friday 3 september rethinking ‘country’: the changing
TRANSCRIPT
B R S S E M I N A R S E R I E S
Friday 3 September
Rethinking ‘Country’:The Changing Nature of Rural Land Ownership in
Australia and Implications for Government
Heather Aslin and Ian ByronBRS
Rural land ownership and land use are changing rapidly in some parts of Australia. Thesechanges pose a challenge to policy makers and program managers used to dealing withtraditional agricultural land uses and farmers. We need to adjust our ideas about country,landscape, rural and farm to match the new and emerging realities. Government policies,programs and communication strategies may need to be re-designed, re-focused and re-targeted to reach people with very different values, motives and land managementpractices from traditional farmers, and who may describe themselves as hobby or lifestylefarmers, or may not identify as farmers at all.
BRS has investigated characteristics of some of these new rural constituencies in a recentscoping study of peri-urban landholders providing advice about targeting these people inbio-security communication campaigns, and in National Action Plan landholder surveysobtaining baseline social information for catchment planning. This research suggests thatagencies with natural resource, bio-security and environmental managementresponsibilities need more comprehensive, comparable and current information if they areto work effectively with landholders in regions of interest.
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R SD E P A R T M E N T O F A G R I C U L T U R E , F I S H E R I E S A N D F O R E S T R Y
Heather Aslin & Ian Byron
Re-thinking ‘country’: thechanging nature of rural landownership in Australia and
implications for government
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
vPopulation 19.9 million (June2003) and still growing
vMore than 75% live in NewSouth Wales, Victoria andQueensland
v85% live within 50 km ofcoast
vHighly mobile
Australian socio-demographics
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Changing rural Australiav Rural (and metro) populations
v Numbers of family farms (22% decline1986-2001)
v Commercial farm sizes
v Numbers of ‘non-commercial’ farms
v Significance of off-farm income to farmhouseholds
v Population out-flow from cities (‘populationturnaround’ or ‘counter-urbanisation’)
v Development of post-productivist or multi-functional countryside
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
v‘New wave’ rural settlers – hobby andlifestyle farmers, Pitt Street farmers, ‘seachangers’
vValues, attitudes, behaviour and lifestylesmay differ from those of traditional farmingcommunities
vInfluencing and being influenced bybroader socio-cultural changes
vIncreasing emphasis on rural lifestyles, notfarming (tele-commuting, part-time work,work-life balance)
vReflected in changed demographics, landvalues and land uses
Changing rural Australia
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
City people drive up rural pricesTown dwellers are pushing upthe price of agricultural land asthey buy places in the country,according to a study.
People seek 'country life'valuesIncreasing numbers of peopleare leaving England's townsfor rural areas in the hope ofimproving their quality of life,the Countryside Agency says.
An elegy for the UK countrysideHalf a century ago, probablyeven in the last two or threedecades, the UK countrysidehad a definite purpose.
Farming has lost its placeat the apex of rural life
From BBC NEWS UK Edition
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Who is looking?DemographersSocio-economicmodellersStatisticiansSocial commentatorsMarket researchers
Regional plannersGeographers
Landscape scientistsand ecologists
Communicators andeducatorsExtension workersPolicy makers andprogram managers
Rural sociologistsAgricultural,
environmental andnatural resource
scientists
Nature of interest?
Focus of interest?
Scale of interest?
Ruralchange
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
‘Sea change’
v Regional categories/turnaround regions
After Burnley & Murphy 2004
vTypes of ‘sea changers’
vFree agents
vForced re-locators
vPeriodic populations
vGentrifiers and interstate migrants
Peri-metropolitan turnaround
Population turnaround
Other regional citiesCoastal turnaround
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
New South Wales
Broken Hill
Griffith
WaggaWagga
Albury
Dubbo
Mudgee
Tamworth
Armidale Dumaresq
Orange
Yass
SnowyRiver
Queanbeyan
Bathurst
GreaterLithgow
Oberon
Wingecarribee
Wollongong
Wollondilly
Blue Mountains
HawkesburyGosford
WyongCessnock
#
NewcastlePort Stephens
# Bega Valley
#
Eurobodalla
#
Shoalhaven
# Great Lakes
# GreaterTaree
#
Hastings#
#
Kempsey
#
Nambucca
#
Bellingen
#Coffs
Harbour
#
Pristine Waters - Nymboida#
Pristine WatersUlmarra
# Maclean
#RichmondValley
#Lismore
#
Tweed
#
Byron
#
Ballina#
Goulburn
Peri-Metropolitan TurnaroundPopulation TurnaroundOther Regional Cities
Other Population TurnaroundNSW Coastal Turnaround South
NSW Coastal Turnaround North
After Burnley & Murphy 2004
Peri-metropolitan turnaround
Population turnaround
Other regional cities
Coastal turnaround
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R SS C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Victoria
SwanHill
Mildura
Horsham
Ararat
Warrnambool
E. GippslandOrbost
E. GippslandBalDelatite
South
CampaspeRochester
CampaspeKyabram
MoiraWest Moira
East IndigoWodonga
AlpineEast
Wangaratta
Delatite
Shepparton
Bendigo
CentralGoldfields
Wellington
Ballarat
Golden Plains
ColacOtway
Surf CoastBassCoast
SouthGippsland
Peri-Metropolitan TurnaroundPopulation TurnaroundOther Regional Cities
HepburnEast
MooraboolBallan
MacedonRanges
Macedon RangesKyneton
MurrindindiWestMitchell
SouthMacedon Ranges
Romsey
Golden PlainsSouth-East
MooraboolBacchus Marsh
Melton
HumeSunbury
Wyndham-NthWyndham-Wst
Wyndham-Sth
MorningtonP'sula
BassCoastPhillip Is.
Murrindindi -
Yarra Ra
BawPt B
South GippslanWest
BassCoast
CardiniaSouth
CardiniaPakenham
CardiniaNorth
Yarra RangesCentral
Yarra RangesSouth-West
Yarra RangesNorth
Nillumbik
WhittleseaNorth
Surf CoastWest
GreaterGeelong
GreaterGeelong
MooraboolWest
MeltonEast
After Burnley & Murphy 2004
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
TheGlenelgHopkins
casestudy
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Studies underway/completed
Lachlan
Burnett Mary
Ovens
Goulburn-Broken
Wimmera
Glenelg
Queensland Murray Darling
NSW
VIC
SA
QLD
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Why collect landholder data
• Existing data sets are useful but they:
1.don’t cover critical variables
2.cannot be linked to other data sets
3.are often out-of-date
• Regional contexts vary, need sufficient sampling points
• Need to engage regional stakeholders
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Collecting baseline social data tounderpin catchment planning
• A mail survey to capture rurallandholder information
• Survey data integrated with other spatiallayers in GIS
• Collaboration with stakeholders to buildcapacity
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Survey topics
• Importance of issues• Awareness• Knowledge• Attitudes• Values• Confidence in
practices• Financial capacity
(income, debt,property size,enterprise mix)
• Age/stage of life• Occupation
• Property and businessplanning
• Long-term plans
• Adoption of practices
• Entry to newenterprises
• Interest in strongercost sharing
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Data collection
• Mail survey to 1,943 landholders withproperties over 10ha
• Landholder and property information providedby local shires
• Property information from all properties over10ha entered into a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS)
• Stratified random sample to provideinformation across the 32 sub-catchmentsused for planning
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Data collection
• Final response rate of 64%
• Sampling strategy resulted in a verygood geographic spread of respondents
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Landholder characteristics
• 64% Farmers– Median prop size 358ha– 61% of area– Median age of 52
• 36% Non-Farmers– Median prop size 67ha– 39% of area (2 large plantation managers)– Median age of 52
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Landholder characteristics• Farmers
– 85% on-property profit 02/03• Mean $32,000
– 64% off-property income 02/03• Mean $21,000
– Mean total income $36,000
• Non-Farmers– 50% on-property profit 02/03
• Mean $14,000
– 88% had off-property income 02/03• Mean $36,000
– Mean total income $35,000
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Landholder characteristics
36%52%Property plan
24%61%Govt. funding
16%36%Short course
5%28%Commoditygroup
22%49%Landcare
Non-farmerFarmerVariable
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Land use and enterprise mix
38%60%Remnant veg.
3%2%Horticulture
1%2%Grapes
77%91%Sheep or cattle
11%32%Cropping
Non-farmerFarmerEnterprise
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Values attached to property
Non-farmerFarmerValue
49%32%Recreation
48%39%Habitat for native animals
24%92%Household income
46%62%Environ. health of region
61%79%Rural community
69%81%Desired lifestyle
69%87%Improving condition
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Time lived on property
• Farmers– Lived in area median 42 years
– Lived on property median 30yrs
• 2% < 1yr and 9% <5yrs
• Non-farmers– Lived in area median 25 years
– Lived on property median 13 yrs
• 17% < 1yr and 32% <5yrs
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Long-term plans for property
• 29% likely to sell their property– Half of these likely to be sold by 2010
• Half of all properties are estimated tochange hands either through sale, familytransfer or upon retirement/death by 2016
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
vPositivesvBreakdown of stereotypesvStrengthened rural communitiesvMore diversified economiesvMore people to undertake land management
activitiesvOpportunities for farmers to exitvIncreased land valuesvNew people and skillsvMore support for nature conservationvIncreased revenue to local governmentsvNew government policy and program
opportunities
Implications?
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Implications?vNegativesvSmaller property sizes, more environmental impactsvNew services and infrastructure neededvLandscape change, suburban sprawlvRapid property turnovervSocial conflictvLoss of agricultural land and agricultural productionvRising costs force some farmers outvLoss of farming cultural heritagevLoss of land management experiencevViability of small country towns underminedvChallenges to government
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
vIf we focus only on farming, farmers andagriculture, we will miss the big picture ofchanging rural land use and ownership
vNeed to recognise increasing diversity ofrural landowners and communities
vChallenges to adapt policies andprograms previously aimed at traditionalfarmers or farm families
vNeed to develop ways of keeping up todate and being responsive. How?
Key messages
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
v Rural = Farm
v Farm = Agriculture
v Farm = Country
v Landholder = Farmer
v Land use = Commodity production
Key messages
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
LocalGovernmentratepayerlists/other locallistings - focuson landholders
CatchmentNational ActionPlan landholdersurveys
BRS
Aust. BusinessRegister, agric.est . with EVAO>$22,500
National (agric.industry sectors)
Farm SurveysABARE
Aust. BusinessRegister, agric.businesses only,minimum incomecriterion
NationalAustralianAgriculturalCensus
AustralianBureau ofStatistics
All Aust.households,focus onindividual
NationalCensus ofPopulation andHousing
AustralianBureau ofStatistics
Sampling frameScaleSurveyGroup
Who is looking?
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
vResearchers - Need to match socialsurveys to functional interests, and selectmost appropriate scales and samplingframes
vPolicy makers - Need to ensure socialinformation used is at appropriate scaleand based on whole population of interest,not just part
vAll - Need to abandon stereotypes and ‘re-think country’