'Capacity for Change': Testing a Model for the Inclusion of Social Indicators in Australia's National Land and Water Resources Audit

Abstract

The complexity of relationships between social change and natural resource management has generated interest in the identification of indicators that might provide more streamlined means for monitoring and planning. In the case of Australia's National Land and Water Resources Audit, interest has focused on the capacity of resource managers to implement more sustainable resource-use practices. This paper reports on an attempt to develop indicators of 'capacity for change' that are statistically reliable and both meaningful and useful to resource managers at a variety of scales. It will be argued, however, that social, spatial and temporal variability in change processes means that no discrete list of social indicators can achieve this task. At the same time that rigorous testing is needed to challenge common-sense assumptions about who is capable of change and where to target capacity-building programmes, data collection and interpretation must be embedded in processes of ongoing negotiation and adaptation among all those involved in, or affected by, resource management.

A Conceptual Model of Community Capacity for Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes

“…Work across a raft of disciplines addresses community capacity and the associated capitals (for example, Chaskin, 2001; Lockie et al , 2002; Webb and Curtis, 2002; Thomson and Pepperdine, 2003; Beckley et al , 2004). The communities of interest include indigenous, rural and regional people, urban neighbourhoods, local government, families and towns (Beckley et al , 2004).…”

Social factors and private benefits influence landholders' riverine restoration priorities in tropical Australia

“…Government policies are important in influencing landholder receptivity of conservation programs by legitimizing such programs, or by authorizing the use of incentives and removing disincentives to conservation management (Mitchell and Hollick, 1993;Cary and Roberts, 2011). The design of conservation programs, including the consideration of potential risks and uncertainties faced by landholders, is therefore important in achieving desired participation rates (Lockie et al, 2002;Herr et al, 2005). External factors relate to the characteristics of the conservation program itself, as well as landholders' finances and resources.…”

Benchmarking the environmental performance of dairy farming systems

“…Complex indicators that require extensive information and expert knowledge to provide sound environmental performance evaluations are generally not suitable for benchmarking purposes (Bélanger et al, 2012). In the case of benchmarking, indicators should be simple, measureable, accessible, relevant and timely (Lockie et al, 2002). To be more specific, an effective set of indicators to benchmark dairy systems are defined as indicators that are able to assess the major environmental performance of the farms, and able to provide early warning of potential environmental problems; meanwhile, this set of indicators needs to be monitored and collected in a time and cost efficient way, and to be interpreted easily by decision makers.…”

“…An indicator suitable for benchmarking should be relevant, measurable, valid, timely and understandable (Bell and Morse,1999;Lockie et al, 2002). To be more specific, relevant means that the indicator should be able to assess the major environmental performance of the farms; measurable means that the indicator can be quantified with the data that can be monitored and collected in a time and cost efficient way; valid means that the indicator should be measured both accurately and precisely.…”

“…An indicator suitable for benchmarking should be relevant, measurable, valid, timely and understandable (Bell and Morse,1999;Lockie et al, 2002). In the past decades, various indicators have been developed to assess the environmental performance of dairy farming systems.…”