Collaborative approaches to natural resource management are becoming increasingly common on public lands. Negotiating a shared vision for desired conditions is a fundamental task of collaboration and serves as a foundation for developing management objectives and monitoring strategies. We explore the complex socio-ecological processes involved in developing a shared vision for collaborative restoration of fire-adapted forest landscapes. To understand participant perspectives and experiences, we analyzed interviews with 86 respondents from six collaboratives in the western U.S., part of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program established to encourage collaborative, science-based restoration on U.S. Forest Service lands. Although forest landscapes and group characteristics vary considerably, collaboratives faced common challenges to developing a shared vision for desired conditions. Three broad categories of challenges emerged: meeting multiple objectives, collaborative capacity and trust, and integrating ecological science and social values in decision-making. Collaborative groups also used common strategies to address these challenges, including some that addressed multiple challenges. These included use of issue-based recommendations, field visits, and landscape-level analysis; obtaining support from local agency leadership, engaging facilitators, and working in smaller groups (sub-groups); and science engagement. Increased understanding of the challenges to, and strategies for, developing a shared vision of desired conditions is critical if other collaboratives are to learn from these efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For Ecol Manag 211:83–96
Allen CD, Savage M, Falk DA, Suckling KF, Swetnam TW, Schulke T, Stacey PB, Morgan P, Hoffman M, Klingel JT (2002) Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol Appl 12:1418–1433
Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Publ Adm Res Theor 18:543–571
Antuma J, Esch B, Hall B, Munn E, Sturges F (2014) Restoring forests and communities: lessons from the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. Thesis, University of Michigan
Barret S, Havlina D, Jones J, Hann W, Frame C, Hamilton D, Schon K, Demeo T, Hutter L, Menakis J (2010) Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage of the interagency fire regime condition class website, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. [Online], http://www.frcc.gov
Biernacki P, Waldorf D (1981) Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Method Res 10:141–163
Brunner R, Steelman T, Coe-Juell L, Cromley C, Edwards C, Tucker D (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating policy, science, and decision making. Columbia University Press, New York City, NY
Butler WH (2013) Collaboration at arm’s length: navigating agency engagement in landscape-scale ecological restoration collaboratives. J For 111:395–403
Burke CA (2013) Who litigates and who collaborates? Evidence from environmental groups influencing National Forest management. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2:163–184
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RD (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091
Carr DS, Selin SW, Schuett MA (1998) Managing public forests: understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environ Manag 22:767–776
Cheng AS (2006) Build it and they will come-mandating collaboration in public lands planning and management. Nat Resour J 46:841–858
Cheng AS, Gerlak AK, Dale L, Mattor K (2015) Examining the adaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Colorado, USA. Ecol Soc 20:35–48
Cheng AS, Mattor KM (2006) Why won’t they come? Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national forest planning by participation level. Environ Manag 38:545–561
Collins BM, Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ, Battles J (2010) Challenges and approaches in planning fuel treatments across fire-excluded forested landscapes. J For 108:24–31
Conley A, Moote A (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resourcemanagement. Soc Nat Resour 16:371–386
Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess 16:71–102
Davenport MA, Anderson DH, Leahy JE, Jakes PJ (2007) Reflections from USDA Forest Service employees on institutional constraints to engaging and serving their local communities. J For 105:43–48
Duncan SL, McComb BC, Johnson KN (2010) Integrating ecological and social ranges of variability in conservation of biodiversity: past, present, and future. Ecol Soc 15:5
Emerson K, Nabatchi T (2015) Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
Franklin JF, Hagmann RK, Urgenson LS (2014) Interactions between societal goals and restoration of dry forest landscapes in western North America. Landsc Ecol 29:1645–1655
Franklin JF, Johnson KN (2012) A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. J For 110:429–439
Germain RH, Floyd DW, Stehman SV (2001) Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. For Policy Econ 3:113–124
Golladay SW, Martin KL, Vose JM, Wear DN, Covich AP, Hobbs RJ, Klepzig KD, Likens GE, Naiman RJ, Shearer AW (2016) Achievable future conditions as a framework for guiding forest conservation and management. For Ecol Manag 360:80–96
Gray B (1989) Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA
Hessburg PF, Agee JK (2003) An environmental narrative of inland northwest United States forests, 1800–2000. For Ecol Manag 178:23–59
Hessburg PF, Churchill DJ, Larson AJ, Haugo RD, Miller C, Spies TA, North MP, Povak NA, Belote T, Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Keane RE, Aplet GH, Stephens SL, Morgan P, Bisson PA, Rieman BE, Salter RB, Reeves GH (2015) Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landsc Ecol 30:1805–1835
Imperial MT, Koontz T (2007) Evolution of collaborative organizations for watershed governance: structural properties, life-cycles, and factors contributing to the longevity of watershed partnerships. Paper presented at the The 29th annual association for public policy analysis and management (APPAM) Research Conference, Washington, DC
Keane RE, Hessburg PF, Landres PB, Swanson FJ (2009) The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. For Ecol Manag 258:1025–1037
Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Admin Rev 66:11–121
Koontz TM, Bodine J (2008) Implementing ecosystem management in public agencies: lessons from the US Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Conserv Biol 22:60–69
Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW (2004) Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Larson AJ, Belote RT, Williamson MA, Aplet GH (2013) Making monitoring count: project design for active adaptive management. J For 111:348–356
Layzer JA (2008) Natural experiments: ecosystem-based management and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge
Leach WD, Pelkey NW (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Res Pl and Management 127:378–385
Lowe K, Moote A (2005) Working paper 11: collaboration as a tool in forest restoration. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Margerum RD (2011) Beyond consensus: improving collaborative planning and management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Margerum RD (2002) Collaborative planning building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. J Plan Educ Res 21:237–253
Matonis MS (2015) Empowering collaborative forest restoration with locally relevant ecological research. Dissertation, Colorado State University
McCaffrey S, Toman E, Stidham M, Shindler B (2013) Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. Int J Wildland Fire 22:15–24
Monroe AS, Butler WH (2016) Responding to a policy mandate to collaborate: structuring collaboration in the collaborative forest landscape restoration program. J Environ Plan Manag 59:1054–1072
Moote M, Becker D (2003) Exploring barriers to collaborative forestry: report from a workshop held at Hart Prairie, Flagstaff, Arizona, September 17–19 2003
Muhr T, Friese S (2004) User’s manual for ATLAS. ti 5.0. ATLAS. ti Scientific software development GmbH, Berlin
Nie M, Metcalf P (2015) Collaboration and litigation in national forest management. University of Montana, Missoula, MT, A Bolle Center Perspective Paper
Noss RF, Franklin JF, Baker WL, Schoennagel T, Moyle PB (2006) Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Front Ecol Environ 4:481–487
O’Leary R, Bingham LB (eds) (2003) The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Osmond DL, Nadkarni NM, Driscoll CT, Andrews E, Gold AJ, Allred SRB, Berkowitz AR, Klemens MW, Loecke TL, McGarry MA, Schwarz K (2010) The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Front Ecol Environ 8:306–313
Palys T (2008) Purposive sampling. In: Given LM (ed) The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, vol 2. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 697–698.
Posner SE, McKenzie E, Ricketts T (2016) Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1760–1765
Schoennagel T, Nelson R (2011) Restoration relevance of recent National Fire Plan treatments in forests of the western United States. Front Ecol Environ 9:271–277
Schuett MA, Selin SW, Carr DS (2001) Making it work: keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. Environ Manag 27:587–593
Schultz CA, Jedd T, Beam RD (2012) The collaborative forest landscape restoration program: a history and overview of the first projects. J For 110:381–391
Schultz CA, Coelho DL, Bean RD (2014) Design and governance of multiparty monitoring under the USDA forest service’s collaborative forest landscape restoration program. J For 112:198–206
Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16:309–326
Selin S, Chevez D (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environ Manag 19:189–195
Shindler B, Gordon R, McCaffrey S, Toman E (2011) Collaborating for healthy forests and communities: a guide for building partnerships among diverse Iiterests. Joint Fire Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Shindler BA, Brunson MW, Stankey GH (2002) Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, OR
Sturtevant V, Moote MA, Jakes P, Cheng AS (2005) Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on collaboration. US Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-GTR-257
U.S. Forest Service (2012) National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule. 36 CFR 219, vol RIN 0596-AD02
U.S. Forest Service (2015) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 5-Year Report, FY 2010–2014. United States Forest Service, Washington, DC
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (1994) Building bridges across agency boundaries: in search of excellence in the United States Forest Service. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource managment. Island Press, Washington, DC
We thank the participants in this study for sharing their time and insights. We also thank Phil Chang for his feedback during project development and James Freund, Russel Kramer, Linda Winter, and two anonymous referees for helpful reviews of the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project under accession number 233019.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0814-z.
About this article
Cite this article
Urgenson, L.S., Ryan, C.M., Halpern, C.B. et al. Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Environmental Management 59, 338–353 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2
- Ecological restoration
- Desired conditions
- Fire-prone forests
- Public lands management