Charles Darwin University
Charles Darwin University's Institutional Digital RepositoryNot a member yet
143 research outputs found
Sort by
Socio-economic profiling of tropical rivers<br />
Full text linkSummary of the reportTropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) consortium was established in 2007 under the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Programme with the aim of providing the science and knowledge that governments, communities and industries need for the sustainable use and management of Australia’s tropical rivers and estuaries. This report has been written as a part of the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) project 3.1, “People and economy”.Tropical rivers of Australia are defined as catchments stretching from Broome in Western Australia to Cape York in Queensland, draining into either the Timor Sea or Gulf of Carpentaria. Tropical rivers (TR) thus include 54 river catchments and cover an area of more than 1.3 million km2. Key characteristic of the tropical rivers, in general, is that their hydrology is determined by a short and distinct wet season, followed by longer dry season. While water might be abundant during the wet season, it is generally ephemeral and becomes scarce during the dry season.This document reports on four major objectives of stage (B) of the TRaCK project 3.1, “People and economy”. The four objectives were: (a) to develop an integrated conceptual framework for the socio-economic profiling; (b) to update existing knowledge with data from the 2006 Census; (c) to develop profiles of individual catchments based on their individual socio-economic characteristics; and (d) to compare and contrast the TR catchments and to identify catchments which are socio-economically ‘similar’ or ‘dissimilar’.The conceptual framework developed for the study (objective a) was grounded in the social impact assessment theory but also reviewed literature from other related research areas, such as adaptive capacity, social resilience and institutional analysis. The original framework also included a “wish list” of variables that should ideally be populated in order to provide full profiles of socio-economic conditions across the north. The conceptual framework is presented in Section 2 of the report.The data collection and updating process (objective b) has identified several important data gaps, discussed further in Section 5.1 of the report. A comparison of the “wish list” of variables developed at the start of the project with the list of variables for which we were able to find recent, readily available secondary data, revealed some important data gaps. As a result, the conceptual framework originally proposed could not be populated to the full extent and was thus collapsed into the following five domains: (a) population / demographic characteristics; (b) economic parameters; (c) infrastructure and housing; (d) human and social capital, combining institutional arrangements with individual wellbeing; and (e) environment, heritage and land use. The data were used to create GIS-linked maps of socioeconomic characteristics of all catchments across the north (Section 3), as well as to create profiles of each individual catchment (objective c, presented in Section 4.1 and Appendix 2).Although the tropical rivers (TR) region represents around a quarter of the Australian land mass, it contains just two percent of the population. The region is characterised by disperse human settlement, with the only significant populations (more than 10,000 people) located in and around Darwin in the Northern Territory, Broome in Western Australia, and Mount Isa in Queensland. The Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) indicates that large tracts of the TR region fall within the “very remote” category of ARIA as defined by ABS, with scores higher then 10.5.The percentage of people speaking a language other than English at home is relatively high in TR region. Most of the languages, other than English, which are spoken at home are Indigenous languages. And the percentage of the population speaking non-Indigenous languages at home is proportionally smaller (up to 15 percent per catchment) than populations speaking Indigenous languages at home (up to over 80 percent per catchment). For example, in Leichhardt River, only 74 percent of population was born in Australia, yet 82 percent speak only English at home. In contrast, the entire populations of both the Moyle and the Walker river catchments were born in Australia, yet only 12 and 10 percent, respectively, speak only English at home.About 42% of all homes in TR region have an internet connection, while 65% of all homes have a motor vehicle. In addition, catchments closer to urban regions such as Adelaide River (near Darwin) tend to have higher rates of internet connection and homes with registered motor vehicle (56% and 95% and, respectively), while more remote catchments tend to have a very low percentage of homes with internet connection (such as, for example, 20% in King Edward River or 11% in Fitzmaurice River) and a low percentage of homes with a registered motor vehicle (34% in King Edward River and 38% in Fitzmaurice). Similar disparity appears in human capital data. To use the same catchments as examples, less than one percent of people in the Adelaide catchment never attended school, while 3% of people in the Fitzmaurice and 5.5% of people in the Kind Edward catchment have never received any formal schooling.Combined government-provided services such as health, education, defence and public services were identified as the largest employer in the region, employing on average 25 percent of persons over 15 years of age in TR catchments in 2006. The second largest employment sector was agriculture and forestry, with an average of 11.5 percent across catchments, followed by mining, retail and construction, each employing around 4 percent of population over 15 years of age. Median weekly income per person varied greatly between catchments from around 150 per person per in mining-dominated catchments like the Leichhardt and Embley. The majority of the labour force in the catchments across the TR region was concentrated in the Darwin region. The few other catchments with larger settlements, such as Mt Isa, Broome and Katherine, dominate the remaining numbers of total labour available in the TR region and the labour force across the majority of other catchments is very limited suggesting that this might be one of the limiting factors for potential developments in the future.Basic infrastructure in the north is also limited. Transport infrastructure is limited to a weak network of all-weather sealed roads and airports, and very few ports. This is particularly true in the Kimberleys, Arnhem Land and Cape York Peninsula. Services are also limited to a few larger rural centres. For example, one third of 54 northern catchments profiled did not have any educational facilities. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the community organizations across TR region registered in Australian Community Guide, 97 percent, were located within 10 catchments of the region.Much of the land in the TR region is in its natural condition, with most land use following within the categories of ‘land under conservation’ ‘traditional Indigenous use’, and ‘land under production from a relatively natural environment’ (such as grazing of natural vegetation). Other land uses, such as land under dryland agriculture, irrigated land and land under intensive uses, are minimal across the region. Great differences however do exist between the catchments. For example, all of the land in Goyder River catchment is classified as in natural condition (under traditional Indigenous use), while only 2.5% of land in Gilbert River is classified as being in natural condition (under conservation), with no land under traditional Indigenous use. The majority of land in Gilbert River catchment, more than 95%, is under grazing.To meet the last objective of this study, TR catchments were compared and contrasted in order to identify catchments which are socio-economically ‘similar’ (and, by corollary, socio-economically ‘dissimilar’). It is important to note that, given the complexity of variation between the catchments, more good quality data is needed to reduce the uncertainty around the findings of this investigation. Nonetheless, distinct clusters of catchments have been identified and are discussed in Section 4.2 of the report.For example, Settlement Creek, Staaten, Keep, Gilbert, Holroyd and Norman rivers were grouped together as relatively similar. This cluster is characterised by relatively high levels of employment in agriculture and a high percentage of land under grazing. Mobility is also relatively high, with a large proportion of people owning their homes. A medium to high proportion of residents speak English only. Catchments in this cluster have low numbers of homes with no vehicles or no internet connection, and a relatively low percentage of people with no schooling. Household sizes and numbers of people per bedroom are also low, as well as the percentage of women with 3 children or more and the percentage of one parent families. The percentage of Aboriginal people in those catchments is low to relatively low.Another cluster identified in the analyses comprised of the Jardine, King Edward, Coleman and Watson rivers and Bathurst and Melville Islands. This cluster is characterised by a low mobility of population, low incomes and low employment in agriculture, manufacturing or mining. Employment by government is higher. In these catchments a low percentage of people are purchasing their homes, while most families are renting homes from the community organisations. An increased proportion of the population has no schooling. Catchments in this cluster also have medium to relatively high numbers of homes with no vehicles and no internet connection, and a relatively high proportion of women with 3 children or more. Household sizes and numbers of people per bedroom are higher than in the previous clusters described. The percentages of Aboriginal people in these catchments are medium to high, however, the percentage of land under Indigenous traditional use is not very high (except at Bathurst and Melville islands).In summary, the socio-economic profiling identified considerable differences both between and within the catchments in the north. Biophysical and cultural differences, as well as differences in human, social and institutional capital and available infrastructure, will play a large role in determining both the opportunities for development (mining, agriculture, tourism) as well as capacities of the communities in those catchments to identify opportunities and take the advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves.This study summarised data that might be of help to other researchers and communities in the north engaged in development of sustainable use and management options for the tropical rivers. Furthermore, identification of different types of catchments, that are not necessarily geographically linked but are similar in socio-economic terms, might aid in development of the management approaches that are more targeted, and thus more appropriate, than “one size fits all” approach; yet require lesser effort than targeting of individual catchments. Potential of this approach to be used for improved understanding and management of natural resources issues in other rural and remote regions of Australia warrants further research. Research into development of catchment typologies based on entire sets of data, that is biophysical characteristics as well as socio-economic characteristics of the catchments, also warrants further research
Factors and processes influencing individual and community preparedness for a pandemic outbreak in New Zealand - <br />Report to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Wellington, New Zealand.<
No full textTop-down communication approaches have not significantly influenced the extent to which people prepare for future pandemics. Research suggests that to develop and deliver effective risk management information for a pandemic, it is necessary to gain anunderstanding of how people interpret information, and how individual and environmental factors influence these interpretations. This qualitative study set out to provide these insights.Eleven people were interviewed for this study, between October 2007 and January 2008. Interviews were semi-structured and in-depth, with an average duration of just under two hours. The sample of participants was reasonably diverse with respect to personal and environmental characteristics as well as covering a range of preparedness levels for influenza pandemic. The study was undertaken during a period in which bird flu was not prominent in the public eye; undertaking this study during a period of quiescence provided insights into the most challenging period for risk communication.Participants’ level of preparedness varied in accordance with their level of perceived risk. Those who perceived a low level of risk (7 of the 11 participants) had undertaken basic preparedness measures, and were content to keep a watching brief on the situation. Those who perceived bird flu to be a real and imminent threat had prepared more. In general, participants believed that the threat posed by bird flu can change rapidly, and that people’s levels of preparedness can be rapidly adjusted in response to the perceived level of threat.Specific preparations varied widely among participants. The five basic elements of preparedness were: stockpiling of food and water supplies; developing resilience to loss of mains electricity; acquiring first aid supplies and developing knowledge of infection control procedures; acquiring camping equipment; and acquiring specific medication such as Tamiflu. Long-term preparation strategies employed by several of the participants included developing inner strength and a strong sense of self-efficacy; maintaining or improving physical and psychological health and developing a culture of self-sufficiency and reducingreliance on external resources.To be effective, risk communication and management strategies need to address the complex web of interacting individual and environmental factors both by encouraging preparedness activities and counteracting factors impeding preparation. Participants had mitigate specific consequences so that people are convinced of the purpose of recommended actions; presenting information with honesty and integrity; and couching messages in appropriate language.Specific suggestions for risk communication that arise from this study include the following:• Adjust the content of education programmes to the actual level of pandemic risk, with thecomplexity of content increasing with increased risk.• Identify and correct misconceptions about pandemic risk and preparedness.• Incorporate pandemic preparedness communication into an all-hazards communicationstrategy.• Utilise the principles of persuasive communication to increase the credibility andeffectiveness of pandemic risk communication.• Engage communities in the development and delivery of key messages
Relational flexibility: How to work with labor dynamism and promote knowledge sharing in hospitality
No full textThis chapter investigates how the hospitality industry of the Northern Territory of Australia achieves organizational flexibility in dynamic labor environments. A case study in the Northern Territory of Australia reveals a new type of organizational flexibility, "relational flexibility." Relational flexibility is the result of behaviors, which go beyond the scope of job descriptions, used to repair the relational disruptions of labor changes and to adapt to the inevitability of labor dynamism. With relational flexibility, hospitality businesses can become flexible, responsive, and adaptable to dynamic labor environments while ensuring knowledge management activities are not inhibited. This research highlights the central role of peer relationships in dynamic labor environments and contributes to the organizational flexibility, staff turnover, and hospitality knowledge management literature
The use of photographs on consumer generated content websites: Practical implications for destination image analysis
No full textWord-of-mouth is an important source of information for tourists making decisions about what destinations to visit. Word-of-mouth has a strong influence on shaping the image of a destination, particularly for remote destinations which are in part characterised by limited market penetration in terms of more formal marketing communications. There has been some research situating consumer generated content in Web 2.0 applications as word-of-mouth that has the potential to influence destination images for some destinations and among some markets. Less attention has been paid to consumer generated photographs although photographs and other non-text media are becoming increasingly pervasive on Web 2.0 websites. This chapter argues that photographs make a substantial contribution to word-of-mouth exchange online, and that there is a need for tools to help destinations interpret photographic content. Mapping photographs to Echtner and Ritchie\u27s (1993) destination image framework is one approach that shows some promise as it allows for comparison between the images projected by marketing bodies and consumers
The value of Australia\u27s tropical river ecosystem services<br />
No full textEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe tropical rivers and groundwater systems of northern Australia contain approximately 70% of Australia’s freshwater resources (Hamilton and Gehrke 2005). These tropical river systems provide ecosystem services that underpin the survival and well-being of people; multiple industries, such as pastoralism and horticulture; activities, such as cultural resource management and recreational fishing; and the continued health and functioning of the ecosystems of the region.An ongoing drought in southern Australia and increasing awareness of the value of water worldwide is drawing attention to the potential for development in northern Australia. Any development in the tropical rivers region will have impacts on the ecosystems and ecosystem services of tropical river systems. These impacts will also likely affect the uses and benefitsunderpinned by these ecosystem services.This project provides assessments of the potential impacts of future development scenarios on the ecosystem services of Australia’s tropical rivers. In doing so, this work builds on existing knowledge of the values and assets of Australia’s tropical rivers by identifying the ecosystemservices of Australia’s tropical river systems, their contribution to human well-being, and the drivers that impact on them. The study assess the impacts of potential development scenarios through: (1) estimating the economic value of four particular ecosystem services; and (2) analysing key changes in the past for insight into the future. It does this through three case studies: the Fitzroy River in Western Australia (WA), the Daly River in the Northern Territory (NT) and the Mitchell River in Queensland (Qld).Economic valuationThe economic valuation was undertaken using the choice modelling method, selected for its ability to enable the measurement of people’s willingness to pay for the non-use values associated with tropical river ecosystem services, and to elicit preferences for a number of environmental attributes at the one time. A questionnaire about the future of each case study river system was presented to people living in each river catchment, the capital city of the state/territory each catchment is in, and capital cities in southern Australia. Respondents were asked about their preferences for: (1) provision of floodplain habitat in good environmental condition; (2) provision of river conditions for quality recreational fishing; (3) provision of species and habitat important to Aboriginal customary activity at waterholes; and (4) production from irrigated agriculture.Different levels for each of the four ecosystem services were identified: low, medium and high. The lowest levels are: (1) the smallest area of floodplain in good environmental condition, (2) the worst quality of the river for recreational fishing, (3) waterholes important to Aboriginal people are in poor condition, and (4) the lowest level of income from irrigated agriculture. The medium and highest levels represent improvements on each of these.The results of the economic valuation include estimates of willingness to pay (implicit prices), aggregate willingness to pay, and compensating surplus from a series of different models. Respondents from each targeted population express a value for improvements in all four ecosystem services whether they have visited or intend to visit the region or not. In estimating value, we calculated a few different types of models that make different assumptions about how people make choices, so we present a range of estimates
Collaborative Water Planning: Legal and Policy Analysis<br />
Full text linkReport SummaryThe purpose of this report is to provide readers with an understanding of the main objectives of national water reform, the critical role that is assigned to water planning by the National Water Initiative (NWI), and the legal and policy framework implementing that reform in northern Australia. The collaborative planning process engages the full range of stakeholders, including Indigenous and other local communities as well as industry. It involves making use of scientific and environmental knowledge and socio-economic analysis.Water planning is the only mechanism contemplated under the NWI for constructing the public benefit and sustainability outcomes desired by particular communities. Knowing this makes it all the more important that the objective of open and transparent processes is achieved.Water planning has been carried out in the three jurisdictions of Northern Australia, namely Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, but in many parts of the region, there is little understanding of the NWI in general and the processes which should be used in collaborative water planning in particular.The report is written for readers who do not have a legal background but are particularly interested in water planning in northern Australia. While the complexity of the subject must be acknowledged, the provision of a glossary containing names and terms may assist readers to keep track of and gain familiarity with important concepts and the many organisations, relevant pieces of legislation and so on, that feature in the legal and policy sphere of water planning.This report reviews the legislation, case-law and policy on water planning, with a focus on the process of planning not the content of plans. It also interprets analysis of published material in addition to that surveyed in this project’s separate literature review and forecasts possible implications for readers. It starts at the Commonwealth level looking at the Constitution, as well as more recent policy and legislative aspects including the NWI; Native Title and Cultural Heritage legislation; and the National Water Plan. It then provides case studies of the water planning legal frameworks for Queensland, Northern Territory, and Western Australia. It uses New South Wales as a bench-mark as water planning commenced in that state in 1998 and the process has gone through revisions, thus providing opportunity for learning.The structure of the report is outlined at 1.2. An overview of collaborative processes in water planning is used to set the scene for the case studies examining water planning processes across northern Australia. Eleven themes∗ are used to structurethe case studies:• Planning objectives that provide for sustainability and adaptive management.• Provisions for standards and procedures for statutory water planning• Provisions that allows for reasonable deadlines• Provisions for socio-economic or other analysis• Community engagement in gathering and assessing scientific data including the communication of science in water planning• Provisions for stakeholder engagement• Provisions for indigenous engagement• Provisions for transparency in decision-making• Provisions clarifying the relationship between planning and political process• Guidelines for use of mediation/negotiation/other conflict resolution techniques• Integration of water plans with other planning processes including broader natural resource management.Table 1 at page 42 sets out the relevant NWI provisions for consultation in waterplanning.A total of 17 proposals are made in relation to eight major areas for improvement in collaborative processes in water planning. Formal recommendations will be included in the culminating part of this project. The eight major areas for improvement are:Collaborative water planning requires the development of clear objectivesIn all jurisdictions except the Northern Territory, the objectives of water legislation acknowledge the role of the community in water planning. Legislation in each jurisdiction should provide a statement of objectives that specifically refers to collaboration in water management and planning. Principles of collaborative planning should be provided either in legislation or in a policy document. It would be helpful for all jurisdictions to adopt a common statement of principles relating to collaboration, outlining what it means, the objectives that collaboration should achieve, and what levels of collaboration are required in different circumstances.Promoting stakeholder engagement through deliberative processesStakeholder engagement is strongly supported by the NWI, and recognised by legislation in most jurisdictions. A broad range of stakeholders is anticipated – those within or downstream of the plan area, affected water users, communities, industry (e.g. agriculture and mining) and Indigenous peoples. Engagement is seen as critical for creating and maintaining public confidence in water plans and their implementation. States have adopted a rather formulaic approach, with engagement occurring mainly through community panels which may or may not be representative of sectoral interests. There is a lack of reference to or requirement for deliberative participatory processes within Australian water policy and law. Regulatory design in water planning requires a greater emphasis on such processes to develop a range of mechanisms suitable for adoption in a variety of contexts. National principles along the lines of those developed for provision of water for ecosystems would be helpful in this context.Promoting collaboration through transparencyThe NWI emphasises technical assessments and socio-economic analysis as important in providing a sound basis for decision-making. Where these are undertaken, all jurisdictions currently provide for reports to be made publicly available. Satisfaction of this requirement in and of itself does not mean that decisions are transparent. Transparency in decision-making processes is a concept which is relatively new to the management of water, where decisions have long been the domain of administrators as experts. How best to provide for transparency in decision making remains a continuing challenge throughout Australia. The position varies across the jurisdictions of interest to this analysis.Decision makers are now guided by a number of principles or objectives laid down in legislation but discretionary powers remain available. These discretionary aspects of the process provide for flexibility but may also introduce confusion and uncertainty into planning. Flexibility and discretion in decision making are features in a planning framework where, in the current era, final decisions are made by a Minister. Requiring ministers to justify a departure from the usual process, or the making of a decision that contradicts the aspirations of a community panel or technical (including socio-economic) assessments may contribute towards promoting public confidence in decision-makers.Ensuring decisions are based on accurate information and analysisDespite NWI provisions, requirements for technical assessment and their standards vary greatly across jurisdictions. The NWI provides that socio-economic analysis, community input and information from the best available science are pre-requisites for the settling of trade-offs between competing water users. Gathering of base-line data for constructing the water-use profile of the planned area, understanding biophysical, social and economic conditions of the catchments and identifying community issues as they relate to water resource management are first steps in socio-economic analysis. The next step involves generating and evaluating options based on the above and assessing effects of changes arising from water use decisions. The use of these analyses enables decision makers to justify choices made between alternative scenarios.Many of the jurisdictions do not mandate the use of socio-economic or other analysis. A recent national study of water planning found that if carried out at all, socio- economic assessments were highly variable in quality (Hamstead et al 2008). This study further showed that the community has little confidence that the decision has given due consideration to all relevant factors and analyses.Improving the writing of water plansAttention should be given to clear and concise writing of water plans. At present, they are often difficult to understand and expressed in an overly complex manner. Courts have referred to difficulties associated with plans which are written in such a complex way that anyone seeking to understand them had an extraordinarily difficult task; moreover that if the literal meaning of some clauses was adopted, the plan could not operate.On the other side, plans may contain terms that are broad, imprecise or subjective; and performance indicators may be so general that it is difficult to ascertain whether they have been achieved. The setting of performance indicators is highly relevant to ongoing processes and stakeholders will be discouraged and disinterested if they are not able to assess whether plans are actually being implemented.Providing for Indigenous interests in water planningAn area for improvement repeatedly noted is that Indigenous interests are not adequately provided for in planning practice. There is qualified recognition of Indigenous rights to water in the NWI, the provisions of which are attempting to steer a difficult course between the strict legal requirements of native title, and the wider approach that Indigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives have intrinsic value and should be considered in planning.While high level policy statements made by the jurisdictions of Northern Australia contain strong commitments to Indigenous engagement, it may appear rhetorical given that there is a shortfall between the policy and its implementation. Indigenous rights to water have also been narrowly construed by case-law and legislation to refer only to domestic (i.e. non-commercial) uses of water.Indigenous communities have stated clearly that where planning involves their interests, it ought to respect their timeframes and decision-making processes. In view of the attention given to meeting Indigenous needs to access water and participate in water planning, allowing sufficient time will be a consideration.It is suggested that a policy on appropriate Indigenous engagement should be drawn up. For example, a water planning cultural assessment policy could identify cultural values, assets and objectives. Consideration needs to be given to ensuring that native title holders can continue to enjoy their rights to fish and hunt for example, in the face of increased water use and allocations.Identifying and using appropriate dispute resolution processesFew policy guidelines exist across the jurisdictions for mediation of disputes, or the use of conflict resolution mechanisms in water planning. Given that the ability of parties to take disputes for judicial resolution has been limited, it would be reasonable to see further development of more alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) in this area. In stark contrast with research, knowledge and practice of ADR in private and commercial disputes, environmental or public dispute resolution is in its early phases in Australia. Existing policies related to the use of conflict resolution mechanisms appear to be underdeveloped.There are several techniques adopted for conflict management in water resources, for example mediation, facilitation and consensus building. Where consensus building was introduced as a planning mechanism, it was not well designed and implemented. It is apparent that few of the jurisdictions have developed policy that benefits from existing knowledge on designing systematic approaches to consensus building. All jurisdictions will benefit, at the very outset, from designing a planning system for managing conflict rather than ignoring its existence.The importance of adequate resourcingFinally, this report notes the general deficiency in resourcing collaborative efforts in water planning. Though not directly related to the NWI, the two most recent formulations of national policy relating to water, the Howard government’s National Plan for Water Security and the Rudd government’s National Plan for Water, have allocated vast sums of money on capital works for modernising irrigation systems and other matters directly affecting consumptive use. Although no definite provisions are as yet available, it appears that despite the NWI identifying water plans as being the key mechanism for delivery of national water reforms, there is limited support of the water planning efforts made in the states, in comparison with the very significant support given to infrastructure building and water buy-back in the Murray-Darling Basin.In general Australian policy-makers and legislatures have been able to work together for water reform in ways that other countries have not been able to. Water planning is not new; however in the past it adopted a technical approach which did not require collaboration with communities. Assessments of water reform progress tell us that agencies in all jurisdictions have yet to adequately meet the challenge of water planning. Slow progress may partially be explained by the difficulties experienced by agencies’ realignment of priorities, and development of new strategies and skills. In this era of water resource uncertainty, it is essential to gain public confidence in measures designed to deliver on the objectives of water reform. For this reason alone, collaborative water planning needs the full support of governments
Collaborative Water Planning: Retrospective Case Studies - Water planning in the Gulf of Carpentaria<br />
No full textThis report reviews the water planning process in the Gulf of Carpentaria undertaken between 2003 and 2007 by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. The context of the water planning process for the region is briefly summarised,through reference to the social and economic profile compiled as part of the planning process and other profiling processes for the region. The history of cultivation of water resources in the Gulf is then examined. A description of the water planning process is also provided. This process is then evaluated in section four against a series of criteria based on the literature review in Volume 1 of this report (Tan et al 2008). These criteria, derived from recent literature on the evaluation of collaborativeprocesses, examine the effectiveness of collaboration:• as a mechanism for improved decision-making, including governance arrangements, due process and the reconciliation of competing knowledge claims;• as a facilitator of social process; including improved relationships, conflict resolution• as a means of obtaining improved outcomes, including efficiency, equity, and wider social perception of the process; and• as a pathway for catalytic changes in the community.The analysis presented here finds that water resource planning in Queensland is conducted according to a clear, transparent and well-articulated framework that is defined by both the legislation and supporting policy documents. After more than a decade of an adaptively managed planning program which has been subject to internal and external review, current water planning attempts to accommodate the best available scientific and technical analysis, comprehensive information provision and policy considerations to the production of water plans. Through this planning program, the scope of public participation is delineated, and considerable effort is made by the state agencies to render the outcomes of the stakeholder input apparent to all stakeholders. In the conduct of the Gulf water resource planning process, the legislative requirements for public participation and due process were observed, and in a number of facets the planners involved in the preparation of the water resource plan exceeded the requirements of the legislation to facilitate public involvement and stakeholder contribution.However, due to the fact that the WRP process has been developed primarily to address issues of water resource planning in the southern regions of Queensland, the planning framework itself is less suited in application in Northern Australia. This created a number of issues with regards to its effective application to the distinct environs of Northern Australia. Firstly, effective participation was constrained by the scope of the planning area and the logistical difficulties in undertaking a planning process for an area larger than the State of Victoria, with limited human resources. Secondly, the different hydrology of Northern Australia meant that heavy reliance upon hydrological modeling and other technical assessments as decision-support were not as suited, particularly in the notable absence of appropriate data and information upon which to make apposite planning decisions. Thirdly, the water planning framework had been developed to correct the legacy of over-allocated systems and state investment in water resources. In the Gulf, where there has been limited cultivation of water resources, and where the majority of the major water supply infrastructure has been privately funded, the application of the framework was not as appropriate.In the Gulf region, the planning process was less about correcting the legacy of past water development, and more about providing a platform for the aspirations of the region for future development within ecological limits. The resulting plan, in using historical development as a framework for determining future directions of the region, is seen by a number of stakeholders in the region to inadequately incorporate the aspirations of the community for the future of the region. There is a demonstrable reluctance on behalf of the State government to articulate a water resource plan as a catalyst for the future development of the region. Notably, the impact assessment process was insufficiently developed for the planning process, and failed to assess the impacts of the conduct of the planning process itself – particularly the impact of the moratorium on the region in terms of demand for water resource cultivation and industry development.In response to previous review processes, administrative limitations and requirements to meet the obligations of the National Water Initiative, the water resource planning process in Queensland had been streamlined. This has led, in turn, to an expedited role for public participation in the process, and a reduced role for the key community engagement mechanism, the Community Reference Panel. As a result, significant elements of effective collaboration and community involvement, such as the development of trust and greater understanding of the values of participants in the process, were not given sufficient opportunity to be fostered.Of particular concern at present is the lack of appropriate engagement mechanisms for Indigenous participation in water planning. This is highlighted in the Gulf WRP, where the Indigenous population is as high as 66% in some of the catchments. Although specific Indigenous engagement has been undertaken for water resource plans in Queensland, such as the establishment of Indigenous Working Groups and the production of cultural assessment reports, this was notably absent in the Gulf WRP process and in general is not consistently or uniformly applied across the state. Processes for culturally appropriate Indigenous engagement have been subject to rigorous development in the field of cultural heritage management (for example, Wet Tropics WHA), and there is a high degree of opportunity for the current best-practice in this field to inform engagement for water resource planning.Given the high degree of emergent interest in the water resources of the Gulf, and of Northern Australia, there was significant opportunity to build wider community capacity in understanding and contributing to decisions about the future of region’s water resources. There remains a high degree of divergence in the vision of the future prospects of northern Queensland, with significant opposition between visions of environmental preservation and economic development. The water resource planning processes presented a useful opportunity for these competing visions to be mediated, but this was not pursued. In turn, residual tensions between the competing visions persist, and these tensions will continue to permeate through a wider range of policy-making and community engagement initiatives in the region.Water planners have expressed a desire to better incorporate community knowledge, aspirations and values. However, the opportunity to do this is limited within the existing scope of the planning processes as applied in Queensland. Embedding local and Indigenous knowledge, expressed community values and socio-economic information into the decision-support and prioritisation systems, and providing greater clarity to the community about the relationship between the public participation and the production of the WRP all remain key impediments to the effective collaboration. This is coupled with increasingly high demands on both regional and central water planning staff to effectively facilitate community engagement practice, in conjunction with a myriad of other legal, compliance, licensing, implementation, monitoring and policy development roles, with limited training and support in the practice of community engagement. These findings confirm the need and utility for the advancement of community engagement methodologies in water planning, including:• Communication strategies and techniques to address the specific information requirements of diverse constituencies;• Capacity-building tools to increase community understanding of water planning, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to conduct of planning process;• Training and professional development for agency staff and science providers to better facilitate community collaboration planning and research;•Specific engagement strategies for Indigenous Australians, to identify the implications of water plans for cultural heritage, values and practice and the economic development opportunities provided by water planning;• Participatory impact assessment methodologies with best-practice scenario projections and predictive modeling;• Data, knowledge and information systems with the capability to handle multiple epistemological frameworks; and• Decision-support systems for rigorous and transparent trade-off analysis in decision-making