SEA Working Paper 99/10
Salty Business: A game to illustrate concepts about managing risk in a salt-affected farmland catchment
Sally P. Marsh
Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6907, Australia
Abstract
Salty Business is a game, developed by a team working in the Agricultural and Resource Economics group at the University of Western Australia, designed to teach the principles of, and processes for, managing agricultural risk. Agricultural professionals are often unaware in a practical sense of the risks and uncertainties faced by farmers, and the constraints that this can have on the operation of the farming business. Participants are placed in the role of a farmer and have to "manage" a typical Western Australian eastern wheatbelt farm, located in a catchment under threat of dryland salinity, for a number of seasons under conditions of climatic, yield and price uncertainty. Three workshops were held in the country locations of Geraldton, Merredin and Moora and were attended by 49 agency staff and other interested professionals. There is clear evidence from participants to suggest that Salty Business workshops provide an enjoyable and effective learning environment for agricultural professionals to gain an understanding about a range of issues. These include the practicalities of managing agricultural risk, the stresses faced by farmers managing farms in an uncertain environment, why farmers facing similar uncertain circumstances respond in different ways, and the difficulties of incorporating an advocated ‘sustainable’ farming practice (tree planting) into farm businesses.
Introduction
Salty Business is a game developed by a team working in the Agricultural and Resource Economics group at the University of Western Australia. The game is part of a suite of Risky Businessã training and educational products which aim to teach the principles of, and processes for, managing agricultural risk. Participants are placed in the role of a farmer and have to "manage" a typical Western Australian eastern wheatbelt farm for a number of seasons, usually 8 to 10, under conditions of climatic, yield and price uncertainty. The game is played in a workshop situation and employs a number of teaching methods but is principally focussed on using a simulation game. Lectures are used at the beginning of the workshop to outline the key components of agricultural risk and strategies to minimise them. Formal and informal discussions occur throughout the workshop. For the participants, the aim of the game is to survive all the rounds and win by making the most money.
In the Salty Business version of the game the farm is located in a catchment that is going salty. In addition to facing the normal price, yield and climatic uncertainties faced by farmers, the players are also uncertain as to how badly their farm will be affected by salinity. Recognising the affects of salinity on the farm over time is difficult as the effect on yields is confounded with variability from other factors, such as season and varying input levels. This version of the game had been played with students in the Natural Resource Management degree at the University of WA in 1997 and 1998. In 1999, funds were obtained from the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation to run the game with staff working for Agricultural Western Australia.
Three workshops were held in the country locations of Geraldton, Merredin and Moora and attended by 49 agency staff and other interested professionals. The majority of people who attended the workshops were either Development Officers or Land Conservation Officers employed by Agriculture Western Australia. A number of other agency personnel attended including middle-level managers, hydrologists, economists and a stock inspector. A number of people working for local shires also attended, including Bushcare workers, Landcare Co-ordinators and shire planners. Farmers were invited to attend, but only one farmer actually attended the series of workshops. This paper reports on the outcomes and learnings from these workshops.
Background to the game
Risky Businessã training and educational products are specifically aimed at people who work with farmers rather than farmers themselves, although they have been successfully used with farmers. Agricultural professionals are often unaware in a practical sense of the risks and uncertainties faced by farmers, and the constraints that this can have on the operation of the farming business. The Risky Businessã suite of games aim to illustrate to players a number of key concepts about agricultural risk and the management of this risk. These include:
The Salty Business version of the game also aims to illustrate to players a number of additional key issues related to the particular difficulties faced by farmers considering whether they should plant trees to address salinity on their farm. Specifically these are:
How the game is played
The players are given a brief introduction to their farm, and shown how the game is played. All players are given the same hypothetical farm to manage, in this case, a property of 1200 hectares located in the eastern wheatbelt of Western Australia. The players have 800 hectares of heavy low-lying ground, and 400 hectares of lighter land on higher ground. Only the lower lying land is going saline at a rate that is unknown. Players are told that "expert" opinion considers that approximately 30 percent of their heavier land may need to be planted to trees to abate salinity on their farm. At the time that Salty Business was conceived this figure was considered a fair estimate of tree planting that might be required to address salinity (Anon., 1996), however re-assessment by hydrologists now puts this figure far below what would be required in most situations (George et al., 1999; Bartle, 1999).
Data used in the simulation model underlying the game reflects realistic production data under different types of weather seasons that occur in the eastern wheatbelt in Western Australia. Players are given information that describes ten typical season types for the eastern wheatbelt and seasonal, yield and price data for "their" farm for the last seven years. Enterprises available are wheat, lupins and sheep for wool. Inputs (fertiliser) can be applied at five different levels. Basic production interactions are built into the farm model; for example, wheat planted after lupins benefits from the nitrogen and disease break that a lupin crop provides. To mimic normal farming constraints, there is a restriction on the degree to which enterprise mix can change between seasons. Labour and machinery are given and fixed, and the initial net worth of the farm is $400,000. Money in the bank at the start of the game is $150,000 (for the 3 year period) and players may borrow 90% of their net worth in each 3 year period to finance their farming activities.
Trees can be planted from the beginning of the third period. This delay is only to give players the chance to familiarise themselves with the game before an additional complexity is introduced. For this Salty Business version, the game has been modified so that it is played in "seasons" of 3 year periods, to enable the effect of tree planting on the farm to be seen (i.e. the 10 periods played equal 30 years).
As "farmers" the players are given a budget sheet to plan their yearly farm management, on the basis of the forecast prices and predicted season type (as ascertained from summer rainfall and opening rains). Plans can be altered up until the opening rains, at which time the "farmer" enters his/her final plan into the computer. The model checks that no financial or physical constraints have been violated by the player. When all plans have been entered, individual results are computed and print-outs, detailing actual yields, prices and changed net worth, are handed back to the player to enable them to plan for the next year. Players only receive information back about their own farm. To find out how other farms performed they must actively seek the information from other players. However, as the game is meant to be competitive, the net worth of each player at the end of each period is written up on a chart.
Players are generally seated around tables in groups of 4 to 6, all sharing a computer. Although the computer is essential to run the model, the emphasis of the game is not on the mechanics of the computer model underlying the game. Players are encouraged to interact and seek information from each other by discussing their plans and their results. At the end of each period a more formal discussion period is facilitated to elicit players’ thoughts and emotions, and to discuss aspects of the game that may have been highlighted in the preceding period. The strategies of both successful and unsuccessful players are sort and discussed.
For Salty Business, players were able to purchase additional weather information in a format similar to that provided by long range weather services; that is, the chance of rainfall throughout the year is expressed as series of probabilities. Various methods of purchase were offered to players: they could purchase information as individuals or as a group, or the information was offered at a set price that could be met by as many players who wanted to contribute. Participants who paid for additional weather information received special "weather briefings" and subsequently would experience how valuable and reliable was the weather information.
At the Geraldton workshop, players were also able to purchase information on groundwater levels in the form of piezometer readings. However, as the readings were unable to be linked (by the model) to the strategies being undertaken by individual players this option was not continued at the workshops in Merredin and Moora.
To emphasise the potential implications of externalities associated with salinity in some situations, two tables of players at each workshop (one in Moora) were designated as "catchments". This effectively meant that for these players, the results on their farm were affected by the activities of the other players at their table. The model underlying the game does this by simply treating the data from these players as if it all related to one large 4800 hectare property. Hence on these farms, the effect of salinity on individual farms was a consequence of the farming activities on all the 4 properties combined.
Discussion
The game is played in a situation that is cognisant of the principles of adult learning: needs-based, experiential, self-directing, and social (Knowles, 1984; Bender et al., 1982). Players generally enjoy the workshop but there is often a degree of frustration involved, a consequence of the uncertain environment which contexts the game. This experience of frustration is a valuable learning point in itself, even though some don’t find it particularly enjoyable.
From experience with Risky Businessã we know that players often experience a gamut of emotions, from exhilaration to anger and depression, while playing the game. Salty Business proved to be no exception to this. The game is more difficult to play successfully, because planting trees compromises the ability of the farm to make money from crops and pasture, but not planting trees results in a gradual reduction in production the further the game progresses. The balance is hard to achieve, and many players found it difficult, especially as many were working in Landcare and were personally committed to planting trees (as this is what they are advocating their farmer clients should do) and ‘making tree planting work on their farm’.
Many people are personally challenged by not managing to play the game as successfully as they would like. This is especially difficult for people in positions of leadership in their normal workplace environment. People especially do not enjoy going ‘broke’, and this happened to several players in each Salty Business workshop. A succession of bad seasons brings an almost tangible air of quietness and withdrawal to the whole room. This is balanced by the excitement and euphoria that accompanies the results from good seasons. However, we especially want players to experience the emotional difficulties faced by farmers when things go badly.
Evidence that players enjoy the learning experience
An evaluation sheet at each workshop gave the participants the opportunity to nominate "the top two highlights of the workshop for you" and "the two most annoying parts of the workshop for you". The replies are categorised in Tables 1 and 2. Most players identified at least one highlight and annoyance, and figures in the Tables are given as percentages of the 98 possible replies (i.e. two from each workshop participant).
Many stated highlights identified aspects of the learning experience as a highlight of the workshop. Twenty seven percent of nominated highlights referred to the learning environment (Table 1). Examples of comments include: "learning from each other", "friendly/ participative atmosphere", "ongoing advice from the facilitators", "competition between players and groups" and "being in groups and comparing notes and ideas." Another 15 percent of replies referred to various aspects of ‘playing the game’ as a highlight (Table 1). Examples of comments include: "getting to grips with the workshop", "the experience of the range of emotions", "watching my decisions unfold" and "learning from my mistakes". A further 9 percent of replies referred to the experience of ‘being a farmer’ as a highlight: making comments such as "being a farmer for a day", "actually experiencing the uncertainty a farmer experiences", and "appreciating the tough decisions that farmers make". Finally, for some, the pleasure of being successful is a highlight, from the simple satisfaction of "not going bankrupt" to "I clawed my way back to 2nd!". Other highlights related to learning gained from the workshop and will be discussed later in this section.
Table 1. A categorisation of participants’ views on the highlights of the workshop
Highlight |
Percent of replies |
| 1. The learning environment | 27% |
| 2. Principles learnt/understood, insights gained | 18% |
| 3. Playing the game, seeing the way it unfolds | 15% |
| 4. "Being" a farmer | 9% |
| 5. Being successful | 9% |
| 6. No highlight identified | 22% |
Despite their evident enjoyment of the learning experience, 29 percent of the participants nominated aspects of the workshop as ‘annoyances’ (Table 2). Comments ranged from dissatisfaction with organisation of the workshop, such as "waiting to use the computer" and "more time for discussion as a group"; to a more fundamental dissatisfaction with the Salty Business game, such as "constraints in the game are unrealistic" and "no other salinity options apart from trees". Other nominated ‘annoyances’ did not relate to the learning experience, but rather to what we consider are ‘normal’ constraints associated with farming (an aspect of the game, annoying though it might be – e.g. "no control over weather", "not being able to decipher yield responses", "price uncertainty"), or annoyance at aspects of their performance in the game (e.g. "bought trees too early in the game") or other personal considerations.
Table 2. A categorisation of participants’ views on the most annoying aspects of the workshop
Annoyance |
Percent of replies |
| 1. The organisation of the game/imposed constraints | 29% |
| 2. Normal farming constraints/consequences | 20% |
| 3. Not doing well in the game/making mistakes | 6% |
| 4. Personal lack of farming knowledge | 3% |
| 5. Other personal considerations/insights | 9% |
| 6. No annoyance identified | 33% |
What do the players learn?
People learn something about themselves, especially their approach to risk and uncertainty, and the associated consequences of their behaviours in a practical farming situation. For example, it obviously goes against the grain for many people to prepare for a loss. Even despite poor forecasts they plan inputs and budget for yields as if the forecast was favourable. Throughout the game key decisions (e.g. area planted to trees) and outcomes (e.g. net worth) for each player are recorded. Displaying this information to all players encourages discussion among the players. Drawing on this information the facilitators lead discussion at the conclusion of each round on appropriate points, for example, the results of different strategies in poor seasons or the value of the weather forecasts. By the end of the game the players have both demonstrated and witnessed the fact that different people, given the same farm and subjected to the same weather conditions and prices, will have achieved vastly different results which usually range from near bankruptcy to more than doubling their net worth. Tables 5 and 6 show a small sample of players’ final net worths which illustrates the diversity. These final figures are a consequence of each individual’s goals, decisions and skills, with a bit of luck thrown in. The experiences of the players helps facilitators to lead some wide-ranging discussions on issues such as the even more hetererogeneous nature of the farming community (given different soils, climates, farm sizes, debts, etc.).
The professional role of players in their normal work affects how people approach the game. For example, people working in Bushcare often didn’t want to use their whole farm, they were keen just to leave land idle and concentrate on planting trees. Playing the game illustrated to these people that agricultural activities on the farm fund the ability to plant trees ("I must be considerate of current farm profitability when discussing the future"). People working in Landcare often ambitiously tried to plant too many trees too quickly to reach the 30 percent target we had indicated as necessary to restrict further salinisation. Playing the game clearly illustrated the need to consider the initial cost and future financial consequences before planting large areas of the farm to trees ("trees are good but don’t plant too many in one year or you will be cash strapped"). Also evident with many players working in Landcare was a poor understanding of farm activities and rotations. This possibly affects their ability to see their work goals within a farming context, and may hamper work with farmers to incorporate Landcare goals into farm plans. Playing the game gave these people a better understanding of how a farm ‘works’ ("how everything affects each other in farming, e.g. rotations").
Some highlights and annoyances nominated by the players concerned things they learned. Nineteen percent of the highlights nominated by players referred to principles that players had learnt and/or understood, or insights that they had gained (Table 1). Highlights that reflect learning such as "increased trees = decreased cropping area", "need longer than 30 years to create sustainable farm" and "seeing the amazing fluctuations in profitability of seasons" were identified by players. As discussed in the previous section, 20 percent of nominated annoyances referred to the ‘normal’ difficulties of practical farming, and hence represent learning for these players about constraints faced by farmers. Also, when asked for the two most important points learnt by them during the workshop, 19 percent of player responses identified insights learnt or specific skills gained in the workshop (Table 3). These ranged from "to understand economics of farm management" and "that most income comes in very few years" to "how to budget".
Responses in this section also show that some insights gained are not those that the workshop is designed to convey. Examples of comments that show this are "off-farm investment is a good idea", "see the time line through" and "the staff can still enjoy their work". Not all the learning that occurs at Salty Business workshops is managed learning. People bring their own preconceptions and experience to the game and this to some degree influences what they learn from the workshop and the value of it to them. However, this richness of experience that comes to the game is one of the great strengths of the workshop format.
Are the key concepts conveyed?
The Risky Businessã suite of games has definite learning objectives as outlined earlier in this paper. The evaluation sheet asked participants to nominate "the two most important points you learnt today". Replies to this question are categorised in Table 3 and illustrate that many of the key learning objectives have been identified by the players as important points learnt. Eighteen percent of replies referred to the impact of uncertainty, with comments such as "risk is very important", "decision making is difficult in a climate of uncertainty", "economics of farms are very uncertain and it is difficult to plan ahead". A further 15 percent of replies referred to the difficulties faced by farmers, a recognition by the participant that farmers operate in a stressful environment. Examples of comments reflecting this learning are "it’s hard being a farmer", "(understanding) why farmers are so cautious" and "better understanding of farmer frustrations". Other key learning points identified that corresponded with the learning objectives of the Risky Businessã games included the value of planning and information (8 percent), the complexity of the farming system (7 percent), the impact of financial constraints (6 percent) and inflexibility imposed by previous decisions (3 percent).
Table 3. A categorisation of participants’ views on the most important points they learnt from the workshop
Important points learnt |
Percent of replies |
| 1. Specific skills learnt/insights gained from the workshop | 19% |
| 2. The impact of uncertainty | 18% |
| 3. The difficulties associated with planting trees to address salinity | 15% |
| 4. General difficulties/stresses associated with farming | 14% |
| 5. The value of planning, information, information sharing | 8% |
| 6. Complexity of the system/importance of interactions | 7% |
| 7. General economics, the impact of financial constraints | 6% |
| 8. Restrictions/inflexibility from previous decisions | 3% |
| 9. No comment made | 10% |
The Salty Business game also had some specific learning objectives as outlined earlier in the paper. Fifteen percent of responses nominated the difficulties associated with planting trees to address salinity as one of the most important points they learnt from the workshop. Comments which reflected this include "difficulty in getting people to plant trees – benefits are not identifiable", "trees must generate benefits" and "effect of trees on farm profits". Additionally, the evaluation asked participants to indicate how well a number of key concepts from Salty Business were conveyed. Responses to these questions are shown in Table 4. The results show that participants thought that a number of concepts were conveyed well: "uncertainty has a major effect on farm decisions"; "in the short term, farmers forgo substantial crop income by planting trees"; and "planting trees restricts future farm decision-making flexibility". However, a number of other concepts were not so well conveyed: "tree-based enterprises are unprofitable for farmers in the Eastern Wheatbelt", and "it is crucial for farmers to know whether their salinity problem is on-farm or catchment-based".
At the first workshop conducted, in Geraldton, there was a harvest value given to trees that players could utilise. This enabled trees to yield dollars in a way that is inconsistent with any current tree-based enterprise in the Eastern Wheatbelt. This probably contributed to the concept of the unprofitability of tree-based enterprises not being conveyed particularly well. It can be seen from the examples of hectares of trees planted and final net worth for players shown in Table 5 that it is certainly not clear to the players whether trees are profitable or not. Players in Group A might perceive that they are not profitable, but that would not be an easy conclusion to draw from the figures for Group B. The final results are certainly driven by other farm management decisions, principally cropping and input decisions, as well as decisions on planting trees. In following workshops in Merredin and Moora the game was changed so that trees did not have any harvest value.
The game was not particularly successful in demonstrating the additional difficulties faced by farmers in a situation where their salinity problem is affected by the action of other farmers in the catchment. Players in the catchment groups complained that they couldn’t get any ‘feel’ for how their actions were affecting the catchment, or how other player’s actions were affecting their results. Although this is a reflection of real life it probably isn’t helpful for the game. However, in two of the three workshops the players in the catchment groups played the game markedly differently to the rest of the players who were playing individual games.
Table 4. Participants’ perceptions of how well key concepts were conveyed.
Percentage of participants (n=48) |
|||
| Concept ¯ Conveyed ® | Not at all |
Not well |
Well |
| Tree-based enterprises are unprofitable for farmers in the Eastern Wheatbelt | 8 |
26 |
66 |
| Planting trees restricts future farm decision-making flexibility | 4 |
10 |
86 |
| It is crucial for farmers to know whether their salinity problem is on-farm or catchment-based | 12 |
38 |
50 |
| Uncertainty has a major affect on farm decisions | 0 |
2 |
98 |
| In the short term, farmers forgo substantial crop income by planting trees | 0 |
10 |
90 |
The effect of the catchment scenarios on players
In both the Geraldton and Merredin workshops the players designated as being in a "catchment group" planted, on average, more trees than individual players. In the Geraldton workshop they planted 2/3rds of the total area planted to trees by all the players. One of the groups (A) had no agreement about what they should do, while the other (B) had an informal agreement that they would all try to plant a minimum of 100 hectares of trees (this was ascertained from them in the final discussions). Interestingly, 2 players in Group A planted only 100 hectares of trees while the other 2 players planted many more hectares. At the end of the game the 2 players who only planted 100 ha of trees had a higher net worth than the other 2 players (see Table 5). The concept of the ‘free-rider’ was nicely demonstrated and discussed with the workshop participants, although the players argued that they had perhaps managed their farms more effectively in other ways - which is certainly possible. Either way, it reflects real-world dilemmas and interpretations. Players in Group B, without the agreement, seemed to be trying to plant more trees. It seems likely that there was perceived peer pressure at work within these catchment groups.
A similar situation was observed at the Merredin workshop. Eight players in the two catchment groups planted a total of 2544 hectares of trees, while 16 players playing individual games planted a total of 2085 hectares (see Table 6). The peer pressure ‘to plant trees’ perceived by players in the catchment groups was evident in the final discussions. One player said "I felt ripped off because I had to plant trees and others were not and making heaps of money and laughing at us." At the Moora workshop, however, this peer pressure was not evident. In this case the individual players planted more trees than the catchment group (7 players planted 1300 trees, catchment of 4 planted 460). This workshop was possibly too small in total numbers to allow the necessary interactions and competitive nature of the game to develop.
Table 5. Geraldton workshop: hectares of trees planted and final net worth of players in a catchment group situation
Group A |
Group B |
||||
| Trees (ha) | Net Worth $’000 | Trees (ha) | Net Worth $’000 | ||
| Player 1 | 100 |
948 |
Player 1 | 154 |
508 |
| Player 2 | 180 |
750 |
Player 2 | 150 |
779 |
| Player 3 | 230 |
535 |
Player 3 | 180 |
818 |
| Player 4 | 100 |
944 |
Player 4 | 200 |
705 |
| Total trees | 610 |
684 |
|||
| Average Net Worth | 794 |
702.5 |
|||
Table 6. Merredin workshop: hectares of trees planted and final net worth of players in a catchment group situation
Group C |
Group D |
||||
| Trees (ha) | Net Worth $’000 | Trees (ha) | Net Worth $’000 | ||
| Player 1 | 324 |
485 |
Player 1 | 300 |
492 |
| Player 2 | 360 |
342 |
Player 2 | 300 |
87 |
| Player 3 | 360 |
90 |
Player 3 | 300 |
390 |
| Player 4 | 300 |
473 |
Player 4 | 300 |
206 |
| Total trees | 1344 |
1200 |
|||
| Average Net Worth | 347.5 |
293.8 |
|||
What did we learn?
The workshop environment promotes a good learning environment for the facilitators as well as the players, and much useful feedback about the game is provided. There is a lot of input from players, both informally in conversations throughout the day and formally through the evaluation sheets. Many suggestions made by players are subsequently incorporated into the game. A consequence of these three Salty Business workshops was a realisation by the facilitators that the hydrology underlying the model was inadequate to illustrate the concepts we were trying to convey. The model is currently being re-structured to allow the game to more accurately represent the effect of farming activities on groundwater use.
Conclusions
There is clear evidence to suggest that Salty Business workshops provide an enjoyable and effective learning environment for agricultural professionals to gain an understanding about a range of issues, including:
Many of the key concepts that the workshops were attempting to convey to players were identified by participants asked, in an ‘open question’ format, about their learning from the workshops. A degree of unmanaged learning occurs because of the range of backgrounds of people at the workshops, but the richness of experience and ideas brought to the workshop format by the participants more than compensates for this.
It appears that the workshops inadvertently demonstrated the ability of peer pressure to motivate people to act in a way that they might not do otherwise. In two out of the three workshops, players designated as being in catchment groups planted substantially more hectares to trees than other players. This appeared to be in response to a perceived expectation that they should plant trees. In one case, the group arrived at an informal agreement to plant a certain amount of trees. The Landcare movement has been demonstrated to have an effect on awareness of, and farmer attitudes to, sustainable land use (Alexander, 1995; Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). Observations of the behaviour of participants in the workshop provide some circumstantial evidence that supports the notion of catchment and Landcare groups motivating farmer actions as well as attitudes.
The workshops effectively demonstrated some limitations of the game in its current format, to the extent that some extensive re-structuring of the model underlying Salty Business is currently being undertaken. Despite this, the workshops could be done again tomorrow using the existing format and our experience suggests that it would still be a successful and worthwhile exercise.
Acknowledgments
The author has spent many hours both before and after Salty Business workshops in the company of Ross Kingwell, Steven Schilizzi, David Pannell, Amir Abadi and Vanessa Stewart, and acknowledges their creative enthusiasm for the game concept and contributions to the ideas and material in this paper.
The author gratefully acknowledges funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation for this work conducted as part of the ‘Sustainability and Economics in Agriculture’ project. Funding to assist in running the workshops was provided by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.
References
Alexander, H. 1995. A Framework for Change: The State of the Community Landcare Movement in Australia. The National Landcare Facilitator Project. Annual Report, Canberra.
Anonymous. 1996. Salinity: A Situation Statement for Western Australia. A Report to the Minister for Primary Industry and Minister for the Environment, WA Government.
Anonymous. 1998. Western Australian Salinity Action Plan: Draft Update 1998. Government of Western Australia.
Bartle, J.R. 1999. "The New Hydrology: New Challenges for Landcare and Tree Crops". Proceedings, WA BankWest Landcare Conference: Where Community Counts, Esperance, WA, 8-10 Sept. 1999, pp. 52-64.
Bender, R.E., McCormick, R.W., Woodin, R.J., Cunningham, C.J. and Wolf, W.H. 1972. Adult Education in Agriculture. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio.
George, R.J., Nulsen, R.A., Ferdowsian, R., and Raper, P. 1999. "Interactions between trees and groundwaters in recharge and discharge areas - a survey of Western Australian sites". Agricultural Water Management, 39: 91-113.
Knowles, J. 1984. The Adult Learner: A neglected species. Third edition. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
Pannell, D.J. (1998). Landcare and the adoption of sustainable farming systems, Proceedings, Profitable and Sustainable Farming Systems - Where are the $?, Marcus Oldham College, Geelong, Victoria, 2-3 July 1998. (SEA Working Paper 98/02, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia) abstract. full paper (59K).
Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. 1995. The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture. Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton, Queensland.
Citation: Marsh, S.P. (1999). Salty Business: A game to illustrate concepts about managing risk in a salt-affected farmland catchment, SEA Working Paper 99/10, Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia.
The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews