Managing invasive plants in a rural-amenity landscape: the role of social capital and Landcare

McKiernan, Shaun

doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1351930

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hypothesized that individual weed control on private lands is a collective action problem because, holding individual factors constant, collective factors would explain significant variation in individual landowner weed control behaviors. More specifically, for our application of the collective interest model (CIM) we drew independent variables from the extant qualitative weed control research and broader collective action literature, including the following: injunctive and descriptive normative beliefs (Nowak and Sigmund 2005, Yung and Belsky 2007, Marshall et al 2016, McKiernan 2017, the recognition that weed control is a crossboundary problem (Fiege 2005, Marshall 2009, Yung et al 2015, reciprocity (Kollock 1998, Ostrom 2000, Panchanathan and Boyd 2004, Marshall et al 2016, area-wide satisfaction with weed management (Finkel and Muller 1998, Reid et al 2009, Graham and Rogers 2017, sense of community (Graham and Rogers 2017), and group efficacy (Chong 1991, Finkel and Muller 1998, Epanchin-Niell et al 2010. Previous literature has established the relationship between individual factors and individual weed control behaviors.…”

Section: Research Purpose and Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: evidence from private lands in Montana, USA

Lubeck¹,

Metcalf²,

Beckman³

et al. 2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive terrestrial plants globally threaten agricultural and natural systems. Prolific dispersal mechanisms enable "weeds" to colonize across ownership boundaries, constituting a collective action problem where effective control requires contributions from multiple actors. Researchers have long recognized the cross-boundary nature of weed control, yet most studies have focused on whether actor-specific characteristics, such as sociodemographics and cognition, influenced individual weed control behaviors. More recent work has begun to explore the drivers of communal control efforts, i.e., cooperatives, group actions. Few studies have empirically investigated how the collective aspects of weed invasions influence individual control behaviors. Here we provide quantitative evidence of a relationship between collective aspects of the weed control problem and landowners' willingness to engage in individual weed control efforts. In a mail-back survey of Montana landowners (n = 1327) we found collective factors, such as injunctive norms and the belief that weeds are a cross-boundary problem, were significantly correlated with willingness to engage in three different weed control behaviors. Each behavior was correlated with a unique suite of collective factors suggesting that successful interventions must be behavior-specific. These results add to a growing body of evidence that the collective nature of invasive species control is critical for understanding human behavioral responses.

show abstract

Section: Research Purpose and Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: evidence from private lands in Montana, USA

Lubeck¹,

Metcalf²,

Beckman³

et al. 2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motivating model landowners to communicate with others in their community may increase the reach of conservation programs. Peer interactions may create community social norms around a conservation behavior (McKiernan 2017), which could facilitate conservation action over time (Cialdini et al 2003;Niemiec et al 2016). They may enhance landowner feelings of efficacy and reduce concerns about the program, encouraging widespread participation (Snyder & Broderick 1992;Bandura 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation

Niemiec

Willer

Ardoin

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encouraging motivated landowners to not only engage in conservation action on their own property but also to recruit others may enhance effectiveness of conservation on private lands. Landowners may only engage in such recruitment if they believe their neighbors care about the conservation issue, will positively respond to their conservation efforts, and are likely to take action for the conservation cause. We designed a series of microinterventions that can be added to community meetings to change these beliefs to encourage landowner engagement in recruitment of others. The microinterventions included neighbor discussion, public commitment making, collective goal setting, and increased observability of contributions to the conservation cause. In a field experiment, we tested whether adding microinterventions to traditional knowledge‐transfer outreach meetings changed those beliefs so as to encourage landowners in Hawaii to recruit their neighbors for private lands conservation. We delivered a traditional outreach meeting about managing the invasive little fire ant () to 5 communities and a traditional outreach approach with added microinterventions to 5 other communities. Analysis of pre‐ and post‐surveys of residents showed that compared with the traditional conservation outreach approach, the microinterventions altered a subset of beliefs that landowners had about others. These microinterventions motivated reputationally minded landowners to recruit and coordinate with other residents to control the invasive fire ant across property boundaries. Our results suggest integration of these microinterventions into existing outreach approaches will encourage some landowners to facilitate collective conservation action across property boundaries.

show abstract

“…However, weed management social science shows that knowledge and communication are not necessarily the most significant or only influences on weed management (Head, 2017). As well as economic factors, practice is influenced by a range of social and cultural factors including social norms (Ma et al, 2018;McKiernan, 2017), trust (Graham, 2014), divergent views about plant belonging that do not neatly accord to the native/non-native distinction (Cooke and Lane, 2015), and pragmatic decisions about living with and tolerating weeds in various ways .…”

Section: Weed Hygiene Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed hygiene practices in rural industries and public land management: Variable knowledge, patchy implementation, inconsistent coordination

Gill

Graham

Cross

et al. 2018

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed management science and practice largely focuses on eradicating, containing and reducing existing weed populations; the focus is on plants in situ. More recently, the redefinition of biosecurity to include weeds has seen greater attention paid to preventing the introduction of weeds to previously uninfested areas within countries. Thus weed hygiene has come to the fore, with a growing number of publications recommending a diverse range of practices to minimise the spread of weeds across farm, regional and state boundaries. Yet little is known about the uptake of weed hygiene practices. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which best practice weed hygiene is being implemented on, across and along private and public lands. Telephone interviews were conducted with 54 private and public land managers, weed contractors, and agricultural transport operators in New South Wales, Australia. Vehicle hygiene was commonly undertaken across all stakeholder groups when it was consistent with other goals, requirements or norms. Other practices, such as sequencing harvesting from least to most weedy paddocks or including weed hygiene clauses in contracts were often known, but rarely practiced because of the onerous labour and financial costs or concerns about social etiquette. Individual commitment to weed hygiene efforts were also undermined by intra and inter-organisational coordination challenges. Public debate and assessment are needed on the benefits and costs to society of weed hygiene compared to in situ weed control to determine where best to invest limited time and resources.

show abstract

Managing invasive plants in a rural-amenity landscape: the role of social capital and Landcare

Cited by 17 publications

References 50 publications

Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: evidence from private lands in Montana, USA

Collective factors drive individual invasive species control behaviors: evidence from private lands in Montana, USA

Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation

Weed hygiene practices in rural industries and public land management: Variable knowledge, patchy implementation, inconsistent coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About