Search

Australian Landcare groups of volunteers, farmers, and other landowners address local conservation and land use issues. In studies of two networks of Landcare groups, networks attracted funding, created opportunities for participation and shared learning, improved communication and management practices, and increased member knowledge. These outcomes were promoted by elements of social capital: trust, norms, linkages, and reciprocity. (Contains 46 references.) (Author/SV)

The usefulness of the spatially referenced socio-economic data collected from individual landholders using mail surveys is tested. The findings of this test have been discussed in detail.

Revegetation of depleted native vegetation can address both salinity mitigation and biodiversity conservation objectives. Financial capacity is a major impediment to landholders undertaking revegetation. We used a mail survey of landholders to examine the potential of enhanced financial incentives for achieving substantially increased revegetation in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria. There was considerable interest in our proposed incentive scheme, with 51 per cent of respondents indicated that they would revegetate some of their property, at a price. Most of the landholders who responded positively to the proposal already intended to undertake some revegetation, with the additional financial incentives enabling them to revegetate a larger area. Across the dryland portion of the catchment, we estimate that, over five years, landholders would revegetate about 19,756 ha at a cost of $18,471,079 ($935 per ha). This is additional to the 7,624 ha of native vegetation that would be re-established without the proposal. However, the total revegetation would not be sufficient to meet biodiversity conservation targets for several high priority vegetation types. Similarly, the proposal is likely to achieve only a marginal improvement to the amount of tree cover in areas of high priority for salinity mitigation. Economic incentives will not therefore, by themselves, enable biodiversity conservation and salinity mitigation targets to be achieved. Incentives need to be integrated with other instruments such as revolving funds, regulations and continued education programs.

Introduction A range of difficult, long-term environmental problems besets rural Australia. Dryland and irrigation salinity, soil erosion, declining water quality, feral pests and exotic weeds are impacting on agricultural productivity, [...]

Land care is essentially a system of volunteer organisations that is loosely coordinated at state and regional levels. The apparent success of Landcare has seen groups become an important delivery mechanism for the Natural Heritage Trust and other initiatives. In this article the author draws upon research in Victoria to argue that we are approaching the limits of what can realistically be expected of Landcare groups. Data were derived from state-wide surveys of Victorian groups between 1991 and 1998 and three 1999 regional case-studies in Corangamite, Glenelg and Goulburn/Broken. Survey data highlighted the extent most groups were operating at historically high activity levels and established a significant positive relationship between activity and government funding. Landcare work takes time and energy, particularly for group leaders, and given existing commitments to work, family and other volunteer organisations, it seems unlikely that current activity levels are sustainable. Survey data highlighted important program management issues that must be addressed as part of a more coherent and determined approach to supporting Landcare.

The authors discuss their work evaluating two Australian natural resource management programs, the Riverine Environment Investigation and Education Program and the Farm Forestry Program. Topics include evaluation methodology, program effectiveness, project outcomes and management, and problems with program performance.

Landcare groups help in sustainable resource management and to increase landholders' awareness of land degradation issues. Multivariate analysis shows that landcare respondents are more concerned about tree planting and soil tests. The difference in the stewardship ethic of participants and nonparticipants is significant. With limited resources, these groups are doing fine work. Government aid is inadequate and it is impossible to manage land degradation only by changing landholders' attitudes.

Landcare groups emerged in Victoria - Australia's second most populous state - during 1986 (Campbell 1991) and have been embraced by governments throughout Australia as a model for effective community [...]