Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/17297
Title: Factors influencing rural landholder support for a mandated weed control policy
Contributor(s): Reeve, Ian  (author); Coleman, Michael  (author); Sindel, Brian M  (author)orcid 
Publication Date: 2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.03.010
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/17297
Abstract: Mandated weed control has a long history as a tool to restrict the spread and impact of serious agricultural and environmental weed species. For mandated control to be effective, control requirements must be strictly enforced for both private and public landholders, and landholders themselves must be supportive of legal enforcement requirements. Using data from a 2011 landholder survey of fireweed ('Senecio madagascariensis') impact and management in south-eastern Australia, we explored the factors influencing attitudes to mandated weed control. Factors associated with support for mandated fireweed weed control included compelling poorly performing neighbours to manage their weeds more effectively,optimism regarding the potential to restrict a weed's impact, current control activity, and the potential for mandated control to restrict or slow the spread of fireweed. Factors associated with opposition to mandated fireweed control included the burden it places on landholders, pessimism about the potential to restrict a weed's spread or reduce its impact, the view that bad fireweed problems result from certain land management practices, and a belief that declaration had not worked for other weed species. Mandated fireweed control is most likely to be of benefit in regions where the weed has not established fully, and there is a greater chance of successfully restricting its spread and establishment. It is critical to focus on lifestyle farmers and absentee farmers who are less likely to have an economic incentive to manage fireweed. In regions where fireweed is already established, the goal is to reduce its impacton farm productivity, rather than attempting containment or eradication. In this case, non mandated control approaches are more appropriate, including education, control support, and encouragement of cross boundary control activities.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Land Use Policy, v.46, p. 314-323
Publisher: Elsevier Ltd
Place of Publication: United Kingdom
ISSN: 1873-5754
0264-8377
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 070308 Crop and Pasture Protection (Pests, Diseases and Weeds)
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 300409 Crop and pasture protection (incl. pests, diseases and weeds)
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 960705 Rural Land Policy
960704 Land Stewardship
960413 Control of Plant Pests, Diseases and Exotic Species in Farmland, Arable Cropland and Permanent Cropland Environments
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 190207 Land policy
190299 Environmental policy, legislation and standards not elsewhere classified
180602 Control of pests, diseases and exotic species in terrestrial environments
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

4
checked on Dec 7, 2024

Page view(s)

1,594
checked on Aug 11, 2024

Download(s)

2
checked on Aug 11, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.