Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19962
Title: Effectiveness of best practice management guides for improving invasive species management: a review
Contributor(s): Coleman, Michael  (author)orcid ; Sindel, Brian M  (author)orcid ; Stayner, Richard  (author)
Publication Date: 2017
DOI: 10.1071/rj16087
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/19962
Abstract: Best practice management (BPM) guides are a key component of invasive species extension in Australia, and are becoming a more important way of reaching land managers with comprehensive invasive species management strategies. However, little is known about the quantifiable benefits of these guides as a stand-alone extension approach, or in comparison with other approaches. We therefore reviewed the existing literature to determine when this form of extension was appropriate, what determines the success or failure of BPM guides in facilitating best practice invasive species management, how effective they had been in the Australian context, and what methods were available to evaluate BPM guide effectiveness. BPM guides are most appropriately used in support of other forms of extension and enforcement of invasive species regulations; as a cost-effective alternative to more labour-intensive extension techniques; or in bringing together disparate information in a single comprehensive source for land managers and extension practitioners. They appear to be most appropriately distributed at mid- and late-stages of the invasion curve. Limited quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of BPM guides for invasive species in Australia is available, although there is a consensus that these materials are popular among target audiences, despite a range of studies having shown face-to-face extension to be more effective. Unfortunately, many factors make successful evaluation of a BPM guide difficult, such that extension professionals are less likely to consider the possibility of evaluation. However, we argue that extension professionals need to consider evaluation of written BPM guides, where time and funding makes this possible. Ideally this will involve formative evaluation to improve the content and messages of the guide, as well as summative evaluation to determine its effectiveness among the target audience and for the target species. We also suggest a range of economic evaluation possibilities that warrant further exploration and trial.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: The Rangeland Journal, 39(1), p. 39-48
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Place of Publication: Australia
ISSN: 1834-7541
1036-9872
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 070308 Crop and Pasture Protection (Pests, Diseases and Weeds)
070101 Agricultural Land Management
070603 Horticultural Crop Protection (Pests, Diseases and Weeds)
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 300409 Crop and pasture protection (incl. pests, diseases and weeds)
300804 Horticultural crop protection (incl. pests, diseases and weeds)
300202 Agricultural land management
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 960403 Control of Animal Pests, Diseases and Exotic Species in Farmland, Arable Cropland and Permanent Cropland Environments
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 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
School of Environmental and Rural Science

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

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
checked on Mar 23, 2024

Page view(s)

1,616
checked on Mar 3, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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