Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?

Kate Sherren, Hwan Jin Yoon, Helena Clayton, Jacki Schirmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Worldwide, the footprint of agriculture is higher than that of any other land use, making the local decisions of millions of farmers a global force for achieving the maintenance of ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to attempt to reconcile conflicts between production and conservation. Offset policies operate on the principle of habitat substitutability, but little work has considered whether those targeted by such policies perceive nature that way. For instance, do landholders perceive trees of different arrangements, ages or species to be interchangeable? We used a large-scale landholder survey to understand how graziers manage their farm trees, and whether their beliefs are amenable to substitution. Three natural clusters were found, that: (A) liked a tidy farm but did not differentiate trees by species, age or arrangement; (B) strongly supported the need for diversity in tree cover; and, (C) preferred woodlands and connective strips to sparse trees. Those positions were consistent with their beliefs about the costs and benefits of different arrangements of trees, but were largely inconsistent with their declared tree planting and protection activities. Tree management activities were more easily explained by commodity (pro-woodland graziers (C) were most likely to be cropping) or by career stage and what that meant for time and money resources to do conservation work (contrasting A and B). Offset policies and policy incentives encouraging vegetative heterogeneity would motivate at least these first two clusters, helping to sustain a diversity of tree cover and thus ecosystem services on farms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)363-383
Number of pages21
JournalBiodiversity and Conservation
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

tree farms
farm
ecosystem service
ecosystem services
woodlands
woodland
farms
tree planting
products and commodities
footprint
commodity
cropping practice
incentive
substitution
land use
planting
biodiversity
farmers
agriculture
policy

Cite this

Sherren, Kate ; Yoon, Hwan Jin ; Clayton, Helena ; Schirmer, Jacki. / Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?. In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 2012 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 363-383.
@article{419bd81235b540bd9b903adb5d92657c,
title = "Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?",
abstract = "Worldwide, the footprint of agriculture is higher than that of any other land use, making the local decisions of millions of farmers a global force for achieving the maintenance of ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to attempt to reconcile conflicts between production and conservation. Offset policies operate on the principle of habitat substitutability, but little work has considered whether those targeted by such policies perceive nature that way. For instance, do landholders perceive trees of different arrangements, ages or species to be interchangeable? We used a large-scale landholder survey to understand how graziers manage their farm trees, and whether their beliefs are amenable to substitution. Three natural clusters were found, that: (A) liked a tidy farm but did not differentiate trees by species, age or arrangement; (B) strongly supported the need for diversity in tree cover; and, (C) preferred woodlands and connective strips to sparse trees. Those positions were consistent with their beliefs about the costs and benefits of different arrangements of trees, but were largely inconsistent with their declared tree planting and protection activities. Tree management activities were more easily explained by commodity (pro-woodland graziers (C) were most likely to be cropping) or by career stage and what that meant for time and money resources to do conservation work (contrasting A and B). Offset policies and policy incentives encouraging vegetative heterogeneity would motivate at least these first two clusters, helping to sustain a diversity of tree cover and thus ecosystem services on farms.",
keywords = "Coarse woody debris, Connectivity, Heterogeneity, Linear strips, Remnant trees, Scattered trees, Spatial arrangement, Substitutability, Tree planting and protection, Woodlands",
author = "Kate Sherren and Yoon, {Hwan Jin} and Helena Clayton and Jacki Schirmer",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s10531-011-0187-9",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "363--383",
journal = "Biodiversity and Conservation",
issn = "0960-3115",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees? / Sherren, Kate; Yoon, Hwan Jin; Clayton, Helena; Schirmer, Jacki.

In: Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 21, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 363-383.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Australian graziers have an offset mindset about their farm trees?

AU - Sherren, Kate

AU - Yoon, Hwan Jin

AU - Clayton, Helena

AU - Schirmer, Jacki

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Worldwide, the footprint of agriculture is higher than that of any other land use, making the local decisions of millions of farmers a global force for achieving the maintenance of ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to attempt to reconcile conflicts between production and conservation. Offset policies operate on the principle of habitat substitutability, but little work has considered whether those targeted by such policies perceive nature that way. For instance, do landholders perceive trees of different arrangements, ages or species to be interchangeable? We used a large-scale landholder survey to understand how graziers manage their farm trees, and whether their beliefs are amenable to substitution. Three natural clusters were found, that: (A) liked a tidy farm but did not differentiate trees by species, age or arrangement; (B) strongly supported the need for diversity in tree cover; and, (C) preferred woodlands and connective strips to sparse trees. Those positions were consistent with their beliefs about the costs and benefits of different arrangements of trees, but were largely inconsistent with their declared tree planting and protection activities. Tree management activities were more easily explained by commodity (pro-woodland graziers (C) were most likely to be cropping) or by career stage and what that meant for time and money resources to do conservation work (contrasting A and B). Offset policies and policy incentives encouraging vegetative heterogeneity would motivate at least these first two clusters, helping to sustain a diversity of tree cover and thus ecosystem services on farms.

AB - Worldwide, the footprint of agriculture is higher than that of any other land use, making the local decisions of millions of farmers a global force for achieving the maintenance of ecosystem services. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to attempt to reconcile conflicts between production and conservation. Offset policies operate on the principle of habitat substitutability, but little work has considered whether those targeted by such policies perceive nature that way. For instance, do landholders perceive trees of different arrangements, ages or species to be interchangeable? We used a large-scale landholder survey to understand how graziers manage their farm trees, and whether their beliefs are amenable to substitution. Three natural clusters were found, that: (A) liked a tidy farm but did not differentiate trees by species, age or arrangement; (B) strongly supported the need for diversity in tree cover; and, (C) preferred woodlands and connective strips to sparse trees. Those positions were consistent with their beliefs about the costs and benefits of different arrangements of trees, but were largely inconsistent with their declared tree planting and protection activities. Tree management activities were more easily explained by commodity (pro-woodland graziers (C) were most likely to be cropping) or by career stage and what that meant for time and money resources to do conservation work (contrasting A and B). Offset policies and policy incentives encouraging vegetative heterogeneity would motivate at least these first two clusters, helping to sustain a diversity of tree cover and thus ecosystem services on farms.

KW - Coarse woody debris

KW - Connectivity

KW - Heterogeneity

KW - Linear strips

KW - Remnant trees

KW - Scattered trees

KW - Spatial arrangement

KW - Substitutability

KW - Tree planting and protection

KW - Woodlands

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856296639&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10531-011-0187-9

DO - 10.1007/s10531-011-0187-9

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 363

EP - 383

JO - Biodiversity and Conservation

JF - Biodiversity and Conservation

SN - 0960-3115

IS - 2

ER -