friday 3 september rethinking ‘country’: the changing

B R S S E M I N A R S E R I E S

Friday 3 September

Rethinking ‘Country’:The Changing Nature of Rural Land Ownership in

Australia and Implications for Government

Heather Aslin and Ian ByronBRS

Rural land ownership and land use are changing rapidly in some parts of Australia. Thesechanges pose a challenge to policy makers and program managers used to dealing withtraditional agricultural land uses and farmers. We need to adjust our ideas about country,landscape, rural and farm to match the new and emerging realities. Government policies,programs and communication strategies may need to be re-designed, re-focused and re-targeted to reach people with very different values, motives and land managementpractices from traditional farmers, and who may describe themselves as hobby or lifestylefarmers, or may not identify as farmers at all.

BRS has investigated characteristics of some of these new rural constituencies in a recentscoping study of peri-urban landholders providing advice about targeting these people inbio-security communication campaigns, and in National Action Plan landholder surveysobtaining baseline social information for catchment planning. This research suggests thatagencies with natural resource, bio-security and environmental managementresponsibilities need more comprehensive, comparable and current information if they areto work effectively with landholders in regions of interest.

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R SD E P A R T M E N T O F A G R I C U L T U R E , F I S H E R I E S A N D F O R E S T R Y

Heather Aslin & Ian Byron

Re-thinking ‘country’: thechanging nature of rural landownership in Australia and

implications for government

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

vPopulation 19.9 million (June2003) and still growing

vMore than 75% live in NewSouth Wales, Victoria andQueensland

v85% live within 50 km ofcoast

vHighly mobile

Australian socio-demographics

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Changing rural Australiav Rural (and metro) populations

v Numbers of family farms (22% decline1986-2001)

v Commercial farm sizes

v Numbers of ‘non-commercial’ farms

v Significance of off-farm income to farmhouseholds

v Population out-flow from cities (‘populationturnaround’ or ‘counter-urbanisation’)

v Development of post-productivist or multi-functional countryside

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

v‘New wave’ rural settlers – hobby andlifestyle farmers, Pitt Street farmers, ‘seachangers’

vValues, attitudes, behaviour and lifestylesmay differ from those of traditional farmingcommunities

vInfluencing and being influenced bybroader socio-cultural changes

vIncreasing emphasis on rural lifestyles, notfarming (tele-commuting, part-time work,work-life balance)

vReflected in changed demographics, landvalues and land uses

Changing rural Australia

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

City people drive up rural pricesTown dwellers are pushing upthe price of agricultural land asthey buy places in the country,according to a study.

People seek 'country life'valuesIncreasing numbers of peopleare leaving England's townsfor rural areas in the hope ofimproving their quality of life,the Countryside Agency says.

An elegy for the UK countrysideHalf a century ago, probablyeven in the last two or threedecades, the UK countrysidehad a definite purpose.

Farming has lost its placeat the apex of rural life

From BBC NEWS UK Edition

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Who is looking?DemographersSocio-economicmodellersStatisticiansSocial commentatorsMarket researchers

Regional plannersGeographers

Landscape scientistsand ecologists

Communicators andeducatorsExtension workersPolicy makers andprogram managers

Rural sociologistsAgricultural,

environmental andnatural resource

scientists

Nature of interest?

Focus of interest?

Scale of interest?

Ruralchange

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

‘Sea change’

v Regional categories/turnaround regions

After Burnley & Murphy 2004

vTypes of ‘sea changers’

vFree agents

vForced re-locators

vPeriodic populations

vGentrifiers and interstate migrants

Peri-metropolitan turnaround

Population turnaround

Other regional citiesCoastal turnaround

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

New South Wales

Broken Hill

Griffith

WaggaWagga

Albury

Dubbo

Mudgee

Tamworth

Armidale Dumaresq

Orange

Yass

SnowyRiver

Queanbeyan

Bathurst

GreaterLithgow

Oberon

Wingecarribee

Wollongong

Wollondilly

Blue Mountains

HawkesburyGosford

WyongCessnock

#

NewcastlePort Stephens

# Bega Valley

#

Eurobodalla

#

Shoalhaven

# Great Lakes

# GreaterTaree

#

Hastings#

#

Kempsey

#

Nambucca

#

Bellingen

#Coffs

Harbour

#

Pristine Waters - Nymboida#

Pristine WatersUlmarra

# Maclean

#RichmondValley

#Lismore

#

Tweed

#

Byron

#

Ballina#

Goulburn

Peri-Metropolitan TurnaroundPopulation TurnaroundOther Regional Cities

Other Population TurnaroundNSW Coastal Turnaround South

NSW Coastal Turnaround North

After Burnley & Murphy 2004

Peri-metropolitan turnaround

Population turnaround

Other regional cities

Coastal turnaround

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R SS C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Victoria

SwanHill

Mildura

Horsham

Ararat

Warrnambool

E. GippslandOrbost

E. GippslandBalDelatite

South

CampaspeRochester

CampaspeKyabram

MoiraWest Moira

East IndigoWodonga

AlpineEast

Wangaratta

Delatite

Shepparton

Bendigo

CentralGoldfields

Wellington

Ballarat

Golden Plains

ColacOtway

Surf CoastBassCoast

SouthGippsland

Peri-Metropolitan TurnaroundPopulation TurnaroundOther Regional Cities

HepburnEast

MooraboolBallan

MacedonRanges

Macedon RangesKyneton

MurrindindiWestMitchell

SouthMacedon Ranges

Romsey

Golden PlainsSouth-East

MooraboolBacchus Marsh

Melton

HumeSunbury

Wyndham-NthWyndham-Wst

Wyndham-Sth

MorningtonP'sula

BassCoastPhillip Is.

Murrindindi -

Yarra Ra

BawPt B

South GippslanWest

BassCoast

CardiniaSouth

CardiniaPakenham

CardiniaNorth

Yarra RangesCentral

Yarra RangesSouth-West

Yarra RangesNorth

Nillumbik

WhittleseaNorth

Surf CoastWest

GreaterGeelong

GreaterGeelong

MooraboolWest

MeltonEast

After Burnley & Murphy 2004

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

TheGlenelgHopkins

casestudy

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Studies underway/completed

Lachlan

Burnett Mary

Ovens

Goulburn-Broken

Wimmera

Glenelg

Queensland Murray Darling

NSW

VIC

SA

QLD

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Why collect landholder data

• Existing data sets are useful but they:

1.don’t cover critical variables

2.cannot be linked to other data sets

3.are often out-of-date

• Regional contexts vary, need sufficient sampling points

• Need to engage regional stakeholders

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Collecting baseline social data tounderpin catchment planning

• A mail survey to capture rurallandholder information

• Survey data integrated with other spatiallayers in GIS

• Collaboration with stakeholders to buildcapacity

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Survey topics

• Importance of issues• Awareness• Knowledge• Attitudes• Values• Confidence in

practices• Financial capacity

(income, debt,property size,enterprise mix)

• Age/stage of life• Occupation

• Property and businessplanning

• Long-term plans

• Adoption of practices

• Entry to newenterprises

• Interest in strongercost sharing

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Data collection

• Mail survey to 1,943 landholders withproperties over 10ha

• Landholder and property information providedby local shires

• Property information from all properties over10ha entered into a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS)

• Stratified random sample to provideinformation across the 32 sub-catchmentsused for planning

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Data collection

• Final response rate of 64%

• Sampling strategy resulted in a verygood geographic spread of respondents

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Landholder characteristics

• 64% Farmers– Median prop size 358ha– 61% of area– Median age of 52

• 36% Non-Farmers– Median prop size 67ha– 39% of area (2 large plantation managers)– Median age of 52

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Landholder characteristics• Farmers

– 85% on-property profit 02/03• Mean $32,000

– 64% off-property income 02/03• Mean $21,000

– Mean total income $36,000

• Non-Farmers– 50% on-property profit 02/03

• Mean $14,000

– 88% had off-property income 02/03• Mean $36,000

– Mean total income $35,000

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Landholder characteristics

36%52%Property plan

24%61%Govt. funding

16%36%Short course

5%28%Commoditygroup

22%49%Landcare

Non-farmerFarmerVariable

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Land use and enterprise mix

38%60%Remnant veg.

3%2%Horticulture

1%2%Grapes

77%91%Sheep or cattle

11%32%Cropping

Non-farmerFarmerEnterprise

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Values attached to property

Non-farmerFarmerValue

49%32%Recreation

48%39%Habitat for native animals

24%92%Household income

46%62%Environ. health of region

61%79%Rural community

69%81%Desired lifestyle

69%87%Improving condition

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Time lived on property

• Farmers– Lived in area median 42 years

– Lived on property median 30yrs

• 2% < 1yr and 9% <5yrs

• Non-farmers– Lived in area median 25 years

– Lived on property median 13 yrs

• 17% < 1yr and 32% <5yrs

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Long-term plans for property

• 29% likely to sell their property– Half of these likely to be sold by 2010

• Half of all properties are estimated tochange hands either through sale, familytransfer or upon retirement/death by 2016

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

vPositivesvBreakdown of stereotypesvStrengthened rural communitiesvMore diversified economiesvMore people to undertake land management

activitiesvOpportunities for farmers to exitvIncreased land valuesvNew people and skillsvMore support for nature conservationvIncreased revenue to local governmentsvNew government policy and program

opportunities

Implications?

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

Implications?vNegativesvSmaller property sizes, more environmental impactsvNew services and infrastructure neededvLandscape change, suburban sprawlvRapid property turnovervSocial conflictvLoss of agricultural land and agricultural productionvRising costs force some farmers outvLoss of farming cultural heritagevLoss of land management experiencevViability of small country towns underminedvChallenges to government

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

vIf we focus only on farming, farmers andagriculture, we will miss the big picture ofchanging rural land use and ownership

vNeed to recognise increasing diversity ofrural landowners and communities

vChallenges to adapt policies andprograms previously aimed at traditionalfarmers or farm families

vNeed to develop ways of keeping up todate and being responsive. How?

Key messages

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

v Rural = Farm

v Farm = Agriculture

v Farm = Country

v Landholder = Farmer

v Land use = Commodity production

Key messages

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

LocalGovernmentratepayerlists/other locallistings - focuson landholders

CatchmentNational ActionPlan landholdersurveys

BRS

Aust. BusinessRegister, agric.est . with EVAO>$22,500

National (agric.industry sectors)

Farm SurveysABARE

Aust. BusinessRegister, agric.businesses only,minimum incomecriterion

NationalAustralianAgriculturalCensus

AustralianBureau ofStatistics

All Aust.households,focus onindividual

NationalCensus ofPopulation andHousing

AustralianBureau ofStatistics

Sampling frameScaleSurveyGroup

Who is looking?

S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S

vResearchers - Need to match socialsurveys to functional interests, and selectmost appropriate scales and samplingframes

vPolicy makers - Need to ensure socialinformation used is at appropriate scaleand based on whole population of interest,not just part

vAll - Need to abandon stereotypes and ‘re-think country’