United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-182

November 2006

Collaborative Capacity, Problem 

Framing, and Mutual Trust in 

Addressing the Wildland Fire 

Social Problem

An Annotated Reading List

Jeffrey J. Brooks

Alexander N. Bujak

Joseph G. Champ

Daniel R. Williams
Brooks, Jeffrey J.; Bujak, Alexander N.; Champ, Joseph G.; Williams, Daniel R. 2006. Collaborative capacity, 

problem framing, and mutual trust in addressing the wildland fire social problem: An annotated reading list. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-182. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 27 p.

Abstract

We reviewed, annotated, and organized recent social science research and developed a framework for 

addressing the wildland fire social problem. We annotated articles related to three topic areas or factors, which 

are critical for understanding collective action, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. These factors are 

collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust. The integration of these is a prerequisite of collective 

action to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans, reduce vegetative fuels, enhance public safety and 

preparedness, and/or create defensible space. Collective action requires partnerships, common goals, and a 

common language. Understanding the inter-relationships between the factors that enable collective action is 

important to collaborative partnerships, forest managers, and social science researchers as they work together 

to address the wildland fire social problem.

Key words: Collaboration, framework of collective action, forest communities, human dimensions of wildland 

fire, social science research, wildland-urban interface

Authors

Jeffrey J. Brooks is completing a post doctoral program with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. His current research focuses on the human dimensions of wildland fire mitigation, outdoor 

recreation experience, and relationship to place. He has earned degrees in biology, conservation ecology, and 

natural resource recreation.

Alexander N. Bujak is Research Assistant at the Rocky Mountain Research Station. He is currently involved in 

research funded by the Joint Fires Sciences Program.

Joseph G. Champ is Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Technical Communication at 

Colorado State University.

Daniel R. Williams is Research Social Scientist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Cover art designed by Pam Froemke. 

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing 

information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the 

publication title and series number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Collaborative Capacity, Problem 

Framing, and Mutual Trust in 

Addressing the Wildland Fire 

Social Problem

An Annotated Reading List

Jeffrey J. Brooks

Alexander N. Bujak

Joseph G. Champ

Daniel R. Williams

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station
Executive Summary

This report is an annotated literature review of recently published social science articles and papers. We annotated 

research that examined collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust. We suggest that an integration 

of these factors is prerequisite to collective management of today’s wildland fire social problem.

Understanding the relationships and interactions between these factors is important to collaborative partnerships, 

on-the-ground forest managers and practitioners working in the wildland-urban interface, and social science 

researchers who are planning new research projects to better understand the wildland fire social problem.

From an organizational perspective, collaborative capacity means having a clear vision and strategy to enable 

collective thinking, adaptive planning, and implementation beyond money, personnel, skills, and equipment—

although these are important aspects of overall capacity to collaborate. A collaborative entity or partnership, with 

self-organization, established relationships, an attitude of confidence, and a coherent frame of reference may 

have the capacity to act in ways to improve problem situations.

Problem framing involves the different ways that stakeholders see or define, the problem—public understandings 

plural. Forest ecologists studying the wildland-urban interface would most likely frame the problem differently 

than residents. Likewise, this report provides a social science/human dimensions frame of reference. Given the 

many ways to define and approach this dynamic problem, we do not put forth a succinct definition of the wildland 

fire social problem in the report.

Mutual trust includes positive public relations and respect for different frames of reference. Mutual trust develops 

through inclusive, interactive communication and co-learning processes, not top-down, one-way persuasion 

strategies.

We organized these inter-related factors using a schematic model, or framework (fig. 1). The areas of overlap 

in figure 1 illustrate interactions and relationships between collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual 

trust. The central area of overlap is the goal—collective action. Collective action requires partnerships, common 

goals, and a common language. The interplay of mutual trust and collaborative capacity enables partnerships to 

be forged. The interplay of problem framing and collaborative capacity facilitates the development of common 

goals. The interplay of mutual trust and problem framing can enable a common language.

When these factors are acknowledged, developed, and sufficiently integrated, collective action (fig. 1) can occur 

that results in Community Wildfire Protection Plans, reduction of vegetative fuels, enhanced public safety and 

preparedness, and/or defensible space. In other words, the complex human dimensions of wildland fire can be 

managed through the creation of partnerships, common goals, and a common language—the prerequisites of 

collective action.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge our sources of funding and support for this project: the Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership, 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, and the Department of Journalism and Technical 

Communication at Colorado State University. We would like to credit Katie Knotek at the USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and Wendy Fulks at The Nature 

Conservancy for providing thoughtful peer reviews of this report.

Issues surrounding catastrophic wildfire are some of the most daunting in our field. 

The USDA Forest Service estimates that as many as 397 million acres need some 

treatment of some form, and it is clear that foresters cannot do this work alone. Aside 

from our colleagues in other disciplines, we will need to work with the people who live 

in communities that surround at-risk forests to reduce the threat of fire and to address 

its impacts.

Michael T. Goergen Jr. 2004

Society of American Foresters

ii
Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii

A Social Problem............................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Scope......................................................................................................................... 2

Background and Justification.................................................................................................... 2

A Framework for Understanding Collective Action.................................................................... 3

Approach.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Annotated Reading List .................................................................................................................. 4

Building Relationships and Collaborative Capacity .................................................................. 4

Preface ................................................................................................................................. 4

Recent Works ........................................................................................................................... 5

Problem Framing: Public Definitions of Wildland Fire/Fuels and Forest Management, 

 Health, and Restoration..................................................................................................... 9

Preface ................................................................................................................................. 9

Recent Works ......................................................................................................................... 10

Mutual Trust: Public Relations and Inclusive, Interactive Communication.............................. 18

Preface ............................................................................................................................... 18

Recent Works ......................................................................................................................... 18

Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................. 24

Additional Resources.................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A. Author by Topic Index ............................................................................................. 27

iii
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 1

A Social Problem________________

“The mixing of people, wildlands, and fire hazards—the 

wildland/urban interface—is creating a management problem 

that offers both challenges and opportunities to resource 

managers.”

Cortner and Gale 1990, p. 245

The wildland-urban interface (WUI) 1 fire problem is 

a social problem primarily centered on people in addition to forest ecology and wildland fire behavior. This 

problem embodies an array of competing social values, 

multiple stakeholder interests, and uncertain management outcomes. Due to its social nature, wildland fire 

in WUI areas is considered one of the most contentious, 

complex, and elusive problems faced by wildland fire 

protection agencies (Cortner and others 1990; Davis and 

Marker 1987).

Defining the complex nature of the wildland fire social 

problem has become a problem in itself due to wickedness (Allen and Gould 1986; Rittel and Webber 1973). 

How numerous and diverse stakeholders understand and 

define wildland fire and the risks determines how the 

problem is addressed (Cheng and Becker 2005). A stakeholder group is a collection of people sharing a common 

interest, activity, way of life, or relationship relative to 

the outcome of an issue or management decision (Findley 

and others 2001). As stakeholders, social researchers 

view the wildland fire problem through a social science, 

or human dimensions frame. Forest ecologists studying the problem in the WUI would most likely frame the 

problem differently than both social scientists and residents. Due to the different frames, we do not formulate 

a succinct definition of the wildland fire social problem, 

which may best be defined on a case-by-case basis.

The mixing of people and wildland fire identified by 

Cortner and Gale (1990) in the opening passage has certainly provided ample opportunities to study the human 

dimensions of this challenging problem. Understanding 

wildland fire preparedness and reactions to vegetative 

fuels management on public and private lands near WUI 

communities has become the target of many social research studies and collaborative initiatives. For example, 

the journal entitled Society and Natural Resources published a three-part special section on the reemergence 

of social research on humans, fires, and forests (Cortner 

and Field 2004).

We are learning that knowledge of and experience 

with wildland fire and fuels management vary across 

WUI communities in different regions of the United 

States, and that such knowledge and experience can 

affect perceptions of risk and preferences for, and 

acceptance of, management practices (Brunson and 

Shindler 2004; Jacobson and others 2001; Nelson and 

others 2004; Vogt 2003). Experience with wildland fire, 

forestry, or farming and time spent living in the WUI can 

increase people’s knowledge and awareness of wildland 

fire risks (McGee and Russell 2003). Interface residents 

within and across communities respond to fire events, 

fuels management, and landscape recovery programs in 

1

 The wildland-urban interface (WUI) has been defined as a zone 

where substantial human occupancy coexists with areas of flammable forest, brush, and grassland vegetation. This zone may 

include primary residences, vacation homes, mobile homes, commercial buildings, and outdoor recreation facilities. The defining 

characteristic of the interface zone is the intermixing of people, 

homes, and natural vegetation, with an inherent risk to each from 

wildland fire (Chase 1993). Social and physical characteristics of 

the WUI tend to differ substantially across regions of the United 

States. Defining the WUI in terms of standardized and measurable boundaries presents a challenge for wildland fire managers. 

Disagreements about what the WUI is (and where it is) can be 

barriers to collective action in some places despite definitions of 

the WUI found in The Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Collaborative Capacity, Problem Framing, and Mutual 

Trust in Addressing the Wildland Fire Social Problem

An Annotated Reading List

Jeffrey J. Brooks

Alexander N. Bujak

Joseph G. Champ

Daniel R. Williams
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

different ways depending on their worldviews, history in 

a place, and general perceptions of forest and wildland 

fire management (Rodriguez and others 2003).

Purpose and Scope______________

The purpose of this annotated literature review is to 

summarize and organize a portion of this research knowledge from the social sciences in order to develop and 

communicate a framework (fig. 1) that can be useful for 

understanding collective management of the wildland 

fire social problem. The intended audience is threefold: 

collaborative partnerships, on-the-ground managers and 

practitioners, and social science researchers alike as they 

work toward understanding and reducing the risks of 

wildland fire.

This report focuses on the problem situation in the 

WUI because this is where people and wildland fire tend 

to interact most often. We acknowledge that wildland 

fire and fuels management and related issues extend 

beyond the WUI to rural, roadless, and wilderness areas, 

and therefore this report may be of benefit to partnerships, managers, and social researchers as they address 

this problem across the landscape.

We focus primarily on the situation before a fire event 

to limit the scope, and because collaboration may be most 

feasible, but not necessarily more important, at the prefire stages of the problem (Carroll and Daniels 2003). 

The framework for understanding collective action developed in this report, however, should be beneficial to 

the work of professionals in the WUI during and after 

fire events, which are of equal importance and closely 

related to pre-fire stages.

Background and Justification

The WUI is expanding at a substantial rate as Americans 

leave cities and suburbs to live in once-remote rural areas 

adjacent to public forests with opportunities for outdoor 

recreation (Davis 1990; Davis and Marker 1987; Egan 

and Luloff 2000; Plevel 1997; Shelby and others 2004; 

Shumway and Otterstrom 2001; Swanson 2001). This 

flood of “emigrant urbanites” into rural landscapes has 

Figure 1. Simplified framework for understanding collective action.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 3

been described by Pyne (2004) as “today’s reigning fire 

problem.” Increased human settlement in fire-prone areas presents a social dilemma because wildland fire is 

physically dangerous for human life and property, but 

people’s knowledge of the problem varies and perceptions of the risks and the impacts are defined differently 

by residents, fire managers, policymakers, and communities (Carroll and Daniels 2003; Slovic 1999).

The situation is exacerbated by accumulations of dry 

vegetative fuels. For example, Colorado’s largest wildfire in history, the Hayman Fire in 2002, occurred in an 

area with high levels of dry vegetation resulting from 

fire exclusion and several years of drought (Graham 

and others 2005). There is potential for further loss of 

life and property in WUI areas. The National Academy 

of Public Administration (2004) reported that interface 

communities are developing faster than they are creating 

defensible space and faster than their local governments’ 

capacities to regulate fire-safe development.

A more complete understanding of the wildland fire 

problem is needed to guide new policies that integrate 

social, economic, and ecological needs across agency, 

public-private, and landscape boundaries (Dombeck 

and others 2004). We tried to answer the call, in part, 

by summarizing knowledge from the social sciences to 

provide a more complete understanding of the complex 

human dimensions of wildland fire management.

A Framework for Understanding 

Collective Action

We annotated social science articles that provide insight for acting on this problem in collective ways. The 

opposite of collective action for addressing a management problem is stalemate and paralyzing conflict (Innes 

and Booher 2003). This report focuses on three broad 

and interrelated social factors that are important for 

avoiding stalemate and collectively improving problem 

situations in wildland fire management (fig. 1):

Building relationships and collaborative capacity

Problem framing—public definitions of wildland fire/

fuels and forest management, health, and restoration

Mutual trust—positive public relations and inclusive, 

interactive communication

Community capacity has been defined as the interaction of human capital, social capital, and the physical 

resources existing within a given community that can be 

leveraged to collectively solve problems and improve 

or maintain community well-being (Chaskin 2001; 

Kaplan 2000). From an organizational perspective, collaborative capacity means having a clear vision and 

strategy to enable relationship building, collective thinking, 

•

•

•

adaptive planning, and implementation beyond the 

tangible elements of money, skilled personnel, and 

equipment—although these too are important for successful collaboration (Kaplan 2000). A collaborative 

entity, or partnership, with self-organization, an attitude 

of confidence, and a coherent frame of reference may 

have the capacity to act in ways that improve problem 

situations related to wildland fire management.

Problem framing involves the different ways that 

stakeholders define the problem and the terminology 

and concepts related to it, such as forest health. Framing 

accounts for public understandings, plural. This report, 

for example, provides a social science frame of reference. Different frames allow stakeholders to see what 

they want to see, or what they are guided to see, but 

stakeholders tend to have trouble seeing the same problem situation or reality from another’s frame of reference 

(Spicer 1997). The existence of many different frames, 

or definitions of the problem, suggests a need to develop 

common goals and a common language.

Partnerships that communicate using a common language tend to have mutual trust between members 

and outside stakeholders. Mutual trust leads to positive 

public relations and respect and tolerance for different 

frames of reference. Mutual trust is developed over time 

through fair, inclusive, interactive communication and 

co-learning processes, rather than one-way persuasion 

strategies (Schusler and others 2003; Toman and others 

2006).

Where these factors overlap, collective action may 

be achieved through long-term partnerships that have 

common goals and use a common language (fig. 1). 

The interplay of collaborative capacity and mutual trust 

can allow for partnerships that are characterized by 

long-term relationships. Partnerships with capacity are 

sustained by a guiding vision, strong leadership, and a 

sense of collective identity (Moore and Lee 1999). The 

interplay of collaborative capacity and problem framing can allow for common goals, which involves shared

understandings of future desired conditions, acceptable management practices, and successful outcomes. 

The interplay of mutual trust and problem framing can 

allow for a common language, which involves shared

definitions of management, fire and its roles, forest conditions, restoration, and success.

Approach_______________________

We present a framework for understanding collective action (fig. 1) based on annotations of studies that 

provided direct insights for collectively addressing 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

the wildland fire social problem. We used the Web of 

Science database and the Internet to locate recent social 

science articles from interdisciplinary fields of study. 

Articles were selected that addressed collaborative capacity, problem framing, and mutual trust, and/or the 

interrelationships between them. The studies were carefully summarized in greater detail than is common for 

annotated bibliographies of natural resource topics. Our 

intent was not to simply abstract many papers, but to annotate fewer papers in more depth to demonstrate how 

each case supports the development of such a framework, while also communicating key findings. We often 

paraphrased or quoted the original articles to retain the 

authors’ intended meanings. The content for the annotations was guided by a flexible outline:

Objectives/purpose

Methodology

Key findings

Managerial/applied implications

Specific relevance for understanding the model of 

collective action

It is important to note that collaborative capacity, 

problem framing, and mutual trust are inter-related in 

a process that can result in collective management (fig. 

1). For the purpose of organized reporting, we have 

separated the annotations into individual sub-sections, 

beginning with a preface for each of the three factors in 

the framework. The purpose of each preface is to more 

clearly familiarize the reader with each of the topic areas and the annotations that are organized accordingly, 

demonstrating how each section serves to support the 

framework of collective action for addressing wildland 

fire mitigation (fig. 1).

Annotated Reading List___________

Building Relationships and Collaborative 

Capacity

Preface

The changing role of forest managers today is 

characterized by a need for agencies to help foster and 

maintain relationships with and between diverse publics. 

These relationships form the foundation of a community’s 

or an organization’s capacity to collectively address the 

problem situations that it faces regarding wildland fire. 

Six papers were reviewed and annotated in this section 

that either report on or evaluate stakeholder processes, 

•

•

•

•

•

and demonstrate evidence of relationship building and 

collaborative capacity for addressing complex social 

problems such as wildland fire.

Collaborative capacity is defined as the mobilization 

of skilled committed individuals, their relationships, 

and the physical resources within a given organization 

or community that can be leveraged to collectively solve 

problems and sustain community well-being (Kaplan 

2000). As collaborative capacity and mutual trust 

interact over time, the social conditions surrounding 

a problem become increasingly favorable for the 

formation of partnerships (fig. 1). Partnerships and other 

collaborative initiatives, consist of long-term, committed 

relationships, have a collective identity and vision, 

continuous leadership, trust, shared resources, and are 

sustainable (Selin and others 2000). A partnership that 

has developed a guiding vision, the ability to think 

collectively, and the ability to plan adaptively will have 

some level of capacity to implement its wildland fire and 

fuels management plans. Collaborative capacity also 

includes common goals, as indicated by its intersection 

with problem framing in figure 1. Partnerships that form 

to address the wildland fire social problem must develop 

common goals and shared understandings of future 

desired conditions, acceptable management practices, 

and the outcomes that determine successes.

Building collaborative capacity involves more than 

increasing awareness and preparation for interface 

communities to respond to risks from wildland fire. 

Strong leaders and a network of relationships are 

characteristic of capable partnerships, and these allow 

diverse stakeholders to work together (Schusler and 

others 2003). For example, WUI communities must 

be involved in building positive relationships with the 

United States Forest Service at the local level (Frentz 

and others 2000). In addition, co-learning, also known 

as social learning is an important process for building 

collaborative capacity. Schusler and others (2003) 

concluded that incorporating social learning into 

stakeholder processes can create opportunities for 

participants to engage one another and develop common 

goals and the relationships needed for collective action. 

One way to facilitate social learning in collaboration 

is to create a common map of understandings of the 

wildland fire social problem (Daniels and Walker 2001). 

Finally, the evaluation of stakeholder processes for 

success and improvement can provide ways to address 

this social problem on a long-term, adaptive basis (Innes 

and Booher 1999).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 5

Recent Works

Daniels, S. E.; Walker, G. B. 2001. The practice of 

collaborative learning: Citizens, scientists, and 

foresters in fire recovery planning. Chapter 9. Working 

through environmental conflict: The collaborative 

learning approach (pp. 205-221). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

299 p.

Key words: Citizens, collaborative learning, fire 

recovery planning, foresters, scientists

Annotation: This chapter presents an application of 

collaborative learning in wildland fire recovery planning 

in two communities near the Wenatchee National Forest 

in central Washington. The collaborative learning 

approach is a public involvement framework for 

communicating with communities about ecosystem 

management processes including collectively improving 

problem situations related to wildland fire.

Wenatchee National Forest administrators had expressed an interest in collaborative learning. The 

researchers conducted ethnographic interviews with 

residents to gather relevant information from the broad 

spectrum of interests about recent wildland fires in 

Chelan County. The interviews were supplemented by 

several site visits and contacts with employees of the 

United States Forest Service (USFS). This investigation 

determined that a collaborative learning approach would 

be feasible. The authors conducted training sessions 

about collaborative learning and communication competence for USFS personnel. Workshops were designed 

with direct USFS input about the details and timing of 

USFS planning activities and the meeting locations. 

Publicity was designed to ensure broad, inclusive public 

participation. Rangers were interviewed on local radio 

stations about the workshop, direct phone calls were 

placed to interested parties, flyers were posted in public places, interest groups were given announcements to 

post in newsletters, and advertisements appeared in major newspapers.

The initial workshops were used to create a common 

starting point for collaboration. For example, presentations were given about wildland fire ecology and the 

effects of fire on social and ecological systems. The next 

collaborative learning workshop started with large-group 

discussions and situation mapping of interests, concerns, 

needs, and improvements related to wildland fire recovery. Situation mapping is similar to the identification 

of issues, but it is a group activity focused on creating 

a common map of understanding that allows a visual 

representation of a recovery situation after a fire. 

Situation mapping facilitates learning about the dynamic nature of ecosystems and communities.

Brief summaries were generated from the initial 

workshop and shared with all participants. Alternative 

projects were generated by the USFS recovery teams 

with the appropriate environmental assessment. Two 

ranger districts decided to implement the more traditional public comment period for their projects. A third 

district conducted a second round of collaborative learning workshops for evaluating the proposed actions. 

Then, wildland fire recovery projects were finalized and 

initiated.

The Wenatchee National Forest application illustrates 

how successful collaborative learning improves all participants’ understandings and definitions of a wildland 

fire problem situation by taking a systems approach, 

which reveals different goals about land management 

and creates constructive discussions about contentious 

issues. Collaborative learning generates shared understandings and common goals by encouraging informal 

discussions between stakeholders who hold differing 

views. Community members are empowered with active 

roles in the development of improvement projects. This 

case study demonstrated how involving citizens in a collaborative planning process can create better decisions 

and build collaborative capacity.

Frentz, I. C.; Voth, D. E.; Burns, S.; Sperry, C. W. 

2000. Forest Service—community relationship 

building: Recommendations. Society and Natural 

Resources. 13: 549-566.

Key words: Community capacity, ecosystem 

management, forest communities, forest planning, 

relationship building, Rural Community Assistance 

program

Annotation: Recommendations to promote collaborative 

relationship building between the United States Forest 

Service (USFS) and local communities were based 

on interviews with leaders working on community 

and forest planning projects adjacent to USFS lands. 

Most of the geographically dispersed projects that 

were contacted received funding from the USFS Rural 

Community Assistance (RCA) program. Some of the 

projects were administered by USFS personnel. A survey 

was sent to the interviewees to review the preliminary 

recommendations. This article described the assumptions 

used to construct the recommendations and presented an 

analysis of the survey results.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

Respondents highly supported the following assumptions: (1) community involvement depends on building 

a positive relationship between the USFS and communities, (2) communities close to National Forests benefit 

from increased involvement in forest planning, and (3) 

an enhanced relationship between communities and the 

USFS is needed before community and forest planning 

can be successfully coordinated.

Recommendations were separated into five audiences: (1) Ranger District, (2) Forest Supervisor, (3) 

the National Forest System Deputy Chief, (4) the RCA 

leader in Washington DC, and (5) RCA coordinators on 

National Forests. The authors recommended that the 

District Ranger devote staff time to building community relationships and educating staff about the networks of 

social relationships that existed in the local community. 

The recommendations for the Forest Supervisor enabled 

him or her to set the stage and facilitate local relationship building by providing direction and opportunities 

for District Ranger offices to interact with communities. 

The higher level recommendations facilitated support 

and direction for people on-the-ground to become active 

in relationship building.

Communities must also be interested in building a 

positive collaborative relationship with the USFS. The 

survey data showed evidence that the responsibility of 

relationship building should not be entirely placed on 

the shoulders of community leaders or agency leaders. 

Respondents also noted a lack of formal organization in 

many local communities.

The article concluded with seven policy recommendations. Three of these apply to the wildland fire social 

problem: (1) cultivate working relationships with other 

agencies that have responsibility and expertise in working with rural communities, (2) pursue RCA projects that 

have high potential to benefit both the target community 

and strengthen community-Forest Service relationships, 

and (3) promote the building of community leadership and 

collaborative capacity for participation in agency-community planning. The USFS and its partner communities 

should stay better informed of current activities and future needs so that the positive relationships between the 

USFS and local communities can build on shared understandings and trust in order to be sustained overtime.

Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. 1999. Consensus building 

and complex adaptive systems: A framework for 

evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the 

American Planning Association. 66(4): 412-423.

Key words: Collaboration, complexity, open 

communication, relationship building

Annotation: This paper proposed a conceptual framework 

for evaluating consensus building. Consensus building is 

a collaborative practice in which stakeholders, selected 

to represent different interests, come together for faceto-face, long-term dialogue to address a common policy 

or decision problem. The purpose of the paper was to 

lay a foundation for understanding and improving 

collaborative planning that is based in open and fair 

communication.

As a collaborative process, consensus building must 

be evaluated beyond any agreement that is achieved. 

The authors stressed that even a process without agreement may be considered successful if the participants 

have learned about the problem, about each other’s interests, and about alternative resolutions. In consensus 

building, processes and outcomes are not easily separated because the process and the outcomes are tied 

together. Agreement by itself falls short of genuine support and consensus if reached by a process that was not 

regarded as fair and accountable by all the participants. 

If the process is judged as fair, even stakeholders who 

have not met their objectives may support an agreement 

if they believe that their voices were heard and their interests were included to some extent. New levels of trust, 

shared knowledge, and working relationships depend on 

collaboration that is mutually respectful.

The authors identified and discussed several outcomes 

of successful consensus building. Criteria for evaluating 

the collaborative process included:

includes representatives of all relevant and different 

interests;

is driven by objectives that are practical and shared 

by the group;

allows participants to organize and decide on ground 

rules, tasks, working groups, and discussion topics;

engages participants, keeping them at the table, interested, and learning through in-depth conversations, 

humor, and informal interactions;

encourages challenges to the status quo and rewards 

creative thinking;

ensures agreement on the meaning of many types of 

information; and

seeks consensus only after significant effort has been 

made to find creative responses to differences of opinion.

Criteria for evaluating the outcomes of consensus 

building included: a high-quality agreement, ending 

stalemate; compares favorably with other planning 

methods for costs and benefits; produces creative ideas; 

results in co-learning and learning beyond the group; 

creates social and political capital; and culminates in 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 7

new partnerships, new collective practices, or new institutions.

The most important consequences of consensus 

building may be to change the direction of a complex, 

changing situation (such as the wildland fire social problem), and to help move communities and partnerships 

toward collective action to address their social and environmental problems, capitalizing on leadership that has 

learned how to work together to co-develop flexible and 

long-term management practices.

Kaplan, A. 2000. Capacity building: Shifting the 

paradigms of practice. Development in Practice. 10(3, 

4): 517-526.

Key words: Capacity building, community-centered 

development, organizations, practitioners

Annotation: This conceptual article proposed that 

despite much lip-service about building capacity for 

organizations, the concept itself remains elusive and not 

well understood. The author stressed that the practice of 

capacity building on a situation-by-situation basis has 

largely failed, in part, due to current approaches that 

focus on material things that are tangible and easily 

quantified, ignoring the intangible or invisible elements. 

The article called for a major shift in thinking about 

capacity building.

A hierarchy of elements of organizational life was 

discussed that serves as a prerequisite for building 

collaborative capacity. At the top of the hierarchy are intangible or invisible things. First, an organization must 

develop a coherent frame of reference that allows the organization to make sense of the world around it and to 

make relevant decisions. An organization must also develop an attitude of confidence to take action in ways that 

are seen as effective. A clear guiding vision and strategy 

are necessary to enable collective thinking and adaptive 

planning and implementation. The roles and functions 

of the organization need to be clearly defined and differentiated. Human capital is located at the bottom of the 

hierarchy, and it is indicated by tangible and measurable 

things such as growth of individual skills, abilities, and 

competencies, which can be enhanced with trainings. An 

organization with capacity also has material resources, 

or physical and financial capital, such as money, office 

space, and equipment.

The author argued that the intangible elements at the 

top of the hierarchy largely determine the functioning 

of the organization, but traditional capacity-building 

efforts tend to focus on the more quantifiable elements 

such as human, physical, and financial capital. Although 

there is much talk about building collaborative capacity 

in organizations, administrators and practitioners concentrate on what products can be easily delivered. This 

disconnect provides the need for a radical shift toward 

the ability to work with intangibles.

The author cautioned that the needs of an organization change as it develops. It may not always be the case 

that capacity-building efforts should begin with the intangibles before moving to the more quantifiable—“It 

all depends on where a particular organization is at a 

particular time, and on what kind of an organization it 

is.” For example, although training will not be effective 

unless the vision, culture, and structure of an organization are clearly defined, these elements are dependent 

on one another, so practitioners may sometimes have to 

work on a number of levels in the hierarchy at the same 

time to be effective.

The implication for addressing the wildland fire social problem is that communities, like organizations, are 

unique and the stage of development of capacity for interface communities varies. This uniqueness demands 

case-specific responses on the part of fire managers 

and residents as they work together to build collaborative capacity in communities. Also, processes of change 

in an interface community cannot be easily predicted. 

The author warned that it is easy for managers to rely on 

standardized models developed in the office rather than 

on accurate case assessments specific to the situation onthe-ground.

Wildland fire and forestry practitioners are normally 

trained to deliver interventions, packages, or programs 

rather than to read and interpret the developmental 

phase of a particular community regarding its capacity 

to act collectively. Practitioners need to be (re)trained 

to develop management practices that are appropriate 

to a community at a particular time in its developmental history, regarding its capacity. A new focus should 

be directed toward the actual practice of the community 

forester rather than on well-worded programs or welldesigned training courses. Practitioners need to develop 

a resourcefulness out of which they can respond, rather 

than being trained in past solutions, standard models, and 

behaviors that replicate the status quo. Instead, practitioners need to be given the freedom to respond uniquely 

to unique situations. The article concluded with a list of 

abilities that forestry practitioners need to develop, such 

as the ability to listen deeply and develop mutual trust, 

find the right questions to help communities move forward, and capitalize on ambiguity, rather than to seek 

immediate solutions.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

Schusler, T. M.; Decker, D. J.; Pfeffer, M. J. 2003. 

Social learning for collaborative natural resource 

management. Society and Natural Resources. 15:

309-326.

Key words: Collaborative natural resource 

management, community-based management, 

deliberation, social learning

Annotation: This study described a cooperative effort 

between a state conservation agency in New York 

and diverse stakeholders from communities involved 

in planning for the Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife 

Management Area. The authors investigated how the state 

agency could encourage collaborative management of 

these islands through a deliberative learning process. The 

primary issue of contention in the area was management 

of large populations of double-crested cormorants that 

use the islands as breeding habitat and compete with 

locals for fish stocks. There was concern over how 

management decisions would affect communities along 

the lake shore where sport fishing and related tourism 

are central to the local culture and economy.

In a pre-assessment of the situation, local interviewees expressed a desire for economic development that 

would be compatible with preserving their rural quality of life and the critical freshwater resources of the 

islands. To capitalize on these shared desires, the authors employed the search conference methodology to 

enable participants to collectively create and implement a management plan. During the two and a half day 

search conference and one month after the event, the 

authors used multiple qualitative data gathering techniques to examine whether and how social leaning had 

occurred among participants. Social learning was defined as learning that occurs when people engage one 

another and share diverse perspectives and experiences 

in order to develop shared understandings of a problem 

and a basis for collective action. The analysis focused on 

the extent to which social leaning contributed to identifying a common purpose and developing relationships 

of trust, two requisites of collaborative capacity and two 

characteristics of effective partnerships.

After the search conference process, the authors conducted a telephone survey with the participants. Most of 

the interviewees reported that they had learned about the 

facts surrounding the management of the islands. They 

also learned about areas of agreement and disagreement among participants, barriers and opportunities, 

and actions to address problems or take advantage of 

opportunities. A key finding was that all participants 

interviewed after the search conference said that they 

had learned about the concerns of other participants 

to a moderate or great extent. Half of the interviewees 

said that participating in the process had changed their 

own concerns about management of the island habitat, 

expanding their views and concerns beyond their self 

interests. This group had begun the process of developing the shared understandings needed for collective 

action.

Most participants agreed that the search conference 

substantially contributed to the identification of a common purpose for the group. Participants found that they 

shared more common ground than they had anticipated. 

One-third of the participants described re-establishing 

relationships with other participants, strengthening relationships between the public and the private sectors, 

or generally getting to know the others better through 

discussions and informal time spent together. Over onehalf of the participants said that they had created new 

relationships. Most of the interviewees reported that 

they gained trust in others to a moderate or great extent. 

These participants described mutual respect, listening, 

and open-mindedness as essential for developing collaborative working relationships and enhancing trust.

The authors also sought to understand how social 

learning had occurred. An in-depth analysis of observations made during the conference and analyses of the 

interviews after the event identified eight attributes of 

the process that had enabled learning: open communication, diverse participation, unrestrained thinking, 

constructive conflict, democratic structure, multiple 

sources of knowledge, extended time for engagement, 

and professional neutral facilitation of the process. The 

authors suggested that these conditions had created an 

atmosphere in which the participants could share diverse 

views and opinions, respectfully question one another, 

and explore the complex challenges that they faced with 

sensitivity and humor. They concluded that incorporating these eight attributes into stakeholder processes 

can create opportunities for participants to engage one 

another in order to develop common goals and a foundation for collective action. The authors advised that social 

learning is necessary but not sufficient for the development of collaborative management, but social learning 

may be the process that develops the other necessary 

requisites for collaborative management: capacity, partnerships, and supportive policies.

Selin, S. W.; Schuett, M. A.; Carr, D. 2000. Modeling 

stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative 

effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources. 13:

735-745.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 9

Key words: Collaboration, community development, 

monitoring, partnerships

Annotation: The emerging practices of collaboration, 

planning, and stewardship call for ways to monitor the 

effectiveness of these processes. The authors identified 

several characteristics of effective collaboration from the 

research literature. Some common factors included the 

presence and participation of open-minded, dedicated, 

and committed individuals; broad-based support from 

stakeholders, public agencies, and citizens; informal 

and formal structure; information sharing among 

partners; recognizing common goals; and the existence 

of adequate resources, capabilities, and support.

They examined several collaborative initiatives 

throughout the United States. The researchers used criteria to select the cases, including existence for two or 

more years as an entity, multiple scales of operation, diverse objectives, and active participation by the United 

States Forest Service (USFS).

A questionnaire was mailed to active individuals 

(41percent response) in different collaborative initiatives. The respondents provided descriptions of 30 

collaborative initiatives and rated statements on their 

expectations of the effectiveness of the initiatives. The 

outcomes of effective collaboration rated highest (average scores above 3 on a 5-point scale) included: 

improved agency coordination, improved communication, more resource sharing, and enhanced levels of 

trust. Statements that were rated lower than expected 

included: improved quality of life, reduction in litigation, increased job opportunities, increased community 

awareness, and sustainable resource management.

The characteristics of effective collaboration rated 

highest by these respondents were strong vision, support from agencies, a sense of belonging, recognizing 

interdependence, broad representation of stakeholders, 

and clear goals and objectives. Next in order of importance were power balanced among stakeholders, mutual 

trust, open lines of communication, and pre-existing relationships in the community.

Results from this investigation provided evidence 

that supports the premise that natural resource-based 

collaborative initiatives can achieve beneficial outcomes when active participants are included in the 

process. Leadership emerged as a strong predictor of effectiveness of collaboration, suggesting a need for more 

leadership training efforts on the part of government 

agencies. Continuity in leadership also emerged as an 

important predictor of effectiveness. By demonstrating 

that their efforts are effective, an organization can justify its continued investment in building collaborative 

capacity.

Problem Framing: Public Definitions of 

Wildland Fire/Fuels and Forest Management, 

Health, and Restoration

Preface

The 11 articles reviewed and annotated in this section 

demonstrate the importance of understanding problem 

framing and recognizing that different stakeholders hear 

different things when they hear people talk about aspects 

of the wildland fire social problem. Framing addresses 

the different ways that stakeholders see or define, the 

wildland fire social problem and the terminology related 

to it such as forest health and restoration.

Different frames allow stakeholders to see what they 

want to see. Understanding how different groups frame 

the elements of a problem is important because stakeholders find it difficult to see the same problem from 

another’s frame of reference, leading to poor communication and conflict. The existence of different frames 

suggests a need to develop a common language for collective management (fig. 1). A collaborative partnership 

that uses a common language has undergone the difficult process of developing shared definitions of concepts 

like forest management, the roles of wildland fire in the 

landscape, forest health and restoration, and successful 

outcomes of collaboration.

Some managers, scientists, and partnerships working 

to address the wildland fire social problem have moved 

beyond thinning vegetation in and around communities 

to broader scale landscape issues such as forest health 

and ecological restoration (Kauffman 2004). This is one 

way to frame the problem, but using this frame presents additional uncertainties because meanings of the 

concepts of forest health and restoration are debated by 

various stakeholders (Abrams and others 2005; Burger 

2002; Hull and others 2003; Woolley and McGinnis 

2000). Landscape preferences and forest conditions such 

as naturalness and biodiversity mean different things to 

different people (Findley and others 2001; Hull and others 2001; Nelson and others 2004).

Knowledge of and experience with wildland fire and 

fuels management vary across communities and in different geographical regions, affecting how diverse 

stakeholders frame the problem in terms of their preferences for, and acceptance of management practices on 

public and private lands such as mechanical thinning and 

prescribed burning (Brunson and Shindler 2004; Nelson 

and others 2004; Wagner and others 1998). People within and across communities respond to fire events, fuels 

management, and fire recovery programs in different 

ways depending on their frames of reference including 
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

their environmental worldviews and orientations, history in a place, and general views on forest management 

(Abrams and others 2005; Rodriguez and others 2003).

Recent Works

Abrams, J.; Kelly, E.; Shindler, B.; Wilton, J. 2005. 

Value orientation and forest management: The 

forest health debate. Environmental Management. 36: 

495-505.

Key words: Active management, forest health, public 

opinion, value orientations

Annotation: “Forest health” has become an issue of 

contention. The authors proposed that differing frames 

of reference used by people to make sense of the forest 

health concept may be related to what they believe are 

and what are not appropriate ways to manage forests. 

In other words, environmental value orientations 

were thought to be associated with how people frame 

problems of forest management and the related concept, 

forest health.

A survey of the general public in Washington and 

Oregon was conducted to assess the relationship between 

respondents’ self-reported environmental/economic 

priorities, or value orientations, and their opinions regarding the acceptability of general forest management 

practices, the appropriateness of specific management 

practices, and perceived threats to forest health. The 

survey (51percent response rate) was distributed to a 

stratified random sample to represent both urban and 

rural populations. Value orientations were measured using the Environment-Economic Priority scale (EEP) to 

cover a range of forest management actions and forest 

conditions. The EEP scale represents tradeoffs between 

individual preferences for economic and environmental 

benefits.

Consensus among the public that active management 

is necessary for the maintenance of healthy forests was 

shown to break down when people were asked about 

specific management practices. This contrast can be 

explained by the polarized views of economically-centered and environmentally-centered survey participants 

as measured on the EEP. The level of support for specific 

management practices was found to be contextual. For 

an overstocked stand, thinning was viewed as appropriate, where for a healthy stand it was not. What is deemed 

“healthy” is open to the interpretation of the individual. 

People who use an economically-centered frame of reference interpret “healthy” to mean stands with profitable 

returns, but from an environmentally-centered frame, 

healthy may imply that forests are negatively impacted 

by practices such as commercial harvesting.

Some evidence was reported that economically-centered respondents tend to view wildland fire as a threat 

to forest health, while fire tends to be viewed as part of 

the ecology of healthy forests by environmentally-centered individuals. Economically-centered respondents 

tend to view fire suppression as appropriate for protecting potential harvest value. Environmentally-centered 

respondents tend to believe that fire suppression causes 

unhealthy forest conditions, and they see wildland fire as 

a driver of appropriate forest changes. However, opinions on fire suppression and prescribed fire were only 

weakly correlated with EEP scores.

The implication is that the public examined in this 

study views a healthy forest as something with multiple dimensions and multiple definitions. Different 

frames used to understand the concept of forest health 

must be made explicit to prevent miscommunications. 

Study findings point to the need for more clarity regarding the components of a healthy forest and how 

specific management practices contribute to maintaining 

healthy conditions. Participants in this debate need to 

move beyond public opinions that are polarized. Nearly 

40 percent of these respondents said that they believe 

that both economic and environmental factors should 

be given equal priority in forest management. Perhaps 

this middle ground position holds insight for developing shared understandings and a common language for 

addressing the forest health debate. Common goals for 

future desired conditions of forests need to be collectively developed before stakeholders discuss how to 

achieve successful outcomes for wildland fire and forest 

management.

Brunson, M. W.; Shindler, B. A. 2004. Geographic 

variation in social acceptability of wildland fuels 

management in the western United States. Society 

and Natural Resources. 17: 661-678.

Key words: Attitudes, knowledge, social acceptability, 

vegetative fuels

Annotation: Levels of acceptability of wildland fuels 

management practices were compared in four western 

states in this article. Social acceptability was defined as 

the amount in which citizens trust and support decisions 

affecting land management. This study used a mail survey 

in four geographically different areas to measure beliefs 

about a variety of wildland fuels management issues. 

The locations were selected based on the experiences 

of residents with wildland fire, federal agency fuel 

treatments, ongoing public outreach and education, and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 11

consistent population growth above the national average. 

The areas studied were the Central Arizona highlands, 

the Colorado Front Range, Central Oregon, and the 

Utah Great Basin. The three fuel management practices 

examined were prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and 

livestock grazing.

A majority from each location reported all three practices acceptable in some or all situations. Acceptability 

of prescribed fire and mechanical removal of fuels 

differed significantly between locations. Oregonians responded more favorably to the practice of prescribed fire 

than respondents from Utah, who suggested that both 

mechanical removal and prescribed fire should rarely be 

used.

There were strong emotional components in the beliefs about the issues for the different groups. Utah 

residents were more likely to classify human safety, 

concern for smoke, and reduced scenic quality as most 

important. Whereas, Oregon respondents found that human safety was not a concern. Colorado respondents 

were more likely than the other groups to support fuel 

reduction efforts even if it meant reducing the scenic 

quality of areas.

The ecological and management histories associated with each of these states may help to explain 

geographical differences reported in this study. Oregon’s 

experience with logging may increase the relevancy and 

support for mechanical thinning in that state. Utah and 

Arizona’s experiences with livestock grazing practices 

may explain respondents’ acceptance of this technique 

to reduce wildland fuels there.

This study showed that public acceptance and support for wildland fuels treatments cannot be achieved 

by simply supplementing citizens’ knowledge. The 

public is knowledgeable about wildland fire, but this 

knowledge and the ways that it is used to frame these 

issues vary geographically, which affects how the goals 

of fuels management are achieved. Simple standardized education that provides additional facts about the 

appropriate management practices will not suffice because the facts differ from place-to-place. A focus on 

citizens’ local frames of reference is relevant and needed to address their specific needs. Educational programs 

and messages should be tailored to local priorities in order to be effective.

Burger, J. 2002. Restoration, stewardship, 

environmental health, and policy: Understanding 

stakeholders’ perceptions. Environmental Management. 30(5): 631-640.

Key words: Ecological health, expert versus public

perceptions, restoration, stewardship

Annotation: This descriptive study explored the 

premise that effective decision-making for addressing 

environmental risks should begin with an understanding 

of how various publics define, or frame, environmental 

management issues and concepts such as forest health 

and restoration. Ambiguities in how the concepts used 

in environmental management are defined seem to be 

commonplace, presenting barriers to communication. 

The author surveyed visitors to a Los Alamos air show 

regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) response 

to contaminated areas in New Mexico. The survey was 

administered on location in Santa Fe County and included 

questions about which attributes are most important 

for defining the concepts of restoration, stewardship, 

environmental and ecological health, and environmental 

and ecological restoration.

The respondents demonstrated that they held differing definitions of these concepts. The most important 

attribute for the meaning of environmental health was 

found to be human sanitation, while maintaining functional ecosystems was rated most important for defining 

the concept of ecological health.

Restoration was defined by these respondents as 

protecting human and ecological health, restoring ecosystems, and reducing the hazards from environmental 

contamination. The DOE uses a limited definition of 

restoration: cleanup and elimination of radioactive materials. According to the DOE, stewardship is the act of 

mimizing hazardous waste risks to humans and ecosystems, while the respondents, similar to governmental 

agencies and conservation organizations, defined stewardship as long-term wise use and protection of natural 

resources.

Integrating public values with environmental management depends on the necessary first step of understanding 

of how publics frame management issues. Some conclusions drawn from this survey of people living around 

Los Alamos National Laboratory are (1) the purpose of 

restoration is to protect human and ecological health; (2) 

both environmental and ecological restoration mean removal of contaminated materials and reducing hazards 

associated with contamination; (3) ecological restoration 

means cleaning up the environment, restoring ecosystem 

function, and establishing natural plant and animal communities; (4) respondents rated enhancing the economic 

value of the land lowest relative to restoration, environmental restoration, and ecological restoration; and 

(5) stewardship primarily involves the wise use of natural resources and preservation of plants and animals.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

The data suggest that the DOE and perhaps other governmental agencies should broaden their views of health, 

restoration, and stewardship to account for conservation oriented definitions, for example. In this study, the 

public primarily viewed restoration as ecological protection and stewardship as wise use of natural resources. 

Agencies and organizations that are committed to environmental restoration would profit by working with 

other groups to integrate agency, scientist, and public 

definitions of these various concepts to develop a common language before making management decisions.

Findley, A. J.; Carroll, M. S.; Blatner, K. A. 2001. 

Social complexity and the management of smalldiameter stands. Journal of Forestry. 99: 18-27.

Key words: Ecological restoration, public 

participation, social science

Annotation: This study was set in the Colville National 

Forest in northeastern Washington. The researchers 

conducted a social assessment to describe how 

stakeholders and communities view, participate in, 

and position themselves on policy debates regarding 

the abundance of small-diameter stands on the forest. 

Stakeholders were defined as groups of individuals 

sharing a common interest, activity, way of life, or other 

relationship relative to outcomes of small-diameter stand 

forestry.

Managers had shared concern over small-diameter, 

overcrowded stands on the Colville for two decades, 

leading to this study with objectives to (1) develop an 

understanding of local views and attachments, (2) categorize the human dimensions of the small-diameter 

stand issue, and (3) facilitate the development of public involvement programs. The grounded theory method 

of qualitative data collection and interpretation was employed to capture the diversity of stakeholder views 

surrounding the issue on the Colville. Key informant 

interviews were conducted. Snowball referral sampling 

was used and interviewing stopped when informants 

agreed that a successful cross section of communities 

was obtained. The interviews probed local attachments 

to the forest, perceptions of forest management, and 

views about small-diameter stands.

The assessment identified seven stakeholder groups: 

civic representatives, commodity users, environmentalists, non-industrial private owners, a recreation group, 

Native American tribes, and the United States Forest 

Service (USFS). The paper tabulated the key concerns, 

commonly held beliefs, and the positions generally taken by each group. Two main topic areas relative to stand 

management were discussed for each group including 

(1) attributes and risks of small-diameter stands and (2) 

preferred treatments for small-diameter stands.

Civic representatives perceived bigger trees and higher growth forest conditions as enhancing recreation, 

timber production, and aesthetics. They also perceived 

less risk of dangerous and destructive wildland fires 

with larger-diameter stand conditions. Civic representatives supported proactive thinning to enhance forest 

conditions and community well-being.

Commodity users were similar to civic representatives in their concerns for timber and forest health and 

generally believed that small-diameter stands handicap 

multiple-use forestry. They advocated for thinning and 

low levels of prescribed burning to reduce tree mortality and increase productivity. Commodity users believed 

that treatments would also benefit wildlife habitat and 

hydrological conditions.

Environmentalists valued the intrinsic naturalness 

and biodiversity of the forest above resource productivity. They believed that healthy forests required 

naturally regulated systems that cycle through periods of low productivity, but which function in natural 

succession. Regarding silvicultural treatments, the environmentalists were divided. Zero-cut environmentalists 

equated thinning with logging, road development, and 

severe impacts to soil, water, and vegetation. Light-impact environmentalists acknowledged the effects of past 

management on the forest and cautiously favored some 

thinning to restore historic ranges of variability.

Within the non-industrial, private forest owners group, 

environmental worldview and views on management intensity differed, focusing more on the health of their own 

lands than of the National Forest. They believed that private lands were generally unhealthy because they had 

been over cut, so private forest owners advised National 

Forest mangers to learn from private lands and manage 

for fire resilient species and to use selective harvest techniques instead of clear cuts.

The recreation group was less likely to value smalldiameter stands because these were thought to offer 

fewer opportunities for riding, hiking, wildlife viewing, 

or huckleberry picking. They associated this stand type 

with higher risk of destructive wildland fire. The recreation group tended to advocate thinning treatments to 

improve recreation conditions in the short term and to 

increase overall aesthetics in the long term.

Native tribes were more interested in being consulted as sovereign nations than being consulted about the 

details of small-diameter stand management. Federally 

mandated communication and consultation in a nationto-nation fashion was valued by this stakeholder group. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 13

They indicated that use of that process would provide 

the appropriate opportunity for Native Americans to discuss preferred treatments on the National Forest.

Forest Service managers were concerned with forest 

health and biodiversity conditions. They recognized an 

abundance of small-diameter stands on the Colville and 

preferred thinning, harvesting, and burning to regenerate 

these stands. Forest Service views were based on broad 

management objectives such as age class, species, and 

size diversity. They also acknowledged stand uniqueness and a need for site-specific treatments.

Results indicate that social conditions in and around 

the Colville National Forests are not homogeneous. 

These stakeholders’ evaluations of treatments and current and future forest conditions are grounded in diverse 

sets of experiences, attachments to the forest, and cultural and historic influences. The authors recommended 

focusing on linkages between extreme views and the interests in the middle rather than the polarized extremes. 

Various groups see the techniques and goals of forest 

restoration through different frames. Findings suggest 

that socially acceptable directions must offer a flexible 

range of management alternatives to account for these 

diverse views. The authors concluded that forest restoration as a management strategy may well prove to be as 

contentious and socially complex as conventional timber harvesting.

Hull, R. B.; Richert, D.; Seekamp, E.; Robertson, 

D.; Buhyoff, G. J. 2003. Understandings of 

environmental quality: Ambiguities and values 

held by environmental professionals. Environmental 

Management. 31(1): 1-13.

Key words: Communication, ecological buzzwords, 

value-based knowledge

Annotation: The purpose of this paper was to 

document that scientific terms used by environmental 

professionals are both value-laden and ambiguous when 

used to communicate with publics on environmental 

management issues. The authors investigated how 

definitions of environmental quality (for example, forest 

health and healthy conditions) affect public negotiations 

and what managers can do with this uncertainty.

The heated debate over forest health, for example, 

can be viewed as embedded in the terminology used by 

environmental professionals, who start with the premise 

that applied environmental science seeks to improve the 

condition of nature or reduce damage to it. Definitions 

of terms like forest health, biodiversity, sustainability, and naturalness are confounded by different terms 

implying the same thing or similar terms meaning different things. For example, definitions of forest health 

include sustainability and sustainability includes forest 

health, leading to confusion and lack of a common language.

Individuals use different values when stating definitions of these terms. Some might use utilitarian (the 

greatest good for the greatest number) grounds to argue 

for managing forests, while others may use ecological 

values to justify a need for forest health. The values 

underlying a definition matter as much as the characteristics of forest health implied by the terms. The paper 

listed some common values that underlie the idea of 

forest health:

Biological and ecological values assign intrinsic 

worth to each living thing in its own right above any 

value to humans.

Enlightened self interest values include the value to 

sustain life from the flow of ecosystem services and 

ecosystem health for our own self interest.

Utilitarian values highlight forest benefits for our 

own consumption and economic return, and educational value for science and learning associated with 

high levels of forest health.

Aesthetic, spiritual, and recreational values of forest 

health include high-quality amenities, primitiveness, 

solitude, and related experiences.

When different people come together to talk about 

wildland fire and forest management problems, values 

tend to get mixed-up, creating an inefficient language 

for communicating about forest health. Stakeholders in 

this situation lack a common language for understanding. The authors suggested making the values explicit 

in environmental documents that engage stakeholders. 

Public understandings of forest health should also involve more democratic processes such as participatory 

research and collaborative decision making. If ecologists and forest/wildland fire managers embrace and 

make explicit the ambiguities in environmental management and its related concepts, efforts to develop and 

communicate using a common language can become 

more effective.

Hull, R. B.; Robertson, D. P.; Kendra, A. 2001. Public 

understandings of nature: A case study of local 

knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society 

and Natural Resources. 14: 325-340.

Key words: Discourse, forest health, landscape, 

naturalness, wildness

•

•

•

•
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

Annotation: This article explored public understandings 

of the concepts of “nature” and “naturalness” related 

to forest conditions. The purpose was to acknowledge 

and communicate a range of public understandings. 

The assumption is that diverse people create diverse 

definitions of environmental concepts, making a common 

language difficult to achieve. Observed differences in the 

definitions of nature and naturalness reflect a diversity 

of cultures, worldviews, social values, and objectives 

about forest conditions, management, and successful 

outcomes.

The Jefferson National Forest in the Appalachian 

Mountains of southwestern Virginia served as the backdrop for the case study. Group interviews were conducted 

using a semi-structured question guide that directly asked 

about forest conditions identified in the literature, such 

as forest health. The interviews also indirectly probed 

meanings of naturalness, wildness, and other qualities 

of the forest. The small groups interviewed included: 

(1) local educators/teachers, (2) recreational outfitters, 

(3) tourism officials, (4) real estate agents, (5) local 

newspaper writers/editors, (6) elected community leaders/politicians, and (7) environmental group activists. 

The interview discussions were video taped, transcribed, 

and co-interpreted by two of the authors.

The research participants valued forest health for reasons that primarily benefited humans and the quality 

of human life. Community needs were of more concern than the rights of nature in and of itself. Many of 

the people interviewed thought that a natural forest is a 

healthy forest. The interviews revealed indicators of forest health such as green living trees, species diversity, 

and soil stability.

Qualities of a natural forest emerged including escape from the stresses of everyday life, recreational 

benefits, aesthetic beauty, and spiritual feelings such as 

being connected with God. Many participants had difficulty describing naturalness in objective and consistent 

terms because they felt that different people define the 

concept in different ways. There was some agreement that 

large-scale construction of human dwellings, structures, 

and other developments are separate from the natural 

forest. Randomness, unpredictable experiences, solitude, a lack of people, and perceptions that the forest 

was distant from society emerged as indicators of forest 

naturalness and wildness.

Interviewees described “cultured naturalness” as an 

image of a forest that was lived in, contained human stories, and was rich in culture. Local culture and history of 

the forest were described as valuable parts of the natural landscape because these told the story of local life in 

that place. Cultured naturalness was valued because it 

communicates local identity, reminds residents that people are living off the land, and creates intense recreation 

experiences. Access to the landscape, primitive technology, small-scale agriculture, and cultural activities were 

described as indicators of cultured naturalness.

The authors concluded by making a case for more 

specific and clear examples of how people living in and 

near the forested landscape understand or frame, nature, 

forest health, and desired future conditions. These examples of how nature is socially defined can help residents 

and wildland fire managers determine what outcomes of 

wildland fire and forest restoration projects are locally 

appropriate, deemed successful, and why.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: 

Perceptions of fire, land use, and ecological restoration 

of western forests. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 878-

882.

Key words: Forest restoration, forest thinning, expert 

perceptions

Annotation: This paper demonstrated how some 

forest ecologists are currently discussing concepts of 

forest health and restoration relevant to wildland fire 

management. The author also discussed recent research 

in fire ecology and examined concerns with the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act, suggesting better alternatives to 

thinning such as natural fires and prescribed burning. In 

this popular ecological frame of reference, prescribed 

burns and fire use are viewed as positive disturbances, 

promoting forest restoration.

In the last century, logging, building roads, livestock 

grazing, and fire suppression have caused changes in 

vegetation and other conditions in western forests. Under 

the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act, land managers have focused on thinning to restore forest health. Thinning fuels is seen as 

problematic since it does not mimic the natural processes 

of wildland fire because fuels immediately start to build 

up after the treatments, providing no sustainable solution. The author argues that prescribed burning sustains 

native ecosystem conditions by harnessing the disturbance process of fire across the landscape. Slash pile 

burns are part of the thinning process and damage the 

soil due to high temperatures, whereas prescribed burning decreases extreme fire behavior and fire severity.

The recent healthy forest legislation also directs attention to the wildland-urban interface to address human 

safety and private home protection. The author concluded that home safety can be more effectively addressed 

by preventing fire ignitions near interface homes than 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 15

by thinning treatments. The argument is that the volume 

of biomass to be thinned is so large, and the accompanying research on home ignitability is so expensive that 

thinning becomes inefficient. The author concluded that 

prevention of catastrophic fires and changes in current 

exclusion policies will not result from thinning alone; 

thinning fuels must be supplemented with prescribed 

burns and the use of natural occurring wildland fires.

Nelson, K. C.; Monroe, M. C.; Johnson, J. F.; Bowers, 

A. 2004. Living with fire: Homeowner assessment of 

landscape values and defensible space in Minnesota 

and Florida, USA. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 13: 413-425.

Key words: Fuel treatment preferences, homeowners, 

landscape preferences, risk perception

Annotation: The goal of this paper was to better 

understand how homeowners in the wildland urban 

interface (WUI) assign value to the landscape, how 

they perceive wildland fire risk, and how they evaluate 

defensible space. This paper presented an in-depth 

investigation of differences in practices of maintaining 

defensible space among homeowners in Minnesota and 

Florida.

This study used purposively selected in-person interviews in two Minnesota, and six Florida, neighboring 

communities. The communities sampled in northeastern 

Minnesota were located adjacent to a fire prone wilderness area, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. The six 

neighboring areas in north central Florida were in and 

near forested lands. Each respondent also completed a 

two page survey. This study did not use a representative 

sample, but sought to describe a range of homeowner 

perceptions.

To assist residents in speaking about their preferred 

landscapes, the researchers used photographs of homes 

that demonstrated a range of wildland fire preparedness. 

Four photographs of homes with computer-modified 

landscapes were used to symbolize different defensible space options for each state. The survey included 

questions about demographics, defensible space, and 

prescribed burning.

Comparative analyses indicated a complex relationship between homeowners and their landscapes. The 

main preference for both states was to maintain what 

they considered to be the natural setting of their surroundings. A “natural” landscape meant different things 

in each state. In Florida, about one-fourth of respondents 

valued open spaces around their home for gardening, 

crime reduction, or as a space for their pets and not 

necessarily wildland fire protection. They preferred a 

landscape that provides opportunities for recreation 

and to view wildlife while creating wildlife habitat. 

Participants also thought that a landscape should provide privacy and seclusion.

In the survey, 69 percent of Minnesota respondents 

thinned vegetation around their homes and most surveyed Floridians (70 percent) had completed some form 

of vegetation reductions around their homes. Less than 

one-third of all respondents had taken other preventive 

measures such as widening driveways or installing new 

fire resistant roofing. A majority of respondents supported prescribed burning especially when qualified 

professionals were responsible. The issue of thinning on 

public lands was resisted by several Minnesotans who 

think thinning opens up more logging in wilderness areas. Floridians rejected herbicide use on their public 

lands.

The challenge for managers is to acknowledge the 

differing frames of reference used by homeowners. To 

change homeowner behavior when addressing mitigation, the message should not be a simple reminder that 

wildland fire risk exists because WUI residents already 

know something about the risk and the alternatives for 

action. Some homeowners may have construed alternate 

meanings from the different wildland fire mitigation 

practices, such as defensible space implies that no vegetation at all should be near homes. By spending more 

time in communities discussing the situation with homeowners, managers can facilitate co-learning to create a 

more complete understanding of wildland fire behavior 

and risk and a common language for collectively addressing problem situations.

Rodriguez S. M.; Carroll, M. S.; Blatner, K. A.; 

Findley, A. J.; Walker, G. B.; Daniels, S. E. 2003. 

Smoke on the hill: A comparative study of wildfire 

and two communities. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 18: 60-70.

Key words: Community history, wildland fire 

suppression, worldviews

Annotation: This grounded theory study analyzed 

citizens’ reactions to two fire disturbances that occurred 

in the Wenatchee National Forest in 1994. Two of its 

neighboring communities, Entiat and Leavenworth, lost 

homes and were partially evacuated. This article frames 

community response to wildland fire and fire recovery 

in a meaningful context by first reviewing the social 

history and composition of each community. Interrelated 

dimensions of community were explored including 

(1) physical locality bounded by geography and territory, 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

(2) the social system of interdependencies among 

residents and institutions, both external and internal, 

and (3) the shared identity of community as expressed in 

their networks of relationships.

Semi-structured interviews with residents of each 

community served as the primary data supplemented by 

participation in four public involvement meetings and an 

overview of historical studies and reports published by 

the United States Forest Service (USFS), local governments and historians, and newspapers. The interviews 

focused on: (1) local attachments to the land and forest, 

(2) perceptions of fire management and its effects, (3) 

perceptions of fire recovery and its impacts, and (4) perceptions of the USFS.

Entiat was described as a traditional rural place where 

the population worked close to the land and claimed to 

possess an intimate understanding of it. The main local stakeholder groups were timber workers and fruit 

growers supporting wise use and private property rights. 

Most residents of Entiat emphasized managing the surrounding forest for human material needs. Leavenworth 

was described as being historically based in agriculture 

and timber similar to Entiat, but had later diverged into 

a more diverse community with a focus on tourism. The 

main interests in Leavenworth are tourism, retirement, 

apple production, and timber extraction. The tourismoriented residents tended to support most environmental 

regulations, but most interviewees in Leavenworth felt 

that the forest should be managed for multiple uses including sustainable extraction.

Views in Leavenworth were generally more polarized 

than in Entiat showing evidence of an economicallyversus environmentally-oriented dichotomy. Results 

indicated that residents in both communities tried to 

make sense of the fires based on four main viewpoints, 

which were linked to broader views of appropriate forest management.

Four main positions emerged. The first group, represented by residents in both Entiat and Leavenworth, 

thought that fire was inherent in the forest, but with 

proper land management, such as intensive logging and 

grazing, wildland fires can be controlled and prevented. These people felt that the fire event was the result 

of mismanagement of the forest causing a build up of 

fuels. This group viewed reintroduction of fire as a management tool that could enhance commodity-centered 

forestry. These economically-oriented views of fire and 

forest management were held by long-time residents 

who had experience with fire and firefighting, whose 

livelihoods were tied to the land, and who supported 

wise use and private property rights.

The second group, again represented in both communities, saw wildland fire as a friendly and necessary act 

of nature and part of the forest system. They felt that 

humans can reduce the risk of bad fires through good 

forest management. These long-time residents tended 

to have less experience with forest management and 

were not economically dependent on resource-based 

activities.

The third group emerged in Leavenworth only. They 

viewed wildland fire as desirable because it is necessary for the whole of the forest, and humans should 

adapt to fire. This view was mainly described by newcomers holding environmental protection beliefs. They 

felt that members of the community needed to remember that living in the forest entailed inherent risks. This 

group stressed better fire insurance and more control 

over where people built homes.

A fourth group emerged during the interviews with 

residents of Leavenworth who moved there from cities 

to retire or conduct their business and hence had little 

or no experience with wildland fire or forest management. These residents were fatalistic in their beliefs that 

fire was an unpreventable force of nature similar to hurricanes or floods.

In Leavenworth, interviewees felt that the USFS had 

acted professionally in their role during the fire and went 

above and beyond the call of duty, while interviewees 

in Entiat generally expressed distrust and resentment 

toward the agency for not doing its job. In Entiat, most 

people believe that responsibility for forest fire protection and proper forest management to reduce bad fires 

lies with the government. Federal firefighters were seen 

as insensitive outsiders by those in Entiat who had previously served as volunteer wildland firefighters. There 

was a strong sense of local control in Entiat—the local 

history of which was substantially shaped by external 

forces—regarding fire and forest management.

Wise use and private property rights supporters in 

Entiat responded to the aftermath of the fire with general 

approval for salvage logging to recover value from the 

burned forests and with general disapproval of funds being directed toward ecosystem recovery. In Leavenworth, 

there was support for salvage logging, support for improving the town’s view-shed and financial capital while 

leaving other parts of the forest to recover without management, and support from the environmental contingent 

to allow the forest to recover with no human intervention. Despite the different frames of reference attached 

to recovery efforts, many residents in both communities felt that if recovery and salvage were successfully 

completed by the USFS, the agency would gain respect 

among the local population.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 17

One lesson of this research is that the history and 

shared identity of communities each play a part in 

shaping current understandings and future predictions 

of community response to wildland fire disturbances 

and subsequent recovery efforts: (1) people who live 

in a common space share common problems to a great 

extent; (2) a community experiences insider/outsider 

tension and conflict more so during fire events; and (3) 

residents of the wildland urban-interface (WUI) both 

within and across communities react differently to wildland fire management based on how they define wildland 

fire and forest management. The implication was that 

any management of large, potentially destructive fires 

can result in reduced trust in the agency because of the 

histories and values that underlie community response. 

What an agency does during a community wildland fire 

will most likely affect how they are received and what 

they can do to restore the landscape after an event.

Recommendations included transmitting a more 

complete understanding of the role of wildland fire to 

publics while at the same time acquiring a more sophisticated understanding of how residents of the WUI 

frame problems related to wildland fire and forest management.

Wagner, R. G.; Flynn, J.; Gregory, R.; Mertz, C. K.; 

Slovic, P. 1998. Acceptable practices in Ontario’s 

forests: Differences between the public and forestry 

professionals. New Forests. 16: 139-154.

Key words: Conflict resolution, environmental 

values, management preferences, communication, risk 

perceptions, social acceptability, trust

Annotation: This article examined differences 

between government biologists, government foresters, 

industry foresters, and the public. A survey of citizens 

in Ontario, Canada was compared with a survey of 

forestry professionals from government and industry. 

The five variables used in the telephone survey as the 

basis of comparison were environmental values, forest 

management goals and approaches, risk perception, 

trust in science and government, and acceptability of 

vegetation management practices.

The survey measured environmental values using 

five statements to assess respondents’ beliefs. The belief statements asked for level of agreement on the 

following: serious environmental problems exist today, 

technology is destroying nature, willingness to sacrifice 

one’s standard of living for nature, concern for change in 

the natural world, spiritual qualities of nature, and belief 

in the equal co-existence of species.

The government biologist group responded to questions about environmental values more similar to the 

public than did government and industry foresters. 

Biologists also were attracted to the spiritual qualities 

of nature and less concerned with the negative impacts 

of technology on nature than the public. Government 

foresters perceived the seriousness of environmental 

problems to be less than the public and were less willing 

to sacrifice their standard of living for nature. Industry 

foresters had the same beliefs as the government foresters, but industry foresters differed from the public 

sample. Compared to the public, the three professional 

groups perceived forestry activities to be less risky, were 

more trusting of science and government, and accepted 

most forestry practices.

This study illustrates the importance of recognizing 

that lay publics and forestry experts frame many aspects 

of the wildland fire social problem in different ways. 

Understanding how stakeholders define forest management can prevent miscommunication and uncover 

stakeholders’ apprehensions about the forestry profession, leading to a situation that facilitates trust and the 

development of common languages for communication.

Woolley, J. T.; McGinnis, M. V. 2000. The conflicting 

discourses of restoration. Society and Natural 

Resources. 13: 339-357.

Key words: Community, discourse, ecology, 

restoration, values, worldviews

Annotation: This paper examined the conflicting 

discourses of restoration. Discourse is the conversations 

and the interchanges of ideas that become evident 

and that evolve over time regarding a certain topic. 

Restoration takes place in a political context that shapes 

the discussion in planning for restoration management. 

Diverse stakeholders have different opinions regarding 

restoration and this article demonstrated divergent frames 

of reference employed when restoration is discussed.

Q-methodology was used to identify different types 

of restoration discourses. Respondents were asked to 

sort a set of statements of opinion on restoration. The 

statements ranged from pro- versus anti-restoration 

sentiments, preferences for ecological and technical 

solutions, and evaluation or advocacy positions. The 

researchers asked diverse stakeholders who were involved with a watershed restoration project to sort 

the competing statements of opinion to determine the 

structure of their restoration values. Using Q-factor 

analysis, they found four groups, illustrating four discourses of restoration that were labeled: (1) categorical 
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

restorationists believed that restoration is ethically necessary; (2) conditional restorationists believed that 

restoration is optional only after other claims have been 

considered. The conditional discourse emphasized the 

local control of restoration projects and that restoration 

decisions involve tradeoffs with other values like private 

property; (3) ecophilosopher restorationists believed 

that restoration is impossible, and preservation is needed because science cannot replicate wilderness; and (4) 

ecosocietal restorationists viewed restoration to be politically and ethically grounded in community well-being.

This article discussed two of the dominant restoration 

discourses: categorical and conditional. Most of the respondents fell into one of these two groups. Categorical 

restorationists focused on their beliefs and assumptions 

that preservation and restoration are inseparable, ecological restoration must involve community health, and 

restoration is returning an area to its condition before 

human settlement. Conditional restorationists believed 

that restoration should reflect local concerns. They perceived restoration as a conflict of values and think that 

nature can never be completely restored. The tension between categorical and conditional restorationists reflects 

two fundamentally different worldviews, or frames of 

reference: the intrinsic rights of nature and the private 

property rights of individuals, respectively.

This analysis suggested that the charge for community-based restoration managers is to identify ways of 

engaging different groups to discuss and develop shared 

understandings of the concept of restoration management. 

Collaborative restoration can only be facilitated when 

agencies and partnerships have the ability, organization, 

and resources to deal with a host of conflicting discourses in a particular place and context. The awareness that 

restorationists’ definitions of the problem situation are 

not uniform should necessitate discussions between 

the diverse groups to promote a common language for 

addressing problems of forest health and restoration management.

Mutual Trust: Public Relations and Inclusive, 

Interactive Communication

Preface

The seven studies reviewed and annotated in this section focused on public relations and communicating 

with stakeholders in ways that foster mutual trust and 

ultimately a common language (fig. 1) for addressing 

contentious problems that involve people and wildland 

fire. Partnerships that communicate using a common 

language tend to have trust within the group and have 

established relationships with outside stakeholders. 

The first step in establishing mutual trust for a collaborative partnership is using public relations approaches 

that are seen as positive and respectful (Farnsworth and 

others 2003), and competent and credible (Winter and 

others 2004) in the eyes of community members and 

other stakeholders. Mutual trust can be fostered, over 

time, through communication that is interactive, such 

as personal contacts between stakeholders (Edwards 

and Bliss 2003; McCaffrey 2004); workshops that focus 

on locally appropriate frames and issues (Monroe and 

others 2003); and guided field trips to project sites or 

interpretive centers that offer locally specific, hands-on 

experiences, rather than one-way persuasion strategies 

such as brochures and the Internet (Toman and others 

2006). Interactive public outreach of this nature is characterized by open discussions where participants are free 

to talk and ask questions about whatever concerns they 

might have; this includes listening carefully to other participants’ concerns.

Many residents of the WUI and other stakeholders 

involved with wildland fire risk management are aware 

of the issues related to living in fire-prone areas. Others 

may not be, but all are in need of early, often, and ongoing involvement in forest and wildland fire management 

(Farnsworth and others 2003; Edwards and Bliss 2003). 

Public acceptance of fire and fuels management is a 

product of the interactions and discussions between citizens, agency managers, and other stakeholders (Shindler 

and Toman 2003). Effective partnerships, which demonstrate a common language and shared goals for wildland 

fire and forest management, develop through a process 

of trust and relationship building that is long-term and 

not static.

Recent Works

Edwards, K. K.; Bliss, J. C. 2003. It’s a neighborhood 

now: Practicing forestry at the urban fringe. Journal 

of Forestry. 101: 6-11.

Key words: Communication, public relations, urban 

forestry

Annotation: The intent of this study was to gain a 

comprehensive understanding of conflict related to 

forest resources at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) 

in the Soap Creek Watershed in northeast Oregon by 

identifying: (1) contentious forest issues, (2) stakeholders 

and their attitudes, and (3) opportunities to minimize 

conflict and to promote interactive communication and 

trust-building. The study employed multiple methods 

including interviews with key informants selected 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 19

to represent diverse stakeholder groups. Interview 

transcripts were organized into themes using groundedtheory and qualitative analysis software. A structured 

mail survey was developed based on the qualitative 

themes and sent to all property owners and to a sample 

of recreationists.

The primary stakeholder groups identified during 

the interviews included: (1) private forest owners, (2) 

private corporate forest owners, (3) non-forest landowners, (4) state forest managers, and (5) outdoor recreation 

participants. Interview and survey data indicated three 

overarching themes with respect to contentious forest 

issues including: (1) land use and policy, (2) land management practices, and (3) quality of life in the watershed.

Despite zoning laws in the state of Oregon restricting 

development, stakeholders across all groups consistently identified increased residential development, and its 

impacts, as the most important issue in the watershed. 

A majority of survey respondents (81 percent) agreed 

that active forest management was essential for sustaining the character of the watershed, and 84 percent of 

survey respondents opposed further residential development of forest or farmland within the watershed. A 

desire to maintain the rural characteristics of the watershed, which were associated with positive quality of life, 

was thought to partially explain stakeholders’ preference 

for active forest management over increased residential 

development.

However, private property owners were not necessarily in favor of more regulations to keep the watershed 

underdeveloped; 57 percent of respondents felt that 

additional regulation of forestry practices on private 

lands was not necessary. Overall, residents of the watershed and recreation participants were more concerned 

about, and less supportive of, certain forest harvest 

practices (for example, clear cutting and herbicide application) than non-resident landowners.

Communication among the stakeholder groups (and 

lack thereof) emerged as an important factor associated 

with social discord within the watershed. Over 91 percent of respondents from each group agreed that property 

owners should personally inform their neighbors about 

their management intentions beforehand. This study 

indicated that a highly visible and open line of communication can build mutual trust and reduce opposition 

to management practices. Residents of this watershed 

held private corporate land owners and public forest 

managers to higher communication standards than individual private forest owners, and they felt that public 

land managers should be leading the profession in progressive practices that enhance forest health and quality 

of life over harvest volume and financial gain.

The paper concluded by explaining three observations that are salient to managing forest-related conflicts 

in the WUI including: (1) recognizing shared values, 

(2) considering regulatory structures, and (3) fostering 

open, inclusive communication. Shared values in the interface vary from place to place, but within Soap Creek 

they include such things as privacy, green space, wildlife 

habitat, and recreation access. The authors concluded 

that common goals set the stage for constructive dialog 

between forest owners and their neighbors.

Overall, this study indicated that most conflicts are 

due to a lack of communication and mutual trust among 

stakeholders. Interest groups and residents felt that they 

should be well informed about activities that might personally affect them. To foster trust and open, interactive 

communication, the authors suggested a need for highly 

visible forest owners and public foresters who serve as 

good neighbors and catalysts for communication in the 

WUI.

Farnsworth, A.; Summerfelt, P.; Neary, D. G.; 

Smith, T. 2003. Flagstaff’s wildfire fuels treatments: 

Prescriptions for community involvement and a 

source of bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy. 24: 

269-276.

Key words: Wildland-urban interface, harvesting, 

bioenergy, partnerships, public relations

Annotation: This paper described a success story in 

Arizona by documenting the city of Flagstaff’s wildland 

fuels treatment program in an extensive, ponderosa 

pine dominated wildland-urban interface (WUI). The 

Flagstaff fire risk reduction effort is a partnership among 

federal, state, local, and private organizations that began 

in 1997. The goals are to (1) reduce the wildland fire 

hazard by combining thinning, brush disposal/utilization, 

and prescribed fire, (2) maintain and enhance vegetation 

and structural diversity in the WUI, (3) improve overall 

forest ecosystem health, and (4) obtain the support of 

individual property owners and the community at large.

The paper described how project managers maintain 

personal contact with, consider the beliefs and the desires of, and gather and use input from residents and 

communities during each stage of the fuels treatment 

process. Small-scale, low-impact cutting techniques are 

used during thinning because these are less intimidating 

for residents than conventional harvesting techniques. 

This encourages interested residents to safely and comfortably approach thinning crews to learn about the 

operation and to better understand the process. Thinning 

immediately next to homes and neighborhoods is 
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

usually done when most residents are not at home, and 

slash is removed daily to reduce criticism and concern 

among residents. The public is allowed to enter some 

treatment areas in the fall to collect free firewood thinned 

from the forest. The researchers recommend that access 

via neighborhoods for fire wood collection should be 

discussed with the adjacent property owners during initial planning stages, not after thinning has begun.

During winter, slash piles are burned in ways that 

eliminate or reduce scorching of live trees, escaped fires, 

soil impacts, and excess smoke. Air quality and smoke 

management are of primary concern to project managers. Before and during the initial prescribed burning 

stages that follow thinning and disposal of slash, intense 

public notification was described as an essential element 

of the Flagstaff program. This is achieved with signage 

throughout the WUI, news releases, and door-to-door 

contacts in adjacent neighborhoods. Managers and crew 

members make phone calls or personal visits to residents who express concerns about prescribed burning. 

Treatment projects are intentionally dispersed throughout the community to prevent any one neighborhood 

from being continually affected, and smoke-sensitive 

residents are relocated if necessary.

The authors concluded with a number of lessons 

learned from this public involvement process that have 

implications for positive public relations, trust building, 

and credibility of managers: (1) constant one-on-one 

community involvement and engagement with affected 

residents from the very beginning, (2) timely completion 

of treatment projects, (3) regular updates on the status 

of projects, (4) prompt notification and explanation of 

mistakes, and (5) documentation of action taken and follow-up on special concerns are critical for success.

McCaffrey, S. M. 2004. Fighting fire with education: 

What is the best way to reach out to homeowners? 

Journal of Forestry. 102: 12-19.

Key words: Communication, public perception, 

wildland-urban interface

Annotation: Social scientists and mitigation practitioners 

have observed a disconnect: there is an abundance of 

available fire information and research evidence that 

indicates better public awareness of fire management 

practices, but there seems to be little public support for 

fuels management techniques. To explore this disconnect, 

this study described the awareness and usefulness of 

various kinds of fire mitigation information produced 

for residents in Incline Village, Lake Tahoe, Nevada. A 

survey was conducted to identify potential factors related 

to the usefulness of information that was designed to 

communicate wildland fire risk mitigation to residents. 

The sources of information evaluated were developed 

by extension agents working in the community, news 

paper/magazine articles, television broadcasts, personal 

contacts, actual experiences, neighborhood meetings, 

and government agency contacts. This study investigated 

how these sources of information might partially explain 

resident support and acceptability for thinning, prescribed 

burning, and maintaining defensible space.

The majority of residents reported that their awareness of mitigation practices was from newspapers or 

magazines and the materials specifically developed for 

the community by extension agents. Residents were 

most aware of information from fire departments, print 

news, and brochures/newsletters, and they also found 

these to be most useful. Information programs in the 

schools were also reported to be very useful, but respondents were substantially less aware of these sources than 

the print news and extension materials. Forty percent of 

the sample cited actual experience with prescribed burning as the way they became aware of prescribed burning 

practices.

Over 60 percent of respondents were unaware of fire 

information provided by neighborhood leaders and block 

parties. Of those residents who knew of these neighborhood sources, 74 percent had never used one or attended 

any events, indicating possible barriers to neighborhood 

communication and involvement. Moreover, 57 percent 

did not know that Nevada Cooperative Extension provided fire information, while 49 percent were unaware 

that local government representatives provided information. These findings may indicate a general lack of 

communication about where to find information on fuels 

management practices.

Residents (51 percent) who used newspapers or magazines to find information about defensible space tended 

to view fire planning as their individual responsibility. Regardless of respondents’ use of print news, the 

majority felt that selective timber harvest was an acceptable method for reducing fuels. Respondents who cited 

television as a source of information about mitigation 

practices also viewed local fire planning as the responsibility of the state and not that of the individual; whereas, 

95 percent of those who said that television was not a 

useful source of information had done defensible space 

measures themselves.

Respondents who had become aware of defensible 

space through education materials developed by extension agents tended to see fire as a greater hazard in the 

area and viewed local fire planning as the responsibility 

of the individual. However, the use of these educational 

materials was not connected to maintaining defensible 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 21

space. The materials developed for prescribed burning, 

however, were positively associated with acceptance 

and enhanced understanding of prescribed burning.

Personal interaction and contacts with residents by 

United States Forest Service employees and local fire 

chiefs during neighborhood activities were most influential. Residents who cited that planning activities 

in their neighborhoods were used as defensible space 

information sources tended to have taken some protective measures around their homes. Attending meetings 

in neighborhoods to get information also tended to be 

associated with greater awareness of the fire hazards. 

Similarly, both agency and personal contacts were associated with increased support for controversial practices 

such as thinning with heavy equipment and the application of herbicides. For prescribed burning information, 

agency and personal contacts were associated with decreased concerns about aesthetics, decreased worries 

about escaped prescriptions, and decreased concerns 

over damage to trees.

The author recommended coupling educational 

materials with more interactive and personalized communication approaches when providing information 

about risk mitigation. Interactive education practices 

may facilitate co-learning and trust building because 

these encourage homeowners to ask questions and express concerns while talking and listening to their 

neighbors, local government officials, and agency managers.

Monroe, M. C.; Long, A. J.; Marynowski, S. 2003. 

Wildland fire in the Southeast: Negotiating guidelines 

for defensible space. Journal of Forestry. 101: 14-19.

Key words: Communication, public relations, 

urbanization, wildland-urban interface

Annotation: This Florida case study described a 

workshop process for reaching consensus about fuels 

management and defensible space to reduce risks from 

wildland fire for people living in the wildland-urban 

interface (WUI). The goal of the workshop was to agree 

on a set of guidelines that better matched the setting, 

climate, and environmental values of WUI residents 

in Florida. This was justified as a need because the 

standard national guidelines for defensible space, which 

were developed in the western United States, were seen 

as inappropriate for the local problem situation.

Representatives from nearly 20 agencies and organizations were asked to come together to initiate a process 

of negotiation, called alternative dispute resolution, to 

discuss landscaping recommendations for wildland fire. 

The list of invitees was compiled from key contacts, 

similar to snowball sampling. The invited participants 

were encouraged to bring others from their offices and to 

suggest additional participants. A range of interests was 

captured by the list of invitees including: city, county, 

and state fire and emergency services, wildlife agencies, 

horticulture groups, and those interested in native plants 

and biodiversity.

Defensible space recommendations were negotiated 

in small group discussions that considered the specific situations of suburban fringe landowners, large 

landowners, developers, and planners. During the discussions, fire experts dispersed themselves among the 

groups. A facilitator helped to focus the participants on 

areas of agreement. A one-day workshop discussion was 

found to be insufficient to resolve all of the issues, so 

participants were asked to review and correct the meeting notes and to give feedback on the resulting draft 

documents. After a review process that involved three 

revisions, defensible space recommendations were published in a brochure for homeowners and a fact sheet for 

developers and planners based on the workshop negotiations.

In this case, a combination of expert professional experience (one-way, top-down) and an interactive and 

well-facilitated negotiation of local concerns and issues 

(interactive, bottom-up) helped stakeholders agree on 

defensible space guidelines that were locally appropriate.

Shindler, B.; Toman, E. 2003. Fuel reduction strategies 

in forest communities: A longitudinal analysis of 

public support. Journal of Forestry. 101: 8-14.

Key words: Fire, policy, public perception, wildlandurban interface

Annotation: The purpose of this study was to measure 

change in public attitudes toward fire management 

programs on federal lands in eastern Oregon and 

Washington over a four-year interval. This longitudinal 

panel study used a mail-back questionnaire and a 

stratified random sample of long-time community 

members living near Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowWhitman National Forests in 1996. In 2000, over half 

of the original participants completed the same survey 

items to examine changes in their attitudes regarding 

four issues:

the usefulness of information sources about forest 

management;

support for fuel reduction activities;

factors that influence how citizens respond to fuel reduction programs, and

•

•

•
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

relationship building, over time, between the United 

States Forest Service (USFS) and communities.

The researchers expected higher levels of support 

to have developed with the passing of time. They hypothesized that this support would be associated with 

knowledge about treatment effects. It was also thought 

that this support would be influenced by the relationship 

between citizens and the USFS.

Newspapers or magazines and relatives or friends 

were reported as the most useful sources of information 

about forest management by a majority of respondents 

in both 1996 and 2000. The Internet and environmental groups received the lowest ratings as sources of 

useful information. A significant change was recorded 

during the four-year interval where the usefulness rating of information provided by timber groups rose from 

39 percent to 50 percent, while usefulness ratings of the 

information provided by the USFS decreased from 60 

percent to 48 percent.

Overall support for prescribed fire and mechanized 

thinning administered by the USFS remained fairly constant with more support for mechanical thinning 

than prescribed burning. However, in both studies, participants reported low levels of trust in the USFS to 

implement a responsible and effective program. For 

prescribed fire, trust in the agency decreased significantly from 52 percent to 43 percent over the four-year 

interval. In 2000, only 52 percent expressed confidence 

in the agency regarding mechanized thinning, and they 

were significantly less tolerant of smoke from prescribed 

burning.

The more knowledgeable the residents were about 

prescribed burning and mechanized thinning the more 

likely they were to support the use of these in the forest. 

Similarly, as trust in the USFS to implement responsible 

and effective treatments increased, support for the use of 

these techniques increased.

Opinions about resident-agency interactions were 

mixed; however, significantly fewer residents in 2000 

agreed that the agency did a good job of providing information about its management activities. The number 

who agreed that the USFS was open to and used public 

input to shape management decisions decreased from 41 

percent to 31 percent over the four-year interval. The 

critical implication of these results is that the agency’s 

relationship with local residents has deteriorated with 

time in this region of the country. The erosion of this 

relationship negatively affects fuels reduction practices 

even if they are judged to be scientifically sound and 

ecologically warranted.

This study suggests that public acceptance of fire and 

fuels management is a product of the interactions and 

• discussions between citizens and managers, over time. 

Public acceptance of fire policies and perceptions of forest health are not static but develop by way of a process 

of trust and relationship building that is long-term and 

probably not final.

Longitudinal studies allow researches to measure and 

understand processes, social change, and the formation 

of productive, trusting relationships between agencies 

and local communities. How agency managers and local 

communities communicate is of particular importance 

because it addresses why people may or may not hold 

positive attitudes (and how these attitudes have formed 

and changed through time) toward fuel management 

practices, going beyond what the public thinks or feels 

about the issues at a specific point in time.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and 

fuel management communication strategies: Citizen 

evaluations of agency outreach activities. Society and 

Natural Resources. 19: 321-336.

Key words: Citizen-agency interactions, learning 

theory, public outreach, unidirectional and interactive 

communication

Annotation: This study explored how to use principles 

from adult learning theory to help focus and improve 

the outreach strategies used by land managers to 

communicate with publics about wildland fire 

management. The authors presented a framework that 

integrates learning processes with public outreach 

approaches. The principles of the framework are that 

adults take a dynamic problem-based approach to 

learning, fall back on a range of prior knowledge and 

experiences, and are more likely to believe information 

that they trust.

Using a mail survey of the general public sent out in 

three waves (47 precent response rate), this study examined citizens’ reactions to 11 public outreach approaches 

commonly used by agencies. Individuals from fire-prone 

communities were selected from the sample in Arizona, 

Colorado, Oregon, and Utah. These respondents evaluated the various approaches by indicating if they had 

experience with each, if they thought each approach was 

trustworthy (yes, no), and by rating the helpfulness of 

each format for understanding fire prevention, prescribed 

burning, and thinning of fuels (not, slightly, very).

The outreach approaches were classified into two 

broad types: (1) unidirectional approaches that involve 

a one-way flow of information from the agency to the 

public often designed to persuade and to change citizens’ views and (2) interactive approaches that provide 

personal contact with agency managers or on-the-ground 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 23

learning experiences. The authors made a general hypothesis that the interactive approaches would be evaluated 

more useful than the one-way approaches.

Survey results indicated that people were significantly 

more likely to be familiar with the one-way approaches. 

A majority of respondents, totaled across locations, had 

experienced all but one of the six one-way approaches. 

Total exposure to the interactive approaches was considerably less with only two of five interactive approaches 

registering with a majority.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the interactive approaches were rated just as trustworthy as the 

one-way approaches when they controlled for the low 

ratings of public meetings. Cumulative scores across 

sites indicated that all but three of the approaches in both 

categories were rated trustworthy by 90 percent or more 

of the respondents. Government sponsored public meetings, classified as interactive for this study, were rated 

the lowest of any approach for trustworthiness and helpfulness.

The interactive approaches to public outreach were 

rated significantly more helpful than the one-way approaches, supporting the hypothesis. Interpretive centers 

(69 percent) and guided field trips (66 percent) were rated helpful by more respondents than any of the other 

approaches.

Finally, the survey indicated relative consistency in 

ratings across the four study locations. The researchers expected geographic variation regarding familiarity 

and experience with the approaches, but little significant variation was found. Few approaches were rated 

statistically different across study sites in terms of their 

trustworthiness and helpfulness.

To summarize the findings, a greater number of respondents had experienced the one-way approaches to 

public outreach, but the interactive approaches appeared 

to be more helpful. The authors recommended that managers recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different 

outreach approaches and select the appropriate approach 

based on their objectives for communicating with local 

stakeholders.

Implications for the framework of adult learning were discussed. The authors suggested that public 

outreach that enables interactive exchanges (for example, 

guided field trips to management sites and face-to-face 

conversations with managers) are better suited to the 

problem-centered learning processes used by adults than 

are one-way approaches. This is because interactive formats, in contrast to brochures and television messages, 

tend to include citizens in the discussion and can be 

adapted to the concerns and views of stakeholders.

Interactive outreach approaches allow individuals to 

select from their prior experiences the information that is 

most relevant for solving specific problems. In addition, 

interactive approaches provide opportunities to clarify 

information by asking questions, which can enable public outreach practitioners to ensure that prior experience 

and knowledge on the part of stakeholders are used in 

ways that are appropriate to the local context.

Regarding the trustworthiness of the approaches and 

the agencies providing the information, study results 

were less clear; however, the authors highlighted the 

finding that respondents demonstrated a lack of trust in 

public meetings sponsored by agencies. Public meetings 

are at best nominally interactive, and such meetings, 

when used for public outreach, may erode trust and can 

frustrate individuals who are seeking to discuss and contribute to the collective development of wildland fire 

and fuels management practices.

The authors concluded that the primary advantage of 

the adult learning framework, facilitated by using interactive communication over models of persuasion, is an 

increased emphasis on stakeholders as genuine participants in the public outreach process and not as passive 

recipients of information from managers.

Winter, G.; Vogt, C. A.; McCaffery, S. 2004. Examining 

social trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of 

Forestry. 102(6): 8-14.

Key words: Forest value orientations, public 

acceptance and opinion, social trust

Annotation: This study used focus group interviews 

and a mail survey to examine how social trust in 

governmental agencies affects approval for fuel 

management approaches (FMAs). Social trust is a 

willingness to rely on those who are responsible for 

actions related to risk management. Three (FMAs) were 

examined, including prescribed burning, mechanical 

treatment, and defensible space. A questionnaire was 

conducted to measure agency trust, agency competence, 

forest value orientation, and perceived benefits of 

fuel management approaches. Surveys were sent to 

the populations of El Dorado and Placer Counties in 

Northern California, Clay County in northern Florida, 

and Crawford, Oscoda, and Ogemaw Counties in 

Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula.

Analyses of the survey data indicated that trust was 

a strong and consistent predictor of FMA approval for 

all geographic locations. Focus group interviews provided further support that agency competence, care, 
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

and credibility are influential in shaping public trust 

in land management agencies. Care emerged as a dimension of trust when focus group participants made 

references to agencies’ efforts to communicate beforehand with the public about the upcoming management 

activities they had planned. Perceived competence on 

the part of the agency was found to be positively correlated with agency trust at all locations and for all 

FMAs. Respondents at the three locations indicated 

relatively high perceived competence on the part of the 

government for protecting private property. However, 

relatively low perceived competence was found for 

communicating with the public about forest issues.

The relationship between forest value orientations 

and agency trust was examined. They found a weak association between forest value orientation and agency 

trust with statistical significance for only one location. 

The authors concluded that negative correlations indicated that agency trust is more associated with an 

economical, or human-centered, view of the forest than 

with orientations that assign intrinsic rights to the forest beyond human needs.

An accurate understanding of the benefits and risks 

of FMAs for residents of the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) may increase agency trust and/or increased trust 

in the agency may enhance the public’s understanding 

of the risks and benefits. Either way, building mutual trust with WUI residents and other stakeholders is 

an important part of the process whereby public acceptability and collective management develop. The 

correlation reported in this study between trust and 

acceptance of each FMA across the three locations suggests that building and maintaining trust should be the 

primary goal of agency-citizen interactions. Citizens 

want to know that the land managers are competent 

and trustworthy. Demonstrating and maintaining competence and trust on the part of the agency is invaluable. 

When and where there is a lack of trust, bottom-up, 

two-way interactive communication is needed to build 

trusting relationships and a common language for risk 

management.

Literature Cited__________________

Abrams, J.; Kelly, E.; Shindler, B.; Wilton, J. 2005. Value orientation and forest management: The forest health debate. 

Environmental Management. 36: 495-505.

Allen, G. M.; Gould, E. M. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, 

and public forests. Journal of Forestry. 84: 20-23.

Brunson, M. W.; Shindler, B. A. 2004. Geographic variation 

in social acceptability of wildland fuels management in the 

Western United States. Society and Natural Resources. 17: 

661-678.

Burger, J. 2002. Restoration, stewardship, environmental 

health, and policy: Understanding stakeholders’ perceptions. Environmental Management. 30(5): 631- 640.

Carroll, M; Daniels, S. 2003. Fire in our midst: A look at social 

science research issues at the community level. In: Cortner, 

H. J.; Field, D. R.; Jakes, P.; Buthman, J. D., eds. Humans, 

fires, and forests—social science applied to fire management. Workshop Summary. Flagstaff, AZ: Ecological 

Restoration Institute: 17-94.

Chase, R. A. 1993. Protecting people and resources from wildfire: Conflict in the interface. In: Ewert, A. W.; Chavez, D. 

J.; Magill, A. W., eds. Culture, conflict, and communication 

in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview: 

349-356.

Chaskin, R. 2001. Defining community capacity: A definitional framework. Urban Affairs Review. 36: 295-323.

Cheng, A. S.; Becker, D. R. 2005. Public perspectives on the 

“wildfire problem.” Fire Management Today. 65: 12-15.

Cortner, H. J.; Field, D. R. 2004. Introduction: Humans, fires, 

and forests: The reemergence of research on human dimensions. Society and Natural Resources. 17: 473-475.

Cortner, H. J.; Gale, R. D. 1990. People, fire, and wildland environments. Population and Environment. 11: 245-257.

Cortner, H. L.; Gardner, P. D.; Taylor, J. G. 1990. Fire hazards 

at the urban-wildland interface: What the public expects. 

Environmental Management. 14: 57-62.

Daniels, S. E.; Walker, G. B. 2001. The practice of collaborative learning: citizens, scientists, and foresters in 

fire recovery planning. In: Daniels, S. E.; Walker, G. B. 

Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative 

learning approach (pp. 205-221). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

299 p.

Davis, J. B. 1990. The wildland-urban interface: paradise or 

battleground? Journal of Forestry. 88: 26-31.

Davis, J.; Marker, J. 1987. The wildland/urban fire problem. 

Fire Command. 54: 26-27.

Dombeck, M. P.; Williams, J. E.; Wood, C. A. 2004. Wildfire 

policy and public lands: Integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation 

Biology. 18(4): 883-889.

Edwards, K. K; Bliss, J. C. 2003. It’s a neighborhood now: 

Practicing forestry at the urban fringe. Journal of Forestry. 

101: 6-11.

Egan, A. F.; Luloff, A. E. 2000. The exurbanization of 

America’s forests: Research in rural social science. Journal 

of Forestry. 98: 26-30.

Farnsworth, A.; Summerfelt, P.; Neary, D. G.; Smith, T. 2003. 

Flagstaff’s wildfire fuels treatments: Prescriptions for 

community involvement and a source of bioenergy. 

Biomass and Bioenergy. 24: 269-276.

Findley, A. J.; Carroll, M. S.; Blatner, K. A. 2001. Social complexity and the management of small-diameter stands. 

Journal of Forestry. 99: 18-27.

Frentz, I. C.; Voth, D. E.; Burns, S.; Sperry, C. W. 2000. 

Forest Service—community relationship building: 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 25

Recommendations. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 

549-566.

Goergen, M. T. 2004. Commentary: Fighting fires with partners. Journal of Forestry. 102: 1.

Graham, R. T.; Finney, M. A.; Cohen, J.; Robichaud, P. R.; 

Romme, W.; Kent, B. 2005. Hayman fire impacts. Fire 

Management Today. 65: 19-22.

Hull, R. B.; Robertson, D. P.; Kendra, A. 2001. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about 

“natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources. 

14: 325-340.

Hull, R. B.; Richert, D.; Seekamp, E.; Robertson, D.; Buhyoff, 

G. J. 2003. Understandings of environmental quality: 

Ambiguities and values held by environmental professionals. Environmental Management. 31(1): 1-13.

Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. 1999. Consensus building and 

complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating 

collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning 

Association. 66(4): 412-423.

Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. 2003. The impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity. Paper presented at 

the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate 

Schools of Planning; 2002 November 21-24; Baltimore, 

MD. Working Paper 2003-03. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional 

Development. 31 p.

Jacobson, S. K.; Monroe, M. C.; Marynowski, S. 2001. Fire 

at the wildland interface: The influence of experience and 

mass media on public knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral 

intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 929-937.

Kaplan, A. 2000. Capacity building: shifting the paradigms of 

practice. Development in Practice. 10(3, 4): 517-526.

Kauffman, J. B. 2004. Death rides the forest: perceptions of 

fire, land use, and ecological restoration of western forests. 

Conservation Biology. 18(4): 878-882.

McCaffrey, S. M. 2004. Fighting fire with education: what 

is the best way to reach out to homeowners? Journal of 

Forestry. 102: 12-19.

McGee, T. K.; Russell, S. 2003. “It’s just a natural way of 

life...” an investigation of wildfire preparedness in rural 

Australia. Environmental Hazards. 5: 1-12.

Monroe, M. C.; Long, A. J.; Marynowski, S. 2003. Wildland 

fire in the Southeast: Negotiating guidelines for defensible 

space. Journal of Forestry. 101: 14-19.

Moore, S. A.; Lee, R. G. 1999. Understanding dispute resolution processes for American and Australian public 

wildlands: Towards a conceptual framework for managers. 

Environmental Management. 23(4): 453-465.

National Academy of Public Administration. 2004. 

Containing wildland fire costs: Enhancing hazard mitigation capacity. Order No. (04-02) Washington, DC: 

National Academy of Public Administration. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.napawash.org/Pubs/Wildfire1Jan04.

pdf [2006, May 8].

Nelson, K. C.; Monroe, M. C.; Johnson, J. F.; Bowers, A. 2004. 

Living with fire: Homeowner assessment of landscape values and defensible space in Minnesota and Florida, USA. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 13: 413-425.

Plevel, S. R. 1997. Fire policy at the wildland-urban interface: 

A local responsibility. Journal of Forestry. 95: 12-17.

Pyne, S. J. 2004. Pyromancy: Reading stories in the flames. 

Conservation Biology. 18: 874-877.

Rittel, H. W. J.; Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general 

theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 4: 155-169.

Rodriguez, S. M.; Carroll, M. S.; Blanter, K. A.; Findley, A. 

J.; Walker, G. B.; Daniels, S. E. 2003. Smoke on the hill: 

A comparative study of wildfire and two communities. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 60-70.

Schusler, T. M.; Decker, D. J.; Pfeffer, M. J. 2003. Social 

learning for collaborative natural resource management. 

Society and Natural Resources. 15: 309-326.

Selin, S. W.; Schuett, M. A.; Carr, D. 2000. Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. 

Society and Natural Resources. 13: 735-745.

Shelby, B.; Tokarczyk, J. A.; Johnson, R. L. 2004. Timber 

harvests and forest neighbors: The urban fringe research 

project at Oregon State University. Journal of Forestry. 

102: 8-13.

Shindler, B.; Toman, E. 2003. Fuel reduction strategies in forest communities: A longitudinal analysis of public support. 

Journal of Forestry. 101: 8-14.

Shumway, J. M.; Otterstrom, S. M. 2001. Spatial patterns 

of migration and income change in the Mountain West: 

The dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. 

Professional Geographer. 53: 492-502.

Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: 

Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis. 

19: 689-701.

Spicer, C. 1997. Organizational public relations: A political 

perspective. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. 324 p.

Swanson, L. 2001. The West’s forest lands: Magnets for new 

migrants and part-time residents. Changing Landscape. 2: 

16-25.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and fuel management communication strategies: Citizen evaluations of 

agency outreach activities. Society and Natural Resources. 

19: 321-336.

Vogt, C. 2003. Seasonal and permanent home owners’ past 

experiences and approval of fuels reduction. In: P. J. Jakes, 

comp. Homeowners, communities, and wildfire: Science 

findings from the National Fire Plan. The 9th International 

Symposium on Society and Resource Management: proceedings; 2002 June 2-5; Bloomington, IN. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC-GTR-231. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station: 63-73.

Wagner, R. G.; Flynn, J.; Gregory, R.; Mertz, C. K.; Slovic, P. 

1998. Acceptable practices in Ontario’s forests: Differences 

between the public and forestry professionals. New Forests. 

16: 139-154.

Winter, G.; Vogt, C. A.; McCaffery, S. 2004. Examining social 

trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry. 

102(6): 8-14.

Woolley, J. T.; McGinnis, M. V. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 

339-357.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006

Additional Resources_____________

Blahna, D. J.; Yonts-Shepard, S. 1989. Public involvement in 

resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources. 2: 

209-227.

Burns, S.; Cheng, A. S. 2005. The utilization of collaborative 

processes in forest planning: An applied research project 

funded by the USDA Forest Service. Durango, CO: Fort 

Lewis College, Office of Community Services. 132 p.

Burns, S.; Porter-Norton, M.; Mosher, M.; Richard, T. 2003. 

People and fire in western Colorado: Focus group attitudes, 

beliefs, opinions and desires regarding wildfire in the wildland-urban interface of Colorado’s West Slope. Durango, 

CO: Fort Lewis College, Office of Community Services. 

74 p.

Campbell, V.; Anderson, D. H.; Jakes, P. 2003. Human dimensions research related to fire: An annotated bibliography. 

39 p. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4803/

highlights/fire-bibliography.pdf [2006, May 8].

Chaskin, R. J.; Brown, P.; Venkatesh, S.; Vidal, A. 2001. 

Building community capacity. New York: Walter de 

Gruyter. 268 p.

Cortner, H. J.; Field, D. R.; Jakes, P.; Buthman, J. D., eds. 2003. 

Humans, fires, and forests—Social science applied to fire 

management: Workshop summary; 2003 January 28-31; 

Tucson, AZ. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, 

Ecological Restoration Institute. 111 p.

Foster-Fishman, P. G.; Berkowitz, S. L.; Lounsbury, D. W.; 

Jacobson, S.; Allen, N. A. 2001. Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrated 

framework. American Journal of Community Psychology. 

29: 241-261.

Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. E. 2004. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and 

Practice. 5(4): 419-436.

Jakes, P. J.; Nelson, K.; Lang, E.; Monroe, M.; Agrawal, 

S.; Kruger, L.; Sturtevant, V. 2003. A model for 

improving community preparedness for wildfire. In: 

Jakes, P. J., comp. Homeowners, communities, and wildfire: science findings from the National Fire Plan. The 

9th International Symposium on Society and Resource 

Management: Proceedings; 2002 June 2-5; Bloomington, 

IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-GTR-231. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 4-9.

Kahane, A. 2004. Solving tough problems: An open way of 

talking, listening, and creating new realities. San Francisco, 

CA: Berrett-Koehler. 149 p.

Leach, W. D. 2006. Public involvement in USDA Forest 

Service policymaking: A literature review. Journal of 

Forestry. 104: 43-49.

Moore, S. A. 1996. Defining “successful” environmental dispute resolution: Case studies from public land planning 

in the United States and Australia. Environmental Impact 

Assessment Review. 16: 151-169.

Shindler, B.; Gordon, R. 2005. A practical guide to citizenagency partnerships: Public outreach strategies for fire and 

fuel management. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

18 p.

Smith, P. D.; McDonough, M. H. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. 

Society and Natural Resources. 14: 239-249.

Sturtevant, V.; Moote, M. A.; Jakes, P.; Cheng, A. S. 2005. 

Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis 

of research on collaboration. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-257. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Research Station. 84 p.

White, S. M. 2004. Bridging the worlds of fire managers and 

researchers: Lessons and opportunities from the wildland fire workshops. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-599. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 41 p.

Wondolleck, J. M.; Yaffee, S. L. 2000. Making collaboration 

work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington DC: Island Press. 277 p.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-182. 2006 27

Appendix A. Author by Topic Index

Collaborative Capacity

Daniels and Walker 2001. page 5

Frentz and others 2000. page 5

Innes and Booher 1999. page 6

Kaplan 2000. page 7

Schusler and others 2003. page 8

Selin and others 2000. page 8

Problem Framing

Abrams and others 2005. page 10

Brunson and Shindler 2004. page 10

Burger 2002. page 11

Findley and others 2001. page 12

Hull and others 2001. page 13

Hull and others 2003. page 13

Kauffman 2004. page 14

Nelson and others 2004. page 15

Rodriguez and others 2003. page 15

Wagner and others 1998. page 17

Woolley and McGinnis 2000. page 17

Mutual Trust

Edwards and Bliss 2003. page 18

Farnsworth and others 2003. page 19

McCaffrey 2004. page 20

Monroe and others 2003. page 21

Shindler and Toman 2003. page 21

Toman and others 2006. page 22

Winter and others 2004. page 23

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific 

information and technology to improve management, protection, 

and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to 

meet the needs of the National Forest managers, Federal and State 

agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, 

industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, 

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land 

reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering 

technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and 

forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, 

and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 

Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in 

all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political 

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper