Collaborative Approaches and Instruments for the Spatial Management of Agricultural Pests

Abstract

Due to the mobility of many pest species, effective integrated pest management (IPM) requires spatial coordination of management actions. This paper examines how the consideration of spatial dynamics, spatially coordinated collaboration, and supportive policy instruments improve pest management in agricultural landscapes. We consider empirical studies that explore the effects of spatial structure and processes on pest dynamics; conceptual frameworks that address larger spatial scales, such as Area-Wide Pest Management (AWPM); and policy instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) that have an impact on the land use in agricultural landscapes. The aim is to highlight how these three pillars of effective pest management are interrelated. Challenges and approaches for the establishment of spatial collaboration in agricultural pest management are identified and avenues for future research are presented.

1. Introduction

Pest management is essential for sustainable agriculture and environmental health [1,2], yet the cross-boundary nature of pests and invasive species presents persistent challenges to ecosystems and economies worldwide. Area-wide Pest Management (AWPM) has emerged as a promising spatial approach to address these challenges by managing pest populations over large, defined areas to maintain them below economically damaging thresholds or, when possible, achieve eradication [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Unlike traditional pest control methods which focus on localized interventions within individual fields, AWPM employs coordinated, large-scale actions, such as synchronized spraying or habitat management, to optimize resource use and effectiveness [8]. While these strategies are often costly for individual farmers, collective implementation through farmer groups or organizations enhances their feasibility and cost-effectiveness [9,10].

Historically, pest control practices have evolved significantly. Conservation Biological Control (CBC) represents one of the earliest methods, dating back to ancient China, where bamboo poles were used to enhance predator ant activity in orchards [11]. Modern pest control advanced further with the introduction of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the late 1950s [12]. IPM considers all available pest control options and emphasizes sustainable practices that minimize pesticide use, protect human health, and preserve ecosystems [13,14].

The integration of spatial dynamics into pest management has proven particularly effective for pests that disperse across large areas. For example, Area-wide Integrated Pest Management (AW-IPM) combines top-down preventive strategies with localized interventions to manage pests like migratory insects and disease vectors [15]. Moreover, agricultural landscapes significantly influence pest dynamics, as the degree of fragmentation can affect pest distributions at local, national, and international levels [16,17]. Modelling tools such as metapopulation models are helpful tools for understanding these dynamics and identifying critical intervention points [18,19,20].

However, the management of invasive species and pests involves considerable social and economic challenges. The pests’ ability to cross property boundaries often results in uncoordinated responses and unforeseen costs, requiring cooperative solutions among landowners and other stakeholders [21,22]. The aim of such coordination is to develop an efficient management of both the pests and their natural enemies on the landscape scale, in order to minimise the spread of the pests and allow for sufficient movement of their natural enemies [23,24].

Both successful and unsuccessful examples of collaborative pest management have been reported in the literature, and knowledge is still missing on how collaboration and spatial coordination can be induced effectively to control agricultural pests on the landscape scale. To help fill this gap, this review provides an integrated view on three important pillars of landscape-scale pest management: spatial dynamics, collaborative frameworks, and the necessary conditions for collaboration to emerge. For the latter we distinguish between farmer-driven initiatives motivated by mutual benefits and those supported by agricultural and conservation policies. By collecting and synthesizing conclusions from ecological, agronomic, and economic studies, we highlight opportunities and challenges for effective spatial management of agricultural pests and, eventually, more sustainable use of agricultural landscapes.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the historical evolution of pest management strategies. Section 3 explores the role of spatial dynamics in pest control. Section 4 examines collaborative frameworks, followed by instruments facilitating collaboration in Section 5. Section 6 identifies challenges and presents recommendations for advancing spatial and collaborative pest management strategies.

2. Historical Development of Pest Control

At the very least, pest control is as old as agriculture, since there has always been a desire to protect plants from pests. In ancient Egypt, cats and rodents were used to control grain store pests as early as 3000 BC. In Europe, by approximately 500 AD, ferrets had been domesticated and employed as an early biological method of rodent control [25]. Innovative approaches, such as predator ants used for biological control in third-century China, further demonstrate the ingenuity of early agricultural societies [11,26].

The mid-1900s marked a turning point with the advent of synthetic pesticides like DDT, which offered unprecedented efficiency in pest extermination [27]. However, the overuse of these chemicals led to pesticide resistance and environmental harm, sparking ecological backlash and the search for sustainable alternatives [28]. In response, IPM emerged in the late 1950s as a balanced approach, combining cultural, biological, and mechanical techniques with minimal pesticide use [12]. In his 1957 work, Barnabás Nagy analyzed pesticide traits, emphasized the development of pest resistance, provided examples of integrated control practices, and advocated for an ecological approach to protecting plants, viewing damage in an ecologically motivated manner [29,30]. This shift laid the groundwork for today’s landscape perspective, in which pest pressure and natural-enemy regulation are understood as inherently spatial processes operating across fields and farms (cf. the following Section 3). Tools and methods have been developed in the past to monitor, understand and predict these processes (cf. Section 4.3), but the management of pests on the regional scale is still a challenge.

Building on traditional IPM [31] introduced the concept of Evolutionary Integrated Pest Management (Evolutionary IPM), which incorporates evolutionary dynamics into pest control strategies. Unlike conventional IPM, Evolutionary IPM focuses on long-term sustainability by addressing genetic changes in pest populations, such as resistance and adaptation.

Effective implementation of Evolutionary IPM relies on interdisciplinary research, funding, and stakeholder collaboration [31,32]. Communicating the importance of evolutionary perspectives to farmers and policymakers, while addressing the economic implications of pest management, is critical for its success. By integrating these aspects, Evolutionary IPM not only advances pest management practices but also enhances societal understanding of the importance of an evolutionary framework [31].

Sustainable pest management has a strong foundation thanks to the historical development of pest control, including IPM and its evolutionary advancements. However, the role of space in the dynamics of pests and their natural enemies is still underrated. In the following section, we will highlight spatial structure as a significant determinant of effective natural pest control. Key factors here are landscape structure, habitat connectivity, and dispersal of pests and enemies, requiring a landscape-level perspective.

3. The Role of Spatial Dynamics in Pest Control

Spatial aspects in pest management refer to the consideration of landscape structure, habitat distribution, and spatial dynamics of pest populations and their natural enemies [33,34,35]. Below we highlight the roles of spatial heterogeneity, semi-natural habitats and landscape connectivity for biological pest control.

3.1. Spatial Heterogeneity and Semi-Natural Habitats

Spatial heterogeneity, with its mix of crop and semi-natural habitats, supports biodiversity by providing resources for natural enemies like predators and parasitoids. Diverse landscapes enhance natural enemy populations, suppressing pests, with simplified landscapes, as caused by agricultural intensification, which negatively affects natural enemy populations and increases the rate of pest outbreaks [16,24,36,37,38].

Evidence from sweet-pepper greenhouse systems shows that adding structural complexity at the greenhouse edge—such as vegetated margins and diversified plantings—increases predator co-occurrence and improves hunting efficiency of predators, resulting in stronger pest suppression [39]. This suggests that small-scale habitat diversification adjacent to protected cropping can stabilize local natural-enemy populations and complement field-scale measures.

Semi-natural habitats, such as field margins, hedgerows, and woodlands, are integral to enhancing both spatial heterogeneity and landscape connectivity. While semi-natural habitats primarily contribute to spatial heterogeneity by diversifying the landscape, their secondary role in landscape connectivity is crucial for enabling the movement and persistence of natural enemies [36,40]. Thus, they are vital components for promoting both mentioned roles in pest management strategies. Non-crop habitats act as refuges for natural enemies, offering critical resources such as shelter, food, and breeding grounds [41,42]. In a similar vein, one study [43] argue that semi-natural habitats support the spatial spread of natural enemies, improving their ability to locate and suppress pests [43].

Hedgerows serve as overwintering sites and microhabitats for beneficial species such as spiders and beetles [44]. They also help mitigate extreme temperatures and shield against dominant winds during both summer and winter [45,46]. Similarly, banker plants and flowering strips provide refuge and food sources, especially during periods of agricultural disturbance, thereby supporting natural enemy populations [41,47].

3.2. Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity—the degree to which habitats are linked with each other—significantly influences pest dispersal and the efficiency of biological control methods [35,48]. The fragmentation of agricultural landscapes has an ambiguous effect on pest dynamics, serving both as a facilitator and a barrier. On the one hand, connected habitats facilitate the movement of natural enemies, improving their ability to locate and regulate pest populations [49,50,51]. Fragmented landscapes impede these movements, resulting in higher pest dispersal and outbreaks [52,53].

On the other hand, habitat fragmentation can restrict pest movement by limiting dispersal and access to resources, thereby slowing population spread [54]. Conversely, increased connectivity has been linked to the spread of invasive bullfrogs, which negatively impact native frog populations [55]. Whether habitat fragmentation is beneficial or harmful for pests depends on the spatial scale of the fragmentation and the dispersal rates and dispersal ranges of the pest and enemy species [38,56,57]. Effective pest management thus requires a careful consideration and weighing of the various effects of landscape connectivity on pests and their natural enemies.

Next to the ecological complexity, another challenge arises from the fact that the described ecological patterns and processes operate on spatial scales that often go beyond the scale of single land parcels or even farms [58,59]. Collaboration and spatial coordination between different farmers are thus required to effectively manage agricultural pests. The following section will provide an overview of concepts and examples of collaboration in pest management.

4. Collaborative Frameworks in Pest Management

4.1. Role of Collaboration in Pest Control Strategies

Collaboration in pest management involves the cooperative efforts of farmers, researchers, government agencies, NGOs, and private organizations to address pest-related challenges. Effective IPM often requires combining chemical, cultural, and biological strategies [60,61,62]. Collaborative efforts here enhance resource sharing, knowledge exchange, and adaptive co-management, allowing stakeholders to adjust practices based on real-time feedback and shifting conditions [62,63]. Additionally, collaboration supports policy and governance, promoting environmentally sustainable pest control methods [64]. The holistic nature of IPM requires the integration of different scientific disciplines, including entomology, ecology, and agronomy [65,66,67].

Collaboration in pest management promotes the exchange of key knowledge on pest behaviors, population dynamics, and control methods [68]. Stakeholders like farmers, researchers, and policymakers can make well-informed decisions by exchanging data, insights, and research [69]. Research indicates that better information distribution improves knowledge of pest cycles and trends, which results in more successful control measures [70,71,72].

Next to the better exchange of decision-relevant information, social learning increases farmers’ willingness to collaborate in the control of mobile pests [73,74]. An influential factor here is the type of learning source, which may include neighbors, family, and internet resources [73].

Lastly, collaboration can lead to better coordination of the land use of different farmers. Collaboration among farmers through peer pressure, technical training, program participation, and farmer-to-farmer cooperation has a positive impact on farmers’ pro-environmental behaviors [17,75]. The sharing of decision-making tools improves information exchange to facilitate the application of IPM techniques. Decision-making tools allow for well-informed pest control decisions through the use of risk algorithms, decision rules, and support systems [69].

4.2. Collaboration for Better Resource Allocation in Pest Management

Pooling resources—such as funding, expertise, and equipment—from various stakeholders (including growers, local governments, extension services, research institutions, pest-control companies, and community groups) enhances pest-control plans while reducing costs [76].

IPM best demonstrates this cooperative approach, which unites farmers, scientists and legislators to create and carry out efficient pest control strategies. Through the sharing of technology and knowledge, this partnership optimizes resource utilization and stimulates innovation [70,71]. Queensland fruit fly management represents an example where fruit growers combine resources to efficiently control pest populations [63]. Such collaboration has been shown to improve the effectiveness of pest control, decrease pesticide use and produce benefits shared by all parties, including decreased pest populations and better market access [64].

Organized frameworks that promote involvement and collaboration among stakeholders are necessary for the effective distribution of resources in pest management. Such frameworks facilitate the creation of customized pest management plans that tackle particular regional issues and enhance decision-making procedures. For example, researchers and community health centers in East Harlem, New York, collaborated in their application of IPM techniques to fight cockroach infestations. This partnership demonstrates the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of this approach by significantly reducing infestations through resource pooling and a focus on nonchemical pest control techniques [77].

4.3. Collaborative Approaches to Address the Spatiality of Pest Control

As discussed in Section 3, spatial structure and processes play a central role in pest dynamics and control. Uncoordinated, individual efforts often fail to address this, leading to management inefficiencies. Research indicates that voluntary initiatives frequently result in fragmented or ineffective coalitions, especially when stakeholders prioritize localized benefits over shared outcomes [78,79]. Addressing these challenges requires collaboration that integrates spatial considerations into pest management [80].

New technologies have been developed in the last two decades to support the collaborative management of pests, including tools for monitoring, data processing, and modelling, that help manage pests in an adaptive manner on large landscape scales [81]. High-resolution earth-observation data (e.g., Sentinel/Landsat) and parcel-level maps allow for the quantification of landscape structure (field size, edge density, semi-natural habitat) [82,83]. GIS and movement ecology (GPS/RFID tagging, mark–release–recapture) help reveal connectivity and dispersal of both pests and natural enemies [84,85,86].

Automated monitoring (smart traps, remote sensors) and citizen-science platforms improve the density of spatiotemporal data [87,88], while spatial statistics, network models, and agent-based simulations allow linking land-use patterns to pest dynamics and biological control [89,90,91]. Finally, artificial intelligence can help integrate all these facets, from data collection to decision making [92,93]. Together, these advances allow managers to design, implement and evaluate spatially coordinated strategies [94].

Spatial data serve as a critical enabler for coordinated efforts, offering stakeholders a shared platform for decision-making. By visualizing pest distributions and other environmental factors, stakeholders can better align pest control measures at local, regional, and even global scales. For instance, spatial agent-based models simulate interactions among farmers, pests, and natural predators under varying scenarios, improving adaptability to pest pressures [95,96].

A key framework for addressing the spatial dimension is AWPM. This approach emphasizes synchronized pest control actions over large areas, coordinated by farmer groups and other stakeholders. AWPM differs from traditional pest control methods by employing large-scale measures such as synchronized spraying or habitat management to optimize resource use and effectiveness [4]. Successful AWPM programs, such as those targeting the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae), highlight how collaboration among farmers, researchers, and policymakers can enhance efficiency and reduce environmental impact [97]. Similarly, spatial data systems and cooperative decision-making frameworks enable stakeholders to synchronize pest control measures, combining precision with efficiency [16,63,98,99].

Despite the advantages of collaborative approaches like AWPM, farmer-driven initiatives face significant challenges. One primary difficulty lies in pests’ ability to cross property boundaries, which demands coordinated responses across multiple stakeholders [70]. However, limited alignment of incentives and the voluntary nature of participation often hinder long-term collaboration.

Overcoming these challenges requires strategies that foster trust and mutual accountability. By aligning individual and collective benefits, collaborative pest management approaches can promote shared responsibilities and adaptive, resilient strategies [100]. Financial and logistical support from governments or regional organizations can further bridge gaps in participation, ensuring that collective actions deliver long-term ecological and economic benefits.

4.4. Governance of Collaboration

Collaboration among farmers (and other stakeholders) can emerge in a spontaneous, self-organized manner, without the influence of external forces, if it addresses shared challenges and generates mutual benefits and direct impacts on productivity or cost-efficiency [70]. Mutual benefits include, among other things, shared learning, resource pooling, and better coordination of pest control measures [63,101]. This form of bottom-up collaborative governance relies on defined roles, shared responsibilities, and participatory decision-making [102]. It improves the farmers’ capacity to solve problems collectively [70], which enhances trust and mutual accountability [103,104] and facilitates more adaptive, resilient and sustainable pest management rather than formal regulations.

However, to be successful on large spatial scales, pest management also requires robust policy frameworks. Governments and agencies can induce participation in collaborative initiatives by offering incentives like compensation or preferential treatment, ensuring that individual actions contribute to group benefits such as improved biodiversity and pest regulation [71]. Collaboration frameworks must also establish support networks that connect farmers to the resources and information they need, particularly in regions with limited access to advanced technologies [105,106].

Often, private interests stand against the interests of the group [107], so on the level of the individual farm, the costs of pest control may outweigh the benefits, while the opposite is observed at the community level [108]. Therefore, policies need to align private interests with the community’s benefits and help resolve conflicts of interest. Financial incentives tied to sustainability and profitability have been shown to increase participation in pest management initiatives, as they align short-term gains with long-term ecological resilience [108,109]. The following section will deal with such financial incentives in more detail.

4.5. Examples of Successful and Unsuccessful Governance of Collaboration

Collaborative approaches in pest control have demonstrated both successes and failures, with key factors influencing their outcomes. A prominent historical example of a successful community-wide IPM is the US Boll Weevil Eradication Program [110,111]. This program involved a joint effort among local, state, and federal governments and agencies, university and agency researchers, and cotton producers [110]. This collaborative mobilization led to the eradication of the boll weevil from 98% of its invasive range in the United States and significantly reduced insecticide use in cotton production.

In an applied modelling study, the author of [112] investigated the effectiveness of IPM strategies for controlling Septoria tritici blotch in wheat. The research indicates that in a multi-field setting, where a community of crop growers operates, a high proportion of growers implementing IPM can reduce the level of external infection for all growers in the system, including those who do not use IPM. This suggests a collective benefit arising from widespread IPM adoption within a community of farmers, even if not a formally structured collaborative program [112].

A recent review literature on IPM in orchards [113], noting that the widespread implementation of strategies like mating disruption has led to significant reductions in insecticide use (up to 90% in some regions) and improved fruit quality. The success of IPM in suppressing pests regionally, such as the codling moth in the Pacific Northwest, to the point where minimal intervention is needed, implies a broad, collective impact from numerous growers adopting these practices [113]. Economic assessments also show long-term cost savings for IPM adopters, further encouraging widespread adoption [113].

While, as demonstrated, collaborative pest management can be successful, various unsuccessful examples have been reported, too. One study [114], e.g., highlights that reliance on voluntary approaches for local cooperation can be problematic, particularly when the beneficiaries of pest control measures are not identical to those who are responsible for the spread of the pest and who would bear the costs of pest control, without benefitting from it [114]. This was observed in the context of industry-driven “area-wide management” (AWM) of fruit flies in Australia, where local horticulture industries were expected to lead initiatives to minimize crop damage. The study suggests that “smart regulation,” involving complementary policy instruments, offers a more prudent path forward when governments expect industry self-reliance but industry has limited influence over diffused risk contributors.

Similarly, voluntary strategies were implemented to slow the development of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera, which is a pest for the Australian cotton industry. However, insecticide resistance continued to develop [115]. The introduction of genetically modified cotton and subsequent mandatory resistance management plans necessitated a shift from individual field or farm-level pest control to a coordinated, area-wide landscape approach [116].

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the effective control of invasive insect pests is negatively impacted by the uncoordinated deployment of management measures and insufficient funding, indicating a failure in collaborative resource allocation and strategic planning [116]. This challenge is further compounded in Southern Africa, where a lack of locally-developed packages constrains the adoption of IPM, insufficient understanding and appreciation of IPM concepts among stakeholders, limited alternatives to chemical control, a scarcity of knowledge regarding biocontrol, and inadequate research expertise and funding [117].

Altogether, economic constraints, missing economic incentives, a too heavy reliance on voluntary approaches, a lack of technical knowledge, regulatory barriers, and limited collaboration between developed and developing nations in IPM research impede collaborative efforts in pest management [118,119].

Concluding this section, due to their mobility, many pests can only be managed on the landscape scale, which extends the scale of single farms and fields. Such landscape management requires the collaboration and coordination of multiple stakeholders, particularly multiple farmers. Collaboration between different actors generally hinges on mutual trust and accountability. In addition, pest management on the landscape scale requires data and knowledge on the spatial dynamics of the pests. The provision of the necessary data and knowledge can be supported by new monitoring and modelling technologies but remains challenging, particularly when funds are limited. Another common obstacle to collaboration is that the beneficiaries of pest control are not necessarily the ones who are bearing its costs. Education and financial incentives may bridge that gap and help induce spatial collaboration.

5. Instruments That Induce Collaboration

5.1. Economic Instruments for Biodiversity Conservation

Economic instruments, such as Agri-Environmental Schemes (AESs) and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PESs), are widely used tools to initiate biodiversity conservation by compensating landholders for adopting environmentally sustainable practices. Despite the differing contexts, biodiversity conservation instruments and instruments for pest management share some design principles and implementation challenges. In this section, we review the literature on biodiversity conservation payments, with a focus on the establishment of spatial coordination, to draw lessons for the design of incentives for spatial collaboration in pest management.

AESs represent a cornerstone of US and European biodiversity conservation policy. They provide financial incentives for farmers to implement practices that support biodiversity, such as maintaining wildlife habitats, preserving wetlands, and reducing agrochemicals [120,121]. AESs typically involve individual contracts where participants are compensated for specific conservation actions, such as managing hedgerows or creating pollinator-friendly areas [122,123]. However, AESs have been critiqued for insufficient ecological outcomes [124,125]. They often achieve localized benefits but struggle to create broader ecological impacts, such as habitat connectivity, highlighting the need for innovative designs that foster spatial coordination [126,127]. These limitations resonate with challenges in pest control, where isolated actions often fail to achieve coordinated suppression at the landscape scale.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PESs), on the other hand, encompass a broader range of contexts, from agricultural landscapes to forests, wetlands and fisheries [128,129,130,131,132]. PES programs provide direct financial rewards to landholders for maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services, such as climate regulation (e.g., carbon storage in soils), water purification, and biodiversity preservation [129,130]. These schemes often involve clearly defined ecological outcomes, such as preserving forest cover or restoring wetlands, and are sometimes supported by private-sector funding. Similarly, pest control schemes could benefit from adopting PES-style mechanisms that reward landholders for actions that reduce pest pressures, such as habitat management, biological control, or reduced pesticide use.

Both AESs and PESs face challenges related to their design and implementation. One significant limitation is their reliance on individual-level agreements, which can lead to fragmented conservation efforts and diminished outcomes at the landscape scale [133,134]. This insight is equally critical for pest control instruments, where coordinated and collective action is often essential to achieve lasting effectiveness.

5.2. Instruments for Collective Action and Coordination Incentives

As argued above, a limitation of traditional economic instruments like AESs and PESs is their focus on individual-level agreements, which can result in fragmented conservation outcomes. To address this deficiency, researchers and policymakers have explored mechanisms to incorporate collaboration into these frameworks and enhance their effectiveness at larger spatial scales.

Efforts to introduce collaborative approaches into standard AESs and PESs exist. For example, study of [135], highlights strategies for embedding collective action into PES frameworks by structuring payments to encourage group-level participation. Studies of environmental cooperatives in the Netherlands provide compelling evidence of how collective action can enhance the effectiveness of AESs [136]. These cooperatives facilitate shared conservation goals, such as restoring habitat corridors and improving water quality, by leveraging local knowledge and fostering interpersonal and institutional trust among participants [123,137,138]. In the UK, too, there are discussions about a shift towards collaborative agri-environmental policy, arguing that cooperation between landowners is essential for the effective delivery of public goods [139]. By fostering these collaborative networks, policymakers can create more robust and inclusive environmental management strategies in line with the objectives of PESs and AESs.

Research highlights the critical role of trust in enabling successful collective action. According to [137], interpersonal trust among farmers and institutional trust in governance frameworks, as well as the interaction between these two, is essential for sustaining long-term collaborative agri-environmental management. In line with this, study of [136] examine the motivations of farmers in Dutch agricultural collectives and find that both social cohesion and perceived institutional support significantly influence participation in collective AESs.

In the above approaches, payments are offered to a group of farmers, so-called “group payments”. Alternatively, cooperation can be induced by making the individual farmer’s payment depend on both their own actions and those of neighboring farmers. These approaches are subsumed under the label “coordination incentives” [140]. The most popular example of a coordination incentive is the agglomeration bonus by [141]. In addition to a spatially homogenous base payment, a conserved land parcel earns a bonus for each conserved land parcel in the neighborhood [141,142]. Inducing the spatial coordination of costly management measures is challenging, since coordination problems involve several Nash equilibria [143]. Both the coordinated state(s) and the uncoordinated state(s) are stable in the sense that an actor leaving the respective state incurs a profit loss. The problem is that the Pareto-optimal coordinated state involves an increased risk of profit loss (if the others decide not to coordinate), so that risk-averse actors will gather in the uncoordinated state(s) [144,145,146].

The best-known practical implementation of the agglomeration bonus idea is the Swiss Network Bonus. In line with theoretical analyses of the agglomeration bonus, such as [126,147] find in a qualitative analysis that the Swiss Network Bonus is more costly but leads to a higher level of habitat connectivity than classical homogenous payments. Like the group-based payments above, the scheme facilitates learning and communication among farmers. The econometric study of [148] supports the results of [147] that the conservation costs are an important driver of farmer participation in the Swiss Network Bonus, while habitat connectivity is enhanced. Indirectly, spatial coordination can be induced by performance-based payments [149] if the ecological performance of conservation measures depends on the presence of conservation activities in the neighborhood. Such a spatial interdependence can, e.g., arise if the result-based payment is tied to the presence of a mobile species with a limited dispersal range, because here the presence of the species (and the payment) is more likely on conserved land that is close to sites on which the species is already present [150].

5.3. Policy Instruments, Collaboration, and Pest Control

As argued in the previous sections, the effectiveness of pest management is enhanced by the spatial collaboration between the farmers, which often requires sufficient financial incentives. This interface between policy instruments, spatial collaboration and pest management is increasingly recognized as a relevant research field. Recent studies highlight the need for integrated approaches that incorporate these elements. For example, [71] emphasizes that well-structured policy instruments can enhance collaboration between stakeholders, which is essential for preventing disease and pest outbreaks. Their findings suggest that coordinated action across sectors is crucial for effective pest management [71].

Building on these insights, [151] further emphasize the role of collaboration by highlighting the complex dynamics of cooperation, competition and conflict between governments, pesticide companies and farmers in regulating pesticide use. The authors’ game-theoretic analysis points to the relevance of governmental supervision, adequate financial incentives, and penalties for non-compliance for the establishment of cooperation among farmers.

Despite these advances, there remains a significant gap in comprehensive research on how policy instruments can effectively promote collaboration for improved pest management [152]. This gap provides an opportunity for future studies to explore integrated policy frameworks that facilitate collaborative pest management efforts.

To summarize, the necessity to collaborate and coordinate actions in space does not only arise in agricultural pest management but also in other problems of environmental management in which processes cross the scales of individual farms or fields. In agricultural landscapes, the conservation of biodiversity (as well as environmental protection in general) is often induced by financial incentives, such as AESs and PESs. These schemes generally suffer from the same problem as pest management strategies: they generally focus on individual farms, limiting their ecological effectiveness and ecological-economic efficiency. Landscape-scale biodiversity conservation policies are therefore gaining attention, which include group payments (where a payment is offered to a group of farmers who are willing to achieve an environmental target on the landscape scale) and coordination incentives (where field-level payments are accompanied by additional payments that depend on the actions of neighboring farmers). Adopting these ideas may also improve collaborative pest management.

6. Challenges and Ways Forward

To address the ambiguous role of habitat fragmentation mentioned in Section 3.2 a thorough understanding of the spatio-temporal dynamics of the predator-pest system is necessary, as is the development of spatially and temporally targeted interventions [51]. A promising solution lies in enhancing landscape complexity through the conservation of semi-natural habitats, which not only enhances biodiversity but also strengthens the efficiency of natural pest control [50,85,153].

Landscape fragmentation is largely driven by agricultural intensification. Practices such as monoculture, mechanization and the conversion of semi-natural habitats to cropland significantly affect landscape connectivity and reduce the available habitats for natural enemies and other beneficial organisms [40]. Intensified farming systems that prioritize short-term yields further exacerbate habitat loss and reduce landscape heterogeneity–key elements necessary for sustainable pest management [50,154].

To mitigate these negative effects, an extensification (i.e., a shift toward more extensive, lower-input management) and diversification of agroecological practices are required to improve the functionality of agroecosystems and the ability of these systems to control agricultural pests [155]. The farmers are the key players here, determining the structure and dynamics of agricultural landscapes [156], which affects the risk of pest outbreaks as well as the ability of natural enemies to control pests. While economic pressures such as labor costs often drive farmers to the adoption of intensive practices [157], suitable agricultural policies can reverse these changes. Variety of interventions exist, ranging from education and capacity building via improved access to essential tools and technologies to financial incentives for environmentally friendly land use, that facilitate the transition towards sustainable agriculture and more effective control of agricultural pests [158,159]. IPM includes physical/mechanical techniques, biological control, host plant resistance, and cultural practices [160]. However, the successful implementation of IPM requires increased training of farmers, collaboration between the public and private sectors, and informed decision-making [160].

A major challenge here is that the population dynamics of pests and their natural enemies generally encompass spatial scales that go far beyond those of single agricultural fields, or even farms. This implies that the management of agricultural pests is not a (relatively simple) control problem of a single decision-maker but requires the collaboration of many farmers. Area-wide pest management is a concept that emphasizes the significance of coordinated action across landscapes [3,161].

However, there are many obstacles that impede collaboration. These include, e.g., limited ecological knowledge, competing interests, mistrust, and an uneven distribution of the costs and benefits of pest control measures [162]. Overcoming these obstacles requires the building of trust via fair benefit-sharing, participatory governance, and robust social networks [163,164]. In addition, policies and instruments such as agri-environmental schemes and payments for ecosystem services need to be extended so that they address not only the local but also the landscape scale.

Current agricultural policies and payment schemes often overlook the importance of (spatially) coordinated action for managing pests on large spatial scales, resulting in inadequate pest control [165]. Invasive species management provides a stark example, as uncoordinated efforts frequently fail due to recolonization from neighboring areas [166]. In regions requiring multi-stakeholder collaboration, existing payment schemes may exacerbate conflicts, as they do not account for spatially explicit factors, such as dispersal corridors and pest hotspots [71,151,167]. A move toward landscape-scale design is advised to increase the efficacy of policies, encouraging farmers to pursue collective actions and put ecologically based spatial planning into practice [164].

Collective payments and coordination incentives are increasingly discussed and applied to induce collaboration among farmers. Sharing the same general philosophy, the two approaches differ in the incentive structure, so that collective payments are offered to a whole group of farmers [140], while coordination incentives represent payments to individual farmers [140].

While both approaches are promising, research and applications are, so far, almost only found in the field of biodiversity conservation. Only a few exceptions exist, including, e.g., [71,151], who present research and applications in the field of pest control. A substantial gap thus exists here, which opens a wide range of opportunities of research and policy development. While the necessity for collaboration in pest management is common knowledge, awareness needs to be developed about the necessity of concepts and instruments that are able to induce such collaboration. We hope that the present review can contribute to this development.

Table 1. Challenges and ways forward for collaborative, landscape-level pest management.

Challenge	Why it Matters	Ways Forward (from This Review)	Policy/Instrument Examples
Ambiguous effects of fragmentation	Both can hinder enemies and slow pests; outcomes are scale-dependent	Use spatio-temporal diagnostics; design spatially & temporally targeted interventions; enhance landscape complexity via semi-natural elements	IPM planning with habitat conservation; targeted habitat placement
Agricultural intensification	Reduces connectivity and habitat for natural enemies	Extensification (lower-input, more extensive management) and diversification of agroecological practices	Support for hedgerows, margins, diversified rotations
Scale mismatch (beyond single fields/farms)	Pest/enemy dynamics operate across parcels → individual action underperforms	Area-Wide Pest Management (AWPM); organize actions at block/landscape scale; farmer collaboration	Coordinated spraying/biocontrol windows; block planning
Knowledge, trust, and competing interests	Low ecological knowledge and mistrust impede cooperation	Participatory governance, capacity building, social learning, fair benefit-sharing	Training/extension; farmer groups/cooperatives
Uneven costs & benefits	Edge parcels bear higher costs; spillovers create free-riding	Collective payments; coordination incentives; adjust payments for spatial roles (e.g., edges/corridors)	AES/PES with group contracts; agglomeration/contiguity bonuses
Policies not scaled to space	Local contracts overlook corridors and pest hotspots, allowing pests to move back into treated areas	Landscape-scale policy design that targets corridors & hotspots; align incentives across neighbors	Landscape-aware AESs/PESs; spatial targeting criteria
Implementation & uptake	Good concepts, limited pest-control applications so far	Pilot programs; farmer participation; track outcomes; adapt and improve methods

summarizes the associated challenges and (potential) solutions. To conclude, while the necessity for collaboration in pest management is common knowledge, awareness needs to be developed about the necessity of concepts and instruments that are able to induce such collaboration. We hope that the present review can contribute to this development.