What is the problem with absentee landowners? Invasive plant management by residential and absentee amenity rural landowners

Abstract

Landowners interested in rural lifestyles rather than primary production, are a significant group of rural landowners in many countries. Among these landowners, distinctions are made between the management practices and motivations of absentee and resident landowners. Absentee landowners are not uncommonly depicted as poor land managers and as not meeting their responsibilities. Evidence, however, on this is mixed. With a focus on invasive plant management in Australia, we compare the motivations, attitudes, and practices of absentee and resident landowners in two high amenity areas of New South Wales, Australia. We found that attitudes and practices surrounding invasive plant management were very similar between absentee and resident landowners, but that there are some key differences surrounding motivations and barriers to invasive plant management. Our data suggests that difference between absentee and residential landowners, therefore, may be overstated with respect to invasive plant management.

Keywords:

• absentee landowners
• invasive plants
• amenity landowners
• rural

1. Introduction

In many countries, including Australia, rural land ownership is becoming increasingly diverse, with growing numbers of non-primary producers entering the property market (Kam et al. 2019). Among these amenity-oriented landowners, referred to here as “lifestyle rural landowners,” the proportion of owners who do not live on their properties full-time is significant for its potential consequences for land use and management (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018; Curtis et al. 2008; Abrams et al. 2012). Consistent with long held concerns and even antipathy regarding absentee rural landowners (Lennox and Curtis 2013), these absentee lifestyle landowners (hereafter “absentee landowners”) are often reported as relatively less engaged with land management and associated organisations and communities, less knowledgeable about land management, and as harder to reach than residential landowners (Kam et al. 2019; Morrison et al. 2015; Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013; Lennox 2012). Natural resource management agencies see absentee landowners as presenting particular problems, such as poor invasive plant (IP) management, inadequate bushfire risk reduction, lack of soil erosion control, and poor stock management arising from a lack of “understanding [as to] what land management involves” (see also Buman 2007; Local Land Services 2020, 35). It is, moreover, not hard to find examples of complaints about absentee landowners from other rural landowners about issues such as how absentee landowners are “creating a tonne of work for neighbours” due to their neglect of IP, the interests of their neighbours, and their land management obligations (for example see, Pedersen 2019; Coote 2016). In this context, absentee owners have been receiving recent and increasing research attention. Some have found evidence confirming the thesis of absentee landowners as a “problem” group in that they expend relatively less effort in activities such as IP management and less engagement in NRM programs (Snyder et al. 2020; Yung, Chandler, and Haverhals 2015). In contrast, other research has concluded that absentee status does not appear to be a clear differentiating characteristic with respect to land management (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018, 159) and that absentee owners, despite perceptions to the contrary, are participants in conservation programs (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018). In yet further research, Kam et al. (2020) note the heterogeneity of absentee landholders and the diverse ways and networks through which they access NRM information. This suggests that, in their heterogeneity, absentee landholders may be little different from any other generalised group of rural landholders we care to delineate. Regardless, such variation across research highlights the continued relevance of Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro’s (2018) call for further research to address the scarcity of information and knowledge about absentee landholders.

In this paper, our goal is to address this scarcity by comparatively considering aspects of landownership motivation and IP management among residential and absentee lifestyle-rural landholders. We focus on IP, as their management is an important public good issue (Graham et al. 2019; Gill et al. 2022) in landscapes characterised by high levels of lifestyle-oriented rural land ownership (Abrams et al. 2012; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010) and is a key activity and concern for lifestyle-oriented rural landowners themselves (Ma, Clarke, and Church 2018; Klepeis and Gill 2016; Yung, Chandler, and Haverhals 2015). Using data from a postal survey, we specifically aim to address the lack of knowledge regarding absentee landowners and to critically address the nature of the “problem” they represent by comparing them to residential landowners across four key topics. These are motivations for owning or living on rural land, attitudes towards IP, and priorities, actions and barriers relating to IP management.

1.1. Challenges posed by increasing diversity in rural land ownership

Natural resource management and IP management by absentee lifestyle-oriented rural landowners are subsets of more general NRM issues in rural areas characterised by high levels of lifestyle-oriented rural landownership. In buying rural land, such landowners are generally making a lifestyle choice (Errington 1994). Lifestyle-oriented landowners “favour natural and cultural amenities over the production potential of their land” and generally differ from production-oriented landowners in their “culture, values, and vision for rural areas” (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018, 159). In general, the characteristics of these new owners include limited, if any, dependence on farm income, relatively high interest in environmental stewardship, small-scale farming operations, sub-commercial landholdings and a focus on land ownership for “lifestyle” reasons (Gill, Klepeis, and Chisholm 2010). Lifestyle-oriented landowners purchase land with diverse land cover and land uses, as land is variously sold and subdivided by farmers and land developers. Increased land-use and land cover heterogeneity, incorporating a mix of production, protection and conservation land uses (Kam et al. 2019; Holmes 2006; Paquette and Domon 2003), is the result.

This broader challenge of increased heterogeneity presents a range of consequences, including higher turnover of land ownership (Mendham and Curtis 2010), gentrification of rural landscapes (Cannavò 2007), landscape-scale wildlife management changes (Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013; Haggerty and Travis 2006), erosion of long held local access for hunting and other pursuits through alienation of existing local populations (Cannavò 2007; Epstein, Haggerty, and Gosnell 2022; Gosnell, Haggerty, and Travis 2006). Lifestyle landowners are also often perceived as a problem by farmer neighbours and agencies due to perceived lack of land management knowledge (Davis and Carter 2014; Meadows, Emtage, and Herbohn 2014), and being less likely to adopt recommended management practices (Sorice et al. 2014; Mendham and Curtis 2010). In contrast, however, arguments have also been made that negative narratives of lifestyle landowners tend to be over-emphasised and are often simplistic (Abrams et al. 2012), and that singling out such landowners on natural resource management issues ignores other significant differences within rural communities (Larsen et al. 2007; Walker and Fortmann 2003; Klein and Wolf 2007).

1.2. Absentee landowners

While there are many “lifestyle landowners” who live on their properties full-time (“residential landowners”) (Cooke and Lane 2015; Gosnell and Abrams 2011), there are also many who do not live on their properties full-time (“absentee landowners”) (Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013; Mendham and Curtis 2010). For such landowners, the rural properties are second homes, perhaps hobby farms or holiday homes, while their main home address is elsewhere, often in metropolitan areas. Absentee landowners are one part of the heterogeneity of lifestyle landowners.

Absentee landowners are often motivated to hold land due to the private lifestyle services it can provide in relation to amenity and recreation (Morrison et al. 2015). The terms “non-resident,” “part-time resident,” “weekend resident,” or “seasonal landowners” have been used to characterize different forms of absenteeism (Gosnell, Haggerty, and Byorth 2007; Ferranto et al. 2013). Significant proportions of these new lifestyle-oriented owners who are non-farmers by occupation, are also absentees, both within Australia (Curtis et al. 2008; Kam et al. 2019) and overseas (Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015; Ulrich-Schad et al. 2016), particularly in the American West (Haggerty and Travis 2006; Redmon et al. 2004). Within Australia, research has been conducted in South Australia (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018), NSW (Curtis et al. 2008; Kam et al. 2019; Gill, Klepeis, and Chisholm 2010), and QLD (Davis and Carter 2014; Meadows, Emtage, and Herbohn 2014). Absentee landholders are often overlooked in rural social research, yet they have the potential to make major contributions to the delivery of ecosystem services in regions where they hold significant quantities of land (Kam et al. 2019). The need for an improved understanding of the diversity of rural landholders is therefore increasingly being recognized (Emtage and Herbohn 2012).

Research has suggested that absentee landowners bring additional land management challenges to those presented by lifestyle landowners (Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013). As has been argued for lifestyle landowners generally, challenges arise for government and land managers if absentee owners are less likely to adopt many current recommended practices (Curtis et al. 2008). This may risk negative outcomes for key ecosystem services related to biodiversity conservation, soil formation and water quality (Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013; Redmon et al. 2004) and invasive species (Niemiec et al. 2018), as ecological services rarely abide by human-imposed boundaries (Meadows, Herbohn, and Emtage 2013; Meadows, Emtage, and Herbohn 2014). Absentee landowners may desire to engage in what they deem “environmentally friendly” practices such as construction of ponds, not treating IP, and increasing wildlife populations (Kendra and Hull 2005; Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015).

Although the cross-property nature of these ecosystem services ideally requires collaboration between neighbouring landholders (Rickenbach et al. 2011), conflicts often arise where neighbours blame absentee landowners for an irresponsible attitude regarding IP on their properties. Poor IP management is an issue perennially associated with absentee ownership even where the associations between IP and absenteeism are ambiguous and part of broader constellations of relationships and landowner characteristics (Ma, Clarke, and Church 2018; Fischer and Charnley 2012).

Agencies also argue that absentee owners are less engaged with organisations and communities where they own land compared to peers (Curtis et al. 2008). Natural Resource Management (NRM) agencies report that it is difficult to engage absentee property owners in NRM programs, as they can be difficult to contact during standard business hours and are less likely to have strong connections to the local social networks (Curtis et al. 2008; Mendham and Curtis 2010). This results in absentee landowners operating in relative isolation, rendering sustainable land management through building social capital a challenge (Davis and Carter 2014).

Barriers to land management by absentee landowners that have been identified include lack of time spent on their properties, disengagement from their land, and a belief that their properties are not suitable for management, for example if it is forested for plantation timber (Kendra and Hull 2005). Identified barriers to absentee landholder participation in IP management include perceived limited land management experience and awareness (Aslin et al. 2004; Aslin and Mazur 2005), limited access to environmental management information (Petrzelka 2012; Ulrich-Schad et al. 2016), and limited time for those with other work commitments (Davis and Carter 2014). That such landholders may not be present to implement IP control at critical plant lifestyle stages can also be a contributing factor to this sentiment (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018).

However, in some circumstances, absentee landowners may be not so different to residential landowners. While absentee owners have been found to be less likely to adopt current recommended practices surrounding fencing, water provisions and stock access, they largely complied with pest animal and IP control (Curtis et al. 2008). Similarly, Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter (2018) found no direct relationship between resident status and brush management and Fischer and Charnley (2012) found no significant relationship between awareness of IP and residential status. Two meta-analyses have found that the role of residential status in non-industrial forest management is variable (Beach et al. 2005; Floress et al. 2019). Somewhat similarly, (Clarke et al. 2019) found that resident owners were more likely than absentees to have a plan for IP management but there was no significant relationship between residential status and knowledge of IPs or past actual management. Noting that studies of the significance of residential status on individual non-industrial forest management have been inconclusive, Clarke et al. (2021) find that it is also not a significant factor in whether landowners contribute to collective IP management with their neighbours.

Although there is a substantial body of research relating to lifestyle landowners (Gosnell and Abrams 2011; Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018), relatively little is known about absentee landholders’ participation in natural resource management (Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015) (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018). While a limited number of studies consider absentee landholders (Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015; Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013; Ulrich-Schad et al. 2016), research generally conceptualises landholders in agricultural landscapes as owner-occupier, farming individuals or families (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018). Possible reasons for the limited research on this theme are due to the lack of distinction made between owner-occupiers and absentee landholders in many studies (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018), and the challenges associated with reaching absentee landholders through traditional social and institutional networks and via the means commonly available to researchers (Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015; Kam et al. 2019).

2. Methods

A self-completion survey was the data collection tool for the study. Survey design and delivery was based on principles from Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2014). The survey was utilised to gather quantitative data across Bega and Shoalhaven local government areas in regional south-eastern New South Wales (NSW), Australia. These are both areas that are emblematic of coastal regions in SE Australia that have experienced increases in amenity in-migration and landownership (McKiernan and Gill 2022; Burnley and Murphy 2004; Connell and Dufty-Jones 2016). The survey focus was on landholders’ behaviours and attitudes toward IP and their management and how they gain information and learn about IP management. The survey was intentionally framed in terms of weeds rather than IP, as this is the term for IP widely used and understood by rural landholders and is the term used by managers and agencies in framing engagement, management, and material such as publications and websites in NSW (for example see, Shoalhaven City Council 2023). Given our research goals and audience, and for consistency and clarity in the paper, we use the term invasive plants, acknowledging that the two terms are not technically synonymous. The exception to this is where we retain the terms such as “weed,” “weeds,” or “weeding” when referring directly to items from the survey such as in tables.

The survey comprised 46 questions in total, divided into four sections: (1) People and organisation; (2) land management and IP issues; (3) details about the property, and; (4) details about the landholder and their household. This paper focuses on attitudes towards IP and their management, and behaviours surrounding management. The questionnaire was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the University of Wollongong.

The survey was delivered to selected localities in the two LGAs. The selection criteria for the localities for survey delivery were the number of Australia Post private delivery points for unaddressed mail and information about the extent of amenity land ownership across the LGAs derived from consultation with agencies and organisations in the two regions. Surveys were delivered by Australia Post to non-urban areas in Bega, Bemboka, Bowral, Candelo, and Wyndham in the Bega LGA. In the Shoalhaven LGA Australia post delivered surveys in non-urban areas of the suburbs Berry, Kangaroo Valley and Nowra. Australia Post delivered 1,109 survey questionnaires in Shoalhaven and 1,836 in Bega Valley. In addition, approximately 550 questionnaires were hand delivered in relevant Shoalhaven areas where Australia Post-delivery was not available – Beaumont, Bellawongarah, Berry Mountain, Brogers Creek, Broughton, Broughton Vale, Browns Mountain, Far Meadow, Jaspers Brush, Meroo Meadow, Tapitallee, Wattamolla and Woodhill. To encourage responses reply-paid envelopes were enclosed with the survey questionnaires and surveys were followed up with a reminder postcard delivered by the same means as the questionnaires. Potential respondents were provided with an option to complete the survey online through the program “Survey Monkey.” Questionnaires received by mail were input manually into Survey Monkey and all survey data were exported to SPSS software for analysis.

Of the 3,495 survey questionnaires delivered in the Shoalhaven and Bega areas, 439 (13%) landholders returned a completed questionnaire. Of the 439 returned questionnaires, 63 were omitted from this analysis as they were responses from “farmers” and not lifestyle landowners, or they did not answer the question concerning whether they lived full-time on their property. Thus 376 questionnaires from lifestyle-oriented landholders remained for this analysis. Of these respondents, n = 47 (12.5%) were absentee lifestyle landholders and n = 329 (87.5%) were resident lifestyle landholders. We tested non-response bias by comparing the early (the first 10% of respondents) with late (the last 10% of respondents) on the basis that those responding late are likely to be relatively similar to non-respondents (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Using Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact tests we did not find any significant differences across a number of socio-demographic characteristics, land ownership characteristics, and IP management and attitudes.

We defined lifestyle landowner respondents as those who earned “no income” or only a “minor income” from their land, in contrast to those earning their “primary” income or a “significant secondary” income from their land. This potentially underestimates the number of lifestyle landowners in our analysis, but reduces the risk of including farmers making a living from primary production.

To then separate absentee landowners from residential respondents, those who answered “No” to the question “Do you live full time on your property?” were classified as absentee landowners, while those who answered “Yes” were classified as residential landowners. We considered additional criteria to further refine our definition of absentee and residential landowners; however, a low number of absentee landholders in the analysis would have meant that some statistical tests could not be performed due to the low sample size. As it was, the relatively low numbers of absentee landowners and the characteristics of the dataset directed our analysis.

Demographically the two groups were similar. No significant differences existed between gender, retirement status or occupation between absentee and residential respondents. Thirty-four per cent of absentees were retired (n = 47), compared with 48.5% of residential landowners (n = 326). For both absentees and residential respondents, 95.7% of respondents own their property (including a mortgaged property). The two groups were similar in age structure. For all respondents, the most common age group was 61–70, followed by 51–60 then 41–50. No significant differences existed regarding age groups (χ²(8) = 6.744, p = 0.564) between residential and absentee landowners. The only statistically significant demographic difference between the groups of landowners was for weekly household income (χ²(9) = 82.50, p < 0.001), with absentees having a higher income overall than residential landowners.

In this paper, we investigate relationships that may exist between lifestyle residential and absentee landowners in regard to IP management on their property. For selected variables, bivariate analysis comprising Chi-square tests of Independence (2xC table) and Phi-Cramer-V tests were utilised to test for significance between the two groups (Yates, Moore, and McCabe 1999, 734). For the Chi-square tests we conducted post-hoc analysis using SPSS function in crosstabs analysis for pairwise Z-tests with Bonferroni adjustment of p-values and with the significance threshold at 0.05. To meet the requirements of the Chi-square test for cell count, for analysis of questions with Likert scale responses we merged responses for “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” into “Agree” and for “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree” into “Disagree.”

3. Results

3.1. Rural land ownership and attitudes towards invasive plants

The motivations for owning land among residential and absentee landowner respondents were broadly similar (Table 1). Lifestyle motivation, in particular, represented common ground between the two groups, with the exception of “raising a family” as a motivation for land ownership which unsurprisingly showed a significant difference between the two groups (χ²(2) =13.329, p =0.001, φc = 0.198, p = 0.001). Pairwise analysis showed that the two groups were significantly different across all response categories. As landowners for this study are oriented to lifestyle and not production, both groups agreed that making an income was not a key reason for landownership. On a range of motivations, such as being part of a rural community, recreation, and being close to nature, there were no significant differences between the two groups. For the motivations of protecting and restoring the environment, and gaining privacy, clear majorities of both types of landowners similarly agreed that these were motivations, but they were significantly more important for residential landowners. Pairwise comparison showed that for the latter motivation the two groups were significantly different across responses, and for the former, they were significantly different with respect to disagreeing that privacy was a motivation.

Table 1. Motivations for owning or renting rural land or property.

Motivations	Lifestyle Manager types								Pearson’s Chi-Square Phi-Cramer’s V
	Per cent
	Resident			n	Absentee			n
	Agree	NAND*	Disagree		Agree	NAND	Disagree
It is a great place to raise a family	65.8	27.9	6.4	298	38.1	45.2	16.7	42	χ^2(2) =13.329, p =.001 φc = 0.198, p = 0.001
I want to contribute to protecting and restoring the environment	70.4	25.6	4	301	61.4	22.7	15.9	44	χ^2(2) = 10.488, p = 0.005 φc = 0.174, p = 0.005
It provides privacy for my family and myself	88	10.1	1.9	308	71.7	21.7	6.5	46	χ^2(2) = 9.233, p = 0.010 φc = 0.161, p = 0.010
I enjoy being part of the rural community	82.5	16.2	1.3	303	71.1	26.7	2.2	45	χ^2(2) = 3.312, p = 0.191 φc = 0.098, p = 0.191
Recreational opportunities are accessible	48.2	29.2	22.5	284	45.5	36.4	18.2	44	χ^2(2) = 0.1034, p = 0.596 φc = 0.56, p = 0.596
I earn my living from the land	6.1	21.6	72.3	278	2.3	14	83.7	43	χ^2(2) = 2.666, p = 0.264 φc = 0.91, p = 0.264
I want to be close to nature	85.7	13	1.3	308	84.8	13	2.2	46	χ^2(2) = 0.221, p = 0.895 φc = 0.25, p = 0.895

Note: *NAND – Neither Agree not Disagree.

As part of exploring motivations to manage IPs, the survey included several questions that explored the impact of IPs in various ways. No significant differences between the responses of residential and absentee landowners were evident. In one question we asked respondents to indicate from a list of options how IPs affect them negatively. Reponses to this largely intersect with motivations for owning or living on rural land. Consistent with the land ownership motivation to practice environmental conservation or restoration, both types of landholders agreed that the impact of IPs on environmental values was important for them (absentee = 84.8% (n = 46); residential = 91.3% (n = 309), χ²(2)=1.401, p=0.496). Similarly, the impact of IPs on financial values such as production (absentee =38.1% (n = 42); residential = 35.7% (n = 291), χ²(2) = 1.146, p = 0.564) was important for fewer landholders. About eighty per cent of both types of landholders (absentee = 78.3% (n = 46); residential = 83.5% (n = 310), χ²(2) = 1.133, p = 0.568) also agreed that that the impact of IPs on aesthetics affected them negatively. Finally, over ninety per cent of both landholder types (absentee = 93.3% (n = 45); residential = 90.7% (n = 312), χ²(2) =0.338, p = 0.844) indicated that IPs impose a burden upon them in the form of labour time.

Stances towards IPs can vary considerably (Head 2017), encompassing passionate feelings that that they do not belong and should be eradicated or removed as much as possible, a sense that they should be controlled as much as is feasible and is realistic, as well as a lack of any concern. It is also quite feasible that landowners will give up (Klepeis, Gill, and Chisholm 2009) depending on the plants involved. When we asked, “what best describes your attitude towards weeds?” and sought one response from a list as in Table 2, both residential and absentee respondents strongly tended to the eradication and control portion of the management spectrum (Table 2). For these responses, we found that there is no statistically significant difference (χ²(5) = 1.566, p = 0.905) between residential and absentee respondents’ attitudes to IPs. Small numbers of respondents tolerated or sought to use them, and almost none had given up or did not care about IPs.

Table 2. Respondents’ attitudes towards weeds.

Attitude to IP management	Absentee (%) (n = 45)	Residential (%) (n = 315)
I try to eradicate them	46.3	53.3
I try to control them	46.7	42.2
I have given up	0.6	0
I live with them	4.4	2.2
I don’t care about weeds	0.3	0
I try to utilise them	1.6	2.2

Awareness of IPs at the time of purchase is considered an issue among managers (Local Land Services 2020). When asked to choose one level of awareness of IPs at the time of purchase landowners from both groups tended to know about IPs at the time of purchase (Residential = 41.5% (n = 318); Absentee = 53.2% (n = 47)). However, around one in five property owners (Residential = 23.3% (n = 318); Absentee = 19.1% (n = 47)) only became aware of IPs after purchase. There was no significant difference between groups (χ²(3) = 3.317, p = 0.3454). Becoming aware of them was a process of learning from several sources and in these residential and absentee landowners were also not statistically significantly different. For example, the most common way for both groups to become more aware of IPs was through observation and experience on their own land (Absentee = 80.4% (n = 45); Residential = 87.4% (n = 315), χ²(1) = 1.684, p = 0.194). The results also point to the importance of personal connections for learning. When we asked respondents about their source of information about IPs, neighbours were identified as the key personal source for both groups (Absentee = 34.8% (n = 45); Residential = 28.6% (n = 315), χ²(1) =0.736, p = 0.391), above other sources such as friends and family and Bushcare or Landcare groups.

3.2. Land and Invasive plant management: priorities and motivations

In this section, we examine attitudes towards IP management in relation to priorities in managing land, the direct reasons for managing IPs, the time spent on IP management, and barriers to IP management.

With respect to priority of IP management in the context of other activities, IP management was the top ranked priority for both groups of respondents (Table 3). This was followed, for both groups, by other environmental restoration activities, then by production-oriented activities. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the priorities listed, although, based on the responses regarding priorities, absentees tend to be somewhat more oriented to environmental restoration activities and less to gardening and agricultural activities.

Table 3. Main priorities when managing land.

Priorities	Lifestyle Manager types								Pearson’s Chi-Square Phi-Cramer’s V
	Per cent
	Resident			n	Absentee			n
	Agree	NAND	Disagree		Agree	NAND	Disagree
Restoration or management of native bushland or forest	60.5	24.7	14.8	304	78.3	10.9	10.9	46	χ^2(2) = 5.761, p = 0.056 φc = 0.128, p = 0.056
Developing or maintaining a garden	80.4	14.5	5.1	311	67.4	21.7	10.9	46	χ^2(2) = 4.467, p = 0.107 φc = 0.121, p = 0.107
Weeding/weed management	88.3	6.3	5.4	316	89.4	10.6	0	47	χ^2(2) = 3.637, p = 0.162 φc = 0.100, p = 0.162
Planting trees outside the garden (e.g. boundary, windbreak, or driveway plantings)	71.6	18	10.5	306	70.5	11.4	18.2	44	χ^2(2) = 2.996, p = 0.224 φc = 0.093, p = 0.224
Pasture management and maintenance	60.1	22.9	16.9	301	46.5	32.6	20.9	43	χ^2(2) = 2.985, p = 0.225 φc = 0.093, p = 0.225
Agricultural production	35.7	34	30.3	294	37.2	23.3	39.5	43	χ^2(2) = 2.377, p = 0.305 φc = 0.084, p = 0.305
River/creek restoration	51.7	33.7	14.7	300	62.2	26.7	11.1	45	χ^2(2) = 1.756, p = 0.416 φc = 0.071, p = 0.416
Planting native trees	67	21.7	11.3	300	59.1	27.3	13.6	44	χ^2(2) = 1.078, p = 0.583 φc = 0.056, p = 0.583
Restoration or management of native pastures	42.3	38.3	19.3	300	48.9	31.1	20	45	χ^2(2) = 0.944, p = 0.624 φc = 0.052, p = 0.624
Improving soil quality	71.8	21.4	6.8	309	75.6	17.8	6.7	45	χ^2(2) = 0.317, p = 0.854 φc = 0.030, p = 0.854

Aside from land ownership or use motivations we were interested in other drivers for IP management such as compliance and neighbouring norms. To that end we asked respondents to what extent they controlled IPs for the reasons in Table 4. As in table two, aesthetics was a significant reason for undertaking IP management. The most important reasons for IP control management were environmental outcomes and to be a good neighbour. For these three reasons there were no significant differences between residential and absentee respondents. Complying with the law was the only reason for which there was a significant difference – this was less important for absentee respondents (32.6% agreed) than for residential respondents (52.6% agreed). Post-hoc pairwise analysis showed that the two groups were significantly different for the “Disagree” response.

Table 4. Motivations for IP management.

Extent that these reasons motivate IP management	Lifestyle Manager types								Pearson’s Chi-Square Phi-Cramer’s V
	Per cent
	Resident			n	Absentee			n
	Agree	NAND	Disagree		Agree	NAND	Disagree
To comply with the law	52.6	24.2	23.2	289	32.6	32.6	34.9	43	χ^2(2) = 6.108, p = 0.047 φc = 0.136, p = 0.047
To maintain agricultural production	47.9	22.6	29.5	292	47.6	11.9	40.5	42	χ^2(2) = 3.425, p = 0.180 φc = 0.101, p = 0.180
To protect environment or conservation values	87.1	10.4	2.6	309	91.3	6.5	2.2	46	χ^2(2) = 0.707, p = 0.702 φc = 0.45, p = 0.702
Because I don’t like the look of them	75.3	17.4	7.4	299	71.7	21.7	6.5	46	χ^2(2) = 0.524, p = 0.770 φc = 0.039, p = 0.770
To be a good neighbour	85.8	11.9	2.3	303	87.2	10.6	2.1	47	χ^2(2) = 0.069, p = 0.966 φc = 0.14, p = 0.966

3.3. Land and Invasive plant management: actions and barriers

As to whether the respondents actually undertake IP management, the overwhelming majority of both residential and absentee landholders (Residential = 97%; Absentee = 100%) indicate that they do undertake some activities to control IPs. There is no significant difference between groups in this respect (χ²(1) = 1.369, p = 0.242). Similarly, there were no significant differences (χ²(2) = 2.073, p = 0.355) between residential and absentee landholders in time spent on IP management (Table 5). Overwhelmingly, the most common response for time spent on IP management from both groups was “1–5 h” per week; however, there were small numbers of each group doing more hours than this. We also asked whether respondents spent as much time on IP control as they would like and the majorities of both groups (Residential = 59.1%; Absentee = 65.9%) indicated they were spending less time than they would like (χ²(1) = 0.747, p =0.387).

Table 5. Hours (h) per week, on average, respondents spend managing weeds on their property.

IP management method	Absentee (%) (n = 46)	Residential (%) (n = 323)
0 h	4.6	2.2
1–5 h	80.2	80.4
6–10 h	9.6	15.2
+10 h	5.6	2.2

With respect to the types of IPs that landholders focus on we classified the IPs that respondents listed as the IP that occupied most of their effort as either an agricultural or environmental IP. This was necessary, as there are both common and different IPs in the two survey areas. The differences between landowner types were significant (χ²(1) = 5.937, p = 0.015) and post-hoc pairwise analysis showed that this was the case for both types of IPs. Residential landowners (74.4%) were significantly more likely to focus on an agricultural IP than absentee landowners (56.1%). Conversely, absentee owners (43.9%) were significantly more likely to focus on environmental IPs than residential landowners (25.6%).

The methods that landholders use are relevant to the nature of support and advice that is required. While there are no significant differences between residential and absentee landholders’ responses in regard to weeding methods used, it is clear that relatively intensive methods are most commonly used by both lifestyle-oriented landholder groups. With the exception of slashing, methods that rely on machinery are relatively less common. The most popular response was “hand weeding” (Residential = 91.1% (n = 327); Absentee = 89.4%; (χ²(2) = 0.156, p = 0.693)) followed by “spot spraying” (Residential = 78%; Absentee = 74.5%; (χ²(2) = 0.291, p = 0.589). The least common method was by using “fire” (Residential = 9.8%; Absentee = 6.4%; (χ²(2) = 0.561, p = 0.454).

Finally, the barriers to IP management are of relevance to improving IP management and we asked respondents about the barriers that led to them undertaking less IP control than they would like. One significant difference between residential and absentee landholders was regarding the difficulties posed by respondents’ land (χ²(2) = 9.186, p = 0.010). Almost 69% of absentees felt this was a barrier, while 40.8% of residential landholders felt this was a barrier (Table 6). Post-hoc pairwise analysis showed that this was a significant difference across both the “Agree” and “Disagree” responses. A second near-significant difference (χ²(2) = 5.930, p = 0.052) was regarding “My age/health,” where residential landowners felt this a stronger factor than absentee landholders. The most shared barriers across both groups were a lack of time, poor IP management by public managers, and an aversion to using chemicals. Both groups disagreed that they lacked an incentive for IP management, and absentees did not feel they lacked knowledge or faced competing priorities to an extent greater than residential landowners. Also of interest is that, qualitatively, age and health is less of a barrier to IP management to absentees, and absentees feel there is a greater lack of information available on IP management.

Table 6. Barriers to undertaking IP control, or as much IP control as landholders would like (ordered more to less significantly different).

Barriers	Lifestyle Manager types								Pearson’s Chi-Square Phi-Cramer’s V
	Per cent
	Resident			n	Absentee			n
	Agree	NAND	Disagree		Agree	NAND	Disagree
It is difficult on my land	40.8	20.7	38.6	184	68.8	15.6	15.6	32	χ^2(2) = 9.186, p = 0.010 φc = 0.206, p = 0.010
My age/health	40.5	24.2	35.5	190	17.2	31	51.7	29	χ^2(2) = 5.930, p = 0.052 φc = 0.165, p = 0.052
There is lack of information on weed control	23.4	29.9	46.7	184	7.1	28.6	64.3	28	χ^2(2) = 4.554, p = 0.103 φc = 0.147, p = 0.103
I don’t have time	64.4	19.7	16	188	70	26.7	3.3	30	χ^2(2) = 3.637, p = 0.162 φc = 0.129, p = 0.162
My neighbours don’t manage their weeds	49.7	26.5	23.8	189	34.5	27.6	37.9	29	χ^2(2) = 3.190, p = 0.203 φc = 0.121, p = 0.203
The weeds problem is too overwhelming to be fixed	24.2	31.3	44.5	182	25	17.9	57.1	28	χ^2(2) = 2.335, p = 0.311 φc = 0.105, p = 0.311
Councils and other public organisations don’t manage their weeds	54.5	28.3	17.3	191	51.7	20.7	27.6	29	χ^2(2) =2 0.001, p = 0.368 φc = 0.095, p = 0.368
I don’t like using chemicals	52.7	21.3	26.1	188	46.4	17.9	35.7	28	χ^2(2) = 1.150, p = 0.563 φc = 0.073, p = 0.563
I have no incentive to control weeds	4.5	18.4	77.1	179	3.6	10.7	85.7	28	χ^2(2) = 1.105, p = 0.576 φc = 0.37, p = 0.576
I lack the necessary equipment	41.1	18.9	40.0	185	32.1	25	42.9	28	χ^2(2) = 0.992, p = 0.609 φc = 0.086, p = 0.609
The cost is too high	42.7	30.3	27	185	48.3	27.6	24.1	29	χ^2(2) = 3.586, p = 0.853 φc = 0.39, p = 0.853
I don’t have enough skills/knowledge/experience	22	25.8	52.2	182	25	21.4	53.6	28	χ^2(2) = 0.294, p = 0.863 φc = 0.037, p = 0.863
I prefer to prioritise other activities on my land	29.4	32.2	38.3	180	25	35.7	39.3	28	χ^2(2) = 0.262, p = 0.877 φc = 0.035, p = 0.877

4. Discussion

This study found that interests and values of absentee landowners are very similar to resident landowners, with some key differences surrounding motivations and barriers to IP management. Notwithstanding absentee landowners being labelled a “problem” group by managers and other groups, our data shows few differences between absentee and residential landowners regarding attitudes, actions and barriers to IPs. This discussion examines residential and absentee lifestyle landowners and our analysis across five areas: rural land ownership and attitudes to IP management, actions and barriers relating to IP management on their property, and response rate.

4.1. Rural land ownership

Our findings on motivations to own rural land suggest that residential and absentee landowners are not so different. Within the literature, lifestyle-oriented residential landowners own rural property for differing reasons to lifestyle-oriented absentee owners. Residential landowners are motivated by natural and cultural amenities (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018), interest in small-scale farming, and environmental stewardship. Conversely, absentee landholders have been found to purchase and hold land for investment and recreation opportunities (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018), and private lifestyle services (Morrison et al. 2015). For our study, both residential and absentee lifestyle participants selected “lifestyle” as the most common response, followed by “being close to nature.” Notably, “being part of the rural community” was the next most popular with both groups, which would suggest that absentees in our study areas have an interest in engaging with the community where they own land. This is despite a strong argument within the existing literature that absentee landowners are less engaged with communities where they own land when compared to peers (Curtis et al. 2008). Significant differences within our findings suggest that residents are more interested in privacy. This suggests, again, that absentees may be relatively more open to local interactions when they do visit. While this study found that both residential and absentee landowners are environmentally oriented, it is a greater priority for residents. While this does accord with dominant views of absentees being less engaged with IP management (Local Land Services 2020), a clear majority of absentees are environmentally oriented, specifically wanting to contribute to protecting and restoring the environment.

4.2. Attitudes to Invasive plants

While there is a strong narrative suggesting that absentee owners are disconnected, and that neighbours are frustrated by absentee landlords who do not care about IPs spreading across their property (Pedersen 2019; Local Land Services 2020), our data suggests that absentees are no more or less disconnected on this issue than residential landowners. Despite most absentee land managers learning about IPs on their property from personal observations, approximately one-third became aware of IPs after discussions with neighbours. This is important because our results also show the importance of neighbours rather than their absence, other personal contacts, and experience in absentee landowners gaining knowledge about IPs. This is similar to how lifestyle landowners elsewhere in NSW gain advice and knowledge about NRM matters (Ikutegbe, Gill, and Klepeis 2015).

Further, regarding attitudes toward IPs and landowner agency, there is not much difference between the residential and absentee landowners; our analysis shows that both groups perceive that they can exert an effect on IPs. That is, both groups overwhelmingly try to eradicate or control IPs. Despite the difficulties of IP management and the work required, almost no one is “giving up” and landowners are still aiming for eradication or control – only 0.6 per cent or less of all participants had given up or did not care about IPs. Clearly, based on our data, neither absentee nor residential lifestyle landowners are indifferent about IPs. This was also found by Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter (2018), who found no direct relationship between management action and residential status. In fact, within our findings, IPs affected all participants negatively in the same ways. These findings highlight shared dispositions to IPs and impacts of IPs across residential and absentee landowners.

4.3. Land and Invasive plant management: actions and barriers

It is argued (Kam et al. 2019; Petrzelka, Ma, and Malin 2013) that absentee landowners have lower levels of engagement with their land in the form of lower levels of active management, decision-making, upkeep and maintenance. However, the majorities of both groups of landowners from this study report that they undertake activities to control IPs, with no significant differences between the two groups. Hours spent per week by participants managing IPs may be considered an important indicator of involvement (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018). We asked directly for time spent “managing weeds.” Similar to Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter (2018), we found no significant differences between the two groups of landowners. One to five hours per week was the most common option selected (80% of responses from both groups), and while, overall, residents in our study worked slightly longer hours, those who put in over 10 h per week were most likely to be absentees. With respect to the control methods used, the small but notable numbers of landholders who do use fire suggest a nucleus of landholders that could be built upon to expand and experiment with the use of fire for IP and other management purposes (Edwards and Gill 2016; Edwards and Gill 2015).

The barriers to controlling IPs are similar for both groups of lifestyle landowners, except for one variable, the “difficulties posed by their land.” It is uncertain what these difficulties are and why absentees have greater concern for this. Possibly absentees are less familiar with some parts of their land, do not have the equipment they need to tackle more difficult to manage areas, or are unable to invest the time to explore techniques to manage difficult areas. This is an area where further research may be warranted. Lack of management by others, especially public agencies and organisations, is also a relatively significant barrier for both groups and one that has been noted elsewhere (McKiernan and Gill 2022; Graham 2013). That perceived lack of management by public agencies as a barrier to doing more management can be interpreted as post hoc justification for undertaking less IP management than one might otherwise do or, alternatively as evidence that public organisations have more work to do in communicating the limits to, and trade-offs in, IP management that they themselves face. It also may simply represent landowners taking the opportunity to criticise such organisations for shortcomings in IP management and not a true influence on the landowners’ actual practice.

Finally, our results show that the majority of residential and absentee landowners do not feel that the IP issue on their land is too overwhelming. Both groups also perceive that they have the skills and experience necessary to manage IPs and that they do not lack incentives to control IPs.

4.4. Reflections on reaching absentee landowners

Despite a need to understand demographics and values in relation to individual land management decisions (Sorice, Rajala, and Kreuter 2018), there are challenges with reaching absentee landholders through traditional social and institutional networks (Petrzelka and Armstrong 2015). This was also experienced for this study and highlights challenges for researchers in reaching absentee landowners. Of the completed surveys (N = 439), nearly 90% of participants have no income or minor income from production from the rural land, highlighting the predominance of lifestyle-oriented landowners who responded. Of these, 12.5% were determined to be absentee lifestyle landholders and 87.5% were residential lifestyle landholders. This contrasts to other Australian studies which average one-quarter absentees from all project locations (Bond, O’Connor, and Cavagnaro 2018). In this study we surveyed rural landowners from two south-eastern LGAs of NSW, and while absentees came from both project locations, the majority (over 75%) were from the Shoalhaven shire, which is also closer in location to Sydney than Bega shire. It is, however, unknown for our research whether the proportions of residential landowners and absentee landowners are representative of the split among the population of lifestyle landowners in the two LGAs, or whether the responses are skewed in favour of these groups. Our analysis also faced the challenge of a relatively low response rate. While in other research that was conducted in collaboration with local government and with a similar process, we have achieved higher response rates (Ikutegbe, Gill, and Klepeis 2015; Klepeis and Gill 2016), in this case we had to rely upon the postal system and direct delivery to properties by ourselves. It is not clear why the response was low. Thus, while it is difficult to be definitive, a limitation of our study is that our respondents may not be ideally representative of lifestyle landowners in general, and of the absentee landowners in particular. Nonetheless, survey respondents in the two groups are demographically similar, early and late respondents are not significantly different, and our data and analysis are consistent with some other research on absentee landowners. Our data and analysis thus create an opportunity to present some further quantitative data and analysis regarding absentee landowners and to address some of the issues associated with absentee lifestyle landowners.

5. Conclusion

Lifestyle landowners are now a highly visible class of rural landowner in many rural areas, and among these, the proportion of absentee owners can be significant. To date, few studies have examined absentee landowners and many that do paint absentee landowners as a “problem” in the context of attitudes and actions surrounding NRM issues. In particular, IP management is cited as an issue where absentee landowner management is inadequate. Absentee landowners are considered a problem due to a suggested ignorance of IPs and management requirements, limited IP management, and limited engagement with neighbours and organisations around IP management. However, few studies compare absentee landowners with residential landowners in terms of motivations, attitudes and actions surrounding IP management. With a focus on IP management, our aim was to compare absentee lifestyle landholders with residential landowners, present and analyse IP management data from these landowners, and critically consider the extent and nature of the “problem” of absentee landowners. Our data suggested that differences between absentee and residential landowners may be overstated in the context of IP management. Our research supports a small number of studies which also argue that absentee landowners are not so different to residential landowners when it comes to engagement and land management. Specifically, it was found that attitudes and actions surrounding IP management were very similar between absentee and residents, with some key differences surrounding motivations and barriers to IP management. Further research is warranted surrounding barriers related to difficulties on their land; what the difficulties are that absentee landowners perceive, and why absentees have greater concern for this. Alternative research strategies other than interviews and self-reporting surveys should also be used to investigate NRM management by lifestyle landowners to gain greater insight into what both resident and absentee lifestyle landowners actually do and the outcomes of their management actions.

Finally, our analysis in conjunction with existing research invites reflection on the perceived “problem” of absentee landowners. Clearly NRM agencies and communities with absentee lifestyle landowners experience some sort of frustrations or difficulties with such landowners. While our and other research is suggesting that there may be less difference between absentee and lifestyle landowners than is suggested, this frustration and perception likely has a basis in experience. This experience and the way in which agencies and communities themselves come to perceive the problem of absentee landowners is thus itself of significance. Investigation of this process may reveal new ways of framing and understanding the issues of absentee landowners and NRM that have not yet been discerned by researchers. The focus of research so far has been on the absentee landowners themselves, but greater insights into broader social and NRM process in landscapes characterised by such owners will be gained by expanding the scope of research to agencies and other community members.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP130102588) and the University of Wollongong and received human research ethics approval from the University of Wollongong.