Landholder Typologies Used in the Development of Natural Resource Management Programs in Australia—A Review

Abstract

T h i s a r t i c l e r e v i e w s t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n t h e identification of landholder typologies that can be used to assist the design and delivery of naturaldifferences lead to variation in the impacts of policies and programs across the community. The development of classification schemes to help understand the range of variation in a phenomenon and to assist in interpreting the reasons for, and effects of, the variety is characteristic of the development of any scientific discipline (Kostrowicki 1977 Kobrich et al. 2003;Emtage 2004aEmtage , 2004b. There is also considerable interest in being able to track effectively the impacts of financial assistance and economic development programs on landholders in varying circumstances and with differing life values (Johnson 2002; AAFC 2002). Anthropologists, marketing professionals and political analysts, whose task it is to track public opinions, have for a long time sought to identify homogeneous clusters or groups of people in the community.This type of approach can be applied to identify groups (or types) of landholders in relation to NRM. Developing a landholder 'typology' is one way of avoiding a blanket a p p r o a c h t o l a n d h o l d e r s , a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e recognising that it is impossible to have policies and programs tailored to each individual. One advantage of developing a landholder typology is that it provides a multi-dimensional profile of landholders and the interrelationships between their values, attitudes, informationseeking behaviour, socio-economic characteristics and N R M p r a c t i c e s . A n i n t i m a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f landholders' circumstances, values and capacities is needed for successful engagement and development programs (see, for example, Aslin and Brown 2004). Studies that have investigated landholders' capacity to adopt sustainable NRM practices have typically provided * Nick Emtage was formerly

Road improvement enhances smallholder productivity and reduces forest encroachment in Ghana

“…A typology of the farmers in the study area was derived using k-means cluster analysis with three distinct clusters defined by the researchers and employing a maximum of 10 iterations and convergence criterion of zero (see Table 4.3). Variables in Table 4.2 that give the maximum distinction were used to cluster the farmers in order to identify subsistence, commercial, small-scale, large-scale, and hinterland farmers (Emtage, Herbohn, & Harrison, 2006). Tables 4.4 and 4.6).…”

Developing a typology for local cattle breed farmers in Europe

“…The increase in farmer typology research can be associated with so-called post-productivist rural development, with diversifying rural livelihoods and populations, as well as the development of multifunctional agriculture with diversifying production styles, tasks and meanings. Along with these developments, there is a need to improve the effectiveness of agricultural, rural or environmental programmes and policies, as well as extension methods (Landais 1998;Emtage et al 2006). Thus, farmer typology research has seriously adopted the notion of Morris and Evans (2004) that farmers are not of one culture, but multiple 'agricultures'.…”

“…Farmer typology research can be considered as a form of segmentation research that takes into account the social and cultural values of farmers, as well as their approach to farming and areas of interest within it (Emtage et al 2006). Typologies have been developed, for instance, with respect to landscape management practices (Swagemakers & Wiskerke 2004), the probability to turning to organic farming (Darnhofer et al 2005).…”

An agent‐based modelling approach to evaluate factors influencing bioenergy crop adoption in north‐east Scotland

“…However, as Emtage et al (2007) concedes, further research is required in how to incorporate attitudes and personality into modelling behaviour. Typologies provide a broad indication of the characteristics of landowners, and while helping to inform policy formation, it is recognized that policy best suited to individual landown-ers is likely to be complex and unique (Emtage et al, 2006). Sutherland et al (2010) proposed the development of farmer typologies and types is intended as an illustrative tool rather than providing a definitive analysis of differences amongst landowners, and would be better interpreted as a dynamic set of identities, rather than static profiles (Karali et al, 2013).…”