Abstract
Cross-boundary coordination is a tool for ecosystem management whereby landowners voluntarily coordinate management practices toward economic and/or ecological landscape-scale outcomes (e.g., fiber, invasive species control, habitat). Past research indicates that it may be particularly applicable on landscapes that include small forest landholdings. To explore alternatives by which coordination might occur, we conducted seven focus groups with landowners (n = 51) who actively manage their forests in southwest Wisconsin and northeast Iowa. Focus group participants were presented with three hypothetical alternatives to coordinate with their neighbors; landowners could self-organize, work with a natural resource professional (i.e., forester), or work with an organization to complete a cross-boundary practice. In this article, we focus on the latter two alternatives and the role of two social theories—principal-agent and cooperation—in explaining landowners’ evaluations of these alternatives. Key findings are that (1) cross-boundary coordination has the potential to alleviate problems between landowners and resource professionals inherent to their typical working relationship, and (2) social relationships are a major factor contributing to landowners’ willingness to participate. We posit that cross-boundary coordination offers a non-economic incentive for landowners to work together as it may reduce the uncertainty associated with hiring a resource professional. At the same time, professionals can provide a bridging function among landowners who are unacquainted. To achieve these outcomes and expand the adoption of cross-boundary coordination, we suggest four guidelines. First, foster dialogue among landowners toward shared cognition and oversight. Second, match landowners’ practices and objectives such that there are clear benefits to all. Third, develop relationships through low risk activities where possible. Fourth, do not expect on-going commitments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All focus group participants are referred to using pseudonyms.
High grading is a form of timber harvesting whereby the highest quality and value trees are removed with little or no concern for the future growth of the forest. Many view it as an unsustainable practice.
References
Bergmann S, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: fire management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources 17(5):377–393
Blinn CR, Jakes PJ, Sakai M (2007) Forest landowner cooperatives in the United States: a local focus for engaging landowners. Journal of Forestry 105:245–251
Bodin O, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11(2):r2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/resp2/
Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry 102(7):4–9
Campbell SM, Kittredge DB (1996) Ecosystem-based management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of Forestry 94(2):24–29
Crona B, Bodin Ö (2006) What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and Society 11(2):7. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art7/
Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology 14:449–463
Egan AF (1999) Do foresters and logging contracts matter? Journal of Forestry 97(8):36–39
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1):57–74
Elmendorf CS (2003) Ideas, incentives, gifts, and governance: toward conservation stewardship of private land, in cultural and psychological perspective. University of Illinois Law Review 2003:423–505
Finley A, Kittredge D, Stevens T, Schweik C, Dennis D (2006) Interest in cross-boundary cooperation: identification of distinct types of private forest owners. Forest Science 52:10–22
Gass RJ (2006) Principal-professional theory & private forest owners’ choice of cross-boundary coordination approach. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 83 pp
Goldman RL, Thompson BH, Daily GC (2007) Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64(2007):333–343
Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R, Loehle C (2007) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landscape Ecology 22:141–156
Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K (2006) Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology 34:573–592
Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science 51:142–154
Kittredge DB (2005) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics 7:671–688
Klosowski R, Stevens T, Kittredge D, Dennis D (2001) Economic incentives for coordinated management of forest land: a case study of southern New England. Forest Policy and Economics 2:29–38
Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA
Kurttila M, Hanninen H (2004) Family forest owners’ knowledge with respect [to] obligations and recommendations fostering biodiversity in forest management. IUFRO research group 3.08.00 (Small-scale forestry) international symposium 2004: small-scale forestry in a changing environment
Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecology 18:529–541
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA
Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1):75–90
Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hann T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1):28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/
Öhman K, Lämas T (2003) Clustering of harvest activities in multi-objective long-term forest planning. Forest Ecology and Management 176:161–171
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
QSR International (2005) N*Vivo 2.0. [software program]
Richards L (2005) Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. SAGE Publication, London
Rickenbach MG, Reed AS (2002) Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: the sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management 30(4):584–594
Rickenbach M, Jahnke AD (2006) Wisconsin private sector foresters’ involvement in nonindustrial private forestland cross-boundary forestry practices. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):100–105
Rickenbach M, Zeuli K, Sturgess-Cleek E (2005) Despite failure: the emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 20:503–513
Rickenbach MG, Guries RP, Schmoldt DL (2006) Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy and Economics 8(1):93–103
Schulte LA, Rickenbach M, Merrick L (2008) Ecological and Economic Benefits of Cross-boundary Coordination Among Private Forest Landowners. Landscape Ecology 23(4):481–496
Sharma A (1997) Professional as agent: knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange. Academy of Management Review 22(3):758–798
Stevens T, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Rickenbach MG (1999) Attitudes and preferences toward co-operative agreements for management of private forestlands in the Northeastern United States. Journal of Environmental Management 55(2):81–90
Swaab R, Postmes T, van Beest I, Spears R (2007) Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(2):187–199
Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic peninsula. Ecological Applications 6:1150–1172
Tyler TR (2002) Leadership and Cooperation in Groups. American Behavioral Scientist 45(5):769–782
Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57:375–400
Acknowledgments
Funding has been provided for this research from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service project WIS04905; USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station Joint Venture Agreement 04-JV-11231300-018; and the Kickapoo Valley Reforestation Fund. We thank Ryan Atwell, Gary Beyer, Carol Nielsen, and Wisconsin DNR foresters for their technical and professional assistance in completing this study. We further acknowledge the thoughtful insights and comments of Raymond Guries, Tricia Knoot, Jeffrey Steir, and four anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts. All remaining errors and omissions are ours.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gass, R.J., Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L.A. et al. Cross-Boundary Coordination on Forested Landscapes: Investigating Alternatives for Implementation. Environmental Management 43, 107–117 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9195-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9195-2