You are here: ANRA home » Natural resource topics » Rangelands » People
This web site is no longer being updated
In this section you will find detailed information, including national overviews and state and regional level assessments, from the 2000-2002 National Land and Water Resources Audit theme assessments.
Rangelands - Socio-economic Information
Socio-economic Information
Approximately 2.3 million (13% of Australia's total population) live in the rangelands. They use and manage the land for a variety of purposes and have many different information needs.
People managing and using the rangelands make decisions that can affect large tracts of rangeland country:
- land administrators
- public land managers
- pastoralists
- indigenous land managers
- tourism operatorsmining managers
- township communities
In order to adopt sustainable resource management practices managers need to:
- understand problems and identify opportunities and management practices (primary drivers are knowledge, information and communication);
- be motivated to adopt sustainable management practices (primary drivers are environmental attitudes, stewardship approaches, security, and peer and other pressure); and
- have the capacity to adopt sustainable management practices (primary drivers are available finances, skills, mentors, decision support and access to infrastructure) (Gordon et al 2000).
Locations of farmers and farm managers
Click here to view the Locations of Farmers & Farm Managers map.
Individual attributes
| Summary of recommended indicators and their relationship to adoption | ||
|---|---|---|
| Individual attributes | Relationship to adoption | Expected sign |
| Age of manager | Desire to remain, Environmental attitudes | Negative |
| Skills, Environmental attitudes, Information, Desire to remain | Positive | |
| Recent training | Environmental attitudes, Skills, Information, Pressure to adopt | Positive |
| Property management plan | Skills, Information | Positive |
| Member of Landcare | Environmental attitudes, Skills, Pressure to adopt, Decision support | Positive |
| Families with dependant children | Desire to remain or financial burden | Ambiguous |
Median age of farmers and farm managers, 1996
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions.
Lack of access to unit level records, and the availability of data merely at the level of reported median ages at SLA level, prevented the calculation of median age values for the rangelands as a whole and the 53 different IBRA regions.
One of the most basic sociodemographic indicators, the median age, divides a population into exactly two halves. In 1996, the median age of Australia's total population was 34; this means, half of all Australians were younger than 34 years of age; and half were older then 34 years of age. The median age of Australian farmers and farm managers in contrast, stood at 48 years across the country, being as high as 58 in some areas along the east coast of Australia.
The median age is a more useful description of a population's age structure than the 'average age', as the latter is more susceptible to the skewness of the population distribution, thus providing a less meaningful, representative picture of the population at large. In addition, calculating an arithmetic mean is further complicated by the fact that most published age-distributions end with open-ended intervals (eg. 75+).
The map shows distinct differences in the age of farms and farmer managers across Australia, pointing to considerably younger operators in the rangelands compared to colleagues along the East Coast of Australia. Notable exceptions are found in Western Australia and the Gulf region of the Northern Territory. In all other states, there also appears to be a strong inverse relationship between remoteness and age, with the more remote rangelands featuring younger farmers and farm managers. The youngest median age of farmers and farm managers is found right throughout the rangeland regions of South Australia, with the exception of unincorporated Lincoln.
There are two key inter-related factors that can explain these patterns.
- A decline in the number of young people taking up farming
- Internal migration
Education of farmers or managers
There is a vast body of empirical evidence suggesting a strong positive relationship between levels of educational attainment and the likelihood that the farmer/manager will adopt new and perhaps challenging land management practices. Higher levels of professional knowledge and skills have been correlated with a greater ‘capacity’ to adopt and practice sustainable management practices. Studies of Landcare have also shown that higher levels of land stewardship are found in farmers with higher levels of education. However, it should be noted that where new practices are considered to be profitable, levels of education seem of no significance.
Three levels of education are presented here; higher qualifications, skilled vocational and basic vocational. A further two maps present information about the average age of farmers and farm managers when they left school.
Farmers and farm managers with higher education, 1996
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions.
The higher qualification category has been constructed by drawing together three ABS defined educational levels. These are Higher degree, Post-graduate diploma and Bachelor degree.
In 1996, one in ten Australians aged 15 years and over (10.4 percent) had a bachelor degree or higher educational qualifications. The non-metropolitan average stood at 6.6 percent (BRS 1999). Across the rangelands, the pattern of higher education in the farmer/manager population falls well below both averages, with the vast majority of IBRA regions (N=37) featuring less than 5 per cent of farmers and farm managers with such qualifications.
Notable exceptions to this pattern are the Central Kimberley (CK) with more than 10 percent, followed by the Northern Kimberley (NK), the Ord Victoria Plain (ORD) and Dampier land (DL), which exceed 7 percent.
A possible explanation why the north-west of Western Australia displays relatively high averages may be associated with the relatively high proportion of corporate pastoral enterprises which tend to employ highly qualified graduates to manage their properties.
Farmers and farm managers with skilled vocational qualifications, 1996
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions.
This map depicts the proportion of farmers and farm managers in 1996 with skilled vocational qualifications. These are defined as involving completion of a course lasting two to four years. This training also normally involves on-the-job training for working in a specific trade that requires high degrees of skills.
The nature of this type of education or training should provide farmer/managers with a greater capacity to embrace the sort of changes demanded by adoption of sustainable land management practices.
The low proportions of farmers and farm managers with tertiary qualifications at the degree or diploma level is also evident regards skilled vocational training. Only 6 out of the 53 IBRA regions have more than 10% of farmers and farm managers with skilled vocational qualifications. They are the Einasleigh Uplands (EIU) (13%), Cobar Peneplain (CP), Gulf Coastal (GUC) and Riverland (RIV) with 11%, followed by the Cape York Peninsula (CYP) and Murray Darling Depression (MDD) with 10%.
At the other end of the spectrum, one in four IBRA regions feature less than five percent of farmers and farm managers with skilled vocational qualifications, with Tanami (TAN) and Little Sandy Desert (LSD) falling below 2 per cent.
Farmers and farm managers with basic vocational qualifications, 1996
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions.
This map shows the number of farmers and farm managers with basic vocational qualifications. These usually entail courses that provide individuals with the practical skills and background knowledge necessary for employment at the operative level in many different fields. The duration of study for a basic vocational course is typically one year of full-time study or equivalent.
While the level of education and training provided is considerably less than that associated with skilled qualifications, it is still relevant regarding farmers' capacity to embrace change, and in many circumstances such qualifications may actually be quite be tailored to farming applications.
Across the rangelands, only a small proportion of farmers and farm managers have this type of basic post-school qualification. As a matter of fact, in most IBRA regions the average proportion is well below 5 per cent.
Relative to other levels of educational attainment, the proportion of farmer/managers with basic vocational qualifications is lower than those with higher qualifications.
Farmers and farm managers who left school at 14 to 16 years of age (based on 1996 census data)
|
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing) Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions |
Given that leaving school at a young age is not conducive to obtaining any type of formal qualifications, we decided to look at 'age of school leaving' to better understand the overall low proportion of farmers and farm managers without formal qualifications. This indicator represents the proportion of farmers and farm managers who left school between 14 and 16 years of age. In the context of low proportions of farmers and farm managers with formal qualifications and skills, this information is essential for the design and delivery of effective training programs and communications aimed at farmers and farm managers. The low levels of formal education and vocational qualifications found amongst rangelands farmers and farm managers comes as no surprise given the general young age at which most left school. This map shows that all throughout the rangelands, with the notable exception of the Darling Riverine Plains (DRP), more than 60 per cent of all farmers and farm managers left school at this age. This situation is particularly pronounced in the Brigalow Belt North (BBN), the Einasleigh Upland (EIU) and the Gawler (GAW), where four out of five farmers left school aged 14 to 16 years of age. Considering that most students would complete high school between the ages of 16-18, the vast majority of these school-leavers would not have completed secondary education. Given the age of today's rangelands farmers and farm managers, this is not an unusual occurrence. Poorer access to education and training facilities throughout the rangelands and the way education was looked upon 30 to 40 years ago in rural areas explain the patterns. A pattern of early school leaving may also be related to a desire to acquire what maybe regarded as ‘more relevant’ qualifications, such as those found in the skilled vocational field, or a recognised trade where entry to apprentice-type qualifications traditionally started at a young age. However, previous maps depicting the extent of both skilled and vocational education amongst today's rangelands farmers and farm managers show a different picture |
Farmers and farm managers who left school at 17 to 18 years of age
|
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing) Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions |
Unlike the situation described above, this map includes farmers and farm managers who may have completed secondary education (or parts of it, such as the Higher leaving certificate) without pursuing any other form of post-school education or training. The situation is most pronounced in the Mitchell Grass Downs (MGD), Darling River Plains (DRP), Geraldton Sandplains (GS), Mulga Lands (ML) and Broken Hill Complex (BHC), where about one in three farmers or farm managers had left school by the age of 18. In most other IBRA regions, the proportion is between 25 and 33 per cent. |
Participation in Recent Training, (July 1996 to June 1999)
Data Source: ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: Given the geo-coding of farms in the ABARE farm survey, all data were made available at the IBRA region level.
This indicator provides information on whether or not the owner manager (regarded as primary decision-maker for the farm business, ABARE 2000:61) has attended a property/environmental management course or workshop in the three years from July 1996 to June 1999
Like formal education described above, it is generally considered that informal education and training is likely to encourage adoption of sustainable land management practices. While reflecting acquired skills, it is also indicative of a general interest in adoption of better management and hence demonstrates 'pro-activity'. This makes it a characteristic of innovators and early-adopters.
Participation in agricultural extension programs was positively related to the adoption of pasture monitoring and stock type for pasture, however, there was a weak negative association with lowering stocking rates. Participation in Landcare associated activities was also negatively related to overstocking, while positively related to adjusting stock type to pasture, and to undertaking soil works. Participation in more formally organised courses was positively but weakly related to changes in management to conservation and to lowering stocking rates.
As indicated in the section on methodology, we are in no position to provide map interpretations, considering that for most indicators derived from the ABARE farm survey we (i) only have access to data about one in four IBRA regions, and (ii) even here we deal with such small samples and considerable standard errors that are incompatible with meaningful regional assessments. Where appropriate, we limit ourselves to brief comments or observations.
Despite low overall proportions of farmers/managers with formal vocational or higher education, there appears to be considerable participation in recent training courses and workshops. In nine out of twelve IBRA regions for which ABARE farm survey data are available, participation rates are in excess of 50 percent.
Farms with property management plans, 1998-99
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Defined as active use of property management plan in the last 12 months, and whether or not owner/manager has participated in PMP workshops and activities, including FarmBis in the last three years.
The establishment of a Property Management Plan (PMP) is considered to be an indicator of capacity to adopt because it reflects skills in management, information available for management decisions and willingness to use such information (CIE, 2000). Farmer/managers may also have been required to develop a PMP as a condition of credit and they have been encouraged to develop such plans as part of participation in various government programs. In this context, the presence of such a plan is indicative of pressure to adopt sustainable management practices (CIE, 2000).
It was found that respondents with a PMP were more likely to adopt pasture monitoring, stock type to pasture, lowering stocking rates, and consequently the production aggregate. They were also more likely to fence for conservation, have a positive impact on the conservation aggregate and have changed their management toward more conservation oriented practices. This strong relationship with adoption suggests that having a property management plan also reflects motivation to manage more sustainably.
Small sample sizes and high standard errors do not allow for a meaningful regional assessment.
Membership of Landcare, 1998-99
Data Source: ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: Given the geo-coding of farms in the ABARE farm survey, all data were made available at the IBRA region level.
On an individual level, membership of Landcare is seen as a proxy of concern about the environment.
Many studies have shown that the greater the exposure of the farmer to sustainable practices, the greater the likelihood the farmer will adopt such practices. Landcare meetings, workshops and field days provide such exposure. Also, information on sustainable practices is disseminated through Landcare and catchment groups. Studies of Landcare found that those farmers who maintained greater contact with their respective groups and had a higher involvement in Landcare activities, demonstrated greater levels of knowledge and understanding about sustainable practices.
Membership of Landcare was positively related to fencing for conservation and to soil works, and to an aggregated conservation measure. However, membership was negatively related to a sustainable production measure and to adjusting stock type to pasture.
Considering the importance of workshops, field days and exposure to new information generally regarding the adoption of sustainable land management practices, it is not surprising to find a close similarity in the pattern of Landcare membership and participation in recent training.
Farm families with dependant children, 1996
Data Source: ABS (Census of Population and Housing)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions.
Dependent children are defined as the number of children under 15 years of age plus those aged 15-24 years pursuing full-time education.
The implications of dependant children on adoption of sustainable land management practices can be ambiguous. On one hand, the presence of children can be regarded positively because it can be correlated with a desire to remain on the property in the long term, which is a motivation to adopt. However, dependant children are a significant financial burden on the farmer/manager family, which could equally imply that it will be difficult for the farmer/manager family to invest (perhaps even gamble) in innovative and untried practices.
The survey supported the former hypothesis – it was weakly positively related to fencing for stock management. This may reflect both the cost of children and the desire to remain in that the respondents wish to improve production sustainability for their children’s future.
This maps shows the highest concentration of families with dependant children in the southern and eastern rangelands. Considering the close relationship between age and family formation, it comes as no surprise to find a similar pattern to that in an earlier map depicting median age. In other words, farmers in their forties are far more likely to have dependant children than those younger or older.
Business attributes
| Summary of recommended indicators and their relationship to adoption | ||
|---|---|---|
| Business-related attributes | Relationship to adoption | Expected sign |
| Family members working on farm | Pressure to adopt, Decision support | Positive |
| Employment of non-family labour | Financial capacity, Skills | Positive |
| Off-farm employment income | Financial capacity, if supplementary | Positive |
| Total farm income | Financial capacity, Desire to remain, Security | Positive |
| Farm cash income | Financial capacity, Desire to remain, Security | Positive |
| Profit at full equity (proxy income) | Desire to remain | Positive |
| Farm equity ratio | Financial capacity, Security | Positive |
Farms employing family labour for more than 20 weeks/year (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Defined as proportion of properties which use more than 20 weeks of family labour a year.
Family members working on the farm are more likely to be involved in property decisions. They provide important mentoring and decision support. Family members on the farm/property were thought to be positively related to adoption of sustainable practices due to the presence of that support and a likely desire to remain, or for their children to remain (CIE, 2000).
Family members working on the farm/property was not found to be related to adoption of any of the various resource management practices identified in the survey.
Family contributions are evident throughout the rangelands, with very little variations apparent throughout the IBRA regions, and with some 90 per cent of the sampled properties in all but 2 regions enjoying at least 20 weeks per year of family labour input. Even in the two regions at the lowest end, Burt Plain (BRT) and Cobar Peneplain (CP), family labour input for more than 20 weeks per year still applied to 75 percent of all farming enterprises.
Employment of non-family labour, 1996-97 to 1998-99
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Farms employing non-family labour for more than 20 weeks/year (3-year average)
Defined as the proportion of properties which use more than 20 weeks of casual or permanent non-family labour a year.
Significant employment of non-family labour potentially indicates two features that are positively related to the capacity to undertake sustainable management practices. First, larger and more complex operations, hence skills to manage such operations, and secondly availability of staff to cover absences that are required to attend Landcare and other types of meetings and/or training (CIE, 2000).
Notwithstanding limitations imposed by sample size and standard errors, employment of non-family labour is highest in the Burt Plain (BRT), Finke (FIN) and Murchison (MUR) samples, with more than 3 in 4 farms employing non-family labour at least 20 weeks per annum. At least half of the Gulf Plains (GUP), Darling River Plain (DRP) and Cobar Peneplain samples also employ non-family labour for at least 20 weeks per annum.
Total Farm Family Income, 1996-97 to 1998-99 (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
This refers to family share of farm income plus any wages (that are included as farm costs for taxation assessment) paid to the owner manager, spouse and dependant children, plus all off-farm income of owner manager and spouse. The family share of farm income is the share of net farm business income of owner manager, spouse and dependant children. Net farm business income is farm cash income plus change in trading stocks, less depreciation less any wages (that are included as farm costs for taxation assessment) paid to the owner manager's family and other family members.
Farm family income is thought to be directly related to adoption because of the financial constraints or opportunities it may provide. A high level of income potentially provides greater opportunities to experiment with new and untried management practices, while tighter incomes exert greater pressure on farm families making such experimentations more difficult if not impossible.
Farm family income is also considered to be indirectly related to adoption of sustainable management practices through farm profitability, and to the desire to remain on the property, and to a sense of security.
The survey examined ‘farm income’, which was the culmination of seven income categories (defined as household income); it also established the proportion of income that was derived from pastoral activities, off-farm, investments and off-farm employment. Farm income was not found to be correlated with adoption of sustainable management practices.
While there appear to be some marked regional variations (small sample size and standard errors notwithstanding) between areas averaging total family income greater than $60,000 per annum and those with less than half these incomes, great caution is advised when interpreting all income maps.
As stated in the methodology section, the ABARE farm survey is based on establishments with a minimum annual estimated value of agricultural operations of $22,500. Considering that some 27% of all broadacre operations in Australia (N=24,851) operated below this level as of 31 March 1999
The most recent date for which national data are available (ABS, 2000:14) ¾, and also considering that most of these would be operating on more marginal land, such as in the rangelands, the ABARE sample appears to be clearly biased towards the more profitable end of agricultural operations. In other words, income estimates concorded to IBRA
As a reminder: farm family income should not be considered synonymous with farm productivity, as is neatly reflected in the map describing farm cash income, with regions averaging the lowest farm family incomes (Einasleigh Uplands (EIU), Mitchell Grass Downs (MGD), Cobar Peneplain (CP) and the Riverina (RIV)), average much higher farm cash incomes.
Farm Family Off-farm Income, 1996-97 to 1998-99 (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
This refers to off-farm income of the owner manager and spouse only, is based on a three-year average, and includes income from wages, other businesses, investment and social welfare payments (ABARE, 2000:64).
As stated earlier, there is an ambiguous relationship between income and sustainable management practices. The same applies to off-farm income. On one side, a higher household income (regardless of how it is earned) is expected to reduce the financial burden of adopting sustainable management practices. Looked at from a different angle, off-farm employment may well be the result of poor farm profits and reflect severe financial constraints . Linked to this is the opportunity cost associated with off-farm employment, that is, time spent in such employment is time that cannot be dedicated to farm-based activities and trying out new management practices.
It should also be stressed that varying levels of off-farm income may primarily reflect on different degrees of access (including complete lack of it) to off-farm employment opportunities than low farm profits. The fact that total farm family income and off-farm income need not be directly related is demonstrated in the example of the Mitchell Grass Downs (MGD), which according to ABARE data appears both in the lowest total farm family income (< $30,000) and the lowest off-farm income categories (< $8,000).
Survey analysis underlines that with increasing proportions of household income derived from off-farm employment, respondents were less likely as to identify financial constraints as a key issue.
Farm Cash Income, 1996-97 to 1998-99 (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Represented here as a three-year average farm cash income, which is defined as the difference between total cash receipts from the farm business (total revenues received) and total cash costs incurred by the business (payments made by the farm business for materials and services, which includes debt repayments and permanent/casual labour costs).
Farm Profit at Full Equity, 1996-97 to 1998-99 (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Represented here as a three-year average, farm profit at full equity is defined as farm business profit (farm cash income plus changes in trading stock less depreciation less imputed labour costs for family labour), plusdepreciation on leased items. It reflects the return on all resources in the farm business.
As with other financial/economic measures discussed here, farm profits are seen as related to farm families' ability/disposition to tackle sustainable resource management issues.
Notwithstanding earlier comments about sample size and standard errors, marked contrast appear in the ABARE farm survey sampled operations, highlighting three distinct patterns: areas in North and North central Queensland and the Northern Territory averaging farm profits at full equity in excess of $50,000; the Channel country (CHC), Mulga lands (ML), Brigalow Belt South (BBS), Murray Darling Depression (MDD) and the Riverina (RIV) averaging profits at full equity between $10,000-$20,000, with the Flinders Lofty Block (FLB), Murchison (MUR) and Finke (FIN) sample properties averaging substantial losses.
Farm Equity Ratio, 1996-97 to 1998-99 (3-year average)
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Represented here as a three-year average, farm business equity refers to the value of owned capital less farm business debt. It refers to the percentage of owned capital.
Equity ratios can be affected by farmers need to borrow capital for new investments or to balance operating losses.
Farm equity ratio appeared negatively related to some sustainable management practices, such as fencing for conservation, but showed no relationship to most others.
Community attributes
| Summary of recommended indicators and their relationship to adoption | ||
|---|---|---|
| Community attributes | Relationship to adoption | Expected sign |
| Social capital - Degree of socio-economic disadvantage (SEIFA) | Desire to remain, Mentoring and decision support, Information, Infrastructure availability, Financial capacity | Negative |
| Social capital - Net migration out of region of 15 to 24 year olds. | Desire to remain, Mentoring and decision support, Information, Infrastructure availability, Financial capacity | Negative |
| Unemployment rate | ||
| Population structure: dependency ratio | ||
| Remoteness | ||
Population structure: Age dependency ratio, 1996
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
More often simply referred to as the dependency ratio, this measure provides a useful account of regional population structures. It is the ratio of persons in the 'dependent ages' (usually defined as those under 15 and over 65 years of age) to those in the economically productive ages (15-64, ie. the labour force) in a population.
This ratio is also sometimes divided into elderly dependency(ratio of those 65 years and older to those aged 15 to 64 years), and child dependency (ratio of people under age 15 to those aged 15 to 64 years of age).
Where more detailed information is lacking, this measure is often used as an indicator of the "economic burden the productive part of the population must carry, even though some persons defined as 'dependent' are producers and some persons defined in the 'productive ages' are economically dependent" (Population Reference Bureau, 1991).
This map highlights an interesting pattern across the rangelands, pointing to a close relationship between regional population composition, such as age structures and levels of remoteness. With the exception of the Northern Territory, the most remote parts of the rangelands not only show the lowest dependency ratios, but also have values well below the average for non-metropolitan Australia. This is indicative of population with few children and older people relative to people of working age.
This pattern is in stark contrast to the outer wheat-sheep belt of the south-eastern states, reflecting a much higher concentration of older people (as indicated in map 1) and of families with dependant children; and the different pattern in the Northern Territory is due to a much stronger presence of indigenous Australians, and where larger numbers of children lead to high(er) dependency ratio
Unlike most the case with most other SLA based data, a proper concordance to IBRA regions was not possible, as it cannot be realistically assumed that all three different population sub-groups (children , labour force, elderly) are distributed equally across SLAs.
Net migration of young Australians (15-24 year olds), 1996
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
This map describes the incidence of net migration among young Australians between 1991 and 1996. Net migration is defined as the difference between the number of young persons moving into a particular area between the 1991 and 1996 censuses, and the number of young people moving out. It is expressed as a proportion of the 1991 resident population of a given area.
Young Australians display a high level of mobility, with 1 in 5 having changed their place of residence at least once between 1991 and 1996. Generally, rural and regional Australia has long experienced a decline in youth populations, as young people seek employment and other opportunities offered by major cities and regional centres.
Population mobility of young Australians features prominently across the rangelands, with twice as many IBRA regions showing net out-migration of young people relative to the net movement of young people into specific areas.
Levels of net population losses of young people due to migration are strongest in the south-east of the continent, such as in the Great Victoria Desert (GVD), Gawler (GAW), Murray Darling Depression (MDD) and Flinders Lofty Block (FLB), which all show a net out-migration exceeding 30 percent. Many young people leave these after leaving school to access post school education and training opportunities, or to seek work outside traditional agricultural, pastoral or mining sectors. It has been pointed out that even regions with an overall net migration gain, often experience a net loss of young people.
In contrast, there is evidence of significant positive net migration into the northern and western parts of the rangelands, such as the MacDonnell Ranges (MAC), Davenport Murchison Range (DMR and Darwin Coastal (DAC), which all exceed a 10 per cent gain in the number of young people due to in-migration into these regions. There are two probable explanations for this development across central and Northern Western Australia and the Northern Territory. For one, many of these remoter areas offer young people employment opportunities in the pastoral, mining and tourism industries, which is often well paid, of a casual nature, and also offers young people from major population centres an opportunity to visit remote Australia. Secondly, much of the remoter parts of the rangelands have a high proportion of indigenous Australians, which show a high degree of mobility, particularly the younger age groups who frequently move from settlement to settlement within the north-western IBRA
Unemployment rate, 1999
DEWRSB Small area labour markets ¾ Australia, March 2000
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
Describing a key aspect pertaining to the social and economic wellbeing of communities, this map describes current unemployment rates across the rangelands. It is defined as the ratio of the number of unemployed people aged 15 years and older to the total labour force.
Data provided in relation to non-metropolitan average of 8.3 percent (1999 average). The percentage breaks refer to standard deviations. For example, the category 4.67 to 8.29 per cent describes areas where the unemployment rate is within one standard deviation below the non-metropolitan average of 8.3 per cent.
The overall unemployment rate in the vast majority of the rangeland IBRA regions is below the non-metropolitan average of 8.3 per cent, with large parts of Western Australia and the Desert Uplands (DEU) showing the lowest levels of unemployment across the rangelands (less than 2 standard deviations below the non-metropolitan average). Only Gawler (GAW), Burt Plain (BRT), MacDonnell Ranges (MAC), and Finke (FIN) show levels above the non-metropolitan average, with unemployment in Gawler standing at just under 11 per cent in 1999.
While these figures appear incompatible, at first sight, with widespread perceptions of 'no jobs in the bush', it needs to be stressed that unemployment rates per se do not provide the true picture about employment and labour force conditions in the rangelands. For one, many discouraged workers who are not employed are not detected by the census or quarterly labour force surveys as unemployed, if they don’t actively look for work (such as in situations where there are no jobs). And secondly, low levels of unemployment in the rangelands to some extent also reflect the movement of unemployed people of these areas towards larger regional centres.
Socioeconomic index of disadvantage (SEIFA), 1996
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
SEIFA index (Socioeconomic Index for Areas), the ABS developed this index of relative disadvantage based on 1996 population census data. The value for Australia as a whole is standardized at 1,000 (with a standard deviation of 100 points), with values exceeding this figure indicating a higher level of socioeconomic well-being than the Australian standard. (For more detail and further technical references, see Australia in Profile
Areas with the greatest relative disadvantage have high proportions of low income families, unemployed people, people without educational qualifications, households renting public housing and people in low-skilled occupations. Conversely, the least disadvantaged areas have higher proportions of high income earners, professional workers and more highly qualified people, as well as low unemployment rates.
regions are below the Australian SEIFA average. The lowest scores are found in the northern rangelands with the exceptions of the Darwin Coastal (DAC) region. The most disadvantaged regions (more than 200 points below the Australian average) are the MacDonnell Ranges (MAC), the Davenport Murchison range, Sturt Plateau, , Tanami (TAN), the Burt Plain (BRT), and Gulf Coastal (GUC) regions. This is partly a reflection of a substantial representation of the indigenous population in these areas, with the incidence of socioeconomic disadvantage higher among indigenous Australians than among most other population groups (BRS, 1999).
Regions closest to the Australian average are mostly found in the most western parts of the rangelands; Coolgardie (COO), Geraldton Sandplains (GS), Yalgoo (YAL) and Pilbara (PIL). The Riverina region (RIV) in the south-east of the continent is also close to the Australian average.
Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA), 1996
ABARE Farm survey (Resource management supplementary survey)
Coverage: SLA basis, concorded to IBRA regions
This indicator represents a generic measure of remoteness across Australia, with remoteness interpreted in terms of accessibility to a range of the closest services centres. The Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) was developed by the Department of Health and Aged Care in collaboration with the National Key Centre for Social Applications of Geographical Information Systems (GISCA).
Remoteness values for some 11,300 populated localities are derived from the road distance to service centres in 4 categories. For each locality, distances are converted to ratios to the mean, a threshold of 3.0 is applied, and they are then summed. This produces a continuous variable from 0 (high accessibility) to 12 (extreme remoteness). Values for populated localities are then interpolated to a 1km grid, averages are calculated for larger areas, and the resulting values are then grouped into 5 different categories, ranging from highly accessible (1) to very remote (5).
For more information on the technical details refer to: Acessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA), Occasional Paper Series No. 6, Canberra.
This map highlights a rather obvious pattern, that the vast majority of IBRA regions represent the most remote locations across Australia.
Further Information
- Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Bureau of Rural Sciences
- Social Atlas of Rural and Regional Australia
- Rangelands-Tracking Changes final report
- Rangelands-Tracking Changes summary report
- Rangelands-Tracking Changes summary report (11.5mb.pdf)
The Australian Rangelands Information System Operational Manual Version 1.0 (A. Holm, November) (available October 2001)
- "Indicators within a decision framework - social, economic and institutional indicators for sustainable management in the rangelands."(PDF - 3MB) (Centre for International Economics, Bureau for Rural Sciences, CSIRO & Resource Planning and Management 2001.)
- Appendices (PDF - 647KB)
- "Compilation of a database of socioeconomic indicators for the rangelands" (by G. Haberkorn, C.MacGregor, S. Kelson & C. Charalambou, 2001) (PDF - 544 KB)
Indigenous websites (ATSIC, land councils):
The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)
Aboriginal Studies WWW Virtual Library
Victoria's Community Network - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Page
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Studies
National Native Title Tribunal
Indigenous Australian WWW Resource Directory - KOORINET
Link to the Map Maker to make a map using this information.
Before you download
Most publications are downloadable as PDF files. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
If you are unable to access a publication, please contact us to organise a suitable alternative format.
Key
Links to an another web site
Opens a pop-up window