How can we identify socio-regions in the rangelands of Australia?
Y. T. Maru A B and V. H. Chewings AA CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PO Box 2111, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: yiheyis.maru@csiro.au
The Rangeland Journal 30(1) 45-53 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ07041
Submitted: 13 June 2007 Accepted: 24 October 2007 Published: 1 April 2008
Abstract
The Australian rangelands are divided into regions for statistical reporting, cultural identification or administrative and bioregional management purposes. However, many of these divisions do not reflect the characteristics of inland towns. In this study we used the Urban Centre/Locality (UCL) structure (for settlements with at least 200 people) as the smallest unit of analysis to build preliminary socio-regions based on demographic (e.g. Median Age and percentage of Indigenous people in UCL), socio-economic (dependency ratio and unemployment rate) and a few environmental indicators (e.g. Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Rainfall variability). A key finding of the study is that there are strong differences among UCLs in the rangelands. A threshold of around 5000 people is apparent with some indicators across all UCLs around which variability changes. There is much greater variability in the indicators among UCLs with fewer than 5000 people than there is among UCLs with over 5000 people. This confirms the need to consider statistical units smaller than those commonly used such as Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) as these and other regionalisation techniques mask the detail within areas that contain socio-economically and culturally different settlements. The high variability of indicator values observed for UCLs with smaller populations suggests that they have more diverse research, policy and investment needs than larger urban centres. We used a non-traditional approach and grouped UCLs into socio-regions based on their social characteristics instead of their geographic location. This created clusters of similar UCLs rather than contiguous regions. Some of these socio-regions cross administrative and statistical borders. The regionalisation presented in this study is likely to be valuable when selecting case-study areas for research projects and, in the long-term, when developing policy and investment initiatives.
Additional keywords: desert, livelihoods, regionalisation, regions.
Acknowledgements
The Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre and CSIRO provided financial support for the project. We are grateful to Mark Stafford Smith who provided guidance during the development of this manuscript. We thank Paul Box, Gary Bastin, Margaret Friedel and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.
Davies J.,
White J.,
Wright A.,
Maru Y., LaFlamme M.
(2008) Applying the sustainable livelihoods approach in Australian desert Aboriginal development. The Rangeland Journal 30, 55–65.
(accessed 21 May 2007)
Hill M. J.,
Lesslie R.,
Donohue R.,
Houlder P.,
Holloway J.,
Smith J., Ritman K.
(2006) Multi-criteria assessment of tensions in resource use at continental scale: a proof of concept with Australian rangelands. Environmental Management 37, 712–731.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
(accessed 30 January 2007)
Scoones I.
(1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. International Development Studies 72, 1–22.
Stafford Smith M.,
Moran M., Seemann K.
(2008) The ‘viability’ and resilience of communities and settlements in desert Australia. The Rangeland Journal 30, 123–135.
Tucker C. J.,
Justice C. O., Prince S. D.
(1986) Monitoring the grasslands of the Sahel 1984–1985. International Journal of Remote Sensing 7, 1571–1582.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
