United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-515

August 2001

A Research Framework for

Natural Resource-Based

Communities in the Pacific

Northwest

Harriet H. Christensen and Ellen M. Donoghue
Harriet H. Christensen is a supervisory research social scientist, Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 4043 Roosevelt Way, N.E., Seattle, WA 98105; and Ellen M. Donoghue is

a research social scientist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR

97208-3890.

Authors
Christensen, Harriet H.; Donoghue, Ellen M. 2001. A research framework for natural

resource-based communities in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-515. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 21 p.

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station developed a problem analysis to direct

the research on natural resource-based communities in the Pacific Northwest over the

next 5 years. The problem analysis identifies four problem areas: (1) social values related to rural peoples, communities, and development, and their ties to resource management are largely unknown; (2) traditional concepts of rurality do not reflect the

complex, varied socioeconomic structures of today’s rural places and peoples; (3) the

theories, models, and practices of collaborative stewardship as they relate to ecosystem management are largely unknown; and (4) patterns, processes, causes, and effects of socioeconomic change across rural communities and regions of the Pacific

Northwest are poorly understood.

Keywords: Rural development, rural communities, research and development, social

values, socioeconomic well-being, Pacific Northwest, natural resource management,

Montreal Process criteria and indicators.

Abstract
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
1

The USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station established rural

development as a research program in 1991. The years 1991 through 2000 brought

substantial changes to forest and rural development policies, activities, and research in

the Pacific Northwest. The shift from single-species to ecosystem management and to

incorporating social, cultural, and economic values is an attempt to integrate biophysical and social systems and to help “make decisions about dynamic systems in the face

of uncertainty” (FEMAT 1993; Graham and others 1999, Haynes and others 1998a,

1998b; Pipkin 1998). Given these changes and the multiple rural development and

research directives that guide the efforts of the PNW Research Station, this problem

analysis sets forth an agenda for rural development research for fiscal years 2001-6.

This paper consists of three main parts: the first part outlines the context in which rural

development research has developed in the USDA Forest Service; the second part

presents a research agenda for fiscal years 2001-6, specifically, four research problems are described; and the third part presents recent research accomplishments in

relation to rural development. The PNW Rural Economies and Communities Team will

conduct the research.

It is the duty of the Forest Service to see to it that the timber, water, mines,

and every other resource of the forests is used for the benefit of the people

who live in the neighborhood or who may have a share in the welfare of

each locality. It is equally its duty to cooperate with all our people in every

section of our land to conserve a fundamental resource, without which this

nation cannot prosper.

–Gifford Pinchot (1910: 51-52)

Origins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service—The legislative authority that provided the foundation for national forest management explicitly allowed for

national forest resource harvest and use and focused specifically on local settlers and

residents.1 Subsequent legislation established a system for sharing national forest revenues with local counties2 and permitted the purchase of lands for watershed and timber purposes that would be managed as national forest lands.3 The establishment of

the USDA Forest Service and forest conservation measures in this Nation, as Pinchot’s

1910 statement indicates, were based in social concerns for the welfare of the Nation

and the welfare of rural, forest-based communities. The forest conservation movement

developed in response to “cut out and get out” forest harvesting in the Great Lake

States and Appalachian Mountains during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This harvesting method left bare ground and stranded communities in its wake (FEMAT 1993).

As the timber industry moved to the Pacific Northwest, the social consequences of

its itinerant operations and economic instability became a matter of public concern.

Hibbard and Elias (1993) recount from writings of that era:

Introduction

1 Organic Administration Act. Act of June 4, 1897 (30

Stat. 34, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-478, 479-482,

551).

2 Twenty-Five Percent Fund. Act of May 23, 1908 (P.L.

60-136, Ch. 192, 35 Stat. 260, as amended 16 U.S.C.

500, 553, 556d).

3 Weeks Law. Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 961, as

amended; U.S.C. 480, 500, 513-517, 517a, 518, 519,

521, 552, 563).

The Context for

Rural Development

Research

Forest Conservation and

Rural Development in the

Forest Service
2

Contemporary studies found that the strikes, lockouts, and riots which

had become commonplace were intrinsic to the organization of the [Pacific

Northwest timber] industry. The timber industry “being itself a tramp industry, is a breeder of tramps; it is an industry of homeless men” (MacKaye

1919: 22). The social consequences of the tramp industry were unavoidable. “Permanent homes and normal family life have been the exception

rather than the rule, and the standard of citizenship has been lowered”

(Dana 1918: 22). [Cited in Hibbard and Elias 1993: 198.]

The sustained yield era—In response to the social problems that resulted from unregulated forest harvesting, a floating workforce, and great economic instability in the

timber industry, David Mason and Gifford Pinchot, among others, began to promote

sustained yield management adopted from German models of forestry (Drielsma and

others 1990, Hibbard and Elias 1993, Lee 1990). Pinchot argued for the advantages

of such a forest policy for forest workers and communities:

When the owner of a forest is prohibited from devastating it, when he is

required to make one crop of timber follow another, then, and only then,

can the lumber camp and lumber town become permanent, and only then

can forest labor be assured of a chance at those living conditions to which

every worker is justly entitled, a chance at a real home (Committee on

Forest Policy 1919). [Cited in Drielsma and others 1990: 58.]

The Sustained Yield Act of 1944 brought this model of forest management, with its

implicit goals and assumptions of community stability, into national law (Drielsma and

others 1990, Lee 1990).

Questioning community stability—Although forest managers and researchers began

to question sustained yield as a forest management policy and goal as early as the

1950s on economic and environmental grounds (Drielsma and others 1990), sustained

yield goals and assumptions related to community stability did not receive widespread

scrutiny until the 1980s. By this time, it had become clear that traditional assumptions

about a clear, cause-and-effect relation between timber harvest levels and local employment and welfare were overly simplistic (LeMaster and Beuter 1989). Although

substantial literature continues to suggest that a link between forest policies and rural

social and economic conditions does exist, the nature and strength of the connection

remain ambiguous and seem to differ across time and space (Beckley 1996, FEMAT

1993, Field and Burch 1988, Force and others 1993, Kaufman and Kaufman 1946,

Kusel and Fortmann 1991, Lee and others 1990, LeMaster and Beuter 1989, Machlis

and Force 1988, Machlis and others 1990).

The 1990 Farm Bill—Throughout the past century, the responsibility of the USDA Forest Service to rural communities has often been alluded to but has rarely been clearly

defined in law or regulation (except for a small number of specific local arrangements

such as the Shelton Sustained Yield Unit). Some clear direction emerged in late 1990

when Congress passed the Food, Conservation, and Trade Act, which contained new

authority in the Rural Development Title (Title XXIII) for the USDA Forest Service to

assist eligible national forest-dependent rural communities. Subtitle G, Chapter 2, cited

as the “National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of

1990,” refers to the well-being of rural communities in several instances, and though its

main intent is to promote economic diversification strategies, a more general purpose
3

of the act is stated “to improve the economic, social, and environmental well-being of

rural America” (sec. 2373.b.1). This act directed a new focus on rural development

across all branches of the USDA Forest Service (McWilliams and others 1993) and

was the impetus for the creation of the PNW Rural Development Research program in

1991, which was expanded from a previous program in regional economics and economic impact analysis.

Directives to the Rural Development Research program—The PNW Rural Development Research program and the research agenda proposed below are guided by several goals and objectives that have been defined at different levels of the USDA Forest

Service. The following sections outline goals and objectives that the Rural Economies

and Communities Team intend to address through its research.

National programs—Goal 3 of the Forest Service strategic plan 2000 (USDA Forest

Service 2000) is to develop and use the best scientific information available to deliver

technical and community assistance and to support ecological, economic, and social

sustainability.

The four objectives of goal 3 are to:

• Better assist in building the capacity of tribal governments, rural communities, and

private landowners to adapt to economic, environmental, and social change related

to natural resources (objective 3a)

• Increase the effectiveness of scientific, developmental, and technical information

delivered to domestic and international interests (objective 3b)

• Improve the knowledge base provided through research, inventory, and monitoring

to enhance scientific understanding of ecosystems, including human uses, and to

support decisionmaking and sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and

grasslands (objective 3c)

• Broaden the participation of less traditional research groups in research and technical assistance programs (objective 3d)

“A Strategic Plan for the ‘90s: Working Together for Rural America” (USDA Forest Service 1990) and “Enhancing Rural America: National Research Program” (USDA Forest

Service 1991) direct rural development projects and research across the USDA Forest

Service.

Our proposed research addresses three of the five goals in the USDA Forest Service

National Research Program for rural America:

• Understand the values and way of life of rural communities

• Understand the dynamics of resource, economic, social, and technological change

in rural America

• Understand the institutional barriers and opportunities that affect rural communities

Pacific Northwest Research Station program goals—The Rural Development Research program responds to the following research gaps identified by the PNW Research Station:

• Improving society’s understanding of societal values, desires, and needs related to

natural resources

• Improving society’s understanding of the effects of resource management on the

social and economic well-being of people at local, regional, and national scales
4

• Finding ways of measuring economic performance and social change at the community level

• Understanding ways economic development can be compatible with ecosystem and

social values

• Understanding the effects of changing demographic characteristics on natural resource demands and use

• Understanding how organizations respond and adapt to changes in social, cultural,

and economic values

• Understanding the interactions among individuals, communities, resources, and

ecosystems

• Developing conceptual frameworks for the integration of ecological, biological, and

social science research

The research proposed in this problem analysis is aligned with two Station priorities:

“social and economic processes” and “application of science to policy issues” (see

“USDA Forest Service 1997” for further information about these priorities). The PNW

Research Station is currently undergoing a strategic planning process and expects to

finalize a plan by summer 2001.

Social and Economic Values Program Charter—The Rural Development Research

program at the PNW Research Station is part of a larger research program— Social and

Economic Values (SEV) Program. The Rural Economies and Communities Team conducts the rural development research. Of the five problem areas identified in the SEV

Charter, two direct the work of the Rural Economies and Communities Team. These

problems and their related objectives are:

• Understand the links between natural resource policies and rural economic and

social development.

• Improve methods and information to better identify and evaluate the causal links

between resource policies and rural economic and social development at the

community level as well as other broader levels.

• Develop methods, techniques, and information about resource management

choices that can help mitigate negative changes in the economic and social life

of rural, resource-dependent communities.

• Improve understanding of the relation between resource conservation and rural

economic and social development.

• Understand the social and economic dimensions of ecosystem management.

• Develop methods to incorporate the needs of rural communities, industries,

and people into the design of ecosystem management strategies to achieve

a favorable rural social and economic response.

This history of rural development research and the current national and PNW Research

Station strategies, plans, and directives all influence the selection of four problem areas

to be studied by the Rural Economies and Communities Team over the next 5 years.
5

The research problems and associated research questions outlined below will direct

the work of the Rural Economies and Communities Team for fiscal years 2001-6. We

recognize many social science problems including questions surrounding social capital;

how to link communities to the Montreal Process criteria and indicators; recreation and

tourism and the subsequent effects on communities; fire dynamics and recovery efforts

and the associated similarities, differences, and interactions among multiple values and

beliefs; and salmon recovery efforts and the role of stakeholders and communities.

This problem analysis is not an exhaustive list of research problems and needs, but it

is a starting point from which to proceed that will be flexible enough to incorporate additional problems and questions identified during the course of research. The problems

and questions are necessarily interrelated, but they serve to highlight different facets of

the complex socioeconomic structures and processes of rural regions, communities,

and development in the Pacific Northwest. Problems and questions will be addressed

through a series of interrelated studies undertaken directly by the Rural Economies and

Communities Team in cooperation with other research institutions and units including

the National Forest Systems. Although the focus of the research will be on California,

Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, this does not preclude national or international collaboration.

Problem 1. Social values related to rural peoples, communities, development,

and their ties to resource management are largely unknown.

Changing social values seem to be a common reason public agencies are reexamining

their management goals and methods. (Fight and others 2000, Haynes and others

1998b). Over the past twenty or more years, many studies have been done of the

changing environmental values and attitudes of the American public; these changing

attitudes and values are now often cited as the reason for changes in federal resource

management agencies (Dunlap 1991, FEMAT 1993, Steel and others 1994). Such

studies, however, have generally examined only one aspect (admittedly a longneglected part) of the moral universe of individuals. Public opinion and environmental

attitude surveys conducted in the Pacific Northwest over the past several years, for

example, have often phrased questions in terms of jobs vs. owls or rural communities

vs. environment (FEMAT 1993, Oregon Business Council 1993). Although support for

owls or the environment has often been observed, so too has support for jobs and rural

communities (Harris and others 1996). These surveys have not sought an articulation

of values or vision about rural peoples and communities that would complement these

changing environmental values. What are the values and attitudes of the American

public and natural resource decisionmakers— urban, suburban, and rural— toward rural

communities, economies, and people? Are these values and attitudes worth protecting? In what form? At what cost? How have these values and attitudes changed over

the past century, and how are they changing now?

Questions include What is development? Who decides, what development is? Who

wants it, in what form, and for whom? “Development” is a value-laden term whose

meaning has been argued from philosophy departments to the United Nations to town

and village meetings across the world. Internationally, “development” often has been

defined by first-world “experts” who have tried with variable success to bring other peoples and economies in line with their own models of development. More participatoryfacilitative models of development planning that encourage locals to articulate their own

desired futures help to reduce this dynamic (Cernea 1991). How do rural peoples, the

American public, and those who decide rural development funding, policies, and programs envision rural development in this country? What are their goals?

Research Problems

Related to Rural

Economies and

Communities
6

Discussions integrating environment, social justice, and development concerns in recent years generally have occurred within some framework of sustainable development

(Gale and Cordray 1994). Much of the work to date on sustainable development and

community-based forestry has been in the realm of concept and theory, and researchers and community, business, and environmental leaders are just beginning to explore

what “sustainable” might look like in particular places in this country (Flora, n.d.4 ; Gale

and Cordray 1994; Sargent and others 1991; USDA Forest Service 2000). As with

more general discussions of development, we have much to learn from international

experiments and experiences with sustainable development (Krishnaswamy 1995,

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Integrating USDA Forest

Service goals for ecosystem management and sustainability provides both a theoretical

and practical challenge for researchers, policymakers, and managers.

How have concepts related to rural areas such as community well-being, resiliency,

sustainability, social capital, development, ecosystem health, and community capacity,

evolved in resource management?

What are the links, interdependencies, and political and institutional realities to integrating human systems well-being and ecosystem management— in theory and in

practice?

What are the values and attitudes about forests, forest resources, and management

among diverse groups of resource users and managers?

What are the values and attitudes toward rural peoples and development across agencies, academic disciplines, rural communities, and the American public?

What is environmental justice and how are these values associated with alternative

land management practices?

Problem 2. Traditional conceptions of rurality do not reflect the complex, varied

socioeconomic structures of today’s rural places and peoples.

What is rural? Who is rural? At one time, the characteristics of rural places and peoples

seemed to be fairly clear: a workforce primarily engaged in direct production from the

natural environment, low population densities, isolation from central places and economies, perhaps a distinct set of values or perceptions of the world. But what does “rural”

mean today when so few people work in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining?

When modern telecommunications and transportation systems enable people to transcend environmental constraints that once limited communication and mobility? When

city dwellers with a lifetime of values and behaviors shaped in urban places retire to the

coast or the mountains? When changes in primary production sectors force small-town

natural resource industry workers to move to cities in search of new employment? Is

“rural” even a useful concept anymore?

Research Questions

4 Flora, C.B. [N.d.]. Sustainable agriculture and sustainable communities: social capital in the great plains

and corn belt. Unpublished paper. On file with: Iowa

State University, Department of Sociology, Ames, IA

83209.
7

Researchers have been exploring the changing dimensions of rurality across the Nation and the world on various levels, but well-considered answers to the questions

posed above are still needed for the Pacific Northwest and could help direct rural development research and efforts within the region and beyond. Bell (1992: 66) provides an

answer to the final question posed above in his observation that regardless of the socioeconomic transformation of an English village over the past several decades, residents “are firm in their belief in the reality of urban and rural differences.” If the concept

of “rural” is one in which people find identity and which they use to orient themselves in

the world, as Bell (1992) suggests, then it remains a useful concept for social research.

The continued use of the term “rural” in agency, legislative, and everyday parlance

across the country indicates that however much rural places and people may have

changed in this century, it is still a term that carries meaning for many people.

Some researchers who have examined rurality as an attribute of individuals have found

that a person’s place of origin is a far better predictor of “rural” qualities and attitudes

than a person’s current place of residence. For example, Hanson (1982) documented

the negative effect of rural origin on the socioeconomic attainment of married women

throughout their careers and reviewed studies of careers of male workers that showed

a similar effect. In constructing a typology of rural-urban culture, Miller and Luloff (1981)

found that place of residence at age 16 is a more effective predictor of a set of social

attitudes than current residence of an individual. Lowe and Pinhey (1982) also found

that urban-rural socialization is significantly related to the expressed environmental

concerns of individuals, whereas current urban-rural residence is not.

Rurality also may be examined as an attribute of places, groups of people, or economies, as measured through qualities such as population density, transportation infrastructure (measure for physical isolation), education levels, employment in service vs.

primary production and manufacturing sectors, and presence of local news media

(measure for informational isolation). (Cleland 1994). Economic and political connections between rural areas and urban centers have long been considered in applications

of core-periphery theory and central place theory to the study of rural places (Preston

1971, Robison and others 1993, Smith and Steel 1995). In the past several years, the

issue of persistent poverty in rural areas, including resource-based communities, has

received considerable theoretical and some empirical attention, but a full understanding

of the dynamics of poverty in rural places is still lacking. Is poverty an inevitable consequence of rurality, or some aspects of rurality; why or why not? What helps to alleviate

poverty? (Belsky 1994; Bliss and others 1993; Cook 19935 ; Fitchen 1992; Freudenburg

and Gramling 1994; Humphrey 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Johnson and Stallman 1994;

Lichter and Eggebeen 1992; Nord 1994; Peluso and others 1994; Rural Sociological

Society 1992; West 1994).

How do communities perceive and understand fire and its uses, and how does this

shape public reaction to fire? What are the indicators to characterize community preparedness for hazardous fire events?

How do classifications of rural places across the Northwest change with different measures of rurality (e.g., population density, economic structure, sustainable communitybased forestry, isolation, and resilience)?

Research Questions

5 Cook, A.K. 1993. Changes in employment and poverty:

differences between timber-dependent and metro areas

in western Washington. On file with: Washington State

University, Cooperative Extension Service, Pullman, WA

99164.
8

What is the current resiliency-social capital in western Washington and Oregon? What

are the links between resiliency and federal natural resource actions?

What is meant by the rural-urban interface? How are the relations between rural and

urban economies changing? How is this concept related to and what are the implications for socioeconomic research and federal land management policy?

What are the effects of international trade, technological change, work patterns, and

telecommunication on rurality?

How have different measures of rurality changed over time for given places and regions

of the Northwest? Is rurality increasing or decreasing at different rates in different areas?

What are characteristics and migration patterns of people of rural origin in the Pacific

Northwest? For people who migrate to rural areas in the Northwest?

What are the dynamics of poverty in rural areas, and how are they related to urban and

rural disparities?

What role do natural resource industries and amenities play in peoples’ conceptions of

rurality?

What does “rural” mean to people of the Northwest— urban and rural publics, policymakers, resource managers?

Problem 3. The theories, models, and practices of institutional arrangements

such as collaborative stewardship activities as they relate to ecosystem management are largely unknown.

Public policymaking, institutional change, and agency culture are important areas to

understand in resource management (Cortner and Moote 1999). Because they represent broad areas of research, we have narrowed our focus in this area to one critical

and current topic— collaborative stewardship. Collaborative stewardship arrangements

between federal agencies and locality-based groups or user groups are rapidly forming

across the United States (Moote and others 2000, Weber 2000). Stewardship partnerships emerge out of mutual interest to manage natural resources in ways that integrate

ecological, social, and economic objectives. Many developing countries have been

experimenting with various forms of collaborative management for several decades

(Adhikari 1990, Gibbs and others 1990, Hafner and Apichatvullop 1990, Peluso and

others 1990, Poffenberger 1996, Poffenberger and McGean 1996, Rao 1985). The

similarities, differences, and lessons learned from the international models of collaborative stewardship provide a basis for understanding collaborative resource management

in the Pacific Northwest. A better understanding of the theories and models of collaborative management will help resource managers determine when collaborative stewardship strategies are appropriate.

One of the goals presented in the USDA Forest Service strategic plan is to “promote

ecosystem health and conservation by using a collaborative approach to sustain the

Nation’s forests, rangelands, and watersheds” (USDA Forest Service 2000:9). Increasing the participation of a greater diversity of people and members of underserved and

low-income populations is one of the stated objectives. In the United States, underserved and disenfranchised populations, such as Native Americans, urban youth, and

rural communities, have specific stakes, interests, and needs pertaining to public lands
9

making them natural partners for collaborative activities. More traditional stakeholders,

such as the timber industry, recreational groups, and special interest groups may be

primed to participate in enhanced forms of collaborations. The USDA Committee of

Scientists report suggests that we will see greater reliance on collaborative stewardship

as we learn from and experiment with knowledge offered up by a diverse public (Committee of Scientists 1999: xxiii). Arguments are made on both sides of the collaborative

stewardship debate (Kenney 2000). Needed is scientific inquiry to provide a better understanding of the issues within this debate.

In addition to the questions about how and why rural places take the forms that they do

and change as they do is a problem of particular concern to the USDA Forest Service:

What difference do natural resources make (or not) in light of all these other influences

on the socioeconomic structure and transformation of rural areas? How do socioeconomic changes in rural areas in turn affect natural resources? How, and in what ways,

might the USDA Forest Service facilitate, or reduce barriers to, rural development

through collaborative approaches to ecosystem management?

A better understanding of the interrelation between natural resource conditions and

policies and rural community conditions will be helpful in determining where and how

collaborative stewardship may be appropriate. The last several years have witnessed

multiple-impact analyses, predicting with greater or lesser confidence what the effects

of changes in federal land management, especially timber harvest levels, will be for

rural economies and communities in the Pacific Northwest (FEMAT 1993, USDA Forest

Service 1992, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994).

These analyses and predictions were based on assumptions about the socioeconomic

structure of rural areas, and observing the degree of correspondence between the predictions and actual changes offers opportunity to test the assumptions and theories

about rural areas from which the impact analyses were developed. Forest managers

and researchers have long assumed a clear relation between resource production and

rural community condition, an assumption that is only beginning to be examined empirically (Force and others 1993, Machlis and others 1990). As ecosystem management

practices increasingly reflect the diversity of benefits and services that public lands

provide, the relation between user groups and communities and resource management

strategies continues to evolve.

What are the comparative theories, models, and practices of collaborative

stewardship?

What institutional, legal, political, economic, and sociocultural factors influence the

development of collaborative stewardship in the Pacific Northwest?

What are the appropriate measures to compare and understand the efficiency and

effectiveness of collaborative stewardship approaches?

Identify the effectiveness of collaborative stewardship approaches to achieving environmental and social objectives, and describe how they affect the sustainability of resource management outcomes.

How do collaborative stewardship projects and policies alter or maintain past connections between natural resource management and conditions in rural areas?

Research Questions
10

Problem 4. Patterns, processes, causes, and effects of socioeconomic change

and their connections to ecosystem health across rural communities and regions of the Pacific Northwest are poorly understood.

As mentioned above, the problems associated with the concept of rurality have developed because rural places across the country and the world have been changing in

profound enough ways that many no longer fit the definition of what once was considered “rural.” These changes in rural places often reflect larger scale societal and economic changes that may affect urban and rural areas across the region, Nation, and

world. Yet these large-scale changes can affect different rural places and peoples,

within the Pacific Northwest or even within the same county or town, in profoundly different ways (Haynes and others 1998b). Why does one small town thrive while another

collapses in the face of a mill closure? What are the similarities and differences between resource-based communities; e.g., mining, fishing, agriculture, ranching, timber?

What role does the nontimber forest products industry play in the Pacific Northwest

from economic, social, cultural, and ecological perspectives (Von Hagen and Fight

1999, Von Hagen and others 1996)? What are the relations between large-scale socioeconomic processes and local conditions? How and why have rural communities and

regions changed in the past, and what might this tell us about their future? What are the

dimensions of social capital, community well-being, resiliency and adaptation? How are

they measured according to the Montreal Process criteria and indicators?

Researchers and managers have completed a series of bioregional assessments that

shape a broader understanding of the interconnectiveness between biophysical and

social systems and provide a broader framework for decisionmaking based on regional,

national, and international environmental issues. Bioregional assessments we refer

to are the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB 1996), the Sierra

Nevada (SNEP 1996), and the interior Columbia basin (Quigley and others 1996).

To address this problem, we must first recognize that rural places in the Pacific Northwest display considerable heterogeneity in their socioeconomic structures and, thus, in

their potential responses to any given influence (Horne and Haynes 1999, McCool and

others 1997, Richardson 1996). Gale (1991) is one of the few to date who has attempted to construct a typology of rural communities in the Pacific Northwest, and his theoretical typology has not been empirically tested. Lee (1991), Jackson and Lee (1998),

and FEMAT (1993) also have observed that even within a single geographic community, different social groups may experience a given socioeconomic change in profoundly

different ways. Heterogeneity appears across the rural Pacific Northwest and within

many rural places in the Pacific Northwest. And, as Kusel and Fortmann (1991) and

Machlis and others (1990) demonstrate, heterogeneity appears along a temporal dimension as well, be that within a community or across a region. Christensen and others

(2000) have examined the status and trends of counties across Washington, western

Oregon, and northern California. Change is a constant, and the authors demonstrate

how rural and urban provinces and counties have changed since 1990. Similarly, the

socioeconomic effects of rural development programs and projects including the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NWEAI) of the President’s Northwest Forest Plan

is documented and serves as a model to be used as a resource-related economic development and mitigation effort in other regions (Christensen and others 1999; Donoghue and others 1999; Raettig 1999; and Raettig and Christensen 1999a, 1999b).
11

Researchers have documented a wide range of social, demographic, and economic

factors and changes that are affecting or occurring in the rural Pacific Northwest: technological change, restructuring, unemployment, and environmental restrictions in the

timber industry; outmigration of working-class families; inmigration of retirees, telecommuters, and small business owners; “urban flight” by the wealthy and poor alike; development or expansion of tourism and related amenity sectors in local economies;

changing attitudes, values, politics, and laws about resource-based industries, economic growth and zoning, and taxes and provision of educational and social services

(Beyers and others 1996, Bronfman and others 1990, Brunelle 1990, Cook 1992,

FEMAT 1993, Greber 1993, Greber and others 1990, Salant and Barkley 1993, Salazar

and others 1986, Seidel 1993). Fewer researchers have examined what these changes

have meant for residents of rural places (Blahna 1990; Brown 19946; Lindberg and

others 1994; Richardson 1993; Weeks 1990), and fewer yet have examined how rural

peoples may actively work with or against, or seek to transform larger socioeconomic

processes to create unique local environments (Carroll and Lee 1990, Fortmann 1990,

Fortmann and Starrs 1990, Kusel 1991, Warren 1992).

Other related concerns are what and how to conduct measurements at the community level. Needed is a better understanding of sampling design and indicators to

measure the phenomenon under question. Do they measure what they are intended

to measure?

What types (typologies) of rural communities may be discerned across the Northwest,

and how is each type changing? What are the measures and indicators for social capital resiliency and adaptation?

What are the dimensions of social capital and how do they relate to the cause and effect of socioeconomic change?

What kinds of demographic shifts (e.g., population distribution, lifestyle, and values) are

occurring in western Washington and Oregon, and what are the causes?

What are the questions and most appropriate scales of analysis for socioeconomic

data for rural development and ecosystem management research?

What criteria and indicators (e.g., related to the Montreal Process) are necessary to

understand the cause and effect relations between federal forest policy and counties,

communities, families, and individuals?

What sampling designs and generalizations are valid for community-level survey research?

What are the trends in harvesting, processing, and use of nontimber forest products

(NTFPs)? How is the NTFPs industry changing over time, and what are the implications for land management, rural communities, Native Americans, families, and

harvesters?

Research Questions

6 Brown, B. 1994. Environmental conflict, urban flight and

land tenure in the forested regions of southwest Oregon.

Unpublished paper. On file with: The Jefferson Center,

P.O. Box 279, Wolf Creek, OR 97497.
12

Over the past five years, the Rural Economies and Communities team has conducted

research that has influenced the development of the four problem areas identified

above. The research provides economic development practitioners and ecosystem

managers with the foundation for effective ecosystem management and social and

economic development in a manner both relevant and respectful to the people of the

region. Following are key findings from this work:

• The rapidly growing, affluent and diverse economies and societies that identify the

larger metropolitan areas of the Pacific Northwest often do not describe the more

rural areas in the region. Growth in jobs, income, and population are lagging in

many of the rural resource-based areas of the region. There is a wide spread in

economic diversity, economic growth, and social well-being across the region.

Dynamic changes in social and economic well-being are occurring that are directly

linked to ecosystem management.

• Timber harvests across the region have fallen markedly since 1990. Particularly

large decreases in harvest from federal lands have had the most impact, but private

harvest in certain areas also has contributed to the fall in total timber harvest. Unlike

the harvest decreases in the early 1980s, these decreases have not been associated with recessions in the national economy. Employment in the forest products

industry also has decreased in the Pacific Northwest with the largest decreases

occurring in the primary processing sectors and in those counties most dependent

on federal timber harvests.

• The coordinated economic and community development environment (NWEAI)

created as part of the Northwest Forest Plan has effectively delivered services to

most counties and communities impacted by changing natural resource policies.

The emphasis on multilevel partnerships, seamless service delivery, and active

local participation has avoided many of the pitfalls of traditional economic assistance programs. The sharing of lessons learned about what works and what does

not has provided a means to effect program improvements. The assessment is

used as a model for resource-related economic development and mitigation efforts

in other regions.

Management implications include:

• Economic and community development is an integral and continuing part of ecosystem management activities in the Pacific Northwest. The lessons learned from implementing the NWEAI provide economic development specialists with opportunity

to replicate institutions, activities and practices that have worked, and discontinue

or improve those that have not. These activities include projects that focus on direct natural resource management activities as well as those that enhance local

economies directly impacted by changing ecosystem management policies and

commodity production levels.

• The location and magnitude of changes in timber harvest levels and associated

changes in forest products industry employment are an important consideration in

the administration and targeting of ecosystem management activities that offer alternative or enhanced economic development opportunities from natural resource

products and services. This information also serves as a basis for managing economic assistance programs and directing funding appropriately and equitably to

impacted communities. It is an important element in understanding social and economic change across the Pacific Northwest.

Conclusions
13

These findings and documenting publications (Christensen and others 1999, 2000;

Raettig 1999; Raettig and Christensen 1999a, 1999b,) have been and are being used

in the management and administration of economic development activities related to

the Northwest Forest Plan. Specific funding agencies such as the USDA Rural Development as well as the teams at the regional (Regional Community Economic Revitalization Teams [RCERT]) and state level (State Community Economic Revitalization

Teams [SCERT]) all have actively used the information to develop, prioritize, fund, and

manage economic and community development projects under the NWEAI.

The array of information, interpretations, and findings related to regional, state, and

county-level social and economic indicators (Christensen and others 2000, McGinnis

and others 1996, McGinnis and others 1997, Raettig 1999) is being used by the

Regional Ecosystem Office as the foundation and baseline for social and economic

monitoring activities mandated by the Northwest Forest Plan. This information also

serves as the starting point for scientific and monitoring activities focusing on communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region.

Findings and results serve as a resource for economic development programs and

natural resource policy analysis both in other regions of the country and internationally.

The Northwest Forest Plan economic development institutions and strategies were

considered in a southeast Alaska effort and documented internationally at an International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) working party session in Finland (Christensen and others 1995). The social and economic dimensions of changing

ecosystem policies served as part of the opening panel at an IUFRO conference in

Japan (Christensen and Raettig 1997).

There is growing awareness that ecosystem management decisions and actions must

explicitly consider the human dimensions of the ecosystem as well as the biophysical

dimensions. The dimensions, locations, patterns, and magnitude of social and economic processes, conditions, and changes including interpretation and analysis is the foundation for including human considerations in ecosystem management and planning.

This information in turn provides the knowledge and basis for changing future ecosystem management strategies and proposals at the local level and longer term strategic

planning and assessment activities. This research will directly address the integration

of human considerations into the overall framework for ecosystem management.

Research selected for the next five years is based on predictable resources and precludes unforeseen opportunities and challenges. Science gaps include knowledge of

the social and economic effects of recreation and tourism, salmon recovery efforts, and

fire-adapted ecosystems on rural places (including the rural-urban interface). Other

gaps include how to link community-level indicators to the Montreal Process criteria

and indicators, and a better understanding of the effects of federal forest policy on human communities.

Thanks go to Catherine Woods Richardson and Terry Raettig for their contributions to

this manuscript. This paper also reflects the reviews and comments of Ron Saranich,

Dick Phillips, and Richard Haynes.

Acknowledgments
14

Adhikari, J. 1990. Is community forestry a new concept? an analysis of the past and

present policies affecting forest management in Nepal. Society and Natural Resources. 3: 257-265.

Beckley, T.M. 1996. Community stability and the relationship between economic and

social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society and Natural Resources.

8: 261-266.

Bell, M.M. 1992. The fruit of difference: the rural-urban continuum as a system of

identity. Rural Sociology. 57: 65-82.

Belsky, J. 1994. Soil conservation and poverty: lessons from upland Indonesia.

Society and Natural Resources. 7: 429-443.

Beyers, W.B.; Lindahl, D.P.; Hamill, E. 1996. Lone eagles and high fliers in rural

producer services. Rural Development Perspectives. 11(3): 2-10.

Blahna, D.J. 1990. Social bases for resource conflicts in areas of reverse migration.

In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 159-178.

Bliss, J.C.; Howze, G.R.; Teeter, L.; Bailey, C. 1993. Forestry and poverty in

Alabama’s black belt. In: Policy and forestry: design, evaluation, and spillovers:

Proceedings, Southern forest economics meeting. Durham, NC: [Publisher

unknown]: 221-228.

Bronfman, L.M.; Rufolo, A.M.; Strathman, J.G. 1990. Effects of change in the wood

products industry on workers: a study of mill operators and workers in southern

Oregon. In: Proceedings, 24th annual Pacific Northwest regional economic conference. Bellingham, WA: University of Washington, Northwest Policy Center:

105-109.

Brunelle, A. 1990. The changing structure of the forest industry in the Pacific Northwest. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry:

continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:

107-124.

Carroll, M.S.; Lee, R.G. 1990. Occupational community and identity among Pacific

Northwestern loggers: implications for adapting to economic changes. In: Lee, R.G.;

Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the

sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 141-156.

Cernea, M.M. 1991. Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development.

2nd ed. rev. and expanded. New York: Oxford University Press. 575 p.

Christensen, H.H.; McGinnis, W.J.; Raettig, T.L.; Donoghue, E. 2000. Atlas of

human adaptation to environmental change, challenge, and opportunity: northern

California, western Oregon, and western Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR478. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 66 p.

Christensen, H.H.; Raettig, T.L. 1997. Change in public and private forest management: social and economic implications: Proceedings, sustainable management of

small-scale forestry, IUFRO group 3.08.00, small-scale forestry; IUFRO Group

6.11.03, forestry and rural development in industrialized countries. Kyoto, Japan:

Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University: 5-11.

Literature Cited
15

Christensen, H.H.; Raettig, T.L. 1999. Extending the Northwest Economic Adjustment

Initiative to other regions: utilizing the initiative and the institutions. In: Christensen,

H.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Sommers, P., tech. eds. Northwest Forest Plan: outcomes and

lessons learned from the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-484. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 83-96.

Christensen, H.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Sommers, P., tech. eds. 1999. Northwest Forest

Plan: outcomes and lessons learned from the Northwest Economic Adjustment

Initiative: Proceedings of a forum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-484. Portland, OR:

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

103 p.

Christensen, H.H.; Richardson, C.W.; Raettig, T.L.; McGinnis, W. 1995. Forestbased communities, economic revitalization, and ecosystem management: the story

of experimental institutions and strategies in the Pacific Northwest. Proceedings of

working party technical session meeting, IUFRO 20th world congress, S 6.11-02.

Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forest Service: 16-29.

Cleland, C.L. 1994. Measuring rurality. In: Meeting of the Southern Demographic

Association. Atlanta, GA: [Publisher unknown]: [Pages unknown]

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: 193 p.

Cook, A.K. 1992. Timber-dependent counties: economic and social change in

Washington. Report EB 1674. Pullman, WA: Washington State University,

Cooperative Extension. 18 p.

Cortner, H.J.; Moote, M.A. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 179 p.

Donoghue, E.M.; Christensen, H.H.; Saranich, R. 1999. The Northwest Economic

Initiative: lessons learned and questions remaining. In: Christensen, H.H.; Raettig,

T.L.; Sommers, P., tech. eds. Northwest Forest Plan: outcomes and lessons learned

from the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR484. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station: 59-64.

Drielsma, J.H.; Miller, J.H.; Burch, W.R., Jr. 1990. Sustained yield and community

stability in American forestry. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds.

Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press: 55-68.

Dunlap, R.E. 1991. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965-1990.

Society and Natural Resources. 4: 285-312.

Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr. 1988. Rural sociology and the environment. New York:

Greenwood Press. 135 p.

Fight, R.D.; Kruger, L.E.; Hansen-Murray, C. [and others]. 2000. Understanding

human uses and values in watershed analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-489.

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

Research Station. 16 p.
16

Fitchen, J.M. 1992. On the edge of homelessness: rural poverty and housing insecurity. Rural Sociology. 57: 173-193.

Force, J.E.; Machlis, G.E.; Zhang, L.; Kearney, A. 1993. The relationship between

timber production, local historical events, and community social change: a quantitative case study. Forest Science. 39: 722-742.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment team.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and

others]. [Irregular pagination].

Fortmann, L. 1990. Locality and custom: non-aboriginal claims for customary

usufructuary rights as a source of rural protest. Journal of Rural Studies. 6: 195-208.

Fortmann, L.; Starrs, P. 1990. Power plants and resource rights. In: Lee, R.G.; Field,

D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of

natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 179-194.

Freudenburg, W.R.; Gramling, R. 1994. Natural resources and rural poverty: a closer

look. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 5-22.

Gale, R.P. 1991. Forest resource-dependent communities and new forestry: how wide

the welcome mat in the Pacific Northwest? The Northwest Environmental Journal.

7: 7-33.

Gale, R.P.; Cordray, S.M. 1994. Making sense of sustainability: nine answers to “What

should be sustained?” Rural Sociology. 59: 311-332.

Gibbs, C.; Payuan, E.; Del Castillo, R. 1990. The growth of the Philippine Social

Forestry Program. In: Poffenberger, M., ed. Keepers of the forest. Hartford, CT:

Kumarian Press: 253-265.

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B.; Haynes, R.L. [and others]. 1999. Assessments for

ecological stewardship. In: Sexton, W.T.; Malk, A.J.; Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C.,

eds. Ecological stewardship. Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science

Ltd.: 535-549.

Greber, B.J. 1993. Impacts of technological change on employment in the timber

industries of the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(1): 34-37.

Greber, B.J.; Johnson, K.N.; Lettman, G. 1990. Conservation plans for the northern

spotted owl and other forest management proposals in Oregon: the economics of

changing timber availability. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of

Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory, Papers in Forest Policy no. 1. 50 p.

Hafner, J.A.; Apichatvullop, Y. 1990. Migrant farmers and the shrinking forests of

northeast Thailand. In: Poffenberger, M., ed. Keepers of the forest. Hartford:

Kumarian Press: 197-219.

Hanson, S.L. 1982. The effects of rural residence on the socio-economic attainment

process of married females. Rural Sociology. 47: 91-113.

Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; Quigley, T.M. 1998a. A framework for ecosystem

management in the interior Columbia basin. Journal of Forestry. 96(10): 4-9.

Haynes, R.W.; Reyna, N.E.; Allen, S.D. 1998b. ICBEMP: social and economic

systems. Journal of Forestry. 96(10): 28-32.
17

Harris, C.; Brown, G.; McLaughlin, W. 2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: an assessment of small rural communities in the interior and upper Columbia

River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. (Quigley, T.M., ed.;

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

120 p.

Hibbard, M.; Elias, J. 1993. The failure of sustained-yield forestry and the decline of

the flannel-shirt frontier. In: Lyson, T.A.; Falk, W.W., eds. Forgotten places: uneven

development in rural America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 195-217.

Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in

the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 41 p.

Humphrey, C.R. 1994a. Introduction: natural resource-dependent communities and

persistent rural poverty in the U.S.— Part I. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 1-4.

Humphrey, C.R. 1994b. Introduction: natural resource-dependent communities and

persistent rural poverty in the U.S.— Part II. Society and Natural Resources.

7: 201-204.

Humphrey, C.R. 1994c. Introduction: natural resource-dependent communities

and persistent rural poverty in the U.S.— Part III. Society and Natural Resources.

7: 411-414.

Jackson, J.E.; Lee, R.G. 1998. Big changes in small places: a report on trends in

social and economic indicators for local areas of Clallam and Jefferson Counties.

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. On file with: Chris Christensen.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 4043 Roosevelt Way,

N.E., Seattle, WA 98015. 102 p.

Johnson, T.G.; Stallman, J.I. 1994. Human capital investment in resourcesdominated economies. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 221-233.

Kaufman, H.F.; Kaufman, L.C. 1946. Toward the stabilization and enrichment of a

forest community. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. Community and

forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press: 27-39.

Kenney, D.S. 2000. Arguing about consensus: examining the case against western

watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups in natural resource management. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado School of Law, Natural Resource Law

Center. 72 p.

Krishnaswamy, A. 1995. Sustainable development and community forest management in Bihar, India. Society and Natural Resources. 8(4): 339-350.

Kusel, J. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, vol. 2. Sacramento, CA:

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program; report; contract 8CA85064. 130 p.

Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities, vol. 1.

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest and

Rangeland Resources Assessment Program; report; contract 8CA85064. 245 p.
18

Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch,

W.R., Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83-94.

Lee, R.G. 1991. Four myths of interface communities. Journal of Forestry. 89(6):

35-38.

Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R., Jr., eds. 1990. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 301 p.

LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. 1989. Community stability in forest-based economies: Proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 191 p.

Lichter, D.T.; Eggebeen, D.J. 1992. Child poverty and the changing rural family. Rural

Sociology. 57: 151-172.

Lindberg, K.; Johnson, R.; Rettig, B. 1994. Attitudes, concerns, and priorities of

Oregon Coast residents regarding tourism and economic development. Oregon Sea

Grant ORESU-T-94-001. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant. 48 p.

Lowe, G.D.; Pinhey, T.K. 1982. Rural-urban differences in support for environmental

protection. Rural Sociology. 47: 114-128.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent communities. Rural Sociology. 53: 220-234.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E.; Balice, R.G. 1990. Timber, minerals, and social change:

an exploratory test of two resource dependent communities. Rural Sociology.

55: 411-424.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Allen, SD. 1997. Social assessment of the interior

Columbia basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of

ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath

and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1871-2009.

(Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

scientific assessment).

McGinnis, W.J.; Christensen, H.H. 1996. The interior Columbia River basin: patterns

of population, employment, and income change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-358.

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

Research Station. 43 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

McGinnis, W.J.; Phillips, R.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Connaughton, K.P. 1996. County

portraits of Oregon and northern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-377.

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

Research Station. 315 p.

McGinnis, W.J.; Phillips, R.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Connaughton, K.P. 1997. County

portraits of Washington State. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-400. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

262 p.

McWilliams, R.; Saranich, R.; Pratt, J. 1993. The Forest Service’s investment in

rural communities. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

529: 128-139.
19

Miller, M.K.; Luloff, A.E. 1981. Who is rural? a typological approach to the examination of rurality. Rural Sociology. 46: 608-625.

Moote, A.; Conley, A.; Firehock, K.; Dukes, F. 2000. Assessing research needs: a

summary workshop on community-based collaboratives. Udall Center Publications

00-5. Tucson, AZ: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of

Arizona. 10 p.

Nord, M. 1994. Natural resources and persistent rural poverty: in search of the nexus.

Society and Natural Resources. 7: 205-220.

Oregon Business Council. 1993. Oregon values and beliefs: summary. Portland, OR:

[Pages unknown].

Peluso, N.L.; Humphrey, C.; Fortmann, L.P. 1994. The rock, the beach, and the tidal

pool: people and poverty in natural resource-dependent areas. Society and Natural

Resources. 7: 23-38.

Peluso, N.; Poffenberger, M.; Seymour, F. 1990. Reorienting forest management

on Java. In: Poffenberger, M., ed. Keepers of the forest. Hartford, CT: Kumarian

Press: 220-236.

Pinchot, G. 1910. The fight for conservation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

152 p.

Pipkin, J. 1998. The Northwest Forest Plan revisited. Washington, DC: United States

Department of the Interior. 117 p.

Poffenberger, M., ed. 1996. Communities and forest management: report of the IUCN

working group on community involvement in forest management. Washington, DC:

The World Conservation Union. 44 p.

Poffenberger, M.; McGean, B., eds. 1996. Village voices, forest choices: joint forest

management in India. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. 356 p.

Preston, R.E. 1971. The structure of central place systems. Economic Geography.

47: 136-155.

Quigley, T.M.; Graham, R.T.; Haynes, R.H., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific

assessment for ecosystem management of the interior Columbia basin and portions

of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR:

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

303 p.

Raettig, T.L. 1999. Trends in key economic and social indicators for Pacific Northwest

states and counties. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-474. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p.

Raettig, T.L.; Christensen, H.H. 1999a. The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative: background and framework. In: Christensen, H.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Sommers, P.,

tech. eds. Northwest Forest Plan: outcomes and lessons learned from the Northwest

Economic Adjustment Initiative. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-484. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1-9.
20

Raettig, T.L.; Christensen, H.H. 1999b. Timber harvesting, processing, and employment in the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative region: changes and economic assistance. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-465. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p.

Rao, Y.S. 1985. Community forestry: building success through people’s participation.

Unasylva. 37(147): 29-35.

Richardson, C.W. 1993. An analysis of the socioeconomic effects of Bureau of Land

Management resource management plans in western Oregon. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office.

171 p.

Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a selected

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Robison, M.H.; Hamilton, J.R.; Connaughton, K.P. [and others]. 1993. Spatial

diffusion of economic impacts and development benefits in hierarchically structured

trade regions: an empirical application of central place-based input-output analysis.

Review of Regional Studies. 23: 307-326.

Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1992.

Persistent poverty in rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 379 p.

Salant, P.; Barkley, P.W. 1993. Cost and contract: social services in the rural Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Northwest Policy Center. 27 p.

Salazar, D.J.; Schallau, C.H.; Lee, R.G. 1986. The growing importance of retirement

income in timber-dependent areas. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-359. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 10 p.

Sargent, F.O.; Lusk, P.; Rivera, J.A.; Varela, M. 1991. Rural environmental planning

for sustainable communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. 254 p.

Seidel, Karen. 1993. Demographic and economic characteristics of Oregon’s timberdependent communities. Oregon Profiles, June 1993. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Extension Service. 7 p.

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada:

Volume 1. Assessments, summaries and management strategies. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 36. Davis, CA: University of California. 1527 p.

Smith, C.L.; Steel, B.S. 1995. Core-periphery relationships of resource-based communities. Journal of the Community Development Society. 26(1): 52.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern

Appalachian assessment summary report: report 1 of 5. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 118 p.

Steel, B.S.; List, P.; Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values about Federal forests:

a comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources.

7: 137-153.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. A strategic plan for the ’90s:

working together for rural America. Washington, DC.
21

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Enhancing rural America:

national research program. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Final environmental impact

statement on management for the northern spotted owl in the National Forests.

Portland, OR: National Forest System. 2 vols.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Research priorities for

entering the 21st century: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. USDA Forest Service

strategic plan (2000 revision). FS-682. Washington, DC. 73 p.

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

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact

statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. 2 vols.

Von Hagen, B.; Fight, R.D. 1999. Opportunities for conservation-based development

of nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR473. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 18 p.

Von Hagen, B.; Weigand, J.F.; McLain, R. [and others]. 1996. Conservation and

development of nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest: an annotated

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-375. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 246 p.

Warren, K.K. 1992. Role-making and coping strategies among women in timberdependent communities. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 45 p. M.S. thesis.

Weber, E.P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem

management as a new environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources.

13: 237-259.

Weeks, E.C. 1990. Mill closures in the Pacific Northwest: the consequences of economic decline in rural industrial communities. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R.,

Jr., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 125-140.

West, P.C. 1994. Natural resources and the persistence of rural poverty in America:

a Weberian perspective on the role of power, domination, and natural resource

bureaucracies. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 415-427.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future.

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

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

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and

National Grasslands, it strives?as directed by Congress?to provide increasingly greater

service to a growing Nation.

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

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

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

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

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

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

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail desmith@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300