Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Effective Weed Management, Collective Action, and Landownership Change in Western Montana

  • Laurie Yung (a1), John Chandler (a2) and Marijka Haverhals (a3)
Abstract

Rural landscapes are increasingly diverse and heterogeneous, involving a mix of small and large parcels, amenity and agricultural properties, and resident and absentee owners. Managing invasive plants in landscapes with changing ownership requires understanding the views and practices of different landowners. We surveyed landowners in two rural valleys with 26% absentee ownership and a large number of small parcels in Missoula County, Montana. Landowners indicated a high level of awareness and concern about weeds; more than 80% agreed that weeds are a problem in their valley. Seventy-eight percent of landowners managed weeds, but only 63% were effective at weed management. Absentee owners were far less likely to manage weeds on their properties and less likely to utilize herbicides, as compared with resident landowners. Landowners reported that seeds coming from adjacent properties were the most significant barrier to effective weed control. Many landowners manage weeds to be a good neighbor and believe that cooperation between neighbors is critical to weed management.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: laurie.yung@umontana.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

DD Dutcher , JC Finley , AE Luloff , J Johnson (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Soc Nat Resour 17:319332

RS Epanchin-Niell , MB Hufford , CE Aslan , JP Sexton , JD Port , TM Waring (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210216

RS Epanchin-Niell , JE Wilen (2015) Individual and cooperative management of invasive species in human-mediated landscapes. Am J Agric Econ 97:180198

S Graham (2013) Three cooperative pathways to solving a collective weed management problem. Australas J Environ Manag 20:116129

ME Hersbdorfer , ME Fernandez-Gimenez , LD Howery (2007) Key attributes influence the performance of local weed management programs in the southwest United States. Rangeland Ecol Manag 60:225234

P Klepeis , N Gill , L Chisholm (2009) Emerging amenity landscapes: invasive weeds and land subdivision in rural Australia. Land Use Policy 26:380392

KM Norgaard (2007) The politics of invasive weed management: gender, race, and risk perception in rural California. Rural Sociol 72:450477

L Raymond , A Olive (2008) Landowner beliefs regarding biodiversity protection on private property: an Indiana case study. Soc Nat Resour 21:483497

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Invasive Plant Science and Management
  • ISSN: 1939-7291
  • EISSN: 1939-747X
  • URL: /core/journals/invasive-plant-science-and-management
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 47 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.