Casual and informal networks are more important in terms of the overall movement than are organisational channels of communication and decision making. To be a member, for example, of the environment movement does not necessitate membership of any specific organisation such as the Australian Conservation Foundation. Nor does it require agreement with any specific policies or strategies. What it does require is for people to feel a common bond with others who oppose environmental destruction. There is, of course, more to social movements than a collective identity.
Movements emerge around, and engage in, political and cultural conflict.
There are many more people against any perceived social problem than there are adherents to any of the multitude of possible strategies for change. Furthermore, movements are also often opposed to aspects of formal, institutionalised politics which they see as representing only a limited number of sectoral interests, as being undemocratic, and as being largely inaccessible. As Diani suggests, while these features are common, they are by no means necessary requirements of movements. Another feature common amongst recent movements is the virtually universal acceptance among the rest of the community of the values they espouse - most people are, after all, in favour of peace, equality and a healthy environment. It is apparent that many of the features both necessary to, and common among, social movements raise interesting questions in relation to landcare.