SEA Working Paper 99/09

Dryland Salinity in the Upper Kent River Catchment of Western Australia: Farmer Perceptions and Practices

Elizabeth A. Kington and David J. Pannell

Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6907, Australia

Abstract

Dryland salinity, resulting from extensive land clearing, has been increasingly recognised as a serious environmental and economic problem in Western Australia. Policy initiatives at the state and national level in Australia have attempted to influence farmers’ choices of land management practices to reduce the threat of salinity. This study examines, for a particular catchment, what farmers’ salinity management practices have been and are likely to be, how farmers view the salinity problem and its recommended treatments, and farmers’ perceptions of why the salinity problem continues to worsen. We find that the farmers have high levels of knowledge about salinity and its treatment, although their perceptions appear to be overly optimistic on a number of aspects of the problem. As a group they are highly uncertain about its extent and rate of worsening, and they highlight the complexity, modest effectiveness and relatively poor economic performance of available treatment options. It appears that the scale of salinity prevention practices in the catchment is insufficient to prevent ongoing increases in the area of saline land.

Keywords: dryland salinity, public policy, agriculture, land conservation, social survey

Introduction

Dryland salinity is considered to be among the most serious environmental problems in Australia (PMSEIC, 1998). Of the six Australian states, Western Australia has by far the greatest area of land affected by dryland salinity, with 1.8 million ha out of an estimated national total of 2.5 million ha (PMSEIC, 1998). Forecasts by hydrologists are for the area of saline land in Western Australia to increase substantially (perhaps by a factor of three) before a new hydrological equilibrium is reached .

Within the current policy framework, prevention of this dramatic worsening is substantially dependent on farmers voluntarily changing their farming practices away from a system based almost solely on annual plant species, towards much greater use of perennial plant species (e.g., Anonymous, 1996). Even though rainfall for much of the region is low (ranging from less than 300 mm to 800 mm per annum), enough water evades capture and transpiration by annual crops and pastures to cause naturally saline ground waters to rise steadily in most of the region. A change to perennial species would reduce or eliminate this process of ground water rise.

Although this is well understood and widely discussed, the adoption by farmers of perennial species has been, in most districts, at a scale that is a small fraction of that recommended by hydrologists for prevention of salinity . Various reasons for this have been proposed. For example, see for discussion directly related to salinity, or see ; and for more general discussions of adoption of land conservation practices. Surprisingly, however, there has been no rigorous study of where Western Australian farmers stand on the salinity issue. How much of a threat do they perceive dryland salinity to be? How effective do they perceive the available salinity management options to be? What are the other advantages and disadvantages of these options? Which of the management options are being adopted and to what extent? These are the questions addressed in this study, which focuses on the upper Kent River catchment near the south coast of Western Australia. This catchment is of substantial community interest due to its importance as a potential source of potable water.

In the next section we provide background about the catchment, its farms and farmers. This is followed by an outline of the development and application of the survey instrument used. Results of the survey are presented and discussed, and we conclude with an outline of the key implications of the study.

The Upper Kent River Catchment

The Kent River was selected as a future potable water supply catchment in the late 1970s. The lower catchment remains mainly forested and has no significant salinity problem. The predominantly cleared upper catchment contains approximately 120 farm businesses. Most land is held as a freehold title and some has been farmed since the beginning of European settlement. Farms in the catchment were legally prevented from further clearing in 1978, and compensated financially for this by the state government.

The main agricultural products of the catchment are wool from sheep grazing annual pastures and a range of annual crops. The region has relatively high annual rainfall for Western Australia (500 mm to 750 mm) and parts of it are suitable for profitable production of tree species, principally Eucalyptus globulus, which is processed to wood chips used in paper manufacture. This availability of a profitable tree-based enterprise distinguishes the catchment from many parts of the agricultural region of Western Australia, for which rainfall is too low to support wood-producing industries. In most other agricultural catchments in Western Australia, revegetation with trees is likely to be viewed more negatively by farmers than it is in this catchment.

The upper Kent became a "focus catchment" in the National Dryland Salinity Program from 1992 to 1997, and in 1996 was declared a "focus recovery catchment" within the Western Australian Salinity Action Plan, qualifying it for further financial assistance, extension and scientific research to foster changed farming practices. Despite this attention, land conservation activities had not been monitored except in a small telephone survey in 1995.

The Survey

The survey included a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions, including open-ended questions. Specific questions were designed with the advice of in mind. The draft survey instrument was reviewed by researchers with experience in social surveying techniques and by others who had local knowledge of the region. The survey was then pre-tested on a sub-sample of farmers with the assistance of the Kent River Land Conservation District Committee (LCDC). With the LCDC’s permission, the completed instrument was administered as a mail survey, sent with stamped addressed envelopes and a covering letter to all farmers in the catchment in May 1997. Follow-up telephone calls were carried out in August after a follow-up letter in July. A total of 69 surveys were returned, representing approximately 53 percent of upper Kent River catchment properties. This covered 77,600 ha out of a total of 112,800 ha, representing over 69 percent of the upper Kent River catchment area.

Results

General characteristics of farms and farmers

By 1997 up to 30 original farm property locations in the upper Kent River catchment had been leased or sold to tree plantation companies, representing about 10 percent of the upper catchment area, and more sales were expected. In the last 2 years more than 5 properties have new owners. Farm size ranged between 40 and 5066 ha with an average of 1134 ha. Present landholders in the catchment area acquired their land as early as 1907 or as recently as 1996, but on average have held the property for 30 years. Landholders have expanded their land holdings over the years to maintain viable farm businesses and for inheritance.

Land clearing

Most clearing occurred before 1978, when bans on further clearing of native vegetation were imposed over the whole catchment to protect future potable water supplies from salinisation. Farmers varied widely in the year by which half of their land had been cleared, but the average was 1957.

Farm inheritance

Forty percent of respondents said that their children would inherit the farm property, while 30 percent answered "maybe". Fifteen percent said that their children would not inherit the farm because, for example, the children did not want to become farmers, or the property was not considered financially viable. Twelve percent did not yet know. The lack of clear inheritance plans by 60 percent of farmers may prompt concerns about their incentives for land conservation.

Involvement in land conservation

Attendance at "Landcare" meetings and field days was high. Eighty one percent of upper catchment landholders attended a land conservation meeting in 1996 and 67 percent attended at least one "field day" (viewing of experiment or treatment results in the field). Twenty one percent of farmers had attended five or more Landcare events during 1996, and 4 percent had attended more than ten. There was no relationship between area of saline land and the farmer’s frequency of attendance at Landcare meetings (see Figure 1). However, Table 1 shows that there was a positive relationship between attendance at land conservation meetings and plans to implement land conservation practices.

Figure 1. Area of saline land on a property and farmer attendance at land conservation meetings and field days

Table 1. Farmer attendance at Landcare meetings and plans for future land conservation activities

Dryland Salinity

The perceived extent of dryland salinity varied widely between upper Kent River catchment farms (see Figure 2). Farmer respondents believed that secondary dryland salinity (i.e., new salinity resulting from land clearing) was affecting 3,400 ha (4 percent of their combined farm areas). Nineteen percent of respondents believed that they did not have dryland salinity problems on their properties. Since their dryland salinity problems began, 22 percent of survey respondents claim to have successfully reclaimed at least some land from dryland salinity, the amount varying from half a hectare to 220 ha.

Figure 2. Absolute frequency distribution of the percentage of saline land per farm

Landholders were asked whether they thought that dryland salinity would increase on their farms in the future. Opinion was divided over this question (Table 2). This might suggest that farms are not equally affected by salinity, or that they are having different success rates with remedial measures. It could also be due to differences in knowledge. Indeed, current forecasts by hydrologists are that most of these farmers face significant increases in the area of saline land on their farms. The difference between this forecast and the perceptions of around half the farmers is striking. It may be partly due to an unusually dry three-year period prior to the survey.

Table 2. Farmers predicted change in saline area on their own farms five years after survey

Waterlogging

Waterlogging is related to dryland salinity in that they both result from excess water, and the lower plant productivity that waterlogging induces can allow more water to escape transpiration by plants and to drain into the saline water table. Only six percent of respondents claimed to be free of waterlogged soils on their property. Forty percent of farmers rated their incidence of water logging to be greater than "isolated patches" while three percent indicated "about half" and none selected "most areas". These perceptions also contrast with opinions of local hydrologists estimated that nearly three quarters of the upper Kent River catchment soils are annually affected by winter waterlogging.

Farm-to-farm externalities

A feature of dryland salinity in Western Australia is its potential to cross farm boundaries. Farmers are aware that they may be affecting, or affected by, their neighbours. To the extent that this occurs, management of dryland salinity may require a degree of cooperation and coordination between neighbours.

Thirty three percent thought that they were both receiving salinity, and contributing it to other properties. Sixty two percent believed that they are adversely affected by their neighbours, but only 34 percent acknowledged that they are affecting their neighbours. It is not clear whether this interesting contradiction reflects sample bias or a biased tendency for the respondents to judge themselves more favourably than their neighbours, but the latter appears more likely. Local hydrologists believe that the farmers’ responses to this question tend to over-rate of the extent of farm-to-farm salinity impacts (Ruhi Ferdowsian, Agriculture Western Australia, pers. comm. 1999).

Farmer knowledge of available management options

The respondents revealed very good knowledge of available management options for dryland salinity and waterlogging, and good levels of understanding of the underlying hydrological causes of both these problems. Suggested practices included the following.

• Installation of drainage followed by tree planting (the most common response);
• Fencing, stock removal and re-vegetation of all watercourses and affected land (for salinity);
• Contour drainage with re-vegetation (for waterlogging);
• Perennial pastures and deep-rooted vegetation;
• Drainage of water into main waterways; pumping salty ground water to the ocean (one response);
• Re-positioning of watercourses back to their original drainage lines (one response);
• Minimum tillage;
• Application of gypsum to the soil;
• Use of early-season crops, which may use more water than traditional crops;
• Re-specification of farm boundaries.

A few individuals felt that the only way salinity would be removed was if all land was returned to trees. Several stated that strategically placed plantings of trees or tree belts would be sufficient. Only two respondents felt that no amount of change on their properties would prevent the onset of dryland salinity. Overall, an optimistic view of the problem still exists amongst the catchment community farmers.

Farmer implementation of management options

Only three percent of landholders had not implemented any land conservation practices on their properties (see Table 3). At the other extreme, 10 percent of respondents reported that they had revegetated more than 200 ha. Over half had revegetated more than 10 ha and one third had installed more than five km of drains.

Table 3. Percentage of farmers implementing revegetation and drainage in the upper Kent River catchment

Table 4 shows that the most widely adopted land conservation practice was drainage (probably mainly shallow drains for surface water management). Tree planting was clearly more popular than perennial pasture, reflecting economic returns from the two options. Use of salt tolerant plants is partly about land conservation and partly about making use of degraded land. Fencing is a necessary compliment to planting of trees or salt tolerant species, to manage stock grazing, but it also has benefits such as allowing the regeneration of native perennial vegetation.

Table 4. Salinity management already implemented in the upper Kent River catchment

Considering the tree plantings in more detail, the 2447 ha of trees planted by respondents since 1984 include 1527 ha of commercial bluegum plantations, 797 ha of tree belts, and 124 ha of trees incorporated as part of alley-farming systems. There is no correlation between tree planting and the extent of saline land on individual properties (Figure 3). This may be due in part to a confounding of influences: greater areas of saline land might tend to prompt greater planting of trees, while greater planting of trees would be expected to reduce the area of saline land.

Figure 3. Area of trees planted and area of saline land

A similar absence of correlation exists between length of drainage installed and area of saline land (Figure 4). Nevertheless, seventy seven percent of respondents had implemented drainage of some sort, averaging 8.5 km. Interestingly, almost 50 km of deep drainage (trenches dug to a depth of 2 m or more) had been installed, despite clear scientific evidence that it has very limited ability to control ground water movement .

Figure 4. Length of drainage installed and area of saline land (Note: two responses over 250 ha not shown)

Adoption of Landcare practices has increased considerably over the last 2 years (Table 5). Seventy three percent of survey respondents said they planned to implement new land conservation measures on their properties in the near future. Of the 24 percent who said they would not be making future investments in this area, some pointed to a lack of finances, and some to uncertainty caused by native title claims over their land as presenting major obstacles.

Table 5. Adoption of land conservation practices in 1995 and 1997 (% of farmers adopting to any extent)

*In 1995 there was no data collected on planting of salt tolerant species.

Impacts of farmer land conservation action

Table 6 shows the proportion of respondents out of those implementing land conservation practices who reported observing a resulting benefit. In general, 50 percent or less of those investing in land conservation had been able to detect benefits (although some believed that it was too early to tell).

Table 6. Percentage of farmers investing in land conservation who observed a benefit

The benefits reported varied widely, but included:

• Drainage: increased productivity from cropping; greater control of water flow; full dams; less water in low-lying drained areas; reductions in waterlogging and soil erosion.

• Fencing: increased growth and the return of native species; better management of stock; re-vegetation of previously bare and eroding soil; provision of summer fodder during drought times.

• Perennial pastures: reductions in soil waterlogging.

• Trees: using excess water; providing winter shelter for stock; reduced waterlogging; lower ground water levels; reduced wind erosion; aesthetic improvements.
• Salt tolerant species: restore otherwise-bare saline land; a more drought-proof property; improved quality of grazing.

Table 7 shows overall perceptions of recent changes in a number of land quality indicators. The most common response was "no change" apart from for ground water level, for which "don’t know" predominated. This indicates that a minority of farmers were monitoring piezometers on their properties, which is remarkable given the extent of the salinity problem faced, and the fact that this particular catchment has been the target for so much attention in government programs encouraging salinity-management practices. Only six landholders claimed that ground water levels beneath their properties had lowered over the last five years. These properties have re-vegetated an average of 226 ha of land to trees, and installed an average of nine km of drainage (compared to the sample average of 55 ha and 8.5 km).

Table 7. Farmer perceptions of land quality indicator changes on their properties (% of respondents)

* An increased ground water level represents a decreased depth to the ground water table.

Other noticeable changes over the last five years have been the numbers of wildlife and bird species observed. On 28 percent of farm properties, certain species were reported to have increased to pest levels (e.g. parrots, kangaroos, foxes, rabbits, emus and ducks) while the black cockatoo and the bush hare were noted by a few as having decreased in number.

Causes of the salinity problem

Most farmers agreed that dryland salinity is a "major environmental problem." They were asked why it continued to be so despite ongoing government attempts to address it. They were offered a range of reasons drawn from previous focussed discussions with farmers in the catchment, and asked whether they agreed that each proposed reason was a cause for the continuing problem. Table 8 shows that the reason most frequently agreed with was that no quick and easy solutions exist. Other similar reasons (it is too big to fix, it is too uneconomic to fix, there is no spare time available for Landcare) were also rated highly. These responses reflect farmers’ experiences with the existing treatment options, which are expensive, and can be complicated and slow acting. The two other reasons most identified by farmers were that there is too much uncertainty (e.g. about future salinity levels, about impacts of treatments, about future prices) and government restrictions on drainage (which are designed to protect the Kent River from salinisation).

Table 8. Landholder opinions on why dryland salinity is still a major environmental problem

Interestingly, there was a clear disagreement with the proposition that "Landcare doesn’t work." Perhaps this reflects a view that land conservation practices can be effective against some types of land degradation, even if it is less effective against salinity. Alternatively they may be reflecting a view that the available management practices would work against salinity if they were implemented at an adequate scale.

Discussion

The survey provides evidence of considerable awareness and knowledge of dryland salinity by farmers in the upper Kent River catchment, and of a substantial effort by them to implement practices intended to reduce the threat of salinity and the related problem of water logging. A key question is whether farmers are succeeding, or likely to succeed, in controlling salinity.

The farmers, as a group, have a relatively positive attitude on this question. Twenty three percent of respondents claimed to have reclaimed at least some land from dryland salinity. Unfortunately, compared to the views of expert hydrologists, the farmers’ perceptions on a number of aspects of the issue seem overly optimistic.

• Only a small minority of farmers expressed the opinion that control of salinity is not achievable without radical changes in land use to include large areas of perennial species. Less than 16 percent had implemented a substantial re-vegetation program, and only 10 percent had revegetated 200 ha or more. Hydrologists, on the other hand, believe that large areas will need to be converted to perennials to reduce or even maintain current areas of salinity .
• Drainage is the farmers’ preferred treatment method (Table 4). Around half stated that government regulation imposing limitations on drainage is a major factor preventing effective control of salinity (Table 8). Only a small minority concurred with scientist/hydrologist opinions that drainage, although important, is far from sufficient, and needs to be used to complement large areas of perennial vegetation.
• On average, farmers in the catchment believe that four percent of their land is saline. In contrast, government hydrologists estimate that approximately 20 percent of the upper Kent River catchment is currently affected by dryland salinity .
• Only 46 percent of farmers believe that salinity will be worse in five years than it now is (Table 2), whereas hydrologists hold a clear view that the area of saline land will continue to increase throughout the catchment for the next five years and beyond .

Although the farmers hold less negative perceptions than hydrologists, they do consider salinity to be a very serious concern.

• Trees were first planted to address salinity in 1984 and the rate of adoption has increased gradually.
• Virtually all farmers (97 percent) have implemented salinity treatments of some type (Table 3), and approximately three quarters have plans for implementation of further treatments (Table 1).
• Less than half of the land conservation treatments that had been implemented were perceived to have made a positive difference to land conservation by the time of the survey.
• Only 21 percent believe that the area of salinity on their farm will be less in five years time than it is at present (Table 2).
• More than half of the farmers believed that their salinity problem is at least partially caused by their neighbours.
• Farmers recognise a variety of underlying socio-economic and technical causes contributing to the difficulty of treating dryland salinity (Table 8).

Despite this recognition of salinity as a serious concern, the survey reveals a contrast between what farmers think will fix the problem and what they have actually implemented. The gaps between actual levels of treatment implementation and those deemed necessary by hydrologists are even greater.

• The majority of farmers have adopted only small changes, such as the siting of trees around saline areas, and the drainage of stagnant paddocks. Only a few farmers have been willing to make changes on a larger scale.
• The majority of perennial vegetation in the upper catchment is in the form of native remnants , which were legally protected from further clearing in 1978. Vegetation surveys suggest that 36 percent of the upper Kent River catchment remains covered with remnant native vegetation. Thus the total area of the upper catchment devoted to perennial plants (including remnant native vegetation) is of a similar magnitude to that identified as necessary within the state’s Salinity Action Plan. However, the spatial distribution of the perennials is such that it is only partially effective for salinity prevention. Moreover, farmers have not fully protected their native remnants from degradation (largely through grazing); only about 21 percent is intact . The other remnants are scattered (4 percent) or modified (11 percent), and contribute to ground water recharge (Ferdowsian, pers. comm. 1997) so that they are not effective in preventing salinity. This non-protection of remnants may be partly a reflection of the farmers’ strong opposition and political resistance to the original imposition of clearing bans, but in the context of current knowledge, it seems highy ill-advised.

Reasons for low levels of adoption

One factor contributing to the low adoption appears to be farmer misperceptions. This is likely to be partly due to the difficulty of accurately observing the extent of salinity , or the impacts of any treatment . The majority of farmers did not even know whether ground water levels have risen or fallen on their properties in recent years. This lack of commitment to monitoring their salinity problem probably reflects the failure of most farmers to fully appreciate its seriousness. This represents a serious dilemma for policy makers, since farmers seem unlikely to appreciate the value of monitoring without first beginning to monitor.

Over half of the landholders believe Landcare changes to be uneconomic. The absence of quick and easy solutions to dryland salinity was considered a major reason for the lack of change on the ground.

In the absence of "quick and easy" solutions, economically profitable solutions would seem to be needed. These are available for some, but not all, of the upper catchment in the form of E. globulus. One farmer said, "I believe that tree farming by tree companies is not the answer to salinity problems because they only use the best land."

Shortage of resources was a problem. Labour time was limited, and financial constraints were preventing further implementation of Landcare practices. For example, one respondent stated, "I am 80 years old and am planting trees on a property that has shown a loss for the last five years at least".

There was a perceived improvement to the general health of the farming environment with land conservation activities, but specific improvements (e.g. in yields) attributed to Landcare were only recognised in a minority of cases. It is not surpising that farmers have negative opinions about the economic returns from these Landcare activities.

The extent to which each farmer is able to alleviate salinity problems will depend on where the property is located in the landscape. For valley farmland in catchment discharge zones, the ability to prevent salinity is severely limited by the difficulty of persuading neighbours to invest in land conservation measures for which they will not be the main beneficiaries. The only viable management options for such valley farmers may be to plant salt tolerant species over the affected areas, or simply to abandon land when it becomes saline.

What policy changes are needed?

Despite the high level of farmer attendance at Landcare events, and high awareness of dryland salinity problems, it appears that adoption of preventative practices is at a scale that will not prevent continuing increases in the area of saline land in the upper Kent River catchment. Clearly, the past reliance on persuasion, peer pressure, extension and research has been unsuccessful in achieving sufficient change. Whatever policy measures are taken in future, it is clear that they must do much more than past measures to change the incentives of farmers to adopt new practices at a great enough scale.

The use of perennial pasture is not very popular with Kent farmers; only one farmer had planted lucerne. If perennial pastures are necessary within an agricultural landscape system to prevent recharge there is a need for more appropriate local species and incentives for farmers to adopt them.

Few farmers are working with their neighbours to collectively address salinity problems – although most perceive salinity as a catchment issue, they continue to manage it independently on their own farms. If it is not possible to identify perennial plant options that are commercially profitable to the farmer who plants them, it may be necessary for the government to explore means of facilitating financial flows between farmers who share a hydrological system. Or perhaps there are other means of "internalising" the external costs of salinity.

If salinity in the upper Kent River catchment were to be substantially controlled, the broader non-agricultural community would be a major beneficary, especially due to the return of the Kent River to a potable water supply. A state government agency, The Water and Rivers Commission, is subsidising farmer implementation of salinity prevention measures in a small number of catchments (including the Kent) at a rate of A$2.5 million per year . It would seem to be important to determine: (a) whether these subsidies are effective, efficient and equitable, (b) whether the magnitude of the subsidy is sufficient to encourage sufficient change, (c) if not, how might the funds be employed to achieve maximum leverage over farmers’ farming practices, and (d) how should the subsidies best be complemented with other incentive-based or regulatory systems.

Conclusion

Farmers in the upper Kent River catchment of Western Australia face a substantial challenge in preventing or dealing with the ongoing worsening of dryland salinity on their farms. On the other hand, they are favoured relative to other Western Australian farmers facing similar salinity threats by virtue of the availability of a tree species that can be commercially profitable on suitable soil types, and by the availability of state government subsidies to help protect the Kent River from salinisation. Nevertheless, it appears that the level of implementation of salinity prevention treatments is still well below that necessary to prevent further salinisation. A variety of possible reasons for this have been identified, and supported by evidence from the survey. The reasons include a tendency for farmers to under-rate the seriousness of salinity and to over-rate the effectiveness of treatments they have implemented (or might implement in future). Other reasons include, the complexity, difficulty and expense of available treatments, limited resources available to invest in the treatments, flows of salinity across farm boundaries, and the absence of economically profitable treatments for all soil types. It appears that the existing policy approach of providing encouragement, information and persuasion to farmers and relying mainly on their voluntary action is not succeeding.

References

Anonymous (1996). Salinity: A Situation Statement for Western Australia, A Report to the Minister for Primary Industry, Minister for the Environment, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Barr, N. F. and J. W. Cary (1984). Farmer Perceptions of Soil Salting: Appraisal of an Insidious Hazard. School of Agriculture and Forestry. The University of Melbourne.

Ferdowsian, R., George, R., Lewis, F., McFarlane, D., Short, R. and Speed, R. (1996). The extent of dryland salinity in Western Australia. Conference Proceedings, 4th National Conference and Workshop on the Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Lands, Albany, Western Australia, 25-30 March 1996, Promaco Conventions: Perth, Western Australia, pp. 89-97.

Ferdowsian, R., Ryder, A. and Kelly, J. (1997). Evaluation of Deep Open Drains in the North Stirlings Area, Resource Management Technical Report 161, Perth: Agriculture Western Australia.

Ferdowsian, R. and A. Ryder (1997). Salinity and hydrology of Wamballup Swamp catchment. The National Dryland Salinity Program Conference, 13-15th October 1997, Mount Barker, Western Australia, LWRRDC and Kent River Catchment Technical Team, Western Australia.

Foddy, W. (1994). Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge University Press: Melbourne.

Hatton, T.J. and Nulsen, R.A. 1999, ‘Towards achieving functional ecosystem mimicry with respect to water cycling in southern Australian agriculture’, Agroforestry Systems, vol. 45, pp. 203-14.

Hooper, B. (1995). Adoption of best management practices for dryland salinity: The need for an integrated environmental management approach. Results of a study in the Goran catchment, Liverpool Plains, New South Wales. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England: Armidale.

Nulsen, R. A. (1999). Western Australia's salinity action plan - what chance of success? International Conference on Diffuse Pollution, 16-20 May. Sheraton Perth Hotel, Western Australia.

Pannell, D.J. (1999a). Social and Economic Challenges in the Development of Complex Farming Systems, Agroforestry Systems 45(1-3): 393-409. (SEA Working Paper 97/02, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia)
abstract. full paper (65K).

Pannell, D.J. (1999b). Uncertainty and Adoption of Sustainable Farming Systems, Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Christchurch, New Zealand, January 20-22 1999. (SEA Working paper 99/01, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia)
abstract. full paper (50K).

Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) (1998). Dryland Salinity and its Impact on Rural Industries and the Landscape, Occasional Paper no. 1, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Canberra.

Sinden, J. A. and D. A. King (1990). Adoption of soil conservation measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales. Review of Marketing and Agriculture Economics 58, 179-192.

Speed, R. J. and J. A. Simons (1992). Deep Drainage - A Case Study and Discussion. Technical Report 133. Agriculture Western Australia: Perth, Western Australia.

Strawbridge, M. (1997). The extent and condition of remnant vegetation in the upper Kent catchment. The National Dryland Salinity Program Conference, 13-15th October. Mount Barker, WA, LWRRDC and Kent River catchment Technical Team, Western Australia.

Wilkinson, R. L. and Cary, J. W. (1992). Monitoring Landcare in Central Victoria. School of Agriculture and Forestry, The University of Melbourne: Melbourne.

Citation: Kington, E.A. and Pannell, D.J. (1999). Dryland salinity in the upper Kent River catchment of Western Australia: Farmer perceptions and practices, (SEA Working Paper 99/09, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia)

SEA News issue #5

The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews

Copyright © 1999 E. Kington and D. Pannell
Last revised: May 21, 2003.