community development

1. Agency–Community Partnership in Landcare:
Lessons for State-Sponsored Citizen
Resource Management
ALLAN CURTIS
School of Environmental and Information Sciences
Charles Sturt University
P.O. Box 789
Albury, NSW Australia 2640
ABSTRACT / With over 2500 Australian Landcare groups,
65,000 volunteer members, and considerable evidence of
program impact, Landcare is an important example of state-
sponsored rural development in a developed nation. The
agency–community partnership is a fundamental element of
Landcare and getting the partnership right is vital to long-
term program success. After reviewing the emergence of
Landcare in the state of Victoria, the author reports research
from a 1995 survey of Victorian Landcare groups. Survey
information highlighted the extent of agency–group contact,
the important roles agency staff played in many Landcare
groups, and the positive impact of agency contact and gov-
ernment funding upon group activity. Large majorities of
groups reported they were satisfied with their relationship
with agency staff. However, a majority of groups reported
money or materials provided to manage land and water deg-
radation was inadequate. Recently proposed changes to the
Landcare program will provide government funding of work
on private property and may address this concern. A major-
ity of groups also reported support for leadership and man-
agement training was inadequate and respondents empha-
sized the need to revise program guidelines that limit
funding for group coordinators. This information highlighted
the importance of articulating a practical model of commu-
nity participation in Australia and adopting a systematic ap-
proach to providing agency support for Landcare groups.
Reflecting upon the Landcare experience, the author sug-
gests some of the key elements of a practical model of state-
sponsored citizen resource management contributing to ru-
ral development.
Australians are attempting to manage a host of
difficult, long-term environmental problems such as
dryland and irrigation salinity, soil erosion, declining
water quality, and feral pests and weeds that are affect-
ing agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and public
health (ABS 1996). While a suite of instruments has
been employed, Australia has invested heavily in the
National Landcare Program (NLP) as a voluntary ap-
proach to effecting desired changes in the behavior of
land managers.
The NLP first emerged as a distinctive entity in the
state of Victoria during 1986, and after lobbying from
major farmer and conservation groups, the Common-
wealth government committed spending of $360 mil-
lion in the Decade of Landcare program (Hawke 1989).
Landcare involved limited funding of a rural develop-
ment process. From the government perspective, the
NLP attempted to engage a large proportion of the
rural population and produce more aware, informed,
skilled, and adaptive resource managers with a stronger
stewardship ethic. It was expected that this process
would result in the adoption of more sustainable re-
source management practices (ASCC 1991, DCE 1992a).
Landcare was intended to achieve more sustainable
(including more profitable) use of Australia’s farming
lands (DCE 1992a) and enhance biodiversity (Farley
and Toyne 1989).
Landcare can be viewed as part of a lengthy process
where Australians have adapted emerging theories of
rural development to a developed economy (Woodhill
and others 1992). As will be explained later, a small
vanguard of Australian soil conservationists, extension
agents, and farmers were attracted by the core elements
of rural development theory that emphasized self-help
supported by change agents, human resource develop-
ment rather than technology transfer, public participa-
tion, cooperative efforts at the local community scale,
and challenging social and economic structures (Buller
and Wright 1990, Cernea 1991, Esman and Uphoff
1984, Gabriel 1991, Jones and Rolls 1982). Rather than
embracing Marxian analyses that required transforma-
tion of society (Buller and Wright 1990, Grieco 1990,
Jones and Rolls 1982), these Australians drew encourage-
ment from theorists who suggested gains could be made
by building from within existing structures (Chambers
1983, Gabriel 1991, Kottak 1991).
KEY WORDS: Landcare; Australia; Community participation; Rural
development; Citizen resource management; Sustain-
able agriculture
Environmental Management Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 563–574 ௠ 1998 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

2. Buller and Wright (1990), Jones and Rolls (1982),
and Prosser (1982) argued that appropriate organiza-
tional forms were needed if rural development was to
occur. Roling (1988, p. 12) suggested the ‘‘. . . system-
atic use of groups can effect major changes in the
deep-seated attitudes of people and in the mobilisation
of people for development.’’ Early experience with
groups in Australia confirmed overseas evidence, includ-
ing from the United States, that participation through
local organizations could accomplish broad-based rural
development (Esman and Uphoff 1984, Kottak 1991,
Uphoff 1991, Wright 1990).
Midgley (1986) expressed concern about the inter-
nal inconsistencies of community participation theory
that required autonomous and spontaneous participa-
tion while at the same time advocating an important
role for change agents. Uphoff (1991) referred to this
as the paradox of participation, where ‘‘top-down’’
efforts were required to promote ‘‘bottom-up’’ develop-
ment. Midgley (1986, p. 150) concluded his review of
community participation with the assessment that ‘‘. . .
there is little evidence to show that state support and
community initiative have been effectively combined to
promote authentic participation.’’
Stankey and Hendee (1975, p. 67) noted that in the
United States ‘‘Involving the public in resource decision
making was a new way of life for federal agencies.’’
These authors believed ‘‘. . . the main problem seemed
that those attempting to involve the public in decision
making seldom know how to do so effectively.’’ Wengert
(1976, p. 38) made the telling point that ‘‘No theory or
procedure for participation can be adequate if it does
not deal explicitly with how participatory processes
relate to the formal structures of government.’’ Mohai
(1987) reported research highlighting agency culture
as a critical factor affecting the impact of participation
processes. For Sewell and Phillips (1979) the basic
elements of successful public involvement programs
were high levels of citizen involvement, equity, and cost
efficiency. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) argued that appro-
priate participatory techniques and strategies are criti-
cal in creating the circumstances in which participants
act in a ‘‘reasonable’’ manner (‘‘constructive, coopera-
tive, respectful of one another’s rights’’ p. 61). Ostrom
(1990, pp. 183–184) believed participatory processes
could establish the ‘‘. . . social capital with which they
can build institutional arrangements for resolving CPR
(common-pool resources) dilemmas.’’ The Landre and
Knuth (1993) study of the operation of community
advisory committees involved in water resource plan-
ning in the Great Lakes Basin provided strong empirical
evidence to support Ostrom’s view. These authors are
now part of a larger body of literature examining
agency–community partnership (see for example Curtis
and others 1995, Endicott 1993, Selin and Chavez 1995,
Williams and Ellefson 1997).
With over 2500 Australian Landcare groups (Alex-
ander 1995), 65,000 volunteer members (Curtis and De
Lacy 1996a), about 30% of the farming community
(Mues and others 1994), and considerable evidence of
program impact (Curtis and De Lacy 1996b, Mues and
others 1994), Landcare is viewed as an Australian
success story (Alexander 1995, Campbell 1994). Land-
care also provides an important example of state-
sponsored rural development in a developed nation.
The agency–community partnership is a fundamental
element of Landcare and getting the partnership right
is vital to long-term program success. This paper ex-
plores the agency–community partnership in Landcare
and reflects on the lessons for state-sponsored rural
development through the study of Landcare in the state
of Victoria. In developing this discussion, I have drawn
upon program documentation, reports by agency staff-
ers and national Landcare facilitators, personal experi-
ence as a Landcare member and representative on
regional natural resource management boards, and
information from the most recent and comprehensive
survey of Landcare group activity in an Australian state.
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen
Resource Management
Landcare Evolves in Victoria
It is difficult to establish the beginning of Landcare
in Victoria. Key players in the Victorian government
agencies responsible for Landcare nominated the devel-
opment of over 100 Group Conservation Area (GCA)
projects between 1960 and 1980 by the now extinct Soil
Conservation Authority, as the most useful place to
begin (Edgar and Patterson 1992, Poussard 1992, Penni-
cuik 1992). GCAs had legislative backing and distin-
guished between the government’s responsibility to
fund nonproductive work and landholder responsibility
to fund productive works (O’Brien and others 1992).
GCA projects were catchment based, with strong agency
input into planning and implementation. Participating
landholders were required to enter into formal agree-
ments to complete and maintain work carried out by
agency staff. Despite widespread acceptance of these
projects, they were top-down and failed to generate a
sense of community responsibility for tackling issues or
maintaining project infrastructure after projects had
been completed (Edgar and Patterson 1992, Penniciuk
1992).
Drawing upon their experience with GCAs, the
A. Curtis564

3. emerging theory of rural development and the experi-
ence of other organizations with community groups,
particularly in education and social welfare, Soil Conser-
vation Authority staff worked with local landholders to
establish Land Protection Groups. Poussard (1992) and
Edgar and Patterson (1992, p. 198) explained that Land
Protection Groups ‘‘. . . aimed at achieving increased
local participation and community control of projects
. . .’’ and ‘‘These developments supported an organisa-
tion climate which allowed the relaxation of the regimen-
tation of GCA projects and provided for greater farmer
participation.’’
Farm tree groups emerged in rural Victoria in the
early 1980s (O’Brien and others 1992). The first of
these groups was established in 1981 through a partner-
ship between the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Asso-
ciation (now the Victorian Farmers Federation) and the
Garden State Committee (now Greening Australia,
Victoria). The main aim of Farm Tree Groups was ‘‘. . .
to encourage farmers to reverse tree decline and land
degradation and to improve prospects for sustainable
agriculture’’ (O’Brien and others, 1992, p. 29). Farm
Tree groups represented an important development in
Landcare by explicitly linking the conservation of biodi-
versity and agricultural production and by establishing
formal links between the conservation movement and
the farming community.
These programs were brought together under the
Victorian Landcare program launched by the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Environment (DCE) and the
Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) in 1986 (DCE
1992a). Poussard (1992, p. 233) summed up the essence
of Landcare as being about ‘‘. . . landholders working in
their own local social group to solve their own local land
conservation problems in their own way.’’ The Land-
care program was controlled by the minister with advice
from a steering committee with membership drawn
from key stakeholders, including a Landcare group
representative; and supported by a full-time state-wide
coordinator and agency staff in the regions (O’Brien
and others 1992).
Edgar and Patterson (1992) suggested the Victorian
Landcare program emerging in 1986 incorporated
the four elements of information exchange, financial
assistance, community involvement, and enforcement
or prosecution, which together would change the
behavior of land managers. They highlighted the effi-
cacy of information transfer in achieving behavior
changes when individuals were highly motivated and
where management changes were relatively straight
forward and demonstrated to be profitable. However,
these authors acknowledged this ‘‘. . . was often not
the case with soil conservation, salinity or vermin
and noxious weed control.’’ Under these circum-
stances, incentives ‘‘. . . may be provided to farmers to
encourage them to adopt a new practice. This can be
justified where there is a significant off-site benefit to
the community or to initiate the adoption of a
practice which has significant benefit to the individuals
but the adoption rate has been slow’’ (Edgar and
Patterson 1992, p. 199). The obligation of government
to provide limited financial support for Landcare
work where there was a community benefit was
incorporated into the Victorian Decade of Landcare
Plan (DCE 1992a). Edgar and Patterson (1992, p. 199)
suggested the final element was enforcement and pros-
ecution ‘‘. . . where other measures have been tried and
failed and the non-compliance of one or more landhold-
ers is having a significant adverse effect on neighbour-
ing land.’’ However, the Victorian Decade of Landcare
Plan explicitly stated that ‘‘The Landcare Program
departs from a regulatory approach . . .’’ (DCE, 1992b,
p. 20).
Local communities were urged to form Landcare
groups and the Victorian minister frequently attended
highly publicized Landcare accreditation ceremonies.
The benefits of Landcare membership for landholders
were: sharing problems and ideas, working together to
tackle common problems more effectively, learning
about land management at the property and catchment
levels, accessing financial and technical assistance from
government, and having greater opportunities for so-
cial interaction (Campbell 1989, Curtis and De Lacy
1995). By 1990, 50 Landcare groups had been regis-
tered and financial support to groups had been incorpo-
rated in the Land Protection Incentive Scheme (Pous-
sard 1992). By 1991 there were over 300 Landcare
groups across Victoria, supported by more than 40
community-based facilitators/coordinators (DCE 1992b,
p. 28).
Most Landcare groups developed in rural areas and
group membership was voluntary and open to any local
person. Groups frequently operated at catchment or
subcatchment scales. While the focus of group activity
was usually on the privately owned or leased land
managed by group members, groups also worked on
roadsides, reserves, and other public lands. Groups
were involved in a variety of rural development activi-
ties, including:
● meetings to discuss issues, identify priorities, de-
velop action strategies and debate a range of re-
source management issues;
● holding field days and farm walks and establishing
demonstration sites to identify best management
practices for their locality;
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen Participation 565

4. ● a variety of educational and promotional activities,
such as hosting tours and involving other commu-
nity groups in Landcare activities, organizing confer-
ences, writing newsletters and field guides and
preparing media releases;
● a range of onground work including seed collection
and tree planting, building salinity and erosion
control structures, coordinating pest animal and
weed control, erecting fencing to manage stock
access to creeks and streams and establishing wild-
life corridors;
● coordinating activities related to property and catch-
ment planning; and
● preparing submissions for government funding and
liaising with agency staff.
At no stage was there any attempt to prescribe the
role and operation of Landcare groups. While this may
simply reflect the ad hoc development of Landcare, it is
also reflected the diversity of interests with a stake in
Landcare and a desire to retain flexibility and allow
local communities to adopt a Landcare structure and
method of operation that suited them. Edgar and
Patterson (1992, p. 200) stressed that from the ‘‘. . .
beginning the emphasis was on developing and main-
taining a genuine grass roots approach.’’ and that
‘‘Groups are free to define their own objectives and
program of activities.’’ The Victorian Decade of Land-
care Plan (DCE 1992b, p. 29) acknowledged that
‘‘Different groups will develop at different rates and
address different issues. They should not operate at the
discretion or direction of government or be subject to
unnecessary operational guidelines.’’ Pennicuik (1992,
p. 33) explained that local agency staff are not automati-
cally invited to meetings and that when they do attend,
‘‘They act as a sounding board for ideas emanating
from the group . . . rather than the local expert.’’
These statements fail to acknowledge the critical role
of agency staff in the development of many groups. The
author’s personal experience of Landcare in North East
Victoria suggests few groups emerged or developed
without strong facilitation and coordination from agency
staff. Edgar and Patterson (1992, p. 201) highlighted
the critical role played by agency staff in their statement
that ‘‘Apart from the requirement for technical advice,
groups are also dependent on government for State-
wide coordination including conferences and the devel-
opment of networks across the State.’’
Getting the Partnership Right
There is always the potential for agencies to co-opt
participation processes and subvert rural development
efforts (Buller and Wright 1990, Grima 1983, Uphoff
1991). Midgley (1986, p. 41) defined co-option as ‘‘. . . a
process by which the state seeks to gain control over
grassroots movements and to manipulate them for its
own ends.’’
In the early days, Landcare groups were accredited
or registered on the advice of agency staff to regional
Land Protection Advisory Boards (DCFL 1987). To be
registered, groups had to demonstrate they had a plan
identifying the major land protection issues and poten-
tial for improvement in sustainable resource use in their
area, had sought technical and financial advice to solve
these problems, had commenced work to tackle these
issues, and had become a legal entity through incorpo-
ration (DCFL 1987, p. 4). The accreditation process
may have represented an attempt by agency staff and
government to retain control of natural resource man-
agement in Victoria. Accreditation may also have re-
flected concern about the potential for Landcare group
failings to damage the lead agency’s image and the
career prospects of staff. Poussard (1992, p. 233) sug-
gested Landcare generated considerable tension within
the lead agency in that Landcare ‘‘. . . challenged the
control that agencies had over the programs funded
and the recipients to be serviced.’’ Campbell and Junor
(1992, p. 18) reported that ‘‘It is not uncommon to hear
extension staff or regional managers or central adminis-
trators of government agencies worrying about groups
going ‘off the rails,’ which presumably means in direc-
tions other than the agencies’ preferred path.’’ Accredi-
tation may also have represented an attempt by the lead
agency to prevent a rival body, such as the Department
of Agriculture (DAEM) or the Victorian Farmers Federa-
tion, capturing Landcare. The accreditation process no
longer exists: a casualty of the rapid expansion of group
numbers (to 700 in 1996), cuts within head office
Landcare support staff, and a recognition among agency
staff that it is not appropriate or necessary to control
Landcare group development.
To an extent, Landcare represented an attempt to do
more with less and a shifting of responsibility for action
from government to local communities (Martin and
others 1992). It was undoubtedly cheaper to invest in
Landcare as a process of awareness-raising and educa-
tion than to fund large-scale onground work. However,
it should be remembered that governments had not
attempted to mislead Landcare participants. The Victo-
rian Decade of Landcare Plan (DCE 1992b, p. 18)
explicitly stated that ‘‘The Landcare program will be a
partnership based primarily on community action and
supported by government’’ and ‘‘Incentives need to be
targeted . . . so that limited resources generate the
greatest community benefit’’ (DCE, 1992b, p. 27).
Lockie (1992) suggested governments exert control
over groups through the allocation of Landcare funds
A. Curtis566

5. to groups and projects that address government priori-
ties. There is also evidence that state agencies have
captured a large part of the Landcare resources pro-
vided by the federal government. Campbell (1992,
p. 52) and Alexander (1995, Appendix 2) addressed
this issue and calculated that direct funding to Land-
care groups represented approximately 20% of Commu-
nity Landcare Program expenditure in 1991–1992 and
15% in 1994–1995. The author’s experience in North
East Victoria suggests state agencies have captured
almost all federal funding through the Murray-Darling
Basin Commission’s Natural Resources Management
Strategy (NRMS), and at least 60% of National Land-
care Program funding. In the case of NLP funding,
most of this money is allocated directly to the state
agencies under what are described as partnership agree-
ments negotiated with federal agencies. With the NRMS
($6 million in 1994–1995 for community projects across
five Victorian regions in the basin), the federal govern-
ment requires the states to match federal funds on a
dollar-for-dollar basis. In the main, the approach adopted
by state agencies is to allocate their funds to projects
conceived by agency staff.
By 1992, state agency projects funded by federal
Landcare moneys and the project submissions of local
Landcare groups were being scrutinized by regional
assessment panels with a majority of community repre-
sentatives. These panels operated under the authority
of regional catchment and land protection boards
(CALP boards in Victoria) or integrated/total catch-
ment management committees (TCM committees in
New South Wales). These boards/committees are com-
prised of ministerial appointees from regional commu-
nities, including Landcare representatives, and are
funded and coordinated by the lead agency responsible
for Landcare. CALP boards/TCM committees are re-
sponsible for developing regional catchment strategies
and managing regional assessment panels and may
provide the missing institutional mechanism that links
and supports the activities of the local, community
based Landcare groups. These regional bodies have the
potential to provide the important regional perspective;
satisfy bureaucratic demands for accountability of pub-
lic moneys expended through Landcare; coordinate,
but not control, the activities of the various indepen-
dent community groups; and enable community groups
to influence broader policy development and pull down
additional resources (Curtis and others 1995).
A Summary
Much of the above discussion is typical of the
ongoing debate about whether Landcare was a genuine
grassroots or a top-down development. I suggest the
evidence indicates Landcare groups have not developed
spontaneously and autonomously and are therefore not
grassroots organizations in terms of the theory of
authentic community participation (Midgley 1986). For
the same reasons, Lockie (1992) argued it is inaccurate
to refer to the ‘‘Landcare movement’’ which implies
Landcare is a social movement. However, Landcare
groups are not organs of the state, and they are not
purely social associations. They can best be described as
local organizations (Esman and Uphoff 1984, p. 18)
‘‘. . . which act on behalf of and are accountable to their
membership and which are involved in development
activities.’’ Debate about whether Landcare represents a
top-down or bottom-up approach obscures the impor-
tance, complexity, and evolution of the community/
government partnership that is a fundamental element
of Landcare: a partnership that attempts to blend the
technical expertise, access to funding sources, and
commitment of agency staff with the local knowledge,
skills, and on-ground work of enthusiastic locals.
In the next section I draw upon the results of a 1995
survey of 400 Victorian Landcare groups to further
explore the nature of the agency–community partner-
ship in Landcare.
1995 Survey of Victorian Landcare Groups
During the latter part of 1995, Victorian Landcare
groups were surveyed by the author in collaboration
with agency staffers from the Victorian Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (CNR) and Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Energy and Minerals (DAEM).
Drawing upon previous experience with Landcare group
surveys since 1988–1989 (Curtis and others 1993, Curtis
and De Lacy 1995, Curtis 1995), the author prepared a
12-page, B5 survey booklet (Dillman 1978) that was
distributed by agency staff to approximately 400 of the
700 Victorian Landcare groups operating in late 1995.
Group officials were asked to complete surveys and
return them to the departmental head office in Mel-
bourne. With agency field staff distributing surveys, it is
difficult to precisely state the number of surveys handed
out. However, with 180 completed surveys returned, a
survey response rate of approximately 45% was achieved.
This is the largest number of Landcare group surveys
analyzed in an Australian state. With very similar ques-
tions used in recent Victorian surveys, there was also the
opportunity to compare trends over time.
The Landcare group survey process employed has
been widely accepted (Campbell 1992, Alexander 1995)
as a cost-effective method of gathering data that contrib-
utes to increased understanding of what groups do and
how they operate, assessing group needs, monitoring
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen Participation 567

6. the extent of group activity, identifying factors affecting
group performance, and understanding key issues such
as the agency–group relationship.
Adopting the methodology used for previous analy-
ses of Victorian Landcare surveys, an index of group
activity was constructed as a measure of group effective-
ness. Groups operating for less than one year were
excluded from index calculations to provide a sample of
163 groups. Equal weighting was given to measures
selected to contribute to an index of work undertaken
(for example, the number of trees planted and length
of fencing erected) and an index of community coopera-
tion (for example, the number of general meetings
held, number of demonstration sites established, and
percentage of landholders in area who are group
members). A group’s scores on these indices were then
combined to calculate a final rank as a measure of
group effectiveness. The final rank enabled the author
to test for significant relationships between final rank
and independent variables such as group age, levels of
government funding, the extent of leadership changes,
or the extent of contact with government staff.
Findings About the Agency–Community
Partnership
Respondents to the 1995 Victoria survey were asked
to provide information about: the frequency of contact
between their group and agency staff, the role of agency
contact officers in their group, the extent of govern-
ment assistance received, and the adequacy of support
from government (via the agencies).
Considerable Contact Between Groups
and Agency Staff Makes a Difference
A large majority of groups (89%, N ϭ 175) had a
designated contact officer in CNR or DAEM. Respon-
dents were asked to select from among weekly, every two
weeks, every month, every three months, and rarely/
none to describe the extent of contact their group had
with these staff. Survey data provided evidence of
considerable contact between most groups and their
contact officers, with 41% reporting contact at least
every month, and 75% reporting contact either every
month or every three months. An additional question
sought information about group contact with all staff
from the lead agencies. Almost all groups (92%,
N ϭ 173) reported regular contact (at least every three
months), and a substantial majority (68%) reported
contact at least monthly. This information confirmed
the strong links identified in earlier surveys (Curtis
1995).
For the 1995 survey, statistical analysis (Spearman’s
rs ϭ 0.2788, P ϭ 0.000) established a significant positive
relationship between the extent of contact by govern-
ment staff and group performance on the index of final
rank. While there needs to be some caution when
interpreting this result, as there would be an increased
chance of officers attending those groups that have
more activities, this result was consistent with the 1993
finding of a significant positive relationship between
group performance and the proportion of activities
attended by contact officers (Curtis 1995).
Statistical analysis (Spearman’s rs ϭ 0.3838, P ϭ 0.000)
also established a significant positive relationship in 1995
between reported contact with government officers and
the extent of government funding received. Groups
reporting more frequent contact with government offic-
ers (every month or more frequently) had been operat-
ing for similar periods to those reporting less frequent
contact (mean of 4.76 years compared to 4.33 years),
and groups operating longer had not accessed greater
levels of government funding (Spearman’s rs ϭ 0.0911,
P ϭ 0.274). To some extent this information allayed the
author’s concern that groups operating longer had
accessed a disproportionate share of public resources.
Agency Contact Officers and Coordinators
Have Considerable Influence on Decision Making
As part of a larger question seeking views about the
role of agency staff, respondents were asked to select
from one of five Likert-type response categories to
indicate the extent of influence agency staff had upon
decision making in their group. The five response
options were later collapsed into three categories for
the purpose of further analysis (Table 1). A small
Table 1. Role of government contact officer: All Landcare groups, Victoria 1995
Role of contact officers
Best description of role
N Strongly agree/agree (%) Not sure(%) Disagree/strongly disagree(%)
Have little influence upon group decisions 139 40 9 51
Show respect for skills and knowledge of
most members 150 88 5 7
Have good communication skills 150 85 7 8
Have good technical knowledge 148 83 11 6
A. Curtis568

7. majority of respondents reported their agency contacts
had considerable influence upon group decision mak-
ing (Table 1). This information was very similar to that
obtained in 1991 and 1993 surveys (Curtis and De Lacy
1995, Curtis 1995).
Survey respondents were also asked to indicate if
their group employed/had access to a paid coordinator
(full or part-time), and if they did, to provide informa-
tion about the role of their coordinator. Of the 175
respondents to this question, 29% indicated they had a
coordinator. A large majority of these respondents
(67%), indicated their coordinator had an important
influence upon group decision making. Statistical analy-
sis (Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon Z 7.0043, sig P ϭ 0.000)
established a significant positive relationship between
groups having a coordinator and group performance
on the index of final rank. While most Victorian
coordinators are not directly employed by the lead
agencies, almost all are government funded, and the
reality is that regional agency staff have considerable
influence over who is employed and the activities they
undertake.
Strong Affirmation for Role of Agency
Staff and Group Coordinators
Survey information provided strong affirmation of
the role of agency contacts and suggested a very positive
relationship between most groups and their agency
contacts. For example, almost all respondents (83%–
88%), agreed/strongly agreed their agency contacts
showed respect for the skills and knowledge of most
members, possessed good communication skills, and
displayed good technical knowledge (Table 1). Again,
these results were very similar to those obtained in the
1991 and 1993 surveys (Curtis and De Lacy 1995, Curtis
1995) and provided further confirmation of the impor-
tant role of agency staff in the operation and work of
Landcare groups. Respondents were asked similar ques-
tions about their coordinators, and survey analysis
revealed a very positive assessment of their roles (83%–
94% agreed/strongly agreed for each topic, N ϭ 52–55).
High Level of Satisfaction with Key Aspects
of Government Support
Large majorities of respondents indicated govern-
ment support provided by the agencies was adequate/
extremely adequate for information and advice pro-
vided relating to land management (85%); assistance
with group administration, including newsletters, sub-
missions and attracting sponsorship (62%); and coordi-
nation of on-ground group activities such as field days
and demonstration trials (78%) (Table 2). Again, this
information confirmed that agency staff delivering
government support played an important and positive
role in Landcare.
Group Performance Related
to Government Funding
Almost all groups (97%, N ϭ 162) reported assis-
tance of some type from at least one level of govern-
ment, and a large majority (84%, N ϭ 153) reported
receiving assistance with money or materials. The mean
reported value of government assistance with money
and materials was $8232 (median $4000) per group.
Information that only 6% of groups reported assistance
in excess of $25,000 suggested funds were equitably
spread. However, the funds obtained by this small set of
groups represented 37% of total funding to the respon-
dent groups. Statistical analysis (Spearman’s rs ϭ
Ϫ0.2616, P ϭ 0.002) established a significant positive
relationship between the amount of government fund-
ing received by Landcare groups and group perfor-
mance on the index of final rank. While the nature of
any causal relationship between these variables is com-
plex, it is important to note that the most active groups
had received the most government funding.
Despite the impact of drought in 1994–1995, 1995
survey analysis suggested most groups had undertaken
on-ground work such as tree planting, fencing, activities
to control pest weeds and pest animals, or manage
salinity and soil erosion, at levels similar to those
identified in previous surveys in 1991 and 1993 (Curtis
Table 2. Extent of support from government: All Landcare groups, Victoria 1995
Type of support
Government support is
N Extremely adequate (%) Adequate (%) Inadequate (%)
Information and advice relating to land management 160 19 66 15
Money or materials to manage land and water degradation 157 12 29 59
Assistance with group administration (newsletters,
submissions, attracting sponsorship) 159 17 45 38
Leadership and management training for group leaders 142 5 42 53
Coordination of on-ground group activities (field days,
demonstration trials etc) 148 18 60 22
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen Participation 569

8. and De Lacy 1995, Curtis 1995). It was difficult to
explain this trend given the obvious decline in farm
incomes and less favorable catchment conditions in
drought-affected areas. One explanation is that govern-
ment funding, which was at similar levels to previous
years, continued to support important Landcare work.
Again, there was evidence that government and the
agencies that distribute and manage these funds play a
critical role in Landcare.
Important Concerns About Adequacy
of Support for Groups
A small majority of respondents indicated money or
materials provided by government to manage land and
water degradation was inadequate (Table 2). This level
of concern was very similar to those identified in
previous surveys (Curtis and De Lacy 1995, Curtis
1995). However, agencies have limited discretionary
funds to redirect to support the on-ground work of
groups. Landcare participants have been attempting to
change government policy, and it appears they have had
some success. In the run-up to the 1996 federal elec-
tion, both major political parties promised increased
money for Landcare, with provision for funding of
larger-scale on-ground work on private property.
A majority of survey respondents indicated assistance
with leadership and management training was inad-
equate, and over a third reported assistance with group
administration was inadequate (Table 2). When asked
to report the major constraints affecting their group in
the coming 12 months, 48% nominated financial re-
turns members received from farming; 23% reported
membership-related topics such as leadership skills,
commitment of members; and 21% indicated time
constraints (N ϭ 142). While there was little quantita-
tive evidence of burnout among members (groups
operating longer were more active, levels of group
activity were similar to previous years, member participa-
tion levels in group activities remained high), many
survey comments suggested key Landcare participants
were becoming overwhelmed by the task at hand or
disillusioned by insufficient agency and government
support (see later quotes for expressions of these
sentiments). Survey analysis did show that about one
quarter of all groups surveyed were operating at very
low levels of activity in 1995.
One response to concerns about the need for leader-
ship and management skills development has been to
implement pilot projects (for example in North East
Victoria and in Queensland) facilitating development
of these skills. However, the real solution may require
another policy change. Some groups have members
with the skills, commitment, and time to undertake
group coordination, but many groups want ongoing
funding of a coordinator (usually part-time and often in
partnership with other groups). Until now, the assump-
tion within the NLP has been that groups could be
‘‘kick-started’’ by government funding, but over time
they would become largely independent of funding for
coordination. This approach fails to acknowledge the
growing weight of Australian (Campbell 1992, Rush and
Associates 1992) and overseas (Brudney 1990, Pearce
1993) evidence highlighting the critical role of group
coordination in volunteer programs. This issue also
highlights the need for a more practical model of
community participation in Australia. We cannot expect
Landcare members/leaders, who frequently have full-
time off-farm work and usually many other community
responsibilities, to work on their own/other’s/public
lands, on very difficult problems, over long time peri-
ods, with limited resources, as well as providing coordi-
nation of group activities. Respondents’ comments
listed below were typical of those provided in the
surveys.
Landcare is a great concept with so much potential but if our group is to survive
we will need to start seeing much more of the allocated taxpayers hard earned
money being spent on the ground, addressing the real problems rather than being
frittered away by so called technical staff, experts & bureaucrats on needless job
justification tasks. To continue on, groups need a co-ordinator or good support
from gov’t. It is difficult for members (who mostly already work full-time) to put
in a lot of time to plan, secure resources and then carry out activities which are of
no direct benefit to themselves.
With the loss of our regional CNR Landcare coordinator the group has
disintegrated.
Group has been floundering a bit since coordinator position ended two years
ago. Inadequate funding coupled with general rural downturn has influenced
attitudes. Some original members have hit a ‘‘plateau’’ but hopeful some new
blood & coordinator position will fire the group up again.
The Natte Yallock Group strongly believe that the continued growth and
momentum of the group is inextricably linked to the group having the services of
a dynamic part-time coordinator.
Other Landcare group management issues have
been raised at different times, including limited inter-
group interaction, poor communications between
groups and agency decision makers, low turnover of
group leadership in some groups, gender stereotyping
with the allocation of leadership roles in groups, exces-
sive focus upon task accomplishment, and inadequate
attention to the social needs of members (Alexander
1995, Campbell 1991, 1992, Curtis and De Lacy 1995,
Edgar and Patterson 1992). ‘‘Management of a volun-
teer program constitutes a legitimate job in itself, which
requires a significant investment of time and can
A. Curtis570

9. benefit from specialised education and/or training’’
(Brudney 1990, p. 97). The reality is that the commu-
nity Landcare component is run on a shoestring with
small budgets and limited numbers of personnel and
has very few senior staff directly involved in program
management and few staff with specific knowledge of
volunteer management. There simply is not a systematic
approach to the management of the issues highlighted
above. To some extent, concerns among Landcare
members, and particularly conservative farmer organiza-
tions, that scarce Landcare resources would be con-
sumed by a bloated central bureaucracy, have contrib-
uted to this situation.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion of the evolution of Land-
care in Victoria and the 1995 Landcare group survey
findings clearly established that Landcare is not a
grassroots organization in terms of having developed
spontaneously or now operating independently of gov-
ernment. For the same reasons, Landcare is not a social
movement. Landcare groups are best described as local
organizations engaged in the process of rural develop-
ment.
The latest Victorian Landcare group survey con-
firmed the results of previous surveys (Curtis and De
Lacy 1995, Curtis 1995) and other research (Alexander
1995, Campbell 1994, Curtis and De Lacy 1996, Mues
and others 1994) suggesting Landcare is a successful
example of state-sponsored rural development. Land-
care has been effective in mobilizing the participation
of a large section of the rural population; embracing an
extensive range of community development activities
likely to increase awareness of issues, enhance land-
holder skills and knowledge, and foster the develop-
ment of a stewardship ethic; and has undertaken
considerable on-ground work likely to have an impact
upon land and water degradation at the local scale.
There have also been observable improvements in the
condition of some catchments. Given limited program
funding and a short period of operation, it would be
unrealistic to expect Landcare to have made measur-
able improvements in environmental conditions, land-
holder viability, or public health at the regional scale.
The community–agency partnership is a fundamen-
tal element of Landcare, and nurturing an effective,
enabling relationship is critical to program success.
Survey responses suggested that, overall, groups and
agency staff had established effective working relation-
ships based on trust and a shared sense of purpose and
that the lead agencies had a firm commitment to
developing effective partnerships with groups. For ex-
ample, large majorities of respondents believed agency
contact staff showed respect for the skills and knowl-
edge of most members. Respondents also indicated
high levels of satisfaction with the communication and
technical skills of agency contact staff and with the
support provided by agencies in terms of information
and advice relating to land management, assistance with
group administration, and coordination of on-ground
activities.
While survey information suggested the agency–
community relationship was fairly robust and healthy,
important concerns did emerge. A majority of survey
respondents complained that government had not
provided sufficient resources to effectively manage land
and water degradation problems and a number com-
plained that too much Landcare funding was being
accessed by agencies and not hitting the ground. These
concerns are typical of many Landcare participants who
express frustration that Landcare group successes have
been held up as evidence of government commitment
to manage land degradation at the very moment state
governments are imposing severe cuts to extension
support and there are massive reductions in education,
health, and transport services for rural communities.
For example, discussions with senior staff in the key
Victorian natural resource management agencies sug-
gest average budget and staff reductions of approxi-
mately 40% have been imposed over the period 1987–
1995. Some reductions have been offset by increased
federal funding, but the net effect of staff reductions
and a rapid increase in Landcare groups (in Victoria
from 50 in 1990 to 700 in 1996) has been a dramatic
decline in the capacity of agency staff to service groups.
The potential for governments and agencies to
co-opt Landcare is highlighted by these concerns com-
bined with evidence that agency staff play an important
role in the decision making of about half the respon-
dent Victorian groups, that group activity on a number
of key indicators was significantly related to government
funding, and the absence of an independent Landcare
communication network.
Through their representation on emerging regional
catchment and land protection boards and other fo-
rums such as the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial
Council Community Advisory Committee and the Na-
tional Landcare Advisory Committee, Landcare advo-
cates have argued for a change in government policy.
They have contended that while Landcare has been
successful, limited funding of a rural development
process would not make a significant impact at the
landscape scale. These advocates have argued for in-
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen Participation 571

10. creased funding of on-ground work using cost-sharing
principles based upon identifying community benefits
flowing from specific works (AACM International 1995).
They have argued that increased funding for Landcare
work on private property is not an unwarranted subsidy
and is justified on the grounds that the community
benefits of important remedial works such as revegeta-
tion on steep hills, fencing water courses to control
stock access, and establishing perennial grasses on
steep, infertile hills usually outweigh benefits accruing
to private landholder; most land degradation problems
have been inherited from previous generations; govern-
ment policies have contributed to many land degrada-
tion issues; and there is an important linkage between
the conservation of native flora and fauna and the
condition of privately owned agricultural land. The
incoming federal Liberal government substantially
adopted these proposals and will provide increased
funding for Landcare through a $1 billion Natural
Heritage Trust, which is to operate over a five-year
period. To the extent federal policy has been shifted,
this example provides powerful evidence of the capacity
of Landcare to facilitate community development.
Unfortunately, the federal government has not com-
mitted additional resources to support the increased
administrative load Landcare groups will take on when
they receive increased funding under the Natural Heri-
tage Trust. This shortcoming highlights the absence of
a systematic approach to Landcare group management
and the need for a more practical model of community
participation in Australia. A suite of Landcare group
management issues have been raised, including inad-
equate leadership and management skills training, poor
communications between groups and agency decision
makers, low turnover of leadership positions in some
groups, gender stereotyping with the allocation of
group leadership roles, and inequitable allocation of
government funds to groups. Of particular concern is
the continued reluctance of the federal agency respon-
sible for the National Landcare Program (the Depart-
ment of Primary Industries and Energy) to allow long-
term funding (beyond an initial three years) for
employment of group coordinators. This approach fails
to acknowledge the growing weight of evidence high-
lighting the critical role of group coordination. To-
gether, these issues represent a serious threat to the
agency–community partnership, a threat that is not
being addressed.
Research discussed in this paper suggested that some
of the essential elements of a practical model for
state-sponsored citizen participation as part of rural
development in a developed economy would include:
● institutional arrangements that facilitate the trans-
fer of decision making to local and regional stake-
holder representatives;
● clearly articulated and separated roles for represen-
tative regional bodies (aggregating and articulating
regional needs, setting regional priorities for allocat-
ing government funds, providing accountability for
expenditure of public moneys, linking and support-
ing independent local groups) and local community
groups (mobilizing participation, initiating social
learning, undertaking onground work);
● provision of sufficient funding to support priority
setting, group coordination, and onground work on
private property to the extent activities match re-
gional priorities and have identifiable community
benefits;
● acknowledging that the most important roles for
most landholders are participation in group activi-
ties, establishing community priorities, and undertak-
ing work on their properties, rather than administer-
ing projects;
● development of an agency culture that supports
community participation;
● recognition that agency staff need to facilitate the
development of group management skills and will in
turn require training in group and volunteer man-
agement;
● supporting the emergence of an independent com-
munication network between local groups;
● accepting that interest in group establishment and
the intensity of individual participation will vary
among communities, individuals, and over time and
that people must be encouraged to come when they
are ready; and
● as local communities develop expertise and confi-
dence, allowing agency representatives to partici-
pate as legitimate stakeholders rather than simply
acting as technical advisors.
The Landcare experience suggests state-sponsored
citizen participation can contribute to rural develop-
ment. Robust, healthy agency–community relation-
ships are an essential ingredient in this complex and
difficult process. The Landcare experience suggests
effective agency–community partnerships can develop
given goodwill on all sides, the commitment of suffi-
cient resources, the development of appropriate
institutional arrangements, and efforts to develop agency
and community expertise in managing volunteers.
Literature Cited
AACM International. 1995. Cost sharing for on-ground works
discussion paper. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission,
Canberra, Australia.
A. Curtis572

11. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 1996. Australians and
the environment. Australian Government Publishing Ser-
vice, Canberra, Australia.
Alexander, H. 1995. A framework for change: The state of the
community Landcare movement in Australia. The National
Landcare Facilitator Project Annual Report. National Land-
care Program, Canberra, Australia.
ASCC (Australian Soil Conservation Council). 1991. Decade
of Landcare plan. ASCC, Canberra, Australia.
Brudney, J. L. 1990. Fostering volunteer programs in the
public sector: Planning, initiating and managing voluntary
activities. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Buller, H., and S. Wright. 1990. Introduction: concepts and
policies for rural development. Pages 1–27 in H. Buller and
S. Wright (eds.), Rural development: Problems and prac-
tices. Gower, Vermont.
Campbell, A. 1989. Landcare in Australia: An overview. Austra-
lian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2(4):18–20.
Campbell, A. 1991. Landcare-testing times. National landcare
facilitator 2nd annual report, to Department of Primary
Industries and Energy. National Soil Conservation Program,
Canberra, Australia.
Campbell, A. 1992. Taking the long view in tough times.
National Landcare facilitator 3rd annual report, to Depart-
ment of Primary Industries and Energy. National Soil
Conservation Program, Canberra, Australia.
Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare: Communities shaping the land
and the future. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Campbell, A., and R. Junor. 1992. Land management exten-
sion in the ’90s: Evolution or emasculation? Australian
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 5(2):16–23.
Cernea, M. 1991. Knowledge from social science for develop-
ment policies and projects. Pages 1–43 in M. Cernea (ed.),
Putting people first, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first.
Longman, New York.
Curtis, A. 1995. Landcare in Victoria: The state of play.
Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 8(2):17–23.
Curtis, A., and T. De Lacy. 1995. Landcare evaluation in
Australia: towards an effective partnership between agen-
cies, community groups and researchers. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 50(1):15–20.
Curtis, A., and T. De Lacy. 1996a. Landcare in Australia:
Beyond the expert farmer. Agriculture and Human Values
13(1):20–31.
Curtis, A., and T. De Lacy. 1996b. Landcare in Australia: Does
it make a difference. Journal of Environmental Management
46:119–137.
Curtis, A., T. De Lacy, and N. Klomp. 1993. Landcare in
Victoria: Are we gaining ground? Australian Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 6(2):20–27.
Curtis, A., J. Birckhead, and T. De Lacy. 1995. Community
participation in landcare policy in Australia: The Victorian
experience with regional Landcare plans. Society and Natural
Resources 8:415–430.
DCE (Department of Conservation and Environment). 1992a.
Victoria’s Decade of Landcare plan. DCE, Melbourne, Australia.
DCE (Department of Conservation and Environment). 1992b.
Decade of Landcare guidelines regional landcare action
plans. DCE, Melbourne, Australia.
DCFL (Department of Conservation Forests and Lands). 1987.
Landcare: To encourage good land use throughout Victo-
ria. CFL, Melbourne, Australia.
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. The total
design method. Wiley, New York.
Edgar, R. V., and D. Patterson. 1992. The evolution continues—
Victorian Landcare groups. Pages 198–203 in Proceedings,
Vol. 1 of the 7th International Soil Conservation Organisa-
tion conference—people protecting their land, 27–30 Sep-
tember 1992. Sydney, Australia.
Endicott, E. 1993. Land conservation through public–private
partnerships. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Esman, M. J., and N. T. Uphoff. 1984. Local organizations:
Intermediaries in rural development. Cornell University
Press, New York.
Farley, R., and P. Toyne. 1989. A national land management
programme. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
11(2):6–9.
Gabriel, T. 1991. The human factor in rural development.
Belhaven Press, London.
Grieco, M. 1990. Development in the developed world: Reveal-
ing the hidden agenda. Pages 27–40 in H. Buller and S.
Wright (eds.), Rural development: problems and practices.
Gower, Vermont.
Grima, A. P. 1983. Analyzing public inputs to environmental
planning: A summary and discussion of public involvement
in Great Lakes management. Pages 111–121 in G. A.
Daneke, M. W. Garcia, and J. D. Priscoli (eds.), Public
involvement and social impact assessment. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
Hawke, R. J. L. 1989. Our country: Our future. Statement—on
the environment by the Prime Minister of Australia. Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.
Jones, G., and M. Rolls. 1982. Extension and relative advantage
in rural development: An introduction. Pages 1–11 in G.
Jones and M. Rolls (eds.), Progress in rural extension and
community development, Vol. 1. Wiley, New York.
Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1989. The visual environment:
Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social
Issues 45(1):59–86.
Kottak, C. P. 1991. When people don’t come first: Some
sociological lessons from completed projects. Pages 431–
465 in M. Cernea (ed.), Putting people first, 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Landre, B. K., and B. A. Knuth. 1993. Success of citizen
advisory committees in consensus-based water resources
planning in the Great Lakes Basin. Society and Natural
Resources 6(3):229–257.
Lockie, S. 1992. Landcare—before the flood. Rural Society
2(2):7–9.
Martin, P., S. Tarr, and S. Lockie. 1992. Participatory environ-
mental management in New South Wales: Policy and prac-
tice. Pages 184–208 in G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay, and B. Furze
(eds.), Agriculture, environment and society. Macmillan,
Melbourne.
Landcare as State-Sponsored Citizen Participation 573

12. Midgley, J. 1986. Introduction: Social development, the state
and participation. Pages 1–11 in J. Midgley (ed.), Commu-
nity participation, social development and the state.
Methuen, London.
Mohai, P. 1987. Public participation and natural resource
decision making. Natural Resources Journal 27:123–155.
Mues, C., H. Roper, and J. Ockerby. 1994. Survey of Landcare
and land management practices: 1992–93. Report No. 94/6.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Canberra, Australia.
O’Brien, B., M. Pennicuik, and R. Edgar. 1992. A description
of group action in Victoria. In G. J. Hamilton, K. M. Howes,
and R. Attwater (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Australian
Soil Conservation Conference, Vol. 8. Department of Agri-
culture, Perth, Australia.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Pearce, J. L. 1993. Volunteers: The organizational behavior of
unpaid workers. Routledge, New York.
Pennicuik, M. L. 1992. Victoria: The Landcare success story. In
G. J. Hamilton, K. M. Howes, and R. Attwater (eds.),
Proceedings of the 5th Australian Soil Conservation Confer-
ence, Vol. 8. Department of Agriculture, Perth, Australia.
Poussard, H. 1992. Community landcare to test government
policies and programs. Pages 233–236 in Proceedings, Vol. 1
of the 7th International Soil Conservation Organisation
conference—people protecting their land, 27–30 Septem-
ber 1992. Sydney, Australia.
Prosser, A. 1982. Community development: the British experi-
ence. Pages 233–247 in G. Jones and M. Rolls (eds.),
Progress in rural extension and community development,
Vol. 1. Wiley, New York.
Roling, N. 1988. Extension science: Information systems in
agricultural development. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Rush, J., and Associates. 1992. A review of the efficiency of
landcare facilitator projects. Report prepared for the Land
and Resources Division, Department of Primary Industries
and Energy. Canberra, Australia.
Selin, S. W., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative
model for environmental planning and management. Envi-
ronmental Management 19(2):189–196.
Sewell, W. R. D., and S. D. Phillips. 1979. Models for the
evaluation of public participation programs. Natural Re-
sources Journal 19:337–358.
Stankey, G., and J. C. Hendee. 1975. Applied social research
can improve public participation in resource decision mak-
ing. Rural Sociology 4(1):67–74.
Uphoff, N. 1991. Fitting projects to people. Pages 467–511 in
M. Cernea (ed.), Putting people first, 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Williams, E. M., and P. V. Ellefson. 1997. Going into partner-
ship to manage a landscape. Journal of Forestry 95(5):29–33.
Wengert, N. 1976. Citizen participation: Practice in search of a
theory. Natural Resources Journal 16:23–48.
Woodhill, J., A. Wilson, and J. McKenzie. 1992. Land conserva-
tion and social change: Exension to community develop-
ment—a necessary shift in thinking. Pages 263–271 in
Proceedings, Vol. 1 of the 7th International Soil Conserva-
tion Organisation conference—people protecting their land,
27–30 September 1992. Sydney, Australia.
Wright, S. 1990. Development theory and community
development practice. Pages 41–64 in H. Buller and S.
Wright (eds.), Rural development: problems and practices.
Gower, Vermont.
A. Curtis574