Adoption of Best Management Practices for Dryland Salinity. The Need for an Integrated Environmental...

University of New England, Armidale

ADOPTION OF BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES FOR DRYLAND SALINITY

THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPROACH

RESULTS OF A STUDY IN THE GORAN CATCHMENT

LIVERPOOL PLAINS, N.S.W.

BRUCE HOOPER

ISBN 1 86389 250 8

February, 1995

© Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale. Australia

A Research Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, funded under the Natural Resources Management Strategy (Project # M334, 1992 – 1995)

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the interest and support provided in the early stages of this project by the late Mr Terry Roberts (Department of Industries and Energy, Canberra). Research funding for this study was provided by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, under the Natural Resources Management Strategy (Project #M334, 1992 - 1995). The author acknowledges the Commission's support, particularly that of Mr Clive Lyle and Mr John Powell. The interest and cooperation of Mr Neil McDonald (Department of Industries and Energy) is also acknowledged. The cooperation and assistance of Mr Jim McDonald and Mr Chris Glennon (Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, Gunnedah), Mr Jim Simson (Goran Landcare Group) and Mr Des Schroeder (Conservation and Land Management, Gunnedah) were especially helpful in completing this study.

1 The discussion of the formation of conceptual frameworks in IEM is developed further in

Appendix 2. The lack of understanding of what constitutes IEM may form a barrier to its adoption.

CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................i Abstract.......................................................................................................................vii 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Aims of the Study ...............................................................................................1 1.2 Background to the Study ...................................................................................1 1.3 Methods................................................................................................................3

1.3.1 Literature Survey .................................................................................3 1.3.2 Review of Current Conceptual Frameworks in Integrated Land and Water Management and Best Management Practice, and Development of a Framework for Investigation .......................................................................4 1.3.3 Selection of Field Sites.........................................................................5 1.3.4 Evaluation of Procedures to Identify, Select and Promote Practices ........6 1.3.5 Analysis of the Adoption of Best Management Practices ..............6

Data Collection ...................................................................................6 Data Analysis......................................................................................7

1.3.6 Review and Presentation of Results..................................................8 1.4 Organisation of this Report ...............................................................................8 2. RESULTS...............................................................................................................11 2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................11 2.2 Procedures For The Identification, Selection And Promotion Of Best

Management Practices .......................................................................................11 2.2.1 Identification, Selection and Promotion Processes .........................11 2.2.2 The Role of Community Participation in Enhancing Adoption ...13 2.2.3 Poor Definition of 'Best' Management Practices?............................13 2.2.4 Weak Understanding of Integrated Land and Water Management .......13 2.2.5 Inadequate Understanding of the Adoption Process .....................14 2.2.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development.............................................14 2.2.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................14

2.3 Adoption Of Best Management Practices .......................................................14 2.3.1 Features of Adoption...........................................................................14 2.3.2 Perceptions of Salinity Impacts..........................................................18 2.3.3 Other Features of the Adoption of Salinity Management..............18

2.4 Explaining Adoption..........................................................................................19 2.4.1 Adoption and Past Practice ................................................................20 2.4.2 Adoption is Driven by Financial Viability, Risk, Lifestyle and Practicality Issues................................................................................................................21 2.4.3 Adoption is Primarily a Personal Choice .........................................21 2.4.4 Role of Institutions...............................................................................21 2.4.5 Are Adopters any Different to Non-adopters?................................22 2.4.6 Synopsis.................................................................................................23

2.5 Limits to Adoption .............................................................................................24

2.5.1 Defining Limits to Adoption ............................................................. 24 2.5.2 Psycho-sociological Constraints to Adoption ................................. 25 2.5.3 Economic Constraints ......................................................................... 25 2.5.4 Institutional Limits.............................................................................. 26 2.5.5 Overcoming Constraints .................................................................... 27

3. MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE MOST EFFECTIVE ADOPTION......... 29 3.1 Define the IEM Process ..................................................................................... 29 3.2 Run a Workshop on Implementing IEM ........................................................ 30 3.3 Catchment Wide Assessment and Leadership are Needed......................... 31 3.4 Use of Risk-averse Best Management Practices............................................. 31 3.5 Micro-target Programs to Integrate Farm Adjustment and Salinity Management

............................................................................................................................... 32 3.6 Implement A Contractual System ................................................................... 32 3.7 Use of an Industry-driven, Stakeholder Participation Technique .............. 32 3.8 Improved Effectiveness Monitoring of Salinity Management Policies and

Programs ............................................................................................................. 33 3.9 Address Individual Property Rights through Innovative Partnerships .... 34 3.10 Remove Policy Conflicts ................................................................................. 35 3.11 Link the Adoption of Best Management Practices to Farm Profitability and

Regional Economic Development, and Develop Explanatory Models ...... 36 3.12 Integrate Best Management Practice with Local Government Planning . 37 3.13 Undertake Further Research........................................................................... 37 Appendix 1 Description of Study Area and Review of Salinity Management Issues - The Goran Catchment, Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. ......................... 39

Location .......................................................................................................... 39 Catchment Size .............................................................................................. 39 Biophysical Characteristics .......................................................................... 39 Resource Management Issues...................................................................... 41 Causes of Salinity in the Goran Catchment and the Liverpool Plains .. 41

Table A1. ............................................................................................. 42 Social Profile................................................................................................... 43 Community Views on Salinity Management ............................................ 46

Table A4. Peer Group Farming Leaders and Agency Personnel Interviewed ........................................................................................ 46 Table A5. Decision-making Matrix for the Goran Catchment ... 50

Appendix 2 A Framework for Investigating the Adoption of Best Management Practices in Integrated Land and Water Management............................................................ 53 2.1 Weaknesses in the Premise ............................................................................... 53 2.2 A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Land and Water Management (Integrated Environmental Management [IEM]).................................................. 54

2.2.1 What is Integrated Environmental Management? ......................... 54 2.2.2 IEM and Catchment Management.................................................... 55 2.2.3 IEM Approaches in Australia and Overseas ................................... 56

2.2.4 An Evaluation of IEM Approaches in Australia .............................57 Table A1. Dual perspectives in natural resources management at the 59

2.3 A Conceptual Framework for Best Management Practice in Integrated Environmental Management ...................................................................................60

2.3.1 What is Best Management Practice ...................................................60 Table A2. The "7-S" Framework......................................................62 Table A3. The Best Practice Environmental Management Paradigm Shift ......................................................................................................63

2.3.2 Application of a Best Management Practice Approach to IEM ....64 2.3.3 Benefits and Potential Gains from Using The Best Management Practice Approach.........................................................................................................65 2.3.4 Proposed Study ....................................................................................66 2.3.5 Synopsis

Towards A Best Management Practice Approach to Integrated Environmental Management to Address Salinity Problems in the Murray-Darling Basin .......................................................................67

2.4 Adoption of Integrated Salinity Management ...............................................68 2.4.1 The Investigation of Adoption - An Individual Resource User Perspective ......................................................................................................69

Figure A1. Model of resource management decision-making ...70 Figure A2 A simplified view of an individual's general decision framework...........................................................................................71

2.4.2 The Investigation of Adoption - An Institutional Context Perspective ..71 2.4.3 Approaches to Investigate Adoption................................................73 2.4.6 An Eclectic Approach to Adoption ...................................................74 2.4.6 The Limits to Adoption of Best Practices .........................................75

2.5 Synthesis ..............................................................................................................76 Appendix 3 Results of Farmer Survey of the Adoption of Salinity Management in the Goran Catchment ..................................................................................................................77 3.1. The Survey Sample............................................................................................77 3.2 Farm Types, Farmer Practices and Adoption Rates ......................................77

3.2.1 Farm Classification ..............................................................................77 3.2.2. Property Size........................................................................................78 3.2.3 Property Land Types and Resource Management Practices .........78

3.3 Farmer Characteristics .......................................................................................81 3.3.1 Farmer Age and Experience ...............................................................81 3.3.2 Formal Education Level ......................................................................82 3.3.3 Landcare Membership ........................................................................82 3.3.4 Family Structures .................................................................................82 3.3.5 Gross Household I90ncome ...............................................................82 3.3.6 Direction of Gross Farm Income over the Last Five Years ...........83 3.3.7 Interest in Follow-up Surveys............................................................83

3.4. Farmer Perceptions............................................................................................83 3.4.1 Perceptions of Resource Management Problems on the Liverpool Plains..........................................................................................................................83

3.5. Farmer Experiences in Managing Salinity .....................................................86

3.5.1 Loss of Production .............................................................................. 86 3.5.2 Selling Salt Affected Land.................................................................. 87 3.5.3 Use of Soil Salinity Surveying ........................................................... 87 3.5.4 Changing Landuse .............................................................................. 88 3.5.5 Undertaking a Whole Farm Plan ...................................................... 89

3.6 Farmer Perceptions of How to Manage Salinity............................................ 90 3.6.1 Options to Manage Salinity and the Role of Government ............ 90 3.7 Past Conservation Practice.................................................................... 93

3.8 Factors Influencing the Adoption of Salinity Management Practices ........ 95 3.9 Analysis of Adoption of Salinity Management ............................................. 96

3.9.1 Adoption and Land Type................................................................... 96 3.9.2 Relationship between Past and Present Adoption Behaviour...... 98 3.9.3 Who Adopts Salinity Management and Why Do They Adopt?... 101 3.9.4 Adoption Behaviour and Decision Variables.................................. 103

3.10 Synopsis.............................................................................................................. 104 Appendix 4 Impediments to the Adoption of Conservation and Production Technologies – Key Research Findings from Other Studies .................................................................. 107

Study 1 Identifying the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Management Practices.................................................................................. 108 Study 2. Barriers to the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices on Farms 112 Study 3 Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture

Research Findings.............................................................................. 115 Study 4 Constraints to Adoption of Crop Residue Management - Summary of a Nationwide Survey, U.S.A........................................................................ 117

Appendix 5. Survey Document..................................................................................................... 119 Letter of Introduction ............................................................................................... 119 Supporting Letter from Implementation Group .................................................. 120 Survey of Salinity Management Practices in the Goran Catchment.................. 121 Appendix 6 References and Further Reading........................................................................... 135 1. Research papers.................................................................................................... 135

2. Agency Publications for Field Sites ....................................................... 147 a. Tragowel Plains Study Area ....................................................... 147 b. Goran Catchment Study Area .................................................... 150 c. Selected Studies - Australia......................................................... 150 d. Selected Studies - USA ................................................................ 151

ABSTRACT The adoption of best management practices for dryland salinity was examined in the Goran Catchment of the Liverpool Plains, in the north of the Murray-Darling Basin. The study found that the concept of Best Management Practice needed clearer definition, and this is provided in the Appendices in the Report. The study examined the identification, selection and promotion of best management practices, and the rates of adoption by farmers. Adoption was analysed with reference to practices relevant to each of four generic land types in the catchment. The study found that salinity was not perceived to be a prime concern to Goran Catchment farmers, and that other resource management issues, such as soil erosion and floodplain management appeared to affect salinity management adoption. The study identified psycho-sociological, institutional and economic limits to adoption and made thirteen recommendations designed to enhance adoption of salinity management. These included using risk-averse best management practices, implementing government-region contractual arrangements, encouraging industry-driven adoption programs, improved effectiveness monitoring, promoting catchment codes of practice, removing inter- and intra- government policy conflicts, linking adoption to farm profitability and regional economic development models, and enhancing the role of local government in salinity management. Further research and workshops were also recommended to improve the understanding of integrated environmental management approaches in the Murray-Darling Basin.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Aims of the Study The aims of the study were: 1. To select programmes in the Murray-Darling Basin where best management

practices (BMPs) have been identified, and are being implemented, and evaluate the procedures used to identify, select and promote these practices. This will include examining the role of community participation.

2. To document the adoption of best management practices by resource managers; 3. To explain the rate of adoption; 4. To identify the limits of the adoption process in terms of psycho-sociological,

economic and institutional constraints. This included reference to the need for structural adjustment in the adoption process;

5. To identify the measures necessary to achieve the most effective and widespread

adoption of best management practices, including voluntary practices and the opportunities for alternative measures;

1.2 Background to the Study This study was funded under the category, Social and Economic Aspects of Natural Resources Management Strategy (NRMS) of the 1992-3 Investigations and Management Program (Interstate) of the Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Strategy (Project number: M334). The general issue addressed in the study was the effectiveness of public participation techniques in the adoption of integrated land and water management programs in the Murray-Darling Basin. A recent review of the implementation of the NRMS of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission showed that communities of common concern were often restricted in their ability to produce local action in resolving natural resources management problems. Integrated approaches to land and water management (or integrated environmental management (IEM)) are now widely extolled and hold great currency in academic, professional and political quarters. The IEM approach is being adopted and tried at every scale in the field of environmental resources management. It is the foundation for international and global environmental management initiatives aimed at more sustainable management, as developed at the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Agenda 21, 1992 (Born and Sonzogni, in press).

Adoption of Best Management Practices for Dryland Salinity - page 1

Much of the conceptual development and experience with integrated approaches relates, not surprisingly, to water and related land resources, with catchments considered generally equivalent to ecosystems1. Many natural resource management agency professionals and academics have supported planning and managing water and related land resources on an integrated basis. Rather than single-purpose approaches, comprehensive planning and management has been widely advocated. Indeed the catchment management approach has been equated to the application of IEM in the Murray-Darling Basin. Presumably such efforts include inter-relating the management of water quality and quantity, ground and surface waters, the land-water interface, biologic concerns, and the objectives of the user community. Although this integration is extolled by many, it appears difficult to accomplish in practice, and the implementation process remains weak (Born and Sonzogni, in press). A concept associated with IEM is Best Management Practice (BMP). BMP and Best Practice Environmental Management are being widely promoted by the Australian Government and being introduced in many sectors of manufacturing and tertiary industry. Although the concepts have received broad endorsement in agricultural resource management, implementation has been slow. In the irrigation industry there appears to be considerable misunderstanding of what is meant by best practice, and some hesitancy and even resistance to the introduction of different methods of land and water management which may compromise economic returns, at least in the short term (Pigram and Hooper, 1994). This study seeks to identify the impediments to the adoption of best practices in integrated land and water management, and to determine the measures necessary to achieve their most effective and widespread adoption. Salinity management has been selected for study, as an issue of particular concern in the Murray-Darling Basin. Both irrigation-induced and dryland salinity management are investigated. A primary task of this study is to obtain agreement on what constitutes best management practice to offset salinity-related land degradation. Examples of sustainable agricultural methods to combat resource degradation are relatively easy to identify, eg. structural measures such as conservation tillage, interception schemes and recycling of irrigation water. However, BMP is more than merely an array of appropriate technologies to deal with a particular environmental problem or economic situation. In the context of salinity management, organisational procedures, institutional arrangements, and policy considerations are also relevant. Moreover, the best management practice approach as applied to manufacturing industry, or even to large scale corporate agriculture, does not readily translate to the organisation of family farms, the most prevalent management unit in the Murray-Darling Basin. Furthermore, there may be disagreement between farmers and resource management agencies over the definition of best practices for a particular agricultural activity or site, or for local farming conditions and communities. These issues are discussed further in Appendix 2. 1.3 Methods


The five aims of the study were addressed by undertaking the following research activities. 1.3.1 Literature Survey The first stage of the study involved a reconnaissance of available literature and practices in the two broad interdisciplinary fields of enquiry: • the adoption of best management practices in agriculture, and • integrated land and water management. This survey was undertaken to ensure that the explanation of adoption (Aim 3), the identification of limits to adoption (Aim 4) and the recommendation of necessary measures (Aim 5) were cogniscent of current research and practice. The literature survey included interviews with researchers in soil conservation adoption, natural resources policy, extension, and farmer decision-making. This involved structured and non-structured interviews, and was started before the study commenced in 1992, using the author's previous knowledge of the literature and research contacts. The literature survey also involved on-line database searches2 and the collection of best management practice documents from potential study sites, and relevant Commonwealth and State resource management agencies. The literature search produced many articles, published reports, and conference presentations relevant to the focus of the study, including past research findings relevant to this study. The collected literature is documented in Appendix 6 of this Report. The literature was then reviewed and used to: • assist in the selection and description of the study sites, and the best management

practice programmes in each (documented in Appendix 1); • review past findings on the adoption of best management practices in integrated

land and water management (described in Appendices 2 and 4); • form a conceptual framework to investigate this topic (see 2 below); • identify those factors believed to be most relevant to the adoption of best

management practice (also described in Appendix 2).

2 This was done through the Centre for Water Policy Research's on-line links to the Council of

Australian Librarians' Current Contents service in Canberra, and the US Geological Survey/Universities Council on Water Resources' water database, UWIN (based in Illinois).


1.3.2 Review of Current Conceptual Frameworks in Integrated Land and Water

Management and Best Management Practice, and Development of a Framework for Investigation

The literature search found that there was no well-defined conceptual framework to explain the adoption of best management practices in integrated land and water management. Indeed, there is a great deal of confusion over what is meant by 'best management practices' and 'integrated land and water management'. If these two terms have weak conceptual development, then it is imperative for this study to explain the two terms more definitively, and develop a conceptual framework for investigation. This was done by: • a review of published research; • structured and non-structured interviews of resource management agency staff in

headquarters and regional offices of relevant agencies in each field site; and • a small number of non-structured telephone interviews and discussions. The corporate interview technique of Schoenberger (1991) was used in these interviews. This involved asking direct and leading questions believed to be critical to the formation and implementation of programmes to promote the adoption of best management practices in salinity management. Usually one person was interviewed at a time. The interview questions were developed by the author, and they relied on: • the belief that an integrated approach to natural resources management was a

precursor to effective land and water management; • the belief that best management practices were already being implemented, or at

least programmes had been develop to promote them, even if the validity of the recommended practices was not known;

• three previous studies reviewing integrated land and water management. These included a review of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) processes (Syme et al., 1994), strategies and options for performance measurement in ICM (Synnott, 1990) and a review of ICM in Western Australia (Mitchell and Hollick, 1993);

• international reviews and research in integrated land and water management, including a global review of ICM (Mitchell, 1990), a review of institutional processes and arrangements for ICM (Born and Margerum, 1993), and a national review of institutional arrangements for water resources management (Sonzogni and Born, 1991); and

• international studies in the adoption of best management practices (Nowak and Korsching, 1983; Swanson et al., 1986; Northwest Area Foundation, 1992; Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1992). The results of these studies are relevant to this study because they clearly identify factors to enhance the adoption of best management practices. They are discussed further in the Findings (Chapter 2) and Recommendations (Chapter 3), and are described in summary form in Appendix 4 of this report.


1.3.3 Selection of Field Sites To address the first aim of the study, a reconnaissance of field sites was undertaken in the Murray-Darling Basin where best management practices had been developed on an integrated land and water management basis. After extensive telephone interviews with regional resource management agency professionals, it was decided to examine the impediments to the adoption of salinity management, as it represented an ideal example of the need for integrated approaches to manage both land and water resources. The two sites selected for study were the Goran Catchment in northwestern New South Wales and the Tragowel Plains in northern Victoria. These two regions reflect different integrated approaches, with differing salinity problems (dryland and irrigation-induced salinity, respectively) and in contrasting institutional and climatic environments: Site 1 Lake Goran Catchment, Liverpool Plains Region, north-western New South Wales. This catchment is characterised by several resource management issues, including an increasing incidence of soil erosion, floodplain management, and dryland salinity problems. Several programmes to reduce resource degradation have been in operation on the plains over the last two decades. Salinity mitigation is the focus of new programmes being promoted in this region using the influence of local landcare groups. Site 2 Tragowel Plains, Kerang Lakes Region, northern Victoria. There are several resource management programmes operating in this region. They aim to reduce the impact of rising water tables and irrigation-induced salinity, the economic sustainability of irrigation agriculture, and changes to regional aquifer characteristics. The programmes have been based on a strong community participation ethic and include structural adjustment processes. This report deals with Site 1. A separate report describes the results of the study in Site 2. A description of the Goran study site is included in the Appendix 1 of this report. This includes a discussion of the biophysical characteristics, causes of salinity, salinity management processes, and community opinions about salinity management. Social profiles of the two catchments were undertaken using Census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The social profile data complemented previous studies on the Tragowel Plains. No social profiles exist of the Goran Catchment. These data sets were used to describe the social conditions in which adoption of integrated land and water management takes place, and the results for the Goran Catchment are discussed in Appendix 1.


1.3.4 Evaluation of Procedures to Identify, Select and Promote Practices This component of the first aim of the study, was investigated by a series of interviews with resource management agency staff, the farmer-based resource management organisation of the region (the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee), and adoption researchers involved in salinity management at the field sites. This involved structured and non-structured interviews. The evaluation of procedures to identify, select and implement best management practices was based on: • the identification of which agencies were involved; • the methods used to select best management practices; and who was involved

through public participation; • the reliance on evidence from field trials to validate the use of recommended best

management practices; • the reliance on past farmer experiences in the use of recommended best

management practices. Part of this investigation was to document the known causes of salinity. Without this information, it has been difficult to develop appropriate best management practices for salinity management. The results of the evaluation appear in Chapter 2 of this report. 1.3.5 Analysis of the Adoption of Best Management Practices The second, third and fourth aims of the study were investigated through two procedures: Data Collection Farmer Questionnaire The determination of the most appropriate means to investigate the adoption of best practices is best done by input from resource managers and agency personnel directly involved in the adoption process. Focussed workshops were held in the study site regions to select the appropriate best management practices to be analysed in a farmer questionnaire on the adoption of these practices. The workshops involved the leaders of the implementation group at each field site. A questionnaire was then developed and field tested with implementation group leaders and a small sample of farmers at each field site. The questionnaires differed in detail according to the type of best management practices at each field site. The data collected included: • adoption rates and stage of adoption of best practices;


• variables that influence the adoption of best practices; • perceived and real limits to adoption rates; • perceived institutional barriers to adoption; and • open-ended questions seeking farmer comments on methods to deal with soil

salinity and any other critical issues concerning the adoption of best management practices.

A copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix 5. A supportive letter from the local implementation organisation accompanied the mail out. A second mail out occurred two months after the original mail out. The sampling procedure used at each field site and response rate are discussed in Appendix 3. Field Interviews As well as the farmer questionnaire, the author undertook several field interviews to identify community views on the effectiveness of salinity management programmes and practices. The purpose was to determine current constraints believed to be critical to individual farmer adoption. Data were collected from landcare leaders, individual farmers and agency staff. The sample used can in no way be regarded as a definitive sample set of the survey population, and the results should in no way be regarded as the attitudes and perceptions of the populations of both study regions. However, the results were representative of peer leaders' opinions. Regional and head office managers of the relevant agencies associated with natural resources management and agriculture at both field sites were also interviewed. Agencies contacted are listed in Appendix 1. The corporate interview technique of Schoenberger (1991) was also used in these interviews. These interviews were based on the belief, as has been shown in the literature (see Appendix 4), that institutional arrangements form significant incentives, motivations and constraints on the adoption of best management practices. The interviews also allowed for: • the documentation of institutional arrangements for salinity management at the

regional and state level by all relevant agencies; and • the identification of factors perceived by the agency staff to affect the adoption of

best practices for salinity management. Data Analysis Data collected in the farmer questionnaire and interviews were analysed to identify characteristics of adoption behaviour, explanation of adoption behaviour, and limits to the adoption process. Data collected in the farmer questionnaire were analysed using several statistical techniques and these are documented in Appendix 3.


1.3.6 Review and Presentation of Results The last aim of the study was to identify measures to increase adoption. Presentations of the results of the farmer questionnaire were made to landowner groups, landcare leaders and agency staff to seek any comments regarding these findings. Comments received at this meeting were used to help form the recommendations of this report (Chapter 3). Comments were sought regarding: • the accuracy of the results compared to perceived adoption rates; • the accuracy of the results compared to perceived limits to adoption; • the potential of suggested measures to increase adoption; and • the most effective measures to use the results of this study. These presentations were undertaken in December 1994 and were critical to the results of this study. The input from resource managers and agency staff responsible for extension programs were aimed to ensure a greater acceptance of the results of this study. 1.4 Organisation of this Report Five sets of outcomes for this study were developed in accordance with the aims of the study. The outcomes of the study are discussed in Chapter 2. Recommendations were then developed for each aim of the study. These are discussed in Chapter 3. The Appendices attached to this Report are: Appendix 1: Description of the Field Site for this Report This describes the biophysical and social characteristics, resource management

issues and community opinions of salinity management in each study area. Appendix 2: A Conceptual Framework for Best Management Practice in

Integrated Land and Water Management This develops a framework for the study. Appendix 3: Results of Landowner Survey of Salinity Management

Practices for the Field Site. Results of the Farmer Questionnaire are presented, mainly as tabular data.

Sampling procedures on data analysis techniques are discussed. Appendix 4: Other Relevant Research Findings on the Adoption of Best

Management Practices This describes the results on comparable studies in adoption.


Appendix 5: Questionnaire This is the survey document used in the study and includes the letter of support

from the local stakeholder group promoting salinity management. Appendix 6: References and Reading List This is a list of references quoted in this report, plus supplementary reading

material related to adoption research, the description of both field sites and agency publications.


2. RESULTS 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide insight into the adoption process, and constraints on the implementation of best management practices for integrated land and water management. Measures to increase the adoption are discussed in Chapter Three. The study findings are presented in relation to each of the aims of the study, and are the result of the analysis of data collected in: • the Farmer Questionnaire; and • structured and non-structured interviews with resource management agency

professionals, regional implementation groups, and peer leaders in farming communities,

as outlined in Chapter One of this Report.

For each of the aims, common strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities were assembled from these data sources, then were reviewed and presented as results. 2.2 Procedures For The Identification, Selection And Promotion Of Best Management Practices Aim One: Evaluation of the procedures used to identify, select and promote best management practices. This included examining the role of community participation. The investigation of best management practice identification, selection and promotion revealed some fundamental weaknesses in the understanding of the concepts of best management practice and integrated land and water management, yet strengths in the use of community participation based methods, linked to the technical and research capability of government agencies. 2.2.1 Identification, Selection and Promotion Processes Reliance on a Top-Down Scientific Approach Salinity management has been identified as a critical resource management issue, one that must be addressed at both the farm level and across the Goran Catchment. The identification of best management practices for salinity management has relied heavily on monitoring depth to water table programs, and research into the hydrogeological behaviour of groundwater resources, and on-farm soil water management processes. The identification of practices has, therefore, been primarily a 'top-down' initiative by the resource management agencies, led by Conservation and Land Management and


Department of Water Resources. Interviews with agency staff indicated that the dominant paradigm operating in the identification process was to use agency expertise and provide this to farmers mainly through Landcare groups in the catchment, seeking an adoption response. Creating More Risk in Selected Options The technical reports from these studies form the basis of the 'best bet' options for salinity management in the Goran Catchment. Recently completed economic analysis of these options has shown that some options could increase on-farm financial risk, especially in the short term. This does not augur well for adoption, and there is a reluctance amongst Goran farmers to consider adopting risk creating practices. Concerns for Equity Issues The study found that there is a concern that equity issues between farmers and between generations of farmers in the Goran Catchment have not been considered. Property rights issues have not been addressed, in current approaches to salinity management, which specify practices for particular land types and locations in the catchment, and which do not consider on-farm costs and the broader catchment benefits and disbenefits that may flow from their adoption. Practicality and Efficacy of Recommended Practices The study also found that there was a concern that recommended practices, in the identification and selection phase, were not considering their practicality and suitability, although this was denied by some agency professionals. Long-term field trials of recommended practices were suggested. However this approach is complicated by the 50-year time frame suggested before benefits (lowering water tables, for example) become apparent, and short term funding programs of government agencies. Lack of Ownership of the Problem A further concern was the perceived lack of ownership of the salinity problem by Goran Catchment farmers (as revealed in the low scores of perceived salinity hazard - see Appendix 5). The results suggest that farmers prefer to 'fix up' other, more pressing resource management problems before tackling salinity. These primary problems, soil erosion and floodplain management, dominate decision-making about identifying and selecting salinity management practices. Failure to Use an Integrated Approach that Recognises Resource Management Complexities A final issue related to identification and selection processes is the complex nature of resource management in the Goran Catchment. While soil erosion and floodplain management issues dominated the concerns of the farmer survey, it is unlikely that salinity (which is a more insidious, 'invisible' problem) will not be addressed by the majority of farmers in this catchment. Furthermore, salinity problems (particularly high water tables) may be related to floodplain management and overall water management in the catchment. This linkage does not appear to have been made in the Goran Catchment.


This issue is further complicated by the memory farmers have of past extension programs run by the resource management agencies. Opinion is divided on their past benefits, and in several cases has led to significant controversies within a Landcare group and across the catchment, regarding recommended practices for flood flows, individual farmers' actions to redirect flows, and downstream impacts. Unless these issues are resolved, it is difficult to address integrated approaches to salinity management. Farmers do not see the agencies working in any integrated sense, so why should they? Furthermore, there was evidence of 'institutional memory' effects operating in the agencies, particularly an unwillingness to tackle new issues, because of problems generated from past extension programs. 2.2.2 The Role of Community Participation in Enhancing Adoption In the Goran Catchment, there was strong support, as revealed in discussions with agency personnel and Landcare leaders, for a community participation approach for salinity management. What this entails in practice, however, is somewhat ill-defined. Community participation has focussed on involvement in Landcare groups, in the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, and in attending meetings on catchment-wide issues (such as floodplain management). Despite this apparent strong participatory profile, the farmer questionnaire revealed that farmers held ambivalent views about the value of Landcare as a means of improving resource management decision-making. 2.2.3 Poor Definition of 'Best' Management Practices? The study found that there was no clear agreement on the definition of 'best management practice' with respect to integrated land and water management. There has been little development of a best management practice approach, except for the listing of practices thought to be reasonably effective in reducing the environmental impact of resource use. However, Best Management Practice is not just a suite of appropriate technologies to deal with a particular environmental management problem. Rather, a best management practice approach should consider the relevant individual decision processes and institutional arrangements affecting implementation (this concept is developed further in Appendix 2). 2.2.4 Weak Understanding of Integrated Land and Water Management The study found that there was weak understanding of a conceptual framework for integrated land and water management. The conceptual framework for using an integrated approach to land and water management is still evolving, and this may form a hindrance to adoption of integrated approaches. Both farmers and resource mangers support integrated approaches, but appear to manage natural resources still from a single-issue perspective. The study found that people were confused about what they were trying to achieve using integrated approaches. There is the need to clearly define 'integrated land and water management'; a definition that has acceptability and application, and that recognises the unique biophysical characteristics of the Goran Catchment and its


unique regional, social, and economic characteristics. The process of implementing integrated land and water management is dependent on defining the concept more clearly3 . 2.2.5 Inadequate Understanding of the Adoption Process There is a substantial knowledge base of the adoption of production technologies in resource management. However, relatively less is known about the adoption of best management practices for integrated environmental management in the catchment. Both farmers and agency professionals appear to rely on top-down extension processes. Yet, they work in a Landcare-driven adoption process. There is confusion about how to use Landcare more effectively when agency resources provide shrinking budgets to fund any type of extension. 2.2.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development The study found that the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) have been given only limited recognition in integrated land and water management. It appears that there is limited understanding of how ESD approaches could be implemented at the subcatchment level, although it was thought that an ESD approach was useful. ESD initiatives were perceived to be 'out there' issues by some agency professionals, that is, ESD may be an issue of international significance, but it is really irrelevant to the operation of natural resource management activities in the Goran Catchment. There was a strong perception that an ESD approach to integrated land and water management would not work, because it was yet to be shown how financially viable an ESD approach could be. 2.2.7 Conclusion The outcomes related to Aim One of the study indicate that the identification, selection and promotion of best management practices is fraught with difficulties, and these appear to form constraints to the implementation of a best practice approach. It is contended that these are not superficial nor hypothetical problems, but operate as real difficulties in our understanding of why more implementation has not taken place. 2.3 Adoption Of Best Management Practices Aim Two: Documentation of the adoption of best management practices by resource managers. 2.3.1 Features of Adoption

3 This is done in Appendix 2.


Best management practices have been suggested for each of four generic land types in the Goran Catchment, and summary adoption data are presented below. A more detailed listing of statistics describing adoption is found in Appendix 3. The results are presented here in summary form. Farmers' adoption of a selected range of resource management practices believed relevant to each land type were collected, so as to compare and contrast their adoption of salinity management practices with other resource management practices. The adoption of best management practices was undertaken for each of four generic land systems in the Goran Catchment, so as to reveal the adoption rates by those farmers who worked that land on their property. This gave a more accurate estimation of adoption rates. Past, current and intended adoption rates were determined. The data are summarised in Tables 2.1 to 2.4. Data on all relevant resource management practices for each land type were gathered. Practices shown in bold typeface refer to best management practices for salinity management, as identified in presurveys of agency professionals, land management organisations and Landcare leaders. Overall, the study found that: • salinity management does not appear to be the prime concern of farmers across

the majority of the catchment, except those managing Type A lands, as they are adopting proportionately higher rates of best management practices for salinity. These lands are not exclusively in the upstream (southern) end of the catchment, but it is unknown whether salinity is driving their adoption of best management practices;

• the most adopted practices were conservation farming practices that have been promoted in the past;

• the highest current adoption rate of any one practice was 60% (for rotation farming on Land Type C), and the majority of adoption rates were under 50% of relevant farmers;

• the intentions to adopt salinity management practices are low. This includes both current adopters and non-adopters;

• the practice to change landuse to grazing, recognised as a best management practice for land types A, B, and D is not being strongly adopted, despite strong returns from cattle production at present. This suggests other factors apart from salinity management or economic returns may be impeding adoption of this practice;

• the best management practices used in this study were these that have been promoted by the relevant resource management agencies and implementation group;

• the relatively low adoption rates of best management practices for salinity management are a concern considering that salinity management issues have been widely publicised in the catchment; and

• the relatively low adoption rates of best management practices for salinity management also suggests that adoption is being driven by many factors.


Table 2.1. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Upland

Timbered Country - Any Soil Type (Land Type A)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type A Data are ranked according to current adoption rates.

Done this

in the past Doing now

Intend to do it

Retain trees

45.3 60.4 11.3

Improve pasture quality

39.6 58.5 20.8

Convert former cropping land into pasture

56.7 45.3 13.2

Allow more regeneration

13.2 35.9 18.9

Structural works for soil conservation

56.6 37.7 11.3

Other resource management practices 5.6 15.1 3.7

Table 2.2. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Red Soils Sloping Country (Land Type B)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type B

Data are ranked according to current adoption rates

Done this in the past

Doing now

Intend to do it

Convert from cropping into pasture production (eg, lucerne production)

54.3 56.1 12.3

Crop rotations

36.8 38.6 10.5

Plant or allow regeneration of woodlots and tree lines

22.8 29.8 22.8

Structural works for soil conservation 59.6 21.1 7.0 Other resource management practices 8.8 10.5 3.5


Table 2.3. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Black Soils Sloping Country (Land Type C)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type C



Doing now

Intend to do it

Rotation farming

43.1 60.0 17.7

Stubble retention/mulching

54.9 52.9 17.6

Cultivate on the contour

39.2 37.3 13.7

Opportunity/response cropping

23.5 37.3 17.7

Soil conservation works (floodways, graded banks to stop water logging)

54.9 35.3 9.8

Short, rather than long fallow

21.6 33.3 15.7

Strip farming

37.3 27.5 9.8

Other resource management practices

7.8 13.7 2.0

Table 2.4. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Black Soil Floodplain Country (Land Type D)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type D



Doing now

Intend to do it


58.5 54.7 15.1

Rotation farming

35.8 49.1 15.1


30.2 41.6 15.1

Soil conservation works

26.4 28.3 7.6


26.4 28.3 20.8

Strip farming

37.7 28.3 11.3

Increase pasture production (eg lucerne production)

18.9 26.4 20.8

Convert from cropping into pasture production (eg lucerne production)

22.6 24.8 18.9


Other practices 5.7 3.8 7.6


2.3.2 Perceptions of Salinity Impacts Data collected on perceived resource management problems in the Goran Catchment revealed that over one half of the sample population perceived that salinity is a problem in their catchment, whereas only 25.3% perceive it to be a problem on their own property. This smaller figure could be interpreted in a number of ways: • salinity does not exist on 70.3% of Goran Catchment farms; • the majority of farmers do not perceive there is a problem, even if there is one; • salinity is less important because other resource management issues are more

important and they are sublimating the threat, because other hazards are more important (flooding, soil erosion, drought); and

• the perception of hazard is limited until an individual is directly impacted by the phenomenon4.

These figures contrast with the Tragowel Plains perceptions where, 92.8% of the sample stated that there was evidence of soil salinity on their property. In conclusion, the figures suggest that for the majority of Goran Catchment farmers, salinity is not perceived to be an important resource management problem. The majority of farmers recognise that salinity is a regional resource management problem, but they are yet to own it, even in their own catchment. This result implies that there needs to be a major thrust by relevant organisations and agencies to increase individual awareness and ownership of the salinity problem. The results described above imply that because salinity is not a feature seen everyday on the landscape as soil erosion is, that is the hazard is hidden, perhaps latent, then landowners are not only unwilling to do anything about it, but they also do not really see it as a problem that enters there own farm management program. 2.3.3 Other Features of the Adoption of Salinity Management Past Conservation Practice Goran Catchment farmers have been strong adopters of conservation practices in the past. 76.9% have adopted stubble mulching/stubble retention, 75.8% have adopted pasture improvement; 54.9% have farmed on the contour; and 52.7% have adopted strip cropping. These figures refer to all farmers and do not distinguish those farmers who may not have land where each practice is required or is technically suited to their farm. This suggests that the rate of adoption of appropriate practices, in the past, is actually higher. Goran Catchment farmers do not give up practices they have adopted in the past, with 16.5% of zero till cultivation adopters and strip cropping adopters giving up these practices. Even lower figures were recorded for farming on the contour (11.0%), stubble mulching/stubble retention (9.9%), and less than 7% for retaining

4 This is not surprising, as hazard perceptions of other hazards, for example, flooding, tornados,

frosts, earthquakes, are known to be directly related to experience.


water for on-farm storages, opportunity response cropping, and tree establishment/retention. It appears that once farmers adopt a practice they continue to do it, at least that is their perception. While adoption of conservation practices is relatively high, adoption of salinity management practices is less strong, with only 51.6% adopting pasture improvement and 40.7% adopting stubble mulching/retention. However, as the stubble mulching/retention figure is for the whole population, it would be expected to be lower, as this practice is not applicable to all land types across the catchment. The pasture improvement figure appears to overstate the actual rates of adoption as described for each land type above. Soil Salinity Surveying Soil salinity surveying is a relatively recent practice in the Goran Catchment. Only 16.5% of the sample have adopted this practice. Changing Landuse Changing landuse because of salinity reasons had been adopted by 68.1% of the sample. Land use change, switching mainly from cropping into grazing enterprises, may be driven by better returns from cattle production. Over half of those farmers who had changed landuse did it for financial reasons and because it suited their style of farming. Salinity, therefore, does not appear to be the reason to move into pasture production. Reasons for not changing landuse were mainly because of the perceived lack of salinity (82.3% of the non-adopters). Undertaking a Whole Farm Plan Only about one in three farmers had undertaken this practice, for salinity or any other reason. The majority of non-adopters (73.5%) thought it not necessary, as they did not have a salinity problem. 2.4 Explaining Adoption Aim Three: Explanation of the rate of adoption in terms of psycho-sociological, economic and institutional constraints. A more detailed analysis of the adopters of salinity management practices was undertaken, to assist in the explanation of adoption (see Appendix A3). The analysis found that: • 12.1% of the survey sample were strong adopters, defined as having adopted

>50% of possible practices relevant to that land type. That is, one in 8 farmers is a major adopter;


• 19.78% of the survey sample had adopted 50% of the relevant practices, while 17.6% had adopted 25% of the relevant practices;

• the most frequent adoption rate was 50% of relevant practices (10.8% of survey sample);

• the second most frequent adoption rate was 25% of relevant practices (17.6% of survey sample); and

• a very small number of farmers were very weak adopters of salinity management. Only two farmers claimed to have never adopted a salinity management practice.

These results demonstrate that adoption is not consistent across the sample data set, and as expected, some farmers were stronger adopters than others. The challenge then is to explain why adoption varies. 2.4.1 Adoption and Past Practice The adoption of soil conservation practices, whether they be salinity related or not, is generally believed to reflect past conservation behaviour. We would expect that if a farmer was conservation oriented, he/she would most likely be predisposed to adopt salinity management practices. The Goran Catchment has had a strong history of soil conservation experience, so it was hypothesised that past conservation behaviour would be correlated with current salinity management adoption behaviour. A oneway analysis of variance revealed that there was no significant difference between past and present adoption behaviour, at the 5% level. The result indicates that, at least for farmers in this sample of the Goran Catchment, past conservation behaviour does not differ to current salinity management behaviour. Present conservation behaviour was found to be positively correlated to past behaviour with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.414. The result indicates that adoption of salinity management practices in the Goran Catchment, as a whole, is related to past experience in adopting land conservation practices. The result is not surprising, and confirms previous research which suggests past adoption behaviour influences current adoption. However, this result should not be applied to individual farmers, as a means of predicting an individual's behaviour. To judge the predicability of past on present conservation behaviour, a regression analysis was undertaken. This yielded the result: Present Adoption = 24.6 + 0.356 Past Adoption (where adoption is expressed on a scale of 0 - 100, being proportion of practices adopted relevant to land management units on a farmer's property, as discussed in Appendix 3). The R2 value for the regression was 17.2% indicating that less than one in 5 farmers' behaviour can be explained with the equation.


These results suggest that care should be taken in predicting future behaviour from past conservation behaviour. Lest than 20% of behaviour is predictable, although it is correlated. (This analysis is discussed further in Appendix 3.) 2.4.2 Adoption is Driven by Financial Viability, Risk, Lifestyle and Practicality Issues An analysis of the factors believed to influence adoption of salinity management was undertaken (a detailed discussion is found in Appendix 3). Farmers were asked to rank the degree of importance of a number of variables identified from past research into the adoption of soil conservation. Nearly all these variables ranked highly. They included the practicality and suitability of the practice to the farm, financial benefits and disbenefits of the practice, potential to increase risk, impact on production costs, intergenerational issues, longterm financial benefits, requirements to improve skills and purchase equipment, and several other structural and psycho-sociological variables, including information flows. These results suggest that these factors are not only important, but there are many of them, and that they can act as impediments to adoption. 2.4.3 Adoption is Primarily a Personal Choice While many variables affect adoption, the results of the farmer survey, taken as a whole, suggest that adoption of salinity management practices is essentially a personal farm business decision. When farmers are uncertain of the impact of a practice, they are reticent to experiment with it. This was reiterated in comments during field interviews with Landcare leaders. 2.4.4 Role of Institutions Adoption of any resource management practice occurs within an institutional context. Farmers in this catchment appear to be aware of the role of government, in salinity management planning. This was shown in survey comments and their willingness to provide advice to government, through this study, on how institutional arrangements could assist in adoption of salinity management practices. The following discussion summarises their thinking about what should be adopted, what causes adoption, and the role of government. What are the Best Management Practices for Salinity Management? Farmers generally believe that changing landuse into more pasture production (73.6% support) and planting more trees on recharge and discharge areas (67.0%) will reduce the affects of salinity. 52.7% believe that reducing soil moisture levels by opportunity/response cropping is a useful practice. Risk management skills are only supported by about one in five farmers. What stops farmers pursuing these salinity management options? No one factor dominates, but about one third of farmers believe they are already practising salinity management. About one quarter of farmers believe that salinity is


not their problem, so they do not intend doing anything about it. These low figures suggest that no one factor is a limiting factor regarding salinity management adoption.


What do farmers think stops other farmers pursuing salinity management options? No one factor dominates, but 33% of farmers cite costs and 31.9% cite the type of farming as factors precluding others adopting salinity management. What do farmers believe government should do to make it easier to adopt salinity management practices? Farmers were not unanimous in their response to this question. Approximately 40% support the idea of financial incentives to plant trees, allow regeneration and change from cropping to pastures. The results suggest that farmers, at least in this sample, hold ambivalent beliefs about the effectiveness of any one option to encourage the adoption of salinity management practices. How should government financially support salinity management adoption? Farmers overwhelmingly support (90% of the sample) the need for more technical research into salinity management. This suggests that they believe little is known of the causes of salinity, and that recent research findings have not reached the farmers. 70% of farmers support direct funding of Landcare activities through local agencies, yet in other parts of this survey (the importance ratings), farmers believe that membership of Landcare groups is not an important factor in their adoption of salinity management practices. 78% support the need for more social and economic research into salinity management, perhaps reflecting farmers' beliefs that the costs of salinity management practices and farmer attitudes may be impediments to adoption. Around 50% of the farmers believe that traditional one-to-one extension, improved training of extension officers and improved interagency communication would improve salinity management. 2.4.5 Are Adopters any Different to Non-adopters? Farmers were stratified into four groups according to level of adoption : very strong adopters (> 70% adoption of relevant practices), strong adopters (55%-70% adoption), moderate adopters (30%-54% adoption), and weak adopters (< 30% of relevant practices). An analysis of variance test showed the stratification was valid (Appendix 3). To assist in explaining adoption, a further analysis revealed that there was no differences between the four groups with respect to: • total land area owned; • dominant land use; • gross farm income; • direction of gross farm income movement; • farmer age; • length of farm management experience on present property; • total length of farm management experience;


• highest educational level achieved; and • membership in Landcare groups. These results indicate that adoption is not related to specific demographic characteristics of individual farmers, and reinforces the contention that explanation of adoption behaviour cannot be explained solely in terms of specific personal or descriptive farm characteristics. Further analysis of pooled adopted groups (using correlation analysis, also discussed in Appendix 3) revealed that there were a number of important relationships between motivations to adopt salinity management. These include: The practicality, the suitability and cost of salinity management practices

with potential savings to be won by farmers

The availability of grants to start salinity management

with the time saved in implementing it

The impact on farm financial risk by reducing input costs

with improving production levels

The efficacy of the practice

with its long term benefits

The potential higher labour costs

with the necessity to buy new equipment

The efficacy of the practice, as demonstrated in field tests

with the availability of information about its financial viability

The availability of sound technical information

with farmer access to it

Whether new equipment will require me to provide more labour

with whether the suitability of the practice will increase farm financial risk

2.4.6 Synopsis Where individuals are impacted by salinity, they are prepared to undertake practices that will attempt to reduce the salinity hazard and to provide some production of saline land. Where salinity hazard is perceived to be low, adoption appears weak. There are a number of generic factors farmers believe influence the adoption of best management practices in salinity management. They are the economic returns of the practice, intergenerational equity concerning farm viability and improved resource management, the technical suitability, efficacy and practicality of recommended practices, the likelihood of practices increasing financial risk, impacts of a practice on farm costs, and information availability.


2.5 Limits to Adoption Aim Four: Identification of the limits of the adoption process in terms of psycho-sociological, economic and institutional constraints. This includes reference to the need for structural adjustment in the adoption process. 2.5.1 Defining Limits to Adoption The adoption process is not a discrete event. Adoption moves back and forth between identifiable stages. There are five stages of the adoption process that can be measured: (i) awareness; (ii) level of knowledge; (iii) assessment/evaluation; (iv) trial of practice; (v) extent of adoption (how many adopters, at which level [i to iv], how much of

the practice is adopted, over what area). Measuring just the final stage of adoption will significantly underestimate those farmers who have partially adopted a practice, unless the level of adoption stated in a survey response includes partial adoption. In this study, all levels of adoption were assumed from the survey responses, so the data described above probably overestimates adoption rates. Limits to adoption can be defined as an end point in adoption behaviour, beyond which a resource manager is unwilling to implement practices on a voluntary basis. This end point could equate with partial adoption by other resource managers. A resource manager may reach his/her limits and be unable to adopt because of the physical characteristics of his/her farm. These inability constraints can also preclude any or further adoption: • information is lacking or scarce; • costs of obtaining information are too high; • complexity of the system is too great; • innovation is too expensive; • labour requirements are too excessive; • planning horizon too short; • availability and accessibility of supporting resources are limited; • inadequate managerial skills; and • little or no control over the adoption decision.


Similarly, a resource manager may reach his/her limits and be unwilling to adopt because of attitudinal constraints. Nowak (1992) identifies a number of variables, categorised as unwillingness variables, which preclude any or further adoption: • information conflicts or is inconsistent about a best practice; • poor applicability and relevance of information; • conflicts exist between current production goals and the new technology; • ignorance on the part of the farmer or promoter of the new technology; • practice is inappropriate to the physical setting; • practice increases risk of negative outcomes; • belief in traditional practices as being better. 2.5.2 Psycho-sociological Constraints to Adoption In the Goran Catchment, the majority of farmers were unwilling to adopt best management practices for salinity management primarily because they did not perceive there to be a salinity problem, and if there was one on the Liverpool Plains, it was not necessarily their problem on their own property. The limit then to adoption is attitudinal for many Goran farmers. Another prevailing attitudinal and structural constraint is farming lifestyle. 56.4% of Goran farmers changed landuse because it suited their style of farming. Costs (fencing, stock water supplies) required once land has been converted into a grazing regime. Other structural reasons included mis-matching rotation systems, returns are better for farming and different interpretations of the techniques of opportunity/response cropping. The perceived level of risk generated by adopting best management practices for salinity management is an important factor limiting adoption by Goran Farmers. This and other structural/operational factors such as: • if the practice works; • whether the practice is practical and suits my farm operations; • necessity of buying new farm equipment; • disruption to the farm production system; • whether the practice has been field tested; • necessity to acquire new farming skills; • if the practice requires more labour; and • anticipated time saved by the practice. All rank as very important to important in the minds of Goran farmers. These results suggest that salinity management practices must be financially beneficial and relevant to a farmer's way of operating, above anything else, and these are real, practical limits to adoption. 2.5.3 Economic Constraints


Risk management is perhaps the most critical best practice for managing salinity. The findings outlined in Section 2.4 above reiterate previous research on the adoption of sustainable farming technologies. Napier (1986) demonstrated that the willingness of farmers to adopt more sustainable farming technologies was a function of their ability to reduce financial risk. Even when farmers have strong environmental concerns, they will not adopt the technology if it increases financial risk. Napier et al., (1984) maintained that reliance on information-based programs to convince farmers to adopt sustainable farming practices is futile, because information flows are irrelevant if practices increase risk and/or farm costs. They maintained that practices have to be shown to be profitable in the short term, and be technically suited to the farm's structural constraints, before adoption occurs. Kromm and White (1990) have shown that the adoption of water saving practices in irrigation is a function of the depletion of the available water resources, the financial benefits that the practice will bring the farmer, and the technically suitability of the practice. They found that while most irrigators feel that they would voluntarily conserve water resources, crop prices and energy costs were more important factors in adoption decision-making. Wolf and Nowak (1994) have shown that agrichemical management services (chemical dealers) play a critical role in the adoption of best management practices. That is, the service providers in the local irrigation industries (including financial services) play key roles in the adoption of more effective resource conservation practices. In the Goran Catchment financial and economic constraints to the adoption of best management practices for salinity management dominated decision-making. These factors appear to be both attitudinal and structural constraints. 51.6% of Goran farmers who adopted the practice "changing landuse due to salinity problems" (mainly to grazing enterprises) did so for the financial returns it produced. This means about half the farmers didn't change for other reasons. One structural reason repeated in interviews with farmer and agency professionals was the consideration of the costs of new farm structures. 2.5.4 Institutional Limits Institutional arrangements for identifying, promoting and implementing best practices may also form critical variables to adoption. In the Goran Catchment, farmers perceive that information flows and subsidisation are important to the decision to adopt best management practices for salinity management. These include: • availability of information on financial viability of practices; • availability of information on technical suitability; • availability of backup support for the practice; • if grants and subsidies are available to help pay for the practice; and • their legal obligation to undertake the practice. However, Goran Catchment farmers were ambivalent in their support for startup grants. This suggests that they perceive those mechanisms to be flawed, and that perhaps startup grants have been abused in the past.


The high rankings of legal obligation as an importance factor suggests that, once instituted, Goran Catchment farmers would support some form of legal constraints on landuse, a fact acknowledged in previous surveys of floodplain management attitudes in the same region (Hooper, 1993). This ambivalence is also shown in their support for financial incentives for tree regeneration and planting, and changed land use practices (cropping to pasture). This lack of overwhelming support for financial incentives suggests that: • previous programs lack the applicability to micro-target the individual farmer; • farmers abuse the incentives; • farmers prefer to be independent of government in the decision-making; • government should micro-target specific needs, for example, assistance to

purchase machinery for opportunity/response farming; • government should first fix up more pressing resource management problems like

floodplain management; and • government should provide taxation incentives such as investment guidelines. These perspectives were obtained from written response from farmers and agency professionals. Many farmers also expressed, in written comments in the survey form, that the best approach by government to implement salinity management, is to view farming as a business venture. The approach should be to encourage best business management practices (for example, risk avoidance, low capital borrowings, improved financial decision-making, diversifying on- and off-farm enterprises). Using this perspective, government should create an adoption environment where it is good business practice to adopt salinity management. One obvious way is to spread risk, by encouraging off-farm investment and savings, and so reduce the need to increase farm production to meet rising costs. In so doing, farming enterprises need be less intensive. For example, reduced stocking rates and vegetation regeneration in salinity recharge areas would be seen as attractive business ventures, because they reduced risk as less on-farm investment was required. The study has shown that there is considerable antipathy towards any institutional arrangements for increasing adoption of best management practices. The results of this study should be taken as a warning by government. To overcome the limits of adoption, any institutional arrangement should be: • integrated with other programs to maximise benefits; • micro-targeted in application; and • 'hands-off' in application, assuming that individuals will be motivated to protect

their own resource asset and use their business acumen to manage their resources effectively.

2.5.5 Overcoming Constraints One way of overcoming limits to adoption is to identify and breakdown 'barriers to entry' into the use of best management practices. This approach suggests that


appropriate entry processes must be facilitated before adoption occurs. They are discussed in Chapter 3.


3. MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE MOST EFFECTIVE ADOPTION The fifth aim of the study was: The identification of the measures necessary to achieve the most effective and widespread adoption of best management practices, including voluntary practices and the opportunities for alternative measures. This chapter outlines measures the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, other agencies, producer organisations, resource management groups, and individuals can take to achieve more widespread adoption of integrated land and water management practices. This study recommends several measures to achieve the most effective and widespread adoption of best management practices. The measures apply equally to dryland salinity and irrigation-induced salinity management programs. Where components of these measures are more relevant to one of the two types of salinity management, this is indicated. Thirteen measures are recommended in this report. They are not listed in rank order. 3.1 Define the IEM Process Recommendation: The process of integrated environmental management (integrated land and water management) needs to be clearly defined. This involves the identification of: • the core elements of an IEM approach (use of a systems approach; use of a

strategic, rather than a comprehensive approach; use of a stakeholder approach; use of a partnership approach; use of a balanced approach);

• the respective responsibilities of individual resource users and government agencies at the local, regional, state and national level;

• the functional linkages between users and government; and • the performance indicators of IEM to evaluate progress (this includes indicators of

ecological sustainability, social health, equity, economic efficiency and sustainability of IEM practices).

While there is general agreement in Australia on the philosophy of IEM, and products that result from the IEM process, there is confusion, ignorance, and uncertainty of how IEM should be put into practice. A set of guiding principles is useful, but what would be more use is the development of core implementation processes. Research into the whole IEM process would assist in improving the decision-making process. The critical issue is not discovering best management practices, but enhancing the adoption of those practices. A codes of practice approach would also be beneficial.


The use of technical support and the identification of codes of practice by individuals has greatly accelerated private adoption of these practices in other regions of Australia. This has national implications on how IEM should take place in salinity management (AACM and Centre for Water Policy Research, 1994). The most effective IEM process is one where local land and water management programs have been developed by local communities. The need to skill resource managers in these communities and in natural resource management agencies and to develop integrated/wholistic thinking is critical. There is the need to develop training courses in IEM for middle management in natural resource management agencies. 3.2 Run a Workshop on Implementing IEM Recommendation: Murray-Darling Basin Commission should hold a national workshop to identify and promote implementation procedures for a Best Management Practice approach in Integrated Environmental Management, with specific reference to salinity management. It is contended that there remains weak understanding of the IEM paradigm and a policy and planning workshop at the national, state, and substate level on implementing an integrated environmental management approach in salinity management is required. The purpose of this workshop would be: • to identify those institutional arrangements that mitigate against the adoption of a

Best Management Practice approach to IEM with specific reference to salinity management; and

• to identify those mechanisms that can enhance the adoption of the IEM approach. Particular reference should be made to a recent DPIE Report, Analysing the Effectiveness of Catchment Management Planning (AACM International and Centre for Water Policy Research, 1994). The results of this consultancy have direct application to this study. The workshop should be preceded by a select number of position papers which would form the basis of discussion. It is suggested that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Centre for Water Policy Research organise the workshop in Canberra. The workshop should be two days in length. The output of the workshop would be the development of core implementation processes in the Murray-Darling Basin. This would also include discussion of a conceptual frameworks for Integrated Environmental Management, as they apply to the Basin's unique bioregional characteristics, and institutional arrangements for natural resources management and management. Specific attention should be given to discussing the use of funding mechanisms available to the Murray-Darling Basin


Commission. These mechanisms should have an accountability component built into them, as is discussed elsewhere in this report. 3.3 Catchment Wide Assessment and Leadership are Needed Recommendation: Regional planning mechanisms should use a whole catchment approach. Salinity management should be linked to catchment wide economic and social impact assessment. There is a real need to address salinity management on a whole catchment basis. This should include the economic analysis of catchment management options. Recent research at the catchment level (Greiner, 1994; Howard, 1993), has shown that farmers making investment decisions based on the criterion of economic efficiency will not view catchment management plans as a good investment. Furthermore, short term disbenefits will be realised in changed landuse practices for salinity management at the catchment level. These results suggest more rigorous catchment-wide economic assessment and social impact assessment are needed, as it appears that regional disbenefits flow from adoption of salinity management practices. There is also the need for a community-based chairperson to drive salinity management at the regional level at each field site, or provide an independent catchment-wide perspective. One agency in command should be avoided. 3.4 Use of Risk-averse Best Management Practices Recommendation: Risk-averse Best Management Practices should be identified, selected and promoted as a matter of urgency. Practices that avoid risk have a much greater adoption attraction to farmers. Stakeholders, bankers and other financial service providers, irrigator associations, water user groups, prime farming organisations, Landcare groups, and regional development board members should all be involved in the processes of identification, selection, and promotion of best management practices. More research, particularly the assessment of risk, related to specific practices, is needed to identify opportunities for effective micro-targeted options for farmers. The work of Greiner (1994) should be used as a model type of research, in that it assesses financial risk of various salinity management options. This work should be extended and linked to other types of risk assessment including production risk (changed land management practices to reduce uncertainty caused by environmental factors), environmental risk (for example, biophysical assessment of soil degradation risk and broader ecological interactions) and marketing risk (assessment of uncertainty about future prices of farm products and inputs). An integrated risk assessment procedure is needed as a matter of urgency, prior to on-farm adoption of specific salinity management practices.


3.5 Micro-target Programs to Integrate Farm Adjustment and Salinity Management Recommendation: Adoption programs should be developed that are specific to regional salinity characteristics and farming practices, and linked to a farm adjustment program, if best practices are not financially viable in the short term. Structural Adjustment rather than salinity management is the focus of the Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Program. Salinity management is really a by-product (a positive environmental benefit) of a process of adjusting agriculture to changed economic conditions in the 1990s. Institutional arrangements, such as structural adjustment, are necessary in this region to encourage the formation of farms of a size that have a viable resource base that can be used for farming practices that mitigate salinity impacts. This approach micro-targets solutions to fit farms in the region. Such an approach should be developed throughout in the Murray-Darling Basin, using the procedures noted in these recommendations. 3.6 Implement A Contractual System Recommendation: A system of contractual agreements should be established between the Commonwealth government and regional resource management organisations to implement salinity management programs. This will involve the development of appropriate cost-sharing, co-financing and co-management arrangements. These arrangements should be linked to a process of annual reporting that will allow the Commonwealth government and participating regional communities to be able to monitor the effectiveness of their actions. This process is particularly important to allowing greater ownership of IEM by regional communities and will provide the Commonwealth Government with the ability to monitor its progress with respect to international ESD obligations. This contractual system should also be linked to regional integrated resource management packages. For example, water allocation mechanisms should be linked to structural adjustment programs; linked to natural resources management funding; and linked to accountability procedures. 3.7 Use of an Industry-driven, Stakeholder Participation Technique Recommendation: Effective leadership and community representativeness are both achieved by empowering industry groups to promote and implement best management practices. Regional task forces,


driven by industry groups, should be set up to drive IEM at the regional scale. The composition of task forces and the leadership skills of such groups can enhance effective salinity management. The involvement of industry bodies to promote and implement land and water managed practices that reduce salinity impacts should be encouraged. The development of Codes of Best Practice Environmental Management by each industry group should be developed. Government should provide incentives to agricultural suppliers to encourage the adoption of best management practices through 'green' company incentives. Irrigation associations (that is, user associations, industry groups) should play a more active role in promoting more efficient irrigation practices amongst their members. Irrigation and producer associations should also develop training programs to skill farmers in Best Practice Environmental Management and improved business management, for example, spreading risk over a number of enterprises rather than relying on those which produce salinity impacts. Irrigation associations should promote more efficient irrigation, through partnership agreements with government, and provide financial incentives for farmers to change irrigation practices (eg improved irrigation scheduling), by rebates from privately managed irrigation systems. The Commonwealth government could provide direct financial bonuses to such organisations in irrigation areas if they demonstrate gains in efficient water management, reduced allocations, improved production linked to cleaner irrigation outflows. These should be components of the contractual system, discussed in 3.6. In this way win-win situations for industry, government, and farmers for salinity management practices will result. 3.8 Improved Effectiveness Monitoring of Salinity Management Policies and Programs Recommendation: Effectiveness monitoring should be extended to include ecological, economic and social monitoring. Annual Reporting Guidelines for the implementation of Victorian Salinity Management Plans exist, but a more rigorous integrated monitoring and reporting process is needed. There are good indicators of the implementation of salinity management plans, but there are only poor measures of whether degradation is declining, or how ecosystem health and social well-being are changing. Effectiveness monitoring of dryland salinity management is poorly developed in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Tragowel Plains Salinity Management program has regional and state salinity program objectives that are being addressed. This is a positive outcome of current institutional arrangements for integrated land and water management. Similar


arrangements need to be developed for effective land and water management in both dryland catchments, and in other irrigation regions of the Murray-Darling Basin. Biophysical indicators for salinity management are not yet fully developed to undertake effective ecological monitoring, so it is difficult to know if effective salinity management is occurring. Effectiveness monitoring should be broadened to include ecological and economic indicators, more than those attributes being gathered at present. Key parameters should include: • depth to groundwater (for both irrigated and dryland regions); • salt loads in groundwater and adjacent streams; • ecological quality measures: of wetland remnants, other natural vegetation

communities, remnant habitats; • extent of dryland salinity, including chronological and spatial changes; • adoption of advocated practices - more data sets are required; • community awareness and understanding; • economic re-evaluations of program components; • social indicators including measures of social well-being; • farm financial data to indicate changes in farm viability. What is needed in the monitoring of an integrated land and water management approach is more than one-dimensional indicators of incremental gains. It is suggested that multi-dimensional measures of ecological health need to be developed immediately. 3.9 Address Individual Property Rights through Innovative Partnerships Recommendation: A system of tradeable discharge permits, whereby individuals are able to win financial benefits from decreasing accessions to water tables, should be established on a trial basis in a salinity region. The failure to adopt salinity management practices is similar to many other soil conservation adoption failures: unwillingness and inability to adopt could result from both attitudinal and structural problems. Farmers in the Goran Catchment and to a lesser degree on the Tragowel Plains believe they do not have a salinity problem on their property problems. Yet hydrogeological research has shown that farmers in both recharge and discharge zones are likely, in varying degrees, to impact on the salinity problem either negatively or positively. Where there is a relatively ambivalent or even hostile environment to the adoption of best management practices, a possible solution would be to establish a system of property rights, whereby individual farmers have the right to discharge 'pollutants', in this case saline groundwater to a whole catchment groundwater budget. If volumetric and financial values were calculated on these discharges, then farmers


could be given incentives to not discharge into the system, and receive financial benefits for not doing so. Such an approach has already been suggested in the Hunter Valley and in other locations (Dudley et al., 1993). If a system of tradeable discharge permits was established between farmers and between regions in the Murray-Darling Basin, then regional organisations could be given significant financial incentives to encourage members of their organisations to reduce saline water inflows into water tables. This system would require some form of accreditation of resource management organisation in the Basin, but the mechanisms already exist to do this (for example, the NSW Catchment Management Act allows for the formal establishment of catchment organisations). The proposal to set up partnership arrangements between Government and these organisations (see 6. Implement a Contractual System) can be used here. Governments should develop resource management contracts with regional organisations, who demonstrate an ability to reach resource management goals (say, salinity discharge limits) and be rewarded through increased funding of region-specific resource management programs. There are several difficulties encountered with this recommendation, including: • the ability to relate the problem of identifying individual landowners'

discharge/recharge levels, • the temporal relationships between recharges and discharges, and • the spatial relationships between recharges and discharges in a catchment. However, a system of subcatchment salinity goals with associated codes of practice and best management practices for land types in that subcatchment should be developed. Landowners in this subcatchment, if they achieve salinity management goals, could also be rewarded financially through micro-targeted financial or investment benefits. In this process, financial service deliverers could play a major role in handling the environmental payments for improved practices (for example, caveats on refinancing). This approach requires further study to identify the opportunities to establish such a system of financial incentives within partnership agreements. 3.10 Remove Policy Conflicts Recommendation: Mechanisms need to be developed and established at the national level whereby the Commonwealth government's policies and programs are congruent with national salinity management policies. Similarly, mechanisms need to be developed and established at the State level whereby State government policies and programs are congruent with national salinity management policies, and do not conflict with other State policies.


These actions should aim to eliminate contradictory messages to regional Australia and the states, about the Commonwealth's responsibilities regarding integrated environmental management. The Commonwealth should aim to see itself as being 'cross-compliant' regarding its natural resources management policies and programs. This approach will reduce the risk of government funding programs having incongruent outcomes. This action will also provide Government with a mechanism, associated with the contractual system described above, in which it can account for funding programs believed to be in the national interest in natural resources management. International experiences suggest that government organisations and their stakeholders must become ecologically effective organisations. Born and others (personal communication, 1993; and in Gregg et al., 1991) suggest the formation of:

an institutional model that contains an explicit typology of rules, a functional classification of decision levels, a basis for classifying gap types, along with a suggested taxonomy of general policy approaches and specific resource allocation and management problems (Gregg et al., 1991, p. 122).

This model is applicable to salinity management in the Murray-Darling Basin, and should be undertaken as a matter or urgency. The institutional arrangement should include a combination of incentives and sanctions to facilitate the removal of barriers to entry into the adoption of best management practices. 3.11 Link the Adoption of Best Management Practices to Farm Profitability and Regional Economic Development, and Develop Explanatory Models Recommendation: The IEM process needs to develop strategic integrated regional economic development and ecologically sustainable development planning approaches, and develop a suite of models to provide technical support to planning. Farm business and profitability must be included in understanding adoption of best management practices. More work is needed in on-farm financial assessment and in regional economic assessment of IEM planning. Economic assessment of IEM must be used to address the implications in terms of impacts and solutions, to farms, regions and the nation. There is an urgent need for a more thorough application of the use of a range of economic instruments in IEM. The use of market mechanisms in IEM processes has not been realised. Little attention has been given to the development of integrated social/economic/ecological models that explain the drivers for land use change in catchments. Most resource management agencies assume Landcare adoption paradigms will provide the drivers for implementation. There is a significant need to develop a research program to identify and explain the role of drivers of landuse


change, and link research outputs to regional economic development and IEM planning. While economic assessment in IEM is lacking, so too has any real consideration been given to the valuation of the normally "non-market" aspects of IEM. Salinity management not only produces benefits for sustainable production but also presumably, environmental and amenity benefits. These need to be included in any evaluation as to the benefits of salinity management programs. The concept of public good has been largely ignored (Syme, 1994, pers. comm.). There are several equity issues which are emerging in this field. These include things as diverse as: funds for "late starter" community groups in a static funding situation; obligations of ongoing support to well established groups. The concept of equity has been largely ignored. 3.12 Integrate Best Management Practice with Local Government Planning Recommendation: Local government planning processes should be harnessed to aid salinity management at the regional level. Local government provides substantial opportunities to develop regional resource management initiatives, whether they be based on river basins, as in the New Zealand experience, or in bioregions. The Commonwealth should set up guidelines to enable local government to take on the role of regional integrated environmental management. The role of local government in salinity management planning has been largely ignored. At both field sites in this study, local governments have been most effective in participating in salinity management processes and programs, where there is dynamic leadership, and a strong understanding of integrated land and water management. Incentives for local government planners and engineers to be trained in IEM should be developed. 3.13 Undertake Further Research Recommendations: Critical knowledge gaps should be addressed to assist the process of adoption of best management practices in integrated land and water management. Specific research needs that have emerged in this study include: • an analysis of policy, and planning mechanisms to link ecologically sustainable

development procedures to integrated environmental management at the regional level;

• a study to identify a set of core processes to implement IEM; • a suite of economic studies on the links between ESD, regional economic

development and IEM. These studies should emphasise identifying cross benefits


of integrated approaches; the calculation of externalised benefits and disbenefits of salinity management; the assessment of risk related to specific practices; and the assessment of impacts of adoption, both individually and regionally;

• an analysis of the drivers of landuse change, and the environmental and social impact of land use change policies; and

• an analysis of the impediments to adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies, and more efficient soil-water using agronomic practices.


Appendix 1

Description of Study Area and Review of Salinity Management Issues

The Goran Catchment, Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. Location The Goran Catchment study area is located in the north of the Murray-Darling Basin. The Goran catchment is a sub-catchment of the Liverpool Plains, a region of depositional plains forming the central section of the Namoi Valley. The Goran catchment is bounded by the Liverpool Plains in the south, a major water divide, and to the north undulating landforms. Lake Goran is also found in the north of the catchment. The eastern and western boundaries of the Goran catchment are minor water divides between Bundella Creek (to the west) and the Mooki River to the east. The Goran Catchment, including overflows from Lake Goran, drains into the Mooki River near Breeza and then the Namoi River east from Gunnedah. Catchment Size The Goran Catchment is 199,288.4 hectares in size (CaLM, personal communication). There is approximately 124.2 square kilometres of land under State Forests management that was excluded from this study. The remaining catchment comprises 180,872 hectares of agricultural and pastoral lands, road reserves and the surface of Lake Goran. The dominant land use is cultivation. Biophysical Characteristics The Goran Catchment forms part of the broader physiographic region, the Liverpool Plains. The following description is extracted mainly from Duggin and Allison (1982). The Liverpool Plains form part of the Gunnedah Basin, a structural sub-division of the Sydney-Bowen Basin of eastern Australia. The basin was formed during the Permian and received a thick sequence of shallow water marine and continental sediments of the late Permian, Triassic and Jurassic age. These beds dip gently northward and westward, and outcrop in the study area to form the main component of outliers which are surrounded by Quaternary alluvia. During the Tertiary, great basaltic flows were extruded onto the landscape and covered the entire plains from the Liverpool Ranges north to Mount Kaputar. They have since been removed by erosion and the remaining occurrences can be seen as a capping on most of the outliers in the district. The Quaternary period was marked by the production and deposition of unconsolidated alluvia, mostly derived from the Tertiary basalts. These deposits form the basis of the extensive plains with slopes generally less than 2 degrees. Consequently, streams on the plains tend to meander and braid; many prior stream traces are evident in the area.


The Goran Catchment is a contained watershed with regard to surface flow. Only during flood runoff events does Lake Goran spill east into the Mooki River. It operates as a terminal ephemeral lake, although land use changes in the catchment have caused greater runoff rates to occur resulting in the lake now containing water at a much higher frequency in recorded European history. The rainfall regime for the catchment if highly dynamic. Rainfall patterns are characterised by a summer maxima, with annual average rainfall of approximately 640 mm. This incidence of extreme summer convectional rainfall causes significant local flooding and soil erosion. The principal soils developed on the basaltic parent materials are kraznozems, prairie soils, euchrozems and black earths. Kraznozems have developed on the high plateaux of the Liverpool Ranges and the Mooki Hills and occur over a small area. Kraznozem soils grade into black earths and occasionally euchrozemic soils on areas of lower topography. The principal soils that have developed on sediments are lithosols, brown solodics, red-brown earths and earthy sands. Due to variation in rock type and topography this assemblage has the most complex distribution pattern of all three soil groups. However, a generalised arrangement can be distinguished. Shallow stony lithosols are common on the upper slopes of the sedimentary outliers while the lower slopes have brown solodics with red-brown earths forming on the more gently undulating areas. The soils of the alluvial plains are black earths. The vegetation types of the Goran catchment reflects the underlying mosaic of geological materials, soil type, and slope. The original vegetation was dominated by grasslands and some areas of very open woodlands on the alluvial plains, with dry sclerophyll woodlands and forests on the sedimentary outliers and basaltic caps. Most of the region has been an extensively altered by pastoral and agricultural activities. Dryland cropping is widespread on the alluvial plains and the more fertile lower slopes. Recently, some plains soils have been irrigated using groundwater. Throughout the lower elevated areas of the Goran catchment, tree cover is restricted to the sedimentary outliers and basaltic caps and has been extensively modified. Dryland salinity appears to be related to this area of tree cover reduction. Saline outflows occur downslope of the lower slope of the outliers and emerges as a 'ring of salt' on the break of slope between this land system and the Quaternary alluvial black soil plains land system. Isolated areas of more dense tree cover occur in the basin, including Pine Ridge State Forest. This is dominated by white box (E. Albens) and white cypress pine (Callitris hugelii). The high ridges of the Liverpool Range in the south of the catchment are dominated by E. laevopinea, E. viminalis and E. dalrympleana in a tall open forest association. Lower areas are covered by the E. viminalis, E. pauciflora association which has a scattered shrub understorey including Acacia spp.


The alluvial plains were originally native grasslands dominated by plains grass (Stipa aristiglumis) and are now extensively cultivated. Pasture improvement has been minimal in uncultivated areas.

Lands of the Goran Catchment have been classified into land systems and land units (Duggin and Allison, 1982) and have been used in this study as the basis to examine the adoption of salinity management on respective land types. These are referred to in the Questionnaire used in the study.

Resource Management Issues

There has been an increasing incidence of resource management problems. These include soil erosion, floodplain management, and dryland salinity (Table A1). Several programmes to reduce resource decline have been in operation on the plains over the last two decades, focussing on soil erosion. Salinity mitigation is the focus of a new programme being promoted in the catchment, the leas agency being the Department of Conservation and Land Management. Dryland salinity should be regarded as one of several resource management problems in the catchment, and this complex resource management scenario suggests that solutions to dryland salinity must be undertaken in an integrated manner with other resource management problems. Causes of Salinity in the Goran Catchment and the Liverpool Plains

The causes of dryland salinity in the Goran Catchment are similar to those found elsewhere on the Liverpool Plains. Recent hydrogeological research suggests that dryland salinity is caused by changing land use practices, and increased rainfall regimes resulting in higher accessions to water tables and deep aquifers. This research is fundamental to improved salinity management planning, particularly the identification of appropriate best management practices to reduce the impacts of rising water tables that cause salinity to occur.

Broughton's (1994) study on the hydrogeological processes related to water table rises and resultant salinity has identified a 'hinge line' of water level rise and decline across the south-eastern sector of the Plains. The hinge line extends from Quirindi to Caroona. The major area of water level rise lies to the south of the hinge line incorporating catchments east of the Mooki River to Warrah Creek, and north of the Liverpool Plains to Quirindi Creek. Aquifers are recharged by direct infiltration from rainfall, streambed infiltration and hillslope runoff within the sub-catchments, e.g. through the alluvium and devegetated ridges. The significance of each of these would vary within the catchment both spatially and temporally. Groundwater driven to the surface from the underlying fractured aquifers are themselves being recharged from within the Gunnedah Basin.

The study also found that rising water tables contain water which has been fingerprinted at around 50 years of age. This implies that the salinity problem is a landuse-induced problem, compounded by changing rainfall regimes over this period. Consequently, the solution to salinity problems is to reduce groundwater accessions by changed landuse practices, but this may take some 50 years to achieve.


This is not a favourable scenario for rapid adoption of suggested salinity management practices.

Table A1. Resource management issues on the Liverpool Plains 5

Flooding Issues * Increasing size and damages of summer floods * Maintenance of clear water ways - river desnagging * Protection of human life and property in highly flood prone areas * Short duration of rainfall/flood peak intervals * Structures and soil conservation works redirecting flood flows Farm Production Issues * Economic pressures which compel farmers to continue to use exploitative practices * Improvement in the efficiency of use of irrigation water * Land subdivision involving rural residential dwellings on floodplains * Land use changes: livestock production to cropping and dryland cropping to irrigation * Security of water for irrigation Resource Conservation Issues * Contamination of water - pesticide effects on food chains * Declining soil organic matter and subsoil compaction * Ground cover management to reduce soil erosion * Increase in recharge of water table in dryland farming areas * Increasing salinity associated with dryland cropping * Perceived decline in koala habitat * Little use of appropriate soil management practices and farm rotations * Loss of wildlife corridors due to clearing adjacent to waterways * Management of remnant vegetation and wetlands * Noxious weed and feral animal control * Overuse of subsurface water supplies * Prevention and control of erosion caused by wind and water * Prevention of exploitation of underground water beyond recharge capacity * Prevention of use of land beyond its capability * Rural tree decline * Soil fertility - chronic nitrogen deficiency of cropped lands * Soil structure decline * Stream sedimentation * Water quality management for town supplies downstream of irrigation * Waterlogging on irrigation land * Wetland habitat decline, particularly Lake Goran * Wetland management versus irrigation water use Institutional Issues * Lack of co-ordination between groups involved in catchment management * Too much specialisation of government agencies * Identification of responsible departments, authorities, groups or individuals by the catchment management committees * Land use planning at local government level suffers from lack of expertise and local pressures * Need to reduce duplication and inefficiencies in administration

5 Source: HOOPER, B.P. 1994. 'Attitudes and Decision-making in Integrated Floodplain Management - An Empirical Analysis'. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of New England, Armidale.


* Perception of catchment management as a farm collectivisation program * Poorly developed legislative base of soil conservation * Reserve and park establishment and development


A similar study in the Goran Catchment identified the hydrogeological regimes of that catchment (Hamilton, 1992). This is currently being updated by Abbs (1994). Little substantial work on recommended best management practices is developed in the Hamilton study, as that was not the purpose of that study. However, preliminary results of the Abbs study suggested that the best management practices for salinity management in the Goran Catchment, across different land systems, are a range of land management practices that aim similarly to reduce groundwater accessions. It should be noted that the Goran Catchment is a closed catchment, hydrogeologically and is a region of discharge of saline water. Best management practices developed here will have local application for this unique system, and are probably similar to those developed in discharge zones elsewhere on the Liverpool Plains. The recommended land management practices in the southeastern sector of the Liverpool Plains (that is, in the Broughton study) are, therefore, suggestive, and were used as a generic set of practices in the Goran Catchment in this study. The practices are: 1. a reduction in recharge and a depressuring of the deep unconsolidated alluvial

and fractured rock aquifers, by changing land management practices; 2. a change in irrigation practices to promote more efficient use of water and

hinder water accession in the shallow groundwater system; 3. the cessation of logging/timber clearing with the incentives emplaced to

encourage property owners to revegetate. Social Profile The management of dryland Salinity in the Goran Catchment is a land resource use issue. It has been shown elsewhere (Napier, 1988; Nowak, 1987, 1991) that the adoption of soil conservation practices is primarily a behavioural phenomenon influenced by a range of psycho-sociological variables. An understanding of the social characteristics of the relevant population is therefore important. The author of this study has found that no such study has been undertaken of this catchment area, so a social profile was undertaken. Six collector districts of the 1991 ABS Census of Population and Housing6 were used to undertake the social profile. The area covered by the ABS data overestimates the entire Goran Catchment by a factor of 1.6. A sample of 58.4% of the raw data from the survey revealed that there are approximately 253 family households but not all of these are presumed to be the managers of properties. An examination of property

6 A family household includes sole and two parent family households, lone person households and family couples without offspring (as defined in the Basic Community Profiles generated for this catchment by the Australian Bureau of Statistics using the 1991 Census of Population and Housing) .


boundaries using current landuse and land tenure data7 revealed that there were 245 land parcels of greater than 100 hectares in size (as indicated in shire maps and property maps of the area, (Gunnedah Shire Council, 1987; Quirindi Shire Council, 1982; Murrurundi Shire Council, undated; Bush Telegraph Promotions, 1992a and b, 1993). These properties became the survey sample for the Questionnaire referred to elsewhere in this report. The entire data set for the six collector districts of the 1991 ABS Census of Population and Housing were the used to prepare a social profile of the catchment. The social characteristics of the Goran Catchment were: DEMOGRAPHY • There are 877 people living in the survey area, 473 males and 404 females, 704 of

which are aged 15 years or over. • The majority of the population are Australian born (94.4%). Three percent of the

population are of Aboriginal descent. • The majority of the population speaks English only (96.1%). • Half the population in the survey area are affiliated with the Anglican Church

(50.4%). The next largest religious affiliation is represented by the Catholic Church (19.4%).

EMPLOYMENT • There were 455 people employed, 25 unemployed in the study area.

Table A2. Labour Force Status

STATUS PROPORTION (%) Part-time 7.9 Full-time 49.0 Not Started 3.1

• Of those employed 69.3% work in the agricultural, forestry, fisheries or hunting

industry. • The majority of those employed are farmers, and are males greater than 35 years

of age. • 42.1% of those employed are wage and salary earners. 226 workers are male and

87 are female.

7 These data were obtained from GIS-based maps produced by the Department of Conservation and Land Management of the Goran catchment.


• 50.5% of the population work 49 hours or more per week.


EDUCATION • The highest proportion of school leavers is represented by the 16 year age group

(23.7%). Those leaving school at 18 years amount to 13.3%. • In 1991, 67.5% of the population had not obtained tertiary qualifications. • Prior to 1971, 23.8% of the population had acquired a tertiary qualification. Since

then the proportion of those qualified has decreased to 4.9% in 1991. This probably suggests a lower proportion of children in the catchment population at the age to undertake post-school education.

FAMILY TYPES AND FAMILY INCOME • One third of the family types in the survey area are couples without offspring.

41.6% of the population are 2 parent family types with dependent offspring. • Approximately one third of the population is represented by parents within a 2

parent family. Another one third of those surveyed are offspring from these 2 parent families.

• 5.4% of those surveyed are members one parent families. • The predominant income groups are middle income families (using 1994 Tax

brackets) as shown in Table A3.

Table A3. Annual Family Income

INCOME ($)

PROPORTION OF TOTAL CATCHMENT POPULATION (%)

1 - 5400 8.7 5401 - 20700 32.1

20701 - 36000 16.9 36001 - 50000 6.8 50001 and over 11.0

• Income for one parent families range from under $12,000 per annum to a

maximum of $20,000. • 58.5% of 2 parent families earn between $12,000 and $30,000 per year. 22.5% earn

between $ 30,000 and $60,000 per year. SYNOPSIS The data reveal that the Goran Catchment community are predominantly two parent family farmers, with parents approaching later middle age. Median incomes are in the middle income range of the Australian population but there are a small number


of relatively wealthy farmers in the Catchment. The population shows very little ethnic variation, dominated by white, Australian born, English speaking families. This population was used as the survey sample for the Questionnaire to identify the adoption of salinity management practices discussed elsewhere in this Report. Community Views on Salinity Management A study of the opinions and attitudes towards salinity management of peer group leaders of the farming community and agency professionals was undertaken. The study aimed to: • identify key issues relevant to this study; • identify the matrix of players involved in decision-making in salinity

management in the Catchment, and beyond; and • explain the process of identification, selection and promotion of best management

practices for salinity management. The persons interviewed are listed in Table A4 below and the results appear in Chapter 2, except the matrix which appears below..

Table A4. Peer Group Farming Leaders and Agency Personnel Interviewed Name Role Organisation Topic Karla Abbs Water balance modeller Conservation and Land

Management, Gunnedah Causes of and practices to manage soil salinity

Andrea Broughton Hydrogeologist Department of Water Resources, Gunnedah

Causes of and practices to manage soil salinity

John Cull Farmer 'Stafford', Curlewis Options for salinity management

Sheila Donaldson Farmer and Community Representative

North-west Total Catchment Management Committee, Tamworth

Options for salinity management

Rob Dumsday Research economist Latrobe University, Melbourne

Costs of salinity management options

Mark Elsey Landcare group leader Colly Blue Landcare Group, Spring Ridge


Noel Flavell Research economist Conservation and Land Management, Tamworth


Chris Glennon Executive Officer Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, Gunnedah


Romy Greiner Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management

UNE, Armidale Costs of salinity management options

Mrs Hockey Landcare group leader Yarraman Landcare Group


John Kneipp Extension Agronomist Department of Agriculture, Gunnedah



Jim Lees Social researcher Rural Development Centre, UNE

Adoption technologies

Jim McDonald Farmer and Chairman Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, Gunnedah


Warren Musgrave Professor and research economist

Centre for Water Policy Research

Theory of Best Management Practice, use of economic instruments

David Oram Research economist Latrobe University, Melbourne

Costs of salinity management options

John Pigram Professor and research geographer

Centre for Water Policy Research

Theory of Best Management Practice, adoption technologies

Des Schroeder District soil conservationist

Conservation and Land Management, Gunnedah


Ron Short Director, Environmental Services

Quirindi Shire Council Role of local government in salinity management

Jim Simson Landcare Group leader Goran Landcare Group, Curlewis


Ron Souter Landcare group leader Watermark Landcare Group, Breeza


Geoff Syme Principal Research Scientist

CSIRO Water Resources, Wembley, W.A.

Adoption technologies

Bill Watson Research economist ABARE, Canberra Options for salinity management

Mick Wilson Extension officer Conservation and Land Management, Gunnedah

Measurement of soil salinity

The corporate interview technique was of Schoenberger (1991) was used in these interviews. This involved asking direct and leading questions believed to be critical to the formation and implementation of effective government programs and policies in salinity management, and undertaking a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) with interviewees. The results of these interviews were not presented as a SWOT outcomes statement, under those headings, but as a list of findings, and later developed as a set of Recommendations, discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The following discussion identifies the outcomes only, for bullet points one and two listed above. Bullet point three is discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report. KEY ISSUES IN SALINITY MANAGEMENT IN THE GORAN CATCHMENT • Only recent development of salinity management options The development and implementation of salinity management practices on an

integrated land and water management basis is not as well advanced here as on the Tragowel Plains. Salinity management on the Liverpool Plains is emerging as a landcare initiative with a significant planning focus coming from the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee. Technical issues (hydrogeological processes, salinity identification and monitoring, agronomic practices and the onfarm economic analysis of salinity management options) are being analysed by the NSW Departments of Water Resources, Agriculture and Conservation and Land Management. It is not fully known what links exist between salinity


problems and increased shallow flooding that is occurring on the plains. Only very recent research has shown how salinity management relates to the changed surficial and soil water profiles that reflect changed climatic conditions (increased summer runoff) and changed land management practices.

• Salinity management is based on generic land management units Salinity management is being developed broadly as a set of best management

practices being based on the need to change land management practices, encouraging farmers to change from cropping production into pasture production or mixed crop and livestock production systems. Within this broad approach, there are two generic land types upon which alternative management regimes are being developed. These are the black soil plains (The Alluvial Plains Land System) and the sideslopes of various geological material adjacent to the black soil plains (lower slopes of The Sedimentary Outliers, the Liverpool Range Lower Slopes, the Volcanic Intrusives and the Hunter-Mooki Thrust Lower Slopes Land Systems (Duggin and Allison (1982) nomenclature)). Research at Latrobe University (Dumsday and Oram) and the University of New England (Greiner) is identifying costs and benefits of alternative practices to manage salinity, on different land management units.

• Implementation reflects an innovative farming culture It should be noted that the process of land use change appears to be occurring

with minimal formalised salinity management planning already in place. This reflects the innovative nature of the farming community on the Liverpool Plains, and contrasts with a more formalised state-driven, community participation based approach to salinity management on the Tragowel Plains. More importantly, the process of moving to a pasture-based agricultural economy may reflect the increased opportunities and greater returns from beef production at present in the region.

The Goran Catchment also reflects a more free enterprise culture/Landcare

driven culture of salinity management than the community development driven culture operating on the Tragowel Plains field site.

• Land use changes reflect broader forces at work, not environmental hazards Land use change on the Liverpool Plains is the result of fundamental economic

forces causing farmers to move away from purely cropping enterprises into mixed farming or livestock production systems. This process is being driven by market forces, particularly the local (and feedlot requirements), regional and national market demand for beef cattle and a diversity of opportunity crops. Salinity management may be an unexpected side benefit of a broader land use change process. The landowners and landcare group members interviewed in this study have only adopted relatively small point specific salinity management practices (tree planting, fencing off saline scalds), whereas what is driving them into other practices that could have a salinity management benefit does not appear to be an environmental management motive.


However, landowners on the Plains appear to be concerned about salinity and other environmental problems (as evidenced in the rapid rise of Landcare membership, attendance at floodplain management and water resources management public meetings in recent months). It is fortuitous that their positive environmental attitudes are congruent with opportunities to diversify into different farming enterprises which may have the side benefit of reducing the impact of dryland salinity.

• High quality but limited Landcare activities and extension programs The region has some excellent extension agronomists and soil conservationists

who could well form the core of a focussed extension program in salinity management in the future. Extension and local leadership in salinity appear to be only hindered by government funding commitments. The enthusiasm and skills are there amongst the resource management professionals.

SYNTHESIS Several issues emerged as the focus of adoption of best practices for the management of salinity using an integrated land and water management approach:

• developing appropriate on-farm risk management strategies; • identifying and overcoming individual barriers to entry of alternative land

and water management practices; • developing and implementing effective institutional arrangements to

encourage land use change; • linking land use change to socially benign, financially efficient structural

adjustment processes; • the need to develop a clearly defined property right as it relates to recharge

and discharge of saline water; • the need to operate a stakeholder participation process that works; • the need to have an independent (perhaps even an external) catchment

management authority or manager/arbiter who can take a broader view of salinity management solutions as they impact individual property rights.

A Decision-making Matrix for Resource Management for the Goran Catchment of the Liverpool Plains Several sectors of the Goran Catchment community and beyond influence decisions to manage natural resources and salinity management. The range of groups and individuals are shown diagrammatically in Table A5 below. It is believed that this matrix of individuals and organisations describes the totality of decision-making relevant to salinity management.


Table A5. Decision-making Matrix for the Goran Catchment Scale of Resource Management

PRIVATE

PUBLIC

LOCAL

Farmers and Graziers Population estimated at 165 family farmers Rural Businesses - several farmers operate off-farm business ventures - suppliers and extension services (providers of agrochemicals, farm machinery, irrigation equipment, and fertilisers, includes consultants and advisers) - transport (private stock and grain transport companies) Land Care Groups - although supported by government grants, mainly local farmer-owned and organised.

Agricultural Extension Agents - extension services from resource management agencies, primarily Departments of Agriculture, Conservation and Land Management (limited, and decreasing) - private consultants (provide independent agronomic and on-farm financial advice; based within the region) Shire Officials - 3 Shires influence land ownership transfers, collect land taxes, local environmental management plans (Gunnedah, Quirindi, and 3 properties in Murrurundi Shire)


REGIONAL/ STATE

Businesses - banks (includes agricultural development banks, loan services) - wholesalers - services (providers of agrochemicals and fertilisers) - transport (private stock and grain transport companies) Agricultural Extension and Technical Officers - Chemical Companies - Private Consultants Organisations - Regional Development Board - Private grower organisations (NSW Farmers, Grains Council of Australia) Media - local and regional newspapers, television and radio stations (profile major resource management issues; influence attitudinal change; market products and services)

State Officials (Agricultural Extension and Technical Officers) - Includes Conservation and Land Management, Department of Water Resources, Department of Agriculture, Environment Protection Authority, National Parks and Wildlife Service, State Rail, State Forests, Rural Lands Protection Board. - includes some regional policy and planning by government Regional Catchment Management Organisations - North West Total Catchment Management Committee - Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee Academics - social, economic and biophysical research scientists from UNE, Latrobe, UNSW, UWS.

NATIONAL

National Businesses - banks (national policy affects borrowing capability, interest rates) - wholesalers (impacts on product values and input costs) - services (provision of consultancy skills) - transport (provision of national infrastructure) Organisations - Private grower organisations (NSW Farmers, Grains Council of Aust.) - organic farming organisations Media - national newspapers, television and radio stations (profile major resource management issues; influence attitudinal change; market products and services)

Philanthropic Organisations - Australian Conservation Foundation - Inland Rivers Network Officials and Programs in Federal Organisations - Murray-Darling Basin Commission - Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation - Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation - National Landcare Program - National Dryland Salinity Management Program Media - as for private (includes ABC TV and Radio)


GLOBAL

International Agribusinesses - none thought to be influential, although much agricultural produce is exported through national organisations to international markets. - global market changes influence local farming practices (e.g. planting decisions)

Academics - none thought to be influential, although several international researchers will use the Liverpool Plains as a comparative field site for ICM research. Treaties - Federal government requires compliance from states and regions with national policies derived from international agreements such as GATT and APEC, and global environmental initiatives including Ecologically Sustainable Development treaties. Philanthropic Organisations - none thought to be influential


Appendix 2

A Framework for Investigating the Adoption of Best Management Practices in Integrated Land and Water Management

This study is premised on the belief that a best management practice approach to integrated land and water resources management is fundamental to resource use sustainability, and that the individual adoption of so-called 'best' management practices by resource users will be the process by which sustainable resource use is eventually achieved. Two resource management problems, dryland and irrigation-induced salinity, are used in this study to gather empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the best management practice approach. 2.1 Weaknesses in the Premise Three weaknesses emerge when attempting to explain the adoption of best management practices in integrated land and water management for salinity management, and to identify measures to achieve the most effective and more widespread adoption of best management practices. These are: a. An inadequate understanding of integrated land and water management

(Integrated Environmental Management [IEM]). The conceptual framework for using an integrated approach to land and water management is still evolving, and this may form a hindrance to adoption of integrated approaches to salinity management. Consequently, a conceptual framework for integrated environmental management, relevant to this study is developed in 2.2.

b. An inadequate understanding of Best Management Practice for integrated land

and water management. There is no clear agreement on the definition of 'best management practice' in respect to integrated approaches to natural resources management, although considerable work has been done to develop best management practices regarding industrial and business management practice. Later in this appendix, a best management practice approach to integrated land and water management is developed (2.3).

c. An inadequate understanding of adoption processes and how they should be

researched. This involves developing an eclectic approach to investigate the adoption of best

management practices for salinity management (2.4). The first two weaknesses may form fundamental constraints to the implementation of a best management practice approach to salinity management. It is contended that these weaknesses are not superficial, nor hypothetical problems, but operate as real


difficulties in the understanding of why more adoption of integrated approaches to salinity management has not occurred in the Murray-Darling Basin. The third weakness requires improved understanding of how to investigate the adoption of integrated approaches. The remainder of this appendix is devoted to addressing these weaknesses, to provide an improved understanding of these concepts, and to develop the framework for investigation of this study. 2.2 A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Land and Water Management (Integrated Environmental Management [IEM]) 2.2.1 What is Integrated Environmental Management? A natural resources ecosystem is an integrated ecological system which produces natural resources products or amenities of direct or indirect human value (Burton, 1991; Hooper, 1993). Burton (1991) maintained that integrated land and water management,

"... aims to manage the system in an integrated and holistic way with the objective of maintaining its overall resource productivity on a long-tern, sustained-yield basis." (p.1)

The IEM concept, while based on this definition, goes further. IEM provides a way in which an 'ecological' approach can be developed and solutions to complex resource management problems developed in ways that go beyond traditional multi-purpose planning approaches. IEM attempts to address economic development and resource use from an ecological perspective and identify the sustainable limits of resource use. These are identified as the decline in condition of ecological indicators, beyond which ecological conditions change, perhaps irrevocably, and therefore are non self-sustaining. IEM is then defined as the process whereby natural resources are used and managed from an ecological perspective, to produce resource products and to maintain the viability of ecosystems. This definition is a more comprehensive or inclusive approach to natural resources management than single issue resources management. IEM has two congruent, interdependent objectives: resource use and ecological sustainability. These objectives include controlling and/or conserving the water resource, ensuring biodiversity, minimising land degradation, and achieving specified and agreed land and water resources management, vegetation management, environmental management and social objectives (Burton, 1986; Newson, 1992; Hooper, 1993; Mitchell, 1987). This requires the use of a multi-disciplinary, multi-objective approach, one that depends for its success on lateral thinking, inter-agency co-operation, and strong leadership and involvement by resource users (Burton, 1985). IEM has evolved recently as a response to the need to develop more comprehensive approaches to natural resources management planning. Born (1994) maintained that


IEM is a response to much traditional natural resources management, which has been largely reactive, disjointed and for narrow or limited purposes. The need for a more holistic approach to managing natural resources has arisen because of a poor understanding of the conceptual framework for effective integration, and weak institutional arrangements for integration (Born and Margerum, 1993; Mitchell, 1989). The demand for a new paradigm has been driven by ineffectual or unsatisfactory, often undesired, management outcomes. The lack of success results from incremental and vertically, horizontally and functionally fragmented efforts to address complex, ie, "wicked" problems - problems characterised by substantial scientific uncertainty (Born, 1994). Born (1994) maintains that IEM is a concept that is widely extolled and holds currency in academic, professional and political quarters. IEM, while a response to past narrow and disjointed approaches to natural resources management, aims to overcome the dysfunctional mechanisms between and within government and communities in the management of water resources. This participatory approach seeks involvement through negotiation and building partnership agreements. It seeks to avoid marginalising resource user groups or agencies. It builds bridges and partnerships to achieve commonly accepted resource management goals. Born's perceptions parallel the difficulties of implementing an integrated, best management practice approach to salinity management in Australia. There are considerable difficulties in identifying what are the 'best' salinity management practices. Unless these are fully understood from ecological, engineering, economic, institutional and behavioural perspectives, then it is unlikely that effective implementation of best management practices, nor long-term resource sustainability will be achieved. A more holistic approach to salinity management has become essential, one that endeavours to avoid uncertainty, prescribes an integrative approach, and addresses complex management problems from a multi-disciplinary perspective. An integrated approach to natural resources management is intuitively appealing, reinforces an ecological approach to land use planning and has been espoused in global initiatives in natural resources management (Mitchell, 1989). It has achieved strong support through many agency professionals, industry organisations, resource user groups and academics (Born, 1994; Born and Margerum, 1993). 2.2.2 IEM and Catchment Management IEM can be traced to earlier approaches to natural resources management, including comprehensive river basin management and development; multiple use-sustained yield forest and land resources management; comprehensive or regional planning and management; cross-media pollution abatement; integrated area development; and ecosystem management (Born, 1994). Much of the conceptual development and experience with IEM relates, not surprisingly, to water and related land resources, with catchments considered generally equivalent to ecosystems (Burton, 1986; Naiman 1992; Imhof and others,


forthcoming). IEM has particular application to river basins and catchments. The river basin forms a logical hydrological unit for integrating water resources management, and many ecological processes, even on a dry continent like that of Australia, reflect the availability, occurrence, and even the frequency of existence of water resources. River basin management is defined here as the management of land and water resources of a major river valley for many purposes, including the conservation of biological resources and a multitude of human uses. Catchment management is best conceptualised as a subset of river basin management. At either scale, this is done most effectively on an integrated basis (Burton, 1986; Newson, 1992; Hooper, 1993; Mitchell, 1987). At both scales, an integrated approach is seen as being most effective. A river catchment represents a classic example of a naturally-defined natural resources ecosystem. The catchment boundary clearly defines the hydrological and geomorphological history of ecosystems within the boundary, and establishes a natural barrier for the many biophysical and natural processes at work within it (Burton, 1991). The understanding of these processes forms the fundamental principles upon which sustainable resource use can be achieved. The watershed approach has often equated to the application of IEM, because of the way in which river basin (and catchment) management can be viewed as a process of ecosystem management within a clearly defined physical boundary. 2.2.3 IEM Approaches in Australia and Overseas The Brundlandt Commission's approach to the management of natural resources, the 'ecologically sustainable development' approach, has stimulated significant reappraisal in Australia and globally about the ways by which we use land and water resources, in ways that ensure long term use (as developed at the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Agenda 21, 1992). IEM technology is undergoing development and refinement in Australia at the national and regional levels, and has the potential to relate engineering, environmental, social, and legal considerations into a more effective system for the management of land and water resources (Born, 1994). IEM approaches are being more widely used throughout Australia. In recent years, substantial gains have been made in Victorian Landcare programmes, the New South Wales Total Catchment Management programme and more recently the development of an Integrated Catchment Management approach to resource management in Queensland. At the national level, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has initiated an integrated approach in its Natural Resources Management Strategy. However, it is contested that IEM approach employed in these programmes and plans has not been fully developed as a tool for natural resources management. It has not been demonstrated what incremental gains could be achieved using an IEM approach. Indicators of incremental gains using IEM are yet to be fully developed, that is measures of total system health are needed, rather than purely functional measures of ecosystem components (such as one dimension variables). An IEM


approach would use a range of 'system health' indicators such as biodiversity, riparian vegetation ecosystem condition, geomorphological condition etc. This contrasts to one dimension variable measures such as stream salinity concentrations. The lack of adequate system health indicators forms one of the major constraints to using an integrated approach to resources management. Lang (1986) maintained that, in Canada at least, the use of an IEM approach tended to be more rhetoric than reality. He suggested that the lack of application of an IEM approach is due to: • the lack of development of concepts and methodology; • the lack of awareness by practitioners of others' successes and failures in

implementing an IEM approach; • the absence of a focus for resource management professional development: such

as a professional association, a journal, regular conferences, and active networking among practitioners.

These problems have weakened the more effective implementation of IEM in Canada. Burton (1994) refers to integrated approaches as being about co-ordination and co-operation, not amalgamation. It is about taking a wholistic view, and managing specific resource management problems in that context. Quoting Mitchell (1989), Burton recognised three dimensions to integrated approaches: a philosophy, a process, and a product. The philosophy refers to the belief that interactions between natural resources and with human activities should be viewed in a wholistic framework. Burton maintains that appears to be well understood, whether the context is a river basin or a bioregion. The process refers to the flexible, adaptive, ongoing and dynamic mechanism, which co-ordinates the activity of many people, both in government and across the wider community. Mitchell and Hollick (1993) identify 'building blocks' for integrated approaches which clearly explain how the process can be facilitated.8 The product is often misconceived as a 'catchment plan' (a 'shelf document'). Rather, the output of integrated approaches should be on improved catchment management practices. 2.2.4 An Evaluation of IEM Approaches in Australia Synnott (1991) used three models to demonstrate how integrated approaches have been implemented in Australia, and comments on their success. The first, the Economic Model, recognises catchment management problems as largely a problem of poorly defined property rights. Because everyone, and therefore no-one, owns the 8 Building blocks for IEM are:

• Use of a Systems Approach • Use of an Integrated rather than a Comprehensive Approach • Use of a Stakeholder Approach • Use of a Partnership Approach • Use of a Balanced Approach


catchment, little effective action is taken to solve resource management problems, and there is little incentive for individuals to care about third party effects of poor land management. The issue of land property rights is fraught with ethical and legal problems, but already there has been some movement towards water property rights, and this could lead to the right of individuals to discharge a specific level of pollution or buy additional rights to do so. However, little real effort for integrated land and water management has occurred with this approach as it relates to river basin planning or catchment management. The second model Synnott describes is the Government Intervention Model. Policy objectives and priorities are set then appropriate implementation mechanisms are developed. Intervention occurs through institutional reform, for example changed policy to adopt integrated approaches. This model has been generally resisted as an appropriate mechanism, rather campaigns focussing on individual and community participation have been used. The Government Intervention Model generally avoids difficult decisions and long-term financial commitment by government. It has less attraction to government as governments prefer to pass on resource management decisions to the user communities. The third model is the Social Response Model. This involves no direct government intervention, and tends to be an issue driven/threat response process. It encourages awareness and research to find solutions, and dominates approaches to IEM in Australia today. It uses normative persuasion rather than prescriptive direction. The value of this model is that: • it doesn't challenge the autonomy and rights of individual property owners; • it does not commit government to long term expenditure obligations; • it has a high profile for government in its execution; and • it has widespread effects. However, real long term durable gains are likely to be small using the Social Response Model, because it produces unintended responses from individual landowners. The majority of rural landowners often see resource management problems as 'out there' problems, not their problem and fail to take ownership of them. This negates the prescriptive requirement of the Social Response Model which is built on local ownership of resource management. Synnott maintained that this is one of several issues restricting the implementation of Social Response Models for IEM. They relate to contrasting private and public interests operating in any resource management problem (Table A1), and echo the 'tragedy of the commons' concerns in recent debates on sustainable resource management. These dualisms imply that in any IEM situation there will always be winners and losers, and the conflicts they generate cannot be resolved on an individual, local basis. Once a catchment-wide or regional structure is put in place, can joint strategies can be facilitated.


Table A1. Dual perspectives in natural resources management at the

catchment scale

Private interests versus Public interests

Urban interests / costs versus Rural interests / costs

Local issues / management versus Regional issues / management

Present versus Future

Local versus Regional

Risk acceptance versus Risk avoidance

Coercion versus Co-operation

Strategic decision-making versus Ad hoc decision-making It appears that early implementation of IEM in Australia was due to the lack of resources and government procrastination, and an over-reliance on the Social Response Model, although adoption of the IEM philosophy is well advanced (AACM and Centre for Water Policy Research, 1994). The real debate in Australia at present appears to be between the Government Intervention approach versus the Social Response approach with limited interest in the use of economic instruments. There is also a real need for long-term commitment to co-ordinating structures. The findings of this study, as recorded in Chapters 2 and 3 of the main report demonstrate that integrated approaches are still limited in their application in Australia, and that overseas experiences may not be useful to Australian conditions. As Burton cautions,

There is a limit to how much we can depend upon approaches and techniques that we borrow from overseas. It has been amply demonstrated that Australian hydrology is different from that of other countries; our political and administrative structures and the very scale of our catchments introduce other difficulties. There is a real and urgent need for the development of an appropriate indigenous methodology before we can expect to implement integrated catchment management approaches effectively on a State and national scale." (Burton, 1991, p.10)

This study therefore recommends that a more detailed study be undertaken of the conceptual weaknesses and issues surrounding the implementation of integrated approaches in Australia. Any such study should recognise several fundamental characteristics of the natural resources and the socio-cultural and institutional environments of Australia: • the stochastic nature of climatic regimes, particularly in the north of the Murray-

Darling Basin;


• the dominance of an arid or subhumid environment for most of Australia's agricultural regions;

• the declining human resource base of rural Australia for IEM - a declining

workforce in agriculture, with growth of the tertiary service sector mainly in urban areas;

• the social characteristics of the Australian population - characterised primarily by

rapid change; • the fragmentary nature of resource management agencies - historical evolution of

their functions have made them resource specific, and state bounded; • the lack of national policies for land use, but some development towards national

standards for water resource management (national water quality management strategy for example); and

• the changing functions of resource management agencies - towards a free market

oriented/user pays/corporatised environment with smaller government and more owner management of the resource stocks of Australia.

2.3 A Conceptual Framework for Best Management Practice in Integrated Environmental Management A concept associated with the IEM approach is Best Management Practice (BMP). This approach sees the need for increasing unity and interdependence of all elements of design and operation of resource management projects. BMP implies the adoption of procedures required to combat the degradation of land and water resources in a river basin, while maximising the productivity of resource uses, ensuring social equity and enhancing the vitality of rural communities. BMP also assumes that technical excellence must be coupled with a commitment to environmental responsibility. When linked with the concept of BMP, IEM becomes the vehicle for improving Australia's technological capability for natural resource management planning. The BMP approach has many similarities with modern management sciences that emphasise an integrated and comprehensive approach, such as total quality management. 2.3.1 What is Best Management Practice BMP originated in business organisation theory and can be traced to seminal studies in transnational corporate planning and management. It has found expression at the national level in Australia in the manufacturing and tertiary service sector (particularly education) and quaternary service (particularly business and telecommunications) sectors. It reflects the growing globalisation of the world economy and the need for the Australian business sector to become and remain more


competitive. The Best Practice approach is now widely promoted as a Federal Government initiative, the Best Practice Program. Put simply, BMP is a strategy for organisational change. Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) is a derivative of BMP. BPEM is the extension of advanced manufacturing techniques into environmental management (Australian Manufacturing Council, 1992). It endeavours to make the operations of organisations more cost-effective in deregulated, but corrupted, international markets. Second, it develops strategies to encourage firms to implement environmental practices that lead to ecological sustainable development. BPEM applies new soft and hard technologies (for example Total Quality Management, flatter structures, computer-based decision support systems, to all types of environmental issues in order to achieve maximum, continued improvement for minimum required cost. This approach means a radically different attitude by management, unions, and training institutions to management practices, skills development, devolution of responsibility and employee participation. The effectiveness of any organisation can be visualised within a "7-S" framework. Table A2 lists the characteristics of any firm, and the effectiveness of that firm stems from the interaction of these seven items. BPEM requires a shift from "old" environmental management practices (such as conservation compliance, regulation strategies), to the "new" (for example, environmentally benign on-farm practices such as conservation tillage, 'bug-resistant' cotton varieties). These changes are illustrated in summary from in Table A3. This approach has found only limited expression in the agricultural, land management and water use sectors of the Australian economy, but is now well developed in manufacturing, and to a lesser extent in mining and forestry. To avoid confusion, Best Management Practice is the preferred term used in this study. BPEM is implied in the use of the term BMP. There has been little development of a best management practice approach to IEM, except for the listing of practices thought to be reasonably effective in reducing the environmental impact of resource use. Best management practice has also been promoted recently in natural resources management overseas, and has become something of a 'buzz word' amongst policy makers, researchers and practitioners. It has found clear expression in North American forestry management (Rice, 1992), rangeland management (Johnson, 1992), agricultural practices (Megahan et al., 1992; Nowak et al., 1984) and water quality management (University of Wisconsin - Extension, 1989).


Table A2. The "7-S" Framework "7-S" Element Indicators SUPERORDINATE GOALS • Guiding concepts of organisation. • Set of values, aspirations. • Broad notions of future directions. STYLE • Management actions rather than words. • Allocation of time by senior management to issues. • Symbolic behaviour - genuine commitment of consistent. resources, appointment of skilled people etc. STRUCTURE • Formal organisation structure. • Emphasis given to particular tasks, coordination of work. STRATEGY • The way a company aims to improve its competitiveness. • The response a company plans in anticipation of, or in response to, changes in the external environment. SYSTEMS • All procedures, formal and informal, that make an organisation go. • Includes budgeting, training, production systems etc and informal systems such as meetings. STAFF • Appraisal systems, formal training programs, morale, attitude, motivation etc. SKILLS • Skills, attributes or capabilities which dominate in the organisation. Source: Waterman, Peters & Phillips, "Structure is not Organisation", Business Horizons.


Table A3. The Best Practice Environmental Management Paradigm Shift Old New SUPERORDINATE Efficiency Excellence GOAL STYLE Formal Committed • Command and Control. • CEO vision, personal commitment and • Environmental low priority leadership. priority of CEO. • Demonstrated priority for senior management. STRUCTURE Rigid Flexible • Steeply hierarchical. • Devolution of environmental • Weak or no links between OH&S, responsibility. environmental and production • Flatter, team oriented. management. • Integration of OH&S, environmental and production management. STRATEGY Reactive Proactive • Meet regulations, focus on • Link between environmental end-of-pipe. excellence and competitiveness. • No specific environmental policy. • Emphasis on continuous improvement. • Closed door to community. • "Open Door" to community. SYSTEMS Environmentally Exclusive Environmentally Inclusive • Minimum required to meet • Comprehensive Environmental regulations. Management Plan. • Formalised communication links with community. STAFF Directed Empowered • Performance measured by cost. • Environmental criteria in performance • No sense of ownership. appraisal. • Pride in activities in the firm. SKILLS Functional Problem-solving • Production and waste control • Integrated approach to improvement. • Innovation, problem solving skills highly regarded. Source: The Environmental Challenge: Best Practice Environmental Management. Australian Manufacturing Council, 1992.


2.3.2 Application of a Best Management Practice Approach to IEM Six perspectives are needed in interpreting the '7-S' approach to a Best Management Practice approach to IEM, and are fundamental issues affecting implementation. They are: • Correct scale: The '7-S' Framework fits the character of a tertiary or quaternary

service firm, and also applies to agribusinesses, farm corporations or large scale family farming operations. However, it does not translate easily into the business management processes of the majority of resource users, be they family farms, private forest managers, or tourist operators. These are the majority of resource users and the scale of business prevalent in the Murray-Darling Basin. If this perspective is ignored, it is "business as usual" without effective natural resource management by the individual.

• A family business perspective: Corporate farms and firms may be large enough to

qualify for application of the BMP concept. What then is the critical point below which farm or firm organisational structures are too small to relate to the BMP concept? Small family businesses (farms, tourist enterprises, private forests) need be visualised quite differently and understood in terms of their ability to adopt best management practices. Management of family farms has been shown to be essentially a personal construct influenced by prevailing local social norms (Hooper, 1993), rather than the corporatised decision environment implied by the contemporary BMP approach.

• A best technical (?) management approach: Previous IEM approaches commonly

focus on Best Technical Management, that is, the best technology to solve a particular environmental management problem. This approach may be best for the resource, may be best for the agency, yet not good for the resource manager. It may not fit the technical expertise of the resource manager, nor his/her financial capability, nor his/her type of resource use. Consequently, new technologies should be adapted to suit individual, local needs, if thorough adoption is sought.

• The problem of incongruities: There is frequently a lack of congruence between the

natural resource use objectives of agencies and resource users. This incongruence can also be found between and within resource management agencies. This mitigates against successful outcomes for IEM in a river basin. Lee (1992) called for the formation of 'ecologically effective social organisations', by which he meant an organisational arrangement in which all players have similar resource management objectives, and that they work together to produce effective resource management outcomes. In a farming example, if there are similar approaches to resource management by farmers, extension workers, agricultural chemical supply companies, consultants, producer organisations, researchers and agency policy planners, then it is more likely that Best Management Practice can be implemented in a catchment.


• A task force/teamwork approach: A critical perspective is to establish integrated plans of management in terms of the organisation of natural resources management programmes. A Task Force could be used to identify the most appropriate approach by using the expertise and involvement of resource managers. This involves identifying appropriate organisational arrangements to produce congruence between policy-making, extension, farmer adoption and final outcomes. A Task Force could be used to identify the costs and benefits of IEM approach and articulate them from farm level to agency organisation level, through Landcare groups and regional catchment committees. A Task Force could also identify the appropriate range of incentives to be used (tax relief, direct payments through subsidies etc.).

• Accountability: Quality Assurance has been used as a mechanism in the tertiary

and quaternary sectors of society to account for and ensure the quality of an organisation's products and services. This is a useful method to evaluate an IEM approach. IEM in Australia operates in a 'bottom-up', community-driven, consultative, institutional culture. Government agencies increasingly act as leaders, facilitators and consultants to communities, rather than solely regulators and managers. In this context, new accountability procedures will be required and considerable work needs to be done on developing an accountability process for IEM generally. Government may still be called upon, in this user-focused environment, to use its regulatory and financial powers to implement accountability procedures for river basin planning. State of the Environment accounting/environmental auditing is one process that could be used in the regard.

2.3.3 Benefits and Potential Gains from Using The Best Management Practice Approach Complex, "wicked" environmental problems, including integrated land and water management problems, often appear insoluble using current planning and management technologies and strategies. Our knowledge of ecological and biological processes is growing but appears to be incapable of incorporating human dimensions to natural resources management at the regional level. IEM, however, offers a useful approach to understand the functional linkages between resource users and the resources at the large scale of river basins (Born and Margerum, 1993; Born and Sonzogni, 1991; Born et al., 1990; Burton et al., 1988; Burton, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1991; Hooper, 1993; Hooper, et al., 1994; Lang, 1986; Mitchell, 1987, 1988, 1990; Mitchell and Hollick, 1993; Newson, 1992; Naiman, 1992; Pigram and Hooper, 1994). The IEM approach is a more flexible, adaptive and appropriate approach to integrated land and water management planning than traditional approaches. In this study, IEM has been promoted as a feasible and useful approach. It offers considerable opportunities to address a range of complex environmental problems simultaneously, using multiple data sets and cooperative, consensus-building decision processes. The use of Mitchell's building blocks for IEM, a modified '7-S' approach to organisational management, and the removal of individual and


institutional impediments to adoption offer considerable benefits to integrated land and water management planning. The challenge remains to build this approach and this forms the focus of a proposed study outlined later in this appendix. An integrated approach to resource management is explicitly appealing. It suggests that if a more comprehensive group of resources and resource management issues are examined simultaneously then more effective resource management outcomes will be achieved. However, while this attraction exists, and appears to be the stimulus for many innovative approaches to integrated land and water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, it is yet to be determined how feasible and what are the effective gains that can be made using an IEM approach. The effectiveness of this approach and the gains to be made can be determined once two sets of indicators have been developed: • Indicators of ecological gains: Indicators of incremental gains using IEM approaches

have not been fully developed for integrated land and water management planning. Measures of total system health are needed, rather than purely functional measures of ecosystem components (such as one dimension variables). An IEM approach would use a range of 'system health' indicators such as biodiversity, riparian vegetation ecosystem condition, geomorphological condition etc. This contrasts to one dimension variable measures, for example stream salinity concentrations.

• Indicators of economic and social gains: The successful implementation of an IEM

approach is dependent on a range of economic and psycho-sociological variables that affect adoption. Indicators of adoption of these variables are relatively easy to define and measure such as one dimensional indicators (for example, rates of adoption of water conservation measures). The challenge remains, however, to develop more useful indicators of social and economic change that are linked to incremental gains in ecological conditions from the use of an IEM approach. These include indicators of improved social conditions.

Until these indicators are fully developed, applied and tested, there will be ineffectual measures of success using an integrated approach. The work of Synnott (1990) is one of the few efforts in Australia to develop performance indicators of IEM in Australia. A recent national study of the effectiveness of current catchment management identified weak implementation processes of IEM in Australia (AACM/Centre for Water Policy Research, 1994). There is also the need to develop rigorous frameworks to explain the links between IEM, regional development and biodiversity enhancement. Once these links are more fully understood, there will be the opportunity to benchmark the gains to be achieved using an IEM approach to integrated land and water management planning. A proposed study, described below, will examine the need to investigate these links. 2.3.4 Proposed Study


It is recommended that a study be undertaken to examine implementation processes in integrated land and water management. The proposed study aims to strengthen and extend integrated land and water management planning. The approach discussed in this appendix could be used to develop a management tool, a generic model of integrated land and water management. The model could be used to: • analyse the interrelationships between land and water resource management, and

the health of ecosystems, the rates of adoption of sustainable land and water management practices, and the ecological and socio-cultural benefits and disbenefits of using an integrated approach to resource management;

• identify those management practices that have produced incremental gains in

ecological health, and use these as critical best management practices; • create a process that is transportable to and transparent across regions of

Australia. Output of this study, NRMS Project #M334, could be used in the proposed study. 2.3.5 Synopsis: Towards A Best Management Practice Approach to Integrated Environmental Management to Address Salinity Problems in the Murray-Darling Basin Best management practice is not just a suite of appropriate technologies to deal with economic production or a particular environmental management problem, but it should also consider the relevant individual decision processes and institutional arrangements that contribute to the ecologically and economically sustainable management of natural resources. A Best Management Practice approach to Integrated Environmental Management to address salinity problems is defined as the range of organisational structures and procedures that are required to combat the degradation of land and water resources in a catchment, while maximising the productivity of resource uses, ensuring social equity and enhancing the vitality of rural communities. Relating the concept to catchment management theory, Best Management Practice is the technique to achieve the sustainable use of catchment ecological resources, while maintaining natural resource stock at levels that do not preclude use for future generations. Best Management Practice is an inclusive term, referring to a set of organisational arrangements to identify, implement and benchmark sustainable natural resource management. Best management practices are the actions by which ecologically sustainable development can be achieved (at best), or at least directions set by which ecologically sustainable development is eventually achieved. Best management practices should strive to be financially viable in an economic climate of increasing international competitiveness. They refer to the actions relevant on an individual farm in a catchment to achieve Best Management Practice. These are more than previously


defined conservation farming practices, because they are on-farm actions that are defined according to ecological, economic and social criteria. That is, they are integrated practices. They are designed to reduce land and water degradation while maximising productivity and farm incomes, are financially viable, and endeavour to be socially benign by encouraging social vitality rather than precipitating the decline of rural communities. They are 'smart solutions'. An example of a best management practice is a system of structural works for land degradation control such as integrated schemes of graded banks and grassed waterways, linked to water quality control mechanisms and agroforestry plots. This illustrates how the use of natural resources should be undertaken to maximise production and economic returns, avoid the potential for land and water degradation and maintain viable resource stock for the use of future generations. They are not necessarily 'best bet options'. They should be field tested to demonstrate their ability to reduce degradation, are financially viable, do not increase risk, and do not detract from local social vitality. Many of past soil conservation practices have been promoted as practices to reduce a particular problem, for example, soil erosion. The failure to be completely adopted across rural regions may be not only related to their financial non-viability and inappropriateness to local farm conditions and communities, but also that they are not fully integrated practices, being single issue oriented. Best management practices need to be defined according to the site of investigation, rather than broad generalisations for each resource sector. Integrated practices should be designed and implemented at the local level within subcatchments, that is, at scales of 1:10 000 to 1:50 000 so that meaningful applications can be made on-farm and within regions. At this level, the selection of best management practices should be done by consultation with resource managers and agency personnel. This enhances opportunities later for public participation in catchment management programmes and generates a sense of community ownership of the problem and solutions. Conservation farming practices have been identified in several studies of sustainable agriculture in north-western USA, national surveys of sustainable agricultural practices and in research findings in implementing sustainable agricultural practices (Appendix 4). Care is needed, however, in the interpretation of these practices, particular in their ability to provide ecologically sustainability, economic viability (in both short and long term), social equity and community vitality. Many practices promoted in these appendices do not include all these components, and this would not allow them to be classified as best management practices according to the definition and examples cited. 2.4 Adoption of Integrated Salinity Management


Adoption can be viewed from two perspectives - from a resources user's perspective, the 'bottom-up' view, or from an institutional/government perspective, the 'top-down view'.


2.4.1 The Investigation of Adoption - An Individual Resource User Perspective The adoption decision is one of many land use decisions landowners make about resource use. There has been considerable debate about models of individual decision-making in natural resources management for at least the last four decades. This debate has formed paradigms to explain adoption. The degree of acrimony in the debate about factors that influence resource use decision-making is illustrated by Leopold,

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.... The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use. This is simply not true. An innumerable host of actions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk of all land relations, is determined by land-users' tastes and predilections, rather than his purse. The bulk of all land relations hinges on investments of time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, so is he." Aldo Leopold (1949) The Land Ethic, in A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There,

Oxford University Press. New York. In Leopold's opinion, land use decisions are more the result of aspirations, tastes and beliefs, rather than decisions driven solely by economic concerns and imperatives. Leopold was referring to the paradigm of rational decision-making (RDM). This dates back to Bentham who postulated the utilitarian paradigm of resource use upon which much economic theory rests. Rational decision-makers know their preferences or objectives, analyse their choices in terms of their abilities to satisfy those preferences or objectives, and choose the best among them. This theory has been severely criticised (as above), often misinterpreted, and frequently misused. One of the most strident criticisms is that, when applied to real world situations, RDM is not an apt description of human behaviour, because decision-making is not a matter of calculation and choice, rather a learned process of conditioned response (Gregg et al., 1991). Similar sentiments are echoed in O'Riordan's derivation of a theory of decision-making in resource management (Figure A1), where decision-making is a learning process, comprising four principal stages which are connected by feedback loops. The learning process was developed further by Found (1971) who maintained that learning in a land use setting occurred as a response to individual knowledge gained by experience, and knowledge from other sources through communication. These knowledge sources are used by resource managers to create images of the extent and degree of hazard, and produce land use decisions in response to these images. Found developed a model that demonstrated how traditional economic and behavioural models could be viewed simultaneously, but indicated that they should be applied carefully according to the context of resource use (Figure A2).


Figure A1. Model of resource management decision-making Source: O'Riordan (1971)

O'Riordan and Found maintained that various institutional, social and personal factors are effective in the decision process about resource use. Five factors prevailed: the cultural setting of resource use, the technological level available for use, the nature of the problem (how complex was the resource use), the previous experience and the personality of the resource manager. Simon (1957) and Wolpert (1964) also maintained that the basis of many theories of resource use, the behaviour of 'Rational Man', did not fully explain behaviour in terms of rational action. Their 'satisficer', or 'bounded rationality' models added human behavioural variables to normative economic theory to explain decision-making. These variables included different goals, different levels of knowledge, and variations in aversion to risk and uncertainty. This approach is particularly useful in situations of substantial uncertainty where decision-making costs are high in relation to prospective benefits. Desbarats (1983) argued that structural, social and institutional constraints operating in decision-making should be incorporated into models that use pre-existing theories of psychological behaviour, to explain resource use. The resulting model was similar to that of Found, as it attempted to recognise the range of attitudinal, social and


institutional, as well as rational, economic operational variables significant to a particular resource use setting.

Figure A2 A simplified view of an individual's general decision framework Source: Found (1971)

These models offer an alternative to purely economic explanations of resource use behaviour and echo Leopold's position. They demonstrate that land use decisions, including decisions to adopt best practices, are influenced by psych-sociological as well as economic factors. An explanatory model of adoption behaviour should encompass these perspectives on decision-making, and be based on rational, or boundedly rational, decision-makers whose decisions are embedded and influenced by, considerable socialisation (as developed in Gregg et al, 1991, and applied in a floodplain setting in Hooper, 1993). A variety of psycho-sociological, economic, institutional, structural, and situational variables should be used to explain adoption effectively. This approach was used to assist the analysis of the adoption of best management practices in this study. 2.4.2 The Investigation of Adoption - An Institutional Context Perspective While there has been significant debate about theoretical approaches to individual decision-making in natural resource management, there has also been concern about the role of government policies and decisions in natural resources management in individual adoption of practices. These concerns include the environmental impacts of past pro-development land use policies. This can be seen in the extent of land degradation and declining water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. The response has been varied, with calls for increased control of resource use through impact assessment legislation, community based Landcare programmes, the use of environmental auditing, and


moves towards defining practices that lead to a more sustainable use of resources, through formation of ecologically sustainable development policies. One recent expression is the National Water Quality Management Strategy (1992). In this document, a best management practice approach is used as the management tool to reduce land and water degradation processes related to water quality in the rural environment. Another response, one which dates from the mid 1960s, has been to use an ecological approach to land use planning (Hills, 1961), called integrated resources (or catchment) management throughout Australia (such the TCM in New South Wales). This has resulted in developing integrated approaches to land and water management at the river basin and sub-catchment level, to implement sustainable levels of resource use at various scales as described earlier in this study. Linked to an integrated approach to resources management is the concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). This is evidenced in the Federal initiatives towards ecologically sustainable development, and the issuing of ESD strategies for different resource use sectors of the Australian economy. There remain major obstacles in implementing a sustainable approach. These are due in part to problems of definition of 'sustainability' (Sadler et al., 1991) and, once defined, the lack of practical directions for resource managers. Sustainability can be defined as the maintenance of ecological integrity while maximising economic production, so that resource use today will not preclude opportunities for resource use in the future. While sustainable management has been defined in many ways, another definition useful to this project is the concept of sustainable yield (Tivy and Hare, 1987),

'management of a resource for maximum continuing production, consistent with the maintenance of a constant renewable stock' (quoted in Synnott, 1991 p. 16)

Consistent with the Brundlandt Report's approach to natural resources management (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), this definition is useful to this study as it focuses on the need to maintain the volume of natural resources for future generations9. Allied to the concept of sustainable development, growing social and economic concerns have arisen about resource use in Australia. These include concerns about the declining viability of rural communities and their dependent service centres, concerns for the economic viability of agriculture, and concerns about the future options available for resource use in rural Australia (Cocks, 1992). These concerns have found specific expression in the Murray-Darling Basin, through the development and promotion of the Natural Resources Management Strategy since 1989. In the Basin, restructuring of agriculture has also emerged as a critical concern

9 This contrasts with both a 'deep ecology' approach, which states that resources should be preserved because of their inherent right to exist, and an anthropocentric approach which sees all resources as defined within the context of potential human uses.


for present and future resource users concurrent with the degradation of soil, vegetation and water resources. These arrangements demonstrate that Australian agencies have moved considerably closer towards an IEM approach, based on principles of ecologically sustainable development. Yet, the adoption of integrated approaches in rural Australian resource use is still in its infancy, with the paradigm emerging in the mid to late 1980s. Institutional arrangements for resource use set the context in which adoption takes place. This study has, therefore, examined these arrangements to identify those impediments influencing resource adoption related to 'top-down' government policies and programs. One example, of these impediments could be the lack of cross compliance between government policies in sustainable resource use, land clearing, and taxation incentives. In conclusion, the two perspectives, the resource use ('bottom-up') view, and the institutional context ('top-down') must be used simultaneously to assist in explaining adoption. 2.4.3 Approaches to Investigate Adoption Research into the adoption of soil conservation technologies provides a useful approach to investigate the adoption of best practice salinity management. This area of scholarship has clearly demonstrated that a range of psycho-sociological, situational, structural and economic constraints that influence adoption. This project required the formation of a model of adoption that recognises the range of possible influences affecting the implementation of best practice. There have been two approaches developed to explain the adoption of soil conservation practices. The traditional diffusion model argues that adoption of an innovation is a function of the awareness that a problem exists, recognition that options for problem resolution are available, personal characteristics of the adopter, perceptions of the profitability associated with adoption and psychosocial orientations of potential adopters (Camboni et al., 1990). The model suggests that people learn through information systems and that unclear information mitigates against adoption; personal factors also impede information flow. Perception of profitability is an essential adoption factor and motivation to change must precede adoption. This approach reflects the 'bottom-up' perspective. An second approach is the farm structure - institutional constraints perspective. This model argues that the characteristics of farm enterprises and the structure of the agricultural system in which farmers operate affect adoption decisions. These features act as constraints on or motivations towards adoption. The ability of an individual to act is condition by the operational environment within which he or she operates. This could include lack of access to economic resources, type of farming operation, and institutional structures and agency programmes. These operate as barriers to entry into sustainable agriculture.


A further factor in both models is the relevance of the innovation to the individual situation. This is particularly important on farms and farming regions which have become highly specialised. A third approach, which has not been fully developed theoretically, is the agency culture - performance perspective. The methods used to identify practices, traditional top-down field demonstration procedures or recent bottom-up landholder involvement extension procedures, the ethos, the working culture and the expertise level of an organisation may also influence adoption decisions. This approach is included in this project in a limited form, because more theoretical investigation is required to capture the elements of this perspective. 2.4.6 An Eclectic Approach to Adoption This study uses a mix of the traditional adoption-diffusion model, the farm structure - institutional constraints approach, and the agency culture - performance perspective as an eclectic approach to investigate adoption. Many factors influence adoption of sustainable integrated land and water management practices. The adoption process is not just a land use decision based on financial benefits or losses, but includes a number of psycho-sociological issues relevant to farm decision-making. These are not mutually exclusive, but interact to affect adoption. The following factors are most likely to act as variables influencing the adoption of salinity management. They were derived from field discussions with extension officers and farmers and an extensive literature review in both Australia and North America. The factors are: 1. Attitudinal/perception variables

• Attitudes towards the effectiveness of best practices in reducing degradation; • The awareness level of farmers of the need for the technology; • Willingness to participate in structural adjustment schemes; • The influence of attitudes of land owners versus non-landowning managers; • The perceived knowledge of the practice; • The influence of attitudes towards individual property rights.

2. Economic/structural variables

• Economic pressures that lead to the need for structural adjustment in the face of changing patterns of supply and demand;

• The influence of structural characteristics on implementation rates, including such features as farm size, family indebtedness;

• The economic benefits and disbenefits in both the short and long term of best practices;

• The financial ability of the farmer to adopt best practices.


3. Social/demographic variables

• Social and demographic characteristics including the decline in rural populations and community cohesiveness, the changing age and sex structure of rural communities, changing work patterns of rural families and family farm operations, and the availability of off-farm employment opportunities;

• The ability of the farmer to obtain valid agronomic and economic information; • The influence of landholder groups. This includes the investigation of the

means by which strategies for community participation have enhanced or hindered adoption, or have worked as a factor in stalling the implementation procedure and have complicated further adoption.

4. Variables related to institutional arrangements/practices

• The farmer will probably need assistance in transferring the technology and adapting it to the unique climate soils, managerial and social conditions of his working environment;

• Institutional inefficiencies in the development and delivery of relevant information and assistance;

• The process of identifying and field testing best practices - who is involved, how cost effective are the practices;

• The influence of overriding farm policy that creates an economic and social climate conducive to or hindering adoption;

• The communication skills and knowledge of extension officers; • The technical expertise of those who suggest best practices; • The role of institutional arrangements in the Murray-Darling Basin to enact

natural resources management programmes. 5. Contextual variables

• The presence, extent and severity of land and water degradation; • The technical suitability of the practice; • The nature of adoption participation - whether it is mandatory or voluntary; • The biophysical features of the land management unit.

2.4.6 The Limits to Adoption of Best Practices Limits are defined as the end point of the adoption process beyond which resource managers are unwilling to implement sustainable management practices on a voluntary basis. This includes further adoption of partly adopted practices by individuals and the adoption by other individuals of part or all of best practices for the first time. Once limits are known, the task remains to determine the most appropriate means of offsetting these limits. A combination of incentives and sanctions is likely to be required in convincing resource managers of the need to adopt best practice, and alert them to the consequences of not doing so. An important part of this study is to determine the range of options available to resource management agencies to achieve maximum landowner adoption of best


management practices, and the most appropriate measures to ensure their continued implementation.


2.5 Synthesis There are two dimensions to the study of the adoption of best management practices in integrated land and water management, an individual resource-user dimension, and an institutional context dimension. These perspectives are needed to understand how adoption of salinity management in the Murray-Darling Basin occurs. A conceptual framework for a Best Management Practice approach to IEM was also developed, and the potential gains of using an IEM approach were discussed.


Appendix 3

Results of Farmer Survey of the Adoption of Salinity Management in the Goran Catchment

3.1. The Survey Sample The sample used for this survey was derived from Shire property listings, commercially produced property maps, an ABS Community Profile commissioned for this study10, and local knowledge provided by staff of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CaLM) and the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, a farmer-based regional resource management organisation in the study area. This yielded a survey population of approximately 165 farmers in the Goran Catchment area. The author also examined CaLM property boundary maps of the catchment. This identified 248 land ownership parcels of greater than 100 hectares in size. This overestimates the number of farming families in the catchment, as many farmers have multiple property ownership, at non-contiguous locations. It was assumed that the farming population of the Goran Catchment was approximately 165 farm households. To achieve a maximum response to the farm questionnaire, 248 questionnaires were mailed to every known address, including company names, family names or property names, with a follow-up mailing some eight weeks later. This produced 138 responses (a 83.6% response rate, assuming 165 farm households), and yielded 91 useful returns, plus four additional letters. The remainder of returns were responses where one survey form corresponded to several properties, and unclaimed mail responses. The population used in the data analysis was the sample of 91 farmers whose responses are discussed below. The Goran Catchment has an area of 193,288 hectares (CaLM data). Excluding lands devoted to forestry, the amount of farm land is approximately 180,870 hectares. The respondents to this survey farmed 119,165 hectares, which corresponds to 61.7% of the farmland of the Goran Catchment. This result suggests that the total number of farm households in the Goran Catchment is approximately 165, as discussed above. 3.2 Farm Types, Farmer Practices and Adoption Rates 3.2.1 Farm Classification Farms were categorised into four groups. One farming type dominated the sample population - mixed crop and livestock production, which represented 59.3% of properties; pure cropping enterprises constituted 12.1% of the sample; 25.3% of properties were purely grazing enterprises; while 4.4% of all properties had irrigated 10 The ABS survey consisted of six collector districts that covered the catchment. A proportional sample of these data were used to assist in describing the demographic and social characteristics of the Goran Catchment community.


cropping enterprises. This mix reflects the strong diversification of agricultural enterprises typical of the Liverpool Plains. 3.2.2. Property Size Property area (this refers to all enterprise types) varied dramatically, as indicated in the high standard deviation scores in Table A1 below. The area farmed ranged from the largest holding of 7376 hectares to the smallest of four hectares. Mean farm size in the Goran Catchment is 1323 hectares. However, approximately one in five Goran Catchment farmers farm land elsewhere, taking their mean farming area to 1552 hectares. Moderate sized properties dominate the population, as indicated in the median farm size of 1249 hectares. This is approximately three times larger than the median size of properties in the other field site region, the Tragowel Plains, where median farm size was 386 hectares.

Table A1. Property sizes - Goran Catchment Mean size

(ha.) Median

size (ha.)

St. Dev. Min. size (ha.)

Max. size (ha.)

Land farmed on the Goran Catchment

1323 889 1249 4 6000

Land farmed elsewhere (20.9% of farmers)

1288 766 1023 16 6276

Total land farmed 1552 1001 1363 4 7376 3.2.3 Property Land Types and Resource Management Practices Data for the different land types and the types of resource management practices are listed in Tables A2 to A6. The results of this study are discussed in Chapter 2 of the report.

Table A2. Areas of Various Land types of the Goran Catchment

Data are in hectares Land Type Total Area

in sample (hectares)

Proportion of properties with this land type (%)

Mean area per property (hectares)

Median area per property (hectares)

St. Dev. (hectares)

Upland / sloping timbered country

26242 58.2 515.0 250 851.0

Red soils sloping country 20052 62.6 364.6 300 359.1 Black soils sloping country 31266 57.1 613.1 380 613.4


Black soils floodplain country 47532 58.2

897.0 510 1073.0

Table A3. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Upland

Timbered Country - Any Soil Type (Land Type A)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type A Data are ranked according to current adoption rates.

Done this

in the past Doing now

Intend to do it

Retain trees 45.3 60.4 11.3 Improve pasture quality 39.6 58.5 20.8 Convert former cropping land into pasture 56.7 45.3 13.2 Allow more regeneration 13.2 35.9 18.9 Structural works for soil conservation 56.6 37.7 11.3 Other resource management practices 5.6 15.1 3.7

Most common practices: • Paddock subdivision with

watering points (2) • No till cultivation (2) • Improved grazing management

(3) • Tree planting (2) • Retaining uncultivated

strips on cultivated land (2)

• Removal of woody weeds (2)

Other practices (one response items):

• Use of Yeoman's Keyline Method

• Reduced stocking rates • Allowing pastures to seed off once a year

• Stubble retention • Strip cropping • Irrigation development on pasture

Table A4. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Red Soils Sloping Country (Land Type B)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type B



Doing now

Intend to do it

Convert from cropping into pasture production (eg, lucerne production)

54.3 56.1 12.3

Crop rotations

36.8 38.6 10.5


Plant or allow regeneration of woodlots and tree lines

22.8 29.8 22.8

Structural works for soil conservation 59.6 21.1 7.0 Other resource management practices 8.8 10.5 3.5

Most common practices: • Paddock subdivision with

watering points (3) • Improved grazing

management (2)

Other practices (one response items):

• Stopped all cropping • Removal of woody weeds • Cultivate parallel to the slope • Irrigation development on

pasture • Fenced off waterways • Minimum till

• Stubble retention • Reduced tree clearing

Table A5. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Black Soils Sloping Country (Land Type C)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type C



Doing now

Intend to do it

Rotation farming

43.1 60.0 17.7


54.9 52.9 17.6

Cultivate on the contour

39.2 37.3 13.7


23.5 37.3 17.7

Soil conservation works (floodways, graded banks to stop water logging)

54.9 35.3 9.8


21.6 33.3 15.7

Strip farming

37.3 27.5 9.8

Other resource management practices

7.8 13.7 2.0

Most common practices: • Improved/native pasture

development (3) • No till cultivation (4) • Cultivate parallel to the slope (2)

Other practices (one response

items):

• Cell grazing • Long fallowing • Maintain native pastures • Area too small to consider • Paddock subdivision with

watering points • Cannot change to grazing due to

lack of stock water


Table A6. Past, present and intended resource management practices on Black Soil Floodplain Country (Land Type D)

Proportions expressed as % of all farmers who farm Land Type D



Doing now

Intend to do it


58.5 54.7 15.1

Rotation farming

35.8 49.1 15.1


30.2 41.6 15.1

Soil conservation works

26.4 28.3 7.6


26.4 28.3 20.8

Strip farming

37.7 28.3 11.3

Increase pasture production (eg lucerne production)

18.9 26.4 20.8

Convert from cropping into pasture production (eg lucerne production)

22.6 24.8 18.9

Other practices 5.7 3.8 7.6 Other practices (one response items):

• Long fallowing • Growing legumes • Intend to divert surplus water to Mooki River

• Use of "first and last" waterways

3.3 Farmer Characteristics 3.3.1 Farmer Age and Experience The survey found that Goran Catchment farmers were not relatively evenly spread regarding their length of farm management experience (both on the Goran Catchment and elsewhere). This characteristic is not related to any age characteristics of the farming population, as they were relatively evenly distributed between age groups (Table A7). Rather it indicates the residency of farmers in this district. Farmers with a substantial management experience (defined as being managers for greater than 20 years) comprised 78.41% of the sample population. The data reveal a farming community which has had significant farming experience, including experience of farming in the Goran catchment or elsewhere on the Liverpool Plains. Only a relatively small number of farmers (about one in five) have had a short experience of farming in this environment. This suggests that farmers in this region have tended to have most of their farming experience in the local area,


and reflect the perceived wealth of the farming district and the opportunities that exist to make (and have made) farming a successful venture for many farmers in this district. However, data on length of experience must be tempered with data reflecting proportion of debt to equity ratios of these farmers. Complimentary surveys being undertaken on the Liverpool Plains (ABARE studies, for example) may be able to correlate length of farming experience with farm viability, and so determine if the substantial length of management experience of four in five Goran catchment farmers is related to a specific equity condition.

Table A7. Age distribution of farmer population

Age Group Proportion of Sample 20 - 30 years 6.8 31 - 40 years 22.7 41 - 50 years 26.2 51 -60 years 19.3 61 - 70 years 18.2 Over 70 years 6.8

3.3.2 Formal Education Level Goran Catchment farmers have had formal education to primary or secondary school standard (62.2%), with 25.0% having graduated from TAFE or University. These data reflect the formal education qualifications of farmers elsewhere in Australia. With the substantial length of farm management experience documented above, most Goran farmers have learnt farming 'on the job', suggesting that practical experience has been the dominant learning experience for both farm management and salinity management. 3.3.3 Landcare Membership Nearly one half (45.6%) of the sample were members of Landcare groups. 3.3.4 Family Structures Goran Catchment farmers tend to be family members (predominantly fathers) who have dependent children (62.6%). This reflects the evenly distributed age range of the farm manager population (Table A7), where many of the farming families are still very much dependent on farm (and perhaps off-farm) income to support their children. Median farmer age is 31-40 years. 3.3.5 Gross Household Income Data collected on household income (1992-3) revealed that the majority of farmers have household incomes between $75,000 and $1,000,000, reflecting the high capital


investment and cash flow. It is noteworthy that one in five farmers has a gross income of over $500,000.


Table A8. Gross Household Income

Household Income Proportion Proportion Survey Sample (%) ABS Community Profile(%) $0 - $25, 000 9.1 58.5 * $25,001 - $50,000 7.8 22.5 $50,001 - $75,000 3.9 4.9 $75,001 - $100,000 6.5 > $75K 14.1 $100,001 - $150,000 10.4 $150,001 - $250,000 13.0 $250,001 - $500,000 22.1 $500,000 - $1,000,000 19.5 over $1,000,000 7.8

* This figure suggests that low income earners may have not responded to the survey, or that Goran farm families have higher household income than urban families in the catchment who were not surveyed. 3.3.6 Direction of Gross Farm Income over the Last Five Years 45.5% of the sample population revealed an increase in farm gross income (40.3% revealed the increase was greater than $10,000); 32.5% indicated static farm gross income; 5.2% of farmers indicated that gross income had declined (3.3% by more than $10,000). These figures revealed a stronger growth in gross farm returns than the Tragowel Plains sample, at least gross income was improving, but costs may also have accelerated. 3.3.7 Interest in Follow-up Surveys The Goran Farmers indicated strong interest in this survey. 89% of the population responded. 80.7% of the survey sample requested receiving a summary of the results, and 56.3 expressed interest in a follow-up survey. 3.4. Farmer Perceptions 3.4.1 Perceptions of Resource Management Problems on the Liverpool Plains Soil erosion and floodplain management were the dominative concerns amongst Goran Farmers. Soil salinity was relatively less important (Tables A9 to A11).


Table A9. Farmer Perceptions of Resource Management Problems PROBLEM A B C D (B + C) Very little Some A lot of Total supporting evidence evidence evidence evidence Soil erosion on sloping lands 8.8 43.9 45.1 89.0 Floodplain erosion 9.9 35.2 51.7 86.9 Changed flooding patterns 15.4 33.0 47.3 80.3 Soil salinity 39.6 36.3 20.9 57.2 Pasture decline from overgrazing

40.7 45.1 9.9 55.0

Tree decline (natural dieback) 48.4 40.7 8.8 49.5 13.2% of the sample identified other resource management problems on the Liverpool Plains. These were: Most common problems:

• Noxious weed infestation (4 )

• Soil fertility decline (2 ) • Stream concentration, producing floodplain erosion (2)

• Drought related land degradation (2)

Other problems (one response

items):

• Increased nuisance flooding

Table A10. Perceptions of Resource Management Problems in the Goran Catchment

PROBLEM A B C D (B + C) Very little Some A lot of Total supporting evidence evidence evidence evidence Floodplain erosion 17.6 35.2 45.1 80.3 Changed flooding patterns 19.8 35.2 41.8 77.0 Soil erosion on sloping lands 23.1 46.2 28.6 74.8 Soil salinity 39.6 36.3 20.9 57.2 Pasture decline from overgrazing

48.4 39.5 9.9 49.4

Tree decline (natural dieback) 56.0 35.2 6.6 41.8 Most common problems: • Soil fertility decline (2) • Noxious weed infestation

(3)


items):

• Decline in bore water levels • Ad hoc water diversion schemes and nuisance flooding

• Increased nuisance flooding


Table A11. Perceptions of Resource Management Problems on Their Own

Property PROBLEM A B C D (B + C) Very little Some A lot of Total supporting evidence evidence evidence evidence Soil erosion on sloping lands 39.6 47.3 11.0 58.3 Changed flooding patterns 39.6 33.0 24.2 57.2 Floodplain erosion 38.5 26.4 23.1 49.5 Tree decline (natural dieback) 65.9 26.4 5.5 31.9 Pasture decline from overgrazing

68.1 22.0 5.5 27.5

Soil salinity 70.3 16.5 8.8 25.3 Most common problems:

• Soil fertility decline (2) • Noxious weed infestation (5)

• Ad hoc water diversion schemes and nuisance flooding(4)


items):

• Continual inundation due to Lake Goran flooding

For the farmers who had identified salinity as a resource management problem on their property (25.3% of the sample), information was collected about the evidence of soil salinity. This produced the following observations: • 82.6% high saline water tables • 78.3% had saline patches on the soil surface • 69.6% had losses of production. The total area of land affected by salinity was: • 24.1% < 1 hectare • 34.5% 1 - 5 hectares • 20.7% 5 - 20 hectares • 20.7% > 20 hectares These farmers were also asked what were the various management practices they were undertaking in response to the salinity problem. Farmers were allowed multiple responses. They indicated that: • 52.2% had planted salt tolerant species • 52.2% had turned cropping land into pasture production • 43.7% had stopped cropping • 26.1% had done nothing • 17.4% occasionally grazed it • while 43.4% had undertaken other practices


Most common practices included • Planted saltbush and salt-

tolerant trees (3) • Reduced long fallowing

with opportunity cropping (2)

Other practices: • Pumping high water tables

for irrigation supply • Double crop as much as

fallow • Developed large irrigation

systems • Attempted to reduce flood

flows, but government would not allow this

3.5. Farmer Experiences in Managing Salinity 3.5.1 Loss of Production Goran farmers were asked if they had taken land out of production because of salinity reasons. 13.2% had done this. This low figure, and the low perception of salinity hazard on their own property, indicates that salinity is not perceived to be a problem 'owned' by Goran farmers. While there is other evidence to support there concerns about salinity described elsewhere in this report, it appears that Goran farmers downplay the importance of salinity threats on their properties until they are directly impacted by the phenomenon of water tables rising close to the surface and reducing farm production. For the farmers who had taken land out of production for salinity reasons (13.2% of the sample), the impact on farm income was sought. • 50.0% indicated that it had not changed my farm income • 41.7% indicated that it had reduced my farm income • 8.3% indicated that it had increased their farm income These figures suggest that reducing land farmed because of salinity impacts can have a significant impact on a farm's income, but that this may not necessarily be the case. This will depend on the proportion of the farm enterprise being impacted, and the current viability of farming enterprises. The majority of farmers (83.5%) had not taken land out of production because of salinity reasons. The reasons why they had not included the obvious: • 76.6% indicated that it was not necessary, as they did not have a salinity problem. Other reasons that had not taken land out of production were, in order of importance: • 5.3% did not farm rotation system • 2.6% indicated that it costs too much


• 17. 1% identified other reasons, being: • Land is too productive • Land was never cropped • Use other salinity management

practices such as opportunity cropping

• Salinity is not a landuse problem, rather depends on the level of water in Goran Lake

• Difficult to isolate small saline areas (3)

• Government continues to concentrate flood water on my property

• Change of enterprise (farming to grazing) (2)

• Tree planting will solve the problem

3.5.2 Selling Salt Affected Land Very few farmers in the Goran Catchment had sold land because of a salinity problem (1.1% of the survey sample). Furthermore, the majority (84.6%) had no intention of selling land for this reason. 3.5.3 Use of Soil Salinity Surveying Soil salinity surveying is a relatively recent practice in the Goran Catchment. It is used to identify salinity hazards and is a service provided by the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

16.5% Yes 79.1% No 4.4% No Response

In which year was a survey carried out?

Year % 1990 7.1 1991 14.3 1992 14.3 1993 50.0 1994 14.3

The results indicate the adoption of soil salinity surveying is increasing. Is there a reason for not having a salinity survey done? % Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem 65.3 Other reasons 20.8 Haven't got around to it yet 6.9 Can't get any information from Conservation and Land Management 1.4 Costs too much 1.4 I don't trust the results 0


Most common reasons: • No survey program in this

region (2) • Uses neighbour's results (2

responses) • No visible signs of salinity (2)

• Only a soil test done (not a salinity test) (2 responses)

Other reasons mentioned

(mainly once):

• Asked twice with no response from government

• Grid piezometer already installed; regular monitoring

• Lake Goran too wet for data collection

• Government will not listen to reason

• Salinity problem now solved

• An uncontrollable problem, related to floodplain flooding

The results suggest a low perception of salinity hazard. 3.5.4 Changing Landuse The majority of farmers had changed landuse due to salinity problems (68.1%). The dates of landuse change suggest a trend towards increase landuse change, but it may not be due to salinity.

Year % 1974 2.08 1975 2.08 1980 8.33 1983 4.17 1984 2.08 1986 12.50 1987 6.25 1988 8.33 1989 12.50 1990 18.75 1991 8.33 1992 10.42 1993 4.17

Reasons for changing landuse are primarily related to economic returns and lifestyle: % Suits my style of farming 56.4

Better returns from livestock production 51.6

Worried about rising water tables 20.9

Other reasons 48.3


Other reasons for not changing landuse included: Most common reasons: • Land more suitable for

livestock production (2) • To mitigate soil erosion

(8) • Preference for livestock not

farming (2)• • Farming becoming too

uneconomical (2) • To improve soil fertility

(6) • Suitable to rotation program (2)

• Land floods more frequently (3)

Other reasons mentioned (mainly once):

• Long term viability • To reduce flood runoff rates

• Increased number of livestock

• To preserve a natural balance

Reasons for not changing are related mainly to perception of the existence of a salinity problem and economic returns. % Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem 82.3 I get better returns from farming 34.7 I don't want to get back into livestock production 21.7 Doesn't fit my rotation system 13.0 Other reasons 17.8 No particular reason 4.3 Costs too much 4.3 No relevant, I can still farm around the saline country 0 Reasons included: Most common reasons: • Land inundated by Lake

Goran, so cannot change (2)


(mainly once):

• No need to, grazing property

• Prefer to use opportunity cropping

3.5.5 Undertaking a Whole Farm Plan Whole farm planning has been identified as part of the solution to salinity management - 37.3% of farmers had adopted this practice; 51.6% had not; and, 11.1% gave no response.


Reasons for not undertaking a Whole Farm Plan were related predominantly to the lack of a perceived salinity problem: % Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem 73.5 Other reasons 23.4 No particular reason 21.2 Haven't got around to it yet 17.1 Costs too much 6.4 Can't get any information form conservation and Land Management or Department of Agriculture about how it is done

4.3

Doesn't fit my rotation system 2.2 Other reasons for not undertaking a whole farm plan included: Most common reasons: • Prefer to use own farm

plan (6)


(mainly once):

• Nobody has demonstrated the need for one

• No time available due to off-farm commitments

• Land inundated by Lake Goran, so cannot change

• Small property, not considered necessary

3.6 Farmer Perceptions of How to Manage Salinity 3.6.1 Options to Manage Salinity and the Role of Government Farmers generally believe that changing landuse and tree planting will assist in salinity management. Practice: % Change land use into more pasture production 73.6 Plant more trees on recharge and discharge areas 67.0 Reduce soil moisture levels by opportunity/response cropping 52.7 Develop and use new risk management skills 21.9 Other options 18.7 They have no options 2.2


Other options suggested included: Most common options:

• Reduce widespread flooding on floodplain country, by upslope water harvesting (5)

• Use cropping practices suitable to the area (3)

• Plant salt tolerant vegetation (2)

Other options mentioned

(mainly once):

• Adopt practices suitable to the individual farm

• Ensure that any option is financially viable

• Pump groundwater from problem areas (for irrigation)

• Need for more research • Ban irrigation on floodplain country

• Allow more rapid through-flow to the Namoi River

Several reasons were given for what stops farmers pursuing these options: % This is irrelevant, I am already practising salinity management 37.4 Salinity is not my problem 24.1 Other reasons 17.6 I don't want the government telling me what to do 6.6 Salinity management practices are not suited to my property 6.6 Can't get the right information from agronomist or consultants 5.5 I am unwilling to pay the costs 0 Other reasons: Most common reasons: • No evidence of salinity (5) • Cannot afford to

undertake practices (2)


(mainly once):

• Salinity management options must by financially viable

• Season too dry to introduce opportunity cropping

• Government does not perceive upstream water harvesting as an environmentally viable option

• Lake Goran flooding exacerbates occurrence of local salinity problems

• Solutions are not clearly understood by enough people

• Already practice soil conservation techniques

Farmers believe that costs and farming lifestyle preclude other farmers doing something about managing salinity. Reason: % Costs too much to change 33.0 Don't like to produce cattle or wool; they like farming instead 31.9 Other reasons 25.2 Salinity is not their problem 15.4 Don't want the government telling them what to do 13.2 Can't get the right information from agronomists or consultants 7.7


Salinity management practices are not suited to their property 4.4 Other reasons included: Most common reasons: • Unwilling to comment or

unsure of other farmers' reasons (6)

• High costs preclude opportunities to change (6)

• Ignorance (4)

• Believe it won't happen to them (2)


(mainly once):

• Too busy • Salinity is no different to

50 years ago • Lake Goran flooding

renders land unsuitable for grazing

• Unwilling to change

• Seasonal conditions preclude opportunities to change

• Government does not perceive upstream water harvesting as an environmentally viable option

• Complacency

Financial incentives were seen as the best way for government to make it easier for farmers to pursue salinity management options. Options: % Provide financial incentives to allow tree regeneration or planting 45.1 Provide financial incentives to change from cropping to pastures 42.9 Provide a 'safety net' to avoid production risk 22.0 Provide more support for Landcare groups, such as 17.6 Regulate landuse in critical salinity 'hot spots' 17.6 Other methods 16.5 None of the above, the government should not interfere with a farmer's right to run his own property

15.4

Other options included: Most common options: • Provide educational

assistance (2) • Taxation incentives, eg

investment guidelines (2)

Other options mentioned

(mainly once):

• Allow pumping to deeper aquifers

• Provide financial incentives for appropriate machinery for response cropping

• Provide more money for drainage and floodplain management

• Nothing, farmers should stand on their own feet

• Improve awareness of government decision-makers

• Remove decision-making control from Department of Water Resources

• More field days on salinity • Appropriate legislation


This was reinforced in their support for government providing more financial support to resource management agencies, specifically targeting salinity management - 54.9% supported this option; 4.4% said no; 25.3% were undecided. The rank order of priority for government spending on salinity management was: Options: % More technical research into salinity management 90 Direct funding of Landcare activities through local agencies 70 More economic and social research into salinity management 68 More one-to-one extension to farmers 50 Improved communication between agencies 48 Improved training of extension officers 42 Providing more extension officers 30 Other 16 Other options included: • More education programs

to increase awareness • Not the government's

role, community should pay

• Fund drainage schemes

• Give land management committees more power to mediate, advise, and direct

• Ensure government programs are directed to specific individuals and problems on their property

• Employ a Task Force approach

• Declare the region a potential disaster area, and put control under a separate government authority

• More incentives to change land use

3.7 Past Conservation Practice Farmers in the Goran Catchment are strong adopters of conservation farming practices. The practices, in rank order, are: % Stubble mulching/stubble retention 76.9 Pasture improvement 75.8 Farming on the contour 54.9 Strip cropping 52.7 Retaining water using on-farm storages 39.6 Zero till cultivation 37.4 Opportunity/response cropping 35.2 Tree establishment/regeneration 34.1 Improved drainage 31.9 Whole farm planning 28.6 Other practices 7.7


Other practices mentioned: • Regeneration of native

pastures • Conservative stocking

rates • Use of water-harvesting

techniques • Use of organic farming

practices • Use of Yeoman's Keyline

Method

Goran Catchment farmers have adopted salinity management practices less than other conservation farming practice. The practices, in rank order, are: % Pasture improvement 51.6 Stubble mulching/stubble retention 40.7 Strip cropping 29.7 Farming on the contour 28.6 Tree establishment/regeneration 27.5 Zero till cultivation 24.2 Improved drainage 23.1 Retaining water using on-farm storages 22.0 Opportunity/response cropping 19.8 Whole farm planning 13.2 Other practices 7.7 Other salinity management practices mentioned: Most common practices: • Conservative stocking

rates (2)

Other practices mentioned:

• Change from farming to grazing

• Isolating saline areas • Improved management of flooding

Several farmers indicated that these practices were used as part of a conservation farming program long before salinity became an important issue. Past conservation practices were often interpreted as salinity management practices. Several farmers indicated they were no longer following conservation farming practices. These were, in rank order: % Zero till cultivation 16.5 Strip cropping 16.5 Farming on the contour 11.0 Stubble mulching/stubble retention 9.9 Retaining water using on-farm storages 6.6 Opportunity/response cropping 6.6 Tree establishment/regeneration 5.5 Whole farm planning 4.4


Pasture improvement 4.4 Improved drainage 3.3 Other practices 2.2 Other practices mentioned: • Water harvesting and

flood control • Fallowing soil beyond

full moisture profiles

3.8 Factors Influencing the Adoption of Salinity Management Practices Intergenerational issues, the practicality of the practice, economic issues (cost, input on financial viability), dominated the factors perceived by farmers to affect their adoption of salinity management practices (Table A12).

TABLE A12. IMPORTANCE RATINGS - SALINITY MANAGEMENT ADOPTION FACTORS

Goran Catchment Sample (n = 91)

GROUP FACTOR MEDIAN

* MEAN

* STDEV

Ranked as being very important: 1 Pass on our land to the next generation in good

condition 5.0 4.76 0.58

Whether the practice is practical and suits my farm operations

5.0 4.49 0.73

If the practice works i.e. it reduces the effect of salinity 5.0 4.49 1.02 Long term financial benefits of the practice 5.0 4.48 0.83 Ranked as being important: 2 Cost of the practice 4.0 4.52 0.87 Become more financially viable 4.0 4.47 0.56 Whether the practice will increase financial risk on my

farm 4.0 4.36 0.79

Potential gain in production if I adopt the practice 4.0 4.33 0.74 Savings on production input costs 4.0 4.28 0.85 Necessity of buying new farm equipment 4.0 4.25 0.78 Whether the practice will decrease financial risk on my

farm 4.0 4.20 0.78

Potential loss of production if I adopt the practice 4.0 4.20 0.90 If I can get information about the financial viability of

the practice 4.0 4.08 0.86

If I can get information about the technical suitability of the practice

4.0 3.99 0.71

How severe the salinity problem is on my farm 4.0 3.96 1.10 If I can get good technical back-up support for the

practice 4.0 3.96 0.75

Disruption to my farm production system 4.0 3.94 0.95 Whether the practice has been field tested by experts 4.0 3.82 1.02 Necessity to acquire new farming skills 4.0 3.78 1.05 If the practice requires more labour 4.0 3.76 0.94 If I could get a grant or subsidy to help pay for the

practice 4.0 3.67 1.22


Short term financial benefits of the practice 4.0 3.56 1.13 Anticipated time saved by the practice 4.0 3.46 1.02 Whether I am legally obliged to do the practice 4.0 3.45 1.27 Whether someone else has tried the practice 4.0 3.44 1.18 If the practice requires less labour 4.0 3.37 1.12


Ranked as being neither important to unimportant: 3 Whether a grant is available for starting the practice 3.0 3.30 1.11 Whether the practice is voluntary or a regulation 3.0 3.27 1.21 Membership of a landcare group 3.0 3.05 1.09 Ranked as being unimportant: 4 What my neighbours might think if I adopt the practice 2.0 2.32 1.30 * Scale: 5 = Very Important; 4 = Important; 3 = Neither; 2 = Unimportant; 1 = Very Unimportant

11.1% of the survey population volunteered other 'very important' factors that affect their adoption of salinity management practices. These were: • The amount of interference by government departments • The perception that current 'expert' knowledge is weak • My ability to prevent salinity problems arising • Whether a practice has the potential to send me broke • My ethical perspective - I care about the land (mentioned twice) • My ethical perspective - I care about my neighbours • Tax benefits that could apply 3.9 Analysis of Adoption of Salinity Management 3.9.1 Adoption and Land Type The investigation of the adoption of salinity management should be undertaken with reference to those practices relevant to the land types on a farmer's property. This is because of the diversity of land types both throughout the Goran Basin and on an individual's property, and the fact that practices need to be interpreted as being effective in salinity management with respect to the land type where they occur. Salinity management practices for each of the four land management units11 of the Goran Basin have been identified by the relevant resource management agencies (Conservation and Land Management, and Department of Water Resources) and the relevant land management organisation (Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee). The practices relevant to each land management unit are listed in Table A13. Farmers were rated on the current and past adoption of those salinity management practices relevant to each of the land management units they identified in the survey as being on their property. This produced scores of adoption of salinity practices for each land management unit. Total adoption scores were then calculated, expressed as a percentage score of the maximum possible adoption for each farmer, given the land management units on his/her farm. For example, a farmer with 3 land 11 A land management unit is defined as an assemblage of genetically related land types over which a common set of land management practices have been identified as being effective in managing salinity recharge or discharge processes.


management units with and with possible practices, having adopted five, had a adoption score of 62.5%. This procedure produces a more accurate assessment of farmer adoption than be simply counting the number of practices. It reflects the need to consider the relevance of a salinity management practice to a specific land management unit on a property. Farmer adoption ratings are summarised in Figure A1. Here the proportion of farmers in the sample are compared to the proportion of relevant salinity management practices they have adopted.

Table A13. Salinity Management Practices Land Management Unit # Relevant Salinity Management Practice # Upland / sloping timbered country

1 Retain trees 1

Improve pasture quality 2 Convert former cropping land into pasture 3 Allow more regeneration 4 Red soils sloping country 2 Convert from cropping into pasture production (eg,

lucerne production) 5

Plant or allow regeneration of woodlots and tree lines 6 Black soils sloping country 3 Opportunity/response cropping 7 Short, rather than long fallow 8 Black soils floodplain country 4 Short, rather than long fallow 9 Opportunity/response cropping 10

Figure A1 Adoption Rates of Relevant Salinity Management Practices

Adoption of Relevant Salinity Management Practices (%)

Prop

ortio

n of

Sur

vey

Sam

ple

(%)

0123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


The analysis showed that: • 12.1% of the survey sample were strong adopters, defined as having adopted

>50% of possible practices relevant to that land type. That is, one in 8 farmers is a major adopter;

• 19.78% of the survey sample had adopted 50% of the relevant practices, while 17.6% had adopted 25% of the relevant practices;

• the most frequent adoption rate was 50% of relevant practices (10.8% of survey sample);

• the second most frequent adoption rate was 25% of relevant practices (17.6% of survey sample);

• a very small number of farmers were very weak adopters of salinity management. Only two farmers claimed to have never adopted a salinity management practice.

3.9.2 Relationship between Past and Present Adoption Behaviour The adoption of soil conservation practices, whether they be salinity related or not, is generally believed to reflect past conservation behaviour. We would expect that if a farmer was conservation oriented, he/she would most likely be predisposed to adopt salinity management practices. The Goran Catchment has had a strong history of soil conservation experience, so it was hypothesised that past conservation behaviour would be correlated to current salinity management adoption behaviour. Past and present adoption behaviour were analysed to identify possible any correlation. To do this, two measures were developed: • A measure of past adoption behaviour. This was defined as measured as an index,

expressed as a percentage score, being the proportion of the maximum number of possible resource conservation practices that have been identified for each land management unit owned by a farmer. These included all practices whether identified as 'conservation farming' or 'salinity management' practices in the farmer survey (see Appendix 5). The appropriateness of resource conservation practices is acknowledged to be arbitrary, and practices were selected according to knowledge of current agency extension practice and discussions with the relevant land management organisations in the catchment, relevant to specific land management units. The latter group included farmer representatives. Past resource conservation practices are listed in Table A14 below.

• A measure of present adoption behaviour. This was defined as those salinity

management practices that were identified as the best management practices for each land management unit, as defined above and listed in Table A13.

A oneway analysis of variance was undertaken to discover if there was a significant difference between past and present adoption behaviour. The results, shown in Table A15 revealed that there was no significant difference, at the 5% level.


Table A14. Past Resource Conservation Practices for Land Management Units -

Goran Catchment Land Management Unit Past Land Conservation

Practices:

Upland / sloping timbered country

Pasture improvement Improved drainage

Retaining water using on-farm storages

Whole farm planning

Tree establishment/regeneration

Other practices identified by farmer

Red soils sloping country and Stubble mulching/stubble retention

Strip cropping

Farming on the contour Zero till cultivation Black soils sloping country Pasture improvement Improved drainage Retaining water using on-

farm storages Whole farm planning

Tree establishment/regeneration



Black soils floodplain country Stubble mulching/stubble retention

Strip cropping

Pasture improvement Zero till cultivation Retaining water using on-

farm storages Improved drainage


Whole farm planning


Table A15. Results of oneway analysis of variance of past and present adoption behaviour *

Ho: There is no significant difference between past and present behaviour - accepted at the 5% level F0.05(2,180) = 30.5 F = 0.29 INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN BASED ON POOLED STDEV LEVEL N MEAN STDEV -----+---------+---------+---------+- C2 91 35.75 21.11 (------------*-------------) C3 91 37.33 18.15 (------------*-------------) -----+---------+---------+---------+- POOLED STDEV = 19.69 33.0 36.0 39.0 42.0 * Notes: C2 = Past adoption behaviour C3 = Present adoption behaviour Graphs show individual 95% confidence intervals for means based on pooled standard deviation; scores based on 0 to 100 (% of maxium possible adoption) scale.


The result indicates that, at least for farmers in this sample of the Goran Catchment, past conservation behaviour does not differ to current salinity management behaviour. Furthermore it should be noted that the mean past and present adoption rate is approximately 35% - 37% of possible practices. This means that, at least for this sample, Goran farmers adopt 1 in 3 resource conservation practices (including salinity management). To identify any statistical correlation between the two behaviours, present salinity management behaviour was correlated against past conservation behaviour to produce a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.414. The result indicates that present conservation behaviour is positively correlated to past behaviour (r > 0.205, 89 degrees of freedom). That is, the adoption of salinity management practices in the Goran Catchment is related to past experience in adopting land conservation practices. This result suggests that at least for the survey sample of the Goran community, when viewed as a whole, past conservation behaviour can be seen as an indicator of expected behaviour for salinity management. The result is not surprising, and confirms previous research which suggests past adoption behaviour influences current adoption. This phenomenon should not be applied to individual farmers, as a means of predicting an individual's behaviour. This is reflected in the spread of the data as indicated in the scatterplot (Figure A2). This result is important to this study, and it means that an individual's behaviour cannot necessarily be adequately predicted from the total sample's past behaviour.

Figure A2. Scatterplot of Past Versus Present Adoption

0

50

100Past Adoption

Present Adoption

0 25 50 75 100

x xx

x 2 2 x2 x x x 2 xx xx x x x x x

x 2 2 x x xxx 4 x x x x

x x xx 2 x

x xx x x xxx x 2 x 4 xxxx xx 2 xx2 x x x

xx xx xx x x

xx

Note on scales: X and Y axis expressed as % of maximum possible adoption of relevant practices on land management units of each farmer


Regression analysis is often used as a technique to measure the correlation between variables so as to explain adoption behaviour, especially in soil conservation adoption research. A regression model "explains" a certain fraction of the observed variance between an independent and a dependent variable, so they can be used as to explain relationships. A regression analysis of present adoption behaviour against past adoption behaviour was undertaken. This yielded the following result: Present Adoption = 24.6 + 0.356 Past Adoption (where adoption is expressed on a scale of 0 - 100, being proportion of practices adopted relevant to land management units on a farmer's property, as discussed above). The R2 value for the regression was 17.2%. Regression analysis is useful as it discovers if a particular variable is "statistically significant". This result is statistically significant and no doubt interesting. The result implies that we can confidently explain a farmer's behaviour from past adoption behaviour. However, the regression statement indicates that only 17.2% of the variance can be explained by the regression equation. This means that we can explain less than one in 5 farmers' behaviour with the equation, even though we can accept a null hypothesis that the two phenomena are not different. 3.9.3 Who Adopts Salinity Management and Why Do They Adopt? Tests using regression analysis with low R2 values, and correlations with low values for correlation coefficients are useful to identify statistically significant relationships, but are limited in their ability as explanatory tools to develop meaningful policy for the adoption of salinity management practices. This is particularly important if only two variables are being analysed at once. Lockeretz (1990) states;

"How well soil is conserved on a given site is determined by a chain of phenomena ..... Most investigators have concentrated on just one step in this chain, immersing themselves in detail while leaving big questions unanswered" (Lockeretz, W. 1990. pp. 521)

The adoption of best management practices for salinity management is influenced by a significant number of psycho-sociological, regional economic and on-farm financial variables. This was demonstrated in the ratings given to different decision variables discussed previously. It is appropriate to analyse the characteristics and motivations of those farmers who adopt more practices relative to others, and to identify what has caused them to adopt more. To do this, the sample of Goran farmers was stratified into four groups according to their level of adoption. • Group 1: Very strong adopters - defined as those who farmers who had adopted

or were adopting > 70% of relevant practices; • Group 2: Strong Adopters - defined as those who farmers who had adopted or

were adopting 55% - 70% of relevant practices; • Group 3: Moderate adopters - defined as those who farmers who had adopted or

were adopting 30% - 54% of relevant practices;


• Group 4: Weak adopters - defined as those who farmers who had adopted or were adopting < 30% of relevant practices.

Data describing each group are shown in Table A16.

Table A16. Descriptive data of the four adopter groups # Descriptor N MEAN MEDIA

N STDEV MIN MAX Q1 Q3

C1 Very Strong Adopters 4 85.83 86.67 8.66 75.00 95.00 77.08 93.75 C2 Strong Adopters 7 61.01 60.00 4.91 55.00 68.75 58.33 66.67 C3 Moderate Adopters 49 41.76 41.67 7.16 30.00 50.00 36.25 50.00 C4 Weak Adopters 31 18.72 25.00 7.71 0.00 25.00 12.50 25.00

The stratification was checked for validity by undertaking a oneway analysis of variance test across the four groups. The results of this analysis, shown in Table A17 below, revealed that there were significant differences in adoption rates between the four groups, at the 5% level.

Table A17. Results of Oneway Analysis of Variance Test -

Four Adopter Groups Ho = μ1 ≠ μ2 ≠ μ3 ≠ μ4 H0.05(4, 49) = 256 SOURCE DF SS MS F p FACTOR 3 25030.5 8343.5 157.44 0.000 ERROR 87 4610.4 53.0 TOTAL 90 29641.0 INDIVIDUAL 95 PCT CI'S FOR MEAN BASED ON POOLED STDEV GROUP* N MEAN STDEV ----+---------+---------+---------+-- C1 4 85.833 8.660 (--*--) C2 7 61.012 4.906 (-*--) C3 49 41.760 7.156 (*) C4 31 18.723 7.709 (*-) ----+---------+---------+---------+-- POOLED STDEV = 7.280 25 50 75 100 * As listed in Table X above The adopters were then analysed to discover if they were different to other farmers who were less adopters, in terms of a suite of characteristics. The data were analysed using oneway analysis of variance tests. The analysis revealed that there was no differences between the four groups with respect to: • total land area owned; • dominant agricultural land use; • gross farm income;


• direction of gross farm income movement; • farmer age; • length of farm management experience on present property; • total length of farm management experience; • highest educational level achieved; and • membership in Landcare groups. These results indicate that adoption is not related to specific demographic characteristics of individual farmers, and reinforces Lockeretz' contention that explanation of adoption behaviour cannot be simply explained solely in terms of specific personal or descriptive farm characteristics. 3.9.4 Adoption Behaviour and Decision Variables It was noted earlier in this report that farmers believed that many economic and on-farm financial factors, and factors related to technical issues, influenced their decisions to adopt salinity management. Farmers ranked these variables according their importance to decision-making. The decision variables were analysed to determine their influence on decision-making. It was anticipated that this investigation would explain adoption rates, particularly between groups of adopters, revealing any underlying patterns of adoption. The farmers were reclassified into three groups, on the basis of present salinity management behaviour (as listed in Table A16 above): • Group 1 farmers were Very Strong and Strong Adopters (Adoption rates >55%,

Items C1, C2); • Group 2 farmers were Moderate Adopters (Adoption rates 30 - 54%, Item C3); • Group 3 farmers were Weak adopters (Adoption rates <30%, Item C4). A oneway analysis of variance was undertaken to discover if the importance farmers gave to each decision variable, varied between the three groups. All but one decision variable showed no significant difference at the 5% level, using this test. The decision variable, 'If I can get good technical back-up support for the practice' was significantly more important to the Very Strong/Strong Adopter group, compared to the other two groups, at the 5% level of significance. An examination of the actual values, however, show Very Strong/Strong adopters rank this is important to very important, and less adopters rank this as of moderate importance. So, the variable is still important to lower adopters. The oneway analysis of variance results are important. They indicate that, at least for this sample of Goran Catchment farmers, the importance they place on most decision variables does not vary statistically according to their current adoption rate. However, this does not mean that these factors are neither important nor unimportant, they just do not explain adoption rates very well.


This result was reinforced by undertaking a regression analyses between each decision variable and present salinity management adoption for each farmer. The data were not partitioned into groups as just described. All the resulting regression equations had R2 values of < 4.0, that is, less than 4% of the variance of data was being explained by the regression equations. Once again, the results demonstrate the complex nature of adoption behaviour, and suggests that it is too simplistic to explain adoption by specific, narrowly defined variables. Adoption is most likely explained by a suite of factors, relevant to the individual farmer. A correlation analysis was also undertaken on decision variables to discover any causal patterns. Each decision variable was correlated with the present salinity management adoption of each farmer, and also with other decision variables. As before, the farmer adoption data were not partitioned into adoption groups, but treated as a whole sample. It was found that only one decision variable was significantly correlated to salinity adoption behaviour across the data set, at the 5% level, 'If the practice works i.e. it reduces the effect of salinity'. However, the correlation was not strong (0.234). This suggests that, once again, no single variable determines adoption and a broader suite, or combination of factors influence adoption of salinity management. Results of the correlation analysis of decision variables were then reviewed. Those variables that were originally ranked as being Very Important to Important (Table A16) were selected from the correlation analysis. 117 correlations were statistically significant at the 5% level. The most important correlations (r >4.0) are listed in Table A17. The results indicate that there are a number of important relationships between motivations to adopt salinity management. These include: • the practicality, the suitability, and the cost of a salinity management practices,

and potential savings to be won by farmers; • the availability of grants to start salinity management, and the time saved in

implementing it; • the impact on farm financial risk by reducing input costs, and improving

production levels; • the efficacy of the practice, and its long term benefits; • the potential increase in cost from higher labour costs and the necessity to buy

new equipment; • the efficacy of the practice, as demonstrated in field tests and the availability of

information about its financial viability; • the availability of sound technical information and farmer access to it; • whether new equipment will require me to provide more labour; and • whether the suitability of the practice will increase farm financial risk. 3.10 Synopsis • Salinity management is being undertaken by a minority (about one third) of Goran

Catchment farmers, mainly those who already practice conservation farming;


• salinity is perceived by a minority of farmers as a hazard; • salinity is less important than other more pressing issues such as erosion and

floodplain management; • where individuals are impacted by salinity, they are prepared to undertake

practices that will attempt to reduce the salinity hazard and to provide some production of saline land, provided the factors listed in Table A17 are addressed simultaneously.

Table A17. Correlations between Important and Very Important Variables in the

Decision to Adopt Salinity Management Practices

r value Decision variable 1 Decision variable 2 0.416 Whether the practice will decrease financial

risk on my farm Savings on production input costs

0.432 Whether the practice will decrease financial risk on my farm

Potential gain in production if I adopt the practice

0.435 Whether a grant is available for starting the practice

Anticipated time saved by the practice

0.435 If the practice works i.e. it reduces salinity Long term financial benefits of the practice 0.442 Savings on production input costs Whether the practice will increase financial

risk on my farm 0.447 If the practice requires more labour Cost of the practice 0.448 Potential loss of production if I adopt the

practice Savings on production input costs

0.464 Whether the practice is practical and suits my farm operations

Savings on production input costs

0.472 Savings on production input costs Whether a grant is available for starting the practice

0.492 Whether the practice has been field tested by experts

If I can get information about the financial viability of the practice

0.498 Necessity of buying new farm equipment Savings on production input costs 0.504 Whether the practice is practical and suits my

farm operations Long term financial benefits of the practice

0.507 If the practice requires more labour If the practice requires less labour 0.518 If I can get good technical back-up support for

the practice If I can get information about the technical suitability of the practice

0.518 If the practice requires more labour Necessity of buying new farm equipment 0.552 Short term financial benefits of the practice Potential loss of production if I adopt the

practice 0.590 Whether the practice is practical and suits my

farm operations Whether the practice will increase financial risk on my farm

0.777 Savings on production input costs Potential gain in production if I adopt the practice


Appendix 4

Impediments to the Adoption of Conservation and Production

Technologies – Key Research Findings from Other Studies

Research into the adoption of conservation farming, soil conservation practices and production technologies has formed the basis of the literature review for the section of this study examining the adoption of salinity management practices. References used in the study are listed in Appendix 5. In summary, the research has found that a range of psychological, socio-cultural, structural, and economic constraints may influence adoption. The adoption process is not just a resource use decision based on financial considerations, or even on heightened environmental awareness. Specific adoption factors that have been studied or suggested include: • Financial drivers: o economic benefits and disbenefits of specific practices and programs o perceived financial returns of the recommended practices • Structural characteristics of the farm: o size of area worked on farm o financial viability of the farm o type of enterprise o intensity of landuse and associated infrastructure constraints o land tenure type • Characteristics of the recommended practice(s) o technological suitability of the practice to the farm o availability of the practice o cost of the practice • Biophysical characteristics of the farm: o land type o depth to water table • Social and demographic characteristics of the adopter: o age, health, family stage o role of community networks/information flows o influence of landowner groups - providing peer pressure to adopt • Personal attributes o attitude to risk o perception of and attitude to the soil degradation problem o awareness and information level of adopter


o perception of effectiveness of practice


• Type and characteristics of the extension process: o use of Landcare and role of Landcare groups o motivation to join and maintain membership in Landcare groups o use of traditional top-down extension processes o role and skills of farm advisers o existence of a salinity management plan o credibility of the extension service o type and efficacy of communication channels used o role of agricultural and chemical consultants in recommending the practice • Institutional arrangements for adoption: o Incentives offered or sanctions imposed o past use of credit o availability of cost-sharing arrangements o past government programs in rural adjustment The following discussion highlights the findings of selected research programs into the adoption of soil conservation practices and production technologies, research results particularly relevant to the adoption of best management practices in integrated land and water management. Study 1 Identifying the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sustainable Management Practices Source: NOWAK, P.J. AND KORSCHING, 1983. Social and Institutional factors affecting the

adoption and maintenance of agricultural BMPs.(In Schaller, F. and Bailey, G. (eds.), Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State University, Ames. pp 349 - 377.)

The following discussion is a summarised extract of this study. Nowak and Korshing outlined research which has established that a number of factors are related to the adoption and maintenance of agricultural best management practices. Characteristics of the farm firm, personal attributes and predispositions, and the ecological characteristics of the operation all function as resources, constraints, and limitations in the decision-making process. Further, although a number of institutional resources are available to the farmer, not all operators utilise them to the same degree. Therefore, the extent that a farmer is integrated or tied into this institutional framework becomes an important consideration because it influences the farmer's perception of the problem and his use of financial and technical resources. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARM FIRM The adoption and maintenance of agricultural BMPs is strongly influenced by economic considerations. This is acknowledged by treating the farm as a firm, that is, as a business organisation. Size, ownership, income, use of credit, planning horizon, availability of credit, and legal organisation are potentially important characteristics of the farm firm when analyzing decisions relative to the adoption of BMPs.


• Size of Operations There is a fairly consistent set of research results that finds a positive relationship

between farm size and conservation behaviour. Operators of larger farms should have more flexibility in their decision making, greater access to discretionary resources, more opportunity to experiment with BMPs on a small-scale basis, and possibly, are better able to deal with the risk and uncertainty often associated with adopting new agricultural practices (Wagener et al. 1981).

• Income Farm income is actually another measure of the scale of operations, and many of

those explanations would also apply in this case. • Tenure. Tenure, or the farmer's legal status relative to the land operated, is another

important characteristic of the farm firm relative to the adoption of BMPs. Owners also are more likely to benefit directly from economic incentives associated with conservation if ownership is related to level of conservation investment. Other explanations of this relationship would include the longer planning horizons for owner-operators than for landlords or tenants and problems in communication and joint decision making between landlords and tenants.

• Debt level. Ervin and Ervin (1981) argue that debt level would negatively impact on

conservation behaviour in two ways – operators under high debt service requirements (e.g. land mortgages) and find it hard to finance conservation structures.

• Planning horizon. Agricultural BMPs have both short-term and long-term benefits. Short-term

benefits can be associated with saving energy and labour as well as with reduction in off-site damages. Long-term benefits include enhancing the ecological integrity of the area and maintaining the productivity of the land. Because of the varying periods of time associated with different types of benefits, the farmer's discount rate and planning period can be important profitability determinants.

• Availability of credit. If a recommended practice requires a substantial investment, then the availability

of credit might prove to be the crucial factor facilitating adoption behaviour. Low-interest loans would be important in the situations in which "private interest rates are higher than those society would select for long-term investment decisions ... and when ... farm operators or landowners have time preferences that are shorter than those of society" (Easter and Cotner, 1982).

• Legal organisation of the farm firm. The organisational structure or legal form of the farm firm also can influence the

adoption processes. Although we often hear how large corporate farms "mine the soil" to maximise profits while minimising conservation investments, there is little research evidence for this claim. One might argue that the more complex forms of


legal ownership, such as those associated with partnerships and corporations, are a reflection of the managerial skills and the resource base of the farm firm. Thus, these more complex operations are more likely to have the human and capital resources necessary for recognising, seeking assistance with, and acting on problems of environmental degradation.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPERATOR • Age As a personal attribute, age has been shown to be related to the use of BMPs,

although there does not seem to be a linear relationship. • Experience and education Experience and education are "key human capital stocks which reflect upon the

operator's knowledge of the world, ability to obtain and digest information about the world, and the skills of the operator" (Shortle and Miranowski 1981). More experience and education should make it easier to adapt to new machinery and agronomic requirements associated with a recommended practice.

• Attitudinal dimensions Three different attitudes often emerge in discussions about why individuals adopt

or reject recommended practices. They are stewardship, agrarianism, and risk orientation. Stewardship refers to the belief that one has a moral, as opposed to a social or an economic, obligation to maintain the land for future generations. Agrarianism also has been referred to as agricultural fundamentalism or the agrarian creed. The agrarian beliefs that farmers have an inviolate, God-given right to use the land as they please and that governmental intervention in their affairs should be limited work against the farmer's involvement in conservation programs. Finally, risk orientation could be an important attitude. Relative to many of the newer conservation and water quality technologies, incomplete knowledge about their consequences seems to be the norm. Risk-prone farmers would be more likely to adopt a BMP under these circumstances, whereas risk-averse farmers would be more likely to delay any adoption decision until more information was available.

ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Ecological characteristics are some of the most important, and also some of the most ignored, factors in socioeconomic explanations of adoption behaviour. It makes little sense to analyse conservation behaviour without first identifying conservation needs. INTEGRATION OF INSTITUTIONAL NETWORKS The availability and characteristics of different implementation programs, the extent and nature of the contacts with different representatives of these programs and the position and credibility that these representatives have in the local community can all influence the farmer in the decision-making process. Integration into institutional


networks should facilitate the recognition of the problem and the seeking of technical and financial resources to deal with it. PERCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM The perception of the problem has been found to be related to conservation behaviour. However, caution must be exercised because it seems that the perception varies by proximity to one's own operation, that is, the closer to one's operation, the less severe is the perception of the problem. USE OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Operators do not just adopt a recommended practice. Rather, they are more likely to adopt practices that are profitable in either an economic or social sense, simple to implement relative to their managerial capacity, and compatible with existing land, machinery, and enterprise requirements. Overcoming these obstacles is the function of technical and financial resources. Financially, it is a widely accepted conclusion that there is a weak private economic incentive for the adoption of BMPs, thus necessitating public cost-sharing programs. However, economic resources also imply an educational component where the economic advantages of BMPs can be demonstrated with enterprise budgets. Although technical assistance often is provided after the decision has been made to adopt a BMP, the availability, community reputation, and past experience with this technical assistance does enter into the decision-making process. A SUMMARY MODEL OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BMPS The research results discussed above have been summarised into a model of adoption, shown in Figure A4.1 below.


Figure A4.1 Factors influencing the adoption and maintenance of agricultural BMPs.


REDUCED MODEL Using a reduced model of relevant factors12 Nowak and Korsching found that: • Gross farm income, experience in farming, stewardship orientation, and

perceptions of water quality or soil erosion as problems are not important predictors of conservation management, implementation of a SCS conservation plan, or use of BMPs.

• Despite the fact that many farmers express a belief in stewardship or the

conservation ethic, it seems there are obstacles to translating this belief into behaviour. Risk-prone farmers who believe in stewardship were more likely to adopt agricultural BMPs.

• Educational programs appear to strengthen the relationship between perception of

a problem and conservation behaviour. • The use of BMPs is predicated on receiving cost-sharing funds, and the process by

which farmers receive the financial incentives. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Gaining a satisfactory understanding of the social and institutional factors influencing the adoption of BMPs will have to wait until the necessary resource commitments for innovative research efforts are made. Further statements that perpetuate the myth that available technologies can be implemented through simple educational, economic, and legal strategies are not needed. Additional attitudinal surveys, farm budget analyses, watershed modelling efforts, and political histories are not, in and of themselves, the answer. Instead, interdisciplinary efforts established on a longitudinal research base will be necessary to grasp the complexity of those social and institutional factors affecting the adoption of BMPs. Study 2. Barriers to the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices on Farms Source: SWANSON, L.E., CAMBONI, S.M. AND NAPIER, T. 1986. Barriers to Adoption of Soil

Conservation Practices on Farms. in Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 108 - 120.

This paper outlines two broad sets of constraints to the adoption of soil conservation. The following is a summarised extract of this paper.

12 This was determined statistically be reducing the number of adoption factors to those found to be significant, then testing the incremental gain in explanation by increasing the number of adoption factors.


STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO SOIL CONSERVATION • Characteristics of modern agriculture The structure of the agricultural industry tends to dictate behaviour among

farmers. Farmers must increase their scale of operation and remain efficient. Survival demands it. Individuals who have access to land and capital continue to expand their farming operations. Those who cannot do so are soon forced out of farming. During the 1960s and even the inflationary 1970s, the scale of agriculture increased because of market pressures, technological growth, and relatively low real interest rates. High inflation made it possible to expand land holdings during the 1970s because real interest rates were low. This situation changed dramatically in the 1980s, when real interest rates rose sharply. Farmers who accumulated high debt ratios during the growth era suddenly encountered extreme difficulties. Oversupply of farm products resulted in low product prices, which reduced farm income. Agricultural land values began to decline, and the number of farmers with severe economic problems increased. International competitiveness also reduced the returns of farm products.

• Impacts on Soil Conservation Adoption The economics of agriculture outlined above are not conducive to adopting soil

erosion control practices because returns to investment in conservation are low and usually not realised for years. Farmers are motivated to survive economically. They are pressured by the competitive nature of the industry to adopt farming practices that maximise short-run profits.

When under economic stress, farmers will attempt to survive by ignoring soil

erosion control practices or discontinuing practices that do not contribute to maximising short-run output.

• Role of Tax Policy Another structural factor that affects the conservation behaviour of farmers is tax

policy. Past tax policies subsidised conversion of marginal land to agricultural production. Additional acreage in production further aggravates the problem of oversupply, which adds more pressure to people within the food system to expand productivity and become more efficient.

Under price support incentive systems, farmers strive to maximise production

because a minimum price is established. When price support programs are combined with tax policies that encourage the purchase of production technologies, farmers tend to invest limited capital in technologies and land rather than in conservation practices.

Structural factors in the agricultural system are barriers to the adoption of soil

conservation practices at the farm level. Evidence suggests that action programs designed to reduce soil erosion must consider modification of existing agricultural policies and programs. One action that must be taken on the policy level is the development of programs to reduce agricultural output.


INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AS BARRIERS TO ADOPTION • Sources of Information Traditional diffusionists assert that failure to adopt any object, practice, or

technology is a partial function of being denied access to information. That inability to access information, they argue, prevents individuals from being aware that potential solutions exist to perceived problems. Diffusionists believe that once farmers are aware of solutions that are advantageous for them to adopt, they will do so. Therefore, greater exposure to information sources will increase the probability that farmers will adopt soil conservation practices.

• Personal Characteristics Such individual characteristics of farmers as age, education, and experience relate

significantly to adoption behaviour. Learning theory suggests that younger people who have received their education within the recent past are more likely to adopt soil conservation practices because such farming techniques have been emphasised in their learning experiences. Learning theory also suggests that older farmers tend to use practices that produced benefits in the past, especially short-run benefits. Practices that frequently maximise output are often the large-scale practices that negatively affect the environment. Evidence suggests, therefore, that younger farmers, with greater exposure to information sources and higher levels of education, are more likely to adopt conservation practices.

• Farm Structure Factors Individuals do not always behave in a way that is

consistent with their attitudes. New evidence suggests that farmers may not adopt certain agricultural practices even though they have access to extensive information and have developed psychosocial attitudes that support adoption. The factor blocking adoption is the ability of farmers to act on their desires. In essence, farmers may not be able to adopt agricultural practices because of economic barriers.

Access to land and capital are often necessary to adopt different farming

techniques. Farmers must have access to money if they with to act on their desires to adopt different technologies and techniques. Farmers must also have farming operations that can accommodate the new practices. Large farms may be inappropriate for certain soil erosion control practices.

Risk is another factor usually ignored by social scientists interested in adoption

behaviour. The anticipated consequences of adoption decisions will affect whether or not an object, practice, or technology will be adopted. If farmers believe the adoption of soil erosion control practices will reduce the probability of survival, then they will not adopt.


Summary Individual characteristics and macro-level agricultural policies and programs influence the adoption behaviour of farmers. Educational and information programs alone are inadequate to bring about adoption of soil conservation practices. Such efforts are necessary to make farmers aware of the threats posed by soil erosion and to demonstrate how they can address the problem. But these efforts are not sufficient to motivate farmers to invest limited economic resources in practices that yield few short-run benefits. Moreover, national farm policies contribute to the soil erosion problem by encouraging maximum farm production. Resolution of the soil erosion problem apparently will require a combination of structural modifications and changes in behaviour among farmers. Most emphasis in the past has been on bringing about changes in landowner behaviour rather than addressing structural barriers. The relative ineffectiveness of past programs to resolve the soil erosion problem may be, in part, a function of the inattentiveness to structural constraints. Study 3 Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture: Research Findings Source: NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION. 1992. Which Row to Hoe? A Regional Perspective

on Alternative Directions in Commercial Agriculture. An Interim Report- May 1992. Northwest Area Foundation, St Paul.

Baseline data were collected on sustainable and conventional states in five states – * Iowa random sample of 1064 farmers and 141 members of sustainable

and organic farm groups; Researcher: Iowa State University and Practical Farmers of Iowa. * Minnesota random sample of 453 farmers statewide and 374 farmers with

connections to a sustainable groups; Researcher: University of Minnesota / Land Stewardship Project. * North Dakota random sample of 424 farmers and 71 farmers associated with

the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Researcher: North Dakota State University and the Northern Plains Sustainable

Agriculture Society. * Montana random statewide survey of 537 farmers and 59 farmers and

ranchers engaged in sustainable practices; Researcher: Montana State University and Alternative Energy Resources

Organisation. * Oregon random sample of 333 farmers statewide - no distinctive

differences found as discussed below, and underscore the importance of region-specific investigation of practices.

Researcher: Oregon State University and Oregon Tilth.


Hypothesis tested: Does "sustainable agriculture", defined as greater reliance on on-farm resources relative to purchased inputs, contribute positively to the social and economic viability of agriculture-dependent communities and family farming? Preliminary findings: • Sustainable farmers tend to own, rent and operate fewer acres than conventional

farmers. • Sustainable operations retain considerable more of their gross income than

conventional operations. Conventional farms average higher gross incomes but comparable or lower net incomes than sustainable farms when measured on a per acre basis.

• Sustainable farms produce a greater mix of cash crops and devote substantially

more to crops other than major, government-subsidised commodities than other farmers. Conventional farmers devote much larger acreage to major commodity crops.

• Sustainable operations appear to require more labour per acre than conventional

operations. • Sustainable farms tend to be family operations and rely less on hired labour.

Sustainable farmers report greater expectation that their children will continue to farm.

• Sustainable and conventional farmers hold sharply divergent opinions about

agriculture's contribution to environmental problems. Sustainable farmers as well as "transitional" farmers (defined as those practising some sustainable techniques) state more often than conventional farmers that environmental and health concerns are factors in their farming decisions.

• Transitional farmers report the greatest degree of economic stress and may be

motivated by economic concerns at least as much as environmental concerns in their decisions to practise sustainable agriculture.

• Sustainable farmers participate in the social and religious organisations of their

local communities to a greater extent than other farmers, but they participate in local economies to a lesser extent. This and other evidence on gross business activity indicate the widespread conversion to sustainable agriculture would likely be accomplished by changing patterns of demand for materials and services that would require changes in the structure of local and regional businesses.


Study 4 Constraints to Adoption of Crop Residue Management - Summary of a Nationwide Survey, U.S.A. Source: Constraints to the Adoption of Crop Residue Management, in Crop Residue and Management.

Proceedings of a National Conference, Lexington Kentucky., pp. 39 - 46. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, Iowa.

This study is a nationwide survey on constraints to residue management in the USA. Region by region primary constraints only are listed. Northeast • Lack of commitment, emphasis, and leadership from participating agencies,

universities and agribusiness. • Economic considerations, such as equipment purchase and/or rental, cost-sharing,

and other incentives; loss of income due to lower yield; etc. • Failure to take holistic approach. • Lack of knowledge and/or ability to apply it. • Crop residues not adequate because of the nature of the crop (e.g. corn, tobacco). • Tradition - farmers don't want to give up their usual way of farming. Southeast (A) • Lack of consistent support from USDA. • Tillage promoted for wrong reasons, mainly erosion control. • Some crops are more challenging to no-till (peanuts, tobacco, rice, cotton). • Lack of management knowledge. • Fear of the unknown - the myth of no-till. • Fear of change - comfortable with plow mentality. • Lack of technical assistance. • Equipment too expensive. Southeast (B) • Conflicts in information from different agencies. • Conflicting government programs. • Technology transfer/lack of personnel to work with farmers. • Lack of technology for specialty crops for no-till. • Lack of management ability to incorporate chemicals and machinery to be a

success. • Failure to include farmer in problem-solving. • Lack of long-term support for research and farm demonstrations. Eastern Corn Belt • Fear of failure based on previous experience. • Lack of trained agency/industry personnel. • Fear of failure (never done it before). • Higher level of management required by the grower. • Conflicting governmental commodity, conservation, and environmental policies.


• Farmers not recognising the need for residue management and conservation tillage practices.

• Limited available direct technical assistance on residue management practices. Western Corn Belt • Tradition • Lack of economic understanding of residue management systems. • Believe they are already doing it due to the primary tillage tool. • Resistance to change, fear of the unknown, and risk avoidance. • Lack of knowledge of a residue management system. • High transition costs to a residue management system. • Need for specificity in assistance • Criticism from neighbours and peers. Pacific Northwest and Northern Plains • Agency personnel lack adequate training, experience, and general knowledge in

conservation tillage systems. This situation is intensified by an insufficient commitment of time, funding, and other resources needed for continuing education.

• Growers perceive that there is no need to change to conservation-oriented cropping systems or that their current practices are conservation-oriented.

• Farm programs directed by USDA create inflexibility and limit opportunities to adopt and fully implement conservation tillage systems.

• The economics and profitability of conservation tillage systems are highly variable. It is perceived by growers that adoption of conservation tillage can only be accomplished at the expense of profits.

• Many technological questions are still unanswered or not well understood. This is especially true for pests and pest control and equipment-residue management relationships.

Southern Plains • Lack of agency and university leadership and technology transfer. • Inconsistent policy in commodity/conservation/environmental programs. • Resistance to change/attitude (fear of failure). • Weed control problems. • Economics. • Inconsistent/limited rainfall. • Monoculture. • Insured risk. Southwest and Irrigation • Cost of equipment, real and perceived, of both new and retrofit. • Resistance to change. • Lack of technical advisers to work with growers. • Lack of support for farmers from lending institutions, equipment

dealers/manufacturers, and educational systems to adopt residue management techniques.

• Lack of research funding and results.


Appendix 5. Survey Document

Letter of Introduction


Supporting Letter from Implementation Group


University of New England, Armidale

# qqq

Survey of Salinity Management Practices in the Goran Catchment

June 1994

How to share your views

1. Please answer the following questions. 2. Most of the following questions have multiple choice answers. Please tick the box or

circle the number of the answer that best records your opinion. 3. Feel free to write any comments or explanations on this survey. 4. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Bruce Hooper, at the

University of New England, Armidale on 73 2420 (reverse the charge if you prefer). 5. Mail your completed survey form in the enclosed reply-paid envelope to the

University of New England, Armidale, NSW.


* EVIDENCE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS First, I would like to ask your opinion about several resource management problems. Please indicate how much evidence there is of each of the following problems on the Liverpool Plains, over the last 10 years. Simply 4 the relevant boxes. Very little Some A lot of evidence evidence evidence

Soil erosion on sloping lands q q q

Tree decline (natural dieback) q q q

Floodplain erosion q q q

Soil salinity q q q

Pasture decline from overgrazing q q q

Changed flooding patterns q q q

Other problems, such as:

q q q

Next, please indicate how much evidence there is of each of the following problems in your local district, over the last 10 years. Very little Some A lot of evidence evidence evidence




Soil salinity q q q



Other problems, such as:

q q q

Next, please indicate how much evidence there is of each of the following problems on your property, over the last 10 years. Very little Some A lot of evidence evidence evidence




Soil salinity q q q



Other problems, such as: q q q


If there is evidence of soil salinity on your property, please answer the following three questions: What evidence is there of soil salinity ( 4 those relevant) q saline patches on the soil surface q loss of production q high saline water tables What is the total are of land affected by the above problems? ( 4 the answer most relevant) q < 1 hectare q 1 - 5 hectares q 5 - 20 hectares q > 20 hectares (please specify ............... hectares) What have you done with salt affected land? ( 4 those relevant) q planted salt tolerant species q stopped cropping q turned cropping land into pasture production q occasionally graze it q other practices: q nothing * LAND TYPES ON YOUR PROPERTY Next, I would like to get an idea of the types of land on your property. Please indicate which types you have, and the approximate area of each type. q Upland / sloping timbered country Approximate area in hectares is ......... q Red soils sloping country Approximate area in hectares is ......... q Black soils sloping country Approximate area in hectares is ......... q Black soils floodplain country Approximate area in hectares is .........


* RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES For each type of land, I would like to find out what you are doing, have done or intend to do regarding the management of land and water resources, for any reason. Note: NOT ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MAY BE RELEVANT TO

YOU if you don't have that type of country. Also, there maybe other practices not listed here. Please include those practices if you think something is missing. Simply 4 the relevant boxes.

A. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR UPLAND TIMBERED

COUNTRY ON YOUR PROPERTY (Any Soil Type) I have done this I am now I intend in the past doing this do this * Convert former cropping land into pasture q q q * Improve pasture quality q q q * Retain trees q q q * Allow more regeneration q q q * Structural works for soil q q q conservation * Other resource management q q q practices: Name them: B. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RED SOILS SLOPING

COUNTRY I have done this I am now I intend in the past doing this do this * Plant or allow regeneration q q q of woodlots and tree lines * Convert from cropping q q q into pasture production (eg, lucerne production) * Crop rotations q q q * Structural works for soil q q q conservation * Other resource management q q q


practices: Name them:


C. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR BLACK SOIL SLOPING COUNTRY (not floodplain)

I have done this I am now I intend in the past doing this do this * Stubble retention / mulching q q q * Short, rather than long fallow q q q * Cultivate on the contour q q q * Soil conservation works q q q (floodways, graded banks to stop water logging) * Opportunity / response cropping q q q * Convert from cropping into q q q pasture production (eg lucerne production) * Rotation farming q q q * Strip farming q q q * Other practices: q q q Name them: D. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR BLACK SOIL

FLOODPLAIN COUNTRY I have done this I am now I intend in the past doing this do this * Stubble retention / mulching q q q * Short, rather than long fallow q q q * Soil conservation works q q q (structures to remove 'first and last' water) * Increase pasture production q q q (eg. lucerne production) * Opportunity / response cropping q q q * Convert from cropping into q q q pasture production (eg lucerne production) * Rotation farming q q q * Strip farming q q q


* Other practices: q q q Name them:


* IMPACTS OF SOIL SALINITY

Have you taken any type of land out of cropping for salinity reasons? q Yes q No If yes, How has it changed your farm income (select one answer)? q It has increased my farm income q It did not change my farm income q It has reduced my farm income If no, what is the reason for not taking land out of production? (4 those relevant) q Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem q Doesn't fit my rotation system q Costs too much q Can't get any information from consultants q Can't get any information from government agencies q Can't get any information from other farmers q Can't get any information from a Landcare group q Can't get any information from any source at all q Other reasons. They are: q No particular reason Have you had to sell land because it has become saline? q Yes q No If yes, how much did you sell? ............ hectares Have you considered selling land because it has become saline? q Yes q No q Perhaps Do you have any other comment about selling land because of salinity reasons? * MANAGING SOIL SALINITY Have you had a soil salinity survey done on your property? q Yes q No If yes, when was it done? ................ (year) If no, is there a reason for not having a survey done? ( 4 those relevant) q Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem q Costs too much q Can't get any information from Conservation and Land Management q Haven't got around to it yet q I don't trust the results


q Other reasons. They are: q No particular reason


Have you changed landuse from cropping into pastures (or crop / pasture rotations)? q Yes q No If yes, when did you change? ................ (year) If yes, why did you change? (4 those relevant) q Better returns from livestock production q Worried about rising water tables q Suits my style of farming q Other reasons. They are: If no, why have you not changed? (4 those relevant) q Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem q Costs too much q I don't want to get back into livestock production q Not relevant, I can still farm around the saline country q Doesn't fit my rotation system q I get better returns from farming q Other reasons. They are: q No particular reason Have you undertaken a Whole Farm Plan? q Yes q No If no, what stops you from undertaking a Whole Farm Plan? (4 those relevant) q Not necessary, as I don't have a salinity problem q Costs too much q Can't get any information from Conservation and Land Management or Department of Agriculture about how it is done q Doesn't fit my rotation system q Haven't got around to it yet q No particular reason q Other reasons. They are: In your opinion, what options do farmers have to manage salinity on the Liverpool Plains? (4 those relevant) q Change land use into more pasture production q Develop and use new risk management skills q Plant more trees on recharge and discharge areas q Reduce soil moisture levels by opportunity/response cropping q They have no options q Other options. They are:


What stops you pursuing these options? (4 all those relevant) q This is irrelevant, I am already practising salinity management q Can't get the right information from agronomists or consultants q I am unwilling to pay the costs q Salinity is not my problem q I don't want government telling me what to so q Salinity management practices are not suited to my property q Other reasons. They are: What stops other farmers pursuing these options? (4 all those relevant) q Can't get the right information from agronomists or consultants q Costs too much to change q Salinity is not their problem q Don't want government telling them what to so q Don't like to produce cattle or wool; they like farming instead q Salinity management practices are not suited to their property q Other reasons. They are: How could government make it easier for farmers to pursue these options? (4 all those relevant) q Provide financial incentives to change from cropping to pastures q Provide financial incentives to allow tree regeneration or planting q Provide a 'safety net' to avoid production risk q Provide more support for Landcare groups, such as q Regulate landuse in critical salinity 'hot spots' q Other methods. They are: q None of the above, the government should not interfere with a farmer's right to run his own property Which of the following conservation farming practices have you adopted at any time in the past? (4 all those relevant) q Stubble mulching / stubble retention q Pasture improvement q Farming on the contour q Retaining water using on-farm storages q Zero till cultivation q Strip cropping q Whole farm planning q Tree establishment / regeneration q Improved drainage q Opportunity / response cropping q Other practices. They are:


Which of the following salinity management practices have you adopted at any time in the past? (4 those relevant to your approach to salinity management) q Stubble mulching / stubble retention q Pasture improvement q Farming on the contour q Retaining water using on-farm storages q Zero till cultivation q Strip cropping q Whole farm planning q Tree establishment / regeneration q Improved drainage q Opportunity / response cropping q Other practices. They are: Which of the following practices are you no longer doing? (4 all those relevant) Say why (if ticked) q Stubble mulching / stubble retention q Pasture improvement q Farming on the contour q Retaining water using on-farm storages q Zero till cultivation q Strip cropping q Whole farm planning q Tree establishment / regeneration q Improved drainage q Opportunity / response cropping q Other practices. They are: Should government be providing more financial support to resource management agencies, specifically targeting salinity management? q Yes q No q Perhaps If yes, how should that money be spent? (4 all those relevant) q Providing more extension officers q Improved training of extension officers q Direct funding of Landcare activities through local agencies q Improved communication between agencies q More one-to-one extension to farmers


q More technical research into salinity management q More economic and social research into salinity management q Other. Please specify:


* ADOPTING SOIL SALINITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Assuming you have adopted or will adopt salinity management practices, how important is each of the following factors to YOU, when you make a decision to adopt? Perhaps you don't intend adopting such practices. I would still like your opinion.

Circle the number of your answer below, using this key:

Cost of the practice 1 2 3 4 5 If the practice works i.e. it reduces the effect of salinity 1 2 3 4 5 Whether I am legally obliged to do the practice 1 2 3 4 5 If I could get a grant or subsidy to help pay for the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Membership of a landcare group 1 2 3 4 5 If I can get information about the financial viability of the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the practice is voluntary or a regulation 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the practice is practical and suits my farm operations 1 2 3 4 5 Whether someone else has tried the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Short term financial benefits of the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Long term financial benefits of the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the practice has been field tested by experts 1 2 3 4 5 If I can get information about the technical suitability of the practice 1 2 3 4 5 If I can get good technical back-up support for the practice 1 2 3 4 5 What my neighbours might think if I adopt the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the practice will increase financial risk on my farm 1 2 3 4 5 Whether the practice will decrease financial risk on my farm 1 2 3 4 5 How severe the salinity problem is on my farm 1 2 3 4 5 If the practice requires more labour 1 2 3 4 5 If the practice requires less labour 1 2 3 4 5 Whether a grant is available for starting the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Anticipated time saved by the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Potential loss of production if I adopt the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Potential gain in production if I adopt the practice 1 2 3 4 5 Savings on production input costs 1 2 3 4 5

This question continues on the next page


Necessity of buying new farm equipment 1 2 3 4 5 Disruption to my farm production system 1 2 3 4 5 Necessity to acquire new farming skills 1 2 3 4 5 Become more financially viable 1 2 3 4 5 Pass on our land to the next generation in good condition 1 2 3 4 5 Other factors: 1 2 3 4 5 1. ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

* YOUR FARMING OPERATION Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions about your farming operation and yourself. What is the size of your current enterprise (include all land) Land in the Goran Basin ........ hectares (or ........ acres) Land elsewhere ........ hectares (or ........ acres) Total: ........ hectares (or ........ acres) What is your main farming enterprise? q Cropping only q Livestock only q Irrigated cropping q Mixed crop/livestock q Other (specify .........................) Based on the 1992-3 taxation assessment, what was your gross income? (This will tell me something of the scale of your farming operation) q $0 - $25, 000 q $75,001 - $100,000 q $250,001 - $500,000 q $25,001 - $50,000 q $100,001 - $150,000 q $500,000 - $1,000,000 q $50,001 - $75,000 q $150,001 - $250,000 q over $1,000,000 In which direction has your gross income moved over the last 5 years? q Increased by more than $10,000 q Increased by less than $10,000 q Hasn't really changed


q Decreased by more than $10,000 q Decreased by less than $10,000


Which age group do you belong to? (if husband and wife answer this question, both please) q 20 - 30 years q 41 - 50 years q 61 - 70 years q 31 - 40 years q 51 -60 years q Over 70 years How many years have you managed this farm or a farm elsewhere in the Liverpool Plains district? q Under 5 years q 21 - 30 years q 51 - 60 years q 5 - 10 years q 31 - 40 years q Over 60 years q 11 - 20 years q 41 - 50 years How many years have you been a farmer or grazier? q Under 5 years q 21 - 30 years q 51 - 60 years q 5 - 10 years q 31 - 40 years q Over 60 years q 11 - 20 years q 41 - 50 years What was your last formal education? q Primary or Secondary School q Technical College (TAFE) q University q Other: ................................. Are you a member of a Landcare group? q Yes q No How many children currently depend on your income? q None q 1 or 2 q 3 or 4 q Over 4

****************************************

Your assistance in completing this survey of salinity management practices in the Goran Catchment is greatly appreciated.

If you have any other additional information that may explain your response, please make it in the space below:

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

There is more space on the next page


....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................................... Would you like a summary of the results of the study? q Yes q No Are you interested in a follow-up survey? q Yes q No If you have any further questions about this study, please ring me (Bruce Hooper) at the Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale, on (067) 73 2420. Reverse the charges if you wish.

© Centre for Water Policy Research 5/94 University of New England, Armidale


Appendix 6

References and Further Reading This reference list is catalogued in four sections: page 1. Research papers 135 2. Agency publications a. Tragowel Plains Field Site 147 b. Goran Catchment Field Site 150 c. Selected Studies - Australia 150 d. Selected Studies - USA 151

1. Research papers AACM AND CENTRE FOR WATER POLICY RESEARCH. 1994. Enhancing the Effectiveness of

Catchment Management Planning - An Interim Report. AACM International Pty Limited, Adelaide.

AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW

ZEALAND, AND AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL, 1994. National Water Quality Management Strategy. Policies and Principles (Volume 2). ARMCANZ/ANZECC, Canberra.

AITKEN, S.C. 1991. Person-environment theories in contemporary perceptual and behavioural

geography I: personality, attitudinal and spatial choice theories. Progress in Human Geography, 15 (2), 179-193.

ALLEN, T.F.H., BANDURSKI, B.L. AND KING, A.W. 1993. The Ecosystem Approach: Theory and

Ecosystem Integrity. Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. 64pp. ANONYMOUS. 1991 Constraints to adoption of crop residue management. In Crop Residue

Management for Conservation. Proceedings of a national conference August 8-9 Lexington Kentucky. Soil and Water Conservation Society.

BAKER, J.L. AND JOHNSON, H.P. 1983 Evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs from field studies.

Agricultural Management and Water Quality. F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bailey, editors. Iowa State University Press.

BENBROOK, C. 1983. Structural Implications of Soil and Water Conservation Policy Alternatives. in

Brewster, D., Rasmussen, W.D. and Youngberg, G. (eds.), Farms in Transition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 135 - 147.

BERRY, W. 1983. Solving for Pattern: Standards for a Durable Agriculture. in Brewster, D.,

Rasmussen, W.D. and Youngberg, G. (eds.), Farms in Transition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 37 - 45.

BLACK, A. W. AND REEVE, I., 1993. Participation in land care groups: the relative importance of

attitudinal and situational factors, Journal of Environmental Management (forthcoming). BLAKE, T. AND P. COCK 1990. Salinity and community awareness and action for salinity control in

the Goulburn/Broken Region: Towards a Community Development Approach, Environmental Report No. 30, Graduate School of Environmental Science Monash University.


BORN, S.M. (in press), Towards Integrated Environmental Management: A Reconnaissance of State Statutes. University of Colorado Resource Law Notes, Fall-Winter, 1993.

BORN, S.M. 1992. River Conservation (Book Review), Water Resources Bulletin, July/August. BORN, S.M. 1994. Towards Integrated Environmental Management: A Reconnaissance of State

Statutes. Occasional Paper Series. University of Colorado Law School, Boulder.. BORN, S.M. AND MARGERUM, R. (1993). Integrated Environmental Management: Improving the

Practice in Wisconsin. Report prepared by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin - Madison for The Water Integration Committee of The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 133 pp.

BORN, S.M. AND SONZOGNI, W. C. (in press). Integrated Environmental Management.

Strengthening the Conceptualization. (Environmental Management) BORN, S.M., AND SONZOGNI, W. C. 1991. A Pragmatic Approach to Integrated Water

Management: Lessons from Wisconsin's Black Earth Creek Watershed. (abs.) In Proceedings of 27th Annual AWRA Conference. Water Management of River Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana. American Water Resources Association, p. 321.

BORN, S.M., SONZOGNI, W.C., MAYERS, J., AND MORTON, J.A. 1990. The Exceptional Waters

Approach - A Focus for Coordinated Natural Resources Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Summer.

BROWN, M.A., 1980. Attitudes and social categories: complementary explanations of innovation-

adoption behaviour. Environment and Planning A, 12, 175 - 186. BULKLEY, J.W. 1994. Regulating nonpoint source pollution in surface waters: A proposal. Water

Resources Update Vol. 94 pp. 68-71. BULTENA, G., LALSLEY, P. AND HOIBERG, E. 1990. Participation and Perceived Impacts of the

Conservation Reserve Program in Iowa. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 237 - 250.

BULTENA, G.L. AND HOIBERG, E.O. 1983. Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation

tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38 (3), 281 - 284. BURTON, J.R. 1977. Proposals for a Multi-objective Approach to The Planning of a Flood Mitigation

Scheme in the Namoi Valley. Report to the N.S.W. Water Resources Commission. School of Natural Resources, University of New England, Armidale.

BURTON, J.R. 1983. Total Catchment Management. Proceedings of the Annual Soil Conservation

Conference, 1983. N.S.W. Soil Conservation Service, Sydney. BURTON, J.R. 1984. The Art of Resource Management. Department of Resource Engineering,

University of New England, Armidale. BURTON, J.R. 1985. Development and Implementation of Total Catchment Management Policy in

New South Wales. A Background Paper. Prepared for the Inter-departmental Committee on Total Catchment Management. University of New England, Armidale.

BURTON, J.R. 1986. The Total Catchment Concept and its Application in New South Wales.

Proceedings of the Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Griffith University, Brisbane. Institution of Engineers, Australia. pp 307 - 311.


BURTON, J.R. 1988. Catchment Management in Australia. Civil Engineering Transactions, 30, (4), 145 - 152.

BURTON, J.R. 1988. The Environmental Rationale for Integrated Catchment Management.

Proceedings of the National Workshop on Integrated Catchment Management. Australian Water Resources Council, Conference Series No. 16, Appendix 5. Victorian Government Printing Office. Melbourne. pp 1-19.

BURTON, J.R. 1991. Integrated Catchment Management and Its Links with Public Works Utilities.

Paper presented to the Asia-Pacific Public Works Congress, Brisbane. 5 September, 199. BURTON, J.R. 1994. The Big Picture. Water, Australian Water and Water Association, Melbourne. BURTON, J.R., HUGHES, C. AND JAMIESON, P. 1988. A Methodology for River Basin

Management. Strategic River Basin Planning Study: Stage 1. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale.

BURTON, J.R., JUNOR, R. AND WHITEHOUSE, G. 1994. Towards Improved Floodplain

Management on the Liverpool Plains. NSW Department of Water Resources, Sydney. BUTTEL, F.H. 1983. Farm Structure and Rural Development. in Brewster, D., Rasmussen, W.D. and

Youngberg, G. (eds.), Farms in Transition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 103 - 124.

BUTTEL, F.H. AND SWANSON, L.E. 1986. Soil and Water Conservation: A Farm Structural and

Public Policy Context. in Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 26 - 39.

CAMBONI, S.M. AND NAPIER, T.L. 1993 Factors affecting use of conservation farming practices in

east central Ohio. Agriculture, ecosystems and Environment. Vol. 45 pp. 79-94. CAMBONI, S.M., NAPIER, T.L. AND LOVEJOY, S.B. 1989. Factors Affecting Knowledge and

Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in a Micro-Targeted Area of Ohio. Paper presented at the Symposium, 'The Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences of the Conservation Components of the Food Security Act of 1985, Columbus, Ohio.

CAMBONI, S.M., NAPIER, T.L. AND LOVEJOY, S.B. 1990. Factors Affecting Knowledge of and

Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program in a Micro-targeted Area of Ohio. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 102 - 222.

CARR, S. AND TAIT, J. 1990. Differences in the attitudes of farmers and conservationists and their

implications. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 32 pp. 281-294. CARY, J.W., A.J. BEEL AND H.S. HAWKINS 1986. Farmers' Attitudes towards Land Management

for Conservation, School of Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne. CARY, J.W., R.L. WILKINSON AND C.R. EWERS 1989. Caring for the Soil on Cropping Lands,

School of Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne. CARY. J.W., WILKINSON, R.L., BARR, N., AND MILNE, G. 1993. Establishing the basis for effective

care of rural land. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 6, (1), 44 -49. CHAMALA, S. AND COUGHENOUR, M.C. Constraints and Incentives to stubble mulch among

Queensland grain growers. Journal of Soil Conservation, 42 92), 92 - 97.


CLIFF, A. C, 1992. Classics in human geography revisited. Commentary 1 on Hagerstrand, T. (1967) 'Innovation diffusion as a spatial process'. Progress in Human Geography, 16 (4), 541.

COCKS, D. 1992. Use with Care. Managing Australia's Natural Resources in the Twenty First

Century. New South Wales University Press, Kensington, COOK, P. AND MILLS, R. 1992. Reforming Institutions for Sustainable Development: The Example of

the Resource Assessment Commission. Paper prepared for the Conference on "UNCED and the Need for Institutional Reform", sponsored by the International Law Centre and the Centre for Our Common Future, Sydney University, February. Sydney.

COUGHENOUR, C.M. AND CHAMALA, S. 1989. Voluntary and mandated institutional controls on

soil conservation behaviour of U.S. and Australian farmers. Society and Natural Resources, 2, 37 - 51.

COUGHENOUR, C.M. AND CHRISTENSON, J.A. 1983. Farm Structure, Social Class, and Farmers'

Policy Perspectives. in Brewster, D., Rasmussen, W.D. and Youngberg, G. (eds.), Farms in Transition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 67 - 86.

DANIELS, P.L. 1992. Barriers to sustainable development in natural resource-based economies:

Australia as a case study. Society and Natural Resources, 5 (3), 247 - 262. DUDLEY N. COELLI, M., AND J. PIGRAM. 1993. An Integrated Approach to Tradeable Discharge

Permits and Capacity Sharing Under Australian Conditions. Discussion Paper prepared for The Environmental Research Trust and the Sydney Water Board. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale.

DUFF, S.N., STONEHOUSE, D.P., HILTS, S.G. AND BLACKBURN, D.J. 1991. Soil conservation

behaviour and attitudes among Ontario farmers towards alternative government policy, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46 (May-June), 215 - 219.

EARLE, T.R., A.A. BROWNLEA AND C.W. ROSE 1981. Beliefs of a community with respect to

environmental management: a case study of soil conservation beliefs on the Darling Downs, Journal of Environmental Management, 12, Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited, pp 197-219.

EARLE, T.R., ROSE, C.W. AND BROWNLEA, A.A. 1979. Socio-economic predictors of intention

towards soil conservation and their implications in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 9, 225-236.

ESSEKS, J.D. AND KRAFT, S. 1990. Participation of Eligible Landowners in the Conservation Reserve

Program: Results and Implications of Survey Research, 1986-1988. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 223 - 236.

FIELD, D.R. AND W.R. BURCH, Jr 1988. Rural Sociology and the Environment, Greenwood Press

Inc., Connecticut. FOUND, W.C. 1971. A Theoretical Approach to Rural Land-Use Patterns, Edward Arnold, London. GORDDARD, B.J. AND NASH, P.M. (undated) Farmers' attitudes and intentions towards

conservation cropping practices. School of Agriculture. University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

GREGG, F., LORD, W.B., BORN, S.M. AND WATERSTONE, M. 1991. Institutional Response to a

Changing Water Policy Environment. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Research Project Report and Appendices, Grant #14-08-001-G1639.


GREINER, R. 1994. Economic Assessment of Dryland Salinity in the Liverpool Plains. Department of

Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of New England, Armidale GUITHER, H.D. 1983. Citizen Consumer Groups in Policies Affecting Farm Structure. in Brewster, D.,


HAGERSTRAND, T. 1992. Classics in human geography revisited. Authors response to

commentaries on Hagerstrand, T. (1967) 'Innovation diffusion as a spatial process'. Progress in Human Geography, 16 (4), 543 -4.

HANSEN, D.O., ERBAUGH, J.M. AND NAPIER, T.L. 1987 Factors related to adoption of soil

conservation practices in the Dominican Republic Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol 42., No. 5. pp. 367-369.

HART, P. AND LINSENBIGLER, M. 1990. Future Policy Options for Natural Resource Management:

An Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service View. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 326 - 333.

HILLS, G.A. 1961. The Ecological Basis for Land-use Planning. Research Report No. 46. Ontario

Department of Lands and Forests. Ontario. HOBAN IV, T.J., HOIBERG, E. AND OSGOOD, B. 1986. Constraints to Conservation. in Lovejoy, S.

and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 146 - 150.

HOBAN, T.J. 1990. Farmers' Response to Conservation Compliance. in Napier, T.L. (ed.)

Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 274 - 287.

HOLLICK, M., 1990. Land Conservation Policies and Farmer Decision-Making, Australian Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation, 3(1), pp 6-12. HOOPER, B.P. (in review) Farmer Decisions and Integrated Floodplain Management. (Society and

Natural Resources). HOOPER, B.P. 1993. Decision-making an Integrated Floodplain Management - An Empirical

Analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of New England, Armidale. HOOPER, B.P. 1994. Social and Economic Issues Related to the Adoption off Salinity Management.

Paper presented to the Liverpool Plains Salinity Workshop, NSW Department of Conservation and Land Management, April 27-28, 1994, Gunnedah.

HOOPER, B.P., BURTON, J.R. and BORN, S.M. 1994. A Generic Model of River Basin Planning Using

an Integrated Environmental Management Approach. Paper presented to the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Universities Council on Water Resources, Big Sky, Montana, August 2 - 5.

HOWARD, B. 1993. Evaluation Of A Catchment Management Plan: Sustainable Resource Use,

Uncertainty And Irreversible Loss. Faculty of Economic Studies, University of New England, Armidale.

IMHOFF, J.G., REGIER, H.A., PLANCK, R.J. AND SCHRIMPF, A. Forthcoming. Urbanization and

stream habitats for fish - a synoptic review and perspective. Proceedings of the First World Fisheries Congress, Athens, Greece, 1992.


INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 1991. IWRA Statement on Water, Environment and Development. Water International, 16, 234 - 246

JOHNSON, K.L. 1992. Management for water quality on rangelands through Best practices: the Idaho

approach. in Naiman, R.J. (ed.) Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York

JOHNSTON, T. AND BRYANT, C. 1987. Policy Based Constraints on Farm Adaptation. Paper

presented to the session, "Farmland Protection: An International Perspective", Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Portland, Oregon.

KASAL, J., 1970. Attitudes and opinions of a sample of land operators toward the Great Plains

conservation program, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 25(2), pp 55-8. KORSCHING, P. AND NOWAK, P.J. 1983. Flexibility in Conservation Policy. in Brewster, D.,


KROMM, DE. AND WHITE, S.E. Adoption of water-saving practices by irrigators in the high plains.

Water Resources Bulletin, 26 (6), 999-1012. LANG, R, 1986. Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management. The Banff Centre,

Calgary. LEE, L.K. AND STEWART,. 1983. Landownership and the adoption of minimum tillage. American

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65 (2), 256-264. LEE, LK. 1983. Land tenure and adoption of conservation tillage, Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, 38 (3), 166 - 168. LEE, R. G. 1992. Ecologically Effective Social Organisation as a Requirement for Sustaining

Watershed Ecosystems. In Naiman, R. J. (ed.) Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York

LEE, R.G., FLAMM, R., TURNER, M.G., BLEDSOE, C., CHANDLER, P., DEFERRARI, C.,

GOTTFRIED, R., NAIMAN, R., SCHUMAKER, N., AND WEAR, D. 1992. Integrating sustainable development and environmental vitality: a landscape ecology approach. in Naiman, R.J. (ed.) Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York

LEES, J.W. 1990. More than Accountability: evaluating agricultural extension programs, The Rural

Development Centre, University of New England. LEFROY, T. AND HOBBS, R. 1992. Ecological indicators for sustainable agriculture. Australian

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 5 (4), 22 - 28. LEOPOLD, A. 1949. The Land Ethic in A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There,

Oxford University Press. New York. LOCKERETZ, W. 1990. What have we learned about who conserves soil? Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, 45 (5) 517 - 523. LOVEJOY, S.B. AND NAPIER T.L. 1988 Institutional constraints to soil conservation on steep lands.

In Conservation Farming on Steep Lands. W.C. Moldenhour and M.W Hudson, editors. 1988. Soil and Water Conservation Society.


LOVEJOY, S.B. AND NAPIER, T.L. 1990. Conservation Practices and Government Program: Solving Personal Troubles or Social Problems. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 263 - 273.

LOVEJOY, S.B. AND PARENT, F.D. 1981. Social Aspects of a Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Abatement Program: A Panel Study of the Black Creek Project. Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station, Purdue University, West Lafayette.

LOVEJOY, S.B. LEE, J.G. AND BEASLEY, D.B. 1986. Integration of Social and Physical Analysis: The

Potential for Micro-targeting. in Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 121 - 129.

MAKOWSKI, T.J. SOFRANO, A.J., AND VAN ES, J.C. 1990. Agroecology and policy influences on

no-till adoption. Society and Natural Resources, 3, 361 - 371. MANNING, E.W. 1988. Soil conservation: barriers to a comprehensive national response. Prairie

Forum, 13 (1), 99 - 121. MCNAIRN, H.E. AND MITCHELL, B. 1991. Farmers' perceptions of soil erosion and economic

incentives for conservation tillage. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 16 (4), 307-316. MEGAHAN, W.F., POTYONDY, J.P. AND SEYEDBAGHERI, K.A. 1992. Best practices and

Cumulative Effects from Sedimentation in South Fork Salmon River: An Idaho Case Study, in Naiman, R.J. (ed.) Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York

MEIER, K.J. AND BROWNE, W.P. 1983. Interest Groups and Farm Structure. in Brewster, D.,


MENZEL, B.W. 1983. Agricultural management practices and the integrity of instream biological

habitat. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bailey, editors. Iowa State University Press.

MILLER, E.N. AND ANDREWS, G. 1993. Factors Influencing Landholders' Investments in Soil

Conservation Activities. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra. MIRANOWSKI, J.A. AND KLAUS, F.A. 1983 Best management practice implementation economics

and farmer decision making. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bailey, editors. Iowa State University Press.

MITCHELL, B. (ed.) 1990. Integrated Water Management. Belhaven Press. London. MITCHELL, B. (ed.) 1991. Integrated Catchment Management in Western Australia; Progress and

Opportunities. Centre for Water Research, University of Western Australia, Nedlands. MITCHELL, B. 1987. A Comprehensive-Integrated Approach for Water and Land Management.

Occasional Paper #1, Centre for Water Policy Research. University of New England. Armidale. MITCHELL, B. 1988. Integrated Catchment Management and the Hunter Valley. Occasional Paper

#2. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale. MITCHELL, B. 1989. Geography and Resource Analysis. 2nd Edition. Longman. New York. MITCHELL, B. AND HOLLICK, M. 1993. Integrated catchment management in Western Australia:

transition from concept to implementation. Environmental Management, 17 (6) 735 - 743.


MUNTON, R., 1993. Rural Accumulation and Property Rights: Sustaining the Means. Paper presented

at the Association of American Geographers' Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 7 - 10. MUNTON, R., The management of agricultural land: an analysis of the conflict between

environmental change and food production, Department of Geography, University of London. MUSGRAVE, W. 1988. Some Notes on the Concept of Sustainability (Draft). Department of

Economics, University of New England, Armidale. NAIMAN, J. 1992. Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change.

Springer-Verlag. New York. NAKAMURA, L., AND BORN, S.M. 1993. Substate Institutional Innovation for Managing Lakes and

Watershed: a Wisconsin Case Study. Water Resources Bulletin, 29, 807-21. NAPIER ,T.L AND CAMBONI, S.M. 1994. Socioeconomic and Policy Incentives for Adoption of

Conservation Production Systems at the Farm Level, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus.

NAPIER, T.L AND BROWN D.E. 1993 Factors affecting attitudes toward groundwater pollution

among Ohio farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 48 No. 5. pp. 432-438. NAPIER, T.L, METZOLD, J.A. AND LOVEJOY, S.B. 1990. Implementing the Conservation Title:

Outcomes and Potentials. In Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. T.L. Napier, editor. Soil and Water Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa. 1990.

NAPIER, T.L. (undated). Soil Conservation Policies for the 1990s. Monograph, Department of

Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus. NAPIER, T.L., NAPIER, A.S. AND TUCKER, M.A. 1991. The Social, Economic and Institutional

Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices: The Asian Experience. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus.

NAPIER, T.L. 1987. Farmers and soil erosion: a question of motivation, Forum 2 (2), 85. NAPIER, T.L. 1988 Socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of soil erosion control practices in

the United States. Agriculture: Erosion Assessment and Modelling. R.P.C Morgan and R.J. Rickson, editors. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1988.

NAPIER, T.L. 1988. Socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of soil erosion control practices

in the United States, Agriculture: Erosion and Modelling, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

NAPIER, T.L. 1990 Soil Conservation. In Rural Policies for the 1990s, Cornelia B. Flora and James A.

Christenson (eds. ). Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. pp. 247-258. NAPIER, T.L. 1990 The Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985: An Experiment in

Environmental Management. Topics in Applied Resource Management, Vol 2. pp. 111-127. NAPIER, T.L. 1990 The Evolution of US Soil- conservation Policy: From Voluntary Adoption to

Coercion. Soil Erosion on Agricultural Land, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, USA. NAPIER, T.L. 1991. Factors Affecting Acceptance and Continued Use of Soil Conservation Practices in

Developing Societies: A Diffusion Perspective. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus.


NAPIER, T.L. 1992. Property Rights and Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

Conservation Policies for Sustainable Hillslope Farming (Ed.) Sitanala Arsyad, Istiqlal Amien, Ted Sheng and William Moldenhauer. pp. 193-201.

NAPIER, T.L. AND CAMBONI S.M. 1993 Use of conventional and conservation practices among

farmers in the Scioto River Basin of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol 48. No. 3. pp. 231-237.

NAPIER, T.L. AND CAMBONI, S.M. 1988. Attitudes toward a proposed soil conservation program,

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43 (2), 186 NAPIER, T.L. AND FORSTER, D.L., 1982. Farmer attitudes and behaviour associated with soil

erosion control, in Halcrow, H.G., Heady, E.O. and Cotner, M.L. (eds.) Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

NAPIER, T.L. AND NAPIER, A.S. 1983. Perception of conservation compliance among farmers in a

highly erodible area of Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46 (3), 220 - 224. NAPIER, T.L. undated. Potential for Public-Private Partnership In Ecosystem Management. Ohio

State University, Columbus. NAPIER, T.L., CAMBONI, S.M. AND THRAEN, C.S. 1986. Environmental concern and the adoption

of farm technologies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41 (2), 109 - 113. NAPIER, T.L., THRAEN C.S. AND CAMBONI, S.M. 1988. Willingness of land operators to participate

in Government-sponsored soil erosion control programs, Journal of Rural Studies, 4 (4) 339-47. NAPIER, T.L., THRAEN C.S. AND McCLASKIE S.L., 1988. Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices

by farmers in erosion-prone areas of Ohio: the application of Logit Modelling, Society and Natural Resources, 1, pp 109.

NAPIER, T.L., THRAEN, C.S., GORE A. AND GOE, W.R. 1984. Factors affecting adoption of

conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, pp 205-9.

NEWSON, M. 1992. Land, Water and Development. River Basin Systems and Their Sustainable

Development. Routledge. London. NIELSON, J. 1986. Interorganizational Relations in Conservation Targeting Programs. in Lovejoy, S.

and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 40 - 51.

NOWAK, P.J. 1983 Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation. May-June pp. 162- 165. NOWAK, P.J. 1984. Adoption and diffusion of soil and water conservation practices, in English, B.C.,

Maetzold, J.A., Holding, B.R. and Heady, E.O. (eds.), Future Agricultural Technology and Resource Conservation, Iowa State University Press, Ames.

NOWAK, P.J. 1987. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion

explanations. Rural Sociology, 52 (2), 208-220. NOWAK, P.J. 1988. A model explaining the adoption by shoreline residents of measures to address

fluctuating water levels. in Vining, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Symposium in Social Science in Resource Management, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


NOWAK, P.J. 1991. Why Farmers Adopt Production Technology. in Crop Residues and Management for Conservation Farming. Proceedings of a National Conference, Lexington, Kentucky. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny.

NOWAK, P.J. 1992. The role and capacity of conservation districts in resource management. Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation, (?) 152 - 156. NOWAK, P.J. AND KORSCHING, P.F. 1983. Social and Institutional factors affecting the adoption

and maintenance of agricultural BMPs. In Schaller, F. and Bailey, G. (eds.), Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State University, Ames. pp 349 - 377.

NOWAK, P.J. AND KORSCHING, P.F. 1985. Conservation tillage: revolution or evolution? Journal of

Soil and Water Conservation, 40 (2), 199-201. NOWAK, P.J. AND NELSON, G. 1988. A model explaining the adoption by shoreline residents of

measures to address fluctuating water levels. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management. University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign.

NOWAK, P.J. AND O'KEEFE, G. 1990. A Proposal for the Evaluation of Producer Involvement in the

CES/SCS Water Quality Demonstration Projects, 1990 - 1995. Co-operative Extension Service, College of Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

NOWAK, P.J., 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil Conservation, 38, (3),

162-165. NOWAK, P.J., KORSCHING, P.F., WAGENER, D.J. AND HOBAN, T.J. 1984. Sociological Factors in

the Adoption of Agricultural Best practices. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia. EPA Publication 600/5-84-001.

O'RIORDAN, T. 1971. Perspectives on Resource Management. Pion, London ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY/MINISTRY OF NATURAL

RESOURCES, 1994. Water Management on a Watershed Basis: Implementing an Ecosystem Approach. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario.

PAMMINGER, F. 1992. The Perceptual Gap between Farmers and a Government Water Organisation

Involved in a Land Management Consultation. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Faculty of Business, Swinburne Institute of Technology, Melbourne.

PIGRAM, J.J. AND HOOPER, B.P. 1994. Impediments to Best Practice in Irrigation Agriculture.

EMIAA Yearbook 1994, Environmental Management Institute of Australia. pp. 90 - 2. Executive Media Pty. Ltd., Sydney.

PRED, A. 1992. Classics in human geography revisited. Commentary 2 on Hagerstrand, T. (1967)

'Innovation diffusion as a spatial process'. Progress in Human Geography, 16 (4), 542 - 3. RICE, R.M. 1992. The Science and Politics of BMPs in Forestry: California Experiences. in Naiman, R.J.

(ed.) Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York

RICKSON , R.E. 1987. Farmer Perception and Understanding of Soil Erosion and the Relationship

between Erosion and Crop Productivity. Report to the National Soil Conservation Program, Division of Australian Environmental Studies, Griffith University, Nathan Qld.


RITTER, W.F., CHIRNSIDE, E.M. AND LAKE, R.W. 1989. Influence of best management practices on water quality in the Appoquinimink watershed. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Vol. A24 No. 8 pp. 897-924.

ROBILLARD, P.D. AND WALTER, M.F. 1983 A framework for selecting agricultural nonpoint source

controls. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bailey, editors. Iowa State University Press.

RODEFELD, N. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture. Balancing Profits and Human and Natural Resources.

Issues Paper No. 1. Centre for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.

ROMM, J. 1992. Watersheds and Social Systems: Linking Causes and consequences of watershed

activities. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference on Watershed Management. J. Woled, Editor. Water Resources Centre Report No. 81, University of California, Davis.

SADLER, B. S., LOH, I.C., VENTRISS, H.B. AND KITE, J.M., 1991. Water Resources Planning for

Sustainable Development: A Western Australian Case Study Examining the Evolution of Sustainability Concepts. Proceedings of the International Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Perth. Institution of Engineers, Australia. pp. 7-15.

SCHEFTER, J.E. 1994 Socioeconomic research and the Clean Water Act. Water Resources Update Vol.

94 pp 72-75. SCHOENBERGER, E. 1991. The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography.

Professional Geographer, 43 (2), 180 - 189. SHESKIN, I.M. 1985. Survey Research for Geographers. Association of American Geographers,

Washington, D.C. SINDEN, J.A. AND KING, D.A. 1988. Land Condition, Crop Productivity, and the Adoption of Soil

Conservation Measures. Paper presented to the 32nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, Latrobe University, February, 9 - 11th. Melbourne.

SMIT, B. AND SMITHERS, J. 1992. Adoption of soil conservation practices: an empirical analysis in

Ontario, Canada. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 3, 1 - 14. SMITHERS, J. AND SMIT, B. 1992. Conservation Practices in Southwestern Ontario Agriculture:

Barriers to Adoption. LEG-28, University of Guelph, School of Rural Planning and Development, Guelph.

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY. 1991. Constraints to the Adoption of Crop Residue

Management, in Crop Residue and Management. Proceedings of a National Conference, Lexington Kentucky., pp. 39 - 46. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, Iowa.

SOMMERS, D.G AND NAPIER T.L. 1993. Comparison of Amish and Non-Amish farmers: A

diffusion/farm-structure perspective. Rural Sociology. Vol 58 No. 1. pp. 130-145. SONZOGNI, W.C. AND BORN, S. 1991. A Pragmatic Approach to Water Management: Long-term

Anthropocentric Impacts on Wisconsin's Black Earth Creek Watershed (abs.); in Proceedings Annual AWRA Conference Water Management of River Systems, New Orleans, LA; American Water Resources Association, p.335.

SOTH, L.K. 1983. Agricultural Trade and Farm Structure. in Brewster, D., Rasmussen, W.D. and

Youngberg, G. (eds.), Farms in Transition. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Farm Structure. Iowa State University Press, Ames. pp. 57 - 65.


STANKEY, G.H. AND CLARK, R.N. 1991. Social Aspects of New Perspectives in Forestry. Greytowers Press. Milford, Pennsylvania.

STAYNER, R. AND J. GOW 1992. A Review of the Process of Farm Adjustment in Australia, The

Rural Development Centre, University of New England. SWADER, F. 1994. How clean is clean? An agricultural perspective. Water Resources Update Vol. 94

pp. 61-67. SWANSON, L.E., CAMBONI, S.M. AND NAPIER, T. 1986. Barriers to Adoption of Soil Conservation

Practices on Farms. in Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 108 - 120.

SWANSON, L.E., STEPHENSON, K. AND SKEES, J.R. 1990. Participation in the Conservation

Reserve Program in Kentucky: Implications for Public Policy. in Napier, T.L. (ed.) Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 251 - 262.

SYME, J.S., BUTTERWORTH, J.E. AND NANCARROW, B.E. 1994. National Whole Catchment

Management: A Review and Analysis of Processes. LWRRDC Occasional Paper Series 01/94/ SYNNOTT, M. 1990. Performance Measurement of Integrated Catchment Management. A Discussion

Paper of Strategies and Options. Centre for Water Research, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

SYNNOTT, M. 1991. A Review of ICM in Australia. Land and Water Research News, Issue No. 8.

pp. 42 - 47. TAYLOR, D.L. AND MILLER, W.L. 1978. The adoption process and environmental innovations: a

case study of a government project. Rural Sociology, 52, 208 - 220. TAYLOR, J.G. AND LACEWELL R.D 1988 Economic experience and perception of U.S. high plains

farmers 1979-1984. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 26 pp. 261-275. THRAEN, C.S., NAPIER, T.L. AND MAETZOLD, J.A. 1986. Micro and Macro Factors Influencing the

Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices. in Lovejoy, S. and Napier, T.L. Conserving Soil: Insights from Socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp 140 - 143.

TRIST, E. 1983. Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human

Relations. Vol. 36 No. 3 pp. 269-284. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 1992. The Watershed Protection

Approach. Annual Report. 1992. Washington, DC. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 1993. Geographic Targeting:

Selected State Examples. Washington, DC. VAN ES, J.C. AND NOTIER, P. 1988. No-till farming in the United States: research and policy

environment in the development and utilization of an innovation. Society and Natural Resources, 1, 83 - 109.

VANCLAY, F. 1992. The social context of farmer's adoption of environmentally sound farming

practices. in Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F. and Furze, B. (eds.) Agriculture, Environment and Society. Macmillan, Melbourne.


VANCLAY, F. 1993. Farmers Environmental Attitudes. Paper presented to the Conference, Environmental Paradigms: Attitudes to Nature, University of New England, Armidale.

VANCLAY, F.M. AND J.W. CARY 1989. Farmers' Perceptions of Dryland Soil Salinity, School of

Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne. VERDICH, P. AND AMOS, A. 1984. Water Management Policies to Promote and Facilitate Structural

Adjustment in the New South Wales Irrigation Areas and Districts. Paper presented to the Australian National Council for Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, Griffith.

WATT, D.L., DAHL, B.L., GOREHAM. G.A., YOUNGS, G.A., SELL, R.S., AND STEARNS, L.D. 1992.

Characteristics of Farms Using Sustainable Practices: North Dakota, 1989. Paper presented to the 4th North American Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Madison.

WILKINSON, R.L. AND J.W. CARY. 1992. Monitoring Landcare in Central Victoria, School of

Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne. WOLF, S. AND NOWAK P. 1994. The Status of Information -Based Agrochemical Management

Services in Wisconsin's Agrochemical Supply Industry. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.

WORLD COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. 1987. Our Common Future.

Oxford University Press, Melbourne. YANHGGEN, D. AND BORN, S.M., 1990. Protecting Groundwater Quality by Managing Local Land

Use, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 45, (2), 207-210. YAPP, T.P., YOUNG, L.J. AND SINDEN, J.A. 1991. Trends in Community Support for Soil

Conservation. Paper presented to the 35th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of New England, February, 11 - 14th. Armidale.

2. Agency Publications for Field Sites a. Tragowel Plains Study Area AUDITOR-GENERAL OF VICTORIA, 1993. Special Report No. 19. Salinity. Government Printer,

Melbourne. AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WATER IN SOCIETY (1993). Murray-Darling Basin

Commission Irrigation Management Strategy. Initial Issues Paper. Kerang Region. CSIRO Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, Nedlands.

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WATER IN SOCIETY, 1993. Pilot Community Survey.

Kerang and Boort. CSIRO Division of Water Resources, Perth. BAIRD, K. 1993 Farmers' Perceptions of Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica): A Qualitative Approach to

Developing a Marketing Strategy for Perennial Pastures. Thesis for the degree of Bachelor of Agricultural Science, Latrobe University, Victoria.

BARR, N, WESTON, R, AND WYATT, G. 1989. Social Profile. Chapter 12 in Tragowel Plains Sub-

Regional Working Group, Tragowel Plains. Challenge of the Plains.... Draft Salinity Management Plan. Supporting Technical Works. Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group. Pyramid Hill.

BARR, N. 1992. Structural adjustment in the Loddon irrigation districts. Paper presented to the

Workshop on Socio-Economic Issues and Research Needs in the Murray-Darling Basin, 17 - 18 November, Melbourne. South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide.


CAMP SCOTT AND FURPHY PTY. LTD., 1985. Avoca Floodplain Management Study. Rural Water

Commission of Victoria, Armadale. CAMP, SCOTT AND FURPHY PTY. LTD. 1989. Drainage Study. Chapter 4 in Tragowel Plains Sub-

Regional Working Group, Tragowel Plains. Challenge of the Plains.... Draft Salinity Management Plan. Supporting Technical Works. Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group. Pyramid Hill.

CAMP, SCOTT AND FURPHY, PTY. LTD, 1984. Lower Loddon Hydrologic Study. Final Report. State

Rivers and Water Supply Commission of Victoria, Armadale. CAMP, SCOTT AND FURPHY, PTY. LTD, 1984. Lower Loddon Hydrologic Study. State Rivers and

Water Supply Commission of Victoria and Lower Loddon Municipalities. CAMPASPE COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, 1992. Campaspe Catchment Salinity Management

Plan. A Draft for Public Comment. Salt Action Victoria, Melbourne. CARY. J.W. AND WILKINSON, R.L. 1992. The Provision of Government Extension Services to the

Victorian Farming Community: A Market Position Study. School of Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, 1991. Agriculture and Victoria's Environment.

Commissioner for the Environment, Melbourne. DECADE OF LANDCARE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE, 1991. Towards Sustainable Land Use ...

A Discussion Paper. Victorian Decade of Landcare, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1990. Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. Research Report.

1989 - 1990. Department of Agriculture, Victoria. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 1992. Water Victoria. A Scare Resource. Department of

Water Resources, Melbourne. EWERS, C. 1988. Laser Grading in the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District: An Innovation Diffusion

Study. Monash Publications in Geography No.25. Department of Geography, Monash University, Melbourne.

FRY, G. 1991. Subsidies and Assistance to Irrigation Farmers in the Loddon Torrumbarry Region.

Rural Water Commission of Victoria, Kerang. HANSEN, 1989. Consultation Processes for Flood Studies: Experience with Using Local Action and

Advisory Groups (LAAGS). Rural Water Commission of Victoria, Armadale. KEVIN, P. 1992. Groundwater and Salinity Processes in the Uplands of the Loddon Catchment.

(Draft). Centre for Land Protection, Bendigo. LANDCARE VICTORIA, 1992. Victoria's Decade of Landcare Plan. Summary. Landcare Victoria,

Melbourne. LANDCARE VICTORIA, 1993. Avoca - Loddon - Campaspe Regional Landcare Plan Landcare

Victoria, Bendigo. LODDON COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, 1992. Loddon Catchment Salinity Management Plan.

A Draft for Public Comment. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne.


LODDON COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, 1992. Loddon Catchment Salinity Management Plan. Summary. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne.

READ STURGESS AND ASSOCIATES, 1991a. Derivation of Economic Demand Schedules for

Irrigation Water in Victoria - Executive Summary. Water Resource Management Report Series. State Water Resources Plan. Report No. 62. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

READ STURGESS AND ASSOCIATES, 1991b. Derivation of Economic Demand Schedules for

Irrigation Water in Victoria. Stage II: Main Report. Water Resource Management Report Series. State Water Resources Plan. Report No. 63. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

READ STURGESS AND ASSOCIATES, 1991c. Derivation of Economic Demand Schedules for

Irrigation Water in Victoria. Stage II: Subsidiary Report. Water Resource Management Report Series. State Water Resources Plan. Report No. 64. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

READ STURGESS AND ASSOCIATES, 1991d. Derivation of Economic Demand Schedules for

Irrigation Water in Victoria. Incorporation of Climatic Variability. Water Resource Management Report Series. State Water Resources Plan. Report No. 65. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

REICHL, P. 1976. The Riverine Plains of Northern Victoria. in Holmes, J. H. Man and the

Environment: Regional Perspectives. Longman. Hawthorn, pp 69 - 95. RENDELL McGUCKIAN, 1992. Boort / West of Loddon Study Area. Economic Survey of Farms.

Technical Report Series No. 209. Victorian Department of Agriculture, Echuca. ROBLEY. A. 1992. Environmental Assessment of the Campaspe Dryland Salinity Management

Planning Area. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bendigo. ROBLEY. A. 1992. Environmental Assessment of the Loddon Dryland Salinity Management Planning

Area. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bendigo. SAIT, S. AND NORMAN, C. 1992. Training Manual for Community Members Participating in the

Tragowel Plains Soil Salinity Survey. Victorian Department of Food and Agriculture, Melbourne.

SALT ACTION, VICTORIA. 1993. Guidelines for Preparing Monitoring Proposals for Salinity

Management Plans. Salt Action Victoria. SALT FORCE, 1988. Salt Action: Joint Action. Victoria's Strategy for Managing Land and Water

Salinity. Salt Force. Government Printer, Melbourne. SALT FORCE, 1988. Salt Threatens Victoria. Salt Force. Government Printer, Melbourne. SCHROEN, J. 1991. Drainage Reuse Systems. Rural Water Commission of Victoria, Armadale. SMITH, G. 1991. Boort West of Loddon Salinity Management Plan. Salinity Management Plan

Steering Committee, Kerang. STONE, S. 1989. New Processes for Public Participation in Water Use Planning. Rural Water

Commission of Victoria, Melbourne. Paper presented at the conference, Total Catchment Management. Is it Working? Wollongong.


TRAGOWEL PLAINS SALINITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP, 1991. Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan. Annual Report 1991/2. Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan Implementation group, Pyramid Hill.

TRAGOWEL PLAINS SALINITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP, 1991.

Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan. Second Annual Report 1992/3. Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan Implementation group, Pyramid Hill.

TRAGOWEL PLAINS SALINITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP, 1992.

Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan. On Farm Incentives. Tragowel Plains Salinity Management Plan Implementation group, Pyramid Hill.

TRAGOWEL PLAINS SUB-REGIONAL WORKING GROUP, (undated). Tragowel Plains Salinity

Management Plan. Supplement to Draft Salinity Management Plan, and Report on Community Consultation and Response to the Draft plan. Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group. Kerang.

TRAGOWEL PLAINS SUB-REGIONAL WORKING GROUP, 1989. Salinity Management Plan.

Tragowel Plains. Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group. Pyramid Hill. TRAGOWEL PLAINS SUB-REGIONAL WORKING GROUP, 1989. Tragowel Plains. Challenge of the

Plains.... Draft Salinity Management Plan. Supporting Technical Works. Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group. Pyramid Hill.

WILKINSON, R. AND BARR, R. 1993. Community Involvement in Catchment Management. An

Evaluation of Community Planning and Consultation in the Victorian Salinity Program. Department of Agriculture, Victoria.

WYATT, G., BARR, N, AND WESTON, R, 1989. The Tragowel Plains. A Study of An Agricultural

Community. Victorian Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Bendigo. b. Goran Catchment Study Area BRADD, J.M. 1993. Determination of Recharge/Discharge Areas and Water/Salt Distribution in

Aquifers of the Liverpool Plains. As part of the National Dryland Salinity Research, Development and Extension Program. School of Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales.

BROUGHTON, A. 1994. Upper Eastern Mooki River Catchment Hydrogeological Investigation and

Dryland Salinity Studies. Department of Water Resources Technical Services Division, Liverpool Plains, New South Wales.

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES. 1994. Managing the Groundwater Resources of the Upper

Namoi Valley, Mooki Valley and Cox's Creek: A Summary of the Revised Policy Proposals. DUGGIN, J.A. AND ALLISON, P.N. 1982. The Natural Grasslands Study of the Liverpool Plains.

Natural Resources Project Report. Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England.

FLAVEL, N.J. 1991. Conservation in Progress: a land manager survey. Contributed paper to the 35th

Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of New England, Armidale. February 11-14, 1991.

NSW LANDCARE WORKING GROUP, 1992. Decade of Landcare. Interim Plan for NSW. Landcare

New South Wales, Sydney.


SIM, I. AND URWIN, N. 1984. The Natural Grasslands of the Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. A Report based on Original Research by J.A. Duggin and P.N. Allison, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England. Department of Environment and Planning, Sydney.

STATE CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE, 1991. TCM -

Coordinating Natural Resource Management in NSW. A Discussion Paper. State Catchment Management Co-ordinating Committee, Sydney.

c. Selected Studies - Australia AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL, 1991. The Environmental Challenge: Sustainable

Businesses in the 1990s. Australian Manufacturing Council Secretariat, Melbourne. AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL, 1992. The Environmental Challenge: Best Practice

Environmental Management. Australian Manufacturing Council Secretariat, Melbourne. AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL, 1992. The Environmental Challenge: Consultation

and Project Development in the 1990s. Australian Manufacturing Council Secretariat, Melbourne.

BLACKET, D. AND HAMILTON, G. 1992. Understanding Farmer Decision Making on Land Use:

Research using focus groups in southern Queensland. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.

COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY, 1992. Development of a National

State of the Environment Reporting System. Discussion Paper. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, 1991. Decade of Landcare Plan. The Commonwealth

Component. AGPS, Canberra. DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY, 1992. The National Landcare Program.

A Discussion Paper. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra. LYLE, C. 1992. Background to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's Irrigation Management

Strategy Study. Paper presented to the Workshop on Socio-economic Issues and Research Needs in the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide.

MEYER, W.S. 1992. Sustainability of Land and Water Resources Used for Australian Irrigated

Agriculture. A Research Strategy Position Paper. CSIRO Division of Water Resources. Water Resources Series No.8. Canberra.

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION, 1992. Irrigation Management Strategy (Draft). Kerang

Regional Study. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. ROBERTS, T. 1992. A Policy and Planning Framework for Addressing Structural Change Adjustment

Issues in the Basin and the Need for Research. Unpublished paper presented to the Workshop on Socio-economic Issues and Research Needs in the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide.

THOMAS, J.F. AND McLEOD, P.B. 1992. Australian Research Priorities in the Urban Water Services

and Utilities. Water Resources Series No.9, CSIRO Division of Water Resources. Canberra. WHITE, D.H. 1994. Managing risk on farms: Living with uncertainty. In Interface. Bureau of Resource

Sciences. Canberra.


WHITE, D.H. 1992. Analysing and Improving Agricultural Systems - Identifying Opportunities and Minimising Risks. Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural Science and the New Zealand Society of Horticultural Science Annual Convention, Agricultural Frontiers - Opportunities and Risks. Lincoln University, 25 - 28 August.

d. Selected Studies - USA BIOCENTRIC, INC. 1985. Communication Survey: Farmers Decision Making Processes in Adoption

Soil and Water Conservation Processes. Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Board, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St Paul.

COOPER, D.T. BOWEN, J.F., ECK, K.J. HILL, P.R., LAKE, J.E. AND SCHOON, C.L. 1991. The MAX -

Farming for Maximum Efficiency. 1991 Indiana Summary. Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, West Lafayette.

NORTHWEST AREA FOUNDATION. 1992. Which Row to Hoe? A Regional Perspective on

Alternative Directions in Commercial Agriculture. An Interim Report- May 1992. Northwest Area Foundation, St Paul.

STATE OF INDIANA, Undated, T by 2000. A Strategy for Dealing with Indiana's Soil Erosion and

Sedimentation Problem. Soil Resource Study Commission, State of Indiana, Purdue. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - EXTENSION, 1989. Nutrient and Pesticide Best practices for

Wisconsin Farms. A-3466. University of Wisconsin - Extension and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - EXTENSION, 1989. Nutrient and Pesticide Best practices for

Wisconsin Farms. Summary and Implementation Framework. A-3467. University of Wisconsin - Extension and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - EXTENSION, 1992. A3557. Nutrient Management. Practices for

Wisconsin Corn Production and Water Quality Protection. University of Wisconsin - Extension, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - EXTENSION, 1992. FARM•A•SYST. Farmstead Assessment System.

University of Wisconsin - Extension, University of Wisconsin - Madison. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 1991. A NonPoint Source Control Plan for

the Lower Grant River Priority Watershed Project. Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison.

***************


Adoption of Best Management Practices for Dryland Salinity. The Need for an Integrated Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of Adoption of Best Management Practices for Dryland Salinity. The Need for an Integrated Environmental...