Farmers, Streams, Information, and Money: Does Informing Farmers About Riparian Management Have Any Effect?

Abstract

We assessed relationships between the extent to which farmers reported exposure to relevant information and their attitudes towards, knowledge about, and degree of adoption of riparian management strategies. We also examined associations between knowledge of, or receipt of, financial assistance for riparian fencing/planting and intentions for and extent of adoption of this strategy. A mail survey of 718 pastoral farmers in Otago and Southland in New Zealand [294 surveys returned (41%)] yielded 279 usable questionnaires. Indices were developed to reflect range and frequency of information use and range of practices adopted. Attitudes were measured using Likert-type responses to 11 statements, and knowledge as a score on a ten-question true/false test. Positive relationships between information and the three main response variables (attitude, knowledge, and adoption) were weak but significant and systematic. These associations remained significant when important demographic and farm characteristics were taken into account. Informed farmers were more likely to report intentions to carry out riparian fencing or planting within the next year. Farmers who were aware that funding was available were also more likely to state this intention, independent of information level. The reported extent to which waterways had been fenced to exclude stock was related to receipt of funding, but not to information level. Financial factors were the most influential barrier preventing adoption of permanent fencing. Our research shows a positive correlation between the receipt of information and funding and the adoption of specific riparian management measures.

Supply of an ecosystem service—Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments

“…A number of studies have looked at the decision of landowners to supply land based ecosystem services including riparian buffer zones and different factors have been found to influence the provision decision. For example, previous research has highlighted the importance of financial incentives in securing a change of land use from productive agriculture to the provision of an ecosystem service (Lynch et al, 2001;Genghini et al, 2002;Rhodes et al, 2002;Curtis and Robertson, 2003;Shultz, 2005;Sullivan et al, 2005;Kabii and Horowitz, 2006;Suter et al, 2008;Patrick andBarclay, 2009 Yu andBelcher, 2011). Others have suggested that intrinsic, political or ethical motivations around land stewardship take precedent over economic compensation (Ryan et al, 2003;Thomas and Blackmore, 2007).…”

“…Furthermore, institutional factors pertaining to how a specific programme is implemented was 6 found to influence potential adoption. These include length of scheme and planning horizon, potential development value, bureaucratic load, requirements associated with the scheme, flexibility of conditions, confidence in efficacy of recommended practices and funding certainty (Lynch et al, 2001;Ducros and Watson, 2002;Rhodes et al, 2002;Curtis and Robertson, 2003;Shultz, 2005;Mante and Gerowitt, 2009;Patrick and Barclay, 2009;Christensen et al, 2011;Yu and Belcher;.…”

Evaluation of a dairy agri-environmental programme for restoring woody green infrastructure

“…Therefore, among many farmers, these services are not considered decisive factors in whether to plant or not (Carr & Tait, 1991;Fairweather, 1996). Farmers who do place a high value on these services are positively correlated with income (Rauniyar & Parker, 1998;Salam, Noguchi, & Alim, 2006;Underwood & Ripley, 2000;Vanslembrouck, Van Huylenbroeck, & Verbeke, 2002), education and conservation knowledge (Cable & Cook, 1997;Salam et al, 2006;Vanslembrouck et al, 2002;Wilson, 1992), and weakly correlated with information about incentive programmes and funding (Rhodes et al, 2002). Lower values among farmers are negatively correlated with farmer age (Cable & Cook, 1997;Wilson, 1992).…”

“…A minority of farmers also value their aesthetic services (Fairweather, 1996), and appreciate their soil conservation services (Mead, 1995). Primary barriers to planting trees are time and money (Fairweather, 1996;Rauniyar & Parker, 1998;Rhodes, Leland, & Niven, 2002;Underwood & Ripley, 2000). Some studies indicate financial incentives are inadequate to encourage farmers to take land out of production to plant trees (Duesberg, O'Connor, & Dhubháin, 2013).…”

Applying ecosystem services thinking to natural resource management and conservation decision making

“…In the absence of compulsion, the voluntary motivation to undertake specific actions requires not just an attitude change but also a behaviour change (Rhodes et al 2002). When left entirely to voluntary mechanisms this shift in behaviour (adoption of action) is based on subjective rather than objective decision making and can be very slow (Pannell et al 2006).…”