Department of
Sustainability,
Environment,
Water, Population
and Communities
Water for the
Future Campaign
Final Evaluation Report:
Prepared for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Populations and Communities
CBSR Contact Corey Fisher, Joan Young
Phone (02) 6249 8566
Email corey.fisher@cbr.com.au; joan.young@cbr.com.au
Issue Date March 2011
Project number 41765
www.cbr.com.au
Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 3
1.1.
Research conclusions............................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.
Limitations of results .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.
Constraints in judging the effectiveness of the campaign ...................................................................... 5
1.4.
Recommendations for moving forward .................................................................................................. 7
2. Water for the Future Campaign Evaluation .......................................................... 9
2.1.
What was done? .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.
What impact was achieved? ................................................................................................................ 14
2.3.
What are the next steps? ..................................................................................................................... 24
3. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 25
3.1.
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.
Research objectives ............................................................................................................................ 27
4. Methodology in Brief .......................................................................................... 28
4.1.
Stage 1: Questionnaire development and testing ................................................................................ 28
4.2.
Stage 2: Benchmark, tracking and evaluation fieldwork ...................................................................... 28
4.3.
Stage 3: Analysis, reporting and presentation ..................................................................................... 32
5. Findings ............................................................................................................. 36
5.1.
Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving initiatives and ‘Water for the Future’
program ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
5.2.
Prompted awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program ...................................................................... 42
5.3.
Total awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program ............................................................................. 43
5.1.
Knowledge about the ‘Water for the Future’ program .......................................................................... 44
5.2.
Unprompted recall of sources of awareness ........................................................................................ 49
5.3.
Total recall of sources of awareness ................................................................................................... 54
5.4.
Engagement with the ‘Water for the Future’ program .......................................................................... 66
5.5.
Awareness of the Guide to the Basin Plan .......................................................................................... 69
5.6.
Concern about Australia’s water situation............................................................................................ 71
5.7.
Current water conservation practices .................................................................................................. 79
5.8.
Attitudes to water conservation and drought........................................................................................ 86
6. Sample Profile ................................................................................................... 94
6.1.
Type of farmer by state ........................................................................................................................ 94
6.2.
Location of general public samples ..................................................................................................... 95
6.3.
Gender................................................................................................................................................. 96
6.4.
Age group ............................................................................................................................................ 96
6.5.
Highest education attained .................................................................................................................. 97
6.6.
Household income ............................................................................................................................... 98
6.7.
Ethnic background ............................................................................................................................... 99
7. Appendix: Woolcott Research (benchmark) and CBSR Results (tracking waves 1
to 4) ........................................................................................................................ 100
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Research conclusions
6 Overall the campaign does not appear to have significantly impacted on awareness of the ‘Water
for the Future’ program, possibly due to very low ‘cut-through’ (levels of awareness) of the paid
advertising. According to the research it has not improved perceptions of feeling informed,
although those surveyed expressed keen interest in seeking further information about the ‘Water
for the Future’ program. No behavioural change resulted from the campaign and only one attitude
changed positively with a decline in agreement among the general public in the Basin that
‘Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount of water saved’ between the baseline
(18%) and Wave 4 (11%) with disagreement increasing over the same period from 79% to 88%.
6 However, the campaign may have had some impact in bringing negative attitudes back to precampaign levels, possibly arresting declines that would have continued without the campaign due
to the rainfall experienced. Specifically the attitudes that changed back to baseline levels were
disagreement that ‘Australia faces major water shortages’ (general public and farmers), ‘the
drought has changed the way I view water’ (farmers and general public), ‘Individuals can’t really
make much difference to the amount of water saved’ (general public only) and that ‘The
Australian Government should control the amount of water irrigators can use’ (general public
only). It is not possible to definitely attribute these changes to the campaign as there was no
measure immediately prior to the campaign to determine pre-campaign attitudes.
6 Whilst the Department followed a best-practice approach in developing the campaign materials it
is noted that all feedback from the communications testing research focussed on improving the
content rather than the cut-through of the executions. For example ‘Water for the Future’ is not
prominently displayed in the advertising material used for Phase 1 of the campaign and neither is
the Australian Government Logo. Although program recall was not an objective of the campaign,
the campaign could not deliver high recall of the ‘Water for the Future’ program without prominent
placement of this name. The lack of the word Water in the core headline ‘We’re securing our
future drop by drop’ and the use of ‘securing’ which is generally associated with national security
may both have reduced the impact of the executions to stand-out in the minds of the target
audience as being about ‘Water for the Future’.
1.2. Limitations of results
Research timing:
6 Due to the time required to go through a competitive tendering process to select an agency to
conduct the tracking research, and Government campaign approval requirements through the
Independent Communications Committee following the developmental research, there was
insufficient time for a baseline study to be conducted immediately prior to the campaign
launch in October 2010. This meant the only baseline information available was a survey
conducted in April 2010. The lack of a baseline study immediately prior to a campaign launch
reduces the ability of tracking research to accurately measure the full impact of a campaign as
there is no way of knowing what levels of awareness, attitudes and behaviour existed immediately
prior to the launch. In this specific situation due to the level of activity that occurred and the
media coverage and high emotions involved, it would appear likely that awareness, attitudes and
behaviour were quite different in October 2010 than in April 2010. Therefore, it may be that the
campaign could have had far more of a positive impact than it is possible to detect without this
measure.
Analysis/Data issues:
6 CBSR has conducted additional analysis in order to be able to use the Woolcott Research as a
baseline measure against which changes in attitudes and awareness can be compared (where
the same questions were asked). This involved selecting only the Murray Darling Basin data
(n=250 respondents) and applying the same weighting approach to the Woolcott Research
benchmark data. 1 This analysis resulted in Woolcott Research’s Murray Darling Basin data
consisting of farmers (n=53 dry land and irrigators) and general public Basin respondents
(n=197).
6 In the current report, comparisons to benchmark phase (Woolcott Research data) have been
provided for the farmers (dryland and irrigation) and general public living in the Basin (nonfarmers), as defined in the Woolcott Research datafile. Comparisons between CBSR Tracking
Wave 1 to 4 data and Woolcott Research data for the general public in Adelaide is not possible.
6 The low sample size for the farmers target group in the benchmark phase means that
comparisons between CBSR tracking data and benchmark data (Woolcott Research) are
statistically less robust, and should be treated with caution. The error rate associated with the
benchmark sample size of n=53 Basin farmers is +/- 13.5%, at the 95% confidence interval. In
comparison, the error rate associated with the tracking waves sample size of n=200 farmers is +/6.9% given a 95% confidence level.
Reduced survey length:
6 Due to the reduced survey length available for the tracking research (10 mins) in comparison to
the benchmark research (20 minutes), it was not possible to include all of the questions that were
used in the benchmark in the tracking research. Unfortunately the question asking for prompted
awareness of the programs available to people in the basin community was not included in the
tracking research. Given the poor recall of the ‘Water for the Future’ name following phase one of
the campaign and very low levels of unprompted awareness of any of the initiatives it is important
that in any future tracking (if program awareness is a key objective) prompted awareness of
programs are included.
6 Comparisons can only be made where the original baseline questions were used in the tracking
questionnaire. Unfortunately due to the tracking research being restricted to a 10 minute survey
length and because of the need to include campaign evaluation questions – less than half of the
questions used in the baseline were repeated in the tracking research.
1
Weighting for farmers by State only (i.e. based on State farmer populations in the Murray-Darling Basin; and
weighting for general public data by State and Territory (i.e. based on State/Territory populations in the MurrayDarling Basin).
1.3. Constraints in judging the effectiveness of the campaign
The ability of Phase 1 of the ‘Water for the Future’ campaign to be effective and the ability of the
tracking research to detect its effectiveness are likely to have been impacted by several factors. The
results of this research are limited by the issues listed below and should be taken in that context.
Timing of events:
A summary of the timeline of the campaign and CBSR events are summarised in the table below.
April 2010 September 2010 8 October 2010 10 October 2010 14 October 2010 16 October 2010 22-28 October 2010 29 Oct – 4 Nov 2010 7 November 2010 5-11 November 2010 12-18 November 2010 -
Campaign developmental research
Widespread record-breaking rainfall, flooding in Victoria
Release of Guide to the Basin Plan
Start of media campaign
Flooding in SE QLD (disaster assistance funding announced)
Flooding in NSW (disaster assistance funding announced)
Wave 1 of CBSR tracking research
Wave 2 of CBSR tracking research
End of media campaign
Wave 3 of CBSR tracking research
Wave 4 of CBSR tracking research
The communication planning, development and testing was undertaken in an environment of very low
rainfall. However, the advertising was executed at a time of high rainfall (see Weather factors).
It is possible that the difference in weather conditions may have impacted on the cut-through of the
advertising and the credibility of the messages. As Media Monitors concluded from their research:
“There is a danger that when the drought breaks and dams fill, many Australians will believe
the water issue is resolved as much discussion has focussed on drought – there is
insufficient recognition of the long-term deep-seated inadequacies in Australia’s policy,
infrastructure and management systems in relation to water.” 2
Weather factors:
A summary of the impact of climate and weather factors impacting on the ‘Water for the Future’
campaign are listed below.
2
Media Monitors (April 2007) Water in Australia – A Drought of Action: A Flood of politics, Vested Interests and
Nimbyism
Averaged over Australia, the 2010 spring was the wettest on record.
The heavy rainfall in 2010 marked a reversal of dry conditions across Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria and South Australia, which had dominated the first nine years of the decade.
The Murray-Darling Basin had its wettest year on record, ending the record sequence of years with
below-average rainfall starting in 2001. This rainfall led to a dramatic recovery in water storages
across the Basin. Storages started the year at 26 per cent (6 500 193 ML) of capacity and reached 80
per cent (20 390 963 ML) at the start of 2011. This is based on data collected by the Bureau of
Meteorology for 80 storages within the Murray-Darling Basin. In terms of surface water, soil moisture
and annual rainfall totals, 2010 effectively ended the ‘long dry’ that commenced in late 1996 in the far
southeast of mainland Australia and in late 2001 across much of the Murray-Darling Basin.
BoM Annual Climate Summary 2010
Release of the Guide to the Basin Plan:
6 The concurrent execution of Phase 1 advertising and the release of the Guide to the Basin
Plan may also have impacted on the ability of the campaign to cut-through. Once the Guide to
the Basin Plan was released, there was an enormous amount of information put into the public
domain by all forms of the media, farming and community groups, State and Territory
governments, the Opposition and the Australian Government. The ability of the paid Water for the
Future advertising to cut-through may well have been impacted by the ‘noise’ created by all of the
other messages in the public domain through October 2010.
Media Monitors’ analysis of the top five political stories coinciding with the timing of the ‘Water for
the Future’ campaign, outlined the extensive and heated public debate that was taking place in
the public domain in relation to the Murray Darling Basin and the release of the Guide to the
Murray Darling Basin Plan.
o
In the week of the 10 to 17 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue was the top political story
as noted by Media Monitors. Media Monitors commented that
“The prospect of cutbacks to irrigation water allocations in the Murray Darling Basin
continued to be the most widely reported issue in federal government jurisdiction during
the week. The Murray Darling Basin Authority faced hostile and sometimes ugly protests
at public meetings as it sought to explain its Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan,
issued on 8 October.”
o
During the week of the 18 to 24 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue continued to be one
of the top five political stories as reported by Media Monitors. Media Monitors commented
that:
“Debate over the development of a management plan for the Murray Darling Basin
resulted in extensive coverage in all media around the country – and seems likely to
continue to do so in the future.”
Media Monitors also noted that:
“The Murray Darling Basin Authority continued its series of public meetings following the
8 October release of its ‘guide’ to the preparation of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB)
Plan, but appeared to have no success in stemming criticism. Many stakeholders and
sections of the media have added to the debate with views that treat the guide as if it
were, in fact, the final plan. The release of extensive technical data at the end of the
week served only to heighten criticism.”
o
During the week of 24 to 30 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue remained one of the top
five political stories of the week, with Media Monitors summarising the issue as:
“The Murray Darling Basin debate took a new direction with a reinterpretation of the
Water Act 2007, but this did little to reassure protestors as the Murray Darling Basin
Authority continued its public consultation meetings.”
1.4. Recommendations for moving forward
People in the Basin community, particularly farmers, clearly have a need for, and interest in effective
communication of the ‘Water for the Future’ program generally and specifically what it offers them.
For future phases of the campaign CBSR suggests the following steps are required:
1. A Campaign Logic is developed for the 2nd phase of the campaign which clearly articulates
the overall outcome the campaign is required to contribute to and the specific changes in
awareness, attitudes and behaviours it is required to achieve.
2. New developmental research is required to guide the creative brief for the 2 nd phase of the
campaign. This research must provide an understanding of the new context (increased
rainfall, flooding, the release of the Guide to the Basin Plan and both community and media
reaction to it), and provide direction in terms of the most effective messages and media to
use in the current context to achieve the desired outcomes.
3. Material is developed and tested to ensure key messages are effectively delivered through
the executions – the key messages being explicitly designed to impact on agreed awareness,
attitude and behaviour objectives.
4. The likely cut-through of the materials is tested in addition to the content to ensure that
people will notice the advertising and re-call the messages.
5. A careful review of the role of the media and PR appears to be warranted given that twice as
many people gained information about the program from ‘news and media reports’ than any
of the paid advertising. At a minimum ensuring that the program name ‘Water for the Future’
is prominent on all press releases and a briefing for journalists on the Water for the Future
program should be considered.
6. A baseline study immediately prior to the launch of the next phase of the campaign with
sufficient sample sizes of all groups of interest will improve the ability of the research to
evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign given the highly volatile environment it is likely to
be launched into.
7. If raising awareness of specific programs and initiatives other than just ‘Water for the Future’
is a goal of the next phase of the campaign, it is important that future post-campaign tracking
research include prompted awareness of programs and initiatives.
8. Given the high levels of interest in seeking further information about the ‘Water for the Future’
program once people are made aware of it, a focus on making this information accessible
and readily available should be considered. Providing clear avenues for people to go in order
to get this information should be a priority, including a specifically named website for ‘Water
for the Future’. In addition, understanding target audiences’ channel and content preferences
should also be considered in order to tailor the content of the information to meet their needs.
In order to achieve the communication objectives set for future phases of the campaign, it is critical
that paid advertising cuts-through the clutter of other messages on this topic which target the same
audiences and is developed to ‘work with’ rather than ‘against’ the high emotions and antagonism that
currently exist within the Basin community.
2. Water for the Future Campaign
Evaluation
Colmar Brunton Social Research’s (CBSR) approach to evaluating communication campaigns looks
at three key questions:
1. What was done?
2. What impact did it have?
3. What are the next steps?
2.1. What was done?
Background to the communication strategy
In April 2008, the Australian Government announced a 10 year, multi-billion dollar Water for the
Future initiative to help secure water supplies for irrigators, households, businesses and the
environment and to ensure water is put to its most productive use. The Water for the Future
programs address four key objectives 1) Taking action on climate change; 2) Using water wisely; 3)
Securing water supplies; and 4) Supporting healthy rivers and wetlands.
Prior to October 2010, Water for the Future communication activity focussed on awareness and key
stakeholder recruitment and engagement activities targeted at groups and communities in the
Murray-Darling Basin. To this point, all activities were ‘below the line’ and there had been no major
expenditure on communication of any kind.
Developmental or formative research was undertaken in early 2010. The developmental research
revealed low levels of awareness about the Water for the Future initiative and even lower levels of
knowledge and understanding. The developmental research also found that individuals and
communities expressed deep concerns, confusion and anxiety about proposed water management.
The Department concluded that a significant communication effort was required to support better
awareness and understanding of the Water for the Future initiative to ensure greater participation
amongst those that can benefit from Water for the Future. The Department concluded that a
communication campaign focussed on the Murray-Darling Basin and communities dependent on the
Basin for their water was required given:
7 At the core of Water for the Future is the need for Australians residing in and using water from
the Basin to better understand water reform initiatives as they determine their own individual
and community responses to a future with reduced water availability;
7 The timing of a number of major programs, in particular the Basin Plan, will have direct effects
on communities and farmers in the Basin; and
7 The need to provide prominent and easy to access information on Water for the Future to
assist people impacted by reduced water availability to better understand their rights and
obligations, and enhance public access and greater participation in water reform programs.
In planning for this campaign, the Department commissioned market research suppliers, an
advertising agency and a media agency. A best practice process was followed, including:
7 The appointment of a market research supplier to conduct developmental or formative
research;
7 The incorporation of the findings from the developmental research into the ongoing
development of the communication strategy;
7 The appointment of an advertising agency to develop appropriate creative executions;
7 The appointment of a market research supplier to test and re-test the creative executions with
the target audiences; and
7 The use of a media agency to advise on appropriate communication channel strategy.
The communication strategy
The Water for the Future campaign aimed to raise awareness about water reform and other water
issues. The key campaign message is:
‘We are preparing Australia for a future with less water, and this affects everybody in the Basin and
those reliant on its water.’
Its objective was also to:
7 Increase awareness and understandings of rights and obligations under current and proposed
water reforms, achieve more equitable access to programs and policies, as well as boost
program participation;
7 Build awareness and understanding of water issues and water reform in the Basin, particularly
the Basin Plan, water purchasing and infrastructure programs;
7 Prepare farmers and rural communities for a future with decreased water availability; and
7 Build awareness and understanding in Adelaide about the importance and impact of Basin
water reform to Adelaide’s future water supply.
. In recognition of the program’s ten-year life-span and message complexity, the campaign is
intended to be rolled-out over multiple phases. As the largest structural changes for water are
occurring in the Murray-Darling Basin, this will be the communication priority and include those
communities dependant on the Basin for water. Later phases will continue to target the MurrayDarling Basin and be timed around major Basin Plan policy considerations. These phases are
illustrated and detailed overleaf:
Figure 1: Water for the Future campaign strategy [As approved by the Independent Communications
Committee (ICC) in May 2010. Note: implementation occurred with different timing to the months
indicated below]
April 2008- March 2010
April 2010
May - July lead up
activity for Basin Plan
Basin Plan
Years 1-2
• Predominantly below the line
activity
• Range of target markets
• Low levels of awareness
generated
• Significant efforts made by
farmers
Late July – August 2010
Formative
research
• Low awareness of Water for the
Future
• High concern for water issues
• Multiple complex messages
identified
• Perception the Government is not
active enough
• Everybody wants more
communication around water
reform
• Farmers want to be reassured
and recognised
November 2010 – January 2011
July – August 2011
Basin Plan
Phase 1: MurrayDarling Basin
and Adelaide
• Improve access and equity to
information
• Increase awareness, improve
understanding, inform Australians
of their role, motivate behavioural
change
• Highlight the roles of
responsibilities of basin residents
• Release of draft Basin Plan
• Major programs underway in
infrastructure, water purchasing,
desalination and water security
• TV, press, PR, online, direct mail
• $4.755 m
Phase 2: MurrayDarling Basin
and Adelaide
• Program-specific focus
• Basin Plan, Sustainable Water
Use and Infrastructure and Spring
Watering Program
• Free media, press, direct mail,
PR, online
• $1-2 m
Phase 3: MurrayDarling Basin
and Adelaide
• Basin Plan release focus
• Free media, press, PR, online
• $1-2 m
Phase 1 – October 2010
Phase 1 targeted Murray-Darling Basin farmers, residents and communities including those
dependant on the Basin for its water supply (i.e. Adelaide). The mass media element was conducted
over four weeks in October with complementary below-the-line elements to extend the reach and ‘cutthrough’ (defined as the level of awareness among the target audience of the advertising and the key
messages it aimed to communicate) of the campaign. The campaign aimed to support key Water for
the Future programs and stages and deliver important messages about water reform activities.
Phase 1 coincided with the release of the proposed Basin Plan, which contained sustainable
diversion limits for water extraction.
As per the figure above, the primary communication objectives for Phase 1 of the communication
campaign were to:
7 Improve access and equity to information;
7 Increase awareness, improve understanding, inform Australians of their role, motivate
behavioural change; and
7 Highlight the roles and responsibilities of Basin residents.
The overarching key messages for Phase 1 of the campaign were:
7 Changes in water availability will have a profound impact on farmers, communities and those
who rely on the Basin for their water supplies. Water for the Future has a range of policies
and programs to help the Murray-Darling Basin prepare for a future with less water; and
7 To find out more about Water for the Future call 1800 218 478 or visit
www.australia.gov.au/water.
Primary target audiences
Farmers
7 Water for the Future has a range of programs to help irrigators improve their irrigation
efficiency as we prepare for a future with less water;
7 Changes in water availability will have a profound impact on irrigators but programs are in
place to prepare them for a future with less water;
7 Water for the Future is purchasing water to put back in the rivers. This complements the water
savings made through improved irrigation efficiency;
7 The Basin Plan aims to put the Murray-Darling Basin on a sustainable footing so that farmers,
communities and the environment can prosper into the future; and
7 The proposed Basin Plan has been released. Have your say and help shape the future of the
Murray-Darling Basin.
Murray-Darling Basin Communities
7 Communities in the Murray-Darling Basin are eligible for a range of programs to help secure
their future water supplies;
7 Water for the Future has an important role to play in helping Murray-Darling Basin
communities understand and plan for reduced water availability;
7 The Basin Plan aims to put the Murray-Darling Basin on a sustainable footing so that farmers,
communities and the environment can prosper into the future; and
7 The proposed Basin Plan has been released. Have your say and help shape the future of the
Murray-Darling Basin.
Adelaide
7 Water for the Future has a range of programs to help communities who rely on the MurrayDarling Basin for their water supplies develop new water sources; and
7 To build upon water savings efforts already underway in Adelaide, Water for the Future is
funding new and innovative water supply projects, including desalination, recycled water and
stormwater harvesting to help the city prepare for a future with less water availability from the
Murray River.
Media strategy
The primary communication channels utilised for Phase 1 included television, newspapers, online,
outdoor advertising and Indigenous radio.
Direct mail was a recommended channel, but was not executed. Radio advertising was not
recommended and not executed (apart from Indigenous radio, as noted previously).
The advertising campaign timeframes for each channel of the Phase 1 Media Plan included:
7
7
7
7
7
7
Television advertising: 18 October to 7 November 2010;
Metro and regional, rural press: 13 October to 9 November 2010;
NESB press: 24 to 31 October 2010;
Indigenous radio: 24 October to 14 November 2010;
Digital display: 17 October to 13 November 2010; and
Outdoor advertising: 7 to 28 November 2010.
2.2. What impact was achieved?
This section summarises pre and post-campaign levels of awareness, attitudes and behaviours in
order to identify whether changes have occurred which may be attributable to the campaign.
Results
Overall the campaign does not appear to have significantly impacted on awareness of the ‘Water for
the Future’ program possibly due to very low ‘cut-through’ (levels of awareness) of the paid
advertising. It has not improved perceptions of feeling informed, although those surveyed expressed
keen interest in seeking further information about the ‘Water for the Future’ program. No behavioural
change resulted from the campaign and only one attitude changed positively with a decline in
agreement among the general public in the Basin that ‘Individuals can’t really make much different to
the amount of water saved’ between the baseline (18%) and Wave 4 (11%) with disagreement
increasing over the same period from 79% to 88%.
However, the campaign may have had some impact in bringing negative attitudes back to precampaign levels, possibly arresting declines that would have continued without the campaign due to
the rainfall experienced. Specifically the attitudes that changed back to baseline levels were
disagreement that ‘Australia faces major water shortages’ (general public and farmers), ‘the drought
has changed the way I view water’ (farmers and general public), ‘Individuals can’t really make much
difference to the amount of water saved’ (general public only) and that ‘The Australian Government
should control the amount of water irrigators can use’ (general public only). It is not possible to
definitely attribute these changes to the campaign as there was no measure immediately prior to the
campaign to determine pre-campaign attitudes.
Limitations of results
The ability of Phase 1 of the campaign to be effective and the ability of the tracking research to detect
its effectiveness are likely to have been impacted by several factors, as outlined below. A number of
these relate to the timing of events and are summarised in this timeline.
Timing of events
April 2010
September 2010
8 October 2010
10 October 2010
14 October 2010
16 October 2010
22-28 October 2010
29 Oct – 4 Nov 2010
7 November 2010
5-11 November 2010
12-18 November 2010
Campaign developmental research
Widespread record-breaking rainfall, flooding in Victoria
Release of Guide to the Basin Plan
Start of media campaign
Flooding in SE QLD (disaster assistance funding announced)
Flooding in NSW (disaster assistance funding announced)
Wave 1 of CBSR tracking research
Wave 2 of CBSR tracking research
End of media campaign
Wave 3 of CBSR tracking research
Wave 4 of CBSR tracking research

The communication planning, development and testing was undertaken in an environment of
very low rainfall. However, the advertising was executed at a time of high rainfall (see
Weather factors). It is possible that the difference in weather conditions may have impacted
on the cut-through of the advertising and the credibility of the messages. As Media Monitors
concluded from their research:
“There is a danger that when the drought breaks and dams fill, many Australians will believe
the water issue is resolved as much discussion has focussed on drought – there is
insufficient recognition of the long-term deep-seated inadequacies in Australia’s policy,
infrastructure and management systems in relation to water.”
Weather factors
Averaged over Australia, the 2010 spring was the wettest on record.
The heavy rainfall in 2010 marked a reversal of dry conditions across Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria and South Australia, which had dominated the first nine years of the decade.
The Murray-Darling Basin had its wettest year on record, ending the record sequence of years with
below-average rainfall starting in 2001. This rainfall led to a dramatic recovery in water storages
across the Basin. Storages started the year at 26 per cent (6 500 193 ML) of capacity and reached 80
per cent (20 390 963 ML) at the start of 2011. This is based on data collected by the Bureau of
Meteorology for 80 storages within the Murray-Darling Basin. In terms of surface water, soil moisture
and annual rainfall totals, 2010 effectively ended the ‘long dry’ that commenced in late 1996 in the far
southeast of mainland Australia and in late 2001 across much of the Murray-Darling Basin.
BoM Annual Climate Summary 2010

The concurrent execution of Phase 1 advertising and the release of the Guide to the
Basin Plan may also have impacted on the ability of the campaign to cut-through. Once the
Guide to the Basin Plan was released, there was an enormous amount of information put into
the public domain by all forms of the media, farming and community groups, State and
Territory governments, the Opposition and the Australian Government. The ability of the paid
Water for the Future advertising to cut-through may well have been impacted by the ‘noise’
created by all of the other messages in the public domain through October 2010.
Media Monitors analysis of the top five political stories coinciding with the timing of the ‘Water
for the Future’ campaign, outlined the extensive and heated public debate that was taking
place in the public domain in relation to the Murray Darling Basin and the release of the
Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
o
In the week of the 10 to 17 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue was the top
political story as noted by Media Monitors. Media Monitors commented that::
“The prospect of cutbacks to irrigation water allocations in the Murray Darling Basin
continued to be the most widely reported issue in federal government jurisdiction during
the week. The Murray Darling Basin Authority faced hostile and sometimes ugly protests
at public meetings as it sought to explain its Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan,
issued on 8 October.”
o
During the week of the 18 to 24 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue continued to
be one of the top five political stories as reported by Media Monitors. Media Monitors
commented that:
“Debate over the development of a management plan for the Murray Darling Basin
resulted in extensive coverage in all media around the country – and seems likely to
continue to do so in the future.”
Media Monitors also noted that:
“The Murray Darling Basin Authority continued its series of public meetings following the
8 October release of its ‘guide’ to the preparation of the Murray Darling Basin (MDB)
Plan, but appeared to have no success in stemming criticism. Many stakeholders and
sections of the media have added to the debate with views that treat the guide as if it
were, in fact, the final plan. The release of extensive technical data at the end of the
week served only to heighten criticism.”
o
During the week of 24 to 30 October 2010, the Murray Darling issue remained one of
the top five political stories of the week, with Media Monitors summarising the issue
as:
“The Murray Darling Basin debate took a new direction with a reinterpretation of the
Water Act 2007, but this did little to reassure protestors as the Murray Darling Basin
Authority continued its public consultation meetings.”

Unfortunately due to the time required to go through a competitive tendering process to select
an agency to conduct the tracking research, and Government campaign approval
requirements through the Independent Communications Committee following the
developmental research, there was insufficient time for a baseline study to be conducted
immediately prior to the campaign launch in October 2010. This meant the only baseline
information available was a survey conducted in April 2010. The lack of a baseline study
immediately prior to a campaign launch reduces the ability of tracking research to accurately
measure the full impact of a campaign as there is no way of knowing what levels of
awareness, attitudes and behaviour existed immediately prior to the launch. In this specific
situation due to the level of activity that occurred and the media coverage and high emotions
involved, it would appear likely that awareness, attitudes and behaviour were quite different in
October 2010 than in April 2010. Therefore, it may be that the campaign could have had far
more of a positive impact than it is possible to detect without this measure.
In addition the reliance on the April 2010 survey data to provide a baseline created problems
for the campaign evaluation as only a very small number (n=53) of farmers in the Basin
region were included in the April survey, allowing only changes of greater than +/- 13.5%
to be detected3. A baseline survey immediately prior to the campaign launch would have
been focussed on the target audience for the campaign rather than the general community
and allowed for much smaller changes to have been detected.

Due to the reduced survey length available for the tracking research (10 mins) in comparison
to the benchmark research (20 minutes), it was not possible to include all of the questions
that were used in the benchmark in the tracking research. Unfortunately the question asking
for prompted awareness of the programs available to people in the basin community was not
included in the tracking research. Given the poor recall of the ‘Water for the Future’ name
following phase one of the campaign and very low levels of unprompted awareness of any of
the initiatives it is important that in any future tracking (if program awareness is a key
objective) prompted awareness of programs are included.

Whilst the Department followed a best-practice approach in developing the campaign
materials it is noted that all feedback from the communications testing research
focussed on improving the content rather than the cut-through of the executions. For
example ‘Water for the Future’ is not prominently displayed in the advertising material used
for Phase 1 of the campaign and neither is the Australian Government Logo. Although
program recall was not an objective of the campaign, the campaign could not deliver high
recall of the ‘Water for the Future’ program without prominent placement of this name. The
lack of the word Water in the core headline ‘We’re securing our future drop by drop’ and the
use of ‘securing’ which is generally associated with national security may both have reduced
the impact of the executions to stand-out in the minds of the target audience as being about
‘Water for the Future’.
The results of this research are limited by the above issues and should be taken in that context.
These issues and the learning from them are explored further in the next section of this document.
Awareness
Awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program among both farmers and the general public did not
increase between April 2010 and November 2010 suggesting that the campaign had no impact in
raising awareness of the program.
6 Farmers had the highest awareness and this remained stable across the benchmark and four
tracking waves (57% Benchmark, 56% at W1, 52% at W2, 57% at W3, and 51% at W4).
6 The General public in the Basin and Basin affected communities 4 had lower awareness and this
also remained consistent across the benchmark and four tracking waves (34% Benchmark, 41%
at W1, 42% at W2, 40% at W3, and 38% at W4).5
3
The error rate associated with the Tracking waves sample size of n=200 farmers is +/-6.9% given a 95%
confidence level.
4
Includes data for both Basin effected communities (Woolcott Research - Benchmark) and the general public
living in Basin (CBSR data – waves 1 to 4).
5
The shift from 34% in the benchmark to higher results in the tracking is not statistically significant.
6 Awareness among the general public in Adelaide was the lowest of all target groups (48% at W1,
40% at W2, 32% at W3, and 32% at W4).
Sources of information
Among farmers and the general public who had heard of the ‘Water for the Future’ campaign, the
most commonly mentioned channel and sources of information (unprompted) across all four waves
was ‘news and media reports’. 6
6 Farmers (48% at W1, 52% at W2, 62% at W3, and 62% at W4).
6 General public living in the Basin (35% at W1, 39% at W2, 46% at W3, 61% at W4).
6 General public living in Adelaide (62% at W1, 45% at W2, 53% at W3, and 35% at W4).
Television advertising achieved the greatest cut-through (awareness) across all target audiences.
However, the cut-through result achieved is lower than government advertising campaigns typically
achieve 7at around 20% across the research waves. Interestingly, for farmers, the cut-through of
newspaper advertising closely followed that of television. Outdoor and online advertising achieved
less than 10% cut-through with outdoor performing slightly better than online.
Television advertising recall
7 Farmers (26% at W1, 28% at W2, 27% at W3, and 20% at W4).
7 General public living in the Basin (22% at W1, 26% at W2, 24% at W3, and 24% at W4).
7 General public living in Adelaide (22% at W1, 22% at W2, 14% at W3, and 26% at W4).
Newspaper advertising recall
7 Farmers (25% at W1, 26% at W2, 18% at W3, 26% at W4).
7 General public living in the Basin (16% at W1, 20% at W2, 15% at W3 and 13% at W4).
7 General public living in Adelaide (15% at W1, 13% at W2, 17% at W3, and 8% at W4).
Outdoor advertising recall
7 Farmers (3% at W1, 7% at W2, 1% at W3, and 4% at W4).
7 General public living in the Basin (6% at W1, 7% at W2, 6% at W3, and 4% at W4).
7 General public living in Adelaide (10% at W1, 6% at W2, 6% at W3, and 8% at W4).
Online/internet advertising recall
7 Farmers (3% at W1, 3% at W2, 1% at W3, and 1% at W4).
6
Note: comparisons to the benchmark phase (undertaken by Woolcott Research) is not possible for this
question, as it was not included in the benchmark questionnaire.
7
The last 5 government advertising campaigns CBSR has evaluated have all achieved over 70% recall.
7 General public living in the Basin (3% at W1, 5% at W2, 2% at W3, and 2% at W4).
7 General public living in Adelaide (6% at W1, 6% at W2, 8% at W3, and 0% at W4).
Feeling informed
There was no change in the very low levels of people feeling informed about the ‘Water for the
Future’ program over the four waves of tracking suggesting the campaign has had no impact in
improving perceptions of feeling informed.8
6 How well farmers felt informed about the ‘Water for the Future’ program was low across the four
waves (9% at W1, 9% at W2, 4% at W3 and 6% at W4).
6 Among general public living in the Basin, feeling informed about the ‘Water for the Future’
program did not improve across the four waves (4% at W1, 4% at W2, 6% at W3 and 2% at W4).
6 Among general public living in Adelaide, feeling informed about the ‘Water for the Future’
program remained low over the four waves (7% at W1, 9% at W2, 2% at W3, and 2% at W4).
Further information seeking
There were relatively high levels of likelihood to seek further information over the four waves of the
research with approximately one third of all participants indicating they were likely to seek further
information. This is supported by information provided by the Department, which suggested 128,674
website page views from campaign launch (13 October) to 14 December. There were also 400 calls
to the 1800 number from 11 October to 12 November.9 Interestingly, farmers who were aware of the
‘Water for the Future’ program were more likely than those who were not aware of it to seek further
information.
6 Among farmers, the likelihood to seek further information about the ‘Water for the Future’
program was the highest of all target groups (42% at W1, 40% at W2, 43% at W3 and 34% at
W4).
7 The likelihood of farmers to seek further information about the program was also significantly
greater among those who were aware of the ‘Water for the Future’ program in waves 1, 2 and
4 (50% at W1, 50% at W2, 45% at W4), compared to those who were not aware of the
program in these waves (34% at W1, 29% at W2, 23% at W4 respectively).
6 Among the general public living in the Basin, the likelihood to seek further information about the
‘Water for the Future’ program was the lowest of all target groups (28% at W1, 30% at W2, 27%
at W3 and 26% at W4).
6 Among the general public living in Adelaide, the likelihood to seek further information about the
‘Water for the Future’ program has fluctuated over the four waves (30% at W1, 31% at W2, 15%
at W3, and 34% at W4).
8
Note: comparisons to the benchmark phase (undertaken by Woolcott Research) are not possible for this
question, as it was not included in the benchmark questionnaire.
9 Note: comparisons to the benchmark phase (undertaken by Woolcott Research) is not possible for this
question, as it was not included in the benchmark questionnaire.
Awareness of the Guide to the Basin Plan
Overall, the majority of each target audience was aware of the release of the Guide to the MurrayDarling Basin Plan. The results remained consistent across the four waves, for all the target groups,
with farmers being the most aware of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
6 Farmers (87% at W1, 90% at W2, 94% at W3, and 88% at W4).
6 The general public living in the Basin (77% at W1, 79% at W2, 74% at W3, and 78% at W4).
6 The general public living in Adelaide (64% at W1, 62% at W2, 57% at W3, and 62% at W4).
Concern about Australia’s water situation
Over the next ten years, concern about drought, and the water situation in Australia was higher than
concern about climate change across each of the target audiences. The only significant change in
the level of concern from the benchmark in April 2010 and the final wave of research (November
2010), was a decrease in concern about the water situation among the general public living in the
Basin.
6 Farmers were the most concerned about the drought (68% at Benchmark, 75% at W1, 77% at
W2, 79% at W3, and 77% at W4), and the water situation (80% at Benchmark, 73% at W1, 74%
at W2, 77% at W3, and 76% at W4) over the next ten years. Climate change was of least
concern to farmers (43% at Benchmark, 39% at W1, 40% at W2, 34% at W3, and 39% at W4)
over the next ten years.
6 The general public living in the Basin were less concerned about climate change (52% at
Benchmark 49% at W1, 51% at W2, 55% at W3 and 53% at W4), compared to the drought (74%
at Benchmark, 68% at W1, 68% at W2, 68% at W3 and 69% at W4), and the water situation in
Australia over the next ten years (89% at Benchmark, 76% at W1, 78% at W2, 77% at W3 and
77% at W4). There was a significant decline in concern about the water situation among this
target group from benchmark.
6 The general public living in Adelaide were the least concerned about climate change (51% at
W1, 56% at W2, 59% at W3 and 55% at W4), when compared to the drought (66% at W1, 78% at
W2, 66% at W3 and 58% at W4), and the water situation in Australia over the next ten years (80%
at W1, 85% at W2, 81% at W3 and 72% at W4).
Change in concern about water
People were asked whether they have more, less or the same levels of concern about water now
compared to six months ago.
There were similar levels of concern about water among farmers and the general public living in the
Basin and Basin affected communities. Among both these groups, there was a significant decline in
those who felt ‘less concerned’ in the final wave compared to the benchmark, and a corresponding
significant increase in those whose level of concern was the ‘same’ in the final wave and the
benchmark. The proportion who felt more concerned did not change significantly among farmers but
declined among the general public and those living in Adelaide.
6 Among farmers, approximately a quarter (23% at Benchmark, 26% at W1, 23% at W2, 23% at
W3 and 22% at W4) indicated they are more concerned about water now compared to six months
ago.
6 Among the general public living in the Basin, there was a significant decline in those who were
more concerned about water now compared to six months ago, at benchmark (28%) to wave 3
(20%) and wave 4 (20%).
6 Among the general public living in Adelaide, there was a change in the level of concern over the
four waves, with an increase in concern in wave 2 (30% at W1, 42% at W2, 26% at W3, 19% at
W4).
Water conservation practices
Nearly all water conservation practices declined from benchmark (April 2010) to tracking wave 4
(November 2010) among the general public living in the Basin and Basin affected communities. 10
6 Among farmers, the most common conservation practice in all four waves was the use of
rainwater tanks (46% at W1, 53% at W2, 58% at W3 and 62% at W4). There was a significant
increase in the use of rainwater tanks from W1 (46%) to W4 (62%).
6 Among general public living in the Basin and Basin affected communities, short showers was
the most common water conservation practice (86% at Benchmark, 43% at W1, 41% at W2, 42%
at W3, 55% at W4), with a significant increase from Wave 3 (42%) to Wave 4 (55%). There was a
significant decrease in nearly all water conservation practices from benchmark to tracking wave 1
to 4.
6 The water conservation practices among the general public living in Adelaide varied across the
four waves, with low water use gardens (39%) as their primary water conservation method at
Wave 1. The primary practice at Waves 2 and 3 was taking short showers (30% at W1,
significantly increasing to 53% at W2, and 38% at W3).
Attitude to water conservation and drought
Overall the campaign appears to have had less impact with farmers than the general community in
the basin with the attitudes of farmers generally either remaining consistent with pre-campaign levels
or changing negatively – potentially as a result of the rainfall they experienced – and the attitudes of
the general community remaining consistent with benchmark levels. The exception is agreement that
‘Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount of water saved’ decreased significantly
among the general public in the basin between the baseline (18%) and Wave 4 (11%) with
disagreement increasing over the same period from 79% to 88%.
Whilst there is only one attitude which has changed positively from pre-campaign levels, the
campaign does appear to have had some impact in bringing negative attitudes back to pre-campaign
levels, possibly arresting declines that would have continued without the campaign due to the rainfall
experienced. Specifically the attitudes that changed back to baseline levels were disagreement that
‘Australia faces major water shortages’ (general public and farmers), ‘the drought has changed the
10
Results for this question were not asked of farmers in the Benchmark phase (Woolcott Research).
way I view water’ (farmers and general public), ‘Individuals can’t really make much difference to the
amount of water saved’ (general public only) and that ‘The Australian Government should control the
amount of water irrigators can use’ (general public only).






Whilst there was no statistically significant change from the benchmark to Wave 4 in
agreement among farmers that ‘Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount
of waters saved’, there was a statistically significant decline in agreement among the general
public in the basin from 18% agreement in the benchmark to 11% agreement in Wave 4
suggesting the campaign may have had an impact on this attitude.
Agreement that ‘Australia faces major water shortages’ has declined significantly among
farmers from 86% in the Benchmark to 70% in wave 4. (This is likely to be a result of the
rainfall). However, levels of disagreement whilst increasing from the benchmark (10%) to
Wave 1 (21%) and Wave 2 (27%) declined in Wave 3 (19%) and Wave 4 (17%) to being no
different statistically from benchmark levels. Among the general public in the basin area
there was also a significant decline in agreement from the benchmark (84%) to waves 1
(76%) and wave 2 (77%) but agreement increased again in Waves 3 (78%) and wave 4
(79%) to be statistically no different to the benchmark. It appears possible that the campaign
may have had a small impact on increasing levels of concern among the general public and
farmers given that this level increased within the campaign period and in arresting lowering
levels of concern among farmers despite the rainfall.
Whilst agreement among farmers that ‘the Australian Government should control the amount
of water irrigators can use’ decreased from the benchmark (57%) to Wave 4 (33%), the
decline in agreement shown in Wave 1 (52%) and Wave 2 (51%) was reduced in Wave 3
(60%) and Wave 4 (58%) among the general public in the basin area back to benchmark
levels (61%) again suggesting that the campaign may have had some impact in increasing
agreement among the general public.
Farmers’ agreement that ‘the Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a
future with less water’ declined from the benchmark 80% to Wave 4 (66%). However,
agreement among the general public in the basin remained consistent at 82% in the
benchmark and 81% in Wave 4. This result suggests the campaign was not successful in
impacting positively on this attitude.
Disagreement that ‘the drought has changed the way I view water’ declined significantly
among both farmers (19%) in Wave 2 and the general public in the basin (13%) in Wave 1
compared to benchmark levels (farmers 35%, general public 22%), however disagreement
increased to be statistically no different to benchmark levels by Wave 4 (farmers 28%,
general public 18%) suggesting the campaign may have arrested the decline.
There was no statistically significant changes from the benchmark to Wave 4 in agreement
among farmers or the general public in the basin that ‘the drought has changed the way I
view water’ and that ‘people are conserving enough water already’ suggesting the campaign
had no impact on these attitudes.
2.3. What are the next steps?
People in the basin community, particularly farmers, clearly have a need for and interest in effective
communication of the ‘Water for the Future’ program generally and specifically what it offers them.
For future phases of the campaign CBSR suggests the following steps are required:
9. A Campaign Logic is developed for the 2nd phase of the campaign which clearly articulates
the overall outcome the campaign is required to contribute to and the specific changes in
awareness, attitudes and behaviours it is required to achieve.
10. New developmental research is required to guide the creative brief for the 2 nd phase of the
campaign. This research must provide an understanding of the new context (increased
rainfall, flooding, the release of the Guide to the Basin Plan and both community and media
reaction to it), and provide direction in terms of the most effective messages and media to
use in the current context to achieve the desired outcomes.
11. Material is developed and tested to ensure key messages are effectively delivered through
the executions – the key messages being explicitly designed to impact on agreed awareness,
attitudes and behaviours.
12. The likely cut-through of the materials is tested in addition to the content to ensure that
people will notice the advertising and re-call the messages.
13. A careful review of the role of the media and PR appears to be warranted given that twice as
many people gained information about the program from ‘news and media reports’ than any
of the paid advertising. At a minimum ensuring that the program name ‘Water for the Future’
is prominent on all press releases and a briefing for journalists on the Water for the Future
program should be considered. .
14. A baseline study immediately prior to the launch of the next phase of the campaign with
sufficient sample sizes of all groups of interest will improve the ability of the research to
evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign given the highly volatile environment it is likely to
be launched into.
15. If raising awareness of specific programs and initiatives other than just ‘Water for the Future’
is a goal of the next phase of the campaign, it is important that future post-campaign tracking
research include prompted awareness of programs and initiatives.
16. Given the high levels of interest in seeking further information about the ‘Water for the Future’
program once people are made aware of it, a focus on making this information accessible
and readily available should be considered. Providing clear avenues for people to go in order
to get this information should be a priority, including a specifically named website for ‘Water
for the Future’. In addition, understanding target audiences’ channel and content preferences
should also be considered in order to tailor the content of the information to meet their needs.
In order to achieve the communication objectives set for future phases of the campaign, it is critical
that paid advertising cuts-through the clutter of other messages on this topic which target the same
audiences and is developed to ‘work with’ rather than ‘against’ the high emotions and antagonism that
currently exist within the Basin community.
2.4.
3. Introduction
3.1. Background
Many of Australia's river systems are under stress as a result of climate change, drought and a history
of unsustainable take. The Australian Government is responding via a myriad of investments in
programs and initiatives aimed to improve the health of our rivers by:
Developing and implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which sets a sustainable level of
water that can be taken out of rivers and groundwater systems in the Basin, and prepares an
Environmental Watering Plan for the Basin;
Providing $3.1 billion to buy water entitlements which can be used for the environment, and
Allocating Commonwealth water to the environmental assets that most need to be protected or
restored;
Providing $5.8 billion to irrigation, to improve the efficiency and productivity of on-farm irrigation
water use and management, help irrigation water providers develop modernisation plans for their
districts, upgrade irrigation infrastructure and assess options to adapt to a future with less water;
and fund private irrigation infrastructure operators to modernise and upgrade irrigation
infrastructure both on and off farm.
Providing assistance to Australian households and surf lifesaving clubs save potable water
supplies by installing rainwater tanks and greywater recycling systems; and
Helping households save water and money with the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
(WELS) Scheme.
The ‘Water for the Future’ program aims to help cities and towns secure their water supplies and
prepare for a future with less water by:
Raising awareness of local and household water conservation practices, and the need to save
water;
Supporting local governments in the Murray-Darling Basin to assist in community-wide planning
for a future with less water and investing in water savings initiatives;
Investing in desalination, water recycling and stormwater harvesting and reuse projects to reduce
reliance on rainfall; and
Funding practical projects that save water, and reduce water losses in towns and cities across
Australia.
The Murray-Darling Basin
The greatest focus for the ‘Water for the Future’ initiative is on the Murray-Darling Basin to provide
farmers and communities with more confidence to plan for a future with less water, to put water use
on a sustainable footing, to enhance irrigation productivity, and to improve river and wetland health.
The Murray-Darling Basin has supported communities and primary and secondary industry through
the delivery of water via state-regulated entitlement systems for use by farmers and other consumers.
More than 9,000 gigalitres of water can be stored in the four major storages under the control of the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), enabled by the construction of Lake Victoria Storage, Hume
and Dartmouth dams, and gaining partial authority over the Menindee Lakes. These water supply
developments have contributed to the economic and social growth of the Basin within rural, regional
and major urban communities, such as Adelaide; but also for Australia as a whole.
The rivers and streams of the Murray-Darling Basin are under enormous stress as a result of rapid
storage construction particularly in the 1950s, excessive and continuing water-allocations based on a
series of wet year inflows to storages, prolonged drought, natural climate variability, and emerging
climate change.
The Lower Murray is dying because too much water is being extracted upstream of the junction of the
Murray and the Darling. A figure of 20-30% of flow diverted for consumptive use has been postulated
as the maximum amount of flow that can be extracted for a prolonged period without having a major
impact on river health. The challenge for the Basin as a whole is to restore a major river system to a
healthy state, so that it can sustain its environment, enhance and maintain the services it provides,
and support the communities and industries that depend on it.
The need for communication
As outlined in the 2010 Water for the Future Communications Strategy, a significant proportion of
farmers and community members in the Murray-Darling Basin have no or low levels of awareness and
poor understanding of ‘Water for the Future’ programs and policies. Based on developmental
research, the Department took the view that a paid media campaign focussed on the Murray-Darling
Basin and communities dependent on the Basin for their water, was required based on:
6 The need for Australians residing and using water from the Basin to better understand water
reform initiatives as they determine their own individual and community responses to a future with
reduced water availability;
6 The timing of a number of major programs, in particular the Basin Plan, will have direct effects on
communities and farmers in the Basin; and
6 The need to provide easy to access information on ‘Water for the Future’ to assist people
impacted by reduced water availability to better understand their rights and obligations, and
enhance public access and greater participation in water reform programs.
A significant public communication effort is required to support the Government’s ‘Water for the
Future’ plan to raise awareness, increase knowledge and generate positive behaviour change to
achieve more sustainable use of Australia’s water resources.
People need to be made aware of and understand the issues;
People need to be convinced that change is necessary;
They need to understand how water resources can be better managed; and
They need to know that they can make a difference and know what they can do to help.
3.2. Research objectives
The purpose of the research is to benchmark, track and evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘Water for
the Future’ campaign in achieving the communication aim and objectives.
The objectives of the campaign are to:
1. Increase awareness and understandings of rights and obligations under current and proposed
water reforms, achieve more equitable access to programs and policies, as well as boost program
participation;
2. Build awareness and understanding of water issues and water reform in the Basin, particularly the
Basin Plan, water purchasing and infrastructure programs;
3. Prepare farmers and rural communities for a future with decreased water availability; and
4. Build awareness and understanding in Adelaide about the importance and impact of Basin water
reform to Adelaide’s future water supply.
4. Methodology in Brief
The following three stage approach, incorporating four phases of fieldwork was undertaken:
6 Stage 1: Questionnaire development and testing
6 Stage 2: Benchmark (Woolcott Research),Tracking and Evaluation (CBSR) Fieldwork11
6 Stage 3: Analysis, Reporting and Presentation
4.1. Stage 1: Questionnaire development and testing
6 The quantitative questionnaires were developed in close consultation with DSEWPAC. The
design of the questionnaires took into account the need to cover all research objectives and
phases of the fieldwork.
4.2. Stage 2: Benchmark, tracking and evaluation fieldwork
Benchmark Fieldwork (Woolcott Research)
In April 2010 Woolcott Research undertook a quantitative benchmark study, which consisted of a
national survey of n=2,000 telephone interviews using a multi stage geographically stratified sampling
framework (quotas were applied for location, age and gender) for representative coverage of the
Australian population aged 18 years and over. In addition, a boost of n=250 telephone interviews was
conducted in the Murray Darling Basin. The whole sample included 132 farmers and 2118 nonfarmers. Respondents were randomly selected using the electronic White Pages, and were asked to
complete the 20 minute survey. The table below shows the breakdown of completed surveys:
Table 1: Completed surveys by Woolcott Research
Capital
Cities
Inner
Regional
Outer
Regional
Remote/Ver
y Remote
Total
NSW
VIC
445
356
115
95
20
8
2
-
582
459
QLD
233
65
58
6
362
SA
72
17
17
4
110
WA
139
24
18
6
187
ACT
100
-
-
-
100
TAS
-
64
33
3
100
NT
-
-
56
44
100
1345
380
210
65
2000
-
-
-
-
250
Target audience
TOTAL
Additional boost in
Murray Darling Basin
11
28
Timelines of CBSR engagement by DSEWPAC did not permit for a Benchmark study to be undertaken.
The boost of n=250 interviews conducted in the Murray Darling Basin comprised of n=53 farmers, and
n=173 general public living in the Basin, therefore:

The error rate associated with the Basin farmer sample of n=53 offers a margin of error of +/13.5%, at the 95% confidence interval. This means that if 50% of farmers are aware of the
‘Water for the Future’ initiative, then we can be 95% sure that the true level of awareness of
‘Water for the Future’ among farmers is between 36.5% and 63.5%.

The error rate associated with the general public living in the Basin of n=173 offers a margin
of error of +/- 7.5%, at the 95% confidence interval. This means that if 50% of the general
public in the Basin are aware of the ‘Water for the Future’ initiative, then we can be 95% sure
that the true level of awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ among the general public in the
Basin is between 42.6% and 57.5%.
The Woolcott Research quantitative fieldwork was conducted between 6th and 18th April 2010.
Tracking and Evaluation Fieldwork (CBSR)
CBSR fieldwork consisted of four phases, Waves 1 to 4. All phases of fieldwork were identical in
terms of sample sizes and target audiences as outlined in Tables 2 and 3 below. To address this
need, CBSR undertook N=600 telephone interviews each week for four weeks (total N=2,400):
1. N=200 farmers per week (N=800 total)
2. N=400 general public per week (N=1,600 total)
Table 2: Target quotas for farmers and irrigators for each wave
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
Total
n=50
n=50
n=50
n=50
n=200
15-34
7
7
7
7
n=28
35-49
15
15
15
15
n=60
50-64
19
19
19
19
n=76
9
9
9
9
n=36
Dryland
39
29
40
24
n=132
Irrigator
11
21
10
26
n=68
Age12
65+
Farm
type13
The weekly farmer sample size of n=200 offers a margin of error of +/-6.9% given a 95% confidence
level. This means that if 50% of farmers are aware of the ‘Water for the Future’ initiative, then we can
be 95% sure that the true level of awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ among farmers is between
43.1% and 56.9%.
12
13
29
Proportionate age quotas set based on Water and the Murray-Darling Basin, ABS
Proportion farm type quotas set based on statistics provided by DSEWPAC
Murray-Darling Basin residents and Adelaide residents
The 2 million people living in the Murray-Darling Basin and 1.1 million living in Adelaide are also an
important target audience for the campaign and the research. CBSR conducted N=400 telephone
interviews with Murray-Darling Basin and Adelaide residents in each week.
The table below shows CBSR’s sampling strategy for each week of the campaign. Disproportionate
quotas were set by State/Territory and location within State/Territory (i.e. metropolitan, regional /
remote) to ensure we have sufficient sample numbers in each location for analysis. Proportionate
quotas were set by age and gender. The Murray-Darling Basin and Adelaide residents’ sampling
strategy would be discussed and agreed at the scoping meeting to ensure it meets DSEWPAC’s
requirements.
Table 3: Target quotas for general public each wave
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
ACT
Total
n=100
n=100
n=50
n=100
n=50
n=400
Metropolitan
n/a
n/a
n/a
50
50
n=100
Regional/remote
100
100
50
50
n/a
n=300
Male
50
50
25
50
25
n=200
Female
50
50
25
50
25
n=200
15-34
31
31
15
31
15
n=123
35-49
26
26
13
26
13
n=104
50-64
24
24
12
24
12
n=96
65+
19
19
10
19
10
n=77
Gender14
Age15
A weekly sample size of n=400 offers a margin of error of +/-4.9% given a 95% confidence level. This
means that if 50% of residents are aware of the ‘Water for the Future’ initiative, then we can be 95%
sure that the true incidence of this target population lies between 45.1% and 54.9%.
14
15
30
Proportionate gender quotas set based on Water and the Murray-Darling Basin, ABS
Proportionate age quotas set based on Water and the Murray-Darling Basin, ABS
Fieldwork Summary
Note that due to time constraints in the commencement of the campaign and the selection process of
a market research provider to undertake the advertising campaign evaluation research, a baseline
measure could not be undertaken immediately prior to the commencement of the ‘Water for the
Future’ campaign. Hence, the CBSR tracking research commenced on the 22 October 2010,
following the start of the campaign on 13 October (press advertising).
6 Fieldwork: Benchmark
In the benchmark, Woolcott Research undertook telephone interviews with 132 farmers and 2,118
non-farmers, and a boost of 250 interviews conducted in the Murray Darling Basin. It was the
interviews in the Murray Darling Basin only that were used for comparison to CBSR tracking waves
one to four. The telephone interviews were conducted from 6th to 18th April 2010. The average
interview length was 20 minutes.
6 Fieldwork: Wave 1
In Wave 1, CBSR undertook telephone interviews with 403 general public and 202 farmers. The
telephone interviews were conducted from 22nd to 28th October 2010. The average interview length
was 10 minutes and 27 seconds.
6 Fieldwork: Wave 2
In Wave 2, CBSR undertook telephone interviews with 400 general public and 202 farmers. The
telephone interviews were conducted from 29th October to 4th November 2010. The average interview
length was 10 minutes and 2 seconds.
6 Fieldwork: Wave 3
In Wave 3, CBSR undertook telephone interviews with 401 general public and 200 farmers. The
telephone interviews were conducted from to 5th to 11th November 2010. The average interview
length was 10 minutes and 32 seconds.
6 Fieldwork: Wave 4
In Wave 4, CBSR undertook telephone interviews with 406 general public and 203 farmers. The
telephone interviews were conducted from to 12th to 18th November 2010. The average interview
length was 10 minutes and 20 seconds.
31
4.3. Stage 3: Analysis, reporting and presentation
CBSR has conducted additional analysis in order to be able to use the Woolcott Research as a
baseline measure against which changes in attitudes and awareness can be compared (where the
same questions were asked). This involved selecting only the Murray Darling Basin data (n=250
respondents) and applying the same weighting approach to the Woolcott Research benchmark data.
16 This analysis resulted in Woolcott Research’ Murray Darling Basin data consisting of farmers (n=53
dry land and irrigators) and general public Basin respondents (n=197). Note that the low sample size
for the farmers target group in the benchmark phase means that comparisons between CBSR
tracking data and benchmark data (Woolcott Research) are statistically less robust, and should be
treated with caution. The error rate associated with the benchmark sample size of n=53 Basin
farmers is +/- 13.5%, at the 95% confidence interval. In comparison, the error rate associated with
the tracking waves sample size of n=200 farmers is +/-6.9% given a 95% confidence level.
For the general public living in the Basin, the error rate associated with the benchmark sample size of
n=173 general public living in the Basin is +/- 7.5%, at the 95% confidence interval. In comparison,
the error rate associated with the tracking waves sample size of n=400 general public living in the
Basin, offers a margin of error of +/-4.9% given a 95% confidence level.
This report presents the findings of CBSR Waves 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the ‘Water for the Future’
communications campaign research.
Comparisons to benchmark phase (Woolcott Research data) have been provided for the farmers
(dryland and irrigation) and general public living in the Basin (non-farmers), as defined in the Woolcott
Research datafile. Comparisons between CBSR Tracking Wave 1 to 4 data and Woolcott Research
data for the general public in Adelaide is not possible.
Comparisons between CBSR tracking data and the benchmark data (Woolcott Research data)) can
be found in tables in the Appendix. Comparisons can only be made where the original baseline
questions were used in the tracking. Unfortunately due to the tracking research being restricted to a
10 minute survey length and because of the need to include campaign evaluation questions – less
than half of the questions used in the baseline were repeated in the tracking research.
16
Weighting for farmers by State only (i.e. based on State farmer populations in the Murray-Darling Basin; and
weighting for general public data by State and Territory (i.e. based on State/Territory populations in the MurrayDarling Basin).
32
Interpreting this report
The following terms or abbreviations have been utilised throughout this report.
Table 4: Definitions
Term of abbreviation
Definition
Basin
This refers to the Murray-Darling Basin region.
CBSR
Colmar Brunton Social Research.
Cut-through
The extent to which the target audience is aware of the
advertising
DSEWPAC
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities.
Indigenous Australians
People from Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
backgrounds.
Non-English speaking background (NESB)
People that speak a language other than English at home.
W1, W2, etc.
Wave 1, Wave 2, etc.
Percentages and averages
Percentages are generally rounded to whole numbers. Some percentages may not add to 100
percent due to rounding. Some survey questions asked respondents to give a rating from 1 to 10.
The classification used with likelihood ratings was as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
a rating of 1 or 2 is classified as not at all likely;
a rating of 3 or 4 is classified as unlikely;
a rating of 5 or 6 is classified as neither likely nor unlikely;
a rating of 7 or 8 is classified as likely; and
a rating of 9 or 10 is classified as extremely likely.
The classification used with informed ratings is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
a rating of 1 or 2 is classified as not at all well informed;
a rating of 3 or 4 is classified as not well informed;
a rating of 5 or 6 is classified as neither well informed or not well informed;
a rating of 7 or 8 is classified as well informed; and
a rating of 9 or 10 is classified as extremely well informed.
The classification used with relevant ratings is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
33
a rating of 1 or 2 is classified as not at all relevant;
a rating of 3 or 4 is classified as not relevant;
a rating of 5 or 6 is classified as neither relevant nor not relevant;
a rating of 7 or 8 is classified as relevant; and
a rating of 9 or 10 is classified as extremely relevant.
Average ratings are rounded to one decimal place.
Note that average ratings cannot be translated into percentages. For example, an average rating of
7.3 out of 10 cannot be interpreted as meaning 73% of people.
Prompted and unprompted responses
Some questions in the survey collected both a prompted and an unprompted response. For example,
all respondents were asked:
“Are you aware of any Australian Government programs or initiatives to help save water?”
Those who were aware of any Australian Government water programs were then asked:
“What are you aware of?”
These questions were first asked in an open fashion without providing the respondent response
categories to choose from. The resultant answer is the ‘unprompted’ response. Unprompted
responses capture what is top-of-mind for the respondent and hence probably most influential in
terms of their beliefs or decision-making.
The interviewer then went on to ask all respondents if they were aware of the ‘Water for the Future’
program. For example, the interviewer asked:
‘How much do you know about the ‘Water for the Future’ program?’
The resultant answer is the ‘prompted’ response, or in this questionnaire ‘total awareness’ as this
question was asked of all respondents (regardless of whether they mentioned ‘Water for the Future’ in
their unprompted response or not).
Sorting of results
In all tables, rows are sorted from most frequent response to least.
Weighting
Weighting for farmers is by State only (i.e. based on State farmer populations in the Murray-Darling
Basin.
General public data is weighted by State and Territory (i.e. based on State/Territory populations in the
Murray-Darling Basin). Adelaide data is not weighted, and is reported separately.
Demographic details are reported as unweighted figures and proportions.
34
Significance Testing
For ease of interpretation, significance testing will only be done between waves (e.g. farmers wave 1
compared with farmers wave 2). Significance testing has not been performed for the sample
demographics, or where unweighted counts of data are reported, e.g. message recall.
An exception reporting approach has been undertaken in that if no statistical significance is
mentioned, there are none associated with these groups.
Tests have been undertaken at a 95% confidence level. If there is a significant difference between
the result for a particular group and the result for the wider population, we can be confident that this
difference has not occurred by chance, rather that it reflects a genuine difference among that group
compared to the wider population.
Significance testing across tracking waves (undertaken by CBSR):
 In tables and graphs, the figures with an upwards arrow (i.e.) represent a proportion that is
significantly higher than the previous period of time (eg. Wave 1 compared to Wave 2).
Conversely, the figures with a downwards arrow (i.e.) represent a proportion that is
significantly lower the previous period of time.
Significance testing across benchmark (undertaken by Woolcott Research) and tracking waves 1 to 4
(undertaken by CBSR):
 In tables and graphs, the figures with an upwards arrow (i.e.▲) represent a proportion that is
significantly higher than benchmark (Woolcott Research data). Conversely, the figures with a
downwards arrow (i.e.▼) represent a proportion that is significantly lower than benchmark
(Woolcott Research data).
Significance testing within groups (those aware of the ‘Water for the Future’ program compared to
those unaware of the ‘Water for the Future’ program:
 In tables and graphs, the figures with an upwards arrow (i.e.▲) represent a proportion that is
significantly higher than a group (awareness of the program). Conversely, the figures with a
downwards arrow (i.e.▼) represent a proportion that is significantly lower than a group
(awareness of the program).
Small sample sizes have been high-lighted with an * through-out the report. Small sample sizes are
to be interpreted with caution. Significance testing was not performed on data where there was a
‘count’ instead of a proportion reported.
35
5. Findings
5.1. Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water
saving initiatives and ‘Water for the Future’ program
Each wave, respondents were asked (unprompted) if they are aware of any Australian Government
programs or initiatives designed to promote water conservation.
Among farmers, unprompted awareness of any Australian Government water saving programs or
initiatives did not change between the first and last waves in a statistically significant way.
Among the general public living in the Basin, unprompted awareness of any Australian Government
water saving programs and initiatives was consistent in Wave 1 (48%), Wave 2 (44%), Wave 3 (49%),
and Wave 4 (46%).
Among the general public living in Adelaide, unprompted awareness of any Government water
saving programs or initiatives was consistent in Wave 1 (41%), Wave 2 (45%), Wave 3 (43%), and
Wave 4 (49%). See Figure 2.
Figure 2: Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving initiatives
100%
2%
5%
53%
43%
2%
3%
2%
1%
48%
51%
55%
49%
48%
44%
W4
W1
W2
2%
3%
49%
52%
49%
46%
W3
W4
2%
90%
80%
70%
43%
59%
55%
55%
41%
45%
43%
W1
W2
W3
51%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
45%
52%
55%
49%
10%
0%
W1
W2
W3
Farmers
Yes, aware of Government water programs
General public
BASIN
36
General public
ADELAIDE
No, not aware of Government water programs
Q10. Are you aware of any Australian Government programs or initiatives to help save water?
Base: All respondents.
W4
Don't know
Respondents who were aware of Government water saving initiatives and programs were asked what
they were aware of. The most common response across all target audiences in all four Waves
included, water conservation methods, e.g. household practices such as changing shower heads,
recycling shower water.
As shown in Figure 3, amongst farmers who were aware of Government water saving initiatives,
there was a significant decrease in awareness of desalination (18% at W1, 2% at W2) and the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (18% at W1, 2% at W2) from Wave 1 to Wave 2. There was also a
significant decrease in awareness of limits on water from rivers and underground or Sustainable
Diversion Limits (SDLs) (15% at W1, 4% at W2), and awareness of rules about trading water rights
(9% at W1, 2% at W2) from Wave 1 to Wave 2. There were no significant changes from Wave 2 to
Wave 3 among farmers. From Wave 3 to Wave 4, there was a significant decline in awareness of
water buy-backs and farm purchases (18% at W3 down to 8% at W4) among farmers.
Among farmers, awareness (unprompted) of the ‘Water for the Future’ program significantly declined
from 11% in Wave 1 to no awareness (0%) in Wave 2, then remained stable at 3% in Wave 3 and 1%
in Wave 4.
Figure 3: Unprompted awareness of Government water saving initiatives – FARMERS
48%
44%
44%
Water conservation / people using less water (i.e. dual
flush toilets, low flow showerheads, leaking taps, water …
Murray Darling Basin Plan / Guide to the Basin Plan
27%
24%
Irrigation infrastructure projects / new water pipelines /
new dams / dam extensions
26%
19%
22%
18%
2%
Desalination
18%
12%
Water buy backs / farm purchases
8%
4%
7%
4%
13%
6%
4%
2%
Water recycling / grey water / storm water
Water for the Future
0%
3%
1%
Rules about trading of water rights
2%
3%
1%
17%
18%
16%
14%
14%
20%
15%
Improved on-farm irrigation
Limits on water from rivers/ground / Sustainable
Diversion Limit (SDLs)
33%
7%
10%
2%
6%
5%
Murray Darling Basin Authority
11%
9%
9%
10%
15%
7%
Other
0%
10%
Farmers W1
Farmers W3
20%
30%
40%
50%
Farmers W2
Farmers W4
Q11. What are you aware of?
Base: Farmer respondents aware of Gov initiative: n=96 Wave 1, n=101 Wave 2, n=103 Wave 3, n=97 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
37
54%
35%
37%
60%
‘Other’ responses by farmers at Wave 1 included:





Establishment of catchment management authorities (n=2);
Water and soil monitoring (n=1);
Local council rebates (n=1);
Increase in water prices (n=1); and
Farming techniques (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by farmers at Wave 2 included:







Capping bores (n=5);
Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI) 17 (n=2);
Decommissioning of Lake Mokoan18 (n=2);
Increasing costs of water (n=1);
Exit grant package19, ceasing farming for 5 years (n=1);
Drought plans (n=1); and
Blocked off wetlands to minimise water leaving the River (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by farmers at Wave 3 included:








Training course on how to save water/Farm Smart Program (n=4);
Water Wise initiative (n=3);
Capping bores (n=3);
Increasing costs of water (n=2);
Satellite water monitoring (n=1);
Decommissioning of Lake Mokoan (n=1);
Drought plans (n=1); and
Blocked off wetlands to minimise water leaving the River (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by farmers at Wave 4 included:





17
Rehabilitation of properties (n=1);
Water initiatives (in general) (n=1);
Advertisements (in general) (n=1);
Educational programs (n=1); and
Riverina basin (n=1).
GABSI: A joint program between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland, South Australian, New
South Wales and Northern Territory governments providing assistance to landholders to rehabilitate bores and
replace bore drains with piped systems.
18 As part of the Our Water Our Future action plan, Lake Mokoan will be returned to its natural state as an
important wetland system.
19 The exit grant, of up to $150,000, is a one-off, taxable and time limited payment to small block farmers and
irrigators who wish to leave irrigation.
38
Among the general public living in the Basin region, there was a significant increase in the
proportion of those aware of desalination from Wave 1 to Wave 2 (7% at W1 to 15% at W2).
Among this target group, there was a significant decrease in unprompted awareness of the Murray
Darling Basin Plan/Guide to the Basin Plan (39% at W2, 26% at W3), and a significant increase in
awareness of improved on-farm irrigation (0% at W2 to 4% at W3) from Wave 2 to Wave 3. There
were no significant changes from Wave 3 to Wave 4 among general public in the Basin. See Figure 4
Among the general public living in the Basin, unprompted awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’
program (unprompted) was at 1% in Wave 1, and then remained stable at 1% in Wave 2, 3% in Wave
3 and no awareness (0%) in Wave 4.
Figure 4: Unprompted awareness of Government water saving initiatives – General public BASIN
56%
57%
60%
63%
Water conservation / people using less water (i.e. dual
flush toilets, low flow showerheads, leaking taps, water …
Murray Darling Basin Plan / Guide to the Basin Plan
15%
16%
14%
18%
Irrigation infrastructure projects / new water pipelines /
new dams / dam extensions
Water recycling / grey water / storm water
Desalination
Murray Darling Basin Authority
Water buy backs / farm purchases
Limits on water from rivers/ground / Sustainable
Diversion Limit (SDLs)
Rules about trading of water rights
Improved on-farm irrigation
Water for the Future
Other
30%
26%
29%
39%
9%
8%
10%
5%
7%
15%
14%
11%
7%
10%
10%
7%
7%
10%
9%
16%
5%
4%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
4%
2%
0%
4%
6%
1%
1%
3%
0%
7%
6%
5%
6%
0%
10%
General public BASIN W1
General public BASIN W3
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
General public BASIN W2
General public BASIN W4
Q11. What are you aware of?
Base: General public Basin respondents aware of Gov initiative: n=163 Wave 1, n=150 Wave 2, n=172 Wave 3, n=155 Wave
4. Multiple responses allowed.
39
‘Other’ responses by the general public in the Basin region at Wave 1 included:






‘Water Wise’ schools initiative (n=2);
Establishment of catchment management authorities (n=1);
Covering open channels (n=1);
BASIX20 (n=1);
‘Green Loan Scheme’ (n=1); and
Planting and reforestation initiatives (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by the general public in the Basin region at Wave 2 included:








‘Water Wise’ schools initiative (n=2);
Local Government advertising (n=1);
Capping bores (n=1);
BASIX (n=1);
‘Green Loan Scheme’ (n=1);
Capping the Artesian Bore (n=1);
Mildura Irrigation Scheme (n=1); and
Information sessions (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by the general public in the Basin region at Wave 3 included:








Education programs on conserving water/information sessions (n=3);
‘Water Wise’ schools initiative (n=3);
‘Green Loan Scheme’ (n=2);
Local Government advertising (n=1);
Mildura Irrigation Scheme (n=1);
BASIX (n=1);
Free assessments (n=1); and
Rebates (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by the general public in the Basin region at Wave 4 included:





20
Educational programs (n=3);
‘Water Wise’ schools initiative (n=1);
Financial assistance to farmers/drought assistance (n=1);
Advertisements (in general) (n=1); and
Local government in Bathurst charging more for water (n=1).
BASIX: The Building Sustainability Index, ensures homes are designed to use less potable water and be
responsible for fewer greenhouse gas emissions by setting energy and water reduction targets for house and
units. BASIX is one of the most robust sustainable planning measures in Australia, delivering equitable and
effective water and greenhouse gas reductions across NSW.
40
Figure 5 shows proportions of general public living in Adelaide who were aware of Australian
Government water saving initiatives at Wave 1, 2, 3 and 4. There were no significant changes
between waves.
Figure 5: Unprompted awareness of Government water saving initiatives – General public
ADELAIDE*
Water conservation / people using less water (i.e. dual
flush toilets, low flow showerheads, leaking taps, water …
52%
20%
Desalination
26%
16%
13%
Murray Darling Basin Plan / Guide to the Basin Plan
4%
Water recycling / grey water / storm water
Murray Darling Basin Authority
Water for the Future
Irrigation infrastructure projects / new water pipelines /
new dams / dam extensions
4%
0%
4%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
Water buy backs / farm purchases
Limits on water from rivers/ground / Sustainable
Diversion Limit (SDLs)
Improved on-farm irrigation
Rules about trading of water rights
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
8%
9%
60%
61%
62%
36%
46%
36%
23%
23%
8%
4%
13%
23%
4%
4%
4%
8%
9%
10%
General public ADELAIDE W1
General public ADELAIDE W3
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
General public ADELAIDE W2
General public ADELAIDE W4
Q11. What are you aware of?
Base: General public Adelaide respondents aware of Gov initiative: n=25 Wave 1, n=25 Wave 2, n=23 Wave 3, n=26 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
There were no ‘other’ responses (other than “not sure”) provided by the general public in Adelaide at
Wave 1, 2 or 4.
Other’ responses by the general public in the Basin region at Wave 3 included:


41
The wet land area (n=1); and
Community focus (n=1).
5.2. Prompted awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program
Of the target audiences, farmers were the most likely to have at least heard of the ‘Water for the
Future’ program at Wave 1 (56%), Wave 2 (52%), Wave 3 (55%) and Wave 4 (52%) after
prompting.21
Awareness of the program among the general public living in the Basin remained consistent in
Wave 1 (40%), Wave 2 (41%), Wave 3 (40%), and Wave 4 (39%).
Among the general public living in Adelaide, there was a steady increase in those who were
unaware of the program across Wave 1 (52%), Wave 2 (60%), and Wave 3 (68%). However, there
was no change from Wave 3 to Wave 4. See Figure 6.
Figure 6: Prompted awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program
100%
90%
80%
44%
48%
44%
49%
60%
70%
59%
60%
52%
61%
60%
68%
68%
60%
50%
15%
19%
40%
30%
23%
15%
20%
15%
18%
0%
13%
14%
17%
4%
3%
4%
W1
W2
W3
W4
Know a lot
Know a little
13%
13%
16%
14%
14%
12%
10%
1%
11%
1%
12%
12%
2%
1%
W1
W2
W3
W4
9%
18%
14%
5%
Farmers
14%
16%
20%
10%
13%
13%
General public
BASIN
Don't know much
Only know the name
15%
15%
15%
2%
13%
11%
4%
6%
2%
6%
2%
W1
W2
W3
W4
23%
General public
ADELAIDE
Hadn't heard of it before today
Q12. How much do you know about the ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Base: All respondents.
21
These figures do not represent a true measure of baseline awareness, as advertising had commenced the
same week as interviewing of target audiences.
42
5.3. Total awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program
To determine total awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program, unprompted awareness and
prompted awareness was combined and calculated for each of the total target groups.
Farmers had the highest levels of total awareness of all target groups and this remained stable
across the four waves (56% at W1, 52% at W2, 57% at W3, and 51% at W4).
Among the general public in the Basin, total awareness was consistent across the four waves (41%
at W1, 42% at W2, 40% at W3, and 38% at W4).
Among the general public in Adelaide, total awareness was the lowest of all target groups and
declined over the four waves, with 48% at W1, 40% at W2, 32% at W3, and 32% at W4. See Figure 7.
Figure 7: Total awareness (prompted + unprompted) of the ‘Water for the Future’ program
Farmers
W1
5%
51%
W2
W3
52%
2%
General public
BASIN
48%
55%
W4
General public
ADELAIDE
45%
44%
51%
49%
W1
1%
40%
60%
W2
1%
41%
59%
W3
1%
W4
W1
39%
60%
38%
2%
W2
61%
46%
53%
40%
60%
W3
32%
68%
W4
32%
68%
0%
20%
Unprompted awareness
40%
Prompted awareness
Q11. What are you aware of?
Q12. How much do you know about the ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Base: All respondents.
43
60%
80%
Unaware
100%
5.1. Knowledge about the ‘Water for the Future’ program
Respondents that reported they knew ‘a little’ or ‘a lot’ about the Water for the Future program, were
asked what they knew.
Overall, the most common mention among all target groups was the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in
Wave 1 and Wave 2. In Wave 3 the most common mention about the ‘Water for the Future’ program
was the Murray-Darling Basin Plan among the general public in the Basin (38% at W3) and the
general public in Adelaide (67% at W3). However, among farmers the most common mention in
Wave 3 was limits on water from rivers/ground / sustainable Diversion Limit (SDLs) at 31%. In Wave
4 the most common mention about the program was the Murray-Darling Basin Plan among the
general public in the Basin (47% at W4) and the general public in Adelaide (100% at W4). Among
farmers, the most common mention in Wave 4 was water buy-backs/farm purchases (31%).
Figure 8 shows the proportions of farmers who were aware of the program, and what they recalled
about the program, at Wave 1, 2, 3 and Wave 4. Among farmers, there was a significant decline in
recall of the Murray Darling Basin Plan from 63% in Wave 2, to 24% in Wave 3. There were no
significant changes in Wave 4.
Figure 8: Unprompted awareness of specific detail about the ‘Water for the Future’ program –
FARMERS
Q13. What do you know? Multiple responses allowed.
Base: Farmer respondents who know ‘a lot’ or ’a little’ about the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=36 Wave 1, n=34 Wave 2,
n=40 Wave 3, n=34 Wave 4.
44
An ‘other’ response at Wave 1 by a farmer related to information about where run-off water goes, e.g.
creeks, water courses, cane farms.
The ‘other’ response at Wave 2 by farmers, relating to specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the
Future’ program included the ‘610m program’ (n=1).
‘Other’ responses by farmers at Wave 3 relating to specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the
Future’ program included:
 Community/public meetings/consultation (n=2);
 Dividing water between towns, farmers and environment (n=2);
 610m program (n=1);
 Not solving any problems (n=1);
 Taking rights away from grass roots people (n=1);
 Government promotion (n=1); and
 Regulation (n=1).
There were no ‘other responses at Wave 4 by farmers.
45
Among the general public living in the Basin, recall of the Murray Darling Basin Authority has changed
over the last four waves, with 6% at Wave 1, 18% at Wave 2, 4% at Wave 3, and 30% at Wave 4.
Among the general public living in the Basin, there has also been shifts in recall of water buy
backs/farm purchases (1% at W1, 13% at W2). Recall of limits on water from
rivers/grounds/Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs) declined from 19% in Wave 3, to 6% in Wave 4
among the general public living in the Basin. See Figure 9.
Figure 9: Unprompted awareness of specific detail about the ‘Water for the Future’ program – General
public BASIN
Q13. What do you know?
Base: General public Basin respondents who know “a lot” or “a little” about the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=41 Wave 1,
n=43 Wave 2, n=49 Wave 3, n=46 Wave 4. Multiple responses allowed.
‘Other’ responses at Wave 1 by members of the general public living in the Basin region relating to
specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the Future’ program included:

46
A large number of resources going into awareness of the program (n=2).
‘Other’ responses at Wave 2 by members of the general public living in the Basin region relating to
specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the Future’ program included:



A ‘propaganda campaign’ (n=1);
The farming community in Lake Cargelligo have put forward a strong message to the
Australian Government that they would like to see a plan put forward and trying to encourage
the government to actually implement it (n=1); and
Concern about the Riverina area (n=1).
‘Other’ responses at Wave 3 by members of the general public living in the Basin region relating to
specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the Future’ program included:




A ‘propaganda campaign’ (n=1);
Government purchase of properties along the river (n=1);
Snowy Hydro Scheme, prevented run-off water and created problems (n=1); and
Cubby station water project on the border of NSW and QLD – Government trying to resolve
the issue for irrigation purposes (n=1).
‘Other’ responses at Wave 4 by members of the general public living in the Basin region relating to
specific detail recalled from the ‘Water for the Future’ program included:



47
Educational programs (n=1)
Government is conducting research about it, and putting practice into works (n=1)
Concern that the government will ruin a lot of good country side (n=1)
Figure 10 shows only a small number of general public in Adelaide were aware of the ‘Water for the
Future’ campaign. Caution should be applied when interpreting results, due to small sample sizes.
Figure 10: Unprompted awareness of specific detail about the ‘Water for the Future’ program –
General public ADELAIDE*
50%
44%
Murray Darling Basin Plan / Guide to the Basin Plan
Desalination
0%
Limits on water from rivers/ground / Sustainable
Diversion Limit (SDLs)
0%
0%
Water recycling / grey water / storm water
0%
0%
20%
Water buy backs / farm purchases
Rules about trading of water rights
Irrigation infrastructure projects / new water pipelines /
new dams / dam extensions
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Water for the Future (just the name - no more)
Improved on-farm irrigation
Other
100%
33%
20%
22%
25%
20%
Water conservation / people using less water (i.e. dual
flush toilets, low flow showerheads, leaking taps, water… 0%
Murray Darling Basin Authority
67%
40%
33%
25%
20%
33%
10%
10%
25%
33%
25%
33%
10%
25%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%110%
General public ADELAIDE W1
General public ADELAIDE W3
General public ADELAIDE W2
General public ADELAIDE W4
Q13. What do you know?
Base: General public Adelaide respondents who know “a lot” or “a little” about the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=10 Wave
1, n=9 Wave 2, n=3 Wave 3, n=4 Wave 4.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
There were no ‘other’ responses at Wave 1, Wave 2, Wave 3 or Wave 4 by Adelaide general public
respondents.
48
5.2. Unprompted recall of sources of awareness
Of the farmers and general public who had heard of the ‘Water for the Future’ campaign, the most
commonly mentioned channel and source of awareness across all four waves was news and media
reports
Figure 11 shows the unprompted sources of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program, among
farmers who were aware of the program. There was a significant decrease in awareness of
television advertising (26% at W2 to 12% at W3) and newspaper advertising (20% at W2 to 10% at
W3) among farmers who were aware of the program. Unsurprising awareness went down given the
television and press campaign finished halfway through the Wave 3 fieldwork 22).
Figure 11: Source of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program – FARMERS
48%
News and media reports
Television advertising
Radio advertising
7%
9%
Newspaper advertising
4%
4%
4%
6%
Brochure / booklet sent to me
Word of mouth
Internet/online advertising
Magazine advertising
Internet / website
Billboard / outdoor advertising
Google
Telephone / information hotline
Other
Don't know
None
12%
15%
13%
10%
62%
62%
23%
20%
20%
19%
10%
10%
11%
14%
12%
4%
2%
1%
0%
3%
0%
0%
2%
1%
5%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
5%
7%
6%
1%
5%
7%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
52%
24%
26%
14%
20%
Farmers W1
Farmers W3
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Farmers W2
Farmers W4
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Base: Farmer respondents who had heard of the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=114 Wave 1, n=101 Wave 2, n=115 Wave
3, n=98 Wave 4
Multiple responses allowed.
22
Note that Wave 2 fieldwork was undertaken from 29 October to 4 November and Wave 3 fieldwork was
undertaken from 5 to 11 November, with the television campaign finishing on the 7 November. The press
campaign ran from the 13 October to 9 November 2010, finishing during the middle of the Wave 3 fieldwork.
49
‘Other’ responses from farmers at Wave 1 included:






Lobby group / organisational / local council / community meetings (n=4);
Face-to-face town hall consultation meetings with Government (n=2);
Local town rallies (n=2);
Local field days / expos (n=1);
Parliamentary agenda items during election campaigning (n=1); and
In Guide to the Basin Plan (n=1).
‘Other’ responses from farmers at Wave 2 included:





At a conference (n=1);
Through a government agency (n=1);
Via Ministers (n=1);
At a local mayor’s forum on natural resources (n=1); and
Through the local irrigation water authority (n=1).
‘Other’ responses from farmers at Wave 3 included:






Local council (n=4);
Meetings (in general) (n=3);
Government/Ministers (n=3);
Through an irrigation company/local irrigation group (n=3);
At a conference (n=1); and
Local Wine Grape Growers Group (n=1).
‘Other’ responses from farmers at Wave 4 included:




50
Meetings (in general) (n=3);
Children learning about it at school (n=2);
Wine industry newsletter (n=1); and
Water services committee (n=1).
Figure 12 shows the unprompted sources of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program, among
the general public living in the Basin who were aware of the program. There was a significant
decrease in the proportion of the general public living in the Basin who were aware of the program via
newspaper advertising (21% at W2 to 12% at W3). Unsurprising awareness went down given the
press campaign finished halfway through the Wave 3 fieldwork.23
In Wave 4 there was a significant increase in awareness of news and media reports (46% at W3 to
61% at W4) among the general public living in the Basin who were aware of the program.
Figure 12: Source of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program – General public BASIN
35%
News and media reports
Television advertising
Newspaper advertising
7%
7%
6%
Radio advertising
Word of mouth
Internet / website
Brochure / booklet sent to me
Internet/online advertising
Magazine advertising
Billboard / outdoor advertising
Google
Telephone / information hotline
Other
Don't know
None
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
4%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
4%
12%
11%
13%
39%
46%
61%
24%
29%
27%
23%
17%
21%
11%
10%
13%
14%
7%
7%
8%
9%
9%
1%
5%
2%
2%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
General public BASIN W1
General public BASIN W3
40%
50%
60%
70%
General public BASIN W2
General public BASIN W4
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Base: General public Basin respondents who had heard of the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=140 Wave 1, n=142 Wave 2,
n=142 Wave 3, n=133 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
23
Note that the press campaign ran from the 13 October to 9 November 2010, finishing during the middle of the
Wave 3 fieldwork (5 to 11 November).
51
‘Other’ responses from general public in the Basin region at Wave 1 included:





Lobby group / organisational / local council / community meetings (n=2);
Face-to-face town hall consultation meetings with Government (n=2);
Through work (n=2);
Local field days / expos (n=1); and
Local paper / TV / mail-out (n=2).
‘Other’ responses from general public in the Basin region at Wave 2 included:





Via parliament (n=1);
From the local water authority (n=1);
Public readings, green paper (n=1);
The Catchment Management Authority (n=1); and
Through work (in industry) (n=1).
‘Other’ responses from general public in the Basin region at Wave 3 included:






Through work (in industry) (n=7);
Through local Government/council (n=3);
Water meetings (n=2); The Catchment Management Authority (n=1);
From the local water authority (n=1);
Public readings, green paper (n=1); and
The Department of Primary Industries (n=1).
‘Other’ responses from general public in the Basin region at Wave 4 included:






52
Local/town meetings (n=2);
Through work (n=2);
Through local networks (n=1);
Irrigation expo (n=1);
University (n=1); and
Received industry emails (n=1).
Figure 13 shows the unprompted sources of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program, among
the general public living in Adelaide. Television advertising and radio advertising were the second
and third most commonly mentioned sources of awareness about the program (respectively) across
all four waves.
Figure 13: Source of awareness of the ‘Water for the Future’ program – General public ADELAIDE*
45%
News and media reports
21%
18%
Television advertising
Newspaper advertising
Radio advertising
0%
Internet/online advertising
0%
0%
0%
Word of mouth
Brochure / booklet sent to me
Internet / website
Magazine advertising
Billboard / outdoor advertising
Google
Telephone / information hotline
Other
Don't know
None
35%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
53%
10%
14%
12%
18%
10%
14%
18%
7%
9%
5%
6%
9%
5%
18%
6%
7%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
62%
53%
10%
12%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
General public ADELAIDE W1
General public ADELAIDE W2
General public ADELAIDE W3
General public ADELAIDE W4
70%
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Base: General public Adelaide respondents who had heard of the ‘Water for the Future’ program: n=29 Wave 1, n=22 at Wave
2, n=17 Wave 3, n=17 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
One respondent from the general public in Adelaide at Wave 1 reported hearing about the ‘Water for
the Future’ program through work. There were no ‘other’ responses at Wave 2, Wave 3 or Wave 4 for
Adelaide general public respondents.
53
5.3. Total recall of sources of awareness
Television advertising recall
Figure 14 shows that the majority of each target group, across all four waves were unaware of
Australian Government television advertising about water or the ‘Water for the Future’ program
(around three quarters of each target group).
Prompted awareness was the lowest among the general public living in Adelaide and the highest
among farmers. Amongst farmers, there was a significant decrease in unprompted awareness of
television advertising from Wave 2 (13%) to Wave 3 (7%).
General public
ADELAIDE
General public
BASIN
Farmers
Figure 14: Prompted recall of television advertising of the ‘Water for the Future’ program / Australian
Government advertising about water
W1
13%
W2
13%
W3
7%
W4
7%
W1
13%
15%
79%
12%
12%
W3
11%
W4
9%
15%
W1
10%
12%
15%
6%
W4
78%
14%
74%
13%
76%
76%
79%
7%
78%
8%
17%
0%
74%
13%
W2
W3
72%
20%
10%
W2
74%
87%
9%
20%
Unprompted awareness
74%
40%
60%
Prompted awareness
80%
100%
Unaware
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14b. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government television advertising about water in the last week?
Base: All respondents.
54
Recall of television advertising messages
Respondents who recalled television advertising about the ‘Water for the Future’ program over the
past week, were asked what details they recalled, including messages, as well as audio and visual
features.
Commonly recalled messages across all four Waves included messages about irrigators having to
use less water or use water more efficiently; the importance of water conservation for future
sustainability, and practical ideas and strategies of how to do this; and messages about water
restrictions.
Table 5 shows the messages, visual and audio features of the television advertising, recalled by each
of the target audiences at Wave 1, 2, 3 and Wave 4.
Table 5: Recall of television advertising messages for ‘Water for the Future’ program –
counts of responses*
Farmers
W1
Can recall the name only
W2
1
General public Basin
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
2
1
4
1
1
1
General public Adelaide
W1
W2
W3
W4
1
Messages
A message about the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan /
irrigators may have less
water to use / Sustainable
water usage and irrigation
methods for future
generations (e.g. how
farmers can produce crops
with less water through drip
irrigation)
4
9
11
6
11
12
14
17
A message for everybody to
make an effort saving water
in the home / advising not to
wash the car on the street,
use a bucket not a hose and
to be mindful of watering
your garden
3
1
8
2
2
5
2
7
A message about water
restrictions
1
4
1
6
5
1
3
Angry farmers responding to
the Basin Plan
1
1
4
A message about water
licensing / buyback scheme
1
1
1
2
A message about MurrayDarling Basin Plan
consultation process / town
meetings
1
2
1
3
A message that the
government will secure
water for towns and the
environment
1
1
3
2
Table continued on next page
55
1
2
2
1
1
1
Farmers
W1
W2
W3
General public Basin
W4
W1
W2
W3
1
1
A message about the
importance of a stronger
water for the future, needing
to work together to achieve
the water plan
1
1
The message and quote
“Everyone can make a
difference”
1
1
1
1
2
A message showing the
importance of planning for
the future/sustainable living
in Australia. Planting trees in
areas to encourage more
rain. We're aware of our
environment and encourage
Australians to conserve
water
2
1
A message about population
growth – many people
coming to Australia and the
need to secure water for this
growth.
W4
General public Adelaide
W1
1
W2
W3
1
1
W4
1
Describing how much water
is in the reservoirs, and
targets to reach
1
A message about how
drastic the water situation is
1
1
1
1
Visual features
Featured big drops / droplets
of water
1
1
2
2
Featured farmers in the field
/ farmers installing irrigation
infrastructure
1
3
4
3
Featured people and
children running around
splashing water / playing in
the yard
1
1
1
1
Featured people with hoses
watering outdoors
1
1
1
Featured a politician
discussing the MurrayDarling Basin Plan
2
Featured a man talking
about water had a booklet in
his hand standing next to a
river
1
Featured wildlife along the
river
4
7
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table continued on next page
56
5
1
Visual features
Featured washing machine
water being recycled
1
Featured the Australian
Government logo
1
1
1
Featured images of the
Murray River
1
Featured Mr Brumby was
talking about the dams
1
1
Featured candid interviews
on the street packaged as
ads
1
Featured a dam
1
Featured people in the bush
who are very concerned
about water
1
Featured a desalination
plant
1
1
1
1
1
Featured images of dead
rivers
2
1
1
2
1
2
Featured people wearing
hard hats promoting water
saving messages
1
1
Featured a blue government
logo at the end
1
Showed an aerial view of the
Murray River
1
1
1
1
Featured a frog
1
Audio / featured sounds
The quote that “Every drop
counts”
1
1
1
The sound of water
1
The quote: “The future for
water is in our hands”.
Total
1
48
49
56
38
76
87
71
77
13
12
6
14
Q15a. Please describe any television advertising about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program you have
seen in the last week? What did the ad say? What did it look or sound like?
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14b. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government television advertising about water in the last week?
Base: Respondents who recall seeing television advertising for ‘Water for the Future’ program or Australian Government water
advertising: n=48 farmers Wave 1, n=49 Wave 2, n=56 Wave 3. N=38 Wave 4; n=76 General public in the Basin region Wave
1, n=87 Wave 2, n=71 Wave 3, n=77 Wave 4; n=13 General public in Adelaide Wave 1, n=12 Wave 2, n=6 Wave 3, n=14
Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
57
Newspaper advertising recall
Figure 15 shows that the majority of each target group, across the first three waves, were unaware of
Australian Government newspaper advertising about water, or the ‘Water for the Future’ program.
Farmers at Wave 1, Wave 2 and Wave 3 had the highest overall awareness of newspaper
advertising (25% at W1, 26% at W2, 18% at W3 and 26% at W4).
Farmers
Figure 15: Prompted recall of newspaper advertising of the ‘Water for the Future’ program / Australian
Government advertising about water
W1
11%
14%
76%
W2
10%
16%
74%
W3
6%
General public
ADELAIDE
General public
BASIN
W4
W1
9%
W4 4%
81%
10%
85%
9%
5%
10%
W2
6%
7%
W4
84%
11%
W1
W3 4%
74%
9%
9%
5%
82%
17%
7%
W2
W3
12%
87%
85%
87%
13%
83%
6% 2%
0%
92%
20%
Unprompted awareness
40%
60%
Prompted awareness
80%
100%
Unaware
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14c. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government newspaper advertising about water in the last week?
Base: All respondents.
58
Recall of newspaper advertising messages
Those who reported seeing newspaper advertising for the ‘Water for the Future’ program over the
past week, were asked about specific messages and visual features.
Although messages about disgruntled farmers and controversy about water allocations did not feature
in the advertising campaign, farmers most commonly reported recall of this message (at Wave 1, 2, 3
and 4). Other messages included information about using less water and using water in more
sustainable ways; and information about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan/inquiry. See Table 6.
Table 6: Recall of newspaper advertising messages for ‘Water for the Future’ program –
counts of responses*
Farmers
W1
W2
Can recall the name only
General public Basin
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
1
2
2
1
2
W4
General public Adelaide
W1
W2
W3
1
Messages
A message about reducing
the amount of water for
irrigators / the water dispute
- 'fight back' about the
Murray Basin / angry
farmers
5
4
1
3
1
6
2
A message about using less
water / sustainable water
use / the Australian
Government limiting water /
information about water
saving measures, e.g.
saving water from tanks and
toilets, water friendly
gardens, etc. / water
restrictions
6
2
2
7
6
8
5
6
A message about upcoming
water meetings /
consultation
3
1
6
General info about the
Murray / local rivers, low
water levels / scarcity of
water
1
3
2
1
4
Information about the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan /
inquiry
3
3
2
6
4
Articles about water
1
Politicians visiting Basin
areas
1
7
5
1
1
1
Information about the
heights of weirs
1
A message about Australia
having to grow more food
with less water
1
A message about solar
heating of water supplies
1
Table continued on next page
59
2
2
W4
Visual features
Featured water drops (each
addressing a different area)
5
3
Featured green and blue
writing to conserve water /
the colour blue
1
1
Featured a farmer / man
standing in a dam
2
Featured the Australian
Government symbol
1
Featured a website / web
address
1
4
4
5
5
2
1
6
1
1
Featured the ‘Water for the
Future’ logo and writing
1
Featured a desalination
plant
1
1
Featured politicians visiting
a drought-stricken area
1
1
Was yellow and featured a
picture of a dead tree in
silhouette.
1
Map of regions with % of
water being taken from each
1
1
Featured water tanks
Total
2
1
49
48
40
45
55
64
50
45
9
7
4
4
Q15a. Please describe any newspaper advertising about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program you have
seen in the last week? What did the ad say? What did it look or sound like?
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14b. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government newspaper advertising about water in the last week?
Base: Respondents who recall seeing newspaper advertising for ‘Water for the Future’ program or Australian Government
water advertising: n=49 farmers Wave 1, n=48 Wave 2, n=40 Wave 3, n=45 Wave 4; n=55 General public in the Basin region
Wave 1, n=64 Wave 2, n=50 Wave 3, n=45 Wave 4; n=9 General public in Adelaide Wave 1, n=7 Wave 2, n=4 Wave 3, n=4
Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
60
Online / internet advertising recall
Figure 16 shows that the majority of each target group across all four waves, were unaware of
Australian Government online or internet advertising about water, or the ‘Water for the Future’
program. Total recall across each audience was less than 10% for each wave.
Figure 16: Prompted recall of online / internet advertising of the ‘Water for the Future’ program /
Australian Government advertising about water
General public
ADELAIDE
General public
BASIN
Farmers
W1
2%1%
97%
W2 1% 2%
98%
W3
1%
99%
W4
1%
99%
W1
1% 2%
98%
W2 1% 4%
95%
W3
2%
97%
W4
2%
98%
W1 3% 3%
93%
W2 4% 2%
95%
W3
8%
92%
W4
100%
0%
20%
Unprompted awareness
40%
60%
Prompted awareness
80%
100%
Unaware
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14d. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government online / internet advertising about water in the last week?
Base: All respondents.
61
Recall of internet / online advertising messages
Table 7 shows that only a few general messages and images were recalled by the target audiences
who recalled seeing this form of advertising. Take caution when interpreting these results, as they
have small sample sizes.
Table 7: Recall of Australian Government internet/online advertising about water – counts of
responses*
Farmers
W1
Featured a tap with a water
drop
W2
W3
General public Basin
W4
W1
W2
1
W3
W4
General public Adelaide
W1
W3
W4
1
A message showing general
water saving tips
1
1
Featured an image of a big
dam and green pastures
1
A message offering
incentives to save water and
make people aware of the
water situation
1
Featured a pop-up on a
news website about saving
water
1
1
1
1
1
Featured a banner
advertising water
conservation
2
Featured animation of drops
of water into a pool of water
1
Featured the Australian
Government logo
1
A message about saving the
Murray River
1
1
Featured pictures of water
and trees
Total
W2
1
7
3
4
3
9
16
9
7
4
3
4
0
Q15a. Please describe any internet / online advertising you have seen in the last week? What did the ad say? What did it look
or sound like?
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14b. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government newspaper advertising about water in the last week?
Base: Respondents who recall seeing alternative Australian Government internet / online advertising for water or Australian
Government water advertising: n=7 farmers Wave 1, n=3 Wave 2, n=4 Wave 3, n=3 Wave 4; n=9 General public in the Basin
region Wave 1, n=16 Wave 2, n=9 Wave 3, n=7 Wave 3; n=4 General public in Adelaide Wave 1, n=3 Wave 2, n=4 Wave 3,
n=0 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
62
Outdoor advertising recall
Figure 17 shows that the majority of each target group across all four waves, were unaware of
Australian Government outdoor advertising about water, or the ‘Water for the Future’ program (around
three quarters of each target group). The general public in Adelaide at Wave 1 (10%) and Wave 4
(8%) had the highest recall (prompted only) of outdoor advertising.
Farmers
Figure 17: Prompted recall of outdoor advertising of the ‘Water for the Future’ program / Australian
Government advertising about water
W1
1% 2%
W2
7%
W3
1%
97%
93%
99%
General public
ADELAIDE
General public
BASIN
W4 4%
96%
W1
6%
94%
W2
7%
93%
W3
6%
94%
W4 4%
W1
96%
10%
90%
W2
6%
95%
W3
6%
94%
W4
8%
0%
92%
20%
Unprompted awareness
40%
60%
80%
Prompted awareness
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14e. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government outdoor advertising about water in the last week?
Base: All respondents.
63
100%
Unaware
Recall of outdoor / billboard advertising messages
Table 8 shows that only a few general messages and images were recalled by the target audiences
who recalled seeing this form of advertising. The most commonly recalled messages were general
messages about water conservation, and the provision of examples of how best to save water in the
household.
Take caution when interpreting these results, as they have small sample sizes.
Table 8: Recall of Australian Government outdoor advertising about water – counts of
responses*
Farmers
W1
W2
W3
General public Basin
W4
W1
Can recall the name only
W2
W3
W4
General public Adelaide
W1
W2
1
W3
W4
1
Messages
General messages about
water conservation /
Examples of how to save
water: taking shorter
showers, turning off taps,
etc.
1
A message about Australia
being a dry country in
drought so we should
conserve water
1
Posters in opposition to the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
4
1
A message about water
restrictions
1
General information about
the River Murray
1
A billboard about
sustainable living at the
Armidale expo
1
2
1
Information about how much
water we use every day and
the target
4
A message about local dam
capacity
2
Table continued on next page
64
2
1
2
1
1
1
Visual features
Image: Tap with water
coming out of it
1
A poster saying 'Save the
Murray-Darling Basin'
1
1
1
Featured a flashing yellow
sign that changes with
amount of rainfall / Target
usage and actual dam
usage levels 100% in lots of
areas
6
Featured one big drop of
water
1
Featured a picture of a
yellow lake low in water
1
Featured a big photograph
of a kid washing his hand
but the tap running was
sand and not water
1
1
1
1
1
Featured the message “Be
water wise”
1
1
Featured a website / web
address
1
Featured the words: 'Save
Water'
1
Featured the words: 'Storm
Water Harvesting'
1
Total
7
8
5
6
21
23
18
16
6
3
3
4
Q15a. Please describe any outdoor / billboard advertising you have seen in the last week? What did the ad say? What did it
look or sound like?
Q14a. Where did you hear about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program?
Q14b. Do you recall seeing any Australian Government newspaper advertising about water in the last week?
Base: Respondents who recall seeing alternative Australian Government outdoor advertising for water or Australian
Government water advertising: n=7 farmers Wave 1, n=8 Wave 2, n=5 Wave 3, n=6 Wave 3; n=21 General public in the Basin
region Wave 1, n=23 Wave 2, n=18 Wave 3, n=16 Wave 4; n=6 General public in Adelaide at Wave 1, n=3 Wave 2, n=3 Wave
3, n=4 Wave 4..
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
65
5.4. Engagement with the ‘Water for the Future’ program
Opinion of the target audiences about personal relevance of the ‘Water for the Future’ program was
divided (see Figure 18):
Among farmers, the belief that the ‘Water for the Future’ program was relevant to them remained
consistent over Waves 1 to 3 (37% at W1, 35% at W2 and 39% at W3). In Wave 4 there was a
significant decline in the proportion of farmers who believed the program was very relevant to them
(19% at W3 to 11% at W4).
Among the general public in the Basin region, residents’ belief that the program was relevant to
them remained consistent over the four waves (33% at W1, 36% at W2, 32% at W3 and 34% at W4).
Among the general public in Adelaide, residents’ belief that the program was relevant to them
remained consistent over the three waves (28% at W1, 32% at W2, 26% at W3, and 34% at W4).
Figure 18: Perceived personal relevance of ‘Water for the Future’ program
Q17. How relevant do you feel the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program will be to you personally? Please
give me a number between 1 and 10, where 1 means ‘not at all relevant’ and 10 means ‘extremely relevant’.
Base: All respondents.
66
In terms of feeling informed about the ‘Water for the Future’ program, in general across each of the
target audiences, respondents believed they could be better informed.
Among farmers, feeling informed about the ‘Water for the Future’ program remained consistent in
Wave 1 (9%) and Wave 2 (9%). In Wave 3 there was a significant decrease in the proportion of
farmers who felt that they were not very well informed (24% at W2 to 14% at W3). In Wave 4 feeling
informed about the ‘Water for the Future’ program remained consistent (6%) among farmers.
Among the general public living in the Basin, feeling informed about the ‘Water for the Future’
program remained consistent in all four waves (4% at W1, 4% at W2, 6% at W3 and 2% at W4)
Among the general public living in Adelaide, feeling informed about the program was also low in all
four waves (7% at W1, 9% at W2, 2% at W3, and 2% at W4). See Figure 19.
Figure 19: Informed about ‘Water for the Future’ program
Q16. How well informed do you feel about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program? Please give me a
number between 1 and 10, where 1 means ‘not at all well informed’ and 10 means ‘extremely well informed’.
Base: All respondents.
67
All respondents were asked how likely they are to seek further information about the ‘Water for the
Future’ program.
Among farmers, the likelihood to seek further information about the ‘Water for the Future’ program
was the highest of all target groups, with 42% at W1, 40% at W2, 43% at W3). At Wave 4, there was
a significant decrease in the proportion of farmers who were ‘very likely’ to seek further information
about the program (27% at W3, down to 17% at W4). Farmers who were aware of the ‘Water for the
Future’ program were more likely than farmers who were not aware of it to suggest that they will seek
further information about it.
Among the general public living in the Basin, likelihood to seek further information about the ‘Water
for the Future’ program was the lowest of all target groups in Wave 1 (28%). The likelihood to seek
further information about the program was consistent in Wave 2 (30%), Wave 3 (27%) and Wave 4
(26%).
Among the general public living in Adelaide, the likelihood to seek further information about the
‘Water for the Future’ program has fluctuated over the four waves. In Wave 1, a third of all the
general public living in Adelaide were likely to seek further information about the program (30% at
W1). In Wave 2, a significantly greater proportion of the general public in Adelaide indicated they
were moderately likely to seek further information (15% at W1 up to 31% at W2). This was coupled
with a significant decline in the proportion of the general public living in Adelaide who were ‘not very
likely’ to seek further information (21% at W1 down to 7% at W2). In Wave 3, there was a significant
decline in the proportion of the general public in Adelaide who were ‘very likely’ to seek further
information (24% at W2 down to 9% at W3). However, in Wave 4 there was a return to similar results
as seen in Wave 2, with 34% of the general public living in Adelaide likely to seek further information.
Figure 20: Likelihood of seeking further information about ‘Water for the Future’ program
Q18. How likely are you to seek further information about the Australian Government’s ‘Water for the Future’ program? Please
give me a number between 1 and 10, where 1 means ‘not at all likely’ and 10 means ‘extremely likely’.
Base: All respondents.
68
5.5. Awareness of the Guide to the Basin Plan
All respondents were asked if they had heard of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was
released on the 8 October 2010. Overall, the majority of each target audience was aware of the
release of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
The results remained consistent in the four waves, for all the target groups, with farmers being the
most aware of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. See Figure 21.
Figure 21: Awareness of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Farmers
W1
87%
W2
90%
W3
General public
BASIN
10% 1%
94%
W4
General public
ADELAIDE
13%
6%
88%
W1
9% 3%
77%
W2
22%
79%
W3
21%
74%
W4
26%
78%
W1
36%
62%
W3
35%
57%
W4
20%
Yes, I have heard of the Basin Plan
38%
40%
60%
80%
No, I have not heard of the Basin Plan
Q19. Have you heard of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was released on 8 October?
Base: All respondents.
69
4%
43%
62%
0%
1%
21%
64%
W2
1%
100%
Don't know
All respondents were asked if they intend to or have participated in the consultation process for the
Murray Darling-Basin Plan. The group most likely to participate in the consultation process were
farmers.
Despite high levels of awareness of the release of the Plan, less than 10% of each of the general
public samples indicated their intention to participate in the consultation process in all four waves.
Among the general public living in the Basin, there was a significant increase in those who do not
intend to participate in the Basin Plan from 90% in Wave 2 to 94% in Wave 3. However, in Wave 4,
this declined back to 90% who do not intend to participate in the Basin Plan, among the general public
living in the Basin (see Figure 22).
Figure 22: Intention / participation in consultation process for the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin
Plan
Farmers
W1
21%
W2
26%
W3
General public
BASIN
26%
69%
6%
93%
W2
7%
90%
5%
W4
9%
W1
3%
W4
1%
3%
1%
90%
2%
95%
2%
91%
2%
5%
98%
8%
0%
5%
94%
W2 4%
W3
3%
71%
W1
W3
3%
72%
29%
W4
General public
ADELAIDE
76%
92%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes, I intend to participate (/I have participated) in the Basin Plan consultation
No, I do not intend to participate in the Basin Plan consultation
Don't know
Q20. Do you intend to or have you participated in the consultation process for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
Base: All respondents.
70
100%
5.6. Concern about Australia’s water situation
Over the next ten years, concern about drought, and the water situation in Australia was higher than
concern about climate change across each of the target audiences.
As shown in the figure below, farmers were the most concerned about the drought (75% at W1, 77%
at W2, 79% at W3, and 77% at W4), and the water situation (73% at W1, 74% at W2, 77% at W3, and
76% at W4) over the next ten years.
Climate change was of least concern to farmers (39% at W1, 40% at W2, 34% at W3, and 39% at
W4) over the next ten years.
Figure 23: Concern about climate change, drought and water situation – FARMERS
Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘not at all concerned’ and 10 means ‘very concerned’, how concerned are you
about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All Farmer respondents: n =202 Wave 1, n=202 Wave 2, n=200 Wave 3, n=203 Wave 4.
71
Similar to farmers, the general public living in the Basin were the least concerned about climate
change (49% at W1, 51% at W2, 55% at W3 and 53% at W4), when compared to the drought (68% at
W1, 68% at W2, 68% at W3 and 69% at W4), and the water situation in Australia over the next ten
years (76% at W1, 78% at W2, 77% at W3 and 77% at W4).
Figure 24: Concern about climate change, drought and water situation – General public BASIN
Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘not at all concerned’ and 10 means ‘very concerned’, how concerned are you
about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All General public Basin respondents: n=342 Wave 1, n=345 Wave 2, n=348 Wave 3, n=353 Wave 4.
72
As with farmers and the general public in the Basin, the general public in Adelaide were the least
concerned about climate change (51% at W1, 56% at W2, 59% at W3 and 55% at W4), when
compared to the drought (66% at W1, 78% at W2, 66% at W3 and 58% at W4), and the water
situation in Australia over the next ten years (80% at W1, 85% at W2, 81% at W3 and 72% at W4).
Figure 25: Concern about the climate change, drought and water situation – General public
ADELAIDE
Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘not at all concerned’ and 10 means ‘very concerned’, how concerned are you
about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All General public Adelaide respondents: n=61 Wave 1, n=55 Wave 2, n=53 Wave 3, n=53 Wave 4.
73
Change in water concerns
Around a quarter of farmers (26% at W1, 23% at W2, 23% at W3 and 22% at W4) and the general
public living in the Basin (25% at W1, 23% at W2, 20% at W3 and 20% at W4), indicated they are
more concerned about water now compared to six months ago. In Wave 4, there was a significant
decrease in the proportion of the general public in the Basin who had the same concern now as they
did six months ago (46% at W3 down to 38% at W4).
Thirty percent of general public in Adelaide at Wave 1, and 42% at Wave 2 indicated greater
concern compared with six months ago. Concern among the general public in Adelaide in Wave 3
(26% concerned) returned to similar results seen in Wave 2. A greater proportion of people in
Adelaide from W1 (18%) to W2 (27%; not significantly different) indicated they were less concerned
about water compared to six months ago, and this translated to a significantly decrease in the
proportion of people in Adelaide indicating they have the same level of concern (52% at W1, and 31%
at W2).
See Figure 26. Reasons for changes in concern are presented in the tables below.
Figure 26: Change in level of concern about water over past 6 months
26%
40%
23%
38%
W3
23%
37%
W4
22%
General public
BASIN
W2
W1
General public
ADELAIDE
Farmers
W1
W1
23%
W3
20%
W4
20%
39%
42%
32%
1%
44%
31%
1%
46%
33%
38%
42%
52%
42%
W3
W4
25%
60%
20%
More concerned
40%
Same
21%
60%
Less concerned
Q8a: Are you more or less concerned about water now than you were say six months ago?
Base: All respondents.
74
27%
49%
19%
0%
18%
31%
26%
1%
36%
30%
W2
3%
39%
42%
25%
W2
34%
80%
100%
Not sure
Of those who indicated they were more concerned about water now compared to six months ago, the
most common (unprompted) reasons provided for this concern by farmers and the general public
living in the Basin area (across both waves) included concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan,
and water allocation cuts (i.e. Sustainable Diversion Limits), and uncertainty Australian farmers face
in terms of the possibility of prolonged drought.
There was also substantial mention of population growth in Australia in general, and specifically in the
Basin region, meaning heavier reliance on water and river flows, and a lack of infrastructure (e.g.
water storage / management) to cope with increasing resource demand.
Table 9: Key reasons for being more concerned – FARMERS – counts of responses*
Farmers
W1
W2
W3
W4
Concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan / cuts to irrigation /
water allocations / Sustainable Diversion Limits. Concern over
bigger farms surviving and smaller farms being compromised
26
13
20
10
Facing the possibility of prolonged drought, and insufficient water
management / lack of storage. Not sustainable and inefficient.
Government policy and projects have not been sustainable /
inefficient
10
11
4
6
More concerned about the people who rely on irrigation as a dry
land farmer / insufficient water for food production / stock grazing /
Water is important for people in the Basin area, farmers, and
Australia / livelihood
5
9
4
2
Concerned about the heavy rains, flooding and the damage it has
done, e.g. washed away creeks, crops, boundary fences
2
Population in Australia, and the Basin region has increased vastly
over the past 50 years – more reliance on water
2
People “hogging” and “wasting” water
2
The lack of consultation with communities in the Murray-Darling
Basin plan
2
The drought has increased awareness of the water situation
3
2
2
2
3
2
Concerns over water quality in the river / Basin area
1
2
1
Concerned that the Department of Natural Resources may put a
meter on bores to charge for water
1
The dire situation with the lower lakes
1
The mining companies are tapping into water pipes
3
More media attention / read and learned more
2
Concern small towns in the Basin will collapse
1
Unpredictable weather
1
1
Concerned about drought and fire danger
1
4
Q8b: Why are you more concerned about water now?
Base: Farmer respondents more concerned=52 Wave 1, n=47 Wave 2, n=50 Wave 3, n=43 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
75
5
2
4
Table 10: Key reasons for being more concerned – General public BASIN – counts of
responses*
General public BASIN
W1
W2
W3
W4
Still in drought / not enough rainfall / concerned about future
water resourcing / risk of continued drought / future generations
may not have enough water
16
14
17
16
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, Sustainable Diversion Limits /
proposed cuts to irrigation / water allocations / reducing crop and
food production / farmers aren’t getting enough water / towns
suffering
15
15
9
10
Government decisions re water management have been bad /
unfair, and short-term
9
10
7
8
Because of the growing population with the people coming from
overseas, and the irrigation system and so on which is affecting
the farmers and benefitting some of the others
9
3
3
2
Concerns for long-term water management. Need to conserve
resource / Government needs to implement effective policy, e.g.
maintain water restrictions
7
3
6
10
Recent documentary / media attention
7
4
Water and grocery prices going up, bills getting too high / may
have to buy water
6
6
2
2
People taking the rain for granted, wasting water / growing
unsuitable crops for Australia’s climate / ineffective water storage
/ management by farmers
5
5
5
6
I live on the river Murray / relevant to my direct situation
5
12
Water storage needed, e.g. dams
3
Climate change / weather patterns and rainfall is unpredictable
3
Less water in the river, lower quality
3
Lack of consultation with Basin communities
1
1
3
Bushfires affected personal relevance of environment and
drought
1
Have always been concerned
2
1
Q8b: Why are you more concerned about water now?
Base: General public respondents from Basin region, more concerned=83 Wave 1, n=79 Wave 2, n=70 Wave 3, n=70 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
76
Residents living in Adelaide commonly mentioned more media attention as a reason for having a
higher level of concern about water compared to six months ago. There were mentions of higher
concern for water conservation in the home also.
Table 11: Key reasons for being more concerned – General public ADELAIDE – counts of
responses*
W1
W2
W3
W4
More awareness of water issues due to drought, water restrictions,
and media attention
5
10
3
2
Greater concern about water conservation in the home in general
4
How much water will be available in the future? Concerns about
sustainability of the environment and population
3
4
5
The Murray River is low in some areas / main source of water to SA
3
2
1
Not enough water to go around / demand is going up and no
practical solution / poor water management in rural areas and SA
suffers
2
4
2
Government does not seem to care or act effectively
1
2
Concern about economic and farming issues
1
General public ADELAIDE
1
The Basin Plan
1
Costs of water have gone up
1
5
1
Q8b: Why are you more concerned about water now?
Base: General public respondents from Adelaide, more concerned=18 Wave 1, n=23 Wave 2, n=14 Wave 3, n=10 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
77
Overwhelmingly, across all target groups the key reason for those who are less concerned about
Australia’s water situation compared with six months ago, was the recent abundances of rain, and
reports of overflowing water catchments, flooding of some areas of the Basin, and the restoration of
the River’s watering cycle.
Table 12: Key reasons for being less concerned – All respondents – counts of responses*
Farmers
General public Basin
General public Adelaide
Reason
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
More rain lately /
overflowing dams
and tanks / floods /
more water stored
now / have had a
good season / more
water allocations
60
68
73
64
108
105
108
139
10
14
12
10
2
2
1
2
3
2
Restrictions are not
as tough now. Going
to keep water
restrictions, so water
should be pretty safe
for a while.
Because nature will
provide. Nature
provides for itself / I
think it is a cyclic
event, like the one
flood in 100 years,
could be a cycle in
100 or 200 years
Government is
working towards a
solution / research
1
1
1
1
1
1
Installed big water
tanks to catch
rainwater – more
sustainable
Desalination plant is
now in place
1
1
1
1
1
Q8c: Why are you less concerned about water now?
Base: n=61 Farmers Wave 1 and n=69 Wave 2, n=73 Wave 3, n=67 Wave 4; n=111 General public respondents from Basin
region Wave 1, n=107, Wave 2, n=109 Wave 3, n=144 Wave 4; n=11 General public respondents from Adelaide Wave 1, n=15
Wave 2, n=13 Wave 3, n=11 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
78
5.7. Current water conservation practices
Farmers were asked what if anything, do they do to conserve water. The most common conservation
practice among farmers in all four waves was the use of rainwater tanks (46% at W1, 53% at W2,
58% at W3 and 62% at W4).
At Wave 2, there was a significant increase in the proportion of farmers who use a dual flush toilet
(15%) compared to Wave 1 (8%); and a significantly greater proportion of farmers at Wave 2 using
low water car washing (3% at W2 to 0% at W1). There were two practices which significantly
decreased at Wave 2. These were improved irrigation methods (30% at W1, 19% at W2), and
modern farming practices (28% at W1, 19% at W2). At Wave 3, there was a significant increase in
low water use gardens (14% at W2 to 25% at W3); turning off taps when brushing teeth (9% at W2 to
16% at W3); and eco-laundry washing (9% at W2 to 16% at W3). In Wave 4, there was a significant
decrease in the use of water recycling/grey water/storm water systems (25% at W3 down to 14% at
W4) among farmers. See Figure 27.
Figure 27: Current water conservation practices – FARMERS
46%
Rainwater tanks
19%
18%
23%
Improved irrigation
Water recycling / grey water/ storm water systems
Modern farming practices / best practice
Other water conservation method
Short showers
Reusing water from the washing machine, shower and
sinks
Low flow taps and shower heads
Low water use gardens
Restricted watering of outdoor areas
Turning off taps when brushing teeth
Eco-laundry washing
Use a dual flush toilet
Low water car washing
Sold water entitlement/right
Nothing
0%
3%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
3%
3%
4%
0%
30%
53%
58%
62%
29%
33%
25%
14%
28%
19%
27%
18%
24%
19%
13%
12%
23%
26%
32%
36%
16%
15%
22%
29%
15%
12%
17%
19%
14%
14%
25%
17%
10%
18%
15%
22%
9%
9%
16%
23%
9%
9%
16%
12%
8%
15%
8%
12%
10%
20%
Farmers W1
Farmers W3
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Farmers W2
Farmers W4
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water?
Base: All Farmer respondents: n=202 Wave 1, n=202 Wave 2, n=200 Wave 3, n=203 Wave 4. Multiple responses allowed
79
At Wave 1, 2, 3 and 4, farmers mentioned the use of dams and upgrading water storage on properties
for capturing rainwater, and using bore water for livestock instead of River water. Many also
mentioned general conscientiousness of water use, e.g. fixing leaks. See Table 13.
Table 13: Other water conservation practices currently undertaken by FARMERS – counts of
responses*
Farmers
W1
W2
W3
W4
Damming off water / upgrading of outdoor water storage / use of
bore water
24
20
23
16
General conscious of using minimal water / conservative use of
pumped water / fixing leaks
21
10
11
13
Economical dishwasher / no dishwasher
4
2
3
Conversion of open channels to pipelines and closed troughs
3
Attend water conservation workshops
1
Monitoring water amount for animals
1
Have not sewn crops this season / de-stocked
1
1
Minimise dam evaporation
1
1
1
1
Septic system seeps into orchard
1
Solar water service / solar panels
1
Use timers on taps
1
1
1
A weather station
1
Reduced water pressure
1
Improving farm infrastructure
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water? Other – please specify?
Base: Farmer respondents=59 at Wave 1, n=4 Wave 2, n=48 Wave 3, n=39 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
80
1
The general public living in the Basin mentioned short showers as the most common water
conservation practice in all four waves (43% at W1, 41% at W2, 42% at W3, 55% at W4), with a
significant increase from Wave 3 (42%) to Wave 4 (55%).
There was a significant decrease in the proportion of the general public living in the Basin who
recycled grey water (28% at W1, to 14% at W2) and a decrease in use of modern farming practices
(5% at W2 to 1% at W3). In Wave 4, there was a significant increase in several conservation
practices, including restricted watering of outdoor areas (26% at W3 to 36% at W4); low flow taps and
shower heads (23% at W3 to 29% at W4); reusing water from washing machine/shower and sinks
(23% at W3 to 30% at W4); turning off taps when brushing teeth (14% at W3 to 27% at W4); and use
of dual flush toilet (13% at W3 to 24% at W4). See Figure 28.
Figure 28: Current water conservation practices – General public BASIN
43%
41%
42%
Short showers
Rainwater tanks
14%
14%
12%
Water recycling / grey water/ storm water systems
Restricted watering of outdoor areas
Low flow taps and shower heads
Reusing water from the washing machine, shower and
sinks
9%
7%
7%
10%
13%
14%
10%
11%
13%
10%
12%
12%
15%
9%
8%
11%
10%
8%
5%
Other water conservation method
Turning off taps when brushing teeth
Use a dual flush toilet
Eco-laundry washing
Low water car washing
Improved irrigation
Sold water entitlement/right
Nothing
45%
27%
24%
1%
1%
3%
4%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
6%
6%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
General public BASIN W1
General public BASIN W2
General public BASIN W3
General public BASIN W4
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water?
Base: All general public Basin respondents: n=342 Wave 1, n=345 Wave 2, n=348 Wave 3, n=353 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
81
55%
25%
22%
30%
28%
22%
20%
26%
36%
22%
26%
23%
29%
19%
21%
23%
30%
15%
Low water use gardens
Modern farming practices / best practice
36%
32%
38%
28%
60%
At Wave 1, 2, 3 and 4, the general public living in the Basin reported ‘other’ general practices to save
water, e.g. not leaving taps running, fixing leaky taps and pipes; and the use of water-efficient
dishwashers.
Table 14: Other water conservation practices currently undertaken by the general public in the Basin
region – counts of responses*
General public BASIN
W1
W2
W3
W4
Do as much as possible in general and avoid overuse, e.g.
don’t leave taps on / water running, fixing taps and pipe
leaks / follow water restrictions
20
16
37
18
No dishwasher / water saving hand-washing of dishes /
restricted dish washing
15
8
19
7
Use of dam water / increased size of dam / private lake /
reservoir / channel water
9
2
9
3
Use of bore water
4
4
10
6
Fill a bottle of water in the fridge
2
1
Buying filtered water
2
1
Separate tanks for fowls / livestock
1
Conservative with power, solar panels
1
1
Educating children about water conservation methods
1
2
Evaporative cooler in place that goes all to vegetation
1
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water? Other – please specify?
Base: General public in the Basin=56 at Wave 1, n=6 at Wave 2, n=53 Wave 3, n=40 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample sizes across some cells. Interpret results with caution.
82
The general public living in Adelaide mentioned low water use gardens (39%) as their primary water
conservation method at Wave 1 only (39%; 47% at Wave 2).
The proportion of the general public in Adelaide using low water use gardens significantly changed in
the four waves (47% at W2, to 17% at W3, up to 36% at W4). The primary practice at Wave 2 and
Wave 3 was taking short showers (30% at W1; to 53% at W2 and 38% at Wave 3, with a significant
increase between W1 and W2). See Figure 28.
Figure 29: Current water conservation practices – General public ADELAIDE
39%
Low water use gardens
17%
Rainwater tanks
28%
30%
Short showers
16%
16%
Water recycling / grey water/ storm water systems
21%
9%
16%
13%
11%
13%
Reusing water from the washing machine, shower and
sinks
Restricted watering of outdoor areas
Eco-laundry washing
Other water conservation method
Use a dual flush toilet
Modern farming practices / best practice
Low water car washing
Turning off taps when brushing teeth
Improved irrigation
Sold water entitlement/right
Nothing
43%
38%
Low flow taps and shower heads
13%
53%
43%
31%
34%
28%
27%
23%
27%
28%
40%
18%
8%
11%
13%
7%
4%
0%
10%
20%
13%
19%
10%
0%
2%
2%
8%
4%
4%
11%
7%
5%
13%
19%
3%
0%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
5%
6%
2%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
General public ADELAIDE W1
General public ADELAIDE W2
General public ADELAIDE W3
General public ADELAIDE W4
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water?
Base: All general public Adelaide respondents: n=61 Wave 1, n=55 Wave 2, n=53 Wave 3, n=53 Wave 4.
Multiple responses allowed.
83
47%
36%
34%
36%
60%
‘Other’ water conservation practices reported by general public in Adelaide included cutting down on
water use in general, and keeping plumbing in working order. See Table 15.
Table 15: Other water conservation practices currently undertaken by the general public in Adelaide –
counts of responses*
General public ADELAIDE
W1
W3
W4
2
Cut down on water in general
3
1
Fixing leaky taps
2
4
Use of bore water
2
1
3
Using minimal water for washing up / dishwater
1
3
3
Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water? Other – please specify?
Base: General public in Adelaide=8 at Wave 1, n=0 at Wave 2, n=8 Wave 3, n=2 Wave 4.
Note: Multiple responses allowed; numbers are unweighted.
* Small sample size. Interpret results with caution.
84
W2
Australian Government assistance for water saving measures
Figure 30 shows that the majority of respondents across all target groups, across both waves, have
not received any Australian Government rebate or assistance to install water saving measures.
Farmers were the group that took the most advantage of rebates and/or funding. There was a
statistically significant increase in the proportion of farmers who received assistance for a rainwater
tank in Wave 3 (10%), compared to Wave 2 (5%).
General public
ADELAIDE
General public
BASIN
Farmers
Figure 30: Receipt of Australian Government rebate
W1
5% 7%
W2
5% 4% 1% 4%
W3
8%
84%
86%
10% 4%1% 8%
2%
79%
1%
W4
5% 5% 12%
W1
5% 1% 5%
88%
2%
W2
4% 1%5%
90%
2%
W3
6% 6%
87%
1%
W4
6%1% 5%
88%
1%
W1
2% 8%
W2
79%
85%
7% 2% 9%
W3
6%2% 9%
W4
9% 2%
0%
3%
5%
82%
85%
13%
20%
2%
72%
40%
60%
6%
80%
Yes, received assistance for rainwater tanks
Yes, received assistance for irrigation
Yes, received assistance for greywater system
Yes, received assistance for 'other' measure
No, did not receive any assistance
Don't know
Q8e. Have you received any Australian Government rebates or funding to install water saving measures?
Q8f. What water saving measures have you installed using Australian Government rebates or funding?
Base: All respondents.
Multiple responses allowed.
85
100%
5.8. Attitudes to water conservation and drought
Respondents were asked at each wave a series of questions about their perceptions of the drought,
and their attitudes towards water conservation practices, and views about the role of Government in
controlling water conservation nationally.
Farmers had the lowest level of agreement that Australia faces major water shortages (70% at W1,
65% at W2, 67% at W3, and 70% at W4), in comparison to the general public living in the Basin
(76% at W1, 77% at W2, 78% at W3, and 79% at W4) and the general public living in Adelaide
(79% at W1, 86% at W2, 79% at W3, and 81% at W4).
Figure 31: Australia faces major water shortages
100%
90%
80%
70%
2%
10%
11%
7%
2%
13%
14%
6%
60%
50%
33%
4%
9%
10%
9%
1%
7%
10%
12%
3%
6%
9%
6%
3%
5%
8%
7%
1%
4%
10%
6%
2%
4%
10%
5%
3%
8%
8%
2%
27%
28%
27%
27%
23%
5%
2%
4%
4%
4%
11%
6%
24%
26%
17%
22%
48%
49%
49%
51%
52%
56%
62%
50%
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
2%
2%
11%
4%
23%
27%
40%
30%
20%
37%
38%
W1
W2
53%
58%
W3
W4
10%
0%
Farmers
Strongly agree
Slightly disagree
General public
BASIN
Slightly agree
Strongly disagree
General public
ADELAIDE
Neither agree nor disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Australia faces major water shortages.
Base: All respondents.
86
Similar to the high level of agreement that Australia faces major water shortages shown in Figure 31
above, Figure 32 shows that there were also high levels of agreement that the drought has changed
views of water:
Farmers had a the lowest level of agreement that the drought has changed their views on water (65%
at W1, 74% at W2, 73% at W3 and 65% at W4), in comparison to the general public living in the
Basin (82% at W1, 79% at W2; 75% at W3 and 80% at W4) and the general public living in
Adelaide (77% at W1, 87% at W2, 82% at W3 and 81% at W4).
In Wave 2, there was a significantly higher proportion of farmers (45% at W1, to 60% at W2), and a
higher proportion of the general public in Adelaide (66% at W1, to 76% at W2) who strongly agree
that the drought has changed their view on water. In comparison, there was a significant decline in
the proportion of the general public living in the Basin who strongly agree that the drought has
changed their views on water (63% at W1, to 55% at W2).
Figure 32: The drought has changed the way I view water
100%
14%
1%
14%
13%
80%
12%
5%
6%
8%
6%
70%
9%
14%
16%
90%
60%
50%
18%
10%
6%
5%
8%
5%
19%
8%
9%
4%
1%
8%
12%
5%
24%
19%
55%
56%
W2
W3
8%
10%
2%
17%
3%
10%
63%
66%
W4
W1
10%
11%
40%
20%
9%
9%
11%
25%
19%
57%
62%
W3
W4
8%
15%
20%
30%
5%
4%
4%
11%
60%
57%
W2
W3
45%
63%
50%
76%
10%
0%
W1
Farmers
W4
W1
General public
BASIN
W2
General public
ADELAIDE
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The drought has changed the way I
view water.
Base: All respondents.
87
Attitudes towards water conservation practices
In all four waves there was strong disagreement that individuals cannot make a difference to the
amount of water saved.
Among farmers, the level of disagreement that individuals cannot make a difference to the amount of
water saved remained consistent (78% at W1, 80% at W2, 87% at W3, and 80% at W4).
Among the general public living in the Basin, the levels of disagreement that individuals cannot
make a difference to the amount of water saved (83% at W1, 86% at W2, 82% at W3, and 88% at
W4) remained consistent. However, a significantly lower proportion of the general public in the Basin
at Wave 3 disagreed (slightly) (18%), compared with Wave 2 (24%).
Among the general public living in Adelaide the level of disagreement that individuals cannot make
a difference to the amount of water saved also remained consistent (85% at W1, 84% at W2, 86% at
W3, and 89% at W4). See Figure 33.
Figure 33: Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount of water that is saved
100%
1%
1%
62%
62%
1%
0%
2%
72%
62%
16%
1%
7%
4%
23%
3%
3%
7%
15%
2%
7%
2%
9%
4%
8%
4%
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
5%
90%
80%
70%
64%
59%
66%
62%
64%
60%
58%
68%
69%
50%
40%
30%
16%
18%
20%
4%
11%
6%
4%
8%
7%
W1
W2
10%
0%
21%
2%
5%
6%
17%
2%
7%
7%
24%
3%
9%
8%
1%
9%
3%
18%
2%
10%
5%
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
23%
Farmers
General public
BASIN
28%
21%
General public
ADELAIDE
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Individuals can’t really make much
difference to the amount of water that is saved.
Base: All respondents.
88
Similarly, Figure 34 shows that the majority of respondents believe people can do more in terms of
conserving water. Overall, each target group believed at each wave that people are not conserving
enough water already, and could be conserving more.
Figure 34: People are conserving enough water already
100%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
4%
1%
1%
37%
34%
33%
35%
38%
90%
80%
32%
42%
70%
46%
20%
18%
7%
7%
22%
16%
6%
32%
6%
21%
16%
8%
11%
10%
10%
10%
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
Farmers
31%
42%
30%
32%
42%
8%
6%
5%
20%
18%
19%
6%
8%
6%
W2
W3
W4
General public
BASIN
32%
28%
11%
19%
17%
30%
8%
21%
10%
0%
27%
31%
35%
40%
30%
2%
25%
60%
50%
2%
2%
8%
16%
16%
15%
13%
2%
6%
4%
W2
W3
W4
W1
26%
19%
General public
ADELAIDE
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: People are conserving enough water
already.
Base: All respondents.
89
Australian Government intervention
Views were divided within and between target audiences regarding the issue of irrigation and water
use.
Among farmers, just over a third agreed that irrigators should use less water than they do (38% at
W1, 34% at W2, 37% at W3, and 33% at W4). At Wave 3, there was a significant lower proportion of
farmers who slightly disagreed that irrigators should use less water than they do (23% at W2 and 13%
at W3).
Among the general public living in the Basin, the proportion who agreed that irrigators should use
less water was higher than for farmers (42% at W1, 39% at W2, 45% at W3, and 45% at W4).
The general public living in Adelaide, had the highest agreement that irrigators should use less
water than they do (48% at W1, 53% at W2, 42% at W3, 51% at W4). Among the general public in
Adelaide, there was a significant change in the proportion who neither agreed nor disagreed that
irrigators should use less water than they do (13% at W2, to 30% at W3, down to 9% at W4).
Figure 35: Irrigators should use less water than they do
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Irrigators should use less water than
they do.
Base: All respondents.
90
In terms of Australian Government intervention and control of the amount of water that irrigators can
use, at Wave 1, similar proportions of farmers disagreed with this premise (46%) compared with
farmers who agreed (44%); however, of those who disagreed, the majority felt strongly about this
(35%).
The proportion of farmers in agreement with this statement declined further in Wave 2, which found a
significant decrease in the proportion of farmers in slight agreement with the statement (31% at W1,
to 19% at W2). At Wave 3 and Wave 4 farmers’ views had not significantly changed.
Farmers’ results were in contrast to those of the general public (both in the Basin region, and in
Adelaide for both waves).
Among the general public in the Basin region, there was significant increase in the proportion who
strongly agreed with the Australian Government control (21% at W2, to 29% at W3). In the same
period there was also a significant decline in the proportion who slightly disagreed (17% at W2 to 9%
at W3).
Among the general public in Adelaide, there was a significant decrease in the proportion who
strongly agreed with the Australian Government control (55% at W2, to 28% at W3). See Figure 36.
Figure 36: The Australian Government should control the amount of water that irrigators can use
100%
2%
2%
1%
35%
39%
39%
5%
4%
90%
80%
43%
70%
60%
50%
11%
16%
8%
30%
11%
31%
19%
20%
10%
11%
7%
11%
9%
40%
27%
14%
15%
11%
W1
W2
W3
W4
Farmers
5%
7%
22%
18%
16%
13%
17%
9%
9%
13%
8%
31%
29%
8%
10%
23%
2%
9%
2%
4%
11%
5%
15%
4%
6%
6%
11%
15%
18%
34%
36%
30%
30%
48%
22%
13%
0%
3%
11%
7%
24%
1%
23%
21%
W1
W2
29%
28%
W3
W4
General public
BASIN
55%
40%
28%
W1
W2
W3
W4
General public
ADELAIDE
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government should
control the amount of water that irrigators can use.
Base: All respondents.
91
Interestingly, there were high proportions of respondents across all target groups in agreement that
the Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with less water, across all
waves. Agreement that the Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with less
water was consistent in all four waves for both farmers and the general public living in Adelaide.
Among the general public in the Basin region, there was significant increase in the proportion who
strongly agreed that the Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with
less water (43% at W2, to 53% at W3). See Figure 37.
Figure 37: The Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with less water
100%
90%
80%
70%
1%
1%
3%
3%
19%
20%
17%
18%
9%
9%
60%
50%
10%
6%
5%
4%
9%
4%
1%
10%
5%
5%
29%
28%
29%
1%
5%
6%
5%
2%
7%
4%
6%
29%
24%
3%
9%
9%
2%
34%
3%
10%
7%
5%
7%
5%
5%
6%
4%
4%
24%
34%
23%
21%
30%
25%
40%
70%
30%
20%
2%
2%
6%
34%
38%
43%
W1
W2
W3
50%
36%
43%
53%
57%
52%
58%
53%
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
10%
0%
Farmers
W4
W1
W2
General public
BASIN
W4
General public
ADELAIDE
Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government has the
role of preparing Australia for a future with less water.
Base: All respondents.
92
In addition to the results above, at Wave 1, 56% of farmers agreed that the Australian Government is
not currently doing enough about the water situation. This increased to 65% in Wave 2, with the
proportion of farmers strongly agreeing with the statement increasing significantly (30% at W1, to 40%
at W2). In Wave 3, this slightly declined to 59%, with the proportion of farmers slightly agreeing with
the statement declining significantly (25% at W2 to 15% at W3).
Results for the general public in the Basin remained relatively stable in Wave 3.
Among the general public in Adelaide, agreement that the Australian Government isn’t doing
enough about the water situation returned to similar results seen in Wave 1, with as significant decline
in those who strongly agree (44% at W1, 64% at W2 and 40% at W3). The results remained stable in
Wave 4.
Figure 38: The Australian Government isn’t doing enough about the water situation
100%
90%
3%
11%
80%
16%
70%
60%
3%
6%
16%
13%
13%
15%
14%
9%
14%
10%
25%
50%
40%
3%
9%
15%
26%
4%
9%
4%
8%
3%
8%
4%
6%
3%
11%
2%
2%
15%
15%
16%
19%
14%
2%
4%
4%
5%
22%
11%
10%
11%
5%
13%
9%
16%
25%
26%
8%
25%
9%
26%
25%
10%
9%
4%
28%
64%
30%
20%
30%
2%
11%
30%
40%
44%
40%
37%
37%
40%
44%
33%
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
40%
45%
W3
W4
0%
W1
Farmers
Strongly agree
General public
BASIN
Slightly agree
W2
General public
ADELAIDE
Neither agree nor disagree
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for each
one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government isn’t doing
enough about the water situation.
Base: All respondents.
93
6. Sample Profile
6.1. Type of farmer by state
Table 16: Type of farmer (% of total per wave)
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
Dryland farmers
20% (n=40)
14% (n=29)
20% (n=41)
12% (n=24)
Irrigation farmers
3% (n=6)
7% (n=15)
2% (n=4)
7% (n=15)
Both dryland and
irrigation farmers
3% (n=5)
4% (n=7)
3% (n=6)
5% (n=10)
Total Wave 1
25% (n=51)
25% (n=51)
25% (n=51)
24% (n=49)
Dryland farmers
15% (n=30)
16% (n=32)
21% (n=43)
12% (n=24)
Irrigation farmers
5% (n=11)
7% (n=14)
2% (n=5)
10% (n=21)
Both dryland and
irrigation farmers
5% (n=11)
2% (n=3)
3% (n=5)
3% (n=5)
Total Wave 2
26% (n=52)
24% (n=49)
25% (n=51)
25% (n=50)
Dryland farmers
19% (n=37)
12% (n=24)
19% (n=37)
13% (n=26)
Irrigation farmers
5% (n=10)
8% (n=15)
5% (n=10)
7% (n=13)
Both dryland and
irrigation farmers
2% (n=3)
6% (n=11)
2% (n=3)
6% (n=11)
Total Wave 3
25% (n=50)
25% (n=50)
25% (n=50)
25% (n=50)
Dryland farmers
18% (n=37)
12% (n25)
21% (n=42)
12% (n=25)
Irrigation farmers
2% (n=4)
8% (n=17)
3% (n=5)
6% (n=13)
Both dryland and
irrigation farmers
4% (n=9)
4% (n=8)
3% (n=6)
6% (n=12)
25% (n=50)
25% (n=50)
26% (n=53)
125% (n=50)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
Total Wave 3
3b. Would you consider yourself to be a ‘dry land’ or ‘irrigation’ farmer?
Base: All respondents who earn a living from the land: n=202 Wave 1, n=202 Wave 2, n=200 Wave 3.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted. Proportions may not add to 100% exactly, due to rounding.
94
Table 17: Proportion of farmers with a water entitlement, by farmer type
Wave 1 (N=202)
Water entitlement
Wave 2 (N=202)
Wave 3 (N=202)
Wave 4 (n=203)
Dryland farmer
30% (n=40)
14% (n=18)
22% (n=27)
12% (n=16)
Irrigation farmer
90% (n=36)
90% (n=44)
94% (n=45)
85% (n=33)
Both dryland
and irrigation
82% (n=23)
83% (n=20)
89% (n=25)
91% (n=32)
Q3c. Do you have a water entitlement or water right?
Base: All respondents who earn a living from the land: n=202 Wave 1, n=202 Wave 2, n=200 Wave 3, n=203 Wave 4.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
6.2. Location of general public samples
Table 18: Location of general public samples
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
ACT
28% (n=99)
29% (n=101)
14% (n=50)
12% (n=41)
13% (n=51)
Wave 1
Murray-Darling
Basin general
public
Adelaide general
public
17% (n=61)
Total Wave 1
28% (n=99)
29% (n=101)
14% (n=50)
29% (n=102)
13% (n=51)
Murray-Darling
Basin general
public
29% (n=100)
29% (n=100)
14% (n=50)
13% (n=45)
13% (n=50)
Wave 2
Adelaide general
public
16% (n=55)
Total Wave 2
29% (n=100)
29% (n=100)
14% (n=50)
29% (n=100)
13% (n=50)
Murray-Darling
Basin general
public
25% (n=100)
25% (n=101)
13% (n=51)
12% (n=47)
12% (n=49)
Wave 3
Adelaide general
public
13% (n=53)
Total Wave 3
25% (n=100)
25% (n=101)
13% (n=51)
25% (n=100)
12% (n=49)
Murray-Darling
Basin general
public
25% (n=103
25% (n=100)
13% (n=53)
12% (n=48)
12% (n=49)
Wave 4
Adelaide general
public
Total Wave 4
13% (n=53)
25% (n=xx)
25% (n=xx)
13% (n=xx)
Q1. Can you tell me your postcode?
Base: All general public respondents: n=403 Wave 1, n=400 Wave 2, n=401 Wave 3.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
95
25% (n=xx)
12% (n=xx)
6.3. Gender
Table 19: Sample Profile – Gender
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Farmers
43%
(n=86)
57%
(n=116)
44%
(n=88)
56%
(n=114)
36%
(n=71)
64%
(n=129)
39%
(n=79)
61%
(n=124)
General
public BASIN
49%
(n=167)
51%
(n=175)
48%
(n=166)
52%
(n=179)
45%
(n=157)
55%
(n=191)
42%
(n=149)
58%
(n=204)
General
public
ADELAIDE
49%
(n=30)
51%
(n=31)
26%
(n=14)
75%
(n=41)
43%
(n=23)
57%
(n=30)
57%
(n=30)
43%
(n=23)
Q2. Gender (single response)
Base=All respondents
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
6.4. Age group
Table 20: Sample Profile – Age group
18-34 years
34-49 years
50-64 years
65 years plus
4% (n=22)
11% (n=64)
13% (n=78)
6% (n=38)
15% (n=90)
15% (n=89)
15% (n=92)
12% (n=71)
3% (n=20)
15% (n=20)
2% (n=12)
2% (n=9)
22% (n=132)
29% (n=173)
30% (n=182)
20% (n=118)
3% (n=19)
11% (n=64)
13% (n=80)
7% (n=39)
16% (n=98)
16% (n=96)
24% (n=84)
19% (n=67)
1% (n=7)
3% (n=16)
3% (n=16)
3% (n=16)
21% (n=124)
29% (n=176)
30% (n=180)
20% (n=122)
3% (n=20)
9% (n=54)
14% (n=86)
7% (n=40)
13% (n=80)
16% (n=93)
16% (n=97)
13% (n=78)
4% (n=21)
3% (n=16)
2% (n=9)
1% (n=7)
20% (n=121)
27% (n=163)
32% (n=192)
21% (n=125)
3% (n=20)
10% (n=59)
13% (n=80)
7% (n=44)
14% (n=83)
16% (n=99)
16% (n=98)
12% (n=73)
4% (n=22)
2% (n=11)
2% (n=13)
1% (n=7)
21% (n=125)
28% (n=169)
31% (n=191)
20% (n=124)
Wave 1
Farmers
Murray-Darling
Basin general public
Adelaide general
public
Total Wave 1
Wave 2
Farmers
Murray-Darling
Basin general public
Adelaide general
public
Total Wave 2
Wave 3
Farmers
Murray-Darling
Basin general public
Adelaide general
public
Total Wave 3
Wave 4
Farmers
Murray-Darling
Basin general public
Adelaide general
public
Total Wave 4
Q3a. Age group
Base=All respondents.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
96
6.5. Highest education attained
Table 21: Sample Profile – Highest education attained
Farmers
General public BASIN
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
Year 8 or
below
5%
(n=11)
5%
(n=10)
6%
(n=12)
8%
(n=17)
5%
(n=17)
4%
(n=15)
3%
(n=9)
4%
(n=13)
2%
(n=1)
9%
(n=5)
--
2%
(n=1)
Year 9 or
equivalent
5%
(n=11)
3%
(n=5)
6%
(n=12)
3%
(n=7)
4%
(n=12)
4%
(n=12)
3%
(n=11)
2%
(n=8)
3%
(n=2)
4%
(n=2)
2%
(n=1)
--
Year 10 or
equivalent
17%
(n=35)
19%
(n=38)
17%
(n=33)
19%
(n=39)
20%
(n=68)
14%
(n=49)
18%
(n=61)
12%
(n=43)
7%
(n=4)
18%
(n=10)
11%
(n=6)
11%
(n=6)
Year 11 or
equivalent
9%
(n=19)
8%
(n=16)
10%
(n=19)
10%
(n=20)
6%
(n=21)
9%
(n=30)
6%
(n=21)
7%
(n=23)
15%
(n=9)
13%
(n=7)
4%
(n=2)
4%
(n=2)
Year 12 or
equivalent
21%
(n=42)
18%
(n=37)
19%
(n=37)
20%
(n=41)
24%
(n=81)
20%
(n=68)
19%
(n=66)
24%
(n=83)
30%
(n=18)
13%
(n=7)
25%
(n=13)
26%
(n=14)
Still attending
school
<1%
(n=1)
<1%
(n=1)
--
1%
(n=1)
--
--
--
--
3%
(n=2)
--
--
--
Trade certificate
or
apprenticeship
5%
(n=10)
4%
(n=8)
4%
(n=8)
7%
(n=15)
7%
(n=25)
10%
(n=34)
7%
(n=23)
6%
(n=20)
8%
(n=5)
4%
(n=2)
9%
(n=5)
8%
(n=4)
Diploma,
certificate
12%
(n=24)
23%
(n=46)
14%
(n=28)
16%
(n=32)
11%
(n=39)
13%
(n=46)
13%
(n=45)
19%
(n=66)
10%
(n=6)
16%
(n=9)
9%
(n=5)
17%
(n=9)
Bachelor or
Honours degree
17%
(n=34)
13%
(n=10)
16%
(n=32)
13%
(n=27)
15%
(n=50)
19%
(n=32)
18%
(n=63)
13%
(n=8)
16%
(n=9)
19%
(n=10)
23%
(n=12)
Post-graduate
qualifications
(e.g. Masters,
PhD)
3%
(n=7)
5%
(n=10)
7%
(n=14)
1%
(n=1)
6%
(n=22)
6%
(n=20)
9%
(n=32)
9%
(n=30)
10%
(n=6)
4%
(n=2)
19%
(n=10)
9%
(n=5)
Other…..
3%
(n=6)
2%
(n=3)
1%
(n=2)
1%
(n=2)
1%
(n=5)
2%
(n=8)
3%
(n=10)
--
--
2%
(n=1)
--
--
Prefer not to
answer
1%
(n=2)
<1%
(n=1)
2%
(n=3)
1%
(n=1)
1%
(n=2)
2%
(n=6)
1%
(n=3)
1%
(n=4)
--
2%
(n=1)
2%
(n=1)
--
Q21. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
Base=All respondents.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
97
General public ADELAIDE
17%
(n=57)
6.6. Household income
Table 22: Sample Profile – Household income
Farmers
General public BASIN
General public ADELAIDE
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W2
W3
W4
$1 - $20,799
8%
(n=17)
9%
(n=19)
5%
(n=10)
5%
(n=11)
8%
(n=28)
10%
(n=34)
7%
(n=24)
9%
(n=30)
7%
(n=4)
22%
(n=12)
8%
(n=4)
11%
(n=6)
$20,800 - $41,599
6%
(n=13)
15%
(n=30)
14%
(n=27)
13%
(n=27)
18%
(n=60)
11%
(n=39)
14%
(n=47)
10%
(n=34)
15%
(n=9)
13%
(n=7)
8%
(n=4)
9%
(n=5)
$41,600 - $62,399
11%
(n=23)
11%
(n=23)
16%
(n=32)
18%
(n=37)
14%
(n=48)
12%
(n=41)
15%
(n=52)
12%
(n=42)
16%
(n=10)
15%
(n=8)
9%
(n=5)
9%
(n=5)
$62,400 - $83,199
14%
(n=28)
9%
(n=19)
11%
(n=21)
7%
(n=14)
15%
(n=53)
13%
(n=46)
12%
(n=41)
16%
(n=55)
10%
(n=6)
6%
(n=3)
9%
(n=5)
15%
(n=8)
$83,200 - $103,999
7%
(n=14)
9%
(n=19)
6%
(n=12)
6%
(n=13)
7%
(n=25)
11%
(n=38)
10%
(n=33)
12%
(n=41)
10%
(n=6)
7%
(n=4)
8%
(n=4)
15%
(n=8)
$104,000 - $155,999
6%
(n=12)
7%
(n=15)
8%
(n=15)
9%
(n=19)
12%
(n=41)
11%
(n=38)
12%
(n=42)
13%
(n=47)
13%
(n=8)
6%
(n=3)
9%
(n=5)
13%
(n=7)
$156,000 - $207,999
4%
(n=9)
4%
(n=7)
3%
(n=6)
3%
(n=5)
5%
(n=16)
5%
(n=17)
3%
(n=12)
6%
(n=22)
--
--
9%
(n=5)
--
$208,000 - $259,999
2%
(n=5)
3%
(n=5)
2%
(n=3)
--
1%
(n=2)
1%
(n=5)
3%
(n=10)
2%
(n=7)
3%
(n=2)
2%
(n=1)
2%
(n=1)
2%
(n=1)
$260,000 or more
7%
(n=15)
2%
(n=4)
5%
(n=9)
6%
(n=13)
1%
(n=5)
1%
(n=5)
<1%
(n=1)
2%
(n=6)
--
2%
(n=1)
--
2%
(n=1)
No income
4%
(n=8)
5%
(n=10)
4%
(n=8)
3%
(n=5)
1%
(n=2)
4%
(n=15)
2%
(n=8)
2%
(n=6)
--
--
4%
(n=2)
4%
(n=2)
Negative income
1%
(n=2)
2%
(n=3)
2%
(n=3)
6%
(n=12)
--
1%
(n=5)
<1%
(n=1)
--
--
--
Prefer not to answer
28%
(n=56)
24%
(n=48)
27%
(n=54)
23%
(n=47)
18%
(n=62)
10%
(n=61)
22%
(n=77)
18%
(n=10)
26%
(n=16)
3%
(n=15)
-34%
(n=18)
Q22. What is the total of all wages/salaries, Government benefits, pensions, allowances and other income that your household
usually receives (Gross, before tax and superannuation deductions)?
Base=All respondents.
Note: Numbers and figures are unweighted.
98
-19%
(n=10)
6.7. Ethnic background
Table 23: Sample Profile – Ethnic background – counts
Farmers
W1
W2
W3
Aboriginal
1
--
Torres Strait Islander
--
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander
General public BASIN
W4
W1
W2
W3
4
4
6
--
--
--
--
--
--
Italian
4
1
Greek
2
Chinese (Cantonese /
Mandarin)
W1
W2
W3
8
1
--
1
--
--
1
--
--
2
--
--
--
--
--
2
--
5
4
2
1
1
4
--
--
3
--
--
1
1
--
--
--
2
--
3
--
--
--
Vietnamese
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
--
Spanish
--
1
--
3
--
4
--
1
--
German
--
1
--
4
1
2
1
1
1
Hindi
--
--
--
--
1
--
2
--
--
Croatian
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
--
Turkish
--
--
--
1
1
--
--
--
--
Polish
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
--
Iran (Persian / Dari)
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
--
French
--
--
--
1
1
4
--
--
1
Indonesian
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
--
Filipino
--
1
--
1
1
2
--
--
--
Russian
--
--
--
--
--
1
1
--
--
Dutch
1
1
--
2
--
1
2
--
--
Japanese
--
--
--
1
--
1
--
--
--
Sinhalese
--
--
--
--
1
1
1
--
--
Portuguese
--
--
--
--
1
2
--
--
--
Hungarian
--
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
Other
--
1
--
1
2
7
--
--
2
Q23. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island origin?
Q24. Do you speak a language other than English at home?
Q25. What language do you speak at home?
Note: Multiple responses allowed. Base=All respondents.
Note: Numbers are unweighted.
99
W4
General public ADELAIDE
W4
7. Appendix: Woolcott Research
(benchmark) and CBSR Results (tracking
waves 1 to 4)
Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving
initiatives and ‘Water for the Future’ program
Table 24: Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving initiatives – FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Yes, aware of
Government water
programs
57%
45%
52%
55%
49%
No, not aware of
Government water
programs
43%
53%
43%
43%
48%
Don't know
0%
2%▲
5%▲
2%▲
3%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 25: Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving initiatives – General public
BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Yes, aware of
Government water
programs
62%
48%▼
44%▼
49%▼
46%▼
No, not aware of
Government water
programs
33%
51%▲
55%▲
49%▲
52%▲
Don't know
5%
2%
1%▼
2%
3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public Basin
Total
CBR: Q10. Are you aware of any Australian Government programs or initiatives to help save water? Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q11a. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
100
Table 26: Unprompted awareness of Government water saving initiatives – FARMERS
Benchmark
Farmers
Water for the Future
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=32
n=96
n=101
n=103
n=97
0%
11%▲
0%
3%
1%
Table 27: Unprompted awareness of Australian Government water saving initiatives – General public
BASIN
Benchmark
General public - Basin
Water for the Future
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=123
n=163
n=150
n=172
n=155
1%
1%
1%
3%
0%
CBR: Q11. What are you aware of?
Base: Farmers and general public Basin respondents aware of Gov initiative. Multiple responses allowed.
Woolcott Research data: Q11b.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
101
Prompted awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program
Table 28: Prompted awareness of the Water for the Future program – FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Know a lot
1%
5%
4%
3%
4%
Know a little
20%
13%
14%
17%
14%
Don't know much
11%
23%▲
15%
15%
16%
Only know the name
24%
15%
19%
20%
18%
Hadn't heard of it
before today
44%
44%
48%
44%
49%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Table 29: Prompted awareness of the Water for the Future program – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Know a lot
0%
1%
1%
2%▲
1%
Know a little
11%
10%
11%
12%
12%
Don't know much
8%
16%▲
14%▲
14%▲
12%
Only know the name
15%
13%
14%
13%
13%
Hadn't heard of it
before today
66%
60%
59%
60%
61%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public Basin
CBR: Q12. How much do you know about the “Water for the Future” program?
Base: All respondents
Woolcott Research data: Q12a.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
102
Total awareness of ‘Water for the Future’ program
Table 30: Total awareness (prompted + unprompted) of the ‘Water for the Future’ program –
FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Unprompted
awareness
0%
5%▲
0%
2%▲
0%
Prompted
awareness
57%
51%
52%
55%
51%
Unaware
43%
45%
48%
44%
49%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Table 31: Total awareness (prompted + unprompted) of the ‘Water for the Future’ program – General
public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Unprompted
awareness
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Prompted
awareness
33%
40%
41%
39%
38%
Unaware
66%
60%
59%
60%
61%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public –
Basin
CBR: Q11. What are you aware of?
CBR: Q12. How much do you know about the “Water for the Future” program?
Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q11b, Q12a.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
103
Concern about climate change, drought and the water situation
Table 32: Concern about climate change - FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.4
Very concerned
20%
15%
12%
15%
16%
Somewhat concerned
23%
24%
28%
19%
23%
Concerned subtotal
43%
39%
40%
34%
39%
Moderately concerned
19%
35%▲
30%
32%▲
25%
Slightly concerned
23%
9%▼
9%▼
12%
14%
Not at all concerned
15%
18%
20%
22%
21%
Not concerned subtotal
38%
27%
29%
34%
35%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Mean
Table 33: Concern about climate change – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.3
Very concerned
21%
18%
21%
24%
18%
Somewhat concerned
31%
31%
30%
31%
35%
Concerned subtotal
52%
49%
51%
55%
53%
Moderately concerned
25%
28%
27%
23%
30%
Slightly concerned
8%
10%
10%
9%
8%
Not at all concerned
14%
13%
13%
13%
10%
Not concerned subtotal
22%
23%
23%
22%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Mean
CBR: Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “not at all concerned” and 10 means “very concerned”, how concerned are
you about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All respondents
Woolcott Research data: Q3a.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
104
Table 34: Concern about drought - FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.0
8.1
Very concerned
47%
49%
45%
48%
55%
Somewhat concerned
21%
26%
32%
31%
22% 
Concerned subtotal
68%
75%
77%
79%
77%
Moderately concerned
30%
15%▼
12%▼
13%▼
18%
Slightly concerned
2%
5%
6%
4%
1%
Not at all concerned
0%
6%▲
5%▲
4%▲
4%▲
Not concerned subtotal
2%
5%
6%
4%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Mean
Total
Table 35: Concern about drought – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
Very concerned
43%
36%
34%▼
37%
32%▼
Somewhat concerned
31%
32%
34%
31%
37%
Concerned subtotal
74%
68%
68%
68%
69%
Moderately concerned
14%
22%▲
18%
16%
17%
Slightly concerned
8%
4%
7%
8%
8%
Not at all concerned
5%
6%
7%
8%
6%
Not concerned subtotal
13%
10%
14%
16%
14%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public Basin
Mean
CBR: Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means “not at all concerned” and 10 means “very concerned”, how concerned are
you about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q4.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
105
Table 36: Concern about the water situation - FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
8.3
7.9
7.8
7.9
8.0
Very concerned
55%
50%
46%
51%
51%
Somewhat concerned
25%
23%
28%
26%
25%
Concerned subtotal
80%
73%
74%
77%
76%
Moderately concerned
21%
17%
15%
16%
20%
Slightly concerned
0%
3%▲
8%▲
5%▲
2%▲
Not at all concerned
0%
5%▲
2%▲
3%▲
1%
Not concerned subtotal
0%
8%▲
10%▲
8%▲
3%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Mean
Total
Table 37: Concern about the water situation - General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
8.4
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
Very concerned
59%
46%▼
46%▼
45%▼
41%▼
Somewhat concerned
30%
30%
32%
32%
36%
Concerned subtotal
89%
76%▼
78%▼
77%▼
77%▼
Moderately concerned
6%
18%▲
14%▲
15%▲
17%▲
Slightly concerned
3%
3%
3%
6%
4%
Not at all concerned
2%
4%
7%▲
3%
2%
Not concerned subtotal
5%
7%
10%▲
9%
6%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public Basin
Mean
Total
CBR: Q7: On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means „not at all concerned‟ and 10 means „very concerned‟, how concerned are
you about climate change, drought, and the water situation over the next ten years?
Base: All respondents
Woolcott Research data: Q5.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
106
Change in water concerns
Table 38: Change in level of concern about water over past 6 months - FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
More concerned
23%
26%
23%
23%
22%
Same
19%
40%▲
38%▲
37%▲
42%▲
Less concerned
57%
34%▼
39%▼
39%▼
36%▼
Not sure
2%
3%
0%
1%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 39: Change in level of concern about water over past 6 months – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
More concerned
28%
25%
23%
20%▼
20%▼
Same
17%
42%▲
44%▲
46%▲
38%▲
Less concerned
55%
32%▼
31%▼
33%▼
42%▼
Not sure
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public Basin
Total
CBR: Q8a: Are you more or less concerned about water now than you were say six months ago?
Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q3a.
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents only
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
107
Current water conservation practices
Table 40: Current water conservation practices – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Short showers
86%
43%▼
41%▼
42%▼
55%▼
Rainwater tanks
46%
36%▼
32%▼
38%
45%
n/a
28%
14%
14%
12%
Low water use gardens
84%
25%▼
22%▼
30%▼
28%▼
Low flow taps and
shower heads
69%
22%▼
26%▼
23%▼
29%▼
Restricted watering of
outdoor areas
83%
22%▼
20%▼
26%▼
36%▼
Reusing water from the
washing machine,
shower and sinks
54%
19%▼
21%▼
23%▼
30%▼
Eco-laundry washing
60%
10%▼
12%▼
12%▼
15%▼
Use a dual flush toilet
88%
10%▼
11%▼
13%▼
24%▼
Turning off taps when
brushing teeth
92%
10%▼
13%▼
14%▼
27%▼
Low water car washing
73%
9%▼
8%▼
11%▼
10%▼
Modern farming
practices / best practice
n/a
8%
5%
1%
1%
Improved irrigation
n/a
3%
4%
2%
2%
Sold water
entitlement/right
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Other water
conservation method
n/a
15%
9%
7%
7%
Nothing
1%
4%▲
6%▲
6%▲
4%▲
General public - Basin
Water recycling / grey
water/ storm water
systems
CBR: Q8d. What, if anything, do you do to conserve water?
Base: All general public Basin respondents: Multiple responses allowed
Woolcott Research data: Q9
Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents(general public Basin only). Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed
to CBR.
.
108
Attitudes to water conservation and drought
Table 41: Australia faces major water shortages – FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
70%
37%▼
38%▼
50%▼
48%▼
Slightly agree
16%
33%▲
27%
17%
22%
Agree subtotal
86%
70%▼
65%▼
67%▼
70%▼
Neither agree nor
disagree
2%
7%
6%
9%▲
12%▲
Slightly disagree
4%
11%▲
14%▲
10%
10%
Strongly disagree
6%
10%
13%
9%
7%
Disagree subtotal
10%
21%▲
27%▲
19%
17%
Don't know
2%
2%
2%
4%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 42: Australia faces major water shortages – General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
69%
49%▼
49%▼
51%▼
52%▼
Slightly agree
15%
27%▲
28%▲
27%▲
27%▲
Agree subtotal
84%
76%▼
77%▼
78%
79%
Neither agree nor
disagree
3%
6%
7%▲
6%
5%
Slightly disagree
6%
9%
8%
10%
10%
Strongly disagree
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
Disagree subtotal
12%
15%
13%
14%
14%
Don't know
0%
3%▲
3%▲
1%
2%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Australia faces major water
shortages. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10 Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
109
Table 43: The drought has changed the way I view water– FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
52%
45%
60%
57%
50%
Slightly agree
8%
20%▲
14%
16%
15%
Agree subtotal
60%
65%
74%
73%
65%
Neither agree nor
disagree
4%
9%
6%
6%
6%
Slightly disagree
11%
12%
5%
8%
10%
Strongly disagree
24%
14%
14%
13%
18%
Disagree subtotal
35%
26%
19%▼
21%
28%
Don't know
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 44: The drought has changed the way I view water– General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
56%
63%
55%
56%
63%
Slightly agree
20%
19%
24%
19%
17%
Agree subtotal
76%
82%
79%
75%
80%
Neither agree nor
disagree
2%
5%
4%
5%
2%
Slightly disagree
12%
8%
9%
12%
10%
Strongly disagree
10%
5%▼
8%
8%
8%
Disagree subtotal
22%
13%▼
17%
20%
18%
Don't know
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The drought has changed the
way I view water.
Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10 Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
110
Attitudes towards water conservation practices
Table 45: Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount of water saved– FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
14%
6%
7%
6%
8%
Slightly agree
12%
11%
8%
5%
9%
Agree subtotal
26%
17%
15%
11%▼
17%
Neither agree nor
disagree
2%
4%
4%
2%
3%
Slightly disagree
19%
16%
18%
23%
21%
Strongly disagree
53%
62%
62%
64%
59%
Disagree subtotal
72%
78%
80%
87%▲
80%
Don't know
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Strongly agree
Total
Table 46: Individuals can’t really make much difference to the amount of water saved– General public
BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
10%
7%
n=345
3%▼
n=348
5%▼
n=353
4%▼
Slightly agree
8%
7%
9%
10%
7%
Agree subtotal
18%
14%
12%
15%
11%▼
Neither agree nor
disagree
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Slightly disagree
15%
17%
24%▲
18%
16%
Strongly disagree
64%
66%
62%
64%
72%
Disagree subtotal
79%
83%
86%▲
82%
88%▲
Don't know
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Strongly agree
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Individuals can’t really make
much difference to the amount of water that is saved. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
111
Table 47: People are conserving enough water already– FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
7%
8%
11%
10%
10%
Slightly agree
26%
17%
21%
19%
21%
Agree subtotal
33%
25%
32%
29%
31%
Neither agree nor
disagree
5%
7%
7%
6%
8%
Slightly disagree
23%
35%
18%
16%
22%
Strongly disagree
40%
32%
42%
46%
37%
Disagree subtotal
63%
67%
60%
62%
59%
Don't know
0%
1%
1%
2%▲
2%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 48: People are conserving enough water already– General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
11%
10%
6%
8%
6%
Slightly agree
20%
16%
20%
18%
19%
Agree subtotal
31%
26%
26%
26%
25%
Neither agree nor
disagree
3%
6%
8%▲
6%
5%
Slightly disagree
24%
32%▲
30%
31%
30%
Strongly disagree
41%
34%
33%
35%
38%
Disagree subtotal
65%
66%
63%
66%
68%
Don't know
1%
1%
4%▲
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: People are conserving enough
water already. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
112
Australian Government intervention
Table 49: Irrigators should use less water than they do – FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
21%
13%
14%
17%
14%
Slightly agree
23%
25%
20%
20%
19%
Agree subtotal
44%
38%
34%
37%
33%
Neither agree nor
disagree
12%
13%
14%
14%
16%
Slightly disagree
23%
20%
23%
13%
23%
Strongly disagree
17%
25%
27%
27%
22%
Disagree subtotal
40%
45%
50%
40%
45%
Don't know
4%
4%
2%
9%
6%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 50: Irrigators should use less water than they do– General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
25%
21%
19%
23%
20%
Slightly agree
22%
21%
20%
22%
25%
Agree subtotal
47%
42%
39%
45%
45%
Neither agree nor
disagree
9%
14%
15%▲
15%▲
13%
Slightly disagree
21%
17%
21%
18%
15%
Strongly disagree
17%
20%
20%
14%
18%
Disagree subtotal
38%
37%
41%
32%
33%
Don't know
7%
8%
6%
7%
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: Irrigators should use less water
than they do. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
113
Table 51: The Australian Government should control the amount of water irrigators can use–
FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
29%
13%▼
14%▼
15%▼
11%▼
Slightly agree
28%
31%
19%
24%
22%
Agree subtotal
57%
44%
33%▼
39%▼
33%▼
Neither agree nor
disagree
11%
8%
11%
9%
7%
Slightly disagree
10%
11%
16%
11%
11%
Strongly disagree
23%
35%
39%▲
39%▲
43%▲
Disagree subtotal
33%
46%
55%▲
50%▲
54%▲
Don't know
0%
2%▲
2%▲
1%
5%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Strongly agree
Total
Table 52: The Australian Government should control the amount of water irrigators can use– General
public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
31%
23%▼
21%▼
29%
28%
Slightly agree
30%
29%
30%
31%
30%
Agree subtotal
61%
52%▼
51%▼
60%
58%
Neither agree nor
disagree
5%
7%
8%
9%
8%
Slightly disagree
10%
11%
17%▲
9%
13%
Strongly disagree
18%
27%▲
22%
18%
16%
Disagree subtotal
28%
38%▲
39%▲
27%
29%
Don't know
4%
4%
1%▼
3%
5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Strongly agree
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government
should control the amount of water that irrigators can use. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
114
Table 53: The Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with less water –
FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
44%
34%
38%
43%
36%
Slightly agree
36%
29%
25%
28%
30%
Agree subtotal
80%
63%▼
63%▼
71%
66%▼
Neither agree nor
disagree
2%
9%▲
6%
4%
4%
Slightly disagree
6%
9%
10%
5%
9%
Strongly disagree
12%
19%
20%
17%
18%
Disagree subtotal
18%
28%
30%
22%
27%
Don't know
0%
1%
1%
3%▲
3%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 54: The Australian Government has the role of preparing Australia for a future with less water –
General public BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
63%
50%▼
43%▼
53%▼
57%
Slightly agree
19%
29%▲
34%▲
29%▲
24%
Agree subtotal
82%
79%
77%
82%
81%
Neither agree nor
disagree
3%
5%
2%
5%
6%
Slightly disagree
6%
5%
9%
6%
4%
Strongly disagree
8%
10%
9%
5%
7%
Disagree subtotal
14%
15%
18%
11%
11%
Don't know
1%
1%
3%
1%
2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government has
the role of preparing Australia for a future with less water. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
115
Table 55: The Australian government isn’t doing enough about the water situation– FARMERS
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=53
n=202
n=202
n=200
n=203
Strongly agree
52%
30%▼
40%
44%
40%
Slightly agree
26%
26%
25%
15%
16%
Agree subtotal
78%
56%▼
65%▼
59%▼
56%▼
Neither agree nor
disagree
9%
14%
9%
10%
9%
Slightly disagree
9%
16%
14%
13%
15%
Strongly disagree
5%
11%
9%
16%▲
13%▲
Disagree subtotal
14%
27%▲
23%
29%▲
28%▲
Don't know
0%
3%▲
3%▲
3%▲
6%▲
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Farmers
Total
Table 56: The Australian government isn’t doing enough about the water situation– General public
BASIN
Benchmark
(Woolcott
Research)
Wave 1
Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
n=197
n=342
n=345
n=348
n=353
Strongly agree
47%
37%▼
33%▼
37%▼
40%
Slightly agree
21%
25%
26%
25%
26%
Agree subtotal
68%
62%
59%▼
62%
66%
Neither agree nor
disagree
3%
10%▲
13%▲
8%▲
9%▲
Slightly disagree
15%
15%
16%
19%
14%
Strongly disagree
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
Disagree subtotal
25%
24%
24%
27%
20%
Don't know
5%
4%
4%
3%
4%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
General public - Basin
Total
CBR: Q9. You are about to be presented with several different statements that other people have made about water, and for
each one please indicate the extent to which you either agree or disagree with the statement: The Australian Government isn’t
doing enough about the water situation. Base: All respondents.
Woolcott Research data: Q10. Base: Murray Darling Basin Boost respondents
Note: Woolcott methodology and sampling differed to CBR.
116
Colmar Brunton Social Research
PO Box 2212
Canberra ACT 2601
Ph.
(02) 6249 8566
Fax.
(02) 6249 8588
ACN No: 090 919 378
ABN No: 63 090 919 378
This document takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our Client. It is not
intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to
any third party.
117