Land user adaptation to environmental policy in the lake taupo catchment, Hein Roth

714 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
714
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Land user adaptation to environmental policy in the lake taupo catchment, Hein Roth

  1. 1. TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE: LAND USER ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN THE LAKE TAUPO CATCHMENT <ul><li>HEIN ROTH, MARGARET BROWN & NEELS BOTHA </li></ul>Paper presented at the 2010 NZPsS Annual Conference
  2. 2. OVERVIEW <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Research aim </li></ul><ul><li>Model applied </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion (incorporating key learnings) </li></ul>2
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION <ul><li>‘’ As man thinks in his heart, so is he” </li></ul><ul><li>Adresses the heart , the mind , and the behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental sustainability involves the totality </li></ul><ul><li>of the human being </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum research on the social impacts of policy </li></ul><ul><li>Focused on pastoral farming in Lake Taupo catchment </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term strategy to restore quality to 2001 levels by </li></ul><ul><li>2080 </li></ul><ul><li>Impact in costs in excess of $160M </li></ul>3
  4. 4. RESEARCH AIM <ul><li>To investigate farmers’ adaptation over time to </li></ul><ul><li>environmental policy changes in terms of their </li></ul><ul><li>emotional and perceptual responses and their </li></ul><ul><li>on-farm practice changes (behaviour) </li></ul><ul><li>To understand people’s emotional adaptation to </li></ul><ul><li>threat and how to best support them </li></ul><ul><li>Research started in 2005 and was completed 2009 </li></ul>4
  5. 5. KÜBLER-ROSS MODEL OF GRIEF Impact 5 Positive Negative Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 State Status quo Disruption Exploration Rebuilding Reaction Shock & Denial Fear & Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance Commitment
  6. 6. METHODOLOGY <ul><li>Semi-structured interviews (2005 & 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>19 Participants (6 Farm Managers; 13 sole-owners) </li></ul><ul><li>Audio-taped, transcribed, check for accuracy, </li></ul><ul><li>data analysed & compared, reported </li></ul>6
  7. 7. RESULTS: UNDERSTANDING OF RULES 7 2005 2009 <ul><li>Unfamiliar with detail </li></ul><ul><li>Familiar with rules & purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Questioned research findings </li></ul><ul><li>Unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>Unfair targeting of farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>Residential developments </li></ul><ul><li>Unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>EW: (1) Financial impact </li></ul><ul><li>RC: (1) Unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>(2) National averages </li></ul>
  8. 8. RESULTS: PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT 8 2005 2009 <ul><li>Limited development potential </li></ul><ul><li>Unchanged </li></ul><ul><li>Personal impact unknown </li></ul><ul><li>Sole-owners (84.6%) </li></ul><ul><li>No impact on Managers (66.7%) </li></ul><ul><li>Community impact unknown </li></ul><ul><li>Sole-owners community split </li></ul><ul><li>Regional impact unknown </li></ul><ul><li>Lake Taupo Protection Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Social, infrastructural & </li></ul><ul><li>employment impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Tourism (Western Bays) </li></ul>
  9. 9. RESULTS: ON-FARM PRACTICES 9 2005 2009 <ul><li>Fear of further change </li></ul><ul><li>Main responses: Wait and see </li></ul><ul><li>Production </li></ul><ul><li>Wait and see: NDA benchmark </li></ul><ul><li>Software issues </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of incentives </li></ul><ul><li>Manager motivation (83.3%) </li></ul><ul><li>Sole-owner motivation (31.8%) </li></ul><ul><li>Current economic climate: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Hope for the best” </li></ul>
  10. 10. RESULTS: ON-FARM PRACTICES (MANAGERS) 10 2005 2009 <ul><li>Destocking </li></ul><ul><li>Wintering off </li></ul><ul><li>Land retiring </li></ul><ul><li>Effluent disposal </li></ul><ul><li>Other plantings (blue berries) </li></ul><ul><li>Considered: </li></ul><ul><li>- Detention dams </li></ul><ul><li>- Trialling Eco-N </li></ul><ul><li>- Downsizing herds </li></ul><ul><li>- Replace heavy cattle </li></ul><ul><li>Continued (83.3%) </li></ul><ul><li>Changing to deer </li></ul><ul><li>Better grass species </li></ul>
  11. 11. RESULTS: ON-FARM PRACTICES (SOLE-OWNERS) 11 2005 2009 <ul><li>No change (61.5%) </li></ul><ul><li>No change (84.6%) </li></ul><ul><li>Changes by the 38.5%: </li></ul><ul><li>- High sugar grasses </li></ul><ul><li>- Decrease N fertilisers </li></ul><ul><li>- Trialled Eco-N fertilisers </li></ul><ul><li>Changes by 15.4%: </li></ul><ul><li>- Trialling Eco-N fertilisers </li></ul><ul><li>- Sold breeding cows </li></ul><ul><li>- Introduced lighter stock </li></ul>
  12. 12. PROGRESSIVE ADAPTATION (2005-2009) Impact 12 Positive Negative Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 State Status quo Disruption Exploration Rebuilding Reaction Shock & Denial Fear & Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance Commitment 2005 Farm Managers 2005 Sole-owners 2009 Farm Managers 2009 Sole-owners
  13. 13. KEY LEARNINGS <ul><li>Emotional adaptation is occurring; differences exist </li></ul><ul><li>between landholding types in terms of emotional valence </li></ul><ul><li>and tempo of adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>Perceptual adaptation has not occurred with most </li></ul><ul><li>participants </li></ul><ul><li>Behavioural adaptation (on-farm practice change) is </li></ul><ul><li>occurring, with differences between landholding types </li></ul><ul><li>in terms of adaptation tempo. </li></ul>13
  14. 14. WHAT CAN BE DONE? <ul><li>Fear alone has limited impact to encourage and sustain </li></ul><ul><li>change </li></ul><ul><li>Sustained behaviour change involves the totality of the </li></ul><ul><li>human being. </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers need to be prepared for the backlash and </li></ul><ul><li>consider and employ ways of helping people to cope. </li></ul><ul><li>Requires a collaborative approach involving policy makers, </li></ul><ul><li>rural and health professionals, researchers, agricultural </li></ul><ul><li>extension staff, and farmers themselves. </li></ul>14

×