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

Abstract

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.

Twenty‐five years of the Northwest Forest Plan: what have we learned?

“…Public support for active forest management on federal lands may not be uniform due to diverse values and a lack of trust in federal land managers among some stakeholders (Davis et al . ; Cerveny et al . ), including local residents who often express distrust of federal management prescriptions in part due to prior decades of clearcutting of old‐growth forests and federal agency management of conflict around timber (Wondolleck ; Christensen and Butler ).…”

“…; Davis et al . ; Butler and Schultz ). However, these efforts face challenges and success depends on many factors, such as trust, communication, strong partnerships, resources and management capacity, a supportive policy environment, community leadership, and agency participation (Cheng and Sturtevant ; Charnley et al .…”

“…This reality should temper expectations for federal land management plans and motivate regulatory and management agencies, as well as other landowners and stakeholders, to engage in cross-boundary conservation. Collaborative groups and other multilateral processes have emerged to engage public and private landowners and other stakeholders using an "all-lands" approach (Charnley et al 2017;Davis et al 2017;Butler and Schultz 2019). However, these efforts face challenges and success depends on many factors, such as trust, communication, strong partnerships, resources and management capacity, a supportive policy environment, community leadership, and agency participation (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012; Charnley et al 2017;Cerveny et al 2018).…”

“…Public support for active forest management on federal lands may not be uniform due to diverse values and a lack of trust in federal land managers among some stakeholders (Davis et al 2017;Cerveny et al 2018), in cluding local residents who often express distrust of federal management prescriptions in part due to prior decades of clearcutting of old-growth forests and federal agency man agement of conflict around timber (Wondolleck 2013;Christensen and Butler 2019). Nonethe less, collaboration can enhance trust if it is based on clearly stated objectives, consistent communication, transparent processes, reasonable timelines, honored commitments, and opportunities for candid deliberation and genuine engagement among diverse stakeholders (Stern and Coleman 2015).…”

A land systems science approach to assessing forest governance and characterizing the emergence of social forestry in the Western Cascades of Oregon

“…The USFS, and Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) in particular, has been investing in improving community relationships., e.g. through regular participation in local, place-based forest collaboratives (Davis et al 2017). Better working relations between the USFS and environmental organizations have created space for small-scale experiments with regeneration harvesting in younger stands, and even some ecological forestry (Franklin and Johnson 2012) in older stands that could lead to a redefined 'happy place' and expanded zones of agreement in some contexts.…”