The office of the Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority is located on the traditional lands of the Kulin Nation peoples and it wishes to acknowledge them as Traditional Owners. The Port Phillip & Westernport CMA pays its respect to their Elders, past and present, and the Elders from other communities who may be residing in or visiting the region.

Grow West Landholder Survey: Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015

Published by Port Phillip and Westernport CMA, Frankston.

Phone: 03 8781 7900 Fax: 03 9781 0199

ISBN: 978-0-9804332-9-7

Copyright © State of Victoria, Port Phillip & Westernport CMA, 2015. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Copying for non-commercial/non- profit purposes is permitted subject to the publication being copied entirely. The Port Phillip & Westernport CMA believes that the information contained in this publication is accurate and reliable at the date of publishing.

Authors: Tarnya Kruger & Ruth Beilin, University of Melbourne.

It is the responsibility of readers to avail themselves of the latest information and advice in respect of the information contained in this publication after this date.

Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 2

Executive summary

This report presents the findings from interviews conducted in April and May 2015 with landholders in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks near Bacchus Marsh in Victoria. The study was commissioned by the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA) and conducted by researchers from the University of Melbourne.

The aim of this study was to explore landholder response to biodiversity in their district and gauge any change in their interest and engagement in conservation programs since the inception of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink Project in 2010. The University of Ballarat (UoB) conducted a telephone survey (23 respondents) in 2009 to evaluate landholders’ support for a Biolink project. The Pentland Hills Landcare Group supported the idea to link the two local park reserves, the Werribee Gorge State Park in the south, and the Lerderderg Gorge State Park in the north (of the study area), to establish a wildlife corridor. Melbourne Water’s stream frontage management project (MW-SFMP) had operated in the area since 2007 and additional funds from State Government’s ‘Vision for Werribee Plains’ distributed through the Landcare group meant the creation of a Biolink was a conceivable community project. The Biolink represents a partnership of organisations and funds and co-ordination of projects at the local level by the Landcare facilitator.

The researchers used a qualitative inquiry approach and conducted face-to-face interviews with 35 landholders and telephone interviews with three landholders, a total of 38 landholders. The interviews incorporated a guide with open questions based around the research themes from the 2009 survey and further refined in consultation with the PPWCMA in 2015. In addition, 15 landholders were randomly selected from the initial interview phase and participated in a photo-elicitation activity and this also involved a face-to-face interview.

The key findings of this study include the following aspects:

 landscape-scale projects like Biolink can shift landholders’ foci from their property and associated management requirements to appreciate and understand the benefits of biodiversity projects for the broader community and surrounds  mixed-species indigenous plantings are acknowledged for their attributes and for some landholders this is a learning process and these include: suitability to the local landscape and climate; shelter; soil stabilisation; and wildlife habitat  biodiversity is observed and ideas about it become more meaningful as a consequence of on- ground experiences that include: growth of revegetated areas; increase in variety and number of birds, small mammals such as echidna; wombat; koala; and wallaby; and the larger mammal, the kangaroo, and signal change and adjustment to integrate biodiversity into, in particular, the farming landscape

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 3

 landholders described the critical path to success in the Biolink process as depending on the well organised facilitators’ knowledge; support; and their willingness to be flexible and adjust project specifications to meet landholders’ requirements  the above finding points to a significant risk in this or future projects, that are associated with leadership and facilitation  photo-elicitation can provide rich insight into a landholder’s understandings of the landscape and features significant to them and is illustrative and informative for both participant and researcher

Finally, the emphasis that landholders gave to the importance of leadership and facilitation for success presents the PPWCMA with a longer term issue. Across catchment-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and Landcare we are seeing a continued withdrawal of significant funding from government and an increasing push for devolved governance systems. A CMA or similar authority is unlikely to be able to provide the kind of long-term continuity in personnel that guarantees this kind of success. Therefore there is a need to build leadership skills into programs like Biolink and the local Landcare groups so these communities can develop internal quality governance networks to respond to the future landscapes they are co-constructing now.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 4

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 5

FIGURES AND TABLES ...... 6

ACRONYMS AND RESEARCH TERMS ...... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 7

2. BACKGROUND: REVEGETATION PROJECTS ...... 9

2.1 CONNECTING FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPES ...... 9

2.2 GROW WEST ...... 9

2.3 MELBOURNE WATER - STREAM FRONTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...... 10

2.4 MYRNIONG AND KORKUPERRIMUL BIOLINK PROJECT ...... 10

3. METHODS ...... 12

4. RESPONDENTS ...... 15

5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 18

5.1 NRM PROGRAMS IN WHICH THE LANDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED ...... 18

5.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING LANDHOLDERS LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ...... 21

5.3 LANDHOLDERS’ EXPERIENCES OF AND INTEREST IN THE BIOLINK ALONG THE MYRNIONG AND KORKUPERRIMUL CREEK ...... 29

5.4 LANDHOLDERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF AND EXPECTATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY ...... 32

5.5 INCENTIVES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT LANDHOLDERS ENGAGING IN BIODIVERSITY WORKS - THE BENEFITS AND THE BARRIERS ... 34

5.6 BEST METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH LANDHOLDERS ...... 37

6. CONCLUSION ...... 40

6.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT CONSERVATION AND BIOLINKS PROGRAMS ...... 42

REFERENCES ...... 47

APPENDICES ...... 49

APPENDIX A: PROJECT BRIEF...... 49

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 54

APPENDIX C: PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 56

APPENDIX D: THE PPWCMA LETTER TO LANDHOLDERS IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 57

Photographs front cover and throughout the report unless otherwise labelled are by Tarnya Kruger 2015. Note: many of the photographs that appear in this report were photographed from roadsides to capture features and the general landscape of the study area and are not necessarily the location of properties of landholders who participated in this research.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 5

Figures and tables

Figure 3.1 Samples of interviewees’ photographs for the photo-elicitation activity 13-14 Table 4.1 The respondents – Biolink and other landholders 16 Table 4.2 The respondents – property size 16 Table 4.3 The respondents – age categories 17 Table 4.4 The respondents – years of property ownership 17

Acronyms and research terms

Biolink The Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink B-landholder Landholder in the study area and involved in the Biolink CBNRM Catchment-based natural resource management DPI Department of Environment & Primary Industries DSE Department of Sustainability & Environment Landcare Group Pentland Hills Landcare Group O-landholder Landholder in the study area but not part of the Biolink (their property does not border a waterway) MW-SFMP Melbourne Water Stream Frontage Management Project PPWCMA Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority PPA Pest plant and animal PE interview Second phase interview, landholders randomly selected from first phase, Q interviews and asked to take 12 photographs. At a later date (approximately two weeks) discuss photographs during a face-to-face interview (photo-elicitation) Q interview First phase question guide semi-structured interview, all respondent landholders participated in either a face-to-face or telephone interview UoB The University of Ballarat UoM The University of Melbourne V4WP Vision for Werribee Plains, in 2008, the Victorian Government committed to investing $10 million for grants to assist implementation of projects that help to realise the Vision for Werribee Plains.

The weeds in the study area as noted by interviewees Common name Botanical or scientific name Blackberry Rufus fruiticosus Boxthorn Lycium feroocissimum Galenia Galenia pubescen Gorse Ulex europaeus Horehound Marrubium vulgare Serrated tussock Naseela trichotoma

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 6

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of research into landholders’ responses to biodiversity and the various revegetation and land management projects that have taken place over the past decade in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks, near Bacchus Marsh in Victoria. The Grow West project commenced in 2001; Melbourne Water’s stream frontage management project (MW-SFMP) has operated in the area since 2007. The more recent project, the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink1 Project, through the Victorian Government’s ‘Vision for Werribee Plains’ (V4WP) grants scheme has funded a range of projects and activities for local landholders. The research was commissioned by the Port Phillip Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA) and conducted by researchers from the University of Melbourne, Professor Ruth Beilin and Research Assistant, Dr Tarnya Kruger.

The aim of the research is to investigate any changes in landholders’ practices and responses to biodiversity and the key learnings that contributed to the development of the Biolink in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks, in the Pentland Hills area (see Appendix A). The completion of funding for the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink in 2014 provides an opportunity to explore the methods that have contributed to the operation and implementation of the project. The research focused on the following aspects:

 landholder’s responses to the role and impact that biolinks have on the family farm, at a landscape scale and within the local community  the barriers and enablers to the integration of biodiversity into the farm enterprise within the local Biolink context  landholders responses to the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink Project management and delivery aspects and the pros and cons: o landholder project engagement process used by the delivery organisations o landholder participation in both the on ground works and project extension type activities e.g. workshops, expo, project committee.

In 2009 the University of Ballarat (UoB) completed a survey which incorporated Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology, the telephone interviews lasted, on average, 12 minutes. Twenty-three landholders completed the survey (Grow West Landholder Survey 2009). The aim of the 2009 survey was to gain an understanding of the relevant attitudes, values and beahviours of landholders in the catchment.

1 The Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink will be referred to as ‘Biolink’ throughout this report and will mean the Biolink project for this the study area, where the word ‘biolink’ appears in lower case, this will mean the general term – wildlife corridor.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 7

This latest research (2015) built on the UoB study and included the following key research themes:

1. NRM programs in which the landholders have been involved 2. Factors influencing landholders land management decisions 3. Landholders’ experiences of and interest in the Biolink along the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creek in particular 4. Landholders’ understanding of and expectations for biodiversity 5. The various incentives available to support landholders engaging in biodiversity works - the benefits and the barriers 6. Best methods for communicating with landholders 7. Implications for government conservation and biolinks programs

Findings from this research will be used by PPWCMA to guide and improve the delivery of future incentive and extension projects in the area.

The report structure follows a standard NRM research framing. The first part of the report, the background, provides a brief outline of the study area and the Grow West Program, the MW-SFMP and the Biolink project that are the main ‘revegetation projects’ for the area. The next sections describe the methods used to conduct the research, and the recruitment process and details of the landholder interviewees. The main section of the report presents the findings and describes the themes that emerged from landholder interviews and where applicable, discusses and compares findings from the UoB 2009 study. The final part, the conclusion includes further discussion and recommendations for future delivery of conservation and land management projects.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 8

2. Background: Revegetation projects

2.1 Connecting fragmented landscapes

In Australia, since non-indigenous settlement in 1788, the landscape has undergone significant change. Primarily, land was cleared for agriculture and areas less suitable for farming, in particular, rocky outcrops and mountainous country were left aside and this has created the fragmented bushland reserves and parks we have today. Mansergh, Cheal & Fitzsimons (2008) suggest the future capacity for biota in these fragmented reserve systems is threatened and the impact of climate change will further endanger the survival of many species because they are marooned in isolated reserves and cannot translocate in response to temperature change (Whitten et al. 2011). One solution to this conservation problem has been the revegetation of tracts of land or corridors to link bushland reserves and enable movement of species (Bennett 1999). Whitten et al. (2011, p.2) describe this as a ‘connectivity conservation for climate change’ that provides for plants and animals to shift their ranges.

Over the past three to four decades research has demonstrated the need for urgent action by governments and communities to address the plight of endangered species at a landscape scale. Mansergh (2013) notes the hurdles projects like biolinks can experience. These include agricultural areas where adjustments in resource allocation, for example, concerning water, can be met with community resistance. Mansergh suggests Landcare has been instrumental in changing landholder resistances. The success of future biolink projects will rely upon the support of public and private sectors; government and non-government organisations; business; and statutory authorities (Whitten et al. 2011, p. v). Mansergh concurs, and advocates collaborative action between communities, policy makers and scientists. New conservation management frameworks are required and “broad biolinks zones offer opportunities to optimise cultural and socio-ecological outcomes as Australia adapts to, and tries to mitigate, climate change” (Mansergh 2013, p. 205).

2.2 Grow West

Grow West is a large landscape scale change project which covers an area of 50,000 hectares and assists landholders located in the upper Werribee catchment, including Bacchus Marsh, Ballan, Rowsley and Pentland Hills. It is one of the most extensive land restoration programs in Victoria and the plan is to restore degraded land through plantation establishment, conservation plantings and sustainable and viable land use practices. Since its inception in 2001 some 2,000 hectares of revegetation/forestry plantations have been established within the area. Grow West organises a range of land management workshops and demonstration days and these include: tree-planting and farm forestry; pest plant and animal control; farming techniques; education for new landholders; and the exploration of alternative agricultural industries. The Grow West Implementation Committee operates under the auspices of the PPWCMA and has representatives from community, government and business sectors.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 9

The establishment of a biolink to join the two local park reserves, the Werribee Gorge State Park in the south (of the study area) and the Lerderderg Gorge State Park in the north, is a key part of the Grow West vision and is specified in the Grow West Implementation Plan (2013). The two State Parks are approximately six kilometres apart at the closest boundary (as the crow flies). A biolink connecting the Werribee Gorge State Park to the Brisbane Ranges National Park is now underway. The Brisbane Ranges National Park is located approximately 8 kilometres to the south of Werribee Gorge State Park. The complete biolink, the Lerderderg State Park to the Brisbane Ranges National Park would cover a distance of approximately 15 kilometres.

2.3 Melbourne Water - Stream Frontage Management Program

The Melbourne Water Stream Frontage Management Program (SFMP) began in the Yarra catchment in 1996 and now operates across the Port Phillip and Westernport region. The program aims to protect and stabilise riverbanks and in turn improve water quality and river health. Other benefits include erosion control, improved livestock management and protection of streamside verge and habitat for wildlife (Melbourne Water 2013). The program has operated in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks since 2007.

2.4 Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink Project

The development of revegetation corridors along the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks required support from the local community and in particular private landholders on properties that border the creeks. The UoB conducted a telephone survey (23 respondents) in 2009 to evaluate landholders’ support for a Biolink project. The survey found that most landholders had previously undertaken some type of conservation works and placed a high value on biodiversity. The UoB researchers found this is in accordance with a body of research around stewardship and interest in nature among rural landholders. However, the study also found approximately half the respondents did not support or were uncertain about the concept of the Biolink. The study suggested support for the Biolink would rely upon the promotion of a range of benefits to the landholder and through local leadership and personal communication methods, focus on the positive aspects of wildlife corridors.

The Pentland Hills Landcare Group2 supported the idea for the Biolink and acknowledged investment in biodiversity as a high priority for Victorian Government’s V4WP grants scheme. This provided the essential local leadership identified by the 2009 UoB study and as previously cited, Mansergh (2013) described the role Landcare has played in changing landholder attitudes towards conservation. The local Landcare members recognised the benefit in bringing together existing agencies and in streamlining program funding, a ‘network governance’ approach (e.g. Bodin & Crona, 2009) allowing participants and stakeholders to work collaboratively enhance economic, social and environmental outcomes. The

2 The Pentland Hills Landcare Group is the Landcare group which covers the area for this study. All landholders interviewed are members of the group and throughout this report where reference is made to the ‘Landcare group’ this will mean the Pentland Hills Landcare Group.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 10

Landcare group trialled a version of the Biolink in the upper reaches of the Korkuperrimul creek in 2009 with approximately 10 landholders and used MW-SFMP funds. In 2010 the Landcare group proposed the Biolink project extended along the Korkuperrimul and Myrniong creeks and in alliance with the PPWCMA obtained funding from the Victorian Government’s V4WP grants scheme. The Landcare group appointed a local landholder as facilitator and the group successfully distributed the first round of funding under the governance of the PPWCMA. The second round of funding was transferred directly to the Landcare group to manage.

The Grow West program had identified the need for tailored incentives for landholders to encourage participation in the Biolink program. The Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks are priority waterways for Melbourne Water’s River Health stock exclusion and revegetation program. The funding to local landholders is called Melbourne Water’s stream frontage management project (MW-SFMP), as previously described (2.3). The additional funding from the V4WP co-ordinated through the Landcare group has meant the creation of the Biolink was a conceivable and achievable local community project.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 11

3. Methods

Two methods of qualitative inquiry were used for this study: the semi-structured interview process (which we will refer to as the ‘Q interview’) and photo-elicitation (‘PE interview’). The first method used an interview guide that followed a set of questions (Appendix B). The interview guide was designed around the same key project questions used in the 2009 study and included open-ended questions that allowed interviewees to provide their own degree of detail and where required, clarification for the researcher. This semi-structured interview process means that no two interviews are the same. Enabling people to share their experience or knowledge about a particular phenomenon in their unique way is an important part of qualitative inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln 2008, p. 14).

The second method, photo-elicitation (Beilin, 2005), involved approximately one-third of the landholders who had completed the initial ‘Q interview’ and we randomly selected and asked them to take 12 photographs over about a two-week period. This period of time allowed participants to consider their property and photograph the change. They were provided with the following instructions:

Imagine that you are to tell someone who has never seen your property about the changes you have made to the landscape over the time you have been here. Using a digital camera or mobile phone, take a number of photographs and then select the 12 that seem most significant to you.

The photographs could include on-ground works and other activities related to landscape change (including biodiversity on farm and the Biolink project). While the initial part of the research (Q interview) was facilitated by the researcher, the participants in the photo-elicitation phase undertook the photography independently. At the end of the period the researcher conducts another interview to gain greater insight in relation to the participants’ practices and responses toward biodiversity and landscape change (Appendix C). These interviews can provide a better understanding of the drivers and motivators of change. In the fieldwork process, the number of interviewees invited to complete the second phase, the photographs and the PE interview, depends upon the time available for the research project.

Photo-elicitation is an innovative technique that allows for insights into landholders thinking through visual means. It also enables landholders to be self-conscious about their property and consider aspects and features of subtle and significant change, which has taken place over a period of time.

It forced me to think about it, because you just take it for granted (Eddie, Biolink-Landholder).

Participants were asked to organise 12 of their photographs into groups around landholder-derived themes (Beilin 2005). The groups were given a thematic name by the landholder, such as: ‘fences’, ‘difficulties’ ‘pests’, ‘erosion’, ‘new trees’. The photographs represented work that has been completed on their property for habitat and land restoration; as well other landscape areas that are of concern in relation to production and biodiversity. The interviewees indicated which group was most significant to them and then ranked the photographs within each group. The interviewee explained why the photograph was ranked in order and why it formed part of the theme. In this way the researcher can understand the

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 12 significance of each photograph within the overall context. The knowledge gained from understanding how landholders consider biodiversity on their property can provide information about the opportunities and limitations for future habitat restoration activities.

Figure 3.1 Samples of interviewees’ photographs for the photo-elicitation activity

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 13

Figure 3.1 Samples of interviewees’ photographs for the photo-elicitation activity

The Q interviews and the PE interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. All the research processes adhered to ethical standards on confidentiality and privacy. The research was approved and overseen by the University of Melbourne Human Ethics Committee, project number 1543741.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 14

4. Respondents

The recruitment process involved telephoning a list of landholders in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks and other landholders in the Bacchus Marsh area in the close vicinity of these catchments. The PPWCMA provided a list of landholders involved in the Biolink project (28) and an additional list of approximately 50 properties/landholders involved in land management activities over the past decade. The activities included Grow West tree planting projects and other activities such as pest plant and animal control and erosion management. Landholders were contacted during April and May 2015 and researchers telephoned in the evenings, generally between 6-8pm Monday to Thursday. The PPWCMA sent a letter of introduction in late March 2015 to explain the purpose of the study (Appendix D), and consequently most landholders were prepared to listen to ‘a researcher from the University of Melbourne’ further outline the study and invite participation.

The contact details of the Biolink group, who had participated in landholder projects since 2011, were up to date. The recent engagements with PPWCMA and MW-SFMP for grants associated with the Biolink may have influenced participation, as nearly all this group of landholders were interested in the study. Landholders from 23 of the 28 Biolink properties were interviewed (82%) and this comprised six interviews with two people (the landholder couple) and seventeen interviews with individuals, in total 29 landholders. One landholder indicated from the on-set that she would not be available, two enquired about further information, however, did not follow-up and two other landholders expressed interest in a telephone interview, but by the end of the fieldwork period had not nominated a time to undertake an interview.

The list of ‘other landholders’ provided a more challenging recruitment process. Eight landline phone numbers were disconnected or wrong numbers and seven names were duplicated from the Biolink list. Three landholders had sold their properties and the link to their mobile telephone found them elsewhere. One such person, who had previously resided in the area, was most interested in the research and talked for about 15 minutes about the family connection to the area that stemmed back to the 1960s. Two landholders expressed interest in a telephone interview, but as previously described, by the end of the fieldwork period had not provided an interview time. Six landholders indicated they did not wish to participate and others did not return messages or their telephones were not answered. Eight interviews were conducted and this comprised one interview with two people (the landholder couple) and seven interviews with individuals, in total 9 landholders. These eight properties represent a 25 percent participation rate, as the revised list contained just 31 properties.

Across the study area we conducted 31 ‘Q interviews’ and these comprised of seven interviews with two people present at each interview (the landholder couple) and 24 interviews with individuals, a total of 38 participants. The interview times ranged from the shortest time of nine minutes and the longest time of 39 minutes, the average interview time was 25 minutes. The majority of interviews took place around the

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 15 interviewees’ kitchen table and because of time and availability; three people were interviewed over the telephone. The average time for the three telephone interviews was coincidently the same as the face-to- face interviews, at 25 minutes. The visit to properties to conduct interviews often included a walk or drive around the property to look at revegetation or land management activities. The opportunity to undertake face-to-face interviews in the setting of the study provides researchers with a useful sense of the area and community and a first-hand experience and observation of the landscape in which the landholders operate.

Thirteen ‘PE interviews’ were conducted with 15 participants; two of the interviews the landholder couple participated. The interview times ranged from the shortest time of 17 minutes to the longest time of 41 minutes, the average interview time was 24 minutes. We completed 12 ‘PE interviews’ with landholders from the Biolink group (one couple and 11 individuals) and one couple from the ‘other landholders’ and therefore 15 people participated.

The respondents – Biolink and other landholders Q Interviews: 23 properties (28 landholders) Biolink properties PE Interviews: 12 properties (13 landholders) Q Interviews: 8 properties (10 landholders) Other properties in the area PE Interviews: 1 properties (2 landholders) Table 4.1

The respondents – property size Q Interviews: 18 properties (22 landholders) Small properties (< 50ha) PE Interviews: 10 properties (12 landholders) Medium-size properties (50ha-100ha) Q Interviews: 3 properties (3 landholders) Q Interviews: 10 properties (13 landholders) Large properties (> 100ha) PE Interviews: 3 properties (3 landholders) Table 4.2 Note: property size categories used in UoB 2009 study

In summary, 38 landholders from 31 properties participated in the ‘Q interviews’ and 15 landholders from 13 properties participated in the photo-elicitation activity and ‘PE interviews’. The main focus for this study was the Biolink landholder group and we recruited 23 of the 28 landholders (82%) for the Q interviews, and this represents 74 percent of the properties involved in this study. For the PE interviews, we randomly selected landholders and ticked or marked every second landholder’s name on the Biolink list. Two of the marked (randomly selected) landholders expressed interest, but by the end of the fieldwork period had not affirmed an interview time. Contact was finally made with another landholder selected for photo-elicitation late into the fieldwork period and time only permitted the Q interview. One landholder who was one of the first Q interviews and very interested in the photo-elicitation, because of work commitments and travel meant the PE interview did not take place. We completed 12 PE

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 16 interviews; we had planned 16. As previously described, it was a difficult process to make contact with the group of ‘other landholders’ and by the end of the fieldwork one landholder from this group completed the PE interview, we had planned to conduct four.

The geographical area for this study is relatively small and to ensure confidentiality for participants, this report separates information and provides broad descriptions of demographic and property details.

The respondents – age categories

30-49 9 landholders

50-69 22 landholders > 70 7 landholders

Table 4.3

The respondents – years of property ownership

Late 1800s family farm 9 properties

40 + years 5 properties 20-30 4 properties 10-20 7 properties < 10 3 properties < 5 3 properties Table 4.4

We coded transcripts guided by the research questions and by topic. The list included broad themes, for example, physical and social aspects, land management decision-making, the Biolink, biodiversity, communication and recommendations about landscape projects for the future. We then open coded to allow for emergent themes, and analytically coded (Richards 2009, p. 96) to identify patterns and underlying meanings from across the interviews.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 17

5. Findings and discussion

This part of the report presents the findings from both the semi-structured interview process (Q interviews) with 38 landholders and the photo-elicitation activity (PE Interviews) with 15 landholders. The sections are presented in similar order to the areas of inquiry covered in the interviews. Pseudonyms have been assigned to landholders’ comments within this report. The excerpts from the interviews, unless otherwise stated, reflect the majority view of what landholders described. In the presentation of findings, the selected landholder’s comments from the interviews—the data—is annotated to include their pseudonym and indicate whether they are a Biolink, ‘B-landholder’ or from the surrounding area, other, ‘O-landholder’.

5.1 NRM programs in which the landholders have been involved

5.1.1 The Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink The majority of the landholders who participated in this research were involved in the Biolink project (74%) and therefore this group had within the last four years fenced-off all or part of their creek frontage and revegetated the partitioned area. Melbourne Waters’ SFMP provided financial assistance for the fencing and most landholders used this grant to purchase the services of a fencing contractor. The State Government’s V4WP grants were channelled through the Pentland Hills Landcare Group and these funds were used for revegetation work. This included, rabbit and weed management, ground preparation and the planted, staked and guarded mixed-species indigenous trees, shrubs and grasses. The majority of landholders used the grant to purchase the services of local land management and revegetation contractors.

All landholders were provided with the contact details of local contractors and their responsibility was to set up contractors to undertake the project works on their property. The engagement of contractors ensured a consistent standard of fencing and revegetation along the Biolink. This is most important for, in particular, landholders with minimal equipment and/or capability and/or knowledge to complete the work. Note, for this study less than one-third of properties were farming enterprises, approximately 19 percent of property ownership was less than 10 years (Table 4.3) and 21 percent of landholders were aged in their seventies (Table 4.4). However, such attributes can be misleading; for example, landholders can continue farming well after retirement age, although on smaller properties (58%) (Table 4.2) as noted by these landholders, they are less likely to have machinery and equipment to undertake large revegetation projects. The construction of a revegetation project by contractor/s can lessen the landholder’s ownership, although many landholders played a part in the development of their section of the Biolink. The initial consultation with the facilitators from MW-SFMP and Landcare about the establishment and scale of area to fence and revegetate involved the landholder and the majority of interviewees understood their role for on-going management, for example, to suppress weeds in the early stages of plant growth. Landholders described the ‘green pick’ or lusher growth along the creek surrounds due to the higher

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 18 moisture content. The fenced-off areas along the creek can be put under pressure from livestock, in particular during the dryer times of the year and therefore fences need to be regularly checked. See further description of livestock management (5.2.2) and landholder involvement (5.3)

The UoB study identified the majority of activities undertaken by landholders in the period 2004-2009 (five years previous to the study) were related to pest animal control and weed control. Our study would affirm this and because the area has invasive pest plants such as serrated tussock and pest animal infestations such as rabbits and foxes, landholders are involved in on-going management of one or more of these pests. The State Government of Victoria has a legal requirement for all landholders including public authorities responsible for crown land management, to take all reasonable steps to prevent the spread of weeds and as far as possible eradicate established pest animals.

All properties in our study were affected to some degree by rabbits. One property of new landholders had since 2011 found and managed 92 rabbit warrens on their 50ac.3 property.

Eradication of rabbits, huge, huge, that has been probably the biggest change to our property has been getting rid of most of our rabbits. It’s made the biggest difference (Paul B-landholder).

Another landholder talked about the vast number of rabbits on his property in the 1990s and the on-going work undertaken to manage and keep rabbit numbers low.

I was told that my predecessor [previous landholder] had engaged some rabbit catchers and in one week they took 2,200 rabbits on this property (Gordon, B-landholder).

One landholder described the benefits the tree plantation provided with regard to the management of serrated tussock.

Certainly the plantation has helped in terms of shrouding out and providing competition for the serrated tussock (Ian, O-landholder).

The fences along the creek protect the newly established plantations from stock access, although some landholders noted the wildlife corridor had the potential to be a harbour for unwanted pest animals, such as rabbits and foxes. The increase in kangaroo numbers is one signal of greater biodiversity; however, in a productive agricultural landscape this can cause concern as kangaroos compete for pasture and can damage fences. One landholder described the problems with greater numbers of kangaroos.

There is a disadvantage with that, you know, it’s the Kangaroos. Since all these plantations and stuff have been going in around the place the kangaroo population has increased and now in my property out here, my fences are getting damaged because all these kangaroos are eating my grass. You could almost put up with them if they didn't damage your fences, but they damage your fences (Cliff, O-landholder).

3 The majority of landholders, regardless of their age, described the size of their property in acres, although they would often know and provide the equivalent number of hectares. Note, one hectare (metric) equals 2.47 acres (imperial measure). Metric measure was introduced to Australia in 1974.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 19

The property does not adjoin the creek and so they have not been part of the Biolink projects, however, over the 30 years they have undertaken a range of conservation works and have an interest in birdlife and have observed the change in bird diversity in their area.

It's the aesthetic value of the area; it's good to see the trees coming back. It obviously helps with the erosion and environment and all the birds. We've got lots of different parrots, the little grass parrots, the Rosellas and then we have the black cockies (Debra, O-landholder).

5.1.2 Limitations and difficulties The 2009 study explored a range of factors that could prevent or limit landholders’ ability or willingness to undertake revegetation work. The main concerns were cost; time; and fire risk. Drought and the supply of water were also mentioned by respondents as disincentive to fence-off and revegetate areas along the creek.

The funds for the Biolink provided landholders with the full cost of the project (contractors, materials), which meant the landholders did not have to contribute money or much of their time. The landholders for their part provided the land.

It’s really just a bit of minor maintenance for it because I think that’s mainly the whole idea of it really is to just let it go and revegetate itself and get the natural grasses and trees coming back up (Vance, B- landholder).

The major concern for landholders with livestock was access to the creek for water. Most projects had the provision for stock access, for example, the inclusion of a gate for drought conditions.

I’ve got gates and they say yes, if there’s another drought, open the gates and they [cattle] can go in (Yvonne, B-landholder).

The MW-SFMP aims to reduce all stock access, although Melbourne Water facilitators acknowledge the past decades of water entitlements and organise with landholders to find solutions to achieve environmental benefits and modify farm practice. The construction of fencing along the creek limits wide- scale drinking areas and channels stock to one or a couple of points. Melbourne Water facilitators will assess the condition of the creek for gentle slope and firm bed for the suitability of a water point. Fencing most of the area improves the verge along length of the creek. The water points can cause erosion pressure in concentrated areas and some landholders talked about the need to monitor by observation and keep the creek banks and water quality in check. Many landholders appreciated the stabilisation of the banks and the reduced risk for livestock injury as fencing has facilitated managing stock in the very steep areas.

We’ve sort of just fenced cattle out from some steep country. Mainly for management just because it was a bit of a danger with animals getting stuck (Irwin, B-landholder).

Many of the landholders described their reliance on rainfall for pastures or crops or water for livestock in their dams and monitored the seasons and noted change in the landscape with a focus on water availability. The creek flow is one of the landholders’ measures for seasonal variation and for those solely reliant on the creeks for their livestock, change in flow will influence carrying capacity for the farm.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 20

They [Melbourne Water] would have liked to have planted out all my creek line but I couldn’t afford to do that because I really do need to have water for the stock (Monica, B-landholder).

One solution for water provision is the construction of pumps and troughs to reticulate water from the creek, groundwater or town water. The installation of infrastructure, the pipes, pumps and troughs can be costly and in some cases the funds distributed through the Landcare group were used to assist the landholders who decided this option. However, most landholders with cattle were not supportive of troughs because of the extra management required to check water levels and maintenance of taps and floats and concerned about their cattle’s ‘rough treatment’ of equipment. In most farming systems throughout Australia water is reticulated and livestock utilise drinking troughs.

The issue of fire risk identified in the UoB study is perhaps not surprising, because in February 2009, Victoria experienced the worst bushfires, the Black Saturday fires. Only four landholders in this 2015 study mentioned fire.

All this has happened post fires [Black Saturday 2009], so then I decided we’re not planting, unless I planted oaks in there. We decided we’re not planting anymore native trees. Our neighbour has planted out for firewood trees, and he put thousands and thousands of firewood trees and these sugar gums. They’re coming up 20 years old now and they look magnificent, they’re all growing beautifully, but I said at the time to myself that if a fire got into those, it’s going to generate so much heat and it’s all to the north of us, it’s going to cause big problems (Terry, O-landholder)

Terry is concerned about a large plantation to the ‘north’ of his property, because in summer in Victoria on a high risk day; it will be a north wind. Terry has many remnant indigenous trees on his property and trees he has planted for erosion control and in his words, the neighbouring plantation looks ‘magnificent’, but is a fire hazard. The decision not to plant native trees is for the area close to the family home where Terry will maintain a buffer or clearing. On the other hand, landholder Kent is concerned about fire and that it will be detrimental to the new trees. His family value the new plantations and they talked about going down to the creek each week to check on them:

The worst thing that could happen to them would be a fire goes through them because they’d be very vulnerable to that right now. Not like the remnant trees. A lot of them would survive because they’ve taken all the undergrowth from it, but these trees, well, I would think they wouldn’t stand up very well to it (Kent, B-landholder).

All landholders are conditioned to be watchful and prepare for bushfires, particularly over the summer season. It is a ‘taken for granted task’ when living in these landscapes. But on its own it seems new plantings are adding to the fire risk for some landholders, so as discussed in the conclusions, integrating early planting management with fire preparedness could be an important way of packaging messages about projects like Biolink.

5.2 Factors influencing landholders land management decisions

Landholders were firstly asked about planning and decision-making for their property, and secondly, the factors they thought influenced other local landholders’ management decisions. The first part of the question allows for interviewees to be self-reflective and consider their management practices. The second

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 21 part prompts interviewees to take a broader view and consider practices at a landscape scale. Difference of opinion and underlying neighbour or community tensions can emerge. These also can indicate the degree of shared interest people do or do not hold about their local area. This aspect is particularly important for projects like Biolink, where a collaborative approach is optimal. The collection of ideas about decision- making from the personal to the speculative provides a picture of the different focuses, approaches, capabilities and likely responses to land management practices across the study area.

The area for this study is geologically diverse and includes: black volcanic soils and rocky outcrops, which originate from Mount Blackwood to the north, highly dispersive clays to the south and pockets of sandstone and the blends of these soil types across the area. As previously described (5.1.1), the area is impacted by a range of invasive weeds and pest animals. Landholders can be faced with a suite of land management problems from erodible soils to weed and pest animals.

It’s one hell of a challenging landscape and that’s directly attributed to its typography, very steep slopes, which present challenges for machinery usage to get access to things like boxthorn and rabbit warrens. The weed problems and the rabbit problems here are an ongoing issue because we have key weeds like boxthorn, serrated tussock and Galenia (Denis, B-landholder).

Landholders described the different processes undertaken to manage their property and their decision- making as follows: long-term; routine management; and ad-hoc. Only one landholder did not have a management process for their 5ac property acquired in 2008 and as a town-dweller and absentee landholder she thought the land needed little management and expressed little interest in the landscape. The different management approaches can develop from the different foci or goals and these include: PPA focus; production focus; and environmental focus; and are described later in this section (5.2.1; 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). In addition, a couple of landholders pointed to the changing landscape, as more people move to the area and for example, hobby farms develop, this is outlined as an emerging trend in 5.2.4.

I think that’s really going to depend upon the philosophy of the landholder, their long term attitudes to land management which perhaps have gelled over. I could look at other land managers and those decisions are being made on purely altruistic grounds in that how is it going to benefit me rather than necessarily how is it going to benefit the land and the district (Holly, B-landholder)

Holly, a fourth generation farmer, described outcomes in holistic terms, where some landholders focus on their property and others consider the benefits to the broader community and surrounds. Although such problems as rabbit and weed infestations; and fire impact wide-scale areas, fences provide little resistance and this makes it difficult for landholders to manage at a property scale. The following interviewees’ comments highlight the complexities in landscape-scale management and the different reasons landholders undertake (or not) to manage their land.

You do need everyone on board. Probably it needs to be done in a military style fashion where you lean over a table; you’ve got a map there, and the wind direction’s there, so we’ve got to put up a – stop it here. We’ll stop it at the creek here (Gordon, B-landholder).

I’ve got horehound which is a bit of nuisance but that seems to fly all over the place, so it’s pointless me cleaning mine up because within 12, 18 months they’re sort of growing back out again. So, it’s a fruitless exercise (Brian, O-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 22

I suppose it’s like a conscience to keep your property clear of weeds and stuff for your neighbours as well as a fire danger (Fran, B-landholder).

The Landcare movement began in the mid-1980s with an ethos of catchment–wide action to tackle problems of environmental degradation; salinity; pest plants and animals and address vegetation loss from two centuries of broad-scale clearing. This approach recognised the need for collaboratively action across communities and governments and funding to target problems identified at the local, regional and national level (e.g. Australian Soil Conservation Council 1991). The Biolink draws on community support and collaborative action, although it does not directly involve all landholders because of the linear structure as not all properties border the waterways. The goals are increased biodiversity for the area and arguably a national and global benefit. While each of the local projects as part of the Biolink are organised at the property level, landholders can know their plans are part of the bigger plan. As Bennett (1999, p. 5) notes, “the concept of providing linkages for conservation can be applied at several scales: it is relevant both to local conservation efforts and to regional or national strategies”.

The Biolink has the potential to draw landholders away from their focus on property-scale management needs to recognising their role in the wider changes at the landscape-scale.

I think Landcare has morphed into being less about a community volunteer organisation and more a community project delivery. They get a grant, provide the money to the landowners to go to a contractor to go and do weed control, so it’s going back to almost like the isolated, “This is my patch, I’m responsible for it”, rather than we as a community are responsible for the management of the land as a whole, like an area, rather than my patch. Yeah, shared patch; shared responsibility; and shared vision (Ian, O-landholder).

Other landholders proudly noted the success of the Biolink for both environmental and social outcomes, and therefore thought it a very good showcase for other areas. The Landcare group won the 2013 Victorian Landcare Award, for the: Qantas Landcare Innovative Community Group (Landcare Australia Limited). The award was in recognition for the co-operation and collaboration across agencies and the community and the Landcare group’s lead in the promotion and development of the large-scale Biolink.

The UoB study found that in general, improving their property for future generations was the most important factor influencing landholder management. The majority of landholders in this 2015 study affirmed that their approach for improving their property and the aim of leaving it in a better state then when they began management.

5.2.1 PPA focus As outlined in 5.1.1 all landholders are involved in on-going management of one or more of the areas noxious pest animals and plants. Many landholders described the year by year observation and routine management for PPA.

Landholders from non-farming or non-rural backgrounds can be confronted with a barrage of land management problems they do not realise are present. The weeds can be apparent, but new landholders may not understand the necessary management. The legislative requirement to control pests such as

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 23 serrated tussock and rabbits can place new landholders into difficulty because of the financial and time burden.

The land’s not a priority for me when I bought this property. It just happens the land came with it, the house and the view (Brian O-landholder).

When we bought the property it was just a land of weed. But we were well off and we thought that’s no trouble. We’ll get people to do it, but it didn’t quite work out that way [change in financial situation]. If I thought I had to do it I wouldn’t have bought this property. I would not have bought it (Xavier, O- landholder).

A lot of them don’t understand when they buy the property the time involved (Kirsty, B-landholder).

The challenges across the landscape can dictate landholders’ decision-making so it becomes a reactive process. The majority of landholders follow a routine program of management and through observation, focus on emergent problems and know the time to address such things as weeds or rabbit. It can be a never-ending task. Landholders described their frustration when neighbours are not compliant and the State Government PPA enforcement officers do not follow up.

I've been down to the Department a few years ago and took photos of it [serrated tussock] and I went down and said, "What are you going to do about this?" And, you know, they said “Nothing, it's up to you”. They told me to go and talk to the landowner, I sort of, got stuck into them, I said it was their job and all that sort of stuff and we argued a bit and went back and forwards. And, I think they eventually went and spoke to them (Cliff, O-landholder).

In some cases the staff turn-over can mean officers are inconsistent in their approach or do not appreciate previous efforts by the landholder to manage the pests.

One of the other aspects was that every time we’d speak to someone they’d move on somewhere else. It’s easy for some of the staff to come out of Uni and start to dictate what you have to do, but we have to find the money to do it. I think part of it is that you need Departmental people who really understand what it’s like for the landholders. Every year they [Department] came up and said, “Okay, we need to manage the rabbits, can you pick this section and concentrate on that”. And we’d do what we had to do but it’s a big property. You can’t do the whole thing at once. We did have a bit of an issue where one year the notice went to the wrong address and we didn’t get the notice, so we got summonsed to court for not dealing with the rabbits. And that sort of, to be honest with you, broke my entire spirit. I said, “You know what, from now on I do the bare minimum” (Alistair, O-landholder).

When land ownership changes in areas where noxious pest plant and/or animals prevail, a letter from the authorising department is sent to outline the landholder’s responsibilities. One landholder described his shock when the letter arrived:

In a letter they put that if you don’t allow access we will get a court order and if we find that you’re not caring for the eradication of rabbits, we will have you sued through such a legislation number they give you and that. Very, very threatening and we had just arrived in the area (2000]. So I made complaint and said to them, “You should be getting us on your side to want us to go and do these things, not to have us threatened to do them”. And it was very upsetting to me and to others because others had spoken to me along here; my neighbours have spoken to me of the Departments threats and attitude. So they seemed to have changed lately (Xavier, O-landholder).

Landholder Xavier described the constructive relationship he has established with local inspectors and acknowledged the difficult work they do to enforce PPA management. However, in Alistair’s case,

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 24 because of the many difficulties and clashes with enforcement officers, he now does the bare minimum. Alistair also touched on the importance of empathy and the need for facilitators and officers to understand or appreciate the challenges of land management. Section (5.6) explores further communication processes and mechanisms for agencies to work with landholders.

An ad-hoc, inexperienced or minimal approach by landholders to manage PPA can lead to frustrations between neighbours and strained relationships between communities and enforcement agencies. When the Landcare movement began in the 1980s, people recognised the necessity to collaboratively tackle environmental problems at a landscape scale. However, landholders’ varying capabilities and availability of time and finances and their different foci and goals can make it difficult to effectively manage these problems.

5.2.2 Production focus Approximately one-third and all the large property landholders (10) described long-term planning and their decision-making in terms of property improvements and this can include: improved pasture production; abatement of erosion; shelter belts and paddock design; agricultural diversification and conservation works. The large properties are managed as farm enterprises and have farm management plans or longer term processes in place and set goals. A couple of landholders from smaller properties described their long-term goals and had established a land management plan. The farm or family budget will also dictate the extent of land management and property improvement and improvements can be reliant on good seasons of productivity or high market livestock prices.

It depends on the climatic conditions too (Elise, B-landholder).

I have always wanted to take it step by step, don’t try and do too much one year and then nothing the next. What money we’ve made, always spend it back on the farm (Fergus, B-landholder).

If you've got more disposable income well you just do more, don’t you? (Cam, B-landholder)

South-eastern Australia (location of the study area) experienced drought conditions for over a decade due to the ‘El Nino influence’ (e.g. Ummenhofer et al. 2009). The drought began in 1995 and continued until late 2009. As previously outlined (2.4), the Biolink commenced in 2010 and provided financial support and this was well received by the participant landholders because of the lean years during the drought.

I think just at the end of that drought, it was such good timing that was huge. A lot of them wanted to improve their properties and the monetary value of the grants was perfect (Jackie, B-landholder).

The focus on production took precedence amongst most of this group of ten properties. However, landholders identified the need to manage for the long-term and this included stocking rates; soil management; and shelterbelts. The separation of productivity and biodiversity undoubtedly developed from traditional approaches to land management and farming. During the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century in Victoria and many areas of Australia, landholders were required by Federal and State Governments to clear their properties of native vegetation (e.g. Bradshaw 2012).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 25

They stripped this obviously 150 years ago or whatever when they did and the land has been basically left to lie here fallow with no improvement and be overrun with weeds and rabbits (Jake, B-landholder)

Many of these past practices have created the environmental degradation evident today. Although for some landholders they view their landscape always having been cleared with the consequent erosion; and imagine that this is how it should continue to be:

This is the Pentland Hills, the real difficult steep gullies which are very unforgiving, very harsh and no trees. Very, yeah, the winds come up through there. It’s like Scotland isn’t it? It’s very barren. …That’s probably why they’ve called it the Pentland Hills perhaps, because maybe it was always park-like and reminded the first settlers of England and Scotland. …I wouldn’t put gums in again. I’m getting a bit sick of gums. I still like English trees. …I think we’d just totally ruin the landscape. The gully side, I think you have to preserve a few gullies (Elise, B-landholder).

The hills and gullies typical across the study area

Elise talked about her forebears and described, for example, the error of judgement in maintaining boxthorn for stock protection. Elise acknowledged the benefits of Biolink, but her construction or preferred view of the landscape is akin to ‘hills and dales’. While a healthy landscape can be lush with grass-cover and devoid of trees, in this landscape the presence and scale of erosion is an indicator of land degradation.

Several landholders described the way they observed change in the landscape and worked to improve their property. They contrasted their understanding and view of the area to newcomers:

There are lot of farmers that observe and they don’t want to leave things worse than what they found them, whereas a lot of the townies that move into blocks, they don’t actually notice the decline (Kent, B- landholder).

I think they [Landcare] sort of need to get whoever comes into the area sort of involved somehow, and unless you know your weed problems and your rabbits and whatever, and kangaroos hopping around, they just think it’s lovely. They don’t realise that everything’s got to be managed together (Roland, B- landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 26

This apparent limited understanding on the part of newcomers is two-sided. New landholders increase the local diversity and change the social fabric and can bring novel ideas (Beilin & Reichelt 2010, p. 33). As Roland notes, Landcare has a role to play to include people and provide information for new landholders. Other landholders described their journey of discovery through the Grow West and Biolink projects and their appreciation for the benefits of revegetation:

Seeing that it was viable in some cases [revegetation], and I’m sure that even looking at my paddock and other areas too and I think becoming very tree minded whereas there were years and years and years that all the older generations did was cut trees down. …I think we’ve been educated to the fact that the idea of doing it would be a positive and I think that that’s probably so with a lot of the farmers of today around the area (Monica, B-landholder).

Landholder Monica described the change in attitude and practice toward mixed-species indigenous revegetation, particularly among the older farming generation. Across the farming properties in this study area and in many parts of Victoria, indigenous trees were cut down and farmers generally planted Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) for windbreaks. Some landholders talked about their forbearers’ planting cypress and now they realise there are problems with single species plantations. For example cypress trees are impacted by a disease known as cypress canker4. It decimates young and old stands.

A number of landholders described change in landholders’ responses to mixed-species indigenous plantations in the Biolink.

There are a couple of old gums in the paddocks and that’s it. That’s the remnants of what was here originally. But you really have to replicate what was here originally, to survive, to adapt (Fergus, B- landholder).

So what I’ve seen over the past 10 to 15 years in that some of my peer age group [50-60], I have seen a change in attitude over that time, in comparison to their fathers’ outlooks on farming (Holly, B- landholder).

Landholders said the Grow West and the Biolink programs in particular demonstrated, to farmers, the benefits of planting mixed species that are suited to the climatic conditions of the area.

5.2.3 Environmental focus Landholders across the group of interviewees expressed interest in the environment. A large property landholder described the importance of an integrated approach that incorporates conservation and production:

If you've got an eye on production well you should be covering biodiversity and good land management and management of the environment as well (Cam, B-landholder).

This idea of integration is hard to define. Many landholders talked about environmental benefits, and this study found approximately one-third of landholder properties are managed with the environment as the

4 Cypress canker (Seiridium species), is a fungi that can cause dieback symptoms, especially when environmental conditions have placed trees under stress, such as the drought. The drought began in the study area (previously described in this section 5.2.2) in the mid-1990s and persisted for more than a decade and cypress canker disease was found in the area (DEPI 2014).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 27 main focus. The following comments encapsulate the range of landholders’ considerations for the management of their property specifically in relation to the environment:

Long term I'm much better off having a big treed area than I am having continual erosion (Glen, B- landholder).

Just to maintain a habitat that wildlife could survive in (Eddie, B-landholder).

I mean we’re interested and concerned about climate change and if we can do our bit here, we’ll do that (Quiana, B-landholder).

Some landholders considered land degradation and the multiple benefits of revegetation, Glen talked about the reduction in sediment to the creek; the establishment of windbreaks; the aesthetics; and in the long-term the habitat created. Eddie’s interest in birdlife meant he managed the property with this in mind and fenced, established and retained bushland. In some case landholders described the benefits of trees in relation to photosynthesis and Quiana described the role of managing their property in relation to environmental global benefits.

5.2.4 Management in a transitional landscape A couple of landholders described the way other landholders manage their property and suggested that it is related to future real estate values. The area has and will continue to experience increase in population as properties are subdivided. Around the outskirts of Bacchus Marsh there is rapid urbanisation and expansion of residential suburban blocks. The township is identified as an area for significant growth (Victorian Government 2014). Further out of the township, the larger properties in the rural zone may eventually change and be divided into 40ha allotments5 or rezoned and smaller parcels permitted. The area is on the cusp of transition, for some areas it will be a change from rural to semi-rural to urban. This will change the demographic and as previously described; include many people who will not be familiar with the management requirements of their new landscape. The following landholder comments describe land management as preparatory works for selling or redevelopment of properties.

Another thing that I think has changed is that we have gone from being a very rural community to being a tree-change community, so a lot of what – the decisions that are made on properties now are for aesthetics, for resale value (Jackie, B-landholder).

Probably resale values, I think that’s – this area has become all hobby farmers now. Fixing fences and getting permits for – building permits and things like that (Nick, B-landholder).

One landholder described the yet to be developed housing estate and the hundreds of new homes that will be visible in the distance along his far property boundary. He concedes that his property will be in the line of development although he thinks the creation of, for example, 5-10ha allotments as semi-rural properties, may be the best way to address the scourge of weeds and rabbits that impact his property. However, as discussed in section (5.2.2), many new landholders are ill-prepared to manage for PPA. In the

5 In a number of water supply catchments around Australia, outside towns and where subdivision is permitted this will be a 40 ha minimum allotment size (no more than one residential dwelling per 40 ha) and this is to maintain sustainable development while protecting the quality of water supplies (e.g. VicWater 2012).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 28 context of this landscape change, the Biolink can play an important environmental role, noted by couple of landholders (5.4), as a way of protecting the area for the future.

5.3 Landholders’ experiences of and interest in the Biolink along the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creek

The majority of landholders said they supported the Biolink and the fenced-off area along part or all of their section of creek because of the financial assistance. Many landholders would or could not undertake similar projects without the grants.

If I’d put a number on it, I’d say half the people that were on the Biolink would have cared about that and half wouldn’t have. But I think the biodiversity was, to be honest, was probably something to sell to us to get the grant in the first place. And that’s what we do. Well, it’s all about biodiversity. That’s what we can say we’re going to do, but to the Landcare Group, it’s weeds, rabbits, trees, fencing (Jackie, B- landholder).

While in the first instance the picture painted by landholders seemed pragmatic or mercenary, the underlying experiences revealed a different story. The Biolink provided a community project and a tangible focus that was conceivable and brought people together. As Bennet (1999, p. 5) suggests, “It is feasible for local communities to actually ‘do something about’ managing linkages in their local environment and to see visible environmental change as a result”.

I think it demonstrates to the broader community, it’s a can do thing. It’s a can do project (Denis, B- landholder).

The Landcare group formed in 1995 and with its long association in the community, the project works and previous partnerships with, for example, Grow West, it provided a valuable mechanism to promote and deliver the Biolink. Landholders had to be members of the Landcare group to be part of Biolink and those who were not, joined. Most have continued their membership. The requirement for membership was decided at the local level by the group and intended to foster collaboration through sharing knowledge and experience. It was also anticipated that this would strengthen the ability of the PPWCMA and the Landcare group to support landholders’ on-going maintenance of property-scale projects, in particular as part of the large-scale Biolink.

I think it’s a fairly strong Landcare Group up here and most of the farmers up here are in it, and I think – I wouldn’t say peer pressure, but if your neighbour’s doing it and you can sort of justify doing it, you do (Irwin, B-landholder).

The social – it’s pulled the community together. … I know the likes of some of the people that have planted things for the Biolink that definitely there have been rabbits and kangaroos [impacts] and they’ve gone back and they’re replacing trees and re-guarding and taking pride in it (Monica B- landholder).

Probably a lot of them would have liked to have fenced it and just couldn’t afford to before. I think there were a lot like that and then I think that because other people had done it and they could see how good it looked (Yvonne, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 29

The social influences were apparent as landholders described the word-of-mouth process that rippled through the community. (5.6 explores further communication and promotion). All landholders appreciated the grants and most importantly, commented on the facilitators who organised the projects. Landholders described the process as well organised and the facilitators’ knowledge; support; and their willingness to be flexible and adjust project specifications to meet landholders’ requirements as crucial to success. Key Landcare group members were also mentioned; and their enthusiasm and promotion of the Biolink was instrumental in gaining other landholder involvement.

I would have said it was the original office bearers [Landcare group] who literally drove and then sold the project, drove, sold and drove the project, it is down to is one or two people that had the foresight (Holly, B-landholder).

As briefly outlined (5.1) the construction of revegetation projects by contractor/s can lessen the landholder’s ownership and participation in on-going maintenance and success of the plantings.

I said to him [neighbour] like six or eight months later, “Oh, how are the trees down the back going?” and he said, “Oh, I don’t know I haven’t been down there” (Kent, B-landholder).

My expectation was that you give them the piece of land and they take care of them. They haven't been back to do any land care since they planted the trees, so they haven't been back to do any rabbits, they haven't been back spraying any weeds as far as I know. So, from that point of view the trees just got planted and left (Kirsty, B-landholder).

Overall, landholders described the Biolink as an asset to their property and local area and the majority described their interest and on-going involvement in the maintenance of their stretch or patch of Biolink and were keen to observe or talk with other landholders about Biolink at the landscape-scale. Again, this is a useful part of being in Landcare, where experiences of the same sort of issues in ecological restoration terms, is shared.

Melbourne Water’s investment in the area is to manage stream bank erosion, reduce turbidity and achieve an overall improvement in water quality in the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks as part of the Werribee catchment. A couple of landholders had observed a change in the clarity of water in their section of creek:

I noticed that the water quality is better down in the creek. There’s not as much silt in it. That’s a good thing. I think the banks are repairing themselves slowly, getting grass on them and you know (Nick, B- Landholder).

Another landholder, located further downstream from Nick, envisaged the benefit of the streamside revegetation, although he considered it too early to notice change in water quality.

It's a holistic approach isn't it really? Whether it's going to make observable change to water quality and so forth and stopping erosion, all that, it's probably a bit early (Cam, B-landholder).

Many landholders described visual change in their section of creek and across the district and reiterated Cam’s point that it was too early to see significant change:

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 30

It’s a bit too early, but certainly that immediate change of seeing tens of thousands of stakes and bags appearing in the landscape (Ian, O-landholder).

There are a lot more birds more recently but I don’t know whether that's a climate thing or whether that's a Biolinks thing (Glen, B-landholder).

Landholders had observed subtle changes, for example, increase in birds, or they had spotted a wombat, koala or echidna:

Well I was down along the creek working a while back and it was in the evening and there just seemed to be so many different bird sounds around, birds whistling and I thought it wasn’t like that a few years ago when the trees weren’t around, so it definitely brings a lot more birdlife around (Roland, B-landholder).

The benefits of the trees, they bring the nice birds, and they bring for the environment the air – the oxygen and everything circulating with the air. There are little wrens bobbing around everywhere and parrots, yeah, more of the native birds (Olivia, B-landholder).

You still see the odd echidna. You see the odd koala (Denis, B-landholder).

I think that the birdlife has definitely increased on my property down there now there are trees and the other thing that I did have come back are the little Antechinus (Yvonne, B-landholder).

There’s more birdlife so there’s got to be more frog life and more animal life and that sort of thing. And look, kangaroos, they do get a bit of a bad rap because they cause so much damage and they sort of eat so much grass, but there’s a few more black wallabies and stuff, which I don’t mind the wallabies. There’s a few more of them down there and I saw a koala up the road the other day (Irwin, B- landholder).

Irwin identified the conundrum for landholders; particularly those with a production focus, when kangaroo numbers increase through the Biolink. The kangaroos can be a problem of competition and potentially damage fences (see also 5.1.1). Monica described the change she had observed in kangaroos, but was not concerned about the situation:

If I went back 30 years, there would be one kangaroo on my place. Now, there would be 80. Someone said to me, “Well, you’ve built a little haven for them anyway”. Now, I do see quite a few echidnas now, which are lovely, and certainly wallabies and kangaroos (Monica, B-landholder).

Many landholders mentioned wallabies in a more endearing way than kangaroos and this is probably because wallabies are smaller and do not breed as rapidly as kangaroos or range in large mobs.

I’m not a big fan of the kangaroos but I don’t mind the wallabies. They do nip the tops out of the trees though (Nick, B-landholder).

The management of the Biolink for weeds and pest animals, and stock access will in the future likely need to include management of native animals to address landholders concerns. Jackie highlighted the irony of a successful Biolink across a farming landscape:

More wombats, the wombats coming down the creek, they’ve moved from up the top of Mount Blackwood and they’re coming down to both of our creeks. That’s a bad thing. That’s actually a good thing, but for farmers it isn’t (Jackie, B-landholder).

Other landholders described past practices and changed attitudes to ‘pest’ native animals and birds, such as eagles:

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 31

I know around that people that have shot eagles because they’ve been taking lambs, so there’s a range of different opinions around the area (Zack, B-landholder).

The Biolink is to enhance the environment through the thousands of trees, shrubs and grasses planted; however, it may present some unintended consequences and there needs to be a discussion about the change this entails for land management within the social-ecological landscape.

One landholder was involved in the Landcare group planting days and she identified a range of benefits:

Well, it’s a corridor, a corridor for wildlife along the creeks and things on both sides of the creek, the trees along the creek. And clean water as well. Oh, the birdlife for sure, the birdlife and the animals. And it gives a windbreak too, for the farmers and the cattle. What else? It looks nice (Uma, O-landholder).

The social and community aspect of the Biolink was described by many of the landholders. Community support, involvement and on-going management of fenced revegetation areas is essential for project like Biolink

The Biolink was I suppose a good way of getting the whole of the community together (Vance, B- landholder).

I think if you can get everyone sort of marching the same direction, it’s going to help (Zack, B- landholder).

5.4 Landholders’ understanding of and expectations for biodiversity

The previous section (5.3) outlined the processes in the development of the Biolink and some of the physical and social outcomes. This section describes landholders’ ideas about what they think the Biolink will achieve in relation to biodiversity

Most landholders had a solid understanding about the purpose of the corridor between the State Parks, stating that it would enable wildlife to travel between the areas to enhance diversity.

The broad stroke idea that they want to keep the fauna and flora moving from property to property through a link that they can go along the waterways without being impeded by fences or animals or you know non-native forest, that they can't get through (Jake, B-landholder).

Other landholders described their scepticism or lack of knowledge about such a large scale project, but were supportive and through the process have developed their understanding, and an appreciation of the proponents of Biolink:

Yeah, I thought it was so weird when I heard it. I thought they’re kidding me, right? As if the animals are actually going to. But once the trees grow and then I can see the logic in it. So, yeah it’s great (Fran, B- landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 32

One landholder was not sure what would happen in the future, but in the PE interview talked about the benefits of revegetation:

"Everything, it’s made it look – the land looks a lot better, not besides being better, but yeah, it’s beautiful. The trees and all the birds that come in, and like this little gentleman [echidna] is here (Lena B- landholder).

An echidna, photograph by Landholder Lena

The social or community aspect of the Biolink emerged in some interviewees’ comments and while these landholders described the environmental benefits they considered community outcomes equally important:

Look, knowing everyone’s participated in it and it’ll just be terrific when all the creek’s got trees around them, the banks are protected from erosion and things like that (Nick, B-landholder).

I think it creates a network of custodians (Quiana, B-landholder).

I think it is building connectivity between people who live on the land and people who live in town. I think it's, from a social point of view I think the benefits are as good as what the physical benefits are (Kirsty, B-landholder).

Some landholders had not really considered biodiversity outcomes, but they were pleased with the new fences because of the steep ravines or boggy areas around the creek and this exclusion protected stock.

It’s a tricky question. I didn’t really have any expectations, to be honest (Irvin, B-landholder).

Another landholder not located along the Biolink thought the idea was ill-conceived because of the impediments to the corridor, such as the Western Highway:

The principle of a Biolink was to move animals from one forest to the other. Well, that’s all fine and dandy but we’ve put man-made obstructions in the way (Terry, O-landholder).

A couple of landholders described the Biolink as a way of protecting the area for the future, particularly the proximity to the city of Melbourne and township of Bacchus Marsh and the expectation of more people residing in the area.

Well hopefully it keeps nature going, doesn’t it, in the area. It’s going to get more populated for sure but there’ll always be those nature corridors won’t there? So it’s a way of preserving some of the nature areas, isn’t it (Roland, B-landholder)?

Because of the area’s location on the fringes of the city, I think it doesn't hurt to keep it pretty green. The city's eventually going to get out to where we are and it'll be nice to have a, sort of, a zone, if you like, that follows the creek that's chocked full of birdlife. I think that's a good thing (Glen, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 33

5.5 Incentives available to support landholders engaging in biodiversity works - the benefits and the barriers

The UoB 2009 study found amongst the group of landholders whose property provided the main source of income they did not support or seek financial or labour assistance. This study area has a history of noxious and invasive weed and feral animal enforcement. While landholders acknowledge the need for government legislation for the management of pests, this can create some tension with authorising officers and among neighbours. Therefore, official personnel whether they are enforcement officers or facilitators, are treated with caution. Importantly, landholders talked about the role Landcare has played in mediating this division:

That’s where the Landcare Group comes into its own because we’ve all been made aware of better land management (Elise, B-landholder).

Although, as noted in 5.2.1, some past practices by enforcement officers have caused landholders to withdraw and minimise PPA management on their property and the enmity created can persist:

So generally the community, as long as you’re not the department that’s doing the enforcement, I think the community is receptive to somebody else having a conversation with them (Ian, O-landholder).

In this 2015 study, landholders described their past reluctance to become involved in grant schemes and the larger landholders talked about their preparedness to invest in, for example, erosion works as a necessary part of their farming system. Their activities were not dependent on obtaining grants.

Well, I suppose it's our fault that we never really applied for grants I just went out and did a few off my own bat sort of thing (Cliff, O-landholder).

Like dad’s generation, it wasn’t around [Landcare] and Mum [elderly] was amazed, she was amazed at the grants from Melbourne Water. “Oh my goodness, we wouldn’t think of applying for a grant”, but see they wouldn’t (Elise, B-landholder).

The various themes emerging in the landholders’ interviews include ones around the uptake (or not) of incentives or grants. These include: a sense of pride; concern about contractual obligations; the corridor as refuge for vermin; weed maintenance; trees as competitors of water; native trees as not being suitable for windbreaks; and stock access to the creek.

Possibly, five to ten years ago, if Melbourne Water had have asked me about fencing off part of my creek line, I would have said absolutely no (Monica, B-landholder).

Since the inception of the Biolink a few landholders described their responses to the revegetation and how the project enabled them to trial, for example, tree planting or direct seeding, and take risks with regard to difficult sites (e.g. poor soil, steep slope). Similar experiences were relayed by those landholders involved in Grow West projects since 2001. Landholders felt they were given a licence to experiment with planting difficult sites and that this enabled individual and group learning with regard to skills.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 34

The community are a fairly tightknit community and I think if they are all pushing one way, well then that helps a lot, generally people are, once one neighbour gets involved and says, “Oh yeah, it’s not too bad”, then they all start thinking ‘oh well, that’s okay (Fergus, B-landholder).

One landholder talked about the support and encouragement of the Grow West facilitators to trial direct seeding and his surprise with the successes in difficult sites. It also built coherence among them as successes were shared. As part of a community program, their project becomes a shared risk and shared reward and landholders develop confidence to understand what can be achieved.

And that’s what a lot of landowners would be like too. Once they’ve done it once they know the routine and they’re confident (Elise, B-landholder).

The community network engagement. I’ve heard stories about people going, “Well, what are you doing on your property and how do I get a piece of that?” sort of stuff. So that thing that you start, you get people starting to talk to each other (Ian, O-landholder).

The Biolink and Grow West can play important roles in both the physical change of the landscape and the shift in landholders’ focus from property-scale to landscape-scale. This is what the Landcare movement intended in the 1980s. However, as previously noted, landholders’ reservation or resistance to engage with governments/agencies may still persist within this rural community, as described in the following passage:

When Lloyd [Melbourne Water] came around with the sign after we'd done the work, he was a bit sort of – what's the word for it? He was a bit on the back foot. He said, you know, “Sometimes people don't like to put these signs up”. And I thought that's a bit odd. But, you know, this is the sign that says there's a jointly funded bit of work that's gone on to help protect the waterways, etcetera, etcetera. I was surprised that he was worried that people wouldn't want to put that sign up which sort of tells me that people are not really understanding what the whole thing is about because having done the work I was very pleased to put up a sign that said, “Yes, we've done this and I'm happy about it”. You know, I didn't feel it was something I needed to hide if you like. So, there's something in that. I don't know what it is but something's going on there (Glen, B-landholder).

The large Biolink signs located in prominent areas promote the The Melbourne Water farm gate signs promote the Healthy project and acknowledge the collaborative partnerships. Waterways project.

For some, the grants provide the opportunity to undertake works along the creek they had long wanted to do:

I’ve fenced off both sides of it and I’ve planted trees, I’ve always wanted to do it but never had the money to do it (Nick, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 35

The MW-SMFP funding for fences was considered by a number of landholders as too little, particularly in the very steep terrain. The Landcare facilitator and MW facilitator would negotiate with the landholder the scale of the project and through Biolink provide funding for PPA management and revegetation.

If people are literally taking the land out of herbivore consumption [cattle, sheep], then you must have a fencing allocation, fencing monies. And then it is really going to be the person’s value system anyway, to take that up (Holly, B-landholder).

Holly indicated the incentives are important, however, for a project to proceed it will depend on the landholder’s ethos and support for a landscape-scale program like Biolink. Ian similarly described the need to understand peoples’ ideas about their property and what they value and consider important as a potential hook or leverage for involvement.

I’m yet to find somebody who doesn’t have some level of interest in the environment. “What is it about your land – where’s the one bit on your property that you get excited or you think is special and you’d like to see more of that” (Ian, O-landholder).

Along the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks some landholders have not wanted to participate, and this has surprised participating landholders:

There is one or two that haven’t participated, but, probably just being old-fashioned I think. Not wanting to fence the creeks off. Yeah. I think it’s their only source of water. They can’t see past that I don’t think. The facilitators have tried; the incentive has been there I think. If they don’t want to do it, they don’t want to do it (Nick, B-landholder).

Oh God, and there’s one up the creek further [landholder not involved]. I don’t know, the incentive’s there, I mean it’s not costing you anything and really, all it is, is a phone call, if you’ve got to get it fenced, it’s a phone call to the fencers (Olivia, B-landholder).

Some landholders have been encouraged by the incentives, but described their reservations:

A lot of farmers don’t want to see too much land get chopped off because you’ve got to come back, whatever it is, 20 metres or 10 metres depending on your grant, from the edge of the bank. So you’re losing some of your best country and quite often your best country is down near the creek (Irwin, B- landholder).

Other landholders thought the visual aspect of the project, peer pressure and appreciation for the collective efforts to achieve a large-scale project can instigate landholders to participate:

Providing a visual Landcare project that people can see and see grow and hopefully it’ll have some peer pressure impacts to the landholders who are not involved (Denis, B-landholder).

And then some would probably think, and I’m guessing now, that “Oh, we better do this or they’ll think we’re a lazy” I don’t think it’s just money (Andrew, B-landholder).

And other landholders recognised the need for a shift from a property-scale outlook to a landscape-scale or catchment scale outlook:

The tricky thing is that just because a creek flows through your property doesn't really mean it's your creek. I think there should be a way of encouraging landholders to recognise that they're custodians of a greater asset if you like. I think, you know, helping people to sort of see the creek as part of a bigger system is important (Glen, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 36

Glen describes a custodian or community approach to the management of properties as a being part of a bigger social and biophysical system. This concept of custodianship was also mentioned by another landholder (Quiana) in 5.4 in relation to benefits of Biolink.

5.6 Best methods for communicating with landholders

All landholders talked about the importance of communication for projects like Biolink because of the many people involved and the routine schedules and management of project goals. The promotion of the Biolink and project assessments and allocation of funds through the local facilitator and this person being part of the community and from a farming property gave credibility to their facilitation, and was considered by many as a key to the uptake by landholders and their feelings of success. As previously described in section 5.3, both the Landcare facilitator and MW facilitator were acknowledged and valued for their rapport and communication skills and their knowledge and adaptability when working with landholders.

That’s the sort of people they need to have doing it and not the big stick [enforcement] people (Terry, O- landholder).

The many ways to communicate with landholders were described in the interviews. These included: postal mail (letters and newsletters); telephone (landline and mobile); email; Landcare group meetings; notice boards; expos and demonstration days; newspapers; and planned and impromptu property visits (face-to- face). There was no standout or preferred method and as the community is diverse so too is their preference for communication.

Facilitators working in the area develop insight into landholders’ particularities and preferences for types of communication and, for example, they will know if email is futile because the landholder infrequently checks their system, or that every Wednesday the landholder will be in the back paddock so if you need to find her/him, that is where to go. However, this means that there is not one quick or easy process to communicate or inform everyone and that there is a high degree of ‘boutique’ facilitation expected by those committing to these programs.

The phone is the best mode of contact for them. I wish it wasn’t, but it is. I wish it was easier that you could just email them and bang, it’s out there, but it’s not. So, it’s just a time factor (Jackie, B- landholder).

Overall landholders said that the post was a useful way for highlighting up-coming events, for example, a planting day or a guest speaker at the Landcare meeting. The letter will outline information and any follow-up telephone calls or emails will prompt action required. Many landholders valued facilitators’ visits to their property and face-to-face meetings.

Definitely letters, that initial letter needs to be polite and nice and with the intention of following up or a visit to the property (Paul, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 37

As described in section 4 of this report, the fieldwork for this study was organised, firstly with an information letter from the PPWCMA to explain the study and secondly, a telephone call by the UoM researcher to invite participation. All landholders commented on the benefit of the face-to-face interview and it also provided opportunity to show their Biolink project.

Just like what you’re doing [research], just ringing up and visiting the property (Uma, O-landholder).

Another landholder reiterated the benefit of property visits, but time demands will limit agencies’ ability to undertake such a process.

I think nothing beats a knock on the door and a cup of tea. I think that a lot of it is just that sheer face-to- face. It’s time consuming, you’ve got to put the resources into it, but in terms of actually getting maximum return, I think it far exceeds anything that you can put into print media, on websites, put on Facebook, Twitter (Ian, O-landholder).

Landholders mentioned the Landcare group forums and expo days as useful ways for promoting information to many landholders and the local community (non-rural). Much of the communication and update of information occurs through the Landcare group

Probably going through the local Landcare, because most people around the areas, they’ve got a local Landcare they’re sort of part of or know of (Vance, B-landholder).

One landholder acknowledged the limitations of just engaging with the Landcare group because participants are already interested.

It does tend to be the same people. A lot of the times like when we have the Landcare things, it’s a bit like preaching to the converted I think (Yvonne, B-landholder).

The Landcare group can champion new ideas and as one landholder described, members promote information to neighbours and other landholders who might not be in the group.

I suppose it’s done by word of mouth through the Landcare, isn’t it really, around here (Sharon, B- landholder).

As previously noted, email is a quick process for delivering information to many people; but it relies on participants checking their system. Other landholders described the inundation of emails and therefore some messages are easily overlooked. The use of text messaging was not mentioned by landholders but it could be a useful mechanism for sending reminders about meeting and event dates because of the proliferation of mobile telephones across the community. Photo-elicitation activity in this research indicated that the 15 interviewees involved used their mobile telephone camera—indicating both aptitude and proximity.

In summary, there are many ways to communicate with landholders and agencies and the Landcare group have implemented a range of methods for different programs and events over the years. There is no best way or simple solution for communication. Landholders explained their preferences for the different styles of communication and this varied across interviewees and was not correlated to the age of landholders or duration on the property. However, personable communication, such as a telephone

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 38 conversation or meeting with an individual or group of landholders was valued, particularly for the inception and development of new projects such as Biolink.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 39

6. Conclusion

The study included landholders from a range of farming and non-farming enterprises, some on properties of hundreds of hectares and the most common group landholders on smaller properties of less than 50ha. Some landholders are new to the area, but most have resided for many years on their property (see Table 4.4) and approximately one quarter of interviewees are on family farms owned since the late 1800s. Most of the interviewees are in the 50-69 age bracket (see Table 4.3). The study area is close to Bacchus Marsh which is a township identified for significant population growth and the demography and size of properties and enterprises of the study area are predicted to change (Victorian Government 2014).

This study used a qualitative inquiry approach and the 31 ‘Q interview’ and 15 ‘PE interview’ transcripts were coded by the research questions and by topic. The list included broad themes, for example, physical and social aspects, land management decision-making, the Biolink, biodiversity, communication and recommendations about landscape projects for the future. The transcripts were also open-coded to allow for emergent themes and to identify patterns and underlying meanings from across the interviews.

The photo-elicitation activity involved approximately one-third of the landholders who had completed the initial ‘Q interview’ and they were randomly selected and asked to take 12 photographs over about a two- week period. The photographs provide a prompt or reminder of change and are a permanent record of their property at a particular point in time and are a useful process to gauge change. Many landholders also referred to and provided photographs of recent times and from many years past. Photographs acted as a prompt and the respondents described important features and recounted stories of the processes necessary to establish a fence, or tend to their plantations, the excitement of first flowerings or appearance of birds or the improvement in water quality of the creek. Many also commented on the photographs as an activity and as cited previously (Section 3), landholder Eddie talked about the reflective process and where often one’s surrounds are taken for granted. Photo-elicitation is an additional time demand, but it can provide a richer insight into a landholder’s understandings of the landscape and features significant to them. The process is illustrative and informative for both participant and researcher.

In the analysis of the data we found no correlations between age of landholders; property size; years of residency and their participation in revegetation works or response and support of the Biolink and biodiversity in general. The following comment highlights this cosmopolitan perspective or approach to conservation:

I think there are the people who are going to be sympathetic and generally have a passion to care for the environment and I don’t think that differentiates between being a fourth generation farmer to being a tree changer (Ian, O-landholder).

Another landholder talked about people’s philosophical stance (see ‘Holly’ 5.2) and whether they undertake conservation works for altruistic reasons or participate in grants schemes because of benefits to their property. A project like Biolink can bridge this approach where landholders participate at the

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 40 property-scale level but are part of a larger landscape-scale process and the Landcare group as the core of the Biolink can build the social connectivity of landholders. Many landholders talked about the community aspect of the Biolink that united landholders to work toward a goal. This sense of pride in their achievement was best described by landholder Monica (see 5.3) and she talked about the community working together and at the property-level, as individual or family landholders proud of their part of the project. The interviewees described their increasing interest as the Biolink took shape and ecological change and landholders noted, for example, the increase in diversity and number of birds.

Landholders talked about the long-term benefits of Biolink. The wildlife corridor provides an important conservation role as well as increased biodiversity. Interviewees described the Biolink as protection for biodiversity along the public and private areas of the creeks, particularly in relation to the proximity to Melbourne. The area is approximately 60 kilometres from the city of Melbourne and as noted, Bacchus Marsh is forecast for significant population growth.

The ability to undertake conservation works can be limited by a landholders’ physical capacity, however, a persons’ age can be a misleading determinant (see 5.1.1). The capacity to undertake revegetation work that is reliant on machinery can be difficult for some small property landholders, as described by interviewees, where they do not own the required equipment. The Biolink project provided funds for landholders to enlist contractors to undertake revegetation works, and for many landholders who did not have, for example, the skills or equipment to build fences.

The capacity to understand the landscape, in which they live, can take time and requires a willingness or interest on the part of the landholder. Landholders who are new to the area can be attracted to the rural lifestyle, but not see the weeds and burrows or understand the management required to address noxious pest plants and animals. The area is impacted by a range of invasive weeds, such as serrated tussock, and vermin such as rabbits (see 5.2.1). The State Government’s legislative requirement to control noxious pests can place new landholders in difficulty because of the demands of time and finances to manage their property. Departmental PPA enforcement officers issue information and inspection notices. In particular new landholders are informed of their management obligations and officers undertake routine inspections of properties to ensure pest control. Landholders described experiences in relation to PPA management and this ranged from, informative, supportive to heavy-handed and hostile encounters. The majority of landholders acknowledged the need for control and the role of enforcement. However, tensions can occur between neighbours, if control is considered inadequate. Tensions can develop between landholders and PPA officers when landholders think inspections are too rigid and do not take into account past efforts or their current circumstances. The relationship between landholders and PPA officers can tarnish other projects implemented by agencies when landholders withdraw their efforts to improve their property as part of a landscape that requires collaborative action. As previously cited (5.2.1), landholder Alistair’s negative experience meant he did the bare minimum for pest management. This lack of social or

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 41 connective engagement can undermine the on-going management of pests and of broad landscape environmental improvement.

The Landcare group with its long association in the community (1995) and involvement in projects such as Grow West provided a valuable mechanism to deliver the Biolink. The local facilitator over the period of the project has been a resident of the area, and it was felt that this reality overcame some of the hurdles experienced by other projects delivered by outsiders. The Melbourne Water-SFMP commenced in the area in 2007, however, a number of landholders said they had not participated because of reservations about government rules and contractual obligations. The promotion of the Biolink and project assessments and allocation of funds through the Landcare group and local facilitator was considered by many as a key to success. The requirement that recipients of Biolink funding be members of the Landcare group was decided at the local level by the group with the support of the PPWCMA for this process. This aligns with projects delivered by Landcare groups across Australia. This act to build the value of the groups within their regions, to develop regional network sharing and in turn it fosters collaboration at the local level (Landcare Australia Limited). The future role of the Landcare group and Biolink could include local features or awards for individual and neighbours’ efforts to maintain their properties on the Biolink. All of these actions—building a stronger and more viable Landcare group and rewarding those that participate— contributes to the long-term success of the project Biolink and the management of the landscape.

The continued promotion of Biolink as a landscape-scale project can encourage landholders to look more broadly at change within and beyond their boundary fence and note subtle or significant shifts in biodiversity and land restoration. Each property is a piece of the landscape and while lines on a map and fences on the ground indicate boundaries, these are permeable constructs within the larger landscape. The physical change in the landscape is evident in the establishment of thousands of plants in revegetated areas along the creeks. Landholders described the many other changes they observed, and included the presence of small mammals such as wombats, echidnas, and wallabies, and the larger kangaroos. However, as mentioned by several landholders (see 5.1.1; 5.3), the increase in kangaroo numbers in a productive landscape is not always welcome. The management of kangaroos must be part of a whole landscape management plan and they acknowledged this and the benefits of being connected to effect such a discussion, or hoped that this would also be part of a community strategy.

6.1 Implications for government conservation and biolinks programs

The interviewees’ involvement in Biolink was very positive, although as described (5.1) in some situations when landholder’s input is minimal it can lessen their ownership and the essential maintenance of revegetated areas.

You have to keep the follow up to achieve that, and I think that’s very important to push home to people, the follow up (Monica, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 42

The management and weeding of corridor is a key to success for new plantings and this clearing of undergrowth is also clearly associated with fire preparedness by respondents, which is a plus for the community. Landholders understood as a consequence of this experience, the advantage of managing corridors for weeds and pests and fire as an integrated approach to the landscape.

Landholders emphasised the importance of funding and a more strategic approach across levels of government:

I think consistency of funding would be a great thing, From Federal State, Local. Yeah. More strategic planning I think (Denis, B-landholder).

Denis talked about the ad-hoc approaches for the management of projects and for example, the injection of funds that run out and in-turn put pressure on local communities to do more. The reliance on community support can over-burden individuals and groups.

Local facilitators can stream-line funding and project implementation processes because they are readily available to support landholder queries. The Landcare facilitator was able to build relationships with other organisations such as Melbourne Water and Departmental staff working in ecological programs, for example, monitoring for the brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) spurned landholders’ interest about the wildfire corridor. The focus on a keystone or endangered animal, plant or bird species has been instrumental in building community engagement and interest in environmental programs. There are examples of this throughout the state, with the Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne), found in the south-west region of Victoria is listed as endangered. The project sought the support of the local community and has involved many landholders on farming properties in the Wimmera region to protect habitat and build awareness of the vulnerability of this bird (DSE 2006). Along the Merri Creek in the northern suburbs of the city of Melbourne is a project developed around the Sacred Kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus) to establish habitat and the ‘Return of the Sacred Kingfisher’ is an annual community festival (Merri Creek Management Committee). Building on these examples, the Biolink can increase community involvement and interest with similar approaches that could include, for example, the first identification of a species along particular points of the creek. However, it is also important to connect these species to the ones not so readily seen in the landscape, but equally dependent on the creation of habitat. In this way, the importance of developing an integrated approach to land management and planning that builds on each small success and over time, increases the landscape literacy of the region, emerges from the analysis.

Many landholders acknowledged the local facilitators’ flexible approach and willingness to negotiate projects that established revegetation for Biolink, while at the same time delivering farm management options, such as stock access for water. This points to the importance of personnel training and capacity building within funding bodies, and within these communities.

I suppose being flexible was a huge part. The project worked within their boundaries and guidelines for Melbourne Water but farmers got what they wanted too (Jackie, B-landholder).

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 43

The development of local leadership programs that build community capacity to engage with these sorts of projects and eventually manage them is central to the future of long term conservation in the landscape. The resource management local delivery model is rapidly changing and the risk is that devolved governance arrangements will not be in place to sustain the incremental gains already achieved in landscape management.

One landholder did criticise part of the process and described some other landholders’ limited understanding of long-term consequence for the total exclusion of stock from the creek.

I am a little critical of Melbourne Water, what they’ve done on people’s properties that don’t have enough knowledge to know that they were fencing off the water, that eventually they’d want that water out of the creek (Kent, B-landholder).

Although Melbourne Water does provide funding toward tanks and troughs and one landholder couple talked about the provision of a tank which they thought was the perfect solution for their property. Landholders new to an area can miss cues about weeds and vermin and as Kent indicated, they may also lack understanding about water resources. However, as landholder Glen implied (5.5) future management of environmental resources will require a whole of catchment approach and for landholders to see the creek as part of the system and not just water that runs through their property and provides for them unconditional access.

The Biolink runs along the creeks and while the position of fences and negotiation of access for landholders with stock has been achieved, some of these areas are steep and inaccessible and consequently the Biolink has provided essential stock management. One landholder considered significant benefits will be achieved when revegetation blocks are established across paddocks:

The Biolink along waterways are relatively easy. How do you get a Biolink that goes east-west [the creeks run predominantly north-south] across the land? And it probably takes a couple of landowners that are quite keen to lose some productive land, to put that in [revegetation] (Ian, O-landholder).

As Potter Farmers in the western district discovered in the 1990s, planting on the contour rather than on the fence lines, and managing across properties rather than reinforcing property and map grid lines, requires a huge reconceptualization of place. It begins with understanding soil types and water lines as in Whole Farm Planning, and continues into recognising the importance of cross boundary land management. A potential step in this process is sharing the benefits of on farm forestry adjacent to revegetation or analogue forestry as part of revegetation.

This on-going success and management of projects on properties requires a big picture focus and for landholders to see the components of their project—a fence built here and x number of trees planted there—as part of the landscape-scale and of the Biolink. Their property contributes to the long-term aims of the Biolink and is a community asset, rather than a portion of land they may have reluctantly agreed to ‘hand-over’ and that is all required of them. Each property is part of the view, and each landholder is part of the long-term goal toward increased biodiversity and heathier waterways.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 44

I think it’s a good thing what they’re doing [Biolink]. It’s really their attempt to get the public more interested in the environment and I think they’ll end up succeeding (Gordon, B-landholder).

The landscape is dynamic and some revegetation plantations prosper while others do not, due to minimal management and the impacts of weeds and rabbits. The key to on-going success is a societal change that undoubtedly begins with those who own the land at this time. Many landholders recounted their changed outlook and understanding of the benefits in a project like Biolink; they recognised the environmental benefits and the importance of people connecting to each other and with a strategic set of actions in the process.

The Biolink was amazing. I think just about everybody went into that, like where the creek starts up here, all the way through. It is great (Yvonne, B-landholder).

I think Landcare did a terrific job in organising it (Neil, B-landholder).

The more they [facilitators] talked to us the more we got done. Very, very much in response to a human being and they are interested and exciting and saying, “Oh, you’ve done such a good job” (Quiana, B- landholder)

I think the main comment would be that if they [other Landcare groups] are going to go ahead and do something [like Biolink]; they really need to talk with landholders and really keep it simple. And feedback is important. And spend time, build the relationship. That’s important (Monica, B-landholder).

In conclusion, the key findings of this study include the following aspects:

 landscape-scale projects like Biolink can shift landholders’ foci from their property and associated management requirements to appreciate and understand the benefits of biodiversity projects for the broader community and surrounds  mixed-species indigenous plantings are acknowledged for their attributes and for some landholders this is a learning process and these include: suitability to the local landscape and climate; shelter; soil stabilisation; and wildlife habitat  biodiversity is observed and ideas about it become more meaningful as a consequence of on- ground experiences that include: growth of revegetated areas; increase in variety and number of birds, small mammals such as echidna; wombat; koala; and wallaby; and the larger mammal, the kangaroo, and signal change and adjustment to integrate biodiversity into, in particular, the farming landscape  landholders described the critical path to success in the Biolink process as depending on the well organised facilitators’ knowledge; support; and their willingness to be flexible and adjust project specifications to meet landholders’ requirements  the above finding points to a significant risk in this or future projects, that are associated with leadership and facilitation  photo-elicitation can provide rich insight into a landholder’s understandings of the landscape and features significant to them and is illustrative and informative for both participant and researcher

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 45

Finally, the emphasis that landholders gave to the importance of leadership and facilitation for success presents the PPWCMA with a longer term challenge. Across CBNRM and Landcare we are seeing a continued withdrawal of significant funding from government and an increasing push for devolved governance systems. A CMA or similar authority is unlikely to be able to provide the kind of long-term continuity in personnel that guarantees this kind of success. Therefore there is a need to build leadership skills into programs like Biolink and the local Landcare groups so communities can develop their individual quality-based governance networks to respond to future demands in the landscapes they are co- constructing now.

Overall, it seems to these researchers that the majority of respondents understood their involvement in the Biolink as steps along the way in contributing to a larger whole. This bears out findings from other CBNRM experiences and could be understood as ‘the getting of landscape literacy’ (to paraphrase Harriet Handel Richardson). Rather than begin again with each project, the onus is on those involved to build on local knowledge and celebrate it as a social extension of the physical reality of nurturing their place and region For example, funding for local knowledge sharing workshops that incorporate these properties could start with their recognition of and plans for iconic species, and then lead to planning for an integrated approach in respect to water, land use, fire management, weed and feral control and expanding local management of public-private interfaces.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 46

References

Australian Soil Conservation Council, 1991, Decade of Landcare plan, Australian Soil Conservation Council, Canberra.

Beilin, R 2005, 'Photo‐elicitation and the agricultural landscape: ‘seeing’ and ‘telling’ about farming, community and place', Visual Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 56-68.

Beilin, R & Reichelt, N 2010, Community Landcare: a key player in building social-ecological resilience networks?, Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Bennett, AF 1999, Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation, Iucn.

Bodin, Ö & Crona, BI 2009, 'The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?', Global Environmental Change, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 366-74.

Bradshaw, CJ 2012, 'Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization', Journal of Plant Ecology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109-20.

Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (eds) 2008, Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

Department of Environment & Primary Industries 2014, viewed June 2015, Cypress decline .

Department of Sustainability and Environment 2006, South-eastern Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 No. 37, by The State of Victoria & Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Grow West Implementation Plan 2013, State of Victoria, Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority.

Landcare Australia Limited, Landcare Australia, viewed June 2015, .

Mansergh, I, Cheal, D & Fitzsimons, JA 2008, 'Future landscapes in south-eastern Australia: the role of protected areas and biolinks in adaptation to climate change', Biodiversity, vol. 9, no. 3-4, pp. 59-70.

Mansergh, I 2013, 'Biolinks in south-eastern Australia–Changing land use for changing climate: Victorian policy responses', in Ian Pulsford, James Fitzsimons & G Wescott (eds), Linking Australia’s landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks, pp. 197-207.

Melbourne Water 2013, Healthy Waterways River Health Incentive Program SFMP, viewed June 2015.

Merri Creek Management Committee Sacred Kingfisher Festival, viewed June 2015, <

Richards, L 2009, Handling qualitative data : a practical guide, 2nd edn, Sage, London.

Richardson, HH 1946, The getting of wisdom, 1st Australian edn, Heinemann Melbourne.

Ummenhofer, CC, England, MH, McIntosh, PC, Meyers, GA, Pook, MJ, Risbey, JS, Gupta, AS & Taschetto, AS 2009, 'What causes southeast Australia's worst droughts?', Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 36, no. 4.

University of Ballarat Centre for Environmental Management 2009, Grow West Landholder Survey Myrniong & Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks, 2009, University of Ballarat.

Victorian Government 2014, Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan Summary.

VicWater Open Potable Water Supply Catchment Management Working Group 2012, Guidance Note for Determining Dwelling Density when Assessing Planning Permit Applications, Victorian Water Industry, .

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 47

Whitten, S, Freudenberger, D, Wyborn, C, Doerr, V & Doerr, E 2011, A Compendium of existing and planned Australian wildlife corridor projects and initiatives, and case study analysis of operational experience: a report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, CSIRO Canberra.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 48

Appendices

Appendix A: Project Brief

Port Phillip and Westernport

Catchment Management Authority

Grow West Project

Brief Specification for:

Grow West Landholder Survey Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2 2015

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 49

1. Organisation: Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority on behalf of the Grow West Project.

2. Contact: Helena Lindorff, Grow West Environmental Projects Coordinator, PPWCMA, 36 Macedon Street, Sunbury VIC 3429 Phone: 9971 6502 Email: [email protected]

3. Introduction Grow West is a large scale landscape change project which assists land holders to restore degraded land through plantation establishment, conservation planting’s and sustainable and viable land use practices. The Grow West project area covers some 50,000ha located 50km west of Melbourne. Since its inception in 2001 some 2,000 hectares of revegetation/forestry plantations have been established within the Grow West area.

4. Scope This brief sets out the research required for the PPWCMA, Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2.

5. Project Goals The aim of the research is to investigate any changes in landholders’ practices and perceptions towards biodiversity and the key learnings that contributed to the completed biolinks in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks, in the Pentland Hills area.

The completion of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink in 2014 provides an opportunity to understand the methods that have contributed to the project’s success. The research will focus on the following goals:

1. Complete a comparative landholder survey of targeted landholders, approximately 50 based on 2009 study to evaluate a shift in landholder awareness of biodiversity and the role of biolinks within the following context:  Those that have been directly involved with the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolinks Project (45 landholders)  Those that have not been involved with the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolinks Project and whether some level of exposure to the project has enabled an increase level of awareness to biodiversity (~26)  Landholder’s perception on the role and impact that biolinks have on the family farm, at a landscape level and within the community. 2. Determine the blockers and enablers for the integration of biodiversity into the farm enterprise within the local Biolink context. 3. Evaluate landholders’ perspective of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink Project management and delivery aspects and the pros and cons:  Landholder project engagement process used by the delivery organisations  Landholder participation in both the on ground works and project extension type activities e.g. workshops, expo, project committee.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 50

6. Contract Period The contract will conclude on the 28th August 2015.

7. Other Documents The Grow West Landholder Study – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolinks by Ballarat University in 2009 to be used as a guide for part two of the research study.

8. Background and Study area: In November 2009, a survey was conducted by School of Science and Engineering, University of Ballarat on behalf of the Grow West Project, to understand landholder attitudes to biodiversity in the catchments of Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks. The primary aim of the survey was to understand landholder attitudes to biodiversity, their interest and engagement in conservation programs, their attitudes toward biolinks and gain an understanding of how best to encourage participation in biodiversity conservation and biolinks programs.

In October 2010, the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creeks Biolink project commenced to link the Wombat/Lerderderg Forest to the Werribee Gorge State Park. Funding was provided by the State Government – Vision for Werribee Plains Project, Melbourne Water Stream Frontage Program with support from Grow West.

By August 2014, the biolinks project concluded with an almost continuous linkage along the Myrniong Creek and a further biolink along the Korkuperrimul Creek. The proposed survey will investigate any changes in landholders’ practices towards biodiversity and the key learnings that contributed to the completed biolinks in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks, near Bacchus Marsh in Victoria.

9. Methods Methodology used for the delivery of this project should complement the 2009 study as well as look at innovative approaches to obtain the required project goals as outlined in section 5 of the brief.

9.1 PPWCMA Information The PPWCMA will provide and contact details of the participants who undertook the survey in 2009 and were engaged in the Biolink project.

9.2 Activity schedule  Scoping meeting with PPWCMA (March 2015)  Develop survey design, seek comment & approval from PPWCMA (March 2015)  Undertake field work (April-May 2015)  Data analysis and draft report, Finalise Report (30 July 2015  Final Report Submitted (28 August 2015)

10. Consultants Responsibilities Other requirements as contained in the PPWCMA Consultancy Agreement, copies of which can be obtained on request.

11. Meetings The Consultant shall attend a total of two meetings with PPWCMA’s Grow West Environmental Project Coordinator. The first meeting will be held at the PPWCMA Office, 36 Macedon St, Sunbury and will take place at the commencement of the contract. At this meeting, PPWCMA will outline the scope of the proposed works, discuss any outstanding issues and further define the process of photo-elicitation.

The second meeting (approximately 2 hours) will be conducted after the completion of the survey works and after PPWCMA have reviewed the draft report. This meeting will be held at the PPWCMA Sunbury Office where it is intended to discuss the results of the survey and provide comments on the draft report.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 51

12. Timing A draft report will be required for PPWCMA to review by 30th July 2015 and a final report submitted by 28 August 2015

13. Report The report shall outline the following:  include an executive summary and a summary table outlining the results and conclusions of the investigation at the front of the report;  Field data will be tabled and analysed including an analysis, comparing the 2009 vs 2015 information, including significant comments made;  any recommendations for further or more detailed survey;  any limitations of the study e.g. bias or degree of representation of community;  include the project brief as an appendix (excluding appendices).

14. Deliverables  One unbound copy of the draft report  One electronic copy of the final report in Microsoft Word format by email  One unbound and three bound copies of the final report including colour figures and plates should be presented to PPWCMA.  One electronic copy of the final report should be provided to PPWCMA on a disc in Microsoft Word 2013 format and a digital copy of all photos in jpeg format clearly with all photos clearly named.

15. Work Health & Safety  The contractor will be responsible for undertaking all work(s) in accordance with Work Health and Safety legislative requirements.  The contractor shall, as a minimum, submit a completed Job Safety Analysis (refer to Appendix 4) as well as related supporting documentation that encompasses all necessary safety requirements and controls. Typical supporting documentation shall include but is not limited to:  Evidence of competencies in the form of licenses, permits and certificates etc. (typically required to perform contract related tasks). o The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all employees are instructed concerning the hazards of the work under the Contract and that safe working practices are observed. o The Contractor shall ensure the provision and use of all necessary protective clothing and equipment required by employees to safely undertake tasks associated with the works. o The contractor shall be required to report to the Department’s Representative, any:  Accident or incident that is prescribed under the WH&S (Incident Notification) Regulations 1997 or Equipment (Public Safety) (Incident Notification) Regulations 1997;  Worksafe Field Report, Worksafe Improvement Notice or Worksafe Prohibition Notice issued by Worksafe. o The contractor shall take immediate steps to minimise the extent of personal injury or property damage arising from an Incident. The Contractor shall endeavour to take careful note of the evidence surrounding the Incident, including notes or reports of the facts relating thereto and photographs. o On commencement of work, the Contractor shall advise the PPWCMA’s Representative in writing of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of employees who can be contacted in an emergency and out of hours under the Contract. This information may be submitted as part of the completed Job Safety Analysis. Any proposed changes of representatives, addresses or telephone numbers shall be notified promptly to the Department’s Representative and be confirmed in writing.

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 52

16. Payment Payments shall be made at commencement of study, upon satisfactory completion of the field survey work and the final report. The following payment schedule:

 FIRST PAYMENT - 40% of the contract fee, on the signing of the agreement.  SECOND PAYMENT - 20% of the contract fee, on completion of fieldwork (May 31st 2015)  THIRD PAYMENT – 20% of the contract fee, on completion of the Draft Report(31st July 2015)  FINAL PAYMENT - 20% of the contract fee upon the satisfactory completion and submission of three (3) bound copies and one (1) unbound copy, and one (1) in electronic format (CD).

17. Consultant Estimation The proposal should be submitted to PPWCMA no later than 4.00 pm on Wednesday 4th February 2015 to Helena Lindorff, PPWCMA, Grow West Environmental Project Coordinator 36 Macedon Street Sunbury, Victoria 3429. ph: 9971 6502. Emailed proposals will be accepted: [email protected]

The proposal should include:  capability to deliver the project; organisation’s performance in regard to similar projects;  outline the project methods to be used in delivering the project goals;  an outline of staff to be involved in the study, including their qualifications;  hourly rates and travel expenses for attendance at meetings outside those specified in the brief;  details regarding public liability, professional indemnity and work cover;  a lump sum price for the delivery of the project and a breakdown of costs.

Environmental Projects Coordinator:

Helena Lindorff

PPWCMA, Grow West Project Coordinator

36 Macedon Street

Sunbury, Victoria 3429

Mob. 0437 195 511

Email: [email protected]

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 53

Appendix B: Interview Guide

Firstly can you tell me a little about your property and how long you have owned or resided or been involved with the property?

1. NRM programs in which the landholders have been involved

Would you please tell me a little bit about your property in relation to any land management or revegetation or protection of native vegetation you have undertaken over the past 5-10 years?

What have been the reasons you have undertaken these activities?

Were there any other factors that influenced your decision to undertake these activities?

Were there factors which may have limited the extent of/ or made it difficult for you to undertake revegetation or protection of native vegetation on your property?

Are you involved in any other property management or natural resource management programmes (Landcare, LFW, Waterwatch, Birdlife Australia, Field Naturalists), and can you tell me a little bit about these (years, why joined)?

Do you belong to any other local groups, for example CFA?

2. Factors influencing landholders land management decisions

Would you tell me about the steps you go through or the considerations you make to undertake changes or improvements to your property – can you provide examples?

What do you think are the major factors that influence landholders’ land management decisions in this area? (Production improvement, erosion control, interest wildlife, neighbour)

3. Landholders’ experiences of and interest in the Biolinks along the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creek in particular

What has been your experience with the Grow West, Pentland Hills Landcare Group, Melbourne Water or the Myrniong & Korkuperrimul Biolink land management /revegetation /conservation programs?

Did you attend any workshops or demonstration field days in the past 5 years? Can you remember or tell me anything about these activities? (If you did not attend, can you explain why not?)

Do you know about other landholders and their involvement in the Biolink, can you tell me about their experience in general? What do you think were the reasons other landholders become involved in projects like the Biolink? (Interest wildlife, neighbours, funding incentives, Agency support/advice)

Have you noticed any changes on your property or in the local area resulting from the Biolink project (flora, fauna, WQ, erosion control, weed management)? Can you describe any changes your have observed over the past 5 years?

In general, what do you think are the benefits of the Biolink at a larger than farm scale? Can you explain further?

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 54

4. Landholders’ understanding of and expectations for biodiversity?

What were your understandings and expectations for biodiversity in the area? Do you think this is shared by other landholders, can you explain the differing expectations and understandings? (Note: The ‘Other Landholders’ were not asked this question)

5. The various incentives available to support landholders engaging in biodiversity works

How effective have the various funding grants been for developing biodiversity in the area, can you give me some examples? (Other landholders were asked - Did you know about the various funding grants available in the past 5-10 years for developing biodiversity in the area?)

Can you think of any other incentives that would encourage you or others to take part in revegetation and fencing for wild life corridors?

Were there any barriers or difficulties to implementing the grants? Would you explain further? (Note: The ‘Other Landholders’ were not asked this question)

6. Methods of communicating with landholders

What do you think or have you found to be the most effective methods for Agencies or local staff to communicate with landholders?

7. Implications for government conservation and Biolink programs

Do you have any comments or recommendations about future projects like the Biolink for this area and any other areas?

Do you have any general comments or questions that could be useful feedback for agencies like the CMA, Melbourne Water or Department (DSE, DEPI, DELWP)?

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 55

Appendix C: Photo-elicitation Interview Guide

Organisation of photographs First step, place the 12 photographs into distinct groups in any way, for example, three groups of four, six groups of two, etc., one photograph can be a group, although photographs cannot be spilt across different groups. The groups will depict a theme that has meaning or significance for the landholder/s, for example, new plantings, fences, the creek etc.

The groups of photographs Next step, place the groups in order of importance or significance– number 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on

Q. Please tell me what you would call each group and why you classified or ordered the photographs this way? What do the different groups of photographs represent or depict for you?

Individual photographs Now within each group, start with group 1; place each of the photographs in order of importance or significance 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on

Q. Start with the most important photograph and tell me what is in the photograph, what does it show?

Tell me why you ordered the photographs this way?

Conclusion Do you have any additional comments about the photographs or the process you have undertaken over the last week/fortnight to gather the photographs?

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 56

Appendix D: The PPWCMA letter to landholders in the study area

Port Phillip & Westernport CMA ABN 24 019 707 800 Level 1 Landmark Corporate Centre 454-472 Nepean Hwy Frankston VIC 3199 P 03 8781 7900 F 03 9781 0199 E [email protected] XXX XXX VIC 3xxx

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Dear XXX

Invitation to participate in the Grow West Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Biolink Study

Grow West has commissioned University of Melbourne to undertake a research study with landholders who reside in the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul areas as a continuation of a study that was undertaken in 2009 by the University of Ballarat.

The aim of 2015 study is to investigate any changes in landholders’ practices and perceptions towards biodiversity and the key learning’s that contributed to the completed biolinks in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks, in the Pentland Hills area.

The proposed survey will investigate any changes in landholders’ practices towards biodiversity and the key learnings that have contributed to the completed biolinks in the catchments of the Myrniong and Korkuperrimul creeks. The aim of the research is to gain a better insight and understanding of the enablers and barriers for the enhancement of biodiversity on farming properties.

The study will employ a number of methods by the University of Melbourne research team, such as phone surveys, face-to-face interviews at the landholder’s property and randomly selected number of participants will be invited to take ~10 photographs over a period of a week/fortnight of their farm. During the months of April and May, you may receive a telephone call from Tarn Kruger, Research Fellow from the University of Melbourne, inviting you to participate in the study.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and we will protect your anonymity and the confidentiality of your responses to the fullest possible extent.

If you have any questions regarding this research, please contact Helena Lindorff on 0437 195 511 or via email: [email protected]

Yours Sincerely

Helena Lindorff Environmental Projects Coordinator

Grow West Landholder Survey – Myrniong and Korkuperrimul Creek Biolinks Stage 2, 2015 Page 57