Pest animal and Weed Management Survey National landholder survey results Nyree Stenekes, Rob Kancans and Bill Binks Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences Research report 17.5 Report to Client for the Biosecurity Policy and Implementation Division May 2017
95
Embed
data.daff.gov.audata.daff.gov.au/.../PestAnimaAndWeedMgtSrvy_v1.0.0.docx · Web viewPest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey resultsABARES iii 56 Pest animal
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Pest animal and Weed Management SurveyNational landholder survey resultsNyree Stenekes, Rob Kancans and Bill Binks
Research by the Australian Bureau of Agriculturaland Resource Economics and Sciences
Research report 17.5Report to Client for the Biosecurity Policy and Implementation
Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).
All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence
except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.
Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to [email protected].
Cataloguing data
Stenekes, N, Kancans, R and Binks, B, 2017, Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results, ABARES research report 17.5, May. CC BY 4.0.
ISSN: 1477-8358
ISBN: 978-1-74323-339-9
ABARES project 43588 & 43591
Internet
This publication is available at agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
ContentsKey findings 1
1 Introduction 3
2 Results 4
Pest animal and weed impacts 4
Management 29
Appendix A: Survey respondents and property characteristics 40
Appendix B: Methods 44
Appendix C: Response rates 48
Appendix D: Selected results for NRM regions 49
Appendix E: Map key 55
References 56
TablesTable 1 Impacts of pest species on property in past 12 months 25
Table 2 Expenditure ($) per property on managing pest animals and weeds, last 12 months 33
Table 3 Days spent on managing pests and weeds on property, average per farm, last 12 months 34
Table 4 Pest animal and weed group membership and management plans 38
Table 5 Awareness of and participation in activities and programs 39
Table 6 Sources of information and advice on dealing with pest animal and weed39
Table 7 Median and mean property size 42
Table 8 Property size by percentile 42
Table 9 EVAO of survey respondents 43
Table 10 Australian agricultural industry sub-industries 45
Table 11 Calculated sample sizes to meet survey requirements 45
Table 12 Survey response rate by NRM region 48
Table 13 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals) 49
Table 14 cont. Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals) 50
iii
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Table 15 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (other pests and weeds) 51
Table 16 Selected results for NRM regions – major problem with species group53
Table 17 Selected results for NRM regions – management effort and group participation 54
FiguresFigure 1 Aware of the presence of pest animals on the property in the past 12
months 4
Figure 2 Degree of the pest problem on property in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest 19
Figure 3 Overall feral animal problem on the property in last 12 months 20
Figure 4 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months, ranked by NRM Region 21
Figure 5 Degree of weed problem on the property in last 12 months 22
Figure 6 Impacts of weeds on property in last 12 months 25
Figure 7 Aware of the presence of pest animals in local area in the past 12 months26
Figure 8 Degree of the pest animal problem in local area in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest 27
Figure 9 Overall feral animal problem in local area in last 12 months 28
Figure 10 Degree of weed problem in local area in last 12 months 28
Figure 11 Pest animal management activities, on the property in the past 12 months 29
Figure 12 Effectiveness of pest animal management actions, on the property in the last 12 months 30
Figure 13 Management of weeds, on the property in the past 12 months0 31
Figure 14 Effectiveness of weed management actions, on the property in the last 12 months 32
Figure 15 Pest animal management activities in local area in the past 12 months35
Figure 16 Effectiveness of pest management activities undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 36
Figure 17 Overall effectiveness of feral animal management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 36
Figure 18 Weed management activities in local area in the past 12 months 37
Figure 19 Overall effectiveness of weed management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months 37
iv
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 20 Importance of actions to improve pest and weed management in local area38
Figure 21 Age distribution of survey respondents 40
Figure 22 Gender of survey respondents 40
Figure 23 Role of survey respondents on the property41
Figure 24 Main purpose of the property 41
Figure 25 Survey respondents by agricultural industry 43
Figure 26 EVAO proportions of agricultural establishments sampled compared with respondents to the ABARES pest and weed survey (PAWS) 46
MapsMap 1 Awareness of wild dogs on property in the last 12 months 5
Map 2 Awareness of foxes on property in the last 12 months 6
Map 3 Awareness of rabbits/hares on property in the last 12 months 7
Map 4 Awareness of introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) on property in the last 12 months 8
Map 5 Awareness of feral deer on property in the last 12 months 9
Map 6 Awareness of feral pigs on property in the last 12 months 10
Map 7 Awareness of feral camels on property in the last 12 months 11
Map 8 Awareness of feral goats on property in the last 12 months 12
Map 9 Awareness of feral horses/donkeys on property in the last 12 months 13
Map 10 Awareness of cats on property in the last 12 months 14
Map 11 Awareness of rats/mice on property in the last 12 months 15
Map 12 Awareness of native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc) on property in the last 12 months 16
Map 13 Awareness of insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc) on property in the last 12 months 17
Map 14 Awareness of other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc) on property in the last 12 months 18
Map 15 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months 21
Map 16 Major problem with weeds in the past 12 months 23
Map 17 Weed problems on property caused by Weed of National Significance (WoNS) in the last 12 months 24
v
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Key findingsBackgroundThis report presents the key results from a national survey of 6470 agricultural land managers undertaken by ABARES in 2016 about pest and weed management on their property and local area.
The survey respondents represented land managers across broadacre, horticulture, dairy and other livestock (poultry, deer, horses, bee-keeping) industries, each with an estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of $5000 per year or more, across 53 natural resource management regions in Australia.
The data were collected through a combination of hardcopy postal and online versions of the survey. Approximately 77 per cent of responses received were via the postal survey and 23 per cent via the online survey. A response rate of 50.1 per cent overall was achieved.
This report presents results on a range of topics from the survey including: level of awareness of pest animals and Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), impacts of pest animals and weeds, pest animal and weed management activities on the property and in the local area, and information sources and participation in local support networks.
Key findings from the survey are:
Awareness A majority of land managers indicated an awareness of the presence of rabbits/hares,
foxes, native animals and birds, and rodents (rats and mice) on their property in the past 12 months.
The awareness of wild dogs, feral pigs, feral deer, feral goats, camels and horses/donkeys varies significantly across Australian agricultural regions. Queensland land managers reported a higher awareness of feral pigs. In Victoria, land managers reported a higher awareness of feral deer.
Problem The presence of a given pest animal does not necessarily indicate it is a major problem
for land managers. For example, while rabbits/hares are widespread (72 per cent of respondents indicating presence on their property) only 11 per cent of respondents indicated they are a major problem, with the majority (61 per cent) of respondents indicating they are only a minor problem or no problem.
Twenty five per cent of land managers reported major weed problems in the last 12 months.
Problems related to the presence of Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) on agricultural properties are widespread, with land managers in all regions reporting issues with WoNS.
production and infrastructure damage; native animals and birds contributing to crop
1
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
damage, infrastructure damage and decreased livestock production; and insects contributing to crop damage.
The majority of land managers reported a decrease in the value of production as the main impact stemming from weeds.
Management Nearly 80 per cent of respondents were actively managing a pest animal, and 85 per cent
were actively managing weeds on their property in the last 12 months.
Shooting and ground baiting continue to be widely used tools for vertebrate pest management.
Herbicide is used by 90 per cent of landholders in the management of weeds and reported as effective by the vast majority.
The majority of respondents reported that pest animal and weed control methods they were using were at least moderately effective.
Sixty five per cent of land managers reported that an agency or group were undertaking pest and animal management activities in their local area, while 51 per cent reported an agency or group were undertaking weed management activities.
An average of $19,620 was spent per agricultural business on undertaking pest animal and weed management activities in the last 12 months. This figure includes pest animal and weed management related expenditure on traps, baits, pesticides/insecticides, herbicides, fuel, fencing materials, and labour (including the cost of contractors) on the property in the last 12 months. Weed management includes all activities undertaken as part of the farming enterprises business as usual production cycle, for example spraying weeds before planting a crop.
Pest animal and weed control activities took an average of 77 person days per agricultural business by owners/operators (including family members) and 39 person days by contractors, employees and other people (for example, volunteers) in the last 12 months.
Management Groups, activities and programs Nearly eight per cent of landholders were members of a pest animal or weed
management group. The majority of the groups had developed a plan for coordinating management activities or collaborating with other stakeholders.
A majority of land managers reported: new and improved control methods; access to information on control options and methods; more management activities by other land managers (private and public); and better access to biological controls as important actions that could improve pest animal and weed management.
Pest animal and weed management program awareness and participation was highest for activities provided by Regional Natural Resource Management groups, local government and Landcare.
Land managers predominately used: peers and neighbours; agribusiness; state government; family and friends and private agricultural consultants for information and advice.
2
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
1 IntroductionEstablished pest animals and weeds represent a high ongoing cost to agriculture, and they affect agricultural competiveness, the environment and the natural resource base. The Australian Government is investing $50 million through the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper to improve the way pest animals and weeds are managed and to increase the capacity of farmers to deal with these threats. This is through investment in projects that: develop new and improved control tools and technologies; improve land manager awareness and access to control tools and technologies; improve land manager knowledge of best practice pest animal and weed management; and increase land manager and community participation in pest animal and weed management activities.
To enable the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to evaluate outcomes of this investment, baseline data is required to provide a national overview of the status and management of established pest animals and weeds. Currently, there is insufficient data available to establish the baseline. Therefore a national survey of agricultural land managers was undertaken to collect data on pest animal and weed status, impacts and management actions at the property and local area levels. A secondary objective is to provide a national data set that can be utilised by relevant stakeholders such as land managers, jurisdictions and regional bodies to assist in their management of pest and weeds.
The survey collected agricultural land managers’ perspectives on the following:
1. Pest animal and weed impact The presence of pest animals and weeds on their property and in their local area. The degree to which pest animals and weeds are a problem on their property and in
their local area. The problems caused by established pest animals and weeds on agricultural
production (for example, crop losses) and the environment (for example, loss of native flora).
2. Property level management The management/control actions (including non-action) undertaken by land
managers individually—including the time used by the land manager and the cost of management.
Adoption of new control methods, tools and technologies—are people adopting new methods, which types of method, why (or why not).
3. Regional and community level management Participation in local management groups and landscape level approaches. The severity and impact of common pest animals and weeds in their local
area/region. The effectiveness of collective pest animal and weed management actions in their
local area/ region. The management/control actions (including non-action) undertaken within groups. Adoption of new control methods—are groups adopting new methods, which type of
method, why (or why not). The ways to improve the management of pest animals and weeds.
4. Information, support and networks Preferred and trusted sources of information for building skills and knowledge in
management actions. Effectiveness of activities encouraging adoption of improved control methods and
coordinated management across a local area/region.
3
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
2 ResultsResults presented in this report are based on the responses of 6,470 agricultural land managers who participated in the 2016 ABARES pest and weed management survey. The characteristics of the participants are presented in Appendix A.
Sample numbers are low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore these estimates should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area or external territory natural resource management regions. Australian Capital Territory and Torres Strait region responses via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in national, state and industry level estimates.
Pest animal and weed impacts
Awareness of presence on propertyFigure 1 presents the proportion of respondents who said they were aware of a pest animal species on their property in the last 12 months, while Maps 1 – 14 provide a spatial distribution of the awareness of wild dogs, foxes, rabbits/hares, introduced pest birds, feral deer, feral pigs, feral camels, feral goats, feral horses/donkeys, feral cats and rats/mice, native animals and birds, insects and other pests on properties. A map key showing the location of NRM regions is provided in Appendix E.
Figure 1 Aware of the presence of pest animals on the property in the past 12 months
None of the aboveOther pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)
Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.)
Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.)
Rats/miceFeral cats
Feral horses/donkeysFeral goats
CamelsFeral pigsFeral deer
Introduced pest birds (e.g starling, Indian myna)Rabbits/hares
FoxesWild dogs
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes NoPercent survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
4
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 1 Awareness of wild dogs on property in the last 12 months
5
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 2 Awareness of foxes on property in the last 12 months
6
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 3 Awareness of rabbits/hares on property in the last 12 months
7
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 4 Awareness of introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) on property in the last 12 months
8
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 5 Awareness of feral deer on property in the last 12 months
9
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
10
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 6 Awareness of feral pigs on property in the last 12 months
11
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 7 Awareness of feral camels on property in the last 12 months
12
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 8 Awareness of feral goats on property in the last 12 months
13
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
14
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 9 Awareness of feral horses/donkeys on property in the last 12 months
15
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
16
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 10 Awareness of cats on property in the last 12 months
17
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
18
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 11 Awareness of rats/mice on property in the last 12 months
19
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 12 Awareness of native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc) on property in the last 12 months
20
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 13 Awareness of insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc) on property in the last 12 months
21
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 14 Awareness of other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc) on property in the last 12 months
22
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Problem on property Pest animals
Agricultural land managers who were aware of a pest on the property were asked to indicate the degree of the pest animal problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figures 2 and 3, and in Map 15.
Land managers who reported they were aware of feral animals were also asked to rate the overall degree of the problem they had experienced with all feral animals on the property (Figure 3). Map 16 shows the proportion of land managers who experienced major problems with feral animals in the past 12 months across the regions. Natural Resource Management regions are ranked according to major problems with feral animals in Figure 4.
Figure 2 Degree of the pest problem on property in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest
Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)
Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.)
Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.)
Rats/mice
Feral cats
Feral horses/donkeys
Feral goats
Camels
Feral pigs
Feral deer
Introduced pest birds (e.g starling, Indian myna)
Rabbits/hares
Foxes
Wild dogs
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%No problem Minor problem Major problem Not specified% survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
23
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 3 Overall feral animal problem on the property in last 12 months
Major problem Minor problem No problem0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Pe
rcent
of sur
vey r
espon
dents
Note: 31 per cent of respondents did not specify an overall feral animal problem rating for the property.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
24
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 15 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months
Note: Sample numbers are low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore these estimates should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area, ACT or external territory natural resource management regions.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Figure 4 Major problem with feral animals in the past 12 months, ranked by NRM Region
Eyre Peninsula
Northern and Yorke
Glenelg Hopkins
Peel-Harvey
Mallee
North Central
South Australian Arid Lands
South East Queensland
North Coast
Riverina
Goulburn Broken
Avon
Burnett Mary
North
West Gippsland
Hunter
Burdekin
Northern Agricultural
Fitzroy
Western
North West NSW
North East
Desert Channels
Southern Gulf
East Gippsland
South West Queensland
Alinytjara Wilurara
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
25
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
26
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Weeds
Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the degree of the problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) presented by weeds on their property in the past 12 months. A weed was defined as any unwanted plant that requires some form of action to reduce its economic, environmental, human health and amenity impacts. The results are presented in Figure 5. Spatial distribution of land managers experiencing major weed problems in the last 12 months is presented in Map 16. Map 17 provides a spatial representation of the proportion of respondents who indicated that a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) caused a problem on their property in the past 12 months.
Thirty two Weeds of National Significance have been agreed by Australian governments based on an assessment process that prioritised these weeds according to their invasiveness, potential for spread, their environmental, social and economic impacts, and ability to be successfully managed. The list of Weeds of National Significance was provided to respondents in the survey and can be accessed from the Department of Environment and Energy website (Australian Government 2017).
Figure 5 Degree of weed problem on the property in last 12 months
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
27
Major problem Minor problem No problem0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perce
nt of
surve
y res
pond
ents
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 16 Major problem with weeds in the past 12 months
28
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Map 17 Weed problems on property caused by Weed of National Significance (WoNS) in the last 12 months
29
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Impacts at the property levelAgricultural land managers who were aware of pest animals on their property were asked to indicate the kinds of impacts caused by pest animals and weeds in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Table 1 and Figure 6.
Table 1 Impacts of pest species on property in past 12 months % surveyed landholders reporting impact Feral
animalsNative
animals and birds
Insects Other pests
Crop damage or decreased crop production 42.6 60.8 61.7 24.7Decreased livestock production 44.9 30.2 19.6 13.3Decreased native plant or animal populations and distribution
24.4 13.3 4.1 3.4
Damage to property/infrastructure 35.9 38.2 2.8 7.7Disease risk increase or spread 24.6 11.8 14.8 8.4Soil erosion 23.4 9.7 1.1 2.6Impacts on water sources 14.8 11.5 0.6 2.5Other impacts 25.6 27.0 21.0 18.8
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Figure 6 Impacts of weeds on property in last 12 months
Decreased value of production
Increased fire risk
Blocked water courses
Decreased value of property
Poisoned stock
Decreased native plant or animal populations and distribution
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No
Percent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
30
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Awareness of presence in local areaPest and weed management activities are most effective when they are delivered over a local area. Landholders were asked how control activities were delivered in their local area and their level of involvement with these activities. Local area was defined as the land or other farms located nearby or surrounding the property.
Pest animals
Figure 7 presents the proportion of respondents who said they were aware of a pest animal species in their local area in the last 12 months.
Figure 7 Aware of the presence of pest animals in local area in the past 12 months
None of the aboveOther pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)
Introduced pest birds (e.g Starling, Indian myna)Rabbits/hares
FoxesWild dogs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Yes No Percent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
31
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Problem in local area Pest animals
Agricultural land managers who were aware of a pest animal species in the local area were asked to indicate the degree of the pest animal problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figure 8 and 9.
Land managers who were aware of feral animals were also asked to rate the overall degree of the problem they had experienced with all feral animals in their local area (Figure 9).
Figure 8 Degree of the pest animal problem in local area in the last 12 months, of respondents who reported an awareness of a pest
Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)
Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.)
Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.)
Rats/mice
Feral cats
Feral horses/donkeys
Feral goats
Camels
Feral pigs
Feral deer
Introduced pest birds (e.g Starling, Indian myna)
Rabbits/hares
Foxes
Wild dogs
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Major problem Minor problem No problem Not specified% survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
32
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 9 Overall feral animal problem in local area in last 12 months
Major problem Minor problem No problem0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Pe
rcen
t of s
urve
y res
pond
ents
Note: 39 per cent of respondents did not specify an overall feral animal problem rating for the local area.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Weeds
Weed impacts may include reduced yields, contamination of grain, health impacts on livestock, decreased value of property, and increased fire risk. Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the degree of the problem (ranging from ‘no’, ‘minor’ or ‘major’ problem) presented by weeds in the local area in the past 12 months. The results are presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10 Degree of weed problem in local area in last 12 monthsNote: 9 per cent of
respondents did not specify a weed problem rating for the local area.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
33
Major problem Minor problem No problem0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
ent o
f sur
vey
resp
onsd
ents
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Management
Management activities (on property)Land managers were asked to indicate if they were undertaking pest and weed management activities and if so, what pest animal and weed management activities they had undertaken on the property over the past 12 months, and their perception of the effectiveness of these control methods. The results are presented in Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Pest animalsSeventy six per cent of land managers indicated they were undertaking pest animal management activities, including for preventative maintenance.
Figure 11 Pest animal management activities, on the property in the past 12 months
Use of pesticides and/or insecticides
Crop or grazing management to address pests
Exclusion fencing and/or netting
Use of introduced biological control (e.g. predatory insects, rabbit calicivirus)
Trapping
Shooting
Ground baiting
Aerial baiting
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Yes NoPercent of surveyed landholders
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
34
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 12 Effectiveness of pest animal management actions, on the property in the last 12 months
Use of pesticides and/or insecticides
Crop or grazing management to address pests
Exclusion fencing and/or netting
Use of introduced biological control (e.g. predatory insects, rabbit calicivirus)
Trapping
Shooting
Ground baiting
Aerial baiting
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very effective Moderately effective A little effective Not effective Not sure/don’t know
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
35
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
WeedsEighty five per cent of land managers indicated they were undertaking weed management activities. Of those who undertook weed management, Figure 13 shows the actions used, and Figure 14 shows how effective they thought those actions were in managing weeds.
Figure 13 Management of weeds, on the property in the past 12 months0
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
36
Pulling, manual removal or chipping
Application of herbicides
Use of biological controls (e.g. insects)
Slashing, cutting or mowing
Crop or grazing management to address weeds (e.g. rotation, burning, mulching, tillage)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes NoPercent of survey respondents
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 14 Effectiveness of weed management actions, on the property in the last 12 months
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
37
Pulling, manual removal or chipping
Application of herbicides
Use of biological controls (e.g. insects)
Slashing, cutting or mowing
Crop or grazing management to address weeds (e.g. rotation, burning, mulching, tillage)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very effective Moderately effective A little effective Not effective Not sure/don’t knowPercent of survey respondents
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Effort and expenditure on managing pests and weeds (on property)Eighty one per cent of land managers reported an expenditure on pest and/or weed management. Those reporting an expenditure were asked how much they spent on managing pests and weeds (for example, on traps, baits, pesticides/insecticides, fuel, fencing materials and labour including the cost of contractors) on the property in the last 12 months. The costs are attributed to all weed species managed on-farm and not just WoNS. This includes weed management activities that are undertaken as part of the farming enterprises business as usual production cycle, for example spraying weeds before planting a crop.
The average total expenditure of land managers who reported an expenditure on managing pests and weeds in the last 12 months was $19,620 (RSE 1.4%) per agricultural property. Average expenditure on activities to control individual pest species and weeds is shown in Table2.
Table 2 Expenditure ($) per property on managing pest animals and weeds, last 12 months
Mean ($) a Median ($) a Relative Standard Error (%)
a Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. b see Appendix B.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
38
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Overall, for those land managers who reported their effort, these activities to control pest animals and weeds took an average of 77 person days per agricultural business (RSE 1.0%) by the owners/operators (including family members) and 39 person days (RSE 1.3%) by contractors, employees and other people (for example, volunteers) in the last 12 months (Table 3).
Table 3 Days spent on managing pests and weeds on property, average per farm, last 12 months
Mean(days/year—
owner/operator
including family members) a
Relative Standard Error
(%) b
Mean(days/year—
contractor, employee and other persons,
e.g. volunteers) a
Relative Standard Error (%)
b
Wild dogs 28 2 16 3
Foxes 18 1 10 3
Rabbits/hares 14 2 9 3Introduced pest birds (e.g. Starling, Indian myna) 18 3 14 7
a Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. b see Appendix B.Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
39
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Management activities in local areaLand managers were asked to indicate what pest control methods and weed management activities had been undertaken in the local area by an agency or group over the past 12 months, and their perception of the effectiveness of these control methods and activities. The results are presented in Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18. A ‘group’ was defined as a collection of neighbours, landholders, or other parties (government or non-government) in a formal or informal arrangement, committee or syndicate for the purpose of collectively managing pest animals or weeds.
Pest animalsSixty five per cent of land managers indicated that pest animal management activities were being undertaken in their local area by an agency or group. Figure 15 presents the proportion of landholders who believe pest management activities are being undertaken in their local area. Land managers were asked how effective they considered the overall pest animal management actions undertaken by all stakeholders in their local area in the past 12 months to have been for each species (Figure 16) and for feral animals overall (Figure 17).
Figure 15 Pest animal management activities in local area in the past 12 months
Other management control method taken
Use of pesticides and/or insecticides (e.g. drenches)
Crop or grazing management to address pests
Exclusion fencing and/or netting
Use of introduced biological control (e.g. predatory insects, rabbit calicivirus)
Trapping
Shooting
Ground baiting
Aerial baiting
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Yes NoPercent surveyed landholders
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
40
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 16 Effectiveness of pest management activities undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months
Other pests (e.g. parasites, slugs, nematodes, mites, etc.)
Insects (e.g. locusts, flies, aphids, etc.)
Native animals and birds (e.g. kangaroos, crows, possums, etc.)
Rats/mice
Feral cats
Feral horses/donkeys
Feral goats
Camels
Feral pigs
Feral deer
Introduced pest birds (e.g Starling, Indian myna)
Rabbits/hares
Foxes
Wild dogs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very effective Moderately effective A little effective Not effective Not sure/don’t knowPercent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Land managers gave a rating on the overall effectiveness of all feral animal management activities in their local area (Figure 17). Feral animals include all introduced vertebrate pest animals (wild dogs, foxes, rabbits/hares, introduced pest birds, feral deer, camels, feral goats, feral horses/donkeys, feral cats, and rats/mice).
Figure 17 Overall effectiveness of feral animal management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months
Feral animal management (overall)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not effective A little effective Moderately effective Very effective Not sure/don’t know
Percent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
41
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
WeedsFifty one per cent of land managers indicated that weed management activities were being undertaken in their local area by an agency or group. Figure 18 presents the proportion of landholders who said a given weed management activity was taking place in the local area. Land managers were asked how effective they considered the overall weed management actions undertaken by all stakeholders in their local area in the past 12 months to have been (Figure 19).
Figure 18 Weed management activities in local area in the past 12 months
Pulling, manual removal or chipping
Application of herbicides
Use of biological controls (e.g. insects)
Slashing, cutting or mowing
Crop or grazing management to address weeds (e.g. rotation, burning, mulching, tillage)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No
Percent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Figure 19 Overall effectiveness of weed management activities that were undertaken by all stakeholders in local area in the last 12 months
Weeds
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not effective A little effective Moderately effectiveVery effective Not sure/don’t know
Percent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
42
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Participation in groups, activities and programs Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate if they were currently a member of a pest animal or weed management group. If they were a member, they were also asked if the group had a pest animal or weed management plan for coordinating activities and collaborating with other stakeholders to manage pest animals and weeds (Table 4).
Table 4 Pest animal and weed group membership and management plans% landholders that are members of one group only 7.7
% landholders that are members of more than one group 2.2
% of groups with a pest animal management plan 63.7
% of groups with a weed management plan 51.8
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate the importance of a range of actions to improve the management of pest animals and weeds in their local area. The results are presented in Figure 20.
Figure 20 Importance of actions to improve pest and weed management in local area
Better coordination of landholders’ management activities by us-ing an agency/group
Greater resources to assist with coordination (e.g. a coordinator or facilitator)
More management activities by other land managers (private and public)
New or improved control methods
Better access to existing biological control agents
Greater access to information on control options/methods/tools
More extension/training services
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very important Important Moderately important Slightly important Not importantPercent of survey respondents
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
43
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Agricultural land managers were asked to indicate their awareness and participation in activities and programs for pest animal and weed management. The results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Awareness of and participation in activities and programs Yes, aware and participated %
Yes, aware but did not participate %
No, not aware %
Local government 11.9 18.9 69.1
State government (e.g. agriculture departments) 9.9 17.7 72.4
Regional National Resource Management (NRM) group/Catchment Management Authority/Local Land Service
13.5 20.0 66.4
Landcare group 11.8 24.1 64.1
Community group 6.9 12.5 80.6
Pest animal or weed management group 7.9 10.8 81.4
Biosecurity group 4.0 7.3 88.8
Private consultant or agribusiness agent 9.9 8.3 81.8
Farming system group 7.5 8.1 84.4
Industry group 6.7 8.0 85.3
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
Sources of information and adviceAgricultural land managers were asked to indicate their sources of information and advice about pest animal and weed management. The results are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Sources of information and advice on dealing with pest animal and weed Yes % No %I don’t know where to go for information and advice 2.9 97.1
Peers and neighbours 54.4 45.6
Family and friends 29.6 70.4
State government (e.g. agriculture departments) 38.9 61.1
Local government/Council 20.8 79.2
Conservation group 7.3 92.7
Regional NRM group/Catchment Management Authority/Local Land Service 19.9 80.1
National facilitator (e.g. National Wild Dog Facilitator) 2.4 97.6
Local pest animal or weed management coordinator 8.4 91.6
Agribusiness (co-ops, Elders, etc.) 42.6 57.4
Research and Development Corporations/Cooperative Research Centres 6.3 93.7
TAFE/University 1.9 98.1
Source: ABARES pest and weed survey 2016
44
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Appendix A: Survey respondents and property characteristicsThe respondentsResults presented in this report are based on the responses of 6,470 agricultural land managers who participated in the 2016 ABARES pest and weed management survey. Approximately 0.5 per cent of respondents indicated that the main purpose of their property was not agricultural production, these respondents have only been included in analysis where relevant. The characteristics of participants are presented in the following tables.
AgeThe age ranges of participants in the survey is shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21 Age distribution of survey respondents
GenderProportions of males and females in the survey is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22 Gender of survey respondents
45
82%
18%
Male Female
18 to 35 years 36 to 55 years Over 55 years0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
ent
of s
urve
y re
spon
dent
s
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Role on the propertyThe role of survey respondents on the property is presented in Figure 23.
Figure 23 Role of survey respondents on the property
The propertyThe main purpose of the properties of survey respondents is presented in Figure 24.
Figure 24 Main purpose of the property
46
Agricultural pro-duction
Conservation of native plants and
animals
Residential Hobby/lifestyle farm Other 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
ent o
f sur
vey
resp
onde
nts
Owner/operator Manager Employee Other 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
ent o
f sur
vey r
espo
nden
ts
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Property sizeThe average size of property represented in the survey was 14,145 hectares with a range of between 1 and 12,148,674 hectares (Table 7), and the distribution of property sizes by percentile is in Table 8.
Table 7 Median and mean property size
Median ha Mean ha
Australia 300 14 145
NSW 400 9969
VIC 246 1576
QLD 281 27 632
SA 401 7880
WA 340 6261
TAS 190 891
NT 311 195 565
Table 8 Property size by percentile
Percentile ha
10 <16
20 16 - 40
30 41 - 85
40 86 - 162
50 163 - 300
60 301 - 567
70 568 - 1214
80 1215 - 2452
90 2453 - 6475
100 >6475
47
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Industry typeThe proportion of each agricultural industry that responded to the survey (using ABS ANSZIC classifications) is presented in Figure 25.
Figure 25 Survey respondents by agricultural industry
Broadacre Horticulture Dairy Other livestock0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Perc
ent o
f sur
vey r
espo
nden
ts
Note: ANSZIC Classifications that were in scope of the survey sample are in Table 10. ‘Other livestock’ includes poultry, deer, horse, and pig farming, and bee-keeping.
Farm value of productionTable 9 presents a breakdown of the estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of agricultural businesses responding to the survey.
Table 9 EVAO of survey respondents
Mean $ 1 373 307
Median $ 544 405
Min $ 5000
Max $ 113 019 065
Percentile
10 <25 858
20 75 255
30 199 247
40 366 633
50 544 405
60 800 692
70 1 090 720
80 1 629 108
90 2 781 514
100 >2 781 514Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016
48
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Appendix B: MethodsThe ABARES pest and weed survey is a key part of a larger research project to determine what changes have occurred in pest and weed management activity on agricultural properties in Australia. The approach consists of:
1. baseline survey of managers of agricultural establishments in 20162. follow-up survey of managers of agricultural establishments in 2018.
The second survey will contain similar questions to enable measurement of the changes in management activity over the intervening two years.
1.1. Survey instrument development
The survey instrument was designed to address the objectives specified at the beginning of the report. A range of literature—including survey instruments—was reviewed in the design phase of the survey. The ABARES pest and weed survey was designed to be a baseline for comparison in terms of:
awareness and extent of pest and weed problem type of pest and weed problems/issues management activities/control measures effort and expenditure of undertaking pest and weed management/control, in
expenditure and days.
Some similar survey questions from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006-07 NRM survey (ABS 2008) were included to enable trend analyses from the past where appropriate. The follow-up survey of land managers in 2018 will be designed to measure changes that have occurred since the 2016 pest and weed survey.
A monitoring, evaluation, improvement and reporting (MERI) framework for pest animal and weed management was developed through the Invasive Plants and Animals Committee. This survey will contribute evidence that can inform high-level national indicators in the framework.
The primary survey method used was a paper survey instrument delivered by post to managers of agricultural establishments. The postal survey methods used for approaching the target sample was based on Dillman (1978). Agricultural land managers also had the option of accessing an online version of the survey using a unique login code sent to them, or by using an open online survey invitation. There was a marked preference by land managers for completing the survey in the paper format and returning it by post (76 per cent returns) compared with the online version (24 per cent returns).
1.2. Survey Sampling
The sample of agricultural establishments used for the survey was drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) agricultural census survey frame. The sample criteria were as follows:
farm establishments with an Estimated Value of Agricultural Operations (EVAO) of $5000 or more
representative of agriculture across Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, States/Territories and nationally
representative of four custom sub-industries: Horticulture, Broadacre, Dairy, Other Livestock (Table 10).
49
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
A Relative Standard Error (RSE) target of 8 per cent at the NRM region level and 5 per cent RSE at the State/territory level, was selected to deliver confidence in results and more accurate evaluation of changes over time.
Table 10 Australian agricultural industry sub-industries
Horticulture012 Mushroom and Vegetable Growing 4539
013 Fruit and Tree Nut Growing 12,260
Broadacre014 Sheep, Beef Cattle and Grain Farming (incl. rice) 90,579
015 Other Crop Growing (incl. sugar and cotton) 6667
Dairy 016 Dairy Cattle Farming 8263
Other
livestock
017 Poultry Farming 1130
018 and 019 Other Livestock Farming (incl. deer, pigs,
horses and beekeeping) 6419
Total 129,857
In order to achieve representativeness at the NRM region scale and for the custom sub-industries at State, Territory and national scales with an acceptable level of error, a minimum of 6449 responding farm establishments were required. Table 11 provides the calculated sample sizes to meet these requirements.
Table 11 Calculated sample sizes to meet survey requirements
Sample size Geographical coverage Industry level representation Relative Standard
Error
383 Australia Horticulture, Dairy, Broadacre,
Other livestock*
5% RSE
2820 State / Territory Horticulture, Dairy, Broadacre,
Other livestock*
5% RSE
6449 Responses by NRM Region 01 Agriculture** 8 % RSE
*Based on four custom sub-industries defined as per section 1.2 Survey Sampling aggregated from ANSZIC Classifications (ABS and Statistics New Zealand 2008). **ANSZIC Classification (ABS and Statistics New Zealand 2008).
The proposed approach was for a sampling target of ≈ 13,000 farm establishments to achieve a response from ≈ 6500 farm establishments. ABARES engaged an external supplier, The Social Research Centre (SRC) to carry out the data collection.
Analysis of the survey results was undertaken by ABARES using the statistical software package SPSS19 and statistical approaches in Pallant (2005).
1.3. Survey Response
A comparison between proportions of targeted agricultural properties by EVAO and those that responded to the survey are shown in Figure 26. There was negligible response bias based on EVAO, which is a derived value based on the turnover reported by an agricultural business operation in its Businesses Activity Statement (BAS).
50
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Figure 26 EVAO proportions of agricultural establishments sampled compared with respondents to the ABARES pest and weed survey (PAWS)
Note: EVAO is the Estimated Value of the Agricultural Operation. REACS refers to the Rural Environment and Agricultural Commodities Survey which is an annual sample survey conducted by Australian Bureau of Statistics in inter-censal years.
A larger proportion of agricultural properties in the higher EVAO ranges were targeted in the ABARES pest and weed management survey than the proportion that exists in the population of agricultural properties (Figure 26). Therefore, weightings were applied to the survey estimates that involved expenditure or days of effort spent on managing pests and weeds. Weightings were not applied to survey estimates that relate to the awareness of pests and weeds or to pest and weed management activities because there is no evidence that these activities are correlated with factors used to generate weightings, such as number of farms in a region, areas of crops and numbers of livestock. Weightings were not applied unless indicated in the note below each table in this report. The weighting methodology used for the pest and weed survey sample is based on the approach described in ABARES (2011).
ABARES pest and weed management survey sample numbers were low for NRM regions of Cape York (QLD) and Alinytjara Wilurara (SA), therefore estimates for these regions should be used with caution. No data was collected from Cooperative Management Area or external territory natural resource management regions. The small number of Australian Capital Territory and Torres Strait region responses via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in the national, state and industry level estimates.
51
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
1.4. Reliability of estimates
The estimates in this report are based on information from the ABARES pest and weed survey conducted in August-December 2016. The results may differ from those of the true population of agricultural businesses because they are based on a sample. These differences are due to sampling errors. The size of the sampling error is influenced by the survey design, the estimation procedure used and the variability in agricultural businesses in the population. The higher the sample size, the lower the error. Therefore, national estimates are likely to be more accurate than NRM region, industry or species level estimates.
In this report, the error due to sampling variability is measured by the relative standard error (RSE) which is calculated using the standard error (SE) and the survey estimate (referred to as x) in the following manner: RSE%(x) = (SE(x)/x)*100. RSEs on estimates at the national level (using all valid responses) are generally in the range of 5 percent or less. At the 4 agricultural sub-industry levels (dairy, horticulture, broadacre and other livestock) and state level, RSEs are generally less than 5 per cent. For NRM region estimates and species level estimates, the RSEs can be higher depending on the response rates for the particular survey question. For tables with selected estimates at these scales the RSE is provided.
For more information about reliability of estimates, sampling errors and calculating confidence intervals using relative standard errors please consult ABARES (2011).
1.5. Approval from ABS Statistical Clearinghouse
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Statistical Clearinghouse granted approval for the survey in June 2016 (approval number 02479 – 01).
52
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Appendix C: Response ratesTable 12 summarises all modes of response to the ABARES pest and weed survey by NRM region, including surveys received via online and hardcopy postal formats.
Table 12 Survey response rate by NRM regionState/Territory NRM region Targeted
sampleTotal
responsesResponse
rate (%)
NSW Central Tablelands 182 102 56Central West 308 169 55Greater Sydney 291 153 53Hunter 247 120 49Murray 300 147 49North Coast 319 149 47North West NSW 328 161 49Northern Tablelands 113 55 49Riverina 454 221 49South East NSW 245 130 53Western 153 80 52
VIC Corangamite 254 129 51East Gippsland 35 24 69Glenelg Hopkins 296 162 55Goulburn Broken 369 169 46Mallee 318 172 54North Central 360 177 49North East 115 74 64Port Phillip and Western Port 433 214 49West Gippsland 286 156 55Wimmera 202 104 51
TAS North 460 228 50North West 469 211 45South 280 147 53
NT Northern Territory 276 101 37Aust. All 12,920 6470 50
Note: Responses from Torres Strait and Australian Capital Territory NRM regions (2 responses) received via the open online survey are not presented at the regional level, but are included in national, state and industry level estimates.
53
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Appendix D: Selected results for NRM regionsTable 13 Selected results for NRM regions – awareness on property (feral pest animals)State/ Territory
NRM region Aware of presence of pest animal on property(% respondents)
TAS North 89 2 45 7 46 7 74 3North West 85 3 43 8 47 7 60 4South 88 3 50 8 45 9 70 4
NT Northern Territory 59 8 44 11 26 17 66 6a WoNS estimates refer to per cent of respondents who said that weed problems on their property have been caused by a Weed of National Significance.
57
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Table 16 Selected results for NRM regions – major problem with species groupState/ Territory
NRM region Major problem with species group on property(% respondents)
TAS North 12,464 7 102 6 5.9 27North West 18,554 24 79 7 2.4 44South 27,076 27 77 7 6.3 32
NT Northern Territory 24,935 8 125 13 18.4 21Aust. Total 19,620 1.4 88 1 9.8 4
Note: Weightings were applied for expenditure and days estimates using ABARES survey weightings. np = not provided due to low sample numbers.
59
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
Appendix E: Map key
60
Pest animal and Weed Management Survey: National landholder survey results ABARES
ReferencesABARES 2011, Survey methods and definitions, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics and Sciences, Canberra, available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/abares/data/definitions-methods.pdf.
ABS 2008, Natural resource management on Australian farms 2006-07, Catalogue 4620.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
ABS & Statistics New Zealand 2008, Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) 2006 (Revision 1.0), Catalogue 1292.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Government 2017, Weeds of National Significance, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html [Accessed 20 April 2017].
Dillman D 1978, edn, Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method, New York Wiley.Pallant J 2005, SPSS Survival Manual (2nd edn.), Ligare, Sydney.