Factores relacionados con la población estudiada

The comparison of the findings with scientific evidence, practice and wider policy has a range of policy and research implications. The separation of corridor design from corridor management in the analysis has allowed assumptions to be revealed, and in turn identifies a need for further research and recommendations for improved design and management of riparian corridors. In essence the core issue raised is that there is a focus on outputs by all parties involved, for example the

implementation of fencing and planting resulting in a riparian corridor, rather than a focus on the

outcomes of the implementation, for example the effectiveness of the corridor providing a range of

83

7.4.1

Implications for Industry Practice and Public Policy

This research gave insight into the experiences farmers had in implementing the industry practices for riparian corridors that are outlined in the Accord. There are a range of implications for both practice and wider public policy.

The need for continuing management and maintenance to ensure riparian functions receives very little attention in either industry practice guidelines or wider public policy. The findings suggest this is also true in the informants’ own management. Further research is needed to determine ways in which public policy and practice guidelines such as the Accord can ensure that farmers are managing their riparian corridors on a continuing basis to provide the functions needed to ensure water quality and ecological habitats. Allen et al. (2002) suggest the success of policy objectives depends on the co- operation of different societal groups and a shared understanding to be fostered between them. For corridor design and management to be completed in such a way that long-term outcomes are achieved, a framework that provides for it needs to be implemented (Allen et al., 2002). Empowerment of people is key, therefore if an understanding of farmers worldviews are not considered it is likely to limit the success of policy outcomes (Duncan, 2014).

The way the Accord evaluates its own success could provide an opportunity for this. If in addition to the linear extent of stock exclusion, the Accord also asked for monitoring of effectiveness of stock exclusion in improving water quality, it would provide farmers with the scientific information they want and encourage a management culture of continual review and improvement. It would also give a more accurate portrayal of the Accord’s long-term success. A way of integrating this into the current actions farmers are taking could be to make Farm Environment Plans extend beyond corridor design to include a strategy for monitoring of instream conditions and values. This approach could also help to shift farmers’ aesthetic values by giving them an understanding of what management is needed to improve water quality. As FEPs have recently become a requirement for dairy farmers under the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (2015), there is also the opportunity for this approach to be part of wider policy.

7.4.2

Implications for Science

Four notable implications for science have arisen in this discussion. Firstly, there is a need for further research into the ability of the current riparian corridor design actions of farmers to provide habitat functions. The findings suggest the informants assume that small rural waterways have less of a role in aquatic habitat functions, and this needs to be critically examined. Secondly, improved

understanding of aesthetic values that support the functions for improved water quality and habitat functions could be helpful in improving informants’ corridor design and evaluation of corridor design

84 success. A third implication is the need for monitoring to give farmers feedback on the functions that the riparian corridors are providing. This could be done through programmes which provide farmers with the ability to personally monitor their waterways, though this could be questioned due to the added time and effort. Alternatively, monitoring could be provided from outside sources.

There is also an assumption among the informants that design actions result in corridor function. Management techniques and actions used by informants are not for water quality but for farm-based aspects such as weed management and aesthetics. These are a consequence of design rather than an integral part of the overall long-term design-and -management of the riparian corridor. This suggests a need for research into education processes to inform farmers of the requirements of management and how to manage for function as well as their own priorities such as flow maintenance, weed containment and aesthetics.

Information is an essential factor to promote a change in behaviour and provide the support of sound decision-making. However it is also important to note that to only consider information in regards to its transfer, for example guidelines, fails to acknowledge the system as a whole. (Allen et al., 2002) suggest that if the behaviour of a group of people is hoped to be altered (in this case the continued management of riparian corridors), then linear transfers of information and education such as workshops are unlikely to succeed in promoting change. Duncan (2014) argues that “out-of- sync problem framing” should not be dismissed as a lack of understanding of science or recognition of effects on water quality by farmers. This interpretation fails to consider farmers’ perspectives of reality which are important to the implementation of corridor design and essentially expectation for long-term management. Long-term management of corridors needs information and education to go beyond policy aims and guidelines to consider the perspective of the individuals implementing, designing and managing the corridor. The focus needs to be on the outcomes rather than the output.