Wildland Fire Behavior & Forest Structure

Environmental Consequences

Economics

Social Concerns

Social Science to Improve

Fuels Management: A 

Synthesis of Research on

Collaboration

Fuels Management: A 
This document is part of the Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration Project, a pilot project

initiated by the USDA Forest Service to respond to the need for tools and information useful for planning site-specific fuel (vegetation) treatment projects. The information addresses fuel and forest conditions of the dry inland forests of the Western United States: those dominated by ponderosa pine,

Douglas-fir, dry grand fir/white fir, and dry lodgepole pine potential vegetation types. Information was

developed primarily for application at the stand level and is intended to be useful within this forest

type regardless of ownership. Portions of the information also will be directly applicable to the pinyon

pine/juniper potential vegetation types. Many of the concepts and tools developed by the project may

be useful for planning fuel projects in other forest types. In particular, many of the social science findings would have direct applicability to fuel planning activities for forests throughout the United States.

As is the case in the use of all models and information developed for specific purposes, our tools

should be used with a full understanding of their limitations and applicability. 

The science team, although organized functionally, worked hard at integrating the approaches,

analyses, and tools. It is the collective effort of the team members that provides the depth and

understanding of the work. The science team leadership included Deputy Science Team Leader

Sarah McCaffrey (USDA FS, North Central Research Station); forest structure and fire behavior—

Dave Peterson and Morris Johnson (USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station); environmental

consequences—Elaine Kennedy-Sutherland and Anne Black (USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research

Station); economic uses of materials—Jamie Barbour and Roger Fight (USDA FS, Pacific Northwest

Research Station); public attitudes and beliefs—Pamela Jakes and Susan Barro (USDA FS, North

Central Research Station); and technology transfer—John Szymoniak, (USDA FS, Pacific Southwest

Research Station). 

This project would not have been possible without the vision and financial support of Washington

Office Fire and Aviation Management individuals, Janet Anderson and Leslie Sekavec. 

Russell T. Graham 

USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Science Team Leader 

Preface
This is one of several publications to be developed by the public attitudes and beliefs team of the Fuels

Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration Project. To gather information relevant to public attitudes

and beliefs about fuels planning, we posed six questions. These questions were developed around the

tasks and challenges faced by fuels treatment planners:

• What information and tools are available to help land managers and communities collaborate in

developing fuel treatment programs?

• What information and tools are available to help managers work with communities to communicate

the risk and uncertainty of fuels treatment projects?

• What information and tools are available to evaluate the social acceptability of fuels treatments?

• What information and tools are available to describe and evaluate the aesthetic impacts of fuels

treatments?

• What information and tools are available to encourage more active involvement of private property

owners in the fuels management process?

• What information and tools are available to help us understand and evaluate the social impacts of wildfire?

Teams of scientists from universities and public agencies across the country were formed to address

each question. Each team had approximately eight weeks to produce a synthesis of science relevant to

its question and an annotated bibliography that supports the synthesis. 

While the focus of the national project was on the dry inland forests of the Western United States, the

research synthesized by the social science teams was not limited geographically. We felt the research

question being addressed was more important than the location of the research. In addition, we felt

that research addressing the human dimensions of a variety of management objectives is potentially

applicable to fuels management. For example, we assumed that information and tools developed in

Minnesota to bring together communities and agencies in addressing watershed management collaboratively, across boundaries, are applicable to fuels management. 

In this publication we present the findings of the synthesis on collaboration. An annotated bibliography and

a series of manager fact sheets have been prepared to accompany this synthesis. Manager fact sheets are

available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/social_science_team/fact_sheet_ss.htm 

Further information on the larger project is available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/synthesis_index

Social Science Leaders: Pamela Jakes Susan Barro

(651) 649-5163 (651) 649-5158

pjakes@fs.fed.us sbarro@fs.fed.us

Welcome
Victoria Sturtevant

Institute of Environmental Studies

Southern Oregon University

Ashland, Oregon

Margaret Ann Moote

Ecological Restoration Institute

Northern Arizona University

Flagstaff, Arizona

Pamela Jakes

North Central Research Station

USDA Forest Service

St. Paul, Minnesota

Antony S. Cheng

Department of Forest, Rangeland & Watershed

Stewardship

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado
Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 1

Collaboration and Wildland Fire ______________________________________________________ 2 

Definition of Collaboration____________________________________________________________ 4

Benefits of Collaboration ____________________________________________________________ 5

Collaboration Increases Efficiency __________________________________________________ 5 

Collaboration Increases Agency Awareness of Changing Values __________________________ 5 

Collaboration Builds Trust ________________________________________________________ 6 

Collaboration Facilitates Landscape-level Management and Planning ______________________ 6

Collaboration Motivates Private Landowners __________________________________________ 7 

Collaboration Supports Science ____________________________________________________ 8 

Collaboration Produces Intangible Benefits __________________________________________ 8 

Collaboration Builds Community Capacity __________________________________________ 8 

Collaboration Builds Agency Capacity ______________________________________________ 9 

A Summary of the Benefits of Collaboration ________________________________________ 10 

Stages of the Collaborative Process ____________________________________________________ 12

Initiation: Identifying the Issue and Context ________________________________________ 12

Coming Together: Gathering Players ______________________________________________ 12 

Setting Priorities: Establishing Goals ______________________________________________ 14

Getting Organized: Creating a Collaborative Structure and Process ______________________ 15 

Learning: Sharing Information and Building Relationships ______________________________ 15

Implementation: Action to Achieve Goals __________________________________________ 16 

Reflection: Monitoring and Evaluation______________________________________________ 17 

Final Thoughts on Process ______________________________________________________ 17 

Challenges to Building and Sustaining Collaboration ______________________________________ 19

Challenges to Building and Sustaining Participatory Capacity __________________________ 19 

Challenges for Building and Sustaining Community Capacity __________________________ 24 

Challenges for Institutional Capacity ______________________________________________ 27

Policy Resources for Collaboration ____________________________________________________ 34 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act ____________________________________________________ 34 

National Fire Plan Authorities ____________________________________________________ 35 

Wyden Amendment ____________________________________________________________ 36

County Payments Bill __________________________________________________________ 36 

Stewardship Contracting ________________________________________________________ 37

Economic Action Programs ______________________________________________________ 37

Forest Land Enhancement Program ________________________________________________ 37 

Contents
Fire Assistance Programs ________________________________________________________ 38

Agency Mentors and Models ____________________________________________________ 38

Keys to Successful Collaboration______________________________________________________ 40 

Focus on Community Context____________________________________________________ 40 

Focus on Resource Stewardship __________________________________________________ 40

Focus on Appropriate Scale ______________________________________________________ 41 

Focus on Building Relationships and Trust __________________________________________ 42 

Focus on Strong Leadership______________________________________________________ 43

Focus on Structure and Process __________________________________________________ 43

Focus on Outreach and Communication __________________________________________ 44

Focus on Resources ____________________________________________________________ 45

Focus on Linkages ____________________________________________________________ 45

Focus on Adaptive Management __________________________________________________ 46

Focus on Successes ____________________________________________________________ 46

Acknowledgments ________________________________________________________________ 63

Appendix A—Types of Collaboration __________________________________________________ 64

Collaboration Characterized by the Strength of Linkages ______________________________ 64 

Collaboration Characterized by the Focus or Scale of the Project ________________________ 65

Collaboration Characterized by Membership ________________________________________ 66

Appendix B—Monitoring and Evaluation ______________________________________________ 67

Why Evaluate Collaboration? ____________________________________________________ 67

Who Should Evaluate?__________________________________________________________ 67

How to Evaluate? ______________________________________________________________ 68

What to Measure?______________________________________________________________ 69

Appendix C—Partnering Mechanisms in the USDA Forest Service __________________________ 72

Appendix D—Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) __________________________________ 73

Literature Cited __________________________________________________________________ 76
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 1

“Certainly, fire management and

suppression is an area in which

collaborative approaches make

perfect sense, and in which it

makes no sense at all to not 

collaborate.” 

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000, p. 75) 

Wildland fire professionals at the Federal, State, and local levels have a long tradition of collaboration

across agencies and jurisdictions. However, citizens, managers, and policymakers continue to express

the need for more and improved collaboration for wildland fire and fuels management. In this synthesis of research on collaboration, we offer knowledge and tools to improve collaboration in the

field—at the level where wildland fire and fuels management projects are planned and implemented.

This synthesis was commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

(Forest Service) to aid fuels mitigation project planning under the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, collaboration is not an activity that fits neatly into any

one stage of the NEPA process or chapter in a NEPA document; rather, it is an ongoing process that is

most effective when maintained at every stage of both program and project planning. Collaboration

during program planning helps ensure dialogue that can support and improve various NEPA activities

such as scoping, defining desired future conditions, identifying purpose and need, developing and

evaluating alternatives, and monitoring. Although many of the examples offered in this synthesis

involve the Forest Service, the knowledge shared here can be used by communities and citizen

groups as well as agencies at local, State, and Federal levels to improve land use planning and 

management through collaborative action. 

This report is a companion to a managers’ report on social science to improve the development and

implementation of fuels management projects (in process), but it provides more detail on what 

social scientist research has discovered about collaboration. Even more information can be found 

in the studies cited in this synthesis. To help readers locate this information and to identify which

publications might be useful in justifying and supporting efforts for wildland fire collaboration, a 

CD-ROM is enclosed that contains an annotated bibliography of the literature on collaboration 

relevant to wildland fire and fuels management. This is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it is a

good introduction to the abundant scientific literature that addresses collaboration in general, the

more limited scientific literature on collaboration for natural resource management, and the very 

limited scientific literature on collaboration for wildland fire. 

Introduction
Collaboration is not a new idea for public land managers. Surveys of national forest employees in the

mid-1990s found interest and support for implementing a more collaborative approach to interacting

with the public (Mohai et al. 1994, Mohai and Jakes 1996). At the time of these studies, some level of

collaborative planning was reported on 91 percent of the national forests (Selin et al. 1997). 

Wildland fire management offers many examples of interagency collaboration, with agencies discovering 

“that they could develop better and long-lasting solutions for complex resource problems 

by working together [rather] than by attempting to deal with the problems on their own” 

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000: iii). 

Beyond coordinated response to fires, wildland fire professionals have created common training and

standards; have shared information, equipment, supplies, and personnel; and, more recently, have collaborated on research, fuel hazard reduction, and public education. 

One example of wildland fire collaboration at the national level is the National Interagency Fire Center

(NIFC). NIFC was established in 1965 when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest

Service joined forces to improve support for firefighting in the West. The Department of Commerce’s

National Weather Service contributed fire weather forecasting to the NIFC effort, and in the 1970s four

more agencies from the U.S. Department of the Interior—the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Office of Aircraft Services (OAS)—joined NIFC

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000). 

A second example of wildland fire collaboration at the national level is the National Wildfire Coordinating

Group (NWCG). Created in 1976, the NWCG is made up of members of NIFC and the National Association

of State Foresters. The goal of the NWCG is to coordinate programs of the participating wildland fire management agencies to improve efficiency and provide a framework for working together (NWCG 2004). 

There are numerous examples of wildland fire collaboration at the local level. Local volunteer fire

departments share training, equipment, and facilities with partners at the State and Federal level.

Community groups and agencies come together in organizations such as local fire councils to 

collaborate on planning and conducting fuel treatments. Programs such as Firewise, FireFree, and 

Fire Safe bring together diverse partners to encourage and support wildland fire management activities.

Many of these collaborative efforts improve not only the management of wildland fire, but also the

overall health of forests and other components of fire-dependent ecosystems (Sturtevant and Jakes

2003, Teie and Weatherford 2000, USDA 2003).

2 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Collaboration and Wildland Fire
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 3

Although collaboration in wildland fire management has been significant, calls continue for more 

collaboration, especially at the local level. In a joint report by then USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and

Department of the Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to President Clinton after the fires in the summer of

2000, it was suggested that Federal fuels treatment teams work closely with local communities (USDA

and USDI 2000). Congress, in its appropriation for the National Fire Plan, directed that there should be

“a collaborative structure, with the states and local governments as full partners .... Successful 

implementation of this program will require close collaboration among citizens and governments 

at all levels” (USDA and USDI 2001, p. 5). 

Recognizing that community engagement can make an initiative more enduring, this report ends by

suggesting, “Key decisions should be made at local levels.”

In a report to the NWCG, managers and the public identified critical social science research questions

for wildland fire management (Machlis et al. 2002). The number one question emerging was “How can

Federal agencies best share responsibility for fire management with non-Federal landowners?” A study

by the National Academy for Public Administration points to the added difficulty and costs of fighting

wildland fires due to the growth of the “wildland-human interface,” and suggests that collaborative

efforts are needed for addressing the growing risks of wildland fire (NAPA 2003). 

More recently, a handbook for implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) emphasizes

the importance of communities and Federal agencies working together to develop projects to reduce hazardous fuels (Society of American Foresters 2004). As a requirement for funding, communities must develop

community wildfire protection plans that are developed collaboratively with government representatives from

local and State levels, and in consultation with Federal agencies and other interested parties. The HFRA clearly recognizes that wildfire and fuels management is no longer solely the responsibility of Federal agencies, but

is rather a shared responsibility. Collaboration is as crucial as ever in meeting this responsibility.

What follows is a synthesis of published research relating to collaboration and relevant to wildland fire

and fuels management. The synthesis is organized in topics as follows:

• Definition of collaboration

• Benefits of collaboration

• Stages of collaboration

• Challenges for building and sustaining collaboration

• Policy resources for collaboration

• Keys to successful collaboration
Collaboration is the “pooling of appreciations and/or tangible resources, such as information, money,

labor, etc., by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually”

(Gray 1985, p. 912). Although there are many definitions of collaboration, most collaborative relationships are (1) voluntary, (2) involve face-to-face interaction and interdependence, and (3) seek to achieve

specific goals (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). In general, collaboration helps people achieve goals

together that they could not achieve independently (table 1). Some people find that they better 

understand what collaboration is by studying the different types of groups that may be labeled 

collaborative. Readers can find a detailed discussion of the types of collaboration in appendix A. 

Definition of Collaboration

Collaboration is not...

... a goal in and of itself.

... new.

... a silver bullet that will eliminate conflict and controversy. 

... something that can be forced.

... a way of manipulating or co-opting groups or interests.

... a substitute for public involvement.

... an abdication of authority or responsibilities.

... always the best approach.

Collaboration is...

... a means of achieving a goal.

... a process that has been around for centuries.

... one tool to use in project planning and implementation.

... a voluntary, mutually beneficial, desired arrangement. 

... fair and conducted in good faith.

... a complement to public involvement activities.

... a sharing of authority or responsibilities.

... one approach to wildland fire and resource management.

Table 1.—Characteristics of Collaboration (BLM and Sonoran Institute 2000, NWCG 1999, USDA 2000, 

USDI 2000)

4 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Collaboration in forestry and natural resources often focuses on collaborative stewardship.

Collaborative stewardship is defined as: 

• “... voluntary, mutually beneficial, desired arrangement between groups... established to accomplish 

mutual objectives that are consistent with the mission of each group” (NWCG 1999, p. 10).

• “People working together, sharing knowledge and resources to ensure ecological systems and 

communities” (USDA 2000, p. 1).

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

solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands” (USDI and Sonoran Institute 2000, p. 3).

• “A cooperative process in which interested parties work face-to-face to resolve a natural resource problem,

create a new policy, or develop a management plan” (Cestero 1999, p. 9).
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 5

Why should project managers collaborate? Because a new law requires it? Because a supervisor tells

them they must? As

usual, the best answer

is the simplest:

“Collaboration can

lead to better decisions that are more

likely to be implemented, and at the

same time, better prepare agencies and

communities for

future challenges”

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, p. 23). Below we summarize (table 2) and discuss several benefits of

collaboration for those involved in fuels management.

Collaboration Increases Efficiency

Although the responsibilities of natural resource managers have increased in complexity, budgets to

fulfill many of these responsibilities have diminished and competition for new dollars has intensified

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000). Even with increased funding for fuels reduction on Federal lands, efficiency is monitored to ensure responsible use of public funds. Collaboration can create agreements

that result in increased efficiency through the sharing of personnel and equipment—means to combine

resources for mutual benefit (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Collaboration also results in relationships

that help agencies and organizations leverage resources by qualifying for grants that provide matching

funds (USDA 2000). Collaboration can increase efficiency by mobilizing citizens who provide volunteer labor for projects or help organize and conduct fund-raising activities (Loucks 2002). Greater efficiency is also realized through the sharing of data and analyses. Although collaborating may initially

take more time and funding than not collaborating, research has demonstrated long-term benefits

including increased efficiency and “bang for the buck.” One study reported, “Many respondents noted

that collaboration could improve cost-effectiveness at the organizational and interorganizational level”

(Imperial and Hennessey 2000, p. 18). 

Collaboration Increases Agency Awareness of Changing Values

Social values are changing and becoming more diverse (USDA 2000). Attitudes, values, and beliefs

about wildland fire and fuels management are also in flux. Various groups, aided by the “information

Benefits of Collaboration

Wildland fire or fuels management issues and concerns

Lack of adequate funding for projects and programs

Lack of quality, usable data and other resources

Perceived and real resistance and mistrust

NEPA planning requirements

Incompatible attitudes towards fire

Conflicting project timelines, standards, and objectives

Benefits of collaboration

Collaboration can mobilize people and organizations to 

generate funding.

Collaboration facilitates the sharing of data, expertise, and data. 

Collaboration leads to coalitions and support.

Collaboration can lead to interagency and community technical

teams that facilitate the NEPA process.

Collaboration leads to broader understanding of different 

attitudes and values through outreach and shared learning.

Collaboration can lead to coordination, cooperation, and

increased effectiveness and efficiency.

Table 2.—Benefits of Collaboration for Different Wildland Fire or Fuels Management Issues and

Concerns (TNC 2003)
highway,” have increased the range of public interest and understanding of resource issues. Through

collaboration—building coalitions, identifying common ground, engaging in collective learning, and

sharing information—public land managers can better identify, understand, and respond to these

changes (USDI 2000). 

Collaboration Builds Trust

It is commonly acknowledged that trust in government, including public land management agencies

responsible for wildland fire and fuels management projects, is not what it could be or has been.

However, when we talk about trust in government, we need to distinguish between trust in the government agency and trust in the individual government employee. Although local residents may distrust the agency, they tend to trust the individual employee (“I trust the Ranger, just not the Forest

Service”). When Federal employees participate in collaborative activities as individuals, trust builds

between members and may eventually include the agency (Sturtevant and Lange 2003). 

Collaboration is part of a movement to counteract special interest politics and cynicism about government to “reawaken” (Brick 2001) community with a focus on stewardship. By collectively defining

fuels management as one step to improving forest health, managers—with the community’s support

and understanding—can make the case for being responsible stewards of the land. Indeed, in some

cases, collaboration seems to be the only process that will work (Brick 2001, Kusel and Adler 2003).

Collaboration Facilitates Landscape-level Management and Planning

Managers are looking across ownership boundaries to promote sustainable resource management at

the landscape level (USDA 2000). Although fuels mitigation projects may be planned and implemented at the district or local level, to be effective they must support a broader landscape-level plan for

fuels management. Several case studies of collaborative groups working in

watershed restoration describe the positive results of joint resource management

planning (Born and Genskow 2000, Brunner et al. 2002, Imperial and

Hennessey 2000, Porter and Salvesen 1995). Examples include development of

joint watershed management plans; resource sharing (e.g., expert from one

agency lent to another; interest group collecting data for agency); joint grant

proposals; and, in a few cases, the creation of intergovernmental organizations,

Federal-State compacts, and shared regulations. 

Technical advances support and enhance landscape-level planning across jurisdictional boundaries

(Yaffee and Wondolleck 2000). Collaboration facilitates synthesis of information in a manner that

6 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Members of SWIFT work 

together to create and maintain

fuelbreaks across ownerships,

accomplishing together what 

no one agency or group could 

do alone.

Photo credit: SWIFT Web site
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 7

“adds value” for decisionmakers, enhances project-level efforts (Imperial and Hennessey 2000) and

increases access to information through collaborative-sponsored clearinghouses (Born and Genskow

2000) and forums for discussing technical issues (Steelman and Kunkel 2003). Cooperatives such as

the Southern Sierra Geographic Information Cooperative are working to provide Web sites with software and data downloads for coordinated watershed and fire planning (Birkholz and Lineback 2001). 

Collaboration Motivates Private Landowners

One of the major challenges facing those involved in wildland fire and fuels management is motivating

individuals to take responsibility for the necessary activities on their land. Landscape-level forest health

needs such as fuels mitigation demand landscape-level, multi-ownership solutions. Watershed council

projects are often held up as models of projects that work across ownership boundaries and engage

private citizens. Although involvement of private landowners in watershed groups is uneven (Waage

2003), studies of wildland fire and fuels management planning show that collaborative projects have

promoted personal responsibility and motivated landowners to mitigate their own, as well as their

Photo credit: Victoria Sturtevant

Collaboration involves private

landowners helping to define

objectives and prioritize 

projects.
neighbors’, vulnerability to fire (Firewise Communities/USA 2003, Steelman and Kunkel 2003,

Sturtevant and Corson 2003). However, to be motivated individuals must understand the problem

being faced:

Only when the public truly understands the nature of the wildland/urban interface fire 

problem will the community-based coalitions needed to effectively mitigate the problem be

successful (Teie and Weatherford 2000, p. 29). 

Collaboration Supports Science

Scientific “truth” is being debated more publicly and contentiously than at any time during the last century. Non-agency scientists have grown in number (USDI 2000); and independent scientists, agency

retirees, and university scientists have entered the “my science, your science” or “dueling scientists” contests. Collaboration among agency, university, and community scientists can facilitate a move to “our science” and “civic science,” a “gyroscope” for the conflicting information and values (Lee 1993). A shift is

occurring away from the agency as “expert” toward shared learning and responsibility (BLM and

Sonoran Institute 2000). Residents bring their knowledge and skills to planning, implementation, and

monitoring of projects, as in the participatory mapping project that created GIS data layers for the

Trinity County Fire Safe Council (Everett in press). Application of local knowledge and site-specific

skills can anchor projects in the place, meshing science with local knowledge (Loucks 2002). 

Collaboration Produces Intangible Benefits

Many of the benefits of collaboration are intangible, or what have been called “invisible successes”

(Korfmacher 1998). New attitudes, shared knowledge, support, and working relationships can lead to

new policies and governmental initiatives that reflect the new perspectives gained through partnership

(Moore and Koontz 2003). Other research finds improved job satisfaction and motivation among

agency workers as a result of collaborations breaking down political and bureaucratic barriers between

agencies (Imperial and Hennessey 2000). Agency managers report that the “greater public support for

action” (Born and Genskow 2000) improves their job satisfaction.

Public support broadens the base of political support. Community leaders can advocate for agency

projects and policies, assisting in public outreach and serving as “ambassadors” who take the “reduce

hazardous fuels” message to neighbors (Sturtevant and Jakes 2003). 

Collaboration Builds Community Capacity

Collaborative projects build community capacity, the “ability of residents, community institutions,

organizations, and leadership to meet local needs and expectations” (FEMAT 1993, p. vii-51).

8 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 9

Collaborative forest planning, ecological restoration, and education projects have brought people

together not only as stewards of public and private land, but also as empowered citizens. As such, citizens may be able to sustain wildfire and fuels management programs into the future on their own,

without constant assistance from Federal land managers. Indeed, case studies of collaboration demonstrate an increased sense of civic responsibility

and heightened involvement in community

affairs (Kusel and Adler 2001). For instance,

the shared vision, sense of place, and recognized successes of the Applegate Partnership

have translated to other groups in the valley,

creating “social capital” and a proliferation of

community forums for civic action regarding local economic development and reinvestment, land use

zoning, and stewardship of public resources and facilities (Sturtevant and Lange 1995). In turn, this

network of community groups facilitated the Applegate Fire Plan process and its fast track schedule for

completion. Community capacity will be discussed further in the chapter “Challenges for Building and

Sustaining Collaboration.”

Collaboration Builds Agency Capacity

Collaboration can increase the ability of agencies and organizations to meet their missions and goals.

Collaboration allows agencies to expand the scale and complexity of projects, expand technical

expertise, and garner additional support for activities (TNC 2003). Imperial and Hennessey (2000)

found that benefits of collaboration in watershed groups “included doing projects at less cost and

undertaking projects that would not otherwise have occurred or would have taken longer to complete

without collaboration.” 

Although it may be difficult to measure ecological benefits of collaboration, researchers have shown

that watershed collaboratives have developed important education programs and undertaken activities

(constructed sewers, completed habitat restoration projects) that could be expected to improve 

environmental conditions (Imperial and Hennessey 2000). A study of six collaborative watershed 

initiatives in three states showed that collaborative environmental management can result in 

demonstrable environmental progress (Born and Genskow 2000).

When interested agencies and groups participate in collaborative projects, their sense of ownership

makes implementation more likely to succeed. It produces “better outcomes for all of us” (Belden et al.

2001), a message that can appeal to both self and public interest.

Collaborative forest planning, ecological restoration,

and education projects have brought people together

not only as stewards of public and private land, but

also as empowered citizens.
A Summary of the Benefits of Collaboration

We can summarize the benefits of collaboration by looking at what can be gained from the perspectives of agencies, communities, individuals, and society. For agencies, collaboration can improve

(NWCG 1999, USDA 2000, USDI and Sonoran Institute 2000):

1. relationships, understanding, and support among agencies, and between agencies and the public,

2. decisions and the ability to get work done,

3. the planning, assessment, and conducting of projects across boundaries and resources,

4. project effectiveness and efficiency,

5. job satisfaction of employees, and 

6. opportunities for leveraging funding and enhancing institutional capacity.

For communities, collaboration can (Baker and Kusel 2003, Bernard and Young 1997, Cortner and

Moote 1999, Weber 2003):

1. reinforce democratic values and civic culture,

2. build capacity, networks, and relationships, 

3. enhance an ethic of stewardship and collective responsibility,

4. connect natural resources to community needs, and

5. create multistakeholder ownership of process, outcomes, and measures of success.

10 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The benefits of collaboration for fuels management can be illustrated with an example. Environmental-group

appeals and residents’ complacency about the risk of wildland fire presented obstacles for fuel reduction 

projects proposed by the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project (Steelman and Kunkel 2003). To build confidence,

a technical advisory group of local scientists was formed to provide third-party review of monitoring and 

management activities. An all-day technical workshop presented by the collaborative group convinced 

skeptical environmentalists of the reality of wildland fire risk in the watershed and soundness of their adaptive

management approach. The group is also sponsoring workshops and outreach with residents about wildland

fire risk and desirability of fuel reduction. 
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 11

For individuals, collaboration can (Firewise Communities USA 2003, President’s Council 1997):

1. advance self-interests,

2. make one’s surrounding neighborhood healthier and safer,

3. increase one’s ability to define problems and craft solutions,

4. provide access to resources (money, equipment, and technology) for fuel reduction, and

5. facilitate learning about fire risk and mitigation possibilities.

For a society interested in sustainable natural resource management and use, collaboration can 

(Duane 1997, Dukes and Firehock 2001, Kenney 1999):

1. produce more environmentally sound and ecologically integrated decisions,

2. bring innovative and longer term solutions, and

3. create environmental gains beyond the minimum standards required by laws or policies.

On the Bobar Project in 

southwestern Oregon, the

Bureau of Land Management

used stewardship contracting 

to accomplish a high priority

thinning project. 

Photo credit: Pamela Jakes
12 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Stages of the Collaborative Process

Outlined below are six dimensions of collaboration usually called “steps” or “stages” (Bentrup 2001,

Moote 2003, Pipkin and Doerksen 2000, Round Tables 1998, Selin and Chavez 1995, Sirmon 2001,

USDI 2000); movement from one to the next is seldom linear. The context of collaboration, including

characteristics of the local geographic community or communities of interest, affects its course.

Antecedents—mandates, incentives, or crises (Selin and Chavez 1995)—will affect the speed and

urgency of movement from one ‘stage’ to another.

Initiation: Identifying the Issue and Context

The first task in developing a collaborative process is identifying the problem that needs to be

addressed. In identifying the issue, collaboration is given an identity that stakeholders can use in determining and communicating their course of action (Selin and Chavez 1995). Issue identification can be

a delicate matter: residents need to be alerted to the danger of wildland fire, but do not respond well

to scare tactics; local governments are interested in attracting development and shy away from too

many planning regulations. In addition, who defines issues may be as important as what issues are

being defined. Having a broad range of interests and experiences represented in this phase is critical.

Bringing credible information to the issue, such as maps of fire history or scientific information about

fire-dependent ecosystems, may help frame the issue, grounding it in neutral territory. 

Successful collaborations begin with issues that are considered to be urgent by the community, but for

which there is no clear consensus (Sirmon 2001). A sense of crisis, such as wildfire, provides incentive

to cooperate; an outside threat can unify a group otherwise not able to find common ground. From

wildland fire the group may move on to broader issues such as ecosystem health, threatened and

endangered species habitat, or old-growth management. (Sirmon 2001).

Very early in identifying issues and defining context it is important to assess whether the situation is

favorable for a collaborative process. If there is not adequate time and money to initiate the process, if

policies and legal restrictions do not allow collaborative decisions, if experienced third-party neutral

facilitators are not available, and if levels of conflict are not manageable (i.e., parties are not willing to

listen to one another’s views), it will be difficult to get meaningful participation or build trust (Linden

2002, Margerum 1999). 

Coming Together: Gathering Players

Problem identification will help determine how to gather players, leaders, and “integrators” (Pipkin

and Doerksen 2000). The core could be already-cooperating fire agencies—“agencies ... that may be

asking the same questions and seeking similar solutions” (NWCG 1999). Interagency fire managers
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 13

have been galvanized to collaborate (Pipkin and Doerksen 2000), and their coordinated system of fire

management can serve as a foundation for wider collaboration with the public. To this core could be

added committed citizens, and more partners as the group gains momentum (Sturtevant and Jakes

2003). Agencies are brought into the process for their resources, support, and participation; for example, the State’s lead role in cooperating with local fire departments for wildland fire protection (NWCG

1999) would suggest that State departments of forestry or natural resources could join the Federal

agencies in initiating wildland fire collaboration. Groups or organizations as yet outside the process

may bring additional opportunities and challenges. 

Initiating a dialogue about wildfire and fuels management is typically the job of land management

agencies. However, agencies are not always effective at convening a sufficiently large, representative,

and active group of community stakeholders. At this time it might be helpful to bring in a local 

convener, someone widely perceived as fair and respected (Moote 2003), who can help bring people

together. Care should be taken to ensure that conveners have the skills, funding, and time to conduct

the process effectively (Daniels and Walker 2001, Dukes and Firehock 2001, Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000). It may be necessary to seek training for conveners and to educate key participants on 

collaborative techniques (Daniels and Walker 2001).

Deschutes County Project

Impact found that partners 

were critical to the success 

of its projects.

Photo credit: Pete Ribble
Trusted community leaders are important partners at the start (Singleton 2002, Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000), and increased communication with public officials may enhance their positive response.

(Lowrie and Greenberg 2001). Local “sparkplugs” concerned by the threat of wildland fire in their

neighborhoods can help launch the effort (Sturtevant and Corson 2003) and connect the planning

process to community networks. Nonprofit and volunteer community groups, an essential part of

those networks, will make a substantial difference (NWCG 1999), providing organizational leadership

and resources (Sturtevant and Lange 1995). As part of this stage, it is essential to have conversations to

clearly define everyone’s roles, responsibilities, and expectations for the process and potential outcomes. Unclear roles and unrealistic expectations can doom a collaboration. Table 3 includes a list of

potential players in collaborations for wildland fire and fuels management. 

Setting Priorities: Establishing Goals

An early step in developing a collaboration is agreeing on goals so that members clearly understand the

purpose of their involvement (Ingles et al. 1999, Rickenbach and Reed 2002). Goals are created by discovering, and then building, upon the common ground of place or community, or in response to a

shared threat. A written mission, vision, or purpose statement will underscore this common purpose,

values, beliefs, and goals (Selin and Chavez 1995). It can serve as a reference to keep participants

focused during the process, especially when the group is in conflict or considering strategic efforts, and

it can reunite the group when motivation and cohesion wane (Sturtevant and Lange 1995).

Creating a “situation map” gets people not only to define issues and goals, but also to discover how they

are interrelated. The goal is to get all stakeholders involved in the collaboration to think systemically

14 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Natural resource agencies

• Local (county forestry)

• State (forestry, game and 

fish, parks)

• Federal (USDA Forest 

Service, USDI National Park

Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Fish & 

Wildlife Service)

Other public agencies

• County emergency 

management and planning

• County sheriff

• State military organizations

• County zoning or land use 

planning

Communities of place

• Elected officials

• Tribal leaders

• Neighborhood associations

• Grange and other voluntary

organization leaders

• Watershed group or other

bioregional group leaders

• School administrators

University faculty or 

administration

• Other institutions such as 

churches, hospitals, etc.

Communities of interest

• Regional conservation 

groups

• Local conservation groups

• User groups

• “Friends” groups

Business and industry

• Timber, logging, 

manufacturing firms

• Development

• Real estate

• Tourism and recreation

• Financial institutions

Table 3.—Sources of Potential Members for a Wildland Fire and Fuels Management Collaboration

“Common goals must be the

basis for any cooperative 

project. Think as large as is

practical, utilize varied expertise

efficiently, and burn together.

Opportunities for action will

improve as a result.” 

(TNC 2003, p. 2)
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 15

about the situation rather than focus on linear cause-and-effect relationships (Daniels and Walker 1996,

Yaffee et al. 2004). This process lays important groundwork for later evaluation and monitoring.

Getting Organized: Creating a Collaborative Structure and Process

The group must agree upon a process structure, including meeting times and formats, working groups,

required resources, communication protocols, and other ground rules. A highly trained and experienced facilitator is especially helpful at this stage. The need to reach a broad range of interests should

guide the scheduling of public meetings and designing of other methods of outreach. The group

should decide how to solicit information from concerned citizens, scientists, and managers at both the

local and national levels, thereby supporting a fair representation of broad interests (Blumberg 1999,

Singleton 2002). Protocols on attendance, confidentiality, and representation (identifying responsibility

to share information with and represent the interests of constituents) may be needed (Round Tables

1998). Little considerations can make a big difference, such as where and when to hold meetings so

that rural residents and people who have daytime jobs can conveniently attend.

It is essential to determine the legal requirements that may influence collaborative structure and

process. Although open and visible decisionmaking throughout the course of collaboration is desirable (Kenney et al. 2000, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), agency representatives must clearly examine

and define sideboards on their role in the collaboration. Missions and laws among fire protection and

land management agencies vary (Hummel and Freet 1999); accordingly, collaborators must work

within the confines of policies separating agency roles and responsibilities (NWCG 1999). Formal

agreements such as a Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement help avoid later, unanticipated

problems by gaining approval for collaborative fire planning and clarifying potential legal issues

(NWCG 1999).

Goals may be more clearly apparent in wildland fire and fuels management and constituency issues

may not be as complex as in other natural resource issues, but process issues—ground rules, task

groups, and roles for participating in public meetings, workshops, and outreach—still must be

addressed. Meeting management and communication among group members between meetings were

found to be critical in one fire planning process (Shaffer and Shipley 2002). Although some collaborations take years, establishing realistic timeframes is important for fire collaboration (NWCG 1999). 

Learning: Sharing Information and Building Relationships

Information sharing is not only gathering data about the issue and developing a common knowledge

base; it is also learning more about one another—exploring participants’ interests and values, and
16 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

building trust (USDI 2000). The current fire risk and prevention situation may have already been independently analyzed by each member of the collaboration, but the identification of hazardous fuels that

could increase the spread and intensity of a wildland fire across ownership boundaries is best done

collaboratively. An especially important opportunity is to define “values at risk” from wildfire. Citizens

can contribute information about specific values and places they want protected, and work together to

identify hazards and strategies for fuel reduction and community preparedness in their neighborhoods

(Everett in press).

Implementation: Action to Achieve Goals

The ultimate goal of a collaborative partnership is to accomplish something on the ground. It is not

difficult to agree upon the need to reduce wildland fire risk; however, it is more challenging to reach

agreement about how and where to reduce fuels.

Implementation may involve developing a set of management alternatives or creating a restoration or

thinning project reflecting the group’s common vision. This task requires agreement and support by

the collaborating group, communities of interests,

and those in authority. Conflicts may emerge. A

focus on project outcomes helps to mitigate conflicting personalities or constituencies

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994). 

Outcome issues can be addressed by determining

how the final decision or outcomes will be implemented (Blumberg 1999, Dukes and Firehock

2001) or by maintaining an “outside enforcement” of decisions (Britell 2003). Recordkeeping

and other mechanisms for ensuring accountability

are important for keeping players and the broader

public informed of planned actions (USDI and

Sonoran Institute 2000). 

Funding needs to be secured, along with processes for coordinated implementation across administrative

boundaries. It may be necessary at this juncture to formalize some relationships, creating a contract

between stakeholders to ensure that plans are implemented (Bentrup 2001) and meeting requirements

for receiving grants and other sources of funding. 

The Bureau of Land Management

supported the Applegate Fire

Plan by coordinating the use of

its Slashbuster on projects on

Federal, county, and private land.

Photo credit: Bureau of Land Management
Reflection: Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are two means of determining the effectiveness of both the collaborative

process itself and collaboratively developed projects (Conley and Moote 2003, Dukes and Firehock

2001, Selin et al. 2000, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). These terms are often used interchangeably, but

are in fact very different actions. Monitoring refers to the process of gathering data on a process or

project and involves the repeated measurement of variables over time to determine if actions have

caused changes or trends. Evaluation refers to the interpretation of these data and is used to judge the

effectiveness of a

process or program

by comparing it to

specific predetermined standards. 

Monitoring is often

found to be the most

difficult area for

groups to address

adequately, because

they may not recognize early enough the

importance of gathering baseline data or identifying measurable objectives (Bentrup 2001). Monitoring is

important for building accountability and support as well as for determining whether a project is working. Accountability is a key issue since wildfire and fuels management has become so politically charged.

For example, the Applegate Fire Plan monitors perceptions of both participating agency representatives

and local residents (Sturtevant and Corson 2003), as well as environmental impacts of projects. Because

monitoring is so important to collaboration, a detailed discussion of how to monitor and evaluate 

collaborative partnerships is provided in appendix B.

Final Thoughts on Process

As mentioned above, collaborations go through these stages differently, and participants may find they

are going through a labyrinth rather than an orderly process. Participants’ expectations will need to be

constantly monitored and managed to maintain involvement and support. Outcomes will reflect how

challenges are resolved at each juncture. Because new issues arise and focus may change, the need 

for collaboration must initially be clearly and compellingly defined (Moote 2003). To succeed, it is

important that all parties about to enter into collaboration understand the limitations of the process

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 17

Before entering into a collaborative process, it is important to consider the following 

(London 1995):

• Collaboration is time-consuming and not suitable for problems that require quick and decisive action. 

• Power inequalities among the parties can derail the process. 

• The norms of consensus and joint decisionmaking sometimes require that the common good take 

precedence over the interests of a few. 

• Collaboration works best in small groups—the process can break down in groups that are large. 

• Collaboration is meaningless without power to implement final decisions.
18 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The literature suggests many conditions under which collaboration will not work (Dukes and

Firehook 2001, Kenney 2000, Moote 2003, USDA 2000, USDI 2000, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000): 

• History of extreme or unresolved conflict among key interests

• Lack of clear or realistic direction or goals

• Collaboration only for instrumental reasons, goals too specific

• Members not willing to make a commitment or compromise

• Key interests or decisionmakers not involved

• Partnership not needed because one entity can achieve goals alone

• Unequal partnership, some stand to benefit more than others

• Too short a deadline or need for immediate resolution

• Lack of resources (including institutional support)

• Financial and time commitments outweigh potential benefits 

• Legal restrictions and too limited a decision space

• Constitutional issues or legal precedents sought

If these conditions do exist, it may be best to consider a process other than collaboration to proceed with 

the project.

(London 1995), and the literature is replete with conditions under which collaboration is not advised

(Dukes and Firehock 2001, Kenney 2000, Moote 2003, USDA 2000, USDI 2000, Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000). However, by carefully considering the issues and context for collaboration, the barriers

that may arise, and the essential elements of collaboration, wildland fire and fuel management staff 

can initiate powerful collaborations to accomplish their objectives.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 19

Getting the right people with a diverse array of interests and assets to the table, especially given potentially conflicting motives and goals, can be difficult. It is essential that all feel they have something to

gain in order to invest, share, and compromise. Wildland fire has the advantage of being a common

enemy; fuel reduction is a mutual goal around which players can communicate and establish trust:

“after a while you realize both sides are in something they don’t want to be in and can identify with

each other” (Sturtevant and Corson 2003).

In this section we discuss challenges to collaboration in terms of three collaborative capacities, or capabilities, for collaborative action. These assets or contextual elements can be necessary for individuals,

communities, and agencies to successfully collaborate. The first collaborative capacity we will discuss

is individual participatory capacity—the willingness of people to become involved, communicate

meaningfully, and follow through with actions necessary for successful collaboration. Second is community capacity—the collective resources and skills within a community that can drive and sustain a

collaboration. And finally, we address institutional capacity—the authorities, culture, or characteristics

of an organization that facilitate collaborative action.

We present this information with a focus on the Forest Service Ranger, Fire Management Officer, or

other staff involved in building collaborative relationships to facilitate wildland fire and fuels management. However, anyone can use this information to build capacity in areas they feel are critical to the

success of their project. 

Challenges to Building and Sustaining Participatory Capacity

The “public” nature of Federal public forest lands poses a challenge to collaboration on wildland fire

and fuels management. If people with local knowledge and perspectives, or others interested in the

issues, are not included in the collaborative process, the process may be considered illegitimate, 

resulting in an inability to enact plans due to administrative appeals or legal action (Coggins 1999,

McCloskey 1999, Singleton 2002). Nonparticipants have veto power in that they can enter the 

process late and reverse its movement. This can occur if they enter as participants who cannot support

earlier collaborative visions or consensus agreements (Sturtevant and Lange 1995), if they file appeals

or protests against collaborative projects, or solicit other political pressures to block a decision (Brick 

et al. 2001, Germain et al. 2001, Smith and McDonough 2001, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

There are many reasons why agencies, groups, and individuals may resist collaboration. These reasons

can be found in a common body of literature, often representing an environmental viewpoint

(Blumberg 1999; Blumberg and Knuffke 1998; Brick et al. 2001; Britell 2003; Coggins 1999, 2001;

Challenges to Building and Sustaining Collaboration

“Public participation is the

process by which public 

concerns, needs, and values are

incorporated into governmental

decision making. Public 

participation is two-way 

communication, with the 

overall goal of better decisions,

supported by the public.” 

(Creighton 1992, p. 12)
20 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Diduck and Sinclair 2002; Duane 1997; Dukes and Firehock 2001; Germain et al. 2001; Ingles et al.

1999; Kenney 2000; Lowrie and Greenburg 2001; McCloskey 1996, 1999; Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance 1994; Williams and Ellefson 1996, 1997). 

Reasons for Nonparticipation

A review of the literature mentioned above reveals two broad categories of reasons why individuals and

groups do not participate. Individual stakeholders, such as landowners and community residents, as

well as many interest groups, do not participate because they doubt the effectiveness of their participation. They may lack the resources to participate fully, or they may believe there is something in the collaborative process itself that will

limit the effectiveness of their participation.

People or groups may also refuse to participate

because of a perceived discrepancy between

their or their constituencies’ values or ideology and the goals of the collaboration. Of course, some do

not participate in a collaborative process simply because they were not invited or were unaware of the

process (Rickenbach and Reed 2002, Walker and Daniels 2001). 

We have organized the various reasons for noncollaboration into eight general categories. By understanding these concerns, collaborative groups can anticipate and work to overcome some of them.

Lack of resources: Research reports that potential participants share a concern about a lack of time,

dollars, or skills to fully participate in a collaborative process. Federal land managers are concerned

not only about the availability of these resources, but also whether they have the legal resources in

terms of the laws and authorities to collaborate. Local and regional officials may also resist collaboration because they lack these necessary resources (Webler et al. 2003). Citizens’ concerns extend to

practical matters such as being able to afford to take time off from work or pay for a babysitter. They

may also hesitate because they believe they lack the experience to participate or do not understand

technical issues or the collaborative process (Daniels and Walker 2001).

Lack of technical expertise: Challenges of agency-layperson communication are particularly evident when

communication centers on technical or scientific issues. Walker and Daniels (2001) contend that both citizens

and scientists are interested in using the “best available science” when making natural resource management

decisions. However, this may be a difficult task if managers, scientists, and citizens cannot agree on the

meaning of restoration, nature, ecological integrity, or other environmentally related words and concepts.

The “public” nature of Federal public forest lands

poses a challenge to collaboration on wildland

fire and fuels management. 
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 21

According to researchers, most public managers deal with complex, cross-jurisdictional issues, and

therefore must be able to operate in several different interorganizational networks to be effective. No

manager can be expected to be conversant in all of the topics, but increasingly they are expected to be

able to communicate across several disciplines, including law, finance, planning, engineering, and marketing (Arganoff and McGuire 1999, p. 21).

Concerns about process: The collaborative process itself may keep people from participating.

Citizens, environmentalists, and Federal land managers may not participate because they see the 

collaborative process as exclusive or unfair in representation; the collaborative process may be seen 

as not representing public or scientific interests. They also may be uncomfortable with the meeting

setting and methods of communication (Daniels and Walker 2001, Webler et al. 2003). Individuals

involved in collaborative processes may tire from being repeatedly asked to participate in public

involvement, collaboration, or other participatory activities and eventually drop out of all processes

(Diduck and Sinclair 2002).

Literature states that potential participants may be reluctant to become involved in a collaborative

process because they view the process itself as a “show,” believing that the agency supporting the

process has already made a decision and participation will not make an on-the-ground difference

(Britell 2003, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 1994). Local officials have also been reported as

expressing concern that involvement will not make a difference (Budd-Falen 1996, Webler et al.

2003). Some see industry interests as having co-opted the process (McCloskey 1996), and others 

question whether there is sufficient scientific backing (Blumberg 1999). They may also see the process

as a way to delay new action or initiatives and maintain the status quo (Coggins 2001). Finally, public

land managers, including those responsible for wildland fire and fuels management, may not be 

comfortable working in a collaborative setting. 

Legal considerations for collaboration: Several different reasons for not participating in collaborative

processes involve perceptions of the roles of laws and regulations. Reference has already been made to

the lack of participation by Federal land managers because they feel that various laws or regulations

actually limit or prevent their participation (Kenney et al. 2000, Rieke 1998). 

Some people think that collaboration, if used to replace current decisionmaking processes, encourages

agency representatives to disobey Federal laws and regulations, weakening Federal statutes and allowing

public officials to abdicate some of their responsibilities (Coggins 2001, Kenney 2000). People with this

perspective also question who will be held accountable for the final decision (Singleton 2002).

“Today’s managing occurs 

routinely at or outside of the

boundaries of the home 

organization ... part of the 

routine is dealing with 

outside forces.” 

(Arganoff and McGuire 1999, 

p. 22)
22 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Some may prefer what are perceived as the checks and balances provided by the existing system, particularly in regards to public participation in decisionmaking. They may also believe that litigation and

appeals based on NEPA mandates and other existing rules and regulations are more efficient and effective than collaborative processes (Britell 2003, Germain et al. 2001).

Landowners and private citizens offer yet another perspective on collaboration and existing laws and

regulations. They have been reported as fearing that an outcome of collaboration will change the status

quo with regard to property and water rights (Rickenbach 2002). They worry that collaboration might

require divulging natural resource conditions on their private lands, which will result in new or additional regulations (Waage 2003, Williams and Ellefson 1996, 1997). 

Appeals and veto power: The “public” nature of Federal public forestlands poses another challenge to

collaboration on wildland fire and fuels management—a challenge that combines concerns discussed

above about the process and laws. This is the ability of one person to halt the process. If people with

local knowledge and perspectives, or others interested in the issues, are not included in the collaborative process, the process may be considered illegitimate, and these nonparticipants can then stop projects or other collaborative action through administrative appeals or legal action (Coggins 1999,

McCloskey 1999). Nonparticipants can have veto power when they enter the process late and reverse

its movement. This can occur if they (1) enter as participants who will not support earlier collaborative

visions or consensus agreements (Sturtevant and Lange 1995), (2) file appeals or protests against collaborative projects, (3) solicit other political pressures to block a decision (Brick et al. 2001, Smith and

McDonough 2001). Potential collaboration participants who have knowledge or experience with this

exercise of power may refuse further involvement in collaborative activities for fear of a project-stalling

or project-ending action. 

Concerns about goals: Many contemplating involvement in a collaborative process may be concerned

about whether the process will succeed in achieving individual, agency, or societal goals. Some 

individuals do not participate because they doubt that collaboration will enhance environmental 

protection (Coughlin et al. 1999, Rickenbach and Reed 2002). Local officials concerned about

enhancing environmental protection may not participate because the goals of the collaborative do

not include other vital community interests such as community stability (Lowrie and Greenburg

2001, Webler et al. 2003). Federal land managers concerned about environmental protection may

question whether the collaborative will help them achieve high priority objectives of the agency

(Blumberg and Knuffke 1998). 
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 23

Concerns about trust: Some local officials report resistance to collaboration because citizens do not

trust the agency that is perceived as controlling the process (Lowrie and Greenburg 2001, Webler et al.

2003). Local citizens may have similar concerns about trusting the process or players (Brick and

Cawley 1996, Williams and Ellefson 1997). However, just as a lack of trust can encourage nonparticipation so can the presence of trust. Some report that local citizens and landowners trust the agency to

work alone, or trust others to represent their interests in the collaborative process, so they feel no need

to participate (Diduck and Sinclair 2002, Lange 2001). 

Yet for many, a general philosophy of mistrust pervades, particularly for landowners and environmentalists and for some local and regional officials (Brick and Cawley 1996, Coughlin 1999, Lowrie and

Greenburg 2001).

Concerns over constituency support: Local officials may not participate in collaborative processes

because they believe that constituency support is lacking (Lange 2001, Lowrie and Greenburg 2001).

Individuals may also hesitate to participate because, while they are there as representatives of a group,

they lack authority or constituency support to do so. For example, an environmentalist may not feel

able to commit to a course of action for the public or community interest, unlike a representative 

of a company or agency (Dukes and Firehock 2001). They also may believe that someone else is 

representing their stakeholder group or interests (Diduck and Sinclair 2002), even though their views

may differ (Lange 2001). 

Enhancing Participation

Blahna and Yonts-Shepard (1989) reviewed the 

literature and various regulations and identified

five criteria for effective stakeholder participation:

involvement should be conducted early; it should

be maintained throughout the planning process;

input should be representative of all interested 

citizens; agencies should use personal forms of

public involvement rather than “non-personal 

communications,” such as mass public meetings;

and they should maintain a transparent process.

Early participation in the decision-making process

increases satisfaction with the process and outcomes

because these activities promote interactions

One approach to ensuring 

effective stakeholder 

participation in collaborative

groups is taking people to the

field in order to ground their

core values in site-specific fuel

management options.

Photo credit: COPWRR Web site
“Community capacity is the

interaction of human capital,

organizational resources, and

social capital existing within a

given community that can be

leveraged to solve collective

problems and improve or 

maintain the well-being of a

given community. It may operate

through informal social 

processes and/or organized

effort.” 

(Chaskin 2001)

between the agency and stakeholders (Germain et al. 2001, Ingles et al. 1999, Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000). Explicit discussion of participants’ individual and collective goals in collaboration can help

address trust issues, including concerns about process, decisionmaking authority, and veto power

(Moote and Becker 2004).

Participants attach diverse values and meanings to forest land, many of which are deeply held. These

values and meaning will affect perceptions of wildland fire and fuels management projects. Participant

involvement in a collaborative process is not simply a matter of generating “public acceptance” for

fuels management or other projects, but is a complex negotiation and possible redefinition of core 

values. Fostering active, consistent member participation is an essential capacity for collaboration

because it ensures that a broad diversity of voices, perspectives, values, and meanings have an 

opportunity to be expressed and considered during the decision process. The inability to foster 

active, consistent stakeholder participation can jeopardize even the most scientifically credible fuels

management program.

Challenges for Building and Sustaining Community Capacity

We introduced the concept of community capacity earlier as one of the benefits of collaboration. Here

we discuss how to build and sustain community capacity. Community capacity is the “combined

influence of a community’s commitment, resources and skills that can be deployed to build on 

community strengths and address community problems and opportunities” (Aspen Institute 1996,

Introduction 1). The building blocks of community capacity can be defined as a set of assets 

possessed by individuals, organizations, and institutions within a community (Beaulieu 2002) or as 

a specific set of characteristics or attributes present within a community (Burns and Richard 2002).

Community capacity is an important component to understand because, for wildfire and fuels 

management to be effective over the long term, a community must be able to sustain involvement 

in wildfire and fuels management activities into the future. Federal resources and expertise cannot 

be everywhere all the time; communities need to recognize and embrace their shared responsibility

for wildfire and fuels management.

Successful collaborations build on community capacity. But what if a community appears to have little

capacity? Some look at this question from the perspective that no matter how impoverished, divided,

or broken down a community is, some amount of capacity exists, with the potential for building more

(Aspen Institute 1996, Beaulieu 2002). Building community capacity is a matter of identifying and 

fostering community strengths, and of working with and strengthening areas of weakness. 

24 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

“Deliberate attention to building

community capacity ensures that

a collaborative endures.” 

(Cestero 1999, p. 75)
Building Community Capacity

Activities that create and sustain a web of relationships that cross political, economic, and other

boundaries will promote community capacity. These activities might include participation in civic

organizations, volunteer work, Chamber of Commerce activities, or church socials. Strengthening

social capital might also be conceived as

strengthening the settings where informal daily

life takes place, such as libraries, cafes, or community centers (Oldenburg as cited in London

1995), where trust and relationships can be

built, thereby creating a “civic infrastructure

that lends itself to collaboration.” 

Community capacity building can also take

place through more formal means. Here, it is important to remember that building community capacity is about increasing the skills and resources not only of individuals, but also of agencies, organizations, and networks within the community, as well as those outside that affect the community. 

Chaskin (2001) categorize community-building approaches into four different types. One is leadership

development. Fostering collaborative leadership skills is an important form of capacity building that is

mentioned by most sources (Chaskin 2001, University of Kansas 2003). Such workshops may promote

skills and competencies such as multiculturalism or inclusion.

Other categories of capacity-building activities suggested by Chaskin (2001) include “organizational

development, community organizing and fostering collaborative relations between organizations” 

(p. 299). Organizational capacity building focuses on the institutions within the community—creating

new ones, strengthening existing ones, and finding ways to support them. Community organizing 

historically has meant coalition building and working from a grassroots approach. And fostering 

collaborative relations means communicating effectively, sharing a vision, and working together.

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 25

Community capacity is an important component

to understand because, for wildfire and fuels

management to be effective over the long term, a

community must be able to sustain involvement

in wildfire and fuels management activities into

the future.
Indicators of community capacity

How do you know when you’ve succeeded in building community capacity? “Measuring Community

Capacity Building: A Workbook in Progress for Rural Communities” (Aspen Institute 1996) lists eight

outcomes that indicate community capacity building is taking place:

• Expanding, diverse, inclusive citizen participation

• Expanding leadership base

• Strengthened individual skills

• Widely shared understanding and vision

• Strategic community agenda

• Consistent, tangible progress toward goals

• More effective community organizations

• Better resource use by the community

26 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Schindler-Rainman and Lippit (1993, p. 41) offer a set of eight recommendations for building 

community capacity by developing effective collaborative groups:

• Involve community leaders from a wide range of “functional sectors.” (Public safety, recreation, social welfare,

education, health, economic, political, religious, mass media, arts/culture.)

• Find ways to recruit, motivate, and mobilize the young, middle-aged, and elderly; women and men; established

and and informal leadership; advantaged and disadvantaged populations; racial, national, and ethnic 

minorities; handicapped community groups.

• Develop new ways for the polarized, distrustful segments of the community to be included...and therefore to

communicate more openly and frequently and learn new designs and skills for collaboration. 

• Develop methods and situations that demonstrate the value of differences of traditions, ideas, beliefs, needs,

and expectations as a resource.

• Help people learn the skills required to develop collaborative networks and support their effective functioning,

including development and training of internal “change agents.”

• Increase the awareness, sensitivity, and skills of professionals and members to enable them to engage 

underutilized citizen volunteers and groups.

• Develop procedures for linking ad hoc initiators and groups into the ongoing structures, operating traditions

and “continuities” of the community.

• Develop commitment, designs, and mechanisms for followup work on goals, intentions, and plans discussed in

the initial [stages of the collaboration] (p. 41).
It is important to remember that community capacity building, just like collaboration, is a process. No two communities, or the individuals and organizations that make up the community, have the same amount of capacity.

Although capacity building can sometimes progress rapidly, at other times it

can be painstakingly slow and tedious (Beaulieu 2002), and it requires commitment, initiative, direction, and determination (Aspen Institute 1996).

Challenges for Institutional Capacity

Various factors influence whether an agency or organization is able or willing to

take part in the participatory process. There is no shortage of literature faulting

the Forest Service for failing to support collaboration. The Forest Service is aware

of the challenges to collaboration that managers face and has taken steps to address them. In appendix C

the reader will find the recommendations of Chief Bosworth’s Partnership Authorities Workgroup. Below

we discuss eight factors often perceived as limiting the Forest Service’s capacity for collaboration (and that

of some other agencies and organizations). 

Laws and Authorities

The complex array of laws and policies governing Forest Service actions has created confusing, and in

some cases, conflicting guidance on when, where, and how it is appropriate for the agency to collaborate with others. Some managers are understandably reluctant to collaborate for fear of legal repercussions. In addition, some Federal laws deter private entities from collaboration. However, there is one

law almost universally cited as a barrier to collaboration—the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972

(FACA), which is discussed more fully in appendix D. Some policy analysts say that “FACA Fear” and

confusion over the role and responsibilities of Federal land managers have caused managers to be

unusually conservative in their collaborative efforts (Loucks and Kostishack 2001, Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (PL 108-148) explicitly addresses this issue

by stating that, “the Federal Advisory Committee Act... shall not apply to the planning process and

recommendation concerning community wildfire protection plans.” (Section 103.b.2)

Fear of invoking the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA) discourages some private landowners from partnering with Federal agencies on

cross-jurisdictional projects (Loucks and Kostishack 2001), and the Sherman Antitrust Act has been

interpreted by some to mean that private companies cannot collaborate in collective landscape 

planning, and that contracting officers should not work too closely with contractors in stewardship 

contracting (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Similarly, the Freedom of Information Act may discourage 

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 27

Photo credit: Victoria Sturtevant

Local citizens lead activities

related to the Applegate Fire

Plan, creating a diverse and

expanded leadership base in 

the community.

“Inconsistent interpretation of

authorities between regions

gives partners and agency

employees ... the impression

that certain partnerships are

only possible in some places.” 

(Loucks and Kostishack 2001, p. 8)
“Frequently, these memorandums,

agreements, cost-shares, and

contracts involve excessive

paperwork, follow-up reports, and

legal language and are often too

difficult to understand. Many

times the agreements themselves

take too long to complete, 

complicate a simple project, cost

too much in salaries to write, 

and in effect scare off our 

collaborators and partners. ...

Involving the public in our 

programs and management is

often hampered by excessive

detail and red tape.” 

(Forest Supervisor quoted 

in Wondolleck and Yaffee 

2000, p. 54)

28 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

private parties from sharing sensitive information with Federal agencies (Loucks and Kostishack 2001).

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act explicitly addresses some of these concerns by exempting the

development of community wildfire protection plans from both FACA and NEPA. In addition, the

growing number of effective collaborations among public and private landowners and others suggests

that, as with FACA, the laws themselves are less a barrier to collaboration than is fear of Federal 

regulation in general. 

Procedural Delays (Bureaucracy)

The second challenge to building institutional capacity for collaboration is procedural delays. For

example, FACA, NEPA, ESA, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) are said to

limit the agency’s ability to collaborate with the private sector and local government because their complex procedures require large investments of time and money in project planning. “The environmental

laws [of the 1960s and 1970s] spawned thousands of pages of regulations and administrative rules...

These requirements included a stream of predecisional consultations and analyses, often followed by

postdecisional appeals and litigation” (USDA 2002, p. 12). 

Many policy scholars and collaborators say the laws themselves are not the problem—the problem lies

in the delays inherent in their implementation, which are sometimes due to agency regulations but

which also stem from excessive environmental analyses by agency personnel anxious to cover themselves in the case of potential appeals and litigation (Loucks and Kostishack 2001, USDA 2002). By the

1990s, Forest Service line officers were “caught in a procedural quagmire” of project planning and

review (USDA 2002, p. 12).

Forest Service appeals, which allow citizens to challenge a line officer’s decision to proceed with a project, are said to cause further unnecessary delays. In addition, the ability of any interest to file an appeal

after a decision has been made discourages some groups from collaborating (USDA 2002).

There is some hope for cutting the bureaucratic red tape that can delay fuels management projects in

the passage of new regulations under the Healthy Forests Initiative and implementation of the Health

Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The Act and new regulations provide administrative improvements

that are meant to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better projects (U.S. Government

nd). Finally, as noted above, open discussion of potential bureaucratic delays early in the collaborative

process may help collaborators plan on realistic timelines and mitigate frustration down the line when

delays actually occur.
“It is simply unrealistic to expect

an effective network ... to be

sustained without substantial

investment by the government 

to provide for program 

management, group coordination,

and cost-sharing for on-theground work.” 

(Curtis et al. 2002, p. 1207)

Funding Issues

Although collaborative resource management is said to reduce management costs by allowing organizations to pool resources and develop joint management strategies, substantial costs are also associated

with collaborative group processes, most notably extremely large time demands placed on managers

and other collaborators (Arganoff and McGuire 1999, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). These funding

issues can become barriers to maintaining institutional capacity for collaboration.

Research on collaborative groups has found that stable, long-term, and flexible funding is closely correlated with a group’s effectiveness (Born and Genskow 2000, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Yaffee et al.

1996). The Forest Service is chronically short of funding for collaborative efforts, and what funding is

available is inconsistent (e.g., long turnaround times for grant approval, findings not distributed in a

timely manner, funding limited to one year because of agency budget) (Loucks and Kostishack 2001,

Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002). 

Forest Service budgets are driven by line items, and there are no line items for collaborative efforts—or

even for fundamental agency activities like public involvement and collaborative stewardship (Loucks

and Kostishack 2001). Managers have little flexibility to redirect appropriations, leaving many collaborative partnerships or projects unfunded because they do not fit within the agency’s budgeting structure (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Another problem is that much of the funding available for collaborative efforts is available only in large amounts; funding needs to be scaled to the needs of rural communities and institutionalized into standing programs (Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002). 

Agency fiscal procedures can also limit collaboration. Many community groups and small nonprofit

organizations report difficulty meeting the funding match required for Forest Service cost-share 

agreements (Baker and Kusel 2003, Loucks and Kostishack 2001). Although the law authorizing 

collaborative cost-share grants does not specify what percentage of the match must be provided by

cooperators, the Forest Service manual instructs agency personnel to negotiate a dollar-for-dollar

match (Baker and Kusel 2003). Furthermore, Forest Service rules generally do not allow managers to

contribute funds to a project before its implementation. Instead, the agency generally reimburses for

work after it is completed (Loucks and Kostishack 2001). But agency partners, especially small rural

governments and organizations, are not likely to be able to carry large project costs. 

Agency History and Culture

For most of the 20th century, the Forest Service operated in a government that believed in the separation

of administration and politics, and left management decisions to agencies, which were staffed by highly

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 29
“A lot of this goes against 

my training.” 

(Forest Service silviculturalist

quoted in Wondolleck and 

Yaffee 2000, p. 62)

trained specialists. Agency accountability was achieved through written rules, standard operating procedures, and professional standards, and enforced through a hierarchical system in which decisions and

commands came from a centralized authority in Washington, DC. The Washington Office was accountable to Congress and the Administration, but for the most part, the agency had autonomous decisionmaking authority within its jurisdiction (USDA 2002, Weber 2003, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

In the 1960s and 1970s, as public hearings and comment periods became commonplace and the

courts liberalized their rules governing citizen lawsuits, the concept of agency accountability expanded

to include individuals and interest groups that could demonstrate standing in the courts (Weber

1999). Public comment periods, appeals, and litigation did not encourage collaboration, however;

instead, they led the agency to focus on rigorous recordkeeping to defend its decisions in the face of

thousands of appeals and lawsuits (USDA 2002, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). 

Forest managers’ training and organizational history have taught them to be self-reliant and even suspicious of outsider input, leaving many reluctant to collaborate with citizens, interest groups, or even

other government agencies as partners (Loucks and Kostishack 2001). Yet recent trends in American

governance emphasize increased public participation, and the public now expects the agency to engage

in “nonhierarchical, place-based networks in which government, citizens, and organized stakeholders

cooperate and negotiate” land management issues (Weber 1999, p. 456). Collaborators have come to

expect that agency managers will be “accountable” to their group; and to many, accountability has

come to mean “the ability of government to actually deliver on promises” (Weber 1999, p. 459).

The differences between agency and public expectations of collaboration can be profound and can lead

to unfair or inappropriate accusations of uncollaborative behavior. A public perception that collaboration means jointly developing creative management plans conflicts with an agency perception that collaboration should be project-specific and not extend to making management decisions (Moote and

Becker 2003). The result of such a scenario may be accusations that Forest Service personnel are indifferent or hostile to collaboration, as when interest groups and individuals report participating in scoping meetings, hearings, and public comment periods only to see the agency make management decisions that they believe went against the expressed interests of the public and the perceived best interest

of the environment (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

As mentioned earlier, although inconsistent expectations of collaboration can present significant

challenges, they can also be overcome by frank and open discussions of what collaboration means to

all parties in the current context.

30 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
“It only takes one bulldozer

operator unclear about where a

road is supposed to go or not go,

one chainsaw operator unclear

about the diameter limit mark,

one marking crew confused

about a spotted owl nest 

location to make a high-profile

mistake, destroying the credibility

of a negotiated, consensusdeveloped collaborative project

[that took] months or years to

develop. Similarly, it only takes

one person in a District office

[who is confused or concerned

about] a collaborative project to

stall or spread disinformation

that significantly delays or 

damages the credibility of 

such projects.” 

(KenCairn 2000, p. 10)

Internal Communication

Lack of communication within an agency or organization can further impede collaboration. For

example, in the Forest Service, National Forest System staff generally are unaware of existing networks of collaboration between State and Private Forestry’s Cooperative Forestry staff and local communities—even when staff from both units are located in the same office (Baker and Kusel 2003,

Frentz et al. 1999). Timber contracting officers and service contracting officers rarely work together,

yet new contracting authorities require an understanding of both sets of procedures (Sustainable

Northwest et al. 2002) 

Line officers’ confusion over authorities has also been attributed to breakdown in communication

along the chain of command from the national to the forest and district level. Policy analysts cite cases

of field staff claiming they do not have the authority to do something, while the Washington Office

simultaneously claims they do (KenCairn 2000, Loucks and Kostishack 2001). The result is agency

staff afraid to use existing authorities for fear they do not apply (Loucks and Kostishack 2001,

Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002). 

Aside from the delays and confusion, poor internal communication also increases the risk that higher

levels in the agency will override or impede a collaborative decision negotiated at the local level, an

action that has seriously undermined some collaborative efforts (KenCairn 2000). Individual forests

have also been known to make decisions or set priorities that are inconsistent with cooperative agreements that have been set at the regional level (Loucks and Kostishack 2001).

Poor internal communication is exacerbated by the agency’s practice of transferring line officers every

few years, because institutional knowledge tends to leave an office with the individual. When key

agency staff who have been participants in collaborative arrangements are transferred, collaborative

groups find they must inform new personnel of existing agreements, or even renegotiate them.

Enthusiasm for a collaborative effort may leave the office along with the individual who championed it

within the agency (KenCairn 2000). One study that tracked 35 collaborative processes over a 3- to 

5-year period found that personnel changes affected 42 percent of the original cases (Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000). In a few forestry collaboratives, replacement or transfer of key agency personnel caused

the entire effort to fail (Loucks and Kostishack 2001).

To some extent, improving internal communication is an individual responsibility of all agency staff,

but the Forest Service has attempted to provide guidance and mentoring through groups like the

Partnership Task Force, which was chartered in June 2002 “to assist practitioners and partners by 

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 31
“Centralized and unresponsive

agencies, like the Forest Service,

tend to be unreliable partners.” 

(Thomas 1999, p. 544)

fostering an organizational culture that cultivates and expands partnership capacity and by streamlining the internal work process of the agency” (Loucks 2002, p. 27).

Interorganizational Cooperation

Historically, Federal agencies have not reached out to local governments to help them implement projects, but local government participation in environmental management is increasingly being recognized as critical to good outcomes. 

A study of interagency coordination for wildland fire management found that only the firefighting

aspects were well coordinated and recommended that the agencies create more inclusive and more

effective interagency work groups (Fairbanks et al. 2001). Another study suggests that Federal managers should make an effort to engage local governments for three reasons (Webler et al. 2003). First,

local officials are instrumental to ensuring regulations are implemented at the local level. Second, local

officials have unique insights into local needs, concerns, and resources that can be valuable to Federal

managers. Finally, local officials can have a major influence on community support or opposition to

State and Federal policies. 

Research on collaborative resource management groups has found that the more successful are those to

which agencies have dedicated staff time (Imperial and Hennessey 2000). Unfortunately, staff time and

decisionmaking authority are in short supply in Forest Service field offices (Wondolleck and Yaffee

2000). In addition, Forest Service employees who attempt to collaborate and implement innovative

ideas may not be rewarded or recognized for their efforts. The agency’s employee performance evaluation criteria seldom include collaboration or partnership activities; line officers who want to get ahead

in the agency have little incentive to risk spending their time on new collaborative endeavors (Loucks

and Kostishack 2001, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). In some cases, risk takers have been actively 

censured for engaging in collaborative activities (KenCairn 2000). 

According to public administration experts, “the most important change in administrative functions

over the last century, in both the public and private sectors, is the dramatic rise in organizational 

interdependence” (Arganoff and McGuire 1999, p.19). To help managers adapt to this new work 

environment, “leading corporations and government agencies” create a “learning environment” based

on “sharing best practices, rewarding successful action and initiative, and working cooperatively to

solve problems. They avoid punitive “scapegoating” and instead focus on enhancing performance and

employee morale” (Fairbanks et al. 2001, p. xxvi).

32 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
“Across the United States,

researchers consistently have

found high levels of public 

distrust of federal forest and

rangeland managers, which has

led citizens to become leery 

of participation in agency

ecosystem-based management

programs.” 

(Schindler et al. 2002, p. 17)

Lack of Trust and Accountability

Policy scholars say that, for a process to be trusted, it must be legitimate, credible, and fair. By legitimate they mean that a collaborative process and its activities satisfy legal mandates, are sanctioned by

administrative procedure, have the support and commitment of the agency, and recognize other rights

and authorities. By credible they mean that the collaborative process and its activities are grounded in

the best available science and experiential knowledge. By fair they mean that the collaborative process

and its activities are inclusive and representative, that everyone has equal access to information, and

that decisionmaking criteria are mutually agreed on (Committee of Scientists 1999, Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000).

Managers’ reluctance to collaborate, inconsistent messages to the partners about authorities, and

reversed agency decisions exacerbate a climate of mistrust and escalate the public’s demands for greater

agency accountability to those with whom it collaborates. These issues are not unique to government

agencies; increasingly, sociologists and political scientists studying collaborations are identifying a lack

of accountability—of mechanisms for enforcing group standards and agreements—to be a major problem (Cigler 1999, Mandell 1999b, Weber 1999). Because of these issues of trust, as well as the reality

that unscrupulous individuals can misuse collaborative processes, researchers suggest that collaborative

efforts should focus “not just on building trust but rather on establishing predictability and reducing

vulnerability” (Mandell 1999b, p. 13).

Research on watershed collaboratives has shown that the more successful groups are those that have

developed mechanisms for monitoring activities and enforcing group decisions, whether through formal agreements or peer pressure (Born and Genskow 2000, Imperial and Hennessey 2001, Margerum

2001). In a study of interagency collaboration, Takahashi and Smutny (2001) found that an “emphasis

on informality within and between agencies ... contributed to conflict and miscommunication... [and]

led to a lack of sanctioning when particular organizations engaged in behaviors that were deemed

unacceptable by the other agencies,” such as failure to show up at meetings or provide agreed-upon

services (p. 147).

The policy analysis literature specific to forestry collaboratives resounds with calls for monitoring and

evaluation of collaborative group processes and outcomes as a form of accountability among different

parties (KenCairn 2000, Loucks and Kostishack 2001, Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002, Wondolleck

and Yaffee 2000). In addition to providing a measure of accountability, monitoring and evaluation offer

a mechanism by which the agency can document and learn from prior experiences in collaboration,

reducing the risk that mistakes will be repeated. 

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 33
34 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Policy Resources for Collaboration

Forest Service wildland fire and fuels management staff can draw on several policies to facilitate and

support collaboration. These policy resources come and go with different initiatives and programs, so

agency staff need to monitor what resources are currently available. 

State and Private Forestry’s Collaborative Forestry staff of the Forest Service has long collaborated with

communities through its Economic Action Programs, Urban and Community Forestry Program, and

Landowner Assistance Programs. Their ability to collaborate with local communities has expanded

with an influx of funds from President Clinton’s National Fire Plan that started in 2000. National forest

line officers and staff too have access to a number of relatively new tools for collaboration, including

new authorities under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the Wyden Amendment, the County

Payments Act, stewardship contracting, and other new programs. In addition, the agency has many

mechanisms by which it can partner with tribal, State, and local governments, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Many of the new authorities, as well as innovative new uses for

existing authorities, were developed in collaborative processes.

Healthy Forest Restoration Act

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) specifically authorizes the Forest Service and the

Bureau of Land Management to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands

located in the wildand-urban interface or intermix community, or on lands where wildfire would

threaten values in the interface or intermix community. 

Several of the HFRA provisions specifically speak to the value and importance of collaboration, 

especially at the local community level. Section 104(d) states, “In order to encourage meaningful public

participation in the identification and development of authorized

hazardous fuels reduction projects, the Secretary concerned shall

facilitate collaboration among governments and interested persons

during the formulation of each authorized fuels reduction project in

a manner consistent with the Implementation Plan.” Under Title III

of HFRA (Watershed Forestry Assistance), Section 302 instructs the

Secretary of Agriculture to establish a watershed forestry cost-share

program to help fund critical forest stewardship, watershed protection,

and restoration needs. Such projects can specifically be developed

through community-based planning, involvement, and action

through State, local, and nonprofit organizations. Perhaps most 

significantly, the act places priority on restoration and fuels reduction

Initiatives such as HFRA 

encourage Federal agencies to

conduct fuels reduction projects

in the wildland-urban interface.

Photo credit: Four Corners Sustainable Forests Partnership Web site
projects in areas identified by communities themselves in community wildfire protection plans

(CWPP). Treatment areas identified in a collaboratively developed CWPP will receive priority funding

over projects identified by the Federal agencies alone. Finally, HFRA provides for “a multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process” of Forest Service and BLM projects developed under the

act. HFRA sets a new benchmark for collaboration in wildfire and fuels management.

HFRA also addresses concerns about 

bureaucratic delays by authorizing expedited

environmental assessment, administrative

appeals, and legal review fro hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal land. 

National Fire Plan Authorities

The National Fire Plan (actually a series of government reports and agency strategies) was developed 

in part to address a lack of coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for 

fire management and suppression. “A key tenet of the National Fire Plan is coordination between 

government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels to develop strategies and carry out 

programs” (Kostishack and Rana 2002, p. 7). To emphasize this goal, Congress directed the Secretary

of Agriculture to work with the Western Governors’ Association to implement the 10-Year

Comprehensive Strategy—A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities

and the Environment. Several of the objectives articulated in the 10-Year Strategy specifically call for

agency collaboration with communities, including:

• Reduce wildland fire risk to communities and the environment for the long term.

• Promote a collaborative, community-based approach to wildland fire management that recognizes

the importance of making key decisions at the local level.

• Promote community assistance.

• Hold collaboration, priority setting, and accountability as core guiding principles. (Kostishack and

Rana 2002).

Since 2001, annual appropriations funding the National Fire Plan have given Forest Service managers

authority to enter into procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with local 

nonprofits, Youth Conservation Corps, or small disadvantaged businesses to carry out hazardous 

fuels reduction activities on Federal lands and provide training and monitoring associated with those

activities (Kostishack and Rana 2002). The National Fire Plan also increased funding to the State and

Private Forestry programs.

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 35

HFRA provides for “a multiparty monitoring, 

evaluation, and accountability process” of Forest

Service and BLM projects developed under the act.
Wyden Amendment

Legislation passed in 1998, commonly referred to as the Wyden Amendment (PL105-277), authorizes

Forest Supervisors to enter into collaborative arrangements with other governmental or private entities,

including landowners, to accomplish restoration, protection, and enhancement work on public or 

private lands, as long as that work is of high priority for the agency (USDA 2003b). The Wyden

Amendment also allows the agency to spend appropriated dollars outside of the National Forest

System boundaries (Loucks and Kostishack 2001, Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002, USDA and BLM

2001). This authority is delegated to Forest Supervisors and may be redelegated to District Rangers,

but not to any other position. All appropriated funds are available for use under the Wyden

Amendment, unless there is specific language in the appropriation that prohibits or restricts its use

(USDA 2003b).

County Payments Bill

The purposes of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000, also

known as the County Payments Bill, are:

1. to stabilize payments in lieu of taxes to counties to help pay for roads and schools, 

2. to provide funding for projects that enhance forest ecosystem health and provide employment

opportunities, and

3. to improve cooperative relationships among Federal land management agencies and those who use

and care about the lands the agencies manage. 

Counties that choose to receive their share of payments to States under a new formula established by

this law are required to use 80 to 85 percent of the funds received on local schools and the county

road program. The remaining 15 to 20 percent must be allocated to projects authorized under Title II

or Title III of the new law. Title II projects either take place on Federal lands or benefit Federal lands.

Title III projects are county projects that may include search and rescue, community service work

camps, easement purchases, forest-related education opportunities, fire prevention and county 

planning, or cost-share for urban community forestry projects.

The County Payments Bill also requires the establishment of Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), 

advisory councils chartered under FACA that recommend projects to the Secretary of Agriculture for

Title II funding and that also may advise counties on Title III projects. 

36 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Stewardship Contracting

Stewardship contracting, an authority that first became available through an appropriations bill rider in

1999, was designed to: 

• encourage broad-based community collaboration, 

• give contractors more flexibility, 

• facilitate comprehensive ecosystem management, 

• and help build a new workforce focused on forest health restoration and maintenance activities

(Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002). 

Collaboration is a requirement of every stewardship contract. In addition, the pilot program, which

contracted 84 projects between 1999 and 2002, required multiparty monitoring of all stewardship

contracting projects. Legislation passed in early 2003 extended stewardship contracting authorities—

which include best-value contracting, designation by description/prescription (also known as endresults or performance-based contracting), multiyear contracts, exchange of goods for services, and

receipt retention—to all lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The

new legislation reinforces the directives to collaborate with local and State governments, nonprofit

organizations, and other interested parties; allow contracts with youth groups and small businesses or

microbusinesses; and consider benefits to local communities when awarding contracts. It also removes

the requirement for project-level multiparty monitoring. 

Economic Action Programs

Economic Action Programs, particularly the Rural Community Assistance Program, fund community

capacity building for collaboration (Loucks 2002, Sustainable Northwest et al. 2002). “From the 

perspective of community forestry practitioners

and supporters, [these programs are] some of

the most effective tools communities and the

Forest Service have for working together on

efforts to build community capacity, support

economic diversification, and foster the development of a forest stewardship-based economy” (Baker and Kusel 2003). The State and Private

Forestry Branch of the Forest Service administers both the Economic Action and Rural Community

Assistance programs.

Forest Land Enhancement Program

Created in the 2002 Farm Bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002), the Forest Land

Enhancement Program (FLEP) is intended “to establish a coordinated and cooperative Federal, State,

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 37

The State and Private Forestry Branch of the 

Forest Service administers both the Economic

Action and Rural Community Assistance programs.
and local sustainable forestry program for the establishment, management, maintenance, enhancement,

and restoration of forests on nonindustrial private forest land” (Act). FLEP is a cost-share program that

encourages the long-term sustainability of nonindustrial private forest lands. This program is

implemented through State Foresters in coordination with State forest stewardship coordinating committees and in consultation with

other stakeholders. Congress authorized

mandatory appropriations of $100 million for 5 years, to guarantee that cost-share assistance would 

be available to landowners (Rana 2002). 

Fire Assistance Programs

In addition, appropriations for implementing the National Fire Plan have increased funding for specific

programs that allow State and Private Forestry to partner with or fund State and local fire management

efforts. These include:

• State Fire Assistance (authorizes the USDA Forest Service to cooperate with State Foresters to build

State and local firefighting capacity, support fire hazard mitigation projects in the wildland-urban

interface, and support Firewise workshops for homeowners) 

• Volunteer Fire Assistance (authorizes the USDA Forest Service to cooperate with State Foresters to

fund volunteer fire departments for training, improved communication, and equipment and protective clothing purchase). 

A new assistance program, the Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program, was developed

under the National Fire Plan to promote firefighting efficiency at all levels on Federal and non-Federal

lands and to protect communities from wildland fire threats. It also supports multiresource, landscapelevel fire protection on Federal and non-Federal lands. This program is administered by the Forest

Service and implemented through State Foresters in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies

(Rana 2002).

Agency Mentors and Models

Managers often overlook the knowledge of people sitting at the next desk or working for the agency

down the road who have been successful in developing collaborative partnerships. These individuals

can be valuable sources of “lessons learned” on collaboration. Some agency personnel and former

employees have developed collaborative stewardship training seminars and workshops (Baker and Kusel

2003). The Contracting Desk Guide is an example of a resource developed by agency contracting staff

38 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

FLEP is a cost-share program that encourages 

the long-term sustainability of nonindustrial 

private forest lands.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 39

to help other contracting officers understand the expanding array of contracting authorities available to

them (USDA 2002). The agency’s recent practice of designating liaisons to multiagency projects and

collaboratives and loaning Federal employees to its collaborators (Loucks and Kostishack 2001) is creating another pool of agency employees with networking experience.

The National Fire Plan Implementation Team, which works to coordinate fire management efforts

within the agency, and the National Interagency Fire Center, which coordinates the fire and aviation

resources of all relevant Federal agencies and fosters cooperative agreements with State, local, and tribal entities, are good examples of internal and external coordination and collaboration and resources

that managers can turn to for assistance (Kostishack and Rana 2002).

Pilot projects and programs that have been testing new collaborative approaches—like the Four

Corners Sustainable Forests Partnership in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah; the Blue

Mountains Demonstration Area in Oregon; and the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in 

New Mexico—are additional sources of managers with collaboration experience and examples of 

collaboration techniques. Experiments with stewardship contracting in the Blue Mountains

Demonstration Area, for example, resulted in the development of Integrated Resource Contracts, 

now an agency model for stewardship contracting. 
“We have not reached the limits

of collaboration .... We have

just scratched the surface.” 

(Phillip Bimstein, mayor of

Springdale, Utah, quoted in

Propst and Rosan 1997, p. 8)

40 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Keys to Successful Collaboration

Collaboration is not a panacea or a silver bullet (Pipkin and Doerksen 2000); it is not always effective

or appropriate. From the earlier discussion of barriers to building participatory capacity, the charge to

initiate collaborative associations to support wildland fire and fuels management may appear to be a

“Mission Impossible.” However, lessons can be learned from successful collaborations that can help

overcome these barriers. Some issues can be anticipated and a plan can be developed for addressing

them as they emerge.

Step-by-step guides to successful collaboration cannot suit the specific needs of every situation

(Borrini-Feyerabend 1996), but many lessons are available from others’ experiences. Some are essential

for successful collaborations, others make the process easier, and others have resulted in better ecosystem projects. These essentials come from a number of sources:

• Prescriptions in how-to guides and training manuals for collaboration in the natural resource arena

(BLM and Sonoran Institute 2000, Pipkin and Doerksen 2000, Sirmon 2001, USDA 1995, USDI 2000).

• Articles and case studies by collaboration process participants and facilitators (Daniels et al. 1996,

Round Tables 1998, Shafer and Shipley 2002, USDA 2000).

• Comprehensive assessments by academics and researchers who have analyzed case studies (Leach

and Pelkey 2001, Pipkin and Doerksen 2000, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000); reviewed collaborative

literature more generally (Mattessich et al. 2000); and questioned participants through mail surveys

(Leach 2002, Paulson and Chamberlin 1998, Schuett et al. 2001, Williams and Ellefson 1996),

interviews (Belden et al. 2001, Brunner et al. 2002, Carr et al. 1998) or during workshops (Loucks

2002, Propst and Rosan 1997). 

The 11 essentials discussed below address many of the barriers to collaborative capacity and emphasize some of the tasks discussed earlier. 

Focus on Community Context

To support collaborative fuels management across ownership boundaries, people need to understand

that community context matters. The history of collaboration or cooperation in the community shapes

current efforts (Mendez et al. 2003). Contentious, unresolved past conflict will hinder success (Moote

2003); collective past achievements will better position a community to address a common threat such

as wildland fire (Sturtevant and Corson 2003). 

Focus on Resource Stewardship

It is essential to build on the broader issue of resource stewardship. “Collaborative stewardship is most

effective when practiced close to the ground” (USDA 2000, p. 13) and builds on community members’
attachment to place. Collaboratives stay on track and produce results on the land by keeping focus on

a common landscape vision (TNC 2003) and by working toward a set of solutions with measurable

outcomes. “Unless you can work toward the same goal, the process is unlikely to produce results. This

does not mean, however, that each party needs to be motivated by the same reasons to work toward

the goal” (Belden et al. 2001). 

Focusing on resource stewardship creates a strong common bond among participants (Williams and

Ellefson 1997), evoking emotions that can motivate landowners and other interested parties to join

and take an active part in a partnership. The key is to connect these emotions to facts and data that

participants can agree upon (Pipkin and Doerksen 2000), rather than rhetoric that can bog down the

collaboration. Field trips help people connect to the land as well as to each other and move them past

ideology to common attachment to place.

Focus on Appropriate Scale

It is essential to work at a scale appropriate to the community, a scale that evokes shared values, 

collective action, and sense of place—often neighborhoods or subwatersheds within a larger watershed.

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 41

Photo credit: Jamie Barbour

Successful wildfire management

collaborations build on the

broader issue of resource 

stewardship.
“The development of trust is

something that takes time, and

it requires openness, honesty,

good communication skills and

patience. ... Trust is a matter of

building credibility and 

building relationships...and

demonstrating an attitude of

inclusiveness.” 

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000, p. 16)

Local, small projects work better than larger ones, but need to be broad enough to cover the ecosystem

(Pipkin and Doerksen 2000). Fire managers may relate to watershed boundaries, but public interest

and identity might work better at the neighborhood level (Sturtevant and Jakes 2003). 

Curtis et al. (2002) noted that watershed groups function better at the local (community) scale than

at the larger landscape (bioregional) scale, but others (Kenney 2000) suggested that intermediary 

or “umbrella” groups that work within a larger geographic area (rather than a watershed or 

community scale) can be important for integrating local groups and national groups and 

policymakers. “Umbrella groups may provide funding opportunities, administrative infrastructure,

and general networking opportunities [that local groups] would otherwise not be able to realize”

(Kenney 2000).

When talking about scale both geographic scale and temporal scale are important. Concerning the

temporal scale, Leach et al. (2002) found that it typically “takes 48 months to achieve major milestones

such as formal agreements and implementation of restoration, education, or monitoring projects.” This

correlates well with the observation that collaborative fisheries groups took 3 to 5 years to reach a level

of functionality (White et al. 1994). However, fire planning and fuel reduction projects can move faster

(Sturtevant and Jakes 2003).

Focus on Building Relationships and Trust

It is essential to build relationships that create trust. Being inclusive and valuing diversity is a cornerstone of developing trust and building credibility with partners (BLM and Sonoran Institute 2000).

Trust takes work, especially for collaborations beginning with little common ground. “Yeah, it requires

trust—you have to trust each other. That trust doesn’t exist when you begin and so that’s why you

want to talk about goals, you take it a piece at a time” (director, State parks and historic sites department, cited in Belden et al. 2001, p. 27).

Successful collaboration starts with the middle ground—the small successes people can agree on—

and builds outward. First, it takes the “low-hanging fruit” (Pipkin and Doerksen 2000), starting small

and aiming for improvement (USDA 1995). In fuel reduction projects this would be thinning the

“small stuff” and clearing around driveways, along roadsides, leaving the big trees, and staying out of

contentious areas until trust is built. Also focusing on areas that pose highest risk to communities—

these may not be small scale or around driveways and roadsides, but if everyone can agree that they’re

an imminent threat it builds a lot of good will to work on those right away.

42 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
“ ... [I] t is necessary for them

to know they do NOT have all

the answers.... The results of

effective leadership are dignity,

self-reliance and respect for the

individuals and communities

involved.” 

(USDA 1995)

“The key is to leave the decisionmaking process in the hands of

the community, but not the 

decision-making authority.” 

(BLM and Sonoran Institute

2000, p. 7)

Focus on Strong Leadership

It is essential to have strong leadership. The support of high-level, visible agency or community leaders

brings credibility to a collaborative effort, but leaders of collaboration must not fall back on the traditional hierarchical modes of leadership (Chrislip and Larson 1994). Successful collaborations have

many leaders with diverse styles and skills: strong, energetic, and motivated leaders who have good

communication skills and personal qualities that inspire people (USDA 2000), but also leaders can

moderate and facilitate; are inclusive, humble, informative, listeners (USDI 2000); focus on detail; and

believe in science (Pipkin and Doerksen 1999). Some successful leaders bring entrepreneurial attitudes

(Yaffee and Wondolleck 2000); they are willing to take risks and resolve an impasse in negotiation

quickly. Others are ambassadors who can work with a diverse group of stakeholders. Also, new leaders

emerge during the process (President’s Council on Sustainable Development 1997).

Success is also more likely if individuals in the collaborating group, including agencies, are seen as

leaders in the community (Mattessich et al. 2001). If community leaders, including those with authority over the issues such as agency managers, are not in the collaboration, they should understand and

support the mission of the group (USDA 2000). 

Focus on Structure and Process

It is essential to pay attention to the structure of the collaboration and the processes used to conduct

business. Successful collaborations are often community-driven (BLM and Sonoran Institute 2000,

Cestero 1999), supported by government agency participation. If agencies initiate the partnership, its

design should not be predetermined. Stakeholders should be given opportunity to create a structure

they believe is fair and inclusive. “The real issue is control of the process—fears of bias based on who

initiates the process can be overcome with good facilitation and process design” (Paulson and

Chamberlin 1998, p. 4).

Decisionmaking is best regarded if it is transparent and open. “The agencies must constantly be aboveboard and honest—no behind the scenes deals with any party!” (Schuett et al. 2001, p. 590). Managers

need to be clear early on about their “decision space,” the legal “sideboards” (BLM and Sonoran

Institute 2000)—laws and regulations that guide public land management.

Successful collaborative groups are flexible. Participants recognize that not everyone’s preferences will

be fully met and remain open to different ideas about organization and outcomes (Moote 2003).

Being flexible and adaptable allows the group to deal with changing conditions, unique situations,

and surprises. 

A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 43
Successful collaboration requires

a strong public outreach and

communication effort.

There is no perfect size for a collaborative group, (Paulson and Chamberlin 1998). Some think inclusiveness should take precedence over cohesion of members, and large groups can be managed through

subcommittees and spokespersons. Paulson and Chamberlin found that many practitioners had successfully worked with groups of 30-50, and some with groups of more than 200. Optimal group size

varies with type and purpose of the collaborative process.

Focus on Outreach and Communication

It is essential to build a strong outreach and communication effort. For fire collaboratives, outreach 

to homeowners is essential for implementing fuel reduction projects across the landscape. Others’

experiences may provide some lessons for accomplishing this step successfully. “Get[ting] involved in

the community ... helps to build relationships and credibility within the community” (Propst and

Rosan 1997, p. 9). Collaborative planning processes create ties and relationships that are strengthened

and extended through involvement in the community—offering technical assistance, such as home 

fire risk audits, or working with local leaders and officials in their planning process (Sturtevant and

Jakes 2003).

44 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

(Photo credit: Victoria Sturtevant
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 45

Newsletters and multiagency educational workshops are an important form of outreach, especially if

the message is clear that it is a joint partnership effort. Collaborators can also make use of

opportunities such as festivals, parades, tree

planting parties, county fairs (BLM and

Sonoran Institute 2000), and similar venues to

share their message and hand out informational materials such as fire plans. Outreach can be used not only to inform the public, but also to gather

information and bring interested parties on board. 

Focus on Resources

It is essential that important resources be available to the collaboration, including adequate time and

consistent funding to support operations and staff. Sixty percent of studies analyzed in one survey

(Leach and Pelkey 2001) mentioned the importance of funding and effective leaders, facilitators, or

coordinators. Government agencies can be critical players because they are the most likely source of

funding (Paulson and Chamberlin 1998), providing staff and meeting space as well. Nonprofit organizations and NGO’s also provide an important source of funding, facilitation, and leadership (Sturtevant

and Lange 2003, White et al. 1994). 

Focus on Linkages

It is essential that the collaboration build not only on internal support from local agencies and communities, but also on external support and outside linkages. Successful collaborations integrate regional and national interests (Cestero 1999), addressing concerns of skeptics who believe local decisions

sacrifice long-term environmental protection. To connect with information and expertise outside the

community, they network with similar community-based groups (Sturtevant and Lange 2003). 

Successful agencies create liaison positions; they rethink traditional job descriptions and new administrative structures. Fire agencies could create “cooperative positions” with communities, specialists to

work with homeowners. “[The] public doesn’t care who he works for, key is that he deals with people

who perceive that he works for them ... accessible to people to get help” (Propst and Rosan 1997). 

Wildland fire prevention collaboratives need support by the States and communities; Federal agencies

do not possess the full range of responsibilities and jurisdictional control to ensure a successful 

collaboration (Pipkin and Doerksen 2000). Linkages among agencies are also necessary to manage

information and standards across boundaries and policies. Agencies have their own systems for 

Collaborative planning processes create ties and

relationships that are strengthened and extended

through involvement in the community.
“Develop your message, give

tours, brag about your 

partnership.” 

(TNC 2003, p. 5)

classifying and mapping information, which are often not compatible across the landscape (Pipkin and

Doerksen 2000); successful collaborations have overcome this problem (Everett 2002).

Focus on Adaptive Management

It is essential that learning comes from reflecting on management decisions and actions—monitoring,

reviewing progress, and evaluating the extent to which decisions and actions are accomplishing

goals—then adjusting management activities, as necessary. This needs to be a scientifically sound and

rigorous process—stakes are often high for collaborators. Pipkin and Doerksen (2000) provide a thorough discussion of adaptive management in collaboration, which will be addressed in this synthesis in

appendix B. 

Focus on Successes

It is essential to celebrate successes, even small ones, to maintain group motivation, involvement, and

focus (Rolle 2002). Early on, the successful collaboration finds tangible outcomes to rally behind and

present to others as potential models. Some remind themselves of the intangible outcomes (Carr et al.

1998), such as new relationships and the satisfaction of having their neighborhood prepared for an

emergency.

Successful pilot projects tend to spread (White et al. 1994). A pilot fire project on one property may

appeal to neighbors previously unsupportive of fuel reduction recommended by a collaboration

(Everett 2002). A pilot fuel reduction effort in one watershed can be used as a model for others, as 

can collaboratively produced fire-planning documents.

There are many additional lessons to be learned from groups with experience in building and 

maintaining collaborative processes for wildland fire management. In the following pages we share

success stories from nine groups that work collaboratively to manage fuels in their communities. 

46 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 47

The Four Corners Sustainable Forests

Partnership (FCSFP) was created in 1998

when the State Foresters of New Mexico,

Arizona, Utah, and Colorado organized a

diverse group of businesses, organizations, 

and agencies to address forestry concerns in

the region. This group sought congressional

funding to address increasing risks of 

catastrophic fire and insect outbreaks and

declining community capacity to address 

forest restoration and forest management

needs. In 1999, Congress requested funding

for the partnership through State and Private

Forestry’s Economic Action Programs. The

partnership’s five main program areas are 

community-based forest restoration demonstration grants; regionwide utilization and

marketing technical assistance; public information linking community well-being to ecosystem health; regional education and networking; and a revolving loan fund. 

A number of local partnerships are networked

through this multi-State organization, among

them Catron County Citizens Group and Las

Humanas in New Mexico. Two groups highlighted here are the Ruidoso Wildland Urban

Interface Group (RWUIG) in New Mexico and

the Great Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP)

in Arizona.

Indigenous Community

Enterprises, a member of the

Four Corners Sustainable

Forests Partnership, worked

with members of the Navajo 

communities to build

contemporary hogans with

small diameter material.

Photo credit: Four Corners Sustainable Forests Partnership Web site

Four Corners Sustainable Forests Partnership

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/fourcornersforests/related_links.htm
48 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Fire is no stranger to the Applegate Valley, with its

Mediterranean climate and fire-dependent ecosystem. Its land use includes residential lots, small

woodland and hobby farms, industrial forests,

and public lands; 70 percent of the watershed is

managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of

Land Management. Fire suppression, logging,

hydraulic mining, and drought have dramatically

changed the composition and structure of the 

forest, much of which consists of overcrowded

young and old stands with high levels of insect

damage. The risk of catastrophic fire is compounded by the ever-increasing number of rural

residential dwellings surrounded by dense, 

continuous vegetation in the forest interface.

The Applegate

Valley straddles two

counties (Jackson

and Josephine), is

within easy reach of

two cities (Medford

and Grants Pass),

and is made up of a

number of small,

unincorporated

communities. A strong attachment to place

unites old-timers, mid-timers, and newcomers, 

as do extensive informal and organizational 

networks. The Applegate Partnership has served

as a place to find common ground and solutions for nearly 10 years and provided the successful proposal for National Fire Plan funding,

as well as the leadership and organizational

infrastructure to complete the Applegate Plan 

in 10 months. 

The Applegate Fire Plan was both process and

product. The process was community-driven,

yet 26 Federal, State, and county agencies contributed their staff expertise and support. For

the agencies, the plan solidified a process that

had been going on for decades: gathering information, balancing priorities, planning strategies,

and cooperating over property lines, but this

time in dialog and coordination with one another and community members. No one really

knew what they were getting into when they

embarked on the planning process; the going

was tougher than they imagined, but all are

proud of the outcomes.

The process included community outreach 

and education through meetings, newsletters,

potlucks, fieldtrips, and demonstration sites.

Agencies with differing missions and cultures 

generated a single set of hazard risk assessment

maps, fuel reduction options, and fire suppression

strategies. These were included in the reference

guide written by a local professional writer,

Residents of the Applegate

Watershed display their copies

of the Applegate Fire Plan, 

an effort that is often cited 

as a model of communitydriven collaborative fire 

management planning.

Applegate Fire Plan

http://www.grayback.com
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 49

along with instructions for emergency preparedness and other information, ranging from

lists of forest consultants to public agency 

regulations to where to report a fire. Appraisal

from local fire departments helped over 600

homeowners work on their properties with

National Fire Plan cost-share funds distributed

by the Oregon Department of Forestry. The

Bureau of Land Management and private

landowners have cooperated in thinning across

ownership boundaries, sharing tools such as

the Slashbuster.

Lessons from the Applegate

1. Promote diversity and the strength it provides. Everyone brings a different piece to

the puzzle.

2. Seek common issues and goals. Shared 

ownership means shared responsibility.

3. Gather an array of leadership skills. You’ll

need a taskmaster, a coordinator, a cheerleader, a facilitator, and an ambassador.

4. Work at multiple levels and use multiple

strategies for outreach. Ultimately, get to the

neighborhood level.

5. Build on existing collaborative relationships.

Start with a core group of people with

demonstrated success at working across

boundaries.

6. Keep a deadline for completion. A tight time

frame keeps people at the table.

7. Expect controversy. Although fuel management is not as contentious as a timber sale,

some people will be suspicious.

8. Be prepared for lots of work. The investment

is worth it in the long run.
50 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The Central Oregon Partnerships for Wildfire

Risk Reduction Project (COPWRR) is a multistakeholder collaboration dedicated to reducing

wildfire risk in central Oregon through (1)

increasing wildfire fuels treatments in central

Oregon, and (2) stimulating market uses for

small diameter timber. The COPWRR Advisory

Council includes a wide variety of environmental, forest industry, community development,

tribal, and interagency partners such as the

Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests, the

Prineville BLM, The Confederated Tribes of

Warm Springs, emergency management agencies, State agencies, the Governor’s Economic

Revitalization Team, and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). In Phase I, the

Advisory Council developed the COPWRR

Strategy Framework, containing 64 recommendations for achieving project goals, including a

menu of potential small diameter products/markets for the region. Phase II (wrapping up in fall

2004) is focused upon developing stable,

regionally coordinated small diameter supplies

through the Governor Kulongoski-endorsed

Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol (CROP)

initiative. The core goal of Phase III will be to

take the processes and analyses completed in

Phases I and II, and the agreements developed

in the Oregon Solutions process, and direct

them toward implementing private sector and

community-based small diameter biomass 

utilization projects. The COPWRR Project and

Advisory Council also serve as a communitybased “hub” of networking, facilitating, and

communication for wildfire risk reduction 

projects underway in central Oregon. 

One key strategy outlined in the Strategy

Framework is the development of a stable, 

sustainable supply of small diameter material.

The CROP initiative will—through the 

development of a regional supply offering 

protocol—help achieve the necessary 

predictability and stability of supply to enable

businesses to invest in technologies and 

product development. This supply program

The Central Oregon Partnerships

for Wildfire Risk Reduction

Project brings together 

stakeholders to develop market

uses for small diameter timber.

Photo credit: COPWRR Web site

Central Oregon Partnerships for Wildfire Risk Reduction Project

http://www.coic.org/CED/copwrr/home.htm
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 51

proposal is predicated on the principle that

ecosystem, fuel treatment, and community

objectives should drive the volume and characteristics of supply, which would then determine

the characteristics of industrial and technological capacity. CROP was presented as a national

benchmark pilot initiative to the USDA Forest

Service National Leadership Team and

Department of the Interior officials in June

2004, in coordination with the Greater Flagstaff

Forest Partnership, the Pinchot Institute for

Conservation, and Mater Engineering, Ltd.

Governor Kulongoski designated the COPWRR

CROP model as an Oregon Solutions initiative

in September 2003. A CROP Initiative Team

was then created, composed of individuals

with a “stake” in ecosystem restoration, community wildfire risk reduction, and employment/job creation in central Oregon. The team

will sign a Declaration of Cooperation (DOC)

outlining stakeholder support for the CROP

initiative in the fall of 2004. The DOC is only

the first step toward initiative implementation,

and outlines how public agencies, community

groups and stakeholders, COIC, private industry, and others will execute and monitor the

initiative for years to come.
52 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP)

was formed in 1996, after an extreme wildfire

season focused public attention on poor forest

health and the high risk of catastrophic wildfire

in the ponderosa pine forests surrounding

Flagstaff, Arizona. The partnership’s founding

members included the Forest Service, an environmental organization, and a research institute;

as a result, its activities reflect ecological and

research goals as well as a desire to reduce the

wildfire risk. The GFFP's three primary goals are

to (1) restore natural

ecosystem structures,

function, and composition of ponderosa pine

forests; (2) manage forest fuels to reduce the

probability of catastrophic fire; and (3)

research, test, develop,

and demonstrate key

ecological, economic, and social dimensions of

restoration efforts.

GFFP partners include 27 environmental,

research, and governmental organizations.

Formally, the partnership is a cooperative 

agreement between the Coconino National

Forest and the Greater Flagstaff Forests

Partnership, Inc., a private, nonprofit 

corporation that serves as a formal advisory

committee to the Forest Service under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act. In addition to

making restoration recommendations to the

Forest Service, the GFFP determines the work

needed to carry out agreed-on restoration efforts

and helps bring financial and human resources

to carry out restoration activities. The Forest

Service retains all responsibility for developing

potential restoration prescriptions, managing

the NEPA process and public involvement on

proposed restoration projects, and administering all contracts for activities on national forest

land. Activities and partnership administration

are coordinated by a paid staff and the

Coconino National Forest’s Community 

Forestry Liaison.

The GFFP, through its Project Management

Team and Multiparty Monitoring Team, has

tested over 20 different fuels reduction and

restoration prescriptions involving a variety of

mechanical thinning techniques and prescribed

fire; increasingly, these are focused at the landscape

scale. The partnership’s first landscape-scale

project, the Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration

Project, used several different prescriptions to

treat 5,900 acres in a 9,100-acre analysis area.

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project

includes approximately 12,000 acres, and the

The Greater Flagstaff Forests

Partnership supports projects

that it hopes will reduce the

risk of catastrophic fires such

as the 1996 Hochderferr Fire.

Photo credit: Greater Flagstaff Forests

Partnership Web site

Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership

http://www.gffp.org
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 53

Woody Ridge Project study area includes

approximately 30,000 acres. The partnership

monitors all of its restoration projects, and 

project partners are conducting ecological

research on several of them.

Because restoration and fuels reduction activities in this region are limited by the lack of 

forest industry, the GFFP’s Utilization and

Economic Team (UET) has funded a smalldiameter wood utilization study, a small log

sawmill site assessment, and a preliminary 

feasibility assessment for a biomass power plant

in northern Arizona. The UET also developed

an Enterprise Development Fund for Small

Diameter Wood Utilization in Greater Flagstaff

to promote greater wood utilization and 

business development related to small diameter

timber resources in the region.

The partnership’s Public Information Team 

maintains ongoing educational efforts that, 

combined with continued wildfire activity 

in the region, have resulted in widespread 

public support for forest treatment, including

prescribed burns. 

The GFFP focuses its efforts on national forest

lands within a 180,000-acre area in and around

the city of Flagstaff. However, it also works to

coordinate Forest Service projects with forest

restoration and fuels reduction efforts on city,

county, State, and private land in the region.

The GFFP worked jointly with the Ponderosa

Fire Advisory Council, a 16-member group 

of emergency and fire prevention agencies 

operating in the greater Flagstaff region, to

develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan

under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

That plan covers a 940,000-acre area around

Flagstaff and surrounding communities at risk

from catastrophic wildfire.
54 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

In 2002, the Biscuit Fire burned over 500,000

acres in southern Oregon and California and

awakened the rural population, putting over

15,000 citizens on evacuation notice. Although

the fire resulted in minimal loss of life and

property loss, the costs of suppressing the fire

(and the long-term recovery efforts) have

exceeded $150 million. This fire helped the

Josephine County Board of County

Commissioners recognize the need to address

the wildfire risk. The commissioners directed

the county to develop a countywide fire plan to

identify and prioritize communities at risk and

hazardous fuels treatment projects, increase

public awareness about wildfire risk, and

strengthen emergency management procedures

during a wildfire.

In 2003, Josephine County contracted with 

the Program for Watershed and Community

Health at the University of Oregon to develop a

fire plan. Integration quickly became the focus

of the plan as the county and core-planning

team recognized the complex set of issues and 

In initiating the Josephine

County Integrated Fire Plan,

planners recognized the need to

bring together diverse partners

to identify and prioritize projects to reduce fire risk.

The Josephine County Integrated Fire Plan 

http://cwch.uoregon.edu/CCWP/JCIFP/Fire%20Plan/fire_plan.htm

Photo credit: Neil Benson
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 55

stakeholders. Many citizens live in or move to

Josephine County because of the beauty of the

forest and its geographic isolation. With the

rural population making up over 50 percent of

the county’s citizens, the need to address fuels

conditions on private and adjacent public 

lands was paramount. The Josephine County

Integrated Fire Plan (JCIFP) focused on establishing a collaborative process so that the needs

of rural residents would be heard by land management agencies. Likewise, the JCIFP has

resulted in opportunities for citizens to learn

more about the public agency goals for fire

planning and fuels reduction through this

process. From the beginning, it was important

to find credible, local organizations to partner

with throughout the county. Rural fire protection districts, community-based organizations,

and social service agencies provided connections to diverse residents and helped established

a foundation of trust with community members.

The JCIFP is now a strong partnership among

public agencies, fire districts, communitybased organizations and citizens. Since its

start, the JCIFP has fostered a collaborative

environment between its partners to identify

and prioritize measures in reducing wildfire

risk. The planning process has emphasized a

cooperative approach to identify and reach

common objectives around fire prevention,

education, fuels treatment and other fire-related programs. Goals of the JCIFP include collaborative decisionmaking, providing opportunities for citizen participation, and implementing landscape-scale fuels treatment projects

across private and public land boundaries. The

JCIFP has also focused on extending resources

and opportunities to low-income and other

special needs citizens in the county (a significant percentage of the county’s population at

risk to wildfire.) The primary challenges have

been related to the lack of resources in the fire

districts and community organizations that

would otherwise allow them to be greater participants in the planning and implementation

of the JCIFP. JCIFP partners have approached

this challenge by dedicating time and energy

to providing on-site technical assistance to

lower capacity communities.
56 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The Karuk Tribal members, whose ancestral territory includes the area of Orleans and Somes

Bar of northern California, were controlling fire

long before the Federal government existed.

One example is a yearly ritual around Offield

Mountain, near present-day Somes Bar, where

the tribe rolled flaming logs down the mountainside during a lull in the rainy season,

spreading low-intensity ground fire through

wide swaths of grasses and understory before

the logs were extinguished in the creeks below.

Outlawing Native burning practices along with

fire suppression has removed a critical ecological process and destroyed a central part of this

Native American culture. 

The communities of Orleans and Somes Bar are

in a unique geographical area. Perhaps more

than any other region in California, there is an

opportunity for wildland fire use on a scale large

enough to restore the area’s historic fire regimes.

The large expanses of unsettled forest lands 

surrounding these areas could act as a safety

buffer to mitigate the related environmental and

The Orleans/Somes Bar Fire

Safe Council supports 

vegetation management by

returning fire to the landscape,

a tradition of Karuk tribal 

members living in northern

California.

Photo credit: Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council Web site

Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council 

http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/fire_safe_council/fsc_memb.asp
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 57

air quality impacts of such a large program. As

Karuk Tribal members have known since time

immemorial, there now is a realization among

non-Native people that fire cannot be excluded

from the landscape, and is in fact one of the

most powerful land management tools. 

Since May of 2001 the Orleans/Somes Bar Fire

Safe Council (OSB FSC) has been working to

make the mountain communities of Orleans and

Somes Bar, in the Mid Klamath Sub-basin of far

northern California, resilient to uncharacteristically intense fires that occur with some frequency. With large tracts of wilderness and fire-prone

national forests surrounding landowners in all

directions, virtually every landowner is in the

wildland-urban interface. The OSB FSC is made

up of residents from the communities and the

Orleans Volunteer Fire Department. Cooperating

agencies include Six Rivers National Forest,

Klamath National Forest, Humboldt County

California Department of Forestry (CDF),

Siskiyou County CDF, National Marine Fisheries

Service, and the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service. The

Karuk Tribe and OSB FSC are partners; the first

OSB FSC grant was coordinated through the

tribe and the tribe’s fuels reduction crew can

work on public lands.

The Orleans/Somes Bar Fire Safe Council adopted the philosophy that managing instead of

suppressing fire can provide and foster culturally significant resources, reintroduce natural fire

regimes while protecting homes, support

wildlife habitat, enhance forest resources,

reduce global air quality impacts, and lower fire

suppression costs. The Karuk Tribe has the philosophy that the management strategy needed is

like managing “into the mirror” (working backwards with a widening view). When you look

into a mirror, the first thing you see is yourself.

Then you can widen your view and look past

yourself to see what you need to do to enhance

the ever expanding multitude of resources and

ecological processes. These two philosophies

took form in 2002. In 2002 the OSB FSC,

cleared and set up fuel breaks over 100 strategic

acres, using $154,000 in funding from several

State and Federal agencies. The OSB FSC

employed 20 seasonal workers at wages from

$10 to $16 per hour, logged 850 volunteer

hours, and held monthly meetings for citizens,

environmentalists, and agency representatives to

work out details and disputes. In 2003, thinning was completed on another 200 + acres

around the Ishi Pishi Road, Orleans, and other

private inholdings.
58 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Communities on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada

west of Yosemite National Park have seen frequent large fires causing increasingly serious losses of property and other high-value resources

and, more significantly, loss of firefighters, lives.

In 1999, fire protection and land management

agencies in California’s southern Tuolumne and

northern Mariposa Counties met to identify ways

to mitigate the extreme fire dangers in the region.

Participants represented two Fire Protection

Units of the California Department of Forestry

(CDF), two county fire

departments, two

Resource Conservation

agencies with USDA, the

USDA Forest Service

(Forest Service), USDI

Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), and

the City and County of

San Francisco. They

referred to themselves as

the Southwest Interface

Team, or SWIFT. One of their first self-assigned

tasks was to map 132,000 acres that include key

watersheds providing water and hydroelectric

supply to millions of residents, 10 communities

and residential concentrations, and significant

recreation and forest resources for which all the

members share some protection responsibilities.

The team also outlined a program of work

emphasizing strategic fire defense systems and

pre-fire management planning.

The program of work for strategic fire defense

focuses on completing three high priority 

fuelbreaks. The 2003-2004 SWIFT Program 

of Work (SWIFT 2003) illustrates how team

members fulfill responsibilities for fuelbreak

construction and management in different 

sections of each fuelbreak. For example, in 

the Bandarita Extension of the Ponderosa

Fuelbreak, the Forest Service is responsible for

completing an existing contract for shredding

fuel material. Agency staff are also responsible

for identifying potential and existing helispots

and road maintenance needs. The CDF and

Mariposa County Fire Department are to work

with landowners to determine treatment options

on private property. In the Moccasin Extension, 

the BLM is responsible for determining the need

for a water source, helispots, staging areas, and

safety zones. The CDF, Tuolumne County Fire

Department, and City and County of San

Francisco are responsible for identifying private

landowners, and starting to secure the rights to

cross private lands to accomplish work.

The pre-fire planning work being undertaken

by SWIFT is primarily focused on obtaining

The program of work developed

by members of SWIFT focuses

on creating and maintaining

fuelbreaks that protect key

watersheds, communities, and

significant recreational and

other forest resources.

The Southwest Interface Project of Central California

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/groveland/swift/

Photo credit: SWIFT Web site
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 59

and displaying information that is critical to

maximizing both public and emergency service

personnel safety. In writing the strategic plan,

political and jurisdictional boundaries were

“erased” to develop a plan that meets all local,

county, State, and Federal emergency demands.

SWIFT has worked with the public primarily

through two local Fire Safe Councils. A Student

Conservation Corps team has helped in community outreach. Public officials, local businesses, service organizations, residents and property

owners, and other agencies in the area also provide critical support to the project.

SWIFT has documented some lessons it has

learned over the past 5 years on the process of

collaboration:

1. Identify the project objective and locate the

project area on a map.

2. Identify what agencies should be involved.

3. Select your participants—it’s important to

have field-oriented representatives who 

are able to make appropriate agency-level 

decisions on all matters pertaining to 

accomplishing the project objectives.

4. Develop a team of leaders with a strong

sense of commitment and dedication.

5. Obtain line officer/manager support and

keep them informed.

6. Become a formal organization early in the

process—develop Memorandums of

Understanding, county resolutions, communication plans; set formal monthly meetings

(with agendas and objectives); and assign a

coordinator.

7. Don’t let political, administrative, or jurisdictional boundaries conflict with meeting the

project objectives.

8. Show results before soliciting public support

and participation.

9. It takes time and effort to be successful—the

right people with the right support can make

it happen.
60 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

In a community where in the early 1990s environmentalists were hanged in effigy, drivers of

green trucks did not receive waves, and three

sawmills closed due to declining timber harvests on public lands, a group of people met

around a table in the back room of the local

bakery to make peace. The table expanded as

people became committed to new relationships

and solutions and found a common goal: to

blend ecological needs of the land with economic needs of the community, preserving the

area’s rural way of life for future generations. In

1996 Wallowa Resources

was formed, a nonprofit

group providing leadership to meet these goals;

in 1999 it became one

of the first groups in 

the nation to sign a

Memorandum of

Understanding with 

the USDA Forest

Service committing both

parties “to work cooperatively to demonstrate

new watershed management approaches that

improve and restore the ecosystem health of the

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.” 

Wallowa Resources believes the future of its

rural community rests on a strong restoration

economy and a new culture of stewardship 

that encourages various interest groups to build

relationships on principles of transparency,

inclusivity, and democracy. The restoration

work of Wallowa Resources’ started with 

small-scale improvements and non-controversial

issues; with each success, projects expanded.

Assessment and monitoring, whose scientific

quality is ensured by external partners, are 

central to these programs. 

Today, working with key agencies and private

citizens, and funded by private foundations and

Federal contracts, Wallowa Resources is making

a difference in the long-term economic and

ecological health of Wallowa County. Community

Smallwood Solutions, a for-profit arm of the

organization, adds value to small diameter logs

with roundwood products, including untreated

Douglas-fir posts and poles for organic vineyards

and habitat enhancement and watershed 

restoration products for Forest Concepts LLC.

With the help of a local log home company and

the Forest Products Laboratory in Wisconsin, they

have built small diameter structures such as the

roundwood kiosk that served as an information

center at the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Past timber management practices and fire

exclusion in Wallowa County have contributed

Working with diverse partners,

Wallowa Resources supports

projects that benefit the local

ecology and economy, including

projects for research, 

monitoring, and assessment.

Wallowa Resources

http://www.wallowaresources.org/

Photo credit: Wallowa Resources Web site
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 61

to the buildup of fuels and crowding out of

early serial species (e.g., ponderosa pine and

western larch). This fuel density, simplification

of stand structure, and shift in species 

composition increase the probability of 

large-fire, insect, and disease disturbances.

Between 1986 and 1996, five catastrophic 

wildfires occurred, compared to two much

smaller events in the previous years. Current

assessments rank the risk of catastrophic fire as

high. Working with diverse partners, Wallowa

Resources helped organize a project to reduce

the risk of catastrophic fire to private property

around Wallowa Lake. This project increased

the skills of local contractors who continue to

provide this service to other private landowners

in the area; a current project involves about 

100 landowners.
62 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

In New Mexico, concern over wildfire danger

was keen even before the New Mexico State

Forestry Division listed Ruidosa at the top of the

State’s 20 most vulnerable interface communities

(the USDA Forest Service rated Ruidoso second

in the U.S.). In Ruidoso, local collaboration to

conduct wildfire mitigation over a broad area

might be described as “integrative utilization,”

whereby each partner contributes some component—from stump to consumer—to the overall

mechanism of community forestry. The approach

reflects broader regional efforts to organize a

multiparty/agency program to rebuild a community-based forest products economy that works

to improve forest health, as well as provide

wildfire protection. Toward this end, Ruidoso

wears “two hats,” says Village Forester, Rick

DeIaco: one for the Ruidoso Community Fire

Management Plan on private and municipal land

within village limits; the other for the “WildlandUrban Interface Working Group,” a communitybased partnership working on

the “Eagle Creek Fuels Reduction

Project” upstream on Lincoln

National Forest land in the

town’s watershed. 

Local, county, State, and Federal

governments and agencies make

up the WUI partnership. It has

been funded by National Fire Plan dollars made

available through the Western Wildland Urban

Interface Grants Program. The goal has been to

create a buffer on public and tribal land adjacent

to the village, to lessen crown-fire potential, 

and force fires to the ground before they reach

residential areas. The in-village ordinance aims 

to trim “ladder” fuels that could carry flames 

into the forest canopy. Upstream in the village’s

watershed, more substantial wildfire mitigation

and forest restoration is taking place through the

Eagle Creek Fuels Reduction Project.

Similar activities occur on both projects: the 

village transports homeowners’ green waste (with

grapple-hook trucks) to dumpsters provided by

Sierra Contracting composters. On public land,

another partner, Sherry Barrow Strategies, Inc.,

manufactures the green small-diameter timber

into animal bed shavings. Like Sierra Contracting,

SBS, Inc. is another entrepreneurial achievement

integrating the economic model into a multiparty

partnership effort that uses a variety of public and

private funding.

“The service and outreach program has expanded

far beyond what we expected,” DeIaco said.

“The first year we hauled 20,000 cubic yards

away, last year it was 40,000, and this year we

are expecting 60,000.”

The Ruidoso Wildland Urban

Interface Group not only works

with private landowners, so also

builds partnerships with public

managers who are responsible

for fuels treatment on land 

within the community’s 

watershed. 

Ruidoso Wildland Urban Interface Group

http://www.voruidoso.com/CFMP.html

Photo credit: Village of Ruidoso Web site
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 63

The authors would like to thank the following people who made significant contributions to the 

content of this document: Kathie Detmar, Colorado State University; Kimberly Harding, Ecological

Restoration Institute; and Corinne

Corson, private consultant.

Adeline and Monica Rother

searched literature and contributed

annotations to the bibliography.

The authors would also like to

thank Sarah McCaffrey, USDA

Forest Service, North Central

Research Station, and three 

anonymous reviewers for their

valuable suggestions for improving

the manuscript. 

Acknowledgements

Collaboration between 

communities, forest managers,

and local industries can 

encourage the use of

small-diameter trees removed

during fuels treatment projects

for unique products like this

wooden office divider. 

Photo credit: Pamela Jakes
64 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Although collaborative groups seldom identify themselves according to academic categories, it is useful

to investigate different types of collaboration to illustrate the variety of structures and organizations

that work collaboratively. A discussion of the types of collaboration can also help managers, citizens,

and others identify the role they might play in these groups. Three different approaches to categorizing

collaboratives are discussed below: categorization by the strength of the linkages between members, by

the focus or scale of the projects, and by the membership in the collaborative.

Collaboration Characterized by the Strength of Linkages

Mandell (1999a) described a range of associations between individuals and groups that can be considered collaborations. For each we offer examples from the wildland fire prevention and fuels mitigation

literature to help illustrate that type.

Informal linkages or interactive contacts between two or more organizations are the most basic type of

collaboration. The Lomakatsi Restoration Project in the Rogue River Basin of Oregon works collaboratively with private landowners to create fuel reduction projects that are a “holistic, ecological example

of ‘true restoration’” (Lomakatsi Restoration Project 2002). Some Federal agency staff maintain informal contact with members of the project, referring local residents hesitant to undertake fuel reduction

to the project because of its “soft touch” management approach (Sturtevant and Corson 2003).

A second type of cooperation is characterized by two or more organizations that coordinate intermittently or adjust their policies to accomplish an objective. An example of this type would be the cooperation that exists between the Medford District of the BLM and residents of Jackson County, Oregon.

The district and area residents work together to complete fuels reduction projects on Federal lands

adjacent to private property. BLM also coordinates the use of the slashbuster (a tractor mounted,

mechanical device that shreds woody vegetation), employing it across ownership boundaries to reduce

fuels (Sturtevant and Jakes 2003).

A third type of collaboration is the ad hoc or temporary task force that organizes to accomplish a purpose or purposes. In Bend, Oregon, local, State and Federal fire managers and a community group

formed a task force to convince county officials to allocate funding for a reverse 911 phone system.

This system is used to reach residents during wildland fire emergencies (Sturtevant and Jakes 2003).

A fourth type of collaboration is partnerships that encourage the permanent or regular coordination

between individuals and groups through formal agreements to engage in limited activity to achieve a

purpose or purposes. In Ashland, Oregon, four non-industrial private landowners, the City, Forest

Appendix A—Types of Collaboration
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 65

Service, a land trust organization, and a private consulting forester developed the Hamilton Creek

Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP), a nonbinding agreement describing how their

shared watershed should use thinning and fire-safe home construction materials to mitigate fire risk

(Main 1996).

A fifth type of collaboration is coalitions. Coalitions generally have a fairly narrow purpose or scope,

and members take independent actions that are planned sequentially or simultaneously with other

members. In Roslyn, Washington, Forest Service and Washington Department of Natural Resource fire

managers have worked with local schools to develop a Jr. Firewise program, The activities of this program culminate with students burning their model houses to evaluate the success of their “defensible

space” (Kruger and Sturtevant 2004).

The final type of collaboration are collaborative

groups. We defined collaboration earlier, but

Mandall’s characterization of a collaborative

group is as collective networks or structures

with a broad mission that is accomplished by members undertaking joint and/or strategically integrated independent action. The structural arrangement allows the collaborative to take on broad tasks that

reach beyond the abilities or authorities of the independently operating organizations. An example of a

collaborative involved in fuels management is the National Fire Plan Implementation Team (NFPIT) in

Silver City, New Mexico. Composed of many agencies and organizations with differing sets of responsibilities for wildland fire issues, NFPIT is a community-driven effort to develop strategies and projects

such as wildland fire planning, forest restoration, fuels reduction, public outreach, and economic

development (Steelman and Kunkel 2003).

Collaboration Characterized by the Focus or Scale of the Project

Mandell’s (1999a) continuum of collaboration focuses the linkages between members of the collaborative. Cestero (1999) offers an alternative classification scheme based on whether the association is

focused on activities that are (1) place- and project-based or (2) policy-based. 

Place- or project-based collaboratives are initiated by local, volunteer leaders respected by a spectrum

of local residents. Participants are involved as individuals, representing their own interests and 

concerns rather than their specific constituencies or interest groups. Many of these groups use 

consensus-building, dialog, and collaborative learning to build relationships and trust and to foster

stewardship. They provide forums for the geographic community to share knowledge and values on

A discussion of the types of collaboration can also

help managers, citizens, and others identify the 

role they might play in these groups.
66 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

land management issues, and undertake projects across boundaries. Place- or project-based collaboratives are perceived as producing more civil dialog and resulting in on-the-ground conservation benefits

(Cestero 1999). Groups such as local Firewise committees are examples of place-based initiatives. 

Policy-based collaboratives are generally focused on regional or national resource policy issues. They

are often made up of associations with a strong stake in the outcome of the decisions and therefore are

generally less inclusive of local leaders and residents (Cestero 1999). Because of their policy focus, this

type of collaborative produces fewer on-the ground benefits. The Western Governors’ Association is an

example of a policy-based collaborative that focuses on wildfire issues at the regional level.

Collaboration Characterized by Membership

Collaboration has also been classified according to member composition: citizen-based, agency-based,

and mixed partnerships (Moore and Koontz 2003). In addition to any on-the-ground projects, citizenbased groups often engage in activities such as lobbying and petitioning. They often report their

accomplishments as increased public awareness and policy influence (Moore and Koontz 2003). Local

Fire Safe Councils and the many watershed conservation groups would be examples of citizen-based

collaboratives. 

Mixed and agency-based groups are more focused on planning, building relationships, and problem

solving. For accomplishments they tend to report the development of management plans, group 

development and sustainability, and increased public awareness (Moore and Koontz 2003). An example

of a mixed collaborative group would be the SouthWest InterFace Team (SWIFT) in central California.

In this collaborative, Federal, State, county, and city agencies, conservation groups, and Fire Safe

Councils come together to implement projects that will mitigate the extreme wildfire problems in the

area (SWIFT 2003). NIFC would be a classic example of an agency-based collaborative.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 67

Why Evaluate Collaboration?

In 2001, the National Academy of Public Administration called for increased program evaluation to

“support strategic planning and performance management for [coordinated fire management] and to

evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy of Fire Policy and National Fire Plan activities”

(Fairbanks et al. 2001, p. xxvii).

Well-designed monitoring and evaluation provides a means for determining how effective collaboration

has been. Naturally, collaborative group efforts will be treated seriously only if they prove themselves

to work (Provan and Milward 2001). Monitoring and evaluation gives the collaborative group an

opportunity to assess its effectiveness and improve its accountability—which in turn can improve trust

both among collaborative group participants and those outside of the process. Participants, community

members, academics, policymakers, facilitators, critics, agencies, and those who provide funding all

have an interest in the outcome of the collaborative group effort (Conley and Moote 2003). 

From the perspective of those who are considering engaging in collaboration, the two main reasons for

monitoring and evaluating the effort may be time and money. Through the monitoring and evaluation

process, those involved in the collaborative

group will better understand if their investment of energy results in a positive product

and can determine if their efforts need to be

refined to efficiently meet the group’s objectives. Nonparticipants may be more likely to

contribute if they see that their time will benefit their community (Susskind et al. 1999).

Furthermore, evaluation provides funders with an explanation of the risks associated with donating

money to the collaborative effort (Leach et al. 2002). 

Who Should Evaluate?

Determining who will perform the monitoring and evaluation may be constrained by time, money, and

participant expertise. Many groups favor self-evaluation. However, to ensure good sampling design and

reduce bias, it has been advised that collaborative groups hire a trained researcher or evaluator from a

university, consulting firm, or government agency. When the primary goal is to evaluate the group itself,

collaborative groups should also consider hiring an evaluator that is not involved with the group or 

Appendix B—Monitoring and Evaluation

Kimberly Harding and Ann Moote, Ecological Restoration Institute

Monitoring and evaluation gives the collaborative

group an opportunity to assess its effectiveness 

and improve its accountability—which in turn can

improve trust both among collaborative group 

participants and those outside of the process.
68 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

connected to the issue (Susskind et al. 1999). This may be difficult for groups who are constrained by

funding; however, in a study performed by the GAO (2003), where five Federal agencies were assessed

for the capacity to perform evaluations, results indicated that creative methods for leveraging funds 

are available. 

How to Evaluate?

Five important guidelines should be considered when designing a monitoring or evaluation protocol

(GAO 1991): 

• Ask the right questions, 

• State the question in the right way, 

• Focus on the group’s objectives (short term and long term), 

• Design the evaluation appropriately (e.g., do not use an extensively long evaluation for a small

group or simple problem), and 

• Consider the specific constraints as related to executing the evaluation (e.g., time, cost, staff expertise, location, and facilities). 

Depending on the goals, the monitoring or evaluation questions asked may address implementation

(did the group do what it said it would do?), effectiveness (did the group achieve its goals?), or validation (did the actions taken have the expected outcomes?) (Ecological Restoration Institute et al. 2003).

When asking participants or outside observers to assess a process or its outcomes, evaluators should

consider using a combination of descriptive, normative, and impact questions. Questions of a descriptive nature measure what people think and

how they feel about the group’s process or outcome. Normative questions focus on “what

should have been,” instead of “what was.”

Impact questions address the observed outcomes of the process (GAO 1991). All of these

types of questions can be implemented

through a variety of evaluation designs, including sample surveys, case studies, field experiments, and

use of existing data (GAO 1991). 

Survey and Sampling Design

Provan and Milward (2001) recommended evaluating a collaborative effort from three different 

perspectives to determine how it has affected (1) the environment and the community, (2) the 

collaborative group itself, and (3) the organizations that are participating in the effort. Based on their

All of these types of questions can be implemented

through a variety of evaluation designs, including

sample surveys, case studies, field experiments,

and use of existing data.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 69

survey of 770 participants from 44 different collaborative watershed groups, Leach et al. (2002)

warned that it is important to get a good cross section of respondents, including nonparticipants as

well as participants. In their study, group coordinators tended to report higher rates of success and

participants tended to be more polarized (either more positive or more negative) than nonparticipants.

Baseline Data

It can be difficult to make claims beyond the very concrete accomplishments of a project. Yet, to justify

the project—and to receive public and private support—collaborative groups often need to show some

degree of causality, or illustrate the project caused the changes being measured. Unless good baseline

data have been collected and clear information has been recorded on the results of the project, using

accurately measured variables in the same manner during the course of the project, it is difficult to

defend a project or management practice or give reasons why an effort should be expanded (Ecological

Restoration Institute et al. 2003).

Timing

Monitoring and evaluation should be conducted throughout the course of the collaborative effort to

determine whether progress is being made toward the group’s original goal. This allows the group to

evaluate the effectiveness of its methods and adjust them if necessary. Measurements taken some time

after the project has been implemented allow assessment of longer term effects.

What to Measure?

There is no standard set of criteria and indicators for monitoring a project or evaluating its effectiveness. The collaborative group’s interests, the type of effort being assessed, and the values of those conducting the assessment will all play a role in determining what to measure (Conley and Moote 2003).

Some research suggests that evaluating a collaborative group’s process (e.g., communication mechanisms, ability to reach decisions) is most useful (e.g., Buckle and Buckle-Thomas 1986). However, in

terms of collaborative resource management, there is an increased focus on evaluating outcomes

(Kenney 2000, Leach et al. 2002). Most researchers recommend evaluating a collaborative group’s

efforts against its stated goals, although some may also want to determine whether the fears or 

expectations of participants or observers have been realized. 

Improved environmental outcomes are typically the primary goal for many participants in, and

observers of, collaborative conservation groups. Determining environmental changes resulting from

group decisions and activities is difficult, however, because it requires good baseline data and careful
70 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

elimination of external causal factors (e.g., climate change, flood event). Furthermore, environmental

impacts may not be evident for several years after a management action has been implemented.

Because of these challenges, researchers frequently use intermediate indicators, such as numbers of

restoration projects implemented or changed management practices, to evaluate environmental outcomes (Born and Genskow 2000, Imperial and Hennessey 2000, Leach et al. 2002). Evaluators should

acknowledge the limitations of intermediate indicators, however: the fact that a restoration project was

implemented does not necessarily mean that it will result in the desired effects on the environment.

Good intermediate indicators are those that evaluators and stakeholders agree are expected to result in

desired outcomes.

Kenney (2000) outlined broad indicators of both process and outcome success that may be applicable

to many collaborative groups: 

• Improved health to the natural resource, 

• Improved trust between stakeholders and partners, 

• Increased communication between parties, 

• Expansion of the decisionmaking capacity, 

• Implementation of new decisionmaking processes, and 

• Implementation of new management and planning processes. 

In a document evaluating progress of the Applegate Partnership, Rolle (2002) addressed three main

questions that have benefited this collaborative group:

• How well does the group meet its own mission? 

• Did the group achieve the desired outcome? 

• Has there been appreciable movement toward meeting the desired results? 

Once the group has identified the questions it wants to answer, it must select one or more specific

indicators that can be used to measure change in that area. An indicator is a unit of information measured over time that documents changes in a specific condition. A good indicator meets the criteria of

being measurable, precise, consistent, and sensitive. When selecting indicators, multiparty monitoring

groups will want to ask themselves whether a proposed indicator is:

• Relevant for the site and treatment,

• Sensitive enough to detect change within a specific timeframe,

• Defensible and not subject to individual or organized bias, and

• Able to be measured by methods that are professionally accepted and understood (Ecological

Restoration Institute et al. 2003).
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 71

For example, if a group has decided that one of its goals is to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland

fire, it may select percent tree canopy closure

as an indicator. Or, if the group has chosen to

monitor quality of life in the community, it

may select employment conditions in restoration-related industries as the indicator, which

might be measured in terms of average wages

in restoration-related jobs or by the number of restoration workers who receive health benefits from

their employer (Ecological Restoration Institute et al. 2003). 

Improved environmental outcomes are typically 

the primary goal for many participants in, and

observers of, collaborative conservation groups.
72 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

The Forest Service Manual contains a number of mechanisms for collaborating with other agencies,

businesses, nonprofit groups, and communities (Loucks 2002). These include: 

• Challenge Cost-Share Agreements (FSM 1587.12) 

• Collection Agreements (FSM 1584) 

• Cooperative Agreements (FSM 1581) 

• Cooperative Fires Protection Agreements (FSM 1582) 

• Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements (FSM 1582) 

• Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (FSM 1587.14)

• Cooperative Forest Road Agreements (FSM 1582)

• Grants (FSM 1582)

• Interagency and Intra-agency Agreements (FSM 1585)

• Memoranda of Understanding (FSM 1586) 

• Letters of Intent (FSM 1586)

• Participating Agreements (FSM 1587.11)

• Joint Venture Agreements (FSM 1587.13)

• Cost-Reimbursable Agreements (FSM 1587.13) 

Appendix C—Partnering Mechanisms 

in the USDA Forest Service
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 73

FACA was originally created to (1) reduce what was considered to be an excessive number of committees advising Federal agencies and (2) reduce bias within advisory committees by requiring

them to be open and broadly representative. Unanticipated results of the act have emerged in its

implementation.

Advisory committees regulated by FACA must be chartered, and their charter must include details

such as the group’s scope, a description of duties, and the estimated number and frequency of

meetings (Norris-York 1996). The chartering

process can take several months, and a charter will be approved only if the advisory

committee is “essential to the conduct of

agency business and in the public interest”

and has “fairly balanced membership” (NRLC

1998). U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations interpreting FACA add other steps to the chartering process, making it even more laborious

and time-consuming (USDA 2000). Once chartered, notice of all committee meetings must be 

published 15 days in advance in the Federal Register, including time, date, place, and agenda.

Public access to Federal advisory committee meetings is mandatory and detailed minutes must be

kept (Norris-York 1996). In addition, a designated Federal employee must attend each meeting

(NRLC 2000). 

The most problematic are ambiguous terms in the act that make it unclear when FACA applies and

when it does not, and onerous administrative requirements for creating and maintaining advisory committees when the act does apply (Norris-York 1996, NRLC 2000, USDA 2000). 

FACA’s procedural requirements apply to advisory committees “established by” or “utilized by” a

Federal agency to obtain advice or recommendations. Legal experts generally agree that FACA applies

to advisory committees established by: 

1. Federal statute or reorganization plan, 

2. the President, and 

3. Federal agencies. 

It is also clear that certain groups are explicitly excluded from FACA, including those made up solely

of government officials (Federal, tribal, State, or local), recovery plan teams authorized under the

Appendix D—The Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA)

U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations 

interpreting FACA add other steps to the chartering

process, making it even more laborious and 

time-consuming (USDA 2000).
74 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Endangered Species Act, and civic groups that provide public services to FACA-chartered committees

(Loucks and Kostishack 2001, NRLC 2000, USDA 2000). 

Disputes arise, however, over the term “utilized by” a Federal agency, and this term has sometimes

been interpreted to apply to community-based and collaborative associations. According to analysis

conducted by the Natural Resources Law Center in the late 1990s, “there are three requirements that

must be satisfied in order for a ‘utilized’ advisory committee to come within the mandates of FACA: 

1. there must be a committee, 

2. the committee must formulate advice by consensus, and 

3. the committee’s advice must be ‘utilized’ by a federal agency” (NRLC 2000).

New regulations created by the General Services Administration in 2001 further clarify that FACA

requirements do not apply to groups whose members are not actually managed or controlled by the

executive branch, who provide individual advice, or who exchange facts or information, but not advice

(USDA 2002). 

Collaborative outreach to 

homeowners is essential for

implementation of fuel reduction

projects across the landscape.

Photo credit: Victoria Sturtevant
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 75

The courts have interpreted the phrase “utilized by” even more narrowly, limiting FACA to groups

“organized by, or closely tied to, the Federal Government, and thus enjoying quasi-public status” and

stating that agency membership in an advisory group is not sufficient to trigger FACA (NRLC 2000).

Based on the case law, some legal scholars have concluded that most community-based and collaborative groups are not subject to FACA (NRLC 2000). Others, however, including some agency lawyers,

disagree (Loucks and Kostishack 2001).

Ongoing debates and confusion about FACA have led some Forest Service personnel to believe that

FACA forbids them from meeting regularly with any group that does not have a FACA charter and

from seeking advice from any nongovernmental group (Loucks and Kostishack 2002, USDA 2000).

This “FACA Fear” also stems from the threat that interest groups will use FACA lawsuits to stop government action they oppose for other reasons (Loucks and Kostishack 2001). Although an agency

would clearly be violating Federal law if it gave a collaborative group decisionmaking authority over

Federal lands management (Coggins 1999), many outside the agency believe that it is overly cautious

on this issue: 

At times, the agency’s interpretation of FACA is so strict as to lead partners to

believe that it is being used by Federal agencies to thwart collaborative activities that

they wish to avoid for other reasons (Loucks and Kostishack 2001, p. 8).

The Forest Service has asked its Collaboration Team to develop language clarifying this issue. In the

meantime, NRLC (2000) advises that collaborative groups structure their meetings around one of the

exemptions in the act itself, for example, specifically structuring meetings so that only information and

not advice is exchanged. Section 102 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act states that “the Federal

Advisory Committee Act ... shall not apply to the planning process and recommendations concerning

community wildfire protection plans.”
76 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Arganoff, Robert;

McGuire, Michael. 1999. 

Managing in network settings. Policy

Studies Review. 16(1): 18-41.

Aspen Institute: Rural

Economic Policy

Program. 1996.

Measuring community capacity building: a

workbook in progress for rural communities.

Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute: 3-96.

[Available only on internet:

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/bookdetails.asp?i=&d=60].

Baker, Mark; Kusel,

Jonathan. 2003. 

Community forestry in the United States:

learning from the past, crafting the future.

Covelo, CA: Island Press. 247 p. 

Beaulieu, Lionel J. 2002. 

Mapping the assets of your community: a

key component for building local capacity.

SRDC Publ. 227. Mississippi State, MS:

Mississippi State University: Southern Rural

Development Center.

http://srdc.msstate.edu

Belden Russonello;

Stewart Research and

Communications. 2001. 

Collaborative process: better outcomes for

all of us: communications recommendations

and analysis of 54 interviews with decision

makers on environmental issues in the

Western U.S. Washington, DC: The Emily

Hall Tremaine Foundation and Partners. 36 p.

http://www.merid.org/PDF/BRS_Report.pdf

Bentrup, Gary. 2001. 

Evaluation of a collaborative model: a case

study analysis of watershed planning in the

intermountain west. Environmental

Management. 27(5): 739-748.

Bernard, Tom; Young,

Jora. 1997. 

The ecology of hope: communities collaborate for sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC:

New Society Publishers. 233 p.

Birkholz, A.; Lineback,

P. 2001. 

Technology and collaboration improve interagency fire planning. Natural Resource Year

in Review-2001, U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. [Available

only on Internet:

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/YearInReview/

yir2001/07_collaboration/07_4_birkholz_SE

KI.html].

Blahna, Dale J.; YontsShepard, Susan. 1989. 

Public involvement in resource planning:

toward bridging the gap between policy

and implementation. Society and Natural

Resources. 2: 209-227.

Blumberg, Louis. 1999. 

Preserving the public trust. Forum for

Applied Research and Public Policy. 14(2):

89-93.

Blumberg, Louis;

Knuffke, Darrell. 1998. 

Count us out: why the wilderness society

opposed the Quincy Library Group legislation. Chronicle of Community. 2(2): 41-44.

Born, Stephen M.;

Genskow, Kenneth D.

2000. 

The watershed approach: an empirical

assessment of innovation in environmental

management. Res. Pap. 7. Washington, DC:

National Academy of Public Administration.

62 p.

Borrini-Feyerabend,

Grazia. 1996. 

Collaborative management of protected

areas: tailoring the approach to the context.

[Available only on Internet:

http://www.iucn.org/themes/spgeng/Tailor/

TailorNF.html].

Brick, Philip D.; Cawley,

R. McGreggor. 1996. 

A wolf in the garden: the land rights movement and the new environmental debate.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers. 318 p.

Brick, Philip; Snow,

Donald; Van de

Wetering, Sarah. 2001. 

Across the Great Divide: explorations in

collaborative conservation and the

American West. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

286 p.

Britell, Jim. 2003. 

Essay #10: partnerships, roundtables and

Quincy-type groups are bad ideas that 

cannot resolve environmental conflicts.

[Available only on Internet:

http://www.britell.com/use/uselo.html].

Brunner, Ronald D.;

Colburn, Christine H.;

Cromley, Christina M.;

Klein, Roberta A.; Olson,

Elizabeth A. 2002. 

Finding common ground: governance and

natural resources in the American West.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 303 p.

Buckle, Leonard G.;

Thomas-Buckle, Suzann

R. 1986. 

Placing environmental mediation in context:

lessons from 'Failed' mediations.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

6: 55-70. 

Literature Cited
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 77

Budd-Falen, Karen.

1996. 

Protecting community stability and local

economies: opportunities for local government influence in federal decision- and policy-making processes. In: Brick, Philip D.;

Cawley, R. McGreggor, eds. A wolf in the

garden: the land rights movement and the

new environmental debate. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: 73-83. 

Burns, Sam; Richard,

Tim. 2002. 

Four corners sustainable forests partnership

2001-02 demonstration grants program

evaluation report. Durango, CO: Fort Lewis

College, Office of Community Services. 50 p.

Carr, Deborah S.; Selin,

Steven W.; Schuett,

Michael A.1998. 

Managing public forests: understanding 

the role of collaborative planning.

Environmental Management. 22(5): 

767-776.

Cestero, Barb. 1999. 

Beyond the hundredth meeting: a field

guide to collaborative conservation on the

West's public lands. Tucson, AZ: Sonoran

Institute. 80 p.

Chaskin, R.J. 2001. 

Building community capacity: A definitional

framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban

Affairs Review. 36(3): 291-323.

Chaskin, Robert J.;

Brown, Prudence;

Venkatesh, Sudhir;

Vidal, Avis. 2001. 

Collaborations, partnerships, and organizational networks. In: Building community

capacity. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter:

123-157.

Chrislip, D.; Larson, C.

1994. 

Collaborative leadership: how citizens and

civic leaders can make a difference. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 192 p.

Cigler, Beverly A. 1999. 

Pre-conditions for the emergence of multicommunity collaborative organizations.

Policy Studies Review. 16(1): 86-102.

Coggins, George C.

1999. 

Regulating federal natural resources: a

summary case against devolved collaboration. Ecology Law Quarterly. 25: 602-610.

Coggins, George C.

2001. 

Of Californicators, Quislings and Crazies:

some perils of devolved collaboration. In:

Brick, Philip D.; Snow, D.; Van de Wetering,

S.B., eds. Across the Great Divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and

the American West. Washington, DC: Island

Press: 163-171.

Committee of Scientists.

1999. 

Sustaining the people's lands: recommendations for stewardship of the national

forests and grasslands into the next century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; n.p. [Available

only on Internet:

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/news_archived

/science/cosfrnt.pdf].

Conley, Alexander;

Moote, Margaret A.

2003. 

Evaluating collaborative natural resource

management. Society for Natural

Resources. 16: 371-386.

Cortner, H.J.; Moote,

M.A. 1999. 

Collaborative stewardship in action: building a civic society. In: Cortner, H.J.; Moote,

M.A., eds. The politics of ecosystem management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press:

91-108.

Coughlin, Christine W.;

Hoben, Merrick L.;

Manskopf, Dirk W.;

Quesada, Shannon W.

1999. 

A systematic assessment of collaborative

resource management partnerships. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of

Natural Resources. [Available only on

Internet:

http://www.snre.umich.edu/emi/pubs/crmp

.htm].

Creighton, James L.

1992. 

Involving citizens in community decision

making: a guidebook. Washington, DC:

Program for Community Problem Solving.

227 p.

Curtis, Allan; Shindler,

Bruce; Wright, Angela.

2002. 

Sustaining local watershed initiatives: lessons from landcare and watershed councils.

Journal of the American Water Resources

Association. 38(5): 1207-1216.

Daniels, Steven E.;

Walker, Gregg B. 2001. 

Working through environmental conflict:

the collaborative learning approach.

Westport, CT: Praeger. 299 p.
78 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Daniels, Steven E.;

Walker, Gregg B.;

Carroll, Matthew S.;

Blatner, Keith A. 1996. 

Using collaborative learning in fire recovery

planning. Journal of Forestry. 94(8): 4-9. 

Diduck, Alan; Sinclair,

A. John. 2002. 

Public involvement in environmental assessment: the case of the nonparticipant.

Environmental Management. 29(4): 578-588.

Duane, Timothy P. 1997. 

Community participation in ecosystem 

management. Ecology Law Quarterly. 24(4):

771-797.

Dukes, E. Franklin;

Firehock, Karen. 2001. 

Collaboration: a guide for environmental

advocates. Charlottesville, VA: University of

Virginia. 70 p.

Ecological Restoration

Institute; Forest Trust;

Four Corners Institute;

National Forest

Foundation; Pinchot

Institute for Conservation;

USDA Forest Service –

Collaborative Forest

Restoration Program.

2003. 

Multiparty monitoring and assessment

guidelines for community based forest

restoration in Southwestern ponderosa pine

forests. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Collaborative

Forest Restoration Program. 109 p.

Ecosystem Management

Initiative. n.d. 

Collaboration. [Available only on Internet:

www.snre.umich.edu/emi/collaboration/def

initions.htm].

Everett, Y. 

In press. Community participation in fire

management planning: the Trinity County

Fire Safe Council's Fire Plan. In: Narog,

M.G., tech. coord. Proceedings of the 2002

Fire Conference on Managing Fire and Fuels

in the Remaining Wildlands and Open

Spaces of the Southwestern United States;

2002 December 2-5; San Diego, CA. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-189. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Fairbanks, Frank;

Gardner, Henry; Hill,

Elizabeth; Mulrooney,

Keith; Philpot, Charles;

Weick, Karl; Wise,

Charles. 2001. 

Managing wildland fire: enhancing capacity

to implement the Federal Interagency

Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy

of Public Administration. 142 p.

FEMAT, Forest

Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team. 1993. 

Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment:

report of the Forest Ecosystem

Management Team. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Various paging.

Firewise Communities

USA. 2003. 

Firewise Communities USA Web site.

[Available only on Internet:

www.firewise.org/usa].

Frentz, Irene C.; Burns,

Sam; Voth, Donald E.;

Sperry, Charles. 1999. 

Rural development and community-based

forest planning and management: a new

collaborative paradigm. Fayetteville, AR:

University of Arkansas. 117 p. plus 114 p.

appendices. 

Germain, Rene H.; Floyd,

Donald W.; Stehman,

Stephan V. 2001. 

Public perceptions of the USDA Forest

Service public participation process. Forest

Policy and Economics. 3: 113-124.

Gobster, Paul H.; Hull,

R. Bruce. 2000. 

Restoring nature: perspectives from the

social sciences and humanities.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 321 p.

Gray, Barbara. 1985. 

Conditions facilitating interorganizational

collaboration. Human Relations. 38: 911-

936.

Hummel, Mark; Freet,

Bruce. 1999. 

Collaborative processes for improving land

stewardship and sustainability. In: Sexton,

W.T.; Malk, A.J.; Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.,

eds. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management. Oxford,

England: Elsevier Science Ltd. 3(3): 97-129.

Imperial, Mark T.;

Hennessey, Timothy.

2000. 

Environmental governance in watersheds:

the role of collaboration. Bloomington, IN:

School of Public and Environmental Affairs,

Indiana University. 30 p.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 79

Ingles, Andrew W.;

Musch, Arne; QwistHoffmann, Helle. 1999. 

The participatory process for supporting

collaborative management of natural

resources: an overview. Rome, Italy: FAO.

96 p.

KenCairn, Brett. 2000. 

Public agencies in collaboration: a panacea

to gridlock or the next big debacle?

Flagstaff, AZ: Presentation prepared for the

national leadership conference, Yale

University, October 2000. On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Research Station, 1992

Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. 13 p. 

Kenney, Douglas S. 1999. 

Are community-based watershed groups

really effective? Chronicle of Community.

3(2): 33-37.

Kenney, Douglas S. 2000. 

Arguing about consensus: examining the

case against western watershed initiatives

and other collaborative groups active in

natural resources management. Boulder,

CO: University of Colorado School of Law,

Natural Resources Law Center. 72 p.

Kenney, D.S.; McAllister,

S.T.; et al. 2000. 

The new watershed source book: a directory and review of watershed initiatives in

the Western United States. Boulder, CO:

University of Colorado School of Law,

Natural Resources Law Center. 455 p.

Korfmacher, K.S. 1998. 

Invisible successes, visible failures: paradoxes of ecosystem management in the

Albermarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.

Coastal Zone Management. 26(3): 191-212.

Kostishack, Peter; Rana,

Naureen. 2002. 

An introduction to the National Fire Plan:

history, structure, and relevance to communities. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for

Conservation. 55 p.

Kruger, L.; Strutevant, V.

2004. 

Roslyn, Washington: steps to improve 

community preparedness for wildfire.

Community Preparedness Case Series: case

study #9. 4p.

Kusel, Jonathan; Adler,

Elisa. 2003. 

Forest communities, community forests: a

collection of case studies of community

forestry prepared for the seventh American

forest congress communities committee.

Taylorsville, CA: Forest Community

Research. 220 p.

Lange, Jonathon I. 2001. 

Exploring paradox in environmental collaborations. In: Brick, Philip D.; Snow, Donald;

Van de Wetering, Sandra B., eds. Across

the Great Divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 200-209.

Leach, William D. 2002. 

Surveying diverse stakeholder groups.

Society for Natural Resources. 15: 641-649.

Leach, William D.;

Pelkey, Neil W. 2001. 

Making watershed partnerships work: a

review of the empirical literature. Journal

of Water Resources Planning and

Management. 127(6): 378-385.

Leach, William D.;

Pelkey, Neil W.; Sabatier,

Paul A. 2002. 

Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative

policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to

watershed management in California and

Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management. 21(4): 645-670.

Lee, Kai N. 1993. 

Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 255 p.

Linden, Russell M. 2002. 

Working across boundaries: making collaboration work in government and nonprofit

organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. 302 p.

Lomakatsi Restoration

Project. 2002. 

Regional Restoration Report. Issue 1.

Ashland, OR: Lomakatsi Restoration 

Project. 12 p. 

London, Scott. 1995. 

Collaboration and community: a paper 

prepared for Pew Partnership for Civic

Change. [Available only on Internet:

http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/

ppcc.html].

Loucks, Andrea. 2002. 

Strengthening the ties that bind.

Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute and

Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 28 p.

Loucks, Andrea;

Kostishack, Peter. 2001. 

Partnership with the USDA Forest Service:

improving opportunities and enhancing

existing relationships. Acc. No. DP-16-02.

Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for

Conservation. 19 p.
80 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Lowrie, Karen W.;

Greenberg, Michael R.

2001. 

Can David and Goliath get along? Federal

land in local places. Environmental

Management. 28(6): 703-711.

Machlis, Gary E.;

Kaplan, Amanda B.;

Tuler, Seth P.; Bagby,

Kathleen A.; McKendry,

Jean E. 2002. 

Burning questions: a social science

research plan for federal wildland fire 

management. Moscow, ID: University of

Idaho. n.p.

Main, Martin, L. 1996. 

Protection and restoration of a fire-adapted

ecosystem in Southwestern Oregon: a case

study. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington. 92 p. M.S. thesis.

Mandell, Myrna. 1999a. 

The impact of collaborative efforts: 

changing the face of public policy through

networks and network structures. Policy

Studies Review. 16(1): 4-15.

Mandell, Myrna P.

1999b. 

Community collaborations: working through

network structures. Policy Studies Review.

16(1): 42-64.

Margerum, Richard D.

1999. 

Integrated environmental management: 

the foundations for successful practice.

Environmental Management. 24(2): 

151-166.

Margerum, Richard D.

2001. 

Organizational commitment to integrated

and collaborative management: matching

strategies to constraints. Environmental

Management. 28(4): 421-431.

Mattessich, Paul W.;

Murray-Close, Marta;

Monsey, Barbara R. 2001. 

Collaboration: what makes it work. A

review of research literature on factors

influencing successful collaboration. 2d ed.

St. Paul, MN: Wilder Foundation. 82 p. 

McCloskey, Michael.

1996.

The skeptic: collaboration has its limits.

High Country News. [Available only on

Internet:

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?art

icle_id=1839].

McCloskey, Michael.

1999. 

Local communities and the management of

public forests. Ecology Law Quarterly. 25(4):

624-629.

Mendez, S.R.; Carroll,

M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; et al.

2003. 

Smoke on the hill: a comparative study of

wildfire and two communities. Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(1):60-70.

Mohai, P.; Jakes, P. 1996. 

The Forest Service in the 1990s. Journal of

Forestry. 94(1): 31-37.

Mohai, P.; Stillman, P.;

Jakes, P.; Liggett, C. 1994. 

Change in the USDA Forest Service: are we

heading in the right direction? Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-172. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 129 p. 

Moore, Elizabeth A.;

Koontz, Tomas M. 2003. 

A typology of collaborative watershed

groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and

mixed partnerships. Society and Natural

Resources. 16: 451-460.

Moote, Ann. 2003. 

Form and function of large scale collaborative planning processes. Flagstaff, AZ:

Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern

Arizona University. 10 p.

Moote, Ann; Becker,

Dennis, eds. 2003. 

Exploring barriers to collaborative forestry.

Report from a workshop held at Hart

Prairie, Flagstaff, AZ; 2003 September 17-

19. Flagstaff, AZ: Ecological Restoration

Institute, Northern Arizona University. 23 p. 

NAPA, National

Academy of Public

Administration. 2003. 

Resource materials for participants in

Academy's Wildfire Workshops on hazard

mitigation and enhanced local preparedness. Washington, DC: National Academy

of Public Administration. 177 p.

NWCG, National

Wildfire Coordinating

Group. 1999. 

Establishing fire prevention education cooperative programs and partnerships. Rep.

NFES#2597. Boise, ID: National Interagency

Fire Center. n.p.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 81

Norris-York, Dover.

1996. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act: barrier

or boon to effective natural resource management? Environmental Law. 26: 419-446

NRLC, Natural

Resources Law Center.

1998. 

The state role in western watershed initiatives. Rep.RR-18. Boulder, CO: University of

Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center. 91 p.

NRLC, Natural Resources

Law Center. 2000. 

Laws influencing community-based conservation in Colorado and the American West:

a primer. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,

Natural Resources Law Center. 51 p.

Paulson, Deborah D.;

Chamberlin, Katherine

M. 1998. 

Guidelines and issues to consider in planning a collaborative process. Laramie, WY:

Department of Geography and Recreation,

University of Wyoming. 14 p. [Available

only on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/enr/

ienr/DPReport.html].

Pipkin, James; Doerksen,

Harvey. 2000. 

Collaboration in natural resource management: selected case studies. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 216 p.

Porter, Douglas R.;

Salvesen, David A. 1995. 

Collaborative planning for wetlands and

wildlife. Washington, DC: Island Press. 293 p.

President's Council on

Sustainable

Development. 1997. 

Lessons learned from collaborative

approaches. [Available only on Internet:

http://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/

Progress_Report.html].

Propst, Luther; Rosan,

Liz. 1997. 

National parks and their neighbors: lessons

from the field on building partnerships with

local communities. Tucson, AZ: Sonoran

Institute. 16 p.

Provan, Keith G.;

Milward, H. Brinton.

2001. 

Do networks really work? A framework for

evaluating public-sector organized networks. Public Administration Review. 61(4):

414-424.

Rana, Naureen. 2002. 

Final Farm Bill Recap. Washington, DC:

Pinchot Institute for Conservation.

[Available only on Internet: http://www.pinchot.org/pic/farmbill/recap.html].

Rickenbach, Mark G.;

Reed, A. Scott. 2002. 

Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed

context: the sentiments of private forest

landowners. Environmental Management.

30(4): 584-594.

Rieke, Betsy. 1998. 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act: impacts

on community-based, collaborative groups.

Forest Trust Quarterly Report. 18: 3 p.

Rolle, Su. 2002. 

Measures of progress for collaboration:

case study of the Applegate partnership.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-565. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 13 p.

Round Tables on the

Environment and

Economy in Canada.

1998. 

Building consensus for a sustainable future.

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Round

Table on the Environment and the Economy.

15 p. [Available only on Internet:

http://www.mediate.com/articles/consen.cf

m].

Schindler-Rainman, Eva;

Lippit, Ronald. 1993. 

Building collaborative communities. In:

Weisbord, Marvin R., ed. Discovering common ground: how future search conferences

bring people together to achieve breakthrough innovation, empowerment, shared

vision and collaborative action. San

Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler: 35-43.

Schuett, Michael A.;

Selin, Steven W.; Carr,

Deborah S. 2001. 

Making it work: keys to successful collaboration in natural resource management.

Environmental Management. 27(4): 587-593.

Selin, Steven; Chavez,

Deborah. 1995. 

Developing a collaborative model for 

environmental planning and management.

Environmental Management. 19(2): 189-195.

Selin, Steven; Schuett,

Michael; Carr, Deborah.

1997. 

Has collaborative planning taken root in the

National Forests? Journal of Forestry. 95(5):

25-28.
82 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Selin, Steven W.;

Schuett, Michael A.;

Carr, Debbie. 2000. 

Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society

and Natural Resources. 13: 735-745.

Shaffer, S.; Shipley, J.

2002. 

Appligate communities’ collaborative fire

protection strategy: the Applegate Fire

Plan. Lessons learned from our project.

Applegate, OR: Applegate Partnership. On

file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Research

Station, 1992 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN

55108. 14 p. 

Shindler, Bruce A.;

Brunson, Mark; Stankey,

George H. 2002. 

Social acceptability of forest conditions

and management practices: a problem

analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-537.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Singleton, Sara. 2002. 

Collaborative environmental planning in the

American West: the good, the bad and the

ugly. Environmental Politics. 11(3): 54-75.

Sirmon, Jeff. 2001. 

Collaborative stewardship training opportunities: a report to the USDA Forest Service.

Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute. n.p.

Smith, Patrick D.;

McDonough, Maureen

H. 2001. B

eyond public participation: fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and

Natural Resources. 14: 239-249.

Society of American

Foresters. 2004. 

Preparing a community wildfire protection

plan: a handbook for wildland-urban interface communities. Washington, DC: Society

of American Foresters. 11 p.

Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance. 1994.

Why one advocacy group steers clear of

consensus efforts. High Country News.

[Available only on Internet:

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?art

icle_id=373].

Steelman, Toddi;

Kunkel, Ginger. 2003. 

Community responses to wildland fire

threats in New Mexico. 2003. [Available

only on Internet: http://www.ncsu.edu/project/wildfire].

Sturtevant, Victoria;

Corson, Corinne. 2003. 

Applegate communities' collaborative fire

protection strategy (Applegate Fire Plan):

participants' thoughts about process and

outcome. Ashland, OR: Southern Oregon

University. 55 p.

Sturtevant, V.; Jakes, P.J.

2003. 

The Applegate fire plan: steps to improve

community preparedness for wildfire.

Community Preparedness Case Study #3.

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Research Station. 4 p.

Sturtevant, Victoria;

Lange, Jonathan. 1995. 

Applegate partnership case study: group

dynamics and community context. Ashland,

OR: Southern Oregon University. On file

with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, 400 N. 34th St . Suite 201, Seattle,

WA 98103. 103 p.

Susskind, Lawrence;

McKearnan, Sarah;

Thomas-Larmer,

Jennifer. 1999. 

The consensus building handbook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

1,147 p. 

Sustainable Northwest;

Wallowa Resources; The

Watershed Research &

Training Center. 2002. 

Working together to facilitate change.

Portland, OR: Sustainable Northwest. 40 p.

SWIFT, Southwest

Interface Team. 2003. 

Profile and Program or Work, C.Y. 2003-

2004. 61 p.

Takahashi, Lois M.;

Smutny, Gayla. 2001. 

Collaboration among small, communitybased organizations: strategies and challenges in turbulent environments. Journal

of Planning Education and Research. 21:

141-153.

Teie, W.C.; Weatherford,

B.F. 2000. 

A report to the Council of Western State

Foresters: fire in the West, the

wildland/urban interface fire problem.

Rescue, CA: Deer Valley Press. 80 p.

Thomas, Craig. 1999. 

Linking public agencies with communitybased watershed organizations: lessons

from California. Policy Studies Journal.

27(3): 544-564.
A Synthesis of Research on Collaboration | 83

TNC, The Nature

Conservancy Fire

Learning Network. 2003. 

Improved collaboration advances implementation of fire restoration strategies. The

Nature Conservancy. [Available only on

Internet: http://tncecomanagement.org/images/FLN3summary.pdf].

United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 1995. 

Collaborative planning: sustaining forests

and communities. Rep. FS-578.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.

United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 2002. 

Desk guide for contracting under existing

authorities for service contracts with product removal. On file with: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St.

Paul, MN 55108. 187 p.

United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 2003a. 

USDA Forest Service National Fire Plan

Research & Development. Misc. Pub. 1588.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 52 p.

United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 2003b.

The principle laws relating to the USDA

Forest Service State and Private Forestry

Programs. FS-758. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

52 p.

United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest

Service Collaborative

Stewardship Team. 2000. 

Collaborative stewardship within the Forest

Service: findings and recommendations

from the National Collaborative

Stewardship Team. 64 p.

United States Department

of Agriculture and United

States Department of

Interior. 2000. 

Managing the impact of wildfire on communities and the environment: a report to

the President in response to the wildfires

of 2000. [Available only on Internet:

http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/8-20-

en.pdf].

United States Department

of Agriculture and United

States Department of

Interior. 2001. 

A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy.

[Available only on Internet: http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/7-19-en.pdf].

United States Department

of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service. 2000. 

Collaborative resource management: a pilot

interagency training course.

Shepherdstown, WA: National Conservation

Training Center. n.p.

United States General

Accounting Office. 1991. 

Designing evaluations. Rep. GAO/PMED10.1.4. Washington, DC: United States

General Accounting Office. n.p.

United States General

Accounting Office. 2003. 

Program evaluation: an evaluation culture

and collaborative partnerships help build

agency capacity. Rep. GAO-03-454.

Washington, DC: United States General

Accounting Office. 29 p.

United States

Government. n.d. 

Healthy Forests. www.healthyforests.gov 

University of Kansas.

2003. 

Community tool box. [Available only on

Internet: http://ctb.ku.edu].

United States Department

of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, and

Sonorian Institute. 2000. 

A desktop reference guide to collaborative,

community-based planning. Tucson, AZ:

Sonoran Institute. 20 p.

Waage, Sissel. 2003. 

Collaborative salmon recovery planning:

examining decision making and implementation in northeastern Oregon. Society and

Natural Resources. 16: 295-307. 

Walker, G.B.; Daniels,

S.E. 2001. 

Natural resource policy and the paradox of

public involvement: bringing scientists and

citizens together. Journal of Sustainable

Forestry. 13(1/2): 253-269.

Weber, Edward P. 1999. 

The question of accountability in historical

perspective: from Jackson to contemporary

grassroots ecosystem management.

Administration & Society. 31(4): 451-494.
84 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Weber, Edward P. 2003. 

Bringing society back in: grassroots ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. 317 p.

Webler, Thomas; Tuler,

Seth; Shockey, Ingrid;

Stern, Paul; Beattie,

Robert. 2003. 

Participation by local government officials

in watershed management planning.

Society and Natural Resources. 16: 

105-121.

White, Alan T.; Zeitlyn,

Hale Lynne; Yves,

Renard; Lafcadio,

Cortesi, eds. 1994. 

Collaborative and community-based management of Coral Reefs: lessons from experience. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

130 p.

Williams, Ellen M.;

Ellefson, Paul V. 1996. 

Natural resource partnerships: factors leading to cooperative success in the management of landscape level ecosystems involving mixed ownership. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota. 81 p.

Williams, Ellen M;

Ellefson, Paul V. 1997. 

Going into partnership to manage a landscape. Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 29-33. 

Wondolleck, Julia M.;

Yaffee, Steven L. 2000. 

Making collaboration work: lessons from

innovation in natural resource management.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 277 p.

Yaffee, Steven L.;

Phillips, Ali F.; Frentz,

Irene C.; et al. 1996. 

Ecosystem management in the United

States: an assessment of current experience. Washington, DC: Island Press. 352 p.

Yaffee, Steven L.;

Wondolleck, Julia M.

2000. 

Making collaboration work. Conservation

Biology in Practice. 1(1): 17-25.

Yaffee, Steven; Schueller,

Sheila; Higgs, Stephen;

Dotzour, Althea;

Wondolleck, Julia. 2004. 

Measuring progress: an evaluation guide

for ecosystem and community-based 

projects. Ann Arbor, MI: Ecosystem

Management Initiative, School of Natural

Resources and Environment, University of

Michigan. 140 p.
Sturtevant, Victoria; Moote, Margaret Ann; Jakes, Pamela; Cheng, Antony S.

2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on collaboration. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-257. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research

Station. 84 p.

A series of syntheses were commissioned by the USDA Forest Service to aid in fuels mitigation project

planning. This synthesis focuses on collaboration research, and offers knowledge and tools to improve

collaboration in the planning and implementation of wildland fire and fuels management projects. It

covers a variety of topics including benefits of collaboration, stages of collaboration, challenges to 

collaboration, and keys to successful collaboration.

KEY WORDS: Cooperation, wildfire, wildland fire, fuels reduction, wildfire management.

Cover photo credit: Sarah McCaffery
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

North Central Research Station

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report NC-257

North Central Research Station

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us