397.60 312.50 0.00 9.70 3.80 3.80 5.20 0.00 3.50 174.30 143100.00 9650.00 1000.00 0.00 1352.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 140.00 70071.00* Dairy Beef Horses Pigs Value Hay Orchard Vegetable Flowers Crops Timber Other Table 4. Mean values of production for landholder groups (n=338). Table 4 displays the mean production values for both landholder groups. For the primary/significant secondary producers Dairy production is the highest mean income ($143,100) for the 2008‐2009 financial year. The ‘Other’ category is the second highest income producer largely due to two primary producer landholder businesses whose value of production was over $1,000,000. When these two businesses are excluded from the analysis, the mean production for ‘Other’ is $73.96. 23 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 8: I would be interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale Figure 14. Whether landholders are interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale (n=332). Figure 14 indicates that the vast majority of rural landholder respondents are not interested in growing vegetables or crops. However, 16% are interested in this activity. 24 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 15. Percentage of landholder groups who are interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale (n=332). Figure 15 shows no statistically significant difference between these two landholder groups – Fisher’s Exact test, two‐sided, p=0.52. The large majority of both groups are not interested in growing vegetables or crops for sale purposes. However, eight percent (four landowners) of those who make a living from their land already grow vegetables and 16‐18% (forty‐six and nine landowners respectively) percent of landowners are interested in doing so. Almost 2 percent (five landowners) of landowners who do not make a significant income from their land sell vegetables. 25 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 9: What best describes the role of your rural land? Figure 16. The role of rural land (n=338) Figure 16 displays the breakdown of landownership among respondents with regards to production income. The results show that the large majority of respondents (66%) generate no income from their land. In total, 14.8% of respondents claim production on their land to be the primary or secondary source of income. 26 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 10: What best describes how your rural land is used? Figure 17. How rural land use is described (n=342) Figure 17 illustrates that just over half (50.6%) describe their land as primarily for recreation or as a rural retreat. For 15.9% of respondents it is seen as a way to earn a living and 16.2% of landholders primary use their land to conserve native plants and animals. . 27 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 18. Percentage breakdown of how landholders groups use their land (n=331). Figure 18 illustrates an overwhelming majority (91.5%) of primary/significant secondary produces use their land to earn a living whereas the majority of no/minor income producers use their land for recreation or as a rural retreat. More no/minor income producers claim to use their land for the conservation of plants and animals (17.4%) compared to primary/significant secondary producers (2.1%). There is a statistical difference, which is clearly displayed, as to how land is used for these two landholder groups. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different in their best description of land use. The test result was statistically significant, two sided, p =0.000.. As illustrated in Figure 18, primary or significant secondary income producers were significantly more likely to use their land to earn a living and those who rely less on land‐
based income were more likely to use their land as a retreat or for conservation. 28 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 11: Do you rent land to anyone or from anyone? Figure 19. Whether landholders rent land to anyone. Figure 20. Whether landholders rent land from anyone. 29 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figures 19 and 20 reveal that the vast majority of survey respondents do not rent to anyone (91.5%) or rent from anyone (93.2%). Figure 21. Percentage of landholder groups who rent land to anyone (n=338). Figure 21 shows the comparison of landowners that rent to anyone. The results show that the large majority of both groups do not rent land to anyone. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was not statistically significant (p=0.218). There is no significant difference in the extent to which the two groups rent to someone else. 30 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 22. Percentage of landholder groups who rent land from anyone (=338). Figure 22 presents the comparison of landowners that rent from anyone. The results show that there is a statistical difference between these two landowners groups. Primary/significant secondary producers are more likely to rent land from someone (42%) compared to no/minor income producers (1%). Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was statistically significant (p=0.000). There is a significant difference in the extent to which the two groups rent from someone else. 31 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 What is the land area that you rent to and from? Mean Land Area Rentals (ha) No/minor income production Rent To 1.6 Rent From 0.7 Primary/significant secondary income production 5.1 24.2 Table 5. Area of land rented and leased. Table 5 presents the mean area (ha) of land rented and leased for both landholders. Primary/significant secondary income producers rent a significantly larger area of land from others (24.2ha) compared to (0.7ha) for no/minor income producers. 32 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 12: Do you hire labour on your rural property? Figure 23. Whether labour is hired on rural property (n=351) 33 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 24. Percentage of landholder groups who hire labour on their property (n=338). Figure 23 shows that 66.5% of the total respondents do not hire labour on their property. The comparison of the two landholder categories in Figure 24 reveals that the majority of both groups do not hire labour. There is no statistical difference between these groups with regard to hired labour. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether hiring labour on the property is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 336) = 2.78, p > .05. As illustrated in Figure 24, there is no significant difference between landholder groups in the likelihood of hiring labour. 34 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 13: I undertake agricultural grazing on my land. Figure 25. Whether landholders undertake agricultural grazing (n=349) Figure 25 shows that overall there is a large percentage of people that do undertake agricultural grazing on their land (47%) and a large number that do not (53%). While there are more respondents that do not undertake grazing, the statistics are relatively balanced. 35 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 26. Percentage of landholder groups who undertake agricultural grazing (n=334). Figure 26 shows that almost all primary or significant secondary income producers (98%) undertake agricultural grazing. Despite the majority of no/minor income producers not undertaking this activity, a large portion of this group report engaging in this activity. The main reasons for this group undertaking grazing were: Maintain the landscape (38.2%); Provides learning and recreational opportunities for kids/grandkids/visitors (14.6%); Holds an aesthetic appeal for me (12.4%); Provides me with a source of income or profit (10.1%); Defray landownership costs (10.1%); Helps to keep me busy (6.7%). A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether undertaking agricultural grazing is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 334) = 57.6, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 26, there is a significant difference between landholder groups and the undertaking of agricultural grazing. 36 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 14: Does your property contain weeds that are a problem or you in any way? Figure 27. Whether weeds are a problem on landholders’ property in any way (n=351). Figure 27 shows that weeds are in some way a problem for the majority of rural landholder respondents (69.8%) in the Kiama LGA. 37 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 28. Percentage of landholder groups for whom weeds are a problem (n=337). Figure 28 shows that almost all primary or significant secondary income producers (92%) report weeds as being a problem for them. In comparison 66.55% of landholders who do not derive a significant income from their land reported weeds as being a problem. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether weeds being a problem is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 337) = 13.2, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 28, weeds are a problem for both landholder groups, but significantly more problematic for primary and significant secondary income producers. 38 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 List the top three weeds in order of importance to you. Most important weed No/minor income producers Primary/significant secondary income producers Number % 33 71.7 2 4.3% 2 4.60% 0 0 1 2.2 0 0 0 0 Number 89 57 3 1 0 2 1 % 47.6 30.5 1.6 0.5 0 1.1 0.5 Wandering Jew/ Wandering Dew/ Tradescantia 3 1.6 0 0 Thistle (Spear or Black) 3 1.6 0 0 Mistflower/ Mist flower/Mist bush 2 1.1 0 0 Parramatta grass/ Parramatta 3 1.6 1 2.2 Milk weed Kikuyu 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 Tussock/ Tussock grass/ Common Tussock/ Bergalia 0 0 2 4.3 Cocks‐spur coral trees/ coral trees 1 0.5 0 0 Bindii/ Caltrop/ Bindi/Cat‐head (NSW) 1 0.5 0 0 Cape Ivy/ Groundsel Ivy Farmers friend 0 2 0 1.1 1 0 2.2 0 Wild tobacco/ Tobacco trees/Tobacco tree 9 4.8 3 6.5 Arum Lily Bush peanut 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 Liana vines: Monkey Vines & water vine 1 0.5 0 0 Brazilian Moth vine/ Mothvine/Moth vine 5 2.7 1 2.2 Fireweed Lantana Blackberry Dandelion Bitou Bush Crofton/Crofton weed Black‐eyed Susan Table 6. The most important (ie. first ranked) weed for each landholder group (n=239). 39 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 All weeds that are listed as problematic Number 181 120 49 47 % 30.7 20.4 8.3 8 41 7 20 3.4 Tussock/ Tussock grass/ Common Tussock 18 3.1 Wandering Jew/ Wandering Dew/ Tradescantia 15 2.5 14 2.4 14 2.4 7 1.2 5 0.8 5 5 0.8 0.8 4 0.7 4 3 3 3 2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 2 0.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Fireweed Lantana Thistle (Spear or Black) Blackberry Wild tobacco/ Tobacco trees/ tobacco tree Crofton/Crofton weed Mistflower/ Mist flower/ Mist bush Brazilian Moth vine/ Mothvine/ Moth vine Parramatta grass/ Parramatta Cocks‐spur coral trees/ Cral trees Cape Ivy/ Groundsel Ivy Farmers friend Braken Fern/ Barken/ Bracken Nettle/ Stinging Nettle Broadleaf Privet Privets/ Pruvet (small) Vines Kikuyu Bindii/ Caltrop/ Bindi/ Cat‐head (NSW) Ink weed Dandelion Bitou bush Black‐eyed Susan Milk weed Arum Lilly Dock Giant Parramatta Grass Red Azolla Viper Weed 40 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Deadly nightshade Paddy's Lucerne Ginger Lilly Oxalis Wild olive/ African Olive Pine tree Warer primrose Chickweed: Common and mouse ear Gorse Onion weed Carpet grass Nut grass Bush peanut Canberra grass Liana vines: Monkey vines and water vines Snake weed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 Table 7. Combined list of the three most problematic weeds (this is a simple count of the number of times each plant was listed by respondents across the rankings of the three most problematic weeds) Table 6 and 7 present the weeds that are problematic for rural landholders in the Kiama LGA. Fireweed is the most problematic for the large majority (71.7%) of primary/significant secondary income producers. Fireweed is also listed as the most problematic for no/minor income producers, but to a lesser degree (47.6%). Lantana is listed as the most problematic weed for 30.5% of no/minor income producers compared to only 4.3% of primary/significant secondary income producers. In general, the plants (and rankings of fireweed and lantanta) of concern to those who make no significant income from their land appear to reflect a greater concern with plants that are problem for conservation The combined total for the three most problematic weeds for both landholder groups is Fireweed (30.7%) followed by Lantana (20.4%).. The common plant names used have been determined from the widely varying nomenclature provided by respondents in consultation with Illawarra Noxious Weed Authority staff and by research student Mohammed Alam. 41 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 15: Please estimate to the nearest 100 meters the length of fencing for the purposes listed below that you’ve built on your property in the Kiama LGA since you acquired it? Mean Length of Fencing Since Acquisition No/minor income from production Primary or significant secondary income from production 73.6 1204.7 554.9 424.5 340 2790.1 1361.5 1635 To protect water courses For grazing management To protect native vegetation For property boundaries Table 6. Mean length of fencing on property. Table 6 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers have constructed larger amounts of fencing on their property to protect water courses, grazing management, native vegetation and property boundaries than no/minor income producers. This has not been controlled for property size. 42 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 16: What activities have occurred on your land in the Kiama LGA since you acquired it and how many days spent on that activity in the last year? Average time spent undertaking activities (full days) No/minor income producers Number of people Improving soil/ fertilizing/planting legumes Weeding/ weed management Pasture maintenance Walking/ bushwalking Planting in the garden Planting native trees/ plants outside of the garden Planting perennial pasture Motor biking Horse riding Hunting Other Mean
Primary/significant secondary income producers Number of people Mean
70
166
136
63
288
15.2
22.4
26
26.7
3.7
22
30
33
6
50
72.1
52.6
93.8
6.7
9.7
288
23
15
14
6
24
3.7
3.4
9.9
68.2
19
60.3
50
12
6
3
5
6
2.4
31.7
120.7
67
74.8
90.5
Table 8. Average amount of time spent undertaking activities since acquiring rural land . Table 8 presents the average time that has been spent undertaking different activities since the land has been acquired. Motor biking, pasture maintenance and hunting are the most frequently undertaken activities for primary/significant secondary income producers while planting trees, planting in the garden and weeding are most commonly undertaken for no/minor income producers. Examples of ‘other’ activities include cattle management, conservation, vegetable gardening, fencing and relaxation. Analysis currently underway by research student Mohammed Alam is showing that those who do not derive income from their land spend less days per year on weed management but more time per hectare on weed management that those who make a living from their land, suggesting a possible contrast in intensive versus more extensive weed management work consistent with the different rankings of plants and in relative interests in conservation/restoration on the one hand and pasture 43 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 management as part of farm operations on the other. This analysis should be completed in the first half of 2012. 44 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 17: Do you seek advice before planting non­commercial trees? Figure 29. Whether landholders seek advice before planting non­commercial trees. (n=337) Figure 29 shows that just over half (51.95%) of landholder respondents seek advice before planting non‐
commercial trees, while almost half (48%) do not. 45 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 30. Percentage of landholder respondents that seek advice before planting non­commercial trees (n=324). Figure 30 shows that primary or significant secondary income producers (34%) are less likely to seek advice before planting non‐commercial trees compared to no/minor income producers (55.2%). Despite the majority of primary/significant secondary income producers not seeking advice, just over a third of this group do seek advice. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether seeking advice before planting non‐commercial trees is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 324) = 7.2, p < .007. As illustrated in Figure 30, primary and significant secondary income producers are less likely to seek advice before planting non‐commercial trees than no/minor income producers. 46 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 31. Most important source of advice for each landholder group (n=100). 47 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Production from my
land serves as the
Production from my land
primary or a
provides a no income or a
significant secondary
minor source of income for
source of income for
my household (%)
my household (%)
All
respondents
(%)
Rural supply store
1.1
0
1.0
Nurseries
23.3
10.0
22.0
Neighbours
7.8
0
7.0
0
10.0
1.0
Groups such as Landcare
4.4
20.0
6.0
Friend or family
8.9
0
8.0
State government
1.1
0
1.0
0
20.0
2.0
Replicate what comes up/grows locally
10.0
20.0
11.0
Books, magazines, internet
26.7
20.0
26.0
Contractor
5.6
0
5.0
Other
11.1
0
10.0
Total
100 (n=90)
100 (n=10)
100
Council
Southern Rivers CMA
Table 9. Most important source of advice for each landholder group (n=100). We asked respondents to nominate from a list their most important source of advice for plantings. Figure 31 and Table 9 show that nurseries (23.3%) books, internet and magazines (26.6%) are the most important sources of advice for no/minor income producers. This is followed by replication of what comes up, friends and family, and neighbours. These landowners also rely on contractors to some extent, whereas those who make a living from their land did not list contractors. Only 10 respondents on the primary/significant secondary income producer group listed an important source of advice. These respondents rely on similar sources but additionally rely on the SRCMA, and groups such as Landcare. 48 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 18: For my property I have sought expert advice and generated the following types of plans? Sought expert advice Whole property Grazing Business Bushfire Climate change adaptation Vegetation/ conservation Primary/significant secondary income producer (n=50) Yes ‐ Number % 16 32%% 20 40% 17 34% 6 12% No/minor income producer
n=288 Yes ‐Number % 44 15% 46 16% 21 7% 86 30% 3 6% 20 7% 17 34% 21 7% Table 10. Landholder groups who sought expert advice. Table 8 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers are more likely to have sought expert advice regarding their rural property. Bushfires are the single area that no/minor income producers are significantly more likely to seek expert advice, this may be related to house construction and/or renovation. 49 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 19: What actions have occurred on your rural property in the last 3 years? Actions on property in the last 3 years Primary/significant secondary income producer (n=50) Number % Soil testing for nutrient monitoring /application 20 40.0% 52 18.1% Cooperative land use or management with neighbours Weed management with a group or organisation Feral animal control with a group or organisation 12 24.0% 47 16.3% 12 24.0% 45 15.6% 25 50.0% 18 6.3% Reduced native vegetation cover including understory, by any means 3 6.0% 18 6.3% Considered or have changed land use/management due to climate change 9 18.0% 17 5.9% 15 30.0% 60 20.8% 11 22% 24 8.3% Planted non‐native vegetation outside the garden 5 10.0% 31 10.8% Weed management undertaken privately 35 70.0% 56 19.4% 18 36.0% 56 19.4% Received/spent grant money on environmental or agricultural projects 10 20.0% 23 8.0% Implementation of ideas/techniques gained from a course/field day/training program 11 22.0% 34 11.8% Undertaken a flora and fauna assessment 4 8.0% 28 9.7% Tried to control/prevent soil erosion Water quality testing Feral animal control undertaken privately Table 11 Actions undertaken on properties by both landholder groups. 50 No/minor income producer (n=288) Number % Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 20: I undertake activities to control weeds? Figure 32.Whether landholders control weeds(n=340). Figure 32 shows that the large majority (90.6%) undertake activities to control weeds on their rural property. Only a small amount of landholder respondents (9.4%) do not control weeds. 51 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 33. Percentage of landholder groups who control weeds on their rural property (n=327). Figure 33 shows that a large majority of both primary or significant secondary income producers (97.9%) and no/minor income producers (89.6%) control weeks in some way on their rural property. Only 2.1% of primary/significant secondary income producers do not control weeks on their property compared to 10.4% of no/minor income producers. As illustrated in Figure 33, there are some differences between the two landholder groups but there is no statistically significant difference between them ‐ Fishers exact test p=0.98 (Exact significance, 2‐sided). 52 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 A.
If yes, please select the most important reason that you control weeds. Figure 34. Most important reason for both landholder groups to control weeds (n=181) Figure 34 shows that protecting the environment and conservation values is clearly the most important reason for no/minor income producers (52.6%) to control weeds on their rural property. For the large majority (84%) of primary/significant secondary income producers maintaining agricultiural production was the most important reason for control weeds. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was statistically significant (p=0.000). There is a significant difference in the reasons for weed control between two landholder groups. 53 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 B. If yes, do you spend as much time on controlling weeds as you would like? Figure 35. Whether both landholder groups spend as much time weeding as they would like (n=295). Figure 35 shows that both landholder groups do not spend as much time weeding as they would like. This is particularly significant for the primary/significant secondary income producers with just under three‐quarters (74.5%) of these landholder respondents claiming to not spending enough time controlling weeds. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between the two landowners groups with respect to whether they spend as much time weeding as they would like. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 295) = 5.3, p = .021. 54 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 36. The most important reason that prevents more time spent controlling weeds (n=110). Figure 36 shows that for those who do not spend enough time weeding, not having enough time is clearly the most important reason for no/minor income producers (39.2%) and primary/significant secondary income producers (66.7%). There is not a statistically significant difference between these two groups and the most important reason for spending enough time controlling weeds. Other relatively important reasons for both groups include the overwhelming nature of the weeds problem and funds available. Over ten per cent of those who do not make an income from their land also cited age/health as a limiting factor and this group also cited wider range of reasons including lack of equipment and experience, though these were not cited by many respondents. 55 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was not statistically significant (p=0.519). There is not a significant difference in the reasons limiting weed control between two landholder groups. 56 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 21: What sources of fresh water do you have on your rural property and for what do you use the water? Note: these columns do not add up to 100%. Respondents were able to select or not as applicable across all uses and sources. Any percentage below simply represents the percentage of all 355 respondents who selected a particular use/source combination. Use: Drinking Water Source Town Supply Bore Well River Rainwater Tank Dam Other Percentage of Respondents 15.2 0.8 0.8 4.5 72.4 2.3 2.3 Use: Agriculture Source Town Supply Bore Well River Rainwater Tank Dam Other Percentage of Respondents 6.2 10.7 3.4 13.2 23.7 29.3 4.5 Use: Fire fighting Source Town Supply Percentage of Respondents 4.5 57 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Bore Well River Rainwater Tank Dam Other 4.8 0.6 7.3 39.2 18.9 3.4 Table 12 Water Sources 58 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Details about your property Question 22: How long has your household owned rural land in Kiama LGA? Mean length of time your household has owned rural land in Kiama LGA (years) Number of respondents Mean length of time No/minor income producers 288 16.9 Primary/significant secondary income producers 50 30.8 Table 13. Average number of years both landholder groups have owned rural land in Kiama LGA. Table 13 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers have, on average, owned rural land in Kiama LGA for a much longer length of time (55.6 years) compared to no/minor income producers (18.7). 59 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 23: What is the total area (ha) of your rural land in the Kiama LGA? Mean total area (ha) of rural land in the Kiama LGA Number of respondents Mean area No/minor income producers 288 15.4 Primary/significant secondary income producers 50 65.8 Table 14. Mean area of rural land owned in Kiama LGA. Table 14 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers own, on average, a greater amount of land (65.8 ha) compared to no/minor income producers (15.4 ha). 60 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 25: Is your primary residence on your rural land? Figure 37. Whether rural property is primary residence (n=351). Figure 37 shows that the rural property in Kiama LGA is the primary residence for just under three‐quarters (72.4%) of total landholder respondents. The rural property is not the primary residence for just over one‐quarter (27.6%) of total landholder respondents. 61 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 38. Percentage of landholders groups whose rural property is their primary residence (n=336). Figure 38 shows that for both landholder groups the rural property in the Kiama LGA is their primary residence. While the results reveal that primary residence is slightly greater for primary/significant secondary income producers, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether the primary residence on rural land in Kiama LGA is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 336) = 1.4, p > .05. 62 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 26: Do you live full time on your property? Figure 39. Whether rural property is full time residence (n=351). Figure 39 shows that the rural property in Kiama LGA is resided in full time for the majority of landholder respondents (69.2%). Despite this majority, there is a substantial portion (31%) of landholder residents who do not reside on their rural property on a full time basis. 63 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 40. Percentage of landholder groups who live on rural property full time (n=336). Figure 40 shows that for both landholder groups the rural property in the Kiama LGA is their full time residence. While the results reveal that full time residence is slightly greater for primary/significant secondary income producers, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether full time residence on rural land in Kiama LGA is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 336) = 1.8, p > .05. 64 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Prospect for the Future Question 27: Are there burdens or challenges in living on your land that might lead you to sell in the next five years? Figure 41. Possibility of selling land in the next five years (n=329). Figure 41 shows that the majority of landholder respondents (56%) are not facing burdens or challenges that would lead to them to sell their land in the next five years. However, this is not a large majority, as a significant portion of landholder respondents (44%) claim that selling their rural land is a possibility in the next five years. 65 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 42. Percentage of landholder groups who are considering selling their land in the next five years due to land­based challenges and burdens. (n=315) Figure 42 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers are more likely to sell their land in the next five years (58.3%) compared to no/minor income producers (40%). The results show that there is a statistically significant difference between these two land holder groups with regard to the likelihood of selling their land due to the burdens and challenges of living on the land. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether selling their property due to burdens and challenges faced living on the land is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 315) = 5.3, p < .02. 66 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 43. The most important reason that would lead to selling land in the next five years (n=73). Figure 43 shows that similar pressures are facing landholder groups which would lead them to sell their land in the next five years. For primary/significant secondary income producers council rates (33%) are the most important reason for selling land. While age/health (36%) is the most important reason for no/minor income producers. Both groups indicate that the burden of maintaining their property is an important reason for selling their land. 67 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 28: In the future would you be prepared to... A.
Participate in a food/wine/culture trail in the Kiama LGA? Figure 44. Whether landholders would like to participate in a food/wine/culture trail (n=322). Figure 44 shows that the majority of landholders (63.3%) are not prepared to participate in a food/wine/culture trail in the Kiama LGA. Despite this majority, a large portion of landholders (36.8%) would be interested in participating in this type of event. 68 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 45. Percentage of landholder group that would be interested in participating in a food/wine/culture trail. (n=317) Figure 45 shows that no/minor income producers (40.2%) are more likely to be interested in participating in a food/wine/culture trail. While the majority of both landholder groups claim to not be interested in this type of event, a larger majority of primary/significant secondary income producers are disinterested (77.1%) compared to no/minor income producers (59.9%). A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether selling their property due to burdens and challenges faced living on the land is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 315) = 5.3, p < .03. 69 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 B.
Sell any produce from your land at you farm gate and/or to a local retailer or stallholder? Figure 46 Whether landholder is prepared to sell produce at gate or to a retailer (n=330). Figure 46 shows that the majority of total landholder respondents (69.7%) are not prepared to sell their produce at their farm gate or to a retailer. Almost a third (30.3%) of landholder respondents are prepared to undertake this activity. 70 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 47. Percentage of landholder groups are prepared to sell produce at gate or to a retailer (n=315). Figure 47 shows that the same proportion of landholder groups are not prepared to sell their produce at their gate or to a retailer. Just under one third of both landholder groups are interested in undertaking this activity. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether interest in selling produce is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 315) = 0.01, p > .05. 71 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 C.
Link any underutilised land you have with that of other landholders in some form of lease or cooperative arrangement for agriculture and grazing? Figure 48. Whether total landholder respondents are prepared to link underutilised land (n=323). Figure 48 shows that the large majority (81.7%) of total landholder respondents are not prepared to link any underutilised land for agriculture or grazing. A small portion or respondents are interested in this activity (18.3%). 72 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 49. Percentage of landholder groups who would be prepared to link underutilised land in the future (n=309). Figure 49 shows that the large majority of both landholder groups are not prepare to link any underutilised land in the future. Primary/significant income producers are slightly less interested in this activity (84.4%) than no/minor income producers (80.7%). A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether interest in linking underutilised land is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐
square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 315) = 0.01, p > .05. 73 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Details about you and your household Question 29: Sex Figure 50. Sex of landholder respondent. (n=324) Figure 50 shows that almost two thirds (64.2%) of total landholder respondents who completed the survey were men. 74 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 51. Sex of both landholder groups (n=310). Figure 51 shows that for both landholder groups men were more likely to complete the survey. This likelihood increase for primary/significant secondary income producers, with (80%) of men completing this survey compared to 62% of no/minor income producers. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether the sex of the landholder respondent is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐
square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 315) = 5.06, p < .03. 75 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 30: What is your age? Age No/minor income producers Primary/significant secondary income producers Number 272 Number 48 Mean 58.7 Total Mean 61.5 Number 320 Mean 59.1 Table 15. The average age of landholder respondents. Table 15 shows that the average age for total land holder respondents is 59.1 years. Primary/significant secondary income producers are slightly older on average (61.5 years) compared to no/minor income producers (58.7 years). 76 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 31: Prior to owning your current property in the Kiama LGA did you have any previous experience in owning and/or managing rural land? Figure 52. Prior experience in owning/managing rural land (n=338). Figure 52 shows that prior to owning their current property, the majority (66.6%) of rural landholders had no prior experience in owning/managing rural land. One third of current landholders (33.4%) had prior experience in this activity. 77 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 53. Percentage of landholder groups who had prior experience in owning/managing rural land (n=323). Figure 53 shows that no/minor income producers are less likely (30.2%) to have had prior experience in owning/managing land compared to primary /significant secondary income producers (54.2%). Despite this comparison, a large amount of primary/secondary income producers have not had any prior experience (45.8%) in this activity. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether prior experience in owning/managing rural land is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 323) = 10.5, p < .002. 78 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 32: Does your post­school education at Uni/College/TAFE include training in any form of natural resource management? Figure 54. Education in Natural Resource Management (NRM (n=338)). Figure 54 shows that the large majority of total landholder respondents (88.8%) have had no formal post‐school training in NRM. 79 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 56. Percentage of landholder groups who have had post­school education in NRM (n=323). Figure 55 shows that the large majority of both landholder groups have not had any post‐school training in NRM. Primary/significant secondary income producers report a slightly higher rate of NRM education (16.7%) compared to no/minor income producers (13.8%). A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether NRM education is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was not statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 323) = 0.27, p > .05. ore likely to have had post‐school NRM education than no/minor income producers. 80 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 33: Have you undertaken training or courses in any respect of agriculture, natural resource management, or farm business? Figure 56. Training in agriculture, natural resource management, or farm business (n=337). Figure 56 shows that almost three‐quarters of total landholder respondents have not had any training in agriculture, NRM or farm business. Just over one‐quarter (27.6%) have had this type of training. 81 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 57. Percentage of landholder groups who have had agricultural, NRM or farm business training (n=322). Figure 57 shows that primary/significant secondary income producers are more likely to have had agricultural, NRM or farm business training (49%) compared to no/minor income producers (24.2%). More than three‐quarters (75.8%) of no/minor income producers have had no training in these fields. A Pearson’s chi‐squared test of contingencies (with α = .05) was used to evaluate whether agriculture, NRM or farm business training is related to significance of land‐based income. The chi‐square test was statistically significant, χ² (1, N = 322) = 12.7, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 57, primary/significant secondary landholders are more likely to have had training in these fields than no/minor income producers. 82 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 34: Which best describes your employment status? Figure 58. Employment status of total landholder respondents (n=339). Figure 58 shows that retired/ pensioners are the most frequently reported employment status (31%) followed by self employed (27.4%) and employed full‐time (25.1%). 83 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Figure 59. Employment status of both landholder groups (n=324). Figure 59 shows that self‐employment is the status for the majority of primary/significant secondary income producers (59.2%) compared to no/minor income producers (22.9%). Retired/pensioners is the most common employment status for no/minor income producers (34.6%) compared to only 8.2% of primary/significant secondary income producers. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was statistically significant (p=0.000). There is a significant difference in the employment status between the two groups.. 84 Living, Working and Playing on the Land Survey 2011 Question 35: If you are in paid employment, what is your main occupation? Figure 59. Occupation of both landholder groups (n=161). Figure 59 shows that most no/minor income producers are either managers (32.6%) or professionals (46.8%). This reflects employment in off‐farm job and indicates that this group is of relatively high socio‐economic status. Eighty percent those who make a primary or significant income from their land listed their occupation as ‘manager’, most likely referring to their role as managers of their farm businesses. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate whether the two landowner groups were significantly different. The result was statistically significant (p=0.003). There is a significant difference in the occupation groups between the two groups.. 85