Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions.

This study presents a method for assessing conservation opportunity on private land based on landholders' socio-economic, behavioral, and farm characteristics. These characteristics include age, gender, education, level of off-farm income, farm size, proportion of remnant native vegetation on-farm, and ecological value of native vegetation on-farm. A sample of landholders who own greater than 2 ha of land in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region were sent a mail-based survey about their values and preferences for environmental management (N = 659, 52% response). Cross-tabulations and ANOVA statistical analysis techniques were used to compare the socio-economic attributes across three landholder classes: disengaged, moderately engaged, and highly engaged in native vegetation planting. Results indicate that highly engaged landholders were more likely to be female, formally educated, hobby farmers who managed small parcels of land and have high off-farm incomes, whereas disengaged landholders held significantly stronger farming connections (more farming experience, family have lived on the farm for more generations). Spatial analysis revealed area-specific differences in conservation opportunity and conservation priority. In some areas, properties of high ecological value were managed by highly engaged landholders, but nearby properties of high value were managed by moderately engaged or disengaged landholders. Environmental managers therefore cannot assume areas of high conservation priority will be areas of high conservation opportunity. At the regional scale, the potential for revegetation seems most promising within the moderately engaged landholder group considering the vast amount of land managed by this group in areas of high ecological value, particularly within the less represented Mallee and Coorong and Rangelands sub-regions. We suggest that incentive schemes which purchase conservation need to be targeted at disengaged landholders; mentoring schemes led by commercial farmers highly engaged in native vegetation planting should be directed at moderately engaged landholders, and; awards programs which acknowledge conservation successes should be targeted at highly engaged landholders.

Does type of health insurance affect health care use and assessments of care among the privately insured?

OBJECTIVE: To inform the debate about managed care by examining how different types of private insurance-indemnity insurance, PPOs, open model HMOs, and closed model HMOs-affect the use of health services and consumer assessments of care. DATA SOURCES/DATA COLLECTION: The 1996-1997 Community Tracking Study Household Survey, a nationally representative telephone survey of households, and the Community Tracking Study Insurance Followback Survey, a supplement to the Household Survey, which asks insurance organizations to match household respondents to specific insurance products. The analysis sample includes 27,257 nonelderly individuals covered by private insurance. STUDY DESIGN: Based on insurer reports, individuals are grouped into one of the four insurance product types. Measures of service use include ambulatory visits, preventive care use, hospital use, surgeries, specialist use, and whether there is a usual source of care. Consumer assessments of care include unmet or delayed care needs, satisfaction with health care, ratings of the last physician visit, and trust in physicians. Estimates are adjusted to control for differences in individual characteristics and location. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: As one moves from indemnity insurance to PPOs to open model HMOs to closed model HMOs, use of primary care increases modestly but use of specialists is reduced. Few differences are observed in other areas of service use, such as preventive care, hospital use, and surgeries. The likelihood of having unmet or delayed care does not vary by insurance type, but the reasons that underlie such access problems do vary: enrollees in more managed products are less likely to cite financial barriers to care but are more likely to perceive problems in provider access, convenience, and organizational factors. Consumer assessments of care-including satisfaction with care, ratings of the last physician visit, and trust in physicians-are generally lower under more managed products, particularly closed model HMOs. CONCLUSIONS: The type of insurance that people have-not just whether it is managed care but the type of managed care-affects their use of services and their assessments of the care they receive. Consumers and policymakers should be reminded that managed care encompasses a variety of types of insurance products that have different effects and may require different policy responses.