Trialling a web-based spatial information management tool with Land Managers in Victoria, Australia

Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Trialling a web-based spatial information management tool with Land Managers in Victoria, Australia Anna M. Roberts a, *,1, Geoff Park b, Alice R. Melland c, 2, Ian Miller d a

Department of Primary Industries, RMB 1145 Rutherglen, Victoria 3685, Australia North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Victoria 3551, Australia c Teagasc, Johnstown Castle Environmental Research Centre, Wexford, Co. Wexford, Ireland d Spatial Vision Level 2, 170 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 February 2009 Received in revised form 1 September 2009 Accepted 10 September 2009 Available online 13 October 2009

A prototype web-based spatial information management tool (called eFarmer) was tested for its useability and usefulness by 46 Land Managers and 5 extension staff in Victoria, Australia. Participants had a range of enterprises (dairy, beef/sheep grazing, cropping, lifestyle land use), property sizes and computer ownership and expertise. A follow up study was conducted with 12 dairy farmers, where features regarding assessment of nutrient losses from paddocks (Farm Nutrient Loss Index, FNLI) were added to eFarmer. Over 27,000 maps (including 11,000 with aerial photography) were accessed by Land Managers during a 5-month trial period. Despite limited training and support, 1350 people are registered users, and approximately 700 have actively used the tool. Reasons for the success include providing improved access to spatial information, enabling measurement of farm features and creation of farm maps, providing a basis for decision-making about farm inputs, support for better farm and landscape scale action planning and production and Land Managers being able to seek management advice from the extension staff who facilitated eFarmer testing programs. For dairy farmers in the FNLI trial, awareness of off-site impacts increased and most changed management practices. Provision of on-going training and support will be at least as important as further development of the tool itself. Web-based spatial information tools have potential to improve the awareness of Land Managers about their environmental impacts and influence their decision-making. Access to spatial information has potential to reduce information asymmetry between Land Managers, extension staff and catchment planners in a constructive way. It will also change the role of extension staff away from being an expert with answers, to a facilitator enabling learning. Results have applicability in countries where there is a high level of farm computer ownership, relevant spatial information is available in GIS format, where governments are happy to make spatial information available to the public and there is pressure for increased environmental awareness and improved decision making by Land Managers. Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Catchment Computer EMS Environment Environmental impacts Farm Farmer Region

1. Introduction Scientific knowledge has helped to increase agricultural production and with the advent of the worldwide web, information technology (IT) has significant potential to help Land Managers make better decisions (Thysen, 2000). Whilst Land Managers in developed countries such as Australia have high levels of computer ownership (McCown, 2001), adoption of computer-based decision

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 260 304581; fax þ61 260 304600. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Roberts), geoff.park@ nccma.vic.gov.au (G. Park), [email protected] (A.R. Melland), ian.miller@ spatialvision.com.au (I. Miller). 1 Formerly known as Anna M. Ridley. 2 Present address. Formerly at Department of Primary Industries.

support systems (DSS) remains disappointing (Ascough et al., 1999; Hayman and Easdown, 2002; McCown, 2001; Thysen, 2000). Agricultural decision making is complex (Fountas et al., 2006). Most Land Managers are time limited, and will make decisions regardless of the aids available. A Decision Support System (DSS) must therefore be more valuable than current methods, and its adoption must be relatively easy (Pannell et al., 2006; Stuth et al., 1993; Thysen, 2000). Reasons for poor adoption include difference in thinking between developers and Land Managers, limited user involvement in development, poor functionality, lack of relevance to decision making (particularly the importance of local context and sufficiently fine spatial resolution) and lack of training and support (McCown, 2001; Stuth et al., 2002). Two examples of successful computer DSS tools are WHEATMAN in Australia (Hayman and Easdown, 2002) and NUTBAL in the

0301-4797/$ – see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.021

524

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

United States (Stuth et al., 2002). WHEATMAN assists Land Managers to make better winter cropping decisions and NUTBAL calculates animal nutritional requirements. Both had over 14 years of development and testing at the time of evaluation. NUTBAL’s success was attributed to its ease of access to input data, early involvement of target users, extensive analysis of the decision environment, and training support (Stuth et al., 2002). Similar reasons were cited for WHEATMAN, namely well-designed software, a team approach, access to hardware and end user involvement (Hayman and Easdown, 2002). Using DSS to help improve Land Managers’ decisions to reduce environmental impacts is much more difficult than to help with onfarm production/profitability as have been the focus of previously reported work (Jensen, 2001; M arus¸ter et al., 2008; Stuth et al., 2002) because most environmental DSS are unlikely to have direct production benefits. Information Technology will become more important to help measure, report on and predict agriculture’s impacts on the environment (Thysen, 2000) and in particular spatial data has potential to educate producers and other stakeholders about off-site management impacts. Worldwide, the policy agenda for land use is increasingly concerned with environmental management and responsibility is being devolved to regional bodies often defined on watersheds/ catchments (Gutrich et al., 2005; Manderson et al., 2007; Valentine et al., 2007). In this context Land Managers are only one of the stakeholder groups (Matthews et al. 2008). Broadening the functionality of DSS to provide relevant farm-level information to policy makers and other stakeholders is important (Podesta´ et al., 2002). With the above background, the aims of this study, conducted in Victoria, south-eastern Australia were to:  Test a web-based spatial information management tool for use by Land Managers as a DSS to help with farm planning, in particular the potential to increase awareness about the off-site impacts of agriculture  Assess the computer tool’s usefulness and useability for target audiences  Consider the implications for Land Managers, extension staff and government agencies of future investment into the DSS 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Design of the pilot web-based system Prior to development, workshops were conducted with stakeholders (including the state government funder, extension and Catchment Management Authority (CMA) staff), in which requirements were discussed. From these, the prototype was developed which included functional descriptions, sources of data, roles and security and report specifications. This design was distributed for review and comment and was revised until agreed upon, from which the system was then developed. 2.1.1. Design goals Several factors guided the choice of technologies used in the development of a web-based information management tool (hereafter called eFarmer) and associated functionality and data: a) Because eFarmer was designed as a prototype, we required the minimum and lowest cost functionality to achieve the trial objectives, after which decisions would be made about investment into more widespread application b) Free or open source software were used when possible to reduce the costs for organisations that might host and maintain the application in the future

c) To facilitate the integration and sharing of information from participating organisations, open GIS standards such as the Web Map Service (WMS) were used for access to spatial information, rather than proprietary standards that would restrict access. The use of open GIS standards enabled eFarmer to easily include spatial datasets from other organisations d) Because we aimed to demonstrate the potential of the tool to provide rich map-based data and functionality, design was not constrained to the lowest common denominator of technology currently available in Australian rural areas but to cater for the level of technology expected to be generally available in the medium term (2–5 years), namely broadband internet connection e) Given the widespread availability of commercial farm management software systems, eFarmer was designed to complement these. Hence it focussed on environmental management with only basic productivity management capabilities.

2.1.2. Web-delivery The application was designed to run in a web browser on the user’s computer. The application code and data were held on a centrally located server where it could be accessed from any broadband-connected computer. Most textual and spatial data were stored using an Oracle RDBMS, with spatial data held using Oracle’s native spatial data type, SDO_GEOMETRY (http://www. oracle.com/technology/products/spatial/index.html, accessed 24 February 2009). Aerial photography and other geo-referenced imagery and raster datasets were held in disk files and more recently, directly drawn from image web servers maintained by the state government and which could serve imagery using the WMS standard upon which eFarmer mapping was built (http://www. opengeospatial.org/standards/wms, accessed 24 February 2009). The eFarmer application used Java EE (Java Enterprise Edition) (http://java.sun.com/javaee/technologies/, accessed 24 February 2009) comprising a series of Java Server Pages and underlying Java classes served by the Tomcat Java Application Server. The open source Java Server Faces framework provided the presentation layer whilst the Hibernate data persistence framework was used for the database access layer. The eFarmer mapping framework was built using the Internet Mapping Framework (IMF) software from Moxi Media (http:// www.moximedia.com/imf_ogc.html, accessed 24 February 2009). This customisable Java framework provided the mapping screens and functions in eFarmer, whilst the underlying spatial services were provided by two open source products; MapServer (http:// mapserver.gis.umn.edu/, accessed 24 February 2009) which drew the map images and GeoServer (http://geoserver.org/display/ GEOS/Welcome, accessed 24 February 2009) which provided spatial queries, including the ability to create and update spatial features. The commercially available Crystal Reports software (http://www.businessobjects.com/product/catalog/crystalreports/, accessed 24 February 2009) provided the ability to define and publish reports into eFarmer, using its Java Reporting Component. This architecture was acceptable to the Victorian state government and their IT standards. The application was hosted for the pilot by a private company (Spatial Vision), but a requirement of being funded by the Victorian government was that it should be developed using software which would enable the government to take over its hosting in the future if warranted. The minimum requirements for a user to access eFarmer were:  A computer with a screen capable of XGA (1024  768) resolution  Web browser software, either Internet Explorer 5.5, Firefox 1.5 or later

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

 Adobe Reader software installed to view eFarmer reports as PDF documents  A Broadband internet connection with a speed of at least 256 KBit/sec (ie at least an ADSL connection), with 512 KBit/sec being desirable 2.1.3. Data storage The central server held all of the data. This included information entered by Land Managers about their property, government supplied map data layers including property boundaries, roads, hydrology, vegetation information and aerial photography. The detailed map information required more than 20 GB of disk space. Although accessing centrally held data had the drawback of requiring a fast, reliable internet connection, benefits included the ability to access a large amount of centrally updateable map data and the capacity to aggregate property level information (subject to authorisation) to produce summary information. The use of a webdelivered, centrally maintained application also significantly reduced the requirements on users regarding computer power as well as the complexity of deploying, installing and updating a local computer application. 2.1.4. Functionality and security considerations Users of eFarmer were assigned a specific access level and role when they were registered. There were four access levels – Land Manager, Extension Officer, Catchment Planner and Administrator. The relationships between the levels of data able to be viewed and edited by Land Managers, Extension Officers and Catchment Planners are shown in Fig. 1. The most common role was that of a Land Manager who could enter details of their property including paddocks, current and target vegetation type (land cover), threats, actions, plans and general infrastructure such as sheds, tracks and fences. Land Managers were only able to see their own information. eFarmer provided Land Managers with various tools and data, especially map data such as aerial photography and vegetation information, to assist them with their property management and planning. Whilst Land Managers could not modify corporate data information/layers which they believed not to represent reality on their property (such as an incorrect vegetation type), they could re-classify their own vegetation (for example) layer differently from the corporate layers. Within the pilot application, there was no quality assurance mechanism to check and update data layers, but this would be straightforward to do.

525

Extension Officers were able to view but not modify the property details for any Land Manager unless they were given permission by the Land Manager. Catchment Planner functionality included entering environmental targets for their CMA region. Catchment Planners could not see detailed property information but could develop reports to provide aggregated summary information. The Catchment Planner role was not evaluated in this paper. Finally, Administrators had extensive access to eFarmer data including the ability to register users, view all landholder data, aggregate data and generate summary reports from multiple properties and landscapes. 2.1.5. Additional functionality – the Farm Nutrient Loss Index Following testing of the pilot application for useability and usefulness (see section 2.2. below), the Murray Goulburn Co-operative (the largest milk processing company in Australia, www.mgc. com.au, accessed 24 February 2009) were keen to explore whether eFarmer was useful to help raise their suppliers’ awareness about the impact of dairy farming activities on the environment, particularly the potential for nutrient loss. Dairy production in Australia and New Zealand is under scrutiny for its environmental impacts, particularly eutrophication, and there is a fear of increasing regulation unless impacts are reduced (Drewry et al., 2006; Gourley et al., 2007). A tool called the Farm Nutrient Loss Index (FNLI) was previously developed to help Land Managers assess the risk of nutrient loss (Department of Primary Industries, 2007). The FNLI was designed for use by farmers and farm advisors at the paddock-scale and required information that was readily available to the farmer. Some of the required information could also be provided via corporate datasets (eg soil type) or from external sources (such as soil test results from analytical laboratories). The FNLI was thus considered conceptually compatible with the scale and Land Manager focus of eFarmer to be incorporated into the prototype for testing of increasing awareness of off-site environmental impacts. Additional features were added to eFarmer to support the FNLI trial:  Ability to record paddock-based information for the relevant factors that had an impact on nutrient loss risk  Batch editing capability for the additional factors to reduce the data entry effort, especially when a farm had a large number of similar paddocks  Ability to import soil test results and fertiliser application details which were then used to automatically compute the results for relevant factors

Fig. 1. Functionality of eFarmer, level of access for user types (Land Manager, Extension Officer and Catchment Planner) and phase of data entry/analysis.

526

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

 Implementation of the FNLI algorithm which used the results, along with a number of factor-weights, to calculate the relative nutrient loss risk for different ‘‘pathways’’ by which nutrients could be lost  Viewing of a ‘traffic light’ coloured map of the farm which showed the nutrient loss risk for a selected loss pathway  Report generation to list risks for all paddocks and pathways, including a description of the three most important factors influencing nutrient loss risk  Display on a map of the farm, details of soil test results and fertiliser application rates, including the ability to display the track of the fertiliser spreader machine, captured on a GPS logger Details of the additional participants and method used to evaluate eFarmer with the FNLI and other functionality is outlined in section 2.3. 2.2. Pilot testing of usefulness and useability of eFarmer 2.2.1. Details of participants eFarmer was initially tested by 51 individuals (5 Extension Officers and 46 Land Managers) across four of the 10 CMA regions in Victoria (14 Land Managers in North East, 10 in North Central, 6 in Goulburn Broken and 16 in West Gippsland) from July–November 2006. Land Managers were known to participating Extension Officers, and represented a range of farm sizes, enterprise types, genders and ages. Information about landholder demographics, computer ownership and computer skills were collected through a questionnaire (requiring multiple choice or ‘tick a box’ answers) filled out prior to participation. Land Managers in West Gippsland were from small sized (less than 100 ha), yet intensive farms (mostly dairy). Properties in the North Central region were largest (9 of the 10 participants had properties over 1000 ha in size) and supported mixed cropping and livestock enterprises. North East participants were mostly beef cattle producers with property sizes ranging from 100 to1000 ha. In contrast Goulburn Broken catchment participants were all parttime or ‘hobby’ farmers, who lived off the property (from several ha to up to 200 ha). Twelve had prior experience in pre-cursor Environmental Management Systems (EMS) programs. There were 29 male and 17 female Land Managers and most (74%) were aged between 40 and 59 years. Of the 5 extension staff, 3 were males and 2 females. Levels of computer ownership varied: Of the 46 Land Managers, 84% had at least a desktop computer, 35% had laptop computers. Of those who owned computers, 52% had broadband internet, the remainder having ‘dial up’ access. Computer skills varied similarly across regions; 45% of participants rated themselves as proficient or having advanced skills, 29% considered themselves competent, and 32% had either basic or no computer skills. 2.2.2. Training of Extension Officers and Land Managers The Extension Officers were trained through a one-day course delivered by the prototype developer. They were offered follow-up training and support via telephone and an online ‘help-desk’ and were encouraged to spend time becoming familiar with the tool. Half-day landholder training sessions were held in community centres or schools where broadband access and multiple computers were available. A project officer plus an Extension Officer ran these training sessions and helped participants as needed. Land Managers commonly attended two training sessions, except in West Gippsland, where the Extension Officer conducted 3 follow-up sessions with those interested. Land Managers were encouraged to use eFarmer at home, and to contact extension staff or the project officer if they required help.

2.2.3. Testing of usefulness and useability of eFarmer Land Managers were not tested for proficiency in use of all aspects of the tool. They had different levels of need and interests, and their applications were likely to be different. The idea of the pilot testing was to focus on how useable and useful eFarmer was viewed as being by participants however they decided to use it. Testing was conducted through several means. Session log books were filled out by Extension Officers during or immediately after group training sessions. A questionnaire was filled in by participants towards the end of the pilot. It contained a mixture of multiple choice rated responses and open-ended questions. In addition, semi-structured interviews were recorded on tape by the Extension Officer and later transcribed, with major themes extracted. No qualitative analytical software was used to analyse responses. Testing centred around four questions:  Is it a useable tool? Land Managers were asked how easy they found eFarmer to use and navigate their way around. They were also asked about training and support needs and major hindrances to use.  How could eFarmer be improved to increase useability?  How useful is eFarmer and what is it useful for?  How could eFarmer be made more useful? 2.3. Increasing awareness of nutrient losses from dairy farms through linking the FNLI to eFarmer Following the initial trial described above, the Murray Goulburn Co-operative dairy company encouraged 18 Gippsland dairy suppliers to participate in a project which aimed to assess whether the company (though its suppliers) could facilitate supplier reporting on environmental performance to the company and to the CMA using its internal software systems. Participants were put through a self-assessment process to raise their awareness of environmental issues prior to participating in the trial. The Murray Goulburn Co-operative wanted to build on existing supplier support structures (including field officer contact, and herd, milk quality and financial management software available for their suppliers called MGF@RM), and enable suppliers to capture farm environmental management data with as much ease and benefit to the supplier and as little ‘paperwork’ as possible. The company was keen to be proactive in reducing the threat of regulation by increasing supplier awareness of environmental impacts of farming and develop constructive relationships with the West Gippsland CMA for negotiating parameters for any future environmental reporting requirements. Incorporation of the FNLI tool into eFarmer provided a simple and practical means to progress both these objectives. An experienced Murray Goulburn field officer trained in the use of the FNLI, eFarmer and MGF@ARM worked with participants to provide support. Twelve of the 18 participants were interviewed over the phone by an independent party about their experiences in the project and subsequent changes in both practices and mindset. Participants were not restricted in the number of answers to the questions, hence responses reported often totaled more than 12. The questions reported on were:  What were the key drivers to participate?  Has access to the spatial information (maps, aerial photography etc.) been beneficial? In what ways?  Has access to information and general advice on land management issues been beneficial? In what ways?  What were the most useful aspects of participating (participants were prompted with a range of program activities and features)?

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

 What were the most useful aspects of eFarmer?  What features of the tool were used (participants were prompted on features and asked whether they used them themselves or with additional help?)  What extra features could be added to make eFarmer more useful?  How helpful was it to have access to an environmental field officer and why?  Did your knowledge of available tools in MGF@RM improve and would you be likely to use them again in the future?  Has participating influenced your farm practices?  Has participating changed the way you think about land management and water quality? If so how? Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were also held individually by the developer of the FNLI with 5 participants to specifically enquire about the usefulness of the FNLI component and how it was used. Questions used to prompt discussions were;  How did you use the FNLI? (participants were prompted with a range of features)  Did the risk outcomes surprise you? If yes, how/why?  How might you manage things differently after using the FNLI? (participants were prompted to think about nutrient, water and stock management practices) If no management changes were considered, why not?  How might the FNLI information be more useful to you? 2.4. Follow-up interest from farmers and catchment planners During the pilot there was considerable interest in eFarmer from other Land Managers, extension staff, government agencies and industry, despite no formal promotion. Interest came from within and outside of pilot regions in Victoria and interstate. It was not possible to provide support for individuals and groups, however, user accounts were established to enable access. Subsequent to the pilot, some additional training has been provided on an ad-hoc basis. 3. Testing of eFarmer 3.1. Testing for useability and usefulness 3.1.1. Useability Most commonly Land Managers reported that eFarmer was ‘OK’ to use but they required moderate assistance (44%). Quite a few found it easy to use (33%) and some required quite a lot of help (23%). Most (80%) felt that they had received adequate training and support. One-on-one support was important used in conjunction with group learning. The West Gippsland Extension Officer found that Land Managers could navigate their way through eFarmer well by the second session. Extension Officers who had a background in GIS software such as ArcView found eFarmer easier to use than those who had no previous GIS experience. All needed time to ‘fiddle around with it’. Most felt that a single day of training was insufficient, suggesting that 2 days training plus time using the tool, and provision of stepby-step notes would give them sufficient skills to train Land Managers. The need for access to Internet services and a reasonable connection speed to use eFarmer were seen as hindrances in some cases. Participants were able to access broadband during training sessions, however those who had slower ‘dial-up’ connections at home found internet speeds frustrating. Faults and glitches in the early stages made the program initially hard to use but this

527

improved as the pilot proceeded. Having responsive ‘help desk’ support was very important. Suggestions for improvements in useability by Land Managers were around the following themes: 1) Layout and appearance of the screen; 2) Improvement of specific functions/commands (especially the zoom, save and refresh functions); 3) Other general comments (double-click on a paddock to bring up paddock details, drop-down ‘help’ box, too much information to navigate through). Extension Officers also had the following suggestions to improve useability: 1) Simplify the tool (reduce options, tabs and symbols); 2) Develop a more logical and intuitive ‘flow’ and provide step-by-step instructions/notes; 3) Improve functionality (drawing polygons, selection of multiple paddocks, a number of issues associated with ‘saving’, the need for an ‘undo’ button, increasing the size of the mapping screen, the ability to make pasture types different colours); 4) Clarify or eliminate jargon. 3.1.2. Usefulness Land Managers found eFarmer to be a useful tool, with uses/ benefits including:  Access to spatial information (maps, satellite imagery, aerial photography) was a major benefit ‘it doesn’t cost as much as aerial photos and is more up-to-date’.  The ability to accurately measure paddock areas, useful for estimating fencing requirements, sowing and fertiliser rates, nutrient budgeting and estimating amounts of silage/hay to be cut ‘We’ve got a farm with about a three and a half kilometre river frontage, so it’s a very, very odd shape .. we don’t have any paddocks where we could accurately work out size.. we were really guessing with some of them as to what area was actually in them because it simply wasn’t possible to measure it unless you surveyed them’.  Experimenting with paddock layout, which was particularly useful if changing enterprise and needing to adjust property layout. ‘Being able to map the farm. It’s been useful in our planning, where we should be putting fences, banks and drains’.  Being able to visualise the property at a landscape level and develop scenarios for future property management actions.  For record keeping, management planning and decision-making. ‘.particularly the mapping part has had a big impact on the financial side of our operation. You can accurately sort of make decisions on seed or fertilizer. In the past I relied on guesstimations and you’re always either short of seed or you had a bit left over. For fertilizer we would order enough and then find we’d got to use a bit on another paddock just to finish it off - to get rid of it. It‘s made a big difference.’  Identifying areas of high risks (eg. waterlogging), threats (salinity) and for monitoring sites.  Assisting with strategic planning and reviewing of business activities. Extension Officers felt that eFarmer provided new and useful information to farmers. This included 1) Providing spatial layers and aerial photos not previously available; 2) Giving a new ‘view’ of the property as a landscape scale; 3) For Land Managers to be being able to access information directly rather than be reliant on an Extension Officer; 4) Be able to accurately measure paddock areas for a range of applications including nutrient budgeting, chemical application, yield estimation; 5) To print out maps for a range of uses. Of the 12 Land Managers who had prior exposure to precursor EMS schemes, 8 suggested that eFarmer would have been useful in the development of EMS. Extension Officers agreed that eFarmer would be useful to enhance farm planning, formalised EMS and production-oriented programs. Land Managers in the North Central region, particularly those already using production software packages felt eFarmer should be

528

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

linked to various production and agronomic software packages as these did not provide good mapping and visualisation. eFarmer was also felt to be useful for publicly funded project application development and monitoring. It could be linked to, or replace, current whole farm planning approaches, and also provided capability to monitor progress of projects and provide up-to-date maps for environmental groups (eg Landcare). Extension Officer suggestions were similar to those of Land Managers, with a caution against too much additional information that could lead to ‘information overload’. Usage of eFarmer during the trial period was high. A total of 27,000 maps (including 11,000 with aerial photography) were accessed by landholder participants during the 5-month testing period (July–November 2006). The majority of participants (60%) were keen to continue using it and felt confident in using the program on their own. Others were interested in continued use but did not feel fully confident. Only one participant thought the program was most beneficial for agency use. 3.2. FNLI testing 3.2.1. Key drivers for participating The top three reasons for participation in the eFarmer–FNLI pilot program were to gain a better understanding of environmental best practices (6 responses), to have input into developing a process for reporting environmental performance to the CMA (4 responses) and to gain access to electronic record keeping facilities (4 responses). 3.2.2. Access to the spatial information Eleven of the 12 participants in the FNLI pilot said they obtained benefits from spatial information. The other respondent already had access to such. The greatest benefits of having access to spatial information were as an accurate measuring tool (6 responses) and to assist farm management/planning (6 responses). 3.2.3. Access to land management advice and information Eleven participants found benefits in having access to land management advice and information. The remaining participant already had considerable knowledge. The most often mentioned beneficial land management advice/information was advice on fertiliser management (5 responses), access to or assistance from the CMA (4 responses), or obtaining additional advice on effluent management (2 responses). 3.2.4. Most useful aspects of participating in the program The four most useful parts of the program were fertiliser management advice (including prevention of nutrient loss) (4 responses), developing relationships with government bodies (3 responses), farm mapping tools (3 responses) and farm walks/ having contact with other participants (3 responses). Six participants said that knowledge of the MGF@RM program improved, and four were already competent. 3.2.5. Most useful aspects of eFarmer The most useful aspects of eFarmer were being able to map and measure parts of the farm (10 responses), fertiliser management (including nutrient budgeting and the FNLI, 6 responses) and electronic record keeping (5 responses). Mapping and measuring features provided immediate, practical benefits. One participant intended to give nutrient loss risk maps to contractors to help communicate a fertiliser spreading plan. 3.2.6. Features used and that could be added All participants used most features (Table 1). The majority (at least 10) used all features relating to soil testing, fertiliser use,

Table 1 Features of eFarmer used by twelve of the dairy farmer participants in the Farm Nutrient Loss Index trial in West Gippsland, Victoria. eFarmer feature used

Number of participants mentioning

Input property and paddock boundaries Input baseline land cover Input Farm Nutrient Loss Index information Prepare and print maps Select paddock details Prepare Farm Nutrient Loss Index and other reports Upload soil test and fertiliser information View layers Input Dairy Self Assessment Tool action plans Input hay and silage production information Fertiliser spreader and track maps

12 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 5 2 1

mapping and calculating the risk of nutrient losses. Most gained a reasonable understanding of the software and became comfortable entering and extracting data. Some required assistance to fully use and understand the functionality. The semi-structured interviews revealed that except for soil test information, the FNLI factors could be entered using the farmers’ knowledge. Whilst entering the information was time-consuming, it was easy to do after training. The FNLI results were used to challenge or add certainty to the farmers’ perceptions of nutrient loss risk. Participants interviewed could articulate why they disagreed with ‘surprising’ FNLI results for certain paddocks, demonstrating understanding of processes causing nutrient loss. A number of additional features were suggested by participants:  Include historical fertiliser application details to assist monitoring  Include more production-oriented features  Develop an interface between MGF@RM and other software to provide additional information and reporting opportunities  Simplify the editing functions  Improve map printing functions  Structure the system to enable eFarmer to be used offline  Within the FNLI, allow the user to select annual rainfall according to inter-annual variation, rather than the long term average and show what factors are included in the risk calculations for each loss pathway.

3.2.7. Impact of access to an environmental field officer All 12 participants stressed the value and importance of access to an environmental field officer. The main benefits of support mentioned were: 1) Motivation to keep going; 2) Assistance with operation of software, particularly for those with low computer experience; 3) Assistance with support services, particularly from the CMA; 4) Overall project management. Having a good support person was seen as critical for teaching, networking and keeping participants involved. 3.2.8. Impact of participation on changed practices All 12 participants interviewed made at least one change or had planned changes in management. Seven made changes to their fertiliser regimes and another couple planned to. Changes included using soil tests to determine where fertiliser should be applied (6 responses), using soil tests to determine types of fertiliser to use (3 responses), applying lower amounts of fertiliser (1 response), more frequent soil testing (2 responses), considering weather conditions prior to applying fertiliser (1 response) using FNLI information (1 response). One user of the FNLI intended to modify application rates to specific ‘high risk’ paddocks. Others indicated that they did

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

529

not need to change fertiliser practice for environmental reasons because they were already considering the risks of nutrient runoff and drainage in management, but that the FNLI maps were useful because they reflected these sound practices. Four participants made changes to creek and river frontage management and another has plans to do so. Changes mentioned include fencing (5 responses), revegetation (4 responses), removal of willows from creeklines (1 response) and weed removal (1 response). Changes to dairy shed effluent management were made by 3 participants, with a further 2 planned. These changes were improving effluent pond storage system (2 responses), spreading effluent over a larger area to reduce applied dosage rates (2 responses), irrigating effluent more effectively (1 response). All others believed their effluent management systems were acceptable.

suggesting it to be more important than technocentric explanations such as user-friendliness, simplicity or transparency. Extension Officers’ relationship with Land Managers, plus that the co-authors had established networks and relationships with Extension Officers, CMAs and some Land Managers, were contributing factors to success of the pilot. Promotion by trusted Extension Officers and Land Managers however would have been a more important driver for the demonstrated uptake beyond the pilot. There were glitches in the prototype during testing, and as reported previously this can seriously damage the perception of a DSS (Hayman and Easdown, 2002). The fact that Land Managers were supported by trusted Extension Officers, plus rapid fixing of problems has minimised any such damage.

3.2.9. Impact of the program on environmental awareness Eleven participants interviewed said that the program had raised their consciousness about dairy farming activities that could harm the environment, despite some existing awareness. The remaining participant suggested that they were already at the forefront of environmental management.

The level of Land Manager use from the pilot and the number of maps created, showed the tool to be useful and useable. The technology was highly trialable, requiring only a computer, broadband access and limited training. This success is attributed to the relative advantages provided by eFarmer such as enabling farmers to reduce fertiliser inputs through better information about paddock size and to be more pro-active about environmental management. Without trialability and relative advantage, adoption of environmental management technology is unlikely at a broad scale (Pannell, 2008), as was found when similarly capable Land Managers in the region displayed poor uptake of pasture management options to combat salinity (Roberts et al., 2009). Despite the encouraging results in terms of changed management, we suggest that landscape scale change in environmental outcomes will not occur without additional incentives, regardless of the quality of a DSS. Land Manager participants in the pilot were known to extension staff, and many were more likely to be interested in environmental issues than a random sample. Whilst reducing fertiliser inputs can have private benefit, some environmental practices will not have, and in these circumstances broad scale adoption will not occur without incentives (Pannell, 2008). Farm planning in Australia commonly relies on the Land Manager obtaining aerial photographs and developing a farm map with assistance from an Extension Officer. Prior to the eFarmer pilot free aerial photography and spatial layers have not routinely been available to non-government officers. Producing farm maps on their own computers had value as evidenced by over 27,000 maps produced during the initial test period of 5 months. It also provided a concrete learning experience in technology use as well as putting the farm into a visual, landscape perspective. That four additional Victorian CMAs and 12 other interstate regional organisations requested access shows the considerable usefulness for capturing aggregated information for use beyond farm level, such as reporting on environmental/catchment targets. Monitoring and reporting to justify public spending for landscape protection will become increasingly important and regional bodies clearly recognise this.

3.3. Follow-up use and interest in eFarmer by other farmers and catchment planners In August 2009, there were 1350 Land Manager accounts established across 8 of the 10 Victorian CMAs. While not all accounts indicate active use, requests for training and support suggest continued interest. Of the 1350 Land Manager accounts, 832 spent enough time using the application to create their basic property details and draw property boundaries. Of these 696 have created paddock boundaries and could therefore be considered more serious users. Within the past month, there were 163 active users with 42,000 map requests. Ad-hoc training programs supported by CMAs and government extension staff have serviced demand to date. It is so popular in West Gippsland that the participating Extension Officer (who comes from a non-government agency) is now writing a formal training manual to help train others and as a guide to help Land Managers. This has occurred despite the absence of a decision, and considerable frustration by many Extension Officers, Land Managers and Catchment Planners as to whether eFarmer will proceed beyond pilot testing. Two additional CMAs are also active users, with limited use by another. 4. Discussion 4.1. Success of prototype eFarmer testing Testing of eFarmer was very successful, particularly in view of the limited resources including prototype development, short-term funding and reliance on limited training and support. Most surprising about success was that eFarmer was an environmental DSS, posing a more difficult adoption problem than for production rus¸ter et al., decisions as reported previously (Jensen, 2001, Ma 2008, Stuth et al., 2002). Approximately 60 Land Managers participated in the pilot testing in 2006. In August 2009 there are now approximately 700 serious users, most of whom have only received limited support. Extension Officer use has also increased and there has been considerable interest from government and non-government extension services. Development of trust in the reliability and utility of tools is very important (Hayman and Easdown, 2002). Matthews et al. (2008) singles out credibility as particularly important in success,

4.2. Useability and usefulness

4.3. Implications for training and support Provision of initial training, follow-up support and access to a trusted Extension Officer were important parts of the pilot testing, particularly for the more complex FNLI application. Engagement with the end-users and provision of on-going support is well known to be as important as the technology itself (eg Hayman and Easdown, 2002; Podesta´ et al., 2002; Stuth et al., 2002). In the pilot both Land Managers and extension staff were eager to provide feedback on improvements. Participation with DSS developers and co-learning increases the chances of relevance

530

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531

(Hayman and Easdown, 2002) as well as a feeling of ownership in the tool itself. Successful DSS tools such as WHEATMAN and NUTBAL required well over a decade for development and successful adoption (Hayman and Easdown, 2002; Stuth et al., 2002). A tool such as eFarmer, which has a role in environmental education, requires a long-term commitment by a public agency for further development, and even more importantly for on-going training and support. DSS development needs to evolve from a software development mindset to that of a ‘service mentality’ (Stuth et al., 2002), with emphasis on the support component, since people make decisions and software, at best, only assists (Matthews et al., 2008). Despite the success of eFarmer, a commitment to continue with it has not yet been made. Continued investment is particularly important, given the declining investment in public sector extension services, the on-going need for information access by both government and non-government extension providers (Ridley, 2006) and to maintain the momentum and credibility eFarmer has gained. The changed management practices of Land Managers involved in the pilot program showed that eFarmer has potential to stimulate Land Managers to do things they might not have otherwise. Offering a landscape view of the property is likely to help Land Managers think beyond their traditional property boundaries. Mindset or paradigm change and adaptive management are important in making informed decisions about the consequences of land management (Ridley, 2004; Valentine et al., 2007). Direct access to spatial data has implications for a changed relationship between Land Managers and extension staff. Information is accessed directly by the Land Manager, rather than having the Extension Officer providing it. As Hayman and Easdown (2002) have identified, this changes the role of the Extension Officer, away from being an expert with answers, to a facilitator enabling learning. The skills required are likely to be greater than in a production-oriented extension role. Extension Officers will need to provide assistance with both production and environmental issues, as well as advanced support for the more complex functionality of the technology itself. Relationships between different institutions (government agencies, regional groups and other stakeholders) and provision of information to help with environmental funding are additional roles required in the Australian socio-political landscape. 4.4. Other broader up-scaling issues Governments in Australia, have a preference for ‘soft’ nonregulatory approaches to improve management of the environment. eFarmer has potential to improve environmental awareness, and positive attitudinal changes are more likely with non-coercive approaches, given farmers’ antipathy to regulation (Gunningham, 2007). Provision of government-owned spatial data addresses access– equity and information asymmetry issues. Currently government extension staff enjoy greater access to spatial information than staff from non-government conservation agencies and the private sector. In terms of reducing information asymmetry, farmers have more detailed knowledge about their farms than public agencies, however there are some areas (soil maps, vegetation classes) where public agencies hold more information. A web-based tool has potential to increase knowledge and sharing of information, allowing for more informed decisions on both sides. As well as reducing information asymmetry the approach encourages a collaborative, participatory approach in extension, which is important in addressing environmental problems that are both biophysically and socially complex (Valentine et al., 2007).

Security and privacy protocols are additional issues to consider, and considerable benefits and opportunity exists to link eFarmer with other tools such as catchment modelling tools, visualisation tools, catchment recording systems, private company farm record keeping software. Whilst detailed discussion of such issues is beyond the scope of this paper, it is available elsewhere (Miller, 2006). Whilst the pilot was conducted with Australian Land Managers, the results have applicability in countries where there is a high level of farm computer ownership, relevant spatial information is available in GIS format, where governments are happy to make spatial information available to the public and there is pressure for increased environmental awareness and improved decision making by Land Managers. 5. Conclusions A prototype web-based spatial information management tool (eFarmer) was successfully piloted with Land Managers in Victoria, Australia who had computer skills ranging from minimal to high. Adequate training (in the order of 1–2 days) and follow up individual extension support was important for participants to become confident and competent users. The tool was both useable and useful, as indicated by adoption well beyond the initial participants. Benefits to Land Managers included the potential for reducing fertiliser inputs, simple measurement of farm features, electronic record keeping, and printing of farm maps. Addition of functionality to map soil nutrient levels and assess the risk of nutrient loss from dairy farms helped raise awareness and, in conjunction with nutrient budget calculations/other farm management software, lead to changed practices in fertiliser and soil management. With adequate provision of on-going training and support, web-based spatial information tools have the potential to improve the awareness of Land Managers about their environmental impacts and reduce information asymmetry between Land Managers, extension staff and catchment planners in a constructive way. Acknowledgments We thank Olivia Kemp for providing ‘help-desk’ support and Extension Officers Lindsay Ezard, Moragh MacKay, Jo Caminiti, Alistair Campbell, Greg Bekker, Benita Kelsall and Marguerite White. Peter McRostie provided ongoing training support and helpdesk assistance to many people. The Murray Goulburn program was initiated by Joanne Campbell and Andrew Gallagher. Down to Earth Research conducted the interviews and wrote an evaluation report. We thank DSE for funding the initial development and support for the application. References Ascough, J.C., Hoag, D., Frasier, M., McMaster, G.S., 1999. Computer use in agriculture: an analysis of Great Plains producers. Decision Support Systems 23, 189–204. Department of Primary Industries, 2007. Farm Nutrient Loss Index Version 1.18. The State Government of Victoria, Ellinbank. www.asris.csiro.au Accessed on 13th January 2009. Drewry, J.J., Newham, L.T.H., Green, R.S.B., Jakeman, A.J., Croke, B.F.W., 2006. A review of nitrogen and phosphorus export to waterways: context for catchment modelling. Marine and Freshwater Research 57, 757–774. Fountas, S., Wulfsohn, D., Blackmore, B.S., Jacobsen, H.L., Pederson, S.M., 2006. A model of decision-making and information flows for information-intensive agriculture. Agricultural Systems 87, 192–210. Gunningham, N., 2007. Incentives to improve farm management: EMS, supply chains and civil society. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 302–310. Gourley, C.J.P., Powell, J.M., Dougherty, W.J., Weaver, D.M., 2007. Nutrient budgeting as an approach to improving nutrient management on Australian dairy farms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, 1064–1074.

A.M. Roberts et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 523–531 Gutrich, J., Donovan, D., Finucane, M., Focht, W., Hitzhusen, F., Manopimoke, S., McCauley, D., Norton, B., Sabatier, P., Salzman, J., Sasmitawidjaja, V., 2005. Science in the public process of ecosystem management: lessons from Hawaii, Southeast Asia, Africa and the US Mainland. Journal of Environmental Management 76, 197–209. Hayman, P.T., Easdown, W.J., 2002. An ecology of a DSS; reflections on managing wheat crops in Australian grain regions with WHEATMAN. Agricultural Systems 74, 57–77. Jensen, A.L., 2001. Building a web-based information system for variety selection in field crops-objectives and results. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 32, 195–211. McCown, R.L., 2001. Learning to bridge the gap between science-based decision support and the practice of farming: Evolution in paradigms of model-based research and intervention from design to dialogue. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 549–571. Manderson, A.K., Mackay, A.D., Palmer, A.P., 2007. Environmental whole farm plans: Their character, diversity, and use as agri-environmental indicators in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 319–331. Matthews, K.B., Schwarz, G., Buchan, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D., 2008. Wither agricultural DSS? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 61, 149–159. rus¸ter, L., Faber, N.R., Jorna, R.J., van Haren, R., 2008. Analysing agricultural users’ Ma patterns of behaviour: The case of OPTIRasÔ, a decision support system for starch crop selection. Agricultural Systems 98, 159–166. Miller, I., 2006. Spatial Vision eFarmer Debrief Report. http://www.spatialvision.com. au/html/pdf/efarmer-spatial-vision-debrief-report.pdf accessed 24 February 2009. Pannell, D.J., 2008. Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits. Land Economics 84 (2), 225–240.

531

Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., Wilkinson, R., 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1407–1424. Podesta´, G., Letson, D., Messina, C., Royce, F., Ferreyra, A.R., Jones, J., Hansen, J., Llovet, I., Grondona, M., O’Brien, J.J., 2002. Use of ENSO-related climate information in agricultural decision making in Argentina: a pilot experience. Agricultural Systems 74, 371–392. Ridley, A.M., 2004. The role of applied science to help farmers make decisions about environmental sustainability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 959–968. Ridley, A.M., 2006. Preparing Australian broadacre agriculture for environmental scrutiny using EMS – implications for extension services. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, 367–377. Roberts, A.M., Helmers, M.J., Fillery, I.R.P., 2009. The adoptability of perennial-based farming systems for hydrologic and salinity control in dryland farming systems in Australia and the United States of America. Crop and Pasture Science 60, 83–99. Stuth, J.W., Hamilton, W.T., Conner, R., 2002. Insights in development and deployment of the GLA and NUTBAL decision support systems for grazinglands. Agricultural Systems 74, 99–113. Stuth, J.W., Hamilton, W.T., Conner, J.R., Sheehy, D.P. 1993. Decision support systems in the transfer of grassland technology. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Grasslands Congress, Palmerston North, New Zealand/Brisbane, Australia. pp. 749–758. Thysen, I., 2000. Agriculture in the information society. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 76, 297–303. Valentine, I., Hurley, E., Reid, J., Allen, W., 2007. Principles and processes for effecting change in environmental management in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 311–318.