“…There are synergies between agricultural land use and native vegetation conservation, based on common commitments to environmentally beneficial activities (Burdon, , 130). Law reforms based on duty of care (Shepheard and Martin, ; Earl et al ., ) and environmental stewardship (Ahnstrom et al ., ; Trigger et al ., ; Gill, ) may have greater resonance with farmers than current regimes which effect social distance through positioning farmers as ‘environmental vandals’ and ‘criminals’ (Lowe and Ward, ; Witt et al ., ; Bartel and Barclay, ; Barclay and Bartel, ). The NSW Farmers Association spokesperson Cameron Rowntree has disputed suggestions that farmers are ‘destroying the landscape’ (Hasham, ) and the President of the NSW Farmers Association, Fiona Simson, has claimed that farmers are: responsible custodians of our land who have a direct interest in looking after the environmental values of the landscape (Makim, ).The validation and inclusion of vernacular knowledge‐holders such as farmers in law development and reform, through participatory processes, in addition to scientific knowledge, may ensure greater success, through reducing social distance and including relevant facts which are applicable to local environmental management (Reed, ; Bartel, ).…”
Environmental indicators suggest that the legislation regulating land clearing in NSW should be strengthened. However, reform has moved in the opposite direction, continuously weakening the law in response to the marginal but politically significant argument that the Act undermined sacrosanct private property rights. The cultural mythology around property and the legal discourse of property dephysicalise relations between people and place, transforming them into categories of abstract and predominantly commercial rights, and foster a vocabulary of entitlement to land as a civil and political right. Opponents to the existing legislation have also argued that it insufficiently accommodates vernacular knowledge regarding locally specific conditions and variations, and creates disrespect and mistrust between government and landholders. This paper interrogates the relationships between the key arguments of opponents to the existing legislation with place attachment. Place attachment describes the bond between people and place and is usually regarded as being positive for environmental protection. However, it may also underpin reactionary place‐protective behaviours including NIMBYism, the preservation of degraded landscapes and inappropriate place management practices, including the institution of private property itself. Paradoxically, while place‐protective resistance may appear to conflict with conservation, potential for resolution to this ongoing legal and geographical crisis in biodiversity conservation may be found through highlighting the common ground of place connection and inter‐dependence, and by rephysicalising law to better articulate shared interests in healthy environments beyond the narrow prism of individual property rights. This endeavour may be best achieved through a multi‐scalar and poly‐vocal participatory process, to ensure such narrow and monological interests do not hold disproportionate sway and address path dependency and legacy issues.
“…There are synergies between agricultural land use and native vegetation conservation, based on common commitments to environmentally beneficial activities (Burdon, , 130). Law reforms based on duty of care (Shepheard and Martin, ; Earl et al ., ) and environmental stewardship (Ahnstrom et al ., ; Trigger et al ., ; Gill, ) may have greater resonance with farmers than current regimes which effect social distance through positioning farmers as ‘environmental vandals’ and ‘criminals’ (Lowe and Ward, ; Witt et al ., ; Bartel and Barclay, ; Barclay and Bartel, ). The NSW Farmers Association spokesperson Cameron Rowntree has disputed suggestions that farmers are ‘destroying the landscape’ (Hasham, ) and the President of the NSW Farmers Association, Fiona Simson, has claimed that farmers are: responsible custodians of our land who have a direct interest in looking after the environmental values of the landscape (Makim, ).The validation and inclusion of vernacular knowledge‐holders such as farmers in law development and reform, through participatory processes, in addition to scientific knowledge, may ensure greater success, through reducing social distance and including relevant facts which are applicable to local environmental management (Reed, ; Bartel, ).…”
Environmental indicators suggest that the legislation regulating land clearing in NSW should be strengthened. However, reform has moved in the opposite direction, continuously weakening the law in response to the marginal but politically significant argument that the Act undermined sacrosanct private property rights. The cultural mythology around property and the legal discourse of property dephysicalise relations between people and place, transforming them into categories of abstract and predominantly commercial rights, and foster a vocabulary of entitlement to land as a civil and political right. Opponents to the existing legislation have also argued that it insufficiently accommodates vernacular knowledge regarding locally specific conditions and variations, and creates disrespect and mistrust between government and landholders. This paper interrogates the relationships between the key arguments of opponents to the existing legislation with place attachment. Place attachment describes the bond between people and place and is usually regarded as being positive for environmental protection. However, it may also underpin reactionary place‐protective behaviours including NIMBYism, the preservation of degraded landscapes and inappropriate place management practices, including the institution of private property itself. Paradoxically, while place‐protective resistance may appear to conflict with conservation, potential for resolution to this ongoing legal and geographical crisis in biodiversity conservation may be found through highlighting the common ground of place connection and inter‐dependence, and by rephysicalising law to better articulate shared interests in healthy environments beyond the narrow prism of individual property rights. This endeavour may be best achieved through a multi‐scalar and poly‐vocal participatory process, to ensure such narrow and monological interests do not hold disproportionate sway and address path dependency and legacy issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
