IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v35y2018i1d10.1007_s10460-017-9801-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ perceptions of coexistence between agriculture and a large scale coal seam gas development

Author

Listed:
  • Neil I. Huth

    (CSIRO)

  • Brett Cocks

    (CSIRO)

  • Neal Dalgliesh

    (Dalgliesh Agriculture)

  • Perry L. Poulton

    (CSIRO)

  • Oswald Marinoni

    (CSIRO)

  • Javier Navarro Garcia

    (CSIRO)

Abstract

The Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction industry is developing rapidly within the Surat Basin in southern Queensland, Australia, with licenses already approved for tenements covering more than 24,000 km2. Much of this land is used for a broad range of agricultural purposes and the need for coexistence between the farm and gas industries has been the source of much conflict. Whilst much research has been undertaken into the environmental and economic impacts of CSG, little research has looked into the issues of coexistence between farmers and the CSG industry in the shared space that is a farm business, a home and a resource extraction network. We conducted three workshops with farmers from across a broad region undergoing CSG development to explore farmers’ perceptions of some of the issues arising from large scale land use change. Workshops explored the importance of place identity and landscape aesthetics for farmers, farmers’ acceptance and coping with change, and possible benefits from off-farm income. We found that farmers believed that place identity was not well understood by CSG staff from non-rural backgrounds and that farmers struggled to explain some concerns because of the different way they interpreted their landscape. Furthermore, high staff turnover, and the extensive use of contractors also impacted on communications. These factors were the cause of much frustration and farmers felt that this has led to severe impacts on mental health and wellbeing. Farmers felt that a change in culture within the CSG companies will be required if engagement with farmers is to improve and that efforts to employ local people in these communications was helping this. The workshops also identified a range of issues perceived by farmers arising from increased traffic volumes, impacts to mental health and wellbeing, place identity and loss of water resources for farmers. Finally, it was suggested that scientists and agricultural industry groups will need to work closely with farmers to develop understanding of these emerging issues and to develop solutions that are timely and relevant.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil I. Huth & Brett Cocks & Neal Dalgliesh & Perry L. Poulton & Oswald Marinoni & Javier Navarro Garcia, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions of coexistence between agriculture and a large scale coal seam gas development," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 99-115, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:35:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-017-9801-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-017-9801-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-017-9801-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-017-9801-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lim-Applegate, Hazel & Rodriguez, Gil & Olfert, M. Rose, 1997. "Determinants of non-farm labour participation rates among farmers in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-14.
    2. McKay, D.H., 1967. "The Small-Farm Problem In Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Carberry, P. S. & Hochman, Z. & McCown, R. L. & Dalgliesh, N. P. & Foale, M. A. & Poulton, P. L. & Hargreaves, J. N. G. & Hargreaves, D. M. G. & Cawthray, S. & Hillcoat, N. & Robertson, M. J., 2002. "The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 141-177, October.
    4. Rob Burton, 2012. "Understanding Farmers' Aesthetic Preference for Tidy Agricultural Landscapes: A Bourdieusian Perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 51-71.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sahar Daghagh Yazd & Sarah Ann Wheeler & Alec Zuo, 2019. "Key Risk Factors Affecting Farmers’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    2. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    3. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    4. Kym Anderson & Peter Lloyd & Donald Maclaren, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Australia Since World War II," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(263), pages 461-482, December.
    5. Crudeli, Luca & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Pitoro, Raul, 2022. "Beyond individualistic behaviour: Social norms and innovation adoption in rural Mozambique," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. Hochman, Zvi & Horan, Heidi & Reddy, D. Raji & Sreenivas, Gade & Tallapragada, Chiranjeevi & Adusumilli, Ravindra & Gaydon, Don & Singh, Kamalesh K. & Roth, Christian H., 2017. "Smallholder farmers managing climate risk in India: 1. Adapting to a variable climate," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 54-66.
    7. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Poussin, Jean-Christophe & Diallo, Youssouf & Legoupil, Jean-Claude, 2006. "Improved collective decision-making in action for irrigated rice farmers in the Senegal River Valley," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 299-323, September.
    9. Le Gal, P.-Y. & Dugué, P. & Faure, G. & Novak, S., 2011. "How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 714-728.
    10. Vayssières, Jonathan & Bocquier, François & Lecomte, Philippe, 2009. "GAMEDE: A global activity model for evaluating the sustainability of dairy enterprises. Part II - Interactive simulation of various management strategies with diverse stakeholders," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 139-151, July.
    11. Higgins, Andrew, 2006. "Scheduling of road vehicles in sugarcane transport: A case study at an Australian sugar mill," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 987-1000, May.
    12. Harris, S.F., 1970. "Farm Adjustment And The Role Of Government," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Chang, Hung-Hao & Boisvert, Richard N., 2009. "Does Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program and/or Off-Farm Work Affect the Level and Distribution of Farm Household Income?," Working Papers 57035, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    14. Sterk, B. & van Ittersum, M.K. & Leeuwis, C. & Rossing, W.A.H. & van Keulen, H. & van de Ven, G.W.J., 2006. "Finding niches for whole-farm design models - contradictio in terminis?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 211-228, February.
    15. Thysen, Iver & Detlefsen, Nina K., 2006. "Online decision support for irrigation for farmers," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 269-276, December.
    16. Higgins, Andrew & Antony, George & Sandell, Gary & Davies, Ian & Prestwidge, Di & Andrew, Bill, 2004. "A framework for integrating a complex harvesting and transport system for sugar production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 99-115, November.
    17. Kimty Seng, 2015. "Welfare Effects of Diversification on Farm Households in Cambodia," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2645-2663.
    18. Anderson, Kym & Lattimore, Ralph G. & Lloyd, Peter J. & MacLaren, Donald, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Australia and New Zealand," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10407, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. John Strauser & William P. Stewart, 2023. "Landscape Performance: Farmer Interactions across Spatial Scales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-19, September.
    20. Phelan, David C. & Harrison, Matthew T. & McLean, Greg & Cox, Howard & Pembleton, Kieth G. & Dean, Geoff J. & Parsons, David & do Amaral Richter, Maria E. & Pengilley, Georgie & Hinton, Sue J. & Moham, 2018. "Advancing a farmer decision support tool for agronomic decisions on rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping in Tasmania," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 113-124.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:35:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-017-9801-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.