United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-627

January 2005

Developing an Agenda

to Guide Forest Social

Science, Economics,

and Utilization Research

Richard W. Haynes
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the

principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained

yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the

National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

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

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

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

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th

 and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

USDA is committed to making the information materials accessible to all USDA

customers and employees

Author

Richard W. Haynes is a research forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box

3890, Portland, OR 97208.
Abstract

Haynes, Richard W. 2005. Developing an agenda to guide forest social science,

economics, and utilization research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-627. Portland,

 OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

 Station. 53 p.

The USDA Forest Service has had a longstanding presence in utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities. The magnitude and

diversity of these activities have changed as the questions and the people asking

them have changed over the past century. These changes challenge the social

science and utilization research community to develop this collective research

agenda for utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development

activities conducted by the Forest Service. It sets the context for the utilization,

economics, and social sciences research and development activities in the Forest

Service. It deals with the need to balance knowledge creation with the constantly

changing demand for information that guides various land management decisions

and shapes policymaker perceptions in various environmental debates. The research agenda is built around six common themes that will help us create a larger

pool of experience from which we can form judgments relative to outcomes and

develop tools that can be used to solve a variety of problems. It assumes that the

worth of utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development

activities will be judged by our ability to create lasting solutions that alter outcomes. Finally, creating and implementing such a research agenda depends on

leaders who can advocate for problem selection that recognizes the full integrated

nature of contemporary questions, who can synchronize research oriented toward

major questions with knowledge creation, and who can serve as defenders of social

science research against ideological attacks by emphasizing the true nature of

questions and the importance of taking integrative approaches.

Keywords: Research direction, program formulation, research leadership.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Changing Land Management Paradigms

4 Emergent Issues

6 Developing a Programmatic View

7 Knowledge Discovery and Development

8 Contemporary Questions

12 The Delivery of Science to Managers–the Concept of “Tools”

13 Some Principles to Guide Implementation

13 Leadership

14 Working to Reduce Barriers

16 Lack of Experts and Skills to Do Synthesis

17 More Effective Use of Alliances

18 Strengthening the Case for Social Sciences

19 Strengthening the Case for an Integrative Approach for Utilization

Research

20 Developing a Vision

21 Literature Cited

24 Appendix 1: How We Approach Research

31 Appendix 2: Typology of Research Areas

35 Appendix 3: Research Integration at Pacific Northwest Research

Station

42 Appendix 4: Resolving Complex and Controversial Forest

Management Issues: The Critical Role of Social Science Research
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

1

Introduction

Utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities

have had longstanding presence among most forestry research organizations. In the

USDA Forest Service, this research community is made up of a disparate array of

research activities at the Forest Products Laboratory (Madison, Wisconsin) and

individual units at the various research stations. A majority of the actual units

(projects) are relatively small (two or three scientists) with a strong focus on

regional and local issues. At universities, the social sciences (especially economics) are usually represented in the forest resources or management department,

although a few universities have separate forest product departments. However,

much of the economics and social science related to forest and resource management occurs in different departments such as agriculture and resource economics,

rural sociology, etc.

The magnitude and diversity of research topics have changed as the questions

and the people asking them have changed over the past century. The importance

of many of the traditional questions (efficient forest utilization and management,

specification of social and economic impacts associated with forest management

decisions) in terms of their ability to generate funding for research has declined.

At the same time, the growing complexity of multiscale forest management questions brings new focus to the traditional questions as well as those focusing on

the interactions within and among economic, social, and environmental systems.

Both aspects pose new challenges for the social science and utilization research

communities.

The changing nature of questions increases the challenge of describing a

collective research agenda for utilization, economics, and social sciences research

and development activities conducted by the Forest Service. There are a number

of issues to consider. First is a group of questions about the content of our future

program. Second, is a group of questions about the changing nature of how we

accomplish our program of work. Included among these questions is the role for

integrated research. Third, resolution of some general organizational issues might

enhance greater success. Finally, there are questions about our role and responsibility as advocates for scientists’ various contributions.

The resulting research agenda lays out a context for the utilization, economics,

and social sciences research and development activities in the Forest Service. It

also includes a discussion of how to organize various research and development

activities to achieve greater significance. Much of the discussion reflects my

experience at leading the only Forest Service Research unit (at the Pacific Northwest Research Station) that integrates long-standing programs of social science,

The magnitude and

diversity of research

topics have changed

as the questions and

the people asking

them have changed

over the past century.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

2

economics, and utilization research. These programs have evolved both topically

and organizationally in the context of the science policy issues of the Northwest.

This work was originally requested by the then-incoming Director of Resource

Valuation and Use Research (RVUR) staff who has responsibility for overseeing all

Forest Service utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities. This research agenda deals with the need to balance knowledge

creation with the constantly changing demands for information to guide various

land management decisions and to shape policymaker perceptions in various

environmental debates. As in any scientific endeavor, the challenge is how to

manage for a set of outcomes that combine artistic and creative talents with technical expertise. The development of this research agenda starts by describing the

context and then turns to some of the forces shaping the agenda. It includes four

appendixes providing indepth discussions, including two that provide contextual

material.

Context

This section briefly reviews two important contextual components: utilization,

economics, and social science information needed to support land management

decisions, and emergent issues.

Underlying discussion of these components is the assumption that research is a

form of information. In the science community, there is a tendency to argue about

the typology of research and to assert higher values for basic research or knowledge discovery. In the development of this research agenda, I assume that there is a

need for all types of research. (Appendix 1 contains a discussion of two important

aspects of research common among USDA Forest Service researchers: the use of

teams and the general science process.) Our publics expect that our results reflect a

well-developed understanding of underlying processes, functions, and technologies

and also answer the questions at hand. For some questions, our publics expect that

we make special efforts to ensure the diffusion of information into the hands of

those who will ultimately use and benefit from it. This is especially the case with

many of the technology and utilization questions as well as market and land management planning questions. Recently there are requests for more metaanalysis and

synthesis products given the recognition that many of the questions facing us have

separable parts that have been studied independently and the necessary answers are

a composite of these parts.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

3

Changing Land Management Paradigms

The widespread controversy over different views about the goals for forest management and the relative importance of these views frames many of the questions

facing our research community. Being systematic about these controversies will

compel more attention to the development of planning frameworks, more diligence

in development and application efforts that place our work in the context of those

planning frameworks, research on the development and role of indicator variables

for assessing status and trends, and research to develop measures of different

outcomes associated with the various goals.

For the most part, there is general acknowledgment of the shifting paradigms

for land management and the power of those paradigms for setting our research

agenda. For example, we often see reference to one or another of five sets of

management paradigms, each differentiated by sets of goals, management actions,

and expected outcomes that provide competing (and complementary) sets of

research questions. (1) There is the cut-and-accept-what-grows-back approach to

forestry. Many of the forests we manage today are a legacy of this approach to

management. Under some circumstances, this is one approach to sustainable management given unique sets of economic and social conditions. (2) There is the

original Pinchot forest management goal of managing forest for the greatest good

for the greatest number. This included notions of sustained yield resting on improved utilization and productivity of forests to meet the needs of a growing

population including local social and economic needs. (3) Following World War II,

there was a growing interest in broadening forest management to recognize the

multiple benefits produced by forests. This led to changes in management direction

for public timberlands (MUSYE 1960) and has influenced notions of the role of

private timberlands for nonmarket and public goods. (4) The fourth management

paradigm reflects attempts to manage ecosystems across broader landscapes. Here

the emphasis is the relative relation of actions at one place or stand on conditions

both there and across hierarchically linked sets of places, stands, and landscapes.

During the 1990s, there were several attempts to apply ecosystem management

across relatively broad landscapes often built around habitat conservation strategies. (5) Lastly, there is the globally motivated interest in sustainable forest management that in the United States means the application of the Montreal Process

(Montreal Process Working Group 1998) to assessing progress.

As management paradigms have shifted, so have the related science questions

and the role of science in providing information for the decisionmaking process.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

4

This information helps clarify feasible boundaries, options within the boundaries,

consequences of those options, and tradeoffs between options. Choosing among

options is the domain of the decisionmaker—not the scientist—but the information

helps decisionmakers understand the relative risks involved in alternatives so that

they can develop reasonable methods to manage risks at biologically and socially

acceptable levels. In this way, current scientific understanding of forests, grasslands, and related ecosystems influences management policies. Fundamental to this

issue is the recognition that the management of natural and human processes is

based on imperfect knowledge. The challenge for resource managers is to attempt

to balance biological science with social science and with the philosophical views

of how society values renewable and nonrenewable natural resources.

Emergent Issues

How humans interact (and react) to natural resources poses a number of social

science and utilization issues unrelated to specific land management concerns.

Over the years, these have included various concerns about economic efficiency

and equity and improved efficiency of wood utilization (often also including

financial considerations). In the past three decades, these have been expanded to

include understanding public demands for a broader set of goods and services as

well as understanding how different stakeholder groups form, interact with land

managers, and advocate treatment of places special to them.

In addition to the evolution of these topics, we are seeing the evolution of

concerns about the relations between the environment and society. During the past

decade (1990s to 2003), these were often seen in stark black-and-white terms. One

group views technological development and economic growth as being antithetical

to environmental preservation, whereas other groups see continued economic

development as offering the best option for escaping from the world’s ecological

crisis. Such views, and their expression in U.S. democratic and legal processes,

provide some of the context for establishing a research agenda. Other parts of the

context are tied to converging developments in forest products and processing;

forest science and management; and to trends in society, technology, and politics.

Public perceptions, public debate, and public policy are shaped by observations of

unintended—and perhaps irreversible—human impacts on the global environment.

Contemporary forestry issues such as the preservation of endangered species (for

example, the spotted owl), management and use of old-growth or small-diametertree forests, and riparian management challenge the fundamental premises of forest

management, the scale at which policies are formulated and implemented, and the

methods used to accomplish objectives. Recent science results have demonstrated
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

5

that living systems are complex: apparently independent parts are connected, and

even simple actions have consequences that may spread, endure, and accumulate

(FEMAT 1993).

There is a long history of economics, utilization, and social science research,

both at universities and various research stations, but persistent and important

questions remain. Answering these questions is complicated by differences among

scientists trained in social, physical, and biological sciences and the various

disciplines within the social sciences. By broadening the focus of forest management research to include an array of products and values, RVUR researchers can

raise questions about how management regimes might affect tree and wood characteristics, how new products might take advantage of these characteristics and,

ultimately, the potential of forests to provide the broad array of goods and services

desired by society in perpetuity.

Science is playing a more substantial role in the evolving conservation debate

that focuses on the relation between socioeconomic and environmental conditions.

The integrated nature of the debate combines various disciplines from the natural

sciences as well as from the social science community. The intent of the debate is

to provide tangible, concise, practical information to managers, decisionmakers,

and the public about the likely outcomes and the determinants of and dimensions

of land use changes, the foreseeable economic and social consequences at different

time scales, and the possible courses of action.

There are also issues surrounding the natural resource decisionmaking process.

Currently, these issues are often complex, varied, and debated frequently and

contentiously by various publics. The complexity of the issues poses new challenges for scientists who are being asked to actively engage in this debate. Questions arise about what is credible scientific information and how such information

is used in often emotionally or politically laden natural resource management

decisions. One result has been an uncomfortable partnership among scientists and

natural resource managers. Scientists are being asked to frame their research in a

way that maintains scientific independence yet is responsive to management

questions, at scales that often challenge existing scientific knowledge and under

severe time constraints. Resource decisionmakers are challenged to clarify their

management goals, to fully understand and use the science, and to explicitly

identify the level of acceptable risk. When properly generated, presented, and

accountably used, science facilitates discussion among competing interests by

helping define the range of available options and by focusing discussions on

consequences of social choice. By expanding and revealing the range of possible
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

6

outcomes, scientists increase the likelihood that management decisions are understood and that those decisions can endure.

Finally, several legal mandates guide our research program (NFMA [1976],

RPA [1974], RRRPA [1978]), which strives to improve understanding of natural

resource allocation at the local, regional, and national levels. In the context of the

requirements of these legal mandates, there are several notable science gaps that

include valuation of noncommodity goods, definition and estimation of social and

cultural values, and behavioral explanations of both land management and final

harvest decisions (especially on private timberlands).

Developing a Programmatic View

Key in discussing utilization, economics, and social science programmatic issues

is to acknowledge the three forces that influence the Forest Service Research (FSR)

agenda. One force consists of the traditional research functions of knowledge

discovery and development. In this case, knowledge discovery is the creation of

new information while knowledge development is a creative process for involving

the continuous exploration of scientific knowledge. Much of this is driven by the

intellectual curiosity of individual scientists and is often bounded by disciplinary

and unit problem area assignments. Some scientists will argue that creation of

knowledge is its own justification even if it may not have an immediate application. Some of these same scientists have a strong commitment to development that

translates research results into viable products. The second force is the constantly

changing array of questions and issues that compete for our attention. There is

confusion at the research unit level about whose sets of questions are most compelling and also among the various signals for research activities. Changes in Station

administration and strategic direction add to this confusion. The third force is more

subtle and is a composite of the various broad changes within the science communities in which each unit conducts its science. Each of those communities is

influenced by methodological developments, changes in academic training and

colleagues, and changes in what are seen as important and acceptable solutions.1

Figure 1 illustrates the challenge of how to synchronize knowledge creation

(both discovery and development) with addressing the questions raised both within

the Forest Service and by the society that funds our research agenda. It illustrates

1

 Some see this as a lack of objectivity in the science community. It is important that

scientists are embedded in various disciplinary cultures and their conditioning greatly

influences their practices.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

7

that there does not need to be an exact correspondence between the science program and contemporary questions. Emerging science discovery and development

along with contemporary questions seeking science-based information interact

simultaneously to develop the research agenda. Addressing this challenge is a

function of research leadership–both formal and informal as discussed in appendix

1 in the context of the role of teams. It is also a function of how we merge knowledge creation with being accountable for delivering information that is decisive and

solves problems to land managers and owners and to society. As a science organization, we need to provide information for findings and judgments defendable as

being based on the best available science.

Knowledge Discovery and Development

In the context of figure 1, what is a reasonable description of the knowledge

creation aspect of the research agenda that integrates utilization, economics, and

social sciences research and development activities? Appendix 2 illustrates such a

program of work. It was developed from the charter2

 for the Human and Natural

2

 Charters are used at the PNW Station instead of Research Work Unit Descriptions

(RWUD) used at other stations. Both of these documents identify broad problem areas that

include both research and development activities and identify problems that will guide

activities for the next decade.

Figure 1—The relation between knowledge creation and contemporary questions. Emerging science

discovery and

development along

with contemporary

questions seeking

science-based

information interact

simultaneously to

develop the research

agenda.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

8

Resources Interactions Program, which has problems assigned to it that integrate

utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities.

Briefly, both the changing management paradigms and emerging issues suggest

six broad problems that define the science program for utilization, economics, and

social sciences research and development activities. The first is the need for understanding market processes at multiple scales. Market processes provide a powerful framework for policy studies and for understanding how processes work in the

forest sector. The second problem area is economics of land management. This is

a broad problem area that includes the economics of selected management regimes,

links between land management and rural communities, the integration of economic and ecological values in decision processes, and the supply and demand for

natural resource commodities, amenities, and other values. The third problem area

concerns the institutions for natural resource management. This problem area is

interpreted broadly and includes linkages to the first problem area where markets

are seen as one type of institution. The fourth problem area deals with the community and natural resource interactions at multiple scales. The fifth problem area

deals with development, refinement, and diffusion of forest products and

processing technologies. This problem area includes building on the twin accomplishments of a long record of advances in understanding wood properties as well

as demonstrated practical accomplishments that provide problem solutions from

seemingly unrelated discoveries. The sixth problem area covers characterization

of forest resources and evaluating their uses. This problem area links to issues

associated with timber supply and demand, rural development, and ecosystem

management. Each of these problems deals with the interface of science and policy.

Several include the development of rigorous methods and tools for quantitative

policy analysis.

Implicit in these problems is a deep commitment to considering the integrated

aspects of the questions being considered and connections among various functions

and processes being studied.

Contemporary Questions

The other basis for the research agenda as shown in figure 1 is the contemporary

questions that are challenging our research community. These questions all involve some aspect of science-based information but require different degrees of
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

9

research (knowledge discovery), development, and application. These questions are

derived from societal needs, the land management community, and statements like

the Forest Service strategic goals.3

These contemporary questions share a number of common attributes that differ

from those arising within the science community. Foremost, these questions are

typically more integrated in that they combine diverse types of information, time

scales, and multiple spatial extants. The various challenges posed by integrated

research are examined in more detail in appendix 3. Key to being successful in

structuring research to answer these questions is resisting the natural tendency

among scientists to reduce the scope and complexity of research problems. To a

large extent, success will depend on our ability to answer them at the spatial scale

implied (or stated) in the original question. This will depend on our ability to use

metaanalyses, use nonexperimental approaches, and develop expert judgments that

support more synthetic outputs appropriate to higher spatial scales.

The following sets of questions were developed in early 2004. They are based

on the issues RUVR scientists are addressing or issues discussed as being appropriate for research help. The intent of the questions is to illustrate the diversity of

questions challenging the research community. The order in which they are discussed does not reflect any particular priority.

Fire—Questions that emerge from the recent emphasis on fire:

• How do we develop hazardous fuel reduction strategies that integrate new

technologies, market developments, and land/supply management issues?

• What are the implications of the emerging fire industry (based on both

suppression and management activities) in rural communities? Is it being

structured in a way that provides reliable, sustainable, family wage jobs? How

can we structure fire-related jobs so that they meet the needs of rural communities? What is the nature of these jobs, and what expectations accompany

them as far as the community is concerned? Are we creating a new kind of

dependency?

• What are the opportunities for cost containment, especially on large fires?

Public expectations for goods and services from timberlands:

• What should be the role of public lands in supplying goods and sevices?

• How do we define the goods and services, and how do we anticipate

tomorrow’s demands?

3

 These latter goals relate to fire, invasive species, recreation, energy, and watershed

condition. Their near-term significance includes utilization, economics, and social science

contributions to budget planning and the opportunity to make incremental programmatic

changes.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

10

• How can we help where public expectations for recreation activities (like offhighway vehicles) seem to conflict with land managers’ perceptions about

what is best?

• How can we value environmental services including developing frameworks

(accounting stances), valuation issues, and defining and measuring outputs?

Benefits/costs (B/C) of our efforts to rehabilitate damaged lands:

• How do we demonstrate the B/C of active forest management of critical forest

resources?

• How do we measure the social acceptability and the B/C of strategies to deal

with invasive species?

• How do we gauge different public expectations about what are invasive

species and desired nonnative species?

Public expectations:

• How do we measure the weight of various publics (how do we measure the

power associated with different types of publics)?

• How can we expand our ability to state the impacts of forest management

across traditionally underrepresented societal groups?

• Who should be managing public lands and what role should local communities

play? This question emerges in various guises (e.g., charter forests), and in the

Pacific Northwest right now one way it is emerging is in the form of tribes

asking for public land to be returned to them so that it becomes tribal land.

Social and economic consequences of our land management actions:

• How can our land management actions make positive contributions to rural

economies?

• How can our operations and land management actions help improve

community capacity?

• What is the role of partnerships for stewardship activities? How can Forest

Service and community capacities be improved to engage in partnerships for

joint forest stewardship activities? What kinds of institutional arrangements

can best enhance these? How can we foster them? What are their real

contributions? Is this a viable way of getting forest management work done?

Effects of changes in the rural/urban split in the U.S. population on land

management:

• How has increasing urbanization affected goals for land management?

• What are urban demands for natural resource goods and services?

• How has social acceptability of land management practices changed?

• What are different perceptions of the wildland/urban interface?

• What is the role of urban forest resources to meet the various needs of urban

populations?
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

11

Understanding international issues as global context for national issues:

• How do changes in trade opportunities affect forest resources and markets?

• How do global issues affect wood utilization opportunities?

Broad-scale (sometimes international) discussions about societal objectives for the

environment:

• How do we contribute in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sense

where land is one of four components of the environment?

• How do we contribute to the sense of developing a “national forestry

program” for implementing sustainable forest management?

Support to Forest Service National Forest Systems (NFS) land management

planning:

• How can NFS planners develop a sense of demand for different goods and

services?

• What management strategies are sensitive to and help sustain cultural

traditions and diversity?

Planning and conducting research about the relation between the economy and the

environment, with particular focus on developing a better understanding of the

links between natural resource management, environmental attributes, and economic growth:

• How can forest managers and communities best partner to develop recreation/

tourism management approaches that provide social benefits to rural

communities? How do we minimize negative social impacts on communities

and provide benefits to them in relation to economic, political, and social

justice concerns?

Estimating the benefits associated with both market and nonmarket forest goods

and services observed both at a point in time and over extended (often decades)

periods:

• How do we develop and test frameworks for assessing the aggregate set of

values for the full suite of goods and services resulting from forest

management?

• What are the determinants of amenity-based migration and how does

migration affect economic well-being?

• How do we estimate benefits associated with specific forest management

actions such as hazardous fuel reduction strategies?

• What are useful frameworks for examining tradeoffs among multiple forest

values, in the context of social preferences for various forest goods and

services?
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

12

Providing leadership and developing frameworks for valuing goods and services

produced from managed stands:

• How do we combine timber production models and the effect of management

decisions into decision models that consider both wood quality and value?

• How do we use these decision models (combining management/silviculture

and wood quality models) in the development and evaluation of forest

management and utilization approaches undertaken as part of hazardous-fuel

treatments?

• How do we expand research on joint production of resources like timber or

range and nontimber forest products?

The Delivery of Science to Managers–The Concept of “Tools”

The delivery of science products takes many forms. The traditional forms of

publications written for both scholarly and lay audiences play a predominant role

in terms of assuring creditable science and communication among scholarly and

technical audiences. Interactions with the public and managers through workshops,

small groups, and one-on-one consultation play an increasingly important role in

development activities. Recently, however, much of the work at the science management interface has included a strong focus on developing tools useful to managers. This has especially been the case in the fire community where research outputs

are denominated in descriptions of tools placed in managers’ hands. This continues

a trend started a decade ago when Forest Service Research managers stated that

accomplishments should only be counted when activities were implemented by

managers on the ground.

This raises questions about the definition of tools. Very often we look upon

tools as substantive, physical devices that have the essential property of providing

assistance or support for accomplishing a particular task. In the modern idiom of

technology and science-based management, tools often take the form of software or

other computer-based applications. “Decision support,” for example, very often

means computer programs that provide one or more functions such as information

integration, problem structuring, analysis, and document formatting.

Such a definition of tools is too restrictive and, indeed, may do a disservice to

both research and field operations by limiting the range of opportunities for mutual

and constructive interaction. The concept of “tools” can be painted with a broader

brush to include not only computer software, but also other forms of checklists,

inventories, guidelines, and templates based on research and that can serve the

needs of fire management. If the concept of tools is extended to include “means”

of various types to achieve one or more “ends,” then we can identify field-related

outputs of research such as consultations, workshops, seminars, and other forms
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

13

of training and education as forms of “tools” to support fire or other management

operations.

Some Principles to Guide Implementation

There are some principles to guide how to implement this research agenda given

the spatially and topically diffuse set of utilization, economics, and social sciences

research and development activities. For the most part, these are general principles

and could be applied to RUVR or broader research organizations. The first issue is

the development of a vision statement that incorporates aspects of this research

agenda and that is supported by those responsible for implementing it. Other issues

include being more deliberate about the role and importance of leadership, trying

to deal more specifically with barriers to implementation, stressing the importance

of improved alliances, and strengthening the case for social sciences.

Leadership

First, a vision statement needs to be developed by leadership. Once that is completed, then the twin issues can be considered of how to fit the vision into leadership of utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development

activities and at the same time apply it at the unit level. Within the Forest Service,

the Director of RVUR can advocate for the need to synchronize research oriented

toward major questions with knowledge discovery. The Director can advocate for

balanced programs, set reasonable expectations, and encourage unit leaders to

meld that approach into their program of work.

Visioning is only one of several components of effective leadership (Senior

Executive Service competencies cite these as leading change, leading people,

results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions). The Director of RVUR

can advocate that more deliberate efforts be made to select and train effective

project leaders. These are key positions in fulfilling the vision for utilization,

economics, and social sciences research and development activities. Unit organization can also be improved to enhance effective leadership. One way to do this is to

combine smaller units into larger units that would share a common Research Work

Unit Description (RWUD) and reduce administrative costs for project leaders

duties.4

 Stations could accommodate geographically dispersed units by relying on

team leaders who report to a project leader or program manager. These teams could

4 

Surveying the economics project leaders reveals that on average being a project leader

requires 0.5 full time equivalent (FTE) employee. That is, each project leader reduces the

effective scientific workforce by 0.5 scientists. For example, a Station with three economic

and social science projects could gain the accomplishments of an additional scientist by

merging the three projects.

The Director of RVUR

can advocate for the

need to synchronize

research oriented

toward major questions with knowledge

discovery.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

14

be geographic, subdiscipline, or problem specific. In the program manager/team

leader environment of the Pacific Northwest Research Station, team leaders spend

10 to 25 percent of their time (depending on team size) and the program manager

spends 60 percent of his or her time on administrative duties.

Working to Reduce Barriers

There are a number of barriers to achieving this agenda for utilization, economics,

and social sciences research and development activities. Among these are recognizing capacity limitations in land management agencies, functional thinking of

Washington office (WO) staffs, preoccupation of managers with tools, and lack

of recognized experts and skills to do synthesis.

Diminished capacity—

The diminishing capacity in NFS to use and interpret economics and social science

information is a challenge to scientists and may force us to consider different ways

to present our work in terms that are relevant. Equally challenging is the loss of

land managers who consider themselves generalists in a technical sense (see

Kennedy et al., in press). One consequence has been the decline in looking at the

integrated aspects of questions and a greater reliance on using frameworks to

combine disparate types of information. Often the use of various frameworks

allows many of the participants to engage only those parts of the questions of

interest to them and to ignore the harder (or more complex) issues of integration.

This is especially acute as we enter this next round of planning. In the first

round, interdisciplinary planning teams often included individuals trained in

economics or operations research (a smaller number had individuals trained in the

social sciences). Many of these team members acted both as an advocate for considering social and economic aspects of the land management questions as well as

a conduit for information and technology transfer from the science to management

community. In this round of planning, few of these individuals are in place, and

rather than an interdisciplinary approach, a planning process is being used that

assembles plans from existing components. For our science products to be used,

they will need to be in the form of the required components and available when

needed.

One consequence of the diminished technical capacity in the land management

agencies is the increasing use of scientists as coaches and advisors in developing

and interpreting information. This creates additional concerns for both sides. The

need of scientists for separation from management decisions to maintain integrity
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

15

and credibility in the research community can create a tension between the scientists and managers who need immediate answers and interpretations for day-to-day

decisions.5

 Another concern is the availability of scientists to provide advice, given

their need to continue doing research. A need strongly felt in the management

community is for more interactions with scientists rather than fewer.

Washington Office functional thinking—

Another barrier is the influence that functional thinking in the WO has on research

agendas through various funding allocations and other budget structures. Here the

Director of RVUR can provide an example by promoting the integrative nature

of the questions compelling utilization, economics, and social sciences research

and development activities. By being an ardent advocate for carefully considering

the integrative nature of questions, he or she can accomplish much to overcome

this influence.

The preoccupation with tools—

There is a current preoccupation with developing tools that can be placed directly

into the hands of eventual users. This challenges researchers not only in the context of their work but also in the form that it is delivered to the users. There are two

types of tools considered: first there are those designed to help managers do their

own data gathering and analysis. Second, there are tools developed by placing our

research results in a usable format so that they can be used directly in decisionmaking. The former (tools managers use themselves) is dependent on the ability of

people in NFS and other land management agencies/organizations to gather and

analyze data. For example, NFS is developing some tools to assist in doing the

social component of roads analysis and watershed analysis, training modules for

conducting social impact analysis, environmental justice/civil rights analysis, etc.

In these cases, researchers can contribute as part of a collaborative process with

NFS analysts. But leadership and funding for these development projects need to

come from NFS so that the resulting projects are useful tools for managers. But the

lack of economists and social scientists at the regional level will limit the success

of these efforts. Expanding the analytical capacity in NFS would help remove this

barrier.

5

 One area of concern that can emerge when managers and scientists collaborate is the

confusion over different ways in which they validate information. The peer-review process,

often anonymous, is used in the science community as the benchmark for validating

scientific inferences. The process focuses on plausibility of the assumptions, methods, and

data behind a particular finding, whether or not the finding itself is accepted. Peer review is

considered an assurance of the quality of the information. With management decisions,

interdisciplinary teams and consensus processes may be used to reach a conclusion.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

16

Lack of Experts and Skills to Do Synthesis

The nature of research questions (derived from the needs to support management

actions and policies) and the people asking them have fundamentally changed for

much of the science efforts. This has been especially true of the policy-related

questions often posed by the public. Part of the change has been the need to frame

science at multiple scales and with greater emphasis on understanding the dynamic

aspects of ecosystems. We also need to recognize and address the considerable

increase in complexity that considering the social system adds to the work.

The roles of scientists are changing to include altered scopes of research

problems—that is, policy-relevant research, greater emphasis on communicating

research results effectively, and timeliness. Among the changes in roles is the

recognition of expert judgments based on demonstrated research expertise—that is,

when peers recognize the significance and stature of a scientist’s past research

accomplishments in a general area of work. These role changes challenge today’s

scientists and suggest changes in how tomorrow’s scientists will be developed.

Some utilization, economics, and social science scientists have participated in

ecoregion or other broad-scale assessments and have become recognized as leaders

in broad-scale science (see Haynes and Perez 2001 for a discussion of how the

science community has been affected by broad-scale assessments). These assessments have allowed some scientists to become established experts in various

science communities. They are recognized for their ability to communicate specialized information developed from often-disparate data by using generally replicable

methods. Although recognized experts have always been a part of our science

community, we may need to be more systematic in the development of scientists

who can act as experts and work effectively at the science-policy interface.

The focus on broad-scale assessments can divert resources away from essential

research that expands the scientific foundation. This essential research often plays

a key role in developing the scientific skills of new employees. If this work diminishes, future scientists may not acquire the essential knowledge and skills needed to

lead the next generation of scientists. In addition, the extensive focus on technology transfer and applied research has diverted attention away from long-term dataintensive science. This raises concerns about the data availability for future scientific inquiries. These assessments have also changed the nature of our science by

placing greater emphasis on developing predictive models and systems approaches.

These models can be used in conjunction with empirical data and expert judgments

to produce information used to explain how broad-scale systems operate or to

respond to management needs.

The focus on broadscale assessments

can divert resources

away from essential

research that expands

the scientific

foundation.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

17

To fill these science roles, the leadership community can help in two ways.

First, it can help newer scientists understand how to use direct evidence including

results from empirical studies to form judgments. Second, it can help them use

syntheses of empirical information and expert judgments to develop an understanding of how management actions influence forest changes including flows of goods

and services.

More Effective Use of Alliances

The changing nature of our work is also changing the clients for our research.

These clients include the traditional land managers, community and stakeholder

groups, and forest management advocates as well as nontraditional individuals and

organizations interested in stewardship issues. The nature of the traditional client

relationship (individuals or organizations dependent on our information) is expanding to include partnerships and other forms of alliances to facilitate collaborative

relations. Some of these clients are seeking information about how natural and

human systems work and interact, how changing human values affect goals for

managing whole ecosystems, and about outcomes of various stewardship actions.

Some of these clients are seeking partners in collaborative stewardship projects

where researcher contributions are to help determine the “best available science”

for the project. These changing needs suggest the need for a greater focus on how

to better inform various publics and on how to better communicate what is learned.

We need to consider alternative ways of how we will get work done in the

future. The current approach of mixing internal with external work has been successful. Our collaborations with universities, nongovernmental organizations, and

other government agencies have been notable accomplishments. There is a danger,

however, in becoming more like contracting officers, portioning money out to other

entities to do the research that we do not have time to do while we end up playing

the research management role. This raises the question about the right mix of

internal and external work.

Another form of alliance will be greater use of team approaches to accomplish

work. These will be especially useful when dealing with complex questions. These

team approaches can include a mix of internal and external collaborators.

There is a need for greater leadership presence to help define reasonable expectations of how and to what extent science findings are transferred to the management arena. The move to integrate management and science has required more

extensive and more rapid transfer of information than is traditional. The more

conventional view is that scientists can give summarized information to managers

who will then quickly adopt the information that fits their needs. Sometimes this
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

18

approach has been successful. An evolving approach involves science-management

partnerships. Some of these partnerships have evolved into long-term interchanges

and personal networking. On some units, this interaction has evolved into shared

planning of projects and even the sharing of employees between research and

management. The nature of these partnerships influences the form of internal

communications. In some cases, research findings often are transmitted to the field

through these networks, with managers likely unaware of the original sources.

Strengthening the Case for Social Sciences

The preponderance of biophysical scientists in FSR presents a particular challenge

to Forest Service social science work. First, biophysical sciences often fail to

include human processes in problem definitions. They instead assume the importance of questions such as global climate change or habitat conservation and then

focus on studying the underlying biological or physical processes. Until recently,

conservation biologists have generally been insensitive to social and cultural questions preempting social choice in their problem definitions. Recent attempts by the

Ecological Society of America to develop a social science working group suggests

some change in this attitude is underway as conservation biologists seek help to

assess why “ecologically correct” solutions are not implemented.

A second set of issues concerns how social scientists have fared when their

science accomplishments have been judged by those more (or only) familiar with

the biophysical science process. Two aspects of this process are first the influence

of exact physical sciences with its reliance on mathematics and second the process

of advancing knowledge built on knowledge acquired earlier. In the first case, noneconomist social scientists find themselves at a disadvantage as they are often

reluctant to reduce the ever-changing and subtle forces of human nature to mathematical expressions. In the second case, social scientists can find themselves at a

disadvantage when sequential knowledge development is not possible making it

difficult to describe scholarly contributions in conventional terms. This is sometimes the case when dealing with the social (and economic) consequences of policy

actions where experimentation is not possible.

In presenting their accomplishments, social scientists do have the opportunity

to argue that qualitative research can address unique issues. This would include

studies of values, studies of social structure, studies of risk perceptions, use of

ethnographic approaches that consider contexts and interactions among complex

variables rather than parsimonious single-variable explanations, and case studies.

It might also address some of the limitations of surveys and quantitative social

science methods: (1) low response rates may mean that the data from surveys are
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

19

actually less accurate than (non-random-sampled) qualitative research, although

random samples are claimed and statistical analysis used, and (2) some social

groups can only be reached effectively with qualitative and ethnographic methods

(e.g., minority landowners and resource users).

Third, there are influential individuals whose political ideology conflicts with

the prevailing social science ideology. McCloskey (2001) points out the implicit

ideology of devolution, localism, and voluntarism that characterizes recent social

science research (and in his view threatens the progress of the environmental

effort). There are also individuals who feel threatened by recent results suggesting

alternative views to the value of environmental services from forests (where timber

production, although valuable, is a small part of the total value as assessed by

society) and the role that these different values play in changing economic conditions of nearby communities.

More ideological attacks will come, and the RVUR Director and others in

leadership positions will be called on to serve as defenders. Their defense will rest

on arguing the importance of getting greater knowledge of the true nature of questions (see app. 4 for a background paper that explains the importance taking an

integrative approach had when preparing for such an attack in 2000).

Strengthening the Case for an Integrative Approach for

Utilization Research

Recent policy initiatives such as the Healthy Forests Initiative (USDA and USDI

2004) call for improved utilization of traditionally underutilized timber. Different

proponents have pushed selected technologies with little consideration of financial

or forest management aspects of increasing utilization. There is the opportunity and

the challenge to strengthen the case for utilization by taking a more integrative

research approach.

The basis for this integrative approach is the development of strategies that

recognize that most attempts to increase utilization of heretofore relatively underutilized species or sizes will rely on private investment and involve diverse stakeholder groups. We need to combine technical information about processes, species

properties, and log recovery with information about forest operations, market

opportunities for different forest products including market sizes and locations, and

information about the various stakeholders who may be opponents or proponents of

activities and may often provide the required labor and capital. Finally, we need to

place these activities in both the biophysical and socioeconomic context to explain

how forest resource conditions can be improved while maintaining (or improving)

the conditions in local human communities.

There is the opportunity and the challenge

to strengthen the

case for utilization by

taking a more integrative research

approach.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

20

As an example, we can advocate a three-pronged approach for developing

strategies for improving utilization as part of hazardous-fuel-reduction strategies.

First, there is a need to develop and transfer technologies adapted to the scale of

the problem. Second, there is a need to develop and deliver a marketing strategy

that harnesses the power of forest product markets to assist in improving utilization. Third, we need to include the links to land management and timber sales (or

stewardship arrangements) that implement various treatments. Developing strategies that include all three elements will lead to more enduring accomplishments.

Developing a Vision

Discussions of a research agenda are necessary first steps in developing a vision

statement to guide RVUR research. This discussion needs to be inclusive of the

affected scientists and stakeholders. It needs to place research in a broad context

such as helping interested publics, land managers, and landowners achieve land

stewardship goals. Solomon, who wrote some 2,600 years ago, described the

challenge of land stewardship as “one generation comes and another passes but the

land remains.” In that context, the task in research is to assist in stewardship of a

finite set of land resources by helping diverse clients make choices about dynamic

systems in the face of uncertainty and changing societal values.

What then is a reasonable description of the programmatic vision for utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities? Recalling figure 1, we need a program of research that melds knowledge creation along

common thematic lines (such as those described for the science program) with

contemporary and highly socially relevant dynamic questions. By using a set of

common themes (and allowing for local variation), we create a larger pool of

experience from which we can form judgments relative to outcomes. Another way

to think of this is to consider how these underlying themes help us develop the

tools that can be used to solve a variety of problems. Just as a carpenter can use a

hammer and saw to build a house, fence or cradle, we can, for example, use an

understanding of social well-being to discuss the consequences of land management or to pursue collaborative stewardship. As craftspeople we need to recognize

that individuals will specialize around certain sets of problems. Carrying the

analogy further, we need to be diligent about developing ourselves as craftspeople

ready to apply our tools to a variety of questions. Because our work and tools need

to rest explicitly on the best science, we also need to consider the opportunities to

ensure adequate regeneration of knowledge discovery.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

21

This vision assumes that the worth of utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities will be judged by how well we can

resolve a problem and help create lasting solutions that alter outcomes. Successful

solutions will be like a piece of fabric that weaves together foundation information

(the warp) with other information (the weft) to provide answers or understanding to

transitory problems. Finding a way to weave together disparate types of information in attempts to answer socially relevant questions will allow us to demonstrate

the power of utilization, economics, and social sciences disciplines to explain

phenomena, outcomes, or consequences of actions. It is an enterprise where we

need to nurture both artistic and crafts values and skills.

Creating and implementing such a vision is a function of leadership. Such

leadership plays a number of roles. We need leaders who advocate for careful

problem selection that recognizes the integrated nature of contemporary questions

and the role that utilization, economics, and social sciences research and development activities play in problem solution. We need leaders who can synchronize

research oriented toward major questions with knowledge discovery and who

can develop balanced programs and skills necessary to do synthesis. Finally, we

need leaders who are ardent advocates for effective delivery of information to

the eventual users, for it is those users who determine the value of scientific

contributions.

Literature Cited

Bormann, B.T.; Brookes, M.H.; Ford, E.D.; Kiester, A.R.; Oliver, C.D.;

Weigand, J.F. 1994. A framework for sustainable-ecosystem management.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 61 p. Vol. 5. (Everett, R.L., assessment team leader;

Eastside forest health assessment).

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H.; Brown, P.J.; Burchfield, J.A.; Haynes, R.W.;

McCool, S.F. 1999. Toward an ecological approach: integrating social,

economic, cultural, biological, and physical considerations. In: Sexton, W.T.;

Malk, A.J.; Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C., eds. Ecological stewardship: a common

reference for ecosystem management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier

Science Ltd.: 297-318. Vol 3.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.].

[Irregular pagination].
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

22

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [RPA];

16 U.S.C. 1601 (note).

Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 [RRRPA];

Act of June 30, 1978; P.L. 95-307, 92 Stat. 353; 16 U.S.C. 1601 (note), 1641

(note), 1641-1648.

Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; Quigley, T.M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework for

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia River basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Perez, G.E. 2001. Northwest Forest Plan research synthesis. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-498. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p.

Julin, K.R.; Shaw, C.G., III. 1999. Science matters: information for managing the

Tongass National Forest. Misc Publ. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p.

Kennedy, J.J.; Haynes, R.W.; Zhou, X. [In press]. Line officers’ views on stated

USDA-Forest Service values and the agency reward system. Gen. Tech. Rep.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the

environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.

McCloskey, M. 2001. Is this the course you want to be on? Society and Natural

Resources. 14(7): 627-634.

Montreal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montreal Process.

http:/www.mpci.org. (January 9, 2002).

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 [MUSYE]; Act of June 12, 1960; P.L.

86-517; 74 Stat. 215, U.S.C. 528 C, 368 (note), 528-531.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act of October 22, 1976;

16 U.S.C. 1601.

Spies, T.A.; Reeves, G.H.; Burnett, K.M.; McComb, W.C.; Johnson, K.N.;

Grant, G.; Ohmann, J.L.; Garman, S.L.; Bettinger, P. 2002. Assessing the

ecological consequences of forest policies in a multi-ownership province in

Oregon. In: Liu, J.; Taylor, W.W., eds. Integrating landscape ecology into

natural resource management. [Place of publication unknown]: Cambridge

University Press: 179-277.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

23

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Southern Appalachian

Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian assessment

summary report. Report 1 of 5. Atlanta, GA: Southern Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Sierra Nevada science

review: report to the science review team charged to synthesize new information of rangewide urgency to the national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station. 115 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. The healthy forests initiative

and healthy forests restoration act: interim field guide. FS-799. Washington,

DC. 58 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

24

Appendix 1: How We Approach Research

Underlying the development of this vision are assumptions about how we approach

research. These approaches are seldom explicitly discussed in our research community. In particular and of critical importance to the development of this vision is a

common understanding of our use of team approaches, especially for complex

research questions, and the contextual setting for how research questions are

triaged, reduced in complexity, solved, and delivered. This section describes

each of these two critical aspects in the context of contemporary Forest Service

Research (FSR) and provides depth to the development of this vision.

Team Approaches

Most Forest Service researchers are used to the traditional project or program types

of teams as the fundamental research team or unit. These are the formal teams that

every Forest Service researcher is assigned to for administrative purposes. Often,

however, the actual accomplishment of research involves a mix of both formal and

informal teams. In this section we define both types of teams and the various roles

played by individuals.

Until the late 1980s, most economics and social science research was organized

and conducted by research projects that, for the most part, had evolved to be relatively small (two to three scientists) and functionally specialized research units.

Both the small size and specialized nature of the units often limited the scope of

problems and accomplishments. Attempts to overcome this latter tendency had

been tried most notably by organizing research programs focused around problems

requiring a wider array of specialized skills and formal technology transfer efforts.

This latter approach was more common in the utilization research arenas.

For the most part, however, FSR teams (projects) were small and had a highly

specialized scientific workforce. Problems assigned to these projects and approaches to problem solution were also greatly influenced by the implementation

of the Research Guidelines Evaluation Guide for paneling scientists (first adopted

in the early 1970s). The coincidental evolution of these two factors led to increasing emphasis on personal scholarly work with reduced emphasis on management

applications. This especially became the case by the late 1980s when changes in

publishing ethics made it difficult to publish the same work in both scholarly

journals and publications focusing on the management community. Some also

argue that reduced emphasis on general technical skills in the management

workforce has complicated the technology transfer efforts.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

25

The adoption of the Research Guidelines Evaluation Guide for paneling

scientists was a mixed blessing for social scientists. Given the preponderance of

biophysical scientists in FSR and a lack of guidelines for evaluating social sciences, social scientists found their science being judged against the biophysical

science process. That is, social scientists often found themselves at a disadvantage,

as they are often reluctant to reduce the ever-changing and subtle forces of human

nature to mathematical expressions, and they make greater use of nonexperimental

approaches.

In the early 1990s, the rigidities of the project structure started to change as

a function of two shifts. First, the efforts to develop broad-scale land management

or habitat conservation strategies changed the notions of teams and team assignments. Several of these efforts (FEMAT [1993], Southern Appalachian Assessment [USDA FS 1996], Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEMP) [Haynes et al. 1996], Sierra Nevada Framework [USDA FS 1998],

TLMP (Tongass Land Management Plan) [Julin and Shaw 1999]) involved formal

science teams where economists and social scientists were assigned on a short-term

or part-time basis. Second, equally influential were the revisions to the Research

Guidelines Evaluation Guide in 1995. These revisions described how scientists

could document various types of team assignments and team accomplishments.

Subsequently, scientists who were able to document their scholarly contributions

to team accomplishments received credit for that work, contributing in many cases

to recommendations that they be promoted to higher grade.

An important evolution stimulated by both of these shifts is an emerging

understanding of the various roles for team participants. Figure 2 is a general

schematic for both formal and informal team structures. As illustrated in figure 2,

there are four roles for scientists: team leader, designer, subteam leader, and team

member. Each is distinct and has implications for the skills needed in individuals

assigned to each role, for the stature of team accomplishments, and for employee

development. Many research administrators assume that projects are formal teams

and expect that project members can fulfill the various roles relative to their

assigned positions and problems.

Team leader—

In many instances, this individual has recognized technical and administrative

skills. Many Forest Service project leaders are thought to have the necessary

skills to fill this role. However, this is less true when the problems exceed the usual

scope assigned to the project. For example, the large formal science team used in

broad-scale assessments tended to include individuals with strong administrative
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

26

capabilities. Informal science teams, however, tend to be headed by established

scientists who have the stature to influence the research agendas of other scientists

but who were not necessarily selected for their administrative skills. Only when the

teams get large do the qualities of administrative skills come into question. Forest

Service scientists assigned as formal leads of science teams are examples of this

latter type of team. For example, the Resource Planning Act (RPA) assessments are

led by scientists (called the RPA specialists) who are formally designated, but much

of the actual work is accomplished by informal teams of researchers from different

units and stations working on the RPA assessments that form around common

research agendas.

Designer—

This is the most misunderstood role in teams. Developing a plan or framework is

often not a full-time assignment, but the eventual success of the effort will depend

on the quality of the plan. These plans or frameworks describe the questions, types

of required information, common definitions, and the attributes of the successful

science accomplishments. For small teams, the designer role is often fulfilled by

the team leader, but in larger teams this role is fulfilled by individuals (perhaps

subteam leaders) or small subgroups (from the science team) who design the

framework that the science team will follow.

Subteam leader—

In many instances this individual has recognized technical skills and can lead

disciplinary work. Subteam leaders also recognize the importance of placing their

work in the context of the assigned questions and the constraints placed on work at

the science/policy interface. This role is one of the most time demanding as it may

require a full-time commitment for a short period. For example, the FEMAT

assignment was full time for roughly 4 months, and the ICBEMP and TLMP

assignments were part time (except for a few hired into full-time positions) for

several years.

Figure 2—General schematic of team structure and roles.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

27

Team member—

An individual working within a specific disciplinary team. The work is relatively

narrow in scope. These individuals may be either relatively new or experienced

scientists.

Steps in the Science Process

This section discusses the general science process used in FSR. Most discussions

of this process lack specificity, but being explicit about how we conduct science

will help in the development of a vision statement. Figure 3 illustrates one view

of this general science process. It is made up of a number of major functions often

connected (representing information flows) in multiple ways. Some of these

Figure 3—Forest Service Research science process.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

28

connections include decisions and efforts to modify or package the information

flowing along that arc. Taken together, the various functions and interactions

shown in figure 3 describe some of the contextual issues surrounding our management and science environment.

The activities (boxes and arrows) on the left of figure 3 represent the management/science community, and the activities on the right represent the science

community. These communities are not mutually exclusive (see Lee 1993), but we

will assume that in discussion of FSR, the first reflects both land managers and

various science advocates such as research administrators and staff as well as those

individuals in positions that bridge the two communities including those engaged

in research-management partnerships and those with formal technology transfer

roles. The second community reflects those engaged in the conduct of science

activities including both the researchers and research leaders. The emphasis in the

first community is on bringing the best available science to various users including

the land management community. The science advocates in that community help

develop compelling science questions for research activities. They play a key role

in helping to clarify various information needs and some notion of what will be

acceptable products. Different functions in the science management community are

also illustrated in figure 3.

Figure 3 illustrates importantly that the questions come from outside of the

science community except in the cases of knowledge maintenance. Our community

does not exist in isolation from the mission of the Forest Service. The first step

(shown at the top right) is to filter the question for information needs. The two

communities often interact to filter the information needs in two ways. First they

assess the available information. The management community needs to use the best

information available and often questions the value of improving that information.

Science advocates engage in an interaction that reduces the questions to various

disciplinary questions. Second, the resulting specific research agendas are often set

by using place-specific data regardless of the spatial scale implied in the original

questions.

If there is sufficient information then the management community (perhaps

with the assistance of scientists engaged in technology transfer) develops the

necessary answers. If there is not sufficient information, research questions are

further refined often reducing the scope to match research capabilities. Moving

down on the science side of figure 3, studies are developed and conducted. When

the studies are completed, the results consist of both new knowledge and the

necessary inputs to develop science and management implications relative to the

originating questions. The next step involves deciding whether explicit synthesis
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

29

efforts are needed to provide information necessary for fulfilling the needs of the

questions. The last step develops the necessary information that leads to changed

outcomes and, in the context of adaptive management, leads to new questions.

Shown at the bottom of figure 3 are the existing stocks of knowledge and an

interaction within the science community dealing with both planned and unplanned

knowledge maintenance. A hallmark of a vibrant science community is the recognition of the contributions made by intellectual curiosity. These include individuals

who revisit former studies, observe changes, and extend their old results. Included

here also are serendipitous knowledge discoveries. Both of these activities maintain

and add depth to the stock of existing information. A research management challenge is how to handle these activities that are usually beyond those supported by

formal research support allocations.

Moving across the two communities ideally involves assembling, weighing,

and developing judgments from the existing and new information. The goal in this

step is to assess whether answers are being provided in the same level of detail as

the original questions. Too often, the reality falls short. This leads to the need for

the additional step shown in figure 3 as synthesis. This is emerging as one of our

greatest challenges: encouraging scientists to consider that their job is not yet done

until they assemble, weigh, and develop judgments from both existing and new

information relative to the original questions. Many scientists try to avoid this step

as considering it something less scholarly than knowledge creation (the application

of the current panel process often reinforces this perception).

Figure 3 illustrates a number of points. First, the management and science

communities interact to filter the information needs. This interaction reduces the

original questions to various disciplinary questions. In this reduction, we too

frequently display a tendency to overemphasize biophysical sciences, treating

human systems as too chaotic to understand.1

 Next, specific research agendas are

often set by using place-specific data regardless of the spatial scale implied in the

original questions. Research results lead to both new information (which may be an

end in itself) but more importantly to the development of science and management

implications. The later may combine both new and existing information.

As an example of the tendency to filter incoming questions, consider the question about the efficiency of different alternatives for management of a national

forest. We often reduce this question to a harvest scheduling question where the

1 

Many scientists behave as if a system characterized by chaos (being formless) is not

predictable and therefore can be ignored or treated as part of background uncertainty.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

30

 alternatives are reduced to differences in constraint specifications. Often, from a

science perspective the different harvest schedules are the final product, and it is

left to others to relate them back to the original management questions.

Another point is the growing importance of synthesis. Given the growing

complexity in questions and the necessary reduction to their disciplinary constituent parts, it is more difficult to synthesize the various findings. It is becoming more

difficult to allow scientists to persist in taking such synthesis for granted. In this

situation, we need to foster the development of skills to do synthesis among our

scientists. If we fail or are too slow, we run the risk of demonstrating our irrelevance for the management community who will continue to make decisions based

on the information available to them.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

31

Appendix 2: Typology of Research Areas

Problem 1

Improved knowledge of the opportunities to use local, regional, and international

markets is key in understanding how to use management practices to sustain a

diversity of forest conditions and outputs.

Element 1.1—

Improve understanding of how the forest sector (broadly defined) functions,

including intrasectoral dynamics, and interactions between the forest sector and

other sectors.

Element 1.2—

Improve understanding of how resource use, management, and policies are affected

by economic and social change at the regional, national, and international scales.

Element 1.3—

Understand the conditions under which markets for nontraditional goods and

environmental services originating from forests may develop.

Problem 2

The shift in management emphasis from stands to ecosystems poses challenges of

how to reframe much of the existing information that has been gathered in the

context of stand and forest (region) levels to apply it at linked and multiple scales.

Element 2.1—

Develop methods for integration of economic and ecological values in natural

resource management decision processes.

Element 2.2—

Develop methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of alternative land management regimes, silvicultural practices, and policies to provide a range of commodity, amenity, and ecosystem values within the context of sustainable forest

management.

Element 2.3—

Develop methods for understanding land use and land cover changes and their

effects on biodiversity, timber supply, forest carbon, and other goods and services.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

32

Problem 3

Effective, responsive, and efficient resource management requires information that

identifies and evaluates alternative institutional (both formal and informal) structures and processes.

Element 3.1—

Improve understanding of how professional and organizational culture and values

impede or facilitate collaboration with other professionals, agencies, and citizens.

Element 3.2—

Improve understanding about how various forms of knowledge (scientific, managerial, traditional) are used in decisionmaking and are integrated with one another.

Element 3.3—

Identify and evaluate the role that institutional barriers and opportunities play in

resource management decisionmaking.

Element 3.4—

Develop and evaluate, under different social and political contexts and scales,

frameworks for assessing existing and potential institutional structures and

arrangements for natural resource management. Assess the factors affecting their

usefulness.

Element 3.5—

Develop and evaluate theory, frameworks, methods, and mechanisms to assess and

evaluate institutional capacity to implement integrated resource management

programs.

Problem 4

There is a need to expand our understanding of community and natural resource

interactions at multiple scales.

Element 4.1—

Improve understanding of the interdependencies between public knowledge,

values, and uses of natural resources (e.g., wildlife, forests, water) and how they

are managed.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

33

Element 4.2—

Improve understanding of communities (both interest- and place-based) and how

they are related to natural resources and their management.

Element 4.3—

Develop and evaluate frameworks and tools for understanding and assessing the

role of places important to people with respect to natural resource values, uses, and

management of those resources.

Element 4.4—

Improve understanding of the determinants of acceptability of resource management for different populations (e.g., rural, urban, minority) and user groups (e.g.,

recreationists, gatherers).

Element 4.5—

Develop and evaluate integrative frameworks, concepts, approaches, and tools for

science and policy.

Problem 5

There is a need to foster innovation and evaluation of new products and processes.

Element 5.1—

Develop, refine, and diffuse improved forest products and processing technologies.

Problem 6

There is a need to improve our ability to characterize forest resources and evaluate

their uses.

Element 6.1—

Assess the technical feasibility of producing primary and secondary wood products

and nontimber forest products through empirical studies and simulation.

Element 6.2—

Evaluate the influence of alternative forest management options on the abundance

and characteristics of forest-based goods and services.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

34

Element 6.3—

Elucidate the influence of management and policy objectives across space and time

and compare outputs associated with various resource goals.

Element 6.4—

Provide technical assistance to natural resource managers, technical organizations,

users of natural resources, and others interested in the physical characteristics,

processing, or marketing of forest resources.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

35

Appendix 3: Research Integration at Pacific Northwest

Research Station

In the winter of 1999, the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station Director

(Thomas J. Mills) hosted a discussion with selected Station scientists about different approaches to integrated research found at PNW. The meeting was stimulated

by repeated discussions within the Station’s science community about what is

meant by the term integration. The purpose of the meeting was to summarize

the successes of various approaches to integration currently used among Station

scientists and to discuss how to broaden our commitment to integration. The

discussion improved understanding about both the process of integration and the

impacts greater integration has on the science community.

The Station Director strongly advocated increasing the quantity and quality of

policy-relevant research, which he recognized as often integrating multiple disciplines or scales. He had several motivations. First, he had an abiding interest in

research being an efficient provider of information. He believed that fiscal constraints encouraged pooling of resources necessitating greater collaboration. He

believed that many of the environmental policy questions we faced were multivariate requiring us to define and understand notions of joint production, tradeoffs, and

compatibility. Finally, he believed that encouraging scientists to engage in integrated work was a way to push them beyond the confines of their narrow intellectual interests and would lead to them becoming more able to anticipate upcoming

new issues rather than dealing with them reactively.

The discussions revealed common agreement among the scientists that integration is a process—a means to answering complex questions. Some argued that it

requires new ways of approaching problems and that integrated outcomes are not

possible unless underlying planning, management, and research processes are

reformed (see Clark et al. 1999). Those involved in ecoregion assessments argued

that the intent of integration is to reconcile the separate and separable parts that

confront managers and policymakers. That is, the ecological model in its most

complete form is represented by combining the human and biophysical aspects.

Propositions

The nature of the questions and the people asking them have fundamentally

changed for much of our science efforts. This has been especially true of policyrelated questions, which also have increased in frequency. Many questions are now

posed by the general public and are typically integrative in nature. That is, they

often take a comprehensive systems point of view that increases the complexity

of the answers especially when social systems are considered with biophysical
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

36

systems. This complexity leads to confusion over what is meant by the term integration in programmatic discussions and if there is a “right” way to approach integration. These concerns can be restated in the following propositions:

1. The nature and extent of integration are driven by the questions determining

research agendas or the development of information at the science/policy

interface.

2. There is no “right” way of integration except that our answers need to consider

the context surrounding the questions.

Background

The involvement of scientists at PNW in ecoregion (broad-scale) assessments and

in other activities at the science/policy interface gave them extensive experience

with a range of integrated approaches. Four general models are recognized: integration by stapler, the renaissance scientist, multidiscipline and interdisciplinary

teams, and integration by design (framework) approaches.

Integration by Stapler

There have been a number of efforts where different disciplines worked on selected

components of a common question followed by an effort to assemble and interpret

them collectively. One of the better examples is the Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT) process that is sometimes held up as an example of

integration of biophysical and social sciences. In hindsight we see that it was not

driven by broadly integrative science questions. Instead, the initial questions dealt

with species conservation coupled with an interest in social and economic effects.

Its approach to integration was to let it occur naturally through coordination between different functional (discipline) groups. The final (FEMAT 1993) report

represents integration through a common binding.

The Renaissance Scientist

There are individuals who by their breadth of interests, skills, and abilities are able

to bridge several disciplines. This is not to say that these are necessarily solo

efforts, as they may involve small groups of individuals where the bulk of integrated work is done by one individual. Examples are diverse and include efforts

like Andy Carey’s work1 on multiple pathways to conserve biodiversity.

1 

Carey, Andy. 1988. Biodiversity and intentional management: a renaissance pathway.

Science Findings 9. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 6 p.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

37

Interdisciplinary Approaches

There are two variations of work by interdisciplinary groups at PNW. The distinction is whether the groups are formally or informally assigned. For convenience we

will refer to the former as interdisciplinary teams and the latter as multidiscipline

teams. These approaches are often applied to integrated questions that involve

bilateral tradeoffs of timber and some other value.

Integration using interdisciplinary teams—

This is the more formal variant of multidiscipline approaches. These teams are

usually formed around formally assigned integrated questions, but the exact nature

and form of integration are left to the group. These efforts are generally more

inclusive of disciplines than less formal approaches, but, as with multidiscipline

teams, the outcomes are subject to the competing egos of the individuals providing

discipline expertise. One variation of this approach is where members are formally

assigned to planning (also know as ID) teams.

Multidiscipline work—

At PNW, several teams of scientists have evolved in a nearly spontaneous and selfselecting fashion. Much of this has taken the form of informal assessments by

groups of scientists of the questions surrounding the Northwest Forest Plan implementation (Haynes and Perez 2001). Some of these efforts like the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) have been extensive, whereas others

have been more modest. Only a few efforts like CLAMS (Spies et al. 2002) have

focused on broad-scale multiple-discipline questions; most have focused instead on

extensions of existing work.

Integration by Design (Explicit Frameworks)

Several Station efforts (e.g., Eastside Forest Health Assessment [Bormann et al.

1994], Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP)

[Haynes et al. 1996]) used explicit frameworks to integrate social, economic, and

ecological systems to answer integrated questions in support of federal land

management. The use of these frameworks recognized the increased interaction

among social, economic, and ecological sciences in answering questions that

reflect complex intertwined systems.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

38

Discussion

Different aspects of issues related to integration emerged from the PNW experience. First, the experience at PNW leads to a series of questions that should be

considered in an approach to integration: Who controls the definition of the

integrated questions? How clearly developed are (and who develops) information

needs to resolve the original questions? Who controls the science aspects of questions? Who controls the resources and how will judgments be made about the value

of different types of information? Who decides on which disciplines to engage and

the rules for engagement? How are common issues/protocols resolved across the

disciplines? For example, how will a group of scientists representing different

disciplines agree on the base year or period for temporal comparisons? What

constitutes success? How are conflicts between science successes and policy

successes resolved?

Second, one underlying theme not resolved was the deep divide between

scientists who wanted to maintain their own terms and timing and advocates for

greater science/policy interaction. That is, those interested in improving the performance of scientists at the science/policy interface expressed their views in such a

way that implied that all research should be conducted explicitly considering the

contextual environment and include both science and management inferences

associated with the work. Many scientists are more cautious, wanting to maintain a

portfolio of work that includes both integrated and strict disciplinary work. Finally

differences (often vast) in spatial scales between where we conduct most of our

research and where integrated questions evolve often add confusion. For example,

much of our work on understanding environmental conditions is relatively fine

scale, but broad-scale issues like jobs versus environment by their nature cover

physically large spatial extants.

There is general agreement that the definition of integration is not fixed but

that it is the study of relationships between interrelated components of systems.

Within the Station there seem to be two variants of this definition. First there is

integration with a capital “I.” This seems to be integration that is driven by external

forces either as a science/policy question or a major science issue. Second, there is

integration with a small “i” that is driven often by local (or internal) multidiscipline

questions. Regardless of the definition, there is general agreement that the nature of

integration is driven by the questions stimulating the research.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

39

Two types of integration efforts are presently underway at PNW. The first type

is driven by external science policy questions. The three major ecoregion assessments are of this type. They are perceived within the science community as being

top down in design, leadership, control of resource allocations, etc. Participation is

often organized into discipline-specific subteams. The second type presents a more

bottom-up approach where individuals select themselves for participation. These

are informally organized, at least initially, around contemporary questions framed

largely by the participants. The CLAMS project is an example of this second type

of integration. The third type of integration (called research-management engagement) is what occurs among groups of scientists who have long collaborated at

common sites, around specific data sets, in shared facilities, or in a long-standing

engagement in research-management partnerships. It is the outgrowth of mutual

learning among those scientists and other partners. The integrating questions are

often vague and relate more to intersecting intellectual curiosity than any policy

focus. The work at H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest illustrates this type of

integration. The work there also illustrates how a sustained research-management

partnership enterprise can feed policy events by making scientists familiar with

management issues and culture, preparing local examples that can be scaled up

when the policymaking window is open, and providing scientists and managers an

opportunity for mutual learning.

In addition to operational and definitional issues, two other issues emerged

from the discussions as important. First, what are the attributes of scientists prone

to integration? Second, what advantages does the Station’s science community

enjoy relative to integration?

In the first case, although most Station scientists recognize the importance of

greater integration, not all participate, nor do those who are currently involved

continuously participate. The more frequent participants seem to be those who can

think broadly across disciplines recognizing discipline boundaries and commonalities. These participants are risk takers both in terms of administrative structures and

intellectual endeavors. Risk taking seems to be necessary if one is to take advantage of emerging opportunities. Also, from a practical point of view, these scientists

are knowledgeable of our research legacies. Such knowledge seems fundamental if

scientists are to see connections among phenomena. Finally, they have to be willing

to work on teams including learning and practicing the different roles of various

team positions.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

40

In the second case, the science community at PNW enjoys a unique advantage

from which to pursue integration. Foremost, as a natural resource research institute,

it employs a uniquely rich and diverse community of scientists with a relatively

large and stable funding base. Its relatively long (almost 80 years) existence has

given it an eminent science legacy. This sustained research presence has also given

it a respected place from which to conduct science and to seize opportunities to

frame science around contemporary issues. Station management has in the past

decade encouraged consideration of integrated questions. It has facilitated the

participation of individuals in major science policy issues. This in turn has broadened perspectives of scientists and provided them greater clarity in pursuing

subsequent questions. Station management has encouraged both top-down and

bottom-up integration, but it still struggles with how to manage these two approaches simultaneously.

Finally, the culture of the Station has encouraged relatively informal forms of

integration. Many of these are built around long-standing research efforts that have

attracted many of the Station’s scientists at some point in their careers. These

seedbeds of ideas and data encourage intellectual development.

Summary

The nature and extent of integration are driven by the questions determining

research agendas or the development of information at the science/policy

interface.

Integration is driven by the nature of the questions or, in the case of active

research-management engagement, by intersecting intellectual curiosity and

management questions. Leadership that can recognize the links between management and science is key. Managing integration is a challenge especially when

trying to simultaneously manage bottom-up and top-down integration as well as

trying to maintain a strong foundational research program that can support broader

questions.

There is no right way of integration except that our answers need to

consider the context surrounding the questions.

There is no one “successful” way to do integration. There are multiple pathways, but leadership, both formal and informal, is essential. Work on integrated

questions seems to improve subsequent research and encourages employee development in unexpected ways.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

41

There are some lessons also about what might be necessary to reduce the

barriers to achieving greater levels of integration. Foremost, we need to be more

diligent about sensing the integrative nature of the questions that compel our research agendas. Research leadership (whether formal or informal) needs to develop

a link between the mission to do this type of work, permission to do it, and encouragement. There are also a number of institutional changes needed to facilitate

integration, including changes in how we describe assignments and accomplishments for those scientists covered by the Research Grade Evaluation Guide,

improved communication within the science community about ongoing efforts

where recruitment opportunities (for integrative projects) might exist, training new

scientists in how to integrate, providing funding dedicated to promoting integration

(most budget allocations are functional), use of initiatives or cross-cutting themes

at the Station level to focus more open-ended integration work, and treating

integration as an end rather than a process or means to get to an end.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

42

Appendix 4: Resolving Complex and Controversial

Forest Management Issues: The Critical Role of Social

Science Research1

The Issue

Forest Service social science research has recently come under attack in Congress

because it is not seen as central to the agency’s mission. This is an important

concern and one that we have addressed at the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research

Station as part of our ongoing priority-setting process.

Debates about natural resource management—what should be produced, how

much, when, where, through what means, and at what cost—are fundamentally

social in nature; that is, they involve conflicts over the importance and meaning of

these resources and how these concerns change over time and across space. Understanding such changes—what they are, why they change, what the implications of

these changes are, and how conflicts might be mitigated or resolved—forms a

central focus for the PNW Research Station’s integrated social science research

efforts.

The challenge we face as a society is to use research to improve understanding so that we can use what we learn to develop responsive policy and

practices rather than impediments to natural resource management and use.

Although there are multifaceted interrelationships between various natural

resources and their uses, the dominant approach today is to respond to conflicts in

forest management focused separately on resources such as fish, wildlife, recreation, trees, and water. This approach often excludes the effects of policy and

management on humans, as well as the effects from human use on these natural

resources. Furthermore, a fragmented approach constrains consideration of interrelated and interacting biological, physical, and social processes. Solutions to resolving difficult and controversial issues are thereby limited and often polarize the

public when their interests are not met in ways they believe are fair.

This situation calls for integrated research and development to provide information and technology to aid managers and the public in resolving complicated

problems faced in natural resource management. Without the contribution of

social scientists working in conjunction with their counterparts in the biophysical

1 

This appendix was written by Roger Clark (USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, 400 N 34th

 St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103) in March 2000.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

43

sciences, resource managers will not be able to successfully design and implement

programs that are biologically sustainable, technically feasible, economically

viable, and socially acceptable.

Background

Diverse and often conflicting demands are being placed on forests across the

country. Our natural resources—forests, water, wildlife, and fish—have long been

an essential feature of our Nation and its development. These resources have held

special meaning and importance to our citizens through the various values, uses,

and needs they serve. Historically, these resources have provided commodities

necessary to the survival and development of families, communities, industries,

and the Nation. Over time, however, the values and uses of these resources, and

their associated meaning and importance change.

What makes natural resources management an especially difficult challenge

today is that traditional values and uses do not disappear, but are joined by

new ones often in conflict with earlier ones.

The focus on important resource management issues provides a useful way to

organize research efforts to better understand the dynamic relationship among

people and natural resources and to isolate where complementary relationships

between resource uses exist.

At PNW we have endeavored to place social science research and development (R&D) in the context of challenging and controversial issues and problems

facing resource managers and the public. Our social science research is imbedded

in integrated studies of important resource management issues; it is not driven

separately by social research agendas, as is the case in academic institutions.

Our integrated research, which includes a social research component, is

focused on resource management challenges and public concerns about issues such

as forest productivity and sustainability, management of riparian areas for multiple

values and uses, providing diverse opportunities for public uses of forests (including recreation), restoring forest health, providing a transportation network that

serves multiple values and uses (including public access to areas of importance to

them), maintenance of water resource quantity and quality for multiple uses, and

improving the use of science in resource decisions.

We are not doing social science research for the sake of satisfying social

science objectives or simply to learn more about interesting aspects of human

concerns and values. Rather we are focusing our efforts on what we need to know

about the interactions between the social and biophysical systems so that resource
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

44

management programs and practices can be developed and successfully implemented to resolve important forest management issues.

The comparative advantage we have in Forest Service Research, and the

scientific void we are filling with respect to our academic colleagues, is our

capacity to integrate social research with biophysical sciences to address difficult

forest management issues in a search for more comprehensive forest management

options. When we need specific, more indepth expertise in a particular narrow

topic, we seek assistance from the universities we work with across the country.

Making good land management decisions that are implementable is increasingly difficult. Such decisions need to be based on sound biophysical

science. Problems we face, such as increasing forest productivity and sustainability, are very complex, making it difficult to understand and predict

the various biophysical processes that are in operation.

It is also important that decisions make good economic sense; if the costs

outweigh the benefits, it is unlikely they can be implemented for very long,

irrespective of how sound the science underlying them is.

But to make the challenge before managers even more difficult, even if their

decisions are based on the very best biophysical science and are economically viable, such decisions might still prove difficult to implement if they

lack public understanding and support. Thus, we need better social science

knowledge about the acceptability of various management practices and

resulting conditions and guidelines on how this insight helps develop

decisions that are sound (biophysically and socially), economically viable,

and capable of implementation on the ground.

Research Goals

The basic goal of the PNW Station’s integrated research, of which social science is

a component, is to improve the ability of land managers to develop and successfully implement programs and practices to sustain vital natural resources and

provide diverse public values and uses (both commodity and amenity) for both

urban and rural populations.

The focus of past and continuing research is to develop improved ways for

resource managers to resolve changing demands on forests resulting from rapid

urbanization, conflicting viewpoints about what is “proper” forest management,

and increasing public concerns about management of forest places of importance to

them.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

45

Research results, combined with findings from biological and physical scientists, will be used to develop and evaluate alternative approaches to help resolve

policy issues such as (1) maintaining forest productivity and sustainability while

improving public access to high-quality recreation opportunities, (2) restoration of

forest health while providing for multiple forest uses and values, and (3) management of riparian areas and water quality and quantity for multiple uses.

This research will improve integration of public concerns and uses into

resource management, the goal being a reduction in conflicts among different uses and between citizens and resource managers.

Research Response

Society faces increasingly complicated natural resource management challenges.

Information necessary for small- to large-scale management requires analysis of

a host of interrelated biophysical, social, economic, and management factors.

Managers, scientists, and decisionmakers need new tools to support an integrated

approach to decisionmaking and scientific assessments to facilitate development of

implementable forest management policies.

Forest managers face many conflicting demands and expectations from increasingly diverse populations. The PNW Station continues efforts to improve understanding of how human uses, values, and concerns interact with biophysical and

ecological systems. This information is essential to develop and implement responsive and effective management programs.

We are examining the linkages between human communities and public uses

such as recreation and subsistence and resource management activities including

forest productivity and sustainability, timber harvesting, road management, and

forest health and riparian area restoration.

• We have formed integrated programs of research and development to

understand resource use interactions and provide knowledge and technology to

aid in development, implementation, and evaluation of resource management

options.

• To understand biophysical and social questions requires a long-term effort

focused on experimentation across diverse landscapes. Integrated research

sites will help us learn about ecological processes and public acceptance of

forest management practices.

Research focuses on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of

scientific information in resource decisionmaking. Two components are involved in

this work.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

46

• First, scientists are working to develop better technologies and approaches for

acquiring and using knowledge from scientists, managers, and citizens to craft

better decisions about controversial issues.

• A second focus is evaluating the adaptive management approach for using

scientific knowledge in resource planning and management. The objective of

this work is to identify what is working and what is not so that barriers can be

overcome and effective solutions created.

Research is underway to help explain how and why stakeholders develop

divergent perspectives on what is acceptable forest management. This information

will help forest managers better respond to public concerns while developing and

implementing programs and practices to resolve issues such as timber harvesting,

restoration of forest health, and riparian management.

Research is planned to evaluate how decisions to restore riparian habitats can

be accomplished in ways that consider the effects on recreation uses and opportunities. This work will be done in one or more drainages, providing a range of spatial

scales to:

• Evaluate the processes through which such restoration-based decisions are

made.

• Document the nature and extent of the effects of the decision on both the

primary objective of stream restoration and habitat improvement, as well as on

public uses such as recreation.

• Describe the management and policy implications of the results. With this

information, land managers will be able to provide opportunities the public

desires while meeting other riparian management objectives.

Research is underway for enhancing opportunities for diverse public uses and

forest values. Concerns about management of sensitive species and areas (such

as riparian areas) often lead to management practices that eliminate or constrain

public uses and often alienate segments of the public.

• This research will help identify opportunities for creating and/or enhancing

multiple public uses while protecting and sustaining other sensitive biological

and physical resources.

• This research responds to increasing public demands for being included in

resource decisions that affect them and for having their interests better

reflected in resource management actions.

Some Recent Findings

Although the Station has undertaken a wide variety of studies and projects, several

themes have been featured.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

47

Acceptability of Resource Policy and Practices

Although public debates covered in the media and some popular literature are often

conveyed as polarized, either-or extremes, past research reveals that in some cases,

controversial issues such as restoring forest health, management of riparian areas,

and increasing forest productivity often can be resolved in ways that accommodate

important public concerns and uses desired by increasing numbers of citizens.

Social acceptability is based on the idea that for any given management

practice, policy, or program to be implemented effectively, not only must it be

based on good science and sound economic principles, but it also must have public

understanding and support. If this understanding and support is lacking, it is

unlikely any management program can be successfully implemented. We are

interested in better understanding how these judgments of acceptability affect

planning and implementing forest policy and practices.

• Research found that processes through which the decision or outcome was

reached, specifically the public involvement, influence social acceptability.

Much of what people care about involves process—how actions were planned,

who was involved, how people got information, whether sources were

credible, and whether their ideas were valued.

• Acceptability is often place based or situationally specific. Thus, geographic

and other contextual aspects are central to public acceptance of any

management action. These findings should help reduce conflict between

resource professionals and stakeholders as each gains a better understanding

of the importance of decisionmaking processes as well as the outcomes of

decisions.

Studies and managers’ experience show that many citizens are concerned about

resource management practices and conditions that result from those practices.

Research reveals some important aspects of this concern that might not always be

apparent. For example:

• People often show a remarkable ability to understand highly complex resource

management issues and problems.

• People are concerned about more than how things look; e.g., concerns with the

effects of clearcutting or road construction go far beyond just appearance and

esthetics. People are concerned with impacts on long-term site productivity,

erosion and stream sedimentation, potential loss of biodiversity, and impacts

on many types of recreation opportunities.

• Not all forest management practices are negative. For example, alternative

silvicultural treatments and road designs can create or enhance recreation

opportunities increasingly desired by citizens.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

48

• People understand that tradeoffs must be made; they recognize that responding

to their concerns will have impacts on other uses and values. When

opportunities exist for open, honest discussion of these various tradeoffs,

progress can be made to implement programs acceptable to more people.

To understand sustainability requires that considerations about ecological functions

and processes be coupled with stakeholder values and objectives.

• An analysis of the literature on the concept of sustainability suggests that it

unites ecological and social concerns.

• To implement management objectives, one recommended approach is to assess

sustainability at the landscape level and define the processes, structures, and

resources needed to meet the objectives of society.

• The pursuit of sustainable forest management practices and the resulting mix

of goods and services must incorporate substantive stakeholder involvement.

Science has an important role in informing this debate, but the ultimate

decision as to these outputs remains a value choice by society.

Dramatic growth in the Pacific Northwest, especially in rural areas, has been

fueled by inmigration (movement into a region). Such shifts raise important

questions about the changing nature of human-resource interactions. We have

completed an initial look at how population shifts are transforming relationships

between human populations and forests.

• Lifestyles of new residents are creating new and broader demands for

recreation access and opportunities. Studies confirm that amenities are

increasing in importance as a reason for inmigration. Population growth in

proximity to public forests poses a number of concerns for resource managers.

• We found that there may be important differences between inmigrants and

long-term residents in how they relate to, use, and value the environment.

Their expectations of forest management may also be quite different.

• This inmigration has important implications for management of public lands,

including social acceptability of management actions and the processes used to

develop plans and make management decisions. Understanding patterns of

migration, the forces driving it, and the consequences of rapid growth are

critical to policymakers.

Integration of Human and Biophysical Concerns in Policy and

Management

Although we acknowledge that the goal of integrating biological, social, economic,

cultural, and physical concerns in land use planning and management is desirable,

we need to also acknowledge that to do so will require new ways of thinking and

doing business. Thus, we have continued to emphasize the importance of understanding what changes are required, what it will take to implement them, what
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

49

effects they will have, and how new technology can make the job of integrated

resource management easier.

• Integration of resource management and research implies consideration of

ecological, economic, and social factors. If consideration of these factors is

lacking, full integration has not been achieved, and effective implementation

becomes problematic. Problem framing is possibly the most critical part of

integrative processes.

A major concern in resource management and research is how to improve our

capacity to integrate various forms of information–social, economic, and biophysical. A promising approach to integrating biophysical and social information is the

use of formal decision-support tools. The Ecosystem Management Decision Support

system (EMDS) facilitates creation of integrated knowledge bases for research and

management. Formal knowledge bases (based on decision-support technology)

provide improved capacity to plan for and conduct consistent management assessments and research at multiple scales. The use of decision-support concepts and

technology facilitates integration in both research and management.

• The EMDS combines formal reasoning with geographic information systems to

enhance integration of biophysical and social knowledge that can be used in

developing and evaluating forest management options.

• Research demonstrated that detailed evaluations of watershed conditions that

integrate relevant knowledge needed for useful assessments of watershed

integrity are possible.

Forest Policy and Management Effects on Human Communities

We have worked to improve understanding and integration of our knowledge of

communities and knowledge and concerns held by citizens with other aspects

of natural resource management. Resource managers, county commissioners,

and educators have found the results of this work useful in developing agencycommunity-education partnerships to solve problems facing the agency and

communities.

• Among other things, this work has revealed that although natural resource

management actions and policies result in consequences for the region’s

communities and for the host of values and concerns that citizens hold, these

consequences are often not recognized or effective policies to prevent or

mitigate them are lacking. However, by more recognition, integration, and

appreciation of the knowledge and ideas of citizens, we can more effectively

anticipate these problems as well as fashion more innovative forest

management policy and management.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

50

• People who live, work, and recreate in or near forests know much about them.

This local knowledge has the potential to reveal information about the patterns

and processes of ecosystems that may not be part of the common information

base.

• The concept of community (both of place and interest) provides a powerful

framework for analysis of forest management options and effects.

• Local communities have different abilities to respond to changes in forest

policy and practices. Some communities and individuals may be more severely

affected than others.

o Getting communities involved in their own community assessments puts

local citizens in control of what to study so that the findings are useful for

them as well as the agency.

o Research confirms findings of other studies of displaced timber workers:

lower wages, loss of occupational identity, and distrust of corporate and

agency managers. However, most timber workers who participated in the

study expressed support for better conservation of timber resources and

had high capacity to cope with changes that affect them.

o When community members themselves study the interrelationship between

forests and their community, they are in a better position to improve their

own situation while working with forest managers to respond to community concerns about forest policy.

• Findings suggest that the impacts of changes in forest management have

multiple consequences that differ depending on individual, organizational, and

community ability to respond to change that may be quite different from what

we suspect.

o Understanding these differences enables resource managers, local

governments, and community groups to more effectively target adverse

consequences and needs during times of change.

o Research demonstrates that involving community members as researchers

working side by side with scientists may have more useful outcomes than

research conducted solely by “outsiders.”

Making Adaptive Management Work for Managers, Citizens,

and Scientists

To make the idea of adaptive management more than just another slogan will

require new ways of doing business. The promise and potential of adaptive

management has created high expectations among citizens, managers, and scientists, yet our ability to implement it in an effective manner remains to be demonstrated. We have initiated a major evaluation of the concept including its specific
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

51

application in the adaptive management areas (AMAs), as a means of developing a

better sense of the kinds of changes required to implement adaptive management

effectively.

Making adaptive management a reality requires new ways to learn and new

roles for scientists, managers, and citizens. The essence of adaptive management is

that management should be designed as an opportunity for learning, and that

lessons learned through management activities and scientific study should be

deliberately gathered and incorporated into future management and research

activities. Adaptive management is an iterative process of planning, taking action,

monitoring, and evaluating, with learning occurring along the way in order to apply

what is learned to future problems and actions. Managers and researchers are

challenged in this approach to work in new ways with each other and the public.

In spite of substantial barriers, citizens, scientists, and managers are learning

how to collaborate in the AMAs. An ongoing evaluation of the AMAs indicates

that each group brings different worldviews to the challenges facing natural

resource management; these views are a source of tension but also the source of

creative, innovative insight.

• In the Applegate AMA, for example, there has been a major effort underway

for several years, predating creation of the AMA, in which various groups

have begun learning how to work together.

• In the Central Cascades AMA, there have been close links between

management and research for many years, built around the H.J. Andrews

Experimental Forest and the Blue River Ranger District. Today, managers

and researchers there are beginning to build improved links to local citizens.

• Elsewhere in the AMA system, these relations are still in the early stages

of development. Although much might be learned from experiences in the

Applegate and Central Cascades, it is also clear that individual AMAs will

need to develop their own particular strategies based on local social, economic, biological, and management conditions.

Conclusions

Resource management problems today are often cast as either-or scenarios leading

to less than optimum solutions, increasing polarization, or, in worst cases, gridlock

and stalemates. This often leads to limited opportunities to address conflicts while

providing a broad array of benefits to the American people.

We see ways in which past and current work will affect the work we are now

beginning. For example, there is growing concern throughout the region and the

Nation about threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TES), forest productivity and sustainability, riparian resources, fisheries, and water quality. How we
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-627

52

choose to respond to these challenges will have consequences and implications for

a host of other values and concerns—recreation, subsistence, amenity values,

communities.

Although there clearly are real conflicts and impacts to be considered, too

often, effective responses to these challenges become lost in polarized, acrimonious

debate. It is our view that where problems and challenges exist, opportunities for

creative, innovative solutions exist as well; we can move to a situation in which

there are more than simply winners and losers.

A basic principle of our work is that by more effectively integrating social

science research at the beginning, we increase the likelihood of anticipating

many problems before they reach stalemate, as well as the likelihood of

developing solutions that accommodate various competing, yet legitimate

concerns. Rather than yield to reasons why something cannot be done, we

are working to position our research as the source of information leading to

creative solutions.

It is our contention that only by integrating social with biophysical research can we

develop effective, efficient, equitable, and implementable forest and natural

resource policy and management strategies.

We believe that the current debate about the role and value of social science

research can be likened to focusing through the “wrong end of the telescope.” The discussion of priorities should not be construed as a concern

focused on social science, but about broader critical management and policy

issues confronting natural resource management and the vital role that social

science information can play in their resolution.

This integrated work will lead to solutions that increase the probability we can:

• Provide traditional forest products while enhancing diverse opportunities for

the public to use and appreciate areas important to them.

• Protect threatened and endangered species while maintaining, enhancing, or

creating opportunities for public use and enjoyment of forests.

• Restore forest health and riparian areas while at the same time accommodating

a diverse array of options for the public to use these areas in ways important to

them.

Benefits of this work include:

• Increasing knowledge that will lead to optimization of uses rather than

polarizing, exclusionary practices.

• Improved ways to incorporate and respond to public concerns.

• Public understanding and support as a result of addressing their concerns.
Developing an Agenda to Guide Forest Social Science, Economics, and Utilization Research

53

• Improved response to policy and management issues such as forest health,

riparian management, productivity, and sustainability.

• Implementable decisions.

Why should an organization like the Forest Service and the PNW Station be

concerned with developing and supporting a program of social science research?

Of what possible value is such a program in addressing the agency’s real mission of

forest health and productivity?

First, such a program provides a rigorous basis for understanding what is

important to people. Importance is not measured by the laws, policies, programs, or

practices that govern an agency’s behavior; these are only means to an end. However, what we want to make sure of is that the goals that an agency such as the

Forest Service seeks to attain are consistent with what people are concerned about.

Thus, a major responsibility and opportunity for social science is to help provide a

clear sense of the key concerns and issues of society; this is especially challenging

in a world of many interests, often in sharp conflict with one another.

Second, people are the primary beneficiaries of the programs an agency like

the Forest Service implements. However, it often proves difficult to measure the

extent to which programs are, in fact, delivering the kinds of benefits to people

they purport to. Thus, another key role for social science is to help provide independent evaluation of the extent to which our deeds match our words; to the extent

they do not, such research can also help define what is getting in the way and

perhaps suggest strategies for resolving the barrier.

Third, many of the natural resource problems with which we are confronted

can be traced to the interaction between people’s use of those resources and

unwanted or unanticipated impacts. Here, social science can provide important

insight as to how the attitudes and behavior of people produce detrimental effects

on natural resources and, can also help identify ways in which these adverse effects

might be prevented or mitigated.

Finally, although it might be true, in one sense, that people are the problem,

they are also the solution. Thus, an important role of social science research is to

identify alternative institutions that can help solve natural resource problems. As a

part of this, such work might also reveal how existing institutions might be part of

the problem, thereby providing a basis for restructuring how we do our business in

ways that eliminate unwanted effects. It could also help review successful experiences and the conditions associated with their successful application.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300