Social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan in Victoria February 2017

7.3Supporting evidence coming out of the land use mapping survey

The relationships studied in Goulburn Broken CMA’s recent land use mapping survey as outlined in Table below generally support the arguments outlined above (Goulburn Broken CMA, unpublished). It is important to note however, that relationship does not mean causation. It is also important to note that the survey was conducted in 20015/16 when NSW allocations were low and the high levels of carryover accumulated during the La Niña years, which had been masking the effects of the Basin Plan, had dropped back to lower levels. As recorded by DELWP (2016a) there was widespread uneasiness about the water market in that year. Media outlets reported assertions about speculators “corrupting” the market, and calls for such participants to be excluded. In fact, the price rise was principally a sign of water again becoming in short supply and in strong demand (DELWP, 2016a).

Relationships_tested_through_the_survey_for_Goulburn_Broken_CMA’s_Land_Use_Mapping_Project_(Goulburn_Broken_CMA,_unpublished)'>Table : Relationships tested through the survey for Goulburn Broken CMA’s Land Use Mapping Project (Goulburn Broken CMA, unpublished)

Relationships	Test	Test value	Statistical significance
There is an association between ‘those who trade water as a large part of farm water use’ and ‘those who pay higher amount for the water’	Chi-square test	18.396	Significant at 0.00 probability level
There is an association between ‘those who have implemented on-farm irrigation upgrades’ and ‘those who have long term plan to use allocation trade’	Chi-square test	8.204	Significant at 0.004 probability level
There is an association between ‘those who have implemented on-farm irrigation upgrades’ and ‘those who are reliant on allocation trade’	Chi-square test	6.597	Significant at 0.04 probability level
For dairy, there is an association between ‘growing perennial pasture’ and ‘having sufficient amount of water entitlement’	Chi-square test	5.914	Significant at 0.05 probability level
For dairy, there is a correlation between ‘herd size’ and ‘amount of High Reliability Water Share ownership’	Correlations	r value = 0.70	Significant at 0.01 probability level
For dairy, there is a correlation between ‘the size of the property’ and ‘herd size’	Correlations	r value = 0.80	Significant at 0.01 probability level
There is no correlation between ‘size of irrigated land owned’ and ‘amount of High Reliability Water Share owned’	Correlations	R = 0.226	Correlation value low
There is no association between ‘growing perennial pasture’ and ‘allocation trade form a large part of farm water use’	Chi-square test	2.78	Not significant at 0.10 level
There is no association between ‘years of farming’ and ‘ownership of High Reliability of Water Share’	Chi-square test	-0.022	Correlation value low
The mean years of farming differ between those who agree with the statement ‘I have the amount of water entitlements to irrigate my property that I require’	t-test	3.247	Significant at 0.01 probability level
The mean years of farming differ between those who responded to the statement that they have ‘long-term plan to use allocation trade to manage through the irrigation season’	t-test	8.123	Significant at 0.001 probability level
There is no difference in the mean years of farming who responded to the statement that ‘the entitlement you have is enough to cover your production needs’	t-test	0.381	Not significant at 0.10 level