Original source · versioned page text
2017-09-12 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda
The original of this document is very large (16.3 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 SEPTEMBER 2017
Page 65 of 70
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12 SEPTEMBER 2017
Perceived Environmental Health
i) i
Perceived environmental health is measured Perceived Envi I Health Ind
by asking survey participants the extent to erceived Environmental Health Index
which they felt any of the following were a ‘0 “0
problem in their local region, on a scale from ho
‘not a problem (1) to 'big problem' (7): (i) gi
Water quality problems other than salinity, in £ a
rivers, lake or waterways; (ii) Soil erosion; (iii) 7:
Poor soil health other than soil erosion e.g. soil E830)
compaction; (iv) Pest fish species e.g. carp; (v) 5 5 38
Loss of vegetation (trees, shrubs); (vi) S38 “
Declining numbers of some native animals or 38
birds; (vii) Invasive weeds; (viii) Salinity (in soil “38
or waterways); (ix) Environmental degradation
in general; (x) Feral animals eB. Pigs, goats, Rural & regional Australia Rural & regional Queensland Noosa (n=320)
i . i i 37
wild dogs, rabbits; and (xi) Declining numbers (n=12981) (n=1953)
of native fish. The average score of these
variables was calculated as a measure of
perceived environmental health. Scores for
each item were reversed before calculation of
the scale, so that a score of 1 represented The Perceived Environmental Health Index is made up from
poor environmental health, and a score of 7 responses to a number of questions, with the results to each
represented good environmental health. It question presented below. The questions were measured on a
should be noted that only approximately half 7-point scale, from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to 'strongly
of the respondents answered these questions. agree' (7), with the results below showing percentages for
those who scored 5, 6 or 7 as showing agreement.
Perceived Environmental Health Categories
@ Rural & regional Australia (n=12981) @ Rural & regional Queensland (n=1953) @ Noosa (n=320)
90.0
E 80.0 - 72
a 744 “33.8
8 71.2
2 70.0
5 64.44, 64.0
= 59. $1812
2 60.0 58.1
3 54.6
= 51.2 52.6
5 soo
é 43.7 43.2 pS
£ 414 41.0 40.0.4 1.3
§ 400 - 22 38.982 B77
2 B4.5 boa B4.0 33.7
3. bs
¥ 30.0
3 21.7
5 20.0
2
s
x 10.0
0.0 + ! :
Water quality Soil erosion Poor soil health Pest fish species Loss of Declining Invasive weeds Salinity (in soil or Environmental Feral animals Dediining
problems other other than soil vegetation numbers of waterways) degradationin e.g. pigs, goats, | numbers of
than salinity, in erosion e.g. soll some native general wild dogs, native fish
rivers, lake or compaction animals or birds rabbits
waterways
fe) NOOSA COUNCIL
um
Page 65 of 70See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.