Adoption of Stream Fencing Among Dairy Farmers in Four New Zealand Catchments

Abstract

The effect of dairy farming on water quality in New Zealand streams has been identified as an important environmental issue. Stream fencing, to keep cattle out of streams, is seen as a way to improve water quality. Fencing ensures that cattle cannot defecate in the stream, prevents bank erosion, and protects the aquatic habitat. Stream fencing targets have been set by the dairy industry. In this paper the results of a study to identify the factors influencing dairy farmers' decisions to adopt stream fencing are outlined. Qualitative methods were used to gather data from 30 dairy farmers in four New Zealand catchments. Results suggest that farm contextual factors influenced farmers' decision making when considering stream fencing. Farmers were classified into four segments based on their reasons for investing in stream fencing. These reasons were fencing boundaries, fencing for stock control, fencing to protect animal health, and fencing because of pressure to conform to local government guidelines or industry codes of practice. This suggests that adoption may be slow in the absence of on-farm benefits, that promotion of stream fencing needs to be strongly linked to on-farm benefits, and that regulation could play a role in ensuring greater adoption of stream fencing.

Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment

“…Pathogens such as Cryptosporidium are a particularly important pollutant in water supply catchments because of the risk posed to human health (MacKenzie et al 1994;Hrudey and Hrudey 2004;Bewsell et al 2007). Extensive livestock agriculture is a significant source of Cryptosporidium in surface water (Ferguson et al 2007).…”

“…Extensive livestock agriculture is a significant source of Cryptosporidium in surface water (Ferguson et al 2007). Catchment-based actions such as reducing livestock access to streams, riparian restoration and erosion control programs, and manure and effluent management (Bewsell et al 2007;Collins et al 2007) can cost-effectively mitigate Cryptosporidium risk, enhance water quality, and produce a range of other ecosystem services (Lovell and Sullivan 2006;Chang et al 2010).…”

“…The relative significance of these impediments can vary both between catchments and between individual farmers within catchments (Pannell et al 2006;Bewsell et al 2007). Agricultural non-point source pollution can be most effectively controlled by focusing policy instruments (e.g.…”

Trends in water quality of five dairy farming streams in response to adoption of best practice and benefits of long-term monitoring at the catchment scale

“…Commodity prices and farmers' revenue affect their ability or willingness to undertake non-productive actions (e.g. adoption of BMPs) unless an on-farm benefit is perceived (MacGregor and Warren 2006;Bewsell et al 2007). Usage of N fertiliser in New Zealand during 2002-2009 was steady, but P-fertiliser use varied by more than 2-fold in the same period (http://faostat.fao.org/site/575/default.aspx).…”

Catchments, sub-catchments and private spaces: Scale and process in managing microbial pollution from source to sea

“…Controlling downstream pollution of watercourses clearly requires an understanding of land uses within catchments but also the decision making processes amongst land managers inhabiting the spatial units. Differences in adoption decisions of farmers may reflect very detailed differences in physical farm lay-out and land use, as shown in work in New Zealand on why dairy farmers may or may not chose to fence off streams (Beswell et al, 2007). But differences are also likely to reflect a wider set of decisions, beliefs and attitudes of farmers operating at the farm enterprise level as well as policy and economic constraints.…”