Policy-Oriented Learning among National Forest Stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest: The Role of Science in Changing Beliefs about Forest Management Policy

References

• Arabas, K., and J. Bowersox. 2004. Forest futures: science, politics, and policy for the next century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, C. J., and M. Howlett. 1992. The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences 25 (3):275–94. doi: 10.1007/BF00138786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnett, M., and C. Davis. 2002. Getting out the cut: Politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960. Administration & Society 34 (2):202–28. doi: 10.1177/0095399702034002004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic and social assessment. Washington D.C.: FEMAT.
   Google Scholar
• Grinspoon, E., and R. Phillips. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan - The First 20 years: Socioeconomic monitoring.
   Google Scholar
• Heikkila, T., and A. K. Gerlak. 2013. Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal 41 (3):484–512. doi: 10.1111/psj.12026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkila, T., C. M. Weible, and A. K. Gerlak. 2020. When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high-conflict policy contexts? Public Administration 98 (3):535–50. doi: 10.1111/padm.12655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henry, A. D., and T. Dietz. 2012. Understanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment 25 (3):238–58. doi: 10.1177/1086026612456538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H., and Sabatier, P. A. 1993. The dynamics of policy-oriented learning. In P. A. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach (pp. 51–56). Washington D.C.: Warren Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H., D. Nohrstedt, and C. Weible. 2014. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (3rd ed.), 183–223. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koebele, E. A. 2019. Policy learning in collaborative environmental governance processes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 21 (3):242–56. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuckartz, U. 2014. Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Layzer, J. A. 2002. The environmental case: Translating values into policy. Washington DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malkamäki, A., P. M. Wagner, M. Brockhaus, A. Toppinen, and T. Ylä-Anttila. 2021. On the acoustics of policy learning: Can co-participation in policy forums break up echo chambers? Policy Studies Journal 49 (2):431–55. doi: 10.1111/psj.12378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matti, S., and A. Sandström. 2011. The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3):385–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00414.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., M. A. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Montpetit, É. 2011. Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3):513–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00419.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moysen, S. 2017. Cognition and policy change: The consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework. Policy and Society 36 (2):320–44. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1322259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, M. 2003. Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Policy Sciences 36 (3/4):307–41. doi: 10.1023/B:OLIC.0000017484.35981.b6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, M. 2008. The governance of western public lands. Lawrenceville: University of Kansas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nowlin, M. C. 2021. Policy learning and information processing. Policy Studies Journal 49 (4):1019–39. doi: 10.1111/psj.12397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philpot, C., G. H. Stankey, and R. N. Clark. 2006. Federal Forestry in the Pacific Northwest: Changing uses, changing values, changing institutions. learning to manage a complex ecosystem: Adaptive Management and the Northwest Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• REIC. 2015. The Pacific Northwest Interagency Monitoring Program – Northwest forest plan monitoring. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/20yr-report/index.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., J. Loomis, and C. McCarthy. 1995. Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of U.S. Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science 39 (1):204–42. doi: 10.2307/2111764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (1st ed.), 117–66. Boulder: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., and M. A. Zafonte. 2001. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. international encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/04521-6.
   Google Scholar
• Saldana, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Salka, W. M. 2004. Mission evolution: The United States Forest Service’s response to crisis. Review of Policy Research 21 (2):221–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00070.x.
   Google Scholar
• Sotirov, M., and M. Memmler. 2012. The advocacy coalition framework in natural resource policy studies - recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics 16:51–64. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spies, T. A. 2009. Science of old growth, or a journey into wonderland. In Old growth in a new world: A pacific northwest icon reexamined, ed. T. A. Spies & S. L. Duncan, 344. Washington DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spies, T. A., and Duncan, S. L. (Eds.). 2009. Old Growth in a New World. Washington DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Team, S. E. I. S. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to forest service and bureau of land management planning documents within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. W., J. F. Franklin, J. Gordon, and K. N. Johnson. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: Origins, components, implementation experience, and suggestions for change. Conservation Biology 20 (2):277–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00385.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. Narrative timeline of the pacific Northwest 2015 fire season.
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M. 2008. Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal 36 (4):615–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00287.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier, and K. Mcqueen. 2009. Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal 37 (1):121–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, D. Nohrstedt, A. D. Henry, and P. deLeon. 2011. A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3):349–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaffee, S. L. 1994. The Wisdom of the spotted owl. Washington DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar