Quality, management and value to landholders of remnant vegetation in the box-ironbark region of Victoria

Since European settlement of Australia, forest cover has been reduced from 10 to 5 % of the continent, woodland cover from 23 to 15 %, and in Victoria, forests and woodlands have been reduced from 75 to 33 % of the state's area. The Box-Ironbark ecosystem is a major vegetation type, stretching from Wodonga to Stawell, and was the centre of activity in the Victorian gold rush of the 1850s. Mining and agriculture have led to the clearance of 75 % of the original 1 Mha of the Box-Ironbark in northern Victoria. Of the 250,000 ha remaining, 15 % is located on private land, and 85 % on public land. The private land remnants are often smaller, isolated, and affected by surrounding land use. A recent Department of Natural Resources and Environment report identified that some of the best examples of some habitat types can be found on private land. This research seeks to attain an understanding of the values and concerns of landholders with respect to their remnant vegetation, and to understand the quantity and quality of remnants on private land, so as to better manage remnants in the future. A mail survey was sent to 552 landholders, receiving a 70 % response rate. The survey requested information regarding habitat quantity and quality, values and concerns about remnant vegetation, landholders contact with agencies, and demographics. In order to assess remnant quality, nine components of habitat quality which landholders could easily identify and grade for abundance were chosen to give an integrated numerical rating of habitat quality. The mail survey found that some 65 % of landholders managed Box-Ironbark remnants, and these approximated 4 % of the total private land. Results indicate that 50 % of the Box- Ironbark remnants had been impacted by grazing or other disturbance, 10 % of this severely, with approximately 20-50 % of Box-Ironbark remnants of moderate to high quality. The size of the remnant had the largest impact on habitat quality, with larger remnants generally being of higher quality. With regard to landholder values and concerns, results demonstrate that landholders hold mainly utilitarian values for their remnant vegetation, such as erosion control and water table protection. However, habitat and wildlife values were also held, especially among landholders with smaller properties and those with a higher level of education. One third of landholders believe remnant vegetation lifts production on their properties. Weeds, pests, and fire were the main concerns of landholders regarding Box-Ironbark remnants. Three quarters of landholders would not consider clearing any of their remnant vegetation, and 92 % would not consider clearing all or a large part of their remnant. Landholders on larger properties clearly value funding for on-ground works more than demonstrations and provision of technical advice, and this was also demonstrated in that they value the Land Protection Incentive Scheme and Landcare as the most useful programs. Those on smaller properties value the provision of technical advise more, and Land For Wildlife is the most highly regarded program. Other programs were relatively unknown to landholders. Findings demonstrate that landholders can be divided into two general groups according to property size. Those with larger properties would benefit from incentives as the remnant vegetation may be an economic hindrance. Education on the benefits that remnant vegetation can provide the property would also be worthwhile. Landholders with smaller properties are less concerned with productivity, and utilise the remnant for recreation and lifestyle. This group would benefit more from a program of education on best management of remnant vegetation