New Directions in Environmental Policy

Bardsley, Peter; Chaudhri, Vivek; Stoneham, Gary; Strappazzon, Loris

doi:10.22459/ag.09.03.2002.02

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to our survey, however, while other tree arrangements were planted by over two-thirds of respondents, strips were planted by fewer than half. This result conflicts dramatically with local experience, the emphases of revegetation policy programs (Bardsley et al 2002;Curtis and De Lacy 1998), and the literature. For instance, Schirmer et al (in review-a) found that landholders more frequently managed in order to retain patches and strips in the landscape than to retain isolated trees.…”

Section: Relationships Between Attitudes and Behaviourcontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…Where tree cover degradation has already occurred, revegetation is encouraged through incentive programs (Bennett et al 2000;Munro et al 2009). Most of the planting sponsored in recent years by key government programs such as the National Landcare Program and the Natural Heritage Trust was planted in strips along existing fences or creeks, to provide multiple benefits and reduce fencing costs (Bardsley et al 2002;Curtis and De Lacy 1998;Freudenberger et al 2004).…”

Section: Relationships Between Attitudes and Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, the footprint of agriculture is higher than that of any other land use, making the local decisions of millions of farmers a global force for achieving the maintenance of ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to attempt to reconcile conflicts between production and conservation. Offset policies operate on the principle of habitat substitutability, but little work has considered whether those targeted by such policies perceive nature that way. For instance, do landholders perceive trees of different arrangements, ages or species to be interchangeable? We used a large-scale landholder survey to understand how graziers manage their farm trees, and whether their beliefs are amenable to substitution. Three natural clusters were found, that: (A) liked a tidy farm but did not differentiate trees by species, age or arrangement; (B) strongly supported the need for diversity in tree cover; and, (C) preferred woodlands and connective strips to sparse trees. Those positions were consistent with their beliefs about the costs and benefits of different arrangements of trees, but were largely inconsistent with their declared tree planting and protection activities. Tree management activities were more easily explained by commodity (pro-woodland graziers (C) were most likely to be cropping) or by career stage and what that meant for time and money resources to do conservation work (contrasting A and B). Offset policies and policy incentives encouraging vegetative heterogeneity would motivate at least these first two clusters, helping to sustain a diversity of tree cover and thus ecosystem services on farms.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract

Section: Relationships Between Attitudes and Behaviourcontrasting

confidence: 59%

Section: Relationships Between Attitudes and Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite these values, to date, agencies have addressed tree decline in the region by funding the protection of large patches (Spooner et al, 2002;Spooner and Briggs, 2008) or the planting of linear strips, typically along fences or creeks (Bennett et al, 2000;Munro et al, 2009). Large patches and linear plantings have been favoured by a sequence of government programs including the National Landcare Program (Curtis and De Lacy, 1998) and the Natural Heritage Trust (Bardsley et al, 2002), as well as by the non-governmental conservation sector, in particular Greening Australia. The perpetuation of scattered trees has recently been identified as an important complementary priority (Fischer et al, 2009a;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using photography to elicit grazier values and management practices relating to tree survival and recruitment

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIntegrating conservation and agricultural production is a major challenge globally. The upper Lachlan catchment of Australia is dominated by livestock grazing, and is threatened because most native woodland vegetation has been cleared. A third of all remaining tree cover occurs as scattered trees in grazing pastures. These scattered trees are dying from old age and are not regenerating due to grazing pressure. Previous work has revealed management strategies that are more likely to maintain tree cover, such as low-input rotational grazing. We asked graziers to photograph significant features on their properties, and used the images as prompts in later interviews. This elicited graziers' landscape values and other drivers of their management practices related to tree cover. The targets that our 25 case landholders chose to photograph, and the ways they discussed them in later interviews, reflected the focus of past education and incentive programs, suggesting that well-designed policies, educational messages and incentives do seem to reach landholders and result in improved practices. For example, many landholders reported management activities related to the protection of large woodland patches or the maintenance of coarse woody debris. The maintenance of scattered tree cover has not been a focus of policy initiatives in the past. Despite this, the narratives elicited by photos of isolated and scattered trees showed graziers valued them and were aware of and concerned about their decline, yet lacked knowledge about how to protect and regenerate them. Graziers urgently need unambiguous advice and practical assistance to help them adapt their practices to maintain scattered trees in the long term.

show abstract

“…The costs of conservation, therefore, are a cost of production that ought to be internalized and passed on to consumers. However, it is argued, imperfect information, inadequately defined property rights, and/or pricing of natural resource inputs below their full economic and environmental cost all create incentives to over-utilise (Bardsely et al, 2002;Scott, 1998). Of course, market reform is not always possible in the short to medium term and a case may still be made for public expenditure in order to encourage structural adjustment or to purchase distinctly public goods.…”

Section: The Promise Of 'The Market'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of course, market reform is not always possible in the short to medium term and a case may still be made for public expenditure in order to encourage structural adjustment or to purchase distinctly public goods. The second argument in favour of MBIs suggests that, under such circumstances, market mechanisms offer the most efficient and effective means for the allocation of resources as they create incentives to individuals which encourage competition, creativity and innovation (Bardsely et al, 2002;Dargusch and Griffiths, 2008). Regulation, conversely, is dismissed as cumbersome, blunt and ineffective.…”

Section: The Promise Of 'The Market'mentioning

confidence: 99%