Multiple targeted mitigation measures should be
incorporated and incentivised in catchment management plans
Results from this study support fencing as an effective method of
improving the ecological integrity of headwater streams. However, such
measures can be costly (Byers et al., 2005; Bayley and Li, 2008; Rawluk
et al., 2014), impractical (Sheffield et al., 1997) and unattractive to
farmers and other land managers (Graz et al., 2012). To avoid a
one-size-fits-all approach, Schulte et al. (2009) promoted targeting
fencing schemes to critical source areas, while Kilgarriff et al (2020)
found that fencing areas according to agricultural intensity to be a
cost-effective solution. Similarly, fencing and cattle exclusion alone
may not be sufficient to restore the ecological condition of impacted
watercourse and thus should not be considered a cure-all, but rather one
measure in a suite of mitigation measures that could be integrated into
wider management plans (Brannan et al., 2000; Schulte et al., 2009;
Collins et al., 2010; Smolders et al., 2015).Further research on the
socio-economic costs of fencing and costs associated with provision of
an alternative water supply (if necessary) as part of integrated
catchment management plans is required.