IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v110y2012icp107-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing rural landholders diversity in the Wet Tropics region of Queensland, Australia in relation to natural resource management programs: A market segmentation approach

Author

Listed:
  • Emtage, Nicholas
  • Herbohn, John

Abstract

Government agencies in many countries are encouraging rural landholders to improve their land management practices in order to improve the health of the natural environment. The level of adoption of improved practices by landholders is, however, highly variable. Understanding the diversity of rural landholders is an important step in increasing the uptake of improved land management practices. In this study, we investigate the factors that influence landholders to adopt recommended practices and use this to provide insights into how to encourage greater adoption of these practices. A mail based survey of rural landholders in the Wet Tropics region of north eastern Australia was used to gather data. Adapting a ‘prime prospects analysis’ approach used in social marketing, we used this data to develop a typology of landholders based on their attitudes to environmental health and adoption of currently recommended practices in agriculture. Five landholder types were identified: the ‘concerned but unengaged’ who are interested but not engaged in using best management practices (BMPs); the ‘multiple objective’ landholders with moderate levels of interest in natural resource management (NRM) and engagement activities; the ‘production orientated’ landholders who are engaged in the use of BMPs but not greatly concerned about NRM issues; the ‘disconnected and conservative’ landholders who have low levels of interest in or engagement with NRM activities; and the ‘well-connected and progressive’ who are highly motivated and engaged in using BMPs. Profiles of the groups were developed through examining differences in their management objectives, trust in others, communication behaviour and management practices of the group members. Each of the groups will require different strategies to encourage adoption of recommended management practices including a mix of information campaigns, training and incentive programs provided by varying organisations that have the trust of landholders. While some types of landholders will be best targeted through industry associations, many of these landholders have already adopted many of the recommended practices. Other types of landholders have little contact or affinity with these associations and would be better served by other types of organisations and separate communication strategies that better match their management aspirations and circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Emtage, Nicholas & Herbohn, John, 2012. "Assessing rural landholders diversity in the Wet Tropics region of Queensland, Australia in relation to natural resource management programs: A market segmentation approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 107-118.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:110:y:2012:i:c:p:107-118
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1200056X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fairweather, John R. & Keating, Norah C., 1994. "Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 181-200.
    2. A. P. Barnes & J. Willock & L. Toma & C. Hall, 2011. "Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 477-494.
    3. Feather, Peter M. & Amacher, Gregory S., 1994. "Role of information in the adoption of best management practices for water quality improvement," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(2-3), December.
    4. Feather, Peter M. & Amacher, Gregory S., 1994. "Role of information in the adoption of best management practices for water quality improvement," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 11(2-3), pages 159-170, December.
    5. Johnson, James D., 2002. "A Typology for U.S. Farms from National Survey Data," Workshop on the Farm Household-Firm Unit: Its Importance in Agriculture and Implications for Statistics, April 12-13, 2002, Wye Campus,Imperial College 15725, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    6. Kostrowicki, Jerzy, 1977. "Agricultural typology concept and method," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 33-45, January.
    7. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Hannah Jacobs & Claire Schary, 2005. "Trust and Communication: Mechanisms for Increasing Farmers’ Participation in Water Quality Trading," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    8. Kaine, Geoff & Higson, Megan, 2006. "Understanding Variety in Landholders' Responses to Resource Policy," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, vol. 14.
    9. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    10. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    11. Landais, E., 1998. "Modelling farm diversity: new approaches to typology building in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 505-527, December.
    12. Kobrich, C. & Rehman, T. & Khan, M., 2003. "Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: two illustrations of the application of multi-variate analyses in Chile and Pakistan," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 141-157, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:110:y:2012:i:c:p:107-118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.