https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9616-1068
Correction
3 Jan 2025: Rayner TS, Conallin J, Boys CA, Price R (2025) Correction: Protecting fish and farms: Incentivising adoption of modern fish-protection screens for water pumps and gravity-fed diversions in Australia. PLOS Water 4(1): e0000333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000333 View correction
Figures
Abstract
Modern fish-protection screens offer significant potential benefits for Australia. The Commonwealth and New South Wales (NSW) governments have invested over $30m to incentivise early adoption by water users. However, successful adoption requires an understanding of the motivations and abilities of water users, and strategies to overcome key barriers to adoption. Four practices have been used by the NSW Government to strengthen understanding of stakeholders and encourage participation in incentive programs by water users. These are: applying social learning concepts to screening programs; evaluating stakeholder needs; identifying and mapping stakeholders and their relationships; and, integrating science in communication and engagement. Analysing the motivations and abilities of water users revealed three key motivations: to save money, to protect fish, and to improve their reputation or social licence to operate. However, the ability of water users to install a fish-protection screen was found to vary significantly. A range of barriers have been identified by water users in NSW, and solutions or strategies developed to address each one. Today, in Australia, over 2,000 ML/day of water is being delivered through modern fish-protection screens, protecting ~580,000 native fish annually at 31 sites across NSW, Victoria and Queensland (60% being in NSW). Existing investment may see these numbers increase to ~7,000 ML/day and ~2 million native fish/yr by June 2024. The application of the methods to understand and strategically engage with stakeholders should enable improved uptake of screening technologies in other jurisdictions and areas of conservation concern into the future.
Citation: Rayner TS, Conallin J, Boys CA, Price R (2023) Protecting fish and farms: Incentivising adoption of modern fish-protection screens for water pumps and gravity-fed diversions in Australia. PLOS Water 2(8): e0000107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000107
Editor: João Miguel Dias, Universidade de Aveiro, PORTUGAL
Received: February 14, 2023; Accepted: July 24, 2023; Published: August 30, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Rayner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data on stakeholder motivations and abilities and data on water diversions have been withheld from publication to protect participant privacy. These data are unable to be completely deidentified. Data have been used to provide valuable interpretation, while protecting the provacy of stakeholders involved in incentive programs, whom are required for these conservation efforts to be successful. Stakeholder perceptions data were collected under Negligible Low Risk Human Ethics approved by authors' Institutional Review Board (INT20/376227). The data custodian is Dr Marita Pearson. Her email address is marita.pearson@dpi.nsw.gov.au.
Funding: Funding for this research was provided by the NSW Recreational Fishing Trusts (CB, TR, RP, JC), the NSW Government (CB, TR, RP) and the Australian Government (CB, TR, RP). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. TR and RP received salary components funded from a combination of all funders.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Modern fish-protection screens for water pumps and diversion channels have the potential to provide significant triple-bottom-line benefits for Australian ecosystems, economies and communities [1]. Designed correctly, modern screens can protect up to 90% of native fish currently being lost to water diversions, reduce damage to water infrastructure, save water, lower energy use and stimulate regional economies through manufacturing, installation, and fisheries tourism [2]. The technology represents a new best practice for industries seeking to reduce their ecological footprint while maintaining access to water, which underpins their profitability. Screening 4,500 pumps in New South Wales (NSW) alone would protect millions of native fish annually and generate a AUD$3.7b boost to regional economies [3] and similar benefits are possible in other States and Territories.
Realising the full benefits of modern screens depends on widespread adoption by water users. Adoption might be achieved via regulation, incentivisation or a mixed-model approach combining both regulatory mechanisms and incentives [4]. While regulation may seem a simple solution, because it removes stakeholder consent, international experience shows it is relatively ineffective and can actually act as a barrier to adoption in the case of modern fish-protection screens [5]. High-priority water diversions that cause significant impacts to fish can remain unscreened due to exemptions based on ‘minimum-size-of-diversion’ and ‘grandfather’ clauses that only require new diversions to be screened, combined with a high demand on resources for enforcement. Regulation also does little to answer the question, “Who pays?”. This may lead to negative outcomes, such as the installation of low-quality screens, to satisfy ‘green tape’, which later require replacement and could potentially lead to disenchantment among users.
In Australia, incentivisation of screening has been the preferred method to begin driving uptake of modern screens. The Commonwealth Government has invested AUD$26m in the northern Murray-Darling Basin (MDB; [6]) and the NSW Government has invested AUD$13.5m in the Macquarie River valley. Smaller incentive schemes have also been funded [7]. Today, over 2,000 ML/day of water is being delivered through modern screens during the irrigation season, protecting ~580,000 native fish annually at 31 sites across NSW, Victoria and Queensland (60% being in NSW). These numbers are expected increase to ~7,000 ML/day and ~2 million native fish/yr by June 2024 (Fig 1). An additional investment of AUD~$25m could bring the cumulative total to over 3 million native fish/yr by late 2025, depending on manufacturing capacity and river conditions (Fig 1). The number of fish protected will then be approaching the ~5–8 million stocked annually from around 30 hatcheries in NSW, Victoria and Queensland [8].
Charts show: (a) the cumulative number of screening sites; (b) the cumulative volume of water screened; and, (c) the cumulative number of native fish protected per year. These figures represent uptake by early adopters, mostly in the Northern Murray-Darling Basin. The estimated cumulative number of native fish protected per year is based on 3.5 native fish entrained per ML of water extracted and a 90 day pumping season [1]. Past data includes all jurisdictions. Future installations and volumes are based on the best available data for NSW, including expressions of interest received by the NSW Government from water users. There is clear potential to protect millions of native fish per year. However, progress beyond June 2024 in NSW is dependent on further funding.
The early success of incentive programs can benefit greatly from a strong understanding of stakeholders. Proponents need to know who their stakeholders are, how their stakeholders relate to one another, and how information flows through their stakeholder network. They also need to know what motivates (or demotivates) different types of stakeholders, what abilities different stakeholders have, what might trigger stakeholders to act, and how to address important barriers to stakeholder adoption. Proponents can then design and prioritise scientific research, communication, and engagement activities to build stakeholder consent and capacity. As empirical data of return-on-investment improves, the level of incentivisation may be adjusted using subsidy or co-pay approaches.
However, developing a strong understanding of stakeholders can be challenging. Specialised expertise and dedicated resources are required–often beyond the skills and resources of proponents. Here, we describe four practices that have been used to strengthen screening programs in NSW over the past decade. These are: 1. applying social learning concepts described by Diffusion of Innovations theory to screening programs; 2. evaluating stakeholder needs; 3. identifying and mapping stakeholders and their relationships; and, 4. integrating science in communication and engagement. Our hope is that these practices, and our lessons learned, might help other proponents to establish and communicate their own incentivisation programs–as they work towards protecting their first million native fish per year.
Applying diffusion of innovations theory
Setting out to screen every diversion in a jurisdiction would be a daunting task. Questions arise, such as how can thousands of individuals and organisations be encouraged to adopt the technology? What levels of investment and prioritisation of water diversions for screening are required? And so on. Central to progress in NSW has been application of the concepts described by Diffusion of Innovations Theory. Diffusion of Innovations (DOI; [9]) is a classic conceptual framework that explains how and why a new idea, behaviour or technology spreads through a population of stakeholders (Fig 2). It theorises five types of stakeholders, differentiated by how quickly they are likely to adopt an innovation–their innovativeness. DOI then divides a population of stakeholders based on these five types (Table 1).
With successive groups of consumers adopting the new technology (shown in black) through time, an innovation’s market share(grey) will eventually reach the saturation level. The black curve is broken into sections of adopters. Note the use of an Expression of Interest program to allow innovators and early adopters to “self-select” as participants, and a reduction through time in the amount of incentivisation provided to stakeholders. Research and communications are required to “cross the chasm” of diffusion to the majority of stakeholders, in this case water users. Figure after [9].
DOI describes a range of useful principles for proponents of modern fish screens. However, the key message is that there is no need to work with or convince every water user to adopt. Instead, focus should be targeted at the innovators and early adopters. These groups are socially-influential (see following sections), more willing to take risks, and more motivated by the kudos, or financial and fringe benefits that can come from adopting early. To ‘get off on the right foot’ [10], recommend: purposively choosing which stakeholders to work with initially; carefully selecting the locations in which to start a program; and, appreciating what level of early uptake to expect. By recognising that stakeholders vary in their innovativeness, proponents (and funders) can be assured that innovators do, in fact, exist in their stakeholder population, and that early uptake is possible. Proponents can focus on identifying and increasing the capacity of those groups, while avoiding wasting time trying to convince laggards. Similarly, appreciating that innovators are excited by novelty, proponents can tailor their key messages accordingly.
The NSW Government has been applying DOI concepts to screening for over a decade. The focus has been on using strategic dissemination–how communicating and engagement is undertaken with water users (and other stakeholders) to initiate implementation (see [10]). During this time, the following valuable lessons have been learnt in NSW and could be applied to screening in other areas.
- Adopt a long-term approach, taking time to carefully consider how, where, when and to whom screens (and incentive programs) are promoted.
- Identify and work with innovators (including scientists, anglers and screen manufacturers), to drive development of screens that are tailored for local waterways, water users and fish.
- Define the total size of the stakeholder population (i.e., the number of water licence holders), then estimate the number of early adopters. Scale proposals for funding to suit.
- Build general awareness of screening benefits among water users, and provide them with opportunities to self-select for implementation incentives (e.g., an expression of interest).
- Engage directly with the most ‘impactful’ stakeholders (i.e., champions of the technology, and influential water users) to build consent for screens at high-volume water diversions.
- Create productive partnerships. Work with early adopters to establish showcase sites that demonstrate the benefits of screening under local conditions using local voices.
- Establish collaborative governance structures that involve stakeholders with broad expertise and experience, including water users, to guide consistent approaches across jurisdictions (e.g., development of the Australian Fish Screening Advisory Panel).
- Build awareness of implementation goals among policy and decision makers. Engaging with these stakeholders early in the process provides opportunities for them to ‘own’ and promote incentive programs.
A critical caveat in DOI is that most innovations fail once 16% of the population is saturated (i.e., the innovators plus early adopters). Moving into the early majority (termed by economists as ‘crossing the chasm’ of diffusion; [9]) will need local showcases detailing the outcomes experienced by early adopters to build a strong case that overcomes more firmly-held objections. Here, research proving the return on investment is important, as is genuine communication that communicates these findings in relevant and realistic ways. Proponents who do not understand the return on investment for stakeholders risk applying ineffective incentives, unsuitable messaging, or both. This is where understanding water user needs is essential.
Understanding water user needs
All stakeholders have needs. These needs are determined by their motivations and abilities. What type of DOI stakeholder are they? Are they ready to install a modern fish-protection screen? If not, do they need support to improve their understanding of how screens work or the benefits of screening? Do they need to know how a screen might meet their specific needs (e.g., a sustainability certification), and align with triple bottom line outcomes? Are they motivated, but lack the ability to install a screen? Do they need money to pay for installation? Do they need project management support because they are too busy to take on another project? Can they help drive the uptake of screening more broadly, by using their social or financial capital?
The Motivation and Ability Framework (MOTA) is a social research method that provides a framework for proponents to understand the needs of their various stakeholders and answer the questions above ([11, 12]; Fig 3). Proponents ask what motivates different types of stakeholders (positively or negatively) and examine whether stakeholders have the capacity to adopt a new idea or technology. MOTA includes assessment of the triggers for, and barriers to, adoption by stakeholders and can be combined with mapping of stakeholders (see next section). It provides a guide for proponents to begin developing engagement approaches and communication actions (e.g., types of meetings and key messages used) to improve stakeholder consent and capacity–for the different types of stakeholders–ultimately driving delivery and uptake of their technology or idea.
The MOTA framework showing the relationships between the trigger for change, how stakeholders perceive the trigger (as an opportunity or a threat), their ability to respond and their motivations to do so. These elements combine to determine what action a stakeholder might take and the resulting outcome. The solid arrows indicate the influence of one element on another, and the dashed arrows indicate a potential influence (e.g., positive outcomes for one stakeholder may trigger another stakeholder to adopt a technology). Barriers are not shown in this figure but are mentioned in the text and relate to stakeholder abilities and perceptions (e.g., a poor opinion of the technology could demotivate a stakeholder, make them identify it as a threat and therefore act as barrier to adoption). Figure after [11].
The use of MOTA has strengthened current initiatives and helped develop new screening incentivisation programs in NSW. The approach has been to use a simplified version of MOTA that focusses on discussions with high-priority irrigators, fisheries managers, government staff, decision makers and screen manufacturers. To date, 20+ on-farm meetings have been held with around 60 irrigators to promote the concept of screening, understand water user operations and concerns, and ‘sign-up’ water users to participate in the program (plus over 80 other stakeholder interactions). During this process, a variety of engagement approaches have been applied and key messages refined by seeking and incorporating feedback from stakeholders (i.e., by asking them what they need and how they want to be engaged).
The use of MOTA by the NSW Government has generated some important insights in relation to stakeholder motivations, abilities, triggers for action and barriers to adoption (Table 2). Firstly, water users share three main motivations with respect to screening. These are to: make or save money; protect native fish; and, improve their social licence to operate. Secondly, the abilities of water users vary depending on their financial, institutional, technical and social capacity and expertise. Thirdly, triggers for action are mostly related to government funding and outreach efforts, support for complementary measures to maximise benefits of environmental flows, and social licence to operate. Many of these triggers are also linked to, and interact with, the motivations of individual stakeholders. And, lastly, a series of common barriers to adoption exist. These include water user concerns about water supply, pump efficiency, ongoing maintenance costs and ownership, a mistrust of government and a lack of experience with fish and debris impacts. The NSW Government has worked for 10 years to develop solutions to each of these barriers, plus additional, more-detailed barriers encountered less frequently (Table 3).
In general, almost all water users are keen to receive information on fish screens that addresses barriers to adoption [13]. They are interested in the data on fish losses, if a screen might suit their operation, what the value proposition is (in terms of reliability of water supply, energy savings, native fish benefits and social reputation), and to be provided with connections to screen suppliers and installers. Proponents can employ authentic communication and engagement to deliver this information. This includes working to address barriers through new scientific research, by demonstrating the experiences of early adopters and by collaborating with manufacturers. Though this process, water users can access opportunities to participate in the development of screening programs.
Identifying and mapping stakeholders
Identifying stakeholders is critical. Proponents need to know who their stakeholders are before they can start prioritising and planning engagement efforts. In NSW, three broad types of stakeholders for screening incentive programs were identified using expert elicitation workshops (Table 4). These stakeholders were: implementers, influencers and facilitators. It should be noted that DOI can be applied primarily to implementers (those installing screens), but also to other types of stakeholders that vary in their role. Further, these categories could be applied in other areas where screening programs are underway or proposed. Lastly, proponents might recognise themselves in each of the three groups.
Stakeholder relationships can then be mapped. Proponents can group stakeholders based on shared interests, goals, motivations and values (e.g., irrigators, fishing groups and government departments). Links can be added to represent the variety of relationships between stakeholders, ranging from informal social contacts to formal governance arrangements. This process helps proponents visualise the number, type and strength of relationships between different stakeholders and how information might spread through their stakeholder population. This improves the efficiency of engagement efforts, by helping to identify the most important targets for communication. The process also helps proponents consider how conflict might be avoided and collaboration encouraged.
In NSW, expert opinion was used as the main source of data and stakeholders were mapped using two methods: social capital mapping [14] and motivations and abilities mapping [11]. These methods revealed: (1) the network of relationships and lines of communication between stakeholders; and, (2) which stakeholders hold similar attitudes or positions on screening and might play similar roles in relation to our incentive programs. The initial social capital mapping indicated that there were well established groups of stakeholders, which were linked to one another by interest, sector, and responsibilities. Clear opposers and supporters of screening were also identified based on their motivations and abilities.
The insights gained through mapping allowed further refinement of the stakeholder engagement approach. Specifically, maps were used to help decide which stakeholders to engage with first, and what information to present (tailoring information to their interests). Stakeholders were then prioritised for engagement based on three factors: maximising uptake (how can the most screens be installed in the next three years and how can the biggest benefits be delivered?); study area (are the stakeholders physically located within the study area?)’ and, receptiveness (which stakeholders are most likely to be motivated to install a screen and be receptive to engagement?). Key messages were tailored prior to any planned presentations and stakeholder engagement (i.e., contacting stakeholders directly or presenting information to stakeholders indirectly).
Integrate science with comms & engagement
The NSW Government has worked to integrate science with communication and engagement efforts. This integration can be defined simply as, ‘undertaking science that generates strong, evidence-based key messages and that also responds to stakeholder needs for information’. This process involves taking communication from the end of the project timeline and embedding it into the scientific practice of the project itself. It represents a transition away from the deficit model to dialogue and participatory models of stakeholder engagement. Through a DOI lens, such integration involves deploying communications backed by science to engage early adopters, documenting their experiences, and then using that information to ‘cross the chasm’ to the early majority. There is also a dynamic wherein late majority and laggard stakeholders begin to see the experiences of innovators and early adopters, although this is difficult to quantify.
In NSW, there has been increasing integration of biophysical science with social research, and communication and engagement in screening programs. The following lessons have been learnt.
- Test key messages to provide nuance and framing that suit different audiences. Emphasise relevant benefits–irrigation efficiencies, biodiversity protection, economic or social good.
- Utilise early adopter experiences by establishing ‘showcase’ sites that demonstrate the benefits of screening in accessible language using a diversity of voices.
- Prioritise communication that helps establish relationships, build trust and provide ‘continuity of care’; rather than ‘town hall’ meetings that can become distracted.
- Utilise existing networks (e.g., water user associations) that allow stakeholders to self-organise, by partnering with advocacy, industry, and community groups.
- Seek and respond honestly to feedback from stakeholders, particularly in relation to new and emerging knowledge gaps. Answering these questions will help ‘cross the chasm’.
- Similarly, adapt to new information. Incorporate knowledge (e.g., from science or MOTA activities with stakeholders) into the management and delivery of screening programs.
- Conduct high-quality evaluations of screening costs and benefits (economic, environmental, social and cultural) to quantify and clarify the value proposition.
- Be solution oriented early. Use the evidence that is available (e.g., on fish losses and the availability and benefits of modern screens) to take action.
- Anticipate the information needs of industries and decision makers, providing data in accessible language and formats. Identify emerging communication opportunities.
- Assist manufacturers in developing screen technology, by providing up-to-date specifications and clear guidance for native fish protection.
- Establish structures that inform decision makers and support interactions between screening agencies and jurisdictions, guiding new actors as they join programs.
Conclusion
Modern fish-protection screens on water pumps and gravity-fed diversions offer a range of public and private benefits. However, the technology is a new concept for most water users in Australia. Like any new idea or innovation, significant effort is required to raise awareness of incentive programs and generate uptake. Proponents need to develop a strong understanding of their stakeholders and work with innovators and early adopters (sensu [9]) to address the barriers to adoption faced by both these groups and more sceptical stakeholders. Using local showcases paired with rigorous, responsive and integrated science and clear communication, tapping into social learning, understanding connections, utilising champions and building real relationships will help modern screening cross the chasm of diffusion and establish the use of this technology as a standard best practice in Australian water use. These methods also have significant potential for application in other areas of implementation across conservation management.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands and rivers where this work took place and pay their respect to Elders past, present and emerging. We thank the recreational anglers of NSW for their support, through the NSW Recreational Fishing Trusts and OzFish Unlimited. We also acknowledge the: enthusiastic participation of farmers and other water users in this study over many years; the contextual understanding provided by our colleagues at Charles Sturt University, Nick Pawsey and Tahmid Nayeem; advice from international experts in New Zealand and the United States with experience in modern screening; and, members of the Australian Fish Screening Advisory Panel. Marita Pearson provided comments on a draft of this manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1. Boys CA, Rayner TS, Baumgartner LJ, Doyle KE. Native fish losses due to water extraction in Australian rivers: Evidence, impacts and a solution in modern fish- and farm-friendly screens. Ecological Management & Restoration 2021;22(2): 134–144.
- 2.
Boys CA. Design specifications for fish-protection screens in Australia. 1st ed. Taylors Beach: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries; 2021.
- 3. Rayner TS, Boys CA. Fish screens: a $3.7 billion boost for regional towns. 2020 [cited 13 September 2022]. In: Fish Screens Australia blog [Internet]. Available from: https://fishscreens.org.au/farming/fish-screens-a-3-7-billion-boost-for-regional-australia/
- 4. Selinske MJ, Cooke B, Torabi N, Hardy MJ, Knight AT, Bekessy SA. Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation. Ecology and Society 2017;22(2): 7.
- 5. Baumgartner LJ, Boys CA. Reducing the perversion of diversion: applying world-standard fish screening practices to the Murray-Darling Basin. Ecological Management & Restoration 2012;13(2): 135–143.
- 6. Murray Darling Basin Authority. Northern Basin projects. 2022 [cited 13 September 2022]. Available from: https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin-plan/northern-basin-projects.
- 7. New South Wales Government. Fish screen program to provide financial and environmental benefits to farmers. 2022 [cited 13 September 2022]. Available from: https://www.lls.nsw.gov.au/regions/western/latest-news-and-newsletters/w-news/2023/fish-screen-program-to-provide-financial-and-environmental-benefits-to-farmers.
- 8.
Gillanders BM, Elsdon TS, Munro AR. Impacts of native fish stocking on fish within the Murray-Darling Basin. Adelaide: University of Adelaide; 2006.
- 9.
Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
- 10. Dearing JW, Cox JG. Diffusion of Innovations Theory, Principles, and Practice. Health Affairs 2018;37(2): 175–336.
- 11. Conallin J, Ning N, Bond J, Pawsey N, Baumgartner LJ, Atminarso D, et al. A review of the applicability of the motivations and abilities (MOTA) framework for assessing the implementation success of water resources management plans and policies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2022;26(5): 1357–1370.
- 12.
Quan N, Guerra J, Korbee D, Luan P, Dung T, Hung D, et al. Manual for Application of the MOTA Framework: Theory and Practice. Ho Chi Minh City: Center of Water Management and Climate Change, Vietnam National University; 2019.
- 13.
Nayeem T, Pawsey N. New South Wales irrigators’ attitudes towards irrigation pump fish screening. In: Research for a Changing World: Institute for Land Water and Society Online Conferences; 2020 [cited 13 September 2022]. Available from: https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/new-south-wales-irrigators-attitudes-towards-irrigation-pump-fish.
- 14. Hearne D, Powell B. Too much of a good thing? Building social capital through knowledge transfer and collaborative networks in the southern Philippines. International Journal of Water Resources Development 2014;30(3): 495–514.
- 15.
Boys CA, Rayner TS, Kelly B, Doyle KE, Baumgartner LJ. A guide to modern fish-protection screening in Australia. Taylors Beach: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Fisheries; 2021.