Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and ... more Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations.For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command-and-control approaches.Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collective-action theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective-action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species—externally led, community led, comanaged,and organizational coalitions—that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective-action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the social-ecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts.
The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable t... more The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable them to manage natural and cultural resources according to their values and aspirations. But this approach is countered in the case of weed management, where the emphasis is on killing plants that are identified on invasive alien species lists prepared by government agencies. Based on field research with Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala and Wunggurr land managers in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, we observed that 27 of 35 weed control projects followed the government agency weed lists for species-led control. Of these 27 projects, only two were considered successful in meeting Aboriginal cultural aspirations. In most of the other cases, the list-based approach generated frustration among Aboriginal rangers who felt they were engaged in purposeless killing. In contrast, we found that elders and rangers preferred site-based approaches that considered landscape and vegetation management from their culturally specific and highly contextual geographies of 'healthy country'. We outline instances where ranger groups have adopted site-based management that has been informed by geographies of healthy country and argue that such an approach offers a better alternative to current list-based weed control and produces positive outcomes for Aboriginal communities. This is an authors' pre-print version of this paper. The final version of record is published by in the Journal of Environmental Management and is available here:
The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable t... more The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable them to manage natural and cultural resources according to their values and aspirations. But this approach is countered in the case of weed management, where the emphasis is on killing plants that are identified on invasive alien species lists prepared by government agencies. Based on field research with Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala and Wunggurr land managers in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, we observed that 27 of 35 weed control projects followed the government agency weed lists for species-led control. Of these 27 projects, only two were considered successful in meeting Aboriginal cultural aspirations. In most of the other cases, the list-based approach generated frustration among Aboriginal rangers who felt they were engaged in purposeless killing. In contrast, we found that elders and rangers preferred site-based approaches that considered landscape and vegetation management from their culturally specific and highly contextual geographies of 'healthy country'. We outline instances where ranger groups have adopted site-based management that has been informed by geographies of healthy country and argue that such an approach offers a better alternative to current list-based weed control and produces positive outcomes for Aboriginal communities.
Our language and metaphors about environmental issues reflect and affect how we perceive and mana... more Our language and metaphors about environmental issues reflect and affect how we perceive and manage them. Discourse on invasive species is dominated by aggressive language of aliens and invasion, which contributes to the use of warlike metaphors to promote combative control. This language has been criticised for undermining scientific objectivity, misleading discourse, and restricting how invasive species are perceived and managed. Calls have been made for alternative metaphors that open up new management possibilities and reconnect with a deeper conservation ethic. Here, we turn to Indigenous perspectives because they are increasingly recognised as offering important and novel voices in invasive species discourse. We examine how Australian Aboriginal elders and land managers (rangers) speak about 'environmental weeds' (the term used to describe invasive plants in Australia) and weed management. Based on qualitative research with five Aboriginal groups in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, our findings indicate that Aboriginal elders speak about weeds through passive, neutral language and prefer metaphors for weed management that focus on health, care and creation. We outline the influence that this language has for how rangers practice weed work and discuss its implications for the mainstream paradigm.
Aboriginal Australians are being employed through federally funded programs to undertake
natural ... more Aboriginal Australians are being employed through federally funded programs to undertake natural and cultural management (NCRM) of their ancestral country. These Aboriginal Ranger programs aim to provide economic and cultural opportunities for Indigenous communities to achieve positive environmental and conservation outcomes by drawing on Aboriginal knowledge and cultural connections to country. A major component of Ranger work is the eradication of plants categorised as environmental weeds by land managers of various government and non-government agencies. Despite Aboriginal Ranger programs intending to foreground local Aboriginal perspectives to direct their work, Rangers predominantly manage environmental weeds according to the mainstream ecological paradigm. This thesis argues that the wholesale imposition of mainstream environmental weed discourse on Aboriginal NCRM programs disables Aboriginal Rangers from basing their weed management on culturally-embedded perspectives. Based on my field research in the western and central Kimberley region of Western Australia, I show that Rangers and elders belonging to Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala, Nyulnyul and Wilinggin country have nuanced, yet clear, understandings of ‘healthy country’ and the landscape change caused by plants. Through participant observation and field interviews, Rangers and elders from these groups challenged the current species-based approaches to weed classification and control and demonstrated that their views on weeds do not align with dominant environmental weed discourse and management. Instead, they highlighted the contextual and relational nature of weeds by linking them and their effects to the Aboriginal concept of ‘healthy country’. Significantly, these views are similar to the arguments made by ecologists and social scientists that are critical of mainstream invasion ecology and management of environmental weeds. Common to both groups are that weed problems are culturally and contextually specific and that weed management needs to maintain cultural and environmental values within changing landscapes by working alongside these changes, rather than constantly working against them. These points of overlap provide vindication for Aboriginal Rangers to control weeds through a greater emphasis on site-based, rather than species-based management. Site-based management allows Rangers to connect their weed work to local and culturally specific visions for healthy country; integrate weed management into other aspects of Ranger work and in doing so frame weed management as promoting healthy country rather than destroying plants; and meet the practical constraints of Ranger work by focusing on a manageable scale.
Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and ... more Controlling invasive species presents a public-good dilemma. Although environmental, social, and economic benefits of control accrue to society, costs are borne by only a few individuals and organizations.For decades, policy makers have used incentives and sanctions to encourage or coerce individual actors to contribute to the public good, with limited success. Diverse, subnational efforts to collectively manage invasive plants, insects, and animals provide effective alternatives to traditional command-and-control approaches.Despite this work, there has been little systematic evaluation of collective efforts to determine whether there are consistent principles underpinning success. We reviewed 32 studies to identify the extent to which collective-action theories from related agricultural and environmental fields explain collaborative invasive species management approaches; describe and differentiate emergent invasive species collective-action efforts; and provide guidance on how to enable more collaborative approaches to invasive species management. We identified 4 types of collective action aimed at invasive species—externally led, community led, comanaged,and organizational coalitions—that provide blueprints for future invasive species management. Existing collective-action theories could explain the importance attributed to developing shared knowledge of the social-ecological system and the need for social capital. Yet, collection action on invasive species requires different types of monitoring, sanctions, and boundary definitions. We argue that future government policies can benefit from establishing flexible boundaries that encourage social learning and enable colocated individuals and organizations to identify common goals, pool resources, and coordinate efforts.
The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable t... more The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable them to manage natural and cultural resources according to their values and aspirations. But this approach is countered in the case of weed management, where the emphasis is on killing plants that are identified on invasive alien species lists prepared by government agencies. Based on field research with Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala and Wunggurr land managers in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, we observed that 27 of 35 weed control projects followed the government agency weed lists for species-led control. Of these 27 projects, only two were considered successful in meeting Aboriginal cultural aspirations. In most of the other cases, the list-based approach generated frustration among Aboriginal rangers who felt they were engaged in purposeless killing. In contrast, we found that elders and rangers preferred site-based approaches that considered landscape and vegetation management from their culturally specific and highly contextual geographies of 'healthy country'. We outline instances where ranger groups have adopted site-based management that has been informed by geographies of healthy country and argue that such an approach offers a better alternative to current list-based weed control and produces positive outcomes for Aboriginal communities. This is an authors' pre-print version of this paper. The final version of record is published by in the Journal of Environmental Management and is available here:
The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable t... more The Australian Government's funding of land management by Aboriginal communities aims to enable them to manage natural and cultural resources according to their values and aspirations. But this approach is countered in the case of weed management, where the emphasis is on killing plants that are identified on invasive alien species lists prepared by government agencies. Based on field research with Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala and Wunggurr land managers in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, we observed that 27 of 35 weed control projects followed the government agency weed lists for species-led control. Of these 27 projects, only two were considered successful in meeting Aboriginal cultural aspirations. In most of the other cases, the list-based approach generated frustration among Aboriginal rangers who felt they were engaged in purposeless killing. In contrast, we found that elders and rangers preferred site-based approaches that considered landscape and vegetation management from their culturally specific and highly contextual geographies of 'healthy country'. We outline instances where ranger groups have adopted site-based management that has been informed by geographies of healthy country and argue that such an approach offers a better alternative to current list-based weed control and produces positive outcomes for Aboriginal communities.
Our language and metaphors about environmental issues reflect and affect how we perceive and mana... more Our language and metaphors about environmental issues reflect and affect how we perceive and manage them. Discourse on invasive species is dominated by aggressive language of aliens and invasion, which contributes to the use of warlike metaphors to promote combative control. This language has been criticised for undermining scientific objectivity, misleading discourse, and restricting how invasive species are perceived and managed. Calls have been made for alternative metaphors that open up new management possibilities and reconnect with a deeper conservation ethic. Here, we turn to Indigenous perspectives because they are increasingly recognised as offering important and novel voices in invasive species discourse. We examine how Australian Aboriginal elders and land managers (rangers) speak about 'environmental weeds' (the term used to describe invasive plants in Australia) and weed management. Based on qualitative research with five Aboriginal groups in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, our findings indicate that Aboriginal elders speak about weeds through passive, neutral language and prefer metaphors for weed management that focus on health, care and creation. We outline the influence that this language has for how rangers practice weed work and discuss its implications for the mainstream paradigm.
Aboriginal Australians are being employed through federally funded programs to undertake
natural ... more Aboriginal Australians are being employed through federally funded programs to undertake natural and cultural management (NCRM) of their ancestral country. These Aboriginal Ranger programs aim to provide economic and cultural opportunities for Indigenous communities to achieve positive environmental and conservation outcomes by drawing on Aboriginal knowledge and cultural connections to country. A major component of Ranger work is the eradication of plants categorised as environmental weeds by land managers of various government and non-government agencies. Despite Aboriginal Ranger programs intending to foreground local Aboriginal perspectives to direct their work, Rangers predominantly manage environmental weeds according to the mainstream ecological paradigm. This thesis argues that the wholesale imposition of mainstream environmental weed discourse on Aboriginal NCRM programs disables Aboriginal Rangers from basing their weed management on culturally-embedded perspectives. Based on my field research in the western and central Kimberley region of Western Australia, I show that Rangers and elders belonging to Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina Mangala, Nyulnyul and Wilinggin country have nuanced, yet clear, understandings of ‘healthy country’ and the landscape change caused by plants. Through participant observation and field interviews, Rangers and elders from these groups challenged the current species-based approaches to weed classification and control and demonstrated that their views on weeds do not align with dominant environmental weed discourse and management. Instead, they highlighted the contextual and relational nature of weeds by linking them and their effects to the Aboriginal concept of ‘healthy country’. Significantly, these views are similar to the arguments made by ecologists and social scientists that are critical of mainstream invasion ecology and management of environmental weeds. Common to both groups are that weed problems are culturally and contextually specific and that weed management needs to maintain cultural and environmental values within changing landscapes by working alongside these changes, rather than constantly working against them. These points of overlap provide vindication for Aboriginal Rangers to control weeds through a greater emphasis on site-based, rather than species-based management. Site-based management allows Rangers to connect their weed work to local and culturally specific visions for healthy country; integrate weed management into other aspects of Ranger work and in doing so frame weed management as promoting healthy country rather than destroying plants; and meet the practical constraints of Ranger work by focusing on a manageable scale.
Uploads
natural and cultural management (NCRM) of their ancestral country. These Aboriginal Ranger
programs aim to provide economic and cultural opportunities for Indigenous communities to
achieve positive environmental and conservation outcomes by drawing on Aboriginal knowledge
and cultural connections to country.
A major component of Ranger work is the eradication of plants categorised as
environmental weeds by land managers of various government and non-government agencies.
Despite Aboriginal Ranger programs intending to foreground local Aboriginal perspectives to
direct their work, Rangers predominantly manage environmental weeds according to the
mainstream ecological paradigm. This thesis argues that the wholesale imposition of mainstream
environmental weed discourse on Aboriginal NCRM programs disables Aboriginal Rangers from
basing their weed management on culturally-embedded perspectives.
Based on my field research in the western and central Kimberley region of Western
Australia, I show that Rangers and elders belonging to Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina
Mangala, Nyulnyul and Wilinggin country have nuanced, yet clear, understandings of ‘healthy
country’ and the landscape change caused by plants. Through participant observation and field
interviews, Rangers and elders from these groups challenged the current species-based
approaches to weed classification and control and demonstrated that their views on weeds do not
align with dominant environmental weed discourse and management. Instead, they highlighted
the contextual and relational nature of weeds by linking them and their effects to the Aboriginal
concept of ‘healthy country’.
Significantly, these views are similar to the arguments made by ecologists and social
scientists that are critical of mainstream invasion ecology and management of environmental
weeds. Common to both groups are that weed problems are culturally and contextually specific
and that weed management needs to maintain cultural and environmental values within
changing landscapes by working alongside these changes, rather than constantly working against
them.
These points of overlap provide vindication for Aboriginal Rangers to control weeds
through a greater emphasis on site-based, rather than species-based management. Site-based
management allows Rangers to connect their weed work to local and culturally specific visions
for healthy country; integrate weed management into other aspects of Ranger work and in doing so frame weed management as promoting healthy country rather than destroying plants; and meet the practical constraints of Ranger work by focusing on a manageable scale.
natural and cultural management (NCRM) of their ancestral country. These Aboriginal Ranger
programs aim to provide economic and cultural opportunities for Indigenous communities to
achieve positive environmental and conservation outcomes by drawing on Aboriginal knowledge
and cultural connections to country.
A major component of Ranger work is the eradication of plants categorised as
environmental weeds by land managers of various government and non-government agencies.
Despite Aboriginal Ranger programs intending to foreground local Aboriginal perspectives to
direct their work, Rangers predominantly manage environmental weeds according to the
mainstream ecological paradigm. This thesis argues that the wholesale imposition of mainstream
environmental weed discourse on Aboriginal NCRM programs disables Aboriginal Rangers from
basing their weed management on culturally-embedded perspectives.
Based on my field research in the western and central Kimberley region of Western
Australia, I show that Rangers and elders belonging to Bardi-Jawi, Bunuba, Ngurrara, Nyikina
Mangala, Nyulnyul and Wilinggin country have nuanced, yet clear, understandings of ‘healthy
country’ and the landscape change caused by plants. Through participant observation and field
interviews, Rangers and elders from these groups challenged the current species-based
approaches to weed classification and control and demonstrated that their views on weeds do not
align with dominant environmental weed discourse and management. Instead, they highlighted
the contextual and relational nature of weeds by linking them and their effects to the Aboriginal
concept of ‘healthy country’.
Significantly, these views are similar to the arguments made by ecologists and social
scientists that are critical of mainstream invasion ecology and management of environmental
weeds. Common to both groups are that weed problems are culturally and contextually specific
and that weed management needs to maintain cultural and environmental values within
changing landscapes by working alongside these changes, rather than constantly working against
them.
These points of overlap provide vindication for Aboriginal Rangers to control weeds
through a greater emphasis on site-based, rather than species-based management. Site-based
management allows Rangers to connect their weed work to local and culturally specific visions
for healthy country; integrate weed management into other aspects of Ranger work and in doing so frame weed management as promoting healthy country rather than destroying plants; and meet the practical constraints of Ranger work by focusing on a manageable scale.