Integrating spatially referenced social and biophysical data to explore

landholder responses to dryland salinity in Australia

Allan Curtis*, Ian Byron, Simon McDonald

Bureau of Rural Sciences, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia, P.O. Box E11 Kingston, ACT 2604, Australia

Received 18 March 2002; revised 29 April 2002; accepted 30 April 2003

Abstract

Researchers attempting to integrate socio-economic data in watershed planning often draw on nationally collected census data. However,

there are critical limitations to the usefulness of this type of data for decision makers operating at the watershed scale. In this paper we

demonstrate the relevance of spatially referenced socio-economic data collected using mail surveys to random selections of rural landholders.

The issue explored was dryland salinity management in two large watersheds in the Murray-Darling Basin of south-eastern Australia.

Contrary to the assumptions underlying public policy in Australia, but consistent with the literature on farmer knowledge, comparisons of

expert maps and landholder identified salinity sites suggested that landholders in these watersheds had excellent knowledge of the current

extent of salinity on their property. Our research also suggested that salinity education was a sound investment by governments. At the same

time, the expert maps failed to predict half of the saline affected sites identified by landholders. Accurately mapping the extent of salinity

would seem a first step in addressing this nationally significant land degradation issue.

q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dryland salinity; Australia; Watershed management; Integration

1. Introduction

In this paper we discuss research in two large watersheds

in the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) of south-eastern

Australia. Our research explored the assumptions that

private landholders were often unaware of insidious issues

such as dryland salinity (Vanclay, 1992); and that low levels

of awareness and concern were important reasons for

limited action by private landholders (MDBC, 1990). This

research examining landholder awareness of dryland

salinity, the veracity of expert maps, and the efficacy of

community education programs forms part of the wider

international literature on farmer knowledge (Kloppenburg,

1991; Thompson and Scoones, 1994) and adoption (Roling,

1988; Vanclay, 1992).

Most researchers attempting to integrate socio-econ-

omic data in watershed planning have drawn on

nationally collected census data (Radeloff et al., 2000).

There are critical limitations to the usefulness of census

data, usually available at the local government scale, for

decision makers wanting to understand and change

individual landholder behaviour (Schultz et al., 1998).

In our MDB case studies, we integrated expert data about

saline affected areas and information provided by land-

holders through a mail survey process. The principal

purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the usefulness of

this spatially referenced socio-economic data collected

from individual landholders.

2. Background

The management of dryland salinity is now recognised as

a major challenge facing Australia, particularly in the MDB,

often referred to as Australia’s food bowl. On a scale that is

comparable with the Colorado River Basin, the MDB

embraces substantial areas of the states of New South

Wales, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Queensland,

Victoria and South Australia. Research suggests that more

land will be affected by dryland salinity in the near future,

placing even greater pressure on water quality, agricultural

production, biodiversity, infrastructure and cultural heritage

(MDBC, 1999).

0301-4797/03/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00108-7

Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61-2-6272-33-82.

E-mail address: allan.curtis@brs.gov.au (A. Curtis).

Although the Commonwealth (federal) government has

greater financial resources, natural resource management

authority rests primarily with the governments of the six

Australian states and two territories (ACT and the Northern

Territory). By 1992, most Australian states had established

regional Catchment Management Committees (CMC).

CMC members are mostly Ministerial appointees, fre-

quently including a mix of regional community representa-

tives and agency staffers. CMC are responsible for

developing and implementing regional catchment strategies

that guide the expenditure of state and Commonwealth

natural resource management funds (Curtis and Lockwood,

2000; Ewing, 2000).

As part of a national response to dryland salinity, the

Commonwealth and State governments recently committed

1.4 billion dollars Australian over seven years through a

National Action Plan for salinity and water quality (NAP).

Most of the NAP investment decisions will be devolved to

the regional CMC. Prior to the NAP there had been large

investments in natural resource management programs by

Commonwealth and State governments through the

National Landcare Program and subsequently, the Natural

Heritage Trust (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Again,

dryland salinity was a priority issue.

A key assumption underpinning these programs is that

landholders are frequently unaware of the extent and impact

of less obvious forms of land degradation, such as dryland

salinity and soil acidity (MDBC, 1990; ASCC, 1991). For

much of the past twenty years, community education

activities to raise awareness and understanding of issues

have been an important element of these programs.

This research was a collaborative effort between the

authors, staff from the State Department of Natural

Resources and Environment (DNRE), the two regional

Catchment Management Authorities (CMC) and private

landholders. These partnerships facilitated the integration of

socio-economic data collected using mail surveys to private

rural landholders and other data layers held within DNRE

and by DNRE partners, including the large consulting firm,

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM). The SKM data layers had just

been compiled as part of the work SKM completed for the

Murray–Darling Basin Commission’s seminal salinity audit

(MDBC, 1999).

3. Situation

Our discussion in this paper draws on research in two

adjacent watersheds in the North East region of the state of

Victoria

1. Goulburn Broken Watershed (GBW); and

2. Ovens Watershed (OW). (Fig. 1)

The GBW covers 2.3 million hectares (17 per cent of

the state of Victoria), including 1.9 million hectares of

non-irrigated land that is referred to as the Goulburn Broken

Dryland (GBD). The research reported in this paper for the

GBW was undertaken in the GBD. The OW covers a

smaller area of 780,000 ha of largely non-irrigated land.

Both watersheds begin on the continental side of the

Australian Alps at elevations around 2000 m ASL, and fall

through a series of river valleys towards the westerly flowing

Murray river at around 200 m ASL. The climate is typical of

south-eastern Australia, with hot, dry summers and cool, wet

winters, but there are significant variations with altitude, in

that temperatures are lower and rainfall higher in the

mountains. Much of the mountains and foothills are covered

in eucalypt forests and most of these areas are publicly

owned. European systems of agriculture on privately owned

land dominate the lower elevations and this land has little

remaining native vegetation. There are important areas of

irrigated agriculture, mostly horticulture and dairying, but

dryland farming for sheep and cattle grazing and broad acre

cropping (canola, wheat) occupy most cleared land. Primary

production and associated processing industries, and tourism

are the main contributors to economic wealth. Agricultural

production from these watersheds contributes more that 25

per cent of Victoria’s total export income.

In both watersheds there are numerous small towns

(population ,3,000) and at least one regional city

(Wangaratta with 15,000 and Shepparton with 35,000).

There has been considerable rural subdivision (Melbourne

has a population of 3.5 millions and is between two and four

hours away by car) and substantial proportions of properties

in both watersheds are operated as lifestyle as opposed to

farming enterprises. Both the GBW and OW support major

agricultural industries, food processing, forestry (including

pine plantations) and tourism activities. Soil erosion, water

logging and dryland salinity have been some of the

unintended consequence of land clearing in both watersheds.

The GBW and OW represented an ideal setting for

research exploring awareness and concern about dryland

salinity. This is a priority issue in both watersheds and as

adjacent watersheds, they share similar environmental,

socio-economic and political contexts. At the same time,

there are important contextual differences. Compared to the

GBW, dryland salinity in the OW emerged later (post 1990)

and is expected to have less severe off-site impacts. The

GBW has been identified as the largest contributor of saline

discharges into the River Murray (MDBC, 1999, p.20).

There has been a substantial investment in the OW for

research, community education (for example, field days,

farm walks, monitoring programs, schools education,

property planning) and on-ground work to address dryland

salinity. However, this investment occurred much later and

on a much smaller scale than was the case in the GBW.

Indeed, the GBW has been the focus of one of the most

sophisticated and concerted efforts by government agencies,

community organisations and landholders to address

dryland salinity in Australia. In recent years, around 60

per cent of federal and state funds expended on natural

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407398

resource management in Victoria have been invested in the

GBW (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000). Much of this invest-

ment, including at least $20 million over the past 15 years,

has been focussed on dryland salinity.

Current recommended practices (CRP) expected to

improve the management of dryland salinity by private

landholders in the GBW and OW include; the revegetation

of recharge and discharge zones; adoption of farm forestry;

replacing annual pastures with perennial pastures (mostly

introduced); and intensifying grazing to increase water use

(GBCMA 1996; GBCLPB 1996; OBWQWG 2000a,b).

4. Problem and purpose

Researchers have established a significant association

between increased awareness of land degradation issues and

landholder adoption of practices likely to ameliorate those

issues (Vanclay, 1992; Curtis and De Lacy, 1996). It has

also been established that most landholders are more

concerned about off-property and district impacts of land

degradation compared to on-property impacts (Vanclay,

1992; Curtis et al., 2002). These findings have been

interpreted as evidence of landholder denial of on-property

Fig. 1. Location of Goulburn Broken and Ovens watersheds in south eastern Australia.

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 399

problems and this was seen as an important explanation for

the reluctance of landholders to respond to dryland salinity

(Vanclay, 1992).

Attempts to integrate socio-economic and biophysical

data to inform watershed management usually rely on

census data. This type of analysis can yield useful

information (Radeloff et al., 2000), but is unlikely to

contribute to improved understanding of landholder beha-

viour, including assessments of landholder awareness of

natural resource issues, that is required by watershed

management decision makers. In the first instance, it is

difficult for state or national data collection processes, such

as the household and farm census, to address most of the

topics for which data is needed. Curtis et al. (2001) found

that information from landholders about their awareness and

concern about issues, values attached to their land or

property, knowledge of processes or management practices,

confidence in recommended practices, and long-term plans

was critical for effective watershed management. Secondly,

information that is collected by existing processes such as

the household and farm census is usually only available at a

local government scale and has limited application when the

task is to unravel decision making by individual landholders

(Schultz et al., 1998). A final limitation is that census data is

collected intermittently, every five years in Australia, and

with the time lag between collection and release of data,

available information can be up to eight years out of-date.

For example, in Australia, the most recent census were in

1996 and 2001. However, the Australian government is still

using 1996 data for some topics where the Australian

Bureau of Statistics has not released 2001 data.

Despite the limitations of census data, there have been

few attempts to directly capture and integrate spatially

referenced socio-economic data to address watershed

management issues. There are important difficulties related

to the high costs of data collection (Schultz et al., 1998);

difficulties inherent in building the partnerships required to

access different data layers, including legitimate concerns

about the loss of intellectual property rights and breaching

the confidentiality of personal information.There are also

concerns that alternate data collection instruments, such as

mail surveys to rural landholders, can achieve response rates

that will engender confidence that data collected is

representative (Curtis et al., 2001).

There is some discussion in this paper of the broader

aspects of landholder adoption of current recommended

practices (CRP) to address dryland salinity. However, the

focus of the paper is on the outcomes of efforts to integrate

spatially referenced socio-economic and biophysical data

layers. The key research questions were

1. What proportion of landholders thought they had areas

where vegetation was affected by dryland salinity?

2. What proportion of landholders was unaware that they had

areas affected by dryland salinity according to the expert

maps (discharge sites and depth to saline groundwater)?

3. How successful were the expert maps in predicting the

areas affected by dryland salinity that were identified by

the landholders?

4. Was awareness of saline affected areas or the extent

of concern about dryland salinity linked to adoption of

CRP?

The experience gained through our research in these two

watersheds therefore has wider relevance for social research

and watershed management. Indeed, the Commonwealth

and State governments in Australia are drawing on this

experience to undertake a national watershed project

coordinated by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, a Common-

wealth government research organisation.

5. Methods

5.1. The mail survey processes

This research used a mail survey to collect information

from rural landholders in the GBW and OW watersheds. The

GBW survey was completed during 1999 and the OW

survey in 2001. There was therefore the opportunity to learn

from experience and refine the research methodology. At the

same time, some caution needs to be exercised when making

direct comparisons between data from the two watersheds,

particularly information about on-property profitability that

could be expected to have improved since 1999 as cattle

prices, and more recently wool prices have firmed.

As part of the process of identifying variables to be

included in the mailed survey, the research team examined

regional and state planning documents, held discussions with

industry partners and other key stakeholders and conducted a

search of literature on adoption of CRP for dryland salinity.

We also drew on the experience of the research team with

farm forestry, introduced and native perennial grasses and

revegetation with native species (Curtis and De Lacy, 1996;

Curtis and Race, 1996; Millar and Curtis, 1997).

The main topics included in the 12-page survey booklets

relevant to this paper included.

† Importance of issues affecting property and district.

† Self-assessment of knowledge for different topics.

† Awareness of on-property salinity. Survey respondents

were asked two questions

1. Was there any part of their property where vegetation

was showing signs of the effects of salinity?

2. What was the area of land where vegetation was

showing signs of the effects of salinity?

† Adoption of current recommended practices (CRP).

† Background socio-economic data.

In early 1999 when the GBW study commenced we

contacted the eight local government councils and

asked them to assist with the compilation of our mailing

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407400

list. This process met with limited success. At this time,

local governments in Victoria were being amalgamated and

some of the new entities were not able to provide revised

ratepayer lists. The next best option was to use Country Fire

Authority (CFA) rural property maps to identify rural

landholders and then use Commonwealth electoral rolls and

phone books to source their postal addresses. The major

limitation with the CFA maps was that they were a little out-

of-date. Using this process, a total of 6,449 rural properties

were identified for the dryland areas (GBD) in the GBW.

These property listings were entered into a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet and a random sample of 1,640 properties

(approximately 25 per cent) was generated.

By the time we commenced the OW study in early 2001

the local government amalgamations of 1999 had been

bedded down. The OW covered three local government

councils and their staff agreed to provide access to their

ratepayer data bases that included a property identification

field for most properties. This field was then matched to

cadastral boundaries in Arcview GIS (Geographic Infor-

mation System). The centroids of these cadastral boundaries

were calculated and were then representative of the location

of each landholder. A total of 8,658 rural properties were

identified in the OW. From this list a random sample of

1,000 properties (approximately 12 per cent) was generated

with matching postal addresses.

The survey design and mail-out processes followed

Dillman, 1979 Total Design Method. Pre-testing of the

survey instrument was undertaken using a number of small

group workshops with landholders who had been identified

by agency and industry partners. The initial survey mail out

was followed by up to three reminder/thank you cards in

successive weeks. A second mail out, with one reminder/

thank you card, was undertaken to all non-respondents to the

first mail out.

Surveys that were returned to sender or sent back due to

the landholder no longer residing at the property were

removed from the original sample. Cases where landholders

that were too old, ill, deceased, the property was a

residential lot (considered by the agency staff involved to

be ,4 ha in the GBW and ,10 ha in the OW) or the

property had been sold were also removed from the original

sample. In the GBW study, a final sample of 1,021 was left.

With 480 completed surveys returned, the overall response

rate was 47 per cent. In the OW, a final sample of 854 was

left. With 568 completed surveys returned, the final

response rate was 67 per cent.

5.2. Data analysis

Findings presented in this paper are derived from

analyses undertaken using a range of descriptive statistics

and binary logistic regression. All analyses were

undertaken using the SPSS statistical package.

Mail survey data were also entered into an Arcview

GIS that contained other data layers, including salinity

discharge sites provided by DNRE (Allan et al., 1997;

CLPR, 2000), and depth to water table and ground water

salinity levels (SKM, 2000). The discharge maps (Allan

et al., 1997; CLPR, 2000), had been compiled over time

employing a mix of air photo interpretation and intensive

field inspections by agency staff and consultants. At this

point it should be noted that there was a two to three year

time lag between the preparation of the discharge maps in

each watershed and the mail out of the landholder survey.

It was expected that the discharge maps would slightly

under-estimate the extent of saline affected vegetation in

both watersheds. The depth to water table and ground

water salinity level data layers (SKM, 2000) had been

prepared using interpretations of time-series data from a

network of bores and other hydrogeological information.

These data layers had been prepared at much the same

time as the landholder survey and were assumed to be up-

to-date. It was beyond the scope of this research to test

the validity or reliability of the data layers provided by

SKM or DNRE.

The expert and mail survey data layers were then used in

analyses comparing landholder identified dryland salinity

affected areas with salinity mapping by experts. This

assessment involved comparing landholder proximity

(using a spatial intersection) to two types of salinity prone

areas.

1. a 1 km buffer of the discharge layer (for both the GBW

and OW); and

2. an intersection using the Geoprocessing Wizard of

areas with a level of total dissolved salt of 3501 mg/l

and areas with a water table less than 2 m from the

surface (data layers only available for GBW).

A 1 km buffer was adopted to provide some margin of

error when comparing the location of discharge sites

mapped on a 1:25,000 sheet with landholder reported saline

affected sites that could only be mapped as a property

location. Two metres is the widely accepted threshold for

saline ground water to affect surface vegetation (MDBC,

1999, p.2). Salinity tolerance varies with vegetation type,

however, the MDBC (1999) study accepted that ground

water with a total dissolved salt content higher than

3501 mg/l will affect most perennial vegetation on farms

(Hoxley pers. comm.).

6. Discussion of findings

6.1. Dryland salinity reported by landholders

In the GBW study, 13 per cent of the respondents ðN ¼

456; n ¼ 61Þ said they had areas on their property where

vegetation showed signs of the effects of salinity. For most

respondents, the area affected was relatively small (median

of 4 ha). A similar picture emerged in the OW study, with 11

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 401

per cent of respondents ðN ¼ 550; n ¼ 62Þ reporting they

had areas of vegetation on their property that showed the

effects of salinity (Table 1). Widespread clearing of native

vegetation occurred pre-1900 in the GBW, much earlier

than in the OW and it was expected that dryland salinity

would affect a larger proportion of land in the GBW. This

hypothesis was confirmed by the finding that the area of

saline affected land reported by landholders was smaller in

the OW (median of 2 ha). However, less than one per cent of

the area surveyed was reported as being affected by dryland

salinity in either watershed.

6.2. What proportion of landholders was unaware that they

had areas affected by dryland salinity according

to the expert maps?

Analyses using maps of salinity discharge sites provided

by DNRE (Allan et al., 1997; CLPR, 2000), and depth to

ground water and ground water salinity (SKM, 2000)

suggested that respondents had a very high level of

awareness and preparedness to acknowledge current,

visible, dryland salinity impacts.

† Five per cent ðN ¼ 395; n ¼ 18Þ of those in the GBW

and 10 per cent ðN ¼ 481; n ¼ 47Þ of those in the OW

who reported no areas with vegetation that showed the

effects of salinity were within one kilometre of

a discharge site identified on DNRE maps.

† In the GBW, only six (1.52 per cent) of those who

reported no areas with vegetation that showed the effects

of salinity had ground water within two metres of the

surface and a total dissolved salt content higher than

3501 mg/l as mapped by SKM (SKM, 2000).

Overall, the expert maps appeared to contradict the

claims by six per cent ðn ¼ 24Þ of GBW respondents and 10

per cent ðn ¼ 47Þ of OW respondents who said they had no

areas where vegetation showed the effects of salinity

(Fig. 2). Assuming the expert maps are correct, that is

they didn’t incorrectly predict salinity, these respondents

were ‘unaware’ they had saline affected areas. In other

words, almost 90 per cent of the respondents who said they

had no areas currently affected by salinity were correct

according to the expert maps. It seems that landholders have

a very accurate level of awareness of the areas currently

affected by dryland salinity. This finding is contrary to

earlier research suggesting farmers are not aware of salinity

and/or are not prepared to acknowledge the extent of salinity

problems (Vanclay, 1992).

We also explored the extent that there were differences

between those who were aware that they had saline affected

areas and the ‘unaware’ group identified above. These

analyses suggested that those respondents who were aware

of salinity affected areas were significantly more likely to

operate larger properties, work more hours on-property, be

Landcare members (local or community-based watershed

organisations) and report work funded by government

(Table 2).

The lack of awareness displayed by a small number of

landholders (24 in the GBW and 47 in the OW) may be

explained by the possibilities listed below.

† Those with lower awareness spend fewer hours in on-

property management and may not have identified saline

affected areas.

† Some landholders cannot identify the subtle changes in

vegetation that indicate dryland salinity.

† People may be in denial and do not want to acknowledge

they had saline affected areas.

† The expert maps have falsely predicted saline affected

areas.

There has been a large, almost unprecedented level of

investment over more than a decade in community

education about dryland salinity in the GBW. Landcare

groups have operated for at least 15 years in the OW (Curtis

and De Lacy, 1996) and there has been a strong salinity

education focus over the past five years through these

groups and government funded extension programs. It

seems that the investment in community education in both

watersheds has contributed to the high levels of awareness

of dryland salinity identified in this paper.

6.3. Did the expert maps predict landholder identified

dryland salinity?

There was also the opportunity to examine the efficacy of

the expert maps by assessing their capacity to predict areas

affected by salinity as identified by landholders (Fig. 3).

With the two to three year time lag between the preparation

of the discharge maps and the landholder survey it was

expected that the expert maps would slightly under-estimate

saline affected areas. This issue was not expected to be as

Table 1

Comparing landholder perceptions of salinity with expert maps Goulburn

Broken Watershed 1999 ðN ¼ 480Þ; Ovens Watershed 2001 ðN ¼ 568Þ

Topic GBW OW

Number of respondents to question about

salinity

456 550

% who reported no saline affected areas

on property

87% 89%

% who reported a salt problem 13% 11%

% who reported no salinity but expert

maps differed

6% 10%

% who reported a salt problem but

expert maps didn’t show a saline

affected area

51% 61%

% who said no salinity but expert

maps predict a salinity problem in

the future

19% N/A

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407402

Fig. 2. Landholders report no saline affected areas compared with expert maps Goulburn Broken Watershed (data collected in 1999) and Ovens Watershed

(data collected in 2001).

Table 2

Comparing those who reported dryland salinity with those the expert maps suggested were unaware they had saline affected areas Goulburn Broken Watershed

1999 ðN ¼ 480Þ; Ovens Watershed 2001 ðN ¼ 568Þ

Social and farming variables Ovens Watershed Goulburn Broken Watershed

Aware Unaware Siga Aware Unaware Siga

Property size (median) 258 ha 132 ha p , 0:05 390 ha 51 ha p , 0:001

Hours worked on-property (median) No significant difference 45 h 25 h p , 0:05

% Landcare members 75% 51% p , 0:05 No significant difference

Involved in government funded program 57% 26% p , 0:001 No significant difference

a Significant using Kruskal–Wallis Chi-square test.

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 403

important in the GBW where there was the more up-to-date

SKM data layers.

The expert maps correctly predicted areas where salinity

was affecting vegetation for 49 per cent ðN ¼ 61; n ¼ 30Þ

of the GBW and 39 per cent ðN ¼ 62; n ¼ 24Þ of the OW

respondents that reported saline affected areas. This

research suggests that the expert maps had failed to predict

between 50 and 60 per cent of the areas affected by salinity

in the two watersheds.

It is unlikely that landholders would deliberately over-

state the extent of salinity on their property. However, there

is a possibility that some landholders have failed to

distinguish between water logged and saline affected

areas. As Clark (2000) explained, some salt-tolerant species

grow in both saline and non-saline conditions. At the very

least, the finding that the expert maps failed to predict a

large proportion of the saline affected areas identified by

landholders warrants further survey work. The budget and

scope of the two projects reported in this paper did not

permit this work to be undertaken.

Most of the landholder identified saline sites that were

not predicted by the expert maps (GBW, N ¼ 31; OW,

N ¼ 38) are located south east of the Hume Freeway in the

foothills of the Great Dividing Range (GBW, n ¼ 20; OW,

Fig. 3. Landholder reported saline affected areas not predicted by expert maps Goulburn Broken Watershed (data collected in 1999) and Ovens Watershed (data

collected in 2001).

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407404

n ¼ 30) (Figs. 1 and 2). This was a statistically significant

pattern in the OW ðChi-square ¼ 18:635 p , 0:001Þ and a

trend in the GBW ðChi-square ¼ 3:503 p ¼ 0:061Þ: Discus-

sions with our agency partners revealed that salinity

problems emerged earlier on the plains to the north west

of the Hume Freeway and that this is the area where most

resources have been invested in field studies to identify

saline sites.

6.4. Concern about salinity

In the GBW study, respondents expressed low levels of

concern about a range of potential economic, environmental

and social impacts of dryland salinity (using a five point

response option, mean scores for each topic were below 2.6

out of a possible five). For example, only 32 per cent of

respondents said they were ‘alarmed’, ‘very concerned’ or

‘concerned’ about the potential threat posed by rising water

tables on the long-term productive capacity of their property

(Table 3).

In the OW study, respondents were asked to provide an

assessment of the importance of a range of issues, including

dryland salinity. Respondents were asked to indicate the

importance of dryland salinity as a threat to the quality of

river water in their district, the long-term productive

capacity of land in their district and the long-term

productive capacity of their property. Dryland salinity was

not rated highly as an important issue in the OW (Table 3),

with mean scores for the three topics below 2.8 out of a

possible 5. The highest rating salinity statement was ranked

nine out of 16 statements.

It seems that low levels of concern in the GBW and OW

about the impacts of dryland salinity reflect the current

restricted extent of visible dryland salinity (MDBC, 1999).

Most respondents were not experiencing visible salinity

problems and the majority of those that were experiencing

problems, had only small areas where salinity had affected

vegetation. It seems that many respondents believe they can

‘live with salt’.While respondents have very good aware-

ness of current saline affected areas they may not be aware

of the predicted increase in the area affected by dryland

salinity. For example, the most recent assessments predict

that over the next 20 years the area affected by salinity in the

GBW will increase by 160 per cent (MDBC, 1999, p.30).

Unfortunately, there was no way for us to assess whether

individuals who said that they don’t have saline affected

areas can be expected to have a problem in the future. The

MDBC (1999) had predicted the total area of land in GBW

that was likely to be affected by dryland salinity in the future

using bore data that monitors rising water tables. This

approach meant that it was not possible to identify the

specific parts of the landscape, and therefore individual

properties, where salinity was expected to impact in the

future.

For the GBW we were able to assess the extent that

landholders currently without saline affected areas areTab

le3

Conce

rnab

out

the

impac

tof

dry

land

sali

nit

yG

oulb

urn

Bro

ken

Wat

ersh

ed1999ðN

¼4

80Þ;

Oven

sW

ater

shed

2001ðN

¼5

68Þ

Po

ten

tial

imp

acts

of

risi

ng

wat

erta

ble

sn

Goulb

urn

Bro

ken

Wat

ersh

edM

ean

sco

rea

Ala

rmed

(%)

Ver

yco

nce

rned

(%)

Med

ium

con

cern

(%)

Sm

all

con

cern

(%)

No

ta

pro

ble

m(%

)

Th

reat

toth

elo

ng

-ter

mp

rod

uct

ive

capac

ity

of

this

area

.4

44

72

12

12

23

12

.51

Po

llu

tin

gfr

esh

gro

und

wat

erin

this

area

.4

42

10

18

17

19

37

2.4

4

Th

reat

toth

elo

ng

-ter

mv

iabil

ity

of

the

loca

lec

on

om

y.

44

25

19

20

24

32

2.4

1

Con

trib

uti

ng

toth

ed

ecli

ne

of

hab

itat

or

wil

dli

fein

this

area

.4

43

61

51

92

43

62

.32

Det

ract

ing

from

attr

acti

ven

ess

of

area

asa

pla

ceto

live.

443

31

22

12

53

92.1

6

Red

uci

ng

the

val

ue

of

my

pro

per

ty.

44

35

12

16

24

43

2.1

2

Thre

atto

long-t

erm

pro

duct

ive

capac

ity

of

my

pro

per

ty.

442

41

41

42

34

52.0

9

Per

ceiv

edth

reat

of

sali

nit

yn

Oven

sW

ater

shed

Mea

nsc

ore

Ver

yim

po

rtan

t%

Imp

ort

ant%

So

me%

Min

imal

%N

ot

imp

ort

ant%

Thre

atto

long-t

erm

pro

duct

ive

capac

ity

of

land

inth

isdis

tric

t.538

18

33

20

14

15

2.7

5

Th

reat

toth

eq

ual

ity

of

riv

erw

ater

inth

isd

istr

ict.

53

42

53

61

61

21

12

.48

Thre

atto

long-t

erm

pro

duct

ive

capac

ity

of

my

pro

per

ty535

38

33

13

10

62.1

4

aS

core

wh

ere

1¼

no

ta

pro

ble

m/n

ot

imp

ort

ant

thro

ug

hto

5¼

alar

med

/ver

yim

po

rtan

t.

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 405

located in areas that have saline ground water. Assuming

that in every case this ground water would rise to within two

metres of the surface, an additional 76 GBW respondents

would be affected by dryland salinity. Combining this group

with those already affected by salinity (13 per cent) would

mean that 30 per cent of all respondents (137 of 456) would

be affected. Again, most respondents will not be affected by

dryland salinity.

6.5. Adoption of recommended practices

Findings from the two watersheds suggested that

awareness and concern about dryland salinity were linked

to adoption of CRP thought to enhance the management of

dryland salinity.

Using binary logistic regression, OW landholders

who reported saline affected areas were estimated as

being 1.7 times more likely to establish perennial pastures

ðWald ¼ 4:063; p ¼ 0:044; ExpðBÞ ¼ 1:695Þ and 3.3 times

more likely to plant trees ðWald ¼ 20:637; p , 0:001; �

ExpðBÞ ¼ 3:346Þ than those who said they had no saline

affected areas. In the GBW, landholders who reported saline

affected areas were 2.6 times more likely to establish

perennial pastures ðWald ¼ 7:581; p ¼ 0:006; ExpðBÞ ¼

2:595Þ than those who said they had no saline affected areas.

We also explored the extent of differences in adoption of

CRP between those who were aware that they had saline

affected areas and the ‘unaware’ group (expert maps

suggested they were wrong in saying they had no saline

affected areas) identified earlier. Using logistic regression,

OW landholders who reported saline affected areas were

estimated to be 3.4 times more likely to plant trees than

those who were ‘unaware’ they had saline affected areas

ðWald ¼ 8:811; p ¼ 0:003; ExpðBÞ ¼ 3:394Þ: In the GBW,

landholders who reported saline affected areas were

estimated to be 4.1 times more likely to establish perennial

pastures ðWald ¼ 6:669; p ¼ 0:010; ExpðBÞ ¼ 4:132Þ:

In the OW, higher concern about the impacts of dryland

salinity (as measured by a scale comprising the three items in

Table 2) was also linked to significantly higher adoption of

trees planted ðWald ¼ 9:585; p ¼ 0:002; ExpðBÞ ¼ 1:036Þ:

7. Conclusions

This paper presented one of the few examples where

researchers have moved beyond the use of census data when

integrating spatially referenced socio-economic and bio-

physical data to address watershed management issues. In

this case the focus was on exploring landholder awareness

of dryland salinity, the veracity of expert salinity maps, and

the efficacy of government responses to dryland salinity,

including through community education programs. While

the research findings contribute to the wider literature on

farmer knowledge and adoption, the most important

outcome was that the research demonstrated the usefulness

of integrating spatially referenced socio-economic data

collected by surveying landholders.

It had been assumed that landholders were either

unaware of the extent and impact of less obvious forms

of land degradation, such as dryland salinity, or were in

a state of denial. Comparisons of landholder identified

salinity affected areas and those predicted by expert maps

suggested that landholders in the two watersheds in this

study had excellent awareness of the current extent of

salinity on their properties.

A very small proportion of landholders was identified as

being unaware of saline affected areas on their property.

Compared to this unaware group, those who reported saline

affected areas on their property were significantly more

likely to be members of Landcare, be involved in

government programs, operate larger properties and work

longer hours on-property. At the same time, those who

acknowledged they had saline affected areas had adopted

CRP for salinity mitigation at significantly higher levels

than those who were thought to be unaware of salinity

affected areas on their property. Those who reported saline

affected areas also had higher adoption of CRP than all of

the respondents who said they did not have saline affected

areas. These findings suggested that awareness is linked to

adoption and that the substantial investment in community

education in these regions had been successful in raising

salinity awareness and had contributed to the adoption of

CRP.

By contrast, the expert maps (discharge sites and depth to

saline ground water) failed to predict saline affected sites

identified by half the respondent landholders in both studies.

The time lag between the compilation of the expert maps

and the landholder survey explains some of this difference.

Nevertheless, the finding that the expert maps prepared for

the GBW—a watershed where there has been a sustained

attempt to map ground water and discharge sites—under-

stated salinity affected areas by 50 per cent is a cause for

concern. Given the importance of dryland salinity and the

upcoming 1.4 billion dollar investment by Australian

governments under the National Action Plan for Salinity

and Water Quality, it is critical that regional natural

resource management planning bodies (CMC) can accu-

rately map the extent of dryland salinity.

Most survey respondents did not report visible signs of

dryland salinity on their property and our calculations for

the GBW suggested that most of these landholders are

unlikely to experience dryland salinity in the future. Given

these findings, it was not surprising that most respondents

were unconcerned about the impacts of dryland salinity,

appear to believe they can, or must, ‘live with salt’ and are

very reluctant to invest in recommended practices for

salinity amelioration. This information suggests that efforts

to address natural resource management issues should not

rely on appeals to respond to the threat of salinity and must

address the range of values landholders attach to their

properties. If salt originating in upland watersheds like

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407406

the GBW and OW is a critical issue for others, including

governments, this needs to be acknowledged and addressed

through cost-sharing with downstream landholders; sup-

porting landholders to move into profitable emerging

enterprises; and government funding for natural resource

management (Curtis and Lockwood, 2000).

With refinement, the mail survey process produced a

high response rate (67 per cent in the OW) and was able to

gather information at the property scale not available from

other sources, including the national census of households

and farms. By building strong collaborative partnerships

with government agencies and consultants, the researchers

were able to secure access to vital data layers and

successfully overcome issues related to intellectual property

rights and privacy.

Acknowledgements

Project funds and in-kind contributions were made by the

Murray–Darling Basin Commission, the Goulburn Broken

and North East Catchment Management Authorities and the

Department of Natural Resources and Environment

(DNRE). Mark Cotter and Royce Sample were the project

managers for these organisations. Staff from Sinclair Knight

Merz (SKM) provided access to SKM spatial data and

important advice about how to interpret that information.

Michael Lockwood, Marike Van Nouhuys, Megan Graham

and Wayne Robinson from Charles Sturt University made

important contributions to aspects of project development,

data management and analysis and report preparation. Neil

Barr (DNRE) and Mike Read (Read Sturgess and Associ-

ates), who were working on related research projects,

provided valuable assistance. The authors particularly thank

those landholders that contributed to pre-testing of the

survey instrument, completed surveys and were members of

the expert panel that reviewed preliminary research findings

in the GBW.

References

Allan, M., Reynard, K., Williams, S., 1997. Dryland salinity discharge sites

(linear and point), Department of Natural Resources and Environment,

Melbourne, Australia.

ASCC (Australian Soil Conservation Council), 1991. Decade of Landcare

plan, ASCC, Canberra, Australia.

Clark, R.M., 2000. Establishing three discharge monitoring sites in the

North East salinity region, Centre for Land Protection Research,

Monitoring Report No.23, 23. Department of Natural Resources and

Environment, Melbourne.

CLPR (Centre for Land Protection Research), 2000. Discharge sites (GIS

map layers), CLPR, Bendigo, Victoria.

Curtis, A., De Lacy, T., 1996. Landcare in Australia: does it make a

difference. Journal of Environmental Management 46, 119–137.

Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., 2000. Landcare and catchment management in

Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society

and Natural Resources 13, 61–73.

Curtis, A., Race, D., 1996. Review of socio-economic factors affecting

regional farm forestry development in Australia, Report to Rural

Industries Research and Development Corporation, New South Wales,

The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University.

Curtis, A., Lockwood, M., MacKay, J., 2001. Exploring landholder

willingness and capacity to manage dryland salinity in the Goulburn

Broken Catchment. Australian Journal of Environmental Management

8, 20–31.

Curtis, A., Graham, M., Byron, I., Lockwood, M., McDonald, S., 2002.

Providing the knowledge base to achieve landscape change in the Ovens

catchment, Albury, New South Wales, The Johnstone Centre, Charles

Sturt University.

Dillman, D.A., 1979. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method,

Wiley, New York.

Ewing, S., 2000. The place of Landcare in Catchment Management

Structures. In Proceedings of the International Landcare 2000

Conference: Changing Landscapes–Shaping Futures, 2–5 March

2000. Melbourne, Australia.

GBCLP (Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board), 1996.

Our catchment and community—the next step: Goulburn Broken

Dryland Salinity Management Plan (five-year review 1990–1995 and

future directions), GBCLP, Shepparton, Victoria.

GBCMA (Goulburn Broken Catchment and Land Protection Board), 1996.

Our Catchment and Community—The next step: Goulburn Broken

Dryland Salinity Management Plan (Five-Year Review 1990–1995 and

Future Direction), GBCMA, Shepparton, Victoria.

Kloppenburg, J., 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of

agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture.

Rural Sociology 56, 519–548.

Millar, J., Curtis, A., 1997. Perennial Grasses: finding the balance.

Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 10 (1), 21–28.

MDBC (Murray–Darling Basin Commission), 1990. Natural Resources

Management Strategy, MDBC, Canberra.

MDBC (Murray-Darling Basin Commission), 1990. The Salinity Audit of

the Murray-Darling Basin, MDBC, Canberra.

OBWQWG (Ovens Basin Water Quality Working Group), 2000. Ovens

Basin Water Quality Strategy: an action plan within the North East

Regional Catchment Strategy, North East Regional Catchment Manage-

ment Authority, Wodonga, Victoria.

Ovens Basin Water Quality Working Group, 2000. Ovens Basin Water

Quality Strategy, An action plan within the North East regional

catchment strategy, North East Catchment Management Authority,

Wangaratta, Victoria.

Radeloff, V.C., Hagen, A.E., Voss, P.R., Field, D.R., Mladenoff, D.J., 2000.

Exploring the spatial relationship between census and land-cover data.

Society and Natural Resources 13, 599–609.

Roling, N., 1988. Extension science: Information systems in agricultural

development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schultz, S., Saenz, F., Hyman, G., 1998. Linking people to watershed

protection planning with a GIS: a case study of a central American

watershed. Society and Natural Resources 11, 663–675.

Sinclair Knight Merz, 2000. Watertable salinity information, and Broken/

Goulburn depth to watertable information (GIS map layers), Sinclair

Knight Merz, Armadale, Melbourne, Victoria.

Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 1994. Challenging the populist perspective: rural

people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice.

Agriculture and Human Values 11 (2/3), 58–76.

Vanclay, F., 1992. The social context of farmers’ adoption of environmen-

tally-sound farming practices. In: Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F., Furze, B.

(Eds.), Agriculture, environment and society, Macmillan, Melbourne.

A. Curtis et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 397–407 407