Environmental Management

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 908–921 | Cite as

Comparison of USDA Forest Service and Stakeholder Motivations and Experiences in Collaborative Federal Forest Governance in the Western United States

  • Emily Jane DavisEmail author
  • Eric M. White
  • Lee K. Cerveny
  • David Seesholtz
  • Meagan L. Nuss
  • Donald R. Ulrich


In the United States, over 191 million acres of land is managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, a federal government agency. In several western U.S. states, organized collaborative groups have become a de facto governance approach to providing sustained input on management decisions on much public land. This is most extensive in Oregon, where at least 25 “forest collaboratives” currently exist. This affords excellent opportunities for studies of many common themes in collaborative governance, including trust, shared values, and perceptions of success. We undertook a statewide survey of participants in Oregon forest collaboratives to examine differences in motivations, perceptions of success, and satisfaction among Forest Service participants (“agency participants”), who made up 31% of the sample, and other respondents (“non-agency”) who represent nonfederal agencies, interest groups, citizens, and non-governmental groups. We found that agency participants differed from non-agency participants. They typically had higher annual incomes, and were primarily motivated to participate to build trust. However, a majority of all respondents were similar in not indicating any other social or economic motivations as their primary reason for collaborating. A majority also reported satisfaction with their collaborative—despite not ranking collaborative performance on a number of specific potential outcomes highly. Together, this suggests that collaboration in Oregon is currently perceived as successful despite not achieving many specific outcomes. Yet there were significant differences in socioeconomic status and motivation that could affect the ability of agency and nonagency participants to develop and achieve mutually-desired goals.


Collaboration forest management United States national forests 



This research was made possible by funding from Oregon State University’s College of Forestry and by in-kind contributions to the analysis and interpretation from the US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. Figure 1 was designed and prepared by the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29:1649–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown SJM (2012) The Soda Bear Project and the Blue Mountains Forest Partners/USDA Forest Service Collaboration. J For 110:446–447Google Scholar
  4. Butler WH (2013) Collaboration at Arm’s Length: Navigating Agency Engagement in Landscape-Scale Ecological Restoration Collaboratives. J For 111:395–403Google Scholar
  5. Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manage 75:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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(1):35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng AS, Sturtevant VE (2012) A framework for assessing collaborative capacity in community-based public forest management. J Environ Manage 49(3):675–689Google Scholar
  8. Conley A, Moote MA (2003) Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16(5):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coulter K, Boggs D, Macfarlane G, St. Clair J, Garrity M, Marderosian A, Gaede M, Talbott R, Short D, Horejsi B, Mitchell R, Reed E, Robey F, Blaelock J, Anderson L, Sterns S (2015) Collective Statement on Collaborative Group Trends. Blue Mountains Biodiversity ProjectGoogle Scholar
  10. Dirks KT (1999) The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. J Appl Psychol 84:445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Ballard HL, Sturtevant VE (2008) Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecol Soc 13:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein BE, Butler WH (2010) Expanding the scope and impact of collaborative planning: combining multi-stakeholder collaboration and communities of practice in a learning network. J Am Plann Assoc 76:238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hibbard M, Madsen J (2003) Environmental Resistance to Place-Based Collaboration in the U.S. West. Soc Nat Resour 16:703–718. doi: 10.1080/08941920309194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koontz TM (2004) Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  15. Lachapelle PR, McCool SF (2012) The role of trust in community wildland fire protection planning. Soc Nat Resour 25:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Margerum R (2011) Beyond consensus: Producing results from collaborative environmental planning and management.Google Scholar
  17. McKinney M, Field P (2008) Evaluating community-based collaboration on federal lands and resources. Soc Nat Resour 21:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oregon Solutions (2013) Oregon forest collaboratives: Statewide inventory.
  19. Oregon State Board of Forestry (2009) Achieving Oregon’s vision for federal forestlands. Oregon Board of Forestry, Salem ORGoogle Scholar
  20. Parkins JR (2008) The metagovernance of climate change: institutional adaptation to the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic in British Columbia. J Rural Community Dev 3:7–26Google Scholar
  21. Schuett MA, Selin SW, Carr DS (2001) Making it work: Keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management. J Environ Manage 27(4):587–593Google Scholar
  22. Selin SW, Schuett MA, Carr D (2000) Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Soc Nat Resour 13:735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stern MJ, Baird TD (2015) Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions. Ecol Soc 20:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stern MJ, Coleman KJ (2015) The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 28:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Susskind L, van der Wansem M, Ciccareli A (2003) Mediating land use disputes in the United States: Pros and cons. Environments 31:39Google Scholar
  26. Tidwell T (2012) U.S. Forest Service land management: challenges and opportunities for achieving healthier national forests: hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, second session, 27 March 2012. Accessed 14 Jan 2015
  27. Vaske JJ, Needham MD, Cline Jr RC (2007) Clarifying interpersonal and social values conflict among recreationists. J Leis Res 39:182Google Scholar
  28. Wondolleck JM, Ryan CM (1999) What hat do I wear now?: An examination of agency roles in collaborative processes. Negot J 15:117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource managment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2003) Collaborative ecosystem planning processes in the United States: Evolution and challenges. Environments 31:59Google Scholar
  31. Yaffee SL, Wondolleck J (1997) Building bridges across agency boundaries. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, 381–396Google Scholar
  32. Young JC, Searle K, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD, Jordan A (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol Conserv 195:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Jane Davis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eric M. White
    • 2
  • Lee K. Cerveny
    • 2
  • David Seesholtz
    • 3
  • Meagan L. Nuss
    • 4
  • Donald R. Ulrich
    • 4
  1. 1.Forestry and Natural Resources Extension, Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest Research StationUSDA Forest ServicePortlandUSA
  3. 3.Ecosystem Management Coordination, Washington OfficeUSDA Forest ServicePortlandUSA
  4. 4.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations