Skip to main content
Log in

How Local Landholder Groups Collectively Manage Weeds in South-Eastern Australia

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For two decades researchers and policy makers have been arguing that community-based collective action is needed to effectively control weeds. Yet there has been little social research into the ways that collective weed control emerges at local scales. The aim of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms through which three local landholder groups in south-eastern Australia collectively manage weeds and the measures they use to evaluate success. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of three Landcare groups—Jerrawa Creek/Upper Lachlan, MacLaughlin River and Towamba Valley—as well as government staff external to the groups. The results reveal that for all three groups collective weed control is about supporting individual weed control efforts as well as proactively engaging landholders with the worst infestations. The groups were seen to be successful because they focused on the common challenge that weeds pose to all landholders, thereby removing the shame associated with having weeds, and because they organised community events that were as much about building and maintaining social relationships as improving weed control. Groups were positive about what they had achieved as collectives of landholders, but also saw an important role for government in providing funding, engaging with landholders who were unwilling to engage directly with the group, and controlling weeds on public lands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger N (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79:387–404

  • Alfano G, Marwell G (1980) Experiments on the provision of public goods by groups III: nondivisibility and free riding in “real” groups. Soc Psychol Q 43:300–309

  • Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15:77–86

  • Brandenburg AM, Carroll MS (1995) Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Soc Nat Res 8:381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central West CMA (2013) Review of Weed Management in NSW-Submission. Central West Catchment Management Authority, Orange, NSW

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton E, Beeton RJS (2012) An accidental outcome: Social capital and its implications for Landcare and the “status quo”. J Rural Stud 28:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A (1998) Agency–community partnership in landcare: lessons for state-sponsored citizen resource management. Environ Manage 22:563–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis A, Cooke P (2006) Landcare Groups in Victoria: after twenty years. Charles Sturt University, Albury

    Google Scholar 

  • Darin G, Schoenig S (2006) Combining Formal Weed Eradication Programs with Local Weed Management Areas for Early Detection and Rapid Response of Invasive Weeds in California. Paper presented at the Invasive plants on the Move: Controlling them in North America. Weeds Across Borders 2006 Conference. Hermosillo, Mexico

  • Debrah SK (1994) Socio‐economic constraints to the adoption of weed control techniques: The case of Striga control in the West African Semi‐Arid Tropics. Internat J Pest Manage 40:153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson S, Mudd T (2010) Sustaining Cooperative Weed Management Areas in the Long-term. In: Rindos E (ed) Plant Invasions: Policies, Politics, and Practices. Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Weeds Across Borders Conference., Shepherdstown, 1-4 June, 2010. Center for Invasive Plant Management

  • Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Asian CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervin D, Jussaume R (2014) Integrating social science into managing herbicide-resistant weeds and associated environmental impacts. Weed Sci 62:403–414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EUREDD Facility, CERDA (2016) Collective action to protect upland forests in Vietnam: A community-led approach to forest protection. Centre of Research and Development in Upland Areas and EUREDD, Ha Noi

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiege M (2005) The weedy west: mobile nature, boundaries, and common space in the Montana landscape. West Hist Q 36:22–47

  • Graham S (2013) Three cooperative pathways to solving a collective weed management problem. Australasian J Environ Manage 20:116–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson-Izurieta S, Paulson D, Enloe SF (2008) The Estes Valley, Colorado: a case study of a weed management area. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:91–97

  • Herbert A (2013) Towamba Landcare - Community Leaders. A community driving land management at the catchment level. Paper presented at the Weeds have no boundaries. 17th NSW Weeds Conference. Corowa, NSW, 9‐12 September 2013

  • Hershdorfer ME, Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Howery LD (2007) Key attributes influence the performance of local weed management programs in the southwest. United States Rangeland Ecol Manage 60:225–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins A, Serbesoff-King K, King M, O’Rielly-Doyle K (2007) The power of partnerships: landscape scale conservation through public/private collaboration. Nat Areas J 26:236–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Johnson BL (2003) Ethical obligations in a tragedy of the commons. Environ Values 12:271–287

  • Kollock P (1998) Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annu Rev Sociol 24:183–214

  • Layder D (1998) Sociological practice: linking theory and social research. SAGE Publications, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn RS, Lindner RK, Pannell DJ, Powles SB (2004) Grain grower perceptions and use of integrated weed management. Australian J Exper Agricul 44:993–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn RS, Lindner RK, Pannell DJ, Powles SB (2007) Herbicide resistance and the adoption of integrated weed management by Western Australian grain growers. Agricul Econ 36:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M (2004) Collaborative Watershed Management: a view from the grassroots policy. Studies J 32:341–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall GR, Coleman MJ, Sindel BM, Reeve IJ, Berney PJ (2016) Collective action in invasive species control, and prospects for community-based governance: The case of serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) in New South Wales. Australia Land Use Policy 56:100–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall GR, Stafford Smith DM (2010) Natural resources governance for the drylands of the MurrayDarling Basin. Rangeland J 32:267–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod LJ, Saunders GR (2011) Can legislation improve the effectiveness of fox control in NSW? Australasian J Environ Manage 18:248–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minato W, Curtis A, Allan C (2010) Social norms and natural resource management in a changing rural community. J Environ Policy Plan 12:381–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse RS (2010) Integrative public leadership: catalyzing collaboration to create public value. Leadership Quart 21:231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Planning Manage 51:325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec RM, Ardoin NM, Wharton CB, Asner GP (2016) Motivating residents to combat invasive species on private lands: social norms and community reciprocity. Ecol Soc 21

  • NSW NRC (2014) Weeds - time to get serious. Review of weed management in NSW. Final report and recommendations. NSW Natural Resources Commission, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW NRC (2016) Shared problem, shared solutions: pest animal management review. Draft report. NSW Natural Resources Commission, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010a) Analyzing collective action. Agricul Econ 41:155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010b) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environ Change 20:550–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D (2008) Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environ Plan A 40:867–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips E (1999) The social and cultural construction of farming practice; ‘Good’ farming in two New South Wales communities. Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga

  • Place F, Kariuki G, Wangila J, Kiristjanson P, Makauki A, Ndubi J (2002) Assessing the factors underlying differences in group performance: methodological issues and empirical findings from the highlands of central Kenya. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

  • Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Change 35:435–461

  • Runge CF (1984) Institutions and the free rider: the Assurance Problem in collective action. J Politics 46:154–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuett MA, Selin SW, Carr DS (2001) Making it work: keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. Environ Manage 27:587–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sobels J, Curtis A, Lockie S (2001) The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. J Rural Stud 17:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolle D (1998) Why do bowling and singing matter? Group charactistics, membership, and generalized trust. Political Psychol 19:497–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swallow BM, Garrity DP, van Noordwijk M (2001) The effects of scales, flows and filters on property rights and collective action in watershed management. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen JM, Caplow SC (2016) Defining success overtime for large landscape conservation organizations, J Environ Plan Manage, doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1202814

  • Thorp J, Lynch R (1999) The impact of the national weeds strategy on weed management within Australia. Paper presented at the Twelfth Australian Weeds Conference. Weed Management into the 21st Century: Do We Know Where We’re Going? Hobart

  • Uetake T (2013) Managing agri-environmental commons through collective action: lessons from OECD countries. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt M, De Cremer D (1999) Leadership in social dilemmas: the effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:587–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt M, Snyder M (2002) Cooperation in society: fostering community action and civic participation. Am Behav Sci 45:765–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Government (2007) Celebrating 10 years Linking Communities and Catchments. Victorian Government, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Yung L, Chandler J, Haverhals M (2015) Effective weed management, Collective Action, and Landownership Change in Western Montana. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a Weeds Action Program (WAP) project jointly undertaken by South East Local Land Services and the NSW Department of Primary Industries. We thank all participants for their time and insight. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Graham.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graham, S., Rogers, S. How Local Landholder Groups Collectively Manage Weeds in South-Eastern Australia. Environmental Management 60, 396–408 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0859-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0859-7

Keywords

Navigation