Search

The mobility of weeds, use of biological controls and spread of herbicide resistance mean that weed management is a landscape-scale problem. Area-wide management (AWM) presents one approach for land managers, industry and government representatives to collaborate to manage weeds across public and private properties. Such an approach has been successfully used for other landscape-scale problems, such as managing animal and insect pests. This study aims to identify what individual, community and institutional factors are associated with growers' participation in collaborative weed management in three cropping regions of Australia. Survey responses from 604 cropping growers from the Riverina (n = 218), Sunraysia (n = 200), and Darling Downs (n = 186) regions of eastern Australia were recorded between July and September 2021. Questions were designed to collect information on: socio-economic characteristics; the nature of farming operations; weed management concerns and beliefs; and individual and collaborative weed management practices, which constitute area-wide weed management (AWWM). Fisher's Exact test was applied to assess differences between growers who do and do not work together with others to manage weeds. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Boruta random forest function was used for feature selection and a random forest regression including the selected variables was then applied to determine the accuracy of the model that explains whether land managers collaborate with others on weed management. Almost all (95%) growers agreed that each land manager has a responsibility to the whole region to control weeds and 84% agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. Yet only 24% of growers currently work with other land managers on weed management. Growers who are less likely to work with others to manage weeds are those who: are less concerned about herbicide resistant weeds spreading to neighbouring land; are unlikely to share information with other land managers about weeds; or who are unlikely to attend meetings about local weed issues. Supporting greater uptake of AWM of weeds in the future will require increased awareness and education about the spread of herbicide resistance, building of new networks among growers and other key stakeholders, and development of AWWM activities that are accessible to all land managers regardless of time and financial constraints. This research demonstrates for the first time the limited extent of AWM of cropping weeds among growers in eastern Australia, and that AWWM is hindered by knowledge, network and access constraints. [Display omitted] • This is the first multi-state survey of Australian growers' attitudes and practices toward area-wide management of weeds. • 84% of growers agreed or strongly agreed that effective control of weeds requires land managers to work together. • Only 24% of growers self-reported that they work with other land managers on weed management. • Growers concerned about herbicide resistance spreading from their properties were more likely to work on weeds with others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical studies among small-scale societies show that participation in national development programs impact traditional norms of community cooperation. We explore the extent to which varying levels of village and individual involvement in development policies relate to voluntary cooperation within community settings. We used a field experiment conducted in seven villages (208 participants) from an indigenous society in Indonesia known for their strong traditional cooperative norms, the Punan Tubu. We framed the experiment in terms of an ongoing government house-building program. The results indicate that there were synergistic and antagonistic interactions between existing cooperative norms and government development policies. Participants' cooperation in the experimental setting was low, probably because the Punan Tubu are used to cooperating and sharing both under demand and in a context in which uncooperative behavior is largely unpunished. Variation in experimental behavior was related to both village- and individual-level variables, with participants living in resettlement villages and participants living in a house constructed under the government program displaying more cooperative behavior. The cooperation evident in resettled villages may indicate that people in these villages are more comfortable interacting in anonymous settings and less committed to the demand-sharing norms still prevalent in the upstream villages. The more cooperative behavior among villagers who have previously received a house might indicate that they recognize that they are now better off than others and feel more obliged to cooperate. Policies aiming to capitalize on existing cooperative behavior to stimulate community collective action should consider the specific conditions under which cooperation occurs in real settings since traditional norms that regulate cooperative behavior might not translate well to cooperation in government-led programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controlling invasive species presents a public‐good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations. For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command‐and‐control approaches. Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collective‐action theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective‐action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species—externally led, community led, comanaged, and organizational coalitions—that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective‐action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the social‐ecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts. Article impact statement: Invasive species control requires collective actions that prioritize flexible boundaries and social learning over monitoring and sanctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Area-wide collaboration across private and public property boundaries can enhance the management of weeds and minimise the spread of herbicide resistance. Yet we know little about the practices individual land managers engage in to achieve area-wide weed management (AWWM). This paper uses Social Practice Theory (SPT) as a framework to understand how cropping land managers engage with the practices of AWWM, and what the drivers and barriers are to their participation. 30 qualitative interviews were undertaken with land managers in Australian cropping regions of the Darling Downs (Queensland), Gwydir (New South Wales), Riverina (New South Wales) and Sunraysia (Victoria). Thematic analysis of the interviews explored the three dimensions of SPT—meanings, materials, and competences—of AWWM and the interactions between these elements. There is a value-action gap between growers' desire to participate in AWWM practices and their capacity to do so. The analysis reveals that narrowing this gap requires interventions at the points where the SPT elements intersect. It recommends beginning by leveraging existing commonalities between growers who already have a desire to participate in AWWM then scaling out by encouraging trusted agronomist networks to link diverse growers to facilitate collaborative weed management practices. There is also a role for government in supporting the development of leadership capabilities among growers, providing an enabling environment for agronomists to act as systemic facilitators and leading by example on public land. Most of the research on collective management of weeds has focused on formal groups in grazing systems. This study provides new insights into how and why weeds are largely managed independently in cropping systems and proposes ways growers may be supported to adopt more collaborative practices to address this landscape-scale problem. • Most growers believe area-wide weed management (AWWM) would be beneficial. • Few growers participate in AWWM: there is a value-action gap. • Growers are confident they have the competences needed to manage weeds on their own. • Lack of action from neighbouring private and public land managers undermines confidence in AWWM. • Diverse meanings about autonomy and financial imperatives create contradictions that constrain AWWM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]