Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Farming Families Decide to Maintain Native Biodiversity on Their Farms and the Implications of Demographic Change for Conservation Policies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Demographic Change in Australia's Rural Landscapes

Part of the book series: Landscape Series ((LAEC,volume 12))

  • 1906 Accesses

Abstract

Global and local influences are leading to demographic changes in who is managing farmland in Australia. These changes are important for policy developers wishing to encourage the conservation of native biodiversity on private farmland; a vital aspect of biodiversity maintenance in Australia. Understanding the decision processes used by the managers of farmland is seen as important information for policy developers. Decision-systems theory (DST ) and the 4-Group-Stakeholder model provide a systems based and hierarchical interpretation of the processes farming families use in making strategic decisions. The ultimate-driver in strategic decision making is the desire of farming families to satisfy family aspirations and this is made possible, in part, by the results of farmers’ activities stimulated by the intermediate-driver of business profits. Farming families satisfy their aspirations by actively creating opportunities from options. Policy developers can influence the opportunities farming families create by changing some of the options available. The two major policy alternatives for conserving biodiversity on farmland are to create options that encourage people to conserve biodiversity (1) as a business venture that generates income (the intermediate-driver) or (2) as a family opportunity that directly satisfies family interests and aspirations (ultimate-driver). The appropriate mix of policy depends on the demography of the policy area and the purposes people have for holding farmland.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I define ‘farming families’ as families (one person or more) whose activities include running (controlling, managing and working in) a farming business enterprise.

  2. 2.

    Businesses, like governments, use policy to control their activities.

  3. 3.

    Policy developers include government ministers and law makers.

  4. 4.

    Financial compensation is taken to mean any form of expenditure of public monies to encourage biodiversity conservation including grants, research or educational programs.

  5. 5.

    See Farmar-Bowers and Lane (2006, 2009) for a fuller account of DST .

  6. 6.

    Some off-farm work might put them in Group 2 roles – teachers or medical professionals etc.

  7. 7.

    Not all Group 1 stakeholders earn money as Group 2 or 3 Stakeholders; for example, children and unemployed adults may be supported by families and welfare payments.

  8. 8.

    The organisations in Groups 2 and 3 trade among themselves of course (when one business sells to the next in a supply chain) but the ultimate customers are Group 1 Stakeholders.

  9. 9.

    These are the emergent properties of systems.

  10. 10.

    The farmer may choose a system to reduce the cost of production without appreciating that the customer will not buy goods produced in this way.

  11. 11.

    Foraging refers to collecting items and using them for a particular purpose such as collecting flowers and giving them to a parent.

  12. 12.

    By paying them money or by paying to have landholders prosecuted for non compliance.

Abbreviations

DST:

Decision-systems Theory

HDI:

Human Development Index

TQM:

Total Quality Management

References

  • Albright C (2006) Who’s running the farm? Changes and characteristics of Arkansas women in agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 88:1315–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr N (2005) Understanding rural Victoria. Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr N, Cary J (2000) Influencing improved natural resource management on farms: a guide to understanding factors influencing the adoption of sustainable resource practices. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates FL (1997) Sociopolitical ecology, human systems and ecological fields. Plenum Press, New York; London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett A, Radford J (2004) Landscape level thresholds for conservation of biodiversity in rural environments. Project DUV6. Land and Water Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazards 41:283–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant KC (2006) A farm household conception of pluriactivity in Canadian agriculture: motivation, diversification and livelihood (Essay). Can Rev Sociol Anthropol 43:51–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bixler D, Floyd MF (1997) Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environ Behav 29: 443–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch OJH, King CA, Herbohn JL et al (2007) Getting the big picture in natural resource management – systems thinking as ‘method’ for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield H (2008) Family farms are still around: time to invert the old agrarian question. Geogr Compass 2/1:108–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton RJF (2004) Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s eyes’: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol Ruralis 44:195–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler C (2008) Human rights ethics: a rational approach. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott JB (1999) Beyond the land ethic, more essays in environmental philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany; New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesura A, De Groot R (2003) Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 44:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipeniuk R (1995) Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition about biodiversity. Environ Behav 27:490–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CoA (Commonwealth of Australia) (1992) The national strategy for ecologically sustainable development. AGPS, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • CoA (Commonwealth of Australia) (1994) Australia’s biodiversity: an overview of significant components. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 2. AGPS, Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment Sport and Territories, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • CoA (Commonwealth of Australia) (1995a) Native vegetation clearance, habitat loss and biodiversity decline. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 6. AGPS, Department of Environment Sport and Territories, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • CoA (Commonwealth of Australia) (1995b) Landcover disturbance over the Australian continent: a contemporary assessment: a Report by Graetz RD, Wilson MA, Campbell SK Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 7. AGPS, Department of Environment Sport and Territories, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • CoA (Commonwealth of Australia) (1996) National strategy for the conservation of Australia’s biological diversity. AGPS, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin C, Mautner N, Dibden J (2007) Public policy, private landholders: perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management. J Environ Manag 85:986–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi; Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosthwaite J, Moll J, Dorrough J et al(2007) Re-organising farm businesses to improve environmental outcomes – the case of native vegetation on hill country across south-eastern Australia. Paper Presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Manly, February 2006, revised October 2007 http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/C311739DFF223170CA2 573AA000436F7/$File/Modelling+strategies+across+17+farms.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2009

  • Curtis A, Robertson A (2003) Understanding landholder management of river frontages: The Goulburn Broken. Ecol Manag Restor 4:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis A (2003) Whither mass media and power? Evidence for a critical elite alternative. Media Cult Soc 25:669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deming EW (1986) Out of crisis, quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Melbourne; Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorrough J, Moll J, Crosthwaite J (2007) Can intensification of temperate Australian livestock production systems save land for native biodiversity? Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorrough J, Moxham C (2005) Eucalypt establishment in agricultural landscapes and implications for landscape-scale restoration. Biol Conserv 123:55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESAC (Endangered Species Advisory Committee) (1992) An Australian national strategy for the conservation of Australian species and communities threatened with extinction. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley R (1999) Is life really getting better? Futurist 33:23–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmar-Bowers Q (2000) Uncooperative stakeholders: a means to coordinate efforts. In Hillary R (ed) ISO 14001 case studies and practical experience. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmar-Bowers Q (2004) Personal drivers, interviews, background report No 5, Drivers research phase. Ecologically Sustainable Development Initiative, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/B097A38A262BC176CA25738E001C782F/$File/DLUC+5++Interviews.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2009

  • Farmar-Bowers Q (2008) Making sustainable development ideas operational: a general technique for policy development. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmar-Bowers Q, Crosthwaite J, Callaghan J et al (2006) Final report for the project ‘drivers of land use change’, matching opportunities to motivations: ideas for biodiversity and NRM policy based on understanding the drivers of land use change that matter to farmers, (December 2005). Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Department of Primary Industries. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/7479F2031B407963CA2571ED001CA43F/$File/DLUC+-+Final+report+2006.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2009

  • Farmar-Bowers Q, Lane R (2006) Understanding farmer decision-systems that relate to land use: report to the department of sustainability and environment. RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria. http://eprints.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00001842/. Accessed 15 Nov 2008

  • Farmar-Bowers Q, Lane R (2009) Understanding farmers’ strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. J Environ Manag 90:1135–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons JA (2006) Private protected areas? Assessing the suitability for incorporating conservation agreements over private land into the national reserve system: a case study of Victoria. Environ Plan Law J 23:365–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foskey R (2005) Older farmers and retirement: a report for the rural industries research and development corporation, January 2005, RIRDC Publication No 05/006, Project No. UNE 68A. Rural Industries Development Corporation, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS, Jegen R (2001) Motivation crowding theory. J Econ Surv 15:589–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (2006) G3 guidelines. Global reporting initiative, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2009

  • Greiner R, Cocklin C, Gordon IJ (2008) Conceptual and theoretical aspects of payments for environmental services’ in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. In: Proceedings of the 15th biennial conference of the Australian Rangeland Society. Charters Towers, Queensland, 28 September–2 October 2008. http://www.riverconsulting.com.au/reports/Greiner-Cocklin-Gordon_2008_Rangelands-Conf.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2009

  • Greiner R, Lankester A, Patterson L (2007) Incentives to enhance the adoption of ‘best management practices’ by landholders: achieving water quality improvements in the Burdekin River catchments. Research report for the Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM and Coastal Catchment Initiative (Burdekin). River Research and Consulting, Townville, Queenslandhttp://www.riverconsulting.com.au/reports/Incentives-for-BMPs_Report.pdf Accessed 19 Jan 2009

  • Harris M (1999) Theories of culture in postmodern times. AltaMira Press; A Division of Sage Publishing Inc., Walnut Creek; London, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Held V (2006) The ethics of care, personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environmental schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv 15:10–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns DM (2003) Growth, conservation, and the necessity of new alliances. Conserv Biol 12:1229–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen S (2004) The redefinition of family farming: agricultural restructuring and farm adjustment in Waihemo, New Zealand. J Rural Stud, 20:419–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky R (2008) Globalisation, inequality and climate change: what difference does China make? Geog Compass 2/1:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langhelle O (1999) Sustainable development: exploring the ethics of our common future. Int Polit Sci Rev 20:129–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM (2005) Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment 47:22–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Max-Neef M (1991) Human scale development conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, New York, NY; London

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J et al (1972) The limits of growth. Universe Books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J (1992) Beyond the limits: global collapse or sustainable future. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendham E, Millar J, Curtis A (2007) Landholder participation in native vegetation management in irrigation areas. Ecol Manage Rest 8:42–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2000) Systems intervention, philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY; Boston, MA; Dordrecht; London; Moscow

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. Accessed Dec 2008

  • Moran DD, Wackernagel M, Kitzes JA et al (2008) Measuring sustainable development–nation by nation. Ecol Econ 64:70–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ (2008) Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits. Land Econ 84:25–240; Version 3 of this paper: Pannell DJ (2008). Public: private benefits framework version 3, INFFER Working Paper 0805. University of Western Australia. http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/ppf3.pdf. Accessed Jan 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N et al (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric 46:407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organisations, a resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, NY; Hagerstown; San Francisco, CA; London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard B, Burch D, Lawrence G (2007) Neither ‘family’ nor ‘corporate’ farming: Australian tomato growers as farm family entrepreneurs. J Rural Stud 3:5–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeson A, Tisdell J (2006) When good incentives go bad: an experimental study of institutions, motivations and crowding out. In Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES) 50th annual conference, Sydney. http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/publications/markets.html Accessed 21 Jan 2009

  • Roberts JA (1996) Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Bus Horizons 39:79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan VW (1999) The transition to agricultural sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5960–5967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs W (2006) Climate change and human rights. Paper presented at the workshop on interactions between global change and human health, vol 106. Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Scripta Varia, Vatican City, pp 349–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva V (1993) Monocultures of the mind, perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Zed Books Ltd, London; New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Slote MA (2007) The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL (1997) Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for economic valuation. J Environ Manage 50:403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London; New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP et al (2006) Ecosystem services from agriculture: looking beyond the usual suspects. Am J Agric Econ 88:1160–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner GM (2008) A comparison of the limits to growth with 30 years of reality. Glob Environ Chang Sp Iss SI AUG 2008, 18:397–411

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rees M (2003) The biodiversity that we want to maintain: the government perspective. In: Crosthwaite J, Farmar-Bowers Q, Hollier C (eds) Land use change – yes! – but will biodiversity be ok? Proceedings of a conference at Attwood, Victoria, August 2002. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne Victoria (CD ROM) http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/BE36CBEBF15BD33ECA256FFD00286A12/$File/van+Rees.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2008

  • Velasquez MG (1998) Business ethics, concepts and cases, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber K (2000) A brief history of everything, 2nd edn. Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams K (2003) The biodiversity we want to maintain and the reasons we want to maintain it. In: Crosthwaite J, Farmar-Bowers Q, Hollier C (eds) Land use change – yes! – but will biodiversity be ok? Proceedings of a conference at Attwood, Victoria, August 2002. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne Victoria (CD ROM) http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/08C5F9E33A5D8037CA2570070026CBDD/$File/Williams.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2009

  • Wilson JA, Lowe KW (2003) Planning for the restoration of native biodiversity within the Goulburn Broken catchment, Victoria, using spatial modeling. Ecol Manage Restor 4:212–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse A (2006) Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: a case study. J Rural Stud 22:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wronka J (1998) Human rights and social policy in the 21st century, revised edition. University Press of America Inc., Lanham; New York, NY; Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter was written at La Trobe University as a post doctoral fellow. I would like to thank Professor John Martin for his support and the contribution of Dr Ruth Lane to the development of DST . Thanks also to the farmers we interviewed and to A/Professor Gary Luck and the reviewers for their helpful comments, advice and patience.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Management, Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC, Australia

    Quentin Farmar-Bowers

Authors
  1. Quentin Farmar-Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quentin Farmar-Bowers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. Land, Water & Society (ILWS), Charles Sturt University, Albury, 2640, New South Wales, Australia

    Gary W. Luck

  2. Inst. Land, Water & Society (ILWS), Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia

    Rosemary Black

  3. Inst. Land, Water & Society (ILWS), Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia

    Digby Race

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Farmar-Bowers, Q. (2010). Why Farming Families Decide to Maintain Native Biodiversity on Their Farms and the Implications of Demographic Change for Conservation Policies. In: Luck, G., Black, R., Race, D. (eds) Demographic Change in Australia's Rural Landscapes. Landscape Series, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9654-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation