DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Note

PNW-RN-566

May 2012

What Is Urban Environmental 

Stewardship? Constructing a 

Practitioner-Derived Framework

Michele Romolini, Weston Brinkley, and Kathleen L. Wolf1

Abstract

Agencies and organizations deploy various strategies in response to environmental challenges, including the formulation of policy, programs, and regulations. 

Citizen-based environmental stewardship is increasingly seen as an innovative 

and important approach to improving and conserving landscape health. A new 

research focus on the stewardship of urban natural resources is being launched 

by the U.S. Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest region.2 Early scoping efforts 

are addressing various scales of human systems ranging from individuals to 

organizations to the entire positive “footprint” of stewardship on the land. This 

report addresses a fundamental need—to understand and describe civic environmental stewardship in urban settings. Stewardship has been described and 

defined in diverse ways within a variety of contexts, including the philosophical 

literature of environmentalism, agency program descriptions, and outreach 

by sponsoring organizations. Constructing a framework to convey the layered 

meanings of stewardship will help to focus and guide future research. A cognitive mapping technique was used to elicit responses to the question “What is 

environmental stewardship?” Semistructured interviews were conducted with 

representatives of nine Seattle environmental organizations, a group of practitioners who collectively represent over 100 years of experience in the field. Program planners and managers have particularly direct experiences of stewardship. 

1 Michele Romolini is a doctoral candidate, Rubenstein School of Environment and 

Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 105 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT 05405; 

Weston Brinkley is the stewardship engagement coordinator, Forterra, 615 2nd Ave., 

Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104; Kathleen L. Wolf is a research social scientist, joint 

appointments at the College of the Environment, University of Washington, Box 352100,

Seattle, WA 98195 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103.

2 This publication is one of a series of scientific and technical reports produced by the 

Green Cities Research Alliance, a research program based in the Puget Sound region, 

where more than 80 percent of the population lives in urbanized areas. The collaborative 

partnership includes the U.S. Forest Service, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and local government agencies. Research efforts focus on the social environmental situations of urbanized areas, and products will help promote more sustainable urban 

landscapes and more livable cities. More information is available at http://www.fs.fed.

us/pnw/research/gcra/.
2

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Cognitive mapping enables participants to explore, then display, their particular

knowledge and perceptions about an idea or activity. Analysis generated thematic, 

structural representations of shared concepts. Results show that the practitioners 

have multilayered perceptions of stewardship, from environmental improvement 

to community building, and from actions to outcomes. The resulting conceptual 

framework demonstrates the full extent of stewardship activity and meaning, 

which can aid stewardship sponsors to improve stewardship programs, leading to 

better experiences for participants and higher quality outcomes for projects and 

environments.

Keywords: Stewardship, urban environments, community-based organizations, 

natural resources management, civic ecology, social ecology.

Rationale for Studies of Civic Environmental 

Stewardship in Cities

Scientific and popular publications highlight many landscape-scale environmental 

concerns and challenges, particularly in urban areas. The human impacts in such 

situations are often assumed to be negative. Many ecologists describe human populations as somehow separate from ecosystems, and identify them as the source of 

negative anthropogenic effects. Yet solutions and remedies for declining ecological 

systems, particularly in cities, must involve and be integrated with human systems.

Government agencies identify and formulate policy to address environmental 

issues and concerns, but lack adequate resources (particularly in current economic 

conditions) to comprehensively restore or mitigate environmental systems. Citizenbased stewardship activity is increasingly acknowledged by scientists and policymakers as a viable strategy to address ecological concerns (Brinkley et al. 2010, 

Wolf and Kruger 2010). Agencies often endorse stewardship (such as the Puget 

Sound Partnership and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Everyday Choices) 

as a means to promote and conserve ecosystem health. 

There are extensive anecdotal reports of grassroots environmental stewardship 

(Hawken 2007), yet there have been few systematic evaluations of participation or 

outcomes within the urban context. Across cities, thousands of citizens commit to 

working in association with organizations and agencies on behalf of environmental 

recovery and health. However, little is known about the consequences of this ecologically based civic-engagement activity, including the scope, spatial distribution, 

and characterization of such activity.

In recent years, environmental stewardship has become a substantial public 

response at the grassroots level. Within the Puget Sound basin and Seattle metropolitan region, this phenomenon is the basis of a multiphase scientific program to 

There have been 

few evaluations 

of stewardship 

participation or 

outcomes in the

urban context.
3

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

determine the stewardship “footprint” and assess the level to which citizen-based 

stewardship provides an effective response to ecological concerns (GCRA 2010, 

Wolf et al. 2011).

This report describes an early effort in that scientific program. Its purpose

is to generate a working framework of civic stewardship concepts and outcomes 

that can serve as the basis for research questions and hypotheses. The term 

“stewardship” is currently applied to a variety of intentions and practical settings, 

which can confound potential research questions, analyses, and results. Imbedded 

within any conceptual model should be an understanding of geographic and social 

scales, participant variability, and expected land or resource outcomes. Refinement of the meaning of stewardship will be beneficial not only to future research 

within the Seattle area, but also to other researchers and practitioners working with 

and studying these themes. Shared definitions will also facilitate comparisons of 

stewardship across scales, cities, and time. 

Stewardship occurs across the entire landscape gradient, from wildlands to 

urban areas, and is conducted on both public and private lands. The scope of this 

report is civic urban stewardship, that is, volunteer efforts by citizens on public or 

quasi-public lands within higher density urban areas. Citizens of all ages volunteer 

for projects and work on lands they do not personally own. Such projects include 

park management, open space restoration, street tree planting, and development of 

community gardens.

This civic activity is managed by key individuals who work within formal and 

informal organizations. Drawing on their professional experience and volunteer 

interactions, these committed practitioners can offer important insights. Their 

perceptions, obtained in a structured interview process, were used to derive a 

preliminary framework of stewardship definitions and research questions. This 

report is organized as follows. First, the emergence of urban-based research is 

described, including the value of constructing frameworks to explore new scientific 

realms. Informal stewardship definitions are presented as one inductive framework, 

followed by additional evidence that supports a multidimensional stewardship 

framework. Cognitive mapping theory and method were used in a preliminary data 

collection approach. The responses of expert informants are characterized. Finally, 

analysis across cognitive maps supports a civic stewardship framework, followed 

by a presentation of conclusions and implications.
4

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Background

The U.S. Forest Service’s Role in Urban Forestry Research

For more than a century, the U.S. Forest Service has been a recognized leader, 

domestically and internationally, in the science and management of natural 

resources, particularly forests. Within a general conservation ethic, the agency 

develops, implements, and adapts resource planning and best management practices. Although the agency’s historic focus has been primarily wildland and rural 

landscapes, U.S. demographic conditions have changed markedly during its tenure. 

The growth of urban areas in the United States has been dramatic. Today,

80 percent of the Nation’s population lives in metropolitan areas that occupy less 

than 20 percent of the land area (Auch et al. 2004). 

In recent decades, the agency has responded to population and land use trends, 

generally on a region-by-region basis. Several Forest Service research stations, 

reflecting regional urban growth trends, now include urban forestry and urban 

natural resources stewardship in their research and management mission. Some 

national forests now interact with and attract urban-based constituents. Since the 

early 1990s, the Forest Service State and Private Forestry branch has supported 

urban programs within its Urban and Community Forestry program. Additionally, 

urban conditions have appeared in U.S. Forest Service strategic plans (USDA FS 

2007), articulating the need for urban research and explicitly delineating the goal of 

engaging urban America with Forest Service programs.

Urban-based research is now just emerging in work by the Pacific Northwest 

(PNW) Research Station, and such efforts are timely. The Seattle/King County 

metropolitan region is a startup center for this research, and serves as the focal 

area for a program that may address the entire Puget Sound watershed. The Puget 

Sound estuary and surrounding urbanized watersheds now support a population of 

4.1 million, and are expected to attract an additional 3 million residents in the next 

20 years. Seattle grew at least 30 percent per decade between 1940 and 1970. King 

County ranked 18th among all U.S. counties in absolute population gain between 

1970 and 1990, and Pierce County (containing Tacoma) ranked 54th. New settlements included more inland suburbs and exurbanization on the islands of Puget 

Sound. As the cities continued to expand, a low-density “urbanscape” has formed, 

extending from Olympia, Washington, in the south to Vancouver, British Columbia, 

in the north (Auch et al. 2004).

Urban natural resources research needs were recently compiled and assessed 

based on input from stakeholders and professionals across the U.S. Pacific Northwest region (Wolf and Kruger 2010), and results serve to inform a regional 

approach to urban natural resource science. Stewardship is one element. The 

The Puget Sound 

watershed is the 

initial focus area for 

the Pacific Northwest 

urban research.
5

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

U.S. Forest Service has long supported stewardship research and programs, yet a 

review of agency publications3 displays a historical emphasis on wildland and rural 

landscapes, as well as on private landowners within such areas as watershed and 

riparian management, forest management by family forest and nontimber landowners, habitat conservation, rangeland management, fire hazard reduction, wilderness 

values, naturalness in protected areas, and recreation on public lands. Because both 

the landscape and social conditions of civic stewardship in cities differs from other 

settings along the urban to wildland gradient, a conceptual framework can be a 

valuable tool to organize ideas and research questions, and to recruit nontraditional 

partners needed for successful research in cities (Brinkley et al. 2010, Svendsen and 

Campbell 2008, Westphal 2003).

Conceptual Framework

Within the sciences, the conceptual framework has become a ubiquitous approach 

to organize the theoretical basis of a study or research program. Yet the fundamentals of how a framework is devised and used are rarely articulated. As we embark 

on a new research program, expansive in knowledge-building scope and landscape 

geography, we are faced with choices about the sources and constructs that may 

inform research efforts. A multiphase, formative approach based on inductive 

inputs is our preliminary (and a common) means of framework construction. 

What are the characteristics of frameworks, and what purposes do they serve? 

Considering the increasing complexity of information and experience surrounding 

any human endeavor, conceptual frameworks are useful in professional realms. 

Within a Web search that focused on professional practice, we found that frameworks serve multiple and diverse functions for any group of people who need a 

shared basis for decisionmaking and action, such as a partner-shared project or a 

workplace. Within the professional and management context, a conceptual framework can serve as:

•	 A shared and clearly articulated set of assumptions, values, and definitions

to guide work and activity.

•	 A condensed outline of key learnings gained from past experience and

practice.

•	 A set of coherent ideas or concepts organized in a manner that provides a

common vocabulary and is easy to communicate to others.

•	 An overview of ideas and practices that guide how work is planned.

3

 A review was conducted using TreeSearch in October 2010:

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/.
6

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

•	 An organized way of thinking about project practices, including component

activities. 

•	 A basis for thinking about what is being done, its meaning, and comparison

to the ideas and practices of other disciplines.

The use of frameworks in science differs somewhat, being less normative, 

and more often used for theory support or development by way of guided empirical exploration. Research is, in part, a process of directed attention with a focus 

on defining and responding to key questions that draw on appropriate concepts 

(Bouma 1993). Professional frameworks are often used to communicate accepted 

procedures and expectations within organizations. Research is an open-ended 

pursuit, and frameworks help to bound the focal points of any research study, 

ultimately serving to guide choices of methods. Thus conceptual frameworks

serve two major purposes in the research process—communication of theory and 

method development (Leshem and Trafford 2007). 

Frameworks often support theoretical clarification of what researchers intend 

to investigate. A framework is “a structure for organizing and supporting ideas; a 

mechanism for systematically arranging abstractions; sometimes revolutionary or 

original” (Weaver-Hart 1988, p. 11). Framework development (or adoption) encourages the investigator to be explicit about fundamental principles and their relationships (Robson 1993). May (1993, p. 20) noted that “theory, or the ability to interpret 

and understand the findings of research within a conceptual framework which 

makes ‘sense’ of the data, is the mark of a discipline whose aim is the systematic 

study of particular phenomena.”

The second purpose of a framework is more practical and immediate; it guides 

choices of specific research questions and methods. Research work is more focused 

when key concepts and contexts are defined; they define the territory of the 

research, indicate the literature that needs to be consulted, and suggest the methods 

and theories to be applied (Blaxter et al. 1996). Robson (1993, p. 150) observed that 

“developing a conceptual framework forces you to be explicit about what you think 

you are doing. It also helps you to be selective; to decide which are the important 

features; which relationships are likely to be of importance or meaning; and hence, 

what data you are going to collect and analyze.” This iterative dynamic implies 

that frameworks evolve as research evolves, elucidating purpose (boundaries) with 

flexibility (evolution) to maintain coherence across the research activity (Leshem 

and Trafford 2007). 

Considering all the potential purposes and functions of a framework, the 

preliminary framework reported here will initiate the conceptualization of a suite

A conceptual 

framework supports 

systematic study of 

phenomena and guides 

the choice of research 

methods.
7

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

of studies that seek to understand civic environmental stewardship at different 

human and ecological scales. Owing to the limited literature on urban natural 

resources stewardship, theory development is another important outcome to be 

initiated with this work. From research startup to theory support, the framework 

will stand in as a working hypothesis to aid in structuring initial assumptions, 

constructing a set of descriptive and interrelated principles and categories, and

suggesting measures and methods to both confirm and expand explanations

(Botha 1989).

Stewardship Descriptions and Definitions

Though environmental stewardship may be a vital aspect of a wide variety of 

activities such as volunteerism, civics, environmentalism through collaboration and 

partnership, and community-based activity, there is no widely shared definition of 

the term. In the 1940s, Aldo Leopold interpreted environmental stewardship as the 

commitment of a person to the land, where land has broad, natural, place-based 

connotations. His definition of a “land ethic” and its manifestation through stewardship was one of the early and foundational discussions on the meaning of environmental stewardship (Leopold 1949). 

Since then, the concept of stewardship has become a wide-ranging notion 

applied to many contexts and activities. In contemporary writing, stewardship is 

variably defined or described as an ethic, a tool, a result, or a goal. Little has been 

done to synthesize or categorize environmental stewardship types or components. 

After collecting descriptions from both practical and theoretical sources, we interpreted several themes (table 1). (1) First, the early assertion of an ethic or responsibility at a societal scale by Leopold continues within the discourse. The ethical 

stance includes respect and humility, implying that people have responsibilities 

associated with their existence in the natural world. (2) There is also recognition 

that motivation for stewardship can be more personal as individuals are compelled 

by more direct expectations and realizations. (3) Action on the land also entails 

process, and includes the contributions of knowledge and tasks by entities across 

social scales, from individuals to institutions. (4) The fourth theme that emerged in 

our cursory review was outcomes, which might include both social dynamics and 

place or nature changes.

One difficulty in defining the term is that practical aspects of environmental 

stewardship can be contradictory. For example, stewardship is often perceived as 

ownership of place (Kaplan et al. 1998, Svendsen 2009); however, the term is also 

used to refer to something that cannot be owned or is strictly communal (Hester 

2006, Svendsen and Campbell 2008). Another contradictory set of assumptions 

The concept of 

stewardship is wideranging and is applied 

to many settings and 

activities.
8

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566 Table 1—Descriptions of stewardship Description Source(s) Ethic or Responsibility Something that is a responsibility. Hester 2006 Recogni[zing] that humanity is but one element of a complex web in ecology. Carr 2002 Something that is voluntary use of discretionary time. Grese et al. 2000, Svendsen and Campbell 2008 A relationship with the Earth that is based on respect for nature, and a current and Carr 2002, p. 15 ongoing commitment to “active earthkeeping” akin to a custodial or guardianship role.

A moral or religious responsibility to life on Earth, as part of nature, not having Carr 2002, p. 15

dominion over nature.

Motivations

Actions based on different extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. McPherson 1993, Ryan 2006 Often compelled by personal connections to a natural resource or system that is in Carr 2002

decline, neglect, or is threatened. 

An expression of human creativity driven by perceptions of need, premised on the de Tocqueville 1835

deep-seated traditions of volunteerism in America. 

Environmental work for personal benefit. Grese et al. 2000, Svendsen 2009,

Ulrich 1984

Shared lifestyle preferences and beliefs about the way in which common property Carr 2002, p. 15

resources contribute to a unique quality of life.

Beyond an individual connection (with our planet) to encompass collective responsibility. Carr 2002, p. 15

Process

Land stewardship as numerous volunteers help with monitoring, clearing invasive plants, Grese et al. 2000, p. 265

collecting seeds, and planting. Volunteers also perform services that are less directly tiedto the land, including disseminating information (via newsletters for example) andmaintaining databases.

Guided by peer leadership or on recommendations of ecologists and urban planners. Carr 2002To protect, nurture, and advocate. Grese et al. 2000, p. 62Combines land management with the desires of civil society, the private sector, Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p. 1

and government agencies.

Something that cannot be owned nor is strictly communal. Hester 2006, Svendsen and Campbell 2008Strategy that includes elements of direct action, self-help, and often education and Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p. 1

community capacity building.

Less rooted in oppositional social movements and more in accessing the rights to Svendsen and Campbell 2008, p. 1

space through collaborative, community-based resource management.
9

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Table 1—Descriptions of stewardship (continued)Description Source(s)Outcomes

Flower plantings and urban gardening. Grese et al. 2000, p. 70Tree-planting projects and other horticultural activities... ongoing commitment by local Ryan 2006, p. 70

volunteers to maintain and nurture... Watering, pruning, and weeding.

Work strictly for the environment. Tedesco et al. 2006Taking positive action to repair and heal past ecological damages while building a Grese et al. 2000, p. 275

positive relationship with a place.

Place-based over issue-based. Barlett 2005, Francis and Hester 1990 About the cause rather than the place. Barlett 2005For the community. Svendsen 2009, Westphal 2003 Ownership of place. Kaplan et al. 1998, Svendsen 2009 Work meant for others. Svendsen and Campbell 2008
10

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

is that stewardship work is meant for the benefit of others or the community as a 

whole (Svendsen and Campbell 2008), as opposed to personal benefit (Grese et al. 

2000, Svendsen 2009, Ulrich 1984). Each of these insights is indicative of a spectrum of attitudes or assumptions about environmental stewardship and although 

each of the components of environmental stewardship is significant, there is no 

generally agreed-upon definition of the term. To outline a research program, a 

more coherent and accessible understanding of civic environmental stewardship 

is needed. We seek to define stewardship in ways that practitioners, as well as 

researchers, can understand. This will allow for a shared functional and practical 

understanding of the spectrum of variations, which can lead to improved implementation of stewardship research and programs.

The term “stewardship” is currently applied to a variety of meanings and 

practical settings, which can confound potential research questions, analyses, and 

results. Imbedded within the concept are considerations of geographic and social 

scale, range of participants, expected land or resource outcomes, and research 

methods and analyses. Less ambiguous framing of the concept will serve as a guide 

for research in the urbanizing Pacific Northwest, and will facilitate long-term and 

cross-site comparisons of stewardship outcomes.

Cognitive Structures and Mapping

Citations from books and articles provide one set of representations for the concept 

of stewardship. Expert cognitions comprise another. Intentional understanding of 

cognitive representations held by those who are actively engaged as professionals 

within a domain can be a valuable input. Except for the most direct descriptions 

of the physical world, a framework represents a collectively constructed social 

structure of an idea or domain. Conceptual frameworks can be the products of both 

individual contemplation and social discourse within a community of practice such 

as stewardship. 

Cognition is a complex and multidimensional field of study, encompassing 

everything that involves thinking or learning, and which may be simplistically 

defined as “knowing about something... [and]... the act of knowing” (Styles 2005, 

p. 14). Researchers examine human cognitive processes through mental representations, without reducing them to a biological or neurological level (Matlin 2005). 

Mental models guide people’s perceptions, decisions, and behavior regarding 

environmental problems and other issues. Hence, understanding these models may 

aid in understanding how people perceive problems, in determining how information may be most effectively shared, and in designing strategies for behavior change 

(Kearney and Kaplan 1997). 
11

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Cognitive maps are tangible expressions of implicit representations. The term 

is variously defined in the literature, perhaps because “the cognitive map idea is 

often employed more as a metaphor than a theory” (Kaplan and Kearney 1997, p. 

584). Cognitive mapping has been widely used across many disciplines in connection with spatial cognition (Csanyi 1993), such as wayfinding in hospitals, and 

more recently extended to conceptual themes. Accordingly, descriptions of cognitive mapping techniques include both spatial connotations, such as those used by 

geographers (e.g., Downs and Stea 1973), and conceptual connotations, largely used 

in the social sciences to understand organizations (Tegarden and Sheetz 2003), to 

examine decisionmaking (Axelrod 1976), to explore meaning (Jacob and Luloff 

1995), and as a tool in education (Bennett and Lehman 2002).

Schema is a term that can be applied to the structural elements of a cognitive 

representation. Conceptual schemas capture relations, which hold between concepts 

or arguments that are not interchangeable (Coronges et al. 2007, Posner 1989). 

Therefore, two main elements are central to any cognitive map: concepts and relations. Concepts are used to represent tangible (i.e., objects, events, and facts) and 

intangible (i.e., emotions, sensations, and meanings) aspects of social reality. The 

number of concepts used in a cognitive map varies, and there is no agreement on 

the optimal number of concepts to be used in a map.

Several types of relations can link concepts, including causal, association, 

equivalence, topological, structural, and chronological (Gómez et al. 2000). Graphical representations of concepts and of the relations between them result in different 

expressions of cognitive maps or conceptual networks for a single idea or phenomenon (Bitonti 1993, Mohammed et al. 2000). In summary, a cognitive map is the 

spatial location of elements (i.e., concepts) within a network that indicates interpretation of relationships between concepts (Coronges et al. 2007, Huff 1990).

The objective of conceptual cognitive mapping is usually to assess the structure and content of an individual’s knowledge structure, but there are a variety 

of techniques for deriving and analyzing the maps. Generally speaking, most 

techniques comprise four processes: knowledge elicitation, constructing and 

refining concepts and their relations, analysis, and aggregating cognitive maps for 

comparison (Hodgkinson and Clarkson 2005, Tegarden and Sheetz 2003). Concepts 

can be elicited from existing documents (Axelrod 1976), open-ended interviews 

of research subjects (Bennett and Lehman 2002), questionnaire responses from 

research subjects (Robert 1976), or from the research participants directly (Kaplan 

and Kearney 1997). Relationships are identified using qualitative analysis with 

scope for rich description, and may involve some type of quantitative analysis, 

including multivariate techniques (Kaplan and Kearney 1997).

Cognitive maps may 

represent physical 

space or may reveal

the structure of ideas.
12

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

The operational definition used in this study is that “Cognitive mapping is a 

technique that captures an individual’s view of a particular issue in a graphical 

representation” (Tegarden and Sheetz 2003, p. 114). Two general approaches are 

possible when collecting data directly from research participants (Curseu et al. 

2010). In the ideographic approach, the researcher collects the concepts that are 

used by an individual or group to describe a particular task or situation. In nomothetic elicitation, the researcher provides predefined concepts based on theoretical 

models or hypotheses, and seeks structural interpretations from respondents. 

Nomothetic methods are often criticized because the set of concepts used by the 

researcher might prove meaningless for participants, thus the emerging conceptual 

structure may actually be an artifact of the research method. 

In this study, we used an ideographic elicitation method, specifically Conceptual Cognitive Content Mapping (3CM), a technique developed by Kearney and 

Kaplan (1997) to collect information that fully reflects respondents’ conception of 

a topic and encourages them to display their thoughts in a graphical representation. 

As opposed to nomothetic methods that limit respondents to a finite list of choices, 

the 3CM process elicits an individualized and rich perceptual response that may 

include hierarchies, systems, relationships, and groups within a selected theme, 

which in this case was civic environmental stewardship. The approach draws 

out a person’s most salient understandings, allowing a respondent to externalize 

potentially inaccessible notions. Within a 3CM interview, the responder is the only 

one providing information, taking direct ownership of her cognitive map about 

a phenomenon, and is not biased or prompted by any other ideas or perceptions 

beyond the initial question (Kearney and Kaplan 1997). 

The notion of “ownership” is important, as participants can highlight the 

particular concepts or factors that are relevant to an issue of interest and provide a 

graphical indication of their perceived relationships among these factors (Kearney 

and Bradley 1998). Implementations of 3CM have been tailored to different contexts 

and purposes, and results indicate that the approach meets the criteria of construct 

validity, of being user-friendly, and of providing information complementary to that 

obtained using more traditional social measures (such as surveys).

Methods

A variety of disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, organization studies, and education) use cognitive mapping as an elicitation and evaluation technique. To identify 

a practitioner-derived definition of stewardship, we conducted 3CM interviews with 

individuals of nine not-for-profit environmental groups in Seattle, representing a 

cross section of organizational size and mission focus. This participatory approach 
13

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

to concept building acknowledged the particularly relevant and complex perceptions and knowledge of practitioners who are working in environmental stewardship. Actively engaging thought and program leaders can provide understandings 

about a significant, but likely underestimated, environmental action community 

across urban landscapes. This paper focuses on the resultant cognitive maps and 

participants’ descriptions of them, as they provided a rich, dimensional data set of

a type hitherto largely unexplored in the literature on environmental stewardship.

Selection of Organizations and Participants

Nine organizations were drawn from among many that are recognized for their 

leadership in metropolitan Seattle stewardship efforts. The initial assessment 

criteria for selection was that the organizations had a long-term presence (at least 

a decade) in stewardship efforts, had conducted on-the-ground field programs on 

public properties, and had organized nonexpert volunteers to conduct field work. 

Some organizations may also conduct programs that are less grassroots-based, such 

as political advocacy or scientific monitoring. Nonetheless, both organization and 

participant selection was done to represent entities that are recognized as principal 

influences on the development and management of civic stewardship programs in 

Seattle, Washington.

Careful selection of participants was important in this study, as in any qualitative research approach. After assembling a candidate pool using Web-based information, the second-tier selection criteria for participant organizations were that

they had:

•	 Worked in the Seattle area for at least 15 years (to tap perceptions based on

rich historical context).

•	 Cooperated with communities (to provide extensive place-based

experiences).

•	 Collaborated extensively with other organizations (to allow for construction

of shared concepts).

Organizations were additionally screened based on organizational size (from 

one volunteer to a staff of more than 50), geographic scope of programs (from a 

60-acre [24.3 ha] park to the entire Puget Sound watershed), and stewardship goals 

(from watershed restoration to youth engagement). Recommendations were solicited 

from staff of one particularly well-established and connected organization (Cascade 

Land Conservancy [now known as Forterra]) as well as the extensive knowledge of 

the senior researcher on our team, who has worked with community-based organizations in Seattle for more than a decade.
14

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

A list of 15 organizations was constructed; all were contacted, with 12 responding. Interviews were conducted with 9 organizations representing 3 size categories 

(table 2). Three organizations (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, and P-Patch 

Trust) were completely volunteer-based, with no paid staff members. These three 

were designated as “small” organizations. Three organizations were considered to 

be “mid-sized” (EarthCorps, Seattle Tilth, and the local office of the Student Conservation Association) and three were designated “large” (Cascade Land Conservancy/Forterra, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, and People For Puget Sound). 

These categories were based on the organizations’ scope of activities, funding, 

and partnerships. The range of sizes and missions was purposefully constructed to 

avoid overrepresentation of one scale of organization.

We were equally particular in our choice of which organizational representative to interview. Tenure was the main criterion in selecting participants; each 

interviewee had extensive experience and historical context from which to recount 

a representation of stewardship. All participants were in high-level leadership positions within their organizations, yet they also worked directly in field programs in 

various communities. Several of the participants had been with their respective

organization since its founding, and all organizations were represented by participants who were among the longest-tenured staff members. Because three 

organizations elected to have more than one interviewee, the number of people who 

participated differed for each organization. Six groups were represented by a single 

person, two by two people, and one by three people. There were 13 participants in 

total.

Although both organizational and participant selections were deliberate, any 

individual’s responses did not necessarily represent the organization as a whole. 

Interviewees were asked questions about their organizations but were also asked to 

describe their own thoughts and perceptions. It is expected that participant experiences are shaped by their affiliations, although we recognize that personal cognitions can differ greatly from official organizational statements.

Interview Process

Interviews with the nine organizations were conducted during late summer 2009. 

Two-hour semi-structured interviews included approximately one hour of open 

response questions, followed by 30 minutes dedicated to the 3CM exercise, and the 

final 30 minutes given to discussion of broader issues of stewardship and future 

research. Three groups (Friends of Leschi, Friends of Interlaken, and P-Patch Trust) 

offered tours of their sites so that participants could better illustrate their stewardship efforts. All participants displayed an infectious passion for their work. Four 
15

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Table 2—Seattle organizations participating in the study of urban environmental stewardship

Organization Year Age Number of Stewardship goals 

foundeda (years)b paid staff b Geographic scope (from mission statement)

Cascade Land 1989 20 47 Washington state Conserving great lands, creating

Conservancy (approx.) great communities.(Forterra)

EarthCorps 1993 16 22 Western Washington Building global community through

local environmental restoration service.

Friends of 1984 25 0 Interlaken Park (Seattle) Restore the parks’ natural urban forest

Interlaken as a vibrant and healthy environment

by 2025.

Friends of Leschi 1985 24 0 Leschi neighborhood None available.

(approx.) (Seattle)

Mountains to 1990 19 17 King and Kittitas Counties Leads and inspires action to conSound Greenway serve and enhance the landscape 

Trust from Seattle across the Cascade

Mountains to Central Washington,ensuring a longterm balance betweenpeople and nature.

P-Patch Trust 1979 30 0 Seattle To acquire, build, preserve and

(14 member protect community gardens... Through,

board) advocacy, leadership and partner

ships...expands access to communitygardening across economic, racial,ethnic, ability and gender lines; promotes organic gardening and buildscommunity through gardening...seeksto break urban isolation by providingopportunities for people to gardentogether, learn from each other, developa sense of neighborhood, and create amore livable urban environment.
16

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Table 2—Seattle organizations participating in the study of urban environmental stewardship (continued)Organization Year Age Number of Stewardship goals 

foundeda (years)b paid staff b Geographic scope (from mission statement)

People for 1991 18 24 Puget Sound To protect and restore the health of our

Puget Sound land and waters through education and

action.

Seattle Tilth 1978 31 20 Seattle Inspire and educate people to garden

organically, conserve natural resourcesand support local food systems in orderto cultivate a healthy urban environment and community.

Student 1957 52 9 National To build the next generation of

Conservation	 (in Seattle office;	 	 conservation leaders and inspire

Association 1,000+ nationally) lifelong stewardship of our environment and communities by engaging

young people in hands-on service tothe land.

a Used date published on organization Web site. If not available on Web site, used date provided in interview.b As of interview year, 2010.
17

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

of the nine interviews took place outdoors, providing an informal meeting location 

and the opportunity to use place cues to enrich the interviews.

The participants were first prompted to provide open responses to three 

questions:

•	 What is the history of your organization?

•	 Can you describe your organization’s main activities?

•	 Which groups do you collaborate with?

Cognitive Mapping 

The work of Kearney and Bradley (1998) served as a template for the 3CM exercise. 

Using a written instruction for consistency, the organization representative(s) were 

first asked to consider the question “What is environmental stewardship?” They 

were encouraged to brainstorm ideas, phrases, or terms. Each short response item 

was written on a note card and placed in front of the participant(s). This process 

continued until the interviewee(s) generated a collection of note cards. Once the 

respondents had finished providing new items, they were asked to review their 

representation of “environmental stewardship” and told that they were permitted to 

add more note cards at any time.

Respondents were then asked to arrange or group the cards in clusters that 

would best represent how they perceived the definition(s) of environmental stewardship. Despite some initial hesitancy, all participants completed this task, and a 

number later expressed satisfaction with the cognitive maps they had produced. 

Each arranged the cards into groups or systems that provided added meaning and 

displayed relationships (figure 1). Such perceived relationships were expressed as 

commonalities in groupings, hierarchies in relationships, or processes in systems. 

We then asked clarification questions about the arrangement or groups of cards 

(e.g., Why this grouping? How are these related?). The discussions were recorded, 

the final arrangements were photo-documented, and the cards were collected and 

retained.

Analysis and Results

Content analysis has been used since at least the 1950s as a way of analyzing 

text (Berelson 1952). Content analysis is a systematic, replicable technique for 

compressing many words of text into fewer content themes based on explicit rules 

of coding (Krippendorff 2004). The procedure is usually applied to texts, such as 

interview transcripts. In this effort, content analysis was applied to both interview 

transcripts and the participants’ maps.
18

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Figure 1—Interview participants organize their response items to the question “What is 

environmental stewardship?” 

Weston Brinkley Weston Brinkley
19

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Exploratory Questions

In the first part of the interviews, participants were asked exploratory questions 

about their organization’s history, activities, and collaboration. This part of the 

interview yielded insight into the remarkable depth of both the respondents’ experiences and their organizations’ contributions to stewardship. 

Organization background and history—

At the start of each interview, participants were asked to provide a narrative history of their organization. Responses generally included an overview of when and 

why the organization was formed. With the exception of the Student Conservation 

Association (founded in 1957), the remaining eight groups were founded within a 

15-year period, from 1978 to 1993 (table 2). Most participants reported that their 

organization was founded in response to an environmental concern. Among these 

concerns were the declining health of Puget Sound, overuse of national parks, rapid 

development and disappearance of wilderness areas, spread of invasive species, and 

the industrialization of agriculture. Some groups described an original mission motivated by more social concerns such as the lack of fresh produce at food banks, the 

goal of uniting U.S. and international youth in environmental service, and improving recreation areas in urban communities. Responses showed that nearly all groups 

started as citizen-based, grassroots efforts. While a few organizations now rely 

more heavily on institutional partnerships and support, all nine organizations still 

work to cultivate and maintain a strong volunteer base. 

Participant background—

Three organizations were represented by individuals who had helped start their 

organization, each having 25 or more years of experience. These interviewees 

were able to provide a rich description of how their organization began and how it 

changed through time. The remaining organizations were represented by individuals who had from 6 to 16 years of experience with their respective group. These 

participants also had an extensive and personal knowledge about their organizations’ founding and history. Content analysis of the transcripts illustrated that each 

respondent has an array of responsibilities, including managing a large staff or large 

groups of volunteers, building partnerships, overseeing programs, and fundraising. 

Main activities—

The nine participating organizations sponsor a variety of activities that contribute 

to environmental stewardship in Seattle and the surrounding region. Some form 

of youth engagement was mentioned as a main activity by all nine organizations. 

Groups involve youth through internships, partnerships with Seattle schools, service learning programs, camps, and schoolyard gardens. All participants conduct 

The practitioners 

collectively reported 

more that 100 years of 

field experience.
20

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

education and outreach activities, ranging from formal classes to volunteer outreach 

events to running a community gardening hotline. Six of the nine groups identified

environmental restoration or maintenance as primary activities, including invasive 

species removal, planting trees and other native species, restoring streambanks, 

and rebuilding and stabilizing eroded land. Land acquisition/conservation was 

described as a main activity by three of the nine groups, through land trusts and 

conservation easements. Two groups reported developing or brokering relationships 

as an organizational focus, while two others mentioned advocacy as a main activity. 

Examples of other activities include building community, influencing future leaders, developing nutrition initiatives, and evaluating program outcomes. 

Collaboration and networks—

The interviews revealed that participants involve other stewardship organizations, 

government agencies, local schools and universities, and corporations as collaborators. The groups each reported working with from 6 to 22 organizations, with the 

average being 15, and all reported that their lists were not exhaustive. The groups 

are interconnected, with all having collaborated with at least 1 other interviewed 

group. One (Cascade Land Conservancy/Forterra) was listed as a collaborator by 

seven other organizations.

3CM Exercise

In a cognitive map, nodes represent the concepts in the knowledge domain, and 

strings represent the links between these concepts. Both concepts and links may 

be extracted from various sources, including interviews, as was done in this study 

(Carley 1993, Hodgkinson and Clarkson 2005, Mohammed et al. 2000). Several 

analytic approaches were used to derive the nodes and strings within and across all 

responses.

Rapid response items—

A frequency count found that, in total, the nine response sets provided 162 words or 

phrases. Appendix 1 provides a complete list of item responses by participant, and 

table 3 reports a word count analysis across all respondents for those words appearing more than three times. 

While environmental stewardship programs are explicitly dedicated to working 

on the land to protect or restore natural systems, the keyword frequencies indicated 

that the represented organizations emphasize human relationships and actions more 

than was expected, as compared to biophysical or ecological terms. Of the 17 most 

frequently reported items, “people” is the third most common, with words such as 

“volunteer(ism),” “relationships,” and “community” also ranking high on the list. 

Responses sorted into 

concepts of caring, 

action, and outcomes, 

all relating to environment and social 

community.
21

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Table 3—Frequencies of the most common interview rapid response items

Common Common Common

words Count words Count words Count

Taking/acting/doing 11 Impact(s) 4 Community 3

Care/caring 10 Volunteer(ism) 4 Service 3

People(s) 7 Place 3 Sustainable 3

Environment(s) 5 Relationships 3 Decisions 3

Space(s) 5 Back 3 Continuum/continue 3

Steward(ship) 5 Part 3

The word count analysis also shows that organizations place importance on how 

these people and communities act, with action words “taking/acting/doing,” “service,” and “decisions” among the items provided most often. Other items frequently 

mentioned such as “impact(s),” “sustainable,” and “continuum/continue” suggest 

that participants place importance on outcomes. Even the more biophysical ideas 

were stated in social language. Terms such as “environment(s),” “space(s),” and 

“place” are often associated with societal use or enjoyment of resources. 

Other overarching responses were noted. Overwhelmingly, the respondents 

spoke of environmental stewardship as a means to social ends, with words such 

as “people” and “community” among the most frequently used. It also became 

clear that volunteerism is an important component in environmental stewardship, 

illustrated by responses such as “voluntary commitment” and “service to the community.” While ecological or biophysical conditions are often the basis for initiating 

an environmental stewardship program, social and individual benefits and motivators were much more commonly mentioned. For example, respondents provided 10 

permutations of “care” or “caring” (e.g., “caring for place” and “taking action about 

the things you care about”). 

Clustering exercise—

Appendix 2 illustrates how the respondents organized their items, yielding nine 

cognitive maps displaying participants’ perceptions of environmental stewardship. 

The maps illustrated widely variable levels of detail and complexity, with up to 23 

concepts sorted into a variety of structures exhibiting nodes and strings, commonly 

hierarchical and some with a matrix or circular structure. Each individual or team 

of respondents articulated a distinctly different meaning of civic environmental 

stewardship. While participants constructed maps of diverse form and content, their 

responses generated similar themes; there was a sense of variety within unity.

Participants often struggled to sort their responses into clusters, yet the product 

was generally a model that was a whole greater than the sum of its parts. For example, the Student Conservation Association representative provided items ranging 
22

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

from “voluntary commitment” to “how we can collectively sustain ourselves.” As 

shown in appendix 2, when organizing the items, he offered a cohesive definition, 

describing environmental stewardship as beginning at the individual level, growing 

out into the community, and becoming a more communal construct. 

We note the effectiveness of the 3CM exercise in engaging participants, perhaps 

serving to elicit thoughtful responses that they may not have otherwise provided. 

After looking at the large collection of cards in front of him, one interviewee said in 

disbelief, “Wow. Did I say all of that?” Several groups asked us to share pictures or 

discussed using the activity within their organization. As we completed one interview, the participant, who had entered the meeting mentioning her overwhelming 

and frustrating schedule, left energized, stating “It makes me feel like when I go 

back to my job, I feel like, we’re doing this!” 

Content Analysis Across All Responses

Our final interpretive analysis of the practitioners’ cognitive perceptions culminated in a preliminary conceptual framework for civic environmental stewardship. 

This framework has implications for both research and program development.

Using respondents’ cognitive items and maps as input, we used content analysis 

to interpret and devise constructs that characterized the response item groupings. Each researcher combined the response cards from all of the interviews and 

attempted to organize or group them using a nomothetic approach. As a reliability 

test, we asked a third researcher outside of the project to categorize the same data. 

We then compared the meta-sort to the individual clusters to determine if the 

participants grouped items together in similar ways. 

The resulting constructs are meta-level interpretations, and directly incorporate the organizational and systemic structures assembled by the respondents in 

the 3CM mapping activity. Each construct is described below, along with a few 

examples of associated terms as provided in the interviews. A spatial characterization of the constructs suggests a conceptual framework for civic environmental 

stewardship in Seattle (fig. 2). The framework, derived from the collective thoughts 

and actions of long-term and committed practitioners, indicates perceived relationship connectors between the primary and secondary nodes of environmental 

stewardship.

•	 Values. Stewardship was defined as being motivated by sets of values, 

including: 

▪	 Environmental values: restoration, getting back to true nature, and 

reducing our impacts on the environment. 

▪ Personal ethics: moral obligation, spirituality, and taking action about 

things we care about. 
23

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

▪	 Concern for community: camaraderie, and taking back our neighborhoods (from crime).

•	 Behaviors and action. Tangible, observable behaviors to improve the local 

environment, including:

▪ Individual actions and decisions: planting, carrying a reusable mug, 

and picking up trash on the sidewalk. 

▪ Collective actions: noticing other people’s actions and recruiting

others to help. 

•	 Organizational tools. The participants described strategies that they currently employ within their organizations, plus others that should be implemented to achieve desired outcomes, including:

▪ Directed natural resources programs: ecologically focused activities, 

such as organizing tree plantings and invasive species removal. 

▪ Outreach, education, and citizen engagement: advocacy, educating 

for stewardship, and creating activities to engage everyone. 

▪ Collaboration with other organizations: center of a cooperative, 

government encouragement and facilitation, and groups considering the 

efforts of other organizations in addition to their own.

Figure 2—Framework for “environmental stewardship” based on Conceptual Cognitive Content 

Mapping results from Seattle environmental organizations.
24

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

•	 Desired and realized outcomes. Respondents indicated that stewardship 

activity generates personal benefits for participants and for the individuals 

within organizations who lead or manage projects. Many noted that activity should also produce outcomes that are greater in scope (in both time and 

area) than actual work sites and projects. 

▪ Environmental improvement: creating healthy green spaces, and promoting a sustainable balance between built and natural environments 

within an urban place.

▪ Community building: opening up to your neighbors, creating a continuum of stewardship behavior, being open to other’s ideas, and cultivating the health of relationships.

Respondents conceptualized stewardship at two social scales, the individual 

level and the organizational level. They generally described individual motivations for stewardship involvement as being more value-based. Specifically, values 

included environmental ethics, personal ethics, and concern for community. 

Individuals apply their stewardship values through direct behaviors, actions, and 

decisions, as well as through the involvement of others. When acting on values, 

outcomes such as environmental improvement and community building, in addition 

to personal benefits such as meaning or realization of passion, can be met. Positive 

outcomes can affirm, then strengthen initial motivations.

Organization-based stewardship was often represented as goal-based, separated 

into the broad categories of environmental improvement and community building. 

To reach desired outcomes, organizations use multiple strategies or tools. These 

include direct collective programs to improve and protect natural resources (such as 

outreach, education, and citizen engagement) and collaboration with other stewardship organizations, often through networks. There was little description of empirical assessment concerning outcomes. It seems that professional, ad hoc, heuristic 

assessments of success generate feedback, informing further goals, values, and thus 

actions.

Discussion

Development of a conceptual framework for civic environmental stewardship 

included two efforts. First, we screened both professional and empirical writings for 

definitions, and found extensive references to human dimensions. Interviews were 

then used in an inductive process to elicit concepts from people having long-term 

commitments and experience regarding environmental stewardship. The result is

an interpretive conceptual framework that begins to specify multidimensional 

Results suggest 

that individuals are 

motivated by values 

and that organizations 

pursue goals.
25

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

dynamics of environmental stewardship (fig. 2). It summarizes the collective cognitive structure of expert practitioners and is a valuable first step in assembling (and 

constructing) theory and questions for future study.

Social Dimensions

The primary intentions of environmental stewardship in urban landscapes are often 

described as ecosystems conservation or restoration. For instance, many agencies 

that sponsor stewardship programs do so to promote ecosystem recovery or restoration, suggesting that ecological theory should be primary in stewardship research. 

The key informants’ feedback addresses that assumption, indicating that future 

research should integrate biophysical and social sciences to optimize understanding 

of stewardship program implementation and outcomes. The maps and constructs 

rendered by 3CM are consistent with empirical literature. The use of environmental stewardship to achieve social goals as explored by Kramer (2007), Westphal 

(2003), and Svendsen (2009) was a prominent map element in nearly all the 3CM 

responses. 

This section further specifies prior literature that supports and supplements the 

participants’ socially oriented perceptions. We present a range of literature-based 

social dimensions that were either directly or indirectly invoked by the 3CM maps.

In recent decades, scholars have explored the meaning and functions of the 

person-nature relationship across many geographies and contexts, moving beyond 

an earlier focus on the direct utility value of nature. Working for the environment 

can enhance the livability of one’s community owing to improved environmental 

function, such as air and water quality improvements. There is also extensive evidence of psychosocial co-benefits that may be attained through passive experiences 

of nearby nature by individuals, including personal restoration and healing (Kaplan 

2001, Ulrich 1984), stress and anxiety reduction (Heerwagen 2009, van den Berg et 

al. 2007) and ecological literacy or a place-based knowledge (Orr 1992). 

Social and psychological benefits also extend to the community level as 

citizens interact within social groups for resource development and management. 

The relationships that evolve within informal groups can affect both social and 

environmental conditions. Observed outcomes include empowerment (Westphal 

2003), place attachment (Grese et al. 2000, Ryan 2006), social ecology (Grove et al. 

1999), community resilience (Svendsen 2009, Tidball and Krasny 2007), ecological 

democracy (Hester 2006), establishing and improving social ties (Kuo 2003), and 

developing social learning (Wals and van der Leij 2007). 

While regional or national policy may guide stewardship goals, effective management of local natural resources can be achieved through grassroots involvement 

Ecosystem recovery 

includes both human 

and ecological systems 

dynamics.

Citizen stewards 

benefit from nature 

experiences.
26

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

(Weber 2000). Research on collaborative natural resources management (Koontz 

et al. 2004, Ostrom 1990, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000) suggests that stewardship sometimes takes the form of polycentric governance systems (Andersson and 

Ostrom 2008, McGinnis 1999), that is, situations in which multiple, diverse institutions and organizations interact in the decision making process to achieve common 

goals. Community-to-resource interactions can be complex. Processes of collaborative resource management can increase social capital (Mandarano 2009, Schneider 

et al. 2003, Wagner and Fernandez-Giminez 2008). In turn, organizations can be 

used as a proxy to assess social capital in communities (Fukuyama 2000, Kramer 

2007). Whether source or consequence of organizational dynamics, greater social 

capital can lead to successful management and improvement of natural resources 

(Kramer 2007, Pretty and Ward 2001). 

If individual community-based organizations do act to manage natural 

resources, successful outcomes often depend on collaborations through organizational networks. Social network analysis (SNA) is a method used to understand 

the linkage networks within social systems that can be focused on different social 

units ranging from the individual to small groups to organizations. Examples of 

applications in natural resources include using SNA to categorize and understand 

stakeholder relationships in resource management (Prell et al. 2009) and evaluation of social capital linkages in collaborative planning efforts (Mandarano 2009). 

Different network structures (Baldassarri and Diani 2007) appear to influence 

organizational effectiveness (Provan and Milward 2001). 

Effects of stewardship have more often been measured in rural landscapes, 

where stewardship activity is dispersed on the landscape and cumulative effects 

of multiple organizations may be negligible (Hajkowicz and Collins 2009). The 

situation in cities may be quite different; there may be synergistic effects resulting 

from the polycentric initiatives associated with urban green space. Initial studies 

of stewardship within urban areas suggest that environmentally targeted activity is 

a stated purpose, but that social consequences are substantially important to many 

organizers and participants (Brinkley et al. 2010). Findings suggest that work on 

behalf of urban natural resources is also an act of social stewardship, that caring 

for one’s neighborhood and community contributes to improved human and social 

capital. Social outcomes are likely to be at least as important as direct or perceived 

ecological benefits for motivating individual participation in stewardship, and 

to build relationships within and among organizations. The Pacific Northwest 

research program that is building on a stewardship framework will contribute new 

knowledge about citizen engagement, organizational activity, and organizational 

collaborative networks.

Resource actions and 

governance can build 

social capital.

Network analysis 

shows collaborative 

linkages.
27

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Future Directions

This preliminary study of groups working in Seattle demonstrates that the widely 

used concept of “environmental stewardship” is not readily defined by a few words 

or sentences, and is probably more complex than many would assume. Stewardship 

organizations are providing essential services, as they respond to identified environmental issues and threats with programs that engage citizens. This most direct 

purpose is perhaps best understood by the public and public agencies. Yet environmental stewardship goes beyond the biophysical and ecological; organizations also 

strive to build stronger communities through their stewardship activities.

Figure 2 is a conceptual framework that serves as both result and springboard 

for ongoing research and dialog among organizations. Knowledge locates a person 

or organization in time, space, relationships, the world of nature, and the world of 

“subtle intimations and emotions” (Boulding 1972). Cognitive maps can be used 

as exograms, or external memories for a group (Sutton 2006), serving as a shared 

representation that encapsulates understanding of a particular situation at a particular moment in time. This may serve as a reference point for the development of 

shared perceptions, and a starting point for additional learning. A cognitive map, 

as artifact representing the thoughts of many, may serve as a shared portable model 

that can play an important role in the future dynamics of a group or community.

The conceptual framework serves as a guide for research on civic environmental stewardship. As mentioned earlier, an organizational network analysis is an 

important next step, and this study serves to help develop the research instrument. 

Additional research could include:

1. Expansion and replication. The nine groups studied here may not be representative of the population of the hundreds of stewardship organizations known to 

exist in the Seattle area (Brinkley et al. 2010). The 3CM method is too timeintensive for large-scale sampling, but the concepts revealed in this study can be 

used as a basis for surveys to determine if perceptions are shared by the broader 

Seattle environmental stewardship community. Seattle groups may also not be 

representative of those working in other cities, regionally or nationally. Replicate 

and comparison studies are important. One replication is planned in Baltimore. 

Replications help determine the degree to which findings in one place are 

generalizable to other locations.

 An expansion should address the potentially different conceptualization of 

stewardship held by advocacy or policy-oriented environmental groups. Our 

sampling of groups doing “on-the-ground work” was a purposive selection and 

probably influenced the eventual framework reported here. Additional 3CM 

inquiry of conservation groups that regard stewardship from functionally different perspectives is also important for research development and theory building.

The practitioner 

interviews generated 

a framework to guide 

future research.
28

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

2. Compare with rural context. Our explicit focus was the landscapes and organizations that deliver stewardship programs in urban areas, primarily on public 

lands. Project sites are intertwined with neighborhoods of mid- to high-density 

populations and social interactions are an innate dynamic owing to an integrated 

resource-to-people proximity. Stewardship in rural to wildland areas involves 

much different ratios of land to human populations, and many stewardship 

programs are targeted to private property owners (such as family forest owners). 

Assessment and comparison of concepts of urban and rural stewardship across 

the urban to rural landscape gradient could provide insights into more effective 

natural resource management strategies.

3. Assess the geospatial footprint of stewardship. While this study explored 

the conceptual realm, the essence of stewardship programs is the onsite, laborintensive work to restore, maintain, or conserve urban ecosystems. Interview 

participants often connected their perceptions and cognitive items to the 

tangible practicalities of field work. While the key organizations in this study 

have a general awareness of the work sites of other organizations, there is no 

comprehensive directory of project locations. A geospatial assessment of all 

civic environmental stewardship activity within Seattle (or other metropolitan 

regions) would offer several advantages: (1) to determine the full scope and scale 

of both environmental and social co-benefits; (2) to determine if stewardship 

activity focus and density aligns with local government policy and initiatives 

regarding ecosystem recovery targets; and (3) to improve both efficiency and 

effectiveness of organizations that work in proximity.

4. Empirical assessments of social benefits. A comparable emphasis of social 

and ecological co-benefits and outcomes was expressed in the practitioner 

interviews. A cursory literature review indicated potential outcomes across the 

full array of social scales, from individual to community. Additional research 

would possibly confirm the perceived benefits, then expand the full extent and 

importance of such benefits, to both the stewards and the communities where 

they are active. Better knowledge has both theoretical and practical implications 

for future planning and management of ecosystems and stewardship programs.
29

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

The conceptual framework also serves as a practical guide for stewardship program development. The framework, as shared artifact or representation, discloses 

the role of social dimensions, from individual to community, in stewardship leadership. Recognizing this undercurrent may help organizations garner more resources 

for their important work. The demand for stewardship programs is increasing yet 

fiscal resources lag. Better self-understanding within the stewardship community 

may initiate greater efficiencies, shared resources, and program funding.

The framework suggests opportunities for extended collaboration with nontraditional partners. While most stewardship organizations typically are built on 

ecological expertise and affiliations, this study expands the understanding of stewardship public services to include community-building and neighborhood dynamics, such as security. It may be possible to recruit nontraditional organizational 

partners whose primary purpose is human services to aid with urban ecosystem 

stewardship. Volunteer recruitment may also be more effective if potential workers 

come to understand that their nature-based labor brings diverse (and unexpected) 

rewards.

Finally, as more cities implement sustainability policies, stewardship can be 

promoted as a key initiative that addresses multiple needs. Once viewed as separate 

in land base and function, the environment is being increasingly understood as the 

profoundly important source of the ecosystem services that support society. Environmental quality, regarded by many citizens as the responsibility of institutions, 

can only be attained through citizen engagement and positive human agency. Our 

conceptual framework contributes to greater understanding of the potential socioeconomic value that urban nature provides. While people may readily understand 

more traditionally conceived landscape functions of air and water quality, wildlife 

habitat, and food production, the results of this study suggest that citizens who 

are actively engaged in land care can enrich the conditions of their communities 

through both social and environmental benefits. Ecosystems are multitasking. Public leaders and policymakers may begin to perceive that stewardship is not merely 

an activity dedicated to landscape management, but that it builds social capacity for 

community benefit in many ways.

Environmental 

stewardship generates 

ecosystem services 

for participants and 

communities.
30

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

References

Andersson, K.; Ostrom, E. 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a 

polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences. 41(1): 71–93.

Auch, R.; Taylor, J.; Acevedo, W. 2004. Urban growth in American cities:

glimpses of U.S. urbanization. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1252. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 52 p.

Axelrod, R. 1976. The mathematics of cognitive maps. In: Axelrod, R., ed. Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton 

University Press: 343–348.

Baldassarri, D.; Diani, M. 2007. The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of Sociology. 113(3): 735–780.

Barlett, P., ed. 2005. Urban place: reconnections with the natural world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 330 p.

Bennett, J.E.; Lehman, W.E.K. 2002. Supervisor tolerance-responsiveness to substance abuse and workplace prevention training: use of a cognitive mapping tool. 

Health Education Research. 17(1): 27–42.

Berelson, B. 1952. Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: The 

Free Press. 220 p.

Bitonti, C. 1993. Cognitive mapping: a qualitative research method for social work. 

Social Work Research and Abstracts. 29: 9–16.

Blaxter, L.; Hughes, C.; Tight, M. 2001. How to research. Buckingham, United 

Kingdom: Open University Press. 286 p.

Botha, M.E. 1989. Theory development in perspective: the role of conceptual 

frameworks and models in theory development. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 

14: 49–55.

Boulding, K.E. 1972. The image. In: Spradley, J., ed. Culture and cognition: rules, 

maps, and plans. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company: 41–51.

Bouma, G.D.; Ling, R. 2004. The research process. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford 

University Press. 262 p.

Brinkley, W.; Wolf, K.L.; Blahna, D. 2010. Stewardship footprints and potential 

ecosystem recovery: preliminary data for Seattle and Puget Sound. In: Laband, 

D.N., ed. Linking science and society: proceedings of emerging issues along 

urban/rural interfaces III. Auburn, AL: Auburn University: 24–30.
31

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Bryman, A. 2001. Social research methods. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 800 p.

Byrch, C.; Kearins, K.; Milne, M.; Morgan, R. 2007. Sustainable “what”? A cognitive approach to understanding sustainable development. Qualitative Research 

in Accounting and Management. 4(1): 26–52.

Carr, A.J.L. 2002. Grass roots and green tape: principles and practices of environmental stewardship. Annandale, Australia: Federation Press. 268 p.

Carley, K.M. 1993. Coding choices for textual analysis: a comparison of content 

analysis and map analysis. In: Marsden, P.V., ed. Sociological methodology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell: 75–126. Vol. 23.

Cohen, L.; Lawrence, M.; Morrison, K. 2000. Research methods in education. 

London: Routledge Falmer. 464 p.

Coronges, K.A.; Stacy, A.W.; Valente, T.W. 2007. Structural comparison of cognitive associative networks in two populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37: 2097–2129.

Csanyi, V. 1993. The biological bases of cognitive maps. In: Laszlo, E.; Masulli, I.; 

Artigiani, R.; Csanyi, V., eds. The evolution of cognitive maps: new paradigms 

for the twenty-first century. Newark, N.J.: Gordon and Breach Publishers: 23–28.

Curseu, P.L.; Schalk, R.; Schruber, S. 2010. The use of cognitive mapping in 

eliciting and evaluating group cognitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 

40(5): 1258–1291.

de Tocqueville, A. 2002. Democracy in America. In: Mansfield, H.C.; Winthrop, D.,

trans. eds. [Published originally as De la democratie en Amerique, 1835].

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 722 p.

Downs, R.M.; Stea, D. eds. 1973. Image and environment: cognitive mapping and 

spatial behavior. London: Edward Arnold. 439 p.

Fukuyama, F. 2000. Social capital and civil society. IMF Work. Pap. WP-00-74. 

Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. 13 p.

Gómez, A.; Moreno, A.; Pazos, J.; Sierra-Alonso, A. 2000. Knowledge maps:

an essential technique for conceptualisation. Data and Knowledge Engineering. 

33: 169–190.

Green Cities Research Alliance [GCRA]. 2010. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

research/gcra/. (January 27, 2012).
32

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Grese, R.E.; Kaplan, R.; Ryan, R.L.; Buxton, J. 2000. The psychological benefits

of volunteering in stewardship programs. In: Gobster, P.H.; Hull, R.B., eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from social science and the humanities. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 265–280.

Grove, J.M.; Hinson, K.E.; Northrop, R.J. 1999. A social ecology approach to 

understanding urban ecosystems and landscapes. In: Berkowitz, A.R.; Nilon, 

C.H.; Hollweg, K.S., eds. Understanding urban ecosystems. New York: SpringerVerlag. 523 p.

Hajkowicz, S.; Collins, K. 2009. Measuring the benefits of environmental stewardship in rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 93(2): 93–102.

Hawken, P. 2007. Blessed unrest: how the largest movement in the world came into 

being and why no one saw it coming. New York: Viking Press. 352 p.

Heerwagen, J. 2009. Biophilia, health, and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, 

A., eds. Restorative commons: creating health and well-being through urban 

landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 39–58. 

Hester, R.T. 2006. Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

480 p.

Hodgkinson, G.P.; Clarkson, G.P. 2005. What have we learned from almost 30 

years of research on causal mapping? Methodological lessons and choices for the 

information systems and information technology communities. In: Narayanan, 

V.K.; Armstrong, D.J., eds. Causal mapping for research in information technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group: 46–79.

Huff, A.S. 1990. Mapping strategic thought. In: Huff, A.S., ed. Mapping strategic 

thought. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley: 11–49.

Jacob, S.; Luloff, A. 1995. Exploring the meaning of rural through cognitive maps. 

Rural Sociology. 60(2): 260–273.

Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior. 33(4): 507.

Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Ryan R.L. 1998. With people in mind; design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. 239 p.

Kearney, A.R.; Bradley, G. 1998. Human dimensions of forest management: an 

empirical study of stakeholder perspectives. Urban Ecosystems. 2(1): 5–16.
33

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Kearney, A.R.; Kaplan, S. 1997. Toward a methodology for the measurement of 

knowledge structures of ordinary people: the Conceptual Content Cognitive Map 

(3CM). Environment and Behavior. 29(5): 579.

Koontz, T.M.; Steelman, T.A.; Carmin, J.; Korfmacher, K.S.; Moseley, C.; 

Thomas, C.W. 2004. Collaborative environmental management: What roles for 

government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 210 p.

Kramer, D.B. 2007. Determinants and efficacy of social capital in lake associations. Environmental Conservation. 34(3): 186–194.

Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 413 p.

Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of 

Arboriculture. 29(3): 148.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University

Press. 318 p.

Leshem, S.; Trafford, V.N. 2006. Stories as mirrors: reflective practice in teaching

and learning. Reflective Practice. 7(1): 9–27.

Leshem, S.; Trafford, V.N. 2007. Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 44: 93–105.

Mandarano, L.A. 2009. Social network analysis of social capital in collaborative 

planning. Society and Natural Resources. 22(3): 245–260.

Matlin, M.M. 2005. Cognition (6th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. 624 p.

May, T. 1993. Social research: issues, methods and process. Buckingham, United 

Kingdom: Open University Press. 272 p.

McGinnis, M.D. 1999. Polycentric governance and development: readings from the 

workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of 

Michigan Press. 432 p.

McPherson, E.G. 1993. Monitoring urban forest health. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment. 26: 165–174.

Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of 

new methods. London: Sage. 263 p.

Mohammed, S.; Klimoski, R.; Rentsch, J.R. 2000. The measurement of team 

mental models: we have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods.

3: 123–165.
34

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Orr, D.W. 1992. Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern 

world. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 210 p.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. 280 p.

Platt, R.H. 1996. Land use and society geography, law, and public policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. 507 p.

Posner, M. 1989. Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

904 p.

Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network 

analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. 22(6): 

501–518.

Pretty, J.; Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development. 29(2): 209–227.

Provan, K.G.; Milward, H.B. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for 

evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review. 

61(4): 414–423.

Robert, F.S. 1976. The questionnaire method. In: Axelrod, R., ed. Structure of

decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press.

Robson, C. 1993. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and

practitioner-researchers. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell. 510 p.

Rudestam, K.E.; Newton, R.R. 1992. Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process. London: Sage. 317 p.

Ryan, R. 2006. The role of place attachment in sustaining urban parks. In: Platt, 

R.H., ed. The humane metropolis. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts 

Press: 61–74. 

Schön, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action.

New York: Basic Books. 374 p.

Schneider, M.; Scholz, J.; Lubell, M.; Mindruta, D.; Edwardsen, M. 2003. 

Building consensual institutions: networks and the National Estuary Program. 

American Journal of Political Science. 47(1): 143-158.

Styles, E.A. 2005. Attention, perception and memory: an integrated introduction. 

Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press. 368 p.
35

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Sutton, J. 2006. Distributed cognition: domains and dimensions. Pragmatics and 

Cognition. 14(2): 235–247.

Svendsen, E. 2009. Cultivating resilience: urban stewardship as a means to 

improving health and well-being. In: Campbell, L.; Wiesen, A., eds. Restorative 

commons: creating health and well-being through urban landscapes. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-P-39. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 58–87.

Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K. 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: 

understanding the structure, function and network of community-based land 

management. Cities and the Environment. 1(1): 1–31.

Tedesco, L.P.; Salazar, K.A.; Covitt, B. 2006. Advancing urban environmental 

stewardship through service learning and community partnerships. Paper 

presented at the 35th annual meeting of the North American Association for 

Environmental Education. Washington, DC: North American Association for 

Environmental Education. 

Tegarden, D.P.; Sheetz, S.D. 2003. Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and 

system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition. 

Omega. 31: 113–125.

Tidball, K.G.; Krasny, M.E. 2007. From risk to resilience: what role for 

community greening and civic ecology in cities? In: Wals, A.E.J., ed. Social 

learning towards a more sustainable world. Wagengingen, The Netherlands: 

Wagengingen Academic Press: 149–164.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.

Science. 224(4647): 420–421.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. Forest 

Service strategic plan FY 2007–2012. FS-880. Washington, DC. 32 p.

van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. 2007. Preference for nature in 

urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal 

of Social Issues. 63(1): 79–96.

Wagner, C.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E. 2008. Does community-based 

collaborative resource management increase social capital? Society and Natural 

Resources. 21(4): 324–344.

Wals, A.E.J.; van der Leij, T. 2007. Social learning. In: Wals, A.E.J., ed. Social 

learning towards a more sustainable world. Wagengingen, The Netherlands: 

Wageningen Academic Publishers: 17–32; 497–506. 
36

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Weaver-Hart, A. 1988. Framing an innocent concept and getting away with it. 

UCEA Review. 24(2): 11–12.

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

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

13(3): 237–259.

Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment

outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(3): 137.

Wolf, K.L.; Blahna, D.J.; Brinkley, W.; Romolini, M. 2011 . Environmental 

stewardship footprint research: linking human agency and ecosystem health in 

the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1007/s11252-011-0175-6.

Wolf, K.L.; Kruger, L.E. 2010. Urban forestry research needs: a participatory 

assessment process. Journal of Forestry. 108(1): 39–44.

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

from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island

Press. 277 p.
37

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Appendix 1: List of Interview Rapid Response Items by OrganizationCascade Land Conservancy Mountains to Sound Student Conservation(now Forterra) Earthcorps Greenway Trust People for Puget Sound AssociationPublic space Volunteering Pragmatism Mindset Cultivating volunteerismBackyard Service Avoid “not in my Getting others to help Voluntary commitment

backyard” ism

Outreach Creating activities Center of cooperative Reducing your impacts Humans are part of

that engage everyone on the environment the environment

Relationships Working Actions Walking the talk Starts with selfEducation for stewardship Planting Trees and forests Taking action about How we can collectively

things you care about sustain ourselves

Getting people to care Adopt a ____ Reusable mug Leaving a place better Grows out into community

for a resource than you found it

Natural thing Caring Shade-grown coffee Taking care of the place Cultivating health

where we live of relationships

Growing thing	 Care for the	 Purchasing decisions	 Helping fix what’s broken	 Relationships and

environment connectivity

Sweeping the sidewalk Understanding culture Biking vs. carpooling Understand the impact of Systems and interactive

and landscape our everyday lives processes

Monitoring Continuum Act of being a steward ContinuumCaring for place Engagement Personal act Changing your behaviorRestoration Creating healthy What society needs to do Consider long-term impacts

green spaces of decisions

Connections Moral obligationValues Wise decisionsUsing stewardship Sustainable balanceto educate people between built and

natural environment 

Responsibility HikingProvides benefits	 Redefining “pristine”Sidewalk stewardMore than just work
38

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566 Friends of Interlaken Park Friends of Leschi P-Patch Trust Seattle Tilth Pickaxes Not insular Communication Support Bow-saws People Government encouragement Careful Machetes Enriching Advocates Thoughtful Organization People oriented Organization Service Volunteerism Building sense of community Knowledge Presence Reliability We’re all part of being stewards Thoughtful design Shared Dedication Picking up trash Fundraising Active Personable Ornamental horticulture Volunteer coordination Caretaking

Monkey see monkey do Taking back your space (from crime) Resources ($) CaringParticipation Inter-generational Continuity NurtureCompetition Spiritual Outreach ProtectCamaraderie Opportunities and assets of your Inclusion Promote growth

surroundings

Weeding Many forms Collaboration Internal valuePulling Protecting your own space Inspire people Wise useSomething that makes Taking back your land (from People Sustainable

them feel good invasive species)

Hauling Wilderness near home Appreciation and Meaningful

acknowledgment

Cutting Promise of wilderness ConservationPinning down burlap sacks Getting back to true nature OrganicPutting mulch in wheelbarrows Taking care of the environment Sustainable and localTaking the wheelbarrow to the area Volunteer service to the community PassionLaying down the cardboard Opening up to your neighbors OngoingLearning on the job Open to others’ ideas about taking Commitment

care of the environment

Crash course learning Recognize that home impacts public

space and vice versa

Court-appointed groups One person noticing another’s actionsPassionLifetime workHumor
39

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

Appendix 2: Cognitive Maps Responses from

Stewardship Practitioners1

Personal Bridge Communal

Starts with self Grows out into community How we can collectively sustain ourselves

Voluntary commitment Relationships and connectivity

Personal accountability Systems and interactive processes

Responsibility Humans are part of the environment

Cultivating voluntary Cultivating health of relationships

commitment (in others)

Actions/physical things Connections Conceptual/feelings/outcomes

Restoration Relationships Getting people to care

Sweeping sidewalk/sidewalk steward Educating for stewardship Caring for place

Natural thing/growing thing Responsibility

Monitoring Values

Outreach More than just work

Backyard Stewardship for education

Public space	 Provides benefits

Organic

Organizational resources Knowledge People

Resources Ongoing Passion

Fundraising Sustainable and local Inspire people

Thoughtful design Continuity Volunteer coordination

Organization Conservation Appreciation and acknowledgment

Collaboration Awareness Commitment 

Government encouragement Belief that it’s valuable Making it part of people’s lives

 Inclusion

Advocates

Communication 

Internal value External result

Shared Protect

Careful Presence

Thoughtful Promote growth

Caretaking Sustainable 

Nurture Service

Caring Support

Meaningful Wise use

Active
40

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-566

Active/actions

(continuum down list with feedback)

Walking the talk

Getting others to help you

Taking action about the things you care about

Helping fix what’s broken

Changing your behavior 

Taking care of the place where we live

Reducing your impacts on the environment 

Leaving a place better than you found it

Understanding the impact of our daily lives

Personal acts/decisions What society needs to do 

Act of being a steward Pragmatism

Hiking Center of cooperative

How do people want to exist Moral obligation

Reusable mug Stay away from “not in

my backyard” ism

Purchasing decisions Global vs. local

Shade-grown coffee Wise decisions

Biking vs. carpooling Sustainable balance 

Redefining “pristine”	 Consider long-term impacts

Practical use of resources

 Ladders of experience and understanding

Spiritual/enriching People/social part Stewarding mechanics Taking care of environment

Enriches your life Protecting your own space Picking up trash Recognizing that home impacts

public space and public spaces

impact home

Reaching out Taking back your land Taking care of the environment

(from invasive species)

Opening up to your Opportunities and assets Getting back to true nature

neighbors of your surroundings (native plants)

Many forms Open to other’s ideas of Ornamental horticulture Wilderness near home

taking care of the

environment

One person noticing Taking back your space Promise of wilderness

another’s actions (from crime)

Not being insular People-oriented through

community centers

Intergenerational

Volunteer service to

community

We’re all part of Building sense of community

being stewards
41

What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a Practitioner-Derived Framework

 Youth

Elements Tasks Equipment participants Recruiting Effects

Reliability Cutting Taking the wheelbarrows Personable Organization Crash-course

to the area learning

Dedication Hauling Dump on top of the Monkey see Outreach Learning on

cardboard and burlap monkey do the job

sacks

Humor Laying down Machetes Competition Volunteerism Lifetime work

the cardboard

Weeding Pinning down Bow-saws Camaraderie Something that Passion

the burlap sacks makes them feel

good

Pulling Putting the mulch Pickaxes Participation Court-appointed

in the wheelbarrows groups

Continuum (left to right, top to bottom)

Creating activities Service Volunteering

that engage everyone

Planting Engagement

Working Caring

Care for the environment

Creating healthy “Adopt-a ____” Understanding culture

green spaces and landscape

1

 Each table is the response of the individual(s) representing a single organization.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

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, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

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

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300