Restoring Australia’s freshwater wetlands: Rural landholder perspectives

Restoring Australia’s freshwater wetlands: Rural landholder perspectives | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Restoring Australia’s freshwater wetlands: Rural landholder perspectives Elizabeth P Galanis, Lai Ming Lam, Lukas Schuster, Damien Cook, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Wetlands → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Wetlands are among the most productive and biodiverse ecosystems in the world, yet they are also the most threatened. These vital habitats play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. Although most freshwater wetlands occur on private property, limited research exists on landholder perceptions of their ownership and management. We interviewed landholders who participated in a wetland restoration program. Our interviews explored motivations and barriers to participation and the impact of climate change, if any, on landholders. We conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Our analysis revealed three major themes. First, participants were motivated by the intrinsic value of nature, focusing on benefits to native flora and fauna rather than personal gain. They expressed strong emotional connections to nature and a sense of stewardship. Second, the removal of bureaucratic, financial and practical barriers by a knowledgeable local facilitator was important for participation. Third, participants acknowledged the tension between agricultural practices and the needs of nature, striving to balance these competing demands. Although climate change was recognised, the primary motivator was restoring natural ecosystems. Restoring freshwater wetlands can help policymakers achieve international and domestic biodiversity goals by aligning conservation programs with landholders’ values. Employing local facilitators with intimate knowledge of the community and ecosystem can enhance program engagement. Additionally, integrating agricultural and environmental needs, such as through agritourism, can further support biodiversity, and the economic and mental resilience of landholders. qualitative biocentric biodiversity stewardship farmer conservation regenerative agriculture Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Wetlands are among the most productive and biodiverse ecosystems in the world (Balwan & Kour, 2021 ). They offer a wide range of ecosystem services including enhanced biodiversity, increased flood and drought resilience, reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, improved nutrient cycling, sediment filtering and carbon storage (Baker et al., 2020 ; Costanza et al., 1997 ; Friess et al., 2020 ; Ramachandra et al., 2012 ). Wetlands play a key role in environmental services, and they have been shown to hold significant cultural value (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Clarke et al., 2021 ) and to enhance human wellbeing (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment 2005 ). Wetlands are critical to sustain biodiversity. Yet, these ecosystems are amongst the most threatened globally and we are amidst a freshwater biodiversity crisis (Fluet-Chouinard et al., 2023 ; Harrison et al., 2018 ). In the state of Victoria in Australia, 60–70% of freshwater marshes have been drained or otherwise degraded since European colonisation, with 90% of those losses occurring on private land. In particular, freshwater wetlands in Kerang — our study region — are reported by Victorian Government authorities to be amongst the most degraded (Environment Australia 2001 ). The creation of new freshwater areas can help reverse the decline of species such as amphibians, mammals, birds and crayfish (Rannap et al., 2009 ), yet examples of large-scale restoration efforts are rare (Moor et al., 2022 ). Beyond their biodiversity benefits, wetlands have an important role in climate change prevention and mitigation. A pristine wetland acts as a net carbon sink (Schuster et al., 2024 ), lessening climate change impacts by increasing soil water retention, protecting from floods, and creating a cooler microclimate (Chausson et al., 2020 ; Thorslund et al., 2017 ). Conversely, degraded wetlands contribute to climate change by releasing their carbon stocks into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases (Schuster et al., 2024 ). In the Australian state of Victoria, government authorities estimate that two-thirds of naturally occurring wetlands are on private land (Casanova & Casanova, 2016 ), highlighting the crucial role private landholders play in wetland management. Historically, wetlands have been viewed unfavourably, associated with disease and death (Giblett, 1996 ; O’Gorman, 2020 ). However, recent global literature indicates a shift towards positive views, with wetlands being recognised for their non-monetary and cultural values (Alikhani et al., 2021 ; Clarke et al., 2021 ; Dobbie, 2013 ; Welsh et al., 2018 ). Despite this evolving perception, Australian landholders’ views on freshwater wetland management remained largely unstudied, with only one empirical study published 25 years ago (Whitten & Bennett, 1999 ). Whitten and Bennett ( 1999 ) surveyed 50 wetland owners, finding significant non-monetary benefits such as recreational and aesthetic value. With most wetlands now degraded, there is a critical gap in understanding what motivates landholders to restore these ecosystems. Understanding these motivations is important for developing effective conservation strategies (Steg, 2017 ) and helping Australia meet critical climate and biodiversity targets (DCCEEW, 2024). By aligning restoration efforts with landholders’ values, conservation projects can better engage participants and achieve long-term success (Torabi, Cooke, et al., 2016). We interviewed landholders who were participating in an agri-environmental scheme to restore a freshwater wetland on their property in Kerang, Australia to (1) identify motivations and barriers for private landholder participation in a freshwater wetland restoration project and (2) examine the impact (if any) of climate change on participants. The program was facilitated by a local ecologist who secured government funding for the project and worked with landholders to identify appropriate sites for restoration. Selected sites were re-vegetated and re-wetted; either by removing barriers to natural water flow or by constructing small-scale water-delivery infrastructure (Fig. 1 ). Landholder decision making in agri-environmental schemes While a wealth of research already investigates the underlying factors of pro-environmental decision making (Piao & Managi, 2024 ; Steg & Vlek, 2009 ; Tian & Liu, 2022 ; Wyss et al., 2022 ), this research typically focuses on small personal choices such choices about diet or recycling (Newell et al., 2014 ). In contrast, rural landholders’ and farmers’ decisions to adopt more sustainable practices typically occur infrequently, have long-term personal and economic consequences and may require substantial investment and commitment (Dessart et al., 2019 ). Moreover, they often contribute to the provision of public goods and affect both the agricultural business and broader environmental outcomes (Dessart et al., 2019 ). Investigations into farmer and rural landholder pro-environmental decision making is therefore distinct from individual, domestic decisions and requires a separate line of investigation (Dessart et al., 2019 ). Due to this crossover between agricultural decision making and the agricultural business, a systematic review by Brown et al. ( 2021 ) finds that researchers and policymakers often presume agricultural landholders and farmers to be motivated by economic factors. However, dispositional, social, cognitive factors and other contextual factors have been underappreciated to the detriment to the success of agri-environmental schemes (Brown et al., 2021 ; Dessart et al., 2019 ) with a wealth of literature identifying intrinsic value as a key driver of farmer behaviour (Best, 2010 ; Greiner, 2015 ; Greiner & Gregg, 2011 ; Johnasson et al., 2013 ; Karami, 2023 ; Klebl et al., 2024 ; Li et al., 2024 ; Raymond et al., 2011 ). This lack of recognition by policy may damage farmer attitudes towards policy and environmental objectives such as by (Brown et al., 2021 ). Brown et al ( 2021 ) call for an urgent redesign of policies to ensure intangible aspects of farmer decision making, such as values, are accounted for. They argue that research into why farmers choose to participate in schemes should therefore be a key tool for agri-environmental policy development (Falconer, 2000 ; Lastra-Bravo et al., 2015 ; Wilson & Hart, 2000 ). The recently named concept ‘relational values’, drawn from social sciences, challenges the divide between instrumental values (material benefits) and intrinsic values. Instead, they highlight how people express principles, preferences and virtues through meaningful relationships (Chan et al., 2016 ). This is a useful concept in the context of agriculture, where a connection with nature shapes both its benefits (e.g. food, shelter) and deeper values such as respect, care and responsibility. While instrumental views may see these as costs, relational perspectives see them as essential to wellbeing (Jax et al., 2018 ). This is especially relevant in farming, where land provides both practical benefits and cultural, spiritual, or personal meaning. These values overlap, decisions being shaped by a complex interplay of biocentric, relational, identity and instrumental values (Chan et al., 2016 ; Chapman et al., 2019 ; Jax et al., 2018 ). For instance, decisions about land management may reflect a desire to support biodiversity, maintain cultural heritage and foster a sense of stewardship (Greiner, 2015 ; Torabi, Mata, et al., 2016 ). A systematic review by Dessart et al. ( 2019 ) identifies motivations values as a key factor underlying pro-environmental decision making. Recognising these aspects of decision making is important to understanding motivations of participants in conservation programs (Greiner & Gregg, 2011 ; Klebl et al., 2024 ). Despite the importance of intrinsic value to decision making, literature also shows that rural landholders face practical barriers which can limit participation in restoration efforts. Barriers may include a mistrust in government or authorities providing incentives or assistance (Baumber et al., 2021 ), uncertainty about policy and practices (Dumbrell et al., 2016 ; Kragt et al., 2017 ), social stigma of farming practices that are considered passive management of land (Jassim et al., 2022 ), upfront costs associated with participation (Kragt et al., 2017 ), lack of knowledge about a practice (Maraseni & Dargusch, 2008 ; Rochecouste et al., 2017 ) and conflicts with participant values (Chapman et al., 2019 ). Understanding how values and barriers interact is necessary for designing effective conservation policies that align with farmers’ motivations while addressing structural challenges (Chapman et al., 2019 ). Methods Case study area The case study area lies in the Kerang Region, 279 km north-west of Melbourne which is run by the Gannawara Local Shire Council (GSC) and the Loddon Shire Council (Fig. 2 ). The North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) is responsible for land and water management in the area. The region includes traditional lands of the Dja Dja Wurrung, Taungurung, Yorta Yorta, Barapa Barapa, Wemba Wemba and Wadi Wadi clans who live in the area today (NCCMA, 2024). Europeans arrived from 1836 (Scott, 2005 ). Today, Kerang is a commercial centre for dairy, cereal and legume cropping, livestock and horticulture (GSC,2024). Kerang is home to internationally significant wetlands including the Kerang Wetlands, which comprise over 100 lakes and swamps on the Loddon River floodplain (NCCMA, 2017). Kerang Wetlands are protected under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, especially as waterfowl habitat (Ramsar, 2024 ). The Kerang wetlands are recognised as having significant social and economic value contributing an estimated $ 238 million per year to the region. The wetlands regularly support at least 20,000 waterbirds and a range of species at critical life stages (breeding, migration and moulting) (NCCMA, 2017). The Kerang region is classified as grassland with hot, dry summers and cold winters. The area sees a mean daily maximum temperature of 22.9°C and mean annual rainfall is 327.7 mm. At the 2021 Australian census, 93% of people in Kerang were born in Australia and the region was listed as ‘other Christian’ (ABS, 2021). The region sits in the federal division of Mallee, a safe Nationals seat. The Nationals Party is a centre-right party that has historically represented the needs of farmers and rural communities (ABC, 2022). In-depth interview method Given the absence of research on private landholder perspectives on wetland ownership and management we used qualitative methodology, as it allows for investigation of the research questions without pre-defined, deductive categories. We selected in-depth interview methodology to examine complex motivations, situations and behaviours that cannot be captured using quantitative methods alone (Gifford, 2016 ). An in-depth interview also allows flexibility in questions to participants (Willig, 2001 ). We obtained ethics approval from Deakin University’s Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment Human Ethics Advisory Group (reference SEBE-2022-68). The program facilitator of a local wetland restoration program recruited nine landholders who all agreed to participate in interviews. Participants read a plain language statement, signed consent forms and consented to their interview being recorded. Our interview guidelines emphasised that verbal consent was to be re-established at the beginning of all interviews along with a verbal explanation of the research and again if the interviewer suspected hesitancy from the participant. The interviewer emphasised to participants that they could opt out of any questions or topics at any time, and request their data be withdrawn at any time before publication. We initially planned face-to-face interviews; however, we shifted to phone interviews due to logistic challenges. The interviews followed a guide outlining topics to be discussed with example questions. We treated the interview guide as an example of topics to discuss, rather than a strict script. This ensured flexibility for participants to speak on issues most important to them. Our interview guide included open-ended questions about the landholders’ background, what drew them to the wetland restoration program, what benefits they expected to gain from the program, and how they are impacted by a changing climate. Demographic data was collected verbally after the interview. Our interviewer followed standard guidelines for conducting interviews, including using probing and follow-up questions and avoiding closed or leading questions and the use of jargon. The interviewer used reflection of feeling and meaning to build rapport and enhance and confirm understanding. Active silence was used to allow participants to feel heard and speak freely (Rubin & Rubin, 2005 ). Sample Our sample consisted of nine participants, the total enrolled in a two-year research program funded by the Australian Federal Government to restore wetlands in private properties and monitor carbon and biodiversity benefits. The number of participants was limited by funding, which covered landscaping for wetland restoration, engineering work, expert knowledge, interviews, infrastructure, and water access. However, previous research suggests a sample of nine interviews is adequate for reaching saturation, defined as the point where further data collection yields no new information (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022 ). In particular, a systematic review by Namey et al ( 2016 ) found that eight in-depth interviews can reach 80% saturation, with doubling the sample providing only an additional 10%. Studies with a homogenous sample, such as ours, were able to reach saturation at the lower end, with 5 to 10 interviews (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022 ). Data analysis method We adapted Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) methodology for thematic analysis, which consists of six steps: Familiarisation with the data – We manually transcribed interviews as opposed to automation or outsourcing to increase familiarity with the data, as recommended by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). An audio player and a Phillips transcription pedal were used to facilitate transcription. Transcriptions were anonymised and loaded into Nvivo 14 software (Lumivero, 2024 ). Due to the difficulties in anonymising interview transcripts, especially with a small sample from a tight-knit community, the interview data is kept in a private repository managed by Deakin University. Data will be removed after seven years. Generating initial codes – After familiarisation with the data, we generated codes using a theory-based approach from the ecosystem services framework popularised by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which classifies services into provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural. Chan et al. ( 2012 ) expanded this framework, emphasising that services are better understood as the benefits they provide, and that benefits are created by values held by those who interact with the ecosystem. Their approach highlights how values, such as a biocentric, intrinsic and instrumental, create benefits derived from ecosystem services (Chan et al., 2016 ). We applied Chan et al.’s ( 2012 ) categories of values, benefits and services as a theoretical lens to explore landholder motivations for participating in wetland restoration projects. This structured approach enabled us to explore how values shape motivations in the context of conservation initiatives. We used categories from Chan et al.’s ( 2011 ) ecosystem services, benefits and values framework as these provide a holistic baseline for decision making (Chan et al., 2012 ). We created additional codes to explain contextual information in the data and anything that was not covered in Chan et al.’s ( 2011 ) framework. This provided enough flexibility to code all data. Searching for themes – The researcher worked through the transcripts systematically. Most lines in all interviews were assigned to at least one code. Reviewing themes – We developed thematic maps which were refined iteratively with the return to coding and searching for themes (steps (2) and (3)). Defining and naming themes – We developed a draft to define the scope and name of each theme. The researcher returned to Nvivo to organise codes, ensuring every code fit within one of the themes. Themes were cross-reviewed by a second researcher to ensure validity. Given our small sample size, themes were created around codes that were unanimous, or near-unanimous, and uncontested amongst participants. Producing the report – The themes were elaborated in a final write-up of results and compelling extracts from the transcripts were quoted. To respect participant anonymity, we sought permission from the relevant participants to use each quote in our report. To ensure validity of results, participants were provided with a draft and invited to provide feedback. No amendments were requested and we were authorised to use all quotes. Results Our sample consisted of seven male and two female landholders, with farm sizes ranging from 40 to 2,589 hectares (mean 1,455 ha). There was a mix of educational backgrounds from high school to tertiary education. Two participants were retired farmers, one semi-retired and the remaining six were active farmers in dairy, cattle, sheep and/or cropping. Most participants described their financial situation as comfortable. Participants had been associated with farming for most of their lives. Seven participants had agreed to have a wetland restored on their property. In contrast, one participant already had a significant wetland restored on their property and was contributing to the program by allowing access to their property as an example for others. One other interviewee did not have a plan for restoring a wetland but was in negotiations to help with water supply for a neighbour’s wetland project, contributing their water allocation and pipeline and pumping infrastructure. Interviews lasted between 39 and 99 minutes (mean 65.5 minutes). Our analysis of transcribed interviews created three themes (Fig. 3 ). In this paper, ‘nature’ refers to an area of land that contains predominantly native flora and fauna. Theme 1: Conservation for nature’s sake Participants were motivated by what the program can do for nature Although the interview protocol was designed to focus on the participants’ perceived benefits of wetlands, participants seemed less concerned with the personal benefits of wetlands and spoke more about the services wetlands could provide to native flora and fauna on their property. Although some perceived benefits were mentioned (e.g. aesthetics, wellbeing, recreation, knowledge-sharing), these were mainly revealed in response to probing or follow-up questions and were not immediately salient to participants. The intrinsic value of nature was the most frequent latent code throughout the dataset in terms of the number of overall mentions (52 mentions, mentioned by 100% of participants). Native animals and plants were frequently mentioned, with birds and trees being mentioned most frequently (Fig. 4 ). Molluscs and fungi were mentioned least frequently (Fig. 4 ). All participants expressed the value of nature, which was frequently described as the key motivator for participation. Landholders’ relationship with nature was predominantly expressed in a maternalistic manner, with a desire to provide and care for nature. In this instance, ‘maternalistic’ means to decide what is best for another based on a reasonable understanding of that person’s preference (Sullivan, 2016 ). For example, when asked what drew them to the wetland program, on participant stated that their motivation was helping birds and fish to survive through the summer: ‘(Interviewer: I’m wondering what was it that drew you to having a wetland at the property?) Oh oh, just yeah. The creek goes dry every year and so normally it’s struggled. This year it hasn’t gone dry, most years it’s out and it’s just a winter running creek. And some of you know, the birds and whatever, the fish can survive over the summer.’ (Participant 6) Another participant began speaking about their desire for the wetland to benefit flora and fauna immediately in the interview after initial ice-breaker questions, without specific prompting: ‘And so we are building a, we’re actually going to building a bit of a wetland in part of that. Um, yeah. So that we can um, yeah, just have a bit of permanent water there, for some fish and reeds and rushes and yeah, and something for the animals to drink and the birds to play in and stuff.’ (Participant 8). Some landholders spoke of a biocentric relationship with native plants and animals on their property, viewing fauna and flora as friends or having long-standing relationships with specific wild animals. For example, this participant mentioned befriending native animals and talking to trees as a friend. ‘(Interviewer: And you mentioned that you chat to trees) Yep. Yeah. (Interviewer: Do you mind if I ask you what that’s like?) Oh just, chatting. Yep. Yeah [laughs]. No but I dunno. As you walk through you always, I dunno, I’m always chatting to them and seeing how they’re going or telling them what I’ve been up to or something. I don’t know if they listen or not, but it makes me feel better. Heh. Yeah.’ (participant 8) Most participants shared granular details about biodiversity on their land, for example, the scientific names of plants and animals or observations about long-term changes. Some landholders didn’t mention any specific flora and fauna but did speak of nature as an equal. For other participants, it was difficult to verbalise the importance of nature; there was a feeling that it ‘just is’ important without being able to explain the reason. ‘(Interviewer: What sort of impact does having birds and ducks on your farm have?) Ah, it doesn’t have much of an impact but it’s, yeah, it’s just good. I like the natural environment. So yeah, the animals are there. Yeah, I don’t know why but … ’ (Participant 1) Although views towards native animals were maternal or biocentric, relationships with other animals on the property were not. For example, a participant may have verbalised strong maternal care for native animals while also mentioning hunting or culling of introduced species. Native animals had special standing that other wild animals did not. Participants’ relationships with biodiversity were often associated with strong emotions, connection to place or family, custodianship, and healing with traditional owners. The interviewer noted strong emotions and inspiration – in themselves and in participants – evoked by the participant’s words and tone during interviews. ‘Oh we love it. It’s a thrill every time we find something new, or we see something living happily on our farm. Gosh, I’m getting emotional just thinking about it. We just, we just love it.’ (Participant 9) ‘Finding a new plant, is yeah, it gives you a real buzz. Particularly in light of remembering what my partner had done here. I feel like she’s saying “over there, over there”’. (Participant 3) Theme 2: Breaking boundaries Removal of barriers to conservation enabled participation Several participants had experience applying to other types of conservation programs or grants with varying difficulty. Although positive experiences with conservation programs were frequently mentioned, difficulties were typically bureaucratic, financial or practical. Practical barriers were more likely to be considered ‘not a big deal’. Bureaucratic and financial barriers in previous projects were sometimes hurdles that required enormous personal sacrifice. One interviewee, a retired farmer, had sacrificed time with family, holidays and even hobbies to create a wetland and re-wild a large portion of their property. Of the seven participants who were restoring a wetland on their property, five explicitly stated that they had no major concerns or worries about the project going forward. For example: ‘Um not really no. I recon yeah, I think it will only benefit it.’ (Participant 1) ‘No, not really. No. No like I said, [the area where the wetland will go is] no longer a farm dam and yeah.’ (Participant 6) ‘Oh no, no. Where it’s gunna get wet it doesn’t grow much pasture in it anyway, so I’m not losing anything really. I’m just helping the environment, you’d say. Yeah. And helping wildlife. So yeah, I’m not going to lose anything by having water over it, yeah.’ (Participant 7) ‘Ummm … not really. Just a bit of time. That’s about it. Yep.’ (Participant 8) Of the remaining two participants, one mentioned concern about their lack of knowledge regarding wetlands and the other had doubts regarding the size and impact on existing farming land, as well as apprehensions about achieving a natural aesthetic and ensuring long-term environmental enhancement. Only one participant mentioned a barrier that could block their project going forward, which was their reliance on the cooperation of a neighbour to supply water. No participants mentioned difficulties with bureaucracy or funding for the current project, barriers typically associated with other conservation programs. One participant summarised that grants were usually difficult to apply for as an individual and inaccessible to farmers and landholders. In this instance, the program facilitator had completed the bureaucratic process and identified interested landholders, removing the significant hurdle which usually exists in a conservation program. ‘Well, I think they’re just, just even reading [grant applications], it doesn’t seem like it’s designed for landholders, you know. They’re talking about $200,000. I think [the program facilitator] was just under a million, so unless landholders all had, say, an extension officer like [the program facilitator] did; he rang all these landholders and said “Do you want to have a wetland in your area?” And so, yep, that’s great. So that’s what you sort of need. You need a group of farmers to get together and say, “Yep, we want to do this”. So I think logistically it’s hard for people to know how to do it.’ (Participant 2) Furthermore, the program facilitator had established roots in the community and was already known to most participants before the program’s commencement. The facilitator’s existing community connections made it easy both for participants to come to the facilitator (e.g. some participants were introduced to them via neighbours or other people in town who knew they might be interested) and for the facilitator to contact landholders already known to be interested or having suitable land to do the project. The project facilitator was spoken about positively by participants as knowledgeable, respectful and trustworthy. For example, when one participant was asked how they met the program facilitator, they explained meeting in a casual setting through acquaintances, and valuing their knowledge: ‘Yeah, yeah. I heard he was over there. I didn’t know him, I heard he was over there and I just went and saw him. You don’t get a lot of people with the sort of knowledge that my partner had and [the program facilitator’s] got in the area here. I don’t know of another botanist in the area. You know, those sort of people just aren’t around.’ (Participant 3) As well as removal of barriers by the project facilitator, the participants’ attributes may have contributed to their willingness to participate in conservation programs. Most participants mentioned feeling different to others in the community. For example, some mentioned that they have always been early adopters of environmental management practices or feel ‘unique’ compared with others in the community. When asked what barriers they thought there were to others participating in a program like this one, participants mentioned ‘attitudes’ most frequently. For example, participants felt that others in the community were less concerned about the environment than themselves or had been influenced by parents who were against ‘greenies’. Theme 3: Finding balance A conflict between the needs of farming and the needs of nature was salient for all participants All participants touched on a competition between farming and nature. Tensions between nature and agriculture fell into two categories: either agriculture putting a strain on nature or nature creating difficulties with farming practices. Participants may have felt this tension on their own properties or on other local properties. Participants felt there was an increasing competition between agriculture and nature, which formed part of their motivation to build a wetland. Participants had a sense of a natural order of the land and used terms like ‘should be’ to describe returning the land to that perceived natural order. For participants, how it ‘should be’ seemed to refer to how the land would be if it were a wild, natural ecosystem such as pre-European colonisation of the region. Participants expressed a desire to restore their wetland in line with this natural order, such as choosing the types of vegetation that would thrive in the local conditions on their property and maximise biodiversity. Some participants had already engaged with scientists who helped them with these details. This expertise was highly regarded and gave landholders confidence in their conservation projects. For example, when speaking about long-term goals for their farm, Participant 9 stated: So, as we are learning more we’d like to put back some of the other plants that should be in our environment, a big understory and the grasses and the wetland plants are just part of that. We’re trying to put back everything that should be in our environment. Because there are plenty of farms around us that have been laser graded and bared out and there’s really not much vegetation left at all. When asked about how the restored wetland will be managed in the future, Participant 1 stated that keeping the wetland as it ‘should be’ was of primary concern: ‘But yeah, our primary thing is to protect it I suppose and yeah get the wetland going again and get the plants going again that should be there.’ (Participant 1) Participant 3 had transitioned their property from mostly farmland to mostly nature. When asked what that transition was like for them, they stated: Well it was smart. Um, showed me what a property should have been doing for the last prior 40 years. Showed me that there was a lot of degraded land in the area that was sold terribly, terribly cheap and I know you can’t, but in hindsight I should have been buying that land and putting native plants back on it and it being sustainable. But yeah, its been, I never get sick of just looking at what’s happening here. In contrast to the desire to create natural spaces, two participants had considered how nature might impact their farming enterprise when contemplating the size of their future wetlands. For other participants this required relatively little consideration, for example, in the case of part-time, semi-retired or retired farmers. Participants spoke about witnessing increasingly degraded natural landscapes in the region, and the destruction of wildlife habitat due to intensive farming practices. One participant stated that even climate change has a minimal impact on landscape degradation compared with modern agricultural systems. The intensification and modernisation of agriculture were, in some cases, motivators for participants to create a balance on their property between agriculture and nature. In most cases, participants had stronger concerns about native habitat loss than they did about climate change. These worries affected them emotionally (the emotional impact of witnessing ecological degradation) and financially (finding it difficult to farm on degraded land). When asked what seeing the loss of wildlife meant to them, Participant 7 stated: Oh it’s terrible, I reckon. You know, that’s what it’s all about bloody, everyone sharin’ a bit of nature, you know. They’ve got their habitat and we took their habitat away from ‘em. Mm. So, no. And that’s another reason I was sorta doing the wetland, to get a few wildlife birds and everything back out there. So, they’ll come to that. ‘cause there are birds out there now. Yeah. Ducks, eagles, other birds. Yeah. In some cases, the recent modernisation of a local channel system into a pipeline contributed to participants’ interest in the program. A participant explained that water had been transported to their properties via an open channel system which was being upgraded to an enclosed pipeline. The pipeline would reduce water loss via evaporation and seepage, however water from the channels would no longer be available to plants and animals that had come to rely on it. Three participants mentioned this pipeline, all with varying views on the topic from favourable to unfavourable. Regardless of their view towards the pipeline, all these participants viewed the upgrade as a part of their reason to have a wetland, either because it enabled them to do so (e.g. by freeing up an area that was previously used for water storage) or to offset its impact on wildlife. For example, when Participant 6 was asked what benefits they felt the wetland would bring, they stated: ‘What sort of benefit? Oh hah well it was basically, once we put the pipeline in there will be no dams anywhere in our area. So um, there’s nowhere you know for ducks, for the yabbies for anything um in the area, so yeah … Now we got the pipe scheme through, which will only fill tanks and troughs, there’ll be no dams around.’ Along with biodiversity loss, most participants noted a change in climate such as increasing extreme weather events (e.g. floods) or an increasing number of ‘bad years’ where conditions are sub-optimal for agricultural production. All participants had experienced natural disasters firsthand and most felt the present climate was changed over their lifetime, when compared with their parent’s experience. There was heterogeneity in sentiments about climate change, with some participants feeling alarmed while others were cautious, calm or indifferent. Although most participants acknowledged a changing climate, no participants spoke about climate change as being a motivator for participating in the wetland program. Although climate change wasn’t a primary concern, some participants did speak about how the program could enhance drought resilience on their property. For instance, one participant who had previously had a wetland on their property mentioned a bundle of benefits (as in Klain et al., 2014 ) that led to drought resiliency from several angles. This landholder felt that the wetland would increase the property's aesthetic value, which could foster an agritourism business. This would diversify profits and generate income during droughts. Furthermore, the landholder felt that visitors during droughts would facilitate diverse community connections and enhance wellbeing during challenging times. The wetland could also be a ‘drought oasis’ for native wildlife, which is in line with this participant’s biocentric values. In this example, the wetland was expected to facilitate balance during droughts by increasing water security for local fauna and flora and maintaining the participants’ mental and financial wellbeing. For this participant, the creation of the wetland could align farm profitability with the needs of nature, removing the competition between nature and farming. Discussion Our results revealed the most important motivator for landholders in this program was to enhance and protect the biodiversity of native flora and fauna. We found that having a program facilitator familiar with the local community removed barriers typically associated with conservation programs, such as lack of information, lack of trust in authority and bureaucratic and funding issues (Amato & Petit, 2023 ; Kragt et al., 2017 ; Oza et al., 2021 ; Wei et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, a local program facilitator recruited landholders in the area most suitable to the program, such as those with appropriate land and psychosocial factors (Gooden, 2019 ; Wei et al., 2016 ). We found that although climate change was not spoken about as a motivator for wetland restoration, participants experienced a conflict between the needs of agriculture and nature. As agricultural practices intensified, landholders sought pathways to balance these competing needs on their property. Results contextualised within existing literature Our analysis of transcribed interviews identified three themes to explain why landowners restore their wetlands (Fig. 3 ). In theme 1 we discussed participants’ interest in what the wetland restoration program could bring to nature above any other concerns. Theme 1 indicates that biodiversity stewardship was a key driver for private landholders to participate in this program. This echoes findings from previous studies. For example Welsh et al. ( 2018 ) surveyed participants of a Wetland Reserve Program in America and found that sense of stewardship and engagement with the land were strong motivators for participation. Other studies about conservation more broadly supports our findings, for example Greiner ( 2015 ) found in a survey of Australian farmers that stewardship and lifestyle predicted stated participation in conservation programs. Torabi et al. ( 2016 ) found farmers were more motivated by biodiversity than financial incentives. Our results build on these findings, showing that within the desire for stewardship landholders were most concerned for biodiversity and habitat promotion. Furthermore, results from theme 1 support Chan et al.’s ( 2012 ) proposition that the values individuals place on nature create ecosystem services and benefits, and drive individual decision making. In theme 1, we also note that when speaking of animals, interviewees mentioned birds most often while species such as molluscs, fungi and amphibians were spoken about the least. This finding is of interest because the species spoken about the least (e.g. water-bound amphibians) are likely to benefit the most from restoring freshwater wetlands (Rannap et al., 2009 ). The disproportionate recognition of birdlife may be attributed to several factors: birds are more noticeable due to their vocalisation and they are commonly associated with healthy ecosystems. Whilst endangered species often go unseen and might not come to mind as readily. This pattern of emphasising birds might be widespread, with a recently published paper showing farmers disproportionately mentioned birds as a species to protect, and the species that might benefit more from protection were underrepresented (Ulicsni et al., 2024 ). It is uncertain whether landholders in our study were aware of the benefits of wetland restoration to species that were mentioned least. In theme 2, we discuss the importance of a local facilitator in removing barriers typically associated with conservation programs. Results from theme 2 are consistent with previous studies showing the importance of trusted peer networks in the uptake of biodiversity conservation (Torabi, Cooke, et al., 2016). The study also provided farmer to farmer connections where, for example a landholder opened their property with the rebuilt wetland for others. Farmer to farmer interaction has been shown to have a profound impact on acceptance of innovation (Tarnoczi & Berkes, 2009 ). Furthermore, a trusted project facilitator was found to be an important factor in participation, compared with conservation programs. For example, Hughes et al. ( 2017 ) found that alignment of facilitator and participant motivation created a group of like-minded individuals. When the facilitators’ and participants’ motivations were aligned, trust in authority was enhanced. Results from theme 3 show the importance of balancing nature and agriculture to landholders, which is consistent with previous studies. For example, Green et al. ( 2005 ) propose agriculture must either intensify to minimise the amount of land used, or implement practices that account for the needs of nature. In our case study, we found that landholders wanted to create space for nature on their rural properties. This aligns with previous research from Gill et al. ( 2010 ) which suggested that the desire to be a custodian of the landscape is bound with a desire to be a steward of farming traditions associated with productive agriculture. The results in theme 3 also revealed farmers were less concerned with climate change when choosing to restore their wetland; they saw restoring biodiversity as a more pressing issue, despite the wetland’s potential to offset the impacts of future droughts and floods. This is in line with other research. For example, a study from Canada found that although natural landscapes evoked feelings of stewardship and place identity for farmers, climate change was not a part of the narrative especially with regards to wetlands (Sherren & Verstraten, 2013 ). Another Canadian survey conducted by Davidson et al. ( 2018 ) similarly found that farmers were interested in participating in climate mitigation strategies, however motivations rarely included climate change prevention or mitigation. Implications for policy and management Restoration of freshwater wetlands can assist policymakers to reach international and domestic goals. For example, goal 15 of the United Nations’ Sustainable development goals (SDG) is to ‘Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss’ (UN, 2023). Australia’s Strategy for Nature also seeks to protect and conserve 30% of Australia’s land, work towards zero new extinctions, restore inland water ecosystems and minimise the impact of climate change on nature (DCEEW, 2024). Along with previous studies on rural landholder participation in conservation schemes, our research shows that landholders are strongly motivated to engage with practices that support biodiversity. Government conservation programs may be able to attract wider participation if benefits to native flora and fauna are emphasised. Our research shows that the restoration of freshwater wetlands aligned with values held by the rural landholders in the study. A further implication of this is that freshwater wetland restoration on private property is a plausible way to help Australia reach biodiversity targets. Our research also reveals the positive impact of having a trusted, local project facilitator with intimate knowledge of the local ecology, landscape and people. A local facilitator was able to identify appropriate land and landholders in the area for a program and build trust with landholders that may have been more difficult for outsiders. Programs may consider employing local members of the community to facilitate conservation action as they will be most able to identify suitable land and landholders and achieve a high level of community engagement with the program. Finally, program creators could consider balancing the needs of nature and agriculture both on individual properties and within the region. Programs that allow landholders to accommodate their agricultural enterprise whilst meeting the needs of nature, such as by creating wildlife habitat that will facilitate agritourism or identifying landholders with unused land, will find programs have multifaceted benefits. For example, restoring a freshwater wetland will benefit the environment and participant wellbeing and economic resilience. Policymakers could target regions that have undergone recent modernisation or intensification of agricultural practices where landholders may be seeking conservation activities to provide balance. Furthermore, landholders are concerned about the relevance of practices to their local ecosystem and landscape. Access to subject matter experts was viewed favourably by landholders, created confidence in the program, and aligned the project with their values of doing what ‘should’ be done on the land. Limitations Although there are no agreed-upon sample size requirements for qualitative research (Baker & Edwards, 2012 ), we acknowledge that our sample size is smaller than average. Our choice was dictated by the funding available to restore wetlands for which the landowners enrolled. Such large-scale programs are rare (Streever, 1997 ), and no previous research program in Australia provided funds for restoration and multiple years of environmental monitoring and in-depth interviews. To ensure analytical rigour, our results were reviewed by two researchers and the participants. Also, the facilitator of the wetland restoration program reviewed results after spending extensive time with the participants. Given our sample included the total population of interest, was homogenous, and major findings were nearly unanimous, it is unlikely that additional participants would significantly change our results. Nonetheless, we recommend interpreting our findings within the context provided in the discussion. Declarations Funding The Australian Government supported this work through the Australian Research Council (Dr Malerba, project ID DE220100752) and through the Future Drought Fund. Competing interests Damien Cook, the director of the Wetland Revival Trust, facilitated the wetland restoration program. No other competing interests to declare. Author contributions Elizabeth Galanis, Lai Ming Lam, Lukas Schuster, Damien Cook and Martino E Malerba all contributed to the research conceptualisation and study design. Damien Cook assisted with participant recruitment. Elizabeth Galanis conducted the interviews. Elizabeth Galanis conducted the data analysis with supervision from Lai Ming Lam. Elizabeth Galanis led the writing of the manuscript, and all authors critically contributed to revise it. Acknowledgements We thank the participants for their enthusiastic participation in our research. We thank Marianne Hammat for her generous and thorough editing consultation and Teodora Angelova Atanasova for her graphic design on figure 3 Data Availability Due to the nature of the data collected, the original data generated and analysed in this study is confidential References Alikhani, S., Nummi, P., & Ojala, A. (2021). Urban wetlands: a review on ecological and cultural values. Water , 13 . https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3301 Amato, B., & Petit, S. (2023). Improving conservation outcomes in agricultural landscapes: farmer perceptions of native vegetation on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. Agriculture and Human Values , 40 , 1537–1557. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10458-y Australian Brodcasting Corporation (2022). Mallee - federal election 2022 . Retrieved 12 March 2024 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/mall Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). Kerang - 2021 census all persons QuickStats . Retrieved 27 Feb 2024 from https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/215031402 Baker, R., Taylor, M. D., Able, K. W., Beck, M. W., Cebrian, J., Colombano, D. D., Connolly, P. M., Currin, C., Deegan, L. A., Feller, I. C., Gilby, B. L., Kimball, M. E., Minello, T. J., Rozas, L. P., Simenstad, C., Turner, R. E., Waltham, N. J., Weinstein, M. P., Ziegler, S. L., . . . Staver, L. W. (2020). Fisheries rely on threatened salt marshes. Science , 370 (6517), 670–671. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/science.abe9332 Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research . Balwan, W. K., & Kour, S. (2021). Wetland - An ecological boon for the environment. East African Scholars Journal of Agriculture and Life Sciences , 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.36349/easjals.2021.v04i03.001 Baumber, A., Cross, R., Waters, C., Metternicht, G., & Kam, H. (2021). Understanding the social licence of carbon farming in the Australian Rangelands. Sustainability , 14 , 174. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010174 Best, H. (2010). Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Society & Natural Resources , 23 , 451-468. https://doi.org/http://doi.org.10.1080.08941920802178206 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brown, C., Kovacs, E., Herzon, I., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Albizua, A., Galanaki, A., Grammatikopoulou, I., McCracken, D., Olsson, J. A., & Zinngrebe, Y. (2021). Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultual policy. Land Use Policy , 101 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136 Casanova, M. T., & Casanova, A. (2016). Current and future risks of cropping wetlands in Victoria . Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Diaz, S., Gomez-Baggethum, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martin-Lopez, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS , 113 , 1462 - 1465. https://doi.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 Chan, K. M. A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Nadioo, R., Vadeboncoeur, N., & Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: theory & practice of mapping ecosystem services (pp. 206–228). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0012 Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics , 74 , 8–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. M. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy , 82 , 464-475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017 Chausson, A., Turner, B., Seddon, D., Chabaneix, N., Girardin, C. A. J., Kapos, V., Key, I., Roe, D., Smith, A., Woroniecki, S., & Seddon, N. (2020). Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaption. Global Change Biology , 26 , 6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310 Clarke, B., Thet, A. K., Sandhu, H., & Dittmann, S. (2021). Integrating cultural ecosystem services valuation into coastal wetlands restoration: a case study from South Australia. Environmental Science and Policy , 116 , 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.11.014 Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neil, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Bvelt, M. V. D. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature , 387 , 253–260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 Davidson, D. J., Rollins, C., Lefsrud, L., Anders, S., & Hamann, A. (2018). Just don’t call it climate change: climate-skeptic farmer adoption of climate-mitigative practices [Letter]. Environmental Research , 14 . https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa30 Department of Climate Change, E., the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). (2024, 4 April 2024). Australia’s Strategy for Nature . Australian Government. Retrieved 6 May from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/en vironment/biodiversity/conservation/strategy#:~:text =Australia's%20 Strategy%20for%20Nature%202019,way%20we%20care%20for%20nature Department of Climate Change, E., the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) , . (2024, April 2024). Australia’s strategy for nature . Australian Government. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/conservation/strategy Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurle, J., & Bavel, R. v. (2019). Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 46 , 417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019 Dobbie, M. F. (2013). Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning , 120 , 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbanplan.2013.08.018 Dumbrell, N. P., Kragt, M. E., & Gibson, F. L. (2016). What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey. Land Use Policy , 54 , 29-37. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002 Environment Australia (2001). A directory of important wetlands in Australia . https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/wetlands/australian-wetlands-database/directory-important-wetlands Falconer, K. (2000). Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. Journal of Rural Studies , 16 (3), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/SO743-0167(99)00066-2 Fluet-Chouinard, E., Stocker, B. D., Zhang, Z., Malhotra, A., Melton, J. R., Poulter, B., Kaplan, J. O., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Minayeva, T., Hugelius, G., Joosten, H., Barthelmes, A., Prigent, C., Aires, F., Hoyt, A. M., Davidson, N., Finlayson, C. M., Lehner, B., . . . McIntyre, P. B. (2023). Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature , 614 , 281–286. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05572-6 Friess, D. A., Yando, E. S., Alemu, J. B., Wong, L.-W., Soto, S. D., & Bhatia, N. (2020). Ecosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests and salt marshes (1 ed.). CRC Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.1201/9780429351495-3/ecosystem-services-disservices-mangrove-forests-salt-marshes-daniel-friess-erik-yando-jahson-alemu-lynn-wei-wong-sasha-soto-natasha-bhatia Gannawarra Shire Council (GSC). (2024). Industry profile - agriculture . Victorian Government. Retrieved 12 March 2024 from https://www.gannawarra.vic.gov.au/Invest-in-the-Gannawarra/Industry-Profile/Agriculture Giblett, R. J. (1996). Postmodern wetlands: culture, history, ecology . Edinburgh University Press. Gifford, R. (2016). Research methods for environmental psychology . Wiley Blackwell. Gill, N. J., Klepeis, P., & Chisholm, L. A. (2010). Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 53 (3), 317–334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003612890 Gooden, J. L. (2019). Cultivating identity through private land conservation. People and Nature , 1 (3), 362–375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.32 Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science , 307 , 550. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049 Greiner, R. (2015). Motivations and attitudes influence farmers’ willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. Agricultural Systems , 137 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.005 Greiner, R., & Gregg, D. (2011). Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Emperical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy , 28 (1), 257-265. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006 Harrison, I., Abell, R., Darwall, W., Thieme, M. L., Tickner, D., & Timboe, I. (2018). The freshwater biodiversity crisis. Science , 362 (1369), 1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9242 Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine , 292 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 Hughes, S., Lewis, S., Willis, K., Rogers, A., Wyke, S., & Smith, L. (2017). The experience of facilitators and participants of long term condition self-management group programmes: A qualitative synthesis. Patient Education and Counseling , 100 , 2244–2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.035 Jassim, D., Witt, B., & Evans, M. C. (2022). Community perceptions of carbon farming: A case study of the semi-arid Mulga Lands in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Rural Studies , 96 , 77-88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.10.010 Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., O’Brien, L., Potthast, T., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Wittmer, H. (2018). Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for undrestanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 35 , 22-29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009 Johnasson, M., Rahm, J., & Gyllin, M. (2013). Landowners’ participation in biodiversity conservation examined through the value-belief-norm theory. Landscape Research , 38 , 295-311. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.683576 Karami, R. (2023). Hierarchy of value orientation and beliefs in cliamte change influencing the farmers’ extractive or non-extractive behaviour on the farm. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 26 , 14743-14762. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03215-y Klain, S. C., Satterfield, T. A., & Chan, K. M. A. (2014). What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecological Economics , 107 , 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003 Klebl, F., Parisi, A., Hafner, K., Adler, A., Barreiro, S., Bodea, F. V., Bronnimann, V., Vries, J. P. R. d., Santos, A. D., Hood, A. S. C., Melts, I., Popa, R., Vajna, F., Velado-Alonso, E., & Kernecker, M. L. (2024). How values and perceptions shape farmers’ biodiversity management: Insights from ten European countries. Biological Conservation , 291 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110496 Kragt, M. E., Dumbrell, N. P., & Blackmore, L. (2017). Motivations and barriers for Western Australian broad-acre farmers to adopt carbon farming. Environmental Science and Policy , 73 , 115–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.009 Lastra-Bravo, X. B., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G., & Tolon-Becerra, A. (2015). What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental shemes?: Results from a ualitative meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy , 54 , 1-9. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002 Li, H., Liu, H., & Chang, W.-Y. (2024). Extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation: Key factors influencing farmers’land quality protection behavior in China. Environmental Management . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02088-9 Lumivero. (2024). NVIVO . In (Version 14) www.lumivero.com Maraseni, T. N., & Dargusch, P. (2008). Expanding woodland regeneration on marginal southern Queensland pastures using market-based instruments: a ladnowners’ perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management , 15 , 104-112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2008.9725190 Millenium Ecosystem Assesment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis . https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/37435 Moor, H., Bergamini, A., Vorburger, C., Holderegger, R., Buhler, C., Egger, S., & Schmidt, B. R. (2022). Bending the curve: simple but massive conservation leads to landscape-scale recovery of amphibians. Applied Biological Sciences , 119 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123070119 Namey, E. E., Guest, G., Mckenna, K., & Chen, M. (2016). Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus gropus based on thematic saturation levels. Americal Journal of Evaluation , 37 . https://doi.org/DOI:10.1177/1098214016630406 Newell, B. R., McDonald, R. I., Brewer, M., & Hayes, B. K. (2014). The Psychology of Environmental Decisions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 39 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623 North Central Catchment Management Authority (2017). Kerang wetlands Ramsar site action plan 2017-2025 . https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/4552945/documents/AU265_mgt190404.pdf North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA). (2024, 2024). Traditional owners of the region . North Central Catchment Management Authority. Retrieved 27/02/2024 from https://northcentral.rcs.vic.gov.au/our-region/traditional-owners-of-the-region/ O’Gorman, E. (2020). Wetlands in a dry land: more-than-human histories of australia’s Murray-Darling basin . University of Washington Press. Oza, T. M., Lane, R., Adame, M. F., & Reef, R. (2021). Coastal wetland management in the Great Barrier Reef: farmer perceptions. Geographical Research , 59 (4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12497 Piao, X., & Managi, S. (2024). Determinants of pro-environmental behavior: effects of socioeconomic, subjective, and psychological well-being factors from 37 countries. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 11 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03790-z Ramachandra, T. V., Aithal, B. H., & Kumar, U. (2012). Conservation of wetlands to mitigate urban floods. Resources, Energy, and Development , 9 (1), 1–22. Ramsar. (2024). The convention on wetlands . Retrieved 24 July 2024 from https://www.ramsar.org/ Rannap, R., Lohmus, A., & Briggs, L. (2009). Restoring ponds for amphibians: A succcess story. Pond Conservation , 634 , 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9884-8 Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Robinson, G. M. (2011). The influence of place attachment, and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioural models. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 31 , 323-335. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10,1016/j.jenvp.2011.08.006 Rochecouste, J.-F., Dargusch, P., & King, C. (2017). Farmer perceptions of the opportunities and constraints to producing carbon offsets from Australian dryland grain cropping farms. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management , 24 , 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1379037 Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data . SAGE Publications, Inc. Schuster, L., Taillardat, P., Macreadie, P. I., & Malerba, M. E. (2024). Freshwater wetland restoration and conservation are long-term natural climate solutions. Science of The Total Environment , 922 . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171218 Scott, A. (2005). Historical evidence of native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin at the time of European settlement . CRC for Freshwater Ecology. https://ewater.org.au/archive/crcfe/freshwater/publications.nsf/f8748e6acfab1b7fca256f1e001536e1/ b43272ca7c8449beca2570bb002955cc/ $FILE/Fish%20history%20in%20MDB.pdf Sherren, K., & Verstraten, C. (2013). What can photo-elicitation tell us about how maritime farmers perceive wetlands as climate changes. Wetlands , 33 , 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0352-2 Steg, L. (2017). Applied social psychology: understanding and managing social problems . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107358430 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 29 (3), 309-317. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 Streever, W. J. (1997). Trends in Australian wetland rehabilitation. Wetlands Ecology and Management , 5 , 5-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008267102602 Sullivan, L. S. (2016). Medical maternalism: beyond paternalism and antipaternalism. Journal of Medical Ethics , 42 , 439–444. Tarnoczi, T. J., & Berkes, F. (2009). Sources of information for farmers’ adaption practices in Canada’s Prairie agro-ecosystem. Climatic Change , 98 , 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9762-4 Thorslund, J., Jarsjo, J., Jaramillo, F., Jawitz, J. W., Manzoni, S., Basu, N. B., Chalov, S. R., Cohen, M. J., Creed, I. F., Goldenberg, R., Hylin, A., Kalantari, Z., Koussis, A. D., Lyon, S. W., Mazi, K., Mard, J., Persson, K., Pietron, J., Prieto, C., . . . Destouni, G. (2017). Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecological Engineering , 108 , 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.07.012 Tian, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical progress and future directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 , 6721. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116721 Torabi, N., Cooke, B., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). The role of social networks and trusted peers in promoting biodiverse carbon plantings. Australian Geographer , 47 (2), 139–156. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2016.1154535 Torabi, N., Mata, L., Gordon, A., Garrard, G., Wescott, W., Dettmann, P., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). The money or the trees: what drives landholders participation in bioiverse carbon plantings? . Global Ecology and Conservation , 7 , 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.03.008 Ulicsni, V., Molnar, Z., Szentirmai, I., & Babai, D. (2024). Poor convergence between local traditional farmers and conservationists on which species to protect locally. People and Nature , 6 (4), 1421–1434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10650 United Nations (2023). The sustainable development goals report: special edition . https://sdgs.un.org/goals Wei, X., Guan, Z., & Zhu, H. (2016). Farmer’s willingness to participate in wetland restoration: a hurdle model approach. Agricultural Economics , 47 (6), 719–727. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12268 Welsh, R., Webb, M. E., & Langen, T. A. (2018). Factors affecting landowner enrollment in wetland restoration in northeastern New York State. Land Use Policy , 76 , 679–685h. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.051 Whitten, S. M., & Bennett, J. (1999). Farmer perceptions of wetlands and wetland managmeent in the upper south sast of South Australia Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Christchurch, New Zealand. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology . PA: Open University Press. Wilson, G. A., & Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary-agrienvironmental schemes. Enivornment and Planning A: Economy and Space , 32 (12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311 Wyss, A. M., Knoch, D., & Berger, S. (2022). When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 79 (101748). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101748 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 05 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Wetlands → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 23 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 18 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 16 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7097465","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":497046626,"identity":"2bfafa98-0a7c-456e-a842-046d8e781da9","order_by":0,"name":"Elizabeth P Galanis","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8704-8964","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"P","lastName":"Galanis","suffix":""},{"id":497046627,"identity":"c266fcf8-71d8-4f62-92c2-e6a8e0f29d04","order_by":1,"name":"Lai Ming Lam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lai","middleName":"Ming","lastName":"Lam","suffix":""},{"id":497046628,"identity":"e65f5460-7afe-4292-98c8-978bef876beb","order_by":2,"name":"Lukas Schuster","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lukas","middleName":"","lastName":"Schuster","suffix":""},{"id":497046629,"identity":"1af9af89-8845-4a6c-ba60-40a3795517ff","order_by":3,"name":"Damien Cook","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wetland Revival Trust","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Damien","middleName":"","lastName":"Cook","suffix":""},{"id":497046630,"identity":"83afd187-3445-4bed-85c8-207832ab83d4","order_by":4,"name":"Martino E Malerba","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Deakin University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martino","middleName":"E","lastName":"Malerba","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-11 03:59:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02042-x","type":"published","date":"2026-03-05T15:58:55+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89017522,"identity":"01b05294-2554-4d50-9e09-114a68adaa84","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-13 19:11:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":443960,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAn example of wetlands before and after restoration\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7097465/v1/1811746890b8d75dd2a55965.png"},{"id":89017517,"identity":"2f980586-b6ec-4987-bd7c-bdba4216eea8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-13 19:11:02","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160665,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCase study region centred around Kerang, Victoria. The region contains the Loddon and Murray rivers, major Australian river systems. The region also contains wetlands some of which are protected internationally under the Ramsar Convention.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7097465/v1/9cca1312b7cecd3f43d0ff54.png"},{"id":89017518,"identity":"d5d6f9b3-a0bf-4085-abfd-b79c98d5f85c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-13 19:11:02","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":586583,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSummary of results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7097465/v1/6dc4999f357f2f284970893e.png"},{"id":89017520,"identity":"f3333c1d-3a02-4fd0-80de-ce1782449d99","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-13 19:11:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":152730,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of mentions of native flora and fauna\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7097465/v1/34070988d235ca122b71486a.png"},{"id":104250695,"identity":"5a7ab7fc-8243-47f3-8f6d-0f323d1e3476","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-09 16:05:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1980319,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7097465/v1/e335d0c5-a943-48cb-93df-e08d156ba828.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Restoring Australia’s freshwater wetlands: Rural landholder perspectives","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWetlands are among the most productive and biodiverse ecosystems in the world (Balwan \u0026amp; Kour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). They offer a wide range of ecosystem services including enhanced biodiversity, increased flood and drought resilience, reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, improved nutrient cycling, sediment filtering and carbon storage (Baker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Costanza et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Friess et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ramachandra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Wetlands play a key role in environmental services, and they have been shown to hold significant cultural value (Alikhani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Clarke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and to enhance human wellbeing (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWetlands are critical to sustain biodiversity. Yet, these ecosystems are amongst the most threatened globally and we are amidst a freshwater biodiversity crisis (Fluet-Chouinard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Harrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In the state of Victoria in Australia, 60–70% of freshwater marshes have been drained or otherwise degraded since European colonisation, with 90% of those losses occurring on private land. In particular, freshwater wetlands in Kerang — our study region — are reported by Victorian Government authorities to be amongst the most degraded (Environment Australia \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). The creation of new freshwater areas can help reverse the decline of species such as amphibians, mammals, birds and crayfish (Rannap et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), yet examples of large-scale restoration efforts are rare (Moor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond their biodiversity benefits, wetlands have an important role in climate change prevention and mitigation. A pristine wetland acts as a net carbon sink (Schuster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), lessening climate change impacts by increasing soil water retention, protecting from floods, and creating a cooler microclimate (Chausson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Thorslund et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, degraded wetlands contribute to climate change by releasing their carbon stocks into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases (Schuster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Australian state of Victoria, government authorities estimate that two-thirds of naturally occurring wetlands are on private land (Casanova \u0026amp; Casanova, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), highlighting the crucial role private landholders play in wetland management. Historically, wetlands have been viewed unfavourably, associated with disease and death (Giblett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; O’Gorman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, recent global literature indicates a shift towards positive views, with wetlands being recognised for their non-monetary and cultural values (Alikhani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Clarke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Dobbie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Welsh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Despite this evolving perception, Australian landholders’ views on freshwater wetland management remained largely unstudied, with only one empirical study published 25 years ago (Whitten \u0026amp; Bennett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Whitten and Bennett (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) surveyed 50 wetland owners, finding significant non-monetary benefits such as recreational and aesthetic value. With most wetlands now degraded, there is a critical gap in understanding what motivates landholders to restore these ecosystems. Understanding these motivations is important for developing effective conservation strategies (Steg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and helping Australia meet critical climate and biodiversity targets (DCCEEW, 2024). By aligning restoration efforts with landholders’ values, conservation projects can better engage participants and achieve long-term success (Torabi, Cooke, et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe interviewed landholders who were participating in an agri-environmental scheme to restore a freshwater wetland on their property in Kerang, Australia to (1) identify motivations and barriers for private landholder participation in a freshwater wetland restoration project and (2) examine the impact (if any) of climate change on participants. The program was facilitated by a local ecologist who secured government funding for the project and worked with landholders to identify appropriate sites for restoration. Selected sites were re-vegetated and re-wetted; either by removing barriers to natural water flow or by constructing small-scale water-delivery infrastructure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLandholder decision making in agri-environmental schemes\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile a wealth of research already investigates the underlying factors of pro-environmental decision making (Piao \u0026amp; Managi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Steg \u0026amp; Vlek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Tian \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wyss et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), this research typically focuses on small personal choices such choices about diet or recycling (Newell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, rural landholders’ and farmers’ decisions to adopt more sustainable practices typically occur infrequently, have long-term personal and economic consequences and may require substantial investment and commitment (Dessart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, they often contribute to the provision of public goods and affect both the agricultural business and broader environmental outcomes (Dessart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Investigations into farmer and rural landholder pro-environmental decision making is therefore distinct from individual, domestic decisions and requires a separate line of investigation (Dessart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to this crossover between agricultural decision making and the agricultural business, a systematic review by Brown et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) finds that researchers and policymakers often presume agricultural landholders and farmers to be motivated by economic factors. However, dispositional, social, cognitive factors and other contextual factors have been underappreciated to the detriment to the success of agri-environmental schemes (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Dessart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) with a wealth of literature identifying intrinsic value as a key driver of farmer behaviour (Best, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Greiner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Greiner \u0026amp; Gregg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Johnasson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Karami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Klebl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Raymond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This lack of recognition by policy may damage farmer attitudes towards policy and environmental objectives such as by (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Brown et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) call for an urgent redesign of policies to ensure intangible aspects of farmer decision making, such as values, are accounted for. They argue that research into why farmers choose to participate in schemes should therefore be a key tool for agri-environmental policy development (Falconer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Lastra-Bravo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Wilson \u0026amp; Hart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe recently named concept ‘relational values’, drawn from social sciences, challenges the divide between instrumental values (material benefits) and intrinsic values. Instead, they highlight how people express principles, preferences and virtues through meaningful relationships (Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This is a useful concept in the context of agriculture, where a connection with nature shapes both its benefits (e.g. food, shelter) and deeper values such as respect, care and responsibility. While instrumental views may see these as costs, relational perspectives see them as essential to wellbeing (Jax et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This is especially relevant in farming, where land provides both practical benefits and cultural, spiritual, or personal meaning. These values overlap, decisions being shaped by a complex interplay of biocentric, relational, identity and instrumental values (Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Chapman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Jax et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, decisions about land management may reflect a desire to support biodiversity, maintain cultural heritage and foster a sense of stewardship (Greiner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Torabi, Mata, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A systematic review by Dessart et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) identifies motivations values as a key factor underlying pro-environmental decision making. Recognising these aspects of decision making is important to understanding motivations of participants in conservation programs (Greiner \u0026amp; Gregg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Klebl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the importance of intrinsic value to decision making, literature also shows that rural landholders face practical barriers which can limit participation in restoration efforts. Barriers may include a mistrust in government or authorities providing incentives or assistance (Baumber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), uncertainty about policy and practices (Dumbrell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kragt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), social stigma of farming practices that are considered passive management of land (Jassim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), upfront costs associated with participation (Kragt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), lack of knowledge about a practice (Maraseni \u0026amp; Dargusch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Rochecouste et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and conflicts with participant values (Chapman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Understanding how values and barriers interact is necessary for designing effective conservation policies that align with farmers’ motivations while addressing structural challenges (Chapman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCase study area\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case study area lies in the Kerang Region, 279 km north-west of Melbourne which is run by the Gannawara Local Shire Council (GSC) and the Loddon Shire Council (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) is responsible for land and water management in the area. The region includes traditional lands of the Dja Dja Wurrung, Taungurung, Yorta Yorta, Barapa Barapa, Wemba Wemba and Wadi Wadi clans who live in the area today (NCCMA, 2024). Europeans arrived from 1836 (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Today, Kerang is a commercial centre for dairy, cereal and legume cropping, livestock and horticulture (GSC,2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKerang is home to internationally significant wetlands including the Kerang Wetlands, which comprise over 100 lakes and swamps on the Loddon River floodplain (NCCMA, 2017). Kerang Wetlands are protected under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, especially as waterfowl habitat (Ramsar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The Kerang wetlands are recognised as having significant social and economic value contributing an estimated \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e238\u0026nbsp;million per year to the region. The wetlands regularly support at least 20,000 waterbirds and a range of species at critical life stages (breeding, migration and moulting) (NCCMA, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Kerang region is classified as grassland with hot, dry summers and cold winters. The area sees a mean daily maximum temperature of 22.9°C and mean annual rainfall is 327.7 mm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the 2021 Australian census, 93% of people in Kerang were born in Australia and the region was listed as ‘other Christian’ (ABS, 2021). The region sits in the federal division of Mallee, a safe Nationals seat. The Nationals Party is a centre-right party that has historically represented the needs of farmers and rural communities (ABC, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIn-depth interview method\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the absence of research on private landholder perspectives on wetland ownership and management we used qualitative methodology, as it allows for investigation of the research questions without pre-defined, deductive categories. We selected in-depth interview methodology to examine complex motivations, situations and behaviours that cannot be captured using quantitative methods alone (Gifford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). An in-depth interview also allows flexibility in questions to participants (Willig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e We obtained ethics approval from Deakin University’s Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment Human Ethics Advisory Group (reference SEBE-2022-68). The program facilitator of a local wetland restoration program recruited nine landholders who all agreed to participate in interviews. Participants read a plain language statement, signed consent forms and consented to their interview being recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Our interview guidelines emphasised that verbal consent was to be re-established at the beginning of all interviews along with a verbal explanation of the research and again if the interviewer suspected hesitancy from the participant. The interviewer emphasised to participants that they could opt out of any questions or topics at any time, and request their data be withdrawn at any time before publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe initially planned face-to-face interviews; however, we shifted to phone interviews due to logistic challenges. The interviews followed a guide outlining topics to be discussed with example questions. We treated the interview guide as an example of topics to discuss, rather than a strict script. This ensured flexibility for participants to speak on issues most important to them. Our interview guide included open-ended questions about the landholders’ background, what drew them to the wetland restoration program, what benefits they expected to gain from the program, and how they are impacted by a changing climate. Demographic data was collected verbally after the interview.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Our interviewer followed standard guidelines for conducting interviews, including using probing and follow-up questions and avoiding closed or leading questions and the use of jargon. The interviewer used reflection of feeling and meaning to build rapport and enhance and confirm understanding. Active silence was used to allow participants to feel heard and speak freely (Rubin \u0026amp; Rubin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSample\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Our sample consisted of nine participants, the total enrolled in a two-year research program funded by the Australian Federal Government to restore wetlands in private properties and monitor carbon and biodiversity benefits. The number of participants was limited by funding, which covered landscaping for wetland restoration, engineering work, expert knowledge, interviews, infrastructure, and water access. However, previous research suggests a sample of nine interviews is adequate for reaching saturation, defined as the point where further data collection yields no new information (Hennink \u0026amp; Kaiser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, a systematic review by Namey et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that eight in-depth interviews can reach 80% saturation, with doubling the sample providing only an additional 10%. Studies with a homogenous sample, such as ours, were able to reach saturation at the lower end, with 5 to 10 interviews (Hennink \u0026amp; Kaiser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData analysis method\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe adapted Braun and Clarke’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) methodology for thematic analysis, which consists of six steps:\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamiliarisation with the data – We manually transcribed interviews as opposed to automation or outsourcing to increase familiarity with the data, as recommended by Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). An audio player and a Phillips transcription pedal were used to facilitate transcription. Transcriptions were anonymised and loaded into Nvivo 14 software (Lumivero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Due to the difficulties in anonymising interview transcripts, especially with a small sample from a tight-knit community, the interview data is kept in a private repository managed by Deakin University. Data will be removed after seven years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenerating initial codes – After familiarisation with the data, we generated codes using a theory-based approach from the ecosystem services framework popularised by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which classifies services into provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural. Chan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) expanded this framework, emphasising that services are better understood as the benefits they provide, and that benefits are created by values held by those who interact with the ecosystem. Their approach highlights how values, such as a biocentric, intrinsic and instrumental, create benefits derived from ecosystem services (Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We applied Chan et al.’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) categories of values, benefits and services as a theoretical lens to explore landholder motivations for participating in wetland restoration projects. This structured approach enabled us to explore how values shape motivations in the context of conservation initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe used categories from Chan et al.’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) ecosystem services, benefits and values framework as these provide a holistic baseline for decision making (Chan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). We created additional codes to explain contextual information in the data and anything that was not covered in Chan et al.’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) framework. This provided enough flexibility to code all data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSearching for themes – The researcher worked through the transcripts systematically. Most lines in all interviews were assigned to at least one code.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReviewing themes – We developed thematic maps which were refined iteratively with the return to coding and searching for themes (steps (2) and (3)).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDefining and naming themes – We developed a draft to define the scope and name of each theme. The researcher returned to Nvivo to organise codes, ensuring every code fit within one of the themes. Themes were cross-reviewed by a second researcher to ensure validity. Given our small sample size, themes were created around codes that were unanimous, or near-unanimous, and uncontested amongst participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eProducing the report – The themes were elaborated in a final write-up of results and compelling extracts from the transcripts were quoted. To respect participant anonymity, we sought permission from the relevant participants to use each quote in our report. To ensure validity of results, participants were provided with a draft and invited to provide feedback. No amendments were requested and we were authorised to use all quotes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur sample consisted of seven male and two female landholders, with farm sizes ranging from 40 to 2,589 hectares (mean 1,455 ha). There was a mix of educational backgrounds from high school to tertiary education. Two participants were retired farmers, one semi-retired and the remaining six were active farmers in dairy, cattle, sheep and/or cropping. Most participants described their financial situation as comfortable. Participants had been associated with farming for most of their lives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeven participants had agreed to have a wetland restored on their property. In contrast, one participant already had a significant wetland restored on their property and was contributing to the program by allowing access to their property as an example for others. One other interviewee did not have a plan for restoring a wetland but was in negotiations to help with water supply for a neighbour\u0026rsquo;s wetland project, contributing their water allocation and pipeline and pumping infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews lasted between 39 and 99 minutes (mean 65.5 minutes). Our analysis of transcribed interviews created three themes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In this paper, \u0026lsquo;nature\u0026rsquo; refers to an area of land that contains predominantly native flora and fauna.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 1: Conservation for nature\u0026rsquo;s sake\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants were motivated by what the program can do for nature\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Although the interview protocol was designed to focus on the participants\u0026rsquo; perceived benefits of wetlands, participants seemed less concerned with the personal benefits of wetlands and spoke more about the services wetlands could provide to native flora and fauna on their property. Although some perceived benefits were mentioned (e.g. aesthetics, wellbeing, recreation, knowledge-sharing), these were mainly revealed in response to probing or follow-up questions and were not immediately salient to participants. The intrinsic value of nature was the most frequent latent code throughout the dataset in terms of the number of overall mentions (52 mentions, mentioned by 100% of participants). Native animals and plants were frequently mentioned, with birds and trees being mentioned most frequently (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Molluscs and fungi were mentioned least frequently (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants expressed the value of nature, which was frequently described as the key motivator for participation. Landholders\u0026rsquo; relationship with nature was predominantly expressed in a maternalistic manner, with a desire to provide and care for nature. In this instance, \u0026lsquo;maternalistic\u0026rsquo; means to decide what is best for another based on a reasonable understanding of that person\u0026rsquo;s preference (Sullivan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e For example, when asked what drew them to the wetland program, on participant stated that their motivation was helping birds and fish to survive through the summer:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;(Interviewer: I\u0026rsquo;m wondering what was it that drew you to having a wetland at the property?) Oh oh, just yeah. The creek goes dry every year and so normally it\u0026rsquo;s struggled. This year it hasn\u0026rsquo;t gone dry, most years it\u0026rsquo;s out and it\u0026rsquo;s just a winter running creek. And some of you know, the birds and whatever, the fish can survive over the summer.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Another participant began speaking about their desire for the wetland to benefit flora and fauna immediately in the interview after initial ice-breaker questions, without specific prompting:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;And so we are building a, we\u0026rsquo;re actually going to building a bit of a wetland in part of that. Um, yeah. So that we can um, yeah, just have a bit of permanent water there, for some fish and reeds and rushes and yeah, and something for the animals to drink and the birds to play in and stuff.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 8).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome landholders spoke of a biocentric relationship with native plants and animals on their property, viewing fauna and flora as friends or having long-standing relationships with specific wild animals. For example, this participant mentioned befriending native animals and talking to trees as a friend.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;(Interviewer: And you mentioned that you chat to trees) Yep. Yeah. (Interviewer: Do you mind if I ask you what that\u0026rsquo;s like?) Oh just, chatting. Yep. Yeah [laughs]. No but I dunno. As you walk through you always, I dunno, I\u0026rsquo;m always chatting to them and seeing how they\u0026rsquo;re going or telling them what I\u0026rsquo;ve been up to or something. I don\u0026rsquo;t know if they listen or not, but it makes me feel better. Heh. Yeah.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (participant 8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost participants shared granular details about biodiversity on their land, for example, the scientific names of plants and animals or observations about long-term changes. Some landholders didn\u0026rsquo;t mention any specific flora and fauna but did speak of nature as an equal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor other participants, it was difficult to verbalise the importance of nature; there was a feeling that it \u0026lsquo;just is\u0026rsquo; important without being able to explain the reason.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;(Interviewer: What sort of impact does having birds and ducks on your farm have?) Ah, it doesn\u0026rsquo;t have much of an impact but it\u0026rsquo;s, yeah, it\u0026rsquo;s just good. I like the natural environment. So yeah, the animals are there. Yeah, I don\u0026rsquo;t know why but \u0026hellip; \u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough views towards native animals were maternal or biocentric, relationships with other animals on the property were not. For example, a participant may have verbalised strong maternal care for native animals while also mentioning hunting or culling of introduced species. Native animals had special standing that other wild animals did not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; relationships with biodiversity were often associated with strong emotions, connection to place or family, custodianship, and healing with traditional owners. The interviewer noted strong emotions and inspiration \u0026ndash; in themselves and in participants \u0026ndash; evoked by the participant\u0026rsquo;s words and tone during interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Oh we love it. It\u0026rsquo;s a thrill every time we find something new, or we see something living happily on our farm. Gosh, I\u0026rsquo;m getting emotional just thinking about it. We just, we just love it.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Finding a new plant, is yeah, it gives you a real buzz. Particularly in light of remembering what my partner had done here. I feel like she\u0026rsquo;s saying \u0026ldquo;over there, over there\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 2: Breaking boundaries\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRemoval of barriers to conservation enabled participation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral participants had experience applying to other types of conservation programs or grants with varying difficulty. Although positive experiences with conservation programs were frequently mentioned, difficulties were typically bureaucratic, financial or practical. Practical barriers were more likely to be considered \u0026lsquo;not a big deal\u0026rsquo;. Bureaucratic and financial barriers in previous projects were sometimes hurdles that required enormous personal sacrifice. One interviewee, a retired farmer, had sacrificed time with family, holidays and even hobbies to create a wetland and re-wild a large portion of their property.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the seven participants who were restoring a wetland on their property, five explicitly stated that they had no major concerns or worries about the project going forward. For example:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Um not really no. I recon yeah, I think it will only benefit it.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;No, not really. No. No like I said, [the area where the wetland will go is] no longer a farm dam and yeah.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Oh no, no. Where it\u0026rsquo;s gunna get wet it doesn\u0026rsquo;t grow much pasture in it anyway, so I\u0026rsquo;m not losing anything really. I\u0026rsquo;m just helping the environment, you\u0026rsquo;d say. Yeah. And helping wildlife. So yeah, I\u0026rsquo;m not going to lose anything by having water over it, yeah.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Ummm \u0026hellip; not really. Just a bit of time. That\u0026rsquo;s about it. Yep.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the remaining two participants, one mentioned concern about their lack of knowledge regarding wetlands and the other had doubts regarding the size and impact on existing farming land, as well as apprehensions about achieving a natural aesthetic and ensuring long-term environmental enhancement. Only one participant mentioned a barrier that could block their project going forward, which was their reliance on the cooperation of a neighbour to supply water.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo participants mentioned difficulties with bureaucracy or funding for the current project, barriers typically associated with other conservation programs. One participant summarised that grants were usually difficult to apply for as an individual and inaccessible to farmers and landholders. In this instance, the program facilitator had completed the bureaucratic process and identified interested landholders, removing the significant hurdle which usually exists in a conservation program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Well, I think they\u0026rsquo;re just, just even reading [grant applications], it doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like it\u0026rsquo;s designed for landholders, you know. They\u0026rsquo;re talking about $200,000. I think [the program facilitator] was just under a million, so unless landholders all had, say, an extension officer like [the program facilitator] did; he rang all these landholders and said \u0026ldquo;Do you want to have a wetland in your area?\u0026rdquo; And so, yep, that\u0026rsquo;s great. So that\u0026rsquo;s what you sort of need. You need a group of farmers to get together and say, \u0026ldquo;Yep, we want to do this\u0026rdquo;. So I think logistically it\u0026rsquo;s hard for people to know how to do it.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Furthermore, the program facilitator had established roots in the community and was already known to most participants before the program\u0026rsquo;s commencement. The facilitator\u0026rsquo;s existing community connections made it easy both for participants to come to the facilitator (e.g. some participants were introduced to them via neighbours or other people in town who knew they might be interested) and for the facilitator to contact landholders already known to be interested or having suitable land to do the project. The project facilitator was spoken about positively by participants as knowledgeable, respectful and trustworthy. For example, when one participant was asked how they met the program facilitator, they explained meeting in a casual setting through acquaintances, and valuing their knowledge:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Yeah, yeah. I heard he was over there. I didn\u0026rsquo;t know him, I heard he was over there and I just went and saw him. You don\u0026rsquo;t get a lot of people with the sort of knowledge that my partner had and [the program facilitator\u0026rsquo;s] got in the area here. I don\u0026rsquo;t know of another botanist in the area. You know, those sort of people just aren\u0026rsquo;t around.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs well as removal of barriers by the project facilitator, the participants\u0026rsquo; attributes may have contributed to their willingness to participate in conservation programs. Most participants mentioned feeling different to others in the community. For example, some mentioned that they have always been early adopters of environmental management practices or feel \u0026lsquo;unique\u0026rsquo; compared with others in the community. When asked what barriers they thought there were to others participating in a program like this one, participants mentioned \u0026lsquo;attitudes\u0026rsquo; most frequently. For example, participants felt that others in the community were less concerned about the environment than themselves or had been influenced by parents who were against \u0026lsquo;greenies\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 3: Finding balance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA conflict between the needs of farming and the needs of nature was salient for all participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants touched on a competition between farming and nature. Tensions between nature and agriculture fell into two categories: either agriculture putting a strain on nature or nature creating difficulties with farming practices. Participants may have felt this tension on their own properties or on other local properties. Participants felt there was an increasing competition between agriculture and nature, which formed part of their motivation to build a wetland.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants had a sense of a natural order of the land and used terms like \u0026lsquo;should be\u0026rsquo; to describe returning the land to that perceived natural order. For participants, how it \u0026lsquo;should be\u0026rsquo; seemed to refer to how the land would be if it were a wild, natural ecosystem such as pre-European colonisation of the region. Participants expressed a desire to restore their wetland in line with this natural order, such as choosing the types of vegetation that would thrive in the local conditions on their property and maximise biodiversity. Some participants had already engaged with scientists who helped them with these details. This expertise was highly regarded and gave landholders confidence in their conservation projects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor example, when speaking about long-term goals for their farm, Participant 9 stated:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo, as we are learning more we\u0026rsquo;d like to put back some of the other plants that should be in our environment, a big understory and the grasses and the wetland plants are just part of that. We\u0026rsquo;re trying to put back everything that should be in our environment. Because there are plenty of farms around us that have been laser graded and bared out and there\u0026rsquo;s really not much vegetation left at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen asked about how the restored wetland will be managed in the future, Participant 1 stated that keeping the wetland as it \u0026lsquo;should be\u0026rsquo; was of primary concern:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;But yeah, our primary thing is to protect it I suppose and yeah get the wetland going again and get the plants going again that should be there.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Participant 1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant 3 had transitioned their property from mostly farmland to mostly nature. When asked what that transition was like for them, they stated:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWell it was smart. Um, showed me what a property should have been doing for the last prior 40 years. Showed me that there was a lot of degraded land in the area that was sold terribly, terribly cheap and I know you can\u0026rsquo;t, but in hindsight I should have been buying that land and putting native plants back on it and it being sustainable. But yeah, its been, I never get sick of just looking at what\u0026rsquo;s happening here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the desire to create natural spaces, two participants had considered how nature might impact their farming enterprise when contemplating the size of their future wetlands. For other participants this required relatively little consideration, for example, in the case of part-time, semi-retired or retired farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants spoke about witnessing increasingly degraded natural landscapes in the region, and the destruction of wildlife habitat due to intensive farming practices. One participant stated that even climate change has a minimal impact on landscape degradation compared with modern agricultural systems. The intensification and modernisation of agriculture were, in some cases, motivators for participants to create a balance on their property between agriculture and nature. In most cases, participants had stronger concerns about native habitat loss than they did about climate change. These worries affected them emotionally (the emotional impact of witnessing ecological degradation) and financially (finding it difficult to farm on degraded land). When asked what seeing the loss of wildlife meant to them, Participant 7 stated:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOh it\u0026rsquo;s terrible, I reckon. You know, that\u0026rsquo;s what it\u0026rsquo;s all about bloody, everyone sharin\u0026rsquo; a bit of nature, you know. They\u0026rsquo;ve got their habitat and we took their habitat away from \u0026lsquo;em. Mm. So, no. And that\u0026rsquo;s another reason I was sorta doing the wetland, to get a few wildlife birds and everything back out there. So, they\u0026rsquo;ll come to that. \u0026lsquo;cause there are birds out there now. Yeah. Ducks, eagles, other birds. Yeah.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn some cases, the recent modernisation of a local channel system into a pipeline contributed to participants\u0026rsquo; interest in the program. A participant explained that water had been transported to their properties via an open channel system which was being upgraded to an enclosed pipeline. The pipeline would reduce water loss via evaporation and seepage, however water from the channels would no longer be available to plants and animals that had come to rely on it. Three participants mentioned this pipeline, all with varying views on the topic from favourable to unfavourable. Regardless of their view towards the pipeline, all these participants viewed the upgrade as a part of their reason to have a wetland, either because it enabled them to do so (e.g. by freeing up an area that was previously used for water storage) or to offset its impact on wildlife. For example, when Participant 6 was asked what benefits they felt the wetland would bring, they stated:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;What sort of benefit? Oh hah well it was basically, once we put the pipeline in there will be no dams anywhere in our area. So um, there\u0026rsquo;s nowhere you know for ducks, for the yabbies for anything um in the area, so yeah \u0026hellip; Now we got the pipe scheme through, which will only fill tanks and troughs, there\u0026rsquo;ll be no dams around.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlong with biodiversity loss, most participants noted a change in climate such as increasing extreme weather events (e.g. floods) or an increasing number of \u0026lsquo;bad years\u0026rsquo; where conditions are sub-optimal for agricultural production. All participants had experienced natural disasters firsthand and most felt the present climate was changed over their lifetime, when compared with their parent\u0026rsquo;s experience. There was heterogeneity in sentiments about climate change, with some participants feeling alarmed while others were cautious, calm or indifferent. Although most participants acknowledged a changing climate, no participants spoke about climate change as being a motivator for participating in the wetland program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough climate change wasn\u0026rsquo;t a primary concern, some participants did speak about how the program could enhance drought resilience on their property. For instance, one participant who had previously had a wetland on their property mentioned a bundle of benefits (as in Klain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) that led to drought resiliency from several angles. This landholder felt that the wetland would increase the property's aesthetic value, which could foster an agritourism business. This would diversify profits and generate income during droughts. Furthermore, the landholder felt that visitors during droughts would facilitate diverse community connections and enhance wellbeing during challenging times. The wetland could also be a \u0026lsquo;drought oasis\u0026rsquo; for native wildlife, which is in line with this participant\u0026rsquo;s biocentric values. In this example, the wetland was expected to facilitate balance during droughts by increasing water security for local fauna and flora and maintaining the participants\u0026rsquo; mental and financial wellbeing. For this participant, the creation of the wetland could align farm profitability with the needs of nature, removing the competition between nature and farming.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results revealed the most important motivator for landholders in this program was to enhance and protect the biodiversity of native flora and fauna. We found that having a program facilitator familiar with the local community removed barriers typically associated with conservation programs, such as lack of information, lack of trust in authority and bureaucratic and funding issues (Amato \u0026amp; Petit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kragt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Oza et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Wei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, a local program facilitator recruited landholders in the area most suitable to the program, such as those with appropriate land and psychosocial factors (Gooden, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). We found that although climate change was not spoken about as a motivator for wetland restoration, participants experienced a conflict between the needs of agriculture and nature. As agricultural practices intensified, landholders sought pathways to balance these competing needs on their property.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults contextualised within existing literature\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analysis of transcribed interviews identified three themes to explain why landowners restore their wetlands (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In theme 1 we discussed participants\u0026rsquo; interest in what the wetland restoration program could bring to nature above any other concerns. Theme 1 indicates that biodiversity stewardship was a key driver for private landholders to participate in this program. This echoes findings from previous studies. For example Welsh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) surveyed participants of a Wetland Reserve Program in America and found that sense of stewardship and engagement with the land were strong motivators for participation. Other studies about conservation more broadly supports our findings, for example Greiner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found in a survey of Australian farmers that stewardship and lifestyle predicted stated participation in conservation programs. Torabi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found farmers were more motivated by biodiversity than financial incentives. Our results build on these findings, showing that within the desire for stewardship landholders were most concerned for biodiversity and habitat promotion. Furthermore, results from theme 1 support Chan et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) proposition that the values individuals place on nature create ecosystem services and benefits, and drive individual decision making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn theme 1, we also note that when speaking of animals, interviewees mentioned birds most often while species such as molluscs, fungi and amphibians were spoken about the least. This finding is of interest because the species spoken about the least (e.g. water-bound amphibians) are likely to benefit the most from restoring freshwater wetlands (Rannap et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The disproportionate recognition of birdlife may be attributed to several factors: birds are more noticeable due to their vocalisation and they are commonly associated with healthy ecosystems. Whilst endangered species often go unseen and might not come to mind as readily. This pattern of emphasising birds might be widespread, with a recently published paper showing farmers disproportionately mentioned birds as a species to protect, and the species that might benefit more from protection were underrepresented (Ulicsni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). It is uncertain whether landholders in our study were aware of the benefits of wetland restoration to species that were mentioned least.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn theme 2, we discuss the importance of a local facilitator in removing barriers typically associated with conservation programs. Results from theme 2 are consistent with previous studies showing the importance of trusted peer networks in the uptake of biodiversity conservation (Torabi, Cooke, et al., 2016). The study also provided farmer to farmer connections where, for example a landholder opened their property with the rebuilt wetland for others. Farmer to farmer interaction has been shown to have a profound impact on acceptance of innovation (Tarnoczi \u0026amp; Berkes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, a trusted project facilitator was found to be an important factor in participation, compared with conservation programs. For example, Hughes et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that alignment of facilitator and participant motivation created a group of like-minded individuals. When the facilitators\u0026rsquo; and participants\u0026rsquo; motivations were aligned, trust in authority was enhanced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults from theme 3 show the importance of balancing nature and agriculture to landholders, which is consistent with previous studies. For example, Green et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) propose agriculture must either intensify to minimise the amount of land used, or implement practices that account for the needs of nature. In our case study, we found that landholders wanted to create space for nature on their rural properties. This aligns with previous research from Gill et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) which suggested that the desire to be a custodian of the landscape is bound with a desire to be a steward of farming traditions associated with productive agriculture. The results in theme 3 also revealed farmers were less concerned with climate change when choosing to restore their wetland; they saw restoring biodiversity as a more pressing issue, despite the wetland\u0026rsquo;s potential to offset the impacts of future droughts and floods. This is in line with other research. For example, a study from Canada found that although natural landscapes evoked feelings of stewardship and place identity for farmers, climate change was not a part of the narrative especially with regards to wetlands (Sherren \u0026amp; Verstraten, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Another Canadian survey conducted by Davidson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) similarly found that farmers were interested in participating in climate mitigation strategies, however motivations rarely included climate change prevention or mitigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplications for policy and management\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRestoration of freshwater wetlands can assist policymakers to reach international and domestic goals. For example, goal 15 of the United Nations\u0026rsquo; Sustainable development goals (SDG) is to \u0026lsquo;Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss\u0026rsquo; (UN, 2023). Australia\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eStrategy for Nature\u003c/em\u003e also seeks to protect and conserve 30% of Australia\u0026rsquo;s land, work towards zero new extinctions, restore inland water ecosystems and minimise the impact of climate change on nature (DCEEW, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlong with previous studies on rural landholder participation in conservation schemes, our research shows that landholders are strongly motivated to engage with practices that support biodiversity. Government conservation programs may be able to attract wider participation if benefits to native flora and fauna are emphasised. Our research shows that the restoration of freshwater wetlands aligned with values held by the rural landholders in the study. A further implication of this is that freshwater wetland restoration on private property is a plausible way to help Australia reach biodiversity targets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur research also reveals the positive impact of having a trusted, local project facilitator with intimate knowledge of the local ecology, landscape and people. A local facilitator was able to identify appropriate land and landholders in the area for a program and build trust with landholders that may have been more difficult for outsiders. Programs may consider employing local members of the community to facilitate conservation action as they will be most able to identify suitable land and landholders and achieve a high level of community engagement with the program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, program creators could consider balancing the needs of nature and agriculture both on individual properties and within the region. Programs that allow landholders to accommodate their agricultural enterprise whilst meeting the needs of nature, such as by creating wildlife habitat that will facilitate agritourism or identifying landholders with unused land, will find programs have multifaceted benefits. For example, restoring a freshwater wetland will benefit the environment and participant wellbeing and economic resilience. Policymakers could target regions that have undergone recent modernisation or intensification of agricultural practices where landholders may be seeking conservation activities to provide balance. Furthermore, landholders are concerned about the relevance of practices to their local ecosystem and landscape. Access to subject matter experts was viewed favourably by landholders, created confidence in the program, and aligned the project with their values of doing what \u0026lsquo;should\u0026rsquo; be done on the land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough there are no agreed-upon sample size requirements for qualitative research (Baker \u0026amp; Edwards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), we acknowledge that our sample size is smaller than average. Our choice was dictated by the funding available to restore wetlands for which the landowners enrolled. Such large-scale programs are rare (Streever, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), and no previous research program in Australia provided funds for restoration and multiple years of environmental monitoring and in-depth interviews. To ensure analytical rigour, our results were reviewed by two researchers and the participants. Also, the facilitator of the wetland restoration program reviewed results after spending extensive time with the participants. Given our sample included the total population of interest, was homogenous, and major findings were nearly unanimous, it is unlikely that additional participants would significantly change our results. Nonetheless, we recommend interpreting our findings within the context provided in the discussion.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Australian Government supported this work through the Australian Research Council (Dr Malerba, project ID DE220100752) and through the Future Drought Fund.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien Cook, the director of the Wetland Revival Trust, facilitated the wetland restoration program. No other competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth Galanis, Lai Ming Lam, Lukas Schuster, Damien Cook and Martino E Malerba all contributed to the research conceptualisation and study design. Damien Cook assisted with participant recruitment. Elizabeth Galanis conducted the interviews. Elizabeth Galanis conducted the data analysis with supervision from Lai Ming Lam. Elizabeth Galanis led the writing of the manuscript, and all authors critically contributed to revise it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank the participants for their enthusiastic participation in our research. We thank Marianne Hammat for her generous and thorough editing consultation and Teodora Angelova Atanasova for her graphic design on figure 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to the nature of the data collected, the original data generated and analysed in this study is confidential\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlikhani, S., Nummi, P., \u0026amp; Ojala, A. (2021). Urban wetlands: a review on ecological and cultural values. \u003cem\u003eWater\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3301 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmato, B., \u0026amp; Petit, S. (2023). Improving conservation outcomes in agricultural landscapes: farmer perceptions of native vegetation on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture and Human Values\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e, 1537\u0026ndash;1557. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10458-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Brodcasting Corporation (2022). \u003cem\u003eMallee - federal election 2022\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 12 March 2024 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/mall\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Bureau of Statistics (2021). \u003cem\u003eKerang - 2021 census all persons QuickStats\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 27 Feb 2024 from https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/215031402\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker, R., Taylor, M. D., Able, K. W., Beck, M. W., Cebrian, J., Colombano, D. D., Connolly, P. M., Currin, C., Deegan, L. A., Feller, I. C., Gilby, B. L., Kimball, M. E., Minello, T. J., Rozas, L. P., Simenstad, C., Turner, R. E., Waltham, N. J., Weinstein, M. P., Ziegler, S. L., . . . Staver, L. W. (2020). Fisheries rely on threatened salt marshes. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 370\u003c/em\u003e(6517), 670\u0026ndash;671. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1126/science.abe9332 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker, S. E., \u0026amp; Edwards, R. (2012). \u003cem\u003eHow many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalwan, W. K., \u0026amp; Kour, S. (2021). Wetland - An ecological boon for the environment. \u003cem\u003eEast African Scholars Journal of Agriculture and Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 4\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.36349/easjals.2021.v04i03.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaumber, A., Cross, R., Waters, C., Metternicht, G., \u0026amp; Kam, H. (2021). Understanding the social licence of carbon farming in the Australian Rangelands. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 14\u003c/em\u003e, 174. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010174 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBest, H. (2010). Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. \u003cem\u003eSociety \u0026amp; Natural Resources\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 23\u003c/em\u003e, 451-468. https://doi.org/http://doi.org.10.1080.08941920802178206 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 3\u003c/em\u003e, 77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, C., Kovacs, E., Herzon, I., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Albizua, A., Galanaki, A., Grammatikopoulou, I., McCracken, D., Olsson, J. A., \u0026amp; Zinngrebe, Y. (2021). Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultual policy. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 101\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCasanova, M. T., \u0026amp; Casanova, A. (2016). \u003cem\u003eCurrent and future risks of cropping wetlands in Victoria\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Diaz, S., Gomez-Baggethum, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martin-Lopez, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., \u0026amp; Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. \u003cem\u003ePNAS\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 113\u003c/em\u003e, 1462 - 1465. https://doi.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, K. M. A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Nadioo, R., Vadeboncoeur, N., \u0026amp; Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, \u0026amp; S. Polasky (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eNatural capital: theory \u0026amp; practice of mapping ecosystem services\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 206\u0026ndash;228). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., \u0026amp; Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 74\u003c/em\u003e, 8\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapman, M., Satterfield, T., \u0026amp; Chan, K. M. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 82\u003c/em\u003e, 464-475. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChausson, A., Turner, B., Seddon, D., Chabaneix, N., Girardin, C. A. J., Kapos, V., Key, I., Roe, D., Smith, A., Woroniecki, S., \u0026amp; Seddon, N. (2020). Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaption. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e, 6134\u0026ndash;6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClarke, B., Thet, A. K., Sandhu, H., \u0026amp; Dittmann, S. (2021). Integrating cultural ecosystem services valuation into coastal wetlands restoration: a case study from South Australia. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 116\u003c/em\u003e, 220\u0026ndash;229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.11.014 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostanza, R., d\u0026rsquo;Arge, R., Groot, R. d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O\u0026rsquo;Neil, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., \u0026amp; Bvelt, M. V. D. (1997). The value of the world\u0026rsquo;s ecosystem services and natural capital. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 387\u003c/em\u003e, 253\u0026ndash;260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavidson, D. J., Rollins, C., Lefsrud, L., Anders, S., \u0026amp; Hamann, A. (2018). Just don\u0026rsquo;t call it climate change: climate-skeptic farmer adoption of climate-mitigative practices [Letter]. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 14\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa30 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment of Climate Change, E., the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). (2024, 4 April 2024). \u003cem\u003eAustralia\u0026rsquo;s Strategy for Nature\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Government. Retrieved 6 May from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/en\nvironment/biodiversity/conservation/strategy#:~:text\n=Australia\u0026apos;s%20\nStrategy%20for%20Nature%202019,way%20we%20care%20for%20nature\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDepartment of Climate Change, E., the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) , . (2024, April 2024). \u003cem\u003eAustralia\u0026rsquo;s strategy for nature\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Government. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/conservation/strategy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurle, J., \u0026amp; Bavel, R. v. (2019). Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e, 417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDobbie, M. F. (2013). Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia. \u003cem\u003eLandscape and Urban Planning\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 120\u003c/em\u003e, 178\u0026ndash;189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbanplan.2013.08.018 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDumbrell, N. P., Kragt, M. E., \u0026amp; Gibson, F. L. (2016). What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 54\u003c/em\u003e, 29-37. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnvironment Australia (2001). \u003cem\u003eA directory of important wetlands in Australia\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/wetlands/australian-wetlands-database/directory-important-wetlands\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFalconer, K. (2000). Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rural Studies\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/SO743-0167(99)00066-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFluet-Chouinard, E., Stocker, B. D., Zhang, Z., Malhotra, A., Melton, J. R., Poulter, B., Kaplan, J. O., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Minayeva, T., Hugelius, G., Joosten, H., Barthelmes, A., Prigent, C., Aires, F., Hoyt, A. M., Davidson, N., Finlayson, C. M., Lehner, B., . . . McIntyre, P. B. (2023). Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 614\u003c/em\u003e, 281\u0026ndash;286. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05572-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriess, D. A., Yando, E. S., Alemu, J. B., Wong, L.-W., Soto, S. D., \u0026amp; Bhatia, N. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEcosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests and salt marshes\u003c/em\u003e (1 ed.). CRC Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.1201/9780429351495-3/ecosystem-services-disservices-mangrove-forests-salt-marshes-daniel-friess-erik-yando-jahson-alemu-lynn-wei-wong-sasha-soto-natasha-bhatia \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGannawarra Shire Council (GSC). (2024). \u003cem\u003eIndustry profile - agriculture\u003c/em\u003e. Victorian Government. Retrieved 12 March 2024 from https://www.gannawarra.vic.gov.au/Invest-in-the-Gannawarra/Industry-Profile/Agriculture\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiblett, R. J. (1996). \u003cem\u003ePostmodern wetlands: culture, history, ecology\u003c/em\u003e. Edinburgh University Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGifford, R. (2016). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods for environmental psychology\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Blackwell. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGill, N. J., Klepeis, P., \u0026amp; Chisholm, L. A. (2010). Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 53\u003c/em\u003e(3), 317\u0026ndash;334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003612890 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGooden, J. L. (2019). Cultivating identity through private land conservation. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 362\u0026ndash;375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.32 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., \u0026amp; Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 307\u003c/em\u003e, 550. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreiner, R. (2015). Motivations and attitudes influence farmers\u0026rsquo; willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Systems\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 137\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreiner, R., \u0026amp; Gregg, D. (2011). Farmers\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Emperical evidence from northern Australia. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 257-265. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrison, I., Abell, R., Darwall, W., Thieme, M. L., Tickner, D., \u0026amp; Timboe, I. (2018). The freshwater biodiversity crisis. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 362\u003c/em\u003e(1369), 1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9242 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHennink, M., \u0026amp; Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 292\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, S., Lewis, S., Willis, K., Rogers, A., Wyke, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. (2017). The experience of facilitators and participants of long term condition self-management group programmes: A qualitative synthesis. \u003cem\u003ePatient Education and Counseling\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 100\u003c/em\u003e, 2244\u0026ndash;2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.035 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJassim, D., Witt, B., \u0026amp; Evans, M. C. (2022). Community perceptions of carbon farming: A case study of the semi-arid Mulga Lands in Queensland, Australia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rural Studies\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 96\u003c/em\u003e, 77-88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.10.010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., O\u0026rsquo;Brien, L., Potthast, T., Voget-Kleschin, L., \u0026amp; Wittmer, H. (2018). Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for undrestanding nature\u0026rsquo;s contributions to human well-being. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 35\u003c/em\u003e, 22-29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnasson, M., Rahm, J., \u0026amp; Gyllin, M. (2013). Landowners\u0026rsquo; participation in biodiversity conservation examined through the value-belief-norm theory. \u003cem\u003eLandscape Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 38\u003c/em\u003e, 295-311. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.683576 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarami, R. (2023). Hierarchy of value orientation and beliefs in cliamte change influencing the farmers\u0026rsquo; extractive or non-extractive behaviour on the farm. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment, Development and Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e, 14743-14762. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03215-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlain, S. C., Satterfield, T. A., \u0026amp; Chan, K. M. A. (2014). What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. \u003cem\u003eEcological Economics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 107\u003c/em\u003e, 310\u0026ndash;320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlebl, F., Parisi, A., Hafner, K., Adler, A., Barreiro, S., Bodea, F. V., Bronnimann, V., Vries, J. P. R. d., Santos, A. D., Hood, A. S. C., Melts, I., Popa, R., Vajna, F., Velado-Alonso, E., \u0026amp; Kernecker, M. L. (2024). How values and perceptions shape farmers\u0026rsquo; biodiversity management: Insights from ten European countries. \u003cem\u003eBiological Conservation\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 291\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110496 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKragt, M. E., Dumbrell, N. P., \u0026amp; Blackmore, L. (2017). Motivations and barriers for Western Australian broad-acre farmers to adopt carbon farming. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 73\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLastra-Bravo, X. B., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G., \u0026amp; Tolon-Becerra, A. (2015). What drives farmers\u0026rsquo; participation in EU agri-environmental shemes?: Results from a ualitative meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 54\u003c/em\u003e, 1-9. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, H., Liu, H., \u0026amp; Chang, W.-Y. (2024). Extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation: Key factors influencing farmers\u0026rsquo;land quality protection behavior in China. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02088-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLumivero. (2024). \u003cem\u003eNVIVO\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eIn (Version 14) www.lumivero.com\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaraseni, T. N., \u0026amp; Dargusch, P. (2008). Expanding woodland regeneration on marginal southern Queensland pastures using market-based instruments: a ladnowners\u0026rsquo; perspective. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 15\u003c/em\u003e, 104-112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2008.9725190 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillenium Ecosystem Assesment (2005). \u003cem\u003eEcosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis\u003c/em\u003e. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/37435\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoor, H., Bergamini, A., Vorburger, C., Holderegger, R., Buhler, C., Egger, S., \u0026amp; Schmidt, B. R. (2022). Bending the curve: simple but massive conservation leads to landscape-scale recovery of amphibians. \u003cem\u003eApplied Biological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 119\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123070119 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNamey, E. E., Guest, G., Mckenna, K., \u0026amp; Chen, M. (2016). Evaluating bang for the buck: A cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus gropus based on thematic saturation levels. \u003cem\u003eAmerical Journal of Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1177/1098214016630406 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewell, B. R., McDonald, R. I., Brewer, M., \u0026amp; Hayes, B. K. (2014). The Psychology of Environmental Decisions. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-010713-094623 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorth Central Catchment Management Authority (2017). \u003cem\u003eKerang wetlands Ramsar site action plan 2017-2025\u003c/em\u003e. https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/4552945/documents/AU265_mgt190404.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNorth Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA). (2024, 2024). \u003cem\u003eTraditional owners of the region\u003c/em\u003e. North Central Catchment Management Authority. Retrieved 27/02/2024 from https://northcentral.rcs.vic.gov.au/our-region/traditional-owners-of-the-region/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Gorman, E. (2020). \u003cem\u003eWetlands in a dry land: more-than-human histories of australia\u0026rsquo;s Murray-Darling basin\u003c/em\u003e. University of Washington Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOza, T. M., Lane, R., Adame, M. F., \u0026amp; Reef, R. (2021). Coastal wetland management in the Great Barrier Reef: farmer perceptions. \u003cem\u003eGeographical Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 59\u003c/em\u003e(4), 537\u0026ndash;553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12497 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiao, X., \u0026amp; Managi, S. (2024). Determinants of pro-environmental behavior: effects of socioeconomic, subjective, and psychological well-being factors from 37 countries. \u003cem\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 11\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03790-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamachandra, T. V., Aithal, B. H., \u0026amp; Kumar, U. (2012). Conservation of wetlands to mitigate urban floods. \u003cem\u003eResources, Energy, and Development\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;22. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamsar. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe convention on wetlands\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved 24 July 2024 from https://www.ramsar.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRannap, R., Lohmus, A., \u0026amp; Briggs, L. (2009). Restoring ponds for amphibians: A succcess story. \u003cem\u003ePond Conservation\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 634\u003c/em\u003e, 87\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9884-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaymond, C. M., Brown, G., \u0026amp; Robinson, G. M. (2011). The influence of place attachment, and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioural models. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e, 323-335. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10,1016/j.jenvp.2011.08.006 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRochecouste, J.-F., Dargusch, P., \u0026amp; King, C. (2017). Farmer perceptions of the opportunities and constraints to producing carbon offsets from Australian dryland grain cropping farms. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 24\u003c/em\u003e, 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2017.1379037 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin, H. J., \u0026amp; Rubin, I. S. (2005). \u003cem\u003eQualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications, Inc. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchuster, L., Taillardat, P., Macreadie, P. I., \u0026amp; Malerba, M. E. (2024). Freshwater wetland restoration and conservation are long-term natural climate solutions. \u003cem\u003eScience of The Total Environment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 922\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171218 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScott, A. (2005). \u003cem\u003eHistorical evidence of native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin at the time of European settlement\u003c/em\u003e. CRC for Freshwater Ecology. https://ewater.org.au/archive/crcfe/freshwater/publications.nsf/f8748e6acfab1b7fca256f1e001536e1/\nb43272ca7c8449beca2570bb002955cc/\n$FILE/Fish%20history%20in%20MDB.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSherren, K., \u0026amp; Verstraten, C. (2013). What can photo-elicitation tell us about how maritime farmers perceive wetlands as climate changes. \u003cem\u003eWetlands\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 33\u003c/em\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0352-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteg, L. (2017). \u003cem\u003eApplied social psychology: understanding and managing social problems\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107358430 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteg, L., \u0026amp; Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 309-317. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStreever, W. J. (1997). Trends in Australian wetland rehabilitation. \u003cem\u003eWetlands Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 5\u003c/em\u003e, 5-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008267102602 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSullivan, L. S. (2016). Medical maternalism: beyond paternalism and antipaternalism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Medical Ethics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 42\u003c/em\u003e, 439\u0026ndash;444. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTarnoczi, T. J., \u0026amp; Berkes, F. (2009). Sources of information for farmers\u0026rsquo; adaption practices in Canada\u0026rsquo;s Prairie agro-ecosystem. \u003cem\u003eClimatic Change\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 98\u003c/em\u003e, 299\u0026ndash;305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9762-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThorslund, J., Jarsjo, J., Jaramillo, F., Jawitz, J. W., Manzoni, S., Basu, N. B., Chalov, S. R., Cohen, M. J., Creed, I. F., Goldenberg, R., Hylin, A., Kalantari, Z., Koussis, A. D., Lyon, S. W., Mazi, K., Mard, J., Persson, K., Pietron, J., Prieto, C., . . . Destouni, G. (2017). Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: status and challenges for research, engineering and management. \u003cem\u003eEcological Engineering\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 108\u003c/em\u003e, 489\u0026ndash;497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.07.012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTian, H., \u0026amp; Liu, X. (2022). Pro-environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical progress and future directions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 19\u003c/em\u003e, 6721. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116721 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorabi, N., Cooke, B., \u0026amp; Bekessy, S. A. (2016). The role of social networks and trusted peers in promoting biodiverse carbon plantings. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Geographer\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 47\u003c/em\u003e(2), 139\u0026ndash;156. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2016.1154535 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorabi, N., Mata, L., Gordon, A., Garrard, G., Wescott, W., Dettmann, P., \u0026amp; Bekessy, S. A. (2016). The money or the trees: what drives landholders participation in bioiverse carbon plantings? . \u003cem\u003eGlobal Ecology and Conservation\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.03.008 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUlicsni, V., Molnar, Z., Szentirmai, I., \u0026amp; Babai, D. (2024). Poor convergence between local traditional farmers and conservationists on which species to protect locally. \u003cem\u003ePeople and Nature\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1421\u0026ndash;1434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10650 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnited Nations (2023). \u003cem\u003eThe sustainable development goals report: special edition\u003c/em\u003e. https://sdgs.un.org/goals\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei, X., Guan, Z., \u0026amp; Zhu, H. (2016). Farmer\u0026rsquo;s willingness to participate in wetland restoration: a hurdle model approach. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural Economics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 47\u003c/em\u003e(6), 719\u0026ndash;727. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12268 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWelsh, R., Webb, M. E., \u0026amp; Langen, T. A. (2018). Factors affecting landowner enrollment in wetland restoration in northeastern New York State. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 76\u003c/em\u003e, 679\u0026ndash;685h. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.051 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitten, S. M., \u0026amp; Bennett, J. (1999). \u003cem\u003eFarmer perceptions of wetlands and wetland managmeent in the upper south sast of South Australia\u003c/em\u003e Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Christchurch, New Zealand. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillig, C. (2001). \u003cem\u003eIntroducing qualitative research in psychology\u003c/em\u003e. PA: Open University Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, G. A., \u0026amp; Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers\u0026rsquo; motivations for participation in voluntary-agrienvironmental schemes. \u003cem\u003eEnivornment and Planning A: Economy and Space\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 32\u003c/em\u003e(12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWyss, A. M., Knoch, D., \u0026amp; Berger, S. (2022). When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 79\u003c/em\u003e(101748). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101748 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wetlands","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wela","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wetlands](https://www.springer.com/journal/13157)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/wela/default.aspx","title":"Wetlands","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"qualitative, biocentric, biodiversity stewardship, farmer, conservation, regenerative agriculture","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWetlands are among the most productive and biodiverse ecosystems in the world, yet they are also the most threatened. These vital habitats play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. Although most freshwater wetlands occur on private property, limited research exists on landholder perceptions of their ownership and management. We interviewed landholders who participated in a wetland restoration program. Our interviews explored motivations and barriers to participation and the impact of climate change, if any, on landholders. We conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Our analysis revealed three major themes. First, participants were motivated by the intrinsic value of nature, focusing on benefits to native flora and fauna rather than personal gain. They expressed strong emotional connections to nature and a sense of stewardship. Second, the removal of bureaucratic, financial and practical barriers by a knowledgeable local facilitator was important for participation. Third, participants acknowledged the tension between agricultural practices and the needs of nature, striving to balance these competing demands. Although climate change was recognised, the primary motivator was restoring natural ecosystems. Restoring freshwater wetlands can help policymakers achieve international and domestic biodiversity goals by aligning conservation programs with landholders\u0026rsquo; values. Employing local facilitators with intimate knowledge of the community and ecosystem can enhance program engagement. Additionally, integrating agricultural and environmental needs, such as through agritourism, can further support biodiversity, and the economic and mental resilience of landholders.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Restoring Australia’s freshwater wetlands: Rural landholder perspectives","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-13 19:10:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7097465/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-08-07T09:47:13+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-07T09:06:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Wetlands","date":"2025-07-23T21:37:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-18T11:45:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Wetlands","date":"2025-07-16T20:56:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wetlands","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wela","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wetlands](https://www.springer.com/journal/13157)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/wela/default.aspx","title":"Wetlands","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4c07f2d1-72d0-4ebf-b97e-f00ff77bd112","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T16:02:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7097465","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02042-x","journal":{"identity":"wetlands","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Wetlands"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-05 15:58:55","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 5th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-13 19:10:57","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s13157-026-02042-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-026-02042-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7097465","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7097465","identity":"rs-7097465","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}