Search

Grazing in the Fitzroy region has reduced ground cover and increased the exposure of erosion features to terrestrial water flows, resulting in gullies. The run-off that results from such soil degradation has led to elevated levels of sediment in the Great Barrier Reef, adversely affecting the health of the reef. Strategies to reduce gully erosion include: decreasing stocking rates on grazing land, revegetation of erosion features and the implementation of specific infrastructure including fencing and earth works. Using data provided by the Fitzroy Basin Association Inc., this paper presents a case study of the cost effectiveness of gully remediation at six properties across the Fitzroy. Our results reveal a broad range of cost effectiveness among these sites, highlighting the importance of both the selection of policy mechanism and the need for targeted remediation measures. The pattern of cost effectiveness for these sites also raises the possibility of economies of scale in gully work, which could indicate funding advantages from targeting projects that address large volumes of gully erosion. Finally, the magnitude of the costs per unit of sediment reduction at these sites indicates the need to consider a broad spectrum of policy responses to reduce sediment export to the reef. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Best-worst scaling used to assess preferences of Australian meat consumers. • Experiment involved 16 statements covering a range of product and credence attributes. • Most important factors are 'health' followed by 'quality and price'. • Concerns over greenhouse gas emissions were not as important. This research explores if the greenhouse emissions associated with meat production are particularly important to Australian consumers relative to a number of other factors. As well as price and quality aspects, we tested the interest in greenhouse issues relative to other credence goods relating to environmental, health and animal welfare aspects of meat production and consumption. A best-worst scaling analysis was selected over other non-market valuation approaches because of the ability to analyse relative influences of different factors on preferences. A total of 1200 participants across all states and territories in Australia were randomly drawn to participate in an online survey and, of them, 1101 completed the best-worst choice experiment. Both the counting approach and conditional logit paired model were applied to analyse the data. Based on the best-worst score, our results suggest that the factors nominated by Australian consumers as most important to them in their meat purchasing decisions are 'health' followed by 'quality and price'. Results indicate that concerns about greenhouse footprints from meat production are important but much lower relative to other factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]