There is limited documentation of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs, and no consistent set of metrics for evaluating their performance. In this study, 12 weed management practitioners in southeast Australia participated in a qualitative social research project to discuss and document examples of cross-tenure collaborative weed management and critically reflect on whether existing metrics are suitable for evaluating the performance of their programs. Analysis of focus group discussions, project documentation, subsequent reflections, and review of the literature reveal that weed management practitioners, in Australia and elsewhere, mostly rely on metrics that measure weed management inputs, such as herbicides, labor, and costs. Metrics used to evaluate social outcomes focus on benefits for individuals rather than social relationships or achievement of equitable outcomes. Social research on collaborative governance and social science methods more broadly, such as social network analysis and collective narratives, could be used by weed management practitioners to better evaluate and explain social–ecological outcomes over time.
For more than two decades, researchers and policy makers have argued that cross-tenure collaboration is needed to improve weed management outcomes. For example, Thorp and Lynch (1999) argued that weed management requires cross-tenure collaboration, because weeds easily spread across property and jurisdictional boundaries. They criticized the first Australian Weeds Strategy for failing to outline an approach for fostering effective working relationships wherein all interested parties, including private land managers and government agencies, are committed to achieving desired weed management outcomes. Yet the challenge of cross-tenure collaboration for weed management is not unique to Australia. Only a few years later, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO 2005) undertook a review of nonagricultural, terrestrial weed management at local, state, and federal scales and found that effective weed management is hindered by a lack of collaboration among agencies. They recommended that all levels of government cooperate to control and eradicate weeds. However, the report provided little practical guidance on how to establish such partnerships and limited evidence of the benefits of such collaborations over time.
Recent academic literature has begun to gather empirical evidence on the different types of collaboration that underpin cross-tenure weed management programs and the benefits that accrue from such activities. For example, Graham (2019) identified a continuum of collaboration. At its most basic, collaboration involves adjoining land managers largely controlling weeds independently and coming together occasionally to share information on emerging weeds and their management. More involved forms of collaboration involved land managers and government agencies working together to develop shared weed management goals and then coordinating the timing and type of their weed control efforts (Graham 2019). This more involved form of collaboration, involving multiple private land managers and public land managers, is the focus of this article. Such cross-tenure collaboration is also referred to as tenure-blind (e.g., Turner et al. 2013) or nil-tenure (e.g., Low 2020) weed management.
Many metrics used to evaluate weed management programs focus on inputs, such as hours spent controlling weeds or amount of herbicide applied, rather than broader ecological, economic, or social outcomes. To ensure that collaborative cross-tenure programs deliver on the investment from multiple parties, continue to sustain interest over the long term, and provide better outcomes than would be achieved through single-agency programs, it is essential to measure the following before, during, and after the project.
At least one of the following ecological metrics should be measured: prevent-spread metrics that evaluate the spread of weeds; weed-led metrics that evaluate the density and extent of established weed populations; or asset-led metrics that evaluate the impact of weeds on environmental or agricultural assets. Such metrics should not be used in isolation. They need to be compared with the amount of effort invested to achieve those outcomes, for example, time and finances, and the extent to which collaboration was beneficial. Ecological metrics also need to account for the characteristics of the focus weed, landscape, and community.
Collaborative programs also require metrics that evaluate social networks, processes, and outcomes. Social network analysis enables evaluation of whether a project has cemented existing relationships and created new relationships with stakeholders who do not normally participate in traditional weed management programs. Participant evaluations can provide insights into social processes, for example, whether participants feel that there is transparency and whether they are being treated respectfully. Development of collective narratives can help evaluate the social outcomes, for example, whether the program has built knowledge and capacity to manage weeds over time, and whether there have been other benefits from collaborations, such as enhanced management of other natural resource management issues.
Research that documents the benefits of cross-tenure collaborative weed management is in its infancy. There is some evidence to suggest that cross-tenure collaboration is more likely to result in enhanced information sharing, reductions in weed densities and spread, lower weed management costs, and improvements in social capital (Graham 2013; Graham and Rogers 2017; Hershdorfer et al. 2007; Lien et al. 2021; Niemiec et al. 2016). Yet most studies focus on one or two case studies, and the indicators used to measure success are far from systematic or sustained. This means there is a lack of solid evidence about how collaborative weed management is established, limited operational guidance on how to manage weeds across tenures, and whether such approaches provide significant benefits compared with independent efforts. Given the considerable time and resources required to create and implement collaborative weed management programs, it is imperative that weed management practitioners and researchers have clear metrics to document and evaluate the relative success of such programs in terms of their ecological, economic, and social outcomes.
The aim of this article is to apply qualitative social science research and methods to weed management practice in the case study of southeast Australia to examine: What constitutes successful cross-tenure collaborative weed management, and what metrics are useful for evaluating the performance of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs? It draws on 12 case studies of cross-tenure weed management to answer these questions.
Social science on collaborative governance from other fields of research and practice suggests that evaluation processes need to reflect the antecedent conditions, processes, and outcomes of cross-tenure collaborations (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Past meta-analyses have identified a clear set of process criteria for evaluating cross-tenure collaborative programs. These include having broadly shared visions, clear feasible goals (Conley and Moote 2003), good faith negotiation, trust building, mutual recognition of interdependence (Ansell and Gash 2008), and commitment (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015), among others. Such indicators are useful for evaluating participant satisfaction with collaborative processes (McKinney and Field 2008) and are largely applicable regardless of the specific public policy issue being addressed. There is less agreement about evaluation indicators for collaborative policy or management outcomes (Ansell and Gash 2008). This is in part because environmental and socioeconomic outcome criteria are more dependent on the specific issue, the place where the collaborative programs are being implemented, and the outcomes being sought by the community and key stakeholders (Barney et al. 2019; Cradock-Henry et al. 2017; Hill et al. 2015). Consideration also needs to be given to the practicalities involved in collecting data for each evaluation criterion over the short- and long-term (McKinney and Field, 2008). Practitioners are well-placed to evaluate the utility of performance metrics. The need for context-specific and practical outcome indicators explains the focus of this article on identifying and describing outcome metrics for collaborative weed management programs.
Evaluating the outcomes of cross-tenure collaboration requires considering whether a collaborative effort provides “a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson et al. 2012, 2), “the greatest benefits to the widest number of stakeholders” (Cradock-Henry et al. 2017, 2), or a “more effective, lasting outcome” (McKinney and Field 2008, 424). Attention also needs to be paid to the scale; composition, such as citizen-based, agency-based, or mixed partnership (Moore and Koontz 2003); and type of collaboration, such as self-initiating, independently convened or externally directed (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015); these three factors affect collaboration dynamics and outcomes.
In the weed management context, few studies compare the outcomes of collaborative programs. Hershdorfer et al. (2007) is a partial exception, because they evaluated whether four types of collaborative weed management programs—county, district, weed management area, and grassroots volunteer groups—provided outcomes that could not otherwise be achieved. They evaluated the outcomes of 11 single-agency and 31 multiple-agency weed management programs across four states in the United States. They found that weed programs involving multiple agencies and organizations, such as Cooperative Weed Management Areas, conducted significantly more monitoring but treated a significantly smaller area and proportion of weed infestations than programs run by a single government agency. There were no significant differences in the frequency of education and outreach activities between multiple- and single-agency programs. While Hershdorfer et al. (2007) considered the effectiveness of collaborative programs, they did not consider whether programs had equitable or lasting outcomes.
Other research has found that collaborative weed management programs involving land managers, government, research organizations, industry, and non-government organizations have resulted in reductions in weed population densities and spread in the United States (Ayer 1997), reduced use of herbicides, lower weed management costs across North America and globally (Ervin and Frisvold 2016), increased leveraging of limited resources (GAO 2005), improved access to important cultural sites in Australia (Bach et al. 2019), and enhanced social capital (McKiernan 2018). However, little attention has been given to the nature of collaboration in such programs despite the importance of context on the evolution and performance of cross-tenure collaboration (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). There is a need for critical reflection of the metrics and notions of success that are used to evaluate the ecological, economic, and social outcomes of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs (Anderson et al. 2003), and whether some metrics are more suitable for evaluating the performance of specific compositions and types of collaboration at diverse scales. The aim of this article is to provide such critical reflection.
This study forms part of an ongoing research project on how communities and public agencies collaboratively manage weeds, the benefits of such efforts, and how governments can better support cross-tenure collaborative initiatives. In this stage of the project, we engaged 12 weed management practitioners to discuss and co-analyze what cross-tenure collaboration and success mean in the context of weed management and develop practical outcome-focused metrics. The research began with two in-depth focus groups held in November 2020. An online format was used due to COVID-19 restrictions on face-to-face research. In the intervening period, focus group participants have been involved in the interpretation of the results and have provided additional resources on their collaborative weed management programs, such as project reports, to expand and support the analysis.
Thirty-one knowledgeable and experienced weed management practitioners were invited to attend the focus groups. Twelve (five women and seven men) were available and willing to participate, six joined each focus group. On average, the participants had more than 13 years of experience in weed management at the time of the focus groups, with length of experience ranging from 4 to 24 years. Focus groups are most effective when there are between six and eight participants, because this allows for everyone to contribute and for a diversity of opinions to be heard (Krueger and Casey 2001). In each focus group, there was at least one Landcare coordinator or chairperson (hereafter referred to as a “Landcare representative”), one local government weed officer, one practitioner working for a regional natural resource management (NRM)-focused state government organization, and one person who works for a state government agency. Thus, there were participants who lead weed management programs at a range of scales. Efforts were made to recruit Indigenous Australians involved in weed management in the region; however, none responded to the written and follow-up invitations to participate in the research. Further efforts have been successful in engaging Indigenous weed management practitioners in the ongoing project.
Ahead of the focus groups, participants were sent short but comprehensive summaries of weed management outcome metrics used by researchers and the goals of weed management included in policies across the case study region of southeast New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Participants were asked to identify and describe an example (local, regional, national, international) of successful cross-tenure collaborative weed management in which they had been actively involved. Follow-up questions during the focus groups invited participants to reflect on what evidence they used to evaluate the success of their examples.
The main questions guiding the discussions about the success of collaborations were:
What metrics do practitioners currently use to evaluate the outcomes of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs?
What are the challenges to collecting data on these metrics?
What metrics would practitioners like to see included in future evaluations of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs?
The small sample size and collaborative research process allowed for a focused exploration of practitioner knowledge in the field of weed management in the chosen location. Sketch et al. (2020) used a similar sample size of two focus groups over 2 days in their landowner-listening workshops in the United States, where they concluded that the workshops effectively bridge the gap between researchers and landowners. Similarly, our focus groups and subsequent communications between researchers and practitioners show how social research methods bridge gaps between basic or fundamental research (McLennan and Garvin 2012) and applied knowledge. Bringing together 12 weed management practitioners enabled us to describe and compare multiple examples of collaborative weed management, rather than focus on a single case study, which has been a critique of past collaborative governance research (Ansell and Gash 2008).
Approval to conduct the research was obtained from the University of Wollongong Human Research Ethics committee. Each participant provided consent to participate in the focus groups and then chose whether to participate in the ongoing research collaboration. Some analysis began during the focus groups, with the lead researcher synthesizing and feeding back the participants' key messages in real time, to ensure that everyone's views were recorded and that each participant had the opportunity to see and reflect on how his or her view was being documented. The focus groups were also digitally recorded, transcribed, and imported into the qualitative data analysis software NVivo for thematic coding (Braun and Clarke 2006) by the lead researcher. Once this analysis had been undertaken and shared, each participant was invited to contribute to the interpretation of the analysis and writing of the article. Thus, the results reflect the focus group discussions as well as multiple iterations of analysis since then.
In the “Results,” quotes from the focus groups have been anonymized. Each participant is identified by the type of organization he or she works for—Landcare, local council, or state government—with numbers used to differentiate between participants.
Case Study: Southeast New South Wales, Australia
The geographic focus of this study is the southeast region of NSW for two main reasons. First, the region is emblematic of complex rural landscapes in Australia and internationally. The northwestern part of the region is dominated by cropping enterprises, which transition into grazing enterprises along the southern tablelands. There are national parks, commercial hardwood native forests, and introduced softwood plantations throughout the region. Higher-rainfall coastal areas are dominated by dairy enterprises, and there is amenity migration to many parts of the region (McKiernan 2018). Second, a 2017 survey of weed management groups in rural NSW revealed many and diverse types of collaboration across the southeast (Graham et al. 2020). Thus, the region provides a rich opportunity to study diverse types of cross-tenure collaborative weed management, with findings of international relevance.
Results and Discussion
Focus group discussions revealed how weed management practitioners define and measure outcomes in two ways. The first was through accounts and explanations of cross-tenure collaborative weed management. The second was evident in descriptions of metrics that practitioners use to evaluate outcomes of weed management programs, and how they would like to see those metrics improve in future. The results are organized by these two discussions.
What Is Successful Cross-Tenure Collaborative Weed Management?
Each participant described a unique example of a successful cross-tenure collaborative weed management program (Table 1). Eight of the examples represent self-initiated collaborations, in which collaborators had preexisting shared interests and were inspired by a core set of stakeholders (as described by Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Four examples are externally directed collaborations, in which participants are motivated to participate because of the authority or resources of an outside entity (as per Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). With respect to composition, three examples are citizen based, four are mixed partnerships, and five are agency based (as per Moore and Koontz 2003). With respect to scale, the projects were evenly split across locality, local government, regional, and state scales, with three projects operating at each scale. Table 1 captures variation across the examples of cross-tenure collaboration with respect to the type, composition, and scale of collaboration. The following descriptions of two local collaborations, one self-initiated agency-based (B) and one externally directed mixed partnership (D), focus on what was successful about each program.
Blackberry Forum Project (B)
The Blackberry Forum Project began when a local council hosted a forum to bring together multiple organizations, including Snowy Valleys Council (then the Tumut and Tumbarumba Shire Councils), Local Land Services, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, State Forests, Crown Lands, and adjacent local governments to discuss cross-tenure blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L. agg) control. An outcome of the forum was the signing of a memorandum of understanding by the participating organizations. The organizations then developed joint plans of management, pooled their financial resources, and jointly applied for grants to fund integrated weed control and other restoration and rehabilitation activities over a number of years. The result of such collaborative activities were five projects that enabled restoration, rehabilitation, and recovery of a number of former degraded natural landscapes and an endangered ecological plant community.
One project was the Wereboldera State Conservation Area (SCA) project (Wilkerson 2017). The 273.6-ha Wereboldera SCA hosts a unique collection of flora and fauna. The Wereboldera SCA project successfully restored the bushland and removed the weed threat. Project partners chemically treated or manually removed 150 ha of heavy blackberry infestations and 57 m3 of bridal creeper [Asparagus asparagoides (L.) Druce], the two target weed species. The project also removed 11 ha of boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum Miers) infestations and treated two large infestations of Chilean needlegrass [Nassella neesiana (Trin. & Rupr.) Backworth]. Beyond weed control, the project facilitated the collection and disposal of more than 1,000 m3 of illegally dumped waste. The Blackberry Forum Project work in reducing blackberry biomass was a key contributing factor to successfully combatting bushfires when they spread into the SCA in 2019.
The Wereboldera SCA and surrounding areas have seen a return of native wildlife, creation of new recreational development opportunities, and reduced weed control costs for each partner organization. This whole-of-region management approach has provided benefits beyond weed management by creating a template for working with other industry service providers, such as the Rural Fire Service, Transgrid, Snowy Hydro, and Roads and Maritime Services, on other aspects of shared asset management.
Coordinated Aerial-Spraying Program (D)
In spring and autumn each year, the Snowy-Monaro Regional Council leads a works program with landholders and weed spray contractors to coordinate the broadscale aerial herbicide application for grassy and woody weeds on private and public lands. Council's biosecurity staff assist by identifying areas with widespread priority weeds; helping landholders to select suitable control methods and herbicides; contacting all adjoining landholders in the infested area to introduce the aerial spray opportunity; identifying and mapping the extent of weed infestations on each property; nominating suitable helicopter landing sites; carting water and transporting chemicals; and working with the pilot, loader, and landholders on the day to carry out the spray works. As the aerial application work is highly weather dependent, there are often delays between spray jobs, requiring ongoing communication between landholders and contractors.
The program is a cross-tenure collaboration success because it increases efficiency and effectiveness of weed control. The cost of aerial spraying is prohibitive for individual landholders. By identifying willing participants for large aerial-spraying programs, the council enables broader control of more weed infestations for more landholders. The program provides a sense of relief to participants by enabling them to tackle inaccessible areas of their properties. The council considers the program to be successful because it extends community participation and delivers more cost-effective and efficient weed control over the long term.
Evidence of Successful Collaborative Weed Management
Many themes evident in the two programs described were common in the remaining 10 case studies. Table 1 captures 7 overarching themes (‘Category’) and 21 subthemes (‘How the example demonstrates success’) evident in the descriptions.
Project duration. Project duration was often one of the first pieces of evidence used by practitioners to justify their selected example of cross-tenure collaborative weed management. For seven of the projects, 10 years was used as a measure of success (Table 1). An additional three projects were described as “long-term” because they spanned multiple years, but had not reached the 10-year time frame. The following quote reflects the importance of the decade-long metric of success.
We've been working through this program for over 10 years now . . . There's a short-term success, which is the plants will die in the next six months to a year. Beyond that, the long-term success is whether the landholder follows up . . . to rehabilitate that country. (Council Staff 1)
Project duration is particularly important for collaborative weed management programs because of the time required to establish and maintain new relationships, build capacity, and change entrenched practices.
Overview of 12 examples provided of successful cross-tenure weed management and the qualities (as indicated by X's) attributed to each project by the person who described the example.
Landscape scale. A project's functional area was key to identifying success. Nine projects were described as successful because they spanned a landscape scale—a river corridor, catchment, or larger scale, such as across a whole state. As one practitioner explained, achieving weed management across a larger scale is evidence of success, because weed managers often work at “cross-purposes. A weed that was being controlled in one area was being let go in another area” (State Government Staff 1). In this case, success meant getting agreement about priorities and coordinating work at a landscape scale.
We got agreement from the various managers that we would deal with the top end of the catchment and then work our way down the catchment progressively . . . With weeds it's really, really easy to get focused on your immediate problem in your local area. And to actually try and get that big picture accepted, and then people buying into it, is a very powerful thing. (State Government Staff 1)
For collaborative projects, the scale of the project needs to be well defined. If the project aims to cover too large an area, or the boundaries are too vague, then resources can be spread too thin, participants can lose motivation, and it can be difficult to achieve on-ground outcomes.
Ecological benefits. A measure of success used in nine programs involved evaluations of the extent to which weeds were treated and removed. These reductions were described with respect to the area from which weeds were removed, reduced weed densities, and fewer mature or flowering weeds. Some practitioners emphasized the value of removing weeds that have high potential for ecological impacts or are a priority for some land managers but not for others.
We had a 30% reduction in the number of reproductive plants found over the course of time, so we were obviously getting rid of the mature plants. One thing that was interesting, however, was that the number of non-reproductive plants actually increased over that time. That's not such a bad thing, in that it meant that there was [sic] a lot of seedlings germinating and we were actually getting in and getting those plants before they set seed themselves. (Council Staff 2)
Although not mentioned as often, half of the practitioners used rehabilitation of ecosystems as a measure of success: “Over this 10-plus year project, we were able to replant, revegetate, 18% of the New South Wales [Snowy] river and this is a 150 kilometre stretch” (State Government Staff 4). In collaborative cross-tenure programs, the ecological benefits may not accrue to all stakeholders equally; however, consistently measuring the ecological benefits can help stakeholders see the broader impacts of their efforts.
Economic benefits. Limited, short-term funding was considered to be a key limitation of weed management programs generally. Thus, successful projects were valued for their ability to secure long-term funding or leverage funding from multiple sources to ensure results were maintained over the longer term.
I was able to help make that levy a permanent levy, which is another really great thing to mean that there is permanent money available for the delivery of the program over a long period of time. Which is where I think a lot of the weed strategy falls down, is that there's a lot of really great weed removal happening, but without that long-term maintenance and long-term continual assessment of what is being done, [it can] very, very easily be undone. (Landcare Representative 1) Influencing government to put resources back into the community I think is pretty powerful. I don't know how you measure that, but maybe grants. We talked about having ongoing grants being a sign of a good program. (State Government Staff 3)
The sharing of financial resources and achieving economic security enables collaborative programs to evolve with the weed challenge and sustain stakeholder commitment.
Social benefits. The importance of social engagement for successful collaborative weed management initiatives was recognized in 11 projects. This involved reaching large numbers of diverse actors, including landholders, scientists, politicians, community groups, NGOs, and government agencies. Of particular importance was involving people “that we wouldn't normally reach” (State Government Staff 5).
One of the things we're proudest of is 74 of the private landholders that adjoin that river were able to participate and get the outcomes and the wins from it. (State Government Staff 4)
Beyond the number and type of people involved, practitioners focused on whether programs became self-sustaining and self-perpetuating, with community members directly or indirectly encouraging others to become involved over the long term.
We've been able to get a lot of recalcitrant people involved . . . If you were the last landholder left in that stretch, by diffusion you sort of ended up doing the work. I think pretty much every property has been worked on now, to the point where people further upstream in Queanbeyan-Palerang Council, they're doing work up there now. Which is great. So that diffusion is happening across that catchment more broadly as well and out of our catchment. (Council Staff 3)
Social relations are at the core of collaborative programs. The very establishment of new relationships not only means that weeds are more likely to be controlled, but also has flow-on benefits to other land management challenges, and maintenance of rural communities more broadly.
How is Successful Collaborative Weed Management Measured and Reported?
There were four categories of metrics that practitioners use to monitor the success of cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs over time: ecological, economic, social, and scientific (Table 2). While there was consistency in the overall outcomes that practitioners measure, there was little overlap in the specific metrics used. For example, reduction in weeds over time was measured by the presence of a weed, the number of plants, or the density of plants in an area.
One practitioner described three types of ecological metrics. Prevent-spread metrics focus on preventing the spread of new and emerging weeds; these metrics center on surveillance to prevent a weed from becoming established. Weed-led metrics focus on established weeds and measuring whether they are being eradicated or contained. Asset-led metrics focus on reducing weeds' impacts on biodiversity or other assets, such as agricultural assets. Although only one participant used these descriptors, they effectively capture the three subcategories of ecological metrics that emerged during the analysis: surveillance, area treated effectively over time, and area regenerated (Table 2).
When describing specific ecological metrics, practitioners emphasized the importance of measuring the same ecological metrics over time, such as at yearly intervals. They also recognized there is limited benefit in measuring ecological outcomes without evaluating the amount of effort invested to achieve those outcomes.
We record all our inspections and the weed density and abundance, and location, etc. So we're able to compare year on year whether there's been a reduction in that weed on that site over time. For some weeds, that is occurring. For other weeds, it isn't. Despite the effort we're putting in. (Council Staff 2)
Metrics currently used by weed management practitioners to evaluate the success of weed management programs.
Money, labor, and herbicides were the three main resources measured to evaluate the economic performance of weed management programs. Practitioners emphasized that such economic metrics should not be interpreted in isolation from ecological outcomes. One practitioner highlighted the importance of considering the trade-offs of investing resources in some activities over others.
The other metric . . . I think is hugely important, is focused effort, which is to say whether it's the number of staff or the hours spent on the high priority programs . . . one of the really big battles in weed management is freeing your staff and resources up from the routine things, to actually doing the high priority things, such as the orange hawkweed, that you know will make a big strategic difference. (State Government Staff 1)
Three types of social metrics were described: governance, community engagement, and psychological (Table 2). Here we adopt the definition of governance used by Lynn et al. (2001, 7) which includes “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services.” Practitioners who discussed governance metrics emphasized that they were interested in measuring the number of people who proactively comply with legislation that requires them to undertake weed control work on their properties, rather than those who did so reactively in response to their interventions.
I try and measure success, to a certain degree, [by] whether—particularly when we do inspections and so forth—people have been proactive in their response to weed management . . . They've got a program in place, that they're aware of the weed that you're there talking to them about and want some control work done, and they've already gone out and implemented that. (Council Staff 2)
Those who discussed the community engagement metrics were not only interested in the number of people participating, but also the length of engagement and whether or not neighboring land managers were jointly participating in programs.
Two practitioners mentioned psychological metrics. For example, the land looks better from an aesthetic point of view or a weed management program provides a “relief” to land managers, because they have “figure[d] out how to manage the weeds on their property.” Neither psychological metric is formally measured; practitioners used these metrics informally to evaluate their programs.
The nature of baseline data collected was integral to evaluating the success of weed management programs. This is because such data provide a reference point for evaluating the success of program activities. There are also distinct qualities that baseline data must have, such as accessibility and shareability, to make the program useful over the longer term and provide benefits to other weed management programs.
The Need for Meaningful Metrics
Practitioners felt that metrics needed to be contextual, cumulative and connected, and consistent in order to be considered “meaningful.”
Contextual metrics. Many practitioners were concerned that the metrics they use to meet institutional or funding requirements are premised on the assumption that bigger numbers are better and do not adequately take context into account. For example, some practitioners are required to record the number of properties inspected or number of kilometers of roadside sprayed but are not required to record the size of the properties, whether the roadside spraying was effective, or whether the work contributes to the goals outlined in local and regional weed management plans. Some practitioners were also concerned that they were asked to use the same metrics for different weeds, even though each weed requires tailored management strategies and has unique ecological responses.
People are asking for metrics that look good on paper and reports as opposed to what is actually there . . . We're asked to report how many weeds, or how many hectares have been effectively treated. There's no way to measure that because every weed has a different type of outcome base. The metrics are going to be different . . . And they're trying to fit it all into one template, which doesn't work. (Council Staff 4) Some of the other metrics we have to use . . . [are] community participation, and number of hours of people contributing to programs . . . Which [are] once again pretty meaningless. It's sort of a necessary evil for some of the funding grants and things like that. We have to meet certain hours. (State Government Staff 2)
Case studies were identified as one option for overcoming the problem of context-free metrics. In the second focus group, case studies were valued for their ability to incorporate local knowledge about how ecosystems respond to weed management, to record changes over time, and as a mechanism for community engagement and learning about weeds.
I think case studies are fantastic for community engagement on this and I guess if people have a good story to tell and it goes in, for instance, the Landcare newsletters . . . those stories about someone who has been doing some weed control, and the recovery of their property, and what they're seeing now in terms of interesting forbs and little wildflowers, I think they carry a lot of weight. People might say, “Oh, I hadn't really thought about that.” So those case studies I think can be important. (Landcare Representative 3)
Cumulative and connected metrics. Practitioners discussed the need for metrics to provide a holistic understanding of the impacts of weed management programs on the ecological functioning of the systems in which they operate. Metrics about the costs of weed management, the amount of herbicide applied, or the area sprayed are only useful if they are connected to measures that reflect ecological responses to the removal of weeds.
Practitioners also discussed the need for metrics that evaluate multiple efforts undertaken at the landscape scale. This means going beyond the project scale to connecting multiple weed and NRM programs: “Everybody has strategies and plans. Is there some way of measuring those collectively and the output? . . . It would be neat if we could do that.” (State Government Staff 3)
Consistency. Practitioners in the first focus group expressed a desire for greater consistency and standardization of the multiple internal and external databases that exist to record data about weed management and conservation programs. Many of the data collected that are relevant to their local context cannot be recorded in the statewide biosecurity database, resulting in a loss of data and missed opportunities for learning across the region and state. In addition, metrics often change over time, which means that it is difficult to establish long-term data sets and undertake longitudinal analyses.
Consistency I think is the key. We can't possibly compare management of areas when there's not enough consistency between the collection of baseline data, and the analysing of baseline data, and the reporting on what the effectiveness of the management is. (Landcare Representative 1)
In discussing the need for consistency, practitioners recognized that there are financial costs and expertise required to standardize metrics and data collection across organizations. Such costs need to be accounted for in future programs.
What Would Meaningful Metrics Look Like?
When practitioners described cross-tenure collaborative weed management programs in their own words, free from the restrictions of the metrics that they are required to document and report, there was agreement that success involves long-term projects, whose scale matches the goals of the program, and that deliver ecological, economic, and social benefits. Similarly, when practitioners discussed metrics they would like to use in future, they described metrics that would enable them to capture the benefits that weed management provides to social–ecological systems over the long term.
The focus group discussions reveal a mismatch between existing metrics and how practitioners define and would like to measure success. Current metrics mostly focus on weed management inputs, such as herbicides, labor, and costs. Few metrics help evaluate the psychological and social benefits (or impacts; Crowley et al. 2017) provided by weed management programs or capture the link between antecedent conditions, process performance, and outcomes (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). The discussion that follows explores the extent to which social research on cross-tenure collaborations can inform the measurement of nested scales of social success and social–ecological outcomes in weed management and deliver rich narratives that explain the role of context on collaboration outcomes.
To begin, collaborative governance identifies that measuring the social success of collaborative programs requires understanding the system context in which the program operates, the dynamics of the collaboration, and what the collaboration produces (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Groce et al. (2019) describe these three elements as the social networks, social processes, and social outcomes, respectively, and distinguishes these from environmental outcomes. Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) also identify that metrics need to be tailored to the unit of analysis, that is, for whom the outcomes are being evaluated—for the participant or for the collaborative entity. There are many existing metrics that weed management practitioners could use to evaluate the impact of their programs for each element and unit of analysis.
Measuring the Social and Social–Ecological Success for the Collaborative Entity
Practitioners explained that they consider projects to be successful if the projects reach diverse actors not usually involved in weed management, and if the size of the network grows without their intervention (Table 1). Such impacts relate to the system context and can be measured using metrics from social network analysis undertaken at the start of a collaborative initiative and at multiple intervals thereafter. Social network analysis can help document the number of relationships built and strengthened (Bixler et al. 2016; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015) or the extent to which the network is centralized or heterogeneous (Groce et al. 2019).
Metrics for social processes can help evaluate whether collaborations achieve diverse and inclusive participation (Conley and Moote 2003), open communication, candid and reasoned discussion (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015), continual generation and inclusion of knowledge, and refinement of approaches based on new information (Bixler et al. 2016). With respect to social outcomes, metrics exist that can measure whether participants have gained shared knowledge or understanding (Conley and Moote, 2003) and the extent to which agreements have been reached (Emerson et al. 2012). Such process and outcome measures may help weed management practitioners to evaluate whether there are greater community understandings of weeds; improved capacity for, and uptake of, best management practices; and a clear strategy with coordinated priorities (Table 1).
Beyond social measures, practitioners sought metrics that can capture the social–ecological outcomes of their collaborative endeavors. Bixler et al. (2016) present a social–ecological performance evaluation framework that not only captures changes to social networks but also considers whether those networks result in more sustainable and effective outcomes that could not have been achieved without the existence of the network. This requires practitioners to consider whether cross-pollination is happening between projects and organizations that work on different resources, how social capacity overlaps with ecological need, whether social and ecological goals are being (concurrently) achieved, and whether the network is resilient to fluctuations in funding and politics.
Moore and Koontz (2003) found that composition of collaborative groups revealed important differences with respect to perceived accomplishments. Similarly, Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) argued that the applicable metrics are likely to vary with the type of collaboration but did not provide examples of which indicators are likely to be different or how. Here we found some differences in the reported accomplishments of cross-tenure collaborative weed management projects by composition and scale. Agency-based programs operating at regional or local government scales were the only ones to report coordinated priorities and aligned and nested projects as evidence of success in their programs (Table 1). Some agency-based programs at each scale (local government, regional, and state) used surveillance as an indicator of success. Agency-based programs did not use extent of area inspected as a measure of success at any scale. Citizen-based programs, all of which operated at the locality scale, did not use increased community understanding, impact on neighbors, or improved affordability for land managers as indicators of success. Only projects at the locality or local government scale used coordinated works as an indicator of success, and only projects at the local government scale used improved affordability and less impact on neighbors. For the remaining indicators, there were no clear differences across scale, composition, or type of group. Further research involving a larger number of case studies may be required to evaluate the use and suitability of specific metrics for different group compositions and types of collaboration and for different government arrangements elsewhere.
Measuring Social and Social–Ecological Outcomes for Participants
Almost all the metrics currently used by practitioners focus on the collaborative unit of analysis, rather than the perspectives of individual participants (Table 1). NRM evaluation research has identified that participants deem collaborative programs to be successful when they enhance working relationships, such as building trust, improving communication, and facilitating a better understanding of others' views and values (Barney et al. 2019; Leach et al. 2002; McKinney and Field 2008); are procedurally and distributively just, such as everyone who wants to participate in a program being able to do so, and whether there are avenues for participants' concerns to be addressed (McKinney and Field 2008); and whether individual needs are met (Frame et al. 2004). Such measures of participant satisfaction were not evident in the metrics currently being used or considered by practitioners, but could provide another avenue for evaluating the social processes of collaborative weed management programs and help show how outcomes for individuals relate to outcomes for collaborative entities.
Participants' perspectives can be used to evaluate whether ecological and economic outcomes have been achieved, especially where necessary baseline data and follow-up monitoring have not been conducted (Leach et al. 2002; McKinney and Field 2008). For example, McKinney and Field (2008) asked participants to reflect on whether programs deliver more effective and lasting outcomes than the “next best alternative.”
Some cautions need to be considered when using participant perceptions for evaluation. The “halo effect” occurs when participants overreport environmental improvements (Thomas and Koontz 2011). Participant evaluations may also change over time, such as through the “recall effect” (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015) and are related to their relationships with the collaborative group (Cradock-Henry et al. 2017). As a result, Leach et al. (2002) found that both perceived and “factual” data are necessary, because each captures different elements of partnerships' achievements. Alternatively, Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) recommend including the perspectives of multiple types of participants, such as individual and organizational participants, the recipients or beneficiaries of collaboration, as well as external funders. However, they also recognize that the more diverse the group of participants, the more likely there will be divergent perspectives on performance.
Going beyond Quantitative, Context-Free Measures
Practitioners identified case study descriptions as one way to provide project evaluations that reflect connected and collaborative successes in context. Such calls are consistent with broader trends in evaluation methods research and practice (Thomas and Koontz 2011), which is experiencing a reorientation toward methods that recognize and reflect complexity (Reynolds 2017) and context (Clement et al. 2020). Case studies have been recognized in other NRM evaluation research as being useful for explaining (chains of) causal mechanisms that link management interventions with environmental outcomes (Thomas and Koontz 2011). Case studies can also investigate whether more centralized approaches would have resulted in different outcomes (Thomas and Koontz 2011).
Researchers involved in collaborative management of other invasive species, such as pest animals, have identified narratives as a powerful tool that can not only aid evaluation and reflection, but can also help to build solidarity and a shared vision and fuel collaboration (Miller and Bridger 2019). Narratives can help give meaning to case studies and provide an avenue for expressing and recognizing emotions, values, and identities, fulfilling the practitioners' desire for “meaningful metrics.” Miller and Bridger (2019) provide examples of how to build and collect community narratives while being sensitive to divergent or alternative narratives. When narratives are collected in a sensitive way, they can help to provide context and appreciation for the significance of outcomes achieved, given the capacity and history of each community.
These social research methodologies align with the desire of practitioners for more contextual, cumulative and connected, and consistent metrics, and would also enable consideration of how participants (such as individual landholders) measure success and outcomes.
The practitioners in this study define successful collaborative weed management as decade-long programs that bring together diverse organizations and individuals to deliver landscape-scale coordination of weed control efforts, ecological rehabilitation, and self-perpetuating community participation. Yet practitioners are seldom asked to report on such diverse outcomes and rarely have enough resources provided to undertake project evaluations in a way that enables them to adapt their collaborative programs in real time. Instead, they are often asked to report on metrics that only focus on inputs or metrics that focus on ecological outcomes without considering associated economic and social outcomes.
Social science from other areas of NRM and collaborative governance suggests two main ways that practitioners can overcome such challenges. The first involves expanding the social metrics being used to encompass social networks, processes, and outcomes while concurrently evaluating whether ecological and economic outcomes are being achieved. The second involves bringing project participants into the evaluation process, either by providing individual perspectives on the ecological, economic, and social achievements of the program or by the development of collective narratives. Such approaches recognize that success is not only about weed management programs being run collaboratively, but that evaluation needs to be a collective process that bridges multiple scales, or units, of analysis. This way of evaluating collaborative weed management programs requires funding bodies and government departments to redesign their evaluation processes to ensure that they are meaningful for those developing, delivering, and participating in the programs. Such a redesign requires supporting research to determine whether the metrics identified by the practitioners in this study are useful for evaluating the relative benefits of collaborative cross-tenure weed management programs, and the extent to which they are broadly applicable across other regions of Australia and internationally.
This research was conducted with the support of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award DE200100234. Thank you to Matthew Hammond for providing IT and logistical support throughout the focus groups. We would also like to thank the remaining focus group participants for their rich insights: David Pomery, Greg Thompson, Luke Pope, Jonathan Sanders, Mel Schroder, Sonya Reyes, and Tony Robinson. No conflicts of interest have been declared.


Tesla is anticipated to provide about 141,000 vehicles within the 3rd quarter of 2020 and 483,000 automobiles for the complete 12 months.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted Monday early early morning that their company might offer 20 million automobiles by 2027 to 2030 in which he views 30 million vehicles that are electric over the industry.
The figures are very nearly too large to consider, regardless of how investors dissect them, and dissect them they shall.
Tesla (ticker: TSLA) is anticipated to supply about 141,000 automobiles within the 3rd quarter of 2020 and 483,000 vehicles for the full 12 months. That amounts to about 30per cent development weighed against 2019вЂ”an impressive accomplishment because of the pandemic that is global. Ford engine (F) sales, for contrast, are anticipated to dip about 20% in 2020.
A few figures were being tweeted. вЂњSeven years without a doubt to 30 million plus brand new completely electric cars per 12 months, six years perhaps,вЂќ said Musk. вЂњFive years is achievable, but not likely. a additional year makes a giant distinction in terms of exponentials.вЂќ
The 20 million stretch objective is a lot more than 40 times more than this yearвЂ™s manufacturing and works off to the average yearly development price of approximately 70%. There is certainly precedent. Tesla increased deliveries by about 100percent an on average in the seven years from 2012 to 2019 year.
But Tesla ended up being starting a base of less than 3,000 automobiles. WhatвЂ™s more, it spent about $11 billion from 2012 to 2019 to create more vehicles. This has are more efficient as time passes, but increasing manufacturing to 20 million automobiles could just take as much as $100 billion. That is a rough estimate and, once more, difficult to consider.
Toyota Motor (TM) sold about 9 million vehicles in 2019. It invested roughly $100 billion on the decade that is past its capacity and retooling plants as brand brand new automobiles had been introduced. The numbers are huge in the global auto business.
None with this makes up about the ramp-up into the supply chain which is expected to simply simply simply take EV penetration globally from approximately 2% to 30per cent, predicated on MuskвЂ™s remarks. He talked to that particular problem at their companyвЂ™s Sept. 22 battery pack technology day. вЂњWeвЂ™re not receiving to the battery cellular company because weвЂ”just for the hell from it,вЂќ Musk stated . вЂњItвЂ™s because it is the fundamental constraint. ItвЂ™s the point that is the factor that is limiting quick development.вЂќ
During the occasion, Tesla presented intends to cut battery pack expenses by a lot more than 50%. In addition outlined intends to slice the number of investment needed to build battery that is new by about 75per cent.
Demonstrably, 20 million away from 30 million automobiles works down to share of the market of 67%. TeslaвЂ™s share of EV product product sales into the U.S. had been about 55% in 2018 and 2019. Those will be the first two several years of significant product sales associated with Model 3, the companyвЂ™s lower-priced model.
Musk additionally said he believes battery pack improvements will allow the business to profitably offer a $25,000 vehicle. The Model 3 begins at $35,000.
It really is well well worth noting that Tesla obtained 55% share selling vehicles by having a normal cost of about $75,000. FordвЂ™s normal selling price is nearer to $30,000 per automobile.
If Tesla had been to achieve 20 million product sales, it can suggest the business is producing, maybe, $800 billion in product product product sales and $100 billion in profits before interest, fees, depreciation and amortization.
There was a long option to head to make it happen. Investors might be inclined to think Musk. HeвЂ™s possessed a year that is good. Tesla stocks are up 387% 12 months up to now, at the time of FridayвЂ™s closing price, much better than comparable comes back of this S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Gains have made Tesla the worldвЂ™s many auto maker that is valuable.
Tesla stock is up 4.1% in very early trading Monday. The S&P has gained 1.4%.


Healthcare and the Politics of Destruction
The Republicans in Congress have campaigned against Obamacare (ACA- Affordable Care Act) with a ‘repeal and replace’ mantra for several years. Now that they have the absolute power of governance, they apparently do not know how to create a bill to reformulate a workable plan according to Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/02/republicans-health-care-repeal-240185
Just as in the House, the representatives in the Senate do not seem to know whether they want to destroy the current legislation, underfund it so that it collapses or create a skeleton of a plan in order to save face. As an advocate for Obamacare, I know that it was not a perfect bill, but I saw the difference as hospitals could treat and get reimbursed for patients who now had Medicaid and parents were not trapped in a single insurance plan in order to avoid pre-existing exclusion expenses. If additional younger people had signed on, the plans would have been more affordable as they need to have a mix of patients. If the Supreme Court had not negated some of the Medicaid options – who knows? But with all good things – it needed time to get the market place established and allow it to mature. Certainly there were ways it could be reformed; however Congress would not permit improvements or give it this amount of time. Some portions of this latest version that seem most venal are: Benefits for seniors just shy of Medicare age would be priced so high as to be unaffordable for the majority of members in that age range. States would be allowed to permit plans to deny maternity benefits. Planned Parenthood, which provides inexpensive care for millions of women, would be denied participation. Cross state line insurance plans would be allowed – giving insurance companies the options to find the least restrictive states as to minimum benefits, so states such as Maryland which mandate stronger mental health and substance abuse benefits could be bypassed for in state plans.
The President, speaking recently, showed that he does not really care about healthcare when he said ‘repeal now replace later’ – he just wants to be able to show that he has something in the win column, despite his many promises while campaigning about saving insurance for everyone. Studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and others have shown that the majority of those affected by these changes live in states where Trump won and that many do not believe they will lose coverage, despite information to the contrary. The millionaires on the Hill and in Trumps’ cabinet are in business for themselves as they pair unnecessary tax cuts with decreasing allowances for health care benefits. Whether it is 22 million, 25 or 30 millions (according to various Congressional Budget Office scenarios) who will possibly lose insurance or Medicaid is immaterial to these elected officials who are supposed to be performing for public benefit. Various polls have shown that fewer than 20% of the American public approve of these insurance plan options as tentatively presented by either governing body... Instead, all of these officials are intent on destroying healthcare for those who can least afford any changes in order to get government out of healthcare and to give millionaires more money to “stimulate the economy”.
Did you see the people in wheelchairs, with braces, feeding tubes and breathing supports forcibly removed form outside Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s office? These are the people who know that Medicaid is their lifeline and understand that block grants cannot meet the enormous medical assistance requirements which keep them alive. Did you hear the cancer survivors and their family members or parents of children with congenital conditions petitioning their congressional members to keep benefits such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, modest deductible and limitless lifetime expense allowances? Can these members be so deaf and blind to the real needs of real patients – and who are their constituents?
Dan Balz writing in the Washington Post stated: President Trump is more than his own worst enemy. The damage he has inflicted during his first five months in office has undermined Republican congressional leaders, frustrated members of his Cabinet, exasperated top advisers and strained relations with some of the nation’s most important allies. This week’s case study is health care. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-proves-to-be-an-unreliable-ally-to-republicans-in-the-health-care-fight/2017/07/01/907ca906-5dd4-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.1adc7ccf10e0
The most significant domestic initiative of the Trump presidency and the Republican Party is the fulfillment of a promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. That Republicans are struggling to find an alternative to Obamacare is plain to see. But as congressional leaders scratch to find the votes to pass a bill in the Senate, the president has demonstrated that he is an unreliable partner in the battle.
Indivisible has been at the forefront of the healthcare battles in the House and now must continue to mobilize for the battle next week in the Senate. The President does not seem to understand the issues here – he had a party in the rose garden after the House passed a bill, now he claims it is mean. We know that the potential bill on the Senate side promises to be even meaner. Political pundits claim that no matter that there are not 50 votes to approve this matter at this moment, this does not mean that wheeling and dealing will not be taking place and that some form of this awful legislation will pass pro forma without allowed dissent or reasoned discussion. That said, we must stop this destruction of healthcare - as we now know it - if at all possible. The so called moderates are not being forceful enough; they are going through the motions. Lives should not be used as pawns in a political game. The conservatives who want nothing to pass – such as Senators Lee and Cruz – should be opposed at their next election, no matter when it occurs, due to their posturing and lack of honor on these matters.
Maryland is lucky to have two Senators who are stalwarts on the ACA – so perhaps we can best use our energies to call Senators described as wavering or get to friends and relatives in their states to petition them to allow public hearings and Democratic input into any potential changes. Those are; Lisa Murkowski – Alaska, Rob Portman – Ohio, Susan Collins,- Maine, Dan Heller- Nevada, Shelly Moore Capito, - West Virginia – and possibly Cory Gardner – Colorado and Rand Paul- Kentucky.
We cannot let our guard down as the politics of destruction are not being limited to healthcare; destruction is also being waged in the proposed budget, the environmental spheres, and education policy and immigration activities. Stay tuned.


text:
Random House Latin-American Spanish Dictionary (PB)
Buy now for
We ship worldwide. Bulk and academic discounts available -- contact us for pricing.
Ships in 3 - 5 business days.
More than 10,000 entries * Includes vocabulary and usages unique to Latin America, Central America, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Cuba * Two sections, Latin American Spanish-English and English-Latin American Spanish * All entries, from A to Z, in a single alphabetical listing
The Random House imprint has long stood for excellence in the reference field. Random House reference books--prepared by its permanent lexicographic staff with the assistance of many hundreds of scholars, educators, and specialists--have been widely acclaimed for their outstanding quality and usefulness.
500235 ISBN-13: 9780345405463

domain: library


text:
Allpicts.in – You can use this one of the congratulations images free with flowers for many purposes. As one of the best congratulations images with flowers, this wallpaper is featured with a simple but beautiful design and is perfect for several moments such as graduation, achievement, wedding, and many more. It is also designed in high resolution with 1920×1080 pixels. So, it is also suitable for wallpaper.
Designed in simple decoration, you can directly use this to say congratulations at any moment. I recommend you use this to congrat your friends on their important moment.
Furthermore, feel free to download another congratulatory wallpaper by visiting our gallery below:
Congratulation Image Free
- Free Image for Congratulations on The Promotion with Abstract Blue Background
- Congratulations Banner Clip Art for Graduation
- Congratulations Picture Frames with Green Floral Border
- Congratulations Images for Wedding with Floral Frame
- Congratulations Images for Wedding with Rings
- Congratulations Images for Engagement with Wishes
- Congratulations Images for All Purposes with Simple Design
- Congratulations Pictures Free Download for Graduates
- Free Congratulations Images for Card Design
- Congratulations Images Free Download

domain: design


text:
Hunt Slonem: A Midsummer Night’s Dream
We are pleased to present Hunt Slonem’s preview for his upcoming exhibition A Midsummer Night’s Dream opening on Saturday 22 June from 10am-5pm.
Over nearly five decades, Hunt Slonem has continuously sought ways to create an exuberant and bold, fauvist palette to emphasize his beloved menagerie of animals. His oeuvre has been described as grandiose, impressive and extravagant, all evident in his unique feeling for color and texture. These paintings are a celebration of the vibrancy of nature.
A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Preview will run from 18 June to 20 July, 2019.
We invite all press to join us at the opening reception on Saturday, June 22nd 2019 from 10 a.m – 5 p.m. at 320 South Cedros Avenue, Solana Beach, CA 92075. Please find attached a selection of images as well as the press release. To RSVP or to request more information and/or hi-res images, please contact me, email firstname.lastname@example.org, or call us at (858) 523-9155.

domain: artistic


text:
Matrixyl 3000 is a very effective ingredient utilized in aging skin care products today. It boosts the manufacturing of collagen as well as elastin to minimize creases and various other indicators of aging such as boring, splotchy skin. Its effects, after about two months, have actually been contrasted to that of botox.
Collagen is the normally produced chemical that maintains our skin looking smooth, flexible and also wrinkle totally free. Our skin’s ability to preserve the appearance of youth rests upon the quantity of collagen produced. It is the foundation of assistance for the surface area of the skin. As we age, our production of collagen is substantially reduced. This creates thinning of the skin and loss of flexibility. Elastin offers our skin the capacity to spring back to its initial setting. When these two naturally produced chemicals are minimized, our skin will certainly begin to look old and exhausted. Drooping skin begins to show up listed below our cheeks when elastin is lowered and creases start to show up when collagen is lowered.
Free radicals as well as age lower the amount of collagen that our bodies create as well as it needs to be changed through our aging skin care lotions. When the amino acids damage down in the collagen, it produces peptides. These peptides will send signals to the body to allow it know that it needs much more collagen. Matrixyl 3000 does the exact same task these peptides do, sending out signals to your body to develop even more collagen. Your body will certainly react and also create even more collagen, elastin and also hyaluronic acid.
Nano-Technology to the Rescue
With the assistance of nano-technology we can lower the size of active components to microscopic particles that can be conveniently soaked up into the skin as well as get to the mobile framework under. The skin heals itself from the mobile level as well as Matrixyl 3000 can reach this degree and also job to change the lowered supply of collagen and also elastin as well as bring the appearance of young people back to our skin.
Firms and also lifts drooping skin
Repair work damaged tissue
Reinforces the underlying mobile framework
Makes the skin extra elastic
Stimulates collagens 1, 3, 4 and fibronectin to lower wrinkles
Smoothes the skin
Enhances skin tone
Matrixyl 3000 is a cell-stimulant. It incorporates Palmitoyl Oligopeptide and Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide. It helps to fix damaged and aging cells and boosts the underlying building blocks of the skin.
This combination of Palmitoyl Oligopeptide and Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide does not irritate the skin. It promotes the collagen and also fibronectin particles in your skin’s foundation, to lower the look of wrinkles as well as sagging skin. These two peptides are thought to generate outstanding advantages to the skin when used with each other. With each other, they are much more efficient than utilizing either of these peptides alone.
According to Sederma, the producer of Matrixyl 3000, a cells society research study showed an increase in the synthesis of skin matrix roughly 3 times the Best White Eyeliner original manufacturing. The synthesis of collagen type 1 boosted 258%, fibronectin boosted by 164% as well as hyaluronic acid enhanced by 179%.
Palmitoyl Oligopeptide & Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7
These are the active ingredients in Matrixyl 3000. When these 2 peptides are integrated with each other they appear to function even more effectively than they do separately. Incorporating these 2 active ingredients right into our skin treatment items can be tough. It is necessary to keep the active ingredients cool and fresh until they are integrated. On top of that, the method the products are prepared and incorporated will determine if the product is able to penetrate the skin.
Aging Skin Care Tips
A good age to begin an aging skin treatment regular and integrating Matrixyl 3000 is around age 30. The extent of wrinkles is generally identified by lifestyle as opposed to age. Women that have spent a large quantity of time in tanning beds will definitely age earlier than those who avoided the sun.
It can be difficult to locate the formula that works the most effective for us. There are many maturing skin care products available today that it is crucial that we inform ourselves regarding the ingredients in these items. Ingredients will certainly react differently for each and every people. One item that may work like a miracle for a single person might trigger a serious allergy for an additional. We have to be responsible for our own selections. Discover which components help you and also which ones you need to avoid.
As aging individuals, we are all looking for the latest innovation as well as the next greatest component to slow down or reverse the aging procedure. Lots of high account physicians are now suggesting this active ingredient as an aging skin care property. Matrixyl 3000 is extremely efficient at stopping and also lowering the look of creases, fine lines and dull saggy skin. It can assist us recover the plump healthy look that we are all pursuing. Do not approve aging as a reality that we can do nothing to change. Remain healthy, eat right, workout and locate aging skin care items that benefit your skin.

domain: chemistry


Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is about to find herself back on the hot seat.
Many people thought her conduct in the Hillary Clinton email investigation was criminal.
And now she is about to answer the one question that could land her in jail.
House Republicans dropped a Thanksgiving bombshell.
The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Lynch as well as former FBI Director James Comey to testify.
THANKSGIVING SUBPOENAS: The House Judiciary Committee officially sent subpoenas to James COMEY and Loretta LYNCH yesterday. Dems want their hearings to be public. pic.twitter.com/Emuvb4w5hB
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 22, 2018
When James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, he said he felt pressured by Lynch to call the Clinton email investigation a “matter.”
Those were the talking points of the Clinton campaign.
Did Lynch collude with the Clinton campaign to downplay the seriousness of the trouble she faced?
And did Lynch obstruct justice when she ordered Comey to violate standard FBI procedure in how they discussed cases?
These are questions that need answers.
And it is about time Loretta Lynch give a full accounting of her actions in the Clinton email investigation debacle.
We will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.


text:
Growing your EPA and DHA omega-3 business can help improve people’s health, as well as the health of your business. Here are five sales-boosting resources you can use to deepen your omega-3 knowledge and help educate your customers.
What are the benefits of consuming EPA and DHA? What does the current scientific evidence suggest? How much EPA and DHA should my customers be getting each day? The website AlwaysOmega3s.com is a consumer-friendly site that answers those questions by documenting how omega-3s benefit eye, heart, brain, and prenatal health. An interactive quiz also gives consumers a chance to find out whether they’re getting enough omega-3s in their diet. The simple language of the site makes it easy to share with customers.
Do you market your brand to physicians or other healthcare providers? FatsofLife.com is a companion site to AlwaysOmega3s.com that focuses on educating healthcare professionals. The site explains the benefits of adequate EPA and DHA consumption with scientific detail, including comprehensive reference links that are updated as new studies are published.
Always Omega-3s and Fats of Life also include a variety of infographics and videos optimized for social media that educate further on the benefits of omega-3s. Are you marketing a product to mothers and babies? There are infographics that distill key findings from independent research institutes on the developmental importance of DHA, and how EPA and DHA reduce the risk of preterm birth. Do you focus on heart health in your marketing? Share information from the Mayo Clinic Proceedings and the VITAL trial demonstrating the connection between omega-3 consumption and improved heart health outcomes.
Boost your customers’ confidence that your omega-3 product is a quality product manufactured to a high standard by participating in GOED’s Proud Member label program. The Proud Member logo will inform omega-3 consumers that your company adheres to GOED’s quality and ethical guidelines and is committed to good corporate citizenship in the omega-3 space. Shoppers who research the logo and visit goedquality.com will learn about the GOED Voluntary Monograph for oil quality and the GOED Ethics Guidelines that inform your business practices.
GOED has conducted consumer research in more than 20 key markets worldwide about general health and wellness concerns, sources of information on health and wellness advice, reasons for starting (or stopping) omega-3 consumption, and more. Whether you want to confirm your knowledge about existing consumers or explore new global markets, reviewing GOED’s consumer data can help you understand how consumers think and act when it comes to their health decisions.

domain: medical


What Does “Active Now” In Instagram Actually Mean
One of the most widely used social media apps today, Instagram has steadily expanded its feature set over time to become more user-friendly. With the help of these features, users should have an easier time connecting with friends and family and discovering more useful content.
The Active Now feature is one of these features. Users can use this feature to see when the people they follow are using the app. The green dot next to users’ names, which denotes that they are online right now, was also added.
Many users have expressed uncertainty about the operation and significance of this feature. Examining what Active Now actually means will help.
What Does “Active Now” Mean on Instagram?
You can view a list of all of your chats along with their timestamps when you enter Direct. You can find out if someone is online if you follow them and they follow you in return.
The Active Now status and a green dot will be displayed next to their image. However, if someone hasn’t followed you back or sent you a direct message, you can’t access this information. Someone will know the same thing about you if you can see that they are currently active.
How to Disable the “Active Now” Feature in Instagram
Disabling this feature might be of interest if you want to maintain some privacy on Instagram. It’s not difficult to do this, but keep in mind that you won’t be able to view other users’ activity statuses.
With that in mind, here’s how to disable the Active Now feature in Instagram:
- Go to your Profile.
- Tap on the three horizontal lines at the top right of the screen then select Settings.
- Select Privacy.
- Tap on Activity Status.
- Disable Show Activity Status.
Once turned off, your friends will no longer be able to view your activity status, and you won’t be able to see theirs.
Is “Active Now” Accurate?
Even though a friend recently uploaded a post, you might see their status as inactive. The activity feature has some lag times and bugs that can be confusing. We believe it’s crucial to emphasize that the Active Now status isn’t always accurate for this reason.
Some users reportedly experience delays of up to ten minutes before seeing an activity status. The Last Seen feature is the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean that someone was online 20 minutes ago or that they didn’t suddenly become busy just because it says they were online.
What if You Don’t See the Green Dot?
There might be a small glitch or delay if you are certain that a mutual follower is active but you don’t see the green dot. Technology is not flawless.
It is highly likely that the user has disabled the activity status in the settings, as was previously mentioned. However, the majority of users have notifications turned on, so don’t let the lack of a green dot stop you from sending a message. Instagram provides read receipts as well, letting you know when a message has been read.
The activity status feature on Instagram can make it simpler to interact with friends and followers, but some users would rather not use it in order to protect their privacy. You can quickly and easily disable Instagram’s activity status feature by following the steps listed above.


text:
Noah Van Sciver is an Ignatz award-winning cartoonist whose work has appeared in the Best American Comics series, the Fantagraphics anthology series NOW, and Mad magazine. His many graphic novels include The Hypo and The Complete Works of Fante Bukowski. He lives with his family in Columbia, SC.
“Success in comics to me is a publisher and readers that have faith in you and the stories that you want to tell. A publisher that is happy to help you put your ideas together with no matter what they are. Those aren’t things that come easy, and you’ve really got to earn them!” –BoingBoing
“I write about whatever inspires me. My first graphic novel here in America is an illustrated account of Abraham Lincoln’s 20s and his battle with depression (The Hypo). He was America’s greatest president, of course, but I wasn’t interested in politics and I wasn’t interested in drawing him freeing the slaves. I only illustrated his emotional life and didn’t talk about him as a politician because a person’s internal struggle with who they are or their own emotions is what fascinates me. It is the connecting thread of all of my work. I might continue on with that theme in the future.” –lospaziobianco
“Things are definitely different now. As a human being, I’ve evolved a lot in the past four years. I’m definitely more conscious about who I am as a human being and what kind of a man I want to be in my life and getting myself to be the best man I possibly can be. This wasn’t even a concern of mine when I was in my twenties, but it’s something I think about every day now. I work on that. That’s something I work on a lot. Is it part of growing up? I don’t know. Maybe it is. I just do the best I can.” –smashpages
“I keep things pretty loose. I’m always attracted to the artists that have a, like a really loose, kind of, human style, you know, you can see, you can tell there’s, there’s a humanity in there.“

domain: literature


text:
- Download 8990
- Total View 6983
- File Size 18.32 MB
- File Count 1
- Last Updated September 5, 2022
Nepal's government updated Nepal's political and Administrative map on 18th May 2020. This includes missing Kalapani Region up to Limpiyadhura on Previous Map.
This is spatial data of Nepal with New political Divisions including Province, District, Palika and their wards in shapefile.
- level-0: Nepal National Boundry
- level-1: Provincial Boundary
- level-2: District Boundary
- level-3: Palika Boundary
- level-4: Ward Boundary (on next update: Check back on Sept 10, 2022)
The coordinate reference system is longitude/latitude and the WGS 1984 datum.

domain: geography


text:
Beyond the numerous health benefits that beef and other jerky types offer as a snack, beef and other types of jerkies just plain old taste good! Utilizing jerky in your favorite soup recipes can offer a healthier alternative to traditional soups while unlocking new flavor profiles. As colder weather approaches and you’re spending more time inside, experiment in the kitchen by adding jerky to your favorite soup recipes. Here are 10 soup recipes that easily incorporate jerky for a delightful new cooking (and eating!) experience.
1. Loaded Potato Soup with Original Beef Jerky
In just about any recipe that you can think of, jerky serves as a perfect substitute for bacon. Beef jerky and bacon are both similar in texture and in taste, allowing you to add jerky to any recipe that you would normally put bacon in. The added bonus? Jerky is way healthier for you than bacon, so you can make your soup both delicious and healthy. Choose your favorite recipe for potato soup and substitute an equal amount of chopped jerky for the amount of bacon that the recipe calls for. Save some jerky to crumble on your soup as a garnish and enjoy!
2. Vegetable and Steakhouse Beef Jerky Stew
This soup is the official soup of cleaning out your refrigerator. Vegetable stew is famous for its extreme versatility, as you can put just about anything in the pot and cook it up. This stew is the perfect dish for a spontaneous dinner and a chance at exercising your cooking skills. Gather the vegetables you have on hand and chop them up to add to a large soup pot with your choice of beef or vegetable stock. We recommend Crockett Creek’s Original or Steakhouse jerky to add an extra layer of heartiness to your stew along with a serious protein boost.
3. Spicy Beef Jerky Chili
On a chilly or rainy day, a good, homemade chili can’t be beat. For an extra burst of flavor and texture, you can add beef jerky to your chili as a meat substitute or in addition to the meat of your chili. To add jerky to your chili recipe, simply add the chopped jerky pieces to your chili after you have combined all of your ingredients. Allow the chili to simmer for as long as it takes to reach your desired thickness. If you are working from a recipe, consider adjusting the amount of salt in your chili as beef jerky can contain more sodium than other meats traditionally used in chili. If you like your chili on the spicier side, consider adding a jerky with a layer of heat to your recipe, such as Crockett Creek’s Fire, Sweet and Spicy, or Blazin’ Cajun jerky.
4. Cajun Jerky-Infused Jambalaya
Famous for its bold flavor profile, jambalaya is the perfect candidate for a recipe to incorporate your favorite beef jerky into. To add jerky to your jambalaya, combine your cooked chicken, sausage, and shrimp mixture with your chopped jerky, or omit a different meat and use jerky in its place. Incorporating a flavored beef jerky into your jambalaya can also provide support in the flavor department. We recommend using Crockett Creek’s Bayou Boil jerky to add an extra punch to your dish.
5. Bean and Smoky Beef Jerky Soup
Bean and bacon soup seems to be every cowboy’s meal of choice, but if you’re not riding around on a horse all day in the blazing heat, you may want to enjoy this soup in a more modern, healthier way. To do this, use your jerky as a bacon substitute. Substituting jerky for bacon will do wonders in the health department while leaving you just as satisfied and fulfilled as you would have been without the switch! Our recommendation for jerky flavors that will help you achieve the hearty bean and jerky soup you’re looking for are Original, Steakhouse, or Ol’ Smoky.
6. Asian Chicken Noodle Soup with a Garlic Jerky Twist
What do you get when you combine the distinct flavors of Asian food and the timeless classic, chicken noodle soup? A masterpiece. This dish takes an exciting Asian spin on the chicken noodle soup that we all know and love. This soup includes veggies, ramen noodles, and a delicious blend of flavor profiles that give it its uniquely Asian flair. To enjoy beef jerky in this Asian chicken noodle soup, substitute the chicken with Garlic or Teriyaki flavored jerky, or simply add your choice of jerky in addition to your meat for an extra boost of protein.
7. Real-Deal Beef Jerky Cheeseburger Soup
For a healthier take on this all-American classic, substitute beef jerky to imitate the taste of the much-sought-after bacon cheeseburger. To add jerky to this recipe, substitute an equal amount of beef jerky for the amount of bacon your chosen recipe calls for. If your recipe doesn’t include bacon, you can still add jerky to your soup to create that bacon cheeseburger feeling. Either add your desired amount of jerky into the soup pot while it simmers or save some jerky to crumble on top of your soup before serving.
8. Creamy Broccoli Cheddar Soup with a Garlic Jerky Flair
Broccoli cheddar soup is the soup that you’ll want to keep close on the coldest day of the year. This soup is warm, filling, and—above all—comforting. To add a protein-rich layer to this soup, look no further than your very own beef jerky stash. Jerky can help this dish to keep you full for longer and to contribute to the hearty feel of this comfort soup. To use jerky in this recipe, add your choice of jerky (we suggest using Original or Garlic jerky for this soup) to the soup pot while the ingredients from your chosen recipe simmer together, or crumble your jerky on top before serving.
9. Hearty Tomato and Beef Jerky Soup
Tomato soup is a childhood favorite for many. Bring this recipe into adulthood by giving it a more sophisticated flavor profile using your favorite flavor of jerky. Our Original or Steakhouse jerky recipes are most suited for this tomato soup, but to be fair, you’re the chef. Use whatever type of jerky tickles your fancy, and don’t worry—you can still have it with a grilled cheese on the side.
10. Mexican Tortilla Soup with Spicy Beef Jerky
This Mexican classic is jam-packed with the Latin spices and flavors that you love. This is the perfect soup for those who like to bring the heat. When adding your chicken to your soup pot, add your favorite spicy jerky (Crockett Creek Fire Beef Jerky) as well for a bit of heat. This bold soup will quickly become a favorite among those who live their lives on the spicier side.
Enjoy Crockett Creek Jerky in All Your Favorite Recipes
Crockett Creek jerky is the perfect addition for any chef who knows the importance of ingredients that are handcrafted with care. In Tennessee’s foothills of the Smoky Mountains, Crockett Creek has been crafting all-natural beef, venison, buffalo, and elk jerky for over 30 years. Family is at the center of our business, and we are proud to welcome our jerky-loving customers into this family, too. From our kitchen to yours, we hope that you will enjoy Crockett Creek jerky, spice mixes, and marinades in your own family’s recipes.

domain: food


Headlines Of The Day
I&B Minister says Prasar Bharati is striving to develop Next Generation Broadcast solution consistent with 5G broadcast
Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur today said, Prasar Bharati has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with IIT, Kanpur to develop Next Generation Broadcast solution for digital terrestrial broadcasting consistent with emerging standards such as 5G broadcast.
In a written reply to the Lok Sabha, Mr Thakur said, sanction for the proof of concept of Next Generation broadcasting has also been conveyed to IIT, Kanpur. He said, the selection of an appropriate Next Generation broadcast technology and digital terrestrial transmission roadmap of Doordarshan depends upon evaluation of this proof of concept. DD News
You must be logged in to post a comment Login


text:
The Natural Treatment for 7% Kidney Function with PKD without Doing Dialysis
I am currently at 7% kidney function and PKD at end stage.I have refused dialysis, can you help me? This is a message left by one a patient. Are you interested in this topic? Please add WhatsApp/Viber/Wechat+008615233618520 to know more details.
Polycystic kidney disease is a genetic kidney disorder in which a lot of cysts filled with fluid on the kidney, as times goes by, the number and the size of kidney cysts become larger and larger, as a result, the enlarged cysts oppress normal cells and tissues on the kidney, damaging kidney function and leading to kidney failure eventually.
As a matter of fact, 7% kidney function means that patients are already progressed into end stage renal disease, so patients need to take prompt measures to prevent further damage. Nowadays, dialysis and kidney transplant are no longer the only choice for patients to treat kidney disease. There is another treatment option for patients to treat kidney disease, that’s Chines medicine.
In Shijiazhuang Kidney Disease Hospital, a number of renal experts make innovation on Chinese medicine, putting forward a series of natural treatments.
Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy is an external application in which there are tremendous herbs containing in this therapy, so this is a natural and comfortable treatment. Moreover, herbal medicines are refined into powder to improve its efficiency and then the two medicated bags are made with medicated bags. What needs patients do is to lie down on the two medicated bags for about 40-50 minutes. With the help of osmotic machine, active substances in herbal medicines will come out and then penetrate inside kidney lesions directly.
In the meanwhile, adequate blood, oxygen and nutrition could deliver inside kidney.
The natural treatments for polycystic kidney disease with 7% kidney function have been listed, are you interested in this treatment ? Do you want to know more details about how natural treatments deal with kidney disease problems? Please send your present condition and phone number to firstname.lastname@example.org or leave a message below. We are glad to help you.
Previous: What Does the Treatment for Creatinine 3.0 with PKD Consist of
Next: Is Kidney Transplant the Best Treatment Option for PKD


text:
Ei mãe, 500 pontos!
Also during his interview with MTV, Shane Kim was quizzed on the topic of Banjo and Kazooie 3, which since its introduction a couple years ago at E3, has dropped right off the radar. It seemed like Banjo 3 itself was in the running to be scrapped as a project, but Shane has confirmed otherwise, slipping in the project may very well be releasing this holiday season. ...:-(
Kim only had this to say about the topic, suggesting, but not actually saying the official release date: “I’m super-excited about what they’re doing with ‘Banjo.’ I think ‘Banjo’ is going to be a big hit for us this holiday.”
This is good news, as it is the first we’ve heard in an extremely long time about the project. Banjo remains a good license in Microsoft’s portfolio to reach out to their casual market, but it is hard to say at this point if the appeal really exists for Xbox owners, or if this will another under preforming family orientated game

domain: news


text:
For rainy evenings or mornings, this ensemble is just right, with it’s blue satin dress and robe of feminine elegance. Trimmed in golden metallic and faux fur upon the hood, this robe features extravagant fabric with bead deco and a …
Category Archives: petite
16 Fashion Doll OUTFIT ONLY. This limited edition outfit was made to fit the 16 Deja Vu doll. It can also fit Tonner’s Antoinette, Cami & Ellowyne dolls very well too. This outfit is never removed from the box. My home is smoke free so the outfit will come to you in excellent condition. Don’t miss this must have addition to your Deja Vu Collection!! All my items come from a smoke free & pet free home. I will work with you. I do not accept responsibility for lost or damaged unisured items. Please see my other current auctions. All sales are final. International Buyers Please Note. We do not mark merchandise values below value or mark items as “gifts” – US and International government regulations prohibit such behavior. The item “MA PETITE ROSETonner DEJA VU16 Fashion Doll OUTFIT ONLY Very HTF NRFB” is in sale since Wednesday, March 21, 2018. This item is in the category “Dolls & Bears\Dolls\By Brand, Company, Character\Tonner\Other Tonner Dolls”. The seller is “dez1015″ and is located in Tinley Park, Illinois. This item can be shipped worldwide.
- Brand: Tonner
- Character Family: Deja Vu
- Type: Doll Clothes & Accessories
- Doll Size: 16in.
- Country/Region of Manufacture: China

domain: hobby