Social Monitoring Program review laying the foundation for the future
Our EHMP's social monitoring assesses waterway management progress in alignment with community wellbeing goals. Partnering with the University of Queensland, we’ve been refining the framework in two phases: consultation to shape recommendations and a technical assessment. Initial interviews involved 32 stakeholders, exploring challenges, program experiences, impact, strengths, weaknesses, and future needs.
The social monitoring component of the EHMP program has been running annually since 2015. Its primary purpose is to gauge progress towards the regional objective of waterway management in SEQ, to "enhance community quality of life by fostering stewardship to protect and restore waterway health."
Healthy Land & Water has committed to reviewing the existing social benefits assessment framework of the program and has partnered with the University of Queensland to carry out this work, which is being conducted in two phases:
- Consultation and interviews – an initial phase to shape the final recommendations.
- Technical assessment of the program.
The purpose of the review is to formulate a set of recommendations aimed at enhancing the framework's impact, statistical robustness, and cost-effectiveness.
The initial phase, which has already been undertaken, involved 27 interviews with 32 individuals, including representatives from Healthy Land & Water as well as end users representing various levels of government, NGOs, NRM groups, industry groups, community organisations, and social science experts, to understand:
- Their role and the challenges they are facing in relation to waterway management.
- Their experience with the social monitoring program and understanding of the different elements of the program.
- How the social monitoring program supports their work and has generated impact.
- The strengths and weaknesses of the program.
- Future monitoring gaps, priorities, and strategies to address emerging needs.
Let's see what was discovered through the interviews
What are the key environmental challenges?
Concerns were widespread regarding the impact of development pressures and rapid urbanisation, especially in relation to sedimentation and pollution.
Many participants also highlighted challenges arising from historical catchments’ mismanagement, including policy and regulatory challenges. The slow pace of policy changes and difficulties related to land tenure in riparian zones were also noted as an impediment to effective management.
Lack of a coordinated vision and communication across stakeholders was seen as a significant barrier to effective decision-making. Inadequate public awareness and community engagement were identified as further complicating factors.
Interviewees also expressed concerns about limited funding and resource allocation for management, emphasising the need for increased investment.
What do waterway management professionals know about the program?
While most interviewees had some understanding of the program, approximately one-quarter to one-third indicated limited familiarity with it.
How does the program support the work of waterway professionals?
Around three-quarters of interviewees stated that they had not used the program for any purpose.
For external interviewees, uses included advocacy, informing strategic planning decisions, internal reporting, and facilitating conversations beyond regulatory aspects.
For internal staff, the main uses were guiding communication and engagement, aiding grant applications, and informing prioritisation and investment decisions.
What are the core strengths of the program? What areas should not be changed?
The program's strengths lie in its ability to track spatial and temporal trends, its independence as a communication and community engagement tool, and its capacity to demonstrate the impact of waterways on communities.
Interviewees recommended retaining components such as indicators related to use, access, recreational use, residents' satisfaction, and economic benefits derived from waterways.
What aspects of the program could be strengthened?
Based on the responses received, a few recurring themes emerge regarding the less useful parts of the data or social Report Card that could be modified to improve its utility.
These include:
- Updating the grading or star rating system to be more informative.
- Improving the connection between the data collected and the objectives of members’ plans, policies, and programs.
- Reducing survey length.
- Updating the economic indicator and valuation of recreational activities.
- Improving usability of data, supported by efforts to increase understanding of the overall utility of the data.
- Switching focus to stewardship and future management preferences to guide decision-makers.
- Broadening the types of informants used to collect data.
- Improving integration with biophysical indicators.
There was a preference for less frequent monitoring, and data aggregation at the LGA level was suggested by a considerable number of interviewees.
How can the program increase its impact?
Interviewees emphasised the need to enhance the program's impact through increased awareness and accessibility, more targeted communication to decision-makers, heightened program relevance, and a shift in focus to behaviour change and stewardship.
They recommended improving the website for easier discoverability and understanding, resource expansion to promote dialogue between end users and social science experts, and promotion of the program to broader audiences. The consensus was the need to make the program's impact more substantial.
What’s happening next?
The insights generated will guide the technical review of the program, focusing on indicators, survey questions, statistical methods, survey frequency, sampling approaches, spatial coverage, and future monitoring priorities. The review aims to enhance the program's effectiveness and relevance.
Acknowledgments
This review is supported by Healthy Land & Water, run by the University of Queensland and funded by the Queensland Government, Brisbane City Council, Redland City Council, Logan City Council, Moreton Bay Regional Council, Sunshine Coast Council, Noosa Council, Somerset Regional Council, Scenic Rim Regional Council, Lockyer Valley Regional Council, Ipswich City Council, Seqwater, Unitywater and Urban Utilities.