Greiner( 2015)( Burdekin)
� Goals such as making money are usually only tools for achieving higher order aspirations such as securing a family lifestyle. The higher order motivations drive landholder decision making
� Higher payments, shorter contracts and more flexibility significantly increased the chance of participation. Preference for external monitoring.
� Higher monetary incentive is required for longer contracts or for contracts that require cattle to be removed from an area. There is a strong preference for flexibility within contracts. There is great heterogeneity of preference across contract attributes. Programs tailored to the average will attract very few. Programs need to be well tailored to those that need to be engaged.
B. 3.2
Land management change adoption in the GBR – the detail
Rolfe and Gregg( 2015) assess factors that affect adoption of improved management practices for graziers in GBR catchments. They state that intrinsic motivations of farmers were more dominant than financial motivations when it came to adoption of conservation practices( this is widely supported, see also Greiner( 2015)). Within this, attitudes to risk, conservation ethic and lifestyle motivations were indicators that landholders were more likely to adopt conservation practices while landholders with strong financial and economic drivers stated that they were unlikely to adopt conservation practices unless there were clear financial incentives. In relation to riverine protection programs, Januchowski-Hartley et al.( 2012) state that barriers to adoption in the Mackay Whitsunday catchment included a program bias towards ecological rather than production outcomes, impractical programs and government mistrust. In this study, landholders noted that private benefit was a strong driver for engagement while cash for on ground works, extension and community recognition were the most preferred incentive mechanisms.
Greiner and Gregg( 2011) and Greiner et al.( 2009) also noted that intrinsic motivation was often greater than financial motivation for conservation practices. 14 The exception to this in Greiner and Gregg( 2011) was the adoption of management of frontage country and rotational grazing. It is noted that this is probably due to the capital costs to fence and provide watering points required for these management actions. With respect to riparian vegetation management, Herr et al.( 2004) found a negative association between the number of family members working on the farm and the likelihood that riparian vegetation would be fenced off Greiner et al.( 2009) highlight that graziers that they surveyed in the Burdekin noted the 5 most highly rated property goals were to: 1) pass on land in good condition; 2) produce high quality food; 3) enjoy farm work; 4) feel independent; and 5) look after the environment. Greiner et al.( 2009) note that conservation and lifestyle goals are the prime motivations for graziers in the Burdekin. Similar to Pannell et al.( 2011), Greiner and Gregg( 2011) note that conservation management not fitting with current practices and / or not fitting with goals presented a significant barrier to adoption. Similarly, complexity, lack of trial ability( also Whitten, Reeson, Windle, and Rolfe( 2013)) and the required
14
( Greiner, 2015) suggests that assessing motivations is useful when studying adoption as the higher order motivations tend to be those that drive landholder decision making.
74 | Landholders driving change: Exploring new incentives