From “Vision” to Reality: Emerging Public Opinion of Collaborative Management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

References

• Barbee, R. D., P. Schullery, and J. D. Varley. 1991. “The Yellowstone vision: An experiment that failed or a vote for posterity?” In Proceedings of a Conference on Partnerships in Parks and Preservation, ed. R. Greenberg, 80–85. Albany, NY: Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; Washington, DC: National Park and Conservation Association, National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior, September 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, D., A. Jordan, and L. Smith. 2013. Is environmental management really more collaborative? A comparative analysis of putative ‘paradigm shifts’ in Europe, Australia, and the United States. Environment and Planning A 45 (7):1695–1712. doi:10.1068/a45378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brechin, S. R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society & Natural Resources 15 (1):41–64. doi:10.1080/089419202317174011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, K. D., R. Reed, and D. J. Lemak. 2004. An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business & Society 43 (2):162–195. doi:10.1177/0007650304265956.
   Google Scholar
• Cawley, R. M., and J. Freemuth. 1993. Tree Farms, Mother Earth, and Other Dilemmas: The Politics of Ecosystem Management in Greater Yellowstone. Society & Natural Resources 6 (1):41–53. doi:10.1080/08941929309380806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, A. S., and K. M. Mattor. 2006. Why won’t they come? Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national Forest planning by participation level. Environmental Management 38 (4):545–561. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0124-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. G. 2014. Ensuring Greater Yellowstone’s future: Choices for leaders and citizens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Congressional Research Service. 1987. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: An analysis of data submitted by federal and state agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O.
   Google Scholar
• Conley, A., and M. Moote. 2003. Society & natural resources: An evaluating collaborative natural resource management evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 16 (5):341–371. doi:10.1080/08941920309181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4):517–551. doi:10.1080/09640560701402075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, J. 2015. The battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the sacred roots of environmental conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Freemuth, J., and R. M. G. Cawley. 1998. Science, expertise and the public: The politics of ecosystem management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Landscape and Urban Planning 40 (1–3):211–219. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00114-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grumbine, R. E. 1992. Ghost bears: Exploring the biodiversity crisis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gude, P. H., A. J. Hansen, R. Rasker, and B. Maxwell. 2006. Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (1–2):131–151. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GYCC 2015. Meetings and events. http://www.fedgycc.org/meetings-and-events (accessed June 15, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, A., and L. Phillips. 2016. Insights from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem on assessing success in sustaining wildlands. Climate change in wildlands. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Heikkila, T., and A. K. Gerlak. 2005. The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Studies Journal 33 (4):583–612. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00134.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10 (2):328–337. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. D., and R. Rasker. 1995. The role of economic and quality of life values in rural business location. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (4):405–416. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(95)00029-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, F. 2011. Interagency collaborative arrangements and activities: Types, rationales, considerations. Congressional Research Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41803.pdf (accessed May 17, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Keiter, R. B., and M. S. Boyce. 1994. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America’s wilderness heritage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. S. 2000. Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law. http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1032&context=books_reports_studies (accessed May 12, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Koontz, T. M., and C. W. Thomas. 2006. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review 66 (s1):111–121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koontz, T. M., T. A. Steelman, J. Carmin, K. Smith Korfmacher, C. Moseley, and C. W. Thomas. 2004. Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman, P., and T. W. Clark. 1994. Rethinking the ‘vision’; exercise in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society & Natural Resources 7 (5):459–478. doi:10.1080/08941929409380881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 2011. Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• McBeth, M. K., and E. A. Shanahan. 2004. Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone policy conflict. Policy Sciences 37 (3–4):319–338. doi:10.1007/s11077-005-8876-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, M., L. Scarlett, and D. Kemmis. 2010. Large landscape conservation: A strategic framework for policy and action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, May 2010, 56 p. http://www.largelandscapenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LLC_Strategic_Framework_Final.pdf (accessed April 1, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Morris, J. M., and M. K. McBeth. 2003. The new west in the context of extractive commodity theory: The case of bison-brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park. The Social Science Journal 40 (2):233–247. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(03)00006-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Collaboration and Conservation; Lessons Learned from National Park Service Partnership Areas in the Western United States. Vol. 49.
   Google Scholar
• National Park Service (NPS) 2014. “Scaling Up: Collaborative Approaches to Large Landscape Conservation.”
   Google Scholar
• Pahre, R. 2011. Political opposition to transboundary cooperation in the Greater Yellowstone area. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies 17 (2):99–128. doi:10.6267/JTLS.2011.17(2)1.
   Google Scholar
• Pahre, R. 2014. Looking backward, looking forward: The twenty-fifth anniversary of the aggregation and vision projects. Paper presented at 12th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, “Crossing Boundaries in Science, Management, and Conservation.” October 6–8. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/upload/ACCESS_-Final_12th_Biennial_Conference_ProgramBook_Oct2_2014.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Primm, S. A., and T. W. Clark. 1996. The Greater Yellowstone policy debate: What is the policy problem? Policy Sciences 29 (2):137–166. doi:10.1007/BF00137790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray, L. 2011. Using Q-methodology to identify local perspectives on wildfires in two Koyukon Athabascan communities in rural Alaska. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7 (2):18–29. doi:10.1080/15487733.2011.11908070.
   Google Scholar
• Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society & Natural Resources 7 (4):349–365. doi:10.1080/08941929409380871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, R. S., V. L. Scharf, C. Huayhuaca, S. Lynn, K. Loyd, and C. Jandreau. 2010. Collaborative conservation in practice: Current state and future directions, pp. 1–27. https://collaborativeconservation.org/media/sites/142/2018/02/LEEcollaborative_conservation_in_practice.pdf (accessed April 10, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, P. 2006. The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in Greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37 (2):185–199. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmolck, P., and J. Atkinson. 2002. PQMethod. http://www.r2.unibw-muenchen.de/*p41bsmk/qmethod/.
   Google Scholar
• Selin, S. W., and M. A. Schuett. 2000. Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society & Natural Resources 13 (8):735–745. doi:10.1080/089419200750035593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smutko, L. S., S. H. Kimek, C. A. Perrin, and L. E. Danielson. 2002. Involving watershed stakeholders: An issue attribute approach to determine willingness and need. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38 (4):995–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb05540.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steelman, T., and L. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national Forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (3):361–388. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3<361::AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-K.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of Interior (USDI) 1990. Vision for the future: A framework for coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.fedgycc.org/history (accessed May 17, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• United States Forest Service (USFS). 2012. National Forest system land management planning. Federal Register 77 (68):21162–21276. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362536.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Villamor, G. B., I. Palomo, C. A. López Santiago, E. Oteros-Rozas, and J. Hill. 2014. Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecological Processes 3 (1):1–22. doi:10.1186/s13717-014-0022-9.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Western, J. M., A. S. Cheng, N. M. Anderson, and P. Motley. 2017. Examining the social acceptability of forest biomass harvesting and utilization from collaborative forest landscape restoration: A case study from Western Colorado, USA. Journal of Forestry 115 (6):530–539. doi:10.5849/JOF-2016-086.
   Google Scholar
• Wyborn, C., and R. P. Bixler. 2013. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 123:58–67. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar