ABSTRACT
Scaling of management efforts beyond the boundaries of individual farms may require that individuals act collectively. Such approaches have been suggested several times in plant pathology contexts but rarely have been implemented, in part because the institutional structures that enable successful collective action are poorly understood. In this research, we conducted in-depth interviews with hop producers in Oregon and Washington State to identify their motivations for and barriers to collective action regarding communication of disease levels, coordination of management practices, and sharing of best management practices and other data for powdery mildew (caused by Podosphaera macularis). Growers were generally open to and engaged in communication with neighbors and others on disease status in their hop yards and some evidence of higher levels of information sharing on management practices was found. However, growers who had developed extensive knowledge and databases were reluctant to share information viewed as proprietary. Relationships, trust, and reciprocity were facilitating factors for communication and information sharing, whereas lack of these factors and social norms of independence and pride in portions of the grower community were identified as impediments. Given the heterogeneity of trust, lack of confidence in reciprocity, and weak shared norms, communication of disease risk and coordinated management may be most successful if directed at a smaller scale as a series of neighborhood-based partnerships of growers and their immediate neighbors. Developing a disease reporting system and coordinated disease management efforts with more producers and at larger spatial extents would require formalized structures and rules that would provide assurance that there is consistency in disease data collection and reporting, reciprocation, and sanctions for those who use the information for marketing purposes against other growers. Given the analyses presented here, we believe there is potential for collective action in disease management but with limitations on the scope and nature of the actions.
