Understanding rural landholder responses to climate change

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of FiguresFigure 1: Factors influencing adaptation (adapted from Pannell et al. 2006; Cary et al.2002; Nelson et al. 2006; Reid et al. 2007)............................................................ 5Figure 2: Location map of Kamarooka and Muckleford zones ..................................... 9Figure 3: On-property enterprises of Kamarooka and Muckleford interviewees ........ 14Figure 4: Some interactions between factors influencing enterprise and landmanagement decisions ......................................................................................... 35Figure 5: Examples of landholder responses to 'drought' ............................................ 37Figure 6: Influence of drought on landholder decisions regarding lucerneestablishment and resultant impact on native grassland ...................................... 38Figure 7: Landholder belief in climate change ............................................................ 50List of TablesTable 1: Summary of interviewee characteristics ........................................................ 13Table 2: On-farm changes made by landholders in Muckleford and Kamarooka ....... 23Table 3: On-farm changes made by landholders ......................................................... 24Table 4: Summary of current and future challenges for Kamarooka landholders(n=18) ................................................................................................................... 55Table 5: Summary of current and future challenges for Muckleford landholders(n=18) ................................................................................................................... 56List of AcronymsABARE …. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsANU …….. Australian National UniversityCERF ……. Commonwealth Environment Research FacilitiesCMA …….. Catchment Management AuthorityCSIRO …... Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationCSU ……... Charles Sturt UniversityDSE ……... Department of Sustainability and EnvironmentDSE ……... dry sheep equivalentGM ……… genetic modification; genetically modifiedIPCC …….. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeMAFF …… Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryNASA …… National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNCCMA … North Central Catchment Management AuthorityNRM ……. natural resource managementOH&S …… occupational health and safetyUNFCCC ... United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeix
Section 1: Introduction1.1: The projectThis report presents findings from qualitative social research that explored how rurallandholders in the Muckleford and Kamarooka districts near Bendigo, Victoria,perceive and manage the risks associated with climate change. This research formedpart of the larger „Ecosystem Risk – Impacts of climate change‟ project funded by theAustralian Government and managed by the North Central Catchment ManagementAuthority (NCCMA). With contributing partners from the Victorian Department ofSustainability and Environment (DSE), CSIRO, Australian National University(ANU) and Charles Sturt University (CSU), the Ecosystem Risk project aimed toassess the impact of climate change on key terrestrial vegetation communities inVictoria, and develop risk assessment methodology and decision tools to help guideadaptation actions (NCCMA, 2008). Given this focus, the social research componentincluded consideration of landholder responses to climate change for the managementof native vegetation.1.2: Research objectives and key questionsThe research objectives were:1. Describe the extent of adaptation (range of responses) by private rurallandholders to climate variability;2. Explore the factors influencing landholder responses to climate variability toprovide better understanding of the decisions made;3. Provide information to underpin more informed decision making bylandholders; and4. Provide information to assist natural resource management (NRM) agenciesmore effectively engage rural landholders in climate change and nativevegetation management.Based on these research objectives, three key questions were developed to guide ourresearch:1. At the property scale, what is the range of rural landholder beliefs andresponses to climate variability?2. To what extent are adaptations by private landholders consistent with NRMpractices recommended by agencies?3. How important is climate variability as a factor contributing to enterprise/landmanagement decisions?1.3: Report structureSection 2 provides a background to the project, including a theoretical model forunderstanding landholder decisions making developed through a literature review(Mazur et al. 2008) undertaken as part of this project. Section 3 outlines themethodology employed and Section 4 presents the research findings. The concludingsection draws together these findings in the context of the theoretical model proposed,considers aspects of risk related to climate, and the implications of the findings forbiodiversity management.1
Page 2 and 3: Understanding rural landholder resp
Page 4 and 5: Executive SummaryThe projectThis re
Page 6 and 7: conserve soil moisture). Informants
Page 8 and 9: Personal situation of landholders i
Page 12 and 13: Section 2: Background2.1: Issues fo
Page 14 and 15: and motivations) - these come toget
Page 16 and 17: Furthermore, while some external ex
Page 18 and 19: Section 3: Methodology3.1: Introduc
Page 20 and 21: In consultation with project partne
Page 22 and 23: esearch team, provided with informa
Page 24 and 25: KamarookaMucklefordSheepCroppingPig
Page 26 and 27: ainfall contributing to crop failur
Page 28 and 29: Other farmers were continuing with
Page 30 and 31: 4.1.4: Responses to the challenges
Page 32 and 33: purchased direct drill equipment to
Page 34 and 35: Table 3: On-farm changes made by la
Page 36 and 37: specifically to establish wildlife
Page 38 and 39: vegetation management. For example,
Page 40 and 41: competition for limited soil moistu
Page 42 and 43: hiatus in planting, including throu
Page 44 and 45: informant‟s beliefs and understan
Page 46 and 47: Drought was also affecting the emot
Page 48 and 49: Reduced water allocationIncreased w
Page 50 and 51: a product of the external operating
Page 52 and 53: employing contractors; and adopting
Page 54 and 55: eeding of chickens for meat (requir
Page 56 and 57: The availability of improved inform
Page 58 and 59: to sign up again (futures contract)
Page 60 and 61:
we provide an overview of our findi
Page 62 and 63:
elieved in climate change „… if
Page 64 and 65:
commercial farming activity in the
Page 66 and 67:
Muckleford IntervieweesAs with the
Page 68 and 69:
MucklefordFour of the ten Mucklefor
Page 70 and 71:
Kamarooka landholders were also gen
Page 72 and 73:
Landholder characteristicsPersonal
Page 74 and 75:
ReferencesBarr, Neil, Roger Wilkins
Page 76 and 77:
Appendix 1: Interview scheduleEcosy
Page 78 and 79:
Question 3A: What are the major cha
Page 80 and 81:
Question 4: Remnant vegetationI wou
Page 82 and 83:
Size of your property? __________ H
Page 84 and 85:
YOUR RIGHTS:You do not have to part
show all

Understanding rural landholder responses to climate change

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?