The incident command system and invasive species control: evidence for its utility in long-term, routine applications

The incident command system and invasive species control: evidence for its utility in long-term, routine applications | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The incident command system and invasive species control: evidence for its utility in long-term, routine applications Keith Carlisle, Megan Cross This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Responses to biological invasions often require collaboration among actors with differing levels of capacity and varying internal constraints. The use of formal coordination mechanisms or organizational frameworks, such as the incident command system (ICS), may improve responders’ efficacy. This study employed qualitative methods to examine use of the ICS in a long-term initiative to eliminate invasive wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ) in Missouri, US. Our objectives included identifying how responders perceived the benefits, challenges, and overall performance of the ICS. There was consensus that the ongoing initiative achieved substantial progress in wild pig removals and that the ICS was essential to the initiative’s efficacy. In addition to improving interagency coordination and communication, responders reported that the ICS enhanced accountability, created unity in purpose and approach, increased overall capacity through the pooling of resources, and helped them realize efficiencies and strategic advantages through specialization of roles. Reported challenges were minimal, the primary one being initial difficulties in understanding and adjusting to certain elements of the ICS paradigm, such as reporting lines that included individuals from multiple agencies. While the ICS is typically associated with short-term (months-long) responses to emergencies, responders in Missouri continued to operate under the ICS more than five years after its adoption, reflecting both the long-term nature of their objective as well as perceived advantages associated with the ICS. This study suggests possibilities for wider ICS usage, particularly in longer-term, routine invasive species applications. collaboration feral swine incident command system invasive species management network governance wild pigs Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION It is an oft-repeated truism that invasive species do not respect borders or boundaries. As this suggests, responsibility for controlling a biological invasion frequently falls beyond the management authority of any single government agency (Lien et al. 2021 ; Abeysinghe et al 2023 ). This presents difficult governance and management challenges, often requiring collaboration among multiple agencies and actors with differing levels of capacity and varying constraints from internal procedures and mandates (Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010 ; Lien et al. 2021 ). The complexity inherent in conducting an effective multiorganizational response to a biological invasion points to the importance of coordination – i.e., the use of processes or mechanisms to align the actions of multiple actors to reach a shared goal (see Gulati et al. 2012 ). In addition to improving alignment, effective coordination can substantially remediate a common cause of failure of on-the-ground response efforts: insufficient resources and capacity (Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2017 ). Recognizing that responders to biological invasions benefit from formal coordination strategies, a task team assembled to advise the US National Invasive Species Council (NISC) on federal-state coordination recommended that agencies use an organizational structure to facilitate multilevel coordination (Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2017 ). This paper examines evidence for the utility of one such structure, the incident command system (ICS), in a long-term initiative to eliminate invasive wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ) in Missouri, US. The Incident Command System The ICS is a highly centralized, top-down, command-and-control management framework developed in California in the 1970s to facilitate coordination among agencies responding to wildfires (Cole 2000 ; Nowell and Steelman 2019 ). It was subsequently adopted by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of its National Incident Management System and is now used throughout government for responses to emergency incidents (Burgiel 2020 ). Typically, the incidents for which an ICS is used are time-limited, involve threat and uncertainty, and require a rapid, coordinated response (Moynihan 2008 ). The standard ICS structure centralizes authority in a single incident commander who directs multiple organizations engaged in the functional areas of operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration (Moynihan 2008 ). For incidents involving multiple jurisdictions, a unified command may be employed, in which case authority is centralized in two or more incident commanders representing critical jurisdictions or agencies (Nowell and Steelman 2019 ). As Buck et al. ( 2006 ) noted, there are several versions of the ICS, but they all share certain key characteristics. They include, among other things, a structured chain of command in which each individual performs a clearly defined job and reports to a single supervisor who may be affiliated with a different agency (Buck et al. 2006 ). Another ICS characteristic is congruence between the size and complexity of the ICS and the incident (Buck et al. 2006 ). As this implies, one of the principles of the ICS is flexibility (FEMA 2017 ). The functional elements or modules of the ICS are intended to be used only as necessary or advantageous, allowing incident commanders to adapt the structure as appropriate (Cole 2000 ; Nowell and Steelman 2019 ). Among ICS practitioners, judgments about the utility of the ICS have been overwhelmingly positive (Buck et al. 2006 ). In addition to facilitating coordination, proponents have suggested it creates efficiencies by leveraging each organization’s relative strengths, eliminating redundancies, and preventing organizations from working at cross purposes (Cole 2000 ; Buck et al. 2006 ). ICS practitioners have acknowledged, however, that there can be challenges in communicating key principles and terminology to individuals unfamiliar with the ICS – particularly those outside the firefighting community (Cole 2000 ). In other words, the learning curve can be steep for the uninitiated. Although responses to biological invasions may not represent the most common or typical use of the ICS, its adoption in this context is far from unprecedented. For example, the ICS has been used to control mountain pine beetles ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) in Colorado (Abrams et al. 2017 ), brown tree snakes ( Boiga irregularis ) in Guam (Yackel Adams et al. 2018 ), and zebra mussels ( Dreissena polymorpha ) and quagga mussels ( Dreissena rostriformis bugensis ) off the coast of Oregon (Draheim et al. 2013 ). Moreover, the ICS was endorsed for use in responses to invasive species by the Executive Director of NISC (Burgiel 2020 ). The NISC official noted that while the ICS is especially appropriate for complex invasive species scenarios with temporal constraints, it has also been used in more routine invasive species applications (Burgiel 2020 ). From our review of the literature, however, it is unclear whether any routine applications have involved long-term (i.e., multiyear) use of the ICS. Abrams et al. ( 2017 ), which examined a response to a mountain pine beetle invasion in Colorado, noted, “By its very nature, the incident command approach emphasizes short-term action. Participants indicated that questions of longer-term forest management or other activities were left to be dealt with outside of this structure” (p. 7). In fact, we were unable to find any studies in the published literature that examined a continuously operating, multiyear ICS in any context, much less an invasive species context. Our study addresses this gap through an examination of an ICS that has been continuously operating in the US state of Missouri for more than five years in pursuit of invasive wild pig ( Sus scrofa ) elimination. Study Background Wild pigs, also known as feral hogs, feral swine, and wild boar, are a nonnative species in the United States that cause extensive damage to property, agriculture, and ecosystems and serve as vectors for pathogens transmissible to both humans and animals (Bevins et al. 2014 ; Carlisle et al. 2021 ). In recent decades, the US wild pig population and area of distribution expanded significantly, and there are now at least 6 million wild pigs in the United States across 32 US states and three US territories (Corn and Jordan 2017 ; USDA-APHIS 2025 ). While the species’ adaptability and high fecundity have contributed to population expansion, another driver has been translocation of the animals by humans into uninvaded areas for sport hunting purposes (Bevins et al. 2014 ; Grady et al. 2019; Smyser et al. 2024 ). In Missouri, wild pigs have been present since at least the early 20th Century, but they became more common and widespread in the 1990s when the growing popularity of wild pig hunting incentivized breeding and release of the animals (Hartin and Hutton 2007 ). Although there are no reliable estimates for the wild pig population size in Missouri, the US Department of Agriculture’s National Feral Swine Damage Management Program assigned an intermediate funding level to Missouri in 2014 based on a rough population estimate of between 10,000 and 100,000 wild pigs in the state. While no US state with a wild pig population as large as Missouri’s has successfully eliminated wild pigs, 11 state and federal agencies in Missouri formed the Missouri Feral Hog Elimination Partnership (the “Partnership”) in 2017 with the goal of statewide wild pig elimination. They were subsequently joined by several nongovernmental organizations in the agriculture and conservation mission spaces. After securing a series of policy-related wins, a subset of Partnership members adopted the ICS framework in January 2020 and have continued to operate under it through the date of this study. Research Objectives We conducted an exploratory study to understand the function and performance of the Partnership’s ICS. Our specific research objectives were to (i) determine Partnership members’ motivation(s) for adopting the ICS; (ii) identify and describe the Partnership’s ICS structure or form; (iii) evaluate the Partnership’s performance, in particular the specific contributions or benefits of the ICS identified by Partnership members; and (iv) identify any challenges associated with use of the ICS. We were aware before embarking on this research that Missouri, through the efforts of the Partnership, had gained a reputation as being especially effective in its wild pig control efforts compared to other states (Ellis et al. 2022). However, our aim in this study was to understand the contribution of the ICS towards the Partnership’s progress, as perceived by Partnership members. METHODS Data Collection We used a case study approach (Yin 2003) to gain in-depth understanding of Partnership members’ perspectives concerning the ICS. Our data collection methods consisted of semi-structured interviews, observation, and document analysis. In drawing our sample for interviews, our goal was to include individuals from across the range of government agencies and nongovernmental organizations that were active in the Partnership. To identify such individuals, we relied on a key informant affiliated with an agency that participated in the Partnership. We interviewed 37 individuals between July 2023 and November 2023, at which point we reached data saturation (Saunders et al. 2018 ). Participants represented the following organizations: Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) (12 individuals), USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services-Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) (8), US Forest Service (USFS) (5), US Fish and Wildlife Service (2), US Army Corps of Engineers (1), Fort Leonard Wood US Army Training Installation (1), Missouri Department of Agriculture (1), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1), The Nature Conservancy (1), L-A-D Foundation (1), Missouri Farm Bureau (1), University of Missouri Extension (1), National Park Service (NPS) (1), and Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation (1). The interviews, which were audio recorded and lasted between 45 minutes and two hours, were tailored to each participant’s position, experience, and role in the Partnership. Across all interviews, topics included (i) goals of the Partnership and the participant’s organization, (ii) motivations for forming the ICS, (iii) functions of the Partnership and the ICS, (iv) evaluations of the Partnership’s performance and contribution of the ICS towards outcomes; (v) keys to performance; and (vi) prior and future challenges. We triangulated interview data with analysis of documents, including management plans, memoranda of understanding, meeting minutes, laws, and regulations. This enabled us to verify dates, discussions, and other details learned in interviews, and it also allowed us to gain insights into governance and management activities. Finally, we attended a meeting of the Partnership in Jefferson City, Missouri on July 11, 2023, which allowed us to observe dynamics and interactions among members and to understand topics of interest and concern. Data Analysis We generated verbatim transcriptions of interview recordings, and we uploaded all transcripts into QSR NVivo version 12 qualitative analysis software for thematic coding and interpretive analysis by the first author (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Prior to analysis, we developed codes corresponding to themes of interest, such as motivations for the ICS, evaluations of performance, and keys to performance. As new and relevant themes emerged during analysis, the first author created additional codes to capture emergent themes. By combining inductive and deductive coding approaches, we remained open to new insights that emerged during data analysis. RESULTS Motivation for Forming the ICS The Partnership’s adoption of the ICS largely resulted from one of its most consequential accomplishments: the closure of public lands in Missouri to wild pig hunting. According to participants, recreational wild pig hunting impeded the Partnership’s elimination efforts in at least two respects. First, the growing popularity of the activity in Missouri generated incentives for hunters to transport and release the animals in uninvaded areas to hunt. Second, hunting activities caused wild pigs to become warier and more scattered, making it more challenging to trap entire sounders (wild pig social groups). The failure to capture an entire sounder in a single attempt could result in trap-shy wild pigs that were much more difficult to remove. Between 2016 and 2019, individual Partnership members closed lands under their control to wild pig hunting unless incidental to deer or turkey hunting. One of the last members to do so was the USFS on the Mark Twain National Forest, a 1.5-million-acre forest in southern Missouri that was popular with wild pig hunters. As anticipated, the closure of the Mark Twain National Forest to wild pig hunting in December 2019 generated conflict and resulted in blowback from hunters and political actors. Consequently, Partnership members felt pressure to demonstrate quick and meaningful results in the Mark Twain and across the entire invaded area of the state to justify the hunting closure. MDC and USDA-WS, the two agencies primarily responsible for trapping and other operational activities, hired a stable of full-time, dedicated wild pig trappers and aerial operations specialists. The agencies recognized, however, that they also needed to improve cross-organization coordination. As one participant recalled: The idea of creating the incident command structure came about … to coordinate all this additional staff and all this additional effort and make it more of … a formal way for staff who don't work for the same agencies to take instruction from somebody who works for a different agency. Although the wild pig invasion in Missouri did not constitute the sort of time-limited emergency typically associated with the ICS, the agencies’ leadership felt that their need to ramp up wild pig removal efforts over a relatively short period of time justified its usage. As one participant in a leadership position explained: We felt we needed to deploy a substantial amount of resources in a very short period of time to prove that we could significantly alter the population and that elimination was possible. … From an emergency standpoint, most would say no, it wasn’t an emergency in a normal way we would define an emergency, but for us, it was in terms of being able to sustain momentum on the effort and … make it through this critical kind of 18- to 24-month timeframe. To confirm that the ICS was an appropriate management structure for coordinating an operational response to wild pigs, representatives of MDC, USDA-WS, and USFS consulted the USFS-National Incident Management Organization, which determined the situation was suitable for the ICS. The three agencies then implemented the ICS in January 2020, one month after the Mark Twain National Forest wild pig hunting closure. The broader Partnership continued to function and hold meetings (e.g., to share information and maintain support for the mission), but on-the-ground operational activities and landowner outreach were assumed by the ICS members. The Partnership’s ICS Structure The Partnership’s ICS represented a unified ICS comprising incident commanders from the three agencies that were most integral to operational activities: MDC and USDA-WS, which were primarily responsible for the Partnership’s wild pig removal operations, and USFS, which controlled the strategically important Mark Twain National Forest. Consistent with the ICS paradigm, individuals in the ICS performed a single job, and they followed a structured chain of command, reporting to a single supervisor who was not necessarily from the same agency. The Partnership’s initial ICS structure included functional areas for operations, planning, and logistics, but it was reconfigured at least three times, with the iteration in place at the time of this research no longer having a separate planning area (Fig. 1 ). As one participant explained: What we ended up doing is using the pieces of the incident command that fit for what we were trying to do and then, maybe not necessarily using the parts that didn't really fit with what we needed. … the incident command structure looked completely different when we started than what it looks like today. … I think the key with the Partnership and especially with the incident command is self-evaluation and then not being afraid to make changes to make ourselves more efficient or effective. The adaptability of the ICS was highlighted by another participant who told us, “It's supposed to expand and contract based on your needs. It's a perfect system really … it's always changing, it's always dynamic. If you can't be flexible, it's going to make it very difficult.” At the time of this research, the bulk of the ICS was organized under the operations functional area, which comprised all wild pig elimination activities (trapping and aerial operations), law enforcement, and landowner outreach. The much smaller logistics functional area included a supply unit leader and a facilities unit leader. For ground activities, the agencies created five geographic districts of strike teams, nested under the southeast and southwest branch directors, that collectively encompassed the entire invaded area of the state. In addition, landowner outreach was conducted by four full-time specialists employed by University of Missouri Extension with funding secured by the Partnership through a federal grant. Performance Participants consistently characterized the Partnership, including the ICS, as very effective, and they typically cited the hunting closures, legislative changes (strengthening the prohibition on translocation of wild pigs), and adoption of the ICS as critical to enabling its accomplishments. With regard to the ICS component of the Partnership in particular, evaluations of its effectiveness were generally based on improvements in landowner outreach and success in reducing wild pig numbers and wild pig presence in previously invaded areas (Fig. 2 ). According to a USFS memorandum, in the year following the ban on wild pig hunting in the Mark Twain National Forest and the adoption of the ICS, the number of wild pigs trapped in the Mark Twain increased 236 percent as compared to the prior year. Wild pigs were also eliminated by the ICS in one of its five geographic districts, and participants reported that densities were greatly reduced in the others. Moreover, a 2021 Partnership report detailed a nearly 50 percent reduction in the number of watersheds occupied by wild pigs. With this progress, one participant characterized the Partnership as “10 years ahead” of where its members thought they would be when they initially formed the Partnership. Participants recognized, however, that statewide elimination was an ambitious longer-term goal, and it would become increasingly more challenging to locate and remove remaining clusters of wild pigs. For this reason, participants generally viewed the ICS as a long-term mechanism for supporting their needs. As one participant told us: I think ICS can be applicable even on an incident that goes decades, and the reason why is because so many of the factors that contribute to effective elimination of feral hogs may take, you know, several years to get accomplished, whether it's legislation, landowner contacts, landowner trust, and support … it takes a long time. Another participant added: We still operate as incident command, and I think it's important because when you have multiple agencies trying to work together and pull the same direction, you’ve got to have some mechanism so that you're communicating and you're transparent with each other and … self-evaluation is going on as a group, not just as an agency. Thus, participants viewed the ICS as essential not only to the progress they had made, but also to the success of their continuing efforts. Benefits Attributed to the ICS Coordination and Communication One of the most commonly cited benefits of the ICS was that it improved coordination and communication, which was the primary motivation for adopting the ICS. As one participant explained, “[The ICS] allows for efficiency. You're not trapping next door to each other and you have better communication up and down the chain. Everybody's working together instead of maybe working against each other.” According to multiple participants, having clearly defined roles and integrated chains of command (i.e., reporting lines that included both MDC and USDA-WS personnel) greatly improved interagency communication and coordination. The agencies also leveraged a shared application, ArcGIS Field Maps, for collection and mapping of data, such as site visits, bait sites, and wild pig presence. As one participant told us, “We could see where other people were working, see where they were baiting, see where they were trapping, etc.” This enabled a more coordinated and systematic approach to the placement and baiting of traps and other operational activities. Uniformity Relatedly, the ICS promoted greater uniformity in the agencies’ operational approaches. A participant who oversaw a portion of the ICS’ ground operations explained that this was especially important given that wild pigs were dispersed across a large region of the state: Feral hogs occur across the state on not only public but private land. And not only just Missouri Department of Conservation lands, but USDA Forest Service lands. They occur everywhere. So, in order to be more efficient, we had to get everybody where feral hogs occurred thinking about feral hogs in the same way. And the incident command structure provided for that. There's no real lines of separation between agencies in an incident and that really did help us operationally in the field. Uniformity of purpose also largely eliminated any sense of territoriality among agency trappers concerning the lands where they historically trapped. As one participant relayed, “As far as really true coordination, it wasn't occurring [prior to the ICS], and as a result of that, there was a lot of duplication of effort … [and] turf consciousness.” Another participant echoed that sentiment, explaining, “Before the ICS, we'd have many people doing the same task and just on the same group of pigs, you know, across the fence lines.” Working together under the ICS eliminated agency boundaries and imparted a shared sense of purpose. As one participant concluded, “[the ICS] fostered a community. And really, it was all about one goal, eradicating feral pigs and whatever the best method was for that.” Sharing and Distribution of Resources Operating under the ICS also facilitated the pooling of resources among the agencies. The agencies did not maintain a shared account of money, but they commonly shared supplies with one another, as described by a participant: We all have our own resources, but we generally pool them. Like if MDC needs ammo, they're having a hard time getting ammo, we'll go get the ammo and give them the ammo. We need corn. MDC can get corn … Different partners will step in and fill in gaps where it's needed. In addition, the logistics functional area of the ICS simplified procurement and distribution of supplies. Prior to ICS adoption, each agency independently sourced its supplies, resulting in duplication of effort. The ICS, however, streamlined this process, as relayed by another participant: If you were an MDC trapper, prior to establishing our ICS structure, you had to worry about where you're going to get corn at. If you were a [USDA-WS] trapper, you had to worry about where you're going to get corn at and ordering corn and picking up corn … There was this duplication of effort, you know, versus when we stood up our ICS structure, we have one person that's in charge of logistics, they're responsible for getting corn. Their job is to provide the resources that our trappers need on the ground. So trappers need to focus on trapping and pigs. They don't need to worry about getting AA batteries and trail cameras and corn and things like that. The centralization of logistical support within the ICS allowed trappers to maintain singular focus on their area of expertise: trapping and removing wild pigs. Together with the pooling of resources, it also created efficiencies and increased the agencies’ overall capacity for operational activities Specialization As the previous discussion of logistical support suggests, another benefit of the ICS was that it allowed for creation of specialized jobs or roles. According to a participant: One of the things that ICS does as well is it makes everyone's role very clear. And it's like, okay, I don't need you to do all these things that you may have done in the past. I need you to do this [one thing]. And I've got other people that are going to serve … in those support functions or roles. The agencies and individuals in the ICS concentrated on activities where they had expertise or a relative advantage, and they outsourced other activities to more capable individuals or organizations. As noted, MDC and USDA-WS assumed nearly all trapping and aerial operations across the state, as they had the most experience and full-time personnel dedicated to the tasks. In addition, landowner outreach was performed by University of Missouri Extension personnel. There were at least two advantages to having University of Missouri Extension personnel take over this function. First, it allowed the trappers, who previously performed some of the outreach, to focus solely on trapping activities. In addition, University of Missouri Extension not only had expertise in communication and outreach, it also likely had more goodwill than the other agencies in critical communities. A participant from one of the agencies explained: What we probably learned from Farm Bureau and other folks is, you know, you're the government, I like what you guys do, but … not every landowner wants to work with you. And so that's why we [now use] University Extension, it's normal folks who show up in their regular truck. … They're more willing to work with those folks, and so they've been able to step in and develop those local relationships, get a lot of access to private land that we had struggled to get access to. Thus, utilization of University of Missouri Extension personnel for landowner outreach provided strategic advantage to the Partnership. More broadly, the creation of specialized roles to handle particular tasks improved efficiency and allowed the agencies to develop and exercise greater expertise in the various focal areas. Accountability Participants frequently ascribed greater accountability – and relatedly, transparency – to operating under the ICS. As one participant described: [The ICS] gives a layer of responsibility to deal with those issues … you're accountable to your other agencies that are involved, to your other incident commanders and other staff that are working in the structure. But the transparency is also there because we're talking about these problems as a group now, instead of talking about it as [a problem for our own agency]. A participant from a different agency echoed that sentiment, saying, “It does create some accountability just because you're part of a group, you're part of a bigger effort, and they're depending on you.” Another participant pointed out that having clearly defined roles meant that, “The buck stops here if something doesn't happen … you get a sense of ‘I better do my job’.” Thus, enhanced accountability fostered a sense of personal responsibility and a greater stake in the mission of the Partnership among agency personnel. This, in turn, improved cooperation among the agencies and yielded better performance. Challenges While evaluations of the ICS were uniformly positive, there were two challenges associated with its implementation that were cited by multiple participants. The first was particular to the context and concerned agency employees who engaged in occasional or part-time wild pig trapping prior to adoption of the ICS. With adoption of the ICS, the Partnership transitioned to using only full-time, dedicated wild pig trappers. This rankled some of the part-time trappers who enjoyed the activity and resisted giving it up, causing friction with the ICS and its trappers. The situation was eventually resolved through action of the agencies who employed the part-time trappers. The second challenge was more universal in nature: adapting to and becoming comfortable with the ICS paradigm. While operating under an ICS was familiar to the USFS because of its longstanding use by the agency in responding to fires, it was less familiar to MDC and USDA-WS. As one participant recalled: Missouri Department of Conservation eagerly took on the operations piece, but because they weren't as familiar with that structure and how that works with the planning side and the logistics side, there [was] a little bit of roughness to that, but it wasn't anything insurmountable … I would say it smoothed out pretty much within the first six months. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the ICS for the agencies to adjust and adhere to was the structured chain of command in which every individual reported to a single supervisor who could be from a different agency. Some participants told us that there continued to be occasional challenges with communication and ensuring individuals reported up through the structured chain of command rather than to their agency supervisor, but as one participant said, “I think today we're a stronger ICS today than what we were ever.” Another participant confirmed that evaluation, stating, “It's very much more cohesive … very good continuity up and down the chart as far as communication and transparency and working together.” DISCUSSION The case we examined provided clear evidence that the ICS not only improved coordination among agencies responding to the wild pig invasion in Missouri, but it also yielded other intangible benefits. They included greater accountability and uniformity in approach and purpose, as well as enhanced capacity from the pooling of resources and specialization (e.g., logistics coordination and landowner outreach). These benefits stemmed largely from two consequences of the ICS: close integration of personnel from the responding agencies (e.g., in chains of command and operational and logistical activities) and clearly defined and delimited positions or roles. With regard to the former, Moynihan ( 2008 ) observed that, “An ICS that succeeds in integrating multiple organizations, issuing direction, and establishing legitimate objectives fosters the ‘psychological reality’ of collective effort toward common goals” (p. 221). The psychological reality of collective effort was much apparent in the Missouri case, with participants describing a shared sense of purpose and a feeling of community under the ICS. As this suggests, the ICS provided more than a technical or structural approach for coordinating a response; it also fostered cohesion and productive social relations that, among other things, imparted to responders a greater sense of personal responsibility and accountability to one another and strengthened their ethic of sharing (see Buck et al. 2006 ). Moreover, the creation of clearly defined and delimited roles under the Partnership’s ICS meant that responders could focus solely on performing tasks where they had particular expertise or a relative advantage, enabling the agencies to overcome inefficiencies and duplication of effort and to gain strategic advantages. Importantly, the Missouri case also demonstrated the utility of the ICS in a long-term, routine initiative to control an established invasive species. Although top-down, hierarchical governance and management approaches are often characterized in the academic literature as inflexible and maladaptive (Abrams et al. 2017 ; Mudaliar 2023 ), there is recognition that emergency responses frequently require rapid coordination and decision-making for which decentralized, non-hierarchical governance and management approaches may be less well suited (Moynihan 2008 ). As this implies, the rationale for using the ICS is often based in part on the element of time – i.e., the need for coordination in rapidly developing, time-limited emergency situations (Moynihan 2008 ). Although the ICS was initially adopted by the Partnership to improve efficacy of wild pig removal operations during the one-to-two-year period following the Mark Twain National Forest wild pig hunting closure, the agencies never abandoned the ICS. More than five years after ICS adoption, they continued to operate under the framework. In part, this reflects the reality that statewide elimination of wild pigs is a long-term endeavor that will require years of sustained effort. However, it also demonstrates that the benefits of operating under the ICS were perceived to outweigh the costs or challenges, which by all accounts were fairly minimal. Critically, the agencies did not perceive the ICS paradigm as rigid and overly prescriptive; rather, they viewed it as a malleable management framework they could modify to suit their needs. To that end, they incorporated ongoing self-evaluative processes, and they adjusted the ICS structure when necessary or beneficial. The dynamic and adaptive nature of the Partnership’s ICS helped ensure that it continued to perform well as needs and contextual factors evolved. We also posit that the long-term nature of the Partnership’s ICS may have enabled the responding agencies to overcome some challenges associated with ICS implementation. As Cole ( 2000 ) observed, a primary challenge with the ICS is the steep learning curve when it comes to communicating and understanding terminology and key principles – particularly for those outside the firefighting community. This is likely more of a problem for months-long rather than years-long incidents, as the former allow less time for learning and adjustment. In the case of the Partnership’s ICS, initial challenges associated with operating under an ICS were mostly resolved after about six months, a relatively short period of time for an ICS of such long duration. In addition, a longer-term ICS provides more opportunity for responders to gain familiarity with one another and develop trust and rapport, which Buck et al. ( 2006 ) identified as critical factors underpinning successful ICS performance. In the Missouri case, participants reported high levels of trust and strong interagency relationships that were strengthened through their continued collaboration under the ICS. Finally, the long-term nature of the Partnership’s ICS meant there was ample opportunity for trial-and-error learning and innovation as wild pigs became accustomed to routinely used methods or as new technologies emerged. We acknowledge that multiple contextual factors also contributed to the effectiveness of the Partnership’s ICS. These factors included a relatively high level of funding from internal and external sources, a lead state agency with a fair degree of autonomy to establish priorities, motivated and skilled leadership, and a willingness to experiment with management and governance approaches. In addition, the ICS was nested within a larger network (the Partnership) that was integral to maintaining support and political will for statewide wild pig elimination. We also note that wild pigs were a problem in Missouri for well over two decades before the ICS was formed, allowing responders to develop considerable expertise about wild pig ecology and elimination methods. As a result, there was less uncertainty (and likely less complexity) relative to typical ICS incidents or crises, which tend to be unusual, short-term events (Moynihan 2008 ). Nevertheless, our findings suggest possibilities for wider ICS usage than is likely the norm – particularly in longer-term, routine invasive species applications. Declarations Funding This research was funded by the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Feral Swine Damage Management Program. Mention of commercial products does not represent an endorsement by the US government. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US Government determination or policy. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Compliance with Ethical Standards This study was reviewed by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board and was determined to be exempt (protocol # 4161). Author Contributions Both authors contributed to study conception, study design, and data collection. The first author was primarily responsible for data analysis and manuscript preparation. References Abeysinghe N, O'Bryan CJ, Guerrero AM, Rhodes JR, McDonald‐Madden E (2023) Unravelling how collaboration impacts success of invasive species management. People Nat. 5(6): 2093-2106. Abrams JB, Huber-Stearns HR, Bone C, Grummon CA, Moseley C (2017) Adaptation to a landscape-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic in the era of networked governance. Ecol. Soc. 22(4). Bevins SN, Pedersen K, Lutman MW, Gidlewski T, Deliberto TJ (2014) Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative feral swine. BioScience 64(4): 291-299. Buck DA, Trainor JE, Aguirre BE (2006) A critical evaluation of the incident command system and NIMS. J. Homel. Sec. Emerg. Manag. 3(3). Burgiel SW (2020) The incident command system: a framework for rapid response to biological invasion. Bio. Invasions 22(1): 155-165. Carlisle KM, Harper EE, Shwiff SA (2021) An examination of ethical attitudes towards wild pig ( Sus scrofa ) toxicants in the United States. Int. J. Pest Manag. 68(1): 35-42. Cole D (2000) The incident command system: A 25-year evaluation by California practitioners (Vol. 30). National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg, MD. Corn JL, Jordan TR (2017) Development of the national feral swine map, 1982–2016. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 41(4): 758-763. Draheim R, Boatner R, Dolphin G, DeBruyckere L (2013) Oregon Dreissenid Mussel: Rapid Response Plan. Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/40 Ellis HE, Grady MJ, Jaebker LM, Bright AD, Carlisle KM (2023) A social network analysis of actors involved in wild pig ( Sus scrofa ) management in Missouri. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 47(2): e1413. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8(4): 210-216. FEMA (2017) National Incident Management System, Third Edition. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf Grady MJ, Harper EE, Carlisle KM, Ernst KH, Shwiff SA (2012) Assessing public support for restrictions on transport of invasive wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ) in the United States. J Environ. Manag. 237: 488-494. Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F, Zhelyazkov P (2012) The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy Manag. Annals. 6(1): 531-583. Hartin RE, Hutton TA (2007) Missouri's Feral Hog Task Force: Addressing Increasing Feral Swine Populations. In: Nolte DL, Arjo WM, Stalman D (Eds) The Twelfth Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Corpus Christi, pp. 188-195. Invasive Species Advisory Committee (2017) Strengthening federal-state coordination. Washington, D.C. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=natlinvasive Lewis JS, Corn JL, Mayer JJ, Jordan TR, Farnsworth ML, Burdett CL, VerCauteren KC, Sweeney SJ, Miller RS (2019) Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ) in the United States. Bio. Invasions 21: 2373-2384. Lien AM, Baldwin E, Franklin K (2021) Collective action and invasive species governance in southern Arizona. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 74:151-164. Moynihan DP (2008) Combining structural forms in the search for policy tools: Incident command systems in US crisis management. Governance. 21: 205-229. Mudaliar P (2023) What matters for coordination? Examining overlaps and interactions in Lake Victoria’s polycentric fisheries in Tanzania. Reg. Environ. Change 23(4):136. Nowell B, Steelman T (2019) Beyond ICS: how should we govern complex disasters in the United States?. J. Homel. Sec. Emerg. Manag. 16(2): 20180067. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C (2018) Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52:1893-1907. Smyser TJ, Pfaffelhuber P, Giglio RM, DeSaix MG, Davis AJ, Bowden CF, Tabak MA, Manunza A, Bâlteanu VA, Amills M, Iacolina L (2024) Probabilistic genetic identification of wild boar hybridization to support control of invasive wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ). Ecosphere 15(2): e4774. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. USDA-APHIS (2025) Feral swine population distribution (webpage). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/feral-swine/distribution. Yackel Adams AA, Lardner B, Knox AJ, Reed RN (2018) Inferring the absence of an incipient population during a rapid response for an invasive species. PLoS One 13(9): e0204302. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, vol. 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Biological Invasions → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 28 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 16 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 15 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7132951","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":495432540,"identity":"f37a377c-bf7e-4747-9038-0e1606daff86","order_by":0,"name":"Keith Carlisle","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5205-1294","institution":"NWRC: National Wildlife Research Center","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keith","middleName":"","lastName":"Carlisle","suffix":""},{"id":495432541,"identity":"d86f6816-9b9f-428c-aa50-4e12056b106e","order_by":1,"name":"Megan Cross","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Wildlife Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Megan","middleName":"","lastName":"Cross","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-15 17:22:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03762-1","type":"published","date":"2026-02-02T15:59:39+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88427380,"identity":"4caa3b5a-6f6c-44d7-8f1a-dc2d54a63307","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-06 10:08:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38794,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMissouri Feral Hog Elimination Partnership ICS Organization Chart (2024)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7132951/v1/c2af9d6103ea811a10257cd7.png"},{"id":88425918,"identity":"8affa35b-1c0f-483f-a69f-c82155202c91","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-06 10:00:25","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102343,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrevious and current (2023) wild pig occupancy in southern Missouri\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7132951/v1/17095359901309da1771e2d8.png"},{"id":102234766,"identity":"c23be2b1-24ec-4141-9f40-be71cfcdc82f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-09 16:13:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":596015,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7132951/v1/b07a91fa-48d9-402a-a114-3363996db860.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"The incident command system and invasive species control: evidence for its utility in long-term, routine applications","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is an oft-repeated truism that invasive species do not respect borders or boundaries. As this suggests, responsibility for controlling a biological invasion frequently falls beyond the management authority of any single government agency (Lien et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Abeysinghe et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This presents difficult governance and management challenges, often requiring collaboration among multiple agencies and actors with differing levels of capacity and varying constraints from internal procedures and mandates (Epanchin-Niell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Lien et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The complexity inherent in conducting an effective multiorganizational response to a biological invasion points to the importance of coordination \u0026ndash; i.e., the use of processes or mechanisms to align the actions of multiple actors to reach a shared goal (see Gulati et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to improving alignment, effective coordination can substantially remediate a common cause of failure of on-the-ground response efforts: insufficient resources and capacity (Invasive Species Advisory Committee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Recognizing that responders to biological invasions benefit from formal coordination strategies, a task team assembled to advise the US National Invasive Species Council (NISC) on federal-state coordination recommended that agencies use an organizational structure to facilitate multilevel coordination (Invasive Species Advisory Committee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This paper examines evidence for the utility of one such structure, the incident command system (ICS), in a long-term initiative to eliminate invasive wild pigs (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in Missouri, US.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Incident Command System\u003c/b\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ICS is a highly centralized, top-down, command-and-control management framework developed in California in the 1970s to facilitate coordination among agencies responding to wildfires (Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Nowell and Steelman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It was subsequently adopted by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of its National Incident Management System and is now used throughout government for responses to emergency incidents (Burgiel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Typically, the incidents for which an ICS is used are time-limited, involve threat and uncertainty, and require a rapid, coordinated response (Moynihan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe standard ICS structure centralizes authority in a single incident commander who directs multiple organizations engaged in the functional areas of operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration (Moynihan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). For incidents involving multiple jurisdictions, a unified command may be employed, in which case authority is centralized in two or more incident commanders representing critical jurisdictions or agencies (Nowell and Steelman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). As Buck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) noted, there are several versions of the ICS, but they all share certain key characteristics. They include, among other things, a structured chain of command in which each individual performs a clearly defined job and reports to a single supervisor who may be affiliated with a different agency (Buck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Another ICS characteristic is congruence between the size and complexity of the ICS and the incident (Buck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). As this implies, one of the principles of the ICS is flexibility (FEMA \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The functional elements or modules of the ICS are intended to be used only as necessary or advantageous, allowing incident commanders to adapt the structure as appropriate (Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Nowell and Steelman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong ICS practitioners, judgments about the utility of the ICS have been overwhelmingly positive (Buck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to facilitating coordination, proponents have suggested it creates efficiencies by leveraging each organization\u0026rsquo;s relative strengths, eliminating redundancies, and preventing organizations from working at cross purposes (Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Buck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). ICS practitioners have acknowledged, however, that there can be challenges in communicating key principles and terminology to individuals unfamiliar with the ICS \u0026ndash; particularly those outside the firefighting community (Cole \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, the learning curve can be steep for the uninitiated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough responses to biological invasions may not represent the most common or typical use of the ICS, its adoption in this context is far from unprecedented. For example, the ICS has been used to control mountain pine beetles (\u003cem\u003eDendroctonus ponderosae\u003c/em\u003e) in Colorado (Abrams et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), brown tree snakes (\u003cem\u003eBoiga irregularis\u003c/em\u003e) in Guam (Yackel Adams et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and zebra mussels (\u003cem\u003eDreissena polymorpha\u003c/em\u003e) and quagga mussels (\u003cem\u003eDreissena rostriformis bugensis\u003c/em\u003e) off the coast of Oregon (Draheim et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the ICS was endorsed for use in responses to invasive species by the Executive Director of NISC (Burgiel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The NISC official noted that while the ICS is especially appropriate for complex invasive species scenarios with temporal constraints, it has also been used in more routine invasive species applications (Burgiel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). From our review of the literature, however, it is unclear whether any routine applications have involved long-term (i.e., multiyear) use of the ICS. Abrams et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), which examined a response to a mountain pine beetle invasion in Colorado, noted, \u0026ldquo;By its very nature, the incident command approach emphasizes short-term action. Participants indicated that questions of longer-term forest management or other activities were left to be dealt with outside of this structure\u0026rdquo; (p. 7). In fact, we were unable to find any studies in the published literature that examined a continuously operating, multiyear ICS in any context, much less an invasive species context. Our study addresses this gap through an examination of an ICS that has been continuously operating in the US state of Missouri for more than five years in pursuit of invasive wild pig (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) elimination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudy Background\u003c/b\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWild pigs, also known as feral hogs, feral swine, and wild boar, are a nonnative species in the United States that cause extensive damage to property, agriculture, and ecosystems and serve as vectors for pathogens transmissible to both humans and animals (Bevins et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Carlisle et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In recent decades, the US wild pig population and area of distribution expanded significantly, and there are now at least 6\u0026nbsp;million wild pigs in the United States across 32 US states and three US territories (Corn and Jordan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; USDA-APHIS \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). While the species\u0026rsquo; adaptability and high fecundity have contributed to population expansion, another driver has been translocation of the animals by humans into uninvaded areas for sport hunting purposes (Bevins et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Grady et al. 2019; Smyser et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Missouri, wild pigs have been present since at least the early 20th Century, but they became more common and widespread in the 1990s when the growing popularity of wild pig hunting incentivized breeding and release of the animals (Hartin and Hutton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Although there are no reliable estimates for the wild pig population size in Missouri, the US Department of Agriculture\u0026rsquo;s National Feral Swine Damage Management Program assigned an intermediate funding level to Missouri in 2014 based on a rough population estimate of between 10,000 and 100,000 wild pigs in the state. While no US state with a wild pig population as large as Missouri\u0026rsquo;s has successfully eliminated wild pigs, 11 state and federal agencies in Missouri formed the Missouri Feral Hog Elimination Partnership (the \u0026ldquo;Partnership\u0026rdquo;) in 2017 with the goal of statewide wild pig elimination. They were subsequently joined by several nongovernmental organizations in the agriculture and conservation mission spaces. After securing a series of policy-related wins, a subset of Partnership members adopted the ICS framework in January 2020 and have continued to operate under it through the date of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Objectives\u003c/b\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted an exploratory study to understand the function and performance of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS. Our specific research objectives were to (i) determine Partnership members\u0026rsquo; motivation(s) for adopting the ICS; (ii) identify and describe the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS structure or form; (iii) evaluate the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s performance, in particular the specific contributions or benefits of the ICS identified by Partnership members; and (iv) identify any challenges associated with use of the ICS. We were aware before embarking on this research that Missouri, through the efforts of the Partnership, had gained a reputation as being especially effective in its wild pig control efforts compared to other states (Ellis et al. 2022). However, our aim in this study was to understand the contribution of the ICS towards the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s progress, as perceived by Partnership members.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Collection\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe used a case study approach (Yin 2003) to gain in-depth understanding of Partnership members\u0026rsquo; perspectives concerning the ICS. Our data collection methods consisted of semi-structured interviews, observation, and document analysis. In drawing our sample for interviews, our goal was to include individuals from across the range of government agencies and nongovernmental organizations that were active in the Partnership. To identify such individuals, we relied on a key informant affiliated with an agency that participated in the Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe interviewed 37 individuals between July 2023 and November 2023, at which point we reached data saturation (Saunders et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Participants represented the following organizations: Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) (12 individuals), USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services-Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) (8), US Forest Service (USFS) (5), US Fish and Wildlife Service (2), US Army Corps of Engineers (1), Fort Leonard Wood US Army Training Installation (1), Missouri Department of Agriculture (1), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (1), The Nature Conservancy (1), L-A-D Foundation (1), Missouri Farm Bureau (1), University of Missouri Extension (1), National Park Service (NPS) (1), and Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation (1). The interviews, which were audio recorded and lasted between 45 minutes and two hours, were tailored to each participant\u0026rsquo;s position, experience, and role in the Partnership. Across all interviews, topics included (i) goals of the Partnership and the participant\u0026rsquo;s organization, (ii) motivations for forming the ICS, (iii) functions of the Partnership and the ICS, (iv) evaluations of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s performance and contribution of the ICS towards outcomes; (v) keys to performance; and (vi) prior and future challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe triangulated interview data with analysis of documents, including management plans, memoranda of understanding, meeting minutes, laws, and regulations. This enabled us to verify dates, discussions, and other details learned in interviews, and it also allowed us to gain insights into governance and management activities. Finally, we attended a meeting of the Partnership in Jefferson City, Missouri on July 11, 2023, which allowed us to observe dynamics and interactions among members and to understand topics of interest and concern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe generated verbatim transcriptions of interview recordings, and we uploaded all transcripts into QSR NVivo version 12 qualitative analysis software for thematic coding and interpretive analysis by the first author (Strauss and Corbin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Prior to analysis, we developed codes corresponding to themes of interest, such as motivations for the ICS, evaluations of performance, and keys to performance. As new and relevant themes emerged during analysis, the first author created additional codes to capture emergent themes. By combining inductive and deductive coding approaches, we remained open to new insights that emerged during data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMotivation for Forming the ICS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Partnership\u0026rsquo;s adoption of the ICS largely resulted from one of its most consequential accomplishments: the closure of public lands in Missouri to wild pig hunting. According to participants, recreational wild pig hunting impeded the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s elimination efforts in at least two respects. First, the growing popularity of the activity in Missouri generated incentives for hunters to transport and release the animals in uninvaded areas to hunt. Second, hunting activities caused wild pigs to become warier and more scattered, making it more challenging to trap entire sounders (wild pig social groups). The failure to capture an entire sounder in a single attempt could result in trap-shy wild pigs that were much more difficult to remove. Between 2016 and 2019, individual Partnership members closed lands under their control to wild pig hunting unless incidental to deer or turkey hunting. One of the last members to do so was the USFS on the Mark Twain National Forest, a 1.5-million-acre forest in southern Missouri that was popular with wild pig hunters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs anticipated, the closure of the Mark Twain National Forest to wild pig hunting in December 2019 generated conflict and resulted in blowback from hunters and political actors. Consequently, Partnership members felt pressure to demonstrate quick and meaningful results in the Mark Twain and across the entire invaded area of the state to justify the hunting closure. MDC and USDA-WS, the two agencies primarily responsible for trapping and other operational activities, hired a stable of full-time, dedicated wild pig trappers and aerial operations specialists. The agencies recognized, however, that they also needed to improve cross-organization coordination. As one participant recalled:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe idea of creating the incident command structure came about \u0026hellip; to coordinate all this additional staff and all this additional effort and make it more of \u0026hellip; a formal way for staff who don't work for the same agencies to take instruction from somebody who works for a different agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the wild pig invasion in Missouri did not constitute the sort of time-limited emergency typically associated with the ICS, the agencies\u0026rsquo; leadership felt that their need to ramp up wild pig removal efforts over a relatively short period of time justified its usage. As one participant in a leadership position explained:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe felt we needed to deploy a substantial amount of resources in a very short period of time to prove that we could significantly alter the population and that elimination was possible. \u0026hellip; From an emergency standpoint, most would say no, it wasn\u0026rsquo;t an emergency in a normal way we would define an emergency, but for us, it was in terms of being able to sustain momentum on the effort and \u0026hellip; make it through this critical kind of 18- to 24-month timeframe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo confirm that the ICS was an appropriate management structure for coordinating an operational response to wild pigs, representatives of MDC, USDA-WS, and USFS consulted the USFS-National Incident Management Organization, which determined the situation was suitable for the ICS. The three agencies then implemented the ICS in January 2020, one month after the Mark Twain National Forest wild pig hunting closure. The broader Partnership continued to function and hold meetings (e.g., to share information and maintain support for the mission), but on-the-ground operational activities and landowner outreach were assumed by the ICS members.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS Structure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS represented a unified ICS comprising incident commanders from the three agencies that were most integral to operational activities: MDC and USDA-WS, which were primarily responsible for the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s wild pig removal operations, and USFS, which controlled the strategically important Mark Twain National Forest. Consistent with the ICS paradigm, individuals in the ICS performed a single job, and they followed a structured chain of command, reporting to a single supervisor who was not necessarily from the same agency. The Partnership\u0026rsquo;s initial ICS structure included functional areas for operations, planning, and logistics, but it was reconfigured at least three times, with the iteration in place at the time of this research no longer having a separate planning area (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). As one participant explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat we ended up doing is using the pieces of the incident command that fit for what we were trying to do and then, maybe not necessarily using the parts that didn't really fit with what we needed. \u0026hellip; the incident command structure looked completely different when we started than what it looks like today. \u0026hellip; I think the key with the Partnership and especially with the incident command is self-evaluation and then not being afraid to make changes to make ourselves more efficient or effective.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe adaptability of the ICS was highlighted by another participant who told us, \u0026ldquo;It's supposed to expand and contract based on your needs. It's a perfect system really \u0026hellip; it's always changing, it's always dynamic. If you can't be flexible, it's going to make it very difficult.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e At the time of this research, the bulk of the ICS was organized under the operations functional area, which comprised all wild pig elimination activities (trapping and aerial operations), law enforcement, and landowner outreach. The much smaller logistics functional area included a supply unit leader and a facilities unit leader. For ground activities, the agencies created five geographic districts of strike teams, nested under the southeast and southwest branch directors, that collectively encompassed the entire invaded area of the state. In addition, landowner outreach was conducted by four full-time specialists employed by University of Missouri Extension with funding secured by the Partnership through a federal grant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePerformance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants consistently characterized the Partnership, including the ICS, as very effective, and they typically cited the hunting closures, legislative changes (strengthening the prohibition on translocation of wild pigs), and adoption of the ICS as critical to enabling its accomplishments. With regard to the ICS component of the Partnership in particular, evaluations of its effectiveness were generally based on improvements in landowner outreach and success in reducing wild pig numbers and wild pig presence in previously invaded areas (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). According to a USFS memorandum, in the year following the ban on wild pig hunting in the Mark Twain National Forest and the adoption of the ICS, the number of wild pigs trapped in the Mark Twain increased 236 percent as compared to the prior year. Wild pigs were also eliminated by the ICS in one of its five geographic districts, and participants reported that densities were greatly reduced in the others. Moreover, a 2021 Partnership report detailed a nearly 50 percent reduction in the number of watersheds occupied by wild pigs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e With this progress, one participant characterized the Partnership as \u0026ldquo;10 years ahead\u0026rdquo; of where its members thought they would be when they initially formed the Partnership. Participants recognized, however, that statewide elimination was an ambitious longer-term goal, and it would become increasingly more challenging to locate and remove remaining clusters of wild pigs. For this reason, participants generally viewed the ICS as a long-term mechanism for supporting their needs. As one participant told us:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI think ICS can be applicable even on an incident that goes decades, and the reason why is because so many of the factors that contribute to effective elimination of feral hogs may take, you know, several years to get accomplished, whether it's legislation, landowner contacts, landowner trust, and support \u0026hellip; it takes a long time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother participant added:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe still operate as incident command, and I think it's important because when you have multiple agencies trying to work together and pull the same direction, you\u0026rsquo;ve got to have some mechanism so that you're communicating and you're transparent with each other and \u0026hellip; self-evaluation is going on as a group, not just as an agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, participants viewed the ICS as essential not only to the progress they had made, but also to the success of their continuing efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBenefits Attributed to the ICS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoordination and Communication\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most commonly cited benefits of the ICS was that it improved coordination and communication, which was the primary motivation for adopting the ICS. As one participant explained, \u0026ldquo;[The ICS] allows for efficiency. You're not trapping next door to each other and you have better communication up and down the chain. Everybody's working together instead of maybe working against each other.\u0026rdquo; According to multiple participants, having clearly defined roles and integrated chains of command (i.e., reporting lines that included both MDC and USDA-WS personnel) greatly improved interagency communication and coordination. The agencies also leveraged a shared application, ArcGIS Field Maps, for collection and mapping of data, such as site visits, bait sites, and wild pig presence. As one participant told us, \u0026ldquo;We could see where other people were working, see where they were baiting, see where they were trapping, etc.\u0026rdquo; This enabled a more coordinated and systematic approach to the placement and baiting of traps and other operational activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUniformity\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatedly, the ICS promoted greater uniformity in the agencies\u0026rsquo; operational approaches. A participant who oversaw a portion of the ICS\u0026rsquo; ground operations explained that this was especially important given that wild pigs were dispersed across a large region of the state:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeral hogs occur across the state on not only public but private land. And not only just Missouri Department of Conservation lands, but USDA Forest Service lands. They occur everywhere. So, in order to be more efficient, we had to get everybody where feral hogs occurred thinking about feral hogs in the same way. And the incident command structure provided for that. There's no real lines of separation between agencies in an incident and that really did help us operationally in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUniformity of purpose also largely eliminated any sense of territoriality among agency trappers concerning the lands where they historically trapped. As one participant relayed, \u0026ldquo;As far as really true coordination, it wasn't occurring [prior to the ICS], and as a result of that, there was a lot of duplication of effort \u0026hellip; [and] turf consciousness.\u0026rdquo; Another participant echoed that sentiment, explaining, \u0026ldquo;Before the ICS, we'd have many people doing the same task and just on the same group of pigs, you know, across the fence lines.\u0026rdquo; Working together under the ICS eliminated agency boundaries and imparted a shared sense of purpose. As one participant concluded, \u0026ldquo;[the ICS] fostered a community. And really, it was all about one goal, eradicating feral pigs and whatever the best method was for that.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSharing and Distribution of Resources\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOperating under the ICS also facilitated the pooling of resources among the agencies. The agencies did not maintain a shared account of money, but they commonly shared supplies with one another, as described by a participant:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe all have our own resources, but we generally pool them. Like if MDC needs ammo, they're having a hard time getting ammo, we'll go get the ammo and give them the ammo. We need corn. MDC can get corn \u0026hellip; Different partners will step in and fill in gaps where it's needed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the logistics functional area of the ICS simplified procurement and distribution of supplies. Prior to ICS adoption, each agency independently sourced its supplies, resulting in duplication of effort. The ICS, however, streamlined this process, as relayed by another participant:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you were an MDC trapper, prior to establishing our ICS structure, you had to worry about where you're going to get corn at. If you were a [USDA-WS] trapper, you had to worry about where you're going to get corn at and ordering corn and picking up corn \u0026hellip; There was this duplication of effort, you know, versus when we stood up our ICS structure, we have one person that's in charge of logistics, they're responsible for getting corn. Their job is to provide the resources that our trappers need on the ground. So trappers need to focus on trapping and pigs. They don't need to worry about getting AA batteries and trail cameras and corn and things like that.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe centralization of logistical support within the ICS allowed trappers to maintain singular focus on their area of expertise: trapping and removing wild pigs. Together with the pooling of resources, it also created efficiencies and increased the agencies\u0026rsquo; overall capacity for operational activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecialization\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs the previous discussion of logistical support suggests, another benefit of the ICS was that it allowed for creation of specialized jobs or roles. According to a participant:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the things that ICS does as well is it makes everyone's role very clear. And it's like, okay, I don't need you to do all these things that you may have done in the past. I need you to do this [one thing]. And I've got other people that are going to serve \u0026hellip; in those support functions or roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe agencies and individuals in the ICS concentrated on activities where they had expertise or a relative advantage, and they outsourced other activities to more capable individuals or organizations. As noted, MDC and USDA-WS assumed nearly all trapping and aerial operations across the state, as they had the most experience and full-time personnel dedicated to the tasks. In addition, landowner outreach was performed by University of Missouri Extension personnel. There were at least two advantages to having University of Missouri Extension personnel take over this function. First, it allowed the trappers, who previously performed some of the outreach, to focus solely on trapping activities. In addition, University of Missouri Extension not only had expertise in communication and outreach, it also likely had more goodwill than the other agencies in critical communities. A participant from one of the agencies explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat we probably learned from Farm Bureau and other folks is, you know, you're the government, I like what you guys do, but \u0026hellip; not every landowner wants to work with you. And so that's why we [now use] University Extension, it's normal folks who show up in their regular truck. \u0026hellip; They're more willing to work with those folks, and so they've been able to step in and develop those local relationships, get a lot of access to private land that we had struggled to get access to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, utilization of University of Missouri Extension personnel for landowner outreach provided strategic advantage to the Partnership. More broadly, the creation of specialized roles to handle particular tasks improved efficiency and allowed the agencies to develop and exercise greater expertise in the various focal areas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccountability\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants frequently ascribed greater accountability \u0026ndash; and relatedly, transparency \u0026ndash; to operating under the ICS. As one participant described:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e[The ICS] gives a layer of responsibility to deal with those issues \u0026hellip; you're accountable to your other agencies that are involved, to your other incident commanders and other staff that are working in the structure. But the transparency is also there because we're talking about these problems as a group now, instead of talking about it as [a problem for our own agency].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA participant from a different agency echoed that sentiment, saying, \u0026ldquo;It does create some accountability just because you're part of a group, you're part of a bigger effort, and they're depending on you.\u0026rdquo; Another participant pointed out that having clearly defined roles meant that, \u0026ldquo;The buck stops here if something doesn't happen \u0026hellip; you get a sense of \u0026lsquo;I better do my job\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo; Thus, enhanced accountability fostered a sense of personal responsibility and a greater stake in the mission of the Partnership among agency personnel. This, in turn, improved cooperation among the agencies and yielded better performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChallenges\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile evaluations of the ICS were uniformly positive, there were two challenges associated with its implementation that were cited by multiple participants. The first was particular to the context and concerned agency employees who engaged in occasional or part-time wild pig trapping prior to adoption of the ICS. With adoption of the ICS, the Partnership transitioned to using only full-time, dedicated wild pig trappers. This rankled some of the part-time trappers who enjoyed the activity and resisted giving it up, causing friction with the ICS and its trappers. The situation was eventually resolved through action of the agencies who employed the part-time trappers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second challenge was more universal in nature: adapting to and becoming comfortable with the ICS paradigm. While operating under an ICS was familiar to the USFS because of its longstanding use by the agency in responding to fires, it was less familiar to MDC and USDA-WS. As one participant recalled:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMissouri Department of Conservation eagerly took on the operations piece, but because they weren't as familiar with that structure and how that works with the planning side and the logistics side, there [was] a little bit of roughness to that, but it wasn't anything insurmountable \u0026hellip; I would say it smoothed out pretty much within the first six months.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most challenging aspect of the ICS for the agencies to adjust and adhere to was the structured chain of command in which every individual reported to a single supervisor who could be from a different agency. Some participants told us that there continued to be occasional challenges with communication and ensuring individuals reported up through the structured chain of command rather than to their agency supervisor, but as one participant said, \u0026ldquo;I think today we're a stronger ICS today than what we were ever.\u0026rdquo; Another participant confirmed that evaluation, stating, \u0026ldquo;It's very much more cohesive \u0026hellip; very good continuity up and down the chart as far as communication and transparency and working together.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe case we examined provided clear evidence that the ICS not only improved coordination among agencies responding to the wild pig invasion in Missouri, but it also yielded other intangible benefits. They included greater accountability and uniformity in approach and purpose, as well as enhanced capacity from the pooling of resources and specialization (e.g., logistics coordination and landowner outreach). These benefits stemmed largely from two consequences of the ICS: close integration of personnel from the responding agencies (e.g., in chains of command and operational and logistical activities) and clearly defined and delimited positions or roles. With regard to the former, Moynihan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) observed that, \u0026ldquo;An ICS that succeeds in integrating multiple organizations, issuing direction, and establishing legitimate objectives fosters the \u0026lsquo;psychological reality\u0026rsquo; of collective effort toward common goals\u0026rdquo; (p. 221). The psychological reality of collective effort was much apparent in the Missouri case, with participants describing a shared sense of purpose and a feeling of community under the ICS. As this suggests, the ICS provided more than a technical or structural approach for coordinating a response; it also fostered cohesion and productive social relations that, among other things, imparted to responders a greater sense of personal responsibility and accountability to one another and strengthened their ethic of sharing (see Buck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the creation of clearly defined and delimited roles under the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS meant that responders could focus solely on performing tasks where they had particular expertise or a relative advantage, enabling the agencies to overcome inefficiencies and duplication of effort and to gain strategic advantages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, the Missouri case also demonstrated the utility of the ICS in a long-term, routine initiative to control an established invasive species. Although top-down, hierarchical governance and management approaches are often characterized in the academic literature as inflexible and maladaptive (Abrams et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mudaliar \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), there is recognition that emergency responses frequently require rapid coordination and decision-making for which decentralized, non-hierarchical governance and management approaches may be less well suited (Moynihan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). As this implies, the rationale for using the ICS is often based in part on the element of time \u0026ndash; i.e., the need for coordination in rapidly developing, time-limited emergency situations (Moynihan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Although the ICS was initially adopted by the Partnership to improve efficacy of wild pig removal operations during the one-to-two-year period following the Mark Twain National Forest wild pig hunting closure, the agencies never abandoned the ICS. More than five years after ICS adoption, they continued to operate under the framework. In part, this reflects the reality that statewide elimination of wild pigs is a long-term endeavor that will require years of sustained effort. However, it also demonstrates that the benefits of operating under the ICS were perceived to outweigh the costs or challenges, which by all accounts were fairly minimal. Critically, the agencies did not perceive the ICS paradigm as rigid and overly prescriptive; rather, they viewed it as a malleable management framework they could modify to suit their needs. To that end, they incorporated ongoing self-evaluative processes, and they adjusted the ICS structure when necessary or beneficial. The dynamic and adaptive nature of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS helped ensure that it continued to perform well as needs and contextual factors evolved.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe also posit that the long-term nature of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS may have enabled the responding agencies to overcome some challenges associated with ICS implementation. As Cole (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) observed, a primary challenge with the ICS is the steep learning curve when it comes to communicating and understanding terminology and key principles \u0026ndash; particularly for those outside the firefighting community. This is likely more of a problem for months-long rather than years-long incidents, as the former allow less time for learning and adjustment. In the case of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS, initial challenges associated with operating under an ICS were mostly resolved after about six months, a relatively short period of time for an ICS of such long duration. In addition, a longer-term ICS provides more opportunity for responders to gain familiarity with one another and develop trust and rapport, which Buck et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) identified as critical factors underpinning successful ICS performance. In the Missouri case, participants reported high levels of trust and strong interagency relationships that were strengthened through their continued collaboration under the ICS. Finally, the long-term nature of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS meant there was ample opportunity for trial-and-error learning and innovation as wild pigs became accustomed to routinely used methods or as new technologies emerged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge that multiple contextual factors also contributed to the effectiveness of the Partnership\u0026rsquo;s ICS. These factors included a relatively high level of funding from internal and external sources, a lead state agency with a fair degree of autonomy to establish priorities, motivated and skilled leadership, and a willingness to experiment with management and governance approaches. In addition, the ICS was nested within a larger network (the Partnership) that was integral to maintaining support and political will for statewide wild pig elimination. We also note that wild pigs were a problem in Missouri for well over two decades before the ICS was formed, allowing responders to develop considerable expertise about wild pig ecology and elimination methods. As a result, there was less uncertainty (and likely less complexity) relative to typical ICS incidents or crises, which tend to be unusual, short-term events (Moynihan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, our findings suggest possibilities for wider ICS usage than is likely the norm \u0026ndash; particularly in longer-term, routine invasive species applications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Feral Swine Damage Management Program. Mention of commercial products does not represent an endorsement by the US government. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or US Government determination or policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was reviewed by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board and was determined to be exempt (protocol # 4161).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth authors contributed to study conception, study design, and data collection. The first author was primarily responsible for data analysis and manuscript preparation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbeysinghe N, O\u0026apos;Bryan CJ, Guerrero AM, Rhodes JR, McDonald‐Madden E (2023) Unravelling how collaboration impacts success of invasive species management. People Nat. 5(6): 2093-2106.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbrams JB, Huber-Stearns HR, Bone C, Grummon CA, Moseley C (2017) Adaptation to a landscape-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic in the era of networked governance. Ecol. Soc. 22(4). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBevins SN, Pedersen K, Lutman MW, Gidlewski T, Deliberto TJ (2014) Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative feral swine. BioScience 64(4): 291-299. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuck DA, Trainor JE, Aguirre BE (2006) A critical evaluation of the incident command system and NIMS. J. Homel. Sec. Emerg. Manag. 3(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurgiel SW (2020) The incident command system: a framework for rapid response to biological invasion. Bio. Invasions 22(1): 155-165.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarlisle KM, Harper EE, Shwiff SA (2021) An examination of ethical attitudes towards wild pig (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) toxicants in the United States. Int. J. Pest Manag. 68(1): 35-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole D (2000) The incident command system: A 25-year evaluation by California practitioners (Vol. 30). National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg, MD. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorn JL, Jordan TR (2017) Development of the national feral swine map, 1982\u0026ndash;2016. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 41(4): 758-763. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDraheim R, Boatner R, Dolphin G, DeBruyckere L (2013) Oregon Dreissenid Mussel: Rapid Response Plan. Center for Lakes and Reservoirs Publications and Presentations. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/centerforlakes_pub/40\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllis HE, Grady MJ, Jaebker LM, Bright AD, Carlisle KM (2023) A social network analysis of actors involved in wild pig (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) management in Missouri. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 47(2): e1413. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEpanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8(4): 210-216.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFEMA (2017) National Incident Management System, Third Edition. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrady MJ, Harper EE, Carlisle KM, Ernst KH, Shwiff SA (2012) Assessing public support for restrictions on transport of invasive wild pigs (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States. J Environ. Manag. 237: 488-494.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGulati R, Wohlgezogen F, Zhelyazkov P (2012) The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy Manag. Annals. 6(1): 531-583.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartin RE, Hutton TA (2007) Missouri\u0026apos;s Feral Hog Task Force: Addressing Increasing Feral Swine Populations. In: Nolte DL, Arjo WM, Stalman D (Eds) The Twelfth Wildlife Damage Management Conference, Corpus Christi, pp. 188-195. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInvasive Species Advisory Committee (2017) Strengthening federal-state coordination. Washington, D.C. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046\u0026amp;context=natlinvasive\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis JS, Corn JL, Mayer JJ, Jordan TR, Farnsworth ML, Burdett CL, VerCauteren KC, Sweeney SJ, Miller RS (2019) Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States. Bio. Invasions 21: 2373-2384. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLien AM, Baldwin E, Franklin K (2021) Collective action and invasive species governance in southern Arizona. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 74:151-164.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoynihan DP (2008) Combining structural forms in the search for policy tools: Incident command systems in US crisis management. Governance. 21: 205-229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMudaliar P (2023) What matters for coordination? Examining overlaps and interactions in Lake Victoria\u0026rsquo;s polycentric fisheries in Tanzania. Reg. Environ. Change 23(4):136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNowell B, Steelman T (2019) Beyond ICS: how should we govern complex disasters in the United States?. J. Homel. Sec. Emerg. Manag. 16(2): 20180067. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C (2018) Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52:1893-1907.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmyser TJ, Pfaffelhuber P, Giglio RM, DeSaix MG, Davis AJ, Bowden CF, Tabak MA, Manunza A, B\u0026acirc;lteanu VA, Amills M, Iacolina L (2024) Probabilistic genetic identification of wild boar hybridization to support control of invasive wild pigs (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e). Ecosphere 15(2): e4774.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUSDA-APHIS (2025) Feral swine population distribution (webpage). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/feral-swine/distribution.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYackel Adams AA, Lardner B, Knox AJ, Reed RN (2018) Inferring the absence of an incipient population during a rapid response for an invasive species. PLoS One 13(9): e0204302.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, vol. 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"collaboration, feral swine, incident command system, invasive species management, network governance, wild pigs","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eResponses to biological invasions often require collaboration among actors with differing levels of capacity and varying internal constraints. The use of formal coordination mechanisms or organizational frameworks, such as the incident command system (ICS), may improve responders\u0026rsquo; efficacy. This study employed qualitative methods to examine use of the ICS in a long-term initiative to eliminate invasive wild pigs (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in Missouri, US. Our objectives included identifying how responders perceived the benefits, challenges, and overall performance of the ICS. There was consensus that the ongoing initiative achieved substantial progress in wild pig removals and that the ICS was essential to the initiative\u0026rsquo;s efficacy. In addition to improving interagency coordination and communication, responders reported that the ICS enhanced accountability, created unity in purpose and approach, increased overall capacity through the pooling of resources, and helped them realize efficiencies and strategic advantages through specialization of roles. Reported challenges were minimal, the primary one being initial difficulties in understanding and adjusting to certain elements of the ICS paradigm, such as reporting lines that included individuals from multiple agencies. While the ICS is typically associated with short-term (months-long) responses to emergencies, responders in Missouri continued to operate under the ICS more than five years after its adoption, reflecting both the long-term nature of their objective as well as perceived advantages associated with the ICS. This study suggests possibilities for wider ICS usage, particularly in longer-term, routine invasive species applications.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The incident command system and invasive species control: evidence for its utility in long-term, routine applications","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-06 10:00:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7132951/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-08-25T14:34:10+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-04T13:35:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"Biological Invasions","date":"2025-07-28T21:36:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-16T12:13:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Biological Invasions","date":"2025-07-15T13:20:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"biological-invasions","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"binv","sideBox":"Learn more about [Biological Invasions](https://www.springer.com/journal/10530)","snPcode":"10530","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10530/3","title":"Biological Invasions","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"307b03eb-eff6-4db3-a81a-c5b2350a326b","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-09T16:08:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7132951","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03762-1","journal":{"identity":"biological-invasions","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Biological Invasions"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-02 15:59:39","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 2nd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-06 10:00:20","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10530-026-03762-1","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-026-03762-1","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7132951","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7132951","identity":"rs-7132951","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}