Environmental Management

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 107–117 | Cite as

Cross-Boundary Coordination on Forested Landscapes: Investigating Alternatives for Implementation

  • Rebecca J. Gass
  • Mark Rickenbach
  • Lisa A. Schulte
  • Kimberly Zeuli


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.


Forest landowners Cross-boundary coordination Cooperation Principal-agent Agency theory Private forestry Private forest ownerships 


  1. Bergmann S, Bliss JC (2004) Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: fire management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources 17(5):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blinn CR, Jakes PJ, Sakai M (2007) Forest landowner cooperatives in the United States: a local focus for engaging landowners. Journal of Forestry 105:245–251Google Scholar
  3. 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/
  4. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry 102(7):4–9Google Scholar
  5. Campbell SM, Kittredge DB (1996) Ecosystem-based management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of Forestry 94(2):24–29Google Scholar
  6. 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/
  7. Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology 14:449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egan AF (1999) Do foresters and logging contracts matter? Journal of Forestry 97(8):36–39Google Scholar
  9. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1):57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elmendorf CS (2003) Ideas, incentives, gifts, and governance: toward conservation stewardship of private land, in cultural and psychological perspective. University of Illinois Law Review 2003:423–505Google Scholar
  11. 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 52:10–22Google Scholar
  12. 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 Google Scholar
  13. 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):333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 22:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 34:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science 51:142–154Google Scholar
  17. 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 7:671–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 2:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  20. 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 environmentGoogle Scholar
  21. Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landscape Ecology 18:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA Google Scholar
  23. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  24. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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/
  26. Öhman K, Lämas T (2003) Clustering of harvest activities in multi-objective long-term forest planning. Forest Ecology and Management 176:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Google Scholar
  28. QSR International (2005) N*Vivo 2.0. [software program]Google Scholar
  29. Richards L (2005) Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. SAGE Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Rickenbach MG, Reed AS (2002) Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: the sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management 30(4):584–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):100–105Google Scholar
  32. 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 20:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulte LA, Rickenbach M, Merrick L (2008) Ecological and Economic Benefits of Cross-boundary Coordination Among Private Forest Landowners. Landscape Ecology 23(4):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharma A (1997) Professional as agent: knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange. Academy of Management Review 22(3):758–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic peninsula. Ecological Applications 6:1150–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tyler TR (2002) Leadership and Cooperation in Groups. American Behavioral Scientist 45(5):769–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57:375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca J. Gass
    • 1
  • Mark Rickenbach
    • 2
  • Lisa A. Schulte
    • 3
  • Kimberly Zeuli
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of ForestryWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  4. 4.WilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations