integrating spatially referenced social and biophysical data to explore landholder responses to...
TRANSCRIPT
Integrating spatially referenced social and biophysical data to explore
landholder responses to dryland salinity in Australia
Allan Curtis*, Ian Byron, Simon McDonald
Bureau of Rural Sciences, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia, P.O. Box E11 Kingston, ACT 2604, Australia
Received 18 March 2002; revised 29 April 2002; accepted 30 April 2003
Abstract
Researchers attempting to integrate socio-economic data in watershed planning often draw on nationally collected census data. However,
there are critical limitations to the usefulness of this type of data for decision makers operating at the watershed scale. In this paper we
demonstrate the relevance of spatially referenced socio-economic data collected using mail surveys to random selections of rural landholders.
The issue explored was dryland salinity management in two large watersheds in the Murray-Darling Basin of south-eastern Australia.
Contrary to the assumptions underlying public policy in Australia, but consistent with the literature on farmer knowledge, comparisons of
expert maps and landholder identified salinity sites suggested that landholders in these watersheds had excellent knowledge of the current
extent of salinity on their property. Our research also suggested that salinity education was a sound investment by governments. At the same
time, the expert maps failed to predict half of the saline affected sites identified by landholders. Accurately mapping the extent of salinity
would seem a first step in addressing this nationally significant land degradation issue.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dryland salinity; Australia; Watershed management; Integration
1. Introduction
In this paper we discuss research in two large watersheds
in the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) of south-eastern
Australia. Our research explored the assumptions that
private landholders were often unaware of insidious issues
such as dryland salinity (Vanclay, 1992); and that low levels
of awareness and concern were important reasons for
limited action by private landholders (MDBC, 1990). This
research examining landholder awareness of dryland
salinity, the veracity of expert maps, and the efficacy of
community education programs forms part of the wider
international literature on farmer knowledge (Kloppenburg,
1991; Thompson and Scoones, 1994) and adoption (Roling,
1988; Vanclay, 1992).
Most researchers attempting to integrate socio-econ-
omic data in watershed planning have drawn on
nationally collected census data (Radeloff et al., 2000).
There are critical limitations to the usefulness of census
data, usually available at the local government scale, for
decision makers wanting to understand and change
individual landholder behaviour (Schultz et al., 1998).
In our MDB case studies, we integrated expert data about
saline affected areas and information provided by land-
holders through a mail survey process. The principal
purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the usefulness of
this spatially referenced socio-economic data collected
from individual landholders.
2. Background
The management of dryland salinity is now recognised as
a major challenge facing Australia, particularly in the MDB,
often referred to as Australia’s food bowl. On a scale that is
comparable with the Colorado River Basin, the MDB
embraces substantial areas of the states of New South
Wales, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Queensland,
Victoria and South Australia. Research suggests that more
land will be affected by dryland salinity in the near future,
placing even greater pressure on water quality, agricultural
production, biodiversity, infrastructure and cultural heritage
(MDBC, 1999).
0301-4797/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00108-7
Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407
www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61-2-6272-33-82.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Curtis).
Although the Commonwealth (federal) government has
greater financial resources, natural resource management
authority rests primarily with the governments of the six
Australian states and two territories (ACT and the Northern
Territory). By 1992, most Australian states had established
regional Catchment Management Committees (CMC).
CMC members are mostly Ministerial appointees, fre-
quently including a mix of regional community representa-
tives and agency staffers. CMC are responsible for
developing and implementing regional catchment strategies
that guide the expenditure of state and Commonwealth
natural resource management funds (Curtis and Lockwood,
2000; Ewing, 2000).
As part of a national response to dryland salinity, the
Commonwealth and State governments recently committed
1.4 billion dollars Australian over seven years through a
National Action Plan for salinity and water quality (NAP).
Most of the NAP investment decisions will be devolved to
the regional CMC. Prior to the NAP there had been large
investments in natural resource management programs by
Commonwealth and State governments through the
National Landcare Program and subsequently, the Natural
Heritage Trust (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Again,
dryland salinity was a priority issue.
A key assumption underpinning these programs is that
landholders are frequently unaware of the extent and impact
of less obvious forms of land degradation, such as dryland
salinity and soil acidity (MDBC, 1990; ASCC, 1991). For
much of the past twenty years, community education
activities to raise awareness and understanding of issues
have been an important element of these programs.
This research was a collaborative effort between the
authors, staff from the State Department of Natural
Resources and Environment (DNRE), the two regional
Catchment Management Authorities (CMC) and private
landholders. These partnerships facilitated the integration of
socio-economic data collected using mail surveys to private
rural landholders and other data layers held within DNRE
and by DNRE partners, including the large consulting firm,
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM). The SKM data layers had just
been compiled as part of the work SKM completed for the
Murray–Darling Basin Commission’s seminal salinity audit
(MDBC, 1999).
3. Situation
Our discussion in this paper draws on research in two
adjacent watersheds in the North East region of the state of
Victoria
1. Goulburn Broken Watershed (GBW); and
2. Ovens Watershed (OW). (Fig. 1)
The GBW covers 2.3 million hectares (17 per cent of
the state of Victoria), including 1.9 million hectares of
non-irrigated land that is referred to as the Goulburn Broken
Dryland (GBD). The research reported in this paper for the
GBW was undertaken in the GBD. The OW covers a
smaller area of 780,000 ha of largely non-irrigated land.
Both watersheds begin on the continental side of the
Australian Alps at elevations around 2000 m ASL, and fall
through a series of river valleys towards the westerly flowing
Murray river at around 200 m ASL. The climate is typical of
south-eastern Australia, with hot, dry summers and cool, wet
winters, but there are significant variations with altitude, in
that temperatures are lower and rainfall higher in the
mountains. Much of the mountains and foothills are covered
in eucalypt forests and most of these areas are publicly
owned. European systems of agriculture on privately owned
land dominate the lower elevations and this land has little
remaining native vegetation. There are important areas of
irrigated agriculture, mostly horticulture and dairying, but
dryland farming for sheep and cattle grazing and broad acre
cropping (canola, wheat) occupy most cleared land. Primary
production and associated processing industries, and tourism
are the main contributors to economic wealth. Agricultural
production from these watersheds contributes more that 25
per cent of Victoria’s total export income.
In both watersheds there are numerous small towns
(population ,3,000) and at least one regional city
(Wangaratta with 15,000 and Shepparton with 35,000).
There has been considerable rural subdivision (Melbourne
has a population of 3.5 millions and is between two and four
hours away by car) and substantial proportions of properties
in both watersheds are operated as lifestyle as opposed to
farming enterprises. Both the GBW and OW support major
agricultural industries, food processing, forestry (including
pine plantations) and tourism activities. Soil erosion, water
logging and dryland salinity have been some of the
unintended consequence of land clearing in both watersheds.
The GBW and OW represented an ideal setting for
research exploring awareness and concern about dryland
salinity. This is a priority issue in both watersheds and as
adjacent watersheds, they share similar environmental,
socio-economic and political contexts. At the same time,
there are important contextual differences. Compared to the
GBW, dryland salinity in the OW emerged later (post 1990)
and is expected to have less severe off-site impacts. The
GBW has been identified as the largest contributor of saline
discharges into the River Murray (MDBC, 1999, p.20).
There has been a substantial investment in the OW for
research, community education (for example, field days,
farm walks, monitoring programs, schools education,
property planning) and on-ground work to address dryland
salinity. However, this investment occurred much later and
on a much smaller scale than was the case in the GBW.
Indeed, the GBW has been the focus of one of the most
sophisticated and concerted efforts by government agencies,
community organisations and landholders to address
dryland salinity in Australia. In recent years, around 60
per cent of federal and state funds expended on natural
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407398
resource management in Victoria have been invested in the
GBW (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Much of this invest-
ment, including at least $20 million over the past 15 years,
has been focussed on dryland salinity.
Current recommended practices (CRP) expected to
improve the management of dryland salinity by private
landholders in the GBW and OW include; the revegetation
of recharge and discharge zones; adoption of farm forestry;
replacing annual pastures with perennial pastures (mostly
introduced); and intensifying grazing to increase water use
(GBCMA 1996; GBCLPB 1996; OBWQWG 2000a,b).
4. Problem and purpose
Researchers have established a significant association
between increased awareness of land degradation issues and
landholder adoption of practices likely to ameliorate those
issues (Vanclay, 1992; Curtis and De Lacy, 1996). It has
also been established that most landholders are more
concerned about off-property and district impacts of land
degradation compared to on-property impacts (Vanclay,
1992; Curtis et al., 2002). These findings have been
interpreted as evidence of landholder denial of on-property
Fig. 1. Location of Goulburn Broken and Ovens watersheds in south eastern Australia.
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 399
problems and this was seen as an important explanation for
the reluctance of landholders to respond to dryland salinity
(Vanclay, 1992).
Attempts to integrate socio-economic and biophysical
data to inform watershed management usually rely on
census data. This type of analysis can yield useful
information (Radeloff et al., 2000), but is unlikely to
contribute to improved understanding of landholder beha-
viour, including assessments of landholder awareness of
natural resource issues, that is required by watershed
management decision makers. In the first instance, it is
difficult for state or national data collection processes, such
as the household and farm census, to address most of the
topics for which data is needed. Curtis et al. (2001) found
that information from landholders about their awareness and
concern about issues, values attached to their land or
property, knowledge of processes or management practices,
confidence in recommended practices, and long-term plans
was critical for effective watershed management. Secondly,
information that is collected by existing processes such as
the household and farm census is usually only available at a
local government scale and has limited application when the
task is to unravel decision making by individual landholders
(Schultz et al., 1998). A final limitation is that census data is
collected intermittently, every five years in Australia, and
with the time lag between collection and release of data,
available information can be up to eight years out of-date.
For example, in Australia, the most recent census were in
1996 and 2001. However, the Australian government is still
using 1996 data for some topics where the Australian
Bureau of Statistics has not released 2001 data.
Despite the limitations of census data, there have been
few attempts to directly capture and integrate spatially
referenced socio-economic data to address watershed
management issues. There are important difficulties related
to the high costs of data collection (Schultz et al., 1998);
difficulties inherent in building the partnerships required to
access different data layers, including legitimate concerns
about the loss of intellectual property rights and breaching
the confidentiality of personal information.There are also
concerns that alternate data collection instruments, such as
mail surveys to rural landholders, can achieve response rates
that will engender confidence that data collected is
representative (Curtis et al., 2001).
There is some discussion in this paper of the broader
aspects of landholder adoption of current recommended
practices (CRP) to address dryland salinity. However, the
focus of the paper is on the outcomes of efforts to integrate
spatially referenced socio-economic and biophysical data
layers. The key research questions were
1. What proportion of landholders thought they had areas
where vegetation was affected by dryland salinity?
2. What proportion of landholders was unaware that they had
areas affected by dryland salinity according to the expert
maps (discharge sites and depth to saline groundwater)?
3. How successful were the expert maps in predicting the
areas affected by dryland salinity that were identified by
the landholders?
4. Was awareness of saline affected areas or the extent
of concern about dryland salinity linked to adoption of
CRP?
The experience gained through our research in these two
watersheds therefore has wider relevance for social research
and watershed management. Indeed, the Commonwealth
and State governments in Australia are drawing on this
experience to undertake a national watershed project
coordinated by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, a Common-
wealth government research organisation.
5. Methods
5.1. The mail survey processes
This research used a mail survey to collect information
from rural landholders in the GBW and OW watersheds. The
GBW survey was completed during 1999 and the OW
survey in 2001. There was therefore the opportunity to learn
from experience and refine the research methodology. At the
same time, some caution needs to be exercised when making
direct comparisons between data from the two watersheds,
particularly information about on-property profitability that
could be expected to have improved since 1999 as cattle
prices, and more recently wool prices have firmed.
As part of the process of identifying variables to be
included in the mailed survey, the research team examined
regional and state planning documents, held discussions with
industry partners and other key stakeholders and conducted a
search of literature on adoption of CRP for dryland salinity.
We also drew on the experience of the research team with
farm forestry, introduced and native perennial grasses and
revegetation with native species (Curtis and De Lacy, 1996;
Curtis and Race, 1996; Millar and Curtis, 1997).
The main topics included in the 12-page survey booklets
relevant to this paper included.
† Importance of issues affecting property and district.
† Self-assessment of knowledge for different topics.
† Awareness of on-property salinity. Survey respondents
were asked two questions
1. Was there any part of their property where vegetation
was showing signs of the effects of salinity?
2. What was the area of land where vegetation was
showing signs of the effects of salinity?
† Adoption of current recommended practices (CRP).
† Background socio-economic data.
In early 1999 when the GBW study commenced we
contacted the eight local government councils and
asked them to assist with the compilation of our mailing
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407400
list. This process met with limited success. At this time,
local governments in Victoria were being amalgamated and
some of the new entities were not able to provide revised
ratepayer lists. The next best option was to use Country Fire
Authority (CFA) rural property maps to identify rural
landholders and then use Commonwealth electoral rolls and
phone books to source their postal addresses. The major
limitation with the CFA maps was that they were a little out-
of-date. Using this process, a total of 6,449 rural properties
were identified for the dryland areas (GBD) in the GBW.
These property listings were entered into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet and a random sample of 1,640 properties
(approximately 25 per cent) was generated.
By the time we commenced the OW study in early 2001
the local government amalgamations of 1999 had been
bedded down. The OW covered three local government
councils and their staff agreed to provide access to their
ratepayer data bases that included a property identification
field for most properties. This field was then matched to
cadastral boundaries in Arcview GIS (Geographic Infor-
mation System). The centroids of these cadastral boundaries
were calculated and were then representative of the location
of each landholder. A total of 8,658 rural properties were
identified in the OW. From this list a random sample of
1,000 properties (approximately 12 per cent) was generated
with matching postal addresses.
The survey design and mail-out processes followed
Dillman, 1979 Total Design Method. Pre-testing of the
survey instrument was undertaken using a number of small
group workshops with landholders who had been identified
by agency and industry partners. The initial survey mail out
was followed by up to three reminder/thank you cards in
successive weeks. A second mail out, with one reminder/
thank you card, was undertaken to all non-respondents to the
first mail out.
Surveys that were returned to sender or sent back due to
the landholder no longer residing at the property were
removed from the original sample. Cases where landholders
that were too old, ill, deceased, the property was a
residential lot (considered by the agency staff involved to
be ,4 ha in the GBW and ,10 ha in the OW) or the
property had been sold were also removed from the original
sample. In the GBW study, a final sample of 1,021 was left.
With 480 completed surveys returned, the overall response
rate was 47 per cent. In the OW, a final sample of 854 was
left. With 568 completed surveys returned, the final
response rate was 67 per cent.
5.2. Data analysis
Findings presented in this paper are derived from
analyses undertaken using a range of descriptive statistics
and binary logistic regression. All analyses were
undertaken using the SPSS statistical package.
Mail survey data were also entered into an Arcview
GIS that contained other data layers, including salinity
discharge sites provided by DNRE (Allan et al., 1997;
CLPR, 2000), and depth to water table and ground water
salinity levels (SKM, 2000). The discharge maps (Allan
et al., 1997; CLPR, 2000), had been compiled over time
employing a mix of air photo interpretation and intensive
field inspections by agency staff and consultants. At this
point it should be noted that there was a two to three year
time lag between the preparation of the discharge maps in
each watershed and the mail out of the landholder survey.
It was expected that the discharge maps would slightly
under-estimate the extent of saline affected vegetation in
both watersheds. The depth to water table and ground
water salinity level data layers (SKM, 2000) had been
prepared using interpretations of time-series data from a
network of bores and other hydrogeological information.
These data layers had been prepared at much the same
time as the landholder survey and were assumed to be up-
to-date. It was beyond the scope of this research to test
the validity or reliability of the data layers provided by
SKM or DNRE.
The expert and mail survey data layers were then used in
analyses comparing landholder identified dryland salinity
affected areas with salinity mapping by experts. This
assessment involved comparing landholder proximity
(using a spatial intersection) to two types of salinity prone
areas.
1. a 1 km buffer of the discharge layer (for both the GBW
and OW); and
2. an intersection using the Geoprocessing Wizard of
areas with a level of total dissolved salt of 3501 mg/l
and areas with a water table less than 2 m from the
surface (data layers only available for GBW).
A 1 km buffer was adopted to provide some margin of
error when comparing the location of discharge sites
mapped on a 1:25,000 sheet with landholder reported saline
affected sites that could only be mapped as a property
location. Two metres is the widely accepted threshold for
saline ground water to affect surface vegetation (MDBC,
1999, p.2). Salinity tolerance varies with vegetation type,
however, the MDBC (1999) study accepted that ground
water with a total dissolved salt content higher than
3501 mg/l will affect most perennial vegetation on farms
(Hoxley pers. comm.).
6. Discussion of findings
6.1. Dryland salinity reported by landholders
In the GBW study, 13 per cent of the respondents ðN ¼
456; n ¼ 61Þ said they had areas on their property where
vegetation showed signs of the effects of salinity. For most
respondents, the area affected was relatively small (median
of 4 ha). A similar picture emerged in the OW study, with 11
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 401
per cent of respondents ðN ¼ 550; n ¼ 62Þ reporting they
had areas of vegetation on their property that showed the
effects of salinity (Table 1). Widespread clearing of native
vegetation occurred pre-1900 in the GBW, much earlier
than in the OW and it was expected that dryland salinity
would affect a larger proportion of land in the GBW. This
hypothesis was confirmed by the finding that the area of
saline affected land reported by landholders was smaller in
the OW (median of 2 ha). However, less than one per cent of
the area surveyed was reported as being affected by dryland
salinity in either watershed.
6.2. What proportion of landholders was unaware that they
had areas affected by dryland salinity according
to the expert maps?
Analyses using maps of salinity discharge sites provided
by DNRE (Allan et al., 1997; CLPR, 2000), and depth to
ground water and ground water salinity (SKM, 2000)
suggested that respondents had a very high level of
awareness and preparedness to acknowledge current,
visible, dryland salinity impacts.
† Five per cent ðN ¼ 395; n ¼ 18Þ of those in the GBW
and 10 per cent ðN ¼ 481; n ¼ 47Þ of those in the OW
who reported no areas with vegetation that showed the
effects of salinity were within one kilometre of
a discharge site identified on DNRE maps.
† In the GBW, only six (1.52 per cent) of those who
reported no areas with vegetation that showed the effects
of salinity had ground water within two metres of the
surface and a total dissolved salt content higher than
3501 mg/l as mapped by SKM (SKM, 2000).
Overall, the expert maps appeared to contradict the
claims by six per cent ðn ¼ 24Þ of GBW respondents and 10
per cent ðn ¼ 47Þ of OW respondents who said they had no
areas where vegetation showed the effects of salinity
(Fig. 2). Assuming the expert maps are correct, that is
they didn’t incorrectly predict salinity, these respondents
were ‘unaware’ they had saline affected areas. In other
words, almost 90 per cent of the respondents who said they
had no areas currently affected by salinity were correct
according to the expert maps. It seems that landholders have
a very accurate level of awareness of the areas currently
affected by dryland salinity. This finding is contrary to
earlier research suggesting farmers are not aware of salinity
and/or are not prepared to acknowledge the extent of salinity
problems (Vanclay, 1992).
We also explored the extent that there were differences
between those who were aware that they had saline affected
areas and the ‘unaware’ group identified above. These
analyses suggested that those respondents who were aware
of salinity affected areas were significantly more likely to
operate larger properties, work more hours on-property, be
Landcare members (local or community-based watershed
organisations) and report work funded by government
(Table 2).
The lack of awareness displayed by a small number of
landholders (24 in the GBW and 47 in the OW) may be
explained by the possibilities listed below.
† Those with lower awareness spend fewer hours in on-
property management and may not have identified saline
affected areas.
† Some landholders cannot identify the subtle changes in
vegetation that indicate dryland salinity.
† People may be in denial and do not want to acknowledge
they had saline affected areas.
† The expert maps have falsely predicted saline affected
areas.
There has been a large, almost unprecedented level of
investment over more than a decade in community
education about dryland salinity in the GBW. Landcare
groups have operated for at least 15 years in the OW (Curtis
and De Lacy, 1996) and there has been a strong salinity
education focus over the past five years through these
groups and government funded extension programs. It
seems that the investment in community education in both
watersheds has contributed to the high levels of awareness
of dryland salinity identified in this paper.
6.3. Did the expert maps predict landholder identified
dryland salinity?
There was also the opportunity to examine the efficacy of
the expert maps by assessing their capacity to predict areas
affected by salinity as identified by landholders (Fig. 3).
With the two to three year time lag between the preparation
of the discharge maps and the landholder survey it was
expected that the expert maps would slightly under-estimate
saline affected areas. This issue was not expected to be as
Table 1
Comparing landholder perceptions of salinity with expert maps Goulburn
Broken Watershed 1999 ðN ¼ 480Þ; Ovens Watershed 2001 ðN ¼ 568Þ
Topic GBW OW
Number of respondents to question about
salinity
456 550
% who reported no saline affected areas
on property
87% 89%
% who reported a salt problem 13% 11%
% who reported no salinity but expert
maps differed
6% 10%
% who reported a salt problem but
expert maps didn’t show a saline
affected area
51% 61%
% who said no salinity but expert
maps predict a salinity problem in
the future
19% N/A
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407402
Fig. 2. Landholders report no saline affected areas compared with expert maps Goulburn Broken Watershed (data collected in 1999) and Ovens Watershed
(data collected in 2001).
Table 2
Comparing those who reported dryland salinity with those the expert maps suggested were unaware they had saline affected areas Goulburn Broken Watershed
1999 ðN ¼ 480Þ; Ovens Watershed 2001 ðN ¼ 568Þ
Social and farming variables Ovens Watershed Goulburn Broken Watershed
Aware Unaware Siga Aware Unaware Siga
Property size (median) 258 ha 132 ha p , 0:05 390 ha 51 ha p , 0:001
Hours worked on-property (median) No significant difference 45 h 25 h p , 0:05
% Landcare members 75% 51% p , 0:05 No significant difference
Involved in government funded program 57% 26% p , 0:001 No significant difference
a Significant using Kruskal–Wallis Chi-square test.
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 403
important in the GBW where there was the more up-to-date
SKM data layers.
The expert maps correctly predicted areas where salinity
was affecting vegetation for 49 per cent ðN ¼ 61; n ¼ 30Þ
of the GBW and 39 per cent ðN ¼ 62; n ¼ 24Þ of the OW
respondents that reported saline affected areas. This
research suggests that the expert maps had failed to predict
between 50 and 60 per cent of the areas affected by salinity
in the two watersheds.
It is unlikely that landholders would deliberately over-
state the extent of salinity on their property. However, there
is a possibility that some landholders have failed to
distinguish between water logged and saline affected
areas. As Clark (2000) explained, some salt-tolerant species
grow in both saline and non-saline conditions. At the very
least, the finding that the expert maps failed to predict a
large proportion of the saline affected areas identified by
landholders warrants further survey work. The budget and
scope of the two projects reported in this paper did not
permit this work to be undertaken.
Most of the landholder identified saline sites that were
not predicted by the expert maps (GBW, N ¼ 31; OW,
N ¼ 38) are located south east of the Hume Freeway in the
foothills of the Great Dividing Range (GBW, n ¼ 20; OW,
Fig. 3. Landholder reported saline affected areas not predicted by expert maps Goulburn Broken Watershed (data collected in 1999) and Ovens Watershed (data
collected in 2001).
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407404
n ¼ 30) (Figs. 1 and 2). This was a statistically significant
pattern in the OW ðChi-square ¼ 18:635 p , 0:001Þ and a
trend in the GBW ðChi-square ¼ 3:503 p ¼ 0:061Þ: Discus-
sions with our agency partners revealed that salinity
problems emerged earlier on the plains to the north west
of the Hume Freeway and that this is the area where most
resources have been invested in field studies to identify
saline sites.
6.4. Concern about salinity
In the GBW study, respondents expressed low levels of
concern about a range of potential economic, environmental
and social impacts of dryland salinity (using a five point
response option, mean scores for each topic were below 2.6
out of a possible five). For example, only 32 per cent of
respondents said they were ‘alarmed’, ‘very concerned’ or
‘concerned’ about the potential threat posed by rising water
tables on the long-term productive capacity of their property
(Table 3).
In the OW study, respondents were asked to provide an
assessment of the importance of a range of issues, including
dryland salinity. Respondents were asked to indicate the
importance of dryland salinity as a threat to the quality of
river water in their district, the long-term productive
capacity of land in their district and the long-term
productive capacity of their property. Dryland salinity was
not rated highly as an important issue in the OW (Table 3),
with mean scores for the three topics below 2.8 out of a
possible 5. The highest rating salinity statement was ranked
nine out of 16 statements.
It seems that low levels of concern in the GBW and OW
about the impacts of dryland salinity reflect the current
restricted extent of visible dryland salinity (MDBC, 1999).
Most respondents were not experiencing visible salinity
problems and the majority of those that were experiencing
problems, had only small areas where salinity had affected
vegetation. It seems that many respondents believe they can
‘live with salt’.While respondents have very good aware-
ness of current saline affected areas they may not be aware
of the predicted increase in the area affected by dryland
salinity. For example, the most recent assessments predict
that over the next 20 years the area affected by salinity in the
GBW will increase by 160 per cent (MDBC, 1999, p.30).
Unfortunately, there was no way for us to assess whether
individuals who said that they don’t have saline affected
areas can be expected to have a problem in the future. The
MDBC (1999) had predicted the total area of land in GBW
that was likely to be affected by dryland salinity in the future
using bore data that monitors rising water tables. This
approach meant that it was not possible to identify the
specific parts of the landscape, and therefore individual
properties, where salinity was expected to impact in the
future.
For the GBW we were able to assess the extent that
landholders currently without saline affected areas areTab
le3
Conce
rnab
out
the
impac
tof
dry
land
sali
nit
yG
oulb
urn
Bro
ken
Wat
ersh
ed1999ðN
¼4
80Þ;
Oven
sW
ater
shed
2001ðN
¼5
68Þ
Po
ten
tial
imp
acts
of
risi
ng
wat
erta
ble
sn
Goulb
urn
Bro
ken
Wat
ersh
edM
ean
sco
rea
Ala
rmed
(%)
Ver
yco
nce
rned
(%)
Med
ium
con
cern
(%)
Sm
all
con
cern
(%)
No
ta
pro
ble
m(%
)
Th
reat
toth
elo
ng
-ter
mp
rod
uct
ive
capac
ity
of
this
area
.4
44
72
12
12
23
12
.51
Po
llu
tin
gfr
esh
gro
und
wat
erin
this
area
.4
42
10
18
17
19
37
2.4
4
Th
reat
toth
elo
ng
-ter
mv
iabil
ity
of
the
loca
lec
on
om
y.
44
25
19
20
24
32
2.4
1
Con
trib
uti
ng
toth
ed
ecli
ne
of
hab
itat
or
wil
dli
fein
this
area
.4
43
61
51
92
43
62
.32
Det
ract
ing
from
attr
acti
ven
ess
of
area
asa
pla
ceto
live.
443
31
22
12
53
92.1
6
Red
uci
ng
the
val
ue
of
my
pro
per
ty.
44
35
12
16
24
43
2.1
2
Thre
atto
long-t
erm
pro
duct
ive
capac
ity
of
my
pro
per
ty.
442
41
41
42
34
52.0
9
Per
ceiv
edth
reat
of
sali
nit
yn
Oven
sW
ater
shed
Mea
nsc
ore
Ver
yim
po
rtan
t%
Imp
ort
ant%
So
me%
Min
imal
%N
ot
imp
ort
ant%
Thre
atto
long-t
erm
pro
duct
ive
capac
ity
of
land
inth
isdis
tric
t.538
18
33
20
14
15
2.7
5
Th
reat
toth
eq
ual
ity
of
riv
erw
ater
inth
isd
istr
ict.
53
42
53
61
61
21
12
.48
Thre
atto
long-t
erm
pro
duct
ive
capac
ity
of
my
pro
per
ty535
38
33
13
10
62.1
4
aS
core
wh
ere
1¼
no
ta
pro
ble
m/n
ot
imp
ort
ant
thro
ug
hto
5¼
alar
med
/ver
yim
po
rtan
t.
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 405
located in areas that have saline ground water. Assuming
that in every case this ground water would rise to within two
metres of the surface, an additional 76 GBW respondents
would be affected by dryland salinity. Combining this group
with those already affected by salinity (13 per cent) would
mean that 30 per cent of all respondents (137 of 456) would
be affected. Again, most respondents will not be affected by
dryland salinity.
6.5. Adoption of recommended practices
Findings from the two watersheds suggested that
awareness and concern about dryland salinity were linked
to adoption of CRP thought to enhance the management of
dryland salinity.
Using binary logistic regression, OW landholders
who reported saline affected areas were estimated as
being 1.7 times more likely to establish perennial pastures
ðWald ¼ 4:063; p ¼ 0:044; ExpðBÞ ¼ 1:695Þ and 3.3 times
more likely to plant trees ðWald ¼ 20:637; p , 0:001; �
ExpðBÞ ¼ 3:346Þ than those who said they had no saline
affected areas. In the GBW, landholders who reported saline
affected areas were 2.6 times more likely to establish
perennial pastures ðWald ¼ 7:581; p ¼ 0:006; ExpðBÞ ¼
2:595Þ than those who said they had no saline affected areas.
We also explored the extent of differences in adoption of
CRP between those who were aware that they had saline
affected areas and the ‘unaware’ group (expert maps
suggested they were wrong in saying they had no saline
affected areas) identified earlier. Using logistic regression,
OW landholders who reported saline affected areas were
estimated to be 3.4 times more likely to plant trees than
those who were ‘unaware’ they had saline affected areas
ðWald ¼ 8:811; p ¼ 0:003; ExpðBÞ ¼ 3:394Þ: In the GBW,
landholders who reported saline affected areas were
estimated to be 4.1 times more likely to establish perennial
pastures ðWald ¼ 6:669; p ¼ 0:010; ExpðBÞ ¼ 4:132Þ:
In the OW, higher concern about the impacts of dryland
salinity (as measured by a scale comprising the three items in
Table 2) was also linked to significantly higher adoption of
trees planted ðWald ¼ 9:585; p ¼ 0:002; ExpðBÞ ¼ 1:036Þ:
7. Conclusions
This paper presented one of the few examples where
researchers have moved beyond the use of census data when
integrating spatially referenced socio-economic and bio-
physical data to address watershed management issues. In
this case the focus was on exploring landholder awareness
of dryland salinity, the veracity of expert salinity maps, and
the efficacy of government responses to dryland salinity,
including through community education programs. While
the research findings contribute to the wider literature on
farmer knowledge and adoption, the most important
outcome was that the research demonstrated the usefulness
of integrating spatially referenced socio-economic data
collected by surveying landholders.
It had been assumed that landholders were either
unaware of the extent and impact of less obvious forms
of land degradation, such as dryland salinity, or were in
a state of denial. Comparisons of landholder identified
salinity affected areas and those predicted by expert maps
suggested that landholders in the two watersheds in this
study had excellent awareness of the current extent of
salinity on their properties.
A very small proportion of landholders was identified as
being unaware of saline affected areas on their property.
Compared to this unaware group, those who reported saline
affected areas on their property were significantly more
likely to be members of Landcare, be involved in
government programs, operate larger properties and work
longer hours on-property. At the same time, those who
acknowledged they had saline affected areas had adopted
CRP for salinity mitigation at significantly higher levels
than those who were thought to be unaware of salinity
affected areas on their property. Those who reported saline
affected areas also had higher adoption of CRP than all of
the respondents who said they did not have saline affected
areas. These findings suggested that awareness is linked to
adoption and that the substantial investment in community
education in these regions had been successful in raising
salinity awareness and had contributed to the adoption of
CRP.
By contrast, the expert maps (discharge sites and depth to
saline ground water) failed to predict saline affected sites
identified by half the respondent landholders in both studies.
The time lag between the compilation of the expert maps
and the landholder survey explains some of this difference.
Nevertheless, the finding that the expert maps prepared for
the GBW—a watershed where there has been a sustained
attempt to map ground water and discharge sites—under-
stated salinity affected areas by 50 per cent is a cause for
concern. Given the importance of dryland salinity and the
upcoming 1.4 billion dollar investment by Australian
governments under the National Action Plan for Salinity
and Water Quality, it is critical that regional natural
resource management planning bodies (CMC) can accu-
rately map the extent of dryland salinity.
Most survey respondents did not report visible signs of
dryland salinity on their property and our calculations for
the GBW suggested that most of these landholders are
unlikely to experience dryland salinity in the future. Given
these findings, it was not surprising that most respondents
were unconcerned about the impacts of dryland salinity,
appear to believe they can, or must, ‘live with salt’ and are
very reluctant to invest in recommended practices for
salinity amelioration. This information suggests that efforts
to address natural resource management issues should not
rely on appeals to respond to the threat of salinity and must
address the range of values landholders attach to their
properties. If salt originating in upland watersheds like
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407406
the GBW and OW is a critical issue for others, including
governments, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed
through cost-sharing with downstream landholders; sup-
porting landholders to move into profitable emerging
enterprises; and government funding for natural resource
management (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000).
With refinement, the mail survey process produced a
high response rate (67 per cent in the OW) and was able to
gather information at the property scale not available from
other sources, including the national census of households
and farms. By building strong collaborative partnerships
with government agencies and consultants, the researchers
were able to secure access to vital data layers and
successfully overcome issues related to intellectual property
rights and privacy.
Acknowledgements
Project funds and in-kind contributions were made by the
Murray–Darling Basin Commission, the Goulburn Broken
and North East Catchment Management Authorities and the
Department of Natural Resources and Environment
(DNRE). Mark Cotter and Royce Sample were the project
managers for these organisations. Staff from Sinclair Knight
Merz (SKM) provided access to SKM spatial data and
important advice about how to interpret that information.
Michael Lockwood, Marike Van Nouhuys, Megan Graham
and Wayne Robinson from Charles Sturt University made
important contributions to aspects of project development,
data management and analysis and report preparation. Neil
Barr (DNRE) and Mike Read (Read Sturgess and Associ-
ates), who were working on related research projects,
provided valuable assistance. The authors particularly thank
those landholders that contributed to pre-testing of the
survey instrument, completed surveys and were members of
the expert panel that reviewed preliminary research findings
in the GBW.
References
Allan, M., Reynard, K., Williams, S., 1997. Dryland salinity discharge sites
(linear and point), Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
Melbourne, Australia.
ASCC (Australian Soil Conservation Council), 1991. Decade of Landcare
plan, ASCC, Canberra, Australia.
Clark, R.M., 2000. Establishing three discharge monitoring sites in the
North East salinity region, Centre for Land Protection Research,
Monitoring Report No.23, 23. Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Melbourne.
CLPR (Centre for Land Protection Research), 2000. Discharge sites (GIS
map layers), CLPR, Bendigo, Victoria.
Curtis, A., De Lacy, T., 1996. Landcare in Australia: does it make a
difference. Journal of Environmental Management 46, 119–137.
Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., 2000. Landcare and catchment management in
Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society
and Natural Resources 13, 61–73.
Curtis, A., Race, D., 1996. Review of socio-economic factors affecting
regional farm forestry development in Australia, Report to Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation, New South Wales,
The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University.
Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., 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.
Curtis, A., Graham, M., Byron, I., Lockwood, M., McDonald, S., 2002.
Providing the knowledge base to achieve landscape change in the Ovens
catchment, Albury, New South Wales, The Johnstone Centre, Charles
Sturt University.
Dillman, D.A., 1979. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method,
Wiley, New York.
Ewing, S., 2000. The place of Landcare in Catchment Management
Structures. In Proceedings of the International Landcare 2000
Conference: Changing Landscapes–Shaping Futures, 2–5 March
2000. Melbourne, Australia.
GBCLP (Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board), 1996.
Our catchment and community—the next step: Goulburn Broken
Dryland Salinity Management Plan (five-year review 1990–1995 and
future directions), GBCLP, Shepparton, Victoria.
GBCMA (Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board), 1996.
Our Catchment and Community—The next step: Goulburn Broken
Dryland Salinity Management Plan (Five-Year Review 1990–1995 and
Future Direction), GBCMA, Shepparton, Victoria.
Kloppenburg, J., 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of
agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture.
Rural Sociology 56, 519–548.
Millar, J., Curtis, A., 1997. Perennial Grasses: finding the balance.
Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 10 (1), 21–28.
MDBC (Murray–Darling Basin Commission), 1990. Natural Resources
Management Strategy, MDBC, Canberra.
MDBC (Murray-Darling Basin Commission), 1990. The Salinity Audit of
the Murray-Darling Basin, MDBC, Canberra.
OBWQWG (Ovens Basin Water Quality Working Group), 2000. Ovens
Basin Water Quality Strategy: an action plan within the North East
Regional Catchment Strategy, North East Regional Catchment Manage-
ment Authority, Wodonga, Victoria.
Ovens Basin Water Quality Working Group, 2000. Ovens Basin Water
Quality Strategy, An action plan within the North East regional
catchment strategy, North East Catchment Management Authority,
Wangaratta, Victoria.
Radeloff, V.C., Hagen, A.E., Voss, P.R., Field, D.R., Mladenoff, D.J., 2000.
Exploring the spatial relationship between census and land-cover data.
Society and Natural Resources 13, 599–609.
Roling, N., 1988. Extension science: Information systems in agricultural
development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schultz, S., Saenz, F., Hyman, G., 1998. Linking people to watershed
protection planning with a GIS: a case study of a central American
watershed. Society and Natural Resources 11, 663–675.
Sinclair Knight Merz, 2000. Watertable salinity information, and Broken/
Goulburn depth to watertable information (GIS map layers), Sinclair
Knight Merz, Armadale, Melbourne, Victoria.
Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 1994. Challenging the populist perspective: rural
people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice.
Agriculture and Human Values 11 (2/3), 58–76.
Vanclay, F., 1992. The social context of farmers’ adoption of environmen-
tally-sound farming practices. In: Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F., Furze, B.
(Eds.), Agriculture, environment and society, Macmillan, Melbourne.
A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 407