understanding landholder management of river frontages: the goulburn broken

Introduction

Riparian areas perform important eco-logical functions (Naiman & Decamps

1997). At the same time, riverine areashave been the focus of human settlementand agriculture, which are powerful forcescontributing to environmental degradationin Australia (ABS 1996). A large portion ofriparian land is owned or managed byprivate landholders. While some factorscontrolling riparian condition operate atspatial and temporal scales beyond theinfluence of these land managers, there isevidence that private landholders havehad a major influence on the degradationof riparian habitats (Jansen & Robertson2001).

In this paper we discuss the findings ofa study undertaken in 2001 that exploredlandholder adoption of current recom-

mended practices (CRP) expected toimprove the condition of river frontages,including watering stock off-stream,fencing to manage stock access to riverfrontages, and revegetation of frontages.This research involved a case study in theGoulburn Broken Catchment (GBC) ofnorth-east Victoria (Fig. 1). The primarydata collection instrument was a postalsurvey to a random sample of all riverfrontage owners across the GBC. Thepostal survey was part of a larger Land &Water Australia project managed by theGoulburn Broken Catchment ManagementAuthority (GBCMA). The research objec-tives relevant to this paper are listedbelow. However, the focus of the paper ison discussion of findings related to objec-tive two: exploring landholder adoption ofrecommended practices. Readers inter-ested in accessing information about other

aspects of the postal survey are referred tothe detailed research report (Curtis et al.2001a).

Key research objectives were to: (i)identify the level of adoption of selectedCRP for improving the management ofriver frontages; (ii) investigate the relativeimportance of factors expected to explaindifferences in the adoption of CRP,and (iii)explore the potential impact on adoptionof cost-sharing arrangements that providepayments to landholders for rehabilitationwork and the active management of riverfrontages.

Background

In this section we provide a summary ofrecent Australian research examining theadoption of CRP, including practices notassessed in our survey of river frontage

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 4 NO 1 APRIL 2003 45

Understanding landholder management of riverfrontages:The Goulburn BrokenBy Allan Curtis and Alistar Robertson

R E S E A R C HR E P O R T

This paper is based on research carried out by

Allan Curtis, Program Leader, Social Sciences,

Bureau of Rural Sciences (PO Box 858, Canberra,

ACT 2601, Australia.Tel: +61-2 6272 3382. Email:

[email protected]) and Alistar Robertson,

previously Director, Johnstone Centre for

Research in Natural Resources and Society,

Charles Sturt University Albury. (Current address:

Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Uni-

versity of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009,

Australia.) The research discussed in the paper

was part of a larger project undertaken by the

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management

Authority (GBCMA) and funded by Land & Water

Australia to assess the impacts of grazing on the

condition of riparian zones in the GBCMA

region.

Summary In this paper we discuss the findings of research exploring landholder adop-tion of practices expected to improve the management of river frontages. This research waspart of a larger project undertaken by the Goulburn Broken Catchment ManagementAuthority (GBCMA) to assess the impacts of grazing on the condition of riparian zones inthe GBCMA region. Our research employed a postal survey to a random selection of allriver frontage owners in the GBCMA. Research findings highlighted the limited adoption ofmost current recommended practices (CRP) such as watering stock off-stream and fencingto manage stock access to river frontages. Higher adoption of CRP (in particular fencing)was correlated with greater knowledge of river frontage function and factors affecting riverfrontage condition; higher importance attached to the environmental, social and economicvalues of frontages; non-farming occupations; and higher confidence in the efficacy of CRP.These findings have important implications for managers and scientists. There has been alarge investment in community education in the GBCMA and survey findings suggest thishas been an effective strategy. At the same time, there should be changes in the approachto community education. It seems there is much to be done to improve the acceptability offencing frontages along large rivers. Appeals to adopt CRP also need to move beyond anarrow focus on farmers and the benefits of increased agricultural production and embracethe range of landholders and the different values they attach to their frontages. Mostrespondents had no on-property profit and survey data indicated that financial constraintswere an important factor limiting the adoption of CRP, particularly among farmers. Therewas considerable interest in taking up a grant scheme that would provide a higher level ofsupport than is usually offered by government. These findings highlight the important roleof economic incentives in assisting private landholders undertake conservation work alongriver frontages.

Key words catchment management, Goulburn Broken, riparian, river frontage.

owners in the GBC.This review allowed usto identify the independent variables likelyto affect the adoption of CRP for improvedmanagement of river frontages in the GBC.

In the past, governments have assumedthat poor adoption of CRP arose becauselandholders were unaware of importantland degradation issues; lacked sufficientknowledge and skills; or had attitudes thatemphasized short-term economic returnsover maintaining the long-term health ofthe land (ASCC 1991). There has been alarge investment of resources over the past10 years in awareness raising and educa-tion programs, including those carried outby Landcare groups.There is evidence thatthese activities do contribute to increasedawareness and understanding and thatthese changes enhance landholder capac-ity to adopt a wide range of CRP (Vanclay1992; Curtis & De Lacy 1996). However,most landholders already have a strongstewardship ethic and differences in atti-tudes have generally not been linked toincreased adoption of CRP (Vanclay 1992;Curtis & De Lacy 1998).

Recent experience in Australia suggeststhat increased awareness and understand-ing of issues and congruent attitudes arenecessary but not sufficient to ensure adop-tion of CRP at levels likely to achieveimprovement in resource condition at thelandscape scale (Curtis et al. 2001b). Thereis abundant evidence that many land-holders, including those in dryland areas ofthe GBC, have very limited on-propertyincomes and that this is a critical constraintto adoption of CRP (Barr et al. 2000; Curtiset al. 2001b). It is also unlikely that manydryland landholders will generate substan-tial income from new enterprises such asolives,wine grapes and farm forestry (Stirza-cker et al.2000;Curtis et al.2001b).Indeed,part of the explanation for low adoptionof some improved grazing or croppingsystems is that landholders lack confidencein the CRP because they know that the costof such CRP either cannot be accommo-dated within industry profits and/or theyare still suboptimal in terms of ecologicalsustainability. For example, most of the rec-ommended plant-based ‘improved manage-

ment’ systems, including introduced peren-nial pasture in higher rainfall zones(> 600 mm),‘leak’ water and contribute toground water flows that mobilize salt(Walker et al. 1999). Problems also arise ifCRP or new enterprises are complex, donot fit with existing enterprises, conflictwith existing social norms or are perceivedas being risky (Vanclay 1992; Curtis & Race1996; Barr & Cary 2000).

Financial pressures were expected tolead to the amalgamation of smallergrazing properties into larger units. Whilesome amalgamation has occurred, therehas not been large-scale consolidation ofproperties, and the trend has not beenuniform across the Murray-Darling Basin(Barr et al. 2000). Within commuting dis-tance of capital cities and larger regionalcentres (e.g.Melbourne and Shepparton inthe case of the GBC), there has been con-siderable subdivision of existing holdingsinto lifestyle farming enterprises forretirees and people with off-farm work.Non-farmers and retirees may respond lessquickly to economic signals; be more

46 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 4 NO 1 APRIL 2003

R E S E A R C H R E P O R T

averse to risking off-property income inon-property enterprises; and will probablyhave less time for on-property manage-ment (Barr et al. 2000; Curtis et al. 2001b).On the other hand, non-farmers may bringnew ideas, skills and financial resourcesthat contribute to the renewal of localcommunities and they may be more likelyto respond to appeals for biodiversity con-servation (Curtis & De Lacy 1996).

Australia has an ageing rural populationwith life expectancy increasing andyounger people drifting from rural areasto the more prosperous and attractivelifestyles in urban centres (Haberkornet al. 1999).We can no longer assume thata substantial proportion of the intergener-ational transfer of properties will occurwithin families. Where family successionis unlikely, property owners may be lesswilling to invest in CRP or new enter-prises. In an era of reduced farm profitabil-ity and lower land prices, particularlywhere demand for rural subdivisions isnot high, some landholders may feel theyare locked into living on their proper-ties in retirement. With increasing lifeexpectancy, this trend could delay inter-generational property transfer. Theseelderly property owners may also be lesswilling to invest in recommended practiceor new enterprises.

Discontinuity between the source andimpact of issues, particularly those relatedto water degradation, adds a further com-plication. Many landholders in the upperreaches of catchments are either not expe-riencing these problems, believe they canlive with them or are unaware or uncon-cerned about contributing to downstreamimpacts (Curtis et al. 2001b). Landholdersare also increasingly aware that they arebeing asked to implement work that hascommunity benefits in terms of biodiver-sity conservation, improved public healthand protecting cultural heritage, publicinfrastructure and export income (agricul-ture and tourism). They also understandthat many of the problems that they arebeing asked to address have resulted fromprevious government policies. Establish-ment of the Natural Heritage Trust, withthe federal government sharing the costsof large-scale on-ground work on privateland, was an acknowledgement of the

legitimacy of these arguments (Curtis &Lockwood 2000).

Effecting behavioural change in privatelandholders is a complex task. Experiencesuggests that no single instrument willaddress the underlying reasons for non-adoption (Vanclay 1997; Lockwood et al.2002).

The postal survey

Drawing on the above literature andwithin the constraints of a mail survey, theauthors identified the following topics forinclusion in the survey as independentvariables likely to explain differences inthe level of adoption of CRP:

• awareness of river frontage condition;

• knowledge of river frontage functionand factors affecting river frontage con-dition;

• values attached to river frontages;

• attitudes to working with others andthe government; the role of scientists;and towards conservation;

• occupation;

• confidence in CRP (such as fencingriver frontages to manage stock access,revegetating river frontages);

• constraints to better management;

• extent of business and property plan-ning;

• Landcare membership;

• involvement in government programs;

• on- and off-property income (financialcapacity);

• on- and off-property work (availabletime);

• enterprise mix;

• age (stage of life);

• education; and

• gender.The authors identified a small number

of CRP that could be used as dependentvariables in analyses seeking to explain dif-ferences in the level of adoption. TheseCRP were identified on the basis that theyaddressed the causes of riparian degrad-ation processes and were the focus ofcurrent efforts to address riparian degrad-ation in the GBCMA (GBCMA 2001); and

that respondents were likely to be able toprovide accurate information quickly. TheCRP included in this study are: (i) length ofriver/creek frontage fenced at the time ofthe survey to allow better management of stock access to the water way; (ii) lengthof fencing erected near the river/creeksince the start of 1996 (past 5 years) tomanage stock access to the water way;(iii) number of trees/shrubs planted since1996 (past 5 years) along the river/creekfrontage (within 40 m of each bank); (iv)estimated cost of pest animal and weedcontrol carried out on the river/creekfrontage during 1999 and 2000; (v) during2000, did stock graze any part of yourriver/stream frontage for more than aweek at a time? (Circle yes or no.); (vi)during 2000, did stock access drinkingwater from any part of your river/streamfrontage for more than a week at a time?(Circle yes or no.).

A 12-page survey booklet was mailed to203 individual property owners selectedat random from 3721 property owners onLand Victoria databases of crown frontageowners and Goulburn Murray Water diver-sion customers. After allowing for recentchanges of address and other circum-stances, including the removal of thosewith small urban allotments, 93 useablesurveys were returned for a final responserate of 63%.

Multiple stepwise regression and dis-criminant analysis were performed todetermine the extent that a number ofindependent variables identified by bivari-ate correlations or χ2 tests contributed tothe observed scores on a dependent vari-able such as the adoption of a CRP. Dis-criminant analysis was used when thedependent variable was dichotomous (e.g.yes/no).

Findings

Adopt ion of currentrecommended pract ices

Respondents appeared to be making slowprogress towards the adoption of CRP forimproved management of their riverfrontages. Most respondents said they hadnot undertaken fencing or revegetationwork and that stock were usually able to



access the river frontage for grazing andfor drinking water. On the other hand,most respondents were undertaking pestanimal and weed control and two-thirds ofthe fencing activity reported had occurredin the past 5 years (Table 1).

Expla in ing adopt ion ofcurrent recommendedpract ices

Awareness of river frontage condition

It was thought that higher awareness ofthe extent of river frontage degradationwould motivate adoption of CRP. Respon-dents were asked to provide an assessmentof the condition of their river frontage. Noattempt was made to compare landholderand expert assessments. In this study, therewere no correlations between respon-dent’s assessments of river frontage condi-tion and the adoption of CRP.

Knowledge of ecological functions andprocesses

Survey data suggested most respondentshad a sound understanding of some of theless widely publicised functions or ecolog-ical processes in river frontages (differ-ences between willows and gum trees;role of dead trees and ground litter). Onthe other hand, there was a substantialminority of frontage owners who eitherhad no information, were misinformed orwere reluctant to acknowledge the criticalroles that clearing and stock grazing havehad in contributing to river frontagedegradation (Table 2).

There was a significant relationshipbetween adoption of the CRP for limitingstock access to water courses for drinkingwater and better knowledge about ‘theimpact of grazing on native vegetation’(Table 3). There was also a significant pos-

itive relationship between better knowl-edge about the ‘role of willows and gumsas a source of nutrients’ and the CRP forlimiting stock access to water courses forboth drinking water and grazing (Table 3).These findings suggested that differencesin knowledge of river frontage functionand the factors affecting river frontagecondition had contributed to differencesin the adoption of CRP.

Values attached to river frontages

Respondents were asked to provide anassessment of the importance of 16 topicsexploring the values they attributed totheir river frontage. Eight topics exploredthe importance of the environmental func-tions of river frontages, five topics relatedto economic attributes of frontages, andthree related to social attributes (Table 4).By summing a respondent’s scores on indi-



Table 1. Adoption of current recommended practices: Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001 (n = 93)

Topics (n = 92) % responding Situation at activity done Jan. 2001 (median)

Distance along the river/creek where the frontage is fenced allowing stock access to the waterway to be managed 46% 500 metres

Length of fencing erected near the river/creek since the start of 1996 (5 years) to manage stock access to the waterway 26% 300 metres

Number of tree/shrubs planted since 1996 (5 years) along the river/creek frontage (within 40 m of each bank) 40% 50 trees

Estimated cost of pest animal and weed control carried out in river/creekfrontage during 1999 and 2000 55% $300

During 2000, did you control stock access to the waterway for grazing? (stock only had access to any part of frontage for < a week at a time) 36%

During 2000, did you control stock access to the waterway for drinking water? (stock only had access to any part of frontage for < a week at a time) 33%

Table 2. Knowledge of river frontage management: Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001 (n = 93)

Statement No. Agree/ Not sure Disagree/strongly agree strongly disagree

Dead trees or sticks on the ground in river/creek frontages are important habitat for native birds and animals 88 76% 14% 10%

Clearing for grazing or cropping has substantially reduced the existence and diversity of native vegetation on river/creek frontages 88 69% 10% 21%

Grazing of domestic stock has had a major impact on the existence and diversity of native vegetation on river/creek frontagesa 91 46% 18% 37%

Willows are different to gum trees as a source of nutrients in rivers/creeksa 90 60% 22% 18%

Score: 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree.aThese statements were expressed in the negative in the original survey.



Table

3.

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s co

rrel

ated

with

the

ado

ptio

n of

cur

rent

rec

omm

ende

d pr

actic

es: G

oulb

urn

Bro

ken

rive

r fr

onta

ge s

tudy

, 200

1 (n

=93

)

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Tota

l fr

onta

ge

Fro

nta

ge

fence

d

Tree

s/sh

rub

s C

ost

of

pes

tLim

ited

sto

ck

Lim

ited

fence

din

pas

t 5

yea

rsp

lante

d i

n l

ast

anim

al/w

eed

acce

ss f

or

stock

acc

ess

5 y

ears

contr

ol

dri

nkin

gfo

r gra

zing

Kno

wle

dge

Gra

zing

of

dom

estic

sto

ck h

as a

maj

or im

pact

on

F=

11

.91

2,

F=

32

9.4

6,

nativ

e ve

geta

tion

on r

iver

/cre

ek f

ront

ages

P=

0.0

21

P=

0.0

03

Will

ows

are

diffe

rent

to

gum

tre

es a

s a

sour

ce o

f χ2

= 9

.734

, χ2

=13

.21,

nutr

ient

s in

riv

ers/

cree

ksP

=0.

045

P=

0.01

0

Econ

omic

val

ues

Econ

omic

inde

xr s

=0.

295,

χ2

= 2

6.96

,χ2

=18

.74,

P=

0.01

3P

<0.

001

P<

0.00

1P

rovi

des

acce

ss t

o w

ater

for

sto

ckF

=9

.29

,F

=5

6.9

35

,P

=0

.02

9P

=0

.00

4P

rovi

des

addi

tiona

l lan

d fo

r gr

azin

g st

ock

χ2=

27.

46,

χ2=

20.6

6,P

<0.

001

P<

0.00

1A

dds

to t

he m

arke

t va

lue

of t

he p

rope

rty

t=

2.4

40

,r s

=0.

351,

P

=0

.01

8P

=0.

009

Soc

ial v

alue

sS

ocia

l ind

exχ2

= 5

.387

,P

=0.

020

Is a

n at

trac

tive

area

of

the

prop

erty

r s=

0.30

7,

P=

0.02

9

Envi

ronm

enta

l val

ues

Envi

ronm

enta

l ind

exr s

=0.

287,

P

=0.

019

Dem

ogra

phic

/bac

kgro

und

Pro

pert

y si

zeF

=3

29

.46

,F

=9

.28

6,

P=

0.0

03

P=

0.0

29

Farm

er b

y oc

cupa

tion

χ2=

8.12

5,

χ2=

10.6

8,P

=0.

004

P=

0.00

1O

n-pr

oper

ty p

rofit

r s=

–0.3

13,

χ2=

5.42

8,

P=

0.04

0P

=0.

020

Hou

rs w

orke

d on

-pro

pert

yχ2

=9.

441,

χ2

=7.

482,

P=

0.00

2P

=0.

006

Pla

n fo

r pr

oper

ty s

ucce

ssio

nχ2

=5.

581,

χ2

=4.

864,

P

=0.

019

P=

0.02

7

Gov

ernm

ent

fund

ing

Sup

port

fro

m g

over

nmen

t pr

ogra

ms

for

wor

k on

r s

=0.

396,

yo

ur f

ront

age

over

the

pas

t 5

year

s. (

Yes)

P=

0.02

2

Und

erlin

ede

note

s a

sign

ifica

nt n

egat

ive

rela

tions

hip

and

bold

indi

cate

s a

sign

ifica

nt r

elat

ions

hip

unde

r m

ultiv

aria

te a

naly

sis.

vidual items, it was possible to calculatethe environmental, economic and socialvalues index score for each respondent.

Most respondents placed a high valueon their river frontages. For example, 11of the 16 topics had mean scores abovethree out of a possible five and therewere four topics with mean scores abovefour (Table 4). When ranked by meanscores, the three most highly rankedtopics included one from each of theenvironmental, economic and social valuesets. Respondents valued their riverfrontages more highly for their environ-mental and social attributes compared totheir economic attributes. Three of thefive topics from the economic values set,including those related to the benefits ofgrazing, timber harvesting and stockshelter, were among the five lowestranked topics according to their meanscores (Table 4).

Our analyses also suggested that thevalues attached to river frontages had con-tributed to differences in the adoption ofCRP. There was a significant positive rela-tionship between higher scores on anindex measuring the importance of arange of environmental values and adop-tion for trees/shrubs planted (Table 3).

There was a negative relationshipbetween adoption of CRP for limitingstock access to the river frontage forgrazing and to drinking water and scoreson the overall economic values index(Table 3).A higher score on the statementsthat the frontage ‘provided access to waterfor stock’ and ‘additional land for grazing’was significantly correlated with loweradoption of CRP (Table 3). At the sametime, there was a significant positive cor-relation between the river frontage ‘addsto the market value of the property’ andadoption of CRP for total distance of thefrontage fenced and trees/shrubs planted(Table 3).

A higher score on the social valuesindex was significantly linked with loweradoption of the CRP regarding limitingstock access to the river frontage for drink-ing water (Table 3). However, a higherscore for ‘is an attractive area of the prop-erty’ was significantly linked with higheradoption of the CRP for total distance ofthe frontage fenced (Table 3).


R E S E A R C H R E P O R TTa

ble

4.

Impo

rtan

ce o

f val

ues

atta

ched

to

rive

r fr

onta

ge: G

oulb

urn

Bro

ken

rive

r fr

onta

ge s

tudy

, 200

1 (N

=93

)

Sta

tem

ent

about

valu

eN

o.

Imp

ort

ant/

very

im

port

ant

Som

eM

inim

al/n

ot

imp

ort

ant

Mea

n s

core

Is a

n at

trac

tive

area

of

the

prop

erty

c92

84%

12%

3%4.

35P

lace

whe

re n

ativ

e bi

rds

livea

9287

%7%

6%4.

26A

dds

to m

arke

t va

lue

of t

he p

rope

rtyb

9277

%11

%12

%4.

10V

eget

atio

n on

the

fro

ntag

e ho

lds

the

bank

s an

d st

ops

them

cru

mbl

inga

9277

%11

%12

%4.

10Li

nks

up w

ith o

ther

veg

etat

ion

and

allo

ws

nativ

e bi

rds

and

anim

als

to

mov

e ab

out

for

food

and

bre

edin

ga92

73%

14%

13%

3.95

Whe

re n

ativ

e an

imal

s liv

e on

land

a92

64%

19%

17%

3.76

Pro

vide

s w

oody

mat

ter

such

as

snag

s th

at o

ffer

prot

ectio

n fo

r fis

h an

d ot

her

anim

als

that

live

in t

he r

iver

/cre

eka

9161

%21

%19

%3.

63P

rovi

des

a pl

ace

for

recr

eatio

n fo

r fa

mily

and

frie

ndsc

9261

%15

%24

%3.

59A

sou

rce

of n

utrie

nts

for

in-s

trea

m f

ood

chai

nsa

8959

%17

%25

%3.

55P

rovi

des

acce

ss t

o w

ater

for

sto

ckb

9062

%9%

29%

3.53

In-s

trea

m v

eget

atio

n tr

aps

and

stab

ilize

s sa

nd/g

rave

la89

46%

23%

31%

3.27

Pro

vide

s im

port

ant

shad

e an

d sh

elte

r fo

r st

ockb

8647

%14

%39

%2.

97P

lace

for

fam

ily a

nd f

riend

s to

fis

hc92

38%

16%

46%

2.88

Act

s as

a f

ilter

cat

chin

g se

dim

ent

and/

or n

utrie

nts

in o

verla

nd f

low

s be

fore

the

y re

ach

the

river

/cre

eka

8933

%16

%52

%2.

64P

rovi

des

addi

tiona

l lan

d fo

r gr

azin

g st

ock,

par

ticul

arly

in s

umm

erb

9233

%17

%50

%2.

63H

arve

stin

g tim

ber

for

fenc

e po

sts

and

fire

woo

db88

4%5%

91%

1.38

Mea

n sc

ore

whe

re 1

= n

ot im

port

ant

thro

ugh

to 5

= v

ery

impo

rtan

t.a E

nviro

nmen

t va

lue,

b Eco

nom

ic v

alue

, c Soc

ial v

alue

.

As will be explained, differencesbetween farming and non-farming occu-pations may explain some of the negativelinks between economic values and theadoption of CRP. It must be rememberedthat in this study almost all respondentsattached a high level of importance to atleast one of the listed environmental, eco-nomic and social values of river frontages.This information emphasized the impor-tance of moving beyond a narrow range ofappeals when promoting improved man-agement of river frontages.

Attitudes

Most respondents held positive attitudesabout the roles and responsibilities ofvarious stakeholders in river frontage man-agement; towards conservation generallyas measured by the New EnvironmentalParadigm (NEP) (Dunlap & Van Liere1978); and about the role of scientists innatural resource management. The meas-ures used identified no significant positiverelationships between these attitudes andadoption of CRP.These findings are consis-tent with earlier research suggesting thatmost landholders hold positive attitudestowards conservation and that attitudesare a poor predictor of conservationbehaviour.

Farmer and non-farmer occupations

Compared to non-farmers, farmers workedsignificantly more hours on-property, hadsignificantly larger properties, and weremore likely to indicate ‘their family had

agreed to a plan for the transfer of the farmto the next generation’ (Table 5). Therewas a consistent pattern of these variables(hours worked, property size, successionplanning) being linked with increasedstock access to river frontages for grazingand drinking water (Table 3). In turn,farmers were significantly more likely thannon-farmers to allow stock to access theirriver frontages for both grazing and drink-ing water (Table 5). It seems that the loweradoption of these CRP by farmers waslinked to the importance of on-propertyincome to farmers and to the significantlyhigher importance that farmers attach tothe economic values of their riverfrontages (Table 5).

Farmers were a minority occupationgroup (only 37%) among survey respon-dents. The majority of river frontageowners were non-farmers, comprised ofprofessionals (30%), retirees (20%) andtradespeople (10%). Many of the non-farmer river frontage owners appear to bemore interested in the environmental,aesthetic and recreational values of theirfrontages, and possibly, the impact of riverfrontage condition on property values. Inturn, non-farmers are less likely to be con-cerned about the potential economicimpacts of taking on CRP for improvedriver frontage management. At the sametime, farmers managed significantly largerproperties, including a substantial propor-tion of the river frontages in this study(59%) and they will need to be reassuredthat adoption of CRP will enhance ratherthan reduce their on-property viability.

Again, it is a case of different appeals fordifferent folks.

Confidence in efficacy of CRP

Contrary to the views of the scientistsinvolved in this project, most respondentsthought that set stocking where animalsare left to graze in paddocks for longperiods, was better than intensive grazingfor short periods in terms of retainingnative vegetation in paddocks with riverfrontages (Table 6). Although most respon-dents agreed with the general statementsthat fencing river frontages and wateringstock off-stream were aspects of improvedriver frontage management, substantialminorities (23%) disagreed (Table 6).

Higher confidence in the efficacy ofwatering stock off-stream was linked tohigher adoption of fencing and trees/shrubs planted (Table 7). However, therewere no positive relationships betweenthe adoption of CRP and higher confi-dence in the efficacy of fencing or inten-sive grazing. While most respondentsagreed with the general statement thatfencing is an essential part of the workrequired to revegetate river/creek front-ages, it is clear that many respondents heldstrong reservations about particularaspects of the efficacy of fencing riverfrontages (Table 6). It seems these con-cerns are impacting on the adoption offencing. Analyses using the five more spe-cific statements assessing confidence infencing produced significant positive cor-relations between higher confidence andthe adoption of related CRP (Table 7).



Table 5. Differences between farmers and non-farmers: Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001 (farmers n = 31, non-farmers n = 53)

Independent variables Farmers Non-farmers Test% Yes or (median) % Yes or (median) χ2 d.f. Significance

Property size 188.4 ha 9.6 ha 36.427 1 <0.001On-property profit 69% 17% 22.159 1 <0.001Hours worked on-property 50 6 42.009 1 <0.001Off-property income as a proportion of total

household income 40% 90% 27.404 4 <0.001Agreed to a plan for the transfer of the farm to

the next generation 41% 20% 4.517 1 0.040Economic values index 3.6 2.6 17.926 1 <0.001Controlled stock access to river frontage for

drinking water 10% 39% 8.125 1 0.004Controlled stock access to river frontage for

grazing 10% 45% 10.677 1 0.001

Financial and other constraints toadoption

Most respondents rated the cost of mate-rials and equipment; flood events; insuffi-cient time and access to labour; and accessto on-site technical advice as importantconstraints affecting their capacity toimprove the management of their riverfrontages. The GBCMA provides financialsupport to landholders in high priorityareas for fencing, revegetation and theinstallation of off-stream watering pointswhere stock have previously been wateredfrom the waterway through a WaterwayGrant Scheme (WGS). The WGS providessupport for fencing at between $2 and$6.50 per metre; supplies native plants andguards for revegetation works; and for off-stream watering, pays up to 75% of allcosts.The WGS therefore involves a highercost-share by government than has typi-cally been the case with Natural HeritageTrust programs. Given the limitations ofspace in the survey, it was not possible toinclude the different scenarios needed tocollect sufficient data to model the impactof a range of cost-sharing options on adop-tion. However, questions in the survey didassess the extent that a scheme such as theWGS would motivate the wider populationof land owners to undertake additionalwork on their river frontages.Forty-two per

cent of survey respondents said that theywould apply for a grant over the next 2years if such a scheme operated in theirarea. Almost all of these river frontageowners said that access to this supportwould result in them completing workbeyond that which they had planned.

Earlier research in the GoulburnBroken Dryland established that low on-property profitability was a significantconstraint to the adoption of a range ofCRP (Curtis et al. 2001b). In this study ofriver frontages, there were some correla-tions between on-property profitabilityand adoption of CRP (Table 3). Indeed,only 37% of these respondents had any on-property profit and economic concernsappeared to be an important factor limit-ing the adoption of CRP, particularly byfarmers. There was also a significant posi-tive correlation between governmentfunding received over the past 5 years andriver frontage work undertaken (Table 3).It is our view that low on-property prof-itability and the expense of remedial workfor which there is a mix of public andprivate benefits are important constraintsto adoption. As explained, a substantialproportion of survey respondents saidstronger cost-sharing through anexpanded WGS would allow them toundertake additional conservation work intheir river frontages.

Conclusions

Differences in knowledge of river frontagefunction and factors affecting riverfrontage condition were linked with dif-ferences in the adoption of CRP. Thisfinding suggests there is considerablescope for community education toincrease the adoption of CRP by increas-ing landholder knowledge of the impor-tant functions of river frontages and oftheir generally degraded condition.

Most respondents gave a high level ofimportance to at least one of the listedenvironmental,economic and social valuesthat landholders frequently attach to riverfrontages. Overall, river frontages werevalued more highly for their environmen-tal and social attributes compared to theireconomic attributes. Values attached toriver frontages were also linked with dif-ferences in the adoption of CRP. Mostrespondents, including those owners oflifestyle properties, valued river frontagesas attractive places to live and were awareof the positive impact of their riverfrontages on property values. These find-ings emphasized the importance of multi-faceted appeals and the need to movebeyond a narrow focus on concerns aboutthe potential economic impacts of CRP.

Farming as an occupation was linked tolower adoption of CRP and this link



Table 6. Confidence in current recommended practices: Goulburn Broken river frontage study, 2001 (n = 93)

Statement n Agree/ Not sure Disagree/strongly agree strongly disagree

Fencing to manage stock access is an essential part of the work required to revegetate river/creek frontages 89 67% 11% 23%

Intensive grazing for short periods is usually better than set stocking for retaining native vegetation in paddocks with river/creek frontagesa 88 14% 27% 60%

The time and expense involved in watering stock off-stream is justified by improvement in river/creek bank stability and water quality 88 49% 28% 23%

Statement n Important/ Some Minimal/very important not important

In most places, fencing river/creek frontages is not practical because floods will damage fences 90 52% 12% 36%

Fencing out river/creek frontages will create harbour for pest animals 86 51% 17% 30%Fencing out river/creek frontages will make it difficult to water stock 88 46% 13% 40%Fencing out river/creek frontages will increase management time 85 39% 18% 43%Fencing out river/creek frontages will reduce the area for grazing

or cropping 86 27% 17% 54%

Mean score where 1 = strongly disagree through to 5 = strongly agree.aIn the original survey this statement began with set stocking as the preferred practice.

appeared to be explained, at least in part,by the higher importance farmersattached to the economic values of theirriver frontages. Although farmers were aminority of the survey respondents, theyowned significantly larger properties thandid non-farmers and continue to be impor-tant river frontage managers. Farmer con-cerns about the potential economicimpacts of CRP will need to be addressed,perhaps through modifications to CRP orby stronger cost sharing. Notwithstandingthis point, it seems that program managersmay have focused too heavily on farmers.The GBCMA operates a highly respectedriparian management program but ouranalysis of postal survey data establishedthat landholders involved in these pro-grams were atypical of the wider popu-lation of frontage owners (Curtis et al.2001a). GBCMA project participants weresignificantly more likely to have beenfarmers by occupation, manage largerproperties, be older and be members ofLandcare (Curtis et al. 2001a).

Few respondents had any on-propertyprofit and economic concerns appeared tobe an important factor limiting the adop-tion of CRP, particularly by farmers.Respondents indicated they wouldincrease their adoption of CRP if theywere able to access a GBCMA programthat provides for stronger cost sharingthan is normally available from govern-ment. Even this program only provides forup to 75% of the cost of on-ground work.The existing GBCMA program makes noprovision for the costs of maintainingfencing or ongoing pest weed and animalcontrol and there has been no reimburse-ment of income forgone as a result ofchanged landuse. Recent research by theauthors suggests that stronger cost sharingthat includes the full cost of on-groundwork, a payment for active managementand income forgone (opportunity cost)can make a substantial improvement inlandholder adoption of CRP and the attain-ment of catchment targets for revegetation(Curtis et al. 2002).

Although most respondents agreed thatfencing and watering stock off-streamwere aspects of improved river frontagemanagement, most had reservations aboutsome aspects of the efficacy of fencing,



Table

7.

Rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

conf

iden

ce in

CR

P a

nd a

dopt

ion

of C

RP

: Gou

lbur

n B

roke

n ri

ver

fron

tage

stu

dy, 2

001

(n=

93)

Sta

tem

ents

ass

essi

ng l

evel

of

confi

den

ce i

n C

RP

Tota

l fr

onta

ge

Fro

nta

ge

fence

d

Tree

s/sh

rub

s C

ost

of

pes

tC

ontr

olled

sto

ck

Contr

olled

fence

din

pas

t 5

yea

rsp

lante

d i

n l

ast

anim

al/w

eed

acce

ss f

or

stock

acc

ess

5 y

ears

contr

ol

dri

nkin

gfo

r gra

zing

The

time

and

expe

nse

invo

lved

in w

ater

ing

stoc

k of

f-str

eam

is

just

ified

by

the

impr

ovem

ent

in r

iver

/cre

ek b

ank

stab

ility

r s

=0.

338,

r s=

0.28

7,an

d w

ater

qua

lity

P=

0.00

5P

=0.

026

Fenc

ing

to m

anag

e st

ock

acce

ss is

an

esse

ntia

l par

t of

the

χ2

=22

.02,

χ2=

19.8

4,w

ork

requ

ired

to r

eveg

etat

e riv

er/c

reek

P=

0.00

1P

=0.

001

Inte

nsiv

e gr

azin

g fo

r sh

ort

perio

ds is

usu

ally

bet

ter

than

set

r s

=0.

304,

stoc

king

for

ret

aini

ng n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

in r

iver

fro

ntag

esa

P=

0.01

6

Fenc

ing

out

river

fro

ntag

es w

ill n

ot r

educ

e th

e ar

ea f

or g

razi

ng

χ2=

22.0

2,χ2

=19

.84,

or c

ropp

inga

P=

0.00

1P

=0.

001

Fenc

ing

out

river

/cre

ek f

ront

ages

will

not

cre

ate

harb

our

for

χ2=

12.7

1,χ2

= 1

1.94

,pe

st a

nim

alsa

P=

0.02

6P

=0.

036

Fenc

ing

out

river

/cre

ek f

ront

ages

will

not

mak

e it

diffi

cult

to

χ2 =

29.

77,

χ2=

29.3

1,

wat

er s

tock

aP

<0.

001

P<

0.00

1

Fenc

ing

out

river

/cre

ek f

ront

ages

will

not

incr

ease

t

=–3

.28

5,

χ2 =

14.

68,

χ2=

15.2

1,m

anag

emen

t tim

eaP

=0

.00

2P

=0.

012

P=

0.01

0

In m

ost

plac

es f

enci

ng o

ut r

iver

fro

ntag

es is

not

pra

ctic

al

r s=

–0.3

05,

beca

use

flood

s w

ill d

amag

e fe

nces

aP

=0.

004

The

first

thr

ee s

tate

men

ts a

sses

sed

over

all v

iew

s ab

out

the

effic

acy

of C

RP.

a Sta

tem

ents

exp

ress

ed in

the

neg

ativ

e in

the

orig

inal

sur

vey

and

in T

able

6.

Und

erlin

ede

note

s a

sign

ifica

nt n

egat

ive

rela

tions

hip

and

bold

indi

cate

s a

sign

ifica

nt r

elat

ions

hip

unde

r m

ultiv

aria

te a

naly

sis.

watering stock off-stream and intensivelygrazing frontages for short periods of time.Concerns about the efficacy of these CRPappeared to be impacting on their adop-tion. Managers and scientists need toreassess current approaches to fencingriver frontages, particularly the larger riversystems such as the Goulburn. Communityeducation activities, often using groupsand local demonstrations of CRP,should bean important element of this work. Atten-tion must also be given to demonstratingthe merits of intensively grazing riverfrontages.

Most respondents held positive atti-tudes about the roles and responsibilitiesof various stakeholders in river frontagemanagement and towards conservationgenerally. There were no significant posi-tive correlations between these attitudesand adoption of CRP. This finding is con-sistent with what is becoming a large bodyof Australian research exploring the adop-tion of conservation practices by privatelandholders. It seems that those attempt-ing to change land and water managementpractices should focus on awarenessraising, improving knowledge and skillsand on enhancing the acceptability ofspecific CRP. Appeals for the adoption ofCRP must also embrace the range of valuesthat different landholders attach to theirriver frontages. At the same time, eco-nomic constraints are a critical issue formany landholders. For others, having suffi-cient time or being physically able toundertake rehabilitation work are criticalissues. Access to skilled labour can be onestrategy for overcoming these constraints.

While attitudes are generally positive,this study in the GBC and our recentresearch in the Ovens Catchment suggeststhat there are some landholders who holdanticonservation attitudes or are unlikelyto respond to incentives schemes regard-less of the level of cost-sharing offered.Under these circumstances and wherehigh priority areas are involved, oneoption is to establish a revolving fund andintervene through the strategic purchaseof properties as they come onto themarket. Using this approach a new man-agement regime can be established andthen protected by a covenant prior to

resale on the open market.Our research inthe Ovens suggests that a revolving fundcould be more successful than an incen-tive program in accomplishing catchmenttargets (Curtis et al. 2002).

While everyone is different, there is noneed to respond to every landholder. Thisresearch has highlighted some of the keysocial and economic variables that need tobe considered by those developing aneffective mix of policy options within aregion. The critical point is to develop amix of options and then allow landholdersto select those that best meet their needs.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the importantcontributions of Wayne Tennant and JustinSheed as project managers for the GBCMA.Wayne Tennant was a coauthor for anearlier conference paper that presentedan overview of the survey findings. Theauthors also thank Land & Water Australia(formerly Land & Water ResourcesResearch and Development Corporation)for funding the larger GBCMA project.Wealso acknowledge the vital contributionsof the riparian land mangers who assistedwith pretesting the draft survey instru-ment and completed and returned thefinal survey. Ian Byron and Megan Graham(Charles Sturt University) assisted withdata entry, analysis and preparation of thesubsequent research report.We also thankthe two reviewers and the editor for theirhelpful suggestions.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Australiansand the Environment. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

Australian Soil Conservation Council (1991)Decade of Landcare Plan. Australian Soil Con-servation Council, Canberra.

Barr N. and Cary J. (2000) Influencing ImprovedNatural Resource Management on Farms.Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Barr N., Ridges S., Anderson N. et al. (2000)Adjustment for Catchment Management.Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Curtis A. and De Lacy T. (1996) Landcare in Aus-tralia: does it make a difference. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 46, 119–137.

Curtis A. and De Lacy T. (1998) Landcare, stew-ardship and sustainable agriculture in Aus-tralia. Environmental Values 7, 59–78.

Curtis A., Graham M., Byron I., Lockwood M. andMcDonald S. (2002) Providing the KnowledgeBase to Achieve Landscape Change in theOvens Catchment. The Johnstone Centre,Albury.

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

Curtis A., Lockwood M. and MacKay J. (2001b)Exploring landholder willingness and capacityto manage dryland salinity in the GoulburnBroken Catchment. Australian Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 8, 20–31.

Curtis A. and Race D. (1996) Review of Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Regional FarmForestry Development in Australia. The John-stone Centre, Charles Sturt University,Albury.

Curtis A., Robertson A. and Tennant W. (2001a)Understanding Landholder Willingness andCapacity to Improve the Management of RiverFrontages in the Goulburn Broken Catchment.The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt Univer-sity, Albury.

Dunlap R. E. and Van Liere K. (1978) The newenvironmental paradigm. The Journal of Envi-ronmental Education 9, 10–19.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Author-ity. (2001) Regional water way managementstrategy: Goulburn Broken Interim Draft 2001.Goulburn Broken Catchment ManagementAuthority, Shepparton.

Haberkorn G., Hugo G., Fisher M. and Aylward R.(1999) Country Matters: a Social Atlas ofRural and Regional Australia. Bureau of RuralSciences, Canberra.

Jansen A. and Robertson A. I. (2001) Relation-ships between livestock management and theecological condition of riparian habitats alongan Australian floodplain river. Journal ofApplied Ecology 38, 63–75.

Lockwood M., Hawkes M. and Curtis A. (2002)Potential of revegetation incentives to meetbiodiversity and salinity objectives: a studyfrom the Goulburn Broken Catchment. Aus-tralian Journal of Environmental Management9, 79–88.

Naiman R. J. and Decamps H. (1997) The ecologyof interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 28, 621–658.

Stirzacker R., Lefroy T., Keating B. and Williams J.(2000) A Revolution in Land Use: EmergingLand Use Systems for Managing DrylandSalinity. CSIRO Division of Land and Water,Canberra.

Vanclay F. (1992) The social context of farmers’adoption of environmentally-sound farmingpractices. In: Agriculture, Environment andSociety (eds G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay and B.Furze) pp. 94–121. Macmillan, Melbourne.

Vanclay F. (1997) The social basis of environmen-tal management in agriculture: a backgroundfor understanding Landcare. In: Critical Land-care (eds S. Lockie and F. Vanclay). KeyPapers Series, no. 5. Centre for Rural SocialResearch, Charles Sturt University, WaggaWagga.

Walker G., Gilfedder M. and Williams J. (1999)Effectiveness of Current Farming Systems inthe Control of Dryland Salinity. CSIRO Divi-sion of Land and Water, Canberra.



understanding landholder management of river frontages: the goulburn broken

Documents