Systematic review of Australian weed-related social surveys APRIL 2013

Transcription

1 Systematic review of Australian weed-related social surveys APRIL 2013 RIRDC Publication No. 13/018

2

3 Systematic review of Australian weed-related social surveys By Heather J Aslin, Heleen Kruger, Lyndal-Joy Thompson, Alixaandrea Duncan Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) April 2013 RIRDC Publication No. 13/018 RIRDC Project No. PRJ

4 2013 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN ISSN Aslin, HJ, Kruger, H, Thompson, L-J & Duncan, A (2012) Systematic review of Australian weed-related social surveys, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Publication No. 13/018 Project No. PRJ The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication. This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone Researcher Contact Details Name: Dr Heather Aslin Address: Social Sciences Program ABARES GPO Box 1563 CANBERRA ACT heather.aslin@daff.gov.au In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: Fax: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: Electronically published by RIRDC in April 2013 Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at or phone ii

5 Foreword Weeds affect virtually all Australian environments, including farmland, forests, native vegetation, urban parks and gardens, and aquatic environments. They result in social, economic and environmental impacts that can have ramifications for all Australians. An important component of weed-related research is using social surveys to investigate factors such as stakeholders attitudes, perceptions and motivations in relation to weeds; what they do to address weed issues; and what encourages or constrains them in taking action. A considerable body of research of this kind already exists, undertaken by a range of people and agencies including rural research and development corporations; local, state and federal government bodies; and research institutions and their staff. However, this research is scattered and diverse and difficult for many stakeholders to access and use. No previous systematic review of this research appears to exist. With this in mind, RIRDC commissioned ABARES to undertake this review and prepare a synthesis of previous social survey research on weeds in Australia, and the questions used in these surveys. It is vitally important to encourage awareness and sharing of information about the social and institutional aspects of weed management, to avoid duplication of effort, improve the effectiveness of investment in weed-related research, and identify gaps that need to be addressed in future. This information is particularly valuable for researchers, research agencies, funders, and government policy-makers and program managers. Key messages of this review are that: the intended survey respondents neither reflect the wide range of people involved in weed issues in Australia, nor do these respondents reflect all aspects of addressing weed issues. Therefore, the existing social research agenda needs to be broadened in terms of who is surveyed and what they are surveyed about; in particular, while social research may continue to focus on weed management, there is a need to look beyond the people seen as being directly responsible for on-ground management of existing weeds, to consider the broader weeds social system, its various stakeholders, and their differing roles and activities related to weeds; future research needs to be better-informed by systematic risk assessments, focusing on the risk pathways along which weeds can spread, and on the people, groups and activities involved in these pathways. RIRDC commissioned this project as part of the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program, funded by the Australian Government and managed by RIRDC. The goal of the Program was to reduce the impact of invasive weeds on farm and forestry productivity as well as on biodiversity. This report is an addition to RIRDC s diverse range of over 2000 research publications which can be viewed and freely downloaded from our website Information on the Weeds Program is available online at Purchases can also be made by phoning Craig Burns Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation iii

6 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank their colleagues in ABARES for their advice and assistance with this report, particularly in locating relevant references. Dr Saan Ecker had a major role in initiating and developing this project and providing background material. We would also particularly like to thank Dr Jeanine Baker of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry s Sustainable Resource Management Division for her advice and guidance throughout, and Dr John de Majnik for his help in liaising with RIRDC. We would like to thank the people from the regional natural resource management groups and local governments who responded to our requests for information about published survey reports and survey instruments. Particular thanks are due to the participants in the expert forum conducted as part of this project for giving up their time to provide advice and suggestions for future social survey work related to weeds. iv

7 Contents Foreword... iii Acknowledgments... iv Executive Summary... vii 1. Introduction Context for weed management in Australia Scope of the study Structure of this report Objectives Methods used Literature review Review of available survey instruments Expert forum Results and key findings Literature review Summary of characteristics of the literature sample Use of research Trends over time Review and analysis of available survey instruments Summary of characteristics of available survey instruments Use of survey results Trends over time Analysis of survey questions Expert forum Conclusions Changes over time Gaps in relation to weed management and perceptions Appropriateness of methods used How data and findings were used Questions that could be built into existing social surveys or new ongoing surveys Alternative methods of collecting weed-related social data Suggestions for action Appendix A: List of sources and databases searched Appendix B: Literature database Appendix C: Annotated bibliography Appendix D: Survey database Appendix E: Survey questions found for themes identified at the expert forum v

8 Appendix F: Themes and stakeholders nominated during the expert forum and Delphi process References Tables Table 1.1: Timeline for major policy, legislative and program events in Australian weed management and governance Table 4.1: Summary of selected literature evaluating outcomes of weed-related programs and initiatives Table 4.2: Key themes identified at the expert forum and their associated stakeholder groups Table B.1: Literature coding in alphabetical order Table D.1: Survey coding in alphabetical order Figures Figure 4.1 Tag cloud for words in the brief summary, across all references Figure 4.2 Tag cloud for words in the brief summaries of references for the time period. 17 Figure 4.3 Tag cloud for words in the brief summaries of references for the time period. 17 Figure 4.4 Tag cloud for words in the brief summaries of references for the 2006 present time period vi

9 Executive Summary What the report is about This report systematically reviews Australian social survey research related to weeds. The social surveys reviewed in this report typically investigate factors such as stakeholders perceptions of weeds; what they do to address weed issues; what encourages or hinders them in taking action; and where they obtain weed-related information. The report analyses and discusses previously published research of this kind, the questions used in surveys, and the views of relevant experts about this research, and what directions future research should take. As social factors play a key role in how stakeholders respond to weed issues, it is important to encourage awareness and sharing of information about social aspects of weed management. This will avoid duplication of efforts, improve the effectiveness of investment in weed-related research and identify gaps that need to be addressed. Who is the report targeted at? This report is targeted at researchers undertaking weed-related social research and research funders, including government policy-makers and program managers responsible for relevant initiatives. More broadly, many sectors, as well as the Australian population as a whole, can benefit from more effective weed-related research, programs and policies. Where are the relevant industries located in Australia? Weeds affect all Australians, resulting in social, economic and environmental impacts. Impacts of weeds are not necessarily confined to the specific industries directly affected by on-ground weed issues, but also have indirect impacts. Weed infestations have particular implications for the productivity of the agricultural sector as a whole and costs of agricultural products. Background Weeds affect virtually all Australian environments. While a considerable body of research already exists that applies social survey methods to weed-related issues, no previous systematic review of this research appears to exist. Accordingly, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) commissioned the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) to undertake this review and provide this report. Aims/objectives The report s objectives were to systematically review weed-related social survey research in Australia; examine what questions had been asked over time; what gaps existed in relation to weed management and perceptions; how appropriate were the methods used; and what use was made of research findings or data collected. A subsequent aim was to identify questions that could be built into existing surveys, or a new ongoing survey to measure weed management behaviour and perceptions over time; to explore alternative methods of collecting weed-related data; and to review past and current social, economic and institutional research and other information related to weeds and weed management in Australia to help identify a future research agenda to address national priorities for weed management. This work aimed to benefit research funders and agencies commissioning weed-related research, researchers and research users. Methods used The methods involved obtaining, reviewing and analysing published literature reporting on previous social survey-based research fitting the scope (120 publications were found); the actual survey vii

10 instruments or sets of questions asked in surveys (56 survey instruments were obtained); and advice from relevant experts via an expert forum and subsequent Delphi process (a process in which a panel of experts is asked to comment on successively-circulated summaries of their previous discussions). Results/key findings A key finding was that the existing research agenda does not adequately represent the wide range of stakeholders involved in weed issues, particularly in terms of who is surveyed and about what. Analysis of the published literature and available survey instruments indicated that much previous research was directed at farmers and other rural landholders, and there was a relative neglect of other weeds stakeholders, including urban dwellers, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, and Indigenous people. While the focus of future research may remain on weed management, as it is at present, there is a need to look beyond those people who are seen as being directly responsible for onground management of weeds to consider the broader weeds social system and its various stakeholders with their differing roles and activities. In particular, in light of the move towards a risk return model for biosecurity as recommended by Beale et al. (2008), there is a need to consider the risk pathways along which weeds can spread, and on the people, groups and activities involved in these pathways. A range of conventional and novel methods were used to collect weed-related social data, but there was a strong reliance on paper-based surveys sent out by mail. Alternative methods that could be used more in future included adding questions to omnibus surveys; applying anthropological and ethnographic methods, particularly for weed issues in Indigenous communities; and using electronic survey methods. Weeds research output appeared to be increasing over time, but there was little evidence of trends in the research topics or survey questions asked, other than trends related to policy initiatives and funding programs current at the time research was undertaken. Few surveys were repeated over time. Little evaluation appeared to be done of how past research was used, with the result that the value of research effort was difficult to assess. Forum participants pointed out that there was no clear pathway for applying survey results to decision-making in the policy arena. Little reference was made in the literature, or in previous surveys, to weeds as a biosecurity issue, in spite of the increasing importance of biosecurity in the government policy arena. A biosecurity focus, rather than a traditional weeds and pests focus, may help make this kind of research more relevant to a broader policy context, and therefore more policy-relevant and actionable in future. While a range of previous relevant research exists, this is apparently the first attempt to bring it together and synthesise results. As participants at this project s weed expert forum indicated that a repository of weed-related social surveys would be valuable to inform future research, there may be value in extending this work to produce a searchable compendium that is accessible to a range of stakeholders. Implications for relevant stakeholders Researchers and research funding bodies could apply the report s findings in setting future research priorities, and designing and conducting further social research about weeds. Relevant government policy makers and program managers could use the findings to inform future policies and programs dealing with weed-related issues, helping to ensure these initiatives are informed by past research and an awareness of what gaps currently exist. Industry has a role in commissioning some of the future research recommended in this report, and both industry and communities have a role both in participating in future research and acting on research findings where they are relevant to their activities. viii

11 Suggestions for action Suggestions for action based on the review s results are to: Consider making particular under-represented groups, including culturally and linguistically diverse groups and Indigenous people, a possible subject of future weed-related social surveys. Use pathway risk analysis in designing future weed-related social surveys. Monitor and evaluate the use of weed-related social surveys. Frame weed-related issues as biosecurity issues. Prepare a comprehensive compendium of relevant social research. These suggestions for action are particularly targeted at researchers, research agencies and research funders, and government policy-makers or program managers responsible for weed-related initiatives. ix

12

13 1. Introduction Weeds cause significant problems in Australia, affecting farmland, forests, native vegetation, urban parks and gardens, and aquatic habitats. In the Australian Weeds Strategy a national strategy for weed management in Australia (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2007) a weed is defined as: a plant that requires some form of action to reduce its harmful effects on the economy, the environment, human health and amenity. Another term often used in relation to weeds is invasive plants. An invasive species (which can be a weed, pest or disease), is: a species occurring, as a result of human activities, beyond its accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or other social resources by the damage it causes (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2008). Of the 2700 species of introduced plants that have become established in Australia since European settlement of the continent began, 429 have been declared noxious or are under some form of legislative control in Australia (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2007). It has been estimated that the cost of agricultural impacts of weeds in Australia is approximately $4 billion per annum, including direct costs of weed control and the losses from reduction in yield and contamination of agricultural products (Sinden et al. 2004). Farmers spend more on weed management, largely on purchasing herbicides, than any other natural resource management activity, and expenditure on weeds is increasing (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). From an environmental perspective, weeds can invade bushland and out-compete native plants or increase fire hazards by creating higher fuel loads. Weeds can also reduce people s quality of life by affecting health, for example, by causing allergic reactions, or by impeding recreational activities; and reduce environmental amenity, such as by forming impenetrable thickets that hinder enjoyment of the Australian bush (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2007). Addressing the issue of weeds, like the broader issue of biosecurity, is seen by some as a shared responsibility between government, industry and the community at large (Beale et al. 2008). As part of research effort to combat problems associated with weeds, RIRDC was responsible for managing the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program, which aims to reduce the impact of invasive weeds on the productivity of farming and forestry, as well as on biodiversity. One component of weedrelated research is the use of social surveys to investigate matters like stakeholders attitudes, perceptions and motivations in relation to weeds; what they do to address weed issues; what encourages or hinders them in taking action; and from where they obtain weed-related information. Social surveys are already used for these kinds of purposes by a range of agencies, including rural research and development corporations; local, state and federal government bodies and their agencies, for example, the regional natural resource management bodies; and by research institutions. Issues related to weeds (including introduction, management, control and eradication), involve many players, including government policy-makers; farmers and other kinds of landholders; weed officers and inspectors; nurseries supplying plants that may become weeds; retailers selling weed control products; non-government environmental organisations; members of voluntary monitoring and land management groups, like Landcare; people or industries contributing deliberately or accidentally to introducing new weeds or spreading existing ones; and the community at large. Social surveys investigating weed issues can therefore potentially be targeted at a wide range of groups and individuals. Despite a number of previous research programs focusing on weeds (including those of the former Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management), as far as we are aware, no synthesis 1

14 has been undertaken or database prepared of previous social survey research on weeds in Australia, nor of the actual questions used in these surveys. Given the complexity of weed management and the number of stakeholders now involved, a compendium of social survey research relevant to weeds could be useful in summarising previous research and its findings, identifying research gaps, helping prevent duplication of research effort, and coordinating research activities. With this in mind, RIRDC commissioned ABARES to conduct this project, which was one of two weed-related projects undertaken for RIRDC by ABARES during the financial year. The other project, entitled Who s involved with weeds a social network analysis of community engagement in weed management (Thompson et al., in prep. 2012), examined the current networks in place for managing weeds in Australia and, in particular, how funding and information flows between different stakeholder groups. 1.1 Context for weed management in Australia A wide range of policy, legislation and programs operating at different jurisdictional levels is relevant to weed management in Australia. To help set the context for this research and summarise major events in the recent history of Australian weed management and governance, an event timeline was developed (Table 0.1) from a range of literature and internet sources. While the major role of state, territory and local governments in weed management, particularly on-ground action, is acknowledged, because of the wide scope of this project and its national orientation, the focus of the timeline was on events that were significant nationally or required agreement across Australian jurisdictions. In the interests of brevity, events related only to single jurisdictions have been omitted. The period of interest for this timeline, and for the project as a whole, was from 1996 to the present. The event timeline was designed to help understand some of the contextual factors influencing the nature and focus of social survey research related to weeds, including the availability of funding through major government programs. It will be referred to later in discussing changes in weed-related social research over the period of interest. 2

15 Table 1.1: Timeline for major policy, legislative and program events in Australian weed management and governance to present (most recent events are presented first). Derived from a variety of websites and published sources Date Event 2010 RIRDC announces the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program Phase Two funding research to limit the impact of invasive species like weeds 2010 PLANTPLAN releases the National Plant Biosecurity Strategy, a ten-year plan for governments, industry and the community to work together to strengthen plant biosecurity. Weed management is one issue considered 2010 Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy released, aiming to improve Australia s biodiversity health and resilience by providing a guiding framework. Weed management is one set of practices targeted 2010 Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) Strategies reviews WoNS list and calls on states and territories to nominate additions to the list 2009 RIRDC appointed to develop a strategic five-year plan to direct weeds research as part of the second stage of the National Weeds and Productivity Research Program. Plan approved in Caring for Our Country program launched to address six national environmental priority areas weed management is included as a sustainable practice. Replaces the Natural Heritage Trust and incorporates funding for the 56 Natural Resource Management Regions (with some minor changes to boundaries) 2008 Review of Australian quarantine and biosecurity arrangements ('Beale review') released. Changes recommended include increase in sharing of responsibility between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments, enhancing government structures and establishing an independent commission, increasing funding for biosecurity, and adopting a risk-return approach. Weed management is included in the definition of biosecurity 2008 RIRDC National Weeds and Productivity Research Program Phase one , launched, funding research to limit the impact of invasive species like weeds 2007 Australian Weeds Strategy released, replacing the National Weeds Strategy 2007 Draft version of the National Weed Spread Prevention Action Plan released 2006 The National Post-Border Weed Risk Management Protocol released by Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand, and the CRC for Australian Weed Management 2005 Australian Biosecurity System (AusBIOSEC) launched, aiming to protect the Australian economy, environment and human health from negative impacts of weeds and other biosecurity threats 2005 CRC for National Plant Biosecurity begins operating, providing funding for research into plant pest and diseases that threaten food safety and security, and have implications for trade 2004 National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan released, aiming to minimise impact of invasive species (such as weeds) on biodiversity in future climates 3

16 Date Event 2002 Bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and state governments on National Resource Management Boundaries begin to be signed, aiming to have 56 regions established by June (This process was part of the second phase of the Natural Heritage Trust) 2001 CRC for Australian Weed Management ( ) begins funding research into weed risk management assessment and eradication science, weed bio-control, smart herbicide use and management of herbicide resistance, and novel irrigation agronomy 2000 Australian Weeds Council lists 20 noxious weeds considered to be Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) all States and territories are signatories to the list 2000 Plant Health Australia formed, responsible for the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed and the Australian Emergency Plant Pest Response Plan 1997 Natural Heritage Trust ( ) established, providing funding for biodiversity conservation and land management, of which weed management is part 1997 Australian Weeds Council calls for the States and Territories to nominate weeds that should be considered to be of national significance 1997 National Weeds Strategy ( ) released by Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, developed by the Australian Weeds Committee, aiming to reduce economic, environmental and social impacts of weeds 1996 National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity released, setting out to improve Australia s biodiversity health and resilience by providing a guiding framework weed management is one management practice targeted Continuing programs established before National Landcare Program ( ) launched, focusing on strengthening relationships between the community and the government to sustainably manage the environment, weed management one of the factors included 1990 Decade of Landcare ( ) launched, building on an initiative of the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation, to deal with issues relating to land degradation (of which weeds are a part). Emphasises using self-help programs and involving communities 1995 CRC for Weed Management Systems begins operating, providing funding for research into weed biology and ecology, population dynamics, herbicide management and resistance, pasture management and biological control. Closes in Scope of the study Initial discussions about the project s scope addressed the following aspects of the review: social surveys what constituted social surveys for the purposes of the review? Social survey was interpreted widely to include social research based on all kinds of structured or semistructured surveys of people, conducted by whatever means, but excluding studies using purely unstructured or ethnographic methods (these, strictly speaking, would not have any kind of fixed survey instrument or set of questions that could be analysed) 1 1 This also implies making a distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, with the focus of this project being mainly on the latter. Qualitative (non-numerical) research focuses on identifying concepts and themes relevant to the subject at hand. It involves asking open questions allowing for a wide range of responses to a specific topic without fixed categories being provided beforehand, using methods like focus groups, workshops and in-depth interviews. Quantitative approaches focus on measuring attributes already thought to be relevant to the topic, such as how many people are managing weeds on-farm. They involve asking mainly closed questions with a number of response options already provided, such as yes or no, agree or disagree, or a list of possible answers from which the respondent can choose (Denscombe, M, 2007, The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects, Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire). 4

17 it was decided that the social surveys to be included needed to contain at least one question about weeds or weed-related issues, but need not necessarily be focused solely on weeds time frame as mentioned above, it was decided to limit the scope to the period 1996 to present (excluding studies or surveys currently in progress and not yet published one exception to this was made for a relevant RIRDC-funded study in progress at the time of writing and for which information was provided) geographical it was agreed that in terms of weeds in Australia, the project should focus primarily on post-border issues, that is, it should focus mainly on weeds already present in Australia nature of weed species to be included consistent with the above geographical scope, and the focus of the relevant RIRDC program, it was concluded that the study should consider weeds affecting all Australian terrestrial and freshwater aquatic habitats, but not include marine weeds. 1.3 Structure of this report This report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 gives the project s Objectives, followed by details of the Methodology used (Chapter 3), then the Results of applying each method in turn (Chapter 4). This is followed by a Conclusions section (Chapter 5), synthesising and summarising the key findings and addressing the project s objectives, and a Suggestions for action section (Chapter 6) considering what actions are suggested by this report and who might be responsible for them. Appendix A is a list of library catalogues, databases and abstracting services utilised; Appendix B provides a database of published references fitting the criteria for inclusion in this review; Appendix C is an annotated bibliography of these references; Appendix D is a database of the survey instruments (actual questionnaires or interview schedules obtained for analysis); Appendix E is a summary of the results of an expert forum held as part of the project; and Appendix F is a table of key themes and stakeholders identified by the Delphi process. 5

18 2. Objectives The project s objectives were to: systematically review weed-related social survey research in Australia over the period 1996 to the present examine: what questions had been asked over time what gaps existed in relation to weed management and perceptions how appropriate were the methodologies used what use was made of research findings or data collected from the surveys? identify questions that could be built into existing surveys or a new ongoing survey to measure weed management behaviour and perceptions over time explore alternative methods of collecting weed-related social data review past and current social, economic and institutional research and other information related to weeds and weed management in Australia to help identify a future research agenda that could help address national priorities for weed management. The project aimed to contribute to addressing the following three of four key objectives of the RIRDC National Weeds and Productivity Research Program: Objective 1 Improve knowledge for effective risk management of weeds: this review aimed to identify published surveys and survey instruments that examined social dimensions of weedrelated issues such as people s perceptions and practices, or sought other information about relevant stakeholder groups or individuals. Objective 3 Support improved adoption of weed management approaches: this review aimed to deepen understanding of how current or past survey instruments (questionnaires and interview schedules) have investigated the economic, social and environmental impacts of weeds. This knowledge can contribute to the development of appropriate survey questions and/or instruments in future. Objective 4 Plan for future funding and institutional arrangements for national investment and management of weeds research and development: this review aimed to identify gaps in the area of weed-related social research and associated surveys. This aimed to contribute to informing priorities and plans for future funding of weed-related research and development activities. 6

19 3 Methods used In considering the nature of the information potentially available for review, and the project s scope, three main sources of information were identified: the published literature reporting on previous social survey research fitting the project s scope which could be accessed by normal scholarly literature search methods and is referred to here as the Literature review. Publishing in the literature is the main way individual researchers and research teams report their findings the actual survey instruments used in relevant social surveys these could consist of copies of the questionnaires or interview schedules used in the surveys, with the exact wording used, but which are not necessarily included in published reports and might need to be obtained by other means, if at all this is referred to here as Review of available survey instruments advice and input from experts in the fields of weed-related research and weed management their views were accessed via and telephone, and by holding an expert forum and subsequently conducting a Delphi process based on the forum s outcomes Literature review A range of library catalogues, databases and abstracting services was examined (see Appendix A), and searches undertaken to identify relevant references, using various combinations of weed*, Australia*, survey* and social survey*, with appropriate time limitations. In addition, similar Google Scholar searches were done and websites of relevant research and development corporations examined. Queries were also directed to professional colleagues working in relevant areas and advice was sought from participants at the expert forum organised as part of this project. An request for information was sent to officers in regional natural resource or catchment management bodies and local governments around Australia. The authors also applied their previous knowledge of the literature and information available from related projects. References fitting the criteria were entered into a spreadsheet and an Endnote library was developed. Wherever possible, the full text of the references was obtained, but in a few cases only abstracts were available. Each reference in the spreadsheet was analysed and coded according to the following characteristics: institutional location of first author (university, government, CSIRO, industry/private sector including consultants, or non-government organisation) whether the reference dealt only with weeds and weed-related issues or had a broader focus nature of the land use or land uses involved (cropping, grazing rangeland or unimproved pastures, grazing improved pastures, urban/suburban backyards, forest native or plantation, protected areas/national parks/urban parks/bushland, aquatic, mixed/multiple rural land uses, other) whether it dealt with single or multiple weed species 2 A Delphi process or Delphi method uses a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method relying on a panel of experts. In the standard version, the experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the experts forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. In this way experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of replies from other members of their panel (Linstone, H & Turoff, M, 1975, The Delphi Method: techniques and applications, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.). 7

20 the nature of the weed species dealt with whether the weed or weeds were being considered because they were agricultural weeds, environmental weeds, or both whether WoNS species were specifically dealt with or not the nature of the survey sample or samples (farmers/graziers/pastoralists/orchardists/growers occupations specified as such; rural landowners/rural land managers occupations not specified; urban householders/urban landowners; government staff; specialised experts/conference/workshop attendees; general public; community groups; others) these categories are of course not mutually exclusive but coding was based on descriptions or roles referred to in the reference the size of the survey sample or samples (0 50, , , more than 200, not stated/unknown) where there was more than one sample reported on in the study, the size was coded for each the geographical location or locations of the survey sample or samples, or the scope of the study (national or Australia-wide, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory) the delivery method or methods used in the survey or surveys (paper-based; telephone; electronic , fax, internet; personal interviews/face-to-face; not stated or unknown). In addition, a brief summary of the nature of the issue being dealt with or the subject matter of each reference was included in the last column of the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet provided the basis for a systematic analysis of the sample of published literature fitting the criteria. Attribute codings described above were summarised for each column in the spreadsheet and used to develop a quantitative description of the characteristics of the literature. The main words in the brief summaries were also entered into TagCrowd, a software package used to generate tag clouds visual representations of the frequency with which different words occurred in the summaries, across the sample of references. This provided a visualisation of the main foci of interest within the literature sample. In addition, a short review abstract was developed for each reference, either based directly on the abstract provided as part of the reference itself or written on the basis of the contents. Key words were similarly identified for each reference. Where references were not focused solely on weeds or weed issues, an effort was made to identify the main points relating specifically to weeds. The content of the published literature was examined to determine to what extent the references dealt with the questions described under the project objectives. While various academic measures of research use are available (e.g. citation indices), these were not suitable for this report s purposes, as it was primarily concerned with practical applications of research findings to address weed-related issues. 3.2 Review of available survey instruments Survey instruments were gathered from a variety of sources: some were available in-house from previous relevant survey research conducted by ABARES some were available from literature reports themselves (usually where they were included as attachments or appendices to survey reports) some were available via web searches and on web-sites [for example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website and rural research and development corporation websites]. The ABS was also directly consulted about any relevant surveys it had done. 8

21 In addition, queries were directed to colleagues and advice sought from the expert forum participants. The request sent to regional natural resource management and local government officers also asked them if they could provide copies of any relevant survey instruments. Because one objective of this research was to identify questions that could be built into existing ongoing surveys or a new ongoing survey, the survey instruments and questions that were considered most relevant were those used within broadly-based weed-related research and aimed at more general samples, rather than highly specific ones focused on specialised population sub-samples, or on single weed species or single issues. Therefore, the efforts to obtain survey instruments were focused on obtaining surveys with broad scope, containing questions with wider potential applicability. Relatively few published reports contained a copy of the actual survey instrument, hence it was not always possible to directly analyse the questions asked (and some authors consider survey instruments to be private intellectual property). On the other hand, published reports of findings were not located for a number of the surveys for which survey instruments were available. Some surveys were only reported on institutional websites and did not appear in the literature databases as publications. Hence, there is a mismatch between the sample of published references reviewed and the sample of available survey instruments. This was not necessarily seen to be a disadvantage as it provided some opportunity to cross-check findings from the two reviews, and it was clear that only a very small sub-set of the references referred to surveys that were potentially applicable to achieving the project s wider objectives. Similar coding categories were used for the surveys as were applied to the literature sample, producing the database shown in Appendix D. In addition, the content of the actual questions in the survey instruments was analysed using the qualitative software NVivo. Analyses were based on applying a set of categories for intended survey samples or intended respondent groups, grouping the survey instruments under these categories, and then identifying what the key themes were for questions directed to the different categories of intended respondents. 3.3 Expert forum The aim of the forum was to present to key stakeholders the initial findings of the systematic review of the literature and the available survey instruments, and to seek comment on the findings, particularly where research gaps had been noted. Additionally, the forum sought to identify the types of surveys that could be developed and the questions that could be asked of specific groups to help measure and monitor relevant socio-economic factors over time. These factors might include attitudes to weed management, weed surveillance and reporting activities, management and control practices and information sources used. The forum provided stakeholders including people who undertake research about weeds and users of information with an opportunity to indicate what information they thought should be collected to facilitate effective weed-related social research and improve future weed management. The expert forum was held on 20 March Broad categories for the stakeholder groups represented included: land managers government (national, state/territory, local) government cross-jurisdictional advisory groups primary industry organisations non-government environmental organisations industry 9

22 recreational land users research providers. Invitations were sent to 65 people representing these stakeholder groups. There was some overrepresentation of government staff among the invitees, as people with responsibility for weed issues in government agencies were relatively easy to identify. This means that the data are biased towards government department staff, and we have tried to be mindful of these limitations in analysing and presenting the results. The expert forum was followed by a Delphi process to provide those who could not attend with an opportunity to comment on the forum s outcomes, provide suggestions and nominate new literature or surveys. An sent to representatives of stakeholder organisations included the forum outcomes for comment and a draft bibliography of literature being reviewed. As this went to a larger group of people than those who attended the forum, it provided an opportunity to broaden the basis of comments and address the over-representation of government staff. 10

23 4. Results and key findings 4.1 Literature review The main results of the systematic review of published literature consist of the literature spreadsheet (Appendix B), summary statistics and analysis from the spreadsheet (presented below), and an annotated bibliography (Appendix C). In addition, an Endnote library of references is available in electronic form and was submitted to RIRDC together with this report. A total of 120 references fitting the selection criteria ( the literature sample ) were identified and coded. In some cases, it was not possible to code references by all the categories in the spreadsheet as insufficient information was provided in the reference itself. This applied particularly to details of survey methods and, in some cases, final survey sample sizes. Peer-reviewed scholarly journals are well-represented in the sources used; therefore it is likely that published journal articles are better represented than items appearing in the grey literature. Grey literature items, including government, consultancy and industry reports, and items available only on institutional websites, are likely to be significantly under-represented. However, there was good coverage of papers presented at some scholarly conferences where these were subsequently included in proceedings volumes, especially those from the annual Australian Weeds Conferences. There were no items dated 2012, indicating time lags in recently-published items appearing in databases and catalogues. A further point to note is that if authors produced several publications based on a single survey, the publications were counted separately in the literature sample. So there is some element of double counting in terms of numbers of separate social surveys reviewed here. As much current research tends to have a short-term, project-driven nature, it is often difficult to determine how it is used. This requires follow-up with actual or potential research users like policymakers, weed professionals and people developing weed-related extension materials. This was beyond the scope of this project. Asking researchers themselves about this matter would not suffice as few researchers have an opportunity to investigate whether or how their previous research has been used, other than possibly by examining how it has been cited by other researchers. Citation indices or similar measures of academic research use are not what are needed here the question is whether there have been practical applications of research findings to on-ground weed issues and weed-related policy or programs Summary of characteristics of the literature sample First author s location Of 121 institutional locations given for first authors (one author gave two locations), 47.9 per cent were universities, 33.9 per cent were government agencies (federal, state/territory, or local), 11.6 per cent industry, 5.0 per cent CSIRO, and the remaining authors were based in non-government organisations. Some of the university and government staff were based in relevant CRCs, which were coded according to the address given for the CRC. Focus on weeds Of the 120 studies, 68 studies (56.7 per cent) were only partly focused on weeds and covered a wider range of subject matter, while the remaining 52 (43.3 per cent) focused solely on weeds and weedrelated issues. Nature of land uses involved The analysis of land uses involved in the various studies (several studies involved more than one land use) indicated that: 54.8 per cent dealt with mixed or multiple rural land uses; 19.4 per cent dealt 11

24 specifically with various kinds of cropping activities; 8.9 per cent with grazing rangeland or unimproved pasture; 8.1 per cent with grazing improved pasture; 4.8 per cent with bushland or protected areas; 1.6 per cent (two studies) with plant nurseries or the plant industry; and there was one study for each of aquatic habitats, forests (plantation) and urban backyards. Single or multiple weed species Of the 120 studies, 85.8 per cent dealt with multiple weed species and the remainder (14.2 per cent) with a single species. Nature of weed species To the extent it could be judged from the focus of the studies, 53.3 per cent of the studies were concerned with both agricultural and environmental weeds; 36.7 per cent principally with agricultural weeds; and the remainder (10.0 per cent) were focused on environmental weeds. Whether WoNS were specifically dealt with or not The WoNS categorisation was developed in 2000 (see Table 0.1); hence only studies written after this date could make specific mention of weeds being classified as WoNS. Of the 106 studies published in 2001 and later, 15.1 per cent (16) specifically mentioned one or more WoNS species, although three earlier studies ( ) dealt with weed species that were subsequently classified as WoNS. Therefore, WoNS are not a major focus in the published literature examined here, a finding which may be of concern in relation to the usefulness of the WoNS classification in directing attention to species of national concern. Nature of survey samples A number of the studies reported on several surveys involving more than one kind of survey sample (different sampling frames); hence the total number of different kinds of samples was greater than the total number of studies. Of the studies examined, 33.5 per cent sampled farmers, graziers or growers (occupations specified as such); 22.4 per cent sampled rural landholders (occupation not specified so not all may have been farmers by occupation or principal income source); 18.8 per cent sampled government staff; 10.0 per cent sampled community groups; 8.2 per cent sampled specialised experts, conference or workshop attendees; 3.5 per cent sampled the general public; 1.8 per cent sampled urban householders; and the samples in the remainder (1.8 per cent) were classified as other. Size of survey samples Five categories were used for the size of the survey sample or samples. Percentages of samples falling into each sample size category were as follows: 50 or less 24.4 per cent; 51 to per cent; 101 to per cent; more than per cent; unknown or not stated 9.6 per cent. Geographical location of survey samples Some of the published references reported on surveys confined to a single state or territory, but the majority covered several jurisdictions or were national in scope. The geographical scope of the surveys, in terms of where samples were located, was coded for each reference. The percentages of surveys falling into the categories used were as follows: New South Wales 24.5 per cent; Queensland 17.9 per cent; Western Australia 13.6 per cent; Victoria 12.5 per cent; national 11.4 per cent; South Australia 11.4 per cent; Tasmania 4.3 per cent; Northern Territory 3.3 per cent; Australian Capital Territory 1.1 per cent. Methods used in surveys Surveys can be administered in various ways, and the methods used were coded for each reference in the sample. The coding indicated that 45.1 per cent of surveys were undertaken as paper-based 12