i 

In cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management

A Survey of Bureau of Land Management Employees on 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

By Emily W. Ruell, Nina Burkardt, and Ryan M. Donovan

 

Open–File Report 2015–1015

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Ruell, E.W., Burkardt, Nina, and Donovan, R.M., 2015, A survey of Bureau of Land Management

employees on collaboration and alternative dispute resolution: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 2015–1015, 146 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151015. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

Cover photos: (Top Row, Left to Right) 1. Bureau of Land Management Photo Library, Oregon Office, 

2. © Kevin Matthews/Artifice Images (Bottom Row) 3. © Kevin Matthews/Artifice Images
iii

Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................. xiii

Greater Experience with Collaboration than Alternative Dispute Resolution......................................................... xiii

Generally Low Level of Training and Skills; Higher for Decision-Makers ..............................................................xiv

Awareness of Resources Increases Their Use ......................................................................................................xv

High Priority Resource Needs................................................................................................................................xv

All BLM Issue Areas Considered to be Suitable for Collaboration.........................................................................xvi

Collaboration in BLM Encounters Situational and Organizational Barriers............................................................xvi

Level of Support for Collaboration from Higher Organizational Levels is often “Unknown”.................................. xvii

Generally Positive Attitudes toward the Outcomes of Collaboration .................................................................... xvii

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Conflict and Collaboration in Federal Land Management ....................................................................................... 1

Defining Collaboration in the BLM........................................................................................................................... 2

Previous Survey Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Study Objectives and Survey Methods....................................................................................................................... 4

Survey Objectives and Design ................................................................................................................................ 4

Survey Administration ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Survey Unit Topics.................................................................................................................................................. 5

Initial Branching Questions.................................................................................................................................. 5

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes.................................................... 5

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training ................................................................. 5

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ........................................................................ 6

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration.................................................................................................. 6

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration.............................................................................................................. 6

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Outcomes .......................................................................................... 6

Final Professional and Demographic Background Questions.............................................................................. 6

Additional Survey Coding........................................................................................................................................ 6

Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes ..................................................... 10

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training................................................................... 22

Training in Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution............................................................................ 25

Overall Skill Level in Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ............................................................ 29

The Origins of Respondents’ Skill in Collaboration............................................................................................ 34

Interest in Future Training ................................................................................................................................. 34

Professional and Personal Obstacles to Taking Training .................................................................................. 38

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.......................................................................... 43

Awareness of Resources Available for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ................................ 45

Overall Likelihood of Using Resources Available for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ........... 50

Facilitators and Mediators for Collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes........................... 53

Feasibility Assessments for Collaboration......................................................................................................... 54

The Priority of Potential Future BLM Resources for Collaboration .................................................................... 57

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration ................................................................................................... 63

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration................................................................................................................ 66
iv

Situational Barriers to Collaboration.................................................................................................................. 66

Overall Frequency of Situational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM.............................................................. 68

Overall Magnitude of Effect of Situational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM................................................ 71

Organizational Barriers to Collaboration............................................................................................................ 73

Frequency and Effect of Travel Ceilings as a Barrier to Collaboration .............................................................. 75

Frequency and Effect of “Other BLM Duties Take Priority over Collaboration” as a Barrier to Collaboration .... 77

Frequency and Effect of “Field Personnel Lack Authority to Conduct Collaborations” as a Barrier to 

Collaboration ..................................................................................................................................................... 79

Frequency and Effect of “Lack of Support in the BLM” as a Barrier to Collaboration......................................... 81

Frequency and Effect of “Lack of Support from Your Supervisor” as a Barrier to Collaboration........................ 83

Overall Frequency of Organizational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM........................................................ 86

Overall Magnitude of Effect of Organizational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM.......................................... 90

Field Office Perceptions of Support for Collaboration........................................................................................ 93

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Outcomes............................................................................................ 97

General Attitudes toward How Collaboration Affects Outcomes........................................................................ 99

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Costs ............................................................................................. 102

Open-Ended Questions....................................................................................................................................... 106

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................................. 107

BLM Employees Involvement in Collaboration and ADR Processes................................................................... 107

Decision-makers had Different Perceptions and Experiences with Collaboration and ADR than others 

in the BLM........................................................................................................................................................... 107

Attitudes about Training Needs........................................................................................................................... 108

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration are Effected by a Variety of Factors..................................................... 108

Awareness of and Interest in Resources for Collaboration and ADR.................................................................. 109

Facilitators and Mediators are Viewed as Valuable by Those Who Have Used Them........................................ 109

Different Types of Resources and Support may be Needed for Collaboration Versus ADR ............................... 109

Limitations of the Survey..................................................................................................................................... 109

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................. 110

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................. 111

References Cited.................................................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix 1.............................................................................................................................................................. 115

Glossary .............................................................................................................................................................. 115

Appendix 2.............................................................................................................................................................. 117

BLM Employee Survey........................................................................................................................................ 117

Appendix 3.............................................................................................................................................................. 138

Description of Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 138

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes................................................ 138

Collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training ............................................................. 139

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution .................................................................... 140

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration.............................................................................................. 142

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration.......................................................................................................... 142

Perceptions about How Collaboration Affects Outcomes ................................................................................ 145
v 

Figures

Figure 1. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), 

comparing decision-makers to other respondents. ...................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management.................................................... 12

Figure 3. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), 

comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers........................................................ 12

Figure 4. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which 

respondents had been directly involved, comparing women to men............................................................................ 15

Figure 5. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which 

respondents had been directly involved, comparing decision-makers to other respondents ....................................... 15

Figure 6. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents 

had been directly involved versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management.......... 16

Figure 7. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents 

had been directly involved, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers............. 16

Figure 8. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

process that lasted longer than a year, comparing decision-makers to other respondents ......................................... 17

Figure 9. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

process that lasted longer than a year, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices 

and BLM Centers......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 10. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

process that also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing decision-makers 

to other respondents.................................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 11. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

process that also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing duty station levels ....... 19

Figure 12. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

process that also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers................................................................................................... 20

Figure 13. The percentage of time respondents’ spent on collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

processes over the last year, comparing decision-makers to other respondents......................................................... 21

Figure 14. The percentage of time respondents’ spent on collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

processes over the last year versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management ...... 21

Figure 15. The percentage of decision-makers versus other respondents for which participation in collaborative 

or Alternative Dispute Resolution processes was part of their performance plan ........................................................ 22

Figure 16. The percentage of respondents for which participation in collaborative or Alternative Dispute 

Resolution processes was part of their performance plan versus the number of years that they had worked 

for the Bureau of Land Management ........................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 17. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 18. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing decision-makers versus other respondents.................................................................. 26

Figure 19. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) versus the number of years respondents had worked for the Bureau of Land Management......... 27

Figure 20. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing each duty station level.................................................................................................. 27
vi 

Figure 21. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM)s State Offices and BLM Centers................ 28

Figure 22. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in which 

respondents had training (out of 13) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR..................................... 29

Figure 23. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 24. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing women to men. The vertical line depicts 

the median for all respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further 

explanation of boxplots................................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 25. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing decision-makers to other respondents ................. 31

Figure 26. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus the number of years they had worked for the 

Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 27. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) comparing duty station levels ................................................. 32

Figure 28. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State 

Offices and BLM Centers............................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 29. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus the number of skills in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in which they had training (out of 13)............................................................................................ 33

Figure 30. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR......... 33

Figure 31. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13)...................................................................................................... 35

Figure 32. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13), comparing women to men........................................................... 35

Figure 33. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13), comparing decision-makers to other respondents ...................... 36

Figure 34. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13) versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of 

Land Management....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 35. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13), comparing duty station levels...................................................... 37

Figure 36. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents 

would like training or additional training (out of 13) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level)................................................ 37

Figure 37. The total number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents’ had encountered in the past (out of 11).................................................................................................. 40

Figure 38. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents had encountered in the past (out of 11), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. .................. 40

Figure 39. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents had encountered in the past (out of 11) versus the number of years they had worked for the 

Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................................................................................... 41
vii 

Figure 40. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents had encountered in the past (out of 11), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State 

Offices and BLM Centers............................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 41. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents had encountered in the past (out of 11) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).......................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 42. The total number of resources for collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that 

respondents were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11)........................................................................................... 45

Figure 43. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing women to men. ................................................................... 46

Figure 44. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing decision-makers to other respondents................................ 47

Figure 45. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) ... 47

Figure 46. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing State Offices and Bureau of Land Management Centers.... 48

Figure 47. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11) versus the number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in which they had training (out of 13). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents that 

answered this question................................................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 48. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents 

were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). The horizontal line depicts the median 

for all respondents that answered this question........................................................................................................... 49

Figure 49. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”).......................................................... 50

Figure 50. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of years 

respondents had worked for the Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................... 51

Figure 51. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of resources 

they were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for 

which the scale could be calculated............................................................................................................................. 51

Figure 52. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of skills in 

collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which they had training (out of 13).............................................. 52

Figure 53. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in 

collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) ................... 52

Figure 54. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of facilitators for collaboration or Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) processes. ...................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 55. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of facilitators for collaboration or Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, comparing respondents with and without training in facilitation of a 

meeting or working group. ........................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 56. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of mediators for Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) processes. ........................................................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 57. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of feasibility assessments for collaboration ........................... 55
viii 

Figure 58. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of feasibility assessments for collaboration versus 

how they rated their skill level at feasibility assessments. ........................................................................................... 55

Figure 59. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments, comparing women to men. .................. 56

Figure 60. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments, comparing those that had to 

those that had not received training in feasibility assessments.................................................................................... 56

Figure 61. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments versus their level of experience with 

feasibility assessments................................................................................................................................................ 56

Figure 62. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing 

“assistance finding and hiring facilitators” in the future, comparing those with to those without direct experience 

with a facilitator during a collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process. ..................................................... 59

Figure 63. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing 

“assistance finding and hiring facilitators” in the future versus how they rated their likelihood to use professional 

facilitators or mediators in collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in the future............................. 60

Figure 64. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “training in 

feasibility assessments” in the future versus their level of experience with feasibility assessments for collaboration. . 60

Figure 65. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “training in 

feasibility assessments” in the future versus how they rated their skill level at conducting feasibility assessments 

for collaboration. .......................................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 66. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support 

for conducting feasibility assessments” in the future versus their level of experience with feasibility assessments 

for collaboration. .......................................................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 67. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support 

for conducting feasibility assessments” in the future, comparing those that had to those that had not received 

training in feasibility assessments for collaboration. .................................................................................................... 62

Figure 68. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support 

for conducting feasibility assessments” in the future versus how they rated their skill level at conducting feasibility 

assessments for collaboration. .................................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 69. How respondents that selected “land use planning and the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)” as their primary program area rated the suitability level of “land use planning and NEPA” for collaboration 

compared to respondents from other program areas................................................................................................... 65

Figure 70. How respondents that selected “forestry and timber” as their primary program area rated the 

suitability level of “forestry and timber” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas. .......... 65

Figure 71. How respondents that selected “energy, minerals, and mining” as their primary program area 

rated the suitability level of “energy, minerals, and mining” for collaboration compared to respondents from other 

program areas. ............................................................................................................................................................ 65

Figure 72. How respondents that selected “lands and realty” as their primary program area rated the 

suitability level of “lands and realty” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas................ 66

Figure 73. How respondents that selected “cultural resources” as their primary program area rated the 

suitability level of “cultural resources” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas............. 66

Figure 74. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”)............................................................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 75. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”) versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management ........................... 69

Figure 76. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”), comparing duty-station levels............................................................................................................. 69

Figure 77. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers .............................. 70
ix

Figure 78. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”) versus how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”) .............................................................................................. 70

Figure 79. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) .................. 71

Figure 80. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero”

effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”). ................................................................................................... 72

Figure 81. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero” 

effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration 

and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”) .................................................. 72

Figure 82. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero” 

effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of situational 

barriers to collaboration (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”)...................................................................................... 73

Figure 83. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing 

women to men............................................................................................................................................................. 75

Figure 84. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing 

decision-makers to other respondents......................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 85. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration versus 

how many years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management..................................................................... 76

Figure 86. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. .................................................................. 76

Figure 87. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaborations, 

comparing duty station levels ...................................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 88. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaborations 

versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaborations. ............................................................................. 77

Figure 89. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” as a 

barrier to collaboration, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. ................. 78

Figure 90. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “other BLM duties take priority over 

collaboration” as a barrier to collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration.............. 78

Figure 91. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” 

as a barrier to collaboration, comparing decision-makers to other respondents.......................................................... 79

Figure 92. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” 

as a barrier to collaboration versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)..................................................................................................................................................... 79

Figure 93. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” 

as a barrier to collaboration versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR)......................................................................................................................................................... 80

Figure 94. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “field personnel lack authority to conduct 

collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing duty station levels ................................................................. 80

Figure 95. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “field personnel lack authority to conduct 

collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration............ 81

Figure 96. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing decision-makers to other respondents. ...................................................................................................... 81

Figure 97. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing duty station levels ...................................................................................................................................... 82

Figure 98. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers........................................................ 82
x 

Figure 99. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration 

versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration. ............................................................................... 83

Figure 100. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing women to men. .................................................................................................................... 83

Figure 101. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing decision-makers to other respondents................................................................................. 84

Figure 102. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration versus how many years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management .................................... 84

Figure 103. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)...................... 84

Figure 104. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a 

barrier to collaboration, comparing duty station levels................................................................................................. 85

Figure 105. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a 

barrier to collaboration, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. ................. 85

Figure 106. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a 

barrier to collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration............................................ 86

Figure 107. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”)............................................................................................................................................................. 87

Figure 108. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents.............................................................................. 88

Figure 109. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”) versus how many years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management................................. 88

Figure 110. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers .............................. 89

Figure 111. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 

48 or “always”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”)................................................................................................................ 89

Figure 112. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or 

“zero” effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”). .......................................................................................... 90

Figure 113. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or 

“zero” effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents............ 91

Figure 114. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or 

“zero” effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration 

and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”) .................................................. 91

Figure 115. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” 

effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of organizational 

barriers to collaboration (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”)...................................................................................... 92

Figure 116. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or 

“zero” effect, because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).......................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 117. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in A, their field office; B, their State 

Office; and C, the Washington office. .......................................................................................................................... 93

Figure 118. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, comparing 

decision-makers (Field Managers) to other respondents............................................................................................. 94

Figure 119. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, comparing 

Bureau of Land Management State Offices................................................................................................................. 94
xi

Figure 120. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office versus their 

experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ............................................................. 95

Figure 121. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their State Office, comparing 

decision-makers (Field Managers) to other respondents............................................................................................. 95

Figure 122. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their State Office, comparing 

Bureau of Land Management State Offices................................................................................................................. 96

Figure 123. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in the Washington office, 

comparing Bureau of Land Management State Offices. .............................................................................................. 97

Figure 124. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”). ......................................................................................................................... 99

Figure 125. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”), comparing women to men ............................................................................. 100

Figure 126. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents......................................... 100

Figure 127. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of situational barriers 

(from 0 “never” to 48 or “always”) .............................................................................................................................. 101

Figure 128. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of organizational barriers 

(from 0 “never” to 48 or “always”) .............................................................................................................................. 101

Figure 129. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly 

worsens” to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and(or) Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”)............................................................................... 102

Figure 130. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs compared to how they rated 

how collaboration affects short-term costs................................................................................................................. 103

Figure 131. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects short-term costs versus their self-rated overall 

skill level in collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”) ........ 103

Figure 132. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects short-term costs versus their experience with 

collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ..................................................................................... 104

Figure 133. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs, comparing women to men. ....... 104

Figure 134. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs versus how many years they 

had worked for the Bureau of Land Management...................................................................................................... 105

Figure 135. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs, comparing Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers................................................................................................. 105

Figure 136. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs versus their self-rated overall 

skill level in collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”) ........ 106

Tables

Table 1. Professional characteristics of respondents............................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Respondents’ level of experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ...... 14

Table 3. Respondents’ skill levels, past training, and requests for future training.................................................. 24

Table 4. The percentage of respondents’ skill that they attributed to each of the five potential sources (mean, 

standard deviation [s.d.], median, and mode).............................................................................................................. 34

Table 5. The percentage of respondents that had encountered each of the 11 professional and personal 

obstacles to taking training in collaboration ................................................................................................................. 39
xii

Table 6. Respondents’ awareness of and likelihood to use available resources for collaboration and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the future...................................................................................................... 44

Table 7. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of potential resources for collaboration that the BLM could 

provide in the future..................................................................................................................................................... 58

Table 8. Respondents’ ratings of the suitability level of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issue areas for 

collaboration ................................................................................................................................................................ 64

Table 9. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency and magnitude of effect of situational barriers to collaboration 

in the Bureau of Land Management............................................................................................................................. 67

Table 10. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency and magnitude of effect of organizational barriers to 

collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)............................................................................................. 74

Table 11. Respondents’ perceptions of how collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) affects 

each of the following outcomes ................................................................................................................................... 98

Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions of how collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management affects shortand long-term costs ................................................................................................................................................... 102
xiii

Executive Summary

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been actively expanding its capacity to work 

cooperatively with other agencies, Tribes, the public, and other stakeholders using collaborative and 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches. In 1997, the BLM created the BLM’s Collaboration and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (Collaboration/ADR Program) to centralize, strengthen, and 

coordinate these efforts. Specifically, the Collaboration/ADR Program is charged with developing ADR 

policies; ensuring that statutory and regulatory requirements are met; and providing training, resources, 

and direct support for collaboration and ADR in the BLM. At the request of the Collaboration/ADR 

Program, the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, located in the 

Fort Collins Science Center, conducted an online survey of BLM employees in early 2013 to address four 

overarching questions: 

1. What information sources and assistance resources are BLM employees currently accessing to fill 

their conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration needs? 

2. What are the perceived information and resource needs of BLM employees associated with 

conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What information and resources can the BLM 

Collaboration/ADR Program provide to fill BLM employee needs? 

3. What is the BLM employee level of knowledge associated with conflict/dispute resolution and 

collaboration? 

4. What are the attitudes and perceptions of BLM employees toward conflict/dispute resolution and 

collaboration? 

This report describes the findings of this online survey and will assist the BLM’s Collaboration 

and ADR Oversight Committee in developing the Strategic Plan for the Collaboration/ADR Program. The 

purpose of the Strategic Plan is to advance collaboration in the BLM and to increase the capacity of the 

Collaboration/ADR Program to support collaborative efforts on the ground. 

In March 2013, a user-specific link to the online survey was sent via email to all current BLM 

employees (n = 6,734) that could potentially have had experience in collaboration and conflict resolution 

based on their job series. The links took the respondents to a webpage where the survey was administered. 

Email reminders were sent at weekly intervals thereafter. When the survey closed in May 2013, the 

response rate was 45 percent (3,161 employees). Of these, only 14 percent (427 respondents) indicated 

that they did not have direct experience with collaboration or ADR, and were unlikely to gain experience 

in the future. Because these respondents were not the target population of this survey, they were branched 

to the demographic questions at the end of the survey and were not included in any further analyses. The 

remaining 86 percent (2,734 respondents) indicated that either they did have direct experience with 

collaboration and (or) ADR, or that they might gain experience with one or both in the future. Below we 

highlight some of the key findings from their survey responses (refer to the Results section for a 

comprehensive report of the survey findings). 

Greater Experience with Collaboration than Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Fifty-nine percent of the 2,734 respondents had direct experience with collaboration and not ADR; 

1 percent had direct experience with ADR and not collaboration; 25 percent had direct experience 

with both collaboration and ADR. The remaining 15 percent did not have direct experience with 

either collaboration or ADR, but might gain experience in the future. Of note, respondents in highlevel decision-making positions (Field Manager level or higher) were more than twice as likely as 
xiv

other respondents to have experience with both collaboration and ADR; a little less than 5 percent

of these decision-makers did not have experience with either collaboration or ADR. 

• When asked to characterize their experience with collaboration and ADR, 18 percent of 

respondents indicated that they had been involved in a single collaboration or ADR process, 59 

percent had been involved in 2‒10 collaborations and ADR processes, and 23 percent had been 

involved in more than 10 collaborations and ADR processes. The majority (57 percent) of 

respondents had been involved in a collaboration or ADR process that lasted longer than one year. 

In addition, the majority (60 percent) had been involved in a collaboration or ADR process that 

involved a National Environmental Policy Act process. When describing the role of collaboration 

and(or) ADR in their position responsibilities, 59 percent of respondents with direct experience 

spent less than 10 percent of their time on these processes. Only 3 percent spent more than 60 

percent of their time on these processes. However, participation in collaborations and (or) ADR 

processes was included in only 39 percent of respondents’ performance plans. 

Generally Low Level of Training and Skills; Higher for Decision-Makers

• The only two collaboration and ADR skills in which the majority of respondents had received 

formal training were “communication and active listening” (64 percent) and “internal team 

building” (61 percent). Not surprisingly, respondents also rated themselves as being more 

proficient at these skills compared to the other 11 collaborative and ADR skills listed in the survey, 

for which a majority of respondents (54‒93 percent) had not received training. Of note, over threequarters of respondents had not received training in four of the skills that are most specific to 

collaboration: “identifying when collaboration is needed,” “building tribal and Government-toGovernment relationships,” “terminating collaborative efforts or partnerships when necessary,” 

and “feasibility assessments.” Respondents expressed the most interest in receiving future training 

in “negotiation and conflict resolution.” 

• In general, decision-makers had received much more formal training (median = 7 of the 13 skills 

listed in the survey) than the other respondents (median = 3 of the 13 skills). When asked which 

professional and personal obstacles had prevented them from taking training in the past, 79 percent

of respondents indicated they had encountered “travel ceiling constraints.” In addition, 72 percent

of respondents had encountered budgetary constraints, and 52 percent indicated that they had 

lacked the time for training. Surprisingly, almost half of respondents (45 percent) indicated that 

they had not been aware that training in collaboration was available to them. 

• The average respondent rated their own skill at collaboration and ADR as being somewhere 

between “beginner” and “intermediate.” However, the average decision-maker rated themselves as 

being much more skilled (between “intermediate” and “advanced”) than other respondents. This 

corresponded with the finding that decision-makers had received more training in collaboration 

and ADR than other respondents, because how much training respondents had received was

strongly positively correlated with how they rated their skill level at collaboration and ADR. 

• Respondents credited “hands on experience” as contributing 44 percent of their skill on average). 

This was followed by “innate skill” (20 percent on average), then “mentors and coaches” (15

percent on average), then “formal training” (11 percent on average), and last of all by “reading 

about collaboration” (9 percent on average).

• Although the majority of respondents indicated that they were interested in receiving some future 

training in collaboration and ADR skills (median = 8 out of 13 skills listed in the survey), the 

distribution of responses was U-shaped, with 20 percent of respondents indicating that they had 

zero interest in future training and 24 percent indicating that they wanted future training in all of 
xv

the collaborative and ADR skills listed in the survey. Of note, respondents’ overall interest in 

future training decreased the longer they had worked for the BLM. 

Awareness of Resources Increases Their Use

• When comparing among a list of currently available resources for collaboration and ADR, 

respondents indicated that they were most likely to use “a mentor or coach” in the future, followed 

by BLM guides and handbooks, and “an online or media search.” Respondents were split on 

whether or not they were likely to use “formal training in collaboration or dispute resolution,” “a 

professional facilitator or mediator,” or the “BLM Collaboration and Dispute Resolution 

SharePoint site.” With the exception of the SharePoint site, over three-quarters of respondents 

(75‒91 percent) had been aware of these resources prior to the survey. Only half of respondents 

(49 percent) had been previously aware of the SharePoint site. The resources that respondents were 

less likely to use in the future were professional collaboration or ADR specialists and the BLM’s 

Washington Office of Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. However, smaller 

majorities (55‒64 percent of respondents) had been aware of these resources prior to the survey. 

Respondents were particularly unlikely to use the Udall Foundation’s U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution in the future. However, only 36 percent had been aware of this 

resource prior to the survey. Of note, decision-makers were typically aware of more of these 

resources than other respondents, and respondents’ general level of awareness of these resources

and overall likelihood to use these resources in the future were positively correlated with their 

overall level of training and overall self-rated skill level in collaboration and ADR. 

• From those respondents with direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, 59 percent

indicated that they had been involved in a collaboration or ADR process that used a facilitator, 

while only 37 percent had been involved in a collaboration or ADR process that used a mediator. 

The respondents with direct experience indicated that both facilitators and mediators were very 

useful for these processes. 

• In contrast, a large majority of the respondents that had direct experience with collaboration 

and(or) ADR either (1) did not know about feasibility assessments (60 percent) or (2) had heard of 

them, but did not have experience with a collaboration or ADR process that had used a feasibility 

assessment (27 percent). However, the respondents that did have direct experience with feasibility 

assessments (13 percent) rated feasibility assessments as being very useful for collaborations. 

High Priority Resource Needs

• When asked to rate the priority level of a list of potential resources that BLM could provide them 

in the future, respondents indicated that “in-person training on collaboration and dispute 

resolution,” “support for building collaborative Government-to-Government relationships and 

Tribal consultation,” “additional funding resources for collaborative efforts,” and “assistance or 

coaching in planning for collaboration and setting expectations with the public” should be given 

the highest priority. 

• Even though as a group respondents rated “assistance finding and hiring facilitators” as having 

lowest priority relative to the other potential resources listed in the survey, respondents with direct 

experience with the use of a facilitator and those that indicated that they were likely to use one in 

the future indicated that “assistance finding and hiring facilitators” should be given higher priority 

than did the rest of the respondents. Similarly, although respondents as a group rated “training in 

feasibility assessments” and “support for conducting feasibility assessments” as having relatively 
xvi 

low priority, those with direct experience with feasibility assessments and a higher self-rated skill 

level in feasibility assessments rated the priority level of these potential resources much higher 

than other respondents. 

All BLM Issue Areas Considered to be Suitable for Collaboration

• All BLM issue areas were considered to be at least “somewhat suitable” by over 70 percent of 

respondents, with “recreation,” “land use planning/NEPA,” “range management,” and “fish and 

wildlife” rated as “suitable” by the largest majorities (55‒66 percent).

Collaboration in BLM Encounters Situational and Organizational Barriers

• Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they thought collaboration in the BLM 

encountered a list of 12 political and social situational barriers and then to rate the magnitude of 

effect of each barrier when it was encountered. The situational barrier that was rated by 

respondents as occurring most frequently and having the greatest effect was that “some 

participants in collaborations have entrenched positions.” Almost two-thirds of respondents 

(62 percent) indicated that collaborations were “often” or “always” hindered by this barrier, and 

88 percent indicated that this was a “moderate” or “major” barrier to collaborations (table 9). Other 

situational barriers that respondents thought occurred frequently and were of “moderate” to 

“major” effect were “knowledge imbalances between participants,” “high political visibility,” and 

“power imbalances among participants.” The three barriers rated the least frequent were “litigation 

was already ongoing,” “collaborations are not undertaken voluntarily by the BLM,” and “a 

perception that collaboration leads to poor quality decisions.” Of these three, only “litigation was 

already ongoing” was considered to be of “moderate” or “major” effect by the majority of 

respondents (70 percent). In general, respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational 

barriers were positively correlated with how they rated the overall magnitude of effect of 

situational barriers.

• Respondents were also asked to rate how frequently they thought that collaborations in the BLM 

encountered each of a list of 12 different organizational barriers and then rate the magnitude of the 

effect of each barrier to collaboration when it was encountered (table 10). The organizational 

barrier that was rated as being the most frequent and of greatest effect by respondents was “travel 

ceilings.” Almost two thirds of respondents (61 percent) indicated that collaborations were “often” 

or “always” hindered by travel ceilings, and 79 percent indicated that this was a “moderate” or 

“major” barrier to collaboration. The other organizational barrier that the majority of respondents 

(54 percent) thought occurred “often” or “always” and that 74 percent thought was of “moderate” 

or “major” effect was “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration.” The three 

organizational barriers rated as occurring the least frequently were “lack of support in the BLM,” 

“the BLM does not implement agreements made by collaborative groups,” and “lack of support 

from your supervisor.” All three were rated by over one-third (43–69 percent) of respondents as 

occurring “seldom” or “never,” and the majority of respondents (53–73 percent) rated them as 

having a “minor” effect when they do occur. Of note, decision-makers typically rated the 

organizational barriers as occurring less frequently and having a smaller effect than other 

respondents. In addition, respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers 

were positively correlated with how they rated the overall magnitude of effect of organizational 

barriers.
xvii 

Level of Support for Collaboration from Higher Organizational Levels is often “Unknown”

• Field personnel generally rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, their State 

Office, and the Washington D.C. office as being “moderate” to “high.” However, almost 40 

percent of respondents indicated that they did not know the level of support in their State Office. 

Furthermore, almost 50 percent did not know the level of support in the Washington Office. Of 

note, Field Managers generally rated the level of support in their field office and their State Office 

as much higher than other field personnel. 

Generally Positive Attitudes toward the Outcomes of Collaboration

• Respondents were consistent in rating the effect of collaboration on a list of social and political 

outcomes as between “somewhat improves” to “greatly improves,” with “communication among 

different parties” given the most positive ratings among the list of potential outcomes. 

• Finally, respondents generally thought that although collaboration “somewhat increased” shortterm costs, it “somewhat reduced” long-term costs. 

• In conclusion, the survey confirmed that participation in collaborative and ADR processes is or is 

likely to be a significant part of many BLM employees’ duties. The survey further identified 

opportunities to increase the BLM’s collaborative and dispute-resolution capabilities. Although 

direct experience appeared to play a major role in how respondents rated their own skill at 

collaboration and ADR, training was also an important contributor to respondents’ skill in 

collaboration and ADR. One set of skills in which respondents were particularly interested in 

receiving further training was “negotiation and conflict resolution.” In addition, training also 

appeared to increase respondents’ awareness of and likelihood to use the resources that are 

currently available to assist them in collaborative and ADR processes. 

• Finally, the survey confirmed that respondents’ access to training and collaborative efforts were 

oftentimes hampered by organizational or occupational constraints, such as travel ceilings, time, 

and budgetary constraints. These logistical obstacles could potentially be mitigated or reduced in 

the future. However, it is important to highlight the fact that even though respondents agreed that 

attempts at collaboration were often impeded by numerous organizational, social, and political 

factors, they still considered collaboration to be a worthwhile endeavor for a broad range of BLM 

activities. 
1 

A Survey of Bureau of Land Management Employees on 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

By Emily W. Ruell,1 Nina Burkardt,2 and Ryan M. Donovan1

Introduction

Conflict and Collaboration in Federal Land Management

Federal public lands encompass substantial water and wildlife resources and supply users with 

numerous services, amenities, and commodities (Loomis, 2002; Coggins and others, 2007). Public lands 

also contain abundant historical and cultural resources (Stern and Slade, 1995). As set forth in the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) manages a vast network of lands according to a multiple-use mandate, and is often faced with 

deciding which of the above-mentioned benefits should be prioritized spatially and temporally among 

users (Loomis, 2002). The BLM administers over 245 million surface acres, primarily across 12 Western 

states, including Alaska (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2013b), which is more land than any other 

federal land management agency (Loomis, 2002). The BLM is charged to manage for “a combination of 

balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 

renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, 

watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural science, scientific and historical values...without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment...” (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)). 

Managing for these multiple and often competing uses can invite both conflict and opportunities for 

collaboration as various stakeholders advocate for alternative uses of public lands (Wondolleck, 1988). 

Even within one class of use, stakeholders often disagree, for example, motorized versus non-motorized 

recreational activities (Coggins and others, 2007). Furthermore, external drivers such as climate change 

are altering the landscape of public land management (Archie and others, 2012). 

Adding to this complexity, lands administered by the BLM often neighbor or surround Tribal 

lands; lands administered by other Federal agencies, States, and Counties; or property owned by private 

entities or individuals. As a result, effective management of BLM-administered lands often requires 

collaborating across various jurisdictional and geographical boundaries (Loomis, 2002). Certain laws may 

compel the BLM to cooperate with other federal agencies. For example, the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1536) requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

or the National Marine Fisheries Service when proposed agency actions may affect threatened or 

endangered species. Others, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 

4371 et seq.), also require federal agencies to involve the public in actions that “significantly affect the 

human environment.” Decisions made as to management of BLM lands can and do have effects in local 

communities throughout the West (Congressional Research Service, 1992). 

 

1

 Cherokee Services Group, Catoosa, Okla. 

2

 U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colo. 
2 

To address natural-resource and environmental concerns of a large scope, such as climate change, 

an emphasis on collaboration across traditional jurisdictional boundaries is emerging. A rise in 

collaborative efforts in the BLM coincides with a string of federal statutes and memoranda encouraging or 

mandating participatory decision-making within federal agencies. For example, under the Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives, established in 2009, Department of the Interior agencies are called on “to 

work together, and with other federal, state, tribal and local governments, and private landowner partners, 

to develop landscape-level strategies” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009, p. 3). In addition, the 

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 571 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies adopt 

a policy for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) across agency functions: rulemaking, enforcement, and 

other agency actions. Alternative Dispute Resolution gained additional traction within federal agencies in 

2005, when the Office of Management and Budget and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

jointly issued a Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR). The memorandum directs 

federal agencies to ensure the effective use of ECR consistent with eight principles: informed 

commitment, balanced and voluntary representation, group autonomy, informed process, accountability, 

openness, timeliness, and implementation. A revised memorandum issued in 2012 reinforces these 

commitments and places greater emphasis on early collaboration.

In order to comply with these mandates, the BLM must identify the opportunities for and barriers 

to collaboration and conflict resolution in order to more effectively approach future collaborative efforts 

and disputes. The BLM established the Collaboration and Appropriate Dispute Resolution Program 

(Collaboration/ADR Program) in 1997 (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2013a). The 

Collaboration/ADR Program has issued policy and guidance encouraging the use of collaboration and 

ADR processes as “standard operating practice of natural resource projects, plans, and decision-making, 

except under unusual circumstances” (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2009, p. 1). Unusual 

circumstances include those instances where the BLM may be constrained by law, regulation, or precedent 

to use more conventional approaches. Particular focus is placed on “upstream” processes, such as public 

outreach and stakeholder working groups, recognizing that such early involvement can increase the 

success rates of these processes (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2009). 

Although much has been learned about collaboration in Federal land-management decisions, 

questions remain concerning its effectiveness (Innes and Booher, 1999; Conley and Moote, 2003; Koontz 

and Thomas, 2006), and its ability to provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholder involvement 

(Bryson, 2004; Walker and others, 2006; Slotterback and Crosby, 2012; Callister, 2013) and to manage 

power imbalances (Ozawa and Susskind, 1985; Callister, 2013). Past research has focused on defining 

collaborative capacity at the level of the individual participant (Thomas, 1995; Forester, 1999; Emerson 

and Smutko, 2011; Morse and Stephens, 2012; and O’Leary and others, 2012), and on identifying 

organizational and institutional features that may support more robust collaborative processes (Ostrom, 

1990; Fung and Wright, 2003; Heikkila and Gerlak, 2005; and Reed, 2008). These topics are salient to 

natural-resource-management agencies as these agencies attempt to improve their ability to work with 

stakeholders, uphold their agency mandates, and move toward improved outcomes on the ground. 

Defining Collaboration in the BLM

The literature reveals a growing list of terms that seek to capture the essence of collaboration in 

natural resource management. Many of these processes fall under the umbrella term Environmental 

Conflict Resolution (ECR) (Dukes, 2004). Different ECR processes take on many names, including

“collaborative conservation” (Lauber and Decker, 2011), “community-based collaboratives” (Moote and 

others, 2000), “community-based conservation” (Western and Wright, 1994), “community-based 

ecosystem management” (Gray and others, 2001), “community-based environmental protection” 
3 

(Environmental Protection Agency, 1997), collaborative resource management (Government 

Accountability Office, 2008), and “partnerships” (Wondolleck and Yaffe, 1994). Other approaches have 

been termed “watershed management” (Bonnell and Koontz, 2007), “collaborative integrated water 

management” (Ferreyra and Beard, 2007), and “community forestry” (Wilson, 2006) to reflect the specific 

resource focus of the effort. 

Though differences may exist among these collaborative approaches, they share many 

commonalities. These processes are all multi-party, participatory approaches to address natural resource 

management. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM. 2005) defines collaboration as “A 

cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, work together to seek 

solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands (p. 3).” For purposes of this report, we 

use the term “collaboration” or “collaborative process” to encompass the range of activities that fall within 

this definition. These activities may or may not include a third-party mediator or facilitator. 

Previous Survey Findings 

A 2002 study used an online survey to examine perceptions of BLM Field Office Managers and 

Planners regarding the role of collaborative planning within the BLM (Laninga, 2004). Surveys were sent 

to 147 Field Office Managers and Planners, and 126 responded from 84 field offices. That survey sought 

responses on three topics related to collaborative planning in the BLM: (1) intergovernmental 

coordination, (2) characteristics of collaborative arrangements, and (3) general questions on collaborative 

planning (Laninga, 2004). 

The results demonstrated that the BLM field offices coordinate numerous collaborative activities 

with other governmental entities, including State, County, and local governments, other Federal agencies, 

and Tribes (Laninga, 2004). 

Data from that survey also indicated that collaborative planning among field offices varies in both 

structure and process. Structural characteristics of collaborative planning evaluated in the survey included 

the initiator of the planning effort, the lifespan, the type (community-based, intergovernmental, or 

mediated negotiation), the number of participants, and membership-type (self-selected, assigned, or 

elected [Laninga, 2004]). Respondents were also asked to respond to questions regarding procedural 

characteristics of collaborative planning processes, including decision-making criteria, goals, issue-focus, 

data types and sources, meeting frequency, and participant representation (Laninga, 2004). 

The survey also elicited perceptions of the benefits and weaknesses of collaboration from field 

office personnel through the use of open-ended questions. 

When asked what additional resources they believed would increase their capacity to use 

collaborative planning, the most frequent response of respondents was a need for additional financial 

resources, followed by additional time to engage in collaborative processes. Other frequently cited 

potential resources were additional staffing and education for current staff. Finally, respondents to this 

question indicated a lack of material support from the BLM state offices and the BLM’s Washington 

Office (Laninga, 2004). 

Although these responses were illuminating, the small and narrow sample of respondents to this 

question prevented its extrapolation to the entire BLM. As will be described in the next section of this 

resport, researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created and administered a survey in 2012 to 

provide additional information to the BLM. One objective for the 2012 survey was to determine whether 

field-office perceptions of support from state offices and the Washington Office had changed in the 10 

years (yr) since the Laninga survey. A more comprehensive objective was to learn about topics beyond 

those covered in the 2002 survey from a broader group of BLM employees. The impetus for this survey 

was the upcoming development of a BLM strategic plan for collaboration and ADR, and the need to learn 
4 

more about BLM employee knowledge, attitudes, and support needs in order to craft a robust and relevant 

plan. 

Study Objectives and Survey Methods

Survey Objectives and Design

In 2012, the BLM’s Collaboration/ADR Program began a strategic planning process to further 

define the services and support it can deliver to the field. To inform this ongoing strategic planning 

process, scientists at the USGS Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch, in cooperation with the 

BLM Collaboration/ADR Program, designed and administered an online survey of current BLM 

employees. The survey was designed to address four questions: 

1. What information sources and assistance resources are BLM employees currently accessing to 

fill their conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration needs? 

2. What are the perceived information and resource needs of BLM employees associated with 

conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What information and resources can the BLM 

Collaboration/ADR Program provide to fill BLM employee needs? 

3. What is the BLM employee level of knowledge associated with conflict/dispute resolution and 

collaboration? 

4. What are the attitudes and perceptions of BLM employees toward conflict/dispute resolution 

and collaboration? 

The USGS researchers and members of the BLM Collaboration/ADR Program worked together in 

an iterative process to design the survey questions. The questions were based, where appropriate, on 

existing literature regarding collaboration and dispute resolution in the area of natural resources and public 

lands. Other questions reflected the existing and potential resources and services offered by the BLM 

Collaboration/ADR Program. A representative version of the full survey is included in Appendix 2. 

The majority of the questions were closed-ended questions, which are the preferred format in 

surveys because they make responses comparable, and thus easier to analyze using statistical analyses 

(Dillman and others, 2009). However, we included a few general open-ended questions that allowed the 

respondents to provide additional comments or suggestions at the end of the survey. Responses to the two 

open-ended questions were reviewed and categorized but were not subject to in-depth analysis for this 

report. The comments were edited to preserve anonymity and shared with the BLM Collaboration/ADR 

Program to help inform their strategic planning process. We report summaries of the comments in this 

report.

Survey Administration

The BLM Collaboration/ADR Program provided a list of current BLM employees in job categories 

that were likely to have or to gain future experience in collaboration and conflict resolution. This list 

included the job title and email address of 6,734 current BLM employees who were selected to receive the 

survey. Survey respondents were selected to receive the survey based on their job titles in early March 

2013. Employees were excluded from the survey only if their job title indicated they were in a strictly 

clerical or maintenance-type position, and thus were unlikely to be directly involved in natural resource 

management activities, including collaboration and ADR. This approach was designed so that the survey 

sampled and was representative of all BLM employees with direct experience with collaboration and(or)

ADR, or those that were likely to gain experience in the future. The survey was constructed in and 
5 

administered using the program Key SurveyTM version 7.1 (WorldAPP, Braintree, Massachusetts). On 

March 19, 2013, survey recipients were emailed a unique URL that took them to a webpage that 

administered their survey. Approximately one week before receiving their survey link, recipients were 

notified of the survey in an email sent from Ed Roberson, BLM Assistant Director of Renewable 

Resources and Planning. Because email links were user-specific, respondents were allowed to re-enter, 

view, or modify previous responses prior to finally submitting their survey responses. Five follow-up 

reminder emails were sent on March 27, 2013; April 3, 2013; April 17, 2013; April 24, 2013; and May 5, 

2013. After nearly seven weeks, the survey was closed on May 6, 2013. 

Survey Unit Topics

Initial Branching Questions

Upon entering the survey, BLM employees were asked to answer four background questions, 

including identifying and specifying their duty station, the program area in which they primarily work, and 

whether their job description includes managing or supervising others (Appendix 2, survey page 1). 

Respondents were then navigated through the remainder of the survey based on their responses to two 

questions: (1) whether or not they had direct experience with collaboration (as defined above and in the 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook) or may gain experience in the future as part of their job duties for the 

BLM, and (2) whether or not they had direct experience with ADR (defined as “managing, mitigating, or 

resolving an existing dispute, sometimes with the assistance of a neutral third-part (for example, a 

mediator)” or may gain experience in the future as part of their job duties for the BLM (Appendix 2, 

survey page 2). Respondents that indicated they had experience with collaboration and (or) ADR were 

directed to the full survey and were asked a series of questions about their experiences (Appendix 2, 

survey pages 3‒11). Those that indicated they did not have prior experience in either collaboration and 

ADR, but that they anticipated they may have such experience in the future, were directed past those 

questions that related to specific experiences to the survey questions involving their collaboration and 

ADR skills and training (Appendix 2, survey page 12). Finally, employees that indicated they had no prior 

experience in either collaboration or ADR, nor expected to gain any in the future, were directed to the end 

of the survey where they were asked their gender and how long they had worked for the BLM (Appendix 

2, survey page 23). 

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Respondents that indicated that they had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR were 

asked a series of questions about this experience, including the number and duration of collaborative 

and(or) ADR processes (Appendix 2, survey page 4), the proportion of their time spent on these processes 

in the last year, and whether or not participation in these processes was part of their performance plan or 

was part of a NEPA process (Appendix 2, survey page 5). 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training

Respondents were asked to rate their skill level for a list of 13 skills that are often used in 

collaborative and ADR processes (Appendix 2, survey page 12). In addition, they were asked whether or 

not they had received training in any of these skills and whether or not they would like to receive training 

or additional training in these skills in the future. Next, respondents were asked to indicate where they 

thought they had acquired their skill in collaboration and ADR (Appendix 2, survey page 13). Finally, 

respondents were asked to select which (if any) barriers they had encountered to taking training in 
6 

collaboration from a list of 11 potential barriers, including time, resources, and personality factors 

(Appendix 2, survey page 15). 

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Respondents were asked whether or not they had been previously aware of a list of 11 resources 

currently available to them for assistance with collaborative and ADR processes, and how likely they were 

to make use of these resources in the future (Appendix 2, survey page 14). They were then asked to 

prioritize among a list of 11 resources that could potentially be provided to them in the future by the BLM 

(Appendix 2, survey page 16). Respondents were also asked if they had direct experience with the use of a 

facilitator, mediator, or a feasibility assessment conducted prior to a collaboration (also known as a 

situation assessment), and if so, how useful they thought they were for the process (Appendix 2, survey 

pages 6‒11). 

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration

Respondents were asked to rate the suitability of 11 different program areas in the BLM for 

collaboration (Appendix 2, survey page 20). 

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration

Respondents were asked to rate the frequency and the severity (hereafter referred to as the 

magnitude of effect) of a list of 12 potential situational and 12 potential organizational barriers to 

collaboration (Appendix 2, survey pages 18 and 19). Those respondents that indicated at the beginning of 

the survey that their duty station was a field office (Appendix 2, survey page 1), were asked an additional 

question that mimicked a question in the survey administered in 2002 (Laninga, 2004) about how they 

perceived the level of support for collaboration in their field office, their State Office, and the Washington 

Office (Appendix 2, survey page 17). 

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Outcomes

Respondents were asked to rate whether collaboration improved or worsened a list of 13 social and 

political outcomes of natural resource decision-making and whether or not it increased or decreased the 

BLM’s short- and long-term costs (Appendix 2, survey page 21). 

Final Professional and Demographic Background Questions

Finally, respondents were asked whether they had any suggestions for modifying the BLM Land 

Use Planning Handbook’s definition of collaboration (Appendix 2, survey page 24), their gender, and how 

long they had worked for the BLM (Appendix 2, survey page 25) before they were asked to submit their 

surveys. 

Additional Survey Coding

In order to group responses by geographic region, survey respondents from field offices, district 

offices, and state offices were coded for their particular BLM State Office or BLM Center using the 

respondents’ response to the open-ended question that asked respondents to specify the name of their duty 

station (Appendix 2, survey page 1). Respondents that left this open-ended comment blank were 
7 

considered missing data for this variable. Respondents that specified the Washington Office were left in 

this category. 

In addition, in order to compare the responses of high-level decision-makers versus other 

respondents, we coded survey responses as either a “decision-maker” or not using the respondents’ job 

title generated in the initial email list. Field Managers, District Managers, State Directors, Division Chiefs, 

Assistant Directors, and the Director were all categorized as decision-makers and all other job titles were

categorized as other for this variable. The rationale behind this classification was that although supervisors 

may have the authority to make administrative or program-related decisions, almost all substantive 

decisions over natural resource management that influence collaborative and alternative dispute resolution 

-processes would have to be made and(or) approved by the respondents classified as high-level decisionmakers above.

Finally, survey responses from the two initial branching questions that asked whether or not 

respondents had direct experience with collaboration and ADR were combined into one variable. 

Respondents were categorized as either (1) experienced with both collaboration and ADR, (2) experienced 

with only collaboration, (3) experienced with only ADR, or (4) not experienced with either collaboration 

or ADR, but may gain experience with one or both in the future. Respondents that indicated that they did 

not have experience with either collaboration or ADR and were unlikely to in the future were coded as 

missing data for this variable, and were not included in any of the survey analyses beyond the descriptive 

statistics describing respondents’ professional characteristics and gender. 

Statistical Analyses

The survey’s minimum response rate (also called Response Rate 1 under Standard Definitions: 

Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcomes Rates for Surveys, 7th Edition; American Association for 

Public Opinion Research, 2011a) was calculated using the Response Rate Calculator V3.1 (American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, 2011b). 

All subsequent analyses were completed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics Desktop V20.0.0 (IBM 

Corporation, Armonk, New York, U.S.A.). Detailed descriptions of all statistical terms are provided in 

Appendix 1, and descriptions of all statistical tests and models performed are provided in Appendix 3. We 

used nonparametric statistical analyses, because they do not assume an underlying distribution (for 

example, a normal distribution) to the data, and therefore, do not specify the model structure and 

parameters a priori, which sometimes comes at the cost of slightly reduced power to detect significant 

effects. Nonparametric statistics are also robust to outliers and small sample sizes. As a result, they have 

broad applications in the social sciences where data often do not conform to the assumptions of parametric 

statistics (reviewed in Leach and Onwuegbuzie, 2002). Examples of social-science data that typically 

warrant non-parametric statistics are rank order, count data, and ordinal response data, such as data 

derived from survey rating scales. These types of data often have no real-world numerical interpretation, 

and the difference between each successive rating scale category is not truly equidistant. Nonparametric 

statistical analyses test whether there are differences among groups, items, along scales, etc. in the 

measure of central tendency (for example, median), and(or) distributional differences in shape or 

dispersion. In the following section, we present the results of all statistical tests and models that were 

performed, but only the main effects of multivariate models that were statistically significant (α less than

0.05). Model parameters for non-significant main effects (p greater than 0.05) are not presented for the 

sake of brevity. 

We chose not to include post-hoc statistical tests on differences between categories for each 

significant main effect in this report because the large majority of predictor variables were categorical or 

ordinal variables with a large number (over five) of categories. Therefore, differences between categories
8 

would be difficult to present and interpret, and the large number of post hoc analyses that would be 

required would have an inflated Type I error rate or require an overly conservative Bonferroni correction, 

which would inflate the Type II error. Calculations of standardized effect sizes were also not included in 

this report, because paired category post hoc tests were not performed and omnibus effect sizes (across all 

categories) are either not available or are difficult to interpret for nonparametric statistics. Furthermore, it 

is unclear what size ranges of effect sizes are important in the real world for many of these topics and for 

BLM employees. In other words, even very small effect sizes can still result in serious or large real-world 

implications and should not be discounted in certain situations. Instead, we present descriptive statistics

(proportions, medians, or boxplots) for all statistically significant tests or fixed effects in tabular or 

graphical form. This allows readers to view absolute or unstandardized effect sizes between groups and 

consistency (or lack thereof) of trends or patterns for Likert scales and count data, and to independently 

determine whether or not these group differences could potentially have real-world significance or 

importance. Small differences may be important for some readers or purposes, but only large differences 

may be important to others. However, it is important to remember that some of the apparent differences 

between groups or items in these tables and figures were not all statistically different from one another. 

The omnibus model only showed that one or more groups or items were significantly different from one or 

more of the others. 

A more fine-grained, hypothesis-driven approach to analyzing these data that includes post-hoc 

analyses will be reserved for future investigations with subsets of the survey data. This report should be 

viewed only as a broad-brush analysis of the survey, which covers a wide range of topics related to 

collaboration and alternative dispute resolution in the BLM that are of interest to the BLM’s 

Collaboration/ADR Program and that can potentially help inform the strategic planning process. 

Survey Results

There were 3,161 BLM employees that responded to a sufficient number of survey questions to be 

included in subsequent statistical analyses (3,035 complete and 126 incomplete surveys), leaving us with a 

survey minimum response rate of 45 percent. From these, 83 percent (2,612 respondents) indicated their 

gender; 61 percent were men and 39 percent were women. The professional characteristics of respondents 

are described below in table 1. Again, “decision-makers” were those respondents that we considered to be 

in high-level decision-making positions (Field Manager, District Manager, State Director, Division Chief, 

Assistant Director, or Director) at the time of the survey. This category was not self-selected by 

respondents, but was coded by us. The category “supervisor or manager of multiple programs” was selfselected by respondents. Because supervisors and managers were not necessarily high-level decisionmakers in collaborative or ADR processes, this variable was not used in subsequent survey analyses. 
9 

Table 1. Professional characteristics of respondents. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management; less than or equal to, 

less than;%, percent) 

Professional characteristics n Percent

Number of years working for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Less than 1 year 142 5%

1–5 years 693 23%

6–10 years 554 19%

11–20 years 700 24%

21–30 years 580 20%

Greater than 30 years 298 10%

High-level decision-maker in the BLM1

Yes 110 4%

No 3,051 97%

BLM duty station

Field office 1,567 50%

District office 636 20%

State office 653 21%

Washington office 181 6%

BLM Center or other 104 3%

Primary program area in the BLM

Other 758 24%

Energy, minerals, and mining 476 15%

Fire management 349 11%

Supervisor or manager of multiple programs 315 10%

Lands and realty 261 8%

Range management 187 6%

Fish and wildlife 169 5%

Recreation 152 5%

Land use planning/NEPA 140 4%

Cultural resources 138 4%

Forestry and timber 126 4%
10 

Table 1. Professional characteristics of respondents. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management; less than or equal to, 

less than;%, percent)—Continued.

Professional characteristics n Percent

Species of concern 42 1%

Wild horses and burros 39 1%

BLM State office or BLM Center2

Washington D.C. 181 6%

Arizona 129 4%

Alaska 159 5%

California 245 8%

Colorado 213 7%

Eastern States 55 2%

Idaho 263 9%

Montana-North Dakota-South Dakota 166 6%

Nevada 248 8%

New Mexico-Oklahoma 262 9%

Oregon-Washington 431 15%

Utah 201 7%

Wyoming 284 10%

National Operations Center 52 2%

National Training Center 17 1%

National Interagency Fire Center 25 1%

1

Decision-makers were categorized as those respondents with the position title of Field Manager, District Manager, State Director, 

Division Chief, Assistant Director, or Director.

2

Respondents were asked to specify the name of their duty station in an open-ended comment box. These responses were used to 

code the BLM State Director's Office or BLM Center to which they reported.

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Almost three quarters (72 percent) of the 3,161 survey respondents indicated that they had direct 

experience with collaboration as part of their job duties at the BLM. Thirteen percent indicated that they 

did not have experience with collaboration, but might gain experience in the future, and 15 percent

indicated that they did not have experience with collaboration, and would not gain experience in the 

future. Roughly a quarter (23 percent) of respondents indicated that they had experience with Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) as part of their job duties at the BLM. Forty percent indicated that they did not 

have experience with ADR, but might gain experience in the future, and 38 percent indicated that they did 

not have experience with ADR, and would not gain experience in the future. 
11 

After combining respondents’ levels of direct experience with both collaboration and ADR, 427 

respondents (13 percent) did not have experience with either collaboration or ADR and were unlikely to 

gain experience with either in the future. This subset of respondents was not the target population for this 

survey. These respondents were branched to the end of the survey, where they were asked to respond to 

questions about their professional background and gender before they submitted their survey responses. 

The remaining 2,734 respondents were categorized under a new “experience” variable with four 

categories: (1) respondents that did not have direct experience in either collaboration or ADR, but that 

might gain experience with one or both in the future (15 percent), (2) respondents with direct experience 

with collaboration only (59 percent), (3) respondents with direct experience with ADR only (1 percent), 

and (4) respondents with direct experience with both collaboration and ADR (25 percent).

Respondents in decision-making positions (respondents whose job title was Field Manager, 

District Manager, State Director, Division Chief, Assistant Director, or Director at the time of the survey; 

hereafter referred to as “decision-makers”) were more likely than the other respondents to have direct 

experience with both collaboration and ADR and less likely to have no experience with either (Wald χ2

(1, 

n = 2,223) = 17.66, p less than 0.001; fig. 1). In general, the longer that respondents had worked for the 

BLM, the more likely they were to have experience with both collaboration and ADR (Wald χ2

(5, n = 

2,223) = 99.75, p less than 0.001; fig. 2). Finally, the proportion of respondents with experience differed 

among the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(12, n = 2,223) = 25.95, p = 0.011; fig. 3). 

Figure 1. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), comparing 

decision-makers to other respondents.
12 

Figure 2. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) versus the 

number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. 

Figure 3. Respondents’ experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), comparing 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers.

Of those respondents with direct experience with either collaboration or ADR, roughly one fifth 

(18 percent) had been involved in a single collaboration or ADR process. A majority (59 percent) had 

been involved in 2‒10 collaborations and ADR processes, and almost a quarter (23 percent) had been 

involved in 11 or more collaborations and ADR processes (table 2). 
13 

A majority of respondents (57 percent) indicated that one or more of the collaborations or ADR 

processes had lasted longer than 1 year (table 2). A majority of respondents (60 percent) also indicated 

that one or more collaborations or ADR processes had also involved a National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process (table 2). In addition, a majority of respondents (59 percent) spent less than 10 percent of 

their time on collaborative and ADR processes, and only 3 percent spent greater than 60 percent of their 

time on these processes (table 2). Finally, a majority of respondents (61 percent) indicated that 

participation in collaborations and(or) ADR processes was not included in their performance plans 

(table 2).
14 

Table 2. Respondents’ level of experience with collaboration and (or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). (%, 

percent) 

Experience with Collaboration and/or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) n Percent

Number of collaborations/ADR processes in which they had been directly involved

1 395 18%

2–3 594 27%

4–6 419 19%

7–10 259 12%

11–20 184 8%

Greater than 20 320 15%

One or more of these collaborations/ADR processes lasted longer than 1 year

Yes 1,266 57%

No 943 43%

One or more of these collaborations/ADR processes also involved a NEPA process

Yes 1,369 60%

No 922 40%

Percentage of time spent on collaborative/ADR processes in the last year

Less than 10% 1,328 59%

10–20% 545 24%

21–40% 213 10%

41–60% 80 4%

Greater than 60% 74 3%

Participation in collaborative/ADR processes is part of their performance plan

Yes 823 39%

No 1,282 61%

In general, men indicated that they had been directly involved in a slightly larger number of 

collaborations and (or) ADR processes than women (Wald χ2

(1, n = 2,581) = 13.20, p less than 0.001; fig. 

4). High level decision-makers typically had been involved in a substantially larger number of 

collaborations and (or) ADR processes than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 2,581) = 27.56, p less than

0.001; fig. 5). The number of collaborations and(or) ADR processes in which respondents had been 

directly involved over their career varied based on how many years they had worked for the BLM (Wald 

χ

2

(5, n = 2,581) = 12.15, p = 0.033; fig. 6). A surprisingly large proportion of respondents that had worked 

at the BLM for only a short period of time had been involved in a large number of collaborations, so this 

experience was likely gained during previous employment. Finally, the number of processes that 

respondents had been involved in varied among the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2 (14, n

= 2,581) = 802,255,686.30, p less than 0.001; fig. 7). 
15 

Figure 4. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents had 

been directly involved, comparing women to men. (>, greater than) 

Figure 5. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents had 

been directly involved, comparing decision-makers to other respondents. (>, greater than)
16 

Figure 6. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents had 

been directly involved versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. (>, greater 

than) 

Figure 7. The number of collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in which respondents had 

been directly involved, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. (>, greater 

than)
17 

Almost three quarters of decision-makers had been involved with one or more processes that lasted 

longer than a year compared to a little more than half of the other respondents (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,817) = 

12.94, p less than 0.001; fig. 8). In addition, respondents’ experiences with processes that lasted longer 

than a year varied among the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2

(13, n = 1,817) = 29.30, p = 

0.006; fig. 9). 

Figure 8. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process that 

lasted longer than a year, comparing decision-makers to other respondents.
18 

Figure 9. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process that 

lasted longer than a year, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 

Decision-makers were much more likely than the other respondents to have been involved in one 

or more collaboration or ADR process that also involved a NEPA process (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,878) = 15.54, 

p less than 0.001; fig. 10). In general, respondents from higher organizational levels or BLM Centers were 

less likely to have been involved in one or more collaboration or ADR process that also involved a NEPA 

process (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,878) = 29,694.18, p less than 0.001; fig. 11). Finally, respondents’ experiences 

with one or more collaboration or ADR process that also involved a NEPA process varied among the 

BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2

(13, n = 1,878) = 3,065.11, p less than 0.001; fig. 12). 
19 

Figure 10. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process that 

also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing decision-makers to other respondents. 

Figure 11. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process that 

also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of 

Land Management) 
20 

Figure 12. Respondents’ experience with one or more collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process that 

also involved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

State Offices and BLM Centers.

Decision-makers typically had spent a slightly larger proportion of their time on these processes 

than the other respondents (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,843) = 6.36, p = 0.012; fig. 13). In general, respondents had 

spent progressively less time on these processes the longer they had worked for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 

1,843) = 16.64, p = 0.005; fig. 14). 
21 

Figure 13. The percentage of time respondents’ spent on collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution

processes over the last year, comparing decision-makers to other respondents. (>, greater than; ≤, less than or equal 

to; <, less than)

Figure 14. The percentage of time respondents’ spent on collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

processes over the last year versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. 

(>, greater than; ≤, less than or equal to; <, less than)

Participation in collaborative or ADR processes was part of the performance plans of almost two

thirds of decision-makers, but only about one third of the other respondents (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,732) = 

27.34, p less than 0.001; fig. 15). Also, in general, participation in collaborative and ADR processes was 

more likely to be part of the performance plan of respondents that had worked for the BLM for less time

than those that had worked for the BLM for longer (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,732) = 23.03, p less than 0.001; fig. 

16).
22 

Figure 15. The percentage of decision-makers versus other respondents for which participation in collaborative or 

Alternative Dispute Resolution processes was part of their performance plan. 

Figure 16. The percentage of respondents for which participation in collaborative or Alternative Dispute Resolution

processes was part of their performance plan versus the number of years that they had worked for the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training

The collaboration and ADR skills for which respondents rated themselves as the most highly 

skilled were communication, participation, partnering, team building, and facilitation of a meeting (greater 

than 65 percent of respondents rated themselves as an “intermediate” or “expert” skill level; table 3). This 

was not surprising given that these skills are often used in work activities other than collaborative or ADR

processes. For the skills “communication and active listening” and “internal team-building,” the majority 

(greater than 61 percent) had received training (table 3). For the skills “participation in public meetings,”

“partnering with non-BLM government agencies,” “partnering with non-governmental organizations, 

communities, and(or) interest groups,” and “facilitation of a meeting or working group,” a majority of 

respondents (greater than 57 percent) had not received formal training. Despite this, slim majorities (51‒

57 percent) wanted training or additional training in these skills (table 3). 
23 

The skills for which fewer respondents rated their own skill level as “intermediate” or “expert” 

(44‒65 percent) were the skills more specific to collaboration and ADR processes. These included 

“identifying when collaboration is needed,” “negotiation and conflict resolution,” “creating and drafting 

agreements,” and “mediation of a dispute or conflict” (table 3). A majority of respondents (greater than 54 

percent) had not received formal training in these skills. Despite this, slimmer majorities (greater than 51 

percent) wanted training or additional training in these skills, with the notable exception of “negotiation 

and conflict resolution.” Nonetheless, “negotiation and conflict resolution,” “creating and drafting 

agreements,” and “mediation of a dispute or conflict” were the most popular candidate skills for training 

or additional training among the 13 skills listed in the survey. 

A majority of respondents (57‒86 percent) rated themselves as having little to no skill in the 

remaining three skills listed in the survey: “building tribal and Government-to-Government relationships,” 

“terminating collaborative efforts or partnerships when necessary,” and “feasibility assessments” (table 3). 

In accordance with this, large majorities of respondents (79‒93 percent) had not received formal training 

in these three skills. Despite this, only half of respondents (47‒52 percent) were interested in training or 

additional training in these skills. This may have been due to the fact that these skills, particularly 

“terminating collaborative efforts or partnerships when necessary” and “feasibility assessments,” may be 

used primarily by respondents with substantive decision-making authority, and the other respondents may 

not have much potential to use these skills in the future. 
24 

Table 3. Respondents’ skill levels, past training, and requests for future training (BLM, Bureau of Land Management; %, percent).

Skill level Have you had training 

in this?2 

Do you want 

training/more training?3 

Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

skill items n No experience Beginner Intermediate Advanced Expert Median Mode

Friedman 

mean rank1 No Yes No Yes

Communication and active listening 2,695 3% 9% 40% 39% 9% Intermediate Intermediate 10.1 36% 64% 44% 56% 

Participating in public meetings 2,695 10% 18% 34% 27% 10% Intermediate Intermediate 8.9 68% 32% 49% 51% 

Internal Team-building 2,688 9% 17% 41% 27% 6% Intermediate Intermediate 8.7 39% 61% 45% 55% 

Partnering with non-BLM government agencies 2,691 11% 19% 35% 28% 8% Intermediate Intermediate 8.6 74% 26% 44% 56% 

Partnering with non-governmental organizations, 

communities, and/or interest groups 2,685 14% 21% 34% 24% 7% Intermediate Intermediate 8.0 70% 30% 43% 57% 

Facilitation of a meeting or working group 2,683 14% 21% 37% 22% 6% Intermediate Intermediate 7.7 57% 43% 44% 56% 

Identifying when collaboration is needed 2,682 18% 23% 26% 20% 4% Intermediate Intermediate 7.2 78% 22% 49% 51% 

Negotiation and conflict resolution 2,688 17% 26% 36% 17% 4% Intermediate Intermediate 6.9 54% 46% 37% 63% 

Creating and drafting agreements 2,691 24% 25% 31% 16% 4% Intermediate Intermediate 6.4 71% 30% 42% 58% 

Mediation of a dispute or conflict 2,689 28% 27% 31% 11% 2% Beginner Intermediate 5.6 67% 33% 42% 58% 

Building tribal and Government-to-Government 

relationships 2,697 34% 23% 26% 13% 4% Beginner No experience 5.7 79% 21% 48% 52% 

Terminating collaborative efforts or partnerships 

when necessary 2,684 51% 21% 20% 7% 1% No experience No experience 4.0 90% 10% 53% 47% 

Feasibility assessments 2,673 66% 20% 11% 3% 1% No experience No experience 3.2 93% 7% 50% 50% 

1

The distribution of ranks significantly differs among one or more skill items (Friedman test: Chi-square = 10,176.49, d.f. = 12, n = 2,506, p <0.001).

2

The proportion of respondents with training significantly differs among one or more skill items (Cochran test: Cochran's Q = 4,480.13, d.f. = 12, n = 2,093, p <0.001).

3

The proportion of respondents that want future training significantly differs among one or more skill items (Cochran test: Cochran's Q = 282.46, d.f. = 12, n = 2,248, p <0.001). 
25 

Training in Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

We also counted the total number of skills in collaboration and ADR in which respondents had 

received training (out of 13 skills). The median number of skills in which respondents had received 

training was 4—approximately one third of the 13 skills. Nineteen percent of respondents had received no 

training in any of the 13 skills, while only 1 percent had received training in all 13 skills (fig. 17). 

Figure 17. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13). 

Respondents in decision-making positions were more likely to have received training in a larger 

number of collaboration and ADR skills (median = 7, range = 0‒13) than the other respondents (median = 

3, range = 0‒13; Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,672) = 51.43, p less than 0.001; fig. 18). In general, respondents that had 

worked for the BLM for longer were more likely to have received training in a greater number of skills 

(Wald χ2

(5, n = 1,672) = 12.55, p = 0.028; fig. 19). The amount of training received also differed by 

respondents’ duty station level (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,672) = 213.80, p less than 0.001; fig. 20) and among the 

BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(12, n = 1,672) = 145.48, p less than 0.001; fig. 21). 

Finally, in general, respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and (or) ADR processes were 

more likely to have received training in a larger number of skills than those without direct experience in 

either collaboration or ADR (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,672) = 38.94, p less than 0.001; fig. 22).
26 

Figure 18. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing decision-makers versus other respondents.
27 

Figure 19. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) versus the number of years respondents had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. 

Figure 20. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing each duty station level. 
28 

Figure 21. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) comparing the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 
29 

Figure 22. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in which respondents had 

training (out of 13) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. 

Overall Skill Level in Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Respondents’ rating of their overall level of skill in collaboration and ADR was measured as the 

sum of their ratings of their skill level for the 13 itemized skill items along the 5-point skill level scale (0 = 

no experience, 1 = beginner, 2 = intermediate, 3 = advanced, and 4 = expert). Thus, the potential range of 

the overall skill level scale was 0 (no experience in any of the 13 skills) to 52 (expert in all 13 skills). The 

scale’s reliability was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93, n = 2,506). The median value of respondents’ 

overall skill level was 21, which is between a “beginner” and “intermediate” skill level for collaboration 

and ADR skills on average (fig. 23). 
30 

Figure 23. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). 

Men were more likely to rate themselves as slightly more skilled in collaboration and ADR

(median = 22, range = 0‒52) than women (median = 20, range = 0‒52; Wald χ2(1, n = 1,591) = 7.43, p = 

0.006; fig. 24). Respondents in decision-making positions typically rated themselves as between an 

“intermediate” and “advanced” overall skill level (median = 31, range = 13‒52), compared to the other 

respondents who typically rated themselves as between a “beginner” and “intermediate” overall skill level 

(median = 20, range = 0‒52; Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,591) = 37.67, p less than 0.001; fig. 25). Respondents that 

had worked for the BLM for more years rated themselves as increasingly more skilled overall (Wald χ2

(5, 

n = 1,591) = 11.76, p = 0.038; fig. 26). Respondents from the higher level duty stations generally rated 

themselves as more skilled overall (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,591) = 33.60, p less than 0.001; fig. 27). There was 

some small variation in overall skill level among the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(12, n

= 1,591) = 27.84, p = 0.006; fig. 28). Respondents that had received training in a greater number of skills

in collaboration and ADR generally rated themselves as substantially more skilled overall than those with 

less training (Wald χ2(13, n = 1,591) = 371.74, p less than 0.001; fig. 29). Finally, respondents with 

experience with collaboration and(or) ADR processes typically rated themselves as more skilled than 

those without direct experience (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,591) = 148.76, p less than 0.001; fig. 30). 
31 

Figure 24. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing women to men. The vertical line depicts the median for all 

respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.

Figure 25. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. The vertical line 

depicts the median for all respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further 

explanation of boxplots.

Figure 26. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land 

Management. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to 

the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.
32 

Figure 27. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) comparing duty station levels. The vertical line depicts the median for all 

respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.

Figure 28. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM 

Centers. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the 

Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.
33 

Figure 29. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus the number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in which they had training (out of 13). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which 

skill level could be calculated.

Figure 30. Respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or 

“no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. The vertical line 

depicts the median for all respondents for which skill level could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further 

explanation of boxplots.
34 

The Origins of Respondents’ Skill in Collaboration

Respondents indicated where they believed they had acquired their overall level of skill in 

collaboration by approximating the percentage of their skill that they attributed to each of the following 

five potential sources: (1) innate skill, (2) reading about collaboration, (3) hands-on experience, (4) 

mentors and coaches, and (5) formal training. In most cases, these five sources would represent all 

potential sources of skill for BLM personnel, and therefore, the combined total of percentages that 

respondents attributed to these five sources had to equal 100 percent. “Hands on experience” was credited 

with contributing the most (44 percent) to respondents’ skill in collaboration (table 4). “Innate skill” and 

“mentors and coaches” were the next largest contributors (20 and 15 percent, respectively), and “formal 

training” and “reading about collaboration” were each credited the least (11 and 9 percent, respectively; 

table 4). 

Table 4. The percentage of respondents’ skill that they attributed to each of the five potential sources (mean, 

standard deviation [s.d.], median, and mode). 

Percentage of skill attributed to each source

Source of collaborative skill (n = 2,655) mean s.d. median mode

Hands on experience 44% 23 40% 50%

Innate skill 20% 18 20% 10%

Mentors and coaches 15% 15 10% 0%

Formal training 11% 13 10% 0%

Reading about collaboration 9% 13 5% 0%

Interest in Future Training

We counted the total number of skills in collaboration and ADR (out of the 13 skills) for which 

respondents wanted training or additional training in the future. Although the median value was 8 or 

approximately two-thirds of the 13 skills, the distribution of responses across the scale was bimodal or Ushaped due to a relatively large group of respondents (20 percent) that had no interest in future training in 

collaboration (training or additional training in 0 skills) and a relatively large group of respondents (24 

percent) that had a very strong interest in future training (training or additional training in 13 skills; fig. 

31). 
35 

Figure 31. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13).

Women generally wanted future training in more collaboration and ADR skills than men (Wald

χ

2

(1, n = 1,516) = 31.57, p less than 0.001; fig. 32). Decision-makers wanted slightly less training or 

additional training than other respondents (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,516) = 10.55, p = 0.001; fig. 33). Respondents 

were progressively less and less likely to want more training or additional training the longer they had 

worked for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,516) = 80.55, p less than 0.001; fig. 34). Respondents varied by

duty station level (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,516) = 19.79, p less than 0.001; fig. 35) and by how they rated their 

overall skill in collaboration and ADR (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,516) = 150.469, p less than 0.001; fig. 36).

Figure 32. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13), comparing women to men. 
36 

Figure 33. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13), comparing decision-makers to other respondents

Figure 34. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13) versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land 

Management. (>, greater than; less than or equal to, less than).
37 

Figure 35. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13), comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 

Figure 36. The number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in which respondents would like 

training or additional training (out of 13) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). The horizontal line depicts the median for 

all respondents that answered this question. 
38 

Professional and Personal Obstacles to Taking Training

The professional obstacles to taking training in collaboration listed in the survey were encountered 

by a larger proportion of respondents than the personal obstacles listed in the survey (table 5). A large 

majority of respondents (79 percent) had encountered “travel ceiling constraints.” A majority of 

respondents had also been hindered by budget (72 percent) and time (52 percent) as barriers to taking 

training. A little less than half of respondents (45 percent) had been prevented from taking training in 

collaboration at some point in their career because they had been unaware that training in collaboration 

was available. In contrast, the professional barriers “collaboration is unlikely to be part of my job” and 

“my supervisor(s) discouraged me from taking further training” had been encountered by much smaller 

proportions of respondents (16 percent and 11 percent, respectively). All of the personal obstacles to 

taking training in collaboration had been encountered by a minority of respondents (less than 18 percent).

In particular, only 6 percent of respondents indicated that their personality was not suited for 

collaboration. 
39 

Table 5. The percentage of respondents that had encountered each of the 11 professional and personal obstacles to 

taking training in collaboration. (%, percent) 

Personally encountered this obstacle1

Obstacle to taking training in collaboration n Yes No

Travel ceiling constraints 2,679 79% 21%

I lack the budget for training 2,681 72% 28%

I lack the time for training 2,674 52% 48%

I was unaware that training in collaboration was available 2,667 45% 55%

Training courses are offered at bad times of the year 2,547 26% 74%

I lack interest in learning any more about collaboration 2,665 18% 82%

Collaboration is unlikely to be part of my job 2,671 16% 84%

My supervisor(s) discouraged me from taking further training 2,663 11% 89%

I avoid situations with potential conflict, therefore, I have not sought training 2,672 10% 90%

I do not think that training is an effective way to improve peoples' skill at collaboration 2,664 8% 92%

My personality is not suited for collaboration 2,664 6% 94%

1

The proportion of respondents that had experienced each obstacle to taking training in collaboration significantly differs among one or more of the obstacles 

(Cochran test: Cochran's Q = 8,554.10, d.f. = 10, n = 2,534, p <0.001).

We then counted the total number of obstacles to training encountered by each respondent (out of 

11 obstacles). Almost all respondents indicated that they had encountered at least one professional or 

personal obstacle to taking training in collaboration (fig. 37); only 6 percent had not encountered any of 

the 11 obstacles listed in table 4. The median and mode number of obstacles to taking training was 3 of the 

11 obstacles. Only 5 percent of respondents had encountered greater than or equal to 7 of the 11 obstacles. 
40 

Figure 37. The total number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that 

respondents’ had encountered in the past (out of 11).

Respondents in decision-making positions reported encountering fewer professional and personal 

obstacles to taking formal training than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,996) = 33.40, p less than

0.001; fig. 38). Respondents varied by how many years they had worked for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 

1,996) = 20.73, p = 0.001; fig. 39). Also, the number of obstacles to taking training encountered by 

respondents differed among the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(12, n = 1,996) = 34.47, p

= 0.001; fig. 40). Finally, the number of obstacles to taking training in collaboration that respondents had 

encountered varied by their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,996) = 15.86, p

= 0.001; fig. 41). 

Figure 38. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that respondents 

had encountered in the past (out of 11), comparing decision-makers to other respondents.
41 

Figure 39. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that respondents 

had encountered in the past (out of 11) versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land 

Management. (>, greater than; <, less than) 
42 

Figure 40. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that respondents 

had encountered in the past (out of 11), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM 

Centers.
43 

Figure 41. The number of professional and personal obstacles to taking training in collaboration that respondents 

had encountered in the past (out of 11) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR).

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Respondents were asked to identify which resources for collaboration and ADR they had been 

aware of prior to the survey and to rate how likely they would be to use those resources in the future. 

Large majorities of respondents (75‒91 percent) were already aware of the availability of “a mentor or 

coach,” “BLM field or desk guides/handbooks on collaboration, cooperating agencies, or the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act,” “an online or media search,” “formal training in collaboration or dispute 

resolution,” and “a professional facilitator or mediator” (table 6). These were also the resources that 

respondents were most likely to use for collaboration and ADR in the future (table 6). Only half of 

respondents (49 percent) had been previously aware of the BLM’s Collaboration and Dispute Resolution 

SharePoint site (table 6). Perhaps because so many respondents had been unaware of this resource, they 

were somewhat less likely to use this resource in the future than the resources above (table 6). Although 

the majority of respondents (55‒64 percent) were previously aware of the “BLM’s Washington Office of 

Collaboration and Appropriate Dispute Resolution” and collaboration and ADR specialists from the BLM, 

another agency, and outside consultants as available resources, they were generally “somewhat unlikely” 

to use these resources in the future (table 6). Finally, almost two thirds of respondents had been unaware 

of “The Udall Foundation’s U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution,” and the majority were 

also “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to ever use this resource in the future (table 6). 
44 

Table 6. Respondents’ awareness of and likelihood to use available resources for collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the future. (BLM, 

Bureau of Land Management; %, percent; <, less than) 

 Likelihood to to use the resource in the future Awareness of the 

resource2

Currently available resources for collaboration 

and Alternative Dispute Resolution n 

Unlikely 

or 

Very unlikely

Somewhat 

unlikely

Somewhat 

likely

Likely 

or 

Very likely

Median Mode Friedman 

mean rank1 No Yes

A mentor or coach 2,600 19% 14% 27% 40% Somewhat likely Somewhat likely 7.5 12% 88%

BLM Field or Desk Guides/Handbooks on 

collaboration, cooperating agencies, or the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act

2,568 21% 15% 28% 36% Somewhat likely Somewhat likely 7.2 25% 75%

An online or media search 2,599 22% 15% 25% 37% Somewhat likely Somewhat likely 7.2 11% 89%

Formal training in collaboration or dispute 

resolution 2,603 25% 14% 28% 34% Somewhat likely Somewhat likely 7.0 14% 86%

A professional facilitator or mediator 2,622 24% 18% 28% 30% Somewhat likely Somewhat likely 6.8 9% 91%

BLM Collaboration and Dispute Resolution 

SharePoint site 2,376 31% 19% 28% 22% Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely 6.0 51% 49%

A BLM State Natural Resources ADR Advisor 2,419 35% 19% 25% 22% Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely 5.7 41% 59%

A collaboration specialist in DOI or another 

agency 2,477 35% 20% 26% 19% Somewhat unlikely Somewhat likely 5.5 36% 64%

BLM's Washington Office of Collaboration and 

Appropriate Dispute Resolution 2,387 45% 22% 19% 14% Somewhat unlikely Unlikely 4.6 45% 55%

A university or outside consultant group3

 2,459 46% 19% 20% 14% Somewhat unlikely Unlikely 4.5 36% 64%

The Udall Foundation's US Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution 2,171 54% 19% 16% 11% Unlikely Very unlikely 4.0 64% 36%

1

The likelihood of using the resource in the future significantly differed among one or more of the resources (Friedman test: Chi-square = 3,541.88, d.f. = 10, n = 1,930, p <0.001 

using the categories: very unlikely, unlikely, somewhat unlikely, somewhat likely, likely, very likely).

2

The proportion of respondents that knew about each resource significantly differs among one or more resources (Cochran test: Cochran's Q = 4,120.33, d.f. = 10, n = 1,923, p

3

Respondents were given the examples of the National Policy Consensus, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), Collaborative Decision Resources (CDR) Associates, RESOLVE, 

the Indian Dispute Resolution Service.
45 

Awareness of Resources Available for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

We also counted the total number of resources available for collaboration and ADR that 

respondents were aware of prior to the survey (out of 11 resources). Almost all of the respondents were 

previously aware of at least some of the 11 resources listed, and about a quarter of respondents were 

already aware of all of them (fig. 42). The median value was 8 resources. 

Figure 42. The total number of resources for collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11). 

Men were generally aware of more resources than women (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,580) = 7.56, p = 

0.006; fig. 43). Decision-makers knew about more resources than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,580) 

= 8.41, p = 0.004; fig. 44). Awareness of resources varied by respondents’ duty station level (Wald χ2

(3, n

= 1,580) = 42.76, p less than 0.001; fig. 45), and across the State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(12, n

= 1,580) = 21.76, p = 0.040; fig. 46). Finally, respondents were generally aware of more resources if they 

had training in more skills (Wald χ2(13, n = 1,580) = 55.46, p less than 0.001; fig. 47), and if they rated 

themselves as having a higher overall level of skill in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(Wald χ2(51, n = 1,580) = 198.98, p less than 0.001; fig. 48). 
46 

Figure 43. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing women to men. 
47 

Figure 44. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. 

Figure 45. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 
48 

Figure 46. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11), comparing State Offices and Bureau of Land Management Centers. 
49 

Figure 47. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11) versus the number of skills in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution 

in which they had training (out of 13). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents that answered this 

question. 

Figure 48. The number of resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution that respondents were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). The horizontal line depicts the median for all 

respondents that answered this question.
50 

Overall Likelihood of Using Resources Available for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Respondents’ overall likelihood of using available resources for collaboration and ADR skills was 

measured as the sum of their ratings of their likelihood of using the 11 listed resources along the 6-point 

likelihood scale (0 = very unlikely, 1 = unlikely, 2 = somewhat unlikely, 3 = somewhat likely, 4 = likely, 

and 5 = very likely). Thus, the potential range of the overall likelihood to use available resources in the 

future scale was 0 (“very unlikely” to use any of the 11 resources in the future) to 55 (“very likely” to use 

all 11 resources in the future). The scale’s reliability was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92, n = 1,930). 

The median value of respondents’ overall likelihood of using available resources in the future was 26, 

which is an average of “somewhat unlikely” to use resources available for collaboration and ADR skills in 

the future (fig. 49).

Figure 49. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”). 

In general, the longer that respondents had worked for the BLM, the less likely they were to use

the resources available for collaboration and ADR in the future (Wald χ2

(5, n = 1,180) = 30.17, p less than

0.001; fig. 50). Respondents went from being an average of “somewhat unlikely” to an average closer to 

“somewhat likely” to use available resources in the future when they had been previously aware of at least 

a few of the resources prior to the survey (Wald χ2

(10, n = 1,180) = 18.98, p = 0.041; fig. 51), had training 

in several skills in collaboration and ADR (Wald χ2(6, n = 1,180) = 30.65, p less than 0.001; fig. 52), and 

had an average overall level of skill of “intermediate” or higher in collaboration and ADR (Wald χ2(6, n = 

1,180) = 650.60, p less than 0.001; fig. 53). 
51 

Figure 50. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of years respondents had 

worked for the Bureau of Land Management. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for which the 

scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots. (>, greater than; <, less than) 

Figure 51. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of resources they were 

aware of prior to the survey (out of 11). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale 

could be calculated. 
52 

Figure 52. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus the number of skills in collaboration and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution in which they had training (out of 13). The horizontal line depicts the median for all 

respondents for which the scale could be calculated.

Figure 53. Respondents’ overall likelihood to use available resources in collaboration and Alternative Dispute 

Resolution in the future (from 0 or “very unlikely” to 55 or “very likely”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in 

collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert” skill level). The horizontal 

line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated.
53 

Facilitators and Mediators for Collaborations and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Most respondents (91 percent) were already aware of the availability of professional facilitators 

and mediators and 58 percent were at least “somewhat likely” to use a facilitator and mediator in the 

future (table 6). The majority of respondents (59 percent) with experience with collaboration and ADR (n

= 2,239) also had experience with the use of a facilitator in one or more of these processes. Thirty-seven

percent of the respondents with experience with ADR processes (n = 696) had experience with the use of a 

mediator in one or more of these processes. Respondents that had experience with either or both were 

asked to rate their usefulness in a collaboration or ADR process along a 5-point usefulness scale ranging 

from “not useful” to “essential.” Over two-thirds of respondents rated facilitators as being “very useful” or 

“essential” for collaborations (n = 1,371; fig. 54). 

Figure 54. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of facilitators for collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) processes. 

Respondents with training in facilitation of a meeting or working group generally considered 

facilitators to be more useful than did respondents without training (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,021) = 10.67, p = 

0.001; fig. 55). 

Figure 55. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of facilitators for collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) processes, comparing respondents with and without training in facilitation of a meeting or working group. 
54 

Respondents considered mediators to be even more useful than facilitators; over two-thirds of 

respondents rated mediators as being “very useful” or “essential” for ADR processes (n = 696; fig. 56).

Figure 56. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of mediators for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes.

Feasibility Assessments for Collaboration

In contrast to facilitators and mediators, the majority of respondents (60 percent) with experience 

with collaboration or both collaboration and ADR (n = 2,275) were unaware that feasibility assessments

existed for collaborations. An additional 27 percent of respondents were aware of feasibility assessments, 

but had no direct experience with them. This was consistent with the finding that two thirds of respondents 

(66 percent) had no experience at feasibility assessments, and a large majority (93 percent) had received

no training in feasibility assessments (table 3). Respondents that had direct experience with a collaboration 

in which a feasibility assessment was conducted (11 percent) or that had personally organized a feasibility 

assessment for a collaboration (2 percent) were asked to rate the usefulness of feasibility assessments for 

collaborations along a 5-point usefulness scale ranging from “not useful” to “essential.” Almost two-thirds 

of these respondents rated feasibility assessments as being “very useful” or “essential” for collaborations 

(n = 282; fig. 57). 
55 

Figure 57. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of feasibility assessments for collaboration

Respondents that rated themselves as having greater skill at feasibility assessments generally 

considered feasibility assessments to be more useful than those that rated themselves as having less skill

(Wald χ2(4, n = 187) = 17.22, p = 0.002; fig. 58). 

Figure 58. Respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of feasibility assessments for collaboration versus how they rated 

their skill level at feasibility assessments.

 Respondents’ ratings of their skill level at feasibility assessments differed by gender (generalized 

linear model: Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,593) = 7.00, p = 0.008; fig. 59). Men rated their own skill level at 

feasibility assessments slightly higher than women rated their own skill level. In general, respondents with 

training and experience in feasibility assessments also rated themselves as more skilled at feasibility 

assessments than those without training in feasibility assessments (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,593) = 22.24, p less 

than 0.001; fig. 60) or direct experience with feasibility assessments (Wald χ2

(2, n = 1,593) = 135.53, p

less than 0.001; fig. 61). 
56 

Figure 59. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments, comparing women to men.

Figure 60. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments, comparing those that had to those that had 

not received training in feasibility assessments. 

Figure 61. Respondents’ self-rated skill level at feasibility assessments versus their level of experience with 

feasibility assessments.
57 

The Priority of Potential Future BLM Resources for Collaboration

When given a list of resources for collaboration that the BLM could potentially make available in 

the future, respondents indicated that all of the resources were of “moderate” priority on average. Inperson training in collaboration and dispute resolution was the potential future resource given the highest 

priority, while additional online training or resources such as guides or a clearinghouse for best practices 

and lessons learned were ranked somewhere in the middle (table 7). Respondents’ preference for “inperson training in collaboration and dispute resolution” coincided with travel ceilings and budgetary 

limitations as being the most common obstacles to taking training in collaboration experienced by 

respondents (table 4). 

The future resource given the second-highest priority was “support for building collaborative 

Government-to-Government relationships and Tribal consultation” (table 7). The need for this support in 

the future was underscored by the earlier finding that over three-quarters of respondents (79 percent) had 

received no training in “building tribal and Government-to-Government relationships” and the majority 

(57 percent) considered their skill level at building these relationships to be “beginner” or “no experience” 

(table 3).

“Additional funding resources for collaborative efforts” and “assistance or coaching in planning 

for collaboration and setting expectations with the public” were also among the potential future resources 

rated as having the highest priority within the list of potential resources (table 7). The three resources that 

were given the lowest priority from the list were “assistance finding and hiring facilitators,” “training in

feasibility assessments,” and “support for conducting feasibility assessments” (table 7).
58 

Table 7. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of potential resources for collaboration that the BLM could provide in the future. (%, percent; <, less 

than) 

 Priority level of potential future resource

Potential future resource n 

Low 

or 

Very low

Moderate

High 

or 

Very high

Median Mode Friedman mean 

rank1

In-person training on collaboration and dispute resolution 2,534 24% 32% 44% Moderate Moderate 6.9

Support for building collaborative Government-to-Government relationships and 

Tribal Consultation 2,466 27% 31% 43% Moderate Moderate 6.7

Additional funding resources for collaborative efforts 2,489 28% 31% 41% Moderate Moderate 6.6

Assistance or coaching in planning for collaboration and setting expectations 

with the public 2,515 26% 35% 39% Moderate Moderate 6.4

Assistance designing and structuring meetings and processes 2,519 28% 36% 36% Moderate Moderate 6.2

Online training on collaboration and dispute resolution 2,546 31% 37% 33% Moderate Moderate 6.1

Guidance or handbooks on techniques and strategies for collaboration 2,548 29% 39% 32% Moderate Moderate 6.1

A clearinghouse for best practices and lessons-learned from collaborative 

projects 2,501 29% 36% 35% Moderate Moderate 6.1

Training in feasibility assessments 2,305 40% 35% 25% Moderate Moderate 5.1

Support for conducting feasibility assessments 2,270 42% 35% 23% Moderate Moderate 4.9

Assistance finding and hiring facilitators 2,485 44% 32% 24% Moderate Moderate 4.9

1

The priority level that respondents rated for each potential future resource significantly differed among one or more of the resources (Friedman test: Chi-square = 1,312.31, d.f. = 

10, n = 1,973, p <0.001 using the categories: very low, low, moderate, high, very high).
59 

The relatively low priority ranking respondents gave to future “assistance finding and hiring 

facilitators” initially appeared to be somewhat discordant with the earlier findings that the majority of 

respondents (91 percent) were familiar with and likely to use a professional facilitator (58 percent; table 

6), and that facilitators were considered to be very useful by those with direct experience (fig. 54). 

Furthermore, only 43 percent had received training in facilitation of a meeting or working group (table 3). 

However, over twice as many of the 1,366 respondents that actually had direct experience with the use of 

a facilitator in a collaboration gave the potential future resource of assistance with finding and hiring 

facilitators a “high” to “very high” priority rating compared to the 873 respondents with no experience 

(Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,825) = 25.06, p less than 0.001; fig. 62). Respondents that indicated that they were likely 

to use a professional facilitator or mediator in the future also usually gave this resource a much higher 

priority rating than respondents that were unlikely to use one in the future (Wald χ2

(5, n = 1,825) = 

271.47, p less than 0.001; fig. 63).

Figure 62. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “assistance 

finding and hiring facilitators” in the future, comparing those with to those without direct experience with a facilitator 

during a collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution process. 
60 

Figure 63. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “assistance 

finding and hiring facilitators” in the future versus how they rated their likelihood to use professional facilitators or 

mediators in collaboration or Alternative Dispute Resolution processes in the future. 

The relatively low priority ranking respondents gave to both the potential future resources 

“training in feasibility assessments” and “support for conducting feasibility assessments” also seemed

surprising at first, given the apparent usefulness of feasibility assessments for collaboration (fig. 57). 

However, this may be driven primarily by the fact that most respondents rated training in and support for 

conducting feasibility assessments as having relatively low priority because they were either unaware of

feasibility assessments before the survey (60 percent), lacked training in feasibility assessments (93 

percent; table 3), or lacked direct experience with feasibility assessments (87 percent). Indeed, when 

analyzed further, the generalized linear model indicated that respondents with direct experience who 

considered themselves to have an advanced skill level in feasibility assessments considered “training in 

feasibility assessments” to be of much higher priority as a future resource than respondents without 

previous knowledge of or experience with feasibility assessments (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,716) = 15.62, p = 

0.001; fig. 64) or that considered themselves to have little skill at feasibility assessments (Wald χ2(4, n = 

1,716) = 23.53, p less than 0.001; fig. 65). 

Figure 64. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “training in

feasibility assessments” in the future versus their level of experience with feasibility assessments for collaboration. 
61 

Figure 65. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “training in

feasibility assessments” in the future versus how they rated their skill level at conducting feasibility assessments for 

collaboration. 

In addition, respondents with direct experience, that had received training and that considered 

themselves to have an “advanced” or “expert” skill level in feasibility assessments considered “support for 

conducting feasibility assessments” to be of much higher priority as a future resource than respondents 

without previous knowledge of or direct experience with feasibility assessments (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,688) = 

18.03, p less than 0.001; fig. 66), without training in feasibility assessments (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,688) = 5.59, 

p = 0.018; fig. 67), or that considered themselves to have a low skill level at feasibility assessments (Wald 

χ

2

(4, n = 1,688) = 26.96, p less than 0.001; fig. 68).
62 

Figure 66. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support for 

conducting feasibility assessments” in the future versus their level of experience with feasibility assessments for 

collaboration. 

Figure 67. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support for 

conducting feasibility assessments” in the future, comparing those that had to those that had not received training in 

feasibility assessments for collaboration. 
63 

Figure 68. Respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the Bureau of Land Management providing “support for 

conducting feasibility assessments” in the future versus how they rated their skill level at conducting feasibility 

assessments for collaboration. 

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration

The majority of respondents considered all of the BLM issue areas listed at least “somewhat 

suitable” for collaboration (table 8). The majority of respondents (55‒66 percent) considered “recreation,” 

“land use planning and NEPA,” “range management,” and “fish and wildlife” to be “suitable” for 

collaboration (table 8). Another quarter or more (25‒31 percent) considered them to be “somewhat 

suitable,” and less than 6 percent considered them to be “somewhat unsuitable” or “unsuitable.” There 

were six issue areas listed that were considered to be “somewhat unsuitable” or “unsuitable” by roughly 

one-tenth of the respondents (9‒15 percent): “energy, minerals, and mining,” “wild horses and burros,” 

“species of concern,” “fire management,” “lands and realty,” and “cultural resources.” 
64 

Table 8. Respondents’ ratings of the suitability level of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issue areas for collaboration. (%, percent; <, less than) 

 Suitability for collaboration

BLM issue areas n Unsuitable Somewhat 

unsuitable Neutral Somewhat 

suitable Suitable median mode Friedman mean 

rank1

Recreation 2,224 1% 1% 8% 25% 66% Suitable Suitable 7.1

Land use planning/NEPA 2,238 2% 4% 11% 25% 59% Suitable Suitable 6.6

Range management 2,138 2% 3% 10% 31% 55% Suitable Suitable 6.4

Fish and wildlife 2,194 2% 3% 11% 29% 55% Suitable Suitable 6.3

Forestry and timber 2,057 2% 4% 13% 33% 49% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 6.0

Energy, minerals, and mining 2,164 4% 6% 12% 30% 49% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.9

Wild horses and burros 2,016 5% 7% 13% 29% 47% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.7

Species of concern 2,160 3% 7% 13% 29% 48% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.7

Fire management 2,148 4% 7% 14% 27% 48% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.6

Lands and realty 2,105 3% 6% 17% 31% 43% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.4

Cultural resources 2,152 5% 10% 15% 27% 43% Somewhat 

suitable Suitable 5.2

1

The suitability of the issue areas significantly differs among one or more issue areas (Friedman test: Chi-square = 910.57, d.f. = 10, n = 1,635, p <0.001).
65 

Respondents whose primary program area in which they worked was “land use planning and 

NEPA” rated “land use planning and NEPA” as more “suitable” for collaboration than other 

respondents (Pearson’s χ2

(4, n = 2,232) = 17.86, p = 0.001; fig. 69). 

Figure 69. How respondents that selected “land use planning and the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)” as their primary program area rated the suitability level of “land use planning and NEPA” for 

collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas. 

Respondents whose primary program area in which they worked was “forestry and timber” 

were more likely to rate “forestry and timber” “unsuitable” for collaboration than were other 

respondents (Pearson’s χ2

(4, n = 2,053) = 29.19, p less than 0.001; fig. 70). 

Figure 70. How respondents that selected “forestry and timber” as their primary program area rated the 

suitability level of “forestry and timber” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas.

Respondents whose primary program area in which they worked was “energy, minerals, and 

mining” were more likely to rate “energy, minerals, and mining” as “suitable” for collaboration than 

other respondents (Pearson’s χ2(4, n = 2,158) = 13.45, p = 0.009; fig. 71). 

Figure 71. How respondents that selected “energy, minerals, and mining” as their primary program area rated 

the suitability level of “energy, minerals, and mining” for collaboration compared to respondents from other

program areas.
66 

Respondents whose primary program area in which they worked was “lands and realty” rated

“lands and realty” more “suitable” for collaboration than other respondents (Pearson’s χ2

(4, n = 

2,099) = 9.98, p = 0.041; fig. 72). 

Figure 72. How respondents that selected “lands and realty” as their primary program area rated the suitability 

level of “lands and realty” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas.

Finally, respondents whose primary program area in which they worked was “cultural 

resources” were more likely to rate “cultural resources” as “suitable” for collaboration than other 

respondents (Pearson’s χ2

(4, n = 2,099) = 9.98, p = 0.041; fig. 73). 

Figure 73. How respondents that selected “cultural resources” as their primary program area rated the 

suitability level of “cultural resources” for collaboration compared to respondents from other program areas.

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration

Situational Barriers to Collaboration

Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they thought that collaborations in the BLM 

encountered each of a list of 12 different situational barriers and then the magnitude of the effect of

each barrier to collaboration when encountered (table 9). The situational barrier that was rated as 

being the most frequent and of greatest effect by respondents was that “some participants in 

collaborations have entrenched positions.” Almost two thirds of respondents (62 percent) indicated 

that collaborations were “often” or “always” hindered by this barrier, and 88 percent indicated that 

this was a “moderate” or “major” barrier to collaborations (table 9). Other situational barriers that 

respondents thought occurred frequently and were of “moderate” to “major” effect were “knowledge 

imbalances between participants,” “high political visibility,” and “power imbalances among 

participants.” The three barriers that were thought to be the most infrequent were “litigation was 

already ongoing,” “collaborations are not untaken voluntarily by the BLM,” and “a perception that 

collaboration leads to poor quality decisions.” Of these three, only “litigation was already ongoing”

was considered to be of “moderate” or “major” effect by the majority of respondents (70 percent).
67 

Table 9. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency and magnitude of effect of situational barriers to collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management (%, percent; 

<, less than).

 Frequency Magnitude of effect

Situational barriers to collaboration n 

Never 

or 

Seldom

Sometimes

Often 

or 

Always

Median Mode

Friedman 

mean 

rank1

n 

Zero 

or 

Minor

Moderate 

or 

Major

Median Mode

Friedman 

mean 

rank2

Some participants have 

entrenched positions 2,007 4% 34% 62% Often Often 8.4 1,720 12% 88% Moderate Major 8.6

There are knowledge imbalances 

among participants 2,021 8% 42% 50% Sometimes Sometimes 7.8 1,716 27% 73% Moderate Moderate 6.9

The political visibility is high 1,984 8% 40% 52% Often Sometimes 7.7 1,687 22% 78% Moderate Moderate 7.4

There are power imbalances 

among participants 1,975 11% 43% 46% Sometimes Sometimes 7.3 1,666 26% 74% Moderate Moderate 6.9

Some participants prefer the status 

quo 1,975 9% 49% 42% Sometimes Sometimes 7.0 1,669 27% 73% Moderate Moderate 6.6

Litigation seems likely regardless 

of attempts to collaborate 1,861 16% 42% 42% Sometimes Sometimes 6.8 1,590 25% 75% Moderate Moderate 7.3

Turn-over is high among 

participants 1,851 15% 48% 37% Sometimes Sometimes 6.7 1,572 29% 71% Moderate Moderate 6.8

Win-lose situations appear 

unavoidable 1,838 19% 47% 34% Sometimes Sometimes 6.3 1,552 30% 70% Moderate Moderate 6.6

Collaborations are not assisted by 

dispute resolution professionals 1,496 26% 35% 40% Sometimes Sometimes 6.1 1,236 45% 55% Moderate Moderate 5.3

Litigation is already ongoing 1,696 24% 48% 29% Sometimes Sometimes 5.8 1,403 30% 70% Moderate Moderate 6.6

Collaborations are not undertaken 

voluntarily (for example, they 

are ordered by the Interior 

Board of Land Appeals or a 

court)

1,415 43% 42% 15% Sometimes Sometimes 4.1 1,171 55% 45% Minor Minor 4.6

A perception that collaborations 

lead to poor quality decisions 1,782 49% 39% 12% Sometimes Sometimes 4.0 1,499 61% 39% Minor Minor 4.4

1

The frequency of occurrence significantly differed among one or more situational barriers (Friedman test: Chi-square = 1,939.29, d.f. = 11, n = 987, p <0.001 using the 

categories: never, seldom, sometimes, often, and always).

2

The magnitude of effect of the barrier significantly differed between one or more situational barriers (Friedman test: Chi-square = 1,314.27, d.f. = 11, n = 751, p <0.001 

using the categories: zero, minor, moderate, and major).
68 

Overall Frequency of Situational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM

The frequency with which respondents thought that situational barriers to collaboration were 

encountered in general was measured as the sum of their ratings of the frequency of the 12 situational 

barriers listed along the 5-point likelihood scale (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = 

always). Thus, the potential range of the overall frequency of situational barriers scale was 0 (situational 

barriers are “never” encountered) to 60 (all 12 situational barriers are “always” encountered during 

collaborations). The scale’s reliability was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, n = 997). The median 

value of respondents’ overall frequency of situational barriers was 26, which indicates that respondents 

rate these situational barriers to collaborations generally in the middle of the frequency scale (that is, a 

rating of “sometimes” on average; fig. 74). 

Figure 74. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”). 

Respondents that had worked for the BLM longer generally rated the situational barriers as 

occurring slightly less frequently than respondents that had worked for the BLM for fewer years (Wald 

χ

2

(5, n = 790) = 23.78, p less than 0.001; fig. 75). Respondents varied in how they rated the overall 

frequency of situational barriers to collaboration across duty station level (Wald χ2

(2, n = 790) = 20.60, p

less than 0.001; fig. 76) and across BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ

2

(11, n = 790) = 39.37, p

less than 0.001; fig. 77). Respondents also varied in how they rated the frequency of the situational 

barriers overall based on how they rated their overall level of skill in collaboration (Wald χ2(47, n = 790) 

= 168.34, p less than 0.001; fig. 78). Finally, respondents varied based on their experience with 

collaboration and(or) ADR (Wald χ2

(3, n = 790) = 14.35, p = 0.002; fig. 79).
69 

Figure 75. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”) 

versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. The vertical line depicts the 

median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of 

boxplots. (>, greater than; <, less than)

Figure 76. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”), 

comparing duty-station levels. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be 

calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 
70 

Figure 77. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”), 

comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. The vertical line depicts the median 

for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.

Figure 78. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”) 

versus how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no 

experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be 

calculated. 
71 

Figure 79. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”) 

versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The vertical line depicts the 

median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of 

boxplots.

Overall Magnitude of Effect of Situational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM

The degree to which respondents thought that situational barriers to collaboration hampered 

collaboration in the BLM was measured as the sum of their ratings of the magnitude of effect of the 12 

situational barriers listed along the 4-point likelihood scale (0 = zero, because the barrier also has a 

frequency of zero, 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, and 3 = major). Thus, the potential range of the overall 

magnitude of effect of situational barriers scale was 0 (all 12 situational barriers are of “zero” effect, 

because they never occur) to 36 (all 12 situational barriers are “major” barriers to collaboration when they 

do occur). The scale’s reliability was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, n = 997). The median value for 

all respondents was 24, which indicates that respondents rated these situational barriers to collaborations 

as having a “moderate” effect on average (fig. 80). 
72 

Figure 80. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”). 

Respondents varied in how they rated the magnitude of effect of situational barriers overall based 

on how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration (Wald χ2(48, n = 619) = 80.05, p = 0.003; fig. 

81). Also, in general, respondents that had rated the situational barriers as occurring more frequently 

overall were increasingly more likely to rate the magnitude of effect of the situational barriers as “major” 

(Wald χ2(36, n = 618) = 3,223.53, p less than 0.001; fig. 82).

Figure 81. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration and(or)
73 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal line depicts the median for 

all respondents for which the scale could be calculated.

Figure 82. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of situational barriers to 

collaboration (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which 

the scale could be calculated.

Organizational Barriers to Collaboration

Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they thought that collaborations in the BLM 

encountered each of a list of 12 different organizational barriers and then to rate the magnitude of the 

effect of each barrier to collaboration when it was encountered (table 10). The organizational barrier that 

was rated as being the most frequent and of greatest effect by respondents was “travel ceilings.” Almost 

two thirds of respondents (61 percent) indicated that collaborations were “often” or “always” hindered by 

travel ceilings, and 79 percent indicated that this was a “moderate” or “major” barrier to collaboration. 

The other organizational barrier that the majority of respondents (54 percent) thought occurred “often” or 

“always” and that almost three quarters of respondents (74 percent) thought was of “moderate” or “major” 

effect was “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration.” Most of the remaining organizational 

barriers were generally rated as occurring “sometimes” and having “moderate” effect when they do occur. 

The three exceptions to this pattern were “lack of support in the BLM,” “the BLM does not implement 

agreements made by collaborative groups,” and “lack of support from your supervisor.” All three were

rated by over one-third (43‒69 percent) of respondents as occurring “seldom” or “never,” and the majority 

of respondents (53‒73 percent) rated them as having a “minor” effect when they do occur.
74 

Table 10. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency and magnitude of effect of organizational barriers to collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). (%, percent; NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act) 

 Frequency Magnitude of Effect

Organizational barriers to collaboration n 

Never 

or 

Seldom

Sometimes

Often 

or 

Always

Median Mode

Friedman 

mean 

rank1

 n 

Zero 

or 

Minor

Moderate 

or 

Major

Median Mode

Friedman 

mean 

rank2

Travel ceilings 2,157 11% 28% 61% Often Often 8.6 1,789 21% 79% Moderate Major 8.1

Other BLM duties take priority over 

collaboration 2,189 13% 33% 54% Often Often 8.4 1,801 25% 74% Moderate Moderate 8.2

Lack of collaborative skills among 

BLM employees 2,105 19% 45% 37% Sometimes Sometimes 7.3 1,753 31% 69% Moderate Moderate 7.4

The BLM cannot cede decisionmaking authority to collaborative 

groups

1,708 25% 34% 41% Sometimes Sometimes 7.1 1,337 43% 57% Moderate Moderate 6.3

The BLM does not have enough 

social science capacity 1,662 28% 33% 39% Sometimes Sometimes 6.8 1,352 41% 59% Moderate Moderate 6.3

The NEPA process 1,994 30% 35% 35% Sometimes Sometimes 6.7 1,674 39% 60% Moderate Moderate 6.7

The BLM's land use planning process 1,914 29% 40% 31% Sometimes Sometimes 6.6 1,573 40% 51% Moderate Moderate 6.6

Field personnel lack authority to 

conduct collaborations 1,868 33% 38% 29% Sometimes Sometimes 6.2 1,499 47% 53% Moderate Moderate 6.2

Lack of support from other agencies 1,863 28% 52% 19% Sometimes Sometimes 6.1 1,528 42% 58% Moderate Moderate 6.3

Lack of support in the BLM 2,038 43% 39% 18% Sometimes Sometimes 5.4 1,697 53% 47% Minor Minor 6.0

The BLM does not implement 

agreements made by collaborative 

groups

1,543 45% 40% 15% Sometimes Sometimes 5.0 1,228 55% 45% Minor Minor 5.5

Lack of support from your supervisor 2,195 69% 19% 12% Seldom Seldom 3.9 1,314 73% 27% Minor Zero 4.4

1

The frequency of occurrence significantly differed among one or more organizational barriers (Friedman test: Chi-square = 1,939.29, d.f. = 11, n = 987, p <0.001 using the categories: 

never, seldom, sometimes, often, and always).

2

The magnitude of effect of the barrier significantly differed between one or more organizational barriers (Friedman test: Chi-square = 774.10, d.f. = 11, n = 610, p <0.001 using the 

categories: zero, minor, moderate, and major).
75 

Frequency and Effect of Travel Ceilings as a Barrier to Collaboration

Women rated “travel ceilings” as occurring more frequently than men (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,773) = 

15.74, p less than 0.001; fig. 83). Respondents that were decision-makers rated “travel ceilings” as 

occurring less frequently than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,773) = 9.16, p = 0.002; fig. 84). 

Respondents varied by how many years they had worked for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,773) = 22.11, p

less than 0.001; fig. 85). Finally, respondents differed in how frequently they rated “travel ceilings” as a 

barrier to collaboration across the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2

(12, n = 1,773) = 51.60, 

p less than 0.001; fig. 86).

Figure 83. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing women 

to men.

Figure 84. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing 

decision-makers to other respondents.
76 

Figure 85. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration versus how many

years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. (>, greater than; <, less than) 

Figure 86. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 
77 

Respondents differed in how they rated the effect of “travel ceilings” on collaborations across duty 

station levels (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,773) = 10.37, p = 0.016; fig. 87). Also, respondents that rated “travel 

ceilings” as occurring more frequently also rated them as having a greater effect on collaborations and 

vice versa (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,773) = 137.48, p less than 0.001; fig. 88).

Figure 87. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaborations, 

comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 

Figure 88. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “travel ceilings” as a barrier to collaborations versus

how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaborations. 

Frequency and Effect of “Other BLM Duties Take Priority over Collaboration” as a Barrier to Collaboration

Respondents differed among BLM State Offices and BLM Centers in how frequently they thought 

that “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” was a barrier to collaboration (Wald χ2(12, n = 

1,796) = 31.47, p = 0.002; fig. 89). 
78 

Figure 89. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 

Respondents that rated “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” as occurring more 

frequently also rated it as having a greater effect on collaborations and vice versa (Wald χ2

(4, n = 1,796) = 

708.06, p less than 0.001; fig. 90).

Figure 90. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” as a 

barrier to collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration. (BLM, Bureau of Land 

Management)
79 

Frequency and Effect of “Field Personnel Lack Authority to Conduct Collaborations” as a Barrier to 

Collaboration

Decision-makers typically rated “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” as a less 

frequent barrier than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,530) = 20.55, p less than 0.001; fig. 91).

Respondents differed based on how many years they had worked for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,530) = 

16.98, p = 0.005; fig. 92). Finally, respondents varied based on their experience with collaboration and(or) 

ADR (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,530) = 13.93, p = 0.003; fig. 93).

Figure 91. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” as a 

barrier to collaboration, comparing decision-makers to other respondents.

Figure 92. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” as a 

barrier to collaboration versus the number of years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (>, 

greater than; <, less than) 
80 

Figure 93. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” as a 

barrier to collaboration versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). 

Respondents’ ratings of the effect of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” on 

collaborations varied by duty station level (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,530) = 8.61, p = 0.035; fig. 94). Also, 

respondents that rated this barrier as occurring more frequently also rated it as having a greater effect on 

collaborations and vice versa (Wald χ2(2, n = 1,530) = 96.83, p less than 0.001; fig. 95).

Figure 94. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “field personnel lack authority to conduct 

collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration, comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 
81 

Figure 95. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “field personnel lack authority to conduct 

collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration. 

Frequency and Effect of “Lack of Support in the BLM” as a Barrier to Collaboration

Decision-makers typically rated “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier less frequently than 

other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,689) = 27.25, p less than 0.001; fig. 96). Respondents also differed in 

how they rated the frequency of lack of support in the BLM as a barrier to collaboration by duty station 

level (Wald χ2(3, n = 1,689) = 215.26, p less than 0.001; fig. 97) and across the BLM State Offices and 

BLM Centers (Wald χ2

(12, n = 1,689) = 215.26, p less than 0.001; fig. 98).

Figure 96. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing decision-makers to other respondents. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management)
82 

Figure 97. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 

Figure 98. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration, 

comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 

Respondents that rated “lack of support in the BLM” as occurring more frequently also rated it as 

having a greater effect on collaborations and vice versa (Wald χ2

(2, n = 1,530) = 96.83, p less than 0.001; 

fig. 99).
83 

Figure 99. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration versus 

how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration. 

Frequency and Effect of “Lack of Support from Your Supervisor” as a Barrier to Collaboration

Women tended to rate “lack of support from your supervisor” as a slightly more frequent barrier

than men (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,806) = 5.75, p = 0.017; fig. 100). Decision-makers typically rated this barrier 

as less frequent than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 1,806) = 20.59, p less than 0.001; fig. 101). In 

general, respondents progressively rated this as a more frequent barrier until they had worked for the BLM 

for about10 yr, and then they progressively rated this as a less frequent barrier the longer they had worked 

for the BLM (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,806) = 12.26, p = 0.031; fig. 102). Finally, respondents rated this barrier 

differently based on their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,806) = 13.98, p = 

0.003; fig. 103).

Figure 100. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing women to men.
84 

Figure 101. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing decision-makers to other respondents. 

Figure 102. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration versus how many years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. (>, greater than; <, less 

than) 

Figure 103. Respondents’ ratings of the frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). 
85 

Respondents from the Washington office and BLM Centers rated “lack of support from your 

supervisor” as having a greater effect on collaborations than respondents in other duty station levels (Wald 

χ

2

(3, n = 1,806) = 90.47, p less than 0.001; fig. 104). Respondents differed in how they rated the 

magnitude of this barrier’s effect on collaborations across the BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald 

χ

2

(11, n = 1,806) = 695.28, p less than 0.001; fig. 105). Finally, respondents that rated this barrier as 

occurring more frequently also rated it as having a greater effect on collaborations and vice versa (Wald 

χ

2

(3, n = 1,806) = 934.43, p less than 0.001; fig. 106).

Figure 104. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing duty station levels. (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) 

Figure 105. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration, comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 
86 

Figure 106. Respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to 

collaboration versus how they rated its frequency as a barrier to collaboration. 

Overall Frequency of Organizational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM

How frequently respondents thought that organizational barriers to collaboration were encountered 

in general was measured as the sum of their ratings of the frequency of the 12 organizational barriers listed 

along the 5-point likelihood scale (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = always). 

Thus, the potential range of the overall frequency of organizational barriers scale was 0 (these 12 

organizational barriers are “never” encountered) to 60 (all 12 organizational barriers are “always” 

encountered during collaborations). The scale’s reliability was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84, n = 

987). The median value of respondents’ overall frequency of organizational barriers was 25, which 

indicates that respondents rate these organizational barriers to collaborations generally in the middle of the 

frequency scale (that is, a rating of “sometimes” on average; fig. 107).
87 

Figure 107. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or 

“always”). 

Decision-makers rated the frequency of organizational barriers overall as occurring slightly less 

frequently than other respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 771) = 7.3, p = 0.007; fig. 108). Respondents that had 

worked for the BLM for longer rated the organizational barriers as occurring less frequently overall than 

respondents that had not worked for the BLM as long (Wald χ2(5, n = 771) = 15.95, p = 0.007; fig. 109). 

Respondents also varied in how they rated the overall frequency of organizational barriers to collaboration 

across BLM State Offices and BLM Centers (Wald χ2(11, n = 771) = 25.27, p = 0.008; fig. 110). Finally, 

respondents differed in how they rated the frequency of the organizational barriers overall by how they 

rated their overall level of skill in collaboration (Wald χ2(48, n = 771) = 91.76, p less than 0.001; fig. 111).
88 

Figure 108. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or 

“always”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents 

for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.

Figure 109. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or 

“always”) versus how many years they had worked for the Bureau of Land Management. The vertical line depicts the 

median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of 

boxplots. (>, greater than; <, less than) 
89 

Figure 110. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or 

“always”), comparing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. The vertical line depicts 

the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of 

boxplots.

Figure 111. Respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 or “never” to 48 or 

“always”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no 

experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be

calculated. 
90 

Overall Magnitude of Effect of Organizational Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM

The perceived magnitude of organizational barriers to collaboration as a whole was measured as 

the sum of respondents’ ratings of the magnitude of effect of the 12 organizational barriers listed along the 

4-point likelihood scale (0 = zero, because the barrier also has a frequency of zero, 1 = minor, 2 = 

moderate, and 3 = major). Thus, the potential range of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational 

barriers scale was 0 (all 12 organizational barriers are of “zero” effect because they never occur) to 36 (all 

12 organizational barriers are “major” barriers to collaboration when they do occur). The scale’s reliability 

was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83, n = 610). The median value for all respondents was 21, which 

indicates that respondents rated these situational barriers to collaborations as having a “minor” to 

“moderate” effect on average when they do occur (fig. 112).

Figure 112. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”). 

 Decision-makers rated the magnitude of effect of organizational barriers as somewhat more minor 

overall than other respondents (Wald χ2

(1, n = 492) = 6.62, p = 0.010; fig. 113). Respondents that rated 

themselves as an average overall level of skill of “no experience” to “beginner” and those that rated 

themselves as “expert” in collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution were more likely than other 

respondents to rate the magnitude of effect of organizational barriers overall as “major” (Wald χ2

(47, n = 

492) = 157.74, p less than 0.001; fig. 114). In general, respondents that had rated the situational barriers as 

occurring more frequently overall were increasingly more likely to rate the magnitude of effect of the 

situational barriers as “major” (Wald χ2

(38, n = 492) = 6,480.92, p less than 0.001; fig. 115). Respondents 

differed in how they rated the magnitude of effect of organizational barriers overall based on their 

experience with collaboration and(or) ADR (Wald χ2

(3, n = 492) = 18.65, p less than 0.001; fig. 116).
91 

Figure 113. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. The vertical line 

depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further 

explanation of boxplots.

Figure 114. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and(or) Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all 

respondents for which the scale could be calculated.
92 

Figure 115. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of organizational barriers to 

collaboration (from 0 or “never” to 48 or “always”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which 

the scale could be calculated.

Figure 116. Respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational barriers (from 0 or “zero” effect, 

because they never occur, to 36 or “major”) versus their experience with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR). The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. 

Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.
93 

Field Office Perceptions of Support for Collaboration

Respondents that indicated their duty station was a field office were asked to rate their perceived

level of support for collaboration in (1) their field office, (2) their State Office, and (3) the Washington 

office along a 6-point scale ranging from “non-existent” to “very high” or “I don’t know.” An increasingly 

large proportion of respondents indicated they did not know what the level of support was for 

collaboration up the organizational hierarchy, and almost half indicated that they did not know what the 

level of support for collaboration was in the Washington office (fig. 117). Omitting the “I don’t know” 

responses, the median field personnel rating of the level of support in all three levels was “moderate,” 

although personnel did rate the level of support in their field office as slightly higher than the level of 

support in their State Office or the Washington office (Friedman test: χ

2

(2, n = 702) = 44.14, p less than

0.001; fig. 117). However, the rating that field personnel gave to their field office was significantly and 

highly positively correlated with the ratings they gave to their BLM State Office (Spearman’s rho = 0.66, 

n = 845, p less than 0.001) and the Washington office (Spearman’s rho = 0.72, n = 713, p less than 0.001). 

Furthermore, the ratings that field personnel gave to the level of support in their BLM State Office was 

even more highly correlated with the ratings they gave the level of support in the Washington office 

(Spearman’s rho = 0.85, n = 708, p less than 0.001). 

Figure 117. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in A, their field office; B, their State Office; 

and C, the Washington office. 
94 

Decision-makers (in this case, Field Managers) generally rated the level of support in their field 

office as much higher than other field personnel (Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,005) = 13.55, p less than 0.001; fig. 

118). How field personnel perceived the level of support in their field office also varied depending on the 

BLM State Office to which their field office reported (Wald χ2(12, n = 1,005) = 27.88, p = 0.006; fig. 

119). Finally, field personnel varied in how they rated the level of support in their field office based on 

their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR (Wald χ2

(3, n = 1,005) = 27.02, p less than 0.001; fig. 

120).

Figure 118. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, comparing decisionmakers (Field Managers) to other respondents.

Figure 119. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, comparing Bureau of 

Land Management State Offices. 
95 

Figure 120. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office versus their experience 

with collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Field Managers (decision-makers) again rated the level of support from their State Office as much 

higher than other field personnel (Wald χ2

(1, n = 719) = 16.51, p less than 0.001; fig. 121). In addition, 

field office personnel in varied by geographic region in how they rated the level of support in their State 

Office (Wald χ2

(12, n = 719) = 34.15, p = 0.001; fig. 122).

Figure 121. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their State Office, comparing decisionmakers (Field Managers) to other respondents.
96 

Figure 122. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their State Office, comparing Bureau of 

Land Management State Offices. 

Finally, field personnel reporting to different BLM State Offices varied in how they rated the level 

of support in the Washington office (Wald χ2(12, n = 613) = 24.38, p = 0.018; fig. 123).
97 

Figure 123. How field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in the Washington office, comparing 

Bureau of Land Management State Offices. 

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Outcomes

Respondents were asked to rate the effects of collaboration in the BLM on a list of 11 different 

outcomes on a 5-point scale, from “greatly worsens” to “greatly improves” (table 11). In general, 

respondents thought that collaboration “somewhat improved” all 13 outcomes listed, with the greatest 

improvement ratings given to “communication among different parties” and “the BLM’s credibility with 

other agencies” (table 11). The outcomes that respondents were somewhat less likely to rate as greatly 

improved by collaboration were “the level of conflict among parties” and “BLM’s risk of future 

litigation.” 
98 

Table 11. Respondents’ perceptions of how collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) affects each of the following outcomes. (%, percent; 

<, less than)

How collaboration by the BLM affects the outcome

Outcomes n Greatly 

worsens

Somewhat 

worsens

No 

difference

Somewhat 

improves

Greatly 

improves median mode Friedman 

mean rank1

Communication among different parties 2,117 1% 3% 8% 50% 38% Somewhat

improves

Somewhat 

improves 7.2

The BLM's credibility with other agencies 2,066 1% 4% 15% 47% 34% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 6.7

Trust among different parties 2,108 2% 4% 13% 50% 31% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 6.5

The quality of BLM's decisions 2,095 2% 6% 13% 47% 33% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 6.5

The public's understanding of BLM decisions 2,080 2% 4% 16% 47% 31% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 6.4

BLM's ability to incorporate local/traditional knowledge in decisions 1,946 5% 13% 14% 41% 26% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 5.8

The level of agreement among parties on shared goals or vision 1,959 5% 14% 15% 43% 24% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 5.7

The legitimacy (that is, democratic and transparent) of BLM's decisions 1,931 6% 14% 17% 35% 29% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 5.7

BLM's ability to incorporate multiple disciplines in decisions 1,950 6% 14% 19% 37% 25% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 5.5

The level of conflict among parties 1,962 4% 10% 16% 57% 14% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 5.2

BLM's risk of future litigation 1,904 5% 7% 24% 52% 13% Somewhat 

improves

Somewhat 

improves 4.9

1

The effects of collaboration by the BLM significantly differ among one or more outcomes (Friedman test: Chi-square = 1,125.88, d.f. = 10, n = 1,537, p <0.001).
99 

General Attitudes toward How Collaboration Affects Outcomes

Respondents’ general attitudes toward the effects of collaboration on outcomes was measured as 

the sum of their ratings for the 13 outcomes listed along a 5-point scale (–2 = greatly worsens, –1 = 

somewhat worsens, 0 = no difference, 1 = somewhat improves, and 2 = greatly improves). Thus, the 

potential range of the scale for general attitudes about how collaboration affects outcomes was –26 

(collaboration “greatly worsens” all 13 outcomes) to 26 (collaboration “greatly improves” all 13 

outcomes). The 13 outcomes include those reported in table 11 and two outcomes related to short and 

long- term costs, reported in table 12.The scale’s reliability was very good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, n = 

1,537). The median value of respondents’ overall frequency of organizational barriers was 10, which 

indicates that respondents generally thought that collaboration “somewhat improves” outcomes (fig. 124).

Figure 124. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”). 

Women were slightly more positive about how collaboration affects outcomes than men (Wald 

χ

2

(1, n = 436) = 4.84, p = 0.028; fig. 125). Decision-makers were slightly more positive than the other 

respondents (Wald χ2(1, n = 436) = 7.30, p = 0.007; fig. 126). In general, respondents that rated the 

situational barriers as occurring frequently overall were somewhat less positive about the effect of 

collaboration on outcomes than other respondents (Wald χ2(34, n = 436) = 121.63, p less than 0.001; fig. 

127). In addition, respondents that rated the organizational barriers as occurring frequently overall were 

also generally less positive about the effect of collaboration on outcomes than other respondents (Wald 

χ

2

(37, n = 436) = 105.58, p less than 0.001; fig. 128). Finally, respondents that rated themselves as an 

average overall level of skill of “no experience” to “beginner” were generally less positive about 

collaboration’s effects on outcomes than other respondents, and respondents that rated themselves as 

highly skilled were slightly more positive (Wald χ2(46, n = 436) = 86.28, p less than 0.001; fig. 129).
100 

Figure 125. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”), comparing women to men. The vertical line depicts the median for all respondents for 

which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.

Figure 126. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”), comparing decision-makers to other respondents. The vertical line depicts the median for 

all respondents for which the scale could be calculated. Refer to the Glossary for further explanation of boxplots.
101 

Figure 127. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of situational barriers (from 0 “never” to 48 or 

“always”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated.

Figure 128. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus how they rated the overall frequency of organizational barriers (from 0 “never” to 

48 or “always”). The horizontal line depicts the median for all respondents for which the scale could be calculated.
102 

Figure 129. Respondents’ general attitude toward how collaboration affects outcomes (from –26 or “greatly worsens” 

to 26 or “greatly improves”) versus their self-rated overall skill level in collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”).

Perceptions of How Collaboration Affects Costs

 Respondents were asked to rate how they thought that collaboration affected costs in the short-term 

and in the long-term along a 5-point scale that ranged from “greatly reduces” to “greatly increases.” The 

majority of respondents (59 percent) indicated that that collaboration “somewhat increases” or “greatly 

increases” short-term costs, while a slight majority of respondents (51 percent) indicated that collaboration 

“somewhat reduces” or “greatly reduces” long-term costs (table 12). Despite the reverse ratings given to

short-term versus long-term costs across all respondents, within respondent ratings of short-term versus 

long-term costs were still positively correlated (Spearman’s rho = 0.401, n = 1,665, p less than 0.001; fig. 

130). 

Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions of how collaboration in the Bureau of Land Management affects short- and 

long-term costs. (%, percent) 

Cost outcomes n Greatly 

reduces

Somewhat 

reduces

No

difference

Somewhat 

increases

Greatly 

increases Median Mode

Short-term costs 1,745 4% 18% 19% 44% 15% Somewhat increases Somewhat increases

Long-term costs 1,727 10% 41% 19% 21% 10% Somewhat reduces Somewhat reduces
103 

Figure 130. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs compared to how they rated how

collaboration affects short-term costs.

In general, respondents differed in how they rated collaboration’s effect on short-term costs based 

how they rated their overall skill level in collaboration (Wald χ2

(51, n = 1,439) = 127.68, p less than

0.001; fig. 131). In addition, respondents with direct experience with collaboration were more likely to 

indicate that collaboration increases short-term costs than those with no direct experience (Wald χ2(3, n = 

1,439) = 11.82, p = 0.008; fig. 132). 

Figure 131. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects short-term costs versus their self-rated overall skill level 

in collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal 

line depicts the median response.
104 

Figure 132. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects short-term costs versus their experience with 

collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Women were slightly more likely than men to indicate that collaboration reduces long-term costs

(Wald χ2

(1, n = 1,418) = 5.62, p = 0.018; fig. 133). In general, respondents that had worked for the BLM 

for less time were more likely than respondents that had worked at the BLM for longer to indicate that 

collaboration reduced long-term costs (Wald χ2(5, n = 1,418) = 11.09, p = 0.050; fig. 134). Respondents 

varied in how they rated collaboration’s effect on long-term costs among the BLM State Offices and BLM 

Centers (Wald χ2(13, n = 1,418) = 29.08, p = 0.006; fig. 135). Finally, respondents differed in how they 

rated collaboration’s effect on long-term costs based on how they rated their overall level of skill in 

collaboration (Wald χ2(51, n = 1,418) = 91.59, p less than 0.001; fig. 136).

Figure 133. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs, comparing women to men.
105 

Figure 134. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs versus how many years they had 

worked for the Bureau of Land Management. (>, greater than; <, less than) 

Figure 135. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs, comparing Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) State Offices and BLM Centers. 
106 

Figure 136. Respondents’ ratings of how collaboration affects long-term costs versus their self-rated overall skill level 

in collaboration and(or) Alternative Dispute Resolution (from 0 or “no experience” to 52 or “expert”). The horizontal 

line depicts the median response. 

Open-Ended Questions

We asked two open ended questions at the end of the survey. The first question provided the BLM 

definition of collaboration: “a cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varying 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands,” and 

asked respondents “As the BLM revises its strategic plan for collaboration, what are your suggestions for 

revising this definition?” 

We received 1,037 comments about the definition. Of these, 375 respondents indicated that they 

had no suggestions or that the definition was acceptable. Specific wording suggestions for the definition 

were provided by 378 individuals. Another 178 made comments about the process of collaboration or 

ways that the BLM could better support collaborative efforts. Comments about the survey itself, both 

positive and negative accounted for 20 comments, and 86 comments could not be categorized and were 

coded as “miscellaneous.” 

The second open-ended question was the final question in the survey: “Please provide any 

additional comments about collaboration and ADR in the BLM.” A total of 620 respondents answered this 

question. Of the comments, 161 were either not analyzed (135) because the responses were not additive 

(off topic, etc.) or labeled as “no comment” (26) because the respondent indicated he or she had nothing 

more to add. Responses in these two categories were not included in our analysis. Additionally, 100 

respondents commented on the survey itself. In these instances, if the comment was only regarding the 

survey, it was not included. If a respondent commented on the survey and made other comments, then the 

full response was included. 

Categories used to classify responses are below (with number of responses in each category). 

Please note that some comments discussed several different topics and were categorized as such, so the 

number of mentions of a topic is greater than the total number of comments received: 

• Generally Supportive of Collaboration in the BLM (119) 
107 

• Generally Skeptical of Collaboration in the BLM (37) 

• Discussed Barriers to Collaboration in the BLM (155) 

Mentioned Specific Barriers to Collaboration: 

• Budget and Personnel Restrictions (36) 

• Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) issues (9) 

• Support from Management (48) 

• Included a statement about training in collaboration (88) 

• Shared a success story (17) 

We provided the list of categorized comments for both of the open-ended questions to the BLM 

strategic planning team after we removed all identifying information from the comments. 

Discussion

The survey of BLM employees provided a great deal of useful information about skills and 

perceptions regarding collaboration and ADR. Several themes emerged as the survey was analyzed and 

the more prominent among them are discussed below. 

BLM Employees Involvement in Collaboration and ADR Processes

Our survey respondents were those with experience in collaboration and ADR, or those who 

expected to gain this experience in the future. The longer their tenure with BLM, the more likely they 

were to have experience with both collaboration and ADR. Processes that lasted for a year or longer were 

reported by 57 percent of respondents, and 59 percent had been involved with a NEPA process. Despite 

this, only 39 percent indicated that participating in collaborative or ADR processes was part of their 

performance plan. Those with five or fewer years with BLM were slightly more likely to have these 

elements in their performance plans. It is possible that there is a recent trend toward including these 

elements, but the survey was not able to evaluate this. A majority of respondents (59 percent) spend less 

than 10 percent of their time on collaboration and ADR, but 24 percent stated that they spend from 10 to 

20 percent of their time in these processes.

Decision-makers had Different Perceptions and Experiences with Collaboration and ADR than others

in the BLM

Generally, BLM decision-makers reported a higher level of skill and training in collaboration and 

ADR than others in the BLM who completed the survey. They also reported fewer obstacles to taking 

training, were more aware of the resources that are available to support collaboration and ADR, spent 

more time on collaboration and ADR than others in BLM, and were more likely to have collaboration 

and(or) ADR elements in their performance plans. In addition, decision-makers had somewhat different 

views of barriers and rated lack of BLM support and lack of their supervisor’s support as less problematic 

than others who completed the survey. While none of these findings were surprising, it would be 

instructive to know whether those who were interested in collaboration and ADR were more likely to 

become Field Office Managers, at what point in their careers they received their training and skills, and 

how they understand the views of collaboration and ADR of their employees. Additionally, it would be 

interesting to learn whether and how they impart their attitudes of and knowledge about collaboration and 

ADR to their colleagues and those whom they supervise. 
108 

Attitudes about Training Needs

Survey respondents reported low levels of skill and training in Tribal relations/government-togovernment consultations, terminating unproductive collaborative processes, and feasibility assessments. 

However, only about half of the respondents were interested in having more training in these areas. As 

noted in the body of this report, this may be in part because these are higher level or specialized skills that 

may be used by those with decision-making authority. This may point to a need to match training with 

organizational level, providing employees who are likely to be involved in collaboration or ADR with a 

basic skill set that can be expanded over time. Those who indicated their skill level as “intermediate” were 

the most interested in additional training. 

More training was positively associated with a higher skill level, increased awareness of resources 

for supporting collaborations or ADR processes, and increased likelihood to use these resources in the 

future. While a causal relationship cannot be assumed, it was an interesting finding and one that may be 

important for defining and developing a culture of collaboration in BLM.

Of note, feasibility assessment skills were reported as especially valuable by the small number of 

survey respondents with experience in these assessments. Because it is often thought that upstream 

processes are more effective at reducing or managing conflict, there may be some justification in 

exploring the opportunities for providing training in skills that promote early identification of 

stakeholders, interests, and issues. Although the number of feasibility assessments conducted within BLM 

may be small, it may be possible to evaluate the perceived effects of these assessments on outcomes to 

help determine whether this skill set could have value for the BLM. 

In general, those with more training felt more skilled in collaboration and ADR; this suggests that 

training is a worthwhile investment for the BLM. However, when asked to attribute skill to a variety of 

factors (hands-on experience, innate skill, mentors and coaches, formal training, reading about 

collaboration), hands-on experience was credited with contributing the most to respondents’ skill. Thus, it 

seems reasonable that a combination of training and experience is necessary to build skill. 

Those with more years of employment with the BLM reported a lower level of interest in training 

than those who had been with the agency for fewer years. There are several possible explanations for this. 

One, perhaps this group has had all the training that is available or that they think they need. Since many 

respondents attributed their skills to hands on experience, it may be that this group with more years in 

BLM has developed deeper or more nuanced skills through more experience. Alternatively, those with 

lack of interest in additional training may be disillusioned with collaboration, training, or the BLM. 

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration are Effected by a Variety of Factors

Those with experience in ADR, but not collaboration, are more likely to be more pessimistic in 

their views about barriers facing collaboration than those whose experience includes collaboration. 

Perceptions on barriers also differed based on gender, whether or not one is a decision-maker, level in the 

organizational structure, and experience with collaboration and ADR. Decision-makers see fewer barriers, 

perhaps because they are in positions to overcome them. Those with longer tenure in BLM typically saw 

fewer barriers in some areas. However, travel ceilings and lack of time to devote to collaboration and 

ADR were frequent barriers of large effect for most respondents. An earlier study of the BLM (Laninga, 

2004) also highlighted these same barriers. 
109 

Awareness of and Interest in Resources for Collaboration and ADR

The finding that respondents were unlikely to use resources of which they were not aware of prior 

to the survey was not surprising. However, many indicated that they were unlikely to use resources of 

which they had been aware, such as a collaboration specialist in DOI or another agency, a university or 

outside consulting group, or to a lesser extent, a BLM State Natural Resources ADR Advisor. One 

possible explanation for this is lack of knowledge of what these resources or specialists can offer, or it 

could indicate an unwillingness to request help. It would be useful to learn more about whether either of 

these explanations is accurate.

Facilitators and Mediators are Viewed as Valuable by Those Who Have Used Them

Some findings about resources used by BLM employees might lead to the thought that there is 

reluctance to find outside help, but those who have used facilitators or mediators are strongly supportive 

of their use. It is unknown whether those who used these forms of assistance relied on outside parties or 

BLM employees, but as with situation assessments, those with experience found them valuable. 

Different Types of Resources and Support may be Needed for Collaboration Versus ADR

A small group of respondents (1 percent) had experience in ADR but not collaboration; 25 percent

had experience with both collaboration and ADR. Some collaborative skills are transferrable to ADR 

processes, but the skill set and context differ between collaboration and ADR. Developing a culture of 

collaboration could include acknowledgment that ADR is sometimes necessary to achieve agency goals, 

and that conflict is sometimes unavoidable and can be beneficial in certain situations (Ruell and others 

2010). 

Limitations of the Survey

Our survey had some limitations, and we wish to acknowledge them here. First, to focus survey 

participants, we used a definition of collaboration that was in use by the BLM: “A cooperative process in 

which interested parties, often with widely varying interests, work together to seek solutions with broad 

support for managing public and other lands.” If survey respondents believed they had participated in 

activities that could be included in the definition, they may have indicated that they had participated in a 

collaborative process. Once respondents made this determination, they answered the survey questions 

based on their interpretation of that definition. However, we set limited sideboards on the definition, only 

asking respondents if they had been involved in a collaboration that included parties external to the BLM. 

We do not know how many of these collaborative processes were formal or how survey respondents 

decided what activities to include in collaboration. For example, is a short meeting with a land user 

collaboration? Not knowing more about how respondents defined collaboration limited our ability to 

interpret some of our findings. 

Second, one question in the survey asked respondents to select their primary program area from a 

list that we believed to be comprehensive because it represents the major programs as defined by the 

BLM. “Program area” includes categories like wild horses and burros; forestry and timber; energy, 

minerals and mining, and others (see Appendix 2, page 2 for the complete list). However, the fact that 24 

percent of the respondents selected “other” rather than one of the provided program areas suggests a 

disconnect between respondents’ perceptions of what they do and the BLM program areas. We had hoped 

to use program area as a variable in our analysis, but because of the large number of “other” responses, we 

were not able to do this. 
110 

Third, while we intended our results to be generalizable to the population of BLM employees with 

experience with collaboration or ADR, our survey was long and had a number of branching questions, 

which may have produced respondent fatigue. Thus, some respondents did not complete the survey and in 

some cases their input was not usable. We do not know whether the respondents that completed the entire 

survey were as representative of the entire group as the respondents that finished only part of the survey. 

Additionally, since we did not conduct a non-response bias survey, it is not possible to know whether our 

sample was representative overall. We reported sample sizes throughout this report in order to be 

transparent about the number of respondents for each question. 

Conclusion

Participating in collaborative and ADR processes is likely to continue to be a significant part of 

many BLM employees’ duties. The survey identified a number of opportunities and means by which the 

BLM could further develop these employees’ collaborative and dispute-resolution capabilities. Although 

direct experience appeared to play a major role in how respondents rated their own skill at collaboration 

and ADR, training was also an important contributor to respondents’ skill in collaboration and ADR. 

Under the assumption that collaboration and ADR processes have better outcomes when initiated and run 

by skilled professionals, BLM employees would benefit from additional training in the collaboration and 

ADR skills that they may not get anywhere else or that are likely critical for consistently successful 

collaboration and ADR. One set of skills in which respondents were particularly interested in receiving 

further training was “negotiation and conflict resolution.” In addition, training also appeared to increase 

respondents’ awareness of and likelihood to use the resources that are currently available to assist them in 

collaborative and ADR processes. 

The survey also confirmed that respondents’ access to training and collaborative efforts was

oftentimes hampered by organizational or occupational constraints, such as travel ceilings, time, and 

budgetary constraints. These logistical obstacles could potentially be mitigated or reduced in the future. 

However, it is important to highlight the fact that even though respondents agreed that attempts at 

collaboration were often impeded by numerous organizational, social, and political factors, they still 

considered collaboration to be a worthwhile endeavor for a broad range of BLM activities.
111 

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the individuals that reviewed and provided comments on the survey and on 

previous drafts of the report. We also thank the BLM employees that took the time to complete the survey. 

This research was supported by funding from the Bureau of Land Management, Agreement No. 

G11PC00019. 

References Cited

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2011a, Standard definitions—Final 

dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th ed.): Ann Arbor, Mich., American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, accessed December 3, 2013, at 

http://aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutAAPOR/StandardsampEthics/StandardDefinitions/Stan

dardDefinitions2011.pdf. 

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2011b, Response rate calculator, v. 3.1: 

Ann Arbor, Mich., American Association for Public Opinion Research, accessed December 3, 2013, at 

http://www.aapor.org/Standard_Definitions/2852.htm. 

Archie, K.M., Dilling, Lisa, Milford, J.B., and Pampel, F.C., 2012, Climate change and Western public 

lands—A survey of U.S. Federal land managers on the status of adaptation efforts: Ecology and Society, 

v. 17, no. 4, p. 20. 

Bonnell, J.E., and Koontz, T.M., 2007, Stumbling forward—The organizational challenges of building and 

sustaining collaborative watershed management: Society and Natural Resources, v. 20, no. 2, p. 153‒

167. 

Bryson, J.M., 2004, What to do when stakeholders matter—Stakeholder identification and analysis 

techniques: Public Management Review, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 21–53. 

Callister, D.C., 2013, Land community participation—A new “public” participation model: Environmental 

Communication, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 435–455. 

Coggins, G.C., Wilkinson, C.F., Leshy, J.D., and Fischman, R.L., 2007, Federal public land and resources 

law (6th ed.): New York, Foundation Press. 

Congressional Research Service, 1992, Multiple use and sustained yield—Changing philosophies for 

Federal land management: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 336 p. 

Conley, A., and Moote, M.A., 2003, Evaluating collaborative natural resource management: Society and 

Natural Resources, v. 16, p. 371–386. 

Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M., 2009, Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys—The 

tailored design method: Hoboken, N. J., Wiley, p. 499. 

Dukes, E.F., 2004, What we know about environment conflict resolution—An analysis based on research: 

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, v. 22, no. 1‒2, Fall‒Winter 2004, p. 191‒220. 

Emerson, Kirk, and Smutko, L.S., 2011, UNCG guide to collaborative competencies: Policy Consensus 

Initiative, 28 p. [UNCG, University Network for Collaborative Governance] 

Ferreyra, Cecilia, and Beard, Phil, 2007, Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water 

management—Insights from the field: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 50, 

no. 2, p. 271‒296. 

Forester, John, 1999, The deliberative practitioner: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Fung, Archon, and Wright, E.O., 2003, Deepening democracy—Institutional innovations in empowered 

participatory governance: New York, Verso Books. 
112 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2008, Natural resource management—Opportunities exist to 

enhance federal participation in collaborative efforts to reduce conflicts and improve natural resource 

conditions: Washington D.C., United States Government Accountability Office, GAO-08-262. 

Gray, G.J., Enzer, M.J., and Kusel, J., eds., 2001, Understanding community based ecosystem 

management in the United States: New York, Haworth Press. 

Heikkila, Tanya, and Gerlak, A.K., 2005, The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management 

institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions: The Policy Studies Journal, 

vol. 33, no.4, p. 583–612. 

Innes, J.E., and Booher, D.E., 1999, Consensus building and complex adaptive systems—A framework for 

evaluating collaborative planning: Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 64, no. 4, p. 412–

424. 

Koontz, T.M., and Thomas, C.W., 2006, What do we know and need to know about the environmental 

outcomes of collaborative management?: Special issue, Public Administration Review, v. 66, p. 111–

121. 

Laninga, T.J., 2004, Collaborative planning in the BLM Field Offices—Where it’s happening and what it 

looks like: Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, College of Architecture and Planning.254 p. 

Lauber, T.B., and Decker, D.J., 2011, Developing adaptability—The promise and pitfalls of collaborative 

conservation: Human Dimensions of Wildlife, v. 16, no. 4, p. 219‒221. 

Leach, N.L., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2002, A call for greater use of nonparametric statistics, in Annual 

Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, Tenn., November 6–8, 

2002, Proceedings: Mid-South Educational Research Association. 

Loomis, J.B., 2002, Integrated public lands management (2d ed.): New York, Columbia University Press. 

Moote, M.A., Conley, Alex, Firehock, K.E., and Dukes, Frank, 2000, Assessing research needs—A 

summary of a workshop on community-based collaboratives: Tucson, University of Arizona, Udall 

Center for Studies in Public Policy. 

Morse, R.S., and Stephens, J.B., 2012, Teaching collaborative governance—Phases, competencies, and 

case-based learning: Journal of Public Affairs Education, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 565–583. 

O’Leary, Rosemary, Choi, Yujin, and Gerard, C.M., 2012, The skill set of the successful collaborator: 

Public Administration Review, vol. 72, no. 1, p. 570–583. 

Ostrom, Elinor, 1990, Governing the commons—The evolution of institutions for collective action: New 

York, Cambridge University Press. 

Ozawa, C.P., and Susskind, Lawrence, 1985, Mediating science-intensive policy disputes: Journal of 

Policy Analysis and Management, v. 5, no. 1, p. 23–39. 

Reed, M.S., 2008, Stakeholder participation for environmental management—A literature review: 

Biological Conservation, v. 141, p. 2417–2431. 

Ruell, Emily, Burkardt, Nina, and Clark, D.R., 2010, Resolving disputes over science in natural resource 

agency decisionmaking: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center Technical 

Memorandum 86-68211-10-01, 58 p. 

Slotterback, C.S., and Crosby, B.C., 2012, Designing public participation processes: Public 

Administration Review, v. 73, no. 1, p 23–34. 

Stern, W.E., and Slade, L.H., 1995, Effects of historic and cultural resources and Indian religious freedom 

on public lands development—A Practical Primer: Natural Resources Journal, v. 35, no. 133, p. 140–

143. 

Thomas, J.C., 1995, Public participation in public decisions—New skills and strategies for public 

managers: San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Land Use Planning Handbook. BLM Handbook H-1601-

1, 160 p. 
113 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2009, Bureau of Land Management national natural resources 

policy for collaborative stakeholder engagement and appropriate dispute resolution: U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

Program, Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200), 

BLM/WO/GI-10/001+1800, 36 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2013a, About the BLM’s ADR Program: U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, accessed March 21, 2013, at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/adr/about_the_adr_conflict.html. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2013b, The Bureau of Land Management—Who we are, what 

we do: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, accessed March 19, 2013 at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2009, Secretarial Order 3289—Addressing the impacts of climate 

change on America’s water, land, and other natural and cultural resources: U.S. Department of Interior, 

Washington D.C., accessed March 19, 2013 at 

http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/SecOrder3289.pdf. [Dated September 14, 2009] 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, Community-based environmental protection—A 

resource book for protecting ecosystems and communities: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

230-B-96, Washington, D.C., 144 p. 

Walker, G.B., Senecah, S.L., and Daniels, S.E., 2006, From the forest to the river—Citizens’ views of 

stakeholder engagement: Human Ecology Review, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 193–202. 

Western, D., and Wright, R.M., eds., 1994, Natural connections—Perspectives in community-based 

conservation: Washington, D.C., Island Press. 

Wilson, R.K., 2006, Collaboration in context—Rural change and community forestry in the four corners: 

Society and Natural Resources, v. 19, no. 1, p. 53‒70. 

Wondolleck, J.M., 1988, Public lands—Conflict and resolution: New York, Plenum Press. 

Wondolleck, J.M., and Yaffe, S.L., 1994, Building bridges across agency boundaries—In search of 

excellence in the United States Forest Service: Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan School of 

Natural Resources and Environment. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151015
114 

Appendixes
115 

Appendix 1

Glossary

Bonferroni correction A correction of the alpha level used for multiple significance tests in order to 

reduce the probability of false positives (that is, to reduce type I error). 

Boxplot These figures visually describe the grouping and distribution of data points (or responses). The 

box always describes the first and third quartiles of data points, and the line bisecting the box describes the 

median of the data point. Here the lines or “whiskers” describe the lowest data points still within 1.5 

interquartile range of the lower and upper quartile. The circles represent the data points outside of these 

ranges (that is, the outliers). 

Cauchit link function This is a link function that is used when extreme values are present in the data.

Cochran’s Q test This is a non-parametric statistical test for binomial dependent variables that compares 

whether or not k treatments or repeated measures have different effects on a single sample. For example, 

this test can be used to detect differences among multiple items assessed using the same binomial 

measurement (for example, yes or no) by the same sample of survey respondents. 

Cronbach’s alpha This is an estimate of the reliability or internal consistency across multiple items (that 

is, across questions, rankings, ratings, and so forth) for a single sample used in a Likert scale. A higher 

value indicates that the test results have higher reliability. Under standard convention, Cronbach’s alpha 

must be greater than or equal to 0.7 for Likert scales constructed from survey data. 

Effect size Unstandardized or absolute effect sizes report the difference between two groups without any 

indication of the variance of the sample. Standardized effect sizes report the magnitude of effect relative to 

the variability in the sample.

Fixed effect Independent or predictor variables are treated in the statistical model as arising from nonrandom causes.

Friedman test This is a non-parametric statistical test for ordinal dependent variables that compares 

whether or not the distributions of ranks differs across k treatments or repeated measures on a single 

sample. First, the proportion of responses for all items is ranked separately for each category of the rating 

scale. Then each item’s ranks are summed, and the sum is compared to the sum of the other items. This 

test can be used to detect whether the distributions of ratings differs among multiple items when all items 

were assessed on the same scale (for example, a scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) by 

the same sample of survey respondents. A Friedman mean rank is the average of the ranks assigned to 

each item and was used to order the items from highest to lowest mean rank. Note that the Friedman’s 

mean rank is not the same as the average rating given to each item.

General linear model This type of statistical model is appropriate and robust for dependent variables that 

are continuous and for which the residuals are normally distributed, independent, and have the same 

variance. Multivariate models are appropriate when dependent variables are not independent and should 

be tested together.

Generalized linear model (GZLM) This type of statistical model is appropriate and robust for dependent 

variables, such as binomial, ordinal, and count data, that are neither continuous nor meet the underlying 

assumptions of general linear models. These models are generalizations of the ordinary least squares 

regression, which uses a link function to relate the linear model to the non-normally distributed dependent 

variable.

Likert item This is a single factor, statement, or question for which the respondent is asked to rank along 

a symmetric rating scale that depicts a range of intensity. Likert items are typically used with 5-point, 7-

point, or 9-point ordered-category scales with neutral middle values, such as a scale ranging from strongly 

agree to strongly disagree.
116 

Likert scale These scales are often used as a proxy of a broader concept or phenomenon that includes a 

number of Likert items that measure aspects of the same subject or concept and are assessed along the 

same rating scale by respondents. Likert items are summed to create a bigger scale that more closely 

approximates the properties of normal, continuous data than the original rating scale. Under standard 

convention, a Likert scale constructed from survey data must have adequate internal consistency or an 

estimated Cronbach’s alpha of greater than or equal to 0.7. 

Parametric statistics These are statistical tests that assume an underlying normal distribution to the data. 

If the assumptions are correct, parametric methods can produce more accurate and precise estimates. They 

are said to have more statistical power. However, if the assumptions are incorrect, parametric methods can 

be misleading.

Nonparametric statistics These are statistical tests that do not assume an underlying distribution (for 

example, a normal distribution) to the data, and therefore, do not specify the model structure and 

parameters a priori. As a result, they are more robust and have much broader applications than parametric 

statistics, but at the cost of reduced power to detect different effects. Examples of data that require nonparametric statistics are rank order, count data, and ordinal response data, such as data derived from rating 

scales. These types of data often have no real-world numerical interpretation, and the difference between 

each successive rating scale category is not truly equidistant. 

Pearson’s chi-squared test A statistical test of independence that evaluates whether or not the frequency 

of paired observations of two categorical variables differs from what would be expected if the variables 

were independent. 

Poisson distribution This is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given 

number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known 

average rate and independently of the time since the last event.

Probit function This is the quantile function association with the standard normal distribution. 

Tweedie distributions This is a family of probability distributions which includes the purely continuous 

normal and gamma distributions, the Poisson distribution, and others. 

Type I error The probability of incorrectly rejecting the a true null hypothesis (that is, finding a main 

effect to be significant when it is really not).

Type II error The probability of incorrectly failing to reject a false null hypothesis (that is, failing to 

detect a significant main effect).
117 

Appendix 2 

BLM Employee Survey

Page 1

 
118 

Page 2

 
119 

Page 3
120 

Page 4
121 

Page 5
122 

Page 6

Page 7
123 

Page 8

Page 9
124 

Page 10

Page 11
125 

Page 12
126 

Page 13
127 

Page 14

 
128 

Page 15
129 

Page 16
130 

Page 17
131 

Page 18
132 

Page 19
133 

Page 20
134 

Page 21
135 

Page 22
136 

Page 23
137 

Page 24
138 

Appendix 3 

Description of Statistical Analyses 

All descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were completed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics 

Desktop V20.0.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, U.S.A.). Descriptions of all inferential statistical 

analyses in the order they are presented in the results section are provided below. Dependent variables 

were included as additive main effects in all statistical models, and were considered statistically 

significant at α less than 0.05. The goodness-of-fit statistics provided by SPSS were used to select the best 

assumed distribution and link function for generalized linear models (GZLM). Overdispersion was 

corrected for when necessary. Main effects that were not significant were not reported in the results

section. All other statistical tests (for example, Friedman test, Pearson’s Chi-square test, and Cochran’s Q 

test) were considered statistically significant at α less than 0.05. 

Experience with Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

We tested whether respondents differed in their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR (3 = 

“experience with both collaboration and ADR,” 2 = “experience with collaboration only,” 1 = “experience 

with ADR only,” 0 = “no experience with either, but might gain future experience”; modified from 

Appendix 2, survey page 3) by gender (women, men; see Appendix 2, survey page 23), whether or not 

they were in a decision-making position (yes, no; coded from respondents’ job titles), the number of years 

they had worked for the BLM (1 = “less than 1 year,” 2 = “1‒5 years,” 3 = “6‒10 years,” 4 = “11‒20 

years,” 5 = “21‒30 years,” 6 = “greater than 30 years”; see Appendix 2, survey page 23), their duty station 

level (“field office,” “district office,” “state office,” “Washington D.C. office,” “BLM Center”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 2), or the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report (Washington 

D.C., Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Eastern states, Idaho, Montana-North Dakota-South Dakota, 

New Mexico-Oklahoma, Nevada, Oregon-Washington, Utah, Wyoming, the National Operations Center, 

the National Training Center, the National Interagency Fire Center; coded from open-ended responses to 

Appendix 2, survey page 2) using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative negative loglog link function (n = 2,223).

We tested whether respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR differed 

in the number of collaborations and(or) ADR processes in which they had been involved (1 = “1,” 2 = “2-

3,” 3 = “4‒6,” 4 = “7‒10,” 5 = “11‒20,” 6 = “greater than 20”; see Appendix 2, survey page 4), or by

gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for 

the BLM, their duty station level, or the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report. This was 

tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative cauchit link function (n = 2,581).

We tested whether respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR differed 

in whether or not any of these collaborations and(or) ADR processes had lasted longer than one year (1 = 

“yes,” 0 = “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 4) by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making 

position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, or the BLM State 

Office or BLM Center to which they report using a GZLM with a binomial distribution and a cumulative

negative log-log link function (n = 1,817).

We tested whether respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR differed 

in whether or not any of these collaborations and(or) ADR processes had involved a NEPA process (1 = 

“yes,” 0 = “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 5), or by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, or the BLM 
139 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report. This was tested using a GZLM with a binomial 

distribution and a cumulative negative log-log link function (n = 1,878). 

We tested whether respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR differed 

in the percentage of their time they had spent on collaborative and(or) ADR processes in the last year (1 = 

“less than 10 percent,” 2 = “10‒20 percent,” 3 = “21‒40 percent,” 4 = “41‒60 percent,” 5 = “greater than

60 percent”; see Appendix 2, survey page 5) by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making 

position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, or which BLM State 

Office or BLM Center to which they report. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial

distribution and a cumulative cauchit function (n = 1,843).

We tested whether respondents that had direct experience with collaboration and(or) ADR differed 

in whether or not participation in collaborative and(or) ADR processes was part of their performance plans 

(1 = “yes,” 0 = “no”; see appendix 2, survey page 5), or by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, or the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report. This was tested using a GZLM with a binomial 

distribution and a cumulative probit link function (n = 1,732). 

Collaborative and Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills and Training

 We tested whether respondents rated themselves differently for any of the 13 collaboration and 

ADR skill items (see Appendix 2, survey page 12) along the 5-point skill level scale (0 = “no experience,” 

1 = “beginner,” 2 = “intermediate,” 3 = “advanced,” 4 = “expert”) using a Friedman test (n = 2,506) and

ordered the skill items from the most to the least skilled using Friedman mean ranks. We tested whether 

the 13 collaboration and ADR skills differed in the proportion of respondents that had received training in 

each skill (yes, no) using a Cochran test (n = 2,093). We also tested whether the 13 collaboration and ADR 

skills differed in the proportion of respondents that wished to receive training or additional training in each 

skill in the future (yes, no). This was tested using a Cochran test (n = 2,248). 

We tested whether respondents’ overall training level in the 13 collaboration and ADR skills (the 

scale ranged from 0 or no training in any of the 13 itemized skills to 13 or training in all 13 skills; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 12) differed by gender, whether or not respondents were in a decision-making 

position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office

or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested

using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 1,672). 

We tested whether any of the 11 professional and personal obstacles to taking training in 

collaboration (see Appendix 2, survey page 15) were experienced by a larger or smaller proportion of 

respondents than the other obstacles. This was tested using a Cochran test (n = 2,534). 

We tested whether respondents’ general past difficulty with taking formal training (the scale 

ranged from 0 or “no past difficulty with any of the 11 professional and personal obstacles to taking 

training” to 11 or “past difficulty with all 11 professional and personal obstacles to taking training”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 15) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, 

the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a Poisson distribution and an identity link function (n = 1,996). 

We tested whether respondents’ self-rated overall skill level in the 13 collaboration and ADR skills 

(the scale ranged from 0 or “no experience” in any of the 13 itemized skills to 52 or an “expert” skill level 

in all 13 skills; see Appendix 2, survey page 12) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a 

decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the 

BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their overall level of training, or their experience 
140 

with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a 

cumulative logit link function (n = 1,591).We tested whether respondents’ overall interest in future 

training in any of the 13 collaboration and ADR skills (the scale ranged from 0 or “does not want future 

training in any of the 13 itemized skills” to 13 or “would like future training in all 13 skills”; see Appendix 

2, survey page 12) differed by gender, whether or not respondents were in a decision-making position, the 

number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, their overall level of training, their overall skill level, or their experience with 

collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a negative binomial distribution and a log 

link function (n = 1,516). 

Resources for Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

We tested whether respondents rated their likelihood of using any of the 11 resources for 

collaboration and ADR (Appendix 2, survey page 14) along the 6-point likelihood scale (0 = “very 

unlikely,” 1 = “unlikely,” 2 = “somewhat unlikely,” 3 = “somewhat likely,” 4 = “likely,” 5 = “very 

likely”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n = 1,930) and ordered the resources from the 

most to the least likely using Friedman mean ranks. We tested whether any of the 11 resources for 

collaboration and ADR differed in the proportion of respondents that had been previously aware of them 

(1 = “yes,” 0 = “no”; Appendix 2, survey page 14) using a Cochran test (n = 1,923). 

We tested whether respondents’ general level of awareness of resources for collaboration and ADR 

(the scale ranged from 0 or “was not previously aware of any of the 11 resources listed” to 11 or “was 

already aware of all 11 resources listed”; see Appendix 2, survey page 14) differed by gender, whether or 

not they were in a decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty 

station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their overall level of training, 

their overall skill level, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a Poisson distribution and an identity link function (n = 1,580). 

We tested whether respondents’ overall likelihood of using available resources for collaboration 

and ADR (the scale ranged from 0 or “very unlikely” to use any of the 11 resources in the future to 55 or 

“very likely” to use all 11 resources in the future; see Appendix 2, survey page 14) differed by gender, 

whether or not respondents were in a decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for 

the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their general 

level of awareness of resources, their overall level of training, their overall skill level, or their experience 

with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a tweedie distribution and an 

identity link function (n = 1,180). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of facilitators (0 = “not useful,” 1 = “a 

little useful,” 2 = “somewhat useful,” 3 = “very useful,” 4 = “essential”; see Appendix 2, survey page 9) 

differed by their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, whether or 

not they had received training in facilitation of a meeting or working group (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 12), their skill level at facilitating a meeting or working group (0 = “no experience,” 2 = 

“beginner,” 3 = “intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see appendix 2, survey page 12), or their 

experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial 

distribution and a cumulative probit link function (n = 1,021). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the usefulness of feasibility assessments (0 = “not 

useful,” 1 = “a little useful,” 2 = “somewhat useful,” 3 = “very useful,” 4 = “essential”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 7) differed by their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they 

report, whether or not they had received training in feasibility assessments (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 12), their skill level at feasibility assessments (0 = “no experience,” 2 = “beginner,” 3 = 
141 

“intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see Appendix 2, survey page 12), or whether or not they had 

personally organized a feasibility assessment (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 6) . This was 

tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative complementary log-log link 

function (n = 187). 

We then tested whether respondents’ self-rating of their skill level at feasibility assessments (0 = 

“no experience,” 2 = “beginner,” 3 = “intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 12) differed by their gender, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty 

station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, whether or not they had received 

training in feasibility assessments (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 12), or their level of 

experience with feasibility assessments (“I was not previously aware of them,” “I know about feasibility 

assessments, but I have never been part of a collaboration in which one was used,” “I have been part of a 

collaboration in which a feasibility assessment was conducted,” “I have personally organized a feasibility 

assessment for a collaboration”; see Appendix 2, survey page 6) using a GZLM with a multinomial 

distribution and a cumulative cauchit link function (n = 1,593). 

We tested whether respondents rated their likelihood of using any of the 11 potential future 

resources for collaboration and ADR (see Appendix 2, survey page 16) along the 5-point priority level 

scale (0 = “very low,” 1 = “low,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “high,” 4 = “very high”) differently than the other

resources using a Friedman test (n = 1,973) and ordered the resources from the most to the least priority. 

This was tested using Friedman mean ranks. 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the BLM providing assistance 

finding and hiring facilitators in the future (0 = “very low,” 1 = “low,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “high,” 4 = 

“very high”; see Appendix 2, survey page 16) differed based on whether or not they were previously 

aware of facilitators and mediators for collaboration and ADR processes (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 14), they had received training in the facilitation of a meeting or working group (yes, no; 

appendix 2, survey page 12), their skill level at the facilitation of a meeting or working group (0 = “no 

experience,” 2 = “beginner,” 3 = “intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see Appendix 2, survey 

page 12), whether or not they had experience with a collaboration or ADR processes that used a facilitator 

(“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 8), or how likely they were to use a professional facilitator or 

mediator in the future (0 = “very unlikely,” 1 = “unlikely,” 2 = “somewhat unlikely,” 3 = “somewhat 

likely,” 4 = “likely,” 5 = “very likely”; see Appendix 2, survey page 14). This was tested using a GZLM 

with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 1,825). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the BLM providing future training 

in feasibility assessments (0 = “very low,” 1 = “low,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “high,” 4 = “very high”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 16) differed based on whether or not they had received training in feasibility 

assessments (“yes”; “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 12), their skill level at feasibility assessments (0 = 

“no experience,” 2 = “beginner,” 3 = “intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see Appendix 2, 

survey page 12), or their level of experience with feasibility assessments (“I was not previously aware of 

them,” “I know about feasibility assessments, but I have never been part of a collaboration in which one 

was used,” “I have been part of a collaboration in which a feasibility assessment was conducted,” “I have 

personally organized a feasibility assessment for a collaboration”; see Appendix 2, survey page 6) using a 

GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 1,716). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the priority level of the BLM providing future support 

for conducting feasibility assessments (0 = “very low,” 1 = “low,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “high,” 4 = “very 

high”; see Appendix 2, survey page 16) differed based on whether or not they had received training in 

feasibility assessments (1 = “yes,” 0 = “no”; see Appendix 2, survey page 12), their skill level at feasibility 

assessments (0 = “no experience,” 2 = “beginner,” 3 = “intermediate,” 4 = “advanced,” 5 = “expert”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 12), or their level of experience with feasibility assessments (“I was not 
142 

previously aware of them,” “I know about feasibility assessments, but I have never been part of a 

collaboration in which one was used,” “I have been part of a collaboration in which a feasibility 

assessment was conducted,” “I have personally organized a feasibility assessment for a collaboration”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 6). This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a 

cumulative logit link function (n = 1,688). 

Suitability of BLM Issue Areas for Collaboration

We tested whether respondents rated suitability of any of the 11 BLM issue areas for collaboration 

and ADR (see Appendix 2, survey page 20) along the 5-point suitability scale (0 = “unsuitable,” 1 = 

“somewhat unsuitable,” 2 = “neutral,” 3 = “somewhat suitable,” 4 = “suitable”) differently than the others 

using a Friedman test (n = 1,635) and ordered the issue areas from the most to the least suitable using 

Friedman mean ranks. 

We tested whether the respondents that worked in an issue area (see Appendix 2, survey page 2) 

rated the suitability of that same issue area (0 = “unsuitable,” 1 = “somewhat unsuitable,” 2 = “neutral,” 3 

= “somewhat suitable,” 4 = “suitable”; see Appendix 2, survey page 20) differently than the respondents 

that worked in other issue areas using Pearson chi-square tests.

Perceptions of Barriers to Collaboration

We tested whether respondents rated frequency of any of the 12 situational barriers to 

collaboration (see Appendix 2, survey page 18) along the 5-point frequency scale (0 = “never,” 1 =

“seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 4 = “always”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n 

= 987) and ordered the barriers from the most to the least frequent using Friedman mean ranks. We also 

tested whether respondents rated magnitude of effect of any of the 12 situational barriers to collaboration 

(see Appendix 2, survey page 18) along the 4-point effect scale (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 

3 = “major”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n = 751) and ordered the barriers from the 

most to the least effect using Friedman mean ranks. 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of situational barriers to 

collaboration differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of 

years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to 

which they report, their overall skill level, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was 

tested using a GZLM with a Poisson distribution and a log link function (n = 790). The scale ranged from 

0 or situational barriers are “never” encountered to 48 or all 12 situational barriers are “always” 

encountered during collaborations; see Appendix 2, survey page 18. 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of situational barriers to 

collaboration (scale ranged from 0 or all 12 situational barriers are of “zero” effect because they never 

occur to 36 or all 12 situational barriers are “major” barriers to collaboration when they do occur; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 18) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, 

the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, their overall skill level, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or 

how they rated the overall frequency of situational barriers. This was tested using a GZLM with a 

multinomial distribution and a cumulative probit link function (n = 618). 

We tested whether respondents rated frequency of any of the 12 organizational barriers to 

collaboration (see Appendix 2, survey page 19) along the 5-point frequency scale (0 = “never,” 1 = 

“seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 4 = “always”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n 

= 987) and ordered the barriers from the most to the least frequent using Friedman mean ranks. We also 
143 

tested whether respondents rated magnitude of effect of any of the 12 situational barriers to collaboration 

(see Appendix 2, survey page 19) along the 4-point effect scale (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 

3 = “major”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n = 610) and ordered the barriers from the 

most to the least effect using Friedman mean ranks. 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of travel ceilings as a barrier to 

collaboration (0 = “never,” 1 = “seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 4 = “always”; see appendix 2, 

survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of 

years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to 

which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM 

with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative probit link function (n = 1,773). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of travel ceilings as a 

barrier to collaboration (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “major”; see appendix 2, survey 

page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of years 

they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they 

report, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or how they rated the frequency of travel ceilings 

as a barrier to collaboration. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a 

cumulative cauchit link function (n = 1,773). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of “other BLM duties take priority 

over collaboration” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “never,” 1 = “seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 

4 = “always”; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. 

This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 

1,796). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of “other BLM duties 

take priority over collaboration” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = 

“major”; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or 

how they rated the frequency of “other BLM duties take priority over collaboration” as a barrier to 

collaboration. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a complementary loglog link function (n = 1,796). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of “field personnel lack authority 

to conduct collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “never,” 1 = “seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = 

“often,” 4 = “always”; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a 

decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the 

BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or)

ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative probit link 

function (n = 1,530). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of “field personnel lack 

authority to conduct collaborations” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 

3 = “major”; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or 

how they rated the frequency of “field personnel lack authority to conduct collaborations” as a barrier to 

collaboration. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative cauchit 

link function (n = 1,530). 
144 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of “lack of support in the BLM” 

as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “never,” 1 = “seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 4 = “always”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, 

the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 1,689). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of “lack of support in the 

BLM” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “major”; see Appendix 

2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number 

of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to 

which they report, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or how they rated the frequency of 

“lack of support in the BLM” as a barrier to collaboration. This was tested using a GZLM with a 

multinomial distribution and a cumulative cauchit link function (n = 1,689). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of “lack of support from your 

supervisor” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “never,” 1 = “seldom,” 2 = “sometimes,” 3 = “often,” 4 = 

“always”; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. 

This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative logit link function (n = 

1,806). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of “lack of support from 

your supervisor” as a barrier to collaboration (0 = “zero,” 1 = “minor,” 2 = “moderate,” 3 = “major”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, 

the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, or how they rated the 

frequency of “lack of support from your supervisor” as a barrier to collaboration. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative cauchit link function (n = 1,806). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall frequency of organizational barriers to 

collaboration (scale ranged from 0 or organizational barriers are “never” encountered to 48 or all 12 

organizational barriers are “always” encountered during collaborations; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) 

differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of years they had 

worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, 

their overall skill level, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a tweedie distribution and a log link function (n = 771). 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the overall magnitude of effect of organizational 

barriers to collaboration (scale ranged from 0 or all 12 organizational barriers are of zero effect because 

they never occur to 36 or all 12 organizational barriers are major barriers to collaboration when they do 

occur; see Appendix 2, survey page 19) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making 

position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office

or BLM Center to which they report, their overall skill level, their experience with collaboration and(or)

ADR, or how they rated the overall frequency of organizational barriers. This was tested using a GZLM 

with a Poisson distribution and a log link function (n = 492). 

We tested whether field personnel rated the level of support for collaboration in their field office, 

different than in their BLM State Office or different than the Washington D.C. office (see Appendix 2, 

survey page 17) along the 6-point frequency scale (0 = “non-existent,” 1 = “very low,” 2 = “low,” 3 = 

“moderate,” 4 = “high,” 5 = “very high”) using a Friedman test (n = 702). We also tested whether the 

rating that field personnel gave to their field office was correlated with the rating they gave their BLM 
145 

State Office, whether the rating they gave their field office was correlated with the rating they gave the 

Washington D.C. office, and whether the rating they gave their BLM State Office was correlated with the 

rating they gave the Washington D.C. office using Spearman correlation tests.

We tested whether field personnel’s ratings of the level of support for collaboration in their field 

office (0 = “non-existent,” 1 = “very low,” 2 = “low,” 3 = “moderate,” 4 = “high,” 5 = “very high”; see 

Appendix 2, survey page 17) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making position, 

the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM 

Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a 

GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative probit link function (n = 1,005). 

We tested whether field personnel’s ratings of the level of support for collaboration in their BLM 

State Office (0 = “non-existent,” 1 = “very low,” 2 = “low,” 3 = “moderate,” 4 = “high,” 5 = “very high”; 

see appendix 2, survey page 17) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decision-making 

position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office

or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR using a GZLM 

with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative negative log-log link function (n = 719). 

We tested whether field personnel’s ratings of the level of support for collaboration in the 

Washington D.C. office (0 = “non-existent,” 1 = “very low,” 2 = “low,” 3 = “moderate,” 4 = “high,” 5 = 

“very high”; see appendix 2, survey page 17) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR 

using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a cumulative cauchit link function (n = 613). 

Perceptions about How Collaboration Affects Outcomes

We tested whether respondents rated how any of the 13 social and political outcomes to 

collaboration (modified from Appendix 2, survey page 21) along the 5-point effect scale (–2 = “greatly 

worsens,” –1 = “somewhat worsens,” 0 = “no difference,” 1 = “somewhat improves,” 2 = “greatly 

improves”) differently than the others using a Friedman test (n = 1,537) and ordered the outcomes’ ratings 

using Friedman mean ranks. 

The original scale for respondents’ general attitude towards collaboration (modified from 

Appendix 2, survey page 21) that ranged from –26 or collaboration “greatly worsens” all 13 outcomes to 

26 or collaboration “greatly improves” all 13 outcomes was shifted by adding 26 to each scale value so 

that the range distribution was greater than or equal to 0 (the new scale ranged from 0 = “greatly worsens” 

all 13 outcomes to 52 = “greatly improved” all 13 outcomes) in order to fit non-normal distributions in the 

GZLM. We then tested whether respondents’ general attitudes toward collaboration differed by gender, 

whether or not they were in a decision-making position, the number of years they had worked for the 

BLM, their duty station level, the BLM State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their overall 

level of training, their overall skill level, or their experience with collaboration and(or) ADR, their rating 

of the overall frequency of situational barriers, or their rating of the overall frequency of organizational 

barriers. This was tested using a GZLM with a Poisson distribution and an identity link function (n = 436).

We also tested whether the rating that respondents gave to how collaboration affects short-term 

costs (0 = “eliminates or greatly reduces,” 1 = “somewhat reduces,” 2 = “no difference,” 3 = “somewhat 

increases,” 4 = “greatly increases”; see Appendix 2, survey page 21) were correlated with the rating they

gave to how collaboration affects long-term costs (0 = “eliminates or greatly reduces,” 1 = “somewhat 

reduces,” 2 = “no difference,” 3 = “somewhat increases,” 4 = “greatly increases”; see Appendix 2, survey 

page 21) . This was tested using a Spearman correlation test. 
146 

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the short-term costs of collaboration (0 = “eliminates or 

greatly reduces,” 1 = “somewhat reduces,” 2 = “no difference,” 3 = “somewhat increases,” 4 = “greatly 

increases”; see Appendix 2, survey page 21) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their overall skill level, their experience with 

collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a 

cumulative negative log-log link function (n = 1,439).

We tested whether respondents’ ratings of the long-term costs of collaboration (0 = “eliminates or 

greatly reduces,” 1 = “somewhat reduces,” 2 = “no difference,” 3 = “somewhat increases,” 4 = “greatly 

increases”; see Appendix 2, survey page 21) differed by gender, whether or not they were in a decisionmaking position, the number of years they had worked for the BLM, their duty station level, the BLM 

State Office or BLM Center to which they report, their overall skill level, their experience with 

collaboration and(or) ADR. This was tested using a GZLM with a multinomial distribution and a 

cumulative probit link function (n = 1,418).