Survey results

 Return to home page

Community Survey #1

(the 'before' survey)

  • November 2007

  • Sent to 1,872 residents (1,086 properties in the study area and 786 the the 'control')

  • 42 questions on water savings measures, stormwater management, rain water tanks and rain-gardens.

  • 535 responses, giving a response rate of 28.5% .

     
       

Summary of results:

Most people in the Mount Evelyn community are concerned with how much tap (potable) water they are using. Most households are taking practical actions to reduce water use and want to do more.


Most people were reasonably aware of stormwater, have a sound knowledge of the sources of stormwater and often think about how stormwater is managed.
However, fewer people were aware that current stormwater drainage practices (as found in Mt Evelyn, and most of the rest of Melbourne) are having a severe impact on the health of their local creek.


Most people surveyed undervalued the role individual members of the community can play in managing stormwater. Private property owners can make a substantial contribution to reducing the negative impacts of stormwater, by keeping as much as possible on their property and using it. This can also help to save water.
Most people surveyed care about the state of their local creeks and are keen to see the health of local creeks improved.


But fewer fully understood the reasons for poor creek health in the local area. Stormwater is the single, largest problem for creeks in the Mt Evelyn (and the greater Melbourne metropolitan area).
 

 

Click on the image above for the full results of this survey

    
       
             
'Non bidders' Survey

  • October 2008

  • Sent to 200 land owners (those who registered but did not submit a bid to Stormwater Tender.

  • 9 questions relating to the auction process, such as peoples level of understanding on how EB was calculated and what were the barriers preventing participation.

  • 54 responses, giving a response rate of 27%.
     
       

Summary of results:

Understanding about the project was mixed. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (good), the average understanding of how the EB was calculated, the ranking of bids and rebate calculations and payments were all low (an average score of less than 2.6). In contrast, respondents reported a much better understanding on the aims of the project (average score 3.9) and the ways to mitigate stormwater impacts on creeks (3.8).

 

The majority of respondents (65%, n=35) only progressed as far as reading the information provided. And some (11%, n=6) failed to progress anywhere after receiving the information package. Only 5 respondents sought plumbers quotes. The reasons given for not submitting a bid or progressing further in their application to Stormwater Tender were most commonly: Ran out of time (50%) which we also interpret as meaning that Stormwater Tender required too much time to participate in; b) Could not afford the upfront payments (44%); and c) It was all too confusing (44%). Some (32%) also reported that they where unsure of what works to undertake on their property.
             

Community Survey #2

(the 'after' survey)

  • May 2009

  • Sent to 1766 properties (957 in the study area and 809 in the control),

  • two version of the survey, one for study area, one for control

  • 434 responses, giving a response rate of 24.5%
     
       

Summary of results:

The study population (that located in the catchment of the Little Stringybark Creek) has shown some positive changes in attitudes and awareness regarding stormwater management and stream health over the last 18 months. They have also, on occasion, shown a greater awareness than those living in a control catchment (adjacent Olinda Creek). These changes include:

  • 64% of respondents recognised that rainwater tanks have an important role in the protection of streams. This is compared with only 35% of the respondents in the control catchment considering tanks as such. As a relative ranking, Keeping local creeks healthier was ranked second in importance in the study population, compared  4th for the control group. The top ranked response was Reducing demand on mains water for both the study and control populations.

  • Compared to the before survey, 29% more of respondents in the study population recognise the important role private land owners can play in managing stormwater (compared to an increase of 19% in the control population).

  •  93% of respondents in the study population have now heard of the term rain-garden. This is compared to only 14% reporting so in the before survey. Similarly, 75% report that they know what a rain-garden is used for, compared to only 46% in the control population.

  • The study population showed a greater understanding on the benefits of rain-gardens, The three top ranking benefits cited by study population respondents were water wise garden, improving stream health and reducing localised flooding. In comparison, the control population believed saving water was a top three benefit, and ranked benefits to fauna higher than reducing localised flooding.

  • Both populations showed greater awareness of the name of the creek in their respective catchments, although the study population had the greatest increase, with the after survey showing 40% more respondents knew the name compared to the before survey. Additionally, more respondents are now aware of the poor health of the creek, with 40% identifying it as being in poor or fair health.