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

被引:29
作者
Graham, Sonia [1 ]
Rogers, Sarah [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ New South Wales, Sch Social Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Contemporary Chinese Studies, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
Invasive species; Collective action; Rural land use; Local environment group; Farmer group; NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL DILEMMAS; CLIMATE-CHANGE; INSTITUTIONS; ADAPTATION; GOVERNANCE; LANDCARE; ADOPTION;
D O I
10.1007/s00267-017-0859-7
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:396 / 408
页数:13
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
Adger WN, 2005, GLOBAL ENVIRON CHANG, V15, P77, DOI [10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.03.001]
[2]  
Adger WN, 2003, ECON GEOGR, V79, P387
[3]   EXPERIMENTS ON THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC-GOODS BY GROUPS .3. NON-DIVISIBILITY AND FREE RIDING IN REAL-GROUPS [J].
ALFANO, G ;
MARWELL, G .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY, 1980, 43 (03) :300-309
[4]  
[Anonymous], PLANT INVASIONS POLI
[5]   YOUR PLACE OR MINE - THE EFFECT OF PLACE CREATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND LANDSCAPE MEANINGS [J].
BRANDENBURG, AM ;
CARROLL, MS .
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES, 1995, 8 (05) :381-398
[6]  
Central West CMA, 2013, REV WEED MAN NSW SUB
[7]   An accidental outcome: Social capital and its implications for Landcare and the "status quo" [J].
Compton, Erlina ;
Beeton, R. J. S. .
JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES, 2012, 28 (02) :149-160
[8]   Agency-community partnership in Landcare: Lessons for state-sponsored citizen resource management [J].
Curtis, A .
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1998, 22 (04) :563-574
[9]  
Curtis A, 2006, LANDCARE GROUPS VICT
[10]  
Darin G, 2006, INV PLANTS MOV CONTR