In his detailed, academic review of the literature in the field, in 2019 in The Value of Community Landcare: a Literature Review, the author Hugo Ottesen wrote: … By developing the health and effectiveness of community networks and relationships, communities themselves can overcome collective action problems and manage their natural resources in an effective and sophisticated manner. One of the most insightful ways of appreciating this ‘paradigm shift’ to a community driven ‘Landcare’ model is through reference to the concept of social capital or community capacity. The idea of social capital, notably developed by Robert Putnam and others, is that social networks have value, analogous to how a screwdriver (physical capital) or a university education (human capital) have value (2000, 19). Social capital involves features of social organisation such as networks, and norms of reciprocity and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam 2000). It recognises that these features, such as networks and norms, often determine the productivity of groups and individuals. Social capital plays a central role in the healthy functioning of communities, economies and democracies, and is an important component in development. Thus, Landcare has been understood in light of the concepts and literature of social capital, and community and rural development. (Ottesen, 2009, 13) But social capital is complex and works in multiple ways so does not provide a simple way of understanding Landcare. Similarly, empowerment has been used as a theoretical explanation for Landcare, that it is about spreading knowledge. This too proves to be true, but not a complete explanation of what Landcare does. Ottesen says that in 2009, Andrew Campbell identified 3 developments from the previous decades as: 1) voluntary, community-based Landcare; 2) the evolution of a regional scale delivery model based on catchment management organisations; 3) and a more recent push for more evidence-based investment and reporting. Each is essential, Campbell says, and ideally the three approaches should proceed in parallel, reinforcing one another (2009, p31). And with respect to knowledge: Knowledge is central to natural resource management. Campbell identified it as one of three key ingredients for more sustainable management of natural resources – people need to know what to do and how to do it; they must want to do it; and they must be able to do it. (Ottesen, 2019) Ottesen points out that universities and R&D institutions help with the creation of knowledge but it needs to absorbed and Landcare can help with this task (p 16): By engaging and empowering communities, developing networks and relationships, Landcare moves beyond often- crude top down’ and linear diffusion of innovation and technology transfer theories. In the real world, where farmers are sometimes sceptical of government bureaucrats and scientists, more horizontal and community driven extension is more effective. (Ottesen p 17) But knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilisation are also complex functions. They do not take place in isolation. Campbell (1997) has written that Landcare helps cultivate ‘land literacy’ or ‘eco-literacy’ in Australia. But being able to keep or remember the ‘knowledge’ is a challenge and again, we see Landcare has a role: Landcare groups are adept at harnessing local expertise, in particular the expertise and knowledge of elders, facilitating information exchange and providing the structure for retaining memory. Through collaboration, inclusion and respect of Indigenous land managers and traditional landowners, Landcare also provides a platform for sharing knowledge between new and traditional land systems (Ottesen 2019, 18). In 1997, Anna Carr found that landholder groups, particularly those with a sense of community, a sense of place, a local knowledge system, and empowerment - were effective in information exchange (Carr 1997). Others have focussed more on the way in which Landcare seems to be a cultural movement or change. Stewart Lockie pointed to the shift from the individual landowner to communitarian approaches and the development of understandings of good farm and land use practices (Lockie,1999, 21). Ottesen says Curtis and De Lacy (1998) say Landcare ‘has mobilised community participation in natural resource management on an unparalleled scale in Australia and has been a catalyst for important changes in landholder awareness, understanding and behaviour’, despite being limited in its potential by ‘shoe-string’ funding (Curtis & De Lacy 1998). Ottesen asserts: It was the degradation of Australia’s natural capital ... that led to the creation of Landcare as a means to repair and better manage these resources ....This still constitutes the central purpose of Landcare, accompanied by the whole host of other benefits that are elucidated in this review. With more than half Australia’s landmass (51%) under the management of agricultural businesses, and even more under the management of private landholders, engaging and influencing private landholders’ practices is crucial in achieving NRM outcomes (ABS, 2018). Consequently, progress on NRM objectives demands cooperation and participation from landholders and communities. Community Landcare, with its networks of social capital and its knowledge dissemination faculties, provides the framework for achieving this (page 22). Ottesen goes on to provide more theory and a set of case studies to illustrate his findings. Ottesen’s review of the literature is detailed, long and very comprehensive. It is worth reading if one has time because it raises so many of the issues that have been investigated by researchers in the last few decades. There are not clear ‘answers’ to problems but lots of useful links to what should be in consideration when developing policies for Landcare. References Campbell, A. 1997, ‘Facilitating Landcare: conceptual and practical dilemmas’, in Critical Landcare, Ed. Stewart Lockie & Frank Vanclay, Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga NSW. Campbell, A. 2006, The Australian natural resource management knowledge system. Land & Water Australia, Canberra. Campbell, A. 2009, ‘It’s time to renew Landcare’, Agricultural Science, vol. 2, pp. 30 33. Carr, A. J. L., 1997, ‘Innovation of Diffusion: Information Exchange and Landholder Groups’, in Resource and Environmental Studies. No. 15. Curtis, A., and T. De Lacy 1998, ‘Landcare, stewardship and sustainable agriculture in Australia’, Environmental Values, Vol. 7, 59-78 Lockie,S. 1999, ‘Community Movements and Corporate Images: “Landcare” in Australia’, Rural Sociology, Vol. 64, 2, 219-233. Ottesen, H. 2019, The Value of Community Landcare: a Literature Review Prepared for the National Landcare Network (https://cdn.moble.com/w/2300/391839/file/The-Value-of-Landcare-A-Literature-Review-May-2019-FINAL-Low-Res.pdf) Putnam, R.D. 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York.