
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Pegler, Lachlan 
A1  - Moore, Renée 
A1  - Bentley, Delphine 
T1  - Bore drain replacement in south-west Queensland: benefits and costs for land managers
JF  - The Rangeland Journal
JO  - Rangel. J.
Y1  - 2002
VL  - 24
IS  - 2
SP  - 185
EP  - 206
KW  - Great Artesian Basin; project evaluation; benefit-cost analysis; land manager perceptions
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ02010 
N2  - The Bore Drain Replacement Project (BDRP) in south-west Queensland provided government subsidies to land managers to convert water distribution systems from open earth bore drains to piped water systems, thereby addressing Great Artesian Basin (GAB) sustainability issues. To fully evaluate the benefits and costs of the project for land managers, both a financial benefit-cost analysis and a study of land managers' perceptions were conducted. The main benefit for land managers from bore drain replacement, was a substantial decrease in operating costs (mean decrease of 87%). Results of the financial benefit-cost analysis showed that the mean private benefit to total cost ratio (BP:CT) (0.86, at a real discount rate of 6%, over 10 years) was less than the break-even value of unity . The mean BP:CT (0.6) for land managers with less than 50% of bore drains on mulga (Acacia aneura F. Muell ex. Benth) land systems was also less than unity, while those land managers with bore drains predominately on mulga land systems had a mean BP:CT that only marginally exceeded unity (1.1). With a government subsidy (study mean 72%), the private benefits to private cost ratio (BP:CP), averaged across all land managers in the study, was 2.25. The break-even subsidy level for land managers was calculated as 17% of the total capital cost. Land managers perceived a number of important benefits from bore drain replacement that were not included in the financial benefit-cost analysis, due to difficulty quantifying values. These included benefits from changes in grazing management, increased time-savings and an improved quality of life. In general, there were no changes documented in animal productivity, native and feral animal populations, or carrying capacity in the 18 months since piping, although potential changes for the future were identified. Some land managers noted improvements to natural resource condition near bore drains after closure, while most expected little deterioration in natural resource condition near the new water points. Recommendations are made for ongoing funding support for bore drain replacement, including further monitoring and evaluation, with emphasis on conducting an economic public and private benefit-cost analysis. Land managers' capacity to pay, willingness to adopt change and public benefits of the project should be considered in cost sharing arrangements and determination of future government subsidy levels. 
ER  -

