Tracking a Governance Transition: Identifying and Measuring Indicators of Social Forestry on the Willamette National Forest

References

• Abrams, J., E. J. Davis, and C. Moseley. 2015. Community-based organizations and institutional work in the remote rural West. Review of Policy Research 32 (6):675–98. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams, J., H. Huber-Stearns, C. Bone, C. Grummon, and C. Moseley. 2017. Adaptation to a landscape-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic in the era of networked governance: The enduring importance of bureaucratic institutions. Ecology and Society 22 (4):22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babcock, H. M. 1996. Dual regulation, collaborative management, or layered federalism. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 3 (2):193–208.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M., and J. Kusel. 2003. Community forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bixler, R. P. 2014. From community forest management to polycentric governance: Assessing evidence from the bottom up. Society and Natural Resources 27 (2):155–69. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.840021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breslow, S. J., M. Allen, D. Holstein, B. Sojka, R. Barnea, X. Basurto, C. Carothers, S. Charnley, S. Coulthard, N. Dolšak, et al. 2017. Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3 (12):1–18. doi: 10.1080/20964129.2017.1411767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, W. H., A. Monroe, and S. McCaffrey. 2015. Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: Implications for legal context, accountability, and adaptive management. Environmental Management 55 (3):564–77. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0430-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannon, J. B., K. J. Barrett, B. M. Gannon, R. N. Addington, M. A. Battaglia, P. J. Fornwalt, G. H. Aplet, A. S. Cheng, J. L. Underhill, J. S. Briggs, et al. 2018. Collaborative restoration effects on forest structure in ponderosa pine-dominated forests of Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management 424 :191–204. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.04.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashore, B., G. F. Galloway, D. Cubbage, P. Humphreys, K. Katila, A. Levin, C. Maryudi, K. McDermott, S. McGinley, M. J. Kengen, et al. 2010. Ability of institutions to address new challenges. In Forests and society: Responding to global drivers of change, eds. G. Mery, P. Katila, G. Galloway, R. I. Alfaro, M. Kanninen, M. Lobovikov, and J. Varjo, 441–85. Vienna, Austria: IUFRO (International Union of Forestry Research Organizations) Secretariat.
   Google Scholar
• Charnley, S., E. C. Kelly, and K. L. Wendel. 2017. All lands approaches to fire management in the Pacific West: A typology. Journal of Forestry 115 (1):16–25. doi: 10.5849/jof.15-092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, A. S., C. Danks, and S. R. Allred. 2011. The role of social and policy learning in changing forest governance: An examination of community-based forestry initiatives in the U.S. Forest Policy and Economics 13 (2):89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, A. S., and T. Randall-Parker. 2017. Examining the influence of positionality in evaluating collaborative progress in natural resource management: Reflections of an academic and a practitioner. Society and Natural Resources 30 (9):1168–78. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1295493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christoffersen, N. D. 2011. Collaboration: a catalyst for restoration. In Human dimensions of ecological restoration: Integrating science, nature, and culture, ed. D. Egan, E. Hjerpe, and J. Abrams, 93–105. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conley, A., and M. A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resourcemanagement. Society and Natural Resources 16 (5):371–86. doi: 10.1080/08941920309181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connelly, S., T. Richardson, and T. Miles. 2006. Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (3):267–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortner, H. J., and M. A. Moote. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2010. Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-management. Ecology and Society 15 (1):15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cyphers, L. A., and C. A. Schultz. 2019. Policy design to support cross-boundary land management: The example of the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership. Land Use Policy 80 :362–9. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecosystem Workforce Program. 2016. The Forest service and communities: The relationships between land and people in the pacific northwest region. Eugene, OR: Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Ecosystem Workforce Program. 2018. The Forest service and partners: Working together to restore pacific northwest national forests. Eugene, OR: Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (1):1–29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enzer, M. J., and M. Goebel. 2014. Place-based conservation finds its voice: A case study of the rural voices for conservation coalition. In Stitching the west back together: Conservation of working landscapes, eds. S. Charnley, T. E. Sheridan, and G. P. Nabhan, 101–17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreyra, C., and P. Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water management: Insights from the field. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (2):271–96. doi: 10.1080/09640560601156532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. 2014. Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• GAO. 1997. Forest service decision-making: A framework for improving performance. Report to congressional requesters. Washington, D. C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
   Google Scholar
• Harris, T. C. 2018. Understanding patterns of timber harvest and their drivers: A quantitative assessment of forest governance in the Western Cascades of Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Geography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Hoberg, G. 1992. Pluralism by design: Environmental policy and the American regulatory state. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., and M. Ramesh. 2014. The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society 33 (4):317–27. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber-Stearns, H. R., and A. S. Cheng. 2017. The evolving role of government in the adaptive governance of freshwater social-ecological systems in the western US. Environmental Science & Policy 77 :40–8. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, J. E., R. G. Lee, and P. Sommers. 2004. Monitoring the community impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan: an alternative to social indicators. Society and Natural Resources 17 (3):223–33. doi: 10.1080/08941920490270258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. N. 2007. Will linking science to policy lead to sustainable forestry? Lessons from the federal forests of the United States. In Sustainable forestry: From monitoring and modeling to knowledge management and policy science, eds. K. M. Reynolds, A. J. Thompson, M. Köhl, M. A. Shannon, D. Ray, and K. Rennolls, 14–34. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, H. 1960. The Forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keast, R., M. Mandell, and K. Brown. 2006. Mixing state, market and network governance modes: The role of government in “crowded” policy domains. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 9 (1):27. doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-09-01-2006-B002.
   Google Scholar
• Kettl, D. F. 2000. The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review 60 (6):488–97. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koontz, T. M. 2007. Federal and state public forest administration in the new millennium: Revisiting Herbert Kaufman’s The Forest Ranger. Public Administration Review 67 (1):152–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00704.x.
   Web of Science ®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):111–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, M. B., and T. H. Morrison. 2006. Public interest or private agenda? A meditation on the role of NGOs in environmental policy and management in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (2):232–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langston, N. 1995. Forest dreams, forest nightmares: The paradox of old growth in the inland west. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, G. L. 2014. Forging vertical and horizontal integration in public administration leadership and management. In New public governance: A regime-centered perspective, eds. D. F. Morgan and B. J. Cook, 125–38. London, UK; New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31 (1):297–325. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leong, K. M., D. P. Emmerson, and R. Byron. 2011. The new governance era: Implications for collaborative conservation and adaptive management in department of the interior agencies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16 (4):236–43. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2011.585436.
   Google Scholar
• Lockie, S., and V. Higgins. 2007. Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies 23 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.09.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockwood, M., J. Davidson, A. Curtis, E. Stratford, and R. Griffith. 2010. Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 23 (10):986–1001. doi: 10.1080/08941920802178214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCleery, D. 2008. Re-inventing the United States Forest Service: Evolution from custodial management, to production forestry, to ecosystem management. In Reinventing forestry agencies: experiences of institutional restructuring in asia and the pacific, eds. P. Durst, C. Brown, J. Broadhead, R. Suzuki, R. Leslie, and A. Inoguchi, 45–77. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
   Google Scholar
• Maier, C., and J. B. Abrams. 2018. Navigating social forestry–A street-level perspective on National Forest management in the US Pacific Northwest. Land Use Policy 70:432–41. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. 2005. Devolution in the woods: community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37 (6):995–1014. doi: 10.1068/a36266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. 2006. Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: Community forestry in British Columbia and the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1):84–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00500.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinney, M., and P. Field. 2008. Evaluating community-based collaboration on federal lands and resources. Society & Natural Resources 21 (5):419–29. doi: 10.1080/08941920701744215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moseley, C., and S. Charnley. 2014. Understanding micro-processes of institutionalization: Stewardship contracting and national forest management. Policy Sciences 47 (1):69–98. doi: 10.1007/s11077-013-9190-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moseley, C., and H. Huber-Stearns. 2017. Piloting restoration-related social and economic measures on national forests. Working paper 82. Eugene, OR: Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, C., and G. Winkel. 2014. Sustainable forest management on federal lands in the US Pacific Northwest—making sense of science, conflict, and collaboration. In Forests under pressure—local solutions to global issues, eds. P. Katila, G. Galloway, W. de Jong, P. Pacheco, and G. Mery, 189–203. Vienna, Austria: IUFRO.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., B. Aguilar-González, and T. D. Sisk. 2007. Linking ecosystem health indicators and collaborative management: A systematic framework to evaluate ecological and social outcomes. Ecology and Society 12 (2):6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz-Erickson, T. A., L. K. Campbell, D. L. Childers, J. M. Grove, D. M. Iwaniec, S. T. Pickett, M. Romolini, and E. S. Svendsen. 2016. Demystifying governance and its role for transitions in urban social–ecological systems. Ecosphere 7 (11):e01564. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.1564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P. 2006. The new public governance? Public Management Review 8 (3):377–87. doi: 10.1080/14719030600853022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3):354–65. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, P. J., and T. Choi. 2010. Ecological governance: Organizing principles for an emerging era. Public Administration Review 70 :S89–S99. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02250.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, E., and E. P. Weber. 2010. Thinking harder about outcomes for collaborative governance arrangements. The American Review of Public Administration 40 (5):546–67. doi: 10.1177/0275074009359024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarlett, L., and M. McKinney. 2016. Connecting people and places: The emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(3):116–25. doi: 10.1002/fee.1247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, C. A., T. Jedd, and R. D. Beam. 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of Forestry 110(7):381–91. doi: 10.5849/jof.11-082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, T. 2015. Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34 (3):537–66. doi: 10.1002/pam.21836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secco, L., R. Da Re, D. M. Pettenella, and P. Gatto. 2014. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: A set of indicators. Forest Policy and Economics 49:57–71. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seekamp, E., and L. K. Cerveny. 2010. Examining USDA Forest Service recreation partnerships: Institutional and relational interactions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 28 (4):1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Selin, S. W., M. A. Schuett, and D. S. Carr. 1997. Has collaborative planning taken root in the national forests? Journal of Forestry 95 (5):25–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, M. A. 2004. The Northwest Forest Plan as a learning process: A call for new institutions bridging science and politics. In Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century, eds. K. Arabas and J. Bowersox, 256–79. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, T. A. 2010. Implementing innovation: Fostering enduring change in environmental and natural resource governance. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, T. A., and D. W. Tucker. 2005. The Camino Real: To care for the land and serve the people. In Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy, and decision making, eds. R. D. Brunner, T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M. Edwards, and D. W. Tucker, 91–130. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, M. J., C. A. Martin, S. A. Predmore, and W. C. Morse. 2014. Risk tradeoffs in adaptive ecosystem management: the case of the US Forest Service. Environmental Management 53 (6):1095–108. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0267-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, S., and J. Sundstrom. 2018. Stewardship contracting in the Siuslaw National Forest. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 1 (40):36–44.
   Google Scholar
• Timberlake, T. J., and C. A. Schultz. 2017. Policy, practice, and partnerships for climate change adaptation on US national forests. Climatic Change 144(2):257–69. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-2031-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. K. 2014. America’s public lands: From yellowstone to smokey bear and beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Winkel, G. 2014. When the pendulum doesn’t find its center: Environmental narratives, strategies, and forest policy change in the US Pacific Northwest. Global Environmental Change 27:84–95. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaffee, S. L. 1994. The wisdom of the spotted owl: Policy lessons for a new century. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar