• Tailored training and technical advice , as well as funding from the Exploring New Incentives Activity Area allowed many previously low or unengaged landholders to commence participation in the LDC Project . The grass roots , ground up design process was also instrumental in building interest and getting many landholders around the table and part of the conversation from the beginning .
• Clustering both gully and grazing land management works resulted in cost savings in a range of expenses including technical advice , designers , on ground works contractors and monitoring expenses , leading to improved cost effectiveness of project outcomes . This is significant in the BBB catchment due to the distances many providers need to travel ( on average an 8 hour round trip from Townsville and often overnight accommodation and meals are required ).
• Approximately half ( 51 %) of surveyed landholders supported the claim that the large-scale remediation trials were perceived to be a cost-effective way to improve water quality , whilst about one third were neutral and some landholders were negative ( Jarvis et al ., 2020 ). These perceptions may translate into barriers for undertaking large scale remediation on the neutral and negative properties . Interestingly , while less than half of landholders surveyed had visited the large-scale LDC Project gully remediation sites , no trends emerged between the perceptions from landholders who had compared to those that had not visited large-scale gully remediation sites . This may indicate the importance of providing multiple communication pathways , and the value of ensuring that involved landholders are notified as information sharing occurs and is most highly valued through peer networks .
• Small scale gullies have had little follow up maintenance required during the LDC Project due to i ) timing since sites have been completed ( only 1 to 2 wet seasons ) and ii ) lower than average rainfall volume and intensity since remediation . The intent of these projects was that the initial remediation work and maintenance could be carried out by the landholder within a low budget and using local or onsite machinery so they could replicate the same practice elsewhere .
• The cost of maintaining the larger scale gully sites needs to be clearly identified and estimated as part of project planning and design . Maintenance expenses incurred during the LDC Project were calculated at a rate of 17.4 % of the construction cost . It may be possible to establish a per site contribution to a combined budget pool that may be utilised for maintenance for a number of sites on an “ as needed ” basis .
• The percentage of total funds expended on-ground to achieve water quality practice change outcomes were a relatively small portion of the overall LDC Project expenditure ( 22 %). Variations on site specific expenses such as engineered gully designs or updating engineered designs multiple times can have large cost impacts at the property scale , however , may have little cost impact at the overall implementation scale . The transactional costs and time delays are often questioned by landholders .
• Landholders viewed on-ground investments compared to the respective land value and the future production potential . They were also conscious that their taxes contribute to the project budgets , so wearing a cost justification lens is recommended at all times . Landholder perceptions around burden of risk - particularly related to the management of gullies , was that of concern .
• Landholders expressed concern that once institutions know about the existence of gullies and a landholders ’ attempts to rectify these , that they would then be held accountable for any impacts / failures related to the gully . Landholders expressed they were better off doing nothing compared to what might happen to them if they tried to fix a gully and failed ( Coggan and Hay , 2021 ).
100