Abstract

Fostering effective use of GIS amongst a broad range of stakeholder groups and in the community as a whole requires investment in capacity building as well as in data integration and provision. Community-based collaborative joint ventures can achieve both these objectives. This paper reports the evaluation of one such initiative in tropical Australia and, on the basis of this experience, infers a set of issues that may determine the success or otherwise of similar ventures elsewhere.

Introduction

Sustainable resource use and participative democracy have emerged as increasingly influential paradigms in the evolution of approaches to resource use planning and management in the post-war period. Traditionally, most decision-making has been vested with regulatory authorities. In recent years significant changes have occurred to involve the community in the decision-making process (e.g. McKenna 1995). Assumptions about what is required to achieve sustainable resource use, particularly the role of technocrats, resource users and the broader community in resource use decision-making have been challenged accordingly. In the Australian context, a rhetorical move towards participatory resource planning has underpinned much policy (legislation and funding) in natural resource management and rural development for the past decade (Dale & Bellamy, 1998). This puts Australia at the forefront of international experience.

Experience suggests that in order to enable effective community participation in resource planning, four fundamental requirements must be met. Stakeholders must have :

• effective access to information pertinent to resource use planning;
• access to the analytical tools required to make effective use of that information:
• the capacity to make appropriate use of those analytical tools and data sets; and
• a legislative and institutional environment that fosters effective participation.

Appropriately structured community-based organisations can play a lead role in fulfilling these requirements. Historically, the local axis of industry representative bodies (such as the United Graziers’ Association and Canegrowers) and other special interest lobby groups have played this role. More recently, advances in information technology have opened new opportunities for improving local capacity and participation in planning. As a result, a number of initiatives to create community resource information centres have arisen across Australia. Many of these initiatives are not specifically aligned with particular interest groups but aim to foster broader community sectors to participate in planning and decision-making. In this paper, we report on one such initiative and use consideration of this case study to identify key issues to be considered in establishing such ventures.

Case Study : The Herbert Resource Information Centre

The region

The Herbert River catchment drains an area of approximately 10 000 km² in Australia’s sub-humid to humid tropical north east (lat. 15-19⁰ S, long. 145-146⁰ E) to the Coral Sea. Large areas of the catchment remain under natural vegetation (much managed for extensive cattle grazing), although approximately 35 to 40% of the coastal lowland area has been cleared for crop production or improved pastures. The catchment has a population of approximately 21 000 and is bounded by two World Heritage listed areas, the rainforests of the Wet Tropics on the steeper slopes of the central catchment and the Great Barrier Reef immediately adjacent to the catchment.

The area has experienced, and continues to experience, strong economic growth underpinned predominantly by its agricultural and tourist sectors. The sugar industry dominates the local economy with 70 000 ha of production and two sugar mills producing (Aus) $ 235 million worth of sugar in 1996/7. A plethora of government and statutory industry agencies claim, or are assigned, responsibility for different aspects of the management of the catchment and a number of agencies also contribute to management through the provision of research and development outputs and expertise.

The Herbert catchment, like many other parts of Australia's coastal zone, is a major focus of competition between alternative uses of resources with competition between agriculture, forestry, conservation, tourist and recreational uses, urban encroachment, public utilities and hobby farms. Growing competition has occurred in the context of increasing community expectation for the preservation of the natural environment, involvement in decision-making and effective conflict resolution.

The sugar industry has the potential for significant environmental impacts in the Herbert catchment (Johnson et al, 1997). Soil erosion is recognised as a potential threat to long-term productivity, although the adoption of green cane harvesting-minimum tillage practices has been an important step in decreasing sediment supply to the coastal zone from sugar cane lands. Considerable areas of the riparian vegetation have been removed from the stream banks in sugar cane growing regions. Large areas of riverine rainforest with patches of eucalypts and the riverine rainforest have also been cleared. The wetlands, swamps, billabongs and waterholes of coastal areas are important wildlife habitat areas and form an integral part of a hydrological regime. Clearing for sugarcane has significantly reduced the area of this habitat. Potential exists for diffuse source pollution to generate water quality problems in both ground and surface waters. This has been perceived to be of particular concern given the adjacency of the Great Barrier Reef.

Growing concern about potential environmental impact is balanced by a recognition of the regional and national importance of an economically vibrant sugar industry. The economic terms-of-trade of the sugar industry and competing land uses are under pressure due to the influence of increasing global competition, meaning that increased areas and yields are required in order to remain internationally competitive.

In order to achieve and maintain ecological and economic sustainability within the Herbert catchment, effective means of managing and reconciling industry imperatives at the farm and regional scales with the requirements of other users of the catchment (including conservation and environmental services) are required. In recognition of such issues, government agencies in most Australian states have sought to implement integrated approaches to resource management to avoid the environmental and social damage sustained by conflicts in land use. Initiatives in the Herbert have included an ICM (Integrated Catchment Management) programme (Johnson et al., 1996). In practice, the effectiveness of such initiatives is often constrained by a paucity of data at spatial and temporal scales relevant to decision-making, poor co-ordination or communication between participating stakeholders, limits to the data processing and analytical capabilities of participants in the decision-making process, and a poor understanding of key issues in sustainable resource use.

The establishment of the Herbert Resource Information Centre

In mid 1993, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - CSIRO (one of the principle Federal scientific research agencies in Australia) initiated discussions with key stakeholders in the Herbert catchment to address the first of these constraints – inadequate data - by acquiring essential base data at a scale of 1:10 000. The costs of acquiring this data exceeded the individual financial capacity of any one of the interested stakeholders. In response, a joint venture (the Herbert Mapping Project or HMP) was developed between 11 agencies (industry, community, state, local and federal government) to fund the acquisition of digital orthophotography, cultural data (eg utilities, farm boundaries), natural features (eg streams, topography) and cadastral data for the lower catchment. The HMP was completed in July 1996.

As the HMP neared completion, it became evident to many stakeholders that the utility of the data collected could only be maximised through advanced analysis of the data in digital form. GIS provided the best means of satisfying their requirements for data analysis and presentation. A further collaborative joint venture, the Herbert Resource Information Centre (HRIC) was therefore proposed and a needs analysis and a cost-benefit analysis conducted.

The needs analysis involved the use of a four-part questionnaire to assess perceptions of the opportunities and constraints associated with GIS should it be adopted within the stakeholder groups. The results of the needs analysis clearly demonstrated that a collaborative GIS facility was commensurate with the organisational background, organisational requirements and operational characteristics of the potential participating organisations and provided the basis for designing a detailed business plan. This in turn provided the basis for a cost:benefit analysis which indicated an overall ratio of discounted benefits to discounted costs of 8.8:1. The results suggested that the collaborative GIS was both an attractive public and private investment. Full details of the needs analysis and cost:benefit analysis can be found in Johnson & Walker, 1997.

Having demonstrated the appropriateness and viability of a collaborative approach, six stakeholders in the catchment agreed to begin negotiations with a view to establishing a formal agreement. Four of these stakeholders (CSR Sugar Mills, Herbert Cane Protection and Productivity Board, Hinchinbrook Shire Council and Canegrowers Herbert River Executive) represent local industry and community while two (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and CSIRO) represent state and federal government respectively.

In August 1996, a 10 year collaborative agreement was signed by the six stakeholders to formally establish the HRIC. The agreement secures the financial and non-financial (in-kind) support of the stakeholders and binds them to support the HRIC’s foundation philosophy of being a non-profit, community-based collaborative GIS facility designed to support both economic and ecologically sustainable development in the Herbert catchment.

The four local stakeholders provide a high level of representation of the community in the catchment. Given the highly democratic nature of local government in rural Australia, the involvement of Hinchinbrook Shire Council, as the local elected Government provides an important avenue of representation to all ratepayers in the catchment. Furthermore, the sugar industry representatives in the HRIC represent a significant sector of the community. Of a population of 21 000, 18 000 of whom live in the lower floodplain, there are some 840 canegrowing families and a total of 7 000 employed in the sugar industry. The Herbert Cane Protection and Productivity Board is a local organisation funded by levies from cane farmers in the catchment to provide a range of technical services back to those growers. The Canegrowers Herbert River Executive is the local branch of the representative body for cane producers in Queensland and plays a key role in industry planning and representation and is also funded by grower levy. CSR Sugar Mills are the biggest employer in the catchment. These four local stakeholders provide all the funding for the HRIC. The State and Federal government representation provides in-kind support in the form of data and some technical skills.

The structure of the HRIC is intended to result in a genuinely community-based GIS initiative. Thus, the HRIC’s mission statement is "To manage the acquisition and dissemination of geographic information within a collaborative framework, to the advantage of all interests in the Herbert River Catchment". A strong schools program and documented use of the HRIC’s services by a range of community organisations and clubs as well as local Aboriginal groups bears witness to this community orientation. In this sense, the HRIC builds on a strong history in rural Australia of active community and representative groups playing a key role in local politics and governance.

The HRIC is staffed by 2 full time GIS specialists, whose role is to provide expertise and skills to facilitate the collection, storage, maintenance and analysis of natural resource data and to ensure the products of these activities are delivered to HRIC stakeholders. As such, the HRIC offers a bureau service to its stakeholders, providing GIS consultancy and project management skills and acting as a conduit for the transfer of relevant R&D products. Furthermore, HRIC staff undertake a core function in assisting relevant stakeholders to implement GIS as part of their business operations. An additional function is to promote an environment for the facilitation of improved communication and collaboration between the HRIC stakeholders.

Within each of the stakeholder organisations, GIS groups were formed to facilitate the planning and implementation of GIS within their host organisation (although the state and federal government stakeholders already had significant GIS capability at the time of HRIC formation). Capacity building had begun, without being recognised as such, within the mapping project in so far as participation in the mapping project lead to an understanding of the need for GIS through user identification of a need and technical input providing options. Capacity building within the Mapping Project, the HRIC and stakeholder organisations has therefore enabled rapid adoption of GIS, a technology unknown to many of the participants three years ago.

Evaluation

Objectives

It was evident to the Mapping Project participants that contiguous with realising the Project’s primary objective, production a high quality base data set for catchment management, participation had made a significant impact on the way that participants went about their business in relation to resource management in the catchment. Participants felt they had gained a sophisticated view of the nature of spatial data, its uncertainties, limitations and potential range of application. Furthermore, collaboration seemed to have fostered a new spirit of understanding and co-operation between agencies. It was anticipated that the HRIC would likewise have significant impacts. In order to be able to demonstrate these impacts rigorously (rather than relying on anecdotal evidence) and derive lessons from the HRIC in establishing best practice for community-based resource centres, a three-year evaluation programme was established.

The objectives of the HRIC can be summarised as:

• improved quality of data available for the Herbert catchment;

• improved access to data;
• better informed decisions in planning & implementing data collection & use projects;
• better informed decisions in natural resource management; and,

• improved collaboration.

Methods

The HRIC evaluation was conducted using qualitative research techniques (see Denzin and Lincoln (eds), 1994 and Patton, 1987). Individual, face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured interview schedule were conducted with key participants in the HRIC each year over three years. Nineteen people were interviewed in February 1996 (6 months before completion of the joint venture agreement and employment of HRIC staff), follow-up interviews were conducted in February 1997 (19 interviewees) and March 1998 (17 interviewees). Each interview took approximately 90 - 120 minutes and was tape-recorded. There was some change in key participants such that a total of 41 individuals were interviewed over the three years with a core group of 7 individuals being interviewed at each of the three times. The issues addressed in the survey are summarised in Box 1. In the first round of interviews, anticipated impacts were elicited. In the second and third rounds, anticipated and actual impacts to date were elicited.

Box 1 : A summary of issues covered by the evaluation

Operational Impacts

• Intentions in using new data sets that became available, implications for existing data, constraints to use.
• Impacts of involvement in the HRIC on data availability, data collection, data storage, data access, complexity of decision-making, efficiency of decision-making, quality of decisions made, presentation of decisions.
• Impact of the HRIC on the resolution of resource management issues within the catchment.
• Impacts of participation in the HRIC on the types of activities agency involved in.

• Importance of HMP in triggering HRIC.
• Constraints to use of HRIC.
• Impact on other agencies.
• Use of the HRIC by non-partners & impacts on those users
• Interaction with other organisations: changes to general levels frequency of interaction; understanding of the objectives of each agency; understanding of the constraints under which each agency operates; understanding of the data needs of each agency, willingness to work with the other agencies, nature and process of interactions, confidence in other groups.
• Evaluation of the dynamics of the process (key participants; positives, negatives).

• Awareness of the quality and availability of data.
• Credibility of data resources.
• Understanding of the limitations associated with spatial data.
• Understanding of data resources used by other groups in the project.
• Understanding of the data needs of other groups.
• Most important things learnt from involvement in HRIC.
• Understanding of the tractability of resource management issues
• Understanding of the quality and limitations of data; awareness of the availability of data,

After each set of interviews, interviewee responses were transcribed and collated. At the end of the three year period, the entire data set was entered into the NUD*IST qualitative data analysis package (QSR, 1997) and tagged against key evaluative criteria providing a basis for the qualitative analysis reported here.

Outcomes

After the two and half years of formal operation of the HRIC covered by this evaluation, the HRIC and the partners to the HRIC have collected, collated and synthesised a high quality spatial database for the catchment. The resources in the HRIC had been widely used by individual partners for routine activities in planning infrastructure developments, assessing the resource bases and integrating monitoring activities. Direct (private) benefits had accrued to each of the joint venture partners. In some cases these benefits were already substantial while in others, substantial benefits were anticipated in the near future.

The extent and speed of operational impact across the range of activities in partner organisations is illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b. As well as providing detailed descriptions, interviewees were asked to rank both predicted and actual impacts against the range of criteria discussed above, both for their own organisation (1a) and for all the others (1b). It is interesting to note that predictions tended to be higher for others than for self-assessment. This may reflect the inevitable concerns about equity in a collaborative venture but may also reflect a more accurate understanding of the informants’ own agency than of others – leading to assessments that are more informed and better reflect reality. The graphs do not provide any evidence for any period of disillusionment so often associated with ventures based on a new technology. It is likely, however, that the annual time step of the evaluation has simply failed to capture short term crises of confidence that were reported anecdotally by the partners. Furthermore, it is possible that the capacity building outcomes of the HMP equipped participants with more realistic expectations of timelines and outcomes possible in such a project. Predicted impacts were generally stable or climbing over the three years. Equally, impacts perceived to have occurred were high and climbing up towards anticipated levels of impact – demonstrating that the venture had started to meet expectations very rapidly.

Specific outcomes against the HRIC objectives were as follows.

Improved quality of data available for the Herbert catchment and improved access to that data.

"Totally replaced and enhanced previous data."

"A very significant impact on data access…Not only have we been accessing data, but government agencies as well."

Data access improved dramatically with participants becoming more aware of the range of data available and having access to all but that which was ‘commercial-in-confidence’. There were still significant differences in perception between individuals of the general quality of data available in the Herbert, particularly between active users and less active users. Nevertheless, many participants had come to better understand the limitations of key data sets, including, for example, an increased understanding of the implications of scale on use, as well as limitations of the data. Paradoxically (or at least unexpectedly), this had made them more confident in use of that data (although it may be that this rise in confidence is confounded by improved access to better data sets). This understanding of the data in combination with a knowledge that all parties were operating with common data resulted in higher levels of confidence in using the data.

Better informed decisions in planning and implementing data collection and use

"Changed from pen/paper in drawers and files to digital form…that sort of software gets better/easier to use…Main constraint is going to be money."

"The staff expertise really came through in the technical advice on how to go about our project."

While processes for data collection were only moderately impacted for most parties, compatibility with other data had become a significant criteria such that data storage and management collectively and individually had been significantly impacted. Furthermore, for some activities, radical changes in data collection (e.g. from field survey to ortho-photo and satellite imagery) had been instigated. In general, while the interviewees saw compatible data collection and storage as important, and indeed the project would fail if it did not occur, other factors were seen as more important. Common ‘ownership’ of the HRIC generated agreed, common and trusted data sets. In this context, issues of absolute data accuracy might, perhaps, be less significant than the opportunity to discuss differences in interpretation of the meaning of those data sets.

Better informed decisions in resource management

"Efficiency and quality of decisions gets better…(also) presentation of decisions."

"Quality of decisions is high. Without HRIC could not make decisions for (sugar) crushing agreement effectively because we did not know the exact area under cane."

Formal spatial analyses were being used in planning decisions, often with a substantial cost saving and resulted in decisions perceived to be as good as, and frequently better than, would have been achieved with previous processes. GIS-based products were increasingly being used in negotiations regarding resource-use. However, improved consideration of complex resource management issues that cut across sectors and stakeholders resulting in more efficient and better quality decisions were still anticipated but not yet achieved. There was, however, a general perception that achieving this objective was a question of time rather than a function of more fundamental constraints, although it had become increasing apparent to participants that data itself does not make decisions.

Improved collaboration

"HRIC has made me more aware of the …way people think and other people do business…drawn into a lot of projects."

"Everyone’s willingness to share…it has changed attitude…not ‘what’s mine is mine’ but what’s ours is ours’…to get a large public company and a shire council to work together is incredible…"

In terms of motivation for involvement and strategic direction, many initially saw the HRIC as a data source and a means of cost sharing in data collection. However, a shifting emphasis towards a role in skills development, skills sharing and project brokering was unanimously supported. The HRIC was increasingly seen as a significant force for changing planning processes rather than a technical service. Certainly, the key assumption that collaborative joint venture was an appropriate mechanism for fostering broader uptake of GIS technologies in the catchment was perceived to have stood the test of time. An initial mixture of optimism and uncertainty was replaced over the three-year period by a very positive view of the HRIC and a sense of real pride in what had been achieved. For the people interviewed, involvement in the HRIC has meant additional work, meetings and a requirement to quickly develop new skills in emerging fields. In some cases it has also meant developing working relationships where none would have existed previously. However, all participants saw this as a positive experience both for themselves and their community.

Equally significantly, the collaborative nature of the initiative had important impacts. Willingness to work together increased amongst the partners to the Centre and external use of the HRIC by businesses and the broader community began to occur (although issues of user payment for HRIC services and third party data remained a complex challenge). Improved collaboration between agencies was not reported for all the combinations of partners however, in no case were relationships reported as having become worse. Some concern was expressed, however, about groups that did not become formally involved in the Centre becoming somewhat marginalised in key developments in the area.

Contributions to success

The evaluation presented here demonstrates that from the participants’ perspective, the first three years of the HRIC have been a success. The interview material demonstrates that the participants in the HRIC believed that certain key features of the catchment and the agencies involved were important in the success of the establishment of the HRIC.

Skilled professional staff

Although the capacity of hardware and software was a necessary base from which to operate the centre, the interviewees tended to attribute a significant proportion of the success of the HRIC to the qualities and skills of the staff employed by the Centre. The importance of the Centre staff was recognised from the outset – the Board making a conscious decision to provide attractive terms and conditions in order to recruit staff with the mixture of negotiation / facilitation, management and technical skills required. The change in Centre Manager at the end of the second year of operation had consequences that provided further evidence of just how critical these appointments were. While only two staff are employed by the Centre, one of their key roles has been to build capacity in the partner agencies through the provision of training courses and high level support for staff in those organisations. As a consequence, some 40 people have received formal GIS training over the course of three years with several of those now spending a significant proportion of their time on GIS-based work within their organisations. This has meant that the Centre staff have played an increasingly strategic role in support of a growing range of individuals, thereby avoiding overload in the face of burgeoning use of GIS within the catchment. The qualities and skills of the staff have certainly facilitated the success of the HRIC. Nevertheless, while it is reasonable to argue that the Centre staff might, had they been less competent, have caused the failure of the Centre, it does not follow that their skills in themselves totally explain the HRIC’s success.

Common goals

The overwhelming dominance of the sugar industry in the catchment meant that, while not always in agreement, key players had very significant interests in common – none of the partners are, for example, competitors in terms of resource use.

Existing infrastructure

Similarly, the fact that GIS infrastructure and investment within the catchment (as opposed to the Government agencies involved) was negligible meant that there were no vested interests within agencies to overcome in designing and implementing a collaborative venture.

Location

The ‘neutrality’ of the Centre was also important in avoiding conflicts of interest. The Centre and its staff are not viewed as being overly aligned to any one of the partners in the venture (although an early arrangement whereby the Centre was located within the offices of one of the agencies was viewed as a problem from this perspective and was changed at the earliest possible convenience).

Credibility

Having established a structure that avoided potential barriers to effective collaboration, the success of the Centre depended on establishing credibility as rapidly as possible in order to maintain and enhance commitment to the joint venture agreement and associated financial contributions. Early projects that clearly demonstrated benefits to partners were therefore very important early in the Centre’s operations. Outcomes of broader collaborative or public benefit were not required immediately, however, there was significant pressure for benefits to accrue to individual partners early in the process to maintain commitment.

An evolutionary history

The evolution of the HRIC from the Herbert Mapping Project was very significant. The completion of the HMP meant that the HRIC started with a high quality base to which the data provided by partners could be rectified relatively rapidly such that it wasn’t necessary to spend a substantial period at the outset collecting data. More importantly, many of the participants in the first round of interviews stressed that involvement in the HMP had provided them with experience and understanding that was invaluable in the early stages of the HRIC in that it provided them with practical experience in a successful joint venture and demonstrated that they could work together effectively for mutually beneficial outcomes. Even so, a highly evolutionary approach to establishing the Centre (and a great deal of good will) was required at the outset. Interestingly the importance of this evolutionary approach was not widely acknowledged amongst participants in the third round of interviews. Many informants felt that in establishing the HRIC again, they would seek to employ staff, generate a strategic plan and so on at the very outset. Consideration of the interview material from the first two years suggests that this would not have been realistic.

Despite overall success, some significant threats had been encountered, as follows.

Issues of intellectual property

In so far as significant problems and threats to the HRIC had been encountered, many related to issues of tightening data access policy, both amongst partners and external (particularly within Government agencies) and related issues of Intellectual Property and liability. These remain a significant challenge.

‘Head office’

Another significant set of threats that had to be carefully managed by the participants was the need to ‘ sell’ the initiative within their own organisations. While individuals and local offices were enthusiastic and committed participants, it was necessary for all those agencies to sell continued involvement and financial contribution very carefully to other parts of their organisations in order to be able to protect their continued involvement from cuts associated with general ‘resource squeeze’ in their parent agencies.

Over-commitment

As awareness of what the Centre could offer spread, demand for the HRIC’s services grew rapidly. As a result, prioritisation of tasks and effective restriction of access to services was necessary to avoid serious over-commitment and the danger of failing to meet critical objectives.

Towards best practice

We are not aware of equivalent data sets to the evaluation reported here for other initiatives in Australia. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the HRIC presented in the previous section provides an appropriate means of considering key issues that may need to be addressed in the establishment of information centres.

• The HRIC provides access to integrated data sets but also plays a project brokering and capacity building role. How does the impact of this dual approach compare with initiatives solely targeted at information provision?
• The HRIC has a tight regional focus covering a rural catchment centred on a single population centre and dominated by a single industry. What implications might a wider geographical area of mandate or more complex community structure have?
• The relative socio-economic homogeneity of the catchment means that the individual goals of the partner organisation to the HRIC and the common goals of the HRIC are highly compatible – there are no dominant resource use conflicts between partners. Would the Centre have succeeded in a more complex environment with more substantive conflicts?
• The HRIC evolved from the Herbert Mapping Project, an initiative with a very specific and tangible technical objective. In the early rounds of evaluation this evolutionary approach was seen as critical to success. Could a similar centre have been established without this initial focussed output?
• Although initially facilitated by State and Federal Government, the HRIC has a high (and growing) level of local ownership. Furthermore, the initiative was seen as being ‘neutral’ rather than the associated with any particular local agency. All stakeholders agreed that this was key to the success of the venture - that the HRIC was seen as an independent broker of information for the explicit reason that all parties had a stake. What implications does this have for future initiatives that are locally initiated by one party (eg. Local Government)?
• How important are private benefits in enabling a contribution to the public good? Individual partners in the HRIC have tangible and specific business oriented objectives for being involved, for which they can see an early return on investment that in its own right justifies their involvement. As a consequence, they felt able to be thoroughly committed to the notion that the HRIC provides a greater public code, educational & capacity building role. Does this mean that initiatives more specifically targeted at these public rather than private benefits are less likely to succeed?

While many regional planning activities promote a consultation process, few have been successful in mitigating the decision-making process completely to community stakeholder groups. The Herbert Resource Information Centre, is an example in which community groups have control and ownership of resource information and related decision-making. This initiative is an exceptional example of community based decision-making, an exemplifies an emerging trend for self determination and community empowerment in undertaking the planning process. The most distinctive features of the HRIC are its capacity building function for stakeholders and the enthusiasm and willingness to learn on the part of the participants. Both are derived from a healthy balance between individual (agency) interests and community spirit. Commitment to joint projects was directly related to a sense of ownership and involvement in the decision-making process. It is reasonable to assume that this level of interest maybe more difficult to instigate and sustain in more complex regional communities. The HRIC model will not be applicable across all circumstances – the level of community involvement that can be attained is likely to remain across a spectrum of possibilities from community consultation to community initiated ventures.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the HRIC Board, the HRIC staff and the HRIC users who took part in the interviews reported here both for their time in participating in this evaluation and for the opportunity to have collaborated with them over the last three years in establishing the HRIC.

References

Dale, A, Bellamy, J. (Eds). Regional resource use planning in rangelands : an Australian review. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation Occasional Paper 06/98

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Johnson, A.K.L., Shrubsole, D.A. and Merrin, M.J. (1996). Integrated Catchment Management in northern Australia: from concept to implementation on the wet tropical coast of Queensland. Land Use Policy, 13, 303-316.

Johnson, A.K.L. and Walker, D.H. (1997) Evaluating a corporate geographic information system (GIS) : A case study in a coastal rural catchment. Australian Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 4., No. 2, pp. 112-129

McKenna B. (1995) Community Participation in Local Government - A Research Report and Critique. Report by the Australian Centre for Regional and Local Government Studies for the Office of Local Government, Canberra.

Patton, M.Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park.

QSR (1997) QSR NUD*IST User Guide (Second Edition) Qualitative Solutions Research, La Trobe.