This article is based on an exploratory study by Susan A. Moore (School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University (South Street, Murdoch, 6150 WA, Australia. Tel: +61-8 9360 6484, Fax: +61-8 9360 6787, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org ) and Stephen Renton (NSW Farmer's Association, GPO Box 1068, Sydney, 2001 NSW, Australia). The study arose from a view that ‘more’ extension is not necessarily better and that deeper insights were needed into the specific (rather than presumed) information needs of landholders, particularly where varying levels of environmental awareness may exist.
Remnant vegetation, landholders’ values and information needs: An exploratory study in the West Australian wheatbelt
Version of Record online: 18 SEP 2008
Ecological Management & Restoration
Volume 3, Issue 3, pages 179–187, December 2002
How to Cite
Moore, S. A. and Renton, S. (2002), Remnant vegetation, landholders’ values and information needs: An exploratory study in the West Australian wheatbelt. Ecological Management & Restoration, 3: 179–187. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-8903.2002.00111.x
- Issue online: 18 SEP 2008
- Version of Record online: 18 SEP 2008
- environmental awareness;
- nature conservation;
- remnant vegetation;
- traditional ecological knowledge
Summary An exploratory study of landholders in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia provides a useful snapshot of values, uses, management, information sources and requirements of landholders in relation to remnant native vegetation in agricultural landscapes. Landholders valued their remnant vegetation for ecological, aesthetic, functional and community reasons. Most actively managed it for nature conservation, although almost half grazed stock in their remnants. In terms of information sources and needs, the most widely used sources were Community Landcare Coordinators, other landholders and government departments. Landholders wanted hydrological, weed control and biodiversity information, plus a suite of other information. A third of landholders were characterized as having a broad, ecosystem-based awareness compared to the other two-thirds who had a more limited, site-based awareness. Each group had different information needs. These findings have clear implications for information provision to landholders.