Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
www.csiro.au
Australian attitudes
toward mining
Citizen Survey 2014 Results
Kieren Moffat, Airong Zhang
& Naomi Boughen
September 2014
#csiromining
Table of contents
Mining in Australia
iii
Introduction
Figure 1 Geographic representation of participant distribution and key demographic information about the sample.. . . . 1
Table 1 Mean scores for items examining the position of mining in Australia overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2 Mean levels of perceived national and community dependence on mining overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3 Distribution of respondent acceptance scores for mining in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2 Mean ratings of the perceived community benefits of mining overall, and for each region sampled. . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 4 Mean levels of perceived economic benefits from mining overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3 Mean ratings of the negative impacts of mining overall, and for each region sampled.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 5 Mean levels of perceived distributional fairness of benefits from mining overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 6 Mean levels of perceived procedural fairness related to mining overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4 Mean ratings of governance capacity overall, and by region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5 Mean ratings of public efficacy, agency and need for consent overall, and by region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 7 Mean level of respondent trust in mining industry actors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12
Figure 8 Regression model of benefits, impacts and balance measure predicting acceptance of mining.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 9 Relationship between perceived governance capacity, environmental impact from mining and acceptance
of mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ii
Mining in Australia
Mining in Australia has long been, and continues to be, a significant contributor
to the Australian economy1. Yet mining must also demonstrate that it has a social
licence to operate among those communities it operates alongside and society
more broadly. This report aims to bring the voice of Australias citizens, on whose
behalf Australias mineral and energy resources are managed, into the centre of
the national conversation about the role of the mining industry in our society.
Mining is big business, but
not without its problems
Australia possesses large volumes of valuable mineral and
energy commodities. As a nation, we hold some of the worlds
largest deposits of commodities like brown coal, zinc, iron
ore, gold, silver, copper and lithium. Australia is in the top five
producers of most of the worlds key mineral commodities and
is the worlds largest exporter of alumina, metallurgical coal,
iron ore, and lead2. Australia is also expected to be the worlds
largest LNG exporter by 2019, reflecting the large growth in
this industry3.
These volumes translate into a significant contribution to
Australias economy. In 2011-12, exports by the mining industry
accounted for 48.5% of Australias total exports, worth $147.4B.
In the same period, mining represented 9.6% of Australias
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to 66.4% for the
services sector, 7.4% for manufacturing and 2.4% for the
agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector4. The mining sector
directly employs around 158,000 people and is estimated to
indirectly employ a further 505,600 people5.
Mining has also contributed to the development of regional
and remote Australia in significant ways since the first mineral
discoveries of the 1840s. Resource development has created
towns, community facilities, transport and communications
infrastructure which allowed large parts of mineral rich
Australia to be developed. The last two decades, however, have
seen mining companies move to fly-in, fly-out arrangements
for workforces in many places around the country, which has
led to lower levels of investment in large infrastructure that has
broader public benefit, and tensions with local communities6.
1
In this research, mining and the mining industry includes: coal mining, oil and gas extraction, metal ore mining,
non-metallic mineral mining and quarrying, exploration and other mining support services (i.e. mineral exploration).
2
Minerals Council of Australia, 2010. The Australian minerals industry and the Australian economy.
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/Aus_min_industry_fact_sheet_March_2010.pdf
3
ANZ Research, 2014. Australian economics: Phase III of Australias mining boom. Accessed 8th July 2014.
https://anzlive.secure.force.com/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00PD000000Vg0mtMAB
4
Australian Government Department of Industry, 2013. Australian industry key facts. Australian government.
Available from: http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/ReportsandStudies/Pages/IndustryDataCard.aspx
5
Geoscience Australia, 2013. Australias Identified Mineral Resources 2012. Geoscience Australia, Canberra.
6
Roarty, M, 2010. The Australian resources sector Its contribution to the nation, and a brief review of issues and impacts [online],
Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 23 September 2010. Available from:
http:// www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_ Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/ AustResources
iii
Introduction
This report summarises the key findings from a survey of 5,121
Australians about their attitudes toward the mining industry.
The data was collected in two blocks, at the end of 2013 and in
the first quarter of 2014. This survey forms part of a larger CSIRO
program of work examining the relationship between mining
and society at different scales in Australia and internationally.
The data presented here was collected using an online survey.
We felt that it was really important to ensure the views of
Australians who lived with and near mining or extractive
operations were represented effectively. To do this we
identified 11 regions that have a strong association with
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
MINING
REGION (n = 1283)
NON-MINING
REGION (n = 1562)
METROPOLITAN
REGION (n = 2276)
20%
2.3
15%
10%
5%
0%
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54 55-64
65+
Female
Male
ABORIGINAL /
TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER
AGE GROUP
GENDER
Did not complete year 12
Completed year 12
Postsecondary qualification
Undergraduate degree
1 (low)
10 (high)
SELF-REPORTED KNOWLEDGE
OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
Postgraduate
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
EDUCATION
Figure 1 Geographic representation of participant distribution (data points represent postcodes sampled not individuals) and key demographic
information about the sample.
7
ABS, 2006. Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC).
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/21eacf784b2252f14a2564e3001e3dc7!OpenDocument
1
(strongly disagree)
(strongly agree)
Mining contributes
significantly to
Australias economy
(strongly disagree)
(strongly agree)
(strongly disagree)
Mining is important
for Australias future
prosperity
(strongly agree)
Table 1 Mean scores for items examining the position of mining in Australia overall, and by region.
ITEM
OVERALL
5.08
(SD = 1.26)
2.97
(SD = 1.47)
4.99
(SD = 1.27)
5.26
(SD = 1.22)
4.77
(SD = 1.27)
5.38
(SD = 1.19)
MINING
5.14
(SD = 1.24)
2.89
(SD = 1.44)
5.06
(SD = 1.27)
5.33
(SD = 1.23)
4.76
(SD = 1.28)
5.46
(SD = 1.17)
NON-MINING
5.00
(SD = 1.25)
2.93
(SD = 1.43)
4.93
(SD = 1.27)
5.21
(SD = 1.21)
4.71
(SD = 1.27 )
5.36
(SD = 1.19)
METROPOLITAN
5.10
(SD = 1.27)
3.06
(SD = 1.50)
5.00
(SD = 1.26)
5.25
(SD = 1.22)
4.81
(SD = 1.27)
5.36
(SD = 1.20)
8
Only statistically significant results are reported as differences in this report. Predominantly these differences were calculated using an Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) test, and are significant at the p<.001 level. Due to the large sample size, caution has been taken to use a conservative significance
level for difference testing.
2
Acceptance of mining
40
35
Percentage of respondents
Dependency on mining
5
4
3
2
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
NOT
AT ALL
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METRO
VERY
MUCH
SO
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
Improvements in regional
Australian infrastructure
Table 2 Mean ratings of the perceived community benefits of mining overall, and for each region sampled.
ITEM
OVERALL
5.50
(SD = 1.16)
5.30
(SD = 1.17)
(SD = 1.21)
(SD = 1.24)
(SD = 1.34)
(SD = 1.29)
(SD = 1.30)
(SD = 1.32)
(SD = 1.27)
5.06
5.01
4.38
4.85
4.48
4.69
4.62
4.49
(SD = 1.31
MINING
5.52
(SD = 1.16)
5.36
(SD = 1.15)
5.07
(SD = 1.21)
5.08
(SD = 1.25)
4.48
(SD = 1.37)
4.85
(SD = 1.34)
4.44
(SD = 1.32)
4.57
(SD = 1.42)
4.51
(SD = 1.35)
4.46
(SD = 1.36)
NON-MINING
5.50
(SD = 1.21)
5.23
(SD = 1.22)
5.07
(SD = 1.23)
5.05
(SD = 1.23)
4.32
(SD = 1.32)
4.78
(SD = 1.33)
4.45
(SD = 1.33)
4.63
(SD = 1.33)
4.56
(SD = 1.28)
4.38
(SD = 1.34)
METROPOLITAN
5.50
(SD = 1.14)
5.31
(SD = 1.15)
5.06
(SD = 1.20)
4.94
(SD = 1.23)
4.35
(SD = 1.33)
4.90
(SD = 1.24)
4.51
(SD = 1.27)
4.80
(SD = 1.24)
4.73
(SD = 1.21)
4.58
(SD = 1.25)
Infrastructure improvements
The next strongest ratings around benefits related to
improvements in infrastructure (transport, social, and
communication and information technology) in regional
Australia as a result of mining activity. In general, participants
from metropolitan areas reported the highest level of benefits
regarding regional infrastructure development, with lowest
levels of agreement among those that live in mining regions.
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
Figure 4 Mean levels of perceived economic benefits from mining overall, and by region.
PERCEIVED NEGATIVES
IS IT WORTH IT
The environment
1 (strongly
disagree)
7 (strongly
agree)
The environment
Other sectors
We also asked about the negative impacts of mining on
other sectors and industries. In general, the impacts on the
manufacturing sector and tourism and retail sectors were
perceived to be low (below the midpoint of the scale),
but impacts on the agriculture sector was perceived to
be much higher.
Table 3 Mean ratings of the negative impacts of mining overall, and for each region sampled.
ITEM
OVERALL
4.70
(SD = 1.49)
4.76
(SD = 1.40)
4.37
(SD = 1.51)
4.55
(SD = 1.42)
3.70
(SD = 1.35)
(SD = 1.43)
(SD = 1.47)
(SD = 1.69)
(SD = 1.64)
3.80
4.28
3.19
3.19
MINING
4.72
(SD = 1.53)
4.78
(SD = 1.47)
4.29
(SD = 1.61)
4.65
(SD = 1.49)
3.67
(SD = 1.36)
3.78
(SD = 1.47)
4.39
(SD = 1.55)
3.65
(SD = 1.81)
3.55
(SD = 1.71)
NON-MINING
4.70
(SD = 1.50)
4.75
(SD = 1.40)
4.34
(SD = 1.55)
4.53
(SD = 1.42)
3.64
(SD = 1.32)
3.81
(SD = 1.41)
4.22
(SD = 1.46)
2.97
(SD = 1.60)
3.01
(SD = 1.59)
METROPOLITAN
4.69
(SD = 1.46)
4.75
(SD = 1.36)
4.44
(SD = 1.51)
4.50
(SD = 1.39)
3.76
(SD = 1.37)
3.80
(SD = 1.43)
4.26
(SD = 1.44)
3.08
(SD = 1.64)
3.10
(SD = 1.60)
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
Figure 5 Mean levels of perceived distributional fairness of benefits from mining overall, and by region.
METROPOLITAN
Distributional fairness
Procedural fairness
Federal government
OVERALL
MINING
NON-MINING
METROPOLITAN
Figure 6 Mean levels of perceived procedural fairness related to mining overall, and by region.
9
All of the differences noted here are statistically significant at the p<.001 level
10
Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication,
32(2)256-280. doi:10.1177/1075547009358624
11
Tyler, T.R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology. 35,117125. DOI: 10.1080/002075900399411
9
ITEM
OVERALL
2.81
(SD = 1.05)
(SD = 1.02)
2.85
MINING
2.71
(SD = 1.06)
2.74
(SD = 1.04)
NON-MINING
2.76
(SD = 1.03)
2.80
(SD = 1.02)
METROPOLITAN
2.90
(SD = 1.04)
2.94
(SD = 1.00)
Table 5 Mean ratings of public efficacy, agency and need for consent overall, and by region.
ITEM
OVERALL
4.31
(SD = 1.33)
(SD = 1.37)
4.43
4.06
(SD = 1.51)
4.12
(SD = 1.45)
4.04
(SD = 1.49)
(SD = 1.42)
(SD = 1.42)
(SD = 1.52)
4.35
5.41
5.23
MINING
4.28
(SD = 1.37)
4.38
(SD = 1.1.38)
3.95
(SD = 1.53)
4.04
(SD = 1.52)
3.93
(SD = 1.49)
4.27
(SD = 1.47)
5.46
(SD = 1.47)
5.27
(SD = 1.56)
NON-MINING
4.26
(SD = 1.31)
4.37
(SD = 1.37)
4.03
(SD = 1.49)
4.05
(SD = 1.42)
3.98
(SD = 1.48)
4.31
(SD = 1.41)
5.42
(SD = 1.43)
5.22
(SD = 1.52)
METROPOLITAN
4.37
(SD = 1.31)
4.49
(SD = 1.37)
4.14
(SD = 1.52)
4.21
(SD = 1.41)
4.16
(SD = 1.49)
4.42
(SD = 1.39)
5.38
(SD = 1.38)
5.21
(SD = 1.50)
10
Trust
We asked participants to rate their level of trust in a range
of important actors in the mining industry in Australia: the
mining industry, state government, federal government,
and non-government organisations (NGOs). We averaged
responses to three items assessing trust in each of these
groups: the extent each was trusted to act in the best interests
of society, act responsibly, and do what is right. Two patterns
are clear in the data (see Figure 7). First NGOs were most
trusted, with industry second, followed by federal and state
governments. Second, the levels of trust overall, for all groups,
were low (below the midpoint of the scale).
Level of trust
NGOs
INDUSTRY
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
STATE
GOVERNMENT
11
ACCEPTANCE OF MINING
Cost of living
impacts
***
Impacts on
other sectors
.06
= - *** )
(-.12
**
Acceptance
of Mining
-.18 ** )
= .21*
(-
= .38***
Environmental
impacts
***
= .09
(.13***)
= .02
(.01)
= .0
6*
(.12 *** **
)
=
(.3 .19 **
4 ** *
*)
General
economic
benefits
Regional
infrastructure
benefits
Employment &
other regional
benefits
Balance of benefits
over impacts
Beta weights () represent the relative strength of each relationship. Positive -values indicate a positive relationship; negative -values
indicate a negative relationship. -values in brackets represent the strength of these relationships before the balance of benefits and
impacts measure was included in analyses. *** indicates relationship is significant at the p<.001 level
Figure 8 Regression model of benefits, impacts and balance measure predicting acceptance of mining.
12
A brief overview of multiple regression (MR) analysis may be found at the following link: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/sawasthi/Statistics/stmulreg.html
12
The results from this analysis show that this item (i.e., asking
Australians to weigh up the benefits and impacts of mining)
was a strong positive predictor of acceptance over and above
the other individual impact and benefit measures. In addition,
participants from mining, non-mining and metropolitan areas
were equally positive in their agreement with this item
(M = 4.97, SD = 1.32).
This means that Australians, in general, do consider it worthwhile
to mine in Australia after weighing up the benefits and costs. It
also indicates that Australians have a developed and considered
understanding of what it means to have a significant mining
industry, and that in general, in their minds, the benefits of
mining currently outweigh its impacts. This data suggests
that a stronger balance of benefits over the costs of mining is
associated with a higher level of acceptance of mining. This
relationship would also suggest that if this balance is perceived
to move toward the negative impacts of mining over the benefits,
that acceptance of mining will be eroded. (Figure 8 provides
a graphical representation of these relationships.)
Importance of governance
4.3
4.1
3.9
Acceptance of mining
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
Low governance capacity
2.7
2.5
13
13
A brief overview of path analysis may be found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_analysis_%28statistics%29
14
.53
.20
. 24
Distributional
fairness
.64
.4
.63
Trust in
the mining
industry
.44
Acceptance
of mining
.11
Governance
capacity
The values on each arrow are beta weights () and represent the relative strength of each relationship. Positive -values indicate a
positive relationship; negative -values indicate a negative relationship.
Figure 10 Social acceptance of mining path model.
Go to Twitter and
use the #csiromining
to comment
Go to CSIROs
Facebook site to
leave a message
CONTACT US
14-00604