How do amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards of rural landscapes?

Abstract

The changing socio-ecological dynamics in rural landscapes associated with amenity migration in post-industrial nations such as Australia has implications for environmental management.The number of non-farming landholders now occupying regions once valued primarily for agriculture has increased rapidly in the past decade, with property turnover rates in some rural Australian regions as high as 50 percent. Given amenity migrants can shape rural ecologies through land management practice, it is vital that we understand how these management practices are informed. As such, we ask: how do amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards of their land? We focus specifically on how the tangible interaction between landholder and landscape through experiential learning contributes to the emergence of environmental stewardship. We adopt a conceptual premise that recognises the agency of the biophysical landscape in the experiential learning process. To explore how amenity migrants learn about stewardship we undertook a qualitative case study in the hinterland regions of Melbourne, Australia. We found that initial struggles to implement land management informed by prior urban lifestyles saw landholders turn to experiential learning to fill a void of understanding about ecological processes and management practice. Over time, these experiences distilled into durable dispositions for environmental stewardship that directed either a passive (hands-off) or active (hands-on) approach to land management. Understanding how amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards has implications for the location and timing of environmental policy engagements with new rural landholders.

Emerging geographies of mobility: The role of regional towns in Greece's ‘counterurbanisation story’

“…Other research projects (e.g. Cooke and Lane, 2015) have, however, demonstrated migration to new and unfamiliar places. In our study, this attribute could take the following two levels: 'I have lived in this area for a short or long period of my life' and 'I have never lived in this area before'.…”

Weed hygiene practices in rural industries and public land management: Variable knowledge, patchy implementation, inconsistent coordination

“…However, weed management social science shows that knowledge and communication are not necessarily the most significant or only influences on weed management (Head, 2017). As well as economic factors, practice is influenced by a range of social and cultural factors including social norms (Ma et al, 2018;McKiernan, 2017), trust (Graham, 2014), divergent views about plant belonging that do not neatly accord to the native/non-native distinction (Cooke and Lane, 2015), and pragmatic decisions about living with and tolerating weeds in various ways .…”

Living with landscape fire: Landholder understandings of agency, scale and control within fiery entanglements

“…Understanding the nuances of this message can be challenging for new migrants to fire prone areas. Cooke and Lane report that, on finding that their understanding of ecological processes and land management ‘informed by prior urban lifestyles’ has limited relevance in rural contexts, many landholders ‘turn to experiential learning’ (Cooke and Lane, 2015: 43). Most of this learning takes place on property, and is dependent on observation of biophysical responses to human actions (2015: 48).…”

“…Moreover, the ways in which these people learn about land and fire management frequently differ, at least initially, from those of long-term inhabitants in rural areas. It has been suggested that these differences in learning styles are due, at least in part, to the ‘property centric’ (Cooke and Lane, 2015: 46) orientation of relative newcomers which contrasts with the more social positioning of long-term farmers who have a ‘collective interest in maintaining productive rural landscapes’ (2015: 49, see also Eriksen and Prior, 2011).…”