landcare particpation in australia: the volunteer perspective

Sustainable Development
Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)
LANDCARE PARTICIPATION INAUSTRALIA: THE VOLUNTEERPERSPECTIVE

Allan Curtis and Marike Van Nouhuys

Charles Sturt University, Australia

There are over 4000 communityLandcare groups involving over 120 000volunteer members working to achievemore sustainable use of Australia’sfarming lands and to conservebiodiversity. After reviewing theachievements of the community Landcareprogram the authors discuss theirresearch investigating Landcareparticipation in terms of the theory ofvolunteerism. This research indicated thatLandcare participants: were younger,more educated and more involved inother community groups; and weremotivated by task orientation, a desirefor learning and for social interaction.These results are consistent with thetheory of volunteerism. Voluntary groupsare not self-managing or costless. Giventhe resources invested through Landcare,particularly via the $1.25 billion NaturalHeritage Trust (NHT), it is critical thatthese groups are properly managed andadequately resourced. At present there isno systematic approach to themanagement of Landcare groups, and

CCC 0968-0802/99/020098–14 $17.50Copyright ? 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

critical policy and management issuesthreaten to undermine their effectiveness.Copyright ? 1999 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Accepted 2 September 1998

INTRODUCTION

A range of difficult, long-term environ-mental problems besets rural Australia.These include dryland and irrigation sal-

inity, soil erosion, declining water quality, feralpests and exotic weeds, all of which are impactingon agricultural productivity, biodiversity and pub-lic health (ABS, 1996). A variety of instrumentshave been employed to address these problems,including taxation and direct financial incentivesfor conservation works, legislative prohibitionsand investment in new technology. Whilst gov-ernment has put in place a suite of policy options,intervention has typically focussed on promotingvoluntary change and Australia has investedheavily in participatory approaches to rural devel-opment. The National Landcare Program (NLP)and, more recently, the billion dollar NaturalHeritage Trust (NHT), as well as the establish-ment of an institutional framework for regionalcatchment management, have been the mainmechanisms for delivering government support toprivate land managers.

The NLP first emerged as a distinctive entity inthe State of Victoria during 1986. After lobbyingfrom major farmer and conservation groups, theCommonwealth government committed spending

Correspondence to: Dr. Allan Curtis, Senior Lecturer in NaturalResource Management, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789,Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.

LANDCARE PARTICIPATION IN AUSTRALIA

of $360m in the Decade of Landcare programme(Hawke, 1989). Landcare was intended to achievemore sustainable use of Australia’s farming lands(DCE, 1992) and enhance biodiversity (Farley andToyne, 1989). Landcare means different things todifferent people. Most landholders see Landcareas a way of coming together and working withgovernments to solve problems in their local area(Campbell, 1994). From a government perspective(ASCC, 1991), community Landcare was a cata-lytic programme attempting to engage a largeproportion of the rural population and producemore aware, informed, skilled and adaptiveresource managers with a stronger stewardshipethic. It was expected that this process wouldresult in the adoption of more sustainableresource management practices (Curtis and DeLacy, 1996). At this time, Landcare involvedlimited government funding of education anddemonstration activities as opposed to directfunding of large-scale on-ground work.

In the early 1990s Landcare advocates pressedfor an expanded and revised NLP. They con-tended that whilst Landcare had been successful,limited funding of a rural development processwould not make a significant impact at the land-scape scale. These advocates argued for increasedfunding of on-ground work on private propertyusing cost-sharing principles where communityand private benefits from specific works are ident-ified. Prior to the 1995 Federal election, bothmajor political parties committed themseves toincreased funding for Landcare. With proceedsfrom the partial sale of Telstra, the nationalcommunications carrier, the incoming Liberalparty government substantially increased fundingfor Landcare. This included large-scale works onprivate land where there were identifiable conser-vation outcomes, through a five year, $1.25billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT).

In this paper the Landcare experience is exam-ined from a volunteer perspective. The authorsdraw upon findings from a regional survey oflandholders in North East Victoria and a state-wide survey of Landcare groups in Victoria. Thisresearch suggests that the literature on volunteer-ism has much to offer those interested in under-standing Landcare participation and in facilitatingthe work of Landcare groups, including overcom-ing critical group management issues. An earlierperception of Brudney (1990, p xiv) that ‘Most of

Copyright ? 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

the research on volunteers is not concerned withprograms sponsored by government’, may also beredressed through a greater understanding ofvoluntary participation in Landcare.

BACKGROUND

The Community Landcare Program

Most Landcare groups have developed in ruralareas, membership being voluntary and open toany local person. Groups frequently operate atcatchment or subcatchment scales and are encour-aged to view their activities holistically, using asystems approach. Groups have no legislativebacking and are only informally linked to localgovernment and regional planning bodies suchas Catchment Management Committees (CMCs).While the focus of group activity is usually onprivately owned or leased land managed bygroup members, groups also work on roadsides,reserves and other public lands. Groups areinvolved in a variety of rural development activi-ties. Meetings are held to discuss issues, identifypriorities, develop action strategies and debateresource management issues. Field days, farmwalks and demonstration sites are used to ident-ify best management practices. Information isexchanged through educational and promotionalactivities such as tours, conferences, workshops,newsletters and field guides. On-ground workundertaken by groups include tree planting andseed collection, building salinity and erosion con-trol structures, pest plant and animal control anderecting fencing to manage stock access to creeksand protect native vegetation to establish wildlifecorridors and prevent erosion. Group membersalso coordinate activities related to property andcatchment planning, prepare submissions forgovernment funding and liaise with agency staff.

Landcare generally involves a partnershipbetween government and local communities, andboth agency staff and government funding play acritical role in group development and activity(Curtis and De Lacy, 1995; Curtis, 1998). Groupshave also been dependent upon government forstate-wide coordination and communications(Edgar and Patterson, 1992), although groupstructures, processes and priorities are not pre-scribed and are usually determined by members

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

99

A. CURTIS AND M. VAN NOUHUYS

(Edgar and Patterson, 1992). Most groups havenot developed spontaneously and autonomouslyand are therefore not ‘grass-roots’ organizationsin terms of Midgley’s (1986) theory of authenticcommunity participation. For the same reasons,Lockie (1992) argued it was inaccurate to refer tothe ‘Landcare movement’, which implies Landcareis a social movement. Landcare groups are notorgans of the state, nor are they purely socialassociations. They can best be described as localorganizations ‘. . . which act on behalf of and areaccountable to their membership and which areinvolved in development activities’ (Esman andUphoff, 1984, p 18).

Uphoff (1991) referred to the paradox of par-ticipation, where ‘top-down’ efforts were requiredto promote ‘bottom-up’ development. Midgley(1986, p 150) concluded his review of communityparticipation with the assessment that ‘. . . there islittle evidence to show that state support andcommunity initiative have been effectively com-bined to promote authentic participation’. Land-care therefore provides an important internationalexample to explore the potential of state-sponsored community participation in a devel-oped economy. For example, there is evidencethat Landcare and Landcare–CMC links canestablish effective local organizations, avoidco-option by government and overcome otherperceived limitations of participatory processes(Curtis, 1998; Curtis and Lockwood, 1998).

Landcare has delivered on important pro-gramme objectives; it has mobilized a large cross-section of the rural population and participationhas increased awareness of issues, enhanced land-holder skills and knowledge and contributed toincreased adoption of best management practices(Curtis and De Lacy, 1996). There are manyexamples where group activity has accomplishedon-ground work likely to reduce land and waterdegradation at the local or subcatchment scale(Campbell, 1994; Curtis, 1996; Commonwealth ofAustralia, 1997). With effective local and regionalorganizations emerging, there is evidence thatmany of the perceived limitations of public par-ticipation in natural resource management can beovercome. Group processes have enabled partici-pants to discuss conflicting views and developmanagement plans in a reasonable fashion (Curtiset al., 1995). Group activity has enhanced thecapacity of rural communities to pull down


100

resources from the government and enabled themto respond to change (Alexander, 1995). Withstrong agency commitment to participatory pro-cesses, agency staff and Landcare participantshave established robust, productive partnershipsand avoided many of the perils of co-option(Curtis, 1998). Regional CMCs appear to haveprovided the missing institutional mechanismlinking and supporting the activities of localgroups. Landcare participants are represented onregional CMCs and other important fora andare making significant contributions to naturalresource management decision-making (Curtiset al., 1995). It also seems likely that Landcaregroups and the emerging Landcare networks willaddress some of the difficulties of achieving effec-tive stakeholder participation within the adaptiveapproach to resource management (Curtis et al.,1998).

Despite impressive achievements, there havebeen concerns about Landcare programme logicand implementation. Landcare has been criticizedas an exercise in shifting responsibility for actionfrom government to local communities (Martinet al., 1992). It was undoubtedly cheaper to investin Landcare as a process of awareness raising andeducation than in funding large-scale on-groundwork. Efforts to develop a Landcare or steward-ship ethic as a lever to effect behavioural changeappear to have been misguided (Vanclay, 1992;Curtis and De Lacy, 1998). There have also beenconcerns that Landcare and the NHT are a case of‘too little too late’ and would not effect improve-ments at the Landscape scale. There are ongoingconcerns about agencies co-opting Landcare,including concerns arising from agenciesaccessing large portions of Landcare funding(Alexander, 1995), agency staff playing importantroles in the decision making of many groups andgovernment funding priorities shaping groupactivity (Lockie, 1992; Curtis, 1998). Recentnewspaper articles (Lunn, 1998), claiming ‘pork-barrelling’ in the allocation of NHT funds acrossfederal electorates, threaten to undermine thehigh level of public support for Landcare that hasbeen important in mobilizing Landcare participa-tion. Conservationists are alarmed by continuedloss of critical habitats, and Dr. Bob Brown,Tasmanian Greens Party Senator, suggestedLandcare was overly preoccupied with increasingagricultural productivity and had not adequately

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


addressed biodiversity conservation (Grose,1994). A number of authors have highlightedimportant group management issues includinginadequate leadership and management skillstraining; gender stereotyping of leadership pos-itions and limited intergroup communications(Campbell, 1992; Alexander, 1995; Curtis, 1998).

Volunteerism

The use of volunteers in Landcare is typical ofincreased reliance on volunteers in naturalresource management (Cnaan and Amrofell,1994). Much of the literature on volunteers em-phasizes that volunteers work with little interest inobtaining a material gain. For Humble (1982),voluntary action involved unpaid effort to assistothers or the environment, but could still providea benefit to the volunteer or his/her family. Curtisand Noble (1988, p 16) acknowledged that formost volunteers ‘ . . . it is evident that interwovenwith a desire to do something worthwhile is anatural streak of self-interest’. According toBrudney (1990) and Pearce (1993) most authorsaccept that for some volunteers material gain is anelement of motivation. Smith (1981) emphasizedthat the distinctive characteristic of volunteerwork was not the absence of selfishness but theabsence of coercion or direct remuneration. Itappears that an important motivation for manyLandcare members is to access government andgroup resources likely to assist them in increasingproduction and income, or to protect and enhancetheir property values. However, Landcare partici-pation is voluntary, participants are not paid fortheir labour and participants frequently work onpublic land or land owned by others. Landcareactivity also generates considerable communitybenefits. Landcare participation is thereforeanother example of volunteerism.

At different times, Brudney (1990), Isley andNiemi (1981), Pearce (1993) and Smith (1975)have reviewed the large body of literature onvolunteers. Smith (1975) and Pearce (1993) sum-marized the findings of literature at that time asindicating volunteers were most likely to be:middle aged; more highly educated; higherincome earners; property owners; those of higheroccupational status and those who belonged to anumber of other organizations. There appear tobe considerable parallels between volunteer fire


brigades and Landcare groups, in that they bothprovide essential public goods and are a locus forcommunity organization and identity (Thompsonand Bono, 1993). From their study of volunteerfire-fighters in the USA, Thompson and Bono(1993) suggested the opportunity for individualsto make a positive impact on their environment,and the sense of achievement gained from thatwork, was an important motivational factor.Brudney (1990) and Pearce (1993) concluded thatpeople joined voluntary organizations for a com-bination of reasons that fell into three broadcategories: to obtain a material gain; achieve thepersonal social/psychological benefits flowingfrom social interaction and fulfil a desire topromote change in society. Pearce (1993) sug-gested the benefits of social interaction are animportant factor motivating people to volunteerand the most important reason volunteersremained with an organization.

After observing the Downside Landcare groupand interviewing participants, Carr (1993) sum-marized the goals of participants in order ofpriority, as being able to undertake work likely tosolve problems, to learn about land degradationand improved land management, to increaseawareness of issues amongst others and to getpeople involved in Landcare. Campbell (1992)suggested some members also joined Landcareto counter the influence of ‘greenies’ or urbanconservationists.

METHODOLOGY

As Brudney (1990, p 93) explained, ‘At the coreof a successful program must be an appreciationfor citizens’ motivations for volunteering andemployee perspectives on voluntary action’. Inthis paper the authors discuss findings from theirresearch examining Landcare participation interms of the theory of volunteerism. Specificquestions addressed included the following.

• Who joins Landcare and why?• Are those more heavily involved in group

activities different from those who are lessheavily involved?

• What are the important management issuesfacing groups and how might they beaddressed?

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

101


Information presented is principally derivedfrom a 1993 postal survey of all rural landholdersin nine subcatchments of North East Victoria anda 1995 postal survey of Victorian Landcaregroups. Group membership was defined byrespondents considering themselves/others to bea Landcare group member and having participatedin more than one group activity in the previous12 months. For the North East study, only areaswhere Landcare groups had been operating formore than two years were included in the ninesubcatchments surveyed. These nine subcatch-ments had groups operating between six and tenyears. With 352 responses from the 593 landhold-ers in the nine subcatchments, a 59% surveyresponse rate was achieved.

During the latter part of 1995, VictorianLandcare groups were surveyed in collaborationwith the Victorian departments of Conservationand Natural Resources (CNR) and Agriculture,Energy and Minerals (DAEM). This survey pro-cess has been widely accepted (Campbell, 1992;Alexander, 1995) as a cost effective method ofgathering data, which has increased understand-ing of what groups do and how they operate,provided feedback on group needs and increasedunderstanding of key management issues. Agencystaff distributed a survey booklet to approxi-mately 400 of the 700 Victorian Landcare groupsoperating in 1995. Landcare group committeeswere asked to complete surveys and return themto the departmental head office. With 180 com-pleted surveys returned, a survey response rate ofapproximately 45% was achieved.

FINDINGS FROM THE NORTH EASTSURVEY

Characteristics of Landcare participants andnon participants

Analysis of North East survey data establishedthat Landcare participants were significantlyyounger (or not as old) and better educated thannon-Landcare respondents. Landcare participantswere more likely to be in the 40 to 60 years agegroup (53% compared with 41% for non-Landcarerespondents, Mann–Whitney Wilcoxon Z="1.9009, one tailed P=0.0287). Landcare partici-pants were more highly educated in that they


102

were significantly more likely to report complet-ing secondary schooling (56% compared with40% for non-Landcare respondents, chi-square,6.051 02; df, 2; P=0.0485). This relationshipwould appear to be affected by age in thatLandcare participants were younger and youngerpeople have had greater opportunity to completesecondary schooling. Multivariate analyses wereconducted using either linear or logistic regres-sion with Landcare membership as the responsevariable. These analyses confirmed that Landcarerespondents were significantly younger and bettereducated (refer to Figure 1).

An attitudinal scale measuring respondents’view of the importance of communityco-operation to successful management of landdegradation was developed using a series ofstatements with five point Likert-type responsecategories. After appropriate statistical tests forscale reliability and validity, respondents’ scoresfor each scale item were computed to provide anindex score for each respondent. Using statisticalprocedures for constructing attitudinal scalesoutlined by De Vaus (1991), two items wereeliminated to arrive at a scale of five itemswith item-to-item Spearman rank correlationco-efficients (P>0.3) and a standardized item alphausing SPSS of 0.6524 (slightly below the accepted0.70 standard). Bivariate analysis of index scoresshowed Landcare respondents had a significantlystronger attitude towards the importance of com-munity co-operation in achieving successful man-agement of land degradation (Mann–WhitneyWilcoxon Z="2.7708, one tailed P=0.0031).However, this difference did not remain signifi-cant under multivariate analysis (refer to Figure 1).

A measure of participation in other communitygroups was also calculated for each respondent.Again, an index score was calculated, this time bycombining the number of other groups they weremembers of and the number of groups in whichthey held an executive position. Landcare partici-pants were significantly more involved asmembers of other voluntary community groups(Mann–Whitney Wilcoxon Z="3.9502, onetailed P=0.0000). Almost all Landcare respond-ents (98%) were members of at least one othervoluntary community group. By comparison, justover half (52%) of non-Landcare respondentswere members of at least one other voluntary

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


community group (chi-square P=0.0000). Multi-variate analysis (refer to Figure 1) confirmed thisas a significant difference between Landcare andnon-Landcare respondents. Concern about caus-ality can largely be allayed by the fact thatmembership of most other community groupspredates Landcare membership.

Data analysis suggested the relative impor-tance of farming in the economic and social life ofrespondents was an important difference betweenLandcare and non-Landcare respondents and thiswas more important in explaining Landcare par-ticipation than respondent’s environmental con-cerns. For Vanclay (1992, p 97) ‘Stewardshiprefers to the notion that farmers are stewards ofthe land and . . . may have to make uneconomicaldecisions in order to protect the land.’ Using anadaptation of Vanclay’s (1986)1 stewardship scaleand statistical procedures outlined earlier, theauthors developed a scale of six items with itemto item Spearman rank correlation co-efficients(P>0.03) and a standardized item alpha of 0.6479(slightly below the accepted 0.70 standard). Con-trary to expectation, survey analysis revealedno significant difference in the strength ofa stewardship/land ethic for Landcare and non-Landcare respondents (refer to Figure 1). On theother hand, multivariate analysis using a logisticregression (refer to Figure 1) revealed Landcareparticipants had significantly greater length ofexperience as farmers. Bivariate analysis alsorevealed Landcare respondents had significantlylarger properties, with a mean property size forLandcare respondents of 193 hectares and fornon-Landcare respondents of 146 hectares(Mann–Whitney Wilcoxon Z="2.6919, onetailed P=0.0036). Landcare respondents alsoworked significantly fewer hours off-farm, with58% of Landcare respondents working more than30 hours off-farm compared to 79% of non-Landcare respondents (chi-square, 5.08473; df, 1;P=0.0241). These differences in property size andthe amount of off-farm work did not remainsignificant under multivariate analysis (refer toFigure 1). However, multivariate analysis didestablish that Landcare respondents were sig-nificantly more concerned than non-Landcare


respondents about the economic impacts of landdegradation issues (P=0.0057). This differencebetween the two sets of respondents was not aspronounced for concern about the environmentalimpacts of land degradation (P=0.0546).

Reasons for participation in Landcare

The North East survey asked respondents torank the importance of ten suggested reasonsexplaining their participation in Landcare (referto Table 1). Analysis confirmed the importanceof task orientation, desire for learning and forsocial interaction as powerful forces motivatingLandcare participation (refer to Table 1). It is alsoimportant to note that majorities of respondentsindicated that ‘Strong community support forLandcare’ and ‘Government financial support forLandcare’ (55% and 52% respectively) wereimportant/very important reasons for joining. Tosome extent ‘success breeds success’ and 45%reported ‘Landcare successful elsewhere’ as animportant/very important reason for joining. Theprevailing high level of community acceptance ofLandcare and government support appeared to beimportant factors mobilizing participation.

Reasons for non participation in Landcareareas

Non-Landcare respondents were asked to respondto a series of questions seeking information aboutwhy they had not joined Landcare (refer toTable 2). The overwhelming response was thatthey were ‘Too busy with other commitments’.Survey data did show that non-Landcare respond-ents had heavy commitments to off-farm workand had considerable community responsibilitiesthrough their membership of voluntary groups.With 81% of non-Landcare participants rating‘Too busy with other commitments’ as animportant/very important reason for not joiningLandcare, and no other listed reason above 50%, itwould appear that this was an important barrier toincreased participation.

The perception that ‘Land degradation was notan issue’ on a respondent’s property was thesecond most important reason for not joining(refer to Table 2). If many landholders are notaware of the real extent of land degradation, and

1Vanclay, F. (1986) Socio-Economic Correlates of Adoption of SoilConservation Technology, unpublished master’s thesis, University ofQueensland, St. Lucia.

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

103


research suggests this is the case (Vanclay, 1992;Wilkinson and Cary, 1992), Landcare groups andextension staff find themselves in a ‘catch 22’situation. Awareness raising is a slow process ifthose unaware of problems do not join groups.Survey information suggested large majorities ofrespondents were aware of Landcare, and that ithad strong government support (13% and 17% ofrespondents indicating ‘Uncertainty of whatLandcare is about’ and ‘Lack of confidence inLandcare groups getting government support’were important/very important reasons for notjoining). Information that 16% of respondentsindicated ‘No personal invitation’ was animportant/very important reason for not joining


104

highlighted the importance of personal contacts inthe recruitment of volunteers (Pearce, 1993).

The intensity of Landcare participation

To obtain a measure of the intensity of Landcareparticipation, respondents were asked to indicatehow often they attended activities held by theirgroup. For the 270 respondents, 5% attended allactivities, 35% most, 19% more than half, 11%fewer than half and 30% attended few activities.Overall, 59% of respondents reported attendingmore than half of all group activities.

Age and education were not significantlyrelated to intensity of participation (refer to Table

Figure 1. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting Landcare membership: North East Victoria.

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


3). Those from larger properties, those who hadless off-farm work and those who had higherlevels of knowledge of resource management andgreater awareness of land degradation were sig-nificantly more likely to report participating inhalf or more of group activities (refer to Table 3).This information confirmed that the relativeimportance of farming in the economic and sociallife of respondents was an important element ofLandcare participation. Those who participatedmost frequently in group activities were signifi-cantly more highly motivated by their: concernabout the severity of land degradation; commit-ment to work locally on national issues; interest inlearning about land management; desire to meetand discuss local issues with others and willing-ness to access the financial support for Landcareprovided by government (refer to Table 4). Dataanalysis also confirmed that the early joiners


attended group activities more often (Kruskal–Wallis H chi-square, 24.009; df, 2; P = 0.0000).

DISCUSSION: MANAGING LANDCAREVOLUNTEERS

This section combines information from theNorth East survey and the 1995 survey ofVictorian Landcare groups to explore importantLandcare group management issues. As Brudney(1990, p 97) emphasized, ‘Management of avolunteer program constitutes a legitimate job initself, which requires a significant investment oftime and can benefit from specialised educationand/or training’. The reality in Australia is thatcommunity Landcare: has been ‘run on a shoestring’ with small budgets and limited numbers ofpersonnel; has very few senior staff directly

Table 1. Reasons for joining Landcare: North East Victoria (N=270).

Reasons for joining Landcare n

Importance in joining Landcare

V. import./important

Someimportance

Minimal/no importance

Felt Landcare likely to assist managment of land degradation 256 82% 13% 5%Opportunity to learn more about land management 257 81% 14% 5%Opportunity to meet and discuss issues with others 252 75% 18% 7%Land degradation severe in our area 260 58% 24% 18%Widespread community support for Landcare 255 55% 26% 19%Government financial support for Landcare 254 52% 22% 26%Landcare successful elsewhere 248 45% 28% 27%Opportunity to work locally on national issue 258 44% 23% 33%People respected involved in Landcare 251 40% 28% 32%Spouse a member or encouraged membership in Landcare group 238 20% 11% 69%

Table 2. Reasons for not joining Landcare: North East Victoria (N=77).

Reasons for not joining Landcare n

Importance in not joining Landcare

V. import./important

Someimportance

Minimal/Noimportance

Busy, other commitments 57 81% 4% 15%Land degradation not important for me 48 40% 23% 37%Not confident in those leading group 49 33% 14% 53%Not confident Landcare can manage land degradation in area 48 29% 17% 54%Not confident in group getting government support 46 17% 9% 74%No personal invitation 49 16% 10% 74%Unsure of what Landcare about 46 13% 20% 67%

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

105


involved in programme management and has alimited number of managers with specific knowl-edge of volunteer management. These deficienciesare being exacerbated by: the dismantling of state


106

agency extension services; attempts to use Land-care as a vehicle for delivering a substantial partof NHT and the failure to develop transparentcost-sharing arrangements for allocating public

Table 3. Intensity of Landcare participation and other social and farming variables: North East Victoria (N = 270).

Variable

Activities attendedMann–Whitney UWilcoxon>half <half

Mean rank on variable Z value P

Age (n=256) 122 138 "1.7024 0.08882 tailed

Education (n=253) 127 127 "0.0099 0.99222 tailed

Property size (n=254) 145 102 "4.5393 9.00002 tailed

Level of knowledge—indexa (n=253) 108 155 "4.9210 0.00001 tailed

Aware land degradation issuesa (n=260) 121 143 "2.3971 0.00831 tailed

Extent of farm work (n=136) 63 74 "1.6121 0.05351 tailed

Stewardship ethic attitudinal scale (n=258) 130 128 "0.2155 0.42471 tailed

Concern impact of issues—economica (n=260) 126 136 "1.0564 0.14541 tailed

Concern impact of issues—env.a (n=60) 131 127 "0.1175 0.45321 tailed

aFor Likert-type response categories, (1) more important rating than (5), hence lower score on mean ranking indicates a higherranking for that variable. For all other variables, higher scores on mean ranking indicates a higher ranking.

Table 4. Intensity of participation and reasons for joining Landcare: North East Victoria (N = 270).

Variable

Activities attendedMann–Whitney UWilcoxon>half <half

Mean rank on variable Z value 1 tailed P

Land degradation severe in our areaa (n=255) 118 143 "2.7079 0.0034Opportunity to work locally on national issuea (n=253) 118 141 "2.5446 0.0055Landcare widespread community supporta (n=249) 118 135 "1.8226 0.0342Opportunity to learn more about land managementa (n=252) 112 148 "4.1416 0.0000People respected involved in Landcarea (n=247) 119 131 "1.3310 0.0916Government financial support for Landcarea (n=249) 118 136 "1.9470 0.0258Landcare successful elsewherea (n=243) 122 121 "0.1141 0.4546Opportunity to meet and discuss issuesa (n = 247) 114 140 "2.9275 0.0017Landcare likely to assist management land degradationa (n=251) 119 136 "1.9415 0.0261Spouse a member or encouraged you to joina (n=233) 112 124 "1.4865 0.0686

aFor Likert-type response categories, (1) more important rating than (5), hence lower score on mean ranking indicates a higherranking for that variable.

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


funds for work on private property. Unless theseissues are addressed, it seems unlikely that theemerging regional CMC structures will be able toprovide the expertise and coordination needed toovercome critical Landcare group managementissues, for example inadequate group leadershipand management skills training; low turnover andgender stereotyping of leadership positions ingroups; ‘burnout’ amongst key personnel affectinggroup performance and inequity in funding allo-cation between groups. The potential of theseproblems to reduce Landcare group effectivenesswas highlighted by the finding that about one-quarter of groups in the 1995 Victorian surveywere operating at very low levels of activity(Curtis, 1996).

There has been considerable evidence of frus-tration amongst Landcare group leaders and somereports of ‘burnout’ affecting groups (Campbell,1992; Alexander, 1995). Burnout can be defined asoccurring when the intensity of involvement orthe magnitude of the task overwhelms partici-pants to the extent they become less effective ordrop out. Statistical analyses of 1995 survey datafailed to establish evidence of burnout affectingthe level of activity for a substantial number ofVictorian groups.

• Groups operating longer were more active thanmore recently established groups (Spearman’s rvalues, "0.2778; two tailed P = 0.0000).

• Group activity for both on-ground work andcommunity education was at similar levels toprevious years (eg: mean of 7198 trees/shrubsestablished per group in 1995 compared to7443 in 1993; mean of 5.5 kilometres of fencingerected per group in 1995 compared to 6.14kilometres in 1993; mean number of meetingsper group of 4.7 in 1995 and 4.9 in 1993;61% of groups published a newsletter in 1995compared to 54% in 1993).

• Member participation levels remained high(50% of members attended each groupactivity in 1995 compared to 53% in 1993, and79% of groups in 1995 reported participationthe same as/a little higher than the previousyear).

• Turnover of members in groups was relativelylow (mean membership of 23 per groupin 1995, with new members 14% of meanmembership in both 1995 and 1993).


• There was a reasonable level of change ingroup leaders (in 1995, mean length of officefor Chairperson of 2.3 years and Secretary 2.6years) (Curtis, 1995, 1996).

Notwithstanding this information, a majority(59%) of respondents reported inadequate gov-ernment assistance with leadership and manage-ment training and one-third (38%) reportedassistance with group administration was inad-equate. Written comments by respondentsprovided strong qualitative evidence of burnoutaffecting key Landcare personnel.

• Some original members have hit a ‘plateau’ buthopeful some new blood and co-ordinator positionwill fire the group up again.

• I feel I’m wasting my time, as people talk big but doprecious little.

• I do not believe our group will last much longer.• Too much left to office bearers who already have

other commitments.

One response to concerns about the need forleadership and management skills developmenthas been to implement pilot projects facilitatingdevelopment of these skills. The real solution mayrequire another policy change. Some groups havemembers with the skills, commitment and time toundertake group administration, but many groupswant ongoing funding of a coordinator (usuallypart-time and often in partnership with othergroups). The assumption within the NLP was thatgroups could be ‘kick-started’ by governmentfunding of a coordinator, but over time theywould become largely independent of fundedcoordination. As indicated by the 1995 survey,most groups (71%) do not have a funded coordi-nator. This approach fails to acknowledge thegrowing weight of Australian (Campbell, 1992;Rush, 1992) and overseas (Brudney, 1990; Pearce,1993; Cnaan and Amrofell, 1994) evidence high-lighting the critical role of group coordination involunteer programmes. Indeed, analysis of 1995survey data showed a significant positive relation-ship between groups having a coordinator andthe level of group activity (Mann–WhitneyWilcoxon Z = "5.1119, two tailed P = 0.0000).

Most rural people have considerable work andcommunity commitments. Insufficient time wasthe most frequently listed reason for non-participation in Landcare by North East survey

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

107


respondents. The net effect of severe cuts in stateagency extension staff and a rapid increase inLandcare groups (in Victoria, from 100 in 1990 to890 in 1999) has been a dramatic decline in thecapacity of agency staff to service groups. Thesubstantial increase in funding for on-groundworks under NHT, much of which Landcaregroups are expected to undertake, has not beenmatched by the commitment of additionalresources to support the coordination of groupactivities. At the very least, there should be anallocation in every project budget for projectmanagement: perhaps 10% of total funds.Respondents’ comments listed below were typicalof those provided in the 1995 Victorian surveys.

• Landcare is a great concept with so much potentialbut . . . To continue on, groups need a co-ordinator orgood support from gov’t. It is difficult for members(who mostly already work full-time) to put in a lot oftime to plan, secure resources and then carry outactivities which are of no direct benefit to themselves.

• With the loss of our regional CNR Landcare coordi-nator the group has disintegrated.

• The Natte Yallock Group strongly believes that thecontinued growth and momentum of the group isinextricably linked to the group having the services ofa dynamic part-time coordinator.

An important trend that may overcome some ofthe problems of poor intergroup communicationsis for Landcare groups to be linked through socalled networks (DLWC, 1997; Youl, 1996). Forexample, the Ovens Network in North EastVictoria has improved communications by hold-ing quarterly public meetings where participantsdiscuss important issues, distributing a newsletter,disseminating minutes of meetings, organizing aforum for regional Landcare groups and generat-ing considerable media coverage on a range oftopics (Curtis et al., 1999). Linking together in anetwork appeals as a way of increasing thecapacity of groups to compete for resources andincreasing their influence. It is also possible thatthe effort required to establish and run a networkmay divert the energy of key Landcare members.Without adequate resourcing and appropriatetraining, it is likely that networks will be weigheddown by poor management and substantiallyincrease Landcare member frustration and burn-out. The trend towards networks is also driven by


108

government and agency demands for efficiency,accountability and effective regional planning. InVictoria, there has been little thought given to thepotential impact of networks and how theyshould be supported.

Equitable distribution of resources is one of thegoals of ecologically sustainable development(ESD) and was enshrined as part of the NLP(ASCC, 1991). Perceptions that Landcare fundswere allocated through a fair process with equi-table outcomes would seem to be an importantfactor explaining the generally high public regardfor Landcare and the capacity of Landcare toattract bipartisan support and to mobilize a largecross-section of the rural community. The avail-able evidence suggests this was never the case.Landholders who run large and/or profitableenterprises are more likely to be involved withLandcare (Black and Reeve, 1993) and a smallnumber of groups have accessed a disproportion-ate amount of Landcare funding. For example, inVictoria in 1995, the mean value of governmentassistance per group was $8232. One-third ofgroups received less than $2000. Only 6% ofgroups received support in excess of $25 000;however, this set of groups represented 37%of the value of support received by all groups.The NHT is unashamedly outcome focused anddifferent groups and regional communities can beexpected to access vastly different proportions ofNHT resources. For example, in Victoria in 1997–98, the Goulburn/Broken region received 34.5%of the total NHT funds allocated to the nine CMCregions (DNRE, 1997).

A fundamental concern with NHT is theabsence of a scientific method supporting theallocation of resources to regions and projects.Recent newspaper articles suggesting ‘pork-barrelling’ in the allocation of NHT funds aretypical of the problems of perception that arisewhen transparent cost-sharing arrangements havenot been established. As Campbell (1997, p 144),Assistant Secretary in Environment Australia,highlighted, ‘we need better ways of identifyingand evaluating the public good to justify invest-ment of public funds on individual properties, andto work out equitable cost-sharing arrangements’.Government has invested increased sums of pub-lic money through NHT on the basis that regionalcatchment plans are of sufficient quality to ensureinvestment returns, which would satisfy the

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


Department of Treasury. This is a very riskystrategy. Although there are numerous plans,there are few that are based on formal assessmentof how limited resources should be allocatedacross issues and between regions. Decision sup-port tools are being developed to address thisproblem, but massive investment in large-scaleon-ground works has already been made. Therehas been little formal assessment of the benefitsassociated with this investment.

CONCLUSION

Multivariate analysis of North East survey datarevealed that Landcare respondents were morelikely to be younger (middle aged) and bettereducated, members of greater numbers of volun-tary community groups and more concernedabout the economic impacts than the environ-mental impacts of land degradation. Survey analy-sis also suggested Landcare participants were lesslikely to work as much off-farm and had astronger attitude towards the importance of com-munity cooperation to manage land degradation.Those who participated more frequently in groupactivities were from larger properties, worked lessoff-farm and were more aware of land degradationissues and more knowledgeable of land manage-ment. Analysis of survey responses also high-lighted the importance of task orientation, interestin learnings and the desire for social interaction aspowerful forces motivating Landcare partici-pation. These findings were consistent with muchof the literature on volunteerism, suggesting thatresearchers and programme managers wouldprofit from examination of that literature. Forexample, the most successful volunteer organiza-tions are those with strong induction programmesand management styles that reinforce the worthof volunteer contributions (Pearce, 1993): anapproach not adopted by most Landcare groups.

As with most volunteer organizations, Land-care participants joined for a variety of reasons.Programme managers and group officials need tobe aware of this, and of the importance ofproviding opportunities for personal developmentand social interaction, as much as ‘getting the jobdone’. Pearce (1993, p 78) emphasized that ‘Thissocial contact can take many forms: enjoymentof co-workers’ company, conviviality, the sharing


of common experiences, or social contacts toadvance one’s business or social prestige.’ Groupsmay need to change their organizational struc-tures to accommodate the needs of differentmembers. Concerns about the economic impactsof land degradation appeared more importantthan environmental concerns in explaining Land-care participation. This finding highlights theimportance of explaining linkages between bio-diversity conservation and agriculture. There isan increasing proportion of part-time farmers insouth eastern Australia and it is important thatLandcare engages the non-farming majority inrural and urban centres. These groups are lesslikely to be interested in activities with an agri-cultural production focus and more interested inactivities related to environmental improvement.

Landcare has been ‘run on a shoe string’ withsmall budgets and limited numbers of personneland has very few senior staff directly involved inprogramme management and a limited number ofmanagers with specific knowledge of volunteermanagement. These deficiencies are being exacer-bated by the dismantling of state agency exten-sion services, by attempts to use Landcare as avehicle for delivering a substantial part of NHTand by the failure to develop transparent cost-sharing arrangements for allocating public fundsfor work on private property. Unless these issuesare addressed it is unlikely that the emergingregional CMC structures will be able to providethe resources, expertise and coordination neededto overcome the critical group management prob-lems highlighted earlier. Public support for Land-care and the capacity of Landcare to attractvolunteers and deliver important NHT outcomesis at risk. The literature on volunteerism providesa useful resource for those attempting to developpolicy and management strategies to addressthese issues. For example, volunteerism offersuseful guidance about how to attract, retain andcoordinate the efforts of Landcare members,secure the support of other community groups,structure agencies to support Landcare, managethe inevitable conflicts between Landcare mem-bers and agency staff and undertake evaluation ofLandcare. Dependent on the extent to whichthese issues are addressed, Australians will bemaking an important contribution to the develop-ment of a practical model of state-sponsoredcitizen participation in resource management.

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

109


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research reported in this paper was supported byfunding from the federal Department of PrimaryIndustries and Energy and the Victorian Depart-ment of Natural Resources and Environment.

REFERENCES

Alexander, H. (1995) A framework for change: the state ofthe community Landcare movement in Australia, TheNational Landcare Facilitator Project Annual Report, NationalLandcare Program, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (1996) Australiansand the environment, Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra.

Australian Soil Conservation Council (ASCC). (1991) Decadeof Landcare plan, ASCC, Canberra.

Black, A.W. and Reeve, I. (1993) Participation in Landcaregroups: the relative importance of attitudinal and situ-ational factors, Journal of Environmental Management, 39,51–57.

Brudney, J.L. (1990) Fostering Volunteer Programs in thePublic Sector: Planning, Initiating and Managing VoluntaryActivities, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Campbell, A. (1992) Taking the long view in tough times,National Landcare Facilitator, 3rd Annual Report, Depart-ment of Primary Industries and Energy, National SoilConservation Program, Canberra.

Campbell, A. (1994) Landcare: Communities Shaping the Landand the Future, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Campbell, A. (1997) Facilitating Landcare: conceptual andpractical dilemmas, in: Lockie, S. and Vanclay, F. (eds),Critical Landcare (Key Papers Series 5), Centre for RuralSocial Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga.

Carr, A. (1993) Community Involvement in Landcare: the Caseof Downside, Technical Report 93/2, Australian NationalUniversity, Centre for Resource and EnvironmentalStudies, Canberra.

Cnaan, R.A. and Amrofell, L. (1994) Mapping volunteeractivity, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 4.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1997) Evaluation Report on theDecade of Landcare Plan – National Overview, AustralianGovernment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Curtis, A. (1995) Landcare in Victoria: the State of Play, Report24, Johnstone Centre, CSU, Albury.

Curtis, A. (1996) Landcare in Victoria: a Decade of Partnerships,Report 50, Johnstone Centre, CSU, Albury.

Curtis, A. (1998) The agency/community partnership inLandcare: lessons for state-sponsored citizen resourcemanagement, Environmental Management, 22, (4), 563–574.

Curtis, A., Birckhead, J. and De Lacy, T. (1995) Communityparticipation in landcare policy in Australia: the Victorianexperience with regional landcare plans, Society andNatural Resources, 8, 415–430.

Curtis, A., Britton, A. and Sobels, J. (1999) Landcarenetworks in Australia: state-sponsored participation


110

through local organisations, Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management, 42, (1), 5–21.

Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1995) Landcare evaluationin Australia: towards an effective partnership betweenagencies, community groups and researchers, Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation, 50, (1), 15–20.

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

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

Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. (1998) Natural resource policyfor rural Australia, in: Pratley, J.E. and Robertson, A.I.(eds), Agriculture and the Environmental Imperative, CSIRO,Melbourne.

Curtis, M. and Noble, J. (1988) Volunteer Management: aResource Manual, The Volunteer Centre of SouthAustralia, Adelaide.

Department of Conservation and Environment (DCE).(1992) Victoria’s Decade of Landcare Plan, DCE, Melbourne.

Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC).(1997) New South Wales Landcare Facilitators Project –Progress Report, DLWC, Sydney.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment(DNRE). (1997) Notes to the North East Victorian NationalHeritage Trust Regional Assessment Panel, NHT 1997/98Approved Funding, DNRE, Melbourne.

De Vaus, D.A. (1991) Surveys in Social Research, Allen andUnwin, Sydney.

Edgar, R.V. and Patterson, D. (1992) The evolutioncontinues – Victorian Landcare groups, in: Charman P.(ed.), Proceedings Volume 1 of the 7th International SoilConservation Organisation Conference – People Protectingtheir Land, Sydney.

Esman, M.J. and Uphoff, N.T. (1984) Local Organisations:Intermediaries in Rural Development, Cornell UniversityPress, New York.

Farley, R. and Toyne, P. (1989) A national land managementprogramme, Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conser-vation, 11, (2), 6–9.

Grose, S. (1994) Calling to rid farming from arid regions,The Canberra Times, 8 September, 2.

Hawke, R.J.L. (1989) Our Country: Our Future, statement onthe environment by the Prime Minister of Australia,Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Humble, S. (1982) Voluntary Action in the 1980’s: a Summaryof the Findings of a National Survey, The Volunteer Centre,England.

Isley, P.J. and Niemi, J.A. (1981) Recruiting and TrainingVolunteers, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lockie, S. (1992) Landcare – before the flood, Rural Society,2, (2), 7–9.

Lunn, S. (1998) $1.25bn environment fund: coalitionrolls out the green barrel, The Australian, 16 February,1, 4, 8.

Martin, P., Tarr, S. and Lockie, S. (1992) Participatoryenvironmental management in New South Wales: policyand practice, in: Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F. and Furze, B.(eds.), Agriculture, Environment and Society, Macmillan,Melbourne.

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)


Midgley, J. (1986) Community participation, the State andsocial policy, in: Midgley, J. (ed.), Community Participation,Social Development and the State, Methuen, London,pp 145–160.

Pearce, J.L. (1993) Volunteers: the Organizational Behavior ofUnpaid Workers, Routledge, New York.

Rush, J. and Associates. (1992) A Review of the Efficiencyof Landcare Facilitator Projects, report prepared for theLand and Resources Division, Department of PrimaryIndustries and Energy, Canberra.

Smith, D.H. (1975) Voluntary action and voluntary groups,Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 247–270.

Smith, D.H. (1981) Altruism, volunteers and volunteerism,Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 10, 21–36.

Thompson, A.M. and Bono, B.A. (1993) Work withoutwages: the motivation for volunteer firefighters, AmericanJournal of Economics and Sociology, 52, 3.

Uphoff, N. (1991) Fitting projects to people, in: Cernea, M.(ed.), Putting People First, 2nd edn, Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Vanclay, F. (1992) The social context of farmers’ adoptionof environmentally-sound farming practices, in:Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F. and Furze, B. (eds.), Agriculture,Environment and Society, Macmillan, Melbourne, pp94–121.

Wilkinson, R.L. and Cary, J.W. (1992) Monitoring Landcarein Central Victoria, Technical Report, University of


Melbourne, School of Agriculture and Forestry,Melbourne.

Youl, R. (1996) Case study – Landcare in the states –Victoria, in: Blackadder, J. (ed.), Landcare in AustraliaYearbook 1996–97, Executive Media, Melbourne.

BIOGRAPHYDr. Allan Curtis, B.A. (Melb) Dip. Ed. (Melb)Ph.D. (CSU)Senior Lecturer in Natural Resource ManagementCharles Sturt UniversityPO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.Phone: 02. 60519945. Fax: 02. 60519897 (inter-national +61 2 6051 9897).Email address: [email protected] Van Nouhuys, B.Sc. (La Trobe)Social ResearcherCharles Sturt UniversityPO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.Phone: 02. 60519920. Fax: 02. 60519897 (inter-national +61 2 60519897).Email address: [email protected]

Sust. Dev. 7, 98–111 (1999)

111

landcare particpation in australia: the volunteer perspective

Documents