Shared visions, future challenges: a case study of three Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program locations

Walpole, Emily H.; Toman, Eric; Wilson, Robyn S.; Stidham, Melanie

doi:10.5751/es-09248-220235

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CLO lab members design projects to answer scientific questions, while informing the public on ecological systems (Bonney et al, 2009b). Step 1: Establish Goals and Outcomes Citizen scientists must recognize the shared goal among all collaborators (Davies & White, 2012;Walpole et al, 2017). The project should center on a few research questions that citizen scientists will seek to answer.…”

Section: Institution-building: Steps For Designing a Citizen Science mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Step 2: Build Collaboration A citizen science team should consist of individuals who can contribute alternative perspectives and possess a variety of areas of expertise (Bennett et al, 2010). The establishment of collaboration, including various disciplines and interests, brings innovative ideas, solutions, and outlooks that assist in achieving an overarching goal (Walpole et al, 2017). If possible, such collaborations should involve multicultural and multigenerational perspectives in planning and decision-making processes (Blair et al, 2018;Watkins et al, 2018;Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).…”

Section: Institution-building: Steps For Designing a Citizen Science mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Designing a Citizen Science Project for Forest Landscapes: A Case from Hofmann Forest in Eastern North Carolina

Hovis¹,

Cubbage²,

Rashash³

2020

OJF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen science is a participatory research design that utilizes both non-professional researchers and professional researchers to collect, analyze, and disperse data. Citizen scientists seek to discover answers and draw solutions to scientific questions. The Hofmann Open Water Laboratory (HOWL) project, established in 2016, focuses its collaborative-based efforts in eastern North Carolina. HOWL citizen scientists monitor water quality, and quantity, that flows on and off the Hofmann Forest. HOWL provides opportunities to citizen scientists and gathers data to meet the project outcomes, which include understanding the importance of Hofmann Forest in the inner coastal plain of North Carolina, building science education skills for citizen science participants, and enhancing community relationships between the forest and citizens. This article outlines several approaches for developing citizen science projects in a forest context, drawing on experiences from HOWL. The paradigm can be used to meet the needs of any forest landscape's research and management goals, while employing a participatory research approach. The guidelines present suggestions for productive and enduring processes for citizen engagement and project sustainability. Each project will need participants to set goals, build a diverse collaboration, and establish ongoing evaluation processes to determine successful and failed components that ensures the project moves forward effectively. The citizen science efforts near the Hofmann Forest in Eastern North Carolina provided an excellent case study of the development of citizen science on the forest and adjacent lands. HOWL attempts to meet participant and socio-ecological outcomes, such as encouraging public action in natural resource and forest management, as well as enhancing scientific knowledge and skills. The project helps synthesize our experiences in this effort and the social science literature, providing

show abstract

Section: Institution-building: Steps For Designing a Citizen Science mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institution-building: Steps For Designing a Citizen Science mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing a Citizen Science Project for Forest Landscapes: A Case from Hofmann Forest in Eastern North Carolina

Hovis¹,

Cubbage²,

Rashash³

2020

OJF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cognitive maps depict mental models, which in turn represent how individuals make sense of the world around them by acquiring and testing assumptions about causal relationships among states of affairs, concepts, or other factors (Craik 1967, Byrne andJohnson-Laird 2009). Because cognitive maps can explicitly represent the linkages among diverse sets of factors that characterize complex systems, they have been utilized extensively in research on the dynamics that shape social-ecological systems, including wildfireprone landscapes (Zaksek and Árvai 2004, Zhang and Jetter 2016, Walpole et al 2017.…”

Section: How Cognitive Maps Reveal Perceived Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognition of complexity and trade-offs in a wildfire-prone social-ecological system

Hamilton

Salerno

Fischer

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildfire risk is a defining environmental challenge throughout much of the American West, as well as in other regions where complex social and ecological dynamics defy simple policy or management solutions. In such settings, diverse forms of land use, livelihoods, and accompanying values provide the conditions for trade-offs (e.g. between protecting homes from uncontrollable fires and restoring low-severity fire to ecosystems as a natural disturbance process). Addressing wildfire risk requires grappling with these trade-offs at multiple levels-given the need for action by individuals as well as by large and diverse stakeholder groups-and under conditions of considerable complexity. We evaluated how individual and collective perception of trade-offs varies as a function of complexity through analysis of the cognitive maps-representations of perceived causal relationships among factors that structure an individual's understanding of a system-of 111 stakeholders in the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion of central Oregon. Bayesian statistical analysis revealed a strong tendency against perception of trade-offs in individual maps, but not in a collective map that resulted from the aggregation of all individual cognitive maps. Furthermore, we found that lags (the number of factors that mediated the effect of an action on multiple valued outcomes) limited perception of trade-offs. Each additional intervening factor decreased the likelihood of a trade-off by approximately 52% in individual cognitive maps and by 10% in the collective cognitive map. However, the heterogeneity of these factors increased the likelihood of perception of trade-offs, particularly among individual cognitive maps, for which each unit increase of the Shannon diversity index translated into a 20-fold increase in the likelihood of perception of trade-offs. Taken together, these results suggest that features of complexity have distinct effects on individual-and collective-level perception of trade-offs. We discuss implications for wildfire risk decision-making in central Oregon and in other complex wildfire-prone social-ecological systems.

show abstract

“…The landscapes and community groups involved in CFLRP are diverse, but the collaboratives faced some common challenges [ 205 , 206 ]. Not surprisingly, trust and the capacity to collaborate was one of the three broad categories of challenges, even among stakeholders without a contentious history.…”

Section: Results: a Global Overview Of The State Of Forest Restoratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

Stanturf

Mansourian

2020

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree planting has been widely touted as an inexpensive way to meet multiple international environmental goals for mitigating climate change, reversing landscape degradation and restoring biodiversity restoration. The Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration on Forests, motivated by widespread deforestation and forest degradation, call for restoring 350 million ha by 2030 by relying on forest landscape restoration (FLR) processes. Because the 173 million ha commitments made by 63 nations, regions and companies are not legally binding, expectations of what FLR means lacks consensus. The frequent disconnect between top-level aspirations and on-the-ground implementation results in limited data on FLR activities. Additionally, some countries have made landscape-scale restoration outside of the Bonn Challenge. We compared and contrasted the theory and practice of FLR and compiled information from databases of projects and initiatives and case studies. We present the main FLR initiatives happening across regional groups; in many regions, the potential need/opportunity for forest restoration exceeds the FLR activities underway. Multiple objectives can be met by manipulating vegetation (increasing structural complexity, changing species composition and restoring natural disturbances). Livelihood interventions are context-specific but include collecting or raising non-timber forest products, employment and community forests; other interventions address tenure and governance.

show abstract

Shared visions, future challenges: a case study of three Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program locations

Cited by 22 publications

References 27 publications

Designing a Citizen Science Project for Forest Landscapes: A Case from Hofmann Forest in Eastern North Carolina

Designing a Citizen Science Project for Forest Landscapes: A Case from Hofmann Forest in Eastern North Carolina

Cognition of complexity and trade-offs in a wildfire-prone social-ecological system

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About