Table Of Contents

Understanding landholder management of river frontages: the Goulburn Broken Catchment

Allan Curtis, Alistar Robertson and Wayne Tennant

JOHNSTONE CENTRE
Report No. 157

Understanding landholder management of river frontages:
the Goulburn Broken Catchment

Allan Curtis, Alistar Robertson and Wayne Tennant

September 2001
Albury, NSW

Research commissioned by:
Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and
Land and Water Australia

Johnstone Centre, Albury, NSW

All rights reserved. The contents of this publication are copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne Convention. No parts of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in existence or to be invented, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the authors, except where permitted by law.

Cataloguing in Publication provided by Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University

Curtis, Allan., Roberston, Alistar. and Tennant, Wayne.

A project in conjunction with the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and Land and Water Australia, by A. Curtis, A. Roberston, W. Tennant/ Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2001.

1v., - (Report / Johnstone Centre, No.)

ISBN 1 86467 0991

Acknowledgements

The project wishes to acknowledge the following in the preparation of this report.
Megan Graham (CSU), data entry and report preparation.
Ian Byron (CSU), data analysis and report preparation.
Bindy McMahen and Cheryl Morrow (GBCMA), administrative support.
Justin Sheed (GBCMA), co-project manager.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.01 Background 1

1.02 Research objectives 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY 3

2.01 A review of relevant literature 3

2.02 Current recommended practices 5

2.03 The mail survey 6

2.04 Data analysis 7

3.0 FINDINGS 8

3.01 Adoption of current recommended practices 8

3.02 Values landholders attach to river frontages 10

3.03 Awareness of river frontage condition 15

3.04 Knowledge of river frontage function and condition 19

3.05 Attitudes 21

3.06 Farming as an occupation 26

3.07 Confidence in river frontage CRP 27

3.08 Constraints to better management of river frontages 29

3.09 Assistance from government 31

3.10 Cost-sharing arrangements provided through the GBCMA 32

3.11 Participants and non-participants in GBCMA riparian programs 34

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 38

5.0 REFERENCES 41

6.0 APPENDICES 43

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of the Goulburn Broken Catchment 2

Table 1 Survey response rate 6

Table 2 Adoption of current recommended practices 8

Table 3 Work planned on river frontage next 2 years 9

Table 4 Importance of values attached to river frontage 11

Table 5 Environment, economic and social values of river frontage: Index scores 11

Table 6 Independent variables correlated with the adoption of current recommended practices 13

Figure 2 Self assessment sheet included in the mail survey to river frontage owners 16

Table 7 Assessment of river frontage condition by respondents 17

Table 8 Assessment of river frontage condition: Index scores 17

Table 9 Interest in talking to scientists about river frontage condition 18

Table 10 Knowledge of river frontage management 20

Table 11 Attitudes to stakeholder roles and responsibilities 22

Table 12 Attitudes towards people and their environment 23

Table 13 Attitudes towards people and their environment: Index scores 24

Table 14 Role of scientists in natural resource management 25

Table 15 Differences between farmers and non-farmers 26

Table 16 Confidence in current recommended practices 28

Table 17 Constraints to better management of river frontage 30

Table 18 Received assistance from government for river frontage work 31

Table 19 Funds expected from government programs over the next 2 years 31

Table 20 Awareness of the Waterway Grant Scheme 32

Table 21 Likelihood of applying for Waterway Grant Scheme 32

Table 22 Support provided by the Waterway Grant Scheme allowing more work to take place than planned Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001 33

Table 23 Adoption of current recommended practices 34

Table 24 Significant differences between GBCMA project participants and non-project participants 36

1.0 Introduction

1.01 Background

In this report we discuss the findings of a mail survey that was part of a larger research project funded by Land and Water Australia (LWA) and managed by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA) to assess the impacts of grazing on the condition of riparian zones. The mail survey explored landholder adoption of practices expected to improve the management of riparian areas in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (GBC) in Victoria [Figure 1].

Dr Allan Curtis and Professor Alistar Robertson from the Johnstone Centre were contracted to undertake the social research reported in this report. Mr Wayne Tennant was the GBCMA project manager and a contributing author for this report.

The GBC is located in north east Victoria and includes the Goulburn River and the Broken River catchments. The GBC covers 2.3 million hectares (17 per cent of Victoria), including 1.9 million hectares of non-irrigated land that is referred to as the Goulburn Broken Dryland (GBD) [Figure 1]. The GBC includes the major townships of Shepparton, Kyabram, Benalla, Euroa, Seymour, Mansfield, Nagambie and Broadford, and supports major agricultural industries, food processing, forestry and tourism activities. Significant land and water degradation and loss of biodiversity have resulted from these landuses. Issues identified by the GBCMA (1998) included dryland salinity; soil acidity and sodicity; higher levels of nutrients in waterways; pest plants and animals; property viability; urban fringe issues; and soil and stream erosion.

1.02 Research objectives

The research aims for this component of the larger project are listed below. Objectives 1, 4 and 5 were the priority research topics.

1. Identify the importance landholders attach to different river frontage values.

2. Identify the level (and if possible the rate) of adoption of some current recommended practices (CRP) for improving the management of river frontages.

3. Explore the interest in and potential impact on adoption of CRP of cost-sharing arrangements that involve payments to landholders by the GBCMA for restoration work and the active management of river frontages.

4. Identify the extent that landholders participating in GBCMA river frontage management programs are different from non-participants.

5. Investigate the relative importance of factors expected to explain differences in the adoption of CRP.

6. Draw upon the Index of Stream Condition (ISC) to develop and trial a methodology for the rapid assessment of river frontage condition by landholders as part of a mail survey process.

Collect data about landholder assessment of river frontage condition that can be used as a measure of landholder awareness of condition and can be compared with expert assessments as part of a later study.

Figure 1
Location of the Goulburn Broken Catchment

2.0 Methodology

2.01 A review of relevant literature

Efforts to improve natural resource management outcomes can focus on changing specific practices or the mix of on-property enterprises. In the past, government assumed that low rates of adoption of recommended practices arose because landholders were unaware of important land degradation issues; lacked sufficient knowledge and skills; or had attitudes that emphasised short-term economic returns over maintaining the long-term health of the land (MDBC 1990; ASCC 1991). There has been a large investment of resources over the past ten years in awareness raising and education programs, including those carried out by Landcare groups. There is credible evidence that these activities do contribute to increased awareness and understanding and that these changes enhance landholder capacity to adopt CRP (Vanclay 1992; Curtis and De Lacy 1996). However, most landholders already have a strong stewardship ethic and differences in attitudes have generally not been linked to increased adoption of CRP (Vanclay 1992; Curtis and De Lacy 1998). It seems that awareness and understanding of issues and congruent attitudes are necessary but not sufficient to ensure adoption (Curtis et al. 2001).

Some landholders have lifestyles and values that limit their response to approaches that focus on increasing agricultural production and profit maximisation (Barr et al. 2000; Curtis et al. 2001). Non-farmers and retirees may respond less quickly to economic signals; be more averse to risking off-property income in on-property enterprises; and will probably have less time for property management (Barr et al. 2000). On the other hand, non-farmers may bring new ideas, skills and financial resources that contribute to the renewal of local communities and they may be more likely to respond to appeals for biodiversity conservation (Curtis and De Lacy 1996).

There is now abundant evidence that part of the explanation of low adoption is that many of the current recommended practices or enterprises are either unprofitable and/or unsustainable. Amongst other things, some of the recommended plant-based management systems “leak” water and contribute to ground water flows that mobilise salt (Stirzacker et al. 2000; Walker et al. 2000). It is also unlikely that many dryland landholders will generate substantial income from new enterprises such as olives, wine grapes and farm forestry (Stirzacker et al. 2000; Curtis et al. 2001). Landholders are very reluctant to take on new enterprises that will involve them entering long-term agreements with powerful industry partners (Curtis and Race 1996). Problems also arise if recommended practices or new enterprises are complex, are perceived as being risky, do not fit with existing enterprises or conflict with existing social norms (Vanclay 1992; Curtis and Race 1996; Barr and Cary 2000).

Low on-property income will constrain the capacity of landholders to respond to new opportunities. Most broad acre farming enterprises in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) are unprofitable using the FM 500 project benchmark of financial sustainability (Barr et al. 2000). The FM 500 benchmark assumes that a disposable family income exceeding $50,000 per year is required to sustain a household and fund investment in a farm’s natural and capital resources (Rendell et al. 1996). There is increasing evidence that many rural landholders, including those in the GBC, have limited on-property incomes and that this is a critical constraint to adoption (Barr et al. 2000; Curtis et al. 2001).

Landholders are also increasingly aware that they are being asked to implement work that has community benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, improved public health and protecting export income (agriculture and tourism). They also understand that many of the problems that they are being asked to address have resulted from previous government policies. Establishment of the Natural Heritage Trust, with the federal government sharing the costs of large-scale on-ground work on private land, was an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of these arguments (Curtis and Lockwood 2000).

Discontinuity between the source and impact of issues, particularly those related to water degradation, adds a further complication. Many landholders in the upper reaches of catchments are either not experiencing these problems, believe they can live with them or are unaware or unconcerned about contributing to downstream impacts (Curtis et al. 2001).

Australia has an ageing rural population with life expectancy increasing and younger people drifting from rural areas to the more prosperous and attractive lifestyles in urban centres (Haberkorn et al. 1999). We can no longer assume that a substantial proportion of the inter-generational transfer of properties will occur within families. Where family succession is unlikely, property owners may be less willing to invest in recommended practices or new enterprises. In an era of reduced farm profitability and lower land prices, particularly where demand for rural subdivisions is not high, some landholders may feel they are locked into living on their properties in retirement. With increasing life expectancy, this trend could delay inter-generational property transfer. These elderly property owners may also be less willing to invest in recommended practice or new enterprises. Guerin (1999) and Curtis et al. (2001) found that there was no clear correlation between landholder age and adoption, and suggested this was an important area for future investigation.

Drawing on the above literature and given the constraints of a mailed survey, the authors identified the following topics for inclusion in the survey as independent variables likely to explain differences in the level of adoption of current recommended practices (CRP) and involvement in riparian management programs:

  • values attached to river frontages;
  • awareness of river frontage condition;
  • knowledge of river frontage function and factors affecting river frontage condition;
  • attitudes to working with others and the government; the role of scientists; and towards conservation;
  • occupation;
  • confidence in CRP;
  • constraints to better management;
  • extent of business and property planning;
  • Landcare membership;
  • involvement in government programs;
  • on and off-property income (financial capacity);
  • on and off-property work (available time);
  • enterprise mix;
  • age (stage of life);
  • education; and
  • gender.

2.02 Current recommended practices

The authors’ identified a small number of CRP that could be used as independent variables in analyses seeking to explain differences in the level of adoption of CRP and involvement in riparian management programs. These CRP were identified on the basis that they addressed the causes of riparian degradation processes and were the focus of current efforts to address riparian degradation in the GBCMA (ID&A 1997; GBCMA 2001); and that respondents were likely to be able to provide accurate information quickly. The final selection of CRP (see below) was made after pre-testing of the draft survey instrument.

1. Length of river/creek frontage now fenced and this allows stock access to the waterway to be managed.

2. Length of fencing erected near the river/creek since the start of 1996 (past five years) to manage stock access to the waterway.

3. Number of trees/shrubs planted since 1996 (past five years) along the river/creek frontage (within 40m of each bank).

4. Estimated cost of pest animal and weed control carried out the river/creek frontage during 1999 and 2000.

5. During 2000, did stock graze any part of your river/stream frontage for more than a week at a time? Circle YES or NO.

6. During 2000, did stock access drinking water from any part of your river/stream frontage for more than a week at a time? Circle YES or NO.

2.03 The mail survey

The project contract specified that the survey should be mailed to 100 participants and 200 non–participants of GBCMA funded riparian management projects. Both samples were identified randomly from lists supplied by the GBCMA. In the first instance, 101 property owners were selected from a list of 169 property owners involved in GBCMA riparian management projects. In the second instance, 199 individual property owners were selected from two lists containing a total of 3,721 property owners on GBCMA lists of crown frontage owners or stream customers. Care was taken to remove the 169 project participants from the lists of crown frontage owners/stream customers.

Despite having access to GBCMA data bases, some surveys were “returned to sender” and others were returned because the listed owner was incapacitated by illness, had died, had sold the property or claimed not to own a river/creek frontage. Seventy-five useable surveys were returned from the sample of 101 project participants, for a final response rate of 83 per cent [Table 1]. Eighty-nine useable surveys were returned from the sample of 199 crown frontage owners/stream customers, for a final response rate of 62 per cent [Table 1]. For analyses where the intention was to compare participants and non-participants, these were the two samples used.

Other analyses required the researchers to identify a random sample of all property owners: from GBCMA project participants and non-participants. To do this, it was assumed that project participants were 4.5 per cent of all GBCMA listed crown frontage owners/stream customers (169/3721). Hence, four of the respondent project participants were selected at random and added to the 89 respondent non-participants to form a third group comprising 93 respondents: the random sample [Table 1].

Table 1
Survey response rate

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Group

Initial mail out

Return to sender, etc

Surveys returned useable

Response rate %

Project participants N=75

101

11

75

83%

Non participants N=89

199

56

89

62%

*Random sample N=93

203

56

93

63%

*See explanation in text above

The authors acknowledge that there are likely to be differences between respondents and non-respondents to mail surveys. Our experience suggests that a response rate at or above 60 per cent provides considerable grounds for concluding that a representative sample was obtained.

In all cases, the survey was mailed using the property owner information provided on the GBCMA data bases. This is a common approach to compiling mailing lists but often results in women being under-represented in survey samples. Women comprise 32 per cent of Australia’s farm workforce and slightly less than 20 per cent of agricultural decision-makers are women (Elix and Lambert 2000). In this study, women comprised 20 per cent of the random sample, but only 12 per cent of the project participants. If we take the figures provided by Elix and Lambert (2000) as a guide, it appears that women may have been adequately represented in the random sample.

Survey design and the mail out process was conducted according to Dillman (1979). This approach involved the survey being pre-tested by other academics and program managers as well as by a group of river frontage property owners. The survey was presented as a distinctive booklet and was mailed with an appealing cover letter. Several reminder and thankyou notices were posted to respondents and non-respondents. After three reminder notices, a second mailout was made to all non-respondents.

2.04 Data analysis

Data analysis included in this report consists of descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, chi-square tests, stepwise multiple regression and discriminate analysis.

Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, mean and median have been used to provide a summary of responses to particular survey questions.

A variety of chi-square tests were used to determine the existence of expected differences between participants and non-participants on variables such as property size, occupation or values held about river frontages.

Bivariate correlations were conducted to determine the existence of expected relationships between variables included in the survey. For example, to identify possible relationships between the adoption of CRP and factors such as participation in GBCMA projects, on-property income or occupation.

Multiple stepwise regression and discriminant analysis were performed to better determine the extent that a number of independent variables identified by bivariate correlations or chi-square tests contributed to the observed scores on a dependent variable such as the adoption of a CRP. Discriminant analysis was used when the dependent variable was dichotomous (eg. yes/no).

Principal components factor analysis was used to reduce a large set of overlapping variables to a smaller set of underlying factors or indices. Cronbach alpha estimates were then used to assess the internal consistency or ability to produce consistent results of these indices. De Vaus (1991) suggested that an alpha value of above 0.7 indicates that the scale was reliable. For example, to identify the environmental, economic and social values that landholders attach to their river frontages.

All of the analyses described were performed using the statistical software package SPSS.

3.0 Findings

3.01 Adoption of current recommended practices

Respondents were asked to provide information about work on a limited number of CRP that had been carried out on their river frontage [Table 2].

A small number of respondents from the random sample (from 10 to 17) did not enter information for at least one of the first four topics. With the exception of one person, all of these respondents provided information for the last two topics. We have therefore assumed that the non-respondents to the first four topics had not undertaken any work on those CRP.

Analyses examining correlations between the four CRP where respondents were asked to provide continuous data (metres of fencing erected, number of trees planted, dollars spent on weed control) and independent variables were undertaken after the data were transformed to account for differences in the length of river frontage managed by each respondent.

Information in Table 2 for respondents from the random sample suggested that most landholders were making slow progress towards the adoption of CRP for improved management of river frontages. Most respondents said they had not undertaken fencing or revegetation work and that stock was usually able to access the river frontage for grazing or drinking water. On the other hand, most respondents were undertaking pest animal and weed control and two-thirds of the fencing activity reported had occurred in the past five years [Table 2].

Table 2
Adoption of current recommended practices

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Topics

n

% responding activity done

Situation at Jan. 2001 (median)

Distance along the river/creek where the frontage is fenced allowing stock access to the waterway to be managed

92

46%

500 metres

Length of fencing erected near the river/creek since the start of 1996 (5 years) to manage stock access to the waterway

92

26%

300 metres

Number of tree/shrubs planted since 1996 (5 years) along the river/creek frontage (within 40m of each bank)

92

40%

50 trees

Estimated cost of pest animal and weed control carried out in river/creek frontage during 1999 and 2000

92

55%

$300

During 2000, did you control stock access to the waterway for grazing? (stock had access to any part of frontage for < a week at a time)

92

36%

 

During 2000, did you control stock access to the waterway for drinking water? (stock had access to any part of frontage for < a week at a time)

92

33%

The median length of the waterway in the property of the respondents from the random sample was 900m. Respondents were also asked to indicate the length of waterway where they managed both sides of the river. Information from these two questions was used to calculate the total length of frontage for each respondent.

The median length of frontage managed by respondents from the random sample was 1090m. Information in Table 2 indicates that 46 per cent of these respondents had some part of their frontage fenced and that fencing allowed stock access to the waterway to be managed. Assuming a median 1090m of river frontage per respondent, the median of 500m of frontage fenced suggests that for those with fencing, nearly half of their river frontage had been fenced.

Respondents were also asked if they planned to carry out work related to fencing, the installation of off-stream water supplies and revegetation in their river frontage over the next two years and to indicate the amount or value of this work [Table 3]. Respondents had already provided information about fencing and revegetation work undertaken in the past [Table 2], so there was the opportunity to compare trends for the adoption of these CRP. A comparison of data in Tables 2 and 3 showed that respondents expected to undertake revegetation and fencing at significantly higher median rates over the next two years: revegetation up from 10 to 100 plants per annum (t = 3.081, p = 0.002); and fencing up from 60m to 500m per annum (t = 2.548, p = 0.012).

Table 3
Work planned on river frontage next 2 years

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Topics

n

Work planned on frontage next 2 years,

% respondents

   

Yes

Unsure

No

Amount

Fencing to manage stock access to the waterway

85

20%

12%

68%

1000 metres

Install off-stream water supply in paddocks where stock currently drink from the waterway

84

12%

5%

83%

$1000

Trees/shrubs to revegetate the frontage

86

33%

19%

48%

200 trees

Other topics

33

64%

3%

33%

$500

3.02 Values landholders attach to river frontages

Survey recipients were asked to indicate the importance they attached to each of 16 topics that spanned the range of environmental, economic and social values that landholders could be expected to attribute to their river frontages [Table 4]. The 16 topics were identified from the authors’ previous work exploring aspects of landholder management of river frontages, small wetlands, native vegetation and dryland salinity; and refined through the process of pre-testing the draft survey instrument.

Respondents were invited to indicate their view about each topic by selecting one of five response options that included ‘very important’, ‘important’, ‘some importance’, ‘minimal importance’ and ‘not important’. To simplify the presentation of data, the five response options have been collapsed into three categories – very important/important, some importance, and minimal/not important [Table 4].

Eight of the 16 topics have been classified as representing environmental values, five topics as representing economic values and three topics as representing social values. These sets of topics formed three different indices: environmental, economic and social. By summing scores on individual items it was possible to calculate an environmental, economic and social values index score for each respondent. Principal component factor analysis of the 16 topics confirmed the validity of the three indices as separate factors. With the exception of one topic, all topics loaded most highly on the hypothesised factors. Factor loadings on the environmental index ranged from 0.482 to 0.834, from 0.352 to 0.855 on the economic index, and from 0.728 to 0.840 on the social index. Table 3 presents a summary of all respondents’ scores for each index.

Analysis of survey data appears to provide some robust, interesting and useful findings.

Most respondents from the random sample placed a high value on their river frontages. For example, 11 of the 16 topics had mean scores above three out of a possible five and there were four topics with mean scores above four [Table 4].

The three most highly ranked topics on mean scores in Table 4 included one topic from each of the environmental, economic and social value sets. It appears that most respondents from the random sample valued their river frontage for a variety of environmental, economic and social attributes [Table 4].

Respondents valued their river frontages more highly for their environmental and social attributes compared to their economic attributes. Three of the five topics from the economic values set, including those related to the benefits of grazing, timber harvesting and stock shelter, were amongst the five lowest ranked topics according to mean scores for the random sample in Table 4.

The mean score for the environmental values set for GBCMA project participants, was significantly higher than for both the economic (t = -4.951, p<0.001) and social (t = 4.352, p<0.001) values sets that had very similar mean scores [Table 5]. With the non-participants, mean scores for the environmental and social values sets were very similar, but both were significantly higher than the economic values set (t environment = -5.51, p<0.001; t social = -4.856, p<0.001) [Table 5]. Comparison of index scores showed that non-participants attached significantly higher social values to their river frontages than did GBCMA project participants (χ2 8.857, df=1, p= 0.003).

As will be discussed later, GBCMA participants were more likely to be farmers by occupation and operated significantly larger properties than non-participants [Table 24]. These differences suggested that motivations for property ownership varied between GBCMA participants and non-participants. In turn, these different motivations were reflected in the significantly higher importance non-participants attached to social values [Table 24] and the trend for GBCMA participants to attach higher importance to economic values [Table5].

Table 4
Importance of values attached to river frontage

Random sample N=93
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Statement about value

n

Important/Very important

Some

Minimal/ Not important

Mean score~

Is an attractive area of the property ***

92

84%

12%

3%

4.35

Place where native birds live *

92

87%

7%

6%

4.26

Adds to market value of the property **

92

77%

11%

12%

4.10

Vegetation on the frontage holds the banks and stops them crumbling *

92

77%

11%

12%

4.10

Links up with other vegetation and allows native birds and animals to move about for food and breeding *

92

73%

14%

13%

3.95

Where native animals live on land *

92

64%

19%

17%

3.76

Provides woody matter such as snags that offer protection for fish and other animals that live in the river/creek *

91

61%

21%

19%

3.63

Provides a place for recreation for family and friends ***

92

61%

15%

24%

3.59

A source of nutrients for in-stream food chains *

89

59%

17%

25%

3.55

Provides access to water for stock **

90

62%

9%

29%

3.53

In-stream vegetation traps and stabilises sand/gravel *

89

46%

23%

31%

3.27

Provides important shade and shelter for stock **

86

47%

14%

39%

2.97

Place for family & friends to fish ***

92

38%

16%

46%

2.88

Acts as a filter catching sediment and/or nutrients in overland flows before they reach the river/creek *

89

33%

16%

52%

2.64

Provides additional land for grazing stock, particularly in summer **

92

33%

17%

50%

2.63

Harvesting timber for fence posts and fire wood **

88

4%

5%

91%

1.38

Other

8

100%

0%

0%

4.88

~ Score where 1 = not important through to 5 = very important
* Environment value ** Economic value *** Social value

Table 5
Environment, economic and social values of river frontage: Index scores

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Mean scores for each index

 

n

Environment
Mean scores *

Economic
Mean scores **

Social
Mean scores ***

Random sample N=93

92

3.63

2.94

3.61

Project participants N=75

75

3.81

3.13

3.12

Non participants N=89

88

3.65

2.88

3.62

* Refer to items in Table 4

Our analyses of survey data suggested that the values attached to river frontages had contributed to differences in the adoption of CRP. There were significant correlations between eight items across the three indices for five of the six CRP. There was a significant positive correlation between the value that the river frontage ‘adds to the market value of the property’ and adoption of the CRP for total distance of the frontage fenced and trees/shrubs planted in the past five years. There was also a significant correlation between a high value on the river frontage for ‘access to water for stock’ and lower adoption of the CRP regarding controlling stock grazing and access to water on the river frontage [Table 6].

There was a significant positive correlation between higher scores on an index measuring the importance of a range of environmental values and adoption for trees/shrubs planted. A higher score on the social values index was significantly correlated with higher adoption of the CRP regarding exclusion of stock to the river frontage for drinking water [Table 6]. At the same time, higher score on the economic values index was significantly correlated with lower adoption of CRP regarding exclusion of stock to the river frontage for grazing and drinking water. These findings suggest that the attachment of a high level of importance to the environmental and social values of river frontages is more likely to be linked to adoption of CRP than is the case with economic values. As we will see, it seems that these values are linked with differences between farming and non-farming occupations.

It must also be remembered that in this study almost all respondents attached a high level of importance to at least one of the listed environmental, economic and social values that landholders frequently attach to river frontages. This information emphasised the importance of moving beyond appeals to improved agricultural production and profit maximisation, even with farmers. Community education activities highlighting the range of values attached to river frontages, particularly social and environmental values, should enhance the adoption of most CRP.

Table 6
Independent variables correlated with the adoption of current recommended practices

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001, Random sample N=93

Independent variables

Total frontage fenced

Frontage fenced in past 5 years

Trees/ shrubs planted in last 5 years

Cost of pest animal / weed control

Controlled stock access for drinking

Controlled stock access for grazing

Demographic/ Background

Property size

       

F=329.46, p=0.003

F=9.286, p=0.029

Farmer by occupation

       

χ2=8.125, p=0.004

χ2=10.68, p=0.001

Profit

     

rs=-0.313, p=0.040

 

χ2=5.428, p=0.020

Hours worked on-property

       

χ2=9.441, p=0.002

χ2=7.482, p=0.006

Transfer plan

       

χ2=5.581, p=0.019

χ2=4.864, p=0.027

Economic values

Economic index

 

rs=0.295, p=0.013

   

χ2=26.96, p<0.001

χ2=18.74, p<0.001

Provides access to water for stock

       

F=9.29,
p=0.029

F=56.935, p=0.004

Provides additional land for grazing stock

       

χ2=27.46, p<0.001

χ2=20.66, p<0.001

Provides important shade/shelter for stock

 

rs=0.293, p=0.048

   

χ2=27.15, p<0.001

χ2=10.73, p=0.030

Adds to the market value of the property

T=2.440, p=0.018

 

rs=0.351, p=0.009

     

Social values

Social index

       

χ2=5.387, p=0.020

 

Is an attractive area of the property

Rs=0.307, p=0.029

         

Provides a place of recreation

       

χ2=11.17, p=0.025

 

Environmental values

Environmental index

   

rs=0.287, p=0.019

     

A source of nutrients for in-stream food chains

   

rs=0.305, p=0.016

     

Provides woody matter such as snags for animals that live in the river/creek

   

rs=0.309, p=0.008

     

Govt. funding

Support from government programs for work on your frontage over the past 5 years (Yes)

   

rs=0.396, p=0.022

     

Knowledge

Grazing of domestic stock has had little impact on native vegetation on river/creek frontages

       

F=11.912, p=0.021

F=329.46, p=0.003

Willows are not different to gum trees as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeks

       

χ2=9.734, p=0.045

χ2=13.21, p=0.010

Note: Italics denotes a negative relationship and Bold indicate variables significant under multivariate analysis.

Independent variables correlated with the adoption of CRP Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001, Random sample N=93

Independent variables

Total frontage fenced

Frontage fenced in past 5 years

Trees/ shrubs planted in last 5 years

Cost of pest animal/ weed control

Controlled stock access for drinking

Controlled stock access for grazing

Constraints to adoption of CRP/ Confidence in CRP

Set stocking is usually better for retaining native vegetation that intense grazing for short periods

   

rs=0.304, p=0.016

     

The time and expense involved in watering stock off-stream is justified by the improvement in river/creek bank stability and water quality

Rs=0.338, p=0.005

 

rs=0.287, p=0.026

     

Fencing to manage stock access is an essential part of the work required to revegetate river/creek frontages

       

χ2=22.02, p=0.001

χ2=19.84, p=0.001

Fencing out river frontages will reduce the area for grazing or cropping

       

χ2=22.02, p=0.001

χ2=19.84, p=0.001

Fencing out river/creek frontages will create harbour for pest animals

       

χ2=12.71, p=0.026

χ2=11.94, p=0.036

Fencing out river/creek frontages will make it difficult to water stock

       

χ2=29.77, p<0.001

χ2=29.31, p<0.001

Fencing out river/creek frontages will increase management time

T=-3.285, p=0.002

     

χ2=14.68, p=0.012

χ2=15.21, p=0.010

In most places fencing out river frontages is not practical because floods will damage fences

Rs=-0.305, p=0.004

         

Access to on-site technical advice about managing problem areas

   

rs=0.327, p=0.015

     

3.03 Awareness of river frontage condition

Many scientists and managers are developing methods for the rapid appraisal of ecosystem condition (Boulton 1999). These efforts are a response to the critical need for cost-effective approaches to monitoring the many large-scale human impacts on the natural environment. Rapid appraisal has also been promoted as a strategy for more effectively involving landholders and the general public in natural resource management programs. The authors had developed rapid appraisal approaches for wetland (Spencer et al. 1998) and riparian (Jansen and Robertson 2001) habitats and were interested in exploring the extent landholders might have sufficient knowledge and skills to undertake their own assessment of riparian condition.

The authors identified three broad objectives for developing a rapid assessment instrument to be included in a mail survey.

Collect data that would provide a quantitative measure of landholder awareness of river frontage condition that could be used as an independent variable for analyses in this study attempting to explain differences in the adoption of CRP.

Collect data about landholder assessment of river frontage condition that could be compared with expert assessments as part of a later study. As part of this work, survey recipients were asked to indicate their willingness to talk with scientists from CSU about how they assessed the condition of their river frontages.

Develop an instrument that could be used in other studies of river frontages or could be adapted for rapid assessment of river frontages as part of wider community education or management activities.

The Index of Stream Condition (ISC) (Ladson et al. 1999) has been developed for managers to assess stream condition. The ISC is based on 18 indicators that measure alterations to hydrology, physical form, streamside vegetation, water quality and biota in streams. Managers in the GBC have used the ISC to identify streams that require management interventions. One limitation of the ISC is that owing to its complexity, only one reach of a large section of a river is assessed and it is assumed that this section is representative of the larger section.

Drawing on the ISC, the authors identified eight topics for which survey recipients would be asked to assess the condition of their river frontage [Figure 2]. As with the ISC, a five point rating scale was adopted for respondents to select what they thought was the description best reflecting the condition of their frontage for a particular topic [Figure 2].

Managers assessing river frontage condition using the ISC are asked to compare a particular frontage with what they believe is the best and worst in the state of Victoria. Survey recipients were not expected to be familiar with the condition of frontages across Victoria and were asked to compare the condition of their frontage with the condition of examples that they thought were the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ they knew of. There was no attempt to define ‘best’ and ‘worst’ as this might have affected the assessment made by respondents. Respondents were also asked to do their assessment for one section of their frontage and instructed that this section should be no longer than 1km and should only be for one side of the waterway.

Pre-testing provided useful feedback and resulted in some changes to the draft assessment sheet. At the same time, landholders involved in the pre-testing process thought the assessment sheet covered important aspects of river frontage condition; the response options were appropriate in that they represented meaningful differences in condition; and that the assessment could be completed quickly.

One measure of the efficacy of the assessment instrument was the very high response rate for each of the eight topics. As indicated in Table 7, between 81 and 91 of the possible 93 respondents from the random sample provided their assessment for each of the eight topics. Amongst GBCMA project participants the response rate varied from 67 to 74 out of the possible 75 respondents. In each case, the topic asking for the assessment of the ‘width of the area with no gaps in the tree canopy’ was completed by fewer respondents and may need to be refined if the instrument is used in other settings.

Figure 2
Self assessment sheet included in the mail survey to river frontage owners

Assessing the condition of a section of your frontage

Topics

Description of condition (circle your choice)

Is there evidence of bank erosion?

Bank is stable

Limited erosion

Moderate erosion

Large areas of erosion

Most areas unstable

Is the bed filling with sand?

No sand build up

Limited sand build up

Moderate sand build up

Large areas of sand build up

Sand build up most areas

Are there many snags in the river/creek channel

Plenty of snags from native trees

Many snags from native trees

Moderate snags

Hardly any snags

No snags visible

Are there gaps in the tree canopy (sky blocked out along the bank?

No gaps in tree canopy cover along bank

The odd gap in tree canopy

Full canopy cover along about half the bank

Few areas have full canopy

Few trees present along bank

How wide is the area where there are no gaps in the tree canopy?

Full canopy at least 40m wide along all parts

Full canopy 40m wide most parts

About half has canopy cover 40m wide

Small areas full canopy 40m wide

No areas full canopy at least 40m wide

What proportion of tree cover along the bank is native?

All/almost all is native

More than half is native

About half is native

Over half is introduced

All/almost all is introduced

What proportion of ground cover along bank is weeds or introduced pasture?

All/almost all ground cover is native

More than half is native

About half is native

Over half is introduced

All/Almost all is introduced

What proportion of ground along the bank is covered by leaves and sticks?

All/almost all has leaves and sticks on ground

More than half the area

About half the area

Less than half the area

Few areas have leaves and sticks on the ground

By summing scores for each of the eight items it was possible to calculate an index score for each respondent’s assessment of their river frontage condition [Table 8]. Possible scores ranged from 8 to 40, with a mid-point of 25. With a median score of 26, it seems that respondents were evenly divided between those who had positive and negative assessments of their river frontage condition [Table 8].

The reliability of the index was confirmed by analysis using Cronbach Alpha with a scale score of 0.732, which is above the commonly accepted level of 0.7. Principal component factor analysis was used to determine the extent that the scale was measuring a distinct concept. Results from the factor analysis showed a distinct two factor structure, with the first two items loaded onto one factor, and the remaining items on a second factor.

There were significant differences for respondents from the random sample in their mean scores across the eight topics contributing to the index of frontage condition (χ2 100.851, df=7, p<0.001) [Table 7]. Respondents were more likely to provide very positive assessments of topics related to bed and bank stability; and positive assessments of the proportion of tree and ground cover under native vegetation and of the extent of snags in the river channel. More negative assessments were provided for topics related to the proportion of the ground covered by leaves and sticks and for both the width and completeness of tree canopy cover [Table 7].

Table 7
Assessment of river frontage condition by respondents

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Random sample N=93

Topic

n

Very good condition

Good condition

Moderate condition

Poor Condition

Very poor condition

Mean score ~

Bank stability

90

28%

39%

27%

4%

2%

3.86

Bed stability

89

42%

28%

23%

6%

2%

4.01

Snags in the river/creek channel

90

21%

19%

32%

23%

4%

3.29

Gaps in the tree canopy along the bank

89

2%

33%

20%

30%

15%

2.78

Width of area where there are no gaps in tree canopy

81

3%

14%

22%

30%

32%

2.25

Proportion of native tree cover along bank

90

52%

14%

4%

10%

19%

3.71

Proportion of weeds or introduced pastures in ground cover along bank

91

33%

20%

13%

12%

22%

3.30

Proportion of ground along the bank covered by leaves and sticks

89

20%

12%

20%

21%

26%

2.80

~ Score where 1 = Very poor condition to 5 = Very good condition

Compared to non-participants, GBCMA project participants had a lower mean score on the index measuring respondents assessment of their river frontage condition [Table 8]. While this difference was not significant, there were significant differences in the ratings for two topics [Table 24].

GBCMA project participants had significantly higher adoption for most CRP [Table 24]. One explanation for the generally more pessimistic assessments of river frontage condition by participants is that participants volunteered or were selected for GBCMA projects because they managed more degraded sites. It is also possible that project participants had, or have acquired, the knowledge and skills to more accurately assess the extent of degradation in their river frontages.

Table 8
Assessment of river frontage condition: Index scores

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

n

Highly degraded

River frontage condition

Excellent condition

Mean scores

8-11

12-15

16-19

20-23

24-27

28-31

32-35

36-40

Random sample N=93

90

0%

3%

16%

17%

17%

29%

16%

3%

25.94

Project participants N=75

74

1%

1%

16%

32%

19%

22%

7%

1%

23.69

Non participants N=89

86

0%

4%

16%

17%

16%

24%

17%

5%

25.95

It was thought that higher awareness of the extent of degradation would motivate adoption of CRP. In other words, lower scores on the index and particular topics would be associated with higher adoption. This hypothesis held to some extent for comparisons of GBCMA project participants and non-participants [Table 24]. Amongst respondents from the random sample there were some correlations between lower mean scores for particular items and higher adoption of CRP. For example, between lower scores for the assessment of bed stability and increased fencing erected in the past five years (rs= -0.436, p= 0.002); lower scores for bank erosion and increased revegetation work over the past five years (t= -2.468, p= 0.017). However, there were no correlations between frontage condition index scores and adoption of CRP. It must also be acknowledged that the self-assessment process may not have revealed real differences in condition.

Survey recipients were asked to indicate if they were interested in talking briefly to CSU scientists involved in studies examining the condition of river and creek frontages. Sixty per cent of respondents from the random sample and 81 per cent of GBCMA project participants said they were interested in talking with the scientists [Table 9].

Table 9
Interest in talking to scientists about river frontage condition

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

% respondents interested in talking to CSU scientists

Group

n

Respondents

Random sample N=93

77

60%

Project participants N=75

67

81%

Non participants N=89

73

58%

3.04 Knowledge of river frontage function and condition

Ecological condition ‘… refers to the degree to which human-altered ecosystems diverge from local semi-natural ecosystems in their ability to support a community of organisms and perform ecological function.’ (Jansen and Robertson 2001:65).

According to Naiman and Decamps (1997), river frontages have four key ecological functions.

1. Stabilising bed and banks.

2. Filtering nutrients and sediments.

3. Contributing nutrient to food chains on land and in-stream.

4. Providing habitat for fauna on land and in-stream.

Based on their experiences in Australia (Robertson et al. 1996; Robertson 2000; Robertson and Rowling 2000; Jansen and Robertson 2001), the authors identified the set of interventions affecting riparian condition, listed below.

  • Clearing of vegetation for grazing or cropping.
  • Grazing on or close to the river bank.
  • High summer flows in regulated rivers.
  • Introduction and spread of carp.
  • Draining of wetlands.
  • Introduction and spread of exotic weeds such as willows and blackberries.
  • Removal of dead trees.
  • Removal of fallen woody debris on land and water.

Given the constraints of space in the survey it was not possible to assess respondent’s knowledge of all aspects of river frontage function and condition. In a large catchment such as the GBC there was the added complexity of selecting topics that would be relevant to most of the survey recipients. In the end, a small number of topics were selected (see below) and these were interspersed with other questions exploring views about the efficacy of CRP and a number of attitudes relevant to the management of river frontages in the region.

  • The impact of grazing stock in river/creek frontages on the existence and diversity of native vegetation.
  • The role of willows as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeks.
  • The role of woody debris in river/creek frontages as habitat for native birds and animals.
  • The impact of clearing for grazing or cropping on the existence and diversity of native vegetation on river/creek frontages.

Self-assessment is a widely accepted approach to gathering information about knowledge of natural resource management topics. One approach is to ask each respondent to rate their level of knowledge for particular topics (Curtis and De Lacy 1996). Another approach is to ask each respondent to answer questions that test their knowledge of a particular topic (Shindler and Wright 2000). This can be accomplished using closed questions, including multiple choice questions, or open-ended questions that allow for greater flexibility in the response. For this study, a variation of the second approach was taken in that respondents were asked to indicate the extent they agreed/disagreed with four statements [Table 10].

Considerable effort was made to highlight to survey recipients that the topics in this section referred to their region rather than the respondent’s river frontage. Two questions – about the role of willows and of grazing stock - were stated in the negative to avoid the potential pitfall of respondents adopting a set response pattern and failing to give adequate consideration to each topic. The pre-testing process indicated that survey recipients were likely to understand the questions posed and to respond to them honestly.

Table 10
Knowledge of river frontage management

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Statement


n

Agree/ Strongly agree

Not sure

Disagree/
Strongly disagree

Mean score~

Dead trees or sticks on the ground in river/creek frontages are important habitat for native birds and animals

88

76%

14%

10%

3.90

Clearing for grazing or cropping has substantially reduced the existence and diversity of native vegetation on river/creek frontages

88

69%

10%

21%

3.59

Grazing of domestic stock had little impact on the existence and diversity of native vegetation on river/creek frontages

91

37%

18%

46%

2.87

Willows are no different to gum trees as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeks

90

18%

22%

60%

2.40

~ Score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree

Survey data suggested most respondents had a sound understanding of some of the less widely publicised functions or ecological processes in river frontages. For example, 76 per cent of respondents from the random sample correctly indicated that dead trees or sticks on the ground were important habitat for native birds and animals. Only 10 per cent of respondents disagreed with this statement. Sixty per cent of respondents correctly indicated that willows were different to gums as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeks. As might be expected, there was a relatively high proportion (22 per cent) of respondents who were unsure for this topic [Table 10].

On the other hand, a substantial minority of river frontage owners were either misinformed or reluctant to acknowledge the critical roles that clearing and stock grazing have had in contributing to river frontage degradation. For example, 37 per cent of respondents from the random sample thought that grazing of domestic stock had little impact on native vegetation along frontages. Twenty-one per cent of respondents thought that clearing had not substantially degraded native vegetation on frontages [Table 10].

GBCMA project participants scored significantly higher on three of the four topics exploring knowledge of river frontage functions [Table 24].

Analyses failed to establish expected correlations between scores on the four knowledge topics and adoption for CRP related to fencing, revegetation and weed control. However, there were correlations between excluding stock from waterways for both grazing and access to drinking water and better knowledge about the impact of grazing on native vegetation and the role of willows as a source of nutrients [Table 6]. These findings suggested that differences in knowledge of river frontage function and factors affecting river frontage condition had contributed to differences in the adoption of CRP in this study.

3.05 Attitudes

3.05.01 Introduction

Survey topics explored three broad types of attitudes thought to shape the way that property owners approach the management of their river frontages.

1. Roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in river frontage management.

2. Broad attitudes towards conservation.

3. Preferred role for scientists in natural resource management.

Measuring attitudes is a complex task and where possible, should be accomplished using a multiple item scale that has been accepted as a valid and reliable instrument. Adopting this approach has the added benefit of enabling comparisons between the findings of different research projects. In this research, two different approaches were used to explore respondent’s attitudes towards conservation:

  • a single item asked respondents their view about the importance of native birds and animals in developing farming systems that will succeed over the long-term; and
  • a multiple item scale, the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), assessed a constellation of attitudes towards conservation.

3.05.02 Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

Set of statements explored respondents’ views about the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in river frontage management. For each of five statements (see below), respondents were asked to choose one of five response options that ranged from ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘not sure’, and ‘disagree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

1. Local people must work together to manage degradation in river/creek frontages.

2. Landholders need more help from government to manage river/creek frontages.

3. I am willing to work with government to maintain or improve the condition of my river/creek frontage.

4. Individual landholders must take most responsibility for maintaining the condition of their river/creek frontage.

5. In most cases, the public should not have the right of access to river frontages that are managed by private landholders.

Almost all of the respondents from the random sample thought local people needed to work together (92 per cent agreed/strongly agreed); and a large majority indicated they were personally prepared to work with government to improve river frontage condition (80 per cent). Although most respondents thought that landholders needed more help from government (80 per cent), many still thought that individual landholders must take most of the responsibility for maintaining the condition of their frontages (61 per cent) [Table 11]. In contrast to the overall pattern of generally positive attitudes, most respondents thought that the public should not have the right of access to frontages managed by private landholders (54 per cent agreed/strongly agreed) [Table 11]. This statement was the most successful in achieving a spread of responses and therefore, in discriminating between respondents.

Given the trend of very positive responses to most of these statements it was not surprising that there were no significant differences between respondents from the GBCMA project participants and non-participants.

There were no significant positive correlations between the five statements exploring attitudes towards stakeholder roles and responsibilities and adoption of CRP.

Table 11
Attitudes to stakeholder roles and responsibilities

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Statement

n

Agree/ Strongly agree

Not sure

Disagree/
Strongly disagree

Mean score~

Local people must work together if they are to prevent river/creek frontages from degrading

89

92%

3%

5%

4.12

Native birds and animals are an important part of developing farming systems that will succeed over the long term

90

85%

9%

5%

4.02

Landholders need more help from government to manage river/creek frontages

88

80%

15%

5%

4.02

Willing to work with government to maintain or improve the condition of my river/creek frontages

91

80%

14%

5%

3.96

Individual landholders must take most responsibility for maintaining the condition of their river/creek frontages

92

61%

14%

25%

3.51

In most cases, the public should not have the right of access to river/creek frontages that are managed by private landholders

92

54%

15%

31%

3.39

~ Score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree

3.05.03 Importance of native birds and animals to farming systems

As is shown in Table 11, a large majority of respondents (85 per cent agreed/strongly agreed) that native birds and animals play an important part in developing farming systems that will succeed over the long-term. There was no significant difference between GBCMA project participants and non-participants on this variable, nor was this variable correlated with any of the CRP included in this study.

3.05.04 The New Environmental Paradigm

In the past, the authors have employed a multi-item land ethic or land stewardship scale that attempted to measure the extent respondents placed the long-term health of the land ahead of short-term economic gain (Vanclay 1992; Curtis and De Lacy 1998). This scale has had mixed success in discriminating between respondents and stewardship has generally not been associated with higher adoption of CRP (Curtis and De Lacy 1998).

In the late 1970s and early 1980’s Dunlap and Van Liere (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 1981) published the results of their seminal research measuring environmental attitudes using the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP). Dunlap and Van Liere (1978: 10) argued that ecological problems ‘… stem in large part from the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs prevalent within our society’. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978: 10) suggested that ‘… our belief in abundance and progress, our devotion to growth and prosperity, our faith in science and technology, and our commitment to a laissez-faire economy, limited governmental planning and private property rights …’ were all part of a Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) that contributed to environmental degradation. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978: 10) contrasted the DSP with a new paradigm that accepted the ‘… inevitability of “limits to growth”, the necessity of achieving a “steady-state” economy, the importance of preserving the “balance of nature” and the need to reject the anthropocentric notion that nature exists solely for human use.’

Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) developed a 12 item scale to measure the NEP. This scale used five point Likert-type response options ranging from ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘not sure’, and ‘disagree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Using the NEP, these researchers were able to discriminate between environmentalists and the general public and identify hypothesised connections between NEP scores and environmental behaviour. The NEP scale also conformed to accepted statistical tests for validity and reliability. The NEP has been widely employed, often with minor changes to reflect particular research contexts (Steel et al. 1994).

The NEP scale items were:

  • We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
  • The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
  • Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
  • Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.
  • When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
  • Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.
  • To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘steady-state’ economy where industrial growth is controlled.
  • Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.
  • The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.
  • Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.
  • There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialised society cannot expand.
  • Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

For this research, items four, seven and eight from the original NEP were deleted to form a nine item scale [Table 12]. Item seven was deleted because it relied upon the concept of a “steady-state” economy that the authors believed would be unfamiliar to many survey recipients in Australia. Item four was thought to be more relevant to the religious context in the USA than to Australia. Item eight was similar to items nine and 10. Changes were also made to the wording of items to reflect the Australian context (item 12) or to have a better balance of positive and negative statements (item 11).

Table 12
Attitudes towards people and their environment

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Statement

n

Agree/ Strongly agree

Not sure

Disagree/
Strongly disagree

Mean score ~

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support

88

49%

19%

32%

3.31

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human activities

90

85%

8%

8%

4.13

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

89

31%

12%

57%

*3.29

The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources

87

71%

7%

22%

3.74

Plants and animals exist primarily for human use

88

12%

16%

72%

*3.79

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences

88

73%

11%

16%

3.83

There are no limits to growth for industrialised nations like Australia

87

11%

12%

77%

*3.90

Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs

87

13%

12%

76%

*3.91

Humans are severely abusing the environment

90

73%

9%

18%

3.73

~ Score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree

* Scores were reversed for calculating the mean scores when statements were in the negative

The reliability, or the ability to produce consistent results, of the modified NEP used in this study was tested using Cronbach alpha estimates. De Vaus (1991) suggested that an alpha value above 0.7 indicates that the scale is reliable. The Cronbach alpha value for the nine item version of the NEP was 0.713. The reliability of the NEP was further demonstrated by using item-total correlations. Only one item (with an item-total correlation of 0.2931) scored below the 0.3 value recommended by de Vaus (1991). The uni-dimensionality of the NEP, or the extent to which the scale measures some part of a distinct concept was tested using principal components factor analysis. Using this approach all the NEP items were loaded onto a single factor with factor loadings ranging from 0.531 to 0.725.

By summing scores for each item, it was possible to calculate an index score on the NEP for each respondent [Table 13]. Possible scores ranged from 9 to 45, with a mid-point of 27. With a median score of 32, and with 79 per cent of respondents from the random sample above 29, it seems that most respondents have embraced the constellation of values, attitudes and beliefs that constitute the NEP.

Table 13
Attitudes towards people and their environment: Index scores

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

n

Not environmental……………………………….Very environmental

9-15

16-22

23-29

30-36

37-43

>43

Mean scores

Random sample N=93

91

0%

3%

18%

46%

27%

6%

32.21

Project participants N=75

73

0%

1%

12%

44%

38%

4%

35.73

Non participants N=89

87

0%

2%

18%

47%

28%

5%

32.20

On the other hand, survey data suggested a substantial minority of respondents held attitudes more consistent with the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) of times past.
32 per cent don’t think we are approaching the limits of the population earth can support;
31 per cent think humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs;
22 per cent disagree that the earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources; and
18 per cent disagree that humans are severely abusing the environment [Table 12].

As hypothesised, the NEP discriminated between GBCMA project participants and non-participants [Table 24]. GBCMA project participants attached significantly higher importance to the environmental functions of river frontages (rs 0.310, p= 0.004), and the single item measuring the importance of native fauna in farming systems (rs 0.344, p= 0.001). On the other hand, there was no difference between Landcare and non-Landcare participants (χ2 0.967, df=2, p= 0.617). Nevertheless, these findings appeared to confirm the validity of the NEP scale.

Analyses failed to establish significant positive correlations between the NEP index score or any single items in the NEP and adoption of CRP.

3.05.05 Preferred role for scientists

The authors drew on work by Steel et al. (2001) in the United States and Canada to explore survey recipients’ views about the role of scientists in natural resource management. Steel et al. (2001) had developed five stand-alone statements representing the potential roles of scientists for their study of citizen orientations towards the role of science. For this research in the Goulburn Broken, the authors wanted to explore the hypothesis that adoption of improved river frontage management was related to property owner’s views about the efficacy of those practices and the extent they trusted science and scientists. In this study, the authors added a sixth statement (number three in Table 14) to the five used by Steel et al. (2001). Again, respondents could choose one of five response options that varied from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Most respondents from the random sample rejected the idea that scientists should have the main role in decision making (61 per cent disagreed/strongly disagreed compared to only 14 per cent agreed/strongly agreed). Forty-one per cent of respondents conceded that scientists should be able to promote particular management approaches. Nevertheless, a substantial minority (38 per cent) agreed that scientists should leave decision making to others. Overall, the role receiving the most support (88 per cent) was that of ‘scientists working closely with managers and others to integrate scientific results in management decisions’. The extent of ambivalence about scientists shaping decision making was emphasised by the high level (76 per cent) of support for the idea that ‘scientists should report scientific results and then interpret the results for others involved in natural resource management decisions’ [Table 14].

Table 14
Role of scientists in natural resource management

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Role of scientists

n

Agree/ Strongly agree

Not sure

Disagree/
Strongly disagree

Mean score ~

Scientists should only report scientific results and leave others to make natural resource management decisions

86

38%

24%

39%

3.07

Scientists should report scientific results and then interpret the results for others involved in natural resource management decisions

86

76%

13%

10%

3.81

Scientists should consult with landholders in developing research projects that affect the management of private land

85

92%

6%

2%

4.41

Scientists should work closely with managers and others to integrate scientific results in management decisions

85

88%

11%

1%

4.20

Scientists should actively advocate for specific natural resource management decisions they prefer

83

41%

36%

23%

3.20

Scientists should have the main role in natural resource management decision making

89

14%

26%

61%

2.31

~ Score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree

As might be expected, almost all respondents (92 per cent) thought ‘scientists should consult with landholders in developing research projects that affect the management of private land’.

There were no significant differences in the attitudes of GBCMA participants and non-participants towards the role of scientists in natural resource management decision making.

There were no significant positive correlations between attitudes towards the role of scientists and adoption of CRP.

3.06 Farming as an occupation

With a median property size of 36 hectares for respondents from the random sample it was not surprising to find that farmers were a minority occupation grouping (only 37 per cent). The majority of river frontage owners were either professionals (30 per cent), retirees (20 per cent) or tradespeople (10 per cent) [Appendix 1].

Farmers were significantly more likely than non-farmers to report they allowed stock to access their river frontages for grazing and drinking water [Table 15]. Compared to non-farmers, farmers worked significantly more hours on-property; had significantly larger properties; and were more likely to indicate ‘Their family had agreed to a plan for the transfer of the farm to the next generation’ [Table 15]. In turn, there was a consistent pattern of these variables being correlated with increased stock access to river frontages for grazing and drinking water [Table 6]. It seems that the lower adoption by farmers for these two CRP was linked to the importance of on-property income to farmers and to the significantly higher importance that farmers attach to the economic values of their river frontages. [Table 15].

It seems that most river frontage owners in the GBC were more interested in the aesthetic, environmental and recreational values of their frontages, and possibly, the impact of river frontage condition on property values, than they were interested in agricultural production from their frontages. At the same time, farmers managed a substantial proportion of river frontages and will need to be reassured that adoption of CRP will enhance rather than reduce their on-property viability

Table 15
Differences between farmers and non-farmers

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Farmers N=31, Non-farmers N=53

Independent variables

Farmers

Non-farmers

Test

% Yes (Median)

% Yes (Median)

χ2

df

Sig.

Property size

188.4 Ha

9.6 Ha

36.427

1

<0.001

On-property profit

69%

17%

22.159

1

<0.001

Hours worked on-property

50

6

42.009

1

<0.001

Off-property income as a proportion of total household income

40%

90%

27.404

4

<0.001

Agreed to a plan for the transfer of the farm to the next generation

41%

20%

4.517

1

0.040

Economic values index

3.6

2.6

17.926

1

<0.001

Controlled stock access to river frontage for drinking water

10%

39%

8.125

1

0.004

Controlled stock access to river frontage for grazing

10%

45%

10.677

1

0.001

3.07 Confidence in river frontage CRP

Respondents were asked to provide information about their level of confidence in fencing river/creek frontages, set stocking compared to intensive grazing and watering stock off-stream. This information was gathered in two sections of the survey. In the first instance, from a section that sought respondents’ views about the importance of possible constraints to the management of their frontage. A second section sought respondents’ views about a number of topics related to frontage management in their region. A five point response option was used in both sections. For the section examining constraints, the response options ranged from ‘not important’, ‘minimal’, ‘some’, and ‘important’ to ‘very important’. For the section examining wider management issues, the response options ranged from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Many respondents were concerned about the efficacy of fencing river frontages, watering stock off-stream and intensively grazing river frontages for short periods of time.

Most respondents from the random sample (67 per cent agreed/strongly agreed) acknowledged that ‘fencing to manage stock access is an essential part of the work required to revegetate river/creek frontages’ [Table 16]. Nevertheless, about half of the respondents from the random sample had important reservations about the efficacy of fencing river/creek frontages. Most said that fencing was not practical because floods will damage fences (52 per cent) and fencing will create harbour for pest animals (51 per cent). Substantial minorities were also concerned that fencing out frontages will make it difficult to water stock (46 per cent); and will increase management time (39 per cent) [Table 16]. Comments from property owners involved in pre-testing the survey; telephone conversations between the authors and survey recipients; and written comments on returned surveys all supported survey data suggesting that many landholders are not convinced about the efficacy of fencing frontages on major rivers.

There were no significant differences in the levels of confidence in fencing as a CRP between GBCMA projects and non-participants as measured by the items relating to each respondent’s river frontage. On the other hand, non-participants were significantly less confident about the efficacy of fencing river frontages as measured by the two items relating to the wider region [Table 24].

Lower confidence in fencing as a CRP was correlated with lower adoption of fencing. For three of the six statements measuring confidence in fencing as a CRP, there was a significant positive correlation between higher confidence in the CRP and river frontage fenced [Table 16]. With four of six statements, higher confidence in fencing as a CRP was also linked to the exclusion of stock from river frontages for both grazing and drinking water amongst respondents from the random sample [Table 6].

Forty-nine per cent of respondents from the random sample agreed/strongly agreed that in this region the ‘time and expense involved in watering stock off-stream is justified by improvement in river/creek bank stability and water quality’ [Table 16]. GBCMA project participants were significantly more confident in the efficacy of this CRP than non-participants [Table 24]. There was no correlation between higher confidence in off-stream watering of stock and the adoption of off-stream watering.

Most respondents from the random sample (60 per cent agreed/strongly agreed) thought that ‘set stocking is usually better for retaining native vegetation in paddocks with river/creek frontages than intensive grazing for short period’. With 27 per cent indicating ‘unsure’, only 14 per cent of respondents supported intensive grazing for short periods as a CRP [Table 16]. GBCMA project participants were significantly more confident in the efficacy of this CRP than non-respondents participants [Table 24]. Experience suggests that very few land managers are intensively grazing river frontages and for this reason the survey did not attempt to assess adoption of this CRP.

These findings appear to offer guidance for those working to improve the adoption of CRP and river frontage condition. In the first instance, managers and scientists need to reassess their views about the efficacy of the CRP they are promoting. In doing this, managers and scientists need to actively listen to the concerns that river frontage managers raise. Community education activities, particularly those that involve groups and include local demonstrations of CRP across the range of stakeholders, can be an effective approach to CRP extension.

Table 16
Confidence in current recommended practices

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Statement

n

Agree/ Strongly agree

Not sure

Disagree/

Strongly disagree

Mean score~

Fencing to manage stock access is an essential part of the work required to revegetate river/creek frontages

89

67%

11%

23%

3.62

Set stocking is usually better for retaining native vegetation in paddocks with river/creek frontages than intensive grazing for short periods

88

60%

27%

14%

3.52

The time and expense involved in watering stock off-stream is justified by improvement in river/creek bank stability and water quality

88

49%

28%

23%

3.34

Statement


n

Important/Very important

Some

Minimal/ Not important

Mean score~

In most places, fencing river/creek frontages is not practical because floods will damage fences

90

52%

12%

36%

3.33

Fencing out river/creek frontages will create harbour for pest animals

86

51%

17%

30%

3.26

Fencing out river/creek frontages will make it difficult to water stock

88

46%

13%

40%

3.05

Fencing out river/creek frontages will increase management time

85

39%

18%

43%

2.86

Fencing out river/creek frontages will reduce the area for grazing or cropping

86

27%

17%

54%

2.45

~ Score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree

3.08 Constraints to better management of river frontages

As indicated in the previous section, survey respondents were asked to indicate their views about the importance of possible constraints to the management of their frontage. The response options ranged from ‘not important’, ‘minimal’, ‘some’, and ‘important’ to ‘very important’.

Most respondents rated the cost of materials and equipment; flood events; insufficient time and access to labour; and access to on-site technical advice; as important constraints affecting their capacity to improve the management of their river frontages.

Only 37 per cent of respondents from the random sample reported any on-property profit and 83 per cent of those that reported a profit had a profit less than $20,000 last financial year [Appendix 2]. Given this low level of on-property profitability it was not surprising that the highest rated constraint to improved river frontage management (69 per cent said important/very important) was the cost of materials and equipment [Table 17]. However, there were no significant positive relationships between either the existence of an on-property profit or a high rating for the cost of materials and equipment as a constraint and the adoption of CRP [Table 6].

Notwithstanding this finding, it is our view that low on-property profitability should be considered an important constraint to the adoption of CRP. Earlier research in the GBD established that low on-property profitability was a significant constraint to the adoption of a range of CRP (Curtis et al. 2001) and economic concerns appeared to be an important factor limiting the adoption of CRP in this study, particularly by farmers. As we will see, respondents said they would increase their adoption of CRP if funding was available through the GBCMA Water Grant Scheme and there was a significant positive correlation between government funding received by respondents over the past five years and river frontage work undertaken [Table 6].

Off-property income exceeded on-property income. For example, 68 per cent of these respondents said that off-property income was between 81 and 100 per cent of their total household income [Appendix 3]. As might be expected, compared to non-participants, GBCMA project participants, who were less likely to work off-property, reported off-property income was a significantly lower proportion of their total household income [Appendix 3].

It seems that much of the concern about the efficacy of fencing major rivers stems from the perceived impact of floods on fences. Flood events was rated as an important/very important constraint by 60 per cent of respondents from the random sample [Table 17]. There were no correlations between concerns about flood events and adoption of CRP.

The high proportion of non-farmers (63 per cent) [Appendix 1] and the relatively small size of most properties (median 36ha) [Appendix 4] may explain the comparatively small median on-property workload of 18 hours per respondent from the random sample over the past year [Appendix 5]. Forty-six per cent of all respondents said they worked off-property, with a median workload off-property of 40 hours per week over the past 12 months [Appendix 6]. The median age for respondents from the random sample was 56 years [Appendix 7], 23 per cent were over 65 years and 20 per cent indicated they were retirees [Appendix 1].

Fifty-five per cent of respondents said a lack of time or access to labour was an important/very important constraint affecting their capacity to carry out work in their river frontage [Table 17]. At the same time, concern about this constraint, and of factors likely to affect the importance of insufficient time and access to labour as constraints; such as the amount of off-property work and age, were not correlated with the adoption of CRP.

Table 17
Constraints to better management of river frontage

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Random sample N=93

Statement

n

Important /Very important

Some

Minimal/ Not important

Mean score~

The cost of materials and equipment to carry out work

88

69%

14%

18%

3.80

Flood events

84

60%

12%

29%

3.60

Lack of time or access to labour to carry out work

86

55%

23%

22%

3.51

Access to on-site technical advice about managing problem areas

86

55%

16%

29%

3.34

Fencing out river/creek frontages will create harbour for pest animals

86

51%

17%

30%

3.26

Fencing out river/creek frontages will make it difficult to water stock

88

46%

13%

40%

3.05

It is unclear who is responsible for managing river/creek frontages

81

45%

14%

42%

3.01

Fencing out river/creek frontages will increase management time

85

39%

18%

43%

2.86

Lack of work on neighbouring properties

82

38%

16%

47%

2.79

Poor condition of the surrounding catchment

80

29%

20%

52%

2.64

Fencing out river/creek frontages will reduce the area for grazing or cropping

86

27%

17%

54%

2.45

High regulated summer flows

78

28%

14%

57%

2.42

~ Score where 1 = not important through to 5 = very important

Access to on-site technical advice was rated an important/very important constraint by 55 per cent of respondents from the random sample [Table 17]. There was a significant correlation between higher levels of concern about this constraint and more revegetation work over the past five years [Table 6]. One possible explanation for this apparently counter-intuitive finding is that those undertaking work were more likely to appreciate the need for technical advice. This finding is not that helpful and may confirm the adage that extension efforts create their own demand.

With one exception, flood events, GBCMA project participants and non-participants gave the same priority order to the six topics that were their most important constraints. Again, with the exception of flood events, GBCMA project participants tended to rate each of these constraints more highly than did non-participants. GBCMA project participants gave significantly higher importance to lack of time or access to labour as a constraint to improved river frontage management [Table 24]. There was no correlation between more concern about flood events as a constraint and adoption of CRP.

3.09 Assistance from government

Thirty per cent of respondents from the random sample said they had received government assistance for river frontage work in the past five years [Table 18]. As with other studies (Curtis 2000), there was a positive correlation between government funding received over the past five years and revegetation work undertaken [Table 6].

Table 18
Received assistance from government for river frontage work

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Federal and State government programs and CMA support for
work on frontage, past 5 years N=93

 

n

% respondents
receiving support

Median $

Random sample N=93

93

30%

$2 200

Project participants N=75

75

75%

$3 000

Non participants N=89

89

29%

$1 450

GBCMA project participants were significantly more likely than non-participants to report they had received government funding and to report receiving significantly higher amounts of government funding [Tables 18 and 23]. GBCMA project participants were also significantly more likely to expect to access government funds over the next two years [Tables 19 and 23]. One interpretation of this information is that project participants are entrenching an already privileged level of access to government funding. It is also possible that many project participants are involved in ongoing projects that will be completed in the next year or two.

Table 19
Funds expected from government programs over the next 2 years

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

n

Yes

Unsure

No

Random sample N=93

57

14%

32%

54%

Project participants N=75

55

66%

22%

13%

Non participants N=89

54

15%

32%

54%

3.10 Cost-sharing arrangements provided through the GBCMA

The GBCMA wanted to gather information about the likelihood that survey recipients would take up a Waterway Grant Scheme (WGS) that provided financial assistance to landholders. These grants (WGS) are currently available in high priority locations for fencing, revegetation and the installation of off-stream watering points where stock have previously been watered from the waterway.

Survey recipients were provided with information about the amounts of funding available, selection criteria and the nature of arrangements the GBCMA requires landholders accepting grant moneys to enter into.

Given that other topics had higher priority, there was insufficient space in the survey to include the range of scenarios needed to collect sufficient data to model the impact of a range of cost-sharing options on the intentions of the wider population of river frontage owners. The objectives then were to;

assess the current level of awareness of the WGS;

identify the extent of interest in the WGS; and

assess the likelihood that the WGS would increase adoption of CRP.

As expected, awareness of the WGS was significantly higher amongst GBCMA project participants compared to non-participants [Table 24]. However, 33 per cent of the non-participants were aware of the WGS [Table 20].

After reading a brief summary of the WGS, 42 per cent of all non-participants said they were likely (‘Yes’ and ‘More likely than not’) to apply for a grant under the WGS in the next two years. This seems to be a high level of latent interest in the WGS amongst non-participants. By comparison, 83 per cent of GBCMA participants said they were likely to apply for a grant in the next two years [Table 21].

Amongst those who expressed interest in the WGS, almost all respondents said that access to funds through the WGS would definitely/probably result in them completing more work in their river frontage than they had planned [Table 22]. These figures appear to be a strong endorsement of the efficacy of the WGS.

Table 20
Awareness of the Waterway Grant Scheme

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

n

Yes

Unsure

No

Random sample N=93

88

36%

8%

56%

Project participants N=75

72

82%

10%

8%

Non participants N=89

84

33%

8%

58%

Table 21
Likelihood of applying for Waterway Grant Scheme

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

n

Yes

More likely than not

Unlikely

No

Random sample N=93

85

22%

20%

40%

18%

Project participants N=75

68

52%

31%

12%

6%

Non participants N=89

81

21%

21%

41%

17%

Table 22
Support provided by the Waterway Grant Scheme allowing more work to take place than planned Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Support provided by the Waterway Grant Scheme allowing more work to take place than planned, % respondents

 

n

More

Probably more

The same

Random sample N=93

41*

34%

49%

15%

Project participants N=75

58*

57%

36%

7%

Non participants N=89

38*

34%

50%

16%

*n value, % respondents who are likely to apply for Waterway Grant Scheme

3.11 Participants and non-participants in GBCMA riparian programs

Survey recipients were identified at random from two lists of river frontage property owners: a small number of participants in GBCMA riparian projects; and a much larger number of river frontage owners in the GBCMA.

For analyses in this section we have compared respondents who were nominated by the GBCMA as riparian project participants with all other respondents. As we have seen, 29 per cent of the non-GBCMA project participants said that during the past five years they had received funds through federal and state governments or the GBCMA for work on their river frontage. The survey question that collected this information did not discriminate between the different funding sources: GBCMA or federal and state governments.

Compared to non-participants, significantly higher proportions of GBCMA project participants reported involvement in three CRP that related to fencing and revegetation [Tables 23 and 24]. There was no significant difference for expenditure on pest animal/weed control over the past two years or for excluding stock access to the waterway for grazing or drinking water. Project participants were significantly more likely to say that over the next two years they planned work on revegetation, fencing and the installation of off-stream water supplies in paddocks [Table 24].

Table 23
Adoption of current recommended practices

GBCMA project participants (N=75 n= 74) and non-participants (N=89 n=88)
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Topics

Group

% responding activity done

Situation at Jan. 2001 median

Distance along the river/creek where the frontage is fenced allowing stock access to the waterway to be managed

Project participants

80%

600 metres

Non participants

46%

500 metres

Length of fencing erected near the river/creek since the start of 1996 (5 years) to manage stock access to the waterway

Project participants

69%

600 metres

Non participants

24%

300 metres

Number of tree/shrubs planted since 1996 (5 years) along the river/creek frontage (within 40m of each bank)

Project participants

57%

850 trees

Non participants

40%

50 trees

Estimated cost of pest animal and weed control carried out in river/creek frontage during 1999 and 2000

Project participants

71%

$450

Non participants

55%

$300

During 2000, did stock graze any part of frontage for less than a week at a time

Project participants

26%

 

Non participants

36%

During 2000, did you control stock access to the waterway for drinking water? (stock had access to any part of frontage for less than a week at a time)

Project participants

22%

Non participants

33%

At the same time, there were significant differences between GBCMA participants and non-participants across a range of demographic and property variables. Project participants were significantly more likely to:

  • say they were farmers by occupation (as opposed to retirees or professionals and trades persons);
  • manage larger properties and longer river frontages;
  • work longer hours on-property and fewer hours off-property;
  • report an on-property profit and that on-property income was a larger proportion of total income; and
  • be members of Landcare [Table 24].

The significantly higher proportion of retirees amongst the non-participants appears to explain the finding that non-participants were significantly older than were GBCMA project participants [Table 24 and Appendix 1].

GBCMA project participants represented a very small proportion of all river frontage managers (about five per cent) in the region. It seems reasonable to assume that project participants were identified by project managers or selected themselves on the basis of their membership in Landcare, management of high priority frontages, involvement in other GBCMA projects or because of their interest in improved river frontage management.

As noted above, GBCMA project participants were significantly more likely to report having accessed government funds for river frontage work and to have done so at a higher median value. GBCMA project participants were also significantly more likely to expect to access government funds to support future work in their river frontage [Table 24].

It would be very problematic to attribute higher levels of knowledge, more positive attitudes to the environment, more importance attached to environmental values of river frontages, higher levels of confidence in CRP and higher adoption of CRP to participation in GBCMA projects [Table 24].

The reality is that GBCMA project participants are significantly different to non-participants and are atypical of the majority of river frontage managers. Indeed, whilst GBCMA project participants were more likely to be farmers and to adopt most CRP, farming as an occupation was not linked to higher adoption of CRP in the random sample.

Table 24
Significant differences between GBCMA project participants and non-project participants

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Project participants N=75, Non-project participants N=89

Independent variables

GBCMA participants

Non-participants

Test

% Yes
(Median)

% Yes
(Median)

χ2

df

Sig.

Demographic / Background

Farming as an occupation

58%

35%

7.921

1

0.005

Retirees

6%

20%

7.504

1

0.006

Hours worked on property

38 hrs

15 hrs

13.872

1

<0.001

Hours worked off-property

32 hrs

40 hrs

4.608

1

0.032

On property profit (Yes)

60%

34%

12.318

2

0.002

Off-farm income as a proportion of total household income

70%

90%

16.616

4

0.002

Property size

224 Ha

30 Ha

28.846

1

<0.001

Total length of river frontage

2000m

1090m

17.249

1

<0.001

Length of river frontage owned

1000m

500m

11.736

1

0.001

Have a written farm plan (Yes)

37%

20%

6.569

2

0.037

Landcare group in local area (Yes)

95%

70%

16.358

2

<0.001

Age

52

58

9.805

1

0.002

Member of Landcare group (Yes/No)

74%

32%

26.716

2

<0.001

Willing to talk to CSU scientist about assessing frontage condition (Yes)

81%

58%

8.622

1

0.003

Values

Social index for value of frontage

3.12

3.62

8.857

1

0.003

Importance of frontage as a filter catching sediment/nutrients before they reach waterway

52% agreed

33% agreed

15.286

4

0.004

Knowledge

Grazing of domestic stock has had little impact on the existence and diversity of native vegetation

7% agreed

36% agreed

10.041

4

0.040

Clearing for grazing and cropping has reduced the existence and diversity of native vegetation on frontages

83% agreed

72% agreed

12.439

4

0.014

Willows are not different to gum trees as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeks

8% agreed

18% agreed

12.051

4

0.017

Confidence in CRP

Fencing to manage stock access is an essential part of the work required to revegetate frontages

88% agreed

66% agreed

13.568

4

0.009

Set stocking is usually better for retaining native vegetation than intensive grazing for short periods

42% agreed

59% agreed

14.459

4

0.006

In most places fencing river frontages is not practical because floods will damage fences

24% agreed

52% agreed

18.066

4

0.001

The time and expense involved in watering stock off-stream is justified by the improvement in bank stability and water quality

76% agreed

49% agrees

13.884

4

0.008

Significant differences between GBCMA project participants and non-project participants
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001
Project participants N=75, Non-project participants N=89

Independent variables

GBCMA participants

Non-participants

Test

% Yes
(Median)

% Yes
(Median)

χ2

df

Sig.

Constraints

Lack of time or access to labour to carry out work as a constraint to frontage management

77% agreed

55% agreed

11.798

4

0.019

Condition assessment

Assessment of bank stability

14% poor condition

7% poor condition

11.556

4

0.021

Proportion of ground cover along the bank that is weeds or introduced pasture

48% most introduced

35% most introduced

17.296

4

0.002

NEP

When humans interfere with nature it produces disastrous consequences (NEP item)

85% agreed

74% agreed

10.155

4

0.038

New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)

36.5

35

5.569

1

0.018

CRP

Total distance of frontage fenced (as a proportion of total river frontage)

600m

500m

16.227

1

<0.001

Fencing erected near the waterway in the past 5 years (as a proportion of total river frontage)

600m

300m

28.190

1

<0.001

Number of trees/shrubs planted in the past 5 years (as a proportion of total river frontage)

850

50

12.274

1

<0.001

Length of fencing planned to erect in the next 2 years to manage stock access to the water way

2000m

1000m

5.911

1

0.015

Number of trees/shrubs planned to establish to revegetate the frontage in the next 2 years

800

200

15.165

1

<0.001

Plan to install off-stream water supplies where stock currently drink from the water way in the next 2 years (Yes)

34%

21%

17.714

2

<0.001

Funding

Awareness of Waterway Grant Scheme (Yes)

82%

33%

44.001

2

<0.001

Likely to apply for funding to carry out work under the WGS (Yes)

52%

21%

26.519

3

<0.001

Support from federal/state government programs or Catchment Management Authority for work on your frontage over the past 5 years (Yes)

75%

29%

33.635

1

<0.001

Cost of government contributions to work on frontage over the past 5 years

$3000

$1450

7.544

1

0.006

Expect to receive government funds to cover some of the cost of planned works (Yes)

66%

15%

32.118

2

<0.001

4.0 Conclusions

The research discussed in this report was completed in early 2001 and explored landholder adoption of current recommended practices (CRP) for improved management of riparian areas. The primary data collection instrument was a mail survey to a selection of river frontage owners across the Goulburn Broken Catchment (GBC). The mail survey was part of a larger Land and Water Australia project managed by the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA). The mail survey explored landholder adoption of practices expected to improve the management of riparian areas in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (GBC) in Victoria. As part of this research participants in riparian projects managed by the GBCMA were compared with other river frontage owners.

A 12 page survey booklet was mailed to 101 property owners selected at random from a list of 169 people involved in GBCMA riparian management projects. Seventy-five useable surveys were returned for a response rate of 83 per cent. A further 199 property owners were selected at random from 3,721 property owners on GBCMA lists of crown frontage owners or stream customers. Eighty-nine useable surveys were returned from this sample for a response rate of 62 per cent. For analyses where the intention was to compare participants and non-participants, these were the two samples used. Other analyses required the researchers to identify a random sample of all property owners: from GBCMA project participants and non-participants. To do this, it was assumed that project participants were 4.5 per cent of all GBCMA listed crown frontage owners/stream customers (169/3721). Hence, four of the respondent project participants were selected at random and added to the 89 respondent non-participants to form a third group comprising 93 respondents: the random sample.

Respondents from the random sample appeared to be making slow progress towards the adoption of current recommended practices (CRP) for improved management of their river frontages. Most river frontage owners said they had not undertaken fencing or revegetation work and that stock was usually able to access the river frontage for grazing and for drinking water. On the other hand, most respondents were undertaking pest animal and weed control and two-thirds of the fencing activity reported had occurred in the past five years. There was also a trend for increased work on revegetation and fencing planned for the next two years.

GBCMA project participants represented a very small proportion of all river frontage managers in the region and were significantly different to non-participants across a range of social and farming variables. It would therefore be problematic to attribute significantly higher levels of knowledge, more positive attitudes and values, higher levels of confidence in CRP and higher adoption of CRP to participation in GBCMA projects. GBCMA project participants were also significantly more likely to report having accessed government funds for river frontage work and say the expected to access government funds to support future work in their river frontage. One interpretation of this information is that project participants have a privileged level of access to government funding.

It was thought that higher awareness of the extent of river frontage degradation would motivate adoption of CRP. Drawing on the Index of Stream Condition (ISC), the authors identified eight topics for which mail survey recipients were asked to assess the condition of their river frontage. To our knowledge, this type of assessment had not been undertaken previously. There were significant differences for respondents from the random sample in their mean scores across the eight topics contributing to the index of frontage condition. Respondents were more likely to provide very positive assessments of topics related to bed and bank stability; and positive assessments of the proportion of tree and ground cover under native vegetation and of the extent of snags in the river channel. More negative assessments were provided for topics related to the proportion of the ground covered by leaves and sticks and for both the width and completeness of tree canopy cover. Comments by landholders involved in pre-testing the survey, standard statistical tests, and a very high response rate to each component of the rapid assessment scale all suggested that the scale was reliable and valid. However, hypothesised links between scores on the index measuring awareness of river frontage condition and the adoption of CRP did not emerge. It is possible that the self-assessment process did not reveal real differences in river frontage condition. The next step in assessing the validity of this rapid assessment scale is to compare landholder and expert assessments of river frontage condition. Survey respondents were asked if they were prepared to discuss the assessment of the condition of their river frontage with CSU scientists. Sixty per cent of respondents from the random sample and 81 per cent of GBCMA project participants said they were interested in talking with the scientists.

Survey data suggested most respondents had a sound understanding of some of the less widely publicised functions or ecological processes in riparian areas. On the other hand, there was a substantial minority of river frontage owners who were either misinformed or reluctant to acknowledge the critical roles that clearing and stock grazing have had in contributing to river frontage degradation. There was a significant correlation between excluding stock from water courses for both grazing and access to drinking water and better knowledge about the impact of grazing on native vegetation and of the role of willows as a source of nutrients. These findings suggested that differences in knowledge of river frontage function and factors affecting river frontage condition had contributed to differences in the adoption of CRP.

Values attached to river frontages were correlated to differences in the adoption of CRP. The attachment of a high level of importance to the environmental and social values of river frontages was more likely to be linked to adoption of CRP than was the case with economic values. Almost all respondents gave a high level of importance to at least one of the listed environmental, economic and social values that landholders frequently attach to river frontages. This finding emphasised the importance of multi-faceted appeals that move beyond agricultural production and profit maximisation, even with farmers. It is also likely that actions or proposals that might impact on river frontage condition, access or management arrangements will generate considerable interest amongst the affected river frontage owners.

Farming as an occupation was linked with lower adoption of CRP and this link appeared to be explained by the greater importance of on-property income for farmers, and in turn, the significantly higher importance farmers attached to the economic values of their river frontages. Farmers were a minority occupation grouping in the GBC and most river frontage owners were interested more in the aesthetic, environmental and recreational values of their frontages, and possibly, the impact of river frontage condition on property values, compared to primary production values. At the same time, farmers managed a substantial proportion of river frontages and will need to be reassured that adoption of CRP will enhance rather than reduce their on-property viability.

Most respondents held positive attitudes about the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in river frontage management; towards conservation generally; and about the role of scientists in natural resource management. On the other hand, a substantial minority of respondents held attitudes more consistent with what is considered an anti-conservation world view. There were no significant positive correlations between these attitudes and adoption of CRP. This finding is consistent with earlier research suggesting that most landholders hold positive attitudes towards conservation and that attitudes are a poor predictor of conservation behaviour. It seems that other factors intervened to limit the capacity of respondents to express their attitudes in distinctive behavioural patterns.

There were no correlations between age and the adoption of CRP in this study.

Many respondents were concerned about aspects of the efficacy of fencing river frontages, watering stock off-stream and intensively grazing river frontages for short periods of time. Concerns about the efficacy of fencing river frontages appeared to be impacting on the adoption of this CRP. There appears to be a strong case for managers and scientists to reassess their views about the efficacy of the CRP that they are promoting. Community education activities, particularly those that involve groups and include local demonstrations of CRP can be an effective approach to CRP extension.

In this study there were few correlations between on-property profitability and adoption of CRP. Nevertheless, a minority of respondents reported any on-property profit and economic concerns appeared to be an important factor limiting the adoption of CRP, particularly by farmers. It is our view that low on-property profitability should be considered an important constraint to the adoption of CRP in the GBC. Revegetation work was positively correlated with government funding received and respondents said they would increase their adoption of CRP if funding was made available through the GBCMA Waterway Grant Scheme (WGS). The WGS covers a much higher proportion of the total costs (establishment, management and opportunity costs) of work to improve riparian condition than has been the case under most Natural Heritage Trust programs. Amongst those who expressed interest in the WGS, including 42 per cent of respondents not involved in GBCMA projects, almost all respondents said that grant funds would result in them completing more work than they had planned to do. This data provided some support for arguments in favour of stronger cost sharing as a way of improving the adoption of CRP and river frontage condition.

As is often the case, this research highlighted additional areas for investigation. We have already highlighted the importance of comparing landholder and expert assessments of river frontage condition. The fieldwork needed to complete this work could also include interviews that explore some of the issues identified by the mail survey data, particularly landholder concerns about the efficacy of CRP. The GBCMA might also want to commission some market research, possibly using interviews or focus groups, that attempts to identify ways of approaching different market segments with programs such as the WGS. The GBCMA might also find it useful to undertake some additional survey work to quantify the level of adoption of CRP under different levels of cost-sharing through an expanded WGS.

Many of the environmental, economic and social trends operating in the GBC are affecting the structure of land use in other Australian regions. At the same time, it must be recognised that there is sufficient diversity across rural Australia to suggest that findings in the GBC cannot be simply transferred to other regions. We are optimistic that the research approach developed for this study can be applied in other regions to better inform efforts to enhance the management of riparian areas, particularly those under the management of private landholders.

5.0 References

Australian Soil Conservation Council (1991). Decade of Landcare plan. ASCC. Canberra, ACT.

Barr, N. and Cary, J. (2000). Influencing improved natural resource management on farms. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, ACT.

Barr, N., Ridges, S., Anderson, N., Gray, I., Crockett, J., Watson, B., and Hall, N. (2000).` Adjustment for catchment management. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, ACT.

Boulton, A. J. (1999). An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practices, problems and prognosis. Freshwater Biology 41: 469-479.

Curtis, A. (2000). Landcare: approaching the limits of volunteer action. Australian Journal of Environmental Management. 7 (1): 19-27.

Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1996). Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference. Journal of Environmental Management. 46: 119-137.

Curtis, A. and Race, D. (1996). Review of socio-economic factors affecting regional farm forestry development in Australia. The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW.

Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1998). Landcare, stewardship and sustainable agriculture in Australia. Environmental Values. 7: 59-78.

Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. (2000). Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 61-73.

Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., and MacKay, J. (2001). Exploring landholder willingness and capacity to manage dryland salinity in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. Australian Journal of Environmental Management. 8: 20-31.

De Vaus, D. A. (1991). Surveys in social research. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, NSW.

Dillman, D.A. (1979). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York, USA.

Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education. 9: 10-19.

Elix, J. and Lambert, J. (2000). Missed opportunities: harnessing the potential of women in agriculture. In

Proceedings of the International Landcare Conference, March 2-5, 2000. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne, Victoria.

Guerin, T. (1999). An Australian perspective on the constraints to the transfer and adoption of innovations in land management. Environmental Conservation. 26:4, 289-304.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. (2001). Regional waterway management strategy: Goulburn Broken interim draft 2001. GBCMA, Shepparton, Victoria.

Haberkorn, G., Hugo, G., Fisher, M. and Aylward, R. (1999). Country matters: a social atlas of rural and regional Australia. Report by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, ACT.

Ian Drummond and Associates Pty Ltd. (1997). Mid Goulburn and Broken River, riverine implementation plan. Broken River Management Board. ID&A, Benalla, Victoria.

Jansen, A., and Robertson, A. I. (2001) Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. Journal of Applied Ecology. 38: 63-75.

Ladson, A. R., White, L. J., Doolan, J. A., Finlayson, B. C., Hart, B. T., Lake, S. and Tilleard, J. W. (1999). Development and testing of an index of stream condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology. 41: 453-468.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. (1990). Natural Resources Management Strategy. MDBC, Canberra, ACT.

Naiman, R. J., and Decamps, H. (1997). The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 28, 621-658.

Rendell, R., O’Callagan, P. and Clark, N. (1996). Families, farming & the future. A report to Agriculture Victoria, Bendigo, Victoria.

Robertson, A. I. (2000). The gaps between ecosystem ecology and industrial agriculture. Ecosystems. 3: 413-418.

Robertson, A. I., and Rowling, R. W. (2000). Effects of livestock on riparian zone vegetation in an Australian dryland river. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 16: 527-541.

Robertson, A. I., Lee Long, W. J., Coles, R. G., Pearson, R. G., and Hegerl, E. J. (1996). Impacts of land and water use practices on riparian areas, wetlands, estuaries and coastal seagrasses. In, Hunter, H. M. and Rayment, G. E. (eds) Downstream effects of land use. pp. 45-47. Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane, Queensland.

Shindler, B., and Wright, A. (2000). Watershed management in the central cascades: a study of citizen knowledge and the value of information sources. USDA Forest Service Research Report, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Spencer, C., Robertson, A. I., and Curtis, A. (1998). Development and testing of a rapid appraisal wetland condition index in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Environmental Management. 54: 143-159.

Steel, B. S., List, P., and Shindler, B. (1994). Conflicting values about federal forests: a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 137-153.

Steel, B. S., Lach, D., List, P., and Shindler, B. (2001). The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process. Journal of Environmental Systems. (In Press).

Stirzacker, R., Lefroy, T., Keating, B. and Williams, J. (2000). A revolution in land use: emerging land use systems for managing dryland salinity. CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT.

Vanclay, F. (1992). The social context of farmers’ adoption of environmentally-sound farming practices. In Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F. and Furze, B. (eds) Agriculture, environment and society. pp. 94-121. Macmillan, Melbourne, Victoria.

Van Liere, K., and Dunlap, R. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference, how is it measured? Environment and Behaviour. 13: 651-684.

Walker, G., Gilfedder, M., and Williams, J. (1999). Effectiveness of current farming systems in the control of dryland salinity. CSIRO Division of Land and Water, Canberra, ACT.

6.0 Appendices

Appendix 1
Occupation of respondents

Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

Occupation

Random sample N=93

Project participants N=75

Non participants N=89

n

% respondents

n

% respondents

n

% respondents

Farmer

32

37%

42

58%

29

35%

Professional

26

30%

15

21%

26

31%

Trades

9

10%

11

15%

9

11%

Retired

17

20%

4

6%

17

20%

Other

4

5%

1

1%

3

4%

Appendix 2
On-property profit
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

   

% indicating on-property

Approximate on-property profit, % respondents in each category

Median

 

n

profit

Up to $10,000

$10,001- $20,000

$20,001- $30,000

$30,001- $40,000

$40,001- $50,000

$50,001- $60,000

Above $60,000

 

Random Sample N=93

86

37%

48%

35%

7%

7%

0%

0%

3%

$15 000

Project participants N=75

73

60%

47%

33%

2%

12%

2%

0%

5%

$15 000

Non participants N=89

82

34%

46%

39%

8%

4%

0%

0%

4%

$15 000

Appendix 3
Off-property income, as a proportion of total household income
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

   

% respondents in each category

 

n

< 20%

21% - 40%

41% - 60%

61% - 80%

81% - 100%

Random sample N=93

69

16%

4%

6%

6%

68%

Project participants N=75

68

24%

7%

16%

18%

35%

Non participants N=89

66

14%

5%

6%

6%

70%

Appendix 4
Property size
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

Property size by hectares, % of respondents in each category

 

n

<10

10-50

51-100

101-150

151-200

201-250

251-300

>300

Median

ha

Random sample N=93

93

34%

23%

8%

7%

11%

1%

1%

16%

36

Project participants N=75

74

4%

14%

14%

5%

11%

12%

5%

35%

224

Non participants N=89

86

35%

22%

7%

7%

11%

1%

1%

15%

30

Appendix 5
On-property work
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 

Mean hours per week on-property work,
% respondents in each category

Median hours

n

1-7

8-15

16-30

31-50

51-80

> 80

 

Random sample
N=93

82

25%

13%

29%

16%

16%

1%

18

Project participants
N=75

70

14%

10%

23%

29%

24%

0%

38

Non participants
N=89

78

26%

14%

29%

15%

14%

2%

15

Appendix 6
Off-property work
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

 



n


% with off-
property work

Mean hours per week off-property work,
% respondents in each category


Median
hours

     

1-7

8-15

16-30

31-50

> 50

 

Random sample
N=93

87

46% n=40

0%

8%

15%

64%

13%

40

Project participants
N=75

74

53% n=39

10%

10%

25%

48%

8%

32

Non participants
N=89

83

47% n=39

0%

8%

16%

63%

13%

40

Appendix 7

Age of respondents
Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001

% of respondents in each age category

Median
age

 

n

<40

40-55

56-65

>65

Random sample N=93

87

8%

40%

29%

23%

56

Project participants N=75

74

15%

53%

23%

10%

52

Non participants N=89

83

12%

34%

30%

24%

58

Top Of Page