Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial "lifestyle" rural landholders
For some environmental assets in rural areas, the landholders who are having the biggest impact are people with small holdings and an emphasis on lifestyle rather than commercial gains from their land. This paper aims to better understand the motivations and likely responses to policy for lifestyle landholders in Australia, in order to assess which policy mechanisms, if any, are likely to be most efficiently used to influence their land management. Through face-to-face interviews, we find that lifestyle landholders have important differences from commercial farmers, including much smaller properties, a stronger interest in environmental outcomes, a lack of land-management skills and a lack of time for land-management activities. From the perspective of environmental policy programs, engaging with lifestyle landholders is likely to involve higher transaction costs, and there are likely to be higher learning and transition costs per unit area. A framework for selection of policy tools is modified to take account of these findings. It is concluded that the prospects for worthwhile public investments in land-use changes by lifestyle landholders are lower than for commercial landholders.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David J. Pannell, 2009. "Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 95-102, January.
- Anonymous, 2005. "Trends in Australian Agriculture," Commission Research Papers 31903, Productivity Commission.
- Pannell, David J., 2001. "Dryland salinity: economic, scientific, social and policy dimensions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(4), December.
- David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
- Anonymous, 2005. "Australian Pigmeat Industry," Inquiry Reports 31893, Productivity Commission.
- Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J. & Lindner, Robert K., 2004.
"Does agricultural extension pay?: A case study for a new crop, lupins, in Western Australia,"
Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 17-30, January.
- Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J. & Lindner, Robert K., 2004. "Does agricultural extension pay? A case study for a new crop, lupins, in Western Australia," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 30(1), January.
- Ceddia, M.G. & Heikkil, J. & Peltola, J., 2009. "Managing invasive alien species with professional and hobby farmers: Insights from ecological-economic modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1366-1374, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)